Could Zach Ertz of Stanford this year be a better rounded TE than Fleener?

[chad72]

I think Zach Ertz from Stanford this year might end up being a more rounded TE than Coby Fleener. He has better inline blocking traits along with ample receiving traits too that would make him a better rounded TE than Fleener.

 

If we trade down and he is available at the top of the 3rd, would any of you flip if we drafted him?

 

[BOTT]

I wouldn't see the point

[Flash7]

Fleener provides an added dimension to our TEs. We have Saunders who is a very good blocker, then Allen who is a good blocker and a good receiver, and then Fleener, who is a decent blocker and a very good receiver. Fleener, if used properly, can cause matchup problems all over the field, more so than Ertz.

[Jason_]

I see no reason to take a TE in this draft, and I don't think Ertz was particularly better at anything than Fleener was.  

[chad72]

Fleener provides an added dimension to our TEs. We have Saunders who is a very good blocker, then Allen who is a good blocker and a good receiver, and then Fleener, who is a decent blocker and a very good receiver. Fleener, if used properly, can cause matchup problems all over the field, more so than Ertz.

 

I forgot about Saunders. I felt we needed a good second inline blocker with good hands so that we can split Fleener out as flanker more often thus playing an empty backfield with 3 TEs and 2 WRs. It also helps with running vs stout D-lines to ice the game or play in bad weather conditions.

[21isSuperman]

I wouldn't flip, but I would certainly not be happy if we take another TE.  We don't need any more TEs on our roster.  Allen, Fleener, and Saunders are fine

[BrentMc11]

No.  We picked Fleener and he will be just fine.  Remember Miss Puerto Rico looked better in the swimsuit competition that Miss Romania.

 

 

OK....it was close OK.....24 vs 25 in the mock draft.  

[HtownColt]

He could be more well rounded, but for a different team not us

[Manning1887]

Once Fleener learns to run routes better, he will be fine. He should be much better in his 2nd year. Hopefully he bulks up a little in the offseason to become a more effective blocker as well.

[Balzer40]

There is no way were drafting a TE unless it's a very late rd. pick and he's just a blocking TE. Why you ask? Because we drafted the best 2 TE's in the draft last season and it would be absolutely ludicrous to draft another one.

[CanuckColt]

I think Zach Ertz from Stanford this year might end up being a more rounded TE than Coby Fleener. He has better inline blocking traits along with ample receiving traits too that would make him a better rounded TE than Fleener.

...

Yep....but we have more urgent needs.

[ztboiler]

Given the success teams are having with 2 TE's, I see no reason why they won't eventually get to 3 as a steady diet - given the increasing amount of athletic pass catchers weighing 250+.  Think about the mismatch issues of power running and wide open passing from the same personnel grouping without enabling a defense to substitute.  3 TE 1 WR 1 RB.   Not just a gimmick, a base formation.  It may not be us anytime soon, but Chad may just be a couple years ahead of his time here.  We are still just scratching the surface with future of the position and the game is always evolving.

[NewColtsFan]

First, it would be shocking if Ertz were to fall to the 3rd round.

 

Second,  even if he did -- and he was the BPA on the Colts board -- how many tight ends are we going to play at one time?    This aint Stanford, and we're not running three TE sets.

 

So,  no, I wouldn't take him.  (Unless I thought I could trade him for something we do need, then OK)

 

Finally.....   it's more likely that Stanford's other TE,  Levine Toilolo -- all Six foot Eight-plus -- could be a very late draft pick for the Colts if he slips to the 6th round than it is that Ertz falls to the 3rd.    But honestly,  neither should happen....

[Fx Stryker]

First, it would be shocking if Ertz were to fall to the 3rd round.

 

Second,  even if he did -- and he was the BPA on the Colts board -- how many tight ends are we going to play at one time?    This aint Stanford, and we're not running three TE sets.

 

So,  no, I wouldn't take him.  (Unless I thought I could trade him for something we do need, then OK)

 

Finally.....   it's more likely that Stanford's other TE,  Levine Toilolo -- all Six foot Eight-plus -- could be a very late draft pick for the Colts if he slips to the 6th round than it is that Ertz falls to the 3rd.    But honestly,  neither should happen....

 

Are we completely sure of this?

[HtownColt]

Are we completely sure of this?

Yea we are pretty much sure

http://forums.colts.com/index.php?/topic/17413-hassleback-talks-new-offense/#entry471566

[chad72]

Given the success teams are having with 2 TE's, I see no reason why they won't eventually get to 3 as a steady diet - given the increasing amount of athletic pass catchers weighing 250+.  Think about the mismatch issues of power running and wide open passing from the same personnel grouping without enabling a defense to substitute.  3 TE 1 WR 1 RB.   Not just a gimmick, a base formation.  It may not be us anytime soon, but Chad may just be a couple years ahead of his time here.  We are still just scratching the surface with future of the position and the game is always evolving.

 

Thanks for being generous in your assessment!!!

 

You are right, Peyton in his early years did have Ds guessing with the 2 TE formations and Ds not being able to guess run or pass because the personnel on the field could do both.

 

If the 3rd TE becomes a flanker, it is 2 TEs at the line of scrimmage and 1 TE played like a WR. With the new rules where you can't spear a guy in the slot like you used to before, a big bodied TE becomes more valuable. Plus, if all the TEs can catch and separate (key here), you can't go from a base front 7 with 3 or 4 LBs to nickel without substituting and you will constantly have to choose.

 

You choose nickel and we use the TEs to run the ball and hit short passes in a no huddle with the big bodied TEs. You choose base formation, we can make the LBs chase the TEs in coverage. If teams are playing the short passes mainly, that is when you go play action to your flanker TE or lone speed wideout to take advantage of the 1-on-1s.

 

Of course, this doesn't happen overnight because all the young guns need to be on the same page as Luck to run a high tempo offense like Brady does, and sometimes with an empty backfield for an entire series. Again, the key is all TEs that can catch and separate.

[ztboiler]

Thanks for being generous in your assessment!!!

 

You are right, Peyton in his early years did have Ds guessing with the 2 TE formations and Ds not being able to guess run or pass because the personnel on the field could do both.

 

If the 3rd TE becomes a flanker, it is 2 TEs at the line of scrimmage and 1 TE played like a WR. With the new rules where you can't spear a guy in the slot like you used to before, a big bodied TE becomes more valuable. Plus, if all the TEs can catch and separate (key here), you can't go from a base front 7 with 3 or 4 LBs to nickel without substituting and you will constantly have to choose.

 

You choose nickel and we use the TEs to run the ball and hit short passes in a no huddle with the big bodied TEs. You choose base formation, we can make the LBs chase the TEs in coverage. If teams are playing the short passes mainly, that is when you go play action to your flanker TE or lone speed wideout to take advantage of the 1-on-1s.

 

Of course, this doesn't happen overnight because all the young guns need to be on the same page as Luck to run a high tempo offense like Brady does, and sometimes with an empty backfield for an entire series. Again, the key is all TEs that can catch and separate.

You are right, and we can be sure that Offensive minds are experimenting with the formations you describe.  It is just a matter of having the right personnel to make it what you execute well.  If you had Gronk, Graham and Gonzales on the field at the same time, it would work every time.  Those players are showing up with more regularity as we speak and we may just already have 2 of them ourselves. 

 

At the end of the day, the draft is about relative value that you can translate to an on-field advantage.  Each pick is a projection of that once your machine is up and running with a functional roster.  I really don't care who we draft if the effort is about maximum relative value.  That could be Eifert for all I know at 24, as long as it is part of a plan to create on-field advantage.  The emotion put into winning the draft on paper is silly - but part of our need to cope with the off-season as fans.  Grigson's approach to relative value in free agency was anything but conventional.  We should probably be open to or expect the unconventional with the way he drafts as well.  Personally, I hate convention, so this all suits me just fine.  An insecure GM doesn't pick Dwayne Allen at the top of the 3rd last year, and I'm sure glad he isn't insecure.

[Jason_]

You are right, and we can be sure that Offensive minds are experimenting with the formations you describe.  It is just a matter of having the right personnel to make it what you execute well.  If you had Gronk, Graham and Gonzales on the field at the same time, it would work every time.  Those players are showing up with more regularity as we speak and we may just already have 2 of them ourselves.

 

That's true, but you also have to be able to PAY a Gronk, Graham and Gonzales to have them on the field at the same time.  Can't have elite playmakers at every position.  It should would be nice though.

[ztboiler]

That's true, but you also have to be able to PAY a Gronk, Graham and Gonzales to have them on the field at the same time.  Can't have elite playmakers at every position.  It should would be nice though.

If you are paying them for the productivity of a winning motion, then you probably don't have much invested in conventional WR's, so it all works out the same.

[chad72]

That's true, but you also have to be able to PAY a Gronk, Graham and Gonzales to have them on the field at the same time.  Can't have elite playmakers at every position.  It should would be nice though.

 

True. That is probably why the Pats didn't fork out the money for Welker and did so for both Gronk and Hernandez.

 

That might mean we don't pay Wayne or DHB in the future and pay only T.Y.Hilton??? Sounds good to me

[Smonroe]

I think Zach Ertz from Stanford this year might end up being a more rounded TE than Coby Fleener. He has better inline blocking traits along with ample receiving traits too that would make him a better rounded TE than Fleener.

 

If we trade down and he is available at the top of the 3rd, would any of you flip if we drafted him?

Okay, this has been pretty well gone over. I didn't want to make a new thread but how about this:

If Tyler Eifert is available at 24, by most accounts he'd be the BPA. Would the Colts draft him?

I tend to think not, but Grigs has always said BPA.

[BOTT]

Okay, this has been pretty well gone over. I didn't want to make a new thread but how about this:

If Tyler Eifert is available at 24, by most accounts he'd be the BPA. Would the Colts draft him?

I tend to think not, but Grigs has always said BPA.

That would be taking BPA to the extreme

[Jason_]

Okay, this has been pretty well gone over. I didn't want to make a new thread but how about this:

If Tyler Eifert is available at 24, by most accounts he'd be the BPA. Would the Colts draft him?

I tend to think not, but Grigs has always said BPA.

 

I'm sure his "BPA" refers to the best player available that's on his draft board.  I highly doubt that Grigson has any first round TE's or QB's on his board.  

[Smonroe]

I'm sure his "BPA" refers to the best player available that's on his draft board.  I highly doubt that Grigson has any first round TE's or QB's on his board.

.

That's the same thing I thought, but could he really pass on a TE with that kind of talent?

We don't need a LT, but if by some miracle say Eric Fisher fell to us, he'd snap him up. I get that his board is BPA weighted by positions of need, but you don't pass on guys like that.

[BrentMc11]

.

That's the same thing I thought, but could he really pass on a TE with that kind of talent?

We don't need a LT, but if by some miracle say Eric Fisher fell to us, he'd snap him up. I get that his board is BPA weighted by positions of need, but you don't pass on guys like that.

The thought of drafting a 3rd TE Ertz me to no end......I do have feelings....just have not found them yet

[Smonroe]

The thought of drafting a 3rd TE Ertz me to no end......I do have feelings....just have not found them yet

Got it. The argument can be made that if Eifert dropped to 24 then he may not be as well thought of by NFL GMs as he was by the so called draft experts.

It's probably a 'what if' that will never be.

[BrentMc11]

Got it. The argument can be made that if Eifert dropped to 24 then he may not be as well thought of by NFL GMs as he was by the so called draft experts.

It's probably a 'what if' that will never be.

I know you were speculating.....love it...you need to look and think outside the norm...

 

IF that would happen , we would almost need a 4th TE....I would not want Allen limited to blocking.  With the utilization of a FB, we would be taking an extra OL out of the equation too...scared the 'heck' out of me last year when we had zero OL for the one game after injuries....the game Shipley played guard if i am not wrong....I have my quota for wrongs today already  

[Jason_]

.

That's the same thing I thought, but could he really pass on a TE with that kind of talent?

We don't need a LT, but if by some miracle say Eric Fisher fell to us, he'd snap him up. I get that his board is BPA weighted by positions of need, but you don't pass on guys like that.

 

Yes he could pass, because at #24 there will be another very talented player in a position that is of greater need to us.  There's no way that all of the first round graded prospects are off the board before we pick at #24.  Now if we had a 2nd round pick and a guy like Eiffert fell to our 2nd round pick, then yes I would have to at least take that into consideration and probably take him.  But in the first round?  No.

[chad72]

Okay, this has been pretty well gone over. I didn't want to make a new thread but how about this:

If Tyler Eifert is available at 24, by most accounts he'd be the BPA. Would the Colts draft him?

I tend to think not, but Grigs has always said BPA.

 

If Tyler Eifert is there at No.24, the Falcons would probably love to have him with Gonzo on his last legs and Gonzo assured to be around at least a year to mentor him. Besides, they have already sent out signals they might move up though I think they will move up more for a pass rusher than TE. But hey, if they want Eifert and give us an extra 3rd round pick, let them knock themselves out .

[Superman]

If Tyler Eifert is there at No.24, the Falcons would probably love to have him with Gonzo on his last legs and Gonzo assured to be around at least a year to mentor him. Besides, they have already sent out signals they might move up though I think they will move up more for a pass rusher than TE. But hey, if they want Eifert and give us an extra 3rd round pick, let them knock themselves out .

 

I'd take Atlanta's first and third for #24, but only depending on what the board looks like at the time. If someone like Mingo or Rhodes drops to #24, I think that would be my pick. In which case Atlanta can do a deal with Minnesota for #25.

[BOTT]

.

That's the same thing I thought, but could he really pass on a TE with that kind of talent?

We don't need a LT, but if by some miracle say Eric Fisher fell to us, he'd snap him up. I get that his board is BPA weighted by positions of need, but you don't pass on guys like that.

Not like Ertz is the 2nd coming of Gronk.....I would rather have Fleener/Allen than Ertz. On the other hand I would swap AC for fisher in a heartbeat.

My bad, u were talking a out Eifert. Still, I don't see what he does over Fleener.

[Smonroe]

Not like Ertz is the 2nd coming of Gronk.....I would rather have Fleener/Allen than Ertz. On the other hand I would swap AC for fisher in a heartbeat.

My bad, u were talking a out Eifert. Still, I don't see what he does over Fleener.

It was a theoretical. The so called experts say he's a top 16 pick. You could substitute him for anyone in that group that could fall to 24. But what if that position is already pretty solid on our team?

Grigs always says BPA, but we think he means weighted by position of need, etc. Would he still select someone like Eifert or Fisher if available even though we have bigger holes to fill?

[BOTT]

It was a theoretical. The so called experts say he's a top 16 pick. You could substitute him for anyone in that group that could fall to 24. But what if that position is already pretty solid on our team?

Grigs always says BPA, but we think he means weighted by position of need, etc. Would he still select someone like Eifert or Fisher if available even though we have bigger holes to fill?

In short, yes he would....but if the colts had joe thomas at LT he wouldn't.