If Brock Bowers Blows Up the Combine...

[rns90]

3 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

If we are going this route hopefully a QB drops and we get a nice haul and still get our guy. I would just be really surprised at 7 if they pass up on any of Nabors, Odunze, or Alt. 

Seriously if one of those guys is there (you can add Fashanu) why would you pass? They are all at a position of need and bad teams don’t go pure BPA.  They pick the BPA from a need position.

[rns90]

3 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

I don't even disagree about Odunze, but he's a much better prospect than say Treylon Burks.

I watched some stuff on him.  He’s better than I assumed. He gets separation pretty well .  And has some agility and speed.  So he’s not some big WR who boxes out guys or does contest catches.  No idea whether or not he’s worth 7 but he’s probably not that far off and sort of in range and you could probably justify it.

[IsntLifeFunny]

3 minutes ago, rns90 said:

Seriously if one of those guys is there (you can add Fashanu) why would you pass? They are all at a position of need and bad teams don’t go pure BPA.  They pick the BPA from a need position.

Pretty much where I am. Aussie said it at least a couple months ago that this team needs blue-chip players and the top end is stacked with them at our 2 biggest positions of need. 

 

I will say a large trade down to say Denver for their QB could be enticing for their 1st next year and a rookie QB to boot (meaning they likely draft high). It gives ammo for next year if we need to trade up for a QB. That's pretty much the only scenario where Bowers makes sense to me. I can't see it at 7.

[bondra316v2]

After nearly 50 pages I'm not sure I completely understand the argument being made for drafting Bowers at 7, but let me give this  a shot.  It all boils down to 1) if you take Bowers at 7 he has to be as good as the 2 or 3 best TE's to ever play the game, 2) if you take ALT he has to be a franchise LT for a decade, but possibly not HOF  level, 3) if you take Nabers/Oduze they have to be a #1 WR in today's NFL. 

 

Bowers = once or twice in a lifetime.  Alt = once or twice every draft.  Nabers/Odunze = two or three every draft.

 

Is that about right?

[Pragidealist]

1 hour ago, oldschool said:

 

I'm taking All 3 WRs before Bowers. If all 3 are gone, I'm trading back around 10-15 and taking the next tier of WR or even a CB/EDGE. I would not under any circumstances stick and pick Bowers at #7. Another fact here you and your brothers are ignoring is how little importance the offense Callahan ran for the last 5 years puts into the TE position which lines up with with what McVay and Shanny run offense wise. 

 

Totally cool if you rate the first 5 or 6 WR as better playmakers. You keep saying you like the guy- so I figured you'd rate him higher than that.

 

The reason why i am ignore the use of Callahan's TE is bc I'm not thinking of Bowers as a TE but a dynamic playmaker.  Callahan is about adaptation.  A big part of drafting well and building a successful team is taking the best of the opportunities you're given and not holding to a rigid model and force fitting your opportunities into them. 

 

If you get a chance to draft Moss- you do so and you build around Moss. But if you get the chance to draft Burks or Kelce- you draft Kelce and build around Kelce. 

 

Its better, imo- to get a superstar playmaker at TE at 7 than get an average WR at 7.    

 

Its better to make Levis the best he can be than wait for a perfect Manning/Brady qb.  

 

I think you seem to think building a team is about having a rigid model and just taking the best guys for that scheme. I tend to think building a regular playoff team is more about maximizing the opportunities (draft, FA, etc) you get and build around what you get.   (AT least in the NFL - soccer is different with big teams bc you can just buy what you need). 

 

Its 10x more important that the Titans get the best playmaker/franchise guy at 7 than an average/good WR starter.  If you don't think Bowers is that- cool.  

 

 

[IsntLifeFunny]

Just now, bondra316v2 said:

After nearly 50 pages I'm not sure I completely understand the argument being made for drafting Bowers at 7, but let me give this  a shot.  It all boils down to 1) if you take Bowers at 7 he has to be as good as the 2 or 3 best TE's to ever play the game, 2) if you take ALT he has to be a franchise LT for a decade, but possibly not HOF  level, 3) if you take Nabers/Oduze they have to be a #1 WR in today's NFL. 

 

Bowers = once or twice in a lifetime.  Alt = once or twice every draft.  Nabers/Odunze = two or three every draft.

 

Is that about right?

Yeah that's a pretty good summation. If you take Bowers at 7 he needs to be in the Gates/Kelce/Gronk mold. He needs to be an every down in-line player who is a TD machine and a long term chain mover. 

 

LT, needs to be really good, say top 12 at his position and get a second contract.

 

WR, needs to be top 15. 

[rns90]

4 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

Pretty much where I am. Aussie said it at least a couple months ago that this team needs blue-chip players and the top end is stacked with them at our 2 biggest positions of need. 

 

I will say a large trade down to say Denver for their QB could be enticing for their 1st next year and a rookie QB to boot (meaning they likely draft high). It gives ammo for next year if we need to trade up for a QB. That's pretty much the only scenario where Bowers makes sense to me. I can't see it at 7.

I’m down for this as well. If they see the 3rd LT as not that big a difference from Fashanu and is more physical and they can coach him up to hit potential.  Ditto with WR4.  Then sign me up because this team needs more picks in the first four rounds.

 

Plus teams trading up for qbs into the top 10 usually get desperate.

[IsntLifeFunny]

2 minutes ago, Pragidealist said:

 

Totally cool if you rate the first 5 or 6 WR as better playmakers. You keep saying you like the guy- so I figured you'd rate him higher than that.

 

The reason why i am ignore the use of Callahan's TE is bc I'm not thinking of Bowers as a TE but a dynamic playmaker.  Callahan is about adaptation.  A big part of drafting well and building a successful team is taking the best of the opportunities you're given and not holding to a rigid model and force fitting your opportunities into them. 

 

If you get a chance to draft Moss- you do so and you build around Moss. But if you get the chance to draft Burks or Kelce- you draft Kelce and build around Kelce. 

 

Its better, imo- to get a superstar playmaker at TE at 7 than get an average WR at 7.    

 

Its better to make Levis the best he can be than wait for a perfect Manning/Brady qb.  

 

I think you seem to think building a team is about having a rigid model and just taking the best guys for that scheme. I tend to think building a regular playoff team is more about maximizing the opportunities (draft, FA, etc) you get and build around what you get.   (AT least in the NFL - soccer is different with big teams bc you can just buy what you need). 

 

Its 10x more important that the Titans get the best playmaker/franchise guy at 7 than an average/good WR starter.  If you don't think Bowers is that- cool.  

 

 

Good points, but once again, if he's strictly an F/move TE then he will never put up the numbers of even a good WR at 7 and sure as hell will not have the same impact as a good LT. That's the major sticking point for me. 

 

Look at Kyle Pitts. He is a freak of nature, but Jonnu Smith is the in-line TE and takes targets from him because you can't run a lot of the base offense with him. Jonnu put up 575 yards...Pitts only had 675 because he isn't an in-line TE who can stay on the field. 

[bondra316v2]

2 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

Yeah that's a pretty good summation. If you take Bowers at 7 he needs to be in the Gates/Kelce/Gronk mold. He needs to be an every down in-line player who is a TD machine and a long term chain mover. 

 

LT, needs to be really good, say top 12 at his position and get a second contract.

 

WR, needs to be top 15. 

And the odds of Bowers being Gates/Kelce/Gronk are?  Possible, but statistically speaking very low.  While taking the available LT or WR has a much higher probability of hitting.

[IsntLifeFunny]

1 minute ago, bondra316v2 said:

And the odds of Bowers being Gates/Kelce/Gronk are?  Possible, but statistically speaking very low.  While taking the available LT or WR has a much higher probability of hitting.

Yep. It's a good debate to have though and I enjoy Prag being back on the board. 

 

His point of drafting a Kelce type over a good WR or LT is valid, but if you go thst route he better not be Kyle Pitts while leaving a massive hole at LT and WR. 

[IsntLifeFunny]

Also good to see you back, Bond. I do miss your old avatar though lol. Whoever that chick was I don't care about the face because it had to be smoking unless God played a trick on the world.

[reo]

26 minutes ago, wiscotitansfan said:

No. That’s what I would consider franchise changing which was my wording. I didn’t say “average”…. I specifically said a player good enough to not worry about the position for years

 

You said a solid LT. That to me would mean average. Seems like semantics but it really does clarify what you're thinking. I would in no way consider a solid LT to be franchise changing in anyway way.

 

Yes, there are solid/average LTs that hit FA. Jonah Williams probably is in that same vein. Drafted 1-11 back in '19 as a LT. Switch to RT this past year and there's a conversation about whether or not his future is at LT or RT. 

 

If you pick a Jonah Williams at 7 b/c he's an OT and he's gone in a few years, that's a failed pick. b/c you can quite literally get a player like him in FA (he's a FA) this offseason.

Edited February 14, 2024 by reo

[IsntLifeFunny]

1 minute ago, reo said:

 

You said a solid LT. That to me would mean average. Seems like semantics but it really does clarify what you're thinking. I would in no way consider a solid LT to be franchise changing in anyway way.

 

Yes, there are solid/average LTs that hit FA. Jonah Williams probably is in that same vein. Drafted 1-11 back in '19 as a LT. Switch to RT this past year and there's a conversation about whether or not his future is at LT or RT. 

 

If you pick a Jonah Williams at 7 b/c he's an OT and he's gone in a few years, that's a failed pick. b/c you can quite literally get a player like him in FA (he's a FA) this offseason.

It's definitely worth clarification. Solid=good=top 12 at his position. A good LT is a franchise changing player. Lewan was a good LT who had flashes of being great. If you get that guy at 7 it's a damn good pick even if there was a bit of meat left on the bone because Lewan was too stupid to not get caught on roids. 

 

If you get a guy who year in and year out hovers around 6 to 12 at LT then it's a great pick because they're hard to find, which is why they're drafted early and often. 

 

However, if he's merely average versus an elite TE then yeah it wasn't a good pick. But if he's really good versus an elite TE it still wasn't a bad pick, just maybe not the right one....if that makes sense. If TE is the pick he has to be elite. 

[reo]

1 minute ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

It's definitely worth clarification. Solid=good=top 12 at his position. A good LT is a franchise changing player. Lewan was a good LT who had flashes of being great. If you get that guy at 7 it's a damn good pick even if there was a bit of meat left on the bone because Lewan was too stupid to not get caught on roids. 

 

If you get a guy who year in and year out hovers around 6 to 12 at LT then it's a great pick because they're hard to find, which is why they're drafted early and often. 

 

However, if he's merely average versus an elite TE then yeah it wasn't a good pick. But if he's really good versus an elite TE it still wasn't a bad pick, just maybe not the right one....if that makes sense. If TE is the pick he has to be elite. 

 

I can mostly agree w/ that. I can quibble on whether top 12 is just good but that's about it.

Edited February 14, 2024 by reo

[bondra316v2]

4 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

Yep. It's a good debate to have though and I enjoy Prag being back on the board. 

 

His point of drafting a Kelce type over a good WR or LT is valid, but if you go thst route he better not be Kyle Pitts while leaving a massive hole at LT and WR. 

I don't disagree with @Pragidealist premise.  He's exactly right about needing to draft a dynamic playmaker.  I just think the odds of Bowers actually being that guy are extremely low based on the entire history of the draft.  But that's the kind of stuff that is fun to talk about this time of year.  Next year he might be regaling us with a whole bunch of I told you so's.