Jump to content

"This team is in the Pitts"


Recommended Posts

Just now, NFL_Fan said:

well of course. qb is the main position to draft in the 1st wouldnt you say? wouldnt you say QB might be the most important position on the field? at ANYYYYY time?

It's not even just the position but the end result. 

The draft evaluation process is flawed and we have seen on multiple occasions there are guys that slip through the cracks. Just because a team took someone somewhere and had success, it doesn't mean that this is going to be repeatable. If that person is going to be a difference maker and win games on a consistent basis you take that person regardless of position/draft slot. 

Patrick Mahomes would go #1 overall in his class, Travis Kelce would have been a 1st round pick, Brady would have been taken #1 overall, etc.  They weren't taken in those spots because of flaw in the draft process and projections. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Karnage84 said:

It's not even just the position but the end result. 

The draft evaluation process is flawed and we have seen on multiple occasions there are guys that slip through the cracks. Just because a team took someone somewhere and had success, it doesn't mean that this is going to be repeatable. If that person is going to be a difference maker and win games on a consistent basis you take that person regardless of position/draft slot. 

Patrick Mahomes would go #1 overall in his class, Travis Kelce would have been a 1st round pick, Brady would have been taken #1 overall, etc.  They weren't taken in those spots because of flaw in the draft process and projections. 

um actually probably kelce went to Cincinnati as a senior. suspended a season for weed. mahomes was a mobile qb at texas tech...you know they have reasons right?? either way. im good on Pitts. like i said you have your opinion I have mine. agree to disagree. I wouldn't take shannon sharpe at 7 none the less gronk or graham none the less a slow huge WR/ TE that doesnt even know how to block...ON TOP OF THAT MISSED TIME WITH A HEAD INJURY....IM GOOOOOOD 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, NFL_Fan said:

um actually probably kelce went to Cincinnati as a senior. suspended a season for weed. mahomes was a mobile qb at texas tech...you know they have reasons right?? either way. im good on Pitts. like i said you have your opinion I have mine. agree to disagree. I wouldn't take shannon sharpe at 7 none the less gronk or graham none the less a slow huge WR/ TE that doesnt even know how to block...ON TOP OF THAT MISSED TIME WITH A HEAD INJURY....IM GOOOOOOD 

Gronk was taken in the 2nd due to a back injury. He likely would have been drafted in the 1st if there was no injury question. 

However, you're misdirecting and not actually answering a direct question without going off on another tangent. I didn't bring Brady or Brees into the initial equation here, you did. 

If we bring it back to Pitts - I get it. I wasn't in favour of Hock at #8. TE as a position is not one that I'm in favour of taking in the 1st round generally let alone a top 10 guy. It's a position that requires a lot of growth and development. You're really learning two positions at the same time: WR and OL. If you are a team that views Pitts as a guy who would be used as a WR but allows you to flex him inside and give the look of 12 personnel/run base, then you could choose to value such a player. There is a case to be made for selecting someone like Pitts in the top half of the draft. Whether you would choose to execute that choice if you were in charge is a different story and there is a wide variety of opinions that are all valid. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Karnage84 said:

Gronk was taken in the 2nd due to a back injury. He likely would have been drafted in the 1st if there was no injury question. 

However, you're misdirecting and not actually answering a direct question without going off on another tangent. I didn't bring Brady or Brees into the initial equation here, you did. 

If we bring it back to Pitts - I get it. I wasn't in favour of Hock at #8. TE as a position is not one that I'm in favour of taking in the 1st round generally let alone a top 10 guy. It's a position that requires a lot of growth and development. You're really learning two positions at the same time: WR and OL. If you are a team that views Pitts as a guy who would be used as a WR but allows you to flex him inside and give the look of 12 personnel/run base, then you could choose to value such a player. There is a case to be made for selecting someone like Pitts in the top half of the draft. Whether you would choose to execute that choice if you were in charge is a different story and there is a wide variety of opinions that are all valid. 

top half...not #7...and not for the Lions..Packers? sure. seahawks...sure..once again Lions? HELLLL NO. im not saying pitts is not good. hes a beast. just dont want him with our pick. even if we trade down. we need pass rush d tackle WR wayyyyy more. personally i like d line or o line. find gems that went to smaller schools. LB is kinda big cause literally all of ours are trash. davis and tavai could be decent depth. but we need two starters and a future replacement for collins like next year...so 3. so parsons would be nice. okwara and harmon are probably out so thats 2 more spots...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NFL_Fan said:

top half...not #7...and not for the Lions..Packers? sure. seahawks...sure..once again Lions? HELLLL NO. im not saying pitts is not good. hes a beast. just dont want him with our pick. even if we trade down. we need pass rush d tackle WR wayyyyy more. personally i like d line or o line. find gems that went to smaller schools. LB is kinda big cause literally all of ours are trash. davis and tavai could be decent depth. but we need two starters and a future replacement for collins like next year...so 3. so parsons would be nice. okwara and harmon are probably out so thats 2 more spots...

and when I said gems I mean for skill positions like RB, WR, backup TE, special team depth DBs/LBs. 

 
 

JAELON DARDEN is one. sorry for the bold 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NFL_Fan said:

top half...not #7...and not for the Lions..Packers? sure. seahawks...sure..once again Lions? HELLLL NO. im not saying pitts is not good. hes a beast. just dont want him with our pick. even if we trade down. we need pass rush d tackle WR wayyyyy more. personally i like d line or o line. find gems that went to smaller schools. LB is kinda big cause literally all of ours are trash. davis and tavai could be decent depth. but we need two starters and a future replacement for collins like next year...so 3. so parsons would be nice. okwara and harmon are probably out so thats 2 more spots...

I pick him at #12 in my mock... 

An interesting note - Jeff Risdon went off on a little rant saying that teams that ran more LB's on a regular basis were towards the bottom of defensive rankings. Teams that 3 or 4 LB's on a regular basis were not successful. If you're an analytics guy, which Holmes is, you're likely going to buy into that and not place a premium on a LB as opposed to a DL or probably a CB/S.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Karnage84 said:

I pick him at #12 in my mock... 

An interesting note - Jeff Risdon went off on a little rant saying that teams that ran more LB's on a regular basis were towards the bottom of defensive rankings. Teams that 3 or 4 LB's on a regular basis were not successful. If you're an analytics guy, which Holmes is, you're likely going to buy into that and not place a premium on a LB as opposed to a DL or probably a CB/S.

i do like nickel wayyy more. but depends on what we do with this defense. 

what do you  think about Hamsah Nasirildeen.  he plays LB and S. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NFL_Fan said:

um actually probably kelce went to Cincinnati as a senior. suspended a season for weed. mahomes was a mobile qb at texas tech...you know they have reasons right?? either way. im good on Pitts. like i said you have your opinion I have mine. agree to disagree. I wouldn't take shannon sharpe at 7 none the less gronk or graham none the less a slow huge WR/ TE that doesnt even know how to block...ON TOP OF THAT MISSED TIME WITH A HEAD INJURY....IM GOOOOOOD 

Let's chill with the hyperbole. Pitts definitely knows how to block. 

2 hours ago, Karnage84 said:

I pick him at #12 in my mock... 

An interesting note - Jeff Risdon went off on a little rant saying that teams that ran more LB's on a regular basis were towards the bottom of defensive rankings. Teams that 3 or 4 LB's on a regular basis were not successful. If you're an analytics guy, which Holmes is, you're likely going to buy into that and not place a premium on a LB as opposed to a DL or probably a CB/S.

I'm not so sure Holmes will be that sort of guy. Maybe he's markedly different from Snead, but the Rams have tended to just draft talent where they can find it. I like that approach. Don't walk away from great talents for riskier propositions because the great talent plays what many consider a less valuable position. Great talents shine through, and good coordinators understand how to build schemes around great talent. I'm not saying you ignore need, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, jrry32 said:

Let's chill with the hyperbole. Pitts definitely knows how to block. 

I'm not so sure Holmes will be that sort of guy. Maybe he's markedly different from Snead, but the Rams have tended to just draft talent where they can find it. I like that approach. Don't walk away from great talents for riskier propositions because the great talent plays what many consider a less valuable position. Great talents shine through, and good coordinators understand how to build schemes around great talent. I'm not saying you ignore need, though.

I think what Risdon is trying to say, is that statistically teams are playing a lot more nickel and dime combinations than base. If you're consistently playing 3 LB's (even front) or 4 LB's (odd front), the defense is outmatched on a more consistent basis leading to bigger plays/scores. I haven't personally looked things up so it is hard to say as an absolute. 

The team needs an injection in talent in every single spot for the most part. The only position that I wouldn't be ok with them going at #7 would be that traditional TE. You could make an argument for just about every other position on the team including LT, CB, LB, etc. If the talent matches up at that spot and/or we can't trade down, take the BPA and move onto the next guy.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/7/2021 at 12:53 AM, jrry32 said:

Who are the actual potential superstar WRs? There's no guarantee that Chase and Smith make it to #7. Regardless, I don't disagree that Pitts makes more sense as a trade down option if the Lions move into the #9 to #12 range. But Pitts is much, much more than an interesting matchup. Again, this is a dude who was working CBs who will get drafted fairly early in this draft. And he would slide inside and smoke slot CBs and safeties. Because of his size, strength, body control, catch radius, and insane hands, there simply aren't many guys who can handle him one on one.

Every time I saw him play I couldn’t believe he’s a TE. His short speed is off the charts but I’m curious about his 40 time.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, BR's latest mock has Pitts drafted by the Eagles and their justification is pretty much on par with what can be said in a pairing with Hock. Again, if you're using him as a TE then it's a bad pick and a reach. If he's playing WR+, then there's a really good chance he can be a difference maker. The long speed is that question. I'd also throw vert in there. What can he do in jump ball situations. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Karnage84 said:

FWIW, BR's latest mock has Pitts drafted by the Eagles and their justification is pretty much on par with what can be said in a pairing with Hock. Again, if you're using him as a TE then it's a bad pick and a reach. If he's playing WR+, then there's a really good chance he can be a difference maker. The long speed is that question. I'd also throw vert in there. What can he do in jump ball situations. 

 

BR as in Bleacher Report??

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Karnage84 said:

I think what Risdon is trying to say, is that statistically teams are playing a lot more nickel and dime combinations than base. If you're consistently playing 3 LB's (even front) or 4 LB's (odd front), the defense is outmatched on a more consistent basis leading to bigger plays/scores. I haven't personally looked things up so it is hard to say as an absolute. 

The team needs an injection in talent in every single spot for the most part. The only position that I wouldn't be ok with them going at #7 would be that traditional TE. You could make an argument for just about every other position on the team including LT, CB, LB, etc. If the talent matches up at that spot and/or we can't trade down, take the BPA and move onto the next guy.

I'm not disagreeing. Most teams run a 4-2-5 more than their base defense these days.

6 hours ago, Karnage84 said:

FWIW, BR's latest mock has Pitts drafted by the Eagles and their justification is pretty much on par with what can be said in a pairing with Hock. Again, if you're using him as a TE then it's a bad pick and a reach. If he's playing WR+, then there's a really good chance he can be a difference maker. The long speed is that question. I'd also throw vert in there. What can he do in jump ball situations. 

 

Dominate lol.

http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=29978010

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...