(03-15-2021, 09:49 AM)Whatever Wrote: How often do you see a QB sustain an injury like Burrow's because of a hit coming off RT?  In Burrow's case, as well as similar injuries sustained by Palmer and Brady, it's guys coming up the middle and diving low at the QB's plant leg.  

(03-15-2021, 09:57 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: But that's the beauty of a prospect like Slater. He can play all 5 positions. Now, obviously, talking about who you're going to draft is kind of irrelevant until you get through the major portion of free agency, but let's say we don't sign a good left guard (which was the position that caused Joe's injury). You can draft Slater and put him at LG and then, in a year or two, you can move him out to RT when you sign a proper guard in free agency.

Or you can keep him at guard. I know guards are generally undervalued in the draft but, while I think Slater is a great prospect at tackle, I think he's an elite prospect at guard, since his size is no longer a disadvantage at all. He has all the athleticism and technique to be a pro bowl guard very early in his career, and then he has the potential to be a great tackle if he "overcomes his size issues."

If we sign a guard in free agency, but not a tackle, then obviously Slater can slot in there as well. Or if your free agent guard gets injured, he can move over from RT and you can put Fred Johnson in at RT. Wherever you have a weakness, Slater can fill that weakness. His versatility is just another asset he brings to the team.

Slater is an especially attractive option given the guard market is quickly drying up with Zeitler and Norwell no longer available.

(03-15-2021, 11:18 AM)Whatever Wrote: To my knowledge, he has never played C, at least not in college.  He's been a RT and a LT.

One of the sites I look at, drafttek.com, has position rankings and overall rankings for guys that project to multiple positions.  Slater ranks #12 overall as a T and #28 overall as a G.  Big reach either way.

The elephant in the room with Slater is he's a guy with good technique and a maxed out frame.  He has very little room to get better, which is why it's hard to see him ever becoming an elite starter in the NFL.

(03-15-2021, 11:27 AM)Synric Wrote: It's his lack of scheme versatility that will make or break his career no matter what position he ends up playing.

Slater needs to go to a team that prioritizes Athleticism over Raw Power. He won't draw as much interest from teams that run that Man Gap/heavy inside zone. Slater could be elite in a wide zone scheme like the 49ers, Vikings, Browns, and Rams (possibly the Bengals). 

(03-15-2021, 11:18 AM)Whatever Wrote: To my knowledge, he has never played C, at least not in college.  He's been a RT and a LT.

One of the sites I look at, drafttek.com, has position rankings and overall rankings for guys that project to multiple positions.  Slater ranks #12 overall as a T and #28 overall as a G.  Big reach either way.

The elephant in the room with Slater is he's a guy with good technique and a maxed out frame.  He has very little room to get better, which is why it's hard to see him ever becoming an elite starter in the NFL.

(03-15-2021, 12:37 PM)Whatever Wrote: That presents a big issue.  If you're taking a guy at 5, you're looking for a franchise cornerstone type player.  Are you willing to pigeonhole yourself on your OC and OL Coach hires for the next 10-12 years?

(03-15-2021, 12:53 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: One website says he's #12, but there are resources that have him as a top 10 prospect. If a player is worth a top 10 (or even top 12) pick, I don't think it's unforgivable to take him at #5, especially if we're talking about a free agency period that did not address the Oline appropriately such that we're spending our top 5 pick on the position. If we still have a need glaring enough on the Oline to still be talking about taking Sewell, we need to be open to Slater as well. For the sake of Joe and the future of this franchise. If we address Oline in free agency, then sure open up the #5 pick to BPA. But if we're looking to draft a day 1 Oline starter in this draft (meaning we didn't properly fix the line in free agency), then the #5 pick is where we have our best chance to secure Joe's health.

As far as scheme versatility goes, I don't think people are properly respecting his strength. He isn't a technique only OT. He's strong, athletic and technically sound. His only weakness is he doesn't have 34 inch arms. If he weren't strong, he would have been plowed over by the likes of Chase Young and other Big 10 DEs that play with a great combination of speed and strength. 

I know we were burned by Ogbuehi who was considered a "technical, athletic" OT. It still hurts me too. But just because a prospect is athletic and technically sound does not automatically make them weak, as is the case with Slater.

(03-15-2021, 12:53 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: One website says he's #12, but there are resources that have him as a top 10 prospect. If a player is worth a top 10 (or even top 12) pick, I don't think it's unforgivable to take him at #5, especially if we're talking about a free agency period that did not address the Oline appropriately such that we're spending our top 5 pick on the position. If we still have a need glaring enough on the Oline to still be talking about taking Sewell, we need to be open to Slater as well. For the sake of Joe and the future of this franchise. If we address Oline in free agency, then sure open up the #5 pick to BPA. But if we're looking to draft a day 1 Oline starter in this draft (meaning we didn't properly fix the line in free agency), then the #5 pick is where we have our best chance to secure Joe's health.

As far as scheme versatility goes, I don't think people are properly respecting his strength. He isn't a technique only OT. He's strong, athletic and technically sound. His only weakness is he doesn't have 34 inch arms. If he weren't strong, he would have been plowed over by the likes of Chase Young and other Big 10 DEs that play with a great combination of speed and strength. 

I know we were burned by Ogbuehi who was considered a "technical, athletic" OT. It still hurts me too. But just because a prospect is athletic and technically sound does not automatically make them weak, as is the case with Slater.

(03-15-2021, 01:59 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: Which is funny because some of the same people that don’t want Pitts because “Taylor doesn’t use TE’s” are all on board with taking Slater...

(03-15-2021, 03:20 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: please show me a play where we had one tackle on the Oline ?  Slater would be a full time starter.. Pitts might see the field 60 % of the time...

that is the issue plus if you are going to say too high to reach for a guard.. I could say too high to reach for a TE

(03-15-2021, 03:45 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: It would not be that low. Uzomah was looking like a major part of our offense before he got hurt last year. He played 72% of the snaps in week one. And Pitts is obviously on a different planet compared to him in terms of talent and ability. He’d likely play closer to what a Darren Waller does (who is probably his best comparison), which is about 90% of the offensive snaps.

(03-15-2021, 04:01 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: I don't see Pitts as a stronger blocker (which is the one knock on him from most analysts) Uzomah much better so will be used a bit less in blocking. as I stated he could be used as low as 60% , highly unlikely he will be used over 80% still ignored that Slater will be playing everydown.. so what am i missing

(03-15-2021, 04:17 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: Who cares if a guard is playing every snap if he’s not a good fit for the scheme the OL coach wants to run? And I’m not even saying that’s the case with Slater and the Bengals. But Whatever raises a good point that it could be somewhat limiting to where he ends up. Yet it will get hand waved over by someone like you who doesn’t want a flex TE because of concerns about scheme and how he’d be used in a specific type of offense. It’s ironic to me.

(03-15-2021, 04:41 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: So since neither is a good fit from different so you then would pass on both.. correct?

(03-15-2021, 04:45 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: I don’t agree Pitts wouldn’t be a good fit (that’s other people’s narrative around here), so no.

Slater I’d be pretty underwhelmed with in the top 5.

(03-15-2021, 04:41 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: So since neither is a good fit from different so you then would pass on both.. correct?

(03-15-2021, 06:10 PM)Synric Wrote: Kyle Pitts fits in any scheme in the NFL. In fact if you took a player like Pitts the scheme would revolve around him because of the mismatches he creates. 

(03-16-2021, 03:42 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: I could easily say Slater fits any scheme, that is a pretty general statement and  I could also say Pitts would not fit a run heavy scheme .. also there has become more and more of these types of TEs in the league and there are becoming more and more LBS and Safeties that actually cover these types of TEs.. it is a trend in the league on both ends... 

that is not taking away the talent that Pitts looks to possess in college to the NFL he may be superior than some other comparison TEs.. but the reality is this type of TE was way more rare 10 years ago... less now.. same with the type of LBs that are coming out of college today that are starting to be groomed to cover these type of TEs.

(03-16-2021, 03:54 PM)Synric Wrote: What type of run heavy team?

Vikings run heavy wide zone he fits perfectly same with Tennesee and Cleveland. His Athletic ability would be a perfect fit blocking laterally in space. Not to mention he would be so very dangerous with playaction.

I think you read a scouting report or two and seen it says not a great blocker and that's the end of that. He is so much more than a Tight End and the possibilities with Kyle Pitts in your Offense is endless. This is why you are seeing people mention him as the only guy they would trade into the top 10 for and as the guy behind Trevor Lawrence to make the most impact in the draft class.