B/c everyone is overly paranoid about us taking first round TE's, and guys who stock went up after the combine(aka potential workout warrior). Olsen fits the criteria for both. Id rather go another direction...but i cant argue w/ the value he presents to us if he slips to # 25.
I hate to beat a dead horse but why do all the Olsen haters just "assume" we would draft him to be a blocking tight end? That's becoming so "old nfl" these days. Nobody is even looking for blocking tight ends anymore. Certainly not in the first round anyway. They are looking for tight ends who are play makers. If they can block that's a plus not a requirement.
I'm not a fan of Olsen and in an open competion, don't think he can beat out Baker. It's the same reason I don't like Chris Houston. If one of these 2 are our option, take a guard or Justin Harrell if he is there.
Very good point. Additionally, Baker wouldnt be going anywhere and is a decent blocking TE. I'd expect to see alot of dual TE sets and we'd run to Baker's side primarily. Also, as I stated previously, our OC comes from an offense in SD which featured a TE very similar in style to Olsen, in Antonio Gates, and last time I checked, that passing offense was unstoppable, and it wasn't their average WR talent making things click. Imagine what that type of player would do for an offense like ours, and our far superior WR corp.
Thank you. Its annoying how people will say he's not the TE Winslow or Shockey is based on his stats in Miami where the QB situation was abysmal during his enrollment. He's definitely not a good blocker at this point but I think he's as fast or faster than his TE draft predecessors at UM and his hands are at least as good if not better. He's not necessarily my first choice at #25 but I wouldn't be unhappy either.
And I'll just add to your comments that Olsen is ranked between 15th and 17th on most lists of best players at any position in this year's draft. The people making those lists have a little idea of what they are doing.
RIght. Like I've said, I like some other players at # 25 alot more than Olsen. W/ that said..based on his big board value, he'd be a steal..and he certainly fits our offensive system. Hard to argue.
Not mine either. If we could get a great OLB/DE combo player I would prefer that but like you, I wouldn't be crying if we take Olsen either.
I've said it before but our OC was involved in an offense with a QB with a below average arm and a TE with a ton of athletic ability and not alot of blocking skill but things have turned out pretty well out in San Diego. He's not my first choice but Olsen would provide an instant impact in Green and White.
OK, lets stop talking about Olsen for a second. What exactly is wrong with Baker?, do we need to spend a first rounder on a below average blocker, when this team has more pressing needs?
Hell, we brought in Jolley because we thought he could catch, not block. Even then they were looking for a playmaker. Something happened to him on the plane ride from Oakland to NY. He could sure catch on the west coast but his hands turned to stone by the time he got here. What GMs are trying to find now is the next Gates, Shockey or Heap.
As stated before, we are not in a position yet as a franchise to place need over value. We don't have the depth, overall talent or flexibility to do so. If Olsen falls to 25, thats about a 10 slot steal for us. Additionally, there is nothing wrong w/ Baker, but he simply does not have the same potential to stretch the field like Olsen does. There are players i prefer over Olsen. But I cant argue w/ the following. 1. His draft value at # 25 2. How well he fits in our offensive system 3. The potential for quite the TE duo he and Baker would create, not to mention the improved depth.
No we dont, my only point was that he would not be a bad pick at 25 and its nothing to cry about if we take Olsen. I personally want Spencer. And we wouldnt be spending a 1st rounder on a below average blocker, we would be spending be spendiing it on a playmaker who can stretch the field. Below Average blocker = glass half empty, Playmaker, with great hands, good speed, and athletic ability = glass half full. And he's not even that bad a blocker
The FO obviously feels Baker isn't the answer or they wouldn't be looking at Olsen. Your question is better directed at them then us. I'll add that when Schottenheimer came in he said he wanted to make the tight end a big part of the offense as it was in San Diego. The Jets didn't do that last year. We could argue there were a number of reasons why not. My guess is that they still want to do that and if they think Olsen will let them then I'm sure they will draft him if he's available. Unless they see somebody else who will help them more. The thing is no matter how we feel, they will take the player they think is best at whatever draft position they are choosing. We can argue about it forever.
Nicely said, our offense still needs weapons, and he'd be a good weapon, although I'd rather trade down a couple of spots and select the DT Harrell
Ok, I'll say it. I don't think TE is that big of a need. NT, OLB, OG, OT, CB are all more pressing needs, TE can wait, at least IMO.
I don't think anybody will disagree with you on that. Here's the thing. Tannenbaum has said on many occasions that the teams that get in trouble are the teams that draft for need and not value. He would be going against everything he ever said if Olsen is still there at 25 and nobody in any of the positions you mentioned that was ranked higher isn't. Personally, I think he's full of crap and a lier to boot. He chose Mangold based on need and not value last year. But that's another story.
Greg Olsen would be a lot better than some of these workout warriors people are after (Carriker, the Pitt CB, etc). god, let me see you do it on the field when it MATTERS (don't cite stats to me either... a lot of college stats are meaningless because you do it against trash opponets)
This sentence is realitive. Remember these boards that we all are looking at, like Kiper's, or Scout Inc's, etc. don't really mean anything. Each teams boards could look VASTLY different from the lists we are looking at. So the value is based on THEIR board not ours. For all we know they can have Blalock and Spencer as 1 and 2, and Olsen as number 45. Just pointing out that people like throwing out the word "value" but that is an EXTREMELY realitive term. (Unfortunately some people bow down to the Almighty Kiper, which really annoys me). This talking to you directly Don, just speaking in generalities.
WE have a weakness and that weakness is we need need more firepower on Offense. Olsen is the guy to get the job done.
