Analysis of Round 2 WR Prospects

Originally posted by blm7754:
I partially disagree. Rules require a certain number of guys on the line-of-scrimmage. So if you don't have anybody that can contend physically with big CBs, then the defense wins those matchups easily. You are also SERIOUSLY out matched in the red-zone, where there isn't space for anybody to work.

There is a reason why the best WRs in the league are all big. This argument is typical of teams (like us) that covet a Fitzgerald, Megatron, Julio Jones, Andre Johnson, etc. It's because they can do everything. There is no matchup that they can't win.

The reason I like Rogers so much is because he fits that mold. I'm not saying we couldn't make use of a guy like Tavon Austin. He'll be a solid role player IMO. But after drafting AJ Jenkins last year, I don't think we should be filling our team with short/weak players.

Go big. DBs and WRs. But didn't we get sucked into going big with Taylor Mays? And yes, we all want big, athletic, and fast. Supermen. More often we get one or two those attributes and have to make tougher calls, in this regard.

Originally posted by blm7754:

Originally posted by Butter:
I really like the idea of both Harper and Rogers, but I'm trying to come up with previous NFL players that they remind me of.

Harper = slower Randy Moss?
Rogers = slower Terrel Owens?

What about Harper reminds you of Randy Moss? I don't see that much in common.

Rogers is similar to Owens in playing style. I'm not sure about slower though. Owens never impressed me as much of a burner. I'm always skeptical of 40 times anyway. Running in a straight line on a track in under-armor is very different than running a route on the field in pads. Game speed is what I'm interested in. Can a guy get separation against top competition consistently. That's what really matters.

Anyway, Rogers didn't run the fastest 40, but his cone and shuttle times are among the best. His change of direction speed is very good.

Reference: http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/prospectrankings/2013/WR/

TO was way faster than Rogers is. Owens had elite speed. Not quite Randy Moss speed, but Owens was close in the speed department. He was a freak.

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:
Maybe it's just me, but you don't beat big corners with even bigger WRs (that's the "arms race" mentality of most football teams). You beat big corners with smaller, quicker WRs by moving them around and playing them more in space (as opposed to traditional formations), thus taking away the big CBs advantage of playing physical at the line of scrimmage.

It's a game of chess, not checkers.

You don't beat the Seahawks CBs with a small WR who can't get off the LOS either. If you can get size and quickness in the same package, then that trumps speed to some degree. And as far as the arms race is concerned, of course it's an arms race---bigger, faster, quicker, tougher, better coached, higher character...

I do agree with you regarding moving WRs around, giving different formation looks, etc. If the NFL is to continue to allow Seattle CBs to club WRs all the way down the field then you might want some guys who can club back. I see the need for both and if Rogers offers both in one player then his stock should be soaring over the next month.

A question: Was Seattle successful against our receivers because our passing schemes were insufficiently clever? Or because our WRs just aren't good enough to get off the LOS and open?

Originally posted by dtg_9er:
You don't beat the Seahawks CBs with a small WR who can't get off the LOS either. If you can get size and quickness in the same package, then that trumps speed to some degree. And as far as the arms race is concerned, of course it's an arms race---bigger, faster, quicker, tougher, better coached, higher character...

I do agree with you regarding moving WRs around, giving different formation looks, etc. If the NFL is to continue to allow Seattle CBs to club WRs all the way down the field then you might want some guys who can club back. I see the need for both and if Rogers offers both in one player then his stock should be soaring over the next month.

A question: Was Seattle successful against our receivers because our passing schemes were insufficiently clever? Or because our WRs just aren't good enough to get off the LOS and open?

Wes Welker did well enough against them, while Calvin Johnson was more or less shutdown by them. I do think there's something to having a smaller wide receiver with tremendous quickness. Other than Thomas, none of their defensive backs are particularly fast or even quick, just very physical but if you break loose on them, they aren't going to be able to recover. Yes, with a smaller receiver there's the issue of them getting jammed at the line, but if that receiver gets through, they're in a lot of trouble, whereas with a more physical receiver they'll stay with going down the field and that receiver either has to make a tough catch, or knock the defender back, but with the way calls were going this past season, you'd likely see a lot of offensive pass interference calls in that situation.


I still think speed is the way to go against a secondary like Seattle's. For some others, you may want to get more physical with them, but generally, as mentioned, I don't think you should go strength vs strength, make your strength, their weakness, and attack and expose them, make them adjust.

The thing is Rogers is more similar to Crabtree. He isn't a burner. We need someone to serve as a red zone option who can also stretch the field. Out of those guys, Hunter is the best for that. I wouldn't be opposed to Rogers though. Rogers might be a better wide receiver, but I think Hunter fits more of what we need.

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Originally posted by SkyGod:

Where is the post where i said we should bring in Harvin Jennings AND Wallace?

I never ever said that because it's not doable so don't post BS.

Percy Harvin brah, Percy Harvin, its going down player! Greg Jennings and Revis too, they are going to sign everyone brah, everyone, just like you've predicted in all your many posts.






We can trust you because you got your online BS in Salary Cap-ology from the University of Stockholm.

Don't be a dick, brah. Argue points, not attack the poster.

- 98

Originally posted by kidash98:
Don't be a dick, brah. Argue points, not attack the poster.

- 98

This is what you have to argue against...."blah blah, they're going to sign Harvin, Wallace and draft Patterson...blah blah blah." I prefer to dwell in reality.

At the right price i'd love to see CK7 to Wallace. Wallace Bowe Cordarrelle Paterson Justin Hunter Just get us 2 WR's like Rice & Taylor already.


Don't want Amendola way too fragile. Woulkd love to have either Cruz or Nicks or both but i doubt the Giants let either one of them get away. Starting oustide with Crabtree give me Nicks Bowe or Wallace or the only WR that really impresses me and stands out in this draft Patterson.


f**k Tavon Austin and Da'Rick Rogers / thread

Originally posted by pwillis52beasty:
The thing is Rogers is more similar to Crabtree. He isn't a burner. We need someone to serve as a red zone option who can also stretch the field. Out of those guys, Hunter is the best for that. I wouldn't be opposed to Rogers though. Rogers might be a better wide receiver, but I think Hunter fits more of what we need.

Rogers doesnt have run after catch ability like Crabtree does. But Rogers is a better red zone target imo. The 2 have different styles that can mesh very well. Hunter's alright but I don't see him as a run blocking WR that fits our offense. Harbaugh & staff demand that our starting WR's have the versatility to pass cacth as well as run block. Rogers would be great in that role I think

Originally posted by kronik:
Rogers doesnt have run after catch ability like Crabtree does. But Rogers is a better red zone target imo. The 2 have different styles that can mesh very well. Hunter's alright but I don't see him as a run blocking WR that fits our offense. Harbaugh & staff demand that our starting WR's can block in our run game. Rogers would be great in that role

I disagree about Rogers, because of his strength, he's very tough to bring down, there were many plays in college where the defensive back had an arm on him and couldn't take him down. Maybe its not as impressive as Crabtree, but he still has the ability. Hunter on the other hand, seems to go down way too easily, part of that I'm sure is his slight frame but he seems to be a bit contact-shy.

Originally posted by mayo49:
I want Da'Rick at #34.

I agree

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:
Wes Welker did well enough against them, while Calvin Johnson was more or less shutdown by them. I do think there's something to having a smaller wide receiver with tremendous quickness. Other than Thomas, none of their defensive backs are particularly fast or even quick, just very physical but if you break loose on them, they aren't going to be able to recover. Yes, with a smaller receiver there's the issue of them getting jammed at the line, but if that receiver gets through, they're in a lot of trouble, whereas with a more physical receiver they'll stay with going down the field and that receiver either has to make a tough catch, or knock the defender back, but with the way calls were going this past season, you'd likely see a lot of offensive pass interference calls in that situation.


I still think speed is the way to go against a secondary like Seattle's. For some others, you may want to get more physical with them, but generally, as mentioned, I don't think you should go strength vs strength, make your strength, their weakness, and attack and expose them, make them adjust.

Not arguing against quickness...ever! But quickness, speed and size is better than quickness, speed and no size. Talent is the bottom line and some guys can get open while others do not. That's why falling in love with the combine 40 number is largely futile. Much better to watch video of the guys and try to extrapolate to the NFL. Quality of opposition is important, obviously, so guys from the major programs tend to climb toward the first round; but the little school guys can be late round surprises. If I had my druthers, the 9ers would select two or three WRs this year, let Moss go and hope for the best that Manningham comes back. He was a very nice piece to the puzzle before his injury.

I believe we are speaking past each other and are saying basically the same thing...we want guys who play well--whether smallish shifty quick guys, or big physical high point guys. Good to have both. Since every team does not present the same defensive problems to adjust to having many variations would seem prudent.

Edit: Forgot to mention, just like the NBA a guy of equal size getting knocked to the ground gets more calls than a small guy getting clocked. Why? The old adage that little guys need to stay out of the way...dumb but it seems to be the way of the sports world. Probably the contact is more obvious when two big guys collide.

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Originally posted by blm7754:
I partially disagree. Rules require a certain number of guys on the line-of-scrimmage. So if you don't have anybody that can contend physically with big CBs, then the defense wins those matchups easily. You are also SERIOUSLY out matched in the red-zone, where there isn't space for anybody to work.

There is a reason why the best WRs in the league are all big. This argument is typical of teams (like us) that covet a Fitzgerald, Megatron, Julio Jones, Andre Johnson, etc. It's because they can do everything. There is no matchup that they can't win.

The reason I like Rogers so much is because he fits that mold. I'm not saying we couldn't make use of a guy like Tavon Austin. He'll be a solid role player IMO. But after drafting AJ Jenkins last year, I don't think we should be filling our team with short/weak players.

Austin is a role player if you consider guys like Victor Cruz and Wes Welker to be "role players." An explosive, quick/speedy talent like that can be damn near impossible to defend for most teams and it really forces their hand into how they are going to approach defending your team.


I've always been a huge believer in forcing the defense to adjust. I love the idea of a guy like Rogers because of his physical ability, but a team like Seattle isn't going to change what they do and how they defend for him. Without Randy Moss, teams will have one less reason to keep their safeties deep against the 49ers and I'm not optimistic enough to count on Jenkins to fill that void. Realistically they need both speedy and physical guys, but if it comes down to choosing one or the other, give me the fast or highly quick WR vs the slower, bigger, more physical possession receiver.

Victor Cuz is 6'0" 208 lbs. Tavon Austin is 5'8" 175 lbs. One has size and speed... one just has speed. Wes Welker is the product of a system. He has rather pedestrian timed speed. He is a good route runner with some quickness and an amazing QB.

I'm really not bashing Tavon Austin. He really does have lots of great traits and could very well be a Percy Harvin type of player. I just don't think he's quite what we need.

Da'Rick Rogers is not a possession receiver. He is physically similar to Larry Fitzgerald. His 40 time is average, but his change of direction and lateral quickness is as good as anybody. For a guy that's 6'3" and 217lbs, that's exactly what you look for in a #1 WR.

No sprinter in the world is fast enough to take the top off of a defense on speed alone. NFL DBs are just as fast. It takes quickness and physicality off the line, speed to get downfield, a QB that can look off the safeties, and size to win the jump ball. That's what a deep threat must have.

Originally posted by LifelongNiner:
This is where our tight ends or the larger receivers come into play. We could beat Seattle with a solid mix of running (more Kendall Hunter and LaMichael James than Gore) and guys like AJ Jenkins, Kyle Williams, and Tavon Austin if we were to draft him lined up in the slot. Beat them with pure speed and quickness. The threat of CK's running may also help to slow down the pass rush.

On your second point, why do you think Tavon Austin would simply be a role player? I see a shifty playmaker that can catch passes all over the field and be the deep threat Randy Moss was last season. Since he won't be back, we will be lacking that threat at the receiver position. Do you have something against receivers under 6'1 and 205 pounds?

There is a mock that has us taking Austin and Rogers. This combination or a combination of Austin and Justin Hunter or even a TE like Ertz would allow us to settle this position once and for all for the next 4 years. It also woudn't be so expensive cap wise allowing us to completely focus on the defense for the rest of our picks in 2013 (and we'd still have an extra 2nd rounder and two thirds to get quality players) as well as in 2014. I also don't expect many years like this where we would have a shot at so many starting caliber receivers at the end of the 1st and throughout the 2nd round.

See my last response to Phoenix.

The term 'role player' could be seen as derogatory. I don't mean that, cause Austin could be a very productive player in the NFL. I don't have anything against smaller receivers, if you have some size at other positions to compensate and fill different needs.

We have VD (an average size TE), Walker (a downright small TE), Crabtree (an average size WR), Williams and Jenkins (both smaller/less physical WRs). We went with small speedy guys in last years draft. I think we need to look for different types of guys this year to give us a well rounded team.

Im not a huge fan of Austin TBH.

Rogers would probably be the WR i am most happy with in the second. Other than him i would target a guy like Mellette in later rounds.

Would you rather be 196 with a 4.44 40 or 217 with a 4.52 40?