Draft Recap

by grantmp on May 7, 2008 6:55 AM PDT

Here's a link to a video from the World-Wide Leader where McShay compares the success the teams in the NFC West had in the draft.

http://sports.espn.go.com/broadband/video/videopage?videoId=3372865&categoryId=2459789&n8pe6c=2

He ranked the Niners 1st, Seahawks 2nd, Rams, 3rd, and the Cards 4th in the division. The consensus seems to be that the Niners draft wasn't a home run, but that it also wasn't a stinker, and when you put it into a context that actually matters (how does the talent we picked up stack up in comparison with the talent picked up by the teams we play half of our games against?), it actually starts to mean something.

McShay had a lot of good things to say about the Niners draft. He really liked the Balmer pick, the Rachal pick (even suggested that he could start this year, which seems a bit optimistic), and the Smith pick (he praised his versatility).

My take?

I like the Balmer pick for a number of reasons. He seems like he's got a great attitude (AND he's a UNC alum...Go Heels!), and a really good fit for the defensive scheme, especially if he can play to the standard he played in his senior year. The story about his dad wearing a Niners cap during the draft was awesome, too. Seriously, though, he seems like he'll be able to hold down that LDE spot for a good long while. When he was on the board, this pick looks to have been a no-brainer, since they took all of 15 seconds to hand in the card.

I wasn't initially sold on the Rachal pick because it seemed like a reach, but the more I think about it, the more it makes sense; if you look at who was on the board as far as O-Line talent, he was the only genuine 2nd-round talent that was there. I'd rather have Rachal than Mike Pollack and John Greco--the next two O-Linemen taken. In fact, I might rather have him than Duane Brown or Sam Baker, two 1st-rounders. We should also consider that he's coming out as a junior because he wanted to help his mom out with a medical problem, so he's still a work in progress.

The Reggie Smith pick is OK, but this is one where I wonder why they didn't go for a pass-rushing OLB, since there were a few guys who would've been available at that point. It seems like they would've had the night to go over their assessments of Crable, Avril, and Wheeler, since that's a real need area. Perhaps they were thinking that they'd only get ANOTHER Parys Haralson/TBC-type player, and that Smith was too good a value to pass up, not least because he can play a couple of different positions. I like him as a Nickel corner early on, since Shawntae doesn't seem to be developing beyond what we've seen, and it'll be good to have him for when Walt Harris is too old to keep running to the fountain of youth. Also, the "he's a potential match-up for some of these big-bodied recievers" rationale does make some sense to me, since Boldin, Fitzgerald, and Holt aren't going anywhere. Also, if he turns into any kind of return man, that's great.

One thing that had me wondering, though, was whether the Niners took a hard look at Lavelle Hawkins. He was there in round 4, and while I think the Wallace pick makes sense for depth and for a long-term succession plan should Heitmann leave, I'm not as sure about it.

SO...Anybody have info on Hawkins? Your take on McShay's assessment? On Smith vs. big-bodied receivers? On why the Niners went for Smith over an OLB?

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Niners Nation's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Niners Nation's writers or editors.

Tweet Comment 33 comments | 2 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

My thoughts

After a week or so to sit back and look at the draft again, the first three picks of the draft were pretty darn solid (and possibly even good). I agree that the Balmer pick was a very decent pick, even if he ends up sticking as a DE and not a NT. He just seems to have a very good attitude toward work and bettering himself for the sake of making the team better. If he even becomes a decent fraction of what BY was to this team, I’d say it was a very good pick.

As grantmp pointed out, the Rachal pick maybe doesn’t seem like THAT big of a reach anymore. McShay isn’t the only one that thought he could step up and start this year. If I’m not mistaken, Kiper Jr. even suggested he may be able to this year. With Baas missing a good chunk of the offseason program (including OTAs) and possibly a lot of training camp, it’s not completely out of the question that Rachal may start at RG. All he has to do is show that he’s a better option there than Wragge, which may or may not be a very difficult thing to do. This was definitely a very solid value pick, as long as he doesn’t end up following the path Baas has taken.

The Smith pick has grown on me. Looking at some videos of him playing, he seems to play A LOT faster than his measure-ables suggest he should be capable of. He’s also a fairly physical guy, which is a nice thing to have because Clements is also a fairly physical guy, so the WRs (and offense as a whole) can’t duck away from the physicality of Clements on one side. If he can supplant Spencer as the nickelback early on, this pick would be a very solid pick (In nickel packages, he can play over the outside guy while Harris moves into the slot, which would more than allow him to face one of either Boldin or Fitz when they play the Cards). If he could crack the starting lineup the next couple of years and do a good job there, then this was a very good pick.

You made a very good point, grantmp, in terms of what the 49ers may have saw in the potential pass rushers. Maybe they did see only the potential of getting another Haralson/Green/Banta-Cain type player. If that were the case, then maybe it makes sense that they passed on them. Quite a few other teams passed on some pass rushers that many thought would go higher, too, so the 49ers aren’t in the minority.

As for Lavelle Hawkins, I’m pretty certain the team got a very long and hard look at him. They saw him at the senior bowl (he played for the North team, I believe). They even brought him in during the local Pro Day in Santa Clara, I believe. They must have either didn’t see something in him that a lot of other people see, or they probably believed he was comparable to someone they’d have access to later in the draft. There is one thing that is certain about this draft’s WR class, and that is that they were all pretty much the same, in terms of bust-ability. They all had a fair amount of question marks that, obviously, a lot of teams felt weren’t worthy of the higher picks many pundits thought they would have been.

by sfgfan on May 7, 2008 8:36 AM PDT reply actions

Crable

Didn’t the Pats take Crable a few spots after the Niners took Smith? I’m pretty sure I’d trust the Pat’s assessment over the Niners right now. I’m fine with the draft as a whole but the Smith pick does seem a little curious to me considering who was still on the board. But like I’ve said before this was a totally non-committal draft by the Niners, for better or for worse.

I...drink...your...milkshake! I drink it up! - Daniel Plainview

by methodrampage on May 7, 2008 9:01 AM PDT up reply actions

True.

While it’s true the Pats took Crable, they’re in a position where taking another Banta-Cain-type player is something they’d be okay with, as their LB group would be okay for another year. Do you think Crable would crack the starting lineup (or even the nickel package) for the Patriots this year? Or would he end up being what Banta-Cain was for them: a role player who gave the starters a breather?

by sfgfan on May 7, 2008 9:18 AM PDT up reply actions

See below please

I...drink...your...milkshake! I drink it up! - Daniel Plainview

by methodrampage on May 7, 2008 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions

What's Smith? A role player.

Let’s see, is Crable, as a 3rd round pick, going to crack the starting lineup (starting lineup is a completely overused term to begin with) for a team that went 18-1 last year? I don’t know. Do I think he would start for the Niners? Yes. Do I think he has the potential to be a lot better than Banta-Cain? Yes. Also, whether or not Crable starts for the Pats has nothing to do with what kind of addition he would have been to the Niners. If anything the Niners had a much bigger need for Crable than the Pats. And when considering recent success I feel comfortable in my statement that currently the Pat’s have been better at evaluating talent than the Niners.

I...drink...your...milkshake! I drink it up! - Daniel Plainview

by methodrampage on May 7, 2008 10:17 AM PDT reply actions

...for now...

You’re right to say that Smith’s a role player for now, but I think he’s got the potential to develop into a starter before too long—whereas it seems like sfgfan is suggesting that Crable will only ever be a role player. I’m not saying I agree with that assessment, since Crable was picked where he was just as much on his potential and physical tools as he was on his skill right now. Really both Smith and Crable are developmental types. I don’t think Crable will make much of an impact on the Pats this year because they have the luxury of having a couple of good OLBs in Adalius Thomas and Mike Vrabel. I sure would’ve liked to see what Singletary would’ve done with Crable’s tools, though, and with him coming out of a school like Michigan, it seems that there would be less of an adjustment period than with some others.

by grantmp on May 7, 2008 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions

isnt

Vrabel supposed to move back inside again this year? With the status of Junior and Bruschi up in the air, Colvin gone, and Vrabel aging, I’m not sure that we needed a LB as bad as they did.

by sam23 on May 7, 2008 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions

They took Mayo at 11

That’s 2 LB in the first 3 rounds. The Niners still have Haralson or Banta-Cain as a starter, unless Grant or Butler can supplant one of them, the Niners needed a 3-4 OLB much more than a utility DB (if they’re planning on sticking with a 3-4).

I...drink...your...milkshake! I drink it up! - Daniel Plainview

by methodrampage on May 7, 2008 4:01 PM PDT up reply actions

Mayo at 11

My first thought was that this was a typo for Mayor of 311.

Then I realised, wrong site.

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on May 8, 2008 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions

First of all, the term “starting lineup” cannot be overused if it adequately and appropriately describes what the person is talking about. It can be an inappropriate term (because the players who start might not play the most, or the amount of snaps people think starters should get) but you really can’t overuse it.

Second, Crable is not that good. He is adequately good at rushing the passer, but not very good in coverage or against the run, and he’s not very smart (or at least not very disciplined). On a day when no one on either team could throw because of the wind, Crable didn’t do a thing to stop Chris Wells from racking up a bazillion yards using the same running play. Troy Smith, a fifth round pick, made him look silly repeatedly two years ago. He is high-cut, straight-lined, not all that big (245 is kinda small for an OLB in a 3-4), not very fluid, and not stout at the point of attack. He is quick off the ball, but those kinds of guys are a dime-a-dozen AND that isn’t going to get you to the QB against the likes of Levi Brown and Walter Jones. It’s not like the 9ers passed up a 1st round talent here, don’t get carried away.

If you were going to be mad about passing up an OLB prospect, it should be Groves in the 2nd round, not Crable in the 3rd that should make you angry. Passing up Hardy, Malcom Kelly, or Limas Sweed at that pick also might have been a mistake. But, our line is not very good, period. Rachal could become a very good guard in the NFL and it would be disappointing if he didn’t start at some point this year.

Smith has some versatility, something that Crable does not, and I bet the Pats are jealous of that. He matches up well against all of Arizona’s WRs, and had a 2nd round grade and the 9ers got him in round 3. I’d be happy with that.

by rufio on May 9, 2008 12:29 PM PDT up reply actions

For a team that runs a lot of 4-3 and 3-4 packages

First off the term "starting lineup" can definitely be overused; it’s a pretty ambiguous term and really doesn’t mean much unless you’re trying to brag to your friends about being a starter on your high school football team.

Secondly, I’d trust the Pat’s front office on matters concerning player evaluation than I would you and either way he’s good enough for that 3rd round pick. The Niners need a pass rusher, plain and simple as they didn’t have one to speak of last year, and if Crable is a one trick pass rushing pony so be it. He’s got a higher ceiling than Banta-Cain. People said a lot of the same things about Woodley and he’s looking like a pretty good fit for Pittsburg defense.

Thirdly, I’d rather have Rachal than Groves, especially since I think the writing is on the wall for the Nolan era.

Lastly, Smith is what, a zone corner? He struggles in man coverage and probably is at best a nickel back. He’s got some versatility but he’s not super versatile so don’t get carried away. As far as I’m concerned, if the Niners are committed to a 3-4, which I doubt they are, a pass rushing 3-4 OLB is a bigger need than a nickel back. I’m Spencer and Goldson can fill the nickel back role adequately and TBC has yet to prove that he can be a pass rushing threat.

Believe me, if we disagree it is you that is wrong.

by methodrampage on May 9, 2008 2:21 PM PDT up reply actions

Every team that runs a 3-4 has some defensive 4 man fronts.

Overused is different than misused. You mean misused. A starting lineup is the group of players who play the first play of the game, and when referring to that group of players the term “starting lineup” is always appropriate. Your point is that starters might not always play the biggest role, which is true, but they still begin the games (and it is still always correct to call them the starting lineup).

Don’t trust some random guy on the internet (me) about Crable? Smart choice. How about the Boston Globe: “Criticized for inconsistency and can play undisciplined.” or Scouts Inc: “needs to play with more consistent leverage”, “Tries to take on blockers too high and loses power at the point of attack, as a result. He needs to improve his lower-body strength and struggles at times when forced to anchor versus bigger blockers when teams run at him.”, or New Era Scouting: “A high-cut athlete…Really needs to strengthen up his legs so he doesn[[COMMENT_CHILDREN_TOKEN]]#8217;t get pushed around.”, “a little tight in his hips, which is evident in pass coverage”, “(he has) nothing a coach would want in heart and effort.”. I am not a scout, but I know how to read.

I’m not saying he doesn’t have a high ceiling or some talent; he set the single-season record for TFLs at UM. I am saying that he has weaknesses and there was a reason he lasted till the 3rd round, he wasn’t anything to die for. Also, the Patriots didn’t have the ability to choose between Smith and Crable where they were picking, Smith was already drafted….so your point about them being better at drafting that either me or the 49ers is moot (although probably correct). Would I have minded if the 49ers chose Crable if they were in the Pat’s position? No, but I think if the Pats were in the 49ers position they would have gone with Smith. You can’t simply draft the same players the Patriots do.

Smith is a big, physical corner, or a ball-hawking FS. We have to cover 2 great WRs who aren’t blazing fast but are big and physical in Fitzgerald and Boldin twice a year. “A versatile playmaker.” His listed weaknesses are “ideal top-end speed”, and experience. Where do you see that he struggles with man coverage? “Very quick and fluid. Can flip his hips and mirror receivers underneath. Displays very good burst out of his pedal…will take receivers out of their routes with press-MAN coverage.” Yep, he sounds terrible at matching up man to man. He’s big, tackles well, and will play the run along with the pass. You don’t like him? OK, fine, but its not some super-questionable garbage pick.

Second-to-lastly, you say that you didn’t want Groves in the 2nd because you think Nolan is gone and don’t like a 3-4 OLB. I’m OK with that, but why then make an argument for Crable? They are pretty much the same type of player. If you think Crable is going to put his hand on the ground at 245lbs and be effective in the NFL you are kidding yourself. According to you, if the 49ers aren’t committed to the 3-4 they don’t need a pass-rushing OLB, and they aren’t committed to it, so why do you want one so bad?

Yes, the 49ers did not put enough pressure on opposing QBs last year. You can never have enough (see: NYG). Just don’t forget that we have Manny Lawson coming back, and he was a better OLB prospect than anyone not named Gholston in this year’s draft. No team is going to win a playoff game with TBC, I completely agree. Smith is still a good pick.

by rufio on May 11, 2008 6:02 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

Shit, some people are dense

I know it’s hard to believe but I really do have better things to do than argue semantics and points that you’re apparently failing to comprehend. Actually I’ve got some time so I’ll keep it brief.

First of all, the term "starting lineup" cannot be overused if it adequately and appropriately describes what the person is talking about.

So “starting lineup” can be overused if it’s not being appropriately used? OK, fair enough. In my opinion sfgfan did not use it appropriately, therefore by your own definition it’s overused.

For the record I’m not knocking the Smith pick, I think it’s a decent pick but I do think it shows the Niners lack of committment to the 3-4 (and who can blame them?). Furthermore, if the Niners were/are committed to the 3-4 then, in my opinion, a pass rushing OLB would have been a bigger need than a DB. This seems to be a major point where you’re getting confused.

Believe me, if we disagree it is you that is wrong.

by methodrampage on May 12, 2008 8:12 AM PDT up reply actions

Wrong.

You obviously don’t understand what I am saying about “overused” versus “not used correctly” so just forget about it. It doesn’t matter anyway. If you want me to I can try to explain it to you. Although, I did not use if and only if so you can’t just use your line of logic on my statement. I simply won’t allow it.

I understand that you think that the 49ers are not committed to the 3-4, and we all know Mike Nolan is on the hot seat. I understand that you think a pass rusher is a bigger need if we stay in a 3-4. I get these things. Now, you use that logic to say that you liked picking Rachal over Groves. Cool, Rachal is a pick where he could still contribute next year is Nolan is sent packing. I get it.

Here’s where it gets confusing: going completely against your logic in the Rachal/Groves debate, you say that the 49ers picking Smith (a player, like Rachal, who can contribute next year if we no longer run a 3-4) was bad because Crable (a player, like Groves, who is projected to fit best as a pure 3-4 OLB) was still on the board. Which one is it man?

That’s a complete flip-flop, and you have not justified it. I am confused because your logic does not make sense, not because I am dense.

You also have not addressed the following:
-You like the Pats’ front office. You seem to want to copy or at least imitate what they do. How do you accomplish this? Seeing who the Pats would draft only works after the draft when all the picks have been made. Are the 49ers and every other team in the league just doomed because the Patirots are that much better at drafting? Within the limits of the space-time continuum, what should we have done with the pick (no FFing to after the Pats made the pick, and then going back in time to choose who they wanted)?

-You state that the Pats picked Crable and since they are better at evaluating talent, he is probably a better player. BUT at the time they picked Crable, Smith was off the board: there was no comparison between Smith and Crable to be done there. What would have happened if the picks were swapped?

-Who is wrong when you disagree with yourself (because as your fancy signature thing says, you are always right)? Because you used the same line of logic twice and it resulted in two different outcomes, you were wrong at least once (unless there is some crazy metaphysical explanation for that, in which case I would love to hear it).

Until your resolve these issues, I probably won’t post back to you again, because it is no fun to argue with someone who doesn’t make a logical argument.

Fooch, you’re a lawyer, care to disagree with me on some issue and then out-argue me (because I am pretty sure you would)? Now that would be fun.

by rufio on May 12, 2008 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

Your making stuff up

if the Niners were/are committed to the 3-4 then, in my opinion, a pass rushing OLB would have been a bigger need than a DB.

If, being the operative word here. IF the Niners are committed to the 3-4 then I would have liked to see Crable or Avril selected instead of Smith. However, it is my impression that they are not and that’s why Smith was taken and I really have no issue with that. This isn’t a flip flop. Either the Niners are committed to the 3-4 or they’re not. If the Niners I still don’t think Groves holds more value over Rachal in the 2nd, especially when Crable and Avril were available in the 3rd, then it’s my feeling a pass rushing 3-4 OLB should have been adressed in the draft. If they are not, which I’ve posted several comments on how this is my current impression, then the Rachal pick still makes sense and the Smith pick over Crable and Avril is justified.

The whole Smith/Crable evaluation/comparison and Patriot front office talk is getting out of hand and off subject and I’ll take the fault for the that. I brought it up to support the idea that for a defense running a 3-4 Crable would have probably been a very solid pick for the 49ers in the 3rd Round, basically saying that if the Niners would have taken Crable over Smith that it wouldn’t have been a reach. Both teams are heading in different directions, both have different needs but if the Pats considered Crable worth their 3rd Round pick I’ve got to believe the that he’d be worth the Niners 3rd Round pick, that is IF they are committed to a 3-4. I’m not saying Crable is going to be overall a better player than Smith but I am saying that for a team desperate for a pass rush he might be a little more valuable than a #3 or #4 DB.

The Smith/Crable comparison/evalutation talk has gotten out of hand.

Believe me, if we disagree it is you that is wrong.

by methodrampage on May 12, 2008 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions

Role Reversal?

What I really wonder about is whether the Pats would’ve taken Smith had their picks been flip-flopped. Smith probably would’ve been a guy the Pats would’ve taken a look at, even despite the fact that they’d taken a corner in Round 2.

by grantmp on May 7, 2008 10:19 AM PDT reply actions

Barrows' take

When I asked Barrows the question regarding Smith rather than Crable, Avril or Wheeler, he said:
“They thought he was a better player. remember, Walt Harris might not be here much longer and no one has really showed he can be the heir apparent. In the pass-happy NFC West, that’s a problem.”

by grantmp on May 7, 2008 7:13 PM PDT reply actions

I'm sure they "thought" he was better, that's obvious and pretty much goes without saying.

It’s the Niners assessment of talent, or lack there of, that may have led them to the, possibly, erroneous opinion that Smith was a better player than Crable, Avril, or Wheeler. Either way I’m still subscribing to my theory of the Niners not wanting to commit a 3rd round pick on a specialty 3-4 pass rushing OLB because they’re not ready to commit to Nolan and his defensive system beyond this coming season.

I...drink...your...milkshake! I drink it up! - Daniel Plainview

by methodrampage on May 8, 2008 7:56 AM PDT up reply actions

thats a good point

everyone drafted this year could fit into a 4-3 next year if neccessary.

by sam23 on May 8, 2008 4:18 PM PDT up reply actions

precisely

I...drink...your...milkshake! I drink it up! - Daniel Plainview

by methodrampage on May 9, 2008 7:29 AM PDT up reply actions

Draft Miscues vs. Talent

The 49ers could have gotten Lavelle Hawkins or even DeSean, but the chose to get the best players on the board and bring additions to the lines on both sides of the ball. Balmer will make an impact, make no bones about it. Reggie Smith is intriguing to me, let’s see what he can do; we got an athletic center in Cody Wallace, and a physical receiver in Josh Morgan. Think about this, we got Chilo Rachel, who still had two years left of school to go if I am correct; he will develop under the professional coaching of the 49ers and his raw talent will carry him until he becomes experienced, his brute strength is enough for now, technique will come later.

But who I really wanted was James Hardy, the Indian University wide receiver who is a really tall WR (6’ 7”) compared to counterpart receivers like a Randy Moss, or a TO, or a Chad Johnson. But he was not picked by the 49ers to my disappointment, but the Niners seemed to know something about his character, because a couple weeks after the draft, Hardy punched his own father, beat him up.

I still would picked Hardy. He is a good candidate to stand tall over the shorter cornerbacks and make “The Catch III.”

by 16to80endzone on May 28, 2008 11:13 PM PDT reply actions

Really?

Hardy was compared to guys like Moss, TO, or Johnson? I don’t know what scouting reports you read or heard, but while he has good size, he doesn’t have the speed hose other three have. Moss is probably the most physically gifted receiver to ever play the game, and just because Hardy was 6’7”, it doesn’t make him “physically gifted.” There’s a lot more to being a receiver than having the height advantage. Just ask Mike Williams or Dwayne Jarrett, or any other tall WR that can’t separate if their lives depended on it.

As for Rachal, he had one year remaining (his senior year). He was playing for one of the most “pro-like” college systems in the country, and based on what the 49ers have “developed” over the past few years, it’d be tough to argue that they can teach him better than Carrol and Co. at SC can.

by sfgfan on May 29, 2008 9:06 AM PDT up reply actions

his brute strength is enough for now, technique will come later.

So are you officially leading the sign Mariusz Pudzianowski bandwagon? I mean that guy has real “brute strength” and I bet he’d make one hell of a football player.

by methodrampage on May 29, 2008 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions

Yes, Really

I think Hardy had the speed, I watched all of his College tapes and he seemed to end up with the ball in the end zone and everywhere. He would catch them over the shorter cornerbacks, too.

Rachel was in a pro-like system at USC, but the 49ers have a reputation to uphold…Rachel is in a good place. You cannot teach all the techniques both in College and in the NFL unless you are around a seasoned NFL vet who is a pro-bowler and he’ll show you everything that you have to do to beat the opponent at the line of scrimmage.

by 16to80endzone on May 29, 2008 9:20 AM PDT reply actions

Hmm.

So you’re saying Rachal can benefit from leaving early because he’ll be playing next to a seasoned vet who’s a Pro Bowler? What Pro Bowlers do the 49ers currently have along the offensive line? There is not a single offensive lineman on the squad that can teach Rachal a whole lot more than what Carrol and Co. were teaching him at SC. The competition may be higher, but like in baseball, it’s VERY possible to get thrown into the fire a little too early.

I’m not saying Rachal is going to suck. I’m not saying he’s going to be good. But I was just pointing out that it’s kind of flawed to say that he’ll for sure benefit from leaving college early (i.e. develop faster). Kwame Harris entered the league @ age 21 (I believe), and he didn’t really develop a whole lot from his starting point either.

Big WRs can succeed in college and suck in the NFL. Jarrett had “speed” at SC. So did Mike Williams. They were ALL OVER the endzone and the field. They beat DBs deep. They outran DBs. They out-jumped DBs. As you’re willing to point out that coaching in the NFL is assuredly better, you don’t mention that the talent level in the NFL is completely different. The slowest corners in the NFL could possibly be among the fastest in college. College is how a guy like Mike Rumph or Antrel Rolle can succeed as corners, but have difficulty sticking at corner in the NFL because they can’t keep up.

by sfgfan on May 29, 2008 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions

Hmmm, Ho Humm....

Coaches can teach a rookie who just entered in the NFL, whether coming from a college with a pro offense/defense, but players won’t be spending extracurricular time with the coaches. The players will hang out and be buddies, so most likely Rachel will be learning the ropes from the seasoned vets, pro-bowler or not.

A coach will spend a minimum of 45 mins teaching technique to a player on any given day, in addition to watching movie clips of games with voice over discussing the plays or technique implemented, but the coach has an entire roster to attend to, so that leaves the veterans to take a rookie under his wings and mentor him.

Rachel, of course, is being thrown in the fire. But that is not to say he won’t be taught a technique or two to complement his football skills. In the NFL, where the speed is obviously faster, it’s a good place to learn because the game speed is so fast, players don’t have time to think where he has to be or to gauge the shift changes that occurs in the line of scrimmage as the quarterback commands from the huddle. In college, players can afford to think at times but in the NFL, you have to know what you are doing and be in the right place or be employing the most appropraite technique for the play. Rachel will be forced to learn first and then let it happen naturally for him on the field. That is where raw talent comes in, but Rachel learned from Carrol and Co, if we didn’t have Nolan or Singletary as Head Coach or even Martz as one, I’d want Carrol, so Rachel was in good hands at USC.

Kwame Harris had his strengths but his weak areas were something that propelled the 49ers to let him go sign with another team. He was a good player but didn’t fit in with the Niner’s make up.

You made good points about big WRs who succeeded in college and flunked out in the NFL, I think the issue is conditioning and route running. The game is so fast, WRs, short or tall, have to run precise routes (i.e; Jerry Rice). You can draft a tall, fast WR who did well at the Pro Combines, who ran a 4.3 but does he have game speed? Jerry Rice was not faster than the elite NFL wideouts but his game speed was very elusive. On top of that, he trained to be the best and ran very precise routes. It really depends on the work ethic of the player who wants to be the best in the game. Jerry Rice mentored DeSean Jackson which is why I thought maybe he would have been a good pick. I mean, Rice wouldn’t have mentored Jackson if he thought that he didn’t have potential to thrive in the NFL. That speaks a lot in volumes…

by 16to80endzone on May 31, 2008 12:36 AM PDT up reply actions

This seems rather speculative to me in a lot of ways.

Especially when you say Kwame was a good player. No he wasn’t, he was a half a player. The guy had absolutely no ability on passing downs. He wouldn’t be a serviceable player on any team because he completely lacks half of the fundamental skills necessary to be a starter at his position.

Also, the idea that Rachal wouldn’t be learning from NFL coaches because coaches don’t spend time with the players, but that Carrol and Co somehow managed to prepare him well through coaching… is a bit contradictory, no?

And this whole Larry Allen discussion is kind of moot anyway, I mean outside of all the speculative mumbo jumbo… since he’s not on the team and all.

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on May 31, 2008 1:20 AM PDT up reply actions

Actually, my wording was bad. The stuff about Kwame wasn’t speculative at all. That was just wrong. Much of the rest of it was speculative, though.

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on May 31, 2008 1:25 AM PDT up reply actions

Poor, poor Jamarcus Russell

From the Oakland Tribune

Kwame Harris struggled in San Francisco, but Tom Cable is convinced he could be the ideal left tackle.

by methodrampage on Jun 2, 2008 8:35 AM PDT up reply actions

Jackson

As we’ve already seen from Rice since his playing days, he’ll do almost anything to stay in the limelight. That includes, but isn’t limited to, reality shows, a radio show, and now, training a “shiny shiny first round pick.” Why would he mentor Jackson if he didn’t think he had the talent? Money and Eddie D.

by sfgfan on Jun 2, 2008 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions

You forgot playing for the Raiders

and Seahawks

by methodrampage on Jun 2, 2008 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions

By the way.

It’d probably be greatly appreciated by all if you reply to the particular comment you’re replying to, instead of using the general reply box at the bottom. To do this, just click on the “reply” link (with the little ”+” box next to it) immediately following the comment that you are replying to. It makes it easier for everyone to understand who you’re responding to with your comment.

by sfgfan on May 29, 2008 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions