Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Any interest in Kyle Juszczyk?


Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

I don't think it's hate. I didn't agree with the size of the deal was the main issue I had. We paid him like he is a pretty good TE, which is a very much not. He is basically a blocking TE, which are a dime a dozen in the NFL.

Yes, certainly if he develops into a pass catching threat the deal looks great but it's been three seasons without much in the way of development there. 

I think he just is who he is, an athletic blocking TE.

May be a little high, but Carolina has an out after next season. So it's not really that bad. 5.25M a year for a 2nd contract TE is not horrible. I saw some comparisons to Ian Thomas in another thread and I just don't think that's the case. He gets open alot more than he gets targeted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

I don't think it's hate. I didn't agree with the size of the deal was the main issue I had. We paid him like he is a pretty good TE, which is a very much not. He is basically a blocking TE, which are a dime a dozen in the NFL.

Yes, certainly if he develops into a pass catching threat the deal looks great but it's been three seasons without much in the way of development there. 

I think he just is who he is, an athletic blocking TE.

With 3 coaches in 3 seasons, I didn't expect much development honestly. Coming out of college, he was always a project receiving tight end that was a very physical blocker. From what I remember, the thought was if he was able to develop his catching and route running, he could just truck people with the ball in his hands because he loves the physical contact. We've just sucked at developing talent for decades. Either guys have it when they get here or they don't. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Navy_football said:

May be a little high, but Carolina has an out after next season. So it's not really that bad. 5.25M a year for a 2nd contract TE is not horrible. I saw some comparisons to Ian Thomas in another thread and I just don't think that's the case. He gets open alot more than he gets targeted. 

I compared him to Thomas because of the price tag. Ian Thomas was obviously worse but the fact we kept paying him was fuging infuriating. 

7 minutes ago, SmokinwithWilly said:

With 3 coaches in 3 seasons, I didn't expect much development honestly. Coming out of college, he was always a project receiving tight end that was a very physical blocker. From what I remember, the thought was if he was able to develop his catching and route running, he could just truck people with the ball in his hands because he loves the physical contact. We've just sucked at developing talent for decades. Either guys have it when they get here or they don't. 

Yeah, I mean I get that he might not have had continuity but as a professional you really need to be doing what it takes to improve your overall game if you have the drive to be great. TBH, I sort of just tend to think he is just never going to be more than a lower end receiving threat. It's just not who he is. Which, again, that's fine but just don't pay out the asshole for a blocking TE. Give him a market or market+ rate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

I compared him to Thomas because of the price tag. Ian Thomas was obviously worse but the fact we kept paying him was fuging infuriating. 

Yeah, I mean I get that he might not have had continuity but as a professional you really need to be doing what it takes to improve your overall game if you have the drive to be great. TBH, I sort of just tend to think he is just never going to be more than a lower end receiving threat. It's just not who he is. Which, again, that's fine but just don't pay out the asshole for a blocking TE. Give him a market or market+ rate.

Oh that was you?! I didn't remember who it was. I agree about Ian Thomas. But Ian had the opportunity as TE1 and never took advantage of it. Actually he failed. Never showed anything that led you to believe he could be that guy. Tommy has always been TE2 or the blocking TE, but he's shown more flashes in that role than Ian ever did. Will he ever be a Kittle or Kelce? I don't see that at all. But he can play and if they give him more targets, he'd be worth his price tag. 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Navy_football said:

Oh that was you?! I didn't remember who it was. I agree about Ian Thomas. But Ian had the opportunity as TE1 and never took advantage of it. Actually he failed. Never showed anything that led you to believe he could be that guy. Tommy has always been TE2 or the blocking TE, but he's shown more flashes in that role than Ian ever did. Will he ever be a Kittle or Kelce? I don't see that at all. But he can play and if they give him more targets, he'd be worth his price tag. 

You know, Thomas just kept fooling everyone in that building somehow. Remember how many times he "flashed in training camp/practice" and then disappeared during the season? It was NUTS.

I don't see ever being okay paying significantly above market value for a blocking TE. They are just too easy to be had for a small price tag. That's just my personal philosophy on the matter. Not the way I like to see cap space utilized.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

 

Yeah, I mean I get that he might not have had continuity but as a professional you really need to be doing what it takes to improve your overall game if you have the drive to be great. TBH, I sort of just tend to think he is just never going to be more than a lower end receiving threat. It's just not who he is. Which, again, that's fine but just don't pay out the asshole for a blocking TE. Give him a market or market+ rate.

I don't disagree with doing what you have to do to be great. I guess it all really depends on what he was being asked to do. If he was being asked to be primarily a blocking TE, great. Pay him like one. If he was being asked to become our next Greg Olsen, then there's a lot of work to be done, but he's also got to be used that way regularly on game day. I'm not sure what they asked him to do or become, but that contract has Ian Thomas vibes to me. 

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SmokinwithWilly said:

I don't disagree with doing what you have to do to be great. I guess it all really depends on what he was being asked to do. If he was being asked to be primarily a blocking TE, great. Pay him like one. If he was being asked to become our next Greg Olsen, then there's a lot of work to be done, but he's also got to be used that way regularly on game day. I'm not sure what they asked him to do or become, but that contract has Ian Thomas vibes to me. 

Yeah, it just feels like we are competing with ourselves. That's sort of the classic issue with a lot of our bad FO moves.

I definitely feel that way about the Horn contract. Wow. That was so insanely reckless. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might be a weird answer, but I'd have interest if Canales has interest.

Basically, if Canales thinks he can use a FB, then yea, I'd 100% be interested as he's still got a lot left in the tank.  But if he just doesn't see a big enough role for the position for the offense he wants to run, then it would be a waste of cap space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, kungfoodude said:

Yeah, I think his success at OG will put him well out of that range. But, you are also talking about using him in a way we could likely get a versatile backup in the draft and do similar. Maybe not be the pure freak Becton is but at a reasonable price.

I only want Becton to do it because he is 360 lbs and like 10% body fat somehow. Dude is a literal giant. 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
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.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • You may be interested to know that the average depth of separation is dependent upon the type of route run. Though go-routes are the most type of route run, they also produce the least amount of separation (and, of course, completions).   "The average pass catcher runs a go route on nearly a quarter of all routes (22.3%), the highest percentage of any route type in our data. However, those routes are targeted roughly 1 out of 10 times (10.8 percent), the lowest target rate of any route. The WR screen is the least-run route (3.4%), and it's the only route where the average target is behind the line of scrimmage. But it's also targeted at the highest rate (40.7%) and early in the play (1.6 seconds average time to throw). The most targeted routes outside of the WR Screen? The out (27.8%) and slant (25.2%) routes are the next most popular across the league."     "The most valuable routes by expected points added per target were the post (+0.48) and corner (+0.43) routes. The go route (+0.19) ranked seventh on the list of 10 route types. The go route (+0.19) ranked seventh on the list of 10 route types. One possible reason for this: It's harder to separate on go routes, which put the player on a straight path, than on posts or corners, which ask the player to make a cut. Targeted pass catchers on posts and corners average 2.4 yards and 2.3 yards of separation from the nearest defender, respectively, while pass catchers targeted on go routes average just 1.8 yards of separation."   https://www.nfl.com/news/next-gen-stats-intro-to-new-route-recognition-model#:~:text=Targeted pass catchers on posts,) and slant (+0.26).   I would expect that Thielen would have an easier time catching the ball based that he runs the routes where it's easier to get open. Tet? Yet to be seen, but we may be better served getting him on some slants and crossers also.  In general, receivers are going to average a lower completion percentage and yards of separation on certain types of routes than others, that's why we shouldn't necessarily be taking stats, even advanced ones, at face value, as there are dynamics that most aren't even thinking about.  In terms of Tet, he's bigger and somewhat slower than a smaller dude, so you'd expect him not to have as much separation on go-routes, but his catch radius is massive and his hands are awesome. Hitting him in stride will probably be killer, but of course QBs are less accurate on go-routes according to the stats. Depending upon Tet's route versatility and how he is used, we could have a unicorn though. He's relatively fast, has great hands and gets YAC (and on an off note, if X can hold on to the ball, he's dangerous as well because he already has shown some separation ability).    
    • Most elite WRs aren't necessarily burners. Not a lot of elite WRs in the modern era were 4.3 guys. If anything, sometimes it seems like the super fast guys use their speed as a crutch and it hampers their development in the intricacies of route running.
×
×
  • Create New...