Tight End: The Need is Bigger than We Think

[csx]

I dont feel its much of a need at all. We've drafted in consecutive years. TE are known to take 3-4 years to develop.

[csx]

7 hours ago, firefox1234 said:

Our red zone offense was excruciatingly painful to watch last season. A half decent TE would do a lot to change that.

We were dead center, 16th, in Red Zone TD percentage. Not terrible 

Edited 16 hours ago by csx

[LinvilleGorge]

5 minutes ago, csx said:

I dont feel its much of a need at all. We've drafted in consecutive years. TE are known to take 3-4 years to develop.

Our TEs were ranked 47th, 52nd, and 57th in the league in receiving yards for TEs last season.

 

 

[csx]

15 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Our TEs were ranked 47th, 52nd, and 57th in the league in receiving yards for TEs last season.

 

 

Cool. We can draft another TE to be primarily used for blocking. Not all offenses use TE significantly as receivers.

Sanders and Evans both had better catch percentages than the leading TEs in receiving yards. We dont target tght ends.

Edited 16 hours ago by csx

[LinvilleGorge]

34 minutes ago, csx said:

Cool. We can draft another TE to be primarily used for blocking. Not all offenses use TE significantly as receivers.

Sanders and Evans both had better catch percentages than the leading TEs in receiving yards. We dont target tght ends.

By design of the offense or because our TEs suck? That's the question. Targeting our current TEs at a high rate would just be dumb.

[TheSpecialJuan]

https://x.com/sleepercarolina/status/2033359647826923571?s=46&t=xeIgh_-Vr2aKxBkBJdfnKA

[strato]

2 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

By design of the offense or because our TEs suck? That's the question. Targeting our current TEs at a high rate would just be dumb.

You want to use #19 to find out if we don’t target them because they suck or because we don’t embrace an expanded pass catching role due to philosophy? I don’t. 

[LinvilleGorge]

22 minutes ago, strato said:

You want to use #19 to find out if we don’t target them because they suck or because we don’t embrace an expanded pass catching role due to philosophy? I don’t. 

Not what I said. They know within the building why we aren't utilizing TEs more. If the rumors were true that we were seriously pursuing a couple of decent receiving TEs that strongly points toward a lack of quality receiving TEs currently on the roster. Does that mean we consider drafting one at 19? I don't know, but it wouldn't shock me and if we did there's only one guy it would be. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see TE drafting somewhere in the first three rounds. 

[shaq]

Eli Stowers is gonna be a dude in the league

[TheSpecialJuan]

40 minutes ago, shaq said:

Eli Stowers is gonna be a dude in the league

Yes, a gay dude 

[45catfan]

10 hours ago, shaq said:

Eli Stowers is gonna be a dude in the league

He's firmly a second rounder and I don't think we would go that high for a TE this draft.  Third?  Possibly. I mean Rhule drafted Tremble in the third round who clearly was just a blocking TE.  

[MHS831]

15 hours ago, 45catfan said:

 

Conspiracy theory:  They only spoke to one TE (based on the list I saw) and it was Joly.  They are telling us:  If we draft a TE, it will be day 3, and it will be Joly or we will stay with what we have.  

[MHS831]

12 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Not what I said. They know within the building why we aren't utilizing TEs more. If the rumors were true that we were seriously pursuing a couple of decent receiving TEs that strongly points toward a lack of quality receiving TEs currently on the roster. Does that mean we consider drafting one at 19? I don't know, but it wouldn't shock me and if we did there's only one guy it would be. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see TE drafting somewhere in the first three rounds. 

We also have to consider cause and effect.  Maybe the reason we don't target TEs is not by design, it is due to personnel.  If we are going to use 12 (2 TEs) and 13 (3 TEs) sets to improve the run game, we need some TE options.  It is ridiculous to think we can do that without TEs who can run the seams and move the chains in the pass game.  I think that is the plan folks.  We ran 3 TEs about 1 in 12 plays last year, and we did not have the TE personnel to do that as effectively as needed.  If we had better TEs, we might run 3 TE sets more--say 10%, and 2 TE sets 20% of the time.  You always need the pass option when you do this, and frankly, nobody was scared with Tremble, Evans, and Sanders out there.  It is an area they are likely to address. 

[LinvilleGorge]

9 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

We also have to consider cause and effect.  Maybe the reason we don't target TEs is not by design, it is due to personnel.  If we are going to use 12 (2 TEs) and 13 (3 TEs) sets to improve the run game, we need some TE options.  It is ridiculous to think we can do that without TEs who can run the seams and move the chains in the pass game.  I think that is the plan folks.  We ran 3 TEs about 1 in 12 plays last year, and we did not have the TE personnel to do that as effectively as needed.  If we had better TEs, we might run 3 TE sets more--say 10%, and 2 TE sets 20% of the time.  You always need the pass option when you do this, and frankly, nobody was scared with Tremble, Evans, and Sanders out there.  It is an area they are likely to address. 

Yeah, when you're wanting to run multiple TEs and your TEs are a weakness you're basically handcuffed yourself. I think there's a good chance our passing attack would look significantly different if we had a quality receiving TE.