Why Kyle Pitts makes so much sense for the Eagles

[Outlaw]

On 3/12/2021 at 10:19 AM, EaglesAddict said:

I just don't understand the logic of drafting Pitts.  I don't care what the "draft experts" say (i.e., the talking heads)...it would be a complete waste of a valuable resource at #6 to take a TE when we already have a pretty good young one now.  You don't commit to playing 12 personnel as your base offense, that is seriously limiting. 

I don't want to hear how Pitts can be used in other spots, etc.  He's a tight end.  Every time when draftniks say a player can be moved around like a "chess piece", it just means that the player doesn't excel at one true position.  Pitts is a TE, that is the position he excels at and will almost certainly remain at predominantly in the NFL regardless of who drafts him. 

 

 

Pitts is a legit mismatch against both LBers and smaller CBs.  He can be used in multiple formations, and honestly he'll be better than Goedert.

On 3/15/2021 at 12:49 PM, EaglesAddict said:

So, you're saying Pitts would be officially changed to a WR if the Eagles drafted him?  Or, you think it would be a good idea to commit to 12 personnel?  I understand Pitts is a dynamic prospect and if we didn't already have Goedert, I'd be on board.  But, I can't see drafting him at 6 and keeping him at TE.  If they want to get him on the field and his position title is TE, then it would either be in 12 personnel or he's replacing Goedert.  

His "position title" doesn't mean anything.  Him, Goedert, Reagor, Fulgham, Sanders on the field is going to give you a mismatch somewhere.  I think Sirianni will be creative, and obviously with Indy they run 2 and 3 TE sets often, but Pitts allows them to motion out of a base 12 and get creative pre-snap.  You're thinking here is really obtuse.

23 hours ago, EaglesAddict said:

I don't disagree about Pitts, but after seeing so much 12 personnel the last few years I'm done with it besides the occasional "heavy set" formation. Pitts needs to be a starter and will likely go to a team that currently doesn't have one (a good one, that is).

In any case, I just don't see the Eagles taking him anyway, regardless of what any of us think.  I think CB is the most likely position addressed in round 1, barring some crazy trade down to the back half of round 1.  That said, it'll be interesting to see what the Eagles do if they're sitting there at 6 with their choice of any WR or CB.  Would they take Chase over Farley or Surtain?  Hell, what if Lance or Fields is there at 6?  Or one of the OTs?  Again, I'm talking about what would the Eagles do, not what you would personally do.

If they take a CB at 6, I'll puke.  Surtain and Farley are not #6 worthy.  There's also a LOT of depth at CB this year.  Stokes, Samuel, Campbell, Williams, Newsome, etc.  There are a lot of good options in R2-3 at CB.

[EaglesAddict]

16 minutes ago, Outlaw said:

Pitts is a legit mismatch against both LBers and smaller CBs.  He can be used in multiple formations, and honestly he'll be better than Goedert.

His "position title" doesn't mean anything.  Him, Goedert, Reagor, Fulgham, Sanders on the field is going to give you a mismatch somewhere.  I think Sirianni will be creative, and obviously with Indy they run 2 and 3 TE sets often, but Pitts allows them to motion out of a base 12 and get creative pre-snap.  You're thinking here is really obtuse.

If they take a CB at 6, I'll puke.  Surtain and Farley are not #6 worthy.  There's also a LOT of depth at CB this year.  Stokes, Samuel, Campbell, Williams, Newsome, etc.  There are a lot of good options in R2-3 at CB.

His position title DOES mean something.  If he's a TE, it's either 12 personnel or he has to replace Goedert.  They aren't going to keep his title as a TE and deploy him as a WR primarily.  We had 2 pretty good TEs the last 2 years and ran a lot of 12 personnel...a grouping that doesn't scare anyone.  Pitts *may* be a much better player than either of those 2, but regardless of how you want to spin it, 12 personnel is not a package you want have as your "go to" or primary offense.  Defenses will smother it.  And, you are "assuming" that Reagor and Fulgham are going to warrant more defensive attention than they've merited.  If anyone's thinking here is "obtuse", I'd have to think it was yours.

Pitts would excel more as the primary TE in an offense that wants to run 11 personnel as their primary package (you know, like normal).  

[Outlaw]

44 minutes ago, EaglesAddict said:

His position title DOES mean something.  If he's a TE, it's either 12 personnel or he has to replace Goedert.  They aren't going to keep his title as a TE and deploy him as a WR primarily.  We had 2 pretty good TEs the last 2 years and ran a lot of 12 personnel...a grouping that doesn't scare anyone.  Pitts *may* be a much better player than either of those 2, but regardless of how you want to spin it, 12 personnel is not a package you want have as your "go to" or primary offense.  Defenses will smother it.  And, you are "assuming" that Reagor and Fulgham are going to warrant more defensive attention than they've merited.  If anyone's thinking here is "obtuse", I'd have to think it was yours.

Pitts would excel more as the primary TE in an offense that wants to run 11 personnel as their primary package (you know, like normal).  

The beauty here is that he CAN be the TE in 11, or the slot or the Z based on different packages.  You're pigeonholing a guy with more versatility on O then we've seen in quite a while.  Frankly, he's going to be better than Goedert.

[EaglesAddict]

17 minutes ago, Outlaw said:

The beauty here is that he CAN be the TE in 11, or the slot or the Z based on different packages.  You're pigeonholing a guy with more versatility on O then we've seen in quite a while.  Frankly, he's going to be better than Goedert.

I'm pigeonholing the offensive package.  I'm not saying Pitts can't be moved around, what I'm saying is that if he's on the field, it's either in replace of Goedert or we would be in 12 personnel.  He *may* (emphasis on "may") end up being better than Goedert, but Goedert has already shown he can be pretty good in his own right.  It would be like replacing Corvette with a Lamborghini.  And that's not worth utilizing the 6th overall pick for.

[Outlaw]

3 minutes ago, EaglesAddict said:

I'm pigeonholing the offensive package.  I'm not saying Pitts can't be moved around, what I'm saying is that if he's on the field, it's either in replace of Goedert or we would be in 12 personnel.  He *may* (emphasis on "may") end up being better than Goedert, but Goedert has already shown he can be pretty good in his own right.  It would be like replacing Corvette with a Lamborghini.  And that's not worth utilizing the 6th overall pick for.

Eh, that's where we disagree.  I see him as a generational player, and have him as the 3rd best prospect in the draft.  Definitely worth pick 6, regardless of position.  I want BPA, and at 6 that is him, even with Chase on the board.  Only two I have above him are Sewell and Lawrence.

[EaglesAddict]

4 minutes ago, Outlaw said:

Eh, that's where we disagree.  I see him as a generational player, and have him as the 3rd best prospect in the draft.  Definitely worth pick 6, regardless of position.  I want BPA, and at 6 that is him, even with Chase on the board.  Only two I have above him are Sewell and Lawrence.

Fair enough.  I'm looking at a team that has many needs and TE is arguably the least of this team's needs outside of RB.  BPA is a good philosophy in general, but you have to balance team needs as well.  And that's what most, if not all, GMs do.

[Outlaw]

37 minutes ago, EaglesAddict said:

Fair enough.  I'm looking at a team that has many needs and TE is arguably the least of this team's needs outside of RB.  BPA is a good philosophy in general, but you have to balance team needs as well.  And that's what most, if not all, GMs do.

We have too many needs to worry about positions IMO.  BPA is the way to go when truly rebuilding.  If Sewell is there at 6, I take him.  No question.