Fleener vs Hill | Page 6 | 49ers Webzone Forum

buck · 2012-03-22T11:46:36-07:00

I acknowledge that making comparisons between two players who play different positions and played in different schemes is fraught with problems. Nevertheless, I do think it safe to assume that if Fleener and Hill had played on the other's team, Hill's number would go up and Fleener's would go down. Last year, Stanford ran 935 offensive plays (44.6 % were passing plays.) Last year, Georgia Tech ran 928 offense plays (23.8 % were passing plays.) Not only were the schemes fundamentally different, but the quality of quarterbacks was also quite different. Luck completed 71.2% of his passes, while the Georgia Tech quarterbacks only completed 49.1% of their passes. Here are some comparisons to consider. Stephen Hill is 6-4 and weighs 215 pounds. Coby Fleener is 6-6 and weighs 247 pounds. Hill ran 4.36 in the forty. Fleener's estimated time in the 40 is 4.77. edit: per Valrod33 post below Fleener ran a 4.45 forty. edit: Mayock had him run a 4.51 with a 20 mph wind. Stephen Hill ranked 79 nationally in receiving yards. Coby Fleener ranked 134 nationally in receiving yards. Stephen Hill had 28 receptions for 820 yards and 5 scores. Coby Fleener had 34 receptions for 667 yards and 10 scores. Hill averaged 29.3 yards per reception. Fleener averaged 19.6 yards per reception. Stephen Hill had 34.2% of Georgia Tech's receptions. Coby Fleener had 11.5% of Stanford's receptions. Hill had 44.3% of the teams receiving yardage. Fleener had 18.4% of the teams receiving yardage. Hill had 45.6% of the teams receiving scores. Fleener had 26.3% of the teams receiving scores. My sense is that both players would fit into SF's scheme, but I favor Hill. If the team selects Fleener, I will not complain. Well, maybe just a little. I hope that Moss works out well this year, but I do not think that we can depend on him, and certainly not for long. Fleener might be more pro-ready than Hill right now, but drafting only for upcoming year seems a bit short-sighted. I predict that by the start of the season, Hill will be above Williams on our depth chart. By the end of the year, Hill will have proven to be a solid contributor. In the near future, our wide receivers will be Hill, Manningham, and Crabtree.

Mar 24, 2012 at 6:32 AM

#76

WRATHman44
Staff
Posts: 16,963

Originally posted by FredFlintstone:

Originally posted by jimmy49erfan:
Has Harbaugh ever lined up Fleener at WR? Anyone who watched alot of Fleener think he can play WR and be a #1 kind of WR? If so id with Fleener but if not I dont think its a good move to pass on a 4.3 WR with Hills size. I dont think you could go wrong with either player both have elite potential as a pro.

fleener has lined up as a wr in some of stanford's offensive sets

and run a lot of WCO routes. I think he would be deadly running fades or slants from the x position in the red zone, and I think he would have ridiculous versatility as a slot, as well. The question I have about him is: how much time did the Stanford staff spend teaching him in-line blocking, because he isn't the best at it. If Drevno worked on it all day with him, there is reason t believe he won't improve much. Having played coolege ball though, I know that there are limitations on time you can spend on football each day (stupid classes and labs), so maybe blocking didn't get as much attention for a slot/wide/movement TE. He was the length and upperbody strength to create impressive leverage, if he is technically sound and willing to get into it.

IMO, Harbaugh will be able to answer this more than any other NFL coach, because he will know what they asked of Fleener. I think he could still make a huge impact in our offense without being a dependable in-line guy, but our offense could be a steamroller if he got to be as aggressive and versatile as Davis. IIRC, both Davis and Walker sucked at blocking when they got here (but Hoerner's (sp) gone)

Mar 24, 2012 at 6:33 AM

#77

WRATHman44
Staff
Posts: 16,963

Originally posted by schmons:
i heard baldwin didnt like harbaugh. he had some not so nice things to say about him on twitter at one point

was that after he went undrafted?

Mar 24, 2012 at 7:04 AM

#78

Mr.Mcgibblets
Veteran
Posts: 15,079

It's not just that Fleener is fast... just watch the clips of him and you can see that along with that 6' 6" frame, he reaches up another 6 feet with ease and the ball just gets sucked right into his paws. Talk about a wide and tall catch radius.. Remember, people knocked VD on his blocking when he was a mere prospect.

Mar 24, 2012 at 11:30 AM

#79

ninertico
Veteran
Posts: 10,259

Originally posted by oldman9er:
It's not just that Fleener is fast... just watch the clips of him and you can see that along with that 6' 6" frame, he reaches up another 6 feet with ease and the ball just gets sucked right into his paws. Talk about a wide and tall catch radius.. Remember, people knocked VD on his blocking when he was a mere prospect.

Mar 24, 2012 at 3:12 PM

#80

jacklegniner
Veteran
Posts: 2,206

Originally posted by ninertico:

Originally posted by oldman9er:
It's not just that Fleener is fast... just watch the clips of him and you can see that along with that 6' 6" frame, he reaches up another 6 feet with ease and the ball just gets sucked right into his paws. Talk about a wide and tall catch radius.. Remember, people knocked VD on his blocking when he was a mere prospect.

Every time I let it die down, I think I would be ok with taking someone else and then I read stuff like this and remember what he can do and I literally don't care what else happens in the draft as long as we get this kid (just kidding

....but kind of serious too).

We were 11th in the league in scoring with 380 (the Pack had 560). But weren't we dead last in the redzone. Too many FG's. I would love to get down into the redzone and basically tell Alex, whichever TE they double cover between VD and Fleener... throw it to the other guy.

Mar 26, 2012 at 3:43 PM

#81

CorvaNinerFan
Veteran
Posts: 10,448

Wow, my head hurts after reading all those figures! Anyway, I wouldn't be upset with either guy. I think Hill will be long gone by #30, though, for the very reasons you stated. I think he has a bright future, but I believe a receiver-starved team well ahead of the Niners will take him. Fleener would seem to be (at least partially) the cure to our 3rd down conversions and struggles in the RZ. He's got the unheard of combination of size, length and speed. You know Harbaugh wouldn't pass him up if he's there. Baalke could even trade up should teams ahead of the NIners show legitimate interest in him. This is Walker's last year, unless he's extended. Should they draft Fleener, I don't think he will be.

Mar 26, 2012 at 3:53 PM

#82

buck
Veteran
Posts: 13,137

Originally posted by CorvaNinerFan:
Wow, my head hurts after reading all those figures! Anyway, I wouldn't be upset with either guy. I think Hill will be long gone by #30, though, for the very reasons you stated. I think he has a bright future, but I believe a receiver-starved team well ahead of the Niners will take him. Fleener would seem to be (at least partially) the cure to our 3rd down conversions and struggles in the RZ. He's got the unheard of combination of size, length and speed. You know Harbaugh wouldn't pass him up if he's there. Baalke could even trade up should teams ahead of the NIners show legitimate interest in him. This is Walker's last year, unless he's extended. Should they draft Fleener, I don't think he will be.

Sorry, did not mean to cause anyone any pain with the figures.

Mar 26, 2012 at 3:57 PM

#83

LumpiaJeff
Veteran
Posts: 51,513

It's gonna be a toss up on who will be available for us. Prior to Fleener's pro day, a lot of mocks had Hill off the board by the time the Niners were on the clock. After Fleener's pro day, Hill is available, but Fleener is off the board.