We will not draft a QB at 10!

[NinersFanatic]

I think the only people who think we'll draft a QB are those who don't follow the Niners.

[MontereyNiner]

I hear alot of talk and see alot of Mocks were we draft sanchez, and honestly I don't like it.

So I was very pleased to see the report on ESPN First Take from the Sports Illustrated reporter for the west coast. (I'm sorry I don't remember his name) Says "all sources I talk to say they will not draft a QB with the 10th pick." They are not looking to redue the Alex Smith incident again. Espcially taking a QB who has only started 16 games. Also, just looking at the free agents coming out 8 are former 1st round picks and a few more 2nds so it shows what a "craps shoot" taking a QB high really is.

He also mentioned we maybe looking to grab one of the top four tackles.

I gotta tell you, I don't want Sanchez. I could be statisfied with Stafford but would rather not take him either. Neither really has done anything to wow me into thinking either can be a franchise QB in this league.

Next year there will be a good group of seniors who will be much better than these guys that we can draft with the 32nd pick next year. :friends:

We can wait. And I hope everybodies with me.

Sorry for all those who need a link. but this was on tv I looked for a video but it wasn't on that long ago so I will keep looking.

:friends: YES!!!!! Let Sanchez sink some other team. There's 4 great tackles coming out this year. Lets pick one up and let Gore do what we gave him an extension to do

[dhimiter]

I hear alot of talk and see alot of Mocks were we draft sanchez, and honestly I don't like it.

So I was very pleased to see the report on ESPN First Take from the Sports Illustrated reporter for the west coast. (I'm sorry I don't remember his name) Says "all sources I talk to say they will not draft a QB with the 10th pick." They are not looking to redue the Alex Smith incident again. Espcially taking a QB who has only started 16 games. Also, just looking at the free agents coming out 8 are former 1st round picks and a few more 2nds so it shows what a "craps shoot" taking a QB high really is.

He also mentioned we maybe looking to grab one of the top four tackles.

I gotta tell you, I don't want Sanchez. I could be statisfied with Stafford but would rather not take him either. Neither really has done anything to wow me into thinking either can be a franchise QB in this league.

Next year there will be a good group of seniors who will be much better than these guys that we can draft with the 32nd pick next year. :friends:

We can wait. And I hope everybodies with me.

Sorry for all those who need a link. but this was on tv I looked for a video but it wasn't on that long ago so I will keep looking.

[dhimiter]

:friends: YES!!!!! Let Sanchez sink some other team. There's 4 great tackles coming out this year. Lets pick one up and let Gore do what we gave him an extension to do

There are an easy 10 players better for us than sanchez.

[49ersforlife5x]

There are an easy 10 players better for us than sanchez.

Dude, there will be 10 players available at 10 who are better for us than Sanchez.

[dhimiter]

Dude, there will be 10 players available at 10 who are better for us than Sanchez.

Oh ya I'm sure, but I was just making that point of 10 because we pick at 10.

[gnoix]

Hoping the team is sliding towards a RT. Most Tackles come out and do well from the start. Sanchez.... I am not hyped up on him at all or Stafford. No QB for me in the first please.

[JDAP88]

Nate Davis at 43

[MontereyNiner]

No to 1st round RT.

Four 1st/2nd rd picks on OL in 5 years (Baas, Staley,Rachal, 2009 1st rd)? Not necessary.

It wouldn't be the most foolish thing we can do with that pick, but I think we could help the team out more by getting an impact pass rusher, NT or franchise QB.

Besides, realistically speaking, the FO said they would be targeting a RT in FA this year.

Well clearly what we do in FA will directly result what we do in the draft. But as our roster currently stands a dominant RT at #10 is the way to go, and about as close as you can get to being a guarentee at #10. As for Baas, Staley and Rachel they all played well this year, especially after Shaun Hill became QB. If you put a new olineman in there Staley-Baas-Heitman-Rachal-Oher (or whomever you think)-Davis is a pretty stout line with huuuge potential

[SB49er4life]

No to 1st round RT.

Four 1st/2nd rd picks on OL in 5 years (Baas, Staley,Rachal, 2009 1st rd)? Not necessary.

It wouldn't be the most foolish thing we can do with that pick, but I think we could help the team out more by getting an impact pass rusher, NT or franchise QB.

Besides, realistically speaking, the FO said they would be targeting a RT in FA this year.

[thedynasty]

Well clearly what we do in FA will directly result what we do in the draft. But as our roster currently stands a dominant RT at #10 is the way to go, and about as close as you can get to being a guarentee at #10. As for Baas, Staley and Rachel they all played well this year, especially after Shaun Hill became QB. If you put a new olineman in there Staley-Baas-Heitman-Rachal-Oher (or whomever you think)-Davis is a pretty stout line with huuuge potential

you realize if we drafted a RT at 10 he'd be one of the highest paid rts, if not the highest paid right tackle in the league.

i saw this somewhere and it's a pretty good summary:

It would be nearly unprecedented for a team to use a Top-10 pick on a RIGHT Tackle. Only 8 starting RIGHT tackles in the NFL were even drafted in the first round. Of those, nearly all of them play RIGHT Tackle now because they either struggled at LEFT Tackle (Alex Barron, Levi Brown), played LEFT Tackle in the past (Vernon Carey, John Tait) moved to the RIGHT side due to injury (Marc Colombo), or were converted interior linemen (Damien Woody). The others (Gosder Cherilus and Jeff Otah) were drafted last season and seem to be "Future" LEFT Tackles for their respective franchises.

[beasley for pres]

you realize if we drafted a RT at 10 he'd be one of the highest paid rts, if not the highest paid right tackle in the league.


No way he gets paid more than Levi Brown.

[thedynasty]

No way he gets paid more than Levi Brown.

Levi Brown was the 10th pick a few years ago. salaries go up yearly and if he doesn't reach that he'd be pretty dam(n) close.

[beasley for pres]

Levi Brown was the 10th pick a few years ago. salaries go up yearly and if he doesn't reach that he'd be pretty dam(n) close.


Levi was #5 overall and I'm pretty sure he got paid more than Joe Thomas.

[MontereyNiner]

you realize if we drafted a RT at 10 he'd be one of the highest paid rts, if not the highest paid right tackle in the league.

The #10 pick is a huge drop off from top 4. It would cost us more to bring in a free agent like Carey to play the position. If we were to grab Gross (which I'm praying we don't) it would cost tons more. With our cap situation #10 on a Right Tackle would do a lot more good than harm. He wouldn't get paid nearly as much as other top tackles in the league. The rookie salary problem really only exists in the top 5. Not to mention our entire starting offensive line this year is scheduled to make almost nothing.

[thedynasty]

Levi was #5 overall and I'm pretty sure he got paid more than Joe Thomas.

yea sorry, he was the 5th overall pick. His sitaution was unique because he was drafted to protect Leinarts (lefty) blindside.

The contract, negotiated by agent Joel Segal, has a maximum value of $62 million. That is believed to be the most lucrative contract in NFL history for an offensive lineman, although Brown is unlikely to max out the deal by reaching all the incentives.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2959237

18 mill guaranteed

Joe Thomas :

Although they still have to work out some contract language and other items to finish the deal, Thomas agreed to a five-year deal that could max out at $42.5 million. Included in the deal are guarantees of around $22-$23 million.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2950674

So his does max out higher but thomas had more guaranteed money.

still it doesn't change the fact that most RTs were not drafted in the first rounders. So no reason to grab one in the top 10 and pay them big money.

[SB49er4life]

Well clearly what we do in FA will directly result what we do in the draft. But as our roster currently stands a dominant RT at #10 is the way to go, and about as close as you can get to being a guarentee at #10. As for Baas, Staley and Rachel they all played well this year, especially after Shaun Hill became QB. If you put a new olineman in there Staley-Baas-Heitman-Rachal-Oher (or whomever you think)-Davis is a pretty stout line with huuuge potential

In terms of "safeness" of the pick, then ya, those 4 top OL are probably the safest best. And I'm also not doubting that drafting, say Oher, would make our OL better.

I'm just doubting the necessity of using that high of a pick on a positoin that can be addressed in mid rounds, even if we don't go the RT route in FA.

We don't necessarily need a premier RT for us to have a bad *** OL, we just need a guy who is starter material. A premier talent at OLB/DE, NT, FS, WR or even RB would go a further ways for us, IMO.

[SB49er4life]

The #10 pick is a huge drop off from top 4. It would cost us more to bring in a free agent like Carey to play the position. If we were to grab Gross (which I'm praying we don't) it would cost tons more. With our cap situation #10 on a Right Tackle would do a lot more good than harm. He wouldn't get paid nearly as much as other top tackles in the league. The rookie salary problem really only exists in the top 5. Not to mention our entire starting offensive line this year is scheduled to make almost nothing.

RT isn't a position that is coveted that hard in the market, and it's not like Vernon Carey is some kinda All-Pro that's gonna demand LT money, either. So I actually disagree that a FA would cost us more than the #10 pick.

[dhimiter]

I don't understand one thing. Why does it matter, in the long run, how much we pay a guy if he does what we need.

I am sorry but it is on record, that the one position we need more than any other is RT.

This is not the first year we have needed a RT, and I would like it to be the last. If it wasn't a big deal, why would it be emphisised so much by the coach, more so than any other position.

A RT is a very important position and though you can grab one in the later rounds, who is to say they pan out. Why not have 2 dominate Tackles who can keep our QB protected and give some great run support.

I actually think that all the Tackles are the best bet just because they can do the most for us the fastest and pretty much gaurentee a starting spot on the roster, and insurance if Staley doesn't work or gets injuried.


Most important thing is we do not draft Sanchez.

[odu73]

You better believe that if some how Stafford is there we will pick him.

[dhimiter]

You better believe that if some how Stafford is there we will pick him.

Ya I could see them thinking long and hard about it. But Detroit, & KC, could snatch him, St. Louis had some QB troubles last year and Seattle too may look to upgrade so they could look to Stafford. I gotta say I would be upset if we got him, but would be freakin riped, and would go total ape***** if we took sanchez.

[thedynasty]

I don't understand one thing. Why does it matter, in the long run, how much we pay a guy if he does what we need.

I am sorry but it is on record, that the one position we need more than any other is RT.

This is not the first year we have needed a RT, and I would like it to be the last. If it wasn't a big deal, why would it be emphisised so much by the coach, more so than any other position.

A RT is a very important position and though you can grab one in the later rounds, who is to say they pan out. Why not have 2 dominate Tackles who can keep our QB protected and give some great run support.

I actually think that all the Tackles are the best bet just because they can do the most for us the fastest and pretty much gaurentee a starting spot on the roster, and insurance if Staley doesn't work or gets injuried.


Most important thing is we do not draft Sanchez.

because unlike fans GMs consider value and cost and not just need. RTs value is much less than a LT or a qb. RTs are known to be easier to get than LTs and are paid much less. Like i've said most RTs were not first rounders and if they were taken in the first round it was not to play RT exclusively.

[dhimiter]

because unlike fans GMs consider value and cost and not just need. RTs value is much less than a LT or a qb. RTs are known to be easier to get than LTs and are paid much less. Like i've said most RTs were not first rounders and if they were taken in the first round it was not to play RT exclusively.

Willie Anderson one of the most dominate RT to ever play in the league, did his thing and he was drafted in 1996 in the first round by the Bengels, and he was pick #10 how about that. He played all 16 games for 10 seasons and 14, 7 and 11 the other 3. So just to show you that there is no reason why they can't draft a RT high in the draft.

Lets just look at the big picture for a minute. RT is supposed to be a bit easier to handle then LT, so now it means you may have a player with less value than that of your LT, but if your LT goes down what do you do. Most rotate the RT to LT and place another player at RT. So in this day and age, why chance having a mediocer RT who does only what he is supposed to do, similiar to what we already have, when you can get a dominate force who could possibly step in when and if that LT falls. Not to mention the oppurtunities you have with two dominate Tackles, the defenses can't switch there ends up to try and get a better match up. You can run to either side with out any problems. I really don't see the down side, We have money why not sure up the problem for years to come. Not to mention any Tackle we draft at 10 will make just about as much as any valueable free agent will. so money isn't even the point.

I don't care if we draft a Tackle, I want BPA, I hope its Crabtree but those are high hopes. All I know is I want a player who can help us out and not just ride the pine. I understand we need a Pass Rusher but really see much more value at the Tackle position. There will be a good chunk of OLB/DE in the second.

By the way I am the #1 believer in Value over Need.

Just out of curiosity who you looking for us to draft?

[thedynasty]

Willie Anderson one of the most dominate RT to ever play in the league, did his thing and he was drafted in 1996 in the first round by the Bengels, and he was pick #10 how about that. He played all 16 games for 10 seasons and 14, 7 and 11 the other 3. So just to show you that there is no reason why they can't draft a RT high in the draft.


Lets just look at the big picture for a minute. RT is supposed to be a bit easier to handle then LT, so now it means you may have a player with less value than that of your LT, but if your LT goes down what do you do. Most rotate the RT to LT and place another player at RT. So in this day and age, why chance having a mediocer RT who does only what he is supposed to do, similiar to what we already have, when you can get a dominate force who could possibly step in when and if that LT falls. Not to mention the oppurtunities you have with two dominate Tackles, the defenses can't switch there ends up to try and get a better match up. You can run to either side with out any problems. I really don't see the down side, We have money why not sure up the problem for years to come. Not to mention any Tackle we draft at 10 will make just about as much as any valueable free agent will. so money isn't even the point.


I don't care if we draft a Tackle, I want BPA, I hope its Crabtree but those are high hopes. All I know is I want a player who can help us out and not just ride the pine. I understand we need a Pass Rusher but really see much more value at the Tackle position. There will be a good chunk of OLB/DE in the second.

By the way I am the #1 believer in Value over Need.

Just out of curiosity who you looking for us to draft?


Willie Anderson was drafted 12+ years ago. He was let go two years after signing the biggest the contract ever for a RT. It averaged a little over 5 million a year. That was in 06. It's extremely rare for a team to spend a top 10 pick on a guy they only expect to be their RT. When i went back to look at profootballreference.com it showed that he started at LT his rookie year then moved to RT aftewards. I'm not sure what the situation was back then. Was he supposed to be their LT of the future but couldn't cut it there? i'm not sure.

Most backups are not going to be dominating players unless you advocate having someone backing up our tackles that is making starter money. If one of the tackles go down it's usually a versatile tackle similar to Snyder who comes in and is serviceable.

My point is simply finding a guy who can be a mauler on the right side in later rounds without having to spend a top 10 pick on a guy. Pass rushers and elite prospects at NT are harder to find so if a guy like Everette Brown, Orakpo, or Raji is sitting there at 10 should we overlook them for Oher? Wouldn't it be better to pick up a guy like Loadholt in round 2? Loadholt is not athletic enough to be a LT in the NFL but he's a big mauler that would fit the big line we want to have. the RT is usually bigger and the better run blocker. I think that approach is better. It's been proven time and time again you can grab a mauler at RT outside round 1. Most right tackles are NOT first round picks. I think that fact is very telling on how much easier it is to get a right tackle than a LT. We have our LT, no need to get a top 10 guy to play RT.

I rather pay Vernon Carey of the dolphins to play RT for us or Khalif Barnes of the Jags who wasn't much of a LT but is a big mauler in the run game who can play RT for us. I don't see any DE/OLBs that we can realistically get in FA so the draft is our best bet.


As for who i want. I like the BPA idea. I'd be happy with Orakpo, Brown, or Raji. All fill harder positions to find studs at than RTs. Crabtree is the only receiver i'd want in the top 10 but he's likely to be gone. The other option which i know you're not fond of is Mark Sanchez. I can understand some of the hate but not entirely and this is why:

Sure the 16 games started is scary and says that he won't be able to contribute early but how many positions we could draft that would immediately start for us? RT and only if we dont get one in FA. A OLB would have to split reps with Haralson/Lawson for time. They won't start. A FS? No because the coaches put alot of responsibilities on the FS and thats a big reason why Roman was never replaced, he didn't make many mental mistakes. A NT even if it's Raji, he wouldn't start because Franklin actually played well down the stretch so they'd split reps and alot of DTs struggle in their first year so i don't think it's such a horrible idea to basically redshirt a potential stud at QB. Shaun Hill is a nice player but through 10 games i don't see him ever be an above average starter. Alex will probably come back to compete but he's no lock to win the starter job or even be an average starter. We can win games with Hill but eventually we'll need an above average qb to put us over the top.

Why I like sanchez? Despite only having 16 games started he's not as raw as people make him out to be. He studied in a pro style offense for 4 years. He has been doing the things pro teams will ask him to do. Will a spread qb with 3+ starting experience be better prepared for the nfl?imo no. Sanchez already has a head start on reading defenses, taking snaps under center, running pro plays, doing play action, etc. etc. all spread qbs will have to learn the basics, from the beginning to fit what a pro team will ask him to do.

It's not a question of whether mark sanchez has the talent to be a top pick because he does. He was the top qb coming out of HS and put up one of the best seasons ever at USC (including leinart and Palmer). People are just worried that he came out too early which is reasonable. but it makes sense to grab a guy, who could have realistically gone first overall in the 2010 draft, one year early at pick 10. Not ball at all imo. With qbs you can't expect them to come out and be Matt Ryan it's rare. If there is any position you typically have to be patient with it's qb. Carson Palmer sat, Aaron Rodgers sat and they've turned out more than okay. Alex was rushed for playing time and struggled mightily. Would he have fared better had he sat longer? no doubt in my mind.
I don't believe we are doomed if our first round pick doesn't contribute right away. Less talented teams win all the time, it's all about effort and playing smart (limit turnovers and penalties). We have enough young guys who need to take the next step or earn playing time on the roster that this draft will not make or break our season. You have to look past this season and consider the future as well. We eventually will need a franchise qb and i don't see that guy on the roster. Sanchez has the things SIng is looking for in a player. He's highly intelligent, has a passion for the game (which is big imo), is a vocal leader, hard working, displayed great accuracy and anticipation, has impressive mobility for his size, has very good deep accuracy and leads receivers well,etc. I don't see any glaring weaknesses in his game besides the in game experience. these are the comments mayock, who opinion i respect, said on the situation.

If you're looking at quarterback - a starting quarterback that's able to step in (and play in) the first year or two, I really think you're really looking at (Matthew) Stafford (and) Sanchez.

And if you're (the 49ers and) sitting there at 10, and Sanchez is available, I think you got to be looking at him. He's a kid who only started 16 games, but he's got the ability and the toughness, the arm strength to learn the pro game and be a starter. This is a draft year, where I believe if you want to get a starter, you got to get him early.
http://blog.pressdemocrat.com/49ers/2009/02/mayock-niners-should-look-at-sanchez-but-selecting-a-tackle-would-be-logical.html

and last i've seen enough evidence and read reports that qbs taken in the first round have a much higher success rate, though not extremely high, than all the other rounds combined. If you look at all the elite qbs most of them were first round picks. And the others tend to be very late round guys and in most cases didn't shine until they left the team that originally drafted them. So if the niners intend on grabbing a qb in the draft why not grab one of the 1st round caliber talents who have a higher chance of success than a guy like Nathan brown, Rhett Bomar, Painter, Harper,etc. who are nothing to talk about and if they did have success it probably would be with another team ala Derek Anderson, Marc Bulger.

Sanchez is a legit talent but does needs some time to develop. this isn't a bad offense to do it in though. We have an oline that should be solid for years to come when we bring in a RT. We have a TE who has vast potential and at the very least is an average receiver, two up and coming receivers in Morgan and Hill, a stud RB in Gore and a system that doesn't put a ton of responsibility on the qbs. A system that uses alot of play action- something that Sanchez happened to be one of the best in college at while at USC. This team definitely isn't the 2005 niners bringing Alex Smith on board with with Kevan Barlow at RB, Terry Jones/Billy Bajema splitting duties at TE, Anthony Clements and Kwame Harris at tackle. I'd expect a much different outcome, especially with a HC who has already shown to get more out of players than Nolan ever did.

end rant.

[dhimiter]

Okay okay, I hear ya. I understand and feel what you are saying. This thing with Sanchez for me is a gut, instinct. To be totally honest. I see his up side but just can't get past his down side. I gotta believe that Freeman or davis could of had just as much success in USC if not more, I think sanchez is a system QB who just benifited from having that talent around him. He couldn't beat out BOoty who is crap and he did have some injury concerns. I think anyone we draft could sit for 2 or 3 years if Hill can keep it up. I also don't want to count out Smith because maybe with more talent he can excel.

I understand, chances are who we draft won't start right away. I sure hope some of these young kids can step up and do what needs to be done. I see players I like and don't like, I also look for that it factor, and believe Sanchez is lacking it.

Also just for the sake of the conversation I am even less of a fan of Orakpo and think he is going to be a flop. I do love Raji though and think we need will be great. Would like him on our team.

Your anwser at RT is Loadholt? That guy will be lucky to be a back up guard. I think he has all around bad technique and though he has the size you look for he just doen't have the game to complement it.

I got more to say I just cant do it right now.
I do like your insight and you have giving me alot to think about.

[spoussard]

I really hope we dont to be honest. I don't care who is available. I don't believe our first pick should be waisted on any of the available QBs

[MontereyNiner]

We have a need for RT. If we don't fill it in free agency there is no reason not to use the top 10 pick on a RT who if Staley goes down can step into LT and keep us going. Having a dominant tackle is not only for the left side. The right tackle needs to be just as important to us. Top tier offensive tackles are able to step into the starting line up from college to the pros much faster than most other positions. So why not fill a need just because were drafting tenth. The panthers drafted a RT last year in the first round and he helped bring their running game to a whole new level. DeAngelo Williams hadn't been productive since college and all of a sudden he became a top 5 running back.

Drafting a guy like Brown or Orakpo into a system which they have never played before can be very dangerous. Just look at what happened with the Jets last year. They picked a guy with great success from a big college with measurables that were off the chart and he got less than 10 tackles for the whole year. Alex Smith, Vernon Davis, Manny Lawson, Patrick Willis, and Kentwan Balmer. Besides Willis not one of those players have proven their worth as a first round pick. I'm tired of gambling on the potential of players.

[SoggyNinerFan]

Hoping the team is sliding towards a RT. Most Tackles come out and do well from the start. Sanchez.... I am not hyped up on him at all or Stafford. No QB for me in the first please.

A top 10 pick is a stretch for a RT. If they want to go tackle in the first round, then they should trade back. The better bet is an impact player in the first round to address the pass rush woes or even a wide receiver; QB and RT in the 2nd and third. The $$$ in the top half of the first round are just too high for a RT. The same goes for a safety. Quality players at those positions can be readily found in rounds 3-5 where the money makes more sense.

I'd love to seem them get an impact player at the 10 spot and to trade back from their second for a later second round pick and an extra third rounder. They could then fill needs at pass rusher (OLB), RT, FS and QB in the first three rounds and have three more picks for a NT, an extra CB, RB and another interior OL in the last four rounds. Even if we fill one or two of those needs in FA, it will still be good to have some youth.

[jackacid]

We're not taking a QB at 10, don't worry.

[thedynasty]

Okay okay, I hear ya. I understand and feel what you are saying. This thing with Sanchez for me is a gut, instinct. To be totally honest. I see his up side but just can't get past his down side. I gotta believe that Freeman or davis could of had just as much success in USC if not more, I think sanchez is a system QB who just benifited from having that talent around him. He couldn't beat out BOoty who is crap and he did have some injury concerns. I think anyone we draft could sit for 2 or 3 years if Hill can keep it up. I also don't want to count out Smith because maybe with more talent he can excel.

I understand, chances are who we draft won't start right away. I sure hope some of these young kids can step up and do what needs to be done. I see players I like and don't like, I also look for that it factor, and believe Sanchez is lacking it.

Also just for the sake of the conversation I am even less of a fan of Orakpo and think he is going to be a flop. I do love Raji though and think we need will be great. Would like him on our team.

Your anwser at RT is Loadholt? That guy will be lucky to be a back up guard. I think he has all around bad technique and though he has the size you look for he just doen't have the game to complement it.

I got more to say I just cant do it right now.
I do like your insight and you have giving me alot to think about.

I love the convo it's good.

On Loadholt, i'm not in love with him but he is a big mauling type tackle which is the type of guy we are looking for. He definitely can't handle the LT spot or speed rushers but i think he can be a dominant run blocker at RT, maybe not. My point is that this draft has pretty good depth at tackle and we could realistically find a good one outside the first round. Besides Loadholt there is Kropog from Tulane, Tupou from Oregon who are also big mauling type tackles that could help us and be found in the second, third round.

As for Sanchez i guess we won't agree. I think he has the "it" factor and outside of his physical attributes i like that he has a passion for the game, his intelligence, and from everything i hear he is a hard worker. All things that lead me to believe he'll be successful.

[BLEEDING_GOLD]

While I am on board with everyone who says we should pass on Sanchez at 10 if Stafford was there I would take him. The argument that choosing a QB early is a crapshoot is a worthless point. The entire draft is a crapshoot and you could make the same point for any position.Last years first round QBs seem to be working out fine. (Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco) Its just a dumb thing to say and I am tired of hearing people make it every year around draft time.

[BLEEDING_GOLD]

yeah you ar eright we need a WR!!!!and we have needed one since T.O. all the guys on our team we only ever be #2 guys at best (hill and Morgan)

While I would love Crabtree or Maclin I do not agree that Morgan can only be a number 2. Hill yes I would agree

[Tracker]

We're not taking a QB at 10, don't worry.

I hope not. I totally agree with not taking a QB that high this year and i don't think we will.

We need to solidify our offensive and defensive lines, our secondary and get a change of pace back to compliment Gore, not to mention get a burner at wideout to stretch the field.

Guys I would be happy with at the number 10 spot:

B.J. RAJI, MICHAEL OHER, BRIAN ORAKPO, or JEREMY MACLIN (AARON CURRY if a Miracle happens :pray: )

Chances are one of these guys will be on the board. If they are we should grab him. F picking a QB until the 5-6 round. If we feel it is that important than we should be looking to the FA market.

[dnt1127]

yeah you ar eright we need a WR!!!!and we have needed one since T.O. all the guys on our team we only ever be #2 guys at best (hill and Morgan)

[MontereyNiner]

all the guys on our team we only ever be #2 guys at best (hill and Morgan)

If your only basing that on there first year of play then you could have said the same about Jerry Rice. Give them time before you judge

[SB49er4life]

Okay okay, I hear ya. I understand and feel what you are saying. This thing with Sanchez for me is a gut, instinct. To be totally honest. I see his up side but just can't get past his down side. I gotta believe that Freeman or davis could of had just as much success in USC if not more, I think sanchez is a system QB who just benifited from having that talent around him. He couldn't beat out BOoty who is crap and he did have some injury concerns. I think anyone we draft could sit for 2 or 3 years if Hill can keep it up. I also don't want to count out Smith because maybe with more talent he can excel.

I understand, chances are who we draft won't start right away. I sure hope some of these young kids can step up and do what needs to be done. I see players I like and don't like, I also look for that it factor, and believe Sanchez is lacking it.

Also just for the sake of the conversation I am even less of a fan of Orakpo and think he is going to be a flop. I do love Raji though and think we need will be great. Would like him on our team.

Your anwser at RT is Loadholt? That guy will be lucky to be a back up guard. I think he has all around bad technique and though he has the size you look for he just doen't have the game to complement it.

I got more to say I just cant do it right now.
I do like your insight and you have giving me alot to think about.

Here is the problem that I have with people so hell-bent on Mark Sanchez: Many of the reasons stated as to why he'll flop are completely mythical. Outside of his relative inexperience as a starter, which I agree is a pretty bad skidmark to have as a QB prospect, there really aren't many flaws he has.

Myth #1 - "Mark Sanchez was a product of the great talent at USC"

Ok.... WHO ?? People keep confusing the USC team from 3 years ago to the team now. Let's look at this Godly "talent" he's surrounded by.

Patrick Turner - 5th year Sr. who was nothing more than HYPE his entire career at Southern Cal. Classic underachiever, and a poor man's Mike Williams... scary. He will be lucky to get drafted prior to the 6th rd.

Ronald Johnson - A speedy WR who can stretch the field, but not an elite talent. Other than having good speed to get behind a secondary, he isn't particularly good at much else. Not a bad player by any means, but there's just nothing special about him. IF he has a big year next year, I could see him being a 5th round pick.

Damian Williams - This guy is actually the best weapon USC has. Great route runner and dependable hands. But his lack of speed will drop him to the 2nd/3rd when he goes.... at best.

Stafon Johnson/CJ Gable/Joe McKnight: Nothing great about any of these guys, and Johnson/Gable will be lucky if they are even drafted. Joe McKnight has also been a monumental disappointment for USC, and if it wasn't for his great athletic measureables, he would probably be a late round pick as well.

Myth #2 - Mark Sanchez is a bad decision maker/can't read a defense

What? The guy had a 3:1 TD/INT ratio in a pro-style offense, and completed ~66% of his passes.... and his biggest games came against the best competition.

And if you don't think stats tell the whole story, then watch him play. He has stayed patiently in the pocket plenty numberous times waiting for something to open up and then delivering the ball accurately.

THAT many big plays downfield just don't happen without your QB being able to recognize busted coverages and knowing exactly where everyone is going to be throughout the play.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

As for the RT position, I don't know why everyone seems to act like we can't get a good RT later in the draft. Seriously, people swear like every good RT in the NFL was a Top 15 pick.

People really make too big of a deal about the OL. Not that I don't think it's the most important unit on your team to have shored up, but I do think the notion that you HAVE to use 1st rd picks to find good OL is just pure non-sense.

I would be far from upset if we took a high caliber OT at #10, but I just think we can get more out of our draft and our off-season by spending the pick differently.

[dhimiter]

Here is the problem that I have with people so hell-bent on Mark Sanchez: Many of the reasons stated as to why he'll flop are completely mythical. Outside of his relative inexperience as a starter, which I agree is a pretty bad skidmark to have as a QB prospect, there really aren't many flaws he has.

Myth #1 - "Mark Sanchez was a product of the great talent at USC"

Ok.... WHO ?? People keep confusing the USC team from 3 years ago to the team now. Let's look at this Godly "talent" he's surrounded by.

Patrick Turner - 5th year Sr. who was nothing more than HYPE his entire career at Southern Cal. Classic underachiever, and a poor man's Mike Williams... scary. He will be lucky to get drafted prior to the 6th rd.

Ronald Johnson - A speedy WR who can stretch the field, but not an elite talent. Other than having good speed to get behind a secondary, he isn't particularly good at much else. Not a bad player by any means, but there's just nothing special about him. IF he has a big year next year, I could see him being a 5th round pick.

Damian Williams - This guy is actually the best weapon USC has. Great route runner and dependable hands. But his lack of speed will drop him to the 2nd/3rd when he goes.... at best.

Stafon Johnson/CJ Gable/Joe McKnight: Nothing great about any of these guys, and Johnson/Gable will be lucky if they are even drafted. Joe McKnight has also been a monumental disappointment for USC, and if it wasn't for his great athletic measureables, he would probably be a late round pick as well.

Myth #2 - Mark Sanchez is a bad decision maker/can't read a defense

What? The guy had a 3:1 TD/INT ratio in a pro-style offense, and completed ~66% of his passes.... and his biggest games came against the best competition.

And if you don't think stats tell the whole story, then watch him play. He has stayed patiently in the pocket plenty numberous times waiting for something to open up and then delivering the ball accurately.

THAT many big plays downfield just don't happen without your QB being able to recognize busted coverages and knowing exactly where everyone is going to be throughout the play.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

As for the RT position, I don't know why everyone seems to act like we can't get a good RT later in the draft. Seriously, people swear like every good RT in the NFL was a Top 15 pick.

People really make too big of a deal about the OL. Not that I don't think it's the most important unit on your team to have shored up, but I do think the notion that you HAVE to use 1st rd picks to find good OL is just pure non-sense.

I would be far from upset if we took a high caliber OT at #10, but I just think we can get more out of our draft and our off-season by spending the pick differently.

I like it I like it alot..
Thanks for the view from a different angle. His playmakers aren't the best but are great for the system, as many others who have been on USCs offense has been. What is very important and what USC always has is a dominate O line. I don't know if it is the scheme or what but that Oline doesn't let anyone in and that is why he can sit back there and make those reads. I am not knocking him for that, but if he has a little pass rush he has shown to make some mistakes.

Also the USC DEfense is a total benefit to the same degree. If the defense keeps you with the ball you will have plenty of oppurtunity to make the plays, and he has the arm and the abilities to make the plays that is not why I knock him, it is can he do it all the time, day in day out ,with the pressure of the NFL. I don't think he can. He is a product of USC because they have the system that can make the QBs shine.

[49ersPhEnOm]

So your telling me if Stafford is still up there at ten you wouldnt want a QB still??? after seeing what ryan and flacco did this season.

[SB49er4life]

I like it I like it alot..
Thanks for the view from a different angle. His playmakers aren't the best but are great for the system, as many others who have been on USCs offense has been. What is very important and what USC always has is a dominate O line. I don't know if it is the scheme or what but that Oline doesn't let anyone in and that is why he can sit back there and make those reads. I am not knocking him for that, but if he has a little pass rush he has shown to make some mistakes.

.

USC's WR's/RB's aren't bad players by any means... I was just pointing to the fact that they aren't these dominant performers that outmatch their opponent every snap that make a QB's job easier.

USC's OL, although still pretty good, isn't the unbreakable force that it was years ago. There were many times where the pocket broke and Sanchez' had to extend the play with his feet by buying time for a WR to open up or running for a 1st down. His OL helped, but make no mistake, he did his part to bail them out at times, too.



Also the USC DEfense is a total benefit to the same degree. If the defense keeps you with the ball you will have plenty of oppurtunity to make the plays, and he has the arm and the abilities to make the plays that is not why I knock him, it is can he do it all the time, day in day out ,with the pressure of the NFL. I don't think he can. He is a product of USC because they have the system that can make the QBs shine

No matter how good your D is, the D isn't gonna read through progressions and deliver a football accurately and with velocity. It benefits a TEAM's chances to win, but as far as grading a QB on the passes he actually makes, it's kinda irrelevant.

Can he make plays, day in, day out with NFL pressure? I dunno, and I think that's a question that's just too difficult to answer about any college QB. It's basically impossible to simulate all the pressures of the NFL in college.

The biggest and most reasonable question about him is "Can he do this consistently?"

As far USC's system making the QB shine, that couldn't be further from the truth. There is nothing about their scheme that makes a QB's job easier, and it is in fact more difficult to learn because they are primarily operating under center and have to go through their progressions. It is not a spread offense where the QB has 5 different options, spread out and running simple routes.

In the past, USC has had dominant WR's like Jarrett and Mike Williams who could outmuscle any DB in college 1-on-1 and make spectacular grabs away from their bodies to catch everything in their zip code, but that was not the case this year.

[49ersRus]

What is very important and what USC always has is a dominate O line. I don't know if it is the scheme or what but that Oline doesn't let anyone in and that is why he can sit back there and make those reads. I am not knocking him for that, but if he has a little pass rush he has shown to make some mistakes.

USC lost four of its OL starters from the year before to the draft. This includes Baker, a first round LOT, Rachal, an OG we picked up in the 2nd round, and their starting C and OG.

The USC OL was not the strength this year that it was in the past. Watch the Rose Bowl. Sanchez had pressure on him most of the game, and on running plays, we really didn't get much push against the Penn State DL. Most of our offense was in the air. We tried to run out the clock in the 2nd half, but we were not that successful. We got like 2 yards per rush. If it was a close game, we probably would have throw it 70% of the time. Most of that was from Sanchez. Williams had a big game as well.

USC runs a zone blocking system. It works for them.

[doublediamond]

Davis at 43 can sit behind Hill, who is at least capable for now. I think He can grow and become very good. No to Sanchez

[dhimiter]

So your telling me if Stafford is still up there at ten you wouldnt want a QB still??? after seeing what ryan and flacco did this season.

I don't think we should take a QB just because of what happened last year. If anything we should definately not take a QB because of what happened last year, based on history alone. Figure the year after Manning, rivers and Rothlesburger, was Smith and Rodgers, So now we should take Stafford simply because of what happened last year?

I am not opposed to taking Stafford but don't think it is going to really work out in the long run. I don't think it would work and I actually would much rather Stafford over Sanchez, but first he has to be there and 2nd we have to be willing to make, possibly, the same mistake twice, I dont' know that we should do that.

[xcfan]

Davis at 43 can sit behind Hill, who is at least capable for now. I think He can grow and become very good. No to Sanchez

first, find out if davis' learning disability affects him in the football classroom.