Fleener vs Hill

Originally posted by NinerBuff:
Hill averaged 29.3 yards per reception.
Fleener averaged 19.6 yards per reception.

That just means Hill was ONLY used on deep routes. Your Average goes down if you catch 10 yd passes to get key first downs, but those are obviously just as important as being able to occasionally go deep. They mostly ran the ball to get the shorter gains, and had Hill go do streak routes down the field when they needed a lot of last minute yardage to catch up.

Fleener got twice the TDs being a much lower % of the Stanford total passing game.

I like Fleener more than Hill. You're talking about the best, most well-rounded tight end in the draft VS a guy who is physically gifted but only caught deep passes. One would impact immediately, the other might take a year or two to really emerge. If we go WR I'm more of a Wright fan.

Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:
Stephen Hill.

is he jewish? b/c he he spells it with an "H"

Originally posted by mike:

Originally posted by NinerBuff:
Hill averaged 29.3 yards per reception.
Fleener averaged 19.6 yards per reception.

That just means Hill was ONLY used on deep routes. Your Average goes down if you catch 10 yd passes to get key first downs, but those are obviously just as important as being able to occasionally go deep. They mostly ran the ball to get the shorter gains, and had Hill go do streak routes down the field when they needed a lot of last minute yardage to catch up.

Fleener got twice the TDs being a much lower % of the Stanford total passing game.

I like Fleener more than Hill. You're talking about the best, most well-rounded tight end in the draft VS a guy who is physically gifted but only caught deep passes. One would impact immediately, the other might take a year or two to really emerge. If we go WR I'm more of a Wright fan.

If Wright is available, I would hope we take him. I like both Hill and Fleener, but like you I like Wright better.

Wright ran well at the Baylor pro day, so the chances he drops to us are not high.

But, one of the three, could drop and I would be happy with each of them.
My preference is Wright, Hill, and Fleener.

Originally posted by Paul_Hofer:

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

If you are advocating using a TE has a WR, then why not just draft a WR?

Better point to make.....say we run a formation with only 1 TE, that guy would be Vernon. Say Hill becomes the #1 WR and we run a formation with only 1 WR, Hill would be that guy. No matter what Fleeners upside is he will NEVER replace Vernon.

Originally posted by jreff22:

Originally posted by pete98146:

Originally posted by 49oz2superbowl:
Where in the world did you get the 4.77 time? It has been widely known that Fleener runs in the low to sub 4.5 range for quite some time. He ran it in his pre-college workouts and had been timed in that range in Stanford workouts. To say he ran a 4.77 is admitting your bias against the pick. All Hill has going for him is his athleticism, if you're going to downplay Fleener's than the comparison is moot.

The NFL is a copy cat league. Teams see the success the Pats have had with Gronz/Hernandez and the Saints with Graham. No way he'll last till #30. But, if Baalk/baugh like him enough, trading up 5 slots to get Fleener wouldn't be THAT expensive.

thats only 1 team that uses 2 TE in that fashon...the Saints with Graham are not any different then us.

Yet which team won the Super Bowl, a team with Bear Pascoe at TE.

I want Fleener if he is there at 30, would not trade up for him. If Fleener, and the WR's are gone, then you trade down or go BPA at highest position of need. I want a WR and or Fleener, but sometimes it does not work out.

Originally posted by 9erred:

Originally posted by jreff22:

Originally posted by pete98146:

Originally posted by 49oz2superbowl:
Where in the world did you get the 4.77 time? It has been widely known that Fleener runs in the low to sub 4.5 range for quite some time. He ran it in his pre-college workouts and had been timed in that range in Stanford workouts. To say he ran a 4.77 is admitting your bias against the pick. All Hill has going for him is his athleticism, if you're going to downplay Fleener's than the comparison is moot.

The NFL is a copy cat league. Teams see the success the Pats have had with Gronz/Hernandez and the Saints with Graham. No way he'll last till #30. But, if Baalk/baugh like him enough, trading up 5 slots to get Fleener wouldn't be THAT expensive.

thats only 1 team that uses 2 TE in that fashon...the Saints with Graham are not any different then us.

Yet which team won the Super Bowl, a team with Bear Pascoe at TE.

I want Fleener if he is there at 30, would not trade up for him. If Fleener, and the WR's are gone, then you trade down or go BPA at highest position of need. I want a WR and or Fleener, but sometimes it does not work out.

What does Bear have to do with it?

I was saying the Pats lost with that style of play. If you can defend it or one of the guys gets hurt the system wont work.

Originally posted by jreff22:

Originally posted by Paul_Hofer:

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

If you are advocating using a TE has a WR, then why not just draft a WR?

Better point to make.....say we run a formation with only 1 TE, that guy would be Vernon. Say Hill becomes the #1 WR and we run a formation with only 1 WR, Hill would be that guy. No matter what Fleeners upside is he will NEVER replace Vernon.

Because you can't as easily use a WR as a TE. For instance, Hill vs. Fleener.
But the Niners often used two TE sets, enough that the #2 TE can be considered a starter or in the first group
I'm not certain that Hill would be the #1 receiver, or, if he is, how soon. Crabtree and Moss would have some clout there.

Originally posted by Paul_Hofer:

Originally posted by jreff22:

Originally posted by Paul_Hofer:

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

If you are advocating using a TE has a WR, then why not just draft a WR?

Better point to make.....say we run a formation with only 1 TE, that guy would be Vernon. Say Hill becomes the #1 WR and we run a formation with only 1 WR, Hill would be that guy. No matter what Fleeners upside is he will NEVER replace Vernon.

Because you can't as easily use a WR as a TE. For instance, Hill vs. Fleener.
But the Niners often used two TE sets, enough that the #2 TE can be considered a starter or in the first group
I'm not certain that Hill would be the #1 receiver, or, if he is, how soon. Crabtree and Moss would have some clout there.

and they aren't always catching passes in the set, they will block

Originally posted by TlSSER:

Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:
Stephen Hill.

is he jewish? b/c he he spells it with an "H"

My brother's name is Stephen and he is not Jewish.

Originally posted by jreff22:
What does Bear have to do with it?

I was saying the Pats lost with that style of play. If you can defend it or one of the guys gets hurt the system wont work.

If Gronkowski didn't get hurt that could be a different story. If Kyle Williams could catch a punt that would definetily be a different story.

We all know you can win without a dominant tight end but that's not a reason to not pursuit a tight end.

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by jreff22:
What does Bear have to do with it?

I was saying the Pats lost with that style of play. If you can defend it or one of the guys gets hurt the system wont work.

If Gronkowski didn't get hurt that could be a different story. If Kyle Williams could catch a punt that would definetily be a different story.

We all know you can win without a dominant tight end but that's not a reason to not pursuit a tight end.

given that WR is a bigger need it is a reason to pass on it

Originally posted by jreff22:
given that WR is a bigger need it is a reason to pass on it

BPA is always the best tactic.

I'm failing to see how adding a 6'6 guy who runs a 4.45 forty and is already familiar with Harbaugh's offense is going to hurt us.

Originally posted by LoboLtnLvr49er:
Are you sure Chicago is not going to draft a RB?

Not with Forte coming back and their recent signing of Michael Bush.

Originally posted by tjd808185:
BPA is always the best tactic.

I'm failing to see how adding a 6'6 guy who runs a 4.45 forty and is already familiar with Harbaugh's offense is going to hurt us.

it hurts us in that we spend a high draft pick on a position that isnt one of NEED. For some reason everyone seems to think the massive hole at RG can be replaced by a player who wasnt good enough to back up Snyder(kilgore).

Originally posted by mjo116:
it hurts us in that we spend a high draft pick on a position that isnt one of NEED. For some reason everyone seems to think the massive hole at RG can be replaced by a player who wasnt good enough to back up Snyder(kilgore).

That's your opinion and its certainly a valid one, I would say that offensive playmakers are a HUGE area of need for this team, Fleener is an offensive playmaker, he would qualify as a matchup nightmare for defenses, he would give the 49ers another potential mismatch to utilize, he absolutely would fill a position of NEED, especially considering that he'd be out on the field for a majority of the offensive snaps.