Originally posted by sfout:
Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:
Originally posted by Leathaface:
I disagree. Depth is essentially what he'd be. So long as Vernon Davis is on the roster 50% of the offensive plays would be Fleener's ceiling and would be no better than the number 2 TE option on 90% of the plays he's on the field. I can't see how this is good draft management.
Originally posted by ssahnan:
my bottom line, you do not at any point trade up to draft for depth. I do not see any reasonable line of thinking that this guys is such a drastic improvement over Vernon Davis that not only do you not view him as just depth but you actually view him better then Vernon. I'm sorry, this is just reaching....
You add that to the fact this team actually is going to try to ressurect a 35 year old prima donna past his prime washed up reciever, a heck of a lot more needs to use the 'trade up' card on
1. VDs role wouldn't change.
2. Alex loves throwing to backs and TEs.
3. We use 2 TE sets as much as any team in the league.
4. It's not a depth move because he'd be on the field for a minimum of 50% of offensive snaps.
Davis is 28, unless he is Darrell Green and stays sub 4.4 until he is 35 there is no way Davis will be his 23 year old 4.3 speed nightmare in another couple of years. Getting someone who can take the pressure of him AND crabtree is huge. Whether its a TE or WR and a 4.5 6-6 WR/TE like Fleener is pretty much a Godsend at this point.
Did you watch Luck's "QB Camp" with Gruden - They talk about how frequently the TE's and FB's(or H-Back) are utilized in the offense. IF JH is really trying to run a carbon copy of his offense from Stanford then we will start seeing more 2 or 3 TE sets this coming season with 1 receiver like Crabtree,Manningham or Moss lining up outwide with VD on the opposite side and Fleener and Byham, Walker, or Bruce Miller lining up with the OL or in the backfield.
2 TE(or 3 TE if we take away the FB)
1 WR(or 2 WRs if we take away the FB)
you're being short sighted because of how the NFCC played out. When people say we need to upgrade our "receiving corp" you can be 1 sided and say it was all the WRs but think about if you have 2 or 3 incredibly good TEs you dont need 5 incredibly good WRs you just need 3 or 4 and right now we have those 3 or 4 incredibly good wrs with Crabtree, Manningham, Moss, and depth with Williams and Ginn. If we could add Fleener to a TE group of Davis, Walker, Byham/Reuland then good lord our offense would be mean as hell. We're still going to add a WR in the draft but I'm not convinced it'll be earlier then round 3.
Again, you can run 2 and 3 TE sets as a matter of course in college. But this is the NFL. Running a 2/3 TE sets and one WR as a matter of course is a liability if you cannot push the ball down field. If DC's knows your 2 and 3 TE sets are effectively hiding a weakness at the WR position - whether that hiding is by design or by coincidence of the scheme
- at some point you will be exposed, like we were in the title game. JH didn't run (and don't think he wants to run) a carbon copy of what he ran at Stanford. Plus, I haven't heard one reason for drafting a TE in the first that we couldn't achieve in later rounds. Hell, we could get James Hanna from Oklahoma in the 6th. After all, he's 6-4, 252, 24 reps on the bench (3 less than Fleener), ran a 4.49, perfect red-zone guy, and has very good hands. (No, I'm not making a pitch to draft Hanna.) Now I know whats gonna be said. "JH used multiple TE's at Stanford.
" True! But its also true that this franchise hasn't had a real #1 WR since TO. Since then the 49ers best WR option has been TE Vernon Davis precisely because we've suffered piss-poor WR play. And that remains today!!! Even with a re-vamped re-made Alex Smith we're still suffering from piss-poor WR play. JH didn't usher in the 2 TE idea to the 49ers. Mike Johnson and Jimmy Raye used them as well. Roman and JH have just been more thoughtful with this approach than previous regimes. My point is that drafting a TE in the 1st is unnecessary. Moving up to get one is just silly. You don't solve the weakness of your right arm by lifting more weights with your left arm.
To think we have 3 or 4 "incredibly good" WR is laughable. We have decent and capable WR's with a bunch of potential, nothing more than that:
- Crabs is still trying to develop chemistry with his QB going into his 4th season. Inconsistent, not in the playbook, just a bucket of potential but no production. (BTW, Crabs is gonna have to take the pressure off himself with better play, getting into the playbook, running better routes, getting open, etc, etc, etc. Drafting Fleener, anywhere in the draft, won't do that for him.)
- Manningham is our best WR option as it now stands.
- Moss may or may not make the finale 53 (or may quit before then).
- Williams is a solid slot WR.
- Ginn should be seen as a WR in-name-only and should be strictly as a return guy. If we draft a WR he'd be at least higher than Ginn on the WR depth chart.
That WR corps don't seem too "incredibly good" to me.
About the short sighted comment. I tell you what. Since some are basically the clouding the difference (and the importance of that difference) between the WR and the TE to justify this pick (e.g. "4.5 6-6 WR/TE
like Fleener"), why don't we just forego the WR position altogether and just draft Fleener as a WR and make him our #1, convert D. Walker to a WR and designate him our slot guy, let Crabs, Manningham, and Moss compete for the #2 spot, and name Byham our #2 TE. That way, our base offense will look something like this:
WR - Fleener, TE - Byham XXXXX TE - Davis WR - Crabs/Manningham/Moss/Walker
We can run our 2 and 3 TE sets in all kinds of ways without ever having to take either Fleener or Davis off the field. After all, Fleener is practically a WR anyway, right?. We are just going to have to tell Gore he's gonna have to just do without the services of a FB on must plays, despite of the fact that he's always thrived with one, and despite the fact that the FB is vital to the WC passing game. Is that open minded enough?