How would you feel about this?

[Nails]

23 minutes ago, CarolinaNCSU said:

Nope...still too many holes on the team/depth/expiring contracts to trade the farm for the #1 pick. 

While I agree it's not our best move (staying at 8 and picking Barnett is better), we could win a Super Bowl by simply taking Garrett and nothing else IMHO after what happened yesterday.  We'd also still have 5 more picks, UDFA's, cuts, trades, a possible supplemental draft where we'd be in the top 10 lottery and only have to give up the 32 pick of corresponding round next year, etc.

Whew.  So, anyway, no, but would scare the piss out of the other 31 and would still be plenty good enough to win a ring.

[t96]

Would 8 this year and our first next year alone do it? Or 1st and 2nd next year. Of course would be a big gamble and we've got a poor history of trading future picks but if we're really going all in right now, this would be an outstanding move. Get Garrett, and still have those 2nd rounders this year to add TE and WR help or something like that. 

And if that would work out it'd be trading pick 32 and 64, which wouldn't be so bad to not have a year later in my opinion.

[Cyberjag]

Garrett isn't worth it.  With his talent he should have way more sacks than he does.

[Nails]

5 minutes ago, thomas96 said:

Would 8 this year and our first next year alone do it? Or 1st and 2nd next year. Of course would be a big gamble and we've got a poor history of trading future picks but if we're really going all in right now, this would be an outstanding move. Get Garrett, and still have those 2nd rounders this year to add TE and WR help or something like that. 

And if that would work out it'd be trading pick 32 and 64, which wouldn't be so bad to not have a year later in my opinion.

JMO, but it would got get to 1.  But 8 and 32 next year definitely would get to 3.  I also think the 49ers would love to get much needed ammo going forward.

[MVPccaffrey]

This is the deepest draft at positions of need for us in quite some time.  Make as many picks as possible!  I'd give a 2nd up however, to pick swap our 1st with someone ahead of us if it nabs us Adams...

[UpstatePanther]

48 minutes ago, pantherclaw said:

No.

i second this^

[CarolinaNCSU]

I just feel a lot better if we're trading up, about the potential Fournette or Adams at 8 and OJ Howard in the 20s, than I do only coming away with Garrett, and using future picks. I'd be excited as hell about having Garrett, obviously...but risky. 

Even with all the moves we made yesterday, we HAVE to grab some offense in this draft. Need a backup plan/future Olsen, need more OL depth, need another WR, need the RB.

[juliosantos]

no

[Jaxel]

Solomon Thomas/Barnett at 8, Trade up for Maccafry at 25-30.... Win

[top dawg]

No way! I don't particularly like the Ealy trade because we gave up our third! There are too many quality players that we'd miss out on just to get one guy. We can set ourselves up for at least four years by standing pat and taking the best player available. I don't particularly even want to trade back up into the first, but that may be worth it to get two first rounders (and their fifth year options). Opportunity costs are real! The team is not deep enough on the O-line, at receiver, TE, or CB (really) to invest so much draft capital on the D-line. I would hate that move. That's the type of move you make for generational franchise QBs.

[iamhubby1]

1 hour ago, thomas96 said:

8 and both 2nds to move up and get Garrett? Not sure if that'd be enough to move up even but say Browns go retarded and Niners do as well and take a QB or even to trade up to 1 to get Garrett if Browns would do it. 

Would really hinder offensive improvement outside of later picks, the WR fliers, and Kalil but Garrett would easily bring our defense back to the level of 2013 and probably even better. 

I'm drooling just thinking of the possibility. Our DL would be absurdly stacked, LB best in the league and solid vet safeties, top nickel, and improving and promising young outside corners. That D could be one that allows like 9 points per game over the course of a season if healthy all year.

 

As much as I like your enthusiasm, and that scenario would help our D our big time. I still gotta say no.

 

IMO, we need to add a young stud at DE, RB, and WR. We have 3 picks in the 1st 2 rounds. Coincidence?

 

My philoshophy has always been to take your Hog Mollies early. So I would take the best DE, DE/DT hybrid in the 1st. IMO, this is the priority. Get a kid who can rush the passer. CJ, Pep, and Mario is not a bad start, but they need a running mate. Throw in the fact that both CJ, and Pep are not going to be around much longer. And, to me, that makes restocking the DE pantry a high priority.

 

Then I like to go with my skill players. For us, this year? That means RB. At pick 40, this year, there will still be some quality choices still on the board. There is a high likelihood we can find our RB of the future at this pick. 

 

Which leaves pick 64 for that WR with some speed. Which I will admit is sorely lacking at this time. Deep class. Good.

 

The funny thing about how things have transpired this year? A lot of folks have harped that our last 2 1st rounders were technically not starters. Well...this year, we may very well get 3 really talented kids out of the 1st 2 rounds. And none of them will be starters. And I bet no one, well almost no one, will complain.

 

 

 

[iamhubby1]

Oh, and that SMU team is on a really good roll right now. So when you see them in your brackets. Remember this.

[yasuhara2241]

We are lacking some positions on offense and defense so I think we will likely not want to give up assets to move up in such a deep draft. 

In saying that I wouldn't be upset getting Garrett but it would put a ton of pressure on the guy. But man would he be able to learn a ton from CJ and Pep.