01-27-2016, 09:25 PM
(01-27-2016, 08:52 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: He was a beast in the red zone for TDs, but outside of that? Ehhh... ranked among TEs in 2015:
Not sure that combined with only playing 44% of the offensive snaps in his career is a guy I would want to pay as the 2nd or 3rd highest paid TE in the NFL.
- 16th in receptions
- 12th in yards (12th in yards per game)
- 1st in TD
- 11th in catches of 20+ yds
- 16th in yards after catch
- 9th in first downs
Of course this is all dependent on his 2016 season. If he's healthy and increases all his non-TD number rankings, by all means throw a bag of money at the man and let him get paid. If not, it starts being a much tougher discussion of risk/reward and benefit/cost. No sense in paying Gronk money to a guy who isn't Gronk.
He was actually 11th in yards per game and 1st in TDs, and most of those ranking for bulk stats would be in the top 10 had he not missed 3 games. That's not a top performer to you?
You're using Eifert's rookie season (when he was 2nd fiddle) to drag down his snap count, and who's to say Eifert will be paid as the 2nd or 3rd highest paid TE in the NFL? I mean, if he's as middle-of-the-road as you seem to think, why do you also think he'll get the 2nd or 3rd best contract for his position? That makes no sense.
The training, nutrition, medicine, fitness, playbooks and rules evolve. The athlete does not.
