Trade up for Coby Fleener?

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by ssahnan:

Originally posted by Leathaface:
1. VDs role wouldn't change.
2. Alex loves throwing to backs and TEs.
3. We use 2 TE sets as much as any team in the league.
4. It's not a depth move because he'd be on the field for a minimum of 50% of offensive snaps.

need a wr, rg...I'm sorry but this whole fleener thing is just crazy. Just seems it lacks so much perspective on what really needs to be done. If/when we lose this season, it's not going to be because we didn't have coby frickin fleener as our tightend, it's going to be because we were actually the team that was stupid enuf to get suckered in to the randy moss bs or we will lose because because we didn't adequately adress the rg slot. when you step back and look at how the draft traditionally pans out, there is a much bigger chance that years down the road no one even remembers who fleener is then it being a situation where he is anything of any worth. Maybe I'm just too damn old but sorry, this just sounds so dumb, trade up for cody frickin fleener, really?

A TE who can run a 4.5 or slightly sub 4.5 forty, who has hands in the outstanding category, 6'6" height and super long arms and big hands. For a team that struggles dearly with 3rd downs and redzone and d*esn't have big enough sure handed targets. And all this after the NFL has seen what Gronkowski and Jimmy Graham can do when unleased upon the NFL. Yeah dumb....

Running 4.5 at pro-day is about equal to running 4.6 at the Combine. Quit pumping pro-day results

Originally posted by sfout:

Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:

Originally posted by Leathaface:

Originally posted by ssahnan:
my bottom line, you do not at any point trade up to draft for depth. I do not see any reasonable line of thinking that this guys is such a drastic improvement over Vernon Davis that not only do you not view him as just depth but you actually view him better then Vernon. I'm sorry, this is just reaching....

You add that to the fact this team actually is going to try to ressurect a 35 year old prima donna past his prime washed up reciever, a heck of a lot more needs to use the 'trade up' card on

1. VDs role wouldn't change.
2. Alex loves throwing to backs and TEs.
3. We use 2 TE sets as much as any team in the league.
4. It's not a depth move because he'd be on the field for a minimum of 50% of offensive snaps.

I disagree. Depth is essentially what he'd be. So long as Vernon Davis is on the roster 50% of the offensive plays would be Fleener's ceiling and would be no better than the number 2 TE option on 90% of the plays he's on the field. I can't see how this is good draft management.

Davis is 28, unless he is Darrell Green and stays sub 4.4 until he is 35 there is no way Davis will be his 23 year old 4.3 speed nightmare in another couple of years. Getting someone who can take the pressure of him AND crabtree is huge. Whether its a TE or WR and a 4.5 6-6 WR/TE like Fleener is pretty much a Godsend at this point.

Did you watch Luck's "QB Camp" with Gruden - They talk about how frequently the TE's and FB's(or H-Back) are utilized in the offense. IF JH is really trying to run a carbon copy of his offense from Stanford then we will start seeing more 2 or 3 TE sets this coming season with 1 receiver like Crabtree,Manningham or Moss lining up outwide with VD on the opposite side and Fleener and Byham, Walker, or Bruce Miller lining up with the OL or in the backfield.

1 QB
1 RB
1 FB
2 TE(or 3 TE if we take away the FB)
1 WR(or 2 WRs if we take away the FB)
5 OL

you're being short sighted because of how the NFCC played out. When people say we need to upgrade our "receiving corp" you can be 1 sided and say it was all the WRs but think about if you have 2 or 3 incredibly good TEs you dont need 5 incredibly good WRs you just need 3 or 4 and right now we have those 3 or 4 incredibly good wrs with Crabtree, Manningham, Moss, and depth with Williams and Ginn. If we could add Fleener to a TE group of Davis, Walker, Byham/Reuland then good lord our offense would be mean as hell. We're still going to add a WR in the draft but I'm not convinced it'll be earlier then round 3.

Again, you can run 2 and 3 TE sets as a matter of course in college. But this is the NFL. Running a 2/3 TE sets and one WR as a matter of course is a liability if you cannot push the ball down field. If DC's knows your 2 and 3 TE sets are effectively hiding a weakness at the WR position - whether that hiding is by design or by coincidence of the scheme - at some point you will be exposed, like we were in the title game. JH didn't run (and don't think he wants to run) a carbon copy of what he ran at Stanford. Plus, I haven't heard one reason for drafting a TE in the first that we couldn't achieve in later rounds. Hell, we could get James Hanna from Oklahoma in the 6th. After all, he's 6-4, 252, 24 reps on the bench (3 less than Fleener), ran a 4.49, perfect red-zone guy, and has very good hands. (No, I'm not making a pitch to draft Hanna.) Now I know whats gonna be said. "JH used multiple TE's at Stanford." True! But its also true that this franchise hasn't had a real #1 WR since TO. Since then the 49ers best WR option has been TE Vernon Davis precisely because we've suffered piss-poor WR play. And that remains today!!! Even with a re-vamped re-made Alex Smith we're still suffering from piss-poor WR play. JH didn't usher in the 2 TE idea to the 49ers. Mike Johnson and Jimmy Raye used them as well. Roman and JH have just been more thoughtful with this approach than previous regimes. My point is that drafting a TE in the 1st is unnecessary. Moving up to get one is just silly. You don't solve the weakness of your right arm by lifting more weights with your left arm.

To think we have 3 or 4 "incredibly good" WR is laughable. We have decent and capable WR's with a bunch of potential, nothing more than that:

• Crabs is still trying to develop chemistry with his QB going into his 4th season. Inconsistent, not in the playbook, just a bucket of potential but no production. (BTW, Crabs is gonna have to take the pressure off himself with better play, getting into the playbook, running better routes, getting open, etc, etc, etc. Drafting Fleener, anywhere in the draft, won't do that for him.)
• Manningham is our best WR option as it now stands.
• Moss may or may not make the finale 53 (or may quit before then).
• Williams is a solid slot WR.
• Ginn should be seen as a WR in-name-only and should be strictly as a return guy. If we draft a WR he'd be at least higher than Ginn on the WR depth chart.

That WR corps don't seem too "incredibly good" to me.

About the short sighted comment. I tell you what. Since some are basically the clouding the difference (and the importance of that difference) between the WR and the TE to justify this pick (e.g. "4.5 6-6 WR/TE like Fleener"), why don't we just forego the WR position altogether and just draft Fleener as a WR and make him our #1, convert D. Walker to a WR and designate him our slot guy, let Crabs, Manningham, and Moss compete for the #2 spot, and name Byham our #2 TE. That way, our base offense will look something like this:
WR - Fleener, TE - Byham XXXXX TE - Davis WR - Crabs/Manningham/Moss/Walker
QB

Gore
We can run our 2 and 3 TE sets in all kinds of ways without ever having to take either Fleener or Davis off the field. After all, Fleener is practically a WR anyway, right?. We are just going to have to tell Gore he's gonna have to just do without the services of a FB on must plays, despite of the fact that he's always thrived with one, and despite the fact that the FB is vital to the WC passing game. Is that open minded enough?

The people who don't want to even consider Fleener are the ones who are locked into this old school depth chart mentality. "We have a TE so we don't need another." That's not how the NFL works these days.

It's not about being a WR or a TE. It's about getting your best pass catchers on the field at once. The fact that he's a TE is great for us because he'll line up on the LOS and be able to block as well.

The Pats run a single back 2 TE 2 WR set all the time to unbelievable success. We also run as many 2 TE sets as any team.

On our team, the second TE is a starter.

Originally posted by Leathaface:
The people who don't want to even consider Fleener are the ones who are locked into this old school depth chart mentality. "We have a TE so we don't need another." That's not how the NFL works these days.

It's not about being a WR or a TE. It's about getting your best pass catchers on the field at once. The fact that he's a TE is great for us because he'll line up on the LOS and be able to block as well.

The Pats run a single back 2 TE 2 WR set all the time to unbelievable success. We also run as many 2 TE sets as any team.

On our team, the second TE is a starter.

Funny, not once during the 2011 season did JH & Co. list D. Walker as a starter, nor have I hear him say it. In fact, that idea that our 2nd TE is a starter - "basically" - is something I only hear form fans, not from football professionals. No matter how much D. Walker was used he was/is not the starter. We may use our TE's more than most but there's still one starting TE. Now, if you want to call me old-school and closed minded, OK. But I do know that no team has 2 two starting TE's and no team fields, as a matter of course, 2 TE's as their base set. "Effectively starts" don't count. Like in all sports, football has its constants through all levels. After long tryouts, camps, two-a-days, etc, players await the list on the wall to see who made the team and where they fit on the depth chart. And how they fit is based off the 2 WR, 5 lineman, 2 backs (one half and one full), 1 QB, and 1 TE model. It's been that way since the forward pass was invented. Sure, this model changes slightly from play-to-play, due to game circumstances, philosophy of the coach, team personnel, etc. But the model itself is tried and true and remains today. Hence, no team in the NFL posts 2 starting TE's as a base, and neither will we. I think fans should not get it twisted. Just because we've use 2 or TE's a lot don't mean that we are a two TE team. We are a WC system with WC personnel with a long standing weakness at WR that pushes us to use our TE's more than most.

Oh yeah, We are not the Pats. I wish people stop comparing us to them. They are a different team with different circumstances.

why did stanford emphasize the tight end so much when harbaugh was there? one reason is they had good tight ends...but additionally, like the niners now/last year, they did not really have any great wide receivers

bodes well for niners taking fleener if he is still on the board

If Fleener makes it to our pick, I believe Balke and Harbaugh will pull the trigger. Unless someone they are very high on slips in the 1st rnd.

The we can draft a tight end similar to Fleener later in the draft is true with every position.

Tommy Streeter is every bit as athletic as Stephen Hill is.
You can find the Carl Nicks type guys in the draft who come in as a tweener and you move them to guard.

Pittsburgh and Green Bay have 2 of the best receiving cores in football and they do it by taking a guy 2-4 every year. I would have no problem if we didn't take a receiver or Fleener and went with a guard.

Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:

Originally posted by Leathaface:
The people who don't want to even consider Fleener are the ones who are locked into this old school depth chart mentality. "We have a TE so we don't need another." That's not how the NFL works these days.

It's not about being a WR or a TE. It's about getting your best pass catchers on the field at once. The fact that he's a TE is great for us because he'll line up on the LOS and be able to block as well.

The Pats run a single back 2 TE 2 WR set all the time to unbelievable success. We also run as many 2 TE sets as any team.

On our team, the second TE is a starter.

Funny, not once during the 2011 season did JH & Co. list D. Walker as a starter, nor have I hear him say it. In fact, that idea that our 2nd TE is a starter - "basically" - is something I only hear form fans, not from football professionals. No matter how much D. Walker was used he was/is not the starter. We may use our TE's more than most but there's still one starting TE. Now, if you want to call me old-school and closed minded, OK. But I do know that no team has 2 two starting TE's and no team fields, as a matter of course, 2 TE's as their base set. "Effectively starts" don't count. Like in all sports, football has its constants through all levels. After long tryouts, camps, two-a-days, etc, players await the list on the wall to see who made the team and where they fit on the depth chart. And how they fit is based off the 2 WR, 5 lineman, 2 backs (one half and one full), 1 QB, and 1 TE model. It's been that way since the forward pass was invented. Sure, this model changes slightly from play-to-play, due to game circumstances, philosophy of the coach, team personnel, etc. But the model itself is tried and true and remains today. Hence, no team in the NFL posts 2 starting TE's as a base, and neither will we. I think fans should not get it twisted. Just because we've use 2 or TE's a lot don't mean that we are a two TE team. We are a WC system with WC personnel with a long standing weakness at WR that pushes us to use our TE's more than most.

Oh yeah, We are not the Pats. I wish people stop comparing us to them. They are a different team with different circumstances.

The bolded is just ludicrous and is exactly why you fail to see the value. In your head, just because a player isn't listed as a starter, he's a backup. All that seems to matter to you is the first play of the game and who Fox Sports lists on their starting lineup with the pictures of the players.

Ever heard of the slot WR? By your model, he's technically a backup. But guess what...guys are still drafted in the 1st round to play the slot because they're on the field a lot.

We use our 2nd TE a lot...same thing...which means he's on the field a lot...which means he has a big impact on the game...which means HE'S AN IMPORTANT PLAYER!

Who cares if he's not technically a "starter." What difference d*es that make?

Like you said, that's a close minded way of thinking about it. You're also crazy if you think "football professionals" don't talk about the 2 TE set. The last 2+ years in the NFL have been the beginning of the TE era and that's all you hear analysts talking about.

I'm not even upset if we draft a WR or RG in the 1st. I'm just saying I'd 100% be on board with upgrading our TE2 because...we use that player a lot.

we need Decastro more than Fleener

Originally posted by Frisco69ers:
we need Decastro more than Fleener

true

decastro is the best G to come out almost ever



unfortunatly he isnt worth the trade up as we need to get into top 15

we still need 1 more WR/TE though
moss isnt a guarentee ( 1 year removed and horrible production in 2010 and 35 years old)
and both manninham and crabs are both #2

Trade up? No.

Originally posted by Leathaface:
The people who don't want to even consider Fleener are the ones who are locked into this old school depth chart mentality. "We have a TE so we don't need another." That's not how the NFL works these days.

It's not about being a WR or a TE. It's about getting your best pass catchers on the field at once. The fact that he's a TE is great for us because he'll line up on the LOS and be able to block as well.

The Pats run a single back 2 TE 2 WR set all the time to unbelievable success. We also run as many 2 TE sets as any team.

On our team, the second TE is a starter.

I agree. And he's better than DW on day #1. He's taller, with better hands and about as fast. Better route running too. He knows Harbaugh's system inside and out.

Originally posted by Leathaface:

Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:

Originally posted by Leathaface:
The people who don't want to even consider Fleener are the ones who are locked into this old school depth chart mentality. "We have a TE so we don't need another." That's not how the NFL works these days.

It's not about being a WR or a TE. It's about getting your best pass catchers on the field at once. The fact that he's a TE is great for us because he'll line up on the LOS and be able to block as well.

The Pats run a single back 2 TE 2 WR set all the time to unbelievable success. We also run as many 2 TE sets as any team.

On our team, the second TE is a starter.

Funny, not once during the 2011 season did JH & Co. list D. Walker as a starter, nor have I hear him say it. In fact, that idea that our 2nd TE is a starter - "basically" - is something I only hear form fans, not from football professionals. No matter how much D. Walker was used he was/is not the starter. We may use our TE's more than most but there's still one starting TE. Now, if you want to call me old-school and closed minded, OK. But I do know that no team has 2 two starting TE's and no team fields, as a matter of course, 2 TE's as their base set. "Effectively starts" don't count. Like in all sports, football has its constants through all levels. After long tryouts, camps, two-a-days, etc, players await the list on the wall to see who made the team and where they fit on the depth chart. And how they fit is based off the 2 WR, 5 lineman, 2 backs (one half and one full), 1 QB, and 1 TE model. It's been that way since the forward pass was invented. Sure, this model changes slightly from play-to-play, due to game circumstances, philosophy of the coach, team personnel, etc. But the model itself is tried and true and remains today. Hence, no team in the NFL posts 2 starting TE's as a base, and neither will we. I think fans should not get it twisted. Just because we've use 2 or TE's a lot don't mean that we are a two TE team. We are a WC system with WC personnel with a long standing weakness at WR that pushes us to use our TE's more than most.

Oh yeah, We are not the Pats. I wish people stop comparing us to them. They are a different team with different circumstances.

The bolded is just ludicrous and is exactly why you fail to see the value. In your head, just because a player isn't listed as a starter, he's a backup. All that seems to matter to you is the first play of the game and who Fox Sports lists on their starting lineup with the pictures of the players.

Ever heard of the slot WR? By your model, he's technically a backup. But guess what...guys are still drafted in the 1st round to play the slot because they're on the field a lot.

We use our 2nd TE a lot...same thing...which means he's on the field a lot...which means he has a big impact on the game...which means HE'S AN IMPORTANT PLAYER!

Who cares if he's not technically a "starter." What difference d*es that make?

Like you said, that's a close minded way of thinking about it. You're also crazy if you think "football professionals" don't talk about the 2 TE set. The last 2+ years in the NFL have been the beginning of the TE era and that's all you hear analysts talking about.

I'm not even upset if we draft a WR or RG in the 1st. I'm just saying I'd 100% be on board with upgrading our TE2 because...we use that player a lot.

Seriously. I wonder if Aldon Smith was a wasted pick because he never started a game as a rookie . I'm pretty sure Joe Montana never started a game as a rookie, either. What was BW thinking? I know the counter argument was that JM started many games in his career, as will Aldon, but the fact is that none of us can state what will happen in the league, and it is sheer arrogance to suggest that a player that has never played an NFL snap will never be a starter. Injuries happen, priorities change, and Coaches find a way to use their talent. As far as the argument about Gronk being a 2nd round pick, that's just the NFL. When someone d*es something against the grain and it works, it becomes more expensive (in draft capital, in this case) to do the same thing, as the positive results have already been documented. Gronk and Graham would probably go in the 1st round if the draft were done over, with everyone knowing what they do now.

Originally posted by Leathaface:
The bolded is just ludicrous and is exactly why you fail to see the value. In your head, just because a player isn't listed as a starter, he's a backup. All that seems to matter to you is the first play of the game and who Fox Sports lists on their starting lineup with the pictures of the players.

Ever heard of the slot WR? By your model, he's technically a backup. But guess what...guys are still drafted in the 1st round to play the slot because they're on the field a lot.

We use our 2nd TE a lot...same thing...which means he's on the field a lot...which means he has a big impact on the game...which means HE'S AN IMPORTANT PLAYER!

Who cares if he's not technically a "starter." What difference d*es that make?

Like you said, that's a close minded way of thinking about it. You're also crazy if you think "football professionals" don't talk about the 2 TE set. The last 2+ years in the NFL have been the beginning of the TE era and that's all you hear analysts talking about.

I'm not even upset if we draft a WR or RG in the 1st. I'm just saying I'd 100% be on board with upgrading our TE2 because...we use that player a lot.

This. Due to his height, Walker wasn't nearly the threat that Fleener could be. You can shutdown Walker with a single safety, with Fleener, defenses have to respond, defend him, defend VD, but also be prepared for the run, and also worry about Crabtree and Manningham or Moss. Anyway you add it up, that is a nightmare waiting to happen.


You can't say the same thing if you draft a guy like Randle, who probably wouldn't even start. This team's not going to all of a sudden find a #1 WR out of nowhere but a guy like Fleener could play the majority of the snaps on offense and due to his familiarity with his system, would be more ready to contribute than just about anyone else they could draft.........what more could you ask for out of the #30 pick?

I'm with ya on Fleener...Harbaugh's still smarting over not taking Baldwin a year ago. I'm guessing if they feel strongly about him, Baalke will trade up to get him.