Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Faust

Dynasty & Redraft: WR JJ Arcega-Whiteside, Eagles

Recommended Posts

Quote

ESPN ranks Stanford WR JJ Arcega-Whiteside as the No. 3 wide receiver.

Arcega-Whiteside (6'3/225) only trails Oklahoma's Marquise Brown and Arizona State's N'Keal Harry on their list. The redshirt junior was a stud at Stanford piling enough production with high-end efficiency to land as Hayden Winks' top receiver prospect solely based on analytics. Arcega-Whiteside specifically tested well as a red zone weapon, but draft analysts have some questions about his playing speed. Putting up big numbers at the NFL Combine will go a long way for the Day 2 prospect.

Source: ESPN.com 

Jan 21 - 10:32 PM

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Stanford redshirt junior WR JJ Arcega-Whiteside declared for the 2019 NFL Draft.

This is a big one. Arcega-Whiteside was one of the top performing wideouts in college football last year, scoring 14 touchdowns and catching 63 passes for 1,059 yards in his (now) final year with the Cardinal. The 6-foot-3, 225-pound wideout gets rave reviews for his ball skills -- a large portion of his touchdowns came on jump-balls -- and while he doesn't have blazing speed, he should have enough quickness to create separation. Testing is going to be very important for Arcega-Whiteside, but he could easily be a Day 2 selection if a team is convinced that the athleticism will play.

Source: JJ Arcega-Whiteside on Twitter 

Jan 4 - 3:26 PM

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

JJ Arcega-Whiteside - WR -  Cardinal

Pro Football Focus projects Stanford senior WR J.J. Arcega-Whiteside to be drafted No. 11 to Washington.

Arcega-Whiteside (6'3/225) has the most red zone touchdowns (6) in the nation with the second closest at four. Not only is he big, but he knows how to maneuver his body to box out defenders. After nine touchdowns last year, Arcega-White already has seven touchdowns in just four games. Pro Football Focus calls the Stanford receiver "one of the best in the nation as creating plays down the field" and credits him with the third highest grade among wide receivers this year.

Source: Pro Football Focus 

Fri, Sep 28, 2018 05:27:00 PM

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pitt defense sees the bright side of facing JJ Arcega-Whiteside

Excerpt:

Quote

A projected first-round talent by multiple outlets, Arcega-Whiteside’s numbers are impressive, regardless of whether you want to go traditional or newfangled statistics. He has 60 catches for 969 yards and 14 touchdowns, but he missed one game with an ankle injury. That’s an average of 16.2 yards per reception, and he enters the Sun Bowl with back-to-back games over 100 yards receiving.

According to Pro Football Focus, Arcega-Whiteside has the highest catch rate on deep passes among all Football Bowl Subdivision receivers at 61.5 percent. Next highest, at 55.2 percent, is Syracuse’s Jamal Custis, whom Pitt — and Pinnock — held to three grabs for 70 yards in a 44-37 overtime win for the Panthers in October.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sun Bowl: 2019 NFL Draft prospects to watch in Stanford vs. Pittsburgh bowl game

Excerpt:

Quote

JJ Arcega-Whiteside, WR

Arcega-Whiteside is the premier rebounder in college football. Throw it up to him, he's coming down with it. He has 23 receiving touchdowns in the last two seasons, including 14 in 2018. The 6-foot-3, 225-pounder has a game reminiscent of Mike Evans and should hear his name called somewhere within the first 40 picks in April. If he runs well (say, under 4.60) at the combine, the first round will be in play.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

August 28, 2018:

2019 NFL Draft: Bryce Love, monster WR JJ Arcega-Whiteside will shine for Stanford

Excerpt:

Quote

 

JJ Arcega-Whiteside, WR

By now, you know I love pro comparisons for prospects. It's an obsessive hobby of mine. Arcega-Whiteside reminds me of ... Mike Evans. No hyperbole there either. At A&M, Evans was one of the most dominant high-point/contested-catch receivers I've ever scouted, and that was thanks to an unfair combination of mammoth size, long arms, gigantic, strong hands, outstanding concentration, good leaping ability and the attitude that every jump ball was his to catch.  

Arcega-Whiteside has a similar blend to his game, and it was on full display last season when he had 48 receptions, 781 yards and nine touchdowns over the course of 11 outings that seemingly all featured at least one ridiculous grab in traffic above one or more opposing defensive backs. At 6-3 and 225 pounds, Arcega-Whiteside has Evans-esque size and is a long-strider who's deceptively fast down the field. In the final five games of the season -- which were started by 2018 lead man K.J. Costello -- Arcega-Whiteside had 23 catches for 395 yards with four scores. He's in for a monster season. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lod001 said:

Yep. Moving him up the list. Top 5 now for me at WR.

I really like this years WR class. It has everything from big guys to little speedsters and everything inbetween.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2019 at 8:36 AM, Ilov80s said:

I really like this years WR class. It has everything from big guys to little speedsters and everything inbetween.

The more I read, the more I think there are a good and deep group of wrs. Might be a good time to have multiple mid-late 1sts. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, IHEARTFF said:

The more I read, the more I think there are a good and deep group of wrs. Might be a good time to have multiple mid-late 1sts. 

The big shake-up will come when they get drafted. Who are the poor soulds relegated to Buffalo, Baltimore and Oakland?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently my WR10 but the questions I have are combine questions that can be answered.  Mostly his quickness.  His 3 cone will be huge for me.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Zyphros said:

Currently my WR10 but the questions I have are combine questions that can be answered.  Mostly his quickness.  His 3 cone will be huge for me.  

I see him as similar to Harmon- maybe Harmon-light. Does he do anything other than catch jump balls in the RZ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

I see him as similar to Harmon- maybe Harmon-light. Does he do anything other than catch jump balls in the RZ?

Probably a little better than Harmon at body'ing up a DB, but I don't see the kind of effort, versatility or speed that Harmon offers.  I can see how they'd be viewed similarly.  Just one guys opinion though.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zyphros said:

Probably a little better than Harmon at body'ing up a DB, but I don't see the kind of effort, versatility or speed that Harmon offers.  I can see how they'd be viewed similarly.  Just one guys opinion though.  

Definitely Harmon. I see similar strengths but JJ has more weaknesses from my untrained eye.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Zyphros said:

Currently my WR10 but the questions I have are combine questions that can be answered.  Mostly his quickness.  His 3 cone will be huge for me.  

Z, I’m shocked that you even put any type of stock into the Combine.

Tex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Edgar said:

This class is shaping up nicely. JJAW is a nice late-first, early-second sleeper. 

He won’t be a sleeper by the time the draft rolls around. Hell, don’t be shocked if he’s draft in the top 3 WR maybe even the 1st off the board! Seriously.

Tex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, BigTex said:

Z, I’m shocked that you even put any type of stock into the Combine.

Tex

Whoever says the combine doesn't matter is just plain and simply wrong.  You just need to look at the right things.  I put very little stock in the 40 unless they run like molasses.  Everything other than the 40 has real application to an NFL player, some more than others (Bench press more for RB's than WR's for example).  Mostly I look for explosiveness in the drills, shuttle and 3cone.  If they don't run those then I use what I've seen when I watched them.  The 40, for all the hype it gets is rather useless though.  

I look for the things my eyes have seen to match the athleticism.  If the athleticism is there but the production isn't and my eyes call him "an awakward athlete" then he's more athlete than football player.  Not my kind of player usually.  But if the athleticism matches the production and the smoothness of what I've seen when I watched them, that matches and stands out to me.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/25/2019 at 10:02 AM, Zyphros said:

Whoever says the combine doesn't matter is just plain and simply wrong.  You just need to look at the right things.  I put very little stock in the 40 unless they run like molasses.  Everything other than the 40 has real application to an NFL player, some more than others (Bench press more for RB's than WR's for example).  Mostly I look for explosiveness in the drills, shuttle and 3cone.  If they don't run those then I use what I've seen when I watched them.  The 40, for all the hype it gets is rather useless though.  

I look for the things my eyes have seen to match the athleticism.  If the athleticism is there but the production isn't and my eyes call him "an awakward athlete" then he's more athlete than football player.  Not my kind of player usually.  But if the athleticism matches the production and the smoothness of what I've seen when I watched them, that matches and stands out to me.  

For certain positions and certain Combine activities the Combine has shown no correlation to NFL succes this is a documented fact. I’ve sent the documents to several posters last year a few of those poster actually posted them in one of these threads somewhere. I may have to find it but WR was the main position. I real the findings years ago and have been keeping track on it’s findings and i’m In agreement. If you like a WR before the Combine then you draft him. The Combine has no direct correlation to NFL success for a WR. Not one single event, not the 40, 3 cone drill, etc......

There we’re certain Combine metrics that did show some correlations but it was with CB, OL, DL, TE, and two or three events for RB but I don’t remember which.

Tex

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/25/2019 at 10:02 AM, Zyphros said:

Whoever says the combine doesn't matter is just plain and simply wrong.  You just need to look at the right things.  I put very little stock in the 40 unless they run like molasses.  Everything other than the 40 has real application to an NFL player, some more than others (Bench press more for RB's than WR's for example).  Mostly I look for explosiveness in the drills, shuttle and 3cone.  If they don't run those then I use what I've seen when I watched them.  The 40, for all the hype it gets is rather useless though.  

I look for the things my eyes have seen to match the athleticism.  If the athleticism is there but the production isn't and my eyes call him "an awakward athlete" then he's more athlete than football player.  Not my kind of player usually.  But if the athleticism matches the production and the smoothness of what I've seen when I watched them, that matches and stands out to me.  

Z, forty times are fun to look at and while I agree that we (including myself) like explosive guys. Give me the guy that “plays” explosive but struggle to run an explosive forty. I can name several that fit that category. K Hunt comes to mind, after his 4.6 forty nearly everyone was doubting him. Nearly everyone passed on him even though his on the field metrics and performance was great many put more stock in the Combine than on the field performance and that’s the mistake.

Tex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BigTex said:

For certain positions and certain Combine activities the Combine has shown no correlation to NFL succes this is a documented fact. I’ve sent the documents to several posters last year a few of those poster actually posted them in one of these threads somewhere. I may have to find it but WR was the main position. I real the findings years ago and have been keeping track on it’s findings and i’m In agreement. If you like a WR before the Combine then you draft him. The Combine has no direct correlation to NFL success for a WR. Not one single event, not the 40, 3 cone drill, etc......

There we’re certain Combine metrics that did show some correlations but it was with CB, OL, DL, TE, and two or three events for RB but I don’t remember which.

Tex

Combine results are related to NFL success for WRs. When I looked at it a couple years ago, on average WRs who wind up being successful in the NFL were around the 60th percentile (compared to all WRs at the combine) in 40 time, vertical, broad jump, and BMI. And a bit higher on the whole if we're stricter as which WRs count as "successful".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ZWK said:

Combine results are related to NFL success for WRs. When I looked at it a couple years ago, on average WRs who wind up being successful in the NFL were around the 60th percentile (compared to all WRs at the combine) in 40 time, vertical, broad jump, and BMI. And a bit higher on the whole if we're stricter as which WRs count as "successful".

I believe the study that Tex is referencing is this one

This study is using AV which in my view is a condensed stat that loosely follows player performance, but also gives a lot of weight to players just starting as a success. I know you are familiar with it. It also only looks at the AV of players in their first 3 seasons in the league. As we know some players break out later in their careers, although I think the majority usually show their worth within their first 3 seasons in the league.

To me when evaluating rookie prospects, it makes sense to look at what they do early on in their NFL career, as I think the more time that passes in between the point of origin (NFL combine) the less likely the production is related to the measurement. Players change over time. Some get better some get worse. The situation around the player can be an even bigger factor of how a player performs. Look at Damien Williams right now for example. Say he ends up being the starter in KC for the next 3 years and ends up being a 100 VBD player. Do you think that combine measurements for him would matter that much 5 years after the fact?

Your study used 100 career VBD so I am seeing why you would get different results. I know some swear by their findings of correlation of combine metrics and NFL performance. However these folks tend to partition players into very narrow groups of metrics, which helps their predictive analysis "fit" their conclusion of certain metrics being statistically significant for players of a specific size profile.

I know NFL teams have even more advanced analysis of combine data and what it means for them. However most GMs will say they make their decision primarily based on watching the players and that combine metrics only reinforce their opinions, and rarely cause them to change their valuation on the player.

If I understand the results of your study, you basically found that WR should be in the top 40% of all WR in their metrics, and players below those thresholds are ones to be more wary about becoming successful. I think that makes sense. However you are also kind of distilling this evaluation to a coin flip. Either the player is in the top 40% or they aren't.

That does not strike me as being very predictive, although I do appreciate you looking at each metric to find which ones were more predictive than others.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One tricky thing about trying to predict "NFL success" is that most outcome measures have a weird, skewed distribution. A few receivers have a great career with tons of receiving yards / VBD / etc., some are kinda useful, a bunch do just a little in the NFL, and some don't even catch a pass.

I dealt with that issue by making "NFL success" binary: either a player was a successful fantasy WR in the NFL or he wasn't. Then I looked at the traits of the ones who did succeed. (And I used the cutoff of 100 career VBD at the time of analysis.)

The study that you linked instead turned NFL success into percentiles, so that the outcome had to be evenly distributed between 0% and 100%. I think that's a bad way of doing it, because it cares more about the difference between the 5th percentile and the 70th percentile than it does about the difference between 70th percentile and the 95th percentile.

For example, if we take "career receiving yards so far" as the main measure (which is not what I or that study did, but which is a convenient way to simplify things for the point I'm trying to make), the player at the 95th percentile among the 2015 draft class is Stefon Diggs, the player at the 70th percentile is Dorial Green-Beckham, and the player at the 5th percentile is someone like Vince Mayle who has never caught a pass. The statistical analysis in your link cares more about the question "what's the difference between DGB and Mayle that led to DGB being more successful" than it does about the question "what's the difference between Diggs & DGB that led to Diggs being more successful." DGB vs. Mayle is not that interesting a question (neither of them have been that useful), and it's also not that surprising that combine stats don't help us much in sorting it out. I'm more interested in the question of what sets apart the top few WRs in that draft class (Cooper, Diggs, maybe Lockett) from everyone else.

You can come up with your own way to define which WRs have been "successful" in the NFL. As long as whatever you come up with is just picking out a few WRs each year who are actually good, rather than a huge bucket of guys who have been not totally useless, I expect you'll get similar results to what I did about the predictiveness of the combine.

I do think that WR is a position where college production matters much more than combine athleticism, and that there is some value in finding ways to combine different angles on college WRs. But if the basic question is just "are WR 40 times, jumps, etc. totally useless or do they tell us something" the answer seems to be "they tell us something." Another way to see this is to just look at a list of WRs sorted by 40 time (such as this one, though I recommend picking your own years rather than relying on me to do it) and see if the fastest 20% of the list generated a stronger group of NFL WRs than the slowest 20% of the list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I don't claim to understand all the math behind the article I linked, which is old now, but still very interesting to me because of how predictive the combine was for many positions, but not for WR specifically.

Quote

None of the coefficients came out as significant for WR’s.  In fact, WR’s are the only position in which the model can’t significantly predict success.  This is somewhat surprising.  Maybe route-running abilities really are more important than raw athleticism.  Also there are different types of receivers in the NFL ranging from smaller, more agile slot receivers to big, strong possession guys.  So maybe there just isn’t a simple linear model that account for this variability in predicting success.

As far as what is a success is important as you point out. For fantasy football we are looking for players who can make an impact to our starting lineups and VBD is a better target than AV which is something most of do not get fantasy points for.

100 VBD is a good cut off line as most of the compilers won't be able to reach that threshold without at least one top 12 type season along the way (40VBD). As you say, trying to identify the upper crust of the population, rather than the whole population.

I was more just pointing out that the method of study was different, and thus different results.

I think if you have two otherwise equal players that of course you would prefer to have the one who is more athletic.

What I find very interesting that you have found the college statistical performance to be more predictive than the combine metrics, and I agree that using all information available is better than only using some things and not others. I never really know how much weight each thing should have relative to something else though.

If the college production is more predictive than the combine data, how much more predictive is it?

I get the sense from your work that you are asking that question and that the relative importance of each metric being applied based on that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The Athletic's Dane Brugler ranks Stanford WR JJ Arcega-Whiteside eighth on his list of the top wideouts in the 2019 NFL Draft class.

Arcega-Whiteside gets a wide variety of grades from the different draft websites, but he's universally considered one of the top red-zone targets for this class because of his size (6'3/225) and ability to high-point the football. Brugler does have some concerns about Arcega-Whiteside's ability to separate vs. speed, and that he's "tightly wound" in his hips. He also isn't an elite route-runner, but because of his athleticism and the ability to "body" corners, he's going to be one of the top wideouts selected in 2019; assuming he doesn't flunk the combine.

Source: The Athletic 

Feb 2 - 8:16 PM

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/31/2019 at 9:18 AM, BigTex said:

For certain positions and certain Combine activities the Combine has shown no correlation to NFL succes this is a documented fact.

It's only true if you try to use the raw combine numbers and apply them to every prospect equally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JJAW is intriguing to me. He is under the radar now, but he has potential to be one of the top 3 picks in rookie drafts. Guy is incredible but is losing out to Metcalfs hype. Hes like a Metcalf-lite but has the college stats to back it up. Why hes not getting similar hype (or more) is beyond me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dr. Dan said:

JJAW is intriguing to me. He is under the radar now, but he has potential to be one of the top 3 picks in rookie drafts. Guy is incredible but is losing out to Metcalfs hype. Hes like a Metcalf-lite but has the college stats to back it up. Why hes not getting similar hype (or more) is beyond me. 

The first thing that comes to mind is breakout age.  21 vs 22 year old.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, smbkrypt24 said:

The first thing that comes to mind is breakout age.  21 vs 22 year old.  

Can one really say Metcalf "broke out?" he certainly broke... but I don't know about the "out" part

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dr. Dan said:

Can one really say Metcalf "broke out?" he certainly broke... but I don't know about the "out" part

Yeah, I would say he was breaking out even though he didn't put a full season together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, smbkrypt24 said:

Yeah, I would say he was breaking out even though he didn't put a full season together.

He was on pace for 45/975/8

If that qualifies for breaking out, then a case could be made that JJAW broke out in 2017, at the same age as Metcalf: He was on pace for a 12 game season to have 52/852/10

Edited by Dr. Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

45/975/8.6  at 21.9 per catch

vs.

48/781/9 at 16.3 per catch

 

Similar and I think we would all prefer Metcalf's stats with 100 more yards and a better per catch rate by 5 yards, but I suppose you could make a case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, smbkrypt24 said:

45/975/8.6  at 21.9 per catch

vs.

48/781/9 at 16.3 per catch

 

Similar and I think we would all prefer Metcalf's stats with 100 more yards and a better per catch rate by 5 yards, but I suppose you could make a case.

12 games to 11 games. When you put JJAWs games out to 12 their stats are much more similar. YPC is in Metcalf's advantage but that's about it. Yet most people are looking at JJAW as a late 1st potentially. That is crazy value. 

Guy is going to shoot up draft boards of he can show a good combine, however too much stock is put into that to begin with. 

 

Edited by Dr. Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/2/2019 at 8:59 PM, Faust said:

He also isn't an elite route-runner

I'm going to have to watch him closely at the combine, because this is the #1 way to get a prospect off my call sheet.  Production in college is great, but I've been burned too many times by guys who can't get open in the NFL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, bicycle_seat_sniffer said:

Did this guy sit out all the drills?

Seems like it. That might confirm my worst fears about him. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, kittenmittens said:

Maybe he knows from training and current mocks that performing at the combine can only hurt his draft stock? 

Chicken or egg type question for me. If he knows his results will be poor, DNP to not hurt his stock. But if you are a scout/GM, you probably realize he isn't participating because his numbers wouldn't be good if he did. How much does participating hurt vs. not participating? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The Draft Network's Brad Kelly lists Stanford WR JJ Arcega-Whiteside as one of the wideouts whose Pro Day will be most important for.

Arcega-Whiteside measured in at 6-foot-2, 225-pounds, and as Kelly notes, the wideout has a massive 79 and 7/8-inch wingspan; in the 90th percentile for wideouts. Unfortunately, the former Cardinal star didn't test athletically, and that's the biggest question mark regarding Arcega-Whiteside. "His NFL evaluation may hinge on his 40-yard dash, millions of dollars on the line over a 4 second span," Kelly writes. Kelly also notes that there are mixed reports on what his 40-yard dash will look like. He likely needs to be in the 4.5 range if he's going to be a top 50 selection.

SOURCE: The Draft Network

Mar 5, 2019, 6:32 PM

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

A national scout for an NFC team told NFL.com's Lance Zierlein that Stanford WR JJ Arcega-Whiteside an an underrated draft prospect.

"He's going to run faster than people think and he's smart enough to learn all the tricks to get open as a pro," the scout told Zierlein. "I hear people underestimate him all the time." Arcega-Whiteside (6'2/225), who did not take part in any of the athletic testing at the NFL Scouting Combine, was a second team All Pac-12 selection in 2018 after posting a receiving stat line of 63/1,059/14. The talented wideout is viewed as a Day 2 selection, but his draft prospects will be heavily influenced by how he performs at Stanford's Pro Day.

SOURCE: NFL.com

Mar 6, 2019, 7:50 PM

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.