Who was our biggest loss this offseason?

[Mac_MaloneV1]

You said it was dumb to invest in a TE at all. Coaches did not decide that.

Nor have coaches decided that all WR's are more valuable than all TE's. Granted the elite receivers are higher on the food chain that all but a few TE's, but that isn't across the board.

You also suggested TE's have very little value because they don't make "big vertical plays", while ignoring that they play a different role than WR's, and while also ignoring there have been a lot of very valuable WR's that don't make a lot of "big vertical plays". You don't seem to realize that the positions are all pieces that fit into the plan differently.

Coaches and GMs decided that when they stopped paying tight ends. Travis Kelce is probably the best to ever do it and makes Courtland Sutton money lol. Teams value WRs more than TEs, it is unequivocal.

I never said all WRs are more valuable than all TEs.

I understand that the role is different. The role TEs play just is not as valuable lol. You're basically making the argument that teams look at every position as equally valuable, which is totally false.

 

[blueblood70]

I’d be fine with the drops if he just had the game intelligence to step out of bounds (and do it moving forward).

2 mental mistakes on that last drive. Yet blame dak, blame dak for Gallups bad route ie gets pushed off the route ball gets picked as the DB finished the route properly... this is how fans perceive things..OL was shaky., no run game , mistakes by other offensive players but nope its dak. same with the year before no run game OL has 11 penalties, nope blame dak.

 

[OmerV]

Coaches and GMs decided that when they stopped paying tight ends. Travis Kelce is probably the best to ever do it and makes Courtland Sutton money lol. Teams value WRs more than TEs, it is unequivocal.

I never said all WRs are more valuable than all TEs.

I understand that the role is different. The role TEs play just is not as valuable lol. You're basically making the argument that teams look at every position as equally valuable, which is totally false.

Sign Kelce today and it won't be that price.

And they never "stopped" paying TEs', TE's were never paid what better WRs are.

And no, I'm not taking the position you attribute to me. I never asserted all get paid the same, or that they should. My exception is your claim TE's are not worth investing in.

You didn't say they aren't worth investing WR money in, you just said not worth investing in, period. Regardless, what Kelce is making now hardly constitutes not investing in a TE.

 

[Mac_MaloneV1]

Sign Kelce today and it won't be that price.

And they never "stopped" paying TEs', TE's were never paid what better WRs are.

And no, I'm not taking the position you attribute to me. I never asserted all get paid the same, or that they should. My exception is your claim TE's are not worth investing in.

You didn't say they aren't worth investing WR money in, you just said not worth investing in, period. Regardless, what Kelce is making now hardly constitutes not investing in a TE.

Whatever. The semantics are so pointless.

Schultz is the same player as like 90% of TEs in the league, and they are the least important offensive position, so you shouldn't invest in them. If you luck into one of Kelce or Kittle - extreme outliers - go ahead and pay them.

 

[OmerV]

Whatever. The semantics are so pointless.

Schultz is the same player as like 90% of TEs in the league, and they are the least important offensive position, so you shouldn't invest in them. If you luck into one of Kelce or Kittle - extreme outliers - go ahead and pay them.

You don't think there is a difference between saying a TE isn't worth investing in at all, and a TE isn't worth investing top receiver dollars in?

And the funny thing is, even if you had said that, by your own admission, investing in a TE doesn't require those kinds of dollars.


Additionally, you said they aren't worth investing in because they drop passes, as if other receivers don't drop passes.


Additionally, you say you know they play a different role than a WR, yet all your arguments about their contributions are essentially that they don't function as a WR does.

 

[Mac_MaloneV1]

You don't think there is a difference between saying a TE isn't worth investing in at all, and a TE isn't worth investing top receiver dollars in?

And the funny thing is, even if you had said that, by your own admission, investing in a TE doesn't require those kinds of dollars.


Additionally, you said they aren't worth investing in because they drop passes, as if other receivers don't drop passes.


Additionally, you say you know they play a different role than a WR, yet all your arguments about their contributions are essentially that they don't function as a WR does.

I'm saying that hyperbole is legal and your semantic argument is pointless.

I don't even know what your point is.

You want to pay Dalton Schultz $10m? Go ahead

 

[OmerV]

I'm saying that hyperbole is legal and your semantic argument is pointless.

I don't even know what your point is.

You want to pay Dalton Schultz $10m? Go ahead

So, you're saying you created an argument based on exaggeration ...

As for signing Schultz, I never said a thing about whether they should have signed him. Is that comment just another argument based on exaggeration?

But if you want to know my thoughts on that topic, I would have been fine signing Schultz for $10MM, but I'm also fine that they didn't sign Schultz. He's a good player, but teams have to make hard decisions on how to allocate cap space, and you can't keep everyone.

 

[Mac_MaloneV1]

So, you're saying you created an argument based on exaggeration ...

That's backwards.

The argument is that TEs aren't valuable and they're not the same. You took it literally when I said don't invest anything in them.

But mostly you just don't like the modern game, in which TEs of Schultz' skillset are not differentiated or important to success.

 

[OmerV]

That's backwards.

The argument is that TEs aren't valuable and they're not the same. You took it literally when I said don't invest anything in them.

But mostly you just don't like the modern game, in which TEs of Schultz' skillset are not differentiated or important to success.

You think saying they aren't valuable is any better than a saying TE's aren't worth investing in? Am I not supposed to take that literally?

A player doesn't have to have a $20MM/year contract to be valuable or worth investing in.

$10-15MM/year is value, and an investment, and teams do that all the time. Even in the "modern game".

BTW, the notion that there is only one formula for success is narrow minded.