Julio,Ridley,Pitts,AJ Brown,Henry..

[Ice]

Height: 6’5 5/8” ELITE
Hand size: 10’ 5/8” ELITE
Arm: 33 4/8” ELITE
Wingspan: 83 3/8” ELITE
40-yard dash: 4.44 ELITE

Height: 6’6
Hand size: 11 inches
Arm length: 34 inches
Wingspan: 83 inches
40-yard dash: 4.65

Would you take player B based off your ELITE attributes?

Not into games guessing a player.

We all know or should know Pitts has production to back up his measurable traits. Pitts was a beast in college, a consensus top tier draft pick, with no downside on tape in route acumen.

The key is Pitts actually has shown how he uses his considerable physical gifts.

[Space Cowboy]

And for deeper leagues

Gage UP
Reynolds DOWN

[AussieMate]

Height: 6’5 5/8” ELITE
Hand size: 10’ 5/8” ELITE
Arm: 33 4/8” ELITE
Wingspan: 83 3/8” ELITE
40-yard dash: 4.44 ELITE

Height: 6’6
Hand size: 11 inches
Arm length: 34 inches
Wingspan: 83 inches
40-yard dash: 4.65

Would you take player B based off your ELITE attributes?

Nah too slow

[TimeWillTell]

Why are people falling over themselves to discount Pitts? Sure, if Pitts is less than rookie Evan Engram, his owners are going to be disappointed. But if he puts up 700+ yards, he's still not going to be cheaper than an early 1st. and if he puts up 900+ yards at barely 21, he'll be untouchable. Do people really see him not getting upwards of 110 targets? Or do they think the "TE" next to his name is going to make him wildly inefficient getting those targets?
I think there's as much an argument for Pitts at 1.01 as Chase or Harris in PPR/1QB. If you're a contending team that traded for the pick but doesn't have one of the big 3, it's fine to take him. Sure, the expectation was built in that Julio would leave, and his price reflected that. But now it's official and the early career risk has gone down significantly.

Pitts is being hyped so hard, that unless he turns in Kelce numbers right away, his value will take a dive(owners will be disappointed and those who are not and possibly avoided will say "told you so"

In my league the 1.03 traded up to get him at 1.01. He gave 1.03+1.05+1.09+Diontea Johnson for the 1.01. Insanity. I really wanted Pitts or Chase and traded up to have a chance at 1.02, then sold the 1.02 when that happened to a guy guaranteed to take Harris. So I'll still get Chase and be happy. But man, no way am I paying that or a comparable offer to get to 1.01 even if he is a 0% bust risk.

[ColdZealDonkeyStrike]

Why are people falling over themselves to discount Pitts? Sure, if Pitts is less than rookie Evan Engram, his owners are going to be disappointed. But if he puts up 700+ yards, he's still not going to be cheaper than an early 1st. and if he puts up 900+ yards at barely 21, he'll be untouchable. Do people really see him not getting upwards of 110 targets? Or do they think the "TE" next to his name is going to make him wildly inefficient getting those targets?
I think there's as much an argument for Pitts at 1.01 as Chase or Harris in PPR/1QB. If you're a contending team that traded for the pick but doesn't have one of the big 3, it's fine to take him. Sure, the expectation was built in that Julio would leave, and his price reflected that. But now it's official and the early career risk has gone down significantly.

Pitts is being hyped so hard, that unless he turns in Kelce numbers right away, his value will take a dive(owners will be disappointed and those who are not and possibly avoided will say "told you so"

In my league the 1.03 traded up to get him at 1.01. He gave 1.03+1.05+1.09+Diontea Johnson for the 1.01. Insanity. I really wanted Pitts or Chase and traded up to have a chance at 1.02, then sold the 1.02 when that happened to a guy guaranteed to take Harris. So I'll still get Chase and be happy. But man, no way am I paying that or a comparable offer to get to 1.01 even if he is a 0% bust risk.

Hoooo boy! I'm pretty much all aboard for Pitts at 1.01, but yeah I'll sell if anyone wants to add half that much to 1.03!

[Pullo Vision]

In the various pieces I read/heard today, one interesting highlight was Russell Gage had 110 targets last year, more than guys like Evans and Claypool. In games without Julio, Gage averaged 8 targets last year.

[Ice]

In the various pieces I read/heard today, one interesting highlight was Russell Gage had 110 targets last year, more than guys like Evans and Claypool. In games without Julio, Gage averaged 8 targets last year.

Thanks for sharing!

[dustyroads]

Maybe I'm missing something, but once again I see people talking about non-owners perceived/assumed value on another player talked about as though that's what sets a players "price"; because of what I'm assuming is mistaking this value/price opinion as correct just because it's held by the majority of people. Obviously non-owners will always outnumber owners, so right off the bat, it's a poor argument. But also basic logic will tell you a price isn't real until something is sold for that. So all non-owners can forever spout on about how Pitts value and price will drop, but if owner's aren't selling him for less then they paid, that is patently false. His price will always be what he's actually moved for, not what non-owners are willing to pay. And considering the large majority of dynasty owners always view their own players through rose colored glasses, and other manager's players (at least when negotiating trades) as below value; none of this makes sense to me. Sorry for picking nits, but man this get's so tiresome to see thread after thread.

To put speculation aside; I am a Pitts owner and I can say:

1. I will not be "disappointed" if he doesn't put up a Kelce season. This is ridiculous to even keep putting forth until we start seeing actual owners regularly coming on here saying that. I've read plenty of times that may be his ceiling, but even then, rarely suggested it's his ceiling for year 1; let alone an expected outcome instead of just a potential ceiling.

2. I will not be selling him for less than I paid until at the very least the end of his third season. There are a million scenarios where he could get moved for roster construction, salary cap leagues, mult copy, etc etc. and then people can debate viewpoints in value. But in a vacuum, he will not be moved for less then current price next year outside of a rare league Taco.

So until owners start saying they are depending on him to come out the gates as a TE 1-3 and will be disappointed if he doesn't do this; and say that they will be selling him for significantly less then current price if that happens, can we all stop spouting this nonsense as though it's fact. I'm sure in some rare cases it is, and judging by some of the almost unbelievable stacked teams I see in some signatures, maybe some of the board members are in full on Taco leagues. But this is not often the case, especially not with such highly touted players at a position where everyone knows patience is required.

[Ice]

Good post

Non owners often use redraft mindset when discussing players like this.

By year 3, maybe sooner I figure Pitts will cost 3 1st rounders and will be close to untouchable so today’s prices might be as cheap as he will be for years.

Time will tell.

[dustyroads]

Good post

Non owners often use redraft mindset when discussing players like this.

By year 3, maybe sooner I figure Pitts will cost 3 1st rounders and will be close to untouchable so today’s prices might be as cheap as he will be for years.

Time will tell.

Yeah, seems to be nature of the beast in most leagues.

I tend to agree. Even with TE 6-10 finishes, the perceived potential will keep him highly valued by owners, whether its valid or not. He could finish one spot behind Hock/Andrews the next three years and he will still be valued higher than those two (at least to owners) just based on his college performance, combine, and draft pedigree.

The other thing I think is often overlooked a lot with these "I'll buy him later for less" speculations: no matter what you need to start a TE in almost every league. So even if he's underperforming based against lofty expectations, odds are very high he'll still be a TE1 and owners will still need to be starting someone there. Unless they luck into a different TE who breaks into the Kittle/Kelce/Waller tier, they will still not be jumping to sell him without a replacement of similar quality/age/potential at the position.

[Ice]

Good post

Non owners often use redraft mindset when discussing players like this.

By year 3, maybe sooner I figure Pitts will cost 3 1st rounders and will be close to untouchable so today’s prices might be as cheap as he will be for years.

Time will tell.

Yeah, seems to be nature of the beast in most leagues.

I tend to agree. Even with TE 6-10 finishes, the perceived potential will keep him highly valued by owners, whether its valid or not. He could finish one spot behind Hock/Andrews the next three years and he will still be valued higher than those two (at least to owners) just based on his college performance, combine, and draft pedigree.

The other thing I think is often overlooked a lot with these "I'll buy him later for less" speculations: no matter what you need to start a TE in almost every league. So even if he's underperforming based against lofty expectations, odds are very high he'll still be a TE1 and owners will still need to be starting someone there. Unless they luck into a different TE who breaks into the Kittle/Kelce/Waller tier, they will still not be jumping to sell him without a replacement of similar quality/age/potential at the position.

Agree
IMO the only real concern if we’re speculating is if this player ends up tagged as a WR instead of TE.

He is my my 1.1 regardless if he is tagged as WR or TE longer term.

He looks today like a future market setter on the money side of football.

[dustyroads]

Good post

Non owners often use redraft mindset when discussing players like this.

By year 3, maybe sooner I figure Pitts will cost 3 1st rounders and will be close to untouchable so today’s prices might be as cheap as he will be for years.

Time will tell.

Yeah, seems to be nature of the beast in most leagues.

I tend to agree. Even with TE 6-10 finishes, the perceived potential will keep him highly valued by owners, whether its valid or not. He could finish one spot behind Hock/Andrews the next three years and he will still be valued higher than those two (at least to owners) just based on his college performance, combine, and draft pedigree.

The other thing I think is often overlooked a lot with these "I'll buy him later for less" speculations: no matter what you need to start a TE in almost every league. So even if he's underperforming based against lofty expectations, odds are very high he'll still be a TE1 and owners will still need to be starting someone there. Unless they luck into a different TE who breaks into the Kittle/Kelce/Waller tier, they will still not be jumping to sell him without a replacement of similar quality/age/potential at the position.

Agree
IMO the only real concern if we’re speculating is if this player ends up tagged as a WR instead of TE.

He is my my 1.1 regardless if he is tagged as WR or TE longer term.

He looks today like a future market setter on the money side of football.

This is pure assumption and speculation on my part; but I wouldn't be surprised to see it being debated as his rookie contract comes to a close. Jimmy Graham started the concept what feels like forever ago, I know the arbitrator ruled against him, and there is probably verbiage in the CBA that would let the league skate around it again; but I think we are seeing the tipping point right now in the league where player's rights are being made a priority (and more importantly for the change to occur, fans are more and more siding with the players on this). Much of this off-season is focused on this stuff with the QBs, and fans certainly are still split; but I think it'll soon start sliding more towards the way of the NBA. If/when his position designation starts costing him millions of dollars, and especially if/when he's one of the top performing players in the league, I find it hard to believe it won't come up.

[Ruggenater]

Maybe I'm missing something, but once again I see people talking about non-owners perceived/assumed value on another player talked about as though that's what sets a players "price"; because of what I'm assuming is mistaking this value/price opinion as correct just because it's held by the majority of people. Obviously non-owners will always outnumber owners, so right off the bat, it's a poor argument. But also basic logic will tell you a price isn't real until something is sold for that. So all non-owners can forever spout on about how Pitts value and price will drop, but if owner's aren't selling him for less then they paid, that is patently false. His price will always be what he's actually moved for, not what non-owners are willing to pay. And considering the large majority of dynasty owners always view their own players through rose colored glasses, and other manager's players (at least when negotiating trades) as below value; none of this makes sense to me. Sorry for picking nits, but man this get's so tiresome to see thread after thread.

To put speculation aside; I am a Pitts owner and I can say:

1. I will not be "disappointed" if he doesn't put up a Kelce season. This is ridiculous to even keep putting forth until we start seeing actual owners regularly coming on here saying that. I've read plenty of times that may be his ceiling, but even then, rarely suggested it's his ceiling for year 1; let alone an expected outcome instead of just a potential ceiling.

2. I will not be selling him for less than I paid until at the very least the end of his third season. There are a million scenarios where he could get moved for roster construction, salary cap leagues, mult copy, etc etc. and then people can debate viewpoints in value. But in a vacuum, he will not be moved for less then current price next year outside of a rare league Taco.

So until owners start saying they are depending on him to come out the gates as a TE 1-3 and will be disappointed if he doesn't do this; and say that they will be selling him for significantly less then current price if that happens, can we all stop spouting this nonsense as though it's fact. I'm sure in some rare cases it is, and judging by some of the almost unbelievable stacked teams I see in some signatures, maybe some of the board members are in full on Taco leagues. But this is not often the case, especially not with such highly touted players at a position where everyone knows patience is required.

You see people bring this up in thread after thread because although many owners claim upfront they won’t sell at a discount in the future due to a disappointing season, it very regularly happens. You’re willing to exercise patience because you believe it will be rewarded at the end of the day—I see way more owners on the reactionary side of the house that are instead very quick to give up on players. Maybe Pitts will be the universal exception to this, but I doubt it.

[murphysxm]

You see people bring this up in thread after thread because although many owners claim upfront they won’t sell at a discount in the future due to a disappointing season, it very regularly happens. You’re willing to exercise patience because you believe it will be rewarded at the end of the day—I see way more owners on the reactionary side of the house that are instead very quick to give up on players. Maybe Pitts will be the universal exception to this, but I doubt it.

This is patantly false is every league I participate in. Smart, savy owners hold onto players they invest highly into because they invested highly for a reason. If you are passing on Pitts because you think you can trade for him next off season at a discount, be prepared to never be a Pitts owner.

[BradyT]

Maybe I'm missing something, but once again I see people talking about non-owners perceived/assumed value on another player talked about as though that's what sets a players "price"; because of what I'm assuming is mistaking this value/price opinion as correct just because it's held by the majority of people. Obviously non-owners will always outnumber owners, so right off the bat, it's a poor argument. But also basic logic will tell you a price isn't real until something is sold for that. So all non-owners can forever spout on about how Pitts value and price will drop, but if owner's aren't selling him for less then they paid, that is patently false. His price will always be what he's actually moved for, not what non-owners are willing to pay. And considering the large majority of dynasty owners always view their own players through rose colored glasses, and other manager's players (at least when negotiating trades) as below value; none of this makes sense to me. Sorry for picking nits, but man this get's so tiresome to see thread after thread.

To put speculation aside; I am a Pitts owner and I can say:

1. I will not be "disappointed" if he doesn't put up a Kelce season. This is ridiculous to even keep putting forth until we start seeing actual owners regularly coming on here saying that. I've read plenty of times that may be his ceiling, but even then, rarely suggested it's his ceiling for year 1; let alone an expected outcome instead of just a potential ceiling.

2. I will not be selling him for less than I paid until at the very least the end of his third season. There are a million scenarios where he could get moved for roster construction, salary cap leagues, mult copy, etc etc. and then people can debate viewpoints in value. But in a vacuum, he will not be moved for less then current price next year outside of a rare league Taco.

So until owners start saying they are depending on him to come out the gates as a TE 1-3 and will be disappointed if he doesn't do this; and say that they will be selling him for significantly less then current price if that happens, can we all stop spouting this nonsense as though it's fact. I'm sure in some rare cases it is, and judging by some of the almost unbelievable stacked teams I see in some signatures, maybe some of the board members are in full on Taco leagues. But this is not often the case, especially not with such highly touted players at a position where everyone knows patience is required.

You see people bring this up in thread after thread because although many owners claim upfront they won’t sell at a discount in the future due to a disappointing season, it very regularly happens. You’re willing to exercise patience because you believe it will be rewarded at the end of the day—I see way more owners on the reactionary side of the house that are instead very quick to give up on players. Maybe Pitts will be the universal exception to this, but I doubt it.

Yes, definately. Alot of owners tend to panic and sell early. Thats where you have to step in and buy low. It happen pretty much every year