Official San Francisco 49ers Off-Season Thread (5-7): Let's get ready for the Draft!

He probably won't be able to play for some of this season, I'm guessing that's why we're hesitant.

Honestly, Al Davis is probably itching to sign Burress.
laugh.gif
 
Originally Posted by bright nikes

laugh.gif
considering there's 7 rounds in the draft and the 9ers have been awarded a couple compensatory picks - I'm 100% certain they'll get an OLINE and DLINE in the draft.
But it has to be RIGHT TACKLE
mad.gif
 
Originally Posted by Dr 715

Holt is probably not interested in us.

I think Burress would be ideal for this team. How many times did the 49ers settle for field goals because they couldn't get a TD in the red zone.

Line up Plaxico wide right and throw fades all day.

This makes too much sense, therefore it won't happen.


No Buress.
 
^^ mark sanchez huh
eyes.gif
...party down at the mission
grin.gif


i'm hope we draft BJ ..need a big body in the middle if we going full 3-4
 
I want Sanchez, but we're not drafting him. I mean why keep Smith and sign Huard only to get a 4th Quarterback? We're not dropping either of them andNOT cutting Hill. I'm thinking Hill will be the starter and maybe bring in Smith later.
 
49ers, Santa Clara stadium deal finally on the horizon

By Mike Swift
Mercury News
Posted: 04/01/2009 07:02:49 PM PDT

The San Francisco 49ers and the city of Santa Clara are on the brink of finalizing a stadium deal.
With terms significantly more favorable to the South Bay city than those discussed last year, both the 49ers ownership and city officials agreed Wednesday that most negotiating hurdles have been cleared and that a deal is at hand - if Santa Clara voters agree - to build a 68,500-seat stadium that would open for the 2013 NFL season.
The concessions by both sides, which sources familiar with the talks said include the 49ers paying Santa Clara to use city-owned land near Great America for the stadium, and a significantly smaller subsidy from the city's Redevelopment Agency, came through more than a year of steady negotiations. With the nation plunging into a serious recession, the deal appears to have been shaped by the political reality of winning taxpayer financing for a stadium in tough times. It would move the 49ers a big step closer to leaving San Francisco after seven decades and five Super Bowl titles.
"Until we get the deal done, we're not going to confirm any of the things that are out there," 49ers President Jed York said Wednesday, when asked about the concessions. "But I think we are getting pretty close to getting a deal done."
York, who has been increasingly positive about finalizing a deal with Santa Clara in his public statements in recent weeks, added: "I'd be disappointed if (the City Council vote) wasn't by
Advertisement

June."
Santa Clara Mayor Patricia Mahan, who also declined to discuss the concessions in detail until a deal is finalized, said a turning point in the talks came in January. That's when city officials realized that the economic downturn would sap redevelopment agency revenue available for the stadium project, but the 49ers signaled they would accept a smaller stadium subsidy.
"At that point in time, I was fearful it could all fall apart," Mahan said of the talks. "Realistically, we all knew we were not going to have that kind of money to invest in the project, and they were willing to accept less as a direct investment from the city, and search for ways to still make the project work. I think we are inches away from getting the best possible deal we can get for Santa Clara."
Smaller subsidy
While any deal must be ratified by voters - probably in March 2010 - the good news to the city of Santa Clara includes reduction in the city's subsidy of the project and additional rent payments for use of city land. And the city still must solve the problem of appeasing the owners of the Great America theme park located right next to the proposed stadium.
But Mahan is so confident that a deal is near that she said the City Council could sign off on the outlines of a deal as soon as Wednesday - although a council vote could be several weeks off. The mayor also said a recent negotiating visit by City Manager Jennifer Sparacino to Ohio to meet with the corporate owners of Great America could mean an end to the theme park's opposition to use of its parking lots to build the $900 million stadium.
Last year, when the city entered into negotiations with the 49ers, it proposed allocating $109 million in redevelopment money and hotel tax receipts toward construction of the stadium. The city also would pay to move an electrical substation and to build a parking garage on Tasman Drive previously approved by the voters. But following the economic meltdown, the 49ers have agreed to a significantly smaller contribution from the city, one that would amount to less than $90 million from redevelopment and hotel tax receipts, sources close to the talks said.
In making concessions, the 49ers may be gauging the strength of voter support during a serious recession. The team will now be able to argue to voters that its commitment to the South Bay is so strong it is willing to accept tens of millions of dollars less than the $160 million the 49ers had sought in 2007, and that the contribution by Santa Clara taxpayers would be a smaller percentage than for other contemporary NFL stadium deals.
City politicians, meanwhile, many of whom receive sizable campaign contributions from unions who would benefit from the jobs created by the stadium, also have made concessions. One would be agreeing to a vote on changing the city charter to allow the 49ers to hire a construction contractor without a competitive bidding process.
Mahan predicted city voters would support the $900 million project when specifics of the deal are revealed.
"I feel more and more support from the community," she said. "I think as the numbers have improved and the city's investment has decreased, as (the 49ers') expectations of the city have decreased, and as we have built-in avenues to make sure our general fund is protected and we actually have some revenue streams coming to the general fund, more and more people have come on board, understanding that this is good for the city."
Team concessions
Among the concessions the team has agreed to in principle:
The 49ers would make a rent payment to the city for the use of city-owned land now leased for Great America's parking lots for the stadium site. The city manager had objected that the original stadium package proposed by the 49ers included no direct payment to the city's general fund.
The 49ers would agree to cover construction cost overruns through 2013. While the team had already made those guarantees through 2012, the stadium now is not expected to open until the 2013 NFL season.
While the city would own the stadium, the 49ers would agree to pay for its demolition at the end of its useful life, perhaps 40 years from now.
The team would agree to cover losses for unprofitable non-NFL events at the stadium.
For the 49ers, a deal with the city is crucial for many reasons, but one key reason is that a public subsidy would unlock NFL stadium financing.
York said a resolution of talks with Santa Clara appears to be so close that the main factor dictating the timing of a ballot vote is the state-mandated environmental impact report, which he said may not be completed until after November, the next possible date for a ballot vote. State law requires a completed EIR before a binding ballot vote.
"We can go in November," York said of the ballot vote, "but we want to make sure it's a binding ballot."
Politically, waiting until 2010 might also be more advantageous for the 49ers, allowing time for an economic recovery to take hold.
It also would allow time for a deal between the 49ers and Cedar Fair to jell - perhaps the team would buy the theme park. Sandusky, Ohio-based Cedar Fair recently announced that it is eager to sell properties across North America to cut its corporate debt. A Cedar Fair spokeswoman did not return telephone calls Wednesday.
While there were deep questions about how the recession could affect prospects to build an NFL stadium, the downturn may end up strengthening the case Mahan and other proponents make for the project.
The stadium would be one of the biggest private construction projects "this county has ever seen," the mayor said. "The initial construction phase is really going to be a boost for the economy, and having the stadium here is going to stimulate things further because I think we will see other development arise because of the stadium location - hotels, restaurants, other entertainment venues, those kind of things."
 
yeah drafting crabtree would be an absolute mistake.

bj raji will be the guy, plus im sure theyre looking to draft a WR in the later round.

i dont think they'll go oline at 10 with the signing of marvel, maybe in the 2nd.

1st round has to be defense, and im not settling for anything else than raji.

he's better than fields / sopoga / franklin or whoever else we had lining up at the nose.
 
did mel kiper just say parys haralson was better than manny lawson? i knew manny is injury prone but really? anyone agree with him?

and i can't wait for the stadium deal to go through. i could care less if they dont play in san francisco. that stadium is crappy is hell regardless ofhistory.
 
Originally Posted by NikeTalker23

A WR at 10 would be a wasted pick for us. We cant the ball to a receiver if we can't protect the QB or get the ball back on D.


Originally Posted by bright nikes

yeah drafting crabtree would be an absolute mistake.

bj raji will be the guy, plus im sure theyre looking to draft a WR in the later round.


I really dont understand your guys point of view on this one. Why would it be a mistake? If you guys are going to have the opinion that Crabtree will not be agood NFL wide receiver, then fine, I buy that. But to say you dont want us to draft him because our oline and defense suck, then I cant agree.

We need a #1 WR....period....end of story. I am of the belief that Crabtree with be something special in the NFL. So just because we have short term olineissues, shouldn't restrict us from taking a WR that could be our long term solution. Wide receivers generally take a couple years to develop anyways. Bythat time, hopefully our line will be fixed. Trust me, I completely understand we have protection problems at times. But if Crabtree is the best playeravailable when its our pick, we should take him.

And Bright.....I dont understand how you can argue against this article's opinion by saying we should draft Raji.....because according to this mock draft,he will be gone. Do you STILL think Crabtree is a mistake assuming the first 9 picks go exactly as this article predicts?
 
If we dont get raji(everyones saying he'll be gone by 10), i wouldnt mind drafting crabtree or a.smith because marvel is injury prone and it would be greatto have a young OL as a backup who can learn behind Marvel
 
Originally Posted by dland24

Originally Posted by NikeTalker23

A WR at 10 would be a wasted pick for us. We cant the ball to a receiver if we can't protect the QB or get the ball back on D.


Originally Posted by bright nikes

yeah drafting crabtree would be an absolute mistake.

bj raji will be the guy, plus im sure theyre looking to draft a WR in the later round.


I really dont understand your guys point of view on this one. Why would it be a mistake? If you guys are going to have the opinion that Crabtree will not be a good NFL wide receiver, then fine, I buy that. But to say you dont want us to draft him because our oline and defense suck, then I cant agree.

We need a #1 WR....period....end of story. I am of the belief that Crabtree with be something special in the NFL. So just because we have short term oline issues, shouldn't restrict us from taking a WR that could be our long term solution. Wide receivers generally take a couple years to develop anyways. By that time, hopefully our line will be fixed. Trust me, I completely understand we have protection problems at times. But if Crabtree is the best player available when its our pick, we should take him.

And Bright.....I dont understand how you can argue against this article's opinion by saying we should draft Raji.....because according to this mock draft, he will be gone. Do you STILL think Crabtree is a mistake assuming the first 9 picks go exactly as this article predicts?
This is why I think Crabtree would be a mistake at 10. For one, we have much bigger needs than WR. We have two up and coming promising youngwideouts and a new singing. Plus we have Bruce back for one more year. We have a decent recievers, and having a #1 reciever on this team is not our biggestneed. Sing wants us to be a power running team. To become that we needs to have a very good line for Gore. Our OLine was very inconsistent last year and wecould very much use help there. Defense I think is another big needs, especially NT which is why I wish Raji falls to us. For a 3-4 you need to have a goodnose(which we don't have) and BJ would be a perfect fit. If not DLine then I think we need pass rushing OLB. I just think if we use our first rounder on aWR who's not going to be an impact player from day 1, it will be a wasted pick.
 
But you say we need OLine help for us to become that power running team that Sing wants us to be, and we need help for Gore, but chances are we arent taking anOLineman in the first round anyways. So that really doesnt matter. I am a HUGE Raji fan, and would love for us to get him. But I posted that link to the mockdraft because according to that, he WONT be.



So now what? If Raji is gone and Crabtree is there, then what? You dont want Crabtreee....so in that case, do we trade the pick? The next best DT or OLB is alate round projection, not a 10th overall type player.
 
crabtree, if he is available is a must pick. he is a special talent.

maybe WR is not an immediate need, but it will have to be addressed. and if the opportunity presents itself for the team to betteritself, it should be taken advantage of.

i'm sorry to rain on your delusions of grandeur, but our WR core is serviceable at best-- and i don't think we have promising players.
an aging Bruce is decent, Battle is also decent. Jones? Please. Morgan and Hill-- too unproven.
 
our WR is far from set...we've improved from before but that doesn't mean anything. if Crabtree falls he's a must pick...unless Raji is still thereor something and the 49ers really, really want him. It'd be very hard for us to pass on him.
 
*my bad i didn't read the article, i just had my eyes set at #10
laugh.gif


if raji is taken before 10 (which i am crossing my fingers he isnt) then crabtree would be a possibility, but i put our WR depth a couple pages back whichincludes: Brandon Jones (just signed an insane contract, suppose to be the down the field threat), issac bruce, josh morgan, arnaz battle, jason hill, dominickziegler, etc.

i think the 49ers logic going into this draft is the same as when they picked up morgan, a WR that can make an impact on this team can be found in the laterrounds (wasnt he picked in round 6 or 7?).

there's a couple WRs that can be had in the later, later rounds like that kid from USC who possess height (Patrick Turner 6'5 221) and that kid fromRamses Barden from cal poly thats also like 6'7 220 and will be there in the later rounds - sorry if my info isnt accurate with names im posting on myphone just waking up.

lets be completely honest here - the 49ers will be picking top 10 again next year ... i'm sure another player with crabtrees ailiity will pop up, theyalways do, WRs can be easily found.

but, this team needs to be built from the ground up starting with our DLINE (albeit de or nt) and from the oline - then lets build around them.

thats my thinking going into it, if you dont agree then thats fine - we're all fans with different viewpoints on how this team should prepare to be awinner again, hope that makes sense.
 
This is why I think Crabtree would be a mistake at 10. For one, we have much bigger needs than WR. We have two up and coming promising young wideouts and a new singing. Plus we have Bruce back for one more year. We have a decent recievers, and having a #1 reciever on this team is not our biggest need. Sing wants us to be a power running team. To become that we needs to have a very good line for Gore. Our OLine was very inconsistent last year and we could very much use help there. Defense I think is another big needs, especially NT which is why I wish Raji falls to us. For a 3-4 you need to have a good nose(which we don't have) and BJ would be a perfect fit. If not DLine then I think we need pass rushing OLB. I just think if we use our first rounder on a WR who's not going to be an impact player from day 1, it will be a wasted pick.

Now your talking NikeTalker23, good point champ.
 
Originally Posted by SuperSaiyan415

did mel kiper just say parys haralson was better than manny lawson? i knew manny is injury prone but really? anyone agree with him?
Thats kind of tough to call, but I think Kiper is speaking from the aspect that Lawson never really made the conversion from a D-End to an outsidebacker, as for Parys, he has better size and decent off the ball speed to flourish in the 3-4 because he can get to the QB. Its hard to tell with Lawson due toinjury. I notice Lawson looking lost in zone coverage sometimes
laugh.gif
.

I wouldn't say any of the 2 are better then the other, they have different abilities. On another note. I think we need another OLB
ohwell.gif



I think we should take Raji, but at the same time.. Crabtree would be nice. But I can QFT NikeTalker23 for his statement. Im on the same boat.
 
^Thanks.
As for the Haralson statement, didn't he have a three game streak with sacks? He is def. a good player, but I haven't paid enough attention to Lawson.
Anyone know what's up with Ahmad Brooks?
 
Back
Top Bottom