Originally posted by kronik:
Originally posted by MadDog49er:
Good. We are back on subject.
I'd like to respond to the issues you bring up:
"I acknowledge that Battle has done more. Hell, Hill has only been in the league for 2 years. Are you arguing that seniority should be the rule when constructing an NFL roster? Is Hill not entitled time to develop the same way Battle was given time when he was young?
As for Battle, you may be able to selectively pull a portion of Battle's career where he had a streak of games played. But if you were open minded enough to look at his career as a whole, you will see he has missed 25% of his games. You would also be open minded to the fact that he has missed more practice time, OTA's than any receiver on our roster. Can you also admit Battle's age and salary are NOT in his favor when competing against the younger WR's?"
I agree that Hill has every right to develop. However, as a third year player now, if another player beats him out of a spot, he is beat out of that spot. The Niners cannot continue to wait for Hill to actualize his potential if he is constantly surpassed on the depth chart.
The Niners had no problem dumping a previous third rounder, Brandon Williams, because he couldn't rise high enough on the depth chart. So, that tells me Hill is not automatically safe, as many assume. He has to beat out some guys. Otherwise, he will be the 6th WR, and either cut or relegated to the inactive list.
My contention throughout this thread is not that Battle will make the team. It is, that neither Zeigler, Battle, or Hill is automatically safe. One note: If Zeigler's last name was Brown, nobody would discuss him twice. He's a nice kid, but come on people. He's not in Battle's class.
As for the injured games, you continue to calculate Battle's non-participation in games from 5 years ago, early in his career, as a strike against him. The reality is that, although he misses practice time, he showed up and played for over 2 1/2 straight years without a missed game. So, his injury history from 5-6 years ago means nothing in 2009. I have continued to debunked the "Battle is always injured" tag, which is unfair. If so, he would not have played in, and been our leader in receptions for a period of 40+ games, stretching from 2006, 2007 and midway through 2008. His injuries in 2003 and 2004 have no relation to his production and depth chart status of 2009. You are very fixated on games missed from 5 years ago, but it is not a strong argument in 2009.
For some those on the board who continue to be skeptical about Battle: Here was a 6th round, converted WR, who became one of the better blocking WR's in the NFC, has been tremendously valuable for the team on the field and in the locker room, has been challenged every year with new guys who should have supplanted him as the leaders at WR: A. Bryant, D. Jackson, A. Lelie, B. Johnson. And yet, every year, he continues to beat out these guys.Why? He's a good player and very determined.
As a final note: Battle was the number 3 WR for the Niners in 2008, and yet still led the team in receptions through the first half of the season. I'm not quite sure why this fact is summarily dismissed as irrelevant by many in the argument.
Hill was a backup role player behind Battle. So, to automatically assume that Battle has gone south, become a bad player, or cannot come back from injury, or passed on the depth chart by Hill would be naive by any that doubt him.
He continues to prove doubters wrong, and until he does lose a step, or become injured to the point where he cannot beat out other players, I will never dismiss the guy as an afterthought. He's proven tons of people to be foolish in this regard over and over again.
P.S. Haven't we been down this road before with the previously listed group of WR's who were going to displace Battle, notably Team Lelie in Summer 2007 and 2008?
For you to continue to say Battle has beat out Antonio Bryant and Bryant Johnson is flat out wrong. You even acknowledged Battle was the #3 receiver last year before injury. How did he beat out Bryant Johnson. Explain that to me. Was it because he started when Bryant Johnson was sidelined with an injury?
How did he beat out Antonio Bryant. Bryant was clearly our #1 receiver and only left due to character issues. Just because he has stayed on this team longer does not mean he beated out those other players.
As for beating out Lelie, big deal. You weren't the only one that could see that (although I admit there were a handful of posters that seemed to think that way, I was not one of them). While Battle has beatened the odds throughout the years, you clearly do not see his lingering knee problems which he has had over the last few years. IT'S THE SAME KNEE PROBLEM that he has yet to comeback 100% from. It has to be continually drained of fluids and unfortunately for him, his knee will never be the same.
As for you continually bringing up the fact that Battle led our team in receptions in the 1st 9 games, was his numbers (24 receptions, 0 TD's over 9 games) so mind-boggling that it's impossible to be replaced? When Hill was given a chance, I see that Hill caught 30 receptions and 2 TD's also over 9 games:
Maybe this is why your "fact" is dismissed so often.
One thing we both might be agreeing on is I don't see Ziegler beating out Battle either. He is too skinny and just doesn't seem to offer anything different or special to our team. This is why I feel the 9ers will keep only 5 WR's and both Ziegler and Battle aren't within the 5. This may be a good thing for Battle, since I also agree he does not deserve to be a #5 or #6 receiver. By releasing him now, he may have an opportunity to catch on with another team as a #3 or #4. That is IF he can overcome his continuing knee issues.
The issue that I see with you (and other pro-Battle supporters) is you choose to ignore his negatives, which are age, continuing knee problems, and his salary is too high to be a 5th or 6th WR. I know we are only human but it seems you favor sentimental value over these negatives. Releasing or trading Battle is not a death sentence and is NOT disrespecting Battle in any way. Players that have been much more successful than him have been released or traded away before and it will continue whether we like it or not. But you are allowing your fandom of Battle blind you. It becomes a very touchy subject to you anytime a poster predicts he may finally be an ex-49er and you get angry and defensive about it. Am I wrong on this?
Let me ask you this hypothetical question. If I made a poll on Shawnte Spencer vs. Walt Harris and I made errors in a post about one of them, would you had exploded with anger, attacked my intelligence and integrity and cried to the mods to ban me? My guess is NO, because you don't care about either of these players the way you feel about Battle. Again, am I wrong on this?
For the love of God. I sometimes wonder if you understand English. Here is what I said:
has been challenged every year with new guys who should have supplanted him as the leader at WR: A. Bryant, D. Jackson, A. Lelie, B. Johnson. And yet, every year, he continues to beat out these guys
I did not state that Battle beat them out on the depth chart. I clearly listed the the players who have come and gone, and the one who is the leader at WR at the end of the day, Battle. Please read!
If you remember the Summer 2006 poll, Lelie had a clear advantage in the poll on who would be higher on the depth chart. So, the board was in the minority on this issue. And I spent that summer, and the next, debunking the irrational idea that Lelie was going to make a magical comeback in the league to supplant our leading WR.
You state about Battle that "his knee will never be the same
". How do you know this? Are you the Niners doctor? Do you have some special inside information that nobody else possesses? You cannot make this statement, because you simply don't know. Nobody knows. What we do know is that Battle, for all of the knee problems he has had in the past, still led the team in receptions. So, it couldn't have been THAT bad in the past.
Another major flaw with your argument. You cannot take the second half of the season, with Hill's 30 receptions, and compare it with Battle's 24 receptions in the first half of the season. If Battle played the second half, he may have had 35, 40, 45 or more receptions. We simply don't know.
What you can compare is the accelerated amount of receptions by both Bruce and Johnson, once S. Hill started taking the snaps. This is completely unrelated to Battle.
In fact, while Battle led the team in receptions the first 8 weeks of the season, Hill was third in receptions the second half. So, comparing the 24 receptions with the 30 is faulty logic.
Those are the facts.
As for inferring that "I'm the open minded person, and you are closed minded", I seem to remember someone opening a thread recently with the "those of you with mad love for Battle" comment, followed closely by "I'm open-minded". You continue to use this forum to dismiss what Battle for this team in the past, have characterized him with either lies or misinformation to argue your point against him, and then try to come off as an objective observer. This is a joke. You have a strong bias against him. Just admit it. Repeat after me: "I hate Battle! I hate Battle! I am biased against Battle!"
You state above:
I know we are only human but it seems you favor sentimental value over these negatives. Releasing or trading Battle is not a death sentence and is NOT disrespecting Battle in any way. Players that have been much more successful than him have been released or traded away before and it will continue whether we like it or not. But you are allowing your fandom of Battle blind you.
I don't favor sentimental value, I favor productivity. Battle has been the most productive receiver on this team the past three seasons, and in 2008, even more than the person you wrote about, Johnson, in glowing terms in the Battle vs. Johnson thread (somehow the "he didn't drop one ball all season" comment is still ringing through my head).
So, let me ask you one more time, just for "sentimental" sake, just so the board can take note: Who led the team in receptions through the first half of last season? There is nothing sentimental about it. It is the truth, whether you like it or not. And, obviously, you don't like it. Battle is productive, and that must really sting. And, honestly, I don't know why.
As for the three areas of concern for you: Battle's salary may be too high for a 5th or 6th WR. However, his current place on the depth chart is still yet to be determined. He may be the 4th WR by the time training camp is done. Once again, we won't know the depth chart until a few months from now, until all plays out. As for his age, he is 29. Bruce has 7 years on him, and is still ticking, and there are heaps of WR's who are productive at 30+ years, so age is irrelevant, as long as a player is productive. Finally, we don't know the status of his knee. As stated over and over and over again, he misses practices, but...so what? The guy, as stated over and over and over again, had a string of 40+consecutive games before this knee injury. He shows up for games. It may, or may not, be a chronic issue. WE DON'T KNOW!!!
Once again, for the millionth time, please read my words carefully. You have a chronic (the name is fitting) tendency to misrepresent me (the small list above is just a sample of past misrepresentation), and it very tiring to constantly correct your legendary piles of errors. Is that asking too much, just to be accurate for once? Just be accurate.
P.S. As for your statement: "you are allowing your fandom of Battle blind you"
, I am going to turn the table on you. Your hatred for Battle has blinded you. You refuse to give any form of compliment for a guy who deserves some respect for his work for this team. That is why every thread that appears with Battle's name in it, you go on the attack. You obviously hate this guy, and I'm not quite sure why. Has he done something to you in the past?
As for the question on Harris vs. Spencer, yes, you are wrong on this: If you attack a player who has been productive with faulty stats, faulty logic, or just plain hatred, for some odd reason, I will blow that argument away with facts and stats, which don't lie, or show bias. You do remember the Eric Heitmann thread from last year, correct? I don't play favorites, I play fair. If someone is unfair, they will hear about it, regardless of the player. If you soon decide to do an unfair piece on Joe Staley, Michael Lewis, Frank Gore, I will be present to take on the faulty post.
kronik, you need to rethink the way you post. Your bias is blocking your ability to post accurate information about players you dislike, and even respond accurately to someone else's statement. I ask you to accurately represent what others say in your responses. That would be the honorable thing to do.