Tight End or Wide Receiver? (1 Viewer)

[Faust]

Jared Cook wants to be called a WR if tagged by Titans By Kareem CopelandAround the League Writer

Jared Cook wants to be classified as a receiver if the Tennessee Titans decide to use the franchise tag on him, NFL.com's Ian Rapoport reported Friday on "NFL Total Access."Cook would be the first tight end to earn that distinction and both he and the NFLPA are prepared to make the case, a source with knowledge of Cook's plans told Rapoport.The franchise tag for a wide receiver ($10.537 million) is worth more than $4 million more than that of a tight end ($6.066 million). It's easy to see why Cook would take up that fight.Green Bay Packers tight end Jermichael Finley was ready to do the same before he signed a two-year deal last February.This situation only will become more prevalent around the NFL. The new breed of tight end is being lined up out wide and in the slot more than ever. It's a legit argument depending on how often the player lines up with his hand in the dirt.Cook and the union certainly will have percentages and package examples to state their case. The decision could set a precedent for future versatile tight ends.

 

[Faust]

Tight End or Wide Receiver?

 

[JackReacher]

Jared Cook wants to be called a WR if tagged by Titans By Kareem CopelandAround the League Writer

Jared Cook wants to be classified as a receiver if the Tennessee Titans decide to use the franchise tag on him, NFL.com's Ian Rapoport reported Friday on "NFL Total Access."Cook would be the first tight end to earn that distinction and both he and the NFLPA are prepared to make the case, a source with knowledge of Cook's plans told Rapoport.The franchise tag for a wide receiver ($10.537 million) is worth more than $4 million more than that of a tight end ($6.066 million). It's easy to see why Cook would take up that fight.Green Bay Packers tight end Jermichael Finley was ready to do the same before he signed a two-year deal last February.This situation only will become more prevalent around the NFL. The new breed of tight end is being lined up out wide and in the slot more than ever. It's a legit argument depending on how often the player lines up with his hand in the dirt.Cook and the union certainly will have percentages and package examples to state their case. The decision could set a precedent for future versatile tight ends.

So if he was declared a WR, it would be sensible for fantasy leagues to follow suit

 

[flc735]

Do the players have any say in the matter? What if Cook threw a pass last year, could he demand to be tagged as a QB? As stupid as that sounds, could he do that in a way to avoid a franchise tag all together?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

The rules are pretty explicit. Your position for the tag is based on where you played the most snaps. Cook was lined up in the slot or out wide 70% of the time.I think it's just negotiating leverage though. No way to the Titans tag him if it's going to be $10m+. Either they let him go or sign him to a longer term deal. Which is what Cook wants.

 

[dickey moe]

As if Cook owners needed a reason to have his value plummet even further.

 

[12punch]

Do the players have any say in the matter? What if Cook threw a pass last year, could he demand to be tagged as a QB? As stupid as that sounds, could he do that in a way to avoid a franchise tag all together?

You just answered your own question

 

[flc735]

Do the players have any say in the matter? What if Cook threw a pass last year, could he demand to be tagged as a QB? As stupid as that sounds, could he do that in a way to avoid a franchise tag all together?

You just answered your own question

but thanks anyway.

 

[KellysHeroes]

The rules are pretty explicit. Your position for the tag is based on where you played the most snaps. Cook was lined up in the slot or out wide 70% of the time.I think it's just negotiating leverage though. No way to the Titans tag him if it's going to be $10m+. Either they let him go or sign him to a longer term deal. Which is what Cook wants.

yes, but are they using that formula when they determine the franchise tag price? I think the whole systems needs to be looked as almost all starting TEs could be viewed as WRs.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

The rules are pretty explicit. Your position for the tag is based on where you played the most snaps. Cook was lined up in the slot or out wide 70% of the time.I think it's just negotiating leverage though. No way to the Titans tag him if it's going to be $10m+. Either they let him go or sign him to a longer term deal. Which is what Cook wants.

yes, but are they using that formula when they determine the franchise tag price? I think the whole systems needs to be looked as almost all starting TEs could be viewed as WRs.

Many of the ones useful in fantasy for sure. Graham, Hernandez, several others. I think Gronk is about 50/50.

 

[msommer]

Ha, just ha. Eternal tease

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Best tweet I saw was Cook's best argument for not being a TE is he's never blocked anyone in his career. LOL

 

[cstu]

Best tweet I saw was Cook's best argument for not being a TE is he's never blocked anyone in his career. LOL

 

[cstu]

As if Cook owners needed a reason to have his value plummet even further.

Seems like he just wants out of Tennessee. I'm not even sure he's worth $6M, not sure where he's going to get paid like that. Probably some team will give him a big deal he won't live up to.

 

[ghostguy123]

They will pretty much just need to distinguish between receiving TEs, regular TEs, and blocking TEs with some sort of prorated franchise tag amount. Even though Cook only lines up on the line to block 30% of the time, that is 30% more than most WRs line up there, so I don't see how he could get the same tag amount as a WR. So he can argue all he wants that he should be classified as a WR, and he DOES have some merit in his argument, but the fact is he still plays traditional TE some of the time.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

According to the Article 9, Section 2 of the NFL’s Collective Bargaining Agreement, the “tender will apply to the position in which the player participated in the most plays.”According to Pro Football Focus, Cook lined up in the slot for 56 percent of the 485 snaps he played last season. He was also lined up wide on other plays, which would add to his time as a receiver.

Seems fairly cut and dried.

 

[Patroclus]

They will pretty much just need to distinguish between receiving TEs, regular TEs, and blocking TEs with some sort of prorated franchise tag amount. Even though Cook only lines up on the line to block 30% of the time, that is 30% more than most WRs line up there, so I don't see how he could get the same tag amount as a WR. So he can argue all he wants that he should be classified as a WR, and he DOES have some merit in his argument, but the fact is he still plays traditional TE some of the time.

But he doesn't even play TE for the majority of his snaps. The majority are at WR. This is no big deal except if the franchise tag him. In which case the rules are straight forward. He'd be tagged as a WR.

 

[cstu]

According to the Article 9, Section 2 of the NFL’s Collective Bargaining Agreement, the “tender will apply to the position in which the player participated in the most plays.”According to Pro Football Focus, Cook lined up in the slot for 56 percent of the 485 snaps he played last season. He was also lined up wide on other plays, which would add to his time as a receiver.

Seems fairly cut and dried.

Isn't lining up in the slot part of playing the TE position? The idea that a TE has to line up on the line most of the time to be a TE seems ridiculous to me. The TE position is a hybrid of OL and WR and that's what he does.

 

[coolnerd]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/03/04/rams-plans-for-amendola-arent-clear/

Well, here might be a reverse situation

Caplan tweets that there’s a rumor the Rams are considering applying the transition tag to Amendola as a tight end. Yes, as a tight end. That would allow the Rams to secure a right to match, in exchange for a one-year $5.194 million offer.

It sounds ridiculous on the surface. But in reality it’s a no-lose proposition for the Rams. If the Rams have an argument that can be made with a straight face (e.g., the proliferation of tight ends who are also slot receivers has converted the position of slot receiver into an extension of the tight end position), they can plant the flag in the ground, advance their position in the grievance process, and hope for the best.

Essentially, the slot is probably neither cleanly a TE nor WR (sometimes even a rb) in today's NFL. Long term, there probably just needs some reciever designation, but of course, that would lessen the tags for those who legitimately play WR most of the time.

 

[cstu]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/03/04/rams-plans-for-amendola-arent-clear/

Well, here might be a reverse situation

Caplan tweets that there’s a rumor the Rams are considering applying the transition tag to Amendola as a tight end. Yes, as a tight end. That would allow the Rams to secure a right to match, in exchange for a one-year $5.194 million offer.

It sounds ridiculous on the surface. But in reality it’s a no-lose proposition for the Rams. If the Rams have an argument that can be made with a straight face (e.g., the proliferation of tight ends who are also slot receivers has converted the position of slot receiver into an extension of the tight end position), they can plant the flag in the ground, advance their position in the grievance process, and hope for the best.

Essentially, the slot is probably neither cleanly a TE nor WR (sometimes even a rb) in today's NFL. Long term, there probably just needs some reciever designation, but of course, that would lessen the tags for those who legitimately play WR most of the time.

I think if a guy plays any meaningful amount of snaps on the line he's a TE. They do need to clarify it in the rules.

 

[Chase Stuart]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/03/04/rams-plans-for-amendola-arent-clear/

Well, here might be a reverse situation

Caplan tweets that there’s a rumor the Rams are considering applying the transition tag to Amendola as a tight end. Yes, as a tight end. That would allow the Rams to secure a right to match, in exchange for a one-year $5.194 million offer.

It sounds ridiculous on the surface. But in reality it’s a no-lose proposition for the Rams. If the Rams have an argument that can be made with a straight face (e.g., the proliferation of tight ends who are also slot receivers has converted the position of slot receiver into an extension of the tight end position), they can plant the flag in the ground, advance their position in the grievance process, and hope for the best.

Essentially, the slot is probably neither cleanly a TE nor WR (sometimes even a rb) in today's NFL. Long term, there probably just needs some reciever designation, but of course, that would lessen the tags for those who legitimately play WR most of the time.

I think if a guy plays any meaningful amount of snaps on the line he's a TE. They do need to clarify it in the rules.

If a team uses the player as a wide receiver, why should he be tagged as a tight end?

 

[Concept Coop]

Isn't lining up in the slot part of playing the TE position? The idea that a TE has to line up on the line most of the time to be a TE seems ridiculous to me. The TE position is a hybrid of OL and WR and that's what he does.

Right, but were do we draw the line? Jimmy Graham plays as a WR MUCH more than he does as a TE.

 

[JamesTheScot]

The rules are pretty explicit. Your position for the tag is based on where you played the most snaps. Cook was lined up in the slot or out wide 70% of the time.I think it's just negotiating leverage though. No way to the Titans tag him if it's going to be $10m+. Either they let him go or sign him to a longer term deal. Which is what Cook wants.

Maybe that's the backwards way to look at it.How many times do WR's line up tight to a tackle to block DE's or LB's?Maybe what defines a TE isn't so much what he does, but rather what he does that a WR doesn't. In other words, it may be that the 30% IS exactly that which defines him as a TE instead of a WR, because WR's don't do that.Should RG3 get a RB franchise tag? What happened with Suggs a few years ago with his designation?BTW, I'm just playing devil's advocate. This is one of those situations where I don't think there's a clear right or wrong answer.

 

[JamesTheScot]

According to the Article 9, Section 2 of the NFL's Collective Bargaining Agreement, the "tender will apply to the position in which the player participated in the most plays."According to Pro Football Focus, Cook lined up in the slot for 56 percent of the 485 snaps he played last season. He was also lined up wide on other plays, which would add to his time as a receiver.

Seems fairly cut and dried.

Until you make the argument that part of being a TE is lining up in the slot and out wide.RB's frequently line up in the slot and out wide.In terms of frequency, do RB's line up in the slot and out wide more or less often than WR's line-up in the backfield?It sure sounds like a lot of people (TE's and RB's) do what WR's do, but the converse isn't true. If that's the case, is it really valid to define the position by what you do when lots of people are doing it?You could make the argument that WR's are TE's that can't block or RB's that can't run.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

The whole point is that being really good at the receiving aspects of the position are worth more to a team than the blocking aspects. So applying the TE "scale" to a receiving TE just doesn't make a ton of sense on a lot of fronts.Lance Moore and Jimmy Graham play the same "position" a good chunk of the time. I think it's fair to say Graham is probably a lot more valuable to the team in general. Yet, as it stands without some kind of fight, Graham could be be held hostage by the tag for $6M and Moore would cost the team $10M. So just because Graham has the ABILITY to line up in-line he loses $4M of value?Does that make sense?Cook isn't as clear an example as Graham, but he's in the same boat to some degree. He's an overgrown receiver most of the time - and he is one of the best they have. That's why they want to tag him, not because of his blocking skills.

 

[JamesTheScot]

According to the Article 9, Section 2 of the NFL's Collective Bargaining Agreement, the "tender will apply to the position in which the player participated in the most plays."According to Pro Football Focus, Cook lined up in the slot for 56 percent of the 485 snaps he played last season. He was also lined up wide on other plays, which would add to his time as a receiver.

Seems fairly cut and dried.

Until you make the argument that part of being a TE is lining up in the slot and out wide. In other words, who decided that only WR's line up in the slot and out wide? Or that anyone that does this must therefore be a WR?RB's frequently line up in the slot and out wide. They line up in both places before the snap. Is the play counted where they started the formation or where they ended. Or do they WR credit if they motion into the slot but then motion back before the snap?In terms of frequency, do RB's line up in the slot and out wide more or less often than WR's line-up in the backfield?It sure sounds like a lot of people (TE's and RB's) do what WR's do, but the converse isn't true. If that's the case, is it really valid to define the position by what you do when lots of people are doing it?You could make the argument that WR's are TE's that can't block or RB's that can't run. You could make the argument that TE's are RB's that can block but can't run.If Cook is being used out wide to create a mismatch, he's still being used as a TE. He either has a size advantage on the CB or he's pulling a LB out on the edge in space. There's a reason these big guys that can catch are being drafted and called TE's. It's because they aren't prototypical WR's.

 

[Concept Coop]

If Cook is being used out wide to create a mismatch, he's still being used as a TE.

He is being used as a WR - why should it matter why?

 

[Moniker]

According to the Article 9, Section 2 of the NFL's Collective Bargaining Agreement, the "tender will apply to the position in which the player participated in the most plays."According to Pro Football Focus, Cook lined up in the slot for 56 percent of the 485 snaps he played last season. He was also lined up wide on other plays, which would add to his time as a receiver.

Seems fairly cut and dried.

Until you make the argument that part of being a TE is lining up in the slot and out wide. In other words, who decided that only WR's line up in the slot and out wide? Or that anyone that does this must therefore be a WR?RB's frequently line up in the slot and out wide. They line up in both places before the snap. Is the play counted where they started the formation or where they ended. Or do they WR credit if they motion into the slot but then motion back before the snap?In terms of frequency, do RB's line up in the slot and out wide more or less often than WR's line-up in the backfield?It sure sounds like a lot of people (TE's and RB's) do what WR's do, but the converse isn't true. If that's the case, is it really valid to define the position by what you do when lots of people are doing it?You could make the argument that WR's are TE's that can't block or RB's that can't run. You could make the argument that TE's are RB's that can block but can't run.If Cook is being used out wide to create a mismatch, he's still being used as a TE. He either has a size advantage on the CB or he's pulling a LB out on the edge in space. There's a reason these big guys that can catch are being drafted and called TE's. It's because they aren't prototypical WR's.

Traditionally, tight ends line up on the line next to the tackle. Split ends line up on the line split away from the tackle. Flankers line up behind the line away from the tackle. We now just group Split Ends and Flankers together into Wide Receivers. So, no, if someone lining up split away from the tackle for most of their plays shouldn't be considered a tight end.

 

[Devine Intervention]

If Cook is being used out wide to create a mismatch, he's still being used as a TE.

He is being used as a WR - why should it matter why?

If a RB is the leading receiver on his team is he now a WR? The position of TE changed in football, that doesnt make him a WR. It just means that their responsibilities are now different in todays game. If these TEs playing in the slot or at WR positions should now be considered a WR, then shouldnt the LB covering them be called a CB? Since its the job of the CBs to cover WRs then that must change too.

 

[Concept Coop]

If a RB is the leading receiver on his team is he now a WR? The position of TE changed in football, that doesnt make him a WR. It just means that their responsibilities are now different in todays game. If these TEs playing in the slot or at WR positions should now be considered a WR, then shouldnt the LB covering them be called a CB? Since its the job of the CBs to cover WRs then that must change too.

You're building an army of strawmen.Jimmy Graham plays WR more than he does TE. Let's stick to one example, yeah? How often does an NFL team need to play a WR at TE to get a franchise tag discount? 10% of his plays? 15%?

 

[Devine Intervention]

If a RB is the leading receiver on his team is he now a WR? The position of TE changed in football, that doesnt make him a WR. It just means that their responsibilities are now different in todays game. If these TEs playing in the slot or at WR positions should now be considered a WR, then shouldnt the LB covering them be called a CB? Since its the job of the CBs to cover WRs then that must change too.

You're building an army of strawmen.Jimmy Graham plays WR more than he does TE. Let's stick to one example, yeah? How often does an NFL team need to play a WR at TE to get a franchise tag discount? 10% of his plays? 15%?

True, but 15% of plays is quite a bit to waste a WR worth franchising on the line of scrimmage where he probably would never get off the line.

 

[Devine Intervention]

And wouldnt you have a similar argument with these 3-4 OLBs? Where they spend most of their time pass rushing like a DE would but are listed as a OLB? Thats a 1.5 mil difference in that too.

 

[Concept Coop]

True, but 15% of plays is quite a bit to waste a WR worth franchising on the line of scrimmage where he probably would never get off the line.

I am not saying it would be wise to do, really. I am not sure what the numbers are, but lets say it's 70/30 WR/TE for Graham. Why does he have the burden of disproving his TE tag? Why shouldn't he have to play 50+% of his plays as a TE? Would Dexter McCluster be franchised as a RB because he played RB in college and lined up in the backfield on 20% of his snaps?

 

[identikit]

Sounds like a math issue to me.The $$ should be proportionate to snap positions. Slot and outside - WR, in-line = TE

 

[Devine Intervention]

I just feel like its too tough in todays football with the different schemes. The duties of a OLB in a 4-3 is WAYYYY different than that of a OLB in the 3-4. Even though they are called the same thing and would be franchised that way, one is a LB and the other more of a pass rushing DE. Same thing goes for offense. In a TRADITIONAL style offense the TE plays mostly next to the tackle and is used for a balance blocking and receiving. But in the SPREAD, the TE gets split out more.Tim Tebow ran the ball more than he threw it some games but that didnt make him a RB. RG3 is being asked to throw the ball as frequent as a drop back passer but run the ball like a wildcat RB. Should he ask for more because he is being asked to play multiple positions? I think it can get really specific either way, and a team signs you to a position and thats what you play. If you dont like being signed under those terms then dont.

 

[Concept Coop]

I think it can get really specific either way, and a team signs you to a position and thats what you play. If you dont like being signed under those terms then dont.

But you don't sign a contract specific to a position. There is nothing writing, in that regard.

 

[Devine Intervention]

I think it can get really specific either way, and a team signs you to a position and thats what you play. If you dont like being signed under those terms then dont.

But you don't sign a contract specific to a position. There is nothing writing, in that regard.

But generally the contract reflects your position. A TE contract is usually less. Also you do assigned a roster position. Another tricky situation was when the Bills had B. Smith as the 3rd QB but he played WR. Not that they wouldve ever tagged him but its an interesting situation.

 

[eNdblu]

Evan Silva @evansilvaRT @jwyattsports The #Titans are not going to place the franchise tag on TE Jared Cook. No one will be tagged

I wonder if this means they came to a contract agreement with Cook or if he's hitting the open market?

 

[Abrantes]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/03/04/rams-plans-for-amendola-arent-clear/

Well, here might be a reverse situation

Caplan tweets that there’s a rumor the Rams are considering applying the transition tag to Amendola as a tight end. Yes, as a tight end. That would allow the Rams to secure a right to match, in exchange for a one-year $5.194 million offer.

It sounds ridiculous on the surface. But in reality it’s a no-lose proposition for the Rams. If the Rams have an argument that can be made with a straight face (e.g., the proliferation of tight ends who are also slot receivers has converted the position of slot receiver into an extension of the tight end position), they can plant the flag in the ground, advance their position in the grievance process, and hope for the best.

Essentially, the slot is probably neither cleanly a TE nor WR (sometimes even a rb) in today's NFL. Long term, there probably just needs some reciever designation, but of course, that would lessen the tags for those who legitimately play WR most of the time.

It's a preposterous rumor, as Caplan himself points out, and I imagine there's very little substance to it. I don't see how it's a no-lose proposition for the Rams at all. I doubt any team wants to get a reputation for negotiating in bad faith with its players, purely for the sake of keeping a mid-level player for another year at a cheaper cost - not to mention the semantic gymnastics you'd have to go through to fit Amendola as a TE.It's silly that this is even a "story".

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Cook will hit FA after all. Reading between the lines it seems like the Titans knew they'd lose the argument and didn't think Cook was worth the WR tag price.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Cook will hit FA after all. Reading between the lines it seems like the Titans knew they'd lose the argument and didn't think Cook was worth the WR tag price.

Yep, it's a win for Cook. I doubt his team ever expected to get the 10M tag, they just didn't want to get hit with the 6M tag. Now he'll get whatever he is worth, but won't be restricted by the league. Whatever it ends up being, they bet it will be north of 6M, and they are very likely right.

 

[cstu]

The whole point is that being really good at the receiving aspects of the position are worth more to a team than the blocking aspects. So applying the TE "scale" to a receiving TE just doesn't make a ton of sense on a lot of fronts.

Lance Moore and Jimmy Graham play the same "position" a good chunk of the time. I think it's fair to say Graham is probably a lot more valuable to the team in general. Yet, as it stands without some kind of fight, Graham could be be held hostage by the tag for $6M and Moore would cost the team $10M. So just because Graham has the ABILITY to line up in-line he loses $4M of value?

Does that make sense?

Cook isn't as clear an example as Graham, but he's in the same boat to some degree. He's an overgrown receiver most of the time - and he is one of the best they have. That's why they want to tag him, not because of his blocking skills.

It makes absolute sense, but if TE's are worth more than WR's why aren't they paid as well?

 

[cstu]

Evan Silva @evansilvaRT @jwyattsports The #Titans are not going to place the franchise tag on TE Jared Cook. No one will be tagged

I wonder if this means they came to a contract agreement with Cook or if he's hitting the open market?

It sounds like they didn't think the fight was worth it. They could still sign him to a long term deal but it's unlikely and I expect them to sign another FA TE.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

The whole point is that being really good at the receiving aspects of the position are worth more to a team than the blocking aspects. So applying the TE "scale" to a receiving TE just doesn't make a ton of sense on a lot of fronts.

Lance Moore and Jimmy Graham play the same "position" a good chunk of the time. I think it's fair to say Graham is probably a lot more valuable to the team in general. Yet, as it stands without some kind of fight, Graham could be be held hostage by the tag for $6M and Moore would cost the team $10M. So just because Graham has the ABILITY to line up in-line he loses $4M of value?

Does that make sense?

Cook isn't as clear an example as Graham, but he's in the same boat to some degree. He's an overgrown receiver most of the time - and he is one of the best they have. That's why they want to tag him, not because of his blocking skills.

It makes absolute sense, but if TE's are worth more than WR's why aren't they paid as well?

Come on, you KNOW it doesn't make sense. You think Lance Moore is worth 50%+ more than Jimmy Graham to his team because he can't line up in-line?TEs as a "group" don't get paid a lot, because many of them don't bring "special" skills to the table. Those are TYPICALLY the ones whose primary role is as a blocker and don't/can't line up in the slot or out wide etc. The other ones, who play receiver more than TE, are worth a lot more (more than the other TEs, not more than receivers). It's really not that hard. The best "receiving" TEs may or may not be worth what the best WRs are, but they are worth a lot more than the TEs who don't bring much to the table as receivers.

You can fight this all day long, but two teams have punted on this issue now, and there is a reason for that. They know there is a difference and they know an arbitrator would see it that way too.

 

[Biabreakable]

I think it is funny that the Rams value Amendola as a blocker more than the Titans do Cook.

Not sure that Cook is worth more than 6 million and I thought it was a bad sign for the Titans if Cook is that much better than the rest of their team that would justify tagging him.

Maybe Cook will be relevant in FF with a new team.

The Vikings paid John Carlson $25 million for 5 years with a grip of it guarunteed. So 6 million a year does seem to be market value at the position based on that deal last year.

 

[FUBAR]

The whole point is that being really good at the receiving aspects of the position are worth more to a team than the blocking aspects. So applying the TE "scale" to a receiving TE just doesn't make a ton of sense on a lot of fronts.

Lance Moore and Jimmy Graham play the same "position" a good chunk of the time. I think it's fair to say Graham is probably a lot more valuable to the team in general. Yet, as it stands without some kind of fight, Graham could be be held hostage by the tag for $6M and Moore would cost the team $10M. So just because Graham has the ABILITY to line up in-line he loses $4M of value?

Does that make sense?

Cook isn't as clear an example as Graham, but he's in the same boat to some degree. He's an overgrown receiver most of the time - and he is one of the best they have. That's why they want to tag him, not because of his blocking skills.

It makes absolute sense, but if TE's are worth more than WR's why aren't they paid as well?

Come on, you KNOW it doesn't make sense. You think Lance Moore is worth 50%+ more than Jimmy Graham to his team because he can't line up in-line?TEs as a "group" don't get paid a lot, because many of them don't bring "special" skills to the table. Those are TYPICALLY the ones whose primary role is as a blocker and don't/can't line up in the slot or out wide etc. The other ones, who play receiver more than TE, are worth a lot more (more than the other TEs, not more than receivers). It's really not that hard. The best "receiving" TEs may or may not be worth what the best WRs are, but they are worth a lot more than the TEs who don't bring much to the table as receivers.

You can fight this all day long, but two teams have punted on this issue now, and there is a reason for that. They know there is a difference and they know an arbitrator would see it that way too.

Why would we compare Moore to Graham? Seems the true comparison is Calvin Johnson to Graham, or Calvin/AJ/Marshall/Fitz/Roddy to Graham/Gates/Davis/Miller/Gonzo. I realize these aren't the top 5 current salaries but that aspect has little to do with the positions. Maybe they should be closer in salary, but I can see why a team would pay Calvin more than Graham, or Marshall more than Miller.

 

[Bamac]

The best "receiving" TEs may or may not be worth what the best WRs are, but they are worth a lot more than the TEs who don't bring much to the table as receivers.

That's why the tag price is the average of the top five salaries at any given position. The TEs setting the market likely *do* bring much to the table as receivers -- no less than Jared Cook, certainly.

 

[cstu]

The whole point is that being really good at the receiving aspects of the position are worth more to a team than the blocking aspects. So applying the TE "scale" to a receiving TE just doesn't make a ton of sense on a lot of fronts.

Lance Moore and Jimmy Graham play the same "position" a good chunk of the time. I think it's fair to say Graham is probably a lot more valuable to the team in general. Yet, as it stands without some kind of fight, Graham could be be held hostage by the tag for $6M and Moore would cost the team $10M. So just because Graham has the ABILITY to line up in-line he loses $4M of value?

Does that make sense?

Cook isn't as clear an example as Graham, but he's in the same boat to some degree. He's an overgrown receiver most of the time - and he is one of the best they have. That's why they want to tag him, not because of his blocking skills.

It makes absolute sense, but if TE's are worth more than WR's why aren't they paid as well?

Come on, you KNOW it doesn't make sense. You think Lance Moore is worth 50%+ more than Jimmy Graham to his team because he can't line up in-line?TEs as a "group" don't get paid a lot, because many of them don't bring "special" skills to the table. Those are TYPICALLY the ones whose primary role is as a blocker and don't/can't line up in the slot or out wide etc. The other ones, who play receiver more than TE, are worth a lot more (more than the other TEs, not more than receivers). It's really not that hard. The best "receiving" TEs may or may not be worth what the best WRs are, but they are worth a lot more than the TEs who don't bring much to the table as receivers.

You can fight this all day long, but two teams have punted on this issue now, and there is a reason for that. They know there is a difference and they know an arbitrator would see it that way too.

It wasn't clear but the point I was agreeing to is that the special TE's (Gronk, Graham, Gates, etc.) should be paid more. If they were then the franchise tag for TE's would be just a high as WR's. The franchise tag is the average of the top 5 at the position so it doesn't matter what blocking type TE's are getting, only the best ones.

 

[Skeletore Eh]

A source tells the Chicago Tribune that free agent Jared Cook will draw interest from the Bears.

The Bears swung and missed last season with lumbering, drop-prone Kellen Davis. Cook would step right in as a true "move" tight end, representing a massive upgrade in terms of both separation ability and hands. The sight of Jay Cutler would also be a welcome sight for Cook, who has been underutilized over his first four NFL seasons while catching passes from the likes of Matt Hasselbeck, Jake Locker, Kerry Collins and Vince Young. Mar 5 - 11:20 AM

Source: Chicago Tribune

 

[Faust]

Would Jared Cook be upgrade at TE for Miami Dolphins?

By Chris Wesseling

Around the League Writer

NFL.com's Ian Rapoport has reported that at least seven teams have an interest in Tennessee Titans tight end Jared Cook now that he's escaped the franchise tag. One of those teams will be the Chicago Bears.

Another is the Miami Dolphins. A source told the Sun-Sentinel on Sunday that Cook is high on Miami's list of possible "tier one" free-agent targets, along with wide receiver Mike Wallace.

The Dolphins reportedly have been talking to the representatives of several tight ends in case they lose out on Cook. General manager Jeff Ireland is determined to add more firepower to an offense lacking it since he arrived from the Dallas Cowboys in 2008.

Cook certainly qualifies as a pass-catching upgrade on Anthony Fasano. Respected NFL Films analyst Greg Cosell recently compared Cook's movement skills to those of Hall of Famer Shannon Sharpe, adding that he has "big-time ability" with the chance to be a "very explosive receiver" if he continues to learn.

Reports on Cook's asking price have been all over the map, starting at $6 million per year and going as high as the $8 to $10 million range.

In addition to the Titans, Bears and Dolphins, we have seen Cook's name connected to the St. Louis Rams, Philadelphia Eagles and Cleveland Browns. Expect his market to spiral out of control.