The Consigliere

I don't disagree, he'd be fine at 40, either of them really, but I'm not entirely sold I like him so much that I'd pass up on a really good offer, if its around, for our 40th. Not sure what normal trade value is for that though. We aint getting compensatories next year, so I'd like to add more picks this year both to recoup 4th and 6th round capital as well as '25 assets. But yeah, I wouldn't hate him at 40, I just think if I can move and get him or the other OT I like best, I'd do it, is it worth it? Maybe, not sure.

I dont think 8 wins is even close to in the cards. Vegas put us at 6.5 supposedly, Im not sure where people will bet it, but I would suspect its an avoid because nobody buys 7-10, and people will be afraid that they're better than 5-12 team. I'd take the under on 6.5. My Ceiling projection: 8-9 My Expectation: 6-11 My Floor: 4-13 I tend to think we're gonna win 5 or 6, with maybe a 20-25% of an outlier 7 win season. I think we'll end up picking between 7th-13th next year. But top 5 is possible. Rock Bottom teams even worse than us: Carolina, New England, Tennessee-maybe, Oakland-maybe (the QB issue), Denver-maybe (the QB issue)..... Am I forgetting anyone? Maybe NYG, anyone else?

For me it's a no way, I agree on Deebo, and I think SF probably offers him a pot of gold deal on a short term through his age 28 season if they can pull it off, so they have more $$$ to pay Purdy when he is a FA in '26 or '27. At that point, maybe they let Aiyuk go. That's what I'd do, take advantage of Purdy cheaply controlled through '25, maybe front load Aiyuk's deal to make space for Purdy's second deal, and try to find draft replacements for Deebo this year and Aiyuk from '25-'26.

I can't recall the last time I saw a team double up on OL help in round 1 and 2, but I'm sure if I dug I could find examples. I just don't think Tennessee, and New Orleans are risks, there is so much building both need to do. I think we can afford to move down to late 40's, Philly could be a risk in the 50's, especially w/two picks. Additionally it's worth noting, it is not like teams won't consider trading into the top 40 or 45 to get the last of the OL's they like in their tier. I'll acknowledge that. But personally, the way the board is looking, I'd use 40 to move down, and take best available at 36. Admittedly if Dejean is gone, and Ladd is gone, and Kool Aid is med flagged, maybe we just take Paul or trade down. There are situations in which I could see taking Paul, but my priority based upon whats happened at OL is to take advantage of teams having already addressed it, and wait into at least the mid 40's, and if all our best OT guys are gone, just wait outright until 67.

AND we have to give up picks too. I just don't see the point. I don't want to pay top dollar for the end of a prime and the beginning of a decline when we are literally in the process of rock bottoming and beginning the climb back. Hell, personally, I'm still hoping we have a ton of hard luck losses next year to help w/draft capital, I don't want to do what Houston did, and get so good, so fast, that its much harder to fix holes. I'd like another two years of inside top 10, and inside top 13 draft capital to build out the defense (we have no quality edges, no quality DB's), the OL, and the playmakers. We don't have anything great in any of those areas of the team other than a bit of FA spackle. It will take 2-3 years worth of drafts to begin to make up for the total ---- show of colossal busts, and blatant dumb --- draft capital flushes that happened under Rivera '20-'23 and its not like the team made good use of '17-'20 either, we lack top end talent, quality starters, and good bench depth. We need to suck to fix those things, we don't want to suddenly go 11-6 or 10-7 next year on Daniels to Aiyuk TD's, and suddenly be stuck at the back end of each round. I'm very hopeful we finish bottoming out in '24 with a 5 win season, maybe 4 (I can deal with 6) and then consider approaching .500+ in '25 (hopefully pick 8-14 in the '26 class if the build is working).

I want long term answers to both the starting lineup and the reserve cohort because both sucked last year, so I'm willing to wait on development for long term answers as such I'll take OT and IOL help. Guys I like: Paul Suamataia Fisher Amegadjie Rosengarten Coleman Beebe Haynes etc There's definitely guys I want, but I want to take advantage of the fact that a whole expletive load of OL's were taken by teams picking after we pick at 36. 9 different teams picking between 37 and the late 50's already took an OL in round 1. There are guys who are gonna fall. Is it Paul? Probably not. But at least 1 or 2 of the top 4 or 5 OL's on most of our boards are probably going to be available in the late 40s to mid 50's. Maybe more. I think we can afford to wait, and use the fact that other teams spent their draft capital. Hell, I looked through the list of team needs for teams picking in that zone and basically 4 teams have OL at all listed, and none of them are listed as a high priority, just a top 3-4 priority amongst many others. We can afford to wait, if we want, and run this day 2 with trade down(s), targeting the best player at 36, and then either snapping up the best OL in a trade down, or betting that a guy we have in our top 5 or 6 left falls to 67 (and maybe more than 1 of our top 6-7 OL's). There are a lot of ways we can play it and the worst to me is just forcing the need OL pick. The best, quick answer types, to me, are all gone, the bulk of the rest are guys that may bust and/or are developmental, we could get multiple OL's just moving down some. Instead of pinning on our hopes on just one guy. Consider our OL draft capital was used on one of the best center prospects last year, and we got nothing from him due to injury and he then got replaced in free agency. Better to own day 2 by taking advantage of teams priorities to maximize our own draft capital value...we aren't fixing this OL or OT problem with one OT pick in round 2, it requries multiple years and a lot of draft capital.

It's the age cliff, prime years of elite level production for WR's are typically age 21-26, you still capture production at 28, but the best years are almost always, the really elite ones, age 23, 24, 25, 26, sometimes the tail end of it is 27. 28 is part of the decline. WR's don't have the fall off in elite level production after age 26 like RB's do, but there've been studies of when the most mega elite (top 5), excellent (top 10-12) and very good seasons (13 and below) take place in the age cohorts, and very, very few of them happen post age 27. It's why so many WR's switch teams after their rookie contracts and/or after they were franchised, you typically get 80% of the top years of a WR's career on their rookie deal. Admittedly Aiyuk is just 26, he's still in his prime, probably has at least 2 more great seasons left before he's probably more an 18th-36th in the league WR rather than a top 10-15, but I'm not interested in paying for that when I expect us to only win 4-7 games this year, and 6-9 in '25.

Which teams will target him? Chargers, Titans, Packers, Saints and Bengals all pick between 37 and 50 and already got their OL's. Houston, Oakland, Indy, and Jacksonville all have that as a need on the nfl.com tracker site, but how many OL's do we like in that 40-70 zone, I have at least 4 or 5. I'm not fixated on Paul. There are other guys I'd be okay with. Id rather move down, risk losing Paul, get more assets, and get a guy later, be it a Guard or an OT.

I bet the foot injury and other issues in his career w/health has teams skittish. Wonder if he's one of those classic injury related falls down the draft boards.

Personally I have zero interest. We already have an overage WR', we are not gonna be good this year, probably not next either as we build this thing up from scratch, I imagine they are targeting second half of '25, and '26 for being a .500+ to playoff team, in '26 dude will be 28, like McLaurin was last year, outside of his prime. I am not terribly interested in paying for a guy's decline when we aren't even likely to be competitive for half or more of the contract, I like these moves when we are getting good, I'd make a move like this 2 years from now, but now? No. Just don't see it. If we could get him cheap, okay, but I doubt it, and there were and will be FA classes pumping out quality options going forward as the WR classes of '20, '21 and '22 were all solid to superb. No need to overpay in $$$ and draft capital when we can do it just with $$$, and do it when they aren't bad calorie seasons. For me, this kind of signing (would definitely not due a trade) makes sense in '25 or '26, not in '24. We already have two vets on the roster, get the kid who he'll grow with instead. Plus there's the rumor that they're trying to move Deebo instead.

I'd rather have a WR on a cheap contract, cost controlled, there were WR's worth signing in FA w/o giving away picks. We didn't. I imagine we're gonna draft one (I hope), I do not want to throw away money AND picks, when we could have just thrown away money a month ago. Could've grabbed Mooney or overpaid for Davis and Ridley for instance, avoided that. I'd like to think they're going after cheap cost control, rather than spending too much AND tossing draft picks in the bonfire. We have more WR's left in round 2. We should take one.

Thanks, admittedly I am largely "confused" at what the hell the rule changes mean, I just get the sense that they are trying to deemphasize collisions for player safety, and it would not surprise me if they got rid of it entirely except for field goals in the next decade.

4.70 40, 72nd percentile speed score. Kelce was 4.66 a decade ago, Mark Andrews is 4.67, Trey McBride is 4.61, Laporta 4.59, Pitts is a freak (low 4's), Kittle was 4.52 back when he was healthy, Dalton Kincaid was 4.68. He's definitely on the slow end of the field behind like literally every single top 10ish guy in the league, but he's also not outside the realm of the athleticism you need, as shown by the 72nd percentile speed score. With TE's the more athletic the better though in terms of hit rate and his burst and agility scores are sub 50th percentile, so athleticially, his profile is meh, you've got a point, I'm not in the cant stand him area, I like him, but he is a floor TE. Better than the guys in this class other than Bowers, but not great. Just solid plus guy (to me anyway). I can see your point, maybe my trade idea is a bit silly, how about dangling the late 3rd and a future 7th lol.

1000% yes, but I'd offer probably 67 or the 7something pick, I'm not giving them a 2nd rounder for a former 2nd rounder who has 1 year left on his rookie deal. But yeah, I'd absolutely try to get him. After a slow september, he turned around and produced a solid last 3 months of the season. Not Sam Laporta good, but still solid for a rookie (26-302-2 in the 10 games between October 9th and December 12th including a 5-75, 4-46, and 4-39 games). I like Mayer WAY WAY WAY more than any TE left in the draft, but he's got 3 years left on the deal, no way I'm offering a high 2 for him, they took him 35 last year, and cheap rookie deal value has already been slashed by 25%. Ftr he's on a 4 year 9.4 mill deal.

I am a Mitchell skeptic, Dejean at 36, Sua is one of my 3 fav OT's left, but I'd rather trade down for him then take him at 40 (if he lasts). I don't entirelly agree with the QB thing. Although betting markets were set at 4.5 it always looked like Penix was set to go top 15, and Nix was set to go 15-35, it didn't really change anything that 6 QB's went, they were always going between 1 and 35 anyway, before our pick. What's lucky, kind of, to me anyway, is that the guys that did fall into round 2, at least 4 or 5 of them fit right smack into our desperate DB-WR-OL-LB need cohort. I don't think any of the OL's are worth 36 or 40 for that matter, but the DB's, WR's and even LB talent could be, and we can trade down too. Having two top 8 picks in round 2 is huge just for potentially sweeping up late 1st talent AND for trading down to desperate teams. I hope we use 36 and move down with 40 unless someone crazy falls there. Which of these round 2 targets came out with medical flags? I can't remember. Med flags and off the field alarm bells tend to drop guys like nothing else.

The talent available is not in the same "likely sure thing" zone as the best available guys. You reach for an OL here, you are reaching for a question mark. Everyone knew that there would be a huge OL run and it happened, nobody reached into round 1 the last 7 picks because the talent had already been peeled off. I suspect some teams will reach for OL in round 2, but there's not a lot of teams that are likely to do it at slot, the risk, if there is one, would be teams trading up, because most of the teams with big enough needs, already addressed it. Its just the Pats, Bears, Us and a few others, and if you're like me, you're just looking for the best available lineman, rather than position specific targets since OT got pillaged slot 5 through 29 w/Guyton. Play it smart, we need DB, WR, OT, G, TE, LB, we should be peeling off the best available talent at slot, and trading down if there are enough guys we like in a tier to justify the move. If the team is set on taking an OL in round 2, I'd suggest moving the 40 for a later 40 or early 50 slot pick and a late 3rd or day 3 pick (whatever is market value, I'm too lazy to look). Paul is probably the only OT worth 36th, and I don't see him good enough to justify passing on the DB and WR talent when there are another 2 or 3 guys I have around him in value at OT (as well as IOL guys). I really hope they trade down from 40 to recoup some round 4 capital in addition to whatever pick we get via moving in round 2.

Nope. Talent really isn't there, beyond Paul, maybe, and a ton of teams that pick between 37 and 58 already took OL's (I believe 7 of the 17 slots between 41 and 58 took OL yesterday and 9 of the 21 between 37 and 58 took OL's). OL's could fall, easily, in round 2, and certainly should fall if you like 4-5 or more, to the mid 40s to early 60's and maybe later. We can afford to trade down from 40 for OL help, or wait at 67. We don't need to, nor should we, force a pick here. Have to use the board and team needs to our advantage.

Special Teams returned game seems on the precipice of being eliminated entirely. I like the guy and see him as one of the best values on the board, but the ST's piece, which was once a HEAVY reason for selecting specific guys on day 3 because that was a way you could justify their roster stashing is fading w/the deemphasis of ST's with rule changes for the safety of players. Not sure its donezo yet, but honestly, I'd ignore ST's value at this point long term anyway. Also I'd suggest not getting enamored with any specific guy, there's a reason the pay out for nailing picks at slot in futures betting gets higher here and its because boards start to get really different and really weird and team specific in terms of needs in positional groupings. I do agree that a DB or WR seems like the best value for pick though, with DeJean probably being the best value left along with McConkey. I'm very alarmed that multiple mocks issued this morning have literally every one we want getting peeled off 33, 34, 35 lol. Hoping those are based on mockers boards, and not on "talk on the street" about what the Bills, Cardinals and Pats are likely to do (and they may trade down too other than probably the Bills).

You don't take a guy 20-40 slots early to make sure. You can make trades, and sign released vets etc. It's also important to note as I did in prior posts: The Titans, Chargers, Jets (who lack a 2nd for now), Packers (2 second rounders), Saints, Bengals, Steelers, Bucs, and Cowboys all took lineman in round 1 and pick after our slot 36 pick. There are A LOT of teams that won't be going OL in round 1 because they already did it in round 2 and literally all of them pick after our 36th pick and all but 2 of them, after our 40th. If you like 3 or 4 lineman, we definitely can move down from 36, and almost certainly can do trade keep if we want form 36 or 40 if we want and probably still get a guy we like. No reason at all to force a need pick at 36, NONE.

I agree, have those 2 guys and Paul. Might be able to trade down a little from 40 if all 3 are still available at that point. Chargers and Titans certainly aren't dipping back into the OL pool between 36 and 40 so there's that, and a bunch of OL's went in the teens which is post 40 picks: Packers (41 and 58), Saints (45), Bengals (49), Steelers (51), Cowboys (56) and Bucs (57) all grabbed OL help in round 1 so probably wont be threats in round 2. It does give us some flexibility if we want to move further down from 40 to address OL (if not addressed at 36).

No we don't. The guys to target are gone, at that point you're reaching, it's also worth noting that the Chargers already took OL after our pick, same with the Titans, real good chance a good OL we like makes it past 37, 38, 39, Chargers may take a guy at 37 though, and a WR run is expected early in round 2 which could cause people to trade into that zone. There's maybe one guy in Paul, possibly worth risking all that at 36, but I'd rather just take one of the best talents on the board, and they are generally DB, and WR.

Not okay with Mitchell if Ladd is available. Honestly just not okay with him period. Too sketched out. Will be interesting to see if we go with one here: Ladd Franklin Mitchell R. Wilson Keon Coleman Whats funny is every single one of them except Ladd has some red flags, maybe Wilson is good too but not quite as clean. Do they think somebody will last to round 3. I don't really see it, certainly not from this tier. But how do they see them? Do they want speed, size, just the best guy? Ladd seems obviously the safest, than probably Wilson, Franklin, Mitchell and Coleman are big 50/50 swings w/reasons to do it and reasons to pass. The guys that woudl upset me msot if we took them are probably Mitchell and Coleman, just because the red flags are HUGE with both, with Franklin its more just really confusing. But Ladd is the guy I want. New England might take someone, same with Buffalo. So 2 could be off the board when we pick. San Diego and maybe Tennessee are risks between 37-39. Kinda glad we avoided trading up, plenty of WR talent still there. Would have liked an OT to fall to us or worth moving up for but it wasn't in the cards.

Okay, maybe I was wrong lol. I'm shocked they couldn't pull anything for them but I think the contract issues make a trade less attractive, its certainly why I'd have no interest.

It will be fun to see what happens on this, as I loathe both those prospects, will be interesting to see if either hit, I'd imagine if one does, it's probably Mitchell because of the tools, but the profiles are really feast and famine types. I don't get why either would go crazy high, hoping we avoided both, at least Legette's off the board. If Carolina is wrong on Leggette, they become the Redskins of the 90s and aughts, missing on all WR prospects. Terrace Marshall, miss, Jonathan Mingo Miss, and now, Leggette. Ouch (full disclosure, I really, really liked Marshall). Not interested in trading for Aiyuk. Would rather build with kiddos. I dont really think the Niners want to trade him either.

Not ordering anything until we change the name of the team. Commanders totally blows, and its a stanky link to little idiot Napoleon Snyder. Ownership needs to get on that so it can be changed for '25 or '26 at the latest. Nobody wants that trash name (admittedly some are tired of the 3 name changes in like 3 years a few years ago but so what, we shouldn't stick with something even stupider than wizards).