|
Drafting a RB high is fine if he grades out as that impactful. The only conflict comes is when it's time to potentially pay them.
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 19:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 22:52 |
|
|
Bowers is a game changer, and I hope he falls to 18 because he's small and a TE.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 19:15
|
|
|
Gareth Gobulcoque posted:Bowers is a game changer, and I hope he falls to 18 because he's small and a TE. I saw him at Radio Row and thought wow he looks tiny. He's not, he was just standing next to Gronk
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 19:32
|
|
|
he's on the small side for a TE. compared to an average human he's very large.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 19:34
|
|
|
I want all Tight Ends to be as big, if not more prominent, than Luke Musgrave or Tucker Kraft.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 20:04
|
|
|
As someone who has witnessed his team draft Brandon Pettigrew and Eric Ebron in the first round, I would not recommend drafting a TE in the top 10. Plenty of great TE’s to be had elsewhere. *looks dreamy-eyed at Sam LaPorta* They also drafted Hock in the top 10, but I don’t think that was wise, either. Gonz fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Feb 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 20:42
|
|
|
Yeah I think you could probably count on one hand the number of TEs in the last like 40 years that (in retrospect) would have been worth a top 10 pick. Kelce Gronk Gates Gonzalez Sharpe Maybe Witten? Maybe Jimmy Graham?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 21:17
|
|
|
Rogue Elephant posted:Yeah I think you could probably count on one hand the number of TEs in the last like 40 years that (in retrospect) would have been worth a top 10 pick. I could argue Kittle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 21:21
|
|
|
I've definitely started seeing some draftniks doing the same poo poo for Bowers we did for Pitts a few years ago. "To take a TE in the top 10 he'd have to be a first ballot hall of famer. AND MAYBE THIS IS THAT GUY"
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 22:00
|
|
|
If he's an undersized elite pass catcher, what's stopping a team from using him as a receiver and putting a second TE on the line? If the Chargers do have to move Williams then they don't have a necessary must play 3rd WR on the field.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 22:08
|
|
|
Every year. I hate you positional value goons with unending stamina. People said TEs weren't worth a top 10 pick before Pitts' rookie season. After he set rookie records the same idiots came out saying that they were worth it, and now that Arthur Smith wasted his career they're back on the positional value train. Past draft picks DO NOT dictate future draft picks. It's the same argument with RBs. Because some dumbass GMs wasted a first round pick on Knowshon Moreno now all of a sudden every five tool RB isn't worth a first pick. It's absolutely insane. What do you people want? That draft picks for the first round should only be the top 5/6 players of the skill position players? Do any of you know what supply and demand graphs look like?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 22:22
|
|
|
99.9% of TEs aren't worth a Top 10 pick, sorry if that upsets you
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 22:30
|
|
|
If the 2006 draft were redrafted, Hester should be #1. Only HOFer from that year.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 22:32
|
|
|
Lol Arthur Smith wasted his career. Good players produce. Pitts isn't good and certainly not worth spending a top 10 pick on, like every other TE drafted in the top 10. We already did this song and dance so it's pointless to do it again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 22:33
|
|
|
Black Sunshine posted:99.9% of TEs aren't worth a Top 10 pick, sorry if that upsets you No poo poo that some players aren't worth a top 10 pick in a position. You can say that about any position. You're basing past GM decision making ignoring that offenses and football strategy has evolved in the last fifteen years. Eric Ebron busting has zero to do with Kyle Pitts, or any other TE that gets drafted moving forward just because some GM thought he was worth a top ten pick. The idea seems to be that teams are foolish for not drafting a skill position in a top 10 completely ignoring that the depth in those positions might not be equitable to the elite non skill position players. You'd rather have the DE5 than the HB1/TE1/Safety 1. That's insane most drafts. This crappy line of thinking also assumes that positional value doesn't adjust year from year. I'm willing to bet that going forward you're going to see more TEs go in the first, perhaps even top 10, simply because teams are utilizing them. 3 of the 4 championship teams this year all heavily featured RBs and TEs as their main source of offense and yet you think that those positions aren't valuable?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 22:46
|
|
|
I'm with Daltos on this one. It's just like people screaming to never draft Oregon or Ohio State QBs be ause of past performance. It's stupid to not draft a blue chip player which is also a clear position of need because of some make believe positional value nonsense. This draft is stacked with offensive linemen and WRs and definitely not stacked at TE. The Chargers have needed a TE since Antonio Gates retired. Mshomes has Kelce, Lamar has Andrews, Brady had Gronk, Rivers had Gates, forgive me if thinking Herbert having Bowers would be pretty neat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 22:47
|
|
|
Soon we will have a first round fullback and the world will be good again
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 22:48
|
|
|
wandler20 posted:Lol Arthur Smith wasted his career. Good players produce. Pitts isn't good and certainly not worth spending a top 10 pick on, like every other TE drafted in the top 10. He pulled him in and increased his in line blocking% by over 50, got him hurt, and then stuck him with Desmond Ridder in a run first offense? Sure, it's his fault.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 22:48
|
|
|
I'm still unsure what the point is of playing Pitts at Move TE instead of WR.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 22:56
|
|
|
Amy Pole Her posted:Soon we will have a first round fullback and the world will be good again drat Payton Hillis for not continuing to revive the position
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 22:57
|
|
|
a neat cape posted:I'm with Daltos on this one. It's just like people screaming to never draft Oregon or Ohio State QBs be ause of past performance. It's stupid to not draft a blue chip player which is also a clear position of need because of some make believe positional value nonsense. Bowers would be neat but not as neat as one of the Blue Chip WRs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 23:03
|
|
|
Dexo posted:Drafting a RB high is fine if he grades out as that impactful. No, it’s still a bad idea to draft RBs high because, relative to other positions, it is far far far easier to find good rbs in the later rounds. Ornery and Hornery fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Feb 21, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 23:05
|
|
|
Ornery and Hornery posted:Bowers would be neat but not as neat as one of the Blue Chip WRs. Sure. I still think Nabers should be the pick. I'm totally not mad we went WR (positional value!) Last year in the first over Kincaid.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 23:05
|
|
|
Ches Neckbeard posted:drat Payton Hillis for not continuing to revive the position He did his damndest to try at least.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 23:10
|
|
|
Amy Pole Her posted:Soon we will have a first round fullback and the world will be good again I want to live in this world.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 23:10
|
|
|
Ornery and Hornery posted:No, it’s still a bad idea to draft Arabs high because, relative to other positions, it is far far far easier to find good rbs in the later rounds. No it's not and no amount of posting Isiah Pacheco while ignoring the 20 other late round RBs that bust around him will change this ignorant opinion
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 23:11
|
|
|
Doltos posted:No it's not and no amount of posting Isiah Pacheco while ignoring the 20 other late round RBs that bust around him will change this ignorant opinion The Chargers have drafted a ton of late round RBs. The last good RB we drafted was Melvin Gordon. In the first.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 23:14
|
|
|
Amy Pole Her posted:Soon we will have a first round fullback and the world will be good again OH NOOOO
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 23:16
|
|
|
a neat cape posted:The Chargers have drafted a ton of late round RBs. It's because people don't realize there's a Mendoza Line in football. Sure it's fine to get a 4 ypc 1k yard RB in later rounds and that's the minimum to be judged a good RB but if he's only getting 4 ypc and 1k yards while there's one guy in the box then he's not nearly as valuable as a more athletic RB that commands defenses to play around him. Just blows my mind CMC nearly won a Super Bowl and people still think elite athletic RBs are worth the same as some plodding schmuck.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 23:16
|
|
|
Bad teams drafting TE/off ball LB/S/RB in the top 10 is how bad teams stay bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 23:23
|
|
|
Ornery and Hornery posted:No, it’s still a bad idea to draft Arabs high because, relative to other positions, it is far far far easier to find good rbs in the later rounds. How do Arabs compare to Jewish players positionally TEs have maybe the highest learning curve out of all non-QB positions. Pitts is good and all, but a even better Pitts would be moved to slot WR and give up on the blocking thing
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 23:24
|
|
|
wandler20 posted:Bad teams drafting TE/off ball LB/S/RB in the top 10 is how bad teams stay bad. The same thing happens if you overdraft a QB that falls on his face because you drafted on positional value
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 23:27
|
|
|
wandler20 posted:Bad teams drafting TE/off ball LB/S/RB in the top 10 is how bad teams stay bad. And you base this on what? Are we just ignoring all the bad teams that draft any of the skill position players and remain bad?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 23:28
|
|
|
Bad teams draft bad players
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 23:29
|
|
|
Dexo posted:Bad teams draft bad players Ding ding
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 23:30
|
|
|
If you'd rather take your shot in the top 10 on a position that isn't a premium position that's your problem. I think it's dumb. And you're not taking EDGE5 in the top 10, that argument doesn't even make sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 23:40
|
|
|
wandler20 posted:If you'd rather take your shot in the top 10 on a position that isn't a premium position that's your problem. I think it's dumb. And you're not taking EDGE5 in the top 10, that argument doesn't even make sense. Edge5 in the first round over HB1 or TE1. I think it makes a lot of sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 23:41
|
|
|
I'm gonna drink a lot of margaritas during the 1st round and then completely check out on the rest and that's all the thought anyone should put into the draft.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 23:51
|
|
|
Generally speaking, I agree positional value stuff shouldn't be a hard-and-fast rule — if you get a great player at any position with basically any pick, it's at least a good return on your investment, even if it's less likely to be the optimal return on your investment if it's not a "premium position." If you're looking at an RB/IOL/TE/LB/S with a round 1 grade versus a WR/EDGE with a day 2 grade, yeah, sure, go ahead and grab the prospect you're higher on. But it's insane to act like "positional value" is a made-up concept, or that it shouldn't be used at all to inform your decision making when there is plenty of data to back up the notion that drafting a QB/WR/DE/OT in the top 10 has historically produced a better return (with significantly higher upside) than drafting a TE or RB. Obviously every class is different and each individual pick has the potential to defy the larger trend, but there's such a high level of uncertainty with any draft pick that it's almost hubristic to think you can accurately identify the outlier-level TE/RB/G prospects who end up legitimately being worth a top 10 pick. Every once in a while there's a Quenton Nelson type who is such a generational talent that basically everyone agrees that you can basically fully ignore the fact that he plays a "non-premium position," but if you are regularly ignoring positional value over the course of several drafts then you are probably going to have worse results than a team who is equally good at scouting and does factor positional value into their picks
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 00:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 22:52 |
|
|
Although I do still maintain that "No TEs in the top 10" is the one hard-and-fast rule I would adhere to if I was a GM. I just need one example of it paying off for a team this century before I'm personally willing to roll the dice on it
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 00:15
|
|