Wow! Away from the board one day, and my favorite shadow emerges to attack me. Shocking news!
This shadow loves hiding out in the weeds until the moment I post, doesn't he? Maybe I should be flattered. Maybe I should thank him for taking interest in my responses. I certainly don't hunt him down, when he posts. I guess it is because I frankly don't care about what he says. Maybe he should ask for counseling help, to deal with his inferiority complex. So for that one special person, I am torn. Should I say thank you, or get some help? Maybe I should ask the board for advice. Did I once hurt his feelings, or is simply jealous, since no one cares what he has to say.
Changing gear onto the subject at hand: Here are some questions I think are pertinent to the argument over Zeigler, Battle and Hill.
1) Who was higher on the 2008 depth chart: Battle or Hill?
2) Who was more productive the first half of the season before Battle's injury?
3) Who is the professional who has a record of consistent play over the years, instead of potential, which may, or may not, be actualized?
4) If Hill was a lock to be a major contributor for this organization, and a lock to make the squad, why did the team go out and sign a free agent WR, draft a WR in the first round, and allow both Bruce and Battle to return (the leading receivers in the first and second half of the 2009 season)
5) Why is Hill not even discussed as one of the first four WR's on this roster? The discussion right now is: Bruce, Morgan, Jones, and Crabtree. The next tier of players discussed are Hill, Battle and Zeigler. So why would anyone assume that Hill is an automatic at this point?
My point, once again, is that Hill does not have any track record of being a player who has been a major contributor to this team. Battle does. In 2008, Hill was the fourth sting WR, who, with three receptions in the first 8 games, replaced the third stringer, Battle, who had led the team in catches through 8 games (Battle had 24 catches). Hill may be an emerging player, and he may not. To automatically assume that he will become a productive player is silly. He simply replaced a guy in the lineup, someone he was not able to beat out through preseason and the first eight games of the season.
So, it is fair to put Hill in the same discussion as both Battle and Zeigler, who has done even less.
Finally, to the one individual who based his entire argument on comparing stats with Hill and Battle in years one and two and three, this comparison is meaningless. Hill is no guarantee to be better or worse than Battle in his third year numbers.
Once again, and I know this may be challenging to conceptualize for my "shadow", third year player Hill is not competing against third year player Battle in the matchup of hypothetical stats (this is not a Madden game). The Hill of today is battling the Battle of today, not the Battle of 2005. So, the comparative statistics argument over the first two years of their career is meaningless.
Since Battle was higher on the depth chart only 30 weeks ago, and more productive than the youngster (who was lower on the depth chart), maybe the discussion should be: Hill vs. Battle vs. Zeigler.
P.S. In conclusion, and I want this to be clear for the board, since this one individual enjoys chronicling my statements for future use (once again, I find this honorable, and yet, disturbing...I have to someday for the exhausting 1800th time, correct his misreprentation of my position on Carriker, the Rams 4-3 defensive system vs. the Niners' offensive system, the NT vs. undertackle position, drafting for value, drafting for need, Willis, David Harris, the trade for Staley, maybe the topic was so complicated that he got lost along the way), I am not saying that Battle will make the roster and Hill won't. Nobody knows at this point. What I am saying is that to lump a productive player with a proven track record (including being the top WR through 8 games in 2008, and the best blocking WR on the team) with a player who has done little to nothing in this league, Zeigler, and to completely assume that Hill is safe, is folly.
[ Edited by MadDog49er on May 15, 2009 at 5:59 PM ]
... and then you may very well get the appreciation you clearly seek.