Official Malcolm Mitchell Thread

[Statorama 2,883]

Starting with confidence

[Team Smokin' 256]

8 hours ago, Statorama said:

Starting with confidence

So you can sleep like a baby? The Guru - haha. I hope you're right! I too feel confident that he will have a good game, be nice if it was a great game!

[Interseptopus 5,722]

13 hours ago, menobrown said:

No not really. Pretty easy for Brady to toss for 220-250, 1-2 TD's and if as usual he does not turn it over then will work out to not a good matchup for Brady or Denver D.

You got a QB who has only been picked once and a defense that has only given up two or more passing TD's in two games. That's a bad matchup for both.

 

 

 

so you wouldn't start a defense that would potentially give up only 7-14  points?

[Interseptopus 5,722]

Kelce having a pretty good game gives me a nice head start so I'm getting more comfortable starting this guy. Siemian doesn't look like he's going to go. in that case DT is benched for me. if he does go I am strongly leaning toward benching diggs

Edited December 9, 2016 by Dr. Brew

[Tommy Collins 272]

17 hours ago, LionOfGosforth said:

Struggling mightily between him and Moncrief. Moncrief's TD streak has to end sometime right? and without them, his yardage totals have been pitiful. Have Mitchell in right now but leery. I don't think a donut or like 2/19 is very likely, Ravens haven't been good against the pass but that might be too simplistic. 

I'm rolling with Mitchell over Moncrief. I just started Cooper and that was a disappointment. The Texans haven't been great the past few weeks, but Moncrief is so TD dependent that I don't feel comfortable with him. I haven't trusted him much since he's returned from injury despite having to start him a couple of times. I really hate relying on TDs because sooner or later he's not going to score. Mitchell has the ability to put up points even if he doesn't score, which is why I'm leaning toward him. 

[Cowboysfan8 7,612]

1 hour ago, Dr. Brew said:

Kelce having a pretty good game gives me a nice head start so I'm getting more comfortable starting this guy. Siemian doesn't look like he's going to go. in that case DT is benched for me. if he does go I am strongly leaning toward benching diggs

Link?

Siemian practiced Wed and Thurs per rotoworld.

[Interseptopus 5,722]

8 minutes ago, Cowboysfan8 said:

Link?

Siemian practiced Wed and Thurs per rotoworld.

From this morning's free FBG e-mail update

Quote

18. DEN - QB Trevor Siemian still limited

Source: The Tennessean - Jim Wyatt

Denver Broncos QB Trevor Siemian (foot) was a limited participant in practice Thursday, Dec. 8.

[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ FOOTBALLGUYS VIEW ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]

We don't love his outlook, despite facing a vulnerable Titans defense. We're tentatively placing him as a borderline QB2/QB3 assuming he plays. We have seen him go off a few times before his injury, but between his general inconsistency and our concerns that the injury is going to limit what he can do, we're cool on his prospects.

Doesn't seem a lock to play. Something to keep an eye on for sure. 

Edited December 9, 2016 by Dr. Brew

[Statorama 2,883]

3 hours ago, Team Smokin' said:

So you can sleep like a baby? The Guru - haha. I hope you're right! I too feel confident that he will have a good game, be nice if it was a great game!

He passes the eye test with me.  Kid looks like a legit player and seems better each week.

[menobrown 3,699]

3 hours ago, Dr. Brew said:

so you wouldn't start a defense that would potentially give up only 7-14  points?

Points don't mean much in leagues I play in so not much of a factor, no difference between a defense giving up 11 or 41. Even 7-10 only gets you 5 points. So to answer your question I would prioritize trying to find a defense with a better chance of creating turnovers than playing against a QB who almost never turns it over.

[Interseptopus 5,722]

2 hours ago, menobrown said:

Points don't mean much in leagues I play in so not much of a factor, no difference between a defense giving up 11 or 41. Even 7-10 only gets you 5 points. So to answer your question I would prioritize trying to find a defense with a better chance of creating turnovers than playing against a QB who almost never turns it over.

fair. I would agree. the majority of points for defenses in my league come off turn overs and sacks etc. 

I've had defenses that allow 30 or so points but still done quite well due to return yards. so there's that to consider but you've made good points

[SoBeDad 2,243]

Hogan is completely healthy. Does that reduce Mitchell's upside?

[Bugg 17]

No, imo, his Gronkless upside remains, "NE's primary red zone option in the passing game, with the ability to contribute at all depth levels on the field".  However, upside can be fickle.  

If anything, Hogan's health lowers his floor.  To what degree, I am not yet sure...but hey, nothing is really sure about MM yet.

[Anarchy99 6,135]

With the caveat that every season, every roster, player injuries, and individual game plans are always different, here's how the Pats have used their WRs against the Ravens over the past 10 years. You can see how their RBs have fared vs. BAL in the Dion Lewis thread.

2014 Playoffs (W 35-31)
Edelman 8-74-0
Amendola 5-81-2
LaFell 5-62-1

2013 (W 41-7)
Edelman 7-77-0
Amendola 2-45-0
Dobson 1-21-0

2012 Playoffs (L 28-13)
Welker 8-117-1
Lloyd 7-70-0
Branch 2-16-0

2012 (L 31-30)
Welker 8-142-0
Lloyd 9-109-0
Edelman 4-21-1
Branch 2-11-0

2011 Playoffs (W 23-20)
Welker 6-53-0
Branch 2-18-0
Edelman 1-8-0

2010 (W 23-20)
Branch 9-98-1
Welker 7-53-0

2009 Playoffs (L 33-14)
Edelman 6-44-2
Moss 5-48-0

2009 (W 27-21)
Moss 3-50-1
Welker 6-48-0
Edelman 1-12-0

2007 (W 27-24)
Stallworth 3-68-0
Moss 4-34-1
Welker 3-18-0
Gaffney 1-8-1

[Interseptopus 5,722]

alright let's get nuts. putting him in.

[Zyphros 1,889]

Put him in over DT and Crowell this week, see how this goes.

[LionOfGosforth 183]

In over Moncrief, gambling that TD streak ends for Donte today, and also Gabriel (think ATL will run run run today).

[Interseptopus 5,722]

23 minutes ago, Zyphros said:

Put him in over DT and Crowell this week, see how this goes.

DT? surprised. you like DT or Diggs better. asking for a friend

[shadyridr 14,320]

I just can't pull the trigger over Moncrief. No Joseph for Houston too

[zftcg 3,688]

Love the way they keep targeting him in the red zone. Came up a foot short on the first drive, punched it in on the second.

ETA: Didn't target him on the third and look what happened. 

Edited December 13, 2016 by zftcg

[FGITLOTR 343]

He's easily a top 20 WR entering the 2017 season 

[ex-ghost 640]

14 minutes ago, FGITLOTR said:

He's easily a top 20 WR entering the 2017 season 

You really think so? He has looked good the past couple of weeks, but damn the Patriots and their ball spreading philosophy.

[SoBeDad 2,243]

1 minute ago, ex-ghost said:

You really think so? He has looked good the past couple of weeks, but damn the Patriots and their ball spreading philosophy.

After about 5 misses on WRs over the past few years, Belichick may have finally gotten it right. But with Gronk, Lewis/White, Bennett, Edelman and even Hogan, it's hard to imaging any Patriot WR being top 20. 

[packersfan 12,494]

Well so much for the ascending talent thing. That was a pretty huge buzzkill. TD was nice but when Brady's dropping 400+ and you only get 40 yards and a handful of targets that's not cause for too much excitement. Mitchell was pretty much an afterthought most of the game tonight. Brady barely looked his way most of the game, focusing more on Edelman, Hogan, Bennett and even White more often in the passing game. I'll take the 14 points in PPR and it certainly isn't a bad game but when you get 400+ from Brady, Smith getting hurt and everything was trending upwards you sure would've liked more than that.

Gonna be hard to start him next week against Denver even with Brady as hot as he is now. I'd say he still has a respectable floor given his TD potential and the Patriots' pass-first approach but the upside may not be as high as I was hoping when I grabbed him off the WW last week. Possibly more of a WR3/4 type than a strong WR3 with WR2 upside. 

[Biabreakable 5,096]

packersfan you sure has been a glass half full kind of guy lately.

We are talking about a rookie WR who had not done much of anything until 4 weeks ago. Since then he has put up

4   receptions 98 yards   1   TD                 
5    receptions 42  yards  2 TD                   
8   receptions  82 yards           
4    receptions 41  yards  1 TD

and you are talking about this not being good enough?

Mitchel has scored as a top 10 WR over the past 4 weeks.

[Ministry of Pain 5,383]

1 hour ago, packersfan said:

Well so much for the ascending talent thing. That was a pretty huge buzzkill. TD was nice but when Brady's dropping 400+ and you only get 40 yards and a handful of targets that's not cause for too much excitement. Mitchell was pretty much an afterthought most of the game tonight. Brady barely looked his way most of the game, focusing more on Edelman, Hogan, Bennett and even White more often in the passing game. I'll take the 14 points in PPR and it certainly isn't a bad game but when you get 400+ from Brady, Smith getting hurt and everything was trending upwards you sure would've liked more than that.

Gonna be hard to start him next week against Denver even with Brady as hot as he is now. I'd say he still has a respectable floor given his TD potential and the Patriots' pass-first approach but the upside may not be as high as I was hoping when I grabbed him off the WW last week. Possibly more of a WR3/4 type than a strong WR3 with WR2 upside. 

Did you watch the game?

Guy had a red zone target for a potential TD on opening drive. Brady threw another red zone throw near the goal line and just missed. 

He still has a TD anyways later in the game, he is a serious red zone target for Brady. They were up 23-3 and he had 4/40/TD...had Balt been more competitive early I think Mitchell would have a few targets. Hogan got most of his on a busted coverage. Mitchell seems to line up wide and to Brady's left. 

I think you are being ridiculous. 2nd half Pats almost imploded for a while. Ravens had long drives, not as much Pats offense once they were up 23-3 and Mitchell was a decent part of that early success. He had most of it in one half, cut him some slack jack.

Edited December 13, 2016 by Ministry of Pain

[C-Bound 297]

Still concerned about Denver.  Wasn't planning on starting him there anyway but we'll see.

[shadyridr 14,320]

6 hours ago, packersfan said:

Well so much for the ascending talent thing. That was a pretty huge buzzkill. TD was nice but when Brady's dropping 400+ and you only get 40 yards and a handful of targets that's not cause for too much excitement. Mitchell was pretty much an afterthought most of the game tonight. Brady barely looked his way most of the game, focusing more on Edelman, Hogan, Bennett and even White more often in the passing game. I'll take the 14 points in PPR and it certainly isn't a bad game but when you get 400+ from Brady, Smith getting hurt and everything was trending upwards you sure would've liked more than that.

Gonna be hard to start him next week against Denver even with Brady as hot as he is now. I'd say he still has a respectable floor given his TD potential and the Patriots' pass-first approach but the upside may not be as high as I was hoping when I grabbed him off the WW last week. Possibly more of a WR3/4 type than a strong WR3 with WR2 upside. 

Huh? You're complaining about that game? 130 of Brady's yards came on two plays.

[shadyridr 14,320]

26 minutes ago, C-Bound said:

Still concerned about Denver.  Wasn't planning on starting him there anyway but we'll see.

Don't think you can start a rookie wr vs those cornerbacks

[FUBAR 3,203]

18 minutes ago, shadyridr said:

Don't think you can start a rookie wr vs those cornerbacks

I prefer to think of it as starting one of Brady's likely top targets.  Risk for sure, but Crabtree bombed last week, and I don't like starting receivers against the Patriots (sanders) and Julio is probably back (Gabriel),  leaving me Mitchell or wallace as my wr3.  So I think I'm starting Mitchell in the conference championship. I'm the underdog by a bit so I need to take some chances. 

[packersfan 12,494]

6 hours ago, Ministry of Pain said:

Did you watch the game?

Guy had a red zone target for a potential TD on opening drive. Brady threw another red zone throw near the goal line and just missed. 

He still has a TD anyways later in the game, he is a serious red zone target for Brady. They were up 23-3 and he had 4/40/TD...had Balt been more competitive early I think Mitchell would have a few targets. Hogan got most of his on a busted coverage. Mitchell seems to line up wide and to Brady's left. 

I think you are being ridiculous. 2nd half Pats almost imploded for a while. Ravens had long drives, not as much Pats offense once they were up 23-3 and Mitchell was a decent part of that early success. He had most of it in one half, cut him some slack jack.

Nope, didn't watch it. I base all my analysis just on box scores and what my neighbors tell me. That's how I roll.

He had 4-40-1 on a night when Brady dropped 400+. As I said I don't find that to be all that exciting or promising. It's not awful and it certainly didn't kill anyone who started him but given the game Brady had it's not wrong in my opinion to feel as if more could've been had. More significantly, he was barely targeted from start to finish. Mitchell was on the field a ton but barely registered a blip in terms of actual involvement in the passing game. Snap count to me is often meaningless. Actual involvement in the offense counts for a whole lot more. 

I'm not saying Mitchell stinks or sucks or is awful so don't misquote me. He's clearly a talented player and I think he has a bright future. I think the Patriots found themselves a good young WR which is quite rare for them. But I'm evaluating his fantasy potential for the remainder of this season only. I was hoping that when I picked him up I was adding a high-impact difference maker for the stretch run, someone like Tyreek Hill or Taylor Gabriel who could make a significant impact, especially given the offense he was a part of based on what was an ascending role in terms of targets, role and production. Nearly all of that (outside of one great RZ target that did result in a TD) came to a screeching halt last night. I'm not sure that's the case any longer.

Maybe that's just an overreaction to one so-so game but given the game Brady had you sure would've liked to see an ascending player carve out a much more meaningful role than Mitchell had. But from the start of the game to the end he really wasn't a part of this game plan at all. For someone whose role had been growing I found that quite odd, and as a Mitchell owner, troubling. You typically don't see things like that with impact players in big games. Those are the players offenses want to be highly involved. Other than his RZ involvement, though, that really wasn't the case with Mitchell last night. 

What does this mean for Mitchell going forward? In my opinion it will make him tough to trust as anything more than a WR3/4 this week as I said. Week 16 obviously looks much better vs. the Jets but I still wouldn't view him as anything more than an upside WR3 since Edelman is still the clear No. 1 WR in this offense, Hogan clearly could go off in a great matchup too and Bennett looked much healthier last night than the Patriot beat writers were saying he looked. The good thing for Mitchell, and I did say this in my post, is his TD potential should give him a respectable floor so if you did start him this week I think he has a shot at around 10 points or so in PPR. I just think his ceiling is capped by the matchup and if the Patriots again decide to reduce his role in the passing game like they did last night. 

Edited December 13, 2016 by packersfan

[packer_junkie 272]

Pretty simple to me-- sit him week 15 @ Denver unless your other options are completely awful.. and start him vs the dumpster fire that is the Jets week 16.... He might have 100-2. 

 

Base evaluations for next year on the next 3 games and the playoffs... 

 

One thing I noticed-- the ravens jammed his ### up yesterday and he struggled. That can be improved on-- I remember Davantae adams getting stuck at line almost every snap for awhile--- now, guys like sherman and Norman can't keep a jam on him. 

[packersfan 12,494]

24 minutes ago, packer_junkie said:

Pretty simple to me-- sit him week 15 @ Denver unless your other options are completely awful.. and start him vs the dumpster fire that is the Jets week 16.... He might have 100-2. 

 

Base evaluations for next year on the next 3 games and the playoffs... 

 

 

Agreed. Zero chance he starts for me this week. Broncos are pretty much death to perimeter WRs. I think the best you can hope for are a few catches and maybe a TD. Absolutely plan to start him Week 16 assuming nothing changes for him between now and then. 

The primary positive I like about him is the Red Zone role. He's definitely a factor there and that's huge. I was just hoping to see the targets remain high and that's what disappointed me last night. 

[Anarchy99 6,135]

Over the last 4 games, Mitchell ranked 9th, 14th, 16th, and 27th each week (8th overall in that time frame) in PPR leagues and 6th, 14th, 28th, and 23rd each week in 0 ppr leagues (10th overall). Considering most people picked him up for nothing or pennies on the dollar, I find it hard to believe that people are finding fault with how he is doing. He will most likely be TD dependent against DEN. Then he gets the Jets again . . . and he just had 2 TD against them a few weeks ago.

[tombonneau 985]

4 hours ago, packersfan said:

Nope, didn't watch it. I base all my analysis just on box scores and what my neighbors tell me. That's how I roll.

He had 4-40-1 on a night when Brady dropped 400+. As I said I don't find that to be all that exciting or promising. It's not awful and it certainly didn't kill anyone who started him but given the game Brady had it's not wrong in my opinion to feel as if more could've been had. More significantly, he was barely targeted from start to finish. Mitchell was on the field a ton but barely registered a blip in terms of actual involvement in the passing game. Snap count to me is often meaningless. Actual involvement in the offense counts for a whole lot more. 

I'm not saying Mitchell stinks or sucks or is awful so don't misquote me. He's clearly a talented player and I think he has a bright future. I think the Patriots found themselves a good young WR which is quite rare for them. But I'm evaluating his fantasy potential for the remainder of this season only. I was hoping that when I picked him up I was adding a high-impact difference maker for the stretch run, someone like Tyreek Hill or Taylor Gabriel who could make a significant impact, especially given the offense he was a part of based on what was an ascending role in terms of targets, role and production. Nearly all of that (outside of one great RZ target that did result in a TD) came to a screeching halt last night. I'm not sure that's the case any longer.

Maybe that's just an overreaction to one so-so game but given the game Brady had you sure would've liked to see an ascending player carve out a much more meaningful role than Mitchell had. But from the start of the game to the end he really wasn't a part of this game plan at all. For someone whose role had been growing I found that quite odd, and as a Mitchell owner, troubling. You typically don't see things like that with impact players in big games. Those are the players offenses want to be highly involved. Other than his RZ involvement, though, that really wasn't the case with Mitchell last night. 

What does this mean for Mitchell going forward? In my opinion it will make him tough to trust as anything more than a WR3/4 this week as I said. Week 16 obviously looks much better vs. the Jets but I still wouldn't view him as anything more than an upside WR3 since Edelman is still the clear No. 1 WR in this offense, Hogan clearly could go off in a great matchup too and Bennett looked much healthier last night than the Patriot beat writers were saying he looked. The good thing for Mitchell, and I did say this in my post, is his TD potential should give him a respectable floor so if you did start him this week I think he has a shot at around 10 points or so in PPR. I just think his ceiling is capped by the matchup and if the Patriots again decide to reduce his role in the passing game like they did last night. 

Eh, I get what you are saying with the rationale of "if Brady throws for 400 and he only breaks x then his ceiling is capped." But it's not like this was a 50 pass game. Not a fan normally of "if you remove one play" logic but removing the Hogan bomb it's really a 320 yard game from Brady and Mitchell's piece of the pie doesn't look as small.

To me the usage is key. He gets RZ love and was a half yard away from a 2 TD game. Arrow is still pointing way up in dynasty but for RD obviously he's dicey vs. Denver but is startable Week 16.

[packersfan 12,494]

14 minutes ago, tombonneau said:

Eh, I get what you are saying with the rationale of "if Brady throws for 400 and he only breaks x then his ceiling is capped." But it's not like this was a 50 pass game. Not a fan normally of "if you remove one play" logic but removing the Hogan bomb it's really a 320 yard game from Brady and Mitchell's piece of the pie doesn't look as small.

To me the usage is key. He gets RZ love and was a half yard away from a 2 TD game. Arrow is still pointing way up in dynasty but for RD obviously he's dicey vs. Denver but is startable Week 16.

The RZ usage is great. I've said that in all my posts. That's his biggest key without a doubt. My concern, though, was the usage. He had 5 targets last night. That was a real buzzkill in my opinion since he was coming off 10 and 7 the previous two weeks. The arrow was pointing up for him in terms of usage in the passing game. Then it dropped off considerably last night. I love the RZ stuff but I was hoping to see more sustained usage between the 20s and that was absent last night. Other than his one big gain (which was a real nice play) Brady didn't look to him at all. I think all of his targets were RZ targets. 

I guess I'm just a little bummed that I didn't hit on the next Tyreek Hill or Taylor Gabriel, that high-impact WR2 type with the occasional WR1 impact who could really make a huge impact going forward. Nothing wrong with a solid WR3 to plug into the lineup and get you 14-15 points a game. That guy isn't going to hurt you and as I said in my first post last night if you started Mitchell this week he obviously didn't hurt you. I was just hoping to get a little more juice from him given how he was ascending and given the numbers Brady put up. Didn't happen so I'll re-evaluate Mitchell's role going forward. Like I said, he's a good player and I don't think he's a bum. Just not the high-impact type of WR I was hoping for. These things happen and now we move on.

[frigid5 25]

I'm essentially forced to start him in one league.  What I'm hoping is that Blount will be very effective running the ball resulting in numerous red zone trips and then we'll see...

[tombonneau 985]

26 minutes ago, packersfan said:

The RZ usage is great. I've said that in all my posts. That's his biggest key without a doubt. My concern, though, was the usage. He had 5 targets last night. That was a real buzzkill in my opinion since he was coming off 10 and 7 the previous two weeks. The arrow was pointing up for him in terms of usage in the passing game. Then it dropped off considerably last night. I love the RZ stuff but I was hoping to see more sustained usage between the 20s and that was absent last night. Other than his one big gain (which was a real nice play) Brady didn't look to him at all. I think all of his targets were RZ targets. 

I guess I'm just a little bummed that I didn't hit on the next Tyreek Hill or Taylor Gabriel, that high-impact WR2 type with the occasional WR1 impact who could really make a huge impact going forward. Nothing wrong with a solid WR3 to plug into the lineup and get you 14-15 points a game. That guy isn't going to hurt you and as I said in my first post last night if you started Mitchell this week he obviously didn't hurt you. I was just hoping to get a little more juice from him given how he was ascending and given the numbers Brady put up. Didn't happen so I'll re-evaluate Mitchell's role going forward. Like I said, he's a good player and I don't think he's a bum. Just not the high-impact type of WR I was hoping for. These things happen and now we move on.

Can't disagree with any of that. In RD I'd much rather have Hill and/or Gabriel.

[Interseptopus 5,722]

Glad I benched Diggs for him. Turned out good. Although I did not need the points. 

I am sitting him this week vs Denver. I actually like Diggs' matchup this week better. I'd love to play him but round 2 of the playoffs against a tough D, better to sit him IMO

[zftcg 3,688]

Last night was like the platonic ideal of keeping things ambiguous. He was targeted in the RZ and scored. But he basically disappeared after halftime. He seems to be emerging as a trusted option for Brady. But now he faces Denver.

If I had clearly better options, I'd definitely sit him. As it is, I'm picking two between Gabriel, Boyd and MM. In other words, a high ceiling guy, a decent floor guy, and a total question mark. If Green is back and fully healthy I'll probably sit Boyd and roll with Mitchell, counting on the "Brady trumps any match-up" rule. But man, I won't feel good about it.

[packersfan 12,494]

6 minutes ago, zftcg said:

Last night was like the platonic ideal of keeping things ambiguous. He was targeted in the RZ and scored. But he basically disappeared after halftime. He seems to be emerging as a trusted option for Brady. But now he faces Denver.

If I had clearly better options, I'd definitely sit him. As it is, I'm picking two between Gabriel, Boyd and MM. In other words, a high ceiling guy, a decent floor guy, and a total question mark. If Green is back and fully healthy I'll probably sit Boyd and roll with Mitchell, counting on the "Brady trumps any match-up" rule. But man, I won't feel good about it.

Yeah that's tough. Obviously you're starting Gabriel no matter what. Bengals' matchup is real good so even if Green's back maybe roll with Boyd and hope for 5-6 targets and decent numbers? I'd probably go Mitchell and hope for a RZ play, though. He definitely has a higher TD upside than Boyd does even if Green was out. You would think Brady should be able to move the ball on the Broncos and get at least 1-2 RZ looks against them. I doubt Denver shuts them down completely. It's just hard to project more than 4-5 catches tops in a game like this given the matchup and what we saw last night in terms of Mitchell's role between the 20s and how good Denver is vs. perimeter WRs. So you're really banking on a TD this week if you start him. Good news is he's a big RZ option and he's got Brady. Bad news is the matchup is truly awful.

Edited December 13, 2016 by packersfan

[squistion 12,456]

BostonSportsPub ‏@BostonSportsPub 7h7 hours ago

Bill Belichick compares WR Malcolm Mitchell to Deion Branch #respect

[BigTex 859]

After the game Brady was asked about Mitchell, he said that he was highly intelligent, a hard worker and should be more involved going forward.

Food for thought,

Tex

[BigTex 859]

17 hours ago, shadyridr said:

Huh? You're complaining about that game? 130 of Brady's yards came on two plays.

Agreed! I'd be more interested in targets vs other team members than yards.

 

Tex

[packersfan 12,494]

5 hours ago, BigTex said:

Agreed! I'd be more interested in targets vs other team members than yards.

 

Tex

Third in targets vs. Ravens behind Edelman and Hogan (one more than Bennett and two more than White). Edelman and Hogan were the clear preferred options Monday night.

First in RZ targets vs. Ravens.

This supports the points I've made in my posts. His overall role in the passing game was reduced but his RZ role remains strong. Whether that continues remains to be seen. 

[BigTex 859]

2 hours ago, packersfan said:

Third in targets vs. Ravens behind Edelman and Hogan (one more than Bennett and two more than White). Edelman and Hogan were the clear preferred options Monday night.

First in RZ targets vs. Ravens.

This supports the points I've made in my posts. His overall role in the passing game was reduced but his RZ role remains strong. Whether that continues remains to be seen. 

If what Brady said this past weekend after the game is true then I'm starting him with extreme confidence over Cooks and Cooper along side Beckham. My main reservation is their playing Denver.

Tex

[Tommy Collins 272]

Brady clearly didn't look Mitchell's way much except for in the RZ. He's still a rookie with not a lot of playing time. It will take time for him to be a big part of the offense. I think expectations should be tempered, especially against Denver. 

[packersfan 12,494]

33 minutes ago, BigTex said:

If what Brady said this past weekend after the game is true then I'm starting him with extreme confidence over Cooks and Cooper along side Beckham. My main reservation is their playing Denver.

Tex

Ballsy. Good luck

[Ministry of Pain 5,383]

2 hours ago, packersfan said:

Third in targets vs. Ravens behind Edelman and Hogan (one more than Bennett and two more than White). Edelman and Hogan were the clear preferred options Monday night.

First in RZ targets vs. Ravens.

This supports the points I've made in my posts. His overall role in the passing game was reduced but his RZ role remains strong. Whether that continues remains to be seen. 

I'm sorry but you are either fishing or just abrasive. Hogan was not the clear choice, he made a lot of his money on one play. The targets on the opening drive and the red zone show Brady clearly like Mitchell...I asked if you watche d the game and you said no but I can't tell if you were trying to be a smart ###...you just come across as a whiny complainer and if things don't go 100% your way for FF including 30 targets all for Mitchell then it's gloom and doom.

and you don't just post once but you keep coming over the top...just my .02 and feedback. Maybe the playoff pressure is getting the best of you, I would encourage some fresh air amigo, don't care how cold it is outside.

[BigTex 859]

7 minutes ago, packersfan said:

Ballsy. Good luck

Greater Risk, Greater Reward!

Giddy up!

Tex

[BigTex 859]

10 minutes ago, Tommy Collins said:

Brady clearly didn't look Mitchell's way much except for in the RZ. He's still a rookie with not a lot of playing time. It will take time for him to be a big part of the offense. I think expectations should be tempered, especially against Denver. 

Why would it take time for him to be a big part of the offense?

I'm curious. I just watched Brady with my own two eye gloat about this guy and say they need to get him more involved. 

Tex