Hunter2_1 Posted September 7, 2017 Share Posted September 7, 2017 To define the two; Your versatile back can be moved around the skill positions. Can line up at HB, but also in the slot or out wide. He is as good at receiving and running routes as he is at carrying the ball. Usually, he won't be a power back, he will have good quickness and agility. Generally a speed mismatch for a LB and a power mismatch for a DB. Examples: David Johnson, LT, McCaffery, J White, T Coleman etc The versatile Tight End is well rounded and can block as well as receive. With this, you can have formations that are adaptable to what the D gives you. I.e, you could come out in a heavy i-formation, or 21 personnel with the TE on the end. If the D have matched the formation with big linebackers; you can audible to a PA pass to the TE. If they have more DBs or athletic LBs or are cheating the TE; you can run it and he'll block well. Gronk, Hernandez, Bennett, Henry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwibrown Posted September 7, 2017 Share Posted September 7, 2017 If the Running back was all pro and the TE was all pro Id go the running back, anything less the TE. Id rather Marshall Faulk prime than Gronk Prime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soko Posted September 7, 2017 Share Posted September 7, 2017 The examples you give make the TE much more favorable, IMO. You have Gronk, Hernandez (who wasn't a true "versatile" TE), Bennett and Henry. For the backs, you give White (who, SB aside, has been a mediocre runner), Coleman, and McCaffrey. A better example for them would be LT or Faulk. For a season, I'd take the back. I think having LT would do more for an offense than having a Gronk would. But backs generally have shorter shelf lives, so I'd lean TE for the long haul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakuvious Posted September 7, 2017 Share Posted September 7, 2017 Yeah, I think the examples skew things a bit. You describe the running back as being as good at receiving as running the ball, but then you list receiving specialists and a rookie. When I think of James White, I don't think of a guy as good at receiving as running, I think of a guy much better at receiving than running, and there is a difference there. Equal to me would be more like David Johnson currently, or Marshall Faulk historically. No one is going to take James White or Tevin Coleman over Gronk. It becomes more of a discussion with those level of players though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter2_1 Posted September 7, 2017 Author Share Posted September 7, 2017 1 hour ago, Yin-Yang said: The examples you give make the TE much more favorable, IMO. You have Gronk, Hernandez (who wasn't a true "versatile" TE), Bennett and Henry. For the backs, you give White (who, SB aside, has been a mediocre runner), Coleman, and McCaffrey. A better example for them would be LT or Faulk. For a season, I'd take the back. I think having LT would do more for an offense than having a Gronk would. But backs generally have shorter shelf lives, so I'd lean TE for the long haul. LT vs Gronk then. Nearly left out Gronk because he lop-sides it, but pretend it's his peer.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter2_1 Posted September 7, 2017 Author Share Posted September 7, 2017 2 minutes ago, Jakuvious said: Yeah, I think the examples skew things a bit. You describe the running back as being as good at receiving as running the ball, but then you list receiving specialists and a rookie. When I think of James White, I don't think of a guy as good at receiving as running, I think of a guy much better at receiving than running, and there is a difference there. Equal to me would be more like David Johnson currently, or Marshall Faulk historically. No one is going to take James White or Tevin Coleman over Gronk. It becomes more of a discussion with those level of players though. The examples were intended more as a guide rather than "pick one of these players". Make your own examples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted September 7, 2017 Share Posted September 7, 2017 If the running backs are LT and Faulk, I'd take them over a Gronk type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucsfan333 Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 Gimme the RB. Especially if he's LT- or Faulk-like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iamcanadian Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 Obviously, if he is healthy, Gonk would be the pick, however, Gonk really is a more traditional TE than a versatile TE, he is no 230lbder. Otherwise, I would take the RB as long as he can handle at least 15+ carries a game. Running the ball is still one third of most team's offense and most TE's do not add that much offense to their teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaguarCrazy2832 Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 I look at it differently i think. I think a receiving TE sucks more at blocking than a power back does at catching the ball. Therefore, i feel like when a receiving-only TE comes on the field you kind of know they aren't passing unless they have another TE whereas a power, run-first back can still catch the ball. It's something he knows how to do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter2_1 Posted September 9, 2017 Author Share Posted September 9, 2017 20 hours ago, Iamcanadian said: Obviously, if he is healthy, Gonk would be the pick, however, Gonk really is a more traditional TE than a versatile TE, he is no 230lbder. Otherwise, I would take the RB as long as he can handle at least 15+ carries a game. Running the ball is still one third of most team's offense and most TE's do not add that much offense to their teams. What do you mean by the bolded? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malik Posted September 10, 2017 Share Posted September 10, 2017 The back. Easily. I'll take 2000+ yards of offense and 20touchdowns over any versatile TE. The blocking is a pretty negligible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iamcanadian Posted September 10, 2017 Share Posted September 10, 2017 8 hours ago, Hunter2_1 said: What do you mean by the bolded? Just making a point??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter2_1 Posted September 10, 2017 Author Share Posted September 10, 2017 2 hours ago, Iamcanadian said: Just making a point??? What point though? I'm not chewing you out, I just wondered what you meant by the 230lb traditional TE? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iamcanadian Posted September 10, 2017 Share Posted September 10, 2017 3 hours ago, Hunter2_1 said: What point though? I'm not chewing you out, I just wondered what you meant by the 230lb traditional TE? You got it wrong, I said Gonk was no 230lbder and was thus a more traditional TE who could catch or block. Traditional TE's were normally blockers as well as potential pass catchers while versitile TE's or HB's as they are often called, were generally pass catchers but not great blockers. I just don't think NE used Gonk all that much as a versitile TE, they fully expected him to block on running plays as well as be a pass receiver. It just seemed to me that people were using Gronk as a versitile TE when in fact he really was a more traditional TE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.