2.61- LaMichael James, RB
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
SoCalNiner
Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 18590
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:55 am Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| I love this pick. I'm not sure if he can be a feature back, but he can be a deadly weapon once we get some sort of screen game going. We seem to like guys who have the ability to break body parts and play through them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
FG21_PW52
Joined: 06 Feb 2008
Posts: 3620
Location: 831, CA.
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
My hope for LMJ is his him turning out to be similar to LeSean McCoy in Philly. Speedy/Elusive guys CAN be feature backs, its just not common.
_________________
| candyman93 wrote: | | San Francisco is going to put an unmerciful beat down on everyone they play next year. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chamilitary
Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Posts: 2819
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 11:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| imani wrote: | | ninerfanwheelz wrote: | 
Weapons galore. Go Ducks!! |
happy for you man, gotta root for em...no matter where he goes
Good pick guys |
you still root for lmj, i'll still root for marshawn lol. unless you wanna trade? haha |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SoCalNiner
Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 18590
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
LaMichael James Twitter
| Quote: | | @LaMichaelJames: @PatrickWillis52 I'm glad We're on the same team so I don't have to get hit by you on the daily damn we do have prac. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swift21
Joined: 20 Oct 2011
Posts: 728
Location: SF
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| SoCalNiner wrote: | LaMichael James Twitter
| Quote: | | @LaMichaelJames: @PatrickWillis52 I'm glad We're on the same team so I don't have to get hit by you on the daily damn we do have prac. |
|
_________________
| SaveourSonics wrote: | | Pete is just an arrogant wanna-be Jim Harbaugh but he's just not as smart. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
49ersfan
Joined: 21 Apr 2007
Posts: 4590
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
James might have been our #1 target for pick 61 before the 2nd round even started
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/49ers/2012/04/30/moss-baalke-check-in-on-fast-evolving-offense/
| Quote: | | Sidebar: While we heard Thursday that Baalke put Jenkins’ name in an envelope before the draft began to signify him as their likely pick, I’ve heard James was their primary second-round target before Friday’s selections began |
Which means he was very high on our board...we graded Jenkins as a 1st rounder, did we grade James as a 1st as well?
_________________
-Not taking this off until the 49ers win #6 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EverythingSF
Joined: 15 Jun 2010
Posts: 2996
Location: Merced, CA
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 49ersfan wrote: | James might have been our #1 target for pick 61 before the 2nd round even started
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/49ers/2012/04/30/moss-baalke-check-in-on-fast-evolving-offense/
| Quote: | | Sidebar: While we heard Thursday that Baalke put Jenkins’ name in an envelope before the draft began to signify him as their likely pick, I’ve heard James was their primary second-round target before Friday’s selections began |
Which means he was very high on our board...we graded Jenkins as a 1st rounder, did we grade James as a 1st as well? |
I'd imagine so. I don't think our FO goes so much by grading players with a round selection......meaning I don't think they go "Okay well he's a 2nd, this guy is a 5th, and that guy there is a 1st". Instead I think they literally make there big board and say these are guys we want (that's what I imagine the gold helmets are for).
Too many people continue to say we reached for players, but honestly I'm not even sure the world "reach" exists if Baalke's vocabulary. I think he looks for players he wants and he goes and gets them. Much like SoS said, I don't necessarily believe in a pick being a reach unless it is someone who was blantantly taken way to early and a trade back could of happened. Examples- Heyward-Bey, Weeden, Tebow.
And lastly, I think it's very ignorant for us to say we would of been happy with a guy only if he was selected a round later. Honestly who cares where he went? Were aiming for good players, not Mel Kiper value picks. And is there really a huge difference in taking someone like James in the 2nd as opposed to the 3rd? He's either going to be a great player or he isn't. Culliver was taken in the 3rd last year which was defined as a "reach" but do we really care anymore seeing that he's playing at a high level and showing good potential?
It doesn't matter whether a pick is seen as a "reach" or not......what matters is if our picks turn out to be good players. If they do then I could careless what round they were selected in
_________________
^Thanks to NS922
| EverythingSF wrote: | | Boltstrikes wrote: |
Alex's Mom? |
Alex's High School Backup?  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rudyZ
Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 11348
Location: Québec
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| EverythingSF wrote: | | 49ersfan wrote: | James might have been our #1 target for pick 61 before the 2nd round even started
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/49ers/2012/04/30/moss-baalke-check-in-on-fast-evolving-offense/
| Quote: | | Sidebar: While we heard Thursday that Baalke put Jenkins’ name in an envelope before the draft began to signify him as their likely pick, I’ve heard James was their primary second-round target before Friday’s selections began |
Which means he was very high on our board...we graded Jenkins as a 1st rounder, did we grade James as a 1st as well? |
I'd imagine so. I don't think our FO goes so much by grading players with a round selection......meaning I don't think they go "Okay well he's a 2nd, this guy is a 5th, and that guy there is a 1st". Instead I think they literally make there big board and say these are guys we want (that's what I imagine the gold helmets are for).
Too many people continue to say we reached for players, but honestly I'm not even sure the world "reach" exists if Baalke's vocabulary. I think he looks for players he wants and he goes and gets them. Much like SoS said, I don't necessarily believe in a pick being a reach unless it is someone who was blantantly taken way to early and a trade back could of happened. Examples- Heyward-Bey, Weeden, Tebow.
And lastly, I think it's very ignorant for us to say we would of been happy with a guy only if he was selected a round later. Honestly who cares where he went? Were aiming for good players, not Mel Kiper value picks. And is there really a huge difference in taking someone like James in the 2nd as opposed to the 3rd? He's either going to be a great player or he isn't. Culliver was taken in the 3rd last year which was defined as a "reach" but do we really care anymore seeing that he's playing at a high level and showing good potential?
It doesn't matter whether a pick is seen as a "reach" or not......what matters is if our picks turn out to be good players. If they do then I could careless what round they were selected in |
Many of us have played Madden, in franchise mode. When you scout guys, and there's one you really like. What happens if he's graded as a 2nd rounder and you have a late first? I personally jump on that guy. He's the guy I want. That 2nd round grade is subjective. From my point of view, he's #1. I'd go as far as saying that in Madden, 80% of the players I pick are "reaches". I've often traded back into the third round (so I'd have two picks) in order to get the two fourth round-graded players I really wanted. Last time, one of the two turned out to suck. But I didn't care. My fifth round T turned into a starting caliber C, much better than my fourth round C, who is now my third string RG.
That's what often happens. You sometimes "overdraft" someone, just not to miss out on who you really want. That's why I don't believe in drafting for need. There's ALWAYS a BPA, on your board. There's ALWAYS someone you like over all others. And that's the guy you try to get. If you miss out on him, you go for the next one. If you REALLY want that #1 guy, you either trade up or "reach". If not, you go for BPA. Teams that draft for immediate needs fail. Look at the bottom feeders, teams like the jaguars. Teams that pass on greater talent to draft a need. Even worse, they'll trade up to fix a need.
_________________
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 |
|
|
neezy007
Joined: 21 May 2008
Posts: 8233
Location: El Paso
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| EverythingSF wrote: | | 49ersfan wrote: | James might have been our #1 target for pick 61 before the 2nd round even started
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/49ers/2012/04/30/moss-baalke-check-in-on-fast-evolving-offense/
| Quote: | | Sidebar: While we heard Thursday that Baalke put Jenkins’ name in an envelope before the draft began to signify him as their likely pick, I’ve heard James was their primary second-round target before Friday’s selections began |
Which means he was very high on our board...we graded Jenkins as a 1st rounder, did we grade James as a 1st as well? |
I'd imagine so. I don't think our FO goes so much by grading players with a round selection......meaning I don't think they go "Okay well he's a 2nd, this guy is a 5th, and that guy there is a 1st". Instead I think they literally make there big board and say these are guys we want (that's what I imagine the gold helmets are for).
Too many people continue to say we reached for players, but honestly I'm not even sure the world "reach" exists if Baalke's vocabulary. I think he looks for players he wants and he goes and gets them. Much like SoS said, I don't necessarily believe in a pick being a reach unless it is someone who was blantantly taken way to early and a trade back could of happened. Examples- Heyward-Bey, Weeden, Tebow.
And lastly, I think it's very ignorant for us to say we would of been happy with a guy only if he was selected a round later. Honestly who cares where he went? Were aiming for good players, not Mel Kiper value picks. And is there really a huge difference in taking someone like James in the 2nd as opposed to the 3rd? He's either going to be a great player or he isn't. Culliver was taken in the 3rd last year which was defined as a "reach" but do we really care anymore seeing that he's playing at a high level and showing good potential?
It doesn't matter whether a pick is seen as a "reach" or not......what matters is if our picks turn out to be good players. If they do then I could careless what round they were selected in |
I agree 100% with this post. I posted something along these lines after day one. Value is just this imaginary thing. We don't really know a players true value to the GMs. The only true reaches are the ones like DHB.
_________________
| Big7BenMVP wrote: | | OMG I LOVE YOU CHAEL! I WANNA TOUCH YOUR BODY! |
That's how I feel too <3 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SoCalNiner
Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 18590
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| EverythingSF wrote: | | 49ersfan wrote: | James might have been our #1 target for pick 61 before the 2nd round even started
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/49ers/2012/04/30/moss-baalke-check-in-on-fast-evolving-offense/
| Quote: | | Sidebar: While we heard Thursday that Baalke put Jenkins’ name in an envelope before the draft began to signify him as their likely pick, I’ve heard James was their primary second-round target before Friday’s selections began |
Which means he was very high on our board...we graded Jenkins as a 1st rounder, did we grade James as a 1st as well? |
I'd imagine so. I don't think our FO goes so much by grading players with a round selection......meaning I don't think they go "Okay well he's a 2nd, this guy is a 5th, and that guy there is a 1st". Instead I think they literally make there big board and say these are guys we want (that's what I imagine the gold helmets are for).
Too many people continue to say we reached for players, but honestly I'm not even sure the world "reach" exists if Baalke's vocabulary. I think he looks for players he wants and he goes and gets them. Much like SoS said, I don't necessarily believe in a pick being a reach unless it is someone who was blantantly taken way to early and a trade back could of happened. Examples- Heyward-Bey, Weeden, Tebow.
And lastly, I think it's very ignorant for us to say we would of been happy with a guy only if he was selected a round later. Honestly who cares where he went? Were aiming for good players, not Mel Kiper value picks. And is there really a huge difference in taking someone like James in the 2nd as opposed to the 3rd? He's either going to be a great player or he isn't. Culliver was taken in the 3rd last year which was defined as a "reach" but do we really care anymore seeing that he's playing at a high level and showing good potential?
It doesn't matter whether a pick is seen as a "reach" or not......what matters is if our picks turn out to be good players. If they do then I could careless what round they were selected in |
I agree with this to an extent. Of course all that matters is if the player pans out of not, but what if you could get the player you want and some extra picks to boot? A great example would be our 3rd round pick. Looney was the guy Baalke wanted all along, yet he knew we could have traded back some. We got an arsenal of picks AND our guy. That's the ideal situation you want.
Of course I doubt we could have done this with Jenkins with the Rams on board to pick him a few picks later.
Last edited by SoCalNiner on Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:22 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
oldman9er
Joined: 24 Oct 2006
Posts: 36607
Location: New Orleans
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| SoCalNiner wrote: |
I agree with this to an extent. Of course all that matters is if the player pans out of not, but what if you could get the player you want and some extra picks to boot? A great example would be our 3rd round pick. Looney was the guy Baalke all along, yet he knew we could have traded back some. We got an arsenal of picks AND our guy. That's the idea situation you want.
Of course I doubt we could have done this with Jenkins with the Rams on board to pick him a few picks later. |
Well said... You have to also have a very good feel for where the outside value perception for prospects are as well. There are a lot of variables at play.. and like one of the main dudes said during the draft.. there is no cemented right way to approach things. Teams do things differently... and their success or failures come not just from evaluating prospect's values poorly.. but they may draft poor fits, head-cases they couldn't be aware of... or maybe their positional coaches (etc.) are just inferior.
_________________
___  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EverythingSF
Joined: 15 Jun 2010
Posts: 2996
Location: Merced, CA
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 3:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
[quote="rudyZ"] | EverythingSF wrote: | | 49ersfan wrote: | James might have been our #1 target for pick 61 before the 2nd round even started
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/49ers/2012/04/30/moss-baalke-check-in-on-fast-evolving-offense/
| Quote: | | Sidebar: While we heard Thursday that Baalke put Jenkins’ name in an envelope before the draft began to signify him as their likely pick, I’ve heard James was their primary second-round target before Friday’s selections began |
Which means he was very high on our board...we graded Jenkins as a 1st rounder, did we grade James as a 1st as well? |
I'd imagine so. I don't think our FO goes so much by grading players with a round selection......meaning I don't think they go "Okay well he's a 2nd, this guy is a 5th, and that guy there is a 1st". Instead I think they literally make there big board and say these are guys we want (that's what I imagine the gold helmets are for).
Too many people continue to say we reached for players, but honestly I'm not even sure the world "reach" exists if Baalke's vocabulary. I think he looks for players he wants and he goes and gets them. Much like SoS said, I don't necessarily believe in a pick being a reach unless it is someone who was blantantly taken way to early and a trade back could of happened. Examples- Heyward-Bey, Weeden, Tebow.
And lastly, I think it's very ignorant for us to say we would of been happy with a guy only if he was selected a round later. Honestly who cares where he went? Were aiming for good players, not Mel Kiper value picks. And is there really a huge difference in taking someone like James in the 2nd as opposed to the 3rd? He's either going to be a great player or he isn't. Culliver was taken in the 3rd last year which was defined as a "reach" but do we really care anymore seeing that he's playing at a high level and showing good potential?
It doesn't matter whether a pick is seen as a "reach" or not......what matters is if our picks turn out to be good players. If they do then I could careless what round they were selected in |
Many of us have played Madden, in franchise mode. When you scout guys, and there's one you really like. What happens if he's graded as a 2nd rounder and you have a late first? I personally jump on that guy. He's the guy I want. That 2nd round grade is subjective. From my point of view, he's #1. I'd go as far as saying that in Madden, 80% of the players I pick are "reaches". I've often traded back into the third round (so I'd have two picks) in order to get the two fourth round-graded players I really wanted. Last time, one of the two turned out to suck. But I didn't care. My fifth round T turned into a starting caliber C, much better than my fourth round C, who is now my third string RG.
That's what often happens. You sometimes "overdraft" someone, just not to miss out on who you really want. That's why I don't believe in drafting for need. There's ALWAYS a BPA, on your board. There's ALWAYS someone you like over all others. And that's the guy you try to get. If you miss out on him, you go for the next one. If you REALLY want that #1 guy, you either trade up or "reach". If not, you go for BPA. Teams that draft for immediate needs fail. Look at the bottom feeders, teams like the jaguars. Teams that pass on greater talent to draft a need. Even worse, they'll trade up to fix a need. | SoCalNiner wrote: | y typed out a comparison to Madden to this years aspect as having your 5 pro day players where you knew there potential and from there and drafted all A's at least a round early. I didn't care that they were graded a 3rd or perhaps an early 4th, I took them in the 2nd because I knew they were an "A". To me this is how Baalke see's players and why pass up on guys when you feel there an "A" potential.
[quote="SoCalNiner"]I agree with this to an extent. Of course all that matters is if the player pans out of not, but what if you could get the player you want and some extra picks to boot? A great example would be our 3rd round pick. Looney was the guy Baalke wanted all along, yet he knew we could have traded back some. We got an arsenal of picks AND our guy. That's the ideal situation you want.
Of course I doubt we could have done this with Jenkins with the Rams on board to pick him a few picks later. |
I think you hit on exactly what your point was. With Looney we absolutely knew we could trade back and still him grab him, yet even with him though we decided to trade up just be safe in landing him just like we did with Kilgore last year. Did we add value from our late 3rd where we wanted to grab him anways? Of course, but in the end even with Looney we traded up and that's what "great" teams do IMO. They scout out the players they absoultely want and they go all out to get them, sometimes they can trade back, but no matter what they'll always be safe in making sure they get their guys which is what we did even with Looney IMO.
But as you stated we shouldn't and in hindsight couldn't of taken that gamble with Jenkins by trading back. I'm glad we didn't because now, whether we picked up another 4th or not, we got the guy we wanted. And in the eyes of Baalke or as any other GM, you have to believe in your scouts and your staff to get the guys that you predetermined you wanted. In the mindset of Madden, if you and your scouts believe a player is "A" potential, who cares where you grab him at? And whether he buts or not, at least you went with what you believed.......and so far everything Baalke and his staff has believed as been a homerun, so who are we to doubt him. To grade this draft class I give an automatic A+, but this grade was predetermined last December when one of the most criticized 2011 drafts turned a horrid franchise into a super bowl contender. To doubt these guys is to be as ignorant as can be, from the words of my drunk self I say believe in Haarbalke like no other.....good night my friends
_________________
^Thanks to NS922
| EverythingSF wrote: | | Boltstrikes wrote: |
Alex's Mom? |
Alex's High School Backup? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
oldman9er
Joined: 24 Oct 2006
Posts: 36607
Location: New Orleans
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 8:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| EverythingSF wrote: | | To doubt these guys is to be as ignorant as can be, from the words of my drunk self I say believe in Haarbalke like no other.....good night my friends |
I think to be a blind yes-man is rather ignorant though. To have faith in your F/O's evaluating skills is one thing... but to pretend that they are incapable of error... or to presume that they can't let a great one slip by because they fall for another (prospect)... nah... Let us try and settle down from throwing around of words like ignorant, eh?
_________________
___ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
oldman9er
Joined: 24 Oct 2006
Posts: 36607
Location: New Orleans
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EverythingSF
Joined: 15 Jun 2010
Posts: 2996
Location: Merced, CA
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| oldman9er wrote: | | EverythingSF wrote: | | To doubt these guys is to be as ignorant as can be, from the words of my drunk self I say believe in Haarbalke like no other.....good night my friends |
I think to be a blind yes-man is rather ignorant though. To have faith in your F/O's evaluating skills is one thing... but to pretend that they are incapable of error... or to presume that they can't let a great one slip by because they fall for another (prospect)... nah... Let us try and settle down from throwing around of words like ignorant, eh? |
At some point our FO will miss on a prospect, it happens. Last year we could of drafted Richard Sherman or Doug Baldwin in the 6th rather than Ronald Johnson, yet still with the rest of the picks we hit on last year I think our FO earned our trust in their style of drafting. And IMO it is at the least a bit arrogant to think that any of us could say we skipped over a better prospect by taking one of our draft picks instead. To think that we know more, or that we know better is a bit pretentious.
And yeah, I was little under the influence while posting that, ignorant probably wasn't the right word to use but I think I subbed it out with two words that better represent what I was getting at
_________________
^Thanks to NS922
| EverythingSF wrote: | | Boltstrikes wrote: |
Alex's Mom? |
Alex's High School Backup? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
