There are 82 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Why we Take Cox and Not Spiller

  • Walsh
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 294
Originally posted by Bay9er:
Originally posted by BirdmanJr:
Originally posted by KRS-1:


Vote Spiller!!

easy choice...

as others have stated:

1. Speed kills - KR/PR, RB, WR, CJ Siller can go the distance at any time. Swing passes, screens, wheel routes; a definite change of pace from Gore. Use P. Harvin as model and get the ball in CJ's hands.
2. Counting on re-signing atleast one of our DBs, Cox will have an uphill battle to even get on the field, let alone make an impact.
3. WE NEED EXPLOSIVE PLAYERS. Game-changers. I'm all for using our 2nd #1 to upgrade the OL, even if that is Iupati at Guard. #13 needs to be the top prospect at his position and have Pro-Bowl potential.
(Berry, Haden, Morgan, McClain, Spiller, Bryant, ect.)
4. If the 49ers cannot get Berry or Haden, which is very likely, they should wait until the 3rd or later, if there is a DB they like. Keep the KR/PR duties on the offensive side of the ball. Have Defensive Backs concentrate on Defense.

1. CJ will be running behind the same O-line that our pro-bowl back Gore has been running behind. You know, we have a pretty fast tight end in Vernon Davis and the screens didn't work so great for him. I think you take the best OT you can get as soon as you can.

2. Cox is a 2nd rounder. I'm not arguing to take him in the first. I'm just saying we can get the same value for returning in the second round as Spiller. I really don't think an RB splitting carries with Gore in a spread offense is going to see tons of playing time either.

3. We have explosive players on the Offense - VD, Gore, and Crabs. What we don't have is a line. I think we use our first #1 on an OT. He challenges Staley for LT position and at the least replaces Snyder. He would have a longer shelf life than an RB, start right away and see more playing time. We can still find play makers with the second #1. Sorry, I'm just not convinced that an RB at that pick is the best value.

4. If Berry or Haden fell then yeah, I think we take them instead of an OT. Also, I agree that you have a good point with offensive players ideally being the returners. I don't think taking Spiller would be a terrible move but I'm not convinced he's going to do much if we get a second rate OT with that second #1 pick.


Man, Coffee is going to be asleep on the bench if we draft Spiller.


[ Edited by Walsh on Feb 23, 2010 at 03:52:28 ]
I dont want Spiller just for his ability to return punts and kicks, I like the flexibility he brings to the offense. He's a threat to go the distance every time he touches the ball... we don't have anyone like him.

The way we lost every game last season (except for the Falcons), I think a player like him can bag us another 3 or 4 victories, right out of the bat too, I don't think we have to wait too long for him to develop and be useful.

His punt and kick returning abilities are just a big bonus.
  • cupcheck
  • Info N/A
Originally posted by Walsh:
Originally posted by KRS-1:
Originally posted by Walsh:

2. Spiller will return kicks and sit behind Gore. Cox will return kicks and start over Roman.

Clements, Spencer, Brown and possibly Bly or Harris could all be sitting in front of Cox on the depth chart at corner. Spiller would probably get more snaps in a game than Cox would unless PC can prove to beat out one of the aforementioned other CB's.

Weak argument for taking PC or CJS.

I gotta disagree. We have a weak pass defense, ranked in the bottom third last year. We need more quality DB's cuz the guys we have are mediocre. We don't know if Bly is returning. Clements is getting more expensive wtih every year and Harris is nothing exceptional.

Spiller probably would get more playing time than Cox but would he get more playing time than the other #1 that we would select in his place? If we took a RT and then Iupati, then I guarantee those guys are guna see more playing time than Spiller.
Generally speaking,running backs have less of a learning curve than linemen.the point isn't playing time ,it's immediate impact.Football today isn't about X's and O's, [there not 1 new formation or motion or pass pattern that hasn't been seen], it's ALL about matchups.That's why teams substitute half the players on the field every other down.Problems developed for a defense from getting a strong slower player covering a fast quick player, especially if you can put that speed in pre-snap motion ,negating the strong players advantage.
Why can't we take them both? Cox will be there in the 2nd.
Originally posted by YourHuckleberry:
Just think of what we could do with Cox, VD, and Crabs!
ohhh my...

Originally posted by dbdublin:
Why can't we take them both? Cox will be there in the 2nd.

this
Bump, in light of recent discussion about possibly passing over Spiller because of his lack of size at RB, whereas Cox is one of the bigger corners in this draft.
Originally posted by znk916:
Originally posted by dbdublin:
Why can't we take them both? Cox will be there in the 2nd.

this

Would be nice
If we take Cox, it's because they eventually see him playing alongside Spencer. And if he's a starting corner, he's not returning punts or kickoffs. Singletary doesn't like using starters to return punts. He said the same thing when he had Clements and Morgan as returnmen at one point simply because injuries force them to this role. The risk of injury is too high.
This scenario would become a lot more likely if we sign Sproles...then take Campbell and Iupati in the 1st, then Cox in the 2nd. That would be a great start to a potential slam dunk draft...