2019 AIR Results: Rookie and Sophomore Tight End Profiles

Following an analysis of the top 50 wide receivers, the previous two articles have pivoted to the tight end position. First, AIR profiles for the 2019 top 35 tight ends were presented. Subsequently, brief profiles of how owners may want to treat some of the veteran players (read: players who have been in the NFL for at least three seasons) were offered. Here, profiles for 2019 rookies and sophomores are tackled.

READ: 2019 Air Results: Wide Receivers | Veteran Wide Receiver Profiles | Rookie and Sophomore Wide Receiver Profiles | Tight Ends | Veteran Tight End Profiles

Impressively, especially given the learning curve at the position, ten of the 2019 top 35 tight ends (28.6%) were comprised of rookie and sophomore players. Of these ten, three players (30%) failed to secure an AIR value of at least 1.000, which is designated as the expected outcome for pass-catchers who are doing exactly what they should be with their attempts. While, relatively speaking, they didn’t perform as well as their wide receiver cohorts, overall this was a fairly impressive effort.

With that said, there were divergences between PPR rank and AIR rank. These are highlighted in the table below.

Subsequent to these numbers, presented below is a qualitative explanation to accompany the quantitative determination. Given the lesser number in this subset (N = 10), I will chronicle every tight end listed above, even those who largely hovered at an equilibrium between PPR rank and AIR rank (i.e. values near zero) and performed efficiently relative to their statistical output.

As a friendly reminder, large positive and large negative values are not inherently assertive. More highly ranked (PPR ranking) receivers had more room to slide, and vice versa with the lower-ranked pass catchers. With that said, I believe there are actionable movements detailed above, especially given the potential longevity that comes with youth.

Kaden Smith, TE NYG

Much like wide receiver teammate Darius Slayton, Smith secured the largest positive differential of his grouping. Interestingly, and albeit across 26 fewer targets, rookie Smith was more efficient than pricier teammate Evan Engram, surpassing him in catch percentage and touchdown rate, while checking in with the 11th-best AIR score (1.179). I’m not claiming he’s going to supplant the talented starter, but the Giants may have found a diamond in the rough. He’s worth a look in deeper leagues as a future stash and is still reasonably priced (he was only selected in one draft according to June’s ADP data).

Dawson Knox, TE BUF

Incredibly, and despite the Bills functioning as the seventh-worst passing offense at just 202 yards per game, Knox’s 388 yards actually bettered any of his collegiate efforts. He was able to do so in an efficient manner, with an AIR score of 1.081. There are suddenly a number of mouths to feed in Buffalo following the addition of Stefon Diggs, but Knox appears entrenched at the top of the tight end depth chart. It would not be surprising to see him join the TE2 ranks as soon as this year.

Noah Fant, TE DEN

In the battle of former Hawkeyes, there was a conclusive rookie winner (more on TJ Hockenson below). Fant’s AIR score of 1.212 not only led all rookies and sophomores, but was the sixth-best overall. It’s true Denver added a significant amount of talent to their pass-catching corps during the off-season, but it’s not hard to see Fant exceeding his 66 rookie targets. Should he continue this sort of efficiency, and should Drew Lock prove to be the real deal, expect Fant’s ADP to hover around the top four overall.

Hayden Hurst, TE ATL

Hurst’s value has grown during the off-season, but more due to what occurred off the field rather than on it. To that point, it’s hard to argue against his new landing spot – the Falcons are a team known to feature their tight ends, and he doesn’t have nearly the competition as he did in Baltimore. Targets from Matt Ryan should not feature a noticeable drop-off from those that came from Lamar Jackson.

On the field, Hurst’s AIR score of 1.041 was acceptable given a pass-catching corps crowded with playmakers. He caught a solid majority of his targets (76.9%), though he was only able to secure two scores. An ADP of TE14 seems a bit high for my taste, but Hurst should be able to improve his sophomore finish as the PPR TE34.

Irv Smith Jr, TE MIN

With an AIR score of 0.948, Smith was one of the three players in this subset who failed to effectively earn his targets. Though he corralled 76.6% of his targets, these receptions resulted in an average of a mere 8.6 yards. He will need to show significantly more dynamic and/or score more touchdowns (just two on 47 looks) to sequester more passing game usage from Kyle Rudolph. It certainly wasn’t a terrible look for a rookie, but I’m likely more of a seller than a buyer at an ADP of TE15.

Jordan Akins, TE HOU

The younger half (though not by much as Akins pursued baseball prior to returning to college for football) of the duo with Darren Fells, it was actually Akins who led the team in targets at the position. However, he didn’t catch as high a percentage of his looks as compare to Fells, and also had five fewer scores despite seven additional targets. Like Smith, Akins was another player to fall below the 1.000 threshold, with an AIR score of 0.974. He currently falls outside the June ADP, which is likely fair enough – I’d keep him on my watch list but wouldn’t be targeting him outright.

TJ Hockenson, TE DET

If Fant was the good, Hockenson likely surpassed bad and ugly, with a downright grotesque AIR score of 0.866. Though receiver Sammy Watkins gave him a run for his money, this stands as the lowest AIR score of all 85 total players chronicled across this series. So how did it happen?

For starters, teammate Marvin Jones and Kenny Golladay were two of the top three most efficient wider receivers, largely on the back of their 20 combined touchdowns. Hockenson, meanwhile, could secure only two across 59 targets. His catch percentage of 54.2% was barely above the Mendoza line, and his dynamic was lacking at just 11.5 YPR. Receiving 59 targets across 12 games was nice, but he’s going to need to do more with them moving forward.

If you believe in scoring regression, and think Hockenson will be better utilized and live up to his athletic metrics, there’s a chance for hope here. With an ADP of TE9, I’d probably rather wait at the position.

Dallas Goedert, TE PHI

After a promising rookie season, Goedert joined teammate Zach Ertz as a surprising 2019 PPR TE1, checking in as the overall TE10. He performed eerily similar to Ertz on a per-target basis, but checked in with nearly 50 fewer looks. He did, however, score the ball at a higher clip, with only one fewer receiving touchdown. With an AIR score of 1.119, Goedert’s ascension appears likely to continue. As the TE10 by ADP, I’d prefer his price point to Hockenson’s above.

Mark Andrews, TE BAL

Pay little mind to the negative value in the difference column for Andrews. His AIR score of 1.127 is more than acceptable, especially given the efficiency of targets coming from the arm of Lamar Jackson. Hayden Hurst’s 39 targets are gone to Atlanta, and it’s possible Andrews will play more of a full-time role in 2020. However, scoring the ball nearly once every 10 targets may be tough to repeat, as Andrews led the position with ten receiving scores in 2019. A larger target share would help mitigate any scoring losses, but I’m not going to nitpick here – Andrews deserves his ADP of TE3.

Mike Gesicki, TE MIA

If there’s any player on this list who should give Hockenson owners hope, it’s Gesicki. Following a disastrous rookie year where he secured a mere 22 receptions for 202 scoreless yards, Gesicki broke out as a sophomore with a fine 51-570-5 line on 89 Ryan Fitzpatrick (and Josh Rosen) YOLO targets, ultimately finishing as the PPR TE12. This included seven games of at least four receptions, and a strong finish with all five of his touchdowns in the team’s final six games.

Gesicki’s AIR score of 1.079 is more than acceptable, belying the negative differential. He proved growth in year two, and began to grow into his supreme athletic gifts. An ADP as the TE12 is reasonable, and he has the potential to better that in 2021.

Find me on Twitter @EDH_27 (even though I rarely post anymore).

• Author
• Recent Posts

Eric Hardter

Contributor at Dynasty League Football

Eric is a Boston College chemistry grad school survivor with a minor in dynasty football. He prefers to utilize both statistics and sarcasm whenever possible, believes in process over results and thinks "Hot Takes" are the scourge of the fantasy landscape.

Latest posts by Eric Hardter (see all)

• Dynasty Fantasy Football Mailbag: Is Kendre Miller Valued Unfairly? - April 17, 2024
• Forgotten Dynasty Veterans: Bottom Tier - April 9, 2024
• Dynasty Fantasy Football Mailbag: How Much Should You Factor in Off-Field Issues? - April 9, 2024