If the Jets draft Brock Bowers I quit!!!!!!!!!

[Lupz27]

51 minutes ago, JustInFudge said:

Nope, the logic is exactly the same.  You've created a rule, out of nowhere and that's fine...but it's dumb. 

Not it’s not the same Scheme and positional are 2 entirely different things.

**** the air raid anyway that was other people saying that sh*t not me.

[Lupz27]

41 minutes ago, JustInFudge said:

Garrett Wilson is a 5 touch player here

Here lies the problem he should be used like CD 10-15 touches a game period.

Same for Breece.

Look at the games the both of them got their touches the Jets killed it.

Your not scheming Bowers for 10-15 touches here.

[Lupz27]

43 minutes ago, JustInFudge said:

Sir, Garrett Wilson is a 5 touch player here, is he not valuable?  lol  I mean dude, you're literally just saying things at this point, that hold zero value or weight.  Just stick w/ "my philosophy is I would never draft at TE in the top 10 no matter the prospect" and stop w/ the narratives that are completely illogical.

And we're going to have disagree w/ the idea Bowers is "luxury pick" - the Jets were dead last in 1st downs and TD's in the NFL.  Dead last.  They had 1 TD from the TE position.  A player that helps you move the chains and score this thing called TD's, is not a luxury, it's a priority.  You may not know this as Jets fan but the objective of a Football team is to score TD's.  The team w/ the most amount of points, wins!  Players that help you do those things, are not luxuries, they're necessities. 

 

Your comparing an offense ran by the sh*ttiest QB’s maybe ever this year stop.

[derp]

41 minutes ago, JustInFudge said:

It's kind of an impossible question to answer and it's hard to quantify value simply based on stats.  For example; if the Jets bring in Adams and suddenly, Rodgers has Wilson and Adams to feed the ball to...in that scenario we know he'll target them in bulk.  So say that happened and Bowers put up a Conklin like season but instead of 0 TD's and 30% 1st down conversion, he has 5 TD's and 60%.  That could be the difference in 7-14 pts game even though he's not blowing up the stat sheet.  Or say because he's a do it all TE, the protection is better, the run game is better, etc. etc. etc.  These things are hard to quantify. 

Or another way to look at it is,  G. Wilson has good numbers but also made a lot of mistakes this year and the offense continues to sucks balls, was he worth a top 10 pick?  

Or another way, Bowers is a chess piece, do it all.  How much does his ability to do anything and score from anywhere at the TE position, impact how you defend the Jets?  How much does a chess piece like him, change how you defend one of the easiest teams in the NFL to defend?  How much does he makes life easier on everyone else?  

Bottom line, he's rare weapon and for a team that lacks weapons, idk, seems like the impact could be huge.  Look at the teams left in the playoffs, all of them have a dynamic TE.  Kelce, Kittle, LaPorta, Likely/Andrews, Kincaid/Knox, Shultz Musgrave/Kraft.  Seems like a pretty common theme that the best offenses, have a dynamic play maker at TE. 

 

First off, thanks for the solid response. I think it’s an interesting idea to flush out, especially when the answer is so different from @Lupz27 which I think plays into why your perspectives are so far off.

Regarding the difficulty quantifying it - totally understand, that’s why I gave the qualitative option too.

First scenario. What’s Bowers’ role on a team with Wilson and Adams? How good is the offense? Adams almost certainly retires and/or declines during Bowers’ rookie deal, what’s the role without him?

I guess regarding Wilson, I think if I way way oversimplify a) I don’t think many players are capable of completely carrying a bad offense so wouldn’t hold that against him or expect that with the tenth pick b) he’s shown enough to demonstrate he’s probably good enough to be at least a high end #2 option on a good offense a la guys like Jaylen Waddle, Devonta Smith - and that’s probably good enough to be worth around pick 10.

The chess piece component I think you can answer with the role in context of team success. If he’s a chess piece and teams have to defend the Jets differently over the course of his rookie deal and they’re never better than the 20th best offense and he’s at most the fourth option it’s different than if he’s a chess piece as a second option and the Jets are in the top ten of offense making deep playoff runs, right?

I think regarding the weapon chess piece stuff it gets a little tricky. Different position but we heard that about Jahmyr Gibbs for example - I think he’s an example of production and team success that was probably worth it even if the raw numbers aren’t there yet. Others have struggled to find a role and not really elevated their offense or been tremendous producers. So I don’t think the weapon thing can be completely hand waved.

[JiFtheOracle]

47 minutes ago, Lupz27 said:

Not first round talent.

I said specifically if you want to take a game changer at 6 and your not taking Mahomes CMC is that guy period.

 

45 minutes ago, Lupz27 said:

Not it’s not the same Scheme and positional are 2 entirely different things.

**** the air raid anyway that was other people saying that sh*t not me.

 

44 minutes ago, Lupz27 said:

Here lies the problem he should be used like CD 10-15 touches a game period.

Same for Breece.

Look at the games the both of them got their touches the Jets killed it.

Your not scheming Bowers for 10-15 touches here.

 

44 minutes ago, Lupz27 said:

Your comparing an offense ran by the sh*ttiest QB’s maybe ever this year stop.

My man, you're just saying things at this point and not making a coherent point.  I cant follow these random stream of consciousness ramblings that are seemingly coming out of nowhere.

You would never, ever, draft a TE in top 10.  So this conversation is literally, pointless because you're unwilling to be objective.  It's all good.  You're heavy on your principles and I dig it, I just think all your justifications for you not being objective about the topic are bogus. 

[T0mShane]

1. As the guy who introduced the “Bowers has a huge injury history,” I should apologize because it’s not “huge,” per se, and was a result of me tuning in to Georgia games and seeing Bowers getting gang tackled by nine SEC defenders and hobbling off for a play. That, combined with his two surgeries, led me to assume that he was always hurt. My bad. 
 

2. The Bowers conversation is like the old Bengals Jamar v Sewell stick figure meme which argued that the Bengals could draft Sewell, who would keep Burrow upright, but he’d be throwing it to nobody, or they could draft Jamar, but it’d result in Burrow getting destroyed while Chase runs free down the field. The Jets version would be that, but instead of Jamar Chase running free 50 yards down the field, you’d have Bowers open against a zone defense ten yards down the field. 
 

3. It’s forgotten in history because Chase has been so good, but the Bengals OL has gotten Burrow killed the past few years and they’ve had to overpay marginal tackles to putty those roster holes, which hasn’t worked out. Meanwhile, Jared Goff is playing every game in a tuxedo because he’s got an elite tackle protecting him and—bonus—they found him an elite tight end in the second round of the draft. 

[AFJF]

Bowers should be the pick if he's there at 10.  You don't pass on one guy because another guy was a bust. That's a game we can play with literally every single player in every single draft.

Then you move Huff and/or a future pick/picks to get in position to take a late round 1/early round 2 OT in a deep class.

 

[AFJF]

1 hour ago, T0mShane said:

1. As the guy who introduced the “Bowers has a huge injury history,” I should apologize because it’s not “huge,” per se, and was a result of me tuning in to Georgia games and seeing Bowers getting gang tackled by nine SEC defenders and hobbling off for a play. That, combined with his two surgeries, led me to assume that he was always hurt. My bad. 
 

2. The Bowers conversation is like the old Bengals Jamar v Sewell stick figure meme which argued that the Bengals could draft Sewell, who would keep Burrow upright, but he’d be throwing it to nobody, or they could draft Jamar, but it’d result in Burrow getting destroyed while Chase runs free down the field. The Jets version would be that, but instead of Jamar Chase running free 50 yards down the field, you’d have Bowers open against a zone defense ten yards down the field. 
 

3. It’s forgotten in history because Chase has been so good, but the Bengals OL has gotten Burrow killed the past few years and they’ve had to overpay marginal tackles to putty those roster holes, which hasn’t worked out. Meanwhile, Jared Goff is playing every game in a tuxedo because he’s got an elite tackle protecting him and—bonus—they found him an elite tight end in the second round of the draft. 

Deep OT class.  

You can take Bowers at 10 and trade to add another pick in round 1/2 and take an OT with that pick.

[T0mShane]

4 minutes ago, AFJF said:

Deep OT class.  

You can take Bowers at 10 and trade to add another pick in round 1/2 and take an OT with that pick.

You’re going to trade future premium draft capital to pick the OT6 or 7 in this year’s draft, though?

[Untouchable]

The Jets are bound to make some major moves before the draft.

Say the Jets pull off a trade for Davante Adams while keeping this years 1st round pick and add two starting caliber players to the OL pre-draft.

We go on the clock at #10 and the Top 2, maybe even Top 3 OT’s are off the board.

Is anyone really stomping their feet over adding a Kittle-esque TE to threaten the middle of the field with Adams and Wilson outside?

Hell, this is exactly what I’m hoping happens if I’m being honest.

[JiFtheOracle]

2 hours ago, derp said:

First off, thanks for the solid response. I think it’s an interesting idea to flush out, especially when the answer is so different from @Lupz27 which I think plays into why your perspectives are so far off.

Regarding the difficulty quantifying it - totally understand, that’s why I gave the qualitative option too.

First scenario. What’s Bowers’ role on a team with Wilson and Adams? How good is the offense? Adams almost certainly retires and/or declines during Bowers’ rookie deal, what’s the role without him?

I guess regarding Wilson, I think if I way way oversimplify a) I don’t think many players are capable of completely carrying a bad offense so wouldn’t hold that against him or expect that with the tenth pick b) he’s shown enough to demonstrate he’s probably good enough to be at least a high end #2 option on a good offense a la guys like Jaylen Waddle, Devonta Smith - and that’s probably good enough to be worth around pick 10.

The chess piece component I think you can answer with the role in context of team success. If he’s a chess piece and teams have to defend the Jets differently over the course of his rookie deal and they’re never better than the 20th best offense and he’s at most the fourth option it’s different than if he’s a chess piece as a second option and the Jets are in the top ten of offense making deep playoff runs, right?

I think regarding the weapon chess piece stuff it gets a little tricky. Different position but we heard that about Jahmyr Gibbs for example - I think he’s an example of production and team success that was probably worth it even if the raw numbers aren’t there yet. Others have struggled to find a role and not really elevated their offense or been tremendous producers. So I don’t think the weapon thing can be completely hand waved.

I dont really understand the "role" and "scheme" angle here.  He's a playmaker who you can get the ball to in multiple ways who never has to come off the field.  The role no matter who is here, would be to make plays, pick up first downs and score TD's, help in the run game, help in protection and be just as dynamic as he was for the best team in the nay'tion over his college career. 

I used Wilson to show how you really cant just use stats to quantify a players value.  I think it's quite obvious he's a top 10 talent and could be incredible w/ real QB play.  I'm very confident that ultimately, Bowers would return top 10 value because he's so unique and productive.  I do think he'd ultimately have more of an impact on the overall improvement of the offense then this years crop of T's and WR's but also because I think both position are incredibly deep in this draft and relatively easy to address in FA as well.  Bowers, is unique, I believe a very rare talent and I think you dont pass up the opportunity for players like that, especially for a team that was dead last in 1st downs and TD's. 

[AFJF]

56 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

You’re going to trade future premium draft capital to pick the OT6 or 7 in this year’s draft, though?

I'm never concerned with where a guy ranks in the class.  If it's a deep class and OT6 or OT7 grades out as a starting caliber player, that's where my concern lies.

This stuff changes from year to year.  One year's OT6 might be next year's OT2.

I want them to come away from round 1 with an elite pass catching TE who also makes my O-line better which is what Bowers does, and a starting OT.

If they believe there's a starting OT to be had later in round 1 or early round 2 then go for it.

This is the corner they've painted themselves in to.  They're not in position to sit back and act like they're building around a 32 y/o QB.  They're trying to win with a guy who, if they're lucky, has 1 or 2 very good years left in him.  Get him an elite weapon and improve his protection.

But I fear they'll do what they did last year and half ass it.

[T0mShane]

28 minutes ago, AFJF said:

I'm never concerned with where a guy ranks in the class.  If it's a deep class and OT6 or OT7 grades out as a starting caliber player, that's where my concern lies.

This stuff changes from year to year.  One year's OT6 might be next year's OT2.

I want them to come away from round 1 with an elite pass catching TE who also makes my O-line better which is what Bowers does, and a starting OT.

If they believe there's a starting OT to be had later in round 1 or early round 2 then go for it.

This is the corner they've painted themselves in to.  They're not in position to sit back and act like they're building around a 32 y/o QB.  They're trying to win with a guy who, if they're lucky, has 1 or 2 very good years left in him.  Get him an elite weapon and improve his protection.

But I fear they'll do what they did last year and half ass it.

I think if Douglas wants to risk it all on Bowers, he just has to do it and not hedge by forfeiting future picks for that OT6-7 guy that’d be available in round two or wherever. Even in Jeremiah's mock, he has every tackle with a pulse squeezed into round one, which—if it’s any indicator of what he thinks is coming—probably means you’d have traded back up to sift through the scraps of this year’s tackle class so you could take a TE who will—if he matches LaPorta, at best—gets you 80-ish catches and 800 yards? Are we sure they can’t just take a tackle at 10 and generate 80/800 out of Tyler Conklin and Ruckert? 

[derp]

37 minutes ago, JustInFudge said:

I dont really understand the "role" and "scheme" angle here.  He's a playmaker who you can get the ball to in multiple ways who never has to come off the field.  The role no matter who is here, would be to make plays, pick up first downs and score TD's, help in the run game, help in protection and be just as dynamic as he was for the best team in the nay'tion over his college career. 

I used Wilson to show how you really cant just use stats to quantify a players value.  I think it's quite obvious he's a top 10 talent and could be incredible w/ real QB play.  I'm very confident that ultimately, Bowers would return top 10 value because he's so unique and productive.  I do think he'd ultimately have more of an impact on the overall improvement of the offense then this years crop of T's and WR's but also because I think both position are incredibly deep in this draft and relatively easy to address in FA as well.  Bowers, is unique, I believe a very rare talent and I think you dont pass up the opportunity for players like that, especially for a team that was dead last in 1st downs and TD's. 

Not sure what the “scheme” angle is when I quite literally didn’t use the word scheme in my post and I’m fairly confident I didn’t mention schematic stuff at all. 

I know you like him as a prospect and think he’ll make an impact so restating that and kind of selling him as a prospect doesn’t really answer the question.

To put it differently, obviously you believe he’ll be very good at the NFL level. He hasn’t actually done any of that as a pro yet. What does a pro career for him that makes you think maybe you were wrong about him look like, or is that not conceivable?

[derp]

2 hours ago, AFJF said:

Bowers should be the pick if he's there at 10.  You don't pass on one guy because another guy was a bust. That's a game we can play with literally every single player in every single draft.

Then you move Huff and/or a future pick/picks to get in position to take a late round 1/early round 2 OT in a deep class.

 

I don’t think it’s just one other guy who was a bust that raises concern about Bowers.

You’re giving Joe Douglas the leeway to use serious future draft capital (sounds like a 2025 first round pick) this year?

[AFJF]

30 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

I think if Douglas wants to risk it all on Bowers, he just has to do it and not hedge by forfeiting future picks for that OT6-7 guy that’d be available in round two or wherever. Even in Jeremiah's mock, he has every tackle with a pulse squeezed into round one, which—if it’s any indicator of what he thinks is coming—probably means you’d have traded back up to sift through the scraps of this year’s tackle class so you could take a TE who will—if he matches LaPorta, at best—gets you 80-ish catches and 800 yards? Are we sure they can’t just take a tackle at 10 and generate 80/800 out of Tyler Conklin and Ruckert? 

I don't think they're in a position to worry about picks in 2025 because if they suck, they won't be making that pick.  In fact, that could be the only thing that prevents it if Woody tells them they're keeping that pick for the new regime.

But in Bowers you're getting a guy who will put up yards, be a threat in the red zone and be one of the top blocking TE's in the league.

But as I said, I only make the deal if I believe I can get a pick to snag a tackle who I believe can start at the back end of the round.

Conversation worth having but I can't get on board with "If they take the guy who will be the best TE in the NFL in 2-3 years they're so dumb".

 

[AFJF]

2 minutes ago, derp said:

I don’t think it’s just one other guy who was a bust that raises concern about Bowers.

You’re giving Joe Douglas the leeway to use serious future draft capital (sounds like a 2025 first round pick) this year?

Still a silly argument because we can all find tons of guys who were busts at every position.  To single out one guy as if it's this wildly unique circumstance doesn't make any sense to me.

You don't pass on future All-Pro players because of a time another guy who plays that position was a bust.

Not sure how anyone was supposed to know ahead of time that Pitts was going to be a slouch.

[Paradis]

5 hours ago, derp said:

Curious how both sides of this fun back and forth feel.

Let’s say in theory the Jets take Bowers at pick ten. What kinds of production over the course of his rookie deal and/or beyond - receptions, yards, touchdowns - make you say in retrospect he was definitely worth the pick at ten?

A qualitative description of a role in the context of team success works too if that’s more your bag.

@JustInFudge@Lupz27@Paradis

Anyone else who wants to jump in is welcome too.

The short answer; My assessment of his success wouldn't be *entirely* measured by statistical prowess. The position manipulates DEF beyond what a WR or RB does. Pulling LB off assignments, forcing safeties down, etc. What i would expect initially and beyond is a significant uptick in our ability to sustain drives/make first downs. We've been so fcking god awful w/our conversion rate - it's mind numbing to think about. 

My feeling is that if you take Brock, you expect to make huge strides in that department. 

[T0mShane]

5 minutes ago, AFJF said:

Conversation worth having but I can't get on board with "If they take the guy who will be the best TE in the NFL in 2-3 years they're so dumb".

This is the dicey part, however. Tight ends are important, obviously, but guys who end up being the “best tight end in football” coincidentally end up on teams with the best QB in football. IMO, it’s a complementary position that feasts on the gravity of otherwise healthy passing attacks, but don’t create that gravity themselves. You can drop a capable tight end into a good passing attack and they’ll put up numbers, imo. 

[Paradis]

5 hours ago, Lupz27 said:

Go back to the 2017 draft I said if not Mahomes you take McCaffery RB gets the ball 50% of the time if he is special like CMC you can’t compare that to TE period so don’t.

You've become JN's own commensurate Vanilla Ice

"7 years ago, i came out with Ice Ice Baby, now if you'd listen to the song, you'd know..."

[dbatesman]

6 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

This is the dicey part, however. Tight ends are important, obviously, but guys who end up being the “best tight end in football” coincidentally end up on teams with the best QB in football. IMO, it’s a complementary position that feasts on the gravity of otherwise healthy passing attacks, but don’t create that gravity themselves. You can drop a capable tight end into a good passing attack and they’ll put up numbers, imo. 

Really cannot believe I didn’t save the link, but someone did a review of the ROI of different positions taken in the first round, and tight ends were the worst by far.

[Paradis]

3 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

Really cannot believe I didn’t save the link, but someone did a review of the ROI of different positions taken in the first round, and tight ends were the worst by far.

based on what though? You have to acknowledge and appreciate the collateral impact of their role on the field. An OT benefits the RB, WR, QB, etc.. to an extend this reciprocity exists between all position, but the relationship is stronger with a TE, IMO

[derp]

19 minutes ago, AFJF said:

Still a silly argument because we can all find tons of guys who were busts at every position.  To single out one guy as if it's this wildly unique circumstance doesn't make any sense to me.

You don't pass on future All-Pro players because of a time another guy who plays that position was a bust.

Not sure how anyone was supposed to know ahead of time that Pitts was going to be a slouch.

I don’t think it’s the busts at tight end, it’s the lack of successes. Doesn’t mean the next guy won’t be one, but you’re not hand waving the right thing.

And you didn’t answer about giving Douglas all that leeway.

[derp]

16 minutes ago, Paradis said:

The short answer; My assessment of his success wouldn't be *entirely* measured by statistical prowess. The position manipulates DEF beyond what a WR or RB does. Pulling LB off assignments, forcing safeties down, etc. What i would expect initially and beyond is a significant uptick in our ability to sustain drives/make first downs. We've been so fcking god awful w/our conversion rate - it's mind numbing to think about. 

My feeling is that if you take Brock, you expect to make huge strides in that department. 

So more in terms of how successful the offense is than how much he produces. That’s totally reasonable. 

Fair to say if this offense is still in the low 20’s or 30’s league wide a couple of years into his career that’d be a disappointment?

[derp]

25 minutes ago, AFJF said:

I don't think they're in a position to worry about picks in 2025 because if they suck, they won't be making that pick.  In fact, that could be the only thing that prevents it if Woody tells them they're keeping that pick for the new regime.

But in Bowers you're getting a guy who will put up yards, be a threat in the red zone and be one of the top blocking TE's in the league.

But as I said, I only make the deal if I believe I can get a pick to snag a tackle who I believe can start at the back end of the round.

Conversation worth having but I can't get on board with "If they take the guy who will be the best TE in the NFL in 2-3 years they're so dumb".

 

If Bowers isn’t the best tight end in the NFL in 2-3 years would that be a disappointment in your opinion?

[JiFtheOracle]

1 hour ago, derp said:

Not sure what the “scheme” angle is when I quite literally didn’t use the word scheme in my post and I’m fairly confident I didn’t mention schematic stuff at all. 

I know you like him as a prospect and think he’ll make an impact so restating that and kind of selling him as a prospect doesn’t really answer the question.

To put it differently, obviously you believe he’ll be very good at the NFL level. He hasn’t actually done any of that as a pro yet. What does a pro career for him that makes you think maybe you were wrong about him look like, or is that not conceivable?

You mentioned role and then that final comparison to how the Lions drafted and use Gibbs, sounded very scheme/role oriented.   I thought I answered your questions.  What did I not address?  No need to get sassy. 

I'm not trying to sell you.  I dont even think we'll get a chance to take him, I'm just having a conversation w/ you.  You're asking questions that are hard to answer, I've explained why they are hard to answer, I've given different scenarios and hypotheticals, and I'm telling you why I think he's unique and can make the offense or any offense better. 

Sorry I'm letting you down but I dont know how to answer your questions, a lot of this depends on the situation.  Like obviously I think he's going to be great, so if he's not, I'll be wrong. lol  Like if he's not one of the very best TE's in the league, year over year for the next 8-10 years, I'd say I was wrong and be disappointed in his career because I think he has HOF caliber talent.

[derp]

Just now, JustInFudge said:

You mentioned role and then that final comparison to how the Lions drafted and use Gibbs, sounded very scheme/role oriented.   I thought I answered your questions.  What did I not address?  No need to get sassy. 

I'm not trying to sell you.  I dont even think we'll get a chance to take him, I'm just having a conversation w/ you.  You're asking questions that are hard to answer, I've explained why they are hard to answer, I've given different scenarios and hypotheticals, and I'm telling you why I think he's unique and can make the offense or any offense better. 

Sorry I'm letting you down but I dont know how to answer your questions, a lot of this depends on the situation.  Like obviously I think he's going to be great, so if he's not, I'll be wrong. lol  Like if he's not one of the very best TE's in the league, year over year for the next 8-10 years, I'd say I was wrong and be disappointed in his career because I think he has HOF caliber talent.

My use of Gibbs was intended to be a positive example of a player who I think was drafted to be a weapon/chess piece, didn't put up tremendous raw numbers (although they're better than I thought they were), but the team was probably pretty happy with what he brought. Nothing really schematic about it.

Sorry my tone got rough, the little ones have been beating up my sleep this week and last night was especially rough so I think I have less bandwidth than usual but I should've been more mature. Your last sentence completely answers my original question though. Appreciate you engaging with the difficult questions! I wouldn't ask if I didn't expect an interesting answer.

[JiFtheOracle]

5 hours ago, T0mShane said:

1. As the guy who introduced the “Bowers has a huge injury history,” I should apologize because it’s not “huge,” per se, and was a result of me tuning in to Georgia games and seeing Bowers getting gang tackled by nine SEC defenders and hobbling off for a play. That, combined with his two surgeries, led me to assume that he was always hurt. My bad. 
 

2. The Bowers conversation is like the old Bengals Jamar v Sewell stick figure meme which argued that the Bengals could draft Sewell, who would keep Burrow upright, but he’d be throwing it to nobody, or they could draft Jamar, but it’d result in Burrow getting destroyed while Chase runs free down the field. The Jets version would be that, but instead of Jamar Chase running free 50 yards down the field, you’d have Bowers open against a zone defense ten yards down the field. 
 

3. It’s forgotten in history because Chase has been so good, but the Bengals OL has gotten Burrow killed the past few years and they’ve had to overpay marginal tackles to putty those roster holes, which hasn’t worked out. Meanwhile, Jared Goff is playing every game in a tuxedo because he’s got an elite tackle protecting him and—bonus—they found him an elite tight end in the second round of the draft. 

I've talked about this before but I think the T position is relatively easy to fill these days, for some reason JD sucks at it.  I mean, he just drafted a T, we're doing it again when there is an abundance in the NFL and the same dudes come out year after year and are found in every round of the draft.  As great as Sewell is, he still gets beat, they all do, the dudes they're blocking these days are the biggest freaks on the team and thus, the emphasis is getting the ball out fast. Because of the unique nature of Bowers game and assuming it carries over, there is an argument that his skill set benefits a QB more then some dude that does what every other guy at his position does who you're asking to block for 3 seconds. 

 

 

[JiFtheOracle]

10 minutes ago, derp said:

My use of Gibbs was intended to be a positive example of a player who I think was drafted to be a weapon/chess piece, didn't put up tremendous raw numbers (although they're better than I thought they were), but the team was probably pretty happy with what he brought. Nothing really schematic about it.

Sorry my tone got rough, the little ones have been beating up my sleep this week and last night was especially rough so I think I have less bandwidth than usual but I should've been more mature. Your last sentence completely answers my original question though. Appreciate you engaging with the difficult questions! I wouldn't ask if I didn't expect an interesting answer.

Got it, exactly, hard to quantify impact.

...and my 1 year old has an ear infection, after having bronchitis and has his molars coming in on the same side as the bad ear, hasnt slept through the next night in weeks and this was after just a few shorts weeks of him actually making it through the night since he was conceived.  lol 

[dbatesman]

2 hours ago, Paradis said:

based on what though? You have to acknowledge and appreciate the collateral impact of their role on the field. An OT benefits the RB, WR, QB, etc.. to an extend this reciprocity exists between all position, but the relationship is stronger with a TE, IMO

I could ask you the same thing. Here are all the TEs drafted in the first round in the last two decades. How many of these transformed their team’s offense? How many even got a second contract from their team?

Kyle Pitts, Falcons

T.J. Hockenson, Lions

Noah Fant, Broncos

Hayden Hurst, Ravens

O.J. Howard, Buccaneers

Evan Engram, Giants

David Njoku, Browns

Eric Ebron, Lions

Tyler Eifert, Bengals

Jermaine Gresham, Bengals

Brandon Pettigrew, Lions

Dustin Keller, Jets

Greg Olsen, Bears

Vernon Davis, 49ers

Marcedes Lewis, Jaguars

Heath Miller, Steelers

Kellen Winslow II, Browns

Ben Watson, Patriots
 

[derp]

33 minutes ago, JustInFudge said:

Got it, exactly, hard to quantify impact.

...and my 1 year old has an ear infection, after having bronchitis and has his molars coming in on the same side as the bad ear, hasnt slept through the next night in weeks and this was after just a few shorts weeks of him actually making it through the night since he was conceived.  lol 

Ugh poor little guy. The sleep regressions are absolutely brutal. Our six month old and two year old have both gotten worse over the last month or two (teething and more frequent nightmares respectively).

[T0mShane]

46 minutes ago, JustInFudge said:

Because of the unique nature of Bowers game and assuming it carries over,

Agree with you on *most* of this, but I think the difference between, say, Sewell and Max Mitchell is wide enough to justify burning the tenth pick on a Sewell-ish prospect. It gets debatable if there’s a true WR1 at ten, though, because WR1’s are legitimately game-defining players. If Bowers is elite-elite, his production (85/1,100, 8?) would equal that of, like, the 25th best wide receiver in the sport. 

[derp]

17 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

Agree with you on *most* of this, but I think the difference between, say, Sewell and Max Mitchell is wide enough to justify burning the tenth pick on a Sewell-ish prospect. It gets debatable if there’s a true WR1 at ten, though, because WR1’s are legitimately game-defining players. If Bowers is elite-elite, his production (85/1,100, 8?) would equal that of, like, the 25th best wide receiver in the sport. 

I think the production you described is pretty much in line with like Devonta Smith and Jaylen Waddle - and nobody’s complaining about those guys getting drafted in the top ten. Legit high end #2 production is fine around ten. 

[Paradis]

29 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

I could ask you the same thing. Here are all the TEs drafted in the first round in the last two decades. How many of these transformed their team’s offense? How many even got a second contract from their team?

Kyle Pitts, Falcons

T.J. Hockenson, Lions

Noah Fant, Broncos

Hayden Hurst, Ravens

O.J. Howard, Buccaneers

Evan Engram, Giants

David Njoku, Browns

Eric Ebron, Lions

Tyler Eifert, Bengals

Jermaine Gresham, Bengals

Brandon Pettigrew, Lions

Dustin Keller, Jets

Greg Olsen, Bears

Vernon Davis, 49ers

Marcedes Lewis, Jaguars

Heath Miller, Steelers

Kellen Winslow II, Browns

Ben Watson, Patriots
 

If you were trying to illustrate some kind empirical support for ignoring the position early, it failed IMO. 

The only thing this shows me is: 

1. Don't be impatient in developing your TE
2. The unsuccessful ones were athletic fools good, and the tape supported that. Don't ignore it. 

[derp]

2 minutes ago, Paradis said:

If you were trying to illustrate some kind empirical support for ignoring the position early, it failed IMO. 

The only thing this shows me is: 

1. Don't be impatient in developing your TE
2. The unsuccessful ones were athletic fools good, and the tape supported that. Don't ignore it. 

Vikings clipped Hockenson at the perfect time. Could make an argument that nabbing somebody a few years into their career is a prudent play.

Really curious what happens with Pitts depending on who gets hired there.