Some homers' opinions of the OTs that we may realistically be able to get at 19

[Jon Snow]

Just now, jfra78 said:

I personally wouldn't mind OT as long as he's a true starter and not a reach

Everyone in the draft is a gamble. They do not come with guarantees ro be anything other than what they were when you drafted them. Some will start due to necessity and others because they have terrible coaches trying to save their jobs. Truthfully, only 1 or 2 should or could play day 1. So if you think a first round selection means anything you are overestimating these guys or your expectations are way too high.

[jfra78]

Just now, Jon Snow said:

Everyone in the draft is a gamble. They do not come with guarantees ro be anything other than what they were when you drafted them. Some will start due to necessity and others because they have terrible coaches trying to save their jobs. Truthfully, only 1 or 2 should or could play day 1. So if you think a first round selection means anything you are overestimating these guys or your expectations are way too high.

Thats not what I'm saying at all.  OT will be overdraft just because of position, I wouldnt want to reach on a guy just cause he is an OT.  Is the 4th best OT better than the second CB or DT? We have a lot of holes on this team and areas where we can upgrade starters

[MHS831]

2 hours ago, Jon Snow said:

I guess it's good thing Marty didn't think that way when he drafted Luke while he had Beason already as the starter. 

Are you suggesting that the situations were the same?  As I recall, Hurney traded away the chance to get Revis and he drafted Beason as an OLB (where he STARTED as a rookie) and when Morgan went down with an injury, Beason was moved inside--he was on the field, however.  Are you suggesting that GMs should use first-rounders for depth?  If so, I wonder how many GMs, aside from those taking QBs, will draft a player that does not start this season in round 1?  

The argument that we will have an option to draft a player who is ready to step in and perform at a high level as a rookie at OT is not consistent with most of the reviews.  Most of them, except maybe 1 or 2, are developmental.  

An isolated incident does not apply to all future situations.  Beason was going to start, so it is not comparable.  That same draft-Kalil played Guard as a rookie when we knew he was going to be a center--but he started.  You don't reach for developmental non-starters in round 1 of the draft.  

 

Edited April 4 by MHS831

[Jon Snow]

20 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

Are you suggesting that the situations were the same?  As I recall, Hurney traded away the chance to get Revis and he drafted Beason as an OLB (where he STARTED as a rookie) and when Morgan went down with an injury, Beason was moved inside--he was on the field, however.  Are you suggesting that GMs should use first-rounders for depth?  If so, I wonder how many GMs, aside from those taking QBs, will draft a player that does not start this season in round 1?  

The argument that we will have an option to draft a player who is ready to step in and perform at a high level as a rookie at OT is not consistent with most of the reviews.  Most of them, except maybe 1 or 2, are developmental.  

An isolated incident does not apply to all future situations.  Beason was going to start, so it is not comparable.  That same draft-Kalil played Guard as a rookie when we knew he was going to be a center--but he started.  You don't reach for developmental non-starters in round 1 of the draft.  

 

Nobody is suggesting that we do draft developmental players. I'm suggesting that if everything is equal take the tackle. And by the way every player drafted need some form of development.

[MHS831]

2 hours ago, jfra78 said:

I personally wouldn't mind OT as long as he's a true starter and not a reach

Yes. When I mock, I load up on OL, but that first rounder is how you make or break the draft.  If we have Walker as a rental swing T because a ready-to-play rookie is on the board.  That is different. Like QB and Edge, OTs are already a reach in the draft because they are rare.

[MHS831]

2 hours ago, Jon Snow said:

Nobody is suggesting that we do draft developmental players. I'm suggesting that if everything is equal take the tackle. And by the way every player drafted need some form of development.

I agree with you, if all things are equal--assuming we are on the same page as to what that means.  If a DT and OT are there at 19 and you have them equal, which do you take? The DT would be rotational and get 25 snaps a game or so, and the OT is probably a reserve for most of the season.  What if Walker plays out of his mind and Ickey comes back strong? To me, there are just too many variables at T and Morgan met the needs for 2 starters.  Nothing about that screams lets "go OT in round 1" to me. I could see an Edge or a DT at 19 before I see OT.  I could see a TE or S before an OT--and I (personally) would rather have an OT over DT, Edge, TE, or S--but I do not see the logic.  In fact, CB is a position that resembles OT--who do we have behind our starters and are we happy with Smith-Wade?  A CB would be on the field more than a reserve OT.  How is the Walker at LT situation different than the the Bryce situation? He is basically on a 1-year deal and if he is injured, Forsythe becomes Pickett.  Would you take Simpson in the draft? 

Dont get me wrong--I usually agree with you  and I get your point.  I am an OL guru--but I just do not see this particular group of Tackles making us better than Walker.  In addition, I think we can address OT once the Ickey situation clears up.  Short arms, poor run blocking, issues with strength--I am simply not impressed with the OTs. 

For clarity, "developmental" refers to players who are still a year or two away from starting.  We are all developmental, but there are prospects who need a season to transition to the pro game. I see 1--maybe 2 OTs who could step into a starting role right now. In college, for example, taking snaps under center requires a different approach than blocking for the shotgun.  There is less to learn if you play a position that does not require much adjustment to transition to the NFL.

Edited April 4 by MHS831

[Swaggasaurus]

5 hours ago, jfra78 said:

Thats not what I'm saying at all.  OT will be overdraft just because of position, I wouldnt want to reach on a guy just cause he is an OT.  Is the 4th best OT better than the second CB or DT? We have a lot of holes on this team and areas where we can upgrade starters

The 4th best OT can absolutely be better than the 2nd CB or even the first DT. Hell the consensus 2nd best CB didn’t play last year and there’s only 3 with first round grades. It’s possible 0 DT go in round 1 as well. 

[csx]

The decision makers will have more to go by then a list. They meet and get to know them. They are humans. Dan had stated this element of draft preparation. Its likely much more important than we think.

Edited April 4 by csx

[csx]

7 hours ago, MHS831 said:

Are you suggesting that the situations were the same?  As I recall, Hurney traded away the chance to get Revis and he drafted Beason as an OLB (where he STARTED as a rookie) and when Morgan went down with an injury, Beason was moved inside--he was on the field, however.  Are you suggesting that GMs should use first-rounders for depth?  If so, I wonder how many GMs, aside from those taking QBs, will draft a player that does not start this season in round 1?  

The argument that we will have an option to draft a player who is ready to step in and perform at a high level as a rookie at OT is not consistent with most of the reviews.  Most of them, except maybe 1 or 2, are developmental.  

An isolated incident does not apply to all future situations.  Beason was going to start, so it is not comparable.  That same draft-Kalil played Guard as a rookie when we knew he was going to be a center--but he started.  You don't reach for developmental non-starters in round 1 of the draft.  

 

Revis is a perfect example of why fans attaching to these prospect lists is so silly.  Players like Jamarcus Russell, Brady Quinn and Gaines Adam's were ranked  well ahead of him. 

Joe Staley waa fittingly ranked rather low and was drafted in the 20s. He was a perennial Pro Bowler and ocassional All Pro who played both RT and LT for the Niners.

[Basbear]

On 4/3/2026 at 5:03 PM, TD alt said:

I could be wrong, but I think he also has the lowest floor and highest bust potential among the guys mentioned in the same conversation. 

He's got the highest ceiling I know of. He also has a high bust factor. I mean this draft doesn't have the cream of recent ones, there are no Joe Alt, Witherspoon, or Carter. RB and QB have one gem, then a huge gap to the next, then a light year gap to the next group. 

You got Frank at everyone's #1, then my guess its bailey at #2, then a run of 4 OSU studs and now you are in fog of who or what is next. Love * should go no lower than 7th.....From that 8 pick to 25, its a mess. The whole draft doesn't have a good consensus like years before. Many players feel like 15 pick on this team board and 52nd pick on others. 

[45catfan]

McShay thinks there will be a run on Edge and OT in the back half of the first round.  It's laughable to think Lomu is a reach for us.  Some mocks have him about right, early 20's, and some still have him last few picks in round one or slipping to round two.  What a joke.  I wouldn't be shocked if he's off the board before #19.