foradolla;842109710 said:

---

That seems like an absolutely stupid draft strategy

---

Seriously. Just trade the pick, right?

Indeed.

I admit I almost dialed Damon the next day for clarification but, speaking of strategy, that itself seemed stupid.

I admit too that I after going "What? WHAT???" and honing in on what the hell they were talking about during these waning seconds of the interview (with Damon saying Rodgers this and Rodgers that) I racked my brains for what I had just heard.

What I did hear:

Unlike the effusive praise/analysis of each player the management offered the press immediately after their selection, nothing was said about Alex until many picks had transpired.

Their was a rumor in the place that day they had a plan to get Aaron by trading Alex and it backfired.

The rest I more or less filled in (if memory serves) as I subsequently tried to make heads or tails of it.

ghostof37;842109692 said:

---

I'm using this latest A. Smith - A. Rodgers draft references to learn if anyone else has heard the following theory (inside story?):

I was listening to Damon Bruce awhile back and only heard the very last bit, but someone was saying the Niners actually meant to get Rodgers draft day '04. This person had been in the press room at Niner HQ and he said that either Nolan or an assistant would pop in after each round and give a brief bio and selection rationale for each and every new playerEXCEPT Alex Smith.

The word spread that the Niners picked Smith first but they had a tentative deal with team drafting later who would pick Rodgers (not the Packers). They would then swap Smith for Rodgers and get another draft pick in addition.

BUT the unnamed team reneged because there was somebody left on the board that they wanted more than Rodgers.

---

Sounds like a Damon Bruce show.

But, if true, it would explain a great deal about why the 49ers weren't very good back then. You don't make a "tentative deal" involving your 1st round pick involving a franchise quarterback just so that you might get another draft pick. If you are going to make that trade, you make it up front and hope for the best when your pick comes that your guy is still there.

Having said this, I doubt this is true, because, if it was true that a team can back out of their end of a trade after the first team has already committed, then nobody would do it, even the idiotic (at the time) 49ers.

CalBearRJ;842109711 said:

---

Everyone is using the wrong players for comparison. Staley joined the team in 2007. Frankie G didn't start till 2006. Kevan Barlow led the team in rushing attempts despite running at 3.3 yards per rush. The number two receiver on the team was Arnaz Battle with 32 receptions. No Niners receiver eclipsed 50 receptions.

This was a terrible team, and the good players donning red and gold have been added since 2005. There are three regular contributors to the 2005 team that are still playing for the Niners: Frank Gore, Andy Lee, and Brian Jennings, the long snapper. This was not a team on the cusp of breaking out that just needed a quarterback; it needed a full roster overhaul, which is exactly what happened over the last eight years.

No one can assume that Rodgers would have been successful on that team. He stepped into a team that featured two receivers coming off of 900+ yard seasons (Driver and Jennings) a running back that had 956 yards and 5.1 yards per attempt (Ryan Grant)* a reliable Tight End (Donald Lee) and a third receiver that may have been a #1 for that Niners team (James Jones). The year that Rodgers took over, Jordy Nelson proved to be a solid fourth option. A lot of these players are still on the roster and those that aren't have retired or moved on to get paid somewhere else.

These are drastically different situations, and, without question, success came easier to Rodgers in Green Bay than it would have in San Francisco. Would Rodgers have succeeded in SF? Maybe. But it would have been much harder.

*Grant was no slouch the next two seasons either. He rushed for more than 1200 yards in 2008 and in 2009. The Green Bay running game woes are much more recent than people realize.

---

Amen to that. :hammer::hammer:

No, you heard wrong or the story was wrongly conveyed. That draft was the second indication that Nolan was one of the bigger scumbags in pro sports (the first being what an incredible political hack he was to get hired by Dr. John in the first place). Nolan preferred Smith for personality reasons and spun it internally as some grand trade strategy gone awry. It was true he didn't want Rogers under any circumstances despite the top need for a QB.

ghostof37;842109692 said:

---

I'm using this latest A. Smith - A. Rodgers draft references to learn if anyone else has heard the following theory (inside story?):

I was listening to Damon Bruce awhile back and only heard the very last bit, but someone was saying the Niners actually meant to get Rodgers draft day '04. This person had been in the press room at Niner HQ and he said that either Nolan or an assistant would pop in after each round and give a brief bio and selection rationale for each and every new playerEXCEPT Alex Smith.

The word spread that the Niners picked Smith first but they had a tentative deal with team drafting later who would pick Rodgers (not the Packers). They would then swap Smith for Rodgers and get another draft pick in addition.

BUT the unnamed team reneged because there was somebody left on the board that they wanted more than Rodgers.

---

Cal Panda Bear;842109581 said:

---

:headbang

Are you serious? There is NO evidence pointing to Aaron Rodgers fairing better than Alex Smith. Let's face it - the Niners were a mess pre-Harbaugh. People thinking the Niners wouldve been better off with AR are insane. If anything, AR couldve done worse since he had to change his throwing mechanics anyways.

I get that everyone here loves Aaron Rodgers and thinks he's the greatest player ever. But let's put our bias aside and face reality - AR is only at where he is now because he avoided going into a messy situation with the Niners.

---

One thing Rodgers could always do and Alex Smith still can't do: get the ball into receivers' hands quickly and accurately. If you can do that, you can't suck too badly.
Smith has gotten smarter post-Harbaugh, but it's clear Rodgers has all the tools, and Alex Smith does not.

I'm not your typical biased Cal fan. For Kyle Boller, for instance, I was surprised that his rookie year fared quite well with Baltimore until his injury. Kyle Boller was a thrower, not a quarterback, and clearly needed a ton of coaching.
Rodgers was very polished.

CalBearRJ;842109711 said:

---

Everyone is using the wrong players for comparison. Staley joined the team in 2007. Frankie G didn't start till 2006. Kevan Barlow led the team in rushing attempts despite running at 3.3 yards per rush. The number two receiver on the team was Arnaz Battle with 32 receptions. No Niners receiver eclipsed 50 receptions.

This was a terrible team, and the good players donning red and gold have been added since 2005. There are three regular contributors to the 2005 team that are still playing for the Niners: Frank Gore, Andy Lee, and Brian Jennings, the long snapper. This was not a team on the cusp of breaking out that just needed a quarterback; it needed a full roster overhaul, which is exactly what happened over the last eight years.

No one can assume that Rodgers would have been successful on that team. He stepped into a team that featured two receivers coming off of 900+ yard seasons (Driver and Jennings) a running back that had 956 yards and 5.1 yards per attempt (Ryan Grant)* a reliable Tight End (Donald Lee) and a third receiver that may have been a #1 for that Niners team (James Jones). The year that Rodgers took over, Jordy Nelson proved to be a solid fourth option. A lot of these players are still on the roster and those that aren't have retired or moved on to get paid somewhere else.

These are drastically different situations, and, without question, success came easier to Rodgers in Green Bay than it would have in San Francisco. Would Rodgers have succeeded in SF? Maybe. But it would have been much harder.

*Grant was no slouch the next two seasons either. He rushed for more than 1200 yards in 2008 and in 2009. The Green Bay running game woes are much more recent than people realize.

---

Thanks for the additional detail and clarification. I think it's nuts for people to say AR would have had the same career arc if he'd started in SF. It would have been significantly harder for him. Also, I think AR really benefited from being Favre's backup and not having to start in his rookie year for a crappy team like Smith did.

BUMP;842109866 said:

---

No, you heard wrong or the story was wrongly conveyed... It was true he didn't want Rogers under any circumstances despite the top need for a QB.

---

Yeah, especially since I searched for reactions/repercussions on the web and found absolutely none.

Broad daylight, picture of sobriety, driving highway 37 with firm mental edge, but yeah. Wrong. No one else... must be wrong.

I'd been gun-shy to bring it up till now.

philbert_Cal;842109912 said:

---

Thanks for the additional detail and clarification. I think it's nuts for people to say AR would have had the same career arc if he'd started in SF. It would have been significantly harder for him. Also, I think AR really benefited from being Favre's backup and not having to start in his rookie year for a crappy team like Smith did.

---

Yeah but at some point doesn't pure talent mean something? Rodgers is clearly the more gifted QB. Supporting cast or no, there's a reason he's been a Super Bowl champ and league MVP and Smith hasn't.

sycasey;842110003 said:

---

Yeah but at some point doesn't pure talent mean something? Rodgers is clearly the more gifted QB. Supporting cast or no, there's a reason he's been a Super Bowl champ and league MVP and Smith hasn't.

---

It absolutely does. And I think it means two things:

1) The Niners were absolutely wrong to pass on Rodgers for Smith.

2) Rodgers probably would have been better than Smith.

What it doesn't mean is that Rodgers would be considered among the three best QBs currently playing with a chance to prove himself as the best quarterback of all time. I'd argue, he likely would not be in that place were he a Niner. Because of this, I have a hard time believing that what actually transpired was not the best possible thing.

sycasey;842110003 said:

---

Yeah but at some point doesn't pure talent mean something? Rodgers is clearly the more gifted QB. Supporting cast or no, there's a reason he's been a Super Bowl champ and league MVP and Smith hasn't.

---

Of course. Circumstances matter, though. Look at Steve Young. If Walsh hadn't traded for him, would Young have won a Super Bowl and ended up in the Hall of Fame? I doubt it.

AR is well on his way to a HOF career, but I'm not sure he'd be in the same position now if SF had drafted him.