There are 104 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 dtg_9er:
Originally posted by jreff22:
You do realize that he can be jammed at the line which is easier for a LB to do to a TE.


Of course, but as he seemed to catch most of the TDs at Stanford he was evidently able to get off the line. Also, as we saw last year, Harbaugh is pretty adept at getting TEs in a position to make plays.

I'm not saying take Fleener at any cost, but rather he may be the best player at #30 for the 9ers. If a top rate WR is there than it becomes interesting and Baalke/Harbaugh will make an informed decision.

We used Vernon a lot because of his ability to flat out fly, Fleener isn't that kind of athlete.
Originally posted by jreff22:
We used Vernon a lot because of his ability to flat out fly, Fleener isn't that kind of athlete.

Redzone possession receiver, mismatch nightmare across the field who is a threat to score from anywhere.

We'll use him in a different way than VD. You're grasping at straws here.
Originally posted by Alkasquawlik:
Originally posted by jreff22:
I am touting a WR, not necessarily Hill. If you watch GT you would know their WR's don't post big numbers because of the system. If the FO has him graded in the top 32 then I would pull the trigger on him.

The thread topic is Fleener vs Hill, but I see your point.

I agree we need a receiver, just feel we would be stretching with Hill at #30.

And I agree with that, I keep saying Hill to me is a high 2nd rounder. Fleener because he is the top TE is more of a 1st rounder. I just dont like burning a 1st rnd pick on a TE who wont be the feature guy.
Originally posted by jreff22:
And I agree with that, I keep saying Hill to me is a high 2nd rounder. Fleener because he is the top TE is more of a 1st rounder. I just dont like burning a 1st rnd pick on a TE who wont be the feature guy.

I see where you're coming from.

However, I think you're stuck on only having one feature TE on a team. What's wrong with having two playmakers like NE? Serious question. It will spread coverages out even more, especially if we add depth in free agency to the WR core to the point where that is no longer an issue.
Originally posted by Alkasquawlik:
Originally posted by jreff22:
We used Vernon a lot because of his ability to flat out fly, Fleener isn't that kind of athlete.

Redzone possession receiver, mismatch nightmare across the field who is a threat to score from anywhere.

We'll use him in a different way than VD. You're grasping at straws here.

No I'm not I'm talking about how we used Vernon last year. This whole nightmare thing sounds great but what he did at Standford and what he can do in the NFL are different. He scored a lot of TD's but the Standford offense lost a play maker in Baldwin and didnt have much outside of Fleener. I think you see the Pats offense and expect us to be able to recreate that effect here....I don't see it happening.
Originally posted by jreff22:
No I'm not I'm talking about how we used Vernon last year. This whole nightmare thing sounds great but what he did at Standford and what he can do in the NFL are different. He scored a lot of TD's but the Standford offense lost a play maker in Baldwin and didnt have much outside of Fleener. I think you see the Pats offense and expect us to be able to recreate that effect here....I don't see it happening.

Curious as to why you don't think we can recreate something similar in SF.
Originally posted by Alkasquawlik:
Originally posted by jreff22:
And I agree with that, I keep saying Hill to me is a high 2nd rounder. Fleener because he is the top TE is more of a 1st rounder. I just dont like burning a 1st rnd pick on a TE who wont be the feature guy.

I see where you're coming from.

However, I think you're stuck on only having one feature TE on a team. What's wrong with having two playmakers like NE? Serious question. It will spread coverages out even more, especially if we add depth in free agency to the WR core to the point where that is no longer an issue.

Because we are not NE, we don't have Brady and a slew of WR's that get open all day. Brady is running from the shotgun with all day to throw and guys get open. The separation issue at WR was a problem we can all agree with. To run that system you have to have the full package...not just 2 TE's. Williams doesn't worry people, Moss we have no idea what he will do, and Crabs is just Crabs. I think we are skipping piece A and B and going right to C and expecting it to work. And adding depth in FA isn't a lock...look at last year. The depth we brought in was worthless. I understand what you want to build but I don't think we are at the point to transition into that style of play.
Originally posted by Alkasquawlik:
Originally posted by jreff22:
No I'm not I'm talking about how we used Vernon last year. This whole nightmare thing sounds great but what he did at Standford and what he can do in the NFL are different. He scored a lot of TD's but the Standford offense lost a play maker in Baldwin and didnt have much outside of Fleener. I think you see the Pats offense and expect us to be able to recreate that effect here....I don't see it happening.

Curious as to why you don't think we can recreate something similar in SF.

just answered in my previous post
Originally posted by jreff22:
Because we are not NE, we don't have Brady and a slew of WR's that get open all day. Brady is running from the shotgun with all day to throw and guys get open. The separation issue at WR was a problem we can all agree with. To run that system you have to have the full package...not just 2 TE's. Williams doesn't worry people, Moss we have no idea what he will do, and Crabs is just Crabs. I think we are skipping piece A and B and going right to C and expecting it to work. And adding depth in FA isn't a lock...look at last year. The depth we brought in was worthless. I understand what you want to build but I don't think we are at the point to transition into that style of play.

Brady doesn't have a slew of receivers, he has Welker running underneath routes, and then who else? Branch and OchoCinco?

I agree that we need to fix our depth at receiver, if we went into games right now, our situation wouldn't be much better than last season. Moss, although in my opinion was a great pick up, is NOT the answer at receiver. I personally think he'll have a good season, but we need to add another playmaker or two.
However, the FO will definitely address that need, both in free agency and in the draft.

Assuming that happens, I think we'd have offensive playmakers that would be more solid than New England's, across the board.
Originally posted by Alkasquawlik:
Originally posted by jreff22:
Because we are not NE, we don't have Brady and a slew of WR's that get open all day. Brady is running from the shotgun with all day to throw and guys get open. The separation issue at WR was a problem we can all agree with. To run that system you have to have the full package...not just 2 TE's. Williams doesn't worry people, Moss we have no idea what he will do, and Crabs is just Crabs. I think we are skipping piece A and B and going right to C and expecting it to work. And adding depth in FA isn't a lock...look at last year. The depth we brought in was worthless. I understand what you want to build but I don't think we are at the point to transition into that style of play.

Brady doesn't have a slew of receivers, he has Welker running underneath routes, and then who else? Branch and OchoCinco?

I agree that we need to fix our depth at receiver, if we went into games right now, our situation wouldn't be much better than last season. Moss, although in my opinion was a great pick up, is NOT the answer at receiver. I personally think he'll have a good season, but we need to add another playmaker or two.
However, the FO will definitely address that need, both in free agency and in the draft.

Assuming that happens, I think we'd have offensive playmakers that would be more solid than New England's, across the board.

Welker and Branch did pretty good this year, Branch is not a bad WR. And they always have midget white guys running around like little crack heads getting balls. I know Gronk and Hern did great this year but NE played one of the easiest schedules in the entire league. And its still Brady who has all day to throw.

I agree on needing 2 WR's and have us drafting 2, I expected more in FA but at this point the talent is gone. And I will stress that if you run this system and 1 TE goes down the system is screwed. To me getting the playmakers at WR is priority 1 and will remain so until it is fixed. That s**t with Crabs in the playoffs still aggravates the hell out of me....I want a playmaker and I want Crabs gone.
Originally posted by Alkasquawlik:
Originally posted by jreff22:
And I agree with that, I keep saying Hill to me is a high 2nd rounder. Fleener because he is the top TE is more of a 1st rounder. I just dont like burning a 1st rnd pick on a TE who wont be the feature guy.

I see where you're coming from.

However, I think you're stuck on only having one feature TE on a team. What's wrong with having two playmakers like NE? Serious question. It will spread coverages out even more, especially if we add depth in free agency to the WR core to the point where that is no longer an issue.
I told you, people seem to think that we will/can feature (start) two TE's. NE used two TE's because they lacked a real WR threat, and, like the 49ers, were blessed with creative coaching to hide their WR weakness. This starting two TE's "nightmare" isn't going to happen. You can run that at Stanford against college talent and get away with it. But we are talking about the NFL.



Originally posted by Alkasquawlik:
Originally posted by jreff22:
No I'm not I'm talking about how we used Vernon last year. This whole nightmare thing sounds great but what he did at Standford and what he can do in the NFL are different. He scored a lot of TD's but the Standford offense lost a play maker in Baldwin and didnt have much outside of Fleener. I think you see the Pats offense and expect us to be able to recreate that effect here....I don't see it happening.

Curious as to why you don't think we can recreate something similar in SF.
Why would we want to recreate a scheme that clearly couldn't get it done in the SB (not saying that we should be like NY)? People are talking about NE's two TE thing as if they beat the world with it. I don't see it happening because NFL defenses are too sophisticated for that to be successful, especially if you don't have a threat at WR.

For a long time I have been making the same point as jreff22 has been making: 1st). In the 1st round teams draft for for players who will either start right away, or at least by year two. And 2nd). The rules say you can only field 11 guys, so if we feature 2 TE's the question begs, who comes off the field, a WR or the FB? By default teams field 5 lineman, 2 WR's, 2 backs (RB, FB), and one TE. Do we take Crabs or Moss off? Do we take our FB star Miller off and go single-back sets, despite the fact that Gore thrives with a FB? This is the problem with drafting an un-needed position in the first, especially on a team like the 49ers that already have one of the top 2 or 3 TE's in the league.

Now, I have been accused of lacking an "Imagination" because of my opposition to taking Fleener in the first. I know one thing though: As critical as I've been of the Moss signing I know we signed him mainly for one reason, and that's to stretch the defense. Though I'm not a fan of Crabs, just the sight of Crabs and Moss - no to mention Gore - on the field at the same time by itself changes the look of a defense. Finally, just the mere thought of Jim and Trent trying to bring in Manning indicates that they don't intend for this offense to toss 25 or 30 passes to a bunch of TE's running seam routes, drags, or out routes all game, not with Moss and Crabs on the roster (and whatever WR they bring in). I just don't see this 2 TE thing coming to San Fran. anytime soon.
Originally posted by jreff22:
Originally posted by Alkasquawlik:
Originally posted by jreff22:
Because we are not NE, we don't have Brady and a slew of WR's that get open all day. Brady is running from the shotgun with all day to throw and guys get open. The separation issue at WR was a problem we can all agree with. To run that system you have to have the full package...not just 2 TE's. Williams doesn't worry people, Moss we have no idea what he will do, and Crabs is just Crabs. I think we are skipping piece A and B and going right to C and expecting it to work. And adding depth in FA isn't a lock...look at last year. The depth we brought in was worthless. I understand what you want to build but I don't think we are at the point to transition into that style of play.

Brady doesn't have a slew of receivers, he has Welker running underneath routes, and then who else? Branch and OchoCinco?

I agree that we need to fix our depth at receiver, if we went into games right now, our situation wouldn't be much better than last season. Moss, although in my opinion was a great pick up, is NOT the answer at receiver. I personally think he'll have a good season, but we need to add another playmaker or two.
However, the FO will definitely address that need, both in free agency and in the draft.

Assuming that happens, I think we'd have offensive playmakers that would be more solid than New England's, across the board.

Welker and Branch did pretty good this year, Branch is not a bad WR. And they always have midget white guys running around like little crack heads getting balls. I know Gronk and Hern did great this year but NE played one of the easiest schedules in the entire league. And its still Brady who has all day to throw.

I agree on needing 2 WR's and have us drafting 2, I expected more in FA but at this point the talent is gone. And I will stress that if you run this system and 1 TE goes down the system is screwed. To me getting the playmakers at WR is priority 1 and will remain so until it is fixed. That s**t with Crabs in the playoffs still aggravates the hell out of me....I want a playmaker and I want Crabs gone.

Aman Bro.!! Especially the underlined.
Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:
Originally posted by jreff22:

I agree on needing 2 WR's and have us drafting 2, I expected more in FA but at this point the talent is gone. And I will stress that if you run this system and 1 TE goes down the system is screwed. To me getting the playmakers at WR is priority 1 and will remain so until it is fixed. That s**t with Crabs in the playoffs still aggravates the hell out of me....I want a playmaker and I want Crabs gone.

Aman Bro.!! Especially the underlined.
Man I hope we get Manning so you guys can see that Crabs isn't the problem... Get over it. Crabs didn't have a good game. VD was really the only offensive guy who did. Add C. Johnson and Fitz and whoever else you want at WR and Alex is still only going to eclipse a little over 3000 yards.
Originally posted by jacklegniner:
Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:
Originally posted by jreff22:

I agree on needing 2 WR's and have us drafting 2, I expected more in FA but at this point the talent is gone. And I will stress that if you run this system and 1 TE goes down the system is screwed. To me getting the playmakers at WR is priority 1 and will remain so until it is fixed. That s**t with Crabs in the playoffs still aggravates the hell out of me....I want a playmaker and I want Crabs gone.

Aman Bro.!! Especially the underlined.
Man I hope we get Manning so you guys can see that Crabs isn't the problem... Get over it. Crabs didn't have a good game. VD was really the only offensive guy who did. Add C. Johnson and Fitz and whoever else you want at WR and Alex is still only going to eclipse a little over 3000 yards.

we played 2 playoff games and he did s**t in both of them

Garcon and Wayne both posted 950+ this year with Painter....its not always the QB
Hill, but neither of them imo
Search Podcast Draft Forum Commentary News Shop Home