Burress signs with Giants (1 Viewer)

[Steelers4Life]

First off, Maddox's yards per ATTEMPT dropped from 7.5 in 2002 to 6.6 in 2003.  Hardly identical, huh?  I don't know where you pulled that from.

He said YARDS PER COMPLETION, not attempt.

Maddox threw for 20 TDs in just over 11 games in 2002 on 377 attempts.

He threw for only 18 TDs playing in all 16 games in 2003 on 519 attempts.

Maddox was terrible in 2003, but it was largely due to the offensive line.  His completion % also dropped from 62% to 57%.

Ever think that maybe the drop in Burress' play had something to do with it. If all Burress can do is get open deep, what good is he to a team that doesn't have a great offensive line?

I didn't say Ward was a bad receiver, but he DID run routes closer to the line of scrimmage, which is why his average per catch is around 12 yards normally. 

Right, and Ward can actually get open on short routes, which is not always as easy as it seems. Burress seemingly cannot do it consistently. And Ward is always better at making things happened after the catch.

Yards pet attempt is a lot more important than yards per completion. When Maddox was completing fewer passes, it didn't matter that his yards per completion was similar. He was a far less efficient QB.Burress didn't just forget how to play in 2003 compared to 2002. It's not that Burress can't run shorter routes, but Ward is clearly better at it and they had him and Randle El to handle that. Burress' role was to clear out the safety help and occasionally make big plays in the passing game, but the OL rarely gave those plays a chance to develop in 2003. On the few occasions it did, Maddox was so uncomfortable in the pocket that he got "happy feet" and got rid of the ball on shorter routes.

Getting open on shorter routes is a lot easier when the deep safety is occupied and the 2nd corner is covering you. That's why he and Ward made such a perfect combination. Ward is definitely better at running with the ball after making the catch though, and he's got better hands. The guy catches everything and fights for every yard.

All true.

Thanks.

 

[ShadowMaster]

Well S4L has been beating his Plaxico drum fro 2 weeks now, so there is no use in trying to reason with him.The fact that it is mostly based on a theoretical production based on last year's 'pace' does not faze him - the big problem here of course is that Plax is far from consistent. Shhhhh.There is also the “ignore the whole rookie year” thing to project his per game average - because bad rookie years don't count, right?I'm a Steeler fan - I watch every game. How come I don't see the big value Plax brings by drawing all this coverage? How come I think Ward is so much better? (hint: production, brains, and work ethic).By your analysis, the best NYG can hope for is a big decoy who grabs a few now and then.I'm going to enjoy watching this bite the New Yorkers in the butt (along with you S4L) as Plax struggles HUGE for the next 2-3 YEARS. Inexperienced QB + Hard line coach + NY Media = Disaster. Write it down.

 

[anakin]

Well S4L has been beating his Plaxico drum fro 2 weeks now, so there is no use in trying to reason with him.

The fact that it is mostly based on a theoretical production based on last year's 'pace' does not faze him - the big problem here of course is that Plax is far from consistent. Shhhhh.

There is also the “ignore the whole rookie year” thing to project his per game average - because bad rookie years don't count, right?

I'm a Steeler fan - I watch every game. How come I don't see the big value Plax brings by drawing all this coverage? How come I think Ward is so much better? (hint: production, brains, and work ethic).

By your analysis, the best NYG can hope for is a big decoy who grabs a few now and then.

I'm going to enjoy watching this bite the New Yorkers in the butt (along with you S4L) as Plax struggles HUGE for the next 2-3 YEARS. Inexperienced QB + Hard line coach + NY Media = Disaster. Write it down.

 

[TheLaw]

In evaluating Plex, we have to keep in mind that Eli Manning is a lil #####.

 

[Steelers4Life]

Well S4L has been beating his Plaxico drum fro 2 weeks now, so there is no use in trying to reason with him.

The fact that it is mostly based on a theoretical production based on last year's 'pace' does not faze him - the big problem here of course is that Plax is far from consistent. Shhhhh.

There is also the “ignore the whole rookie year” thing to project his per game average - because bad rookie years don't count, right?

I'm a Steeler fan - I watch every game. How come I don't see the big value Plax brings by drawing all this coverage? How come I think Ward is so much better? (hint: production, brains, and work ethic).

By your analysis, the best NYG can hope for is a big decoy who grabs a few now and then.

I'm going to enjoy watching this bite the New Yorkers in the butt (along with you S4L) as Plax struggles HUGE for the next 2-3 YEARS. Inexperienced QB + Hard line coach + NY Media = Disaster. Write it down.

It's not based on theoretical anything. It's based on his per game averages counting everything but his rookie season. If he plays at that pace (and Manning is no worse than Kordell, Maddox, or Roethlisberger throwing the ball) or a pace even a little better, NYG will get very nice produciton out of him. If you think that his rookie season is important in determining how you think he'll do in the future, by all means, use it however you want. I agree with you that Ward has been more consistent, and there are reasons for it. I'm certainly not going to enjoy watching it, but I think people who haven't seen what Burress has done for Ward are in for a rude awakening next year. That's not a knock on Ward. I love the guy. But to say he hasn't benefited from having Burress across the field is ridiculous.

Just because the Steelers used Burress like they did doesn't mean the Giants will.

I don't believe that Roethlisberger is any better throwing the ball than Manning. I think he had a perfect situation last year, and I think Manning's just got significantly better.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Burress was 14th in the NFL in targets in 2002, with 9.8 targets per game. (Toomer was 15th, for what it's worth)Burress was 16th in the NFL in targets in 2003, with 8.4 targets per game.Burress had 6.7 targets per game last year, if you use 10.25 games played. (6.3 if you don't)Those numbers aren't terrible (especially the 2002 numbers), but last year he was clearly the victim of playing in a run oriented offense. Unlucky brought up a great point: If you want to bump Burress up from moving to a less run oriented offense, you must also bump him down to moving to an offense that relies a whole lot more on passes to the RB and TE. Here are the target numbers (ranks in parenthesis at their position) from the last three years: Tiki Barber: 81 (3rd) last year; 101 (3rd) in 2003; 102 (3rd) in 2002 Steelers leading RB in targets: Verron Haynes with 22 last year (64th); Zereoue with 52 (24th) in 2003; Zereoue with 53 in 2002.Shockey: 106 (6th) last year; 74 (7th--but FIRST in targets per game) in 2003; 139 in 2002 (1st).Steelers leading TE in targets: Tuman with 21 (47th) last year; Riemersma with 25 (42nd) in 2003; Breuner with 19 in 2002.Basically, when healthy you can assume that Shockey and Barber will total about 225 targets in a season. Shockey and Toomer are among the top three targetted players at their position over the past three years. Pittsburgh on the other hand, will target their leading RB and TEs about 75 times in a good season (last year it was 43). Regardless, there will be about 150 LESS targets a year for a WR in New York's offense than Pittsburgh's offense due to TE and RB production.Last three year's average: 481 passes for Pittsburgh, 547 passes for New York.Last year many Steelers fans correctly point out that they didn't throw much. Well the attempts per team breakdown was 475 for the Giants and 358 for Pittsburgh.Pittsburgh's team targets:TEs: 31RBs: 67WRs: 280Total: 378New York Giants team targets:WRs: 257RBs: 104TEs: 125Total: 486(The target data is a little off, as both add up to more than the number of team attempts. But it's close enough to make a valid comparison IMO.)However you look at the data (and I'd wager that the numbers look WORSE for making a case for Burress if you go back to 20002 and 2003), it's hard to see why the WRs as a whole would be targeted more in NY than in PIT. The two ways to spin this in Burress' favor are:1) He was so great that he brought up the target data for Pit WRs. When he goes to the Giants, the Giants will target their WRs a lot more, specifically him.2) As the true number one WR, he'll get more targets anyway. The Giants target numbers for WRs will be the same as Pittsburghs, but Burress will be able to steal them from Toomer et al. This one is actually not too hard to buy. If you consider that both teams target their WRs about 260 times a season, you have to like Burress' odds of getting more targets in NY. Surely he'll get a larger percentage of the targets fighting Toomer and Taylor than competing with Ward and ARE. And since the pie will be the same (260), a higher percentage will equal more targets overall.

 

[Bojang0301]

Good to see people are drinking the Plaxico kool-aid again.

Fair enough.My opinions are based primarily on past production, and now he's moving into a better situation for him.

I hope more people think like you so I can steal him late in redrafts next year.

Having held onto him before, past production goes as such: ####ty for the first two weeks...bench him, goes off for 120 and 1.... start him for another miserable to average 3 weeks where he solely costs me at least one game... bench him... goes off again and so on. You can have him.

This is the best argument i have heard against Burress, he screwed Bojang by not producing in the games he started him.

Wasn't just me but this is a fantasy football board. I mean maybe I'm mistaken but all the talent in the world don't mean #### if you can't produce especially for FF'ers.

 

[Bojang0301]

Well S4L has been beating his Plaxico drum fro 2 weeks now, so there is no use in trying to reason with him.

The fact that it is mostly based on a theoretical production based on last year's 'pace' does not faze him - the big problem here of course is that Plax is far from consistent. Shhhhh.

There is also the “ignore the whole rookie year” thing to project his per game average - because bad rookie years don't count, right?

I'm a Steeler fan - I watch every game. How come I don't see the big value Plax brings by drawing all this coverage? How come I think Ward is so much better? (hint: production, brains, and work ethic).

By your analysis, the best NYG can hope for is a big decoy who grabs a few now and then.

I'm going to enjoy watching this bite the New Yorkers in the butt (along with you S4L) as Plax struggles HUGE for the next 2-3 YEARS. Inexperienced QB + Hard line coach + NY Media = Disaster. Write it down.

Thank you.

 

[Steelers4Life]

Burress was 14th in the NFL in targets in 2002, with 9.8 targets per game. (Toomer was 15th, for what it's worth)

Burress was 16th in the NFL in targets in 2003, with 8.4 targets per game.

Burress had 6.7 targets per game last year, if you use 10.25 games played. (6.3 if you don't)

Those numbers aren't terrible (especially the 2002 numbers), but last year he was clearly the victim of playing in a run oriented offense. Unlucky brought up a great point: If you want to bump Burress up from moving to a less run oriented offense, you must also bump him down to moving to an offense that relies a whole lot more on passes to the RB and TE.

Here are the target numbers (ranks in parenthesis at their position) from the last three years:

Tiki Barber: 81 (3rd) last year; 101 (3rd) in 2003; 102 (3rd) in 2002

Steelers leading RB in targets: Verron Haynes with 22 last year (64th); Zereoue with 52 (24th) in 2003; Zereoue with 53 in 2002.

Shockey: 106 (6th) last year; 74 (7th--but FIRST in targets per game) in 2003; 139 in 2002 (1st).

Steelers leading TE in targets: Tuman with 21 (47th) last year; Riemersma with 25 (42nd) in 2003; Breuner with 19 in 2002.

Basically, when healthy you can assume that Shockey and Barber will total about 225 targets in a season. Shockey and Toomer are among the top three targetted players at their position over the past three years. Pittsburgh on the other hand, will target their leading RB and TEs about 75 times in a good season (last year it was 43). Regardless, there will be about 150 LESS targets a year for a WR in New York's offense than Pittsburgh's offense due to TE and RB production.

Last three year's average: 481 passes for Pittsburgh, 547 passes for New York.

Last year many Steelers fans correctly point out that they didn't throw much. Well the attempts per team breakdown was 475 for the Giants and 358 for Pittsburgh.

Pittsburgh's team targets:

TEs: 31

RBs: 67

WRs: 280

Total: 378

New York Giants team targets:

WRs: 257

RBs: 104

TEs: 125

Total: 486

(The target data is a little off, as both add up to more than the number of team attempts. But it's close enough to make a valid comparison IMO.)

However you look at the data (and I'd wager that the numbers look WORSE for making a case for Burress if you go back to 20002 and 2003), it's hard to see why the WRs as a whole would be targeted more in NY than in PIT. The two ways to spin this in Burress' favor are:

1) He was so great that he brought up the target data for Pit WRs. When he goes to the Giants, the Giants will target their WRs a lot more, specifically him.

2) As the true number one, he'll get more targets anyway. The Giants target numbers for WRs will remain the same, but he'll just steal them from Toomer et al. This one is actually not too hard to buy. If you consider that both teams target their WRs about 260 times a season, you have to like Toomer's odds of getting more targets in NY. Surely he'll get a larger percentage of the targets fighting Toomer and Taylor than competing with Ward and ARE. And since the pie will be the same (260), a higher percentage will equal more targets overall.

Interesting.I think the high percentage of RB/TE targets had something to do with the fact that Hilliard sucked and Toomer was hurt. I do expect the Giants WRs to be targeted more in 2005 than in 2004 with Burress and a healthy Toomer.

And yes, I'd expect him to get a larger percentage of the WR targets in NY than he did in Pittsburgh.

If Barber and Shockey combine for about 200 targets (down about 2 targets per game compared to 2004, which I believe is reasonable), that's 12.5 per game. That leaves a good 15+ additional targets per game that should head to the WRs, with Burress getting more than enough to be a consistent threat.

He'll get a slightly smaller percentage of a much higher number of targets.

 

[Dancing Bear]

ShadowMaster was watching the same games that I was, and without the KOOL-AID too!Bojang0301 brings up another really good point ...Based on consistency [or not], when do you actually pull the trigger and play a given player. Burress was inconsistent, Vick is another ...Burress played in 11 games from a Fantasy perspective last year. You either started him or someone else. 4 out of the 11 games he performed at a 10 ppg or better level, and the other 7 out of 11 he performed average or worse [just plain sucked!].Chase I followed you all the way until the end. Are you joking with your conclusions?Did you mix up a few Toomer's for Burress'? Who is Taylor?

 

[Chase Stuart]

Interesting.

I think the high percentage of RB/TE targets had something to do with the fact that Hilliard sucked and Toomer was hurt. I do expect the Giants WRs to be targeted more in 2005 than in 2004 with Burress and a healthy Toomer.

And yes, I'd expect him to get a larger percentage of the WR targets in NY than he did in Pittsburgh.

If Barber and Shockey combine for about 200 targets (down about 2 targets per game compared to 2004, which I believe is reasonable), that's 12.5 per game. That leaves a good 15+ additional targets per game that should head to the WRs, with Burress getting more than enough to be a consistent threat.

He'll get a slightly smaller percentage of a much higher number of targets.

Remember though, Burress had a good deal of targets in both 2002 and 2003. It's not as if he's always been in a run first offense.There are a lot of ways to analyze Burress this year, and he's going to be a very interesting fantasy player to watch. I guess there are three ways to analyze target data for when a player switches teams.

1) Number of total targets (Much higher for the Giants --> good for Burress. This isn't enough though, so we can move to....

2) Number of total WR targets (Same for Giants ---> no effect for Burress). This is more useful IMO, because the Giants aren't going to stop throwing to arguably the best receiving RB/TE in the NFL.

3) Percentage of WR targets for Burress. It's hard to make a case where Burress would see more targets playing with Ward, Randle El and Lee Mays, then Toomer, Taylor and Tyree.

So I guess after looking at all the numbers, Toomer would be likely to see a few more targets in NY in 2005 than in Pit in 2005. (Although remember, he would have seen a lot more targets in Pit2005 due to a projected 16 games and the Steelers regressing to the mean in terms of passing targets). Of course, this leads us to a fourth way to analyze target data:

4) Quality of target.

There's no doubt IMO that a target from Roethlisberger with defenses focused on covering Ward and stopping the run will lead to better results than a target from Manning with defenses significantly more focused on stopping Burress.

So Burress will probably see a few more targets now that he switches teams than he would have in Pit this year. But that's likely washed out by the quality of the target falling. So in the end, I think a strong case could be made for saying his prospects for 2005 haven't moved up or down. They're right where they would have been had he resigned with Pittsburgh. But remember, that doesn't mean simply expecting the same numbers from last year--he would have improved a good deal on that had he stayed a Steeler.

 

[Chase Stuart]

ShadowMaster was watching the same games that I was, and without the KOOL-AID too!

Bojang0301 brings up another really good point ...

Based on consistency [or not], when do you actually pull the trigger and play a given player. Burress was inconsistent, Vick is another ...

Burress played in 11 games from a Fantasy perspective last year. You either started him or someone else. 4 out of the 11 games he performed at a 10 ppg or better level, and the other 7 out of 11 he performed average or worse [just plain sucked!].

Chase I followed you all the way until the end. Are you joking with your conclusions?

Did you mix up a few Toomer's for Burress'? Who is Taylor?

I did mix up Toomer and Burress once. It's the day after St. Patty's Day I'll go fix that now. Taylor is another WR on the Giants. My basic point was basically that Toomer goes from being a WR2 to a WR1, just stated in a different way.

 

[Dancing Bear]

Steelers4Life,You are so interested in ARGUING that you did not read the letters I wrote in my post.I CLEARLY spelled out the wordsYards per Completion!not Yards per Attempt!I do not necessarily subscribe to the opinion that Yards per Attempt is a better measure of a QB's performance as it includes the balls intelligently thrown out-of-bounds, the balls dropped [by Burress especially], the balls hurried because of BAD LINE play, good defensive calls, just plain bad play calls, etc.The fact that his YARDS per COMPLETION was the same in each year means that he did not substantially regress, and that he delivered in a catchable ball in the vicinity of a receiver within the described system!

 

[Bojang0301]

Interesting.

I think the high percentage of RB/TE targets had something to do with the fact that Hilliard sucked and Toomer was hurt.  I do expect the Giants WRs to be targeted more in 2005 than in 2004 with Burress and a healthy Toomer. 

And yes, I'd expect him to get a larger percentage of the WR targets in NY than he did in Pittsburgh. 

If Barber and Shockey combine for about 200 targets (down about 2 targets per game compared to 2004, which I believe is reasonable), that's 12.5 per game.  That leaves a good 15+ additional targets per game that should head to the WRs, with Burress getting more than enough to be a consistent threat.

He'll get a slightly smaller percentage of a much higher number of targets.

Remember though, Burress had a good deal of targets in both 2002 and 2003. It's not as if he's always been in a run first offense.There are a lot of ways to analyze Burress this year, and he's going to be a very interesting fantasy player to watch. I guess there are three ways to analyze target data for when a player switches teams.

1) Number of total targets (Much higher for the Giants --> good for Burress. This isn't enough though, so we can move to....

2) Number of total WR targets (Same for Giants ---> no effect for Burress). This is more useful IMO, because the Giants aren't going to stop throwing to arguably the best receiving RB/TE in the NFL.

3) Percentage of WR targets for Burress. It's hard to make a case where Burress would see more targets playing with Ward, Randle El and Lee Mays, then Toomer, Taylor and Tyree.

So I guess after looking at all the numbers, Toomer would be likely to see a few more targets in NY in 2005 than in Pit in 2005. (Although remember, he would have seen a lot more targets in Pit2005 due to a projected 16 games and the Steelers regressing to the mean in terms of passing targets). Of course, this leads us to a fourth way to analyze target data:

4) Quality of target.

There's no doubt IMO that a target from Roethlisberger with defenses focused on covering Ward and stopping the run will lead to better results than a target from Manning with defenses significantly more focused on stopping Burress.

So Burress will probably see a few more targets now that he switches teams than he would have in Pit this year. But that's likely washed out by the quality of the target falling. So in the end, I think a strong case could be made for saying his prospects for 2005 haven't moved up or down. They're right where they would have been had he resigned with Pittsburgh. But remember, that doesn't mean simply expecting the same numbers from last year--he would have improved a good deal on that had he stayed a Steeler.

I am afraid your sample size is too small for WR targets in the Coughlin system. Toomer finally hit a wall (which everybody should have seen coming for awhile he was a player with a limited ceiling) and the rest of the WR's were downright awful. Couple that with the play of Eli, who IMO, is going to check down more being a rookie and I think the targets are skewd and actually should be more in favor of Plaxico *GASP!*. Won't matter much though because once he drops a pass in the endzone and gets on Coughlin's #### list he still won't produce and won't consistently next year learning a new offense with a 2nd year QB. If Eli doesn't step up then the Plax owners are in deep deep ####. Then you got Jesse Palmer throwing the ball to him. :X

 

[Steelers4Life]

Burress played in 11 games from a Fantasy perspective last year. You either started him or someone else. 4 out of the 11 games he performed at a 10 ppg or better level, and the other 7 out of 11 he performed average or worse [just plain sucked!].

He obviously sucked in the first 2 weeks with Maddox in there. No doubt.But after Ben took over...

The only week he didn't get at least 60 yards or a TD was against the Bengals, and he had 3 catches for 46 yards in a quarter that day. He had a TD in 4 of the 8 1/4 games he played in. Considering that the Steelers only threw the ball 22 times per game, that's about as good and consistent as you can expect.

I don't think he'll have that issue to deal with in New York, do you?

 

[Bojang0301]

ShadowMaster was watching the same games that I was, and without the KOOL-AID too!

Bojang0301 brings up another really good point ...

Based on consistency [or not], when do you actually pull the trigger and play a given player.  Burress was inconsistent, Vick is another ...

Burress played in 11 games from a Fantasy perspective last year.  You either started him or someone else.  4 out of the 11 games he performed at a 10 ppg or better level, and the other 7 out of 11 he performed average or worse [just plain sucked!].

Chase I followed you all the way until the end.  Are you joking with your conclusions?

Did you mix up a few Toomer's for Burress'?  Who is Taylor?

I did mix up Toomer and Burress once. It's the day after St. Patty's Day I'll go fix that now. Taylor is another WR on the Giants. My basic point was basically that Toomer goes from being a WR2 to a WR1, just stated in a different way.

Jamaar the one Giants WR I actually see potential in. That ACL injury hurt his draft status but it could pay off big for the Giants.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Burress played in 11 games from a Fantasy perspective last year. You either started him or someone else. 4 out of the 11 games he performed at a 10 ppg or better level, and the other 7 out of 11 he performed average or worse [just plain sucked!].

He obviously sucked in the first 2 weeks with Maddox in there. No doubt.But after Ben took over...

The only week he didn't get at least 60 yards or a TD was against the Bengals, and he had 3 catches for 46 yards in a quarter that day. He had a TD in 4 of the 8 1/4 games he played in. Considering that the Steelers only threw the ball 22 times per game, that's about as good and consistent as you can expect.

I don't think he'll have that issue to deal with in New York, do you?

Once again Steelers4Life, I don't think it matters that the Steelers only threw the ball 22 times per game. The Giants target their WRs even less.

 

[Bojang0301]

Burress played in 11 games from a Fantasy perspective last year.  You either started him or someone else.  4 out of the 11 games he performed at a 10 ppg or better level, and the other 7 out of 11 he performed average or worse [just plain sucked!].

He obviously sucked in the first 2 weeks with Maddox in there. No doubt.But after Ben took over...

The only week he didn't get at least 60 yards or a TD was against the Bengals, and he had 3 catches for 46 yards in a quarter that day. He had a TD in 4 of the 8 1/4 games he played in. Considering that the Steelers only threw the ball 22 times per game, that's about as good and consistent as you can expect.

I don't think he'll have that issue to deal with in New York, do you?

You can't just run fly's all the time and produce consistently.

 

[Steelers4Life]

Steelers4Life,

You are so interested in ARGUING that you did not read the letters I wrote in my post.

I CLEARLY spelled out the words

Yards per Completion!

not Yards per Attempt!

I do not necessarily subscribe to the opinion that Yards per Attempt is a better measure of a QB's performance as it includes the balls intelligently thrown out-of-bounds, the balls dropped [by Burress especially], the balls hurried because of BAD LINE play, good defensive calls, just plain bad play calls, etc.

The fact that his YARDS per COMPLETION was the same in each year means that he did not substantially regress, and that he delivered in a catchable ball in the vicinity of a receiver within the described system!

I'm not really arguing, because I'm not going to change anyone's mind. It's just an interesting debate.QB1 completes 2 of 10 passes for 20 yards.

QB2 completes 6 of 10 passes for 60 yards.

Both have a yards per completion of 10 yards.

Who is better?

You're clueless if you think Maddox was as good in 2003 as he was in 2002. I'm not saying it was his fault, because the injuries on the line were most of the reason. But he was uncomfortable in the pocket, completed 5% fewer of his passes, and didn't have the mobility to make plays.

Anyone who watched the Steelers in 2003 knows it was painful to watch the beating he took, and it affected the way he played. Burress suffered more than anyone else that year.

 

[Steelers4Life]

Burress played in 11 games from a Fantasy perspective last year.  You either started him or someone else.  4 out of the 11 games he performed at a 10 ppg or better level, and the other 7 out of 11 he performed average or worse [just plain sucked!].

He obviously sucked in the first 2 weeks with Maddox in there. No doubt.But after Ben took over...

The only week he didn't get at least 60 yards or a TD was against the Bengals, and he had 3 catches for 46 yards in a quarter that day. He had a TD in 4 of the 8 1/4 games he played in. Considering that the Steelers only threw the ball 22 times per game, that's about as good and consistent as you can expect.

I don't think he'll have that issue to deal with in New York, do you?

Once again Steelers4Life, I don't think it matters that the Steelers only threw the ball 22 times per game. The Giants target their WRs even less.

They targeted the WRs less in part because Toomer was hurt and they had no one else. Do you think that trend will continue to that extent now that Burress is on board and Toomer is healthy? I don't.Say the Giants throw the ball 28 times per week. Not unreasonable, right?

Now assume the Giants throw downfield an extra time or two per week now that Burress and Toomer are there. Still not unreasonable, right?

If Barber and Shockey combine for a 13 targets per week (combined 208 in a year), that leaves around 15 WR targets per game.

Like I said, a smaller percentage of a bigger pot, and more than enough for him to produce.

 

[Steelers4Life]

Burress played in 11 games from a Fantasy perspective last year.  You either started him or someone else.  4 out of the 11 games he performed at a 10 ppg or better level, and the other 7 out of 11 he performed average or worse [just plain sucked!].

He obviously sucked in the first 2 weeks with Maddox in there. No doubt.But after Ben took over...

The only week he didn't get at least 60 yards or a TD was against the Bengals, and he had 3 catches for 46 yards in a quarter that day. He had a TD in 4 of the 8 1/4 games he played in. Considering that the Steelers only threw the ball 22 times per game, that's about as good and consistent as you can expect.

I don't think he'll have that issue to deal with in New York, do you?

You can't just run fly's all the time and produce consistently.

Ummmm, he didn't just run fly patterns, and he WAS consistent while receiving under 7 targets per game.Considering that, I'd say getting 60 yards in 7 of 8 games and a TD in 4 of them is pretty consistent. Maybe not consistent enough for you, but still consistent.

 

[jurb26]

I think I'm going to have to take the time now to nominate Burress as a finalist for most contraversial player of the year heading into 2005.OK, back to your regular scheduled Burress programing. BTW, I have voiced my opinions of Burress several times, in several other threads. I am not in the same boat as S4L by any streatch of the imagination on this topic, but he does konw the Steelers well.

 

[Dancing Bear]

Steelers4Life,I was inferring in my reference to the importance of YPC that one also remembered the fact that his completed yardage was withing 10% of the previous years.Although your cute example was entertaining it ignores the entire thread ...Burress regressed over 35% while Maddox and Ward only regressed 10% with the horrible line ...You still have not explained that ...

 

[Dancing Bear]

Hey jurb,There are at least 6 of us who KNOW the Steelers well, and if you disect the thread interestingly enough it is a 50-50 split with respect to Burress ...

 

[Traders2001]

I don't  think he's worth it. Thats alot of cash for somebody who hasn't proved much in the NFL so far.

Maybe, but he is just what Eli needs, and we'll finally get a chance to see what Plax is made of as a WR1...

Why did Toomer leave NY too? Plax will still be 2nd fiddle (3rd if you count Shockey) in the passing game.Toomer and Plax are the top WR FAs in our keeper league and now both their values take a hit (even more with Eli under center)

I really hope you were joking .Toomer is a finished player ( he has lost 2 1/2 steps ) . Forget about him , it's his last season as a starter.

Next year you will see either Jamaar Taylor or David Tyree or a draft pick starting opposite Plax.

 

[jurb26]

Hey jurb,

There are at least 6 of us who KNOW the Steelers well, and if you disect the thread interestingly enough it is a 50-50 split with respect to Burress ...

Yeah, I know. Its just that I have been though this on MANY occasions with S4L. So while I am reading and following along, I am not about to beat that same old drum over and over again. I appreaciate you guys doing it for me though. Makes for some good reading material at work here.

 

[Steelers4Life]

Steelers4Life,

I was inferring in my reference to the importance of YPC that one also remembered the fact that his completed yardage was withing 10% of the previous years.

Although your cute example was entertaining it ignores the entire thread ...

Burress regressed over 35% while Maddox and Ward only regressed 10% with the horrible line ...

You still have not explained that ...

Yes I did, but like most of eveything else I present, you disregard what you don't want to hear.Maddox played in 11 games and one overtime period during 2002. He threw the ball 377 times, or an average of about 34 times per game. He averaged about 250 yards per game in 2002.

Maddox played in all 16 games in 2003. He threw the ball 519 times, or an average of 32 times per game. He averaged 213 yards per game in 2003. That's awful for throwing the ball 32 times per game.

He completed fewer passes per game at a lower percentage.

He also threw 20 TDs in 11 games in 2002.

He threw 18 TDs in 16 games in 2003.

The difference was the offensive line, and Burress is the one whose stats were affected the most by the line's shortcomings. His routes typically take longer to develop, and Maddox did not have the time that he did in 2002 to hit him downfield. Ward's routes were unaffected, and he produced just like he had in the past. It was the running game and deep passing game that was ruined by the OL injuries, and that's why Burress' numbers took a much greater hit than Ward's.

 

[Dancing Bear]

Chase,I am curious under what premise you are discarding Toomer as the WR#1. He has performed at least twice in the last 6 years at a level equivalent to or better than Burress ...Given that he had a entirely new system, new coaching staff, new QB's, etc. I would think you would cut him some slack in the first year ...And historically WR's who swap teams have a very high probability of performing worse in their first year with a new team, which does not bode well for our friend Burress [T.O. is one of the exceptions] ...

 

[placeholder10391]

I don't  think he's worth it. Thats alot of cash for somebody who hasn't proved much in the NFL so far.

Maybe, but he is just what Eli needs, and we'll finally get a chance to see what Plax is made of as a WR1...

Why did Toomer leave NY too? Plax will still be 2nd fiddle (3rd if you count Shockey) in the passing game.Toomer and Plax are the top WR FAs in our keeper league and now both their values take a hit (even more with Eli under center)

I really hope you were joking .Toomer is a finished player ( he has lost 2 1/2 steps ) . Forget about him , it's his last season as a starter.

Next year you will see either Jamaar Taylor or David Tyree or a draft pick starting opposite Plax.

Jamaar Taylor is the 2nd best WR on the Giants. Plax is the 1st.

 

[CalBear]

Couple that with the play of Eli, who IMO, is going to check down more being a rookie and I think the targets are skewd and actually should be more in favor of Plaxico *GASP!*.

There is no evidence that rookie QBs check down more; in fact, the analysis I've done shows that they are much more likely to focus on their hot receiver. (That's why they get picked off).Toomer is a better receiver than Burress, and Rothlisberger is a better QB than Eli. The question is, is Burress better than Hilliard; probably, he is. But that still won't produce a decent fantasy WR in a crappy passing offense with no QB.

 

[Bojang0301]

Burress played in 11 games from a Fantasy perspective last year.  You either started him or someone else.  4 out of the 11 games he performed at a 10 ppg or better level, and the other 7 out of 11 he performed average or worse [just plain sucked!].

He obviously sucked in the first 2 weeks with Maddox in there. No doubt.But after Ben took over...

The only week he didn't get at least 60 yards or a TD was against the Bengals, and he had 3 catches for 46 yards in a quarter that day. He had a TD in 4 of the 8 1/4 games he played in. Considering that the Steelers only threw the ball 22 times per game, that's about as good and consistent as you can expect.

I don't think he'll have that issue to deal with in New York, do you?

You can't just run fly's all the time and produce consistently.

Ummmm, he didn't just run fly patterns, and he WAS consistent while receiving under 7 targets per game.Considering that, I'd say getting 60 yards in 7 of 8 games and a TD in 4 of them is pretty consistent. Maybe not consistent enough for you, but still consistent.

Not Really seeing that...

'04 Splits

September Receiving Rushing Fumbles

GAMEDATE Opp RESULT GS Rec Yds Avg Lg TD Att Yds Avg Lg TD Fum Rec Yds TD

09/12 Oakland W 24-21 Yes 1 13 13.0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

09/19 @Baltimore L 13-30 Yes 2 30 15.0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

09/26 @Miami W 13-3 Yes 2 60 30.0 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

October Receiving Rushing Fumbles

GAMEDATE Opp RESULT GS Rec Yds Avg Lg TD Att Yds Avg Lg TD Fum Rec Yds TD

10/03 Cincinnati W 28-17 Yes 4 69 17.3 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10/10 Cleveland W 34-23 Yes 6 136 22.7 48 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10/17 @Dallas W 24-20 Yes 3 48 16.0 32 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10/31 New England W 34-20 Yes 3 63 21.0 47 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

November Receiving Rushing Fumbles

GAMEDATE Opp RESULT GS Rec Yds Avg Lg TD Att Yds Avg Lg TD Fum Rec Yds TD

11/07 Philadelphia W 27-3 Yes 3 70 23.3 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0

11/14 @Cleveland W 24-10 Yes 5 66 13.2 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11/21 @Cincinnati W 19-14 Yes 3 46 15.3 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11/28 Washington W 16-7 Did Not Play

December Receiving Rushing Fumbles

GAMEDATE Opp RESULT GS Rec Yds Avg Lg TD Att Yds Avg Lg TD Fum Rec Yds TD

12/05 @Jacksonville W 17-16 Did Not Play

12/12 New York W 17-6 Did Not Play

12/18 @New York W 33-30 Did Not Play

12/26 Baltimore W 20-7 Yes 3 97 32.3 36 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

January Receiving Rushing Fumbles

GAMEDATE Opp RESULT GS Rec Yds Avg Lg TD Att Yds Avg Lg TD Fum Rec Yds TD

01/02 @Buffalo W 29-24 Did Not Play

01/15 New York W 20-17 Yes 2 28 14.0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

01/23 New England L 27-41 Yes 3 37 12.3 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

'03 Splits

September Receiving Rushing Fumbles

GAMEDATE Opp RESULT GS Rec Yds Avg Lg TD Att Yds Avg Lg TD Fum Rec Yds TD

09/07 Baltimore W 34-15 Yes 6 116 19.3 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

09/14 @Kansas City L 20-41 Yes 7 115 16.4 33 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

09/21 @Cincinnati W 17-10 Yes 5 56 11.2 23 0 1 -7 -7.0 -7 0 0 0 0 0

09/28 Tennessee L 13-30 Yes 4 64 16.0 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

October Receiving Rushing Fumbles

GAMEDATE Opp RESULT GS Rec Yds Avg Lg TD Att Yds Avg Lg TD Fum Rec Yds TD

10/05 Cleveland L 13-33 Yes 1 19 19.0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10/12 @Denver L 14-17 Yes 5 60 12.0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10/26 St. Louis L 21-33 Yes 1 6 6.0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

November Receiving Rushing Fumbles

GAMEDATE Opp RESULT GS Rec Yds Avg Lg TD Att Yds Avg Lg TD Fum Rec Yds TD

11/02 @Seattle L 16-23 Yes 5 75 15.0 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11/09 Arizona W 28-15 Yes 1 6 6.0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11/17 @San Francisco L 14-30 Yes 6 92 15.3 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11/23 @Cleveland W 13-6 Yes 2 16 8.0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11/30 Cincinnati L 20-24 Yes 8 112 14.0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

December Receiving Rushing Fumbles

GAMEDATE Opp RESULT GS Rec Yds Avg Lg TD Att Yds Avg Lg TD Fum Rec Yds TD

12/07 Oakland W 27-7 Yes 3 38 12.7 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12/14 @New York L 0-6 Yes 2 22 11.0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12/21 San Diego W 40-24 Yes 3 50 16.7 25 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12/28 @Baltimore L 10-13 Yes 1 13 13.0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Nope not there either. Oh but wait '02 was his big year there is no possible way that there could be some fluke like say a 230 yard game. I mean he had to be consistent... had to be. He is a stud.

'02 Splits

September Receiving Rushing Fumbles

GAMEDATE Opp RESULT GS Rec Yds Avg Lg TD Att Yds Avg Lg TD Fum Rec Yds TD

09/09 @New England L 14-30 No 1 11 11.0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

09/15 Oakland L 17-30 Yes 1 10 10.0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

09/29 Cleveland W 16-13 Yes 7 84 12.0 21 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0

October Receiving Rushing Fumbles

GAMEDATE Opp RESULT GS Rec Yds Avg Lg TD Att Yds Avg Lg TD Fum Rec Yds TD

10/06 @New Orleans L 29-32 Yes 4 59 14.8 22 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10/13 @Cincinnati W 34-7 Yes 8 149 18.6 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10/21 Indianapolis W 28-10 Yes 6 79 13.2 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10/27 @Baltimore W 31-18 Yes 5 55 11.0 20 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

November Receiving Rushing Fumbles

GAMEDATE Opp RESULT GS Rec Yds Avg Lg TD Att Yds Avg Lg TD Fum Rec Yds TD

11/03 @Cleveland W 23-20 Yes 4 69 17.3 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11/10 Atlanta T 34-34 Yes 9 253 28.1 62 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11/17 @Tennessee L 23-31 Yes 4 41 10.3 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11/24 Cincinnati W 29-21 Yes 4 38 9.5 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

December Receiving Rushing Fumbles

GAMEDATE Opp RESULT GS Rec Yds Avg Lg TD Att Yds Avg Lg TD Fum Rec Yds TD

12/01 @Jacksonville W 25-23 Yes 5 95 19.0 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12/08 Houston L 6-24 Yes 6 83 13.8 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12/15 Carolina W 30-14 Yes 6 120 20.0 47 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12/23 @Tampa Bay W 17-7 Yes 5 127 25.4 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12/29 Baltimore W 34-31 Yes 3 52 17.3 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Whoops, guess I was wrong. Can't really dis his '02 splits but he still disappears during the season. At least he was streaky in '02.

 

[Bojang0301]

Couple that with the play of Eli, who IMO, is going to check down more being a rookie and I think the targets are skewd and actually should be more in favor of Plaxico *GASP!*.

There is no evidence that rookie QBs check down more; in fact, the analysis I've done shows that they are much more likely to focus on their hot receiver. (That's why they get picked off).Toomer is a better receiver than Burress, and Rothlisberger is a better QB than Eli. The question is, is Burress better than Hilliard; probably, he is. But that still won't produce a decent fantasy WR in a crappy passing offense with no QB.

Wish you wouldn't have cut part of my whole message down. Your making me sound like a Plaxico supporter.

 

[Steelers4Life]

CalBear - I'm a Steelers fan, and I'm not so sure Roethlisberger is a better passeer than Manning. He had a great line, a great running game, and great WRs. Ben made plays, but his cast was so much better than Manning's that it's impossible to compare them realistically. This year, Manning will have great weapons to work with. If you think Toomer is more talented than Burress, we'll just disagree. And Bojang0301, for the last time....In 2004, he sucked for weeks 1 and 2 because Maddox only threw to Ward for 2 weeks. He had 3-46 in one quarter against the Bengals before getting hurt. In his other 8 games, all with Ben, he had at least 60 yards and a TD in 7 of them. Not too bad on only 6.7 targets per game.His 2003 season was a waste... we've beaten that to death.And if you can find fault with a 1325-7 season, be my guest.

 

[cstu]

Steelers4Life,

Let's assume that we give you that Burress obtains the 1,000/ 6 that you project ...

Do you realize that this has an extremely high probability of not even being worthy of a Top 25 WR performance?

JAA is also correct IMHO.  Plaxico will be valued too high in most Fantasy drafts, and folks will pay too much for him compared to the range of other WR who will likely finish up with the same performance.

I don't project 1,000-6If anything, I see that as his floor for 2005 if nothing goes right for him.

If I were to project something, I'd say something like 1150-7, which would put him right in the 15-17 range. If the passing game clicks and Manning improves next year, he can do even better.

Burress - 1150-7

Toomer - 900-5

Shockey - 650-5

Barber - 400-2

Misc - 200-2

Gives Manning around a 3300-21 season, which I think is very possible.

"1000 yards as a floor, if nothing goes right" - wow. I mean, I hope you're right, but that seems a bit much. I agree on your projection, of 1150/7, but 1,000 is his floor if things DO go right. I see Shockey getting more scores, but overall not a bad prediction.

It's still way too early for me to begin projecting numbers, but at this point I'd be hard-pressed to rank Burress any higher than 20. With the instability at QB and the number of other passing options for the Giants (Toomer, Shockey, Barber), I don't see Burress being a consistent performer at all. I think he will have some big games, but I wouldn't want to start him as my #2 WR week in and week out.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Burress played in 11 games from a Fantasy perspective last year. You either started him or someone else. 4 out of the 11 games he performed at a 10 ppg or better level, and the other 7 out of 11 he performed average or worse [just plain sucked!].

He obviously sucked in the first 2 weeks with Maddox in there. No doubt.But after Ben took over...

The only week he didn't get at least 60 yards or a TD was against the Bengals, and he had 3 catches for 46 yards in a quarter that day. He had a TD in 4 of the 8 1/4 games he played in. Considering that the Steelers only threw the ball 22 times per game, that's about as good and consistent as you can expect.

I don't think he'll have that issue to deal with in New York, do you?

Once again Steelers4Life, I don't think it matters that the Steelers only threw the ball 22 times per game. The Giants target their WRs even less.

They targeted the WRs less in part because Toomer was hurt and they had no one else. Do you think that trend will continue to that extent now that Burress is on board and Toomer is healthy? I don't.Say the Giants throw the ball 28 times per week. Not unreasonable, right?

Now assume the Giants throw downfield an extra time or two per week now that Burress and Toomer are there. Still not unreasonable, right?

If Barber and Shockey combine for a 13 targets per week (combined 208 in a year), that leaves around 15 WR targets per game.

Like I said, a smaller percentage of a bigger pot, and more than enough for him to produce.

Sure it's reasonable that the GIants now throw the ball 28 times per week, and that Barber and Shockey combine for 13 per week, leaving around 15 for the WRs. But you lose me at the end, because you somehow translate that to being a bigger pot. The Steelers throw to their WRs more than 15 times per week.

 

[cstu]

Steelers4Life,

I was inferring in my reference to the importance of YPC that one also remembered the fact that his completed yardage was withing 10% of the previous years.

Although your cute example was entertaining it ignores the entire thread ...

Burress regressed over 35% while Maddox and Ward only regressed 10% with the horrible line ...

You still have not explained that ...

Yes I did, but like most of eveything else I present, you disregard what you don't want to hear.Maddox played in 11 games and one overtime period during 2002. He threw the ball 377 times, or an average of about 34 times per game. He averaged about 250 yards per game in 2002.

Maddox played in all 16 games in 2003. He threw the ball 519 times, or an average of 32 times per game. He averaged 213 yards per game in 2003. That's awful for throwing the ball 32 times per game.

He completed fewer passes per game at a lower percentage.

He also threw 20 TDs in 11 games in 2002.

He threw 18 TDs in 16 games in 2003.

The difference was the offensive line, and Burress is the one whose stats were affected the most by the line's shortcomings. His routes typically take longer to develop, and Maddox did not have the time that he did in 2002 to hit him downfield. Ward's routes were unaffected, and he produced just like he had in the past. It was the running game and deep passing game that was ruined by the OL injuries, and that's why Burress' numbers took a much greater hit than Ward's.

Interesting point. If Burress' routes take longer to develop, wouldn't he do worse on the Giants with an OL nowhere close to the Steelers'?

 

[Bojang0301]

CalBear - I'm a Steelers fan, and I'm not so sure Roethlisberger is a better passeer than Manning. He had a great line, a great running game, and great WRs. Ben made plays, but his cast was so much better than Manning's that it's impossible to compare them realistically. This year, Manning will have great weapons to work with. If you think Toomer is more talented than Burress, we'll just disagree.

And Bojang0301, for the last time....

In 2004, he sucked for weeks 1 and 2. He had 3-46 in one quarter against the Bengals before getting hurt. In his other 8 games, he had at least 60 yards and a TD in 7 of them. Not too bad on only 6.7 targets per game.

His 2003 season was a waste... we've beaten that to death.

And if you can find fault with a 1325-7 season, be my guest.

You miss my and everyone else's point. It's fine and dandy you think he's a fine WR. I'll even agree with you to a certain extent. but you are pimping him up like nobody's business when he has been inconsistent his entire career, is going to a new offense, is going to a General coach who won't tolerate his lame excuses for missing camp, and really has not shown what it take to be a number one reciever in the NFL.

 

[Steelers4Life]

Burress played in 11 games from a Fantasy perspective last year.  You either started him or someone else.  4 out of the 11 games he performed at a 10 ppg or better level, and the other 7 out of 11 he performed average or worse [just plain sucked!].

He obviously sucked in the first 2 weeks with Maddox in there. No doubt.But after Ben took over...

The only week he didn't get at least 60 yards or a TD was against the Bengals, and he had 3 catches for 46 yards in a quarter that day. He had a TD in 4 of the 8 1/4 games he played in. Considering that the Steelers only threw the ball 22 times per game, that's about as good and consistent as you can expect.

I don't think he'll have that issue to deal with in New York, do you?

Once again Steelers4Life, I don't think it matters that the Steelers only threw the ball 22 times per game. The Giants target their WRs even less.

They targeted the WRs less in part because Toomer was hurt and they had no one else. Do you think that trend will continue to that extent now that Burress is on board and Toomer is healthy? I don't.Say the Giants throw the ball 28 times per week. Not unreasonable, right?

Now assume the Giants throw downfield an extra time or two per week now that Burress and Toomer are there. Still not unreasonable, right?

If Barber and Shockey combine for a 13 targets per week (combined 208 in a year), that leaves around 15 WR targets per game.

Like I said, a smaller percentage of a bigger pot, and more than enough for him to produce.

Sure it's reasonable that the GIants now throw the ball 28 times per week, and that Barber and Shockey combine for 13 per week, leaving around 15 for the WRs. But you lose me at the end, because you somehow translate that to being a bigger pot. The Steelers throw to their WRs more than 15 times per week.

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough...I'm talking about the total target pot, not the WR target pot. He'll have a smaller percentage of the total pot, but his targets should actually be higher than they were last year in Pittsburgh. If the Giants go downfield more often now that their WRs are better and healthy, they could reach levels near where they were in 2002 and 2003.

Burress will get a good percentage of the WR targets, and that should translate into production.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Chase,

I am curious under what premise you are discarding Toomer as the WR#1. He has performed at least twice in the last 6 years at a level equivalent to or better than Burress ...

Given that he had a entirely new system, new coaching staff, new QB's, etc. I would think you would cut him some slack in the first year ...

And historically WR's who swap teams have a very high probability of performing worse in their first year with a new team, which does not bode well for our friend Burress [T.O. is one of the exceptions] ...

I think Toomer's very underrated. But there's no doubt he's worse than Hines Ward. So as a result, I see no reason to think Burress' receptions as a percentage of the WRs receptions will go up.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Burress played in 11 games from a Fantasy perspective last year. You either started him or someone else. 4 out of the 11 games he performed at a 10 ppg or better level, and the other 7 out of 11 he performed average or worse [just plain sucked!].

He obviously sucked in the first 2 weeks with Maddox in there. No doubt.But after Ben took over...

The only week he didn't get at least 60 yards or a TD was against the Bengals, and he had 3 catches for 46 yards in a quarter that day. He had a TD in 4 of the 8 1/4 games he played in. Considering that the Steelers only threw the ball 22 times per game, that's about as good and consistent as you can expect.

I don't think he'll have that issue to deal with in New York, do you?

Once again Steelers4Life, I don't think it matters that the Steelers only threw the ball 22 times per game. The Giants target their WRs even less.

They targeted the WRs less in part because Toomer was hurt and they had no one else. Do you think that trend will continue to that extent now that Burress is on board and Toomer is healthy? I don't.Say the Giants throw the ball 28 times per week. Not unreasonable, right?

Now assume the Giants throw downfield an extra time or two per week now that Burress and Toomer are there. Still not unreasonable, right?

If Barber and Shockey combine for a 13 targets per week (combined 208 in a year), that leaves around 15 WR targets per game.

Like I said, a smaller percentage of a bigger pot, and more than enough for him to produce.

Sure it's reasonable that the GIants now throw the ball 28 times per week, and that Barber and Shockey combine for 13 per week, leaving around 15 for the WRs. But you lose me at the end, because you somehow translate that to being a bigger pot. The Steelers throw to their WRs more than 15 times per week.

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough...I'm talking about the total target pot, not the WR target pot. He'll have a smaller percentage of the total pot, but his targets should actually be higher than they were last year in Pittsburgh. If the Giants go downfield more often now that their WRs are better and healthy, they could reach levels near where they were in 2002 and 2003.

Burress will get a good percentage of the WR targets, and that should translate into production.

Good deal. I'll stand by this:I'll predict the same yardage numbers for Burress in NY that I would have predicted for Burress in PIT. This is because I think his supporting cast being worse hurts the quality of his numbers, but his supporting cast being worse should help the quality of his numbers. More targets, same production, and obviously less production per target. The Giants just don't throw it to the WRs enough to make this transition a positive one for Burress.

 

[Steelers4Life]

CalBear - I'm a Steelers fan, and I'm not so sure Roethlisberger is a better passeer than Manning.  He had a great line, a great running game, and great WRs.  Ben made plays, but his cast was so much better than Manning's that it's impossible to compare them realistically.  This year, Manning will have great weapons to work with.  If you think Toomer is more talented than Burress, we'll just disagree. 

And Bojang0301, for the last time....

In 2004, he sucked for weeks 1 and 2.  He had 3-46 in one quarter against the Bengals before getting hurt.  In his other 8 games, he had at least 60 yards and a TD in 7 of them.  Not too bad on only 6.7 targets per game.

His 2003 season was a waste... we've beaten that to death.

And if you can find fault with a 1325-7 season, be my guest.

You miss my and everyone else's point. It's fine and dandy you think he's a fine WR. I'll even agree with you to a certain extent. but you are pimping him up like nobody's business when he has been inconsistent his entire career, is going to a new offense, is going to a General coach who won't tolerate his lame excuses for missing camp, and really has not shown what it take to be a number one reciever in the NFL.

I'M NOT PIMPING HIM AS AN ELITE WR. NEVER HAVE, NEVER WILL. My projections for him of about 1150-7 are not those of an elite WR. He's got potential for more, but I don't see that happening in NY.I've responded mostly to people saying things like

- the Giants would've been better without him

- Ward didn't benefit from him

- he'll struggle to get 1,000 yards

- he never produced in Pittsburgh

LOTS of people only look at his numbers and are clueless as to why they are what they are. If he'd been drafted onto a consistently good passing team, people's perception of him would be drastically different. Instead, they factor in his rookie season, a lost season in 2003, and a year in 2004 where his numbers don't do justice to how well he played after Ben took over and say, "See, he sucks!"

 

[Chase Stuart]

CalBear - I'm a Steelers fan, and I'm not so sure Roethlisberger is a better passeer than Manning. He had a great line, a great running game, and great WRs. Ben made plays, but his cast was so much better than Manning's that it's impossible to compare them realistically. This year, Manning will have great weapons to work with. If you think Toomer is more talented than Burress, we'll just disagree.

And Bojang0301, for the last time....

In 2004, he sucked for weeks 1 and 2. He had 3-46 in one quarter against the Bengals before getting hurt. In his other 8 games, he had at least 60 yards and a TD in 7 of them. Not too bad on only 6.7 targets per game.

His 2003 season was a waste... we've beaten that to death.

And if you can find fault with a 1325-7 season, be my guest.

You miss my and everyone else's point. It's fine and dandy you think he's a fine WR. I'll even agree with you to a certain extent. but you are pimping him up like nobody's business when he has been inconsistent his entire career, is going to a new offense, is going to a General coach who won't tolerate his lame excuses for missing camp, and really has not shown what it take to be a number one reciever in the NFL.

I'M NOT PIMPING HIM AS AN ELITE WR. NEVER HAVE, NEVER WILL. My projections for him of about 1150-7 are not those of an elite WR. He's got potential for more, but I don't see that happening in NY.I've responded mostly to people saying things like

- the Giants would've been better without him

- Ward didn't benefit from him

- he'll struggle to get 1,000 yards

- he never produced in Pittsburgh

LOTS of people only look at his numbers and are clueless as to why they are what they are. If he'd been drafted onto a consistently good passing team, people's perception of him would be drastically different. Instead, they factor in his rookie season, a lost season in 2003, and a year in 2004 where his numbers don't do justice to how well he played after Ben took over and say, "See, he sucks!"

Don't you think ranking 14th and 16th in target data means you can't say his numbers underestimate his value because the Steelers don't pass much?

 

[Chase Stuart]

MT just informed me as to why the target data indicated that their were more targets than pass attempts. The reason is that pass plays that are called back because of penalty are still counted as targets even though they're not counted as pass attempts.

 

[Steelers4Life]

I'm outta here for a while, but here's the bottom line in my opinion:

In 2005, I see Burress doing the following:

8-9 targets per game - based on the analysis in this thread, I certainly don't see that as being unrealistic.

Catches 50% of his targets - exactly what he did last year.

= 4.25 catches per game, give or take

Averages 17 yards per catch - Did that in 2002, and averaged 20 in 2004.

That equates to a 68 catch, 1,156 yard season. I'll say 7 TDs is a reasonable esimate.

His cieling is higher than this if the Giants decide to move to a more vertical passing game with healthy, better WRs. Feel free to dispute these projections, but I don't think any of them are unrealistic in any way.

It's been fun! :rotflmao:

 

[Steelers4Life]

CalBear - I'm a Steelers fan, and I'm not so sure Roethlisberger is a better passeer than Manning.  He had a great line, a great running game, and great WRs.  Ben made plays, but his cast was so much better than Manning's that it's impossible to compare them realistically.  This year, Manning will have great weapons to work with.  If you think Toomer is more talented than Burress, we'll just disagree. 

And Bojang0301, for the last time....

In 2004, he sucked for weeks 1 and 2.  He had 3-46 in one quarter against the Bengals before getting hurt.  In his other 8 games, he had at least 60 yards and a TD in 7 of them.  Not too bad on only 6.7 targets per game.

His 2003 season was a waste... we've beaten that to death.

And if you can find fault with a 1325-7 season, be my guest.

You miss my and everyone else's point. It's fine and dandy you think he's a fine WR. I'll even agree with you to a certain extent. but you are pimping him up like nobody's business when he has been inconsistent his entire career, is going to a new offense, is going to a General coach who won't tolerate his lame excuses for missing camp, and really has not shown what it take to be a number one reciever in the NFL.

I'M NOT PIMPING HIM AS AN ELITE WR. NEVER HAVE, NEVER WILL. My projections for him of about 1150-7 are not those of an elite WR. He's got potential for more, but I don't see that happening in NY.I've responded mostly to people saying things like

- the Giants would've been better without him

- Ward didn't benefit from him

- he'll struggle to get 1,000 yards

- he never produced in Pittsburgh

LOTS of people only look at his numbers and are clueless as to why they are what they are. If he'd been drafted onto a consistently good passing team, people's perception of him would be drastically different. Instead, they factor in his rookie season, a lost season in 2003, and a year in 2004 where his numbers don't do justice to how well he played after Ben took over and say, "See, he sucks!"

Don't you think ranking 14th and 16th in target data means you can't say his numbers underestimate his value because the Steelers don't pass much?

Well, sort of.In one year he had 1325-7. He made the most of his targets.

In the other, the quality of his targets was terrible because the OL sucked and Maddox couldn't get the job done. It's the kind of thing you don't see by just looking at the numbers. Admittedly, it's a concern of mine with him going to NY, but I think the talent on the offense will make the job of the OL easier in 2005 than it was in 2004.

 

[Vibe Raiders]

Can anyone say Peerless Price....

 

[metoo]

Can anyone say Peerless Price....

no

 

[Otis]

Can anyone say Peerless Price....

 

[Steelers4Life]

I'm outta here for a while, but here's the bottom line in my opinion:

In 2005, I see Burress doing the following:

8-9 targets per game - based on the analysis in this thread, I certainly don't see that as being unrealistic.

Catches 50% of his targets - exactly what he did last year.

= 4.25 catches per game, give or take

Averages 17 yards per catch - Did that in 2002, and averaged 20 in 2004.

That equates to a 68 catch, 1,156 yard season. I'll say 7 TDs is a reasonable esimate.

His cieling is higher than this if the Giants decide to move to a more vertical passing game with healthy, better WRs. Feel free to dispute these projections, but I don't think any of them are unrealistic in any way.

It's been fun! :rotflmao:

Man, I had a lot of people disagreeing with my high opinion of Burress in this thread, but my projections might end up being on the low end.

 

[Otis]

I'm outta here for a while, but here's the bottom line in my opinion:

In 2005, I see Burress doing the following:

8-9 targets per game - based on the analysis in this thread, I certainly don't see that as being unrealistic.

Catches 50% of his targets - exactly what he did last year.

= 4.25 catches per game, give or take

Averages 17 yards per catch - Did that in 2002, and averaged 20 in 2004.

That equates to a 68 catch, 1,156 yard season. I'll say 7 TDs is a reasonable esimate.

His cieling is higher than this if the Giants decide to move to a more vertical passing game with healthy, better WRs. Feel free to dispute these projections, but I don't think any of them are unrealistic in any way.

It's been fun! :rotflmao:

Man, I had a lot of people disagreeing with my high opinion of Burress in this thread, but my projections might end up being on the low end.

It's definitely on the low end. I've had higher hopes for Plax this year, and so far he has been getting it done. He is, IMO, the one guy who is poised to make the jump into the top-5 fantasy WR realm (and I don't mean for just a single season, but I mean as an established top fantasy option on a yearly basis). I did not project him at top-5 yet -- I suspected it would take a year before he could get there, and I expected Eli would require more time than this. Eli has looked VERY good. I now think Plax could punch top-5 starting this year.He has all the tools and finally has a situation with a solid team that throws the ball and throws it well. He and Eli will be hooking up like this for a long time.

Folks often forget, but some of the best fantasy players were not super studs right out of the gate. The additional experience is only helping Plax's game.

T.O. was not good until his 5th season in the NFL...