Teyo Johnson (1 Viewer)

[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.

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

Excellent! I mentioned the Tennessee TE targets earlier. I also mentioned Philly and Minnesota. Both teams with good WR threats last year and both top-10 in TE targets. Jermaine Wiggins had 91 targets last year (7th). Minnesota as a whole targetted their TEs 112 times.

Think of that as well as the list Bri put up. Good WRs (especially long ball threats) are gonna open things up underneath. Just like a WRs/TEs can benefit from a good running game. Look at St. Louis. Marshall Faulk benefitted from Holt/Bruce/Hakim and vice versa? Not only that, Hakim/Bruce/Holt all benefitted from each other. How one could argue the groups had no effect on the other is beyond me. But that's what I'm hearing in this thread.

Look at Stokley in Indianapolis. The guy did jack in Balitmore and then goes off with the Colts. Lots of factors there with the main one being Peyton Manning. But you can't discount Harrison opening up things for his fellow WRs.

Even Gates and Gonzo have Tomlinson and Priest respectively.

Offensive production at one position will affect production at another area for good or bad. To discount that is folly.

Back to the thread topic: Will Teyo be worth anything next year? I don't think so. Someone will benefit from the Porter/Moss combo. I think it's gonna be a 3rd WR. If Doug Jolley is still in town then I'd say he'd be a breakout threat. Teyo doesn't have the skills to benefit from the opportunity.

But I'll still watch.

 

[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.

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.

So it is your conclusion that the data I have looked at is a giant coincidence?Perhaps it is.

But the 4 TEs you mentioned above had very little help at the WR position.

Is that because the are so good that great WRs didn't get balls thrown their way?

Maybe.

It seems there is enough evidence to show that the WRs lining up next to them are not that good, and therefore these TEs benefit greatly.

I am not saying they do not have talent. They must.

But the formula seems to be:

talent-good WR=stud TE

 

[bagger.]

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

If you are going to criticize a theory, I would suggest knowing what it is. First, wha you are comparing your numbers to do not match what I did my analysis on. I compared TE production to WR1-4 production...you are only looking at WRs 1 or at best 1 and 2. This is not apples to apples so you are missing the boat.Furthermore, I mentioned above that I only went back the past few years. Four to be exact. As such your examples from 1994 and 1992 have nothing to do with my discussion.

Nowhere did I say that if a TE had a solid receiving core that they could not be a top 10 receiver. Rather, that the vast majority did, but there were a couple that bucked this trend.

See 2004 as an example where 8 of the top 10 TEs played on teams that had WR corps that were in the bottom half of the league.

There will still 2 that played on teams with good TEs.

You are picking and choosing TEs who contradict my theory, who in various years were the exception not the rule, and in years too far back to be of any relevance.

Nowhere did I say this was an absolute. However, I did point out a very strong trend. If you don't believe it, all I can do is to tell you to run your own numbers.

But picking and choosing random examples is not statistics. It is selective memory to back up your personal perception of what is right and what is wrong.

 

[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.

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

Excellent! I mentioned the Tennessee TE targets earlier. I also mentioned Philly and Minnesota. Both teams with good WR threats last year and both top-10 in TE targets. Jermaine Wiggins had 91 targets last year (7th). Minnesota as a whole targetted their TEs 112 times.

Think of that as well as the list Bri put up. Good WRs (especially long ball threats) are gonna open things up underneath. Just like a WRs/TEs can benefit from a good running game. Look at St. Louis. Marshall Faulk benefitted from Holt/Bruce/Hakim and vice versa? Not only that, Hakim/Bruce/Holt all benefitted from each other. How one could argue the groups had no effect on the other is beyond me. But that's what I'm hearing in this thread.

Look at Stokley in Indianapolis. The guy did jack in Balitmore and then goes off with the Colts. Lots of factors there with the main one being Peyton Manning. But you can't discount Harrison opening up things for his fellow WRs.

lolyou mentioned wiggins in 2k4 who was one of the 2 exceptions to the rule as was clark.

so we had 8 tes who had wrs that were in the bottom half of the league and 2 others that had qbs that had all-time career years.

hmmm....i a sure it was the wrs on min and ind, not the qbs.

 

[Bri]

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

If you are going to criticize a theory, I would suggest knowing what it is. First, wha you are comparing your numbers to do not match what I did my analysis on. I compared TE production to WR1-4 production...you are only looking at WRs 1 or at best 1 and 2. This is not apples to apples so you are missing the boat.Furthermore, I mentioned above that I only went back the past few years. Four to be exact. As such your examples from 1994 and 1992 have nothing to do with my discussion.

Nowhere did I say that if a TE had a solid receiving core that they could not be a top 10 receiver. Rather, that the vast majority did, but there were a couple that bucked this trend.

See 2004 as an example where 8 of the top 10 TEs played on teams that had WR corps that were in the bottom half of the league.

There will still 2 that played on teams with good TEs.

You are picking and choosing TEs who contradict my theory, who in various years were the exception not the rule, and in years too far back to be of any relevance.

Nowhere did I say this was an absolute. However, I did point out a very strong trend. If you don't believe it, all I can do is to tell you to run your own numbers.

But picking and choosing random examples is not statistics. It is selective memory to back up your personal perception of what is right and what is wrong.

you are extremely hypocritical here.

Nowhere did I say that if a TE had a solid receiving core that they could not be a top 10 receiver. Rather, that the vast majority did, but there were a couple that bucked this trend.

I'm "picking and choosing" by naming some of the best TEs ever? I believe, you can't have a quality TE theory without including most of the folks I mentioned above. I think most football fans would look to the folks I mentioned too. If you disagree, that's your prerogative.You stated a theory, I disproved it.

Big deal, who cares? deep breaths man deep breaths.

Re-work your theory and try again, enjoy the benefits of the many knowledgeable football fans that frequent this board.

Please allow me to give ya a hint "look at WR2 on most of those teams".

 

[bagger.]

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

If you are going to criticize a theory, I would suggest knowing what it is. First, wha you are comparing your numbers to do not match what I did my analysis on. I compared TE production to WR1-4 production...you are only looking at WRs 1 or at best 1 and 2. This is not apples to apples so you are missing the boat.Furthermore, I mentioned above that I only went back the past few years. Four to be exact. As such your examples from 1994 and 1992 have nothing to do with my discussion.

Nowhere did I say that if a TE had a solid receiving core that they could not be a top 10 receiver. Rather, that the vast majority did, but there were a couple that bucked this trend.

See 2004 as an example where 8 of the top 10 TEs played on teams that had WR corps that were in the bottom half of the league.

There will still 2 that played on teams with good TEs.

You are picking and choosing TEs who contradict my theory, who in various years were the exception not the rule, and in years too far back to be of any relevance.

Nowhere did I say this was an absolute. However, I did point out a very strong trend. If you don't believe it, all I can do is to tell you to run your own numbers.

But picking and choosing random examples is not statistics. It is selective memory to back up your personal perception of what is right and what is wrong.

you are extremely hypocritical here.

Nowhere did I say that if a TE had a solid receiving core that they could not be a top 10 receiver.  Rather, that the vast majority did, but there were a couple that bucked this trend.

I'm "picking and choosing" by naming some of the best TEs ever? I believe, you can't have a quality TE theory without including most of the folks I mentioned above. I think most football fans would look to the folks I mentioned too. If you disagree, that's your prerogative.You stated a theory, I disproved it.

Big deal, who cares? deep breaths man deep breaths.

Re-work your theory and try again, enjoy the benefits of the many knowledgeable football fans that frequent this board.

Please allow me to give ya a hint "look at WR2 on most of those teams".

you did not disprove it.

until you actually run some statistics, it will be tough to "disprove" anything.

honestly, re-read what i wrote. carefully.

you will see that over the past 4 years there have been 13 TEs that have scored over 100 points.

of those, only one has been on a team that has had WRs better than the league average.

furthermore, 8 of the top 10 TEs in 2004 were on teams that had its WRs 1-4 below the league average.

so you can randomly pick and choose TEs over the past 15 years that seemingly go against this theory, but until you run all of the numbers, you have no legs to stand on.

again, this is the unfortunate perception dictating what you think are facts, and using your perception to try to dispute facts that i have laid out. it makes for a pretty pointless exercise.

so before you so quickly pat yourself on the back for disproving something, i would actually run some numbers first.

i would actually love someone to try to dispute this who has run #s as well so I am not putting more credence into this than i should.

unfortunately it has only been a couple people who have used faulty logic from a statistical standpoint that have left me

 

[bagger.]

lmfao at your hint.i forget sometimes why i no longer come to the shark pool as much as i used to.the condescending nature of people who have no clue of what they are talking about and try to "help" the people that have been here longer than they have.why don't you look at the WR2 of those teams.i did, and it was not statistically significant.so before you give me any of your "help", know what you're talking about.i am anxiously awaiting your example of a WR2 who in 1974 was on a team with a good TE that disproves my analysis.

 

[wilked]

Bagger is correct here. This whole discussion reminds me of Billy Beane and the book Moneyball, which shows how Beane used statistics to exploit what were 'common conceptions', i.e. misconceptions.

Start with the data, do not start with stories of the great TEs.

 

[bagger.]

Bagger is correct here. This whole discussion reminds me of Billy Beane and the book Moneyball, which shows how Beane used statistics to exploit what were 'common conceptions', i.e. misconceptions.

Start with the data, do not start with stories of the great TEs.

I would love to discuss the theory, but people that are disagreeing with me have done no analysis at all, which makes for a very difficult discussion on my end.

 

[Bri]

the condescending nature of people who have no clue of what they are talking about and try to "help" the people that have been here longer than they have.

so before you give me any of your "help", know what you're talking about.

i am anxiously awaiting your example of a WR2 who in 1974 was on a team with a good TE that disproves my analysis.

Cartboy,I'm bored and you're contradicting or hypocritical responses are plenty entertaining. Shall I take them one by one or just go thru them generally?

I tried to reply in a civil manner, if you choose not to, that's your prerogative. I reread my post and can't figure out what you find condescending. I have noticed plenty in yours toward me. Me, whom you seem to know nothing about yet feel inclined to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.

I did not mention any player from 1974.

Your responses and your theories are all incorrect.

I pointed out many TEs that have played within the last (ballpark) 20 years. Many whom have been prominent players at the TE position. You want to stick to just the last 4 years and consider that a golden theory that we should go on ignoring the rest of football's history. OK fine.

You are not doing that though.

You mention a claim one sec let me paste

you will see that over the past 4 years there have been 13 TEs that have scored over 100 points.

of those, only one has been on a team that has had WRs better than the league average.

Wide Receivers better than the league average? WTF does that mean? Your league or NFL? Average of yards? touchdowns? Fantasy points? Do those points include points per reception or not? Every WR on the team including KR/PR that can play WR? or just some?If I read more of your posts I find you are eventually comparing them to WR 1 thru 4 and not the entire WR corps

furthermore, 8 of the top 10 TEs in 2004 were on teams that had its WRs 1-4 below the league average.

So are we going with 6(generally on a team) WRs or just 1 thru 4?You don't know what the NFL average is in yards for WRs. Go to PFR or Quickstats or download FFLM. Bring up all the WRs and tell me what the average yardage is. Tell me again how only one TE betterred that.

Next explain to me how many teams start 4 WRs?

My followup question would be how come your theory compares TEs to non starting players?

Because you don't care for any TE that had any success in the past but only in the last 4 years, let's roll with that, give Wilkes some more(plenty of stats in my previous post) data.

Let's finally admit that when averaging is simple math. You add up several values and then divide it by the number of values you added. Furthermore, to make an average seem lower you introduce lower numbers. Forget your bringing in WR4 into this theory of broken dreams TEs. I can roll with a 3rd WR but a 4th? cmon what's the point. Well, it's your theory.

Shockey/Toomer, there's one. According to you I found one, I'm done.

Oh wait have to include Ron Dixon and Ike to get 3 WRs. Roughly 2k yards divided by 3....Shockey's more.

Let's look at Tony G, shall we?

1258 yards last year....um no way the average of the top 3 or 4 Chiefs WRs is more than that. Geesh we're up to 2 TEs now.

Does it matter that Tony G disproves your broken dreams TE theory every year for the last 6 years? Does that count as a different player each year or just one player?

Well let's continue, you said there was just one and I am dropping the 4th WR to throw you a bone.

Antonio Gates 1353 yards.

Hmm did the Charger WRs 1-3 or 1-4 average 1353 yards? that's 3.

Wiggins 704 yards. Yardage average against top 4 WRs would be superior, fantasy points(Burleson and Moss TDs) would not.

Past 4 years you say. Although this is 2005, past 4 years of DATA goes back to 2000, or 2001? I'm figuring 2001 since 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001 is 4 years. Nonetheless:

In 2000, Sharpe was the leading WR on the Baltimore Ravens. That's 4.

In 2001, his 811 yards are better than the average of the top 3 or 4 WR on the Ravens. The only stats of note was Qadry's k. In your 4 WR theory, how close was his BACKUP to besting the average of those 4 WRs? Yep, his backup...good theory.

In 2002, Todd Heap was only 35 yards shy of leading the team in receiving. That's 5 players.

In 2003, Heap led the Ravens in receiving. Hmmm

In 2002, Freddie Jones had 358 yards receiving. The highest WR was David Boston at 512 yards. There's 6.

In 2003, Jones almost did it again but not quite.

In 2002, Kyle Brady's 461 yards is more than the average of their top 4 WR in fantasy points or yardage, whichever you prefer. There's 7.

Too lazy to look up Shockey again he may have beat this in other years.

Bubba Franks has had 7 TDs twice and 9 TDs once. His yardage is 3-400 but fantasy points considerred the TDs will make him beat the average of their top 4 WRs. There's 8.

In 2001 Wesley Walls' 452 yards 5 TDs is better than the top 4 WRs. Top WR had less than 600 yards and the WRs combined to have 4 TDs. There's 9.

In 2001, Frank Wycheck's 671 yards bests the average of the Titans top 4 WRs.

That's ten.

you have a nice night, bagger. This was fun, let's do this again soon.

 

[Bri]

and try to "help" the people that have been here longer than they have.

been "here" since "old yeller".Length of time here =/ more knowledgeable person, never seen the Schwab here

 

[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.

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

Bri, these are good examples, but realize that you have named only 9 TEs since 1994 that had "good" WRs. The original contention was that in general good WRs make for good TEs. Now I know your list was not exhaustive, but it appears your examples are the exceptions rather than the rule. You have cited less than 1 TE per year that has had good WRs. I am looking for stronger evidence, like "6 or more out of the top 10 TEs every year have good WRs. Therefore, more often than not, a top TE has good WRs."The fact of the matter is that there were as many TEs in the 2004 top 10 with bad WRs as there are examples you provided of the inverse for the past 11 years. I have not run the numbers like Bagger, but instead, looking at the past few years, I can say with certainty that, more often than not, the top TEs did not have good WRs on their team. Whether or not a team has good WRs will not factor into my 2005 TE rankings. In fact, if the TE has less competition for catches, I may even bump the TE up a few notches.

 

[P Boy]

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

Baaaaaaaaaaah!Huh. Well this sheep plays in a FF league that actually uses statistics to comiles FF points. What kind of league do you play in?

You have done little the refute the facts listed above, yet you act as though you have some unerring logic regarding the TE position and how it plays out in FF.

Then you derisively call the poster names while not refuting those facts with anything other than your attitude, which sucks, and an unimpressive argument that does not refute the one listed above .

Perhaps you can back your argument with something more than condescending caterwauling?

 

[CalBear]

Bri, you totally missed the point.He's looking at WR1-4 to measure whether the team has "good WRs", and then checking to see if the team had a top-10 TE. He's not comparing the scores of the WRs on the team to the TE.

 

[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.

So it is your conclusion that the data I have looked at is a giant coincidence?Perhaps it is.

The data is fine, but you're reading more into it then you should.

But the 4 TEs you mentioned above had very little help at the WR position.

Is that because the are so good that great WRs didn't get balls thrown their way?

Maybe.

You want the ball in the hands of your best player.

It seems there is enough evidence to show that the WRs lining up next to them are not that good, and therefore these TEs benefit greatly.

I am not saying they do not have talent. They must.

But the formula seems to be:

talent-good WR=stud TE

I would say it's more like: talent + opportunity = stud TE. That opportunity can come via good WRs opening things up. It could come via an excellent running game opening things up. It could come with the offense not having other quality options (this is your theory). Lots of variables there and I think you're focusing in on one when others merit consideration.Having said that, if a TE can thrive in a crappy offense, they are worth grabbing.

 

[Pick]

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

If you are going to criticize a theory, I would suggest knowing what it is. First, wha you are comparing your numbers to do not match what I did my analysis on. I compared TE production to WR1-4 production...you are only looking at WRs 1 or at best 1 and 2. This is not apples to apples so you are missing the boat.

Did you ever mention that you were doing the study on WRs 1-4? Irrelevant point anyway. What DC is going into a game thinking "We really need to shut down their #4 WR. He's the one killing everybody"? Using stats from 3s and 4s is just a way to skew the numbers in your favor.

Furthermore, I mentioned above that I only went back the past few years. Four to be exact. As such your examples from 1994 and 1992 have nothing to do with my discussion.

Actually, they do. Unless you only want to look at cases where your theory works.

Nowhere did I say that if a TE had a solid receiving core that they could not be a top 10 receiver. Rather, that the vast majority did, but there were a couple that bucked this trend.

See 2004 as an example where 8 of the top 10 TEs played on teams that had WR corps that were in the bottom half of the league.

But a few guys in this thread are making an argument that WRs have no effect on the TE.

You are picking and choosing TEs who contradict my theory, who in various years were the exception not the rule, and in years too far back to be of any relevance.

Folks ask for examples and then cry foul when examples are presented.

Nowhere did I say this was an absolute. However, I did point out a very strong trend. If you don't believe it, all I can do is to tell you to run your own numbers.

But picking and choosing random examples is not statistics. It is selective memory to back up your personal perception of what is right and what is wrong.

That's just not true.

 

[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.

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

Excellent! I mentioned the Tennessee TE targets earlier. I also mentioned Philly and Minnesota. Both teams with good WR threats last year and both top-10 in TE targets. Jermaine Wiggins had 91 targets last year (7th). Minnesota as a whole targetted their TEs 112 times.

Think of that as well as the list Bri put up. Good WRs (especially long ball threats) are gonna open things up underneath. Just like a WRs/TEs can benefit from a good running game. Look at St. Louis. Marshall Faulk benefitted from Holt/Bruce/Hakim and vice versa? Not only that, Hakim/Bruce/Holt all benefitted from each other. How one could argue the groups had no effect on the other is beyond me. But that's what I'm hearing in this thread.

Look at Stokley in Indianapolis. The guy did jack in Balitmore and then goes off with the Colts. Lots of factors there with the main one being Peyton Manning. But you can't discount Harrison opening up things for his fellow WRs.

lolyou mentioned wiggins in 2k4 who was one of the 2 exceptions to the rule as was clark.

so we had 8 tes who had wrs that were in the bottom half of the league and 2 others that had qbs that had all-time career years.

hmmm....i a sure it was the wrs on min and ind, not the qbs.

QBs can play a factor for TE production. So can a running game. I've mentioned this. There are lots of factors going into TE production. Are you saying Moss and Harrison had zero to do with the TE targets of their respective teams?

 

[Pick]

i would actually love someone to try to dispute this who has run #s as well so I am not putting more credence into this than i should.

unfortunately it has only been a couple people who have used faulty logic from a statistical standpoint that have left me

Unfortunately, you're gonna use this line no matter what comes at you. Hey, go ahead and turn in your article as is. I'd love to see how that works out. My guess is you'll tweak it enough to cover your ### that has been exposed.

 

[wilked]

Bagger's analysis shows that excellent TEs (measured via fantasy football) are almost always on teams with poor WRs (as measured via fantasy football). Use it for what it is intended - to help you avoid the TE on a team with good WRs, and focus on good TEs who play for teams with poor WRs. The numbers within the last 4 years are actually quite convincing of this.

 

[Pick]

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

Baaaaaaaaaaah!Huh. Well this sheep plays in a FF league that actually uses statistics to comiles FF points. What kind of league do you play in?

You have done little the refute the facts listed above, yet you act as though you have some unerring logic regarding the TE position and how it plays out in FF.

Then you derisively call the poster names while not refuting those facts with anything other than your attitude, which sucks, and an unimpressive argument that does not refute the one listed above .

Perhaps you can back your argument with something more than condescending caterwauling?

Being right is fun when guys like you go nuts.

 

[wilked]

i would actually love someone to try to dispute this who has run #s as well so I am not putting more credence into this than i should.

unfortunately it has only been a couple people who have used faulty logic from a statistical standpoint that have left me

Unfortunately, you're gonna use this line no matter what comes at you. Hey, go ahead and turn in your article as is. I'd love to see how that works out. My guess is you'll tweak it enough to cover your ### that has been exposed.

The theory has already been tested against last year's preseason predictions, and has been shown to work quite well

 

[Pick]

Again, offensive production at one position will affect production at another for good or bad. To discount that is folly. You don't need stats to back that up. It's common sense.Disprove please.

 

[Bri]

Bri, you totally missed the point.

He's looking at WR1-4 to measure whether the team has "good WRs", and then checking to see if the team had a top-10 TE. He's not comparing the scores of the WRs on the team to the TE.

I did this in my first post and he replied something about bringing up WRs+TEs from 1974. Steel I mentioned plenty more examples in my second post.

I have no clue what he means by "average WR." As I pointed out in my post that can mean so many different things like team average? league average? NFL average? average compared to whole NFL? just starters?

I'm sorry but in waking up and rereading I've thought of a few things.

I get the impression that bagger will change this "average" to suit his theory. As I pointed out above, it could pretty much be anything.

I don't care for my post and well sorry, bagger. Regardless of your replies I did not need to reply with any backhanded insults. I apologize.

 

[Pick]

I don't care for my post and well sorry, bagger. Regardless of your replies I did not need to reply with any backhanded insults. I apologize.

Leave that to me.

 

[wilked]

offensive production at one position will affect production at another for good or bad.

Disprove please.

Great analysis here

 

[*****]

Eating paint makes colors smell funny. Sorry..this thread made me light-headed.

 

[bagger.]

you will see that over the past 4 years there have been 13 TEs that have scored over 100 points.

of those, only one has been on a team that has had WRs better than the league average.

Wide Receivers better than the league average? WTF does that mean? Your league or NFL? Average of yards? touchdowns? Fantasy points? Do those points include points per reception or not? Every WR on the team including KR/PR that can play WR? or just some?If I read more of your posts I find you are eventually comparing them to WR 1 thru 4 and not the entire WR corps

furthermore, 8 of the top 10 TEs in 2004 were on teams that had its WRs 1-4 below the league average.

So are we going with 6(generally on a team) WRs or just 1 thru 4?

I see the problem here. You didn't understand what I meant, since I was not posting the entire article so I'll break it down for you.WR 1-4 of fantasy production with standard league scoring at the WR and TE position (though no points for receptions).

In many cases the entire WR corps was only 4 players, and if there was a fifth of sixth WR, their contributions were so minimal that we excluded them in our analysis so we could be comparing apples to apples across all teams.

We ran the mean fantasy production of WR1-4 for each team and averaged them over the last four years. In those four years only once was a TE on a team that had WRs that scored more than that average.

You don't know what the NFL average is in yards for WRs. Go to PFR or Quickstats or download FFLM. Bring up all the WRs and tell me what the average yardage is. Tell me again how only one TE betterred that.

Again, you do not understand what I am saying at all. I never said a TE bettered that. Perhaps this post clarifies it to an extent.

Next explain to me how many teams start 4 WRs?

What does that have to do with anything?

My followup question would be how come your theory compares TEs to non starting players?

Because you don't care for any TE that had any success in the past but only in the last 4 years, let's roll with that, give Wilkes some more(plenty of stats in my previous post) data.

Let's finally admit that when averaging is simple math. You add up several values and then divide it by the number of values you added. Furthermore, to make an average seem lower you introduce lower numbers. Forget your bringing in WR4 into this theory of broken dreams TEs. I can roll with a 3rd WR but a 4th? cmon what's the point. Well, it's your theory.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. You seem to be discounting my analysis when you have not looked at the data or the methodolgy used.

Shockey/Toomer, there's one. According to you I found one, I'm done.

Oh wait have to include Ron Dixon and Ike to get 3 WRs. Roughly 2k yards divided by 3....Shockey's more.

Let's look at Tony G, shall we?

1258 yards last year....um no way the average of the top 3 or 4 Chiefs WRs is more than that. Geesh we're up to 2 TEs now.

Does it matter that Tony G disproves your broken dreams TE theory every year for the last 6 years? Does that count as a different player each year or just one player?

Well let's continue, you said there was just one and I am dropping the 4th WR to throw you a bone.

Antonio Gates 1353 yards.

Hmm did the Charger WRs 1-3 or 1-4 average 1353 yards? that's 3.

Wiggins 704 yards. Yardage average against top 4 WRs would be superior, fantasy points(Burleson and Moss TDs) would not.

Past 4 years you say. Although this is 2005, past 4 years of DATA goes back to 2000, or 2001? I'm figuring 2001 since 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001 is 4 years. Nonetheless:

In 2000, Sharpe was the leading WR on the Baltimore Ravens. That's 4.

In 2001, his 811 yards are better than the average of the top 3 or 4 WR on the Ravens. The only stats of note was Qadry's k. In your 4 WR theory, how close was his BACKUP to besting the average of those 4 WRs? Yep, his backup...good theory.

In 2002, Todd Heap was only 35 yards shy of leading the team in receiving. That's 5 players.

In 2003, Heap led the Ravens in receiving. Hmmm

In 2002, Freddie Jones had 358 yards receiving. The highest WR was David Boston at 512 yards. There's 6.

In 2003, Jones almost did it again but not quite.

In 2002, Kyle Brady's 461 yards is more than the average of their top 4 WR in fantasy points or yardage, whichever you prefer. There's 7.

Too lazy to look up Shockey again he may have beat this in other years.

Bubba Franks has had 7 TDs twice and 9 TDs once. His yardage is 3-400 but fantasy points considerred the TDs will make him beat the average of their top 4 WRs. There's 8.

In 2001 Wesley Walls' 452 yards 5 TDs is better than the top 4 WRs. Top WR had less than 600 yards and the WRs combined to have 4 TDs. There's 9.

In 2001, Frank Wycheck's 671 yards bests the average of the Titans top 4 WRs.

That's ten.

you have a nice night, bagger. This was fun, let's do this again soon.

Many on the list you just posted helps prove my theory (that good TEs are on teams with bad WRs).Heap, Sharpe on the Ravens, Gates on the Chargers, etc.

But again it appears you have totally missed the point. We are not comparing TE production to WR production on the same team, as you are seemingly doing. Why, I have no idea.

Honestly, understand what we are talking about here, and then come back to the discussion. You completely misunderstand the exercise and your examples have no bearing on what we are talking about.

Perhaps that is because I did not post the article in full that breaks out specifically what I did. So I'll admit that partially it may be my fault that you don't understand what we are discussing. However, I assumed people would ask questions if they didn't understand or wanted further clarification.

Instead you rattled off examples that had no bearing on the discussion, or were outside of the scope of my analysis, or were the exceptions to the rule.

I am not going to try to convince you that what I am saying is correct. You have to be willing to look at the data with an open mind in order for that to happen.

So you continue to draft TEs that have WRs in the top half of the league when it comes to fantasy production. Maybe you'll hit that exception every time.

 

[bagger.]

Bri, you totally missed the point.

He's looking at WR1-4 to measure whether the team has "good WRs", and then checking to see if the team had a top-10 TE.  He's not comparing the scores of the WRs on the team to the TE.

I get the impression that bagger will change this "average" to suit his theory. As I pointed out above, it could pretty much be anything.

Don't ever insinuate that my analysis that I turn into a site will be manipulated to achieve some end result.

I went into the analysis curious of this trend and how convincing it was. It turned out more convincing than I originally thought.

I wish I could post the analysis here so we could really get into the details but I probably have already said more than I should.

I posted a finding that I thought would be useful to some here and a couple people #### all over it without any solid analysis of their own.

It's not the fact that people disagree. As many can attest to, I love good debates over fantasy football theories. However, it's how they do and the manner of how they know they are right without any solid work on their own. It seems the less analysis they do, the more they are convinced they are correct.

 

[bagger.]

I don't care for my post and well sorry, bagger. Regardless of your replies I did not need to reply with any backhanded insults. I apologize.

Leave that to me.

 

[Gold Dragon]

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.

Nice stats. But which is the cause and which is the effect?

 

[Bri]

you will see that over the past 4 years there have been 13 TEs that have scored over 100 points.

of those, only one has been on a team that has had WRs better than the league average.

Wide Receivers better than the league average? WTF does that mean? Your league or NFL? Average of yards? touchdowns? Fantasy points? Do those points include points per reception or not? Every WR on the team including KR/PR that can play WR? or just some?If I read more of your posts I find you are eventually comparing them to WR 1 thru 4 and not the entire WR corps

furthermore, 8 of the top 10 TEs in 2004 were on teams that had its WRs 1-4 below the league average.

So are we going with 6(generally on a team) WRs or just 1 thru 4?

I see the problem here. You didn't understand what I meant, since I was not posting the entire article so I'll break it down for you.WR 1-4 of fantasy production with standard league scoring at the WR and TE position (though no points for receptions).

In many cases the entire WR corps was only 4 players, and if there was a fifth of sixth WR, their contributions were so minimal that we excluded them in our analysis so we could be comparing apples to apples across all teams.

We ran the mean fantasy production of WR1-4 for each team and averaged them over the last four years. In those four years only once was a TE on a team that had WRs that scored more than that average.

You don't know what the NFL average is in yards for WRs. Go to PFR or Quickstats or download FFLM. Bring up all the WRs and tell me what the average yardage is. Tell me again how only one TE betterred that.

Again, you do not understand what I am saying at all. I never said a TE bettered that. Perhaps this post clarifies it to an extent.

Next explain to me how many teams start 4 WRs?

What does that have to do with anything?

My followup question would be how come your theory compares TEs to non starting players?

Because you don't care for any TE that had any success in the past but only in the last 4 years, let's roll with that, give Wilkes some more(plenty of stats in my previous post) data.

Let's finally admit that when averaging is simple math. You add up several values and then divide it by the number of values you added. Furthermore, to make an average seem lower you introduce lower numbers. Forget your bringing in WR4 into this theory of broken dreams TEs. I can roll with a 3rd WR but a 4th? cmon what's the point. Well, it's your theory.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. You seem to be discounting my analysis when you have not looked at the data or the methodolgy used.

Shockey/Toomer, there's one. According to you I found one, I'm done.

Oh wait have to include Ron Dixon and Ike to get 3 WRs. Roughly 2k yards divided by 3....Shockey's more.

Let's look at Tony G, shall we?

1258 yards last year....um no way the average of the top 3 or 4 Chiefs WRs is more than that. Geesh we're up to 2 TEs now.

Does it matter that Tony G disproves your broken dreams TE theory every year for the last 6 years? Does that count as a different player each year or just one player?

Well let's continue, you said there was just one and I am dropping the 4th WR to throw you a bone.

Antonio Gates 1353 yards.

Hmm did the Charger WRs 1-3 or 1-4 average 1353 yards? that's 3.

Wiggins 704 yards. Yardage average against top 4 WRs would be superior, fantasy points(Burleson and Moss TDs) would not.

Past 4 years you say. Although this is 2005, past 4 years of DATA goes back to 2000, or 2001? I'm figuring 2001 since 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001 is 4 years. Nonetheless:

In 2000, Sharpe was the leading WR on the Baltimore Ravens. That's 4.

In 2001, his 811 yards are better than the average of the top 3 or 4 WR on the Ravens. The only stats of note was Qadry's k. In your 4 WR theory, how close was his BACKUP to besting the average of those 4 WRs? Yep, his backup...good theory.

In 2002, Todd Heap was only 35 yards shy of leading the team in receiving. That's 5 players.

In 2003, Heap led the Ravens in receiving. Hmmm

In 2002, Freddie Jones had 358 yards receiving. The highest WR was David Boston at 512 yards. There's 6.

In 2003, Jones almost did it again but not quite.

In 2002, Kyle Brady's 461 yards is more than the average of their top 4 WR in fantasy points or yardage, whichever you prefer. There's 7.

Too lazy to look up Shockey again he may have beat this in other years.

Bubba Franks has had 7 TDs twice and 9 TDs once. His yardage is 3-400 but fantasy points considerred the TDs will make him beat the average of their top 4 WRs. There's 8.

In 2001 Wesley Walls' 452 yards 5 TDs is better than the top 4 WRs. Top WR had less than 600 yards and the WRs combined to have 4 TDs. There's 9.

In 2001, Frank Wycheck's 671 yards bests the average of the Titans top 4 WRs.

That's ten.

you have a nice night, bagger. This was fun, let's do this again soon.

Many on the list you just posted helps prove my theory (that good TEs are on teams with bad WRs).Heap, Sharpe on the Ravens, Gates on the Chargers, etc.

But again it appears you have totally missed the point. We are not comparing TE production to WR production on the same team, as you are seemingly doing. Why, I have no idea.

Honestly, understand what we are talking about here, and then come back to the discussion. You completely misunderstand the exercise and your examples have no bearing on what we are talking about.

Instead you rattled off examples that had no bearing on the discussion, or were outside of the scope of my analysis, or were the exceptions to the rule.

I am not going to try to convince you that what I am saying is correct. You have to be willing to look at the data with an open mind in order for that to happen.

So you continue to draft TEs that have WRs in the top half of the league when it comes to fantasy production. Maybe you'll hit that exception every time.

As for your quote

Many on the list you just posted helps prove my theory (that good TEs are on teams with bad WRs).

I believe Jimmy Smith, Anquan Boldin, Derrick Mason, Muhsin, Steve Smith, Keenan, and Amani have all had over 1000 yards receiving and other FF folks would consider them good WRs and disagree with you. As you mentioned Gates and Heap didn't have the greatest WRs lining up with them. Of the players mentioned there are some on one side of this argument and some on the other side. It is clearly more than just 1 as you stated and proves that there is little merit to your theory as both sides are represented well.I find the boldfaced items to be contradictory.

You are persistent in asking me to "know what I'm talking about" and "show some data" and when I do you ignore it. Despite your statements to the contrary, you obviously don't want to debate this or be disproven. You want people to bow and accept your theory as the golden rule.

Sorry but I won't do that.

 

[wilked]

I believe Jimmy Smith, Anquan Boldin, Derrick Mason, Muhsin, Steve Smith, Keenan, and Amani have all had over 1000 yards receiving and other FF folks would consider them good WRs and disagree with you.

I think bagger is referring to WRs, not just 1. Just because Michael Clayton had ~1200 yds last year, does not mean that Tampa was above average in WRs (in fact, they were below)

 

[Pick]

So, bagger, are you saying that we should draft talented TEs who have an opportunity to get a lot of targets? Cuz I agree but I don't see how this is new info.

 

[bagger.]

I believe Jimmy Smith, Anquan Boldin, Derrick Mason, Muhsin, Steve Smith, Keenan, and Amani have all had over 1000 yards receiving and other FF folks would consider them good WRs and disagree with you.

I think bagger is referring to WRs, not just 1. Just because Michael Clayton had ~1200 yds last year, does not mean that Tampa was above average in WRs (in fact, they were below)

 

[bagger.]

So, bagger, are you saying that we should draft talented TEs who have an opportunity to get a lot of targets? Cuz I agree but I don't see how this is new info.

Take it or leave it. But I believe you were disagreeing with this "old info" earlier in this thread.

I personally will be looking a little harder at TEs on teams that I project to produce less than the mean at the WR position. I should see if there are potential break out candidates, moreso than teams that produce above the mean at that position. If I am going to try to pick a break out TE that I can have late in a draft but who I hope will produce stud TE numbers, I am much better off drafting one on a team who has wide receiver that fit this criteria.

 

[bagger.]

You want people to bow and accept your theory as the golden rule.

Sorry but I won't do that.

I was just pointing out something I thought might be useful to others.

I won't make that mistake at this site again.

 

[Pick]

So, bagger, are you saying that we should draft talented TEs who have an opportunity to get a lot of targets?  Cuz I agree but I don't see how this is new info.

Take it or leave it. But I believe you were disagreeing with this "old info" earlier in this thread.

I was disagreeing with what causes those targets. I believe there are many factors. You are banking on one cause.

I personally will be looking a little harder at TEs on teams that I project to produce less than the mean at the WR position. I should see if there are potential break out candidates, moreso than teams that produce above the mean at that position. If I am going to try to pick a break out TE that I can have late in a draft but who I hope will produce stud TE numbers, I am much better off drafting one on a team who has wide receiver that fit this criteria.

You sound like the guys who were high on Desmond Clark. Look forward to seeing your article.

 

[Marc Levin]

The truth is that the best receiving TEs (at least in terms of rec. and yardage - Franks did really well as a fantasty TE just catching TDs) come from teams that drafted a good receiving TE, play two-TE sets, have a lack of a viable downfield threat (not poor WRs - but WRs who can't stretch the D), OLs that have difficulty protecting the QB for a long period of time, and a QB that is used to throwing to the TE.Please don't cite Gonzo as a counter to any point - Gonzo is a freak as a receiving TE.

 

[bagger.]

The truth is that the best receiving TEs (at least in terms of rec. and yardage - Franks did really well as a fantasty TE just catching TDs) come from teams that drafted a good receiving TE, play two-TE sets, have a lack of a viable downfield threat (not poor WRs - but WRs who can't stretch the D), OLs that have difficulty protecting the QB for a long period of time, and a QB that is used to throwing to the TE.

Please don't cite Gonzo as a counter to any point - Gonzo is a freak as a receiving TE.

That very well may be true. However, what I am concerned with is fantasy production.Furthermore, how do you quantify much of what you said above? It is very subjective to say what OLs have difficulty protecting QBs and what QB is "used to" throwing to a TE.

That criteria may be nice to look at once you have narrowed down your list of TEs, but is difficult to do across every team in the NFL.

Like I said, take the bottom half of the teams in terms of WR fantasy production and that gives you a great starting point. From there you can start to use more subjective features such as what you list above.

 

[Marc Levin]

The truth is that the best receiving TEs (at least in terms of rec. and yardage - Franks did really well as a fantasty TE just catching TDs) come from teams that drafted a good receiving TE, play two-TE sets, have a lack of a viable downfield threat (not poor WRs - but WRs who can't stretch the D), OLs that have difficulty protecting the QB for a long period of time, and a QB that is used to throwing to the TE.

Please don't cite Gonzo as a counter to any point - Gonzo is a freak as a receiving TE.

That very well may be true. However, what I am concerned with is fantasy production.Furthermore, how do you quantify much of what you said above? It is very subjective to say what OLs have difficulty protecting QBs and what QB is "used to" throwing to a TE.

That criteria may be nice to look at once you have narrowed down your list of TEs, but is difficult to do across every team in the NFL.

Like I said, take the bottom half of the teams in terms of WR fantasy production and that gives you a great starting point. From there you can start to use more subjective features such as what you list above.

I can't do it "objectively" b/c a lot of this occurs over the course of the year, and percentage of 2-TE sets is not a stat I know how to find.I do know that QBs "used to" throwing to TEs include any Tenn. QB and any Baltimore QB. Two Te sets are very prevelant in the AFC South and in AFC West - where there are quite a few prolific TEs.

Two TE sts are also endemic to strong rushing Os.

I can't do it "objectively" but if you are looking for a TE to emerge from the mid-range pack to cathc a lot of rec and yards, I'd start with my criteria.

It is one of the reasons I am droooling over the value Ben Troupe represents - along with Doug Jolley (since I understand the Heimer . . . offenses consist of a buttload if 2-TE sets).

 

[Pick]

The truth is that the best receiving TEs (at least in terms of rec. and yardage - Franks did really well as a fantasty TE just catching TDs) come from teams that drafted a good receiving TE, play two-TE sets, have a lack of a viable downfield threat (not poor WRs - but WRs who can't stretch the D), OLs that have difficulty protecting the QB for a long period of time, and a QB that is used to throwing to the TE.

Please don't cite Gonzo as a counter to any point - Gonzo is a freak as a receiving TE.

I may disagree with some of your reasoning there but at least you're looking at all the variables. As far as citing Gonzo, you might as well say the same for Gates, Crumpler, Shockey, Heap, and friends. Freak TEs are gonna get theirs no matter the system.

 

[Pick]

The truth is that the best receiving TEs (at least in terms of rec. and yardage - Franks did really well as a fantasty TE just catching TDs) come from teams that drafted a good receiving TE, play two-TE sets, have a lack of a viable downfield threat (not poor WRs - but WRs who can't stretch the D), OLs that have difficulty protecting the QB for a long period of time, and a QB that is used to throwing to the TE.

Please don't cite Gonzo as a counter to any point - Gonzo is a freak as a receiving TE.

That very well may be true. However, what I am concerned with is fantasy production.Furthermore, how do you quantify much of what you said above? It is very subjective to say what OLs have difficulty protecting QBs and what QB is "used to" throwing to a TE.

That criteria may be nice to look at once you have narrowed down your list of TEs, but is difficult to do across every team in the NFL.

Like I said, take the bottom half of the teams in terms of WR fantasy production and that gives you a great starting point. From there you can start to use more subjective features such as what you list above.

I can't do it "objectively" b/c a lot of this occurs over the course of the year, and percentage of 2-TE sets is not a stat I know how to find.I do know that QBs "used to" throwing to TEs include any Tenn. QB and any Baltimore QB. Two Te sets are very prevelant in the AFC South and in AFC West - where there are quite a few prolific TEs.

Two TE sts are also endemic to strong rushing Os.

I can't do it "objectively" but if you are looking for a TE to emerge from the mid-range pack to cathc a lot of rec and yards, I'd start with my criteria.

It is one of the reasons I am droooling over the value Ben Troupe represents - along with Doug Jolley (since I understand the Heimer . . . offenses consist of a buttload if 2-TE sets).

But how do you feel about Teyo and his situation? And are those feelings influenced by the presence of Moss/Porter?

 

[bagger.]

The truth is that the best receiving TEs (at least in terms of rec. and yardage - Franks did really well as a fantasty TE just catching TDs) come from teams that drafted a good receiving TE, play two-TE sets, have a lack of a viable downfield threat (not poor WRs - but WRs who can't stretch the D), OLs that have difficulty protecting the QB for a long period of time, and a QB that is used to throwing to the TE.

Please don't cite Gonzo as a counter to any point - Gonzo is a freak as a receiving TE.

That very well may be true. However, what I am concerned with is fantasy production.Furthermore, how do you quantify much of what you said above? It is very subjective to say what OLs have difficulty protecting QBs and what QB is "used to" throwing to a TE.

That criteria may be nice to look at once you have narrowed down your list of TEs, but is difficult to do across every team in the NFL.

Like I said, take the bottom half of the teams in terms of WR fantasy production and that gives you a great starting point. From there you can start to use more subjective features such as what you list above.

I can't do it "objectively" b/c a lot of this occurs over the course of the year, and percentage of 2-TE sets is not a stat I know how to find.I do know that QBs "used to" throwing to TEs include any Tenn. QB and any Baltimore QB. Two Te sets are very prevelant in the AFC South and in AFC West - where there are quite a few prolific TEs.

Two TE sts are also endemic to strong rushing Os.

I can't do it "objectively" but if you are looking for a TE to emerge from the mid-range pack to cathc a lot of rec and yards, I'd start with my criteria.

It is one of the reasons I am droooling over the value Ben Troupe represents - along with Doug Jolley (since I understand the Heimer . . . offenses consist of a buttload if 2-TE sets).

i am HUGE on ben troupe this year.i have him as the #6 TE.

 

[Marc Levin]

The truth is that the best receiving TEs (at least in terms of rec. and yardage - Franks did really well as a fantasty TE just catching TDs) come from teams that drafted a good receiving TE, play two-TE sets, have a lack of a viable downfield threat (not poor WRs - but WRs who can't stretch the D), OLs that have difficulty protecting the QB for a long period of time, and a QB that is used to throwing to the TE.

Please don't cite Gonzo as a counter to any point - Gonzo is a freak as a receiving TE.

That very well may be true. However, what I am concerned with is fantasy production.Furthermore, how do you quantify much of what you said above? It is very subjective to say what OLs have difficulty protecting QBs and what QB is "used to" throwing to a TE.

That criteria may be nice to look at once you have narrowed down your list of TEs, but is difficult to do across every team in the NFL.

Like I said, take the bottom half of the teams in terms of WR fantasy production and that gives you a great starting point. From there you can start to use more subjective features such as what you list above.

I can't do it "objectively" b/c a lot of this occurs over the course of the year, and percentage of 2-TE sets is not a stat I know how to find.I do know that QBs "used to" throwing to TEs include any Tenn. QB and any Baltimore QB. Two Te sets are very prevelant in the AFC South and in AFC West - where there are quite a few prolific TEs.

Two TE sts are also endemic to strong rushing Os.

I can't do it "objectively" but if you are looking for a TE to emerge from the mid-range pack to cathc a lot of rec and yards, I'd start with my criteria.

It is one of the reasons I am droooling over the value Ben Troupe represents - along with Doug Jolley (since I understand the Heimer . . . offenses consist of a buttload if 2-TE sets).

But how do you feel about Teyo and his situation? And are those feelings influenced by the presence of Moss/Porter?

Yeah - I am not as high on Teyo as some others may be. I like him a LOT as a receiver b/c hehas demonstrable skills, but I am not convinced his situation will be as TE-friendly as others, esp. given my criteria.

 

[Marc Levin]

The truth is that the best receiving TEs (at least in terms of rec. and yardage - Franks did really well as a fantasty TE just catching TDs) come from teams that drafted a good receiving TE, play two-TE sets, have a lack of a viable downfield threat (not poor WRs - but WRs who can't stretch the D), OLs that have difficulty protecting the QB for a long period of time, and a QB that is used to throwing to the TE.

Please don't cite Gonzo as a counter to any point - Gonzo is a freak as a receiving TE.

That very well may be true. However, what I am concerned with is fantasy production.Furthermore, how do you quantify much of what you said above? It is very subjective to say what OLs have difficulty protecting QBs and what QB is "used to" throwing to a TE.

That criteria may be nice to look at once you have narrowed down your list of TEs, but is difficult to do across every team in the NFL.

Like I said, take the bottom half of the teams in terms of WR fantasy production and that gives you a great starting point. From there you can start to use more subjective features such as what you list above.

I can't do it "objectively" b/c a lot of this occurs over the course of the year, and percentage of 2-TE sets is not a stat I know how to find.I do know that QBs "used to" throwing to TEs include any Tenn. QB and any Baltimore QB. Two Te sets are very prevelant in the AFC South and in AFC West - where there are quite a few prolific TEs.

Two TE sts are also endemic to strong rushing Os.

I can't do it "objectively" but if you are looking for a TE to emerge from the mid-range pack to cathc a lot of rec and yards, I'd start with my criteria.

It is one of the reasons I am droooling over the value Ben Troupe represents - along with Doug Jolley (since I understand the Heimer . . . offenses consist of a buttload if 2-TE sets).

i am HUGE on ben troupe this year.i have him as the #6 TE.

And probably, like me, expect to be able to get him as the #12/#13 TE off the board.With Gates, I could consistently get him as a mid-starter TE in the 7th or later - and he had much more demonstrable upside than Troupe - with Troupe, I expect I'll be able to add him almost at will to any/all my teams this year.

 

[CalBear]

Uh, what skills has Teyo Johnson demonstrated? He has demonstrated athleticism, not receiving or other TE skills.

 

[Marc Levin]

Uh, what skills has Teyo Johnson demonstrated? He has demonstrated athleticism, not receiving or other TE skills.

You - CalBear - didn't think he was a good receiver in college??

 

[CalBear]

Uh, what skills has Teyo Johnson demonstrated? He has demonstrated athleticism, not receiving or other TE skills.

You - CalBear - didn't think he was a good receiver in college??

He was a terrible receiver in college. We had no one who could match up with him physically, but he still couldn't do anything because he runs bad routes and just can't catch.His best year in college was something like 430 yards receiving.

 

[Marc Levin]

Uh, what skills has Teyo Johnson demonstrated?  He has demonstrated athleticism, not receiving or other TE skills.

You - CalBear - didn't think he was a good receiver in college??

He was a terrible receiver in college. We had no one who could match up with him physically, but he still couldn't do anything because he runs bad routes and just can't catch.His best year in college was something like 430 yards receiving.

Might explain his constant demotion in 2004 to second string - and maybe one more reason to not expect much from him in 2005 and pick the TE the team ditched as your TE instead.

 

[The Steel]

bumpTeyo Johnson was cut.