There are 98 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Were at 30, and Stephen Hill and Fleener are on the board

Were at 30, and Stephen Hill and Fleener are on the board

Originally posted by Alkasquawlik:


Also, this is kind of a different topic, but it's related. I feel like the differences in peoples' opinion on who to take, Hill or Fleener, is a difference in how people think JH is going to run his offense. We haven't had a true #1 WR since TO left, and I feel like the people who want Hill, are of the mindset that a team needs a hierarchy of receivers, and as a result, we need to draft one since there weren't any in FA other than Vincent Jackson.
However, I feel like the people who want Fleener, sort of understand that JH wants to run a system based on solid playmaking from across the board. Look at Green Bay, New Orleans, and New England. None of those teams really have a true #1 WR, sure there may be players that are better than others on the team, but for the most part, Brees, Rodgers, and Brady can pick and choose their targets and have the confidence that whoever they are throwing the ball to, will make a play. They are solid from top to bottom with guys who can make plays. I don't think we need a #1 game breaking WR. Why would we when the defense knows that every single guy on the field is a threat to score on any given play?

Do we really need to explain why a legit #1 is necessary?
Originally posted by jreff22:
Do we really need to explain why a legit #1 is necessary?

Do New England, Green Bay, or New Orleans have a legit #1?
Originally posted by Alkasquawlik:
Originally posted by jreff22:
Do we really need to explain why a legit #1 is necessary?

Do New England, Green Bay, or New Orleans have a legit #1?

Moss was and now Welker is their #1, Jennings is a #1, and Colston can classify as a #1
Originally posted by jreff22:
Moss was and now Welker is their #1, Jennings is a #1, and Colston can classify as a #1

Welker still lines up on the inside, not your stereotypical #1. You could say he's a product of the system, because he sure as hell wouldn't be putting up those numbers anywhere else than in NE's system, plus Brady almost throws to Gronk just as much. Gronk had like what, 200 less yards than Welker? Jennings and Colston can classify as #1s, but you can easily make a case for the other players on the team. Nelson had 400 more yards receiving than Jennings. And guess who was the leading receiver on the Saints, Jimmy Graham, another TE.

I just don't think we NEED a game changing #1 WR, IF we have solid, quality play makers across the field, which is what I think Harbaalke wants.
[ Edited by Alkasquawlik on Mar 15, 2012 at 8:05 PM ]
Originally posted by Alkasquawlik:
Originally posted by jreff22:
Do we really need to explain why a legit #1 is necessary?

Do New England, Green Bay, or New Orleans have a legit #1?

seriously? those two there two WR would be our best WR here
[ Edited by 49ersalldaway126 on Mar 15, 2012 at 8:20 PM ]
Originally posted by 49ersalldaway126:
seriously? those two there two WR would be our best WR here

As of right now, yes. But we'll bring in a FA WR, either Lloyd or Schilens is my best guess, and draft at least one in April.
Originally posted by Alkasquawlik:
Originally posted by jreff22:
Moss was and now Welker is their #1, Jennings is a #1, and Colston can classify as a #1

Welker still lines up on the inside, not your stereotypical #1. You could say he's a product of the system, because he sure as hell wouldn't be putting up those numbers anywhere else than in NE's system, plus Brady almost throws to Gronk just as much. Gronk had like what, 200 less yards than Welker? Jennings and Colston can classify as #1s, but you can easily make a case for the other players on the team. Nelson had 400 more yards receiving than Jennings. And guess who was the leading receiver on the Saints, Jimmy Graham, another TE.

I just don't think we NEED a game changing #1 WR, IF we have solid, quality play makers across the field, which is what I think Harbaalke wants.

We don't have solid play makers. Welker would do well in any system where he can get the ball, same for Jennings, Colston, AJ Green, etc etc. We have 0 players that teams have to focus on or double team. And this theory that copying the Pats O with 2 TE's is for us...is flawed because we don't run that system. Vernon is a superb blocker so he can throw a team off, Fleener is not that savvy player. Teams know Brady will pass the ball all day so you have to cover 4-5 guys and just pray. We are a run first team and taking a TE in the first that cant hold down the outside is a waste. With good pass coverage LB's and safety's, TE's can be contained easily, covering elite talent WR's is a different ball game. Vernon is so dangerous because he can outrun everybody, Fleener is not going to run by the DB's he's not that fast. And part of the reason guys like Graham and Gronk have that many opportunities is because the WR's are being shadowed all day, again we don't have guys that will garner that kind of attention.

Going back to the 2 TE system like that Pats run has another issue, what happens if 1 guy gets hurt? TE's tend to be in the traffic more then WR's who blow the tops off a D.

Right now a tall-fast-sticky handed WR fits the bill. If Fleener didnt have the Stanford connection people would be so enamored with him, he's a great player but I don't think a #2 TE is a need....a #1 WR is a need.
Originally posted by Alkasquawlik:
Originally posted by jreff22:
Moss was and now Welker is their #1, Jennings is a #1, and Colston can classify as a #1

Welker still lines up on the inside, not your stereotypical #1. You could say he's a product of the system, because he sure as hell wouldn't be putting up those numbers anywhere else than in NE's system, plus Brady almost throws to Gronk just as much. Gronk had like what, 200 less yards than Welker? Jennings and Colston can classify as #1s, but you can easily make a case for the other players on the team. Nelson had 400 more yards receiving than Jennings. And guess who was the leading receiver on the Saints, Jimmy Graham, another TE.

I just don't think we NEED a game changing #1 WR, IF we have solid, quality play makers across the field, which is what I think Harbaalke wants.

I agree. I think this is a question of definitions. Some people define a #1 as a guy who gets great stats (or the best stats on their team). That's great, but those guys don't commonly reproduce those stats for a different team. I like the definition of a #1 receiver as a guy who can win deep, win underneath, win in the redzone, defeat man coverage, defeat double coverage and make the big catches. I don't think there are nearly enough of those guys for every team to have one, and I don't think Welker or Colston qualify. Jennings might be, but he can't be doubled much because of the rest of GB's receiving corps, so we may never really know with him. Colston generally works out of the slot, against one-on-one coverage. He never gains much separation, he just goes up for the ball and catches everything w/his hands. I think Fleener can do all of that, plus line up tight and block. Welker never lines up on the outside, and he is pretty limited in the routes they have him run. Don't get me wrong; no one does what he does better than him, but he doesn't do everything.

I would love to have the production that anyone of those guys brings to their team, but your point seems valid that their production would decrease greatly if defenses could afford to focus on them.
Originally posted by WRATHman44:
I would love to have the production that anyone of those guys brings to their team, but your point seems valid that their production would decrease greatly if defenses could afford to focus on them.

This.

The reason why our offense was so mediocre last season was because we lacked solid receivers. The Giants came into the NFCCG with Nicks, Cruz, and Manningham, arguably one of the top WR corps in the league and we came with Crabtree, Swain, and Hastings...

The Giants knew VD was our number one threat, and as a result double covered him. The rest of the receivers had trouble creating seperation and catching the ball, hence our pitiful one catch for 3 yards.

Now that we added Moss, even if he never touches the ball once all season, he will still help our defense. I don't think he is the answer to our WR problems, far from it. We still need more depth. However, teams still have to respect him on the outside. That will allow coverages to come off of VD and Crabs, and open running lanes for Gore. We don't NEED a #1 game breaker receiver, when all of our players are threats to score.

Think about it. Moss, Crabtree, Lloyd/Schilens, VD, Fleener, and Gore on spread formations with Williams and a draft pick or two on the sidelines providing depth. Any one of them can score, so who do you choose to cover?
Originally posted by jreff22:
We don't have solid play makers. Welker would do well in any system where he can get the ball, same for Jennings, Colston, AJ Green, etc etc. We have 0 players that teams have to focus on or double team. And this theory that copying the Pats O with 2 TE's is for us...is flawed because we don't run that system. Vernon is a superb blocker so he can throw a team off, Fleener is not that savvy player. Teams know Brady will pass the ball all day so you have to cover 4-5 guys and just pray. We are a run first team and taking a TE in the first that cant hold down the outside is a waste. With good pass coverage LB's and safety's, TE's can be contained easily, covering elite talent WR's is a different ball game. Vernon is so dangerous because he can outrun everybody, Fleener is not going to run by the DB's he's not that fast. And part of the reason guys like Graham and Gronk have that many opportunities is because the WR's are being shadowed all day, again we don't have guys that will garner that kind of attention.

Going back to the 2 TE system like that Pats run has another issue, what happens if 1 guy gets hurt? TE's tend to be in the traffic more then WR's who blow the tops off a D.

Right now a tall-fast-sticky handed WR fits the bill. If Fleener didnt have the Stanford connection people would be so enamored with him, he's a great player but I don't think a #2 TE is a need....a #1 WR is a need.

We do have solid play makers, just not that many, so defenses key in on them. If we add more weapons, the defenses have to spread out, which will allow any player the opportunity to make a play at any time during the game.

Harbaugh loves running double TE sets, as I'm sure you're aware of. What happens if VD or Walker goes down, like he did earlier this season? Fleener provides depth at that position, quality depth at that.
[ Edited by Alkasquawlik on Mar 15, 2012 at 8:34 PM ]
Originally posted by jreff22:
We don't have solid play makers. Welker would do well in any system where he can get the ball, same for Jennings, Colston, AJ Green, etc etc. We have 0 players that teams have to focus on or double team. And this theory that copying the Pats O with 2 TE's is for us...is flawed because we don't run that system. Vernon is a superb blocker so he can throw a team off, Fleener is not that savvy player. Teams know Brady will pass the ball all day so you have to cover 4-5 guys and just pray. We are a run first team and taking a TE in the first that cant hold down the outside is a waste. With good pass coverage LB's and safety's, TE's can be contained easily, covering elite talent WR's is a different ball game. Vernon is so dangerous because he can outrun everybody, Fleener is not going to run by the DB's he's not that fast. And part of the reason guys like Graham and Gronk have that many opportunities is because the WR's are being shadowed all day, again we don't have guys that will garner that kind of attention.

Going back to the 2 TE system like that Pats run has another issue, what happens if 1 guy gets hurt? TE's tend to be in the traffic more then WR's who blow the tops off a D.

Right now a tall-fast-sticky handed WR fits the bill. If Fleener didnt have the Stanford connection people would be so enamored with him, he's a great player but I don't think a #2 TE is a need....a #1 WR is a need.

Which defense shut down Gronk and Hernandez? and who was the defense afraid of going deep on them? Branch? Welker doesn't go deep. Gronk doesn't outrun the defense, he just catches over them or puts his body in the way. Leverage throws and jump balls are easier to complete between the numbers, because the ball doesn't have to travel a diagonal path through as many defenders. To complete those passes, you just need an athletic, big body who will compete for those balls. That's how Colston and Gronk make their money, and Fleener does it well, too.

I am as excited about Hill's potential as aybody, but I think he is more likely to fail as a #1 WR than Fleener is to fail as a playmaking TE (redzone threat, third down security blanket, down field threat in the seams).

I would not be mad with either one, I just don't think Hill as a #1 is a certainty, and I don't believe a true #1 is necessary for a successful passing game.
Originally posted by WRATHman44:

I am as excited about Hill's potential as aybody, but I think he is more likely to fail as a #1 WR than Fleener is to fail as a playmaking TE (redzone threat, third down security blanket, down field threat in the seams).

This is my whole thought process as well.
Originally posted by Alkasquawlik:
Originally posted by jreff22:
We don't have solid play makers. Welker would do well in any system where he can get the ball, same for Jennings, Colston, AJ Green, etc etc. We have 0 players that teams have to focus on or double team. And this theory that copying the Pats O with 2 TE's is for us...is flawed because we don't run that system. Vernon is a superb blocker so he can throw a team off, Fleener is not that savvy player. Teams know Brady will pass the ball all day so you have to cover 4-5 guys and just pray. We are a run first team and taking a TE in the first that cant hold down the outside is a waste. With good pass coverage LB's and safety's, TE's can be contained easily, covering elite talent WR's is a different ball game. Vernon is so dangerous because he can outrun everybody, Fleener is not going to run by the DB's he's not that fast. And part of the reason guys like Graham and Gronk have that many opportunities is because the WR's are being shadowed all day, again we don't have guys that will garner that kind of attention.

Going back to the 2 TE system like that Pats run has another issue, what happens if 1 guy gets hurt? TE's tend to be in the traffic more then WR's who blow the tops off a D.

Right now a tall-fast-sticky handed WR fits the bill. If Fleener didnt have the Stanford connection people would be so enamored with him, he's a great player but I don't think a #2 TE is a need....a #1 WR is a need.

We do have solid play makers, just not that many, so defenses key in on them. If we add more weapons, the defenses have to spread out, which will allow any player the opportunity to make a play at any time during the game.

Harbaugh loves running double TE sets, as I'm sure you're aware of. What happens if VD or Walker goes down, like he did earlier this season? Fleener provides depth at that position, quality depth at that.

Who the hell is solid...? We don't have anybody that ranks higher then a #2 WR. And the not m any so defenses can key on them statement....we only have x amount of guys out at a time. Whether its 1 WR, twins, trips...whatever nobody is very good. Vernon is the best player that catches balls on this team.

Yes Jim loves running double TE's because of versatility but also because we had nothing at WR. Davis and Walker are a better duo then Crabs and ?. Walker is fine as the #2 and probably will be resigned for a decent price.

Lets be honest this famed double TE force from NE didnt bring home s**t this year. And as much as I want a RZ target, I want a guy who can go deep and eat yards all day.
Originally posted by jreff22:
Who the hell is solid...? We don't have anybody that ranks higher then a #2 WR. And the not m any so defenses can key on them statement....we only have x amount of guys out at a time. Whether its 1 WR, twins, trips...whatever nobody is very good. Vernon is the best player that catches balls on this team.

Yes Jim loves running double TE's because of versatility but also because we had nothing at WR. Davis and Walker are a better duo then Crabs and ?. Walker is fine as the #2 and probably will be resigned for a decent price.

Lets be honest this famed double TE force from NE didnt bring home s**t this year. And as much as I want a RZ target, I want a guy who can go deep and eat yards all day.

VD is solid, I consider him a receiving threat, just like I would consider Fleener a receiving threat as well.

I don't think Walker will come back, that's the thing. I could see him being a team player and coming back, or I could see him wanting a true starting role and leaving in FA next offseason, and then we would be without the option of running double TEs.
Harbaugh ran double TE sets at Stanford as well, so it's not like he was forced to this season just because we had a lack of playmakers at receiver.

Go deep and eat yards? May I introduce you to arguably the greatest deep ball threat that's ever played...Randy Moss...?
Originally posted by WRATHman44:
Which defense shut down Gronk and Hernandez? and who was the defense afraid of going deep on them? Branch? Welker doesn't go deep. Gronk doesn't outrun the defense, he just catches over them or puts his body in the way. Leverage throws and jump balls are easier to complete between the numbers, because the ball doesn't have to travel a diagonal path through as many defenders. To complete those passes, you just need an athletic, big body who will compete for those balls. That's how Colston and Gronk make their money, and Fleener does it well, too.

I am as excited about Hill's potential as aybody, but I think he is more likely to fail as a #1 WR than Fleener is to fail as a playmaking TE (redzone threat, third down security blanket, down field threat in the seams).

I would not be mad with either one, I just don't think Hill as a #1 is a certainty, and I don't believe a true #1 is necessary for a successful passing game.

If Fleener didnt play for Stanford would you be all in for him?