There are 125 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Was Crabtree Really a Steal?

Originally posted by bzborow1:
The concerns with Crabtree are threefold: (1) Injury-prone; (2) One year of excellent statistics; and, (3) Diva personality early on. #3 I think related to his lack of maturity at that early stage in his life. I could be wrong, but it appears he's grown quite a bit since his draft year. Unlike TO, it is possible Crabtree learned from his mistakes. Looking at it another way, there will be no free agent WR with more talent and LESS risk than Crabtree which is why he should be a top priority for a contract extension.

The 49ers really need a good slot receiver to function as a security blanket for the QB. Crabtree is just fine on the edge by himself.

I think ultimately they need a good deep threat, a viable deep threat, someone that forces teams to keep a safety way back. Combine that with Crabtree, Boldin, Patton, VD, McDonald and whoever else,this could be one of the most explosive offenses in the NFL.....of course you still have Roman calling plays, so who knows.
That article was horse s**t for 95%.

The ending was good.
Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:
I think ultimately they need a good deep threat, a viable deep threat, someone that forces teams to keep a safety way back. Combine that with Crabtree, Boldin, Patton, VD, McDonald and whoever else,this could be one of the most explosive offenses in the NFL.....of course you still have Roman calling plays, so who knows.

Crabtree is a good deep threat. He isn't the fastest out there but he runs great routes and has bear traps for hands. He gets open very quick and is good after the catch.
Absolutely Crab was a steal at 10. If not for the stress fracture he probably doesn't slide to 10.
  • LVJay
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 8,377
Niner FO are a bunch of thieves!!
I thought Crabtree was at best an average receiver. As soon as Kaep took over Crabtree skyrocketed. He has great hands and most importantly he plays hungry. He's a dependable third down receiver and if he wasn't injured this year we would have seen him stretch the field more. I don't know if the 49ers would break the bank for him, but I'm sure somebody will.
Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:
Originally posted by hofer36:
i always wondered if the niners would be better if they had drafted as follows:

2010 1st rd michael oher (instead of crabtree)
2011 1st rd dez bryant (instead of anthony davis)

No thanks. Michael Oher gets a lot of hype but he's really a mediocre tackle. Davis has been doing quite a bit better than him for a few years now.

davis is legit. no regrets about that pick at all
Originally posted by RishikeshA:
I thought Crabtree was at best an average receiver. As soon as Kaep took over Crabtree skyrocketed. He has great hands and most importantly he plays hungry. He's a dependable third down receiver and if he wasn't injured this year we would have seen him stretch the field more. I don't know if the 49ers would break the bank for him, but I'm sure somebody will.

I really doubt that the Niners offer him a monster second contract. His numbers aren't super, he is hurt a lot, and he does disappear during big games.
stopped reading at bleacher report
Originally posted by valrod33:
stopped reading at bleacher report

this.
  • Jcool
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 15,050
Originally posted by boast:
Originally posted by valrod33:
stopped reading at bleacher report

this.

This isn't 2008... Bleacher Report is pretty respectable now. There is a reason Turner paid 200 million for it.
[ Edited by Jcool on Oct 17, 2013 at 12:29 PM ]
Originally posted by Jcool:
Originally posted by boast:
Originally posted by valrod33:
stopped reading at bleacher report

this.

This isn't 2008... Bleacher Report is pretty respectable now. There is a reason Turner paid 200 million for it.

Lol, no.
  • Jcool
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 15,050
Originally posted by itlynstalyn:
Originally posted by Jcool:
Originally posted by boast:
Originally posted by valrod33:
stopped reading at bleacher report

this.

This isn't 2008... Bleacher Report is pretty respectable now. There is a reason Turner paid 200 million for it.

Lol, no.

http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2087815_2087855_2087858,00.html

http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/sports-media-and-marketing-mvps-138411
Originally posted by Jcool:
Originally posted by itlynstalyn:
Originally posted by Jcool:
Originally posted by boast:
Originally posted by valrod33:
stopped reading at bleacher report

this.

This isn't 2008... Bleacher Report is pretty respectable now. There is a reason Turner paid 200 million for it.

Lol, no.

http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2087815_2087855_2087858,00.html

http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/sports-media-and-marketing-mvps-138411

Great job working the google machine. Just because a site gets traffic, doesn't mean its content is respected. See: Hilton, Perez.
Originally posted by itlynstalyn:
Originally posted by Jcool:
Originally posted by itlynstalyn:
Originally posted by Jcool:
Originally posted by boast:
Originally posted by valrod33:
stopped reading at bleacher report

this.

This isn't 2008... Bleacher Report is pretty respectable now. There is a reason Turner paid 200 million for it.

Lol, no.

http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2087815_2087855_2087858,00.html

http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/sports-media-and-marketing-mvps-138411

Great job working the google machine. Just because a site gets traffic, doesn't mean its content is respected. See: Hilton, Perez.