There are 83 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 jreff22:
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.

I'm glad to see I am not alone on this point. I can't tell you how much hell I've taken for making this point. Some seem to think we are going to actually feature (start) 2 TE's as our main offensive set. And its almost blasphemous to suggest otherwise around these parts. BTW, I maintain that we should draft a WR - Hill - in the 1st.
[ Edited by 9ersLiferInChicago on Mar 16, 2012 at 7:54 PM ]
Originally posted by jreff22:
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?
Hell no! If he played at Iowa St. or somewhere else many people around here would be talking about draft a TE in the 3rd or 4th, if at all.
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?
I pulled the numbers from draft scout, my mistake. They have him listed at 4.7
Originally posted by Alkasquawlik:
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.

We either pull the trigger at 30 or trade back up. The talent at 60 will be more ho hum then at 30ish. I honestly think the right kid will take Crabtrees spot, seriously.
Originally posted by WRATHman44:

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.

How does my argument that Vernon is a locked in starter and Crabs is holding down a spot waiting for it to be taken oppose any argument? Crabs does not act or play like a #1. A team can have 5 scrubs and 1 will be the leader, should that team not look for a replacement because thy have a guy that leads in stats...that is stupid. He had 0 competition and received the benefit of that outcome. I am fully aware that any rookie might not "do it" but I really think the right kid will...is that Hill, maybe maybe not.
Originally posted by jreff22:
How does my argument that Vernon is a locked in starter and Crabs is holding down a spot waiting for it to be taken oppose any argument? Crabs does not act or play like a #1. A team can have 5 scrubs and 1 will be the leader, should that team not look for a replacement because thy have a guy that leads in stats...that is stupid. He had 0 competition and received the benefit of that outcome. I am fully aware that any rookie might not "do it" but I really think the right kid will...is that Hill, maybe maybe not.


I really love Hill (Georgia Tech fan) and I like Fleener but I say we solve this argument now and take neither. Cash that number one in for Mike Wallace baby! If only reality was as simple as madden. Wallace and a motivated Moss as deep threats...FTW
Originally posted by Willisfn4life:
Originally posted by jreff22:
How does my argument that Vernon is a locked in starter and Crabs is holding down a spot waiting for it to be taken oppose any argument? Crabs does not act or play like a #1. A team can have 5 scrubs and 1 will be the leader, should that team not look for a replacement because thy have a guy that leads in stats...that is stupid. He had 0 competition and received the benefit of that outcome. I am fully aware that any rookie might not "do it" but I really think the right kid will...is that Hill, maybe maybe not.


I really love Hill (Georgia Tech fan) and I like Fleener but I say we solve this argument now and take neither. Cash that number one in for Mike Wallace baby! If only reality was as simple as madden. Wallace and a motivated Moss as deep threats...FTW

2 points

I don't see Fleener falling to us, I have him projected to Houston
We cant afford Wallace, we don't have the capital to outbid Pitt

Also I think we can trade back and get Hill at the top of the 2nd
Originally posted by jreff22:
2 points

I don't see Fleener falling to us, I have him projected to Houston
We cant afford Wallace, we don't have the capital to outbid Pitt

Also I think we can trade back and get Hill at the top of the 2nd
That was a total joke. I don't want to get in a bidding war for Wallace TBH. I think he is a solid player but having a quarterback that entends plays as good as any in the league and has a rocket arm can tend to inflate one's stats.
Regarding the notion that we can't afford to waste 1st round picks on depth I don't see it that way. New England Patriots got 2,400 yards and 24 touchdowns out of their stud tight ends. Obviously I'm not expecting that kind of production but the way I see it is 2 tight ends becomes our base offense.

I don't think we would take Fleener for 10-15 plays a game. You're taking him and pairing him with Vernon and saying guard these guys. 3rd and long is really the only situation were you pull either Fleener or Davis off the field.

I
Originally posted by tjd808185:
Regarding the notion that we can't afford to waste 1st round picks on depth I don't see it that way. New England Patriots got 2,400 yards and 24 touchdowns out of their stud tight ends. Obviously I'm not expecting that kind of production but the way I see it is 2 tight ends becomes our base offense.

I don't think we would take Fleener for 10-15 plays a game. You're taking him and pairing him with Vernon and saying guard these guys. 3rd and long is really the only situation were you pull either Fleener or Davis off the field.

I

wasnt that where the struggle was 3rd and long not 3rd and short?

and Gronk and Hernandez weren't 1st rounders, they were 2nd and 4th
[ Edited by jreff22 on Mar 16, 2012 at 10:05 PM ]
Originally posted by jreff22:
wasnt that where the struggle was 3rd and long not 3rd and short?

and Gronk and Hernandez weren't 1st rounders, they were 2nd and 4th

Well if we're doing better on 1st and 2nd down we're not going to see as many 3rd down and longs don't you think?

I don't care where they were drafted that's not the point. Their offense revolves around the tight end position and Welker.
Originally posted by tjd808185:
Originally posted by jreff22:
wasnt that where the struggle was 3rd and long not 3rd and short?

and Gronk and Hernandez weren't 1st rounders, they were 2nd and 4th

Well if we're doing better on 1st and 2nd down we're not going to see as many 3rd down and longs don't you think?

I don't care where they were drafted that's not the point. Their offense revolves around the tight end position and Welker.

But couldn't we attribute that failed downs on some of Romans dumb play calling and WR's not getting open?
Originally posted by jreff22:
But couldn't we attribute that failed downs on some of Romans dumb play calling and WR's not getting open?
I'm not against taking a receiver if the right guy is on the board. If you're projecting someone to be a #1 receiver than that trumps Fleener. That's tough though because receivers have a high bust rate.
Originally posted by tjd808185:
Originally posted by jreff22:
But couldn't we attribute that failed downs on some of Romans dumb play calling and WR's not getting open?
I'm not against taking a receiver if the right guy is on the board. If you're projecting someone to be a #1 receiver than that trumps Fleener. That's tough though because receivers have a high bust rate.

agree but that is what this thread is generally about

#1 WR vs #2 TE
Neither.