Trade value in Coby Fleener

[NewColtsFan]

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

 

If you honestly believe that, I think you're going to be very disappointed.

 

I'd look for Fleener to be on the field for roughly 50 percent of the Colts snaps.   Maybe a little more.

[dudeski]

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.

im not saying don't rotate him in

I'm saying he wouldn't be part of the best package. I am also not sure he can do anything better than Allen.

But still, who do you sit to put in fleener if you think he is part of our best lineup?

[Superman]

im not saying don't rotate him in

I'm saying he wouldn't be part of the best package. I am also not sure he can do anything better than Allen.

But still, who do you sit to put in fleener if you think he is part of our best lineup?

You don't use your best package all the time.

I think Fleener is faster than Allen, and as such can stretch the field better. He catches the ball as well as Allen. He's a better stretch option, and he's more of a weapon in the red zone.

So depending on the game situation, he can sub in for Allen in one TE sets, or any of the receivers in two TE sets, etc. He'll get his reps as a normal part of the offense.

[dudeski]

You don't use your best package all the time.

I think Fleener is faster than Allen, and as such can stretch the field better. He catches the ball as well as Allen. He's a better stretch option, and he's more of a weapon in the red zone.

So depending on the game situation, he can sub in for Allen in one TE sets, or any of the receivers in two TE sets, etc. He'll get his reps as a normal part of the offense.

i don't fully agree with that but that's not the point.

You said two te's was going to be the best package. What wr do you take out for fleener? Since Allen is clearly the better te

[NewColtsFan]

i don't fully agree with that but that's not the point.

You said two te's was going to be the best package. What wr do you take out for fleener? Since Allen is clearly the better te

 

It depends on the situation.

 

It could be any two you think fit the down and distance best.    But I wouldn't expect 3 WR sets more than 50 percent of the time. And I think it could be a little less than that.

[Superman]

i don't fully agree with that but that's not the point.

You said two te's was going to be the best package. What wr do you take out for fleener? Since Allen is clearly the better te

 

I said that could be the case as the offense matures. And in that case, I don't really care what receiver you take off the field. You can mix and match our top three WRs in a number of ways. And since Reggie and even Nicks might not be around very long, there's an obvious benefit to having an offense that can pass the ball from 2TE sets as well as from 3WR sets.

 

And the idea behind that projection is that we'd be using Fleener as a more flexible piece, not a prototypical TE. And because of his size and athleticism, in comparison to Allen, he'd be better as the flex TE.

[dudeski]

I said that could be the case as the offense matures. And in that case, I don't really care what receiver you take off the field. You can mix and match our top three WRs in a number of ways. And since Reggie and even Nicks might not be around very long, there's an obvious benefit to having an offense that can pass the ball from 2TE sets as well as from 3WR sets.

And the idea behind that projection is that we'd be using Fleener as a more flexible piece, not a prototypical TE. And because of his size and athleticism, in comparison to Allen, he'd be better as the flex TE.

fair enough

I just feel that the top 3 wr's and Allen are much better options than fleener. I don't hate fleener and am hoping he can continue his progress. He is the 5th target in my ideal offense

[gacker65]

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

Dwayne was a 3rd round pick. To much of a reach for the 1st round

[gacker65]

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. 

Look at this from a different point of view.  If we had not taken Luck, would we still have taken Fleener or was Upshaw and/or Glenn a better option.  IMO, we should have took Glenn over Fleener, as our O-line need was just as great as our TE need.

[gacker65]

The highlighted on the post Gacker.

Sorry, missed highlighted part.  Ask yourself, why would we pass up a DE/OLB in Upshaw when we are changing to a 3-4 hybrid, then pass on a good O-lineman in Glenn when we needed O-line help, to draft a 1 dimensional TE in Fleener.  Grigson is always looking the good players every where, but let 2 slip by that fell into his lap.

 

In my mind, that was the only reason that made sense.  Let us not forget, that Fleener was passed on by 2 other run first Offenses in the 1st round (Tampa and NY Giants). 

[dudeski]

Look at this from a different point of view. If we had not taken Luck, would we still have taken Fleener or was Upshaw and/or Glenn a better option. IMO, we should have took Glenn over Fleener, as our O-line need was just as great as our TE need.

Glenn would have been better

[gacker65]

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.

Did we have a descent running game.  Not all was the interior of our O-line.  RBs could not bounce outside, because TE had not sealed the LB to the inside.

 

That is the reason that I say Fleener does not fit.  He is a pass receiving TE not a Balanced or Run blocker.  Coach Pagano wants a run first Offense and pass receiving TEs have trouble adjusting to that type of scheme.

[jvan1973]

Dwayne was a 3rd round pick. To much of a reach for the 1st round

they passed on him in the second round,as well

[ruksak]

Did we have a descent running game.  Not all was the interior of our O-line.  RBs could not bounce outside, because TE had not sealed the LB to the inside.

 

That is the reason that I say Fleener does not fit.  He is a pass receiving TE not a Balanced or Run blocker.  Coach Pagano wants a run first Offense and pass receiving TEs have trouble adjusting to that type of scheme.

I'll paraphrase a post I made in the Richardson thread;

 

"An aspect of our woeful running game in 2013 that gets consistently glossed over was the absence of Allen and Bradshaw. Those cats were brought here to run block (as well as the typical duties warranted of their respective positions), while Fleener was never intended to engage in such a way. Not that he shouldn't learn to block proficiently if he's gonna play as an NFL TE, but his role was to be the streaking seam, go-to prototype. 

 

Watching Coby last year reminded me of Dallas Clark in 2011."

 

In short; Grigs had us covered on paper going in to 2013. Injuries derailed our attempts at having the classic dual-threat TE combo. If Allen was healthy, I'm betting Fleener catches 10+ TD's last season. 

[gacker65]

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.

I agree, that Fleener is decent down field blocking.  Problem is at the LOS.  Fleener's blocking there leaves a lot to be desired.  I agree, Fleener' blocking has improved, but IMO, he has not reached average yet.  If he had, our RBs could have bounced outside last season rather than  get swallowed up in the middle.

[GoColts8818]

Did we have a descent running game.  Not all was the interior of our O-line.  RBs could not bounce outside, because TE had not sealed the LB to the inside.

 

That is the reason that I say Fleener does not fit.  He is a pass receiving TE not a Balanced or Run blocker.  Coach Pagano wants a run first Offense and pass receiving TEs have trouble adjusting to that type of scheme.

so you are saying blame the tightend for the bad running game? While Fleener plays a role in run blocking he does not play a big enough role and our oline is not nearly good enough to pass the buck to Fleener. Also when in this offense in college Stanford ran all over people with Fleener. I don't think he's the problem with the lack of production in the running game. Even with Allen in there the year before the Colts struggled to run the ball. So I don't think it's the tightends fault.

Again Fleener has produced in this offense and you are way over valuing tightend blocking to try to win an argument. When you look at the whole picture Fleener fits this offense just fine and is a nice complimentary player to Allen.

[jskinnz]

Look at this from a different point of view.  If we had not taken Luck, would we still have taken Fleener or was Upshaw and/or Glenn a better option.  IMO, we should have took Glenn over Fleener, as our O-line need was just as great as our TE need.

 

When digging yourself into a hole, stop digging.

 

I can appreciate those who battle against the masses and, well common sense.  In this case it does not make you a contrarian, it just makes you wrong.

[gacker65]

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.

I agree that we had zero TEs, but every one forgets that the Bucs and the Giants had just signed their only TE just days before the draft.  IMO, that put their need for TEs as great as ours.

 

I agree that after the Combine and the Pro days, Fleener was the #1 ranked TE due to slow 40 by Dwayne.  Every one forgot that Dwayne plays faster.

 

Now draft day.  Fleener has been projected to be taken any where from 20th pick in the 1rst round to about 15th pick in 2nd round. In that latter part of the 1st, is the Bucs and the Giants, both needing a young TE.  Both are run first Offenses and both passed on Fleener.

 

It is our pick in at the top of the 2nd round.  Grigson now has a dilemma.  A 3-4 OLB/DE in Upshaw has dropped to us.  A multi-positional O-lineman in Glenn has dropped to us.  We have zero 3-4 OLB/DEs on the roster.  We have questionable pick ups at RG and RT.

 

Our pick, a 1 dimensional TE from Stanford.  That also happens to be the college our #1 over-all QB comes from.  Fact is they played 2 years together.  Hope is they will have a good chemistry together in the NFL.

 

Real easy to see where my opinion about Flenner's pick comes from.

[Dustin]

We have zero 3-4 OLB/DEs on the roster.

, that's not remotely true.

[gacker65]

they passed on him in the second round,as well

True and I do not know why.

[gacker65]

, that's not remotely true.

Did I miss some one.  I do not remember any 3-4 OLB/DEs on the roster at that time.  I know that Mathias excelled in the 3-4 and Hughes has done well, but at the time of the draft both were 4-3 DEs.

[Dustin]

Did I miss some one. I do not remember any 3-4 OLB/DEs on the roster at that time. I know that Mathias excelled in the 3-4 and Hughes has done well, but at the time of the draft both were 4-3 DEs.

We had Mathis, Hughes, and Freeney.

[gacker65]

When digging yourself into a hole, stop digging.

 

I can appreciate those who battle against the masses and, well common sense.  In this case it does not make you a contrarian, it just makes you wrong.

Not digging a hole.  Trying to plug a dam..lol

 

I will not apologize for questioning or stating my opinions.

 

As for common sense, whose are we using yours, mine, or some one else.  What might be common sense to you, might make no sense to me or another person.  My common sense comes from my life's experiences and what I have been taught.

 

I do not follow the masses.  I was taught to question what I do not understand or what goes against my beliefs or my common sense.

[gacker65]

We had Mathis, Hughes, and Freeney.

I agree, we had them, but none were true 3-4 OLBs as Upshaw was.

[Coffeedrinker]

i don't fully agree with that but that's not the point.

You said two te's was going to be the best package. What wr do you take out for fleener? Since Allen is clearly the better te

You take out Nicks for Fleener, that is pretty much a no brainer.  The reason why, if Fleener and Allen are both healthy, the two TE set may be the best package is because of the flexibility it provides in both the run and passing game.  It makes it harder for the D to key in on a type of play. That is a big reason why the Colts ran so much two TE when they had Dilger/Pollard duo and then the Pollard/Clark Duo.

[dudeski]

You take out Nicks for Fleener, that is pretty much a no brainer. The reason why, if Fleener and Allen are both healthy, the two TE set may be the best package is because of the flexibility it provides in both the run and passing game. It makes it harder for the D to key in on a type of play. That is a big reason why the Colts ran so much two TE when they had Dilger/Pollard duo and then the Pollard/Clark Duo.

i understand why a two te set is nice. Nicks is more talented. Putting your best players on the field should be the priority.

[Superman]

Did I miss some one.  I do not remember any 3-4 OLB/DEs on the roster at that time.  I know that Mathias excelled in the 3-4 and Hughes has done well, but at the time of the draft both were 4-3 DEs.

 

Jerry Hughes was projected as a 3-4 OLB, but he was an end. Still, the expectation was that those three guys would do fine at OLB. Two of them did.

 

Also, it's interesting that you're arguing about the need at OLB. At the time of the draft, we had one TE on the roster, Brody Eldridge. He was cut a few days later (because he was pretty terrible). TE was probably the weakest spot on the roster at that time.

[Superman]

i understand why a two te set is nice. Nicks is more talented. Putting your best players on the field should be the priority.

 

Which circles right back to what I said a while ago: No team uses their best package exclusively. 

 

If your point is that you don't think Fleener is necessarily part of our best package right now, I think that's a fair observation (assuming health and reasonable production from Wayne, Nicks and Allen). But saying Fleener will be on the bench "most of the time" suggests that he'll be a deep reserve that will only play situationally, and/or if someone else gets hurt. Perhaps that's not what you meant, but that's the way it came across.

 

I think Fleener is a considerable weapon for us, and that we should try to get him on the field, even if that means we take one of the WRs off the field. Maybe he only plays 40-50% of the snaps, but that adds another element to our offense, and that's a good thing.

[Coffeedrinker]

i understand why a two te set is nice. Nicks is more talented. Putting your best players on the field should be the priority.

I disagree about Nicks being more talented.... He's a better receiver than Fleener but there that does not mean he's more talented.

[NewColtsFan]

i understand why a two te set is nice. Nicks is more talented. Putting your best players on the field should be the priority.

 

Agreed.

 

But that doesn't mean always being in a 3-WR set.   I'm assuming you want mostly Wayne/TYH/Nicks.....

 

Hamilton/Pagano/Grigson clearly like that set....   but they also want enough 2 TE, 2 WR sets to keep defenses honest.   It's a great formation to do most anything you want from.

 

You can run.    You can pass to either of your TE's...   and 2 of your 3 desired WR's are on the field.   It's a dangerous formation.

 

And, depending on the opponent, I can see us using it roughly 40-60% of the time......

 

Hey,  I'm looking forward to our 3 WR sets as much as you are...    but having multiple ways to attack is a good thing.

 

Here's a Colts.com story out today on what having a 2 TE offense can mean for us...

 

 

http://www.colts.com/news/article-1/The-Return-Of-Dwayne-Allen-Means-A-More-Creative-Colts-Offense-In-2014/a85b356f-6ee0-46de-a92e-fd041743ad16

[Jason_]

I disagree with the claim that Allen is far and away the better TE than Fleener.  As with just about everything else, it depends on circumstances.  In the base offense and in short yardage, yes Allen is a better blocker at the point of attack so I'd put him on the field over Fleener if only going with one TE, but on any kind of medium to long yardage passing situation, I'd put Fleener on the field over Allen.

[dudeski]

Which circles right back to what I said a while ago: No team uses their best package exclusively.

If your point is that you don't think Fleener is necessarily part of our best package right now, I think that's a fair observation (assuming health and reasonable production from Wayne, Nicks and Allen). But saying Fleener will be on the bench "most of the time" suggests that he'll be a deep reserve that will only play situationally, and/or if someone else gets hurt. Perhaps that's not what you meant, but that's the way it came across.

I think Fleener is a considerable weapon for us, and that we should try to get him on the field, even if that means we take one of the WRs off the field. Maybe he only plays 40-50% of the snaps, but that adds another element to our offense, and that's a good thing.

why am I the only one sticking with the original discussion

[dudeski]

I disagree with the claim that Allen is far and away the better TE than Fleener. As with just about everything else, it depends on circumstances. In the base offense and in short yardage, yes Allen is a better blocker at the point of attack so I'd put him on the field over Fleener if only going with one TE, but on any kind of medium to long yardage passing situation, I'd put Fleener on the field over Allen.

i wouldn't. Allen is just a better player, in almost every way

[Jason_]

i wouldn't. Allen is just a better player, in almost every way

 

 

I disagree

[dudeski]

Agreed.

But that doesn't mean always being in a 3-WR set. I'm assuming you want mostly Wayne/TYH/Nicks.....

Hamilton/Pagano/Grigson clearly like that set.... but they also want enough 2 TE, 2 WR sets to keep defenses honest. It's a great formation to do most anything you want from.

You can run. You can pass to either of your TE's... and 2 of your 3 desired WR's are on the field. It's a dangerous formation.

And, depending on the opponent, I can see us using it roughly 40-60% of the time......

Hey, I'm looking forward to our 3 WR sets as much as you are... but having multiple ways to attack is a good thing.

Here's a Colts.com story out today on what having a 2 TE offense can mean for us...

http://www.colts.com/news/article-1/The-Return-Of-Dwayne-Allen-Means-A-More-Creative-Colts-Offense-In-2014/a85b356f-6ee0-46de-a92e-fd041743ad16

obviously I understand the value of a two te set. That was not the point

[Dustin]

i wouldn't. Allen is just a better player, in almost every way

Yup

[throwing BBZ]

i wouldn't. Allen is just a better player, in almost every way

 

 No he isn`t. You watched Allen getting the ball forced to him for most of a season and took that to be special. Not that he isn`t VG in the passing game.

 Just like the high throw in coverage that cost Allen last season, on that play Fleener was wide open 5 yards shorter and just to his right. A Costly, BAD decision by Andrew.

As Allen was desperately missed in the run game.

 Fleener IS the mismatch he was projected to be. He/we are still waiting for Andrew to see the whole field rather than just pick his favorite pre-snap.

[Superman]

why am I the only one sticking with the original discussion

 

I don't see how you're sticking with the original discussion, nor do I see why that matters.

[dudeski]

No he isn`t. You watched Allen getting the ball forced to him for most of a season and took that to be special. Not that he isn`t VG in the passing game.

Just like the high throw in coverage that cost Allen last season, on that play Fleener was wide open 5 yards shorter and just to his right. A Costly, BAD decision by Andrew.

As Allen was desperately missed in the run game.

Fleener IS the mismatch he was projected to be. He/we are still waiting for Andrew to see the whole field rather than just pick his favorite pre-snap.

yes he is

[dudeski]

I don't see how you're sticking with the original discussion, nor do I see why that matters.

instead of trying to tell me stuff I already know, everyone could just say "good point, you are right"

When healthy, fleener on the field is not the most talented or best formation. Period