2024 Comprehensive Draft Thread

[Skinsinparadise]

19 hours ago, CommanderInTheRye said:

 

 

Does anybody know anything about Johnny Wilson?

 

A 4.52 forty at 6'6" 231 lbs is damn impressive.

 

If he can block he might even be able to lineup as a TE.

 

for the WR class, I go back and forth the most on Wilson and Franklin and Coleman.  Some players I have a hard time planting a flag in a big way or not, Wilson is one of those for me.

 

If I went with the most optimisitc take on Wilson it would be he's 6 '6 (combine measurement) and has the catch radius you'd expect with someone that size.  Long arms.  Long legs.  Makes some acrobatic catches.  Good threat on the 2nd level.  Played outside receiver in the games I watched, often Z.  Looks like he has more potential for big plays than he showed in college because when he gets going he can run -- good long speed.

 

The most pessimistic take is his get off from the line of scrimmage comes off clunky to me.  He needs a few steps to build momentum and then as a long strider if he has some space he can take off.  but wonder if a physical CB can disrupt him in the pros.  He has one of the highest drop rates in this class.  And one of the lowest YAC rates in this class.  And a so so seperation number.

Edited March 18 by Skinsinparadise

[Chump Bailey]

Wilson should just switch positions and become a TE. I'm sure he must have been approached about this. 

 

[MartinC]

1 hour ago, Chump Bailey said:

Wilson should just switch positions and become a TE. I'm sure he must have been approached about this. 

 

He doesn’t need to bulk up for me - he can be a hybrid and a creative OC can have some fun moving him around. He can line up tight (but not inline) and run some H-back type routes or he can motion out and be a big slot or a X type out wide.

 

I agree with @Skinsinparadise his issue is he’s a bit slow off the line and could struggle to separate against NFL DBs. But he’s an intriguing weapon - he could be a massive red zone threat immediately.

[method man]

3 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Depends on when the run happens at LT.    Mocks over the years have often underestimated how high LT types go.  

 

Kiran, Kinglsey, P. Paul are arguably the 4 guys who can play LT and will likely be there in the 2nd round.

 

Am guessing Guyton goes in the first who is also IMO a project.

 

Fisher, Rosengarten, C. Jones seemed to considered RTs.  Feels right for me on Rosengarten and Jones, haven't watched Fisher yet.  Fisher does have LT type length.

 

Am guessing they either move both 2nd rounders to get into the 13-18 range and target Fashnu or Mims (more on him in a sec from me) or mid 20s for Morgan or Barton -- 2nd and high third?  I got to watch Fautanu.

 

I don't think I'd wait for the 2nd round, I'd get someone in the first.  But if I did am not banking on the three project type LTs falling to the third because all three have special tools-high upside.  Boom-bust types granted.  I think Paul has the highest floor of the three.  

 

 

Polk was my guy in the 2nd after McConkey for a long time.  But his 4.53 makes me pause some considering I like him as a deep threat.

 

My realization is that to solve LT while spending the least amount of draft capital, the best way to go at this stage is trade. While I believe in the upside of a bunch of these guys, I think this class is filled with raw prospects who need to sit for a year as they clean up technique, especially in a situation like ours in which a first year starter will be playing.

 

Bolles and Braxon Jones are a couple names I would think about.

[Skinsinparadise]

9 minutes ago, method man said:

 

My realization is that to solve LT while spending the least amount of draft capital, the best way to go at this stage is trade. While I believe in the upside of a bunch of these guys, I think this class is filled with raw prospects who need to sit for a year as they clean up technique, especially in a situation like ours in which a first year starter will be playing.

 

Bolles and Braxon Jones are a couple names I would think about.

 

With a young QB, am a bit worried about a raw prospect:  Kingsley, Kiran, Guyton.  Paul too but i suspect his pass pro-length might allow him to adjust in year 1.

 

Still digesting these guys but am getting there.  I'd trade up for Fashanu.  Mims.  Morgan.  Barton.  I think they can hit the ground running in year 1.  Mims has some things to work on but he's such a freak that i think he will figure it out enough.    I still got to watch Fautanu. 

Edited March 17 by Skinsinparadise

[DWinzit]

4 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Could be because the 49ers seem to like to trade up often

Wondering if any of that tendency was influenced by Peters the past few years

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Still digesting these guys but am getting there.  I'd trade up for Fashanu.  Mims.  Morgan.  Barton.  I think they can hit the ground running in year 1.  Mims has some things to work on but he's such a freak that i think he will figure it out enough.    I still got to watch Fautanu. 

I wouldn't be comfortable moving up for Fautanu, I like the others but as awesome as Mims potential is, he has some bust in his game too

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Starting to like the idea of trading back into the first to pick up our left tackle. Have two premium positions locked up under rookie contracts for five years.

[mhd24]

Here are some examples of trade ups of recent drafts.  Our equivalent trades are made in bold

 

2020 (Chargers-Pats) (Chargers trades 37+71 to NE for #23); Closest Equivalent trade would be:  36+67 to Minnesota for #23)

2022 (Jets-Titans) (Titans traded 26+101 to Jets for 35+69+163); Closest Equivalent trade would be:  36+67+152 to Tampa for 26+92).  I don't think Tampa would do this however).

2022 (Jags-Tampa) (Jags traded 33+106+180 to Tampa for 27); Closest Equivalent Trade would be:  36+100+152 to Arizona for 27)

 

Right now, if we want to move up in the low 20s to get a desired LT, we need to sacrifice 67 IMO.  Otherwise, we could do the Montez Sweat trade up where we traded our 2nd rounder (mid 2nd+future 2nd (turned out to be #34)) for Sweat.  That turned out to be a good deal.  Don't know if Peters would do it, but teams might be tempted to think we'll suck next year.

Edited March 18 by mhd24

[Warhead36]

44 minutes ago, mhd24 said:

Here are some examples of trade ups of recent drafts.  Our equivalent trades are made in bold

 

2020 (Chargers-Pats) (Chargers trades 37+71 to NE for #23); Closest Equivalent trade would be:  36+67 to Minnesota for #23)

2022 (Jets-Titans) (Titans traded 26+101 to Jets for 35+69+163); Closest Equivalent trade would be:  36+67+152 to Tampa for 26+92).  I don't think Tampa would do this however).

2022 (Jags-Tampa) (Jags traded 33+106+180 to Tampa for 27); Closest Equivalent Trade would be:  36+100+152 to Arizona for 27)

 

Right now, if we want to move up in the low 20s to get a desired LT, we need to sacrifice 67 IMO.  Otherwise, we could do the Montez Sweat trade up where we traded our 2nd rounder (mid 2nd+future 2nd (turned out to be #34)) for Sweat.  That turned out to be a good deal.  Don't know if Peters would do it, but teams might be tempted to think we'll suck next year.

Yeah 36 + 67 will probably get us to somewhere around 23. That'd be the sweet spot because I think from 24 on you're gonna see a big time run on OTs.

 

The other sweet spot would be Detroit at 29. 36 + 100 should get it done(maybe we throw in our 7th).

[PlayAction]

16 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

Yeah 36 + 67 will probably get us to somewhere around 23. That'd be the sweet spot because I think from 24 on you're gonna see a big time run on OTs.

 

The other sweet spot would be Detroit at 29. 36 + 100 should get it done(maybe we throw in our 7th).

 

At #29, I think all of the preferred OTs may already have been taken.  At 23-24, there may already have been a good run on OTs.  If I was a team with a first pick mid round 1, I would value an OT more highly than a CB given the depth at CB.  

 

I think we are more likely to have a wide choice of iOL and the second tier of OL.  

[Warhead36]

10 minutes ago, PlayAction said:

 

At #29, I think all of the preferred OTs may already have been taken.  At 23-24, there may already have been a good run on OTs.  If I was a team with a first pick mid round 1, I would value an OT more highly than a CB given the depth at CB.  

 

I think we are more likely to have a wide choice of iOL and the second tier of OL.  

Yeah its iffy. 29 is a sweet spot because the three teams after: Baltimore, San Fran, and KC all are legitimate candidates to draft an OT. So if, say, there is one left that has a first round grade on our board, then I could see that being an option. But there is also a chance that the run occurs earlier and all the 1st one caliber ones are scooped up by like 25 or something.

 

Draft night will be real interesting for sure. We should be rooting for all the non OTs to be taken early and often.

[Est.1974]

5 hours ago, mhd24 said:

Here are some examples of trade ups of recent drafts.  Our equivalent trades are made in bold

 

2020 (Chargers-Pats) (Chargers trades 37+71 to NE for #23); Closest Equivalent trade would be:  36+67 to Minnesota for #23)

2022 (Jets-Titans) (Titans traded 26+101 to Jets for 35+69+163); Closest Equivalent trade would be:  36+67+152 to Tampa for 26+92).  I don't think Tampa would do this however).

2022 (Jags-Tampa) (Jags traded 33+106+180 to Tampa for 27); Closest Equivalent Trade would be:  36+100+152 to Arizona for 27)

 

Right now, if we want to move up in the low 20s to get a desired LT, we need to sacrifice 67 IMO.  Otherwise, we could do the Montez Sweat trade up where we traded our 2nd rounder (mid 2nd+future 2nd (turned out to be #34)) for Sweat.  That turned out to be a good deal.  Don't know if Peters would do it, but teams might be tempted to think we'll suck next year.

Thanks.

 

I’d consider offering #36 and #40 if it gets us to the higher/mid first and we can get a top LT option. Might not be realistic to get a trade partner though. Might have to jump twice like the Vikings are going to do for a QB.

[Skinsinparadise]

Almost impossible to not come out of this draft with a WR in the 2nd or 3rd.

 

High Floor IMO -- good upside

McConkey

Pearsall

R. Wilson

Burton

 

Medium Floor -- High upside

Legette

Polk

Franklin

Coleman

Corley

 

Lower floor -- high upside

J. Wilson

 

Would love any of these guys but prefer the top list -- McConkey, Pearsall, R, Wilson, Burton.   I think its Legette next for me.  Polk was higher on my list until the 4.53 combine.  Franklin and Coleman IMO might be the biggest boom busts in that group.  Assuming A. Mitchell, Worthy go in the first -- also to me boom-bust.

 

 

[kingdaddy]

10 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Starting to like the idea of trading back into the first to pick up our left tackle. Have two premium positions locked up under rookie contracts for five years.

I'm listening.....which QB are you taking in the first round? 

10 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Starting to like the idea of trading back into the first to pick up our left tackle. Have two premium positions locked up under rookie contracts for five years.

Sorry, I missed your point, I see what you're saying, stay at #2 overall and trade into the 1st round with our other picks. I jumped the gun.

[clskinsfan]

Saw a mock yesterday where we traded pick 36 and next years 1st to move to the Raiders spot at 13. We then picked Fashanu at 13. I think I would be good with this. We would most likely go franchise LT next year anyways. And there is a decent chance we would be picking higher than 13 next year. We then went CB at 40. Kind of like that idea. 

Edited March 18 by clskinsfan

[Anselmheifer]

 

 

Thinks the same thing we do. That we are moving back up into the 1st for a tackle. 

 

Also, there has been a lot of talk of us moving into the 20's with a 2nd and a 3rd. I'm not a fan. I think the tackles in the 20's are going to be swing and miss guys like Guyton, who both needs development and carries bust risk. I'd rather have top talents at other positions. If we want an OT that can start and protect a rookie in Rd 1, I think the sweet spot is around 15, and our 2 seconds could get us there. We need to get ahead of Cincinnati and  Pittsburg. It would be even better to get ahead of NO at 14. 

Also, I keep seeing Brock Bowers dropping in mocks...

 

[Est.1974]

2 minutes ago, clskinsfan said:

Saw a mock yesterday where we traded pick 36 and next years 1st to move to the Raiders spot at 13. We then picked Fashanu at 13. I think I would be good with this. We would most likely go franchise LT next year anyways. And there is a decent chance we would be picking higher than 13 next year. We then went CB at 40. Kind of like that idea. 

I’m onboard with doing what it takes to get QB, LT and CB with our first 3 selections.

[DWinzit]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Almost impossible to not come out of this draft with a WR in the 2nd or 3rd.

 

High Floor IMO -- good upside

McConkey

Pearsall

R. Wilson

Burton

 

Medium Floor -- High upside

Legette

Polk

Franklin

Coleman

Corley

 

Lower floor -- high upside

J. Wilson

 

Would love any of these guys but prefer the top list -- McConkey, Pearsall, R, Wilson, Burton.   I think its Legette next for me.  Polk was higher on my list until the 4.53 combine.  Franklin and Coleman IMO might be the biggest boom busts in that group.  Assuming A. Mitchell, Worthy go in the first -- also to me boom-bust.

I imagine they are eyeballing this pool of WR's like many of us. Dang what good talent for the 2nd and perhaps reaching the 3rd round. The middle level is very doable while answering the QB and T prior. If not WR it would be CB which also has a ton of depth.

[Chump Bailey]

7 minutes ago, Anselmheifer said:

If we want an OT that can start and protect a rookie in Rd 1, I think the sweet spot is around 15, and our 2 seconds could get us there

 

Sounds plausible. Barton was my target for a while, but since our FA signings, I've pivoted and my favorite target is Latham. I think he is capable of stepping in and producing from the start. Fuaga as well. 

[clskinsfan]

7 minutes ago, Chump Bailey said:

Latham

I still think he might be the best T in the draft. Just less value at RT than LT. 

[MartinC]

19 minutes ago, Chump Bailey said:

 

Sounds plausible. Barton was my target for a while, but since our FA signings, I've pivoted and my favorite target is Latham. I think he is capable of stepping in and producing from the start. Fuaga as well. 

I see Latham as strictly a RT. He can be a solid pro and it’s not that we don’t need a RT as well as LT but I just don’t see him as having a really high ceiling.

[Chump Bailey]

1 minute ago, MartinC said:

I see Latham as strictly a RT. He can be a solid pro and it’s not that we don’t need a RT as well as LT but I just don’t see him as having a really high ceiling.

 

Interesting take Martin. I think most of these prospects have been pegged as more RT than LT types. Fashanu, Guyton and Morgan are slipping a tad for me overall. My opinion of Latham is that he has one of the highest ceilings 😜

[lavar1156]

45 minutes ago, Est.1974 said:

I’m onboard with doing what it takes to get QB, LT and CB with our first 3 selections.

Wouldn't mind a TE early either.

[OtisDriftwood25]

I will continue to pound the table for Fautanu. I believe he’s the second best LT in the draft behind Alt. His 1.71 10 yard split is elite. We do not know if Fuaga or Latham can transfer to LT. Fashanu hand size is incredibly weird for a 6’5 guy. I would not be upset if we draft him due to his upside but upside gets you fired, especially with a rookie Qb.

 

Fautanu height, arm length, broad jump, 10 yard split are almost identical to Trent Williams.

Edited March 18 by OtisDriftwood25

[Est.1974]

5 minutes ago, lavar1156 said:

Wouldn't mind a TE early either.

TE and WR in the 3rd, if we have the picks left after trading