Bear Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Please. I drafted Pollard for YEARS for my fantasy squads prior to the arrival of Clark. The guy never produced like he was expected to, which is the whole reason they acquired Clark. 248546[/snapback] I love it when people say someone is/isn't good because of how well they did in fantasy football. Actually, the reason Clark was drafted was because Indy runs a lot of 2 TE sets. (My guess is they draft another TE, although Hartsock showed promise the few times he saw the field) Pollard is a better blocking back, so they drafted Clark to be the pass catching guy. The problem with that was, Clark never took off like Indy expected. He is a "good" tight end, but not a game changer like they were hoping for when they drafted him. As they have played together, they have pretty much split the workload. They have both been good blockers (both are better at pass blocking than run blocking), and both can catch quite well. Clark is faster and better in space, but Pollard is better in the redzone. He can catch the ball in traffic and hold on to it....good for a redzone TD or a much needed 1st down. If I had to rate them, they would probably be dead even. Clark getting a slight nod for recieving and Pollard for blocking. If I had to keep one, it would also be Clark since he is younger and more of a "threat". Picking up Pollard would be huge, but even if it didn't happen, it at least takes some heat off of Franks in the FA market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTW_BillsFan Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Joe, I thought you were being sarcastic on the whole McKellar thing.....almost like the 2nd coming of Lonnie Johnson. Metzallar was the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snorom Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Pollard is ok but the reason he appears to be better then average is beacuse he has Manning throwing him the football Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Keith M was a niche/role player for the Bills and really could not be considered "awesome" or "great" at any time. He was a very good receiver but could not block worth a $$$$. As a pure TE that would make him average. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Keith M was a niche/role player for the Bills and really could not be considered "awesome" or "great" at any time. He was a very good receiver but could not block worth a $$$$. As a pure TE that would make him average. 248697[/snapback] Exactly, & that's why Metzelaars ended up starting over him. As for Pollard, I would much prefer him over Bubba Franks or anyone else, GO TD!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Yes, the Colts thought so highly of him they cut him and kept Dallas Clark 248499[/snapback] They can't afford to keep everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Pollard produced. Ask Edgerin James. It's not just catches... http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/1335 You really need to become an Arena Football fan...it's a better fit. 248585[/snapback] Woe is me, yet another buffoon that thinks he knows more than me. What to do, what to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 They can't afford to keep everyone. 248706[/snapback] Of course not, but if Pollard is all buftex says he is, then they would have let clark go and kept him, that's all I'm saying.....STUCKINCINCY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Of course not, but if Pollard is all buftex says he is, then they would have let clark go and kept him, that's all I'm saying.....STUCKINCINCY. 248719[/snapback] Italics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Italics? 248726[/snapback] For emphasis... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 How is Pollard at pass/run blocking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Of course not, but if Pollard is all buftex says he is, then they would have let clark go and kept him, that's all I'm saying.....STUCKINCINCY. 248719[/snapback] It has everything to do with cost. They can cut him and get $2.65 million back - it only makes sense to lose a player if you have depth at the position. The Colts do in this case, though I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they signed him to an extension to lessen his hit. Oh, and :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: ya dope smoker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 For emphasis... 248727[/snapback] You're an idiot. I suspect we have more in common than meets the eye... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 You're an idiot. I suspect we have more in common than meets the eye... 248736[/snapback] hehe yeah, but I'm not as OLD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 hehe yeah, but I'm not as OLD. 248739[/snapback] That's obvious...your little understanding of complex issues which is attained by experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 That's obvious...your little understanding of complex issues which is attained by experience. 248742[/snapback] pfft. PLEASE. This from the guy using a Tulane helmet as an avatar?!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike in Syracuse Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Oh no, you called me a tough guy. Look, genius, I'm merely attempting to REFUTE your fact that Pollard is "the next coming of Keith McKellar". If he was THAT good (McKellar was AWESOME when healthy) he wouldn't be getting cut, and he wouldn't have been the second stringer. Capisce? 248538[/snapback] I've met you and you're definitely a "tough guy". I'm going to cal you "Uber-pack" from now on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted February 22, 2005 Author Share Posted February 22, 2005 Keith M was a niche/role player for the Bills and really could not be considered "awesome" or "great" at any time. He was a very good receiver but could not block worth a $$$$. As a pure TE that would make him average. 248697[/snapback] This is very true. When he was healthy, for a few years, he was a great revceiving threat, that Bills fans appreciated. Ask anyone outside of Buffalo, who is an NFL fan, who Keith McKellar was, I bet 90% have no idea. He just could not stay healthy. In our Bills clogged hearts he may have been "awesome", but Pollard has been far more productive than McKellar ever was. It is not even close. This is like arguing that RJ was better than Joe Ferugson, he just couldn't stay healthy long enough to prove it. As far as the assertion that Pollard was only good because he had Manning throwing to him, is, well, in a word, idiotic. Jim Kelly was no slouch throwing to McKellar. A pass receiving tight end, is a young learning QB's best friend...Pollard would be a great addition to our offense, and Losman could benefit. Even when healthy, Campbell is a notch below, and Euhus and Neufeld are kind of unknown commmoditys. If Euhus recovers fully from his injury, he can back up Pollard for a year or two (Bills would not sign Pollard to anything greateter than a 2 or 3 yard contract), and then we can re-sign him (Euhus) cheaply, if he shows any sign of being decent. My original point, in comparing Pollard to McKellar, was that Pollian saw McKellar as one of the great building blocks of the Bills offense during the early 90's. When Manning came along to the Colts, he, more than once, made reference to Pollard filling the same role in the Colts offense, that McKellar was intended to fill in Buffalo. Pollard may have lost some speed at this point in his career, and he may still drop a pass here and there, but he is far better, and fills the need that the Bills are trying to fill, far better than other free agent TE's than have been mentioned. He may be overrated, but IMO many are way overrating Bubba Franks. I also think, at this point, Pollard would come for a reasonable price. Franks will likely be overpaid by whoever winds up with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 pfft. PLEASE. This from the guy using a Tulane helmet as an avatar?!?! 248750[/snapback] Merely trying to provide a bit of optimism. Cur. IF you have been working on your vocabulary, you need not look that up unless you are familiar with it's application... You won't beat me, Six-Pack. Like you said, I'm OLD. But perhaps we will meet in a dive some day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like A Mofo Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 How is Pollard at pass/run blocking? 248730[/snapback] I asked that earlier...still havent found anything or gotten an answer!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts