I have agreed with 2 consecutive Afan posts.  I will stay away from the boards for the rest of the day.

Edit: and then I see the above post 

33 minutes ago, toughfighter83 said:

i think TEs are a position that's not valued enough, it's always a great receiver and running back. i think that's the reason why mcnabb was so successful despite not having great receivers because he had great TEs.

TE is a funny position, depending on what you have at other positions, you can either go with very talented TEs like Gronk or Kelce, H-backs like Reed or Ertz as primary receivers.

But if you have WRs and maybe a talented H-back type, you can also get by with the Chad Lewis and Celek's of this world, guys who run 5.0 40s but know how to find the soft spots of zones and be reliable underneath targets - let the "stars" attract attention and quietly amass your 60 catches a year. Even better when they're plus in-line blockers in that role. These are the guys you look for late in the draft/UDFAs, like Doyle on Indy. 6'5 260 lbs with below average speed but good hands and body control and the willingness to block all game.

Pitts only makes sense at #6 if he can play WR full time. Not as a hybrid, not a guy with flexibility, but a guy who starts day one at WR and plays that position his whole career (obviously to a high level).

I don’t claim to know if he can do that. If he can, if he’s Mike Evans or Metcalf or someone similar, then I have no problem with looking at him for that role and taking him #6. 

My only other concern is that the Eagles have a long history of underutilizing top end WRs. The only real exception was Owens. Otherwise we tend to spread the ball around, which is OK in theory, but if you’re taking a WR at #6, that guy needs to be a 100 catch type of player that the offense is built around. Otherwise you just aren’t going to get the ROI for such a high selection.

20 minutes ago, austinfan said:

The world is run by a cabel of Masons, the International Zionist conspiracy (and their space laser), Communists, the Papacy and pedophiles. And of course, the Gnomes of Zurich.

Have I missed anyone?

5 minutes ago, TEW said:

Pitts only makes sense at #6 if he can play WR full time. Not as a hybrid, not a guy with flexibility, but a guy who starts day one at WR and plays that position his whole career (obviously to a high level).

I don’t claim to know if he can do that. If he can, if he’s Mike Evans or Metcalf or someone similar, then I have no problem with looking at him for that role and taking him #6. 

My only other concern is that the Eagles have a long history of underutilizing top end WRs. The only real exception was Owens. Otherwise we tend to spread the ball around, which is OK in theory, but if you’re taking a WR at #6, that guy needs to be a 100 catch type of player that the offense is built around. Otherwise you just aren’t going to get the ROI for such a high selection.

I think he can do that, but the fact that you can motion him around the formation from inline to out wide will make him a match up nightmare.  Better than just lining him up at WR.

4 minutes ago, TEW said:

Pitts only makes sense at #6 if he can play WR full time. Not as a hybrid, not a guy with flexibility, but a guy who starts day one at WR and plays that position his whole career (obviously to a high level).

I don’t claim to know if he can do that. If he can, if he’s Mike Evans or Metcalf or someone similar, then I have no problem with looking at him for that role and taking him #6. 

My only other concern is that the Eagles have a long history of underutilizing top end WRs. The only real exception was Owens. Otherwise we tend to spread the ball around, which is OK in theory, but if you’re taking a WR at #6, that guy needs to be a 100 catch type of player that the offense is built around. Otherwise you just aren’t going to get the ROI for such a high selection.

You still spread it around, a top receiving target opens up opportunities for mismatches if they move a safety over to provide help, thus creating one on one matchups all over the field. That has value that doesn't show up on the stat sheet but the W/L sheet.

Tony Gonzales was as good as any WR in NFL history (other than the GOAT), forget "position," focus on the player.

I want the eagles to get away from relying so much on the TE, in today's NFL there are many more opportunities downfield, inching the ball along to the TE just feels like loser ball, I think WR is a better use of draft resources in general

4 minutes ago, downundermike said:

I think he can do that, but the fact that you can motion him around the formation from inline to out wide will make him a match up nightmare.  Better than just lining him up at WR.

Exactly. The reason why, despite being a TE, he's going to be picked in the top 10 is because he has the potential to be a more versatile Mike Evans. Will he live up to that potential? Who knows. But if he does he'll be a perennial Pro-Bowler and one of the best mismatch weapons in the league. 

2 minutes ago, BwianWestbwook said:

I want the eagles to get away from relying so much on the TE, in today's NFL there are many more opportunities downfield, inching the ball along to the TE just feels like loser ball, I think WR is a better use of draft resources in general

You have to be able to take what a defense gives you, if they keep safeties deep, run and throw underneath, if they try to jump routes, double moves and big strikes, and so on.

Players give you different options, a blocking TE who can catch helps the run game and gives you an outlet in play action. A RB like Sanders allows you to set up mismatches on wheel routes, a deep strike WR keeps the safeties honest, a big target who can snatch the ball on crossing routes gives a QB easy throws.

Trick is avoid extremes, like the Eagles with no deep threat, then Doug gets guys with speed and goes deep route crazy.

A balanced offense allows you to adjust game to game and within games, they take away one aspect of your offense, kill 'em with another.

36 minutes ago, austinfan said:

The world is run by a cabel of Masons, the International Zionist conspiracy (and their space laser), Communists, the Papacy and pedophiles. And of course, the Gnomes of Zurich.

Have I missed anyone?

Lizard people

19 minutes ago, TEW said:

Pitts only makes sense at #6 if he can play WR full time. Not as a hybrid, not a guy with flexibility, but a guy who starts day one at WR and plays that position his whole career (obviously to a high level).

I don’t claim to know if he can do that. If he can, if he’s Mike Evans or Metcalf or someone similar, then I have no problem with looking at him for that role and taking him #6. 

My only other concern is that the Eagles have a long history of underutilizing top end WRs. The only real exception was Owens. Otherwise we tend to spread the ball around, which is OK in theory, but if you’re taking a WR at #6, that guy needs to be a 100 catch type of player that the offense is built around. Otherwise you just aren’t going to get the ROI for such a high selection.

Don't disagree, but 2 counter-points:

1. Other than TO, they've never had a real stud WR. Young D-Jax was a homerun hitter, not a high volume guy. Who else is there? Jeffrey? Kevin Curtis? It's a little bit of a chicken/egg issue. I could argue the only time they had an elite WR, they featured him.

2. We have a new coaching staff with no link to AR or Kelly. So let's see what they do.

5 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Man, the Pitts hype is so ridiculous.  When he runs a 4.55 maybe it will quiet down.  

If he runs in the 4.4s it will get scorching hot.

2 hours ago, greend said:

You give me a Ferrari, I'll build the garage.

You have to build the garage out of old used pallets scrounged from where ever you can find them.  

4 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Man, the Pitts hype is so ridiculous.  When he runs a 4.55 maybe it will quiet down.  

If he runs a 4.55 that's just fine. What did Hopkins run? 4.57.

The question comes down to hands and snatch, for a big guy to be exceptional, he needs elite body control and hands, not great deep speed. Fitzgerald ran 4.50 on artificial turf on his pro day (equivalent to 4.60 at the combine), would you take him #6? Ward 4.55, Dez Bryant 4.52, Burress 4.60.

1 minute ago, RLC said:

If he runs in the 4.4s it will get scorching hot.

And then the questions will start as to whether he'll even be available at 6. 

18 minutes ago, BwianWestbwook said:

I want the eagles to get away from relying so much on the TE, in today's NFL there are many more opportunities downfield, inching the ball along to the TE just feels like loser ball, I think WR is a better use of draft resources in general

I think the opposite is true. But the NFL wants TEs that can catch it like a WR - yet able to block in pass-protection. Pretty much like RBs nowadays.

But players that fit that lofty bill are exceptionally rare. And I wouldn't put Pitts there, as he can't really block and is just a big WR.

4 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

product of his environment. 

Pitts played with a 1st round QB and a 2nd round wide receiver

Bigger, stronger, better handed, same speed Freiermuth played with someone whos delivering my packages for Amazon 

Bah.. I... agree with you. Now I have to go wash my mouth with soap. Great. 🤢

8 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

You have to build the garage out of old used pallets scrounged from where ever you can find them.  

I manage a couple of home centers. I'm good to go

18 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Man, the Pitts hype is so ridiculous.  When he runs a 4.55 maybe it will quiet down.  

At his own pro day? Highly unlikely

I'm neither on the Pitts bandwagon, nor a hater.  

As a card carrying (and potentially original) member of the anti-12 personnel faction, I'm STILL open to drafting Pitts at 6....and certainly open to drafting him after a trade-down.  I do really want to see that 40.

But there is a precedent here for hyper athletic TE's who don't become high end WR-like receivers in the NFL.  Evan Engram, Noah Fant...even Vernon Davis, who was a great TE...he wasn't a receiver you build an offense around.  OJ Howard had very similar hype as a massive matchup problem.  

I'm not trying to argue that Pitts is those guys or that their failures are a reason not to draft him at #6.  But you do need a list of reasons why he will be more like a high end WR going for 1,000+ annually and less like one of those guys.  Their size, athleticism...all comparable to Pitts...some maybe even better. Pitts' expected specs are not those of some unprecedented TE prospect, especially considering that he is one who does not block well.  

I want him to put up impressive speed/agility numbers for a wr.  If he can't do that, then I don't see the value so high.

If people liked Chase Claypool, they should like Kyle Pitts.

4 minutes ago, RLC said:

If people liked Chase Claypool, they should like Kyle Pitts.

Most everyone discussed Claypool as it pertained to pick #53, though.  I don’t remember any buzz for him as the pick at #21.  
 

Pitts will be a very good NFL player in all likelihood; the discourse stems from whether he should be an option at #6 ..... or even after a trade out to #11 or 12

7 minutes ago, RLC said:

If people liked Chase Claypool, they should like Kyle Pitts.

I liked Claypool, but for the second round.

Just now, Desertbirds said:

I liked Claypool, but for the second round.

Sure, but if we redraft the 2020 draft...Claypool is a 1st rounder.

Pitts isn’t going to last to 10 let alone second round. I mean if we aren’t going to take him we can probably trade out to some contender that needs him and will pay.