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

2017 Draft Thread: Senior Bowl
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 98, 99, 100  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
big9erfan


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 19458
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 5:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Forge wrote:
big9erfan wrote:
Forge wrote:
big9erfan wrote:
Forge wrote:
Anyone watch any Jerome Lane? Really like him as a late round sleeper with upside at receiver. 6'3", 220. Only been playing wide receiver the last 3 years (originally started school as a linebacker), but I really think that there's a lot to like. Obviously, being new to the position, there's a ton of rawness and things that need to be improved, and he's not going to light a fire at the combine with his speed but if he's in the mid 4.5's, I like what a team could get in 2-3 years by taking him.

Also looking at Javancy Jones. Looked good at the shrine game...wondering if he could slide into an ILB role at the next level. With the mid to late rounds of inside linebackers being pretty sparse, looking for some out of the box type thinking. He's got good size to play the position at 240+.


How about Jamal Adams as a new age LB? He's one of the hardest hitters I watched all year. Can obviously run sideline to sideline and cover receivers too. Too good at S, or too small for LB? OK, how about Obi Melifonwu? I don't know anything about him except that he's a decently rated SS and at 6'3" and 220 does have the size to be a modern age LB.


Adams has too much potential at safety in my opinion. I'd hate to convert and project a guy that I already see as a pretty solid upside play at safety with a good floor.

Obi...I don't know. May be too soft to play linebacker. He's not afraid of contact, but he seldom initiates the contact and drives in. He's not a guy that's going to stand up someone, which is something I think you definitely need at the ILB spot.


I know, but you asked for out of the box. I even looked at guys listed as OLB or "small" DEs. I didn't really see anyone that stood out to me.


Yeah, the undersized OLB/DE is where I got Jones from. That's what he played at Jackson, I believe. This interior linebacker class is just not great unfortunately. Not a lot of potential projects either. I know some people like Riley, but I still see him as more of a 4-3 olb. This is one of the reasons that Foster is really intriguing in the first. I think if we don't go that route, may be better just to bandaid the position through free agency.


I wonder how much we'll know about Bowman before the draft rolls around. I'm not really expecting him to make a full recovery this time, at least not this year. But if it just so happened that he is recovering well and looks like he'll be back this season then I could settle for a journeyman FA, a longer term FA who we hope to play for us for a few years, or even just take a stab at someone lower in the draft and then try to fill that spot next year. I want an ILB as much as most here, but we need so much I'm OK taking the best guy available at any of the many positions we need to fill.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
big9erfan


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 19458
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 5:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Forge wrote:
rudyZ wrote:
I absolutely hate the discrepancy between Trubisky's rankings and his projections in mock drafts. Jeremiah has him as his 31st ranked prospect, yet still mocks him to us. I know QBs are more important, and I know they take the QB-bias into consideration when doing these mock drafts, but I still hate that. If we were talking 10 spots, okay, I get it. But we're talking about a borderline first round talent, in a vacuum, being drafted at #2. That thought just horrifies me. And I feel he's being generous with 31. I feel like mocking us Trubisky is really just a lazy intellectual exercise. We don't have a QB, therefore we must draft a QB. Nevermind that it couldn't really have been a front office source, since we practically didn't have a front office, when these guys started doing mocks. So I really won't buy any "we like Trubisky at 2" until at least after the pro days. Until then, I call BS on all these mocks.


Yep. So far, from what I can tell, Kiper is the highest on Trubisky (and he seems to really, really like him). I think he had him at 16. McShay had him at between 28-31, I think, and a second round grade on him overall.

I just feel like this is how bad teams stay bad; by making moves like this. Now, there's also no way to know, given we haven't had a staff (and technically still don't), which quarterback we like. I think it's just that Trubisky seems to be the consensus number one quarterback now.


Kiper's the guy I probably respect the least. So his high rating doesn't impress me any.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
big9erfan


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 19458
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 5:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rudyZ wrote:
big9erfan wrote:
rudyZ wrote:
I absolutely hate the discrepancy between Trubisky's rankings and his projections in mock drafts. Jeremiah has him as his 31st ranked prospect, yet still mocks him to us. I know QBs are more important, and I know they take the QB-bias into consideration when doing these mock drafts, but I still hate that. If we were talking 10 spots, okay, I get it. But we're talking about a borderline first round talent, in a vacuum, being drafted at #2. That thought just horrifies me. And I feel he's being generous with 31. I feel like mocking us Trubisky is really just a lazy intellectual exercise. We don't have a QB, therefore we must draft a QB. Nevermind that it couldn't really have been a front office source, since we practically didn't have a front office, when these guys started doing mocks. So I really won't buy any "we like Trubisky at 2" until at least after the pro days. Until then, I call BS on all these mocks.


It's easier if you stop thinking about is a "QB-bias" and just accept that "positional value" is a real thing and that QBs have the highest positional value of any position - and by a whole lot. Centers and guards don't often go in the first round. It's not because there aren't any good ones out there. It's because the positional value of a C or G is just so much lower than other positions that the 3rd or 4th best OT or WR is often valued higher than the best C or G.



You haven't really made a point there. Do you really want the 31st ranked prospect at 2 just because he's a QB? If a QB only gets ranked 31st, what does that say about his ceiling and his chances to reach it? Really worth investing a #2 pick in him? If a QB has a higher ceiling than Trubisky, he gets drafted at 15. If he has a higher chance of reaching it, he's drafted at 1. He's ranked 31st for a reason: not a high enough ceiling, and a lower chance of reaching it. Is that a guy you really want to draft at #2? It has nothing to do with positional value. I'm willing to reach for a QB. Ideally, on a QB with a really high ceiling. Gun to my head, I reach for Wentz last year, but not Goff. Certainly not on Trubisky this year.


Funny, because I think I made the most important point - one you keep ignoring. Are you saying positional value doesn't matter? If so then why do we never see a center or guard going top 5? Why did we see four OTs and 3 CBs taken last year before the first center (and he was taken really high for a center). Why were three WRs and three CBs taken ahead of the first center the year before that? Why were there only a total of two centers taken in the first round in the past three drafts? Or only a total of three guards. Again, it's not because there are no good guards or centers, it's because of positional value. Iif somehow you don't think the QB is the most important guy on the team, and therefore has the most positional value, then you might well be the only football fan in the world that holds that position. If you acknowledge he is but don't think things like that should factor into deciding who to pick then I assume you'd be good with using a number 2 pick on a C or G if that guy happened to be the most talented guy in the draft, right? What if there was some kicker in college who everyone agreed was the best kicker in a decade, a once in a lifetime kicker. Want to use the number 2 pick on him?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
big9erfan


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 19458
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 6:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Forge wrote:
big9erfan wrote:
rudyZ wrote:
I absolutely hate the discrepancy between Trubisky's rankings and his projections in mock drafts. Jeremiah has him as his 31st ranked prospect, yet still mocks him to us. I know QBs are more important, and I know they take the QB-bias into consideration when doing these mock drafts, but I still hate that. If we were talking 10 spots, okay, I get it. But we're talking about a borderline first round talent, in a vacuum, being drafted at #2. That thought just horrifies me. And I feel he's being generous with 31. I feel like mocking us Trubisky is really just a lazy intellectual exercise. We don't have a QB, therefore we must draft a QB. Nevermind that it couldn't really have been a front office source, since we practically didn't have a front office, when these guys started doing mocks. So I really won't buy any "we like Trubisky at 2" until at least after the pro days. Until then, I call BS on all these mocks.


It's easier if you stop thinking about is a "QB-bias" and just accept that "positional value" is a real thing and that QBs have the highest positional value of any position - and by a whole lot. Centers and guards don't often go in the first round. It's not because there aren't any good ones out there. It's because the positional value of a C or G is just so much lower than other positions that the 3rd or 4th best OT or WR is often valued higher than the best C or G.


Wish we still had access to big boards to see how quarterbacks were ranked by most, to see if ones that have been "reached" on in the first round have ever been a success, because when I look around, the good ones I see were either not first rounders, or were first rounders who were graded out as such. Unfortunately, Kiper and Mcshay's big boards are usually caught behind the espn insider wall. I know you can get Mayocks if you google search it. I would assume the same for Jeremiah.

But when I think of quarterbacks not graded out as first rounders, but taken in the first round, I don't see a ton of success. Guys like EJ Manuel, Brandon Weeden, etc etc. I get positional value, but only to an extent. That's why I have a hard time going with one of the wide receivers or Foster at #2...but if they're also grading out as one of the best players int he draft, I really don't have an issue with it.

Like I said, taking lesser talent, regardless of of the position, is how bad teams stay bad. I get it if it's close....if I thought Trubisky were a top 15 player in the draft, I could certainly see the case for him at #2 based on the positional value. But I don't put that much emphasis on the value. For me, Trubisky isn't in the top 50...so that makes it especially hard.


You know enough about my slant on things to know that I'd love to see that kind of stuff too. It would give us incredible insight into how teams actually manage the draft. For one thing, there is an incredible match between teams needs and who they pick high. But I'd love to see their big boards to see how much influence their needs played into how they ranked guys.

In any case I want to be clear that I'm not overly high on Trubisky. I don't think he's bad at all, and I do think he has a chance to be a good NFL QB. Just not as high a chance as other guys that have gone top two in prior years. I'd be happy if we took him only because I trust our management's evaluation more than my own. I'm really just trying to account for how/why QBs get taken higher than they rank in a top down list of guys by talent. You said you'd go down to around 15 in your list. Maybe some teams would go lower? I don't know since we don't see their big boards or rankings by talent level.

It would be an interesting exercise for you to go back over your own personal QB rankings over the past few years and see how many of them were still available at the spot you had them ranked. I'd be curious. I suspect many if not most will have been long gone before that pick rolls around, which begs the question of how you would plan to get a good QB on the team if you were a GM. We all want to be picking first in a year in which there's an Andrew Luck coming out. But guys like that are rare and only one team is picking first in that year. And if the QB is that good chances are the team will take him (they're not likely picking first if they already have a stud QB) rather than trade him. Unless you're really, really lucky, i.e. really really bad in a year in which there is a prospect that is really, really good, you're stuck looking at the next level of talent like Wentz, and Goff, and Trubisky. If you consistently rate gus like Wentz and Goff as low first rounders or second rounders but they go 1/2, and you rate a guy like Trubisky not in the top 50 but he goes in the first, then you're driven down to an even lower level of talent. QB doesn't seem like the kind of position you want to be bottom-feeding.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Forge


Joined: 19 Feb 2010
Posts: 17993
Location: Las Vegas
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 6:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

big9erfan wrote:
rudyZ wrote:
big9erfan wrote:
rudyZ wrote:
I absolutely hate the discrepancy between Trubisky's rankings and his projections in mock drafts. Jeremiah has him as his 31st ranked prospect, yet still mocks him to us. I know QBs are more important, and I know they take the QB-bias into consideration when doing these mock drafts, but I still hate that. If we were talking 10 spots, okay, I get it. But we're talking about a borderline first round talent, in a vacuum, being drafted at #2. That thought just horrifies me. And I feel he's being generous with 31. I feel like mocking us Trubisky is really just a lazy intellectual exercise. We don't have a QB, therefore we must draft a QB. Nevermind that it couldn't really have been a front office source, since we practically didn't have a front office, when these guys started doing mocks. So I really won't buy any "we like Trubisky at 2" until at least after the pro days. Until then, I call BS on all these mocks.


It's easier if you stop thinking about is a "QB-bias" and just accept that "positional value" is a real thing and that QBs have the highest positional value of any position - and by a whole lot. Centers and guards don't often go in the first round. It's not because there aren't any good ones out there. It's because the positional value of a C or G is just so much lower than other positions that the 3rd or 4th best OT or WR is often valued higher than the best C or G.



You haven't really made a point there. Do you really want the 31st ranked prospect at 2 just because he's a QB? If a QB only gets ranked 31st, what does that say about his ceiling and his chances to reach it? Really worth investing a #2 pick in him? If a QB has a higher ceiling than Trubisky, he gets drafted at 15. If he has a higher chance of reaching it, he's drafted at 1. He's ranked 31st for a reason: not a high enough ceiling, and a lower chance of reaching it. Is that a guy you really want to draft at #2? It has nothing to do with positional value. I'm willing to reach for a QB. Ideally, on a QB with a really high ceiling. Gun to my head, I reach for Wentz last year, but not Goff. Certainly not on Trubisky this year.


Funny, because I think I made the most important point - one you keep ignoring. Are you saying positional value doesn't matter? If so then why do we never see a center or guard going top 5? Why did we see four OTs and 3 CBs taken last year before the first center (and he was taken really high for a center). Why were three WRs and three CBs taken ahead of the first center the year before that? Why were there only a total of two centers taken in the first round in the past three drafts? Or only a total of three guards. Again, it's not because there are no good guards or centers, it's because of positional value. Iif somehow you don't think the QB is the most important guy on the team, and therefore has the most positional value, then you might well be the only football fan in the world that holds that position. If you acknowledge he is but don't think things like that should factor into deciding who to pick then I assume you'd be good with using a number 2 pick on a C or G if that guy happened to be the most talented guy in the draft, right? What if there was some kicker in college who everyone agreed was the best kicker in a decade, a once in a lifetime kicker. Want to use the number 2 pick on him?


This is the fighting point I think. How much should it matter? Especially for a quarterback. Should you be drafting a quarterback a full round or 2 earlier than their talent level dictates? For me, absolutely not. That's how EJ Manuel and Christian Ponder are first round picks - and I can't remember anyone viewing them as first round talents leading into the draft. I think when you're looking at that big of a reach, it's better to let someone else fall ont hat grenade. You have to be willing to say, okay, he's a quarterback..I'd feel comfortable taking him in the second round but not the first, and if he's gone by my second pick, I'm okay with that.

It's a triage approach to positions. Yes, I'd take push a guard or center down my board if there was someone similar in grade like a pass rusher that I needed as well. They'd have to be very similar in grade and the pass rusher's grade can't get pushed up just because he's a pass rusher. That is the important part of this.

But if the center was clearly the better player? I have no issues taking Nick Mangold in the first round - he was one of the best prospects in that draft. I don't regret the Iupati pick either.
_________________


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: 19458
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 6:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

y2lamanaki wrote:
Forge wrote:
rudyZ wrote:
I absolutely hate the discrepancy between Trubisky's rankings and his projections in mock drafts. Jeremiah has him as his 31st ranked prospect, yet still mocks him to us. I know QBs are more important, and I know they take the QB-bias into consideration when doing these mock drafts, but I still hate that. If we were talking 10 spots, okay, I get it. But we're talking about a borderline first round talent, in a vacuum, being drafted at #2. That thought just horrifies me. And I feel he's being generous with 31. I feel like mocking us Trubisky is really just a lazy intellectual exercise. We don't have a QB, therefore we must draft a QB. Nevermind that it couldn't really have been a front office source, since we practically didn't have a front office, when these guys started doing mocks. So I really won't buy any "we like Trubisky at 2" until at least after the pro days. Until then, I call BS on all these mocks.


Yep. So far, from what I can tell, Kiper is the highest on Trubisky (and he seems to really, really like him). I think he had him at 16. McShay had him at between 28-31, I think, and a second round grade on him overall.

I just feel like this is how bad teams stay bad; by making moves like this. Now, there's also no way to know, given we haven't had a staff (and technically still don't), which quarterback we like. I think it's just that Trubisky seems to be the consensus number one quarterback now.


I have a pretty good feeling our QB situation is going to be handled one way or another before the draft, with only a developmental guy selected in the 3rd or later. Just a gut feeling, and nothing more.


I think so too just because I doubt he wants to commit to any rookie unless that guy is perceived to be a stud, and there aren't any of those this year. Besides with no QBs on the roster he has to bring in someone, maybe even two. I'd be surprised if we don't take a shot at someone ccoming out too though just because a shot at a QB on a team like ours is worth it. Mahomes in the second, Webb in the third, even Kelly in the 4th - injury and all. Those spots are all higher than a lot of people here feel comfortable with. But I think they have to take someone with some potential and there just aren't that many of those guys coming out this year.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Forge


Joined: 19 Feb 2010
Posts: 17993
Location: Las Vegas
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 6:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

big9erfan wrote:
Forge wrote:
big9erfan wrote:
rudyZ wrote:
I absolutely hate the discrepancy between Trubisky's rankings and his projections in mock drafts. Jeremiah has him as his 31st ranked prospect, yet still mocks him to us. I know QBs are more important, and I know they take the QB-bias into consideration when doing these mock drafts, but I still hate that. If we were talking 10 spots, okay, I get it. But we're talking about a borderline first round talent, in a vacuum, being drafted at #2. That thought just horrifies me. And I feel he's being generous with 31. I feel like mocking us Trubisky is really just a lazy intellectual exercise. We don't have a QB, therefore we must draft a QB. Nevermind that it couldn't really have been a front office source, since we practically didn't have a front office, when these guys started doing mocks. So I really won't buy any "we like Trubisky at 2" until at least after the pro days. Until then, I call BS on all these mocks.


It's easier if you stop thinking about is a "QB-bias" and just accept that "positional value" is a real thing and that QBs have the highest positional value of any position - and by a whole lot. Centers and guards don't often go in the first round. It's not because there aren't any good ones out there. It's because the positional value of a C or G is just so much lower than other positions that the 3rd or 4th best OT or WR is often valued higher than the best C or G.


Wish we still had access to big boards to see how quarterbacks were ranked by most, to see if ones that have been "reached" on in the first round have ever been a success, because when I look around, the good ones I see were either not first rounders, or were first rounders who were graded out as such. Unfortunately, Kiper and Mcshay's big boards are usually caught behind the espn insider wall. I know you can get Mayocks if you google search it. I would assume the same for Jeremiah.

But when I think of quarterbacks not graded out as first rounders, but taken in the first round, I don't see a ton of success. Guys like EJ Manuel, Brandon Weeden, etc etc. I get positional value, but only to an extent. That's why I have a hard time going with one of the wide receivers or Foster at #2...but if they're also grading out as one of the best players int he draft, I really don't have an issue with it.

Like I said, taking lesser talent, regardless of of the position, is how bad teams stay bad. I get it if it's close....if I thought Trubisky were a top 15 player in the draft, I could certainly see the case for him at #2 based on the positional value. But I don't put that much emphasis on the value. For me, Trubisky isn't in the top 50...so that makes it especially hard.


You know enough about my slant on things to know that I'd love to see that kind of stuff too. It would give us incredible insight into how teams actually manage the draft. For one thing, there is an incredible match between teams needs and who they pick high. But I'd love to see their big boards to see how much influence their needs played into how they ranked guys.

In any case I want to be clear that I'm not overly high on Trubisky. I don't think he's bad at all, and I do think he has a chance to be a good NFL QB. Just not as high a chance as other guys that have gone top two in prior years. I'd be happy if we took him only because I trust our management's evaluation more than my own. I'm really just trying to account for how/why QBs get taken higher than they rank in a top down list of guys by talent. You said you'd go down to around 15 in your list. Maybe some teams would go lower? I don't know since we don't see their big boards or rankings by talent level.

It would be an interesting exercise for you to go back over your own personal QB rankings over the past few years and see how many of them were still available at the spot you had them ranked. I'd be curious. I suspect many if not most will have been long gone before that pick rolls around, which begs the question of how you would plan to get a good QB on the team if you were a GM. We all want to be picking first in a year in which there's an Andrew Luck coming out. But guys like that are rare and only one team is picking first in that year. And if the QB is that good chances are the team will take him (they're not likely picking first if they already have a stud QB) rather than trade him. Unless you're really, really lucky, i.e. really really bad in a year in which there is a prospect that is really, really good, you're stuck looking at the next level of talent like Wentz, and Goff, and Trubisky. If you consistently rate gus like Wentz and Goff as low first rounders or second rounders but they go 1/2, and you rate a guy like Trubisky not in the top 50 but he goes in the first, then you're driven down to an even lower level of talent. QB doesn't seem like the kind of position you want to be bottom-feeding.


I can tell you now, you'd be right. Some of the ones that were though would be the better quarterbacks. Of course, that's because a lot of them fell. I mean, I didn't think that Cousins would be as good as he is, but I liked him as a mid round type which is where he went. It's hard to really crack down on some of them though, because take someone like Jimmy G. I had a third round grade on him - he went with what, the second to last pick of the second round or whatever? I completely understand that. I would chalk that up as a yes to being available where I had him slotted because that pick makes sense for the Pats at that spot. Like, if we were drafting at the end of the second, and took Jimmy G when I had a third round grade on him, Im okay with that because what's the difference between picking him at #1 in the third round or #32 in the second. So I don't want to get bogged down in the minutiae if that makes sense.

Derek Carr and Teddy B were. They were basically 1b/a for me their draft year. Luck, Winston I had #1 overall grades on and that's where they went. Russell Wilson was close...I had a 4 on him. Jake Locker was (I did have a first round grade on him for tools). Ponder wasn't (2nd round). Gabbert was....shameful to admit that I had a first on him (he was the start of my war on spread offense quarterbacks). Jimmy Clausen was. Geno Smith was (2nd), EJ wasn't (4th). Bortles wasn't (2nd). Manziel wasn't (3rd). Weeden and Petty weren't (both were nearly undraftable for me - Weeden broke two of my rules of older prospect and big xii quarterback, Petty broke the latter in a spread offense).

Overall, lets see:

2016- out of the ones drafted, Cook and Cardale in round 4 (and I hated Cook). Hackenburg went 3 rounds earlier than I had him rated. Paxton was a third in my eyes. Sudfeld through Doughty were all about right as late round or udfa guys

2015 - Jameis yes, MM no. Grayson, yes (3rd, though that's not working out). Mannion and Petty no, but Hundley yes (I don't recalle ever watching Siemian)

2014 - this was probably the best for this. CArr and Teddy yes, Manziel and Bortles no. Jimmy G I say yes. Murray, AJ, Mettenberger were all yes'. Logan Thomas, Tom Savage, Fales were nos.

2013 - EJ no, Geno yes. Mike Glennon no. Barkley, Nassib and Wilson were all yes, Landry Jones no.

Looking at this, it's easy to see one thing - most of the ones who were there at my grades at the time they were picked were later round picks. There's a reason for this too - I think that the college game is producing fewer and fewer good quarterbacks for the NFL. Yes, I've missed on some guys that panned out (Mariota for one. I didn't have a #1 overall on Cam, more mid first ronder and thought Kaep was the better value), but really, look at the overall quality of quarterbacks who have come through the league during this time period. I don't see a whole lot of great quarterbacks here...so while my grading is harsh, I Don't know that it's necessarily wrong, if that makes sense.
_________________


A small stone may only make a small ripple at first, but someday it will be a wave.


Last edited by Forge on Mon Feb 06, 2017 7:02 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
big9erfan


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 19458
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 6:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Forge wrote:
big9erfan wrote:
rudyZ wrote:
big9erfan wrote:
rudyZ wrote:
I absolutely hate the discrepancy between Trubisky's rankings and his projections in mock drafts. Jeremiah has him as his 31st ranked prospect, yet still mocks him to us. I know QBs are more important, and I know they take the QB-bias into consideration when doing these mock drafts, but I still hate that. If we were talking 10 spots, okay, I get it. But we're talking about a borderline first round talent, in a vacuum, being drafted at #2. That thought just horrifies me. And I feel he's being generous with 31. I feel like mocking us Trubisky is really just a lazy intellectual exercise. We don't have a QB, therefore we must draft a QB. Nevermind that it couldn't really have been a front office source, since we practically didn't have a front office, when these guys started doing mocks. So I really won't buy any "we like Trubisky at 2" until at least after the pro days. Until then, I call BS on all these mocks.


It's easier if you stop thinking about is a "QB-bias" and just accept that "positional value" is a real thing and that QBs have the highest positional value of any position - and by a whole lot. Centers and guards don't often go in the first round. It's not because there aren't any good ones out there. It's because the positional value of a C or G is just so much lower than other positions that the 3rd or 4th best OT or WR is often valued higher than the best C or G.



You haven't really made a point there. Do you really want the 31st ranked prospect at 2 just because he's a QB? If a QB only gets ranked 31st, what does that say about his ceiling and his chances to reach it? Really worth investing a #2 pick in him? If a QB has a higher ceiling than Trubisky, he gets drafted at 15. If he has a higher chance of reaching it, he's drafted at 1. He's ranked 31st for a reason: not a high enough ceiling, and a lower chance of reaching it. Is that a guy you really want to draft at #2? It has nothing to do with positional value. I'm willing to reach for a QB. Ideally, on a QB with a really high ceiling. Gun to my head, I reach for Wentz last year, but not Goff. Certainly not on Trubisky this year.


Funny, because I think I made the most important point - one you keep ignoring. Are you saying positional value doesn't matter? If so then why do we never see a center or guard going top 5? Why did we see four OTs and 3 CBs taken last year before the first center (and he was taken really high for a center). Why were three WRs and three CBs taken ahead of the first center the year before that? Why were there only a total of two centers taken in the first round in the past three drafts? Or only a total of three guards. Again, it's not because there are no good guards or centers, it's because of positional value. Iif somehow you don't think the QB is the most important guy on the team, and therefore has the most positional value, then you might well be the only football fan in the world that holds that position. If you acknowledge he is but don't think things like that should factor into deciding who to pick then I assume you'd be good with using a number 2 pick on a C or G if that guy happened to be the most talented guy in the draft, right? What if there was some kicker in college who everyone agreed was the best kicker in a decade, a once in a lifetime kicker. Want to use the number 2 pick on him?


This is the fighting point I think. How much should it matter? Especially for a quarterback. Should you be drafting a quarterback a full round or 2 earlier than their talent level dictates? For me, absolutely not. That's how EJ Manuel and Christian Ponder are first round picks - and I can't remember anyone viewing them as first round talents leading into the draft. I think when you're looking at that big of a reach, it's better to let someone else fall ont hat grenade. You have to be willing to say, okay, he's a quarterback..I'd feel comfortable taking him in the second round but not the first, and if he's gone by my second pick, I'm okay with that.

It's a triage approach to positions. Yes, I'd take push a guard or center down my board if there was someone similar in grade like a pass rusher that I needed as well. They'd have to be very similar in grade and the pass rusher's grade can't get pushed up just because he's a pass rusher. That is the important part of this.

But if the center was clearly the better player? I have no issues taking Nick Mangold in the first round - he was one of the best prospects in that draft. I don't regret the Iupati pick either.


I love finding common ground. That seems to be so rare these days - I mean in general not here. So it appears we're agreeing in principle and just discussing the details.

So one little detail is this. You are saying you would take something like an OT over a G if you had them rated equally. But that quite clearly is not what teams do - it does not sufficiently address the difference in positional value. The reason it's evident is simply in the number of OTs taken relative to Gs. In the past three years only 3 guards were drafted in the first round (and I'd like to discount one of the picks since it was made by an idiot GM -Baalke). There were 14 OTs taken in the first those same three years. There were 15 WRs. There were 13 CBs taken. Obviously teams are taking the third, fourth and even 5th best OT or WR or CB before the first or second best G.To me it seems quite clear that teams do not need for two guys to be rated equally for them to take the more valuable position. They will reach deeper into the pool of guys for the more valuable position. Once we accept that then the question, open question of course, is how much deeper do they, or should they, reach into the QB pool compared to other positions.

The only other thing I want to mention to keep in mind is that people are forever mentioning the QBs that appear to have been taken too early because they didn't succeed. You mentioned Ponder and Manuel. But drafting is fallible. I'll find you a nice list of guys taken very high at any position you want that also failed. It's just that people remember QB picks more, and somehow expect teams to be better at picking QBs than other positions. Manuel was a flop at 16 - agreed. You remember who was picked first and second overall that year? Eric Fisher and Luke Joeckel. Number 3? Dion Jordan. The teams using the first three picks on position players failed just as badly as Buffalo did with Manuel.

The point to all this is that you could just as easily fail when drafting any other position. It's not like the pick comes down to taking a chance on a QB who you're not sure will be a pro bowler vs any other position where you are sure. You're not sure about any pick. Ponder was a reach and a flop at 12- agreed. But Locker and Gabbert went about where they were rated and neither is much if any better than Ponder. The point is that people tend to point to individual QB picks that didn't work out as evidence that you shouldn't "reach" for a QB. But they don't put that in the context of a draft process that leads to a whole lot of failures at every position. They might have been just as likely to fail selecting any other position as that QB. It's just that we remember those QB picks so much because QBs are just that much more important that we track them more.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Forge


Joined: 19 Feb 2010
Posts: 17993
Location: Las Vegas
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 7:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

big9erfan wrote:


I love finding common ground. That seems to be so rare these days - I mean in general not here. So it appears we're agreeing in principle and just discussing the details.

So one little detail is this. You are saying you would take something like an OT over a G if you had them rated equally. But that quite clearly is not what teams do - it does not sufficiently address the difference in positional value. The reason it's evident is simply in the number of OTs taken relative to Gs. In the past three years only 3 guards were drafted in the first round (and I'd like to discount one of the picks since it was made by an idiot GM -Baalke). There were 14 OTs taken in the first those same three years. There were 15 WRs. There were 13 CBs taken. Obviously teams are taking the third, fourth and even 5th best OT or WR or CB before the first or second best G.To me it seems quite clear that teams do not need for two guys to be rated equally for them to take the more valuable position. They will reach deeper into the pool of guys for the more valuable position. Once we accept that then the question, open question of course, is how much deeper do they, or should they, reach into the QB pool compared to other positions.

The only other thing I want to mention to keep in mind is that people are forever mentioning the QBs that appear to have been taken too early because they didn't succeed. You mentioned Ponder and Manuel. But drafting is fallible. I'll find you a nice list of guys taken very high at any position you want that also failed. It's just that people remember QB picks more, and somehow expect teams to be better at picking QBs than other positions. Manuel was a flop at 16 - agreed. You remember who was picked first and second overall that year? Eric Fisher and Luke Joeckel. Number 3? Dion Jordan. The teams using the first three picks on position players failed just as badly as Buffalo did with Manuel.

The point to all this is that you could just as easily fail when drafting any other position. It's not like the pick comes down to taking a chance on a QB who you're not sure will be a pro bowler vs any other position where you are sure. You're not sure about any pick. Ponder was a reach and a flop at 12- agreed. But Locker and Gabbert went about where they were rated and neither is much if any better than Ponder. The point is that people tend to point to individual QB picks that didn't work out as evidence that you shouldn't "reach" for a QB. But they don't put that in the context of a draft process that leads to a whole lot of failures at every position. They might have been just as likely to fail selecting any other position as that QB. It's just that we remember those QB picks so much because QBs are just that much more important that we track them more.


I will say to your first point, I'd agree that teams put an some serious emphasis on positional value. More so than I would. There is a time and a place, don't get me wrong, but using arbitrary scores on a 10 point scale how far are you dropping that score? You need tackle help...there's two elite tackles in the draft that are gone before you pick. They were rated at 9.7 and 9.5. The best tackle left now had a third round grade and a 7.7 score on your board. Are you choosing him when you have several other people rated at a 9.2 or 9.3? See, I can't bring myself to do that. I'm willing to lose out on that guy in this case. Doesn't necessarily mean I will take the best graded player on the board, but I'll be taking someone in that range (ie, the best graded player on that board at this point is a 9.2, but plays guard where I have two good ones who are both under contract and young...yeah, I probably won't take that prospect unless i think he can play center too, so maybe instead I grab the cornerback I have rated as a 9.0). That line is going to be subjective for everyone.

And for what it's worth (in the second paragraph) - I'm advocating that reaching that badly for any position is a bad move. There was no way in hell I'm taking Tyson Alualu in the top 10 when he's a fringe second round prospect. That move is just as bad as reaching for the quarterback. This isn't quarterback exclusive. And using the 13 draft isn't fair...that entire draft was god awful Laughing

The other thing with quarterbacks, and it's a disadvantage that they have, is that if they fail, they fail. There's nothing to come back from. See, some of these other positions have fall backs. You draft a tackle and he sucks? Kick him inside to guard, see how that works (Joeckel has been okay there). No, you're not getting the full value of that pick, but you're not taking a complete loss either. Malcolm Jenkins fails at corner? Push him to safety. Inside linebacker struggles? Maybe he thrives in a 4-3 olb spot. I'm not saying I'm looking at that when I'm making my pick, because I'm not, but it's there.

Basically, it comes down to this - positional value is important, but how important is debatable. That's 100% based on the individual. Over reaching for players due to inflated value caused by need, is bad. But small reaches are obviously sometimes necessary. You can't go strictly BPA, but there's a delicate balancing act that you need to perform.

The thing with this draft in particular is this. We are drafting #2 overall and have holes everywhere. We should not be taking any prospect with anything less than a top 5 overall grade in this draft class. It is absolutely not a requirement that we get a quarterback in this draft. We are not competing this year and probably not next. We have time to work on this one.
_________________


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
rudyZ


Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 16903
Location: Québec
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

big9erfan wrote:
rudyZ wrote:
big9erfan wrote:
rudyZ wrote:
I absolutely hate the discrepancy between Trubisky's rankings and his projections in mock drafts. Jeremiah has him as his 31st ranked prospect, yet still mocks him to us. I know QBs are more important, and I know they take the QB-bias into consideration when doing these mock drafts, but I still hate that. If we were talking 10 spots, okay, I get it. But we're talking about a borderline first round talent, in a vacuum, being drafted at #2. That thought just horrifies me. And I feel he's being generous with 31. I feel like mocking us Trubisky is really just a lazy intellectual exercise. We don't have a QB, therefore we must draft a QB. Nevermind that it couldn't really have been a front office source, since we practically didn't have a front office, when these guys started doing mocks. So I really won't buy any "we like Trubisky at 2" until at least after the pro days. Until then, I call BS on all these mocks.


It's easier if you stop thinking about is a "QB-bias" and just accept that "positional value" is a real thing and that QBs have the highest positional value of any position - and by a whole lot. Centers and guards don't often go in the first round. It's not because there aren't any good ones out there. It's because the positional value of a C or G is just so much lower than other positions that the 3rd or 4th best OT or WR is often valued higher than the best C or G.



You haven't really made a point there. Do you really want the 31st ranked prospect at 2 just because he's a QB? If a QB only gets ranked 31st, what does that say about his ceiling and his chances to reach it? Really worth investing a #2 pick in him? If a QB has a higher ceiling than Trubisky, he gets drafted at 15. If he has a higher chance of reaching it, he's drafted at 1. He's ranked 31st for a reason: not a high enough ceiling, and a lower chance of reaching it. Is that a guy you really want to draft at #2? It has nothing to do with positional value. I'm willing to reach for a QB. Ideally, on a QB with a really high ceiling. Gun to my head, I reach for Wentz last year, but not Goff. Certainly not on Trubisky this year.


Funny, because I think I made the most important point - one you keep ignoring. Are you saying positional value doesn't matter? If so then why do we never see a center or guard going top 5? Why did we see four OTs and 3 CBs taken last year before the first center (and he was taken really high for a center). Why were three WRs and three CBs taken ahead of the first center the year before that? Why were there only a total of two centers taken in the first round in the past three drafts? Or only a total of three guards. Again, it's not because there are no good guards or centers, it's because of positional value. Iif somehow you don't think the QB is the most important guy on the team, and therefore has the most positional value, then you might well be the only football fan in the world that holds that position. If you acknowledge he is but don't think things like that should factor into deciding who to pick then I assume you'd be good with using a number 2 pick on a C or G if that guy happened to be the most talented guy in the draft, right? What if there was some kicker in college who everyone agreed was the best kicker in a decade, a once in a lifetime kicker. Want to use the number 2 pick on him?



Positional value is already influencing the ranking! You don't have to to further inflate the value of the position, because it is already done by the time you see any big board. The only reason why Trubisky is 31st at all is because he's a QB. Similar experience and upside at any other position, and he's probably a 4th or 5th rounder. But because of positional value, he's 31st overall on Daniel Jeremiah's board. He is not the 31st best player available. He is the 31st most valuable draft asset, according to Jeremiah, and that's specifically because he is a QB. We don't see kickers or centers in these prospect rankings any more than we see them in the first round of most drafts for exactly the same reasons, because the positional value is already accounted for when these guys make their rankings. It's true for centers, for guards, for kickers, punters, and it's true for QBs. It is built-in. It is already there. So, when you see a QB 31st, you don't need to inflate his value on top of the inflation that's already built-in. Yes, you can reach for a QB, and you'll reach for QBs more than other positions, but 31 to 2 is a huge reach that a even a QB doesn't deserve. Drafting a 31st ranked QB at 2 is similar to the drafting EJ Manuel, Tim Tebow, Branden Weeden, etc.

Now, can you honestly tell me I'm wrong about this? Aren't those rankings already influenced by positional value? When Andrew Luck was the #1 prospect on everyone's board, was he not #1, regardless of the position he played? He happened to be a QB. His value could not exceed #1 overall, although I'm willing to bet that no trade package thinkable to man could have swayed the Colts, whereas trade packages in the past have made trading for the #1 overall pick possible. We're not in that situation. Trubisky is not the #1 ranked player. Not even a top 5 ranked player, and that's with his positional value already accounted for. There's no guard, center or kicker ahead of him, yet I'm not convinced there aren't a center or two I'd rather have over him. But the value of the position being what it is, Trubisky is ranked ahead of all of them. It is there. We don't need to re-apply it. And again, Jeremiah might have been generous with 31st. The experts are always more generous with QBs than any other positions, because QBs sell, QBs make you click on the links to read the articles and sell ads. Every year, one of my brothers will always ask me "Who's the next big QB in the draft?". Never once has he asked me "Any good left tackle this year?" or "What about pass rushers?". Always the QBs. Their value is inflated more than any other position already! They ARE the most important! Which makes the fact that a 31st ranked QB should not be drafted at 2 even more important!
_________________


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
rudyZ


Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 16903
Location: Québec
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

big9erfan wrote:
y2lamanaki wrote:
Forge wrote:
rudyZ wrote:
I absolutely hate the discrepancy between Trubisky's rankings and his projections in mock drafts. Jeremiah has him as his 31st ranked prospect, yet still mocks him to us. I know QBs are more important, and I know they take the QB-bias into consideration when doing these mock drafts, but I still hate that. If we were talking 10 spots, okay, I get it. But we're talking about a borderline first round talent, in a vacuum, being drafted at #2. That thought just horrifies me. And I feel he's being generous with 31. I feel like mocking us Trubisky is really just a lazy intellectual exercise. We don't have a QB, therefore we must draft a QB. Nevermind that it couldn't really have been a front office source, since we practically didn't have a front office, when these guys started doing mocks. So I really won't buy any "we like Trubisky at 2" until at least after the pro days. Until then, I call BS on all these mocks.


Yep. So far, from what I can tell, Kiper is the highest on Trubisky (and he seems to really, really like him). I think he had him at 16. McShay had him at between 28-31, I think, and a second round grade on him overall.

I just feel like this is how bad teams stay bad; by making moves like this. Now, there's also no way to know, given we haven't had a staff (and technically still don't), which quarterback we like. I think it's just that Trubisky seems to be the consensus number one quarterback now.


I have a pretty good feeling our QB situation is going to be handled one way or another before the draft, with only a developmental guy selected in the 3rd or later. Just a gut feeling, and nothing more.


I think so too just because I doubt he wants to commit to any rookie unless that guy is perceived to be a stud, and there aren't any of those this year. Besides with no QBs on the roster he has to bring in someone, maybe even two. I'd be surprised if we don't take a shot at someone ccoming out too though just because a shot at a QB on a team like ours is worth it. Mahomes in the second, Webb in the third, even Kelly in the 4th - injury and all. Those spots are all higher than a lot of people here feel comfortable with. But I think they have to take someone with some potential and there just aren't that many of those guys coming out this year.



In 2014, Shanahan liked Carr and Garopoly (did that on purpose). I feel like a second round QB is something Kylo is comfortable with. I have absolutely nothing to base this on, other than my own wishful thinking. A second round QB simply has fewer expectations and more leeway than a top 5 QB. You buy yourself the right to be wrong, with a non-top 5 QB. If he sees something in one of these guys (Mahomes, Webb, Kelly, Kaaya, Peterman, whoever), I'll have just as much hope and confidence in any of them as I would in a top 5 QB, personally. And that confidence would come from Kylo putting his own faith in him.
_________________


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
Fureys49ers


Joined: 31 Mar 2015
Posts: 775
Location: Sacramento, CA
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Haha we get it Rudy you're not a fan of Trubisky and your dislike for him has him compared to Tebow, Manuel and Weeden?! I can honestly tell you that you're 100% wrong in those comparisons. He's no Luck coming out but he's head and shoulders better than those prospects. Similar upside, experience and tools for the position he would be rated probably close to where he is now. As a positional player if you possess all the "tools" for the position and have shown a full year of being a very good player at your position you are going to get projected to be better than you were in college and drafted accordingly. As a QB I'd say lack of experience really hurts Trubisky's ranking more so than a positional player, look no further than Malik Hooker or Solomon Thomas. One year production, skills/tools above average, good production in that one year and we are talking about what they can become and top 10 picks.

I do agree with your last post though, if Shanahan likes one of the QBs you listed in the 2nd round or later I'll have confidence in them as well, but that's only because of who Shanahan is as a coach and a lot less of what these guys bring to the table.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rudyZ


Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 16903
Location: Québec
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fureys49ers wrote:
Haha we get it Rudy you're not a fan of Trubisky and your dislike for him has him compared to Tebow, Manuel and Weeden?! I can honestly tell you that you're 100% wrong in those comparisons. He's no Luck coming out but he's head and shoulders better than those prospects. Similar upside, experience and tools for the position he would be rated probably close to where he is now. As a positional player if you possess all the "tools" for the position and have shown a full year of being a very good player at your position you are going to get projected to be better than you were in college and drafted accordingly. As a QB I'd say lack of experience really hurts Trubisky's ranking more so than a positional player, look no further than Malik Hooker or Solomon Thomas. One year production, skills/tools above average, good production in that one year and we are talking about what they can become and top 10 picks.

I do agree with your last post though, if Shanahan likes one of the QBs you listed in the 2nd round or later I'll have confidence in them as well, but that's only because of who Shanahan is as a coach and a lot less of what these guys bring to the table.



I'm not comparing Trubisky to Tebow or the others. I'm comparing reaching for trubisky at 2 to reaching to these others at the spots they were taken. Manuel was probably a third rounder, taken in the mid-teens. Grabbing a borderline (and generously so) first rounder at 2 is just as crazy, to me. If Trubisky was in any way, shape or form thought of being a top 5 QB, he would be ranked in the top 5. Give me Trubisky in the second round, I'll be very excited. I'll be on board with the experiment. But at 2, I won't be the only one to be very critical of the selection.

Again, not comparing him to Tebow. Much better prospect. But Tebow had no business being drafted in the first, and I'm not sure Trubisky does either. But a far better prospect nonetheless. Making a mistake on Tebow doesn't make a mistake on Trubisky any better, though.
_________________


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
Fureys49ers


Joined: 31 Mar 2015
Posts: 775
Location: Sacramento, CA
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 11:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

But if Trubisky is a far better prospect than both of them, to which you said Manuel was a 3rd in your mind and I believe rightly so and not quite sure where you Tebow ranked although I can't see any higher than 2nd rounder, then what does that make him? You say fringe 1st rounder but say he's way better than both those prospects so I'm just curious.

I'm a fan of Trubisky if you haven't noticed and agree whole heartedly that he is not a top 5 prospect in this draft. I also agree that it would be a reach to take him at 2 as well as that QBs get pushed up draft boards ridiculously high because of the position they play and the demand that is required from them. That being said, of all the QBs in this draft who possess the tools a team would look for at QB Trubisky is the guy that checks all the boxes. I also see him as a mid 1st round overall prospect and yes, because he plays QB. But as I mentioned before you asked if a positional player brought to the table what Trubisky brings in terms of tools to the NFL he'd be a 4th round pick and that's ridiculous in my mind. He checks every box including above average athleticism to the position he plays and if we were talking about anyone other than a QB people would be saying "he's still going to grow so much in terms of playing that position and is still this good already" when talking about his experience. Instead it's now a huge concern and people aren't able to see past what they've seen on film as if what he was his one year in college is what he is and shall remain the rest of his career. Shoot even QBs who've put together multiple years of film still get pidgeon holed into what kind of QB they are as if there is no more room for improvement and that's quite simply a blatantly obvious fault in my mind when evaluating these prospects.

I've said it a bunch of times and have made lists as to what I see when watching Trubisky's tape and what it really boils down to is this guy is just getting comfortable at playing QB when the lights come on and the scoreboard matters and already has tools or building blocks if you will that can be honed and improved upon. That is rare for college QBs now a days with the systems they play in as most have to be broken down almost completely and re taught the basics because of their bad habits or natural athleticism they depended on and got away with in college. That adds even more difficulty and chance when trying to figure out that specific prospects ability to translate to the NFL level because now you are asking them to do something you've never seen them do or they themselves may have never done their whole career. And who truly knows the outcome of that experiment. In my eyes that's not the case with a Trubisky, he needs to be taught and learn some things for sure, and that will come with good coaching and experience, but there is not a part of his game that must be broken down completely and rebuilt correctly and he can begin working on those things immediately with the tools and traits he already possesses.

The NFL and fans of the NFL have gotten so hasty with the development of these prospects that they need and NFL ready QB immediately upon being drafted and that's not realistic. Now what seems to be realistic, we really won't know until draft day, is that there are a lot of QB hungry teams and being that that position is so highly touted and sought after that if we bypass Trubisky with our 1st pick it's extremely unlikely he's still there by our 2nd. In fact I'm not sure he makes it out of the top 12. If he is the QB who the Niners new FO and HC feel can give them the best shot at developing a QBOTF than we'd be foolish not to take him. It's not ideal and I've said multiple times I'd rather move down and gather some more picks, even mid rounders, to have a chance to add more pieces and more talent to our team, but the draft is not an exact science, nor does it rarely work out ideally in any one teams favor. So you take your guy when you can and ask him to do what he already does well and build upon that from there and give him the best opportunity to succeed in the NFL.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Forge


Joined: 19 Feb 2010
Posts: 17993
Location: Las Vegas
PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2017 12:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't get why it's so vitally important that we solve the quarterback position through the draft this year, especially if nobody views the quarterbacks as a top 5 prospect in this draft.
_________________


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
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 - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 98, 99, 100  Next
Page 99 of 100

 
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