NFL TEs: Size Matters, But You’re Bigger Than You Think

Yes, size matters.

No, not in the way we keep pretending it does.

Because if size alone explained the tight end position, we wouldn’t have scouting reports looking at two guys built out of the same pile of lumber and calling one “undersized” while calling the other an “ideal frame.”

That’s not evaluation. It’s a lazy, outdated fortune teller.

The Name Problem

“Tight end” used to mean something.

Well… I guess it still does mean multiple things… khm… but as far as football goes, it’s now four different skillsets being graded as one position archetype that we rarely find anymore.

And the clean, old-school version?

That unicorn “do everything” prototype?

It’s about as common now as the perfect pocket passer going 1.01 and actually living up to it.

We still talk about the mold like it’s standard.

It’s not.

So I Built My Own Framework

I’ve had an issue with this for a while, so here’s how I handle it:

TE Positional Archetype Value Hierarchy

• SW-TE: 3.5 / 10. True 3-down tight end. Alignment-flexible. Never tips the play.
• YS-TE: 2.5 / 10. Receiving weapon. Slot/boundary mismatch.
• BL-TE: 2.5 / 10. Inline blocker. Run game stabilizer.
• HB-TE: 1.5 / 10. Utility piece. Motion, backfield, special teams.

This isn’t how the industry talks.

It’s how it should start thinking.

Because calling all of these players “tight ends” and then debating their size like they’re applying for the same job is how you miss players.

The Size Conversation, Where It Breaks

Let’s just look at real bodies:

• George Kittle — 6’4” / 247
• Sam LaPorta — 6’3” / 245
• Trey McBride — 6’4” / 246
• Brock Bowers — 6’3” / 243
• Harold Fannin Jr. — 6’3” / 241

That’s a 6–8 pound window.

And somehow inside that window, we get:

• “Undersized”
• “Compact”
• “Not prototypical”
• “Ideal frame”

Same bodies.

Different stories.

The Receipts

Ja’Tavion Sanders vs. Dalton Kincaid

• Sanders: “undersized for a traditional inline role”
• Kincaid: “ideal receiving tight end frame”

Same size.

Different narrative.

Brock Bowers vs. Max Klare

• Bowers: “lacks prototypical size”
• Klare: “ideal frame for the position”

One inch.

That’s the line.

Justin Joly vs. Endries / Boerkircher

• Joly: “undersized”
• Boerkircher: “natural tight end build”

Four pounds.

Two inches.

Apparently that’s a personality trait now.

Harold Fannin Jr. — The Breaking Point

6’3”, 241.

“Too small. Too slow. Small school.”

Meanwhile:

• Led the nation in receiving
• 1,555 yards
• 50%+ of team passing production
• Outgained next teammate by ~1,000 yards
• 2 drops in 3 seasons
• Played inline, slot, boundary

That’s not a projection.

That’s a player forcing the evaluation to catch up.

So again:

Too small for what?

The Alignment Reality: 2024 NCAA Splits

The “undersized receiving TE” played more inline than the “inline prospects.” Per PFF, the same site that had Fannin outside the top 100, he also had a better run blocking grade.

That should matter.

Blocking, The Most Misused Word in TE Scouting

Blocking isn’t binary.

It’s not:

• elite OT cosplay
• or liability

There’s a middle ground:

• angles
• positioning
• second-level work
• survival vs power

And for YS/SW players, that’s often enough.

Matthew Hibner (this could burn me)

6’4”, 251
28 bench reps, best among TEs
4.57 forty

PFF: TE20
Me: TE6

He’s not polished.

But if we’re going to worship size, then let’s at least be consistent when it shows up with elite athletic testing.

Otherwise, we’re just picking favorites.

The Real Issue

We’re not bad at measuring size.

We’re bad at assigning meaning to it.

Lower mass can mean:

• more explosion
• better release
• cleaner movement

More mass can mean:

• better anchor
• or just… more mass

Weight is not strength.

So What Are We Actually Doing?

We’re evaluating four different jobs under one label.

Then using size to guess which job a player “should” have.

Instead of asking:

What role does he actually win in?

Final Thought

If a player can:

• win inline
• win in space
• produce
• create mismatches

…and he’s labeled “too small,”

maybe he isn’t.

Maybe the framework is.

And maybe before we keep debating tight end size…

we take a second…

look down at our own evaluation process…

and ask if we’ve been measuring the wrong thing the whole time.

Sources

• Bleacher Report Scouting Reports
• CBS Sports Draft Profiles
• Sporting News Draft Board