Travis Kelce, Waldman's top TE.

Should he be in play at pick #56?

I've had OLB-Greene/TE-Kelce as my top 2 projections for rounds 2 & 3. Now, I'm changing this to TE-Kelce/OLB-Gooden.

http://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2013/04/06/be ... -2013-rsp/

----"Comment: Interesting to hear your thoughts on Ertz.
What is your opinion of Travis Kelce"?
----Reply from Matt Waldman April 7, 2013 • 12:25 pm
He’s my top tight end. I’ve talked a lot about him on the Audible and the On the Couch Podcasts. You can find more about Kelce here: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/future ... ree-boiler

Waldman has a great breakdown of Kelce on the last On the Couch podcast. Bloom and Lammey's takes are quite good as well.

IMO, he's the best all-around tightend in this class and for the Seahawks, I'd take him only after Eifert who I think is the better playmaking, athletic tightend that Pete would like.

The only negative I've heard is possible character concerns which I've only briefly read into. On tape, he's got everything you want: athleticism, toughness, hands, route running, and a great blocker.

Definitely a consideration at #56 if the Seahawks would like to add a playmaker and future long-term starter at TE, but there's good value at TE later in the draft, too.

i'd take him scouting report says he's a good run blocker with hands and 4.6 40 speed. It also points out that he has only one year of production but was compaired to Gronk. would be like having two Z. Miller's on the field which will be like adding two extra O lineman in the run/pass game so i don't see it as a bad pick. It does not solve the joker TE situation but i think Harvin kinda takes that role the way he can be moved around so i think another dual threat Power TE (with hands you can trust)who can be paired with Z.Miller is a solid pick. Also think about a power formation with McCoy, Miller, and Kelce would be intresting.

He's versatile, that's for sure. I understand that he can play a Chris Cooley-type H-back role rather effectively. Very interesting...but stupid.

I find myself disagreeing with Waldman some this year. I guess that makes sense when you consider how little separates the talent in this draft class.

I view Kelce as a competent player without glaring weaknesses, yet is also without star power. I don't even know how I'd rank Reed-Escobar-Kelce, they all strike me as solid #2 TE options in different ways. Ertz is a clear step above all 3, and Eifert is the clear #1 IMO. Not sure where I'd have McDonald. He has a very real problem with drops and I think his physical attributes are overstated. After Scott got me really hyped on him I found his game compilations to be disappointing. The Gronk comparisons are a reach. He seems like a 5th round prospect to me, but I've only seen him in a couple games.

I'm not afraid to go against the grain, it's just in this case I don't have to. Consensus opinion has Eifert in the 1st round, some say top 20. Ertz is widely considered #2. Reed-Escobar-Kelce-McDonald are all over the map, but each is expected to be taken in the round 2-4 range. In fairness, my opinion of Eifert is inflated by the fact that he's exactly what Seattle wants at TE.

When I watch Kelce, I feel like I am watching Zach Miller.

McDonald's game compilations ARE disappointing. I like him despite the lack of good footage for a couple of reasons. Bear with me.

If I had told you Dwayne Allen was a better pass catching TE than Coby Fleener last year, most of you would have pooped on me. For the record, I wanted Allen. Systems inflate college stats and opportunities at certain positions, and Stanford's system inflates stats and matchups opportunities for tight ends. Beware of Ertz, not only are his measurables a little off, he was in a very TE friendly system.

Rice has three tight ends whose measurables are pretty good. One of those is McDonald. I am not going to make excuses for his drops, they are a real issue and he even had a couple early on at his pro day. But Rice almost never lines up their tight ends off tackle and instead lines them up in the slot. Playing their tight ends in space was a poor idea, IMO.

I like McDonald for a few reasons. He has drop issues, true, but he also makes some spectacularly tough hands type catches. If the way he was used at Rice is any indication of coaching, perhaps his issues are coachable. He has good downfield burst, and when facing NFL caliber players at the senior bowl, he looked really good. Also, in drills he did a really good job using his routes and mass to create space for the QB to target. Seeing as we have a QB who likes to throw guys open, I like a TE whose route running shows those subtleties. Combined with long arms, big hands, and decent speed, it just feels like a Schneider pick. An 82 inch wingspan on a tight end is pretty damn long.

I like Eifert best as well, but I see no way he makes it past a handful of teams between 20 and 40. Ertz is overrated, IMO, and Kelce would be an immediate upgrade over McCoy and give us roster flex if this is Miller's last go around with the Hawks. As would McDonald. Escobar's speed does concern me, and the H-back role Scraggs or Reed would have just doesn't feel like a direction Seattle's offense is going.

Just listened to him using TuneIn Radio on my phone, (Great app btw) he was on with Florio on Profootball talk and interviews well. Said he ran a 4.6 - 40 while very sick (throwing up) and thinks he can do better. Has me interested now

kearly wrote:I find myself disagreeing with Waldman some this year. I guess that makes sense when you consider how little separates the talent in this draft class.

I view Kelce as a competent player without glaring weaknesses, yet is also without star power. I don't even know how I'd rank Reed-Escobar-Kelce, they all strike me as solid #2 TE options in different ways. Ertz is a clear step above all 3, and Eifert is the clear #1 IMO. Not sure where I'd have McDonald. He has a very real problem with drops and I think his physical attributes are overstated. After Scott got me really hyped on him I found his game compilations to be disappointing. The Gronk comparisons are a reach. He seems like a 5th round prospect to me, but I've only seen him in a couple games.

I'm not afraid to go against the grain, it's just in this case I don't have to. Consensus opinion has Eifert in the 1st round, some say top 20. Ertz is widely considered #2. Reed-Escobar-Kelce-McDonald are all over the map, but each is expected to be taken in the round 2-4 range. In fairness, my opinion of Eifert is inflated by the fact that he's exactly what Seattle wants at TE.

This mirrors my thoughts exactly. I want Kelce in the third if he's there but I wouldn't reach in the second if it were me. I still want a starting OLB in the second.