Building the Beast: Tight end draft class breakdown

Summary of Building the Beast: Tight end draft class breakdown

by The Athletic

1h 22m•March 25, 2026
Listen to Episode

Overview of Building the Beast: Tight end draft class breakdown

Hosts Dave Hellman and Dane Brugler break down the 2026 tight end class on The Athletic’s Building the Beast. With Dane’s Beast draft guide due April 8, they use the episode to go beyond the top-50 names and dig deep into a very deep, multi‑archetype TE group — from potential first‑round playmakers to the long list of day‑three, scheme‑specific prospects. The conversation emphasizes testing, film traits vs production, blocking value, 30‑visit context and how team fit will decide where many of these players land.

Big themes and takeaways

  • Depth: This is one of the deepest TE classes in recent memory — many draftable names from late Day 2 through Day 3.
  • Traits vs. production: Several prospects are “grade to the flashes” players (high upside on traits/athleticism but limited production). Teams must decide how much they’ll pay for traits alone.
  • Blocking matters: With many TE profiles being receivers or move TEs, in‑line blocking ability (or at least being “serviceable”) will push some players up draft boards — especially for day‑three targets.
  • 30‑visits are noisy: A facility “30 visit” isn’t an automatic sign a team loves a player — often it’s used to answer medical, personality or fit questions.
  • Fit is crucial: Where a team plans to use a TE (move/slot, inline blocker, H‑back/fullback) will determine value for nearly every mid‑round/late‑round name in this class.

Notable prospects covered (quick profiles)

Note: measurables are approximate from the conversation; projected ranges reflect the hosts’ discussion.

Kenyon Sadiq (Oregon)

  • Profile: Top TE in the class; elite athletic testing (Combine standout), transition-ready move TE/primary pass‑catcher.
  • Strengths: Downfield catching, after‑catch ability, route tree and explosiveness.
  • Concerns: Shorter arms (31.5") and below‑traditional inline size (6'3", ~240) — blocking and matchups vs DEs could be limitations.
  • Projection: Likely first round / top‑20 pick.

Oscar Delp (Georgia)

  • Profile: Violent, physical blocker at ~245lbs; limited target volume but excellent flashes as receiver. Ran ~4.49 at pro day after playing with a hairline foot fracture.
  • Strengths: Elite effort and nastiness as a blocker, suddenness and contested-catch ability.
  • Concerns: Low receiving production (shadowed by Brock Bowers usage), inconsistent usage raises questions about role.
  • Projection: Day 2/early Day 3 (top 75 range if teams buy the flashes).

Eli Stowers (Vanderbilt)

  • Profile: Former QB turned TE, graceful mover, high‑end receiving traits (big‑slot / move‑TE archetype).
  • Strengths: Straight-line seam speed, catch radius, route IQ influenced by QB background.
  • Concerns: Limited overall blocking; specialized role — not a true two‑way TE for every offense.
  • Projection: Day 2 / early Day 3 depending on scheme.

Max Clark (Ohio State)

  • Profile: All‑around athletic TE with room to grow as blocker; underused target share but strong movement skills.
  • Strengths: Seams, suddenness in space, surprising yards‑after‑catch.
  • Concerns: Consistency as a blocker in space; still developing physically after adding weight.
  • Projection: Day 2 candidate (testing expected at pro day to cement grade).

Justin Jolie (NC State)

  • Profile: Productive college pass‑catcher with excellent hands (11‑inch hands noted) and contested‑catch ability.
  • Strengths: Catching focus in traffic, red‑zone target reliability, good contested hands.
  • Concerns: Less visible blocking tape; some uncertainty over level of competition and scheme usage.
  • Projection: Late Day 2 to Day 3 (could sneak into top‑100).

Sam Rausch (Stanford)

  • Profile: Prototypical Stanford TE: big (6'6", ~267), physical, surprising agility; very good testing (3‑cone, vert).
  • Strengths: Physicality, length, movement for size, competing mentality.
  • Concerns: Short arm length (~<31") that shows up on blocks; too many drops in profile.
  • Projection: Mid rounds (Day 3) — upside fits many schemes.

Eli Raritan (Notre Dame)

  • Profile: Tall (6'6"), athletic TE whose career was disrupted early by knee issues; flashes as receiver.
  • Strengths: Size, fluid receiver traits, high ceiling.
  • Concerns: Early injury history; inconsistent production and technique (upright blocking posture).
  • Projection: Mid‑to‑late Day 3; scheme and medical checks matter.

Will Kaczmarek (Ohio State)

  • Profile: Traditional in‑line, physical blocker who played lots of snaps as a blocker for OSU; limited targets.
  • Strengths: Day‑one mentality as blocker, nastiness at second level, proven in heavy TE usage offense.
  • Concerns: Limited receiving production/value as a pass‑catcher — viewed primarily as a blocking TE.
  • Projection: Early Day 3 (teams valuing in‑line blocking will target him earlier).

Jack Endries (Texas)

  • Profile: Versatile, consistent blocker who can also be a reliable seam option — former walk‑on at Cal who transferred to Texas.
  • Strengths: Finishes blocks, dependable hands, positional versatility.
  • Concerns: Average size/strength will show up in elite matchup blocks.
  • Projection: Mid‑to‑late Day 3 / fourth round zone.

Nate Boerkerker (Texas A&M)

  • Profile: Older, experienced TE with reliable hands and surprising leverage as blocker for a taller player.
  • Strengths: Contested catches, blocking technique for a tall TE, consistent production after transfer.
  • Concerns: Age (older rookie) and projection ceiling.
  • Projection: Mid rounds / Day 3.

DaQuan Wright (Ole Miss)

  • Profile: Explosive pass‑catcher with big play ability (12 catches of 20+ yards in 2025); played through shoulder injury.
  • Strengths: Big‑play speed and yards‑per‑catch, contested receptions.
  • Concerns: Fit/type — can he be a reliable in‑line blocker? Routes and technique need refinement; medical questions.
  • Projection: Day 3 with variance by team scheme.

Khalil Dinkins (Penn State)

  • Profile: Low receiving production but developed into a physical blocker; developmental upside.
  • Strengths: Blocking toughness, finish, athleticism after development.
  • Concerns: Minimal pass‑catching film and small college production.
  • Projection: Late rounds / developmental roster candidate.

Dallin Bentley (Utah)

  • Profile: Breakout, efficient pass‑catcher with excellent release and after‑catch quickness; great testing for size.
  • Strengths: Smooth route‑running, quick transitions, no drops in 2025, good athleticism (mid‑4.6 40s, improved short shuttle).
  • Concerns: Some in‑line blocking discipline issues; lower profile until late.
  • Projection: Day 3 / early Day 3 sleeper.

Riley Nowakowski (Indiana)

  • Profile: H‑back/fullback‑type TE — multi‑positional, fundamentally sound blocker who can catch in short yardage.
  • Strengths: Tenacity, reliability, versatility as a blocker and special usage in short‑yardage.
  • Concerns: Not a downfield separator; limited route tree.
  • Projection: Day 3 (valued as utility TE/H‑back).

Josh Cuevas (Alabama)

  • Profile: Well‑rounded H‑back/utility TE; dependable but limited upside.
  • Strengths: Physical, zone feel as receiver, reliable execution.
  • Concerns: Limited impact upside — more of a role player.
  • Projection: Late rounds.

R.J. Maryland (SMU / earlier)

  • Profile: Speedy TE with interesting athletic profile (4.51 40 at Combine); injury history (knee) dampened continuous production.
  • Strengths: Downfield speed for the position; mismatch potential.
  • Concerns: Knee injury, limited blocking profile.
  • Projection: Day 3 / swing pick if medicals check.

Carson Ryan (BYU / Utah/UCLA transfers)

  • Profile: Highest‑graded non‑combine TE per Dane — versatile, controlled, physical with useful straight‑line speed.
  • Strengths: Relatively quick, catches the ball, team‑first mindset.
  • Concerns: Route polish and after‑catch suddenness not elite.
  • Projection: Late rounds / camp‑easy bubble.

Other names briefly mentioned (worth tracking): Marlon Klein (Michigan), Joe Royer (Cincinnati), Michael Trigg (Baylor), D.J. Rogers (TCU).

Notable quotes / concepts from the episode

  • “Can we stop with the top‑30 visits? … A lot of those are to answer lingering medical or personality questions.” — 30‑visit context.
  • “Grade to the flashes” — some players look like NFL starters if you weigh their athletic flashes more than collegiate production.
  • “Blocking is what separates a lot of these guys” — teams will value TE blockers intensely in rounds 4–7.
  • Fit > universal grading: many mid/late TE evaluations depend on how teams plan to use them (H‑back, move TE, inline).

What to watch between now and the draft

  • Pro Days: confirm bench/3‑cone/short shuttle numbers for borderline TEs (blocking in space and change‑of‑direction are critical).
  • Medical checks: foot and knee histories (several prospects played with fractures or had prior injuries).
  • Team interviews / 30‑visit news: interpret 30 visits as investigative rather than automatic endorsement.
  • Scheme fits: defenders to watch — which teams need in‑line blockers vs. move‑TEs? That will determine who goes earlier than consensus.

Who benefits most from this class?

  • Offenses that use multiple tight ends, heavy two‑TE sets, or H‑back roles — they can pick from a talented pool of diverse archetypes.
  • Teams willing to gamble on traits: several high‑upside TEs with limited usage could become starters if coached right.

Final note

The hosts underline that this class is unusually deep; many day‑three players are scheme‑dependent, so draft weekend will show wide variability in where individual TEs land. Dane’s full Beast guide (April 8 release) will have expanded profiles on the many names briefly covered here.