Why taking Brock Bower with a top-10 NFL Draft pick is a tough sell financially

[nycdan]

2 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Except if it was so flawed then everybody would wise up and ignore positional value and regularly draft TEs and centers with top 5 picks (or non-Jets teams drafting safeties at #6 overall) because the supposed decreased bust potential trumps the value of what you've got if you draft a non-bust either way.

There's really no evidence that TEs is a low bust (or if not a bust, then a low relative disappointment) position. The reality is it's difficult for even the best talent evaluators & the best teams to hit with all the film and analytics and interviews at their disposal. By starting out with a lower-ceiling pick, in terms of team value, you might be lowering your bust potential but then again that might be in one's head.

The flawed thinking is that, because this is a unicorn to have a TE rated this highly, that means he'll be a WR-like TE at the next level. Evaluators have said that plenty about safeties, too - that they wouldn't be this high of a pick possibility if they weren't both nearly zero-bust and (despite the position) high impact - only to see the likes of Donte Whitner, Michael Huff, and (until he went to Seattle) Jamal Adams have nice careers and/or probowl/all-pro accolades, but were far from driving force difference makers that teams couldn't do without. 

Anyway I said above I'd take a great TE over a bust WR/OT 100% of the time in hindsight, but with that same hindsight would probably take a great TE over a great WR/OT roughly 0% of the time. I'd say the same about any lower-value position (center, RB, guard in addition to TE). On draft day you don't get that hindsight, but the premise you're taking is that his [bust/disappointment likelihood + max ceiling value] combo is higher than anyone else we'll have an option to draft. You can believe it, but that doesn't make it so, and the likelihood is he will be a regretted pick unless none of the WRs and OTs with pick value grades ~#10 meet with their pre-draft hopes and Bowers does.

A TE should be the best in football and a mere formality to deservedly go to Canton if you take him way early. A WR can be merely a legitimate WR1 even if not top 5 or top 10; or an OLman a reliable LT; both would typically still be a wiser pick. A merely good TE is a foolish use of a top 10 pick. You don't have to agree. It's my opinion. It just happens to be the opinion most others share, too. 

The concern is if we draft him and he's basically not omg-better than 2-3 of the TEs drafted between the 20s-40s just last year, nor some established known-quantity TEs teams can sign as FAs without breaking the bank. The last unicorn TEs drafted way up top were Pitts, Winslow, and V.Davis. For all their legit omg talent, here isn't one I'd still take with their original pick slot. 

Knowing how he panned out I wouldn't take Hockenson at #8 in a redraft either. BUT I would absolutely go hard after him as a free agent pickup, though. Same player but with different resources used to get him it changes the wisdom, because the opportunity cost of getting him as a veteran is way lower.

All true.  No argument.

And yet...

• Travis Kelce
• Mark Andrews
• George Kittle

Three of the four championship game teams had alpha TEs.  Probably 3 of the 5 best in the league.  In all three cases, the TE was their top or top-2 receiving target and you could argue KC had no other option at all.

Does it mean anything?  Probably not much, but it's interesting.

[rbstern]

16 minutes ago, Vader said:

TE's don't do end arounds. H backs do. IMO. Bowers isn't a real TE. He's an H-Back. That's how I think the best way to envision him in an offense.

H-Backs are specialty players, who typically don't play a high percentage of snaps.  Bowers is TE who can do things an H-Back can do, while also being a TE1 who is in the game for the vast majority of offensive snaps.

[Vader]

19 minutes ago, nycdan said:

All true.  No argument.

And yet...

• Travis Kelce
• Mark Andrews
• George Kittle

Three of the four championship game teams had alpha TEs.  Probably 3 of the 5 best in the league.  In all three cases, the TE was their top or top-2 receiving target and you could argue KC had no other option at all.

Does it mean anything?  Probably not much, but it's interesting.

It means elite TE's (and teams that know how to feature them if they have them) are much harder to contain for defenses than teams without elite TEs. 

I think the explanation is that "elite" TEs have an extreme size/speed/athleticism/football IQ advantage vs the LBs or Safeties that guard them as compared to the relative advantages of most elite WRs vs the CBs they face, or the elite RBs vs LBs and safeties. 

[JoeNamathsFurCoat]

One of the last times I heard “freakish athleticism for the position” was when Jet fans wanted to draft Lenny Fournette at #6 overall 😳😂

Clueless Jags took the bait in top 10

The fact Lenny could book it at 250 lbs was good enough 

Jace Amaro 🤣 was another consensus type pick Jet fans were all over 

[Sperm Edwards]

1 hour ago, nycdan said:

All true.  No argument.

And yet...

• Travis Kelce
• Mark Andrews
• George Kittle

Three of the four championship game teams had alpha TEs.  Probably 3 of the 5 best in the league.  In all three cases, the TE was their top or top-2 receiving target and you could argue KC had no other option at all.

Does it mean anything?  Probably not much, but it's interesting.

Correlation vs causation

You think KC wins because of Kelce not Mahomes? I know you don’t. Kelce is great, but he was individually great on non-championship teams, too. Take away their LT and their killer offense looked putrid in the SB against Tampa. Turns out Fisher was a bigger loss than Kelce would’ve been.

Andrews brings them nothing without a QB and frankly they are the worst team in the league at finding WRs (and have been for years). They find 1000 yard WRs about as often as the Jets draft good QBs. BTW the “safe” TE they took in round 1 - ahead of their MVP QB - was a bust. Then Andrews was taken a couple rounds later.

Kittle wasn’t SF’s #2 target. Technically it was McCaffrey. Also it’s the first time in 4 years he broke 1000 yards. 

That’s all just me being obnoxiously argumentative. I said at the start if you land a TE who puts up WR1 numbers it’s worth it, but less than that - merely good TE #s - then no. Is Bowers a guarantee to catch 1100-1300 yards and gobs of TDs? If yes then sign me up. But there are no such guarantees.

So these guys all make my point. These are all great players I’d love to have on the Jets. Still, not one of these three were taken anywhere NEAR the top 10 or even the first two rounds, and this is what you’d have to land to justify a TE over a WR1 or a reliable LT taken instead.