Bills to work out TE Jace Sternberger (now signed to 1 year deal)

[GunnerBill]

12 minutes ago, Matt_In_NH said:

I think the 12 personnel thing is getting blown out of proportion.   If Kincaid plays a lot and is split out wide, how is that really different than 11 personnel?  He is a bigger body, that will mean something but if he was to be unavialable, it would seem plausible to me to replace him with a WR vs "has to be another TE".  Now if they are going to line the TE's on the LOS then I agree they need more, I am not sure that is the plan.

 

I often think about personnel groupings and stats of them are misleading.    You could have a RB that lines up in the slot, you can have TE's that was spread.....I have always thought it would be good to track both personnel groupings and formations.  Because for instance, there may not be any real difference between one teams 12 and anothers 11 other than one guy has "TE" instead of "WR" next to his title but they do the same exact thing.

 

Mike Gesicki is the classic example. Last year he played like 28% of his snaps as a tight end and that was the highest since his rookie year. He is not a tight end in any meaningful way. He is a big slot receiver. When the NFL famously ruled against Jimmy Graham's claim that he should be considered a wide receiver for franchise tag purposes (after a season where he played in the slot or split wide on 67% of his plays) the critical argument was that Graham when in the slot was normally still covered by a linebacker. But fast forward ten years and you see teams covering 'slot tight ends' with DBs with increasingly regularity. If teams want to try and cover Kincaid with a linebacker then be my guest.

 

I'm also not sure how the websites that track personnel groupings do it. For instance, if a team comes out in what looks like 12 personnel and then the Tight End lines up as a full back is that recorded as 12 or is it recorded as 21? To me it is misleading to record that as 12.

 

If Knox were to miss a game could I see Kincaid's tight end usage ticking up for that game.... yes, sure... he might get up to 40/50% as a tight end in that one specific game. But that isn't his strength or what he is good at.

[Thurman#1]

On 7/25/2023 at 6:47 AM, Shaw66 said:

This is a creative look at Sternberger.   Big Al said this:

 

 

Sternberger went ahead of Knox in the draft, and Big Al's description actually sounds a lot like Knox.   OK speed, OK route runner, undersized for a blocker, but that's undersized for a traditional tight end.  

 

Take another Knox and put him on the field just as DC said, in the red zone, and you've got something.   Diggs is a guy who separates like Beasley, and he's valuable, but teams were taking him away in the red zone, the Bills didn't other have good options.  I like Davis, but he hasn't been effective in the red zone.  Knox has.  Kincaid should be.   If there's a Knox clone on the field, that's four legitimate short-route targets, and it should be a simple thing for Allen to find the mismatch and go there.   Knox. Sternberger, and Kincaid all running tight curls, some small back will be boxed out by a big body.  

 

 

IMO a bit glass half-full.

 

Knox's RAS is 9.23. Sternberger's is 5.18.

 

I don't see this guy as another Knox. 

 

Having said that, I can imagine him making the team and doing some good.

 

 

5 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Mike Gesicki is the classic example. Last year he played like 28% of his snaps as a tight end and that was the highest since his rookie year. He is not a tight end in any meaningful way. He is a big slot receiver. When the NFL famously ruled against Jimmy Graham's claim that he should be considered a wide receiver for franchise tag purposes (after a season where he played in the slot or split wide on 67% of his plays) the critical argument was that Graham when in the slot was normally still covered by a linebacker. But fast forward ten years and you see teams covering 'slot tight ends' with DBs with increasingly regularity. If teams want to try and cover Kincaid with a linebacker then be my guest.

 

I'm also not sure how the websites that track personnel groupings do it. For instance, if a team comes out in what looks like 12 personnel and then the Tight End lines up as a full back is that recorded as 12 or is it recorded as 21? To me it is misleading to record that as 12.

 

If Knox were to miss a game could I see Kincaid's tight end usage ticking up for that game.... yes, sure... he might get up to 40/50% as a tight end in that one specific game. But that isn't his strength or what he is good at.

 

 

Yeah, that makes sense to me. 

 

I bet they're going to work on his blocking and try to get him capable of doing more there on running plays, because if he becomes a better blocker defenses have to treat him differently when he plays inline. But inline will likely be the exception.

 

He's likely more of a pass catcher but the more multiple his uses get, the better and more unpredictable the Bills look. If he's inline, he's more likely to end up covered by an LB, and if they try to play him with a DB inline, things would look good for the run game.

 

 

Edited July 26, 2023 by Thurman#1

[Shaw66]

2 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

IMO a bit glass half-full.

 

Knox's RAS is 9.23. Sternberger's is 5.18.

 

I don't see this guy as another Knox. 

 

Having said that, I can imagine him making the team and doing some good.

 

 

RAS difference is striking.  Alli said was the description I quoted sounded like Knox.  Seems he's different. 

 

Still, like you, I could see a role for him. For the Bills, he's just an experiment, like a lot free agents looking to catch on somewhere.  We'll know in a few weeks.  

[OZBILLS]

 

Never heard of him, but willing to give him a go. 

 

Hopefully not hands of stone

[NewEra]

29 minutes ago, Nextmanup said:

💩 

[Beck Water]

On 7/26/2023 at 6:40 AM, GunnerBill said:

 

Mike Gesicki is the classic example. Last year he played like 28% of his snaps as a tight end and that was the highest since his rookie year. He is not a tight end in any meaningful way. He is a big slot receiver. When the NFL famously ruled against Jimmy Graham's claim that he should be considered a wide receiver for franchise tag purposes (after a season where he played in the slot or split wide on 67% of his plays) the critical argument was that Graham when in the slot was normally still covered by a linebacker. But fast forward ten years and you see teams covering 'slot tight ends' with DBs with increasingly regularity. If teams want to try and cover Kincaid with a linebacker then be my guest.

 

I'm also not sure how the websites that track personnel groupings do it. For instance, if a team comes out in what looks like 12 personnel and then the Tight End lines up as a full back is that recorded as 12 or is it recorded as 21? To me it is misleading to record that as 12.

 

If Knox were to miss a game could I see Kincaid's tight end usage ticking up for that game.... yes, sure... he might get up to 40/50% as a tight end in that one specific game. But that isn't his strength or what he is good at.

 

I'm pretty sure that the websites who track are all getting their info from a couple of sources.  So this would really be a great question to ask someone who subscribes to these sources and has access to the info - PFF, there's another one that starts with "S", maybe "Sports Statistical Information"?  That's probably wrong, meaning there's a high probability someone will pop up and correct me.

 

Anyway, I can tell you that the free websites I've found who make or made some of this information available, seem to track entirely by player position.  Which is not to say that they all do, just that the service that site uses tracks that way.

 

IOW, when Gilliam was listed as a TE, plays where he was in along with a RB and TE weeks where he played as a fullback a fair bit were listed as 1,2; when Gilliam was listed as a fullback, the same plays were listed as 2,1 and so were plays where played inline.

 

I understand your point, but I'm not sure I agree.  The logical extension would be if an RB lines up in the slot, he should be labeled a WR for that play, or if a WR lines up in the backfield and takes a handoff he should be labeled as an RB for that play.  Yet as we've seen from this week's training camp, that can all be changed in a couple seconds with pre-snap motion.  So I think there is probably value in tracking what actual player positions are on the field.

[GunnerBill]

19 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

I'm pretty sure that the websites who track are all getting their info from a couple of sources.  So this would really be a great question to ask someone who subscribes to these sources and has access to the info - PFF, there's another one that starts with "S", maybe "Sports Statistical Information"?  That's probably wrong, meaning there's a high probability someone will pop up and correct me.

 

Anyway, I can tell you that the free websites I've found who make or made some of this information available, seem to track entirely by player position.  Which is not to say that they all do, just that the service that site uses tracks that way.

 

IOW, when Gilliam was listed as a TE, plays where he was in along with a RB and TE weeks where he played as a fullback a fair bit were listed as 1,2; when Gilliam was listed as a fullback, the same plays were listed as 2,1 and so were plays where played inline.

 

I understand your point, but I'm not sure I agree.  The logical extension would be if an RB lines up in the slot, he should be labeled a WR for that play, or if a WR lines up in the backfield and takes a handoff he should be labeled as an RB for that play.  Yet as we've seen from this week's training camp, that can all be changed in a couple seconds with pre-snap motion.  So I think there is probably value in tracking what actual player positions are on the field.

 

Maybe but as football becomes more and more positionless I think that argument becomes more difficult to sustain. We all know there are players whose official position designation is not where they play on the football field.

[Beck Water]

3 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Maybe but as football becomes more and more positionless I think that argument becomes more difficult to sustain. We all know there are players whose official position designation is not where they play on the football field.

 

I mean, if football is truly positionless, then describing offensive personnel sets would also be meaningless.

 

At this point, though, I think one would have to say that there are exceptions, but the clear majority of the time neither is true.

[GunnerBill]

1 hour ago, Beck Water said:

 

I mean, if football is truly positionless, then describing offensive personnel sets would also be meaningless.

 

At this point, though, I think one would have to say that there are exceptions, but the clear majority of the time neither is true.

 

I suppose I think formation will increasingly matter more than personnel.

[Beck Water]

45 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I suppose I think formation will increasingly matter more than personnel.

 

On the one hand, that's always been true.  Look at our own Thurman Thomas.

 

On the other hand, I think personnel who can truly play multiple roles from multiple formations AT AN ELITE LEVEL on a regular basis, are and will continue to be relatively rare.  Or to put it in concrete terms, Gesickis are a lot more common than Gronkowskis or Kelces.