Which Three Tight Ends?

1) There is no reason or room for four tight ends.
2) The third tight end needs to perform another function.
3) Chris Baker, touchdown maker, is our starter, a lock and our future. He is the only tight end signed past 2009.
4) Watson is probably the 2nd best talent and a reasonable #2.
5) Smith is probably a reasonable #2, but he hasn't shown that yet.
6) Wendy is a perfect #3. He can start if needed in the 1 TE set or the 2 TE set. He can play fullback in the few series where we need one.
7) DeVree is camp fodder and an emergency option. Is he eligible for the Practice Squad?

DeVree is eligible for the Practice Squad; he played in two games last year and the PS limit is nine games.

We do have reason and room for 4 tight ends seeing as we don't have a FB on the roster.

I'd keep four, although if Watson is traded (to KC maybe?) it wouldn't be a huge surprise.

I agree with everything but #1 and the entire premise of this thread.

I think with Thomas lined up a few times in the H-back role, we're seeing BB's 2009 plans to use the TEs to essentially take the place of Heath Evans role (minus the occasional worthless carry where Evans ambles forward and falls at first contact.)

I won't be surprised at all to see them keep 4 TEs; what I think will be (mildly) surprising is if one of those TEs is DeVree and BB trades one of the other four to recoup that 5th.

Baker starts, Smith and Thomas off the bench, plus Thomas sees action as short-yardage FB. Watson is traded for a pick. Probably to KC. Probably for something involving a 5th that we can give to Oakland for Burgess.

DeVree will most likely head to the PS. Baker and Watson will be there (unless he's traded-KC?), so it comes down to Smith and Thomas. After the first game I have to give the nod to Thomas, since he did a pretty good job at FB against the Eagles, and we don't have one. We'll have to see how those two fare in the next game.

BritPat said:

We do have reason and room for 4 tight ends seeing as we don't have a FB on the roster.

I'd keep four, although if Watson is traded (to KC maybe?) it wouldn't be a huge surprise.

Click to expand...

I was thinking along the same lines on both of these thoughts.

its easy to look at the situation, which was laid out well by the OP, and say "keep 4". However, if you think that, you are looking in a vacuum.

After an OLB goes down, you'll wish Peas had an extra player on the roster to work in.

JD10367 said:

Baker starts, Smith and Thomas off the bench, plus Thomas sees action as short-yardage FB. Watson is traded for a pick. Probably to KC. Probably for something involving a 5th that we can give to Oakland for Burgess.

Click to expand...

:singing::singing::singing::singing::singing::singing::singing:

jbb9s said:

its easy to look at the situation, which was laid out well by the OP, and say "keep 4". However, if you think that, you are looking in a vacuum.

After an OLB goes down, you'll wish Peas had an extra player on the roster to work in.

Click to expand...

I dont think if we keep one less TE it would equate to an extra LB....I think we will keep an extra player at either TE or RB due to no FB.

signbabybrady said:

I dont think if we keep one less TE it would equate to an extra LB....I think we will keep an extra player at either TE or RB due to no FB.

Click to expand...

how does a FB play into this offense other than goaline / 4th & inches packages? Can't hochstein just do that? Unless there is a Sam Gash somewhere, I don't get excited about it.

Anyone think it could end up being Baker/Watson/Thomas? I never would have predicted that, but if we go 3 TE's (my guess is we will) Smith could actually be the odd man out, performance-wise.

jbb9s said:

how does a FB play into this offense other than goaline / 4th & inches packages? Can't hochstein just do that? Unless there is a Sam Gash somewhere, I don't get excited about it.

Click to expand...

Hochstein is a candidate for it sure....but I am not concerned with the who will do it because there are canidates but I just didn't see the logic in one less spot on offense for one extra spot on D...someone will be taking on the FB reps and risking injury on those plays so it is logical to think they would have an extra player to back up whatever position takes on the role be it OL, TE, or RB.


I suppose every Offensive position could have the same number (depth wise) as last year and no FB giving an extra roster spot to D or STs. (not that every year the same depth is carried at each position)

mgteich said:

1) There is no reason or room for four tight ends.

Click to expand...

Why no room? Doesn't BB generally flex the numbers of positon players based on needs and mix? He's carried 4 QBs and 2, 4 WRS and 7, 6 CBS and only 3 one year.

As far as a reason, there are two that I cna think of off the top of my head.

1) FB (not having a dedicated one opens room (see above)
2) KO returns new rules (wedge).
3) BB has a habit of keeping the best players regardless of position at the lower end of the roster.

There, that's one more than I thought was on the top of my head. Guess the lack of hair allows room for more thoughts

jbb9s said:

how does a FB play into this offense other than goaline / 4th & inches packages?

Click to expand...

Given the amount of teams using more than two-WR for most of their plays, the nickelback has increased in importance while the FB has become a non-necessity.

spacecrime said:

Why no room? Doesn't BB generally flex the numbers of positon players based on needs and mix? He's carried 4 QBs and 2, 4 WRS and 7, 6 CBS and only 3 one year.

Click to expand...

FWIW, I had been thinking 4 TEs until I sat down last night and tried to map out my 53. There turned out to be much greater incremental value in other spots. (I "cut" Alex Smith.)

BritPat said:

We do have reason and room for 4 tight ends seeing as we don't have a FB on the roster.

I'd keep four, although if Watson is traded (to KC maybe?) it wouldn't be a huge surprise.

Click to expand...

Not sure that KC would want Watson.. But its a possibility..

I's say Smith is the odd man out if we only keep 3 but I still wouldn't rule out keeping 4. Whatever he decides, I'm sure BB will have each player fill a particular role, ie...FB, H-Back, TE, etc...

The question will likely come down to the 4th TE vs the 6th WR. I really like Aiken but I think Edelman has stolen his spot as the #5. It's important to have somebody who can spell Welker on occasion. The fact that he seems to be making great strides as a punt returner makes him a virtual lock.

It's going to be extremely difficult getting this roster down to 53 while holding onto specific guys on the PS. I think our initial PS is going to get picked clean. It's too bad O'Connel doesn't appear ready for the #2 spot. It sure would be nice if we could only keep 2 QB's.

Baker

Watson

Smith

Thomas plays Full back or H-back, if not Smith goes and Thomas takes his place.

yea, def need four tight ends boys

baker, thomas for sure, watson(if not traded), then ??? we will find out in the next few preseason games