Teyo Johnson (1 Viewer)

[JBaldachino]

What's it look like for him in 2005? Is he the starter? Will TEs even produce in Oakland's offense? Turner was OC for Miami and McMichael had some good years, but then again he iddnt have Randy Moss to throw the ball to (Porter about equal to Chambers, if alittle worse IMO) I picked him up in a new dynasty league, and am curious as to the opinions. Do you really think Courteny Anderson stands a chance at the starting gig?

 

[Gringoloco]

With Jolley gone, there's mot much else there besides Teyo and Anderson. I favor Teyo but give Anderson a legitimate chance at winning the job. I've read several good things about him and believe he is much more rounded (i.e. he can block) than Teyo. Anderson also has good hands.But Teyo is almost like a WR receiver with his abilities. It will be interesting how it pans out.

 

[B Maverick]

Anderson is the latest "IT TE" from the Raiders. Teyo is not a good TE and they have too many better WRs. Jolley is gone (TG since he was getting the shaft in Oak and was their best TE).If I had to pick a TE in Oak, Courtney Anderson is the man there.

 

[CalBear]

What's it look like for him in 2005? Is he the starter? Will TEs even produce in Oakland's offense? Turner was OC for Miami and McMichael had some good years, but then again he iddnt have Randy Moss to throw the ball to (Porter about equal to Chambers, if alittle worse IMO) I picked him up in a new dynasty league, and am curious as to the opinions. Do you really think Courteny Anderson stands a chance at the starting gig?

Teyo Johnson lacks two key qualities; blocking ability and hands. People get obsessed with his athleticism, but he just can't catch and he plays too soft to be an every-down TE anyway.

 

[Pick]

Good WRs make for good TEs. If someone locks down the spot, they're worth keeping track of.

 

[The Steel]

Good WRs make for good TEs.  If someone locks down the spot, they're worth keeping track of.

Really? 2004 TE Scoring

1. Gates

2. Gonzo

3. Whitten

4. Crumpler

5. McMichael

6. E.Johnson

7. Shockey

What do the top 7 TEs from last year have in common? Bad WRs.

 

[LHUCKS]

Good WRs make for good TEs.  If someone locks down the spot, they're worth keeping track of.

Really? 2004 TE Scoring

1. Gates

2. Gonzo

3. Whitten

4. Crumpler

5. McMichael

6. E.Johnson

7. Shockey

What do the top 7 TEs from last year have in common? Bad WRs.

- Miami has the most underrated set of WRs in the NFL.- Norv Turner has a history of throwing to his TEs

- I agree that it is good for a TE to be on a team where he is the best option

- Novacek had many good years in Turner's Dallas offense, despite having Michael Irvin as a teammate

 

[trader jake]

Good WRs make for good TEs. If someone locks down the spot, they're worth keeping track of.

Really? 2004 TE Scoring

1. Gates

2. Gonzo

3. Whitten

4. Crumpler

5. McMichael

6. E.Johnson

7. Shockey

What do the top 7 TEs from last year have in common? Bad WRs.

 

[nightshift]

Good WRs make for good TEs. If someone locks down the spot, they're worth keeping track of.

Really? 2004 TE Scoring

1. Gates

2. Gonzo

3. Whitten

4. Crumpler

5. McMichael

6. E.Johnson

7. Shockey

What do the top 7 TEs from last year have in common? Bad WRs.

Which is why Kris Wilson will shine this year!

 

[bagger.]

Good WRs make for good TEs.  If someone locks down the spot, they're worth keeping track of.

Really? 2004 TE Scoring

1. Gates

2. Gonzo

3. Whitten

4. Crumpler

5. McMichael

6. E.Johnson

7. Shockey

What do the top 7 TEs from last year have in common? Bad WRs.

i actually just wrote an article (not here) that details this.to very briefly summarize:

over the past few years there have been 13 instances where TEs have scored over 100 points (top 10% of TEs).

in only one instance one of those TEs was on a team that produced more than the league average at the WR position.

 

[wilked]

Good WRs make for good TEs.  If someone locks down the spot, they're worth keeping track of.

Really? 2004 TE Scoring

1. Gates

2. Gonzo

3. Whitten

4. Crumpler

5. McMichael

6. E.Johnson

7. Shockey

What do the top 7 TEs from last year have in common? Bad WRs.

i actually just wrote an article (not here) that details this.to very briefly summarize:

over the past few years there have been 13 instances where TEs have scored over 100 points (top 10% of TEs).

in only one instance one of those TEs was on a team that produced more than the league average at the WR position.

The only exception: Marcus Pollard, 2001

 

[Pick]

So Gates, Gonzo, Crumpler and friends never do jack if they're playing with Porter and Moss?Nice logic, NUMBNUTS. For the most part, a great TE will remain a great TE regardless of the situation. A mediocre/good TE can become a great TE if put into the right situation (i.e. with a great WR corps, or maybe a QB who likes to dump it off, etc.).

 

[wilked]

So Gates, Gonzo, Crumpler and friends never do jack if they're playing with Porter and Moss?

Nice logic, NUMBNUTS.

For the most part, a great TE will remain a great TE regardless of the situation. A mediocre/good TE can become a great TE if put into the right situation (i.e. with a great WR corps, or maybe a QB who likes to dump it off, etc.).

The best way to refute statistical evidence is with arguments like "NUMBNUTS"

 

[wilked]

A mediocre/good TE can become a great TE if put into the right situation (i.e. with a great WR corps).

If by 'Great TE' you mean a top-scoring Fantasy Football TE, then this statement is not at all accurate

 

[The Steel]

So Gates, Gonzo, Crumpler and friends never do jack if they're playing with Porter and Moss?

Nice logic, NUMBNUTS.

For the most part, a great TE will remain a great TE regardless of the situation.  A mediocre/good TE can become a great TE if put into the right situation (i.e. with a great WR corps, or maybe a QB who likes to dump it off, etc.).

I agree with you that a great TE will remain great regardless of the situation. But that was not what you were talking about, nor what this thread is about. You said that the Raiders TE will be great because of the Raiders' great WRs. Please provide examples of mediocre/good TEs that have become great TEs due to a great WR corps? The numbers from 2004 indicate exactly the opposite.

 

[The Steel]

Good WRs make for good TEs.  If someone locks down the spot, they're worth keeping track of.

Really? 2004 TE Scoring

1. Gates

2. Gonzo

3. Whitten

4. Crumpler

5. McMichael

6. E.Johnson

7. Shockey

What do the top 7 TEs from last year have in common? Bad WRs.

- Miami has the most underrated set of WRs in the NFL.- Norv Turner has a history of throwing to his TEs

- I agree that it is good for a TE to be on a team where he is the best option

- Novacek had many good years in Turner's Dallas offense, despite having Michael Irvin as a teammate

I did not say a bad set of WRs makes a good TE. I just said that Pick was wrong to say that a good set of WRs turns a mediocre TE into a great TE. I think the WRs have little to do with how the TE performs. You could probably find a better correlation between good QBs or good RBs and otherwise mediocre TEs doing well.I think TEs are either naturally gifted or products of the system. Nothing earth shattering there-- but thinking good WRs make for good TEs is

 

[Pick]

So Gates, Gonzo, Crumpler and friends never do jack if they're playing with Porter and Moss?

Nice logic, NUMBNUTS.

For the most part, a great TE will remain a great TE regardless of the situation.  A mediocre/good TE can become a great TE if put into the right situation (i.e. with a great WR corps, or maybe a QB who likes to dump it off, etc.).

The best way to refute statistical evidence is with arguments like "NUMBNUTS"

I see statistics but no evidence. Some sheep look only at numbers.

 

[Pick]

So Gates, Gonzo, Crumpler and friends never do jack if they're playing with Porter and Moss?

Nice logic, NUMBNUTS.

For the most part, a great TE will remain a great TE regardless of the situation.  A mediocre/good TE can become a great TE if put into the right situation (i.e. with a great WR corps, or maybe a QB who likes to dump it off, etc.).

You said that the Raiders TE will be great because of the Raiders' great WRs.

I didn't say that.

Please provide examples of mediocre/good TEs that have become great TEs due to a great WR corps? The numbers from 2004 indicate exactly the opposite.

Please tell me why you'd draft Desmond Clark over Dallas Clark. Because, given the "statistical evidence" in this thread, you should avoid Dallas like the plague and Desmond should be at the top of your list.

 

[Pick]

Good WRs make for good TEs.  If someone locks down the spot, they're worth keeping track of.

Really? 2004 TE Scoring

1. Gates

2. Gonzo

3. Whitten

4. Crumpler

5. McMichael

6. E.Johnson

7. Shockey

What do the top 7 TEs from last year have in common? Bad WRs.

- Miami has the most underrated set of WRs in the NFL.- Norv Turner has a history of throwing to his TEs

- I agree that it is good for a TE to be on a team where he is the best option

- Novacek had many good years in Turner's Dallas offense, despite having Michael Irvin as a teammate

I did not say a bad set of WRs makes a good TE. I just said that Pick was wrong to say that a good set of WRs turns a mediocre TE into a great TE. I think the WRs have little to do with how the TE performs. You could probably find a better correlation between good QBs or good RBs and otherwise mediocre TEs doing well.I think TEs are either naturally gifted or products of the system. Nothing earth shattering there-- but thinking good WRs make for good TEs is

Thinking that what 1 player does won't affect the other 11 on the field is

 

[The Steel]

So Gates, Gonzo, Crumpler and friends never do jack if they're playing with Porter and Moss?

Nice logic, NUMBNUTS.

For the most part, a great TE will remain a great TE regardless of the situation.  A mediocre/good TE can become a great TE if put into the right situation (i.e. with a great WR corps, or maybe a QB who likes to dump it off, etc.).

You said that the Raiders TE will be great because of the Raiders' great WRs.

I didn't say that.

Please provide examples of mediocre/good TEs that have become great TEs due to a great WR corps?  The numbers from 2004 indicate exactly the opposite. 

Please tell me why you'd draft Desmond Clark over Dallas Clark. Because, given the "statistical evidence" in this thread, you should avoid Dallas like the plague and Desmond should be at the top of your list.

You are changing your argument. You said good WRs make for good TEs. I said that was not true. You have failed to say why it is true, outside of the fact that you are not a sheep and you do not just look at statistics.I also never said the inverse is true, that bad WRs make for good TEs. I threw out the stats to prove you were wrong. The good TEs were either good because their offensive systems focus on the TE or because they are gifted players. This has nothing to do with good WRs.

If you don't have any evidence to support what you are saying, fine! As for Dallas Clark, the Indy offense is like a thunderstorm and just about every player gets some rain. Dallas Clark is not good because of Marvin Harrison, Stokely and Reggie Wayne. He is good because of Peyton Manning and one of the most prolific passing offenses in the history of the NFL. Please tell me you can come up with something better than that! How good will the Cardinals TE be with Fitz and Boldin? How good will Pollard be with Rogers and the 2 Williamses? How good will the Rams TE be with Holt and Bruce? And to bring it full circle, how good will the Raiders TE be with Moss and Porter?

 

[The Steel]

Good WRs make for good TEs.  If someone locks down the spot, they're worth keeping track of.

Really? 2004 TE Scoring

1. Gates

2. Gonzo

3. Whitten

4. Crumpler

5. McMichael

6. E.Johnson

7. Shockey

What do the top 7 TEs from last year have in common? Bad WRs.

- Miami has the most underrated set of WRs in the NFL.- Norv Turner has a history of throwing to his TEs

- I agree that it is good for a TE to be on a team where he is the best option

- Novacek had many good years in Turner's Dallas offense, despite having Michael Irvin as a teammate

I did not say a bad set of WRs makes a good TE. I just said that Pick was wrong to say that a good set of WRs turns a mediocre TE into a great TE. I think the WRs have little to do with how the TE performs. You could probably find a better correlation between good QBs or good RBs and otherwise mediocre TEs doing well.I think TEs are either naturally gifted or products of the system. Nothing earth shattering there-- but thinking good WRs make for good TEs is

Thinking that what 1 player does won't affect the other 11 on the field is

thinking that there are 12 players on the field is provide some evidence!!! otherwise, let's just leave it at we agree to disagree.

 

[CalBear]

Please tell me why you'd draft Desmond Clark over Dallas Clark. Because, given the "statistical evidence" in this thread, you should avoid Dallas like the plague and Desmond should be at the top of your list.

Dallas Clark had just 25 receptions last year; he's certainly not a good example of a productive fantasy TE. In the last 7 games of the season, his best performance was 3 receptions for 23 yards, and he only had one good fantasy game last year, the one where he got the silly 80-yard TD.

 

[Pick]

Good WRs make for good TEs.  If someone locks down the spot, they're worth keeping track of.

Really? 2004 TE Scoring

1. Gates

2. Gonzo

3. Whitten

4. Crumpler

5. McMichael

6. E.Johnson

7. Shockey

What do the top 7 TEs from last year have in common? Bad WRs.

- Miami has the most underrated set of WRs in the NFL.- Norv Turner has a history of throwing to his TEs

- I agree that it is good for a TE to be on a team where he is the best option

- Novacek had many good years in Turner's Dallas offense, despite having Michael Irvin as a teammate

I did not say a bad set of WRs makes a good TE. I just said that Pick was wrong to say that a good set of WRs turns a mediocre TE into a great TE. I think the WRs have little to do with how the TE performs. You could probably find a better correlation between good QBs or good RBs and otherwise mediocre TEs doing well.I think TEs are either naturally gifted or products of the system. Nothing earth shattering there-- but thinking good WRs make for good TEs is

Thinking that what 1 player does won't affect the other 11 on the field is

thinking that there are 12 players on the field is provide some evidence!!! otherwise, let's just leave it at we agree to disagree.

The fact is that having great WRs causes the defense to compensate, thus opening things up for RBs/TEs. If you can't see that then the gap is too big and I quit.

 

[Pick]

Please tell me why you'd draft Desmond Clark over Dallas Clark.  Because, given the "statistical evidence" in this thread, you should avoid Dallas like the plague and Desmond should be at the top of your list.

Dallas Clark had just 25 receptions last year; he's certainly not a good example of a productive fantasy TE. In the last 7 games of the season, his best performance was 3 receptions for 23 yards, and he only had one good fantasy game last year, the one where he got the silly 80-yard TD.

Ya, Clark is totally worthless.

 

[CalBear]

Please tell me why you'd draft Desmond Clark over Dallas Clark. Because, given the "statistical evidence" in this thread, you should avoid Dallas like the plague and Desmond should be at the top of your list.

Dallas Clark had just 25 receptions last year; he's certainly not a good example of a productive fantasy TE. In the last 7 games of the season, his best performance was 3 receptions for 23 yards, and he only had one good fantasy game last year, the one where he got the silly 80-yard TD.

Ya, Clark is totally worthless.

Did I say that? Did you bother to read my post? Dallas Clark wasn't in the top 20 in receptions by tight ends; that suggests that tight ends in offenses with lots of productive WRs don't get a lot of receptions. He'd be an OK backup, but even though he has a much better offense and QB than Teyo Johnson, and even though he's much more talented than Teyo Johnson, and even though his QB broke the NFL record for touchdown passes, he didn't manage to be worth starting as a TE1 in 2004.If you're going to pursue this line of reasoning (which is your right--there's no law against making a fool of yourself in public), you'll have to come up with a better example.

 

[Pick]

Please tell me why you'd draft Desmond Clark over Dallas Clark.  Because, given the "statistical evidence" in this thread, you should avoid Dallas like the plague and Desmond should be at the top of your list.

Dallas Clark had just 25 receptions last year; he's certainly not a good example of a productive fantasy TE. In the last 7 games of the season, his best performance was 3 receptions for 23 yards, and he only had one good fantasy game last year, the one where he got the silly 80-yard TD.

Ya, Clark is totally worthless.

Did I say that?

Yes, you did. You said he is not a good example of a productive fantasy TE. So you think he's unproductive. So he's worthless. Unless you make a practice of carrying unproductive players.

Did you bother to read my post?

Yes, it was awesome.

Dallas Clark wasn't in the top 20 in receptions by tight ends; that suggests that tight ends in offenses with lots of productive WRs don't get a lot of receptions.

XThe Colts targetted Pollard/Clark a total of 77 times last year. Oh, snap!

He'd be an OK backup,

Even though you feel he's unproductive? Weird.

but even though he has a much better offense and QB than Teyo Johnson, and even though he's much more talented than Teyo Johnson, and even though his QB broke the NFL record for touchdown passes, he didn't manage to be worth starting as a TE1 in 2004.

I got no problem with people passing on Dallas Clark.

If you're going to pursue this line of reasoning (which is your right--there's no law against making a fool of yourself in public), you'll have to come up with a better example.

Ouch. Cut me so deep there, Ace.

 

[The Steel]

Besides Dallas Clark of the record setting passing offense of the Colts, what other TE will be good due to good WRs? Please tell me you have another example.and for the record, Dallas Clark is not good because he is on a team with good WRs. he is good because he is on the freakin' Colts!

 

[CalBear]

The Colts targetted Pollard/Clark a total of 77 times last year. Oh, snap!

Yes, thank you for proving my point.2004 targets:Gonzalez, 156Witten, 127Gates, 126McMichael, 122Johnson, 119Shockey, 106Wiggins, 95Stephen Alexander, 79Boo Williams, 79So if Indianapolis goes and shoots all its other tight ends, Clark might sneak into the bottom of the top 10 in targets.I'm not going to try to figure out tight end targets by team, but it's obvious that Indianapolis was in the bottom half of the league in 2004, and had no TE in the top 25 in targets.

 

[Pick]

Besides Dallas Clark of the record setting passing offense of the Colts, what other TE will be good due to good WRs? Please tell me you have another example.

and for the record, Dallas Clark is not good because he is on a team with good WRs. he is good because he is on the freakin' Colts!

LOL @ "Give me an example" and "Oh, well besides that guy . . . ".

 

[The Steel]

Besides Dallas Clark of the record setting passing offense of the Colts, what other TE will be good due to good WRs?  Please tell me you have another example.

and for the record, Dallas Clark is not good because he is on a team with good WRs.  he is good because he is on the freakin' Colts!

LOL @ "Give me an example" and "Oh, well besides that guy . . . ".

one player is not "evidence" of a trend. and Calbear has pointed out that even Dallas Clark is not even a good example. You belong in the free-for-all. The Shark Pool is for legitimate posts.

 

[datonn]

Sheesh! Can a couple of you guys slide over to the FFA to "compare Johnsons" instead of filling up the Shark Pool with "I know you are but what am I?" types of pissing contests?! That said, the thing that I haven't really heard yet in this thread (related to Dallas Clark) is the fact that Marcus Pollard will be wearing a Detroit Lions uni in 2005. Clark's numbers by themselves weren't very impressive at all in 2004: 25 catches423 yards5 TDsHowever, combine his 2004 stats with Marcus Pollard's 2004 stats and you get:54 catches732 yards11 TDsIf I got 732 yards and 11 TDs out of my starting TE position in the typical 12-16 team league that requires a TE starter, I'd be doing cartwheels! Obviously, Dallas Clark won't see 100% of Pollard's former targets/touches in 2005. However, it looks as though the signs are there for Clark to vault into the top TEs in the NFL from a FFL perspective in 2005.......

 

[Pick]

The Colts targetted Pollard/Clark a total of 77 times last year. Oh, snap!

Yes, thank you for proving my point.2004 targets:

Gonzalez, 156

Witten, 127

Gates, 126

McMichael, 122

Johnson, 119

Shockey, 106

Wiggins, 95

Stephen Alexander, 79

Boo Williams, 79

So if Indianapolis goes and shoots all its other tight ends, Clark might sneak into the bottom of the top 10 in targets.

I'm not going to try to figure out tight end targets by team, but it's obvious that Indianapolis was in the bottom half of the league in 2004, and had no TE in the top 25 in targets.

That's not what the data dominator says.If you want to look at TE targets by team you've got Tennessee, Minnesota, and Philadelphia all in the top 10. All three had good production from their WRs.

It's common sense. Imagine you're the coach and you've got a couple of quality WRs. Your opponent drops into a 2-deep zone to compensate. That leaves 7 defenders in the box. You'll either pound the ball or dump it off short. I'm not saying the TE is the only option here but it certainly opens things up underneath. It's just something to keep an eye on as it presents an opportunity for RBs, TEs, or even slot guys (see Hakim when he was with the Rams).

 

[Pick]

Besides Dallas Clark of the record setting passing offense of the Colts, what other TE will be good due to good WRs?  Please tell me you have another example.

and for the record, Dallas Clark is not good because he is on a team with good WRs.  he is good because he is on the freakin' Colts!

LOL @ "Give me an example" and "Oh, well besides that guy . . . ".

one player is not "evidence" of a trend. and Calbear has pointed out that even Dallas Clark is not even a good example. You belong in the free-for-all. The Shark Pool is for legitimate posts.

I never said there was a trend (that was you guys). I simply said there's an opportunity. Nice attitude though.

 

[Pick]

Sheesh! Can a couple of you guys slide over to the FFA to "compare Johnsons" instead of filling up the Shark Pool with "I know you are but what am I?" types of pissing contests?!

That said, the thing that I haven't really heard yet in this thread (related to Dallas Clark) is the fact that Marcus Pollard will be wearing a Detroit Lions uni in 2005. Clark's numbers by themselves weren't very impressive at all in 2004:

25 catches

423 yards

5 TDs

However, combine his 2004 stats with Marcus Pollard's 2004 stats and you get:

54 catches

732 yards

11 TDs

If I got 732 yards and 11 TDs out of my starting TE position in the typical 12-16 team league that requires a TE starter, I'd be doing cartwheels! Obviously, Dallas Clark won't see 100% of Pollard's former targets/touches in 2005. However, it looks as though the signs are there for Clark to vault into the top TEs in the NFL from a FFL perspective in 2005.......

GET OUT OF THE SHARK POOL WITH THIS CRAP!

 

[trader jake]

pick, not only are you wrong in this "argument" yr being LOUD and wrongcan't wait for the inevitable bump around midseason when dallas clark puts up a 100 yd 2 td game and is ranked in the top 7 te's...lol

 

[The Steel]

pick, not only are you wrong in this "argument" yr being LOUD and wrong

can't wait for the inevitable bump around midseason when dallas clark puts up a 100 yd 2 td game and is ranked in the top 7 te's...lol

it's not about Dallas Clark though. it is about why Dallas Clark will be good. I have Clark in my top 10, but not because of Harrison, Stokely and Wayne. It is because the Colts had 50 passing TDs last year! Show me the average TE that excels in 2005 that is on a team with great WRs. Then I expect a bump!

 

[bagger.]

Please tell me why you'd draft Desmond Clark over Dallas Clark. Because, given the "statistical evidence" in this thread, you should avoid Dallas like the plague and Desmond should be at the top of your list.

You have jumped to the wrong conclusion.Just because the vast majority of stud TEs are found on teams that have poor wide receivers does not mean that all teams with poor wide receivers produce stud TEs.

You should realize, however, that when over 90% of stud TEs over the past few years have been on teams with poor wide receivers (less than the league fantasy scoring average) that is a fact that maybe you should investigate further.

 

[bagger.]

The fact is that having great WRs causes the defense to compensate, thus opening things up for RBs/TEs. If you can't see that then the gap is too big and I quit.

That is not a fact. That is your perception. That perception is wrong.

 

[bagger.]

The Colts targetted Pollard/Clark a total of 77 times last year. Oh, snap!

Yes, thank you for proving my point.2004 targets:

Gonzalez, 156

Witten, 127

Gates, 126

McMichael, 122

Johnson, 119

Shockey, 106

Wiggins, 95

Stephen Alexander, 79

Boo Williams, 79

So if Indianapolis goes and shoots all its other tight ends, Clark might sneak into the bottom of the top 10 in targets.

I'm not going to try to figure out tight end targets by team, but it's obvious that Indianapolis was in the bottom half of the league in 2004, and had no TE in the top 25 in targets.

That's not what the data dominator says.If you want to look at TE targets by team you've got Tennessee, Minnesota, and Philadelphia all in the top 10. All three had good production from their WRs.

It's common sense. Imagine you're the coach and you've got a couple of quality WRs. Your opponent drops into a 2-deep zone to compensate. That leaves 7 defenders in the box. You'll either pound the ball or dump it off short. I'm not saying the TE is the only option here but it certainly opens things up underneath. It's just something to keep an eye on as it presents an opportunity for RBs, TEs, or even slot guys (see Hakim when he was with the Rams).

Unless you draft a "team TE" that tells me nothing.I don't care if my TE is on a team that produces the most at that position if the TE that I have to start for my fantasy team only sees a fraction of it.

 

[bagger.]

pick, not only are you wrong in this "argument" yr being LOUD and wrong

can't wait for the inevitable bump around midseason when dallas clark puts up a 100 yd 2 td game and is ranked in the top 7 te's...lol

it's not about Dallas Clark though. it is about why Dallas Clark will be good. I have Clark in my top 10, but not because of Harrison, Stokely and Wayne. It is because the Colts had 50 passing TDs last year! Show me the average TE that excels in 2005 that is on a team with great WRs. Then I expect a bump!

I also have Dallas Clark as a top 10 TE. However, he is the exception not the rule.8 of the top 10 TEs from 2004 played on teams with wide receivers who as a group scored below the league average at that position.

 

[Steel Dillo]

Teyo is going to .............Oops, my bad. I thought this was a Teyo Johnson thread.

 

[wilked]

lol at pick getting owned in this thread

 

[bagger.]

Teyo is going to .............

Oops, my bad. I thought this was a Teyo Johnson thread.

Threads take various turns that are often unintended.You have been around long enough you should have figured this out.

I have Teyo going for 9 rec, 135 yards, 1 TD in 2005.

 

[datonn]

Sheesh! Can a couple of you guys slide over to the FFA to "compare Johnsons" instead of filling up the Shark Pool with "I know you are but what am I?" types of pissing contests?! That said, the thing that I haven't really heard yet in this thread (related to Dallas Clark) is the fact that Marcus Pollard will be wearing a Detroit Lions uni in 2005. Clark's numbers by themselves weren't very impressive at all in 2004: 25 catches423 yards5 TDsHowever, combine his 2004 stats with Marcus Pollard's 2004 stats and you get:54 catches732 yards11 TDsIf I got 732 yards and 11 TDs out of my starting TE position in the typical 12-16 team league that requires a TE starter, I'd be doing cartwheels! Obviously, Dallas Clark won't see 100% of Pollard's former targets/touches in 2005. However, it looks as though the signs are there for Clark to vault into the top TEs in the NFL from a FFL perspective in 2005.......

GET OUT OF THE SHARK POOL WITH THIS CRAP!

Gotta love it. Well at least we know that Pick doesn't have anything substantive to say on this subject. When did the Shark Pool turn into a place where guys were rude to one another and all? If I want rude comments, drunken debates, half-*ss theory and bogus info, I can always participate on the ESPN boards or my local sports radio forums..... I think that Dallas Clark will likely be a top-10 TE in 2005 with 600+ yards and 8-9 TDs (108-114 FPs in most standard scoring leagues). Teyo Johnson isn't even necessarily the best TE on his team's roster. About 17 months ago, I was excited about Teyo Johnson's potential but fortunately decided to dump him after a relatively unknown free agent named "Antonio Gates" caught my eye. I'll tell you though, I'd happily trade up as high as #20 overall in a dynasty league's rookie/FA draft (TE required leagues) if Dallas Clark was still on the board. Let other teams sweat over trying to decide whether to start Crap or Crapper at TE while I have studly injury/bye week insurance and/or trade bait.....

 

[Pick]

Please tell me why you'd draft Desmond Clark over Dallas Clark.  Because, given the "statistical evidence" in this thread, you should avoid Dallas like the plague and Desmond should be at the top of your list.

You have jumped to the wrong conclusion.Just because the vast majority of stud TEs are found on teams that have poor wide receivers does not mean that all teams with poor wide receivers produce stud TEs.

You should realize, however, that when over 90% of stud TEs over the past few years have been on teams with poor wide receivers (less than the league fantasy scoring average) that is a fact that maybe you should investigate further.

Those top TEs are top TEs because they are athletes. That's the new breed of TE. Gates, Gonzo, Crumpler, McMichael, and so forth broke the mold. Line them up with bagger on the left and Steel on the right and they'll still put up big numbers.

 

[Pick]

The fact is that having great WRs causes the defense to compensate, thus opening things up for RBs/TEs.  If you can't see that then the gap is too big and I quit.

That is not a fact. That is your perception. That perception is wrong.

Ya, no one ever rolls coverage to Moss, Harrison, or Owens. That'd be nuts. Let's double the TE instead.

 

[Pick]

The Colts targetted Pollard/Clark a total of 77 times last year. Oh, snap!

Yes, thank you for proving my point.2004 targets:

Gonzalez, 156

Witten, 127

Gates, 126

McMichael, 122

Johnson, 119

Shockey, 106

Wiggins, 95

Stephen Alexander, 79

Boo Williams, 79

So if Indianapolis goes and shoots all its other tight ends, Clark might sneak into the bottom of the top 10 in targets.

I'm not going to try to figure out tight end targets by team, but it's obvious that Indianapolis was in the bottom half of the league in 2004, and had no TE in the top 25 in targets.

That's not what the data dominator says.If you want to look at TE targets by team you've got Tennessee, Minnesota, and Philadelphia all in the top 10. All three had good production from their WRs.

It's common sense. Imagine you're the coach and you've got a couple of quality WRs. Your opponent drops into a 2-deep zone to compensate. That leaves 7 defenders in the box. You'll either pound the ball or dump it off short. I'm not saying the TE is the only option here but it certainly opens things up underneath. It's just something to keep an eye on as it presents an opportunity for RBs, TEs, or even slot guys (see Hakim when he was with the Rams).

Unless you draft a "team TE" that tells me nothing.I don't care if my TE is on a team that produces the most at that position if the TE that I have to start for my fantasy team only sees a fraction of it.

It does tell you something if you have an open mind. It tells you there is an opportunity there. For example, there is a thread on Dallas Clark right now talking about what his numbers will be with Pollard gone. Will another TE step up and vulture some stats from Clark? Maybe, but the opportunity is there for a TE to put up good numbers if they get all the TE targets. Whether that happens or not depends on many variables. But it's something to keep an eye on.Now you look at a team like the Steelers, who targetted their TEs 28 times last year and you're looking at a situation with that's not worth monitoring as far as TEs go.

 

[Pick]

lol at pick getting owned in this thread

LOL at sheep.

 

[Pick]

Sheesh!  Can a couple of you guys slide over to the FFA to "compare Johnsons" instead of filling up the Shark Pool with "I know you are but what am I?" types of pissing contests?! 

That said, the thing that I haven't really heard yet in this thread (related to Dallas Clark) is the fact that Marcus Pollard will be wearing a Detroit Lions uni in 2005.  Clark's numbers by themselves weren't very impressive at all in 2004:

25 catches

423 yards

5 TDs

However, combine his 2004 stats with Marcus Pollard's 2004 stats and you get:

54 catches

732 yards

11 TDs

If I got 732 yards and 11 TDs out of my starting TE position in the typical 12-16 team league that requires a TE starter, I'd be doing cartwheels!  Obviously, Dallas Clark won't see 100% of Pollard's former targets/touches in 2005.  However, it looks as though the signs are there for Clark to vault into the top TEs in the NFL from a FFL perspective in 2005.......

GET OUT OF THE SHARK POOL WITH THIS CRAP!

Gotta love it. Well at least we know that Pick doesn't have anything substantive to say on this subject. When did the Shark Pool turn into a place where guys were rude to one another and all? If I want rude comments, drunken debates, half-*ss theory and bogus info, I can always participate on the ESPN boards or my local sports radio forums..... I think that Dallas Clark will likely be a top-10 TE in 2005 with 600+ yards and 8-9 TDs (108-114 FPs in most standard scoring leagues). Teyo Johnson isn't even necessarily the best TE on his team's roster. About 17 months ago, I was excited about Teyo Johnson's potential but fortunately decided to dump him after a relatively unknown free agent named "Antonio Gates" caught my eye. I'll tell you though, I'd happily trade up as high as #20 overall in a dynasty league's rookie/FA draft (TE required leagues) if Dallas Clark was still on the board. Let other teams sweat over trying to decide whether to start Crap or Crapper at TE while I have studly injury/bye week insurance and/or trade bait.....

Sarcasm lost on datonn.

 

[Bri]

Good WRs make for good TEs.  If someone locks down the spot, they're worth keeping track of.

Really? 2004 TE Scoring

1. Gates

2. Gonzo

3. Whitten

4. Crumpler

5. McMichael

6. E.Johnson

7. Shockey

What do the top 7 TEs from last year have in common? Bad WRs.

i actually just wrote an article (not here) that details this.to very briefly summarize:

over the past few years there have been 13 instances where TEs have scored over 100 points (top 10% of TEs).

in only one instance one of those TEs was on a team that produced more than the league average at the WR position.

Something not right with this statement. I'm not sure what it is but...Rod Smith has been an excellent WR and McCaff had his years too. Sharpe certainly was a quality TE.

In 94 Brett Jones had 670 yards and 9 TDs. Rice certainly counts as a quality WR.

Novacek was a fine TE and Irvin was excellent. Novacek had 630 yards and 6 TDs in 1992.

Kyle(I don't care for) Brady had 729 yards receiving and Jimmy Smith has been a fine wideout, Keenan is no slouch either.

Keith Jackson had 869 yards while playing with Cris Carter and 505 yards and 10 TDs while Antonio Freeman was Favre's goto guy grabbing 9 TDs himself.

Jeremy Shockey had 894 yards while Amani had 1300.

Mark Chmura had 679 yards and 7TD while Robert Brooks got almost 1500 yards.

Last year, the production the Titans got out of their TEs combined was fabulous and both Bennett and Mason did well.

My head hurts, enough looking at PFR, your theory is flawed, very flawed