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.

2013 Dynasty Rookie Rankings (1 Viewer)

Lavachebeadsman

Footballguy
Here are the rankings done by myself and one of my staffers</p>

Coleman Kelly's Rankings
Quarterbacks:
(1) Geno Smith, West Virginia
(2) E.J. Manuel, Florida State
(3) Ryan Nassib, Syracuse
(4) Ryan Griffin, Tulane
(5) Tyler Wilson, Arkansas
(6) Matt Barkley, Southern California
(7) Matt Scott, Arizona
(8) Landry Jones, Oklamhoma
(9) Zac Dysert, Miami (OH)
(10) Mike Glennon, North Carolina State
(11) Tyler Bray, Tennessee
(12) Sean Renfree, Duke

Running Backs:
(1) Christine Michael, Texas A&M
(2) Jonathan Franklin, UCLA
(3) Eddie Lacy, Alabama
(4) Le'Veon Bell, Michigan State
(5) Giovani Bernard, North Carolina
(6) Zac Stacy, Vanderbilt
(7) Latavius Murray, Central Florida
(8) Knile Davis, Arkansas
(9) Chris Thompson, Florida State
(10) Jordan Roberts, Charleston
(11) Treavor Scales, Harvard
(12) D.J. Harper, Boise State
(13) Montee Ball, Wisconsin
(14) Andre Ellington, Clemson
(15) Kerwynn Williams, Utah State
(16) Kenjon Barner, Oregon
(17) Rex Burkhead, Nebraska
(18) Mike Gilleslee, Florida
(19) Stepfan Taylor, Stanford
(20) Montel Harris, Temple
(21) Miguel Maysonet, Stony Brook
(22) Jawan Jamison, Rutgers

Wide Receiver:
(1) DeAndre Hopkins, Clemson
(2) Keenan Allen, California
(3) Tavon Austin, West Virginia
(4) Stedman Bailey, West Virginia
(5) Cordarrelle Patterson, Tennessee
(6) Da'Rick Rodgers, Tennessee
(7) Ryan Swope, Texas A&M
(8) Justin Hunter, Tennessee
(9) Quinton Patton, Louisiana Tech
(10) Markus Wheaton, Oregon State
(11) Josh Boyce, Texas Christian
(12) Mark Harrison, Rutgers
(13) Terrance Williams, Baylor
(14) Marquess Wilson, Washington State
(15) Chris Harper, Kansas State
(16) Robert Woods, Southern California
(17) Marcus Davis, Virginia Tech
(18) Sam McGuffie, Rice
(19) T.J. More, Missouri
(20) Kenny Stills, Oklahoma

Tight Ends:
(1) Tyler Eifert, Notre Dame
(2) Zach Ertz, Stanford
(3) Vance McDonald, Rice
(4) Travis Kelce, Cincinnati
(5) Joseph Fauria, UCLA
(6) Jordan Reed, Florida
(7) Jake Stoneburner, Ohio State
(8) Chris Gragg, Arkansas
(9) Gavin Escobar, San Diego State
(10) Dion Sims, Michigan State
(11) Philip Lutzenkirchen
(12) Ryan Otten, San Jose State

More data and explanation here: http://sportswunderkind.com/nfl-draft-skill-position-rankings/">http://sportswunderkind.com/nfl-draft-skill-position-rankings

My Rankings

Quarterbacks
1. Geno Smith
2. EJ Manuel
3. Tyler Wilson
4. Tyler Bray
5. Ryan Nassib
6. Mike Glennon
7. Mike Scott
8. Landry Jones
9. Matt Barkley
10. Jordan Rodgers
11. Ryan Griffin
12. Collin Klien

Running Backs
1. Eddie Lacy
2. Johnathan Franklin
3. Marcus Lattimore
4. Mike Gillisee
5. Christine Micheal
6. Giovani Bernard
7. Andre Ellington
8. Chris Thompson
9. Zac Stacy
10. Dennis Johnson
11. Le'Veon Bell
12. Latavius Murray
13. Jawan Jamison
14. Joseph Randle
15. Montee Ball
16. Stepfan Taylor
17. Spencer Ware
18. Montel Harris
19. Stefphon Jefferson
20. Rex Burkhead

WR Rankings
1. Corradelle Patterson
2. Deandre Hopkins

3. Tavon Austin
4. Stedman Bailey
5. Keenan Allen
6. Ryan Swope
7. Justin Hunter
8. Robert Woods
9. Kenny Stills
10. Chris Harper
11. Da'Rick Rogers
12. Markus Wheaton
13. Terrance Williams
14. Quinton Patton
15. Aaron Dobson
16. Denard Robinson
17. Aaron Mellette
18. Mark Harrison
19. Tavarres King
20. Brandon Kaufman
21. Josh Boyce
22. Marquise Goodwin
23. Cobi Hamilton
24. Marquess Wilson
25. Jasper Collins

26. Corey Fuller
27. Ace Sanders
28. T.J Moe
29. Marcus Davis
30. Sam McGuiffie

TE Rankings
1. Tyler Eifert
2. Zach Ertz
3. Jordan Reed
4. Travis Kelce
5. Vance McDonald
6. Gavin Escobar
7. Chris Gragg
8. Dion Sims
9. Justice Cunningham
10. Jake Stoneburner

11. Nick Kasa
12. Ryan Otten

 
Last edited by a moderator:

ConnSKINS26

Footballguy
Cut and paste the comments on each player piecemeal while re-writing the rest in a post here. Or ditch the whole thing. But this isn't gonna get you much discussion.

 

Lavachebeadsman

Footballguy
Cut and paste the comments on each player piecemeal while re-writing the rest in a post here. Or ditch the whole thing. But this isn't gonna get you much discussion.
I know, I know. I really just wanted to get the ranks out there, they are super innovative. I think I'm just gonna go with no tables.

 

Concept Coop

Footballguy
You mention Patterson being bottom 5 in the class based on "Agility Score". It's clearly an outlier, or the score is flawed, right? Pretty clear that Patterson is plenty agile and physically ideal as a prospect.

 

Lavachebeadsman

Footballguy
You mention Patterson being bottom 5 in the class based on "Agility Score". It's clearly an outlier, or the score is flawed, right? Pretty clear that Patterson is plenty agile and physically ideal as a prospect.
This is why it is important to watch film, in combination with studying the metrics. Clearly, Patterson is quick, but the Metrics rate his agility in comparison to other wide receivers as not so great. There are explanations of Agility score here , here, and here. Let me know if you have more questions, I believe that I can contact the inventor of the stat, if needed.

 

Coleman

Footballguy
Quarterbacks:

(1) Geno Smith, West Virginia

(2) E.J. Manuel, Florida State

(3) Ryan Nassib, Syracuse

(4) Ryan Griffin, Tulane

(5) Tyler Wilson, Arkansas

(6) Matt Barkley, Southern California

(7) Matt Scott, Arizona

(8) Landry Jones, Oklamhoma

(9) Zac Dysert, Miami (OH)

(10) Mike Glennon, North Carolina State

(11) Tyler Bray, Tennessee

(12) Sean Renfree, Duke

Running Backs:

(1) Christine Michael, Texas A&M

(2) Jonathan Franklin, UCLA

(3) Eddie Lacy, Alabama

(4) Le'Veon Bell, Michigan State

(5) Giovani Bernard, North Carolina

(6) Zac Stacy, Vanderbilt

(7) Latavius Murray, Central Florida

(8) Knile Davis, Arkansas

(9) Chris Thompson, Florida State

(10) Jordan Roberts, Charleston

(11) Treavor Scales, Harvard

(12) D.J. Harper, Boise State

(13) Montee Ball, Wisconsin

(14) Andre Ellington, Clemson

(15) Kerwynn Williams, Utah State

(16) Kenjon Barner, Oregon

(17) Rex Burkhead, Nebraska

(18) Mike Gilleslee, Florida

(19) Stepfan Taylor, Stanford

(20) Montel Harris, Temple

(21) Miguel Maysonet, Stony Brook

(22) Jawan Jamison, Rutgers

Wide Receiver:

(1) DeAndre Hopkins, Clemson

(2) Keenan Allen, California

(3) Tavon Austin, West Virginia

(4) Stedman Bailey, West Virginia

(5) Cordarrelle Patterson, Tennessee

(6) Da'Rick Rodgers, Tennessee

(7) Ryan Swope, Texas A&M

(8) Justin Hunter, Tennessee

(9) Quinton Patton, Louisiana Tech

(10) Markus Wheaton, Oregon State

(11) Josh Boyce, Texas Christian

(12) Mark Harrison, Rutgers

(13) Terrance Williams, Baylor

(14) Marquess Wilson, Washington State

(15) Chris Harper, Kansas State

(16) Robert Woods, Southern California

(17) Marcus Davis, Virginia Tech

(18) Sam McGuffie, Rice

(19) T.J. More, Missouri

(20) Kenny Stills, Oklahoma

Tight Ends:

(1) Tyler Eifert, Notre Dame

(2) Zach Ertz, Stanford

(3) Vance McDonald, Rice

(4) Travis Kelce, Cincinnati

(5) Joseph Fauria, UCLA

(6) Jordan Reed, Florida

(7) Jake Stoneburner, Ohio State

(8) Chris Gragg, Arkansas

(9) Gavin Escobar, San Diego State

(10) Dion Sims, Michigan State

(11) Philip Lutzenkirchen

(12) Ryan Otten, San Jose State

(13) Nick Kasa, Colorado

sorry about the previous formatting issues....

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Lavachebeadsman

Footballguy
You mention Patterson being bottom 5 in the class based on "Agility Score". It's clearly an outlier, or the score is flawed, right? Pretty clear that Patterson is plenty agile and physically ideal as a prospect.
I have Patterson as my #1 wide receiver in this class, though. So I have a disagreement with that particular ranking.

 

ConnSKINS26

Footballguy
You mention Patterson being bottom 5 in the class based on "Agility Score". It's clearly an outlier, or the score is flawed, right? Pretty clear that Patterson is plenty agile and physically ideal as a prospect.
Clearly a case of not being able to look past the numbers to see what's on the field.
 

Lavachebeadsman

Footballguy
You mention Patterson being bottom 5 in the class based on "Agility Score". It's clearly an outlier, or the score is flawed, right? Pretty clear that Patterson is plenty agile and physically ideal as a prospect.
Clearly a case of not being able to look past the numbers to see what's on the field.
To be fair, none of Patterson's numbers are good, and there have been thousands of big and fast receivers to fail before him. While I have him at #1, I do understand the doubt. What do you see in him that makes you believe?

 

ConnSKINS26

Footballguy
You mention Patterson being bottom 5 in the class based on "Agility Score". It's clearly an outlier, or the score is flawed, right? Pretty clear that Patterson is plenty agile and physically ideal as a prospect.
Clearly a case of not being able to look past the numbers to see what's on the field.
To be fair, none of Patterson's numbers are good, and there have been thousands of big and fast receivers to fail before him. While I have him at #1, I do understand the doubt. What do you see in him that makes you believe?
I don't believe, he's my #4 WR. But his agility score is faulty, you can see that just by flipping on the TV.
 

Concept Coop

Footballguy
You mention Patterson being bottom 5 in the class based on "Agility Score". It's clearly an outlier, or the score is flawed, right? Pretty clear that Patterson is plenty agile and physically ideal as a prospect.
Clearly a case of not being able to look past the numbers to see what's on the field.
To be fair, none of Patterson's numbers are good, and there have been thousands of big and fast receivers to fail before him. While I have him at #1, I do understand the doubt. What do you see in him that makes you believe?
The link shows Patterson at #5, unless I am missing something.

I think he's a physical freak and as elusive as anyone I have seen in a while. I agree that there are concerns, and don't really take issue with a ranking. I just don't understand the questioning of his agility.

 

Lavachebeadsman

Footballguy
You mention Patterson being bottom 5 in the class based on "Agility Score". It's clearly an outlier, or the score is flawed, right? Pretty clear that Patterson is plenty agile and physically ideal as a prospect.
Clearly a case of not being able to look past the numbers to see what's on the field.
Also, I'd like to point out, those who scout simply using video to gain a position on a player is basically wrong. That isn't the right way to do it. You have to use a combination of both.

 

Lavachebeadsman

Footballguy
You mention Patterson being bottom 5 in the class based on "Agility Score". It's clearly an outlier, or the score is flawed, right? Pretty clear that Patterson is plenty agile and physically ideal as a prospect.
Clearly a case of not being able to look past the numbers to see what's on the field.
To be fair, none of Patterson's numbers are good, and there have been thousands of big and fast receivers to fail before him. While I have him at #1, I do understand the doubt. What do you see in him that makes you believe?
The link shows Patterson at #5, unless I am missing something.

I think he's a physical freak and as elusive as anyone I have seen in a while. I agree that there are concerns, and don't really take issue with a ranking. I just don't understand the questioning of his agility.
Well, these aren't my rankings. Coleman has him at 5. I have him at 1, on a seperate site. I am in your camp. His agility jumps off the screen; HOWEVER, the numbers can tell us things that our eyes simply can see and that our faulty human brains cannot comprehend.

 

ConnSKINS26

Footballguy
You mention Patterson being bottom 5 in the class based on "Agility Score". It's clearly an outlier, or the score is flawed, right? Pretty clear that Patterson is plenty agile and physically ideal as a prospect.
Clearly a case of not being able to look past the numbers to see what's on the field.
Also, I'd like to point out, those who scout simply using video to gain a position on a player is basically wrong. That isn't the right way to do it. You have to use a combination of both.
Of course. The more information you have, the better the decision you can make.But if I HAD to pick one or the other...I wouldn't pick measurables.
 

Lavachebeadsman

Footballguy
You mention Patterson being bottom 5 in the class based on "Agility Score". It's clearly an outlier, or the score is flawed, right? Pretty clear that Patterson is plenty agile and physically ideal as a prospect.
Clearly a case of not being able to look past the numbers to see what's on the field.
Also, I'd like to point out, those who scout simply using video to gain a position on a player is basically wrong. That isn't the right way to do it. You have to use a combination of both.
Of course. The more information you have, the better the decision you can make.But if I HAD to pick one or the other...I wouldn't pick measurables.
If I had to chose, I'd choose production and measuerables over tape 10 times out of 10.

 

Dr. Octopus

Footballguy
If Manuel falls into a similar situation where he’ll be managed and manipulated, this ranking will look smart. If he ends up on the dumpster fire that’s the Jets, then forget about it.
:rolleyes:

At least the site didn't try and charge me a dollar, the second time I clicked on it, to read this trash (like it did last time you tried to push it on us).

 

Coleman

Footballguy
Alright, this is a placeholder until I get the formatting figured out. http://sportswunderkind.com/nfl-draft-skill-position-rankings/
:thumbup: just at first glance.
Thanks man!

You mention Patterson being bottom 5 in the class based on "Agility Score". It's clearly an outlier, or the score is flawed, right? Pretty clear that Patterson is plenty agile and physically ideal as a prospect.
Clearly a case of not being able to look past the numbers to see what's on the field.
Not really. I looked at both. If he's so amazing on the field, why can't he replicate it when he's being measured? If you read the article, I noted that it was either that "the tape is lying to us, or he didn't prepare." Neither option is appealing. I think 5 is a solid ranking. Film scouts LOVE him obviously, because he looks amazing when he gets the ball. Metrics scouts hate him because he underperformed in college and has subpar measurables. Ranking him 5 is taking the middle ground.

 

ConnSKINS26

Footballguy
You mention Patterson being bottom 5 in the class based on "Agility Score". It's clearly an outlier, or the score is flawed, right? Pretty clear that Patterson is plenty agile and physically ideal as a prospect.
Clearly a case of not being able to look past the numbers to see what's on the field.
Also, I'd like to point out, those who scout simply using video to gain a position on a player is basically wrong. That isn't the right way to do it. You have to use a combination of both.
Of course. The more information you have, the better the decision you can make.But if I HAD to pick one or the other...I wouldn't pick measurables.
If I had to chose, I'd choose production and measuerables over tape 10 times out of 10.
I don't know for sure, but if I had to guess I'd say you're in the minority on that one. Not that that should sway you. Advanced metrics have their place, and it's a very important one. NFL teams themselves use them more and more every year. But looking at the tape will always be #1. This isn't moneyball. It doesn't apply to football in the same way it does for baseball. You can't evaluate completely based off of numbers, or you lose sight of what's actually happening on the field. Only eyes can see that.
 

Coleman

Footballguy
You mention Patterson being bottom 5 in the class based on "Agility Score". It's clearly an outlier, or the score is flawed, right? Pretty clear that Patterson is plenty agile and physically ideal as a prospect.
Clearly a case of not being able to look past the numbers to see what's on the field.
Also, I'd like to point out, those who scout simply using video to gain a position on a player is basically wrong. That isn't the right way to do it. You have to use a combination of both.
Of course. The more information you have, the better the decision you can make.But if I HAD to pick one or the other...I wouldn't pick measurables.
If I had to chose, I'd choose production and measuerables over tape 10 times out of 10.
I don't know for sure, but if I had to guess I'd say you're in the minority on that one. Not that that should sway you. Advanced metrics have their place, and it's a very important one. NFL teams themselves use them more and more every year. But looking at the tape will always be #1. This isn't moneyball. It doesn't apply to football in the same way it does for baseball. You can't evaluate completely based off of numbers, or you lose sight of what's actually happening on the field. Only eyes can see that.
Myself and many others would disagree with that statement very strongly. Your eyes are fallible and biased, advanced metrics can tell you so much if used correctly.

EDIT: 'our' eyes is more correct

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Lavachebeadsman

Footballguy
If Manuel falls into a similar situation where hell be managed and manipulated, this ranking will look smart. If he ends up on the dumpster fire thats the Jets, then forget about it.
:rolleyes: At least the site didn't try and charge me a dollar, the second time I clicked on it, to read this trash (like it did last time you tried to push it on us).
I posted the body of the article here, but the formatting was screwed up. I don't know what trash you are referring too. I'm working on getting the formatting right. Sorry if you are offended by Coleman's rankings.
 

Lavachebeadsman

Footballguy
You mention Patterson being bottom 5 in the class based on "Agility Score". It's clearly an outlier, or the score is flawed, right? Pretty clear that Patterson is plenty agile and physically ideal as a prospect.
Clearly a case of not being able to look past the numbers to see what's on the field.
Also, I'd like to point out, those who scout simply using video to gain a position on a player is basically wrong. That isn't the right way to do it. You have to use a combination of both.
Of course. The more information you have, the better the decision you can make.But if I HAD to pick one or the other...I wouldn't pick measurables.
If I had to chose, I'd choose production and measuerables over tape 10 times out of 10.
I don't know for sure, but if I had to guess I'd say you're in the minority on that one. Not that that should sway you. Advanced metrics have their place, and it's a very important one. NFL teams themselves use them more and more every year. But looking at the tape will always be #1. This isn't moneyball. It doesn't apply to football in the same way it does for baseball. You can't evaluate completely based off of numbers, or you lose sight of what's actually happening on the field. Only eyes can see that.
As I said earlier, I do both. Initial work with numbers, then film, then more numbers work. The numbers will always tell a complete story. For fantasy football, the numbers/"Moneyball" approach works pretty well.
 

Concept Coop

Footballguy
Not really. I looked at both. If he's so amazing on the field, why can't he replicate it when he's being measured?
Replicate? You don't replicate anything when doing two different things. He did replicate what he did on the field, over and over again, on the field.

You see guys run a bad 40 based on technique all the time. It's a track event that can be useful, but it's only part of it. Did you let 40 times tell you that Devin Hester is slower than Demarco Murray? Or only as fast as Rashard Mendenhall?

I'm not saying it doesn't have it's place. I'm saying patterson is as agile as it gets on the football field and you can throw out anything that suggests otherwise.

 

Dr. Octopus

Footballguy
If Manuel falls into a similar situation where hell be managed and manipulated, this ranking will look smart. If he ends up on the dumpster fire thats the Jets, then forget about it.
:rolleyes: At least the site didn't try and charge me a dollar, the second time I clicked on it, to read this trash (like it did last time you tried to push it on us).
I posted the body of the article here, but the formatting was screwed up. I don't know what trash you are referring too. I'm working on getting the formatting right. Sorry if you are offended by Coleman's rankings.
I don't care about the rankings - just the poor writing style and lazy analysis. I also think its cheesy to keep pushing your site on another fantasy football website - but it's up to this site's owners if they want to keep allowing it.

 

Lavachebeadsman

Footballguy
If Manuel falls into a similar situation where hell be managed and manipulated, this ranking will look smart. If he ends up on the dumpster fire thats the Jets, then forget about it.
:rolleyes: At least the site didn't try and charge me a dollar, the second time I clicked on it, to read this trash (like it did last time you tried to push it on us).
I posted the body of the article here, but the formatting was screwed up. I don't know what trash you are referring too. I'm working on getting the formatting right. Sorry if you are offended by Coleman's rankings.
I don't care about the rankings - just the poor writing style and lazy analysis. I also think its cheesy to keep pushing your site on another fantasy football website - but it's up to this site's owners if they want to keep allowing it.
What do you find lazy about the analysis? Also, not pushing the site. I'm trying to format the rankings with the tables right now.
 

Concept Coop

Footballguy
As fot Patterson not being productive - look at his rushing stats too. He had over 1,000 yards and 8 TDs. He's not going to be asked to be a traditional WR-X. He's going to be moved around and have the ball given to him in space.

 

EBF

Footballguy
Not my favorite rankings, but hey...props to you for putting it out there and supporting your positions.

IMO Franklin is far too average from an athletic ability/speed/burst/instincts standpoint to thrive in the NFL as a 205 pound back. There are several less heralded backs that I would take above him. Michael is better in workouts than he is on the football field. No doubt he has the tools to play in the NFL, but I'm not sure he's got long term starter ability. I look for both of those guys to be overdrafted in dynasty leagues.

Hopkins is just a possession WR. Crisp routes with good toughness/hands/receiving skills. No speed whatsoever though. As for Hunter, the 40.5" vertical leap and 11'6" broad jump that he logged at his pro day tell you what kind of athlete you're dealing with. I agree that his slight frame is a red flag, but players can sometimes overcome a lack of ideal size if they have special qualities in other categories. Look at what Spiller and Chris Johnson have done at RB. Hunter doesn't have the sheer speed of those guys, but he's a springy athlete with a lot of potential as a deep threat. Those long strides are going to eat up a lot of corners.

IMO Mark Harrison is just a workout warrior. Testing athletic doesn't always = playing athletic. Stephen Hill and Jerome Simpson are great examples. For my money, Marcus Davis is a much better bet if you want to roll the dice on a mid-late round WR with possible #1 tools. He is better on the field despite what the tape measures might indicate.

I don't think Josh Boyce is relegated to the slot. A lot of people list his size as a negative. He's not tall, but he's rocked out for his height and easily has the best weight/speed combination in this class. He is not a jump ball receiver and won't fit every team's ideal for what they want in an outside WR, but he's got a better skill set than many give him credit for.

 

Lavachebeadsman

Footballguy
If Manuel falls into a similar situation where hell be managed and manipulated, this ranking will look smart. If he ends up on the dumpster fire thats the Jets, then forget about it.
:rolleyes: At least the site didn't try and charge me a dollar, the second time I clicked on it, to read this trash (like it did last time you tried to push it on us).
I posted the body of the article here, but the formatting was screwed up. I don't know what trash you are referring too. I'm working on getting the formatting right. Sorry if you are offended by Coleman's rankings.
I don't care about the rankings - just the poor writing style and lazy analysis. I also think its cheesy to keep pushing your site on another fantasy football website - but it's up to this site's owners if they want to keep allowing it.
The rankings are now up fully, with the formatting issues fixed.
 

Coleman

Footballguy
Not really. I looked at both. If he's so amazing on the field, why can't he replicate it when he's being measured?
Replicate? You don't replicate anything when doing two different things. He did replicate what he did on the field, over and over again, on the field.

You see guys run a bad 40 based on technique all the time. It's a track event that can be useful, but it's only part of it. Did you let 40 times tell you that Devin Hester is slower than Demarco Murray? Or only as fast as Rashard Mendenhall?

I'm not saying it doesn't have it's place. I'm saying patterson is as agile as it gets on the football field and you can throw out anything that suggests otherwise.
I prefer numbers over visual scouting, but that's just my preference. I respect how you've come to your conclusion, I just don't agree with it. It's part of scouting, but not all of it, we can agree on that. Devin Hester measured well, but would've been undraftable to me becased on his college production. DeMarco Murray likely would've been a top 3 back for me in 2011.

Not my favorite rankings, but hey...props to you for putting it out there and supporting your positions.

IMO Franklin is far too average from an athletic ability/speed/burst/instincts standpoint to thrive in the NFL as a 205 pound back. There are several less heralded backs that I would take above him. Michael is better in workouts than he is on the football field. No doubt he has the tools to play in the NFL, but I'm not sure he's got long term starter ability. I look for both of those guys to be overdrafted in dynasty leagues.

Hopkins is just a possession WR. Crisp routes with good toughness/hands/receiving skills. No speed whatsoever though. As for Hunter, the 40.5" vertical leap and 11'6" broad jump that he logged at his pro day tell you what kind of athlete you're dealing with. I agree that his slight frame is a red flag, but players can sometimes overcome a lack of ideal size if they have special qualities in other categories. Look at what Spiller and Chris Johnson have done at RB. Hunter doesn't have the sheer speed of those guys, but he's a springy athlete with a lot of potential as a deep threat. Those long strides are going to eat up a lot of corners.

IMO Mark Harrison is just a workout warrior. Testing athletic doesn't always = playing athletic. Stephen Hill and Jerome Simpson are great examples. For my money, Marcus Davis is a much better bet if you want to roll the dice on a mid-late round WR with possible #1 tools. He is better on the field despite what the tape measures might indicate.

I don't think Josh Boyce is relegated to the slot. A lot of people list his size as a negative. He's not tall, but he's rocked out for his height and easily has the best weight/speed combination in this class. He is not a jump ball receiver and won't fit every team's ideal for what they want in an outside WR, but he's got a better skill set than many give him credit for.
Franklin's metrics are concerning, but I had a hard time moving him down after watching him play. I loved how he created yards for himself after the UCLA offensive lineman inevitabley melted down. I loved Michael's film as well, I think workouts reflected what I saw.

Agreed on Hopkins, I think he'll be a RZ beast though. Fantasy points galore. Justin Hunter had a good year until you look at just his games versus the SEC. He was pretty awful there. I liked the limited film I saw on Harrison, he definitely raw like Patterson, but I think I can get him later and hope he progresses. I didn't have the confidence to rank Davis any higher than I did just because I only saw 2 plays on a highlight reel. Agreed on Boyce in the slot.

 

Coleman

Footballguy
I don't care about the rankings - just the poor writing style and lazy analysis. I also think its cheesy to keep pushing your site on another fantasy football website - but it's up to this site's owners if they want to keep allowing it.
I actually put a million hours of work into that, so it's pretty lazy to call my analysis 'lazy.'

 

Concept Coop

Footballguy
I prefer numbers over visual scouting, but that's just my preference. I respect how you've come to your conclusion, I just don't agree with it. It's part of scouting, but not all of it, we can agree on that. Devin Hester measured well, but would've been undraftable to me becased on his college production. DeMarco Murray likely would've been a top 3 back for me in 2011.
I think we do agree on that, and might not be so far off. But the relevant question is, would have put money on Murray in a foot race over Hester, when he ran a faster 40 time?

 

Coleman

Footballguy
I prefer numbers over visual scouting, but that's just my preference. I respect how you've come to your conclusion, I just don't agree with it. It's part of scouting, but not all of it, we can agree on that. Devin Hester measured well, but would've been undraftable to me becased on his college production. DeMarco Murray likely would've been a top 3 back for me in 2011.
I think we do agree on that, and might not be so far off. But the relevant question is, would have put money on Murray in a foot race over Hester, when he ran a faster 40 time?
I'll put my money on Murray. They both in the same controlled environment, and Murray ran every segment of the drill faster. Not that it matters that much. Weight/size adjusted 40's > raw 40s. It's easy to say that a guy looks fast on tape, but I don't feel comfortable doing that, hence why I turned to numbers.

 

Concept Coop

Footballguy
I'll put my money on Murray. They both in the same controlled environment, and Murray ran every segment of the drill faster. Not that it matters that much. Weight/size adjusted 40's > raw 40s. It's easy to say that a guy looks fast on tape, but I don't feel comfortable doing that, hence why I turned to numbers.
I have to give you kudos for standing by your claim; it's quite a claim to make.

Why would you adjust a 40 based on weight/size? You're either faster than the guy next to you, or you're not.

 

EBF

Footballguy
I think what he's saying is that it's important to evaluate speed in the context of weight.

For example, you'd expect CJ Spiller to be faster than Trent Richardson because he's a fraction of the size. If all you look at is the 40 time, you'll think Spiller is a much better athlete than Richardson. If you account for the fact that he's significantly thinner and lighter, the difference in measured speed and explosiveness becomes a little bit less impressive. That's why Chris Harper's 4.5 speed is a world apart from Marquess Wilson's 4.5 speed.

As for Hester, he might be a guy who's more quick than fast. Ted Ginn is a bad receiver, but he's also one of the fastest players I've ever seen. If you put him on a track he would probably blow Hester away. Hester looks faster on the football field because he's more agile, fluid, and instinctive. Doesn't mean he actually has more sheer straight line speed. Guys like Hester and Sproles who look fast aren't necessarily true burners in a straight line.

 

Coleman

Footballguy
I'll put my money on Murray. They both in the same controlled environment, and Murray ran every segment of the drill faster. Not that it matters that much. Weight/size adjusted 40's > raw 40s. It's easy to say that a guy looks fast on tape, but I don't feel comfortable doing that, hence why I turned to numbers.
I have to give you kudos for standing by your claim; it's quite a claim to make.

Why would you adjust a 40 based on weight/size? You're either faster than the guy next to you, or you're not.
Onterio McCalebb and Lamar Miller ran the same time, 4.34. The difference is that Miller is 44 pounds heavier than McCalebb. In NFL terms, McCalebb really isn't that fast, given his size.

 

Concept Coop

Footballguy
I think what he's saying is that it's important to evaluate speed in the context of weight.

For example, you'd expect CJ Spiller to be faster than Trent Richardson because he's a fraction of the size. If all you look at is the 40 time, you'll think Spiller is a much better athlete than Richardson. If you account for the fact that he's significantly thinner and lighter, the difference in measured speed and explosiveness becomes a little bit less impressive. That's why Chris Harper's 4.5 speed is a world apart from Marquess Wilson's 4.5 speed.

As for Hester, he might be a guy who's more quick than fast. Ted Ginn is a bad receiver, but he's also one of the fastest players I've ever seen. If you put him on a track he would probably blow Hester away. Hester looks faster on the football field because he's more agile, fluid, and instinctive. Doesn't mean he actually has more sheer straight line speed. Guys like Hester and Sproles who look fast aren't necessarily true burners in a straight line.
I certainly agree. Was it the Tuna that said you can be small or slow? I get that. I just didn't understand what that had to do with Hester and Murray racing on the field. Give Hester an extra 10 pounds on his shoulder pads, put them on the field and tell them to run - I'm still taking hester.

 

Concept Coop

Footballguy
Onterio McCalebb and Lamar Miller ran the same time, 4.34. The difference is that Miller is 44 pounds heavier than McCalebb. In NFL terms, McCalebb really isn't that fast, given his size.
That's simply not accurate. He'd be one of the fastest players in the NFL. His size/speed combination might not be as impressive, but he's just as fast.

 

Coleman

Footballguy
I think what he's saying is that it's important to evaluate speed in the context of weight.

For example, you'd expect CJ Spiller to be faster than Trent Richardson because he's a fraction of the size. If all you look at is the 40 time, you'll think Spiller is a much better athlete than Richardson. If you account for the fact that he's significantly thinner and lighter, the difference in measured speed and explosiveness becomes a little bit less impressive. That's why Chris Harper's 4.5 speed is a world apart from Marquess Wilson's 4.5 speed.

As for Hester, he might be a guy who's more quick than fast. Ted Ginn is a bad receiver, but he's also one of the fastest players I've ever seen. If you put him on a track he would probably blow Hester away. Hester looks faster on the football field because he's more agile, fluid, and instinctive. Doesn't mean he actually has more sheer straight line speed. Guys like Hester and Sproles who look fast aren't necessarily true burners in a straight line.
Metrics support that. Both Hester and Sproles are slow given their size, but have fantastic Agility Scores.

 

Coleman

Footballguy
Onterio McCalebb and Lamar Miller ran the same time, 4.34. The difference is that Miller is 44 pounds heavier than McCalebb. In NFL terms, McCalebb really isn't that fast, given his size.
That's simply not accurate. He'd be one of the fastest players in the NFL. His size/speed combination might not be as impressive, but he's just as fast.
Size matters in the NFL in a big way. McCalebb doesn't have the size to be anything more than space back in the NFL, while Miller has a workhorse profile.

 

ConnSKINS26

Footballguy
Onterio McCalebb and Lamar Miller ran the same time, 4.34. The difference is that Miller is 44 pounds heavier than McCalebb. In NFL terms, McCalebb really isn't that fast, given his size.
That's simply not accurate. He'd be one of the fastest players in the NFL. His size/speed combination might not be as impressive, but he's just as fast.
Size matters in the NFL in a big way. McCalebb doesn't have the size to be anything more than space back in the NFL, while Miller has a workhorse profile.
That doesn't change how fast he is in a straight line.

 

EBF

Footballguy
I think you're missing the point of what he's saying. If I understand him correctly, he's not just talking about who would win in a race. He's saying that elite speed is expected of thin players, and thus isn't exceptional. A guy who runs a 4.4 at a low BMI is not as exceptional as a guy who runs 4.4 at a high BMI. Thus the exact same time can be "average" for a thin player and "fast" for a thicker player.

Look at a guy like Jimmy Graham. In a vacuum, 4.53 is an average 40 time. However, 4.53 is a VERY GOOD 40 time for a player who is 6'6" 260 pounds. A big blind spot with most casual draftniks is that they just look at the times in a vacuum with minimal consideration for how they relate to the player's height/weight. Thus you get people believing that guys like Jamaal Charles and CJ Spiller are much more athletic than guys like Trent Richardson and Doug Martin when in reality they're probably pretty similar if you slide the scale to adjust for the vast difference in bulk/strength.

The real freaks aren't the guys like DeSean Jackson who can run fast in tiny frames, but rather the players like Andre Johnson, Jonathan Stewart, and Maurice Drew who have little guy speed in massive frames.

 

Concept Coop

Footballguy
Size matters in the NFL in a big way. McCalebb doesn't have the size to be anything more than space back in the NFL, while Miller has a workhorse profile.
That's fine, but that's not what you're claiming. Who was the lineman that ran a 4.7, or something like that? Could he play corner now? Or return kicks? His adjusted 40 would likely measure up to anyones.

Size/speed ratio is important - yes. But that is different than claiming players are "slow for their size". That's why big guys don't get a head start in track events and why 300 pounders don't play corner, despite their good size/speed ratio.

 

Coleman

Footballguy
Onterio McCalebb and Lamar Miller ran the same time, 4.34. The difference is that Miller is 44 pounds heavier than McCalebb. In NFL terms, McCalebb really isn't that fast, given his size.
That's simply not accurate. He'd be one of the fastest players in the NFL. His size/speed combination might not be as impressive, but he's just as fast.
Size matters in the NFL in a big way. McCalebb doesn't have the size to be anything more than space back in the NFL, while Miller has a workhorse profile.
That doesn't change how fast he is in a straight line.
Never said it did. We can debate all day about who's faster than who in a straight and whatnot, but there's more than just 40 yard dash times that goes into my analysis.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top