Extend Eifert?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(03-13-2017, 01:38 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: How many times did the Pats pass that year? Or any year compared to the Bengals? Also, to your first post, I don't think it's fair to include Eifert's rookie year with his averages. He was obviously 2nd fiddle to Gresh as a rookie. We saw his true potential in '15, and while he's not Gronk, he could compete for 2nd best TE in the NFL...if he can start staying relatively healthy.

I have a strong feeling that Eifert (like Gronk) will be up and down with injuries through his career, so I don't see the 2.3 games played per season difference as very substantial between the 2. Eifert played (I think) 14 games as a rookie and 13 games in 2015. He's coming into this season healthy (so far), so I'd gamble on him playing closer to a full slate this year.

I get that you don't like that Eifert has trouble staying healthy (understandable), but I don't know why you try to make it seem like he's something less than a game changer. I fully believe Eifert was what made this team look like a SB contender in 2015. He truly is an amazing talent. It'll be a total shame if he can't stay healthy...ala Bob Sanders.

You might think that it's not fair to include Eifert's rookie year, but I also included Gronk's rookie year (Gronk was 4th on the team in targets, receptions, and yards his rookie year). If anything, including their rookies years makes the production gap between the two less extreme. Not to mention that without his rookie year, we're working with a sample size of 22 games for Eifert.

I have never ever said that Eifert isn't a good player, or a game changer (when healthy). I have simply pointed out that he's nowhere in the league of Gronk. There's nothing wrong with that. I just wish people would stop trying to compare the two. It's like trying to compare DeSean Jackson to Calvin Johnson. Sure Jackson is a good player and has been a game changer (when healthy), but he's never been the huge dominating force that Calvin was.

Either way, my overall point in this thread is... it doesn't make sense for Eifert to sign a contract below market value right now when he can bet on himself and make significantly more next offseason.

(03-13-2017, 04:20 AM)Jpoore Wrote: Thats not really comparable bc u basically have 2 seasons. One where he had 13 tds another where he had like 5. I would take eifert over gronk any day hes better.

Annnnd we just found the one person who could run this team worse than Mike Brown.  (Well, besides those AJ McCarron fanboys. )

[magikod]

(03-12-2017, 03:40 PM)muskiesfan Wrote: With the amount of money they're not spending in free agency, they better re-sign Eifert and Burfict. Unless the rollover from last year goes straight into the Brown family bank account, they have to be rolling over somewhere in the neighborhood of $12-13m to next year. There is absolutely no excuse if they do not retain both of them. Of course, that probably means both will be gone, we'll re-sign Winston and brag about the comp picks.

haha this is so true 

[OrlandoBengal]

(03-13-2017, 12:39 PM)Sled21 Wrote: But, if the doom and gloomers are right (and I'm not saying they're not), he will have a hard time having a good year with Andy running for his life the whole time he is on the field....

With the way the line looks right now, I don't think Andy is going to have much time to stand in the pocket and find open receivers.  Which is another reason I want to wait if I'm Eifert.  He is not a blocking tight end and should want to be in a pass happy offense.  If the line is as bad as it looks on paper, there are better destinations for him.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

They've been saving for him since before he was drafted!  So, going off of precedence established by this "FO", I'd say no, he won't get extended.....we can't overpay, ya know.  How much does dumbass value the TE position?