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!
he is a great fantasy #4 with good #3 upside, in my book.
Let's ignore the 3rd-year breakout receiver statement for now... Doug Drinen did an article in years past that clearly identified this as a popular myth instead of reality.However it is true that SOME receivers do emerge in year three..Samie Parker is in an intriguing position for a break out season. #1 - The Chiefs offensive tackles look horrible meaning TE Tony Gonzalez may have to stay into block more than in years past, forcing more passes to the WR position#2 - Trent Green is on record for really liking what Parker brings to the table#3 - Eddie Kennison is 33-years old now and getting near the time receivers will slow down.......Looking at those three points, I expect Samie Parker to put up pretty decent numbers this season but no, there is no reason to believe he will surplant Kennison in 2006. Kennison should still be a good option for another couple of seasons and he will remain WR1 for the club.Parker will continue to progress as a player but he won't emerge as a fantasy stud in 2006.
Parker doesn't get enough red zone looks . . .Let's ignore the 3rd-year breakout receiver statement for now... Doug Drinen did an article in years past that clearly identified this as a popular myth instead of reality.However it is true that SOME receivers do emerge in year three..Samie Parker is in an intriguing position for a break out season. #1 - The Chiefs offensive tackles look horrible meaning TE Tony Gonzalez may have to stay into block more than in years past, forcing more passes to the WR position#2 - Trent Green is on record for really liking what Parker brings to the table#3 - Eddie Kennison is 33-years old now and getting near the time receivers will slow down.......Looking at those three points, I expect Samie Parker to put up pretty decent numbers this season but no, there is no reason to believe he will surplant Kennison in 2006. Kennison should still be a good option for another couple of seasons and he will remain WR1 for the club.Parker will continue to progress as a player but he won't emerge as a fantasy stud in 2006.
Good for you. I didn't make any mention of his fantasy value. The 3rd year WR breakout is a myth and has often been discussed here. Heck, it was even written about in ESPN magazine thanks to the staff here.he is a great fantasy #4 with good #3 upside, in my book.
i wasn't really replying to yourGood for you. I didn't make any mention of his fantasy value. The 3rd year WR breakout is a myth and has often been discussed here. Heck, it was even written about in ESPN magazine thanks to the staff here.he is a great fantasy #4 with good #3 upside, in my book.
, just hit reply at the bottom of the thread edit: i broke smilies1. I don't think anyone was suggesting that Parker will be a "stud" in 2006, but could emerge as a decent 3, or even 2 fantasy WR.2. Just because an article, and/or ESPN says that the 3rd year breakout is a myth, doesn't mean its fact. Anyone can write an article about anything.What kind of numbers can we expect?i wasn't really replying to yourGood for you. I didn't make any mention of his fantasy value. The 3rd year WR breakout is a myth and has often been discussed here. Heck, it was even written about in ESPN magazine thanks to the staff here.he is a great fantasy #4 with good #3 upside, in my book.
2. Just because an article, and/or ESPN says that the 3rd year breakout is a myth, doesn't mean its fact. Anyone can write an article about anything.i wasn't really replying to yourGood for you. I didn't make any mention of his fantasy value. The 3rd year WR breakout is a myth and has often been discussed here. Heck, it was even written about in ESPN magazine thanks to the staff here.he is a great fantasy #4 with good #3 upside, in my book.
You may want to read the article and understand THE FACTS that it presents.Sure, I'd love to. But I'm sure they're are also facts that support the 3rd year WR breakout theory.2. Just because an article, and/or ESPN says that the 3rd year breakout is a myth, doesn't mean its fact. Anyone can write an article about anything.i wasn't really replying to yourGood for you. I didn't make any mention of his fantasy value. The 3rd year WR breakout is a myth and has often been discussed here. Heck, it was even written about in ESPN magazine thanks to the staff here.he is a great fantasy #4 with good #3 upside, in my book.
:whoosh:Sure, I'd love to. But I'm sure they're are also facts that support the 3rd year WR breakout theory.2. Just because an article, and/or ESPN says that the 3rd year breakout is a myth, doesn't mean its fact. Anyone can write an article about anything.i wasn't really replying to yourGood for you. I didn't make any mention of his fantasy value. The 3rd year WR breakout is a myth and has often been discussed here. Heck, it was even written about in ESPN magazine thanks to the staff here.he is a great fantasy #4 with good #3 upside, in my book.
Whats not to understand? When making an argument, there are facts that will support an argument, and facts that will go against it. If you wanna make your argument look better, use only the fact that support your theory - this isnt the best way to make an argument, but is what ESPN likely did with theirs.:whoosh:Sure, I'd love to. But I'm sure they're are also facts that support the 3rd year WR breakout theory.2. Just because an article, and/or ESPN says that the 3rd year breakout is a myth, doesn't mean its fact. Anyone can write an article about anything.i wasn't really replying to yourGood for you. I didn't make any mention of his fantasy value. The 3rd year WR breakout is a myth and has often been discussed here. Heck, it was even written about in ESPN magazine thanks to the staff here.he is a great fantasy #4 with good #3 upside, in my book.
You really need to get a grasp of what you are talking about. ESPN didn't write the article. If you pay any attention to this site you would know that Doug Drinen has proven with facts that the 3rd year WR breakout is a myth. EPSN Magazine recently ran an article that Doug wrote on this subject.If you have facts that can dispute what Doug has proven then have at it.Whats not to understand? When making an argument, there are facts that will support an argument, and facts that will go against it. If you wanna make your argument look better, use only the fact that support your theory - this isnt the best way to make an argument, but is what ESPN likely did with theirs.:whoosh:Sure, I'd love to. But I'm sure they're are also facts that support the 3rd year WR breakout theory.2. Just because an article, and/or ESPN says that the 3rd year breakout is a myth, doesn't mean its fact. Anyone can write an article about anything.i wasn't really replying to yourGood for you. I didn't make any mention of his fantasy value. The 3rd year WR breakout is a myth and has often been discussed here. Heck, it was even written about in ESPN magazine thanks to the staff here.he is a great fantasy #4 with good #3 upside, in my book.
WOW. No I dont have the facts, but I find it amazing that you take an article with so called "facts" as gospel.You really need to get a grasp of what you are talking about. ESPN didn't write the article. If you pay any attention to this site you would know that Doug Drinen has proven with facts that the 3rd year WR breakout is a myth. EPSN Magazine recently ran an article that Doug wrote on this subject.Whats not to understand? When making an argument, there are facts that will support an argument, and facts that will go against it. If you wanna make your argument look better, use only the fact that support your theory - this isnt the best way to make an argument, but is what ESPN likely did with theirs.:whoosh:Sure, I'd love to. But I'm sure they're are also facts that support the 3rd year WR breakout theory.2. Just because an article, and/or ESPN says that the 3rd year breakout is a myth, doesn't mean its fact. Anyone can write an article about anything.i wasn't really replying to yourGood for you. I didn't make any mention of his fantasy value. The 3rd year WR breakout is a myth and has often been discussed here. Heck, it was even written about in ESPN magazine thanks to the staff here.he is a great fantasy #4 with good #3 upside, in my book.
edit: i broke smilies
You may want to read the article and understand THE FACTS that it presents.
If you have facts that can dispute what Doug has proven then have at it.
WOW. No I dont have the facts, but I find it amazing that you take an article with so called "facts" as gospel.You really need to get a grasp of what you are talking about. ESPN didn't write the article. If you pay any attention to this site you would know that Doug Drinen has proven with facts that the 3rd year WR breakout is a myth. EPSN Magazine recently ran an article that Doug wrote on this subject.Whats not to understand? When making an argument, there are facts that will support an argument, and facts that will go against it. If you wanna make your argument look better, use only the fact that support your theory - this isnt the best way to make an argument, but is what ESPN likely did with theirs.:whoosh:Sure, I'd love to. But I'm sure they're are also facts that support the 3rd year WR breakout theory.2. Just because an article, and/or ESPN says that the 3rd year breakout is a myth, doesn't mean its fact. Anyone can write an article about anything.i wasn't really replying to yourGood for you. I didn't make any mention of his fantasy value. The 3rd year WR breakout is a myth and has often been discussed here. Heck, it was even written about in ESPN magazine thanks to the staff here.he is a great fantasy #4 with good #3 upside, in my book.
edit: i broke smilies
You may want to read the article and understand THE FACTS that it presents.
If you have facts that can dispute what Doug has proven then have at it.
Just curious...whats your education level?
The funny thing is, that it was on this site, a few years back that the 3rd year myth was so promoted as fact. And I'm pretty sure that there is a learning curve for the position. Now can you target year three spcifically? No. But there is a better chance a WR will break out later than sooner.You really need to get a grasp of what you are talking about. ESPN didn't write the article. If you pay any attention to this site you would know that Doug Drinen has proven with facts that the 3rd year WR breakout is a myth. EPSN Magazine recently ran an article that Doug wrote on this subject.If you have facts that can dispute what Doug has proven then have at it.
That is exactly the point of what Doug pointed out. WRs have broken out in their second year, 4th year, or even after that to some extent. However to say that the 3rd year is the charm for WRs isn't true.The funny thing is, that it was on this site, a few years back that the 3rd year myth was so promoted as fact. And I'm pretty sure that there is a learning curve for the position. Now can you target year three spcifically? No. But there is a better chance a WR will break out later than sooner.You really need to get a grasp of what you are talking about. ESPN didn't write the article. If you pay any attention to this site you would know that Doug Drinen has proven with facts that the 3rd year WR breakout is a myth. EPSN Magazine recently ran an article that Doug wrote on this subject.If you have facts that can dispute what Doug has proven then have at it.
And so, the idea is, now that Parkers had a couple season's under his belt...he has a chance to breakout.That is exactly the point of what Doug pointed out. WRs have broken out in their second year, 4th year, or even after that to some extent. However to say that the 3rd year is the charm for WRs isn't true.The funny thing is, that it was on this site, a few years back that the 3rd year myth was so promoted as fact. And I'm pretty sure that there is a learning curve for the position. Now can you target year three spcifically? No. But there is a better chance a WR will break out later than sooner.You really need to get a grasp of what you are talking about. ESPN didn't write the article. If you pay any attention to this site you would know that Doug Drinen has proven with facts that the 3rd year WR breakout is a myth. EPSN Magazine recently ran an article that Doug wrote on this subject.If you have facts that can dispute what Doug has proven then have at it.
He could. I was just trying to point out to the thread starter that WRs can break out in other years, not just the 3rd year. Don't forget what he wrote..."He's a 3rd year WR, the year WRs typically have their breakout year (if they're ever gonna have one)."And so, the idea is, now that Parkers had a couple season's under his belt...he has a chance to breakout.That is exactly the point of what Doug pointed out. WRs have broken out in their second year, 4th year, or even after that to some extent. However to say that the 3rd year is the charm for WRs isn't true.The funny thing is, that it was on this site, a few years back that the 3rd year myth was so promoted as fact. And I'm pretty sure that there is a learning curve for the position. Now can you target year three spcifically? No. But there is a better chance a WR will break out later than sooner.You really need to get a grasp of what you are talking about. ESPN didn't write the article. If you pay any attention to this site you would know that Doug Drinen has proven with facts that the 3rd year WR breakout is a myth. EPSN Magazine recently ran an article that Doug wrote on this subject.
If you have facts that can dispute what Doug has proven then have at it.
I can kind of understand Clayton in shallow leagues where you need to gamble on the guy with the most upside, but it blows me away how hyped Vincent Jackson is getting. Nice measurables but seems like at least a year or two from being a #2 WR in the NFL. Hasn't had much luck staying healthy and getting the reps he needs. Right now he's firmly entrenched behind both McCardell and Parker and barring an injury he won't even make a start for an offense that has a history of throwing a great deal to their TE/RB. In dynasty leagues I guess you could gamble on Jackson if your patient but that's just about the only situation I'd mention him in the same breath as either Clayton/Parker.In deep leagues Parker is very undervalued. He'll be much more solid than those being drafted around him. I like both Parker and Kennison this year. Gonzales declining and Holmes was a better receiver out of the backfield than LJ. No #3 WR's to speak of for KC.cr8f said:
