There are 117 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

I've got Randle over Hill...Am I crazy?

So as many of you know, I'm not very keen on the idea of drafting a WR in the first round unless they have the chance of being an impact rookie or they're simply a steal...so I'd prefer Fleener.

That being said, if we were to draft a WR, I would prefer Rueben Randle over Stephen Hill or Kendall Wright. He has the size and physicality to get separation on those short to intermediate routes that the West Coast Offense is so reliant upon...he really looks like Hakeem Nicks on tape. Hill is fast but totally raw -- guy can't run a f--king route tree for pete's sake, and most niner fans think he's a lock superstar because of his 40 time. I have Floyd and Blackmon as equal #1 talents worthy of a pick around the #10 spot or so -- I think #4 is way too high for Blackmon.

So here are my rankings:

1. Blackmon

1a. Floyd

3. Randle

4. Wright

5. Hill

6. Sanu

7. Jeffery

8. M Jones

9. Criner

10. McNutt

11. Quick

12. Streeter

13. Jenkins

14. Toon

15. Broyles

16. Childs
Well Randle is the better prospect right now with better routes, but if you go to the tape Randle is 6 2 3/4 - 208 ran a 4.42 pro day but 4.55 at combine. Hill is 6 5 215 with a 4.36 at the combine, who knows what the guy could have run at his pro day since that is usually faster. Hill is a guy that could bloom later and he's a worker B, he is not afraid to block.

Randle had 20 more catches and is the better route runner but who knows who Baalke is going to draft.
Not Crazy. I had him ranked above Hill before the combine. Still feel he is, and will be, the beter WR.
Stephen Hill is overrated so no.
Originally posted by Oldschool9erfan:
Well Randle is the better prospect right now with better routes, but if you go to the tape Randle is 6 2 3/4 - 208 ran a 4.42 pro day but 4.55 at combine. Hill is 6 5 215 with a 4.36 at the combine, who knows what the guy could have run at his pro day since that is usually faster. Hill is a guy that could bloom later and he's a worker B, he is not afraid to block.

Randle had 20 more catches and is the better route runner but who knows who Baalke is going to draft.

what does Hill run in, you know, pads?
  • mike
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 1,827
Well I'd say yes but at least you put Wright over Hill. I still think if Wright is anywhere near our spot we go for him.
The fact that Randle played big in huge games against NFL caliber talent in the SEC gives him a lot of points in my book.

He gets 'tough' yards too - hard fought physical 10, 15 yard catches
Originally posted by mike:
Well I'd say yes but at least you put Wright over Hill. I still think if Wright is anywhere near our spot we go for him.

Wright is not a flanker - why would you take him that high?
Hill reminds me of Darrius Heyward-Bey, exceppt Hill is 6'5" and Bey is 6'2". What scares me about Hill is it might take a few years for him to be productive, therefore I would not draft him in the first round.
Originally posted by oregonniner:
Hill reminds me of Darrius Heyward-Bey, exceppt Hill is 6'5" and Bey is 6'2". What scares me about Hill is it might take a few years for him to be productive, therefore I would not draft him in the first round.


eh a low end first rounder is a second rounder. That should be good enough to bring in to develop right? i mean it doesnt matter who the hell we pick at our spot theyre gonna have to sit and learn, why not take that chance on a guy with Hill's measurables? It kinda reminds me of Josh Morgan. I remember when he came out V tech they were talking about how he never ran many routes and was unpolished etc. dropped all the way to a sixth but the guy still was relatively productive for us. In fact i think hes gonna break out big time with the Redskins.
Originally posted by ruthless49er:
Originally posted by oregonniner:
Hill reminds me of Darrius Heyward-Bey, exceppt Hill is 6'5" and Bey is 6'2". What scares me about Hill is it might take a few years for him to be productive, therefore I would not draft him in the first round.


eh a low end first rounder is a second rounder. That should be good enough to bring in to develop right? i mean it doesnt matter who the hell we pick at our spot theyre gonna have to sit and learn, why not take that chance on a guy with Hill's measurables? It kinda reminds me of Josh Morgan. I remember when he came out V tech they were talking about how he never ran many routes and was unpolished etc. dropped all the way to a sixth but the guy still was relatively productive for us. In fact i think hes gonna break out big time with the Redskins.


now taht i read my reply it sounds like im supporting your stance lol. I think what you say is generally true, if we were picking anywhere from 1-25ish. after that i dont think you see teams usually draft immediate starters.
Originally posted by ruthless49er:
Originally posted by oregonniner:
Hill reminds me of Darrius Heyward-Bey, exceppt Hill is 6'5" and Bey is 6'2". What scares me about Hill is it might take a few years for him to be productive, therefore I would not draft him in the first round.


eh a low end first rounder is a second rounder. That should be good enough to bring in to develop right? i mean it doesnt matter who the hell we pick at our spot theyre gonna have to sit and learn, why not take that chance on a guy with Hill's measurables? It kinda reminds me of Josh Morgan. I remember when he came out V tech they were talking about how he never ran many routes and was unpolished etc. dropped all the way to a sixth but the guy still was relatively productive for us. In fact i think hes gonna break out big time with the Redskins.

Gotta disagree, there is still 1st year starter talent in the late 1st round. IMO Randle and Hill shouldnt even be considered in the first round when there is higher value at other positions. There is a good chance a good receiver is still there in the 2nd round, could be one of these two or Jeffry, Quick, Sanu etc.

But to the OP no Randle is the better player at this moment. Hill has allot of work to do to be anything more than a jumpball candidate in his first two years. Damaryius Thomas was more polished than Hill and still hasnt justified his draft slot (with Dez Bryant still on the board) outside of two games last year. His QB's werent steller but Ive seen every Bronco's game over the past two years and he is just now starting to be NFL caliber starter.

Randle isn't as much of a long strider as Hill which will allow him to help in the intermediate game and both play very aggresive. Just from watching them in college I personally feel Randle is a much better all around athlete and could provide more sooner. Heres how I compare them if they reach their full potential... Randle probably take 1 year to develop and turns into a "Hakeem Nicks" , Hill make take 1.5-2.5 years to develop and could turn into "Megatron-lite". Since this offense needs help sooner than later, I prefer Randle and think he would provide more to this offense with his athleticism. But if we were Pittsburg, then I'd probably prefer Hill because Big Ben's "break 3 tackles and throw it 60 yards" would take more advantage of Hill than our WCO/small ball scheme.
Originally posted by 5280High:
Gotta disagree, there is still 1st year starter talent in the late 1st round. IMO Randle and Hill shouldnt even be considered in the first round when there is higher value at other positions. There is a good chance a good receiver is still there in the 2nd round, could be one of these two or Jeffry, Quick, Sanu etc.

But to the OP no Randle is the better player at this moment. Hill has allot of work to do to be anything more than a jumpball candidate in his first two years. Damaryius Thomas was more polished than Hill and still hasnt justified his draft slot (with Dez Bryant still on the board) outside of two games last year. His QB's werent steller but Ive seen every Bronco's game over the past two years and he is just now starting to be NFL caliber starter.

Randle isn't as much of a long strider as Hill which will allow him to help in the intermediate game and both play very aggresive. Just from watching them in college I personally feel Randle is a much better all around athlete and could provide more sooner. Heres how I compare them if they reach their full potential... Randle probably take 1 year to develop and turns into a "Hakeem Nicks" , Hill make take 1.5-2.5 years to develop and could turn into "Megatron-lite". Since this offense needs help sooner than later, I prefer Randle and think he would provide more to this offense with his athleticism. But if we were Pittsburg, then I'd probably prefer Hill because Big Ben's "break 3 tackles and throw it 60 yards" would take more advantage of Hill than our WCO/small ball scheme.
.
I think hill is benefitting from those who look at the GT WRs that came before him
Its just a guessing game for us fans. As we have demonstrated so many times before, we have no real knowledge of who these players are or what they can become.