There are 43 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

9ersLiferInChicago updated Mock Draft - Post Combine

Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:
Originally posted by RDB4216:
I saw an interview with him at the start of the school year, and he was asked what needed to be worked on. He said getting the playbook down and building chemistry with the QB, of course. And he was asked what he personally needed to work on, he quickly said his route running. He said it had been bad the years before, and he knew he had to improve that. I like that, kid sees his weakness and is humble enough to admit it.
Who is the "he" you are referring to?

Stephen Hill. Sorry, I clicked the quote button to reply to a post regarding his character, and it apparently didn't "quote" anything!
Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:
Come now, I know I didn't say that we should be like the Giants. Yes, those teams have won recent SB's, but they won with good WR's. It was only the 2011 season that they put so much emphases on the TE, and thats because they had to adapt into it, especially NE. I don't think for a minute that we would have gotten to the playoffs without V. Davis; please don't read too deep into my opposition of a TE in the 1st. But have we had better production out of our WR's we would not have lost to NY either. And thats my position. The last highlight, BTW, go right into why I think we need WR's.

That's my whole point. We needed better production out of the passing game, regardless of what position was catching the ball. Of the four teams mentioned in my post, three of them have a TE as their primary threat in the passing game, and one of them has a WR. Any of those teams would be crippled without that passing game playmaker, regardless of their position. NE didn't lose because of their focus on the TE, they lost because their best TE was hurt. If their top playmaker was a WR, and he was hurt, they'd have been in the same position. Like I said, the game is changing, not because previous strategies were without merit, but because current rules greatly favor big targets who can go up and get the ball, with the security that they likely won't get hammered until they come down w/it. A down-field pass to a TE is almost always good for 15 these days. If he catches it, you get the yards. If he doesn't, your probably getting 15 yards on the flag because he was "launched into" while he was "defenseless". NO had the same receivers this year as they did last year, and their offensive production exploded with the emergence of their young, tall, athletic TE, who quickly became the focus of the ofense because he was the most productive playmaker in the passing game. They didn't lose because of their emphasis on getting him the ball, as he was still their most effective receiver, even when covered by our best athlete, w/safety help. You seem to be focused in on a WR-or-bust strategy, even if the value isn't there at #30. I think it is entirely possible that all of the WR w/1st round talent will be gone by our pick. I would rather have the best TE (who, to me, would represent a better playmaker in the passing game at that point) than the 6th best WR, when the drop-off from 6th-best receiver to 12th best receiver is fairly slight in an exceptionally deep WR class. Don't get me wrong, I would be just as happy w/Hill or Wright as I would w/Fleener, I just don't think Hill or Wright will; be there. Fleener might not be there either, and that would just suck. At that point I'd rather trade back than reach for a receiver that isn't worth the slot.
Originally posted by WRATHman44:
That's my whole point. We needed better production out of the passing game, regardless of what position was catching the ball. Of the four teams mentioned in my post, three of them have a TE as their primary threat in the passing game, and one of them has a WR. Any of those teams would be crippled without that passing game playmaker, regardless of their position. NE didn't lose because of their focus on the TE, they lost because their best TE was hurt. If their top playmaker was a WR, and he was hurt, they'd have been in the same position. Like I said, the game is changing, not because previous strategies were without merit, but because current rules greatly favor big targets who can go up and get the ball, with the security that they likely won't get hammered until they come down w/it. A down-field pass to a TE is almost always good for 15 these days. If he catches it, you get the yards. If he doesn't, your probably getting 15 yards on the flag because he was "launched into" while he was "defenseless". NO had the same receivers this year as they did last year, and their offensive production exploded with the emergence of their young, tall, athletic TE, who quickly became the focus of the ofense because he was the most productive playmaker in the passing game. They didn't lose because of their emphasis on getting him the ball, as he was still their most effective receiver, even when covered by our best athlete, w/safety help. You seem to be focused in on a WR-or-bust strategy, even if the value isn't there at #30. I think it is entirely possible that all of the WR w/1st round talent will be gone by our pick. I would rather have the best TE (who, to me, would represent a better playmaker in the passing game at that point) than the 6th best WR, when the drop-off from 6th-best receiver to 12th best receiver is fairly slight in an exceptionally deep WR class. Don't get me wrong, I would be just as happy w/Hill or Wright as I would w/Fleener, I just don't think Hill or Wright will; be there. Fleener might not be there either, and that would just suck. At that point I'd rather trade back than reach for a receiver that isn't worth the slot.
We need better production out of the passing game, and that production needs to come from the WR position. That's my point. NE lost because they had to rely on a hurt TE. Why? BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE A TRUE WR THREAT TO GO TO!! Look, I didn't create this thread to - again - get into the weeds with a Fleener-in-the-1st crowd. I've come to conclude that that's lost time I won't get back. If you think the WR position is not important then that's your right to think it, I disagree but it's your right. If you want to trade out of the first if your boy Fleener isn't there then that's your opinion, bless your heart. If you think we can build on last year with this crop of WR's or a bunch of second tier just-good-enough WR's then that's your business. I for one don't. I think we need to get a WR in the first because it's our biggest hole. I happen to think this team is but a piece or two away from the SB, so trading down for picks is unnecessary. I happen to think the WR position is still important in this league and has yet to be surpassed by the TE. I happen to think the 1st round is when you draft for were you need starters, not luxury.



Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:
We need better production out of the passing game, and that production needs to come from the WR position. That's my point. NE lost because they had to rely on a hurt TE. Why? BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE A TRUE WR THREAT TO GO TO!! Look, I didn't create this thread to - again - get into the weeds with a Fleener-in-the-1st crowd. I've come to conclude that that's lost time I won't get back. If you think the WR position is not important then that's your right to think it, I disagree but it's your right. If you want to trade out of the first if your boy Fleener isn't there then that's your opinion, bless your heart. If you think we can build on last year with this crop of WR's or a bunch of second tier just-good-enough WR's then that's your business. I for one don't. I think we need to get a WR in the first because it's our biggest hole. I happen to think this team is but a piece or two away from the SB, so trading down for picks is unnecessary. I happen to think the WR position is still important in this league and has yet to be surpassed by the TE. I happen to think the 1st round is when you draft for were you need starters, not luxury.




Dude, there's absolutely no need to take such a superior stance or to butcher my argument to suit your needs. "Getting in the weeds with the Fleener-in-the-1st crowd" is a risk you take when you choose to post a mock. I also said, in the post that you quoted, that I would be just as happy with Hill or Wright at #30 as I would with Fleener, as I believe they are all game-changing playmakers in the passing game (It has been well documented that Fleener has split out wide and run the three-step route tree very succesfully, btw). I think #30 is too early for Randle (lankier, less sudden Crabtree), Sanu (Delanie walker w/more height and better hands, but less speed, weight, and route running precision), or Jeffery (immense talent, but scary risk to go fat kid once he gets paid). There are many good receivers that would still be left, but I think it would be a waste to take a guy at 30 that we could probably get at 62. You want to take a WR at #30, no matter what? That's your perogative. That reasoning got us Rashaun Woods. That reasoning (need over BPA in the 1st) is why the Cardinals have Levi Brown instead of Adrian Peterson. That reasoning got Matt Millen a job as a commentator. If Baalke decides that one of those guys is worth the pick at 30, I will be surprised and disappointed, but I will trust him. I would prefer to trade back if Hill, Wright, and Fleener are ALL gone. I never reccomended taking Fleener instead of a WR, just instead of reaching for one at 30. That can't be as far-fetched or difficult to understand as you are making it seem. But, whatever; keep talking to me like I'm a child because because I haven't bought into your rigidly simplistic views on the draft and offense.
Honestly, I think Fleener only has first round value to us for the simple fact that we have JH. But we would really draft any of the top 5 TEs and still be just fine
Originally posted by martysofresh:
Honestly, I think Fleener only has first round value to us for the simple fact that we have JH. But we would really draft any of the top 5 TEs and still be just fine
I agree that we could draft any of the top 5 TE's and be fine. But I think Fleener has value for any team. Personally I've come to like Dwayne Allen over Fleener. And many scouts and draft boards have Allen over Fleener. But this is Fleener-in-the-first land so what do I know.
Originally posted by RollinWith21n52:
So are you basing your first round pick exclusively on workout numbers? Can you think of many examples where that has worked out well?

Back flip specialist Jason Pierre Paul is a good example.