Jermaine Gresham (1 Viewer)

[Holy Schneikes]

If Gresham hadn't been part of a fantastic team and thrown to by the #1 overall pick in 2010, would he be viewed the same way (in the NFL and in fantasy)?

Is he he a good prospect? Yeah, sure he is. But I wonder if he's really the GREAT prospect he's portrayed to be.

He was the 9th fastest TE (40) at the combine. He was tied for 9th in bench. He was 5th in vert and broad, but was bunched in with all of the other average performers in both. He had the worst time measured for TEs in the 3 cone and 60 yard shuttle. So those are his measurables. Not saying that means he can't be great, but that performance certainly wasn't anything to get excited about.

So what about his receiving stats? Well, those ARE impressive. But to be fair, he was in a fantastic offense that had a great college QB and not all that much at WR.

Oh, and of course both of his knees have been reconstructed and he missed his entire senior season.

Then he went to a team that has not historically used the TE position to catch a lot of balls. Of course that could change with an elite pass-catching TE, but that's the question isn't it?

What I've seen in limited viewing:

Good/great hands. Mediocre speed/separation. Limited YAC. Took advantage (to his credit) of a lot of mis-matches created by the offense.

Are there others who share my lack of optimism or am I just missing something about the way he plays? Again, it's not that I think he's bad or anything, and I'd like to have him on my dynasty teams at the right price. I'm just not sure he's head and shoulders above the field like some seem to think. There are 3 or 4 other guys that I'd consider putting in the same tier.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

If Gresham hadn't been part of a fantastic team and thrown to by the #1 overall pick in 2010, would he be viewed the same way (in the NFL and in fantasy)?Is he he a good prospect? Yeah, sure he is. But I wonder if he's really the GREAT prospect he's portrayed to be.He was the 9th fastest TE (40) at the combine. He was tied for 9th in bench. He was 5th in vert and broad, but was bunched in with all of the other average performers in both. He had the worst time measured for TEs in the 3 cone and 60 yard shuttle. So those are his measurables. Not saying that means he can't be great, but that performance certainly wasn't anything to get excited about.So what about his receiving stats? Well, those ARE impressive. But to be fair, he was in a fantastic offense that had a great college QB and not all that much at WR.Oh, and of course both of his knees have been reconstructed and he missed his entire senior season.Then he went to a team that has not historically used the TE position to catch a lot of balls. Of course that could change with an elite pass-catching TE, but that's the question isn't it?What I've seen in limited viewing:Good/great hands. Mediocre speed/separation. Limited YAC. Took advantage (to his credit) of a lot of mis-matches created by the offense.Are there others who share my lack of optimism or am I just missing something about the way he plays? Again, it's not that I think he's bad or anything, and I'd like to have him on my dynasty teams at the right price. I'm just not sure he's head and shoulders above the field like some seem to think. There are 3 or 4 other guys that I'd consider putting in the same tier.

I'm not a huge Gresham fan, I do own him in one league. However, don't you think the "Oh, and of course both of his knees have been reconstructed and he missed his entire senior season." and the "He was the 9th fastest TE (40) at the combine. He was tied for 9th in bench. He was 5th in vert and broad, but was bunched in with all of the other average performers in both. He had the worst time measured for TEs in the 3 cone and 60 yard shuttle. So those are his measurables. Not saying that means he can't be great, but that performance certainly wasn't anything to get excited about." Correlate???

 

[Go deep]

If Gresham hadn't been part of a fantastic team and thrown to by the #1 overall pick in 2010, would he be viewed the same way (in the NFL and in fantasy)?Is he he a good prospect? Yeah, sure he is. But I wonder if he's really the GREAT prospect he's portrayed to be.He was the 9th fastest TE (40) at the combine. He was tied for 9th in bench. He was 5th in vert and broad, but was bunched in with all of the other average performers in both. He had the worst time measured for TEs in the 3 cone and 60 yard shuttle. So those are his measurables. Not saying that means he can't be great, but that performance certainly wasn't anything to get excited about.So what about his receiving stats? Well, those ARE impressive. But to be fair, he was in a fantastic offense that had a great college QB and not all that much at WR.Oh, and of course both of his knees have been reconstructed and he missed his entire senior season.Then he went to a team that has not historically used the TE position to catch a lot of balls. Of course that could change with an elite pass-catching TE, but that's the question isn't it?What I've seen in limited viewing:Good/great hands. Mediocre speed/separation. Limited YAC. Took advantage (to his credit) of a lot of mis-matches created by the offense.Are there others who share my lack of optimism or am I just missing something about the way he plays? Again, it's not that I think he's bad or anything, and I'd like to have him on my dynasty teams at the right price. I'm just not sure he's head and shoulders above the field like some seem to think. There are 3 or 4 other guys that I'd consider putting in the same tier.

I think everybody is pretty much on the same page. He has gone in the mid-late 2nd round in most of the rookie drafts i have looked at. Guys like Gronk, Graham and Hernandez dont seem to be going much later. I dont put much stock in the combine numbers. Im far more concerned about his actual game play. He produced and it doesnt matter that he was in a good situation, as he was part of the reason the situation was good.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

I'm not a huge Gresham fan, I do own him in one league. However, don't you think the "Oh, and of course both of his knees have been reconstructed and he missed his entire senior season." and the "He was the 9th fastest TE (40) at the combine. He was tied for 9th in bench. He was 5th in vert and broad, but was bunched in with all of the other average performers in both. He had the worst time measured for TEs in the 3 cone and 60 yard shuttle. So those are his measurables. Not saying that means he can't be great, but that performance certainly wasn't anything to get excited about." Correlate???

Edit:I just re-read your post, and I totally misunderstood you the first time. Yeah, those things could correlate. That is one possible explanation for the numbers. The other explanation is that he really is fairly average in terms of overall speed/strength among NFL TE propsects. Again, based at the few games I saw him in and the highlights I've seen, he doesn't seem to be any more athletic than the rest of the guys on the field.

 

[The Real Hipster Doofus]

My only concern in regards to Gresham is if his knees are back to 100%. I saw everything I needed to see from him on the football field at Oklahoma. I don't care about his combine numbers, he is the best TE in this class.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

I think everybody is pretty much on the same page. He has gone in the mid-late 2nd round in most of the rookie drafts i have looked at. Guys like Gronk, Graham and Hernandez dont seem to be going much later. I dont put much stock in the combine numbers. Im far more concerned about his actual game play. He produced and it doesnt matter that he was in a good situation, as he was part of the reason the situation was good.

Dunno. Fear and loathing has him in "tier 4" among dynasty TEs. A tier higher than any of the other rookies, and higher than a lot of other young guys I'd rather have.A lot of the polls around here also seem to indicate that Gresham is going late 1st early 2nd, while most of the other guys are going very late 2nd early 3rd.Guys like Ed Dickson are often going in the 4th. How much better is Gresham than Dickson? Better prospect yes, 3 round better prospect, no.I've also seen him go as high as 1.04. Granted, most aren't that high on him, but some are.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

I'm not a huge Gresham fan, I do own him in one league.

However, don't you think the "Oh, and of course both of his knees have been reconstructed and he missed his entire senior season." and the "He was the 9th fastest TE (40) at the combine. He was tied for 9th in bench. He was 5th in vert and broad, but was bunched in with all of the other average performers in both. He had the worst time measured for TEs in the 3 cone and 60 yard shuttle. So those are his measurables. Not saying that means he can't be great, but that performance certainly wasn't anything to get excited about." Correlate???

Correlate to what? Recovering from injuries/surgeries. I'm not saying the guy is overly athletic, like I said i'm not a big fan of him, but you have to account for recovery time.It is what it is. Based strictly on measurables, the guy doesn't seem overly athletic. And quite frankly, depending on how you define athletic, that matches up pretty well with the little I've seen on tape. He's not going to blow by linebackers at the NFL level (like some other TEs can). He isn't going to shake loose and make a big gainer out of a short pass very often. He's not that kind of player.

On the injuries, again, I'm not sure what the question is. There isn't much to correlate to. His knees have both been reconstructed. That simply reduces his value a bit in my book. I'm kind of believer in the thought that says every time you open up a joint to repair it, it reduces the overall lifespan and often effectiveness of that joint. The medical community is amazing these days, but major knee reconstructions are still something I look at and mark down for. Doesn't mean I won't look at a guy, but I'd be looking for something to balance it out (like overwhelming athleticism) if I'm going to pay a premium for him.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

I'm not a huge Gresham fan, I do own him in one league.

However, don't you think the "Oh, and of course both of his knees have been reconstructed and he missed his entire senior season." and the "He was the 9th fastest TE (40) at the combine. He was tied for 9th in bench. He was 5th in vert and broad, but was bunched in with all of the other average performers in both. He had the worst time measured for TEs in the 3 cone and 60 yard shuttle. So those are his measurables. Not saying that means he can't be great, but that performance certainly wasn't anything to get excited about." Correlate???

Correlate to what? Recovering from injuries/surgeries. I'm not saying the guy is overly athletic, like I said i'm not a big fan of him, but you have to account for recovery time.It is what it is. Based strictly on measurables, the guy doesn't seem overly athletic. And quite frankly, depending on how you define athletic, that matches up pretty well with the little I've seen on tape. He's not going to blow by linebackers at the NFL level (like some other TEs can). He isn't going to shake loose and make a big gainer out of a short pass very often. He's not that kind of player.

On the injuries, again, I'm not sure what the question is. There isn't much to correlate to. His knees have both been reconstructed. That simply reduces his value a bit in my book. I'm kind of believer in the thought that says every time you open up a joint to repair it, it reduces the overall lifespan and often effectiveness of that joint. The medical community is amazing these days, but major knee reconstructions are still something I look at and mark down for. Doesn't mean I won't look at a guy, but I'd be looking for something to balance it out (like overwhelming athleticism) if I'm going to pay a premium for him.

Yeah, I got ya - misread you the first time through. I edited the original response. It is a good point.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

He was the 9th fastest TE (40) at the combine. He was tied for 9th in bench. He was 5th in vert and broad, but was bunched in with all of the other average performers in both. He had the worst time measured for TEs in the 3 cone and 60 yard shuttle. So those are his measurables. Not saying that means he can't be great, but that performance certainly wasn't anything to get excited about.

I think when you look at the combine, you just have to look and see if he stood out (either pos or neg) compared with the other top TEs. When you look at the top 10 (using draftscout for reference) and remove Graham and Dickerson, he is right in the middle of the others. In the 40, they fell between 4.59 and 4.71 (Gresh at 4.66). In the bench, tehre was one at 18 and one at 27 and the rest fell between 19 and 23 (Gresh at 20). In the vertical, they were between 34 and 35.5 (Gresh at 35). In the broad jump, between 9'04" and 9'07" (Gresh at 9'05"). Are those differences really meaningful at all? Probably not.

So what about his receiving stats? Well, those ARE impressive. But to be fair, he was in a fantastic offense that had a great college QB and not all that much at WR.

I think the point to take away from his numbers is just how good the offense was with him and Bradford and how mediocre it was without them. They scored 20 more ppg with almost twice as many passing TDs with those two in 2008 versus without them in 2009.

 

[Nagle2998]

Im not a big Gresham guy but I don't think he is as bad as some are making him sound. I think if your looking at the combine at all your wasting your time when it comes to a Te I much rather have intelligence and hands then 40 times unless he is a Davis type freak. I could look it up but I guess I'm just being lazy but I really believe that more then half the top 12 Te's this year didn't have top 5 40 times at their combines.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

So what about his receiving stats? Well, those ARE impressive. But to be fair, he was in a fantastic offense that had a great college QB and not all that much at WR.

I think the point to take away from his numbers is just how good the offense was with him and Bradford and how mediocre it was without them. They scored 20 more ppg with almost twice as many passing TDs with those two in 2008 versus without them in 2009.

I think it's far more likely that that was the result of no Bradford than the result of no Gresham. In fact, you could look at that the other way. It's fairly likely that Bradford (and the scheme to some degree) made the receivers look more talented than they really were.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

He was the 9th fastest TE (40) at the combine. He was tied for 9th in bench. He was 5th in vert and broad, but was bunched in with all of the other average performers in both. He had the worst time measured for TEs in the 3 cone and 60 yard shuttle. So those are his measurables. Not saying that means he can't be great, but that performance certainly wasn't anything to get excited about.

I think when you look at the combine, you just have to look and see if he stood out (either pos or neg) compared with the other top TEs. When you look at the top 10 (using draftscout for reference) and remove Graham and Dickerson, he is right in the middle of the others. In the 40, they fell between 4.59 and 4.71 (Gresh at 4.66). In the bench, tehre was one at 18 and one at 27 and the rest fell between 19 and 23 (Gresh at 20). In the vertical, they were between 34 and 35.5 (Gresh at 35). In the broad jump, between 9'04" and 9'07" (Gresh at 9'05"). Are those differences really meaningful at all? Probably not.

If your point is that Gresham didn't stand out at the combine, then we are in agreement.Sounds an awful lot like you just said, "If you remove the athletic guys, he's slightly below average among the rest of the prospects.". That's not what I like to hear about a guy who is a tier or two above the rest of the prospects in terms of price tag.I never said that his combine numbers weren't "good enough", just that they were far from exciting. The biggest thing that is exciting about Gresham is his gaudy numbers during the season that Bradford was throwing to him and the team was in the national championship. I'm willing to give him credit for those numbers - he earned them. But for an "elite" guy, I'd like to see something else as well. That's all I am saying. I've got no problem putting Gresham among the leaders at his position this year, I just hesitate to put him in a tier above the rest and pay that premium price. I'd rather wait and grab one of the others.

 

[Bojang0301]

Reminds me of Marcedes Lewis... but I have taken him in the 2nd in a couple leagues.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Im not a big Gresham guy but I don't think he is as bad as some are making him sound. I think if your looking at the combine at all your wasting your time when it comes to a Te I much rather have intelligence and hands then 40 times unless he is a Davis type freak. I could look it up but I guess I'm just being lazy but I really believe that more then half the top 12 Te's this year didn't have top 5 40 times at their combines.

Just for fun:Gates - dunno (I suspect his 40 wasn't great), his other skills are in a class by themselves thoughClark was a 4.55 guy - probably among fastest in classWitten was less than Stellar, but not badCelek was not at combineDavis obviously dominated - he was ridiculousWinslow dominated almost as much as DavisGonzo was long while back, dunnoZach Miller - no combine, but more or less dominated his pro day numbers (4.53 - 38" vert)Heath Miller - did not work out at combine or pro day (injured)Finley was not good at combine, better at pro dayOlsen dominatedHeap was a little better than averageThose are your top 12 from last year.Again, I'm NOT saying you can't be great without great measurables (many examples of this at all positions). But they don't hurt either. So for your statement, I would guess way more than half of the guys listed would have been in the top five of their classes. Hard to say about the guys who weren't there, but among the ones who were there and I have known numbers for, it was probably 7 out of 8 (Finley likely not in top 5, five definitely were in top 5, and 2 probably in top 5).

 

[BuckeyeArt]

He was the 9th fastest TE (40) at the combine. He was tied for 9th in bench. He was 5th in vert and broad, but was bunched in with all of the other average performers in both. He had the worst time measured for TEs in the 3 cone and 60 yard shuttle. So those are his measurables. Not saying that means he can't be great, but that performance certainly wasn't anything to get excited about.

I think when you look at the combine, you just have to look and see if he stood out (either pos or neg) compared with the other top TEs. When you look at the top 10 (using draftscout for reference) and remove Graham and Dickerson, he is right in the middle of the others. In the 40, they fell between 4.59 and 4.71 (Gresh at 4.66). In the bench, tehre was one at 18 and one at 27 and the rest fell between 19 and 23 (Gresh at 20). In the vertical, they were between 34 and 35.5 (Gresh at 35). In the broad jump, between 9'04" and 9'07" (Gresh at 9'05"). Are those differences really meaningful at all? Probably not.

If your point is that Gresham didn't stand out at the combine, then we are in agreement.Sounds an awful lot like you just said, "If you remove the athletic guys, he's slightly below average among the rest of the prospects.". That's not what I like to hear about a guy who is a tier or two above the rest of the prospects in terms of price tag.

I was mainly saying to only compare him to the top prospects at TE, not the entire TE field invited to the combine. Someone like Graham is a top prospect based almost solely on his athleticism (and likely the only reason he was invited to the combine). Dickerson is 6'1.3" 226, hardly a classic TE. It makes sense to remove them when making athletic comparisons to Gresham.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

He was the 9th fastest TE (40) at the combine. He was tied for 9th in bench. He was 5th in vert and broad, but was bunched in with all of the other average performers in both. He had the worst time measured for TEs in the 3 cone and 60 yard shuttle. So those are his measurables. Not saying that means he can't be great, but that performance certainly wasn't anything to get excited about.

I think when you look at the combine, you just have to look and see if he stood out (either pos or neg) compared with the other top TEs. When you look at the top 10 (using draftscout for reference) and remove Graham and Dickerson, he is right in the middle of the others. In the 40, they fell between 4.59 and 4.71 (Gresh at 4.66). In the bench, tehre was one at 18 and one at 27 and the rest fell between 19 and 23 (Gresh at 20). In the vertical, they were between 34 and 35.5 (Gresh at 35). In the broad jump, between 9'04" and 9'07" (Gresh at 9'05"). Are those differences really meaningful at all? Probably not.

If your point is that Gresham didn't stand out at the combine, then we are in agreement.Sounds an awful lot like you just said, "If you remove the athletic guys, he's slightly below average among the rest of the prospects.". That's not what I like to hear about a guy who is a tier or two above the rest of the prospects in terms of price tag.

I was mainly saying to only compare him to the top prospects at TE, not the entire TE field invited to the combine. Someone like Graham is a top prospect based almost solely on his athleticism (and likely the only reason he was invited to the combine). Dickerson is 6'1.3" 226, hardly a classic TE. It makes sense to remove them when making athletic comparisons to Gresham.

I see what you are saying, but that's kind of like taking out bad games (or good games) to look at a guy's average. I totally understand removing Dickerson (who is more of a receiver than a TE), but Graham's a guy I would look at in comparison to Gresham, so I don't see the point in removing him at all. No, he doesn't have the track record, but he's a TE for sure and in the mix, so you kind of have to look at him.And if you really want to compare him to only "top prospects", compare him to the top prospects from previous years.He compares favorably to 2009's Pettigrew, but the jury's obviously out on him.Keller, top from 2008, was dominant.Olsen from 2007 was dominant.Davis from 2006 was dominant.Heath Miller didn't do drills, but was known for some speed.Winslow from 2004 was dominant.Clark from 2003 was dominant.Shockey from 2002 was dominant.Heap from 2001 dunno, but likely above average.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

Im not a big Gresham guy but I don't think he is as bad as some are making him sound. I think if your looking at the combine at all your wasting your time when it comes to a Te I much rather have intelligence and hands then 40 times unless he is a Davis type freak. I could look it up but I guess I'm just being lazy but I really believe that more then half the top 12 Te's this year didn't have top 5 40 times at their combines.

Just for fun:Gates - dunno (I suspect his 40 wasn't great), his other skills are in a class by themselves though

Clark was a 4.55 guy - probably among fastest in class draftscout lists 4.65 but no info where that came from

Witten was less than Stellar, but not bad 4.65, 25 reps, 31" vert

Celek was not at combine 4.79, 19 reps, 33" at pro day

Davis obviously dominated - he was ridiculous

Winslow dominated almost as much as Davis no combine - 4.55, 24 reps, 33.5" vert at pro day

Gonzo was long while back, dunno

Zach Miller - no combine, but more or less dominated his pro day numbers (4.53 - 38" vert) draftscout lists combine of 4.87, 34" vert and pro day of 4.72, 16 reps.

Heath Miller - did not work out at combine or pro day (injured) no combine or pro day but numbers listed on draftscout of 4.79, 30.5" vert

Finley was not good at combine, better at pro day 4.82, 20 reps, 27.5" vert at combine - 4.66 at pro day

Olsen dominated 4.51, 23 reps, 33.5" vert

Heap was a little better than average 4.68, 22 reps, 32" vert

Those are your top 12 from last year.

Again, I'm NOT saying you can't be great without great measurables (many examples of this at all positions). But they don't hurt either. So for your statement, I would guess way more than half of the guys listed would have been in the top five of their classes. Hard to say about the guys who weren't there, but among the ones who were there and I have known numbers for, it was probably 7 out of 8 (Finley likely not in top 5, five definitely were in top 5, and 2 probably in top 5).

There are some number discrepancies but the majority of them really look similar to Gresham.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

I see what you are saying, but that's kind of like taking out bad games (or good games) to look at a guy's average.

Which effectively becomes a median.

I totally understand removing Dickerson (who is more of a receiver than a TE), but Graham's a guy I would look at in comparison to Gresham, so I don't see the point in removing him at all. No, he doesn't have the track record, but he's a TE for sure and in the mix, so you kind of have to look at him.

I agree a little with you on Graham. But, his athleticism is the main reason he was even at the combine. It didn't really have much to do with his prior play at TE. If Graham had more of a track record, he'd have been the clear number 1 TE (and he may eventually be).

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Im not a big Gresham guy but I don't think he is as bad as some are making him sound. I think if your looking at the combine at all your wasting your time when it comes to a Te I much rather have intelligence and hands then 40 times unless he is a Davis type freak. I could look it up but I guess I'm just being lazy but I really believe that more then half the top 12 Te's this year didn't have top 5 40 times at their combines.

Just for fun:Gates - dunno (I suspect his 40 wasn't great), his other skills are in a class by themselves though

Clark was a 4.55 guy - probably among fastest in class draftscout lists 4.65 but no info where that came from

Witten was less than Stellar, but not bad 4.65, 25 reps, 31" vert

Celek was not at combine 4.79, 19 reps, 33" at pro day

Davis obviously dominated - he was ridiculous

Winslow dominated almost as much as Davis no combine - 4.55, 24 reps, 33.5" vert at pro day

Gonzo was long while back, dunno

Zach Miller - no combine, but more or less dominated his pro day numbers (4.53 - 38" vert) draftscout lists combine of 4.87, 34" vert and pro day of 4.72, 16 reps.

Heath Miller - did not work out at combine or pro day (injured) no combine or pro day but numbers listed on draftscout of 4.79, 30.5" vert

Finley was not good at combine, better at pro day 4.82, 20 reps, 27.5" vert at combine - 4.66 at pro day

Olsen dominated 4.51, 23 reps, 33.5" vert

Heap was a little better than average 4.68, 22 reps, 32" vert

Those are your top 12 from last year.

Again, I'm NOT saying you can't be great without great measurables (many examples of this at all positions). But they don't hurt either. So for your statement, I would guess way more than half of the guys listed would have been in the top five of their classes. Hard to say about the guys who weren't there, but among the ones who were there and I have known numbers for, it was probably 7 out of 8 (Finley likely not in top 5, five definitely were in top 5, and 2 probably in top 5).

There are some number discrepancies but the majority of them really look similar to Gresham.

We are definitely splitting hairs at this point, but a couple of notes:

The one notable prospect was TE Zach Miller (6-4, 233 pounds). He ran a 4.53 and 4.54 in the 40, had a

37 ½-inch vertical jump, a 10-foot, 4-inch broad jump, a 4.22 short shuttle and a 7.06 three-cone drill. He was unable to lift because he tore a tendon in his hand, but he still excelled in the positional drills, catching the football. He reminds me of a Jay Novacek, Dallas Clark-type player.

– Gil BrandtRemember, the Raiders drafted him.

Dallas Clark (Iowa) 6-3.3 257 40 time - 4.61 bench 225 - 19 vertical - 37.5"

from both eastcoast sports news and ESPN draft central (from 2003)

The only numbers I've seen for Celek were 4.75 in the 40 (cbssports).

But overall, I don't think I'd categorize the sum of those numbers as "very similar to Gresham". I'd categorize lower half of them of them as "very similar to Gresham", and the best of them as "not on Gresham's planet".

And again, I'm just messing around here a bit, but the point isn't that you can't excel with average numbers. In the right scheme, anything is possible. The point is simply that from a "top prospect" standpoint, Gresham is considerably below average in terms of measurables. And the 40 and vert were among his BEST measurements comparatively. The other ones stand out a little more. I'll bet none of the other top prospects were the worst measured in their class in any drill, let alone two drills. If he wasn't ready to run those things, he probably shouldn't have run.

I wouldn't worry so much if he LOOKED a lot quicker than those numbers on tape. But to me, he really doesn't. Even in his highlights, guys are closing on him quickly, and you just don't see him evading anybody with lateral movement. But to be fair, you don't see Gates doing a lot of that either. He just goes up and gets the ball any time it is near him. Gresham could do that too. I just don't like to totally bank on a guy being able to do that.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

But overall, I don't think I'd categorize the sum of those numbers as "very similar to Gresham". I'd categorize lower half of them of them as "very similar to Gresham", and the best of them as "not on Gresham's planet".And again, I'm just messing around here a bit, but the point isn't that you can't excel with average numbers. In the right scheme, anything is possible. The point is simply that from a "top prospect" standpoint, Gresham is considerably below average in terms of measurables. And the 40 and vert were among his BEST measurements comparatively. The other ones stand out a little more.

Maybe the numbers we're referencing for Gresham are totally different. Draftscout has him for 4.66 (40), 20 (reps), 35" (vert), 9' 05" (broad), 4.53 (shuttle), 7.07 (3 cone). The only guy that really blows him away is Davis. Here are Olsen's (same order): 4.51, 23, 35.5", 9' 06", 4.48, and 7.04. Other than the 40 time, there really isn't much difference. I don't see him as considerally below average in measurables.

 

[TS Garp]

The question of whether he's overrated as a prospect in a vacuum is a valid one, but I don't necessarily think he's overrated based on his situation -- he landed in a pretty ideal situation and will be able to contribute immediately on a good offense.

 

[EBF]

The track record of first round TEs is very strong. They almost never bust. That alone makes Gresham an appealing prospect.

You talked about his combine numbers, but it's important to recognize that some of the guys he's competing with in those drills are really just WR/TE tweeners. Of course his numbers look bad compared to Aaron Hernandez, Jameson Koncz, and Dorin Dickerson. They're 6'2"-6'3" 230-240 pounds whereas Gresham is 6'5" 260. You would expect the bigger player to be slower.

I would say he's more of a Gates/Crumpler type of TE than a Winslow/Davis. He doesn't have great explosiveness, but he's nimble and bulky. His frame will prevent matchup problems against most linebackers and safeties (who tend to be 5'11"-6'2") and although he's not a burner, he's a fluid runner for his height and weight. I think he can become a solid starter in the league.

Is he the best TE in this class? I don't know. This is one of the best groups I've ever seen. I think Jimmy Graham and Aaron Hernandez have the potential to be better FF players than Gresham and you could possibly make a case for Tony Moeaki or Fendi Onobun as well, but none of them have the first round pedigree on their side. The odds favor Gresham.

 

[cr8f]

My question is will the Bengals use a TE enough to warrant the high pick they made in the draft.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

My question is will the Bengals use a TE enough to warrant the high pick they made in the draft.

The question you should be asking is why they'd spend a 1st on him if they weren't going to use him.

 

[kremenull]

Some of these posts are almost bordering on ridiculous. Concluding that a guy will not be that good based on combine measurables that are not the true indicator of the player's athleticism is a giant assumptioin.

All of the naysayers do realize that he wasn't yet fully recovered from a season-ending injury, right? And I have to question if both of his knees have been reconstructed, as stated earlier. This latest injury was not a reconstruction surgery, IIRC.

From what I've seen on film, especially from his 2008 games, Gresham is more than athletic enough, especially for a guy of his size and skill level to dominate at the pro level. The real question of whether he can or not revolves around the utilization of him by his team, but his athleticism and/or skill set will not be the limiting factor as intimated throughout this thread..

He reminds me of Kellen Winslow......Sr.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

My question is will the Bengals use a TE enough to warrant the high pick they made in the draft.

The question you should be asking is why they'd spend a 1st on him if they weren't going to use him.

I am high on Gresham for a few reasons and took him in the second round of a recent dynasty rookie draft.First, the observations about him having excellent size and decent, but not dominating, speed are accurate. The matchup problems that he will cause and his production lead to him being the only first round TE taken in the NFL draft. His injuries would have been thoroughly checked out for him to get selected that high and he was a full participant in the rookie and mini camps by the Bengals. Check out some tape of him and you can see that for his size and speed he is elusive and one person made a very good observation when they said he is nimble, he is. He is large and nimble as a hippo in deep water in the way he gets away from coverage.

The original points being critical of him not dominating the competition at Indy are true. He didn't. He did dominate the field in production on the field and his size will create matchup problems because no DB can match his size and that means LBers will have to match his foot speed and even if they can he has proven that he simply shakes coverage by a combination of size and what would have to be described as 'nimble' or 'nifty' footwork.

Another excellent point that was orignally made is Jermaine had an excellent QB in Sam Bradford. True and undeniable yet he has an excellent QB in Carson Palmer so I find no slippage in his ability to work with and make the most of a solid QB to TE combo.

Then the last point that was made was that the Bengals historically do not utilize the TE, or have never made the TE a cornerstone of the offense. Very true so lets study that solid point and see if the Bengals, who have never taken a TE in the first round in recent memory, would utilize a TE more if they invested that much in the position, i.e. if they had a TE worthy of being a cornerstone of the offense would they utilize them?

I don't have links but filed away a few comments on Gresham when I took him, I may have plucked these right from the NEWS section of FGBs because the last tidbit is a comment made by FBGs:

TE Jermaine Gresham appeared NFL-ready during May practices and is all-around tight end team has lacked for several years. Bengals HC Marvin Lewis reportedly called Gresham’s NFL readiness "a pleasant surprise" at rookie minicamp early this month. He showed good athleticism, ball skills and hands in May. Gresham could provide the offense with speed on the edge and a reliable target over the middle this season. He has the size and ability to create match-up problems for opposing defenses. Gresham is expected to start opening day. - Don't buy the idea that Gresham is in trouble because the Bengals rarely throw to the TE. They rarely throw to the TE because they haven't had one that is even an average receiving threat at the position. Gresham should be a low-end starting fantasy TE from year two on, a better receiver than blocker for sure. Gresham isn't a special receiving TE that a team would orient their whole passing game around, but he is a quality target who will be a strong contributor for Carson Palmer.

Bengals | Palmer impressed with rookie Gresham Thu Jun 10, 07:59 PM

Geoff Hobson, from Bengals.com, reports quarterback Carson Palmer continues to be high on rookie tight end Jermaine Gresham. "I don't know if there is anything that any tight end in this league does that he can't potentially do," Palmer said. "Not that he's mastered anything yet. Not that he's got everything down. But I don't see a weakness. If he had to play in Pittsburgh's offense and block a guy every single time and run little quick seam routes, out routes, he could do that. If he played in Denver's offense and got to run a lot of routes, he could do that. "The sky's the limit for him," he said. "God has given him the natural physical tools and ability to do anything in this league. He's given a lot of guys that. The next step is those guys maximize their physical potential and that's all in the heard and in the heart. And if he's got that, which I think he does, then the sky's the limit."

Our view: Palmer has seen why the Bengals were impressed with Gresham enough to select him in the first-round of the 2010 NFL Draft. Gresham has great hands, and is not afraid to go over the middle of the defense. He has the speed and athleticism to cause a mismatch every time he lines up on the field, but he also has the strength and willingness to be an effective blocker.

The fact that he is a willing and effective blocker means that he will get on the field much quicker and won't be taken off for a blocking TE meaning that the OC doesn't have to tip his hand or make substiutions. Add that Bengal OC Bob Bratkowski is reportedly drawing up scenarios just for Gresham.He came out of the recent mini camp saturated and was told by Palmer and the veteran TEs to slow down and let it come to him so he may be pushing right now to try and obsorb everything but we know that probably won't happen so I anticipate that he will be met with the natural rookie struggles but I also think he will start from day-one and he'll be reasonably productive and if he doesn't hit the rookie wall that later in the year things will slow down for him and he'll shine.

Next year and into the future I think he will be one of the up-and-coming young TEs in the NFL and in FF leagues and that is why I was glad to land him late in the second round of a recent dynasty rookie draft.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Some excellent rebuttals in here. It's not fair to compare him to much smaller guys in terms of speed - this is true. Combine measurements aren't everything - this is also very true. You always risk derision when you even mention them, but they DO provide SOME insight into a guy IMO. It is also true that the team spent a nice investment on the guy and will probably try to use him as much as possible. Another excellent point is that 1st round TEs have one of the best track records of any position.

So I GET why some people are excited about him. I'm just a little leery is all. Seems to me he might turn out to be a bit of a "system" guy and end up being a very solid NFL TE, but not a significant fantasy force. Maybe more of a Heath Miller than one of the fantasy studs. Just the way he strikes me. The same could be said of most guys you get where he is going in drafts, so that isn't a super slam or anything.

Oh, and just to respond to the concern over the "knee reconstruction" terminology. To me, torn ACL = knee reconstruction. That may not be technically correct (I'm not sure there IS a technical definition of "reconstruction"), but that's the way I look at it. If you are going in and replacing/stitching together torn ligaments that's pretty much rebuilding a portion of the knee. And for Gresham's last surgery there was also cartilage damage as well (which is probably typical) from what I've read. Like I said before, that doesn't mean he can't recover from it, just that I think it detracts from his long-term value a little bit. All things equal, I'll take a guy who hasn't had both of his knees rebuilt over the guy who has.

I appreciate the responses fellas.

 

[Bri]

I want to say just wait and see but that also makes me want to point out that some of these posts are as if some haven't seen him. Yeah hit youtube or soonersports but I guess the simplest is to just assume that (so) many see something special from him.

I think he's a better receiver than Pettigrew and I'd bet he shows something for the Lions this year. There's fingertip grabs and ability to turn back to the ball or jump and catch an "uncatchable" ball that you can't help notice with Gresham.

My concern is the lack of TE usage in the passing game in Cincy. However one of the first steps was seeing that Palmer (and Lewis) has gained confidence in him and from the post above that seems to have happened.

Predicting TEs rookie years is extremely difficult as many very talented ones did squat their rookie year. Moreso than any position and maybe the only decent predictor for rook TEs is to go by the comments you read, and read often. Every rook is going to get praised so repetition is key.

More Palmer and Lewis comments could make Gresham a redraft pick which I don't think he is now.

I often remember how excited the Giants were about Shockey as a rook. Gresham is so not there yet as far as the team loving him being on the field. Avid readers will feel like they have no choice but to pick Gresham if he gets enough praise. That's when you draft a rookie TE in redraft

 

[softball]

My question is will the Bengals use a TE enough to warrant the high pick they made in the draft.

Bingo-And what is going on with Caldwell? I thought he looked good last season, they draft Gresham and Shipley.Gresham is not going to be a factor IMO, weird pick to say the least. At no point has Carson leaned on the TE, to suddenly expect a ton of check downs is just not logical based on his time in the league. The only hope for production IMO is having Gresham line up as the slot reeiver rather than a tradition TE.

 

[EBF]

At no point has Carson leaned on the TE, to suddenly expect a ton of check downs is just not logical based on his time in the league.

This is probably because the Bengals have never had a good TE.People are going overboard with this "Bengals never use the TE" argument. Cincinnati hasn't had an elite receiving TE on the roster during the entire Marvin Lewis era, so it's impossible to predict how they might use one. The Chargers didn't have an elite TE until Gates. The Browns didn't have an elite TE until Winslow. The Giants didn't have an elite TE until Shockey. The Colts didn't have an elite TE until Clark. The Redskins didn't have an elite TE until Cooley.With few exceptions, you can't manufacture production out of a position unless you have a player capable of producing. I don't think Reggie Kelly, Matt Schobel, and Chas Coffman qualify. It's really, really silly to think you can look at the recent Bengals TEs and figure out anything about Gresham's ceiling.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

Bingo-And what is going on with Caldwell? I thought he looked good last season, they draft Gresham and Shipley.

I didn't think Caldwell made any kind of impact at all. He looked like he was scared to get hit. Once Henry was out, he was worthless. After that, he went 24-185-0 in 9 games. I want something more out of my slot/WR3. Shipley will easily pass him.

 

[Bri]

EBF, Giants Supe teams had good TE production, if not great for that time

 

[JohnnyU]

At no point has Carson leaned on the TE, to suddenly expect a ton of check downs is just not logical based on his time in the league.

This is probably because the Bengals have never had a good TE.People are going overboard with this "Bengals never use the TE" argument. Cincinnati hasn't had an elite receiving TE on the roster during the entire Marvin Lewis era, so it's impossible to predict how they might use one. The Chargers didn't have an elite TE until Gates. The Browns didn't have an elite TE until Winslow. The Giants didn't have an elite TE until Shockey. The Colts didn't have an elite TE until Clark. The Redskins didn't have an elite TE until Cooley.With few exceptions, you can't manufacture production out of a position unless you have a player capable of producing. I don't think Reggie Kelly, Matt Schobel, and Chas Coffman qualify. It's really, really silly to think you can look at the recent Bengals TEs and figure out anything about Gresham's ceiling.

EBF is correct about this. For those of you using this argument, you are most likely wrong.

 

[Invictus~Bronte]

Kellen Winslow 1, Mark Bavaro.. SD and NY

Just Sayin

They also were Raving about Chris Henry last season as well. Didn't exactly utilize him before his untimely demise. As far as Gresham, I'll believe when I see. They plan on pounding it out with tough DEF, like the rest of the Division. maybe he'll be a good RZ option