Jump to content

Case against first round TEs


Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

This is quite interesting.   I'm not sure it's correct, but it has logic on its side.  

 

So it follows that the smart move in looking for tight ends is to draft one in later rounds and keep doing it until one turns into a star.   And look for a star in free agency.  In the meantime, what you need is a guy (exactly the kind of guy McDermott loves) who will spend all of his time and energy and whatever athletic ability he has learning all the difficult stuff you describe.  That guy likely will be as productive as a first-round, future Pro Bowl guy while the future Pro-Bowl guy is learning all the stuff he has to learn.   

 

This analysis brings me back to a conclusion I reached several years ago, which is that tight end just isn't that important a position that it makes sense to use an early first-round choice on one.  It's not so much that the position isn't important, because it's become more important in the past 10 years; it's just that you get better value at other positions high in the first-round.  It just isn't very likely that you're going to find a tight end high in the first round who is going to change your team in his first two or three years.   Sure, you MIGHT find a Gronk, but you can get a good offensive tackle high in the first round, and he's going to play for you from day one and make an impact on your team.  The chances of finding a Gronk, who impacts your team from day one, are pretty small.  

 

I know fans love one tight end coming out, but I'll be disappointed if that's the Bills' pick at 9.   I mean, if he's the pick, I'm sure Beane will know what he's doing, but I view a tight end pick at 9 as a high risk proposition.   With a much higher likelihood of success, you can get an offensive or defensive lineman at 9, and I believe that success in the first round is one of the most important principles in good team building.   QB is the only position that merits a high-risk, high-reward approach in the first round.   Spiller and Maybin were high-risk, high-reward, and those picks impacted the Bills' future for years.  

 

Come now Shaw, you are a level-headed poster and I like reading your material but do you really feel that Hock is a boom or bust, high-risk pick?

 

The worst I see is that he develops into a solid, but not standout offensive player at the position. When the Bills selected Maybin I christened him "Aaron Maybe" on this board because he only had 1 or 2 games against weak opponents where he padded his stats and I was blasted - it was all grab your pitchforks and torches. Then he sucked:)

 

Been wrong before, but this kid's college game has been consistent to date, he's young and still has room to grow more, received the Mackey award (first time awarded to a Sophomore), and does not have "bust" written on him. Could get injured, but that is a risk we take with any prospect.

 

I like the defensive blue-chippers too and would not mind if one fell to us, but Hock does not have to be risky for those picks to be graded higher in my book.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, WideNine said:

 

Come now Shaw, you are a level-headed poster and I like reading your material but do you really feel that Hock is a boom or bust, high-risk pick?

 

The worst I see is that he develops into a solid, but not standout offensive player at the position. When the Bills selected Maybin I christened him "Aaron Maybe" on this board because he only had 1 or 2 games against weak opponents where he padded his stats and I was blasted - it was all grab your pitchforks and torches. Then he sucked:)

 

Been wrong before, but this kid's college game has been consistent to date, he's young and still has room to grow more, received the Mackey award (first time awarded to a Sophomore), and does not have "bust" written on him. Could get injured, but that is a risk we take with any prospect.

 

I like the defensive blue-chippers too and would not mind if one fell to us, but Hock does not have to be risky for those picks to be graded higher in my book.

 

 

I posted this above.  Look at this last college year.  He did not play against top notch linebackers and only two games against guys who have some chance of making the NFL.    They lost to Wisconsin, by the way.

 

 

college OLB

#17   Andre Van Ginkel                Wisconsin               round 5-7

#18  R. Connelly                            Wisconsin               round 5-7

 

college ILB

#7  Blake Cashman,                  Minnesota                round 3-5

#11 T.J. Edwards,                      Wisconsin                 round 3-5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, WideNine said:

 

Come now Shaw, you are a level-headed poster and I like reading your material but do you really feel that Hock is a boom or bust, high-risk pick?

 

The worst I see is that he develops into a solid, but not standout offensive player at the position. When the Bills selected Maybin I christened him "Aaron Maybe" on this board because he only had 1 or 2 games against weak opponents where he padded his stats and I was blasted - it was all grab your pitchforks and torches. Then he sucked:)

 

Been wrong before, but this kid's college game has been consistent to date, he's young and still has room to grow more, received the Mackey award (first time awarded to a Sophomore), and does not have "bust" written on him. Could get injured, but that is a risk we take with any prospect.

 

I like the defensive blue-chippers too and would not mind if one fell to us, but Hock does not have to be risky for those picks to be graded higher in my book.

 

 

Two things:

 

1.  I don't expect to convince you or anyone else about this.  I've taken the same position about tight ends for at least 10 years.   I think I'm right, but I rarely convince anyone who thinks otherwise (on this or any other subject).

 

2.  I haven't spent one minute watching Hock (I don't even know what his full name is), and I've read no scouting reports about him.   You and others may be correct; he may the best tight end in the history of football, or at least on a par with Gonzalez and Gronk.  I understand that.   If he IS that guy, then by all means, he should be taken at 9.   However, he has to be all of that, he has to be THAT good, to change your team long-term.   If he isn't THAT good, then there's a higher probability that some lineman (O or D) you can draft at 9 will be more valuable to your team long-term.   That makes the TE pick at 9 high-risk, high reward.  As I said, one of my rules for success in the draft is "don't miss with your first-round pick."  A high-risk, high-reward guy increases the chances you will miss, and that hurts the team long-term.  

 

I'm just not willing to bet on a tight end.  

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, maryland-bills-fan said:

I posted this above.  Look at this last college year.  He did not play against top notch linebackers and only two games against guys who have some chance of making the NFL.    They lost to Wisconsin, by the way.

 

 

college OLB

#17   Andre Van Ginkel                Wisconsin               round 5-7

#18  R. Connelly                            Wisconsin               round 5-7

 

college ILB

#7  Blake Cashman,                  Minnesota                round 3-5

#11 T.J. Edwards,                      Wisconsin                 round 3-5

 

Very aware of those games Hock was double and triple teamed and the Hawkeye receivers had a big day. 

 

He also was a blocking machine, which does not show up in the passing stats, but why the Mackey committee had high praise for the kid.

 

Was referencing Maybin's stats which were QB sacks and pressures off the edge. Apple's and oranges.

 

 

Edited by WideNine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, WideNine said:

 

Very aware of those games Hock was double and triple teamed and the Hawkeye receivers had a big day. 

 

He also was a blocking machine, which how's not show up in the passing stats, but why the Mackey committee had high praise for the kid.

 

Was referencing Maybin's stats which were QB sacks and pressures off the edge. Apple's and oranges.

 

 

If the Bills take Hock at 9, I'll be delighted, because it will mean that the Bills see all the things you see, and they have validated their conclusion with investigation of all the other factors that they value and can evaluate.   If they take Hock at 9, I'm pretty certain that he will be starting by the time he gets to the middle of his rookie season.  And I'll be fine with that.  

 

I just think the Bills' BPA is much more likely to be a lineman.  I think it's hard for any TE to BPA at 9.   Maybe Hock is the exception. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine what a stud TE would do for Allen and the whole offense.  You don't have to take this guy off the field.. and he never drops the ball.. which was one of the biggest issues last year with our pass catchers.  

 

I think you need to help Allen with this first pick whether it be TE, OT, or WR..

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Two things:

 

1.  I don't expect to convince you or anyone else about this.  I've taken the same position about tight ends for at least 10 years.   I think I'm right, but I rarely convince anyone who thinks otherwise (on this or any other subject).

 

2.  I haven't spent one minute watching Hock (I don't even know what his full name is), and I've read no scouting reports about him.   You and others may be correct; he may the best tight end in the history of football, or at least on a par with Gonzalez and Gronk.  I understand that.   If he IS that guy, then by all means, he should be taken at 9.   However, he has to be all of that, he has to be THAT good, to change your team long-term.   If he isn't THAT good, then there's a higher probability that some lineman (O or D) you can draft at 9 will be more valuable to your team long-term.   That makes the TE pick at 9 high-risk, high reward.  As I said, one of my rules for success in the draft is "don't miss with your first-round pick."  A high-risk, high-reward guy increases the chances you will miss, and that hurts the team long-term.  

 

I'm just not willing to bet on a tight end.  

 

Fair enough.

 

He isn't Gronk, maybe Gronk lite. Gronk had better measurables and Gronkowski (another Pac 10 TE) won the Mackey award twice while playing through injuries at college.

 

However, T. J. Hockenson is really good, does not have the injury history, and declared early so has room to grow so not sure where his ceiling will be.

 

Just a safe bet, based on how pro-ready IA TEs have been considering their coach's roots with the Pats, and his body of work to date, that bust isn't in the cards.

 

I don't feel the same about any of the other TE prospects where I think they project to more limited offensive roles and longer learning curves with some inherent risks.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jumpsuit Jim said:

So the thesis of this post is “Tight Ends aren’t worth a first round pick because they rarely develop into elite 1st round football players before their rookie contract runs out”.

 

Most football analysts will say that the easiest, most plug-and-play out of the box from college to pro position is running back. I have also heard football people saying that one of the hardest transitions (outside of quarterback) is O Line because collegiate football is so different offensively than pro. 

 

So if we apply the original thesis to all positions, we should take running backs in the first round and offensive linemen in the latter rounds. 

 

I find the OP’s thesis to be a recipe for failure.  Null and void. 

Please notice that it is a passing league and running backs are now picked in later rounds.

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, maryland-bills-fan said:

 

You failed to notice that Hockenson's performance was all against linebackers who will probably not make a NFL roster.  Film showing wonderful things needs to consider that it shows the performance against relatively slower linebackers who don't react as quickly as the best linebackers.  When you watch film, you don't see the absolute speeds but the relative speeds of those players. 

Nonsense. I'm pretty sure you see the speed of the player you are looking at. How they do against opposing players is relative to the speed of those opposing players; however, I'm fairly confident NFL scouts have the ability to take that into consideration.

 

The vast majority of linebackers and cornerbacks that Div I receivers play against will never play in the NFL. So, by your theory, maybe teams should never select any college receivers in the draft because there is no way to adequately analyze game film unless it is against NFL caliber LBs and DBs (which, of course, would be projections unless they have already been drafted and been successful in the NFL)  :wallbash:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, HeHateMe said:

Imagine what a stud TE would do for Allen and the whole offense.  You don't have to take this guy off the field.. and he never drops the ball.. which was one of the biggest issues last year with our pass catchers.  

 

I think you need to help Allen with this first pick whether it be TE, OT, or WR..

 

 

Can he score so many points that our inability to get off the field on 3rd down on defense disappears?  Can he block the DE/EDGE guy that the OT misses and then go out for a 30 yard pass? 

1 minute ago, billsfan1959 said:

Nonsense. I'm pretty sure you see the speed of the player you are looking at. How they do against opposing players is relative to the speed of those opposing players; however, I'm fairly confident NFL scouts have the ability to take that into consideration.

 

The vast majority of linebackers and cornerbacks that Div I receivers play against will never play in the NFL. So, by your theory, maybe teams should never select any college receivers in the draft because there is no way to adequately analyze game film unless it is against NFL caliber LBs and DBs (which, of course, would be projections unless they have already been drafted and been successful in the NFL)  :wallbash:

Sorry, it is not nonsense.  No reason to continue this discussion, I think we both agree.

 

Edited by maryland-bills-fan
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, maryland-bills-fan said:

Can he score so many points that our inability to get off the field on 3rd down on defense disappears?  Can he block the DE/EDGE guy that the OT misses and then go out for a 30 yard pass? 

Sorry, it is not nonsense.  No reason to continue this discussion, I think we both agree.

 

 

This is dumb.  Can your D lineman run out to catch TDs 30 yards downfield or block in the run game?  

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, maryland-bills-fan said:

Please notice that it is a passing league and running backs are now picked in later rounds.

 

 

Somewhat flawed logic.

 

RBs have also been moving to the later rounds as teams with good offensive lines have shown they can have success utilizing low-rent or later-drafted RBs. 

 

That is why it has been hard for many successful runningbacks to secure long-term high dollar contracts when their original agreements are up for negotiation.

 

**************************************

Since I caused some confusion, I was not disagreeing about the NFL becoming a passing league, just the inference that more passing was the sole reason RBs are being drafted later.

 

 

Edited by WideNine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, HeHateMe said:

Imagine what a stud TE would do for Allen and the whole offense.  You don't have to take this guy off the field.. and he never drops the ball.. which was one of the biggest issues last year with our pass catchers.  

 

I think you need to help Allen with this first pick whether it be TE, OT, or WR..

 

 

I have to say I don't buy this "help out Allen" thing.   What will help out Allen is (1) his continuing to learn how to read and recognize NFL defenses, (2) how to adjust the offense to what he sees in the defenst and (3) getting him an offensive line that protects him and supports a decent running game.  If he has those thinks, the Bills just need to have receivers who know how to run routes and hold on to the ball.  Receivers get open based on scheme, and a well-run offense with a QB who knows what he's looking at always gets a receiver open somewhere.  Sure, a stud TE or a stud #1 wideout makes life easier for a QB, but a stud receiver can't cover for an inadequate QB nearly as well as a stud QB can cover for an inadequate receiver.  

 

Allen HAS to be good, and getting a receiver to "make" him good is a bogus concept.  

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

I wouldn't hate it if Hockenson is the choice, but I think the sweetspot for TE is later in the draft. I like Josh Oliver. I think Sternberger and Knox are worth a look as well.

 

Like those guys too.

 

Bit more development time, but Oliver particularly could develop into a solid TE.

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

I wouldn't hate it if Hockenson is the choice, but I think the sweetspot for TE is later in the draft. I like Josh Oliver. I think Sternberger and Knox are worth a look as well.

 

I tend to agree with you.  I just want to say that if Beane holds off for a Sternberger or Knox (who I think is big on his board) they need to be sure

they get one.  A decent TE is a need in this draft.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one of the more notable reasons why TE's do not develop as quickly is because most teams just don't have great TE coaches and the TE's get enveloped in with the WR's a lot.  It's just not like a lot of other positions.  Generally, when it comes to OL you have a positional coach who has played the position and know about it and you can go down the line with every position like this except for TE.  For example, and when I say this I'm not saying Greg didn't have anything valuable, but Greg Roman was the TE coach for the Ravens last year.  We know Greg.  Most teams have someone similar coaching TE's.

Edited by NewEraBills
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ColoradoBills said:

 

I tend to agree with you.  I just want to say that if Beane holds off for a Sternberger or Knox (who I think is big on his board) they need to be sure

they get one.  A decent TE is a need in this draft.

I agree. We don't probably have enough early picks, even with plausible trade downs and trade ups, to address all one would like. DT, Edge, OT imo, WR, TE on my list. Not sure where I would sacrifice, but TE is not one of the positions I neglect this draft.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...