Battle vs. Zeigler - Finish The Fight!

Originally posted by oldman9er:
As I understood it, Battle gets fluid build up in his knee, and he has to drain it. My ex had the same thing years ago... it's discomforting, but does not prohibit her from doing normal activities. With Battle, the staff gives him a "pass" on practices. Much like they do with Bruce and Harris. Why? Because the staff knows that these guys already know what they're doing, and it will benefit the team to have them fully 100% by go-time.

I brought up the foot injury to clear up the confusion that leads to even more people worrying about Battle's knee. It was his foot... not some chronic knee problem. Yes, I think it matters.

When mentioning production, you mention his TDs... why? If a WR who racks up 1000 yards from 80 receptions, but only having 2 TDs... would this suggest he is unproductive for his team? Of course not... You seem to mock Battle's best year of production, but you fail to account for the other receiver's numbers, as well as the overall struggle from the offensive unit. This does seem to indicate a bias... or a mental disability... ( I'm leaning toward the former )

Look, I like and respect Battle for what he's done in SF, but I won't be losing sleep one way or the other on his future. If he does have injury concerns or the staff pushes him down the depth chart, then send him on his way with a mighty thank you. I just think it's sad that a fan would "spit on" one of the brighter players that has signifigantly helped SF during these truly dark 9er years.

Battle really was one of the brighter players during some dark years. Nicely put.

I don't see how questioning whether he remains with the team, over younger, healthier, faster, and potentially better players constitutes "spitting" on him, though.

I read thru this entire thread, and although MadDog makes some very valid points and valiantly defends Battle, Kronik's point--that at this time, irrespective of anything that's occurred in the past (such as Battle being higher on the depth chart at this time last year), Battle may not be as valuable to the team as the younger, healthier, faster and potentially more talented Hill--seems more correct, to me.

I like Battle and have defended him in the past, but if I had to choose right now, I'd probably go with Hill over Battle, simply because of his potential and the fact that there are other, more talented guys ahead of Battle.

Fact is that neither MadDog nor kronik actually knows what's going to occur. If we have a slew of injuries, like last year, its possible that both Battle and Z make the team. We're all going to have to wait to see.

On the other hand, its a nice problem to have, for a change. Too many good WRs, darn it.

Originally posted by oldninerdude:

Originally posted by oldman9er:
As I understood it, Battle gets fluid build up in his knee, and he has to drain it. My ex had the same thing years ago... it's discomforting, but does not prohibit her from doing normal activities. With Battle, the staff gives him a "pass" on practices. Much like they do with Bruce and Harris. Why? Because the staff knows that these guys already know what they're doing, and it will benefit the team to have them fully 100% by go-time.

I brought up the foot injury to clear up the confusion that leads to even more people worrying about Battle's knee. It was his foot... not some chronic knee problem. Yes, I think it matters.

When mentioning production, you mention his TDs... why? If a WR who racks up 1000 yards from 80 receptions, but only having 2 TDs... would this suggest he is unproductive for his team? Of course not... You seem to mock Battle's best year of production, but you fail to account for the other receiver's numbers, as well as the overall struggle from the offensive unit. This does seem to indicate a bias... or a mental disability... ( I'm leaning toward the former )

Look, I like and respect Battle for what he's done in SF, but I won't be losing sleep one way or the other on his future. If he does have injury concerns or the staff pushes him down the depth chart, then send him on his way with a mighty thank you. I just think it's sad that a fan would "spit on" one of the brighter players that has signifigantly helped SF during these truly dark 9er years.

Battle really was one of the brighter players during some dark years. Nicely put.

I don't see how questioning whether he remains with the team, over younger, healthier, faster, and potentially better players constitutes "spitting" on him, though.

I read thru this entire thread, and although MadDog makes some very valid points and valiantly defends Battle, Kronik's point--that at this time, irrespective of anything that's occurred in the past (such as Battle being higher on the depth chart at this time last year), Battle may not be as valuable to the team as the younger, healthier, faster and potentially more talented Hill--seems more correct, to me.

I like Battle and have defended him in the past, but if I had to choose right now, I'd probably go with Hill over Battle, simply because of his potential and the fact that there are other, more talented guys ahead of Battle.

Fact is that neither MadDog nor kronik actually knows what's going to occur. If we have a slew of injuries, like last year, its possible that both Battle and Z make the team. We're all going to have to wait to see.

On the other hand, its a nice problem to have, for a change. Too many good WRs, darn it.

Nice problem to have, indeed. As you said, you read through the thread. If you don't see any posts where there is a large lack of appreciation for Battle's contributions, then we will have to disagree there. Maybe "spit on" is a bit strong, but I'm not gonna read through this thread again to see. To me, any comment I made had nothing to do with Battle VS Hill. This was always about Battle's worth compared to say... keeping Zeigler. Now as I had said much earlier, if the F/O is gonna push Battle further down the depth chart regardless of how he performs? Then I would rather them let him go anyway. He has done enough to deserve playing time... if not in SF, then somewhere where he is more needed.

Depends if the staff decides to keep 5 or 6 WR. If they go 6 then Battle.

FINISH HIM !

Originally posted by MadDog49er:

Originally posted by kronik:

Originally posted by MadDog49er:

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:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/8330/gamelog;_ylt=ArsIqOeQEW7iYIVdoNDOLrH.uLYF

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.

OK, so now I don't understand ENGLISH again. Fine, I'll let that go.

Battle has been the leader of our WR core? Are you serious? Who, besides you has confirmed this? Do you have any direct quotes from any players or coaches? Or is this your all mighty opinion turned into a "fact?" You are talking about a guy that missed a couple of days of OTA last year holed up in Texas claiming he and his agent were unable to send a message to the 49ers in this day in age with communication everywhere? Give me a break.

Oh yeah, tell me about his productiveness. Because you make it sound like he's so productive, it's impossible to replace. Let's see, so Battle was leading our team in receptions in the first half of the year (which was also during a time when Martz was pass happy). Was he also leading in TD recptions? NO. In fact, he has a grand total of 11 career TD receptions. He would've had 12 if he didn't fumble that Alex Smith pass at the 1 yard line against Arizona 2 years ago. Luckily for us, and especially for him, Darrell Jackson recovered the ball in the endzone.

His career best year was in 2006 where he had 59 catches for 686 yards and 3TD's
Since that year, it has gone down. Dare I say he has peaked already?
Forgive me if I'm not impressed. The funny thing is the way you dismiss Hill's progress when he was finally given his chance. Your argument is "Well, Battle could've done better." Well, how do we know Hill couldn't have done better if he started the season? WE DON'T KNOW THAT EITHER!!!

On my hatred of Battle, where and when have I ever said I hate him or I can't stand him? Does suggesting the 49ers should cut or trade him = hatred? Are you serious? Maybe because I don't love him as much as you do means I hate him?

As for his continuing problems with his knee/foot whatever, you ask am I a doctor? The answer is no, but I don't need to be. How do I know he will not get better? It's called HISTORY. Are you telling me he has been 100% at any time these last few years? Why is he missing practice and OTA's the last few years due to the same knee/foot/leg? Why isn't it a bad back, or a broken hand or anything else? Not that it matters but why isn't it a new or different injury that is causing him to miss practice, OTA's and GAMES?

It's pretty convenient for you to select only a portion of his career where he played consistently and you refused to acknowledge his problems early in his career. That's fine then, but what do you have to say about the last half of the year then? You continually dismiss the most RECENT health status!!!!

As for polls of other players, I will give you an example of polls I've seen on this board that you definately did not "play fair" Have you seen the Vernon Davis vs. Delanie Walker threads or even Vernon Davis vs. Bear Pascoe threads? Alot of posters state VD doesn't know how to catch a pass. He has been inconsistent but it is obvious he can catch a pass because he has more than 0 receptions over his career. Did I see you jump in and correct those posters? The answer is NO. Because you don't like VD and you couldn't give a rat's ass whether people post inaccurate statements about him or not. So please don't act as if you are the almighty post corrector that plays fair when it is clear you only do this for players you like: Battle, Heitmann, and Derek Smith (in the past).

Lastly and for the record, I'm not exactly on Hill's bandwagon as some posters. I don't believe he is as fluid and fast as I would like. The catch he made against Ariz to get to the 1 yard line has not been analyzed enough. When he made the catch, I thought a good RAC receiver would've scored on that play. But he ran a straightline into a cardinals defender. If he had scored on that play, we wouldn't have had that embarassing episode of time mismanagement on national TV.
BUT, I am willing to let him develop and get more comfortable in our offense.

Bottomline: If the 49ers would only keep 5 WR's, I would much rather keep him than Battle no matter how much selective data you care to share.

This says it all:
I would much rather keep him than Battle no matter how much selective data you care to share.

You are right. Ignore the data, because subjective emotions have much more value than productivity.

As for not knowing what numbers Hill would have posted in the first half of the season, this is a moot point. He was beaten out by Battle on the depth chart. Battle was still ahead on the depth chart, and leading the team with receptions when he went down. This is something you continue to dismiss as irrelevant, pointing to S. Hill, M. Martz, as causing this terrible reality. Just own up to the fact that he led the team in receptions, and may have finished leading the team in receptions of the year continued without the injury. If Hill was leading the team in receptions, or Johnson, you would be jumping up and down, pointing at the stats.

You continue to dismiss Battle's productivity. There is always an excuse.

You state regarding Battle's productivity:
Forgive me if I'm not impressed.
This tells it all. It is not about your subjective feelings. He has been the leading receiver on our team for some time now, whether you like it or not, impressed or not. Your feelings have no bearing on reality, even if you really, really, really, really feel it.

He has been the leader of our WR core for some time now, simply based on stats. Once again, stats don't lie, and they cannot be dismissed as irrelevant.

Once again, another of your misrepresentations of what I said (Shocker!!). Here is what I said earlier:
If Battle played the second half, he may have had 35, 40, 45 or more receptions. We simply don't know.

Another of your growing mountain of classic misrepresentations of my statements, is stated below. You stated that I said,
"Well, Battle could've done better."

My rebuttal:
I never said that. Once again, you make up information that is not truthful because you have a losing argument. This has been your MO when you have a losing argument.

Look, I'm going to spare you more humiliation and leave this topic behind. I clearly won this debate, just like the previous one in Battle vs. Johnson when you were forced to retract a gigantic chunk of your thread after being embarrassed on the board. Anyone here can review that thread.

You simply cannot keep up with me, because I use fact and stats, and you use subjective feelings and illogical scenarios, and misrepresentation of my statements. It is a classic way of conceding defeat because you are losing the debate.

P.S. You still owe me two hours of my life cleaning up all of the misinformation you sloppily posted in the Battle vs. Johnson thread. And, I guess if you add up all of the times I have to go back on this thread to clean up your misrepresentations, you are soon going to owe me a full day. So, I win, you lose, and now go harrass someone else.

Cheers.

This says it all:
I would much rather keep him than Battle no matter how much selective data you care to share.

You are right. Ignore the data, because subjective emotions have much more value than productivity.

You accused me of not understanding English? Hello!!! What does "selective data" mean? I can't believe a supposed teacher is being schooled by someone who doesn't understand English. No wonder the American education system is where it stands vs. world standards.

Let me help you out. Selective data means a poster (like you), picks and chooses only data that helps that poster's arguments while leaving out data that counters that same poster's arguments. Understand now??

And you accused me of misrepresenting you? What a joke and a hypocrit. As for me owing you 2 hours or whatever, I think I owe you something else but I keep telling myself violence is not the answer. Now go cry your way home like a coward and tell people that you won if it really makes you feel better. What a joke.

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Originally posted by oldninerdude:

Originally posted by oldman9er:
As I understood it, Battle gets fluid build up in his knee, and he has to drain it. My ex had the same thing years ago... it's discomforting, but does not prohibit her from doing normal activities. With Battle, the staff gives him a "pass" on practices. Much like they do with Bruce and Harris. Why? Because the staff knows that these guys already know what they're doing, and it will benefit the team to have them fully 100% by go-time.

I brought up the foot injury to clear up the confusion that leads to even more people worrying about Battle's knee. It was his foot... not some chronic knee problem. Yes, I think it matters.

When mentioning production, you mention his TDs... why? If a WR who racks up 1000 yards from 80 receptions, but only having 2 TDs... would this suggest he is unproductive for his team? Of course not... You seem to mock Battle's best year of production, but you fail to account for the other receiver's numbers, as well as the overall struggle from the offensive unit. This does seem to indicate a bias... or a mental disability... ( I'm leaning toward the former )

Look, I like and respect Battle for what he's done in SF, but I won't be losing sleep one way or the other on his future. If he does have injury concerns or the staff pushes him down the depth chart, then send him on his way with a mighty thank you. I just think it's sad that a fan would "spit on" one of the brighter players that has signifigantly helped SF during these truly dark 9er years.

Battle really was one of the brighter players during some dark years. Nicely put.

I don't see how questioning whether he remains with the team, over younger, healthier, faster, and potentially better players constitutes "spitting" on him, though.

I read thru this entire thread, and although MadDog makes some very valid points and valiantly defends Battle, Kronik's point--that at this time, irrespective of anything that's occurred in the past (such as Battle being higher on the depth chart at this time last year), Battle may not be as valuable to the team as the younger, healthier, faster and potentially more talented Hill--seems more correct, to me.

I like Battle and have defended him in the past, but if I had to choose right now, I'd probably go with Hill over Battle, simply because of his potential and the fact that there are other, more talented guys ahead of Battle.

Fact is that neither MadDog nor kronik actually knows what's going to occur. If we have a slew of injuries, like last year, its possible that both Battle and Z make the team. We're all going to have to wait to see.

On the other hand, its a nice problem to have, for a change. Too many good WRs, darn it.

Nice problem to have, indeed. As you said, you read through the thread. If you don't see any posts where there is a large lack of appreciation for Battle's contributions, then we will have to disagree there. Maybe "spit on" is a bit strong, but I'm not gonna read through this thread again to see. To me, any comment I made had nothing to do with Battle VS Hill. This was always about Battle's worth compared to say... keeping Zeigler. Now as I had said much earlier, if the F/O is gonna push Battle further down the depth chart regardless of how he performs? Then I would rather them let him go anyway. He has done enough to deserve playing time... if not in SF, then somewhere where he is more needed.

To me there seems little question that Battle is more valuable, in many ways, than Zeigler. If they keep 6 WRs, I'd give Battle the nod over Zeigler any day of the week.

If they only keep 5 WRs, tho, which seems more likely to me, then the choice appears to come down to Hill vs Battle, and that's a much tougher choice. IMHO. As MadDog likes to say, however, Battle is "like a cockroach in a nuclear holocast" he finds a way to survive. I would never count him out. An injury to Bruce, and Battle could step in as the most experienced WR they've got.

Ultimately, I think your logic prevails. He deserves some PT, and if not here, he probably could get it elsewhere.

Originally posted by kronik:

Originally posted by MadDog49er:

Originally posted by kronik:

Originally posted by MadDog49er:

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:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/8330/gamelog;_ylt=ArsIqOeQEW7iYIVdoNDOLrH.uLYF

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.

OK, so now I don't understand ENGLISH again. Fine, I'll let that go.

Battle has been the leader of our WR core? Are you serious? Who, besides you has confirmed this? Do you have any direct quotes from any players or coaches? Or is this your all mighty opinion turned into a "fact?" You are talking about a guy that missed a couple of days of OTA last year holed up in Texas claiming he and his agent were unable to send a message to the 49ers in this day in age with communication everywhere? Give me a break.

Oh yeah, tell me about his productiveness. Because you make it sound like he's so productive, it's impossible to replace. Let's see, so Battle was leading our team in receptions in the first half of the year (which was also during a time when Martz was pass happy). Was he also leading in TD recptions? NO. In fact, he has a grand total of 11 career TD receptions. He would've had 12 if he didn't fumble that Alex Smith pass at the 1 yard line against Arizona 2 years ago. Luckily for us, and especially for him, Darrell Jackson recovered the ball in the endzone.

His career best year was in 2006 where he had 59 catches for 686 yards and 3TD's
Since that year, it has gone down. Dare I say he has peaked already?
Forgive me if I'm not impressed. The funny thing is the way you dismiss Hill's progress when he was finally given his chance. Your argument is "Well, Battle could've done better." Well, how do we know Hill couldn't have done better if he started the season? WE DON'T KNOW THAT EITHER!!!

On my hatred of Battle, where and when have I ever said I hate him or I can't stand him? Does suggesting the 49ers should cut or trade him = hatred? Are you serious? Maybe because I don't love him as much as you do means I hate him?

As for his continuing problems with his knee/foot whatever, you ask am I a doctor? The answer is no, but I don't need to be. How do I know he will not get better? It's called HISTORY. Are you telling me he has been 100% at any time these last few years? Why is he missing practice and OTA's the last few years due to the same knee/foot/leg? Why isn't it a bad back, or a broken hand or anything else? Not that it matters but why isn't it a new or different injury that is causing him to miss practice, OTA's and GAMES?

It's pretty convenient for you to select only a portion of his career where he played consistently and you refused to acknowledge his problems early in his career. That's fine then, but what do you have to say about the last half of the year then? You continually dismiss the most RECENT health status!!!!

As for polls of other players, I will give you an example of polls I've seen on this board that you definately did not "play fair" Have you seen the Vernon Davis vs. Delanie Walker threads or even Vernon Davis vs. Bear Pascoe threads? Alot of posters state VD doesn't know how to catch a pass. He has been inconsistent but it is obvious he can catch a pass because he has more than 0 receptions over his career. Did I see you jump in and correct those posters? The answer is NO. Because you don't like VD and you couldn't give a rat's ass whether people post inaccurate statements about him or not. So please don't act as if you are the almighty post corrector that plays fair when it is clear you only do this for players you like: Battle, Heitmann, and Derek Smith (in the past).

Lastly and for the record, I'm not exactly on Hill's bandwagon as some posters. I don't believe he is as fluid and fast as I would like. The catch he made against Ariz to get to the 1 yard line has not been analyzed enough. When he made the catch, I thought a good RAC receiver would've scored on that play. But he ran a straightline into a cardinals defender. If he had scored on that play, we wouldn't have had that embarassing episode of time mismanagement on national TV.
BUT, I am willing to let him develop and get more comfortable in our offense.

Bottomline: If the 49ers would only keep 5 WR's, I would much rather keep him than Battle no matter how much selective data you care to share.

This says it all:
I would much rather keep him than Battle no matter how much selective data you care to share.

You are right. Ignore the data, because subjective emotions have much more value than productivity.

As for not knowing what numbers Hill would have posted in the first half of the season, this is a moot point. He was beaten out by Battle on the depth chart. Battle was still ahead on the depth chart, and leading the team with receptions when he went down. This is something you continue to dismiss as irrelevant, pointing to S. Hill, M. Martz, as causing this terrible reality. Just own up to the fact that he led the team in receptions, and may have finished leading the team in receptions of the year continued without the injury. If Hill was leading the team in receptions, or Johnson, you would be jumping up and down, pointing at the stats.

You continue to dismiss Battle's productivity. There is always an excuse.

You state regarding Battle's productivity:
Forgive me if I'm not impressed.
This tells it all. It is not about your subjective feelings. He has been the leading receiver on our team for some time now, whether you like it or not, impressed or not. Your feelings have no bearing on reality, even if you really, really, really, really feel it.

He has been the leader of our WR core for some time now, simply based on stats. Once again, stats don't lie, and they cannot be dismissed as irrelevant.

Once again, another of your misrepresentations of what I said (Shocker!!). Here is what I said earlier:
If Battle played the second half, he may have had 35, 40, 45 or more receptions. We simply don't know.

Another of your growing mountain of classic misrepresentations of my statements, is stated below. You stated that I said,
"Well, Battle could've done better."

My rebuttal:
I never said that. Once again, you make up information that is not truthful because you have a losing argument. This has been your MO when you have a losing argument.

Look, I'm going to spare you more humiliation and leave this topic behind. I clearly won this debate, just like the previous one in Battle vs. Johnson when you were forced to retract a gigantic chunk of your thread after being embarrassed on the board. Anyone here can review that thread.

You simply cannot keep up with me, because I use fact and stats, and you use subjective feelings and illogical scenarios, and misrepresentation of my statements. It is a classic way of conceding defeat because you are losing the debate.

P.S. You still owe me two hours of my life cleaning up all of the misinformation you sloppily posted in the Battle vs. Johnson thread. And, I guess if you add up all of the times I have to go back on this thread to clean up your misrepresentations, you are soon going to owe me a full day. So, I win, you lose, and now go harrass someone else.

Cheers.

This says it all:
I would much rather keep him than Battle no matter how much selective data you care to share.

You are right. Ignore the data, because subjective emotions have much more value than productivity.

You accused me of not understanding English? Hello!!! What does "selective data" mean? I can't believe a supposed teacher is being schooled by someone who doesn't understand English. No wonder the American education system is where it stands vs. world standards.

Let me help you out. Selective data means a poster (like you), picks and chooses only data that helps that poster's arguments while leaving out data that counters that same poster's arguments. Understand now??

And you accused me of misrepresenting you? What a joke and a hypocrit. As for me owing you 2 hours or whatever, I think I owe you something else but I keep telling myself violence is not the answer. Now go cry your way home like a coward and tell people that you won if it really makes you feel better. What a joke.

After thoroughly thrashing your arguments, all you can do is name call and misrepresent statements I made.

And two bit moron can read through the numerous statements you have claimed I have made throughout this thread to see your desperation. The only chance you have in this debate is to attribute statements that I have made inaccurately.

The sign of a losing argument is to make up information that is not true. Which is your standard practice.

Originally posted by MadDog49er:

Originally posted by kronik:

Originally posted by MadDog49er:

Originally posted by kronik:

Originally posted by MadDog49er:

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:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/8330/gamelog;_ylt=ArsIqOeQEW7iYIVdoNDOLrH.uLYF

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.

OK, so now I don't understand ENGLISH again. Fine, I'll let that go.

Battle has been the leader of our WR core? Are you serious? Who, besides you has confirmed this? Do you have any direct quotes from any players or coaches? Or is this your all mighty opinion turned into a "fact?" You are talking about a guy that missed a couple of days of OTA last year holed up in Texas claiming he and his agent were unable to send a message to the 49ers in this day in age with communication everywhere? Give me a break.

Oh yeah, tell me about his productiveness. Because you make it sound like he's so productive, it's impossible to replace. Let's see, so Battle was leading our team in receptions in the first half of the year (which was also during a time when Martz was pass happy). Was he also leading in TD recptions? NO. In fact, he has a grand total of 11 career TD receptions. He would've had 12 if he didn't fumble that Alex Smith pass at the 1 yard line against Arizona 2 years ago. Luckily for us, and especially for him, Darrell Jackson recovered the ball in the endzone.

His career best year was in 2006 where he had 59 catches for 686 yards and 3TD's
Since that year, it has gone down. Dare I say he has peaked already?
Forgive me if I'm not impressed. The funny thing is the way you dismiss Hill's progress when he was finally given his chance. Your argument is "Well, Battle could've done better." Well, how do we know Hill couldn't have done better if he started the season? WE DON'T KNOW THAT EITHER!!!

On my hatred of Battle, where and when have I ever said I hate him or I can't stand him? Does suggesting the 49ers should cut or trade him = hatred? Are you serious? Maybe because I don't love him as much as you do means I hate him?

As for his continuing problems with his knee/foot whatever, you ask am I a doctor? The answer is no, but I don't need to be. How do I know he will not get better? It's called HISTORY. Are you telling me he has been 100% at any time these last few years? Why is he missing practice and OTA's the last few years due to the same knee/foot/leg? Why isn't it a bad back, or a broken hand or anything else? Not that it matters but why isn't it a new or different injury that is causing him to miss practice, OTA's and GAMES?

It's pretty convenient for you to select only a portion of his career where he played consistently and you refused to acknowledge his problems early in his career. That's fine then, but what do you have to say about the last half of the year then? You continually dismiss the most RECENT health status!!!!

As for polls of other players, I will give you an example of polls I've seen on this board that you definately did not "play fair" Have you seen the Vernon Davis vs. Delanie Walker threads or even Vernon Davis vs. Bear Pascoe threads? Alot of posters state VD doesn't know how to catch a pass. He has been inconsistent but it is obvious he can catch a pass because he has more than 0 receptions over his career. Did I see you jump in and correct those posters? The answer is NO. Because you don't like VD and you couldn't give a rat's ass whether people post inaccurate statements about him or not. So please don't act as if you are the almighty post corrector that plays fair when it is clear you only do this for players you like: Battle, Heitmann, and Derek Smith (in the past).

Lastly and for the record, I'm not exactly on Hill's bandwagon as some posters. I don't believe he is as fluid and fast as I would like. The catch he made against Ariz to get to the 1 yard line has not been analyzed enough. When he made the catch, I thought a good RAC receiver would've scored on that play. But he ran a straightline into a cardinals defender. If he had scored on that play, we wouldn't have had that embarassing episode of time mismanagement on national TV.
BUT, I am willing to let him develop and get more comfortable in our offense.

Bottomline: If the 49ers would only keep 5 WR's, I would much rather keep him than Battle no matter how much selective data you care to share.

This says it all:
I would much rather keep him than Battle no matter how much selective data you care to share.

You are right. Ignore the data, because subjective emotions have much more value than productivity.

As for not knowing what numbers Hill would have posted in the first half of the season, this is a moot point. He was beaten out by Battle on the depth chart. Battle was still ahead on the depth chart, and leading the team with receptions when he went down. This is something you continue to dismiss as irrelevant, pointing to S. Hill, M. Martz, as causing this terrible reality. Just own up to the fact that he led the team in receptions, and may have finished leading the team in receptions of the year continued without the injury. If Hill was leading the team in receptions, or Johnson, you would be jumping up and down, pointing at the stats.

You continue to dismiss Battle's productivity. There is always an excuse.

You state regarding Battle's productivity:
Forgive me if I'm not impressed.
This tells it all. It is not about your subjective feelings. He has been the leading receiver on our team for some time now, whether you like it or not, impressed or not. Your feelings have no bearing on reality, even if you really, really, really, really feel it.

He has been the leader of our WR core for some time now, simply based on stats. Once again, stats don't lie, and they cannot be dismissed as irrelevant.

Once again, another of your misrepresentations of what I said (Shocker!!). Here is what I said earlier:
If Battle played the second half, he may have had 35, 40, 45 or more receptions. We simply don't know.

Another of your growing mountain of classic misrepresentations of my statements, is stated below. You stated that I said,
"Well, Battle could've done better."

My rebuttal:
I never said that. Once again, you make up information that is not truthful because you have a losing argument. This has been your MO when you have a losing argument.

Look, I'm going to spare you more humiliation and leave this topic behind. I clearly won this debate, just like the previous one in Battle vs. Johnson when you were forced to retract a gigantic chunk of your thread after being embarrassed on the board. Anyone here can review that thread.

You simply cannot keep up with me, because I use fact and stats, and you use subjective feelings and illogical scenarios, and misrepresentation of my statements. It is a classic way of conceding defeat because you are losing the debate.

P.S. You still owe me two hours of my life cleaning up all of the misinformation you sloppily posted in the Battle vs. Johnson thread. And, I guess if you add up all of the times I have to go back on this thread to clean up your misrepresentations, you are soon going to owe me a full day. So, I win, you lose, and now go harrass someone else.

Cheers.

This says it all:
I would much rather keep him than Battle no matter how much selective data you care to share.

You are right. Ignore the data, because subjective emotions have much more value than productivity.

You accused me of not understanding English? Hello!!! What does "selective data" mean? I can't believe a supposed teacher is being schooled by someone who doesn't understand English. No wonder the American education system is where it stands vs. world standards.

Let me help you out. Selective data means a poster (like you), picks and chooses only data that helps that poster's arguments while leaving out data that counters that same poster's arguments. Understand now??

And you accused me of misrepresenting you? What a joke and a hypocrit. As for me owing you 2 hours or whatever, I think I owe you something else but I keep telling myself violence is not the answer. Now go cry your way home like a coward and tell people that you won if it really makes you feel better. What a joke.

After thoroughly thrashing your arguments, all you can do is name call and misrepresent statements I made.

And two bit moron can read through the numerous statements you have claimed I have made throughout this thread to see your desperation. The only chance you have in this debate is to attribute statements that I have made inaccurately.

The sign of a losing argument is to make up information that is not true. Which is your standard practice.

Yea, keep trying to convince yourself that you thrashed my arguments, that you won. I am not going to stop you from daydreaming. Now go home with your tail between your legs.

^^^

Lock. Please

This thread is ridiculous. I'm still trying to figure out how some think Zeigler's skill is even on battle's level. A more even battle would be, "Who's takes the last spot on the practice squad, Zeigler or Clayton?"

Originally posted by kronik:

Originally posted by MadDog49er:

Originally posted by kronik:

Originally posted by MadDog49er:

Originally posted by kronik:

Originally posted by MadDog49er:

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:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/8330/gamelog;_ylt=ArsIqOeQEW7iYIVdoNDOLrH.uLYF

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.

OK, so now I don't understand ENGLISH again. Fine, I'll let that go.

Battle has been the leader of our WR core? Are you serious? Who, besides you has confirmed this? Do you have any direct quotes from any players or coaches? Or is this your all mighty opinion turned into a "fact?" You are talking about a guy that missed a couple of days of OTA last year holed up in Texas claiming he and his agent were unable to send a message to the 49ers in this day in age with communication everywhere? Give me a break.

Oh yeah, tell me about his productiveness. Because you make it sound like he's so productive, it's impossible to replace. Let's see, so Battle was leading our team in receptions in the first half of the year (which was also during a time when Martz was pass happy). Was he also leading in TD recptions? NO. In fact, he has a grand total of 11 career TD receptions. He would've had 12 if he didn't fumble that Alex Smith pass at the 1 yard line against Arizona 2 years ago. Luckily for us, and especially for him, Darrell Jackson recovered the ball in the endzone.

His career best year was in 2006 where he had 59 catches for 686 yards and 3TD's
Since that year, it has gone down. Dare I say he has peaked already?
Forgive me if I'm not impressed. The funny thing is the way you dismiss Hill's progress when he was finally given his chance. Your argument is "Well, Battle could've done better." Well, how do we know Hill couldn't have done better if he started the season? WE DON'T KNOW THAT EITHER!!!

On my hatred of Battle, where and when have I ever said I hate him or I can't stand him? Does suggesting the 49ers should cut or trade him = hatred? Are you serious? Maybe because I don't love him as much as you do means I hate him?

As for his continuing problems with his knee/foot whatever, you ask am I a doctor? The answer is no, but I don't need to be. How do I know he will not get better? It's called HISTORY. Are you telling me he has been 100% at any time these last few years? Why is he missing practice and OTA's the last few years due to the same knee/foot/leg? Why isn't it a bad back, or a broken hand or anything else? Not that it matters but why isn't it a new or different injury that is causing him to miss practice, OTA's and GAMES?

It's pretty convenient for you to select only a portion of his career where he played consistently and you refused to acknowledge his problems early in his career. That's fine then, but what do you have to say about the last half of the year then? You continually dismiss the most RECENT health status!!!!

As for polls of other players, I will give you an example of polls I've seen on this board that you definately did not "play fair" Have you seen the Vernon Davis vs. Delanie Walker threads or even Vernon Davis vs. Bear Pascoe threads? Alot of posters state VD doesn't know how to catch a pass. He has been inconsistent but it is obvious he can catch a pass because he has more than 0 receptions over his career. Did I see you jump in and correct those posters? The answer is NO. Because you don't like VD and you couldn't give a rat's ass whether people post inaccurate statements about him or not. So please don't act as if you are the almighty post corrector that plays fair when it is clear you only do this for players you like: Battle, Heitmann, and Derek Smith (in the past).

Lastly and for the record, I'm not exactly on Hill's bandwagon as some posters. I don't believe he is as fluid and fast as I would like. The catch he made against Ariz to get to the 1 yard line has not been analyzed enough. When he made the catch, I thought a good RAC receiver would've scored on that play. But he ran a straightline into a cardinals defender. If he had scored on that play, we wouldn't have had that embarassing episode of time mismanagement on national TV.
BUT, I am willing to let him develop and get more comfortable in our offense.

Bottomline: If the 49ers would only keep 5 WR's, I would much rather keep him than Battle no matter how much selective data you care to share.

This says it all:
I would much rather keep him than Battle no matter how much selective data you care to share.

You are right. Ignore the data, because subjective emotions have much more value than productivity.

As for not knowing what numbers Hill would have posted in the first half of the season, this is a moot point. He was beaten out by Battle on the depth chart. Battle was still ahead on the depth chart, and leading the team with receptions when he went down. This is something you continue to dismiss as irrelevant, pointing to S. Hill, M. Martz, as causing this terrible reality. Just own up to the fact that he led the team in receptions, and may have finished leading the team in receptions of the year continued without the injury. If Hill was leading the team in receptions, or Johnson, you would be jumping up and down, pointing at the stats.

You continue to dismiss Battle's productivity. There is always an excuse.

You state regarding Battle's productivity:
Forgive me if I'm not impressed.
This tells it all. It is not about your subjective feelings. He has been the leading receiver on our team for some time now, whether you like it or not, impressed or not. Your feelings have no bearing on reality, even if you really, really, really, really feel it.

He has been the leader of our WR core for some time now, simply based on stats. Once again, stats don't lie, and they cannot be dismissed as irrelevant.

Once again, another of your misrepresentations of what I said (Shocker!!). Here is what I said earlier:
If Battle played the second half, he may have had 35, 40, 45 or more receptions. We simply don't know.

Another of your growing mountain of classic misrepresentations of my statements, is stated below. You stated that I said,
"Well, Battle could've done better."

My rebuttal:
I never said that. Once again, you make up information that is not truthful because you have a losing argument. This has been your MO when you have a losing argument.

Look, I'm going to spare you more humiliation and leave this topic behind. I clearly won this debate, just like the previous one in Battle vs. Johnson when you were forced to retract a gigantic chunk of your thread after being embarrassed on the board. Anyone here can review that thread.

You simply cannot keep up with me, because I use fact and stats, and you use subjective feelings and illogical scenarios, and misrepresentation of my statements. It is a classic way of conceding defeat because you are losing the debate.

P.S. You still owe me two hours of my life cleaning up all of the misinformation you sloppily posted in the Battle vs. Johnson thread. And, I guess if you add up all of the times I have to go back on this thread to clean up your misrepresentations, you are soon going to owe me a full day. So, I win, you lose, and now go harrass someone else.

Cheers.

This says it all:
I would much rather keep him than Battle no matter how much selective data you care to share.

You are right. Ignore the data, because subjective emotions have much more value than productivity.

You accused me of not understanding English? Hello!!! What does "selective data" mean? I can't believe a supposed teacher is being schooled by someone who doesn't understand English. No wonder the American education system is where it stands vs. world standards.

Let me help you out. Selective data means a poster (like you), picks and chooses only data that helps that poster's arguments while leaving out data that counters that same poster's arguments. Understand now??

And you accused me of misrepresenting you? What a joke and a hypocrit. As for me owing you 2 hours or whatever, I think I owe you something else but I keep telling myself violence is not the answer. Now go cry your way home like a coward and tell people that you won if it really makes you feel better. What a joke.

After thoroughly thrashing your arguments, all you can do is name call and misrepresent statements I made.

And two bit moron can read through the numerous statements you have claimed I have made throughout this thread to see your desperation. The only chance you have in this debate is to attribute statements that I have made inaccurately.

The sign of a losing argument is to make up information that is not true. Which is your standard practice.

Yea, keep trying to convince yourself that you thrashed my arguments, that you won. I am not going to stop you from daydreaming. Now go home with your tail between your legs.

You can simply end this debate by accepting what I stated early in this thread: That Hill is no automatic to make the team, and that Hill is no automatic to be higher than Battle on the depth chart. He may, or may not be. We simply don't know right now, and to put Battle in the same catagory with Zeigler, and elevate Hill to a different plain than these two is not rational, until training camp begins and we see how it all plays out.

My premise, which you continue to distort when you chronically misquote me, is that Battle has proven throughout the years to be a reliable target, which you summarily dismiss.

My premise is that Hill was behind Battle on the depth chart last year (this was a fact), and only received valuable playing time after Battle was injured (this was a fact). I then debunked your erroneous logic that Hill outperformed Battle since he received more catches overall. Battle led the team in receptions the first half of the year (this is a fact), Hill was third in receptions the second half of the year (this is a fact). The players who outperformed Hill in the second half of the season had less receptions than Battle in the first half of the season (this is a fact).

Finally, just so we can set the record straight, is there ANYTHING that Battle has done for our team (leading the team in receptions in the past, being a team leader, a guy who played through injuries, a guy who played in 40+ consecutive games, a guy who went from a 6th round selection to the leading receiver for our team in multiple years, a guy who is known as one of the better blocking WR's in the NFC). I'm just looking for one brief moment where you could possibly be impartial and give Battle some credit for what he's done for this team. If you do, I won't claim that you have "mad love" for Battle. I promise.

Has Battle done anything of merit during his career as a Niner? If so, please list.

P.S. In reference to Post 50, where you attacked me unprovoked, stating:
Let's see your mindless unintelligent response to this one

Uh, you really don't want to to make this a battle of intelligence, because you will only embarrass yourself. Really embarrass yourself, kind of like in the past, in the error-plagued Battle vs. Johnson thread you wrote where I systematically dissected and posted for the entire board to see, your three major statistical errors (The board may for reference sake take a look at this thread, Post 111, where I copied your error-plagued thread from the past that I thrashed. As a bonus, later on in the thread, you added a fourth false statistic that I also debunked). As I remember how that played out before the board, you were wrong, and I was right. And, that was really embarrassing for you.

My advice: You don't want to head down the intelligence track. That would only cause you further embarrassment, since you will never win that one.

My advice once again, is to run away from this thread, or simply agree with my premise that Hill is no lock to beat out Battle for a roster spot, which is a logical statement.

You started all of this with Post 50, so don't attempt to play the martyr as you did in the Battle vs. Johnson thread. You brought this embarrassment upon yourself in that thread and this one as well. At least you are consistent, and I have to give you credit for that.

Cheers.

...and

Originally posted by MadDog49er:

Originally posted by kronik:

Originally posted by MadDog49er:

Originally posted by kronik:

Originally posted by MadDog49er:

Originally posted by kronik:

Originally posted by MadDog49er:

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:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/8330/gamelog;_ylt=ArsIqOeQEW7iYIVdoNDOLrH.uLYF

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.

OK, so now I don't understand ENGLISH again. Fine, I'll let that go.

Battle has been the leader of our WR core? Are you serious? Who, besides you has confirmed this? Do you have any direct quotes from any players or coaches? Or is this your all mighty opinion turned into a "fact?" You are talking about a guy that missed a couple of days of OTA last year holed up in Texas claiming he and his agent were unable to send a message to the 49ers in this day in age with communication everywhere? Give me a break.

Oh yeah, tell me about his productiveness. Because you make it sound like he's so productive, it's impossible to replace. Let's see, so Battle was leading our team in receptions in the first half of the year (which was also during a time when Martz was pass happy). Was he also leading in TD recptions? NO. In fact, he has a grand total of 11 career TD receptions. He would've had 12 if he didn't fumble that Alex Smith pass at the 1 yard line against Arizona 2 years ago. Luckily for us, and especially for him, Darrell Jackson recovered the ball in the endzone.

His career best year was in 2006 where he had 59 catches for 686 yards and 3TD's
Since that year, it has gone down. Dare I say he has peaked already?
Forgive me if I'm not impressed. The funny thing is the way you dismiss Hill's progress when he was finally given his chance. Your argument is "Well, Battle could've done better." Well, how do we know Hill couldn't have done better if he started the season? WE DON'T KNOW THAT EITHER!!!

On my hatred of Battle, where and when have I ever said I hate him or I can't stand him? Does suggesting the 49ers should cut or trade him = hatred? Are you serious? Maybe because I don't love him as much as you do means I hate him?

As for his continuing problems with his knee/foot whatever, you ask am I a doctor? The answer is no, but I don't need to be. How do I know he will not get better? It's called HISTORY. Are you telling me he has been 100% at any time these last few years? Why is he missing practice and OTA's the last few years due to the same knee/foot/leg? Why isn't it a bad back, or a broken hand or anything else? Not that it matters but why isn't it a new or different injury that is causing him to miss practice, OTA's and GAMES?

It's pretty convenient for you to select only a portion of his career where he played consistently and you refused to acknowledge his problems early in his career. That's fine then, but what do you have to say about the last half of the year then? You continually dismiss the most RECENT health status!!!!

As for polls of other players, I will give you an example of polls I've seen on this board that you definately did not "play fair" Have you seen the Vernon Davis vs. Delanie Walker threads or even Vernon Davis vs. Bear Pascoe threads? Alot of posters state VD doesn't know how to catch a pass. He has been inconsistent but it is obvious he can catch a pass because he has more than 0 receptions over his career. Did I see you jump in and correct those posters? The answer is NO. Because you don't like VD and you couldn't give a rat's ass whether people post inaccurate statements about him or not. So please don't act as if you are the almighty post corrector that plays fair when it is clear you only do this for players you like: Battle, Heitmann, and Derek Smith (in the past).

Lastly and for the record, I'm not exactly on Hill's bandwagon as some posters. I don't believe he is as fluid and fast as I would like. The catch he made against Ariz to get to the 1 yard line has not been analyzed enough. When he made the catch, I thought a good RAC receiver would've scored on that play. But he ran a straightline into a cardinals defender. If he had scored on that play, we wouldn't have had that embarassing episode of time mismanagement on national TV.
BUT, I am willing to let him develop and get more comfortable in our offense.

Bottomline: If the 49ers would only keep 5 WR's, I would much rather keep him than Battle no matter how much selective data you care to share.

This says it all:
I would much rather keep him than Battle no matter how much selective data you care to share.

You are right. Ignore the data, because subjective emotions have much more value than productivity.

As for not knowing what numbers Hill would have posted in the first half of the season, this is a moot point. He was beaten out by Battle on the depth chart. Battle was still ahead on the depth chart, and leading the team with receptions when he went down. This is something you continue to dismiss as irrelevant, pointing to S. Hill, M. Martz, as causing this terrible reality. Just own up to the fact that he led the team in receptions, and may have finished leading the team in receptions of the year continued without the injury. If Hill was leading the team in receptions, or Johnson, you would be jumping up and down, pointing at the stats.

You continue to dismiss Battle's productivity. There is always an excuse.

You state regarding Battle's productivity:
Forgive me if I'm not impressed.
This tells it all. It is not about your subjective feelings. He has been the leading receiver on our team for some time now, whether you like it or not, impressed or not. Your feelings have no bearing on reality, even if you really, really, really, really feel it.

He has been the leader of our WR core for some time now, simply based on stats. Once again, stats don't lie, and they cannot be dismissed as irrelevant.

Once again, another of your misrepresentations of what I said (Shocker!!). Here is what I said earlier:
If Battle played the second half, he may have had 35, 40, 45 or more receptions. We simply don't know.

Another of your growing mountain of classic misrepresentations of my statements, is stated below. You stated that I said,
"Well, Battle could've done better."

My rebuttal:
I never said that. Once again, you make up information that is not truthful because you have a losing argument. This has been your MO when you have a losing argument.

Look, I'm going to spare you more humiliation and leave this topic behind. I clearly won this debate, just like the previous one in Battle vs. Johnson when you were forced to retract a gigantic chunk of your thread after being embarrassed on the board. Anyone here can review that thread.

You simply cannot keep up with me, because I use fact and stats, and you use subjective feelings and illogical scenarios, and misrepresentation of my statements. It is a classic way of conceding defeat because you are losing the debate.

P.S. You still owe me two hours of my life cleaning up all of the misinformation you sloppily posted in the Battle vs. Johnson thread. And, I guess if you add up all of the times I have to go back on this thread to clean up your misrepresentations, you are soon going to owe me a full day. So, I win, you lose, and now go harrass someone else.

Cheers.

This says it all:
I would much rather keep him than Battle no matter how much selective data you care to share.

You are right. Ignore the data, because subjective emotions have much more value than productivity.

You accused me of not understanding English? Hello!!! What does "selective data" mean? I can't believe a supposed teacher is being schooled by someone who doesn't understand English. No wonder the American education system is where it stands vs. world standards.

Let me help you out. Selective data means a poster (like you), picks and chooses only data that helps that poster's arguments while leaving out data that counters that same poster's arguments. Understand now??

And you accused me of misrepresenting you? What a joke and a hypocrit. As for me owing you 2 hours or whatever, I think I owe you something else but I keep telling myself violence is not the answer. Now go cry your way home like a coward and tell people that you won if it really makes you feel better. What a joke.

After thoroughly thrashing your arguments, all you can do is name call and misrepresent statements I made.

And two bit moron can read through the numerous statements you have claimed I have made throughout this thread to see your desperation. The only chance you have in this debate is to attribute statements that I have made inaccurately.

The sign of a losing argument is to make up information that is not true. Which is your standard practice.

Yea, keep trying to convince yourself that you thrashed my arguments, that you won. I am not going to stop you from daydreaming. Now go home with your tail between your legs.

You can simply end this debate by accepting what I stated early in this thread: That Hill is no automatic to make the team, and that Hill is no automatic to be higher than Battle on the depth chart. He may, or may not be. We simply don't know right now, and to put Battle in the same catagory with Zeigler, and elevate Hill to a different plain than these two is not rational, until training camp begins and we see how it all plays out.

My premise, which you continue to distort when you chronically misquote me, is that Battle has proven throughout the years to be a reliable target, which you summarily dismiss.

My premise is that Hill was behind Battle on the depth chart last year (this was a fact), and only received valuable playing time after Battle was injured (this was a fact). I then debunked your erroneous logic that Hill outperformed Battle since he received more catches overall. Battle led the team in receptions the first half of the year (this is a fact), Hill was third in receptions the second half of the year (this is a fact). The players who outperformed Hill in the second half of the season had less receptions than Battle in the first half of the season (this is a fact).

Finally, just so we can set the record straight, is there ANYTHING that Battle has done for our team (leading the team in receptions in the past, being a team leader, a guy who played through injuries, a guy who played in 40+ consecutive games, a guy who went from a 6th round selection to the leading receiver for our team in multiple years, a guy who is known as one of the better blocking WR's in the NFC). I'm just looking for one brief moment where you could possibly be impartial and give Battle some credit for what he's done for this team.

Is this impossible? If not, please list.

P.S. In reference to Post 50, where you attacked me unprovoked:
Let's see your mindless unintelligent response to this one

Uh, you really don't want to to make this a battle of intelligence, because you will only embarrass yourself. Really embarrass yourself, kind of like in the past; the error-plagued Battle vs. Johnson thread you wrote where I systematically dissected and posted for the entire board to see, your three major statistical errors (The board may for reference sake take a look at this thread, Post 111, where I copied your error-plagued thread from the past that I thrashed. As a bonus, later on in the thread, you added a fourth false statistic that I also debunked). As I remember how that played out, you were wrong, and I was right. And, that was really embarrassing for you.

My advice: You don't want to head down the intelligence track. That would be....embarrassing. You will never win that one.

My advice once again, is to run away from this thread, or simply agree with my premise that Hill is no lock to beat out Battle for a roster spot. To make this an argument over my intelligence, or lack of intelligence...would be unintelligent.

You started all of this with Post 50, so don't attempt to play the martyr. You brought this embarrassment upon yourself.

Cheers.

LOL!!
Embarass myself? Am I supposed to be scared or frightened? What an arrogant joke. Please... Coming from the guy who created a thread to proclaim to the board that you would forever leave the board and we would all miss you and your so called intelligence .. only for you to come crawling back when you realized noone cared. Now THAT IS EMBARASSING!! Since then, you have been considered an insecure clown to most vets that still visit the board.