If Brock Bowers Blows Up the Combine...

[reo]

9 minutes ago, bondra316v2 said:

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.

 

I will say the last time Prag and I were this intrigued by a player that everyone was saying wasn't worth the draft slot was CJ. I will add that we wanted CJ that year more than we want Bowers this year... so far anyway. We'll see if that changes as we get closer.

Edited February 14, 2024 by reo

[IsntLifeFunny]

1 minute ago, reo said:

 

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

If the whole career hovers between 12 to 15 then I'd say it's solid but not good. At 7 you want a top 12 LT who fluctuates to the higher end of the scale for sure say between 7 to 12. If he's consistently there he's good. If he's better then that then he's really good an a great pick. 

[charleytolar]

52 minutes ago, 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?

That's the standard that the Bowers-at-7 critics run to. Not everyone has such stringent demands. They like to stack the argument.

[wiscotitansfan]

42 minutes 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.

Yes but this example you used is literally the exact opposite of not worrying about the position for years on end… they are actively moving him to another position because they are trying to upgrade him 

[reo]

2 minutes ago, wiscotitansfan said:

Yes but this example you used is literally the exact opposite of not worrying about the position for years on end… they are actively moving him to another position because they are trying to upgrade him 

 

That's the point. if you draft a LT and he's average (or solid), he's not someone where you don't have to worry about the position for years on end. He gets moved to RT and then he doesn't get extended.... b/c he's just average and not worth the contract. 

[Pragidealist]

56 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

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. 

I think these are great discussion points.   They would have to have a really good picture of how they'd use him.  Callahan is likely to put together a very different system than Arthur Smith.  I've read and watched various draft analyses compare him to Smith.  Some saying what Bowers can do better and some saying what a different team would do vs  Smith.  *shrugs*   All fair points.   Titans need to believe whomever they choose is that franchise guy. IF they determine they can't use Bowers enough for any of those reasons, then he isn't that guy.   

 

As long as they don't get an average anything- I'm cool with the choice.  TBH - few of the WR's impress me much but there's a reason I stay away from talent evals.   They suck. lol   

[wiscotitansfan]

7 minutes ago, reo said:

 

That's the point. if you draft a LT and he's average (or solid), he's not someone where you don't have to worry about the position for years on end. He gets moved to RT and then he doesn't get extended.... b/c he's just average and not worth the contract. 

Great we agree 100% on absolutely everything related to this…. I’m honestly confused where you think the disagreement is

 

the fact that I’m not cementing a “top X” as the level that someone must hit to be considered a franchise player? I think that’s a really juvenile way to look at it until the guy is actually in the negotiating room demanding to be paid as an elite player as the highest of the position
 

If a guy is someone good enough at LT that the GM isn’t trying to replace him for a very long time then it is a home run and is just the franchise player as anyone else would be. Put whatever metrics you want on that statement but the reality of what my point is very clear

Edited February 14, 2024 by wiscotitansfan

[Pragidealist]

1 hour ago, 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?

Close yeah.   Anyone at 7 has to be an impact, franchise guy.   For a TE, yeah he has to be very special for a TE. Probably something like once in a lifetime. 

 

Alt has to be a franchise LT for a decade. I don' think 1 or 2 of those exist in the draft every year.  I would say they are drafted like they are that common but there isn't the demand for a once in a decade LT for one to be drafted correctly every year.  If so, every team would have one easily.   

 

Same for the WR- not just an NFL starter-  but be a franchise WR.   Same as the LT.  If 2 or 3 were in every draft, every single team would have one.  They are drafted every year as if that's the case but they aren't.  

 

Whomever they draft at 7 needs to be a franchise player.  Whomever that is- the team needs to be convinced they will become one.   The reality is-  a lot of teams miss every year and talent eval is a crap shoot.  But you don't build a team of superstars by focusing on players floor. 

 

What they don't need to do is be afraid to choose a franchise guy and say "oh well at least we got someone who can start."    That's horrible.  

 

 

[reo]

1 minute ago, wiscotitansfan said:

If a guy is someone good enough at LT that the GM isn’t trying to replace him for a very long time then it is a home run and is just the franchise player as anyone else would be. Put whatever metrics you want on that statement but the reality of what my point is very clear

 

what i'm saying is that doesn't happen. There's no "good enough" LT that gets extended so the GM isn't trying to replace him for a very long time. Either they hit and he's a very good LT who gets extended or they let him walk in FA b/c they don't want to pay a fortune on an average or solid LT. 

 

Say what you want about Lewan but he was considered one of the best LTs in the league there for a bit. 

[wiscotitansfan]

Just now, reo said:

 

what i'm saying is that doesn't happen. There's no "good enough" LT that gets extended so the GM isn't trying to replace him for a very long time. Either they hit and he's a very good LT who gets extended or they let him walk in FA b/c they don't want to pay a fortune on an average or solid LT. 

 

Say what you want about Lewan but he was considered one of the best LTs in the league there for a bit. 

Okay. So a LT has to be good enough to be given an extension at LT. Is that simple enough of a baseline. 
 

what do you think I meant as “doesn’t need to be replaced for years on end”?

[Pragidealist]

2 hours ago, Callidus said:

O bullshit. Kelce 3rd, kittle 4th, gates undrafted, Witten 3rd, sharp 7th, Graham 3rd...

 

That's like half the top 10 in yards, 2-3 more guys were 2nd round picks. Spending a first on a te is about as wasteful as possible.

 

 

 

They were all shots at lightning in the bottle man.  Even Oldschool said, if they knew Kelce would be who he is- then he would have been drafted top 10.  TE's are normally drafted later so by correlation-  that's where you find most of the top TE's. BUT if you look at how many are actually drafted-  a shit ton more fail.  Titans have drafted plenty over the last 10 years and never once landed a Kelce.   

 

It's not about the position but the projected impact (which as a position component.)   You cannot wait until the second round and get anyone projected to be the next Kelce.  He wouldn't be there.  You can however wait until the 2nd round to get guys who might have the potential to get there.  2nd to 3rd round is where you often see teams start to take shots at guys with high upsides but really low floors.    

[reo]

18 minutes ago, wiscotitansfan said:

Okay. So a LT has to be good enough to be given an extension at LT. Is that simple enough of a baseline. 
 

what do you think I meant as “doesn’t need to be replaced for years on end”?

 

Looking into it to see if there were any solid LTs signed in FA by teams that got extensions but honestly, spotrac doesn't go back that far.. I'd have to look at every team's current LT and see where they got them and how long they've been there.... yeah, i'm not doing that lol

 

EDIT: not a great way to look into this w/o going through every LT in the league and even then you have to go back years to see how they got to what team and chart it out. Most starting LTs were drafted by the team they're with or they signed in FA (or traded for) but it's too soon to tell if the signing was a success. Would need to go back farther and that's a pain.

 

Edited February 14, 2024 by reo

[Pragidealist]

2 hours ago, ctm said:

 The issue isn't whether there is a discussion of possibilities. 

 

The issue is what is the most likely scenario/outcome.  That's what's being debated.

I'm not tbh.  This whole thread has been a pretty interesting and engaging discussion.  The most likely scenario is an LT- and kinda boring to talk about.  

 

I've been enjoying engaging in discussing other possibilities.  The whole premise of most of the thread has been 1) they solve oline somewhere else and 2) they want at dynamic offensive threat.   If those are the parameters-  is Bowers in the equation.   I personally think so but really enjoy counter thoughts around it. 

 

The only thing I've pushed back pretty hard on is how much to weight positional value at 10.   I've contended that impact matters and position only as a factor of impact.   So if you like the top 6 WRs over Bowers- as an impact playmaker.. cool.  Interested in hearing that.  If you like him top 2 or 3- interested in the comparisons.  

 

For me-  its just all been good discussion.   If I had to bet today on who they pick- probably LT.  

[IsntLifeFunny]

Pretty good discussion overall. Not too many barbs, just enough shit talking to make sure we haven't forgotten our roots, and a lot of good theoretical points. Jamar Chase over Sewell is the reference point imo. You can't go wrong with either player, but Chase puts points on the board...while Burrow has been injured 2 of the last 4 years and they still have a hole at LT. Interesting discussion. 

 

I don't think the Bengals get to the SB without Chase, but maybe. I also don't think Burrow is likely on IR and getting killed if they took Sewell. 

 

[wiscotitansfan]

2 minutes ago, reo said:

 

Looking into it to see if there were any solid LTs signed in FA by teams that got extensions but honestly, spotrac doesn't go back that far.. I'd have to look at every team's current LT and see where they got them and how long they've been there.... yeah, i'm not doing that lol

 

Yeah. I think there are obviously really good LTs that hit free agency but most are probably older vets that are too expensive for their teams. Just like there are a crap ton of serviceable guys who are likely way overpaid for just being average. 

 

If you can get a 2 contract LT in the draft (10 full years of LT play where you aren’t trying to find his upgrade), even with having to pay that 2nd contract it obviously means he is worth it and an absolute grand slam of a draft pick to any GM

 

If you don’t sign him to a 2nd contract for anything less than you mismanaged the cap and can’t afford how good he is, then obviously I agree that it’s a disappointing pick