A Great Argument for drafting TE Pitts at #3 overall | Page 9 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

A Great Argument for drafting TE Pitts at #3 overall

Who is your choice @ #6 if not Pitts?

  • Total voters
    207
Geordie said:
And this is why you don't get cute, seeking a trade down, you take the best player on the board at 3 and the best player is Pitts.
Click to expand...
And remember, both Gesicki and Pitts can line up not only tight but also wide with the WR's in the slots, or in stacks with WR's, or in Trips sets. We can also motion them and shift them and create on the fly mismatches and changes in coverage.... or we could line them up in 2 TE wing sets.
It's crazy how much Pitts could add to our offense.
If I'm right and WR D. Smith or RB N. Harris fall to 18 overall, now picture that monster. How about Pitts and Gesicki in wide slots with WR's Fuller and D. Smith out wide? Crazy dangerous.
Or how about Gesicki and Pitts in the game with N. Harris in the backfield. The play action and RPO would be REAL!

As an offensive minded coach I get really excited thinking about how we could implement Pitts in ways that no normal TE or WR (even really good ones) could be used. I think he'd force teams to play us in "Small" packages with less DL or LB's and more DB's, making our Rushing attack really really good. Not to mention nobody can cover the guy!
 
Last edited:
TheRevoltingBlob said:
UF was stacked at WR, and he has a TE build. He could play WR if u really wanted him to. All I know is he was putting up over 100 ypg in the SEC at 20 yrs old. How many TE's can do that?

People are bringing up that Vernon Davis was a freak too.

Pitts averaged 103 ypg and had 12 TD's in 7.5 games (sat out the 2nd half of the Georgia game).

Davis averaged 79 yards and had 6 TD's in 11 games for Maryland playing in the ACC.

You can label Pitts whatever u want. I just call him a weapon. He was a the first "TE" to ever be a finalist for the Biletnikoff despite missing so many games.

The fact that you can get that level of production from your TE should be a positive, not a negative.
Click to expand...
I've got news for you. You aren't getting that production from a TE in the NFL and you can look at any TE in the history of the league, but you could get that production from countless WRs.

I'm not saying Pitts won't be a beast. Maybe he will be. What I'm saying is that there's a WR sitting there in Chase who destroyed Pitts's production in the same conference and plays a more valuable position so why in the world would I ever want to take a TE at 3?
 
rickd13 said:
So who, exactly, is worth the #3 pick in this draft? If Miami doesn't take a QB at that spot, you can make the case that no one else in this draft is worthy of the #3pick. He is as worthy as anyone else you cant take there besides a QB.
Click to expand...
You are correct in that nobody there at #3 will really be worth it at that spot, but I have no idea how you'd make a legitimate case that he's on the same tier as the top 2 WRs.

Let's say in both best case scenarios and their comp players, Pitts turns out to be Waller (and you could even just say Tony Gonzalez which is a stretch), Smith turns out to be Marvin Harrison, and Chase turns out to be a faster Anquan Boldin. Are we still sitting there thinking that they're both equivalent value?

I wouldn't.
 
PSU Cane said:
Where do i sign up for getting both Pitts and Smith in the 1st?
Click to expand...
It could happen. I think either Waddle or Smith will be at 18... There's a rush on QB's and OL in this scenario. The only "for sure" receiver top 10 picks IMO are Pitts and Chase. I think Miami takes one and the Eagles take the other.
 
Last edited:
Kamelion4291 said:
I've got news for you. You aren't getting that production from a TE in the NFL and you can look at any TE in the history of the league, but you could get that production from countless WRs.

I'm not saying Pitts won't be a beast. Maybe he will be. What I'm saying is that there's a WR sitting there in Chase who destroyed Pitts's production in the same conference and plays a more valuable position so why in the world would I ever want to take a TE at 3?
Click to expand...
I think the consensus answer is two-fold. One, he's not a traditional TE. He's a TE in name only. You can play him wide like a WR. Two, because he can play all over the formation, it creates a headache for defenses on how to defend him. If you play him out wide, are you comfortable with your CB #1 at 6 feet tall running downfield with him? Or, if he comes into the middle of the field, are you comfortable with your MLB or Safety picking him up? Whereas with Chase, he had difficulty separating from good corners in college. There's all kind of tape to support that. Yes, he wins the battles for the ball but will he do that in the NFL? He doesn't pose the same match-up problem as Pitts.

Now imagine Pitts drawing the opponent's top corner in coverage what that does for the rest of your receivers...you want CB#2 on Parker or Fuller? Be my guest.
 
I'd have no problem taking Pitts or Smith at #3. I see them as the highest impact picks we could make there. But what I think it will come down to, decision-wise, is that we can either take Pitts at 3 or trade down to 8 and take one of the Alabama WRs.
 
No, Pitts is more like Kelce. He is a weapon, lets not get hung up on the fact he lines up as a TE on some of the snaps. You can get a great WR on day 2, there is nobody else like Pitts in the draft. The NFL is changing and Pitts isnt really a traditional TE. Tua having Pitts as an outlet makes him better and gets the chains moving. 6'6" with relative speed? All day baby, all day!

Blows me away that people think Devonta Smith is a better pick at 3 than Pitts. Does anyone remember Pat White? One hit from an NFL safety or LB and that boy is going to crack. Does anyone remember Hernandez and Gronk? With Gesicki and Pitts, Tua has options while Fuller takes the top off the defense.
 
Church95 said:
He looked like he was on the precipice of falling down while exerting. Pass, we have bigger holes to fill
Click to expand...

I've spent a career coaching (32 years) and a big part of that was preparing my guys for college and helping them improve speed and strength so they could be better players and also to show off for scouts. I kind of chuckled at your comment because if that guy is looking like he's falling down and still running a 4.46 I think that's pretty amazing! Get him some work on his form and I wonder how much faster he is? My point is that if he's that athletic with poor running form and can hit that time, and he's been UBER productive on the field, I can only imagine what he'll be after he refines his raw skills.

As for holes we need to fill, we need Offensive playmakers! I don't care where they line up as long as they can dominate a game (not just compete).
 
Rev Kev said:
Same was said of Mike Guhsickee just saying -

At some point someone needs to block and not “tell” the D we are passing - when our light in the shorts TE lines up it would be nice to confuse the D every now and again
Click to expand...
Rev I've read you enough on these boards to know you understand player packages. While I understand your desire for better run blocking TE's keep in mind that having guys like Pitts and Gesiccki in the game at the same time will force defenses out of their "Big" defensive sets. They will have to go to small packages with more DB's otherwise Tua will carve them up with players like Parker, Fuller, Williams, Pitts, and Gesicki on the field. Not many defenses are going to be able to defend the pass with their big personnel with our mix of playmakers.
So we make the running game much easier to block and for us to "see" which personnel package defenses are using and to audible to their weakness or RPO them to death.

I guess my point is there are more than one way to block defenses and if we force them into small packages I suspect our OL and TE's will have their way with most defenses even with Gesicki and Pitts in the game as they will easy handle blocking multiple DB personnel with less LB's or DL in the game.
 
Last edited:
Danny said:
Grant and special should not be in the same sentence....just saying
Click to expand...
I think Grant and special are okay in the same sentence.

Grant has special needs which includes a pair of reliable 🙌.
 
I am still not clear...

Is Pitts a Tight Wide End, Wide Tight End, Tight Wide Receiver, Wide Tight Receiver End, Tight Wide End Receiver, or something else?
 
I’m starting to think if we really want Pitts, we have to take him at 3.

don’t think there is any way he makes it passed both Cincy and Philly.

detroit I could Also see taking a WR

So the question is do you want Pitts at 3 or Waddle at 8
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom