One way to upgrade your QB is to upgrade his receivers. Kyle Pitts would be a great get. Another way to upgrade your QB, especially Jimmy G, is to get him better pass protection.
OT: 49ers trade up for 3rd pick in NFL draft
27,604 Views |
236 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by philbert
That went out the window as soon as they gave up 3 first round picks to move up to #3. No one gives up those kinds of assets except for a QB. At 12 they were in position to nab one of the skill players that fell or one of the top OL and they had the option of trading up or down to make that happen with efficient use of value. That's what the Eagles are doing by trading back to 12 with the Dolphins for the Niners original pick
I'm going to start with the first point. I counter your dispute. To me this is like the adage if you have 2 starting QB's you have none. There is a guy or there isn't. There are not going to be 5 generational talents at QB in this class. At the point you tell me there are 2 or 3 guys they have identified, I'm going back to the adage. Then there are none. Of course if they said Fields is the next Brady and they were confident about that, they should take him no matter what I think (and hope they are right).JeffBear07 said:Just for the record, I myself am ambivalent on the 49ers' trade up to #3. Obviously if they draft their QB for the next 10+ years, it was worth every pick they gave up, and if the pick busts, then the trade was a failure and reloading the team becomes that much harder. I just don't think the odds of that happening are as high as you think nor that the 49ers situation as of this moment is as bad as you think.OaktownBear said:JeffBear07 said:Far more so than any other NFL position, QB is where a team's floor gets set, so if the 49ers believe they are getting a franchise QB with pick #3, then it's hard to hit them too hard over it in my opinion. A few other factors that I believe mitigate the risks/costs that you've outlined:OaktownBear said:71Bear said:Not all of them. Some, like JaMarcus Russell, were the choice of one guy who thought he was smarter than all the other guys. And we all know how that turns out whether it is sports, business or politics.calumnus said:71Bear said:Lotto is pure chance. Identifying the right player at the top of the draft is not chance, it is the result of surrounding yourself with accomplished personnel whose collective wisdom yields a recommendation that leads to the selection of a franchise player. No one is saying SF will assuredly choose the right QB. What can be said is they have put themselves in a position to make the right choice (something they were not prior to the trade).calumnus said:OaktownBear said:Of course. And if that trade doesn't yield better than an already solid Jimmy G, and the picks you traded yield Aaron Rodgers, Jerry Rice, Asomugha, and Tom Brady, It will be the blunder of the century.71Bear said:If that trade yields a "Mahomes-like" result or another Aaron Rodgers, it will have been the steal of the decade. If not, maybe not so much. Yep, a lot of pressure to make the right choice but you don't build a champion by being timid. I like the team I follow aggressively chasing Super Bowl trophies. In pro sports, winning is all that matters....OaktownBear said:Which is why you don't trade 3 first round picks and a third for one pick.71Bear said:... or third pick value with their fifth round choice.OaktownBear said:Bearly Clad said:
My bad I didn't mean to put words in your mouth but thanks for the response
Honestly I see the top 5 QBs like this: Lawrence, Lance, Fields, Wilson, Jones but I think yours is more likely to be the way it actually goes. We won't know for a couple years but people have been saying for a while that this year and next year will be the hardest years to evaluate for the NFL draft because of COVID. But if there's 5 QBs in the top 10 it'll have to either be a generational QB class like '83 or there's gonna be some Trubisky-type busts mixed in with one or two surprise NFL successes like Josh Allen.
Basically it's gonna be a ****show, some teams with good scouting departments will be finding first round values in the 3rd and some teams will pick 5th round value guys in the 2nd
Someone may even find 5th round value with the third pick
The beauty of the NFL draft, for every Solomon Thomas, there is a George Kittle.
If I look at the QB's taken with a top 3 pick since Jimmy G was drafted, 7 out of 8 are clearly not as good as he is. (I'm not counting 2020 because too early.) Those are the odds you are dealing with in trying to improve the position. Meanwhile they could have taken a top CB and improved the team now.
Yeah, this is really rolling the dice. There are a lot of interesting QB prospects in this draft, but none that are can't miss. If the guy they pick at third is a bust, they are back to square one: Garapolo minus three first round draft picks. Plus, they will need to resign the guy that they just gave this vote of no-confidence to. They are all In on this bet.
If someone mortgages their house to buy lotto tickets I am going to think it was dumb. If they actually win I will just shake my head and think they are really lucky they got really lucky. I just don't see the this as a smart bet.
Ok, lotto is not the right analogy, try stock options. Something where you think you and your team of researchers can pick the right stock. You mortgage your house and buy call options. If you pick right, jackpot, but pick wrong and you will lose your house. It is just not a smart thing to do.
Every single first round bust was vetted by a team of professional experts. There is just no sure thing.
But kudos to Shanahan and Lynch if they hit jackpot.
As for the revised analogy. I like the idea of pushing all the chips into the middle of the table. As I have said before, I would prefer one Super Bowl win followed by two lousy seasons to three Conference championship losses.
Or putting it another way - i would prefer one Rose Bowl win followed by a couple crappy seasons to three one loss seasons and no Rose Bowl appearances.
I know that not everyone agrees with that philosophy and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
I would analogize this to one of the worst trades in Warriors history, trading Robert Parrish and a high first round pick that the Celtics used to draft Kevin McHale to move up a couple spots to get Joe Barry Carroll, a guy they believed was going to be a star. The problem with that trade was not ONLY that they were wrong about Carroll. What were the chances that he was going to be that much better than Parrish to warrant giving up the pick? Not great. But in the NBA then, centers were like QB's today. Get a superstar and you are set. Teams overvalued moving from solid to good to great at the position and overvalued their ability to see greatness.
Yeah sure, if you get that great QB, you are set. Rodgers has covered a lot of mediocre rosters at Green Bay. But that is not the only way to go about building a team. If the niners were a lousy team with a lousy QB, it might (might) make sense to do this. But they aren't a lousy team and they have a solid QB. Parrish was not the problem on the Warriors and Jimmy is not the problem on the niners. In both cases they are get rich quick schemes.
If you have a $1000 in chips, you don't push them in for a 50% chance to get $1100 and a 50% chance you get zero. And you don't push them in when a $1bet leaves you with a 45% chance you get $1100 and a55% chance you get $999.
There has been a run on QB's this year. No one thinks the 2-5 group are not overvalued. Frankly, with a solid QB on the roster I don't use a 3 on any of these guys. I certainly don't trade 4 picks for any of them.
Smart play would be to pick a CB that they desperately need to help now. Pick one of the 6-8 QB in the later rounds who probably don't have that much less of a chance than the deeply flawed 3-5 guys. Doing so, you still have Jimmy in the fold. You still have picks to build on. Jimmy does well, you keep him and no one thinks anything. If your pick is good, he is under no pressure to perform until he is ready.
Now you have given up a ton and effectively dumped Jimmy for this guy. He is going to get massacred if he is not an improvement over Jimmy in year two. That is a high bar. As I said, 7 out of the last 8 QB's to go in the top 3 are worse than Jimmy.
1) The ~$20 million that the 49ers will save, whether this year or next year, by cutting or trading Garoppolo and turning the reins over to Fields/Wilson/Lance can be used to more easily resign their current star players on rookie contracts i.e. Bosa and Warner
2) If the 49ers believe that they are already a Super Bowl contender, then those future 1st rounders they traded are going to be in the high-20's at best, so this would be the last chance they'll have for a few years to be in a position to draft this high. If the 49ers flame out, then Garoppolo is one of the most likely players to fall short of what the team needs to succeed and the 49ers will be looking to use their high draft pick on a QB anyway (in a presumably inferior for now QB class).
3) The only position that I'd say the 49ers are in true need of right now is cornerback, and I'd argue that outside of elite O-lineman, every other position has similar bust potential as QB. Just look at how Jeff Okudah, unanimous All-American and last year's #3 pick, played this past season.
4) Most QB prospects drafted in the first few picks do tend to bust or disappoint, but I would argue that this is at least as much due to them going to poor situations as it is them being overrated to begin with. In other words, there's a reason that teams drafting that high are drafting that high in the first place.
Everyone keeps talking about next year's QB class not being as good, but a market has a supply component and a demand component. The demand has outstripped supply this year. Almost none of the experts think that the QB's are top 10 caliber picks. At least 1 second round quality QB is going top 10. Frankly the idea that there are more quality QB picks this year has caused a feeding frenzy such that they will be picked higher than they would in most years. The metric is the quality of the QB class. It is the quality of the QB available at your pick and what you gave up to get him.
There may be fewer QB's next year. We will see. But there will be 5 teams off the QB market because they are waiting to see how the rookie they heavily invested in pans out. A lot of those desperate for a QB will have made their play this year. When Rodgers came out, there were 2 good QB's and 1 team that wanted one. Rodgers at 24 was better than anyone going 3 this year.
If the niners finish high enough that they are at the end of the draft order next year and they don't pony up the dough for what is a reasonable price for a proven QB, and instead hand the reigns of a top team to a second year QB with no experience, they are fools. The "they'll save money on replacing Jimmy" argument only works if the new QB is close in value to Jimmy and that is a bad bet.
The "if you see your guy" argument is understandable but everyone thinks they see their guy and almost everyone is wrong. Further, it doesn't appear the niners "think they see their guy" because all word is they are debating who to take and they have zero reason to float misinformation on that.
You make a fair enough point about supply and demand, though if the 49ers are right about the strength of their team as it stands (i.e., Super Bowl contender), then I don't think that that's particularly relevant. The concern about Garoppolo is not only that he might not be much more than a game manager but also that he has a propensity for injury that make his availability simply unreliable. So it makes sense to at least consider drafting his heir apparent, and if Shanahan and Lynch (or let's be honest, just Shanahan) think that they've identified at least one such player who would be available at #3, then I still find it hard to fault them for shooting their shot. You can argue the cost, but as I mentioned earlier, those 1st round picks are late 20's at best in the 49ers' mind, and the cost would surely be higher in the next few years if the 49ers were trying to trade up from those spots instead of #12.
I suspect your rebuttal to this will be that it is an exception to the rule, but it feels like the 49ers are trying to follow the Chiefs' route of keeping the incumbent for one year so that their prized QB prospect can sit and learn for a year, then handing the 2nd-year QB the reins and let his talent (now enhanced by a year of learning the playbook) take over. If that plan works out to a similar level of success, would you still be down on the 49ers's trade up to put this plan into motion?
Last note on your final paragraph, I would dispute what you say here. I think the 49ers have identified 1 or 2 guys (maybe 3) whom they would be perfectly fine with drafting and it really just depends on whom the Jets pick. And for all the faults I can find in Shanahan and Lynch's past draft prowess, the one thing I have felt pretty good about is their ability to keep stuff in-house, so I don't think it's the 49ers floating out notions that they're still debating whom to take.
I have no issue with taking a QB now and letting him train behind G. The Chiefs situation is different. 1. They had their guy. It was a trade for Mahomes, not for whomever we decide is the best QB at our pick. 2. They gave up a lot less. They gave up a #27 instead of a #12. That is a big difference. Then they gave up 2 first round picks instead of 1. They were in first place at 12 and 4 not in last place at 6-10. Yes if Jimmy is back and healthy, the 49ers should do better, but QB was not the only issue last year. And if they don't do something at DB, they aren't going anywhere. I think a neutral, unbiased party would say that the Chiefs would pick in the end of the draft order he next year and the 49ers will pick in he middle next year.
And if the Chiefs had traded up for Trubisky we wouldn't be having this conversation.
So the difference for me is the Chiefs staring me in the face and saying "We love Patrick Mahomes and paying $100 for him is worth it" and the 49ers saying "We want to change the QB position. We need to be at #3 to get one. I'm sure one of these three guys will be okay. We are paying $500 for this".
Broadly, it boils down to whether or not the 49ers front office ultimately proves to be a good evaluator of QB talent. While not the most likely possibility, there very well could be multiple star-level QBs and the 49ers just need to be able to grab one. If that indeed happens, then absolutely I think that this trade was worth it, and the 49ers front office should be credited for having the confidence of their conviction to do so. If they don't (and there is a decent amount of evidence you could point to that Shanahan/Lynch are not particularly great at high-round draft pick evaluation) then yeah, the trade is going to look like crap and your position will be vindicated. My point is just that the decision right now to make the trade up to No. 3 isn't inherently a bad one.OaktownBear said:I'm going to start with the first point. I counter your dispute. To me this is like the adage if you have 2 starting QB's you have none. There is a guy or there isn't. There are not going to be 5 generational talents at QB in this class. At the point you tell me there are 2 or 3 guys they have identified, I'm going back to the adage. Then there are none. Of course if they said Fields is the next Brady and they were confident about that, they should take him no matter what I think (and hope they are right).JeffBear07 said:Just for the record, I myself am ambivalent on the 49ers' trade up to #3. Obviously if they draft their QB for the next 10+ years, it was worth every pick they gave up, and if the pick busts, then the trade was a failure and reloading the team becomes that much harder. I just don't think the odds of that happening are as high as you think nor that the 49ers situation as of this moment is as bad as you think.OaktownBear said:JeffBear07 said:Far more so than any other NFL position, QB is where a team's floor gets set, so if the 49ers believe they are getting a franchise QB with pick #3, then it's hard to hit them too hard over it in my opinion. A few other factors that I believe mitigate the risks/costs that you've outlined:OaktownBear said:71Bear said:Not all of them. Some, like JaMarcus Russell, were the choice of one guy who thought he was smarter than all the other guys. And we all know how that turns out whether it is sports, business or politics.calumnus said:71Bear said:Lotto is pure chance. Identifying the right player at the top of the draft is not chance, it is the result of surrounding yourself with accomplished personnel whose collective wisdom yields a recommendation that leads to the selection of a franchise player. No one is saying SF will assuredly choose the right QB. What can be said is they have put themselves in a position to make the right choice (something they were not prior to the trade).calumnus said:OaktownBear said:Of course. And if that trade doesn't yield better than an already solid Jimmy G, and the picks you traded yield Aaron Rodgers, Jerry Rice, Asomugha, and Tom Brady, It will be the blunder of the century.71Bear said:If that trade yields a "Mahomes-like" result or another Aaron Rodgers, it will have been the steal of the decade. If not, maybe not so much. Yep, a lot of pressure to make the right choice but you don't build a champion by being timid. I like the team I follow aggressively chasing Super Bowl trophies. In pro sports, winning is all that matters....OaktownBear said:Which is why you don't trade 3 first round picks and a third for one pick.71Bear said:... or third pick value with their fifth round choice.OaktownBear said:Bearly Clad said:
My bad I didn't mean to put words in your mouth but thanks for the response
Honestly I see the top 5 QBs like this: Lawrence, Lance, Fields, Wilson, Jones but I think yours is more likely to be the way it actually goes. We won't know for a couple years but people have been saying for a while that this year and next year will be the hardest years to evaluate for the NFL draft because of COVID. But if there's 5 QBs in the top 10 it'll have to either be a generational QB class like '83 or there's gonna be some Trubisky-type busts mixed in with one or two surprise NFL successes like Josh Allen.
Basically it's gonna be a ****show, some teams with good scouting departments will be finding first round values in the 3rd and some teams will pick 5th round value guys in the 2nd
Someone may even find 5th round value with the third pick
The beauty of the NFL draft, for every Solomon Thomas, there is a George Kittle.
If I look at the QB's taken with a top 3 pick since Jimmy G was drafted, 7 out of 8 are clearly not as good as he is. (I'm not counting 2020 because too early.) Those are the odds you are dealing with in trying to improve the position. Meanwhile they could have taken a top CB and improved the team now.
Yeah, this is really rolling the dice. There are a lot of interesting QB prospects in this draft, but none that are can't miss. If the guy they pick at third is a bust, they are back to square one: Garapolo minus three first round draft picks. Plus, they will need to resign the guy that they just gave this vote of no-confidence to. They are all In on this bet.
If someone mortgages their house to buy lotto tickets I am going to think it was dumb. If they actually win I will just shake my head and think they are really lucky they got really lucky. I just don't see the this as a smart bet.
Ok, lotto is not the right analogy, try stock options. Something where you think you and your team of researchers can pick the right stock. You mortgage your house and buy call options. If you pick right, jackpot, but pick wrong and you will lose your house. It is just not a smart thing to do.
Every single first round bust was vetted by a team of professional experts. There is just no sure thing.
But kudos to Shanahan and Lynch if they hit jackpot.
As for the revised analogy. I like the idea of pushing all the chips into the middle of the table. As I have said before, I would prefer one Super Bowl win followed by two lousy seasons to three Conference championship losses.
Or putting it another way - i would prefer one Rose Bowl win followed by a couple crappy seasons to three one loss seasons and no Rose Bowl appearances.
I know that not everyone agrees with that philosophy and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
I would analogize this to one of the worst trades in Warriors history, trading Robert Parrish and a high first round pick that the Celtics used to draft Kevin McHale to move up a couple spots to get Joe Barry Carroll, a guy they believed was going to be a star. The problem with that trade was not ONLY that they were wrong about Carroll. What were the chances that he was going to be that much better than Parrish to warrant giving up the pick? Not great. But in the NBA then, centers were like QB's today. Get a superstar and you are set. Teams overvalued moving from solid to good to great at the position and overvalued their ability to see greatness.
Yeah sure, if you get that great QB, you are set. Rodgers has covered a lot of mediocre rosters at Green Bay. But that is not the only way to go about building a team. If the niners were a lousy team with a lousy QB, it might (might) make sense to do this. But they aren't a lousy team and they have a solid QB. Parrish was not the problem on the Warriors and Jimmy is not the problem on the niners. In both cases they are get rich quick schemes.
If you have a $1000 in chips, you don't push them in for a 50% chance to get $1100 and a 50% chance you get zero. And you don't push them in when a $1bet leaves you with a 45% chance you get $1100 and a55% chance you get $999.
There has been a run on QB's this year. No one thinks the 2-5 group are not overvalued. Frankly, with a solid QB on the roster I don't use a 3 on any of these guys. I certainly don't trade 4 picks for any of them.
Smart play would be to pick a CB that they desperately need to help now. Pick one of the 6-8 QB in the later rounds who probably don't have that much less of a chance than the deeply flawed 3-5 guys. Doing so, you still have Jimmy in the fold. You still have picks to build on. Jimmy does well, you keep him and no one thinks anything. If your pick is good, he is under no pressure to perform until he is ready.
Now you have given up a ton and effectively dumped Jimmy for this guy. He is going to get massacred if he is not an improvement over Jimmy in year two. That is a high bar. As I said, 7 out of the last 8 QB's to go in the top 3 are worse than Jimmy.
1) The ~$20 million that the 49ers will save, whether this year or next year, by cutting or trading Garoppolo and turning the reins over to Fields/Wilson/Lance can be used to more easily resign their current star players on rookie contracts i.e. Bosa and Warner
2) If the 49ers believe that they are already a Super Bowl contender, then those future 1st rounders they traded are going to be in the high-20's at best, so this would be the last chance they'll have for a few years to be in a position to draft this high. If the 49ers flame out, then Garoppolo is one of the most likely players to fall short of what the team needs to succeed and the 49ers will be looking to use their high draft pick on a QB anyway (in a presumably inferior for now QB class).
3) The only position that I'd say the 49ers are in true need of right now is cornerback, and I'd argue that outside of elite O-lineman, every other position has similar bust potential as QB. Just look at how Jeff Okudah, unanimous All-American and last year's #3 pick, played this past season.
4) Most QB prospects drafted in the first few picks do tend to bust or disappoint, but I would argue that this is at least as much due to them going to poor situations as it is them being overrated to begin with. In other words, there's a reason that teams drafting that high are drafting that high in the first place.
Everyone keeps talking about next year's QB class not being as good, but a market has a supply component and a demand component. The demand has outstripped supply this year. Almost none of the experts think that the QB's are top 10 caliber picks. At least 1 second round quality QB is going top 10. Frankly the idea that there are more quality QB picks this year has caused a feeding frenzy such that they will be picked higher than they would in most years. The metric is the quality of the QB class. It is the quality of the QB available at your pick and what you gave up to get him.
There may be fewer QB's next year. We will see. But there will be 5 teams off the QB market because they are waiting to see how the rookie they heavily invested in pans out. A lot of those desperate for a QB will have made their play this year. When Rodgers came out, there were 2 good QB's and 1 team that wanted one. Rodgers at 24 was better than anyone going 3 this year.
If the niners finish high enough that they are at the end of the draft order next year and they don't pony up the dough for what is a reasonable price for a proven QB, and instead hand the reigns of a top team to a second year QB with no experience, they are fools. The "they'll save money on replacing Jimmy" argument only works if the new QB is close in value to Jimmy and that is a bad bet.
The "if you see your guy" argument is understandable but everyone thinks they see their guy and almost everyone is wrong. Further, it doesn't appear the niners "think they see their guy" because all word is they are debating who to take and they have zero reason to float misinformation on that.
You make a fair enough point about supply and demand, though if the 49ers are right about the strength of their team as it stands (i.e., Super Bowl contender), then I don't think that that's particularly relevant. The concern about Garoppolo is not only that he might not be much more than a game manager but also that he has a propensity for injury that make his availability simply unreliable. So it makes sense to at least consider drafting his heir apparent, and if Shanahan and Lynch (or let's be honest, just Shanahan) think that they've identified at least one such player who would be available at #3, then I still find it hard to fault them for shooting their shot. You can argue the cost, but as I mentioned earlier, those 1st round picks are late 20's at best in the 49ers' mind, and the cost would surely be higher in the next few years if the 49ers were trying to trade up from those spots instead of #12.
I suspect your rebuttal to this will be that it is an exception to the rule, but it feels like the 49ers are trying to follow the Chiefs' route of keeping the incumbent for one year so that their prized QB prospect can sit and learn for a year, then handing the 2nd-year QB the reins and let his talent (now enhanced by a year of learning the playbook) take over. If that plan works out to a similar level of success, would you still be down on the 49ers's trade up to put this plan into motion?
Last note on your final paragraph, I would dispute what you say here. I think the 49ers have identified 1 or 2 guys (maybe 3) whom they would be perfectly fine with drafting and it really just depends on whom the Jets pick. And for all the faults I can find in Shanahan and Lynch's past draft prowess, the one thing I have felt pretty good about is their ability to keep stuff in-house, so I don't think it's the 49ers floating out notions that they're still debating whom to take.
I have no issue with taking a QB now and letting him train behind G. The Chiefs situation is different. 1. They had their guy. It was a trade for Mahomes, not for whomever we decide is the best QB at our pick. 2. They gave up a lot less. They gave up a #27 instead of a #12. That is a big difference. Then they gave up 2 first round picks instead of 1. They were in first place at 12 and 4 not in last place at 6-10. Yes if Jimmy is back and healthy, the 49ers should do better, but QB was not the only issue last year. And if they don't do something at DB, they aren't going anywhere. I think a neutral, unbiased party would say that the Chiefs would pick in the end of the draft order he next year and the 49ers will pick in he middle next year.
And if the Chiefs had traded up for Trubisky we wouldn't be having this conversation.
So the difference for me is the Chiefs staring me in the face and saying "We love Patrick Mahomes and paying $100 for him is worth it" and the 49ers saying "We want to change the QB position. We need to be at #3 to get one. I'm sure one of these three guys will be okay. We are paying $500 for this".
I also don't think it's a fair analysis of the current 49er roster to refer to it as a last-place or 6-10 team. It seems clear to me that injuries to virtually every key starter on offense and defense diminished what was more or less the same Super Bowl team from the year before, and even then they still got to 6 wins. I actually agree with you that the secondary is the team's biggest weakness but only because pretty much every starter has a history of injury. Ironically, the one guy with the biggest injury history (Verrett) was the one who stayed healthy all year. Otherwise, the talent level of the starters is solid.
It does sounds like you think the current 49er team as constructed is still merely a middle-of-the-road team; you actually state that upfront. If they truly are mid-pack, then yeah giving up so much draft capital looks worse. I think this 49ers team is among the elite if healthy, and if that holds out, then I think this trade is already fundamentally better than you are experssing right now.
I think last year's record was definitely not reflective of the current talent level of the 49ers roster. They had a terrible cascade of injuries but remained competitive and were only outscored by a total of 14 points on the season. I might even argue that even with Jimmy G going down yet again, if the rest of the team had maintained an average level of health they probably sneak into the playoffs anyway (remember the NFC had a 7-9 and an 8-8 team in the playoffs last year).JeffBear07 said:
It does sounds like you think the current 49er team as constructed is still merely a middle-of-the-road team; you actually state that upfront. If they truly are mid-pack, then yeah giving up so much draft capital looks worse. I think this 49ers team is among the elite if healthy, and if that holds out, then I think this trade is already fundamentally better than you are experssing right now.
So their thinking is that they are pretty set at other positions and need to gamble now on getting a top QB, before losing the rest of this group to attrition. It's not a crazy idea. Definitely a big gamble, a shoot-the-moon kind of strategy.
JeffBear07 said:Broadly, it boils down to whether or not the 49ers front office ultimately proves to be a good evaluator of QB talent. While not the most likely possibility, there very well could be multiple star-level QBs and the 49ers just need to be able to grab one. If that indeed happens, then absolutely I think that this trade was worth it, and the 49ers front office should be credited for having the confidence of their conviction to do so. If they don't (and there is a decent amount of evidence you could point to that Shanahan/Lynch are not particularly great at high-round draft pick evaluation) then yeah, the trade is going to look like crap and your position will be vindicated. My point is just that the decision right now to make the trade up to No. 3 isn't inherently a bad one.OaktownBear said:I'm going to start with the first point. I counter your dispute. To me this is like the adage if you have 2 starting QB's you have none. There is a guy or there isn't. There are not going to be 5 generational talents at QB in this class. At the point you tell me there are 2 or 3 guys they have identified, I'm going back to the adage. Then there are none. Of course if they said Fields is the next Brady and they were confident about that, they should take him no matter what I think (and hope they are right).JeffBear07 said:Just for the record, I myself am ambivalent on the 49ers' trade up to #3. Obviously if they draft their QB for the next 10+ years, it was worth every pick they gave up, and if the pick busts, then the trade was a failure and reloading the team becomes that much harder. I just don't think the odds of that happening are as high as you think nor that the 49ers situation as of this moment is as bad as you think.OaktownBear said:JeffBear07 said:Far more so than any other NFL position, QB is where a team's floor gets set, so if the 49ers believe they are getting a franchise QB with pick #3, then it's hard to hit them too hard over it in my opinion. A few other factors that I believe mitigate the risks/costs that you've outlined:OaktownBear said:71Bear said:Not all of them. Some, like JaMarcus Russell, were the choice of one guy who thought he was smarter than all the other guys. And we all know how that turns out whether it is sports, business or politics.calumnus said:71Bear said:Lotto is pure chance. Identifying the right player at the top of the draft is not chance, it is the result of surrounding yourself with accomplished personnel whose collective wisdom yields a recommendation that leads to the selection of a franchise player. No one is saying SF will assuredly choose the right QB. What can be said is they have put themselves in a position to make the right choice (something they were not prior to the trade).calumnus said:OaktownBear said:Of course. And if that trade doesn't yield better than an already solid Jimmy G, and the picks you traded yield Aaron Rodgers, Jerry Rice, Asomugha, and Tom Brady, It will be the blunder of the century.71Bear said:If that trade yields a "Mahomes-like" result or another Aaron Rodgers, it will have been the steal of the decade. If not, maybe not so much. Yep, a lot of pressure to make the right choice but you don't build a champion by being timid. I like the team I follow aggressively chasing Super Bowl trophies. In pro sports, winning is all that matters....OaktownBear said:Which is why you don't trade 3 first round picks and a third for one pick.71Bear said:... or third pick value with their fifth round choice.OaktownBear said:Bearly Clad said:
My bad I didn't mean to put words in your mouth but thanks for the response
Honestly I see the top 5 QBs like this: Lawrence, Lance, Fields, Wilson, Jones but I think yours is more likely to be the way it actually goes. We won't know for a couple years but people have been saying for a while that this year and next year will be the hardest years to evaluate for the NFL draft because of COVID. But if there's 5 QBs in the top 10 it'll have to either be a generational QB class like '83 or there's gonna be some Trubisky-type busts mixed in with one or two surprise NFL successes like Josh Allen.
Basically it's gonna be a ****show, some teams with good scouting departments will be finding first round values in the 3rd and some teams will pick 5th round value guys in the 2nd
Someone may even find 5th round value with the third pick
The beauty of the NFL draft, for every Solomon Thomas, there is a George Kittle.
If I look at the QB's taken with a top 3 pick since Jimmy G was drafted, 7 out of 8 are clearly not as good as he is. (I'm not counting 2020 because too early.) Those are the odds you are dealing with in trying to improve the position. Meanwhile they could have taken a top CB and improved the team now.
Yeah, this is really rolling the dice. There are a lot of interesting QB prospects in this draft, but none that are can't miss. If the guy they pick at third is a bust, they are back to square one: Garapolo minus three first round draft picks. Plus, they will need to resign the guy that they just gave this vote of no-confidence to. They are all In on this bet.
If someone mortgages their house to buy lotto tickets I am going to think it was dumb. If they actually win I will just shake my head and think they are really lucky they got really lucky. I just don't see the this as a smart bet.
Ok, lotto is not the right analogy, try stock options. Something where you think you and your team of researchers can pick the right stock. You mortgage your house and buy call options. If you pick right, jackpot, but pick wrong and you will lose your house. It is just not a smart thing to do.
Every single first round bust was vetted by a team of professional experts. There is just no sure thing.
But kudos to Shanahan and Lynch if they hit jackpot.
As for the revised analogy. I like the idea of pushing all the chips into the middle of the table. As I have said before, I would prefer one Super Bowl win followed by two lousy seasons to three Conference championship losses.
Or putting it another way - i would prefer one Rose Bowl win followed by a couple crappy seasons to three one loss seasons and no Rose Bowl appearances.
I know that not everyone agrees with that philosophy and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
I would analogize this to one of the worst trades in Warriors history, trading Robert Parrish and a high first round pick that the Celtics used to draft Kevin McHale to move up a couple spots to get Joe Barry Carroll, a guy they believed was going to be a star. The problem with that trade was not ONLY that they were wrong about Carroll. What were the chances that he was going to be that much better than Parrish to warrant giving up the pick? Not great. But in the NBA then, centers were like QB's today. Get a superstar and you are set. Teams overvalued moving from solid to good to great at the position and overvalued their ability to see greatness.
Yeah sure, if you get that great QB, you are set. Rodgers has covered a lot of mediocre rosters at Green Bay. But that is not the only way to go about building a team. If the niners were a lousy team with a lousy QB, it might (might) make sense to do this. But they aren't a lousy team and they have a solid QB. Parrish was not the problem on the Warriors and Jimmy is not the problem on the niners. In both cases they are get rich quick schemes.
If you have a $1000 in chips, you don't push them in for a 50% chance to get $1100 and a 50% chance you get zero. And you don't push them in when a $1bet leaves you with a 45% chance you get $1100 and a55% chance you get $999.
There has been a run on QB's this year. No one thinks the 2-5 group are not overvalued. Frankly, with a solid QB on the roster I don't use a 3 on any of these guys. I certainly don't trade 4 picks for any of them.
Smart play would be to pick a CB that they desperately need to help now. Pick one of the 6-8 QB in the later rounds who probably don't have that much less of a chance than the deeply flawed 3-5 guys. Doing so, you still have Jimmy in the fold. You still have picks to build on. Jimmy does well, you keep him and no one thinks anything. If your pick is good, he is under no pressure to perform until he is ready.
Now you have given up a ton and effectively dumped Jimmy for this guy. He is going to get massacred if he is not an improvement over Jimmy in year two. That is a high bar. As I said, 7 out of the last 8 QB's to go in the top 3 are worse than Jimmy.
1) The ~$20 million that the 49ers will save, whether this year or next year, by cutting or trading Garoppolo and turning the reins over to Fields/Wilson/Lance can be used to more easily resign their current star players on rookie contracts i.e. Bosa and Warner
2) If the 49ers believe that they are already a Super Bowl contender, then those future 1st rounders they traded are going to be in the high-20's at best, so this would be the last chance they'll have for a few years to be in a position to draft this high. If the 49ers flame out, then Garoppolo is one of the most likely players to fall short of what the team needs to succeed and the 49ers will be looking to use their high draft pick on a QB anyway (in a presumably inferior for now QB class).
3) The only position that I'd say the 49ers are in true need of right now is cornerback, and I'd argue that outside of elite O-lineman, every other position has similar bust potential as QB. Just look at how Jeff Okudah, unanimous All-American and last year's #3 pick, played this past season.
4) Most QB prospects drafted in the first few picks do tend to bust or disappoint, but I would argue that this is at least as much due to them going to poor situations as it is them being overrated to begin with. In other words, there's a reason that teams drafting that high are drafting that high in the first place.
Everyone keeps talking about next year's QB class not being as good, but a market has a supply component and a demand component. The demand has outstripped supply this year. Almost none of the experts think that the QB's are top 10 caliber picks. At least 1 second round quality QB is going top 10. Frankly the idea that there are more quality QB picks this year has caused a feeding frenzy such that they will be picked higher than they would in most years. The metric is the quality of the QB class. It is the quality of the QB available at your pick and what you gave up to get him.
There may be fewer QB's next year. We will see. But there will be 5 teams off the QB market because they are waiting to see how the rookie they heavily invested in pans out. A lot of those desperate for a QB will have made their play this year. When Rodgers came out, there were 2 good QB's and 1 team that wanted one. Rodgers at 24 was better than anyone going 3 this year.
If the niners finish high enough that they are at the end of the draft order next year and they don't pony up the dough for what is a reasonable price for a proven QB, and instead hand the reigns of a top team to a second year QB with no experience, they are fools. The "they'll save money on replacing Jimmy" argument only works if the new QB is close in value to Jimmy and that is a bad bet.
The "if you see your guy" argument is understandable but everyone thinks they see their guy and almost everyone is wrong. Further, it doesn't appear the niners "think they see their guy" because all word is they are debating who to take and they have zero reason to float misinformation on that.
You make a fair enough point about supply and demand, though if the 49ers are right about the strength of their team as it stands (i.e., Super Bowl contender), then I don't think that that's particularly relevant. The concern about Garoppolo is not only that he might not be much more than a game manager but also that he has a propensity for injury that make his availability simply unreliable. So it makes sense to at least consider drafting his heir apparent, and if Shanahan and Lynch (or let's be honest, just Shanahan) think that they've identified at least one such player who would be available at #3, then I still find it hard to fault them for shooting their shot. You can argue the cost, but as I mentioned earlier, those 1st round picks are late 20's at best in the 49ers' mind, and the cost would surely be higher in the next few years if the 49ers were trying to trade up from those spots instead of #12.
I suspect your rebuttal to this will be that it is an exception to the rule, but it feels like the 49ers are trying to follow the Chiefs' route of keeping the incumbent for one year so that their prized QB prospect can sit and learn for a year, then handing the 2nd-year QB the reins and let his talent (now enhanced by a year of learning the playbook) take over. If that plan works out to a similar level of success, would you still be down on the 49ers's trade up to put this plan into motion?
Last note on your final paragraph, I would dispute what you say here. I think the 49ers have identified 1 or 2 guys (maybe 3) whom they would be perfectly fine with drafting and it really just depends on whom the Jets pick. And for all the faults I can find in Shanahan and Lynch's past draft prowess, the one thing I have felt pretty good about is their ability to keep stuff in-house, so I don't think it's the 49ers floating out notions that they're still debating whom to take.
I have no issue with taking a QB now and letting him train behind G. The Chiefs situation is different. 1. They had their guy. It was a trade for Mahomes, not for whomever we decide is the best QB at our pick. 2. They gave up a lot less. They gave up a #27 instead of a #12. That is a big difference. Then they gave up 2 first round picks instead of 1. They were in first place at 12 and 4 not in last place at 6-10. Yes if Jimmy is back and healthy, the 49ers should do better, but QB was not the only issue last year. And if they don't do something at DB, they aren't going anywhere. I think a neutral, unbiased party would say that the Chiefs would pick in the end of the draft order he next year and the 49ers will pick in he middle next year.
And if the Chiefs had traded up for Trubisky we wouldn't be having this conversation.
So the difference for me is the Chiefs staring me in the face and saying "We love Patrick Mahomes and paying $100 for him is worth it" and the 49ers saying "We want to change the QB position. We need to be at #3 to get one. I'm sure one of these three guys will be okay. We are paying $500 for this".
I also don't think it's a fair analysis of the current 49er roster to refer to it as a last-place or 6-10 team. It seems clear to me that injuries to virtually every key starter on offense and defense diminished what was more or less the same Super Bowl team from the year before, and even then they still got to 6 wins. I actually agree with you that the secondary is the team's biggest weakness but only because pretty much every starter has a history of injury. Ironically, the one guy with the biggest injury history (Verrett) was the one who stayed healthy all year. Otherwise, the talent level of the starters is solid.
It does sounds like you think the current 49er team as constructed is still merely a middle-of-the-road team; you actually state that upfront. If they truly are mid-pack, then yeah giving up so much draft capital looks worse. I think this 49ers team is among the elite if healthy, and if that holds out, then I think this trade is already fundamentally better than you are experssing right now.
I think they are clearly not a 6-10 team but also clearly not a 13-3 team. I'd go 9-7 understanding that teams are not done yet. But their first round pick is unlikely to contribute.
A good pick at a key position like CB, at #12 certainly could have moved that record up.
This is just my opinion but I think this was the backup backup option for the Niners. Plan A was for Jimmy to pan out and stay healthy, plan B was to trade this package plus Garoppolo and maybe another starter to the Texans for Watson, now with Watson now in a legal grinder it's unclear if he'll go on the commissioner exempt list and even be able to play and the Niners pivoted to plan C.
I'm sure they like this QB class too (or at least they like 3 of them enough to make this gamble) but that's how I think they got here. To a degree this was the prudent choice even though it cost an arm and a leg, better to spend the premium to draft a top 3 QB in the draft than to overpay for Carson Wentz or Andy Dalton and the other QBs that were available after the Goff-Stafford trade
I'm sure they like this QB class too (or at least they like 3 of them enough to make this gamble) but that's how I think they got here. To a degree this was the prudent choice even though it cost an arm and a leg, better to spend the premium to draft a top 3 QB in the draft than to overpay for Carson Wentz or Andy Dalton and the other QBs that were available after the Goff-Stafford trade
This past season, Mac Jones threw for 4500 yards, completing 77.4% of his passes, with 41 TD's and only 4 INT's. I realize he had great talent around him, but he put those numbers up on a big-time stage and won the big games he was supposed to.
I think our primary objective is to get a better, less injured QB on an inexpensive rookie contract, and then surround him with some free agent talent, using the savings from moving out Garrapolo.
In the NFL, you have to be able to read the defenses and react quickly, along with having a strong and reliable arm. Jones checks those boxes, and I hope we pick him.
I think our primary objective is to get a better, less injured QB on an inexpensive rookie contract, and then surround him with some free agent talent, using the savings from moving out Garrapolo.
In the NFL, you have to be able to read the defenses and react quickly, along with having a strong and reliable arm. Jones checks those boxes, and I hope we pick him.
I think the 49ers are closer to an 11-5 team (or I guess 11-6 now), again assuming reasonably good health. Their defense is probably lesser than the 2019 team but the offense should be better. Plus, they get the benefit of having a last-place team's schedule. Looking at their 2021 schedule, I see only a handful of games where they would seem to be 50/50 or even underdogs right now:OaktownBear said:JeffBear07 said:Broadly, it boils down to whether or not the 49ers front office ultimately proves to be a good evaluator of QB talent. While not the most likely possibility, there very well could be multiple star-level QBs and the 49ers just need to be able to grab one. If that indeed happens, then absolutely I think that this trade was worth it, and the 49ers front office should be credited for having the confidence of their conviction to do so. If they don't (and there is a decent amount of evidence you could point to that Shanahan/Lynch are not particularly great at high-round draft pick evaluation) then yeah, the trade is going to look like crap and your position will be vindicated. My point is just that the decision right now to make the trade up to No. 3 isn't inherently a bad one.OaktownBear said:I'm going to start with the first point. I counter your dispute. To me this is like the adage if you have 2 starting QB's you have none. There is a guy or there isn't. There are not going to be 5 generational talents at QB in this class. At the point you tell me there are 2 or 3 guys they have identified, I'm going back to the adage. Then there are none. Of course if they said Fields is the next Brady and they were confident about that, they should take him no matter what I think (and hope they are right).JeffBear07 said:Just for the record, I myself am ambivalent on the 49ers' trade up to #3. Obviously if they draft their QB for the next 10+ years, it was worth every pick they gave up, and if the pick busts, then the trade was a failure and reloading the team becomes that much harder. I just don't think the odds of that happening are as high as you think nor that the 49ers situation as of this moment is as bad as you think.OaktownBear said:JeffBear07 said:Far more so than any other NFL position, QB is where a team's floor gets set, so if the 49ers believe they are getting a franchise QB with pick #3, then it's hard to hit them too hard over it in my opinion. A few other factors that I believe mitigate the risks/costs that you've outlined:OaktownBear said:71Bear said:Not all of them. Some, like JaMarcus Russell, were the choice of one guy who thought he was smarter than all the other guys. And we all know how that turns out whether it is sports, business or politics.calumnus said:71Bear said:Lotto is pure chance. Identifying the right player at the top of the draft is not chance, it is the result of surrounding yourself with accomplished personnel whose collective wisdom yields a recommendation that leads to the selection of a franchise player. No one is saying SF will assuredly choose the right QB. What can be said is they have put themselves in a position to make the right choice (something they were not prior to the trade).calumnus said:OaktownBear said:Of course. And if that trade doesn't yield better than an already solid Jimmy G, and the picks you traded yield Aaron Rodgers, Jerry Rice, Asomugha, and Tom Brady, It will be the blunder of the century.71Bear said:If that trade yields a "Mahomes-like" result or another Aaron Rodgers, it will have been the steal of the decade. If not, maybe not so much. Yep, a lot of pressure to make the right choice but you don't build a champion by being timid. I like the team I follow aggressively chasing Super Bowl trophies. In pro sports, winning is all that matters....OaktownBear said:Which is why you don't trade 3 first round picks and a third for one pick.71Bear said:... or third pick value with their fifth round choice.OaktownBear said:Bearly Clad said:
My bad I didn't mean to put words in your mouth but thanks for the response
Honestly I see the top 5 QBs like this: Lawrence, Lance, Fields, Wilson, Jones but I think yours is more likely to be the way it actually goes. We won't know for a couple years but people have been saying for a while that this year and next year will be the hardest years to evaluate for the NFL draft because of COVID. But if there's 5 QBs in the top 10 it'll have to either be a generational QB class like '83 or there's gonna be some Trubisky-type busts mixed in with one or two surprise NFL successes like Josh Allen.
Basically it's gonna be a ****show, some teams with good scouting departments will be finding first round values in the 3rd and some teams will pick 5th round value guys in the 2nd
Someone may even find 5th round value with the third pick
The beauty of the NFL draft, for every Solomon Thomas, there is a George Kittle.
If I look at the QB's taken with a top 3 pick since Jimmy G was drafted, 7 out of 8 are clearly not as good as he is. (I'm not counting 2020 because too early.) Those are the odds you are dealing with in trying to improve the position. Meanwhile they could have taken a top CB and improved the team now.
Yeah, this is really rolling the dice. There are a lot of interesting QB prospects in this draft, but none that are can't miss. If the guy they pick at third is a bust, they are back to square one: Garapolo minus three first round draft picks. Plus, they will need to resign the guy that they just gave this vote of no-confidence to. They are all In on this bet.
If someone mortgages their house to buy lotto tickets I am going to think it was dumb. If they actually win I will just shake my head and think they are really lucky they got really lucky. I just don't see the this as a smart bet.
Ok, lotto is not the right analogy, try stock options. Something where you think you and your team of researchers can pick the right stock. You mortgage your house and buy call options. If you pick right, jackpot, but pick wrong and you will lose your house. It is just not a smart thing to do.
Every single first round bust was vetted by a team of professional experts. There is just no sure thing.
But kudos to Shanahan and Lynch if they hit jackpot.
As for the revised analogy. I like the idea of pushing all the chips into the middle of the table. As I have said before, I would prefer one Super Bowl win followed by two lousy seasons to three Conference championship losses.
Or putting it another way - i would prefer one Rose Bowl win followed by a couple crappy seasons to three one loss seasons and no Rose Bowl appearances.
I know that not everyone agrees with that philosophy and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
I would analogize this to one of the worst trades in Warriors history, trading Robert Parrish and a high first round pick that the Celtics used to draft Kevin McHale to move up a couple spots to get Joe Barry Carroll, a guy they believed was going to be a star. The problem with that trade was not ONLY that they were wrong about Carroll. What were the chances that he was going to be that much better than Parrish to warrant giving up the pick? Not great. But in the NBA then, centers were like QB's today. Get a superstar and you are set. Teams overvalued moving from solid to good to great at the position and overvalued their ability to see greatness.
Yeah sure, if you get that great QB, you are set. Rodgers has covered a lot of mediocre rosters at Green Bay. But that is not the only way to go about building a team. If the niners were a lousy team with a lousy QB, it might (might) make sense to do this. But they aren't a lousy team and they have a solid QB. Parrish was not the problem on the Warriors and Jimmy is not the problem on the niners. In both cases they are get rich quick schemes.
If you have a $1000 in chips, you don't push them in for a 50% chance to get $1100 and a 50% chance you get zero. And you don't push them in when a $1bet leaves you with a 45% chance you get $1100 and a55% chance you get $999.
There has been a run on QB's this year. No one thinks the 2-5 group are not overvalued. Frankly, with a solid QB on the roster I don't use a 3 on any of these guys. I certainly don't trade 4 picks for any of them.
Smart play would be to pick a CB that they desperately need to help now. Pick one of the 6-8 QB in the later rounds who probably don't have that much less of a chance than the deeply flawed 3-5 guys. Doing so, you still have Jimmy in the fold. You still have picks to build on. Jimmy does well, you keep him and no one thinks anything. If your pick is good, he is under no pressure to perform until he is ready.
Now you have given up a ton and effectively dumped Jimmy for this guy. He is going to get massacred if he is not an improvement over Jimmy in year two. That is a high bar. As I said, 7 out of the last 8 QB's to go in the top 3 are worse than Jimmy.
1) The ~$20 million that the 49ers will save, whether this year or next year, by cutting or trading Garoppolo and turning the reins over to Fields/Wilson/Lance can be used to more easily resign their current star players on rookie contracts i.e. Bosa and Warner
2) If the 49ers believe that they are already a Super Bowl contender, then those future 1st rounders they traded are going to be in the high-20's at best, so this would be the last chance they'll have for a few years to be in a position to draft this high. If the 49ers flame out, then Garoppolo is one of the most likely players to fall short of what the team needs to succeed and the 49ers will be looking to use their high draft pick on a QB anyway (in a presumably inferior for now QB class).
3) The only position that I'd say the 49ers are in true need of right now is cornerback, and I'd argue that outside of elite O-lineman, every other position has similar bust potential as QB. Just look at how Jeff Okudah, unanimous All-American and last year's #3 pick, played this past season.
4) Most QB prospects drafted in the first few picks do tend to bust or disappoint, but I would argue that this is at least as much due to them going to poor situations as it is them being overrated to begin with. In other words, there's a reason that teams drafting that high are drafting that high in the first place.
Everyone keeps talking about next year's QB class not being as good, but a market has a supply component and a demand component. The demand has outstripped supply this year. Almost none of the experts think that the QB's are top 10 caliber picks. At least 1 second round quality QB is going top 10. Frankly the idea that there are more quality QB picks this year has caused a feeding frenzy such that they will be picked higher than they would in most years. The metric is the quality of the QB class. It is the quality of the QB available at your pick and what you gave up to get him.
There may be fewer QB's next year. We will see. But there will be 5 teams off the QB market because they are waiting to see how the rookie they heavily invested in pans out. A lot of those desperate for a QB will have made their play this year. When Rodgers came out, there were 2 good QB's and 1 team that wanted one. Rodgers at 24 was better than anyone going 3 this year.
If the niners finish high enough that they are at the end of the draft order next year and they don't pony up the dough for what is a reasonable price for a proven QB, and instead hand the reigns of a top team to a second year QB with no experience, they are fools. The "they'll save money on replacing Jimmy" argument only works if the new QB is close in value to Jimmy and that is a bad bet.
The "if you see your guy" argument is understandable but everyone thinks they see their guy and almost everyone is wrong. Further, it doesn't appear the niners "think they see their guy" because all word is they are debating who to take and they have zero reason to float misinformation on that.
You make a fair enough point about supply and demand, though if the 49ers are right about the strength of their team as it stands (i.e., Super Bowl contender), then I don't think that that's particularly relevant. The concern about Garoppolo is not only that he might not be much more than a game manager but also that he has a propensity for injury that make his availability simply unreliable. So it makes sense to at least consider drafting his heir apparent, and if Shanahan and Lynch (or let's be honest, just Shanahan) think that they've identified at least one such player who would be available at #3, then I still find it hard to fault them for shooting their shot. You can argue the cost, but as I mentioned earlier, those 1st round picks are late 20's at best in the 49ers' mind, and the cost would surely be higher in the next few years if the 49ers were trying to trade up from those spots instead of #12.
I suspect your rebuttal to this will be that it is an exception to the rule, but it feels like the 49ers are trying to follow the Chiefs' route of keeping the incumbent for one year so that their prized QB prospect can sit and learn for a year, then handing the 2nd-year QB the reins and let his talent (now enhanced by a year of learning the playbook) take over. If that plan works out to a similar level of success, would you still be down on the 49ers's trade up to put this plan into motion?
Last note on your final paragraph, I would dispute what you say here. I think the 49ers have identified 1 or 2 guys (maybe 3) whom they would be perfectly fine with drafting and it really just depends on whom the Jets pick. And for all the faults I can find in Shanahan and Lynch's past draft prowess, the one thing I have felt pretty good about is their ability to keep stuff in-house, so I don't think it's the 49ers floating out notions that they're still debating whom to take.
I have no issue with taking a QB now and letting him train behind G. The Chiefs situation is different. 1. They had their guy. It was a trade for Mahomes, not for whomever we decide is the best QB at our pick. 2. They gave up a lot less. They gave up a #27 instead of a #12. That is a big difference. Then they gave up 2 first round picks instead of 1. They were in first place at 12 and 4 not in last place at 6-10. Yes if Jimmy is back and healthy, the 49ers should do better, but QB was not the only issue last year. And if they don't do something at DB, they aren't going anywhere. I think a neutral, unbiased party would say that the Chiefs would pick in the end of the draft order he next year and the 49ers will pick in he middle next year.
And if the Chiefs had traded up for Trubisky we wouldn't be having this conversation.
So the difference for me is the Chiefs staring me in the face and saying "We love Patrick Mahomes and paying $100 for him is worth it" and the 49ers saying "We want to change the QB position. We need to be at #3 to get one. I'm sure one of these three guys will be okay. We are paying $500 for this".
I also don't think it's a fair analysis of the current 49er roster to refer to it as a last-place or 6-10 team. It seems clear to me that injuries to virtually every key starter on offense and defense diminished what was more or less the same Super Bowl team from the year before, and even then they still got to 6 wins. I actually agree with you that the secondary is the team's biggest weakness but only because pretty much every starter has a history of injury. Ironically, the one guy with the biggest injury history (Verrett) was the one who stayed healthy all year. Otherwise, the talent level of the starters is solid.
It does sounds like you think the current 49er team as constructed is still merely a middle-of-the-road team; you actually state that upfront. If they truly are mid-pack, then yeah giving up so much draft capital looks worse. I think this 49ers team is among the elite if healthy, and if that holds out, then I think this trade is already fundamentally better than you are experssing right now.
I think they are clearly not a 6-10 team but also clearly not a 13-3 team. I'd go 9-7 understanding that teams are not done yet. But their first round pick is unlikely to contribute.
A good pick at a key position like CB, at #12 certainly could have moved that record up.
Home: Packers, Colts, Rams/Cardinals/Seahawks
Away: Titans, Rams/Cardinals/Seahawks
I personally think they're the best of the NFC West but all four teams always play each other close so I just assume 1-1 with all of them.
But back to your main point, I would have had no problem if the 49ers chose to go with one of the top CBs at #12, though like I said, I don't think the standard rookie CB is that much less likely to bust than a QB. It's also actually convenient that you brought up that Warriors trade from way back when a few posts ago, because I kinda see the 49ers' current situation as similar to the Warriors circa December 2020, when Klay's Achilles was still alive and they were in the fluke position of drafting much higher than their actual team level. I think the Warriors believed back then, somewhat reasonably in my opinion, that they were title contenders with Steph and Klay healthy again, so they could afford to take a shot on a high-risk high-ceiling pick like Wiseman. Best case, Wiseman shows preternatural ability and is a positive asset at the center position and essentially becomes core 3 + 1. Worst case, Wiseman completely busts and the Warriors either ride out their core 3 hoping for some last bits of magic or rebuild in full. Middle case, Wiseman takes a couple years to fully develop but turns into a star that keeps the Warriors a playoff team at the least for another decade or so. I see the 49ers as taking this same path but with whichever rookie QB they have their eyes on.
For better or worse, can't say Shanahan and Lynch aren't aggressive when they see opportunity they think they can take advantage of. Could be foolhardy as Oaktownbear believes, or they could be turn out to have learned from their past draft mistakes and hit the jackpot. Really does make you wonder though how much more serious they were than they let on about going after Deshaun Watson before all the sexual assault allegations.sycasey said:I think last year's record was definitely not reflective of the current talent level of the 49ers roster. They had a terrible cascade of injuries but remained competitive and were only outscored by a total of 14 points on the season. I might even argue that even with Jimmy G going down yet again, if the rest of the team had maintained an average level of health they probably sneak into the playoffs anyway (remember the NFC had a 7-9 and an 8-8 team in the playoffs last year).JeffBear07 said:
It does sounds like you think the current 49er team as constructed is still merely a middle-of-the-road team; you actually state that upfront. If they truly are mid-pack, then yeah giving up so much draft capital looks worse. I think this 49ers team is among the elite if healthy, and if that holds out, then I think this trade is already fundamentally better than you are experssing right now.
So their thinking is that they are pretty set at other positions and need to gamble now on getting a top QB, before losing the rest of this group to attrition. It's not a crazy idea. Definitely a big gamble, a shoot-the-moon kind of strategy.
JeffBear07 said:For better or worse, can't say Shanahan and Lynch aren't aggressive when they see opportunity they think they can take advantage of. Could be foolhardy as Oaktownbear believes, or they could be turn out to have learned from their past draft mistakes and hit the jackpot. Really does make you wonder though how much more serious they were than they let on about going after Deshaun Watson before all the sexual assault allegations.sycasey said:I think last year's record was definitely not reflective of the current talent level of the 49ers roster. They had a terrible cascade of injuries but remained competitive and were only outscored by a total of 14 points on the season. I might even argue that even with Jimmy G going down yet again, if the rest of the team had maintained an average level of health they probably sneak into the playoffs anyway (remember the NFC had a 7-9 and an 8-8 team in the playoffs last year).JeffBear07 said:
It does sounds like you think the current 49er team as constructed is still merely a middle-of-the-road team; you actually state that upfront. If they truly are mid-pack, then yeah giving up so much draft capital looks worse. I think this 49ers team is among the elite if healthy, and if that holds out, then I think this trade is already fundamentally better than you are experssing right now.
So their thinking is that they are pretty set at other positions and need to gamble now on getting a top QB, before losing the rest of this group to attrition. It's not a crazy idea. Definitely a big gamble, a shoot-the-moon kind of strategy.
Lynch and Shanahan are supposedly still at odds over the pick. Fields, Lance or Jones....the draft is just 8 days away.
Where did you get that idea? I have not read anything from a credible source that indicates they are "at odds". Given how closely they are holding their cards, I don't think anyone knows which QB is "the guy" or whether there is any disagreement between the decision-makers.calumnus said:JeffBear07 said:For better or worse, can't say Shanahan and Lynch aren't aggressive when they see opportunity they think they can take advantage of. Could be foolhardy as Oaktownbear believes, or they could be turn out to have learned from their past draft mistakes and hit the jackpot. Really does make you wonder though how much more serious they were than they let on about going after Deshaun Watson before all the sexual assault allegations.sycasey said:I think last year's record was definitely not reflective of the current talent level of the 49ers roster. They had a terrible cascade of injuries but remained competitive and were only outscored by a total of 14 points on the season. I might even argue that even with Jimmy G going down yet again, if the rest of the team had maintained an average level of health they probably sneak into the playoffs anyway (remember the NFC had a 7-9 and an 8-8 team in the playoffs last year).JeffBear07 said:
It does sounds like you think the current 49er team as constructed is still merely a middle-of-the-road team; you actually state that upfront. If they truly are mid-pack, then yeah giving up so much draft capital looks worse. I think this 49ers team is among the elite if healthy, and if that holds out, then I think this trade is already fundamentally better than you are experssing right now.
So their thinking is that they are pretty set at other positions and need to gamble now on getting a top QB, before losing the rest of this group to attrition. It's not a crazy idea. Definitely a big gamble, a shoot-the-moon kind of strategy.
Lynch and Shanahan are supposedly still at odds over the pick. Fields, Lance or Jones....the draft is just 8 days away.
I hope there is disagreement between Lynch and Shanahan. There is no obvious 3rd QB pick and they are lying if they say there is. I think the 49ers are rolling the dice because this is the year where they can. The coming years must not be as good for QBs. So good for them but it's still a big crap shoot. The good news is that I think Shanahan can make do with a bunch of different QBs. And I know, they want to do better than 'make do'. If they get a little lucky they'll pick a potentially great QB and then they are off to the super bowl races.
For all the talk about Mac Jones, I bet they take Fields.
One of the three will be a star, another will be a solid player and the third will be a journeyman. Sadly, Monte Hall is no longer with us to help guide us to the right door....82gradDLSdad said:
I hope there is disagreement between Lynch and Shanahan. There is no obvious 3rd QB pick and they are lying if they say there is. I think the 49ers are rolling the dice because this is the year where they can. The coming years must not be as good for QBs. So good for them but it's still a big crap shoot. The good news is that I think Shanahan can make do with a bunch of different QBs. And I know, they want to do better than 'make do'. If they get a little lucky they'll pick a potentially great QB and then they are off to the super bowl races.
71Bear said:One of the three will be a star, another will be a solid player and the third will be a journeyman. Sadly, Monte Hall is no longer with us to help guide us to the right door....82gradDLSdad said:
I hope there is disagreement between Lynch and Shanahan. There is no obvious 3rd QB pick and they are lying if they say there is. I think the 49ers are rolling the dice because this is the year where they can. The coming years must not be as good for QBs. So good for them but it's still a big crap shoot. The good news is that I think Shanahan can make do with a bunch of different QBs. And I know, they want to do better than 'make do'. If they get a little lucky they'll pick a potentially great QB and then they are off to the super bowl races.
I don't think the odds of one of them becoming a star is 33%. But I will say, the QB that gets drafted by Shanahan probably has a better chance than the other 2, maybe even the other 4.
hanky1 said:
For all the talk about Mac Jones, I bet they take Fields.
Rather surprisingly... Eric Branch in today's SF Chron: "Here's a hunch: The 49ers will select Lance, a huge talent who can be given proper time to develop after making just 17 starts against lower-level competition."
But maybe he's just betting on the long shot, in search of a big payoff.
Big C said:hanky1 said:
For all the talk about Mac Jones, I bet they take Fields.
Rather surprisingly... Eric Branch in today's SF Chron: "Here's a hunch: The 49ers will select Lance, a huge talent who can be given proper time to develop after making just 17 starts against lower-level competition."
But maybe he's just betting on the long shot, in search of a big payoff.
Fields just confirmed he is managing epilepsy with medication. Hasn't had a seizure in years but for teams already having trouble deciding which of three QBs to pick....
yikes.calumnus said:Big C said:hanky1 said:
For all the talk about Mac Jones, I bet they take Fields.
Rather surprisingly... Eric Branch in today's SF Chron: "Here's a hunch: The 49ers will select Lance, a huge talent who can be given proper time to develop after making just 17 starts against lower-level competition."
But maybe he's just betting on the long shot, in search of a big payoff.
Fields just confirmed he is managing epilepsy with medication. Hasn't had a seizure in years but for teams already having trouble deciding which of three QBs to pick....
gotta wonder if the niners are saying "something that would have been good to know 2 months ago!"
concordtom said:yikes.calumnus said:Big C said:hanky1 said:
For all the talk about Mac Jones, I bet they take Fields.
Rather surprisingly... Eric Branch in today's SF Chron: "Here's a hunch: The 49ers will select Lance, a huge talent who can be given proper time to develop after making just 17 starts against lower-level competition."
But maybe he's just betting on the long shot, in search of a big payoff.
Fields just confirmed he is managing epilepsy with medication. Hasn't had a seizure in years but for teams already having trouble deciding which of three QBs to pick....
gotta wonder if the niners are saying "something that would have been good to know 2 months ago!"
Only if Fields is the guy they had in mind when they traded up. Shanahan did say they traded up "with one guy in mind" but "I feel good about five guys at three."
The guy they had in mind could be Fields, but might have been Wilson, or could be Lance or Jones. Unlikely it is anyone else.
ESPN reported 49er "personnel department" likes Lance but Shanahan likes Jones.
All arrows are pointing towards Jones. It is now a virtual lock he will be Shanahan's choice.calumnus said:concordtom said:yikes.calumnus said:Big C said:hanky1 said:
For all the talk about Mac Jones, I bet they take Fields.
Rather surprisingly... Eric Branch in today's SF Chron: "Here's a hunch: The 49ers will select Lance, a huge talent who can be given proper time to develop after making just 17 starts against lower-level competition."
But maybe he's just betting on the long shot, in search of a big payoff.
Fields just confirmed he is managing epilepsy with medication. Hasn't had a seizure in years but for teams already having trouble deciding which of three QBs to pick....
gotta wonder if the niners are saying "something that would have been good to know 2 months ago!"
Only if Fields is the guy they had in mind when they traded up. Shanahan did say they traded up "with one guy in mind" but "I feel good about five guys at three."
The guy they had in mind could be Fields, but might have been Wilson, or could be Lance or Jones. Unlikely it is anyone else.
ESPN reported 49er "personnel department" likes Lance but Shanahan likes Jones.
If it is Jones (and I agree that it's looking like it is), then I really don't like the trade. They likely would have had him at 6 and could have just done the Miami trade with Philly:
Miami then continued its dealing just a short time later, sending that No. 12 pick, No. 123 and their 2022 first-round pick to the Eagles in exchange for the No. 6 and No. 156 picks in this year's draft, it was announced.
Miami then continued its dealing just a short time later, sending that No. 12 pick, No. 123 and their 2022 first-round pick to the Eagles in exchange for the No. 6 and No. 156 picks in this year's draft, it was announced.
Data: SportSource Analytics; Chart: Michelle McGhee/Axios
"First- and second-round NFL draft picks over the last decade have overwhelmingly been from Florida, Texas and California, Axios' Jeff Tracy writes....
... Conference call: In terms of college representation, 27.5% of the picks went to an SEC school, followed by the Big Ten (16%), ACC (15%), Pac-12 (14.2%) and Big 12 (9.4%)." Axios
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
After all that it's Trey Lance. I think it's the right pick, especially since they're unlikely to find a Garoppolo taker with his contract and health plus no leverage from the 49ers end. Trey Lance is the second best QB in this draft
Trey Lance gets the Mahomes treatment of sitting behind a good-not-great starter with a great offensive HC for his rookie year
Trey Lance gets the Mahomes treatment of sitting behind a good-not-great starter with a great offensive HC for his rookie year
LMFAO. I don't root for the Raiders anymore, but hating on the niners is still good fun.Bearly Clad said:
After all that it's Trey Lance. I think it's the right pick, especially since they're unlikely to find a Garoppolo taker with his contract and health plus no leverage from the 49ers end. Trey Lance is the second best QB in this draft
Trey Lance gets the Mahomes treatment of sitting behind a good-not-great starter with a great offensive HC for his rookie year
Good luck with that one Niner fans! One season at glorified junior high football on a team that always dominates its conference and has way more talent than everyone they play, and that was 2 seasons ago. But he looks the part!
I actually respected having the guts to go against the grain and pick Jones.
Hey! I'm a former Raiders fan too! Usually I actively root against the 49ers but in this case I think they made the right choice.
Right now my biggest worry is that this might've been the Packers pick through the 49ers for a future deal sending Aaron Rodgers to the Silicon Valley 49ers. I would hate to have to start rooting for the Niners because of Rodgers but I'd tough it out
Right now my biggest worry is that this might've been the Packers pick through the 49ers for a future deal sending Aaron Rodgers to the Silicon Valley 49ers. I would hate to have to start rooting for the Niners because of Rodgers but I'd tough it out
Gotta give you credit, BC. You called Lance once the trade was consummated. Nicely done. I am thankful that Shanahan came to his senses and selected a guy with a very high ceiling even though he will need a lot of grooming. That is a far cry better than picking a guy who is already close to reaching his max. potential.Bearly Clad said:
After all that it's Trey Lance. I think it's the right pick, especially since they're unlikely to find a Garoppolo taker with his contract and health plus no leverage from the 49ers end. Trey Lance is the second best QB in this draft
Trey Lance gets the Mahomes treatment of sitting behind a good-not-great starter with a great offensive HC for his rookie year
The "Mahomes treatment" is a great way to describe the 49ers situation. Jimmy G. this year and Lance in '22.
71Bear said:Gotta give you credit, BC. You called Lance once the trade was consummated. Nicely done. I am thankful that Shanahan came to his senses and selected a guy with a very high ceiling even though he will need a lot of grooming. That is a far cry better than picking a guy who is already close to reaching his max. potential.Bearly Clad said:
After all that it's Trey Lance. I think it's the right pick, especially since they're unlikely to find a Garoppolo taker with his contract and health plus no leverage from the 49ers end. Trey Lance is the second best QB in this draft
Trey Lance gets the Mahomes treatment of sitting behind a good-not-great starter with a great offensive HC for his rookie year
The "Mahomes treatment" is a great way to describe the 49ers situation. Jimmy G. this year and Lance in '22.
Love a guy with a high ceiling like Jeff George over low ceiling picks like Joe Montana and Tom Brady.
I like the Lance dice roll, not sure they had to move from #12 to get him, but we will never know.
Fields went #11, Jones went #15 (to the Patriots).
Fields went #11, Jones went #15 (to the Patriots).
That's not really a great comparison though since Montana put up decent but not worldbreaking numbers at Notre Dame and Brady wasn't even a full-time starter at Michigan plus neither went in round 1.
Mac Jones is a rich man's AJ McCarron, there are really productive and successful college QBs who have maxed out their potential and don't translate to the next level just like there are HS QBs with gaudy stats who don't have what it takes to play P5 football; it's all about projecting to the next level.
It's almost impossible to project a 'next Josh Allen' just like it was almost impossible to predict the first Josh Allen (I sure as hell didn't) but I think Trey Lance has a great shot. I know I could easily be wrong but I had Herbert 1a/1b of last year's QB class with Burrow (even though I hate nikeU) and I had Lance to the Niners too; I'm feeling pretty good about myself right now so feel free to trash my opinions, and I could easily still be wrong about both, but remember that this is one of the few bright spots for me the past so maybe take it a little easy on me if you think I'm wrong and/or if I end up actually being wrong
Mac Jones is a rich man's AJ McCarron, there are really productive and successful college QBs who have maxed out their potential and don't translate to the next level just like there are HS QBs with gaudy stats who don't have what it takes to play P5 football; it's all about projecting to the next level.
It's almost impossible to project a 'next Josh Allen' just like it was almost impossible to predict the first Josh Allen (I sure as hell didn't) but I think Trey Lance has a great shot. I know I could easily be wrong but I had Herbert 1a/1b of last year's QB class with Burrow (even though I hate nikeU) and I had Lance to the Niners too; I'm feeling pretty good about myself right now so feel free to trash my opinions, and I could easily still be wrong about both, but remember that this is one of the few bright spots for me the past so maybe take it a little easy on me if you think I'm wrong and/or if I end up actually being wrong
Bearly Clad said:
That's not really a great comparison though since Montana put up decent but not worldbreaking numbers at Notre Dame and Brady wasn't even a full-time starter at Michigan plus neither went in round 1.
Mac Jones is a rich man's AJ McCarron, there are really productive and successful college QBs who have maxed out their potential and don't translate to the next level just like there are HS QBs with gaudy stats who don't have what it takes to play P5 football; it's all about projecting to the next level.
It's almost impossible to project a 'next Josh Allen' just like it was almost impossible to predict the first Josh Allen (I sure as hell didn't) but I think Trey Lance has a great shot. I know I could easily be wrong but I had Herbert 1a/1b of last year's QB class with Burrow (even though I hate nikeU) and I had Lance to the Niners too; I'm feeling pretty good about myself right now so feel free to trash my opinions, and I could easily still be wrong about both, but remember that this is one of the few bright spots for me the past so maybe take it a little easy on me if you think I'm wrong and/or if I end up actually being wrong
I wouldn't have taken any of the three in the first round. I know when a QB has zero relevant experience and everyone drools over physical measurables, run. I don't know why everyone compares him to Josh Allen. Allen's experience and competition level were way ahead of Lance's. On top of that, Lance plays for the Alabama of FCS, throwing to guys who are way better than their opponents. A better comp for Lance is Joe Ayoob. And dude is going to get one year to watch and then ready or not, he is starting. Hope that he can handle the massive ripping he's going to get from the faithful when he is not ready and they are staring at another year without a draft pick. He may succeed someday. If he does it will be for team number two whose fans won't mind the bargain basement price they will pay, vs. week after week of "we spent 3 first round picks on this?".
I'm not enamored of Jones because he has too much talent around him to judge what he will do with a level playing field, but the key attributes of a long term successful Qb are the ability to run an offense, read a defense, and throw accurately. I think who took Jones should tell you something. Wouldn't have taken any of the three, but between the three I disagree with conventional wisdom and would take Jones. And I would point out the 49ers could have Jones plus two first round picks to help him in the next couple years.
Will be interesting to see what GB gets for Rodgers and whether the 49ers took themselves out of the running by giving away all their picks.
Forgetta 'bout it....OaktownBear said:Bearly Clad said:
That's not really a great comparison though since Montana put up decent but not worldbreaking numbers at Notre Dame and Brady wasn't even a full-time starter at Michigan plus neither went in round 1.
Mac Jones is a rich man's AJ McCarron, there are really productive and successful college QBs who have maxed out their potential and don't translate to the next level just like there are HS QBs with gaudy stats who don't have what it takes to play P5 football; it's all about projecting to the next level.
It's almost impossible to project a 'next Josh Allen' just like it was almost impossible to predict the first Josh Allen (I sure as hell didn't) but I think Trey Lance has a great shot. I know I could easily be wrong but I had Herbert 1a/1b of last year's QB class with Burrow (even though I hate nikeU) and I had Lance to the Niners too; I'm feeling pretty good about myself right now so feel free to trash my opinions, and I could easily still be wrong about both, but remember that this is one of the few bright spots for me the past so maybe take it a little easy on me if you think I'm wrong and/or if I end up actually being wrong
I wouldn't have taken any of the three in the first round. I know when a QB has zero relevant experience and everyone drools over physical measurables, run. I don't know why everyone compares him to Josh Allen. Allen's experience and competition level were way ahead of Lance's. On top of that, Lance plays for the Alabama of FCS, throwing to guys who are way better than their opponents. A better comp for Lance is Joe Ayoob. And dude is going to get one year to watch and then ready or not, he is starting. Hope that he can handle the massive ripping he's going to get from the faithful when he is not ready and they are staring at another year without a draft pick. He may succeed someday. If he does it will be for team number two whose fans won't mind the bargain basement price they will pay, vs. week after week of "we spent 3 first round picks on this?".
I'm not enamored of Jones because he has too much talent around him to judge what he will do with a level playing field, but the key attributes of a long term successful Qb are the ability to run an offense, read a defense, and throw accurately. I think who took Jones should tell you something. Wouldn't have taken any of the three, but between the three I disagree with conventional wisdom and would take Jones. And I would point out the 49ers could have Jones plus two first round picks to help him in the next couple years.
Will be interesting to see what GB gets for Rodgers and whether the 49ers took themselves out of the running by giving away all their picks.
My only take is that I'm glad they took a guy who kind of justifies moving up in the draft. Jones clearly could have been had much lower.
I have no idea if he'll actually be good, but I'm not sure anyone really knows anything with these draft picks anyway. I still feel like it wasn't the right move to trade away so many picks for an uncertain chance, but if Lance is good enough then no one will question it. At least he seems to have the upside.
I have no idea if he'll actually be good, but I'm not sure anyone really knows anything with these draft picks anyway. I still feel like it wasn't the right move to trade away so many picks for an uncertain chance, but if Lance is good enough then no one will question it. At least he seems to have the upside.
I'm not enamored of Trevor Lawrence because I can't stand to look at him. A horse-face with shoulder-length hair? Who needs that?!? He looks like somebody who might've hung a Confederate flag in his dorm room.
Big C said:
I'm not enamored of Trevor Lawrence because I can't stand to look at him. A horse-face with shoulder-length hair? Who needs that?!? He looks like somebody who might've hung a Confederate flag in his dorm room.
It is the opposite, he has pushed for social justice and helped organize Black Lives Matter protests at Clemson: https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/29839265/clemson-qb-trevor-lawrence-says-uses-voice-not-activist
He does look a bit like Adam Driver.
Featured Stories
See All
Joshua Pierce, In His Words: Why I Chose Cal
by Bear Insider
The Rodcast: Michael Cooper Film Breakdown
by Rod Benson
Isaiah Crosby, In His Words: Why I Chose Cal
by Bear Insider
Ace Herman-Dawson Commits To Bears' Stellar 2027 Class
by Joaquin Ruiz