I haven't seen a mock yet that has a TE in the 1st round. I don't even know whats out there but we may have a shot at the best one in the draft. I think that would be an awesome pick even though I want us to keep drafting defense and OL
A stud TE opposite Kelce would be a great addition. [Reply]
It seems like a pure waste of a pick to me. I don't think your 2nd TE is going to be impactful enough to make it worthwhile. Kelce isn't going anywhere for a few years, so you're wasting most of a rookie deal on a guy that won't see the field half the time. I don't think you address it any earlier than the 3rd round. Day 3 would be my preference if they do. [Reply]
Originally Posted by kccrow:
It seems like a pure waste of a pick to me. I don't think your 2nd TE is going to be impactful enough to make it worthwhile. Kelce isn't going anywhere for a few years, so you're wasting most of a rookie deal on a guy that won't see the field half the time. I don't think you address it any earlier than the 3rd round. Day 3 would be my preference if they do.
I think there is a guy Reid absolutely loves in the second, I wouldn't hate that. Reid is the key there. If Reid wants him, he'll have something in mind for some sick sets.
But yeah, otherwise, Probably a day 3 guy. [Reply]
The Chiefs run two tight end sets a lot, a good all round 2nd TE would also help the run game. Unfortunately, based on the talent in this draft I don't think it would be a good move. Maybe in the next year or two it will be an option.
No harm in punting a 3rd or later on a guy though, and hoping he develops. [Reply]
Running two TE sets "a lot" realistically only amounts to about 35% of the time. For reference, Kelce was in on 92.6% of offensive snaps, Bell for 37.7% and Yelder for 4.4%. You'd have to assume that in most cases that Kelce wasn't out there, either Bell or Yelder was. So of the 42.1% they were on the field, Kelce wasn't for 7.4%... Obviously this is off a percent or two in all reality due to not having a TE on the field for some sets, but let's just say for argument that you want much more than a 35% contribution from a 1st round pick. You'd have to double that number to make it remotely worthwhile. [Reply]
Originally Posted by kccrow:
Running two TE sets "a lot" realistically only amounts to about 35% of the time. For reference, Kelce was in on 92.6% of offensive snaps, Bell for 37.7% and Yelder for 4.4%. You'd have to assume that in most cases that Kelce wasn't out there, either Bell or Yelder was. So of the 42.1% they were on the field, Kelce wasn't for 7.4%... Obviously this is off a percent or two in all reality due to not having a TE on the field for some sets, but let's just say for argument that you want much more than a 35% contribution from a 1st round pick. You'd have to double that number to make it remotely worthwhile.
I think you're onto a bit of a logical fallacy there. If we had two great tight ends, we wouldn't get much value from the 2nd one because we only run two tight end sets 1/3 of the time right now. But we currently have JAGs at tight end #2 and #3, there's nothing to say that it couldn't be a high enough percentage to make it worthwhile, especially if we had to cut/trade Sammy for cap reasons and so had less quality/depth at WR.
I'm not really disagreeing with you, I don't think TE is worth a 1st right now but at some point Kelce is going to tail off, and it would be nice to A) have some Kelce insurance in case of injury B) have Kelce mentor his eventual replacement C) Make the offense more potent on at least 1/3 of snaps. [Reply]
You put a 2nd TE on the field, who you gonna take off it? Is you TE #2 going to be better than say a Watkins or a Hardman or a Robinson? the #2 TE will never get enough touches to justify a high pick on until you're grooming Kelce's replacement. [Reply]
Looking at the overall snap counts for a season is very misleading. You need to look at game by game to get a better appreciation of how the Chiefs use a second TE. Also if you go back and look at the snap counts for TE Demetrius Harris with the Chiefs, he had more playing time than Bell gets. This year for Blake Bell - JAX 49%, BAL 46%, IND 46%, DEN 48%, MIN 51%, OAK 52%, and DEN 45%. All of the other games was in the thirty something percentage range.
Blake Bell gets used a lot on special teams too with 50% overall for the season but individual games in the 70% range and one game as high as 83%.
BUT. I don't think the Chiefs should invest a high draft pick or a lot of money in backup TEs. I would like to see them invest something though. Since Kelce, we don't use low round draft picks and we only sign very inexpensive free agents.
It is strange. Here we are in the Super Bowl and the Chiefs can be even better in the years to come.
This year with so few draft picks, we might not be able to draft a TE, but maybe Bell and others can improve. [Reply]
Yes. I think we should. 3rd round or something like that. Our back up TE's are straight trash. This offense would be severely hampered if we had to throw to Blake fucking Bell. Kelce can mentor the kid, too the next few years. [Reply]
Originally Posted by tmax63:
You put a 2nd TE on the field, who you gonna take off it? Is you TE #2 going to be better than say a Watkins or a Hardman or a Robinson? the #2 TE will never get enough touches to justify a high pick on until you're grooming Kelce's replacement.
Robinson is a free agent, and if you are drafting a 1st round TE he better be better than Robinson, or you done goofed.
Watkins could also be a cap casualty, so you'd be looking at Hill and Hardman as your 2 receivers I guess. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Wilson8:
Looking at the overall snap counts for a season is very misleading. You need to look at game by game to get a better appreciation of how the Chiefs use a second TE. Also if you go back and look at the snap counts for TE Demetrius Harris with the Chiefs, he had more playing time than Bell gets. This year for Blake Bell - JAX 49%, BAL 46%, IND 46%, DEN 48%, MIN 51%, OAK 52%, and DEN 45%. All of the other games was in the thirty something percentage range.
Blake Bell gets used a lot on special teams too with 50% overall for the season but individual games in the 70% range and one game as high as 83%.
BUT. I don't think the Chiefs should invest a high draft pick or a lot of money in backup TEs. I would like to see them invest something though. Since Kelce, we don't use low round draft picks and we only sign very inexpensive free agents.
It is strange. Here we are in the Super Bowl and the Chiefs can be even better in the years to come.
This year with so few draft picks, we might not be able to draft a TE, but maybe Bell and others can improve.
This isn't painting the real picture. All weeks to date, the Chiefs ran out of x2 personnel 33.21% of the time in 2019 and 31.45% of the time in 2018. They were in x2 personnel groups on run plays 41.75% in 2019 and 34.34% in 2018. For pass plays, they were in x2 personnel groups 27.80% in 2019 and 29.64% in 2018. Of those x2 groupings, 12 personnel was easily the most favored with it accounting for 85.40% of x2 groups in 2019 and 88.03% in 2018. The Chiefs have only ran one play out of an x3 group and that was in 2018 from 13 personnel on a run, so I didn't factor it in with x2 groups for all multiple TE sets because it is really insignificant. When in x2 groups, the Chiefs ran the ball 48.76% of the time in 2019 and 42.17% in 2018.
Therefore, whether they had a better receiving TE in Harris in 2018 or a better run blocking TE in Bell in 2019, the overall usage in terms of multiple TE sets did not change all that much from 2018 to 2019. In reality, it went up in 2019 with a better run-blocking TE. To argue for a better receiving TE in the first round seems ludicrous when you look at how Andy uses them statistically. Would Andy run x2 sets more often with a better TE than Harris or Bell? I'm sure he would. That said, you're not going to instantly see 50% usage and even if you did it's an absurd waste of 1st round talent and resources.
As a note, the Chiefs primary group was 11 personnel and ran it 60.29% in 2019 and 60.22% in 2018. If you're letting Watkins walk, you'd have a better argument for a WR in round 1 than a TE. Even then, statistics point you more towards using a 2nd round pick.