Originally Posted by duncan_idaho:
I mean, I get wanting to utilize Jonnu Smith. I get wanting to have Pitts play in-line some of the time.
But playing Pitts in-line to use Smith the way they should be using Pitts is stupid territory, the kind of shit you'd expect from Nathaniel Hackett.
I don't get them wanting to use Smith so much. He's a career "meh" TE and nothing more. Put your potential star in a position to make plays and save the crap work for Smith. [Reply]
I'm genuinely curious about whether or not we could pry Rashod Bateman from Baltimore for pennies on the dollar. Health has been a bit of an issue for him but he's shown he can be pretty good at times. With their RB issues maybe they could be entertained by swapping him for Clyde and a late rounder. [Reply]
Originally Posted by kccrow:
I don't get them wanting to use Smith so much. He's a career "meh" TE and nothing more. Put your potential star in a position to make plays and save the crap work for Smith.
I agree.
I could see using 3-TE sets with Smith and Pitts doing the WR things they can do so you run more of an 11-set concept, but after forcing the defense into a heavier personnel that is less capable of defending it. I mean, that's like Andy Reid 102.
I don't understand using 2- and 3-TE sets and having PITTS of all people be the guy that's in-line. [Reply]
Originally Posted by kccrow:
I'm genuinely curious about whether or not we could pry Rashod Bateman from Baltimore for pennies on the dollar. Health has been a bit of an issue for him but he's shown he can be pretty good at times. With their RB issues maybe they could be entertained by swapping him for Clyde and a late rounder.
I think my splash would be bringing Chris Jones back. I'd probably spend the rest of retaining Sneed, one of Tranquill/Gay and D Smith. I would cut MVS.
If I was adding a new veteran, I would be tempted by a TE (Gesicki, Irv Smith, Austin Hooper, Dalton Schultz.. No idea what the price on any of these would be). Or WR (DJ Chark, Kendric Bourne? Again, no idea on cap for these). [Reply]