There are 100 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Hill and ? or Fleener and ?

Hill and ? or Fleener and ?

Originally posted by WRATHman44:
Originally posted by ninertico:
He is great and what are you smoking that clouds your judgment on that POV?

He does do everything TE, H-Back, WR...He's great at blocking and running routes out of the backfield especially. He's not elite in terms of sheer athleticism, but to our team he's great.

Those blocks against Suh? 'Nuff said. That catch in the EZ to win that game 'nough said. The TD catch to split the TB CBs and S and catch the ball in the EZ is another. Go look at the games on NFL rewind and see what I'm talking about. He was just not the same after the broken jaw. He's so valuable to us. Still, like all players, he makes mistakes like the dropped perfect ball in the EZ against the Lions.

He's not perfect, but he has been great when we needed him too. I hope we can resign him next year too.

Man, I like DW, and I love our Niners, but great players don't get the dropsies and fumblitis at clutch moments in games. He is a good football player, but there is no question that the position could be upgraded.

He's not great. What great #'s has he ever put up. To top it off he's one of the smallest TE's in the league. 6'0" 240 lbs. Tiny by todays standards.
hes an H-back. Look i love the role DW has played for this team while he has been here, but he is largely overrated on these boards, and fleener would be a huge upgrade. This offense is a TE, WR, and interior lineman away from being a legit top ten offense, asuming we bring back morgan.
Fleener isn't getting drafted by us. Frankly it's a huge waste of time to discuss it.
Originally posted by aman49:
Fleener isn't getting drafted by us. Frankly it's a huge waste of time to discuss it.

I agree. I think he would be a reach at our pick, and TE is far from our most pressing need. At 30, we are perfectly situated for a RG, WR, or CB.
  • Kolohe
  • Hall of Fame
  • Posts: 31,334
Originally posted by aman49:
Fleener isn't getting drafted by us. Frankly it's a huge waste of time to discuss it.

Just like people said Hill won't post a 4.3 40, you never know man.

With that said, I hope we draft Hill.
Originally posted by NinerBuff:
I agree. I think he would be a reach at our pick, and TE is far from our most pressing need. At 30, we are perfectly situated for a RG, WR, or CB.

Agreed.
Originally posted by aman49:
lol, whyTF do ppl on this board keep pulling for Fleener?

1, we already have 2 good TEs.
2, None of the experts have Fleener graded as even a top 5 TE.


Vernon Davis is one, who is the other good "TE?" I know they have an under-sized midget h-back playing TE that can't get open for s**t in the red-zone but surely you can't mean him?
[ Edited by Phoenix49ers on Mar 3, 2012 at 5:46 PM ]
Originally posted by WRATHman44:
You're making the argument that CJ is more polished/ran a more sophisticated route tree. It is my position that the burden of proof would lie on you. If he ran the full tree, any highlight tape on YouTube should show that. If it becomes difficult to find that footage, then that kinda makes my point. Mostly, I don't want to look it up because I am pretty sure that I am right, and I am completely sure that I am lazy.

Aaaaaaaaaaaand, Fitz is widely regarded as a n elite deep threat (not because of speed, but because of size, hands, timing, and leaping. So, I accept your argument as evidence of my point.

GT's offense was not Pro Style, it was just more balanced run/pass. Pro Style offenses have route packages that change on the fly with sight adjustments as a response to coverage schemes. GT did not do that.

I am not saying they are the same prospect AT ALL, I am simply stating that, for all of Calvin Johnson's production and talent, he was still not a polished receiver coming out. There were plenty of questions as to whether or n ot he would run the full route tree in the NFL. The difference is, his production and talent were such that people said (essentially), "Who cares if he only runs 3-4 routes, if he can't be covered on any of them?" He got to the league, got some coaching, and expanded his portfolio. It happens

You're the one who made the assertion that CJ didn't run a full route tree so you're the one who should back it up.

My assertion that Johnson is more polished is clear by stats, draft status, awards, and every other metric available. And just because someone qualifies as a deep threat does not mean they're not a polished receiver as well. What kind of argument is that?

GT's offense was a pro offense. Prove otherwise. Chan Gailey head coach. You won't even look up Youtube videos but for some reason you know they didn't run a pro offense despite having a football coach with 16 years worth of NFL expierence under his belt. He's a former NFL head coach/ offensive coordinator for some reason I'm going to take wild stab in the dark and say his playbook was alot closer to an NFL playbook compared to Paul Johnson's triple option.
[ Edited by tjd808185 on Mar 3, 2012 at 6:00 PM ]
Originally posted by aman49:
lol, wut.

First, people don't realize D-Love plays like a million positions.

Second, instead of saying I'm wrong for saying the experts (mayock, etc) dont have him as a top TE, why don't u show me a link that says otherwise? I watched NFL Networks TE rankings to hear about fleener the other day and he wasn't even mentioned.

And he's pretty average at every single one. Average WR? Check. Average kick-returner? Check. Average tight-end? Check. He's just good enough to be mediocre. Teams aren't shaking in their cleats at the thought of having to defend Delanie Walker down the field.

Fleener on the other hand is a true TE, as well as a guy who has experience playing WR and can be a major threat down the middle of the field with his size, agility, hands and leaping ability.


Mayock's TE rankings.


http://www.nfl.com/combine/story/09000d5d826f9cd9/article/precombine-position-rankings-for-2012-nfl-draft
Originally posted by aman49:
Fleener isn't getting drafted by us. Frankly it's a huge waste of time to discuss it.

Thanks for making everyone's minds up for them.


Your telepathic link with the 49ers coaches and front office is truly amazing.
[ Edited by Phoenix49ers on Mar 3, 2012 at 5:54 PM ]
Originally posted by aman49:
Fleener isn't getting drafted by us. Frankly it's a huge waste of time to discuss it.

Says you and those imaginary experts you referenced who didn't even have Fleener as a top 5 TE
Having a 6 6 TE and a speed WR who is also big would give us a lot more options.

Fleener is a guy who can run all the routes and is a big target. I love Vernon but he's not "Gronkowski or Witten or old school like Bavaro".....the Niner are lacking this player.

Fleener is not getting a lot of run because he didn't run the 40, but he will at his pro day. But he's a top 2 TE in the draft. The guy averaged 19 yards a play, and put up 27 reps on the line. I bet Fleener doesn't make it out of the first round.

TE's are wave of the future with Graham and Gronkowski, even Vernon. You are going to want to have big passing targets.

Our offense really fell out of whack without Delanie and Fleener gives us a lot of options like Delanie. They will move the TE around.

I think they draft a TE (hopefully Fleener) and Nate Bynam makes the team as a fullback / TE and they cut Moran Norris. I don't think Peele makes the team.
^^ this is why fleener makes the most sense IMO. Then in the mid second you could move up and grab a guy like Jefferey that might fall. Jefferey/Morgan/Crabtree and Davis/Fleener sounds good to me. Then take a guy like Elvis Akpla late.
Take the best WR with the first round pick (Hill?), or even trade up a little for Michael Floyd (if they love him and he falls a little). Then take the best available TE in ~rd 3 or rd 4 = Green or Egnew.
Originally posted by tjd808185:
Originally posted by WRATHman44:
You're making the argument that CJ is more polished/ran a more sophisticated route tree. It is my position that the burden of proof would lie on you. If he ran the full tree, any highlight tape on YouTube should show that. If it becomes difficult to find that footage, then that kinda makes my point. Mostly, I don't want to look it up because I am pretty sure that I am right, and I am completely sure that I am lazy.

Aaaaaaaaaaaand, Fitz is widely regarded as a n elite deep threat (not because of speed, but because of size, hands, timing, and leaping. So, I accept your argument as evidence of my point.

GT's offense was not Pro Style, it was just more balanced run/pass. Pro Style offenses have route packages that change on the fly with sight adjustments as a response to coverage schemes. GT did not do that.

I am not saying they are the same prospect AT ALL, I am simply stating that, for all of Calvin Johnson's production and talent, he was still not a polished receiver coming out. There were plenty of questions as to whether or n ot he would run the full route tree in the NFL. The difference is, his production and talent were such that people said (essentially), "Who cares if he only runs 3-4 routes, if he can't be covered on any of them?" He got to the league, got some coaching, and expanded his portfolio. It happens

You're the one who made the assertion that CJ didn't run a full route tree so you're the one who should back it up.

My assertion that Johnson is more polished is clear by stats, draft status, awards, and every other metric available. And just because someone qualifies as a deep threat does not mean they're not a polished receiver as well. What kind of argument is that?

GT's offense was a pro offense. Prove otherwise. Chan Gailey head coach. You won't even look up Youtube videos but for some reason you know they didn't run a pro offense despite having a football coach with 16 years worth of NFL expierence under his belt. He's a former NFL head coach/ offensive coordinator for some reason I'm going to take wild stab in the dark and say his playbook was alot closer to an NFL playbook compared to Paul Johnson's triple option.

I said I wasn't gonna look it up and post it here; I never said I didn't watch them. Gailey's offensive scheme has always been funky. Dude, Chan Gaily doesn't even run a pro offense in the pros. Watch a Bills game sometime. Just because the guy coaches in the NFL (for a joke organization), it doesn't make him a sophisticated offensive coach. They hired him because he had exciting numbers, not complex or impressive ideas. When he first came to the Bills, he wanted a mobile QB so the could run the zone-read scheme, for crying out loud! He runs a fun-to-watch, college-type spread scheme for the passing game, and his pro receivers STILL don't run the complete route tree. I have yet to see any evidence of sight adjustments in their route progressions (like when a frontside 3 combination converts to a 7 combo vs cover 2), so yeah, I'd be pretty comfortable in saying that if his pro receivers aren't doing it, his college WRs weren't, either.

Your second paragraph makes it obvious that we have wildly different definitions of "polished." I take polished to mean that a receiver has refined his game, disciplined his routes, and learned to read coverages and convert routes on the fly. Based on your evidence, polished means the same thing as accomplished. Those are completely different viewpoints, and I will leave you to yours. There doesn't seem to be any point in debating this much more, as we are clearly not even speaking the same language. Good day.


and go Niners