Seahawks.NET AMAZON STOREFRONT

Why 49ers drafted Buckner....

Discuss any and all NFL-related topics and matters of interest here. LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13
Re: Why 49ers drafted Buckner....
Tue May 17, 2016 7:58 am
  • Laloosh wrote:Everybody but popeye knows that popeye is a closet Seahawks fan.


    Isn't it obvious by this point that I'm a Seahawks fan?

    Now that the 9ers suck it was super easy to jump ship from the blustery self-loathing over there to the typical Seahawks fans' natural state of existence.

    True Story: I was super-conflicted about who to root for last night while watching the Warriors give up a game to the Oklahoma City SuperSonics.

    ;)
    User avatar
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4761
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:58 am


Re: Why 49ers drafted Buckner....
Tue May 17, 2016 8:02 am
  • Popeyejones wrote:
    Laloosh wrote:Everybody but popeye knows that popeye is a closet Seahawks fan.


    Isn't it obvious by this point that I'm a Seahawks fan?

    Now that the 9ers suck it was super easy to jump ship from the blustery self-loathing over there to the typical Seahawks fans' natural state of existence.

    True Story: I was super-conflicted about who to root for last night while watching the Warriors give up a game to the Oklahoma City SuperSonics.

    ;)


    Image
    Adopt A Rookie: Nick Vannett, TE - Ohio State University
    User avatar
    Laloosh
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8846
    Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 11:46 pm
    Location: WA


Re: Why 49ers drafted Buckner....
Wed May 18, 2016 2:28 pm
  • pehawk wrote:Buckner's propensity to be average 75% of his snaps will certainly strike fear into Wilson.

    That's higher than most defensive linemen even if it were true.

    kearly wrote:I see Buckner as being a bit like a rookie Frank Clark. Makes a lot of splash plays that are nice, but is a ways off from being a 10 sack guy.

    He doesn't play on the outside in the first place. He's a defensive tackle (an end in a 34 scheme). That said, he DID get ten sacks last year.

    It's amazing how a guy who was universally considered one of the top picks in the draft is suddenly average here once the 49ers draft him.
    User avatar
    5_Golden_Rings
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1172
    Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:38 am


Re: Why 49ers drafted Buckner....
Wed May 18, 2016 2:41 pm
  • 5_Golden_Rings wrote:
    pehawk wrote:Buckner's propensity to be average 75% of his snaps will certainly strike fear into Wilson.

    That's higher than most defensive linemen even if it were true.

    kearly wrote:I see Buckner as being a bit like a rookie Frank Clark. Makes a lot of splash plays that are nice, but is a ways off from being a 10 sack guy.

    He doesn't play on the outside in the first place. He's a defensive tackle (an end in a 34 scheme). That said, he DID get ten sacks last year.

    It's amazing how a guy who was universally considered one of the top picks in the draft is suddenly average here once the 49ers draft him.


    Well, with Chip Kelly for a coach, he'll be on the field 65-70% of the game.
    0118 999 881 999 119 725 3
    User avatar
    Maulbert
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3947
    Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 6:44 pm
    Location: In the basement of Reynholm Industries


Re: Why 49ers drafted Buckner....
Wed May 18, 2016 2:44 pm
  • 5_Golden_Rings wrote:
    pehawk wrote:Buckner's propensity to be average 75% of his snaps will certainly strike fear into Wilson.

    That's higher than most defensive linemen even if it were true.

    kearly wrote:I see Buckner as being a bit like a rookie Frank Clark. Makes a lot of splash plays that are nice, but is a ways off from being a 10 sack guy.

    He doesn't play on the outside in the first place. He's a defensive tackle (an end in a 34 scheme). That said, he DID get ten sacks last year.

    It's amazing how a guy who was universally considered one of the top picks in the draft is suddenly average here once the 49ers draft him.


    I find this amazing too. Like Cleveland, the niners turn "can't miss" prospects into awful players. How can they do that so consistently?
    rideaducati
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5729
    Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:18 pm


Re: Why 49ers drafted Buckner....
Thu May 19, 2016 4:12 am
  • rideaducati wrote:
    5_Golden_Rings wrote:
    pehawk wrote:Buckner's propensity to be average 75% of his snaps will certainly strike fear into Wilson.

    That's higher than most defensive linemen even if it were true.

    kearly wrote:I see Buckner as being a bit like a rookie Frank Clark. Makes a lot of splash plays that are nice, but is a ways off from being a 10 sack guy.

    He doesn't play on the outside in the first place. He's a defensive tackle (an end in a 34 scheme). That said, he DID get ten sacks last year.

    It's amazing how a guy who was universally considered one of the top picks in the draft is suddenly average here once the 49ers draft him.


    I find this amazing too. Like Cleveland, the niners turn "can't miss" prospects into awful players. How can they do that so consistently?


    Good point. Look at Crabtree, Ted Ginn jr and Delainie Walker to just name a few. They definitely are not getting the most out of their players.

    I wonder how good Buckner and Armestad will become after going to another team. Assuming they don't retire before their rookie contract is up.
    The Lion has no interest in the opinion of the sheep.
    RichNhansom
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4228
    Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 7:26 am


Re: Why 49ers drafted Buckner....
Thu May 19, 2016 6:09 am
  • rideaducati wrote:I find this amazing too. Like Cleveland, the niners turn "can't miss" prospects into awful players. How can they do that so consistently?


    Which "can't miss prospects" have they turned into awful players?

    If they're to be criticized it would be for reaching for people and regularly losing on taking high risk/reward injury specials.

    The only guys who got branded as "can't miss" guys at draft time that they've taken in the past decade both panned out (Patrick Willis in '07 an Mike Iupati in 2010).

    If anything they're first round picks have been thought of as incomplete projects (Armstead, Staley, Bam Davis, Vernon Davis, Lawson), reaches (Reid, Ward, Jenkins), or guys who fell a little bit because they had flags on them (Crabtree, Balmer).
    User avatar
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4761
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:58 am


Re: Why 49ers drafted Buckner....
Thu May 19, 2016 7:10 am
  • Golden Tate became a pro bowler after leaving Seattle.

    You'd never know that Jimmy Graham kept DC's up at night once upon a time, if you only saw him last year.

    Percy Harvin has NFL tape worthy of some team giving up what the Hawks gave up for him. Unfortunately he went to the wrong team.

    Defensive players get better joining Seattle, offensive guys don't. Marshawn Lynch is the only offensive player I can think of that joined the Hawks and became a better player.

    49ers for what it's worth maximize defensive players pretty well. Not every single damn one of them, but they've done a decent job, better than most teams. Justin Smith and Ahmad Brooks left Cincinnati and became real forces.

    Now on offense you might have a point, and many Niner fans have said that the team didn't develop the guys as much as we would have liked.

    But would Crabtree have been a dominant WR if he went to Green Bay or New England instead? I'm not so sure. His 2012 season was pretty good, not sure if he would have done a lot better elsewhere. Hakeem Nicks looked great with the Giants up until that knee injury against the Bucs in 2012. Could Crabtree have been that type of monster?

    Maybe.

    But no way was Nicks going to do anything more in SF. Or Seattle.
    NINEster
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1548
    Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 7:06 pm


Re: Why 49ers drafted Buckner....
Thu May 19, 2016 7:39 am
  • NINEster wrote:Golden Tate became a pro bowler after leaving Seattle.

    You'd never know that Jimmy Graham kept DC's up at night once upon a time, if you only saw him last year.

    Percy Harvin has NFL tape worthy of some team giving up what the Hawks gave up for him. Unfortunately he went to the wrong team.

    Defensive players get better joining Seattle, offensive guys don't. Marshawn Lynch is the only offensive player I can think of that joined the Hawks and became a better player.

    49ers for what it's worth maximize defensive players pretty well. Not every single damn one of them, but they've done a decent job, better than most teams. Justin Smith and Ahmad Brooks left Cincinnati and became real forces.

    Now on offense you might have a point, and many Niner fans have said that the team didn't develop the guys as much as we would have liked.

    But would Crabtree have been a dominant WR if he went to Green Bay or New England instead? I'm not so sure. His 2012 season was pretty good, not sure if he would have done a lot better elsewhere. Hakeem Nicks looked great with the Giants up until that knee injury against the Bucs in 2012. Could Crabtree have been that type of monster?

    Maybe.

    But no way was Nicks going to do anything more in SF. Or Seattle.


    Golden Tate was just as good in Seattle and almost everyone here assumed when he went to Detroit he would show up on the NFL's radar due to the increase in passing %. In no way did Tate suddenly blossom there after sucking in Seattle, it is just volume.

    Jimmy Graham has been here 1 year and suffered a catastrophic injury. If you look past media narrative, you would know he was actually on pace to put up good season numbers prior to that. This example is disingenuous.

    Harvin was an obvious mistake, but it wasn't like he has lit the league up after he left our team either. Dude was a headcase and continued to be so on the Jets and the Bills, hence his recent retirement.

    All your examples are garbage and your argument is flawed.

    I actually think there is a development and utilization problem in SF, which is why your team became REALLY EFFING good when Harbaugh was there (I'm counting assistant coaches as well). I feel like even right now you have a pretty good group of players, that are currently underperforming. Maybe Kelly will help with that, it remains to be seen. Coaching is really important, just look at the Rams.
    Danger Zone
    User avatar
    Archer
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 325
    Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 10:31 pm


Re: Why 49ers drafted Buckner....
Thu May 19, 2016 7:45 am
  • NINEster wrote:Golden Tate became a pro bowler after leaving Seattle.

    You'd never know that Jimmy Graham kept DC's up at night once upon a time, if you only saw him last year.

    Percy Harvin has NFL tape worthy of some team giving up what the Hawks gave up for him. Unfortunately he went to the wrong team.

    Defensive players get better joining Seattle, offensive guys don't. Marshawn Lynch is the only offensive player I can think of that joined the Hawks and became a better player.

    49ers for what it's worth maximize defensive players pretty well. Not every single damn one of them, but they've done a decent job, better than most teams. Justin Smith and Ahmad Brooks left Cincinnati and became real forces.

    Now on offense you might have a point, and many Niner fans have said that the team didn't develop the guys as much as we would have liked.

    But would Crabtree have been a dominant WR if he went to Green Bay or New England instead? I'm not so sure. His 2012 season was pretty good, not sure if he would have done a lot better elsewhere. Hakeem Nicks looked great with the Giants up until that knee injury against the Bucs in 2012. Could Crabtree have been that type of monster?

    Maybe.

    But no way was Nicks going to do anything more in SF. Or Seattle.


    Wait a minute... Going to high volume passing offenses result in receivers and tight ends having better stats and making pro bowls? Low hanging fruit anyone?
    Adopt A Rookie: Nick Vannett, TE - Ohio State University
    User avatar
    Laloosh
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8846
    Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 11:46 pm
    Location: WA


Re: Why 49ers drafted Buckner....
Thu May 19, 2016 7:54 am
  • Laloosh wrote:
    Wait a minute... Going to high volume passing offenses result in receivers and tight ends having better stats and making pro bowls? Low hanging fruit anyone?



    Or just the simple fact that he ignores Baldwin and Kearse (or Rawls?) simply because they haven't left to become better or came from another team where they were Pro Bowlers. They were UDFAs... I feel like they've developed quite nicely.
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 13474
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


Re: Why 49ers drafted Buckner....
Thu May 19, 2016 8:06 am
  • Archer wrote:Jimmy Graham has been here 1 year and suffered a catastrophic injury. If you look past media narrative, you would know he was actually on pace to put up good season numbers prior to that. This example is disingenuous.


    If you exclude his rookie year in which he wasn't a starter, last year Jimmy Graham was on pace to put up career lows in receptions, yards, yards per game, and touchdowns (by a wide margin).

    C'mon now.

    As was the case with Harvin before him, last year Hawks fans were complaining about the lack of integration of Jimmy Graham into the offense.

    At the time of that trade I got a lot of crap here for saying that although I understood the logic of it, I wondered if the Hawks might have been mistakenly paying for the offense Graham was in rather than Graham himself (a mid-30s journeymen like Ben Watson put up Graham-like numbers in that offense last year), and might be trying to slot a pretty good square peg into a round hole (what would Graham's inability to block do to the run game?).

    Maybe he gets healthy and it turns it back around, but you're wolfing if you think the Graham story for the Hawks so far has been a successful one.
    User avatar
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4761
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:58 am


Re: Why 49ers drafted Buckner....
Thu May 19, 2016 8:19 am
  • ^^ Baldwin's trajectory going into week 10 was pretty bleak as well. Then he had the best season of his career.

    As much as I want to extend an olive branch to you on this, popeye, it's a bullshit conclusion to come to (that players don't get better here).

    Graham's targets were down but I don't believe for a second that you think he wouldn't have benefited greatly from the offensive shift that began in week 11 (according to John Schneider) and resulted in Baldwin having as many receiving TDs as any other receiver in football last season.

    Plenty to pick on with regard to Harvin but there's no telling how much of that was him being a tool and how much of it was Bevell or Carroll being stubborn about how he'd be used. Don't care, in the past but the argument made by Ninester is absurd.
    Adopt A Rookie: Nick Vannett, TE - Ohio State University
    User avatar
    Laloosh
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8846
    Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 11:46 pm
    Location: WA


Re: Why 49ers drafted Buckner....
Thu May 19, 2016 8:45 am
  • Popeyejones wrote:
    Archer wrote:Jimmy Graham has been here 1 year and suffered a catastrophic injury. If you look past media narrative, you would know he was actually on pace to put up good season numbers prior to that. This example is disingenuous.


    If you exclude his rookie year in which he wasn't a starter, last year Jimmy Graham was on pace to put up career lows in receptions, yards, yards per game, and touchdowns (by a wide margin).

    C'mon now.

    As was the case with Harvin before him, last year Hawks fans were complaining about the lack of integration of Jimmy Graham into the offense.

    At the time of that trade I got a lot of crap here for saying that although I understood the logic of it, I wondered if the Hawks might have been mistakenly paying for the offense Graham was in rather than Graham himself (a mid-30s journeymen like Ben Watson put up Graham-like numbers in that offense last year), and might be trying to slot a pretty good square peg into a round hole (what would Graham's inability to block do to the run game?).

    Maybe he gets healthy and it turns it back around, but you're wolfing if you think the Graham story for the Hawks so far has been a successful one.


    You're arguing two different points - whether the Graham acquisition has been successful or not and also whether or not Graham "became worse" when coming here.

    I argue that with his injury it's impossible to say whether or not he "became worse" because whether you choose to believe it or not, he was coming on for the team when his injury occurred. I don't expect you to acknowledge that but understand that you're biased against that reality based on your own admission that you expected it to be a failure when the trade occurred.

    Football is full of injuries, so the fact that he was seriously injured and it is potentially career threatening obviously affects the outcome as to whether or not that will have been a successful move for the front office. Unfortunately injuries have derailed a lot of really great career trajectories. It's part of the sport.

    Graham, like the other players mentioned, did not suddenly start sucking once coming here. It's a lazy narrative that was perpetuated last year by the media and luckily for you because of his injury you can continue to push it. I don't agree, at all.

    I'm not saying acquiring Graham will end up worth what we gave up, if he never recovers obviously in hindsight it was a bad move. Maybe even if he does recover, in hindsight it will still have been a bad move. However, considering we needed a tall redzone receiver and that's what they got, I understand what the FO was doing. "The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry" and all that. To correlate these issues with your contention of Seattle's lack of success with the utilization or development of players is a flawed argument.
    Danger Zone
    User avatar
    Archer
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 325
    Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 10:31 pm


Re: Why 49ers drafted Buckner....
Thu May 19, 2016 8:58 am
  • Actually I was just trolling the 9er fans. I really think the reason Crabtree, Walker and Ginn improved is because their nee QB wasn't throwing everything 100 miles an hour whether it needed to be or not.

    But some great rebuttle in here.
    The Lion has no interest in the opinion of the sheep.
    RichNhansom
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4228
    Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 7:26 am


Re: Why 49ers drafted Buckner....
Thu May 19, 2016 9:14 am
  • Popeyejones wrote:
    Archer wrote:Jimmy Graham has been here 1 year and suffered a catastrophic injury. If you look past media narrative, you would know he was actually on pace to put up good season numbers prior to that. This example is disingenuous.


    If you exclude his rookie year in which he wasn't a starter, last year Jimmy Graham was on pace to put up career lows in receptions, yards, yards per game, and touchdowns (by a wide margin).

    C'mon now.

    As was the case with Harvin before him, last year Hawks fans were complaining about the lack of integration of Jimmy Graham into the offense.

    At the time of that trade I got a lot of crap here for saying that although I understood the logic of it, I wondered if the Hawks might have been mistakenly paying for the offense Graham was in rather than Graham himself (a mid-30s journeymen like Ben Watson put up Graham-like numbers in that offense last year), and might be trying to slot a pretty good square peg into a round hole (what would Graham's inability to block do to the run game?).

    Maybe he gets healthy and it turns it back around, but you're wolfing if you think the Graham story for the Hawks so far has been a successful one.


    I'm sure you perform your very best at a new job immediately. Most people don't though. Most NFL players take at least a full season to acclimate to their new surroundings before playing well. Immediate gratification rarely happens. Niner fans...
    rideaducati
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5729
    Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:18 pm


Re: Why 49ers drafted Buckner....
Thu May 19, 2016 11:34 am
  • Archer wrote:
    NINEster wrote:Golden Tate became a pro bowler after leaving Seattle.

    You'd never know that Jimmy Graham kept DC's up at night once upon a time, if you only saw him last year.

    Percy Harvin has NFL tape worthy of some team giving up what the Hawks gave up for him. Unfortunately he went to the wrong team.

    Defensive players get better joining Seattle, offensive guys don't. Marshawn Lynch is the only offensive player I can think of that joined the Hawks and became a better player.

    49ers for what it's worth maximize defensive players pretty well. Not every single damn one of them, but they've done a decent job, better than most teams. Justin Smith and Ahmad Brooks left Cincinnati and became real forces.

    Now on offense you might have a point, and many Niner fans have said that the team didn't develop the guys as much as we would have liked.

    But would Crabtree have been a dominant WR if he went to Green Bay or New England instead? I'm not so sure. His 2012 season was pretty good, not sure if he would have done a lot better elsewhere. Hakeem Nicks looked great with the Giants up until that knee injury against the Bucs in 2012. Could Crabtree have been that type of monster?

    Maybe.

    But no way was Nicks going to do anything more in SF. Or Seattle.


    Golden Tate was just as good in Seattle and almost everyone here assumed when he went to Detroit he would show up on the NFL's radar due to the increase in passing %. In no way did Tate suddenly blossom there after sucking in Seattle, it is just volume.

    Jimmy Graham has been here 1 year and suffered a catastrophic injury. If you look past media narrative, you would know he was actually on pace to put up good season numbers prior to that. This example is disingenuous.

    Harvin was an obvious mistake, but it wasn't like he has lit the league up after he left our team either. Dude was a headcase and continued to be so on the Jets and the Bills, hence his recent retirement.

    All your examples are garbage and your argument is flawed.

    I actually think there is a development and utilization problem in SF, which is why your team became REALLY EFFING good when Harbaugh was there (I'm counting assistant coaches as well). I feel like even right now you have a pretty good group of players, that are currently underperforming. Maybe Kelly will help with that, it remains to be seen. Coaching is really important, just look at the Rams.


    Totally agree with the bolded. In fact Its one of the reasons I think Harbaugh was fired. To be clear, I'm not saying they were CORRECT in this mindset but there have been reports that upper management became a bit frustrated with players not improving as they thought they should under Harbaughs staff. Now of course that wasn't the ONLY reason, but I have heard that was A reason.

    Thats the reason York said repeatedly he wanted a "teacher" before the hire of Tomsula.

    Obviously, that was a total trainwreck.

    As it stands right now there are quite a few young 49ers I want to see this year and see what they can contribute. I almost feel as if last year was just a throwaway and little can be made of it. They have ALOT of young players who have yet to have gotten an opportunity. This OF COURSE doesn't mean that these guys will be great...or even good. Just interesting to see how they play out. On that list:

    Jimmie Ward: he's everywhere in OTAs...Outside, slot, safety. They are trying to maximize his time on the field after playing well at the end of last year.

    Eli Harold: Did little as a rookie and seemed to get overpowered at time, but put on TWENTY FIVE POUNDS in the offseason. He's now nearly at 270 lbs.

    Tank Carradine: The Anti-Harold. Has LOST 20+ pounds to be a situational pass rusher and OLB.

    Arik Armstead: Didn't get on the field early but when he did late he was graded by PFF as one of the best 3-4 DEs in the league.

    Jaquaski Tarrt: Didn't play a ton because safety is one of Niners deepest positions, but hits like a truck and looked pretty good at times.

    Brandon Thomas: No idea why, but he couldn't sniff the field under Tomsula. Now is playing with the first team in OTAs, tho Joshua Garnett plays that spot and can't take part because Stanford is on quarters system.

    DeAndre Smelter: WR, 6'2", 220 lbs, 11" (not a misprint) hands. Had an ACL in collegeso is just getting his first chances now.


    I could really go on and on about guys I want to see this year. I almost feel like there is a 20 man rookie class. LOL. All of these guys could totally suck. I don't want to sell this as a new generation of sleeper superstars or something, but I do think there is more talent there than people think.

    What I don't know is if any of these coaches can get it out of them even if it IS there. We'll see.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6022
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


Re: Why 49ers drafted Buckner....
Thu May 19, 2016 1:37 pm
  • Marvin49 wrote:
    Archer wrote:
    NINEster wrote:Golden Tate became a pro bowler after leaving Seattle.

    You'd never know that Jimmy Graham kept DC's up at night once upon a time, if you only saw him last year.

    Percy Harvin has NFL tape worthy of some team giving up what the Hawks gave up for him. Unfortunately he went to the wrong team.

    Defensive players get better joining Seattle, offensive guys don't. Marshawn Lynch is the only offensive player I can think of that joined the Hawks and became a better player.

    49ers for what it's worth maximize defensive players pretty well. Not every single damn one of them, but they've done a decent job, better than most teams. Justin Smith and Ahmad Brooks left Cincinnati and became real forces.

    Now on offense you might have a point, and many Niner fans have said that the team didn't develop the guys as much as we would have liked.

    But would Crabtree have been a dominant WR if he went to Green Bay or New England instead? I'm not so sure. His 2012 season was pretty good, not sure if he would have done a lot better elsewhere. Hakeem Nicks looked great with the Giants up until that knee injury against the Bucs in 2012. Could Crabtree have been that type of monster?

    Maybe.

    But no way was Nicks going to do anything more in SF. Or Seattle.


    Golden Tate was just as good in Seattle and almost everyone here assumed when he went to Detroit he would show up on the NFL's radar due to the increase in passing %. In no way did Tate suddenly blossom there after sucking in Seattle, it is just volume.

    Jimmy Graham has been here 1 year and suffered a catastrophic injury. If you look past media narrative, you would know he was actually on pace to put up good season numbers prior to that. This example is disingenuous.

    Harvin was an obvious mistake, but it wasn't like he has lit the league up after he left our team either. Dude was a headcase and continued to be so on the Jets and the Bills, hence his recent retirement.

    All your examples are garbage and your argument is flawed.

    I actually think there is a development and utilization problem in SF, which is why your team became REALLY EFFING good when Harbaugh was there (I'm counting assistant coaches as well). I feel like even right now you have a pretty good group of players, that are currently underperforming. Maybe Kelly will help with that, it remains to be seen. Coaching is really important, just look at the Rams.


    Totally agree with the bolded. In fact Its one of the reasons I think Harbaugh was fired. To be clear, I'm not saying they were CORRECT in this mindset but there have been reports that upper management became a bit frustrated with players not improving as they thought they should under Harbaughs staff. Now of course that wasn't the ONLY reason, but I have heard that was A reason.

    Thats the reason York said repeatedly he wanted a "teacher" before the hire of Tomsula.

    Obviously, that was a total trainwreck.

    As it stands right now there are quite a few young 49ers I want to see this year and see what they can contribute. I almost feel as if last year was just a throwaway and little can be made of it. They have ALOT of young players who have yet to have gotten an opportunity. This OF COURSE doesn't mean that these guys will be great...or even good. Just interesting to see how they play out. On that list:

    Jimmie Ward: he's everywhere in OTAs...Outside, slot, safety. They are trying to maximize his time on the field after playing well at the end of last year.

    Eli Harold: Did little as a rookie and seemed to get overpowered at time, but put on TWENTY FIVE POUNDS in the offseason. He's now nearly at 270 lbs.

    Tank Carradine: The Anti-Harold. Has LOST 20+ pounds to be a situational pass rusher and OLB.

    Arik Armstead: Didn't get on the field early but when he did late he was graded by PFF as one of the best 3-4 DEs in the league.

    Jaquaski Tarrt: Didn't play a ton because safety is one of Niners deepest positions, but hits like a truck and looked pretty good at times.

    Brandon Thomas: No idea why, but he couldn't sniff the field under Tomsula. Now is playing with the first team in OTAs, tho Joshua Garnett plays that spot and can't take part because Stanford is on quarters system.

    DeAndre Smelter: WR, 6'2", 220 lbs, 11" (not a misprint) hands. Had an ACL in collegeso is just getting his first chances now.


    I could really go on and on about guys I want to see this year. I almost feel like there is a 20 man rookie class. LOL. All of these guys could totally suck. I don't want to sell this as a new generation of sleeper superstars or something, but I do think there is more talent there than people think.

    What I don't know is if any of these coaches can get it out of them even if it IS there. We'll see.


    I think Harbaugh played the veterans way too much and never got the young players game snaps. Those young players were thrown into starting roles once Harbaugh and the vets went away without having any game experience, so the team suffered. I saw this coming and I mentioned that here while Harbaugh was still coaching because I knew it would become a problem for the niners. Niner fans didn't believe me. See? I told you so.

    As far as the young players go, I have next to zero faith in Baalke being able to GM his way out of a wet paper bag, so I doubt they'll be very good players. Especially the WR. Who is going to be throwing him the ball?
    rideaducati
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5729
    Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:18 pm


Re: Why 49ers drafted Buckner....
Thu May 19, 2016 1:52 pm
  • So, they drafted a defensive lineman to get after the QB.

    This is the kind of first rate, innovative thinking we've come to expect from the 49ers!
    "God Bless the Seattle Seahawks" Cortez Kennedy

    http://ivotuk.com/
    User avatar
    ivotuk
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 17192
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:29 pm
    Location: North Pole, Alaska


Re: Why 49ers drafted Buckner....
Thu May 19, 2016 3:14 pm
  • rideaducati wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:
    Archer wrote:
    NINEster wrote:Golden Tate became a pro bowler after leaving Seattle.

    You'd never know that Jimmy Graham kept DC's up at night once upon a time, if you only saw him last year.

    Percy Harvin has NFL tape worthy of some team giving up what the Hawks gave up for him. Unfortunately he went to the wrong team.

    Defensive players get better joining Seattle, offensive guys don't. Marshawn Lynch is the only offensive player I can think of that joined the Hawks and became a better player.

    49ers for what it's worth maximize defensive players pretty well. Not every single damn one of them, but they've done a decent job, better than most teams. Justin Smith and Ahmad Brooks left Cincinnati and became real forces.

    Now on offense you might have a point, and many Niner fans have said that the team didn't develop the guys as much as we would have liked.

    But would Crabtree have been a dominant WR if he went to Green Bay or New England instead? I'm not so sure. His 2012 season was pretty good, not sure if he would have done a lot better elsewhere. Hakeem Nicks looked great with the Giants up until that knee injury against the Bucs in 2012. Could Crabtree have been that type of monster?

    Maybe.

    But no way was Nicks going to do anything more in SF. Or Seattle.


    Golden Tate was just as good in Seattle and almost everyone here assumed when he went to Detroit he would show up on the NFL's radar due to the increase in passing %. In no way did Tate suddenly blossom there after sucking in Seattle, it is just volume.

    Jimmy Graham has been here 1 year and suffered a catastrophic injury. If you look past media narrative, you would know he was actually on pace to put up good season numbers prior to that. This example is disingenuous.

    Harvin was an obvious mistake, but it wasn't like he has lit the league up after he left our team either. Dude was a headcase and continued to be so on the Jets and the Bills, hence his recent retirement.

    All your examples are garbage and your argument is flawed.

    I actually think there is a development and utilization problem in SF, which is why your team became REALLY EFFING good when Harbaugh was there (I'm counting assistant coaches as well). I feel like even right now you have a pretty good group of players, that are currently underperforming. Maybe Kelly will help with that, it remains to be seen. Coaching is really important, just look at the Rams.


    Totally agree with the bolded. In fact Its one of the reasons I think Harbaugh was fired. To be clear, I'm not saying they were CORRECT in this mindset but there have been reports that upper management became a bit frustrated with players not improving as they thought they should under Harbaughs staff. Now of course that wasn't the ONLY reason, but I have heard that was A reason.

    Thats the reason York said repeatedly he wanted a "teacher" before the hire of Tomsula.

    Obviously, that was a total trainwreck.

    As it stands right now there are quite a few young 49ers I want to see this year and see what they can contribute. I almost feel as if last year was just a throwaway and little can be made of it. They have ALOT of young players who have yet to have gotten an opportunity. This OF COURSE doesn't mean that these guys will be great...or even good. Just interesting to see how they play out. On that list:

    Jimmie Ward: he's everywhere in OTAs...Outside, slot, safety. They are trying to maximize his time on the field after playing well at the end of last year.

    Eli Harold: Did little as a rookie and seemed to get overpowered at time, but put on TWENTY FIVE POUNDS in the offseason. He's now nearly at 270 lbs.

    Tank Carradine: The Anti-Harold. Has LOST 20+ pounds to be a situational pass rusher and OLB.

    Arik Armstead: Didn't get on the field early but when he did late he was graded by PFF as one of the best 3-4 DEs in the league.

    Jaquaski Tarrt: Didn't play a ton because safety is one of Niners deepest positions, but hits like a truck and looked pretty good at times.

    Brandon Thomas: No idea why, but he couldn't sniff the field under Tomsula. Now is playing with the first team in OTAs, tho Joshua Garnett plays that spot and can't take part because Stanford is on quarters system.

    DeAndre Smelter: WR, 6'2", 220 lbs, 11" (not a misprint) hands. Had an ACL in collegeso is just getting his first chances now.


    I could really go on and on about guys I want to see this year. I almost feel like there is a 20 man rookie class. LOL. All of these guys could totally suck. I don't want to sell this as a new generation of sleeper superstars or something, but I do think there is more talent there than people think.

    What I don't know is if any of these coaches can get it out of them even if it IS there. We'll see.


    I think Harbaugh played the veterans way too much and never got the young players game snaps. Those young players were thrown into starting roles once Harbaugh and the vets went away without having any game experience, so the team suffered. I saw this coming and I mentioned that here while Harbaugh was still coaching because I knew it would become a problem for the niners. Niner fans didn't believe me. See? I told you so.

    As far as the young players go, I have next to zero faith in Baalke being able to GM his way out of a wet paper bag, so I doubt they'll be very good players. Especially the WR. Who is going to be throwing him the ball?


    The point about playing older players and reduced snap counts for young players is probably a fair one. I don't think I ever argued with you that point but it's possible I'm wrong there. The vets did tho always play significant snaps.

    As for "zero faith"....yeah, thats pretty much been your opinion from the beginning so no use arguing.

    I don't look at it from a "Baalke drafted him, he must be good / suck really bad" mindset. Baalke doesn't really factor into my thinking. I just like quite a few of the individual players. Another example of that...really interested in seeing Trent Brown next year...their nearly 6'9" RT with over 35" arms. Dude is sneaky athletic with pretty good feet and played decent at the end of the year. Better than Peers by alot.

    There are a number of guys like that on the roster. They've had so many picks over the past three years that many of them have just kinda gotten lost in the numbers and haven't gotten a shot. At WR alone: Smelter, DeAndrew White from Alabama, Dres Anderson from SDSU, Eric Rogers from the CFL, Bruce Ellington and several more to go with Torrey Smith. TE and DB are stocked up with young guys as well.

    I have no idea who if anyone will emerge, but all of those guys are intriguing to me for one reason or another.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6022
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


Re: Why 49ers drafted Buckner....
Fri May 20, 2016 1:04 pm
  • Archer wrote:
    Popeyejones wrote:
    Archer wrote:Jimmy Graham has been here 1 year and suffered a catastrophic injury. If you look past media narrative, you would know he was actually on pace to put up good season numbers prior to that. This example is disingenuous.


    If you exclude his rookie year in which he wasn't a starter, last year Jimmy Graham was on pace to put up career lows in receptions, yards, yards per game, and touchdowns (by a wide margin).

    C'mon now.

    As was the case with Harvin before him, last year Hawks fans were complaining about the lack of integration of Jimmy Graham into the offense.

    At the time of that trade I got a lot of crap here for saying that although I understood the logic of it, I wondered if the Hawks might have been mistakenly paying for the offense Graham was in rather than Graham himself (a mid-30s journeymen like Ben Watson put up Graham-like numbers in that offense last year), and might be trying to slot a pretty good square peg into a round hole (what would Graham's inability to block do to the run game?).

    Maybe he gets healthy and it turns it back around, but you're wolfing if you think the Graham story for the Hawks so far has been a successful one.


    You're arguing two different points - whether the Graham acquisition has been successful or not and also whether or not Graham "became worse" when coming here.

    I argue that with his injury it's impossible to say whether or not he "became worse" because whether you choose to believe it or not, he was coming on for the team when his injury occurred. I don't expect you to acknowledge that but understand that you're biased against that reality based on your own admission that you expected it to be a failure when the trade occurred.

    Football is full of injuries, so the fact that he was seriously injured and it is potentially career threatening obviously affects the outcome as to whether or not that will have been a successful move for the front office. Unfortunately injuries have derailed a lot of really great career trajectories. It's part of the sport.

    Graham, like the other players mentioned, did not suddenly start sucking once coming here. It's a lazy narrative that was perpetuated last year by the media and luckily for you because of his injury you can continue to push it. I don't agree, at all.

    I'm not saying acquiring Graham will end up worth what we gave up, if he never recovers obviously in hindsight it was a bad move. Maybe even if he does recover, in hindsight it will still have been a bad move. However, considering we needed a tall redzone receiver and that's what they got, I understand what the FO was doing. "The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry" and all that. To correlate these issues with your contention of Seattle's lack of success with the utilization or development of players is a flawed argument.


    Graham was having a monster game the game he got injured, yes. And yes, Wilson went on a tear after he went out, and even after Rawls went out. However I'm reluctant to conclude that Graham was destined to be a monster in all the games that followed, had he remained healthy. That's the narrative on this board.

    Regardless of the reasons, our offense has struggled mightily to integrate weapons. First we have Harvin where we made him much too much of a focus and it took 3/4 of the year for our offense to recover from the warping that took place. Then we have Graham, who we all thought was just plug and play, nothing but a red zone boon, and we can't integrate him enough. In the cases of both players the offense improves when they leave. That is a fact. Graham continuing on a tear after that game is speculation.

    It's not a good sign when your offense goes into a tailspin trying to integrate new toys.

    I do think the *right* kind of player integrates easily. We haven't had issues with a top notch talent like Lockett. Rawls fit just fine. But the homegrown players always have. It's the ones we acquire we can't figure out what to do with, and that fits a narrative of players "coming here" and getting worse, as in coming via FA.

    The Baghdad Bob GIF belongs to the Hawk fans in this thread, not the Niner fans. There is way more evidence to support Bevell figuring out a way to have Graham not fit than there is to support that he just clicked that game and would click forevermore. We all thought there was no way we'd pull out of the spread that was so successful and go back to the run, run, pass offense v Carolina but nope, we completely bucked a successful trend and went away from what was working.
    hawk45
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8343
    Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 1:08 pm


Re: Why 49ers drafted Buckner....
Fri May 20, 2016 1:24 pm
  • ivotuk wrote:So, they drafted a defensive lineman to get after the QB.

    This is the kind of first rate, innovative thinking we've come to expect from the 49ers!


    By itself it doesn't make a ton of sense (3-4 DE), but looking back at 2012 draft.....JJ Watt would have been ok over Aldon Smith.

    Also, if you improve the pieces on the DL, the existing OLBs will get more pressure.

    BTW, as far as "piece of the puzzle" against Wilson.....it's not extreme edge pressure but strong contain and push back of the pocket that gets to #3.

    Baalke has a 3 year plan just for Wilson.

    Year 1: Armstead
    Year 2: Buckner and moving Tank to OLB in pass rushing situations
    Year 3: Best OLB edge rusher

    The idea is to trap Wilson and use Bowman to make sure he cannot escape through a collapsed pocket up the middle.
    NINEster
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1548
    Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 7:06 pm


Re: Why 49ers drafted Buckner....
Fri May 20, 2016 1:26 pm
  • rideaducati wrote:
    5_Golden_Rings wrote:
    pehawk wrote:Buckner's propensity to be average 75% of his snaps will certainly strike fear into Wilson.

    That's higher than most defensive linemen even if it were true.

    kearly wrote:I see Buckner as being a bit like a rookie Frank Clark. Makes a lot of splash plays that are nice, but is a ways off from being a 10 sack guy.

    He doesn't play on the outside in the first place. He's a defensive tackle (an end in a 34 scheme). That said, he DID get ten sacks last year.

    It's amazing how a guy who was universally considered one of the top picks in the draft is suddenly average here once the 49ers draft him.


    I find this amazing too. Like Cleveland, the niners turn "can't miss" prospects into awful players. How can they do that so consistently?

    Like who?

    First round picks last 10 years:

    Arik Armstead: always considered developmental pick; finished very near the top in Pro Football Focus ratings for 3-4 ends

    Jimmy Ward: late 1st rounder considered developmental pick since he played safety in college and would play nickleback in the pros; last season finished near the top in coverage per Pro Football Reference, including a three week span where he was rated best in the NFL.

    Eric Ried: mid 1st rounder, not considered "can't miss" (some didn't even consider him the best FS in the draft): made Pro Bowl one time and has been above average since.

    A.J. Jenkins: late 1st round pick and absolute bust on every team he played. Was rated by some as a 4th round prospect. Baalke raped and murdered the pooch on this one.

    Aldon Smith: NOT a "can't miss pick" (the "experts" we're shocked he was drafted that high); was on record setting sack pace until his alcoholism and idiocy derailed his career.

    Mike Iupati/Anthony Davis: neither a "can't miss pick" at their position, but both became Pro Bowlers.

    Michael Crabtree: could be considered can't miss at pick 10, but there were a few red flags. HIS BEST YEAR WAS IN SAN FRANCISCO, NOT OAKLAND, however. He matched his career total in receptions last year, but in SF when he also had 85 receptions he had more yards. The reason for his two down seasons the previous two years are obviously injury related. It takes time to fully get back up to speed. As for why it took him until the second half of 2012 to be decent, two words: Alex Smith, the same guy who once went an entire season without throwing a TD to a wr.

    Kentwan Balmer: late 1st round pick and total bust.

    Patrick Willis/Joe Staley: one had a near Hall of Fame career and the other was one of the best tackles in football for five or six years.





    So which "can't miss picks" did the 49ers ruin?
    User avatar
    5_Golden_Rings
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1172
    Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:38 am


Re: Why 49ers drafted Buckner....
Fri May 20, 2016 2:52 pm
  • NINEster wrote:
    ivotuk wrote:So, they drafted a defensive lineman to get after the QB.

    This is the kind of first rate, innovative thinking we've come to expect from the 49ers!


    By itself it doesn't make a ton of sense (3-4 DE), but looking back at 2012 draft.....JJ Watt would have been ok over Aldon Smith.

    Also, if you improve the pieces on the DL, the existing OLBs will get more pressure.

    BTW, as far as "piece of the puzzle" against Wilson.....it's not extreme edge pressure but strong contain and push back of the pocket that gets to #3.

    Baalke has a 3 year plan just for Wilson.

    Year 1: Armstead
    Year 2: Buckner and moving Tank to OLB in pass rushing situations
    Year 3: Best OLB edge rusher

    The idea is to trap Wilson and use Bowman to make sure he cannot escape through a collapsed pocket up the middle.


    Someone please insert gif of Russell making Bowman look silly right here.
    rideaducati
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5729
    Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:18 pm


Re: Why 49ers drafted Buckner....
Fri May 20, 2016 4:10 pm
  • hawk45 wrote:
    Archer wrote:
    Popeyejones wrote:
    Archer wrote:Jimmy Graham has been here 1 year and suffered a catastrophic injury. If you look past media narrative, you would know he was actually on pace to put up good season numbers prior to that. This example is disingenuous.


    If you exclude his rookie year in which he wasn't a starter, last year Jimmy Graham was on pace to put up career lows in receptions, yards, yards per game, and touchdowns (by a wide margin).

    C'mon now.

    As was the case with Harvin before him, last year Hawks fans were complaining about the lack of integration of Jimmy Graham into the offense.

    At the time of that trade I got a lot of crap here for saying that although I understood the logic of it, I wondered if the Hawks might have been mistakenly paying for the offense Graham was in rather than Graham himself (a mid-30s journeymen like Ben Watson put up Graham-like numbers in that offense last year), and might be trying to slot a pretty good square peg into a round hole (what would Graham's inability to block do to the run game?).

    Maybe he gets healthy and it turns it back around, but you're wolfing if you think the Graham story for the Hawks so far has been a successful one.


    You're arguing two different points - whether the Graham acquisition has been successful or not and also whether or not Graham "became worse" when coming here.

    I argue that with his injury it's impossible to say whether or not he "became worse" because whether you choose to believe it or not, he was coming on for the team when his injury occurred. I don't expect you to acknowledge that but understand that you're biased against that reality based on your own admission that you expected it to be a failure when the trade occurred.

    Football is full of injuries, so the fact that he was seriously injured and it is potentially career threatening obviously affects the outcome as to whether or not that will have been a successful move for the front office. Unfortunately injuries have derailed a lot of really great career trajectories. It's part of the sport.

    Graham, like the other players mentioned, did not suddenly start sucking once coming here. It's a lazy narrative that was perpetuated last year by the media and luckily for you because of his injury you can continue to push it. I don't agree, at all.

    I'm not saying acquiring Graham will end up worth what we gave up, if he never recovers obviously in hindsight it was a bad move. Maybe even if he does recover, in hindsight it will still have been a bad move. However, considering we needed a tall redzone receiver and that's what they got, I understand what the FO was doing. "The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry" and all that. To correlate these issues with your contention of Seattle's lack of success with the utilization or development of players is a flawed argument.


    Graham was having a monster game the game he got injured, yes. And yes, Wilson went on a tear after he went out, and even after Rawls went out. However I'm reluctant to conclude that Graham was destined to be a monster in all the games that followed, had he remained healthy. That's the narrative on this board.

    Regardless of the reasons, our offense has struggled mightily to integrate weapons. First we have Harvin where we made him much too much of a focus and it took 3/4 of the year for our offense to recover from the warping that took place. Then we have Graham, who we all thought was just plug and play, nothing but a red zone boon, and we can't integrate him enough. In the cases of both players the offense improves when they leave. That is a fact. Graham continuing on a tear after that game is speculation.

    It's not a good sign when your offense goes into a tailspin trying to integrate new toys.

    I do think the *right* kind of player integrates easily. We haven't had issues with a top notch talent like Lockett. Rawls fit just fine. But the homegrown players always have. It's the ones we acquire we can't figure out what to do with, and that fits a narrative of players "coming here" and getting worse, as in coming via FA.

    The Baghdad Bob GIF belongs to the Hawk fans in this thread, not the Niner fans. There is way more evidence to support Bevell figuring out a way to have Graham not fit than there is to support that he just clicked that game and would click forevermore. We all thought there was no way we'd pull out of the spread that was so successful and go back to the run, run, pass offense v Carolina but nope, we completely bucked a successful trend and went away from what was working.


    You seem to be carrying your own torch.
    What were your expectations of Lockett when he arrived? What were your expectations for Graham? How do they compare at the time Graham went down? You seem to desperately want to discount the offensive philosophy change and Grahams role in it. How did Baldwins numbers look before Graham went down? Your comparison is disingenuous to support your narrative of blaming Bevell.

    It's not uncommon for a player to take time to acclimate into a new offense. I think maybe your expectations are more the problem than actual production.

    Harvin was a huge mistake and a complete moron so really shouldn't be a factor. It's not like he left here and had success elsewhere. Houshmandzadeh flamed out real bad also but he was before Bevell and Wilson. Sometimes it just doesn't work.

    Are you Bagdad Bob?
    The Lion has no interest in the opinion of the sheep.
    RichNhansom
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4228
    Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 7:26 am


Re: Why 49ers drafted Buckner....
Fri May 20, 2016 4:28 pm
  • NINEster wrote:
    ivotuk wrote:So, they drafted a defensive lineman to get after the QB.

    This is the kind of first rate, innovative thinking we've come to expect from the 49ers!


    By itself it doesn't make a ton of sense (3-4 DE), but looking back at 2012 draft.....JJ Watt would have been ok over Aldon Smith.

    Also, if you improve the pieces on the DL, the existing OLBs will get more pressure.

    BTW, as far as "piece of the puzzle" against Wilson.....it's not extreme edge pressure but strong contain and push back of the pocket that gets to #3.

    Baalke has a 3 year plan just for Wilson.

    Year 1: Armstead
    Year 2: Buckner and moving Tank to OLB in pass rushing situations
    Year 3: Best OLB edge rusher

    The idea is to trap Wilson and use Bowman to make sure he cannot escape through a collapsed pocket up the middle.


    A three year plan to combat one opponents quarterback using first and second round draft picks?

    How many defenses have bottled him up so far consistently? One?

    That team also saves its best for the Seahawks and goes 7-9 every year.

    I love the idea the Niners might end up like the Rams (at best).
    User avatar
    theENGLISHseahawk
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 10077
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:13 am


Re: Why 49ers drafted Buckner....
Sat May 21, 2016 8:29 am
  • RichNHansom, the fact is Niner fans in this thread pointed out two recent, high profile examples of players coming here and being worse, and those examples were 100% correct on the facts. Harvin and Graham did get worse.
    Harvin was a nut case and Graham probably was going to continue to click, but the facts remain the facts.
    Zach Miller is another who was never the same offensive threat in this offense.
    I don't even care where or if the blame falls, Bevell has a tricky task maintaining a run first philosophy while also trying to use weapons brought in.
    Rather then continue to excuse the facts, it would be more effective to simply point to Marshawn and Giacomini as offensive players who have improved after joining.
    hawk45
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8343
    Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 1:08 pm


Re: Why 49ers drafted Buckner....
Sat May 21, 2016 3:48 pm
  • Just to reiterate the Graham statement and what it was in response to:

    Archer said Graham was on pace to put up good season numbers before he got hurt. I replied that he was on pace to put up career lows (not counting his rookie year) in catches, yards, ypg, and TDs.

    I wasn't engaging in a debate of imagination over things that hypothetically could have happened but didn't happen, nor do I have any interest in debating imaginary events.

    TBF, I don't think anybody was expecting Graham to put up the same numbers as he was on the Saints (or at least should have), but that's kinda the problem also. Everything Graham does with proficiency shows up on the stats sheet, so if you're not getting that stat sheet, what are you paying for?
    User avatar
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4761
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:58 am


Re: Why 49ers drafted Buckner....
Sat May 21, 2016 5:16 pm
  • Popeyejones wrote:Just to reiterate the Graham statement and what it was in response to:

    Archer said Graham was on pace to put up good season numbers before he got hurt. I replied that he was on pace to put up career lows (not counting his rookie year) in catches, yards, ypg, and TDs.

    I wasn't engaging in a debate of imagination over things that hypothetically could have happened but didn't happen, nor do I have any interest in debating imaginary events.

    TBF, I don't think anybody was expecting Graham to put up the same numbers as he was on the Saints (or at least should have), but that's kinda the problem also. Everything Graham does with proficiency shows up on the stats sheet, so if you're not getting that stat sheet, what are you paying for?


    The complete player, blocking catching and being able to spread the field. No receiver is going to put up numbers they had in a pure passing offense, Tate showed up bigger in the Lions offense because they don't run the damn ball.

    Take Dan Fouts out of Coryells offense and put him in the New Orleans offense of that era and then tell me he wasn't good anymore because he didn't match his numbers in San Diego.

    That's what your saying about Graham.

    Systems, Coaches, and supporting cast has a lot to do with how good a player can look, it may not be the talent as much as how he is used. Hostetler and Gannon did great in Oakland after New Your and Kansas City is another example of a player being used better then where they came from. Which is the reverse of what your saying.
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. :les:
    Member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 24222
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


Re: Why 49ers drafted Buckner....
Sat May 21, 2016 9:57 pm
  • chris98251 wrote:
    Popeyejones wrote:Just to reiterate the Graham statement and what it was in response to:

    Archer said Graham was on pace to put up good season numbers before he got hurt. I replied that he was on pace to put up career lows (not counting his rookie year) in catches, yards, ypg, and TDs.

    I wasn't engaging in a debate of imagination over things that hypothetically could have happened but didn't happen, nor do I have any interest in debating imaginary events.

    TBF, I don't think anybody was expecting Graham to put up the same numbers as he was on the Saints (or at least should have), but that's kinda the problem also. Everything Graham does with proficiency shows up on the stats sheet, so if you're not getting that stat sheet, what are you paying for?


    The complete player, blocking catching and being able to spread the field. No receiver is going to put up numbers they had in a pure passing offense, Tate showed up bigger in the Lions offense because they don't run the damn ball.

    Take Dan Fouts out of Coryells offense and put him in the New Orleans offense of that era and then tell me he wasn't good anymore because he didn't match his numbers in San Diego.

    That's what your saying about Graham.

    Systems, Coaches, and supporting cast has a lot to do with how good a player can look, it may not be the talent as much as how he is used. Hostetler and Gannon did great in Oakland after New Your and Kansas City is another example of a player being used better then where they came from. Which is the reverse of what your saying.


    This also applies to Zach Miller as hawk45 brought up. It's not always about the stats. Miller was hugely beneficial for us and impacted our offense significantly. Were his stats the same as in Oakland? No but his overall production was more to influence the rest of the offense and in that sense he was just as good here.
    The Lion has no interest in the opinion of the sheep.
    RichNhansom
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4228
    Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 7:26 am


Re: Why 49ers drafted Buckner....
Sun May 22, 2016 5:09 am
  • chris98251 wrote:The complete player, blocking catching and being able to spread the field.


    Well, if you want to stand alone and argue with a straight face that Graham is a complete player who is as profficient in blocking as he is as a receiver I guess I can't stop you, but it's kind of a strange claim to make.

    I think everybody else really recognizes Graham as he is: a fairly one-dimensional player who is the around the best in the biz at the dimension he excels in (as a pass catcher), but really limited as a blocker.

    I'm not saying anything new or surprising. Everyone on this board was scratching their heads last off-season when PC they were going to teach Graham how to block, and until he got hurt were also asking what the Hawks were paying for given how little he was incorporated into the passing attack.

    Remember though, my post was a specific response to a specific claim.
    User avatar
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4761
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:58 am


Re: Why 49ers drafted Buckner....
Sun May 22, 2016 5:13 am
  • RichNhansom wrote:This also applies to Zach Miller as hawk45 brought up. It's not always about the stats. Miller was hugely beneficial for us and impacted our offense significantly. Were his stats the same as in Oakland? No but his overall production was more to influence the rest of the offense and in that sense he was just as good here.


    We're talking about the same Zach Miller who in 2014 agreed to cut his salary in half rather than being cut and who the Hawks traded a 1st round pick and their starting center to push down on the depth chart, right?

    He's a decent player no doubt, but if you're arguing that Zach Miller lived up to the FA deal he signed with the Hawks, it's a hard point to argue, because both the Hawks and Miller himself seem to disagree with you.
    User avatar
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4761
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:58 am


Re: Why 49ers drafted Buckner....
Sun May 22, 2016 6:07 am
  • Popeyejones wrote:
    RichNhansom wrote:This also applies to Zach Miller as hawk45 brought up. It's not always about the stats. Miller was hugely beneficial for us and impacted our offense significantly. Were his stats the same as in Oakland? No but his overall production was more to influence the rest of the offense and in that sense he was just as good here.


    We're talking about the same Zach Miller who in 2014 agreed to cut his salary in half rather than being cut and who the Hawks traded a 1st round pick and their starting center to push down on the depth chart, right?

    He's a decent player no doubt, but if you're arguing that Zach Miller lived up to the FA deal he signed with the Hawks, it's a hard point to argue, because both the Hawks and Miller himself seem to disagree with you.


    I'm not sure why you spend so much time commenting on stuff you really don't know anything about. I think you must really love to argue. Zach Miller was cut prior to acquiring Graham because he was coming off a season in which he only played 3 games and he failed his physical. The trade didn't push him down the depth chart. He was already off the team.

    So you think because the Seahawks went to Miller and asked him to take a pay cut so they would have more money to pay some of the guys that were due an extension like Earl Thomas and Richard Sherman, that it means they didn't value him as a player? That's quite a stretch.
    User avatar
    bigtrain21
    * NET GIF Master *
     
    Posts: 1702
    Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 11:48 am


Re: Why 49ers drafted Buckner....
Sun May 22, 2016 7:28 am
  • bigtrain21 wrote:
    Popeyejones wrote:
    RichNhansom wrote:This also applies to Zach Miller as hawk45 brought up. It's not always about the stats. Miller was hugely beneficial for us and impacted our offense significantly. Were his stats the same as in Oakland? No but his overall production was more to influence the rest of the offense and in that sense he was just as good here.


    We're talking about the same Zach Miller who in 2014 agreed to cut his salary in half rather than being cut and who the Hawks traded a 1st round pick and their starting center to push down on the depth chart, right?

    He's a decent player no doubt, but if you're arguing that Zach Miller lived up to the FA deal he signed with the Hawks, it's a hard point to argue, because both the Hawks and Miller himself seem to disagree with you.


    I'm not sure why you spend so much time commenting on stuff you really don't know anything about. I think you must really love to argue. Zach Miller was cut prior to acquiring Graham because he was coming off a season in which he only played 3 games and he failed his physical. The trade didn't push him down the depth chart. He was already off the team.

    So you think because the Seahawks went to Miller and asked him to take a pay cut so they would have more money to pay some of the guys that were due an extension like Earl Thomas and Richard Sherman, that it means they didn't value him as a player? That's quite a stretch.


    You would think a Niner fan more than anyone would understand the value of Zach Miller after watching Delainie Walker walk away. There's actually a thread on the webzone about Delainie Walker that started before he hit FA and no surprise most have no clue how much that offense benefited from his presence.

    Marvin help me out here. You are on record in that thread telling everyone if you don't want Walker back then you have no idea of how he is used and what he does for the offense and that was before he left.

    Bigtrain already explained the reason Miller was asked to renegotiate. I thought it was obvious. Injuries and age caught up to him. We tried one last time to see if he could get back to the old Miller but he was injury riddled and even slower than when he arrived. Sucks, I really liked having him and our offense took a huge hit without his presence.

    I'm on record for things I wanted this off season as #1 a dominant blocking TE and or H-back. #2 big upgrades at center and FB.

    We were most efficient when we had Bruce Miller, Zach Miller and Max Unger on the field. Even with a very inexperienced QB we were still productive. Our blocking has continued to get worse each year, bottoming out last year while Wilson has actually improved his play to compensate for it. If we can get back to what we had with Miller, Miller and Unger now that Wilson really has become elite, this offense could be insane.
    The Lion has no interest in the opinion of the sheep.
    RichNhansom
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4228
    Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 7:26 am


Re: Why 49ers drafted Buckner....
Sun May 22, 2016 8:19 am
  • bigtrain21 wrote:
    Popeyejones wrote:
    RichNhansom wrote:This also applies to Zach Miller as hawk45 brought up. It's not always about the stats. Miller was hugely beneficial for us and impacted our offense significantly. Were his stats the same as in Oakland? No but his overall production was more to influence the rest of the offense and in that sense he was just as good here.


    We're talking about the same Zach Miller who in 2014 agreed to cut his salary in half rather than being cut and who the Hawks traded a 1st round pick and their starting center to push down on the depth chart, right?

    He's a decent player no doubt, but if you're arguing that Zach Miller lived up to the FA deal he signed with the Hawks, it's a hard point to argue, because both the Hawks and Miller himself seem to disagree with you.


    I'm not sure why you spend so much time commenting on stuff you really don't know anything about. I think you must really love to argue. Zach Miller was cut prior to acquiring Graham because he was coming off a season in which he only played 3 games and he failed his physical. The trade didn't push him down the depth chart. He was already off the team.

    So you think because the Seahawks went to Miller and asked him to take a pay cut so they would have more money to pay some of the guys that were due an extension like Earl Thomas and Richard Sherman, that it means they didn't value him as a player? That's quite a stretch.


    If the Seahawks were getting as much out of Miller as they hoped when they signed him away from Oakland they wouldn't have halved his salary and traded for his replacement at TE 1.

    That doesn't stem from a love of arguing, it stems from an affinity for the obvious.
    User avatar
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4761
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:58 am


Re: Why 49ers drafted Buckner....
Sun May 22, 2016 8:36 am
  • Popeyejones wrote:
    bigtrain21 wrote:
    Popeyejones wrote:
    RichNhansom wrote:This also applies to Zach Miller as hawk45 brought up. It's not always about the stats. Miller was hugely beneficial for us and impacted our offense significantly. Were his stats the same as in Oakland? No but his overall production was more to influence the rest of the offense and in that sense he was just as good here.


    We're talking about the same Zach Miller who in 2014 agreed to cut his salary in half rather than being cut and who the Hawks traded a 1st round pick and their starting center to push down on the depth chart, right?

    He's a decent player no doubt, but if you're arguing that Zach Miller lived up to the FA deal he signed with the Hawks, it's a hard point to argue, because both the Hawks and Miller himself seem to disagree with you.


    I'm not sure why you spend so much time commenting on stuff you really don't know anything about. I think you must really love to argue. Zach Miller was cut prior to acquiring Graham because he was coming off a season in which he only played 3 games and he failed his physical. The trade didn't push him down the depth chart. He was already off the team.

    So you think because the Seahawks went to Miller and asked him to take a pay cut so they would have more money to pay some of the guys that were due an extension like Earl Thomas and Richard Sherman, that it means they didn't value him as a player? That's quite a stretch.


    If the Seahawks were getting as much out of Miller as they hoped when they signed him away from Oakland they wouldn't have halved his salary and traded for his replacement at TE 1.

    That doesn't stem from a love of arguing, it stems from an affinity for the obvious.


    Unlike the niners organization, the Seahawks plan ahead to replace ageing vets. Miller was ageing. He knew it. The Seahawks front office knew it. Miller took the pay cut because he wanted a job. The Seahawks front office is also pretty good at determining which players to pay and when to pay them...something niner fans are also unaccustomed to seeing done correctly.

    It must truly suck being a niner can these days. Unable to conjure up any sort of hope for your own team and only trying desperately to knock other teams down. Just sad.
    rideaducati
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5729
    Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:18 pm


Re: Why 49ers drafted Buckner....
Sun May 22, 2016 8:43 am
  • Popeyejones wrote:Just to reiterate the Graham statement and what it was in response to:

    Archer said Graham was on pace to put up good season numbers before he got hurt. I replied that he was on pace to put up career lows (not counting his rookie year) in catches, yards, ypg, and TDs.

    I wasn't engaging in a debate of imagination over things that hypothetically could have happened but didn't happen, nor do I have any interest in debating imaginary events.

    TBF, I don't think anybody was expecting Graham to put up the same numbers as he was on the Saints (or at least should have), but that's kinda the problem also. Everything Graham does with proficiency shows up on the stats sheet, so if you're not getting that stat sheet, what are you paying for?


    Did you expect Graham to put up the same numbers here as in NO? Because if so, then of course you are going to be disappointed. We do not run the same offense. However, Graham would have had a good year for a hawk if he hadn't been injured.

    Graham's career avg:
    1099 yds
    89 catches
    12.4 avg

    2015 (extrapolated to 16 games)
    880 yds
    70 catches
    12.6 avg

    It's a volume problem. Same as everyone pointed out with Tate. It doesn't mean the player is horrible here, they don't have as many opportunties. In Graham's case, a good 20 catches under his average. Efficiency wise he's on the same pace. The Seahawks have not had a tight end put up those numbers in as long as I can remember. You'll probably point out the touchdowns are well below his average and that is true. We continued to have redzone problems the first part of last year and Graham did not solve that.

    However, I'm done arguing with you because I don't actually care what you think and like I said earlier, it's going to remain to be seen as to whether the Graham acquisition will be worth it and a lot of it depends on his recovery. I'm glad that I'm not a niner fan who is so miserable that I'm on another teams board arguing that their coaching staff is bad at development/utilization when they are known for the exact opposite.
    Danger Zone
    User avatar
    Archer
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 325
    Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 10:31 pm


Re: Why 49ers drafted Buckner....
Sun May 22, 2016 9:10 am
  • Popeyejones wrote:
    bigtrain21 wrote:
    Popeyejones wrote:
    RichNhansom wrote:This also applies to Zach Miller as hawk45 brought up. It's not always about the stats. Miller was hugely beneficial for us and impacted our offense significantly. Were his stats the same as in Oakland? No but his overall production was more to influence the rest of the offense and in that sense he was just as good here.


    We're talking about the same Zach Miller who in 2014 agreed to cut his salary in half rather than being cut and who the Hawks traded a 1st round pick and their starting center to push down on the depth chart, right?

    He's a decent player no doubt, but if you're arguing that Zach Miller lived up to the FA deal he signed with the Hawks, it's a hard point to argue, because both the Hawks and Miller himself seem to disagree with you.


    I'm not sure why you spend so much time commenting on stuff you really don't know anything about. I think you must really love to argue. Zach Miller was cut prior to acquiring Graham because he was coming off a season in which he only played 3 games and he failed his physical. The trade didn't push him down the depth chart. He was already off the team.

    So you think because the Seahawks went to Miller and asked him to take a pay cut so they would have more money to pay some of the guys that were due an extension like Earl Thomas and Richard Sherman, that it means they didn't value him as a player? That's quite a stretch.


    If the Seahawks were getting as much out of Miller as they hoped when they signed him away from Oakland they wouldn't have halved his salary and traded for his replacement at TE 1.

    That doesn't stem from a love of arguing, it stems from an affinity for the obvious.


    Your being obtuse. Do you not read what others write or just ignore it for argument sake?

    Miller was close to retirement when we restructured him. It had nothing to do with him not being a success in our organization. You seem to completely miss the point or just don't understand that players age. We didn't watch him walk away in FA because we were to cheap like Walker only to find out we screwed up. His NFL lifespan was coming to an end and he wanted to extend it. If he didn't restructure he would have been released (due to age and injury) and likely would have signed a 1 year deal elsewhere for similar money only to deal with injuries and retire after the season anyway. He/we prolonged his career an additional year. Completely the opposite of how you are trying to paint it.
    The Lion has no interest in the opinion of the sheep.
    RichNhansom
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4228
    Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 7:26 am


Re: Why 49ers drafted Buckner....
Sun May 22, 2016 11:53 am
  • Archer wrote:
    Popeyejones wrote:Just to reiterate the Graham statement and what it was in response to:

    Archer said Graham was on pace to put up good season numbers before he got hurt. I replied that he was on pace to put up career lows (not counting his rookie year) in catches, yards, ypg, and TDs.

    I wasn't engaging in a debate of imagination over things that hypothetically could have happened but didn't happen, nor do I have any interest in debating imaginary events.

    TBF, I don't think anybody was expecting Graham to put up the same numbers as he was on the Saints (or at least should have), but that's kinda the problem also. Everything Graham does with proficiency shows up on the stats sheet, so if you're not getting that stat sheet, what are you paying for?


    Did you expect Graham to put up the same numbers here as in NO? Because if so, then of course you are going to be disappointed. We do not run the same offense. However, Graham would have had a good year for a hawk if he hadn't been injured.

    Graham's career avg:
    1099 yds
    89 catches
    12.4 avg

    2015 (extrapolated to 16 games)
    880 yds
    70 catches
    12.6 avg

    It's a volume problem. Same as everyone pointed out with Tate. It doesn't mean the player is horrible here, they don't have as many opportunties. In Graham's case, a good 20 catches under his average. Efficiency wise he's on the same pace. The Seahawks have not had a tight end put up those numbers in as long as I can remember. You'll probably point out the touchdowns are well below his average and that is true. We continued to have redzone problems the first part of last year and Graham did not solve that.

    However, I'm done arguing with you because I don't actually care what you think and like I said earlier, it's going to remain to be seen as to whether the Graham acquisition will be worth it and a lot of it depends on his recovery. I'm glad that I'm not a niner fan who is so miserable that I'm on another teams board arguing that their coaching staff is bad at development/utilization when they are known for the exact opposite.



    Why'd you leave off touchdowns? Was it just an "accident"? :lol:

    In any case we 100% agree it's an issue of volume. That was the original question though when the Hawks absorbed his 10 mil salary and traded a 1st and Unger for him: he exists almost exclusively as a receiver, and if he's not going to get the targets to be that in the Hawks offense, what are they paying for exactly.

    Regarding Tate, love him as a player and always have, but it's the same shoe on the other foot: he's simply worth more to the Lions than he was to the Hawks because the Lions offense uses his abilities more. It's why at the time I said it sucked for the Hawks to have to lose Tate but it made sense he was more valuable to a team like the Lions.
    User avatar
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4761
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:58 am


Re: Why 49ers drafted Buckner....
Sun May 22, 2016 1:01 pm
  • Popeyejones wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:The complete player, blocking catching and being able to spread the field.


    Well, if you want to stand alone and argue with a straight face that Graham is a complete player who is as profficient in blocking as he is as a receiver I guess I can't stop you, but it's kind of a strange claim to make.

    I think everybody else really recognizes Graham as he is: a fairly one-dimensional player who is the around the best in the biz at the dimension he excels in (as a pass catcher), but really limited as a blocker.

    I'm not saying anything new or surprising. Everyone on this board was scratching their heads last off-season when PC they were going to teach Graham how to block, and until he got hurt were also asking what the Hawks were paying for given how little he was incorporated into the passing attack.

    Remember though, my post was a specific response to a specific claim.


    I did not say he was proficient, I said he was asked to be a complete player, he was learning how to block on a NFL level and asked to. He was asked to be a complete player, Cable has stated he was coming along and working on it, will he ever be as good as Miller at it? Who knows, but it is what he was asked to learn and do and get better at.
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. :les:
    Member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 24222
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


Re: Why 49ers drafted Buckner....
Sun May 22, 2016 2:46 pm
  • Popeyejones wrote:
    Archer wrote:
    Popeyejones wrote:Just to reiterate the Graham statement and what it was in response to:

    Archer said Graham was on pace to put up good season numbers before he got hurt. I replied that he was on pace to put up career lows (not counting his rookie year) in catches, yards, ypg, and TDs.

    I wasn't engaging in a debate of imagination over things that hypothetically could have happened but didn't happen, nor do I have any interest in debating imaginary events.

    TBF, I don't think anybody was expecting Graham to put up the same numbers as he was on the Saints (or at least should have), but that's kinda the problem also. Everything Graham does with proficiency shows up on the stats sheet, so if you're not getting that stat sheet, what are you paying for?


    Did you expect Graham to put up the same numbers here as in NO? Because if so, then of course you are going to be disappointed. We do not run the same offense. However, Graham would have had a good year for a hawk if he hadn't been injured.

    Graham's career avg:
    1099 yds
    89 catches
    12.4 avg

    2015 (extrapolated to 16 games)
    880 yds
    70 catches
    12.6 avg

    It's a volume problem. Same as everyone pointed out with Tate. It doesn't mean the player is horrible here, they don't have as many opportunties. In Graham's case, a good 20 catches under his average. Efficiency wise he's on the same pace. The Seahawks have not had a tight end put up those numbers in as long as I can remember. You'll probably point out the touchdowns are well below his average and that is true. We continued to have redzone problems the first part of last year and Graham did not solve that.

    However, I'm done arguing with you because I don't actually care what you think and like I said earlier, it's going to remain to be seen as to whether the Graham acquisition will be worth it and a lot of it depends on his recovery. I'm glad that I'm not a niner fan who is so miserable that I'm on another teams board arguing that their coaching staff is bad at development/utilization when they are known for the exact opposite.



    Why'd you leave off touchdowns? Was it just an "accident"? :lol:

    In any case we 100% agree it's an issue of volume. That was the original question though when the Hawks absorbed his 10 mil salary and traded a 1st and Unger for him: he exists almost exclusively as a receiver, and if he's not going to get the targets to be that in the Hawks offense, what are they paying for exactly.

    Regarding Tate, love him as a player and always have, but it's the same shoe on the other foot: he's simply worth more to the Lions than he was to the Hawks because the Lions offense uses his abilities more. It's why at the time I said it sucked for the Hawks to have to lose Tate but it made sense he was more valuable to a team like the Lions.


    Players don't take less money because they are going to get less targets. It doesn't work that way. He's worth what the market will bear and if you want to have the type of threat he creates you have to pay what other teams are willing to pay. Not real complicated.

    Based on your logic we should pigeon hole ourselves and never pay a receiver good money because we don't throw it enough and this is after watching what happened the second half of the season last year.

    If you want to be a well rounded team you have to have threats everywhere. So in that there is value. Make sense?
    The Lion has no interest in the opinion of the sheep.
    RichNhansom
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4228
    Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 7:26 am


Re: Why 49ers drafted Buckner....
Sun May 22, 2016 5:24 pm
  • So... Buckner...
    Adopt A Rookie: Nick Vannett, TE - Ohio State University
    User avatar
    Laloosh
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8846
    Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 11:46 pm
    Location: WA


Re: Why 49ers drafted Buckner....
Sun May 22, 2016 5:28 pm
  • Laloosh wrote:So... Buckner...



    Good point. How did we get so far off topic? Oh yeah, Popeye the thread derailer. Is that all he contributes to threads now? Derailing them?
    The Lion has no interest in the opinion of the sheep.
    RichNhansom
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4228
    Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 7:26 am


Re: Why 49ers drafted Buckner....
Sun May 22, 2016 5:37 pm
  • RichNhansom wrote:
    Laloosh wrote:So... Buckner...



    Good point. How did we get so far off topic? Oh yeah, Popeye the thread derailer. Is that all he contributes to threads now? Derailing them?

    You know who else is richnhansom? Buckner...

    Image
    Adopt A Rookie: Nick Vannett, TE - Ohio State University
    User avatar
    Laloosh
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8846
    Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 11:46 pm
    Location: WA


Re: Why 49ers drafted Buckner....
Mon May 23, 2016 9:34 am
  • rideaducati wrote:It must truly suck being a niner fan these days. Unable to conjure up any sort of hope for your own team and only trying desperately to knock other teams down. Just sad.

    Spot on analysis and yeah, very sad. Attempting to build one's self up through tearing down others is a common approach to low self esteem. In this case, we could call it low fan esteem.
    hawksfansinceday1
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 20878
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:38 am
    Location: Vancouver, WA


Re: Why 49ers drafted Buckner....
Mon May 23, 2016 9:56 am
  • hawksfansinceday1 wrote:
    rideaducati wrote:It must truly suck being a niner fan these days. Unable to conjure up any sort of hope for your own team and only trying desperately to knock other teams down. Just sad.

    Spot on analysis and yeah, very sad. Attempting to build one's self up through tearing down others is a common approach to low self esteem. In this case, we could call it low fan esteem.


    I can't speak for other posters, but I'm certainly not in the "Unable to conjure up any sort of hope for your own team" stage. I'm really looking forward to the season to see a number of younger players get a shot. I enjoy football win or lose. Of COURSE I'd rather they win, but there is enjoyment in the journey as well. Now if there were no young players on the roster...yeah, that might be tough. 30 plus draftees tho in the last 3 years makes for a large numbe rof players yet to get a chance.

    The recent spurt of success was so much sweeter because I got to see all those great players get drafted, go through the hard times, and come out the other side.

    We've just reset that process as all teams will eventually.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6022
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm


Re: Why 49ers drafted Buckner....
Mon May 23, 2016 10:55 am
  • And in San Fran's case, you get to see the young players coached by the GM too.

    A brilliant 2-for-1 offer from the ever generous Trent Baalke.
    User avatar
    theENGLISHseahawk
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 10077
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:13 am


Re: Why 49ers drafted Buckner....
Tue May 24, 2016 8:13 pm
  • rideaducati wrote:
    NINEster wrote:
    ivotuk wrote:So, they drafted a defensive lineman to get after the QB.

    This is the kind of first rate, innovative thinking we've come to expect from the 49ers!


    By itself it doesn't make a ton of sense (3-4 DE), but looking back at 2012 draft.....JJ Watt would have been ok over Aldon Smith.

    Also, if you improve the pieces on the DL, the existing OLBs will get more pressure.

    BTW, as far as "piece of the puzzle" against Wilson.....it's not extreme edge pressure but strong contain and push back of the pocket that gets to #3.

    Baalke has a 3 year plan just for Wilson.

    Year 1: Armstead
    Year 2: Buckner and moving Tank to OLB in pass rushing situations
    Year 3: Best OLB edge rusher

    The idea is to trap Wilson and use Bowman to make sure he cannot escape through a collapsed pocket up the middle.


    Someone please insert gif of Russell making Bowman look silly right here.


    Careful what you wish for.....
    NINEster
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1548
    Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 7:06 pm


Re: Why 49ers drafted Buckner....
Wed May 25, 2016 4:21 am

Re: Why 49ers drafted Buckner....
Wed May 25, 2016 9:24 am
  • Navorro Bowman was nowhere to be found in that video. I'd rather go GIF, but Bowman has gotten to Wilson more times than you'll wish to admit. The videos are out there.

    And Wilson making a big play scrambling play once means it happens all the time?

    Like Kap's 50 yard run in the 2013 NFCC....big plays are bound to happen if you have the speed.
    NINEster
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1548
    Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 7:06 pm


PreviousNext


It is currently Fri Jun 22, 2018 10:51 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ NFL NATION ]




Information
  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 75 guests