Replacing Delanie Walker... Yes or No?

Originally posted by LifelongNiner:
And there is the big picture. Defenses could get smashed in the running game or just have mismatches all over the field with the combination of those 3 TEs, Gore, and Moss/Crabtree.

A WR to develop for the longterm future could be picked up in rounds 2-4, as well as a G/C, and OLB.

If Delanie is willing to stay next season at a reasonable price, then we should be able to carry him, Davis, and Fleener. I don't see why people are locked in a it's Fleener or Walker argument.

And I argue that there are also TEs very draftable in rounds 2-4. Which is a bigger need? Obviously WR.

Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:

........"Anyone who disagrees with me is making this mistake"......It seems like you keep forgetting that disagreeing with you does not make a fellow poster less intelligent than you......

Now that's a true "straw man" arguments. Nowhere in my post did I even hint that I didn't want anyone to agree with me. In fact, I fully expect to be disagreed with by most on this topic given how many posts seem to turn to draft Flenner in the 1st. But I have no clue how you can say "Anyone who disagrees with me is making this mistake", and then put them in quotes as if I made that statement. That's at best dishonest.

MANY zoners have taken issue with Walker's fumbles, inconsistent hands, and poor separation, and they have been doing so long before the run-up to this draft.

(Man that sounds like Crabs, but I digress.) Fine. But we must remember that Walker is not a starter, so he will have inconsistencies. But his overall production has been more than decent. However, if we want to replace Walker (and I still don't see how that's a priority for this team) we certainly don't need to burn our 1st pick to do so.

He's just the new Arnaz Battle.

Now that's just a horribly unfair comparison to make given that they play different positions, are used in entirely different ways, and that - and correct me if I'm wrong - Battle was a starter, at least for a time. This team uses Walker far more than we ever used Battle.

I like Walker, and I liked Battle, but failing to see how their job could be done better reflects either homerism or an agenda (perhaps to select a preferred WR?)

A specious argument to boot, huh. Look, I've made no bones about how I'd like the 49ers to use the 1st pick. And on this topic I've maintained that there's no need to replace Walker, and if we do it's certainly not unnecessary to do so in the first because there is talent as late as the 4th that can come in and quite effectively replace Walker as a TE. Being able to replace a player don't mean that it's the best thing to do. Walker brings a lot of things to the this team that are not easy to find. In Walker we are getting several players in one. Now, if you want Fleener that's fine - I disagree, but that's fine. Just say that and be done with it. But to throw D. Walker's contributions to this team under the bus to justify that desire is just wrong, in my humble opinion.

Okay, I guess I should say "my bad" for paraphrasing the crux of your argument. I didn't think there would be any reason to restate your entire post, since I quoted the post in its entirety directly prior to my remarks. I guess that wasn't obvious enough, so here goes: I felt that it was plainly obvious that I was referring to your statement that Zoners were finding fault with Delanie Walker, purely for the purpose of furthering their argument in support for the drafting of Fleener. I found that assertion to be completely ridiculous, since people have been frustrated with Walker for years. Admitting Walker's inconsistencies only support the argument that his position can be improved. If you'd bother to read the OP, it is about Walker, not Fleener. I think bringing in talent to compete with, and possibly replace Walker only makes the team stronger, and HarBaalke have stated ad nauseum that they will do this with every position, whenever possible.

In your follow up to my post, you support my post (when I stated that you spent as much energy criticisning our WRs as you accuse others of criticisin Walker) by criticising Crabtree.

To make what I thought was an obvious comparison even more obvious, and to point out more inconsistency, the Arnaz Battle comparison was to bring up another 49er who was lauded by fans and coaches alike for his willingness to do whatever was asked of him (blocking, rushing, catching, covering on ST, and returning), but who was replaced by better talent as the team-wide talent level improved, because he was simply not able to consistently threaten a defense. I am aware that the two individuals played different positions, the type of player was the basis for comparison. I don't even know what to do with your statement that Battle was a starter but the team uses Walker more, considereing that Battle was on the field for the majority of all offensive plays while he was starting, and he was a consistent 3rd-down target for Smith.

As for your last argument, it would be great if the team could carry 80 players. We would have room for all of the team-first, try-hard guys that don't consistently do anything that is unreplaceable. We don't have that luxury, so competition rules. I was sad to see Battle go, but I understood it. I will miss Walker if he leaves (based on effort and attitude), but I will understand. Saying that the HB skillset is difficult to find seems uninformed to me. There is a kid from Rutgers who might get picked in the late rounds that can do the same stuff as Walker for less than half of what Walker will get with his next contract. As far as replacing Walker not being the right thing to do, the NFL is the ultimate meritocracy. If someone else can do your job better, they should. Players and coaches know it (and state it regularly on the record); if fans don't want to admit it or embrace it, to each their own. Once again stating that any critique of Walker is a function of an underlying desire to draft Fleener is the same faulty (and historically inaccurate) statement that started this discussion.

The bottom line is this: #2 TE is a big deal on this team, and Walker doesn't do it perfectly. If the 49ers can find someone to do it better, they should, regardless of the round they do it in. You want a WR; fine. Employing a sideways attempt to debase the arguments of fans who would like to see improvement in a different position on the team seems petty and transparent.

I have stated, as have various others, that I want Fleener, but that I will happy with whomever the team picks. I think that Harbaugh's offense has historically demanded more production from TEs than from WR's, and he had some talented WRs at Stanford. I think that Fleener might be special, and I can imagine him making the team much better in the red zone and on 3rd downs, which would be a big deal. If the team disagrees, and they draft a guy for the position later on who they believe presents a better value, then that's great. If they want Randle in the first, I'll hope for the best, and I'll believe that they know what they are doing.

Originally posted by mike:

Originally posted by LifelongNiner:
And there is the big picture. Defenses could get smashed in the running game or just have mismatches all over the field with the combination of those 3 TEs, Gore, and Moss/Crabtree.

A WR to develop for the longterm future could be picked up in rounds 2-4, as well as a G/C, and OLB.

If Delanie is willing to stay next season at a reasonable price, then we should be able to carry him, Davis, and Fleener. I don't see why people are locked in a it's Fleener or Walker argument.

And I argue that there are also TEs very draftable in rounds 2-4. Which is a bigger need? Obviously WR.

Baalke obviously knows what he is looking at better than we do, but to me the question is about value. I would want the #1 TE over the #5-6 WR, especially if the team believes (like I do) that that #1 has a real chance to be something special. A few years ago, we desperately needed DL help. Many Zoners clamored for the #4 DL, but the team took the #1 ILB, even though the team had 2 solid starters at the position. That worked out a lot better for us than it did for the team who took the #4 DL two picks later. My point is, it doesn't seem likely that there will be a bunch of truely special players at one position, so picking special when (if) it is available seems to be the best path for success.

That said (and more to the original point), I do wholeheartedly agree with you that the 49ers can find an improvement at #2 TE in a later round. I am not sure who they would see as that guy, though. Depending upon exactly what they are seeking in a WR, I think they can find it later in the draft, too (that Akpla guy looks ridiculous, but what do I know).

Originally posted by WRATHman44:
Baalke obviously knows what he is looking at better than we do, but to me the question is about value. I would want the #1 TE over the #5-6 WR, especially if the team believes (like I do) that that #1 has a real chance to be something special. A few years ago, we desperately needed DL help. Many Zoners clamored for the #4 DL, but the team took the #1 ILB, even though the team had 2 solid starters at the position. That worked out a lot better for us than it did for the team who took the #4 DL two picks later. My point is, it doesn't seem likely that there will be a bunch of truely special players at one position, so picking special when (if) it is available seems to be the best path for success.

That said (and more to the original point), I do wholeheartedly agree with you that the 49ers can find an improvement at #2 TE in a later round. I am not sure who they would see as that guy, though. Depending upon exactly what they are seeking in a WR, I think they can find it later in the draft, too (that Akpla guy looks ridiculous, but what do I know).

Yeah I guess our debates on this are pointless because ultimately, Baalke and co. are going to decide what positions have more depth than others in this draft. The #5 WR could be a lot better than the 7th or 8th WR and therefore worth it(also what we consider the #5 could be ranked higher on their boards). Harbaugh seems to take pride in finding gems so maybe he passes on Fleener simply for that reason.

Or maybe they see a lot of value in a completely different position, perhaps a defensive position or guard. Then they decide both WR and TE can both be found in mid rounds. Who knows. I personally like Egnew but what do I know lol.

Originally posted by mike:
And I argue that there are also TEs very draftable in rounds 2-4. Which is a bigger need? Obviously WR.

WR was a bigger need in 2006 when we picked Vernon Davis (we already had Eric Johnson). We could've picked a WR at that spot, but the value was at TE. Blackmon, Wright, and Floyd will be long gone by 30, and after that, Fleener has at worse equal value to any other receivers that could be taken in the 1st or 2nd round. Added to that the offense he will be playing in where he would be a featured player, immediately. The combination of Fleener + a later receiver in my opinion is greater than the combination of a Hill, Jeffrey, etc + a Michael Egnew for example.

Originally posted by WRATHman44:

Originally posted by mkmasn:

Originally posted by nickbradley:
That doesn't look at catch rate. He's at 54% - so if you look at times targeted, he's terrible.

It also doesn't factor in that he was utilized as a receiver less than half of what VD was. He was used as a blocker.

Nice straw man argument. "Anyone who disagrees with me is making this mistake." You can revise history all you, but MANY zoners have taken issue with Walker's fumbles, inconsistent hands, and poor separation, and they have been doing so long before the run-up to this draft. Willingness to follow coaching is great, but it doesn't make him good. He's just the new Arnaz Battle. Neither of those guys was coached to run around and NOT get open. I like Walker, and I liked Battle, but failing to see how their job could be done better reflects either homerism or an agenda (perhaps to select a preferred WR?). It seems to me that you work just hard to run down our WRs, while mocking Fleener fans for critiquing Walker. It seems like you keep forgetting that disagreeing with you does not make a fellow poster less intelligent than you.

Fumbles? He had 0. And 3 TDs. being utilized half as much as VD. VD had 6 TDs and 3 Fum.

I love everyone sits here and complains about him not being a 3rd down guy, not able to put up massive games, game planning his defender so as to lessen the impact he (Walker) has on the game.

#10 in the league at converting for first downs. 6 catches 96 yds against New York. As a #2 TE, being utilized in the passing game HALF AS MUCH as the #1 TE.

HALF AS MUCH.

If the coaches didn't need him so much as a blocker, he would be putting up better numbers, plain and simple. Talk about gameplan, then think about who calls the plays when Walker is in to block. Then think about who calls the plays when he's in to pass. Then realize IT'S NOT HIM.

You know that Walker has been a Niner more than one season and that he has literally fumbled away games before, right? And you know that a 54% percent catch rate means he only caught half of the passes thrown to him, right? And that he is neither fast enough (play speed) or big enough to pull coverage or gain separation against single coverage, right? No one is discussing why he doesn't get more throws, because we are more upset about what often happens when the ball gets thrown to him. Okaythanksbuhbye

Again, someone who doesn't understand.

First off.... FUMBLES? In 83 games played, he had 3 fumbles (NFL.com). 3 FUMBLES. Check your stats.
Second, he's a #2 TE, not a #1. His job isn't to get open deep, he's usually read 3 or 4 at a 5 yd dump off, but you knew that right?
Third, if the coaches used him a a receiver instead of a blocker, he would have better numbers, his catch rate would increase, and nobody would be talking about replacing him.

Zach Miller SEA TE 25 233 9.3 15.5 28 0 2 0 10 40.0 0 38
Todd Heap ARI TE 24 283 11.8 28.3 28 1 5 0 9 37.5 0 38
Leonard Pope KC TE 24 247 10.3 15.4 39 1 3 0 12 50.0 0 40
Daniel Fells DEN TE 19 256 13.5 16.0 32 3 4 0 13 68.4 2 40
Jacob Tamme IND TE 19 177 9.3 11.1 29 1 2 0 10 52.6 0 40
Delanie Walker SF TE 19 198 10.4 13.2 29T 3 2 0 9 47.4 0 43
James Casey HOU TE 18 260 14.4 18.6 62 1 4 1 11 61.1 0 43
Kellen Davis CHI TE 18 206 11.4 12.9 32T 5 3 0 13 72.2 0

He's a #2. His stats reflect exactly where he is. You can argue all you want. He's a #2. He's a #2. He's a #2.

Next time do some research before you try to come off so condescending. kthanksbuhbye

Originally posted by mike:
Yeah I guess our debates on this are pointless because ultimately, Baalke and co. are going to decide what positions have more depth than others in this draft. The #5 WR could be a lot better than the 7th or 8th WR and therefore worth it(also what we consider the #5 could be ranked higher on their boards). Harbaugh seems to take pride in finding gems so maybe he passes on Fleener simply for that reason.

Or maybe they see a lot of value in a completely different position, perhaps a defensive position or guard. Then they decide both WR and TE can both be found in mid rounds. Who knows. I personally like Egnew but what do I know lol.

At our pick, there's going to be a slew of OL, which we are in desperate need of, regardless of Boone and Kilgore.

The other option is WR or LB, the same way we picked up Aldon Smith. Even DL. But there's no way we pick up Fleener.

Originally posted by mkmasn:
Again, someone who doesn't understand.

First off.... FUMBLES? In 83 games played, he had 3 fumbles (NFL.com). 3 FUMBLES. Check your stats.
Second, he's a #2 TE, not a #1. His job isn't to get open deep, he's usually read 3 or 4 at a 5 yd dump off, but you knew that right?
Third, if the coaches used him a a receiver instead of a blocker, he would have better numbers, his catch rate would increase, and nobody would be talking about replacing him.

Zach Miller SEA TE 25 233 9.3 15.5 28 0 2 0 10 40.0 0 38
Todd Heap ARI TE 24 283 11.8 28.3 28 1 5 0 9 37.5 0 38
Leonard Pope KC TE 24 247 10.3 15.4 39 1 3 0 12 50.0 0 40
Daniel Fells DEN TE 19 256 13.5 16.0 32 3 4 0 13 68.4 2 40
Jacob Tamme IND TE 19 177 9.3 11.1 29 1 2 0 10 52.6 0 40
Delanie Walker SF TE 19 198 10.4 13.2 29T 3 2 0 9 47.4 0 43
James Casey HOU TE 18 260 14.4 18.6 62 1 4 1 11 61.1 0 43
Kellen Davis CHI TE 18 206 11.4 12.9 32T 5 3 0 13 72.2 0

He's a #2. His stats reflect exactly where he is. You can argue all you want. He's a #2. He's a #2. He's a #2.

Next time do some research before you try to come off so condescending. kthanksbuhbye

His job is to win his matchups and get open whenever he is out on a route. And before YOU come off all condescending, you should make sure that he is really running a bunch of 3-5 yard dumpoff routes, because that is not what I have seen. I see him run seams, slow posts, flags, corners, wheels, deep crosses, slants, and deep curls, in addition to drags (which are short routes that are designed to get the receiver open for YAC) and the OCCASIONAL dumpoff. You don't see him catch many of those routes because he is usually contained very capably by one safety. The majority of his plays are made in single coverage against a LB.

If you read my comment on his fumbles earlier in the thread (or if you had been on the forum for a bit), you would know that most fans aren't directly pissed about the # of fumbles he has had, but that his lost fumbles have come at back-breaking moments in tight games, ie: he literealy fumbles games away. The anti-clutch, as it were. I was as pumped as anyone else when he caught the game-winner in DET, but dude was WAY overdue. I'm also not seeing the more successful #2 TEs in your list. Have you heard of Hernandez, NE? he plays an HB-type of TE like Walker, and he had over 900 yards. Shockey and Pitta more than doubled his numbers. Sheffler, Dressen, and Moore surpassed him by over 50%. You also left out Randy McMichael, whose yardage was a statistically significant 37% better than Walker's. You can crunch (and manipulate) stats all you want to (while ignoring unfavorable stats, like his awful 54% catch rate), I watch the guy play, and I like his attitude, but if he can be upgraded for cheap, we need to do it.

You should probably do some legit research before you throw around obviously doctored results. Here on the Zone, we we don't blindly believe whatever numbers you choose to throw on a page. There are 6 #2 TEs listed here whose numbers are significantly (at least 50%) better tham Walker's, if you REALLY want to go the stats route. Factor in how often we are in a 2 TE set, versus the rest of the league (excluding NE and, possibly, CAR) and that is a position that is ripe for improvement. #2 TE is more important on this team than most.

Originally posted by mkmasn:

Originally posted by WRATHman44:

Originally posted by mkmasn:

Originally posted by nickbradley:
That doesn't look at catch rate. He's at 54% - so if you look at times targeted, he's terrible.

It also doesn't factor in that he was utilized as a receiver less than half of what VD was. He was used as a blocker.

Nice straw man argument. "Anyone who disagrees with me is making this mistake." You can revise history all you, but MANY zoners have taken issue with Walker's fumbles, inconsistent hands, and poor separation, and they have been doing so long before the run-up to this draft. Willingness to follow coaching is great, but it doesn't make him good. He's just the new Arnaz Battle. Neither of those guys was coached to run around and NOT get open. I like Walker, and I liked Battle, but failing to see how their job could be done better reflects either homerism or an agenda (perhaps to select a preferred WR?). It seems to me that you work just hard to run down our WRs, while mocking Fleener fans for critiquing Walker. It seems like you keep forgetting that disagreeing with you does not make a fellow poster less intelligent than you.

Fumbles? He had 0. And 3 TDs. being utilized half as much as VD. VD had 6 TDs and 3 Fum.

I love everyone sits here and complains about him not being a 3rd down guy, not able to put up massive games, game planning his defender so as to lessen the impact he (Walker) has on the game.

#10 in the league at converting for first downs. 6 catches 96 yds against New York. As a #2 TE, being utilized in the passing game HALF AS MUCH as the #1 TE.

HALF AS MUCH.

If the coaches didn't need him so much as a blocker, he would be putting up better numbers, plain and simple. Talk about gameplan, then think about who calls the plays when Walker is in to block. Then think about who calls the plays when he's in to pass. Then realize IT'S NOT HIM.

You know that Walker has been a Niner more than one season and that he has literally fumbled away games before, right? And you know that a 54% percent catch rate means he only caught half of the passes thrown to him, right? And that he is neither fast enough (play speed) or big enough to pull coverage or gain separation against single coverage, right? No one is discussing why he doesn't get more throws, because we are more upset about what often happens when the ball gets thrown to him. Okaythanksbuhbye

Again, someone who doesn't understand.

First off.... FUMBLES? In 83 games played, he had 3 fumbles (NFL.com). 3 FUMBLES. Check your stats.
Second, he's a #2 TE, not a #1. His job isn't to get open deep, he's usually read 3 or 4 at a 5 yd dump off, but you knew that right?
Third, if the coaches used him a a receiver instead of a blocker, he would have better numbers, his catch rate would increase, and nobody would be talking about replacing him.

Zach Miller SEA TE 25 233 9.3 15.5 28 0 2 0 10 40.0 0 38
Todd Heap ARI TE 24 283 11.8 28.3 28 1 5 0 9 37.5 0 38
Leonard Pope KC TE 24 247 10.3 15.4 39 1 3 0 12 50.0 0 40
Daniel Fells DEN TE 19 256 13.5 16.0 32 3 4 0 13 68.4 2 40
Jacob Tamme IND TE 19 177 9.3 11.1 29 1 2 0 10 52.6 0 40
Delanie Walker SF TE 19 198 10.4 13.2 29T 3 2 0 9 47.4 0 43
James Casey HOU TE 18 260 14.4 18.6 62 1 4 1 11 61.1 0 43
Kellen Davis CHI TE 18 206 11.4 12.9 32T 5 3 0 13 72.2 0

He's a #2. His stats reflect exactly where he is. You can argue all you want. He's a #2. He's a #2. He's a #2.

Next time do some research before you try to come off so condescending. kthanksbuhbye

Considering the offense we run and taking into account the number of times our "#2" tightend is on the field...those stats are terrible in proportion.

The importance of a #2 TE in our offense is no different than the importance of a #2 WR in non-multiple TE offenses.

Here's some things I noticed this year:
1. Delanie is mainly effective when we catch a defense with personnel that favors us.
2. There's a reason why our run game did not average a very good YPC and it was the year Delanie was kept in to block more than other years.
3. There's a reason why our key downs were not great and it is due to ALL of the key components on offense to not execute, including Delanie. Since he doesn't provide heavy production in any one area as does VD or Tree, then he is the weakest spot.
4. Delanie Walker only had 8 more catches than Bruce Miller and Delanie avg 13 yards per catch which tells me we did send him deep often.

Now, considering what we used him for and how often he was used for those purposes and how critical his position's role is on this offense: an upgrade would immensely improve this offense.

Originally posted by 49ersalldaway126:

Originally posted by sfout:
this. people forget that VD is 28 and will be 29 by this time next year, I know he'll produce for years to come but we need to be ready with a successor ASAP. Also Walker will turn 28 in august so he's no spring chicken either.

Bringing in a 23(turns 24 in september) year old playmaker like Fleener will make our team better in the long run and make sure there is no fall off in skill.

i dont mind but your logic is flawed

there is a better prospect next year in Tyler Eifert

this year i say we go after a #1 WR becuase after this year moss will be gone (and he isnt a sinch to produce either at his age)

if we get fleener which wouldnt be the worst thing in the world we would have to rely on a rookie to have a big role next year because we will have to get one

So IF and I mean IF Fleener is there at 30 we should just pass on him because Tyler Eifert MIGHT declare next year and MIGHT be available where we pick? That logic is flawed more so then mine.

We can get a #1 WR that we can develop, just as we can get Fleener and develop him, both Moss and Walker could both be gone next year. It's a toss up, simple as that.

What do you even mean with your 3rd point? Fleener would be the 2nd or 3rd TE, thats hardly a big role, especially if we keep him at 3rd TE behind Walker. Next year if we lose Walker and we somehow end up with Eifert he would be forced in a larger role then Fleener would be this year and should Walker leave Fleener would have had an entire year to settle in and get prepared for the larger role, Eifert would not have such a luxury.

I personally want a WR or a G at 30 but if Fleener is there it would be pretty dumb to pass on him simply because we could get maybe, possibly get 1 next year. There are quality WRs and Guards deep into rounds 2 and 3 even round 4. Brian Quick, Alshon Jeffery, Mohamed Sanu, Marvin Jones, Chris Givens, TY Hilton, Joe Adams, Greg Childs for WRs. Zeitler could be there at 2, Kelechi Osemele, Brandon Washington, Brandon Brooks, Senio Kelemente, Lucus Nix, Ryan Miller, Joe Looney, Rokevious Watkins and Adam Gettis in the 5th or so as well. Center/guards have Phillip Blake, Ben Jones, David Molk, Michael Brewster and a couple of guys the 9ers are keen on in Jason Slowey and Chris Anvezino in the 6th.

If Fleener is there we almost have to take him because of how deep the WR and G classes are on day 2. Do I 100% want us to take Fleener? No I dont because any of the following Stephen Hill, Rueben Randle, Kendall Wright, Amini Silatolu, Peter Konz, Cordy Glenn or maybe even the wildcard of David Wilson will in play at 30.

This thread is veiled in a Delanie Walker thread so people can talk about Fleener in Niner Talk.

I've passed on this thread until now but I'll weigh in here. I haven't taken the time to read all the way through so excuse me if what I will say have been extensively covered.

Walker is a nice player but does not influence the game to any degree. Though his blocking has improved, he is not as good as Nate Byham and will cost more to re-sign. Though a former WR, he is not a threat as a receiver unless he gets into a matchup advantage. He does not have the skill set to beat defenders one-on-one in equal matchups. Part of the problem with our 3rd down offense is our offense on 1st and 2nd downs - we don't have offensive players that can beat defenders one-on-one other than Frank Gore and he is negated much of the time because of that. If the offense is to improve on 3rd down, it must become more dynamic, and diversified, on 1st and 2nd, and that means an "average" offensive player like Walker is not helping.

Consequently, to the extent Walker is taking a roster spot that could be used for a more dynamic offensive player, we should consider replacing him. (A trade would be nice but better than a 6th round pick is not likely.)

I'm a Fleener fan for one key reason: Due to major rule changes to protect defenseless receivers, the passing game is played more up in the air now than it was 5 or more years ago. No longer must pass receivers worry about getting their rib cage smashed in every time they extend their hands above their heads. As a result, tall TEs like Gronkowski and Graham are dominant players in their team's offense because their are tall and have excellent hands to snag the ball above the heads of defenders. Walker is not tall enough to take advantage of the rule changes in the passing game, hence his roster spot should be vulnerable.

I haven't seen enough of TEs other than Fleener to judge what may happen if he is gone at #30 but I would be a little surprised to see the 49ers pass on him if he is there.

Originally posted by dj43:
I've passed on this thread until now but I'll weigh in here. I haven't taken the time to read all the way through so excuse me if what I will say have been extensively covered.

Walker is a nice player but does not influence the game to any degree. Though his blocking has improved, he is not as good as Nate Byham and will cost more to re-sign. Though a former WR, he is not a threat as a receiver unless he gets into a matchup advantage. He does not have the skill set to beat defenders one-on-one in equal matchups. Part of the problem with our 3rd down offense is our offense on 1st and 2nd downs - we don't have offensive players that can beat defenders one-on-one other than Frank Gore and he is negated much of the time because of that. If the offense is to improve on 3rd down, it must become more dynamic, and diversified, on 1st and 2nd, and that means an "average" offensive player like Walker is not helping.

Consequently, to the extent Walker is taking a roster spot that could be used for a more dynamic offensive player, we should consider replacing him. (A trade would be nice but better than a 6th round pick is not likely.)

I'm a Fleener fan for one key reason: Due to major rule changes to protect defenseless receivers, the passing game is played more up in the air now than it was 5 or more years ago. No longer must pass receivers worry about getting their rib cage smashed in every time they extend their hands above their heads. As a result, tall TEs like Gronkowski and Graham are dominant players in their team's offense because their are tall and have excellent hands to snag the ball above the heads of defenders. Walker is not tall enough to take advantage of the rule changes in the passing game, hence his roster spot should be vulnerable.

I haven't seen enough of TEs other than Fleener to judge what may happen if he is gone at #30 but I would be a little surprised to see the 49ers pass on him if he is there.

It is Fleener or Hill for me. I would be VERY happy with either. And in another directional way, I would also be happy with a CB/DB.

OG, not unless he is a Iupati type.

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by dj43:
I've passed on this thread until now but I'll weigh in here. I haven't taken the time to read all the way through so excuse me if what I will say have been extensively covered.

Walker is a nice player but does not influence the game to any degree. Though his blocking has improved, he is not as good as Nate Byham and will cost more to re-sign. Though a former WR, he is not a threat as a receiver unless he gets into a matchup advantage. He does not have the skill set to beat defenders one-on-one in equal matchups. Part of the problem with our 3rd down offense is our offense on 1st and 2nd downs - we don't have offensive players that can beat defenders one-on-one other than Frank Gore and he is negated much of the time because of that. If the offense is to improve on 3rd down, it must become more dynamic, and diversified, on 1st and 2nd, and that means an "average" offensive player like Walker is not helping.

Consequently, to the extent Walker is taking a roster spot that could be used for a more dynamic offensive player, we should consider replacing him. (A trade would be nice but better than a 6th round pick is not likely.)

I'm a Fleener fan for one key reason: Due to major rule changes to protect defenseless receivers, the passing game is played more up in the air now than it was 5 or more years ago. No longer must pass receivers worry about getting their rib cage smashed in every time they extend their hands above their heads. As a result, tall TEs like Gronkowski and Graham are dominant players in their team's offense because their are tall and have excellent hands to snag the ball above the heads of defenders. Walker is not tall enough to take advantage of the rule changes in the passing game, hence his roster spot should be vulnerable.

I haven't seen enough of TEs other than Fleener to judge what may happen if he is gone at #30 but I would be a little surprised to see the 49ers pass on him if he is there.

It is Fleener or Hill for me. I would be VERY happy with either. And in another directional way, I would also be happy with a CB/DB.

OG, not unless he is a Iupati type.

Agree. This offense needs dynamic players to supplement the power game that has already been established. Williams, if he stays healthy could be a dynamic player as he is a good quick guy but small. Crabtree has neither the size nor speed to be a game changer. The other receivers are just "guys," nothing at all special. Hill has the size and the speed to be an impact player. In a draft high on impact players at the top but not particularly notable in mid-rounds, I would not be surprised to see Baalke move up a bit to grab an impact receiver if they have one rated as such in the mid-20s.

OG is a need issue for me although I don't know how the feel about Kilgore's development. If Zeitler or Konz is there at #30 and they draft Fleener or Hill, it should tell us they feel very good about Kilgore. Thursday is coming....

Originally posted by qnnhan7:
This thread is veiled in a Delanie Walker thread so people can talk about Fleener in Niner Talk.

This