An Argument Against TE at 29

Board Performance Issues We are aware of performance issues on the board and are working to resolve them! The board may be intermittently unavailable during this time. (May 07) x

The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!

Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.

An Argument Against TE at 29

NYC4jags
Jags Fanatic / Moderator
Posts: 33,008
Threads: 636
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 1,062

#18

04-23-2018, 05:30 PM

(04-23-2018, 05:21 PM)JackCity Wrote:
(04-23-2018, 04:34 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: 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.

Messages In This Thread

An Argument Against TE at 29 - by Bullseye - 04-23-2018, 11:46 AM

RE: An Argument Against TE at 29 - by NYC4jags - 04-23-2018, 12:11 PM

RE: An Argument Against TE at 29 - by JNev - 04-23-2018, 12:38 PM

RE: An Argument Against TE at 29 - by Markulous - 04-23-2018, 12:39 PM

RE: An Argument Against TE at 29 - by knarnn - 04-23-2018, 01:09 PM

RE: An Argument Against TE at 29 - by Markulous - 04-23-2018, 01:22 PM

RE: An Argument Against TE at 29 - by pirkster - 04-23-2018, 12:43 PM

An Argument Against TE at 29 - by Andy G - 04-23-2018, 02:02 PM

RE: An Argument Against TE at 29 - by JNev - 04-23-2018, 02:48 PM

RE: An Argument Against TE at 29 - by The Real Marty - 04-24-2018, 05:32 AM

RE: An Argument Against TE at 29 - by JackCity - 04-23-2018, 03:19 PM

RE: An Argument Against TE at 29 - by NYC4jags - 04-23-2018, 03:42 PM

RE: An Argument Against TE at 29 - by JackCity - 04-23-2018, 04:12 PM

RE: An Argument Against TE at 29 - by NYC4jags - 04-23-2018, 04:17 PM

RE: An Argument Against TE at 29 - by JackCity - 04-23-2018, 04:27 PM

RE: An Argument Against TE at 29 - by NYC4jags - 04-23-2018, 04:34 PM

RE: An Argument Against TE at 29 - by Markulous - 04-23-2018, 04:57 PM

RE: An Argument Against TE at 29 - by JackCity - 04-23-2018, 05:21 PM

RE: An Argument Against TE at 29 - by NYC4jags - 04-23-2018, 05:30 PM

RE: An Argument Against TE at 29 - by JackCity - 04-23-2018, 06:05 PM

RE: An Argument Against TE at 29 - by JaG4LyFe - 04-23-2018, 08:11 PM

RE: An Argument Against TE at 29 - by JaG4LyFe - 04-23-2018, 05:46 PM

RE: An Argument Against TE at 29 - by Deacon - 04-24-2018, 08:44 AM

Users browsing this thread:

1 Guest(s)

The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!

Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.