Dodub wrote:CrimsonCrew wrote:Dodub wrote:I don’t agree with going by other people’s rankings. When building a roster you absolutely have to look at prospects in regards of their value to your team. If WR A is ranked lower on other people’s list but is top ranked on yours due to a schematic and roster for then you go with him over WR B who may be ranked higher on others lists. At the end of the day you do what makes more sense for your roster which is why Ruggs>Lamb for our particular team.
I don’t foresee Pettis becoming a good WR, he simply lacks the work ethic. None of the receivers on our team are legit game breakers which is what we lack. We love the short and intermediate stuff but as we saw, teams didn’t respect our deep game and played the short and intermediate routes. If we actually had a guy who could take the top off, then the offense would be significantly more dangerous
Sure, I agree that every team needs to create its draft board based on their scheme and current personnel. But if we think Lamb is just head-and-shoulders better than Ruggs, but isn't quite as good as a deep threat, I think you take the better player (i.e., you take DeAndre Hopkins over DeSean Jackson regardless of scheme and specific need, and deep threats/speed guys tend to bust at a higher rate anyway). Now, that may not be. I haven't scouted these guys, and the one game I started watching of Jeudy (LSU), Ruggs kept popping up and making plays. But everything I've read suggests that Lamb is capable of playing at basically any WR spot, and that he's a much more complete receiver.
As far as the Niners' deep game, I don't think it has much to do with personnel. We had a very good deep threat in Goodwin, and we hardly used him this past year - granted there seemed to be more than just on-field stuff going on there. Sanders is also an above-average deep threat, even at his age. But that's not Garoppolo's game. And it's not really Shanahan's either. We need more of it. In 2017, Garoppolo threw in that 15-20 yard range more than he did this past year. But he's a below average deep ball thrower (see: the Super Bowl). That won't change, even if you have a guy with that skill set. Even when he was hitting a wide open Sanders deep last year, Sanders would have to basically come to a dead stop to wait for the ball (until, of course, the one time when throwing short might have helped; I'm about 85% sure Sanders would have been the victim of PI against the Chiefs in the SB if he had to come back to that one). Even with Ryan and the Falcons, Shanahan still threw less downfield than most NFL offenses. It's just not something he prizes.
I agree on Pettis, though I'm hoping he has a wakeup call. He has the talent to play in the league, and the message should have been pretty clear that it's up to him. The larger point I was trying to make is that Hurd is still a huge unknown, too, and at least we've seen Pettis have some success against first-team NFL defenses.
I understand what you’re saying but I don’t agree with the premise of simply taking a superstar over a role player even if they don’t fit your need. I’m more in line with the Belichick model of picking guys that fit a role within your team instead of going big for the #1 WR
At the same position, you always take the superstar over the role player IMO. I think that's particularly true of WR for us at present. You don't draft a guy in the top half of the first round thinking about the next year. You think about years three, four, five. And who knows what our roster will look like at that point?
Right now, we have one second-year WR who looks promising in Samuel - which is what we had last offseason in Pettis and that didn't turn out so well - and then a bunch of guys. Bourne is fine as the third or fourth guy, but he's nothing special. Pettis has some talent, but may lack the will. Hurd is a complete question mark, both in terms of health and ability to play WR in the NFL. Taylor has shown some promise, but has major health issues and simply cannot be relied upon as a contributor. Yes, assuming Samuel pans out, we would best complement him with a guy who can stretch the defense. But I'm taking the best player at a position of need. Samuel and Lamb could complement one another the way Boldin and Fitzgerald did - and they'd actually be a fair bit faster. And then we find a guy with some speed (see: Goodwin, Benjamin, Gabriel, etc.) to be that one-dimensional deep threat.
For the record, I'm not saying Ruggs is a one-dimensional deep threat, or that we shouldn't take him. Just that, theoretically speaking, we need to take the clearly better player if there is one between these guys.
