Undefeated72 Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 I have to admit I haven't really studied them all yet....I was just wondering what you all thought.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampnuts Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 (edited) TE year in and year out is the weakest position. 2 Studs and no more than 5 players total worthy of star status. 1. Gonzalez 2. Gates 3. Heap 4. Witten 5. Crumpler Edited July 3, 2005 by Swampnuts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpholmes Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 Agreed. After those 5 go, If I havn't gotten one of them I have a hard time choosing. Same with kickers as well though. Afew studs, and after them, they're just kickers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keys Myaths Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 Agreed. After those 5 go, If I havn't gotten one of them I have a hard time choosing. Same with kickers as well though. Afew studs, and after them, they're just kickers. 863252[/snapback] A kicker's a kicker. As long as he's not horrible, I'm okay with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shotgun Messiahs Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 Punters Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted July 4, 2005 Share Posted July 4, 2005 TE year in and year out is the weakest position. 2 Studs and no more than 5 players total worthy of star status. 1. Gonzalez 2. Gates 3. Heap 4. Witten 5. Crumpler 863248[/snapback] ....and this is a GOOD year for TEs! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted July 4, 2005 Share Posted July 4, 2005 A kicker's a kicker. As long as he's not horrible, I'm okay with it. 863287[/snapback] Yeah, I did a breakdown of Ks, and in most leagues, the difference between the #2 K and the #14 K in any given year usually breaks down to like 2 pts per game; and unless the #1 K REALLY lights it up (like Vanderjagt last year), he's not going to have that much of an edge. Just go for a guy who appears to have a consistently productive offense and a lock on the job and you should be fine; even when I've been wrong on one or both counts, I've found plenty of productive guys at midseason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted July 4, 2005 Share Posted July 4, 2005 Punters 863322[/snapback] Especially for the Packers, who did a serious reach for one last year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 Hey, the Chiefs drafted a P in the 3rd round this year. Of course, they were at least bright enough not to TRADE UP FOR HIM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shotgun Messiahs Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 Hey, the Chiefs drafted a P in the 3rd round this year. Of course, they were at least bright enough not to TRADE UP FOR HIM. 869290[/snapback] That would not have anything to do with giving up the worst field advantage all last year, would it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy Returns Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 ....and this is a GOOD year for TEs! 863938[/snapback] yeah ... wasn't long ago it was TG and ....... all the rest were down here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest THEbigred Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 Getting back to the question.....TE is definitely the answer, but after that I would say this year it's WRs, relatively speaking. Sure there's more since there are more generally (2/3 starters/team etc), but fewer "sure things" IMO. Lot of potentially big producers, but more question marks than ever, even among top WRs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.