Colin Kaepernick looks thin

Check out this photo of Colin Kaepernick someone posted on Instagram this Monday:

Two things about this picture:

One. Write a caption for it.

Two. Doesn’t Kaepernick seem much thinner than usual? Perhaps he hasn’t lifted weights since he had shoulder surgery in November five months ago. If he indeed hasn’t lifted for five months, do you think he be will ready for the start of the season in September? When do you think he’ll return to field?

  1. Matt Miller final thoughts on who he expects the 49ers to take with the 7th pick:

    “At pick No. 7, expect the 49ers to go toward the trenches unless they can move up to get cornerback Jalen Ramsey, according to my front-office source. … Names to consider for the 49ers: Laremy Tunsil, DeForest Buckner, Ronnie Stanley. … I’m told by the same source that linebacker Myles Jack has been moved to the team’s “sub-board”, which means he wouldn’t play in 2016. That’s moved him basically off their radar. … GM Trent Baalke needs to win now, and that’s why my contact believes the 49ers are a candidate to move back up into Round 1 and may try to send Colin Kaepernick as trade capital to do so.”

    http://www.ninersnation.com/2016/4/26/11510022/matt-miller-49ers-draft-rumors-2016

    1. If he had a “front office source” that actually had that level of information that person would likely not be in the “front office” for much longer.

      Nobody, nobody is getting leaks or sources from what’s actually on a teams draft board at this point. Consider everything you hear to be either pure speculation on the part of the author or misdirection on the part of the source.

          1. What would be the backlash? You must be referring to Jack. Nobody would complain if the 49ers take Tunsil or Buckner, right?

              1. Yup. It could very well be Stanley. Many have put Stalney almost up there with Tunsil.

                His length and fluid feet are perfect for LT. A nice snag at pick 7. But the questions about his strength and vulnerability to bull rush remind me of the Marcus Martin situation.

                I loved the Martin pick. Nice quickness for a guy his size. When I saw him pull from the center spot and wipe out a linebacker at the 2nd level I was sure he was a good pick. But now defenders just blast through him. I’m not writing off Martin or Thomas. They are young. But so far I’m not happy.

                If Stanley gets stronger he will be a fantastic pick. But will he get stronger?

              2. My final 49ers 2016 mock draft:

                Pick #7: RONNIE STANLEY, OT, ND: Fixing the OL has got to be the number one priority and Stanley is the top OT on my board. He’s also a fantastic fit for Kelly’s zone blocking scheme, due to his agility, and ability to get to the 2nd level. Big Trent Brown moves to swing tackle, and Stanley becomes Staley’s heir apparent.

                Pick # 33: EMMANUEL OGBAH, OLB, OK St: If fixing the OL is number 1 priority, fixing the pass rush is 1A. Ogbah is a powerful OLB, who wins with physicality. Converting speed-to-power is a beautiful thing. I see inconsistency on tape, but there is no denying his potential. His freakishly long arms (35.5″ WOW!) have certainly caught Baalke’s eyes, and I think he’s got All-Pro potential as a 3-4 OLB and Defensive End! My only question for him is……how hard of a worker is this guy? I’d need a little more information from his coaches. But, if they vouch for his work ethic, I’m trading up into round 1 to get this guy if I have to.

                Pick #68: BRONSON KAUFUSI:, DE, BYU: The 49ers miss on Buckner in round 1, but Kaufusi is an excellent consolation prize! Similar to Buckner, Kaufasi has the rare physical attributes of a classic 5-technique. A long, strong 3-4 defensive end who plays over the offensive tackle and dominates against the run. Bronson’s build, broad shoulders, huge wingspan and a tapered, athletic frame, Kaufusi has the look of prototypical 3-4 DE, as much as he does an NFL edge rusher. Kaufusi doesn’t shy from contact, using his length and strength to stack and shed blockers at the point of attack and grab hold of ball carriers as they attempt to run by. He’s alert and surprisingly nimble, showing enough balance, agility and awareness to drop into coverage on shallow routes. Though he needs more development as as a pass rusher, he’s got enough of that ability to help strengthen one of the Niners biggest weaknesses.

                Pick #105: XAVIEN HOWARD, CB, Baylor: At just over 6′ and 203 lbs, Howard is a good size Corner. Xavien looks more like an NFL safety than a CB, but he possesses the natural coverage skills and confidence to remain on the perimeter. He’s my favorite corner in this draft class!

                Pick #133: SCOOBY WRIGHT III, ILB, Arizona: Prior to his meniscus injury, Wright was one of the nation’s premier defensive players winning the Bronko Nagurski Trophy, Rotary Lombardi Award and the Chuck Bednarik Award in 2014. It’s taken him until now to return to form, he’s a more athletic Chris Borland who is likely to have less paranoia issues.

                Pick #142: TYLER ERVIN, RB, San Jose St: A north-south style runner who can hit his blazing top speed in an instant, Ervin fits Kelly’s zone-blocking scheme like a glove. Open this kid up a hole and don’t blink, because he’ll fire through the hole like he’s been shot out of a cannon!

                Pick #145: DEVON CAJUSTE, WR, Stanford. at 6’4″ 235 lbs, Cajuste takes over the same role Riley Cooper played in Phili, except Cajuste is even bigger, and better all around!

                Pick #174 JOE THUNEY, OG, NC State: Thune is highly intelligent (39 on his Wonderlic) and experienced at all five offensive line positions. He immediately becomes a starting OG and a backup option at Center.

                Pick #178: ERIC STRIKER, ILB/S, OK: Striker reminds a lot of Darren Lee. Like Lee, he’s undersized, and the Niners can use him to back up Tartt, in sub-packages, and as a ST ace!

                Pick #207: JACOBY BRISSETT, QB, NC State.
                Pick #211: DADI LHOMME NICOLAS, OLB, VT.
                Pick 213: KEITH MARSHAL, RB, Georgia.

    2. “and that’s why my contact believes

      Some source. Really sounds like they have inside informatino.

    3. Definitely fits what Baalke has done in the past so it’s probably credible. It seems crazy to move Jack off the list with a designation of not playing in 2016 though. Even the worst reports haven’t suggested that.

      Kap looks like Tommy Hearns around the time of his fight with Hagler.

    4. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if they went tranches at 7.
      I heard rumors they love Ramsey, so a modest trade-up (attempt) could happen.

      If true, the only mild surprise is Myles Jack going to a “sub board.”

      Could “Win Now” mean a trade for Wilkerson?

      Two QB uncertain teams in the bottom of the first are the Broncos (31) and Jets (20). I viewed the Jets more as a trade back partner.

    5. I’m willing to believe this from Miller. Mainly because it makes sense.

      It sounds like the 49ers aren’t looking hard at trading back though. I’m sure if they got a great offer they would, but I think we should be prepared for the 49ers to make a decision at #7.

      Trading back into the end of the first would be for a QB, you’d think.

  2. caption – I don’t want to be a 49er!!

    I hope he never returns to the field as a Niner. The above caption explains my stance. Even tho he possible could excel under Kelly he is not a Niner and should be gone.

  3. Colin Kaepernick announces his new joint venture with 7-11 where he will open his first store in the Bay Area, with dozens more to follow. Kaepernick sees this as a unique opportunity for ex-NFL players who have given up and are looking for a rewarding career in micro-retail. Rumors have not yet been confirmed that Anthony Davis, Chris Borland and Patrick Willis have applied for their individual franchises.

  4. Looks like our guy has been running some Marley thru the headphones and chillin. Guy on the right looks like he is hitting the weight room more than CK .Better beef the OL.

  5. It’s an optical illusion. the guy standing next to Kaep is 300 pounds but when put juxtapose next to Colin the brain evens them out to look the same.

  6. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cg67BjKW4AAvlRA.jpg:large

    Hope that link works. List makes it’s clear where the real problem with the passing game is. Despite having the 13th ranked pass protection we’re listed 31st in passing in comparison to the Patriots who were 31st in pass protection but still managed to rank #2 in passing.

    Guess a good QB can still do his job behind a bad line, as long as he’s a good QB.

    1. What is the pass protection score based on? Where did this graph come from? What was Kaepernicks pass protection through 8 games vs Gabberts pass protection through 8 games. This chart doesn’t illuminate the truth!

    2. That could be the case over a 16 game season. The pass protection did seem to improve once Devey was out of the picture and Kilgore returned. It also didn’t help that Kap was seeing ghosts by the time he was benched.

      1. I checked the pass protection rankings at week 8 and although the ranking came from a different source, where they were ranked 16th, the ranking stayed the same.

  7. Kaep was already easily under 10% body fat and I can’t imagine for a second that he’s dropped that much muscle mass in only 5 months. It’s much more likely the angle, lens and lighting that’s making him look thin.

        1. I feel like we’ve gone from a football blog to discussing Kardashian body parts. We’re so desperate, can the draft come any faster for us to have something worthwhile to talk about?

    1. Lens has the distortion of a wide angle. Not a radical fisheye (I used to take some wicked picks with my old Nikkor 16mm), bit it does have that wide angle distortion.

  8. Yeah looks like he’s lost some mass, but also, like CFC said, the angles makes it look even more so. Maybe he finally stopped worrying about all the muscle and started taking studying more seriously…. we can only hope I guess. That first press conference with Kap is going to be really interesting.

    I’m more worried about that hair, come on man get that cleaned-up. I guarantee you Nessa told him she likes his Rabbi look.

  9. I personally think him losing some of his muscle mass, might make him a better player, and might improve his throwing mechanics a little. Just a thought.

  10. After unexpectedly retiring from the NFL today, Colin Kaepernick changes his name to Skippy McLovin and announces plans to turn his football fortune into a cannabis empire.

  11. Kaep, playing smart this whole offseason and still a humble guy.
    Kaep looks fine to me, and cant wait to hear him speak. Then we might learn something about how this whole imbroglio has unfolded.

  12. Caption: “Nanobubbles, dude — it’s not just for concussion recovery or to help you select your next team — but also a weight-loss diet!”

  13. Might it be a good thing if Kaep loses a bit of muscle? I’ve heard many a keyboard warrior complain about him overthrowing deep targets, and zinging short passes in too hard. Maybe being physically weaker could help his game. Lets face it Joe wasn’t exactly ripped. But then hey, not sure how that helps the fact that he’s just wrong in the head.

    1. Rodgers needed to sit for four years and the 49ers refused to give their QBs some weapons for quite some time, so I still doubt it would have made a difference if the 49ers had selected Rodgers instead.

      1. It would have made a difference imo. Rodgers is just better in every way and his attitude would have helped him overcome the issues Alex struggled with in regards to being quiet and meek as Singletary famously put it.

        1. But Rodgers has been in a system that fits his style of play and has not changed radically from season to season. Nothing about the 49ers from 2005-2010 suggests that would have been the case if he had been taken with the first pick.

    2. Nolan asked both Alex and Rodgers to throw while kneeling down. Alex complied readily while Rodgers demurred. Hence, Rodger’s “arrogant”. So Rodger’s also a “gunslinger” — implying high interception rate?! Really?! Clearly Nolan’s concept of QB and offense is pretty much where it was in 2005. This is the reason I do not support DC’s as head coaches. With rare exceptions they are clueless about offense and their teams wallow in mediocrity unless they luck out on a franchise QB.

      1. Good points Mood. I raise the question as to GM’s who are too defense orientated ala TB. I think that the hierarchy should go HC first GM second with the proviso that the HC must be capable of putting together a competent staff that can supervise offense, defense and special teams. When the HC is subordinate to the GM you get either a personality clash ala Harbaugh or a lap dog HC like Tomsula. My fear is that if Kelly really is good, we will end up with another Harbaugh situation.

        1. PS – It has always troubled me that only Baalke keeps repeating that we are a run first team. Can you imagine someone projecting his thoughts on Walsh, Siefert or Mariucci. I almost puked when he interjected into Tomsula’s press conference that perhaps Tomsula had not made it perfectly clear that “we’re going to run the ball”. No class at all. If the head coach cannot explain his position on the subject then the last thing he needs is for the GM to act as a ventriloquist. Really bad form.

        2. This is the reason I finally came to a “fan’s decision” in December that Baalke needed to follow Tomsula out through the door. Baalke is concept of offense in fossilized in the Parcellian era, and he and scouts just can’t draft offensive talent for modern NFL.

    3. Kind of explains why Mike Nolan is no longer a head coach. Guys who look for Yes Men don’t last long in any industry.

  14. “I’m a Vegan!”

    Actually that was my attempt at joining in on the riff on Kap party. But in all honesty, why is it that some here can’t find a middle ground with CK?
    I mean, one moment they are riffing on his muscles and the next they riff on his lack of muscles.

        1. Rocket

          You’re not alone. And the word moot, too. It doesn’t mean what everyone thinks it means; means the opposite.

          1. Well, ‘could care less’ means you do care (ergo you could care less). Saying you could care less implies you care a great deal.

            1. But the words after that change the statement. If I had left out ‘whether or not’, then there’d be a viable argument.

              1. C’mon Mid. Are you saying that you didn’t mean to imply “you didn’t care” when you made that statement? The whether or not part of the statement doesn’t change the meaning of could or couldn’t.

              2. If I used couldn’t like you wanted me to, then I would have used ‘not’ in the same sentence.
                Also, why is this even a discussion point? Is everyone that damn bored or something?

              3. Mid,

                Yes I’m bored and it is an interesting point to discuss.

                The point is flawed logically because you are trying to say you don’t care but are really saying you do. JPN’s point is valid because the saying is an idiom which does not need to follow logic, but as I said, it’s a pet peeve of mine because the intent of your message is not conveyed in the way you phrased it.

                The “whether or not part” of the statement can be used for both could and couldn’t.

              4. Yep, I’m bored.

                I think we are just talking about pet peeves with the use of language Mid. Not picking on you intentionally. Clearly both rocket and I get ‘annoyed’ by this phrase.

              5. Good lord, you are bored. -_-
                I don’t even see the point to this discussion because I said that Kaepernick’s weight doesn’t matter to me one way or the other. I honestly don’t see how I was able to confuse anyone, and I don’t care to know.

              6. Using two negative particles in a sentence does not of necessity constitute a double negative. Further, double negatives in real speech do not equate to logical positives. This is the Bishop Robert Lowth trap I mentioned to Scooter. Lowth invented the so-called rule against double negatives based not on linguistic study, but on logic. That hundreds of years of Old and Middle English speakers used multiple negative particles to intensify the negativity of the utterance, or that in actual speech in Modern English the same held true in his time, made no different to the good Bishop in his quest to remake a living language in the image of what he thought it should logically be. He is also the source of the misguided prohibition on splitting infinitives in English. While such is an issue in Latin grammar, his preferred model for excellence, as the infinitive for is a singular word and may not be split, the English infinitive is periphrastic (one syntactic unit composed of two or more words) and may be split.

              7. And it’s idiotic. Everyone has a pet peeve or two, but calling someone out because of your quirk is ridiculous.

              8. Mid,

                As Scooter said, this is not an attack on you. It’s just something that has always bugged me. It’s a reflection of how much the English language has been blurred and butchered over time to the point that two words with opposite meanings are allowed to be used in a phrase to convey the same message. Plus I got to link to a diatribe from David Mitchell which is always fun.

              9. Didn’t intend to call anyone out, so sorry if that is how you took it. Don’t imagine rocket was either. You just happened to be the one that used the term.

              10. “It’s a reflection of how much the English language has been blurred and butchered over time to the point that two words with opposite meanings are allowed to be used in a phrase to convey the same message.”

                This is an intellectually bankrupt idea and has no bearing on real languages or language change over time. It is based on an intellectual construct of language not on actual language itself.

              11. I reckon we should just make ‘could’ mean the same thing as ‘couldn’t’. If everyone gets on board with the idea then our language will evolve to reflect it, and we will also have the added bonus of the two phrases actually meaning the same thing no matter which side of the fence we sit.

              12. “I reckon we should just make ‘could’ mean the same thing as ‘couldn’t’.”

                A very nice straw man, Scooter.

              13. I get that Rocket and Scooter, but would you do that to someone you were talking face-to-face with? I live in an area of the world where most of the population tends to add the letter “r” to their words. It irritates me to no end to hear someone say “warsh” or another word with that unnecessary letter, but I don’t call the offender out on it because doing so would come off as being rude even if that wasn’t my intention.

              14. This is an intellectually bankrupt idea and has no bearing on real languages or language change over time. It is based on an intellectual construct of language not on actual language itself.

                We know what the meanings of the two words are here in the now JPN. The fact they have been used and accepted in some quarters to convey the same message does not make it right.

              15. “I get that Rocket and Scooter, but would you do that to someone you were talking face-to-face with?”

                I agree with you on this, Mid. I reserve my lifting up of others with respect to their language use and understanding to situation in which I am paid to do it or when they have language pet peeves they feel the need to voice or write, especially when said pet peeve is not linguistically valid. But, that is just a people pet peeve of mine. ;)

              16. Mid,

                I did not mean to be rude. I apologize if it came off that way. I just pursued it because it’s something that is said regularly by many many people and it has always annoyed the crap out of me. I don’t think any less of you for using it and it is nothing more than a side topic to rant about for awhile.

              17. “The fact they have been used and accepted in some quarters to convey the same message does not make it right.”

                The only measure of language is understanding. All else is an imposition on language. Having written that, I will conceded that appropriate usage in given situations is important, but that is a matter of appropriateness, not correctness.

              18. JPN:

                I’m not calling anyone out here, so please take this comment with the light heartedness it is intended to convey.

                I find it interesting that a lawyer would potentially support the idea that words that are logically opposite in meaning can be used in a phrase to convey the same meaning. It seems to me that the law is all about the meaning of words. Wouldn’t the law suffer greatly if we allow individuals to define and interpret words to their advantage. If “could” and “couldn’t” can be used interchangeably in a phrase, then can’t I interpret my neighbor saying I couldn’t build my barn on a portion of his property to “I could build that barn on a portion of his property”?

                Just killing time until Thursday :)

              19. Thanks JPN, I was pretty chuffed with it. :-P

                However, its only a straw-man argument if you aren’t arguing ‘could care less’ evolved from ‘couldn’t care less’, and that meanings change over time as the usage of terms become accepted in the mainstream.

                It is, however, a stupid argument, which it was fully intended to be.

              20. “I get that Rocket and Scooter, but would you do that to someone you were talking face-to-face with?”

                Yep, and have done in the past. It certainly didn’t get this type of response though. I think a lot of the intent is lost from the unemotiveness of the computer screen. Either that or I just really ticked off a mate and they hid it well…

              21. The only measure of language is understanding. All else is an imposition on language. Having written that, I will conceded that appropriate usage in given situations is important, but that is a matter of appropriateness, not correctness.

                Mark me down for “could care less” being an inappropriate way to convey the message of not caring ;)

              22. Hey Cubus,

                I take none of this personally – this is the most fun I have had on this blog in months. :)

                As I just wrote in another post, I was a linguist before I was a lawyer. I worked mainly in neurolinguistics as a graduate student, but both my undergrad and post-graduate work were mainly in historical and descriptive linguistics, with cognitive and anthropological linguistics thrown into the mix. In that context, my view of language is that it is a dynamic adaptive system, not a rule based system.

                As a lawyer, we have both terms of art (words with set meaning within the context of the law) and plain language. Plain language is construed based on its ‘plain meaning’, which is often open for argument. That can be quite fun. :)

                As for ‘could’ and ‘couldn’t’, their plain meaning in isolation is opposite. The same is not true in the construction ‘could care less/couldn’t care less.’ If it were to come up in a legal dispute, I would argue that the plain meaning of the variants is the same and thus the variants would be, for legal purposes, substantially the same expression.

              23. “Mark me down for “could care less” being an inappropriate way to convey the message of not caring ;)”

                Duly noted. That is what I have always taught my writing students – appropriateness is in the eye of the audience, not the writer.

              24. JPN,

                Are you suggesting that when our youngest daughter says, “Me and Sofia want to go to a movie,” she isn’t speaking incorrectly? I’m legitimately asking you this question.

                I understand conceptually what you’re saying, but shouldn’t words mean something? The words “I could care less”, mean that you could care less and therefore, you care, to some degree.

                It seems you’re saying, if people know what a person is saying, then non-standard speach is perfectly OK. Is this the case? I’ve not studied language much, at all, and I’m asking, not challenging.

              25. Hey Ex,

                My daughter frequently used “Me and blank” as a subject in her younger years. Because she wants to be a teacher, I did work on helping her not do that as the usage would be inappropriate usage for the context, just as it would be inappropriate usage for formal writing. However, it is not incorrect. In a sense, it is as correct as “Blank and I” in Modern English.

                The reason for this is that Modern English is an analytic language, meaning the grammatical role of a word is determined by word order. Our pronomial system is a hold over from when English was an synthetic, or inflected, language (word form/inflectional affixes show grammatical usage). Thus, the use of ‘I’ or ‘me’ is an anachronism in a system that no longer requires the distinction between the two. The information on grammatical usage is conveyed by the pronoun;s place in the sentence, not its form.

                On a general level, non-standard speech is not incorrect – it is non-standard (or sometimes it is standard but not preferred and thus labeled as ‘non-standard’). Such non-standard speech may not be appropriate in some contexts, such as formal writing or usage by people who hold certain jobs (or ever in my own writing and speech, but I admit some hypocrisy in that regard), but so long as it serves the function of language – to encode and transmit ideas and information – it is not wrong.

                So yes, words mean things, but not always the same thing in all contexts. Further, the notion of what is or is not a word is problematic. Some linguists would look at the ‘could/couldn’t’ in the expression ‘could care less/couldn’t care less’ not as the words (or better lexemes) ‘could’ and ‘couldn’t’, but as variational parts of the larger lexeme that is the expression itself. Thus, they are not really the words as they are used in isolation but rather part of the larger form. The same, by the way, is historically true of the English word ‘understand’ (for example). The words ‘under’ and ‘stand’ are no longer independent lexemes in the word ‘understand’ – they are components of that lexeme and in that context are no longer analyzed as having their individual meanings.

              26. JPN,

                Thanks for the response, it lifted me from understanding conceptually, to the cusp of buying into. Especially your “under” and “standing” example.

              1. Couldn’t care less = you couldn’t care any less.

                Could care less = you could care less, therefore, you care to some degree.

                However, all that is out the window, according to JPN, and, based on his apparent education on the subject, his opinion is probably correct. Having said that, I don’t like it, I don’t like it at all!

              2. Using ‘not’ more than once in the same sentence does not, even in Bishop Lowth’s head, constitute a double negative unless they constiutte a logical positive. For example, I could write:

                “I couldn’t care less that you did not use the so-called correct form of the expression being debated.”

                The above is not an example of a double negatives as the negative particles are within their own clauses and thus not serving to create a logical positive. Of course, the whole issue is meaningless as double negatives in English are most frequently used as intensifiers, not logical positives, and Bishop Lowth was all wet when he wrote otherwise back in the late 1700s.

              3. JPN,

                You mean I was wasting my time counting negatives, in order to figure out what Sparky Anderson was trying to say with something like, “ain’t, no way no Jack Morris ain’t gonna win no 20 games?”

                Seriously though, this is another point you explained well, that extra negatives serve to emphasize negativity.

                “No way, no how…”

        2. One of my many pet peeves.

          Another that really gets me is people mispronouncing ‘nothing’ as ‘nothink’ (or any other word ending in ‘ing’ that is mispronounced as ‘ink’). Not sure if you get that in the US, but I hear it far more than I am comfortable with here in Australia. Although I do appreciate the humour of someone mispronouncing nothing as something that is a pretty accurate representation of themselves…

          1. That’s a new one for me. Sounds like a German accent when saying the word.

            A comparable in the US would be saying “axed” instead of “asked.”

              1. The Old English (or more appropriately, Late West Saxon) verb from which the Modern English verb ‘to ask’ is descended was acsian (or sometimes axian). So, in that sense, the non-standard ‘aks’ is akin to the early medieval progenitor of the modern word. ;)

                Also, it is worth noting that the modern form ‘ask’ is a result of a metathesis of /c/ and /s/ (in the linguistic context, metathesis is an instance where sounds transpose) resulting in the Middle English form asken. This is an instance of what could be viewed as a corruption at one point in time becoming the standard form.

              2. JPN,

                Until now, I never understood why Bob Costas so doggedly held on to the belief that the MLB post season should stay fixed at certain point in its evolution, as it relates to the number of teams involved.

                It’s always seemed BC arbitrarily decided a certain point at which the MLB post season should stop evolving (probably the point they were at when he was a kid) and I could never figure out why he held such a small view.

              3. Actually, I understood BC’s position. I should’ve wrote, “Until now, I couldn’t relate to…

          2. Well, as long as we’re airing our pet peeves, the grammatical error I notice is people writing “should of, would of or could of” when they mean “should’ve, would’ve or could’ve”. The draft can’t come soon enough.

      1. Word meaning is conventional, not absolute. Meanings may change over time in a variety of ways. The only valid understanding of actual meaning is synchronic usage (lexical semantics) not diachronic usage (historical pedigree and/or dictionary lexicography).

        Or, in other words, in language, much as in life, shift happens.

        1. This should have been in response to Rocket et al. regrading the discussion on meaning/usage.

          And yes, I am aware and appreciative of the irony of using a semantically crystallized Latin expression in the context of referencing my own comment on the conventionality of the semantics of a living language. ;)

          1. JPN,

            HAHAHAHA! Yes, yes, I was just having a good laugh over the irony of your use of a semantically crystallized Latin expression in the context of referencing my own comment on the conventionality of the semantics of a living language. Good one, JPN!

            I started by not having a clue what you were writing, but, after breaking it down, I think I get your meaning – you’re hoping the 49ers select Miles Jack with the 7th pick.

            1. JPN,

              The above wasn’t a shot at you, I was trying making a joke about my lack of immediate understanding of what you wrote.

        2. Meanings change over time, but I don’t think anyone can argue that when you break down ‘could care less’ it doesn’t mean the same thing as ‘couldn’t care less’.

          1. You are falling into the the Bishop Robert Lowth trap – semantics and logic are not necessarily correlative, especially with respect to negative particles. The two expressions can (and do in actual speech) reflect the same meaning even if such state manifestly violates the logic of the individual meanings of the constituent words.

            1. JPN,

              I get your point and I also understood Mid’s intentions with the phrase. It’s simply a pet peeve of mine because the two words carry very different meanings and if viewed in context, carry very different messages.

              1. The variants of the expression do not carry different meanings. You are engaging in a composition fallacy based on the incorrect assumption that the semantics of set expressions are nothing more than the combined meanings of the constituent parts

              2. JPN,

                Yes I understand that. I’m referring to could and couldn’t; not the entirety of the phrase and how both have come to be accepted.

              3. In isolation, they do not. In the construction at issue, they do. Thus, the composition fallacy at work here.

              4. In isolation, they do not. In the construction at issue, they do. Thus, the composition fallacy at work here

                Which is why I referred only to could and couldn’t. I understand that both have come to be accepted as meaning the same thing in that phrase. I just don’t agree with it, and it’s a pet peeve of mind.

              5. ” I just don’t agree with it, and it’s a pet peeve of mind.”

                Agree or not, your pet peeve is antithetical to how language works in general, and how the variants of the expression at issue work in particular.

            2. JPN, that should read: someone has developed a term to not only explain but also accept the misuse of language, even when the meaning of the words as a collective mean the exact opposite of the intended phrase.

              1. They are not a misuse. That is the point. The expression has two variants, both understood by the majority of people whose overlapping linguistic systems meet the criteria of the linguistic construct we call English. That one of the variants include a logical contradiction is not relevant to the meaning of the expression as the meaning is not a matter of combining the meaning of the parts of the whole, at least not at this stage of the use of the expression (which is why the variant can be used and understood).

              2. Yes, so someone has developed a term to explain and accept the misuse of language. I can assure you it didn’t start out that ‘could care less’ and ‘couldn’t care less’ meant the same thing. Sheer laziness and misunderstanding of the language in years gone by has led to a blurring of the phrase for simplicity, so now even learned people use the terms interchangeably despite the obvious logical discrepancy in ‘could care less’. Like rocket, it is a pet peeve of mine.

              3. Many of our ‘correct’ usages began as variants and even ‘misuses’ at some point. As I wrote above, shift happens.

              4. They do know the real language. That it does not comport with an intellectual construct of the language is irrelevant.

              5. I am referring to the people that first started using could instead of couldn’t. I accept it is now in common use. But only because back in the day enough people got the term wrong that the misuse became an accepted meaning.

              6. And many expressions we regard as standard usage started out that way in the past. To pick on for criticism because its origin is more transparent over another is arbitrary.

              7. Sure, but in this instance it is quite clear the term is a misuse of the original saying, as it doesn’t actually make any sense in the context of what the words actually mean.

                I have no problem with the language evolving and phrases morphing, except when they no longer actually make sense when you think through what the words themselves mean. ‘Could care less’ only makes sense if it becomes its own phrase, with its own definition, in the English language, as it no longer means what the individual words convey. Effectively ‘could care less’ is now defined as couldn’t care less. May as well make it couldcareless, and add it to the dictionary.

              8. “Could care less’ only makes sense if it becomes its own phrase, with its own definition, in the English language, as it no longer means what the individual words convey.”

                Exactly. Welcome to the wonderful world of linguistics, the study of how language works rather than how we think it should work.

                By the way, I was linguist (and anthropologist) before I was a lawyer. I love language and languages for the extraordinary dynamic adaptive systems they really are.

              9. I agree it is very interesting how languages adapt and morph over time. Doesn’t mean I can’t find some adaptations just silly though! :-P

              10. Scooter,

                Is “could care less” commonly used in Australia?

                Irregardless (aaarrrgggghhhh! another one I hate!) of JPN’s most likely correct explanation, I will always (now quietly) be bothered by “could care less). Maybe with some therapy I can get over it…

              11. Depends on what you mean by common. ‘Couldn’t care less’ is by far and away the more common term used. But ‘could care less’ is getting used more often than in the past.

                Must be all the US tv shows we get over here. ;-)

              12. JPN – I hate to interrupt this interesting thread but there are two sections of the Internal Revenue Code that I am trying to understand and no matter how much I read them they are still incomprehensible to me. Are you available to provide some consulting services?

              13. Scooter,

                I was just as fervent a “could care less” hater as both you and Rocket.

                After reading and digesting JPN’s points, while I still don’t like it, I feel a bit like a lone soldier on a island, not realizing the war is over.

  15. Drugs are bad. I smell an addiction to the pain meds post surgery. Everyone knows he is a partier anyway. He needs to get his life together.

  16. It’s not distortion. Kaep’s lost at least 20 lbs of muscle. You can see it in this picture as well as in the picture taken of him on the jetway and the one that snuck into the 49ers.com website gallery.

    Due to genetics, he can’t maintain his weight if he’s not lifting, so the questions are:

    (1) How quickly can he regain his muscle mass if he’s also having to focus on the rigors of the actual season?; and

    (2) Will being less muscular and physical cause him to change his approach to quarterbacking?

    I think he might remain on the roster due to other teams being leery of signing him when his body has been so seriously debilitated, but on the other hand, any team that acquired him would control him through 2020. It’s still the most captivating storyline of this 49ers offseason, and it gets a little more interesting with skinny cap.

    “Tall, skinny Kap and a muffin”

  17. Voluntary minicamp starts today. The final practice ends a few hours before the draft starts. The last chance for Baalke and Kelly to work with the existing roster, and assess who might be replaced.

    I’m assuming bubble guys (especially ones the 49ers invested draft picks in) will draw the most attention. Any thoughts on which bubble players Baalke and Kelly will be assessing the next three days to be replaced by rookies?

    1. Baalke’s said after the 2014 and 2015 drafts he tries to trade up day three picks for quality over quantity, but didn’t get any takers. This could be the case Saturday. They could wind up with 11 or more picks.

      That’s alot of bubble players fighting for a job.

  18. Grant,

    Did you like Brissett? I just watched some footage of him. He’s a 6’4″ Russell Wilson with a little less open-field speed but similar pocket foot-speed.

    I want the 49ers to trade #7 to NYJ for Wilkerson and #20, take Darron Lee, and then fill more general needs until the 4th or 5th, where they grab Brissett. If they do take a QB, they’ll likely trade Kap for a to whomever offers the most without demanding he take less $$$.

  19. That is pretty much what Kap looked like (in terms of weight/body type) three of his four years at Nevada. He did not really start bulking up until his senior year.

    1. Not to worry about Kap’s current physique ..
      The Chipster will have him “bulked up” in no
      time ..

      (as soon as he gets him on the Chipsters
      famous protein shakes, and mashed potatoes !)

  20. Armstead (via Barrows)

    “I think we’ll be a little more simple this year. Get lined up and just play, really. And not try to make it more complicated than it is. Put the linemen in front of people and, you know, beat them up. That’s the vibe I’m getting from the meetings so far.”

    http://www.sacbee.com/sports/nfl/san-francisco-49ers/article73976877.html

    Music to my ears. I was expecting the opposite from O’Neil. Not the same defense as Mangini, but is similar in that it they’re both complicated schemes.

  21. JPN

    I could read your writing til the end of time. It’s really beautiful. I know you’re a lawyer, but are you currently practicing? If so, what specifically are you doing?

    1. Hey Johnn(E),

      I am actively licensed but not practicing. I work in continuing judicial education. I worked at a national organization for many years, but now I am the director of the judicial education organization in a particular state. We provide continuing judicial education to all the judges in the state in which I live, from the state supreme court to the municipal judges.

      When I am able, I teach college writing and literature, although I have not had that opportunity for the last year and a half (since I moved from Nevada). Over the years, I have also taught humanities, critical thinking, paralegal studies, and criminal justice at the college level.

  22. Not that anyone asked (I enjoy the reader feedback), but my final mock draft spread out over two posts. First, what I THINK the Niners WILL do based on rumors and prospects the Niners visited or saw during the draft process:

    First Round: Unless Tunseil or Ramsey falls to them, will draft Shaq Lawson. Will try to trade back to get Lawson, but will realize there is too much demand for him (especially given rumors Giants want to draft a pass rusher despite issues at running back and offensive line).

    Second Round: Will want to trade up to first round, giving up second round pick and Colin Kaepernick for Connor Cook. However, needs to get in front of, or trade with, the Cardinals or Broncos, and neither team wants Kaepernick. If no Kap, would need to trade more picks with the second round pick to make this happen. If it doesn’t happen, Tyler Boyd, WR Pitt.

    Third Round: DJ Reader. The choice is between Reader and TE Nick Vannett, but since they just signed Celek to a 3 year deal, and both Williams and Dorsey are coming off injury (and Dorsey can move out to DT), they want Reader to be the NT (unfortunately, Reader is rising in mocks, and is no longer a 5th round probable). Will also try to trade back into the 3rd round for Vannett by offering non-compensatory fourth and fifth round pick. If trade goes through, the second 3rd round pick would be Vannett.

    Fourth Round: If no trade, will hope Kenneth Dixon falls this far. He won’t; so Niners will go for Kenyan Drake out of Alabama. Second pick, BJ Goodson, ILB. While I prefer Kwiatkoski, Niners had private workout with Goodson and no visits with Kwiatkoski.

    Fifth Round: Why does Baalke wait until the Fifth round for offensive linemen? Because he believes Brown and Tiller are the answer at RT and RG respectively, and has a starting lineup set of Staley/Beadles/Kilgore/Tiller/Brown. With Thomas, Devey and Martin first men off the bench, Baalke will believe he only needs depth here. This means Rees Odhiambo for Guard, and OT Fahn Cooper from Ole Miss. If unable to trade up to get Vannett, the third fifth round choice will be used on QB Kevin Hogan (if didn’t get Connor Cook) or Malcolm Mitchell, WR out of Georgia (if Cook was taken and thus Boyd is not drafted).

    Sixth Round: Quinton Jefferson, DT that is better suited to convert to 5 technique (also satisfies Baalke’s ACL squad requirement, since he suffered torn right ACL in 2014). Winston Rose, CB. I think Baalke truly believes that his cornerbacks are fine, that they are just young. He likes Reaser, Cromartie, Acker and Johnson. And since he goes 5 deep at CB (including Brown, and not including Ward or Tartt in the slot), there is no need for a CB unless he got a true #1 that fit the system (like Sean Smith). But to do that, he needs to spend his 1st round pick in the draft on such CB, and he already has his eye on the line/pass rush. For the third 6th rounder, if Baalke didn’t get Vannett, Matt Weiser, TE Buffalo; if he did, then there was no pick for Dixon or Drake, which means the Niners will try to obtain Daniel Lasco, RB from Cal.

  23. For those of you who haven’t had their fill of mock drafts, here is Telly’s second and final mock:

    Assumption: No trades
    Method: Takes Drafttek’s final big board and allows picking at or below our draft position.

    1-7 Ronnie Stanley, Notre Dame, OT
    2-6 Derrick Henry, Alabama, RB
    3-5 Chris Jones, Mississippi State, DT
    4-7 Isaac Seumalo, Oregon State, OG
    4-35 Tyler Ervin, San Jose State, RB
    5-3 Kevin Hogan, Stanford, QB
    5-6 Ronald Blair, Appalachian State, DT
    5-37 Austin Blythe, Iowa, OC
    6-3 Joe Thuney, NC State, OT/OG
    6-32 Vernon Adams, Oregon, QB
    6-36 Moritz Boehringer, Heidelberg, WR
    6-38 Ian Seau, Nevada, OLB

    1. Nice draft. Henry is good value, Jones is a great NT, and Ervin, Hogan, Thuney and Adams are worthy looks. If we wait for a receiver until Boehringer, I hope the Niners resign Anquan.

      1. Thanks PK. That guy Ronald Blair from Appalachian State was an interesting find to me. He’s about the same size as Michael Bennett and has 34 inch arms. PFF says about him —

        Two years of production — top-six pass rush grade in both 2014 and 2015, graded above big name players including Henry Anderson and Grady Jarrett in 2014. Position-high run stop percentage at 13.8; 50 defensive stops were most of any edge or defensive lineman in the class.

        This issue of course is his level of competition.

            1. George what do you make of the talk about Alabama RB’s having too much mileage by the time they hit the NFL? Some of the pundits here in Denver keep blowing off Henry because of former Tide RB’s poor NFL transitions. It’d be nice to have another good back besides Hyde.

              1. In answer to your question about Henry having too much mileage in college, I’d respond that he’d be sharing the load with someone else.

            2. George,

              Yes, I do have concerns about Henry. He went down on first contact in the hole way too often for my taste (before getting up to speed). He showed a stunning lack of wiggle, IMO, and, on many of his big runs, didn’t even make a single cut. He often just ran through gaping holes. When he did make a “cut”, he looked more like an ocean liner changing course.

              Where he excelled, is blasting would be tacklers. To my eye, his happened mostly at the second level and only once he was up to speed, usually after running through a massive hole.

              IMO, these plays won’t be available very often in the NFL. To me, he looks like another Trent Richardson.

              1. ex-, I went back to watch video of the Clemson game. Henry is more straight ahead than wiggle, but his wiggle is impressive for a man his size IMO. I think he has enough cut for a zone system because he accelerates quickly to a 4.5 speed. My concern about him is his small hands and you didn’t see the QB throw to him. But here is what Gil Brandt wrote about that at the Alabama pro day. You might also be interested in Mayock’s brief interview of Saban and what he says about Henry’s style, including his catching ability. Assuming his catching ability is not bull, that’s another reason to draft Henry IMO, because he’d be a monster to stop as a receiver.

                http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000642980/article/derrick-henry-shows-off-receiving-skills-at-alabamas-pro-day

              2. George,

                Good points, but I’m sticking with what I saw on the tape I watched (which admittedly, wasn’t that much). There was a “ru roh” quality to his body language when there was a defender in the hole through which he was planning on running through, which was immediately followed by Henry be tackled by that defender, at or near the LOS.

              3. George,

                I just re-watched the Clemson game, as well, and almost every one of his longer runs involved him being untouched, or barely touched, at the LOS. And this lack of contact at the LOS, didn’t have much to do with Henry’s agility, IMO.

                We shall see…

              4. If we don’t draft him there’s a better than even chance, I think, that Seattle will, partially because of his SPARQ score.

            3. Yes, but I think that’s true of most long runs, besides which his 4.5 speed makes him a threat to score if he gets to the secondary. I can’t deny, though, that he’s too big to slip through holes. Without a big hole someone is going to get a hand on him. I’m not trying to sell you on him, ex-, just trying to defend my pick. As you say, we shall have to see how he does in the bigs.

              1. George,

                The truth is, whether or not any given player has a successful NFL career is far from certain. You could easily be right about Henry.

      1. Thanks, hightop. I only have one other, but I do think this is better because it addresses the oline more (4 players, including a starting right tackle, presumably). Right now that’s the biggest weakness IMO. It also, presumably, secures the RB position and drafts two developmental QBs. In all 9 of the 12 picks are on offense, and it also adds Chris Jones. Anyway that’s one way of doing it.

    1. Cassie …

      Are you at liberty to reveal any dinner-table
      tidbits from your dad as to which way he’s leaning
      in the draft ?

      1. Talk around the dinner table is mostly about the new Jason Bourne movie. Dad can’t stop watching the YouTube trailer. Amongst us, I think my dad sees himself as the Matt Damon of NFL GMs. Watch for a QB in round 3 or 4, and a late round kicker. No splashy moves.

        1. Cassie,

          Undermining assistant coaches on Twitter, giving away your dad’s innermost thoughts on how he’s going to build the roster, single handedly destroying entire cities, and now, insight into your dad’s favorite movies? You are the most interesting giant lizard / girl in the world. I’d love to buy you a Dos Equis…

    2. Cassie, while I think that Kaep should challenge Hayne to a weekly dart match, I am hoping he takes up juggling. Deception and sleight of hand along with timing and dexterity will be improved by juggling.

  24. The first time I saw Steve Young in shorts and a Tee Shirt I couldn’t believe he was that “small.”

    Add the “padded and helmeted” impression to what you see in shorts and tee shirt after five months of rehab for a shoulder and four months for the knee rehab and you’re not going to see that uniformed impression.

    What’s pitiful is Grant’s implied smirk to go along with those posters that are so needy that this picture is one more opportunity to slam Kaepernick.

    Personally I can’t bring myself to disrespect anyone who plays football at the NFL level. That includes all the athletes who had the chance and failed.

      1. It’s either Grant or just Grant playing to a segment of his reading public. Take your pick. He certainly sets himself apart from other 49er beat writers.

    1. Hmmm… so a naturally skinny guy cant work out his upper body because of shoulder surgery and it’s supposed be surprising that he lost muscle mass?

  25. MY FINAL MOCK DRAFT IF I WAS GM. Two trades, and used the Drafttek big board on http://www.fanspeak.com

    19: R1P19
    ILB REGGIE RAGLAND. Only because neither Lawson nor Conklin lasted to pick 19.
    ALABAMA
    37: R2P6
    OT JASON SPRIGGS
    INDIANA
    62: R2P31
    WR TYLER BOYD
    PITTSBURGH
    68: R3P5
    OLB SHILIQUE CALHOUN
    MICHIGAN STATE
    80: R3P17
    G JOSHUA GARNETT
    STANFORD
    93: R3P30
    DE JIHAD WARD
    ILLINOIS
    105: R4P7
    TE AUSTIN HOOPER
    STANFORD
    117: R4P19
    DT D.J. READER
    CLEMSON
    129: R4P31
    RB TYLER ERVIN
    SAN JOSE ST
    133: R4P35
    CB JAMES BRADBERRY
    SAMFORD
    142: R5P3
    QB JACOBY BRISSETT
    NORTH CAROLINA ST
    145: R5P6
    S KEVIN BYARD
    MTSU
    174: R5P35
    OLB VICTOR OCHI
    STONY BROOK
    178: R6P3
    CB HARLAN MILLER
    SE LOUISIANA
    207: R6P32
    RB KEITH MARSHALL
    GEORGIA
    211: R6P36
    QB VERNON ADAMS JR.
    OREGON
    213: R6P38
    G JOE THUNEY
    NORTH CAROLINA ST

    TRADES
    TRADE PARTNER:
    BUFFALO BILLS
    SENT:
    ROUND: 1 PICK: 7
    RECEIVED:
    ROUND: 1 PICK: 19
    ROUND: 2 PICK: 18
    ROUND: 3 PICK: 17
    ROUND: 4 PICK: 19
    TRADE PARTNER:
    CAROLINA PANTHERS
    SENT:
    ROUND: 2 PICK: 18
    RECEIVED:
    ROUND: 2 PICK: 31
    ROUND: 3 PICK: 30
    ROUND: 4 PICK: 31

    1. I have officially sent in a Citizens request for the firing of Trent Baalke and the immediate hiring of Pot…Kettle.

    2. Very nice, and agree with your drafting of the players in sequence. Need LB OT, and Boyd has a large catch radius. Hooper is an upgrade from Vance. I like Brissett.I have mocked Ochi and Marshall many times. Adams should be invited if he does not get drafted, but think some team will want to take a chance to get another Russel Wilson.

  26. Am I the only one who thinks this is good? He’ll be less tight, more flexible, perhaps more accurate as a result.

  27. A passage from this article that Steelematic and 49reasons should read carefully considering the discussion we had about Baalke the other day:

    No team has accumulated and made more picks than the 50 players the 49ers have selected, yet they rank 29th in return AV and dead last in return per pick (4.6). Nine of those 50 picks (18 percent) have yet to play a game in the NFL, the highest rate for any team over that span.

    1. Depressing, but I wonder how those numbers would look if A Smith had kept it together and Borland hadn’t retired…

  28. I love the phrase, “could care less.” It implies the speaker has an extraordinary capacity to not care and occasionally reaches levels of not caring the rest of us can’t even imagine.

    1. Doesn’t “could care less” imply that they do care instead of “couldn’t care less” which means what you just wrote?

      1. I think both statements imply the speaker cares, but “couldn’t care less” implies the speaker thought it over long enough to measure exactly how much he doesn’t care, which proves he really does care.

        1. I see. Someone that says ‘could care less’ cares so little they couldn’t even be bothered to use ‘couldn’t care less’ to convey their actual meaning. I like it!

            1. I think a true triple negative would be something like: there’s no way I’m never going to not try to skip Seb’s War and Peace length posts.

    2. I love the phrase, “could care less.” It implies the speaker has an extraordinary capacity to not care and occasionally reaches levels of not caring the rest of us can’t even imagine.

      Indeed. Almost as if somebody were patting you on the head and with a sly grin says: “You don’t care you say? Weeeelllllllll I could care less. Less than you could possibly imagine! Bwahahahaha.”

      1. Rocket,

        You just channeled (“weeeee” and “bwahaha”?) posters who, let’s say, you’ve butted heads with over the years. Are you cracking up? The draft happens tomorrow. You can make it. Hang in there, man!

    3. That’s my point. Why should I care about whether Kaepernick has lost muscle mass just as long as it doesn’t make him a worse QB? In other words, I could care less.

  29. I’m watching Game Changers on NFL Network. Mooch and Kurt Warner are working out Hogan, Vernon Adams and Cook. On the five step drop where they have to throw into one of three small nets after Mooch yells one of the numbers (as they are dropping back), Cook is the most accurate and Adams the least. However, after Kurt Warner tells Adams to stay low when he throws, his accuracy goes up considerably. Still, if he stays low his throws have a higher probability of being blocked, which is why he probably tries to stand taller on throws.

    Then they simulated curl, dig and post routes. All were accurate on the close range throws, Cook and Hogan were accurate on the intermediate routes and they all missed post throws, although Cook and Hogan seemed again to be the most accurate.

    Based on the interview and the workouts, I found myself favoring Hogan. Mayock calls him the most pro-ready QB in the draft even though he doesn’t have some of the athleticism that others have. I’d be fine with selecting him. Adams is a bit concerning. Warner told him that he needs to work on his footwork. He needs to emulate Brees who Warner says has excellent footwork. He’d be a fine UDFA pickup, imo.

    1. Glad you are going with Hogan because he is a better passer and runner than Cook. However, I think either the Browns, Cowboys or Bills may select him in the second round.

  30. My no-trade mock draft:

    Round 1: Ronnie Stanley, OT, Notre Dame
    Round 2: Emmanuel Ogbah, OLB, Oklahoma State
    Round 3: Xavien Howard, CB, Baylor
    Round 4: Jaylon Smith, ILB, Notre Dame
    Round 4: Kevin Hogan, QB, Stanford
    Round 5: Daniel Lasco, RB, Cal
    Round 5: Joe Thuney, G, North Carolina State
    Round 5: D.J. Reader, NT, Clemson
    Round 6: Roger Lewis, WR, Bowling Green
    Round 6: Dadi Lhomme Nicolas, OLB, Virginia Tech
    Round 6: Stephen Anderson, TE, Cal
    Round 6: Jarrod Wilson, FS, Michigan

      1. I have given you crap in the past about your mocks but this last one is outstanding. One can only hope it’s that good. Nice job Grant!

    1. Yes I have to agree. You definitely saved your best for last. Great job Grant. That would be a home run draft for sure.

    2. Grant, thanks for the mock. I like it.

      – Stanley might give us a ho-hum feeling on day one, but he could turn out to be great if he builds effective strength. His fluid movement and length are big assets.

      – Ogbah would be a nice developmental OLB.

      – Howard would be great of he fell to 68.

      – 105 is high for a redshirt. I’d go for a game ready player at that spot. Jonathan Williams is my redshirt choice at 174 or later.

      – I’d go for Samford CB James Bradberry in round 6.

    3. Lasco’s stock is said to be rising, so I don’t know if he’ll be available during the fifth round. Lewis should go undrafted as should Anderson.

      1. I am thinking that the Rams will try to get as many Cal pass catchers as they can to please Goff.
        If the Niners miss out on Perkins , Prosise and Ervin, then Lasco may be a good alternative.

        1. Perkins may be gone, but the Procise and Ervin could still be available after Lasco is off the board.

          1. I also like Kenyan Drake and Josh Ferguson. Keith Marshall is the fastest player in the draft, so I expect him to go earlier than 200th.
            Baalke should like him because he tore an ACL.

    4. Work for me Grant. I see three phases. 1. We build a great defense so we lose a lot of close ones. 2. We get to draft high next year. 3. We fire Baalke and get a GM who can coexist with a good HC.

  31. Since Grant brought up Baalke liking Knee risks because they have a high potential, maybe an all ACL draft is in order.
    Myles Jack
    Josh Doctson
    Karl Joseph
    Shon Coleman
    Jaylon Smith
    Kendall Fuller
    Max Tuerk
    Adam Gotsis
    Travis Feeny
    Drew Ott.

  32. Chip jr and I are an item!

    After I got high I got confused and I lost bulk instead of Baalke over the summer. Damn agents!

  33. One more day until the draft. While some could say they couldn’t care less, the very fact that they cared enough to say they couldn’t care less just meant they do care, but fell into the trap of talking about not caring less while their actions imply they do care.
    Enough of that. I want to know what Baalke will do, and what parameters he will employ as a strategy. I think that trading back is a viable option.The safe route to take is to just use their picks they have, but I think they are desperate enough to swing for the fences. Pot’s mock that has them trading back twice to accumulate 17 picks may seem like a coup, but I wonder how realistic it may be. Maybe the best strategy is to trade back only 3-7 spots, so another team who wants to leapfrog ahead of another team will want to pull the trigger on the deal, and could do so without giving up too much. However, after the 2 blockbuster deals to snag QBs has occurred, maybe anything is possible. I think the most important thing is to identify who would be the most willing and realistic trade partners. Titans come to mind since they have a boatload of picks, but they may want to leapfrog over the Ravens since they lost Osmele and who would realistically want an O lineman.
    My 4 teams to target for trades are the Bears, Indy Washington and the Bengals. Bears may want to find a replacement for Forte, and both the Browns and Giants have been mocking Elliot, so the Niner could garner another third round pick with a trade with the Bears. Indy is desperate for an O lineman, or should be if they want to keep Luck upright. Trading up to 11 might allow them to get one of the 4 best O linemen, so that may be a realistic trade for the Niners to garner a second round pick.The Bengals may want to leapfrog past the Texans and Vikings, and get the WR they covet instead of letting them pick first and giving the Bengals only the third choice. This could be done from the 18th spot, but McClouhan the GM of Washington has expressed interest in moving back to accumulate picks in the 2nd and 3rd round, which he considers the sweet part of the draft.
    Therefor, I hope Baalke goes bold, and jumps forward to get another pick in the first round by trading their second and third round picks for the Washington first. Then trade back with that pick with the Bengals to accumulate another 4th round pick.
    Finally, the Niners should target the Falcons, who have only 5 picks. They should bundle the later picks and make a deal with Atlanta for their third round pick, so Atlanta could get 7 overall picks so they could lock up 7 players with rookie contracts, instead of settling for only 5 by doing nothing. Maybe also target Indy since they want to accumulate picks and get younger.
    Of course, maybe no team will want to trade with the Niners, and the best strategy should just be content to pick in their allotted spots, but if the Niners do not seem desperate, they should be. Baalke needs to swing for the fences. After whiffing on Free Agency, he needs to hit multiple grand slams, so he should put on ‘Trader Bill’s’ hat and start wheeling and dealing. Getting 2 first round picks will at least show that he is TRYING to improve.

    1. How about Baalke just stays where he is and gets the best players available? The 49ers have very high picks and enough of them in each round to get the required depth and play making ability at each area of need.
      This whole trading back to get more picks is a joke. You have 12. Should be enough if his scouts and personnel department have done their job! If anything trade up!

      1. Prime, I did make a suggestion to trade up. Washington blogs have mentioned several times that McClouhan wants to trade back to get picks in the sweet part of the draft.

    2. Do you really think there’s 17 spots on the roster for new players? I know you said Pot’s suggestion might not be realistic but we have a hard time finding spots for 9-12 players in the past years. Baalke has stashed players on the NFI with knee injuries but 17 is too many.

      1. I was just commenting on Pot’s mock, where he traded back twice to get 17 picks. Your beef is with him, not me.

      2. While 17 is high, when you have a roster devoid of talent there is never a negative to bringing in as many players as possible to compete. I believe there are enough holes that the 17 individuals I chose could easily make the team and replace some of the players currently among the “final” 53 (such as Devey, Silberman, Pears, Lemonier, Dylan Thompson, and Wilhoite). Most importantly, my trade downs do nothing to jeopardize any future picks the Niners need to keep to continue to build in 2017, 2018, etc.

        1. Seb and Pot, I don’t have any beef, I was just questioning whether or not its a worthwhile venture to take 17 players. I am not saying our team is stocked or that we don’t need talent. I’d dump all the guys you list save for Wilhoite, his performance has fallen off this past season. We already have a roster stacked with UDFA’s and 5-7th rounders. It seems like rather than gathering a bunch of hopeful hidden gems it’d be better to take some real impact players who could contribute right away. Its not a bad suggestion, I just don’t see us taking that many players or many of 17 picks actually making the roster.

          I hope Kelly can help Baalke figure out the offensive side of the draft.

          1. No sweat; I didn’t take it as a beef. I welcome the query, especially because it does seem drastic to try and fit 17 new players. If I knew teams were willing to trade down in the middle rounds, I’d give up all the non-compensatory picks I could trade in the 5th and 6th rounds for 1 or 2 more picks in the 3rd and 4th.

  34. If a team chooses Stanley over Tunsil the owner should have the GM’s desk cleared out before Stanley is done hugging the commish.

    1. I think the Niners should see how the Chargers pick, then trade with Tennessee if Tunsil is gone and Stanley is available, then be content with Conklin, Decker or Spriggs.

    1. It’s the move that only Baalke would make. Drafting the same position from the same school in the first round in consecutive drafts.

      Buckner is neither the BPA nor our top need, the pick would be a bad one.

      1. I agree. I’d trade down to accumulate picks so that I can target at least one pass rusher in the first two rounds and a QB in rounds 3-4.
        But Buckner is a safe pick and that’s what Baalke may need to save his job.

        1. Baalke needs the 49ers to win games to save his job and they haven’t been losing them because of a void at defensive end.

      2. On Rotoworld:

        TFY Draft Insider Tony Pauline reports the 49ers “desperately covet” Oregon DE DeForest Buckner.

        Buckner is a candidate to be the first non-quarterback drafted, with the Chargers at No. 3 overall linked heavily to him for a number of weeks. But if San Diego opts instead for an offensive lineman or CB/S Jalen Ramsey, Buckner is a candidate to tumble for a couple picks and could land either in the Ravens’. 49ers’, or Browns’ laps at Nos. 6, 7, and 8 overall. If the 49ers are that enamored with Buckner, they have the ammo — a league-high 12 picks — to move up.

  35. Grant (if your watching this morning), do you still think the Rams will choose Wentz? I’d love it if they did.

    I’m torn on Stanley. I’m not hating the pick. He has great natural tools. But he seems like a gamble pick. By gamble pick I mean a player that “has great [blank], but needs to improve [blank] or he’ll be a bust.”

    – Stanley has great footwork and length, but needs to improve strength.
    – Chris Jones is a gifted wrecking ball, but needs to improve motor, pad level and technique.

    and so on…

    II’d be happy not trading back and choosing any one of the Fab 5 (Tunsil, Jack, Ramsey, Bosa or Buckner)

    But I’m conflicted about Stanley. With all the chatter about two OTs getting taken in the top 7 I’m hoping the Titans offer Baalke some nice trade up loot.

            1. THEN

              Alex Smith: “Wow. I can’t believe that I’m going to play for the same team that Joe Montana and Steve Young played for!”

              Aaron Rodgers: “I can’t beleive the 49ers didn’t pick me.” :-(

              NOW

              Alex Smith: “I’d rather not do that again.”

              Aaron Rodgers: “I’m so thankful my favorite football team from my childhood didn’t pick me. I guess miracles do happen.”

  36. Did you know..
    Only the 49ers used the virtual reality headset to determine QB Cook’s ability to react and to make decisions in the face of certain defensive alignments and approaches.

  37. I will do a trade included mock on draft day -today is a no trade day.
    (1) I don’t buy the M Jack off the 49ers board press ,he falls however
    to the 7th slot ( Buckner is gone ) and we take his name to the podium;
    (2)J Garnett OL it is meant to be;
    (3) the Stormin’ Mormon Bronson Kaufusi DE;
    (4) Paul Perkins RB we luck into him at 4th;
    (4b)Kevin Hogan QB our pro ready Ugly Duckling ;
    (5)Isaac Seumalo Center/OG reinforce the middle ;
    (5B)Eric Murray CB an underrated prospect;
    (5c)Victor Ochi OLB never stops;
    (6) Joe Dahl OL;
    (6B)Mike Thomas WR sleeper ;
    (6C)Vernon Adams QB underrated ;
    (6D)Tyrone Holmes DE/OLB small school monster;
    Priority UDFA:Tyler Johnstone OT

    1. I like it, hightop. If they pick Jack at 7 their doctor(s) have told them the concern is overblown, in which case he’s be a great pick IMO. The guys from 2-5 plus Adams I know a little about, and I like them. Excluding the guys I know nothing about, I also like you’ve addressed several high-priority needs.

    2. Nice, hightop.

      I am a big fan of Hogan, Seumalo and Murray in the mid rounds. I think Seumalo and Murray go earlier than that actually, both possibly in the 3rd round (just to indicate how much I like them).

  38. What? No way. He has it right man. Just because you don’t agree doesn’t mean a rumor isn’t sufficient enough to print.

  39. JPN, I had a thought last night associated with our discussion on could care less after I read a sentence that had a misspelling I have also seen elsewhere before. Basically, using then instead of than (eg “we’re better then this”).

    As with could care less, it is clear what the intent of the sentence is despite using then rather than. Given your argument is that language is about successful communication, I was wondering what your thoughts were on this. Is it a misuse of then if the message remains clear? If it is, at what point does then = than in this context (its a mistake I have seen numerous times in the past) – how widespread must it become before we say it is acceptable?

    Interested in your thoughts.

      1. Yeah, that is my understanding, but based on the conversation with JPN, if then gets interchangeably used with than in certain contexts (due to error of the user), at some point it would become acceptable (effectively the meaning of then would change in certain contexts).

    1. I also realised that ‘could care less’ is the correct term in certain contexts.

      For example, ‘Neither rocket or I could care less about the draft, thus we started talking about our pet peeves’. While this isn’t a factual statement (I do care about the draft, and I assume rocket does do), the use of ‘could care less’ is fine in this context, as it conveys the intended meaning.

      However, you suggest could and couldn’t care less can be seen as interchangeable these days. But changing the sentence to ‘Neither rocket or I couldn’t care less about the draft, thus we started talking about our pet peeves’ isn’t particularly clear as the use of couldn’t is out of place.

      Basically, could and couldn’t care less convey the same intended meaning, when used in the appropriate context. I dare say that this is part of the reason for the confusion in when to use ‘could care less’, to the point it has now become acceptable (in some eyes) to use it out of its originally intended context.

    2. *Warning – Long (even for me) non-football post*

      Scooter,

      Spelling brings in another level of abstraction to the discussion. Spelling is not an aspect of the language itself– it is a system for graphically representing language via graphemes. Graphemes are roughly equivalent to letters, although a grapheme may have different realizations (‘c’ and ‘k’ for the voiceless velar stop sound /k/ in English, for example, where the use of the letter ‘c’ in some contexts is a historical artifact from word borrowing), so rarely do orthographies (spelling systems) have a direct one-to-one correspondence between speech sounds and letters.

      Further, orthographies vary greatly in their correspondence to the current sounds/words in the language. French and English are both great examples of languages that are represented by orthographies that are mired in historical relics. The accepted orthography for representing German, on the other hand, changes to fit current pronunciations and conventions.

      An everyday example (well, a once every seven day example, really, but I digress) of a spelling in English that has historical artifacts in it is the word ‘Wednesday’. The spelling of Wednesday is a historical relic. The Old English (Late West Saxon) word was Wodenesdaeg, the day of Woden. Through a variety of processes, the word changed to the modern pronunciation, which we could write ‘Winsday’ or perhaps ‘Wensday’ (a Shakespearean use). However, the modern spelling marks a phase of the word when the ‘Wodenes’ part had undergone a vowel change in the first syllable and elision (loss of a sound in a word) of a vowel in the second syllable but still retained the voiced alveolar stop /d/ and the genitive suffix /-es/. We can see the history of the word in the spelling, but the spelling does not correspond to the modern pronunciation.

      Coming back to ‘then’ and ‘than’, we have a twofold issue. In many dialects of English, the two are homophones. In speech, context helps us determine which word is being used in instances when the pronunciations of the words are not contrastive. Further, even a speaker of a dialect in which the pronunciations of the two words are contrastive can easily identify the intended word from context. This impacts the spelling since, for some speakers, the different spellings become historical artifacts, much like with ‘Wednesday’.

      Additionally, typos (rather than misspellings, which implies the speller does not know the accepted spelling) that are the result of homophones are one of the most common type of typos. Neurologically, there is all kinds of fun stuff (a technical term) going on with this. Both spellings are activated when we write a homophone (if we know the different spellings, that is), and it is the more strongly activated form that is used; sometimes, their (typo purposefully left here) is a ‘mistake’ in which the ‘wrong’ form receives the stronger activation, resulting in a typo (such as the above substitution of ‘their’ for ‘there’). In a sense, we are fighting our own brains every time we try to type a homophonic word (which is why proofing is important, as well as why this site not having an editing feature is frustrating). This issue is exacerbated when one of the forms, such as ‘then’, is much more frequently used than the other, such as ‘than’.

      Because of this neurological activation issue, as well as the pronunciation issue, we may, over time, see the two forms collapse into one spelling. However, as noted above, accepted English spelling change moves glacially, so it may quite some time before ‘then’ is the accepted spelling for both words.

      1. I guess the real question though is whether we should simply accept it when we see it (as the meaning is clear), or when proof reading make the ‘correction’.

        I see this as very similar to the use of could in our discussion previously. I am sure there are good reasons why it is not, but to me at the end of the day it is about replacing the correct word to convey the intended message with another similar sounding word that means something else, that should change the meaning of the statement yet because we understand the intended message it does not.

        1. My answer is a lawyer kind of answer — it depends. The issue is appropriateness for the task at hand. Appropriateness of a given spelling or usage in a particular context may supersede mere understanding. Thus, the ‘correction’ should be made based on an appropriateness analysis.

          A spelling example is ‘you’ v. ‘u’ for the second person pronoun. While I can explain why the standard spelling ‘you’ and the text spelling ‘u’ convey the same information, and that the preference of one over the other is historical not practical or inherent to the word or the language, I do not even use ‘u’ in informal writing because it is not appropriate for me. However, I do not see one as wrong and the other right – I see them as alternatives that I can choose. I just do not choose the informal variant even when I write informally (although, my daughter would content I never write informally).

          Another example of appropriateness is the use of contractions in writing. I very rarely use contractions when I write, and I never do so in formal writing. Even though I know that what we call contractions are actually variant forms, not truly contracted forms (although the historically were), I see the contraction variant as less formal and thus do not use those forms. However, (most) contractions are considered standard usage, and most people use them in writing, even when I would find them inappropriate.

          1. It’s contend,’ not ‘content.’

            As in: “..although, my daughter would contend I never write informally”

            1. Yep, and I was posting a correction when my browser decided to not play well with the website.

              Also, ‘although the’ = ‘although they’ in the third paragraph.

        1. You are the only douche in sight. And a rude douche at that. Don’t worry though,draft is tomorrow. Everything will be back in your little comfort zone.

  40. Thanks George and Scooter ,Scooter enjoyed the dialogue with JPN yesterday . JPN ‘s love of linguistics is admirable and formidable. I certainly don’t think I’m qualified to step into the academic ring with him on the subject. The last thing I read on the subject was Science and Sanity and a quick glance at NLP’s literature four decades ago .My simple starting point is as follows-the function of language is to describe and all “meaning “occurs in context. I lean toward the belief that the correct use of language describes clearly.(Confusion being the Devils workshop).JPN I’m sure has a larger understanding of this matter.

  41. Drafting using SPARQ scores: There’s a NN article today about this subject, written by Oscar Aparicio, one of the two Better Rivals. Some of his comments:

    “Seattle creates success by drafting productive players, especially cornerbacks, late. The strategy is predicated on finding athletes with high pSPARQ scores in later rounds that also fit positional molds.

    Chip Kelly also leveraged SPARQ, or some version of the score, as the head of personnel in Philadelphia. . . . In 2014 the Eagles had one of the two highest-ranked SPARQ rosters, second only to Seattle. In 2015 Chip Kelly added five rookies with pSPARQ scores that ranked in the top–10 of their positional group. The strategy provided some early returns with Jordan Hicks (5th in pSPARQ in 2015) and Eric Rowe (3rd in pSPARQ in 2015) both contributing early with room to grow into solid starters. It’s not just simply that athleticism equals production.

    It’s perhaps telling that Trent Baalke does not display a pattern of preferring players with high pSPARQ scores. . . .In 2015, only one player Baalke drafted ranked in the top 15 of his position group. Two of the three players Baalke drafted with great pSPARQ scores (Dontae Johnson and Chris Borland) are arguably some of his best late-round picks, especially considering their draft position.

    Overall, Baalke has not seen as much value from his picks compared to teams like Seattle, despite both teams starting with roughly the same Approximate Value, Pro Football Reference’s metric for measuring a player’s contribution to a team’s success. And one has to wonder if a little infusion of pSPARQ from Kelly can help Baalke’s draft strategy.

    While a high pSPARQ score in no way shape or form guarantees success at the NFL level, the 49ers need a talent-transfusion beginning with Thursday’s draft. Trent Baalke is one of the best GMs in the league at amassing picks and valuing players, but he seems comparatively deficient at actually drafting good players with those amassed picks. If Kelly and Baalke are really collaborating on player profiles as they say, it will be interesting to see if the 2016 draft displays a greater preference towards higher ranking pSPARQ scores than year’s past. Not only will that show Kelly’s influence in the drafting process, but it could also be a welcome change in strategy given Baalke’s lackluster drafts.”

    Here’s a link to where you can find this year’s (and last year’s) SPARQ scores:
    https://3sigmaathlete.com/rankings/

  42. Looks like Anthony Davis is mending fences and building bridges, getting ready for a big comeback.

    “I wish Kap the best. I hope he’s following his heart and not the $.”

    “Would you happily rent your body out to people that bull-shinola you and constantly try to manipulate you? I hope you’d stand up for yourself.”

    “I don’t like the back and forth messy shinola. Don’t speak to me in code.”

    “I do not want to work with a front office or anyone else who seemingly doesn’t want to win as bad as I do.”

    1. “Kevin, people like you weewee me off. lol I’m working on myself so I’m not gone go in on you. But yo, Kevin gtfoh”

      That’s our SD. I won’t paste any more quotes unless the entertainment value increases significantly.

      1. I meant That’s our AD. I was skeptical from the start he’d return. I’m thinking its mostly about prorated signing bonus money.

        Of course, the timing of AD’s retirement and tweets are set for maximum disruption.

  43. My final 49ers 2016 mock draft:

    Pick #7: RONNIE STANLEY, OT, ND: Fixing the OL has got to be the number one priority and Stanley is the top OT on my board. He’s also a fantastic fit for Kelly’s zone blocking scheme, due to his agility, and ability to get to the 2nd level. Big Trent Brown moves to swing tackle, and Stanley becomes Staley’s heir apparent.

    Pick # 33: EMMANUEL OGBAH, OLB, OK St: If fixing the OL is number 1 priority, fixing the pass rush is 1A. Ogbah is a powerful OLB, who wins with physicality. Converting speed-to-power is a beautiful thing. I see inconsistency on tape, but there is no denying his potential. His freakishly long arms (35.5″ WOW!) have certainly caught Baalke’s eyes, and I think he’s got All-Pro potential as a 3-4 OLB and Defensive End! My only question for him is……how hard of a worker is this guy? I’d need a little more information from his coaches. But, if they vouch for his work ethic, I’m trading up into round 1 to get this guy if I have to.

    Pick #68: BRONSON KAUFUSI:, DE, BYU: The 49ers miss on Buckner in round 1, but Kaufusi is an excellent consolation prize! prize. Similar to Buckner, Kaufasi has the rare physical attributes of a classic 5-technique. A long, strong 3-4 defensive end who plays over the offensive tackle and dominates against the run. Bronson’s build, broad shoulders, huge wingspan and a tapered, athletic frame, Kaufusi has the look of prototypical 3-4 DE, as much as he does an NFL edge rusher. Kaufusi doesn’t shy from contact, using his length and strength to stack and shed blockers at the point of attack and grab hold of ball carriers as they attempt to run by. He’s alert and surprisingly nimble, showing enough balance, agility and awareness to drop into coverage on shallow routes. Though he needs more development as as a pass rusher, he’s got enough of that ability to help strengthen one of the Niners biggest weaknesses.

    Pick #105: XAVIEN HOWARD, CB, Baylor: At just over 6′ and 203 lbs, Howard is a good size Corner. Xavien looks more like an NFL safety than a CB, but he possesses the natural coverage skills and confidence to remain on the perimeter. He’s my favorite corner in this draft class!

    Pick #133: SCOOBY WRIGHT III, ILB, Arizona: Prior to his meniscus injury, Wright was one of the nation’s premier defensive players winning the Bronko Nagurski Trophy, Rotary Lombardi Award and the Chuck Bednarik Award in 2014. It’s taken him until now to return to form, he’s a more athletic Chris Borland who is likely to have less paranoia issues.

    Pick #142: TYLER ERVIN, RB, San Jose St: A north-south style runner who can hit his blazing top speed in an instant, Ervin fits Kelly’s zone-blocking scheme like a glove. Open this kid up a hole and don’t blink, because he’ll fire through the hole like he’s been shot out of a cannon!

    Pick #145: DEVON CAJUSTE, WR, Stanford. at 6’4″ 235 lbs, Cajuste takes over the same role Riley Cooper played in Phili, except Cajuste is even bigger, and better all around!

    Pick #174 JOE THUNEY, OG, NC State: Thune is highly intelligent (39 on his Wonderlic) and experienced at all five offensive line positions. He immediately becomes a starting OG and a backup option at Center.

    Pick #178: ERIC STRIKER, ILB/S, OK: Striker reminds a lot of Darren Lee. Like Lee, he’s undersized, and the Niners can use him to back up Tartt, in sub-packages, and as a ST ace!

    Pick #207: JACOBY BRISSETT, QB, NC State.
    Pick #211: DADI LHOMME NICOLAS, OLB, VT.
    Pick 213: KEITH MARSHAL, RB, Georgia.

      1. Thanks hightop. I just don’t see Cook being there at #33, and wasn’t in the mood to work through hypothetical trades.

        However, I wouldn’t be against it. lol, as you know.

    1. I see pretty much everyone is on Ogbah in the 2nd round. But I think you made a good point saying if he’s available you’d consider trading up to get him. For mine this is well below where I think he should get drafted.

      I had him as #9 in my draft big board the other day. I’m a little higher on him than most, I acknowledge, but I would be pretty surprised if he makes it out of the first round. He’s very raw, but despite this he was extremely productive. And when he gets his technique right he is a monster to deal with. His #9 overall rating from me is based on what he could be with the right coaching. He reminds of Ziggy Ansah in terms of raw talent.

      1. Agreed. I didn’t feel like working out all of hypothetical trade possibilities, but, like you say Scooter, a trade up into round 1 might be what it takes to get him.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *