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

2013 Draft
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 57, 58, 59 ... 99, 100, 101  Next
 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> San Francisco 49ers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
oldman9er


Joined: 24 Oct 2006
Posts: 40144
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rudyZ wrote:
oldman9er wrote:
49ersfan wrote:
Would you guys like Tavon Austin with our 1st pick?


I'd likely be hoping for someone else on the board.. but I wouldn't really take issue with him as the choice.



He'd be similar to the LaMichael James pick last year. We didn't absolutely need him, but good value and we can definitely find ways to use him.


this... but most importantly, Tavon likes ice-skating and fishing.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
big9erfan


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 14410
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rudyZ wrote:
oldman9er wrote:
49ersfan wrote:
Would you guys like Tavon Austin with our 1st pick?


I'd likely be hoping for someone else on the board.. but I wouldn't really take issue with him as the choice.



He'd be similar to the LaMichael James pick last year. We didn't absolutely need him, but good value and we can definitely find ways to use him.


Didn't seem "absolutely" clear to me at all. In fact I kept calling for a Sproles-like back. Just never had it in my wildest dreams that we'd take one so high. James might be close to the same size as Hunter but the two of them are completely differenct kinds of backs, and I think our offense did need the diversity of a back like James.

On the other hand I do see Austin like the same sort of guy as Jenkins. None of us know how Jenkins is working out and whether he'll live up to the potential we thought we saw in him. But he was quick, smooth receiver who people may be forgetting ran a 4.37 40.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rudyZ


Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 13362
Location: Québec
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

big9erfan wrote:
rudyZ wrote:
oldman9er wrote:
49ersfan wrote:
Would you guys like Tavon Austin with our 1st pick?


I'd likely be hoping for someone else on the board.. but I wouldn't really take issue with him as the choice.



He'd be similar to the LaMichael James pick last year. We didn't absolutely need him, but good value and we can definitely find ways to use him.


Didn't seem "absolutely" clear to me at all. In fact I kept calling for a Sproles-like back. Just never had it in my wildest dreams that we'd take one so high. James might be close to the same size as Hunter but the two of them are completely differenct kinds of backs, and I think our offense did need the diversity of a back like James.

On the other hand I do see Austin like the same sort of guy as Jenkins. None of us know how Jenkins is working out and whether he'll live up to the potential we thought we saw in him. But he was quick, smooth receiver who people may be forgetting ran a 4.37 40.



Are you really arguing the meaning of the word "absolutely"?
_________________


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
big9erfan


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 14410
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 3:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rudyZ wrote:
big9erfan wrote:
rudyZ wrote:
oldman9er wrote:
49ersfan wrote:
Would you guys like Tavon Austin with our 1st pick?


I'd likely be hoping for someone else on the board.. but I wouldn't really take issue with him as the choice.



He'd be similar to the LaMichael James pick last year. We didn't absolutely need him, but good value and we can definitely find ways to use him.


Didn't seem "absolutely" clear to me at all. In fact I kept calling for a Sproles-like back. Just never had it in my wildest dreams that we'd take one so high. James might be close to the same size as Hunter but the two of them are completely differenct kinds of backs, and I think our offense did need the diversity of a back like James.

On the other hand I do see Austin like the same sort of guy as Jenkins. None of us know how Jenkins is working out and whether he'll live up to the potential we thought we saw in him. But he was quick, smooth receiver who people may be forgetting ran a 4.37 40.



Are you really arguing the meaning of the word "absolutely"?


Sounded like you were saying we didn't really need a guy like James, I thought we did. Simple as that.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rudyZ


Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 13362
Location: Québec
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 3:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

big9erfan wrote:
rudyZ wrote:
big9erfan wrote:
rudyZ wrote:
oldman9er wrote:
49ersfan wrote:
Would you guys like Tavon Austin with our 1st pick?


I'd likely be hoping for someone else on the board.. but I wouldn't really take issue with him as the choice.



He'd be similar to the LaMichael James pick last year. We didn't absolutely need him, but good value and we can definitely find ways to use him.


Didn't seem "absolutely" clear to me at all. In fact I kept calling for a Sproles-like back. Just never had it in my wildest dreams that we'd take one so high. James might be close to the same size as Hunter but the two of them are completely differenct kinds of backs, and I think our offense did need the diversity of a back like James.

On the other hand I do see Austin like the same sort of guy as Jenkins. None of us know how Jenkins is working out and whether he'll live up to the potential we thought we saw in him. But he was quick, smooth receiver who people may be forgetting ran a 4.37 40.



Are you really arguing the meaning of the word "absolutely"?


Sounded like you were saying we didn't really need a guy like James, I thought we did. Simple as that.



Then you misinterpreted the sense of the word "absolutely". Who would say no to a homerun threat? No team would. It's just that he was hardly a priority. But James was pretty good value where we got him, and I couldn't complain. I dare you to find a single instance where I expressed displeasure at having drafted him.

For future reference, when I say "absolutely", I mean "absolutely", not "really". When I say "really", I usually mean "really", and nothing else.
_________________


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
big9erfan


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 14410
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 7:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You originally said
rudyZ wrote:
We didn't absolutely need him


To which I replied
big9erfan wrote:
Sounded like you were saying we didn't really need a guy like James, I thought we did. Simple as that.


And after arguing that I misinterpreted your statement you then said

rudyZ wrote:
Who would say no to a homerun threat? No team would. It's just that he was hardly a priority. But James was pretty good value where we got him, and I couldn't complain.


Am I also misinterpreting what "hardly a priority" means? Becasue now it sounds even more to me like you're saying we didn't need a guy like James.

I hope you recognize that this is just a continuation of last year's discussion about how team's draft. The two of us have fundamental differences about how we think teams draft. You watch us use a second round pick on James but can still say that it wasn't a priority for us. You even said that we would "definitely find ways to use him" as if that was an after-thought. I disagree strongly with all of that. I believe we were missing an important component in our offense - what I called a Sproles-like back who was quick, fast and shifty, who was a threat to take it all the way on every play. I believe the team drafted James for precisely the same reason I had Gainey in some of my mocks and even James in one of them - because that kind of guy was indeed a priority for us. I beieve that if James hadn't fallen to us then we would have filled that need in a lower round.

Every team goes into the draft with priorities. You can pretty well infer what they were by simply looking at who they took in the draft. You and I have differences in the way we draw our inferences. As a result of our drafting James mine is that we did need a guy like that and it WAS a priority ofr us.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kikuchiyo


Joined: 25 Mar 2008
Posts: 2120
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 7:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd be stoked if we got Austin. I disagree with big9erfan that he's the same sort of guy as AJ Jenkins. Jenkins was a much more polished receiver coming out and can play the outside receiver positions. Austin is more of a slot guy who can take handoffs out of the backfield and also be a dynamic return man. He's closer to Lamichael James than AJ Jenkins. The only downside to Tavon Austin is I'm not sure how well he would fit into our offense. He's a slot receiver who's best suited in a spread offense where he can get the ball in space and make guys miss. If we're moving more and more towards the pistol he's a good fit, but we barely ever play with 3 receivers on the field. Which means, we'd barely ever use our dynamic slot guy even if we got him.
_________________

A Big Thanks To PatsDynasty21
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rudyZ


Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 13362
Location: Québec
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 7:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

big9erfan wrote:
You originally said
rudyZ wrote:
We didn't absolutely need him


To which I replied
big9erfan wrote:
Sounded like you were saying we didn't really need a guy like James, I thought we did. Simple as that.


And after arguing that I misinterpreted your statement you then said

rudyZ wrote:
Who would say no to a homerun threat? No team would. It's just that he was hardly a priority. But James was pretty good value where we got him, and I couldn't complain.


Am I also misinterpreting what "hardly a priority" means? Becasue now it sounds even more to me like you're saying we didn't need a guy like James.

I hope you recognize that this is just a continuation of last year's discussion about how team's draft. The two of us have fundamental differences about how we think teams draft. You watch us use a second round pick on James but can still say that it wasn't a priority for us. You even said that we would "definitely find ways to use him" as if that was an after-thought. I disagree strongly with all of that. I believe we were missing an important component in our offense - what I called a Sproles-like back who was quick, fast and shifty, who was a threat to take it all the way on every play. I believe the team drafted James for precisely the same reason I had Gainey in some of my mocks and even James in one of them - because that kind of guy was indeed a priority for us. I beieve that if James hadn't fallen to us then we would have filled that need in a lower round.

Every team goes into the draft with priorities. You can pretty well infer what they were by simply looking at who they took in the draft. You and I have differences in the way we draw our inferences. As a result of our drafting James mine is that we did need a guy like that and it WAS a priority ofr us.



If we had traded up to get LaMike, I'd agree that our FO thought we needed him. But staying put and having LaMike falls to our spot, either things magically happened the way Baalke hoped, or maybe we just felt that the value was too good to pass up. If the best CB in the draft fell to our 31st pick and we took him, would it mean we valued CB over every other position, or simply that the chancec to get the best player in the draft at his position was just too good to pass up? And yes, we would definitely find ways to use that player, wouldn't we? It doesn't mean he was "absolutely" in the plans from the start. Is it possible that Baalke never thought James would even be there and when he fell, he just couldn't pass up on him. He may have been a priority, he may have fulfilled a secondary goal. We don't know. The fact that picking James coincided with one of YOUR priorities doesn't necessarily validate your opinion over anyone else's.

Me saying that he was hardly a priority is just an extension of my "we didn't absolutely need him". I don't see any kind of contradiction there. It's only in your confusion of "absolutely" and "really" that I see a problem here.
_________________


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
big9erfan


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 14410
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 9:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kikuchiyo wrote:
I'd be stoked if we got Austin. I disagree with big9erfan that he's the same sort of guy as AJ Jenkins. Jenkins was a much more polished receiver coming out and can play the outside receiver positions. Austin is more of a slot guy who can take handoffs out of the backfield and also be a dynamic return man. He's closer to Lamichael James than AJ Jenkins. The only downside to Tavon Austin is I'm not sure how well he would fit into our offense. He's a slot receiver who's best suited in a spread offense where he can get the ball in space and make guys miss. If we're moving more and more towards the pistol he's a good fit, but we barely ever play with 3 receivers on the field. Which means, we'd barely ever use our dynamic slot guy even if we got him.


OK. Could be. But I kind of always thought Jenkins would settle in as our slot guy some day. In any case the more offensive weapons we have and the more dynamic we are the more it's going to be to watch us play.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
49ers Finest


Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 9339
Location: San Jose
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 9:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

for our olb situation... some of my favorite possibilities
realistic olbs for us in the 2-5 range. like them all before and each put up great numbers in the 40, 10 split, vert, broad, bench

Player College Height Weight Arm Length Hand Length 40 Yard 10 Yard Reps Vertical Shuttle Cone Jump

-Trevardo Williams Connecticut 6'1 1/4 241 32 1/4 9 3/8 4.57 1.61 30 38 - - 10'4

-Cornelius Washington Georgia 6040 265 34 9 1/2 4.55 1.60 36 39 - - 10'8

-Corey Lemonier Auburn 6'3 3/8 255 34 1/2 10 1/8 4.60 1.57 27 33 - - 9'11

-Sio Moore Connecticut 6'0 3/4 245 33 5/8 10 1/4 4.65 1.62 29 38 4.31 7.49 10'7

And i didnt know anything about this guy. but he blew it up. 41.5 vert. 11'7 vert (the highest at the combine, i believe)

Jamie Collins Southern Mississippi 6'3 1/2 250 33 3/4 9 3/4 4.64 1.56 19 41.5 4.32 7.10 11'7

i think we might come away with one of these guys. and i would be very happy. all had good to very good college production besides washington
_________________
***WE RUN THE WEST!***
SB AT HOME!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

new sig... sorry alex
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
big9erfan


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 14410
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 9:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rudyZ wrote:
big9erfan wrote:
You originally said
rudyZ wrote:
We didn't absolutely need him


To which I replied
big9erfan wrote:
Sounded like you were saying we didn't really need a guy like James, I thought we did. Simple as that.


And after arguing that I misinterpreted your statement you then said

rudyZ wrote:
Who would say no to a homerun threat? No team would. It's just that he was hardly a priority. But James was pretty good value where we got him, and I couldn't complain.


Am I also misinterpreting what "hardly a priority" means? Becasue now it sounds even more to me like you're saying we didn't need a guy like James.

I hope you recognize that this is just a continuation of last year's discussion about how team's draft. The two of us have fundamental differences about how we think teams draft. You watch us use a second round pick on James but can still say that it wasn't a priority for us. You even said that we would "definitely find ways to use him" as if that was an after-thought. I disagree strongly with all of that. I believe we were missing an important component in our offense - what I called a Sproles-like back who was quick, fast and shifty, who was a threat to take it all the way on every play. I believe the team drafted James for precisely the same reason I had Gainey in some of my mocks and even James in one of them - because that kind of guy was indeed a priority for us. I beieve that if James hadn't fallen to us then we would have filled that need in a lower round.

Every team goes into the draft with priorities. You can pretty well infer what they were by simply looking at who they took in the draft. You and I have differences in the way we draw our inferences. As a result of our drafting James mine is that we did need a guy like that and it WAS a priority ofr us.



If we had traded up to get LaMike, I'd agree that our FO thought we needed him. But staying put and having LaMike falls to our spot, either things magically happened the way Baalke hoped, or maybe we just felt that the value was too good to pass up. If the best CB in the draft fell to our 31st pick and we took him, would it mean we valued CB over every other position, or simply that the chancec to get the best player in the draft at his position was just too good to pass up? And yes, we would definitely find ways to use that player, wouldn't we? It doesn't mean he was "absolutely" in the plans from the start. Is it possible that Baalke never thought James would even be there and when he fell, he just couldn't pass up on him. He may have been a priority, he may have fulfilled a secondary goal. We don't know. The fact that picking James coincided with one of YOUR priorities doesn't necessarily validate your opinion over anyone else's.

Me saying that he was hardly a priority is just an extension of my "we didn't absolutely need him". I don't see any kind of contradiction there. It's only in your confusion of "absolutely" and "really" that I see a problem here.


I not confusing absolutely and really. But there is confusion which you can help clear up becasue you keep saying "him" and "he" instead of "a guy like him". So please clarify for me. When you say "we didn't absolutely need him" do you LaMichael James, or a running back like James, i.e., having the same general skill set and filling the same general role? And when you say "he wasn't a priority" do you mean LaMichael James wasn't a priority or " a guy like him" wasn't a priority,i.e., a guy with the same general skill set and filling the same feneral role?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rudyZ


Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 13362
Location: Québec
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 9:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

big9erfan wrote:
I not confusing absolutely and really. But there is confusion which you can help clear up becasue you keep saying "him" and "he" instead of "a guy like him". So please clarify for me. When you say "we didn't absolutely need him" do you LaMichael James, or a running back like James, i.e., having the same general skill set and filling the same general role? And when you say "he wasn't a priority" do you mean LaMichael James wasn't a priority or " a guy like him" wasn't a priority,i.e., a guy with the same general skill set and filling the same feneral role?



I meant both LaMike or a guy like him. I don't feel he, or a guy like him, was a priority or an absolute need. You feel differently, I know that. I know you had looked for a Sproles-like guy the entire offseason. But the fact that we drafted LaMichael James does not prove he was a priority or an absolute need our FO was dying to address. Actually, the fact that we didn't trade up to assure we can pick James tends to indicate that he wasn't the answer to a question that absolutely needed to be addressed. Otherwise, it would have been reckless to leave our acquisition of said answer to the luck of him falling into our lap. The fact that we sat back and waited to see who would be there tends to show this: we weren't desperate to get James, but when our pick came and he was there, he was the best player available or, in other words, too good to pass up. If he had filled an absolute need or had been a high priority, you have to trade up to get him, just like we traded up to get CK a year before.

Is everything clear now?
_________________


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
big9erfan


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 14410
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 9:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I added a little more below

49ers Finest wrote:
for our olb situation... some of my favorite possibilities
realistic olbs for us in the 2-5 range. like them all before and each put up great numbers in the 40, 10 split, vert, broad, bench

Player College Height Weight Arm Length Hand Length 40 Yard 10 Yard Reps Vertical Shuttle Cone Jump

-Trevardo Williams Connecticut 6'1 1/4 241 32 1/4 9 3/8 4.57 1.61 30 38 - - 10'4

30.5 career sacks; UConn career leader

-Cornelius Washington Georgia 6040 265 34 9 1/2 4.55 1.60 36 39 - - 10'8

10 career sacks, but only 1/2 as a senior

-Corey Lemonier Auburn 6'3 3/8 255 34 1/2 10 1/8 4.60 1.57 27 33 - - 9'11

18.5 career sacs - in SEC (good) but only 1/2 over final 8 games (bad)

-Sio Moore Connecticut 6'0 3/4 245 33 5/8 10 1/4 4.65 1.62 29 38 4.31 7.49 10'7

274 career tackles; 15.5 career sacks

And i didnt know anything about this guy. but he blew it up. 41.5 vert. 11'7 vert (the highest at the combine, i believe)

Jamie Collins Southern Mississippi 6'3 1/2 250 33 3/4 9 3/4 4.64 1.56 19 41.5 4.32 7.10 11'7

45 career TFL; 10 sacks as senior (couldn't find career numbers)

i think we might come away with one of these guys. and i would be very happy. all had good to very good college production besides washington

_________________


Last edited by big9erfan on Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:07 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rudyZ


Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 13362
Location: Québec
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 9:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

big9erfan wrote:
I added a little more below

49ers Finest wrote:
for our olb situation... some of my favorite possibilities
realistic olbs for us in the 2-5 range. like them all before and each put up great numbers in the 40, 10 split, vert, broad, bench

Player College Height Weight Arm Length Hand Length 40 Yard 10 Yard Reps Vertical Shuttle Cone Jump

-Trevardo Williams Connecticut 6'1 1/4 241 32 1/4 9 3/8 4.57 1.61 30 38 - - 10'4

30.5 career sacks; UConn career leader

-Cornelius Washington Georgia 6040 265 34 9 1/2 4.55 1.60 36 39 - - 10'8

10 career sacks, but only 1/2 as a senior

-Corey Lemonier Auburn 6'3 3/8 255 34 1/2 10 1/8 4.60 1.57 27 33 - - 9'11

18.5 career sacs - in SEC (good) but only 1/2 over final 8 games (bad)

-Sio Moore Connecticut 6'0 3/4 245 33 5/8 10 1/4 4.65 1.62 29 38 4.31 7.49 10'7

274 career tackles; 15.5 career sacks

And i didnt know anything about this guy. but he blew it up. 41.5 vert. 11'7 vert (the highest at the combine, i believe)

Jamie Collins Southern Mississippi 6'3 1/2 250 33 3/4 9 3/4 4.64 1.56 19 41.5 4.32 7.10 11'7

45 career TFL; 6.5 sacks as senior (couldn't find career numbers)

i think we might come away with one of these guys. and i would be very happy. all had good to very good college production besides washington



I prefer tackles for loss as a stat for a prospect. There are a lot of garbage sacks. Often, guys will get a 3 sacks game against a weak opponent early in the year. TFL, to me, is a better measure of a player's production (for DL and LB, of course).
_________________


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
Kikuchiyo


Joined: 25 Mar 2008
Posts: 2120
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 10:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

big9erfan wrote:
I added a little more below

49ers Finest wrote:
And i didnt know anything about this guy. but he blew it up. 41.5 vert. 11'7 vert (the highest at the combine, i believe)

Jamie Collins Southern Mississippi 6'3 1/2 250 33 3/4 9 3/4 4.64 1.56 19 41.5 4.32 7.10 11'7

45 career TFL; 6.5 sacks as senior (couldn't find career numbers)


Collins had 10 sacks as a senior, the year he played defensive end. 6.5 was his mark he set as a LB in his junior year.

http://www.cfbstats.com/2012/player/664/1026075/index.html
_________________

A Big Thanks To PatsDynasty21


Last edited by Kikuchiyo on Mon Feb 25, 2013 10:05 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> San Francisco 49ers All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 57, 58, 59 ... 99, 100, 101  Next
Page 58 of 101

 
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