Putting on the hindsight goggles: Chilo Rachal vs. DeSean Jackson

by David Fucillo on Apr 2, 2009 8:00 AM PDT in NFL Draft

A little over a year ago, the 49ers made an interesting selection with their second round pick. They grabbed USC guard Chilo Rachal in a pick that caught many folks off guard. My favorite comment has to be a drunken wjackalope:

I was passed out by the time we took what’s his face in the 2nd round. why not a receiver or groves? seriously.

A drunken wjackalope is fast becoming a draft day tradition around these parts.

The big question at that pick for 49ers fans was why not DeSean Jackson. Seeing as he was a Cal grad it's not surprising people were pining for him. Some of the comments in the draft thread above, prior to instituting our swearing policy, were definitely intense.

I bring this up now because looking at this a year later opens up some interesting questions. If Jackson had done nothing last year nobody would think about it anymore. Instead, Jackson was a big playmaker for the Eagles and saw his college game translate fairly well at the next level.

At the same time, Chilo Rachal didn't do too bad for himself. When he announced for the draft, most "experts" felt he really should have stayed for his senior year. However, health problems for his mom and dad forced him into the NFL. It was a shame for him, but in the end it's worked out on a football level.

Rachal's NFL career started with two inactives and six DNPs. However, not too long after Coach Singletary was promoted, Rachal was rotated into a pair of games, before starting the last six games of the season at right guard. While he certainly wasn't the best offensive lineman on the team, he definitely showed some big time ability. There has been discussion at times about moving him to right tackle, but if he sticks at guard, the 49ers could very well be set there for the foreseeable future.

Looking back is not the simplest task, given that DeSean Jackson might not have been nearly as good a wide receiver with the 49ers. Maybe the return game would have been there, but they got quality from Allen Rossum. Or maybe being around Isaac Bruce would have been better for Jackson long term. Who knows.

The question I pose is whether, with hindsight, you wish the 49ers would have drafted DeSean Jackson instead of Chilo Rachal. Factor in anything you want. You can assume Jackson would put up the same numbers, better numbers, or worse numbers. I'm just curious what people think, in light of the discussion a year ago.

Poll

Given hindsight, who would you rather the 49ers have drafted?

Chilo Rachal

494 votes

DeSean Jackson

285 votes

779 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 33 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

In the end...

it comes down to what is more important. And I think with fans screaming for an OT early in this year’s draft, I would say OL needs beat WR needs any day. The old cliche goes: you win football games in the trenches. That holds as true today as it did the first time it was uttered. Our line has needed help, and still needs a little. The best recieving corps would do absolutely nothing if the QB had less than 2 seconds to throw the ball. Develop the line, get a solid starting 5 that (barring serious injuries trades/FA/etc) will be together for the next decade. We currently have Staley, Heitmann and Rachal as a good core (as in nucleus, not corps) for the line. Granted Heitmann is 29 and doesn’t have a decade in him, but if he can be our center or guard for the next 5-7 years, we find out wether or not Bass can hold it down at one of the guard spots, and get a young RT to groom behind Smith and/or Snyder until he’s ready to take over, we will have a solid line for years to come, with hopefully young guys being developed as starters get older.

Once we have a line that can give the QB time and sustain a running game that helps open up the pass, then we can get a WR that will improve the passing game. I mean obviously a Josh Morgan in the sixth is always nice, but going for a 1st-2nd round WR before you have a solid OLine is probably a waste of talent, kinda like going for a QB with the 1st overall pick when the line he’s going to play behind is horrendous. So I’m happy with Rachal over Desean “I’m going to toss the ball at the 1 yard line after a 60 yard catch” Jackson.

by Sebaz49 on Apr 2, 2009 8:18 AM PDT reply actions

Totally agree. Once the Offensive and Defensive lines are set then the other positions get better.

I think with Rachal and Smith on the right side Gore can have a good year. It also helps to get his favorite fullback to block for him. This year a good RT and even a LG would be needed as we don’t know if Bass will stay or even if he is who they want for the long term. Wallace is going to hold down the fort behind Heitmann for a while and he looks good.

Everyone has a different idea of who to draft at # 10. But I would like to see a good RB like Andre Brown in the 2nd round to compliment Gore and also pick up the slack when Gore is hurt.

"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"

by Eastbayjim on Apr 2, 2009 8:55 AM PDT up reply actions

Jackson isn't all that

If you think he would have come any where close to “producing” at the level he did in Philly in SF you’re joking yourself. I lot of people around here are all over his junk because he went to Cal which is evident by Eddie Royal’s lack of mention.

Don't sweat it. I'm illiterate.

by methodrampage on Apr 2, 2009 8:57 AM PDT reply actions

This.

Basically, I’d still take Rachal. Of course, I probably would have taken Groves the first time around.

by sfgfan on Apr 2, 2009 9:23 AM PDT up reply actions

I'm torn

I think a playmaking deep threat receiver would be great to have, but I agree with Sebaz that the line is the core of the team and needs to be intact. So, although I was baffled by the move at the time (once I came to), I think that it was a fairly smart conservative move – if Rachal ends up being a solid player. But I think don’t think taking Jackson would have been a huge mistake either – even though I also agree with method that he wouldn’t have been as good here.

Still defending Rich Aurilia, and the Niners' classic unis

by wjackalope on Apr 2, 2009 9:03 AM PDT reply actions

Jackson's future

I’m a Rachal fan for all kinds of reasons, not least among them being the fact that we got him in the 2nd round. We got him for cheap and he’s got a ton of potential.
Jackson is built like a toothpick, and while his speed is seriously enticing, I think last year will end up being an above average season for him. I’d rather have a beast like Rachal than a career-ending-injury-waiting-to-happen like Jackson.

Throwback unis? Yes. Throwback afros? YES!

by grantmp on Apr 2, 2009 9:03 AM PDT reply actions

I wasn't happy with the pick then

but I am now.

I wasn’t happy with last year’s draft in general at the time.

With Rachal being a starting RG, and Morgan a potential starting WR, I’m not as unhappy.

When Balmer and Reggie Smith come around, I’m sure we’ll all be a little more content with the way things went down.

by Andrew Davidson on Apr 2, 2009 9:08 AM PDT reply actions

Smith

I think it’s a mistake they aren’t trying him out at corner this offseason, now that there’s, you know, a little space for him. I’d like to think that he could offer a little more than Tarrel Brown or Shawntae Spencer if he got some playtime in.

by sfgfan on Apr 2, 2009 9:25 AM PDT up reply actions

I agree

his size alone is worth giving him a legit shot at corner this year. we can always pull an Antrel Rolle and convert him to safety at a later date.

by Andrew Davidson on Apr 2, 2009 9:37 AM PDT up reply actions

Exactly.

They’re converting him to safety already to do what, back up Goldson? I think Smith would be better utilized, at least for training camp, competing against Spencer/Hudson/Brown for the third and fourth corner spots.

by sfgfan on Apr 2, 2009 9:40 AM PDT up reply actions

yep

that would create a very good competition, and isn’t that what Singletary is preaching “to compete”?

it doesn’t make a lot of sense to have Smith being a back up safety. Let him play some corner and if he turns into Mike Rumph, let’s move him to safety.

sorry for saying Mike Rumph.

by Andrew Davidson on Apr 2, 2009 9:45 AM PDT up reply actions

er

i never could hate Rumph. don’t know why…

by daveofferson on Apr 2, 2009 10:00 AM PDT up reply actions

Same

I think the 49ers did him a huge disservice and kept him at corner for too long. They didn’t try him at safety until the final year he was with the team, I believe.

by sfgfan on Apr 2, 2009 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions

That is not to say...

… he deserves any sympathy.

by sfgfan on Apr 2, 2009 10:17 AM PDT up reply actions

ERRRR!!!!!

by bignerd on Apr 2, 2009 11:24 AM PDT up reply actions

hated it at the time...

…but looking back now, we didn’t have a line that could provide enough protection to take advantage of Jackson’s stregths. So rebuilding the line was a good call and Rachal is a good kid, and he’s from Compton.

by 49ersCAN on Apr 2, 2009 9:29 AM PDT reply actions

Looking back now

Rachal was the right pick. He was a wall and a beast as a rookie. He’s going to be even better this upcoming season.

by 49ers21 on Apr 2, 2009 10:26 AM PDT reply actions

To me,

it’s more a question of why the hell they took Balmer with the 1st pick. That was and still is a terrible selection- they could have taken both Rachal AND Jackson if they hadn’t done that.

But if it’s between those two, I’d rather have Rachal because he’s really really good.

Extremely proud adoptive parent of Paul E. Stanley [insert witty comment]
Thanks to roger

by bondslegend on Apr 2, 2009 12:10 PM PDT reply actions

If...

Jason Hill, Dominique Zeigler and, the team’s best receiver, Josh Morgan play well this coming season, then the Rachal pick is justified.

"The voice of the intellect is a soft one, but it does not rest until it has gained a hearing"

by Jeff_Fuller_49 on Apr 2, 2009 12:34 PM PDT reply actions

Regardless of what Hill, Zeigler or Morgan do

The Rachal pick was justified.

Don't sweat it. I'm illiterate.

by methodrampage on Apr 2, 2009 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions

Granted...

DeSean Jackson may not have been that great, Rachal has not shown much, yet, either. So, in my humble opinion, it’s a wait-and-see situation.

"The voice of the intellect is a soft one, but it does not rest until it has gained a hearing"

by Jeff_Fuller_49 on Apr 2, 2009 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions

you willn't have to wait long.

by LASVEGASNINER on Apr 2, 2009 1:10 PM PDT up reply actions

Hasn't shown much?

You’re right, Rachal hasn’t made very many highlight reels. He must have not been worth the pick between Jackson made sports center more often.

Don't sweat it. I'm illiterate.

by methodrampage on Apr 2, 2009 1:19 PM PDT up reply actions

Shaun Hill's performance...

… at the end of the year should be enough reason to think that Rachal has shown quite a bit. He helped (semi-)stabilize an otherwise porous line.

by sfgfan on Apr 2, 2009 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions

Hmmmm....

Jackson made the highlight films more than Rachal did? I didn’t know that. You would think the OL’s would have more highlights in a game.

I like Rachal. I am not saying he is not worth the pick. I am just waiting for him to play a whole season.

I said that the Rachal pick would be justified if the 3 WR’s I mentioned played well, because that means the 49ers made a good decision of not picking Jackson in their draft slot. Nowhere did I say that they wasted their 2nd round selection on an OL.

Some people just like to over analyze things, I guess.

"The voice of the intellect is a soft one, but it does not rest until it has gained a hearing"

by Jeff_Fuller_49 on Apr 2, 2009 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions

Some people just dont get it.

No matter how well, or poor, the current WR corp. plays Rachal was a better pick than Jackson, period.

Don't sweat it. I'm illiterate.

by methodrampage on Apr 3, 2009 7:17 AM PDT up reply actions

unless

Chilo goes into Beast mode and eats the entire city of San Francisco. Then its not that good.

by Andrew Davidson on Apr 3, 2009 7:19 AM PDT up reply actions

And...

some people just want to over analyze things.

I did not say that Jackson would have been a better pick. I am just saying that the Rachal pick would be justified (I suppose I should add one more word) “more” if the 3 WR’s I mentioned would play well this season and beyond.

"The voice of the intellect is a soft one, but it does not rest until it has gained a hearing"

by Jeff_Fuller_49 on Apr 3, 2009 8:15 AM PDT up reply actions

IN my opinion

Rachal was the pick. I’m not drafting any receiver who isn’t physically capable of catching 100 balls. Jackson can’t take that kind of punishment. He’s got a double move and a fly route in his arsenal. Oooooh scary, gimme that beasty fella that bulldozed a nice hole for Gore against I believe the Redskins. Great Pick!! That’s why take Maclin he has the build and that invisible juice like Rice. (meaning I’m faster than you with theses pads and the ball). And after praticing that hill he will be awesome as a rookie depending on the team situation!!

by rlott#42 on Apr 2, 2009 5:26 PM PDT reply actions

On a fun sidenote...

Chilo Rachal is also the 2009 crab cracking champion! Let’s see DeSean DO THAT!

Also, the way the question is set up is a pretty interesting psychology question. This particular scenario basically says that if you ask people to look back on a choice, and re-evaluate how they feel, without the option of being able to re-choose, they will almost always be happy. The human brain will always try to make the best of it. Alternatively, if we could do a trade straight up between Rachal and Jackson, then the brain can’t protect itself, and you’ll go crazy trying to choose.

by RobbieS on Apr 2, 2009 6:03 PM PDT reply actions