There are 181 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Battle vs. Zeigler - Finish The Fight!

Battle vs. Zeigler - Finish The Fight!

Originally posted by oldman9er:
Very well said, Jake. I'm really surprised (guess I shouldn't be) at the overall lack of respect for Battle and what he has done for SF throughout some lousy years. It's one thing to say Battle should go because of his latest injury concerns... or that he deserves to go to a team that will give him more playing time while allowing our younger guys play. Many posts here seem to just dismiss Battle as if he were and had done nothing to garner more respect.

Also the comment about Carriker is not unappreciated. I still think Carriker would have been a monster DE for our 3-4. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to have someone of Willis' talents in SF. It's just a question of building a defense from the trenches first that appeals to me.

From your post, it sounds like you want to keep Battle for sentimental reasons because you think letting him go = lack of respect. If we let go of Montana, Lott, Rice, why can't we do the same to Battle? It's the NFL, not the fans' sentimental football league.

As for Carriker, who cares if you appreciate the comment or not.
[ Edited by kronik on May 15, 2009 at 1:20 PM ]
Originally posted by Jakemall:
Originally posted by kronik:
Originally posted by MadDog49er:
Can we start a thread on Hill vs. Zeigler? I mean, it's not like Hill is lighting the world on fire and we should automatically assume that he will be one of the top 5 WR's, or even make this team.

Maybe the 6.0 yards per catch in his last three games (8 catches for 48 yards) is sexy to some people, but am I missing something here?

At least Battle has proven year-in, year-out that he can play the game. What has Hill done to warrant a free pass on the roster next season?

LOL. What a joke. Let's see here:

Arnaz Battle's first 2 years:

receptions: 8
Yards: 143
TDs: 0

Jason Hill's first 2 years:

receptions: 31
yards: 323
TDs: 2

Oh yea, add in the facts that Hill does not have chronic knee issues and he is 5 years younger and his salary is cheaper.

Let's see your mindless unintelligent response to this one. Oh wait, aren't you the one to say draft Carriker instead of PWillie? Oh yea, Parys Haralson will never do anything either right?

Bottomline: If you respected and wished Battle well, you would hope he catches on with another team instead of being a 5th 6th WR on ours.

Let's see...Battle came on board in 2003 and sat behind Terrell Owens, Tai Streets (who never really panned out) and Brandon Llyodd (pre-alligator arms).
Hill came on board and we had who? Yeah that's about what I thought.
Not to mention that Battle was drafted 6th and Hill in the early 3rd? Expectations must be different for the first couple of years.



So going back to current production..when Battle is healthy, he's one of our best WRs.

As for Carriker...I was on that bandwagon too..but don't forget..it wasn't a Carriker for Willis deal...we all agreed that willis was the superior player...it was Carriker and David harris. Carriker has been playing NT..so his stats aren't pretty..he would have been a DE for us. and Harris has been a very solid ILB for the Jets.

If the choice were mine to make and I could make it with hindsight, I'd probably go Willis...but it'd still take some thought.

Which I guess might explain why Hill had 4 times the production in his first two years than Battle?



Don't get me wrong, I've defended Battle in this thread a couple of times but that is more in context vs. Ziegler. Battle is clutch on 3rd down and a top notch blocker but he has serious knee and injury issues. If we're deciding between Battle and Hill, the choice has got to be Hill.
Battle salary is 2.1 Million

Zeigler salary is about 385000

they serve as back up i would rather keep the cheeper and has more upside !
Originally posted by cNiner:
Battle salary is 2.1 Million

Zeigler salary is about 385000

they serve as back up i would rather keep the cheeper and has more upside !

Just out of curiosity, what kind of "upside" do you see in Ziegler?
Originally posted by kronik:
Originally posted by oldman9er:
Very well said, Jake. I'm really surprised (guess I shouldn't be) at the overall lack of respect for Battle and what he has done for SF throughout some lousy years. It's one thing to say Battle should go because of his latest injury concerns... or that he deserves to go to a team that will give him more playing time while allowing our younger guys play. Many posts here seem to just dismiss Battle as if he were and had done nothing to garner more respect.

Also the comment about Carriker is not unappreciated. I still think Carriker would have been a monster DE for our 3-4. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to have someone of Willis' talents in SF. It's just a question of building a defense from the trenches first that appeals to me.

From your post, it sounds like you want to keep Battle for sentimental reasons because you think letting him go = lack of respect. If we let go of Montana, Lott, Rice, why can't we do the same to Battle? It's the NFL, not the fans' sentimental football league.

I still feel that Battle has a lot to offer SF. He was pretty healthy through his career thus far, so missing lots of time in the 2nd half of the season is my only concern. If he is playing healthy throughout the preseason, and can accept a reduced role to give younger receivers playing time, then I hope he stays. No, it's not just about sentimentality.

As for Carriker, who cares if you appreciate the comment or not.

I'm not really interested in what you care about either, with that attitude. Thing is, my previous response was to Jake to tell him that I agreed with his post. Seems you have a problem with that, since you quoted me. So whether you care or even if Jake cares is his own business. What I do know is that before this, I did not open a line of discussion with you, nor do I see myself "caring" about what you think about what I think... ya think?


[ Edited by oldman9er on May 15, 2009 at 1:30 PM ]
Originally posted by oldman9er:
Originally posted by kronik:
Originally posted by oldman9er:
Very well said, Jake. I'm really surprised (guess I shouldn't be) at the overall lack of respect for Battle and what he has done for SF throughout some lousy years. It's one thing to say Battle should go because of his latest injury concerns... or that he deserves to go to a team that will give him more playing time while allowing our younger guys play. Many posts here seem to just dismiss Battle as if he were and had done nothing to garner more respect.

Also the comment about Carriker is not unappreciated. I still think Carriker would have been a monster DE for our 3-4. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to have someone of Willis' talents in SF. It's just a question of building a defense from the trenches first that appeals to me.

From your post, it sounds like you want to keep Battle for sentimental reasons because you think letting him go = lack of respect. If we let go of Montana, Lott, Rice, why can't we do the same to Battle? It's the NFL, not the fans' sentimental football league.

I still feel that Battle has a lot to offer SF. He was pretty healthy through his career thus far, so missing lots of time in the 2nd half of the season is my only concern. If he is playing healthy throughout the preseason, and can accept a reduced role to give younger receivers playing time, then I hope he stays. No, it's not just about sentimentality.

As for Carriker, who cares if you appreciate the comment or not.

I'm not really interested in what you care about either, with that attitude. Thing is, my previous response was to Jake to tell him that I agreed with his post. Seems you have a problem with that, since you quoted me. So whether you care or even if Jake cares is his own business. What I do know is that before this, I did not open a line of discussion with you, nor do I see myself "caring" about what you think about what I think... ya think?



I have no problem with you agreeing with Jake. Not everyone is going to agree on the same things. I responded your post because you seem to take offense of me bringing up Carriker. Am I wrong on this?
No, no... I didn't take offense. I have heard the discussion come up before, and I just feel that it is odd that some fans think Carriker would have been a bad selection just because Willis turned into a great one. My comment to Jake was just that I can relate to a fellow 9er fan having supported the Carriker pick back then... and that to say it would have been a bad choice (at least to me) is simply not a clear truth.
Originally posted by oldman9er:
No, no... I didn't take offense. I have heard the discussion come up before, and I just feel that it is odd that some fans think Carriker would have been a bad selection just because Willis turned into a great one. My comment to Jake was just that I can relate to a fellow 9er fan having supported the Carriker pick back then... and that to say it would have been a bad choice (at least to me) is simply not a clear truth.

OK, misunderstanding. Thanks for clearing it up (although we don't agree).
Originally posted by kronik:
Originally posted by MadDog49er:
Can we start a thread on Hill vs. Zeigler? I mean, it's not like Hill is lighting the world on fire and we should automatically assume that he will be one of the top 5 WR's, or even make this team.

Maybe the 6.0 yards per catch in his last three games (8 catches for 48 yards) is sexy to some people, but am I missing something here?

At least Battle has proven year-in, year-out that he can play the game. What has Hill done to warrant a free pass on the roster next season?

LOL. What a joke. Let's see here:

Arnaz Battle's first 2 years:

receptions: 8
Yards: 143
TDs: 0

Jason Hill's first 2 years:

receptions: 31
yards: 323
TDs: 2

Oh yea, add in the facts that Hill does not have chronic knee issues and he is 5 years younger and his salary is cheaper.

Let's see your mindless unintelligent response to this one. Oh wait, aren't you the one to say draft Carriker instead of PWillie? Oh yea, Parys Haralson will never do anything either right?

Bottomline: If you respected and wished Battle well, you would hope he catches on with another team instead of being a 5th 6th WR on ours.

Let's get ready to rumble!!

  • fras4149
  • Info N/A
I think what it comes down to is which one can contribute more on special teams, because neither of them will get much playing time. if thats the case the choice should be battle because of his role filling in the return game. when zeigler returned punts i think he had 0 yards.

but i also think they both could be cut to give more pt to the others and another returner could be found in training camp. (kory sheets?)
I think it will be Zeigler.

I believe he has a lot of potential. This kid easily had the best hands on the team last year, both in training camp and in games. As well he is a good route runner.

I like Battle since his first year when he made that diving catch in pre-season against SD. But he is getting a little old and he hasn't looked as sharp recently. If he makes this team it will because he is a reliable vetern.
Wow! Away from the board one day, and my favorite shadow emerges to attack me. Shocking news!

This shadow loves hiding out in the weeds until the moment I post, doesn't he? Maybe I should be flattered. Maybe I should thank him for taking interest in my responses. I certainly don't hunt him down, when he posts. I guess it is because I frankly don't care about what he says. Maybe he should ask for counseling help, to deal with his inferiority complex. So for that one special person, I am torn. Should I say thank you, or get some help? Maybe I should ask the board for advice. Did I once hurt his feelings, or is simply jealous, since no one cares what he has to say.

Changing gear onto the subject at hand: Here are some questions I think are pertinent to the argument over Zeigler, Battle and Hill.

1) Who was higher on the 2008 depth chart: Battle or Hill?
2) Who was more productive the first half of the season before Battle's injury?
3) Who is the professional who has a record of consistent play over the years, instead of potential, which may, or may not, be actualized?
4) If Hill was a lock to be a major contributor for this organization, and a lock to make the squad, why did the team go out and sign a free agent WR, draft a WR in the first round, and allow both Bruce and Battle to return (the leading receivers in the first and second half of the 2009 season)
5) Why is Hill not even discussed as one of the first four WR's on this roster? The discussion right now is: Bruce, Morgan, Jones, and Crabtree. The next tier of players discussed are Hill, Battle and Zeigler. So why would anyone assume that Hill is an automatic at this point?

My point, once again, is that Hill does not have any track record of being a player who has been a major contributor to this team. Battle does. In 2008, Hill was the fourth sting WR, who, with three receptions in the first 8 games, replaced the third stringer, Battle, who had led the team in catches through 8 games (Battle had 24 catches). Hill may be an emerging player, and he may not. To automatically assume that he will become a productive player is silly. He simply replaced a guy in the lineup, someone he was not able to beat out through preseason and the first eight games of the season.

So, it is fair to put Hill in the same discussion as both Battle and Zeigler, who has done even less.

Finally, to the one individual who based his entire argument on comparing stats with Hill and Battle in years one and two and three, this comparison is meaningless. Hill is no guarantee to be better or worse than Battle in his third year numbers.

Once again, and I know this may be challenging to conceptualize for my "shadow", third year player Hill is not competing against third year player Battle in the matchup of hypothetical stats (this is not a Madden game). The Hill of today is battling the Battle of today, not the Battle of 2005. So, the comparative statistics argument over the first two years of their career is meaningless.

Since Battle was higher on the depth chart only 30 weeks ago, and more productive than the youngster (who was lower on the depth chart), maybe the discussion should be: Hill vs. Battle vs. Zeigler.

P.S. In conclusion, and I want this to be clear for the board, since this one individual enjoys chronicling my statements for future use (once again, I find this honorable, and yet, disturbing...I have to someday for the exhausting 1800th time, correct his misreprentation of my position on Carriker, the Rams 4-3 defensive system vs. the Niners' offensive system, the NT vs. undertackle position, drafting for value, drafting for need, Willis, David Harris, the trade for Staley, maybe the topic was so complicated that he got lost along the way), I am not saying that Battle will make the roster and Hill won't. Nobody knows at this point. What I am saying is that to lump a productive player with a proven track record (including being the top WR through 8 games in 2008, and the best blocking WR on the team) with a player who has done little to nothing in this league, Zeigler, and to completely assume that Hill is safe, is folly.
[ Edited by MadDog49er on May 15, 2009 at 5:59 PM ]
Originally posted by MadDog49er:
Wow! Away for one day, and my favorite "shadow" emerges to attack me.

These shadows love hiding out in the weeds until the moment I post, don't they? Maybe I should be flattered. Maybe I should thank these people for taking interest in my responses. I certainly don't hunt them down, when they post. I guess they feel inferior. So be it.

Once again, I know this is challenging to conceptualize for my "shadows",

Ahem.

MadDog, no one cares. You think you and your little rivalries on this board are important. They aren't.

Rather, some people just don't agree with you, and your expressed ire of "being in the know" is grating.

You're just another poster on a message board. Welcome. Take a number, and jump into the pit.

Even though I agree with your stance on Battle, MD? You are still coming off as an egotistical fellow. As was pretty much alluded to, you are really no more important on here than anyone, including myself. I say this not to "attack" you at all. As I said, I agree with your point of view on this topic. However, even you can read back and see that your post drips of unwarranted arrogance. ... and then you may very well get the appreciation you clearly seek.
Originally posted by NickSh49:
Originally posted by MadDog49er:
Wow! Away for one day, and my favorite "shadow" emerges to attack me.

These shadows love hiding out in the weeds until the moment I post, don't they? Maybe I should be flattered. Maybe I should thank these people for taking interest in my responses. I certainly don't hunt them down, when they post. I guess they feel inferior. So be it.

Once again, I know this is challenging to conceptualize for my "shadows",

Ahem.

MadDog, no one cares. You think you and your little rivalries on this board are important. They aren't.

Rather, some people just don't agree with you, and your expressed ire of "being in the know" is grating.

You're just another poster on a message board. Welcome. Take a number, and jump into the pit.


The problem is that no one cares what you think. So, they don't follow you around the board attempting to harrass you. If you emerge to be in that position someday, where people harrass you, you will understand.
[ Edited by MadDog49er on May 15, 2009 at 6:03 PM ]