Gonzales

[wpony]

I agree I think we should pick him up for a 3rd or 4th rd pick we have good young tight ends that can watch and learn from him that would be almost as good as what he does on the field, If his time is good here maybe when he retires he could become the tight end coach.
To this day I still say Jim McMahon Helped to make Brett as good as he was Brett Always had the strong arm but when we first got him there was something just missing couldn't quite name it but then we picked up Jim McMahon which I was totally against at the time how could we pick up the Antichrist LOL but then I noticed Brett and him were together all the time on the sideline after every series and it started to show Brett started to get the swagger and the things he was missing even though we did not have Jim McMahon long he did what he was brought into do LOL that must have really killed the bear fans anyway if we could bring in Tony Gonzalez for just a few years and have him do the same thing for our young tight ends it would be well worth the price.

[DonHutson]

Re: Gonzales

Would you do the deal that was on the table last year? The one Petersen (former KC GM) reneged on?

Not only is it a year later, but they deserve a 1 round penalty for dicking us around last year. If they can do better than a 4th from someone else, let 'em.

[Harlan Huckleby]

if we could bring in Tony Gonzalez for just a few years and have him do the same thing for our young tight ends it would be well worth the price.

for a few years? He's 35, already played 12 NFL seasons. TE is a very physical position, those guys get beat up. Maybe Gonzalez is the exception, but I seem to remember most of the good ones retiring in their early 30s.

You mentioned the geriatric McMahon, but QB is a very different situation.

[Merlin]

I don't think Gonzalez brings us anything at the age of 35. He isn't as dominating at TE as he once was and our TE's did a decent job this past season. I don't think bringing him in will do anything positive for the offense. Rodgers has a year of starting under his belt and the skill positions aren't in need of an upgrade. Now, if he was a 25 year old all pro guard, I would give up whatever it took to get him in camp.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

I don't think Gonzalez brings us anything at the age of 35. He isn't as dominating at TE as he once was and our TE's did a decent job this past season. I don't think bringing him in will do anything positive for the offense. Rodgers has a year of starting under his belt and the skill positions aren't in need of an upgrade. Now, if he was a 25 year old all pro guard, I would give up whatever it took to get him in camp.

He isn't as dominating? He had one of his best seasons last year. I just don't think we should give higher than a 4th for a player with one or two years left.

[Bretsky]

I don't think Gonzalez brings us anything at the age of 35. He isn't as dominating at TE as he once was and our TE's did a decent job this past season. I don't think bringing him in will do anything positive for the offense. Rodgers has a year of starting under his belt and the skill positions aren't in need of an upgrade. Now, if he was a 25 year old all pro guard, I would give up whatever it took to get him in camp.

Not dominating ? WOW; if Gonzo was not dominating last year....for a TE....I don't know what the standard is.

[Joemailman]

Oh, come on B. He only had 96 catches and 10 TD's. You call that dominant?

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/G/GonzTo00.htm

[KYPack]

Oh, come on B. He only had 96 catches and 10 TD's. You call that dominant?
http://www.pro-football-reference.co...G/GonzTo00.htm

I saw him play last year, Joe.

He is a dominant player and still one of the top TE's.

He's cut, still quick, strong, and fast.

I'd say he's got a couple left in the tank and would be a special guy for at least the first one.

If the old KC GM would have stuck nwith the deal TT had on the table, TG would have 8 games under his belt already for the G&G.

[Joemailman]

I quite agree. He probably wouldn't catch 96 passes with the Packers because Arod has plenty of other weapons, but he would be a major upgrade to this offense, especially in the red zone.

[Zool]

I quite agree. He probably wouldn't catch 96 passes with the Packers because Arod has plenty of other weapons, but he would be a major upgrade to this offense, especially in the red zone.

And that would make him worth a 3rd IMO.

[texaspackerbacker]

It is if you put a little catholic schoolgirl plaid skirt on it.

Harlan won't do that anymore, he says it makes his ass look too big.

He's been converted from TE to WR--Harlan, not Tony.


Seriously, last season I was opposed to trading for Gonzales, and as has been said, he's a year older with a year less on his contract now. But he was still effective. The reason many TEs don't age well is injuries. The ones who stay healthy do tend to stay good.

The reason I change my mind now is the Packers TEs. Lee took a large step backward last year, and, as far as I know, it wasn't injury related. Humphrey showed signs, but never did much. We could stand to lose him. And Finley is still a project. As somebody said, it would do him good to play with Gonzales--partly the learning aspect and partly by getting coverage that Lee might not, leaving Finley more open.

[KYPack]

It is if you put a little catholic schoolgirl plaid skirt on it.

Harlan won't do that anymore, he says it makes his ass look too big.

He's been converted from TE to WR--Harlan, not Tony.


Seriously, last season I was opposed to trading for Gonzales, and as has been said, he's a year older with a year less on his contract now. But he was still effective. The reason many TEs don't age well is injuries. The ones who stay healthy do tend to stay good.

The reason I change my mind now is the Packers TEs. Lee took a large step backward last year, and, as far as I know, it wasn't injury related. Humphrey showed signs, but never did much. We could stand to lose him. And Finley is still a project. As somebody said, it would do him good to play with Gonzales--partly the learning aspect and partly by getting coverage that Lee might not, leaving Finley more open.

Tex, agree with you 100%

Lee's decline is a total puzzle to me. Both TT and the coach know the value an effective TE has in MM's offense. Tony would jump start the passing offense and give us one of the more effective units in the league.

Our # 3 pick, the Jets 3 and our #4 range from picks 73 - 105. One of 'em is a stiff price, but I'd trade a potential Corey Rogers type guy for Tony any day.

Let's re-kindle that trade and get it done.

Gonzales make 5 mil per year.

[Waldo]

It is if you put a little catholic schoolgirl plaid skirt on it.

Harlan won't do that anymore, he says it makes his ass look too big.

He's been converted from TE to WR--Harlan, not Tony.


Seriously, last season I was opposed to trading for Gonzales, and as has been said, he's a year older with a year less on his contract now. But he was still effective. The reason many TEs don't age well is injuries. The ones who stay healthy do tend to stay good.

The reason I change my mind now is the Packers TEs. Lee took a large step backward last year, and, as far as I know, it wasn't injury related. Humphrey showed signs, but never did much. We could stand to lose him. And Finley is still a project. As somebody said, it would do him good to play with Gonzales--partly the learning aspect and partly by getting coverage that Lee might not, leaving Finley more open.

Tex, agree with you 100%

Lee's decline is a total puzzle to me. Both TT and the coach know the value an effective TE has in MM's offense. Tony would jump start the passing offense and give us one of the more effective units in the league.

Our # 3 pick, the Jets 3 and our #4 range from picks 73 - 105. One of 'em is a stiff price, but I'd trade a potential Corey Rogers type guy for Tony any day.

Let's re-kindle that trade and get it done.

Gonzales make 5 mil per year.

What was wrong with the passing offense, it was top 5 with a first year starter at the helm. A lack of targets is surely not a problem. If our passing offense is going to get better, it needs more time, not different targets.

Lee's "decline" has more the do with use than his play. Lee caught the highest % of targets of any TE in the league with 25 or more targets (79%). He is clutch. And scored on 10% of his targets. Tony caught 62% of his targets and scored on 6% of them. Tony was thrown to more than any single player on our team (Tony had 155 targets, Jennings had 140 targets, Lee had 49 targets). Tony was the 4th most thrown to receiver in the NFL.

We are not overflowing with $$. If we don't contract over the natural cap (123M), all top 3 round draft picks displace near minimum wage players, we don't cut any expensive players, and extend Jennings, Colledge, Collins, Kamp, Pickett, Williams, and Spitz to deals fair for their level of play, we will have between 2M-7M in cap space left over. Tony would be our only move in FA/trade. If we cut Grant or Clifton, Tony would be a viable option. If Clifton isn't cut in the next 3 weeks, he isn't going to be cut this season.

[Guiness]

I wonder as well if Lee really had a 'down' year, or if it was just a matter of there not being enough balls to go around in the passing game. At first glance, it may not seem so - our top 4 WR's are going to get the lion's share of the attention in the passing game.

However, being that Grant doesn't seem to be much of a receiver, you'd think there's room for a TE to make a living catching outlet passes. Is he sent on those routes? Has he been successful? I really don't know.

[K-town]

I though one of the reasons Donald Lee had a "down" year was that, especially in the first half of the year, he was often lined up in the backfield and used as a pass blocker.