What's new
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!

Monkey's are flying (1 Viewer)

Clark as a receiving TE :thumbdown: But he's one of the better blocking TEs in the NFL. I will agree that Chicago needs a better receiving TE, but I'd run more 2 TE sets if they get one.

 
Clark as a receiving TE :thumbdown:

But he's one of the better blocking TEs in the NFL.

I will agree that Chicago needs a better receiving TE, but I'd run more 2 TE sets if they get one.
Then Michael Clayton of the Bucs belongs too, as he's one of the best downfield blocking WRs.
 
Clark as a receiving TE :thumbdown:

But he's one of the better blocking TEs in the NFL.

I will agree that Chicago needs a better receiving TE, but I'd run more 2 TE sets if they get one.
Then Michael Clayton of the Bucs belongs too, as he's one of the best downfield blocking WRs.
Probably not the best comparison. TEs used to be linemen first, receivers second. Just because this has changed significantly doesn't mean the blocking aspect of the position is not important and worth considering when deciding who the best TEs in the game are.Suppose a team has a TE who rarely catches balls, but acts as an extra tackle most of the time, and is a huge part of his team's rushing success. Should he be snubbed merely because his contribution to his team's success is not as glorified as that of a good receiving TE?

I'm not saying one way or another whether Clark should be in the Pro Bowl, as I haven't watched enough of the Bears games. But if he is one of the better blocking TEs in football, his lack of receiving numbers should not be reason to exclude him from the Pro Bowl.

 
Clark as a receiving TE :thumbdown:

But he's one of the better blocking TEs in the NFL.

I will agree that Chicago needs a better receiving TE, but I'd run more 2 TE sets if they get one.
Then Michael Clayton of the Bucs belongs too, as he's one of the best downfield blocking WRs.
Probably not the best comparison. TEs used to be linemen first, receivers second. Just because this has changed significantly doesn't mean the blocking aspect of the position is not important and worth considering when deciding who the best TEs in the game are.Suppose a team has a TE who rarely catches balls, but acts as an extra tackle most of the time, and is a huge part of his team's rushing success. Should he be snubbed merely because his contribution to his team's success is not as glorified as that of a good receiving TE?

I'm not saying one way or another whether Clark should be in the Pro Bowl, as I haven't watched enough of the Bears games. But if he is one of the better blocking TEs in football, his lack of receiving numbers should not be reason to exclude him from the Pro Bowl.
Amen, Guy. Not that I have a great knowledge of Clark, and haven't seen enough of him to make a fair judgement, but if he's a good blocker and an O.K. reciever, I'd much rather have that out of a TE than a good reciever and a BAD blocker. Stats get the glory. #1 reason you didn't see M.Bruener in the Pro Bowl. Best blocking TE in the league for several years but only caught 15-25 balls a year. Supported a stellar rushing attack for years, but no love.Sounds like these other posters don't believe Clark has many good qualities. What's your assessment of him--for those of us who don't get to see him regularly. The couple of times I've seen him, he's looked like a pretty decent athelete w/ size. A big, strong man who runs w/ decent speed. Not enough info to judge his blocking/catching/brain though.

 
Well, like I said, I don't really have an assessment of him. But if the consensus is that he's the best blocking TE in the NFC, or at least one of the best, I see no reason why he shouldn't be in the Pro Bowl. Chicago's success this season was almost entirely due to the defense, but their running game also played a big role. If their successes in the running game were due in large part to Clark, then he's Pro Bowl worthy, IMO. Keep in mind, I'm speaking hypothetically--I don't know how big Clark's contribution was.Perhaps the Pro Bowl should include at least one spot for a blocking TE. Obviously, the ideal TE is one who excels at both receiving and blocking, but that's a rare combination.

 
If he execles at blocking, make him a tackle. Tight ends are to catch the ball. Yes, they block at times, sometimes even on pass plays, but their primary responsibility is to be either stretch up the middle seam, or be a safety valve, catching the ball in tight coverage, taking licks from linebackers, that WR's cant stand up to. I understand the point you're making, but completely disagree. What you're saying is that clark is Matt Lepsis, who was a TE in college, and a fair one at that. He's now a top tackle in the league. All TE's have to block, and block well. It's part of their game. But, it alone shouldn't get you to the pro-bowl. What next? Do we put RB's in because they're better at picking up the blitz? Or stone handed rb's in because they run nice routes?

 
If he execles at blocking, make him a tackle. Tight ends are to catch the ball. Yes, they block at times, sometimes even on pass plays, but their primary responsibility is to be either stretch up the middle seam, or be a safety valve, catching the ball in tight coverage, taking licks from linebackers, that WR's cant stand up to.

I understand the point you're making, but completely disagree. What you're saying is that clark is Matt Lepsis, who was a TE in college, and a fair one at that. He's now a top tackle in the league. All TE's have to block, and block well. It's part of their game. But, it alone shouldn't get you to the pro-bowl. What next? Do we put RB's in because they're better at picking up the blitz? Or stone handed rb's in because they run nice routes?
Fair enough, just remember not all systems use the TE in the same way.Not all TEs block well, as a general rule they block better than WRs, but not as well as Tackles.

Keep in mind, he got in as a special need player, not just for his TE skills. I'm not entirely sure what the criteria was, and I don't see one on the AFC roster.

I'm not saying he was the best choice, but there is much more to being a TE than catching the ball.

Also, Vick made it despite being the #10 passer in the NFC. Surely passing means at least as much to a QB as receiving yards means to a TE. ;)

 
Concidering pass-catching TEs make all the Pro-Bowls, maybe the coach was smart enough to understand that to keep a DL made up of studs off of the QB, he'd need an extra blocker on the line. While he may not have the BEST hands, he looks pretty quick for a man his size. Unless he's an absolute rock, I wouldn't mind seeing him on my side.

 
GB DB al harris was jobbed this year, but team records play a huge part (as they should) so i have no problem with clark making the pro-bowl

 
Clark as a receiving TE :thumbdown:

But he's one of the better blocking TEs in the NFL.

I will agree that Chicago needs a better receiving TE, but I'd run more 2 TE sets if they get one.
Then Michael Clayton of the Bucs belongs too, as he's one of the best downfield blocking WRs.
Probably not the best comparison. TEs used to be linemen first, receivers second. Just because this has changed significantly doesn't mean the blocking aspect of the position is not important and worth considering when deciding who the best TEs in the game are.Suppose a team has a TE who rarely catches balls, but acts as an extra tackle most of the time, and is a huge part of his team's rushing success. Should he be snubbed merely because his contribution to his team's success is not as glorified as that of a good receiving TE?

I'm not saying one way or another whether Clark should be in the Pro Bowl, as I haven't watched enough of the Bears games. But if he is one of the better blocking TEs in football, his lack of receiving numbers should not be reason to exclude him from the Pro Bowl.
Amen, Guy. Not that I have a great knowledge of Clark, and haven't seen enough of him to make a fair judgement, but if he's a good blocker and an O.K. reciever, I'd much rather have that out of a TE than a good reciever and a BAD blocker. Stats get the glory. #1 reason you didn't see M.Bruener in the Pro Bowl. Best blocking TE in the league for several years but only caught 15-25 balls a year. Supported a stellar rushing attack for years, but no love.Sounds like these other posters don't believe Clark has many good qualities. What's your assessment of him--for those of us who don't get to see him regularly. The couple of times I've seen him, he's looked like a pretty decent athelete w/ size. A big, strong man who runs w/ decent speed. Not enough info to judge his blocking/catching/brain though.
This is the argument like that for the FB position. Cooley is a glorified FB who is really more like a TE. It was nice to see a real FB in Strong make it this year.As for blocking TEs - Gonzo is up there. That's why his numbers suffered when Roaf was out, and the run game did well. Gonzo "took one for the team" and out of his stats for half of this season.

 
2. Grid, whats with the baseball guy in your avatar?
it's a reference to the cult movie "the warriors". great flick :thumbup: it may also be GRID's 1st decent avatar
 
The cat with the bat is a Baseball Fury from the most underrated movie of all time: The Warriors.

Monkeys won't be flying out of my butt anytime soon either:

NFL admits error, rescinds Pro Bowl invite to Clark

January 27, 2006

By Larry Mayer

LAKE FOREST, Ill. - Desmond Clark isn't going to the Pro Bowl after all.

Two days after the Bears tight end was added as the NFC's "need player," the NFL acknowledged Friday that it had made an error in selecting Clark and announced that he would be replaced by Philadelphia Eagles long snapper Mike Bartrum.

Desmond Clark led Bears tight ends with 24 receptions for 229 yards and 2 TDs in 2005.

Bartrum was chosen as the need player by NFC coach John Fox of the Carolina Panthers.

"Our office mistakenly informed Desmond Clark that he was selected to the NFC all-star team as the long snapper," said NFL spokesman Michael Signora. "He is actually the Bears' backup at the position."

The confusion apparently resulted from the way the Pro Bowl voting is conducted.

With no separate category on the ballot for long snappers, teams are asked to indicate which of their players can long snap. Each team must then vote for one of those players with either its first or second choice at a certain position.

Every NFL player is listed on the ballot, but with no separate category for long snappers, the Bears' Patrick Mannelly must be grouped with the offensive tackles.

That means the only way that Mannelly can be voted to the Pro Bowl is if a team chooses him over an elite tackle like the Rams' Orlando Pace or the Seahawks' Walter Jones.

It appears that Clark, a third alternate at tight end, initially got the call because he was listed on the ballot as the only starter in the NFL capable of long-snapping.

Bears coach Lovie Smith thinks that adding a category for long snappers will eliminate embarrassing situations like the one that occurred with Clark.

"I think that's definitely something to consider," Smith said. "You're sending enough players over there to play a game and that's a big part of it. You have a punter and a kicker, so naturally you need a snapper too. And most teams have a snapper that doesn't do anything else."

Six Bears players were voted to the Pro Bowl, but middle linebacker Brian Urlacher, center Olin Kreutz and safety Mike Brown will not play in the Feb. 12 game in Hawaii because of injuries.

Defensive tackle Tommie Harris is slated to start for the NFC squad, while linebacker Lance Briggs and cornerback Nathan Vasher will be reserves. All three players are making their first appearance in the NFL's annual all-star game.

 
the NFL has messed up multiple times this season announcing players for the pro-bowl...what a joke :bag:

 
Maybe this public humiliation of Desmond Clark by the NFL (and some other Bears fan) was enough to get him to lose 20 pounds and start earning his keep from the Bears.

 
"Special Needs" referred to the fact that he was handicapped. He was the token.

His mother said he was a very special child.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top