rmartin65 2012 Final Mock

[Nawzer]

Been on the Fleener bandwagon for a while now. At the #26 spot the BPA may very well be him and not one of these receivers. Fleener give Schaub a huge target in the middle of the field and a legit red zone threat. Like some of you all have said, he can line up as a WR and pluck ball out of the air over shorter DB's. I still think it's a longshot, but I would love to see the Texans make a bold pick like that.

[NastyNate]

Originally Posted by rmartin65

Dont view him as a traditional TE... Fleener is a matchup nightmare as a TE/WR hybrid.

Plus, like I said, his blocking is being underrated. He will never dominate people on the line, but he gets the job done.

I'm looking at him as a fit for our team as a TE.

In that case you should probably look at Ladarius Green in the 4th round. Fleener in the first just doesn't make sense to me, with our draft needs, and our draft history. Green is a poor man's fleener with a lot less bust potential. I don't trust that ridiculous 7 OL scheme Stanford ran every other damned down.

[rmartin65]

Originally Posted by NastyNate

I'm looking at him as a fit for our team as a TE.

In that case you should probably look at Ladarius Green in the 4th round. Fleener in the first just doesn't make sense to me, with our draft needs, and our draft history. Green is a poor man's fleener with a lot less bust potential. I don't trust that ridiculous 7 OL scheme Stanford ran every other damned down.

Why only as a TE? We need a second receiving option. Fleener creates mismatches. It seems like a pretty good fit.

As for Green having less of a bust potential than Fleener, that is laughable. Green is more raw and played against lesser competition, and is not the athlete that Fleener is.

[beerlover]

Originally Posted by rmartin65

Why only as a TE? We need a second receiving option. Fleener creates mismatches. It seems like a pretty good fit.

As for Green having less of a bust potential than Fleener, that is laughable. Green is more raw and played against lesser competition, and is not the athlete that Fleener is.

Around here Tight End aka (TE) is a dirty word

[texanchris]

Im not a big fan of this draft. While i like the players drafted, the texans most important needs are at WR, OLB and OL and you don't address those needs until the fourth. I don't think the texans would pick a tight end in the first round because they have more important needs and daniels, graham, and maybe casey are all capable of creating mismatches in the secondary. Kubiak has also said that they have had a lot of success drafting tight ends in the later rounds so i doubt he would change that strategy. Looking at the texans 2013 free agents, 3/5 of our offensive line will become free agents so they will probably draft OL early on. Our best OLB will also be a free agent and Phillips said he likes to have a 3 man rotation so that is also a position that needs to be addressed early. While i like Martin, i feel like their are other positions that need to be addressed first. i also don't think we would draft another FS considering we have Manning, Quin, Demps, and Nolan who have all played well last year.

[NastyNate]

Originally Posted by rmartin65

Why only as a TE? We need a second receiving option. Fleener creates mismatches. It seems like a pretty good fit.

As for Green having less of a bust potential than Fleener, that is laughable. Green is more raw and played against lesser competition, and is not the athlete that Fleener is.

Green's blocking>Fleener's blocking.

[Yaky]

Originally Posted by NastyNate

Green's blocking>Fleener's blocking.

LOL. You just lost all credibility with that statement. 27 reps Fleener > 16 reps Green.

[NastyNate]

Originally Posted by Yaky

LOL. You just lost all credibility with that statement. 27 reps Fleener > 16 reps Green.

You did not play football obviously.

[Yaky]

Originally Posted by NastyNate

You did not play football obviously.

You don't know what you are talking about obviously. Now L freaking Green is better than Fleener. LOL Now I've heard them all.

[Wolf6151]

Originally Posted by Yaky

You don't know what you are talking about obviously. Now L freaking Green is better than Fleener. LOL Now I've heard them all.

He didn't say Green was a better TE than Fleener, he said Green was better at blocking than Fleener. Just because a player is ranked #1 at his position doesn't mean he's the best as every aspect of his position. I don't know if Green is a better blocker or not, I don't have a dog in this race, but this is how people misunderstand what someone is saying.

[Yaky]

Originally Posted by Wolf6151

He didn't say Green was a better TE than Fleener, he said Green was better at blocking than Fleener. Just because a player is ranked #1 at his position doesn't mean he's the best as every aspect of his position. I don't know if Green is a better blocker or not, I don't have a dog in this race, but this is how people misunderstand what someone is saying.

Thing is, Green is not even better at blocking than Fleener. Just read pretty much every report on Green, they basically knock him for his blocking.

http://nfldraftgeek.com/ladariusgreen.html
Not very strong at all. Needs to bulk up and hit the weight room
As of now, blocking is a liability. Will not be used much as an in-line blocker
Not strong at the point of attack, pad level is too high

[NastyNate]

Originally Posted by Yaky

Thing is, Green is not even better at blocking than Fleener. Just read pretty much every report on Green, they basically knock him for his blocking.

http://nfldraftgeek.com/ladariusgreen.html
Not very strong at all. Needs to bulk up and hit the weight room
As of now, blocking is a liability. Will not be used much as an in-line blocker
Not strong at the point of attack, pad level is too high

"Just read..." dude gtfo. I don't base my opinions on what others blindly state. He's a better blocker than Fleener, although not lightyears, and about the same offensive threat. What I said is that if you're strictly going off of pass catching and mystifyingly lining up a TE as a WR as you suggested (oh no, crazy new concept) there's a crap ton more value addressing this in the 4th round.

How many plays do you think we'll target Fleener or Green? 11? 9? Probably more like 3-4 with the majority being run plays. You don't draft a tall TE without WR capability at #26 when his primary role in our WCO (blocker) will be his achilles heel.

[texanchris]

Originally Posted by NastyNate

"Just read..." dude gtfo. I don't base my opinions on what others blindly state. He's a better blocker than Fleener, although not lightyears, and about the same offensive threat. What I said is that if you're strictly going off of pass catching and mystifyingly lining up a TE as a WR as you suggested (oh no, crazy new concept) there's a crap ton more value addressing this in the 4th round.

How many plays do you think we'll target Fleener or Green? 11? 9? Probably more like 3-4 with the majority being run plays. You don't draft a tall TE without WR capability at #26 when his primary role in our WCO (blocker) will be his achilles heel.

I agree, i think the texans would be better off drafting Green in the 3rd because he is the better blocker and has a pretty high ceiling. If we draft him in the 3rd then we can address our primary needs (wr, olb, ol,) in the first and second round and still get a guy at the tight end position who can block and catch.

[rmartin65]

I have to disagree on the blocking thing. From what I have seen, Fleener is a much better blocker than Green, and has proven it against better competition.

Also, Fleener has WR ability. He wont be used much as a run blocker, just enough to keep teams honest. Every offense has its own wrinkles. A weapon like Fleener can be an incredible wrinkle.

Dont think of it as TE vs. WR. It is weapon A vs weapon B. And Fleener wins in every single category against whoever you want to match up against him at 26.

[Corrosion]

Im trying to get on board with the Fleener pick but just cant seem to do it .....

First , he had the highest rated QB to come out of the NCAA's in over a decade and only had 34 catches ? Sure the avg is real good ....but the volume bothers me some.


Secondly , where is he going to play with OD in the picture ..... Do they go to a two TE set as their main offense ? What about James Casey ? Can he line up as a WR instead ? He does have 4.4 speed ..... Does he run good enough routes ? I have a ton of questions surrounding this pick ....


I want a starter out of a first round pick , I just dont see Fleener being that.

I see better option on the OL , DL and possibly LB & WR.


Maybe you can convince me he's the right guy .....

[NastyNate]

Originally Posted by rmartin65

I have to disagree on the blocking thing. From what I have seen, Fleener is a much better blocker than Green, and has proven it against better competition.

Also, Fleener has WR ability. He wont be used much as a run blocker, just enough to keep teams honest. Every offense has its own wrinkles. A weapon like Fleener can be an incredible wrinkle.

Dont think of it as TE vs. WR. It is weapon A vs weapon B. And Fleener wins in every single category against whoever you want to match up against him at 26.

Eh, agree to disagree. Fleener looks like a 6'10" tackle when blocking, uses a ton of reach and pitter patters his feet with little push but never gets under the pads or gets his own pad level down. Anyone with a swim move makes him look ridiculous. Green is marginally better but I'd still take him over Fleener.

As far as WR ability, Green has shown much more, they typically lined him up as a WR at Lafayette, I'd say much more so than Fleener. Fleener was the benefactor of an insanely good college qb prospect plus some fairly jukie 7 OL sets.

[The Pencil Neck]

Originally Posted by Corrosion

Secondly , where is he going to play with OD in the picture ..... Do they go to a two TE set as their main offense ? What about James Casey ? Can he line up as a WR instead ? He does have 4.4 speed ..... Does he run good enough routes ? I have a ton of questions surrounding this pick ....


I want a starter out of a first round pick , I just dont see Fleener being that.

We run two and three tight end sets more than any team in the league and I could be mistaken, but I think there were times last year when we had 4 TEs on the field. Dreessen and OD lined up together last year A LOT; Casey was on the field alot except when injured; Graham got playing time although he didn't get a lot of targets. That multi-TE thing is part of what makes our running game go.

Dreessen's big problem was that he wasn't the threat in the passing game that OD was. We wasn't as fast, couldn't create as much separation, and doesn't have the hands. For me, Fleener is an upgrade talent-wise. The drop off is that Dreessen is smart and knows our offense inside and out. Schaub said that with Dreessen, you could always be confident that he was right where he was supposed to be. We lose that with Fleener.

Fleener isn't an "elite" tight end from the physical standpoint. He's not Gronkowski or Vernon Davis. But he is another Owen Daniels. He's not an in-line blocker that a normal NFL offense is going to require, but for the zone scheme, he could be perfect. He's fairly strong and pretty damned fast and edges on elite. Like a Shannon Sharpe, he could be trained to "get in front of the guy" just enough to be effective.

In the passing game, he's going to create match-up nightmares even worse then OD.

One of the things that Kubiak wants to do is to create confusion on the defense. If we come out with Casey, OD, and Fleener on the field, we could create some crazy havoc. Who's the TE? Who's the FB? Who's... what...? At Stanford, Fleener lined up at every WR position and is really more of an H-Back sort of player.

Now, about the volume of catches at Stanford. Luck spread the ball around. That was his thing. There was only one guy on the team with significantly more catches. Fleener was tied for 3rd for number of catches and the guy in 2nd only had 1 more catch. And the Stanford Offense didn't really throw that much. Luck was 19th in the NCAA in terms of overall completions. That means a lot of other people on other teams got a lot more opportunities. And Fleener wasn't supposed to be the first option.

And, yes, I think Fleener is a starter. If you look at the numbers, over the past three years, Dreessen has started 11, 10, 10 games. Over that same period, OD has started 8, 11, and 15 games. That means that we start off with double tight-end a lot and both OD and Dreesen were "starters." I wouldn't see that changing with Fleener and we might start in 2-TE sets even more.