Chasers Dawg 9 Posted July 16, 2006 Not considering D.Jax or an injury to him. Confused by the projections for the rest of them FFTodays Projections Bold/Yellow FBGuys Projections Italics/Pink RecYdsTD'sF.PtsJackson851,1458162.5Jackson7710249157Engram55674491.4Engram58655489Burleson34490367Burleson38471365Warrick22319138Hackett17215021.5Hackett9122118Warrick10104010.4 Engram will be going back to his slot/3rd WR role, and Burleson will be filling the split end role. Engram has been the NFL's best 3rd WR for years and I expect him to keep that up, but as he's around 33 years old with 10 years in the NFL, I felt that Hackett was drafted to move into his role and may start cutting into his #'s a bit this year. I think Burleson should be good for around 60 Rec, 750 yds, and 8 TDs Thoughts ?? Damn It. Is there any way to post any kind of a descent table on this site that everyone can understand. It looked great 'til I hit post Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
duaneok66 0 Posted July 16, 2006 pleasant problem . . . what everyone seems to forget is that Engram did very well as a #2 last year, and he will battle to retain that spot; yes Burleson was acquired to fill that role, but things don't always happen like you have it on paper . . . Engram is (easily) a better route runner than Hackett, so if Hackett somehow jujmps in the top 3, it would be at the #2 slot . . . time will tell . . . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chasers Dawg 9 Posted July 16, 2006 pleasant problem . . . what everyone seems to forget is that Engram did very well as a #2 last year, and he will battle to retain that spot; yes Burleson was acquired to fill that role, but things don't always happen like you have it on paper . . . Engram is (easily) a better route runner than Hackett, so if Hackett somehow jujmps in the top 3, it would be at the #2 slot . . . time will tell . . . He was virtually the #1 last year for a while due to injuries. But why would they not put him back into the spot where he's been the best in the league for several years running. Hackett is the future in that role I think. Not yet. I just don't understand Nates low #'s ?? And how can you post a half descent table on this freakin site Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chasers Dawg 9 Posted July 17, 2006 pleasant problem . . . what everyone seems to forget is that Engram did very well as a #2 last year, and he will battle to retain that spot; yes Burleson was acquired to fill that role, but things don't always happen like you have it on paper . . . Engram is (easily) a better route runner than Hackett, so if Hackett somehow jujmps in the top 3, it would be at the #2 slot . . . time will tell . . . ?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lguero1 4 Posted July 17, 2006 Games 1 & 4, Engram caught more passes than DJax. 2 years ago, the #2s in Seattle, Koren and Bobby combined for about 70 catches and that is the last time DJax was around for the whole season. These projections may be going back to when DJax was around for the whole season but last year Hasselback was a much better passer and he spread it around even when DJax was there for those 6 regular season games. That may be the reason why Nate's numbers are so low. I think the #2 in Seattle has much value and I am taking a chance on him. Engram is solid. Even though the red zone belongs to SA, Hasselback is going to get his numbers and DJax can't catch them all. Why Nate's #s should be higher. Nate is at home. Nate won't have the prime coverage that DJax will have. Nate is good. I saw your chart in the other posting. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
remote controller 133 Posted July 17, 2006 What a crappy post!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Parja 0 Posted July 17, 2006 Damn It. Is there any way to post any kind of a descent table on this site that everyone can understand. It looked great 'til I hit post FFToday first FBGuys second Rec Yds TD F.Pts Jackson 85 1145 8 162.5 77 1024 9 157 Engram 55 674 4 91.4 58 655 4 89 Burleson 34 490 3 67 38 471 3 65 Warrick 10 104 0 10.4 22 319 1 38 Hackett 17 215 0 21.5 9 122 1 18 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
