Dec. 6, 2025, 10:35 a.m. CT
- Columnist Pete Dougherty suggests Tucker Kraft is a better all-around player than fellow tight end Luke Musgrave.
- Musgrave’s primary strength is his straight-line speed as an intermediate and downfield receiving target.
- Musgrave’s limitations include poor blocking and an inability to gain significant yards after the catch.
GREEN BAY − Green Bay Press-Gazette and PackersNews columnist Pete Dougherty responds to reader questions as the Green Bay Packers prepare for their Week 14 showdown against the Chicago Bears on Sunday, Dec. 7, at Lambeau Field.
Following is an excerpt from this week’s chat. For the full mailbag, click here.
Tom G, Menomonie, Wis.: Hi Pete, what has happened to Luke Musgrave? His rookie year he was looking like a future franchise tight end, he was the rookie TE playing over Tucker Kraft, if not for injuries I’m not sure Tucker would have seen the field. Is it as simple as injuries, are the coaches not using him correctly? Seems like a waste of talent not being utilized!
Pete Dougherty: As we’ve seen over the last two years, Kraft is the far better player of the two. Injuries no doubt have limited Musgrave’s contributions, and he does have talent, but he also has some significant limitations.
Musgrave’s greatest asset is his straight-line speed for a guy of his size. He’s a big guy who’s pretty fast and catches the ball well enough. The way to use him is as an intermediate and downfield target, like last week when he had that 23-yard catch on a deep out route. That’s exactly the type of route that’s his strength.
But even though he tested well athletically, he doesn’t offer much run after the catch unless nobody’s near him. He can’t avoid the first tackler, whereas Kraft always makes that first guy miss. So short dump-offs to Musgrave generally aren’t going to pick up much after he catches the ball.
Musgrave also is a poor blocker. There was a play last week where Josh Jacobs had a nice run to the outside and picked up a 10-yard-plus gain. Musgrave was ahead of him, and if he’d just gotten in the way as a blocker, Jacobs could have ripped off an even bigger run or maybe even scored. But Musgrave kind of stumbled and whiffed, and the guy tackled Jacobs.
The throw to Musgrave last week suggests the Packers have figured out how to use him, that the short stuff to him isn’t going anywhere. But it was just one play in one game, so we’ll have to see how they use him over the final five games.
Since Kraft has been out I haven’t seen anything from Musgrave to suggest he’s this major talent waiting to explode. They have better weapons at receiver as they get healthier at that position. But he could be a complementary guy on the occasional intermediate or deep route because of his size and speed.
George: Has Josh Whyle taken over as the No. 1 tight end from Luke Musgrave? Musgrave didn’t seem to be on the field in the second half, even when it was an obvious passing down.
Dougherty: The first couple of weeks after Kraft’s injury, it actually seemed like John FitzPatrick had become the No. 1 tight end. But in this last game at Detroit, Musgrave played the most snaps of the three – he had 37 to Whyle’s 32 to FitzPatrick’s 15.
It will probably be a week-to-week thing depending on matchups and game plan. Musgrave is the best receiver but worst blocker of the three. When the receiving corps is intact, I wonder if that could cost Musgrave some snaps because LaFleur might feel he’s got enough in the passing game so he’d prefer to get a run blocker on the field at tight end.
In the end, it will probably be a week-to-week thing. While Musgrave brings a distinct skill set to the offense as an intermediate and downfield receiver, his limitations after the catch and as a blocker mean he’s not a guy they have to have on the field as much as possible.
They all have different strengths. FitzPatrick is more of an in-line blocker, Whyle can line up at FB or H-back as a move blocker, and Musgrave is an intermediate to downfield receiver. Without Kraft, the Packers don’t have a No. 1 tight end.
Leave a Reply