A little dickish you think?!
1 Like
I agree… the whole key to making that move work by adding Pitts would be to change up the formations all the time to create mismatches and confuse coverage assignments.
1 Like
I keep reading pitts is a generational hybrid who’s a te and wr … I read more and see him more of a WR first…
2 Likes
I see Pitts being more of a WR and demanding top WR money when it comes time for his second contract. If his team decides to franchise tag him, that could be a nasty conflict ala Graham
The Jimmy Graham situation seemed to be a tipping point where players now have more power to go after the bigger money position if that’s where they are playing the most. I find it interesting that people want to sell Pitts as a WR to justify spending a top 10 pick on him, but then think they are going to pay him as a TE when the time comes.
He did the best job spelling it out. What’s wrong?
You mind if we think that through a moment?
It’s the same argument for MIA that it is DET because both teams have a TE coming off big receiving years.
I’ll leave off the positional value and salary cap arguments. Not to mention the ability to retain both TE’s long term… and just speak mainly on how a team would use them.
If you decide to put both TE’s on this field at the same time one of two things has to happen.
- One of the TE’s has to be used as a blocking TE thus negating their value as a receiver.
- If you decide to use Pitts and TJ as receivers. That means one is lining up against a NB or CB and you lose the matchup advantage. Not to mention limiting your route trees. Your far less predictable and better off with a WR who can match up better against DB’s.
When you really think about all the impacts taking Pitts has for both Mia and DET it really doesn’t make much sense.
I think it’s a bad move unless your willing to give up on the TE you have now.
Think about how drafting Ebron turned Pettigrew into primarily a blocking TE. That’s what your talking about doing to TJ.
He’s a great player but he’s no more generational than Ebron and Fant are… generational no … rare athlete for a TE yes… there’s a handful of guys in the NFL with similar skill sets… that’s not generational in my book… I think he compares well to D. Waller.
Watch highlight videos of Fant, Ebron and Pitts and you’ll see their closer in style and abilities than people think or want to admit anyway.
He’s not a WR… and he won’t be used like one. Whoever drafts him will use him very much like teams use Fant, Waller, Ebron, etc.
I think Waller is a good comp. And Waller had 109 receptions, 1196 yards and 9 TD’'s last year. Waller gives you #1 WR production at the TE spot and is on a completely different level than Ebron or Fant, they are not even close to him.
IMO, Pitts is going to be a superstar. He will play all over the field in the NFL, including out wide, in the slot, and as a TE. I also think he’s gone before the Lions ever get on the clock.
I agree it is a poor idea.
The really problematic part of this true statement is that Pitts has shown little as a run blocker… so it would seem to negate the perceived advantage of having 2 TEs to help run game.
In fact, having 2 TEs on the field could make it easier for the defense to play a single-high safety… making it a easier for the defense to defend the run.
I would much rather work on getting 2 stud WRs than having 2 stud TEs.
Since we don’t even have 1 true #1 WR yet… seems crazy to add a 2nd highly drafted TE.
1 Like
Teams generally aren’t willing to pay a super premium for position players.
10, 41 & 44 would potential yield three immediate quality starters.
So why not just take a big WR later in the draft and convert him to TE, just like Waller?
That stache job costs more than your car.
1 Like
For a second there… I thought this was some weird fetish from the Deshaun Watson thread. 
Or take someone like Hunter Bryant in the latter part of the draft.
I’ll disagree on this. I think Pitts is somewhere between Fant and Waller. Go watch highlights and it’s fairly easy to see.
But none of them are likely to be a #1 WR type or #1 WR production. At least not consistently anyway. These guys aren’t used like WR’s. They have limited plays, limited routes and if they are your best receiving option then teams will eventually put a DB on you and figure out how to stop you. Not to mention these big receiving TE types tend to take on big hits and have limited success. Most have one maybe two great years and then drop off. Like George Kittle, Kellen Winslow, and Vernon Davis.
Here is the deal. You cannot view this guy as a TE in our offense. He would rarely line up tight. We have guys who will do that. Lynn ran 3-4 WR sets all day long and he will do the same thing here, all the while getting production out of Hunter Henry who was a move TE. Hockenson should be our move TE. Hunter Bryant is more of the same, but he will be used inline as well. Mack can be the blocker. But if you did add Pitts (not saying we “should” and ftr I would not) think of him as a bigger, faster, more athletic Anquan Boldin. Did he line up at TE? Nope, a ton of slot work. Williams, Perriman and Pitts would all be capable of playing outside, or in the slot.
I believe Pitts could give you every bit of what 18M per year Kenny Golladay gave us. Pitts is faster, bigger and has a larger catch radius. KG wasn’t a great route runner. He was box out rebounder playing football. He ran a 4.5 at 6’4 218. Kyle Pitts ran a 4.44 at 6’6 2 freaking 46. His 83 3/8" wingspan is the largest of any WR or TE in the past 20 years. Trying to worry about this guys inline blocking skills is just a riot. He is not going to be doing that. He’s going to be lighting it up as a pass catcher. But probably not for us, and I’m fine with that.
1 Like
Not the same as a Turkish Snowcone…
Great, that is an awesome way to look at it. He should be viewed as a WR. And as a WR, he’s not going to be the best one on the board. So that settles that.
Thanks bro. You made the decision clear as day.
3 Likes
Rarely lines up tight? Sounds like the type that D. Watson would target regularly.
Not hip. Wtf is a Turkish snowcone. I think I’m the most puritanical non-church goer ever.