https://www.bigcatcountry.com/2018/4/21/...n-now-move

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Yeah - this is why most of us that are on the OL/TE bandwagon would prefer them in that order.

---

Yeah - this is why most of us that are on the OL/TE bandwagon would prefer them in that order.

It's frustrating because I like Goedert so much more than the other guys and there are so many valuable interior OL projected to still be available Rd. 2. I probably agree with the article, but take away the Rd. designations and Goedert/Ragnow vs Hernandez/Andrews and I'd prefer the 1st option. In other words I think the drop off from Goedert to the rest of the TEs is much steeper than the 1st rd OL guys and who would be available with our 2nd pick.

I could easily get on board with 1. Rudolph 2. Ragnow/BAP OL 3. Ian Thomas though

---

Good points. We are in a legit SB window and TE won't really contribute to that right now. OL would definitely contribute to that and we'd have a day 1 starter.

---

Forget "win now" as a reason... the more I hear about the talent in this draft, TE position is sounding less and less like the best value/BAP at 29. That's a much bigger reason than "win now."

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Good points.  We are in a legit SB window and TE won't really contribute to that right now.  OL would definitely contribute to that and we'd have a day 1 starter.

I get why some would be against drafting a TE but disagree to your line of reasoning. The draft isn't about right now. At least it shouldn't be for teams with established talent.

---

"Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry, he's a mile away and barefoot."

Good points.  We are in a legit SB window and TE won't really contribute to that right now.  OL would definitely contribute to that and we'd have a day 1 starter.

I get why some would be against drafting a TE but disagree to your line of reasoning. The draft isn't about right now. At least it shouldn't be for teams with established talent.

That's not the only reason.  I mean building a winning team through a defense typically doesn't leave a large window, but the talent/need at 29 fits with RG more than anything else.

---

The counter argument is a simple one.

The lack of production from our tight ends has held the offense back (although obviously there are other factors).

It needs to improve, because we are too predictable if we try to run the ball all the time.

And crucially, while none of them are likely to be elite, the better TEs in this draft will probably be gone by the end of round two when we pick.

That trumps the arguments in the BCC article.

(And on the point about them not being world beaters, I still think Goedert/Hurst/Gesicki have a shot to be a useful contributor like a Zach Errz. Plus, aren’t all players at the end of the first round likely to be “good” rather than “amazing”?)

Honestly, I’d prefer Hernandez, Wynn or McGlinchey, but if all three are gone, I can completely see the argument for picking a TE.

---

You should draft talent

---

It's a good debate to have. For the purpose of the debate let's assume both players are average NFL players as rookies.

What makes our offense better in 2018? An average TE or an average right guard?

On the surface you might say another decent big bodied receiver type TE would help Blake out even more. Gives him more options in the middle of the field. If they can block a bit it would increase our ability to attack other teams from different personnel groups.

For the guard you might say having an average right guard would exponentially increase our effectiveness in the run (important) and in the pass. We gave up most out sacks inside last year. Having a *complete* line might be the best way to make our style continue to work.

In terms of impact you could argue both sides very well.

---

It's a good debate to have.  For the purpose of the debate let's assume both players are average NFL players as rookies.

What makes our offense better in 2018? An average TE or an average right guard?  

On the surface you might say another decent big bodied receiver type TE would help Blake out even more. Gives him more options in the middle of the field.  If they can block a bit it would increase our ability to attack other teams from different personnel groups.

For the guard you might say having an average right guard would exponentially increase our effectiveness in the run (important) and in the pass. We gave up most out sacks inside last year. Having a *complete* line might be the best way to make our style continue to work.

In terms of impact you could argue both sides very well.

I don't like the "average" assumption here. 

In theory - you'd better be able to land a guard at #29 that can play a little better than just "average" out of the gate. 

For a TE that may be a bit bigger of an ask in year one. 
Maybe not in the Jags system however, where a rookie TE#2 could conceivably have his role tailored to his strengths a bit.

---

It's a good debate to have.  For the purpose of the debate let's assume both players are average NFL players as rookies.

What makes our offense better in 2018? An average TE or an average right guard?  

On the surface you might say another decent big bodied receiver type TE would help Blake out even more. Gives him more options in the middle of the field.  If they can block a bit it would increase our ability to attack other teams from different personnel groups.

For the guard you might say having an average right guard would exponentially increase our effectiveness in the run (important) and in the pass. We gave up most out sacks inside last year. Having a *complete* line might be the best way to make our style continue to work.

In terms of impact you could argue both sides very well.

I don't like the "average" assumption here. 

In theory - you'd better be able to land a guard at #29 that can play a little better than just "average" out of the gate. 

For a TE that may be a bit bigger of an ask in year one. 
Maybe not in the Jags system however, where a rookie TE#2 could conceivably have his role tailored to his strengths a bit.

Its more so for the purpose of a position vs position debate instead player A vs player B.  

I think average is what I'd expect from a late first rookie lineman though.   

Basically if both players are of equal talent which position do you feel helps us more year 1? (Not that this should be defining factor in who you take(

---

I don't like the "average" assumption here. 

In theory - you'd better be able to land a guard at #29 that can play a little better than just "average" out of the gate. 

For a TE that may be a bit bigger of an ask in year one. 
Maybe not in the Jags system however, where a rookie TE#2 could conceivably have his role tailored to his strengths a bit.

Basically if both players are of equal talent which position do you feel helps us more year 1? 

Guard.  
And if I selected a guard at #29 - I think "average" would be a disappointment.
AJ Cann was average in his rookie year and he went at #67.

---

Basically if both players are of equal talent which position do you feel helps us more year 1? 

Guard.  
And if I selected a guard at #29 - I think "average" would be a disappointment.
AJ Cann was average in his rookie year and he went at #67.

In year 1? Definitely not for me. I think expecting any rookie to be above average right out of the gate is asking for disappointment, especially outside of the top 15ish blue chip type talent.   
I'd hope the rookie showed the promise and traits you drafted him for but ultimately average is the expectation I'd go with.

I'd agree on guard impact wise too.

---

Guard.  
And if I selected a guard at #29 - I think "average" would be a disappointment.
AJ Cann was average in his rookie year and he went at #67.

In year 1? Definitely not for me. I think expecting any rookie to be above average right out of the gate is asking for disappointment, especially outside of the top 15ish blue chip type talent.   
I'd hope the rookie showed the promise and traits you drafted him for but ultimately average is the expectation I'd go with.  

I'd agree on guard impact wise too.

Yes, in year one. 
 At Guard specifically. (RG even more specifically) 

I don't think it's a position that should be typically drafted early and I think that 2nd and 3rd picks routinely can transition fairly easily and play at an average level as rookies. Therefore - if I'm taking that position in the late first - I want a guy that is a cut above average at right guard right out of the gate.

---

In year 1? Definitely not for me. I think expecting any rookie to be above average right out of the gate is asking for disappointment, especially outside of the top 15ish blue chip type talent.   
I'd hope the rookie showed the promise and traits you drafted him for but ultimately average is the expectation I'd go with.  

I'd agree on guard impact wise too.

Yes, in year one. 
 At Guard specifically. (RG even more specifically) 

I don't think it's a position that should be typically drafted early and I think that 2nd and 3rd picks routinely can transition fairly easily and play at an average level as rookies. Therefore - if I'm taking that position in the late first - I want a guy that is a cut above average at right guard right out of the gate.

I think Hernandez, Wynn, Daniels, Price, Ragnow are definitely going to be above average.  This class is loaded at the top.

---

In year 1? Definitely not for me. I think expecting any rookie to be above average right out of the gate is asking for disappointment, especially outside of the top 15ish blue chip type talent.   
I'd hope the rookie showed the promise and traits you drafted him for but ultimately average is the expectation I'd go with.  

I'd agree on guard impact wise too.

Yes, in year one. 
 At Guard specifically. (RG even more specifically) 

I don't think it's a position that should be typically drafted early and I think that 2nd and 3rd picks routinely can transition fairly easily and play at an average level as rookies. Therefore - if I'm taking that position in the late first - I want a guy that is a cut above average at right guard right out of the gate.

Makes sense even If I disagree.  

 I think a lot of those interior guys we could pick up in the first could play above average as a rookie starters where as the tight ends I'm not sure I see that. Some folk seem to be selling themselves on Hurst being "NFL ready" compared to the others and I think thats misguided.

---

Yes, in year one. 
 At Guard specifically. (RG even more specifically) 

I don't think it's a position that should be typically drafted early and I think that 2nd and 3rd picks routinely can transition fairly easily and play at an average level as rookies. Therefore - if I'm taking that position in the late first - I want a guy that is a cut above average at right guard right out of the gate.

Makes sense even If I disagree.  

 I think a lot of those interior guys we could pick up in the first could play above average as a rookie starters where as the tight ends I'm not sure I see that. Some folk seem to be selling themselves on Hurst being "NFL ready" compared to the others and I think thats misguided.

I have no idea how NFL ready Hurst is or isn't but TEs do typically have a longer transition/acclimation period to the NFL as far as I can tell.

---

Guard.  
And if I selected a guard at #29 - I think "average" would be a disappointment.
AJ Cann was average in his rookie year and he went at #67.

In year 1? Definitely not for me. I think expecting any rookie to be above average right out of the gate is asking for disappointment, especially outside of the top 15ish blue chip type talent.   
I'd hope the rookie showed the promise and traits you drafted him for but ultimately average is the expectation I'd go with.  

I'd agree on guard impact wise too.

Robinson killed it last year. It's amazing that Seattle passed on Robinson with their weak offensive line that they fielded last season.

---

Your beliefs become your thoughts,
Your thoughts become your words,
Your words become your actions,
Your actions become your habits,
Your habits become your values,
Your values become your destiny.

Makes sense even If I disagree.  

 I think a lot of those interior guys we could pick up in the first could play above average as a rookie starters where as the tight ends I'm not sure I see that. Some folk seem to be selling themselves on Hurst being "NFL ready" compared to the others and I think thats misguided.

I have no idea how NFL ready Hurst is or isn't but TEs do typically have a longer transition/acclimation period to the NFL as far as I can tell.

Yeah average rookie production is usually low. 
Rookie TEs don't fly up the depth chart as easy as other spots. Even last year's historic crop had mostly minimal impact.

---

In year 1? Definitely not for me. I think expecting any rookie to be above average right out of the gate is asking for disappointment, especially outside of the top 15ish blue chip type talent.   
I'd hope the rookie showed the promise and traits you drafted him for but ultimately average is the expectation I'd go with.  

I'd agree on guard impact wise too.

Robinson killed it last year. It's amazing that Seattle passed on Robinson with their weak offensive line that they fielded last season.

Pretty hilarious that they passed on Cam AND Lamp..

Just a terrible job self scouting.

---