TIght End Chris Manhertz is rising the ranks

[MHS831]

On 7/30/2017 at 6:01 PM, Ivan The Awesome said:

What are the chances of Dickson being cut? 

I think it is possible if they need cap room to give TD or Olsen or Star or Norwell more $$.  I think (without checking--too lazy) they could save about $2m

Marty may be willing to do it when Gettlemen didn't

[Hogmolliesmaht]

7 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

I think it is possible if they need cap room to give TD or Olsen or Star or Norwell more $$.  I think (without checking--too lazy) they could save about $2m

Marty may be willing to do it when Gettlemen didn't

In order to cut him, they have to find somebody who's better, or at least just as good, and who can play all the ST's role that Dickson does. Dickson still has value, regardless of who the GM is.

[MHS831]

On 7/30/2017 at 4:32 PM, Jeremy Igo said:

Have been hearing that Chris Manhertz is getting some notice from the coaching staff this season. That third TE spot (assuming there is one) is wide open for anyone that wants to claim it. 

Manhertz had a solid first three days, a bit of a down day yesterday, but was no doubt the third best TE on the field today. Might be his position to lose at this point with Simonson playing lackluster. 

Nice grab here. Solid D by Cash, just a better offensive play. 

 

 

 

 

I agree with everything except the solid D by Cash part.  He left his feet in man coverage---no help.  OK if you don't give up your left arm and can wrap up the TE, but he reaches with the left---all in and comes up empty.  a 10-yard gain now goes for 30.  To your point, Cash was in good position.

Now, since i am acting like I know all about football and I really don't, I can say with ignorant bravado that Manhertz's feet are suspect.  He stutter steps into the break and never really plants and explodes out of it--the throw was behind him, but he did not know that.  That is one reason Cash is all over him.  With this route (from what I can tell) the sideline is your friend--your break is the first step of a sprint (explosion) toward it.  If you focus on his feet, you will see too much chopping and a rounded break--weak plant foot. If he can block, you can work on the feet.  If he cannot, I do not see a future as a Pass-catching TE. 

I have spoken.

[KSpan]

39 minutes ago, stbugs said:

Just to throw water on the whole Olsen/Shockey two TE talk, people seem to forget that Olsen has gotten more yards in each of the last three seasons than he and Shockey got in 2011. We've never had a two TE set (ignoring "backup" TE stats) where combined we got over 1000 yards. This isn't the Pats where they had Gronk and Hernandez combine for 2200 yards and 24 TDs. We've done better than our 2011 the past few years barely throwing to the second TE.

 

Add in McCaffery and our TE2 is meaningless unless that player eats into Olsen's targets or Cam goes for 5000.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using CarolinaHuddle

Shockey and Olsen had 82 catches for 995 yards in 2011 so it's not like the numbers are that far off. My biggest gripe with the TE2 position these last years has been that no one since Hartsock has been able to block worth a damn, and that's what made Shockey a great option - he could catch passes AND block. If they want to route all of the catches through Greg then so be it but at least find a complimentary TE2 that can pick up some blocking slack.

That said, a fullback who can actually block (Tolbert...) would go a long way as well.

[MHS831]

4 minutes ago, Hogmolliesmaht said:

In order to cut him, they have to find somebody who's better, or at least just as good, and who can play all the ST's role that Dickson does. Dickson still has value, regardless of who the GM is.

Isnt the basic assumption that you have to have someone who can take his place before you cut him?  Gettlemen was reluctant to shop for TE and upgrade him, even though Dickson was playing below his pay grade.  You don't pay $3m for special team, backup TEs that can't block and have suspect hands.  So the GM matters here--regardless of what you say. 2 players cost us the super bowl--Remmers and DIckson.  They could not block.  Finding someone better than Dickson was not hard, but Gettlemen did not seem to prioritize it.

Would you rather have Olsen, Manhertz, and Simonson + $2m. or Olsen, Dickson and Manhertz?  The bottom line--if Manhertz beats out Dickson for the #2 TE, you cut him.  NO BRAINER.

[top dawg]

51 minutes ago, stbugs said:

Just to throw water on the whole Olsen/Shockey two TE talk, people seem to forget that Olsen has gotten more yards in each of the last three seasons than he and Shockey got in 2011. We've never had a two TE set (ignoring "backup" TE stats) where combined we got over 1000 yards. This isn't the Pats where they had Gronk and Hernandez combine for 2200 yards and 24 TDs. We've done better than our 2011 the past few years barely throwing to the second TE.

 

Add in McCaffery and our TE2 is meaningless unless that player eats into Olsen's targets or Cam goes for 5000.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using CarolinaHuddle

Perhaps we haven't done it because we couldn't do it. It's not like we were used to having two-TE sets, or had ever had the personnel to do it in the history of the franchise. Shockey was here only one year. That's a drop in the bucket. I'm too lazy to look it up, but the offense that year seemed to be very efficient, and targets were spread around. Nothing wrong with targets being spread around. It would suit this offense well.

Plus, this year is purportedly about evolution. The more legitimate targets, the higher the probability of creating a mismatch, the higher the probability that someone will be open. It's a simple concept, and it's one that Shula is poised to exploit considering that he was concerned with people catching up to what we were doing even before the debacle of last season.

[top dawg]

18 minutes ago, stbugs said:

I'm not too lazy. 2011: 4051 passing yards, 21 TDs, 17 INTs. 2016: 3962 (with DA), 21 TDs, 19 INTs. The main difference was the running game and the biggest part of that was Cam, 706 yards and 14 TDs in 2011 and 359 yards and 5 TDs in 2016. We all know that 2016 was an awful year, but it compares to 2011 passing wise and honestly, that's part of the reason why we sucked. 2011 was great for Cam's rookie season. Having another rookie season in year 6 isn't so good.

Again, my point isn't about using two TE sets or that Shockey and Olsen weren't OK, but that we always glorify it as if they were both monsters and our TE production the past three years was better by 100-200 yards with Dickson doing nothing.

Last stat note, Shockey and Olsen weren't efficient in 2011. On 151 targets, they combined for 82-995-9TDs. Olsen has averaged 125 targets and 80-1062-5TDs the past three years. Outside of TDs, Olsen the past three years has been far more efficient than the two TE set. I don't care about the TD drop as the team overall has averaged more passing TDs over that span than in 2011, so a guy like KB with 8TDs per year as a red zone threat takes away from Olsen. Heck, Benjamin was a fat toad according to most people on this site last year and he had 941 yards and 7 TDs on 118 targets, again more efficient than the 2011 two TEs.

Evolving is getting McCaffery a lot of receptions and making the RB a receiving weapon again and possibly bumping up a third WR into the mix. That would help the offense more than trying to replace Dickson with Barnidge. I'd love Barnidge as Olsen's backup for Dickson's contract/less, but I wouldn't want him if that meant Shula would try to go back to 2011.

 

I was actually referring to how efficient the wide-outs were as a whole group (you can throw the RB receptions in if you want).

You almost seem to be suggesting that having another legitimate target is a bad thing. It's not. Is having another legit weapon in a two-TE set necessary? No. But it would be nice, if not logically preferable.

Don't presume to limit what evolution within the offense actually entails. The more weapons, the more options. Like I said. It's a simple concept.

[KB_fan]

1 hour ago, MHS831 said:

Isnt the basic assumption that you have to have someone who can take his place before you cut him?  Gettlemen was reluctant to shop for TE and upgrade him, even though Dickson was playing below his pay grade.  Y

 

Agree with most of what you wrote.  Just one more comment about Dickson. 

I recall we brought him in for his leadership / maturity following our BAD playoff loss to SF in 2013.   Ron & DG both said they made an effort to bring in guys with SuperBowl experience.  Dickson was one of those guys.

Of course now that we've been to a SB, we have much less need for this aspect of what he brings to the locker room.

[top dawg]

11 hours ago, stbugs said:

It's not that straightforward unless Cam's throwing for 5000. Each weapon will eat some of the pie. I for one would rather have Samuel in space or Stewart and McCaffery in the backfield together than have two TE sets. 11 offensive players, 5 OL and 1 QB, so 5 other players on the field at all times. Olsen, KB and a RB are 3, so 2 more.

I understand what you are getting at, but it isn't a simple concept because there aren't enough mouths to feed and I don't want Shula deciding between sitting McCaffery/Stewart/Samuel/Shepard/Funchess or playing a replacement for Dickson. As I posted above, KB wasn't great last year, but he was more efficient than Shockey/Olsen in 2011. Barnidge is the only real potential weapon at TE that is actually available and potentially good enough to be out there with Olsen. That said, I don't think he wants a vet min deal. I know people think Samuel isn't going to see the field and Funchess is awful and Shepard is a Tampa reject who couldn't hack it there, but I still think all 3 will have more weapon potential than putting out two TE sets. Just my opinion.

The most prolific and efficient offenses are the ones that are multidimensional to a tee.  The concept of team supersedes any limiting notions by a coach or selfish notions by a player about the necessity of feeding mouths or having to be fed. Most wise team members know that everyone is not going to be fed every game, much less every down. In fact, the opposition is going to do it's damnedest to bite into your pie---actually take you and your pie away. So you want to make it more difficult for them to do this by countering their sense of greed with as many options as necessary. That way, the offense as a whole is always getting fed, while they're defense is snatching crumbs.

[mrknowitall]

Just to throw water on the whole Olsen/Shockey two TE talk, people seem to forget that Olsen has gotten more yards in each of the last three seasons than he and Shockey got in 2011. We've never had a two TE set (ignoring "backup" TE stats) where combined we got over 1000 yards. This isn't the Pats where they had Gronk and Hernandez combine for 2200 yards and 24 TDs. We've done better than our 2011 the past few years barely throwing to the second TE.
 
Add in McCaffery and our TE2 is meaningless unless that player eats into Olsen's targets or Cam goes for 5000.
 
 
Sent from my iPhone using CarolinaHuddle

Cool. But that's not really what I was getting at. The idea that a second tight end with legit pass catching and route running skills wouldn't get any targets because the Panthers don't target our second tight end very much, seems to be the equivalent to people saying McCaffrey won't work in our system because we don't pass to our running backs very often.

We also didn't run with our quarterback very often before we drafted Cam. The point with Shockey/Olsen is that it could happen.


Sent from my iPhone using CarolinaHuddle

[Ace_Aladdin]

10 hours ago, top dawg said:

The most prolific and efficient offenses are the ones that are multidimensional to a tee.  The concept of team supersedes any limiting notions by a coach or selfish notions by a player about the necessity of feeding mouths or having to be fed. Most wise team members know that everyone is not going to be fed every game, much less every down. In fact, the opposition is going to do it's damnedest to bite into your pie---actually take you and your pie away. So you want to make it more difficult for them to do this by countering there sense of greed with as many options as necessary. That way, the offense as a whole is always getting fed, while they're defense is snatching crumbs.

 

10 hours ago, mrknowitall said:

 

Cool. But that's not really what I was getting at. The idea that a second tight end with legit pass catching and route running skills wouldn't get any targets because the Panthers don't target our second tight end very much, seems to be the equivalent to people saying McCaffrey won't work in our system because we don't pass to our running backs very often.

We also didn't run with our quarterback very often before we drafted Cam. The point with Shockey/Olsen is that it could happen.


Sent from my iPhone using CarolinaHuddle

 

Manhertz & Simonson needs to step up bigtime the #2 spot is wide open. 
CMC will be far more effective on outside runs if we have TE that can actually block. 

Quote

 

[top dawg]

47 minutes ago, stbugs said:

That's a lot of typing, but I see no substance there. I'll still stand on the stats and the reality of Shula. Besides, there is no TE on our roster or in FA (who wants to be a backup) that I would call a weapon worthy of enough targets.

Sorry it went over your head.

The concept of not enough balls to go around, or forcefeeding certain players the ball (when you know the opposition is going to attempt to take certain players away) is basically bullpucky. Take what they give you. Counter what they do. The best way to do that is with as many weapons that you can muster, because that opens up options. A second, legitimate playmaker at TE is another option that would help the entire offense move the chains.

You are simply looking at the production of TEs, but you fail to see the greater picture. Though Olsen has put up historic stats during the last three years, In 2011 when we had Shockey, the offense was ranked higher than at anytime the past six years in both total offense and passing offense (I didn't check the rushing, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was the highest also). That's what a legitimate passing option at the second TE position can help do for you. 

Again, not saying that it's necessary, but preferable. Mixing it up with two-TE sets sometimes with two legit targets will throw another wrinkle into the opposition's plans, keeping them off balance.

Like I said before, just because we haven't had anyone worth a damn since Shockey to throw in that wrinkle, doesn't mean that Shula won't exploit another weapon were one to become available.

Moreover, albeit off the point, simply from a practical sense we need someone in case Olsen goes down. Let's hope that with final cuts that we can acquire someone.