Jump to content

2019 3* TE Jackson Lowe


JFDTiger80

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Mikey said:

I think a TE is going to have to come along that is good enough to make throwing to him look like a better option in certain situations than throwing to someone else or running the ball. We haven't had such a guy come along recently. He'll also have to be the best blocking TE or he won't be on the field that much. Some weeks back I ran the numbers for the recent regular season, SEC only games. AU led the league in scoring, so TE or not, everybody else is behind us in that category. Things can always be improved upon and more TE usage might be an improvement. It's well to remember that every pass thrown to a TE is a play that didn't go to someone else. The TE will have to make the tradeoff look good to the staff before he becomes a major factor.

Inaccurate. Stidham took almost 20 sacks to *Clemson and UCF alone. Those plays didn't go to anyone.

Maybe if he'd had a tight end to throw to...

*Your stance would have more credibility if you didn't throw out the stats that don't support it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply
10 minutes ago, aubearcat said:

is there any indication that Canella can improve enough to be “that guy”?

Sal is not a TE for us. He's pretty much exclusively a WR.

11 minutes ago, aubearcat said:

Also, is Lowe the primary TE target for the ‘19 class at the moment?

With 7 TE offers already going out it's hard to tell where he is on the board after Ryan Goede who is committing next week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Inaccurate. Stidham took almost 20 sacks to *Clemson and UCF alone. Those plays didn't go to anyone.

Maybe if he'd had a tight end to throw to...

*Your stance would have more credibility if you didn't throw out the stats that don't support it. 

200.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gowebb11 said:

For me it means using them enough so that a defense has to account for it. Throwing to a TE 2-3 times a year allows a team to play 11 on 10 when you are in passing situations. Schematically, Gus’s system is never going to throw to one 40-50 times in a season and that’s fine. Our H Back has a bigger role. But even if JH is not a future NFL talent, we could easily show some TE passes in games like Mercer and GaSo just to make defensive coordinators know we can if we need to. 

Harris and Cannella combined for four receptions (Cox had eight).  We threw to Cannella way more than three times, and I can recall at least twice we tried to hit Harris on a TE Slip Screen, and then is seems like he nearly made a tough catch in the back of the endzone.  I imagine there were other times we targeted or intended for the TE to be a viable option.  My uneducated, conservative guess would be in the neighborhood of 15 attempts (not actual passes thrown, but plays called) to a TE and then a handful more to the HB.  The resulting stats are pretty poor, obviously.

WDE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, MadtownTiger said:

Harris and Cannella combined for four receptions (Cox had eight).  We threw to Cannella way more than three times, and I can recall at least twice we tried to hit Harris on a TE Slip Screen, and then is seems like he nearly made a tough catch in the back of the endzone.  I imagine there were other times we targeted or intended for the TE to be a viable option.  My uneducated, conservative guess would be in the neighborhood of 15 attempts (not actual passes thrown, but plays called) to a TE and then a handful more to the HB.  The resulting stats are pretty poor, obviously.

WDE!

But here again, the point some are missing is even though we signed Sal as a TE he was moved to WR very early last season & stayed there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ellitor said:

No. Chip wanted one but Gus vetoed him on Alaimo

Do you know why? Looked like he was ours if wanted to take him and if we wanted a TE he looked like a decent one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, kd4au said:

Do you know why? Looked like he was ours if wanted to take him and if we wanted a TE he looked like a decent one.

My guess is the emergence of Anderson, Tannor, Langham, plus still in it w/ someone like Quay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, gr82be said:

The few times Sal was targeted he did not make the most of it by having some drops if I recall correctly. I like his size for sure but someone needs to be throwing to him every day. He still won't get many his way but at least everyone including himself would have confidence when it was thrown to him. 

Agreed, a lot of his targets were odd passes though if I remember correctly. Still, it seems like some coach could get him to be at least somewhat reliable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, ellitor said:

But here again, the point some are missing is even though we signed Sal as a TE he was moved to WR very early last season & stayed there.

But isn't the point of the discussion less about literal stats by a specifically-aligned position, and more about target distribution and utilization of available (or in our case, tragically, unavailable) athletes?  

I mean, guys like Kelce and Gronkowski, Jimmy Graham in his heyday, are technically TEs, but they are decidedly more dangerous when they line up away from the formation, which is almost half the time.

In regards to DCs having to plan for a TE, sure, you want them to have to account for certain alignments, but I think they're just as if not more concerned with personnel.  As potential receiving threats, who brought on more consternation when they lined up as a traditional TE, Uzomah or Leff?

WDE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, MadtownTiger said:

But isn't the point of the discussion less about literal stats by a specifically-aligned position, and more about target distribution and utilization of available (or in our case, tragically, unavailable) athletes?  

We have athletes, just haven't been at TE. & no, to me the point of the discussion is pass catching production from the TE spot. It's an always revolving discussion on the board.

13 minutes ago, MadtownTiger said:

In regards to DCs having to plan for a TE, sure, you want them to have to account for certain alignments, but I think they're just as if not more concerned with personnel.  As potential receiving threats, who brought on more consternation when they lined up as a traditional TE, Uzomah or Leff?

I don't get the point of this. Of course CJ is more of a receiving threat. Leff wasn't even a TE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ellitor said:

200.gif

I agree the stats are skewed, but I understand where he going with the end result.

I have always believed, those using a pro style offense, in college and certainly much more in the NFL, support the success of using a TE as a target at times.

TE plays called from the sideline or when the QB goes through his progressions, or has to scramble, allows the offense to move the chains, gain good yardage, and gives the QB an option so he doesn't have to throw it away, scramble, or forced to hold on to the ball too long, resulting in a sack. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thing that has been said about our offense, with which I agree, is that it's great when it works but when it doesn't, it *really* doesn't. And sometimes we have no answer for a pass rush. That's when having a full set of tools comes in handy. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, steeleagle said:

I agree the stats are skewed, but I understand where he going with the end result.

I have always believed, those using a pro style offense, in college and certainly much more in the NFL, support the success of using a TE as a target at times.

TE plays called from the sideline or when the QB goes through his progressions, or has to scramble, allows the offense to move the chains, gain good yardage, and gives the QB an option so he doesn't have to throw it away, scramble, or forced to hold on to the ball too long, resulting in a sack. 

My gif was for the way McLoof burned Mikey. Not for the content. stats used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, ellitor said:

We have athletes, just haven't been at TE. & no, to me the point of the discussion is pass catching production from the TE spot. It's an always revolving discussion on the board.

I don't get the point of this. Of course CJ is more of a receiving threat. Leff wasn't even a TE.

For 2017, the official athletic department website lists six athletes at the TE position, five if we don't include Canella.  There were only two if we also don't include the two walk-ons and redshirt freshman.  And if we also don't count the converted lineman, there was only one TE on the roster.

You and I disagree on the nature of the discussion.  It seems like you're more fixated on the lack of production from a particular formation rather than the ineffectiveness of our utility players (TE, HB type guys).  In the interest of clarity, let me analogize and rephrase: It's like you're discussing how to get the most fantasy points out of the TE position.  I'm much more interested in discussing why certain players aren't as effective as we all want them to be and how to best realize their potential production.  I don't care where the producers line up, so long as the produce.  If that's how you want to approach it, that's fine.  I like crunching numbers too.  I just have a preference on how to frame it all.

Leff occasionally wore #98 and lined up as a traditional, hand on the ground TE, but unlike Uzomah or Lutz, wasn't a receiving threat.  Point being, the player matters as much if not more than the position.  For his career Leff probably had more tackles than catches.

WDE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, McLoofus said:

Inaccurate. Stidham took almost 20 sacks to *Clemson and UCF alone. Those plays didn't go to anyone.

Maybe if he'd had a tight end to throw to...

*Your stance would have more credibility if you didn't throw out the stats that don't support it. 

The stats I threw out were that Auburn led the SEC in scoring offense for SEC regular season games. If you dispute that, then run the numbers yourself. I got AU 330, UAT. 307, UGA 295 and down further after that. Sacks have nothing to do with that, there could have been 95 sacks and AU's 330 points would still lead the SEC. The idea that throwing to a TE would have solved the sack problem against Clemson or UCF is fantasy, nothing more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Mikey said:

The stats I threw out were that Auburn led the SEC in scoring offense for SEC regular season games. If you dispute that, then run the numbers yourself. I got AU 330, UAT. 307, UGA 295 and down further after that. Sacks have nothing to do with that, there could have been 95 sacks and AU's 330 points would still lead the SEC. The idea that throwing to a TE would have solved the sack problem against Clemson or UCF is fantasy, nothing more.

You ignored stats that would help paint a more full and accurate picture of Auburn's overall performance last season. You cherry-picked the games that made Auburn look better. We were around 3rd/4th in total offense and scoring even without throwing out the bad games, so you really didn't even have to.

And call it "fantasy" all you want, but you- who are fond of mantras that almost predate the forward pass- should know that quick, short passes have long been the best way to mitigate (I never said "solve") a pass rush and that tight ends are traditionally a great option and safety valve when the long ball isn't there (and it almost never is when Gus gets behind the sticks). You might even say that it would be great for Gus to catch up to the recent past:

Quote

In the past, the tight end was meant as a safe outlet for a short dump pass from the quarterback or perhaps as a change-of-gear option on early downs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/sports/football/15tightends.html


Instead of always telling everyone that Gus's offense is perfect, you'd do better to hold his hand and tell him he's pretty while people make perfectly reasonable suggestions on how it could be better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quoting the above: " You cherry-picked the games that made Auburn look better."  Nonsense. I took the scoring from the entire SEC regular season, each team and each game. That's as far from cherry picking as it can get.

 UGA had a 5* TE that they barely threw to. Four catches or something like that so we are not alone in thinking the TE is a secondary factor. If you want to run a pro style offense that relies on the TE a good bit, you should figure out where Bret Bielema lands and follow his team. They'll be certain to run the type of offense that would delight you, unless you care about winning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a lot of ways to bailout the qb , other than a tight end, when the play breaks down. Such as running back, hb, and receivers coming back toward the line. I do think CGM and CCL want to find a middle ground between te and hb role players. As long as we keep scoring at a high rate I’m good with that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Mikey said:

Quoting the above: " You cherry-picked the games that made Auburn look better."  Nonsense. I took the scoring from the entire SEC regular season, each team and each game. That's as far from cherry picking as it can get.

 UGA had a 5* TE that they barely threw to. Four catches or something like that so we are not alone in thinking the TE is a secondary factor. If you want to run a pro style offense that relies on the TE a good bit, you should figure out where Bret Bielema lands and follow his team. They'll be certain to run the type of offense that would delight you, unless you care about winning.

UGA barely threw, period, but still managed to complete 13 passes to TEs. Nauta had 9 of them, which is a lot more than 4. 

"As far from cherry picking as it can get" would be, you know, not cherry picking. If you want to be honest about Auburn's offensive performance in 2017, use the stats for 2017. But that's not what you want to do.

Who said anything about running a pro style offense and relying on the tight end? All anybody's suggesting is to use one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, toddc said:

There are a lot of ways to bailout the qb , other than a tight end, when the play breaks down. Such as running back, hb, and receivers coming back toward the line. I do think CGM and CCL want to find a middle ground between te and hb role players. As long as we keep scoring at a high rate I’m good with that!

And Gus doesn't know how to use many of them very well. 

When we can adjust to things that throw our super duper point machine off script, I'll quit bitching. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a big believer in the TE. That said one point that Mikey is making is how well we moved the ball without one throughout the yearIn. two games did our O really  played badly we got stuffed by Clemson when we had a brand new O-Line out there with basically a freshman QB in his first tough game. Yes he got sacked a lot but in that game Stidham was a big part of the problem he was not comfortable with the offense yet, he held onto the ball to long rather than running or throwing it away, he did not check down to RB like you saw him do against Georgia. We had a new OC putting in a new Offense with a new QB and O-line had not been together as a group for long. We played decent against Georgia on O in second game without having our running game and then we had a really bad O game against UCF which I think had a lot to do with players just not playing well. A TE would not have made much difference in either game.

Even good O's have bad games and the quality of the opponent has something to do with that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, toddc said:

There are a lot of ways to bailout the qb , other than a tight end, when the play breaks down. Such as running back, hb, and receivers coming back toward the line. I do think CGM and CCL want to find a middle ground between te and hb role players. As long as we keep scoring at a high rate I’m good with that!

I agree with McLoofus for the most part, but disagree with with the above.  There aren't a lot of ways.   

If the play is breaking down, we are talking about protection.   If that is happening, the RB and (prob HB) are engaged and prob getting beat.  Those options are not there.  Receivers coming back?  yes

QB take off and run?  yes

I think Auburn CCL is wanting to swap the HB for a legit TE that can run the route when asked, catch the bleeping ball and able to block when asked.   I guess that means 1-3 targets per game, but you force deliberate defensive scheming/coaching time if we have a legit TE threat.

this year our smaller RBs could not pick up the blitz due to size issues (or Gus/trust issues).  

 

Boom!  that's my contribution for the week.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, McLoofus said:

 

"As far from cherry picking as it can get" would be, you know, not cherry picking. If you want to be honest about Auburn's offensive performance in 2017, use the stats for 2017. But that's not what you want to do.

 

The most consistent way to evaluate stats is to stick with regular season SEC games. Otherwise, you get into the variance of who played who out of conference. While, obviously, not everybody played the same SEC opponents , limiting the stats to regular season conference games is as close to a level playing field as it gets. On that level field, AU had the #1 scoring offense in the SEC. I don't see how cherry picking can even be a part of that discussion. The only people that might try to call that cherry picking are the ones that don't like to be faced with the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mikey said:

The most consistent way to evaluate stats is to stick with regular season SEC games. Otherwise, you get into the variance of who played who out of conference. While, obviously, not everybody played the same SEC opponents , limiting the stats to regular season conference games is as close to a level playing field as it gets. On that level field, AU had the #1 scoring offense in the SEC. I don't see how cherry picking can even be a part of that discussion. The only people that might try to call that cherry picking are the ones that don't like to be faced with the truth.

The ones that don't like to be faced with the truth pick convenient stats that suit their narrative. 

Our offense was insufficient in several games in which it should have been better. And it probably cost us a championship. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, McLoofus said:

The ones that don't like to be faced with the truth pick convenient stats that suit their narrative. 

Our offense was insufficient in several games in which it should have been better. And it probably cost us a championship. 

I picked the most meaningful stats available. If you don't like the results, that's on you.

By definition, every team that lost one or more games in 2017 had an offense that was "insufficient" in those games. Scoring more points is how the winner is determined.

I suppose your premise is that had we thrown more passes to a TE, our offense would have been fully sufficient? That wild guess at best. Clearly there's no way to prove or dis-prove such a guess.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...