Kevin Curtis (1 Viewer)

[14464]

From what I can tell, Bruce was covered by a better corner, Plummer. Bulger just threw to Curtis to exploit a mismatch out of 3WR sets. This isn't going to happen every week. This is an anomaly, not the rule.

Not true, I see this happening almost every week. Not many teams (PHIL comes to mind to be the exception) who have three legit shut down defensive backs on their team.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

I was offered Kevin Curtis and Brandon StokelyforIsaac Bruce and Courtney WatsonI am seriously considering the offer considering I also have Ray Lewis, Dan Morgan, Odell Thurman and Nick Barnett and can only start 3 LBs (if I use one of them at flex...which I almost always do).I figure Stokely and Bruce are a wash and Curtis has a lot of upside.

 

[14464]

Thinking of this another way...8 or 9 targets per game as you suggest = 128 to 144 targets over a 16-game schedule.

In 2004, only 15 WRs in the league were targeted 144 or more times, and only 21 got targeted 128 times or more.

http://apps.footballguys.com/wrtargetsfinal.cfm

1 Chad Johnson Cin 178 11.1 32.8% 95 53.4%

2 Laveranues Coles Was 173 10.8 32.6% 90 52.0%

3 Derrick Mason Ten 168 10.5 27.4% 96 57.1%

4 Muhsin Muhammad Car 167 10.4 30.3% 93 55.7%

5 Darrell Jackson Sea 166 10.4 30.0% 87 52.4%

6 Joe Horn NO 159 9.9 28.6% 94 59.1%

7 Eric Moulds Buf 157 9.8 33.9% 88 56.1%

8 Isaac Bruce StL 155 9.7 25.8% 89 57.4%

9 Chris Chambers Mia 151 10.1 25.1% 69 45.7%

10 Marvin Harrison Ind 150 9.4 26.6% 86 57.3%

11 Drew Bennett Ten 148 9.3 24.1% 80 54.1%

12 Donald Driver GB 146 9.1 23.4% 84 57.5%

13 Javon Walker GB 146 9.1 23.4% 89 61.0%

14 Rod Smith Den 145 9.1 27.1% 79 54.5%

15 Jimmy Smith Jac 145 9.1 26.6% 74 51.0%

16 Jerry Porter Oak 143 8.9 23.6% 64 44.8%

17 Andre Johnson Hou 142 8.9 29.8% 79 55.6%

18 Torry Holt StL 141 8.8 23.5% 94 66.7%

19 Terrell Owens Phi 133 9.5 23.1% 77 57.9%

20 Michael Clayton TB 130 8.1 24.3% 80 61.5%

21 Reggie Wayne Ind 128 8.0 22.7% 77 60.2%

The point being that there is a good shot that KC will be top 20 target? 15 WR is a good chuck of WR, don't you think? You want WR who are targets or favored more than others, this looks to be the case with KC. Unlike most positions, it's virtually impossible to predict who will out-excel from their draft position given that WR MUST rely on their QB to excel. Unlike QB and RB, many WR get only a few targets a game which means less of a chance to score which means less of a chance to produce quality fantasy numbers. KC does not seem to me to fit what many other WR will go through, low target production. Will many targets result in scoring? Can't say. But what you can say is that if your QB in a passing offense with a crazy coach is willing to up the targets on a up and coming WR you can't dismiss that when he becomes a stud this year. You can't come back and throw stats that includes teams who don't attempt nearly the amount of passes thrown by STL and you can't compare stats from QB who dont have two established WR who are covered by players that leave the other WR being covered by a typically crappy DB. It's like trying to compare the run and shoot offense to a traditional PIT grind em up offense. Apples to Oranges.

ClearCream....15 WRs in TOTAL had as many targets as you envision KC getting. There are 32 NFL teams, each with 2 starting WRs...that's 64. More than half of the NUMBER ONES in the league didn't get that many targets. The notion that a WR3 would is bordering on the ridiculous.

Yes and many/most teams WR1 wouldn't be a WR2 for Indy or Rams. Just saying that there are many WR who shouldn't be part of a 64 list. A NUMBER ONE WR on a team does not equal stud WR. Again, WR rely on many other factors to produce. If Moss had a bottom tier QB with a bottom tier pass protecting O-line, Randy wouldn't be a stud WR in fantasy leagues.That said, again, you really can't compare this offense with ALL other offenses in the past for an apples to apples fair comparison.

Right...which is why when you look at what the RAMS have done in terms of targets and output the last few years their WR3 has fallen MASSIVELY short of any projections you've hinted at for KC

Again with the off comparisons. Rams teams of old are not the same as this year.Facts:

Falk was HUGE in the passing attack and dominated the offense targets, no longer the case. The running game in fact is not 100% established. This greatly increases the passing game.

Curtis is clearly shown to be targets for a good number of plays, not as a second, third or fourth read but PRIMARY. How many "WR3" on teams can you honestly say that he is their primary target? One or two teams at most.

I think the Martz gave Curtis a strong test over preseason and solidify if he's a legit part of the offense or not. Strongly seems to be.

Bruce is the oldest (33?) WR on the team, and at best the third fastest player. Couple that with having the second best cover on him, if you were a QB who would you target more? Someone covered by a better player, slower and older OR younger, ffaster and one that has proven that they can come through? I'll take the guy with the better chance on catching and taking it to the house.

 

[Muahahaha]

From what I can tell, Bruce was covered by a better corner, Plummer. Bulger just threw to Curtis to exploit a mismatch out of 3WR sets. This isn't going to happen every week. This is an anomaly, not the rule.

Not true, I see this happening almost every week. Not many teams (PHIL comes to mind to be the exception) who have three legit shut down defensive backs on their team.

My point is more that they won't be operating heavily out of 3 WR sets where Curtis has the better matchup. They were behind most of the game. When they are ahead, Curtis won't be on the field. And even when he is on the field, sometimes he won't have the better matchup, which was the case this week.Bulger was locked on him because: (1) they were in a 3WR set and (2) he was covered by the weaker DB. Both of these conditions have to be present for Curtis to do well. This obviously will not be the majority of passing plays.

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

I'd be interested to see the percentage of plays that STL uses 3+ WR sets. Certainly playing catch-up in SF had something to do with Curtis' high # of targets but I think it is pretty clear that Curtis will have a significant role in this offense in 2005. Definitely a solid #3 FF WR most weeks.

 

[14464]

I was offered Kevin Curtis and Brandon Stokely

for

Isaac Bruce and Courtney Watson

I am seriously considering the offer considering I also have Ray Lewis, Dan Morgan, Odell Thurman and Nick Barnett and can only start 3 LBs (if I use one of them at flex...which I almost always do).

I figure Stokely and Bruce are a wash and Curtis has a lot of upside.

I wouldn't think twice, definitely take Curtis and Stokley. Sure the guy making you that offer is thinking "I'll trade two "WR3" and get a WR2 in return!"I would actually use the "Curtis is a WR3 on STL" bit and see if you can get him for cheap/nothing.

Think about it, I could definitely see KC get better numbers than some (few) WR1 on other teams and most WR2 on other teams.

Let the lable WR3 for KC allow you to rob someone blind.

 

[blake]

You're playing in a half assed league if Kevin Curtis went undrafted.

No, you aren't.

Keep telling yourself that.

 

[14464]

From what I can tell, Bruce was covered by a better corner, Plummer. Bulger just threw to Curtis to exploit a mismatch out of 3WR sets. This isn't going to happen every week. This is an anomaly, not the rule.

Not true, I see this happening almost every week. Not many teams (PHIL comes to mind to be the exception) who have three legit shut down defensive backs on their team.

My point is more that they won't be operating heavily out of 3 WR sets where Curtis has the better matchup. They were behind most of the game. When they are ahead, Curtis won't be on the field. And even when he is on the field, sometimes he won't have the better matchup, which was the case this week.Bulger was locked on him because: (1) they were in a 3WR set and (2) he was covered by the weaker DB. Both of these conditions have to be present for Curtis to do well. This obviously will not be the majority of passing plays.

I would like to think that their running game will be a force but that isn't a given at this time. That said, they plain throw A LOT! Plus, since Martz is a certified nut, I've seen them keep throwing when they have been up! Meaning that unlike most teams who are winning they tend to try and dictate their offense by the run, not always the case with the Rams.I would like to see if I can find the % of pass plays they have Curtis involved. They were behind but I've seen them continue to throw when they've been ahead. I can't see a situation where if Curtis is on the field where he won't have the favorable matchup. There's a reason why Peyton seeks Brandon, matchups.

 

[blake]

Facts are that since last quarter of last season plus this preseason plus first game of season, Bulger CLEARLY has KC in his sites. Double digit targets is incredible and Bruce doesn't have near the speed that KC has plus teams won't be using their best or second best DB to cover KC. Looks like a lock to me. You clearly have a HC and QB who are targeting a WR who is quick plus will typically be single covered by the weakest DB = success.

Wow, that was a helpful post. I'm steadily growing closer and closer to trying to acquire Curtis as my injury replacement player for Javon Walker with stuff like this to work off of and the general pessimism towards Robert Ferguson on these boards.

 

[14464]

That said, why do I get the sick feeling this will happen after Week 2 Rams performance:1. Curtis is hardly targeted, little to no production --> "Calling TCTC! How do you like Curtis now?!?!?!"2. Curtis has a solid/excellent game, targeted at least 8 times --> "Look, it's only TWO games in the season, doesn't mean anything!"

 

[14464]

Facts are that since last quarter of last season plus this preseason plus first game of season, Bulger CLEARLY has KC in his sites. Double digit targets is incredible and Bruce doesn't have near the speed that KC has plus teams won't be using their best or second best DB to cover KC. Looks like a lock to me. You clearly have a HC and QB who are targeting a WR who is quick plus will typically be single covered by the weakest DB = success.

Wow, that was a helpful post. I'm steadily growing closer and closer to trying to acquire Curtis as my injury replacement player for Javon Walker with stuff like this to work off of and the general pessimism towards Robert Ferguson on these boards.

Is that in your voice or are you being honest?

 

[Wally Cleaver]

You're playing in a half assed league if Kevin Curtis went undrafted.

Not all leagues have 25 man rosters.

 

[Muahahaha]

Facts are that since last quarter of last season plus this preseason plus first game of season, Bulger CLEARLY has KC in his sites

St. Louis WR targets weeks 14-17 last season:Holt 39Bruce 38Curtis 19McDonald 13Looker 6

 

[blake]

Facts are that since last quarter of last season plus this preseason plus first game of season, Bulger CLEARLY has KC in his sites. Double digit targets is incredible and Bruce doesn't have near the speed that KC has plus teams won't be using their best or second best DB to cover KC. Looks like a lock to me. You clearly have a HC and QB who are targeting a WR who is quick plus will typically be single covered by the weakest DB = success.

Wow, that was a helpful post. I'm steadily growing closer and closer to trying to acquire Curtis as my injury replacement player for Javon Walker with stuff like this to work off of and the general pessimism towards Robert Ferguson on these boards.

Is that in your voice or are you being honest?

I think you're getting a tad defensive with all of the people disagreeing with you on Curtis! I was actually being honest in that assessment. I wouldn't have written that I'm seriously considering acquiring Curtis to replace Walker if it wasn't so.Still, I'm not sold at all. I'm in a start 3 WR league, and I have Toomer, Muhammad, Driver and Chad Johnson. I may be able to even survive with those four temporarily and grab another guy who could be a good free agent. It's just Curtis and Battle of SF seem like the two that could be breakout candidates and these guys pique my interest the most, while Ferguson is also somewhat intriguing to me still.

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

Facts are that since last quarter of last season plus this preseason plus first game of season, Bulger CLEARLY has KC in his sites

St. Louis WR targets weeks 14-17 last season:Holt 39

Bruce 38

Curtis 19

McDonald 13

Looker 6

I think he meant the playoffs last year when Curtis went nuts.

 

[Jason Wood]

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him

 

[14464]

Facts are that since last quarter of last season plus this preseason plus first game of season, Bulger CLEARLY has KC in his sites. Double digit targets is incredible and Bruce doesn't have near the speed that KC has plus teams won't be using their best or second best DB to cover KC. Looks like a lock to me. You clearly have a HC and QB who are targeting a WR who is quick plus will typically be single covered by the weakest DB = success.

Wow, that was a helpful post. I'm steadily growing closer and closer to trying to acquire Curtis as my injury replacement player for Javon Walker with stuff like this to work off of and the general pessimism towards Robert Ferguson on these boards.

Is that in your voice or are you being honest?

I think you're getting a tad defensive with all of the people disagreeing with you on Curtis! I was actually being honest in that assessment. I wouldn't have written that I'm seriously considering acquiring Curtis to replace Walker if it wasn't so.Still, I'm not sold at all. I'm in a start 3 WR league, and I have Toomer, Muhammad, Driver and Chad Johnson. I may be able to even survive with those four temporarily and grab another guy who could be a good free agent. It's just Curtis and Battle of SF seem like the two that could be breakout candidates and these guys pique my interest the most, while Ferguson is also somewhat intriguing to me still.

Hey man, got to cover your tail on these boards you know.

 

[14464]

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him

I'll take three sir!

 

[14464]

Facts are that since last quarter of last season plus this preseason plus first game of season, Bulger CLEARLY has KC in his sites

St. Louis WR targets weeks 14-17 last season:Holt 39

Bruce 38

Curtis 19

McDonald 13

Looker 6

I think he meant the playoffs last year when Curtis went nuts.

Once I wrote it, I can't go back and revise it or will get ripped for it.

 

[HULLOBUDMAN]

I'm sure I will get blistered on this one but IMO the benefactor from a Bruce/Holt injury will be Shaun Mc. Shaun is much more of a route runner/pass catcher than Curtis, who is a burner. Shaun will move into Ike's spot is there is an injury. Martz likes Curtis in the slot to stretch the field and leave the middle open for Ike and Holt in the middle underneath.

 

[HULLOBUDMAN]

You're playing in a half assed league if Kevin Curtis went undrafted.

I won't call your league half assed but I will say that I am in 3- 12 man leagues with rosters of 14/16/16 and he got drafted in all of them.

 

[Muahahaha]

Facts are that since last quarter of last season plus this preseason plus first game of season, Bulger CLEARLY has KC in his sites

St. Louis WR targets weeks 14-17 last season:Holt 39

Bruce 38

Curtis 19

McDonald 13

Looker 6

I think he meant the playoffs last year when Curtis went nuts.

In the game against Atlanta, they were behind 28-17 at the half. They lost 47-17. Curtis had twice as many targets as Holt. I am guessing they went 3 wide for over half the game.In the Seattle game, they came from behind to win.

 

[creeps1313]

My choice is between Battle, KC, and Fergy....based on his targets, Im going to take a shot at KC. Neither will start next week, so I figure why not? Battle intriges me and Fergy scares me...he didnt do to much after Walker went down. This is going to be a tough year...Im going to be scrambling for WRs all year. Thanks a lot Walker!

 

[steelerfan1]

well, i have a feeling that the rams will be in shootouts all year long due to a weak defense. they also play in all domes during the playoff weeks which is good, but the way bulger was taking hits you have to wonder if he'll be around all year long to throw it to him and the back up might not be in sync with curtis. a lot of ifs, but he does have some potential IMO.just what quality of WR are you going to let go to pick him up though?my #4 is lee evans. not sure i want to drop him for KC.

 

[eddiezz74]

I am going to drop Troy Williamson...should i pick up Curtis, or go for Eric Parker instead? not much else out there

 

[SouthJersey]

Everyone does remember that all these KC week 1 targets game against f'in SanFran right?

 

[thecardiackid]

I'm sure I will get blistered on this one but IMO the benefactor from a Bruce/Holt injury will be Shaun Mc. Shaun is much more of a route runner/pass catcher than Curtis, who is a burner. Shaun will move into Ike's spot is there is an injury. Martz likes Curtis in the slot to stretch the field and leave the middle open for Ike and Holt in the middle underneath.

No blistering here, and i agree that SMc would replace bruce vs. KC. However, I don't understand why anyone wouldn't want to grab him off the WW and stash him on the bench just in case one of your starters gets dinged and he's still getting the looks (especially in the redzone).Could he approach Stokley's # from last year? Doubtful, but I'd rather have the *involved* #3 from IND/STL (or any other team that is throwing the ball 40+ times a game) vs. a #2 where they avg. ~ 20 passes / game.

 

[Couch Potato]

I like Curtis, especially in dynasty formats, and I own him in a couple of leagues.That said, although it's been mentioned in this thread I don't think people have taken enough notice: the Rams were playing catch up all game long against SF. Bulger threw 56 passes, which equates to nearly 900 in a year. Let's not get too excited about Curtis' numbers going forward based on that.

 

[icehouse]

Well I picked him up for Colbert in a PPR league.

 

[HULLOBUDMAN]

I'm sure I will get blistered on this one but IMO the benefactor from a Bruce/Holt injury will be Shaun Mc. Shaun is much more of a route runner/pass catcher than Curtis, who is a burner. Shaun will move into Ike's spot is there is an injury. Martz likes Curtis in the slot to stretch the field and leave the middle open for Ike and Holt in the middle underneath.

No blistering here, and i agree that SMc would replace bruce vs. KC. However, I don't understand why anyone wouldn't want to grab him off the WW and stash him on the bench just in case one of your starters gets dinged and he's still getting the looks (especially in the redzone).Could he approach Stokley's # from last year? Doubtful, but I'd rather have the *involved* #3 from IND/STL (or any other team that is throwing the ball 40+ times a game) vs. a #2 where they avg. ~ 20 passes / game.

Our rosters are much too small for me to carry Shaun Mc. in case of an injury. If Bruce went down I would make a move for him before KC.

 

[aardball44]

I'm sure I will get blistered on this one but IMO the benefactor from a Bruce/Holt injury will be Shaun Mc. Shaun is much more of a route runner/pass catcher than Curtis, who is a burner. Shaun will move into Ike's spot is there is an injury. Martz likes Curtis in the slot to stretch the field and leave the middle open for Ike and Holt in the middle underneath.

No blistering here, and i agree that SMc would replace bruce vs. KC. However, I don't understand why anyone wouldn't want to grab him off the WW and stash him on the bench just in case one of your starters gets dinged and he's still getting the looks (especially in the redzone).Could he approach Stokley's # from last year? Doubtful, but I'd rather have the *involved* #3 from IND/STL (or any other team that is throwing the ball 40+ times a game) vs. a #2 where they avg. ~ 20 passes / game.

Our rosters are much too small for me to carry Shaun Mc. in case of an injury. If Bruce went down I would make a move for him before KC.

Slightly concerned Isaac Bruce owner here -- he's my WR2 behind Andre Johnson. I've got a bench full of WR parity behind those two with Santana Moss, Rod Smith and Eddie Kennison...and Curtis is still sitting out there in free agency.I think I may drop Kennison or Moss (esp. with Brunell under center in WAS) and add Kevin Curtis as insurance behind Bruce. This noise about McDonald becoming the WR2 in St. Louis if/when Bruce pulls a hammy is the only thing keeping me from pulling the trigger.

 

[Hugh Duffy]

I think I may drop Kennison or Moss (esp. with Brunell under center in WAS) and add Kevin Curtis as insurance behind Bruce. This noise about McDonald becoming the WR2 in St. Louis if/when Bruce pulls a hammy is the only thing keeping me from pulling the trigger.

You're going to drop a WR1 for WR3b?

 

[Willie Mays Hayes]

Let me just say this, everyone is looking for KC to be this year’s Stokely. That sounds like a setup for disappointment. However, you have to put this in context with where most people got KC in a draft, 13th round and beyond in most 12-team formats. While I do not believe that he will come close to getting 14 targets per game, every game – in fact, maybe not again this season. I would be shocked, however, if he doesn’t average 7 targets per game across the entire year. That would be 112 targets in total. Figure about 60% of those to be completed and finishes the year around 65-70 receptions and about 900 – 1,050 yards. No way do I believe that he gets 10 TD’s but I think 5-7 is a more reasonable estimate. For a 13th round pick, that’s pretty damn solid and not a bad 3rd WR in a lot of fantasy formats. Knowing that talent like this would be around late in the draft allowed me to build depth at other positions and ignore the WR slot somewhat in the first half of the draft.

 

[red]

manning threw 49 TDs last year. bulger will be lucky to top 30. harrison/wayne/stokley all had 10+ TDs. no way does holt/bruce/KC all bet double digit TDs. so don't expect stokley numbers for KC. just expect him to be at the top in stats with respect to #3 WRs. that should put him ahead of many #2 WRs from lesser teams, which means that he should end up no worse than a top 40 WR or a good WR#3 for your fantasy squad.

 

[aardball44]

I think I may drop Kennison or Moss (esp. with Brunell under center in WAS) and add Kevin Curtis as insurance behind Bruce. This noise about McDonald becoming the WR2 in St. Louis if/when Bruce pulls a hammy is the only thing keeping me from pulling the trigger.

You're going to drop a WR1 for WR3b?

I might.

 

[packersfan]

I think we can put the "Kevin Curtis is this year's Brandon Stokley" discussion to rest now, can't we? I admit I fell for the hype this week and started him as my WR4. I won't be making that mistake again anytime soon.

 

[diesel7982]

I think we can put the "Kevin Curtis is this year's Brandon Stokley" discussion to rest now, can't we? I admit I fell for the hype this week and started him as my WR4. I won't be making that mistake again anytime soon.

Yep we sure can.On a related note, I just dropped Peyton Manning for Trent Dilfer.

 

[14464]

I think we can put the "Kevin Curtis is this year's Brandon Stokley" discussion to rest now, can't we? I admit I fell for the hype this week and started him as my WR4. I won't be making that mistake again anytime soon.

He did better than Reggie Wayne so does that mean don't start Wayne as well?

 

[14464]

I think we can put the "Kevin Curtis is this year's Brandon Stokley" discussion to rest now, can't we? I admit I fell for the hype this week and started him as my WR4. I won't be making that mistake again anytime soon.

Yep we sure can.On a related note, I just dropped Peyton Manning for Trent Dilfer.

Don't forget to dump Clayton. Wayne. Bennett since they didn't do anything in week 2 either.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

I think we can put the "Kevin Curtis is this year's Brandon Stokley" discussion to rest now, can't we? I admit I fell for the hype this week and started him as my WR4. I won't be making that mistake again anytime soon.

Yep we sure can.On a related note, I just dropped Peyton Manning for Trent Dilfer.

Don't forget to dump Clayton. Wayne. Bennett since they didn't do anything in week 2 either.

You are just digging yourself deeper. Curtis got 4 targets this week and caught two balls. His "low end" outlook of matching Stokely's 2004 numbers was ridiculous, but still clinging to it is even more ridiculous.He was and is at best the #3/#4 WR on his team and that team is not the 2004 Colts.

The good news is it ought to be REALLY easy to acquire him now if you still want to.

 

[packersfan]

I think we can put the "Kevin Curtis is this year's Brandon Stokley" discussion to rest now, can't we? I admit I fell for the hype this week and started him as my WR4. I won't be making that mistake again anytime soon.

He did better than Reggie Wayne so does that mean don't start Wayne as well?

Reggie Wayne has a proven history of production. Kevin Curtis does not. Curtis wasn't even the best No. 3 WR in the NFL yesterday. Not even close. Look, I like him. I wouldn't have started him if I didn't. But I bought into the hype a bit too much and that blinded me and I wish I hadn't done so. Nothing to be done about that except learn from the mistake I made. He's a good reserve WR on a team with two clear-cut top guys. He'll have some productive weeks like he did in the opener, but he won't be like Stokley. He'll end up being much more like every other No. 3 WR in the NFL -- capable of some big games (hell even Troy Brown went off yesterday) but far more likely to produce mediocre results, as was the case in Week 2.

 

[LordHusker]

There are only two WRs worth starting on that team: Holt and Bruce.

 

[Alberta Clipper]

Agreed but as an owner of both HOLT & BRUCE in various leagues this year CURTIS is a great and key insurance policy. Get him cheap as a FA or trade throw in if your roster size allows it.

There are only two WRs worth starting on that team: Holt and Bruce.

 

[Gr00vus]

Curtis will be a productive WR3 for FF teams this year. Maybe not as good as Stokely last year, but people writing him off after one mediocre game against a tough defense, on the road not on turf are being premature. The Rams offense hasn't kicked it into top gear yet. They will, and when they do Curtis will put up solid numbers.Get him cheap if you can, he'll help you out.

 

[14464]

Curtis will be a productive WR3 for FF teams this year. Maybe not as good as Stokely last year, but people writing him off after one mediocre game against a tough defense, on the road not on turf are being premature. The Rams offense hasn't kicked it into top gear yet. They will, and when they do Curtis will put up solid numbers.

Get him cheap if you can, he'll help you out.

For those who don't believe then don't get him, I don't care.

 

[Muahahaha]

OK, please tell us which games in advance to start him. Next week against Tennesee?Because he certainly didn't do much last week against Ari.

 

[Gr00vus]

OK, please tell us which games in advance to start him. Next week against Tennesee?

Because he certainly didn't do much last week against Ari.

Depends on your other options - but you know enough to post that question in the ACF anyway.edited to add re this week: AZ is a tough defense especially against the pass. The Rams aren't so hot on the road, and do better on turf. The heat probably didn't help the offense overall either. This was a perfect week to bench him, and I'm not surprised he and the Rams passing game didn't light it up.

 

[packersfan]

Curtis will be a productive WR3 for FF teams this year. Maybe not as good as Stokely last year, but people writing him off after one mediocre game against a tough defense, on the road not on turf are being premature. The Rams offense hasn't kicked it into top gear yet. They will, and when they do Curtis will put up solid numbers.

It's certainly possible. However, if he's going to be this year's Stokley than he can't be a spot-starting option. He'll have to be a consistent WR3 option no matter who the opponent and no matter where the game is being played. I'm not writing him off; as I said I do like him. But I think he's bye-week filler or an injury replacement when the matchup is right. I don't see him being a consistent WR3 this season the way Stokley was last season.

Get him cheap if you can, he'll help you out.

I think it's safe to say he'll probably be very easy to get in most leagues this week.

 

[14464]

OK, please tell us which games in advance to start him. Next week against Tennesee?

Because he certainly didn't do much last week against Ari.

Can say the SAME thing about ANY player in football. See Peyton yesterday as PRIME example.

 

[Muahahaha]

No, I am really trying to make a point: he will show flashes of brilliance and be inconsistent in general. When he has a great game, all of you will be sure to let us know.I would just like to see someone predict his blowup BEFORE it happens.