Morneblade Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 I'd pause before I call Fred Davis a star. Let him accomplish something. I didn't see much that separates him from Dominic Byrd (his predecesor at USC) and Byrd hasn't done anything in this league. I agree. guys coming out of USC havent exaclty set the world on fire as of late. But playing in the PAC 10 isnt like playing in the SEC either. I don't think it will be a trend, there's so much money that needs to be spread out over a team that it's a luxury to have two stars at TE. You also have to consider the offensive scheme of a team. I don't see many franchises changing the way they play football just to accomodate two TEs. I also agree, considering that now linemen are starting to demand alot more money comparitively than they used to on both sides of the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 quite frankly, if Davis and Cooley are not on the field at the same time, no matter what the other 2 draft screw u- I mean "BPA" WR's do, this draft will be a bust. Even if Davis is head and shoulders above Cooley's ability-which I highly doubt, all you have done is replace a guy who will go to 7 probowls in the next ten years with a guy who will go to 9. So you figure that no matter what happens this draft will be a bust? How so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrenkels Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 I do not believe that the last draft will be a bust. Come on, dome and gloom. We drafted some of the weapons that the offense is been lacking. What you rather we went out and brought in a bunch of free agents? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IbleedBnG83 Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 It seems that just having one very good pass catching TE is just starting to take shape. I'm not sure about having two, because that then limits an additional player you have on the field. But I sure can see that eventually become a trend. Many teams still need to get that one on the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emoshag Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 quite frankly, if Davis and Cooley are not on the field at the same time, no matter what the other 2 draft screw u- I mean "BPA" WR's do, this draft will be a bust. Even if Davis is head and shoulders above Cooley's ability-which I highly doubt, all you have done is replace a guy who will go to 7 probowls in the next ten years with a guy who will go to 9. Wait, did I miss something? Are you justifying this draft being a bust by saying we didn't need a perennial pro-bowler because we already have one? Usually I don't react to those comments, but I don't understand. Why the hell wouldn't you want two pro-bowl TEs? And sure, I love Cooley. But he is one play away from injury. Just like every other player on the field. Everyone who is "Anti-Skins 2008 Draft" pisses and moans about the depth of the O-Line and the D-Line and all that... but seriously, do we really have depth anywhere else? OK, I like Betts, so Portis has a backup.... OK. But if Cooley goes down..... um.... thats 1/3 of our entire offense. And who replaces that? Yoder? Ecker? And we all saw what happened to our receiving corp. when Moss and Randle El we hobbled by injury or not even playing. Man, Lloyd was a beast, wasn't he? And god.... how tall is Anthony Mix? 7'8"?????? We are the OLDEST team in football. And yes, our lines will need overhaul very, very soon. But the BPA philosophy works when all the "wow factor" linemen were gone and we had the choice of all of the best receivers on the board. I liked the Davis pick. I REALLY liked the Thomas and Kelly pick. Solely because of entertainment value.... our offense over the last few years was BORING. I, most of the time, couldn't wait for the defense to get back on the field just to watch more entertaining football. And that mindset is wrong. Defenses don't win football games anymore, and even though that may still hold true for championships.... I am of the opinion that the tide is changing and offenses will eclipse defenses in potency in a short time. We NEED to score points. As good as our defense was under Gregg Williams was for the last 3 of 4 years.... we had one playoff win. And looking at these stats (which are from ESPN for the last 3 playoff games we have had....)... Washington vs. Tampa Bay - 2005 Wildcard Game Washington vs. Seattle - 2005 Divisonal Game Washington vs. Seattle - 2007 Wildcard Game Our offense isn't occasionally bad. It is only occasionally good. So for anyone thinking that we had a crappy draft this year... please rewatch half of the games from the Gibbs 2.0 era and tell me that we weren't in desparate need of some offensive playmakers. And I like Moss, I really do. But his ONE dominant season isn't enough to make me think he is even a solid #1 receiver. But he would be an elite #2. And I think thats what works in the WCO best. A speedy flanker second to the possession big split-end receiver. Enter Thomas and Kelly. All I am saying is that because we have two or three venerable stars on our team doesn't mean drafting a player of their same position that is also a potential star is a bad idea. Davis.... I wish you the best and I hope you excel in the change coming to DC football. Our traditions, although proud and strong.... have led us to repeated disappointments and nothing really prominent to hang our hat on since a Superbowl 17 years ago..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gortiz Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 tell me if i'm wrong but the only reason why you would want a 2 TE set is deception ... if the running game and play calling are not going to be good what is the point? You might as well take out a TE and add a 3rd WR ... its pretty cool that at least on paper we got two TE's that can ran route and be dangerous. another thought ... I can't name one team off the top my head that has a two TE threat. Green Bay comes close with Franks and Lee. The Patsy's had two good TE's. Maybe the Bucs ... Blocking is not that big of a deal in my opinion with a two TE set because if you go to a 3 or 4 WR set you lose a blocker anyway. At least with a two TE set the threat of a run is very real. Keep two TE in and at least its a body on the line that can at worst impede a rusher or blitzer. It will be interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gortiz Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 I'm not sure about having two, because that then limits an additional player you have on the field. . not if Davis can become a viable threat. If his hands and wheels are as good as they say, forget aobut it. the two TE set will be a real threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gortiz Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 You can't revolutionize offenses of the future by doing something that has already been done sure you can ... and Fred and Chris are prime candidates to do it. Sure the formation has been done before but I don't think there has ever been a 2nd Round TE and a Pro Bowl TE lined up on the same field at the same time in a pass oriented offense. Also keep in mind, these guys are young. You might be able to throw out a bunch of these tandems through out the years, but I bet the vast majority included a vet that was on the downside of his career. i.e. Coats and S. Sharpe. when I think revolutionize I think everyone is thinking "reinvent the wheel." I'm not. I'm thinking more along the lines of statiscal output by two TE's on one team that has never been seen before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C Witt Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 I think the best part about having two great TE is more than the when they are on the field at the same time. Finally, Chris Cooley has some decent competition for his spot and will be even MORE motivated to perform exceptionally. The second great thing is the fact when Chris Cooley is tired or hurt, the transition should be easy. Some of the greatest football teams succeed because of a solid back-up QB being able to step into a couple key games to get the Playoffs secured. Now TE isn't nearly as important, but it allows options...options are great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timmy Smith Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 I'd like to see if Fred Davis can master an alarm clock before I'm ready to call him a master of NFL defenses. We're getting wayyyyy ahead of ourselves here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shilsu Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Sure the formation has been done before but I don't think there has ever been a 2nd Round TE and a Pro Bowl TE lined up on the same field at the same time in a pass oriented offense. Jason Witten and Anthony Fasano were on the pass-oriented Dallas Cowboys just last year, and this year it'll be Jason Witten and Martellus Bennett... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderMustGo Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Sure the formation has been done before but I don't think there has ever been a 2nd Round TE and a Pro Bowl TE lined up on the same field at the same time in a pass oriented offense. Also keep in mind, these guys are young. You might be able to throw out a bunch of these tandems through out the years, but I bet the vast majority included a vet that was on the downside of his career. i.e. Coats and S. Sharpe. Let's see... so you don't want to count Coates or Sharp. How about the Patriots lining up two first round tight ends in a 2 TE set: Daniel Graham (1st rounder in 2002) and Ben Watson (1st rounder in 2004). Well, maybe that doesn't work because you said it had to be a a Pro Bowl TE and an 2nd rounder. Let's see... lemme think..... how about the Dallas Cowboys from just 2 seasons ago? 2nd Round TE (Fasano) and Pro Bowl TE (Witten) lined up on the same field at the same time in a pass oriented offense. (Incidentally, I think the Cowboys drafted another 2nd round TE this year too that could be on the same field as a Pro Bowl TE). Still think this is revolutionary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morneblade Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Let's see... so you don't want to count Coates or Sharp.How about the Patriots lining up two first round tight ends in a 2 TE set: Daniel Graham (1st rounder in 2002) and Ben Watson (1st rounder in 2004). Well, maybe that doesn't work because you said it had to be a a Pro Bowl TE and an 2nd rounder. Let's see... lemme think..... how about the Dallas Cowboys from just 2 seasons ago? 2nd Round TE (Fasano) and Pro Bowl TE (Witten) lined up on the same field at the same time in a pass oriented offense. (Incidentally, I think the Cowboys drafted another 2nd round TE this year too that could be on the same field as a Pro Bowl TE). Still think this is revolutionary? Not only that, is it creating all kinds of miss-matches that cant be defended? Not like a 2nd round WR that was supposed to be a 1st round pick on the number 4 CB on the depth chart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 First, we dont actually have two star TE's yet. We have one star TE, and one TE we hope will turn into a star. Theres a number of TE's who have been drafted in the first round and ended up busts. Regardless, I dont think it will be revolutionary, as many teams have had good TE combinations in the past. The passing game would also have to explode for any team to take a serious look at it(and if it did, I wouldnt care what anyone else thought...). I guess when it gets down to it, I dont want to start a trend. I want to start a dynasty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnhay Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 But when niether one are good blockers, now you have a liabilty. How much of a liability could an extra tight end blocker be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 In the Red Zone, taking out one of our smallish WRs and replacing him with a bigger body has got to be a plus whether we run or pass. With three TE types in the game, the weakest blocker can be put in the slot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldskool Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Colts did it for several years with Dallas Clark and Ben Utecht. Not that extraordinary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddiePleaseSayTheBaby Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 I remember when Brian Billick got ahold of 2 stud tight ends in Baltimore with Coates and Sharpe. That duo panned out nicely... not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morneblade Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 How much of a liability could an extra tight end blocker be? We're talking about TE's that are not paticularly good blockers. Cooley is probabaly average and Davis is a poor blocker. They guys are pass catchers, not Mike Sellers playing TE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morneblade Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 In the Red Zone, taking out one of our smallish WRs and replacing him with a bigger body has got to be a plus whether we run or pass. With three TE types in the game, the weakest blocker can be put in the slot. That works of you have 3 types of TE's on your team, or even 2. Right now we might have 2 types if we carry 3 TE's and that is a stretch. Right now with Cooley and Davis we have 1 type. The good pass catching, not so good blocking TE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Washington Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 As another poster said, unless they both can block well, I don't see it being that big of a deal. It may even be a liability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Washington Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 I remember when Brian Billick got ahold of 2 stud tight ends in Baltimore with Coates and Sharpe.That duo panned out nicely... not. you mean sharpe and heap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gortiz Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 As another poster said, unless they both can block well, I don't see it being that big of a deal. It may even be a liability. i don't know about that ... I think having TE's gives the team the advantage of deception. They won't have to block when they are running routes and run blockng is a hell of a lot easier then pass blocking. They are TE's for reason and one of those reasons is they can block at least a little. I think it all comes down to effeictive play calling out of the 2 TE set not blocking. Of course it also comes down to effective running. CP is going to have to make the most out of his carries and be a threat to make the possibility of the run keep defenders guessing and unbalanced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrelgreenie Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 Duh.But 2 TE's is not the same as having 2 WR's. Your base formation has 2 WR's on the field, not 2 TE's. So, who are you going to yank to get Davis his touches? You don't yank anybody. Single back (ACE) The Colts base formation has 2 TE 2 WR and 1 RB there are plenty of other formations that have 2 TE an 2 WR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 We're talking about TE's that are not paticularly good blockers. Cooley is probabaly average and Davis is a poor blocker. They guys are pass catchers, not Mike Sellers playing TE. In the Red Zone, the worst tight end is a better blocker and a better target than a smurf WR. And an offense proficient in the Red Zone can play ball control to sit on leads anywhere on the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.