Fleener vs Hill

if baalke can trade up for anthony davis he sure as hell can trade up for hill or fleener

Originally posted by ChazBoner:
Fleener just busted his ankle.

Yah he got Steph Curry ankles.

I have an issue with the assumption that Hill's #s will increase and Fleeners will go down. Especially in our offense.

Crabtree was 25% of our offense last season
VD was 25% of our offense last season
The 2-5 WRs were 25% of our offense
The remaining 25% went to #2/3 TE and RB/FBs

By this logic, Hill's output would drop by 17% as you say he his production was 29% of GTs offense where he would at best be all 25% #1 output (more then likely he'd the #2 or 3 and only account for 10-15% of our total O) and Fleener's output would likely drop off by 25%(Walker was 15% of our Offense) as well as you say he was 19% of Stanford's offense. The total yards lost is nearly identical at 50 for Fleener and 52 for Hill.

Just because Georgia only threw 162 passes last season doesn't mean that if they threw 400+ like Stanford did that Hill would be as effective as he was in an offense that required D's to stack he box on a play by play basis. It would probably decrease his effectiveness as CBs and Ss would be able to bracket cover him and force him to curl off his routes.

we evenly distribute the ball between every single target in our offense by position group. For the foreseeable future neither Hill nor Fleener will contribute that much but assuming Hill would play EVERY SINGLE SNAP as our #2 in 2012 he'd be in line for roughly the same output as our confection of #3s and #4s put out this past season while subbing in as #2s and #3s. This is also warped because many of these receptions came in 3 or 4 WR sets and its obvious that Manningham would see a huge chunk of these throws as well as Hill.

Take a look at our WR stats from 2011.

Morgan, Ginn, Williams, Swain
55 Receptions for 665 yards.

Add Edwards output of
15 receptions for 181 yards
-------
Add them up
68 receptions for 839 yards for 12.5 YPC

There is simply no way that Hill's 30 receptions for 900 yards will translate to the NFL in a carbon copy fashion. His yardage could go up due to targets but his YPC will drop dramatically due to the ability of D finally being able to bracket and double team him on a play by play basis. On top of that, in our scheme his #s would drop off because he wouldnt be the top target by default, he'd be at best the #2 but more likely the 3rd or 4th option behind VD, Crabtree, Manningham simply because he'd be a rookie that would still be learning the playbook. Look how long it took VD to learn it, I wouldn't be surprised if Crabtree had a similar issue.


Now take a look at what our #2 TE did(what would be the baseline for Fleener's stats)

Our #2 TE put up
19 receptions for 198 yards for a YPC of 10.5. In an offense that is supposed to heavily favor TEs. It looks like Walker cant fulfill the duties that JH's offense would typically want from his #2 TE.

Stanfords #2 TE
27 REC for 346 Yards for a YPC of 12.8 - On a side note the #3 TE put up 25 REC for 343 Yards for a YPC of 13.7......

Now compare Stanford's receiving Statistics of 2011 to the 9ers 2011 stats.

Crabtree: 72 REC 874 Yards

#2s/#3s/#4s/#5s WR: 70 REC 846 Yards

VD: 67 REC 792 Yards

#2/#3 TE: 20 REC 217 Yards
-----
229 REC 2729 Yards for 11.9 YPC


Now Stanford

Whalen: 56 REC 749 Yards

#2s/#s/#4/#5s WR: 70 REC 845 Yards

Fleener: 34 REC 667 Yards

#2/#3 TE: 52 REC 689 Yards (NOTE: #2 TE 27 REC 346 Yards #3 TE 25 REC 343 Yards)
-----
202 REC 2950 Yards for a 14.6 YPC


The individual statistics are nearly identical except for the backup TE position, thats where the 200 yard difference in the final #s really come from, as well the obvious inclination to throwing vs running that I detail below. ( its also incredibly apparent that Stanford threw downfield far more often then we did ).

Vernon was basically the #1 and #2 TE of the offense and Walker was the #3 from a statistical perspective, but I would like to be at a point where VD can still put up 800+ yards and the #2 put up 300-400, not the paltry 200 that Walker managed. Also Walker only caught 50% of the passes thrown his way, whether that was Alex's fault or his I dont know, but VD caught 70% of the passes thrown his way.

This has to be taking with a grain of salt because it was Andrew Luck throwing the football and his 5th year in the system and anywhere from 1-5 for the rest of the WR/TEs and in our offense it was EVERYONE'S first year with Alex Smith throwing the football.

another issue is the college game clock allowing more plays due to the constant stoppage time and different season length.

We passed 41 more times then the Cardinal, 404 vs 445 but they ran 56 less attempts then us, 419 vs 475 (taking into account the top 3 RBs and QB). Luck averaged 32 throws per game compared to 28 by Alex and 28 runs(excluding the #4RB) compared to 29 by us. Had the Cardinal played a 16 game season Luck would have thrown 500 pass and they would've ran 440 times(excluding #4 RB).

Stanford (projected to 16 games)
500 passes - 54%
440 runs(would be 510 if I included the #4 RB that college carry) - 46%
------
940 total plays

49ers in 16 games
445 passes - 48%
475 runs - 52%
------
920


There is a solid 20 play discrepancy due to the game clock and and game time situations but in nearly identical amount of snaps we are clearly a more balanced attack with a slight inclination to running.


Call me crazy but I dont think Walker can get the job done, its painfully obvious that we couldn't open our offense all the way due to many reasons
1. first year of the system
2. injuries at WR and TE
3. Lack of depth and talent at WR and TE

IMHO Walker isn't a TE that fits the description for JH's TEs. IMHO Walker needs to be more of a H-Back this season rather then a TE

Bringing in a TE that knows the system is not shortsighted at all and in fact its done with long term success in mind, as having TWO TEs that can do what the system demands will only give us more weapons at a position that is supposed to be the focal point of this scheme. Completely based off of statistics Hill's and his best possible but unlikely role within this team would either say the exact same or diminish. The idea of us throwing it deep to Hill on the bulk of his snaps is nearly laughable in our offense he would not produce anywhere near his college level on per catch basis.

Asking Fleener to maintain or improve on a 10 YPC average of Walker is a hell of lot more reason then asking Hill to maintain or improve anything above a 20 YPC let alone his 29 YPC in college.

HOLY LONG POST BATMAN......


Waits patiently for DIDNT READ LOL gifs.

EDIT:

Since everyone is calling Hill a tall Mike Wallace here is some food for thought

In 3 seasons at Ole Miss they ran a 60/40 split between pass and run respectively. Wallace averaged 18.9 YPC
In 3 seasons at Pitt they run a 70/30 split between pass and run respectively. Wallace averaged 18.7 YPC


In 3 seasons at GT they ran a 33/66 split between pass and run respectively. Hill averaged 25 YPC
Will Hill be able to "maintain" his explosiveness in a pass happy NFL where defenses are keying more on the pass rather then run?

^^^




Didn't want to disappoint.

Originally posted by LoboLtnLvr49er:
^^^




Didn't want to disappoint.

Thanks I hate having so much time on my hands in the middle of the day after class.

Thread is irrelevant, Fleener is not going to happen now. With a 4.45 40, coming out of a pro-style offense, with his route-running, hands and physical size, there is absolutely no way he's making it out of the Top 24, this guy has the potential to be the best tight-end in football. Not as fast as VD but more refined route-running coming out of college and a lot more size. I now see Fleener being drafted before Floyd and Wright because while they are good receiver talents, they aren't exceptional in the same way Fleener is. Chicago is the perfect destination for him now that they have Brandon Marshall, Denver and Pittsburgh will also have interest, not to mention Houston.


Fugdddeabboutit!

Hill averaged 29.3 yards per reception.
Fleener averaged 19.6 yards per reception.

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:
Thread is irrelevant, Fleener is not going to happen now. With a 4.45 40, coming out of a pro-style offense, with his route-running, hands and physical size, there is absolutely no way he's making it out of the Top 24, this guy has the potential to be the best tight-end in football. Not as fast as VD but more refined route-running coming out of college and a lot more size. I now see Fleener being drafted before Floyd and Wright because while they are good receiver talents, they aren't exceptional in the same way Fleener is. Chicago is the perfect destination for him now that they have Brandon Marshall, Denver and Pittsburgh will also have interest, not to mention Houston.


Fugdddeabboutit!

Fleener's awesome day basically ensures that him, Floyd, Wright or Hill will be there at 30 though :D

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:
Thread is irrelevant, Fleener is not going to happen now. With a 4.45 40, coming out of a pro-style offense, with his route-running, hands and physical size, there is absolutely no way he's making it out of the Top 24, this guy has the potential to be the best tight-end in football. Not as fast as VD but more refined route-running coming out of college and a lot more size. I now see Fleener being drafted before Floyd and Wright because while they are good receiver talents, they aren't exceptional in the same way Fleener is. Chicago is the perfect destination for him now that they have Brandon Marshall, Denver and Pittsburgh will also have interest, not to mention Houston.


Fugdddeabboutit!

Are you sure Chicago is not going to draft a RB?

Originally posted by sfout:
I have an issue with the assumption that Hill's #s will increase and Fleeners will go down. Especially in our offense.

Crabtree was 25% of our offense last season
VD was 25% of our offense last season
The 2-5 WRs were 25% of our offense
The remaining 25% went to #2/3 TE and RB/FBs

By this logic, Hill's output would drop by 17% as you say he his production was 29% of GTs offense where he would at best be all 25% #1 output (more then likely he'd the #2 or 3 and only account for 10-15% of our total O) and Fleener's output would likely drop off by 25%(Walker was 15% of our Offense) as well as you say he was 19% of Stanford's offense. The total yards lost is nearly identical at 50 for Fleener and 52 for Hill.


we evenly distribute the ball between every single target in our offense by position group. For the foreseeable future neither Hill nor Fleener will contribute that much but assuming Hill would play EVERY SINGLE SNAP as our #2 in 2012 he'd be in line for roughly the same output as our confection of #3s and #4s put out this past season while subbing in as #2s and #3s. This is also warped because many of these receptions came in 3 or 4 WR sets and its obvious that Manningham would see a huge chunk of these throws as well as Hill.



There is simply no way that Hill's 30 receptions for 900 yards will translate to the NFL in a carbon copy fashion. His yardage could go up due to targets but his YPC will drop dramatically due to the ability of D finally being able to bracket and double team him on a play by play basis. On top of that, in our scheme his #s would drop off because he wouldnt be the top target by default, he'd be at best the #2 but more likely the 3rd or 4th option behind VD, Crabtree, Manningham simply because he'd be a rookie that would still be learning the playbook. Look how long it took VD to learn it, I wouldn't be surprised if Crabtree had a similar issue.


Now take a look at what our #2 TE did(what would be the baseline for Fleener's stats)

Our #2 TE put up
19 receptions for 198 yards for a YPC of 10.5. In an offense that is supposed to heavily favor TEs. It looks like Walker cant fulfill the duties that JH's offense would typically want from his #2 TE.



The individual statistics are nearly identical except for the backup TE position, thats where the 200 yard difference in the final #s really come from, as well the obvious inclination to throwing vs running that I detail below. ( its also incredibly apparent that Stanford threw downfield far more often then we did ).

You are assuming that Manningham is going to eat into passes from Hill, he could very well eat into Crabs numbers...which would make more sense. Also you are grossly overvaluing Manningham.

Walker can do the duties assigned to him, if he wasnt looked highly upon we would of put him on IR last year

You are making a subjective argumnet to boast about Fleener...a guy who would always be no higher then #2.....where as Hill could become a #1.

If we had a #1 WR we wouldnt be needing to draft more WR's, because we dont, its become a problem. Haivng another TE is a luxury not a need.

And in a 2 TE set we will be telegraphing which side we are running to, Fleener is not a blocker.

Fleener will be taught to be a more effective blocker... but no, that's not his best asset. He's got the natural strength and willingness... the rest? perfectly coach-able.

Stephen Hill.

Originally posted by jreff22:
You are assuming that Manningham is going to eat into passes from Hill, he could very well eat into Crabs numbers...which would make more sense. Also you are grossly overvaluing Manningham.

Walker can do the duties assigned to him, if he wasnt looked highly upon we would of put him on IR last year

You are making a subjective argumnet to boast about Fleener...a guy who would always be no higher then #2.....where as Hill could become a #1.

If we had a #1 WR we wouldnt be needing to draft more WR's, because we dont, its become a problem. Haivng another TE is a luxury not a need.

And in a 2 TE set we will be telegraphing which side we are running to, Fleener is not a blocker.

Be careful Bro. You might get accused of "trolling" for making a logical point against picking Fleener in the first. I've never understood why some fans are wanting to take a guy in the 1st who has zero chance of ever starting for the 49ers. And I've never understood how some are advocating using our 1st pick to replace a back-up.

Originally posted by sfout:
I have an issue with the assumption that Hill's #s will increase and Fleeners will go down. Especially in our offense.

I only said that if Hill had played at Stanford and Fleener had played at GT, Hill's numbers would have gone up and Fleener's would have gone down.

Given the difference between the passing game at Stanford and the passing game at GT, this seems logical to me.

I made no attempt to project their potential NFL production based upon their college numbers, much less their production in our offense.

Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:

Originally posted by jreff22:
You are assuming that Manningham is going to eat into passes from Hill, he could very well eat into Crabs numbers...which would make more sense. Also you are grossly overvaluing Manningham.

Walker can do the duties assigned to him, if he wasnt looked highly upon we would of put him on IR last year

You are making a subjective argumnet to boast about Fleener...a guy who would always be no higher then #2.....where as Hill could become a #1.

If we had a #1 WR we wouldnt be needing to draft more WR's, because we dont, its become a problem. Haivng another TE is a luxury not a need.

And in a 2 TE set we will be telegraphing which side we are running to, Fleener is not a blocker.

Be careful Bro. You might get accused of "trolling" for making a logical point against picking Fleener in the first. I've never understood why some fans are wanting to take a guy in the 1st who has zero chance of ever starting for the 49ers. And I've never understood how some are advocating using our 1st pick to replace a back-up.

• Improving 3rd down conversions and RZ scoring are the prime Niner needs. This is the area suited to TEs more than WRs.
• As the #2 TE last year, Walker played enough to be considered a starter or in the first group. Certainly Fleener would only increase that.
• Fleener would increase Alex's catchable throw area while not necessarily increasing the length of his throws
• The offense would even more flexible, splitting, flanking or keeping in tight either or both VD and Fleener even more so than with Walker