filthymcnasty08 Posted April 23, 2013 Posted April 23, 2013 Yes, this is another trade-down thread.... If after AZ picks, Star Lotuleilei is still on the board, our call is to the Niners. They have way more picks than needs and they have the luxury to target shoot particular players to fill out their (ridiculous) roster. Depending on which way they choose to go (they also need help at corner), the #8 slot can give them 100% assurance they get their guy. Star at #8 would be good value for them.....all a question of their highest priority need. I wish we could take Star at 8 but we all know our issues..... The other scenario is this: If it's a corner/safety they want the most...When Millner comes off the board, (#6) I do not think they are going to want to stay put at 31 knowing that, at any time, a small run on corners can deplete the top prospects. Vaccaro is mocked all over the first round, nobody can say where SF would need to trade in to get him. They have specific needs and a lot of trading capital that is of most value to them in packaging/moving up, not acquiring bodies...8 is a little high for the other 1st round corners....but if/when there is a run on a position, the value charts get thrown out of the window. Vaccaro at 8 is a little high but not for a SB team with targeted needs. All depends on what they want the most.....strictly value, this makes the most sense for Star. If we are trading, this could be the ideal partner for us. Can't wait to see how this plays out. (1) 31. San Francisco 49ers (2) 34. San Francisco 49ers (from Kansas City Chiefs) (2) 61. San Francisco 49ers (3) 74. San Francisco 49ers (from Carolina Panthers) (3) 93. San Francisco 49ers (4) 128. San Francisco 49ers (4) 131. San Francisco 49ers (compensatory selection) (5) 157. San Francisco 49ers (from Indianapolis Colts) (5) 164. San Francisco 49ers (6) 180. San Francisco 49ers (from Miami Dolphins) (7) 227. San Francisco 49ers (from Cincinnati Bengals) (7) 237. San Francisco 49ers (7) 246. San Francisco 49ers (compensatory selection) (7) 252. San Francisco 49ers (compensatory selection)
bowery4 Posted April 23, 2013 Posted April 23, 2013 (edited) Wouldn't it be funny if they suck this year. Edited April 23, 2013 by bowery4
Luxy312 Posted April 23, 2013 Posted April 23, 2013 #31 and #34 is viable from the perspective of the draft value chart and the rated values of players this year. I would not be shocked if the 49ers offer the Bills that to move up to #8 to get their guy that they believe can get them back to the Superbowl. Technically, they could even throw in a 3rd or 4th rounder as well.
ColdBlueNorth Posted April 23, 2013 Posted April 23, 2013 Yes, this is another trade-down thread.... If after AZ picks, Star Lotuleilei is still on the board, our call is to the Niners. They have way more picks than needs and they have the luxury to target shoot particular players to fill out their (ridiculous) roster. Depending on which way they choose to go (they also need help at corner), the #8 slot can give them 100% assurance they get their guy. Star at #8 would be good value for them.....all a question of their highest priority need. I wish we could take Star at 8 but we all know our issues..... The other scenario is this: If it's a corner/safety they want the most...When Millner comes off the board, (#6) I do not think they are going to want to stay put at 31 knowing that, at any time, a small run on corners can deplete the top prospects. Vaccaro is mocked all over the first round, nobody can say where SF would need to trade in to get him. They have specific needs and a lot of trading capital that is of most value to them in packaging/moving up, not acquiring bodies...8 is a little high for the other 1st round corners....but if/when there is a run on a position, the value charts get thrown out of the window. Vaccaro at 8 is a little high but not for a SB team with targeted needs. All depends on what they want the most.....strictly value, this makes the most sense for Star. If we are trading, this could be the ideal partner for us. Can't wait to see how this plays out. (1) 31. San Francisco 49ers (2) 34. San Francisco 49ers (from Kansas City Chiefs) (2) 61. San Francisco 49ers (3) 74. San Francisco 49ers (from Carolina Panthers) (3) 93. San Francisco 49ers (4) 128. San Francisco 49ers (4) 131. San Francisco 49ers (compensatory selection) (5) 157. San Francisco 49ers (from Indianapolis Colts) (5) 164. San Francisco 49ers (6) 180. San Francisco 49ers (from Miami Dolphins) (7) 227. San Francisco 49ers (from Cincinnati Bengals) (7) 237. San Francisco 49ers (7) 246. San Francisco 49ers (compensatory selection) (7) 252. San Francisco 49ers (compensatory selection) Talk about an embarrassment of riches. There has got to be a better formula for handing out picks. Something is definitely broken when a team that is scraping the bottom has 6 picks in the draft and the team that was the runner up in the Superbowl has 15.
eball Posted April 23, 2013 Posted April 23, 2013 Serious question -- beyond the 5th round, what are the real odds a 6th or 7th round pick makes a roster compared to an UDFA?
filthymcnasty08 Posted April 23, 2013 Author Posted April 23, 2013 Serious question -- beyond the 5th round, what are the real odds a 6th or 7th round pick makes a roster compared to an UDFA? Start your stopwatch for a Brady or SJ13 reference......
NoSaint Posted April 23, 2013 Posted April 23, 2013 Talk about an embarrassment of riches. There has got to be a better formula for handing out picks. Something is definitely broken when a team that is scraping the bottom has 6 picks in the draft and the team that was the runner up in the Superbowl has 15. i mean, 5 of those are trades they executed. what are you going to do, ban good teams from trading?
BrooklynBills Posted April 23, 2013 Posted April 23, 2013 The number 8 pick according to the draft value chart is worth 1400 points. The number 31 pick is worth 600 and the number 34 pick is worth 560, so they would need to add about 240 more points just to meet the value, which could be their other 2nd rounder number 61. 8 for 31, 43, and 61 is fair value as far as the chart is concerned, but I'd be trying to get San Fran 1st in next year's draft somehow. The drop from 8 to 31 is very significant IMO and it would be a good reason to demand a little overpayment here. Something like 8 and 41(1890 points) for 31, 34, 61, 93, next year's 1st(approximately 2160 points). If we are trading back I'd want a first next year. What about the possibility of trading Byrd to SF at the draft with 8th overall and acquiring a boatload of picks. I'd like that option as well.
Mr. WEO Posted April 23, 2013 Posted April 23, 2013 Talk about an embarrassment of riches. There has got to be a better formula for handing out picks. Something is definitely broken when a team that is scraping the bottom has 6 picks in the draft and the team that was the runner up in the Superbowl has 15. Formula?? Why doesn't the league just give us their GM? Problem solved.
Mark80 Posted April 23, 2013 Posted April 23, 2013 (1) 31. San Francisco 49ers (2) 34. San Francisco 49ers (from Kansas City Chiefs) (2) 61. San Francisco 49ers (3) 74. San Francisco 49ers (from Carolina Panthers) (3) 93. San Francisco 49ers (4) 128. San Francisco 49ers (4) 131. San Francisco 49ers (compensatory selection) (5) 157. San Francisco 49ers (from Indianapolis Colts) (5) 164. San Francisco 49ers (6) 180. San Francisco 49ers (from Miami Dolphins) (7) 227. San Francisco 49ers (from Cincinnati Bengals) (7) 237. San Francisco 49ers (7) 246. San Francisco 49ers (compensatory selection) (7) 252. San Francisco 49ers (compensatory selection) The fact that they have such a good team and so many picks makes me want to throw my computer across the room.
shibuya Posted April 23, 2013 Posted April 23, 2013 Talk about an embarrassment of riches. There has got to be a better formula for handing out picks. Something is definitely broken when a team that is scraping the bottom has 6 picks in the draft and the team that was the runner up in the Superbowl has 15. maybe so, but they are forced to trade about 7 of those picks because it's safe to say maybe 4 rookies make SF team. So if they use all those picks an don't trade them to teams liek Buffalo who are looking for picks they will be cutting 10 or so players they drafted. So the embarrassment of riches is partially a burden to off load. So SF needs ot move up a few times in this draft just to get rid of some of those picks
FleaMoulds80 Posted April 23, 2013 Posted April 23, 2013 I wouldn't mind this guy. I mentioned this last time and this whole forum flipped out because of his heart condition. zzzzzzz
BrooklynBills Posted April 23, 2013 Posted April 23, 2013 Everyone assumes the Niners will use those picks to trade up, but based on their previous draft history, they are more apt to acquire more future picks with them. There will be players that teams covet around 31 and 34 that the Niners could easily parlay into 1sts in the '14 draft.
Saint Doug Posted April 23, 2013 Posted April 23, 2013 Talk about an embarrassment of riches. There has got to be a better formula for handing out picks. Something is definitely broken when a team that is scraping the bottom has 6 picks in the draft and the team that was the runner up in the Superbowl has 15. The good news is that there's no way all 15 make the roster. In fact, a good proportion won't and that when Nix should start sifting through the scrap heap.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted April 23, 2013 Posted April 23, 2013 The OPs scenario is plausible IMO. Lotulelei is by far the best interior D-lineman in the draft IMO. He's the second coming of Haloti Ngata as far as I'm concerned. They're both 6'4" Tongan giants. The Niners are very concerned with the health of Justin Smith besides having lost Isaac Sopoaga and Ricky Jean-Francois. Yes they've signed Glenn Dorsey but they're still down one at that position and Lotulelei is going to be an elite player.
Recommended Posts