(07-11-2015, 09:13 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: We took out top-rated TE in the draft, and Hill did most of his damage from a lone back formation, but I've been seeing sights that talk like we'll have a fullback in the game on most downs.

On ESPN, it even has our main formation for our depth chart as having a fullback.   I've seen other sites similar to that, also.

Even CincyJungle talks like we won't have two tight ends on the field at the same time:


Sounds to me like they're saying Kroft won't have much value, which I'm not expecting him to light-it-up, but I think he could have a solid year.

Not to mention that a two-tight end set is the best way to attack the 3-4 defenses of the division.

(The article mentions how Rutgers switched to a run-heavy offense last season, which most likely explains Kroft's dropping as far as he did.)

Am I seeing this wrong?

Well, Eifert is the one guy that is a playmaking pass catching TE that we have. We want Hewitt on the field
to block for Hill and be a relief valve for Dalton at H-back. We have lots of weapons with Green, MLJ, Sanu,
Moore, Wright and our RB's. And Kroft and our other TE's are all pretty much rookies.

I don't find it to be a good time to run a primarily 2 TE set until we know what we have with all the TE's.

(07-15-2015, 02:50 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Well, Eifert is the one guy that is a playmaking pass catching TE that we have. We want Hewitt on the field
to block for Hill and be a relief valve for Dalton at H-back. We have lots of weapons with Green, MLJ, Sanu,
Moore, Wright and our RB's. And Kroft and our other TE's are all pretty much rookies.

I don't find it to be a good time to run a primarily 2 TE set until we know what we have with all the TE's.

We can find out what we have in Kroft in OTAs, training camp, preseason games, etc..

The transition from college to the NFL is much quicker now, especially since we had Kroft as our #1 tight end on our draft board.

Just seems like a waste to not use him from the get-go.  

I get what you're saying about already having enough weapons, but it would be so hard for defenses to cover both tight ends up the seams and both receivers out wide, not to mention that Hill wouldn't be a bad safety valve himself if no receivers are open (which would be unlikely, and I know that Hill would have a lot of blocking responsibilities, but if a play is taking that long and blocking breaks down, he would obviously realize something is up and turn and look for the ball.  Not to mention that, if they have that defenders covering, there likely wouldn't be enough pass rushers for Hill to have anyone to block).

(07-15-2015, 04:27 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: We can find out what we have in Kroft in OTAs, training camp, preseason games, etc..

The transition from college to the NFL is much quicker now, especially since we had Kroft as our #1 tight end on our draft board.

Just seems like a waste to not use him from the get-go.  

I get what you're saying about already having enough weapons, but it would be so hard for defenses to cover both tight ends up the seams and both receivers out wide, not to mention that Hill wouldn't be a bad safety valve himself if no receivers are open (which would be unlikely, and I know that Hill would have a lot of blocking responsibilities, but if a play is taking that long and blocking breaks down, he would obviously realize something is up and turn and look for the ball.  Not to mention that, if they have that defenders covering, there likely wouldn't be enough pass rushers for Hill to have anyone to block).

We will see how Kroft adjusts to the pro game. I like having multiple options myself and an extra blocker
out there is never a bad thing. Don't forget about Fisher getting snaps at TE as well, the dude is already an
excellent blocker and he can catch if we want to run the jumbo packages.

(07-15-2015, 04:27 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: We can find out what we have in Kroft in OTAs, training camp, preseason games, etc..

The transition from college to the NFL is much quicker now, especially since we had Kroft as our #1 tight end on our draft board.

Just seems like a waste to not use him from the get-go.  

I get what you're saying about already having enough weapons, but it would be so hard for defenses to cover both tight ends up the seams and both receivers out wide, not to mention that Hill wouldn't be a bad safety valve himself if no receivers are open (which would be unlikely, and I know that Hill would have a lot of blocking responsibilities, but if a play is taking that long and blocking breaks down, he would obviously realize something is up and turn and look for the ball.  Not to mention that, if they have that defenders covering, there likely wouldn't be enough pass rushers for Hill to have anyone to block).

I've read this sentence over and over thinking that I've misread it. What does transition to the NFL have to do with Kroft being our #1 TE prospect?

(07-15-2015, 04:27 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: We can find out what we have in Kroft in OTAs, training camp, preseason games, etc..

The transition from college to the NFL is much quicker now, especially since we had Kroft as our #1 tight end on our draft board.

Just seems like a waste to not use him from the get-go.  

I get what you're saying about already having enough weapons, but it would be so hard for defenses to cover both tight ends up the seams and both receivers out wide, not to mention that Hill wouldn't be a bad safety valve himself if no receivers are open (which would be unlikely, and I know that Hill would have a lot of blocking responsibilities, but if a play is taking that long and blocking breaks down, he would obviously realize something is up and turn and look for the ball.  Not to mention that, if they have that defenders covering, there likely wouldn't be enough pass rushers for Hill to have anyone to block).

The transition hasn't really gotten any easier for TEs. No rookie in the last 5 years has over 600 yards. It is still terribly hard for them to make the jump so quickly that it would be straight stupid to throw him into a huge role day one.

Also, what happened to Heuerman?  I thought he was like the greatest TE evarr?

(07-16-2015, 04:30 PM)Bengal Dude Wrote: I've read this sentence over and over thinking that I've misread it. What does transition to the NFL have to do with Kroft being our #1 TE prospect?

Because that obviously means that we thought he was ready to play right away since we got rid of Gresham and were in need of a TE.

It signifies that we thought he was the best guy to step-in and play right away.

With our troubles developing players, do you really think that we would have taken a guy that we needed to develop when we don't have time to develop him because it's a position of need?

(07-16-2015, 06:32 PM)MrRager Wrote: Also, what happened to Heuerman?  I thought he was like the greatest TE evarr?

He was the greatest TE until the Bengals took Dash Crofts who then became the #1 TE on the board and best ever.  I do have to admit it was pretty funny that some people were talking about how Eifert and Heruremeruemnun were going to be more productive than Gresh and Eifert and I wondered who this Heureerurman guy was.  Turns out he wasn't even in the NFL yet.  Whaaat?

(07-16-2015, 06:32 PM)MrRager Wrote: The transition hasn't really gotten any easier for TEs. No rookie in the last 5 years has over 600 yards. It is still terribly hard for them to make the jump so quickly that it would be straight stupid to throw him into a huge role day one.

Also, what happened to Heuerman?  I thought he was like the greatest TE evarr?

Another smart-ass (and stupid) comment by Rager that he thinks is some crushing blow to my credibility.

What do you mean what happened to him?  Denver took him 7(?) picks after us, which he then tore his ACL and is out for the season.  Maybe it was a good choice by us not to draft him since he had been battling injuries and, given our bad luck with injuries, he most likely would have been injury bitten.

Maybe he would have been our pick if not for his injury history.  

Or maybe the coaches just felt that Kroft was better.

How many millions of people are high on draft picks every year and their team ends up passing on them?

Also, not real sure when I ever said anything close to Heuerman being the best tight end ever, but, like I said, that's Rager just posting garbage for you.

(07-16-2015, 08:25 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Because that obviously means that we thought he was ready to play right away since we got rid of Gresham and were in need of a TE.

It signifies that we thought he was the best guy to step-in and play right away.

With our troubles developing players, do you really think that we would have taken a guy that we needed to develop when we don't have time to develop him because it's a position of need?

Do you seriously trust Jonathan Hayes to develop Kroft?

(07-17-2015, 04:55 PM)Bengal Dude Wrote: Do you seriously trust Jonathan Hayes to develop Kroft?

I think you're reading that wrong.

I said that we probably took Kroft because he's ready to step-in and play right away without needing much development, which developing players has been a problem for us.

(07-17-2015, 04:59 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I think you're reading that wrong.

I said that we probably took Kroft because he's ready to step-in and play right away without needing much development, which developing players has been a problem for us.

I know the Bengals had him a their #1 TE, but this was a weak class from top to bottom. What I know is that Kroft was basically a receiving TE ala Eifert at Rutgers until Ralph Friedgen showed up. Last year was basically his first year as an inline TE and he did okay, but nothing spectacular. He's still developing to be a blocker and we now have Hayes trying to do that after he pretty much failed with every other TE we've given him (Eifert is still an unknown).

This is from his CBS write up:

Quote:
STRENGTHS: Natural receiver (HS position) who catches the ball cleanly. Good hands. Top concentration in traffic. Knack for finding the soft spot in coverage. Deceptively quick. Versatility - played all around the formation. Good release. More athletic and gifted physically than his tape reveals. Occasional pop as a blocker. Not dominant but gives good effort working inline. Good size and potential.

WEAKNESSES: Steep production decline from sophomore to junior season will be vetted by scouts, despite inconsistent quarterback play. Was not used much in the passing game last season. Thinks like a receiver and must develop his base. Gets narrow as a blocker. Struggles sustaining blocks at the point. Combine and workout results are critical to proving scouts he has the quickness and capacity to develop strength.

This is why I don't have high hopes for Kroft in his rookie year.

(07-17-2015, 04:27 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Another smart-ass (and stupid) comment by Rager that he thinks is some crushing blow to my credibility.

What do you mean what happened to him?  Denver took him 7(?) picks after us, which he then tore his ACL and is out for the season.  Maybe it was a good choice by us not to draft him since he had been battling injuries and, given our bad luck with injuries, he most likely would have been injury bitten.

Maybe he would have been our pick if not for his injury history.  

Or maybe the coaches just felt that Kroft was better.

How many millions of people are high on draft picks every year and their team ends up passing on them?

Also, not real sure when I ever said anything close to Heuerman being the best tight end ever, but, like I said, that's Rager just posting garbage for you.

Thanks for responding the the main part of my post. ZERO tight ends in the last five years have produced over 600 yards. Only four have produced over 500 yards with two of them being the Pats great duo. That is all TEs from the first rounders to the UDFAs. To expect a third round, third off the board, rookie TE to make a large impact this year is stupid. Especially one with 269 yards and zero TDs last year. Hell, he only had 550+ and 4 TDs the year before. If he can up that up this year it would be an awesome, awesome year. 

Tight Ends just do not produce as rookies and it does not look like it is getting any easier, as you previously claimed. 

And I was just making a joke because on the old boards you were acting like it was a lock to draft him and claiming we would be unstoppable with him and Eifert based on some extremely simple football knowledge. 

(07-17-2015, 04:27 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Another smart-ass (and stupid) comment by Rager that he thinks is some crushing blow to my credibility.

What's your deal with always worrying about some sort of 'credibility'?
Go look in a mirror.  That will tell you who is serving crushing blows to your credibility.
(and no, I'm not talking about just this thread)

(07-17-2015, 06:07 PM)MrRager Wrote: Thanks for responding the the main part of my post. ZERO tight ends in the last five years have produced over 600 yards. Only four have produced over 500 yards with two of them being the Pats great duo. That is all TEs from the first rounders to the UDFAs. To expect a third round, third off the board, rookie TE to make a large impact this year is stupid. Especially one with 269 yards and zero TDs last year. Hell, he only had 550+ and 4 TDs the year before. If he can up that up this year it would be an awesome, awesome year. 

Tight Ends just do not produce as rookies and it does not look like it is getting any easier, as you previously claimed. 

And I was just making a joke because on the old boards you were acting like it was a lock to draft him and claiming we would be unstoppable with him and Eifert based on some extremely simple football knowledge. 

If we used them properly (and if we use Kroft and Eifert properly), they will be virtually unstoppable.

You're using tight ends drafted in the last five years, but how many of those tight ends had another TE that was as good as Eifert is to pair with and were used in the proper way to exploit defenses?

(07-17-2015, 08:20 PM)Harmening Wrote: What's your deal with always worrying about some sort of 'credibility'?
Go look in a mirror.  That will tell you who is serving crushing blows to your credibility.
(and no, I'm not talking about just this thread)

I rub some people the wrong way, and so people post like everything that I post is garbage, and then other people (who I also rub the wrong way) jump on board and just support the original person trying to bash me and then it becomes one big circle jerk of complete false garbage.

Look no farther than people supporting Fred when he posts numerous lies.  (The most recent two were when he claimed that he only posted that he wasn't sure if I knew chemo existed as sarcasm, which may have been sarcasm, but it was only to cover up on his first lie that I ever stated that it didn't exist.  Then, he lied about the Shroud of Turin and how he posted that carbon dating proved it to be fake, which it didn't, and then he posted another garbage post that actually proved him wrong, yet he still claimed that it proved him right.)

(07-17-2015, 10:41 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: If we used them properly (and if we use Kroft and Eifert properly), they will be virtually unstoppable.

You're using tight ends drafted in the last five years, but how many of those tight ends had another TE that was as good as Eifert is to pair with and were used in the proper way to exploit defenses?

I rub some people the wrong way, and so people post like everything that I post is garbage, and then other people (who I also rub the wrong way) jump on board and just support the original person trying to bash me and then it becomes one big circle jerk of complete false garbage.

Look no farther than people supporting Fred when he posts numerous lies.  (The most recent two were when he claimed that he only posted that he wasn't sure if I knew chemo existed as sarcasm, which may have been sarcasm, but it was only to cover up on his first lie that I ever stated that it didn't exist.  Then, he lied about the Shroud of Turin and how he posted that carbon dating proved it to be fake, which it didn't, and then he posted another garbage post that actually proved him wrong, yet he still claimed that it proved him right.)

Brad.
It's not about what other people post.  It's your reactions to their posts.  
The Fred thing has been cleared up.  Stop doing yourself a disservice by continuing on with your rebuttals.  
Stop thinking that everyone is somehow brainwashed, and see that you are only hurting yourself by saying that everyone else is wrong and you are 'right'.
Fred has no magical spell on people.  They can see for themselves who is making a fool of themselves.  You have tried for too long to  get some sort of validation.  It hasn't worked.  Move on, and stop worrying about 'credibility'.

(07-17-2015, 10:56 PM)Harmening Wrote: Brad.
It's not about what other people post.  It's your reactions to their posts.  
The Fred thing has been cleared up.  Stop doing yourself a disservice by continuing on with your rebuttals.  
Stop thinking that everyone is somehow brainwashed, and see that you are only hurting yourself by saying that everyone else is wrong and you are 'right'.
Fred has no magical spell on people.  They can see for themselves who is making a fool of themselves.  You have tried for too long to  get some sort of validation.  It hasn't worked.  Move on, and stop worrying about 'credibility'.

HA!

The Fred thing has been cleared up?  

He tried to explain me proving him wrong by switching it to the Shroud thing, which I also proved him wrong in!  Feel free to post a link to this thread that cleared everything up!

I'm guessing you'll be like Fred and post a link to a thread that proves you're wrong!

Or I'm guessing you'll say "I'm not going to get in this game with you," which is typical of people like you and Fred: you post something vague that claims it's already been cleared up and decided, but then ignore when you're asked to show evidence!

Good Lord Brad.
Just go visit Smack, and anyone with a fully developed mind can see that it has been cleared up.
Do you know why people say "I'm not going to get into this game with you"? Because they can see that you are so egocentric that it doesn't matter what they say, you will just return with a childish response.
You are too quick with the "I PROVED YOU WRONG", when in fact you have proven nothing.
So, my question for you is, how many people have told you how 'right' and 'credible' you are in this whole stupid Fred and Pat infatuation thing, and how many have told you how damn ridiculous and wrong you are for continuing on with it like a creep?
(don't even try to start with the 'pre-determined opinions' thing. None of us know you outside of these boards, so we can't have a pre-determined opinion of you, we can only base it off of your online personality)

(07-18-2015, 09:52 AM)Harmening Wrote: Good Lord Brad.
Just go visit Smack, and anyone with a fully developed mind can see that it has been cleared up.
Do you know why people say "I'm not going to get into this game with you"?  Because they can see that you are so egocentric that it doesn't matter what they say, you will just return with a childish response.  
You are too quick with the "I PROVED YOU WRONG", when in fact you have proven nothing.  
So, my question for you is, how many people have told you how 'right' and 'credible' you are in this whole stupid Fred and Pat infatuation thing, and how many have told you how damn ridiculous and wrong you are for continuing on with it like a creep?
(don't even try to start with the 'pre-determined opinions' thing.  None of us know you outside of these boards, so we can't have a pre-determined opinion of you, we can only base it off of your online personality)

I've visited the Smack forum many times!  Like I said, Fred lied and changed things up to the Shroud of Turin, which he was also wrong in!

You and a few other people call me childish when you all constantly lie and then support each other's lies and Fred's lies!  

How am I wrong with Fred?!  Please explain that!  He claimed I said chemotherapy didn't exist, then, when I called him out on it, he used a sarcastic comment because he didn't think that I'd respond.  Then, multiple times, he said it never happened, even after I posted links to show it happened!  Then, like I said, the entire Shroud thing!

How is that wrong?!  Why won't you explain that to me?!

You call me childish when you can't even engage in a simple debate or show proof when you talk smack and get called out on it!

It blows me away how childish people are and how they feel comfortable posting garbage because they just hide behind a computer screen!

Pat's also hilarious because he claimed that they needed the video to suspend him, and it wasn't about him (Pat) defending a woman-beater, but then why would Pat wait until after the video was public to call Rice a d-bag?!  If it was just about needing the video to suspend him when it was obvious what he had done, then what's the difference if he had seen the video or not?

He has ignored those questions because he can't answer them, yet I'm sure this is another one where you'll claim that "the answers have been provided" yet you somehow can't show me any of them.

Weird.

(07-18-2015, 12:13 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: You and a few other people call me childish 

A few? 
More like a bunch.

You are incapable of seeing the answers if they don't line up with your thinking.  My teenage son did the same thing for a while, then he became a mature young man, and quit convincing himself that it was always everyone else that was wrong.


BTW- My apologies to the board for this derailment. Conversations like this should be limited to the Smack forum.

(07-18-2015, 01:35 PM)Harmening Wrote: A few? 
More like a bunch.

You are incapable of seeing the answers if they don't line up with your thinking.  My teenage son did the same thing for a while, then he became a mature young man, and quit convincing himself that it was always everyone else that was wrong.


BTW- My apologies to the board for this derailment.  Conversations like this should be limited to the Smack forum.

Ha!  

Like when a bunch of people were agreeing with Fred and then I pointed out that he was a liar with no credibility?

I admit when I'm wrong if someone has something concrete that shows I'm wrong (even if I am bull headed), but people like you and Fred post the same false garbage over and over again and think that more people posting false information somehow makes it right.  Fred posted the same wrong thing over and over and just expected me to stop calling him out on it and knew that people, as I said above, would believe it without question because it was me.

Case-in-point: show the evidence that's in the Smack forum that Fred didn't say what I said he did.  It's not that hard.  It's not like you're flying to Egypt and exploring ancient Pyramids to find some mystery because it's two clicks away.