Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Draft Grade?

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> San Francisco 49ers
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Grade the 49ers draft
10
15%
 15%  [ 2 ]
9
15%
 15%  [ 2 ]
8
23%
 23%  [ 3 ]
7
30%
 30%  [ 4 ]
6
7%
 7%  [ 1 ]
5
7%
 7%  [ 1 ]
4
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
3
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
2
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
1
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Total Votes : 13

Author Message
gridirongorilla


Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 2627
Location: North Bay, California
PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2016 2:03 pm    Post subject: Draft Grade? Reply with quote

I'm not as knowledgeable as many posters, but like many, I feel we shored up dline for years to come. Found a starting OG and oline depth at the swing position. Basically strengthened the trenches. On paper it looks like the best draft Baalke has had since 2011.

Would like to read other's thoughts.

7/10.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rudyZ


Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 16041
Location: Québec
PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2016 4:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Solid draft with no really sexy/flashy pick. Just solid all around, a "foundation" type of draft, which is a step in the right direction. Whether Baalke should be the one taking the next steps remains to be seen. I could definitely see Chip maneuvering behind Trent's back to get Gamble the job.
_________________


RudyZ's Power Rankings Power Ranking

1) RudyZ's Power Rankings Power Ranking
2) y2's pie Power Rankings (3.1416 rules!)
3) N4L's Poster Power Rankings
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Forge


Joined: 19 Feb 2010
Posts: 13738
Location: Las Vegas
PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2016 11:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

On a 10 point scale, a 7 is about right. I'd lean toward a letter grade of C to C-, so that's comparable. There were just too many issues that I didn't like in this draft.

I am fine with the Buckner pick - even over Tunsil. He was one of the top 7 prospects in the draft, so to land him was important. Its after this pick that I really started having issues. Garnett was just awful all around value when you add in the trade up. While I like the prospect just fine, he also wasn't my top guard available at the time we picked him, so that was another issue for me (I also have no idea what kind of line we are going to put together - Garnett is a bad fit in a ZBS, and our one free agent signing of note, Beadles, is an awful fit in a power scheme....so yeah).

The back to back corners were overkill to me, particularly given how raw they both were and the time off. Redmond was fine - value was about right. But no way am I double dipping there in that position (which I didn't see as a huge need for a bunch of bodies) when there were other quality guys there. Blair was a solid pick from a value perspective, but a lot of his value will come from where and how we try to use him. The last guy we drafted like this has turned into a nightmare (Carradine) and we completely jacked his development. That doesn't give me a ton of hope with regards to Blair.

Theurs and Cooper will solid. No issues there. I like the influx of new bodies on the line, and I think Cooper in particular could be a serviceable right tackle. Driskel is a very good toolsy development guy. I like that we took him over quite a few of the other quarterbacks available.

I have no real love for Taylor. I don't think he's a particularly great athlete and I don't see him as anything more than a replacement level running back. Burbridge was actually good value, though I wasn't nearly as high on him as others. I don't think he'll separate at the next level. We will see. Prince Charles was another pick I just didn't understand.

Overall, the biggest issue for me was the GArnett selection along with the trade up. Really drags the grade down for me.
_________________


A small stone may only make a small ripple at first, but someday it will be a wave.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
big9erfan


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 17886
PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2016 12:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Below 70% in school is often an F. So hard to tell in this poll whether people would think a 7 is an F or "average plus" with 5 or 6 meaning average.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
big9erfan


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 17886
PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2016 12:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Forge wrote:
On a 10 point scale, a 7 is about right. I'd lean toward a letter grade of C to C-, so that's comparable. There were just too many issues that I didn't like in this draft.

I am fine with the Buckner pick - even over Tunsil. He was one of the top 7 prospects in the draft, so to land him was important. Its after this pick that I really started having issues. Garnett was just awful all around value when you add in the trade up. While I like the prospect just fine, he also wasn't my top guard available at the time we picked him, so that was another issue for me (I also have no idea what kind of line we are going to put together - Garnett is a bad fit in a ZBS, and our one free agent signing of note, Beadles, is an awful fit in a power scheme....so yeah).

The back to back corners were overkill to me, particularly given how raw they both were and the time off. Redmond was fine - value was about right. But no way am I double dipping there in that position (which I didn't see as a huge need for a bunch of bodies) when there were other quality guys there. Blair was a solid pick from a value perspective, but a lot of his value will come from where and how we try to use him. The last guy we drafted like this has turned into a nightmare (Carradine) and we completely jacked his development. That doesn't give me a ton of hope with regards to Blair.

Theurs and Cooper will solid. No issues there. I like the influx of new bodies on the line, and I think Cooper in particular could be a serviceable right tackle. Driskel is a very good toolsy development guy. I like that we took him over quite a few of the other quarterbacks available.

I have no real love for Taylor. I don't think he's a particularly great athlete and I don't see him as anything more than a replacement level running back. Burbridge was actually good value, though I wasn't nearly as high on him as others. I don't think he'll separate at the next level. We will see. Prince Charles was another pick I just didn't understand.

Overall, the biggest issue for me was the GArnett selection along with the trade up. Really drags the grade down for me.


That's the problem I just referred to in my last post. On a 10 p[oint scale I would think a "C" equates to a 5 or 6. If C or C- is a 7 then 6 must be a D. And that then leave 1 through 5 for various degrees of utter failure?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
y2lamanaki


Moderator
FF Fanatic
Joined: 03 Jan 2006
Posts: 12685
Location: Lancaster, PA
PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2016 12:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

big9erfan wrote:
Below 70% in school is often an F. So hard to tell in this poll whether people would think a 7 is an F or "average plus" with 5 or 6 meaning average.


That's actually the minority. 60% is a D in most instances.
_________________


Frank Gore Career Rushing List Tracker:

*Currently Ranked 15th All-Time
*Yards needed to pass #14, Thurman Thomas: 35
*Yards needed to enter Top 10: 240
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Chrissooner49er


Joined: 03 Feb 2005
Posts: 4851
Location: Tulsa, OK
PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2016 1:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

y2lamanaki wrote:
big9erfan wrote:
Below 70% in school is often an F. So hard to tell in this poll whether people would think a 7 is an F or "average plus" with 5 or 6 meaning average.


That's actually the minority. 60% is a D in most instances.


Yes, as a public school teacher, I can attest to this. If we tried saying 70% was a failing grade, man would we ever hear about it...and the failure rate would go through the roof.
In my experience at the college level, it was the same. 60% was a D. However, I was not allowed to have any Ds in any class having to do with my major. They treated it as a failing grade at Oklahoma if it applied to your major.
_________________
fa·nat·ic (f-ntk)
A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.
Draft days:1-Jack/Buckner/Tunsil/Lawson 2-Fackrell,Garnett,Boyd,Shepard,Martinez 3:Kaufusi,F.Cooper,Tapper,M.Mathews,Hogan


Last edited by Chrissooner49er on Mon May 09, 2016 1:06 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Forge


Joined: 19 Feb 2010
Posts: 13738
Location: Las Vegas
PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2016 1:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

big9erfan wrote:
Forge wrote:
On a 10 point scale, a 7 is about right. I'd lean toward a letter grade of C to C-, so that's comparable. There were just too many issues that I didn't like in this draft.

I am fine with the Buckner pick - even over Tunsil. He was one of the top 7 prospects in the draft, so to land him was important. Its after this pick that I really started having issues. Garnett was just awful all around value when you add in the trade up. While I like the prospect just fine, he also wasn't my top guard available at the time we picked him, so that was another issue for me (I also have no idea what kind of line we are going to put together - Garnett is a bad fit in a ZBS, and our one free agent signing of note, Beadles, is an awful fit in a power scheme....so yeah).

The back to back corners were overkill to me, particularly given how raw they both were and the time off. Redmond was fine - value was about right. But no way am I double dipping there in that position (which I didn't see as a huge need for a bunch of bodies) when there were other quality guys there. Blair was a solid pick from a value perspective, but a lot of his value will come from where and how we try to use him. The last guy we drafted like this has turned into a nightmare (Carradine) and we completely jacked his development. That doesn't give me a ton of hope with regards to Blair.

Theurs and Cooper will solid. No issues there. I like the influx of new bodies on the line, and I think Cooper in particular could be a serviceable right tackle. Driskel is a very good toolsy development guy. I like that we took him over quite a few of the other quarterbacks available.

I have no real love for Taylor. I don't think he's a particularly great athlete and I don't see him as anything more than a replacement level running back. Burbridge was actually good value, though I wasn't nearly as high on him as others. I don't think he'll separate at the next level. We will see. Prince Charles was another pick I just didn't understand.

Overall, the biggest issue for me was the GArnett selection along with the trade up. Really drags the grade down for me.


That's the problem I just referred to in my last post. On a 10 p[oint scale I would think a "C" equates to a 5 or 6. If C or C- is a 7 then 6 must be a D. And that then leave 1 through 5 for various degrees of utter failure?


Depends on the school. Typical is still 90-100 is A, 80-89 is B, 70-79 is C, 60-69 and anything below if a fail, I believe. I believe that is standard, although I did attend a high school with what was basically a 7-8 point scale as well (100-93 was A, 85-92 was B, 78-84 was a C, and 70-77 was a D).
_________________


A small stone may only make a small ripple at first, but someday it will be a wave.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John232


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 12571
Location: Los Angeles
PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2016 1:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gave this draft a 7 or a C.

Not a fan of the trade up...but I also think we went way too hard on corners this draft. Redmond was fine and we should have stopped after that. Some recently acquired corners are going to be getting cut and it's a terrible look.
_________________

xsaMainevent on the sig
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Forge


Joined: 19 Feb 2010
Posts: 13738
Location: Las Vegas
PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2016 1:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

John232 wrote:
Gave this draft a 7 or a C.

Not a fan of the trade up...but I also think we went way too hard on corners this draft. Redmond was fine and we should have stopped after that. Some recently acquired corners are going to be getting cut and it's a terrible look.


Agreed. I didn't understand why we went so heavy on the cornerback - I think Baalke just has an unhealthy obsession with the position. Almost all of our corners are young as it is - they were super inconsistent last year, but there was definitely promise in the form of Johnson and Acker, so I didn't understand that. Meanwhile, we don't do anything at ILB, where we are relying on Hodges and Wilhoite, and didn't address the wide receiver position until super late when this draft was full of quality receiver prospects in that 3/4 range. It was odd.

I really hate the way Baalke drafts. Always have.
_________________


A small stone may only make a small ripple at first, but someday it will be a wave.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chrissooner49er


Joined: 03 Feb 2005
Posts: 4851
Location: Tulsa, OK
PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2016 3:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Forge wrote:
John232 wrote:
Gave this draft a 7 or a C.

Not a fan of the trade up...but I also think we went way too hard on corners this draft. Redmond was fine and we should have stopped after that. Some recently acquired corners are going to be getting cut and it's a terrible look.


Agreed. I didn't understand why we went so heavy on the cornerback - I think Baalke just has an unhealthy obsession with the position. Almost all of our corners are young as it is - they were super inconsistent last year, but there was definitely promise in the form of Johnson and Acker, so I didn't understand that. Meanwhile, we don't do anything at ILB, where we are relying on Hodges and Wilhoite, and didn't address the wide receiver position until super late when this draft was full of quality receiver prospects in that 3/4 range. It was odd.

I really hate the way Baalke drafts. Always have.


So agree with the bolded above. I love what we did on OL and DL, but the rest drives me nuts.
_________________
fa·nat·ic (f-ntk)
A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.
Draft days:1-Jack/Buckner/Tunsil/Lawson 2-Fackrell,Garnett,Boyd,Shepard,Martinez 3:Kaufusi,F.Cooper,Tapper,M.Mathews,Hogan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
big9erfan


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 17886
PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2016 4:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Back to my grade. I'm giving a 5, but not a fail. I'm using the whole scale of 1 to 10, assuming 1 is the worst we could have done and 10 is the best we could have done. My grade puts us right in the middle, which is where I would rate this draft at this point in time. I give good grades to the first two picks, but a very bad score for the lost draft picks in the move up and a mildly bad score for the lost picks by failing to move down for one of the other guards. After the first two rounds though I don't see anyone to get excited about, or anyone that I think represents a real value at the spot they were picked. So, dead average draft for me - 5 on a 10 point scale.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
J-ALL-DAY


Joined: 17 Oct 2007
Posts: 40287
PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2016 10:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

8/10.

Huge fan of both Buckner and Garnett. Don't mind the trade up nearly as much as others. I've always wanted Baalke to use all the ammo he has to trade up to get his guy.

Robinson really intrigues me. It is clear O'neal will leave the corners on an island and Robinson should feel at home there. Definitely needs to get stronger but could be THE guy in the back end for years to come.

Redmond looks like he will be in the hunt to be the nickel corner and if Ward does move to FS, then it is his job to lose. So I didn't really mind doubling up on corner. Heck, in my mock draft I doubled up on DE in the 4th.

I didn't like taking the Theus and Cooper in the 5th though. This is where my biggest beef was at. I mean getting one for depth is fine, but there were some good WRs available.

Taylor and Burbridge in the 6th were solid value. More excited for Taylor after watching some of his HLs. Nothing flashy about his game but looks to have excellent vision.

Driskel in the 6th over Adams? I did not like that at all.

So overall good draft with two potential pro bowl caliber players in Buckner and Garnett. Could have done better in some rounds though.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> San Francisco 49ers All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group