Convert Jordan Reed to WR starting in 2016?

[Renegade7]

After re-watching the Tampa Bay game, I could not help noticing how often he was split out like a WR, sometimes even at the top by himself.

 

And it was just a nightmare for anyone because he's too big for a corner, too fast for a linebacker, and you don't want to pull your safety all the way away from the play like that just to have some sort of matchup (which you'll typically lose anyway).

 

Now I know this is not Madden, but hear me out here:

 

Niles Paul is 26 years old and already beat out Reed for the starting TE position before his season ended.  We already know blocking is not Reed's strength, but really, I want to move him to WR to see if we can extend his career.  I'm talking about not asking him to be all in the mix of run blocking in heavy traffic like a TE would to help protect him from his injury history, and I hate to say this, possible career threatening issues with concussions.

 

Curious what ya'll think, because I know we need playmakers and this guy is one.  But if we want to improve his chances of staying healthy and contributing for years to come, we may need to re-evaluate how we use him, especially considering his strength and weaknesses. Right now, we may need to leave him at TE because of all the injuries.  But going forward, I feel its a worthy discussion, even if just he's treated like a possession receiver because he doesn't have top WR speed. 

 

I really just don't want to see this guy get hurt anymore, he's a cool dude. Please, do not come in here like Matt Williams and say stupid stuff like "we didn't use him in the 8th inning because he's our closer".  Answers like that perplex me like why we've barelly seen DY this year up until yesterday.

[Master Blaster]

Keep him labeled as a TE, but split him out, so his franchise tag is less if need be.



Srsly though keep Paul/Carrier as your main TE's next year with Reed as more of a hybrid.  

[Warhead36]

No.

 

We've screwed up enough players by playing them out of position.

 

Niles Paul is just a guy. You don't screw with Jordan Reed to accommodate for some average at best player.

[Koolblue13]

He's kicking ass as a TE. We can win any game when he starts at TE.

No, he's a TE.

[Renegade7]

No.

 

We've screwed up enough players by playing them out of position.

 

Niles Paul is just a guy. You don't screw with Jordan Reed to accommodate for some average at best player.

 

If he's so average, how did Paul beat him out in camp?  Because Paul can catch, too, and Reed is a below average blocker.  He's already playing out of position and he's pretty much unguardable when we do that.

 

And to anyone thinking we can hide his price based on his position title, his agent is going to see right through that if he can stay healthy. 

[Conn]

If he's so average, how did Paul beat him out in camp?  Because Paul can catch, too, and Reed is a below average blocker.  He's already playing out of position and he's pretty much unguardable when we do that.

Simply put, because the coaches were putting their money where their mouths were for the locker room. Reed has been chronically unavailable, and Paul has done everything asked of him since being drafted, shaping his body over four years to be a TE, developing his game, turning himself into our best ST's player and captain. The coaches preach competition and earning jobs, and Paul earned it with Reed on the sideline. They were making a statement to the locker room by naming Paul the starter and rewarding his hard work. It's not like they wouldn't have played Reed in the slot a ton this year even with Paul healthy.

[Warhead36]

If he's so average, how did Paul beat him out in camp?  Because Paul can catch, too, and Reed is a below average blocker.  He's already playing out of position and he's pretty much unguardable when we do that.

Because our coaches are clueless.

 

Paul can catch, but he's an average at best player. Nobody fears him. Reed is a difference maker at TE. Converting him to WR just destroys his development and neuters that advantage.

 

No need to try to reinvent the wheel here. You play guys at the position where they can dominate. Football is pretty easy.

[TheShredder]

Absolutely not. 

 

He's a TE elite (when healthy). 

[Renegade7]

Because our coaches are clueless.

 

Paul can catch, but he's an average at best player. Nobody fears him. Reed is a difference maker at TE. Converting him to WR just destroys his development and neuters that advantage.

 

No need to try to reinvent the wheel here. You play guys at the position where they can dominate. Football is pretty easy.

 

I don't see how changing his "position" and asking him to block next to the o-line less neuters his development anymore then another season-ending injury will.  And Paul averaged 13 YPC last year, so between that and how we're seeing them use Reed as a WR yesterday, I don't know if I'd call them "clueless".

 

Gosh, I feel like I'm in a nursing home asking if we should get a Wii or not, guys, damn, lol.

Simply put, because the coaches were putting their money where their mouths were for the locker room. Reed has been chronically unavailable, and Paul has done everything asked of him since being drafted, shaping his body over four years to be a TE, developing his game, turning himself into our best ST's player and captain. The coaches preach competition and earning jobs, and Paul earned it with Reed on the sideline. They were making a statement to the locker room by naming Paul the starter and rewarding his hard work. It's not like they wouldn't have played Reed in the slot a ton this year even with Paul healthy.

 

Ya, I agree that they both would've been on the field. I whole-heartedly believe they'd be asking Paul to block more then Reed on obvious running plays.

[DogofWar1]

TEs already have hybridized, they can play anywhere from directly outside the tackle to wide out.  There's no reason to formally make a position change, we can already do whatever we want with him.  It's overthinking things to change him, it's the same player, there's no change in the balance of our roster to or away from WRs and/or TEs.

 

Just draft another TE that can block and carry 1 more TE.  No big deal.

[Conn]

I don't see how changing his "position" and asking him to block next to the o-line less neuters his development anymore then another season-ending injury will.  And Paul averaged 13 YPC last year, so between that and how we're seeing them use Reed as a WR yesterday, I don't know if I'd call them "clueless".

 

Gosh, I feel like I'm in a nursing home asking if we should get a Wii or not, guys, damn, lol.

What you're asking about has no point, though. The only thing you get out of moving him is a bigger contract expectation if he stays healthy and we pay him someday.

Like you said, he's already playing the Jimmy Graham jumbo WR role....so why change his position to match? There's no point, he's not lining up inline much to begin with.

It's semantics, so there's no reason to move him. If Paul comes back 100% they'll both be on the field, with Paul on the line and Reed split out. No need to change position designations.

[Renegade7]

What you're asking about has no point, though. The only thing you get out of moving him is a bigger contract expectation if he stays healthy and we pay him someday.

Like you said, he's already playing the Jimmy Graham jumbo WR role....so why change his position to match? There's no point, he's not lining up inline much to begin with.

It's semantics, so there's no reason to move him. If Paul comes back 100% they'll both be on the field, with Paul on the line and Reed split out. No need to change position designations.

 

Because if we keep using him like that, he's going to get paid handsomly anyway, no matter what his position title is.  This is really about trying to keep him healthy and to stop risking him as a TE knowing he's a dominant receiver.

[Conn]

I can't help but notice that three out of your last four threads are:

"Convert Jordan Reed to WR starting in 2016?"

"Should Redskins trade for Jimmy Graham?"

"Use RG3 as utility player (for 2015)"

I like that you think outside the box, and I think these kinds of ideas have a place in the appropriate threads...but maybe chill out on the threads for a bit. In every one of these threads you take an outlandish idea, pitch it, and then spend the entire thread getting annoyed that nobody else agrees with you while painting yourself as the open-minded revolutionary who dares to have a vision. Maybe when you find yourself in the vast minority it doesn't mean everyone else is crazy...it could mean you just had a brain fart and misinterpreted it as inspiration.

It's not personal, I'm just pointing out a pattern.

[Renegade7]

Revolutionist?

 

More like I just want to talk about the Redskins and don't mind throwing ideas out there to protect my reputation.  I could go out on the street right now and have this conversation with the average Redskins fan and not be asked to take an IQ test. I know it because I've done it.

 

I'm not annoyed or think ya'll are crazy, I'm dissapointed.  Very disappointed you copy and pasted the exact thead titles to help make your point.  It's just boring sometimes seeing the same old back and forth about the QBs or nuclear option every other week.

[William Barbour]

Moving him to WR would be a terrible idea. The best thing about Reed right now is we can line him up in 2 TE sets or in 4 WR sets and create mismatches against LB and S. Moving him to WR would negate everything that makes him special

[Conn]

Because if we keep using him like that, he's going to get paid handsomly anyway, no matter what his position title is.  This is really about trying to keep him healthy and to stop risking him as a TE knowing he's a dominant receiver.

Reed isn't blocking any more now than a WR, I'd bet. He'll do it even less when we have someone who can actually block at the TE position.

It is a fact that he would get paid more as a WR than he will as a TE. There isn't an argument against that. It's why Jimmy Graham tried to get his position designation changed to WR for his Franchise Tag. He was running routes in the slot or on the outside 75+% of the time and wanted to be paid as a WR, but he was shot down.

Having Reed as a TE is to our advantage. No reason to change it.

Revolutionist?

 

More like I just want to talk about the Redskins and don't mind throwing ideas out there to protect my reputation.  I could go out on the street right now and have this conversation with the average Redskins fan and not be asked to take an IQ test. I know it because I've done it.

 

I'm not annoyed or think ya'll are crazy, I'm dissapointed.  Very disappointed you copy and pasted the exact thead titles to help make your point.  It's just boring sometimes seeing the same old back and forth about the QBs or nuclear option every other week.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to talk about this kinda stuff. Like I said, I like that we have people like you that think outside the box and try to liven it up. If you just threw it out there in a thread to see what people thought, I wouldn't blink. But you expect people to agree with you and then act like they're being close minded when they don't, over and over. That's all I was saying. Why would you be disappointed that I properly attributed the threads to you? If I'm making a point, I'd like to at least get the facts straight. I'm not sure why getting the thread titles correct would make you "very disappointed", and I didn't mean to slam your grammar or spelling or anything in those thread titles if that's what you thought--it was just easier to copy and paste them than re-type them.

[Renegade7]

Reed isn't blocking any more now than a WR, I'd bet. He'll do it even less when we have someone who can actually block at the TE position.

It is a fact that he would get paid more as a WR than he will as a TE. There isn't an argument against that. It's why Jimmy Graham tried to get his position designation changed to WR for his Franchise Tag. He was running routes in the slot or on the outside 75+% of the time and wanted to be paid as a WR, but he was shot down.

Having Reed as a TE is to our advantage. No reason to change it.

 

The more you make this about saving money, the more sick I feel in the stomach. What you're talking about is basically using him as a WR and not paying him like one. 

[Renegade7]

Conn,  I'm not hear to start fights, man, I'm really not. 

 

I see a lot of good posts from different people that get lost in threads all the time.  I appreaciate you being cool with me saying different ideas.  If people don't like what they see, they could just not not post in the thread and let it fall off the front page. 

 

Edit - even in some of the other threads I saw people vote yes, but I doubt they post in the thread out of concern of being publicly tared and feathered.

[Conn]

The more you make this about saving money, the more sick I feel in the stomach. What you're talking about is basically using him as a WR and not paying him like one.

Sick in the stomach? Why? Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. The entire NFL does this. Jimmy Graham was the most recent example and his contract would have been twice as ridiculous if he was actually a WR. But he's not, he's a TE that splits out wide like a WR. These TE's play like WR's and create mismatches against LB's and DB's, but they have the bodies of TE's, the limitations of TE's, and get paid like them.

I'm not saying that you keep him at TE specifically to save money on his next potential contract. I'm saying that if you move him to WR the ONLY thing you're doing is screwing yourself on that next potential contract, because he's going to be utilized exactly how he's utilized now. It's pointless, and if you can't see the difference between the first two sentences of this paragraph, then there's not much else to say. You're proposing a change that only has downside, with no logical reasoning.

Conn,  I'm not hear to start fights, man, I'm really not. 

 

I see a lot of good posts from different people that get lost in threads all the time.  I appreaciate you being cool with me saying different ideas.  If people don't like what they see, they could just not not post in the thread and let it fall off the front page.

Understood--I obviously am interested enough in the discussion to comment, because I'm participating in it. We just happen to disagree. The other stuff was just an observation, not meant to start anything.

[Renegade7]

Sick in the stomach? Why? Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. The entire NFL does this. Jimmy Graham was the most recent example and his contract would have been twice as ridiculous if he was actually a WR. But he's not, he's a TE that splits out wide like a WR. These TE's play like WR's and create mismatches against LB's and DB's, but they have the bodies of TE's, the limitations of TE's, and get paid like them.

I'm not saying that you keep him at TE specifically to save money on his next potential contract. I'm saying that if you move him to WR the ONLY thing you're doing is screwing yourself on that next potential contract, because he's going to be utilized exactly how he's utilized now. It's pointless, and if you can't see the difference between the first two sentences of this paragraph, then there's not much else to say. You're proposing a change that only has downside, with no logical reasoning.

Understood--I obviously am interested enough in the discussion to comment, because I'm participating in it. We just happen to disagree. The other stuff was just an observation, not meant to start anything.

 

No offense taken.

 

Even if you're right, I don't feel its fair to pay them like a "TE" if they are producing like a "WR".  Graham is a guy who had a 99 rec 1300+ yard season, that's insane for any position.  Again, I still feel as long as he doesn't lose too much of his weight, his 6'2 243 LB frame is going to be a matchup problem no matter what we list him as. 

 

I'm simply trying to find a way to help keep him out of situations where we risk losing this guy for his career, that's it.  We don't have to agree on how to do that, but you're right that its symantics in what its called if its the same thing.

[Conn]

No offense taken.

 

Even if you're right, I don't feel its fair to pay them like a "TE" if they are producing like a "WR".  Graham is a guy who had a 99 rec 1300+ yard season, that's insane for any position.  Again, I still feel as long as he doesn't lose too much of his weight, his 6'2 243 LB frame is going to be a matchup problem no matter what we list him as. 

 

I'm simply trying to find a way to help keep him out of situations where we risk losing this guy for his career, that's it.  We don't have to agree on how to do that, but you're right that its symantics in what its called if its the same thing.

I think you'd need some evidence that WR's face less wear and tear than TE's who don't block much. I don't have the numbers, but I'm pretty sure Reed runs routes on a really high percentage of plays he's on the field. And the plays where we run, the WR's are also blocking. I'm not sure there's a credible argument for Reed being more susceptible to injury because he does about the same amount of blocking that WR's do, but against LB's rather than DB's sometimes.

How often have you seen a guy get hurt while blocking on a running play? Very rare, unless someone topples sideways into his knee which isn't what you're talking about--you're talking about limiting wear and tear over entire games and seasons. But I just don't think it's a big enough difference to matter really. WR's are taking half the running plays off anyways, depending on which direction it's going and what kind of blockers they are in terms of effort, and Reed at TE is no different.

[Renegade7]

I'll look into that, but not sure what data I can come up with to back up my stance. 

 

For me, it does make sense him having less of a chance getting injured blocking players that are around the same size or smaller then him then blocking guys that are usually bigger then him.  I may not have been clear enough in my OP, but absolutely this is about limiting his chance of getting injured, not just wear and tear.  I see guys get rolled up in those piles a lot, but you're right I need data to back that up.

[BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93]

Reed is very effective when lined out wide because he usually is one on one with a safety or linebacker, which is a complete mismatch.

 

Covert him to WR and he'll be lined up on CBs and it won't be nearly as effective. 

[TheGreek1973]

I can't help but notice that three out of your last four threads are:

"Convert Jordan Reed to WR starting in 2016?"

"Should Redskins trade for Jimmy Graham?"

"Use RG3 as utility player (for 2015)"

I like that you think outside the box, and I think these kinds of ideas have a place in the appropriate threads...but maybe chill out on the threads for a bit. In every one of these threads you take an outlandish idea, pitch it, and then spend the entire thread getting annoyed that nobody else agrees with you while painting yourself as the open-minded revolutionary who dares to have a vision. Maybe when you find yourself in the vast minority it doesn't mean everyone else is crazy...it could mean you just had a brain fart and misinterpreted it as inspiration.

It's not personal, I'm just pointing out a pattern.

LOL .  So true, next he is going to say Dustin Hopkins should be an emergency CB since he was one in HS.

 

Hell no you don't make Reed a WR, in fact Gruden said his big improvement this year is the fact that he has been blocking better than ever.

[Rskins06]

Reed as a WR scares no one. CBs are much quicker and I doubt Reed would get any separation consistently enough to scare anyone. Plus, which WR are you sitting? Sharp, Gonzales, Whitten, etc. are HOF TEs, but we would not know their names had they tried to be WRs.

Next year, when you have a 100% Paul and Reed on the field at the same time, how are defenses going to stack the line to stop the run, how will they double up DJax or Garçon or Crowder? These 2 could be a dominant TE tandem in the NFL. TEs though, not WRs.