Not sold on 49ers picking a WR with 13th Pick

Originally posted by RTFirefly:

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by RTFirefly:
Our 1st round picks:
--------------------------
OT Tristan Wirfs, Iowa
OC Cesar Ruiz, Michigan

I wants Ruggs and his 4.28, but if I can get the above as a consolation prize I could learn to live with it awfully fast.

So you're using 2 first round picks on OL. Where are you playing both of them?

Wirfs at LT. Let Staley ride honorably into the sunset, or stay and work with the kid, and be ready as a standby.
Ruiz at OG at first. That used to be the path for OCs, starting at OG while they learned how to play in the NFL and learned the line calls. Ruiz has experience at OG.

I'm sorry but that's silly. So you're going to sit one of the key members of our team, the longest tenured player for a rookie who some are questioning whether he can play LT in the NFL?

IMO you're only starting one of them and the obvious spot is RG. Drafting two means one of them is on the bench which isn't the best way to use draft capital, especially when you get one of the picks from trading away a pro bowl caliber player.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Gonna be a T ala Mike McGlinchey and the Madden WZers are gonna implode. I can't wait. That said, if they go DT, I'll implode.

No OT worth anything will be there at 13

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by RTFirefly:

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by RTFirefly:
Our 1st round picks:
--------------------------
OT Tristan Wirfs, Iowa
OC Cesar Ruiz, Michigan

I wants Ruggs and his 4.28, but if I can get the above as a consolation prize I could learn to live with it awfully fast.

So you're using 2 first round picks on OL. Where are you playing both of them?

Wirfs at LT. Let Staley ride honorably into the sunset, or stay and work with the kid, and be ready as a standby.
Ruiz at OG at first. That used to be the path for OCs, starting at OG while they learned how to play in the NFL and learned the line calls. Ruiz has experience at OG.

I'm sorry but that's silly. So you're going to sit one of the key members of our team, the longest tenured player for a rookie who some are questioning whether he can play LT in the NFL?

IMO you're only starting one of them and the obvious spot is RG. Drafting two means one of them is on the bench which isn't the best way to use draft capital, especially when you get one of the picks from trading away a pro bowl caliber player.

I saw "one of the key members of our team" get toasted enough times last year to know that he's a shell of his former self. When was the last time Staley made the Pro Bowl? His peers know he's no longer one of the best; get with the program. He'll be 36 this year and did I mention that he just got done breaking his leg?

You can write those same criticisms about any offensive line picks, ever. WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO FOR ME THIS YEAR???? OMG!!!!

I just hope they don't trade back if there is a player like Kinlaw, Jeudy or Ruggs sitting there. I hate gambling that the guy they want will still be there if they move back 4 or 5 spots when they guy IS there when #13 comes up. Someone could sneak in and grab the guy they want and then they have to pick a lesser player.

Daniel Brunskill could be the future at the LT position, he played better as a T than G.
I'd also want Ruiz, even if it means trading Richburg.

I believe the reason they didn't sign any receivers other than Benjamin is because they're looking to draft one in the first round, Either that or they believe Hurd has potential to be a star.

I'm not either. They need to pick DT. Buckner is a huge loss. Or OT to replace Staley down the road. I don't think WR is our biggest need. It's a luxury we would like to have. I don't think it is at all the biggest need at #13 overall.

Originally posted by genus49:

I'm sorry but that's silly. So you're going to sit one of the key members of our team, the longest tenured player for a rookie who some are questioning whether he can play LT in the NFL?

If they actually go on to become 2 Hall of Famers...then it's suddenly not so silly anymore, is it??

The poster named two players...not two positions. Since this isint an NBA draft...we have no idea what they will really go on to become.

Looking @ positions to fill is fine, but with high picks I'm sorry,...please stay away from my team's decisions if you are a GM that's going to blindly select positions and ignore the need for quality players in years to come.

1st thru 3rd ='s Names... not Bodies.

For all of you that are arguing about not getting a great prospect at wide receiver in the first round? I hope you're not serious. What happens if Samuel gets injured for a few games? I'm sure teams will be quaking in their boots having to play Kendrick Bourne. They can just stack the box and stop the run and expose our passing offense like Kansas City did.

A good offensive line will help of course but we can't rely on that because it just doesn't happen with our team. Pass protection has always been a major issue so we need receivers that can get open quick And the last time we had that was well probably never in the last decade or more.

We also need to keep up with scoring on teams like Kansas City or possibly Seattle and the Saints. Emmanuel Sanders was a pretty big loss so we at least have to replace that which we can with Judy Ruggs or lamb.

Again, our biggest weakness is interior pass protection and wide receiver not anywhere on the defense whatsoever. If all of you want to fix areas of strength instead of weakness, I hope lynch and Shanahan don't agree with you one bit.

f**k that were getting a receiver the only way I'd reconsider if is the top 3 are gone, or if for some reason one of the stud OTs is still there.

Originally posted by elguapo:

Emmanuel Sanders was a pretty big loss so we at least have to replace that which we can with Judy Ruggs or lamb.

Again, our biggest weakness is interior pass protection and wide receiver not anywhere on the defense whatsoever. If all of you want to fix areas of strength instead of weakness, I hope lynch and Shanahan don't agree with you one bit.

Thing is...what if there is 2 of these 3 WRs left by #13 and they're simply not sold on them as high 1st round talents to take??

We keep hearing the same 3 names...but that doesnt necessarily mean all 3 are destined for greatness.

But you're saying to take them anyway and ignore someone else you envision as a perrenial Pro Bowler in your scheme??

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

I'm not either. They need to pick DT. Buckner is a huge loss. Or OT to replace Staley down the road. I don't think WR is our biggest need. It's a luxury we would like to have. I don't think it is at all the biggest need at #13 overall.

So who is starting across from Deebo at WR?

Originally posted by elguapo:
For all of you that are arguing about not getting a great prospect at wide receiver in the first round? I hope you're not serious. What happens if Samuel gets injured for a few games? I'm sure teams will be quaking in their boots having to play Kendrick Bourne. They can just stack the box and stop the run and expose our passing offense like Kansas City did.

A good offensive line will help of course but we can't rely on that because it just doesn't happen with our team. Pass protection has always been a major issue so we need receivers that can get open quick And the last time we had that was well probably never in the last decade or more.

We also need to keep up with scoring on teams like Kansas City or possibly Seattle and the Saints. Emmanuel Sanders was a pretty big loss so we at least have to replace that which we can with Judy Ruggs or lamb.

Again, our biggest weakness is interior pass protection and wide receiver not anywhere on the defense whatsoever. If all of you want to fix areas of strength instead of weakness, I hope lynch and Shanahan don't agree with you one bit.

The intermediate/deep passing game outside the numbers was and has been lacking for many years now dating back to before JH era so it's been a chronic problem. KC forced the 49ers to beat them with the passing game and, of course, it failed because of that fact. Nobody is afraid of the 49ers passing game which is why they can stack the box and sell out to stop the run. A solid passing game starts with qb protection from the IOL so I agree that has to be improved so JG has the time to pass but he needs a legit deep threat to maximize it. Samuels emerged last year but he's only a slot guy and was cute on the trick plays. Bourne is painfully inconsistent and unreliable and is a solid #3/4 at best. Goodwin, Pettis and Taylor are all garbage until or unless proven otherwise and who knows which one of them are even on the team come Sept. Hurd is unlikely to make a big impact given his inexperience and coming back from extended time off due to injury so yeah, Sanders was a big loss, one of which I'm still questioning given what the FO gave up for what ended up being his 4-month rental and they have yet to bring in a legit vet replacement.

Originally posted by evil:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

I'm not either. They need to pick DT. Buckner is a huge loss. Or OT to replace Staley down the road. I don't think WR is our biggest need. It's a luxury we would like to have. I don't think it is at all the biggest need at #13 overall.

So who is starting across from Deebo at WR?

Tony will turn it around I promise!!

Originally posted by evil:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
I'm not either. They need to pick DT. Buckner is a huge loss. Or OT to replace Staley down the road. I don't think WR is our biggest need. It's a luxury we would like to have. I don't think it is at all the biggest need at #13 overall.

So who is starting across from Deebo at WR?

Yeah that is a problem. But so is the hole Buckner leaves. Armstead won't be nearly as good without him. Also Staley is getting older and needs a long term replacement. If WR is the best available I guess it's OK. But I don't think it's the biggest need. And it better be a really good one. Like one of the best ones in the whole draft if we do that.