Come on - since week 2 he's probably averaging about 6 targets a game. I think people are going to regret it if they start playing with the waivers and starting TEs like Olsen over Hernandez after one shut out week.Can't trust the pats with Hernandez right now.. Gronkowski is a much better blocker and every week the Pats switch up who gets the looks. Waiver wire requests are due soon. You guys looking at Fasano, Boss, Shockey, Olson etc?
agreed. i'm actually thinking of picking up hernandez, as he was dropped in my league, probably as a knee jerk reaction. would love to have an upper tier TE like this.TE's are sparse if you are looking for consistent production. I will get Gronk on the WW if I can in one league this week, but otherwise I am rolling with Hernandez. Maybe it's not the right thing to do, but I am buying into the fact that NE wanted that extra protection in the packages against PIT. Hernandez got good target numbers until that week, so I believe it was more of an aberration than most "knee jerk reaction" people thinking their TE sky is falling for the rest of the year.
I wasn't clear but I was referring more towards all the other options the Pats have. Welker, Tate, Branch, Woodhead Gronk etc.Jimmy Graham is available as well on my WW and I think he could have the most upside with the amount of short yardage looks Brees dishes out. Depends on how healthy Shockey is I suppose.Come on - since week 2 he's probably averaging about 6 targets a game. I think people are going to regret it if they start playing with the waivers and starting TEs like Olsen over Hernandez after one shut out week.Can't trust the pats with Hernandez right now.. Gronkowski is a much better blocker and every week the Pats switch up who gets the looks. Waiver wire requests are due soon. You guys looking at Fasano, Boss, Shockey, Olson etc?
I wouldn't consider him upper tier, he's had 1 game all season where he caught a TD pass.What I don't like is not just the shutout, but it is that he wasn't in the game, at least for a lot of it. The game plan according to Hernandez himself was that he not be a part of the game plan. Well, I am not comfortable with the game plan that worked oh so well with my TE on the bench. I'm sorry, but it is crunch time and I can't afford to play a guy who isn't part of the game plan.agreed. i'm actually thinking of picking up hernandez, as he was dropped in my league, probably as a knee jerk reaction. would love to have an upper tier TE like this.TE's are sparse if you are looking for consistent production. I will get Gronk on the WW if I can in one league this week, but otherwise I am rolling with Hernandez. Maybe it's not the right thing to do, but I am buying into the fact that NE wanted that extra protection in the packages against PIT. Hernandez got good target numbers until that week, so I believe it was more of an aberration than most "knee jerk reaction" people thinking their TE sky is falling for the rest of the year.
sorry man, i would consider him upper tier. in my league, he's #11 for points scored for TE's. that's starter material. and i think FBG has stated a lot of why people shouldn't be all that worried about hernandez not being a huge part of the game plan against PIT. that said, i can understand why people wouldn't want to mess with hernandez.I wouldn't consider him upper tier, he's had 1 game all season where he caught a TD pass.What I don't like is not just the shutout, but it is that he wasn't in the game, at least for a lot of it. The game plan according to Hernandez himself that was the game plan. Well, I am not comfortable with the game plan that worked oh so well with my TE on the bench. I'm sorry, but it is crunch time and I can't afford to play a guy who isn't part of the game plan.agreed. i'm actually thinking of picking up hernandez, as he was dropped in my league, probably as a knee jerk reaction. would love to have an upper tier TE like this.TE's are sparse if you are looking for consistent production. I will get Gronk on the WW if I can in one league this week, but otherwise I am rolling with Hernandez. Maybe it's not the right thing to do, but I am buying into the fact that NE wanted that extra protection in the packages against PIT. Hernandez got good target numbers until that week, so I believe it was more of an aberration than most "knee jerk reaction" people thinking their TE sky is falling for the rest of the year.
haha, in a 12 team league, is a #11 performer not a starter? we can get mired in semantics if you like. a #11 guy at a position doesn't sound like a low end TE2 to me. one game does not a trend make. i don't see how over one game he is a TE1...and then one game makes him a supposed low end TE2. but i can only hope guys in my league feel the same you do.Blake, you consider a guy who is not in the top 10 in TE scoring to be upper Tier? With the emergence of Gronkowski, Hernandez is a low end TE 2.
Agreed. What puzzles me is Gronkowski committed two costly mistakes the previous week vs. the Browns. Fumbled a ball near the goal line, then had a special teams SNAFU... all while Hernandez was making spectacular endzone catches (finally). Sorry, this is the classic Belichick mind#### at work.Besides, you should never listen to a Cowboys fan.... oh, wait......haha, in a 12 team league, is a #11 performer not a starter? we can get mired in semantics if you like. a #11 guy at a position doesn't sound like a low end TE2 to me. one game does not a trend make. i don't see how over one game he is a TE1...and then one game makes him a supposed low end TE2. but i can only hope guys in my league feel the same you do.Blake, you consider a guy who is not in the top 10 in TE scoring to be upper Tier? With the emergence of Gronkowski, Hernandez is a low end TE 2.
A marginal/boarder-line starter... not a "upper tier" player at all... upper tier players are the first players you draft at that position.haha, in a 12 team league, is a #11 performer not a starter?Blake, you consider a guy who is not in the top 10 in TE scoring to be upper Tier? With the emergence of Gronkowski, Hernandez is a low end TE 2.