TeamPitts

[Au165]

(04-28-2021, 12:12 PM)Hammerstripes Wrote: At 5'11, Bush has zero chance of matching up with him.  Minkah very well would be the best option in the division.

I just really love the idea of Pitts.  And don't kid yourself, he could play outside at WR as well.  None of the SEC CBs like Horn, Surtain etc. could cover him either.  He runs routes like a WR>

Bush can run with him, the height mismatch is an issue for everyone that can run with him. In terms of Linebackers in the NFL who could cover him Bush is one of the best options. 

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(04-28-2021, 11:43 AM)Au165 Wrote: Waller was on drugs and was wasting away in Baltimore for two years before coming to Oakland and getting clean, so it's not really a fair comparison there. As for Kelce, his 2nd year 9.9 per target was the best of his entire career and again goes back to being more about opportunity rather than skill. If you take a guy like Pitts high, he is getting 100-120 targets in year 1.

That's some chicken and egg stuff there, man. Players generally get more targets because they get better. 

I mean Kelce got 16 more targets in year 3 than he did year 2 and he got only 13 more yards to show for it. Just because you throw to a guy 2x as much doesn't mean he's going to put up 2x the stats. He needs to be open enough to actually make the extra targets viable.

Lol... Nobody is throwing to Pitts 120 times in year 1. Only 19 players had at least 120 targets in 2020, and only 20 the year before. He won't even sniff 100 unless the team has literally no other viable pass catchers at WR. 

In the last 10 drafts, he only 1st round pick TE one to get at least 70 targets as a rookie was Evan Engram and that was on a 3-13 Giants team where nobody reached 750 receiving yards, and Engram only caught 55.7% of the passes thrown at him. The WRs on that team were Sterling Shepard (731 yards) and Roger Lewis (416 yards).

(04-28-2021, 11:46 AM)Hammerstripes Wrote: If Pitts could have the impact Eifert had as a rookie, he would be worth the pick.

Eifert as a rookie was a #2 TE, and 6th on the team in receiving yards.

[*Synric*]

(04-28-2021, 12:24 PM)Au165 Wrote: Bush can run with him, the height mismatch is an issue for everyone that can run with him. In terms of Linebackers in the NFL who could cover him Bush is one of the best options. 

Bush could run with him but I think Pitts catch radius and body control will be tough for him to matchup with...

[Hammerstripes]

(04-28-2021, 12:26 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: That's some chicken and egg stuff there, man. Players generally get more targets because they get better. 

I mean Kelce got 16 more targets in year 3 than he did year 2 and he got only 13 more yards to show for it. Just because you throw to a guy 2x as much doesn't mean he's going to put up 2x the stats. He needs to be open enough to actually make the extra targets viable.

Lol... Nobody is throwing to Pitts 120 times in year 1. Only 19 players had at least 120 targets in 2020, and only 20 the year before. He won't even sniff 100 unless the team has literally no other viable pass catchers at WR. 

In the last 10 drafts, he only 1st round pick TE one to get at least 70 targets as a rookie was Evan Engram and that was on a 3-13 Giants team where nobody reached 750 receiving yards, and Engram only caught 55.7% of the passes thrown at him. The WRs on that team were Sterling Shepard (731 yards) and Roger Lewis (416 yards).




Eifert as a rookie was a #2 TE, and 6th on the team in receiving yards.

And he made a serious impact on the middle of the field and red zone.  Our outside guys were freed up because teams had to respect him.

Like I said in an earlier post, this isn't about raw numbers, it's about creating mismatches outside because you can't dedicate too much help on other guys.

If the Bengals are running a 3 wide set, it's going to be pretty tough to account for those guys plus a legit threat down the middle of the field.

[Au165]

(04-28-2021, 12:26 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: That's some chicken and egg stuff there, man. Players generally get more targets because they get better. 

I mean Kelce got 16 more targets in year 3 than he did year 2 and he got only 13 more yards to show for it. Just because you throw to a guy 2x as much doesn't mean he's going to put up 2x the stats. He needs to be open enough to actually make the extra targets viable.

Lol... Nobody is throwing to Pitts 120 times in year 1. Only 19 players had at least 120 targets in 2020, and only 20 the year before. He won't even sniff 100 unless the team has literally no other viable pass catchers at WR. 

In the last 10 drafts, he only 1st round pick TE one to get at least 70 targets as a rookie was Evan Engram and that was on a 3-13 Giants team where nobody reached 750 receiving yards, and Engram only caught 55.7% of the passes thrown at him. The WRs on that team were Sterling Shepard (731 yards) and Roger Lewis (416 yards).

No not really, that is why scheme matters. I pointed out yards per target because it shows how they produced when given the opportunity, not even yards per reception which requires the person to make the catch that could have added to the total. He was producing at a high level on minimal targets and the argument of "open" is a pure assumption without any context to if he was or wasn't based on the actual play on the field. 

There were 42 players last year with 100, hence why I said 100-120 targets. What does "sniff 100" mean? if it's being within 10 targets then you can add another 11 players. Funny enough Logan Thomas had 110 targets in a bad Washington offense, but before you mention it there were 3 receiving options in that offense that had 100 targets. Part of the ability to get a 100 targets is to be in an offense that throws a substantial amount of times, if he is in an offense throwing 450-485 times he is most likely going to capture 100 targets.

To use historical examples also discredits that we are discussing a guy that A. would be going higher than pretty much every other guy, so one could argue is valued higher and B. is really not like any other TE we have seen in recent year. Evan Engram is the closest comp as a receiver you mention and he had 115 targets and didn't start 4 games and didn't play in one. It is VERY likely that a healthy Kyle Pitts will get 100 targets in year 1, and I'd even be willing to place a bet on that assuming health. 

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(04-28-2021, 12:36 PM)Hammerstripes Wrote: And he made a serious impact on the middle of the field and red zone.  Our outside guys were freed up because teams had to respect him.

Like I said in an earlier post, this isn't about raw numbers, it's about creating mismatches outside because you can't dedicate too much help on other guys.

If the Bengals are running a 3 wide set, it's going to be pretty tough to account for those guys plus a legit threat down the middle of the field.

I think you're thinking of 2015, which was his 3rd year. Eifert's rookie year he had 2 TDs in 15 starts.

Eifert his rookie year: 39/445(11.2)/2
Uzomah in 2018: 43/439(10.2)/3

You're either thinking of 2015, or you've remembered Eifert's rookie year as something completely different than what it actually was. Eifert his rookie year had 10 catches for 93 yards on the opponent's half of the field.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(04-28-2021, 12:44 PM)Au165 Wrote: No not really, that is why scheme matters. I pointed out yards per target because it shows how they produced when given the opportunity, not even yards per reception which requires the person to make the catch that could have added to the total. He was producing at a high level on minimal targets and the argument of "open" is a pure assumption without any context to if he was or wasn't based on the actual play on the field. 

There were 42 players last year with 100, hence why I said 100-120 targets. What does "sniff 100" mean? if it's being within 10 targets then you can add another 11 players. Funny enough Logan Thomas had 110 targets in a bad Washington offense, but before you mention it there were 3 receiving options in that offense that had 100 targets. Part of the ability to get a 100 targets is to be in an offense that throws a substantial amount of times, if he is in an offense throwing 450-485 times he is most likely going to capture 100 targets.

To use historical examples also discredits that we are discussing a guy that A. would be going higher than pretty much every other guy, so one could argue is valued higher and B. is really not like any other TE we have seen in recent year. Evan Engram is the closest comp as a receiver you mention and he had 115 targets and didn't start 4 games and didn't play in one. It is VERY likely that a healthy Kyle Pitts will get 100 targets in year 1, and I'd even be willing to place a bet on that assuming health. 

Except yards per target doesn't just show how they produced when given the opportunity, because it also is highly dependent upon 50 other factors. Like how long the offense can block (and thus how far down the field they can go), and how accurate their QB is. It's not a particularly helpful statistic.

In 2020, Kelce had 9.8 yards per target.
In 2019, Kelce had 9.0 yards per target. 
BECAUSE
In 2020, Kelce had 8.5 yards average depth per target.
In 2019, Kelce had 9.0 yards average depth per target.


Which is part of the reason why Kelce also caught 1.1% more of his targets. That is 1.1% of the targets turning from 0 yards to 13.5 yards. That could just be the difference between a game in one year where it rained and so there were 2 passes that were uncatchably errant. It's a silly statistic to choose as a standalone for productivity.

- - - - - - - -

Logan Thomas had 110 targets in his 7th NFL season. You said rookie season.

Those 4 games Engram didn't start? He still played at least 77% of the offensive snaps in each of them, which is absolutely a starter's workload. Once again, that was a 3-13 team with 0 750yd receivers and the #2 was a 400 yard guy who was out of the league after that year. 

I will gladly make a sig bet with you that Pitts doesn't get 100 regular season targets his rookie season. I'll even give you a health-out in it.

Bet: Pitts Reaches 100 Regular Season Targets As A Rookie
Payout: "The genius *Insert Victor's Name Here* was right about Pitts and the idiot *Insert Loser's Name Here* was wrong." (First line, centered text in your sig, no quotation marks.)
Payout Date: Monday after the final week of 2021 regular season.
Payout Duration: Until Bengals first game of 2022 regular season
Void Condition: Pitts misses 4+ games with injury or illness. (Healthy Scratches/Suspensions do not count towards the 4.)

Deal?

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(04-27-2021, 02:22 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Enough with the Sewell vs Chase threads.
Where my fellow #TeamPitts crew at?!

Pitts is projected by multiple known draft experts as the top prospect after Trevor Lawrence.
Daniel Jeremiah on NFL.com has him as #2 overall.
TheDraftNetwork has Pitts #2 overall as well.
PFF has Pitts rated 5th, ahead of Chase.
ProFootballNetwork has him at 4th overall.

The comparison is a safer Darren Waller, who has put up an average of 1170 yards and 6 TDs each season since given a full-time starting role with the Raiders.

NFL Analyst Matt Bowen compared Pitts to Plaxico Burress, which is a fair comparison due to size, but Pitts is actually faster and heavier than Plax.

He has the versatility to play inline TE, in the slot, and even outside WR, as he did with Florida.

Let's get the hype back up for this guy!!

   

Nice thread, hope he gets past the Falcons as he is my pick between the 3. Pitts, then Sewell, then Chase but would be happy 
with any of the 3. I just think Pitts can be special and we can get some really good OL starters in the 2nd to 4th round in this
Draft.

A WR/TE which I think is how he should be described not a TE that is 6'6" can run a 4.44 forty, runs crisp routes with great 
hands is extremely rare. Just like Waller except Waller had off field problems which Pitts hasn't had. Calvin Johnson, Plax and 
Waller mix. Crazy talent.

[Au165]

(04-28-2021, 01:23 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Except yards per target doesn't just show how they produced when given the opportunity, because it also is highly dependent upon 50 other factors. Like how long the offense can block (and thus how far down the field they can go), and how accurate their QB is. It's not a particularly helpful statistic.

In 2020, Kelce had 9.8 yards per target.
In 2019, Kelce had 9.0 yards per target. 
BECAUSE
In 2020, Kelce had 8.5 yards average depth per target.
In 2019, Kelce had 9.0 yards average depth per target.


Which is part of the reason why Kelce also caught 1.1% more of his targets. That is 1.1% of the targets turning from 0 yards to 13.5 yards. That could just be the difference between a game in one year where it rained and so there were 2 passes that were uncatchably errant. It's a silly statistic to choose as a standalone for productivity.

- - - - - - - -

Logan Thomas had 110 targets in his 7th NFL season. You said rookie season.

Those 4 games Engram didn't start? He still played at least 77% of the offensive snaps in each of them, which is absolutely a starter's workload. Once again, that was a 3-13 team with 0 750yd receivers and the #2 was a 400 yard guy who was out of the league after that year. 

I will gladly make a sig bet with you that Pitts doesn't get 100 regular season targets his rookie season. I'll even give you a health-out in it.

Bet: Pitts Reaches 100 Regular Season Targets As A Rookie
Payout: "The genius *Insert Victor's Name Here* was right about Pitts and the idiot *Insert Loser's Name Here* was wrong." (First line, centered text in your sig, no quotation marks.)
Payout Date: Monday after the final week of 2021 regular season.
Payout Duration: Until Bengals first game of 2022 regular season
Void Condition: Pitts misses 4+ games with injury or illness. (Healthy Scratches/Suspensions do not count towards the 4.)

Deal?

The idiot followed by the name seems redundant, maybe I “name” am an idiot and was wrong.

Not sure where 12 games came from, I mentioned Engram missing 4 but didn’t say that was a qualifier. You never said rookies don’t do it because they miss time you acted as if it was a skill situation. If healthy he hits 100 targets, that was my statement so if you want to do 100 over 16 or a prorated version down to 14 if he misses two games I’m in. Anymore than two games it’s probably a lingering issue and there are too many health factors at play.

[*ochocincos*]

(04-28-2021, 01:31 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Nice thread, hope he gets past the Falcons as he is my pick between the 3. Pitts, then Sewell, then Chase but would be happy 
with any of the 3. I just think Pitts can be special and we can get some really good OL starters in the 2nd to 4th round in this
Draft.

A WR/TE which I think is how he should be described not a TE that is 6'6" can run a 4.44 forty, runs crisp routes with great 
hands is extremely rare. Just like Waller except Waller had off field problems which Pitts hasn't had. Calvin Johnson, Plax and 
Waller mix. Crazy talent.

I'm Pitts>Chase>Sewell, but that's primarily because of the talent difference between these guys and their Day 2 counterparts.

[*ochocincos*]

(04-28-2021, 01:23 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Except yards per target doesn't just show how they produced when given the opportunity, because it also is highly dependent upon 50 other factors. Like how long the offense can block (and thus how far down the field they can go), and how accurate their QB is. It's not a particularly helpful statistic.

In 2020, Kelce had 9.8 yards per target.
In 2019, Kelce had 9.0 yards per target. 
BECAUSE
In 2020, Kelce had 8.5 yards average depth per target.
In 2019, Kelce had 9.0 yards average depth per target.


Which is part of the reason why Kelce also caught 1.1% more of his targets. That is 1.1% of the targets turning from 0 yards to 13.5 yards. That could just be the difference between a game in one year where it rained and so there were 2 passes that were uncatchably errant. It's a silly statistic to choose as a standalone for productivity.

- - - - - - - -

Logan Thomas had 110 targets in his 7th NFL season. You said rookie season.

Those 4 games Engram didn't start? He still played at least 77% of the offensive snaps in each of them, which is absolutely a starter's workload. Once again, that was a 3-13 team with 0 750yd receivers and the #2 was a 400 yard guy who was out of the league after that year. 

I will gladly make a sig bet with you that Pitts doesn't get 100 regular season targets his rookie season. I'll even give you a health-out in it.

Bet: Pitts Reaches 100 Regular Season Targets As A Rookie
Payout: "The genius *Insert Victor's Name Here* was right about Pitts and the idiot *Insert Loser's Name Here* was wrong." (First line, centered text in your sig, no quotation marks.)
Payout Date: Monday after the final week of 2021 regular season.
Payout Duration: Until Bengals first game of 2022 regular season
Void Condition: Pitts misses 4+ games with injury or illness. (Healthy Scratches/Suspensions do not count towards the 4.)

Deal?

Holy crap...Logan Thomas entered the NFL 7 years ago?
Wow, time flies.

To be fair though, he came in as a QB. He only started converting to TE in 2017, so it took a few years to get there. Had he been brought in as a TE from the beginning, he might have become a good TE sooner.

[Au165]

(04-28-2021, 01:44 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Holy crap...Logan Thomas entered the NFL 7 years ago?
Wow, time flies.

To be fair though, he came in as a QB. He only started converting to TE in 2017, so it took a few years to get there. Had he been brought in as a TE from the beginning, he might have become a good TE sooner.

The point about Logan Thomas is he isn’t good and was on a bad offense not that he was a rookie lol.

[Bengalstripes9]

I could definitely get behind a Pitts selection. I really think he gets drafted at 4 though--either by the Falcons or a team that trades up.

[Au165]

(04-28-2021, 01:48 PM)Bengalstripes9 Wrote: I could definitely get behind a Pitts selection. I really think he gets drafted at 4 though--either by the Falcons or a team that trades up.

Fowler and Graziano both reported recently Falcons plan to stay out and take Pitts. If they move Julio as some believe Pitts will be a main focus in ATL.

[*ochocincos*]

(04-28-2021, 01:46 PM)Au165 Wrote: The point about Logan Thomas is he isn’t good and was on a bad offense not that he was a rookie lol.

Logan Thomas was 7th among TEs for receiving yards, tied for 9th in TDs.
He's become a good TE, albeit probably too late to stick around for many more years at that performance level.


Pitts would be expected to put up way more than 670 yards and 6 TDs though, which is why he's projected to be worth going in the Top 10.

The Bengals should be able to find Logan Thomas level talent from the likes of Freiermuth, Jordan, Long, or Tremble in the Rd 2-4 range.

[impactplaya]

Most teams dont feature a target that is 6'5 and with radius like
Pitts has. If the Bengals draft Kyle Pitts, come mid week and that team the Bengals are facing I.e Ravens Browns...they have no one
on their rosters that can replicate Pitts when the defense has to
Face a scout team offense...
Hey Devin Bush you will guard Eric Ebron who is Kyle Pitts
Today....then come gameday Bush will be so ill prepared
To take on Pitts

[Au165]

(04-28-2021, 01:52 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Logan Thomas was 7th among TEs for receiving yards, tied for 9th in TDs.
He's become a good TE, albeit probably too late to stick around for many more years at that performance level.


Pitts would be expected to put up way more than 670 yards and 6 TDs though, which is why he's projected to be worth going in the Top 10.

The Bengals should be able to find Logan Thomas level talent from the likes of Freiermuth, Jordan, Long, or Tremble in the Rd 2-4 range.

He had almost more opportunity than any other TE in the league, 1st in routes ran and 3rd in targets but he didn’t produce. His quality of targets were middle of the road so not the greatest but not the worst which means his production should have been much higher. That is why I am always leery of using stats of accumulation over efficiency and he was middle of the road in terms of efficiency.

[Benton]

(04-28-2021, 01:31 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Height
Pitts - 6'6
Nelson - 6'3

Weight
Pitts - 246 pounds
Nelson - 217 pounds

40 Time
Pitts - 4.44
Nelson - 4.51

Vertical
Pitts - 33.5"
Nelson - 31"


Age (at time of these measurements)
Pitts - 20
Nelson - 22

Depsite being (slightly over) 3 inches taller and almost 30 pounds heavier, Pitts is faster can jump higher than Nelson did, and is two years younger.  I would include that he's stronger too, or that his wingspan is ridiculous but Jordan Nelson doesn't have those numbers available from his combine.

Fwiw, I somewhat understand your point (that if he can't block then he's just a huge WR) but this seems like a poor comparison.  If anything, it only further strengthens the argument that Kyle Pitts is a very unique type of prospect.

Appreciate the legwork but I wasn't trying to draw a comparison specifically between those two. Nelson was just the first 'good not great'' receiver to pop into my head. 

Because I think that's what pitts is: a good receiver. But I don't know how well that's going to translate to being an nfl te.

[Benton]

(04-28-2021, 09:50 AM)ochocincos Wrote: If you take Pitts, you don't use him primarily as a blocking TE anyway. You use him essentially as a receiver who blocks occasionally.
Put him out wide, put him in the slot, or put him inline.

Maybe I'm crazy, but I think Pitts is a perennial 1000+ yard guy if used properly.
I think the people who don't want him see him as a 700 yard guy.

That's where I don't get taking pitts at 5. If we were taking him just to use as a receiver, there's better receivers. If we're taking him because our line sucks and we need blocking help, there's linemen available or blocking tes you can get later.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(04-28-2021, 01:39 PM)Au165 Wrote: The idiot followed by the name seems redundant, maybe I “name” am an idiot and was wrong.

Not sure where 12 games came from, I mentioned Engram missing 4 but didn’t say that was a qualifier. You never said rookies don’t do it because they miss time you acted as if it was a skill situation. If healthy he hits 100 targets, that was my statement so if you want to do 100 over 16 or a prorated version down to 14 if he misses two games I’m in. Anymore than two games it’s probably a lingering issue and there are too many health factors at play.

It's not 12 games. It's 14. If he misses 4 or more (out of 17) it would void. Meaning he could miss 3 and still play 14, which would be the same as missing 2 and playing 14 in the past.

You were talking 120 before, and now you're saying he'd need to be completely healthy to even hit 100 or want a lesser number at a prorated amount? Where'd the confidence go? Weak, Au.