49ers Top 10 NFL Draft Successes: No. 9 - Arnaz Battle, Wide Receiver
by David Fucillo on Apr 19, 2011 6:00 AM PDT
in NFL Draft
Email
PrintYesterday we began our look at the 49ers biggest draft successes since 1990 by discussing punter Andy Lee. He's turned into the best punter in 49ers history and I think that makes him worthy of inclusion on this list. Maybe not at the top of the list, but some reference is necessary anytime you're talking about the best player at a position in franchise history.
Today we move on to a guy who has gotten a lot of crap from fans, but made a lot of contributions to some fairly awful 49ers teams. In 2003, the San Francisco 49ers used their sixth round pick, 197th overall, to select Notre Dame WR/QB Arnaz Battle. When Battle started at Notre Dame he was a quarterback, but a wrist injury led to his moving over to wide receiver eventually. He bounced back and forth a bit, but came into the league as a wide receiver and special teams player.
People remember Battle for some of his truly horrific punt return attempts in 2009, but he put together some solid numbers for a fairly raw wide receiver on awful teams. To be perfectly honest, I had a tough time deciding between Tai Streets and Arnaz Battle for this spot. They were both sixth round picks and they both developed into decent weapons. The reason I went with Battle is because even though Tai Streets had a better single season best in 2002, Battle did not have Terrell Owens around to draw bodies away. Arnaz Battle managed to get over the 50 catch mark in 2006 and 2007 in spite of the fact that the best he had around him was second year tight end Vernon Davis.
We'll be getting to the truly high quality players as we move along this list, but in the meantime, I think it's perfectly reasonable to include Battle in this slot. He wasn't an awful receiver but he wasn't a great receiver by any stretch. Nonetheless, the context of his time with the 49ers make him worthy of this spot.
49ers Top 10 NFL Draft Successess
10. Andy Lee, Punter - 2004 NFL Draft
Are You Smarter Than The Experts?
Correctly predict the first 32 picks of the 2011 NFL Draft and you’ll win $10,000,000!
BEST ROUND EVER IN PRIMETIME
Enter at facebook.com/BudLight
Here We Go
Enjoy Responsibly ©2011 Anheuser-Busch, Inc., Bud Light® Beer, St. Louis, MO. ©2011 NFL Properties LLC. All NFL-related trademarks are trademarks of the National Football League. No Purchase Necessary. Contest open to U.S. residents (except CA) 21+. Contest begins 12AM CDT on 4/1 and ends 5:59:59PM CDT on 4/28. See Official Rules for complete details. Void where prohibited.
62 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I believe
that these are successes in relation to where they are drafted. Two big contributors out of 6th rounders is pretty damn good
"God tells me he can get me out of this mess, but he's pretty sure you're fucked."-Braveheart
yeah
i agree draft position is a big factor, and i think it’s a great success story for him personally bc i’m sure most people thought he was a wasted pick.
i still think that if he’s in the top 10, over the last 20 years, then someone’s getting over-looked or the niners were really that bad in april.
Arnaz Battle was a good soldier.
And then God created Saturn ... and he liked it, so he put a ring on it.
SaberCats Examiner | SB Nation Bay Area | Niners Nation | Twitter
Good soldier? Yes. One of our best 10 picks? No.
Granted, he was picked with low expectations in the sixth round, and during some of his tenure, could arguably be our best/most productive receiver. (Cringe) That only speaks to how bad the niners were during that period.
I’ll nominate another sixth round receive, Josh Morgan. In each of his three total years, he has very similar numbers to Battle’s best three years. And Morgan has also arguably been the team’s best receiver during his time with the team; yes, again illustrating the poor receiving staff on the team. I believe Morgan can still get better; whether he’ll get a chance to show it depends on whether Crabtree actually shows why he was drafter so high, and whether we pick up a true number one either in the draft or free agency.
Do I think Morgan actually belongs on this list? No. The above is simply to show that, good soldier or no, this is a very weak choice for this list.
by OffensiveInterference on Apr 19, 2011 9:40 AM PDT up reply actions
I think people are still failing to understand what the point of this piece is .. it's not "best ten picks"
it’s a culmination of expectation and delivery on both sides – success and bust. Josh Morgan has been great, but I’d like to point out that we’ve had relatively high expectations of Morgan from the get-go. The media was even covering that in his rookie year.
And then God created Saturn ... and he liked it, so he put a ring on it.
SaberCats Examiner | SB Nation Bay Area | Niners Nation | Twitter
Morgan
I had thought about including Morgan. He was just left off but I think at some point he ends up on this kind of list. I’m a fan.
by David Fucillo on Apr 19, 2011 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
NO WAY
How is JJ stokes the # 2 all time bust and Arnaz Battle the #9 all time success?
Stokes had twice as many starts, twice as many receptions and twice as many yards.
As far as production for the team, Stokes contributed twice as much as Battle, but because Battle was taken in the sixth round he’s a success?
The bar should not be lower for those taken in the later rounds. A team of Arnaz Battles is not going to win games. He was not a sucess. He was not a wasted pick. He’s the type of player that a team is supposed to draft in the sixth round – a decent backup.
He’s the type of player that a team is supposed to draft in the sixth round…
I would consider that a success then. Maybe not the #9 success of the past 20 years, but still a success.
We don't need 8 in the box. We have 52 in the box.
I didn't say he was a failed pick
He’s just not a success. Frank Gore and Merton Hanks are clear successes that exceeded not only the round they were drafted, but made it to the probowl.
49ers has had at least 9 draft picks in the last 15 years go to the probowl. I could have seen reserving the #9 for Eric Heitman, but the rest should be solid players. Not just an average 6th round pick.
players
We’ve still got eight spots for some very deserving players.
by David Fucillo on Apr 19, 2011 8:33 AM PDT up reply actions
How long is the _average_ 6th round pick's career?
Given that the average NFL player’s career is 3.3 years don’t you think that ACTUALLY Arnaz Battle has had a fairly remarkable career for a 6th round receiver that was a QB in college?
Harbaughcalypse Now
A couple posts below I posted a list of 49er draft picks that have had
at least one probowl selection since 1990.
my argument was not that Arnaz battle was a bad pick, but that there have been many more successful picks in the last 20 years.
There’s just so much more to it than that. That’s what you don’t seem to be grasping. By all means, make a list on your own terms, but he’s defining this list differently.
And then God created Saturn ... and he liked it, so he put a ring on it.
SaberCats Examiner | SB Nation Bay Area | Niners Nation | Twitter
by James Brady on Apr 19, 2011 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm not saying that Probowl is the only criteria
but there have been a number of more successful picks, in that they have had more successful careers and were chosen in the later rounds.
I didn’t say he was a failed pick He’s just not a success.
I’m not seeing the in-between. Success and failure are pretty much black and white.
Was Arnaz Battle a major draft steal? No. But if he was exactly what they drafted him to be, then the pick was a success.
We don't need 8 in the box. We have 52 in the box.
by these3words on Apr 19, 2011 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions
that doesn't make him a top 10 draft pick
and by your own explanation, there is a gray area – bust – steal and then a pick that is “exactly what they drafted him to be”
Alright, but then success would be the gray area between bust and steal.
I was saying I don’t see a gray area between success and bust. I don’t see how you can be not a failure but not a success either.
As I already said, I probably wouldn’t rank him as the 9th best draft success of the past 20 years, but I still consider him to be a success.
We don't need 8 in the box. We have 52 in the box.
by these3words on Apr 19, 2011 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions
draft position is important, very important
also, it’s not only where we drafted stokes. how many picks did we lose to get him, look at the pro-bowl receivers selected way later.
based on the draft value chart the trade for stokes was right
we didn’t lose anything more than we did for Kentwan Balmer
draft position is important, but that shouldn’t overshadow production. I’d take two JJ stokes over two Arnaz Battles any day.
Ugggh, value charts. How many teams do you think ...
… are sitting there with a trade on the table, ready to pull the trigger then think “WAIT A MINUTE … let me check the chart. Oh, man, you’re short 30 points! Sorry. No dice.”
And then God created Saturn ... and he liked it, so he put a ring on it.
SaberCats Examiner | SB Nation Bay Area | Niners Nation | Twitter
Guidline - the draft value chart is a decent guidline
And based on that guidline, it wasn’t a bad trade.
Stokes didn’t produce as much as hoped (the league is still waiting for the next Jerry Rice) but he still had a better carerr than 90% of WRs. Again, not the success we hoped for, but his production should have kept him off the top 10 bust list.
It’s a nice deterrent for us fans, but that’s it. Teams do not use it for guidelines at all.
And then God created Saturn ... and he liked it, so he put a ring on it.
SaberCats Examiner | SB Nation Bay Area | Niners Nation | Twitter
Do you have anything to back up that statement?
because I know for a fact that the chart was more than a distraction for fans for at least the Dallas Cowboys and Miami Dolphins during 1990s – at least while Jimmy Johnson was there.
Some still look at it as a guidline: http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/story/11599555
Some think it’s obsele (though still good for evaluating trades in the 90s http://www.aolnews.com/2007/04/19/jimmy-johnsons-draft-chart-is-obsolete/
And some think it could still work but needs to be revised: http://walterfootball.com/tradevaluecharterrors.php
bottom line
it’s a good resource when evaluating the logic behind draft trades in the 90s, the period JJ stokes was taken
I don’t really care about the Stokes trade/pick … I just continually see people reference these charts in draft discussion nowadays and it’s pointless. Maybe back then, but not now. Teams are not going to consult a chart for a trade these days. This is a case of somebody posting a good idea for reference and discussion, and people taking it almost religiously at times.
And then God created Saturn ... and he liked it, so he put a ring on it.
SaberCats Examiner | SB Nation Bay Area | Niners Nation | Twitter
by James Brady on Apr 19, 2011 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions
I have been trying to understand your comments on trade value charts for several weeks now ...
1. I’ve concluded that you couldn’t possibly be that naive.
2. And I know that you are not ignorant.
3. So, I’ve decided … you’re just trying to be deliberately provocative! Can there be any other explanation?
It’s really simple. Does every NFL team use Jimmy Johnson’s version of the trade value chart? Of course not. Every team has tweaked it to suit their own needs or criteria (or use some other comparable tool to evaluate trades), but every single team in the NFL uses such a device. Please tell us what your game is … we just want meaningful discussion.
by 49erFanSince1950 on Apr 19, 2011 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions
My point is that a team isn’t going to have a trade in the works, and then look and see that they’re twenty points off, and then kill the trade. My point is that teams almost always have a winner and a loser, the trade value charts don’t generally equal out. If a team wants something, they’ll get it – chart be damned.
And then God created Saturn ... and he liked it, so he put a ring on it.
SaberCats Examiner | SB Nation Bay Area | Niners Nation | Twitter
And “. I’d take two JJ stokes over two Arnaz Battles any day.” is really not the point of these posts at all.
And then God created Saturn ... and he liked it, so he put a ring on it.
SaberCats Examiner | SB Nation Bay Area | Niners Nation | Twitter
It's exactly the point
a draft success should be about production, not expections. Busts are the place for expectations. And there are plenty of players drafted in the last 20 years with great production to keep battle off this list.
i disagree
My top ten is based on a combination of expectations and production. If you expect little or nothing from a pick and they end up turning out somewhat productive, I think that’s a success. And I’m not saying players not on this list aren’t successes, I’m just viewing it in terms of degrees of success.
by David Fucillo on Apr 19, 2011 9:07 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Fine but there have been plenty of more successful draft picks
List of pro-bowl 49er draft picks since 1990:
Patrick Willis
Vernon Davis
Frank Gore
Andy Lee
Brian Jennings
Brandon Lloyd (traded for 3+4)
Julian Peterson
Jeremy Newberry
Terrell Owens
Lance Schulters
Fred Beasley
Bryant Young
Lee Woodall
Dana Stubblefield
Jeff Garcia
Elvis Grbac
Merton Hanks
Ricky Watters
Ted Washington
Eric Davis
Not many first round picks, a lot of great success stories in there. At least 9 better stories than arnaz battle, and I didn’t even list players like Heitman or Ulbrich who had long stable careers contributing to the 49ers.
successful picks
The best part about these lists is the debate. I factored in Pro Bowl selections, but my reasons are a mix of subjective and objective.
by David Fucillo on Apr 19, 2011 10:17 AM PDT up reply actions
Again, you guys have two different criteria for it. I understand your picks would be totally different, but your list would also be defined on different terms. It’s like getting upset that Peyton Manning isn’t in a top quarterbacks list that is called “Top Ten Mobile Quarterbacks”
And then God created Saturn ... and he liked it, so he put a ring on it.
SaberCats Examiner | SB Nation Bay Area | Niners Nation | Twitter
by James Brady on Apr 19, 2011 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions
Based on how you'ved defined Arnaz Battle as a success
I find a number of players on this list more successful.
Jeff Garcia – UDFA that ends up with 4 pro-bowl selections
Merton Hanks – slow 40 at the combine – taken in the later rounds and ended up a great safety
Brian Jennings (probably should have been credited with at least part of Andy Lee’s success) – the best long snapper in the league.
Bryant Young and Patrick Willis – both managed to exceed their rediculously high expectations being drafted high in the first round.
These are the types of players I would call success stories and I think there are at least 9 better success stories in the last 20 years.
We’re not talking about two separate types of lists, but disagreeing over the subjective AND objective criteria that make a player a success.
Ended up being
Woodall – A deserving choice, but not brian jennings
Wait a minute! If you "expect little or nothing from a pick", why are you wasting a pick on the guy in the first place?
I expect production from every single draft pick! I expect first and second rounders to be short-term starters. Do I expect that of a sixth rounder? No … but I expect him to be a decent backup and good to very good on special teams. If they produce to that expectation, I’ve had a successful draft. If they don’t, I’ve failed … either I didn’t do enough pre-draft homework, didn’t coach the guy properly, or didn’t motivate him to meet expectations. But, “expect little or nothing …”, I don’t think so!
by 49erFanSince1950 on Apr 19, 2011 3:01 PM PDT up reply actions
No, it's all about expectations. Especially when it came to bust, Stokes had INSANE expectations.
However unrealistic, that’s still what was expected of him. Battle did so much and never complained coming out of the late rounds.
And then God created Saturn ... and he liked it, so he put a ring on it.
SaberCats Examiner | SB Nation Bay Area | Niners Nation | Twitter
By the logic of this post the top 10 successes should be just 7th rounders that make the roster
My point was that the criteria for a bust is different than the criteria for a success.
A bust takes expectations into account and sets them against production.
A success should be limited to production. This should be a much more objective list since you could go down the stats for the 49ers over the last 20 years, choose the top 10, and use the rounds drafted as tie breakers.
by reedkrase on Apr 19, 2011 8:51 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Your point is clearer now, but I'd disagree still
I see your point about production being important. But I still think you have to look a little more at what a “Draft Success” is.
You’re right that if we are judging “how good a player is”, then draft position should have almost no impact on the grade.
But we are looking at a “draft success” which to me speaks more about the GM/FO’s ability to find solid production in lower rounds than of the players themselves. This would be why, Joe Montana would be a better Draft Success than Peyton Manning, even if the latter may soon get every passing record in the books.
But it's not later round draft success
it’s just draft success. On a list of draft success I think that Joe Montana should be higher than Peyton Manning, but I don’t think Manning should be left off the list. Lots of teams with the #1 pick have passed on future Hall of fame QBs, lots of #1 overall QBs have turned out to be below average starters in the NFL.
In the last 20 years, the 49ers have had better draft success with other picks.
hypothetical
if battle were drafted in 95, and stokes in 2003, how would their carreers been different?
who knows
Such drastically different eras I don’t really know how you make that comparison.
by David Fucillo on Apr 19, 2011 9:08 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
supporting cast
one of the reasons battle got high marks in this post was that he didn’t have a great offense to play with, whereas stokes did.
if one were to judge the players based on stats, wouldn’t it seem that battle could have racked up much better numbers than stokes for the niners?
potentially
That’s one reason I mentioned Tai Streets in the post. Streets had a season of 72 receptions but he was playing with TO as the #1.
by David Fucillo on Apr 19, 2011 9:40 AM PDT up reply actions
I doubt Willis is in the top two
And then God created Saturn ... and he liked it, so he put a ring on it.
SaberCats Examiner | SB Nation Bay Area | Niners Nation | Twitter
I would call Andy Lee
a better draft success than Battle.
Why buy good luggage? You only use it when you travel. - Yogi Berra
Thing's that make you go hmmmm ...!!
I'm your " Huckelberry "...it's just my game ...Jimmy Raye your no daisy ...!!
Just a thought ... given your criteria, no need to finish the series of articles. What's the point?
by 49erFanSince1950 on Apr 19, 2011 3:06 PM PDT reply actions
what do you mean?
The point of it, in my opinion, is to generate discussion. What’s the point of posting a lot of what we post here? Just a way to get people talking about something.
by David Fucillo on Apr 19, 2011 3:58 PM PDT up reply actions
Now I'm confused
I was about to disagree with 49erFanSince1950 in that the exercise of looking through the history of our various draft picks and re-drawing conclusions is useful/fun in itself. But your rebuttal that the purpose of such a posting is to get people “talking about something”???
Look at most other blogs (CSNBayArea, SFGate, etc) and you’ll see lots of people “talking about something”; usually personal attacks, trolling, uninformed drivel, etc. That’s why I value so many of the postings here; topic posts are uniformly interesting and well-prepared, responses are usually reasonable and based on in-depth knowledge of the game and the team.
While I personally disagree with the choice of Battle for this list, I’ve still enjoyed being informed by others and soing research myself to see if I might have actually been wroonnn wroo less than absolutely correct in my opinion. (Nope, I was right.)
by OffensiveInterference on Apr 19, 2011 5:30 PM PDT up reply actions
purposes of the posts
I think there are a lot of purposes to these posts. I shouldn’t have said the point of it as if that’s the only point. More just one of many reasons to have these posts. Whether it be to get people thinking, talking, researching, or whatever. I guess the best point would be to “engage” people in some manner.
by David Fucillo on Apr 20, 2011 12:20 AM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Niners Nation
Related FanShots on Niners Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
