Do the Colts tight ends have the potential to be among the league's best?

[BrentMc11]

I will tell ya Brother,Cunningham wasn't drafted for camp fodder  :thmsup:  There is all around talent in this kid

I know you have scouted him a lot.....you know I am high on him as well.  I cannot wait to see him play against the big boys!  Spurrier did not utilize him well at SC.  I am anxious to see him.....hopefully soon at camp!!  

[Kevin Bowen]

He might be happy, but I would still like to see him line up there sometimes, especially in the no huddle.

 

If we can use our base personnel in different ways it really helps with mismatches. For example, a defense is lining up in the nickel, we go no-huddle and line Allen up at full back and run the ball... that would be very difficult for any defense to counteract.

 

Agreed on the mistmatch part of things.

 

Although I do think your base personnel will involve Stanley Havili as the fullback.

 

But you do bring up a good point with the no-huddle.

[AntonMcG]

Agreed on the mistmatch part of things.

 

Although I do think your base personnel will involve Stanley Havili as the fullback.

 

But you do bring up a good point with the no-huddle.

 

Yeah, that's true. However base personnel was just an example, I guess it would be more likely in 2-TE sets.

[Jay Kirk]

Allen wasn't misused. Everything he did for us last year, he did at Clemson. That's why he excelled the way he did. He's to blocking, lining up at WR, being in the backfield, etc.

Your right TK hes just a very good all around TE .IMO was one of the steals of that draft.And I love his on field attitude he gets after it.

[Jason_]

You do when you're using multiple tight ends and Fleener is split wide and the other TE is doing most of the blocking.

 

And that's what was happening at Stanford.     Fleener didn't block that much....

 

meh.  I know stanford utilized a lot of different formations.  fleener was split out wide quite a bit but they also lined up in a jumbo set quite a bit as well with him on the end of the line.  I'm not saying he was a blocker on every single running play, but I also don't think it's accurate to say he didn't block that much.  IMO it was probably more of a 50/50 type deal.  

[NewColtsFan]

meh.  I know stanford utilized a lot of different formations.  fleener was split out wide quite a bit but they also lined up in a jumbo set quite a bit as well with him on the end of the line.  I'm not saying he was a blocker on every single running play, but I also don't think it's accurate to say he didn't block that much.  IMO it was probably more of a 50/50 type deal.  

 

When they lined him up tight,  he just didn't block much....   he'd still go out to catch passes....

 

Stanford has lots of tight ends....  and other TE's were blocking....    Did Fleener block some?     Sure.   

 

But 50/50?     Not even close......     sorry.....

[Tark The Shark]

I think if both TEs are used properly, they are the best duo in the NFL.

 

Allen made some plays last year for the team and showed he was the best rookie TE in the NFL.

 

Fleener just caught the injury bug and didn't really fit into Arian's TE mold like Allen did.

 

With Pep knowing how to utilize Fleener, i expect a bigger production from him and a similar production from Allen.

[Andy]

Allen is already becoming one of the more well rounded tight ends in the league. If Fleener can put up Brent Celek type receiving numbers, they can definitely be one of the best. I'd say they're already in the top 10 and slowly creeping into the top 5.

 

Spending those 2 picks on tight ends seemed a bit odd at the time, but it's paying off now. 

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Jason_]

When they lined him up tight,  he just didn't block much....   he'd still go out to catch passes....

 

Stanford has lots of tight ends....  and other TE's were blocking....    Did Fleener block some?     Sure.   

 

But 50/50?     Not even close......     sorry.....

 

I realize they had lots of TE's...Fleener, Ertz, Toilolo...and I also realize that, of the 3, Fleener was the most dynamic and was used up the seams a lot.  But not even close?  I don't buy it....sorry...

[NewColtsFan]

I realize they had lots of TE's...Fleener, Ertz, Toilolo...and I also realize that, of the 3, Fleener was the most dynamic and was used up the seams a lot.  But not even close?  I don't buy it....sorry...

 

What can I tell you.....    you were the one who offered the 50/50 stat,  not me....

 

I'm just speaking as a Stanford fan who saw every game guys like Luck and Fleener and Whalen and others played.

 

I know how Stanford used Fleener....    he just wasn't asked to block that much.     I'm not saying he didn't block at all....   but it wasn't 50 percent of the time that he was lined up just off the tackle.  

 

I'm not trying to give you a hard time here....   I'm only trying to convey how Stanford used him....

[Jason_]

What can I tell you.....    you were the one who offered the 50/50 stat,  not me....

 

I'm just speaking as a Stanford fan who saw every game guys like Luck and Fleener and Whalen and others played.

 

I know how Stanford used Fleener....    he just wasn't asked to block that much.     I'm not saying he didn't block at all....   but it wasn't 50 percent of the time that he was lined up just off the tackle.  

 

I'm not trying to give you a hard time here....   I'm only trying to convey how Stanford used him....

 

I merely offered the 50/50 as a counter, and imo much closer to accurate, estimate to "not very much".  I also never said that he was lined up inline off-tackle 50% of the time so not sure where you got that from.  All of this most likely comes down to semantics...what does one consider to be "not that much".  Based on my interpretation of what it means I think it is inaccurate to say that Fleener blocked "not that much".  Unfortunately I doubt a website tracks something like this...how often does a receiver/TE stay in to block and how often did they go out on a route so without going back to watch every game and keep track manually we'll never know for sure.  

 

And I'm not speaking as a Stanford fan but rather a Colts fan who watched every available Stanford (as well as USC, Baylor, Arizona, Oklahoma, FSU and several other teams) game in 2011 because it became clear very early that the Colts might wind up with the #1 pick for the following draft.

 

I'm also not trying to give anyone a hard time, but merely trying to correct what I believe to be an inaccurate statement which was that Fleener wasn't used to blocking very much at Stanford.  I also believe that the commonly regarded sentiment that Fleener is a poor blocker is also incorrect.  I don't think he's the blocker that Allen is but I think he's better than generally credited for.  

[NewColtsFan]

I merely offered the 50/50 as a counter, and imo much closer to accurate, estimate to "not very much".  I also never said that he was lined up inline off-tackle 50% of the time so not sure where you got that from.  All of this most likely comes down to semantics...what does one consider to be "not that much".  Based on my interpretation of what it means I think it is inaccurate to say that Fleener blocked "not that much".  Unfortunately I doubt a website tracks something like this...how often does a receiver/TE stay in to block and how often did they go out on a route so without going back to watch every game and keep track manually we'll never know for sure.  

 

And I'm not speaking as a Stanford fan but rather a Colts fan who watched every available Stanford (as well as USC, Baylor, Arizona, Oklahoma, FSU and several other teams) game in 2011 because it became clear very early that the Colts might wind up with the #1 pick for the following draft.

 

I'm also not trying to give anyone a hard time, but merely trying to correct what I believe to be an inaccurate statement which was that Fleener wasn't used to blocking very much at Stanford.  I also believe that the commonly regarded sentiment that Fleener is a poor blocker is also incorrect.  I don't think he's the blocker that Allen is but I think he's better than generally credited for.  

 

Yes....    I'd agree that Fleener's blocking is better than advertised when it's viewed as "poor"....    but it's not a strength of his game...   I've described him here as "willing" and "competent"....   but no NFL team would want Fleener as a primary TE that plays the vast majority of his snaps lined up right off of a tackle.

 

As to the 50% comment....  I'm either writing it poorly,  or you're misreading my writing...

 

I'm not writing that Fleener was lined up just off tackle 50% of the time...

 

I'm saying that whenever he was lined up off tackle (10?  25?   40%)   whatever that number is,  of those snaps,  he did not block 50% of the time...     That would be my view of things...

 

Agreed there is no website that would have that stat....   I never saw any type of stat on any Stanford website....   my view is based on my "eyeball" experience as a Stanford fan...   and one that spends much more time on my Stanford fans website than I do here on my Colts fans website...

 

I don't think many (any?) Stanford fan would think that Fleener blocked as much as you think he did...

 

Either way....   I think we've narrows this gap some....

[Jason_]

part of the confusion could still be due to the "not too much".  Instead of saying "not too much", if you had to estimate, what number would you put on it?  Taking into consideration every running play that Stanford ran with fleener on the field, what percentage of the time would you say he blocked instead of going out on a route as a decoy?  And I'm assuming that block and decoy are the only 2 options or did I miss something.  I know they were a bit out of the box on occasion, eg the plays where Luck flanked out wide as a WR.  They were....creative at times. lol

 

[NewColtsFan]

part of the confusion could still be due to the "not too much".  Instead of saying "not too much", if you had to estimate, what number would you put on it?  Taking into consideration every running play that Stanford ran with fleener on the field, what percentage of the time would you say he blocked instead of going out on a route as a decoy?  And I'm assuming that block and decoy are the only 2 options or did I miss something.  I know they were a bit out of the box on occasion, eg the plays where Luck flanked out wide as a WR.  They were....creative at times. lol

 

 

I don't think 'block' and 'decoy' are the only two options....   

 

The other option is....    he was a potential target....   he'd run a pattern,  Luck would look for him,  he'd be covered, and Luck would find another receiver....

 

Now,  that maybe semantics....   that maybe how you were using 'decoy' to lump that possibility in....   but that's not how I see it, so I wanted to clarify....

 

I'd say....   of the snaps where Fleener lined up as a true TE right off a tackle,  I'd say he stayed in and blocked roughly 25-33% of that time....    that would be my speculation...   ball park rough figure....

 

Now.....   to be clear,  whenever Stanford ran the ball....   no matter where Fleener was lined up...   he blocked....    but it's one thing to be split wide and asked to block a cornerback or safety that you tower over...   and it's another thing to be an inline blocker and take on a DE or an OLB....   where the size match-up is roughly the same...

 

Hope that clarifies.....

[coltsfanatic24]

I wouldn't say the best because the Bengals have Gresham and Eifert but i think were 2nd. We have more offensive weapons with Wayne,TY,DHB they only have Green which means their TE's will have more chances to make plays.

[BOTT]

I wouldn't say the best because the Bengals have Gresham and Eifert but i think were 2nd. We have more offensive weapons with Wayne,TY,DHB they only have Green which means their TE's will have more chances to make plays.

I'll take Allen and Fleener over Gresham and the Golden Turd

[BrentMc11]

I merely offered the 50/50 as a counter, and imo much closer to accurate, estimate to "not very much".  I also never said that he was lined up inline off-tackle 50% of the time so not sure where you got that from.  All of this most likely comes down to semantics...what does one consider to be "not that much".  Based on my interpretation of what it means I think it is inaccurate to say that Fleener blocked "not that much".  Unfortunately I doubt a website tracks something like this...how often does a receiver/TE stay in to block and how often did they go out on a route so without going back to watch every game and keep track manually we'll never know for sure.  

 

And I'm not speaking as a Stanford fan but rather a Colts fan who watched every available Stanford (as well as USC, Baylor, Arizona, Oklahoma, FSU and several other teams) game in 2011 because it became clear very early that the Colts might wind up with the #1 pick for the following draft.

 

I'm also not trying to give anyone a hard time, but merely trying to correct what I believe to be an inaccurate statement which was that Fleener wasn't used to blocking very much at Stanford.  I also believe that the commonly regarded sentiment that Fleener is a poor blocker is also incorrect.  I don't think he's the blocker that Allen is but I think he's better than generally credited for.  

I wanted to quote you and NCF here, but my post was going to be short and sweet.

 

From the first day of camp to the end of the season, Fleener was the most improved blocker on the entire team.  He whiffed a LOT in early camp, but his technique improved immeasurably.

 

I do think we we see Fleener 'off tackle' in Pep's offense....bring on the mismatches in open field!!  

[FicmanS]

If this duo can stay healthy I think this pair will be rated right up there with the best that ever took the field