The Kyle "Is not the" Pitts Thread

[jenkins.math]

You can improve your blocking skills. That can be taught.

Having trouble thinking of any recently-lauded TEs who came in with questionable or worse blocking skills and became good blockers in the NFL. It's definitely not a long list if there are examples.

I would argue that blocking is actually very difficult to teach. It's not just the action of blocking someone at the LOS and learning different techniques; you're basically functioning as another offensive lineman with assignments, blitz pickup, and different things like that. Also, it's the mentality of a player accepting that he's not always going to be catching passes and there will be some games where he's used more for his blocking.

You can't really disregard it. Someone mentioned Jimmy Graham, and he would've been a much more valuable player if he wasn't a piss poor blocker throughout his career. If we're being honest, Graham has been a mediocre to average at best TE since leaving New Orleans and not all of that is because of the patellar tendon injury.

Jimmy Graham left a pass first situation in NOLA where he was seeing 120+ targets to a run first situation in Seattle where he never saw more than 95 targets. He was a TE1 up until his age 31 season, which is also the age we tend to see WRs start to fall off the cliff. His injury happened during his age 29 season, which again, we would fade any pass catcher at that point anyway that suffered a similar injury.

Using Jimmy Graham to somehow downgrade Pitts makes zero sense.

[Avery]

You can improve your blocking skills. That can be taught.

Having trouble thinking of any recently-lauded TEs who came in with questionable or worse blocking skills and became good blockers in the NFL. It's definitely not a long list if there are examples.

I would argue that blocking is actually very difficult to teach. It's not just the action of blocking someone at the LOS and learning different techniques; you're basically functioning as another offensive lineman with assignments, blitz pickup, and different things like that. Also, it's the mentality of a player accepting that he's not always going to be catching passes and there will be some games where he's used more for his blocking.

You can't really disregard it. Someone mentioned Jimmy Graham, and he would've been a much more valuable player if he wasn't a piss poor blocker throughout his career. If we're being honest, Graham has been a mediocre to average at best TE since leaving New Orleans and not all of that is because of the patellar tendon injury.

Hopefully, I'm not violating any terms of use (and I'll link here to promote the source) but Matt Waldman said of Pitts blocking:

Currently, NFL-sized box defenders can overwhelm Pitts with their baseline side and strength. However, Pitts has promising techniques with his hands and feet as a blocker at the line of scrimmage and room to add muscle to his core. Give him a year or two to add athletic weight and get comfortable with those physical changes, and Pitts can be a productive starter whose blocking isn’t lip-service.

Sounds like blocking is not his strength (no pun intended) but also not lost with technique either as some have suggested.

[Cameron Giles]

Jimmy Graham left a pass first situation in NOLA where he was seeing 120+ targets to a run first situation in Seattle where he never saw more than 95 targets. He was a TE1 up until his age 31 season, which is also the age we tend to see WRs start to fall off the cliff. His injury happened during his age 29 season, which again, we would fade any pass catcher at that point anyway that suffered a similar injury.

Using Jimmy Graham to somehow downgrade Pitts makes zero sense.

I didn't bring up Graham. Someone else did. I'm just saying that the idea that it doesn't matter if his blocking ends up being bad is false. It makes him a much more valuable real-life player and keeps him on the field every down.

[jenkins.math]

Jimmy Graham left a pass first situation in NOLA where he was seeing 120+ targets to a run first situation in Seattle where he never saw more than 95 targets. He was a TE1 up until his age 31 season, which is also the age we tend to see WRs start to fall off the cliff. His injury happened during his age 29 season, which again, we would fade any pass catcher at that point anyway that suffered a similar injury.

Using Jimmy Graham to somehow downgrade Pitts makes zero sense.

I didn't bring up Graham. Someone else did. I'm just saying that the idea that it doesn't matter if his blocking ends up being bad is false. It makes him a much more valuable real-life player and keeps him on the field every down.

Being a much more valuable real life player and being a much more valuable fantasy player aren't always mutually exclusive though. Pitts just needs to not be a sieve and his pros as a receiver will far outweigh his deficiencies as a blocker.

[Cameron Giles]

Being a much more valuable real life player and being a much more valuable fantasy player aren't always mutually exclusive though. Pitts just needs to not be a sieve and his pros as a receiver will far outweigh his deficiencies as a blocker.

I feel like we're agreeing, because I'm not saying that Pitts strengths don't outweight his weaknesses. I'm just saying that TEs who block well usually stay on the field more.

If Pitts becomes a formidable blocker, then he doesn't have to leave the field unless he wants a breather.

If Pitts is a negative blocker, he will likely leave the field more. That doesn't mean he'll have a 50% snap percentage or something though.

Blocking is one of the reasons why TE is arguably the slowest burn position in fantasy. If it was just about catching passes, then the learning curve wouldn't be tough.

[Doctorfootball]

I’m struggling on this question for SF/TE Premium. A high end TE in this format is an almost untradeable unicorn. Lawrence and Fields are widely expected to go 1/2 for rookie drafts, but I’m trying to decide where he belongs after that. (Specifically within the Najee/Etienne/Chase/Wilson/Lance cluster). It’s a really interesting risk vs upside debate.

[ArrylT]

Can't wait for the "told you so" comments after a year or two. As if any of us actually knew what we were talking about. This bleep is largely random.

[Shoreline Steamers]

Matt Waldman said of Pitts blocking:

Currently, NFL-sized box defenders can overwhelm Pitts with their baseline side and strength. However, Pitts has promising techniques with his hands and feet as a blocker at the line of scrimmage and room to add muscle to his core. Give him a year or two to add athletic weight and get comfortable with those physical changes, and Pitts can be a productive starter whose blocking isn’t lip-service.

Sounds like blocking is not his strength (no pun intended) but also not lost with technique either as some have suggested.

I think there was an alternate theory inserted into this discussion though. Paraphrasing, but if I recall correctly the general idea was that either Pitts would gain the weight and improve his blocking, becoming a more effective "Tight End". Or, he could drop a few pounds, staying pretty close to his current weight and figure more as an "H-Back".

Either way, he'll be moved around the formation to take advantage of mismatches. It's just not a given that additional weight is coming.

[ArrylT]

There's so much that goes into TE beyond catching passes. Hell, even Vernon Davis, who is considered an all-time TE prospect and went 6th overall, was mostly an underachiever. He only had a few good years.

My response is a general response but the Davis portion is a response to the above.

Davis only a few good years.

Finished top 12 all time for TEs in receiving yards, receptions, top 6 in targets & TDs ...

2009 - TE 2 overall season of 252.50 was equivalent to WR12. And that is typical ppr not te premium scoring
2010 - TE 2 overall season of 189.40 was equivalent to WR24.
2011 - TE 8 overall season of 181.50 was equivalent to WR30
2013 - TE 3 overall season of 215.00 was equivalent to WR20

Plus several other low end TE1 and high TE2 seasons.

I think a lot of people forget the hit/miss nature of rookie picks all together because acting like what Vernon Davis did was an underachievement If you drafted a Vernon Davis he gave you exactly what you were hoping for out of a rookie back in the day, a stud difference maker for a period of time. However I do not know what Davis' rookie draft range was. Just that he basically was, like a Gronk, or a Graham, a mismatch against most of your opponents in the TE category.

Davis had the unfortunate case of being in the transition period - ie before the Gronks & Kelces become the norm of the TE heights, but after the TE fantasy usage became more prevalent. Plus he had Alex Smith & Kaepernick as his QBs for his prime on teams that had 20-30 range in offensive production - didnt get a Mahomes or a Brady or even a Romo. Or an offensive minded guru like a Shanahan, Peyton or Reid. But in 09/10 he was their leading receiving threat regardless.

TE usage is starting to become more prevalent, so the gap between low end Te1 and mid TE2 is dropping (ie Schultz at TE8 isnt too far from TE 15/16. The difference between a top 3-4 TE and the rest of the pack however is 100-120 points, and that hasnt really changed since the early 2000s. So the floor for TEs is rising but the ceiling is still only attainable for a select few. Of which Pitts has that potential.

So basically Pitts floor is now safer, but his upside is still sky high.

In the end there are 2-3 fallacies that may be creating a false narrative so let me address them

1 - Elite TE production can come from anything at any time. It likely cannot. Waller, like Foster, like others, was an aberration not the norm. The large number of Tes with successful careers have draft pedigree at least Day 2.

Gonzalez
Witten
Ditka
Olsen
Graham
Gronkowsi
Newsome
Kelce
Davis
Winslow
Cook
Miller
Ertz
Andrews
Heap
Shockey

Even Kittle who fell to 5th round was deemed at the Combine to be a top 5 TE and had scout recommended 3/4 round draft pedigree - obviously they were correct and all the teams that decided to do what you are advocating (get TE cheap later) were wrong.

The only non drafted TEs were converted from another position drafted late or UDFA

Gates
Waller
Sharpe

And all 3 took at least a year to several years before they broke out. So no difference - you're still going to have to wait at least a couple of years (but with more uncertainty).

2 - TEs drafted in the 1st are underachiever. This is not true.

There is not enough statistical articles out there on TEs, at least that I have seen. However a review of all the 1st round TEs taken in the past 20 years has shown that about 90% of them had at least a TE1 season in their career*. Compare that to 1st Round WRs and RBs and their draft hit rates.

I think I mentioned this somewhere before. But Pitts worst case career arc based on draft pedigree & metrics & tape is Ebron. That is his WCS. His Mid-range comp is Engram and obviously his ceiling could be Kelce/Kittle/Gronk like top 3.

Compare that to WRs you target in the mid to late 1st in drafts each year ...

So basically they will be startable at some point as a wcs. That cannot be said about the Harrys, Treadwells, Guices, DGBs, and so forth.

3 - You'll be able to get Pitts cheaper later on.

That is assuming he fails or delays from the get-go. As seen with Kelce or Kittle, if Pitts has elite production or flashes enough - but if he doesnt - then it wont matter.

That as always is going to be league dependent. However with more TE premium leagues becoming popular, I think the values will bleed over and it will become increasingly harder for owners to buy low later on elite pedigreed TEs who do not break out Year 1-2.

However it wont really matter since if they do take 3-4 years rather than 1-2 then you know the odds of them breaking into that elite group diminish, so the cheaper price is countered by the lower ceiling.

You'll always have rogue owners, and sharks able to smell blood, but that is the case with any position - but the days of buying low on TE production may be coming to an end as the # of owners who value TE continues to rise.

https://www.statmuse.com/nfl/ask?q=most ... d+all-time

* - I'll post a list later on this weekend that verifies my work

[OhCruelestRanter]

The idea that being useless as a blocker is somehow a good thing because it means the TE will be deployed more as a pass catcher only works if the team has no other options at TE, or if you're clearly one of your team's 3 best pass catchers. Being on the field matters.

I don't think any of this applies to Pitts. He's too good of a receiver, and he's not like some completely inept blocker.

If a tight end isn’t already clearly one of their team’s three best pass catchers, then they aren’t going to be fantasy relevant anyways, regardless of whether they can or cannot block. Being on the field only matters if the TE is running routes and catching passes. If a TE is seeing additional playing time that he would not otherwise receive with lesser blocking skills, the marginal increase in snaps will lead only to more blocking.

If Jimmy Graham is already playing a reasonably maximum number of snaps, and his receiving to blocking ratio is 100:0, better blocking will lead to more blocking which will lead to less receiving. There is simply no alternative.

... you have to be a decent blocker to play the “reasonably maximum” [sic] number of snaps. Teams audible, teams want to give the appearance of being able to run the ball, teams go no huddle. This idea, that you would prefer players who are limited and won’t see the field as much, is abjectly terrible.

This is literally only a problem if they are more valuable to their team as a pass blocker than as a pass catcher.

[SoftwoodGrampian]

1.01

[ArrylT]

So I have re-compiled & completed my 1st Round TE pedigree list to a point.

I have determined that there were 30 TEs drafted in the 1st round from 1993 to 2019. I started with 1993 because it included Irv Smith and I thought that was a fitting start point. 27 years of data. Plus he was a bust, for purposes of having had a TE1 season* . Had I started a year later the hit rate would be even more impressive.

I do not have 100% accurate fantasy stats prior to 2002**.

From 2002 forward I will eventually have a full database of which years these TEs had TE1 seasons and how many TE1 weeks*** each 1st round TE had each year. But that will take more time to create.

However despite that I am pretty confident that of the 30 TEs

24 had a guaranteed TE1 season
2 maybe had a guaranteed TE1 season
4 did not have a TE1 season

That is 80 to 86% of all 1st Round TEs depending on whether you decide to include the 2 maybes. 24/30 or 26/30.

If I go simply from 2002 forward, this changes to 21 TEs

19 of which had a guaranteed TE1 season
1 Maybe
The 1 without is still active.

19/21 is a 90% hit rate.

So from 2002 forward, drafting a Rookie with a 1st round draft pedigree will have netted you an almost guaranteed minimum of 1 TE1 season of production (90-95%).

In the meantime here is the list of TEs with 1st round Pedigree

1993 - Irv Smith - No
1995 - Kyle Brady - Yes
1995 - Mark Bruener**** - No
1996 - Rickey Dudley - Yes
1997 - Tony Gonzalez - Yes
1997 - David LaFleur - No
2000 - Bubba Franks - Yes
2000 - Anthony Becht - Maybe
2001 - Todd Heap - Yes
2002 - Jeremy Shockey - Yes
2002 - Dan Graham - Yes
2002 - Jerramy Stevens - Maybe*****
2003 - Dallas Clark - Yes
2004 - Kellen Winslow Jr - Yes
2004 - Ben Watson - Yes
2005 - Heath Miller - Yes
2006 - Vernon Davis - Yes
2006 - Marcedes Lewis - Yes
2007 - Greg Olsen - Yes
2008 - Dustin Keller - Yes
2009 - Brandon Pettigrew - Yes
2010 - Jermaine Gresham - Yes
2013 - Tyler Eifert - Yes
2014 - Eric Ebron - Yes
2017 - OJ Howard - No (still active)
2017- Evan Engram - Yes
2017 - David Njoku - Yes
2018 - Hayden Hurst - Yes
2019 - TJ Hockenson - Yes
2019 - Noah Fant - Yes

* - Finished Top 12 in typical ppr

** - Stats were drawn from Football Guys. If you have a more accurate source that goes back further - please feel free to share.

*** - Assuming the source I am drawing from is accurate.

**** - Bruener retroactively has been considered a blocking TE only - but am not 100% sure if that was the case when he was drafted and Steelers fans seem to consider him a bust

***** - 2005 season Stevens was 1.4 points behind Wiggins for TE12 spot, but in non ppr leagues was a TE1 that year.

[Cameron Giles]

There's so much that goes into TE beyond catching passes. Hell, even Vernon Davis, who is considered an all-time TE prospect and went 6th overall, was mostly an underachiever. He only had a few good years.

My response is a general response but the Davis portion is a response to the above.

Davis only a few good years.

Finished top 12 all time for TEs in receiving yards, receptions, top 6 in targets & TDs ...

2009 - TE 2 overall season of 252.50 was equivalent to WR12. And that is typical ppr not te premium scoring
2010 - TE 2 overall season of 189.40 was equivalent to WR24.
2011 - TE 8 overall season of 181.50 was equivalent to WR30
2013 - TE 3 overall season of 215.00 was equivalent to WR20

Plus several other low end TE1 and high TE2 seasons.

Good for fantasy because TE wasn't deep (and still isn't). In real life, he never lived up to the hype outside of a few seasons.

- 1 season of 70 receptions or more.
- No 1000 yard seasons (close a few times)
- 1 All Pro team

I'm not saying he was a bum or that it was all his fault, but he wasn't worth the 6th overall pick. You take a TE that high and you're looking for closer to what Winslow and Gonzalez did.

I think a lot of people forget the hit/miss nature of rookie picks all together because acting like what Vernon Davis did was an underachievement If you drafted a Vernon Davis he gave you exactly what you were hoping for out of a rookie back in the day, a stud difference maker for a period of time. However I do not know what Davis' rookie draft range was. Just that he basically was, like a Gronk, or a Graham, a mismatch against most of your opponents in the TE category.

Davis had the unfortunate case of being in the transition period - ie before the Gronks & Kelces become the norm of the TE heights, but after the TE fantasy usage became more prevalent. Plus he had Alex Smith & Kaepernick as his QBs for his prime on teams that had 20-30 range in offensive production - didnt get a Mahomes or a Brady or even a Romo. Or an offensive minded guru like a Shanahan, Peyton or Reid. But in 09/10 he was their leading receiving threat regardless.

Before Gronk and Kelce, there was Witten, Gates and Gonzalez. All of them had multiple 1000 yard seasons. I don't think we can really say that TEs weren't used at high volume during Davis' time.

You're right that uncontrollable factors hurt him too, but he still ended up not being worth where he was drafted. If Pitts has Davis career, I wouldn't consider it awful, but it'd be well short of the hype he has.

[ArrylT]

There's so much that goes into TE beyond catching passes. Hell, even Vernon Davis, who is considered an all-time TE prospect and went 6th overall, was mostly an underachiever. He only had a few good years.

My response is a general response but the Davis portion is a response to the above.

Davis only a few good years.

Finished top 12 all time for TEs in receiving yards, receptions, top 6 in targets & TDs ...

2009 - TE 2 overall season of 252.50 was equivalent to WR12. And that is typical ppr not te premium scoring
2010 - TE 2 overall season of 189.40 was equivalent to WR24.
2011 - TE 8 overall season of 181.50 was equivalent to WR30
2013 - TE 3 overall season of 215.00 was equivalent to WR20

Plus several other low end TE1 and high TE2 seasons.

Good for fantasy because TE wasn't deep (and still isn't). In real life, he never lived up to the hype outside of a few seasons.

- 1 season of 70 receptions or more.
- No 1000 yard seasons (close a few times)
- 1 All Pro team

I'm not saying he was a bum or that it was all his fault, but he wasn't worth the 6th overall pick. You take a TE that high and you're looking for closer to what Winslow and Gonzalez did.

I think a lot of people forget the hit/miss nature of rookie picks all together because acting like what Vernon Davis did was an underachievement If you drafted a Vernon Davis he gave you exactly what you were hoping for out of a rookie back in the day, a stud difference maker for a period of time. However I do not know what Davis' rookie draft range was. Just that he basically was, like a Gronk, or a Graham, a mismatch against most of your opponents in the TE category.

Davis had the unfortunate case of being in the transition period - ie before the Gronks & Kelces become the norm of the TE heights, but after the TE fantasy usage became more prevalent. Plus he had Alex Smith & Kaepernick as his QBs for his prime on teams that had 20-30 range in offensive production - didnt get a Mahomes or a Brady or even a Romo. Or an offensive minded guru like a Shanahan, Peyton or Reid. But in 09/10 he was their leading receiving threat regardless.

Before Gronk and Kelce, there was Witten, Gates and Gonzalez. All of them had multiple 1000 yard seasons. I don't think we can really say that TEs weren't used at high volume during Davis' time.

You're right that uncontrollable factors hurt him too, but he still ended up not being worth where he was drafted. If Pitts has Davis career, I wouldn't consider it awful, but it'd be well short of the hype he has.

I agree with you that yes, taking a TE at #6 overall probably gave unreal expectations, both in the NFL and for fantasy purposes. As far as I can tell, and drafthistory is a little confusing the further back you go, Davis remains one of the highest drafted TE of all time. I believe Ditka was the only TE drafted higher at #5. Winslow Jr. was 6th as well. And if you contrast his career to the guys who had HOF careers like Gonzalez or Gates then he'll come out as underachiever - but when contrasted to the norm.

In the end I think your 2nd comment is a response to the 1st of sorts. Basically if the hype & expectations of what was feasible had been more manageable the perspective of how one looks at a highly drafted prospect would be different. IE expecting the ceiling, vs a mid-range or floor outcome type career.

If you draft a Lawrence / Pitts / Etienne / Chase and expect their careers to be a 100% lock for Manning / Kelce / Tomlinson / Rice (or insert your favorite ceiling comp) then an owners expectations are probably going to be disappointed. But if you draft these guys knowing what their typical floor & mid-range outcomes are, and keeping in mind the hit rate even at the top of rookie drafts is like 75% at best (and hit rate for WR is like a WR2 season I believe), then hype can be more controllable.

Ok I like to dream people can be realistic.

What I was referring to about the transition period is not that there were not 1k seasons for TE, although that is definitely a great ceiling indicator. Obviously there were - with guys like Ditka, Witten, both Winslows & so forth - who had 1k seasons before they became more prevalent.

However what I meant was that Gronk, Kelce & to an extent Gonzalez & Winslow before them broke the mold on the ceiling on what the career upside of a TE was going to give you.

https://www.statmuse.com/nfl/ask?q=most ... d+all-time

Sorted by Yards/G Gronk & Kelce are the only TEs, after Winslow, to have a career average of 60 yards+ a game (basically the level you need to average out a 1k season). Kelce & Gronkowski also have the 2 of the highest Y/Rec totals at 12.9 yards & 15 yards per reception (Gates & Winslow just behind at 12.4/5). Interestingly enough Davis' career Y/R average is 13. But he only had 1 season with 100+ targets, whereas Gates/Winslow (either )/Gronk/Kelce all had multiple seasons.

I mean Kelce has NOT had a year below 800 yards or 65 Receptions yet. Gronk, when playing a full-season, was pretty much the same. It is that sustained excellence. Gates, Winslow & Gonzalez reminded people what the ceiling might be for a TE, then Gronk & Kelce came along and showed how sustainable it could be. As a result, Vernon Davis (and others) have the misfortune of having their career arc happening just before these guys changed the game in terms of TE ceiling potential. People see guys now being the next Gronk or Kelce every year and Davis just happened to have his not too shabby career ending while this was going down, so almost impossible not to compare & contrast.

[Cameron Giles]

I agree with you that yes, taking a TE at #6 overall probably gave unreal expectations, both in the NFL and for fantasy purposes. As far as I can tell, and drafthistory is a little confusing the further back you go, Davis remains one of the highest drafted TE of all time. I believe Ditka was the only TE drafted higher at #5. Winslow Jr. was 6th as well. And if you contrast his career to the guys who had HOF careers like Gonzalez or Gates then he'll come out as underachiever - but when contrasted to the norm.

In the end I think your 2nd comment is a response to the 1st of sorts. Basically if the hype & expectations of what was feasible had been more manageable the perspective of how one looks at a highly drafted prospect would be different. IE expecting the ceiling, vs a mid-range or floor outcome type career.

If you draft a Lawrence / Pitts / Etienne / Chase and expect their careers to be a 100% lock for Manning / Kelce / Tomlinson / Rice (or insert your favorite ceiling comp) then an owners expectations are probably going to be disappointed. But if you draft these guys knowing what their typical floor & mid-range outcomes are, and keeping in mind the hit rate even at the top of rookie drafts is like 75% at best (and hit rate for WR is like a WR2 season I believe), then hype can be more controllable.

Ok I like to dream people can be realistic.

What I was referring to about the transition period is not that there were not 1k seasons for TE, although that is definitely a great ceiling indicator. Obviously there were - with guys like Ditka, Witten, both Winslows & so forth - who had 1k seasons before they became more prevalent.

However what I meant was that Gronk, Kelce & to an extent Gonzalez & Winslow before them broke the mold on the ceiling on what the career upside of a TE was going to give you.

https://www.statmuse.com/nfl/ask?q=most ... d+all-time

Sorted by Yards/G Gronk & Kelce are the only TEs, after Winslow, to have a career average of 60 yards+ a game (basically the level you need to average out a 1k season). Kelce & Gronkowski also have the 2 of the highest Y/Rec totals at 12.9 yards & 15 yards per reception (Gates & Winslow just behind at 12.4/5). Interestingly enough Davis' career Y/R average is 13. But he only had 1 season with 100+ targets, whereas Gates/Winslow (either )/Gronk/Kelce all had multiple seasons.

I mean Kelce has NOT had a year below 800 yards or 65 Receptions yet. Gronk, when playing a full-season, was pretty much the same. It is that sustained excellence. Gates, Winslow & Gonzalez reminded people what the ceiling might be for a TE, then Gronk & Kelce came along and showed how sustainable it could be. As a result, Vernon Davis (and others) have the misfortune of having their career arc happening just before these guys changed the game in terms of TE ceiling potential. People see guys now being the next Gronk or Kelce every year and Davis just happened to have his not too shabby career ending while this was going down, so almost impossible not to compare & contrast.

But that's the thing. Vernon Davis was looked at as a player who could break the TE ceiling or raise it even more. The expectations were inline with the talent. He's one of the best TE prospects of all time. He ran a 4.39 40, has ridiculous athletic measurables and a strong production profile from college.

https://www.mockdraftable.com/player/vernon-davis

I get what you're saying that you can't always hold the bar at HOF'er for prospects, but there are players (like Vernon Davis) who come along and if they don't become that, then it is a disappointment/underachievement. If you looked at the WR position, I'd say the same thing about WRs who get drafted that high. If Julio Jones was good, but not great, then he would've been an underachiever and not worth that selection.

If Kyle Pitts has the career of Jeremy Shockey or Vernon Davis, nobody will say he stunk. Those guys had a few good years, but if you're drafting a TE that high in real life, you're hoping for more than just a few good years. You're hoping for a perennial game-changing talent.

Pitts has entered that conversation as an elite TE prospect and certainly one that regardless of how his career pans out, we'll use him as a measuring stick for modern cases.