TeamPitts

[Au165]

(04-28-2021, 02:14 PM)Benton Wrote: 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.

You take him because he can line up inline and chip or check and release which does help the line but he still can get into a pattern. His blocking will be minimal though outside of running sets but using him as a move TE that blocks in motion and then fakes the motion and getting into a route creates a really nice mismatch that the 49ers and Titans have done in the past with their TE's. 

[Au165]

(04-28-2021, 02:17 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: 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.

I forgot about 17 games this year actually, so we will say 16 games because that's a season that every other TE was held against. I said 100-120 which is a range based on where he may go and how they use him. The proration was there to keep it alive if he didn't hit 16 games we'd say the pace of 100 over 14 or 15, but heck since you claimed he couldn't "sniff" 100 in such an arrogant and condescending way then just go the full season (16 game rate of 6.25 a game) and say he won't hit it, where did your confidence go? Weak Leonard.

[*ochocincos*]

(04-28-2021, 02:14 PM)Benton Wrote: 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.

No no, you misunderstood.
I didn't say "never use him to block," I just said don't have him primarily block.
Pass catch first, block second.

He can block. He gives effort when he blocks, he just needs more practice and bulk up a bit more.

His value is going to come in his versatility to play from inline TE (which can mean catching and blocking occasionally), in the slot, and also out wide. You can't do all that with a traditional WR.

Where Pitts may not quite get the yards of a top-end WR, I think he'll get more TDs.
I see Pitts as a consistent double-digit TD guy in this league, and also getting in the 1000-1200 yard range.

Would you rather a 1300-1400 yard WR who gets 6-8 TDs or a 1000-1200 yard TE-WR hybrid who gives you 10-12 TDs?
I choose the latter, and I think Pitts will be that kind of player.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(04-28-2021, 02:21 PM)Au165 Wrote: I forgot about 17 games this year actually, so we will say 16 games because that's a season that every other TE was held against. I said 100-120 which is a range based on where he may go and how they use him. The proration was there to keep it alive if he didn't hit 16 games we'd say the pace of 100 over 14 or 15, but heck since you claimed he couldn't "sniff" 100 in such an arrogant and condescending way then just go the full season (16 game rate of 6.25 a game) and say he won't hit it, where did your confidence go? Weak Leonard.

Because being a little banged up is a part and parcel of playing TE. Here's a list of how many games played by 1st rd rookie TEs the last 20 seasons...

Hockenson: 12
Fant: 16
Hurst: 12
Howard: 14
Engram: 15
Njoku: 16 
Ebron: 15
Eifert: 15
Gresham: 15
Pettigrew: 11
Keller: 16
Olsen: 14
Davis: 10
Lewis: 15
Miller: 16
Winslow: 2
Watson: 1
Clark: 10
Graham: 12
Stevens: 12
Heap: 12

That's 21 1st round TEs in the last 20 years.

Other than Njoku and Keller who were low workload guy (Njoku never played even 60% of the offensive snaps in a single game his rookie season), the only 1st round TEs in the last 20 years to play all 16 games of their rookie seasons are Noah Fant and Heath Miller.

So yeah, TEs just get hurt. It's the position. Pretty much never expect them to play all 16 games (now 17 games) and just be pleasantly surprised if they do.

[*SHRacerX*]

(04-28-2021, 11:37 AM)Hammerstripes Wrote: I think we'll get a true stud, but I don't see the same upside with Chase as I do with Sewell or Pitts.  But only time will tell,

Why?  Chase has ridiculous production to back him up.  The others are being sold more on potential.  

[*ochocincos*]

I am so happy this thread is over 100 replies btw. I'm enjoying talking about someone else besides Chase vs Sewell

[Hammerstripes]

(04-28-2021, 02:53 PM)SHRacerX Wrote: Why?  Chase has ridiculous production to back him up.  The others are being sold more on potential.  

Sure, 1 year in an offense loaded with 1st round WRs and a generational college QB.  Guys like Chase come around every year.  Guys like Pitts don't.

[iLLuSi0nz]

Pitts will be a star for any team he goes to with an above average QB. With a great QB he will be scary. He will probably even make a below average QB look better. I am hopeful we take him if he's there but if he's not we do have other good options.

He's my preference of the 3 and especially considering both Chase and Sewell are a year removed from playing. Seems to be not really a lot different than someone opting out of the draft (say a high 1st round pick not liking their lined up probable destination) sitting out a year and re-entering the next year's draft which does not happen too often.

[Au165]

(04-28-2021, 02:52 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Because being a little banged up is a part and parcel of playing TE. Here's a list of how many games played by 1st rd rookie TEs the last 20 seasons...

Hockenson: 12
Fant: 16
Hurst: 12
Howard: 14
Engram: 15
Njoku: 16 
Ebron: 15
Eifert: 15
Gresham: 15
Pettigrew: 11
Keller: 16
Olsen: 14
Davis: 10
Lewis: 15
Miller: 16
Winslow: 2
Watson: 1
Clark: 10
Graham: 12
Stevens: 12
Heap: 12

That's 21 1st round TEs in the last 20 years.

Other than Njoku and Keller who were low workload guy (Njoku never played even 60% of the offensive snaps in a single game his rookie season), the only 1st round TEs in the last 20 years to play all 16 games of their rookie seasons are Noah Fant and Heath Miller.

So yeah, TEs just get hurt. It's the position. Pretty much never expect them to play all 16 games (now 17 games) and just be pleasantly surprised if they do.

Was that your argument though, that he couldn't "sniff" 100 targets because he may get hurt? I don't see you ever really talk about that. You may be modifying your position now, but the topic of injury wasn't there for multiple pages as you berated people for a TE's potential production. Why do you look at TE injuries as rookies, specifically 1st rounders, are they magically going to get hurt more because they are rookies or 1st rounders? I do think it's interesting the way you did the data because if you go back the last 10 years only 3 of 9 didn't play at least 15 games, almost like in today's NFL they are less likely to get hurt because you can't blow them up going across the middle. With that said, 50% of the 115 TE's in the league last year played at least 14 games with 40 of them playing all 16.

Fun fact, no player (WR or TE) in the league last year got to 100 targets playing less than 14 games and only 4 did it missing those 2 games, so why would I allow you to let the expectation be 12? I am saying that if the guy is healthy he can get 100 targets, I am arguing about his skill. Your argument is now morphing from a skill one to "he has to be healthy and that's part of it" argument which wasn't the position you had taken for the last couple of hours. 
 
If we are adding the potential of injury into this then we probably need to go back a couple of pages and reframe this thing because a lot of the push about why a WR is better wasn't mentioning the high rate of 1st rd WR injuries, I only saw you reference a rookie who missed no games last year.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(04-28-2021, 03:33 PM)Au165 Wrote: Was that your argument though, that he couldn't "sniff" 100 targets because he may get hurt? I don't see you ever really talk about that. You may be modifying your position now, but the topic of injury wasn't there for multiple pages as you berated people for a TE's potential production. Why do you look at TE injuries as rookies, specifically 1st rounders, are they magically going to get hurt more because they are rookies or 1st rounders? I do think it's interesting the way you did the data because if you go back the last 10 years only 3 of 9 didn't play at least 15 games, almost like in today's NFL they are less likely to get hurt because you can't blow them up going across the middle. With that said, 50% of the 115 TE's in the league last year played at least 14 games with 40 of them playing all 16.

Fun fact, no player (WR or TE) in the league last year got to 100 targets playing less than 14 games and only 4 did it missing those 2 games, so why would I allow you to let the expectation be 12? I am saying that if the guy is healthy he can get 100 targets, I am arguing about his skill. Your argument is now morphing from a skill one to "he has to be healthy and that's part of it" argument which wasn't the position you had taken for the last couple of hours. 
 
If we are adding the potential of injury into this then we probably need to go back a couple of pages and reframe this thing because a lot of the push about why a WR is better wasn't mentioning the high rate of 1st rd WR injuries, I only saw you reference a rookie who missed no games last year.

I have talked about TEs being hurt for years. It's not a new stance. Talked about it a good amount earlier in the FA period. I even mentioned it quite awhile back in this thread when someone tried to say TEs last a long time and made like 7 examples of HoF TEs, and I said that they were great TEs BECAUSE they held up. 

You just hope your TE is more Gresham (1-2 games missed) than Eifert. 2020 was the first time Gronkowski played 16 games in the last 9 seasons. Kittle has only played 16 games in 1 of 4 seasons. 

I mentioned 1st rounders when talking about injuries earlier because they're generally expected to actually start from the getgo. If you're a 6th round pick and you play 16 games as a STer, or play like 15% of the offensive snaps, it's not really the same thing as we're talking about. ....Also because I did all that looking up and compiling by hand, and I simply didn't want to expand it.

The reason Pitts won't reach the targets isn't just because of likely injury, and it isn't just because TEs historically struggle their first year (Gronk had 546yds, Kittle had 515yds, Gonzalez had 368yds, Witten had 347yds, Gates had 389yds), and it isn't because if he goes to the Falcons he will have to share targets with Julio, Ridley, and Gage. It's a combination of all of them. The deck is stacked against the likelihood that all the stars align for his rookie season... and all of that is ignoring the possibility (regardless how small you think it is) he just outright busts.

[*ochocincos*]

(04-28-2021, 05:04 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I have talked about TEs being hurt for years. It's not a new stance. Talked about it a good amount earlier in the FA period. I even mentioned it quite awhile back in this thread when someone tried to say TEs last a long time and made like 7 examples of HoF TEs, and I said that they were great TEs BECAUSE they held up. 

You just hope your TE is more Gresham (1-2 games missed) than Eifert. 2020 was the first time Gronkowski played 16 games in the last 9 seasons. Kittle has only played 16 games in 1 of 4 seasons. 

I mentioned 1st rounders when talking about injuries earlier because they're generally expected to actually start from the getgo. If you're a 6th round pick and you play 16 games as a STer, or play like 15% of the offensive snaps, it's not really the same thing as we're talking about. ....Also because I did all that looking up and compiling by hand, and I simply didn't want to expand it.

The reason Pitts won't reach the targets isn't just because of likely injury, and it isn't just because TEs historically struggle their first year (Gronk had 546yds, Kittle had 515yds, Gonzalez had 368yds, Witten had 347yds, Gates had 389yds), and it isn't because if he goes to the Falcons he will have to share targets with Julio, Ridley, and Gage. It's a combination of all of them. The deck is stacked against the likelihood that all the stars align for his rookie season... and all of that is ignoring the possibility (regardless how small you think it is) he just outright busts.

You don't think Pitts has as much opportunity to see 100+ targets in ATL as Chase does in CIN?
Ryan threw the ball 628 times last year, the most in the NFL.
Hayden Hurst got 88 targets and is just "meh" as a pass catcher.


If Pitts goes to ATL, I fully expect him to get the 3rd most targets on the team, which would put him at around 100, especially if they trade Jones.

If Chase is taken by the Bengals, he could end up around just 100 too, as Taylor's offense likes to spread the ball around and will have to spread targets to Higgins, Boyd, Chase, Uzomah, and the RB.

Is Chase likely to get more targets than Pitts because of the positions they play? Yes.
But I don't think it will be as big of a difference as some think.

[*SHRacerX*]

(04-28-2021, 03:18 PM)Hammerstripes Wrote: Sure, 1 year in an offense loaded with 1st round WRs and a generational college QB.  Guys like Chase come around every year.  Guys like Pitts don't.

At least he produced at record levels at the highest level.  And, I'm sorry, but this statement (bolded) is ridiculous.  

[Hammerstripes]

(04-28-2021, 05:54 PM)SHRacerX Wrote: At least he produced at record levels at the highest level.  And, I'm sorry, but this statement (bolded) is ridiculous.  

How's it so ridiculous? Every year there are 6'0 190-200lb guys that put up big numbers.  Not all of them get drafted in the top 10 (although there have been several instances where 2-3 WRs have gone in the top 10) and more often than not, the guys drafted that high just don't pan out.

I'm not sure why people think Chase is this once in a decade type guy, he's just not.  Hell, there's 2 other guys in this year's draft that are comparable.

[*Synric*]

(04-28-2021, 05:04 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I have talked about TEs being hurt for years. It's not a new stance. Talked about it a good amount earlier in the FA period. I even mentioned it quite awhile back in this thread when someone tried to say TEs last a long time and made like 7 examples of HoF TEs, and I said that they were great TEs BECAUSE they held up. 

You just hope your TE is more Gresham (1-2 games missed) than Eifert. 2020 was the first time Gronkowski played 16 games in the last 9 seasons. Kittle has only played 16 games in 1 of 4 seasons. 

I mentioned 1st rounders when talking about injuries earlier because they're generally expected to actually start from the getgo. If you're a 6th round pick and you play 16 games as a STer, or play like 15% of the offensive snaps, it's not really the same thing as we're talking about. ....Also because I did all that looking up and compiling by hand, and I simply didn't want to expand it.

The reason Pitts won't reach the targets isn't just because of likely injury, and it isn't just because TEs historically struggle their first year (Gronk had 546yds, Kittle had 515yds, Gonzalez had 368yds, Witten had 347yds, Gates had 389yds), and it isn't because if he goes to the Falcons he will have to share targets with Julio, Ridley, and Gage. It's a combination of all of them. The deck is stacked against the likelihood that all the stars align for his rookie season... and all of that is ignoring the possibility (regardless how small you think it is) he just outright busts.

You know in your entire rant you have not talked about Kyle Pitts as a draft prospect once other than mentioning his stats...

Historical position data, position injury history of rookie years, number of targets for the position, and stat comparison vs WR and TE position all of that is irrelevant numbers that have nothing to do with Kyle Pitts as a draft prospect.

[impactplaya]

(04-28-2021, 06:30 PM)Synric Wrote: You know in your entire rant you have not talked about Kyle Pitts as a draft prospect once other than mentioning his stats...

Historical position data, position injury history of rookie years, number of targets for the position, and stat comparison vs WR and TE position all of that is irrelevant numbers that have nothing to do with Kyle Pitts as a draft prospect.

Whoever doesnt want Pitts  must be happy with Sample

[Hammerstripes]

(04-28-2021, 06:33 PM)impactplaya Wrote: Whoever doesnt want Pitts  must be happy with Sample

I get the old school mindset.  But people talk about needing an outside WR and that it's a must since we run 3 WR sets.  The NFL has changed and we need to have 3 stud WRs.  Well, the NFL is changing and the great offenses these days have stud TEs.  

You can either be behind the times (like the Bengals usually are) or you can be an early adopter.  I doubt Pitts is there as I think the Falcons still think Ryan has 3-4 years left.  In fact I'd be shocked if they don't announce an extension during or shortly after the draft.

Pitts, Chase and Smith would all help the passing game.  We should have one of the top sets of skill guys regardless of who we take.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(04-28-2021, 06:33 PM)impactplaya Wrote: Whoever doesnt want Pitts  must be happy with Sample

Whoever doesn't want Sewell must be happy with Brandon Allen at QB.

See? I can do that too. I still think the Bengals need to go OL 1-2. Nothing is more important than protecting Joe Burrow.

[Hammerstripes]

(04-28-2021, 07:20 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Whoever doesn't want Sewell must be happy with Brandon Allen at QB.

See? I can do that too. I still think the Bengals need to go OL 1-2. Nothing is more important than protecting Joe Burrow.

I'll be "happy" with Sewell, Pitts or Chase if we stay 5 (which we should)

I obviously have a preference for building the line, but all should have an impact provided the rest of the draft is solid.

[impactplaya]

(04-28-2021, 07:20 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Whoever doesn't want Sewell must be happy with Brandon Allen at QB.

See? I can do that too. I still think the Bengals need to go OL 1-2. Nothing is more important than protecting Joe Burrow.

The Bengals can draft Sewell and Burrow I promise
You will.be hit and he can.end up 
On the IR. Sewell.does not absolve JB from landing
On.the ground 

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(04-28-2021, 08:11 PM)impactplaya Wrote: The Bengals can draft Sewell and Burrow I promise
You will.be hit and he can.end up 
On the IR. Sewell.does not absolve JB from landing
On.the ground 

And drafting Pitts or Chase doesn't guarantee completions.

Sure Sewell doesn't guarantee Burrow being protected, but taking Sewell and Eichenberg 1-2 sure makes it a whole lot better odds than not taking them.