#3 WRs: Engram, Porter, Looker, Morton, etc.

[Wesley Walker]

I was wondering what people think about the #3 WRs on teams like Seattle. St. Louis, or K.C. -- teams that have enough offense, usually, to make three WRsat least arguably fantasy-worthy.

Seattle fans: Bobby Engram caught more balls (and dropped fewer) than either KRon or DJax. Is that by design and is that likely to continue in future games this year?

With Porter, I haver my doubts. He is certainly a better WR than Tim Brown right now, and a much better athlete at this stage of their respective careers. But that doesn't mean he's going to be in there for two WR sets. 1) Oakland isn't running quite as many three WR sets as last year. 2) Rick Mirer is not Rich Gannon of 2002 -- and Rich gannon of 2003 isn't either.

I say Morton is a #3 WR because Gonzalez is number one and Kennison usually seems to be number three. For some reason I thought Morton might diminish in performance after that Bay Area steroid lab was linked to him, but that hasn't seemed to happen. I think Morton is a great deep threat and he's damn fast. The other guy they've got is Dante, who isn't a bad 3/4 WR either.

And then there's Looker, but I'd have to be really desperate to consider starting him in a three-WR fantasy league. (All of this discussion assumes a three-WR fantasy format.)

What do y'all think of these WRs or others who could have substantial value down the stretch?

[dgroundhog_ffc]

I like Porter. They usually have him in when they want ot pass, and he is the main end zone threat. I'd put him clearly above the others.

Porter
Morton
Engram

Looker might lose value if Kevin Curtis comes back. It seems to me like he either gets you zero or 6 points, usually zero. I'll pass.

[Wesley Walker]

Thanks d-dog.

Hey, my knees hurt just watching Porter's little TD celebration yesterday.

[anth]

I would say the best #3 WR in the league is Mccants. He gets a ton of looks in the red-zone and it's already lead to 4 tds. (which is more than most team's #1 WR)