Chase versus Pitts

[*Synric*]

(03-23-2021, 12:16 PM)Au165 Wrote: That is a failure of scouting because guys picked after them were elite. In the past, because Pitt wasn't a great (still solid) inline blocker, he would have been knocked down potentially to a 2nd or 3rd round pick in a league that was more worried about the TE being able to block. If you took Travis Kelce at 5, would you be upset? If you took Darren Waller at 5, would you be upset? 

The funny thing about all this is I actually don't think Pitts gets to us. If he does, and we pass, he will be in Philly at 6. The league as a whole recognizes this guy is elite, it really isn't even questionable.

As a blocker a wide zone scheme would also play to his strengths even inline... but also blocking feom the as a H-Back, in the slot, and all the way on the boundary.

[Au165]

(03-23-2021, 12:25 PM)Synric Wrote: As a blocker a wide zone scheme would also play to his strengths even inline... but also blocking feom the as a H-Back, in the slot, and all the way on the boundary.

He only has to feign blocking enough to require a LB or safety to stay on him versus letting a CB follow him inline. 

[*Synric*]

(03-23-2021, 12:31 PM)Au165 Wrote: He only has to feign blocking enough to require a LB or safety to stay on him versus letting a CB follow him inline. 

I'm just saying his explosion off the snap, short area quickness, and length will fit better inline blocking in a wide zone than trying to move DE off the LoS in a gap or heavy inside zone. 

[Whatever]

(03-23-2021, 09:23 AM)Au165 Wrote: Here is something I am not sure most people talk about. Let's say Pitts gives you Kelce/Waller production on his rookie deal and Chase gives you Davante Adams/Tyreek Hill production. At the end of that contract, there is a massive difference, Pitts, as a TE will command far less money as the top of the TE market is almost 10 million less per year than the top of the WR market. If you can get elite production from both guys, from a financial standpoint it makes better sense to go with the TE. Hell, if you end up in a franchise tag situation you'd have been looking at 16 basically for a WR versus 9.5 for a TE this year as an example.

I think both can be great players, but I think the age of the elite TE is coming back, and being at the forefront of that offers a lot of advantages.

If Pitts gets used a lot as a WR, as many are predicting, he will likely challenge the TE designation for the FT and/or contract negotiations.  Similar thing happened years back when the 3-4 edge OLB's challenged the LB designation on the FT and wanted to be tagged as DE's.  

[Schmitbuck]

(03-23-2021, 12:16 PM)Au165 Wrote: That is a failure of scouting because guys picked after them were elite. In the past, because Pitt wasn't a great (still solid) inline blocker, he would have been knocked down potentially to a 2nd or 3rd round pick in a league that was more worried about the TE being able to block. If you took Travis Kelce at 5, would you be upset? If you took Darren Waller at 5, would you be upset? 

The funny thing about all this is I actually don't think Pitts gets to us. If he does, and we pass, he will be in Philly at 6. The league as a whole recognizes this guy is elite, it really isn't even questionable.

25 years is a long time for not a single example and to call it a scouting failure. Most would call it a trend. And saying he's a solid blocker is kind of the opposite of what all the scouts are saying. 

Also want to put out there that I acknowledge I could be completely wrong on Pitts. I just don't value the position over their OL needs. The lack of success with Eifert & Gresham has tainted me. If the Bengals pick Pitts and he becomes an All-Pro, I'll gladly eat crow. 

[yang]

(03-23-2021, 12:03 PM)Au165 Wrote: No, there really isn't. It's not about picking "non-successful" the point is simply the stats don't tell you who the player is and doing so is a fool's errand. 

Because they played for different teams, with different schemes, alongside different personnel? Is that a serious question?

Look, I know you aren't seriously saying college production has no correlation to NFL success or teams could just draw names out of hat, or pick strictly off combine stats which is absurd.   So teams look for statistical predictors to help with their projections.   Who knows where the Bengals have Pitts, but from what we know about previous Bengals WR's they will have Chase extremely high regardless of the Burrow connection.  He just grades out high in every area especially breakout age and production.   Every team is going to have him rated very high.  Players with this profile rarely miss. 

None of this is to say Pitts won't.  It's just Chase projects higher.   And I think there will doubts Pitts projects as an every down X receiver.  

[Nicomo Cosca]

(03-23-2021, 01:32 PM)Schmitbuck Wrote: 25 years is a long time for not a single example and to call it a scouting failure. Most would call it a trend. And saying he's a solid blocker is kind of the opposite of what all the scouts are saying. 

Also want to put out there that I acknowledge I could be completely wrong on Pitts. I just don't value the position over their OL needs. The lack of success with Eifert & Gresham has tainted me. If the Bengals pick Pitts and he becomes an All-Pro, I'll gladly eat crow. 

Eifert was a vital part of one of the best teams we’ve had in franchise history. And both him and Gresham were Pro Bowlers here. I don’t really see how either are examples of why we should stay away from TE in the 1st.

[Nicomo Cosca]

(03-23-2021, 01:38 PM)yang Wrote: Look, I know you aren't seriously saying college production has no correlation to NFL success or teams could just draw names out of hat, or pick strictly off combine stats which is absurd.   So teams look for statistical predictors to help with their projections.   Who knows where the Bengals have Pitts, but from what we know about previous Bengals WR's they will have Chase extremely high regardless of the Burrow connection.  He just grades out high in every area especially breakout age and production.   Every team is going to have him rated very high.  Players with this profile rarely miss. 

None of this is to say Pitts won't.  It's just Chase projects higher.   And I think there will doubts Pitts projects as an every down X receiver.  

Why are we questioning Pitts’ production anyway? 770 yds and 12 TD in only 8 games this past season is fantastic.

[*ochocincos*]

Pitts' unofficial 40 time matches Darren Waller's 40 time at 4.46.
Waller's height and weight are also near-identical to Pitts. 6'5", 241 lb for Waller, 6'6", 240 lb for Pitts.
That speed is just about 0.1 sec slower than Calvin Johnson, who was about the same size.
Megatron obviously stayed full-time at WR whereas Waller is more like a WR-TE hybrid.

Ja'Marr Chase reportedly ran 4.40 back last Summer, according to Bleacher Report. But he's "just" 6'1", 208 lb.

Personally, I'd take the 6'6", 240 lb guy who runs in upper 4.4's over a shorter guy who runs 4.40.
But both are very appealing.

[Goalpost]

(03-23-2021, 01:38 PM)yang Wrote:   It's just Chase projects higher.   

Not according to NFL.com.

Pitts  7 19
Chase 7.05

[*ochocincos*]

(03-23-2021, 01:48 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: Why are we questioning Pitts’ production anyway? 770 yds and 12 TD in only 8 games this past season is fantastic.

While also sharing targets with Kadarius Toney, who had 70 receptions for 984 yards, 10 TDs in 11 games.

[KillerGoose]

(03-23-2021, 01:38 PM)yang Wrote: Look, I know you aren't seriously saying college production has no correlation to NFL success or teams could just draw names out of hat, or pick strictly off combine stats which is absurd.   So teams look for statistical predictors to help with their projections.   Who knows where the Bengals have Pitts, but from what we know about previous Bengals WR's they will have Chase extremely high regardless of the Burrow connection.  He just grades out high in every area especially breakout age and production.   Every team is going to have him rated very high.  Players with this profile rarely miss. 

None of this is to say Pitts won't.  It's just Chase projects higher.   And I think there will doubts Pitts projects as an every down X receiver.  

When it comes to statistical production in college, there is no correlation to NFL success. If a QB throws for 5000 yards in college, this isn’t a strong indicator of that QB being successful in the NFL. Texas Tech and Hawaii are examples of this. A receiver with 1800 yards in a season isn’t a strong indicator of success in the NFL.

AJ Green had 848 yards in college with 9 TDs. He was 56th in the nation in yards and 32nd in touchdowns. Despite these less than stellar numbers comparatively, he went #4 overall and has had a stellar NFL career. This is because of the traits and abilities he possessed. Michael Crabtree had 1962 yards in 2007. Despite this, he has went over 1000 yards only twice in his career. Trevor Insley had 2060 yards in 1999. He was undrafted and had less than 200 yards for his NFL career.

There is no correlation of college productions predicting NFL success. The abilities they show while producing those stats, mediocre or spectacular, is what matters and that’s why being successful at drafting is pretty difficult.

[Schmitbuck]

(03-23-2021, 01:44 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: Eifert was a vital part of one of the best teams we’ve had in franchise history. And both him and Gresham were Pro Bowlers here. I don’t really see how either are examples of why we should stay away from TE in the 1st.

I'm fine if the Bengals want to take Pitts at 21. 

Eifert had 1 season at that high level. Neither guy in hindsight was worthy of a first round pick and that's been my point. There aren't many 1st round TEs that live up to the draft spot, certainly not in then top 10.

[*ochocincos*]

(03-23-2021, 01:57 PM)Schmitbuck Wrote: I'm fine if the Bengals want to take Pitts at 21. 

Eifert had 1 season at that high level. Neither guy in hindsight was worthy of a first round pick and that's been my point. There aren't many 1st round TEs that live up to the draft spot, certainly not in then top 10.

Eifert ran a 4.68 40. Pitts is way faster than Eifert.
Eifert's best season in college = 63 rec, 803 yards, 5 TDs in 13 games. 12.7 YPR.
Pitts' best season = 43 rec, 770 yards, 12 TDs in 8 games. 17.9 YPR.

Pitts is a better prospect than Eifert, and should go, at worst, in the 10-15 range.
He's very likely going to be a Top 10 pick, and possibly go in the Top 5 now that he has shown he has WR speed.

[Nicomo Cosca]

(03-23-2021, 01:57 PM)Schmitbuck Wrote: I'm fine if the Bengals want to take Pitts at 21. 

Eifert had 1 season at that high level. Neither guy in hindsight was worthy of a first round pick and that's been my point. There aren't many 1st round TEs that live up to the draft spot, certainly not in then top 10.

Eifert’s issue was obviously injuries, not lack of high end talent.

[Au165]

(03-23-2021, 01:10 PM)Whatever Wrote: If Pitts gets used a lot as a WR, as many are predicting, he will likely challenge the TE designation for the FT and/or contract negotiations.  Similar thing happened years back when the 3-4 edge OLB's challenged the LB designation on the FT and wanted to be tagged as DE's.  

Jimmy Graham tried this when it came to the tag, he lost in arbitration. 

[Au165]

The funny thing is there is a fair argument that Chase isn't even the best WR in the class.

[Schmitbuck]

(03-23-2021, 02:10 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Eifert ran a 4.68 40. Pitts is way faster than Eifert.
Eifert's best season in college = 63 rec, 803 yards, 5 TDs in 13 games. 12.7 YPR.
Pitts' best season = 43 rec, 770 yards, 12 TDs in 8 games. 17.9 YPR.

Pitts is a better prospect than Eifert, and should go, at worst, in the 10-15 range.
He's very likely going to be a Top 10 pick, and possibly go in the Top 5 now that he has shown he has WR speed.

He could be a top 10 pick like you say. I just don't want the Bengals picking him there when they're are more pressing needs. TE that high is a luxury pick that doesn't pay out. 

I asked earlier today for someone to name a top 10 drafted TE in the last 25 years that lived up to their draft spot and there haven't been any. 

If you expand that out to top 15 in the draft and Tony Gonzalez is the only example I could find. If the Bengals can trade down to the teens and accumulate the draft capital that goes with it, that's the only scenario I'd be ok with selecting Pitts.   

[Schmitbuck]

(03-23-2021, 02:12 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: Eifert’s issue was obviously injuries, not lack of high end talent.

Didn't he have those injury concerns in coming out? I can't remember if he did, but I remember not liking the pick. 

[Au165]

(03-23-2021, 02:38 PM)Schmitbuck Wrote: He could be a top 10 pick like you say. I just don't want the Bengals picking him there when they're are more pressing needs. TE that high is a luxury pick that doesn't pay out. 

I asked earlier today for someone to name a top 10 drafted TE in the last 25 years that lived up to their draft spot and there haven't been any. 

If you expand that out to top 15 in the draft and Tony Gonzalez is the only example I could find. If the Bengals can trade down to the teens and accumulate the draft capital that goes with it, that's the only scenario I'd be ok with selecting Pitts.   

The argument you are trying to make is a flawed argument though. As I explained, the reason the elite TE's have historically been found later is that they lacked the traditional blocking prowess that teams wanted but in today's game is not even necessary. When you downgrade guys for their ability to block but then value receiving far more than blocking you get groupthink pushing them down. Many TE's have been worth top 10 picks they simply weren't taken there, that does not mean a TE is not worth a top 10 pick.

Again, if you took Travis Kelce or Darren Waller at 5 you would not be mad. Where they went doesn't matter because they are giving you elite production. Being hung up on historical draft slots doesn't actually prove anything.