Don't Look Now But ... (1 Viewer)

[packersfan]

Back-to-back 100-yard games certainly doesn't hurt but after stinking up the joint for several games early in the season Gonzalez is not only starting to come on but he's leading the league in receiving yardage by a TE. Here's the Top 5:

1. Gonzalez 441 (24th overall)

2. Winslow 393

3. Desmond Clark 391

4 (tie). Gates 384

4 (tie). L.J. Smith 384

The main difference between Gonzalez and those other TEs is touchdowns. He only has 1 whereas all of the others have at least 2. He's not getting a lot of love in the Red Zone with only 4 targets the entire season but should that change Gonzalez has a chance to finish the season on a high note.

 

[Marc Levin]

Hmmm, did the roundtable get released yet? We rank our "this point forward top-5" at every position.

You stole my thunder.

 

[packersfan]

Hmmm, did the roundtable get released yet? We rank our "this point forward top-5" at every position.You stole my thunder.

Is that in this week's roundtable? I haven't checked it out yet. Great minds and all that.

 

[Marc Levin]

Hmmm, did the roundtable get released yet? We rank our "this point forward top-5" at every position.You stole my thunder.

Is that in this week's roundtable? I haven't checked it out yet.

Gonzo's my #4 TE from this point forward - and I was trying to remain a bit conservative b/c we were told to rip into each other's outlying rankings. That part of the discussion never got off the ground.

 

[Otis]

Some interesting TE surprises.

Desmond Clark FINALLY meeting expectations after several years of him being considered, at least in practice and by coaches, to be an offensive weapon they planned to use a lot more.

Ben Watson, a talented guy who some of us have been expecting to dominate, is finally coming on. He still drops some balls and needs to work on his hands some, but he is one of the most (if not the most?) targeted TEs in the league right now. Brady is going to him, and he is delivering. Guy is a matchup nightmare for opposing defenses.

And how about Todd Heap returning to form after several subpar years?

Some exciting things happening at TE this year. Going forward I like Watson a whole lot.

 

[packersfan]

Hmmm, did the roundtable get released yet? We rank our "this point forward top-5" at every position.You stole my thunder.

Is that in this week's roundtable? I haven't checked it out yet.

Gonzo's my #4 TE from this point forward - and I was trying to remain a bit conservative b/c we were told to rip into each other's outlying rankings. That part of the discussion never got off the ground.

I just read it. Good stuff. The concern I still have with Gonzo is the lack of Red Zone targets. I would think he'll eventually get more active there but he's been real quiet near the end zone - and that continues the trend from last season when his TDs suffered a significant drop-off. But it's at least good to see him more involved in the offense and producing at a high level. It looks like the meeting he had with Herm Edwards has really paid off.

 

[Phlash]

Todd Heap was GREAT last season...

75/855/7 seems great for any TE in my opinion.

 

[Erin Go Bragh]

Hmmm, did the roundtable get released yet? We rank our "this point forward top-5" at every position.You stole my thunder.

Is that in this week's roundtable? I haven't checked it out yet.

Gonzo's my #4 TE from this point forward - and I was trying to remain a bit conservative b/c we were told to rip into each other's outlying rankings. That part of the discussion never got off the ground.

You were "TOLD" to rip into each others outlying rankings? Does anyone else besides me think that there is something fundamentally wrong with that? Whether or not that part of the discussion ever "got off the ground" or not, the mere fact that someone (Joe? David?) was trying to artificially stir up a little controversy is extremly weak, IMO. How is this any different than when Sean Salisbury gets ripped for pumping up the false bravado and trying to pretend that there is some animosity between himself and John Clayton to drive ratings?WEAK!!

 

[Marc Levin]

First, Joe and David have very little to do with how Maurile runs the roundtable.

And it was a very STRONG move - not a weak one. Who wants homogenized lists of players? You want unique player lists, but you also need a DISCUSSION of why the lists have different players.

I certainly would expect to get ripped HERE if I stated that Jon Kitna will finish the season as the #1 QB from this point forward - and I would be expected to back up my prediction with reasoned argument.

That is what we wanted - it is easy to list five at each position and throw a unique ranking there, but it is hard to then have to DEFEND those rankings.

We didn't want five of us throwing five lists out there and walking away without any discussion.

Do I really have to tell our readers why I have Manning and McNabb and LT and LJ and Gates and Holt near the top of my rankings? Do our readers really want us leaving those players OFF of those lists with no explanation?

Are you a subscriber to our service? If so, go read the roundtable and tell me what you think. If not, well then I am not sure you fully understand the roundtable nor can I explain it w/o giving away pay content.

 

[Marc Levin]

How is this any different than when Sean Salisbury gets ripped for pumping up the false bravado and trying to pretend that there is some animosity between himself and John Clayton to drive ratings?WEAK!!

Yeah - Maurile wanted us to question each others rankings to stir up controversy - first day with FBG?We have FACE-OFFS all the way through preseason - how is this any different?

 

[Erin Go Bragh]

Hmmm, did the roundtable get released yet? We rank our "this point forward top-5" at every position.You stole my thunder.

Is that in this week's roundtable? I haven't checked it out yet.

Gonzo's my #4 TE from this point forward - and I was trying to remain a bit conservative b/c we were told to rip into each other's outlying rankings. That part of the discussion never got off the ground.

Hmm, let's start right here. You tried to be conservative because you were afraid someone was going to rip into you if you ranked Gonzo any higher. Am I reading that wrong? In other words, you self-censored your true feelings because you were either afraid to be criticized too harshly or you were unable/unwilling to defend them. Either you feel Gonzo will be the #4 TE or not. If so, then how were you conservative? You said what you felt. If not, you didn't give your true opinion. Which is it?

 

[Erin Go Bragh]

How is this any different than when Sean Salisbury gets ripped for pumping up the false bravado and trying to pretend that there is some animosity between himself and John Clayton to drive ratings?WEAK!!

Yeah - Maurile wanted us to question each others rankings to stir up controversy - first day with FBG?We have FACE-OFFS all the way through preseason - how is this any different?

Let's see...Debate 101. I'll take position A and defend it while attacking position B. You take position B and defend it while attacking position A. That is what the faceoffs are.Footballguys own verbiage regarding the roundtables: "Various staff members will share their views on a range of topics each week in discussion format." Do you not see the difference between this and a debate? In a discussion where I share my own views, I am not COMPELLED to rip someone else's argument. In fact, I should be open to being swayed to someone else's point of view by the power of their reasoning.When I read the faceoffs, I understand that a person on side A of an argument might not actually agree with what he is saying but he is tasked with defending that position no matter what. I expect the roundtable to represent each participant's own views.First day in reading comprehension?

 

[Erin Go Bragh]

First, Joe and David have very little to do with how Maurile runs the roundtable.

And it was a very STRONG move - not a weak one. Who wants homogenized lists of players? You want unique player lists, but you also need a DISCUSSION of why the lists have different players.

I certainly would expect to get ripped HERE if I stated that Jon Kitna will finish the season as the #1 QB from this point forward - and I would be expected to back up my prediction with reasoned argument.

That is what we wanted - it is easy to list five at each position and throw a unique ranking there, but it is hard to then have to DEFEND those rankings.

We didn't want five of us throwing five lists out there and walking away without any discussion.

Do I really have to tell our readers why I have Manning and McNabb and LT and LJ and Gates and Holt near the top of my rankings? Do our readers really want us leaving those players OFF of those lists with no explanation?

Are you a subscriber to our service? If so, go read the roundtable and tell me what you think. If not, well then I am not sure you fully understand the roundtable nor can I explain it w/o giving away pay content.

I don't understand why it is difficult to defend a position you actually believe in. My whole point was that your original post seemed to indicate that someone was telling you to contrive sentiment whether you felt a certain way or not, and outside of a debate format, that is most certainly WEAK.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

When I read the faceoffs, I understand that a person on side A of an argument might not actually agree with what he is saying but he is tasked with defending that position no matter what. I expect the roundtable to represent each participant's own views.

Hi Erin,My exact words to the roundtable participants were: "Feel free to comment on other people's rankings. The lists should just be a jumping off point to discuss the more controversial picks."As Marc mentioned, most people felt more comfortable commenting on their own picks instead of commenting on other people's picks, and that's fine too.

 

[Marc Levin]

Hmmm, did the roundtable get released yet? We rank our "this point forward top-5" at every position.You stole my thunder.

Is that in this week's roundtable? I haven't checked it out yet.

Gonzo's my #4 TE from this point forward - and I was trying to remain a bit conservative b/c we were told to rip into each other's outlying rankings. That part of the discussion never got off the ground.

Hmm, let's start right here. You tried to be conservative because you were afraid someone was going to rip into you if you ranked Gonzo any higher. Am I reading that wrong? In other words, you self-censored your true feelings because you were either afraid to be criticized too harshly or you were unable/unwilling to defend them. Either you feel Gonzo will be the #4 TE or not. If so, then how were you conservative? You said what you felt. If not, you didn't give your true opinion. Which is it?

Simply put, I was being conservative rather than hopeful - I believe Gonzo's TDs will go up, but there is no objective proof to support my opinion. Without those TDs, 4 is a really high rank for him.Plus, to rank him higher than 4, I would have had to drop Winslow Gates or Heap below him - and I do not feel comfortable doing that. I don't believe Gonzo can climb over any of those guys, so 4 was the highest I could go - and I was being conservative b/c I could not defend Gonzo finishing higher than one of those three.I believe where I put him is exactly where he will finish from here on out - the 4th best TE from here on out. There is a slight possibility that Winslow could drop if something weird happens in Cleveland or defenses somehow figure out how to defend him better, but I definitely believe Gates and Heap are top-3 from here on out.My comments in the dicussion are complete, and are a true reflection of how I feel Gonzo will do from here on out.

 

[Marc Levin]

I don't understand why it is difficult to defend a position you actually believe in. My whole point was that your original post seemed to indicate that someone was telling you to contrive sentiment whether you felt a certain way or not, and outside of a debate format, that is most certainly WEAK.

Hey Erin,I actually agree with you on this point. It should not be difficult to defend a position you believe in if you have a basis for your belief. And it would be very weak if I was asked to contrive an objection to someone's ranking just to be objectionable.However, I would want to know - and I'm sure our subscribers would want to know - the basis for an unusual ranking. The roundtable participants are all knowledgeable and experienced FF players. If one of them has a ranking that seems out of whack, I definitely would want to hear the reasoning behind the ranking. Not to artificially stir up controversy, but because the process of defending an unusual ranking gives a fresh perspective to the audience and exposes what the person who did the ranking saw that most of the rest of us did not.I am going to respect that person's answer, even if I do not agree. As Maurile pointed out, folks chose to give the rationale for their picks in their rankings, which accomplished the same goal.