What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

WR Tyler Lockett, SEA (1 Viewer)

Just Win Baby said:
I don't see how his floor can be 85 when just last season he got only 70 despite:

  • Being healthy all season
  • Baldwin missing 3 games and playing at well below 100% in most of the others
Lockett has played in 16 games in all 4 of his seasons so far. Here are his season target numbers:

  • 2015: 69
  • 2016: 66
  • 2017: 71
  • 2018: 70
That is remarkably consistent over 4 consecutive seasons, with changes in supporting cast, offensive coordinator and philosophy, and passing attempts per season. But his floor this season is 20% higher than his career high?

And a ceiling of 120 targets is 70% more than his previous season career high. I think there is zero chance of that happening.

I will agree to disagree, but I think some people are expecting way too much.
Click to expand...
Well, Baldwin is going to miss 16 games this year, so cant you see where the optimism for increased targets for Lockett, the default and presumed WR1 in the offense is coming from?  I think people also assume that the offense will not be quite as unbalanced from a run/pass standpoint next season.  I think there are very valid reasons to assume an increase in targets for Lockett this season.  I am surprised that it isnt an obvious and universal assumption.

 
Just Win Baby said:
I don't see how his floor can be 85 when just last season he got only 70 despite:

  • Being healthy all season
  • Baldwin missing 3 games and playing at well below 100% in most of the others
Lockett has played in 16 games in all 4 of his seasons so far. Here are his season target numbers:

  • 2015: 69
  • 2016: 66
  • 2017: 71
  • 2018: 70
That is remarkably consistent over 4 consecutive seasons, with changes in supporting cast, offensive coordinator and philosophy, and passing attempts per season. But his floor this season is 20% higher than his career high?

And a ceiling of 120 targets is 70% more than his previous season career high. I think there is zero chance of that happening.

I will agree to disagree, but I think some people are expecting way too much.
Click to expand...
Baldwin averaged 69 targets a year his first 3 seasons.

 
Seattle just needs to throw more. It's criminal that Russ is getting wasted in such a lot volume offense!

Sadly, I think JWB is right as long as schottenheimer is there

 
@ChuckLiddell, the board won't let me quote your post for some reason.

Yes, Baldwin is going to miss 16 games. I already addressed this in a recent post. The team just drafted 3 WRs, including one I expect to start and another I expect to be in the rotation.

Excluding QB runs, the team called 478 pass plays and 467 running plays. Almost perfectly balanced. Wilson ran 67 times, and I would assume most of those were called as passing plays but he scrambled, as opposed to called QB runs. Assuming 60 of them were called as passing plays, that means 538 passing play calls vs. 474 running play calls. That is not "unbalanced".

More importantly, that is the offense that Carroll wants. That is one reason he hired Schottenheimer to be the OC.

There is no doubt the pass attempts could increase this season... Seattle was last in the league. But it seems very unlikely it will go up significantly. IMO this is made even more true by Baldwin's retirement, not less true. YMMV.

 
bostonfred said:
Baldwin averaged 69 targets a year his first 3 seasons.
Click to expand...
Baldwin percentage of team targets by season (per PFR):

  • 2011 - 17.0%
  • 2012 - 12.4% (missed 2 games, only started 4)
  • 2013 - 17.6%
  • 2014 - 22.7%
  • 2015 - 21.8%
  • 2016 - 22.8%
  • 2017 - 22.1%
  • 2018 - 18.3% (missed 3 games, played through injuries that led to retirement)
Lockett percentage of team targets by season (per PFR):

  • 2015 - 14.6%
  • 2016 - 12.0%
  • 2017 - 13.5%
  • 2018 - 17.5%
So? Baldwin had a higher percentage in each corresponding season (first, second, etc.). The only corresponding season that was close was season 2, and Baldwin missed time due to injury that season.... and still had a higher percentage.

Do you think Lockett and Baldwin are similar? If so, how so? If not, why try to draw comparisons between dissimilar players?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just Win Baby said:
Baldwin percentage of team targets by season (per PFR):

  • 2011 - 17.0%
  • 2012 - 12.4% (missed 2 games, only started 4)
  • 2013 - 17.6%
  • 2014 - 22.7%
  • 2015 - 21.8%
  • 2016 - 22.8%
  • 2017 - 22.1%
  • 2018 - 18.3% (missed 3 games, played through injuries that led to retirement)
Lockett percentage of team targets by season (per PFR):

  • 2015 - 14.6%
  • 2016 - 12.0%
  • 2017 - 13.5%
  • 2018 - 17.5%
So? Baldwin had a higher percentage in each corresponding season (first, second, etc.). The only corresponding season that was close was season 2, and Baldwin missed time due to injury that season.... and still had a higher percentage.

Do you think Lockett and Baldwin are similar? If so, how so? If not, why try to draw comparisons between dissimilar players?
Click to expand...
Lockett's numbers are kind of delayed by a year because of the leg injury he suffered that left him clearly well below 100% the following year.

More importantly, Baldwin's big target increase up to 22.7% not coincidentally coincided with Golden Tate leaving and Baldwin taking over the team's #1 WR role, which is a very similar circumstance to what Lockett is walking into this year.

I don't necessarily think that Lockett is in line for a ton of targets, but it wouldn't surprise if he got a healthy amount.  More notably I think it's a bit of a stretch to use Lockett's target numbers in a clear #2/#3/#4 WR role as a predictor of what his targets will be in a #1 WR role.  I also think it's a stretch to say it's unlikely that Seattle will increase their pass attempts much when they were just last in the league with attempts in line with what Wilson was doing as a game managing rookie.  I'm sure they want to continue just running and playing defense but their defense overachieved last year, has lost key players this offseason, and they just paid Russell Wilson a ton of money.  It wouldn't surprise me at all if they end up throwing a good bit more this year.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
FreeBaGeL said:
I also think it's a stretch to say it's unlikely that Seattle will increase their pass attempts much when they were just last in the league with attempts in line with what Wilson was doing as a game managing rookie.  I'm sure they want to continue just running and playing defense but their defense overachieved last year, has lost key players this offseason, and they just paid Russell Wilson a ton of money.  It wouldn't surprise me at all if they end up throwing a good bit more this year.
Click to expand...
So what is your projection for Seattle pass attempts?

As for the bolded, IMO it is not relevant to the number of passing attempts. They had Wilson last year and were last in passing attempts. They have him again this year. Do you think Carroll and Schottenheimer are really sitting in their planning meetings saying something like: "last year, Russ was in a 4 year $88M contract, so it was okay to be last in passing attempts, but now he is in a 4 year $140M contract, so we need to change our offense to have him throw more passes"? I don't think so.

 
Just Win Baby said:
So what is your projection for Seattle pass attempts?

As for the bolded, IMO it is not relevant to the number of passing attempts. They had Wilson last year and were last in passing attempts. They have him again this year. Do you think Carroll and Schottenheimer are really sitting in their planning meetings saying something like: "last year, Russ was in a 4 year $88M contract, so it was okay to be last in passing attempts, but now he is in a 4 year $140M contract, so we need to change our offense to have him throw more passes"? I don't think so.
Click to expand...
The contrary position would be to ask why they would pay a QB $140M if they arent going to let him throw the football.  Its possible that they made the decision when they signed that contract that they were going to pass the ball more.  If they had decided that they werent, I could see them trading him for a bunch of picks and players and committing all of that money and draft capital toward boosting the running game and defense.

 
ChuckLiddell said:
The contrary position would be to ask why they would pay a QB $140M if they arent going to let him throw the football.  Its possible that they made the decision when they signed that contract that they were going to pass the ball more.  If they had decided that they werent, I could see them trading him for a bunch of picks and players and committing all of that money and draft capital toward boosting the running game and defense.
Click to expand...
He was the same guy last season, and they purposefully held him back. (Note: I think Carroll is stupid for doing this. But he did it, and seems poised to do it again.)

Wilson's 2018 cap hit was $23.8M. His 2019 cap hit was to be $25.3M before the extension; now it is $26.3M. He is set for an increase of ~$2.5M year over year, roughly 10%, and an increase of ~$1M over his previously established 2019 cap hit, roughly 4%. Are you saying these deltas are cause for Carroll to change his offense? I don't think so.

 
Just Win Baby said:
He was the same guy last season, and they purposefully held him back. (Note: I think Carroll is stupid for doing this. But he did it, and seems poised to do it again.)

Wilson's 2018 cap hit was $23.8M. His 2019 cap hit was to be $25.3M before the extension; now it is $26.3M. He is set for an increase of ~$2.5M year over year, roughly 10%, and an increase of ~$1M over his previously established 2019 cap hit, roughly 4%. Are you saying these deltas are cause for Carroll to change his offense? I don't think so.
Click to expand...
You make reasonable points backed up by numbers, and I appreciate that.  I am looking at it a little differently though, using logic rather than numbers.  And I dont say that in a condescending way because I understand that what is logical to me may not be logical to someone else, whereas the numbers are the numbers.  

Logic to me dictates that when Seattle's front office made the decision to make Russell Wilson the highest paid player in NFL history (right?), they were at a crossroads.  Do we need to pay a position that we are de-emphasizing a huge percentage of our resources, or do we claim our identity as a run-first defensive team and commit our resources toward that?  The decision to pay Wilson, and use 3 draft picks on WRs is evidence to where they are going in the future.  Rather than trade him for a huge haul, and save a ton of cap, they paid him huge money and used draft capital to accumulate more weapons for him.  The numbers, in this case are evidence of where they were in the past, and although that can often be a great indicator, it should not be relied upon to stand alone.

If Lockett emerges as the WR1 as expected, his targets should see a nice increase.  WR1 targets, and if you believe it, an increase in passing plays...solid formula for a WR to see more targets.

 
ChuckLiddell said:
You make reasonable points backed up by numbers, and I appreciate that.  I am looking at it a little differently though, using logic rather than numbers.  And I dont say that in a condescending way because I understand that what is logical to me may not be logical to someone else, whereas the numbers are the numbers.  

Logic to me dictates that when Seattle's front office made the decision to make Russell Wilson the highest paid player in NFL history (right?), they were at a crossroads.  Do we need to pay a position that we are de-emphasizing a huge percentage of our resources, or do we claim our identity as a run-first defensive team and commit our resources toward that?  The decision to pay Wilson, and use 3 draft picks on WRs is evidence to where they are going in the future.  Rather than trade him for a huge haul, and save a ton of cap, they paid him huge money and used draft capital to accumulate more weapons for him.  The numbers, in this case are evidence of where they were in the past, and although that can often be a great indicator, it should not be relied upon to stand alone.

If Lockett emerges as the WR1 as expected, his targets should see a nice increase.  WR1 targets, and if you believe it, an increase in passing plays...solid formula for a WR to see more targets.
Click to expand...
I appreciate the reasonable discussion. :thumbup:     

I see Seattle calling 550 passing plays tops, which probably means 450 passing attempts at most (100 combined sacks and scrambles). I can't see Lockett with 100 targets in that scenario; in fact, I am very skeptical he will get 90 targets in that scenario. So at this point, I will agree to disagree.

 
Just Win Baby said:
I appreciate the reasonable discussion. :thumbup:     

I see Seattle calling 550 passing plays tops, which probably means 450 passing attempts at most (100 combined sacks and scrambles). I can't see Lockett with 100 targets in that scenario; in fact, I am very skeptical he will get 90 targets in that scenario. So at this point, I will agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
JWB talked some sense into me a while ago... This is how I like to look at projecting volume, and his estimates make a lot of sense to me. I can admit to being wrong in my earlier ramblings in this thread disagreeing with him

 
Just Win Baby said:
I appreciate the reasonable discussion. :thumbup:     

I see Seattle calling 550 passing plays tops, which probably means 450 passing attempts at most (100 combined sacks and scrambles). I can't see Lockett with 100 targets in that scenario; in fact, I am very skeptical he will get 90 targets in that scenario. So at this point, I will agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
550 seems REALLY low for "tops".  That's probably around what they had last year* when they were last in the league in pass attempts, when their defense was better, and when they hadn't committed resources to the passing game like they have now.

*Hard to find stats on how many of his rushing attempts came on designed run plays, but the only number I could find was that in 2015 (in his rushing prime) he averaged 2 rushes per game on plays that were designed run plays.  So even if we assume that number (I'm guessing in reality it was much lower last year) it would put them at 513 called pass plays last year.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Speaking Tuesday, Seahawks OC Brian Schottenheimer said the team plans to "move around" Tyler Lockett in 2019.

Schottenheimer was responding to a question about whether Lockett would see more slot work in the absence of Doug Baldwin. He said Lockett is "most dangerous when defenses don’t know where he’ll line up." Lockett played 50.8 percent of his snaps in the slot last season, which was actually slightly down from 2017. Wherever Lockett plays in 2019, it will be as the Seahawks' clear-cut No. 1 receiver. He is a big-play threat capable of both compiling and beating any type of coverage.

SOURCE: Brady Henderson on Twitter

Jun 4, 2019, 4:38 PM ET
Click to expand...
 
ChuckLiddell said:
The contrary position would be to ask why they would pay a QB $140M if they arent going to let him throw the football.  Its possible that they made the decision when they signed that contract that they were going to pass the ball more.  If they had decided that they werent, I could see them trading him for a bunch of picks and players and committing all of that money and draft capital toward boosting the running game and defense.
Click to expand...
Because that's the going rate for QB's.  If they don't give him that money someone else will.  And then they will be signing Flacco and drafting Drew Lock praying he's more Wilson than Flacco.  Why go through all that when you can just sign Wilson and keep on keeping on?

 
Hankmoody said:
Because that's the going rate for QB's.  
Click to expand...
It's literally the highest salary for any quarterback in history.  

By a huge margin. 

For comparison, Russell Wilson, averages 35 million per season.  Andrew luck is 9th highest in the league, averaging 24.6. That's 40 percent more than luck. 

I understand what you mean, but it's hard to just call that the going rate. 

 
Every time another top ~5 QB signs a new deal it will become the highest in history for the foreseeable future as long as the cap keeps going up.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bostonfred said:
It's literally the highest salary for any quarterback in history.  

By a huge margin. 

For comparison, Russell Wilson, averages 35 million per season.  Andrew luck is 9th highest in the league, averaging 24.6. That's 40 percent more than luck. 

I understand what you mean, but it's hard to just call that the going rate. 
Click to expand...
This.  And also, I can see paying a QB over the going rate if you plan to base your offense around him...like pretty much every other team does.  But if you are planning to run run run and play D, then it would make sense to use your limited cap space toward positions that will feed that machine.  I dont disagree that he was worth the money, but I dont think you pay him that to let him throw 20 passes a game.  If that is the offense that you want, then commit your resources toward that.  They probably could have gotten 3 first round picks for Wilson (or something close to that with players/picks).  I see what the coaches are saying about the offense, but the actions speak differently.  You now have the highest paid QB in NFL history and just used 3 draft picks on WRs.  Seattle is going to throw the ball this year a lot more than last year.  I dont care what the coaches say in June, I see what they did in April.

 
bostonfred said:
It's literally the highest salary for any quarterback in history.  

By a huge margin. 

For comparison, Russell Wilson, averages 35 million per season.  Andrew luck is 9th highest in the league, averaging 24.6. That's 40 percent more than luck. 

I understand what you mean, but it's hard to just call that the going rate. 
Click to expand...
You can't use a 3 year old contract for comparison lmao.  Big Ben got $34M per year, Rodgers $33.5M in 2019 deals.

Using average salary can also be misleading.  Rodgers averages $33.5M with $79M guaranteed while Wilson only got $70M, and $37M of that is rolling guarantees (all vs. injury).  Matt Ryan only averages $30M per year but got $91M guaranteed.

It's the going rate for QB.

 
Hankmoody said:
You can't use a 3 year old contract for comparison lmao.  Big Ben got $34M per year, Rodgers $33.5M in 2019 deals.

Using average salary can also be misleading.  Rodgers averages $33.5M with $79M guaranteed while Wilson only got $70M, and $37M of that is rolling guarantees (all vs. injury).  Matt Ryan only averages $30M per year but got $91M guaranteed.

It's the going rate for QB.
Click to expand...
100% this. He got paid because that’s the price of a top QB in the league. Has zero to do with how they will use him, they don’t want to get caught in QB search hell like a team like the Broncos

 
From Brian Schottenheimer unapologetic over Seahawks’ oft-scrutinized run-first offense:

If you were hoping that Seattle Seahawks offensive coordinator Brian Schottenheimer would say something at Tuesday’s OTAs about how Seattle’s offense would not be the run-first team that we saw in 2018... I have some bad news.

Schottenheimer doubled down on the Seahawks’ offensive philosophy, which was particularly subject to heavy criticism following the team’s playoff loss to the Dallas Cowboys. If you’re Pro-Analytics, you can either stop reading now or just have a curious look at the next couple of paragraphs.

“We make no apologies for how we play,’’ Schottenheimer said (via Seattle Times). “We want to run the football. We want to be physical. We want to take our shots.’’

“[Running the ball well] is always going to be the objective for us. I think we are the best play (action) pass team in the league, I really do. [Russell Wilson’s] ability to throw the ball deep down the field was evident last year.’’

Now in fairness to Schottenheimer, the Seahawks really were excellent on deep passes last season. They finished 9th in DVOA and 6th in both pass and rush DVOA, a significant improvement from the 2017 squad that spelled the end of Darrell Bevell’s tenure as Seahawks OC. For the faults of the “establish the run” gameplan, Seattle’s offense was really damn good even after a very dodgy September start.

That said, there were some pretty glaring and damning flaws. They objectively did not play wellagainst the top defenses, had the third-worst rate of three-and-outs, and were particularly poor on third-downs. If you thought the Seahawks relied a lot on “run-run-pass,” well that’s because they did. And there’s also no conclusive evidence that you need a strong rushing attack to make play-action passing more effective. Seattle’s offense was remarkably predictable and as we saw in the loss against the Cowboys, it is an absolutely damaging system when it doesn’t work and the coaching staff isn’t willing to adjust.

The NFL is undeniably a passing league and there’s absolutely no chance that ever corrects back to “balance” or favoring the run. Seattle has long preferred to buck that trend under Pete Carroll. Schottenheimer is implementing exactly what Carroll wants, whether or not it’s necessarily best for maximizing the talents of the Seahawks offense — really we’re specifically talking about making the best use out of Russell Wilson.

Are we making too much out of some short snippet for a June press conference? Perhaps, but don’t be shocked if this offense operates in similar fashion to last year.
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tyler Lockett says he's "ready for whatever" in 2019.

"I’ve been playing in the slot every now and then when we put Doug (Baldwin) on the outside," Lockett said during OTAs. "So for me it’s all about just being able to further my game wherever I’m at. Wherever I’m at, it’s all about trying to get open or get other people open." OC Brian Schottenheimer has already pledged to "move around" Lockett in 2019. Lockett actually played half his snaps in the slot last season, so it would not be a huge change. Wherever he's playing, it will be as an all-coverage beater and big-play threat slated for an increase in targets. Lockett's current ADP is on the WR2/3 borderline.

SOURCE: USA Today

Jun 20, 2019, 4:43 PM ET
Click to expand...
 
Did you know Tyler set a WR record last year?  If you add his catch percentage (80.3) with his yards per catch (16.9), it was the highest for a season (97.2).  Of course I am counting only guys with at least 30 targets, which is very low., and I only went back to 2002.  He also scored 10 TD's.  He set career highs for all categories.  Why did I mention all this?  Because I think he will do even better this year.  I know I sound insane, but let me explain.

Tyler finished as WR17 with only 70 targets.  His career catch % is 70.3%.  Career YPC is 14.3.  His targets over his 4 yrs with Wilson have been very consistent (69, 66, 71, 70).  TD's have been all over the place (6, 1, 2, 10).  He has played second fiddle to Doug Baldwin his entire 4-yr career.  Baldwin's targets during the last 4 have been 103, 125, 116, 73.  We also can't forget Jimmy Graham, who was targeted 74, 95, and 96 times from 2015 thru 2017, putting him as third fiddle.  Exit Baldwin and enter a handful of young WR's and a few JAG's.  Now Lockett is the clear-cut WR1 for SEA, and it's not even close.  Baldwin was on pace for 90+ targets in 2018, even with his hampering injury (had 73, but missed 3 games, and was limited in others).  For those that say Lockett can't command 100 targets in 2019, I say poppycock!

103 targets, 74 catches, 1075 yards, 8 TD's = WR14

 
One of the guys I'm really torn on.  Definite upside with Baldwin gone and him playing a lot in the slot, but has to some touchdown regression and hard to know how he'll perform in a wr1 type role

 
On my dynasty team and did well last season, but I think there will be regression here. Have him more as a high W3. 

 
-jb- said:
On my dynasty team and did well last season, but I think there will be regression here. Have him more as a high W3. 
Click to expand...
I have to assume you don't mean a regression in catches or yards, right?  Just in TD's.  By all accounts, his catches and yards should increase, so maybe his TD's can remain?

 
TheWinz said:
I have to assume you don't mean a regression in catches or yards, right?  Just in TD's.  By all accounts, his catches and yards should increase, so maybe his TD's can remain?
Click to expand...
Yeah, just meant points. Efficiency is unsustainable. 

 
TheWinz said:
While I agree the efficiency is unsustainable, he had 57/965/10 last year on 70 targets.  Do you have a guess as to his target count this year?
Click to expand...
Slight uptick.  Maybe move it to 80?  David Moore will continue to expand in role, and they will leverage DK, albeit a little in year one.

 
I just pulled Dodds projection and he shows 66 projected receptions.  Seems about right to me, yet somehow that nets to WR17.  I guess I'll need to wrap my head around that math.  Maybe I'm undervaluing him.

 
-jb- said:
Slight uptick.  Maybe move it to 80?  David Moore will continue to expand in role, and they will leverage DK, albeit a little in year one.
Click to expand...
Yowza!  So he goes from WR2 behind Baldwin to the WR1, and you have his targets only going up by 10?  We see it quite different, as I have him at 100.

 
My actual projections are a few posts above.  I have him regressing in catch %, YPC, and TD's, and still bettering his overall numbers, based simply on an increase in targets.  IMO, 103 targets for the clear-cut WR1 is not a pipe dream - it's easily attainable.

 
I need to put in the work - I just look at the guy and say “not the #1.”  How do people see Moore fitting into this?

 
So I watched his highlights from last year and I agree that I don't see him ever being a top 10 WR in the NFL. But do I see him leading the Seahawks in receiving in 2019? Yes.  

Strengths: Runs good routes; great hands and concentration.

Weakness: Goes down with an arm tackle and doesn't have great RAC skills.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8OUOpBniX0

 
Stephania Bell @Stephania_ESPN

Lockett certainly looking the part of the No. 1 dude.
Click to expand...


Greg Bell @gbellseattle

Tyler Lockett brilliant catch, toeing the sideline for first down on third down. #Seahawks try to hurry to run next play before MIN challenge, but Vikings get the red flag out in time to challenge that Lockett's foot was out of bounds
Click to expand...

 
Not sure that catch was brilliant, but I agree, he's looking like the no. 1 dude.  Like him as wr2 but with some risk.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I saw a little of the game and was happy to see he mostly got targeted on short and intermediate stuff on second and third down.  

 
Evan Silva @evansilva

This article reiterates #Seahawks WR Tyler Lockett’s slot-route rate will spike this year post-Doug Baldwin.

Lockett destroyed on the interior last season, catching 26-of-29 slot targets for 454 yards (17.5 YPR) & 5 TDs.
Click to expand...


Note that the linked article in this tweet is one that was published on the Athletic as paid content.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JohnnyU
Marcus Rosemy-Jacksaint WR GA - Sleeper?
Replies
2
Views
154
Boston
Boston
T
Travdogg's final mock draft (updated post 73 as of draft day morning)
2
Replies
92
Views
3K
Snotbubbles
Snotbubbles
Hartliner
2023 RB Lotto Ticket Rankings
6 7 8
Replies
354
Views
20K
packer_junkie
packer_junkie

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top