Trade value in Coby Fleener

[GoColts8818]

You maybe partially correct. Again, IMO, he has not exactly had a Pro Bowl in this one either and he has trouble blocking during running plays.

He's only been in it for one year (in the NFL) and is only a second year player.  Unless your name is Reggie Wayne or Andrew Luck no Colts player on offense has had a pro-bowl season over the past two years. 

 

He took a huge step forward last year from his rookie year when he moved to this system and became our second best option in the passing game last year after Wayne went down.  That's pretty good. 

 

No run blocking isn't his strong suit but I don't think people are saying it is.  Just because he's not a great run blocker doesn't mean he doesn't fit the offense though.  His production in the offense both in college and the NFL proves he does.  Pep's offense loves tightends in general.  There is enough room in it for both Allen and Fleener. 

[NewColtsFan]

First, he was not gashing anything.  Secondly, IMO, Fleener s a receiving TE, more suited for a pass first Offense.

 

Fleener was a receiving TE at Stanford.    A run first,  power running offense.

 

They're not incompatible.    I'm not sure why you think they are.

 

We have two tight ends,  and in roughly 40-50 percent of our plays,  Allen will be the blocking TE and Fleener will be the receiving TE.      We can have both.    It worked at Stanford,   there's no reason it can't work in the NFL.

 

Other NFL teams use two tight end concepts.....   Indy is not trying something new here....   why not give it a chance with both guys healthy....   let's see what an offense with Allen and Fleener can do...?

[Solon]

No why in hell we trade Fleener. If both can stay healthy, we can have a dominant 2 TE set. Allen's the better tight end, but Fleener will be more of a complementary piece after his improvement last season.

[Alejandro Díaz Asencio]

No

Coby's duties are beyond catching ball, so don't judge him on the number of passes he catch.
 

[Superman]

Fleener was a receiving TE at Stanford. A run first, power running offense.

They're not incompatible. I'm not sure why you think they are.

We have two tight ends, and in roughly 40-50 percent of our plays, Allen will be the blocking TE and Fleener will be the receiving TE. We can have both. It worked at Stanford, there's no reason it can't work in the NFL.

Other NFL teams use two tight end concepts..... Indy is not trying something new here.... why not give it a chance with both guys healthy.... let's see what an offense with Allen and Fleener can do...?

This seems pretty basic, to me. I think, as thia offense matures, our best personnel grouping will be 12 (one back, two TEs, two WRs). Fleener can be flexed to create a three receiver set, we can minimize substitutions, and still be multiple and run the ball. I can't understand why people are having a hard time envisioning Fleener as a functional piece to our offensive attack. He could wind up being one of the most important weapons on the roster.

[GoColts8818]

First, he was not gashing anything.  Secondly, IMO, Fleener s a receiving TE, more suited for a pass first Offense.

You know who else is suited for a pass first offense?  Andrew Luck.  Since you seem to keep going off Pep saying last year that he wanted to run the ball and ignore that he said this year he wants to be a score first offense should we trade Luck too since he's more suited for a pass first offense? 

 

Also you keep saying Fleener is suited more for a pass first offense but the one year he played in a pass first offense and they tried to use him like Dallas Clark he struggled.  When he's played in the system Pep uses he's thrived.  I think it's time to admit that Fleener isn't Dallas Clark and just because Dallas Clark needed to be in a pass first offense where he was more or less a WR to be effective doesn't mean that holds true for Fleener.  Fleener can do the WR stuff that Clark did but he's been better when playing a traditional tightend role.  No he might not be as good as run blocking as say Allen is but I don't think that's some trump card that means we need to dump Fleener either.  Him and Allen compliment each other.  Those are the kinds of things you look for on a football team when building a team.  It's not unlike how Pollard and Dilger used to compliment each other.  

 

You start trading guys when you have too many guys at a spot that do the samething and you can't get them on the field because you have someone better who does the exact samething.  IE Rayford last year when we already had Mathis who filled that role of pass rushing OLB.  There are going to be more than enough downs for Allen and Fleener to both play big roles in Pep's offense.  If anything the fact Fleener doesn't have to play the traditional tightend role and can split out and become a third WR if needed gives the Colts more play calling options if he's on the field and they need to go no huddle which we saw last year is when the Colts offense is at it's best than say a third WR or a more traditional tightend. 

 

Would Fleener become a superstar if played with Peyton Manning or Drew Brees in a pass first offense?  Maybe, but again the one year he played in a pass first offense he did struggle so I don't know if I buy that argument because the only proof we have to either support or it or say it's a false argument says it's a false argument.  Either way it doesn't matter.  He is still very effective in this offense and don't tell me he's not or he wouldn't have gotten drafted with the first pick of the second round and be the first tightend taken in the draft the year he came out and he wouldn't have been our second leading receiver last year after Wayne went down if he wasn't.  So there is no reason to trade him.  That doesn't make our team better it makes it worse because odds are you aren't going to get equal value for him. 

[NewColtsFan]

You know who else is suited for a pass first offense?  Andrew Luck.  Since you seem to keep going off Pep saying last year that he wanted to run the ball and ignore that he said this year he wants to be a score first offense should we trade Luck too since he's more suited for a pass first offense? 

 

Also you keep saying Fleener is suited more for a pass first offense but the one year he played in a pass first offense and they tried to use him like Dallas Clark he struggled.  When he's played in the system Pep uses he's thrived.  I think it's time to admit that Fleener isn't Dallas Clark and just because Dallas Clark needed to be in a pass first offense where he was more or less a WR to be effective doesn't mean that holds true for Fleener.  Fleener can do the WR stuff that Clark did but he's been better when playing a traditional tightend role.  No he might not be as good as run blocking as say Allen is but I don't think that's some trump card that means we need to dump Fleener either.  Him and Allen compliment each other.  Those are the kinds of things you look for on a football team when building a team.  It's not unlike how Pollard and Dilger used to compliment each other.  

 

You start trading guys when you have too many guys at a spot that do the samething and you can't get them on the field because you have someone better who does the exact samething.  IE Rayford last year when we already had Mathis who filled that role of pass rushing OLB.  There are going to be more than enough downs for Allen and Fleener to both play big roles in Pep's offense.  If anything the fact Fleener doesn't have to play the traditional tightend role and can split out and become a third WR if needed gives the Colts more play calling options if he's on the field and they need to go no huddle which we saw last year is when the Colts offense is at it's best than say a third WR or a more traditional tightend. 

 

Would Fleener become a superstar if played with Peyton Manning or Drew Brees in a pass first offense?  Maybe, but again the one year he played in a pass first offense he did struggle so I don't know if I buy that argument because the only proof we have to either support or it or say it's a false argument says it's a false argument.  Either way it doesn't matter.  He is still very effective in this offense and don't tell me he's not or he wouldn't have gotten drafted with the first pick of the second round and be the first tightend taken in the draft the year he came out and he wouldn't have been our second leading receiver last year after Wayne went down if he wasn't.  So there is no reason to trade him.  That doesn't make our team better it makes it worse because odds are you aren't going to get equal value for him. 

 

With great respect, 8818....

 

I think you're way, way over-thinking this....

 

I don't think Fleener struggled under the Arians offense because of the offense.

 

I think he simply struggled because...................     he was a rookie.    The same reason almost all rookies struggle.   The first year in the NFL is just overwhelming.   Bigger, faster, more skilled.   More everything.

 

I don't think he did better last year because he was more comfortable with Pep's offense, though I'm sure it helped.   I think the main reason he did better was because it was his 2nd year in the NFL.   The game slows down.   You're thinking less and playing faster and more confidently....

 

Plus, the fact that Allen was hurt and Fleener got all the tight end work didn't hurt.

 

Did playing in Pep's system help?   Absolutely.    But I don't think it was the main reason.....      Honestly.

 

By the way.......  same goes for TYH....    the 2nd year does wonders for young players.  

[NewColtsFan]

This seems pretty basic, to me. I think, as thia offense matures, our best personnel grouping will be 12 (one back, two TEs, two WRs). Fleener can be flexed to create a three receiver set, we can minimize substitutions, and still be multiple and run the ball. I can't understand why people are having a hard time envisioning Fleener as a functional piece to our offensive attack. He could wind up being one of the most important weapons on the roster.

 

Agreed.

 

Just give this offense some healthy players to run this system and I think fans here will be very happy.

 

I can see the 12 grouping eventually becoming our base offense.   You can do almost anything out of that set.    And Coby can be a dangerous weapon for us....

 

Just please, Football Gods,  give us health so our players can play.....   hopefully better days ahead....

[GoColts8818]

With great respect, 8818....

I think you're way, way over-thinking this....

I don't think Fleener struggled under the Arians offense because of the offense.

I think he simply struggled because................... he was a rookie. The same reason almost all rookies struggle. The first year in the NFL is just overwhelming. Bigger, faster, more skilled. More everything.

I don't think he did better last year because he was more comfortable with Pep's offense, though I'm sure it helped. I think the main reason he did better was because it was his 2nd year in the NFL. The game slows down. You're thinking less and playing faster and more confidently....

Plus, the fact that Allen was hurt and Fleener got all the tight end work didn't hurt.

Did playing in Pep's system help? Absolutely. But I don't think it was the main reason..... Honestly.

By the way....... same goes for TYH.... the 2nd year does wonders for young players.

Rather he improved last year because it was Pep's offense or because he was a second year player doesn't really matter when you look at the point the previous poster and me were talking about which was his theory that Fleener isn't suited for this offense. The fact he did produce in it, both in the pros and college proves that theory false. I brought up the Arians offense because that was a passing attack offense and Fleener struggled in it. Right now that's the only evidence we have of Fleener in that offense to go on. So I am just saying I don't think it's a sure thing that just because Fleener is built like Clark that he would produce like Clark in that type of offense, but like I said in my post, He might very well produce at high level if you put him with Manning or Brees but we don't know that.

Still the main point remains. Fleener does just fine in Pep's offense so I feel the theory that he doesn't fit it is a flawed one.

[NewColtsFan]

 

With great respect, 8818....

 

I think you're way, way over-thinking this....

 

I don't think Fleener struggled under the Arians offense because of the offense.

 

I think he simply struggled because...................     he was a rookie.    The same reason almost all rookies struggle.   The first year in the NFL is just overwhelming.   Bigger, faster, more skilled.   More everything.

 

I don't think he did better last year because he was more comfortable with Pep's offense, though I'm sure it helped.   I think the main reason he did better was because it was his 2nd year in the NFL.   The game slows down.   You're thinking less and playing faster and more confidently....

 

Plus, the fact that Allen was hurt and Fleener got all the tight end work didn't hurt.

 

Did playing in Pep's system help?   Absolutely.    But I don't think it was the main reason.....      Honestly.

By the way.......  same goes for TYH....    the 2nd year does wonders for young players.  

 

 

8818.....

 

 

If you mean to respond to me,  for some reason,  the website didn't take your message.    My post is there,  but your response is not....

 

Just wanted to give you the heads-up.....

 

I look forward to your response....

[gacker65]

I disagree with both posts Gacker.  Sorry, I usually agree with a lot of your posts.  If he was not a 'fit' at Stanford, he would not have ended up here early in the second round of his draft ahead of Allen.  As we know so many outlets had Allen as the best TE in the draft.

 

Secondly he DID suck at blocking when he first arrived at camp and flat out got run over in one on one drills...one of the worst I have ever seen to be honest.  However, he has improved his blocking 10 fold in his 2 years, and is in NO way a liability anymore.      !!!

I based what I said about Stanford on the fact Fleener was not a complete TE (trouble blocking).  Fleener before the combine was the #2 TE behind Dwayne, but Dwayne dropped due to a slow 40 time at combine.  IMO, we drafted Fleener because he was Luck's BFF at Stanford.

 

I agree that Fleener's blocking did improve last season, still not enough to be counted on to spring a good gain on the ground. 

[BrentMc11]

I based what I said about Stanford on the fact Fleener was not a complete TE (trouble blocking).  Fleener before the combine was the #2 TE behind Dwayne, but Dwayne dropped due to a slow 40 time at combine.  IMO, we drafted Fleener because he was Luck's BFF at Stanford.

 

I agree that Fleener's blocking did improve last season, still not enough to be counted on to spring a good gain on the ground. 

This makes no sense.  We had zero TEs on the roster (1 actually..Eldridge) and we selected the 2 best in the draft for a possible 2 TE offense.

 

I actually predicted both on the forum.  The first time I have ever been correct 

 

It seems as though you just do not like Fleener?  Him springing a RB has a lot to do with his comrades on the line...and as a whole, we all know how great the line was.  

[gacker65]

He's only been in it for one year (in the NFL) and is only a second year player.  Unless your name is Reggie Wayne or Andrew Luck no Colts player on offense has had a pro-bowl season over the past two years. 

 

He took a huge step forward last year from his rookie year when he moved to this system and became our second best option in the passing game last year after Wayne went down.  That's pretty good. 

 

No run blocking isn't his strong suit but I don't think people are saying it is.  Just because he's not a great run blocker doesn't mean he doesn't fit the offense though.  His production in the offense both in college and the NFL proves he does.  Pep's offense loves tightends in general.  There is enough room in it for both Allen and Fleener. 

I agree with your first 2 comments.  Fleener was only in his 2nd season last season and he took a step forward.

 

All that was for the good, but still does not show a fit in a run first offense.  It is Fleener's lack of blocking ability that makes me say he would be better in a pass first offense instead of ours.

[jskinnz]

I based what I said about Stanford on the fact Fleener was not a complete TE (trouble blocking).  Fleener before the combine was the #2 TE behind Dwayne, but Dwayne dropped due to a slow 40 time at combine.  IMO, we drafted Fleener because he was Luck's BFF at Stanford.

 

I agree that Fleener's blocking did improve last season, still not enough to be counted on to spring a good gain on the ground. 

 

Dear God...

 

They drafted Fleener because they needed a TE and they thought he was the best available.  If he had played at Sister's of the Poor U and had the same skillset but never had played with Luck, they would have drafted him at the same spot.

[gacker65]

Fleener was a receiving TE at Stanford.    A run first,  power running offense.

 

They're not incompatible.    I'm not sure why you think they are.

 

We have two tight ends,  and in roughly 40-50 percent of our plays,  Allen will be the blocking TE and Fleener will be the receiving TE.      We can have both.    It worked at Stanford,   there's no reason it can't work in the NFL.

 

Other NFL teams use two tight end concepts.....   Indy is not trying something new here....   why not give it a chance with both guys healthy....   let's see what an offense with Allen and Fleener can do...?

You tip which way you are running the ball that way.  By now every Coach and DC knows Fleener can't block well.  So, with Dwayne and Fleener in, you know which way the ball is going to be run. 

 

I have nothing against a 2 TE offense.  I was saying that trading Fleener if one of the other TEs step up and prove to be a bigger help to the Offense would not hurt us.

[Jay Kirk]

Gotta scratch my head on this one....he perfectly fits the Pep Hamilton offense.  This is the first time we have had two GOOD healthy tight ends...

    Why was this thread started ,oh yes humor

[gacker65]

This makes no sense.  We had zero TEs on the roster (1 actually..Eldridge) and we selected the 2 best in the draft for a possible 2 TE offense.

 

I actually predicted both on the forum.  The first time I have ever been correct 

 

It seems as though you just do not like Fleener?  Him springing a RB has a lot to do with his comrades on the line...and as a whole, we all know how great the line was.  

We took Fleener because of Luck.  Fleener was supposedly the best TE in the draft, yet both Tampa and the NY Giants passed on him even though their need for TEs was a great as ours.

[BrentMc11]

You tip which way you are running the ball that way.  By now every Coach and DC knows Fleener can't block well.  So, with Dwayne and Fleener in, you know which way the ball is going to be run. 

 

I have nothing against a 2 TE offense.  I was saying that trading Fleener if one of the other TEs step up and prove to be a bigger help to the Offense would not hurt us.

MUCH better blocker now....give him some credit.

[BrentMc11]

We took Fleener because of Luck.  Fleener was supposedly the best TE in the draft, yet both Tampa and the NY Giants passed on him even though their need for TEs was a great as ours.

Hell to the NO!...Wrong.

[gacker65]

Dear God...

 

They drafted Fleener because they needed a TE and they thought he was the best available.  If he had played at Sister's of the Poor U and had the same skillset but never had played with Luck, they would have drafted him at the same spot.

Think about this then.  If Fleener was really the #1 TE and had been projected to go in the 1st round, why did Tampa and the NY Giants both pass on him.  Their need for TE was as great as ours.

[Jay Kirk]

Fleener fits here improving greatly.IMO Allen was best TE in that draft hands down ! Great thing is we got him as well :disco:

[AntonMcG]

This seems pretty basic, to me. I think, as thia offense matures, our best personnel grouping will be 12 (one back, two TEs, two WRs). Fleener can be flexed to create a three receiver set, we can minimize substitutions, and still be multiple and run the ball. I can't understand why people are having a hard time envisioning Fleener as a functional piece to our offensive attack. He could wind up being one of the most important weapons on the roster.

 

If we became a high tempo, no huddle offense running out of the 12 we could be very very dangerous.

[gacker65]

MUCH better blocker now....give him some credit.

I agree, Fleener has improved his blocking, but not enough to change the DC's mind about where a running play will go.

[Jay Kirk]

I agree, Fleener has improved his blocking, but not enough to change the DC's mind about where a running play will go.

Think your gonna be surprised,because they will run to both sides as well as pounding up the middle.

[jmac_48]

I agree, Fleener has improved his blocking, but not enough to change the DC's mind about where a running play will go.

So, we fake the run to Allen's side, the D sells out on the run and Coby is wide open over the middle at the 30, the 20, the 10, 5, TD Colts... 

 

Or, Luck fakes to RB going to Fleener's side, pulls the ball back bootlegs back to the other side, Allen is wide open on an out route, and bullies his way 50 yrds down the field for a TD... :clap:  

 

Win:Win  I think this team can run a very effective two TE attack and we have two very good players to effect that!

JMO, If it ain't broke why fix it?

[gacker65]

Hell to the NO!...Wrong.

Which part is wrong.

 

That Bucs and Giants needs was as great as ours and yet passed on Fleener.  If I remember correctly, both had just signed there first TE just before the draft.  Fleener was projected by the media to be a late 1st round to mid 2nd round choice.  Again, both needed TEs and passed on him. 

 

Is it that we drafted Fleener because of Luck.  We passed on Upshaw (DE/OLB), Glenn (OL), and Hill (WR), to draft Fleener.  Upshaw would have helped our Defense and Glenn would have improved our O-line.  Instead, we took Fleener, a pass receiving TE, who happened to be Luck's bestie at Stanford.

 

It was discussed on the forum, that Fleener would have chemistry with Luck, so would be a great pick n the draft.

 

My reason for our drafting Fleener is JMO, but is the only reason, to me , that makes any sense.

[gacker65]

So, we fake the run to Allen's side, the D sells out on the run and Coby is wide open over the middle at the 30, the 20, the 10, 5, TD Colts... 

 

Or, Luck fakes to RB going to Fleener's side, pulls the ball back bootlegs back to the other side, Allen is wide open on an out route, and bullies his way 50 yrds down the field for a TD... :clap:  

 

Win:Win  I think this team can run a very effective two TE attack and we have two very good players to effect that!

JMO, If it ain't broke why fix it?

Would be great if it worked that way.

[jmac_48]

Would be great if it worked that way.

Gotta believe in the BLUE!

 

   

[jvan1973]

Think about this then. If Fleener was really the #1 TE and had been projected to go in the 1st round, why did Tampa and the NY Giants both pass on him. Their need for TE was as great as ours.

i guess it wasn't, they passed on allen as well

[jskinnz]

Think about this then.  If Fleener was really the #1 TE and had been projected to go in the 1st round, why did Tampa and the NY Giants both pass on him.  Their need for TE was as great as ours.

 

Another Dear God for you.

 

What you are asking me is to know the war room of Tampa or the Giants.  But maybe, they had needs elsewhere too.  Or maybe they did not have Fleener rated as high as the Colts or maybe they went with their own rankings instead of Mel Kiper's.  None of that explains that the Colts picked Fleener because he and Luck were buds. 

[BrentMc11]

Which part is wrong.

 

That Bucs and Giants needs was as great as ours and yet passed on Fleener.  If I remember correctly, both had just signed there first TE just before the draft.  Fleener was projected by the media to be a late 1st round to mid 2nd round choice.  Again, both needed TEs and passed on him. 

 

Is it that we drafted Fleener because of Luck.  We passed on Upshaw (DE/OLB), Glenn (OL), and Hill (WR), to draft Fleener.  Upshaw would have helped our Defense and Glenn would have improved our O-line.  Instead, we took Fleener, a pass receiving TE, who happened to be Luck's bestie at Stanford.

 

It was discussed on the forum, that Fleener would have chemistry with Luck, so would be a great pick n the draft.

 

My reason for our drafting Fleener is JMO, but is the only reason, to me , that makes any sense.

The highlighted on the post Gacker.

[NewColtsFan]

You tip which way you are running the ball that way.  By now every Coach and DC knows Fleener can't block well.  So, with Dwayne and Fleener in, you know which way the ball is going to be run. 

 

I have nothing against a 2 TE offense.  I was saying that trading Fleener if one of the other TEs step up and prove to be a bigger help to the Offense would not hurt us.

 

Gacker....

 

In my version of the perfect Colts offense,  Allen will catch more balls than Fleener,   so I'm not worried that I'll be tipping off anything.  

 

And while Fleener is a much better receiver than blocker,  I don't view him as a bad blocker,  he's just not a good one.   I'd say he's somewhere inbetween.

 

But as a receiver,  his plays should be longer,  more big chunk type of plays.   His average per catch should be more than Allen's. So while he may catch fewer passes than Allen's,   his plays will be more explosive....  Fleener can still be a considerable weapon even if Allen catches more passes.

 

Again,  this is how I see the Colts offense working best...

 

Hope that explains my thinking.....

[dudeski]

This seems pretty basic, to me. I think, as thia offense matures, our best personnel grouping will be 12 (one back, two TEs, two WRs). Fleener can be flexed to create a three receiver set, we can minimize substitutions, and still be multiple and run the ball. I can't understand why people are having a hard time envisioning Fleener as a functional piece to our offensive attack. He could wind up being one of the most important weapons on the roster.

if everyone is healthy, fleener should be in the bench most of the time

[GoColts8818]

I agree with your first 2 comments. Fleener was only in his 2nd season last season and he took a step forward.

All that was for the good, but still does not show a fit in a run first offense. It is Fleener's lack of blocking ability that makes me say he would be better in a pass first offense instead of ours.

did he produce last year in Pep's offense? Yes. Did he produce in it in college? Yes. He has shown he fits the offense just fine. You are arguing a point there is real proof to disprove because Fleener has played well in this offense you say he doesn't fit. If he didn't fit it he wouldn't produce in it. The only offense he hasn't produced in was Arians which is the offense you are saying he is built for. That doesn't exactly help your theory either.

[GoColts8818]

Which part is wrong.

That Bucs and Giants needs was as great as ours and yet passed on Fleener. If I remember correctly, both had just signed there first TE just before the draft. Fleener was projected by the media to be a late 1st round to mid 2nd round choice. Again, both needed TEs and passed on him.

Is it that we drafted Fleener because of Luck. We passed on Upshaw (DE/OLB), Glenn (OL), and Hill (WR), to draft Fleener. Upshaw would have helped our Defense and Glenn would have improved our O-line. Instead, we took Fleener, a pass receiving TE, who happened to be Luck's bestie at Stanford.

It was discussed on the forum, that Fleener would have chemistry with Luck, so would be a great pick n the draft.

My reason for our drafting Fleener is JMO, but is the only reason, to me , that makes any sense.

i think the fact we had zero tightends on the roster and tightend was a clear need for us and the fact Fleener was the highest rated tightend in the draft explains why the Colts drafted him more than him and Luck were buds theory does. The fact they played together in college was just an added bonus.

[GoColts8818]

MUCH better blocker now....give him some credit.

i think that's part of the problem here. He keeps saying Fleener is like Dallas Clark and while Fleener plays like Clark in terms of being a passing threat he is not nearly as bad of a blocker as Clark was. Honestly if you watch Fleener he is decent at run blocking mad pass blocking on the line and getting better. He's outstanding at blocking down the field on passing plays and long runs. Probably the best at it on the team other than Reggie.

[Superman]

if everyone is healthy, fleener should be in the bench most of the time

 

That would really satisfy all the people who think we shouldn't have drafted him in the first place. It wouldn't make our offense any better, though.

[Jason_]

if everyone is healthy, fleener should be in the bench most of the time

 

not even close to true

[dudeski]

That would really satisfy all the people who think we shouldn't have drafted him in the first place. It wouldn't make our offense any better, though.

wayne, nicks, Ty and Allen plus rb.

Who do you want sitting for fleener? Sure at times utilize 2 te's but from a talent standpoint, fleener should sit

[Superman]

wayne, nicks, Ty and Allen plus rb.

Who do you want sitting for fleener? Sure at times utilize 2 te's but from a talent standpoint, fleener should sit

 

What's wrong with subbing personnel packages, like pretty much every offense does?

 

Fleener was pretty good last year, and can do some things in the receiving game that Allen can't. Sticking him on the bench would be a waste, and I don't think it's going to happen.