Do you see any situation where we give up two firsts , a 2nd and a third for a top 3 pick?

Originally posted by OKC49erFan:
Personally, I say no. I think a trade like that should only be for a proven commodity. Trading that much draft capital for a "maybe" is unwise in my opinion.

I agree but we see it all the time. Some team moves up in the draft almost every year and QBs continue to fail . I think too many teams make that move before they have enough talent on the team for the QB to succeed. By the time they build an O line and get a could good receivers, the poor QB is beat up and gun shy.

The Niners were in an ideal position to do what they did assuming you wanted to take a risk. They still had JG but they knew they were unlikely to keep him beyond that season. Unfortunately the plan fell apart when Lance got hurt. Then Lance got hurt again in 2022. Those 2 years that the team hoped would be developmental years were wasted. They couldn't have foreseen that.

Originally posted by RDB4216:
Brandon Aiyuk - Good player, not spectacular. Someone I thought would go in the 2nd round.
Javon Kinlaw - Was a bad pick at the time, made worse with the injuries. Team clearly focused on replacing Buckner, while ignoring better options.
Nick Bosa - Clear choice at our pick. Even the Browns couldn't have screwed that one up.
Mike McGlinchey - Very average starter. Clearly overdrafted, someone I thought should have gone in the 2nd round at best.
Rueben Foster - Absolute horrible pick. And someone they actually considered at #3.
Solomon Thomas - Somehow even worse than the Foster pick. I thought he should be a 3rd round pick. Also passed some major talent that would have fit bigger needs (Lattimore, Adams). I won't include Mahhomes here, because NOBODY at the time thought he should be the #3 pick. He was my favorite QB in that draft, and I got laughed at for saying we should trade up into the 20's to take him.

So based off that history, what do people really think we gave up to get Lance? The player I liked (before the trade) was Patrick Surtain, but we would have had to move up some to get him. I doubt we would have drafted Parsons if we had stayed, the pick probably would have been Mac Jones. Last year my choice would have been Breece Hall (narrowly beating out Christian Watson). That would have kept us from trading for CMC, which would have given us our 2nd and 3rd round picks back this year. I'm not sure who we would have taken there. Maybe Kyler Gordon? Jalen Pitre? This year I don't know who I would have taken, I didn't do a deep dive into the early rounders. Keeanu Benton is who I am thinking though. I'm thinking we would have taken Joey Porter Jr., or maybe an O-lineman.

I just think based on what was available when our picks were made, we didn't lose out on nearly what people think we did.

Exactly. If you go look back at every team's last 3 first rounders you'll find that none of them hit on all 3. Most teams only hit on 1 or 2. Some not at all.

If you don't have a top 10 QB you aren't winning in this league consistently. Go get your guy and keep trying until you find one.

Originally posted by krizay:
They already admitted to giving up those picks to draft a QB. They didn't know which QB they were planning to take. So the picks giving up wasn't strictly for Lance. It was for the position. That is what boggles my mind.

The bold answers the bold.

Originally posted by thl408:
I think Kyle thought it may never be easier to get a top 5 pick. 2020 was injury filled so they got #12 overall. Any other year, they are picking 20+ish. There was no way Kyle would be positive of which QB would be available at #3, just assume NYJ would take Wilson. To Kyle, Trey was the best out of Fields, Mac, Trey. He swung for the fences - at least we know he'll try. Unless he tries again, he'll have to luck into a FQB. Maybe he did.

Attempting to move into even the top 10 from something in the mid to lower 20s would be even more costly than what they did.

EDIT: In short, given the circumstances (injury riddled 2020 poor record), the trade was an opportunity to make a deal that would have been far more costly in any other year.

The guy has to be Jalen Hurts level to justify it (Hurts was a round 2 yes, I am saying he has to play like Hurts is in the NFL, an MVP candidate)

Justin Fields has a chance to be that kind of player, I was against the move up, but once we did the move up, I believe we picked the wrong guy. JF for years was out in front of TL he was a 5 star best in the country recruit alongside Lawrence.

I was against the move up cuz I felt JG or some other vet would have been better options for a 'win now' squad to get us over the line with those ones; as an example we could have simply added a Carr type player; he was cut and a FA, you can get those kind of guys without giving up any picks

Originally posted by OKC49erFan:
Personally, I say no. I think a trade like that should only be for a proven commodity. Trading that much draft capital for a "maybe" is unwise in my opinion.

This.

We traded enough capital to land an established, top 10 level at least, QB. Look at the QB trades we've seen around the league in recent years as examples.

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by krizay:
We never should have done it the 1st time. Teams are FN stupid for constantly mortgaging the farm for these unknown QBs. That's just my opinion on it.

I said something like that in the Trey Lance tread. I hope the 9ers never do something stupid like that again. The only way I'd trade multiple 1st round picks again is for Patrick Mahomes or Joe Burrow.

But Mahomes and Burrow weren't Mahomes or Burrow when drafted. Neither was Joe Montana or Tom Brady. It's a lottery

No I'm saying trading for them now in the NFL.

Some may only have seen my first post.

maybe someone will create a 'what is holding us back more thread', with the trade for TL as an option

If Arch Manning looks like the bloodline I would trade whatever it takes.

Originally posted by miked1978:

Originally posted by RDB4216:
Brandon Aiyuk - Good player, not spectacular. Someone I thought would go in the 2nd round.
Javon Kinlaw - Was a bad pick at the time, made worse with the injuries. Team clearly focused on replacing Buckner, while ignoring better options.
Nick Bosa - Clear choice at our pick. Even the Browns couldn't have screwed that one up.
Mike McGlinchey - Very average starter. Clearly overdrafted, someone I thought should have gone in the 2nd round at best.
Rueben Foster - Absolute horrible pick. And someone they actually considered at #3.
Solomon Thomas - Somehow even worse than the Foster pick. I thought he should be a 3rd round pick. Also passed some major talent that would have fit bigger needs (Lattimore, Adams). I won't include Mahhomes here, because NOBODY at the time thought he should be the #3 pick. He was my favorite QB in that draft, and I got laughed at for saying we should trade up into the 20's to take him.

So based off that history, what do people really think we gave up to get Lance? The player I liked (before the trade) was Patrick Surtain, but we would have had to move up some to get him. I doubt we would have drafted Parsons if we had stayed, the pick probably would have been Mac Jones. Last year my choice would have been Breece Hall (narrowly beating out Christian Watson). That would have kept us from trading for CMC, which would have given us our 2nd and 3rd round picks back this year. I'm not sure who we would have taken there. Maybe Kyler Gordon? Jalen Pitre? This year I don't know who I would have taken, I didn't do a deep dive into the early rounders. Keeanu Benton is who I am thinking though. I'm thinking we would have taken Joey Porter Jr., or maybe an O-lineman.

I just think based on what was available when our picks were made, we didn't lose out on nearly what people think we did.

Exactly. If you go look back at every team's last 3 first rounders you'll find that none of them hit on all 3. Most teams only hit on 1 or 2. Some not at all.

If you don't have a top 10 QB you aren't winning in this league consistently. Go get your guy and keep trying until you find one.

Agree with both of you. 40% of the NFL is undrafted players, and only (I think) 40% of first rounders (never mind 2nd and 3rd rounders and below) get a 2nd contract with their original team drafting them. So whatever an average fan thinks is the value of the first rounders - just depreciate that by 60% and the average fan can get a more realistic value of what a first round pick is. Now you can get an idea of how rare it is to get a Fred Warner, Kittle, Mitchell, Purdy in the later rounds. Bottom line in the draft is whether or not you get a decent starter, let alone a super star like how Purdy seems to be. It doesn't matter where the picks are so long as you get some decent starters - that will still be a decent draft. It's when you draft and **don't** get any decent starters is where the draft really hurts you (example 2012 draft).

Originally posted by Strwy2Hevn:
If Arch Manning looks like the bloodline I would trade whatever it takes.

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by Strwy2Hevn:
If Arch Manning looks like the bloodline I would trade whatever it takes.

Gilbride like how drunk are you right now?.. yet that's Eli's completely sober face, or maybe this is the origin of Chad Powers

Originally posted by illinois9er:

Originally posted by tohara3:

Originally posted by NTeply49:
Yes. Trading up for Marvin Harrison Jr, much like how the Falcons moved up for Julio. Might even package Aijuk to do it.

I was just thinking about this scenario as I was reading this piece. I would seriously consider moving up for Marvin Harrison Jr no doubt. I would rather package Deebo than I would Aiyuk if that were the case. Aiyuk, Harrison Jr & CMC led offense would be tough on defenses for sure

Would be insane to move into the top 5 from pick 32 for a WR.

He looks like a generational talent, much like Julio.

Originally posted by scooterhd:

Originally posted by LifelongNiner:
If you have no QB, you do it. A few things about a redraft where we had our picks-

1. Anyone thinking we would've taken Micah Parsons has paid no attention to the kind of guys we draft after the Foster situation as well as Parsons's behavior at Penn State.

2. We drafted a QB because Jimmy can't stay healthy. This isn't a Kyle thing or 49ers thing. Jimmy started 2 games instead of 4 in 2016 for the Patriots because he got hurt. I think Jimmy is a good QB, but he is injury prone. If it weren't for Brock coming in our season would've gotten derailed AGAIN due to QB injury.

3. If you don't have a QB, you've got nothing. How patient will Washington be with Ron Rivera? How patient were the Broncos with Vangio? Colts with Reich. We can go on and on. Its practically impossible to win in this league consistently unless you have good QB play. If a team has identified a particular QB as the guy and you are in need, you make the trade.

Otherwise you are building a roster of talented players for another coach, because you will be out of a job

4. We were in a better position than most teams making that trade because we were good and still had Jimmy.

5. After getting beaten by Mahommes (2019) and seeing Allen up close (2020), Kyle shifted his philosophy on what he wants in a QB. Those types cost. It is today's NFL.

Fields went 11. Jones went 13. If its just about getting a QB, there were less risky options.

Jones was risky. He's healthy Jimmy G to me, which is good enough to contend on this team, but if the talent isn't top notch, you will get smoked by the top teams. Fields was my preference and I was certain they were moving up for him. I get why they chose Lance and it wasn't simply athletic ability. If it were that, Fields wins 9 times out of 10. We just haven't seen enough play for them to be justified. I think we will get that with a 6 to 8 game sample size next year.

Originally posted by Polkadots:

Originally posted by krizay:
We never should have done it the 1st time. Teams are FN stupid for constantly mortgaging the farm for these unknown QBs. That's just my opinion on it.

This.

It's universally agreed the draft is a gamble. And any gambler worth his salt doesn't wager the house on an unknown, unless the odds are drastically in his favor (poor gamblers bet the hosue on a coin flip--or worse). And in the case of the NFL draft, the odds are ALWAYS UNKNOWN. There are simply too many variables, past, present, and future, that cannot be accounted for.

All things being equal, more draft picks have a better chance of aggregate success than less draft picks. So stay put most of the time, and draft for need or BPA. Minor trades, moving around to better position yourself for a specific need, go for it. Large gambles? Nope.

I think this kind of sensible approach works with sensible ownership and front offices. Most teams aren't built that way and fans don't have the patience for consistent winners or consistently competing. There are many who think winning a Super Bowl followed by 10 years of nothing is better than competing year in and out. Some say why can't you have both? Well there are only so many QBs born that will carry their guy to the promised land. GMs and coaches take the large gamble because of the pressure to win it all.

Originally posted by LifelongNiner:

Originally posted by Polkadots:

Originally posted by krizay:
We never should have done it the 1st time. Teams are FN stupid for constantly mortgaging the farm for these unknown QBs. That's just my opinion on it.

This.

It's universally agreed the draft is a gamble. And any gambler worth his salt doesn't wager the house on an unknown, unless the odds are drastically in his favor (poor gamblers bet the hosue on a coin flip--or worse). And in the case of the NFL draft, the odds are ALWAYS UNKNOWN. There are simply too many variables, past, present, and future, that cannot be accounted for.

All things being equal, more draft picks have a better chance of aggregate success than less draft picks. So stay put most of the time, and draft for need or BPA. Minor trades, moving around to better position yourself for a specific need, go for it. Large gambles? Nope.

I think this kind of sensible approach works with sensible ownership and front offices. Most teams aren't built that way and fans don't have the patience for consistent winners or consistently competing. There are many who think winning a Super Bowl followed by 10 years of nothing is better than competing year in and out. Some say why can't you have both? Well there are only so many QBs born that will carry their guy to the promised land. GMs and coaches take the large gamble because of the pressure to win it all.

to piggyback on that convo, a guy who plays one year in a run heavy offense, loses his entire 2020 season save for one game where he didn't play well.. he was a much larger unknown than most of the draft unknowns, at minimum he lost a major developmental year where other QBs didn't to that extent