bulger2holt
Footballguy
These guys are really clicking so far. Keep an eye on McMichael for your TE. With Bruce gone, Bulger will look at McMichael alot. Plus, O-cord Saunders loves using TE's. Look for 60/1000/8 for McMichael.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Bulger to McMichael (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter bulger2holt
- Start date
Jimmy James
Footballguy
A 29 year old TE who has never gone for 800 and you're predicting 1000?
I'm not buying. I think the reasonable upside for McMichael would be matching his best numbers yet, which came in 2004 (73, 791, 4).
I'm not buying. I think the reasonable upside for McMichael would be matching his best numbers yet, which came in 2004 (73, 791, 4).
Tanner9919
Footballguy
Take in the fact that the OC is Al Saunders, and you can understand the optimism regarding McMichael. Saunders' teams in the past have had a heavy reliance on the TE position, see Chris Cooley and Tony Gonzalez. Without a surefire #2 WR to team alongside Holt, the TE position will see a lot of action in this offense, as will Steven Jackson in terms of receptions ( along with lots of rushing yards)..
Last edited by a moderator:
David Yudkin
Footballguy
Tony G, Cooley, and the original Kellen Winslow were already established by the time Saunders got there, so I'm not sure we can conclude that he "made" them. I suspect McMichael will be a servicable fantasy TE, but I don't think he will be in the elite class.
The Jacket
Footballguy
Exactly. Saunders' reliance wasn't on the TE position, it was on the talent. In KC, that was the O-line, Holmes and of course Gonzalez. In Washington it was Cooley.McMichael doesn't really qualify.
burd
Footballguy
and Bulger has never been a QB that looks for his TE. Granted, he hasn't had a TE as talented as McMichael, but still ... historically when Bulger's being pressured, he looks to his RBs and WRs.
On the flip side, i can see McMichael getting a few more bones thrown his way when you take into account the loss of Bruce and Saunder's style of including the TE in the passing game.
Im calling it 55 650 5TDs
On the flip side, i can see McMichael getting a few more bones thrown his way when you take into account the loss of Bruce and Saunder's style of including the TE in the passing game.
Im calling it 55 650 5TDs
Ron_Mexico
I Love Doggies
PahtyTom
Footballguy
This has been true, but I do believe he is actually undervalued this year
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
I thought this was a post about the guy changing his user name
Jimmy James
Footballguy
If you're a TE value shopper like I am, I think McMichael is a guy to look at. I'd project him at around 650/3 with the upside I mention above. I think he will get more attention this year than last, but he's no Antonio Gates. Heck, my brother always beat McMichael in the high jump back in high school. My brother is now an insurance adjuster. I doubt any insurance adjuster ever beat Antonio Gates in an athletic contest.
Post Corner
Footballguy
Evidently FootballDocs is on board with McMichael:
http://www.footballdocs.com/sleepers.html
Pretty interesting points. Didn't realize the effect of Al Saunders.
http://www.footballdocs.com/sleepers.html
Pretty interesting points. Didn't realize the effect of Al Saunders.
T Bell
Footballguy
Good to know the Rams are such a great pass blocking team that they won't have to keep their TE's in to help. 
This guy's not going to suddenly become a stud. Saunders used Cooley and Gonzo because when he was in Washington and KC he had few other options and both guys are obviously talented in their own right. In short, those two TE's were the best receiving options on his teams. I don't see that being the case in St. Louis with McMichael.
This guy's not going to suddenly become a stud. Saunders used Cooley and Gonzo because when he was in Washington and KC he had few other options and both guys are obviously talented in their own right. In short, those two TE's were the best receiving options on his teams. I don't see that being the case in St. Louis with McMichael.
Keys Myaths
Pokerguy
This is the best statement in the thread. Good coaches use the players they have to their abilities. It's not good when people assume when coaches go elsewhere, they'll bring the exact same # of targets per position to the new offense. They would be terrible at their jobs if that were the case.
Drew Bennett is a surefire #2 WR in the NFL.he had 1200 yards while Mason was in Tennessee. What he's not is a #1 WR
Keys Myaths
Pokerguy
1200 yards is pretty good for a #2.He's had 700 the last couple years, last year he was somewhere between a 2 and a 3 due to injuries.
Many seasons the prized free agent WRs all have 700(and change) yards. Apparently, the NFL GMs consider that a good barometer. (feel free to look those stats up, it's kind of odd) Due to FF we may not think that's necessarily enough as we think of #1s and use 1000 or 1200 as a barometer. We're talking about a #2 here though.
Not coincidentally, Kevin Curtis had 700 or so for the same team Bennett is on now, when Philly signed him to a nice sized deal.
he's had alot more good games than 3-4 good games four years ago
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play...nDr00_games.htm
I'm not saying the guy is great but he is good. At 6-5, he has his usefulness
ThePittbully
Footballguy
Cant wait to bump this thread later this year. McMichael will have no less than 55 catches and 600 yards
Similar threads
