Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Reed83HOF

Case against first round TEs

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Reed83HOF said:

The purpose of this post was to spur discussion on this topic and positional value in RD1. As I have said I like Hock and have high on my list of prospects based on talent, but there are some issues. 

 

The general thought on RD1 players is that they should be immediate contributors in today's NFL, it isn't the pre-free agency and pre-salary cap era, where they can sit on the bench and ripen; they need to play now. TE production there first few years is generally very low, the need to go through the learning curve of playing OL and WR in the NFL - that is 2 positions they need to become proficient in.

 

TE in the first round is a luxury pick and contribute very little during their rookie contract. If you can get 90% of the player in RD2 or lower, the contributions you rely on to win now are lessened, they have more time to develop and the cost of the contract is minimized so you can spend more on the premium positions that are able to contribute to winning now. Taking a player in RD1 to play in the long run is a waste of RD1 resources.

I agree with this, except I think it's extremely hard to prove.   The pro-TE folks aren't buying it.  

 

I've pretty much come around to the view that the winning formula is to have a franchise QB and have good total talent on the team, regardless of the rest of the positions.  That's Belichick's approach.   Shut-down corner is about the only position where he really wants a special talent.   

 

I think McB are following this approach.  They want really good athletes dedicated to their team concept, and they want to get better every day, every week, every year.  Year by year they upgrade the talent by taking the most talented players available to them.   And in evaluating talent, I think they factor in the positions that players play.   We had a brief discussion a couple weeks ago about how a guy who is a spectacular 3-4 LB prospect needs to be evaluated based on his importance to the team in the scheme the team plays, so no matter how good he is in the 3-4, the question is how good will he be in the 4-3.  That is, 3-4 skills aren't fundamental to how the Bills play football.   The extreme, silly example is the best punter in the history of football may be in the draft class, but he isn't your BPA because punting isn't fundamental to how you play football.  

 

Similarly, unless you're going to do what Belichick did with Gronk and Hernandez, tight end isn't fundamental to how the Bills want to play football.  Protecting to the quarterback is fundamental.  Getting at the other QB is fundamental.  Having a HOF tight end isn't any more important to the Bills' philosophy than a HOF OLB or a HOF wideout.  Taking a shot at the potential of a tight end makes more sense than taking a shot at a first-round punter,  but it makes less sense than taking a shot at the potential in a lineman.  

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Awesome! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

 

Numerous tight ends made a huge impact early on...

Gronk, Kelce, Ertz, Reed- They just happened to be picked up in rds 2-3.

 

if you re did those respective drafts today, they’d certainly be first rounders. 

 

To me this whole line of thought speaks more about a past problem projecting TEs from college to pros or teams overvaluing a position they don’t use enough in their scheme.  

 

So whatever tangibles have pushed some of these others into rd 1 in the past look to be the wrong ones. 

 

At some point folks are going to start getting it right 

 

 

 

 

It's not about redoing a draft. What did those players contribute in their first 2-4 years in the league? Who are the numerous TEs who had a huge impact early on and what was the roster like on those teams? The production out of a first rounder is just not quite there...

 

Gronk

image.thumb.png.b69b0cd432e59a025b05a34eac4aeb51.png

 

Ertz

image.thumb.png.cf2c370660853fc47f63a94c73c6c76a.png

 

Shockey

image.thumb.png.67b46d1124f83c5391be2de5e40e2227.png

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Nihilarian said:

Look at the people grading this player,

Gil Brandt, Has Hock as the 6th best player in the draft.

Todd McShay has Hock going #7 to the Jags.

Ex-scout for several NFL teams Daniel Jeremiah compares Iowa TE T.J. Hockenson to former TV broadcaster Jason Witten and a top 10 pick.

Ex-Buffalo Bill, ex-NFL scout NFL.com Analyst Bucky Brooks lists Iowa TE T.J. Hockenson is one of the "gold jacket" prospects in the 2019 NFL Draft class. A top ten pick.

Walter Football's Charlie Campbell compares Iowa TE T.J. Hockenson to Philadelphia Eagles TE Zack Ertz.

The Athletic's Dane Brugler believes Iowa TE T.J. Hockenson has a "complete skill set."

Mel Kiper sent Iowa tight end T.J. Hockenson to the Lions at No. 8 overall

Geez, could your man crush be more obvious for Hock... Anyways just for fun...

 

What they thought of OJ Howard:

Gil Brandt, Has Howard as the 13th best player in the draft.

Todd McShay has Howard going #4 to the Jags. 

Ex-scout for several NFL teams Daniel Jeremiah ranks Alabama TE OJ Howard 7th  best player in the draft, the safest pick and a top 10 pick.

Ex-Buffalo Bill, ex-NFL scout NFL.com Analyst Bucky Brooks says "Howard is the most complete tight end prospect to enter the league in the past decade." Said he could go top ten.

Walter Football's Charlie Campbell compares Alabama TE OJ Howard to Carolina Panthers TE Greg Olsen.

CBS Sports Dane Brugler believes Alabama TE OJ Howard has a "complete tight end."

Mel Kiper sent Alabama tight end OJ Howard  to the Jets at No. 6 overall

 

And one more for ya..

Mike Mayock, former scout, former NFLN Analyst draft guru and current Raiders GM has OJ Howard going #6 to the Jets

 

See what I did there? You are putting far far too much stock in the media personalities opinion of Hockenson. And with all those lofty expectations, how was Howard preformed thus far? Well it's all ready been pointed out in this thread so, I'm sure you've seen. PFF had Howard rated as the worst performer of the entire 1st round in 2017.

 

I get it, you are really banging the table for Hock, you've made ya mind up. I honestly don't care what all those people think of Hockenson, I've watched him and I've made my own mind up on him. The GMs for 32 teams have made up their own mind on him and he'll go where they think he should based on what they believe his value is.

Edited by Wayne Cubed
  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Reed83HOF said:

 

It has really made me re-think this position. Especially when I started to look into career stats, 500+ receptions, 50+ TDs etc = there are not many in NFL history ~11-14 of them with only 8 in the HOF. For a first rounder who catches passes I would want someone who will have more that 500 career catches and 50 TDs, especially in the top 10. I agree 100% with your conclusion. 

 

@BADOLBILZ has the best positions on what should be taken in round wise (QB, Pass Rusher, CB, LT, WR are Rd1 one guys - I'm close with this not exact LOL). There is a reason for this, they impact your chances of winning and losing each game the most and can contribute quickly. This matches up well with the free agency $$ you see when these guys hit the marketplace. 

I agree.  I think it's easy to fall in love with the best NFL tight ends, because they seem to make a lot of plays, but in the grand scheme I think it's unusual for a tight end to be a major long-term impact player for your team.   Look at Graham when he went to Seattle.   He was going to make their offense devastating.   The reality is it's tough for a TE to be the guy who drives the offense.  

 

I don't know about BADO's list, only because I'm not even sold on wideouts.   Other than QB, shut-down corner and an occasional safety, I don't think skill position players have the impact on the team that linemen and linebackers do.  

 

I think BPA is defined in part by importance to the team.  Not in terms of need, just in terms of how important the position is the schemes you're running.   I think more or less every coach will tell you that the overall strength of his offensive line and his defensive line is more important than the overall strength of his receiver room.  That translates into this:  if you have a receiver prospect and an offensive line prospect, and their potential to be All-Pro is exactly equal, the lineman is your BPA.   Not because you have a need, but because your team is better served long-term with a star lineman than a star receiver.  

 

And I put tight end behind the wideouts in that analysis.   So I think it's hard for a TE to be your BPA at 9.   The position just isn't as important as some others.  In other words, I think a tight end who is worth a pick at 9 just isn't as important to the team as an offensive tackle who is worth a pick at 9.   

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I agree with this, except I think it's extremely hard to prove.   The pro-TE folks aren't buying it.  

 

I've pretty much come around to the view that the winning formula is to have a franchise QB and have good total talent on the team, regardless of the rest of the positions.  That's Belichick's approach.   Shut-down corner is about the only position where he really wants a special talent.   

 

I think McB are following this approach.  They want really good athletes dedicated to their team concept, and they want to get better every day, every week, every year.  Year by year they upgrade the talent by taking the most talented players available to them.   And in evaluating talent, I think they factor in the positions that players play.   We had a brief discussion a couple weeks ago about how a guy who is a spectacular 3-4 LB prospect needs to be evaluated based on his importance to the team in the scheme the team plays, so no matter how good he is in the 3-4, the question is how good will he be in the 4-3.  That is, 3-4 skills aren't fundamental to how the Bills play football.   The extreme, silly example is the best punter in the history of football may be in the draft class, but he isn't your BPA because punting isn't fundamental to how you play football.  

 

Similarly, unless you're going to do what Belichick did with Gronk and Hernandez, tight end isn't fundamental to how the Bills want to play football.  Protecting to the quarterback is fundamental.  Getting at the other QB is fundamental.  Having a HOF tight end isn't any more important to the Bills' philosophy than a HOF OLB or a HOF wideout.  Taking a shot at the potential of a tight end makes more sense than taking a shot at a first-round punter,  but it makes less sense than taking a shot at the potential in a lineman.  

I'm in 100% agreement. I get the arguments on the pro-TE guys side of the fence; they can certainly be game changers, they create mismatches and can open up the field up. I am all for having one or 2 and I want them on my team. The TE we signed in FA will give us a couple years to groom someone we presumably draft this year, waiting a couple years for the first rounder to be an everyday player and impact the win column is not what I want out of a first rounder. 

 

What Beane has said about TE's this offseason: 

 

1.) “To me, you draft the best player available,” Beane said. “If the so-called premium positions are gone, or if you don’t have a guy that is up there at a premium position, you shouldn’t take him.”

 

2.) Beane said he breaks down tight ends in three categories: pass catcher, run blocker, and pass blocker. “So as we’re going through these tight ends those are the three areas we focus on,” Beane said. “We did privates with certain guys and we went to pro days with guys from a lot of positions and that position as well.”

 

3.) "There's some guys that are some really good blockers but maybe they're not as good as receivers. There's some guys that you really don't want to block in a six tech but they're great in the passing game. So similar to receivers, there's different flavors at tight end and we've done our homework there. Free agency will be first, but the draft, there's some depth at tight end. From my point of view, and same as free agency, there's some guys that are really good athletes that maybe we need to improve their blocking. Or maybe they weren't asked to block, so we’ve got to do some more research and maybe they can once they’re taught, but there will be a growth opportunity for them if given the opportunity, whatever team they're on.”

 

4.) “If there’s truly depth at any position,” he said, “then that allows you push that need down the draft.”

 

I think we can all agree on what the premium positions are (QB, PR, CB, OT, and to a degree WR)

 

I'm not trying to convince anyone to change their viewpoint and agree with me. I am hoping that some of our fellow posters are able to see and understand the flip side of the coin and have a healthy discussion. It makes us all better!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bills concerned about the TE?

 

does

not

compute

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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..

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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:

  • Skeptical 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, maryland-bills-fan said:

Sorry, it is not nonsense.

Actually, IMO, it is. However, we can just agree to disagree. Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...