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

Would you make the Trade.
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> San Francisco 49ers
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Would you make the Trade
YES
46%
 46%  [ 7 ]
NO
53%
 53%  [ 8 ]
Total Votes : 15

Author Message
big9erfan


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 14426
PostPosted: Sun Mar 02, 2014 7:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rudyZ wrote:
There's a big difference between picks taken in the first two rounds, three or four of which were suggested initially, and a "bunch of 'bodies'", as you put it. If it was a question of unloading a bunch of third, fourth, fifth rounders, we'd all say "hell yeah" in a second. If we could move up in the teens for Mike Evans for thirds and fourths, I'd be all for it, no question. But we're talking about 3-4 premium picks for one player, here. If that one player was Calvin Johnson, I don't think anyone would even complain. But while being a great prospect, athletically gifted and talented, he doesn't really have elite anything. Great speed, not amazing speed. Great hands, not amazing hands. I'm not sure we can even call his routes great at this point, but no reason to question whether he can pull it off in the NFL. Maybe I'd qualify his acceleration as elite, yes. But as far as everything is concerned, he's not an elite prospect, to me. Great prospect, yes. Great potential, great speed, very exciting. But worth 3 or 4 prospects all by himself? No. That's perhaps 3 or 4 potential eventual starters, we're talking about, here. Potential cheap starters down the road that will allow us to retain some of our guys.


Well there you go. That's my point. I already said I don't know if he's that good. I'm not arguing in favor of this particular trade, but about the principle involved in what we need to do to win a SB. Sure we might get several stars out of several picks. I'm not judging how good Watkins is, or whoever else we might get. My point is that we need difference makers - guys that can make us better, not more guys who are no better than the ones we already have. I was arguing against the notion that we don't need guys that can"put us over the top". I'm saying that's exactly what we need. Who those are, or how to go about getting them is a different issue.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rudyZ


Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 13378
Location: Québec
PostPosted: Sun Mar 02, 2014 8:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

big9erfan wrote:
rudyZ wrote:
There's a big difference between picks taken in the first two rounds, three or four of which were suggested initially, and a "bunch of 'bodies'", as you put it. If it was a question of unloading a bunch of third, fourth, fifth rounders, we'd all say "hell yeah" in a second. If we could move up in the teens for Mike Evans for thirds and fourths, I'd be all for it, no question. But we're talking about 3-4 premium picks for one player, here. If that one player was Calvin Johnson, I don't think anyone would even complain. But while being a great prospect, athletically gifted and talented, he doesn't really have elite anything. Great speed, not amazing speed. Great hands, not amazing hands. I'm not sure we can even call his routes great at this point, but no reason to question whether he can pull it off in the NFL. Maybe I'd qualify his acceleration as elite, yes. But as far as everything is concerned, he's not an elite prospect, to me. Great prospect, yes. Great potential, great speed, very exciting. But worth 3 or 4 prospects all by himself? No. That's perhaps 3 or 4 potential eventual starters, we're talking about, here. Potential cheap starters down the road that will allow us to retain some of our guys.


Well there you go. That's my point. I already said I don't know if he's that good. I'm not arguing in favor of this particular trade, but about the principle involved in what we need to do to win a SB. Sure we might get several stars out of several picks. I'm not judging how good Watkins is, or whoever else we might get. My point is that we need difference makers - guys that can make us better, not more guys who are no better than the ones we already have. I was arguing against the notion that we don't need guys that can"put us over the top". I'm saying that's exactly what we need. Who those are, or how to go about getting them is a different issue.



It's weird, because I don't recall having this discussion when we needed a QB to put us over the top, or when we needed a pass rusher. We're not even having this discussion about a corner who could put us over the top, while a top-notch CB might help us even more than a (3rd) receiver would right now. This discussion seems very specific about getting a WR, and in this instance, the discussion was very specific about Watkins.
_________________


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: 14426
PostPosted: Mon Mar 03, 2014 1:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

rudyZ wrote:
big9erfan wrote:
rudyZ wrote:
There's a big difference between picks taken in the first two rounds, three or four of which were suggested initially, and a "bunch of 'bodies'", as you put it. If it was a question of unloading a bunch of third, fourth, fifth rounders, we'd all say "hell yeah" in a second. If we could move up in the teens for Mike Evans for thirds and fourths, I'd be all for it, no question. But we're talking about 3-4 premium picks for one player, here. If that one player was Calvin Johnson, I don't think anyone would even complain. But while being a great prospect, athletically gifted and talented, he doesn't really have elite anything. Great speed, not amazing speed. Great hands, not amazing hands. I'm not sure we can even call his routes great at this point, but no reason to question whether he can pull it off in the NFL. Maybe I'd qualify his acceleration as elite, yes. But as far as everything is concerned, he's not an elite prospect, to me. Great prospect, yes. Great potential, great speed, very exciting. But worth 3 or 4 prospects all by himself? No. That's perhaps 3 or 4 potential eventual starters, we're talking about, here. Potential cheap starters down the road that will allow us to retain some of our guys.


Well there you go. That's my point. I already said I don't know if he's that good. I'm not arguing in favor of this particular trade, but about the principle involved in what we need to do to win a SB. Sure we might get several stars out of several picks. I'm not judging how good Watkins is, or whoever else we might get. My point is that we need difference makers - guys that can make us better, not more guys who are no better than the ones we already have. I was arguing against the notion that we don't need guys that can"put us over the top". I'm saying that's exactly what we need. Who those are, or how to go about getting them is a different issue.



It's weird, because I don't recall having this discussion when we needed a QB to put us over the top, or when we needed a pass rusher. We're not even having this discussion about a corner who could put us over the top, while a top-notch CB might help us even more than a (3rd) receiver would right now. This discussion seems very specific about getting a WR, and in this instance, the discussion was very specific about Watkins.


There's nothing here that's hard to understand, or worth arguing about if you don't happen to agree. I've said numerous times, not only just this year, but last year too, that I'd much rather we get a small handful of very good players than a large number of guys who inevitably won't make the roster, or make it but not really help us get any better. Last year we moved up to get Reid, who was a very valuable part of the team. But nobody else helped us very much. They might in the future, I know. But one or two more contributors might have made one or two more key plays in the championship game, and that might have been all it took for us to win it all.

If we were a re-building team, my opinion on this would be different. But given how good we already are I think a better approach for us to to combine a bunch of picks to get fewer, higher picks. I don't know what a "fair price" would for Watkins, but I'm pretty darn sure we would be a better team this year than we were last year if he's on the team. And I want us to be better, not the same but hope for better results.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
49ers Finest


Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 9377
Location: San Jose
PostPosted: Mon Mar 03, 2014 1:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

getting a small handful of guys who have an impact is great.... if it all works out that way. the draft is not a guarantee

but having a larger number of guys who could contribute helps. because in actuality, that "small handful" maybe one or two actually do contribute. so when you have a few more guys, you swing more, miss more, but also might hit more. look at seattle, they have been trading up, and theyre using those picks that they would have had to use and getting solid players with those late picks. cam sherm turbin lane bowie
sometimes on those late picks you can take a wild shot and find a gem.


what if reid didnt play well and the trade was looked at as a reach for a player who didnt play well for us. then we gave up that third, which could have been a great player for us. keenan allen was picked 2 picks after the pick we gave away to dallas.
_________________
***WE RUN THE WEST!***
SB AT HOME!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

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


Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 13378
Location: Québec
PostPosted: Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

big9erfan wrote:
rudyZ wrote:
big9erfan wrote:
rudyZ wrote:
There's a big difference between picks taken in the first two rounds, three or four of which were suggested initially, and a "bunch of 'bodies'", as you put it. If it was a question of unloading a bunch of third, fourth, fifth rounders, we'd all say "hell yeah" in a second. If we could move up in the teens for Mike Evans for thirds and fourths, I'd be all for it, no question. But we're talking about 3-4 premium picks for one player, here. If that one player was Calvin Johnson, I don't think anyone would even complain. But while being a great prospect, athletically gifted and talented, he doesn't really have elite anything. Great speed, not amazing speed. Great hands, not amazing hands. I'm not sure we can even call his routes great at this point, but no reason to question whether he can pull it off in the NFL. Maybe I'd qualify his acceleration as elite, yes. But as far as everything is concerned, he's not an elite prospect, to me. Great prospect, yes. Great potential, great speed, very exciting. But worth 3 or 4 prospects all by himself? No. That's perhaps 3 or 4 potential eventual starters, we're talking about, here. Potential cheap starters down the road that will allow us to retain some of our guys.


Well there you go. That's my point. I already said I don't know if he's that good. I'm not arguing in favor of this particular trade, but about the principle involved in what we need to do to win a SB. Sure we might get several stars out of several picks. I'm not judging how good Watkins is, or whoever else we might get. My point is that we need difference makers - guys that can make us better, not more guys who are no better than the ones we already have. I was arguing against the notion that we don't need guys that can"put us over the top". I'm saying that's exactly what we need. Who those are, or how to go about getting them is a different issue.



It's weird, because I don't recall having this discussion when we needed a QB to put us over the top, or when we needed a pass rusher. We're not even having this discussion about a corner who could put us over the top, while a top-notch CB might help us even more than a (3rd) receiver would right now. This discussion seems very specific about getting a WR, and in this instance, the discussion was very specific about Watkins.


There's nothing here that's hard to understand, or worth arguing about if you don't happen to agree. I've said numerous times, not only just this year, but last year too, that I'd much rather we get a small handful of very good players than a large number of guys who inevitably won't make the roster, or make it but not really help us get any better. Last year we moved up to get Reid, who was a very valuable part of the team. But nobody else helped us very much. They might in the future, I know. But one or two more contributors might have made one or two more key plays in the championship game, and that might have been all it took for us to win it all.

If we were a re-building team, my opinion on this would be different. But given how good we already are I think a better approach for us to to combine a bunch of picks to get fewer, higher picks. I don't know what a "fair price" would for Watkins, but I'm pretty darn sure we would be a better team this year than we were last year if he's on the team. And I want us to be better, not the same but hope for better results.



See, that's the problem here: all you say about making reasonable moves to get a bunch of better players rather than 14 players, half of whom won't make the roster, is quite right and agreeable. But in this thread, this is NOT what you've been saying, you've been discussing trading a bunch of good picks for one player. The logic applies well for a 14 picks funneled into 4-5 good players, but it doesn't apply as well to 4 premium picks being funneled into one arguably good player. In many fields of science and commerce, there's a thing called optimisation, where people try to strike a balance between cost and effect. It's also called [drumroll] cost effectiveness. Trading a bunch of later rounds picks to move up in the first to get the better player that you want. Very effective, and reasonable cost. Trading a bunch of first and second rounders to get one player who might or might not be better than the guy you could have gotten for a bunch of later rounds picks instead, or the guy you could get without even moving. Not very cost effective. There's a limit where the end doesn't justify the means anymore, and moving into the top 10 from the 30 spot is past that limit.

And knowing our staff and the utilisation of receivers, I don't know that we can say for sure that we'd be a better team with Watkins. For a player to make a positive impact, he has to play.
_________________


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: 14426
PostPosted: Mon Mar 03, 2014 1:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

49ers Finest wrote:
getting a small handful of guys who have an impact is great.... if it all works out that way. the draft is not a guarantee

but having a larger number of guys who could contribute helps. because in actuality, that "small handful" maybe one or two actually do contribute. so when you have a few more guys, you swing more, miss more, but also might hit more. look at seattle, they have been trading up, and theyre using those picks that they would have had to use and getting solid players with those late picks. cam sherm turbin lane bowie
sometimes on those late picks you can take a wild shot and find a gem.


what if reid didnt play well and the trade was looked at as a reach for a player who didnt play well for us. then we gave up that third, which could have been a great player for us. keenan allen was picked 2 picks after the pick we gave away to dallas.


Using this line of thinking you would never trade up for a guy because you would be giving up multiple picks for only one guy. But teams trade up all the time.

I'm convinced, rightly or wrongly, that if we added a truly great WR and CB, we would be a better team than we were last year. So I could use multiple picks to take several of them in lower rounds and hope one of those guys works out, or combine those picks and take a guy in the first with higher potential. I understand the draft is a crapshoot and you never know what you're going to end up with - Reid or AJ Jenkins? But of course the probability of getting a stud is higher the higher you get to pick a guy. Some 6th rounders are better than some 1st rounders, but many more 1st rounders have successful NFL careers than 2nd rounders, more 2nd rounders than 3rd rounders, etc.
_________________


Last edited by big9erfan on Mon Mar 03, 2014 2:15 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
big9erfan


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 14426
PostPosted: Mon Mar 03, 2014 2:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rudyZ wrote:
big9erfan wrote:
rudyZ wrote:
big9erfan wrote:
rudyZ wrote:
There's a big difference between picks taken in the first two rounds, three or four of which were suggested initially, and a "bunch of 'bodies'", as you put it. If it was a question of unloading a bunch of third, fourth, fifth rounders, we'd all say "hell yeah" in a second. If we could move up in the teens for Mike Evans for thirds and fourths, I'd be all for it, no question. But we're talking about 3-4 premium picks for one player, here. If that one player was Calvin Johnson, I don't think anyone would even complain. But while being a great prospect, athletically gifted and talented, he doesn't really have elite anything. Great speed, not amazing speed. Great hands, not amazing hands. I'm not sure we can even call his routes great at this point, but no reason to question whether he can pull it off in the NFL. Maybe I'd qualify his acceleration as elite, yes. But as far as everything is concerned, he's not an elite prospect, to me. Great prospect, yes. Great potential, great speed, very exciting. But worth 3 or 4 prospects all by himself? No. That's perhaps 3 or 4 potential eventual starters, we're talking about, here. Potential cheap starters down the road that will allow us to retain some of our guys.


Well there you go. That's my point. I already said I don't know if he's that good. I'm not arguing in favor of this particular trade, but about the principle involved in what we need to do to win a SB. Sure we might get several stars out of several picks. I'm not judging how good Watkins is, or whoever else we might get. My point is that we need difference makers - guys that can make us better, not more guys who are no better than the ones we already have. I was arguing against the notion that we don't need guys that can"put us over the top". I'm saying that's exactly what we need. Who those are, or how to go about getting them is a different issue.



It's weird, because I don't recall having this discussion when we needed a QB to put us over the top, or when we needed a pass rusher. We're not even having this discussion about a corner who could put us over the top, while a top-notch CB might help us even more than a (3rd) receiver would right now. This discussion seems very specific about getting a WR, and in this instance, the discussion was very specific about Watkins.


There's nothing here that's hard to understand, or worth arguing about if you don't happen to agree. I've said numerous times, not only just this year, but last year too, that I'd much rather we get a small handful of very good players than a large number of guys who inevitably won't make the roster, or make it but not really help us get any better. Last year we moved up to get Reid, who was a very valuable part of the team. But nobody else helped us very much. They might in the future, I know. But one or two more contributors might have made one or two more key plays in the championship game, and that might have been all it took for us to win it all.

If we were a re-building team, my opinion on this would be different. But given how good we already are I think a better approach for us to to combine a bunch of picks to get fewer, higher picks. I don't know what a "fair price" would for Watkins, but I'm pretty darn sure we would be a better team this year than we were last year if he's on the team. And I want us to be better, not the same but hope for better results.



See, that's the problem here: all you say about making reasonable moves to get a bunch of better players rather than 14 players, half of whom won't make the roster, is quite right and agreeable. But in this thread, this is NOT what you've been saying, you've been discussing trading a bunch of good picks for one player. The logic applies well for a 14 picks funneled into 4-5 good players, but it doesn't apply as well to 4 premium picks being funneled into one arguably good player. In many fields of science and commerce, there's a thing called optimisation, where people try to strike a balance between cost and effect. It's also called [drumroll] cost effectiveness. Trading a bunch of later rounds picks to move up in the first to get the better player that you want. Very effective, and reasonable cost. Trading a bunch of first and second rounders to get one player who might or might not be better than the guy you could have gotten for a bunch of later rounds picks instead, or the guy you could get without even moving. Not very cost effective. There's a limit where the end doesn't justify the means anymore, and moving into the top 10 from the 30 spot is past that limit.

And knowing our staff and the utilisation of receivers, I don't know that we can say for sure that we'd be a better team with Watkins. For a player to make a positive impact, he has to play.


Rudy, I've been arguing the principle of trading picks in exchange for fewer, higher picks. It's a principle I would employ if I was a really good team with a really good roster, but not one I would employ if I was in re-building mode. And it doesn't matter whether the trades are bundling 6ths for 5ths or 2nds for 1sts. It's the same principle. At no point have I once commented on this specifc trade. Not every post in a thread is a direct response to the first post in a thread. In my case I was responding to one of the replies that was implying we were there already and didn't need guys to put us over the top. But just for you I will comment on this specific trade.

First, I fully understand the trade points chart is only a guideline, not a definitve proof of the value of some trade. Yet it offers at least a starting point to evaluate a potential trade. So our 30th (620), plus our 56th (340) plus our 61st (292) equals 1252. The problem is that the future is unspecified. To be generous let's suppose it's next year's low 2nd. Then there's a further problem which is that future picks are always discounted. So I'm just going to add in the points for a low third (124). That brings us to 1376. OK. Then I just went to a site that shows the consensus rating of 7 different guys including Mayock. McShay Bucky Brooks, CBSSports and guys like. They list the consensus for Watkins as the third best player in the draft so that's 2200 points. As I said, I know the draft point chart is just an approximation, but that approximation shows that we would be getting incredible value for that kind of trade.

How realistic is that though? Well, there have been two trades for top WRs in the past decade that I can recall. Atlanta gave up several picks for Julio who was taken 6th and the Jaguars gave up a couple of picks for Backmon who was taken 5th. The Atlanta pick total was roughly the same as what's being proposed here, and the Jags gave up about 1600 points of value. So that should be some kind of verification that actual NFL personnel, not we mock drafters here, actually value a top WR that highly. And that doesn't account for the fact that Watkins might well go higher than either Julio or Blackmon. So I would suggest that this is not some crazy, ridiculous notion that is not even worth considering. It is supported both by the points chart, and by the actions a real NFL teams making real NFL deals.

So while you and some others seem to be saying it would be a horrible trade and there is much better value in having all those picks instead of the top 5 pick, it's not really clear at all. Only CJ, AJ and Blackmon in the past 10 years are WR taken in the top 5. Add in Julio at the 6th spot. Do those not look like difference makers to you? Would we not be a better team if we had any of those guys here? I don't know if we, or other NFL teams, have Watkins rated that high. If we do it means that we think he's in the same range of capability as CJ and Green and Julio and Blackmon. And if we think he's that good then I would be happy to trade those picks for him.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nicfre2011


Joined: 15 Mar 2011
Posts: 6576
Location: SC
PostPosted: Mon Mar 03, 2014 4:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What about a trade up into the higher 20's and grab Brandin Cooks? I think he could be an excellent pick for your offense.

You wouldn't be giving up a boatload of picks to move up into the top 10, but getting a player that while not on the same level as Watkins, is very explosive in his own right.
_________________


Thanks to ryknowssd for the sig!

Trent Baalke for 2013 NFL executive of the year.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
J-ALL-DAY


Joined: 17 Oct 2007
Posts: 27751
PostPosted: Mon Mar 03, 2014 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nicfre2011 wrote:
What about a trade up into the higher 20's and grab Brandin Cooks? I think he could be an excellent pick for your offense.

You wouldn't be giving up a boatload of picks to move up into the top 10, but getting a player that while not on the same level as Watkins, is very explosive in his own right.


Certainly possible, especially with us needing a deep threat. However, at this point we have no glaring needs as long as Whitner is re-signed as well.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SoCalNiner


Moderator
Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 23105
PostPosted: Mon Mar 03, 2014 6:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

J-ALL-DAY wrote:
nicfre2011 wrote:
What about a trade up into the higher 20's and grab Brandin Cooks? I think he could be an excellent pick for your offense.

You wouldn't be giving up a boatload of picks to move up into the top 10, but getting a player that while not on the same level as Watkins, is very explosive in his own right.


Certainly possible, especially with us needing a deep threat. However, at this point we have no glaring needs as long as Whitner is re-signed as well.


With Boldin's return, I'd love Cooks or Beckham Jr. to round out our offense.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
J-ALL-DAY


Joined: 17 Oct 2007
Posts: 27751
PostPosted: Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

We could now literally go with anyone at WR. I'd want someone who could get deep, and that player doesn't necessarily have to be a pure speedster. Davante Adams is a deep threat, but obviously didn't run a 4.4 40.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AMG1713


Joined: 05 Mar 2013
Posts: 689
PostPosted: Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SoCalNiner wrote:
J-ALL-DAY wrote:
nicfre2011 wrote:
What about a trade up into the higher 20's and grab Brandin Cooks? I think he could be an excellent pick for your offense.

You wouldn't be giving up a boatload of picks to move up into the top 10, but getting a player that while not on the same level as Watkins, is very explosive in his own right.


Certainly possible, especially with us needing a deep threat. However, at this point we have no glaring needs as long as Whitner is re-signed as well.


With Boldin's return, I'd love Cooks or Beckham Jr. to round out our offense.


Give me Beckham over Cooks every day of the week, twice on Sunday. Cooks is starting to get Tavon Austin type overhype. Peter King was saying he's pretty much a lock to go to the Jets at 18. I wouldn't touch him until our 2nd rounders, much less trade up to take him. I'd trade up to take Beckham though, because I think that's a guy who the Panthers might end up targeting, too.
_________________
BoosterRooster22 wrote:
I'd bet my house that JaMarcus Russell has a successful career
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nicfre2011


Joined: 15 Mar 2011
Posts: 6576
Location: SC
PostPosted: Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AMG1713 wrote:
SoCalNiner wrote:
J-ALL-DAY wrote:
nicfre2011 wrote:
What about a trade up into the higher 20's and grab Brandin Cooks? I think he could be an excellent pick for your offense.

You wouldn't be giving up a boatload of picks to move up into the top 10, but getting a player that while not on the same level as Watkins, is very explosive in his own right.


Certainly possible, especially with us needing a deep threat. However, at this point we have no glaring needs as long as Whitner is re-signed as well.


With Boldin's return, I'd love Cooks or Beckham Jr. to round out our offense.


Give me Beckham over Cooks every day of the week, twice on Sunday. Cooks is starting to get Tavon Austin type overhype. Peter King was saying he's pretty much a lock to go to the Jets at 18. I wouldn't touch him until our 2nd rounders, much less trade up to take him. I'd trade up to take Beckham though, because I think that's a guy who the Panthers might end up targeting, too.


Beckham Jr. is my favorite pick for the Chiefs.
_________________


Thanks to ryknowssd for the sig!

Trent Baalke for 2013 NFL executive of the year.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rudyZ


Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 13378
Location: Québec
PostPosted: Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nicfre2011 wrote:
AMG1713 wrote:
SoCalNiner wrote:
J-ALL-DAY wrote:
nicfre2011 wrote:
What about a trade up into the higher 20's and grab Brandin Cooks? I think he could be an excellent pick for your offense.

You wouldn't be giving up a boatload of picks to move up into the top 10, but getting a player that while not on the same level as Watkins, is very explosive in his own right.


Certainly possible, especially with us needing a deep threat. However, at this point we have no glaring needs as long as Whitner is re-signed as well.


With Boldin's return, I'd love Cooks or Beckham Jr. to round out our offense.


Give me Beckham over Cooks every day of the week, twice on Sunday. Cooks is starting to get Tavon Austin type overhype. Peter King was saying he's pretty much a lock to go to the Jets at 18. I wouldn't touch him until our 2nd rounders, much less trade up to take him. I'd trade up to take Beckham though, because I think that's a guy who the Panthers might end up targeting, too.


Beckham Jr. is my favorite pick for the Chiefs.



Don't waste your picks, Alex is just a game manager! Wink
_________________


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
nicfre2011


Joined: 15 Mar 2011
Posts: 6576
Location: SC
PostPosted: Mon Mar 03, 2014 9:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rudyZ wrote:
nicfre2011 wrote:
AMG1713 wrote:
SoCalNiner wrote:
J-ALL-DAY wrote:
nicfre2011 wrote:
What about a trade up into the higher 20's and grab Brandin Cooks? I think he could be an excellent pick for your offense.

You wouldn't be giving up a boatload of picks to move up into the top 10, but getting a player that while not on the same level as Watkins, is very explosive in his own right.


Certainly possible, especially with us needing a deep threat. However, at this point we have no glaring needs as long as Whitner is re-signed as well.


With Boldin's return, I'd love Cooks or Beckham Jr. to round out our offense.


Give me Beckham over Cooks every day of the week, twice on Sunday. Cooks is starting to get Tavon Austin type overhype. Peter King was saying he's pretty much a lock to go to the Jets at 18. I wouldn't touch him until our 2nd rounders, much less trade up to take him. I'd trade up to take Beckham though, because I think that's a guy who the Panthers might end up targeting, too.


Beckham Jr. is my favorite pick for the Chiefs.



Don't waste your picks, Alex is just a game manager! Wink


That's right, I am hoping he can manage to get the ball to Beckham!

Enjoy it now while you can before the $18,000,000 genie is let out of the bottle!

Wink

Just messin' with ya.
_________________


Thanks to ryknowssd for the sig!

Trent Baalke for 2013 NFL executive of the year.
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
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 
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