Being a sports fan today can feel like floating adrift in a vast sea of statistics. So let’s remember one of the most fundamental pillars of numerical analysis: Correlation is not causation.
Put simply, this means that a relationship between two actions or conditions does not necessarily mean that one causes the other. If you get a sunburn eating an ice cream cone 95 out of 100 times, it does not follow that you got a sunburn because you ate ice cream.
Here’s a more relevant example: In the past 10 Super Bowls, at least one team had an elite tight end in seven of them. And in four out of the last five. In three of the last four, *both* teams had top tight ends. We all saw what Travis Kelce and Dallas Goedert did last month.
Does this mean that having an elite tight end is the reason teams get to the dance? No, but correlation matters. And when it comes to modern offenses in football, having a difference-making tight end helps more than is often acknowledged. Even in a sport awash in number crunching, the position is undervalued, and the Packers should draft one in the first round this year no matter how many picks they end up with. Here’s why:
The position is a force mulitiplier — Assigning low positional value to tight ends makes sense if you look at individual production in isolation. But top receiving tight ends open up opportunities for wideouts AND the run game. They stress the defense by enabling more schematic options, especially in the middle of the field. Tight ends that also block well are doubly dangerous, helping to spring running backs and assisting in pass protection. Other positions are force multipliers, too, but tight ends never seem to get the credit.
Physically, top tight ends force mismatches that require defenses to have specialized DBs or linebackers. Essentially, the defense has to play in nickel, which is the new base for most teams. And those defenders have to have size and speed. Without them, it’s easy pickings for diversified offenses.
Elite tight ends are scarce — Unlike running backs and wideouts, top tier tight ends are a rare commodity. Finding a Kelce, Gronk or Kittle is like winning the lottery. Which is also true for quarterbacks, and look how valuable they are. I am not saying TEs are as important as QBs, just pointing out that when you have scarcity, the value should be higher than it otherwise would be, a market inefficiency that creates opportunity. Here’s a thought experiment: If you could have either Travis Kelce or Tyreek Hill today, which one would you choose? We know which one the Chiefs chose. The Super Bowl champion chiefs.
Remember, too, that there are tight ends just a notch below the superstars who have significant impact, such as Darren Waller, Mark Andrews, Goedert, T.J. Hockenson and Kyle Pitts. The Rams did fairly well with Tyler Higbee.
The price is right — As mentioned, you pay a lot less for top tight ends than wideouts. For as long as that lasts, that’s a boon for roster building, allowing more spending for other key positions. It’s the MoneyBall strategy. One of the reasons running backs have lower value is their lack of longevity. We’ve seen little evidence of the same problem with tight ends.
The Packers have been suffering the loss of Jermichael Finley ever since his career-ending injury. This year’s draft offers a unique chance to finally solve the problem. The class is deep, with a couple of potentially elite prospects that the Packers can get with their current draft position. And a few others are a notch below. But this is not a time to get cute, which the Packers sometimes do, and pass up a likely difference-maker on the assumption that they can get someone just slightly less worthy in a later round. And then they find themselves paying to move up for the guy that they like and need to snag before someone else does. But who isn’t as good as the top prospect.
Would I be making this argument if Green Bay had a top 5 pick? Or if a legitimate top 5 talent falls to them at 15? No, but those are nearly impossible scenarios. Meanwhile, the wideout class is thin, and the Packers have two solid, developing starters. Adding a WR3 at the top of the draft should not be a higher priority than tight end.
Based on their size/speed and skill sets, the two top TE candidates are Michael Mayer of Penn State and Dalton Kincaid of Utah. Mayer had a weak combine, so Kincaid might be the clear top prospect who fits Green Bay, but regardless, the Packers should grab one of them, because they won’t be around later. And if it were me, I’d either bring back Robert Tonyan (he was still not 100% this past season) or take one of the lesser but decent prospects later in the draft. (Sleeper: Zack Kuntz, Old Dominion.) Two tight-end sets are highly effective, and you never know when you might strike gold in a later round. It would hardly be the first time the Packers take multiple swings at a position in the same draft.
This is obviously an easier call if the Packers add a first-round pick via trade. Even if they don’t, tight end should be the pick in round 1. This market inefficiency won’t last forever.
Continue Reading @ CheeseheadTV
CheeseheadTV wrote: