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

Originally posted by jreff22:
If Fleener didnt play for Stanford would you be all in for him?

Yes.

Having the Harbaugh connection already just sweetens the deal.

Originally posted by Alkasquawlik:

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...?

Walker is good but he is not a #1 guy, he's another guy overvalued on the zone. And Byham is coming back and he can do whatever we need him to.


Banking on Moss is dangerous, and he is only here on a short deal. Like most loved Edwards last year for the same attributes...didnt work for us.

Burning first round picks on guys who are not starters is bad, we are good but aren't that good to waste high picks for depth. If we run with 1 TE Vernon get's the nod, not Fleener. If we run with 1 WR could rookie x, get the nod...possibly yes. And remember Crabs is running out of time on his contract as well...and he will not be back, that I can say with certainty.

Originally posted by Alkasquawlik:

Originally posted by jreff22:
If Fleener didnt play for Stanford would you be all in for him?

Yes.

Having the Harbaugh connection already just sweetens the deal.

Whats wrong with Dwayne Allen?

Originally posted by jreff22:

Originally posted by Alkasquawlik:

Originally posted by jreff22:

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

Yes.

Having the Harbaugh connection already just sweetens the deal.

Whats wrong with Dwayne Allen?

He's slow and not as good of a fit. The Stanford connection is part of the reasoning for Fleener..why wouldn't it be? We know what he can do in a Harbaugh/Roman offense. It's a natural fit.

Fleener all day over Allen.

Originally posted by jreff22:
Walker is good but he is not a #1 guy, he's another guy overvalued on the zone. And Byham is coming back and he can do whatever we need him to.


Banking on Moss is dangerous, and he is only here on a short deal. Like most loved Edwards last year for the same attributes...didnt work for us.

Burning first round picks on guys who are not starters is bad, we are good but aren't that good to waste high picks for depth. If we run with 1 TE Vernon get's the nod, not Fleener. If we run with 1 WR could rookie x, get the nod...possibly yes. And remember Crabs is running out of time on his contract as well...and he will not be back, that I can say with certainty.

I think we can all agree that we want a more productive offense. I think both guys look good but if I take the same offense from last year and say fix the problem, I think Fleener is the better solution. We would drive down the field all the time, we just had problems in the Redzone and on key 3rd downs. Akers breaking the record for FGs shows that we could move the ball. We just weren't getting enough TD's. Alex has a high percentage for his career throwing to TE's. The 2nd TE wouldn't be useless. He would always be in for run formations, for the dual TE threats. He is 6'6 and would be covered by a 6'2 linebacker and we could still leave him in as the TE and slide VD over as a wr if we go with Trips. That's how I thought New England does it at least. Just leave the best players on the field. Aldon was a good example of a guy not being a starter and coming in and making a significant impact. If Fleener can come in and pick up key first downs and keep the clock moving, give our D a breather, and grab some Td's instead of FG's and he can allow VD to not be double covered all the time. If I had to pick one of them based on who had a better shot at succeeding with us, I just think it would be him.

Originally posted by 9erguy:
He's slow and not as good of a fit. The Stanford connection is part of the reasoning for Fleener..why wouldn't it be? We know what he can do in a Harbaugh/Roman offense. It's a natural fit.

Fleener all day over Allen.

4.7 for Fleener really isn't fast, the only skill guy he would be faster then is Byham.

Originally posted by jacklegniner:

Originally posted by jreff22:
Walker is good but he is not a #1 guy, he's another guy overvalued on the zone. And Byham is coming back and he can do whatever we need him to.


Banking on Moss is dangerous, and he is only here on a short deal. Like most loved Edwards last year for the same attributes...didnt work for us.

Burning first round picks on guys who are not starters is bad, we are good but aren't that good to waste high picks for depth. If we run with 1 TE Vernon get's the nod, not Fleener. If we run with 1 WR could rookie x, get the nod...possibly yes. And remember Crabs is running out of time on his contract as well...and he will not be back, that I can say with certainty.

I think we can all agree that we want a more productive offense. I think both guys look good but if I take the same offense from last year and say fix the problem, I think Fleener is the better solution. We would drive down the field all the time, we just had problems in the Redzone and on key 3rd downs. Akers breaking the record for FGs shows that we could move the ball. We just weren't getting enough TD's. Alex has a high percentage for his career throwing to TE's. The 2nd TE wouldn't be useless. He would always be in for run formations, for the dual TE threats. He is 6'6 and would be covered by a 6'2 linebacker and we could still leave him in as the TE and slide VD over as a wr if we go with Trips. That's how I thought New England does it at least. Just leave the best players on the field. Aldon was a good example of a guy not being a starter and coming in and making a significant impact. If Fleener can come in and pick up key first downs and keep the clock moving, give our D a breather, and grab some Td's instead of FG's and he can allow VD to not be double covered all the time. If I had to pick one of them based on who had a better shot at succeeding with us, I just think it would be him.

But Aldon is now a starter, people want to draft a kid this high to be a backup until Vernon leaves? And I think a lot of you are discounting Delanie a bit, he's not all world but he is good and is a mismatch because of his speed. I just don't get it, we have 1 pro bowl caliber TE and another solid one...and we want to draft another one now.......and oh yeah we have nothing at WR?

We lost the 30 spot?

WTF?!!

Originally posted by jreff22:
But Aldon is now a starter, people want to draft a kid this high to be a backup until Vernon leaves? And I think a lot of you are discounting Delanie a bit, he's not all world but he is good and is a mismatch because of his speed. I just don't get it, we have 1 pro bowl caliber TE and another solid one...and we want to draft another one now.......and oh yeah we have nothing at WR?

Picking at #30 is a different ballgame. Anyone we get could be a backup for a while. Many were mocking Kendall Reyes, who would be a backup DE until Cowboy is done. An OL could who is selected at #30 would be inexperienced, and be lacking the transcendent talent that could help one get by in that first awkward year or two. An RB (like Miller) would rotate in w/Gore and Hunter. A WR would likely sit behind Crab and Moss/other FA. Look at a #30 pick as a 2nd rounder. If you get a solid contributor with starter potential, you are doing pretty well. By the way, that's exactly what Hill would be. There is almost no chance that he would start in 2012, and no guarantee that he would start after that. I have said it before in this thread: I would be perfectly happy if we got Hill, but to say that he WILL be a starter for sure is ignoring history and probabilities. We would hope that his talent and work ethic would get him there, but it would be impossible to know that.

I don't see Walker as a solid TE at all. He is a decent HB. He gets a lot of love in the Zone because he brings some exciting potential, but he rarely makes good on it. Detroit was an anomaly. He generally drops or fumbles in the clutch. He has improved as a n in-line blocker, but I think a solid TE should also be a difficult matchup for defenses. He is not too big for safeties or nickle CBs to cover alone, though he is often too fast for a single linebacker to lock down. With Fleener, 3rd downs could become much easier, with Alex simply getting the ball to whichever TE is in single coverage.

Originally posted by jreff22:
If Fleener didnt play for Stanford would you be all in for him?

Good question! I might not have heard of him if he played for Alabama, but since a third of his catches were for TDs it seems he is the best Red Zone target available. He is also very fast--second fastest guy on the Stanford team (according to team mates). So he and VD would both be deep threats.

I understand both arguments and am going back and forth as you guys post! Good discussion--true #1 versus even talent accross the board...or both!

Originally posted by WRATHman44:

Originally posted by jreff22:
But Aldon is now a starter, people want to draft a kid this high to be a backup until Vernon leaves? And I think a lot of you are discounting Delanie a bit, he's not all world but he is good and is a mismatch because of his speed. I just don't get it, we have 1 pro bowl caliber TE and another solid one...and we want to draft another one now.......and oh yeah we have nothing at WR?

Picking at #30 is a different ballgame. Anyone we get could be a backup for a while. Many were mocking Kendall Reyes, who would be a backup DE until Cowboy is done. An OL could who is selected at #30 would be inexperienced, and be lacking the transcendent talent that could help one get by in that first awkward year or two. An RB (like Miller) would rotate in w/Gore and Hunter. A WR would likely sit behind Crab and Moss/other FA. Look at a #30 pick as a 2nd rounder. If you get a solid contributor with starter potential, you are doing pretty well. By the way, that's exactly what Hill would be. There is almost no chance that he would start in 2012, and no guarantee that he would start after that. I have said it before in this thread: I would be perfectly happy if we got Hill, but to say that he WILL be a starter for sure is ignoring history and probabilities. We would hope that his talent and work ethic would get him there, but it would be impossible to know that.

I don't see Walker as a solid TE at all. He is a decent HB. He gets a lot of love in the Zone because he brings some exciting potential, but he rarely makes good on it. Detroit was an anomaly. He generally drops or fumbles in the clutch. He has improved as a n in-line blocker, but I think a solid TE should also be a difficult matchup for defenses. He is not too big for safeties or nickle CBs to cover alone, though he is often too fast for a single linebacker to lock down. With Fleener, 3rd downs could become much easier, with Alex simply getting the ball to whichever TE is in single coverage.

I for one do not want any DL this year because they wont see the field. If we go OL it would be at OG/C and that kid could walk into the starting job. I fully believe that if we draft a WR he would have the potential to be the #1. Everybody knows Crabs is not that guy, and Moss is on a 1 year deal...if we take a WR its because we have a glaring whole that needs filling.

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by jreff22:
If Fleener didnt play for Stanford would you be all in for him?

Good question! I might not have heard of him if he played for Alabama, but since a third of his catches were for TDs it seems he is the best Red Zone target available. He is also very fast--second fastest guy on the Stanford team (according to team mates). So he and VD would both be deep threats.

I understand both arguments and am going back and forth as you guys post! Good discussion--true #1 versus even talent accross the board...or both!

Luck ran a faster 40 then Fleener did at the combine. And Fleener posted those numbers because he was the "guy", Vernon is the guy here.

Originally posted by jreff22:
I for one do not want any DL this year because they wont see the field. If we go OL it would be at OG/C and that kid could walk into the starting job. I fully believe that if we draft a WR he would have the potential to be the #1. Everybody knows Crabs is not that guy, and Moss is on a 1 year deal...if we take a WR its because we have a glaring whole that needs filling.

Can Hill be the Niner's #1? Probably, there's a good chance that he would eventually be the top WR on the depth chart.

Can he be a legit, game changing #1 WR, where he can carry the team if he needs to? Less chance of that happening. I mean, how many first round WRs haven't lived up to potential. I'm sure we can all think of at least one..

So why waste #30 on Hill, when we can get a competent receiver in the second round who can be our #1 WR in front of Crabs and Moss. There are other good receivers after #30, there aren't any Fleener-type TEs after. Any of the good, potentially game breaking receivers (Blackmon) will be taken WAY before us, so there's no reason to reach for a receiver.

And anyway, if we drafted a WR at #30, Moss and Crabtree probably have the starting jobs this season, so we probably wouldn't see too much return on the draft pick this year, whereas we could see immeadiate returns from Fleener just due to him being a huge mismatch in the redzone, which is where we need to score more TDs instead of FGs.

Originally posted by jreff22:
Luck ran a faster 40 then Fleener did at the combine. And Fleener posted those numbers because he was the "guy", Vernon is the guy here.

Hmm...thought Fleener wasn't going to run at the combine due to injury?

Edit: just checked online and Fleener didn't run the 40 at the combine. Did you have a time from a different source?

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by jreff22:
Luck ran a faster 40 then Fleener did at the combine. And Fleener posted those numbers because he was the "guy", Vernon is the guy here.

Hmm...thought Fleener wasn't going to run at the combine due to injury?

Edit: just checked online and Fleener didn't run the 40 at the combine. Did you have a time from a different source?

No he doesn't. Just making an argument, facts be damned

Originally posted by jreff22:
I for one do not want any DL this year because they wont see the field. If we go OL it would be at OG/C and that kid could walk into the starting job. I fully believe that if we draft a WR he would have the potential to be the #1. Everybody knows Crabs is not that guy, and Moss is on a 1 year deal...if we take a WR its because we have a glaring whole that needs filling.

By your definition of #1, Crab IS that guy. He had the most receiving yards, so he is the #1 receiver. Is he a guy who consistently gains separation from #1 CBs and defeats double teams? No, he hasn't shown that, and there is no guarantee that Hill would do that either, especially in his rookie year. Your argument opposes your argument.