Great breakdown but I think we are stuck with jimmy/Vet/Rosen with Watson being the outlier. I hope I am dead wrong. We will not win the nfc west with our current qb room. The West is now the most competitive division in football and we are banking on jimmy improving his decision making/staying health for 16 games and actually finding open targets down field.
If you seen what Kurt Warner said about Rosen and his inability to process information quick enough, I see jimmy with the problem. According to Warner "either you have it or you don't" and the tapes show jimmy doesn't have it.
If do not upgrade at qb then the rest of the team will need to play at pro bowl level to make playoffs and jimmy can not throw picks in his 15-20 pass attempt per game.
As I see it at the moment, only QB and a top talent dropping would be worth picking at #12 and for a team looking to reload it would be advantageous to trade down to the low 20's and snag another 2nd+5th rnd picks.
If we did that, I think it becomes more likely we draft a DL than at #12. We may just go BPA from those core positions.
If we keep Jimmy and resign Trent Williams then we'd likely target DL, CB and WR with our first 3 picks
problem with a trade down is that someone has to want to trade up first. The only guys that people will want to trade up for are either one of the four QBs if they drop (which in that case, we should pick them), or Pitts? maybe Waddle if he drops.
It's risky to rely on expectation that someone will want to move up.
Good article. I agree, taking a mid-round QB is pointless and the likelihood that he turns into a starter is LOW (veerrry low).
However, there is one issue that you did not address in the article, that is how 6 of the 10 teams in the top 10 need a QB and will likely pick one. Jacksonville, NY, Atlanta, and Carolina are all locks to take a QB, and Philly, Detroit, NYG, Denver, and us are all in the runnings. There are 5 (count em, 5!) QBs that are and might be worth taking at 12. Math checks out that if we want a QB (especially if it’s a specific QB), then we sure as hell are gonna have to trade up to either the No. 2 or No. 3 spot. Personally, the only QBs worth trading up for, especially like that are Trevor Lawrence and Zach Wilson.
According to the Draft Points Calculator, the No. 2 pick is worth 2600 points. Our No. 12 pick is worth 1200 points. To trade up to No. 2, it would look something like
NYJ No. 2 + NYJ 5th —> SF No. 12 + SF 2022 1st + SF 2022 2nd
OR
NYJ No. 2 —> SF No. 12 + SF 2022 1st + Jimmy Garoppolo
These our blockbuster trades that I might be willing to do. However, we NEED our mid-round picks this year for filling CB, IOL, and DE. We also (as Bill Walsh said, I think) cannot make holes to fill holes. Therefore we can put Garoppolo on the trade but not McGlinchey or others.
We would then need a bridge QB. Fitzpatrick, Tyrod Taylor, Jameis Winston (retch), Cam Newton, and others should be available.
Getting Wilson at QB, then quality CB, DE, and C on Day 2 will be a huge win for us. That should put us over the top for No. 6 this year, especially if we manage to keep Garoppolo around one more year.
If we draft Wilson or Fields, (I prefer Fields and Lance over Wilson, but to each his own), I don't think we need to keep Garoppolo around. Those guys could start week 1... but i think we'd have to move on, just too much potential for improvement with Garoppolo's salary off the books IMO
Amen. It's OK, and it's time. I may be setting myself up for disappointment, but for the first time in forever I feel certain that enough's enough and we'll be going for it.
John Lynch’s record suggests he’ll trade down from 12 into the 20’s and pick up an extra third rounder.
Unfortunately he will then use that 20-something pick on Walker Little out of Stanford and the extra third rounder on Stanford’s David Mills as a developmental QB.
I did a statistical breakdown of QB's by draft position a few years ago and came away convinced that drafting a QB after the first few picks of the 2nd round is a waste. Using a very generous definition of "Quality Starter" (basically more than a single year as a decent starting QB) roughly 50% of QB's taken by the 40th pick end up being quality starters. After the 40th pick that number drops to 5%.
To me, that says that anyone with a 50/50 chance of being a good QB is gone by the time the worst teams make their 2nd pick. There are outliers like Dak, Brady, and RW, but those are the 5% vs the 95% that amount to nothing. There's a 95% chance you're wasting a pick taking a QB mid to late.
The basic gist was that, using a super generous definition of "successful" in which someone like Kaepernick or Dalton qualifies by virtue of having been a decent starting QB for more than one season, since 2000 QBs taken by the 36th pick had a roughly 50/50 success rate, and everyone after was 5/95.
Interestingly though, if you raise the definition of "success" that 50/50 drops a lot while the 5/95 doesn't really.
It's definitely representative. if you are drafting a QB after that general area (around 36 to 40)... you should be expecting to get a backup not a starter
Exactly. And it really dispels the idea of "drafting a mid-round QB to develop into a starter." That's not a real thing any more. Brady as the freak outlier of outliers, most mid-round guys who are successful (Wilson, Dak) start as rookies.
And Brady is the ultimate exception. Wilson was a 1st round caliber prospect that dropped because of height concerns... Dak was better than where he was drafted too. I 100% agree l
One interesting on the "Developmental" prospect - a fair amount of those guys were mocked a lot earlier than they were taken. Drew Lock was supposed to go at 10, and Rudolph was a late 1st/early 2nd. There's a reason those guys fell
I feel like a trade down would be the best to snag more players at positions of need. My only fear with that is there aren't enough teams willing to trade up.
Great breakdown but I think we are stuck with jimmy/Vet/Rosen with Watson being the outlier. I hope I am dead wrong. We will not win the nfc west with our current qb room. The West is now the most competitive division in football and we are banking on jimmy improving his decision making/staying health for 16 games and actually finding open targets down field.
If you seen what Kurt Warner said about Rosen and his inability to process information quick enough, I see jimmy with the problem. According to Warner "either you have it or you don't" and the tapes show jimmy doesn't have it.
If do not upgrade at qb then the rest of the team will need to play at pro bowl level to make playoffs and jimmy can not throw picks in his 15-20 pass attempt per game.
What if we trade down from #12
As I see it at the moment, only QB and a top talent dropping would be worth picking at #12 and for a team looking to reload it would be advantageous to trade down to the low 20's and snag another 2nd+5th rnd picks.
If we did that, I think it becomes more likely we draft a DL than at #12. We may just go BPA from those core positions.
If we keep Jimmy and resign Trent Williams then we'd likely target DL, CB and WR with our first 3 picks
If we go QB, then I think we have to trade up, but if we don’t, then this has to be the plan
problem with a trade down is that someone has to want to trade up first. The only guys that people will want to trade up for are either one of the four QBs if they drop (which in that case, we should pick them), or Pitts? maybe Waddle if he drops.
It's risky to rely on expectation that someone will want to move up.
Good article. I agree, taking a mid-round QB is pointless and the likelihood that he turns into a starter is LOW (veerrry low).
However, there is one issue that you did not address in the article, that is how 6 of the 10 teams in the top 10 need a QB and will likely pick one. Jacksonville, NY, Atlanta, and Carolina are all locks to take a QB, and Philly, Detroit, NYG, Denver, and us are all in the runnings. There are 5 (count em, 5!) QBs that are and might be worth taking at 12. Math checks out that if we want a QB (especially if it’s a specific QB), then we sure as hell are gonna have to trade up to either the No. 2 or No. 3 spot. Personally, the only QBs worth trading up for, especially like that are Trevor Lawrence and Zach Wilson.
According to the Draft Points Calculator, the No. 2 pick is worth 2600 points. Our No. 12 pick is worth 1200 points. To trade up to No. 2, it would look something like
NYJ No. 2 + NYJ 5th —> SF No. 12 + SF 2022 1st + SF 2022 2nd
OR
NYJ No. 2 —> SF No. 12 + SF 2022 1st + Jimmy Garoppolo
These our blockbuster trades that I might be willing to do. However, we NEED our mid-round picks this year for filling CB, IOL, and DE. We also (as Bill Walsh said, I think) cannot make holes to fill holes. Therefore we can put Garoppolo on the trade but not McGlinchey or others.
We would then need a bridge QB. Fitzpatrick, Tyrod Taylor, Jameis Winston (retch), Cam Newton, and others should be available.
Getting Wilson at QB, then quality CB, DE, and C on Day 2 will be a huge win for us. That should put us over the top for No. 6 this year, especially if we manage to keep Garoppolo around one more year.
If we draft Wilson or Fields, (I prefer Fields and Lance over Wilson, but to each his own), I don't think we need to keep Garoppolo around. Those guys could start week 1... but i think we'd have to move on, just too much potential for improvement with Garoppolo's salary off the books IMO
Re: "It’s OK to take a risk."
Amen. It's OK, and it's time. I may be setting myself up for disappointment, but for the first time in forever I feel certain that enough's enough and we'll be going for it.
16 years... gotta be sooner or later right?
I think you’re forgetting just how great Colin Kaepernick was. 😬🤭
2012-2013 was fun
John Lynch’s record suggests he’ll trade down from 12 into the 20’s and pick up an extra third rounder.
Unfortunately he will then use that 20-something pick on Walker Little out of Stanford and the extra third rounder on Stanford’s David Mills as a developmental QB.
“Davis” Mills
I would not be pleased... I do like Little though, wouldn't be mad at drafting him in the 2nd or 3rd.
I did a statistical breakdown of QB's by draft position a few years ago and came away convinced that drafting a QB after the first few picks of the 2nd round is a waste. Using a very generous definition of "Quality Starter" (basically more than a single year as a decent starting QB) roughly 50% of QB's taken by the 40th pick end up being quality starters. After the 40th pick that number drops to 5%.
To me, that says that anyone with a 50/50 chance of being a good QB is gone by the time the worst teams make their 2nd pick. There are outliers like Dak, Brady, and RW, but those are the 5% vs the 95% that amount to nothing. There's a 95% chance you're wasting a pick taking a QB mid to late.
By the way, if you still have it, could you share the breakdown? Would be an interesting read
I wish, but NN wiped out comment history.
Accidentally deleted my own post:
The basic gist was that, using a super generous definition of "successful" in which someone like Kaepernick or Dalton qualifies by virtue of having been a decent starting QB for more than one season, since 2000 QBs taken by the 36th pick had a roughly 50/50 success rate, and everyone after was 5/95.
Interestingly though, if you raise the definition of "success" that 50/50 drops a lot while the 5/95 doesn't really.
It's definitely representative. if you are drafting a QB after that general area (around 36 to 40)... you should be expecting to get a backup not a starter
Exactly. And it really dispels the idea of "drafting a mid-round QB to develop into a starter." That's not a real thing any more. Brady as the freak outlier of outliers, most mid-round guys who are successful (Wilson, Dak) start as rookies.
And Brady is the ultimate exception. Wilson was a 1st round caliber prospect that dropped because of height concerns... Dak was better than where he was drafted too. I 100% agree l
One interesting on the "Developmental" prospect - a fair amount of those guys were mocked a lot earlier than they were taken. Drew Lock was supposed to go at 10, and Rudolph was a late 1st/early 2nd. There's a reason those guys fell
I feel like a trade down would be the best to snag more players at positions of need. My only fear with that is there aren't enough teams willing to trade up.