1 minute ago, Bleedinggreen93 said:

It depends if we draft another RB and still don’t use the ground game the seems pointless if we actually plan to be a ground team having 3 guys plus Hurts makes some sense. 

Hard to know, all I know is we gave up on the run game last year early and often. I'm hoping to at least solidify the RB room(Sanders, Etienne,Scott and pick your other BU). At least Etienne would be a big help progressing towards that. There seems to be a drop off after the first 2 RB's. new coach,I have no clue what he wants to do here,but a decent running game can't hurt

22 minutes ago, stine said:

It is fine you feel one is better than the other. Everywhere I read there is a steep drop after Pitts. I am not drafting a back up TE in round 2 with so many other pressing needs. In fact, no way I am drafting one in round 3 either. Freiermuth is not NFL ready to Pass block. He has had surgery so that is a concern. For the Eagles I would not draft anyone that has injury concerns period. He runs a 4.72 40 as compared to Bevin's 4.65.  Sorry,  I am not sold. In fact other sources say basically the same. There is a mixed opinion on these and that makes me second guess picking either one. Here is one opinion:

Some of this could have been said of Pitts as well he wasn’t nfl ready in terms of a blocker he was going to be a backup TE to Geodart... Even if we run 2 TE sets read somewhere that team that ran the most 2 TE sets was 52% so we are looking at around half the snaps of one of our TEs not being on the field... Why I never understood the wanting to draft a TE to begin with. 

Just now, GreenbleedinNC said:

Hard to know, all I know is we gave up on the run game last year early and often. I'm hoping to at least solidify the RB room(Sanders, Etienne,Scott and pick your other BU). At least Etienne would be a big help progressing towards that. There seems to be a drop off after the first 2 RB's. new coach,I have no clue what he wants to do here,but a decent running game can't hurt

That’s the point if we don’t plan on running or give up on running no point in adding another RB that won’t be of any help... It a question for the coaches and the O we want to have. 

2 minutes ago, Bleedinggreen93 said:

Some of this could have been said of Pitts as well he wasn’t nfl ready in terms of a blocker he was going to be a backup TE to Geodart... Even if we run 2 TE sets read somewhere that team that ran the most 2 TE sets was 52% so we are looking at around half the snaps of one of our TEs not being on the field... Why I never understood the wanting to draft a TE to begin with. 

Because Pitts isn't just a TE, I'm sure he would play more snaps than a regular TE. He's a guy you want on the field as much as possible

1 minute ago, Bleedinggreen93 said:

That’s the point if we don’t plan on running or give up on running no point in adding another RB that won’t be of any help... It a question for the coaches and the O we want to have. 

I know,thats what I said,that noone knows what Siri wants to do. But having 2 real RB's with Hurts in the backfield would be a nice start to a rebuild

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/T/TaylJo02.htm   So Colts took Taylor with pick 41(round 2 similar to our 37 pick) and he started day 1. They also had Mack and Himes. The rook ran for 1169 yards(basically by himself in the backfield) SO having a solid ground game (with either 1 or 2 RB"s) seems like something Siri would be happy with. I would be fine adding Etienne to my RB room. He also had 299 yards receiving. SO IDK if Siri would want a single RB or the RBBC

12 minutes ago, Bleedinggreen93 said:

It depends if we draft another RB and still don’t use the ground game the seems pointless if we actually plan to be a ground team having 3 guys plus Hurts makes some sense. 

Sure hoping with shuffling out Doug who fell from Reid's pass happy tree that we will indeed see a more balanced offense.  I don't think in today's NFL we'll ever see a 50/50 split (unless your team is set up like the Ravens), but it will be huge to not be so skewed toward passing.  

9 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

Because Pitts isn't just a TE, I'm sure he would play more snaps than a regular TE. He's a guy you want on the field as much as possible

That nice in theory he isnt the first guy that has had that kind of hype though 

2 minutes ago, time2rock said:

Sure hoping with shuffling out Doug who fell from Reid's pass happy tree that we will indeed see a more balanced offense.  I don't think in today's NFL we'll ever see a 50/50 split (unless your team is set up like the Ravens), but it will be huge to not be so skewed toward passing.  

IDK,Reid had some nice RB's in KC lately lol

2 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

IDK,Reid had some nice RB's in KC lately lol

I was referring to Reid's days here.  

1 minute ago, Bleedinggreen93 said:

That nice in theory he isnt the first guy that has had that kind of hype though 

Won't be the last either, no more hyped than Parsons, Chase or anyone else is. We all know it's a crapshoot. Everyone is hyped this time of year. I just look at game film and Pitts is more than a TE and I suspect he goes to ATL where he will wreak havoc on opposing defenses for 5 years

1 minute ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

Won't be the last either, no more hyped than Parsons, Chase or anyone else is. We all know it's a crapshoot. Everyone is hyped this time of year. I just look at game film and Pitts is more than a TE and I suspect he goes to ATL where he will wreak havoc on opposing defenses for 5 years

I look at the film as well he played TE at Florida he had a grand total of 59 snaps as a WR... Projecting a TE out to WR isn’t that easy could he do it maybe but more likely he is a TE who isn’t a good blocker yet. 
 

Does al this mean I think he will be a bad TE no just means I think he will be a backup here and not utilize fully 

22 minutes ago, Bleedinggreen93 said:

It depends if we draft another RB and still don’t use the ground game the seems pointless if we actually plan to be a ground team having 3 guys plus Hurts makes some sense. 

I'm just looking at it like this. Sanders is a good solid RB,could maybe be a stud somewhere else(lol). Scoot is an over acheiver-good for him,still I consider him a BU. If Sanders went down game 1, I doubt he can carry that load,so my thinking is to get a RB in here that could pull that weight,or if Sanders stays upright,you have a super nice tandem going on. I don't see any downside to getting Etienne in here

3 minutes ago, Bleedinggreen93 said:

I look at the film as well he played TE at Florida he had a grand total of 59 snaps as a WR... Projecting a TE out to WR isn’t that easy could he do it maybe but more likely he is a TE who isn’t a good blocker yet. 
 

Does al this mean I think he will be a bad TE no just means I think he will be a backup here and not utilize fully 

I don't expect my potentially #1 receiving target to have to block alot, thats not why I got him. I got him to inflict offensive damage, not babysit lol

3 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

E at Florida he had a grand total of 59 snaps as a WR.

Yep,because they had some pretty nice WR's too? Toney and Grimes and others,so there was no need for him to be the #1 target.Without those other WR's I think he would have done more as WR,but they didnt need him to

1 minute ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

I don't expect my potentially #1 receiving target to have to block alot, thats not why I got him. I got him to inflict offensive damage, not babysit lol

See this is the difference then your projecting Pitts as a WR I don’t see it I think he is a TE huge difference as a TE think he is far behind Geodart 

Just now, GreenbleedinNC said:

Yep,because they had some pretty nice WR's too? Toney and Grimes and others,so there wa sno need for him to be the #1 target.Without those other WR's I thinnk he would have done more as WR,but they didnt need him to

So Pitts is soooo great he wasn’t the #1 WR not helping his case any 

At any rate,no need to talk about Pitts anymore,if ATL passes,he will go to DUllaz or the Gnats

21 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

I know,thats what I said,that noone knows what Siri wants to do. But having 2 real RB's with Hurts in the backfield would be a nice start to a rebuild

  I think Joe was talking about getting a bruiser. I am good with that. Someone who can block as well as pound the rock for 3 or 4 yards....

2 minutes ago, Bleedinggreen93 said:

See this is the difference then your projecting Pitts as a WR I don’t see it I think he is a TE huge difference as a TE think he is far behind Geodart 

So Pitts is soooo great he wasn’t the #1 WR not helping his case any 

Because he is a TE lmao with WR capability,not a WR that maybe could play TE

4 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

I'm just looking at it like this. Sanders is a good solid RB,could maybe be a stud somewhere else(lol). Scoot is an over acheiver-good for him,still I consider him a BU. If Sanders went down game 1, I doubt he can carry that load,so my thinking is to get a RB in here that could pull that weight,or if Sanders stays upright,you have a super nice tandem going on. I don't see any downside to getting Etienne in here

I do Sanders is healthy and we don’t run the ball lol.... We just have another wasted high pick sitting on the bench... Why to me it comes down to what we want to be on offense 

Just now, stine said:

  I think Joe was talking about getting a bruiser. I am good with that. Someone who can block as well as pound the rock for 3 or 4 yards....

Looking at the sooner RB in 4-5 good 6ft 245 can bring that compliment to our RB room 

1 minute ago, stine said:

  I think Joe was talking about getting a bruiser. I am good with that. Someone who can block as well as pound the rock for 3 or 4 yards....

Tough call here because we don't really know how good our O line is when everyone is on the field. last year didn't tell me nuttin. Still with the makeshift O line were ranked 19th O line. So I can;'t see us being any worse than that with healthy players in

5 minutes ago, Bleedinggreen93 said:

I do Sanders is healthy and we don’t run the ball lol.... We just have another wasted high pick sitting on the bench... Why to me it comes down to what we want to be on offense 

Looking at the sooner RB in 4-5 good 6ft 245 can bring that compliment to our RB room 

LMAO oh so if Siri says I want Etienne so I can run the rock you say -NAH I'll pass. OK It all hinges on the O line. if it's good enough that tandem can kick some A. and BTW Ped gave up the running game when he didn't have to. even when we had success with it,he STOPPED running

So Sanders/Etienne/Scott with a running type QB would be a nice step to solidifying at least ONE room IMO. Now we can work on something else, and if Sanders went down,we really don't need to alter the play book much

Having those 3 RB's(and your BU 4th) means we can clear this roster of losers and stash the roster with other BU's

Boston Scott	35	RB	5-6	203	25	2	Louisiana Tech
	Miles Sanders	26	RB	5-11	211	23	2	Penn State
	Adrian Killins Jr.	46	RB	5-8	177	23	R	UCF
	Jason Huntley	32	RB	5-9	193	22	R	New Mexico State
	Elijah Holyfield	33	RB	5-10	215	23	1	Georgia