Regarding McCluster... he was really impressive in SEC action last year, and his pedigree (high second round) is seriously legit. I don't know how he'll translate, but I wouldn't have any problem burning a late first or early second on him.
I'm really sick of that "100 catch season" stuff. A catch is not a meaningful statistic on its own. Yards and TDs are meaningful, and Marshall has yet to finish higher than 9th based on the strength of his yards and his TDs. I think all of the "Marshall should be a top 5 dynasty WR" talk might be a bit more compelling if Marshall actually had a top 5 fantasy finish on his resume. Why rank him above Roddy White or Miles Austin when those two guys are already outperforming Marshall *AND* carry less risk (in addition to the "knucklehead" risk, Marshall also carries risk because he's switching teams)?
In PPR leagues (pretty much the only kind I play in), the only WRs who can match Marshall's scoring over the past three years are Larry Fitzgerald, Andre Johnson, Randy Moss, and Reggie Wayne. Considering that he's younger than all of those guys, I think it's reasonable to rank him as a top 5 dynasty WR. He has been $$$ every season for three years running and he's still only 26. Having said that, I'm not really interested in rehashing the Marshall debate, as it's a dead horse in this thread.
As has been said at least twice in the last page, PPR leagues are a horse of a different color.
I dunno know about that...those 100 points for catches I got for Marshall in my PPR league seemed pretty meaningful to me.
Seriously, for comparsion purposes, do you think that rushing for 100 yards is any more meaningful than 99? I am not saying it is, but that is a threshold used to determine achieving a certain level of performance. Not that I agree with the concept but sportswriters and football fans do seem to value benchmarks like 100 catches or 100 yards.
I get why 100 is a meaningful milestone. Humans have 10 fingers, 100 = 10 x 10, the frequency of occurrence makes it a decent benchmark for a "good" game or a "great" season. I'm just saying I don't get why catches, in particular, are always held up as the be-all, end-all of WR talent. If one WR has 80 catches for 1200 yards, and another WR has 120 catches for 800 yards, which WR had the better season? In my mind, it's clearly and unequivocally the first guy, no question about it whatsoever. In 2003, Tomlinson finished 4th in the league in receptions with 100... but he only had 725 receiving yards. Would you say that Tomlinson was one of the top 5 receivers (strictly receivers, mind you) in the league that year? Because his reception totals sure suggest that he is. And people for years would bring up that 100 catch season while completely ignoring seasons like Garner's 91/941 the year before. That seems silly to me. In 2003, San Diego had no one else to throw to and the offensive line was terrible, so Tomlinson caught an obscene amount of garbage and did very little with it. A mind boggling 74% of his receptions failed to produce a new set out downs. San Diego treated him like New Orleans used to treat Bush, throwing him junk on 3rd and long that padded his stats while doing absolutely nothing useful for the offense. And yet, despite this, people think of it as the greatest receiving season in Tomlinson's career (and one of the best RB receiving seasons of the decade), simply because the sheer volume of garbage receptions he got.Anyway, Marshall is very similar. People get blinded by the fact that the first number in his stat line is so consistently large, and lose sight of the fact that the second and third numbers are so average compared to his elite peers. He's 8th in receiving yards over the last two years, behind Andre Johnson, Roddy White, Larry Fitzgerald, and Reggie Wayne (the obvious ones)... but also behind Wes Welker, Greg Jennings, and Smiff South! Vincent Jackson has essentially matched him point-for-point over that span (339 for Marshall, 330 for Jackson), and as I've outlined above has just a fraction of the "knucklehead quotient". I don't think it's at all controversial to put Marshall behind Andre, Fitz, Calvin, Roddy, Jennings, and VJax (all of whom have a track record of success, have produced as much over the last two years, and are on the "right" side of 30), which leaves Marshall at 7th, at best. And then there are the one-hit wonders like Rice, Crabtree, Desean, and Austin, or the older studs like Moss and Wayne. Like I said, there is a *LOT* of competition in the second tier of dynasty WRs, and Marshall's production on the field is not enough to put him above those peers... but his production *OFF* the field certainly gives reason to put him below his peers.