building for a superbowl?

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

Of course, injuries can happen at any turn but TE is the one position we have legitimate depth, by which I mean if one player goes out there is NO dropoff in production from that position and you want to eliminate that depth? Hell, if we were 3 deep and saw great potential out of our 3rd TE then sure, let's look at it but do you remember what happened last season when we were starting our 4th RG of the season, our 3rd LT of the season and our 4th RB? We don't have the luxury of trading one of the best young players on our team for a hope of a couple of college kids. That's just foolish if you ask me.

Honestly, on the open market, what would Cooley get us? Maybe a mid 2nd round pick? He's not elite enough to garner a bounty of picks, certainly not the value to build a team around.

Which 'young inexpensive players with anticipated potential' have we 'cast aside' for proven veterans? Quinton Ganther?

No, no I'm not saying we have cast aside young players with lots of potential; I'm saying that is often the choice which has to be made -- letting go of draft picks, (which would be the young, inexpensive players) in favor of free agent veterans. George Allen Sr. was famous for this.

In a way, tight end is one of those positions that you can get later in the draft, perhaps through undrafted free agency and incorporate in your offense without seeing much of a dropoff. Especially if the offense you run isn't so heavily reliant on TEs. Ideally, you want your wide receivers getting most of the catches and the yardage. I can't really say for sure how heavily involved the TE is in Shanahan's offense. But if Cooley makes up a significant facet of his scheme, then Cooley's not going anywhere and this conversation is moot.

Maybe someone with more time than I have can go back and look at Shanny's offense and see about what percentage his tight ends actually caught the ball. For instance, if wideouts made up anywhere from 60 to 70% of the passes caught, leaving 30 to 40% split between tight ends and running backs, then you might say that TEs aren't as vital to his offensive attack.

The other big thing you have to consider is whether incredible depth at tight end is more important that quality offensive linemen. If you had to choose between two really good TEs or some starting O-linemen, I'd choose the O-linemen.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

No, no I'm not saying we have cast aside young players with lots of potential; I'm saying that is often the choice which has to be made -- letting go of draft picks, (which would be the young, inexpensive players) in favor of free agent veterans. George Allen Sr. was famous for this.

In a way, tight end is one of those positions that you can get later in the draft, perhaps through undrafted free agency and incorporate in your offense without seeing much of a dropoff. Especially if the offense you run isn't so heavily reliant on TEs. Ideally, you want your wide receivers getting most of the catches and the yardage. I can't really say for sure how heavily involved the TE is in Shanahan's offense. But if Cooley makes up a significant facet of his scheme, then Cooley's not going anywhere and this conversation is moot.

Maybe someone with more time than I have can go back and look at Shanny's offense and see about what percentage his tight ends actually caught the ball. For instance, if wideouts made up anywhere from 60 to 70% of the passes caught, leaving 30 to 40% split between tight ends and running backs, then you might say that TEs aren't as vital to his offensive attack.

The other big thing you have to consider is whether incredible depth at tight end is more important that quality offensive linemen. If you had to choose between two really good TEs or some starting O-linemen, I'd choose the O-linemen.

Shannon Sharpe is going to the Pro Bowl one day as a result of Shanny's offense so yeah, I'd say it's TE friendly..

Why does everything that has to do with OL have to be an either or scenario? Is there a rule we can't have 2 really good TE AND quality starting and backup offensive linemen?

[NYCskinfan82]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

Shannon Sharpe is going to the Pro Bowl one day as a result of Shanny's offense so yeah, I'd say it's TE friendly..

Why does everything that has to do with OL have to be an either or scenario? Is there a rule we can't have 2 really good TE AND quality starting and backup offensive linemen?

I think you ment Hall of Fame. Yes we are building for a SB.

HTTR.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

Shannon Sharpe is going to the Pro Bowl one day as a result of Shanny's offense so yeah, I'd say it's TE friendly..

Why does everything that has to do with OL have to be an either or scenario? Is there a rule we can't have 2 really good TE AND quality starting and backup offensive linemen?

It would be great if we could, but as things are right now, we have two really good pass catching tight ends, and serious holes along the offensive line. So given our particular situation, you have to ask yourself this: What's more important? If trading away one of those two capable tight ends meant we could get a high draft pick or a decent, potential Pro Bowler which could be used to shore up the O-line, wouldn't you do it?

I know what you are saying: Let's keep both of our tight ends AND fix the O-line. I agree. Let's do it.

My only point of contention is that it's going to be difficult to do that, and the possibility of fixing the O-line is greater if you can garner a high draft pick (2nd or 3rd round) and/or a decent veteran from another team if you can part with one of the players where you have an over-abundance of talent.

Is Shannon Sharpe an anomoly who had atypical stats for tight ends in Shanahan's offense? Or are there other players at that position that did the same thing?

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

It would be great if we could, but as things are right now, we have two really good pass catching tight ends, and serious holes along the offensive line. So given our particular situation, you have to ask yourself this: What's more important? If trading away one of those two capable tight ends meant we could get a high draft pick or a decent, potential Pro Bowler which could be used to shore up the O-line, wouldn't you do it?

I know what you are saying: Let's keep both of our tight ends AND fix the O-line. I agree. Let's do it.

My only point of contention is that it's going to be difficult to do that, and the possibility of fixing the O-line is greater if you can garner a high draft pick (2nd or 3rd round) and/or a decent veteran from another team if you can part with one of the players where you have an over-abundance of talent.

Is Shannon Sharpe an anomoly who had atypical stats for tight ends in Shanahan's offense? Or are there other players at that position that did the same thing?

Well, I'd argue we have 2 holes on the OL, LT and RT. I fully expect us to draft Okung with the 4th overall pick. Even if we traded Cooley, we're looking at getting MAYBE a mid 2nd round pick, at best. Cooley is not worth a pick AND a player. So we draft the 6th or 7th best tackle prospect in the draft with that? Right tackles can be drafted in the 4th or 5th round and plug in during their first year. If we sign Flozell and put him at RT for a year and draft a T in the 4th or 5th, wouldn't that make us a better team if we kept Cooley than if we traded him for a 2nd round pick?

I just don't see the logic in removing young, productive, key pieces of your team for the sake of drafting a college kid and hope he develops into a young, productive, key piece of your team.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

Well, I'd argue we have 2 holes on the OL, LT and RT. I fully expect us to draft Okung with the 4th overall pick. Even if we traded Cooley, we're looking at getting MAYBE a mid 2nd round pick, at best. Cooley is not worth a pick AND a player. So we draft the 6th or 7th best tackle prospect in the draft with that? Right tackles can be drafted in the 4th or 5th round and plug in during their first year. If we sign Flozell and put him at RT for a year and draft a T in the 4th or 5th, wouldn't that make us a better team if we kept Cooley than if we traded him for a 2nd round pick?

I just don't see the logic in removing young, productive, key pieces of your team for the sake of drafting a college kid and hope he develops into a young, productive, key piece of your team.

If we can find a starting RT in the 4th or 5th round, and keep Cooley in the process, then hell yes. Absolutely. The trick is being able to find such a gem that late in the draft.

Now, as to your last statement on removing a player whom you already know to be a young, productive, key piece of your team in favor of someone from the draft who is unproven -- teams take that chance all the time. The Patriots did it just last year with Richard Seymour. The Eagles just did it with McNabb. So it's not unheard of.

Cooley is probably the only player on our squad right now of any value to another team. Depth is certainly nice, but I would argue that tight end is one of those positions that isn't as vital to have superior depth when compared to say, O-line, running back, or wide receiver. Since our front line is in such hideous shape, having two really good pass catching tight ends doesn't help you if you don't have a front-five who can protect the guy who throws the ball to those tight ends. If Cooley were the only viable receiving threat we have at the position, then this wouldn't even be a discussion.

Would it make you feel better if the subject of the trade were Fred Davis instead of Cooley?

[Monkeydad]

This will need to be edited soon.