Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

2021 Comprehensive Draft Thread

zCommander

By zCommander
in The Stadium

Recommended Posts

Koolblue13

Koolblue13

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, KDawg said:


Im not, but that’s okay that you disagree. 
 

I don’t think you’re looking at it technically enough, but to each their own.

 

I don’t think he’s a TE until he plays more in-line than detached. 
 

McKissick is a receiving back, not a pure runner. Yes.

But still a RB. I was Reeds biggest critic on this board long before it was popular to admit he was a WR and not a TE. Im also the one who's been on the table for a Witten style TE for years and years. I get it. 

 

I think he can be a complete TE but his strength will be as a receiver, but he's still a TE. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KDawg

KDawg

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Koolblue13 said:

But still a RB. I was Reeds biggest critic on this board long before it was popular to admit he was a WR and not a TE. Im also the one who's been on the table for a Witten style TE for years and years. I get it. 

 

I think he can be a complete TE but his strength will be as a receiver, but he's still a TE. 


McKissick is a back because he aligns in the backfield more than as a receiver. He’s a receiving back because he catches more passes than he runs the ball. 
 

I’ll explain my point of view one more time here before I feel like I’m repeating myself over and over.

 

To me, the term tight end and the group of players in encompasses is archaic in today’s game. 
 

Pitts spends the vast majority of his time detached from the line. To me, again I reiterate, to me, a tight end is an in-line guy that blocks down linemen and acts as a receiver from the 3pt stance. 
 

There are some very good examples of this type of player in this class: Freiermuth and Bushman are two. 
 

Tight end... End who is tight to the line of scrimmage. Does this seem all that much of a stretch to define a tight end?

 

The term Y has been used as an in-line tight end for a long time, but more and more we see it used for a guy who functions detached but is closer to a tight end skill set than a pure receiver skill set. Sometimes they are in-line but more often than not a Y is a detached receiver. A slot receiver who can block a bit. 
 

This is where Pitts fits. He is an okay blocker with room to improve. But against ends he will have a lot of trouble for awhile in my opinion. Against a detached backer, a box safety or a corner? He’s better than adequate. He will provide excellent blocking in the slot. 
 

Motioning him and using him to chip ends on occasion is also in his skill set. And needs to be utilized. Hell, lining him up in-line or offset wing with Thomas is an excellent look too from time to time. He can do it.

 

But his money will be, as I define it, as a Y. He can run most routes. He’s fast. He’s adequate as a blocker especially against smaller bodies. He can box out defenders and those he can’t he can outrun.

 

Hes a matchup nightmare in the slot where he can free release more than an in-line tight end who has to deal with jams and chips all day. 
 

The thing is, with the Y, while I consider them mostly a slot they are different than a pure slot receiver. They can block. They generally will be on the front side of run, though tells mean you do have to change it up. A pure slot is generally quick twitch and gets separation with excellent hands. They are often smaller but some bigger ones function fantastically. 
 

But the pool of guys you compare Pitts to aren’t the tight ends. You aren’t drafting him for his blocking with good receiving ability. His stock is up because of how ridiculous of a receiver he is. 
 

That’s my point of view explained. I don’t expect you to agree, but I’d appreciate you understanding rather than pretending that I’m stretching things because you think I don’t like the dude or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KDawg

KDawg

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Javonte Williams is a fun watch today again.  I think he's just a hair behind Etienne and Harris. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not fun for a Hurricane fan!

 

Michael Carter and Dyami Brown and Sam Howell have been fun to view as NFL prospects. As a Miami fan I am in physical pain. :ols:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
max21

max21

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, KDawg said:

Alright, I've seen enough. I want Michael Carter on this roster.

He’s going off 

I thought Surratt was more of a linebacker build, never watched him j til today. Just knew he was a quarterback before, dare I say he kinda reminds me of Cravens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KDawg

KDawg

Posted
Posted
Just now, max21 said:

He’s going off 


Ive always been impressed by him... but watching that one run where he bounced outside after setting up his blocks, get tight off a kick out, one leg hop between two defenders, land, and keep stride? The body control and vision is unreal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OVCChairman

OVCChairman

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Panninho said:

Well yeah, Rondale Moore isn't advertised as a TE and Pitts isn't advertised as a WR - so why evaluate him purely as a WR and as such against the other WRs in the class? That's basically all I am saying. Yeah, you ultimately have to make a decision on who you take, the WR or the TE but to make that decision purely on who is the better receiver now isn't the way to go.

 

It's absolutely okay if you don't see him as an in-line TE and obviously you don't want him to block DEs a lot of the time I am not arguing for that. I am just saying that in certain packages you can use him in a variety of different ways that you could not use a guys like Rondale Moore in.

 

But yeah, obviously you disagree with that and that's okay for me. I just don't think that's the way to go with a guy like Pitts.

 

 

Because this is a draft pick we're talking about, not a position.  

 

1.  We have to look at how a player is going to be used to the best of their ability.  If we look at Pitts and his top quality is the ability to play receiver out of the slot, then you have to look at the WRs in the draft that play slot and compare them to eachother, because while they dont have the same designated position, they're playing the same ROLE.  If you believe Pitts is the receiver that he is AND he can block... then that changes thing.  Me personally, I have zero faith in turning Pitts into a RT2 like I would other TEs in this draft. 

2.  You have to look at our draft position and ask yourself, is this TEAM better with Pitts or a different player, regardless of position.  Hes likely TE1 in this draft because of his ability to score... but is this TEAM better off with OT3 / WR5 / TE1 / MLB2 when we are on the board?  The argument can be made that the team (because of Pitts lack of blocking development at this point) would be better off taking WR5 who can play in that slot position, be more effective in that particular role, while neither are being asked to block.  

3. Is Logan Thomas going to play more downs than Pitts simply because of his blocking ability?  If the answer is yes, then I have to take a hard look at the board when talking about a 1st round pick.  Thomas is not an all pro blocker either, so if you have little faith that Pitts ability to block can force you to put him on the field more frequently then Thomas, then you're using a 1st round pick on a 'role player' (I hate that term but not sure how else to explain it) who is going to be used situationally instead of picking a player that can play the majority of the offensive snaps. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Always A Commander Never A Captain

Always A Commander Never A Captain

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, gooseneck said:

What do you all view as our team needs now?  Things have really changed in the last few weeks.

 

Going to depend on off-season, and not including QB cause that's a whole discussion in and of itself.  But MLB, FS, Slot WR, Outside WR, TE depth, maybe G depth and maybe C depth.  RB depth.

 

Definitely CB depth.  Possibly starting CB if Darby walks in FA.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OVCChairman

OVCChairman

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Burgundy Yoda said:

Damn, I like that a lot. I love both of these players, Paris Ford would fit in this defense like a glove. 

 

 

Jake Ferguson and Desmond Ridder in the 3rd... 

 

Though i'm not really confident Ridder makes it to the 3rd.... but if he's there we take him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skinsinparadise

Skinsinparadise

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

Jake Ferguson and Desmond Ridder in the 3rd... 

 

Though i'm not really confident Ridder makes it to the 3rd.... but if he's there we take him. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Burgundy Yoda said:

Damn, I like that a lot. I love both of these players, Paris Ford would fit in this defense like a glove. 

 

There is a lot of mutual love of some prospects on this thread.  I wonder if it serves as a jinx though.    :ols:

 

I like Ridder the best among the 2nd tier types he'd be the one I'd be most willing to roll the dice on at the moment.    Him and Mac Jones but not sure if Mac is considered tier 2 since some say he goes in the first.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KDawg

KDawg

Posted
Posted

One thing that’s becoming extremely apparent is the amount of backs in this draft...

 

Harris, Etienne, Verdell, Chubba, Ragas, Carter, Williams, Ibrahim, Sermon, Patterson (UB), Gainwell, Felton, Stevenson

 

 

on a different note...

 

 

I’m hearing hype about a D2 LB... Drew Seers.

 


 

https://youtu.be/JLLLhNUkCQM

 

http://www.hudl.com/v/2B0tsU


kid is a stud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...