(01-05-2021, 12:52 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: Why’d your boy take him in the 2nd round if he wasn’t going to use him?

To help the putrid O line block.... which is where he excels.

(01-05-2021, 12:56 PM)Sled21 Wrote: To help the putrid O line block.... which is where he excels.

That’s insane. You can get a blocking TE in any round. We heard about how his QB in college was bad, and he had plenty of potential as a pass catcher. Haven’t seen it yet...

(01-05-2021, 01:06 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: That’s insane. You can get a blocking TE in any round. We heard about how his QB in college was bad, and he had plenty of potential as a pass catcher. Haven’t seen it yet...

Again, how many passes has he had thrown his way and how many drops has he had?

(01-05-2021, 01:06 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: That’s insane. You can get a blocking TE in any round. We heard about how his QB in college was bad, and he had plenty of potential as a pass catcher. Haven’t seen it yet...

What's funny is the person you're replying to is one of those rare unicorns that thinks 1.) Drew Sample is a decent TE and 2.) Zac Taylor is a good coach.

Talk about having your cake and eating it too.  He can't or won't say Drew Sample stinks (ok?), but he also can't or won't say Zac Taylor misuses him or overdrafted either (wtf???).  It's honestly an amazing take.

Of course this person is the same one who predicted an AFC Championship last season, predicted "great things" from Zac Taylor, and predicted all sorts of others thing he was wrong about.

(01-05-2021, 01:08 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Again, how many passes has he had thrown his way and how many drops has he had?

We’re going around in circles here. Again, If Taylor had no intention of using him more in the passing game he shouldn’t have wasted a 2nd round pick on him. Idc how good he blocks, that’s terrible value.

(01-05-2021, 01:08 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Again, how many passes has he had thrown his way and how many drops has he had?

Not too hard to catch passes that travel an average of 5.2 yards and with no one else around you.

You can pick up a UDFA to make those types of catches.

(01-05-2021, 01:10 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: What's funny is the person you're replying to is one of those rare unicorns that thinks 1.) Drew Sample is a decent TE and 2.) Zac Taylor is a good coach.

Talk about having your cake and eating it too.  It can't say Drew Sample stinks (ok?), but he also can't say Zac Taylor misuses him or overdrafted either (wtf???).  It's honestly an amazing take.

Of course this person is the same one who predicted an AFC Championship last season, predicted "great things" from Zac Taylor, and predicted all sorts of others thing he was wrong about.

So again, in your world a TE who doesn't get a lot of passes his way is a bum because he doesn't get a lot of balls thrown his way. It couldn't be because the #1 and #2 targets are Boyd and Higgins, it's just that he's a bum.

I would venture to say after watching 2 seasons on Sample, he is Free Agent material and should never have been drafted in 1st place
I hope he saved his signing bonus.

(01-05-2021, 01:12 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: We’re going around in circles here. Again, If Taylor had no intention of using him more in the passing game he shouldn’t have wasted a 2nd round pick on him. Idc how good he blocks, that’s terrible value.

Arguing that Taylor should not have taken him is a totally different argument than saying he's a bum for not catching passes that are not thrown his way.

Let me answer Sled and my question, which I know you were specifically avoiding. He was thrown to 53 times and had 40 receptions.

That’s over 75% catch success rate.

Kelce, for example, was targeted 145 times and had 105 receptions.... for a 72% catch success rate.


What else do you guys have to say?

(01-05-2021, 01:12 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: We’re going around in circles here. Again, If Taylor had no intention of using him more in the passing game he shouldn’t have wasted a 2nd round pick on him. Idc how good he blocks, that’s terrible value.

In an outside zone run blocking scheme a TE-Y that is athletic enough to down block ends and get out into space to reach linebackers along with the ability to run flares on naked boots is extremely important.

It's also a big reason they went out and got James Casey as a TE coach.

(01-05-2021, 01:16 PM)wildcatnku24 Wrote: Let me answer Sled and my question, which I know you were specifically avoiding.  He was thrown to 53 times and had 40 receptions.  

That’s over 75% catch success rate.  

Kelce, for example, was targeted 145 times and had 105 receptions.... for a 72% catch success rate.


What else do you guys have to say?

Oh, they'll come up with something cute like "he's a bum"

(01-05-2021, 01:16 PM)wildcatnku24 Wrote: Let me answer Sled and my question, which I know you were specifically avoiding.  He was thrown to 53 times and had 40 receptions.  

That’s over 75% catch success rate.  

Kelce, for example, was targeted 145 times and had 105 receptions.... for a 72% catch success rate.


What else do you guys have to say?

I hope nobody uses this stat to suggest Sample is on the same playing level as Kelce. Kelce is building himself a HoF career.

(01-05-2021, 01:18 PM)TecmoBengals Wrote: I hope nobody uses this stat to suggest Sample is on the same playing level as Kelce. Kelce is building himself a HoF career.

And if Sample was thrown the ball more, we may say the same thing of him.  The stats suggest he’s better at catching the ball than the great Kelce.  

(01-05-2021, 01:16 PM)wildcatnku24 Wrote: Let me answer Sled and my question, which I know you were specifically avoiding.  He was thrown to 53 times and had 40 receptions.  

That’s over 75% catch success rate.  

Kelce, for example, was targeted 145 times and had 105 receptions.... for a 72% catch success rate.


What else do you guys have to say?

Sample yards per catch: 8.7
Kelce yards per catch: 13.5

Sample average depth of target: 4.3 yards
Kelce average depth of target: 8.4 yards

Sample yards after catch per reception: 4.8
Kelce yards after catch per reception: 5.6

Sample % of targets for 1st Down: 30.2%
Kelce % of targets for 1st Down: 54.5%


That's not even touching 349 vs 1416 yards or 1 vs 11 TDs. Sample is a super short checkdown TE who doesn't get 1st downs, isn't impressive YAC, doesn't go down the field, and can't compile stats... but sure, that 3% catch rate difference makes up for all of that.


....this has to be trolling, right?

(01-05-2021, 01:20 PM)wildcatnku24 Wrote: And if Sample was thrown the ball more, we may say the same thing of him.  The stats suggest he’s better at catching the ball than the great Kelce.  

Kelce makes more contested catches and when DCs have to gameplan vs the Chiefs the 1st thing they worry about is how to limit the damage Kelce does.
Kelce is a threat. Sample isnt causing DCs to lose sleep.

(01-05-2021, 01:20 PM)wildcatnku24 Wrote: And if Sample was thrown the ball more, we may say the same thing of him.  The stats suggest he’s better at catching the ball than the great Kelce.  

A 3% catching success rate difference does not equate to putting Kelce and Sample in the same category of talent. It's nonsensical to suggest differently and ignore all the other variables that come into play.

(01-05-2021, 01:16 PM)wildcatnku24 Wrote: Let me answer Sled and my question, which I know you were specifically avoiding.  He was thrown to 53 times and had 40 receptions.  

That’s over 75% catch success rate.  

Kelce, for example, was targeted 145 times and had 105 receptions.... for a 72% catch success rate.


What else do you guys have to say?

I did answer it, two posts above.

Not too hard to catch passes that travel an average of 5.2 yards and with no one else around you.

You can pick up a UDFA to make those types of catches.

When you're bringing up catch percentages between Travis Kelce and Drew Sample, and somehow using it to prop Sample up, it becomes clear that none of these arguments are worth the time.  There's little to no understanding of the routes run and catches made.

(01-05-2021, 01:25 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Sample yards per catch: 8.7
Kelce yards per catch: 13.5

Sample average depth of target: 4.3 yards
Kelce average depth of target: 8.4 yards

Sample yards after catch per reception: 4.8
Kelce yards after catch per reception: 5.6

Sample % of targets for 1st Down: 30.2%
Kelce % of targets for 1st Down: 54.5%


That's not even touching 349 vs 1416 yards or 1 vs 11 TDs. Sample is a super short checkdown TE who doesn't get 1st downs, isn't impressive YAC, doesn't go down the field, and can't compile stats... but sure, that 3% catch rate difference makes up for all of that.


....this has to be trolling, right?

Not really trolling, just giving stats with a hint of apparently undetectable sarcasm.  Obviously Drew Sample is NOT Kelce.  But Drew Sample is also clearly not a Bum.  I think he’s making the most of his chances.  But really, I’d also say a big part of his stats (or lack thereof) likely have more to do with him supporting the O-Line, which can you imagine the vitriol from everyone regarding not doing everything we can to protect Burrow?  But no, we instead choose the narrative of Zac doesn’t know how to use a TE instead.  Because it makes us happy to criticize our players even when it’s ridiculous.

(01-05-2021, 01:25 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Sample yards per catch: 8.7
Kelce yards per catch: 13.5

Sample average depth of target: 4.3 yards
Kelce average depth of target: 8.4 yards

Sample yards after catch per reception: 4.8
Kelce yards after catch per reception: 5.6

Sample % of targets for 1st Down: 30.2%
Kelce % of targets for 1st Down: 54.5%


That's not even touching 349 vs 1416 yards or 1 vs 11 TDs. Sample is a super short checkdown TE who doesn't get 1st downs, isn't impressive YAC, doesn't go down the field, and can't compile stats... but sure, that 3% catch rate difference makes up for all of that.


....this has to be trolling, right?

Yeah, suggesting a 3% catch rate difference means Sample might have the level of talent and success Kelce does is either trolling or stupidity. I like forum hot takes and having fun on boards, but come on.