Hayden Hurst: rock or suck?

[JimZipCode]

I was just watching Edgar Allen's two newest vids. He mentions in one that he appeared on Filmstudy's recent podcast (!), and felt he gave a poor answer to the question, which offensive player is a good candidate for a surprise breakout vs Kansas City? He mentioned Hayden Hurst, based on (a) how defenses are going to key on Mandrews & Marquise, and (b) how often he sees Thor running free when he watches tape.

Edgar doesn't dwell on it, but a couple examples pop up in the plays he shows in those vids.

Anyway – that got me thinking about this notion that Mark Andrews is Travis Kelce and Hurst is a bust. Hayden Hust.


What if Hayden Hurst turns out to be Heath Miller?


Miller was a 1st-rd pick back in 2005, #30 overall. (2005 was a long time ago: Shaun Alexander won MVP that year. Lights-out Merriman was DPoY.)

Miller played eleven seasons for Shittsburgh. Ultra reliable. Career 72% catch rate, yards-per-target of 8, 600 yds per season. Consistent chain-mover for Bathroom Ben, and a solid red-zone option. He had two seasons of about 800 yds, and another of 760. Only one season below 450. He had six seasons of 6+ TDs. Two-time Pro Bowler. Very fine blocker.

This was a very good football player.


We keep thinking in terms of, first-rd picks should be playmakers, like Marquise & Andrews have been so far this season. A first-rd TE should be like Travis Kelce, or Vernon Davis. Or Kellen motherfuckin Winslow. And I gotta admit, that's my prejudice as well.

But. This other kind of player, the Heath Miller, is extremely useful as well. Like, I would never call Heath Miller a "bust". He just wasn't. Miller was a very good player for a long time, an important contributor on a consistently good team.


Is Hayden Hurst the new Heath Miller?
And if he is, is Hurst a bust?

[JimZipCode]

Footnotes:


● The thread title is a shout-out to any Scott Pilgrim fans on the board. It's the question Wallace asks Jimmy, about the band that "has not started playing yet."
"Good answer, Jimmy. You passed."


● In Heath Miller's pic on his PFR page, he looks kinda like Roethlisburger. A handsomer version; like the actor hired to play Bathroom Ben in a movie. Like if Ben actually had a jawline, rather than the fat bloated Barney Rubble face he's stuck with in real life.

[JimZipCode]

Bringing Hot's post from another thread in here, bc I think he's making a similar point:

I've heard MAndrews has been decent as a blocker. The assumption is that Hurst is a better blocker than Andrews, and Boyle is a better blocker than Hurst. It would be really interesting to know how true that is. Andrews is going to get more love because he's doing something sexier, but TE blocking is a huge part of what makes this offense work.

[TheThinkingRaven]

It's too early to peg Hurst as the next Heath Miller. If he did end up that way, he would not be a bust. If he continues like he has since he came on last year, yes, he will be a bust. I'm not ready to label him as a bust because you really got to see how these guys play out their rookie contracts.

[jonboy79]

This is a similar enough comparison to be valid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[palukaraven]

Too early to tell. Would we base the label of a bust on the lack of targets Hurst has had, or what he does with the ball when he gets it? As far as I can tell, Hurst has maximized his opportunities when given the ball, and his role on the team that the coaches are assigning may not be the same as Mark Andrews at this point.
As JimZipCode pointed out, perhaps that role is comparable to a Heath Miller type.

[PurplePill]

The big problem for Hurst is Mark Andrews. If not for Andrews, Hayden would get a heck of a lot more balls thrown his way. My guess is he plays out his rookie contract and off he goes. I don't see the Ravens throwing down big money for both and Andrews is certainly far beyond Hurst at this point and I don't see that changing

[WrongBaldy]

cream rises to the top

[Ravens44]

Too early to tell. Would we base the label of a bust on the lack of targets Hurst has had, or what he does with the ball when he gets it? As far as I can tell, Hurst has maximized his opportunities when given the ball, and his role on the team that the coaches are assigning may not be the same as Mark Andrews at this point.
As JimZipCode pointed out, perhaps that role is comparable to a Heath Miller type.

Agreed. These next few games, may answer a lot.
Lamar has spoken often of just taking what the defense gives him.
If defenses concentrate on Hollywood and Andrews, it will open up all the other playmakers.
That includes Hurst. I believe Lamar (and Roman) will distribute the ball to the other players if that is the case.

In game 1, yes everything worked, but Lamar saw the Fins had no answer for Ingram since they were intent on stopping Lamar from running. Since they were keying on him, he was also able to throw downfield.
In game 2, Lamar saw the defense stacking the box and running with Ingram, so he started running outside and getting 10-15 yards and getting out of bounds. Stacking the box makes his playmakers facing good matchups as well.

So, this week, look for the Chiefs to stack the box somewhat, but try to focus on Hollywood and Andrews.
That should leave Hurst running free. And if the Chiefs starting running back to cover the pass, Lamar will find an open lane.

I do see this game as an opportunity for Hurst to show a little more of what he has.
I hope so, I want more of the Ravens young playmakers to make themselves known as well as gain confidence.
This might also be an opportunity for Boykin to get more targets.

So, I think Hurst is a valuable piece of this budding offense.
They are all so young.
Give it and Hurst some more time as the offense grows each week.

[Doctor]

Production speaks.

If Hurst has 25-30 catches this year, he might not be a "bust", because he contributes to the team in other ways, etc...but he certainly won't be worth the pick we used to get him.

Mark Clayton was by all reports a good dude, and had a couple of okay seasons in regards to numbers (67 for 939 as a 2nd year player)...but he definitely wasn't worth the 22nd overall pick. Hurst is in the same boat.

[Kyle Cactus]

Agreed. These next few games, may answer a lot.
Lamar has spoken often of just taking what the defense gives him.
If defenses concentrate on Hollywood and Andrews, it will open up all the other playmakers.
That includes Hurst. I believe Lamar (and Roman) will distribute the ball to the other players if that is the case.

In game 1, yes everything worked, but Lamar saw the Fins had no answer for Ingram since they were intent on stopping Lamar from running. Since they were keying on him, he was also able to throw downfield.
In game 2, Lamar saw the defense stacking the box and running with Ingram, so he started running outside and getting 10-15 yards and getting out of bounds. Stacking the box makes his playmakers facing good matchups as well.

So, this week, look for the Chiefs to stack the box somewhat, but try to focus on Hollywood and Andrews.
That should leave Hurst running free. And if the Chiefs starting running back to cover the pass, Lamar will find an open lane.

I do see this game as an opportunity for Hurst to show a little more of what he has.
I hope so, I want more of the Ravens young playmakers to make themselves known as well as gain confidence.
This might also be an opportunity for Boykin to get more targets.

So, I think Hurst is a valuable piece of this budding offense.
They are all so young.
Give it and Hurst some more time as the offense grows each week.

He might have some productive games when teams try and take away the main playmakers, but the fact that he's not one of the main playmakers says something too. He's a 2nd year 1st round pick who's taken a backseat to a 2nd year 3rd round pick and a rookie 1st round pick. I'm sure he provides more blocking value than either of them, so I'm not saying he's unimportant. But I'd agree with most here. He's not on a trajectory to fully justify a 1st round pick.

[mmi16]

Production speaks.

If Hurst has 25-30 catches this year, he might not be a "bust", because he contributes to the team in other ways, etc...but he certainly won't be worth the pick we used to get him.

Mark Clayton was by all reports a good dude, and had a couple of okay seasons in regards to numbers (67 for 939 as a 2nd year player)...but he definitely wasn't worth the 22nd overall pick. Hurst is in the same boat.

The value of the pick ends with the end of the rookie contract - thereafter it is what did you do last and how can that be projected into the future.