pull down to refresh
Unfortunately it is a cap sport and certain position's values are skyrocketing so you can't completely F them picks. You can probably F them picks for a year or two but you will end up in cap hell if you do it too much.
Should the 49ers have traded pick 27 for AJ Brown instead of drafting a WR (maybe) or they could have traded pick 70 for an edge rusher like Jonathon Greenard like the Eagles did but you gotta pay these guys.
You probably break even, more or less, trading high picks for quality vets. That's a lot better than what the 49ers manage in the draft.
It might work for the 49ers since they draft so poorly early that the cost savings doesn't matter because they have to bring in and pay a FA like Mike Evans anyways.
Maybe they should just package their 1 and 2 picks and try to target top talent entering year 3 or 4 that teams aren't likely to extend. Then you get young and cost controllable for a couple years.
the move for them is to trade their 1,2,3 licks for a teams 4-7 picks for like 5 years.
49er 1 for team xyz 4-7 round picks for next 5 years
49er 2 for 4-7 for next 2 years
49er 3 for 4-7
who says no
I like my solution better but that is an interesting idea. They did say the like having more picks. That would give them a lot more picks.
I wonder if the league would say no
The even more obvious solution is staring you right in the face from within your division: F' them picks.
The problem with this exercise is that you need to know what other teams' draft boards looked like. If the guy they wanted was going to get snagged by another team, then it's not a reach. It might still be a bad pick, though.
Taking Warner or Kittle in the first would be bad drafting because it would have been a reach, but not because it's poor value.