BTB: TE Schultz is starting to show his potential

[Future]

Let's pull out the Crystal balls.

If I had to make a comparison, I'd say he could be our Lance Kendricks.

Ok, that's a fair comp.

He doesn't need to develop to be Lance Kendricks, he's already there lol.

 

[Denim Chicken]

Ok, that's a fair comp.

He doesn't need to develop to be Lance Kendricks, he's already there lol.

Kendricks has played 8 seasons. If he has that kind of career it will have been a good pick.

 

[Mobinvans]

Hes a rookie 4th rounder that has only been targeted 15 times. What do you expect? I swear some of you know nothing about football.

For referce, Hayden Hurst (another rookie TE) picked in the first round, 25th overall, has 10 catches for 102 yards and 1 TD.

Sorry, since you know so much about football where would you rank his performance this year compared to the other 100 tight ends

 

[Future]

Kendricks has played 8 seasons. If he has that kind of career it will have been a good pick.

I agree. I like Schultz lol

I do think Schultz can be more productive than Kendricks though, depending on the offense he's in.

 

[Denim Chicken]

Sorry, since you know so much about football where would you rank his performance this year compared to the other 100 tight ends

I'm not comparing him to 100 tight end because he's a rookie.

But honesty, what are you expecting from 15 targets?

 

[TwoDeep3]

As this season progresses, and the offense is not scoring points enough to truly be competitive in the play-offs, the disappointment of the fans on this board has turned most of the posters here into a surly crowd who belittle everything about this team, including the few bright spots. I must say this is a first for me. I recall years of 5-11's and 8-8's and the foundation of this board still held out a modicum of hope things were going in the right direction.

Each year the doubters and positive-nistas would argue throughout training camp to the point the management of this site had to ban words that offended and run roughshod over the arguments here.

But now the entire temperament is vilification of any and everything. I even see posts wondering what the team can get if they were to trade Martin and Zeke.

Can this board's comportement des raisins aigres be any more rotten?

It appears Dak's skill set has infected every player in the eyes of most of the fans of this board which ends up in acrimonious vilification of everything.

So the question that arises in my mind is this.

Is this a product of 20 years of mediocrity, or has the fan base demographic's median age group been diluted as younger fans come on board, and their impatience with the team is starting to look like all social media sites where the game of verbal assault takes place, with every player trying to out do the next by finding the most rancid bit of rancor possible and posting it?

Whatever the answer is, I can tell you from my point of view, it's not really fun around here lately. Not the management's fault.

But from this angle, there are a whole bunch of people who need to pull their panties out of their cracks.

 

[OmerV]

What do you think he can be. Who do you look at as his ceiling? More than that, using your own scale, who are the players that are Average - Solid - Good - Very Good, and what is the difference that each of them makes on a game-to-game basis? And then, what is the difference they are making that Schultz isn't over the last 2 weeks, and how will Schultz impact games in ways that they don't?

lol - you are persistent in your efforts to cover your failures in logic and simple reading comprehension. I won't go so far as to call it a virtue though.

 

[Typhus]

I actually think that good TE's are available most years.

Really,, give me some names then.
Are you talking in the draft or FA, both are extremely limited.

 

[Clove]

Just gotta give it some time. He may or may not show, but so far, I'm mildly impressed.

 

[QuincyCarterEra]

Just gotta give it some time. He may or may not show, but so far, I'm mildly impressed.

Me too. I've been pretty good lately with my least fave Cowboys draft picks of late, but 2018 looks like will feed me a ton of crow.

2015: Russell and Gibson(Chaz would have been a much better pick than either)
2016: Collins and Frazier(Frazier has turned out to be a bigger contributor than I expected)
2017: Taco and Switzer dead on
2018: LVE and Schultz looks really dumb at the moment haha

 

[bark]

Just gotta give it some time. He may or may not show, but so far, I'm mildly impressed.

I agree. Not sure why we have to judge these guys so quickly.
Actually think he’s going to be the one out of this group that we wind up starting.
Not sure about swaim’s rookie deal but it’s probably about up.
For what we are asking our tight ends to do, he could fit the bill. For whatever reason, we rarely run our tight ends down the seam where the more athletic ones do most of their work.

 

[TexasHillbilly]

What potential?

Schultz is hitting his ceiling, not showing potential. The guy just isn't a good enough athlete to be anything special.

I know I will maybe regret this but I think Shultz will be good. It just takes time. Next year will tell the story. Swaim can't stay healthy to save his life. Every year he has a season ending injury.

Mr. Shultz will be the man someday. Just give him time. Gathers is done. Jarwin has also stepped up his game.

 

[Future]

lol - you are persistent in your efforts to cover your failures in logic and simple reading comprehension. I won't go so far as to call it a virtue though.

You can't define your own points about good, solid and average, so you probably shouldn't be so condescending.

 

[OmerV]

You can't define your own points about good, solid and average, so you probably shouldn't be so condescending.

lol - again, that question has nothing to do with what either myself of LovinitAll said. You are still trying to promote a completely fabricated argument that in no way even applies to what either of us said. It's laughable, and even comical, that you continue to pretend it does. Hell, I guess it's all you have to cling to, but clinging to an argument that doesn't apply to what you are arguing against doesn't make you look better.

And the funny thing is this question, or any answer I can give to it, doesn't even support your own made up, irrelevant point. Exactly where I, or anyone else would choose to draw the line between good and solid and average and very good and great and whatever distinction you want, the fact remains that the term "potential" doesn't apply to any one category, nor does it change the fact that when LovinitAll talked about "potential" he didn't apply it to a specific category. You are the one that ridiculously treated his use of the word potential as meaning "special" and "gamebreaker", which is a hugely illogical conclusion. At most he indicated Schultz was getting a chance to show something positive as opposed to earlier in the season he wasn't getting chances at all.

 

[Future]

lol - again, that question has nothing to do with what either myself of LovinitAll said. You are still trying to promote a completely fabricated argument that in no way even applies to what either of us said. It's laughable, and even comical, that you continue to pretend it does. Hell, I guess it's all you have to cling to, but clinging to an argument that doesn't apply to what you are arguing against doesn't make you look better.

And the funny thing is this question, or any answer I can give to it, doesn't even support your own made up, irrelevant point. Exactly where I, or anyone else would choose to draw the line between good and solid and average and very good and great and whatever distinction you want, the fact remains that the term "potential" doesn't apply to any one category, nor does it change the fact that when LovinitAll talked about "potential" he didn't apply it to a specific category. You are the one that ridiculously treated his use of the word potential as meaning "special" and "gamebreaker", which is a hugely illogical conclusion. At most he indicated Schultz was getting a chance to show something positive as opposed to earlier in the season he wasn't getting chances at all.

Blah blah blah blah blah.

You're the one who said there's a difference between good, solid, average, very good, and great. I'm the one who only has two groups. That's why you need to define those groups.

I did not, however, say that potential is limited to "gamebreaker." I said his potential is what he is now. He's a fine TE, his potential is not "gamebreaker." You added a bunch of silly little qualifiers to that, and then absolutely refused to define them.

 

[LovinItAll]

Blah blah blah blah blah.

You're the one who said there's a difference between good, solid, average, very good, and great. I'm the one who only has two groups. That's why you need to define those groups.

I did not, however, say that potential is limited to "gamebreaker." I said his potential is what he is now. He's a fine TE, his potential is not "gamebreaker." You added a bunch of silly little qualifiers to that, and then absolutely refused to define them.

I'm not sure what your life experience has been, but it's certainly different than mine. You said:

'...his potential is what he is now.'

That is almost certainly wrong. Even someone with an average skill set can improve, sometimes dramatically, with a strong work ethic and intelligence.

Again, this discussion has no legs today, as only time will determine whether this player has maximized his potential.

 

[OmerV]

Blah blah blah blah blah.

You're the one who said there's a difference between good, solid, average, very good, and great. I'm the one who only has two groups. That's why you need to define those groups.

I did not, however, say that potential is limited to "gamebreaker." I said his potential is what he is now. He's a fine TE, his potential is not "gamebreaker." You added a bunch of silly little qualifiers to that, and then absolutely refused to define them.

I guess the fact you read "blah, blah, blah" explains your inability to understand the words LovinitAll wrote, and why you don't understand what "potential" means.

And yes, I did say there is a difference between those things, but again, you are suffering from a huge failure in logic. The point wasn't that there is an exact, definable line between those things, it was simply that wherever the line is, or however anyone defines each of those things, "potential" can apply to any of them. For example, a person can speak of a person as having the "potential" to be a good player, but not a standout, or having the "potential" to be a superstar, or anything in between. A person can even talk about a person having the "potential" to be a bust in the NFL, but obviously that wasn't what LovinitAll was saying.
I'm just wondering why I even have to explain such simple and common sense concepts to you to begin with. Either you are acting obtuse to cover your failures in logic, or you actually are obtuse. No reasonable person would suggest that the word "potential" can't apply to a wide range of possibilities.

Your comment about "gamebreaker" is another failure in logic. The point isn't that you said potential is limited to "gamebreaker", it's that you argued as if LovinitAll's use of the word "potential" was limited to "special" and "gamebreaker". Your entire argument was based on assuming that's what he meant by "potential", which, again, is an illogical assumption.

 

[Future]

Your comment about "gamebreaker" is another failure in logic. The point isn't that you said potential is limited to "gamebreaker", it's that you argued as if LovinitAll's use of the word "potential" was limited to "special" and "gamebreaker". Your entire argument was based on assuming that's what he meant by "potential", which, again, is an illogical assumption.

No it's not. That's what you have made up.

What I said was that, even if he does develop, he doesn't have the potential to be a gamebreaker, so the impact he's going to have on games is what it is. He might get a few more catches, be a slightly better blocker, but he is not going to turn into a gamebreaker, so he's not going to be any different than the other 30 TEs in the league just like him. Because he's already pretty solid, he doesn't have any new level to reach in terms of how he impacts games.

You keep throwing around "failure in logic," but you are not understanding the fact that these degrees of potential that you keep blathering on about don't matter. You, yourself can't even qualify them. All I'm doing is saying that, if Schultz develops from Average to Good, it doesn't matter, because Average and Good TEs in the NFL are the exact same thing in their weekly impact.

 

[Future]

I'm not sure what your life experience has been, but it's certainly different than mine. You said:

'...his potential is what he is now.'

That is almost certainly wrong. Even someone with an average skill set can improve, sometimes dramatically, with a strong work ethic and intelligence.

Again, this discussion has no legs today, as only time will determine whether this player has maximized his potential.

Yes, he can improve. But that improvement is pretty much meaningless, because he is not enough of an athlete to change the way he impacts games.

He's going to block and catch balls when he is either a checkdown, finds a hole in a zone, or gets matched up on a poor coverage S/LB. That is as true today as it will be 5 years from now, so what potential are we talking about? He's not turning into Gronk, Kelce, Howard, Engram, or whoever, and there's no difference between Austin Hooper and the next 20 best TEs. So what potential are we talkinga bout?

 

[Doomsday101]

Not going to try and make Schultz into more than he currently is, I will say he has 11 catches on 15 times he has had the ball come his way. I hope to continue to see him work and develop a trust with Dak.


December 19, 2018
Schultz has drawn seven targets over the Cowboys' last two games, catching six of them for 60 yards.

https://www.rotowire.com/football/player.php?id=12514