What's up with K2?

OconRecon

Which is why TE's are the lowest priority in the fantasy leagues.

No Robert Royal??!! WTF!!!

? Masters

@oconrecon said:
Which is why TE's are the lowest priority in the fantasy leagues.

Aren't kickers really the lowest priority in fantasy leagues?

choco

Masters said:
Aren't kickers really the lowest priority in fantasy leagues?

depends on the offense. some can't score TD's......kicker has 20 points.

? Masters

@choco said:
depends on the offense. some can't score TD's......kicker has 20 points.

I have never seen a league like that

choco

Masters said:
I have never seen a league like that

so you've been in every league in existence?

you know, they're customizable, right?

? Masters

@choco said:
so you've been in every league in existence?
you know, they're customizable, right?

No I haven't been in every league. Did I say I was? Did I say that other doen't have what you said? No I didn't. So settle down there chief. I was simply saying I have not seen one like that... jeesh.

? Aloysius

@wpb-dawg-fan said:
I am going back to...who cares?
Here are the top 5 TE's in receptions last year...and how their teams finished:

96 Tony Gonzalez, KC (2-14)

83 Chris Cooley, WAS (8-8)

81 Jason Witten, DAL (9-7, no playoffs)

77 Dallas Clark, IND (12-4)

70 Owen Daniels, HOU (8-8)

I'm not a big fan of pure receiving TE's, and I certainly think it was a good idea to trade away a headcase like Winslow. But I don't see how those stats tell you that having a stud tight end as a focal point of your offense is a bad thing.

Those teams' collective winning percentage is very close to .500, and that was in a year that Dallas and Washington - two TE-heavy, close to every year playoff contenders - underperformed down the stretch.

In fact, in only two of the past seven years have the top 5 TE teams had a collective sub-.500 record.

2008: 39-41 (.488)
2007: 44-36 (.550)
2006: 48-32 (.600)
2005: 44-36 (.550)
2004: 31-49 (.388)
2003: 47-33 (.588)
2002: 46-34 (.575)

I agree that you can win without a great TE, but it doesn't mean that having one isn't a great asset. To me, that argument is similar to saying you can find RB's late in the draft, so you should never take one in the 1st round.

The first point is good, but the corollary goes too far.

WPB Dawg Fan

Alo....didn't say having a great TE is a bad thing. I was just saying that it is a LUXERY. That there are many other pieces to the offense that need to be addressed first before going out and getting said great receiving TE.

I think Dallas Clark is a perfect example. He is not really what I would consider a great receiving TE prospect...but he gets his in that system.

I really think that a TE that can't block...or is inconsistent at best at blocking...is as much a liability as an asset.

So, to recap...great receiving TE's are nice...just not essential. If a TE can block and still catch the short/intermediate routes....that is enough. More than that and he is not doing his blocking duties and taking receptions away from the WR's.

? Aloysius

Fair enough. It just seems like having a stretch the field TE provides some pretty big strategic advantages.

Part of the reason so many teams have been adding receiving TE's is that it's the best way to break the Tampa 2. The area behind the middle linebacker and between the two safeties is the weak spot of that defense, which an athletic TE can exploit. For that reason, it's not a surprise that Indy, a team that until recently ran a T2, was ahead of the curve in drafting Dallas Clark in the 1st round of the '03 draft.

Also, a good TE is a great security blanket for a young quarterback. Just look at how the Falcons brought in Tony Gonzalez and the Lions drafted Brandon Pettigrew. You probably could include Kellen Winslow as a weapon for Josh Freeman, whenever he's ready. And the Steelers added Heath Miller in the 1st round the year after they drafted Roeth.

Mangini & Ko went in the opposite direction on this one; we'll see how it turns out.

And as a side note, I think it's a mistake for people here to devalue the weapons Manning has in Indy. As I mentioned above, Dallas Clark is a former 1st round pick whom the team signed to a 6 year, $36M extension. If they thought he was a product of the system, they likely would have let him go and had Jacob Tamme take his spot. And while I like the idea of bringing in multiple mid-round RB's, a la the Giants, the Colts have two 1st round running backs in their backfield.

ballpeen

@mr.-t said:
Winslow's ability for physical activity on that knee is limited, why risk a season ending injury.
That also could be career ending, I loved how he played, but Im glad we got something out of him.

I agree. It is the same thing we are doing with Rogers.

Vegasdogg

Aloysius said:
And as a side note, I think it's a mistake for people here to devalue the weapons Manning has in Indy. As I mentioned above, Dallas Clark is a former 1st round pick whom the team signed to a 6 year, $36M extension. If they thought he was a product of the system, they likely would have let him go and had Jacob Tamme take his spot. And while I like the idea of bringing in multiple mid-round RB's, a la the Giants, the Colts have two 1st round running backs in their backfield.

Yeah but Bro it's Peyton Manning. He makes receivers around him better, no question.

BernietheKid

@shepwrite said:
Great points. The idea of a franchise TE is such bullshit. The Giants won the Super Bowl the year after Shockey left. The Chiefs never won anything with Gonzales and his presence didn't elevate his quarterback last year.
But a really good quarterback CAN elevate Dallas Clark to greatness. And I don't think he's great.

Great Points shep. Shockey was hurt during the Giants Super Bowl run.

Per Wikipedia:

On December 16, 2007, in week 15 of the season, while playing the Washington Redskins, Shockey broke his left fibula and suffered damage to his ankle. He underwent surgery, and missed the rest of the 2007 season. Kevin Boss then took over Shockey's spot as the starting tight end.

Despite Shockey's season-ending injury, the Giants went on to win the NFC title and beat the previously undefeated New England Patriots in Super Bowl XLII. The Giants’ success even without Shockey sparked immediate speculation that the team would be better without the often vocal and increasingly injured tight end. Shockey declined to participate in several Giants team celebrations including a White House tribute for the new Super Bowl champions and the team's blue carpet ring ceremony. [2] Rumors surfaced before the 2008 NFL Draft that the Giants were looking to trade Shockey.