PDA

View Full Version : PFW Beat Writers Mock (4/24)



GMENAGAIN
04-24-2012, 12:20 PM
</P>


http://cache.profootballweekly.com/2012/04/23/pfw-correspondents-mock-draft</P>


Interesting, since all of the picks are made by the teams' beat writers . . . . . except that Paul Schwartz made the Giants pick (Fleener), whichprobably assures that we will not take Fleener. The guy is an idiot. </P>

Morehead State
04-24-2012, 01:01 PM
</P>


http://cache.profootballweekly.com/2012/04/23/pfw-correspondents-mock-draft</P>


Interesting, since all of the picks are made by the teams' beat writers . . . . . except that Paul Schwartz made the Giants pick (Fleener), whichprobably assures that we will not take Fleener. The guy is an idiot. </P>


</P>


I just don't get the Fleener love affair. He might be there at 64 for all we know. I would just be so dissappointed if we picked him.</P>

Kruunch
04-24-2012, 03:08 PM
*</P>


http://cache.profootballweekly.com/2012/04/23/pfw-correspondents-mock-draft</P>


Interesting, since all of the picks are made by the teams' beat writers . . . . . except that Paul Schwartz made the Giants pick (Fleener), which*probably assures that we will not take Fleener.* The guy is an idiot.* *</P>


</P>


I just don't get the Fleener love affair.* He might be there at 64 for all we know.* I would just be so dissappointed if we picked him.</P>

Why? He's the best rated TE in this draft, played in a pro-style offense at Stanford under a coach who just took his NFL team to the NFC Championship, and he'll most likely be BPA on the boards if he drops to us.

And oh yeah, we need a TE desperately.

Why on earth would we take him?!

Morehead State
04-24-2012, 03:13 PM
</P>


http://cache.profootballweekly.com/2012/04/23/pfw-correspondents-mock-draft</P>


Interesting, since all of the picks are made by the teams' beat writers . . . . . except that Paul Schwartz made the Giants pick (Fleener), whichprobably assures that we will not take Fleener. The guy is an idiot. </P>


</P>


I just don't get the Fleener love affair. He might be there at 64 for all we know. I would just be so dissappointed if we picked him.</P>


Why? He's the best rated TE in this draft, played in a pro-style offense at Stanford under a coach who just took his NFL team to the NFC Championship, and he'll most likely be BPA on the boards if he drops to us. And oh yeah, we need a TE desperately. Why on earth would we take him?!</P>


He's a Travis Beckum wannabe.</P>


Unless this kid can block (which he can't) he serves no real purpose for our offense. Our problems on offense are in the running game. O line (where it seems there may not be value at 32) or RB (and there should be good value there at 32) would be my preference.</P>


D line, O line and RB. to me those are our most pressing needs, especially if we deal Osi.</P>


TE is way down the list....WAY down the list. Don't forget we also signed Bennett.</P>

slipknottin
04-25-2012, 02:02 AM
He's a Travis Beckum wannabe.</P>


Unless this kid can block (which he can't) he serves no real purpose for our offense.*

You havent actually watched Fleener play at all, have you?

BlueSanta
04-25-2012, 03:28 AM
Fleener is nothing like Beckum.

If you are going to make silly comparisons you need to back them up. He isnt a great blocker, but he is better than Beckum ever was and he has the potential to learn, where Beckum never really did.

He is much taller than Beckum and uses his height and size well to go up and get the ball out of the air with his hands, using his body to shield off defenders. This has made him a good red zone target. Beckum, on the other hand, has never ever been physical enough and has a bad habit of body catching when he shouldn't. He is terrible at using his body and is herefor very bad at being a red zone defender.

I would not be upset with a Fleener pick, although I do think he might be a bit overhyped right now. As I have said in the past, I think Dwayne Allen is much closer to Fleener in ability than most people. They are different types of players for sure, but comparable and you have heard very little in the media about Allen.

G-Men Surg.
04-25-2012, 03:33 AM
*</P>


http://cache.profootballweekly.com/2012/04/23/pfw-correspondents-mock-draft</P>


Interesting, since all of the picks are made by the teams' beat writers . . . . . except that Paul Schwartz made the Giants pick (Fleener), which*probably assures that we will not take Fleener.* The guy is an idiot.* *</P>
LOL!

michaelkhan3
04-25-2012, 05:12 AM
Fleener is nothing like Beckum.

If you are going to make silly comparisons you need to back them up. He isnt a great blocker, but he is better than Beckum ever was and he has the potential to learn, where Beckum never really did.

He is much taller than Beckum and uses his height and size well to go up and get the ball out of the air with his hands, using his body to shield off defenders. This has made him a good red zone target. Beckum, on the other hand, has never ever been physical enough and has a bad habit of body catching when he shouldn't. He is terrible at using his body and is herefor very bad at being a red zone defender.

I would not be upset with a Fleener pick, although I do think he might be a bit overhyped right now. As I have said in the past, I think Dwayne Allen is much closer to Fleener in ability than most people. They are different types of players for sure, but comparable and you have heard very little in the media about Allen.


I was watching Sports Science the draft edition and they had Fleener burst off the line while tied to 2 Sumo wrestlers, he was so powerful and quick of the line that he pulled both of them (combined weight of over 600lbs) of their feet. He definitely has the power to blockhe just needs to be thought some technique

egyptian420
04-25-2012, 05:37 AM
Fleener is nothing like Beckum.

If you are going to make silly comparisons you need to back them up. He isnt a great blocker, but he is better than Beckum ever was and he has the potential to learn, where Beckum never really did.

He is much taller than Beckum and uses his height and size well to go up and get the ball out of the air with his hands, using his body to shield off defenders. This has made him a good red zone target. Beckum, on the other hand, has never ever been physical enough and has a bad habit of body catching when he shouldn't. He is terrible at using his body and is herefor very bad at being a red zone defender.

I would not be upset with a Fleener pick, although I do think he might be a bit overhyped right now. As I have said in the past, I think Dwayne Allen is much closer to Fleener in ability than most people. They are different types of players for sure, but comparable and you have heard very little in the media about Allen.


I was watching Sports Science the draft edition and they had Fleener burst off the line while tied to 2 Sumo wrestlers, he was so powerful and quick of the line that he pulled both of them (combined weight of over 600lbs) of their feet. He definitely has the power to blockhe just needs to be thought some technique

That show could make you think a sloth has the speed of a cheetah

Morehead State
04-25-2012, 09:22 AM
He's a Travis Beckum wannabe.


</P>


Unless this kid can block (which he can't) he serves no real purpose for our offense. You havent actually watched Fleener play at all, have you?


Only highlights. I admit that I don't know much about the kid. And its not the point.


A TE who's not "all world" like Russ Francis, isn't worth our first round pick given our team's situation. Our team has problems in the run game. We threw for 5000 yards and have a great passing attack. I know we need to go BPA. I get that. But a TE just makes no sense to me.


On our team, with the players we have now, its not an impactful position. Give me a TE who can block, I mean really block, and who can occasionally go get a pass and pick up a big first down. That would help the New York Giants.</P>

Kruunch
04-25-2012, 09:34 AM
*</P>


http://cache.profootballweekly.com/2012/04/23/pfw-correspondents-mock-draft</P>


Interesting, since all of the picks are made by the teams' beat writers . . . . . except that Paul Schwartz made the Giants pick (Fleener), which*probably assures that we will not take Fleener.* The guy is an idiot.* *</P>


</P>


I just don't get the Fleener love affair.* He might be there at 64 for all we know.* I would just be so dissappointed if we picked him.</P>


Why? He's the best rated TE in this draft, played in a pro-style offense at Stanford under a coach who just took his NFL team to the NFC Championship, and he'll most likely be BPA on the boards if he drops to us. And oh yeah, we need a TE desperately. Why on earth would we take him?!</P>


He's a Travis Beckum wannabe.</P>


Unless this kid can block (which he can't) he serves no real purpose for our offense.* Our problems on offense are in the running game.* O line (where it seems there may not be value at 32) or RB (and there should be good value there at 32) would be my preference.</P>


D line, O line and RB.* to me those are our most pressing needs, especially if we deal Osi.</P>


TE is way down the list....WAY down the list.* Don't forget we also signed Bennett.</P>

I think you have that reversed.

Beckum was a Fleener (of the future) wannabe.

Fleener is much more polished and accomplished then Beckum was coming out of college.

Also Fleener is taller, faster and has better hands. He's the only high rated receiving TE in this draft that actually plays tight into the tackle (how we run our TEs).

The knocks on his blocking are that he doesn't *standout* as a blocker, which isn't to say that he's bad at it (he also wasn't asked to block a ton either). It's brought up because it's the only possible knock people can find on his game. The idiot talk about "elite" burst is ridiculous ... name a TE in the NFL who has "elite" acceleration. And he runs a 40 as fast as any TE in the league.

I don't think he'll be Jimmy Graham or Antonio Gates (he doesn't have that level of athleticism imo) but he could very well turn out to be a Rob Gronkowski.

Morehead State
04-25-2012, 09:40 AM
</P>


http://cache.profootballweekly.com/2012/04/23/pfw-correspondents-mock-draft</P>


Interesting, since all of the picks are made by the teams' beat writers . . . . . except that Paul Schwartz made the Giants pick (Fleener), whichprobably assures that we will not take Fleener. The guy is an idiot. </P>


</P>


I just don't get the Fleener love affair. He might be there at 64 for all we know. I would just be so dissappointed if we picked him.</P>


Why? He's the best rated TE in this draft, played in a pro-style offense at Stanford under a coach who just took his NFL team to the NFC Championship, and he'll most likely be BPA on the boards if he drops to us. And oh yeah, we need a TE desperately. Why on earth would we take him?!</P>


He's a Travis Beckum wannabe.</P>


Unless this kid can block (which he can't) he serves no real purpose for our offense. Our problems on offense are in the running game. O line (where it seems there may not be value at 32) or RB (and there should be good value there at 32) would be my preference.</P>


D line, O line and RB. to me those are our most pressing needs, especially if we deal Osi.</P>


TE is way down the list....WAY down the list. Don't forget we also signed Bennett.</P>


I think you have that reversed. Beckum was a Fleener (of the future) wannabe. Fleener is much more polished and accomplished then Beckum was coming out of college. Also Fleener is taller, faster and has better hands. He's the only high rated receiving TE in this draft that actually plays tight into the tackle (how we run our TEs). The knocks on his blocking are that he doesn't *standout* as a blocker, which isn't to say that he's bad at it (he also wasn't asked to block a ton either). It's brought up because it's the only possible knock people can find on his game. The idiot talk about "elite" burst is ridiculous ... name a TE in the NFL who has "elite" acceleration. And he runs a 40 as fast as any TE in the league. I don't think he'll be Jimmy Graham or Antonio Gates (he doesn't have that level of athleticism imo) but he could very well turn out to be a Rob Gronkowski.</P>


I think the kind of TE we need can be had in later rounds. It seems a reach in the context of our tendancies and our needs on the field. For another team, maybe not.</P>


We had pretty average at best TE play (in the pass catching side) and moved the ball well. I just think our running game is a huge problem. O line and RB seem to me to be great needs.</P>


Not saying that it's essential we address that in rounds one or two. Depends on value. But a TE there seems a poor decision.</P>


It could very well be that D line or RB may be the best value at 32. I still think thats where we are going.</P>

CGYgiant
04-25-2012, 09:49 AM
</p>


http://cache.profootballweekly.com/2012/04/23/pfw-correspondents-mock-draft</p>


Interesting, since all of the picks are made by the teams' beat writers . . . . . except that Paul Schwartz made the Giants pick (Fleener), whichprobably assures that we will not take Fleener. The guy is an idiot. </p>


</p>


I just don't get the Fleener love affair. He might be there at 64 for all we know. I would just be so dissappointed if we picked him.</p>


Why? He's the best rated TE in this draft, played in a pro-style offense at Stanford under a coach who just took his NFL team to the NFC Championship, and he'll most likely be BPA on the boards if he drops to us. And oh yeah, we need a TE desperately. Why on earth would we take him?!</p>


He's a Travis Beckum wannabe.</p>


Unless this kid can block (which he can't) he serves no real purpose for our offense. Our problems on offense are in the running game. O line (where it seems there may not be value at 32) or RB (and there should be good value there at 32) would be my preference.</p>


D line, O line and RB. to me those are our most pressing needs, especially if we deal Osi.</p>


TE is way down the list....WAY down the list. Don't forget we also signed Bennett.</p>


I think you have that reversed. Beckum was a Fleener (of the future) wannabe. Fleener is much more polished and accomplished then Beckum was coming out of college. Also Fleener is taller, faster and has better hands. He's the only high rated receiving TE in this draft that actually plays tight into the tackle (how we run our TEs). The knocks on his blocking are that he doesn't *standout* as a blocker, which isn't to say that he's bad at it (he also wasn't asked to block a ton either). It's brought up because it's the only possible knock people can find on his game. The idiot talk about "elite" burst is ridiculous ... name a TE in the NFL who has "elite" acceleration. And he runs a 40 as fast as any TE in the league. I don't think he'll be Jimmy Graham or Antonio Gates (he doesn't have that level of athleticism imo) but he could very well turn out to be a Rob Gronkowski.</p>


I think the kind of TE we need can be had in later rounds. It seems a reach in the context of our tendancies and our needs on the field. For another team, maybe not.</p>


We had pretty average at best TE play (in the pass catching side) and moved the ball well. I just think our running game is a huge problem. O line and RB seem to me to be great needs.</p>


Not saying that it's essential we address that in rounds one or two. Depends on value. But a TE there seems a poor decision.</p>


It could very well be that D line or RB may be the best value at 32. I still think thats where we are going.</p>

RB's come a dime a dozen, Bradshaw is a 7th rounder after all and so is Darrell Scott. Dont get how the RB position is a better value then say, a TE. We can easily find a quality RB later in the draft.

Also, its not like Shockey or Boss could block coming out of college, both had the frame to learn how and they did once Pope got a chance to work with them, also, Fleener is probably a better pass catcher then both of them coming out. Not to mention he runs better routes and is taller and faster then either.

I'm curious, Jimmy Graham is a bit of a liability in the run blocking game, would you not want him as well?

Kruunch
04-25-2012, 09:52 AM
He's a Travis Beckum wannabe.


</P>


Unless this kid can block (which he can't) he serves no real purpose for our offense.* You havent actually watched Fleener play at all, have you?


Only highlights.* I admit that I don't know much about the kid.* And its not the point.*


A TE who's not "all world" like Russ Francis, isn't worth our first round pick given our team's situation.* Our team has problems in the run game.* We threw for 5000 yards and have a great passing attack.* I know we need to go BPA.* I get that.* But a TE just makes no sense to me.


On our team,* with the players we have now,* its not an impactful position.* Give me a TE who can block,* I mean really block, and who can occasionally go get a pass and pick up a big first down.* That would help the New York Giants.</P>

I'll disagree on a few points.

No one knows who will end up being a future HoFer coming out of the draft, even with the first overall pick.

Tight End is currently a need position. We have Pascoe (a blocking utility TE brought up from the practice squad two years ago), Bennet (a cast off Comboy and another blocking TE with questionable work ethic), and Hopkins (currently on the practice squad and a total unknown at the NFL level).

Of the projected value at the #32 pick, the two best players are likely to be Doug Martin (#2 RB) or Coby Fleener (#1 TE) or Harrison Smith (#2 SS). Both former positions have been previously filled with low draft picks and/or UFAs with the exception of Beckum who is injured and will start the season on the PuP list (if he's on the team at all) and Safety is defintely not a need position for us (i.e. he would most likely only be a ST player this year).

Our other need positions (in my mind) are OT (won't have super value at #32), DT (better value than OT but still not an obvious standout) and DE (same as DT).

The only other area of possible need (i.e. a potential starter in 2012) is a #3 WR which we'll probably have value at the #32 spot.

So which would you pick ... a possible starting #1 TE, #2 RB, #3 WR, a questionable work ethic OT (Martin or Adams) or depth at the DE/DT/SS positions? The only other value pick that I see in the first round would be Amini Silatolu (OG/OT) but he's a small school project.

The way I see it, drafting a high impact TE that could start in 2012 would not only solve our current TE woes, but would also give our #3 receiver role time to sort itself out, and possibly help the run game and pass protection (it's much easier to add 10-20 lbs on to a TE and teach them to block then it is to run routes and catch).

Remember, we're talking about drafting the HIGHEST rated TE in the draft (in a draft that's not deep at TE I might add).

Seems to me that drafting a play making TE gives us the most potential bang for our buck for our first round pick this year.

Kruunch
04-25-2012, 09:52 AM
He's a Travis Beckum wannabe.


</P>


Unless this kid can block (which he can't) he serves no real purpose for our offense.* You havent actually watched Fleener play at all, have you?


Only highlights.* I admit that I don't know much about the kid.* And its not the point.*


A TE who's not "all world" like Russ Francis, isn't worth our first round pick given our team's situation.* Our team has problems in the run game.* We threw for 5000 yards and have a great passing attack.* I know we need to go BPA.* I get that.* But a TE just makes no sense to me.


On our team,* with the players we have now,* its not an impactful position.* Give me a TE who can block,* I mean really block, and who can occasionally go get a pass and pick up a big first down.* That would help the New York Giants.</P>

I'll disagree on a few points.

No one knows who will end up being a future HoFer coming out of the draft, even with the first overall pick.

Tight End is currently a need position. We have Pascoe (a blocking utility TE brought up from the practice squad two years ago), Bennet (a cast off Comboy and another blocking TE with questionable work ethic), and Hopkins (currently on the practice squad and a total unknown at the NFL level).

Of the projected value at the #32 pick, the two best players are likely to be Doug Martin (#2 RB) or Coby Fleener (#1 TE) or Harrison Smith (#2 SS). Both former positions have been previously filled with low draft picks and/or UFAs with the exception of Beckum who is injured and will start the season on the PuP list (if he's on the team at all) and Safety is defintely not a need position for us (i.e. he would most likely only be a ST player this year).

Our other need positions (in my mind) are OT (won't have super value at #32), DT (better value than OT but still not an obvious standout) and DE (same as DT).

The only other area of possible need (i.e. a potential starter in 2012) is a #3 WR which we'll probably have value at the #32 spot.

So which would you pick ... a possible starting #1 TE, #2 RB, #3 WR, a questionable work ethic OT (Martin or Adams) or depth at the DE/DT/SS positions? The only other value pick that I see in the first round would be Amini Silatolu (OG/OT) but he's a small school project.

The way I see it, drafting a high impact TE that could start in 2012 would not only solve our current TE woes, but would also give our #3 receiver role time to sort itself out, and possibly help the run game and pass protection (it's much easier to add 10-20 lbs on to a TE and teach them to block then it is to run routes and catch).

Remember, we're talking about drafting the HIGHEST rated TE in the draft (in a draft that's not deep at TE I might add).

Seems to me that drafting a play making TE gives us the most potential bang for our buck for our first round pick this year.

Morehead State
04-25-2012, 10:00 AM
He's a Travis Beckum wannabe.


</P>


Unless this kid can block (which he can't) he serves no real purpose for our offense. You havent actually watched Fleener play at all, have you?


Only highlights. I admit that I don't know much about the kid. And its not the point.


A TE who's not "all world" like Russ Francis, isn't worth our first round pick given our team's situation. Our team has problems in the run game. We threw for 5000 yards and have a great passing attack. I know we need to go BPA. I get that. But a TE just makes no sense to me.


On our team, with the players we have now, its not an impactful position. Give me a TE who can block, I mean really block, and who can occasionally go get a pass and pick up a big first down. That would help the New York Giants.</P>


I'll disagree on a few points. No one knows who will end up being a future HoFer coming out of the draft, even with the first overall pick. Tight End is currently a need position. We have Pascoe (a blocking utility TE brought up from the practice squad two years ago), Bennet (a cast off Comboy and another blocking TE with questionable work ethic), and Hopkins (currently on the practice squad and a total unknown at the NFL level). Of the projected value at the #32 pick, the two best players are likely to be Doug Martin (#2 RB) or Coby Fleener (#1 TE). Both positions have been previously filled with low draft picks and/or UFAs with the exception of Beckum who is injured and will start the season on the PuP list (if he's on the team at all). Our other need positions (in my mind) are OT (won't have super value at #32), DT (better value than OT but still not an obvious standout) and DE (same as DT). The only other area of possible need (i.e. a potential starter in 2012) is a #3 WR which we'll probably have value at the #32 spot. So which would you pick ... a possible starting #1 TE, #2 RB, #3 WR or depth at the DE/DT position? The way I see it, drafting a high impact TE that could start in 2012 would not only solve our current TE woes, but would also give our #3 receiver role time to sort itself out, and possibly help the run game and pass protection (it's much easier to add 10-20 lbs on to a TE and teach them to block then it is to run routes and catch). Seems to me that drafting a play making TE gives us the most potential bang for our buck for our first round pick this year.</P>


I've already stated on the MB that I prefer David Wilson at this point. I've also said that I doubt we will pick him. My prediction was Chandler Jones but now it seems that he would be gone at 32.</P>


You are right about the O line value at 32 but it is possible that Jonathan Martin could drop to us, but still unlikely.</P>


So my prediction (not my preference) is Still or a DE if one drops to us. especially with my hope that we deal Osi.</P>


But again, if we take a TE, he better be a great blocker in the run game. THAT's what we need. And I beleive that can be had later in the draft.</P>


And I would also submit that an enhanced running game will benefit our WR situation more than a rookie TE. Plus they drafted JJ foir a reason. I truly think the FO believes in his abilty to develop into an effective #3.</P>

Kruunch
04-25-2012, 10:07 AM
He's a Travis Beckum wannabe.


</P>


Unless this kid can block (which he can't) he serves no real purpose for our offense.* You havent actually watched Fleener play at all, have you?


Only highlights.* I admit that I don't know much about the kid.* And its not the point.*


A TE who's not "all world" like Russ Francis, isn't worth our first round pick given our team's situation.* Our team has problems in the run game.* We threw for 5000 yards and have a great passing attack.* I know we need to go BPA.* I get that.* But a TE just makes no sense to me.


On our team,* with the players we have now,* its not an impactful position.* Give me a TE who can block,* I mean really block, and who can occasionally go get a pass and pick up a big first down.* That would help the New York Giants.</P>


I'll disagree on a few points. No one knows who will end up being a future HoFer coming out of the draft, even with the first overall pick. Tight End is currently a need position. We have Pascoe (a blocking utility TE brought up from the practice squad two years ago), Bennet (a cast off Comboy and another blocking TE with questionable work ethic), and Hopkins (currently on the practice squad and a total unknown at the NFL level). Of the projected value at the #32 pick, the two best players are likely to be Doug Martin (#2 RB) or Coby Fleener (#1 TE). Both positions have been previously filled with low draft picks and/or UFAs with the exception of Beckum who is injured and will start the season on the PuP list (if he's on the team at all). Our other need positions (in my mind) are OT (won't have super value at #32), DT (better value than OT but still not an obvious standout) and DE (same as DT). The only other area of possible need (i.e. a potential starter in 2012) is a #3 WR which we'll probably have value at the #32 spot. So which would you pick ... a possible starting #1 TE, #2 RB, #3 WR or depth at the DE/DT position? The way I see it, drafting a high impact TE that could start in 2012 would not only solve our current TE woes, but would also give our #3 receiver role time to sort itself out, and possibly help the run game and pass protection (it's much easier to add 10-20 lbs on to a TE and teach them to block then it is to run routes and catch). Seems to me that drafting a play making TE gives us the most potential bang for our buck for our first round pick this year.</P>


I've already stated on the MB that I prefer David Wilson at this point.** I've also said that I doubt we will pick him.* My prediction was Chandler Jones but now it seems that he would be gone at 32.</P>


You are right about the O line value at 32 but it is possible that Jonathan Martin could drop to us, but still unlikely.</P>


So my prediction (not my preference) is Still or a DE if one drops to us.* especially with my hope that we deal Osi.</P>


But again, if we take a TE, he better be a great blocker in the run game.* THAT's what we need.* And I beleive that can be had later in the draft.</P>


And I would also submit that an enhanced running game will benefit our WR situation more than a rookie TE.* Plus they drafted JJ foir a reason.* I truly think the FO believes in his abilty to develop into an effective #3.</P>

Chandler Jones should be available when we pick at #32 (I highly doubt he goes in the first round before us) and I agree in that I think there's a better than even chance the Giants will go this direction if he is.

Also, given Reese's drafting history of first and second round picks, I'll be excited to watch anyone we pick.

My point was only that I would be happy with choosing Coby Fleener and I fail to see why you should be surprised by either if they draft him or why so many people are talking about him and the Giants (whether you'd like him or not being regardless).

Redeyejedi
04-25-2012, 10:18 AM
He's a Travis Beckum wannabe.


</P>


Unless this kid can block (which he can't) he serves no real purpose for our offense.* You havent actually watched Fleener play at all, have you?


Only highlights.* I admit that I don't know much about the kid.* And its not the point.*


A TE who's not "all world" like Russ Francis, isn't worth our first round pick given our team's situation.* Our team has problems in the run game.* We threw for 5000 yards and have a great passing attack.* I know we need to go BPA.* I get that.* But a TE just makes no sense to me.


On our team,* with the players we have now,* its not an impactful position.* Give me a TE who can block,* I mean really block, and who can occasionally go get a pass and pick up a big first down.* That would help the New York Giants.</P>

I'll disagree on a few points.

No one knows who will end up being a future HoFer coming out of the draft, even with the first overall pick.

Tight End is currently a need position. We have Pascoe (a blocking utility TE brought up from the practice squad two years ago), Bennet (a cast off Comboy and another blocking TE with questionable work ethic), and Hopkins (currently on the practice squad and a total unknown at the NFL level).

Of the projected value at the #32 pick, the two best players are likely to be Doug Martin (#2 RB) or Coby Fleener (#1 TE) or Harrison Smith (#2 SS). Both former positions have been previously filled with low draft picks and/or UFAs with the exception of Beckum who is injured and will start the season on the PuP list (if he's on the team at all) and Safety is defintely not a need position for us (i.e. he would most likely only be a ST player this year).

Our other need positions (in my mind) are OT (won't have super value at #32), DT (better value than OT but still not an obvious standout) and DE (same as DT).

The only other area of possible need (i.e. a potential starter in 2012) is a #3 WR which we'll probably have value at the #32 spot.

So which would you pick ... a possible starting #1 TE, #2 RB, #3 WR, a questionable work ethic OT (Martin or Adams) or depth at the DE/DT/SS positions? The only other value pick that I see in the first round would be Amini Silatolu (OG/OT) but he's a small school project.

The way I see it, drafting a high impact TE that could start in 2012 would not only solve our current TE woes, but would also give our #3 receiver role time to sort itself out, and possibly help the run game and pass protection (it's much easier to add 10-20 lbs on to a TE and teach them to block then it is to run routes and catch).

Remember, we're talking about drafting the HIGHEST rated TE in the draft (in a draft that's not deep at TE I might add).

Seems to me that drafting a play making TE gives us the most potential bang for our buck for our first round pick this year.When your picking #32 lower value positions like TE,RB,LB ,Interior OLine come into play because U can get the best 1 in the draft. U have a choice of taking the 4th or 5th best DE,DT,OT or the best at a lower value spot. Fleener to me gives the Giants offense outstanding flexibility. They would have 7 inline blockers and still have 3 explosive playmakers in the passing game

Kruunch
04-25-2012, 10:27 AM
When your picking #32 lower value positions like TE,RB,LB ,Interior OLine come into play because U can get the best 1 in the draft. U have a choice of taking the 4th or 5th best DE,DT,OT or the best at a lower value spot. Fleener to me gives the Giants offense outstanding flexibility. They would have 7 inline blockers and still have 3 explosive playmakers in the passing game

Exactly my point of view as well.

Damn your clarity and brevity!

RonJon
04-25-2012, 10:34 AM
if LaMichael james is there in the 2nd round I'd grab him. COuld be their version of Darren Sproles

Morehead State
04-25-2012, 10:41 AM
He's a Travis Beckum wannabe.


</P>


Unless this kid can block (which he can't) he serves no real purpose for our offense. You havent actually watched Fleener play at all, have you?


Only highlights. I admit that I don't know much about the kid. And its not the point.


A TE who's not "all world" like Russ Francis, isn't worth our first round pick given our team's situation. Our team has problems in the run game. We threw for 5000 yards and have a great passing attack. I know we need to go BPA. I get that. But a TE just makes no sense to me.


On our team, with the players we have now, its not an impactful position. Give me a TE who can block, I mean really block, and who can occasionally go get a pass and pick up a big first down. That would help the New York Giants.</P>


I'll disagree on a few points. No one knows who will end up being a future HoFer coming out of the draft, even with the first overall pick. Tight End is currently a need position. We have Pascoe (a blocking utility TE brought up from the practice squad two years ago), Bennet (a cast off Comboy and another blocking TE with questionable work ethic), and Hopkins (currently on the practice squad and a total unknown at the NFL level). Of the projected value at the #32 pick, the two best players are likely to be Doug Martin (#2 RB) or Coby Fleener (#1 TE) or Harrison Smith (#2 SS). Both former positions have been previously filled with low draft picks and/or UFAs with the exception of Beckum who is injured and will start the season on the PuP list (if he's on the team at all) and Safety is defintely not a need position for us (i.e. he would most likely only be a ST player this year). Our other need positions (in my mind) are OT (won't have super value at #32), DT (better value than OT but still not an obvious standout) and DE (same as DT). The only other area of possible need (i.e. a potential starter in 2012) is a #3 WR which we'll probably have value at the #32 spot. So which would you pick ... a possible starting #1 TE, #2 RB, #3 WR, a questionable work ethic OT (Martin or Adams) or depth at the DE/DT/SS positions? The only other value pick that I see in the first round would be Amini Silatolu (OG/OT) but he's a small school project. The way I see it, drafting a high impact TE that could start in 2012 would not only solve our current TE woes, but would also give our #3 receiver role time to sort itself out, and possibly help the run game and pass protection (it's much easier to add 10-20 lbs on to a TE and teach them to block then it is to run routes and catch). Remember, we're talking about drafting the HIGHEST rated TE in the draft (in a draft that's not deep at TE I might add). Seems to me that drafting a play making TE gives us the most potential bang for our buck for our first round pick this year.When your picking #32 lower value positions like TE,RB,LB ,Interior OLine come into play because U can get the best 1 in the draft. U have a choice of taking the 4th or 5th best DE,DT,OT or the best at a lower value spot. Fleener to me gives the Giants offense outstanding flexibility. They would have 7 inline blockers and still have 3 explosive playmakers in the passing game</P>


Its an interesting point but I still don't see how Fleener automatically gives us "more flexibility" in our offense. What would definately give us more flexibility is an enhanced running game. I don't see how a rookie TE is going to have that kind of impact. especially since he would undoubtedly NOT start ahead of Bennett. (who seems to have the same or better skill set as Fleener) and could very well be poised to break out as a contributor on offense. And Bennett can run block as well.</P>


It seems that the Bennett signing reduces substantially the possibility of our drafting Fleener. I just don't like the Giants using a first rounder on a TE given our already great dynamic passing game.</P>


It seems to me a better course is developing a better running attack andenhancing our D lineas a better use of early picks.</P>

Morehead State
04-25-2012, 10:42 AM
if LaMichael james is there in the 2nd round I'd grab him. COuld be their version of Darren Sproles</P>


James is a huge red flag to me since they pulled him out of the USC game late when they were staging their huge comeback. That scares the hell out of me since the coaching staff didn't value him in that huge spot.</P>

CGYgiant
04-25-2012, 10:47 AM
He's a Travis Beckum wannabe.


</p>


Unless this kid can block (which he can't) he serves no real purpose for our offense. You havent actually watched Fleener play at all, have you?
</p>

Only highlights. I admit that I don't know much about the kid. And its not the point.
</p>

A TE who's not "all world" like Russ Francis, isn't worth our first round pick given our team's situation. Our team has problems in the run game. We threw for 5000 yards and have a great passing attack. I know we need to go BPA. I get that. But a TE just makes no sense to me.
</p>

On our team, with the players we have now, its not an impactful position. Give me a TE who can block, I mean really block, and who can occasionally go get a pass and pick up a big first down. That would help the New York Giants.</p>


I'll disagree on a few points. No one knows who will end up being a future HoFer coming out of the draft, even with the first overall pick. Tight End is currently a need position. We have Pascoe (a blocking utility TE brought up from the practice squad two years ago), Bennet (a cast off Comboy and another blocking TE with questionable work ethic), and Hopkins (currently on the practice squad and a total unknown at the NFL level). Of the projected value at the #32 pick, the two best players are likely to be Doug Martin (#2 RB) or Coby Fleener (#1 TE) or Harrison Smith (#2 SS). Both former positions have been previously filled with low draft picks and/or UFAs with the exception of Beckum who is injured and will start the season on the PuP list (if he's on the team at all) and Safety is defintely not a need position for us (i.e. he would most likely only be a ST player this year). Our other need positions (in my mind) are OT (won't have super value at #32), DT (better value than OT but still not an obvious standout) and DE (same as DT). The only other area of possible need (i.e. a potential starter in 2012) is a #3 WR which we'll probably have value at the #32 spot. So which would you pick ... a possible starting #1 TE, #2 RB, #3 WR, a questionable work ethic OT (Martin or Adams) or depth at the DE/DT/SS positions? The only other value pick that I see in the first round would be Amini Silatolu (OG/OT) but he's a small school project. The way I see it, drafting a high impact TE that could start in 2012 would not only solve our current TE woes, but would also give our #3 receiver role time to sort itself out, and possibly help the run game and pass protection (it's much easier to add 10-20 lbs on to a TE and teach them to block then it is to run routes and catch). Remember, we're talking about drafting the HIGHEST rated TE in the draft (in a draft that's not deep at TE I might add). Seems to me that drafting a play making TE gives us the most potential bang for our buck for our first round pick this year.When your picking #32 lower value positions like TE,RB,LB ,Interior OLine come into play because U can get the best 1 in the draft. U have a choice of taking the 4th or 5th best DE,DT,OT or the best at a lower value spot. Fleener to me gives the Giants offense outstanding flexibility. They would have 7 inline blockers and still have 3 explosive playmakers in the passing game</p>


Its an interesting point but I still don't see how Fleener automatically gives us "more flexibility" in our offense. What would definately give us more flexibility is an enhanced running game. I don't see how a rookie TE is going to have that kind of impact. especially since he would undoubtedly NOT start ahead of Bennett. (who seems to have the same or better skill set as Fleener) and could very well be poised to break out as a contributor on offense. And Bennett can run block as well.</p>


It seems that the Bennett signing reduces substantially the possibility of our drafting Fleener. I just don't like the Giants using a first rounder on a TE given our already great dynamic passing game.</p>


It seems to me a better course is developing a better running attack andenhancing our D lineas a better use of early picks.</p>

Enhancing the D-line is absolutely the number 1 priority. However if no one of value remains why reach for a player? and Bennett has done NOTHING in his career to say that he has a better skill set then Fleener, better blocker for sure, but it ends there. He has been characterized as lazy and someone that has not worked hard at all on his craft. Now he has signed a 1 year deal in hopes of cashing in big next year but he is anything but a sure thing.

Fleener at 32 presents a good value, it never hurts getting the best player at his position in the draft at 32. Not to mention, the kid is 6'6 runs a 4.5 forty with speed and excellent route running. Something that Bennett has never shown the ability to do. Together they would be excellent though.

Morehead State
04-25-2012, 10:59 AM
He's a Travis Beckum wannabe.


</P>


Unless this kid can block (which he can't) he serves no real purpose for our offense. You havent actually watched Fleener play at all, have you? </P>


Only highlights. I admit that I don't know much about the kid. And its not the point. </P>


A TE who's not "all world" like Russ Francis, isn't worth our first round pick given our team's situation. Our team has problems in the run game. We threw for 5000 yards and have a great passing attack. I know we need to go BPA. I get that. But a TE just makes no sense to me. </P>


On our team, with the players we have now, its not an impactful position. Give me a TE who can block, I mean really block, and who can occasionally go get a pass and pick up a big first down. That would help the New York Giants.</P>


I'll disagree on a few points. No one knows who will end up being a future HoFer coming out of the draft, even with the first overall pick. Tight End is currently a need position. We have Pascoe (a blocking utility TE brought up from the practice squad two years ago), Bennet (a cast off Comboy and another blocking TE with questionable work ethic), and Hopkins (currently on the practice squad and a total unknown at the NFL level). Of the projected value at the #32 pick, the two best players are likely to be Doug Martin (#2 RB) or Coby Fleener (#1 TE) or Harrison Smith (#2 SS). Both former positions have been previously filled with low draft picks and/or UFAs with the exception of Beckum who is injured and will start the season on the PuP list (if he's on the team at all) and Safety is defintely not a need position for us (i.e. he would most likely only be a ST player this year). Our other need positions (in my mind) are OT (won't have super value at #32), DT (better value than OT but still not an obvious standout) and DE (same as DT). The only other area of possible need (i.e. a potential starter in 2012) is a #3 WR which we'll probably have value at the #32 spot. So which would you pick ... a possible starting #1 TE, #2 RB, #3 WR, a questionable work ethic OT (Martin or Adams) or depth at the DE/DT/SS positions? The only other value pick that I see in the first round would be Amini Silatolu (OG/OT) but he's a small school project. The way I see it, drafting a high impact TE that could start in 2012 would not only solve our current TE woes, but would also give our #3 receiver role time to sort itself out, and possibly help the run game and pass protection (it's much easier to add 10-20 lbs on to a TE and teach them to block then it is to run routes and catch). Remember, we're talking about drafting the HIGHEST rated TE in the draft (in a draft that's not deep at TE I might add). Seems to me that drafting a play making TE gives us the most potential bang for our buck for our first round pick this year.When your picking #32 lower value positions like TE,RB,LB ,Interior OLine come into play because U can get the best 1 in the draft. U have a choice of taking the 4th or 5th best DE,DT,OT or the best at a lower value spot. Fleener to me gives the Giants offense outstanding flexibility. They would have 7 inline blockers and still have 3 explosive playmakers in the passing game</P>


Its an interesting point but I still don't see how Fleener automatically gives us "more flexibility" in our offense. What would definately give us more flexibility is an enhanced running game. I don't see how a rookie TE is going to have that kind of impact. especially since he would undoubtedly NOT start ahead of Bennett. (who seems to have the same or better skill set as Fleener) and could very well be poised to break out as a contributor on offense. And Bennett can run block as well.</P>


It seems that the Bennett signing reduces substantially the possibility of our drafting Fleener. I just don't like the Giants using a first rounder on a TE given our already great dynamic passing game.</P>


It seems to me a better course is developing a better running attack andenhancing our D lineas a better use of early picks.</P>




Enhancing the D-line is absolutely the number 1 priority. However if no one of value remains why reach for a player? and Bennett has done NOTHING in his career to say that he has a better skill set then Fleener, better blocker for sure, but it ends there. He has been characterized as lazy and someone that has not worked hard at all on his craft. Now he has signed a 1 year deal in hopes of cashing in big next year but he is anything but a sure thing.

Fleener at 32 presents a good value, it never hurts getting the best player at his position in the draft at 32. Not to mention, the kid is 6'6 runs a 4.5 forty with speed and excellent route running. Something that Bennett has never shown the ability to do. Together they would be excellent though.
</P>


Bennett is extreemly athletic but there is no doubt that he has underperformed in the NFL. But he can block and should be a huge assett in the running game. Right now I'm more concerned with that aspect of our offense than any other. One of the reasons in my view that Eli took so much punishment last season, including the playoffs was our lack of a running attack. Just don't see how the addition of a pass catching rookie TE will help us in that.</P>

Neverend
04-25-2012, 11:07 AM
Fleener is a Travis Beckum wannabe?

Excuse me while I spilled my soda, WHAT?

Each and everyday I keep reading more wrong and wrong things about Fleener more than any other prospect

Fleener comes with some flaws (but nothing that can't be corrected) but the whole h-back/can't block thing is the most ridiculous and frustrating criticism to read. Don't go by what you hear, but what by you see (or i think that how it goes) watch fleener. Dont go by his reputation

Morehead State
04-25-2012, 11:09 AM
Fleener is a Travis Beckum wannabe? Excuse me while I spilled my soda, WHAT? Each and everyday I keep reading more wrong and wrong things about Fleener more than any other prospect Fleener comes with some flaws (but nothing that can't be corrected) but the whole h-back/can't block thing is the most ridiculous and frustrating criticism to read. Don't go by what you hear, but what by you see (or i think that how it goes) watch fleener. Dont go by his reputation</P>


Probably wasn't my best moment as a poster. So I will respectfully take that one back.</P>


But my points about our offense and its needs are listed clearly.</P>

Neverend
04-25-2012, 11:11 AM
I was watching Sports Science the draft edition and they had Fleener burst off the line while tied to 2 Sumo wrestlers, he was so powerful and quick of the line that he pulled both of them (combined weight of over 600lbs) of their feet. He definitely has the power to blockhe just needs to be thought some technique


That's one of the most underrated aspects of his game. Some feel Fleener isn't explosive off the line or is a long strider, but a huge part of his game is setting people up. So at times he kind of slow plays his strides, doesn't run with much agility, and then makes a cut at full speed. Its kind of like Justin Tuck. A huge part of Tuck's game is setting up the tackle so at times it looks like he isn't exploding off the line or giving much effort pass rushing but that isn't the case

When Fleener wants too, there are plenty of catches he made when exploding off the line and running at full speed

Neverend
04-25-2012, 11:12 AM
Fleener is a Travis Beckum wannabe? Excuse me while I spilled my soda, WHAT? Each and everyday I keep reading more wrong and wrong things about Fleener more than any other prospect Fleener comes with some flaws (but nothing that can't be corrected) but the whole h-back/can't block thing is the most ridiculous and frustrating criticism to read. Don't go by what you hear, but what by you see (or i think that how it goes) watch fleener. Dont go by his reputation</P>


Probably wasn't my best moment as a poster.* So I will respectfully take that one back.</P>


But my points about our offense and its needs are listed clearly.</P>

I don't blame you at all. Some guys just have a reputation attached to their names so it gives people a wrong outlook about them. Fleener is one of those guys. If people didn't know much about him they'd probably think hes a terrible blocker but in reality he's a really solid blocker. He just needs to get stronger

Morehead State
04-25-2012, 11:17 AM
Fleener is a Travis Beckum wannabe? Excuse me while I spilled my soda, WHAT? Each and everyday I keep reading more wrong and wrong things about Fleener more than any other prospect Fleener comes with some flaws (but nothing that can't be corrected) but the whole h-back/can't block thing is the most ridiculous and frustrating criticism to read. Don't go by what you hear, but what by you see (or i think that how it goes) watch fleener. Dont go by his reputation</P>


Probably wasn't my best moment as a poster. So I will respectfully take that one back.</P>


But my points about our offense and its needs are listed clearly.</P>


I don't blame you at all. Some guys just have a reputation attached to their names so it gives people a wrong outlook about them. Fleener is one of those guys. If people didn't know much about him they'd probably think hes a terrible blocker but in reality he's a really solid blocker. He just needs to get stronger</P>


My aversion to Fleener has far less to do with him thanit does about us.</P>


I want a guy at TE who is going to help us in the running game. Thats just me. As I said, to me the main reason Eli was hit so much last year was a lack of a running game. Now BJ is gone and we have a #1 RB with a huge history of injuries, we also have a big question mark at LT. I just think we need to address this in a meaningful way. And I think there will be great value at RB at 32.</P>

RagTime Blue
04-25-2012, 11:41 AM
</p>


http://cache.profootballweekly.com/2012/04/23/pfw-correspondents-mock-draft</p>


Interesting, since all of the picks are made by the teams' beat writers . . . . . except that Paul Schwartz made the Giants pick (Fleener), whichprobably assures that we will not take Fleener. The guy is an idiot. </p>
LOL!

Whoever decided that beat writers should do a mock is absurd. Beat writers, by trade, aren't college scouts. . .they just supposedly know their team "needs".

I like Schwartz, just don't trust his college scouting abilities.

Morehead State
04-25-2012, 12:11 PM
</P>


http://cache.profootballweekly.com/2012/04/23/pfw-correspondents-mock-draft</P>


Interesting, since all of the picks are made by the teams' beat writers . . . . . except that Paul Schwartz made the Giants pick (Fleener), whichprobably assures that we will not take Fleener. The guy is an idiot. </P>


LOL!

Whoever decided that beat writers should do a mock is absurd. Beat writers, by trade, aren't college scouts. . .they just supposedly know their team "needs".

I like Schwartz, just don't trust his college scouting abilities.
</P>


Maybe so, but at least they have an idea of the team's needs. For a media operation, its not a bad way to go. They aren't going to get team personell to do it.</P>

Kruunch
04-25-2012, 12:44 PM
Bennett is extreemly athletic but there is no doubt that he has underperformed in the NFL.* But he can block and should be a huge assett in the running game.* Right now I'm more concerned with that aspect of our offense than any other.* One of the reasons in my view that Eli took so much punishment last season, including the playoffs was our lack of a running attack.* Just don't see how the addition of a pass catching rookie TE will help us in that.</P>

The thing you're missing here is that Bennet won't freeze a Safety or LB because he isn't considered a receiving threat on play action / option plays.

Bennet can block but he's not an amazing blocker. Fleener can block but he's not an amazing blocker.

Fleener also has the upside of being a very real threat in the passing game. If that pans out, that means one less person stuffing the box.

One of the problems we had running the ball lately stems from not having a TE that can threaten down field (Ballard/Pascoe being mediocre at best and less than reliable down the stretch).

Accordingly, our dynamic passing game relied on having a third stready outlet (be it MM as the #3 or our TE). We have effectively lost both due to free agency and injury for 2012.

Fleener gives us the potential to partially solve our run-game, while at the same time gives us the highest probability of continuing our dynamic passing game as opposed to anyone else projected to be drafted at the #32 spot or that we currently have on our team.

I'd call that a pretty big arguement for drafting him if he's available. More so than any other possible draftee. Hence the love affair.

Morehead State
04-25-2012, 01:03 PM
Bennett is extreemly athletic but there is no doubt that he has underperformed in the NFL. But he can block and should be a huge assett in the running game. Right now I'm more concerned with that aspect of our offense than any other. One of the reasons in my view that Eli took so much punishment last season, including the playoffs was our lack of a running attack. Just don't see how the addition of a pass catching rookie TE will help us in that.


</P>


The thing you're missing here is that Bennet won't freeze a Safety or LB because he isn't considered a receiving threat on play action / option plays. Bennet can block but he's not an amazing blocker. Fleener can block but he's not an amazing blocker. Fleener also has the upside of being a very real threat in the passing game. If that pans out, that means one less person stuffing the box. One of the problems we had running the ball lately stems from not having a TE that can threaten down field (Ballard/Pascoe being mediocre at best and less than reliable down the stretch). Accordingly, our dynamic passing game relied on having a third stready outlet (be it MM as the #3 or our TE). We have effectively lost both due to free agency and injury for 2012. Fleener gives us the potential to partially solve our run-game, while at the same time gives us the highest probability of continuing our dynamic passing game as opposed to anyone else projected to be drafted at the #32 spot or that we currently have on our team. I'd call that a pretty big arguement for drafting him if he's available. More so than any other possible draftee. Hence the love affair.</P>


First of all Fleener (or any other draftee at 32) is a college football player and a pro <U>prospect</U>. We don't know what he would do, or learn to do at the pro level.</P>


All you can do is draft the best prospects and coach them up. To put Fleener in as a starter in your projections this upcoming season is a huge leap. Rarely does a rookie TE contribute in the way you are suggesting. </P>


Maybe you're right about his potential contribution but there is a bit of rationalization in this argument. It assumes a lot and would represent "best case" scenario to me.</P>


Are there other TE's in the draft that could adddress the kinds of needs we have that can be taken in later rounds? Probably.</P>


I have a feeling that someone is dropping to us. Maybe Jonathon Martin, maybe the DE from USC, maybe Chandler Jones. I mean Prince dropped in our lap last draft and I think he's going to be a great pro.</P>


But I do think we are best served with a player that can help us in the running game.</P>

Kruunch
04-25-2012, 01:19 PM
Bennett is extreemly athletic but there is no doubt that he has underperformed in the NFL.* But he can block and should be a huge assett in the running game.* Right now I'm more concerned with that aspect of our offense than any other.* One of the reasons in my view that Eli took so much punishment last season, including the playoffs was our lack of a running attack.* Just don't see how the addition of a pass catching rookie TE will help us in that.


</P>


The thing you're missing here is that Bennet won't freeze a Safety or LB because he isn't considered a receiving threat on play action / option plays. Bennet can block but he's not an amazing blocker. Fleener can block but he's not an amazing blocker. Fleener also has the upside of being a very real threat in the passing game. If that pans out, that means one less person stuffing the box. One of the problems we had running the ball lately stems from not having a TE that can threaten down field (Ballard/Pascoe being mediocre at best and less than reliable down the stretch). Accordingly, our dynamic passing game relied on having a third stready outlet (be it MM as the #3 or our TE). We have effectively lost both due to free agency and injury for 2012. Fleener gives us the potential to partially solve our run-game, while at the same time gives us the highest probability of continuing our dynamic passing game as opposed to anyone else projected to be drafted at the #32 spot or that we currently have on our team. I'd call that a pretty big arguement for drafting him if he's available. More so than any other possible draftee. Hence the love affair.</P>


First of all Fleener (or any other draftee at 32) is a college football player and a pro <U>prospect</U>.* We don't know what he would do, or learn to do at the pro level.</P>


All you can do is draft the best prospects and coach them up.* To put Fleener in as a starter in your projections this upcoming season is a huge leap.* Rarely does a rookie TE contribute in the way you are suggesting.** </P>


Maybe you're right about his potential contribution but there is a bit of rationalization in this argument.* It assumes a lot and would represent "best case" scenario to me.</P>


Are there other TE's in the draft that could adddress the kinds of needs we have that can be taken in later rounds?* Probably.</P>


I have a feeling that someone is dropping to us.* Maybe Jonathon Martin, maybe the DE from USC, maybe Chandler Jones.* I mean Prince dropped in our lap last draft and I think he's going to be a great pro.</P>


But I do think we are best served with a player that can help us in the running game.</P>

Hence why I said "potential".

If you consider the draft order a probability in potential (which is all that it really is) Fleener gives us the most potential upside THIS YEAR.

That's not to say he would be the best player in the draft, our team or work out at all. Just that he POTENTIALLY plugs the greatest amount of holes/question marks on our team.

All in one player.

A great RB that can catch, block and run behind our inconsistent blocking would also do that for us, I agree.

So in our debate here, it comes down to who gives us the greatest probability for doing so; the #1 rated TE in the draft, or the #2 (or #3 if we're going with Wilson) rated RB in the draft?

I'd be fine with saying flip a coin. I don't think either has a measurable difference ... not enough to say definitively (as opposed to say the differences between Hightower and Kuechly lets say) and I'd be happy with either.

If we DID go RB in the first, I think Martin (in the short term at least) gives us more upside then Wilson. Martin seemed to do better behind shoddy blocking then Wilson did; although Wilson is the more prototypical back (and possibly better compliment to AB).

Morehead State
04-25-2012, 01:22 PM
Bennett is extreemly athletic but there is no doubt that he has underperformed in the NFL. But he can block and should be a huge assett in the running game. Right now I'm more concerned with that aspect of our offense than any other. One of the reasons in my view that Eli took so much punishment last season, including the playoffs was our lack of a running attack. Just don't see how the addition of a pass catching rookie TE will help us in that.


</P>


The thing you're missing here is that Bennet won't freeze a Safety or LB because he isn't considered a receiving threat on play action / option plays. Bennet can block but he's not an amazing blocker. Fleener can block but he's not an amazing blocker. Fleener also has the upside of being a very real threat in the passing game. If that pans out, that means one less person stuffing the box. One of the problems we had running the ball lately stems from not having a TE that can threaten down field (Ballard/Pascoe being mediocre at best and less than reliable down the stretch). Accordingly, our dynamic passing game relied on having a third stready outlet (be it MM as the #3 or our TE). We have effectively lost both due to free agency and injury for 2012. Fleener gives us the potential to partially solve our run-game, while at the same time gives us the highest probability of continuing our dynamic passing game as opposed to anyone else projected to be drafted at the #32 spot or that we currently have on our team. I'd call that a pretty big arguement for drafting him if he's available. More so than any other possible draftee. Hence the love affair.</P>


First of all Fleener (or any other draftee at 32) is a college football player and a pro <U>prospect</U>. We don't know what he would do, or learn to do at the pro level.</P>


All you can do is draft the best prospects and coach them up. To put Fleener in as a starter in your projections this upcoming season is a huge leap. Rarely does a rookie TE contribute in the way you are suggesting. </P>


Maybe you're right about his potential contribution but there is a bit of rationalization in this argument. It assumes a lot and would represent "best case" scenario to me.</P>


Are there other TE's in the draft that could adddress the kinds of needs we have that can be taken in later rounds? Probably.</P>


I have a feeling that someone is dropping to us. Maybe Jonathon Martin, maybe the DE from USC, maybe Chandler Jones. I mean Prince dropped in our lap last draft and I think he's going to be a great pro.</P>


But I do think we are best served with a player that can help us in the running game.</P>


Hence why I said "potential". If you consider the draft order a probability in potential (which is all that it really is) Fleener gives us the most potential upside THIS YEAR. That's not to say he would be the best player in the draft, our team or work out at all. Just that he POTENTIALLY plugs the greatest amount of holes/question marks on our team. All in one player. A great RB that can catch, block and run behind our inconsistent blocking would also do that for us, I agree. So in our debate here, it comes down to who gives us the greatest probability for doing so; the #1 rated TE in the draft, or the #2 (or #3 if we're going with Wilson) rated RB in the draft? I'd be fine with saying flip a coin. I don't think either has a measurable difference ... not enough to say definitively (as opposed to say the differences between Hightower and Kuechly lets say) and I'd be happy with either. If we DID go RB in the first, I think Martin (in the short term at least) gives us more upside then Wilson. Martin seemed to do better behind shoddy blocking then Wilson did; although Wilson is the more prototypical back (and possibly better compliment to AB).</P>


Those Boise guys don't do much better than Uconn guys in the NFL.</P>

Morehead State
04-25-2012, 01:24 PM
We should PM when the 31st pick is made when we know who's on the board, and predict what we do.

slipknottin
04-25-2012, 01:24 PM
Those Boise guys don't do much better than Uconn guys in the NFL.</P>

I really dont understand what scouts have seen in the former Uconn players drafted. Ive gone to most Uconn games and the first player Ive seen that to me looks like a legitimate NFL player is Reyes.

Kruunch
04-25-2012, 01:29 PM
Bennett is extreemly athletic but there is no doubt that he has underperformed in the NFL.* But he can block and should be a huge assett in the running game.* Right now I'm more concerned with that aspect of our offense than any other.* One of the reasons in my view that Eli took so much punishment last season, including the playoffs was our lack of a running attack.* Just don't see how the addition of a pass catching rookie TE will help us in that.


</P>


The thing you're missing here is that Bennet won't freeze a Safety or LB because he isn't considered a receiving threat on play action / option plays. Bennet can block but he's not an amazing blocker. Fleener can block but he's not an amazing blocker. Fleener also has the upside of being a very real threat in the passing game. If that pans out, that means one less person stuffing the box. One of the problems we had running the ball lately stems from not having a TE that can threaten down field (Ballard/Pascoe being mediocre at best and less than reliable down the stretch). Accordingly, our dynamic passing game relied on having a third stready outlet (be it MM as the #3 or our TE). We have effectively lost both due to free agency and injury for 2012. Fleener gives us the potential to partially solve our run-game, while at the same time gives us the highest probability of continuing our dynamic passing game as opposed to anyone else projected to be drafted at the #32 spot or that we currently have on our team. I'd call that a pretty big arguement for drafting him if he's available. More so than any other possible draftee. Hence the love affair.</P>


First of all Fleener (or any other draftee at 32) is a college football player and a pro <U>prospect</U>.* We don't know what he would do, or learn to do at the pro level.</P>


All you can do is draft the best prospects and coach them up.* To put Fleener in as a starter in your projections this upcoming season is a huge leap.* Rarely does a rookie TE contribute in the way you are suggesting.** </P>


Maybe you're right about his potential contribution but there is a bit of rationalization in this argument.* It assumes a lot and would represent "best case" scenario to me.</P>


Are there other TE's in the draft that could adddress the kinds of needs we have that can be taken in later rounds?* Probably.</P>


I have a feeling that someone is dropping to us.* Maybe Jonathon Martin, maybe the DE from USC, maybe Chandler Jones.* I mean Prince dropped in our lap last draft and I think he's going to be a great pro.</P>


But I do think we are best served with a player that can help us in the running game.</P>


Hence why I said "potential". If you consider the draft order a probability in potential (which is all that it really is) Fleener gives us the most potential upside THIS YEAR. That's not to say he would be the best player in the draft, our team or work out at all. Just that he POTENTIALLY plugs the greatest amount of holes/question marks on our team. All in one player. A great RB that can catch, block and run behind our inconsistent blocking would also do that for us, I agree. So in our debate here, it comes down to who gives us the greatest probability for doing so; the #1 rated TE in the draft, or the #2 (or #3 if we're going with Wilson) rated RB in the draft? I'd be fine with saying flip a coin. I don't think either has a measurable difference ... not enough to say definitively (as opposed to say the differences between Hightower and Kuechly lets say) and I'd be happy with either. If we DID go RB in the first, I think Martin (in the short term at least) gives us more upside then Wilson. Martin seemed to do better behind shoddy blocking then Wilson did; although Wilson is the more prototypical back (and possibly better compliment to AB).</P>


Those Boise guys don't do much better than Uconn guys in the NFL.</P>

True ... but the same thing could be said of Morehead State and QBs until Simms. [b]

Morehead State
04-25-2012, 01:29 PM
Those Boise guys don't do much better than Uconn guys in the NFL.</P>


I really dont understand what scouts have seen in the former Uconn players drafted. Ive gone to most Uconn games and the first player Ive seen that to me looks like a legitimate NFL player is Reyes.</P>


I thought Andre Dixon had a chance to be a good pro. Shows what I know.</P>

Morehead State
04-25-2012, 01:31 PM
Bennett is extreemly athletic but there is no doubt that he has underperformed in the NFL. But he can block and should be a huge assett in the running game. Right now I'm more concerned with that aspect of our offense than any other. One of the reasons in my view that Eli took so much punishment last season, including the playoffs was our lack of a running attack. Just don't see how the addition of a pass catching rookie TE will help us in that.


</P>


The thing you're missing here is that Bennet won't freeze a Safety or LB because he isn't considered a receiving threat on play action / option plays. Bennet can block but he's not an amazing blocker. Fleener can block but he's not an amazing blocker. Fleener also has the upside of being a very real threat in the passing game. If that pans out, that means one less person stuffing the box. One of the problems we had running the ball lately stems from not having a TE that can threaten down field (Ballard/Pascoe being mediocre at best and less than reliable down the stretch). Accordingly, our dynamic passing game relied on having a third stready outlet (be it MM as the #3 or our TE). We have effectively lost both due to free agency and injury for 2012. Fleener gives us the potential to partially solve our run-game, while at the same time gives us the highest probability of continuing our dynamic passing game as opposed to anyone else projected to be drafted at the #32 spot or that we currently have on our team. I'd call that a pretty big arguement for drafting him if he's available. More so than any other possible draftee. Hence the love affair.</P>


First of all Fleener (or any other draftee at 32) is a college football player and a pro <U>prospect</U>. We don't know what he would do, or learn to do at the pro level.</P>


All you can do is draft the best prospects and coach them up. To put Fleener in as a starter in your projections this upcoming season is a huge leap. Rarely does a rookie TE contribute in the way you are suggesting. </P>


Maybe you're right about his potential contribution but there is a bit of rationalization in this argument. It assumes a lot and would represent "best case" scenario to me.</P>


Are there other TE's in the draft that could adddress the kinds of needs we have that can be taken in later rounds? Probably.</P>


I have a feeling that someone is dropping to us. Maybe Jonathon Martin, maybe the DE from USC, maybe Chandler Jones. I mean Prince dropped in our lap last draft and I think he's going to be a great pro.</P>


But I do think we are best served with a player that can help us in the running game.</P>


Hence why I said "potential". If you consider the draft order a probability in potential (which is all that it really is) Fleener gives us the most potential upside THIS YEAR. That's not to say he would be the best player in the draft, our team or work out at all. Just that he POTENTIALLY plugs the greatest amount of holes/question marks on our team. All in one player. A great RB that can catch, block and run behind our inconsistent blocking would also do that for us, I agree. So in our debate here, it comes down to who gives us the greatest probability for doing so; the #1 rated TE in the draft, or the #2 (or #3 if we're going with Wilson) rated RB in the draft? I'd be fine with saying flip a coin. I don't think either has a measurable difference ... not enough to say definitively (as opposed to say the differences between Hightower and Kuechly lets say) and I'd be happy with either. If we DID go RB in the first, I think Martin (in the short term at least) gives us more upside then Wilson. Martin seemed to do better behind shoddy blocking then Wilson did; although Wilson is the more prototypical back (and possibly better compliment to AB).</P>


Those Boise guys don't do much better than Uconn guys in the NFL.</P>


True ... but the same thing could be said of Morehead State and QBs until Simms. [b]</P>


Every Morehead State QB ever drafted has been their NFL team's all time leading passer.</P>


Hahaha!!</P>

Kruunch
04-25-2012, 01:32 PM
We should PM when the 31st pick is made when we know who's on the board, and predict what we do.

Sure although I'm betting the cell phone coverage will tip it off.

Kruunch
04-25-2012, 01:34 PM
Bennett is extreemly athletic but there is no doubt that he has underperformed in the NFL.* But he can block and should be a huge assett in the running game.* Right now I'm more concerned with that aspect of our offense than any other.* One of the reasons in my view that Eli took so much punishment last season, including the playoffs was our lack of a running attack.* Just don't see how the addition of a pass catching rookie TE will help us in that.


</P>


The thing you're missing here is that Bennet won't freeze a Safety or LB because he isn't considered a receiving threat on play action / option plays. Bennet can block but he's not an amazing blocker. Fleener can block but he's not an amazing blocker. Fleener also has the upside of being a very real threat in the passing game. If that pans out, that means one less person stuffing the box. One of the problems we had running the ball lately stems from not having a TE that can threaten down field (Ballard/Pascoe being mediocre at best and less than reliable down the stretch). Accordingly, our dynamic passing game relied on having a third stready outlet (be it MM as the #3 or our TE). We have effectively lost both due to free agency and injury for 2012. Fleener gives us the potential to partially solve our run-game, while at the same time gives us the highest probability of continuing our dynamic passing game as opposed to anyone else projected to be drafted at the #32 spot or that we currently have on our team. I'd call that a pretty big arguement for drafting him if he's available. More so than any other possible draftee. Hence the love affair.</P>


First of all Fleener (or any other draftee at 32) is a college football player and a pro <U>prospect</U>.* We don't know what he would do, or learn to do at the pro level.</P>


All you can do is draft the best prospects and coach them up.* To put Fleener in as a starter in your projections this upcoming season is a huge leap.* Rarely does a rookie TE contribute in the way you are suggesting.** </P>


Maybe you're right about his potential contribution but there is a bit of rationalization in this argument.* It assumes a lot and would represent "best case" scenario to me.</P>


Are there other TE's in the draft that could adddress the kinds of needs we have that can be taken in later rounds?* Probably.</P>


I have a feeling that someone is dropping to us.* Maybe Jonathon Martin, maybe the DE from USC, maybe Chandler Jones.* I mean Prince dropped in our lap last draft and I think he's going to be a great pro.</P>


But I do think we are best served with a player that can help us in the running game.</P>


Hence why I said "potential". If you consider the draft order a probability in potential (which is all that it really is) Fleener gives us the most potential upside THIS YEAR. That's not to say he would be the best player in the draft, our team or work out at all. Just that he POTENTIALLY plugs the greatest amount of holes/question marks on our team. All in one player. A great RB that can catch, block and run behind our inconsistent blocking would also do that for us, I agree. So in our debate here, it comes down to who gives us the greatest probability for doing so; the #1 rated TE in the draft, or the #2 (or #3 if we're going with Wilson) rated RB in the draft? I'd be fine with saying flip a coin. I don't think either has a measurable difference ... not enough to say definitively (as opposed to say the differences between Hightower and Kuechly lets say) and I'd be happy with either. If we DID go RB in the first, I think Martin (in the short term at least) gives us more upside then Wilson. Martin seemed to do better behind shoddy blocking then Wilson did; although Wilson is the more prototypical back (and possibly better compliment to AB).</P>


Those Boise guys don't do much better than Uconn guys in the NFL.</P>


True ... but the same thing could be said of Morehead State and QBs until Simms. [b]</P>


Every Morehead State QB ever drafted has been their NFL team's all time leading passer.</P>


Hahaha!!</P>

Adrian Breene says "I was?!"

Morehead State
04-25-2012, 01:40 PM
Bennett is extreemly athletic but there is no doubt that he has underperformed in the NFL. But he can block and should be a huge assett in the running game. Right now I'm more concerned with that aspect of our offense than any other. One of the reasons in my view that Eli took so much punishment last season, including the playoffs was our lack of a running attack. Just don't see how the addition of a pass catching rookie TE will help us in that.


</P>


The thing you're missing here is that Bennet won't freeze a Safety or LB because he isn't considered a receiving threat on play action / option plays. Bennet can block but he's not an amazing blocker. Fleener can block but he's not an amazing blocker. Fleener also has the upside of being a very real threat in the passing game. If that pans out, that means one less person stuffing the box. One of the problems we had running the ball lately stems from not having a TE that can threaten down field (Ballard/Pascoe being mediocre at best and less than reliable down the stretch). Accordingly, our dynamic passing game relied on having a third stready outlet (be it MM as the #3 or our TE). We have effectively lost both due to free agency and injury for 2012. Fleener gives us the potential to partially solve our run-game, while at the same time gives us the highest probability of continuing our dynamic passing game as opposed to anyone else projected to be drafted at the #32 spot or that we currently have on our team. I'd call that a pretty big arguement for drafting him if he's available. More so than any other possible draftee. Hence the love affair.</P>


First of all Fleener (or any other draftee at 32) is a college football player and a pro <U>prospect</U>. We don't know what he would do, or learn to do at the pro level.</P>


All you can do is draft the best prospects and coach them up. To put Fleener in as a starter in your projections this upcoming season is a huge leap. Rarely does a rookie TE contribute in the way you are suggesting. </P>


Maybe you're right about his potential contribution but there is a bit of rationalization in this argument. It assumes a lot and would represent "best case" scenario to me.</P>


Are there other TE's in the draft that could adddress the kinds of needs we have that can be taken in later rounds? Probably.</P>


I have a feeling that someone is dropping to us. Maybe Jonathon Martin, maybe the DE from USC, maybe Chandler Jones. I mean Prince dropped in our lap last draft and I think he's going to be a great pro.</P>


But I do think we are best served with a player that can help us in the running game.</P>


Hence why I said "potential". If you consider the draft order a probability in potential (which is all that it really is) Fleener gives us the most potential upside THIS YEAR. That's not to say he would be the best player in the draft, our team or work out at all. Just that he POTENTIALLY plugs the greatest amount of holes/question marks on our team. All in one player. A great RB that can catch, block and run behind our inconsistent blocking would also do that for us, I agree. So in our debate here, it comes down to who gives us the greatest probability for doing so; the #1 rated TE in the draft, or the #2 (or #3 if we're going with Wilson) rated RB in the draft? I'd be fine with saying flip a coin. I don't think either has a measurable difference ... not enough to say definitively (as opposed to say the differences between Hightower and Kuechly lets say) and I'd be happy with either. If we DID go RB in the first, I think Martin (in the short term at least) gives us more upside then Wilson. Martin seemed to do better behind shoddy blocking then Wilson did; although Wilson is the more prototypical back (and possibly better compliment to AB).</P>


Those Boise guys don't do much better than Uconn guys in the NFL.</P>


True ... but the same thing could be said of Morehead State and QBs until Simms. [b]</P>


Every Morehead State QB ever drafted has been their NFL team's all time leading passer.</P>


Hahaha!!</P>


Adrian Breene says "I was?!"</P>


Haha..I just looked him up. he has the lowest Int % in Bengal history.</P>


</P>


I have no idea where you got that "Adrian Breen" reference.</P>

Kruunch
04-25-2012, 01:47 PM
Haha..I just looked him up.* he has the lowest Int % in Bengal history.</P>


*</P>


I have no idea where you got that "Adrian Breen" reference.</P>

In the whole one game he started for them? lol

Pro Football Reference is great for oddball stats like that:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/

critters
04-25-2012, 01:49 PM
I think Orson Charles and Dwayne Allen could do just as much for our passing game as Fleener and they wouldn't cost us a 1st round pick. I know they're not as tall, but neither is Vernon Davis. I have no idea out of the 3 who would be a better blocker.

BlueSanta
04-25-2012, 02:44 PM
I think Orson Charles and Dwayne Allen could do just as much for our passing game as Fleener and they wouldn't cost us a 1st round pick. I know they're not as tall, but neither is Vernon Davis. I have no idea out of the 3 who would be a better blocker.


Allen is the best Blocker and he has a nice wide body, preferable for blocking. He also had experience as a lead blocker. People say Fleener can develop, and he could, but that is never a certainty.

To me, Charles has really hurt himself this offseason by trying to be what he is not. He is not an end line TE. However, he bulked up so much going into the combine, trying to appeal to the teams needing an end line TE that he tooked tight in receiving drills. Even with his added bulk, he is a guy who should be in a hback or slot position. He can block a LB or safety but you really dont want him trying to seal block vs a DE. His arms are just too short.

Kruunch
04-25-2012, 02:45 PM
I think Orson Charles and Dwayne Allen could do just as much for our passing game as Fleener and they wouldn't cost us a 1st round pick. I know they're not as tall, but neither is Vernon Davis. I have no idea out of the 3 who would be a better blocker.


None of those guys are Vernon David physically.

Dwayne Allen would most likely need to be a first round pick if we wanted him (chances are he goes in the second round somewhere ahead of us).

Orson Charles ... meh. I'd wait until the 3rd and take Ladarius Green if I was going that route.

Out of that bunch Allen is considered the better blocker but Fleener probably has more upside at blocking at the NFL level (bigger frame to add more weight).