With the 11th overall pick..

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by 49erBigMac:
So, say you've got a top 5 grade on Tet McMillan (I don't but humour me) do you pass to fill the need at DT? For me if you also had a top 5 grade on Mason Graham and they were both there, fine take the need as a tie breaker, but if he was gone and you had a low first round grade on Grant or Nolan? Would you take them?

We're at #11, players like Patrick Willis, Aaron Donald and JJ Watt have gone around there in the past, would you want to be a team passing on one of those as you had a bigger need?

Not every draft is created equal.

joah Williams, DJ fluker, Aaron Maybin all went 11th overall as well.

I don't see any blue chip prospects that are expected to be there at 11. I don't view guys like Warren or Johnson in that vein. Overall this draft lacks those blue chip guys

I have no problem drafting BPA at position of need.

yeah if McMillan is there at 11 and we can't trade back (although if he's there at 11 - the phone is probably ringing)
then we have to take him

same with Hunter, but that's not happening

Originally posted by DoseOfBosa:
yeah I honestly want defense only first two days, unless one of the top OTs drop to one of our picks

edit: and we are rebuilding the front 7, that much is for sure... we cut Floyd, Collins, let Greenlaw go

Unless the team feels that Dee Winters is ready to shine, and I don't really know enough to be sure, one of those high picks is probably going to be a LB.

As for OL, I agree it's a position of need. Has been for years, imo. I just don't know if that trigger will get pulled in the upcoming draft.

Originally posted by billbird2111:

Originally posted by DoseOfBosa:
yeah I honestly want defense only first two days, unless one of the top OTs drop to one of our picks

edit: and we are rebuilding the front 7, that much is for sure... we cut Floyd, Collins, let Greenlaw go

Unless the team feels that Dee Winters is ready to shine, and I don't really know enough to be sure, one of those high picks is probably going to be a LB.

As for OL, I agree it's a position of need. Has been for years, imo. I just don't know if that trigger will get pulled in the upcoming draft.

Other then Warner I'm not high on our LB's at all.
There are quite a few guys in the 3-4 round range that we could draft. No need to spend anything higher than that on the linebacker position. For the record I think we need to draft 2 this year.

I'd go all d-line in the draft

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by 49erBigMac:
So, say you've got a top 5 grade on Tet McMillan (I don't but humour me) do you pass to fill the need at DT? For me if you also had a top 5 grade on Mason Graham and they were both there, fine take the need as a tie breaker, but if he was gone and you had a low first round grade on Grant or Nolan? Would you take them?

We're at #11, players like Patrick Willis, Aaron Donald and JJ Watt have gone around there in the past, would you want to be a team passing on one of those as you had a bigger need?

Not every draft is created equal.

joah Williams, DJ fluker, Aaron Maybin all went 11th overall as well.

I don't see any blue chip prospects that are expected to be there at 11. I don't view guys like Warren or Johnson in that vein. Overall this draft lacks those blue chip guys

I have no problem drafting BPA at position of need.

Fair enough, but that's why you have grades. draft the best player available. BPA at position of need is an oxymoron.

If you give one an A- and the other a B+ I can live with choosing for need or positional value. If you pass on an A for a B you've lost me.

..

Just please God no Shemar Stewart or W Campbell or Kelvin Banks. I can live with almost any other pick at #11.

Originally posted by Oilcan:

Originally posted by billbird2111:

Originally posted by DoseOfBosa:
yeah I honestly want defense only first two days, unless one of the top OTs drop to one of our picks

edit: and we are rebuilding the front 7, that much is for sure... we cut Floyd, Collins, let Greenlaw go

Unless the team feels that Dee Winters is ready to shine, and I don't really know enough to be sure, one of those high picks is probably going to be a LB.

As for OL, I agree it's a position of need. Has been for years, imo. I just don't know if that trigger will get pulled in the upcoming draft.

Other then Warner I'm not high on our LB's at all.
There are quite a few guys in the 3-4 round range that we could draft. No need to spend anything higher than that on the linebacker position. For the record I think we need to draft 2 this year.

You say this like LB isn't that important. It's very important in the wide 9 defense. We saw how the defense suffered last season when the Niners had just one good LB. They may be able to get a solid #2 in the later rounds but Imhaveno problem if they decide to take Campbell. I'ver said before that I'm okay with any of the following spots being filled with the first pick. DL, OL, LB or edge.

In April: "The 49ers have just announced a trade for the #11 overall pick. The 49ers are trading their #11 pick, along with first round picks in 2026 and 2027 to the Dallas Cowboys for Trey Lance."

I believe the pick will be Walter Nolan, but my hot take is that Kenneth Grant is huge riser between now and the draft, and it gets even hotter. Grant goes before Graham.

Originally posted by 49erBigMac:
Fair enough, but that's why you have grades. draft the best player available. BPA at position of need is an oxymoron.

If you give one an A- and the other a B+ I can live with choosing for need or positional value. If you pass on an A for a B you've lost me.

>>>......draft the best player available. BPA at position of need is an oxymoron.

Not sure exactly what you meant by that. If you are suggesting that we would only put a draft grade on a player that we would realistically acquire, and thereby screen out players that way, then I get it. If you mean literally drafting BPA with no consideration of need, than I don't agree. i.e. if we sign Purdy to a 5 year extension, and the BPA at # 11 is a QB, we should not draft a QB. We should trade back or use the pick on the BPA of need.

I understand we could trade one of the QB's away in the future, but it doesn't seem like a logical way to use our draft capital.

Originally posted by Ottawa49er:

Originally posted by 49erBigMac:
Fair enough, but that's why you have grades. draft the best player available. BPA at position of need is an oxymoron.

If you give one an A- and the other a B+ I can live with choosing for need or positional value. If you pass on an A for a B you've lost me.

>>>......draft the best player available. BPA at position of need is an oxymoron.

Not sure exactly what you meant by that. If you are suggesting that we would only put a draft grade on a player that we would realistically acquire, and thereby screen out players that way, then I get it. If you mean literally drafting BPA with no consideration of need, than I don't agree. i.e. if we sign Purdy to a 5 year extension, and the BPA at # 11 is a QB, we should not draft a QB. We should trade back or use the pick on the BPA of need.

I understand we could trade one of the QB's away in the future, but it doesn't seem like a logical way to use our draft capital.

You've obviously not read my previous posts on the the matter, you obviously don't draft a QB or even a RB, I love Jeanty, but we have CMC. That's it as far as needs, you probably don't take a TE as well with Kittle getting an extension.

Positional value to be considered in that you don't take a kicker, punter or FB, but apart from that all positions are open to us.

We're in a new era, we just need quality young players. I'd love the best player to be in the trenches, and if they are within half a grade, then yes take them, but not if there's a significant gap.

Originally posted by 49erBigMac:
You've obviously not read my previous posts on the the matter, you obviously don't draft a QB or even a RB, I love Jeanty, but we have CMC. That's it as far as needs, you probably don't take a TE as well with Kittle getting an extension.

Positional value to be considered in that you don't take a kicker, punter or FB, but apart from that all positions are open to us.

We're in a new era, we just need quality young players. I'd love the best player to be in the trenches, and if they are within half a grade, then yes take them, but not if there's a significant gap.

Gotcha BigMac. So you are eliminating QB, RB, TE, Kicker, Punter, and FB as positions that we don't need and should not select with our # 11 pick. That makes sense and I agree. I would however ( and will continue to ) refer to that as selecting the BPA of need.

Originally posted by Ottawa49er:

Originally posted by 49erBigMac:
You've obviously not read my previous posts on the the matter, you obviously don't draft a QB or even a RB, I love Jeanty, but we have CMC. That's it as far as needs, you probably don't take a TE as well with Kittle getting an extension.

Positional value to be considered in that you don't take a kicker, punter or FB, but apart from that all positions are open to us.

We're in a new era, we just need quality young players. I'd love the best player to be in the trenches, and if they are within half a grade, then yes take them, but not if there's a significant gap.

Gotcha BigMac. So you are eliminating QB, RB, TE, Kicker, Punter, and FB as positions that we don't need and should not select with our # 11 pick. That makes sense and I agree. I would however ( and will continue to ) refer to that as selecting the BPA of need.

That's fair, but some people say things like we need a DT, so best DT available is BPA of need, that's far too narrow for me. I refer to it as don't needs, but am not in the business of passing on great for good.