Sign in to follow this  
Evincar

Vance McDonald 2019 Outlook

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, GurleyTHIRTY said:

Bunch of overreactions here. He got around 38 snaps per game last year. That's Eric Ebron territory as far as snap count goes, and Ebron had 110 targets. Guys like Engram and Howard saw an average of 43 snaps per game and they're being drafted way earlier. 

What is your point? They saw roughly the same number of snaps and Ebron had 40 more targets? Is this an argument for or against Vance? 

Vance will have to see a significant increase in target share if his snaps are going to remain the same if he is to be a draft day value. Is it possible, sure? Likely, even. But I do not think he possesses the upside many hope for unless he catches a significant number of TDs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, smeeze said:

I think he meant:

"The only other TE is Grimble; who’s terrible, and a rookie [Zach Gentry]"

Punctuation mine.

Thank you lol

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, GurleyTHIRTY said:

Bunch of overreactions here. He got around 38 snaps per game last year. That's Eric Ebron territory as far as snap count goes, and Ebron had 110 targets. Guys like Engram and Howard saw an average of 43 snaps per game and they're being drafted way earlier. 

 

Pretty much, yeah.  I'm not a Moncrief believer either so I feel good about Vance, high snaps or not.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, GurleyTHIRTY said:

Bunch of overreactions here. He got around 38 snaps per game last year. That's Eric Ebron territory as far as snap count goes, and Ebron had 110 targets. Guys like Engram and Howard saw an average of 43 snaps per game and they're being drafted way earlier. 

Agree with this.  Let's take a step back and really READ what Fichter said.  "He's not going to play the whole game...that's never going to happen."  Ok, so Vance won't be in on 100% of snaps.  No one was expecting that.  His snap count is going to be at least as high as it was last year (which was sufficient to support a breakout if target share increased), and it's more likely than not going to grow.  I''d be far more concerned with Vance's propensity to get injured than I would be with this meaningless coachspeak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ThunderDan said:

Agree with this.  Let's take a step back and really READ what Fichter said.  "He's not going to play the whole game...that's never going to happen."  Ok, so Vance won't be in on 100% of snaps.  No one was expecting that.  His snap count is going to be at least as high as it was last year (which was sufficient to support a breakout if target share increased), and it's more likely than not going to grow.  I''d be far more concerned with Vance's propensity to get injured than I would be with this meaningless coachspeak.

Well if we are going to read what he said:

 

When asked if Vance McDonald will see increased playing time in 2019, Steelers OC Randy Fichtner replied, "He won't. He's never going to play the full game. That's never going to happen."

 

This implies they plan on keeping his usage, snap count the same. Probably some coach-speak there but does not project well for a significant increase in snaps. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Grayson2401 said:

Well if we are going to read what he said:

 

When asked if Vance McDonald will see increased playing time in 2019, Steelers OC Randy Fichtner replied, "He won't. He's never going to play the full game. That's never going to happen."

 

This implies they plan on keeping his usage, snap count the same. Probably some coach-speak there but does not project well for a significant increase in snaps. 

Yeah I get it.  But then why go to such hyperbole?  He's asked if Vance will get increased playing time and responds by saying "He won't play the whole game"?  That doesn't make sense and wasn't what the question was asking.  This just reeks of coachspeak.  Their other options are bad.  Vance is going to play (albeit "not the whole game")

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ThunderDan said:

Yeah I get it.  But then why go to such hyperbole?  He's asked if Vance will get increased playing time and responds by saying "He won't play the whole game"?  That doesn't make sense and wasn't what the question was asking.  This just reeks of coachspeak.  Their other options are bad.  Vance is going to play (albeit "not the whole game")

He explicitly said "no" to the question though. I agree it is likely some coach-speak, but I think if they had plans on ramping up his snaps this season-- considering their other options-- they certainly would have mentioned so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The downs he doesn’t play mean they are running the ball anyways. So on the positive side he’s stay fresh for the passing plays and redzone looks. I said it yesterday, i wouldnt overact yet, even if he played 90% of the snaps, they’re not using him on all those. So the “limited snaps” might even be a blessing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone is weirdly obsessed with snap count with this guy - he is their main tight end. What I'm concerned about are the targets. When is the last time Big Ben had a TE that was fantasy relevant, to the levels people are expecting from McDonald this year? I'm just worried his target share doesn't get a large enough bump over guys like Moncrief and Co

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, K197040 said:

anyone with any positive thoughts?   Was it just a bad matchup on Sunday?

40 yard is not bad for a TE in a horrible game. I know we all want to discover the next Kittle, but he did better than Cook, OJ Howard, Olsen, Gesicki, etc. Give him some time nd give the Packers some time to grow.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem is he literally had no look other than the last like 2 minutes of the game. While behind. It was just uninspiring. I'm jumping off him this week for Hock hopefully. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, RandomSil said:

My problem is he literally had no look other than the last like 2 minutes of the game. While behind. It was just uninspiring. I'm jumping off him this week for Hock hopefully. 

how much did you faab? I went with 27

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, blabety said:

how much did you faab? I went with 27

 

Ahh we don't FAAB. I blew second priority for it. I bought into Vances hype all offseason. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RandomSil said:

My problem is he literally had no look other than the last like 2 minutes of the game. While behind. It was just uninspiring. I'm jumping off him this week for Hock hopefully. 

 

Yeah Vance is a hold, but no chance Im starting this week until he's more involved.  0 targets until the gabage time of garbage time drives does not instill confidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't feel comfortable having Vance as my TE. Especially after watching the game. If you can grab one of the other TE's (Hock/Waller) I would jump off and not start this guy. Having said that, it is one game and the patriots look ridiculous on defense.

Edited by Theoneupper
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drop don't htis guy. Played more snaps than last year and ran a lot of routes. Moncrief looked like s--- and so did James Washington. His poor performance was a byproduct of the defense Pats were playing. Juju dindt do that well, but are they panicking?

EDIT: To add to this.

VM played 72% of snaps; grimble played 3%. No other TE played. 

Washington caught 2 out of 6 and Moncrief caught 3 out of 10 because the Pats strategy was to take away Mcdonald and Juju. Gilmore shadowed Juju and they bracketed Mcdonald, leaving both Moncrief and Washington in single coverage and they failed. If anything this week is a positive for Vance. It showed they need to get him involved cause they won't win on the back of Moncrief and Washington. 

 

Edited by Itachi_is_the_goat
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Itachi_is_the_goat said:

Drop don't htis guy. Played more snaps than last year and ran a lot of routes. Moncrief looked like s--- and so did James Washington. His poor performance was a byproduct of the defense Pats were playing. Juju dindt do that well, but are they panicking?

EDIT: To add to this.

VM played 72% of snaps; grimble played 3%. No other TE played. 

Washington caught 2 out of 6 and Moncrief caught 3 out of 10 because the Pats strategy was to take away Mcdonald and Juju. Gilmore shadowed Juju and they bracketed Mcdonald, leaving both Moncrief and Washington in single coverage and they failed. If anything this week is a positive for Vance. It showed they need to get him involved cause they won't win on the back of Moncrief and Washington. 

 

I agree with this take. It was super frustrating to watch but that game was a complete anomaly. Chung shut him down with LB and CB help in bracket coverage. Vance is the #2 option in the passing game for one of the 5 highest volume pass offenses in the league. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Itachi_is_the_goat said:

Drop don't htis guy. Played more snaps than last year and ran a lot of routes. Moncrief looked like s--- and so did James Washington. His poor performance was a byproduct of the defense Pats were playing. Juju dindt do that well, but are they panicking?

EDIT: To add to this.

VM played 72% of snaps; grimble played 3%. No other TE played. 

Washington caught 2 out of 6 and Moncrief caught 3 out of 10 because the Pats strategy was to take away Mcdonald and Juju. Gilmore shadowed Juju and they bracketed Mcdonald, leaving both Moncrief and Washington in single coverage and they failed. If anything this week is a positive for Vance. It showed they need to get him involved cause they won't win on the back of Moncrief and Washington. 

 

While I agree with this theoretically (don’t panic on McDonald yet), the numbers re: Washington and Moncrief are a little misleading. Washington might have only caught 2 out of 6 but they were almost all on deep routes and only 2 were catchable, maybe 3. Ben straight overthrew him 3 times and Washington had no shot (on one of those - a Ben pick - Collinsworth said Washington should have run a better route but I’m not sure I agree, Ben threw it where he was headed and had to let it go before he knew for sure). Moncrief on the other hand dropped lots of catchable balls and generally shrunk from the moment. I wouldn’t be hyped about either but I’d feel much better about Washington than Moncrief, though I’d like to see him start to run something other than deep routes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.