Our TE's - Eifert, Kroft, Uzomah

[RoyleRedlegs]

(07-22-2015, 11:26 AM)djs7685 Wrote: If you're as good of a receiving TE as Jimmy Graham, you don't really need to be a superb blocker. He's sort of an extreme example.

I'm just wondering why some people are focusing solely on receiving production in their explanations for rankings, yet they aren't talking about blocking which is obviously a huge factor for a lot of TEs around the league. I don't care if a few team's backups haven't put up 500+ yards, if those guys have been the better blockers in the league, you better bet your ass I'm rating them higher than 2 guys that haven't even taken a snap yet.

Because, people value it more. 
The same reason people don't rank Reggie Kelly high among TEs historically even though he may have been a historically great blocking TE. 

The best value at TE is from your ability to catch the ball. Blocking is a bonus. 
With the athletes we are seeing at the OT spot, a blocking TE could easily be replaced by an athletic OT instead. Better blocking. Could still be used as a weapon on the goal line.

When you judge a RB, you judge mostly on his running skills. Catching/blocking is a bonus. 

When you judge a WR, well let's be honest...people only bring up WR blocking when they aren't very good at other things. 

FEAR THE PASS CATCHING TACKLE!

[Shake n Blake]

(07-22-2015, 11:17 AM)CornerBlitz Wrote: I usually agree with you on most things but I don't understand your logic on this one. You are predicting the Bengals TEs to be better than 20 yet when you rank them you put them between 22-30?

Let me give you a clear example of why this is absurd. When Lebon James was a rookie he was considered the Cavs best player by almost everyone even though he had never played in the NBA. Using your logic he would be ranked as one of the worst Cavs players because he hadn't ever played in the NBA.

Makes no sense my man. We all know Eifert is a good player regardless of how much he's played. Nobody in this forum is saying he is the best TE in the league but we certainly know he will produce better than 21-30. That is the point we are making.

You beat me to it. If you feel Eifert is better than 20, then why not rank him there? When I look over NFL depth charts, I don't see 20+ better TE's than Tyler Eifert. Not just based on potential, but also based on what we've seen from him production-wise. Eifert had a fine rookie season while playing limited snaps. It's only going to get better in an increased role.

(07-22-2015, 12:56 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: Because, people value it more. 
The same reason people don't rank Reggie Kelly high among TEs historically even though he may have been a historically great blocking TE. 

The best value at TE is from your ability to catch the ball. Blocking is a bonus. 
With the athletes we are seeing at the OT spot, a blocking TE could easily be replaced by an athletic OT instead.  Better blocking. Could still be used as a weapon on the goal line.

When you judge a RB, you judge mostly on his running skills. Catching/blocking is a bonus. 

When you judge a WR, well let's be honest...people only bring up WR blocking when they aren't very good at other things. 

FEAR THE PASS CATCHING TACKLE!

Amen. I've argued this in the past. If blocking were as valuable as pass catching, you'd see more glorified tackle's in the league. Imo, Eifert can be a solid enough blocker anyway. People act like he's going to be a turnstile or something. According to PFF, Gresham was a terrible blocker early in his career. I'm sure Eifert will be no worse.