Chiefs What The Niners did with the Picks from the AS trade

OldSchool · 05-12-2014, 11:37 AM

The Niners would have been better off using those early picks on their perceived "weaknesses". CB and WR, taking other positions only if the player available is clearly better than anything else on the board. However, I guess that they kind of had little choice after the top 7 DBs already went well before their pick. Idiots should have used some to move up and grab Roby or something.

**The Franchise** · 05-12-2014, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldSchool

The Niners would have been better off using those early picks on their perceived "weaknesses". CB and WR, taking other positions only if the player available is clearly better than anything else on the board. However, I guess that they kind of had little choice after the top 7 DBs already went well before their pick. Idiots should have used some to move up and grab Roby or something.

Yeah....it kind of surprised me that they just kept trading down.

Jakemall · 05-12-2014, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pestilence

Yeah....it kind of surprised me that they just kept trading down.

I'm a big believer in trading down (at least to a certain extent). If you can get value for the pick, you have a better shot at getting lucky with 3 guys than one guy in the first round. No, not all of them will hit...but you only need one out of 3 to hit as opposed to putting all your hopes in a single pick.

htismaqe · 05-12-2014, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jakemall

I'm a big believer in trading down (at least to a certain extent). If you can get value for the pick, you have a better shot at getting lucky with 3 guys than one guy in the first round. No, not all of them will hit...but you only need one out of 3 to hit as opposed to putting all your hopes in a single pick.

The relationship between pick value and player success isn't linear. The further you trade back, the less potential high-end value you're getting. You limiting your chances of ending up with nothing but you're also limiting your chances of getting actual blue-chip talent.

Sure, you can shotgun it, take 3, and hit 1. You're not going home empty-handed.

Or you can use a rifle, hit 1, and ****ing KILL IT.

If you want a couple of pheasants, a shotgun works fine. If you want to bring down a rhino, you better have a rifle.

Jakemall · 05-12-2014, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

The relationship between pick value and player success isn't linear. The further you trade back, the less potential high-end value you're getting. You limiting your chances of ending up with nothing but you're also limiting your chances of getting actual blue-chip talent.

Sure, you can shotgun it, take 3, and hit 1. You're not going home empty-handed.

Or you can use a rifle, hit 1, and ****ing KILL IT.

If you want a couple of pheasants, a shotgun works fine. If you want to bring down a rhino, you better have a rifle.

I understand where you're coming from, and I do think it is a balancing act..but give this a read:

http://www.vox.com/2014/5/7/5683448/...s-irrationally

This was particularly interesting: He and Thaler figured this out by calculating the odds that the first player picked at any given position will perform better — in terms of the number of games he starts in his first five seasons — than the second player drafted at that position. This is relevant because a team will often trade up when they identify a player they prefer at a needed position: they need a wide receiver, and a few highly-rated ones are available, but they trade up because they're certain one is much better.

But the data says that teams just aren't very good at figuring out when this is true. On average, the chance that first player will start more games than the second one picked at his position: 52 percent. Compared to the third, it's still only 55 percent, and compared to the fourth, it's merely 56 percent.

Bottom Line: Scouts and GMs just aren't good enough to figure out who should really be in round 1 or round 2 or round 3 and are better off trading down for the most part.

**The Franchise** · 05-12-2014, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jakemall

I'm a big believer in trading down (at least to a certain extent). If you can get value for the pick, you have a better shot at getting lucky with 3 guys than one guy in the first round. No, not all of them will hit...but you only need one out of 3 to hit as opposed to putting all your hopes in a single pick.

Yeah....that's great when you have a bunch of holes on your roster. No way the entire 49ers draft class makes that roster.

Jakemall · 05-12-2014, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pestilence

Yeah....that's great when you have a bunch of holes on your roster. No way the entire 49ers draft class makes that roster.

9ers have one of the best rosters in the NFL, imo. Sometimes it's better to grab a lot of players and throw them against the wall and see what sticks than it is to grab a guy who might be able to beat one other guy.

The only real weaknesses I think on that roster are CB and WR. They addressed one in the draft and the other in a trade.

Mr. Laz · 05-12-2014, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jakemall

9ers have one of the best rosters in the NFL, imo. Sometimes it's better to grab a lot of players and throw them against the wall and see what sticks than it is to grab a guy who might be able to beat one other guy.

I disagree

imo when you roster is talented you should trade up and grab the higher players that fit you specific needs.

Quantity over quality is what crappy teams use because they might get lucky and have several guys make their roster

Jakemall · 05-12-2014, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Laz

I disagree

imo when you roster is talented you should trade up and grab the higher players that fit you specific needs.

Quantity over quality is what crappy teams use because they might get lucky and have several guys make their roster

If you could accurately determine who the best player is at a given pick, great. Most NFL GMs don't hit accurately enough to make it statistically worth while.

**The Franchise** · 05-12-2014, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jakemall

9ers have one of the best rosters in the NFL, imo. Sometimes it's better to grab a lot of players and throw them against the wall and see what sticks than it is to grab a guy who might be able to beat one other guy.

The only real weaknesses I think on that roster are CB and WR. They addressed one in the draft and the other in a trade.

And that's how they lost out on Marcus Cooper.

Jakemall · 05-12-2014, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pestilence

And that's how they lost out on Marcus Cooper.

They lost out on Cooper because they refused to believe that he could be better than Nnamdi. They gambled that they could get him on the PS. They lost the gamble.

ct · 05-12-2014, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldSchool

The Niners would have been better off using those early picks on their perceived "weaknesses". CB and WR, taking other positions only if the player available is clearly better than anything else on the board. However, I guess that they kind of had little choice after the top 7 DBs already went well before their pick. Idiots should have used some to move up and grab Roby or something.

they can always trade for flowers, 2nd round pick should do it

ok i'll stop

05-12-2014, 11:37 AM	#1
OldSchool MVP Join Date: Sep 2013 Casino cash: $10035212	The Niners would have been better off using those early picks on their perceived "weaknesses". CB and WR, taking other positions only if the player available is clearly better than anything else on the board. However, I guess that they kind of had little choice after the top 7 DBs already went well before their pick. Idiots should have used some to move up and grab Roby or something.
Posts: 12,727