re: If Brock Bowers or Rome Odunze are still on the board at 14, do you take one of them?

quote:

---

All this said was about Kyle Pitts and you’re admitting the best TE prospect is not even a good blocker. And thats the best TE prospect ever?

---

Bowers is actually a pretty good blocker. I don't know where that's coming from.

On top of his elite receiving skills, Bowers is capable of holding his own as a blocker. He has allowed just one quarterback pressure on 52 pass-blocking snaps in his first two seasons, and his 73.8 run-blocking grade in 2022 ranked seventh among all Power Five tight ends. The two-time All-American is one of only eight Power Five tight ends to earn a 70.0-plus grade in both pass protection and run blocking over the past two campaigns.

quote:

---

(previous Saints historical picks data doesn’t matter)


Im looking at historical data in a general sense not narrowing down to what Saints did in say specifically 2013 because that has no bearing in the Need draft vs BPA draft argument.

---

Why don’t we just forget anything that happened is past drafts then? It has no bearing on this year’s crop of players. There is a bust and a hit for any position

Past first round TEs are irrelevant, statistically none are Brock Bowers. To have his production and to then account for the fact that he lined up inline, wide, in the slot, that 31% of his receptions came from passes he received behind the LOS (remember he is 6’3” 245 and has the most YAC of any TE, the most broken tackles). He’s a more than adequate blocker.

Our top two TEs are converted from different positions and the third guy is merely depth. Your WRs are all sub 200 lbs, so not generate any YAC of substance, cannot make contested catches and fight off defenders.
You cannot be satisfied with that production coming from our pass catchers.

Which OL do you want at 1.14 anyway? You could seemingly go Bowers at 14 and Jordan Morgan at 45 and accomplish everything you want

quote:

---

Why don’t we just forget anything that happened is past drafts then? It has no bearing on this year’s crop of players. There is a bust and a hit for any position Past first round TEs are irrelevant, statistically none are Brock Bowers. To have his production and to then account for the fact that he lined up inline, wide, in the slot, that 31% of his receptions came from passes he received behind the LOS (remember he is 6’3” 245 and has the most YAC of any TE, the most broken tackles). He’s a more than adequate blocker. Our top two TEs are converted from different positions and the third guy is merely depth. Your WRs are all sub 200 lbs, so not generate any YAC of substance, cannot make contested catches and fight off defenders. You cannot be satisfied with that production coming from our pass catchers.

---

First of all I don’t think past first round talent at TE in the past 20 years is irrelevant. You’re making Bowers to be an anomaly- the thing is I heard the same thing about Pitts and Vernon Davis. Its a why I think historical data on rookie TEs matter- not the first time we have heard about a can’t miss TE prospect.

I’m not saying our TEs couldn’t be better. I just don’t believe that need is higher than improving an oline which is abysmal. To me improving the oline with one of the better OTs in the draft is better than getting a high prospect at TE.

Getting Bowers and Morgan would NOT accomplish everything I want. Morgan is more of a top 50 guy and honestly I think hes more of a guard plus its a gamble to see if he lasts that long.

Obviously you want Alt but he wont drop to 14. I would prefer Fashanu or Fuaga.

quote:

---

You had your mind made up that he was slot TE

---

Incredibly dishonest straw man


Actual words:

quote:

---

As I said, "Bowers will only not produce in year 1 if our coaches don't want him to."

If our coaches want him as an in-line blocker, he probably won't even see the field. That would be retarded, however.

The reason I have so much faith in Bowers producing early is that he's not a particularly good blocker. This means any smart coach will use him as a receiver primarily, which is where he's dominant.

---

Then you said later:

quote:

---

I mean in your own words hes the best TE prospect ever but not a great blocker. Thats a pretty big deficiency.

---

So I replied:

quote:

---

Not really, especially with the power slot position

---

If you can't tell the difference and admit your errors, then you're either doubling down on dishonesty or your IQ is not triple digits.

quote:

---

Ultimately if it were ip to me I’d trade down, as there are too many needs. Everyone can agree to that I reckon

---

I disagree

quote:

---

actually heard he was as well- solid blocker- which makes more sense

of him being a top prospect at TE but I went along with posters argument where he felt Bowers was more of a slot TE. Just curious how was Pitts regarded as a blocker?

---

You keep bringing Pitts up. Him and bowers are nothing alike.

quote:

---

You keep bringing Pitts up. Him and bowers are nothing alike.

---

They were both touted as the best TE prospects to come along. Unless Pitts wasn’t a TE?

quote:

---

They were both touted as the best TE prospects to come along. Unless Pitts wasn’t a TE?

---

Problem is Pitts is nothing like bowers. That's the point. No one is like bowers. A tight end isn't taking screens and reverses behind the line and taking it to the house.

That is the point some of us are trying to make. Like I have been saying the last few years, the saints keep backing themselves into a corner. Loomis made it worse when he traded for that extra first.

They almost have to go line with one of the first 2 picks. Just like last year.

Pitts was the most physical freak with some college production/tape (one elite year). He has the potential to be better than Bowers but that's only theoretical/ceiling.

Bowers had the best college career at TE ever. Came in as a true freshman and had one of the GOAT TE seasons in CFB history, and then had 2 more elite ones.

quote:

---

You used a very bad straw man.

---

I’ll own up to that my bad on that.