Best in the NFC East: TIGHT END

[PennSkinsFan]

This is one position I think the NFC East is loaded. I think our division has some of the best in football.

Please wait for the poll.

[PennSkinsFan]

Although Chris Cooley had a great year, and I really do think he will become the best TE in the NFC East under Al Saunders offense, right now I still think Jeremy Shockey has a slight edge with Jason Witten right behind Cooley. Homerism is one thing, honesty is another. Shockey is the better TE right now, but if Cooley can limit putting the ball on the ground, i think he will thrive even mor ein this new offense and coud possibly put up better stats than Shockey in 2006.

But again, right now, I chose Shockey.

[tommahawk]

I don't like Shockys' attitude and practice habbits. (in miami)
Witten is overrated.
I voted Cooley.

[smoak]

This is one position I think the NFC East is loaded. I think our division has some of the best in football.

Please wait for the poll.

I couldn't agree more. I think Whitten could be the best if his offense didn't need him to be a blocker so frequently. Shockey has all the skill and physical ability in the world but has yet to really fulfill his potential IMO. Cooley is really solid, but certainly still has room to improve in his consistency. When LJ Smith is the worst starting TE in your division, you know it is a good crop of guys.

I think I give the edge to Whitten given Shockey's ability to drop TD passes and disappear mentally. I'd actually put Cooley a close second, but he needs to take another step forward in his blocking. He isn't bad, but certainly has room to grow.

[PennSkinsFan]

I don't like Shockys' attitude and practice habbits. (in miami)
Witten is overrated.
I voted Cooley.

I didnt vote practice habits or attitude i voted results. You can also talk abotu ooley's fumble problems he needs to fix this off-season.

[CNYSkinFan]

Shockey and Whitten are overrated. Now that Cooley is moved back to TE and can be considered on Pro-Bowl ballots there he will be the NFC pro-Bowl selection.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

I really have no idea here...it's pretty incredible, but the NFC East has all 4 TEs in the top 8 in the league in receiving yards..
I think that Cooley could become the best of the three eventually, but right now it's pretty much a tie..Cooley's and Witten's stats last year were virtually identical..maybe right now I would take Shockey, even though I can't stand his attitude..

[vabeach_skinsfan]

I voted for Cooley. Even though I our passing game last year was mostly concentrated on Cooley and Moss, I think he's going to have a better year under the new schemes of Saunders. I mean Tony Gonzales was a beast in KC every year he played for AS. There is no reason why Cooley shouldn't have the same type of success.

[Keino]

What an elite group. All 4 are Top 10 at their position IMO, and I disagree with CNY. Witten is not overrated. If anything he is underrated.

I voted for Shockey, because if I could pick any of the 4, he would be my first pick. The guy is a talent. When healthy he is the best TE in the NFC East, by alot.

[Spence]

Great bunch, tough decision. I voted Shockey, though I'm not impressed with his blocking and his hands are questionable. Nevertheless, he shows a true knack for getting open, especially down the field and over the middle, that none of the other tight ends have shown. Shockey doesn't just catch passes, he makes big plays. The others have not demonstrated anywhere near Shockey's ability to get open way downfield and create huge gains.

Witten will be playing in a two tight end offense in 2006 and that should free him up to catch more passes. That worries me because Witten is a top talent at the position.

[shally]

This is one position I think the NFC East is loaded. I think our division has some of the best in football.

Please wait for the poll.
a very tough call. right now you could go with any one of the 4 and have a quality player (assuming that smith is over his back woes)..


i think shockey is the best receiver but lacks blocking skills

cooley is the better short/flat receiver but lacks downfield speed and is not as good a blocker

witten would be my choice

smith is a tremendous receiver but loses concentration and drops passes sometimes and he lacks some blocking skills.

witten, therefore... plus, cooley is still transitioning between H back and true tight end

[shally]

I didnt vote practice habits or attitude i voted results. You can also talk abotu ooley's fumble problems he needs to fix this off-season.

definitely true about cooley.. he was lucky that a couple of them were covered by the offense or it would have been far worse. they are caused by his efforts to get more yardage, but that is still no excuse.. he needs to do better.

[RedSkinBrit]

CC shades it for me ,but i rate Witten also.

[RedskinRyan]

let cooley be a true tight end, until then i voted jason witten(eww).

[dj_stouty]

Witten is not overrated. If anything he is underrated.

I agree. I also believe Witten is underrated. I believe he is definitely the best "all-around" TE of the group...and I'd argue he has the best hands in the group. He is definitely the best blocker out of the lot and has shown that he can gross almost 1,000 yards in a season, when given the opportunity. Fortunately for Redskins fans, his role was diminished in Dallas last year. I hope for our sakes, it continues to be diminished, since he is definitely a threat on the field, no matter what yard line the ball is placed.

I voted Witten with Shockey and Cooley tied for 2nd.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Take away Chris Cooley's ball-securing issues and he might be the best tight end in the NFC East but right now I think it is Jason Witten. Witten has great hands, he's strong as an OX, he can get open and he can block. What more can you ask for?

Cooley on the other hand has fantastic football instincts. He's not that fast but he finds ways to get open. He has very good hands and he can truck DB's like Terrance Newman. He's agile for a man of his size.

Shockey is on a lower level IMO mainly because of his dumb attitude, not talent...and dropping that wide open TD is simply inexcusable. So is complaining to the refs while Lemar Marshal returns an INT. So far Jeremy Shockey was better in college than he has been in the pros.

Not to leave out LJ Smith who is a very solid TE, he might be the best TE in some other divisions, just not the NFC East or the AFC West.

[Vonslydog]

This is by far the hardest of this poll series. Therefore, like a coward, I pass.

[whitskins]

I think Shockey is the only guy here who you can build an entire offense around. He's a complete threat, he can make the plays in the intermediate game and go deep for long bombs and stretch the field. He can dominate any game at any given time.

He's an idiot and I dislike him very much, but I think he's the best of the bunch.

[danny's stogie]

I agree. I also believe Witten is underrated. I believe he is definitely the best "all-around" TE of the group...and I'd argue he has the best hands in the group. He is definitely the best blocker out of the lot and has shown that he can gross almost 1,000 yards in a season, when given the opportunity. Fortunately for Redskins fans, his role was diminished in Dallas last year. I hope for our sakes, it continues to be diminished, since he is definitely a threat on the field, no matter what yard line the ball is placed.

I voted Witten with Shockey and Cooley tied for 2nd.

Agree 100%. Witten is currently the most complete player of the group. But Cooley, Witten, and Shockey are so close that anyone arguing that one team has a clear advantage over the other at the TE position is foolish.

[Keino]

This poll is Homerific.

Gee so according to the majority of this site, we have the Best C, the best 2 T, the Best G and lost out on the second G by one vote (Snee beats Dockery out) and the Best FullBack and if we are to believe the results of this poll so far, the best TE.

How can we lose a game? Seems like we have the best player at every position but P and K.


BTW - I really cannot fathom how Cooley is winning this vote. I would rank them:

1. Shockey
2. Witten
3. Cooley
4. LJ Smith

[SpicyMcHaggis]

This poll is Homerific.

Gee so according to the majority of this site, we have the Best C, the best 2 T, the Best G and lost out on the second G by one vote (Snee beats Dockery out) and the Best FullBack and if we are to believe the results of this poll so far, the best TE.

How can we lose a game? Seems like we have the best player at every position but P and K.


BTW - I really cannot fathom how Cooley is winning this vote. I would rank them:

1. Shockey
2. Witten
3. Cooley
4. LJ Smith
I was thinking the same thing Keino..I can understand us winning the previous polls, but this one is really a bit too biased...if for no other reason that Cooley has had only one really good season, while the others at least 2 or 3..

[redskin_rich]

Shockey is the best of the group but Witten and Cooley aren't far behind. LJ Smith is easily the weakest of the bunch.

[Keino]

Shockey is the best of the group but Witten and Cooley aren't far behind. LJ Smith is easily the weakest of the bunch.

Yet easily the most athletic of the bunch. His weakness lies in that he is the weakest of the 4 blockers, and not as polished a Receiver as any of the others.

As my first post indicates, I think all 4 are top 10 at the position, so of course the difference isn't by alot, but I think people are off their respective Rockers to put Cooley ahead of Witten or Shockey. They are both Bigger, Stronger and faster, both are better blockers. Cooley is great, and productive, and I love his attitude and approach, but c'mon.

[smoak]

Cooley wouldn't have 1/3 of the votes he has if he wasn't a Redskin, but I guess that is the nature of the beast. I wouldn't trade #47 for any of them, but I still consider Witten the most complete player. Shockey, although talented, is the last guy (of the three) I'd want on my team. I just don't think he has any of the intagibles and doesn't show up in big spots.

[redskin_rich]

Yet easily the most athletic of the bunch. His weakness lies in that he is the weakest of the 4 blockers, and not as polished a Receiver as any of the others.

As my first post indicates, I think all 4 are top 10 at the position, so of course the difference isn't by alot, but I think people are off their respective Rockers to put Cooley ahead of Witten or Shockey. They are both Bigger, Stronger and faster, both are better blockers. Cooley is great, and productive, and I love his attitude and approach, but c'mon.
I agree with the way you ranked them but I think Shockey is the most athletic of the bunch. I wouldn't put Smith in the top 10, maybe top 15. He has the potential but has yet to realize it.
I think Witten is the most rounded of the group(blocking and receiving) and Cooley has the best hands, fumbles aside. Shockey is definitely the most dangerous as a downfield threat.

[danny's stogie]

This poll is Homerific.

Gee so according to the majority of this site, we have the Best C, the best 2 T, the Best G and lost out on the second G by one vote (Snee beats Dockery out) and the Best FullBack and if we are to believe the results of this poll so far, the best TE.

How can we lose a game? Seems like we have the best player at every position but P and K.


BTW - I really cannot fathom how Cooley is winning this vote. I would rank them:

1. Shockey
2. Witten
3. Cooley
4. LJ Smith


To be fair, it seems as if Shockey and Witten are splitting the non-homer vote.

[Ibleedburgundy]

I said Witten but I'm curious why you guys think it's so absurd to pick Cooley over Witten or Shockey. The three of them had nearly identicle numbers last year. Shockey had more yards, Cooley had more receptions and ranks well on the Joyner system, Witten is probably the best blocker and he ranks even better than Cooley on the Joyner system. All three are reasonable choices IMO.

[Keino]

I said Witten but I'm curious why you guys think it's so absurd to pick Cooley over Witten or Shockey. The three of them had nearly identicle numbers last year.

Because Neither Cooley or Witten are on the back sides of their career's (Adams vs Samuels discussion) and those 2 have multiple seasons of comparable performance whereas Cooley has 1 season pf performing at this level. Thats the simple answer, but I also think that If we could pick any one of the 4 to be the Redskins TE, I don't think many would pick Cooley over the other 2, and they would be smart not to.

[danny's stogie]

Because Neither Cooley or Witten are on the back sides of their career's (Adams vs Samuels discussion) and those 2 have multiple seasons of comparable performance whereas Cooley has 1 season pf performing at this level. Thats the simple answer, but I also think that If we could pick any one of the 4 to be the Redskins TE, I don't think many would pick Cooley over the other 2, and they would be smart not to.

Another thing is that it remains to be seen how Cooley fairs as a more traditional TE. I feel as if a lot of his success has been based on scheme and that when teams started man covering him more later in the season he lost some of his effectiveness -- good thing Dallas wasn't smart enough, lol.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Because Neither Cooley or Witten are on the back sides of their career's (Adams vs Samuels discussion) and those 2 have multiple seasons of comparable performance whereas Cooley has 1 season pf performing at this level. Thats the simple answer, but I also think that If we could pick any one of the 4 to be the Redskins TE, I don't think many would pick Cooley over the other 2, and they would be smart not to.

That's the thing, I wouldn't pick Shockey and I think Gibbs would try to avoid picking (or picking up) a guy like Shockey mainly because of his attitude. He doesn't strike me as a Gibbs guy. If Gibbs was interested in drafting punks we might have KWII right now instead of ST and Lav Coles instead of Moss. That's part of the reason why I picked Witten.

As for putting up solid numbers every year, I think it's safe to say Cooley will continue to produce because he has taken advantage of almost every opportunity given to him. We have seen what he can do and he can take over a game.

[Keino]

That's the thing, I wouldn't pick Shockey and I think Gibbs would try to avoid picking (or picking up) a guy like Shockey mainly because of his attitude. He doesn't strike me as a Gibbs guy. If Gibbs was interested in drafting punks we might have KWII right now instead of ST and Lav Coles instead of Moss. That's part of the reason why I picked Witten.


I think thats partly perception. Whe Eli Called Shockey last year (While he was working out at the U) and said, "hey get your rear end up here and be with your teamates", Shockey was there the next day. The guy made some idiotic remarks his first year, and he's far from a model citizen, but I don't think Gibbs would shy away from a Shockey who performs, especially given his talent. We know that Al Saunders would love to have him, given how he used Gonzo, and to a lesser extent Ernie Conwell in St. Louis..

[Spence]

Gibbs chooses players who produce on the field. The notion that Gibbs is a breed apart -- that he turns away bad characters even if they excel on the football field -- is a fallacy perpetrated and perpetuated by fans determined to deify Gibbs and an adoring media keen to curry favor with those same fans. Gibbs would love to have Shockey. Gibbs would love to have Randy Moss.

Gibbs might very well turn away Terrell Owens, but that doesn't make him unique. I think several other NFL head coaches [like Bill Belichick] would refuse to employ Terrell Owens unless they were absolutely desperate. People get sucked in by Gibbs' "aw shucks" attitude. He may act like your nice old uncle when the TV cameras are on him, but he got to the Hall of Fame the same way all the other coaches did: By ruthlessly demanding the best production possible from his players and dispensing with those who don't meet his standards.

[smoak]

Gibbs chooses players who produce on the field. The notion that Gibbs is a breed apart -- that he turns away bad characters even if they excel on the football field -- is a fallacy perpetrated and perpetuated by fans determined to deify Gibbs and an adoring media keen to curry favor with those same fans. Gibbs would love to have Shockey. Gibbs would love to have Randy Moss.

Gibbs might very well turn away Terrell Owens, but that doesn't make him unique. I think several other NFL head coaches [like Bill Belichick] would refuse to employ Terrell Owens unless they were absolutely desperate. People get sucked in by Gibbs' "aw shucks" attitude. He may act like your nice old uncle when the TV cameras are on him, but he got to the Hall of Fame the same way all the other coaches did: By ruthlessly demanding the best production possible from his players and dispensing with those who don't meet his standards.

I somewhat agree but I think you left out one important clarification. Gibbs would take any player he felt would make the team better. I don't know that if Shockey or Moss hit the market that he would think they fit the bill or not. We certainly showed no interest in TO who despite all his issues seems to get into less off field trouble than Moss. I really think the determining factor in whether or not Gibbs adds/retains a player is whether or not that player makes the team better. IMO, there are very few players with off field problems that make their team better. Most are distractions and deter from the goal of winning.

Certainly I think the "aw shucks" is played to the media, but I also believe it is Gibbs personality in some ways. Not to say he isn't competitive (by all accounts he is one of the most competitive people you'll ever meet), but I'm not sure I see him as ruthless either. I think he is ultra demanding in a professional and respectful way and that is why players love him. You will know where you stand and you will be respected... but if you can't help the team, you will be gone. Of course this is all speculation on my part, but it is based on what a lot of his former and current players say about playing for him.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Gibbs chooses players who produce on the field. The notion that Gibbs is a breed apart -- that he turns away bad characters even if they excel on the football field -- is a fallacy perpetrated and perpetuated by fans determined to deify Gibbs and an adoring media keen to curry favor with those same fans. Gibbs would love to have Shockey. Gibbs would love to have Randy Moss.

Gibbs might very well turn away Terrell Owens, but that doesn't make him unique. I think several other NFL head coaches [like Bill Belichick] would refuse to employ Terrell Owens unless they were absolutely desperate. People get sucked in by Gibbs' "aw shucks" attitude. He may act like your nice old uncle when the TV cameras are on him, but he got to the Hall of Fame the same way all the other coaches did: By ruthlessly demanding the best production possible from his players and dispensing with those who don't meet his standards.

I totally disagree for Gibbs 2.0. I know Gibbs had some guys like Dexter Manley but there are no Dexters on the current roster (maybe ST but when we drafted him he was supposed to be a straight shooter). In fact, most of the newest Redskins thanked God first and formost in their first Redskins interviews. Maybe this is a coincidence but I don't think so. We have assembled team God.

[Spence]

IBB, put Taylor's legal troubles aside for a moment. He spat in another player's face in a playoff game. Got himself thrown out. Could have cost his team the game. Imagine the response of Redskins fans if an opposing player had spit in the face of one of our players. If you get it done on the field and don't disrupt team chemistry, you can play for Joe Gibbs.

[Spence]

I'm not sure I see him as ruthless either.Both Theisman and Riggins tried to return to the team in 1986. Gibbs told both of them not to bother showing up for training camp. These guys took Gibbs to three NFC East divison championships, two NFC Championships, and one Super Bowl championship. Theisman was NFL MVP in 1983 and Riggins was Super Bowl MVP the year before. Both were hard workers who had literally bled for their teams. Theisman had sacrificed one of his limbs for the team. But when Gibbs decided that other, unproven players [like Jay Schroeder] would help the team more, he cut both Riggins and Theisman loose. Now, I'm not saying Gibbs did the wrong thing. Those guys were, likely, done in the NFL. I think Gibbs was correct. But I KNOW he was ruthless. Those are my two favorite examples, but there are others.

Let me make something clear. I like Joe Gibbs. A lot. He's my favorite Redskin -- player or coach -- ever. I like everything about the way he coaches football teams and football games. But he ain't no angel. Part of being a successful NFL head coach is being a bastard. It's in the job description. It's like being President of the United States -- ruthlessness is a part of the gig. Gibbs has not succeeded by breaking that rule. He has succeeded by following that rule and somehow not losing his humanity in the process.

[danny's stogie]

Both Theisman and Riggins tried to return to the team in 1986. Gibbs told both of them not to bother showing up for training camp. These guys took Gibbs to three NFC East divison championships, two NFC Championships, and one Super Bowl championship. Theisman was NFL MVP in 1983 and Riggins was Super Bowl MVP the year before. Both were hard workers who had literally bled for their teams. Theisman had sacrificed one of his limbs for the team. But when Gibbs decided that other, unproven players [like Jay Schroeder] would help the team more, he cut both Riggins and Theisman loose. Now, I'm not saying Gibbs did the wrong thing. Those guys were, likely, done in the NFL. I think Gibbs was correct. But I KNOW he was ruthless. Those are my two favorite examples, but there are others.

Let me make something clear. I like Joe Gibbs. A lot. He's my favorite Redskin -- player or coach -- ever. I like everything about the way he coaches football teams and football games. But he ain't no angel. Part of being a successful NFL head coach is being a bastard. It's in the job description. It's like being President of the United States -- ruthlessness is a part of the gig. Gibbs has not succeeded by breaking that rule. He has succeeded by following that rule and somehow not losing his humanity in the process.


Don't forget to thank us little people during your Pulitzer acceptance speech.

[smoak]

Both Theisman and Riggins tried to return to the team in 1986. Gibbs told both of them not to bother showing up for training camp. These guys took Gibbs to three NFC East divison championships, two NFC Championships, and one Super Bowl championship. Theisman was NFL MVP in 1983 and Riggins was Super Bowl MVP the year before. Both were hard workers who had literally bled for their teams. Theisman had sacrificed one of his limbs for the team. But when Gibbs decided that other, unproven players [like Jay Schroeder] would help the team more, he cut both Riggins and Theisman loose. Now, I'm not saying Gibbs did the wrong thing. Those guys were, likely, done in the NFL. I think Gibbs was correct. But I KNOW he was ruthless. Those are my two favorite examples, but there are others.

Let me make something clear. I like Joe Gibbs. A lot. He's my favorite Redskin -- player or coach -- ever. I like everything about the way he coaches football teams and football games. But he ain't no angel. Part of being a successful NFL head coach is being a bastard. It's in the job description. It's like being President of the United States -- ruthlessness is a part of the gig. Gibbs has not succeeded by breaking that rule. He has succeeded by following that rule and somehow not losing his humanity in the process.

Yeah, but JT and JR were finished and Gibbs was right. I don't see telling them not to come to camp as ruthless, but I guess it really depends on how the conversation goes. I'd envision him as telling them with compassion, but being very direct and to the point. Maybe I am wrong as I admittedly don't know for certain. I agree that team comes first, but I do not think of Gibbs as ruthless or a bastard. Unfortunately, I have spent my entire life in other media markets (B-more and Philly mostly) so I admittedly don't have the same experience of Gibbs 1.0 as you (and many others). Prior to the internet, news was so sparce that it was tough to follow the team in the offseason. I don't even remember having ESPN which I don't consider a good source for Redskins news.

[Keino]

Yeah, but JT and JR were finished and Gibbs was right. I don't see telling them not to come to camp as ruthless, but I guess it really depends on how the conversation goes. I'd envision him as telling them with compassion, but being very direct and to the point. Maybe I am wrong as I admittedly don't know for certain. I agree that team comes first, but I do not think of Gibbs as ruthless or a bastard. Unfortunately, I have spent my entire life in other media markets (B-more and Philly mostly) so I admittedly don't have the same experience of Gibbs 1.0 as you (and many others). Prior to the internet, news was so sparce that it was tough to follow the team in the offseason. I don't even remember having ESPN which I don't consider a good source for Redskins news.

How about the Doug Williams/ Jay Schroeder example. I think that is another example.

Spence is 100% accurate. Hell, Lavar Arrington is an example on the Gibbs 2.0 tip....

[DCassain21]

i think cooley is going to have the best upcoming season so for that i voted for cooley

[flave1969]

I think right now I take Shockey. But I really think this will be the last year I do.

I think Al Saunders will take Cooley to the next level, his schemes are made for receiving TE's and I believe Cooley will get plenty of looks especially in the Red Zone.

[JoeJacksonTaylor28]

Right now, I'm going with Shockey... next season I'm pretty sure I'll be voting for Cooley.

[smoak]

How about the Doug Williams/ Jay Schroeder example. I think that is another example.

Spence is 100% accurate. Hell, Lavar Arrington is an example on the Gibbs 2.0 tip....

Yeah, but I still don't see any evidence of the tough decisions being made in a "ruthless" manner. I won't argue that Gibbs would cut ANYONE if it made the team better. I just think more ex players would have a negative opinion if these decisions were carried out "ruthlessly". Maybe I am just being too literal, but I disagree with seeing Gibbs as a "bastard" b/c he does what it takes (within the rules) to win. Frankly, I'm glad he is capable of making the tough decision and I think he has the perfect balance of loyalty... His loyalty is always to the name on the front of the jersey first.

[DUCKIN_TACKLERS]

They all have very strong points and are very productive so i had to go with flaws. That left me choosing Whitten as the most complete. He has good hands good size,Catchs and blocks well and is clutch. LJ is too soft for me and is very streaky, Shockey is an improving blocker but right now isnt the best at it. He also has concentration lapses and attitude problems that seem to take him out of games(he can be baited). Cooley is solid in all catagories but he dosent posess the same speed as some of the others and he mostly excells when he is unaccounted for when teams game plan for him he isnt strong enough to take his game up a notch yet. So my vote goes to whitten although he wont be the most productive anymore in Dallas' new system.

[Ibleedburgundy]

IBB, put Taylor's legal troubles aside for a moment. He spat in another player's face in a playoff game. Got himself thrown out. Could have cost his team the game. Imagine the response of Redskins fans if an opposing player had spit in the face of one of our players. If you get it done on the field and don't disrupt team chemistry, you can play for Joe Gibbs.

Well Sean Taylor is an incredibly talented freak. I'm not saying Gibbs will flat out kick a guy off the team over ethics, I'm just saying I think there is a preference there, maybe even more so than other coaches. We have a lot of good characters on this team and I don't think that is by accident.

[CornerBlitz]

I went with Cooley but this was hard to choose. I think Whitten may be the best but I cant remember any huge breakout games from him. He is used more as a blocker in Dallas. Cooley is really good in the endzone and in crucial situations normally. Shockey is also solid and a threat but overrated still IMO.

Cooley has the most potential this year to break out with Saunders and the new recieving core.

[HAWGZHEAD]

Have to go with Witten although I think Shockey is right there with him. The all around play of Witten ranks him ahead of Shockey IMO. I fully expect to be voting for Chris Cooley next year in this poll and I need a shower, I feel dirty lol.

[HanburgerBum]

This is one position I think the NFC East is loaded. I think our division has some of the best in football.

Please wait for the poll.


I am going to go against the grain here and say that I don't think the NFC East is loaded with great TEs. In fact, I don't see a single one, unless it is Witten.

Shockey, Cooley and Smith are all terrific receiving TEs, but none is an accomplished blocker. A TE that doesn't block well is only half a loaf. Witten at least appears to be a good blocker, but I don't know if he is the receiving threat the other three are.

In fact, where are all the great TEs like Mark Bavaro and John Mackey, who blocked like a guard, never dropped a 3rd down pass and can stretch the field on the occasion? Are they all playing power forwards in the NBA?

[S.Taylor36]

I went with Chris Cooley. I had to. Shockey, while talented, is an idiot. So many mental mistakes. Makes the great catch and then will turn around and make a horrible play. Witten is very good but I see Cooley becoming an absolute stud this year.

[Meatsnack]

Whitten is the best today and most complete. Also a great guy in the locker room from all reports out of Dallas.

Shockey is the most physically talented but is a bust from the neck up.

Cooley is productive but physically limited and can be taken out of play by man coverage (playoffs).

LJ Smith is a physical talent and has been, historically, an effective security blanket for a scattershot McNugget. He is also the least productive of the four.

As to HanburgerBums question, yes, they are all power forwards in basketball. Why have pain-filled 8-year career in the league when you can make as much money per year for a lot longer playing B-ball in Europe? I agree that there are no world-beater TEs in the NFC-E. I would also argue that there isn't a Ditka/Mackey class TE in the whole league. Who in the league can catch/block/run like those guys? Some have part of the package but none have it all.

Last, re: Gibbs as Bastard. I think that we will all agree that Gibbs removes personal feelings from making personne decisions. He has said as much himself and players have as well. The difference is, as Spence stated, he hasn't lost his humanity in the process. So, I think he is ruthless in the sense that his only loyalty is to making the Team better rather than to the players who comprise the team. I don't go as far to say that it makes him a bastard. I also don't think it gives credit where due in that I think Gibbs would shy away from Shockey for the very reasons mentioned. Shockey is not productive enough to warrant destroying team comraderie. We had the ability to acquire Randy Moss. He ended up in Oakland instead. We had a chance to acquire TO and he ended up in Dallas instead. I don't think there is any truth to the idea that talent trumps character in Gibbs mind. Like most things it seems to be a sliding scale in which if talent is a large enough value in ratio to kornholiosity then the player becomes more palatable. Would Gibbs want Jerry Rice if he were a Randy Moss class jerk? Probably. But If Jerry quit on plays like Randy he wouldn't be Jerry... The truly great ones seem to have enough work ethic that they don't have time to be real jerks.

[TheDirtbags]

They are all great players i believe cooley eventually be the best out of all of them

[skins111111]

Cooley under Saunders =====hands down

[Fathead]

Cutting Theismann and Riggo wasn't ruthless. I seriously doubt he promised them roster spots and then cut them with no regard for their feelings. Did Coach Gibbs make a tough decision that those two disagreed with? Yes. But to say it was ruthless is a bit overboard.

[Keino]

I think you guys are making too much out Spence's use of the word "Ruthless"

It means simply:

ruthless

adj : without mercy or pity


If someone removes personal feelings about a person from a decision, then they are making that decision with our Pity.

Spence simply means that Gibbs, acts always in the best interests of winning and sometimes that means cutting someone who has contributed to the franchise and winning in the past (Riggo/Joey T.) Benching someone without real cause (Doug and some will argue Ramsey) or cutting a higher profile player in favor of an unknown because the unknown is the one performing, again, regardless of past contributions.

All of these actions can be considered ruthless from the standpoint of winning being the only consideration. No mercy or pity are given at the expense of winning.

[Spence]

I think you guys are making too much out Spence's use of the word "Ruthless"

It means simply:

ruthless

adj : without mercy or pity


If someone removes personal feelings about a person from a decision, then they are making that decision with our Pity.

Spence simply means that Gibbs, acts always in the best interests of winning and sometimes that means cutting someone who has contributed to the franchise and winning in the past (Riggo/Joey T.) Benching someone without real cause (Doug and some will argue Ramsey) or cutting a higher profile player in favor of an unknown because the unknown is the one performing, again, regardless of past contributions.

All of these actions can be considered ruthless from the standpoint of winning being the only consideration. No mercy or pity are given at the expense of winning.
Thank you, Keino. That's exactly what I meant. I assumed everyone knew what ruthless means, but I guess to some people it is a synonym for evil. It isn't. Gibbs puts winning football games first -- before all personal considerations for himself or his players. He's hired to win football games. That's his job. He will do what is necessary to win games.

In other words, he's just like every other NFL coach. Only smarter.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

Thank you, Keino. That's exactly what I meant. I assumed everyone knew what ruthless means, but I guess to some people it is a synonym for evil. It isn't. Gibbs puts winning football games first -- before all personal considerations for himself or his players. He's hired to win football games. That's his job. He will do what is necessary to win games.

In other words, he's just like every other NFL coach. Only smarter.
Exactly. Benching Ramsey after 2 quarters was the perfect example. He thought Brunell gave him the best shot at winning, and that was all he needed to know..Ramsey was gone. That's ruthless, not evil, not unfair, not anything else. Show me one coach that isn't ruthless, and I'll show you a bad coach.

[X-Factor13]

i voted witten, because he does it ALL very well

[smoak]

Thank you, Keino. That's exactly what I meant. I assumed everyone knew what ruthless means, but I guess to some people it is a synonym for evil. It isn't. Gibbs puts winning football games first -- before all personal considerations for himself or his players. He's hired to win football games. That's his job. He will do what is necessary to win games.

In other words, he's just like every other NFL coach. Only smarter.

Maybe I am caught up on the words "ruthless" and "bastard", but I certainly know what they mean. It is possible for a person to make tough decisions with compassion and pity. n I wasn't involved in the conversations, but I can't imagine Gibbs being a complete jerk when telling a guy his services are no longer needed. If it happened to Joey T and Riggo the I see them as possibly being an exception with their respecively thick egos and craniums. But overall, I've heard Gibbs a couple times talk about similar situations and to me he seems to approach the situation with compassion for the player. Why would almost all of his ex players love him if he wasn't respectful of the delicate nature of when to tell a player they can function in the same role? Bottom line is that I agreed with what you said originally except the way you described Gibbs. I'd simply say he has the ability to make tough decisions that any successful coach has to make. I also think he know that a team full of character concerns (take the Bengals for example) will not be able to win it all. Sure, you don't need choir boys, but a champioship takes a certain level of dedication, and being out all night or arrested constantly takes away from what that player needs to be doing in order to succeed.

[Keino]

Smoak if your wife leaves you but does it nicely, she still left you, despite any feelings of pity she may have had for you.

Being ruthless doesn't necessarily mean that you have to be a jerk about your ruthlessness. It just means that you put aside any personal feelings and stay focused on the task.....in this case winning football games. Loyalty to that goal. It's not that Gibbs doesn't feel compassion when cutting a player, it's just that he doesn't let compassion enter into the decision as to whether or not to keep said player.

[smoak]

Smoak if your wife leaves you but does it nicely, she still left you, despite any feelings of pity she may have had for you.

Being ruthless doesn't necessarily mean that you have to be a jerk about your ruthlessness. It just means that you put aside any personal feelings and stay focused on the task.....in this case winning football games. Loyalty to that goal. It's not that Gibbs doesn't feel compassion when cutting a player, it's just that he doesn't let compassion enter into the decision as to whether or not to keep said player.

I agree.

ruth·less (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ruthless) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rthls) adj.
Having no compassion or pity; merciless: