AU-panther

this fan base would have gone nuts if we traded all the way back to 20. Not saying we shouldn't have, but I can hear it now, "all of the elite players will be gone after pick 8"

What if a lot of the bad personnel decisions were originally thought of by Fitt and/or Morgan? I know if Rhule has final say and he is ultimately responsible but if you fire Rhule and give Fitt final roster say have you really fixed the problem?

I always thought Grier should have been the answer. They got a draft pick for Allen. 2020 should have been Cam on the last year of his deal or traded and let Grier play. Like you said looking back we would have been in a better spot at this point.

add the $30m you spent on Teddy and you could really build something.

Thats what happens when a coach has leverage, and during the hiring process he had it whether it was warranted or not. Also people need to realize this doesn't automatically absolve Fitt and/or Morgan of being responsible for some of the bad personnel decisions that have been made. I seriously doubt Rhule is doing all of the leg work on his own. For example, last offseason they all get together and decide they need free agent help at the LT position. I would think Fitt and/or Morgan do most of the research, maybe one of them comes up with the idea of Erving and then Rhule has final say if he wants to veto it.

you were talking about the 49ers

but if you have a top-10 pick your team is already bad so you can't really alter down.

What exactly do people think he is going to say? Nothing he says will make people happy, it would be pointless to talk at this point. Here's the deal. He hired a coach, that coach had a really bad second year. Fans want that coach gone. He wants to give that coach a third year. Nothing to really talk about it.

I'm not crazy about this QB class overall, but I would be shocked if at least 1 or 2 don't become at least average to above average starters. You have to remember, average would actually be an upgrade for a lot of teams. If we did go QB I would probably feel a little better about trading down, that extra pick might mitigate some of the risk. Could you trade down to that 12-14 range and maybe get a QB you like, that would get you an early 2nd. Could you upgrade the OL there? Maybe? If you felt good about BC or could add a LT in FA, early 2nd would be a pretty good spot to pick up interior OL help. I wouldn't feel as good about finding a LT there. For that to work a lot has to happen, I have a feeling trading down might not be easy this year.

you are correct, didn't work out for the Bills either with Allen. Either way, I'm not a huge fan of trading up myself, especially for non-QBs. QBs are a different story because they aren't even money bets like other positions, but even then, I would often be hesitant to, for example I sure wouldn't this year. I just don't agree that missing out a few future 1st round picks automatically cripples your franchise, you are assuming that the teams will hit on those future picks which just doesn't happen like casual fans think. I do agree you are giving up 3 future draft picks that could all draft QBs, but San Fran is usually drafting late. I know you aren't a fan of this QB draft class and your argument is wait for a better QB class, which is a totally valid argument, but for a team that usually drafts later San Fran might have to trade up at some point anyway to get a QB that fits your criteria of being worthy of a first round pick. Would you prefer a top-5 pick in a loaded class like last year, or 3 later first round picks to pick a QB that will probably be comparable to some of the earlier QBs this year? Everyone likes to point out that none of these QBs would be in the top 5 last year. 5th QB last year went what? 16th? So maybe Pickett last to the 20s last year, which is the range you can expect SF to be picking. Would you prefer Tray Lance, or 3 Kenny Pickett types? I'm not saying there is a right or wrong answer. I would probably take the 3 later guys, but you can see why teams trade up like they do for QBs.

You are correct, KC is still trying to recover from trading up for Mahomes.

You can look at more years and I'm sure the hit rate is a lot lower than what you are portraying by automatically saying you are crippling your franchise. Teams miss on 1st rounders all the time and still are competitive. I'm not saying there isn't risk, but to say it is franchise altering is a bit much in my opinion. You know what else is franchise altering? Not having a QB? So lets say you don't make the trade, you draft some non-Qbs, maybe you get a Justin Jefferson but more times than not you get an average or below average player. You still don't have a QB, your franchise is still altered, badly.

How will they ever survive without Rashaan Evans and Taven Bryan?

Franchise altering is a bit much. Just as there is no guarantee that Lance works out there is no guarntee that the other players will either. So San Fran ended up giving up this years 29th pick, and we have to assume they might be decent next year, so lets say they end up giving up pick 22 next year. (10th best team maybe) I won't count last year because its not fair to judge players in their rookie year but lets look at 2018-2020. Here are the players picked at 22 and 29. Rashaan Evans, Taven Bryan, Andre Dillard, LJ Collier, Justin Jefferson, Isaih Wilson, Caleb Farley, and Eric Stokes. Jefferson was a heck of a pick and Dillard was decent but the others? Hardly franchise altering. As far as the 3rd round pick goes your chances are even less. Fans severely overate the quality of players that teams get even in the first round round, especially towards the back of the first round. Not to give Hurney too much credit but we have actually done quite well with our 1st round picks in the past. With all that being said I'm usually not a fan of trading up , but when a QB is involved the risk/reward is different.

exactly also if you don't have a QB your team is already "set back"

option 1: Try to trade for an established QB, such as Carr or Cousins, I don't think Rodgers or Wilson are options. If that doesn't work out go with someone like Fitzpatrick. Draft a LT with pick 6. Hope BC can play one of the guard spots. Sign a vet guard for the other spot. Division should be down, hope to sneak in the playoffs. option 2: Draft the QB in this years draft that you think is most ready to play year one and hope he can show good progress. Hope BC can play LT, draft and/or sign some OGs. Hope QB gets better as the year goes on and you can sell that to the owner. Option 1 is probably the highest probability of saving his job. Realistically the best option long term for the team is probably to roll with Sam for one more year. Try to draft a LT, unless you are really sold on one of the QBs, if you can trade down and still achieve one of those goals even better. Be cheap in free agency, save your cap space for next year. Play the comp pick game. Maybe even consider trading one or more of your young guys that might command a huge salary, such as Burns or Moore.

This time of year, there will be so many rumors and smokescreens concerning QBs in the draft that you are best not believing anything and just using common sense. Simply put, we had terrible QB play last year so of course you have to actually consider taking a QB or the very least pretending to. Think about the different scenarios: Team really doesn't want a QB, then they should really act like they want a QB hoping teams ahead of them take a QB so that pushes non-QBs down the board, such as a LT. What if we do want a QB, shouldn't we act like we don't, so teams don't trade in front of us? Not really, it doesn't matter what we really plan on doing it matters what other teams think. Our QB last year was Sam Darnold, who didn't play well and is on last year of his deal, every other team in the league has to assume that QB is a possibility for us. In regard to specific QBs, Fitt makes a statement and says something to the effect of Pickett and Willis and the other QBs. The fact he named 2 of the QBs by name and lumped all the other ones together got everyone looking for hidden meaning. Maybe it meant nothing, maybe that was the first 2 names that popped in his head. Maybe it meant that we like those two the most. Maybe those are the two that Fitt feels are on the top of most other team's boards and therefore he is trying to hype them up and show interest hoping other teams trade up in front of us and move non-QBs down the board. Maybe those are the two that Fitt feels are on the top of most other team's boards and therefore he is trying to hype them up and show interest hoping other teams take them and we can take someone like Howell or Strong, possibly even with a trade down. Also I heard a report (or read an article I can't remember exactly where), that when Seattle drafted Wilson that they slow played it. They showed very little interest leading up to draft night. The more I hear about us and Pickett the more I can see us trading down and taking Howell, if we do decide to go QB.

Am I reading it correctly? This chart is only for quarters, 2,3, and 4? Could you also post the graph for the entire game?

but your chances of finding a good QB are less, you have to take those chances when they present themselves. It's easier to build a good enough line than it is to find a good QB.

He also states that CBs are a game changing position. My guess, they thought Horn had a lot better chance of becoming a great CB than Slater did of becoming a great LT so they went with Horn. In regard to Fields, they simply might not have liked him for whatever reason. Teams can vary greatly on QB evaluations. Also its possible they liked Fields but didn't feel like QB was a need because they had just traded for Darnold. It sounds crazy to us fans, but I think once they traded for Darnold, drafting a QB was pretty much off the table, for all we know if the trade for Darnold hadn't' happened we might have took Fields or Jones. My guess is they convinced themselves (probably Fitts included) that none of the QBs that were likely to be there when we picked had as good, or better, chance of Darnold being successful.

Its a pretty simple concept and all he is doing is stating the obvious. QBs are the most important position on the field, if you like one you take them. If they like one will be determined by the scouting process.

People love this narrative that they passed on OT need since they passed on Sewell but the fact was they had a decent LT already, it was the rest of the line that was bad. They probably didn't feel like spending the 5th overall pick on a RT or interior OL. They actually ending spending three picks in that draft on OL.

and again

case in point

Bottom Line, you make statements and then when people ask specific questions about your statements you change the subject because you know your answer would invalidate everything you just said.