NFL Draft 2009: Let's Make a Deal

by briandean on Apr 13, 2009 6:00 AM PDT in Draft Comment 31 comments

Draft2009_medium By now you've probably got an idea of who you'd like the 49ers to draft in two weeks. And you can bet the 49ers have their draft board pretty well pegged. It's time to go shopping. Don't like where you sit? No worries, the NFL Draft is a veritable flee market. One man's trash is another man's treasure. Let the games begin.

Here's a link to the full 2009 draft order. Below is a list of the 49ers pick with values in parenthesis. Those values are determined by the trade value chart made famous by Jimmy Johnson. It must be stated that this chart isn't a rule, but merely a tool. But the chart tends to be pretty accurate. For example, in 2008 the Saints traded #10 (1300 points) and #78 (200) to move up to the Patriots #7 (1500) plus a 6th round throw-in at #164 (26.8). So, that's pretty darn close at 1500 for 1527 points. Later in the 1st round the Jaguars moved up to grab Derrick Harvey with the Ravens at pick #8 (1400) using their 1st #26 (700), two 3rds #71 (235), 89 (145) and a 4th #125 (47). That looks like a deal for Jacksonville, spending a total of 1127. The Ravens then moved back up with #26 (700) and #89 (145) to #18 (900) to draft Joe Flacco. Again, a slight edge in points goes to the team moving up, but somewhat close.

49ers 2009 Draft Picks
Round	pick #	point value
1	10	1300
2	43	470
3	74	220
4	111	72
5	146	33
5	171	comp pick*
6	184	19
7	219	5
7	244	comp pick*

*Compensatory picks cannot be traded.

So you want to move up, do you? If you're looking at the top 3, that's gonna cost you a future 1st rounder along with #10 and maybe more if you're trying to get up to #2 or #1. When you add in the cost of signing a top pick, the idea gets even uglier. Picks # 10 and #43 add up to 1770, which gets you pretty close to the value of #4 at 1800. Depending on how the board falls, Seattle might be willing to play ball--but who would be the target there? I don't a match. If you want to dangle a 3rd rounder, you might be able to get up to #6 or #7, but again, for who?

The idea of trading down in the 1st round tends to be a more popular idea amongst 49ers fans (and fans of most other teams). San Francisco would obviously have to find a partner who wants to dance. Denver just traded Pro-Bowler Jay Cutler and could certainly be in the mix for a QB, but I just don't see the Broncos as a match. Think about it, if you're Denver and a player like Mark Sanchez falls to Jacksonville at #8, why wouldn't they deal with them at #8 or Green Bay at #9? It wouldn't take much more, if any, to move up to #9 rather than #10. And SF is one of the teams Denver would actually want to get in front of to take Sanchez. If the 49ers are on the clock and Sanchez/Freeman is still available and McSing is willing to deal, then you know they aren't into that player enough to draft him, so why make a deal if he's not likely to be picked before #12? The only way they do business with San Francisco is if they believe another team is ready to strike a deal for #10 and Denver feels like they need to block it.

I'll dive into more trade scenarios after the jump. How does two 1st rounders sound?

Pvc_medium

The more likely partners are those teams trailing Denver who almost HAVE to move in front of them to ensure their QB of choice. Those teams appear to be Washington at #13, New York Jets at #17 and Tampa Bay at #19. For Washington to move up it would cost them their 3rd (190) along with #13 (1150). New York would have to give up a little more. The Jets at #17 (950) plus their 2nd rounder at #52 (380) would put them just over 1300 points. SF might have to give them back a late round pick in that scenario or settle for a 3rd. With Tampa Bay things get dicey, because they lack a 2nd round pick in 2009. The Bucs don't have enough ammo to get up to #10 without throwing in a future 1st. And if they are willing to play ball, as with the other teams listed, Green Bay would probably have to decline first. It's not a good bet that Ted Thompson, Green Bay Packers GM, would pass on a good deal due to his willingness to trade down in the past and their need to add multiple players who fit their new 3-4 scheme.

One good thing about the Packers possibly trading down from #9 with a team looking for a QB, is that means they didn't steal a Brian Orakpo, B.J. Raji or Everette Brown away from the 49ers. If Jacksonville moves down from #8, maybe Michael Crabtree finds his way to the city.

Of course, Philidelphia has two 1st rounders, but I don't know who they'd be targeting in a trade up to #10. And I don't really like the idea of moving out of the top 20, either. This team need impact players, not just more bodies.

McCloughan hasn't shown a tendency to move down in the draft, but he has shown the willingness to go up and get a guy that he really likes. He's done it three times in the last four years. In 2005, McCloughan traded back into the bottom of round 3 to select OT Adam Snyder. In 2006 and 2007 he pulled the trigger on deals to get back into the 1st round, targeting OLB Manny Lawson and OT Joe Staley, respectively.

So, who is worth a trade up? If the Niners end up with an offensive player at #10, like Oher, Smith or Crabtree, then a pass rushing OLB makes sense. Don't expect one of the really good players to fall to #43. Clint Sintim may be there, but names like Everette Brown, Rey Maualuga (darkhorse rush LB), Aaron Maybin, Connor Barwin and Larry English will probably not. There is a gauntlet teams running the 3-4 scheme in the late 1st to early 2nd round. Starting at New England's #23 pick, you have to hope one of these guys makes it past them, Miami, Baltimore, Arizona, Pittburgh, New England(again), Cleveland, Green Bay. And that's not counting the teams who like these prospects as 4-3 DE or LB. Minnesota's 22nd pick would be a logical target in that scenario. Ironically it was the 22nd pick that San Francisco got from Denver in 2006 to draft Lawson. That year they gave up 2nd (#37) and 3rd (#68) rounders. If there was a trade down from #10, then a move back up would be that much easier with the extra picks.

Allow me to rosterbate for a moment... Imagine a scenario where Michael Crabtree falls to #10. Then our beloved Scarlet and Gold are able to swing a deal to get back up and snag a falling Brown, Maybin, Barwin or English later in the round. I, for one, would have no problem giving up a future 1st to land a Crabtree/Brown tandem. Maybe a defender is taken at #10 and Andre Smith takes a long tumble. Just saying ... it's worth at least exploring potential draft day scenarios, however unlikely. You can be assured Scot McCloughan and the gang are doing their homework on what kind of craziness could ensue.

0 recs | Comment 31 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

interesting ideas

I personally don’t like the idea of trading away future #1 picks, because you just never know where that pick might be and how valuable it will be. Maybe having that pick would put you in perfect position to get the perfect player for your team.

OTOH, trading down in the first round, then back up again – giving us two mid to late-first rounders is an idea I could get behind, if we still came out with two quality players. I would just before we do it all using 09 picks.

Still defending Rich Aurilia, and the Niners' classic unis

by wjackalope on Apr 13, 2009 8:24 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

cell phone typo?

I would just before we do it all using 09 picks.

before = PREFER. No idea how that happened. Pre 10 AM typing FAIL

Still defending Rich Aurilia, and the Niners' classic unis

by wjackalope on Apr 13, 2009 8:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

totally agree

with this statement:

deal to get back up and snag a falling Brown, Maybin, Barwin or English later in the round. I, for one, would have no problem giving up a future 1st to land a Crabtree/Brown tandem

that would be a great draft indeed. I have no problems if the team decides to trade down from 10 (especially if Crab doesn’t make it to 10), or if they trade back into round 1 after locking down a solid player like Crab at 10. If we can get two immediate impacts, I’m all for sacrificing a couple later selections. There should still be plenty of other talent in round 4 on, so if we trade our 2 and 3 for another first, I’d be ok with that.

Ulitmately, I’d like to see the #10 pick turn into two 1st rounders though, again if Crab doesn’t make it to 10.

by Andrew Davidson on Apr 13, 2009 8:53 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

good stuff brian...

based on my season reviews, free agency previews, and what they’ve actually done in free agency i think the niners biggest remaining needs are pass rusher, QB depth, RT depth, and S depth. because (as will become evident in my upcoming draft posts), i don’t think it’s smart to use Day 1 picks (esp. 1st rounders) simply on depth, i definitely like the idea of trading down from #10 if the premier pass rusher they covet isn’t there or will be available later in the 1st round. which brings me to my question (and it’s out of total ignorance): where are the pass rushers likely to go in the 1st round? of these, who are the ones most likely to be available in the bottom half of round 1? based on the chart, what (roughly) would the niners be having to give up pick-wise to move down from #10 into the 17-22 range. i know you don’t think mccloughan is likely to move down given his history, but humor me here if at all possible.

by Florida Danny on Apr 13, 2009 10:53 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

A deal with Detroit would do it.

This assumes the Lions don’t take their QB with the first pick, which is what I see happening(because OTs are safe picks). The Lions could then package their #20 and #33 picks to move back up to #8(Jags), #9(Packers), or #10 to get their QB. If the trade was with the 9ers, the team could use either pick to get a pass rusher like Barwin and the other to get a good CB like S. Smith. The real problem is that guys like Smith, Barwin, Johnson, and Sintim are all over the map as to where they belong in the first 50 picks. The mock here has Sintim going very early, yet most bigboard rankers have him going in the mid-late 2nd because he doesn’t work well in space and could be moved inside at the next level. So who the heck knows? This is an odd draft from top to bottom.

by MontanaPass on Apr 13, 2009 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

pass rushers

I personally have them ranked like this, with where I think they WILL go in parenthesis:

1. Everette Brown(Top 15)- Pass rush demon. Has all the skills to be great and will impact the game immediately even if only a third down guy right away. Too short? Please, he has long arms and his size gives him better quickness and leverage. His size/speed/strength is prototype for a 3-4 WOLB. The 49ers are being way too quiet on this guy. Will probably go after Orakpo, but shouldn’t get too far. If he starts to slip, I’ll be screaming trade up.
2. Brian Orakpo(Top 10)- Better vs run than Brown, but not as good a rusher. Has some bust factor. Very strong and can control lineman with his hands. Not the burst or counter moves Brown has, but similar athlete.

[big gap]

3-5. Aaron Maybin(12-25)/Connor Barwin(12-25)/LarryEnglish(18-32) all grouped together- Maybin has the biggest bust factor. I don’t buy him suddenly adding 30 lbs and .30 to his 40. All these guys were timed on a level playing field at the Combine. Connor Barwin had the better combine numbers and on field production was equal to Maybin. Barwin is a team guy with no character questions. English doesn’t have the workout numbers, but is the much better player right now, better rusher. He’s the much better value of the three. Hopefully he falls to the 2nd if we go offense in the 1st round.
6. Rey Maualuga(10-20)- Maualuga could be a potential three down player moving around from inside backer to rusher. He’s a good blitzer, but not the rusher the first five guys on the list are. Suposedly was unblockable during pass rush drills at the Senior Bowl practices, but I didn’t see those. You could see why Singletary would love him.
7. Clint Sintim(2nd round)- Could come in and play right away. Solid, not spectacular rusher. Not great in coverage despite 3-4 experience.
8-9. Mathews/Cushing(15-32)- The USC guys are mostly overrated. Cushing and Mathews I’m down on. Both are pretty okay on the field, but neither is a monster pass rusher. Both are all maxed out physically. And even though the steroid reports were premature, I’m not convinced it’s all natural talent.

Everyone has a different take on these guys. Some are more valuable to 4-3 teams, which inflates their value. Most of the draft media bases ranking on 4-3 still. Brown and Orakpo are top 10 picks IMO for a team running 3-4. Brown is my guy and has been since October and still think he’s the pick at #10. I think all the"too short" and “wont be good in coverage” stuff is hogwash. Maybin is like Josh Freeman, just say no!

by briandean on Apr 13, 2009 1:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here's my suprise pick - DE Michael Johnson!

To the Raiders, not the 9ers. Crazy Al has a history of drafting superior athleticism in the 1st round, and this year’s pick just could be Michael Johnson because of his workouts.

But as for the other DE/OLBs, I just don’t see Sintim, Barwin, or English as 1st rounders, mostly because it’s difficult to project what they will do in the NFL and the fact that most of them will not be immediate contributors. It’s too easy to get another Vernon Gholston, who might become something at some time but was a pretty spectacular bust his first year. I like guys that actually produced at their projected NFL position for more than a single year – linemen, CBs, RBs, etc. I leave the high bust potential guys for later rounds, when they aren’t so expensive. Cody Brown or D. Veikune as pass rushers in the 4th round, like Parys and Jay Moore.

by MontanaPass on Apr 13, 2009 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Michael Johnson would be #10 on my list above. Another bust guy IMO. His workout numbers aren’t anywhere near what he’s touted as. And he still play below his talent level, which is never a good sign. Will probably go hihger than he deserves. Al should be put down if he takes him at #7.

Barwin will be a 1st rounder. I’ve got him going #23 to New England. I’d love for him to be available at #43, but it’s just not going to happen.

Cody Brown or D. Veikune as pass rushers in the 4th round, like Parys and Jay Moore.

Those are fine players, but that’s kind of the point. We don’t need more pretty good players. We don’t nee just depth. We need an otherworldly pass rusher. Somebopdy who wreaks havoc on opposing offenses. Somebody that opposing players and coaches worry about leading up to game day.

by briandean on Apr 13, 2009 1:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry for the typos. Damn keyboard.

by briandean on Apr 13, 2009 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree.

Brown and Orakpo, far and away, are the best pass rushers in this draft (at least in my opinion). The gap, like briandean points out, is pretty big, IMO.

by sfgfan on Apr 13, 2009 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here's why DEN would want to trade at #10.

Because the draft isn’t held in a vacuum. The Broncos, with Mike Nolan as DC, are likely pretty sure the 9ers aren’t interested in another 1st round QB – they’re still recovering from the disastrous Alex Smith pick. So why would they trade up to #10 from #12? Because they also know that the Jets, the Bucs, and the Lions(an OT at #1 is the smart pick) are all looking for a QB, too. And Detroit has lots of ammo with which to trade up, including a 1st rounder at #20. So if DEN is set on replacing Cutler with Sanchez or Stafford, they have to get to him before any of the other teams.

So if the 9ers are sitting at #10 with Sanchez still on the board and with the Broncos, Bucs, Jets, and the Lions still without a QB, it would be prudent for the Broncos to offer their #12 and #79 picks to move up two slots and get their man. Because if they don’t, the Lions could very easily offer their #20 and #33 picks to move up(they could also trade with the Jags at #8). The Bucs could also make a move to get ahead of the Broncos, but I doubt the Jets make a move – they don’t have the picks to trade.

So you can see that if the Broncos are determined to get their QB, they would have to trade up with either the Jags, who would likely not trade if B.J. Raji is still there(they need a DT desperately), the Packers(a real possibility if Raji is gone), or the 9ers. This would be a very sweet deal for the 9ers, as they could wind up with both their OT(Oher) and another mid-third pick.

by MontanaPass on Apr 13, 2009 11:03 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

… the 9ers aren’t interested in another 1st round QB – they’re still recovering from the disastrous Alex Smith pick.

If McCloughan is afraid to draft a player he feels is the best player available just because he failed four years earlier on a pick of the same position, he may as well quit or be fired now. You can’t NOT make a pick just because you got burned previously.

This is not to say that I endorse taking Sanchez or Stafford. However, if McCloughan strongly feels that they’re the best players available at #10 and no one wants to trade up with them, I hope he takes them without any fear of failing.

Also, your points about why the Broncos would be interested are interesting, but they have some flaws in them. First and foremost, you’re assuming that the other teams “competing” with the Broncos for a QB would trade up with the 49ers. As I’ve mentioned previously, it’s VERY possible that teams will dare the 49ers to take a QB, knowing darn well they won’t take one. Therefore, you can trade up to #11, instead of #10, and you give up less in terms of draft pick value.

by sfgfan on Apr 13, 2009 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

i agree with the first point...

100%. to use the obvious recent-vintage 49ers metaphor, you can’t be gun shy just because you screwed up the last time you pulled “the trigger.” :-)

by Florida Danny on Apr 13, 2009 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You mean like Matt Millen?

Matt sure wasn’t gun-shy about repeating his mistakes, was he? Look where that got him and the Lions.

GMs in the NFL learn from their mistakes, mostly because their careers depend on it. More than just one or two 1st round screwups can easily cost him his job(see Gruden). The Alex Smith draft was a disaster because they took a spread offense QB with the first pick in a weak QB draft class – just like the weak QB draft class this year. And these picks are a team disaster because they can cost $30mil in dead money and produce losing teams. Take the 9ers as an example. How many millions of $$ have been paid to Smith over the last four years for his non-performance as a #1 overall pick? Is he a star yet? Does he even have a decent completion rate or more TDs than INTs? Does the rest of the league still consider him a #1 QB?

So yes, the Alex Smith pick has been a disaster for the 9ers that they are still recovering from. And that does hurt McCloughan’s reputation as a GM, and he will undoubtedly think very long and very hard before ever taking a QB with a top pick again. He may decide, as many other GMs have, that it’s better, and far less riskier, to draft a developmental QB in the mid-late rounds and give him some time to develop the required skillset. This method has worked very well for the Pats(see Brady,Cassel), and the Tuna has never taken a 1st round QB, iirc.

by MontanaPass on Apr 13, 2009 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

First of all...

… using Millen as a comp. to McCloughan is is kind of irrelevant, as Millen is/was one of the worst GMs in NFL history. McCloughan, while he hasn’t been extremely successful in the draft, is no where near that kind of territory. As the adage goes: you can’t fix stupid.

As for the whole Smith mistake thing. If you say the mistake with Smith was that the team took a spread QB and tried to make him a conventional QB, then where does that put the 49ers in terms of taking a guy like Sanchez? Taking a QB who comes from a pro-style offense this time around, in my book, counts as “learning from your mistakes.”

Again, I’m not saying the team should definitely take Sanchez. I’m just saying that if McCloughan strongly believes Sanchez is the best option at #10, I hope Alex Smith’s failure doesn’t deter him from taking him.

by sfgfan on Apr 13, 2009 1:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Let's play Broncos GM on draft day.

It’s pick #10 and the 9ers are on the clock. You know the 9ers don’t want a QB here, but the Lions, Bucs, and Jets don’t have their QB yet either. You have decided that Sanchez is the guy you want to replace Cutler. But both the Lions and Bucs have called you to talk about a trade, indicating they also want Sanchez and are willing to give you a good deal to trade up. It doesn’t take much prescience to deduce that the Lions and Bucs have probably also called the 9ers and the Bills to talk about a trade, so what do you do? Do you sit pat, knowing the 9ers will certainly entertain trade offers because they don’t want Sanchez? Or do you make the call to McCloughan and offer your #12 and #79 picks, knowing you have that extra 3rd from Chicago? Remember, you’ve decided Sanchez is the guy you want.

If the Broncos want Sanchez, a 3rd is not a high price, especially if you’ve got an extra one from the Cutler deal. It’s a good deal if Sanchez is your guy. If you are ambivalent about Sanchez, it’s likely you are looking at another player anyway.

The same thing applies to both the Bucs and Lions – they’re pretty certain the 9ers don’t care about Sanchez, and that’s why they are a good trade partner, but either of your two competitors could easily make the trade ahead of you and take your guy. The 9ers are almost irrelevant here – it’s about the teams competing against each other. It’s an auction.

by MontanaPass on Apr 13, 2009 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Again.

If you know the 49ers aren’t taking a QB, why would you feel the need to trade with them specifically? Why not just let the 49ers not take a QB and trade with the Bills? That one extra slot is pretty much like getting a 5th or 6th round pick back in terms of value.

by sfgfan on Apr 13, 2009 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If Sanchez is there at 10...

You take him. I guarantee if the Niners select Sanchez they will have the option to trade him. If your not getting phone calls, you start making your own calls and this is what you say "Sanchez is BPA on our board and so we are fine with him, but we would rather have what you have to offer. Either way he is off the board at # 10 so if you want him you gotta come get him.

by SanFranSoldier on Apr 13, 2009 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's a ridiculous approach.

As I’ve mentioned before in arguing against this approach, the 49ers would be completely off the wall (in terms of dumb) to take that kind of a risk with your first round pick. You take a player in the first round that YOU ACTUALLY WANT. You can’t take a player thinking you can trade him to someone else. Why is that? Because if you take him and immediately shop him, teams will know you’re trying to unload him, putting you at a position of weakness in terms of negotiations. Basically, you lose value if you’re able to trade him.

An even worse consequence is this: if you CAN’T work out a trade because people are now low-balling you, you’re stuck with a prospect you maybe didn’t want to begin with and missed out on a prospect that was actually useful at your pick.

by sfgfan on Apr 13, 2009 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It is only ridiculous if there is really involved....

Somebody is going to be willing to deal if Sanchez is there. Worst case scenario, you have a potential QB of the future. We need a QB. The only way we wait till next year is if think we will lose enough games to get a high pick again. Sanchez is a solid pick for the Niners at #10, and plays at a position of need. All of this is moot in my opinion, we would have suitors for Sanchez. And, to clarify when I said make your own calls, I meant while the clock is running tell them your open to trade discussions for the right price, but don’t be thinking he is going to slide to you cause we are choosing BPA and Sanchez is BPA on our board. A similar trade happened with Golden State and the Orlando Magic. The Magic took Chris Webber and than dealt him to the Warriors for Penny Hardaway and an additional pick (I think). It happens. Mayock agrees, look for his 10 pick mock on NFL network. Him and I are on the same page.

by SanFranSoldier on Apr 13, 2009 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It is only ridiculous if there is risk involved

deleted the wrong word

by SanFranSoldier on Apr 13, 2009 2:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

There is a risk...

… though, and I outlined it as above. As I mentioned, even if there ARE interests, those teams will know the 49ers are trying to unload Sanchez, as in they don’t want him.

Trying to trade him immediately after drafting him also has the following effect: Sanchez will feel the 49ers are just using him as bait, and thus refuse to sign. The 49ers will then more than definitely be at an even weaker position in terms of dealing him. They have to deal him or lose the first round pick.

by sfgfan on Apr 13, 2009 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

One more thing.

Yes, I understand it’s a business and that players get traded all the time. I’m sure Sanchez will understand this, too. However, there still has to be a level of trust built between ownership/management/coaching and players. Trying to trade a player immediately after drafting or signing him is a serious breech of said trust.

by sfgfan on Apr 13, 2009 4:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Unloading is a strong term

Maybe the thing that isn’t quite clear about my end of the discussion is that I don’t consider a pick of Sanchez at #10 a bluff. I consider it a pick with options. I thought another member of this site put it perfectly; " I wouldn’t break anything in my house if we took Sanchez". Sanchez is a player with tremendous upside, who could be great. The dreaded “small sample size” is the concern with this kid and It could be far worse. Accuracy, decision making and the ability to create and buy time are the top three attributes that a QB should have to be successful. 2 out of 3 and you are generally an effective QB with a high # of turnovers, or an effective QB who gives up a bunch of sacks (a great OL will make a QB like this look great). Sanchez has laser-like accuracy and he is definitely not a statue. If you take Sanchez at #10 it has to be with the mentality that you are comfortable with the pick if you keep him. The argument that other teams will lo-ball you is based on the crux of our difference of opinion. It assumes that teams are not wanting to trade up at equal value for Sanchez, and that the Niners should take whatever they can get if the fish aren’t biting. I say get equal value or keep him. A team is not going to offer the farm right off the bat, but if the Niners mentality is that they want value for the player than the potential trading partner will pull the trigger or walk either way. No one is expecting to move up to #10 for a 5th round pick.

I feel the exact same way about Crabtree and Raji. The general assessment of this draft is that it is deeper with 1st round talent than most drafts. Mayock believes value meets cost around pick 15-20 through picks 45 to 50 (I agree). I would rather have 3 picks in this value range all considered middle to late 1st round talent than one pick who is possibly a little better but is considered more expensive then he is worth. That doesn’t mean that I do not want that player, I just see more value in multiple players. So in my opinion there is no risk beyond the risk that comes with any draft pick and the potential that they will not pan out.

by SanFranSoldier on Apr 13, 2009 6:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nolan

Mike Nolan was the GM and he drafted Smith. McCloughan was promoted to GM in 2008

49ers WILL make the playoffs this year.

by iaalexeeff on Apr 13, 2009 7:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Technically...

… that is true. However, Nolan and McCloughan have both said countless times that they work hand-in-hand with one another.

by sfgfan on Apr 14, 2009 8:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bronco's

As I mentioned in another comment, I think a better trade for both the Niners and the Bronco’s would be #18 and Denver’s 2nd round #48 for the #10. Denver gets 2 of the top 12 players in the Draft and we get 3 of the top 50. I still like the idea of the Lions much better (#20 and #33) but this is the next best trade scenario. The Jets have less to offer but not by much (#17 and #52) and the Bucs just do not have the firepower unless they want to get rid of next years 1st round pick (not likely).

by SanFranSoldier on Apr 13, 2009 1:40 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

The Broncos would love that trade. Keeping their #12 and trading for Sanchez at #10 allows them to get both Sanchez and Raji . . . there two biggest targets on the board.

I’m not sure the 49ers are interested in the 18th pick. If none of the big 3 OT are available at #10 I gather from reports the 49ers next choices are Oher, Sanchez, Raji and Rey Maualuga (who I keep hearing reports the 49ers really, really like). Trading back to 18th won’t get them any of those guys. If they can give up the #10 for #12 or #13 (Redskins) and a 2nd or 3rd round pick than I think they will be thrilled for an excuse to take Rey.

by bignerd on Apr 13, 2009 5:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

My response above holds some relevance to your comments as well bignerd

by SanFranSoldier on Apr 13, 2009 6:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I also think Ray Maualuga is there at #18

And Oher may be gone by pick #10

by SanFranSoldier on Apr 13, 2009 6:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think...

…. it’s a very certain thing that Oher and A.Smith are both gone by #18. Also, at #18, there is the possibility of a guy like Malcolm Jenkins sitting there because other teams didn’t want to draft an inexperienced free safety really high. Also, if the 49ers are looking for a RT, I’d be somewhat okay with them taking one around #18. One of Britton or Loadholt will probably fit in just fine at RT. Sintim will probably be available at that spot too for OLB.

by sfgfan on Apr 14, 2009 8:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs