You are currently viewing the old forums. We have upgraded to a new NFL Forum.
This old forum is being left as a read-only archive.
Please update your bookmarks to our new forum at forums.footballsfuture.com.


 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Brandon Pettigrew's overlooked ability
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Detroit Lions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
SuhPLEX


Joined: 03 Jan 2012
Posts: 1160
PostPosted: Wed Nov 20, 2013 11:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TL-TwoWinsAway wrote:
SuhPLEX wrote:
He isn't a "receiving TE" because he lacks the skills to be one, I don't understand your argument

It's more kudos to the Lions for not putting Grew in a position to fail

My argument is that Pettigrew is utilized more as a blocker than a receiver, and is a better blocker than receiver, therefore calling him a "receiving TE" isn't accurate.

For clarity: this is the comment detfan made that I had a problem with, and that started this entire conversation.
detfan782004 wrote:
He is a receiving TE who simply did not do anything in entire second half.

He "didn't do anything" because he didn't have any receptions, despite the fact that he excelled at blocking during that half. detfan's reasoning: he's a receiving TE, and he didn't make any catches, therefore he didn't contribute. I disagreed with that: he blocked, which is one of his main responsibilities. Calling him a "receiving TE" really discounts his impact as a blocker.

so, we were arguing semantics this whole time?! grr....
_________________
detfan782004 wrote:
diehardlionfan wrote:


When I die I want the Lions to be pallbearers so they can let me down one more time.


No thanks

They would fumble my casket
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TL-TwoWinsAway


Joined: 19 Feb 2008
Posts: 27387
PostPosted: Wed Nov 20, 2013 11:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SuhPLEX wrote:
TL-TwoWinsAway wrote:
SuhPLEX wrote:
He isn't a "receiving TE" because he lacks the skills to be one, I don't understand your argument

It's more kudos to the Lions for not putting Grew in a position to fail

My argument is that Pettigrew is utilized more as a blocker than a receiver, and is a better blocker than receiver, therefore calling him a "receiving TE" isn't accurate.

For clarity: this is the comment detfan made that I had a problem with, and that started this entire conversation.
detfan782004 wrote:
He is a receiving TE who simply did not do anything in entire second half.

He "didn't do anything" because he didn't have any receptions, despite the fact that he excelled at blocking during that half. detfan's reasoning: he's a receiving TE, and he didn't make any catches, therefore he didn't contribute. I disagreed with that: he blocked, which is one of his main responsibilities. Calling him a "receiving TE" really discounts his impact as a blocker.

so, we were arguing semantics this whole time?! grr....

What? No. How in the world did you come to that conclusion (and growl at the end)?

He felt that, because he's a "receiving TE" who didn't have a reception, he "disappeared". I thought that was completely inaccurate: he contributed significantly by blocking well. That isn't semantics in the least bit.
_________________

Team Stylish

"May my enemies live long so they can see me progress."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SuhPLEX


Joined: 03 Jan 2012
Posts: 1160
PostPosted: Wed Nov 20, 2013 11:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TL-TwoWinsAway wrote:
SuhPLEX wrote:
TL-TwoWinsAway wrote:
SuhPLEX wrote:
He isn't a "receiving TE" because he lacks the skills to be one, I don't understand your argument

It's more kudos to the Lions for not putting Grew in a position to fail

My argument is that Pettigrew is utilized more as a blocker than a receiver, and is a better blocker than receiver, therefore calling him a "receiving TE" isn't accurate.

For clarity: this is the comment detfan made that I had a problem with, and that started this entire conversation.
detfan782004 wrote:
He is a receiving TE who simply did not do anything in entire second half.

He "didn't do anything" because he didn't have any receptions, despite the fact that he excelled at blocking during that half. detfan's reasoning: he's a receiving TE, and he didn't make any catches, therefore he didn't contribute. I disagreed with that: he blocked, which is one of his main responsibilities. Calling him a "receiving TE" really discounts his impact as a blocker.

so, we were arguing semantics this whole time?! grr....

What? No. How in the world did you come to that conclusion (and growl at the end)?

He felt that, because he's a "receiving TE" who didn't have a reception, he "disappeared". I thought that was completely inaccurate: he contributed significantly by blocking well. That isn't semantics in the least bit.

you guys were arguing about whether the claim of him being a "receiving TE" is true, not the material fact that he seemed to "disappear" (from Detfans perspective).

That's the definition of a semantics argument...
_________________
detfan782004 wrote:
diehardlionfan wrote:


When I die I want the Lions to be pallbearers so they can let me down one more time.


No thanks

They would fumble my casket
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TL-TwoWinsAway


Joined: 19 Feb 2008
Posts: 27387
PostPosted: Wed Nov 20, 2013 11:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SuhPLEX wrote:
TL-TwoWinsAway wrote:
SuhPLEX wrote:
TL-TwoWinsAway wrote:
SuhPLEX wrote:
He isn't a "receiving TE" because he lacks the skills to be one, I don't understand your argument

It's more kudos to the Lions for not putting Grew in a position to fail

My argument is that Pettigrew is utilized more as a blocker than a receiver, and is a better blocker than receiver, therefore calling him a "receiving TE" isn't accurate.

For clarity: this is the comment detfan made that I had a problem with, and that started this entire conversation.
detfan782004 wrote:
He is a receiving TE who simply did not do anything in entire second half.

He "didn't do anything" because he didn't have any receptions, despite the fact that he excelled at blocking during that half. detfan's reasoning: he's a receiving TE, and he didn't make any catches, therefore he didn't contribute. I disagreed with that: he blocked, which is one of his main responsibilities. Calling him a "receiving TE" really discounts his impact as a blocker.

so, we were arguing semantics this whole time?! grr....

What? No. How in the world did you come to that conclusion (and growl at the end)?

He felt that, because he's a "receiving TE" who didn't have a reception, he "disappeared". I thought that was completely inaccurate: he contributed significantly by blocking well. That isn't semantics in the least bit.

you guys were arguing about whether the claim of him being a "receiving TE" is true, not the material fact that he seemed to "disappear" (from Detfans perspective).

That's the definition of a semantics argument...

We were arguing the second point in depth during that conversation. That's where this stems from... the points are related.

But, really? You went as far to support his point, which was him supporting his "receiving TE" label, then got surprised when the conversation was about the "receiving TE" label? No wonder you growled.
_________________

Team Stylish

"May my enemies live long so they can see me progress."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SuhPLEX


Joined: 03 Jan 2012
Posts: 1160
PostPosted: Wed Nov 20, 2013 11:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TL-TwoWinsAway wrote:
SuhPLEX wrote:
TL-TwoWinsAway wrote:
SuhPLEX wrote:
TL-TwoWinsAway wrote:
SuhPLEX wrote:
He isn't a "receiving TE" because he lacks the skills to be one, I don't understand your argument

It's more kudos to the Lions for not putting Grew in a position to fail

My argument is that Pettigrew is utilized more as a blocker than a receiver, and is a better blocker than receiver, therefore calling him a "receiving TE" isn't accurate.

For clarity: this is the comment detfan made that I had a problem with, and that started this entire conversation.
detfan782004 wrote:
He is a receiving TE who simply did not do anything in entire second half.

He "didn't do anything" because he didn't have any receptions, despite the fact that he excelled at blocking during that half. detfan's reasoning: he's a receiving TE, and he didn't make any catches, therefore he didn't contribute. I disagreed with that: he blocked, which is one of his main responsibilities. Calling him a "receiving TE" really discounts his impact as a blocker.

so, we were arguing semantics this whole time?! grr....

What? No. How in the world did you come to that conclusion (and growl at the end)?

He felt that, because he's a "receiving TE" who didn't have a reception, he "disappeared". I thought that was completely inaccurate: he contributed significantly by blocking well. That isn't semantics in the least bit.

you guys were arguing about whether the claim of him being a "receiving TE" is true, not the material fact that he seemed to "disappear" (from Detfans perspective).

That's the definition of a semantics argument...

We were arguing the second point in depth during that conversation. That's where this stems from... the points are related.

But, really? You went as far to support his point, which was him supporting his "receiving TE" label, then got surprised when the conversation was about the "receiving TE" label? No wonder you growled.

By responding to this point, I would be engaging in another semantics argument.

If you want to continue this conversation, lets talk about Grew's influence on the passing game (where he leaves a lot to be desired)
_________________
detfan782004 wrote:
diehardlionfan wrote:


When I die I want the Lions to be pallbearers so they can let me down one more time.


No thanks

They would fumble my casket
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TL-TwoWinsAway


Joined: 19 Feb 2008
Posts: 27387
PostPosted: Thu Nov 21, 2013 12:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SuhPLEX wrote:
If you want to continue this conversation, lets talk about Grew's influence on the passing game (where he leaves a lot to be desired)

What? You agreed with detfan's argument that, statistically, Pettigrew has had a similar pass-catching impact to Witten and Gonzalez, but feel he "leaves a lot to be desired" in the passing game? Please explain.
_________________

Team Stylish

"May my enemies live long so they can see me progress."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SuhPLEX


Joined: 03 Jan 2012
Posts: 1160
PostPosted: Thu Nov 21, 2013 12:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TL-TwoWinsAway wrote:
SuhPLEX wrote:
If you want to continue this conversation, lets talk about Grew's influence on the passing game (where he leaves a lot to be desired)

What? You agreed with detfan's argument that, statistically, Pettigrew has had a similar pass-catching impact to Witten and Gonzalez, but feel he "leaves a lot to be desired" in the passing game? Please explain.

I never said he has similar impact, all I was doing was acknowledging that the objective data he posted supported his point.

He leaves a lot to be desired because he lacks the athletic ability to be a dynamic force in the passing game. He doesn't break tackles often, doesn't create much separation, and doesn't have the speed to be a good vertical passing threat. Add to that his inconsistent hands and fumbling issues (which he has improved upon as this year went on) and I've come to the conclusion that he leaves a lot to be desired.
_________________
detfan782004 wrote:
diehardlionfan wrote:


When I die I want the Lions to be pallbearers so they can let me down one more time.


No thanks

They would fumble my casket
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TL-TwoWinsAway


Joined: 19 Feb 2008
Posts: 27387
PostPosted: Thu Nov 21, 2013 8:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SuhPLEX wrote:
TL-TwoWinsAway wrote:
SuhPLEX wrote:
If you want to continue this conversation, lets talk about Grew's influence on the passing game (where he leaves a lot to be desired)

What? You agreed with detfan's argument that, statistically, Pettigrew has had a similar pass-catching impact to Witten and Gonzalez, but feel he "leaves a lot to be desired" in the passing game? Please explain.

I never said he has similar impact, all I was doing was acknowledging that the objective data he posted supported his point.

He leaves a lot to be desired because he lacks the athletic ability to be a dynamic force in the passing game. He doesn't break tackles often, doesn't create much separation, and doesn't have the speed to be a good vertical passing threat. Add to that his inconsistent hands and fumbling issues (which he has improved upon as this year went on) and I've come to the conclusion that he leaves a lot to be desired.

Not only did you ignore his contributions in pass-protection, but one doesn't have to be a "dynamic force" to contribute in a significant way. Without the fumbles and drops (which stopped being a factor after week 2), Pettigrew has played his role on this team extremely well: he was never expected to be a vertical threat.
_________________

Team Stylish

"May my enemies live long so they can see me progress."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LionsFTW


Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Posts: 20853
Location: Old forum.
PostPosted: Thu Nov 21, 2013 10:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SuhPLEX wrote:
TL-TwoWinsAway wrote:
SuhPLEX wrote:
If you want to continue this conversation, lets talk about Grew's influence on the passing game (where he leaves a lot to be desired)

What? You agreed with detfan's argument that, statistically, Pettigrew has had a similar pass-catching impact to Witten and Gonzalez, but feel he "leaves a lot to be desired" in the passing game? Please explain.

I never said he has similar impact, all I was doing was acknowledging that the objective data he posted supported his point.

He leaves a lot to be desired because he lacks the athletic ability to be a dynamic force in the passing game. He doesn't break tackles often, doesn't create much separation, and doesn't have the speed to be a good vertical passing threat. Add to that his inconsistent hands and fumbling issues (which he has improved upon as this year went on) and I've come to the conclusion that he leaves a lot to be desired.


Pett might be slow and unathletic, but hes one of the better route running TEs in the league.
_________________
thelawoffices wrote:
theuntouchable wrote:
What's a matter TLO? Cat got your tongue?


I have mono you [inappropriate/removed]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TL-TwoWinsAway


Joined: 19 Feb 2008
Posts: 27387
PostPosted: Thu Nov 21, 2013 10:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Plex: you're either implying that Pettigrew isn't explosive, or isn't effective. Am I right? If so, which of the two is it?
_________________

Team Stylish

"May my enemies live long so they can see me progress."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TimeForChange


Joined: 15 Oct 2013
Posts: 3472
PostPosted: Thu Nov 21, 2013 11:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whats being accomplished here? Seems like a circular conversation where both sides are just being driven further into their own opinions.

I'm just trying to understand the point of the argument. Neither side is going to change its stance on Pettigrew. He is a controversial figure given his draft status and what he has done in his career as well as expectations of what we wanted out of a TE for this offense.

People just seem to have a conflict between expectations and reality. This is what we wanted or want and this is what we have.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SuhPLEX


Joined: 03 Jan 2012
Posts: 1160
PostPosted: Thu Nov 21, 2013 12:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TL-TwoWinsAway wrote:
SuhPLEX wrote:
TL-TwoWinsAway wrote:
SuhPLEX wrote:
If you want to continue this conversation, lets talk about Grew's influence on the passing game (where he leaves a lot to be desired)

What? You agreed with detfan's argument that, statistically, Pettigrew has had a similar pass-catching impact to Witten and Gonzalez, but feel he "leaves a lot to be desired" in the passing game? Please explain.

I never said he has similar impact, all I was doing was acknowledging that the objective data he posted supported his point.

He leaves a lot to be desired because he lacks the athletic ability to be a dynamic force in the passing game. He doesn't break tackles often, doesn't create much separation, and doesn't have the speed to be a good vertical passing threat. Add to that his inconsistent hands and fumbling issues (which he has improved upon as this year went on) and I've come to the conclusion that he leaves a lot to be desired.

Not only did you ignore his contributions in pass-protection, but one doesn't have to be a "dynamic force" to contribute in a significant way. Without the fumbles and drops (which stopped being a factor after week 2), Pettigrew has played his role on this team extremely well: he was never expected to be a vertical threat.

You asked me to explain, I was just answering your question.

I feel you're using one flaw in his game to rationalize another. He lacks athletic ability, and that's why he isn't expected to be a vertical passing threat. Call a thing a thing.

Will Heller also played the roll of a blocking TE quite well. Just because someone plays the role assigned to them well doesn't mean they're valuable. I'm not saying Grew isn't valuable, but you are completely ignoring this flaw in his game and supporting your stance by saying "well, he isn't asked to do it." He isn't asked to do it because he leaves a lot to be desired in that area of his game.

To answer your question, he isn't explosive. We may have different definitions of what it means to be explosive, however. I view explosion as the ability to generate a great amount of power in a short amount of time. This is largely attributed to athletic ability, so naturally when I say he lacks athletic ability I say he lacks explosiveness.

Just to be clear though, I like Grew (after his dropsies seem to have subsided) and think he serves an important role on this team. He plays that role well, as you stated. I'm just looking at the other side of the coin in that he doesn't stretch the field, which I feel you are ignoring. I said in another thread how I would love to sign him as a high-end TE2 and draft a dynamic pass-catching TE1 (Ebron, ASJ). That would do wonders for our offense.

I'm trying to be as objective as possible. I acknowledge what he does well, as well as what he doesn't do well. I don't think you acknowledge what he doesn't do well.
_________________
detfan782004 wrote:
diehardlionfan wrote:


When I die I want the Lions to be pallbearers so they can let me down one more time.


No thanks

They would fumble my casket
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TL-TwoWinsAway


Joined: 19 Feb 2008
Posts: 27387
PostPosted: Thu Nov 21, 2013 1:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Reasonable. Here's why I disagree: Pettigrew wasn't an explosive vertical threat in college, and wasn't projected to be one in the NFL. He was drafted because he was expected to be an elite blocker and a size mismatch with soft hands in the passing game. That's exactly how he's utilized. He isn't explosive, and was never expected to be explosive. He is extremely effective.

So, question 1: do you really think the coaching staff drafted Pettigrew, expecting him to be explosive, but now use him in another role because he suddenly isn't?

Question 2: if Pettigrew plays an important role as a blocker and short-yardage option, and plays that role well, how does he leave "a lot to be desired in the passing game"?
_________________

Team Stylish

"May my enemies live long so they can see me progress."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chups


Joined: 17 Apr 2013
Posts: 692
PostPosted: Thu Nov 21, 2013 1:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If Pettigrew is an effective player, why do we put so much emphasis on his athleticism? It's clear he is a good player despite his limitations athletically. That's like saying, "James Jones would be an elite receiver with Calvin Johnson's athleticism." Would he be a better player? Absolutely! But it's something you can't change about him. He is a great blocking tight end with slightly above-average receiving skills.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SuhPLEX


Joined: 03 Jan 2012
Posts: 1160
PostPosted: Fri Nov 22, 2013 4:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TL-TwoWinsAway wrote:
Reasonable. Here's why I disagree: Pettigrew wasn't an explosive vertical threat in college, and wasn't projected to be one in the NFL. He was drafted because he was expected to be an elite blocker and a size mismatch with soft hands in the passing game. That's exactly how he's utilized. He isn't explosive, and was never expected to be explosive. He is extremely effective.

So, question 1: do you really think the coaching staff drafted Pettigrew, expecting him to be explosive, but now use him in another role because he suddenly isn't?

Question 2: if Pettigrew plays an important role as a blocker and short-yardage option, and plays that role well, how does he leave "a lot to be desired in the passing game"?

1) I'm not going to pretend to know the Lions motive in drafting him. Although, a 1st round TE should be explosive in my mind (but that's besides the point). I don't think they drafted him to be a blocking TE that occasionally catches a pass, but like I said I'm not going to pretend to know their motives.

2) Because he doesn't have a substantial impact in the passing game IMO. I define "substantial" as having explosive plays. Explosive plays = impact. A good blocker doesn't have near as much impact as a good pass catcher. I would like him to be more impactful, and his lack of athleticism hinders that.



I think it's important to note that if he was drafted in the 3rd round, for instance, I would have less expectations of him. You can find good blocking TE's with decent receiving skills all over the draft. That's all Grew is at this point.

The reality is that I'm lusting for a dynamic pass-catching TE. I believe that will take our offense to a whole nother level. Grew will never be that. He simply can't stretch the defense to take advantage of teams focusing on Calvin.
_________________
detfan782004 wrote:
diehardlionfan wrote:


When I die I want the Lions to be pallbearers so they can let me down one more time.


No thanks

They would fumble my casket
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Detroit Lions All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 5 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group