Comparison of some top WRs entering their 3rd year (1 Viewer)

[ArlingtonTerp]

I'm wondering if you guys see much difference between these guys for next year and into the future, and how you would rate them against each other in a non-PPR league. All of them have limited work to look at still, so interpretation of their stats is somewhat difficult. Yet, they will be drafted fairly high I would think in redrafts and keepers. Colston could also be included in this group with Jennings, Marshall, and Holmes, but he seems to be in a different category, having played so much as a rookie. But, feel free to add him in there, as well as any other top guys in the category that are comparable.

All but Colston have potential situations in which the WR veteren on the other side (Walker, Driver, Ward) has had a recent very good year, and arguably is considered the number 1 on the team. Jennings and Holmes have among the best per catch (and per target) results in terms of yards and TDs of all receivers. Marshall gets a crazy amount of targets and catches. (But his catch rate, as well as his average per catch, is lower than the other guys). Holmes may have been the most heralded out of college and coming into this year, but has been hurt while the others put up big numbers. I think Holmes may end up being the best value next year. But I'm also curious as to what order you think they will be drafted. My sense is Marshall is being valued very high right now...higher than the rest of the guys by a little bit among the overall consensus.

 

[SSOG]

I'm wondering if you guys see much difference between these guys for next year and into the future, and how you would rate them against each other in a non-PPR league. All of them have limited work to look at still, so interpretation of their stats is somewhat difficult. Yet, they will be drafted fairly high I would think in redrafts and keepers. Colston could also be included in this group with Jennings, Marshall, and Holmes, but he seems to be in a different category, having played so much as a rookie. But, feel free to add him in there, as well as any other top guys in the category that are comparable. All but Colston have potential situations in which the WR veteren on the other side (Walker, Driver, Ward) has had a recent very good year, and arguably is considered the number 1 on the team. Jennings and Holmes have among the best per catch (and per target) results in terms of yards and TDs of all receivers. Marshall gets a crazy amount of targets and catches. (But his catch rate, as well as his average per catch, is lower than the other guys. Holmes may have been heralded out of college and coming into this year, but has been hurt while the others put up big numbers. I think Holmes may end up being the best value next year. But I'm also curious as to what order you think they will be drafted. My sense is Marshall is being valued very high right now...higher than the rest of the guys by a little bit among the overall consensus.

I don't know how they're being valued, I don't know where they'll be drafted, I don't even really know who'll perform best next season (it depends a TON on what happens to Javon Walker and Brett Favre), but from a strictly talent-based standpoint, here's how I'd rank them for dynasty purposes:#1 Colston#1a Holmes#1b Marshall.................................#2 JenningsI suspect people will give me crap for Holmes over Marshall, but Roeth is better than Cutler at this stage of the game, and Holmes' numbers would be better than Marshall's right now if he hadn't gotten hurt. I'm halfway tempted to even bump Holmes over Colston, he's just a guy that I'm really really high on. As for Jennings, he's way behind those three because I question how much of his production is talent and how much of his production is Brett Favre.

 

[PantherPower]

SSOG, i like Holmes a lot, I really do, and Big Ben too, but no way I put him over Marshall.

Colston

Marshall

Jennings

Holmes

IMO

 

[FantasyTrader]

SSOG, i like Holmes a lot, I really do, and Big Ben too, but no way I put him over Marshall. ColstonMarshallJenningsHolmesIMO

 

[Tanner9919]

SSOG, i like Holmes a lot, I really do, and Big Ben too, but no way I put him over Marshall. ColstonMarshallJenningsHolmesIMO

..Marshall is talented, but if you go by supporting cast alone, Pitt wins that battle, hands down..and Holmes could be the #1 in Pitt next year, depending on whether or not they keep Hines Ward..I'm not looking at his contract right now, don't know how long he is signed for, but Pitt has a habit of cutting older guys in June..if that happens, Holmes takes a big step up in 2008..leaving Colston out of this, since he is playing like a 10 year veteran already..Jennings is worth more than Marshall , imo, he has a better QB ( if Favre returns in '08), and a better supporting cast...

 

[Sabertooth]

I'm wondering if you guys see much difference between these guys for next year and into the future, and how you would rate them against each other in a non-PPR league. All of them have limited work to look at still, so interpretation of their stats is somewhat difficult. Yet, they will be drafted fairly high I would think in redrafts and keepers. Colston could also be included in this group with Jennings, Marshall, and Holmes, but he seems to be in a different category, having played so much as a rookie. But, feel free to add him in there, as well as any other top guys in the category that are comparable. All but Colston have potential situations in which the WR veteren on the other side (Walker, Driver, Ward) has had a recent very good year, and arguably is considered the number 1 on the team. Jennings and Holmes have among the best per catch (and per target) results in terms of yards and TDs of all receivers. Marshall gets a crazy amount of targets and catches. (But his catch rate, as well as his average per catch, is lower than the other guys. Holmes may have been heralded out of college and coming into this year, but has been hurt while the others put up big numbers. I think Holmes may end up being the best value next year. But I'm also curious as to what order you think they will be drafted. My sense is Marshall is being valued very high right now...higher than the rest of the guys by a little bit among the overall consensus.

I don't know how they're being valued, I don't know where they'll be drafted, I don't even really know who'll perform best next season (it depends a TON on what happens to Javon Walker and Brett Favre), but from a strictly talent-based standpoint, here's how I'd rank them for dynasty purposes:#1 Colston#1a Holmes#1b Marshall.................................#2 JenningsI suspect people will give me crap for Holmes over Marshall, but Roeth is better than Cutler at this stage of the game, and Holmes' numbers would be better than Marshall's right now if he hadn't gotten hurt. I'm halfway tempted to even bump Holmes over Colston, he's just a guy that I'm really really high on. As for Jennings, he's way behind those three because I question how much of his production is talent and how much of his production is Brett Favre.

Jennings doesn't get bumped because of talent, maybe opportunity but not talent.

 

[SSOG]

SSOG, i like Holmes a lot, I really do, and Big Ben too, but no way I put him over Marshall. ColstonMarshallJenningsHolmesIMO

Brandon Marshall this season is averaging 10.3 targets, 6 catches, 81 yards, and .43 TDs per game. That's 10.68 fppg.Santonio Holmes this season is averaging 6.2 targets, 4 catches, 65 yards, and .64 TDs per game. That's 10.3 fppg.Essentially, both are producing equal numbers... if we take them in a vacuum. Let's add some context, shall we? Santonio Holmes is producing similar totals despite playing much of the year gimpy. He's producing similar numbers on 40% less targets. Brandon Marshall's 10.3 targets per game ranks him third in the entire NFL, and puts him on pace for 165 targets. Do you know what happens to WRs with 160+ targets in year N+1? Let me tell you.Between 2002 and 2006, a WR posted 160+ targets 17 total times. Here's the data, with the year N and year N+1 targets in parentheses afterwards.2002 Marvin Harrison (204, 142)2002 Randy Moss (186, 170)2002 Eric Moulds (180, 119)2002 Marty Booker (165, 105)2002 Hines Ward (161, 156)2003 Torry Holt (183, 129)2003 Randy Moss (170, 84)2003 Anquan Boldin (165, 102)2004 Laveranues Coles (162, 133)2005 Anquan Boldin (171, 152)2005 Chris Chambers (166, 154)2005 Plaxico Burress (166, 121)2005 Larry Fitzgerald (165, 108)2005 Torry Holt (163, 178)2006 Torry Holt (178, 147)2006 Donald Driver (171, 133)2006 Andre Johnson (165, 78)Those last three values are the pace through 14 games. Anyway, of the 17 WRs with 160 targets, only 5 of them managed 150+ in year N+1. The result is a huge regression in fantasy performance. You get guys like Donald Driver, who was the #5 WR in fantasy football when he had 160+ targets, but who fell to 22nd (despite comparable play) when his targets fell back towards his career averages. Or Chris Chambers, who, despite being an irredeemable turd, put up some studly numbers thanks to his 160+ targets.Santonio Holmes, on the other hand, is way at the opposite end of the spectrum. He's currently ranked 57th in targets per game, right between Vernon Davis and Michael Jenkins. He's a mortal LOCK for an increase in targets next year- he really has nowhere to go but up.Brandon Marshall, like all 160+ target WRs, is currently suffering from Chris Chambers disease. This doesn't mean that he's the most overrated WR in the history of fantasy football, like Chambers was, but 160+ target WRs are always overrated because most people simply don't REALIZE that they're 160+ target WRs, or don't understand the concept of regression to the mean. Next year, I guarantee you that Holmes' targets will be more in line with Marshall's, and if their level of play both stay constant, Holmes' numbers will blow Marshall's out of the water. I see a lot of parallels between Holmes/Marshall and Evans/Chambers, actually- both sets were putting up very comparable numbers, but one of the two was doing it at a mind-bogglingly efficient rate (Evans and Holmes), while the other was doing it at a generally inefficient rate (Chambers and Marshall). Like I said, Marshall's targets have nowhere to go but down, and Holmes' have nowhere to go but up. Barring any DRASTIC change in their per-target efficiency, Holmes' numbers should blow Marshall's out of the park next year.

 

[gheemony]

SSOG, i like Holmes a lot, I really do, and Big Ben too, but no way I put him over Marshall. ColstonMarshallJenningsHolmesIMO

Brandon Marshall this season is averaging 10.3 targets, 6 catches, 81 yards, and .43 TDs per game. That's 10.68 fppg.Santonio Holmes this season is averaging 6.2 targets, 4 catches, 65 yards, and .64 TDs per game. That's 10.3 fppg.Essentially, both are producing equal numbers... if we take them in a vacuum. Let's add some context, shall we? Santonio Holmes is producing similar totals despite playing much of the year gimpy. He's producing similar numbers on 40% less targets. Brandon Marshall's 10.3 targets per game ranks him third in the entire NFL, and puts him on pace for 165 targets. Do you know what happens to WRs with 160+ targets in year N+1? Let me tell you.Between 2002 and 2006, a WR posted 160+ targets 17 total times. Here's the data, with the year N and year N+1 targets in parentheses afterwards.2002 Marvin Harrison (204, 142)2002 Randy Moss (186, 170)2002 Eric Moulds (180, 119)2002 Marty Booker (165, 105)2002 Hines Ward (161, 156)2003 Torry Holt (183, 129)2003 Randy Moss (170, 84)2003 Anquan Boldin (165, 102)2004 Laveranues Coles (162, 133)2005 Anquan Boldin (171, 152)2005 Chris Chambers (166, 154)2005 Plaxico Burress (166, 121)2005 Larry Fitzgerald (165, 108)2005 Torry Holt (163, 178)2006 Torry Holt (178, 147)2006 Donald Driver (171, 133)2006 Andre Johnson (165, 78)Those last three values are the pace through 14 games. Anyway, of the 17 WRs with 160 targets, only 5 of them managed 150+ in year N+1. The result is a huge regression in fantasy performance. You get guys like Donald Driver, who was the #5 WR in fantasy football when he had 160+ targets, but who fell to 22nd (despite comparable play) when his targets fell back towards his career averages. Or Chris Chambers, who, despite being an irredeemable turd, put up some studly numbers thanks to his 160+ targets.Santonio Holmes, on the other hand, is way at the opposite end of the spectrum. He's currently ranked 57th in targets per game, right between Vernon Davis and Michael Jenkins. He's a mortal LOCK for an increase in targets next year- he really has nowhere to go but up.Brandon Marshall, like all 160+ target WRs, is currently suffering from Chris Chambers disease. This doesn't mean that he's the most overrated WR in the history of fantasy football, like Chambers was, but 160+ target WRs are always overrated because most people simply don't REALIZE that they're 160+ target WRs, or don't understand the concept of regression to the mean. Next year, I guarantee you that Holmes' targets will be more in line with Marshall's, and if their level of play both stay constant, Holmes' numbers will blow Marshall's out of the water. I see a lot of parallels between Holmes/Marshall and Evans/Chambers, actually- both sets were putting up very comparable numbers, but one of the two was doing it at a mind-bogglingly efficient rate (Evans and Holmes), while the other was doing it at a generally inefficient rate (Chambers and Marshall). Like I said, Marshall's targets have nowhere to go but down, and Holmes' have nowhere to go but up. Barring any DRASTIC change in their per-target efficiency, Holmes' numbers should blow Marshall's out of the park next year.

Great work, SSOG. Thanks. I'm puzzled as to why targets would be susceptible to regression to the mean. It's not a stat that is completely out of control of the team. If a team is successful by throwing a WR 10 targets a game in year N, why wouldn't they continue that strategy in year N+1? Do you have any thoughts on why the number drops so much? What if you compared it to the team's total targets in year N and year N+1? Would we find that the WRs were the beneficiaries of abberational number of passes by a team that regressed back to the a more normal amount of passes the next year?Would love your thoughts. Thanks.

 

[EBF]

SSOG, i like Holmes a lot, I really do, and Big Ben too, but no way I put him over Marshall. ColstonMarshallJenningsHolmesIMO

Brandon Marshall this season is averaging 10.3 targets, 6 catches, 81 yards, and .43 TDs per game. That's 10.68 fppg.Santonio Holmes this season is averaging 6.2 targets, 4 catches, 65 yards, and .64 TDs per game. That's 10.3 fppg.Essentially, both are producing equal numbers... if we take them in a vacuum. Let's add some context, shall we? Santonio Holmes is producing similar totals despite playing much of the year gimpy. He's producing similar numbers on 40% less targets. Brandon Marshall's 10.3 targets per game ranks him third in the entire NFL, and puts him on pace for 165 targets. Do you know what happens to WRs with 160+ targets in year N+1? Let me tell you.Between 2002 and 2006, a WR posted 160+ targets 17 total times. Here's the data, with the year N and year N+1 targets in parentheses afterwards.2002 Marvin Harrison (204, 142)2002 Randy Moss (186, 170)2002 Eric Moulds (180, 119)2002 Marty Booker (165, 105)2002 Hines Ward (161, 156)2003 Torry Holt (183, 129)2003 Randy Moss (170, 84)2003 Anquan Boldin (165, 102)2004 Laveranues Coles (162, 133)2005 Anquan Boldin (171, 152)2005 Chris Chambers (166, 154)2005 Plaxico Burress (166, 121)2005 Larry Fitzgerald (165, 108)2005 Torry Holt (163, 178)2006 Torry Holt (178, 147)2006 Donald Driver (171, 133)2006 Andre Johnson (165, 78)Those last three values are the pace through 14 games. Anyway, of the 17 WRs with 160 targets, only 5 of them managed 150+ in year N+1. The result is a huge regression in fantasy performance. You get guys like Donald Driver, who was the #5 WR in fantasy football when he had 160+ targets, but who fell to 22nd (despite comparable play) when his targets fell back towards his career averages. Or Chris Chambers, who, despite being an irredeemable turd, put up some studly numbers thanks to his 160+ targets.Santonio Holmes, on the other hand, is way at the opposite end of the spectrum. He's currently ranked 57th in targets per game, right between Vernon Davis and Michael Jenkins. He's a mortal LOCK for an increase in targets next year- he really has nowhere to go but up.Brandon Marshall, like all 160+ target WRs, is currently suffering from Chris Chambers disease. This doesn't mean that he's the most overrated WR in the history of fantasy football, like Chambers was, but 160+ target WRs are always overrated because most people simply don't REALIZE that they're 160+ target WRs, or don't understand the concept of regression to the mean. Next year, I guarantee you that Holmes' targets will be more in line with Marshall's, and if their level of play both stay constant, Holmes' numbers will blow Marshall's out of the water. I see a lot of parallels between Holmes/Marshall and Evans/Chambers, actually- both sets were putting up very comparable numbers, but one of the two was doing it at a mind-bogglingly efficient rate (Evans and Holmes), while the other was doing it at a generally inefficient rate (Chambers and Marshall). Like I said, Marshall's targets have nowhere to go but down, and Holmes' have nowhere to go but up. Barring any DRASTIC change in their per-target efficiency, Holmes' numbers should blow Marshall's out of the park next year.

Great work, SSOG. Thanks. I'm puzzled as to why targets would be susceptible to regression to the mean. It's not a stat that is completely out of control of the team. If a team is successful by throwing a WR 10 targets a game in year N, why wouldn't they continue that strategy in year N+1? Do you have any thoughts on why the number drops so much? What if you compared it to the team's total targets in year N and year N+1? Would we find that the WRs were the beneficiaries of abberational number of passes by a team that regressed back to the a more normal amount of passes the next year?Would love your thoughts. Thanks.

One theory:Any time you have a guy getting tons of targets, it might be an indication that the team has been forced to skew its playcalling to compensate for injuries or underperformance. For example, Marshall is getting all of those looks this year because Javon Walker has been injured. Walker's injury forced the Broncos to deviate from their plans and give Marshall more looks than they would have given him otherwise. When Walker returns to the field 100%, Marshall's targets will probably dip a little bit. Remember when Muhsin Muhammad was the number one WR in fantasy football? The only reason he had that huge year is because Steve Smith went down early in the season with an injury. The Panthers were forced to feed the ball to Muhammad because they had no other weapons on offense. I think Marshall is a quality player who could have a bright future ahead of him, but the injury to Walker and the instability in Denver's running game might help explain why he's top 3 in the league in targets.

 

[thehornet]

SSOG, i like Holmes a lot, I really do, and Big Ben too, but no way I put him over Marshall. ColstonMarshallJenningsHolmesIMO

Brandon Marshall this season is averaging 10.3 targets, 6 catches, 81 yards, and .43 TDs per game. That's 10.68 fppg.Santonio Holmes this season is averaging 6.2 targets, 4 catches, 65 yards, and .64 TDs per game. That's 10.3 fppg.Essentially, both are producing equal numbers... if we take them in a vacuum. Let's add some context, shall we? Santonio Holmes is producing similar totals despite playing much of the year gimpy. He's producing similar numbers on 40% less targets. Brandon Marshall's 10.3 targets per game ranks him third in the entire NFL, and puts him on pace for 165 targets. Do you know what happens to WRs with 160+ targets in year N+1? Let me tell you.Between 2002 and 2006, a WR posted 160+ targets 17 total times. Here's the data, with the year N and year N+1 targets in parentheses afterwards.2002 Marvin Harrison (204, 142)2002 Randy Moss (186, 170)2002 Eric Moulds (180, 119)2002 Marty Booker (165, 105)2002 Hines Ward (161, 156)2003 Torry Holt (183, 129)2003 Randy Moss (170, 84)2003 Anquan Boldin (165, 102)2004 Laveranues Coles (162, 133)2005 Anquan Boldin (171, 152)2005 Chris Chambers (166, 154)2005 Plaxico Burress (166, 121)2005 Larry Fitzgerald (165, 108)2005 Torry Holt (163, 178)2006 Torry Holt (178, 147)2006 Donald Driver (171, 133)2006 Andre Johnson (165, 78)Those last three values are the pace through 14 games. Anyway, of the 17 WRs with 160 targets, only 5 of them managed 150+ in year N+1. The result is a huge regression in fantasy performance. You get guys like Donald Driver, who was the #5 WR in fantasy football when he had 160+ targets, but who fell to 22nd (despite comparable play) when his targets fell back towards his career averages. Or Chris Chambers, who, despite being an irredeemable turd, put up some studly numbers thanks to his 160+ targets.Santonio Holmes, on the other hand, is way at the opposite end of the spectrum. He's currently ranked 57th in targets per game, right between Vernon Davis and Michael Jenkins. He's a mortal LOCK for an increase in targets next year- he really has nowhere to go but up.Brandon Marshall, like all 160+ target WRs, is currently suffering from Chris Chambers disease. This doesn't mean that he's the most overrated WR in the history of fantasy football, like Chambers was, but 160+ target WRs are always overrated because most people simply don't REALIZE that they're 160+ target WRs, or don't understand the concept of regression to the mean. Next year, I guarantee you that Holmes' targets will be more in line with Marshall's, and if their level of play both stay constant, Holmes' numbers will blow Marshall's out of the water. I see a lot of parallels between Holmes/Marshall and Evans/Chambers, actually- both sets were putting up very comparable numbers, but one of the two was doing it at a mind-bogglingly efficient rate (Evans and Holmes), while the other was doing it at a generally inefficient rate (Chambers and Marshall). Like I said, Marshall's targets have nowhere to go but down, and Holmes' have nowhere to go but up. Barring any DRASTIC change in their per-target efficiency, Holmes' numbers should blow Marshall's out of the park next year.

excellent research and good post. But doesnt it get tiresome thinking up new reasons to bring Marshall down? I know you like him so you dont have to go over that again, but it sure seems like you work really hard to discredit Marshall at every point.

 

[Da Guru]

Holmes is soft!

I would take Colston and Marshall, then Jennings.

 

[tribecalledjeff]

SSOG, i like Holmes a lot, I really do, and Big Ben too, but no way I put him over Marshall. ColstonMarshallJenningsHolmesIMO

Brandon Marshall this season is averaging 10.3 targets, 6 catches, 81 yards, and .43 TDs per game. That's 10.68 fppg.Santonio Holmes this season is averaging 6.2 targets, 4 catches, 65 yards, and .64 TDs per game. That's 10.3 fppg.Essentially, both are producing equal numbers... if we take them in a vacuum. Let's add some context, shall we? Santonio Holmes is producing similar totals despite playing much of the year gimpy. He's producing similar numbers on 40% less targets. Brandon Marshall's 10.3 targets per game ranks him third in the entire NFL, and puts him on pace for 165 targets. Do you know what happens to WRs with 160+ targets in year N+1? Let me tell you.Between 2002 and 2006, a WR posted 160+ targets 17 total times. Here's the data, with the year N and year N+1 targets in parentheses afterwards.2002 Marvin Harrison (204, 142)2002 Randy Moss (186, 170)2002 Eric Moulds (180, 119)2002 Marty Booker (165, 105)2002 Hines Ward (161, 156)2003 Torry Holt (183, 129)2003 Randy Moss (170, 84)2003 Anquan Boldin (165, 102)2004 Laveranues Coles (162, 133)2005 Anquan Boldin (171, 152)2005 Chris Chambers (166, 154)2005 Plaxico Burress (166, 121)2005 Larry Fitzgerald (165, 108)2005 Torry Holt (163, 178)2006 Torry Holt (178, 147)2006 Donald Driver (171, 133)2006 Andre Johnson (165, 78)Those last three values are the pace through 14 games. Anyway, of the 17 WRs with 160 targets, only 5 of them managed 150+ in year N+1. The result is a huge regression in fantasy performance. You get guys like Donald Driver, who was the #5 WR in fantasy football when he had 160+ targets, but who fell to 22nd (despite comparable play) when his targets fell back towards his career averages. Or Chris Chambers, who, despite being an irredeemable turd, put up some studly numbers thanks to his 160+ targets.Santonio Holmes, on the other hand, is way at the opposite end of the spectrum. He's currently ranked 57th in targets per game, right between Vernon Davis and Michael Jenkins. He's a mortal LOCK for an increase in targets next year- he really has nowhere to go but up.Brandon Marshall, like all 160+ target WRs, is currently suffering from Chris Chambers disease. This doesn't mean that he's the most overrated WR in the history of fantasy football, like Chambers was, but 160+ target WRs are always overrated because most people simply don't REALIZE that they're 160+ target WRs, or don't understand the concept of regression to the mean. Next year, I guarantee you that Holmes' targets will be more in line with Marshall's, and if their level of play both stay constant, Holmes' numbers will blow Marshall's out of the water. I see a lot of parallels between Holmes/Marshall and Evans/Chambers, actually- both sets were putting up very comparable numbers, but one of the two was doing it at a mind-bogglingly efficient rate (Evans and Holmes), while the other was doing it at a generally inefficient rate (Chambers and Marshall). Like I said, Marshall's targets have nowhere to go but down, and Holmes' have nowhere to go but up. Barring any DRASTIC change in their per-target efficiency, Holmes' numbers should blow Marshall's out of the park next year.

Although I frequently disagree with you, and always think that you use way too many words to make your point, this is a freaking

 

[The Man With No Name]

SSOG, i like Holmes a lot, I really do, and Big Ben too, but no way I put him over Marshall. ColstonMarshallJenningsHolmesIMO

Brandon Marshall this season is averaging 10.3 targets, 6 catches, 81 yards, and .43 TDs per game. That's 10.68 fppg.Santonio Holmes this season is averaging 6.2 targets, 4 catches, 65 yards, and .64 TDs per game. That's 10.3 fppg.Essentially, both are producing equal numbers... if we take them in a vacuum. Let's add some context, shall we? Santonio Holmes is producing similar totals despite playing much of the year gimpy. He's producing similar numbers on 40% less targets. Brandon Marshall's 10.3 targets per game ranks him third in the entire NFL, and puts him on pace for 165 targets. Do you know what happens to WRs with 160+ targets in year N+1? Let me tell you.Between 2002 and 2006, a WR posted 160+ targets 17 total times. Here's the data, with the year N and year N+1 targets in parentheses afterwards.2002 Marvin Harrison (204, 142)2002 Randy Moss (186, 170)2002 Eric Moulds (180, 119)2002 Marty Booker (165, 105)2002 Hines Ward (161, 156)2003 Torry Holt (183, 129)2003 Randy Moss (170, 84)2003 Anquan Boldin (165, 102)2004 Laveranues Coles (162, 133)2005 Anquan Boldin (171, 152)2005 Chris Chambers (166, 154)2005 Plaxico Burress (166, 121)2005 Larry Fitzgerald (165, 108)2005 Torry Holt (163, 178)2006 Torry Holt (178, 147)2006 Donald Driver (171, 133)2006 Andre Johnson (165, 78)Those last three values are the pace through 14 games. Anyway, of the 17 WRs with 160 targets, only 5 of them managed 150+ in year N+1. The result is a huge regression in fantasy performance. You get guys like Donald Driver, who was the #5 WR in fantasy football when he had 160+ targets, but who fell to 22nd (despite comparable play) when his targets fell back towards his career averages. Or Chris Chambers, who, despite being an irredeemable turd, put up some studly numbers thanks to his 160+ targets.Santonio Holmes, on the other hand, is way at the opposite end of the spectrum. He's currently ranked 57th in targets per game, right between Vernon Davis and Michael Jenkins. He's a mortal LOCK for an increase in targets next year- he really has nowhere to go but up.Brandon Marshall, like all 160+ target WRs, is currently suffering from Chris Chambers disease. This doesn't mean that he's the most overrated WR in the history of fantasy football, like Chambers was, but 160+ target WRs are always overrated because most people simply don't REALIZE that they're 160+ target WRs, or don't understand the concept of regression to the mean. Next year, I guarantee you that Holmes' targets will be more in line with Marshall's, and if their level of play both stay constant, Holmes' numbers will blow Marshall's out of the water. I see a lot of parallels between Holmes/Marshall and Evans/Chambers, actually- both sets were putting up very comparable numbers, but one of the two was doing it at a mind-bogglingly efficient rate (Evans and Holmes), while the other was doing it at a generally inefficient rate (Chambers and Marshall). Like I said, Marshall's targets have nowhere to go but down, and Holmes' have nowhere to go but up. Barring any DRASTIC change in their per-target efficiency, Holmes' numbers should blow Marshall's out of the park next year.

excellent research and good post. But doesnt it get tiresome thinking up new reasons to bring Marshall down? I know you like him so you dont have to go over that again, but it sure seems like you work really hard to discredit Marshall at every point.

Yeah, and it has nothing to do with future seasons, other than next season. The OP basically is asking about Dynasty. To me, they all seem to have wr1 or wr2 goods for the forseeable future. For next season, I like Holmes best.

 

[SSOG]

Great work, SSOG. Thanks. I'm puzzled as to why targets would be susceptible to regression to the mean. It's not a stat that is completely out of control of the team. If a team is successful by throwing a WR 10 targets a game in year N, why wouldn't they continue that strategy in year N+1? Do you have any thoughts on why the number drops so much? What if you compared it to the team's total targets in year N and year N+1? Would we find that the WRs were the beneficiaries of abberational number of passes by a team that regressed back to the a more normal amount of passes the next year?Would love your thoughts. Thanks.

Outside of any external factors (injuries, aberrant playcalling, and the like), the simple answer is that everything regresses to the mean, whether it's inside a team's control or not. In a small enough sample size, there's always going to be some random fluctuation, but over a long enough timeline, everything approaches the true mean.The thing about "regression to the mean" is that it doesn't mean that all players return to league average, it's more an idea that each player has a "true talent level". In some games, they'll outperform that "true talent level". In some games, they'll underperform it. With a 16-game sample, you might wind up with 12 overperforms and 4 underperforms, or you might wind up with 5 overperforms and 11 underperforms. In either case, the result next year is likely to regress back towards the mean (8 overperforms and 8 underperforms), just like how 16 coinflips is far more likely to result in 8 heads and 8 tails than it is to result in 16 heads.Now, there might be a WR out there whose "true mean" is 10 targets per game. Torry Holt and Larry Fitzgerald both have to be pretty close, for instance. But is Brandon Marshall one of them? Not very likely, in my mind.

excellent research and good post. But doesnt it get tiresome thinking up new reasons to bring Marshall down? I know you like him so you dont have to go over that again, but it sure seems like you work really hard to discredit Marshall at every point.

It's not that I'm trying to discredit Brandon Marshall, it's just that there are some players where my projections and beliefs dramatically disagree with the general consensus. The more out of line my beliefs are with the consensus, the more often I'm going to have to defend those beliefs. It just so happens that Brandon Marshall this year is the guy I tend to disagree most about. Although, for what it's worth, I don't think people disagree with me at all- I think most just misunderstand me. Whenever I start listing WRs and asking who you'd bump in favor of Marshall, people tend to stop arguing.This time, though, my point was more based on the fact that I think Holmes is underrated than the fact that I think Marshall is overrated. I think Holmes is a real baller.

 

[FavreCo]

You may want to watch Brandon Marshall play sometime. There is no WR like him in the game. When the ball is thrown his way, he separates by breaking towards the pass and then making the defender miss as he turns upfield. WR's should get some film of him and try and emulate that because he's the only one doing it. Holmes is really nothing compared to Marshall. It's not even close either. You can dish out all kinds of stats of other WR's if you like but the fact is, he's a monster.

 

[SSOG]

You may want to watch Brandon Marshall play sometime.

I'll put it on my to-do list.

There is no WR like him in the game. When the ball is thrown his way, he separates by breaking towards the pass and then making the defender miss as he turns upfield. WR's should get some film of him and try and emulate that because he's the only one doing it. Holmes is really nothing compared to Marshall. It's not even close either. You can dish out all kinds of stats of other WR's if you like but the fact is, he's a monster.

This is why I always have to discredit Marshall- this absurd and unwarrented man-love. It's okay to like Marshall, but saying that there's no WR like him in the game? Saying that Holmes is nothing compared to Marshall because of the way Marshall breaks on the ball? Come on.

 

[ArlingtonTerp]

SSOG, wouldn't the same type of statistical analysis argue for Jennings over Marshall as well? Perhaps even more so than Holmes over Marshall? You can blame it on Favre being great, but isn't he still throwing it to him next year and maybe the next after that? Even if you call the TDs somewhat flukish, he matches Holmes in the other stats. My guess is you think you've witnessed something in their performance that makes you think Holmes is clearly superior talent-wise to Jennings, and it will come out regardless of Favre next year. What, specifically, is it that you have witnessed that separates the two? Is Ward perhaps on the way out physically or otherwise, while Driver being basically in his prime and loved by Favre having much to do with the discrepancy?

I basically agree that Marshall is in danger being over-valued, at least relative to these other guys. His targets should go down regardless, but especially if Walker returns somewhat to form. (Actually if Walker is healthy, perhaps the WR tandem in Denver could sort of be like the one in Green Bay this year, with Walker playing Jennings' role and Marshall playing Driver's, although the discrepancy wouldn't likely be quite as big in number of TDs). Marshall just hasn't caught at as high a rate as the other guys, and he doesn't do nearly as much with it per catch (yards or TDs). Some of this could be attributed to Cutler being inferior (not going to change probably), or them forcing him the ball more.

I think very young receivers with extremely impressive yards per catch, and TDs per catch, who still get many catches per game (4+, but clearly not as many as a good WR1 usually gets), and have a high catch rate, will have a good chance of fairly significantly increasing the number of catches the following year if there is no QB regression, as the team naturally tries to use their demonstrated skills more, and they mature as complete receivers. The more the number of catches go up, the more extremely highly rates of TDs and Yards per catch will likely regress to the mean some, but the net FF points will generally be positive. Jennings is already working with Driver next to him. Holmes had some games with Ward out, and some with him playing. Marshall mostly is working without an effective Walker this year, and so is getting a ton of throws. It seems many are counting on Walker being done. However, the Marshall-heavy pass attack of Denver isn't all that effective compared to Holmes' Pittsburgh or Jennings' Green Bay; Denver will likely look to diversify for good strategic reason regardless.

 

[SSOG]

SSOG, wouldn't the same type of statistical analysis argue for Jennings over Marshall as well? Perhaps even more so than Holmes over Marshall? You can blame it on Favre being great, but isn't he still throwing it to him next year and maybe the next after that? Even if you call the TDs somewhat flukish, he matches Holmes in the other stats. My guess is you think you've witnessed something in their performance that makes you think Holmes is clearly superior talent-wise to Jennings, and it will come out regardless of Favre next year. What, specifically, is it that you have witnessed that separates the two? Is Ward perhaps on the way out physically or otherwise, while Driver being basically in his prime and loved by Favre having much to do with the discrepancy?

To be honest, I haven't seen a lot of Jennings this year, so I don't know what kind of talent he is. There are a couple of reasons why I'm down on him, though.#1- he was BRUTAL last season. Maybe it's not fair to keep holding this against him, but unconsciously, I still do.#2- Favre has a long history of making studs out of duds, which makes me naturally leery of any Brett Favre WRs.Those two might not be fair, but when you combine them with the fact that I haven't seen much of Jennings (and therefore haven't seen anything to persuade me otherwise), the result is that I'm just down on Jennings in general. It could very easily be an oversight, but there you have it.

 

[Garts]

SSOG, wouldn't the same type of statistical analysis argue for Jennings over Marshall as well? Perhaps even more so than Holmes over Marshall? You can blame it on Favre being great, but isn't he still throwing it to him next year and maybe the next after that? Even if you call the TDs somewhat flukish, he matches Holmes in the other stats. My guess is you think you've witnessed something in their performance that makes you think Holmes is clearly superior talent-wise to Jennings, and it will come out regardless of Favre next year. What, specifically, is it that you have witnessed that separates the two? Is Ward perhaps on the way out physically or otherwise, while Driver being basically in his prime and loved by Favre having much to do with the discrepancy?

To be honest, I haven't seen a lot of Jennings this year, so I don't know what kind of talent he is. There are a couple of reasons why I'm down on him, though.#1- he was BRUTAL last season. Maybe it's not fair to keep holding this against him, but unconsciously, I still do.#2- Favre has a long history of making studs out of duds, which makes me naturally leery of any Brett Favre WRs.Those two might not be fair, but when you combine them with the fact that I haven't seen much of Jennings (and therefore haven't seen anything to persuade me otherwise), the result is that I'm just down on Jennings in general. It could very easily be an oversight, but there you have it.

What I like about Jennings is his yards after the catch...he looks like a real playmaker.

 

[grind]

SSOG, i like Holmes a lot, I really do, and Big Ben too, but no way I put him over Marshall. ColstonMarshallJenningsHolmesIMO

Brandon Marshall this season is averaging 10.3 targets, 6 catches, 81 yards, and .43 TDs per game. That's 10.68 fppg.Santonio Holmes this season is averaging 6.2 targets, 4 catches, 65 yards, and .64 TDs per game. That's 10.3 fppg.Essentially, both are producing equal numbers... if we take them in a vacuum. Let's add some context, shall we? Santonio Holmes is producing similar totals despite playing much of the year gimpy. He's producing similar numbers on 40% less targets. Brandon Marshall's 10.3 targets per game ranks him third in the entire NFL, and puts him on pace for 165 targets. Do you know what happens to WRs with 160+ targets in year N+1? Let me tell you.Between 2002 and 2006, a WR posted 160+ targets 17 total times. Here's the data, with the year N and year N+1 targets in parentheses afterwards.2002 Marvin Harrison (204, 142)2002 Randy Moss (186, 170)2002 Eric Moulds (180, 119)2002 Marty Booker (165, 105)2002 Hines Ward (161, 156)2003 Torry Holt (183, 129)2003 Randy Moss (170, 84)2003 Anquan Boldin (165, 102)2004 Laveranues Coles (162, 133)2005 Anquan Boldin (171, 152)2005 Chris Chambers (166, 154)2005 Plaxico Burress (166, 121)2005 Larry Fitzgerald (165, 108)2005 Torry Holt (163, 178)2006 Torry Holt (178, 147)2006 Donald Driver (171, 133)2006 Andre Johnson (165, 78)Those last three values are the pace through 14 games. Anyway, of the 17 WRs with 160 targets, only 5 of them managed 150+ in year N+1. The result is a huge regression in fantasy performance. You get guys like Donald Driver, who was the #5 WR in fantasy football when he had 160+ targets, but who fell to 22nd (despite comparable play) when his targets fell back towards his career averages. Or Chris Chambers, who, despite being an irredeemable turd, put up some studly numbers thanks to his 160+ targets.Santonio Holmes, on the other hand, is way at the opposite end of the spectrum. He's currently ranked 57th in targets per game, right between Vernon Davis and Michael Jenkins. He's a mortal LOCK for an increase in targets next year- he really has nowhere to go but up.Brandon Marshall, like all 160+ target WRs, is currently suffering from Chris Chambers disease. This doesn't mean that he's the most overrated WR in the history of fantasy football, like Chambers was, but 160+ target WRs are always overrated because most people simply don't REALIZE that they're 160+ target WRs, or don't understand the concept of regression to the mean. Next year, I guarantee you that Holmes' targets will be more in line with Marshall's, and if their level of play both stay constant, Holmes' numbers will blow Marshall's out of the water. I see a lot of parallels between Holmes/Marshall and Evans/Chambers, actually- both sets were putting up very comparable numbers, but one of the two was doing it at a mind-bogglingly efficient rate (Evans and Holmes), while the other was doing it at a generally inefficient rate (Chambers and Marshall). Like I said, Marshall's targets have nowhere to go but down, and Holmes' have nowhere to go but up. Barring any DRASTIC change in their per-target efficiency, Holmes' numbers should blow Marshall's out of the park next year.

I understand the theory that opportunity is a big factor is success rate. If one doesn't get opportunity, it is very hard to be successfull. Isn't it true though that some WR's are considered "possession" type WR's while other WR's are more usefull stretching the field. The of course, you have the mixed bag...those WR's that can do both quite effectively. By nature, my guess is that a "possession" WR will always get more targets then the guy who stretches the field. Not knowing a whole lot about Holmes, my understanding is that he is a guy that stretches the field. Marshall seems more of a mixed bag....can do it all rather effectively. I understand that Marshall's targets will most likely come down a bit next year. Can't argue that fact. Even if they come down, I'd still venture a guess that his targets exceed Holmes (unless I am completely off on Holmes "assets" most fitting that of a WR that stretches the field). Then we are back to my first sentense. Opportunity (targets for WR's) are a big factor in success rate. I'd still take Marshall. That said, I like Holmes a lot and will be targeting him too.Bet I could do a good study of Devery Henderson and M. Colston in 2006 to further my thought process. Henderson had few targets, but actually put up good fantasy numbers due to his long TD receptions. Colston put up good fantasy numbers but more due to the number of targets/opportunities, which ultimately provided him with a number of TD's. In any year, I'll happily draft the WR that gets their numbers while being more a possession type WR then the burners who happen to score a few 40 plus yard TD's. I put Holmes more in the latter and I don't necessarily count on 40 plus yard TD's on a consistant basis.

 

[FantasyTrader]

SSOG, i like Holmes a lot, I really do, and Big Ben too, but no way I put him over Marshall. ColstonMarshallJenningsHolmesIMO

Brandon Marshall this season is averaging 10.3 targets, 6 catches, 81 yards, and .43 TDs per game. That's 10.68 fppg.Santonio Holmes this season is averaging 6.2 targets, 4 catches, 65 yards, and .64 TDs per game. That's 10.3 fppg.Essentially, both are producing equal numbers... if we take them in a vacuum. Let's add some context, shall we? Santonio Holmes is producing similar totals despite playing much of the year gimpy. He's producing similar numbers on 40% less targets. Brandon Marshall's 10.3 targets per game ranks him third in the entire NFL, and puts him on pace for 165 targets. Do you know what happens to WRs with 160+ targets in year N+1? Let me tell you.Between 2002 and 2006, a WR posted 160+ targets 17 total times. Here's the data, with the year N and year N+1 targets in parentheses afterwards.2002 Marvin Harrison (204, 142)2002 Randy Moss (186, 170)2002 Eric Moulds (180, 119)2002 Marty Booker (165, 105)2002 Hines Ward (161, 156)2003 Torry Holt (183, 129)2003 Randy Moss (170, 84)2003 Anquan Boldin (165, 102)2004 Laveranues Coles (162, 133)2005 Anquan Boldin (171, 152)2005 Chris Chambers (166, 154)2005 Plaxico Burress (166, 121)2005 Larry Fitzgerald (165, 108)2005 Torry Holt (163, 178)2006 Torry Holt (178, 147)2006 Donald Driver (171, 133)2006 Andre Johnson (165, 78)Those last three values are the pace through 14 games. Anyway, of the 17 WRs with 160 targets, only 5 of them managed 150+ in year N+1. The result is a huge regression in fantasy performance. You get guys like Donald Driver, who was the #5 WR in fantasy football when he had 160+ targets, but who fell to 22nd (despite comparable play) when his targets fell back towards his career averages. Or Chris Chambers, who, despite being an irredeemable turd, put up some studly numbers thanks to his 160+ targets.Santonio Holmes, on the other hand, is way at the opposite end of the spectrum. He's currently ranked 57th in targets per game, right between Vernon Davis and Michael Jenkins. He's a mortal LOCK for an increase in targets next year- he really has nowhere to go but up.Brandon Marshall, like all 160+ target WRs, is currently suffering from Chris Chambers disease. This doesn't mean that he's the most overrated WR in the history of fantasy football, like Chambers was, but 160+ target WRs are always overrated because most people simply don't REALIZE that they're 160+ target WRs, or don't understand the concept of regression to the mean. Next year, I guarantee you that Holmes' targets will be more in line with Marshall's, and if their level of play both stay constant, Holmes' numbers will blow Marshall's out of the water. I see a lot of parallels between Holmes/Marshall and Evans/Chambers, actually- both sets were putting up very comparable numbers, but one of the two was doing it at a mind-bogglingly efficient rate (Evans and Holmes), while the other was doing it at a generally inefficient rate (Chambers and Marshall). Like I said, Marshall's targets have nowhere to go but down, and Holmes' have nowhere to go but up. Barring any DRASTIC change in their per-target efficiency, Holmes' numbers should blow Marshall's out of the park next year.

Very, very good analysis here. But it does fails to account for a, as you would put it, "DRASTIC change in per-target efficiency". Denver's offense is 6th in the league in yds. per game, yet only 17th in the league in p.p.g. They move the ball and end up not scoring. Brandon Stokley has started 9 games this year - Javon Walker only three. And I personally feel that the Broncos will realize, when they sit down and review their season that at times they asked too much out of their 2nd yr. QB. Would you agree that these factors being present are typically what will generate a DRASTIC change in per-target efficiency?I won't be at all surprised if Marshall's targets are shaved 30% next year and he actually scores MORE. The average top 10 WR in the NFL has a catch:TD ratio of 8.5:1 - Brandon Marshall? 14.3:1! That's the highest ratio of any of the top 10 receivers. Since we're throwing around terms like regression to the mean, what happens when Walker et al return and opposing defenses cannot consistently over/under Marshall? I'll tell you - his catch:TD ratio will regress to the mean. My brain is tired now so I'm not going to delve into how these numbers play out in terms of his total production but there's reasons present to believe a DRASTIC change in his per-target efficiency is forthcoming in '08.

 

[treat88]

Santonio Holmes, on the other hand, is way at the opposite end of the spectrum. He's currently ranked 57th in targets per game, right between Vernon Davis and Michael Jenkins. He's a mortal LOCK for an increase in targets next year- he really has nowhere to go but up.

Could the same not be said regarding Jennings in terms of targets/receptions?He obviously cannot maintain the ypc and TD:catch ratio that he's putting up, however I can't imagine a 2nd year wideout doing more to put himself in a position to earn increased looks.

 

[ArlingtonTerp]

To be honest, I haven't seen a lot of Jennings this year, so I don't know what kind of talent he is. There are a couple of reasons why I'm down on him, though.#1- he was BRUTAL last season. Maybe it's not fair to keep holding this against him, but unconsciously, I still do.#2- Favre has a long history of making studs out of duds, which makes me naturally leery of any Brett Favre WRs.

Those seem like good points. A couple of things pop in my mind, though that should be considered. Holmes was atrocious the first half of last year. He did everything wrong, and couldn't hold onto the ball. The last stud to leave GB was Walker, and he proved he was not made by Favre through his play last year at Denver. You seem to be referring primarily to Brooks and Freeman, as we have no reference point for Sharpe or Driver outside of GB. Brooks was injury-prone, and was broken down by the time he left Green Bay. Freeman was also at the end of a career, and only played like a year before ending his career by re-signing with Green Bay. Farvre gave Schroeder an OK season, but nothing like Jennings'. Guys like Fergusen, Mayes, Bradford, etc look decent for a few games here or there, but did not ever have very good seasons, certainly not like Jennings'. Regardless, most see Favre continuing on next year at least.

 

[The Finist]

SSOG, wouldn't the same type of statistical analysis argue for Jennings over Marshall as well? Perhaps even more so than Holmes over Marshall? You can blame it on Favre being great, but isn't he still throwing it to him next year and maybe the next after that? Even if you call the TDs somewhat flukish, he matches Holmes in the other stats. My guess is you think you've witnessed something in their performance that makes you think Holmes is clearly superior talent-wise to Jennings, and it will come out regardless of Favre next year. What, specifically, is it that you have witnessed that separates the two? Is Ward perhaps on the way out physically or otherwise, while Driver being basically in his prime and loved by Favre having much to do with the discrepancy?

To be honest, I haven't seen a lot of Jennings this year, so I don't know what kind of talent he is. There are a couple of reasons why I'm down on him, though.#1- he was BRUTAL last season. Maybe it's not fair to keep holding this against him, but unconsciously, I still do.#2- Favre has a long history of making studs out of duds, which makes me naturally leery of any Brett Favre WRs.Those two might not be fair, but when you combine them with the fact that I haven't seen much of Jennings (and therefore haven't seen anything to persuade me otherwise), the result is that I'm just down on Jennings in general. It could very easily be an oversight, but there you have it.

Why all the man love for Walker SSOG (mainly in other threads I guess)? Marshall is having just as a good a year w/the Broncs as Javons last year. And Javons only other good/great year was with Favre. Read #2 outloud again. OK, Walker def. is no dud, but I think that 1 great year Walker had w/GB had a lot to do w/Favre. Anyways, Im not good at arguments. Shoot a bunch of holes through it with a couple of paragraphs and i'll be quiet. peace

 

[GoBirds]

SSOG, wouldn't the same type of statistical analysis argue for Jennings over Marshall as well? Perhaps even more so than Holmes over Marshall? You can blame it on Favre being great, but isn't he still throwing it to him next year and maybe the next after that? Even if you call the TDs somewhat flukish, he matches Holmes in the other stats. My guess is you think you've witnessed something in their performance that makes you think Holmes is clearly superior talent-wise to Jennings, and it will come out regardless of Favre next year. What, specifically, is it that you have witnessed that separates the two? Is Ward perhaps on the way out physically or otherwise, while Driver being basically in his prime and loved by Favre having much to do with the discrepancy?

To be honest, I haven't seen a lot of Jennings this year, so I don't know what kind of talent he is. There are a couple of reasons why I'm down on him, though.#1- he was BRUTAL last season. Maybe it's not fair to keep holding this against him, but unconsciously, I still do.#2- Favre has a long history of making studs out of duds, which makes me naturally leery of any Brett Favre WRs.Those two might not be fair, but when you combine them with the fact that I haven't seen much of Jennings (and therefore haven't seen anything to persuade me otherwise), the result is that I'm just down on Jennings in general. It could very easily be an oversight, but there you have it.

Why all the man love for Walker SSOG (mainly in other threads I guess)? Marshall is having just as a good a year w/the Broncs as Javons last year. And Javons only other good/great year was with Favre. Read #2 outloud again. OK, Walker def. is no dud, but I think that 1 great year Walker had w/GB had a lot to do w/Favre. Anyways, Im not good at arguments. Shoot a bunch of holes through it with a couple of paragraphs and i'll be quiet. peace

i think SSOG is really Mrs. Walker.

 

[Fallerjw]

SSOG, i like Holmes a lot, I really do, and Big Ben too, but no way I put him over Marshall. ColstonMarshallJenningsHolmesIMO

Brandon Marshall this season is averaging 10.3 targets, 6 catches, 81 yards, and .43 TDs per game. That's 10.68 fppg.Santonio Holmes this season is averaging 6.2 targets, 4 catches, 65 yards, and .64 TDs per game. That's 10.3 fppg.Essentially, both are producing equal numbers... if we take them in a vacuum. Let's add some context, shall we? Santonio Holmes is producing similar totals despite playing much of the year gimpy. He's producing similar numbers on 40% less targets. Brandon Marshall's 10.3 targets per game ranks him third in the entire NFL, and puts him on pace for 165 targets. Do you know what happens to WRs with 160+ targets in year N+1? Let me tell you.Between 2002 and 2006, a WR posted 160+ targets 17 total times. Here's the data, with the year N and year N+1 targets in parentheses afterwards.2002 Marvin Harrison (204, 142)2002 Randy Moss (186, 170)2002 Eric Moulds (180, 119)2002 Marty Booker (165, 105)2002 Hines Ward (161, 156)2003 Torry Holt (183, 129)2003 Randy Moss (170, 84)2003 Anquan Boldin (165, 102)2004 Laveranues Coles (162, 133)2005 Anquan Boldin (171, 152)2005 Chris Chambers (166, 154)2005 Plaxico Burress (166, 121)2005 Larry Fitzgerald (165, 108)2005 Torry Holt (163, 178)2006 Torry Holt (178, 147)2006 Donald Driver (171, 133)2006 Andre Johnson (165, 78)Those last three values are the pace through 14 games. Anyway, of the 17 WRs with 160 targets, only 5 of them managed 150+ in year N+1. The result is a huge regression in fantasy performance. You get guys like Donald Driver, who was the #5 WR in fantasy football when he had 160+ targets, but who fell to 22nd (despite comparable play) when his targets fell back towards his career averages. Or Chris Chambers, who, despite being an irredeemable turd, put up some studly numbers thanks to his 160+ targets.Santonio Holmes, on the other hand, is way at the opposite end of the spectrum. He's currently ranked 57th in targets per game, right between Vernon Davis and Michael Jenkins. He's a mortal LOCK for an increase in targets next year- he really has nowhere to go but up.Brandon Marshall, like all 160+ target WRs, is currently suffering from Chris Chambers disease. This doesn't mean that he's the most overrated WR in the history of fantasy football, like Chambers was, but 160+ target WRs are always overrated because most people simply don't REALIZE that they're 160+ target WRs, or don't understand the concept of regression to the mean. Next year, I guarantee you that Holmes' targets will be more in line with Marshall's, and if their level of play both stay constant, Holmes' numbers will blow Marshall's out of the water. I see a lot of parallels between Holmes/Marshall and Evans/Chambers, actually- both sets were putting up very comparable numbers, but one of the two was doing it at a mind-bogglingly efficient rate (Evans and Holmes), while the other was doing it at a generally inefficient rate (Chambers and Marshall). Like I said, Marshall's targets have nowhere to go but down, and Holmes' have nowhere to go but up. Barring any DRASTIC change in their per-target efficiency, Holmes' numbers should blow Marshall's out of the park next year.

I understand the theory that opportunity is a big factor is success rate. If one doesn't get opportunity, it is very hard to be successfull. Isn't it true though that some WR's are considered "possession" type WR's while other WR's are more usefull stretching the field. The of course, you have the mixed bag...those WR's that can do both quite effectively. By nature, my guess is that a "possession" WR will always get more targets then the guy who stretches the field. Not knowing a whole lot about Holmes, my understanding is that he is a guy that stretches the field. Marshall seems more of a mixed bag....can do it all rather effectively. I understand that Marshall's targets will most likely come down a bit next year. Can't argue that fact. Even if they come down, I'd still venture a guess that his targets exceed Holmes (unless I am completely off on Holmes "assets" most fitting that of a WR that stretches the field). Then we are back to my first sentense. Opportunity (targets for WR's) are a big factor in success rate. I'd still take Marshall. That said, I like Holmes a lot and will be targeting him too.Bet I could do a good study of Devery Henderson and M. Colston in 2006 to further my thought process. Henderson had few targets, but actually put up good fantasy numbers due to his long TD receptions. Colston put up good fantasy numbers but more due to the number of targets/opportunities, which ultimately provided him with a number of TD's. In any year, I'll happily draft the WR that gets their numbers while being more a possession type WR then the burners who happen to score a few 40 plus yard TD's. I put Holmes more in the latter and I don't necessarily count on 40 plus yard TD's on a consistant basis.

ColstonMarshallJenningsHolmes

 

[SSOG]

Very, very good analysis here. But it does fails to account for a, as you would put it, "DRASTIC change in per-target efficiency". Denver's offense is 6th in the league in yds. per game, yet only 17th in the league in p.p.g. They move the ball and end up not scoring. Brandon Stokley has started 9 games this year - Javon Walker only three. And I personally feel that the Broncos will realize, when they sit down and review their season that at times they asked too much out of their 2nd yr. QB. Would you agree that these factors being present are typically what will generate a DRASTIC change in per-target efficiency?I won't be at all surprised if Marshall's targets are shaved 30% next year and he actually scores MORE. The average top 10 WR in the NFL has a catch:TD ratio of 8.5:1 - Brandon Marshall? 14.3:1! That's the highest ratio of any of the top 10 receivers. Since we're throwing around terms like regression to the mean, what happens when Walker et al return and opposing defenses cannot consistently over/under Marshall? I'll tell you - his catch:TD ratio will regress to the mean. My brain is tired now so I'm not going to delve into how these numbers play out in terms of his total production but there's reasons present to believe a DRASTIC change in his per-target efficiency is forthcoming in '08.

That remains to be seen. For one thing, we don't know what is going to happen with Javon Walker. Walker, when healthy, is one of the top 5 red-zone WRs in the league (his conversion rate is second only to Fitzgerald's). If Walker comes back, I have a hard time seeing Marshall increasing his TD totals by much. For another thing, you say you expect Denver to score more TDs next year and then automatically assume that means Denver will score more PASSING TDs next year. Denver's currently on pace for 21.7 passing scores this year. Since Elway left, Denver has scored 20, 18, 27, 19, 21, 26, 28, and 16 passing TDs (21.9 passing TDs per year average). Looks like they're right at their mean, and it's the rushing TDs that are down.Now, if you want to say that Denver hasn't had a QB like Cutler since Elway and predict that Denver's offense will remind people of the SB-winning juggernauts, here are the 4 passing TD totals in the Elway/Shanahan era: 32, 27, 26, 27. So maybe, best case scenario, I can see Denver milking another 5 passing TDs out... but who's to say that they go to Marshall instead of Walker, Stokley, Scheffler, or Graham?

Santonio Holmes, on the other hand, is way at the opposite end of the spectrum. He's currently ranked 57th in targets per game, right between Vernon Davis and Michael Jenkins. He's a mortal LOCK for an increase in targets next year- he really has nowhere to go but up.

Could the same not be said regarding Jennings in terms of targets/receptions?He obviously cannot maintain the ypc and TD:catch ratio that he's putting up, however I can't imagine a 2nd year wideout doing more to put himself in a position to earn increased looks.

Could be. As I said, I have a big admitted blind spot when it comes to Jennings.

Why all the man love for Walker SSOG (mainly in other threads I guess)? Marshall is having just as a good a year w/the Broncs as Javons last year. And Javons only other good/great year was with Favre. Read #2 outloud again. OK, Walker def. is no dud, but I think that 1 great year Walker had w/GB had a lot to do w/Favre. Anyways, Im not good at arguments. Shoot a bunch of holes through it with a couple of paragraphs and i'll be quiet. peace

Marshall is *NOT* having just as good of a year this year as Walker had last year. This year, Marshall is averaging 8.04 yards per target in what is primarily a possession role (although he does mix in a lot of deep work, his primary usage is in the short to intermediate, and especially very short, zones). Last year, Walker averaged 8.60 yards per target in what was primarily a deep role. When you factor in context, Walker was far more impressive. Walker was doing it despite SIGNIFICANTLY worse QB play, despite changing teams (which had historically been the kiss of death for WRs), and despite being 1 year removed from what was historically an injury that takes 2 years to recover from.Marshall's numbers might look like Walker's superficially, but Walker was better last year than Marshall was this year.

i think SSOG is really Mrs. Walker.

... because heaven forbid someone have a different opinion than you.

 

[SSOG]

I understand the theory that opportunity is a big factor is success rate. If one doesn't get opportunity, it is very hard to be successfull. Isn't it true though that some WR's are considered "possession" type WR's while other WR's are more usefull stretching the field. The of course, you have the mixed bag...those WR's that can do both quite effectively. By nature, my guess is that a "possession" WR will always get more targets then the guy who stretches the field. Not knowing a whole lot about Holmes, my understanding is that he is a guy that stretches the field. Marshall seems more of a mixed bag....can do it all rather effectively. I understand that Marshall's targets will most likely come down a bit next year. Can't argue that fact. Even if they come down, I'd still venture a guess that his targets exceed Holmes (unless I am completely off on Holmes "assets" most fitting that of a WR that stretches the field). Then we are back to my first sentense. Opportunity (targets for WR's) are a big factor in success rate. I'd still take Marshall. That said, I like Holmes a lot and will be targeting him too.Bet I could do a good study of Devery Henderson and M. Colston in 2006 to further my thought process. Henderson had few targets, but actually put up good fantasy numbers due to his long TD receptions. Colston put up good fantasy numbers but more due to the number of targets/opportunities, which ultimately provided him with a number of TD's. In any year, I'll happily draft the WR that gets their numbers while being more a possession type WR then the burners who happen to score a few 40 plus yard TD's. I put Holmes more in the latter and I don't necessarily count on 40 plus yard TD's on a consistant basis.

Yes, possession guys typically get more targets than deep guys, and yes I expect Marshall to have more targets than Holmes next year. By the same token, deep guys average more points per target, and I expect Holmes to continue outproducing Marshall there next year. My point is that Marshall's targets are a true aberration (to the high end), while Holmes are also an aberration (to the low end), and as those targets start approaching each other, Holmes' value is likely to begin surpassing Marshall's.Colston/Henderson is, to be quite honest, a TERRIBLE example. Colston only had 115 targets last year (in 14 games), which projects to 131 over a 16-game season. 131 targets is a very easily sustainable rate, so there was no reason to expect Colston to regress in the targets department. Meanwhile, Henderson had a nice fantasy year, but he's nowhere near any of these other guys, talent-wise. He is an afterthought in the passing game, while all of the guys we are talking about are currently the main go-to guys.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

SSOG, i like Holmes a lot, I really do, and Big Ben too, but no way I put him over Marshall. ColstonMarshallJenningsHolmesIMO

Brandon Marshall this season is averaging 10.3 targets, 6 catches, 81 yards, and .43 TDs per game. That's 10.68 fppg.Santonio Holmes this season is averaging 6.2 targets, 4 catches, 65 yards, and .64 TDs per game. That's 10.3 fppg.Essentially, both are producing equal numbers... if we take them in a vacuum. Let's add some context, shall we? Santonio Holmes is producing similar totals despite playing much of the year gimpy. He's producing similar numbers on 40% less targets. Brandon Marshall's 10.3 targets per game ranks him third in the entire NFL, and puts him on pace for 165 targets. Do you know what happens to WRs with 160+ targets in year N+1? Let me tell you.Between 2002 and 2006, a WR posted 160+ targets 17 total times. Here's the data, with the year N and year N+1 targets in parentheses afterwards.2002 Marvin Harrison (204, 142)2002 Randy Moss (186, 170)2002 Eric Moulds (180, 119)2002 Marty Booker (165, 105)2002 Hines Ward (161, 156)2003 Torry Holt (183, 129)2003 Randy Moss (170, 84)2003 Anquan Boldin (165, 102)2004 Laveranues Coles (162, 133)2005 Anquan Boldin (171, 152)2005 Chris Chambers (166, 154)2005 Plaxico Burress (166, 121)2005 Larry Fitzgerald (165, 108)2005 Torry Holt (163, 178)2006 Torry Holt (178, 147)2006 Donald Driver (171, 133)2006 Andre Johnson (165, 78)Those last three values are the pace through 14 games. Anyway, of the 17 WRs with 160 targets, only 5 of them managed 150+ in year N+1. The result is a huge regression in fantasy performance. You get guys like Donald Driver, who was the #5 WR in fantasy football when he had 160+ targets, but who fell to 22nd (despite comparable play) when his targets fell back towards his career averages. Or Chris Chambers, who, despite being an irredeemable turd, put up some studly numbers thanks to his 160+ targets.Santonio Holmes, on the other hand, is way at the opposite end of the spectrum. He's currently ranked 57th in targets per game, right between Vernon Davis and Michael Jenkins. He's a mortal LOCK for an increase in targets next year- he really has nowhere to go but up.Brandon Marshall, like all 160+ target WRs, is currently suffering from Chris Chambers disease. This doesn't mean that he's the most overrated WR in the history of fantasy football, like Chambers was, but 160+ target WRs are always overrated because most people simply don't REALIZE that they're 160+ target WRs, or don't understand the concept of regression to the mean. Next year, I guarantee you that Holmes' targets will be more in line with Marshall's, and if their level of play both stay constant, Holmes' numbers will blow Marshall's out of the water. I see a lot of parallels between Holmes/Marshall and Evans/Chambers, actually- both sets were putting up very comparable numbers, but one of the two was doing it at a mind-bogglingly efficient rate (Evans and Holmes), while the other was doing it at a generally inefficient rate (Chambers and Marshall). Like I said, Marshall's targets have nowhere to go but down, and Holmes' have nowhere to go but up. Barring any DRASTIC change in their per-target efficiency, Holmes' numbers should blow Marshall's out of the park next year.

I disagree completely with your analysis. In the 17 examples you chose, the majority have one thing in common - they generally (other than 2 or 3) all played 16 games. When you choose a level like 160, the receivers generally have to play 16 games to achieve it. When they don't play 16 games the following year, it's not because of some mystical regression to the mean, it's simply because they didn't get the opportunity because they weren't playing. It looks like you're suggesting they regress to some standard WR mean, rather than to their personal mean. Certain WR's are going to be targeted more and certain teams are going to throw more. To suggest that a player on one team will be equal to a player on another because of 'regression to the mean' is absurd. You certainly can't be suggesting that being targeted 160+ times one year will lead to injuries in the next. So, let's take injuries into account and look at targets per game. Let's also use your level of 160 since it gives a nice round number of 10 targets per game. Now, since it has only been done 17 times in 5 years, you'd expect some regression to a WR's personal mean. But is there really any difference whether they are getting 10 or 9 targets per game? Certainly not as significant as your numbers suggest. Taking them individually:2002 Harrison - 12.81 per game ---- 2003 Harrison - 10.14 per game ----- a drop? Yes. significant? No. And, it's still over your threshold. Injuries.2002 Moss - 11.63 per game -------- 2003 Moss - 10.63 per game --------- same as above.2002 Moulds - 11.25 per game ------ 2003 Moulds - 9.31 per game -------- Just under the 10 per game. Certainly not significant. Total decrease due to injuries.2002 Booker - 10.38 per game ------ 2003 Booker - 8.75 per game ------- Again, not significant. Injuries.2002 Ward - 10.06 per game -------- 2003 Ward - 9.75 per game --------- Certainly not significant. 2003 Holt - 11.44 per game ---------- 2004 Holt - 8.06 per game ---------- Starting to approach significance. Injuries. I'll give you this one but since Holt appears 3 times on this list, I'll also suffer through this down year of 8 and bet his mean is nearer 10.2003 Moss - 10.63 per game -------- 2004 Moss - 7.00 per game --------- Significant. Injuries hurt his total but he still placed 19th in FP's despite playing in only 12 full games. Once again, I'll suffer.2003 Boldin - 10.31 per game ------ 2004 Boldin - 10.20 per game -------- Essentially equal. Injuries.2004 Coles - 10.12 per game ------ 2005 Coles - 8.31 per game ----------- This one shouldn't even be on the list. He switched form Wash to NYJ. I've got to believe that had far more impact than some regression to the mean.2005 Boldin - 12.21 per game ------ 2006 Boldin - 9.50 per game --------- Too close to 10 to worry about it.2005 Chambers - 10.37 per game -- 2006 Chambers - 9.62 per game --- It's funny that even Chambers doesn't support your theory.2005 Fitzgerald - 10.31 per game --- 2006 Fitzgerald - 9.00 per game ---- Again, not significant. Injuries. Goes from Warner to a rookie QB. That likely had more to do with the slight decrease. 2005 Holt - 11.64 per game --------- 2006 Holt - 11.125 per game -------- No comment.2006 Holt - 11.125 per game ------- 2007 Holt - 9.21 per game ----------- The guy's name keeps appearing. No QB. No RB. No offense. Still producing.2006 Driver - 10.69 per game ----- 2007 Driver - 8.29 per game --------- Your 3rd winner. But he's 32! Don't you think that has something to do with his 'regression' to the 20th most targeted WR?2006 Johnson - 10.31 per game --- 2007 Johnson - 9.71 per game ------- No discussion needed.So, out of those 17, throw out Coles because he switched teams. That leaves 16, of which only 3 guys, 2003-2004 Holt, 2003-2004 Moss, and 2006-2007 Driver, even approach (or go below) 8 targets per game - the level that Homes and Marshall would supposedly 'regress' to. Since Moss (in Minn) and Holt both average over 10 targets per game, that leaves only Driver, at 32, to support the 'regression' theory.Barring injuries, Qb changes, or coaching changes, players getting 10 targets per game are more likely to stay near that level than regress down to some league average. Unless there is some fundamental reason to think otherwise (like the health of Walker), Marshall is likely to continue receiving the attention he has received this year.

 

[FantasyTrader]

That remains to be seen. For one thing, we don't know what is going to happen with Javon Walker. Walker, when healthy, is one of the top 5 red-zone WRs in the league (his conversion rate is second only to Fitzgerald's). If Walker comes back, I have a hard time seeing Marshall increasing his TD totals by much. For another thing, you say you expect Denver to score more TDs next year and then automatically assume that means Denver will score more PASSING TDs next year. Denver's currently on pace for 21.7 passing scores this year. Since Elway left, Denver has scored 20, 18, 27, 19, 21, 26, 28, and 16 passing TDs (21.9 passing TDs per year average). Looks like they're right at their mean, and it's the rushing TDs that are down.

Now, if you want to say that Denver hasn't had a QB like Cutler since Elway and predict that Denver's offense will remind people of the SB-winning juggernauts, here are the 4 passing TD totals in the Elway/Shanahan era: 32, 27, 26, 27. So maybe, best case scenario, I can see Denver milking another 5 passing TDs out... but who's to say that they go to Marshall instead of Walker, Stokley, Scheffler, or Graham?

So we're comparing John Elway with Terrell Davis and a top 5-8 defense to what Cutler is (will be) asked to do in this offense for the next 3-4 years? I'm not claiming Cutler is the next coming - but this will be much more of a pass oriented team than ANY of the Elway years.

 

[ArlingtonTerp]

Bet I could do a good study of Devery Henderson and M. Colston in 2006 to further my thought process. Henderson had few targets, but actually put up good fantasy numbers due to his long TD receptions. Colston put up good fantasy numbers but more due to the number of targets/opportunities, which ultimately provided him with a number of TD's. In any year, I'll happily draft the WR that gets their numbers while being more a possession type WR then the burners who happen to score a few 40 plus yard TD's. I put Holmes more in the latter and I don't necessarily count on 40 plus yard TD's on a consistant basis.

Obviously, no owner cares how the points are obtained (via more long throws or short ones, more receptions or more TDs, etc), just the total matters.I don't think Henderson/Colson is a good comparison. Colston's Fantasy numbers were way better than Henderson's. Henderson only had 32 catches in 13 games. All the guys we are talking about are way above that. even with the paltry catch total, his TD rate didn't match up to Holmes, and obviously was nothing close to Jennings', despite being on a blistering hot offense. (Also keep in mind Henderson was in his third year, and on his comparable second year he only had 22 catches all year, when considering how well his performance may predict into his future). In contrast, Holmes PPG is basically the same as Marshall's, and Jennings' is BETTER than Marshall's. Colston last year also had a better TD rate and catch rate than Marshall does this year. He is also better at those things this year despite similar number of catches. It works better for NO to throw to Colston than it does for Denver to throw to Marshall. Denver is more in need of a new plan going forward. (Expect Denver to reduce the targets down to Colston's level at the most, for instance).If a guy is a legitimate burner who can make plays, who has a good QB with whom he has demonstrated repeatedly they will make the long connection, there is no reason not to "count on" a certain number of long plays in the course of a season. When you do your numbers for Santonio Holmes, you will obviously put a higher YPC than Marshall. That is, in a sense, counting on long plays. With WRs, guys who break long ones will score more TDs on fewer catches than the guys who generally don't, and do so with somewhat regular predictability. Holmes will most likely score more TDs/catch than Ward. Jennings will likely score more TD/catch than Driver. If healthy, Walker will likely score more TD/catch than Marshall. This must be taken into account in any figuring out of their fantasy value. Of course the number of catches may supercede anything in the TD rate or YPC in terms of overall value. In the case of Henderson versus Colston (or any number one receiver), it isn't even remotely close. But Javon Walker was just as good as Colston last year per game despite fewer catches per game. Going forward from 2006, most were higher on Colston because of the team/QB situation and the fact that Colston was just a rookie in 2006.

 

[ArlingtonTerp]

Barring injuries, Qb changes, or coaching changes, players getting 10 targets per game are more likely to stay near that level than regress down to some league average. Unless there is some fundamental reason to think otherwise (like the health of Walker), Marshall is likely to continue receiving the attention he has received this year.

The problem is, outside of Chambers, basically none of those guys were as inefficient as Marshall is this year. Most all the teams with those receivers got more out of the strategy of throwing it that much to the one guy than Denver got this year throwing it that much to Marshall. Denver is forcing it, perhaps because they lack options. You could look at it as a Carr to AJ-type of inefficiency, but that's putting all the blame on the QB, and that's not changing anyway. Denver needs another way to go somewhat. But let's say they don't do that (Walker is a dud for instance and no one else cuts it), and they continue to throw at him more than New Orleans throws to Colston. Teams will key on Marshall then. I don't see what is different that suddenly Marshall would do so much better than this year. On the other hand, I think there is good reason to see in increase in the numbers of Holmes and Jennings as they just increase the share of catches a little bit. They are already almost equal or better than Marshall in ppg.

 

[SSOG]

So, out of those 17, throw out Coles because he switched teams. That leaves 16, of which only 3 guys, 2003-2004 Holt, 2003-2004 Moss, and 2006-2007 Driver, even approach (or go below) 8 targets per game - the level that Homes and Marshall would supposedly 'regress' to. Since Moss (in Minn) and Holt both average over 10 targets per game, that leaves only Driver, at 32, to support the 'regression' theory.Barring injuries, Qb changes, or coaching changes, players getting 10 targets per game are more likely to stay near that level than regress down to some league average. Unless there is some fundamental reason to think otherwise (like the health of Walker), Marshall is likely to continue receiving the attention he has received this year.

I covered in another post that when I say "regression to the mean", I do not mean regression to some league average, I mean regression to a player's true talent level. I also covered Torry Holt (and Larry Fitzgerald) and said that those two were pretty much the only guys in the NFL whose true usage/talent level is right around 10 targets per game.You dismissed a lot of the instances as "not significant regression", but it's worth noting that of the 17 WRs in the sample, EVERY SINGLE ONE posted fewer tpg in year N+1. Each individual regression might not have been significant, but taken as a whole, the fact that all 17 WRs regressed to some extent suggests that yes, Marshall is almost certain to regress to some extent. Even if he only goes down to 9 targets per game, that's still a 10% drop. A 10% drop might not seem like much, but if Marshall drops 10%, and Holmes increases 10%, that's a pretty significant change. And this is if Holmes just increases 10%- I barely covered him, but I personally believe Holmes ranking 57th in tpg is also a big fluke and likely to regress to the mean (in this case, an upwards change).

 

[BuckeyeArt]

You dismissed a lot of the instances as "not significant regression", but it's worth noting that of the 17 WRs in the sample, EVERY SINGLE ONE posted fewer tpg in year N+1. Each individual regression might not have been significant, but taken as a whole, the fact that all 17 WRs regressed to some extent suggests that yes, Marshall is almost certain to regress to some extent. Even if he only goes down to 9 targets per game, that's still a 10% drop. A 10% drop might not seem like much, but if Marshall drops 10%, and Holmes increases 10%, that's a pretty significant change.

You presented the stats in a way that supports your argument - as a total rather than on a per game basis - even though you know it distorts the outcome. My dismissal of the significance is in response to your presentation and suggestion that these players significantly regress - many at a rate of 30-40% if you look at your data alone. Obviously, as I stated above, when you start with career (sometimes) years, the chance that you go lower the next year is huge. Expecting players to reproduce career years, in any stat, is foolish. A drop of 10% is not much, no matter how you look at it. If Marshall drops 10% and Holmes rises 10%, Marshall still has 35% more targets than Holmes. My guess is the Marshall guy is still happy and the Holmes guy is not.

A 10% drop might not seem like much, but if Marshall drops 10%, and Holmes increases 10%, that's a pretty significant change. And this is if Holmes just increases 10%- I barely covered him, but I personally believe Holmes ranking 57th in tpg is also a big fluke and likely to regress to the mean (in this case, an upwards change).

Now, here is where it looks like you're are suggesting they regress to a league mean. Your statement is just pure speculation and has nothing to do with a regression to a player's mean. Holmes averaged 5.37 last year and 6.18 this year. His current mean is 5.79. If he's going to regress to his own mean, he's going down. The only way he's regressing upward is to someone else's mean.

 

[FavreCo]

You may want to watch Brandon Marshall play sometime.

I'll put it on my to-do list.

There is no WR like him in the game. When the ball is thrown his way, he separates by breaking towards the pass and then making the defender miss as he turns upfield. WR's should get some film of him and try and emulate that because he's the only one doing it. Holmes is really nothing compared to Marshall. It's not even close either. You can dish out all kinds of stats of other WR's if you like but the fact is, he's a monster.

This is why I always have to discredit Marshall- this absurd and unwarrented man-love. It's okay to like Marshall, but saying that there's no WR like him in the game? Saying that Holmes is nothing compared to Marshall because of the way Marshall breaks on the ball? Come on.

No problem. You keep racking up losses with your manlove for the inconsistent Sucktanio and I'll keep winning with Marshall and Jennings. Oh and there is no WR in the game like him. Point one out.

 

[Banger]

A lot of good posts in here but one thing that needs to be considered when looking at pts per target stat and it's that not all targets are created equally. I like that SSOG likes to concentrate on pts per target stat when looking at Marshall, why not look at the YAC? Hmmm, because maybe he's in the top 2 or 3 in the league in that stat. Could that be why he has so many targets compared to others because once you get the ball in his hands he runs better than nearly every WR in the league. They throw the ball to him a RB several times a game where they throw it to him at the line and let him try to beat 2-3 players for 8-9 yards.

People like to throw out regression to the mean but I'd expect Holmes pts per target to regress to the mean as well since it's likely that they'll involve him more on the short possession type routes.

I love Holmes and Marshall but they are two very different wr's. Essentially Holmes is Holt and Marshall is TO. Both will be very good wr's for years and will be the top wr's in their class. I like Jennings as well but his production is strongly tied to Favre.

At the end of the day give me the guy that gets his hands on the ball a ton each game, especially if he's one of the best at YAC. Yes his targets will probably decrease but I'd expect his td's will increase (regression to the mean).

 

[Banger]

So, out of those 17, throw out Coles because he switched teams. That leaves 16, of which only 3 guys, 2003-2004 Holt, 2003-2004 Moss, and 2006-2007 Driver, even approach (or go below) 8 targets per game - the level that Homes and Marshall would supposedly 'regress' to. Since Moss (in Minn) and Holt both average over 10 targets per game, that leaves only Driver, at 32, to support the 'regression' theory.Barring injuries, Qb changes, or coaching changes, players getting 10 targets per game are more likely to stay near that level than regress down to some league average. Unless there is some fundamental reason to think otherwise (like the health of Walker), Marshall is likely to continue receiving the attention he has received this year.

I covered in another post that when I say "regression to the mean", I do not mean regression to some league average, I mean regression to a player's true talent level. I also covered Torry Holt (and Larry Fitzgerald) and said that those two were pretty much the only guys in the NFL whose true usage/talent level is right around 10 targets per game.You dismissed a lot of the instances as "not significant regression", but it's worth noting that of the 17 WRs in the sample, EVERY SINGLE ONE posted fewer tpg in year N+1. Each individual regression might not have been significant, but taken as a whole, the fact that all 17 WRs regressed to some extent suggests that yes, Marshall is almost certain to regress to some extent. Even if he only goes down to 9 targets per game, that's still a 10% drop. A 10% drop might not seem like much, but if Marshall drops 10%, and Holmes increases 10%, that's a pretty significant change. And this is if Holmes just increases 10%- I barely covered him, but I personally believe Holmes ranking 57th in tpg is also a big fluke and likely to regress to the mean (in this case, an upwards change).

You should adjust those targets to a target/game because I know several of those wr's were injured in N+1 thereby distorting the stats. I quickly looked through the N+1 years and 9 of the players missed time between 1 and 7 games. That also doesn't account for the fact that players were often hobbled or came back slowly due to the injuries. Nearly all the wr's were healthy and played the full 16 games in N thus the high target level. I'm not arguing that his targets may go down but injuries were a major reason the targets were down for a number of those players.

 

[Man in the yellow hat]

SSOG, wouldn't the same type of statistical analysis argue for Jennings over Marshall as well? Perhaps even more so than Holmes over Marshall? You can blame it on Favre being great, but isn't he still throwing it to him next year and maybe the next after that? Even if you call the TDs somewhat flukish, he matches Holmes in the other stats. My guess is you think you've witnessed something in their performance that makes you think Holmes is clearly superior talent-wise to Jennings, and it will come out regardless of Favre next year. What, specifically, is it that you have witnessed that separates the two? Is Ward perhaps on the way out physically or otherwise, while Driver being basically in his prime and loved by Favre having much to do with the discrepancy?

To be honest, I haven't seen a lot of Jennings this year, so I don't know what kind of talent he is. There are a couple of reasons why I'm down on him, though.#1- he was BRUTAL last season. Maybe it's not fair to keep holding this against him, but unconsciously, I still do.

#2- Favre has a long history of making studs out of duds, which makes me naturally leery of any Brett Favre WRs.

Those two might not be fair, but when you combine them with the fact that I haven't seen much of Jennings (and therefore haven't seen anything to persuade me otherwise), the result is that I'm just down on Jennings in general. It could very easily be an oversight, but there you have it.

#1. I'm pretty confused here. How was he 'brutal'? Through week 5, he had two 100 yard games, and was averaging 4 catches for 72.8 yards. As a rookie. And the reason I stop at week 5 is because that's when Jennings was injured; an injury that lingered all season long. Still, he finished with 45 catches for 632 yards and 3 touchdowns in 14 games. How is that Brutal? By comparison, Holmes only caught 4 more balls in 16 games, and fnished with 824 yards and 2 touchdowns. So tell me me how Jennings was brutal?#2. Now this I can buy. If you're unsure because of the Favre factor, that's fine.

Frankly, I can't understand why everyone is so quick to pile on Greg Jennings right now.

 

[FantasyTrader]

If you think 45 catches, 632 yards and 3 TD's aren't brutal - I have some #3 WR's I'd like to sell you. "How is that brutal?" It's brutal by not being good...at all.

I'll give you, he dealt with injuries much of the year. But I don't see anyone piling on Jennings right now. I see a thoughtful discussion happening where several people have qualified their statements with "I really like Jennings, but..."

That's not piling on.

 

[Banger]

Regarding the OP's question I'd expect Holmes to probably be the best value in a redraft format since so many publications/FF'ers base next years projections on last years stats. In my basic scoring league Jennings in 9th, Marshall 11th and Holmes 19th. I'd expect next year Marshall will be ranked in the 10-15 range, Jennings in the 13-17 and Holmes in the 17-21 range. If that's the case, I'd forgo both Marshall and Jennings and pick up Holmes a couple rounds later with probably little difference in production.

 

[Man in the yellow hat]

If you think 45 catches, 632 yards and 3 TD's aren't brutal - I have some #3 WR's I'd like to sell you. "How is that brutal?" It's brutal by not being good...at all. I'll give you, he dealt with injuries much of the year. But I don't see anyone piling on Jennings right now. I see a thoughtful discussion happening where several people have qualified their statements with "I really like Jennings, but..."That's not piling on.

You have to be kidding me. Marques Colston type numbers don't happen all that often. For a rookie to come in, win a starting job in the NFL, and put up those numbers. Well, that certainly seems fine to me. Let's all play in reality here for a minute OK.By that logic, all three guys discussed in this thread were 'brutal'. Jennings - 14 games, 45 catches, 632 yards, 3 touchdowns. Holmes - 16 games, 49 catches, 824 yards, 2 touchdowns. Marshall - 15 games, 20 catches, 309 yards, 2 touchdowns. Again, this is reality here. As rookies, there wasn't much of a gap between Holmes and Jennings.

 

[massraider]

Marshall is a talent. But if there's any truth to the rumors he got into it with Denver coaches, he might be a sketchy dynasty guy.

From PFT (I know, I know):

MARSHALL MELTDOWN IN DENVER?

There's a rumor making the rounds that Broncos receiver Brandon Marshall got into a verbal altercation with one or more members of the coaching staff on Monday, and then stormed out of the facility.

The talk is that Marshall at one point challenged the team to "cut me."

We're in the process of confirming (and/or debunking) this rumor. But, hey, we've got a Live Blog to do.

The tall, speedy Marshall caught 11 passes for 107 yards in the team's most recent game, last Thursday night against the Texans.

I haven't heard anything negative about him prior to this, but attitude has ruined many a talented WR.

 

[sho nuff]

SSOG, wouldn't the same type of statistical analysis argue for Jennings over Marshall as well? Perhaps even more so than Holmes over Marshall? You can blame it on Favre being great, but isn't he still throwing it to him next year and maybe the next after that? Even if you call the TDs somewhat flukish, he matches Holmes in the other stats. My guess is you think you've witnessed something in their performance that makes you think Holmes is clearly superior talent-wise to Jennings, and it will come out regardless of Favre next year. What, specifically, is it that you have witnessed that separates the two? Is Ward perhaps on the way out physically or otherwise, while Driver being basically in his prime and loved by Favre having much to do with the discrepancy?

To be honest, I haven't seen a lot of Jennings this year, so I don't know what kind of talent he is. There are a couple of reasons why I'm down on him, though.#1- he was BRUTAL last season. Maybe it's not fair to keep holding this against him, but unconsciously, I still do.#2- Favre has a long history of making studs out of duds, which makes me naturally leery of any Brett Favre WRs.Those two might not be fair, but when you combine them with the fact that I haven't seen much of Jennings (and therefore haven't seen anything to persuade me otherwise), the result is that I'm just down on Jennings in general. It could very easily be an oversight, but there you have it.

#1 - he was hurt last season, never was the same after the ankle injury...prior to it he was money...and a rookie. How were the other 2? (Marshall and Holmes...nothing specatular last year either)#2 - with some yes...but Jennings has shown he has the talent, he has received nothing but praise from all of his coaches and Favre. And even when Favre went down, he looked good with Rodgers. (5-87 and a TD...pretty sure all of that was with Rodgers)So you are down on him...and questioned his talent in your first post...but admit you have not seen much of him?

 

[Rounders]

:sehorn:

This is some good stuff, thanks guys.

 

[Bri]

SSOG, i like Holmes a lot, I really do, and Big Ben too, but no way I put him over Marshall. ColstonMarshallJenningsHolmesIMO

Brandon Marshall this season is averaging 10.3 targets, 6 catches, 81 yards, and .43 TDs per game. That's 10.68 fppg.Santonio Holmes this season is averaging 6.2 targets, 4 catches, 65 yards, and .64 TDs per game. That's 10.3 fppg.Essentially, both are producing equal numbers... if we take them in a vacuum. Let's add some context, shall we? Santonio Holmes is producing similar totals despite playing much of the year gimpy. He's producing similar numbers on 40% less targets. Brandon Marshall's 10.3 targets per game ranks him third in the entire NFL, and puts him on pace for 165 targets. Do you know what happens to WRs with 160+ targets in year N+1? Let me tell you.Between 2002 and 2006, a WR posted 160+ targets 17 total times. Here's the data, with the year N and year N+1 targets in parentheses afterwards.2002 Marvin Harrison (204, 142)2002 Randy Moss (186, 170)2002 Eric Moulds (180, 119)2002 Marty Booker (165, 105)2002 Hines Ward (161, 156)2003 Torry Holt (183, 129)2003 Randy Moss (170, 84)2003 Anquan Boldin (165, 102)2004 Laveranues Coles (162, 133)2005 Anquan Boldin (171, 152)2005 Chris Chambers (166, 154)2005 Plaxico Burress (166, 121)2005 Larry Fitzgerald (165, 108)2005 Torry Holt (163, 178)2006 Torry Holt (178, 147)2006 Donald Driver (171, 133)2006 Andre Johnson (165, 78)Those last three values are the pace through 14 games. Anyway, of the 17 WRs with 160 targets, only 5 of them managed 150+ in year N+1. The result is a huge regression in fantasy performance. You get guys like Donald Driver, who was the #5 WR in fantasy football when he had 160+ targets, but who fell to 22nd (despite comparable play) when his targets fell back towards his career averages. Or Chris Chambers, who, despite being an irredeemable turd, put up some studly numbers thanks to his 160+ targets.Santonio Holmes, on the other hand, is way at the opposite end of the spectrum. He's currently ranked 57th in targets per game, right between Vernon Davis and Michael Jenkins. He's a mortal LOCK for an increase in targets next year- he really has nowhere to go but up.Brandon Marshall, like all 160+ target WRs, is currently suffering from Chris Chambers disease. This doesn't mean that he's the most overrated WR in the history of fantasy football, like Chambers was, but 160+ target WRs are always overrated because most people simply don't REALIZE that they're 160+ target WRs, or don't understand the concept of regression to the mean. Next year, I guarantee you that Holmes' targets will be more in line with Marshall's, and if their level of play both stay constant, Holmes' numbers will blow Marshall's out of the water. I see a lot of parallels between Holmes/Marshall and Evans/Chambers, actually- both sets were putting up very comparable numbers, but one of the two was doing it at a mind-bogglingly efficient rate (Evans and Holmes), while the other was doing it at a generally inefficient rate (Chambers and Marshall). Like I said, Marshall's targets have nowhere to go but down, and Holmes' have nowhere to go but up. Barring any DRASTIC change in their per-target efficiency, Holmes' numbers should blow Marshall's out of the park next year.

Great work, SSOG. Thanks. I'm puzzled as to why targets would be susceptible to regression to the mean. It's not a stat that is completely out of control of the team. If a team is successful by throwing a WR 10 targets a game in year N, why wouldn't they continue that strategy in year N+1? Do you have any thoughts on why the number drops so much? What if you compared it to the team's total targets in year N and year N+1? Would we find that the WRs were the beneficiaries of abberational number of passes by a team that regressed back to the a more normal amount of passes the next year?Would love your thoughts. Thanks.

it really is a good post with plenty of research too but masked in all that are injuries

 

[murzman]

That remains to be seen. For one thing, we don't know what is going to happen with Javon Walker. Walker, when healthy, is one of the top 5 red-zone WRs in the league (his conversion rate is second only to Fitzgerald's). If Walker comes back, I have a hard time seeing Marshall increasing his TD totals by much. For another thing, you say you expect Denver to score more TDs next year and then automatically assume that means Denver will score more PASSING TDs next year. Denver's currently on pace for 21.7 passing scores this year. Since Elway left, Denver has scored 20, 18, 27, 19, 21, 26, 28, and 16 passing TDs (21.9 passing TDs per year average). Looks like they're right at their mean, and it's the rushing TDs that are down.

Now, if you want to say that Denver hasn't had a QB like Cutler since Elway and predict that Denver's offense will remind people of the SB-winning juggernauts, here are the 4 passing TD totals in the Elway/Shanahan era: 32, 27, 26, 27. So maybe, best case scenario, I can see Denver milking another 5 passing TDs out... but who's to say that they go to Marshall instead of Walker, Stokley, Scheffler, or Graham?

So we're comparing John Elway with Terrell Davis and a top 5-8 defense to what Cutler is (will be) asked to do in this offense for the next 3-4 years? I'm not claiming Cutler is the next coming - but this will be much more of a pass oriented team than ANY of the Elway years.

From watching a lot of Denver games recently, it appears that Marshall gets a lot of attention in the red zone (can anyone verify red zone targets??). It makes sense because of his size and strenght. It seems as though every game he has had 1-2 targets in the red zone that were either poor throws when he got open or he just couldn't come up with the big grab. Based on this I would think that his TD totals only have one way to go and that is up, even with Walker there. Just as people as saying that his targets will likely decrease to the mean, so should his TDs/reception ratio IMO. This guy is just too good of a target in the 0-10 yard range to not score more TDs.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Marshall is a talent. But if there's any truth to the rumors he got into it with Denver coaches, he might be a sketchy dynasty guy.

From PFT (I know, I know):

MARSHALL MELTDOWN IN DENVER?

There's a rumor making the rounds that Broncos receiver Brandon Marshall got into a verbal altercation with one or more members of the coaching staff on Monday, and then stormed out of the facility.

The talk is that Marshall at one point challenged the team to "cut me."

We're in the process of confirming (and/or debunking) this rumor. But, hey, we've got a Live Blog to do.

The tall, speedy Marshall caught 11 passes for 107 yards in the team's most recent game, last Thursday night against the Texans.



I haven't heard anything negative about him prior to this, but attitude has ruined many a talented WR.

There have been several "whispers" about his bad attitude going back to last season. I think Cecil commented on some of those whispers. And there were rumors that some of his teammates were upset about his role the night that Williams was murdered. Nothing official though.

 

[Banger]

That remains to be seen. For one thing, we don't know what is going to happen with Javon Walker. Walker, when healthy, is one of the top 5 red-zone WRs in the league (his conversion rate is second only to Fitzgerald's). If Walker comes back, I have a hard time seeing Marshall increasing his TD totals by much. For another thing, you say you expect Denver to score more TDs next year and then automatically assume that means Denver will score more PASSING TDs next year. Denver's currently on pace for 21.7 passing scores this year. Since Elway left, Denver has scored 20, 18, 27, 19, 21, 26, 28, and 16 passing TDs (21.9 passing TDs per year average). Looks like they're right at their mean, and it's the rushing TDs that are down.

Now, if you want to say that Denver hasn't had a QB like Cutler since Elway and predict that Denver's offense will remind people of the SB-winning juggernauts, here are the 4 passing TD totals in the Elway/Shanahan era: 32, 27, 26, 27. So maybe, best case scenario, I can see Denver milking another 5 passing TDs out... but who's to say that they go to Marshall instead of Walker, Stokley, Scheffler, or Graham?

So we're comparing John Elway with Terrell Davis and a top 5-8 defense to what Cutler is (will be) asked to do in this offense for the next 3-4 years? I'm not claiming Cutler is the next coming - but this will be much more of a pass oriented team than ANY of the Elway years.

From watching a lot of Denver games recently, it appears that Marshall gets a lot of attention in the red zone (can anyone verify red zone targets??). It makes sense because of his size and strenght. It seems as though every game he has had 1-2 targets in the red zone that were either poor throws when he got open or he just couldn't come up with the big grab. Based on this I would think that his TD totals only have one way to go and that is up, even with Walker there. Just as people as saying that his targets will likely decrease to the mean, so should his TDs/reception ratio IMO. This guy is just too good of a target in the 0-10 yard range to not score more TDs.

I looked through the redzone stats among wr's:Targets Rcpt td's (%)

Moss 32 19 11 34

Housh 24 17 7 29

Edwards 23 11 7 30

Colston 23 15 9 39

Ward 22 11 6 27

Wayne 22 11 3 14

Toomer 22 10 3 14

Mason 20 16 4 20

Marshall 20 10 4 20

Chad J. 20 8 4 20

 

[murzman]

That remains to be seen. For one thing, we don't know what is going to happen with Javon Walker. Walker, when healthy, is one of the top 5 red-zone WRs in the league (his conversion rate is second only to Fitzgerald's). If Walker comes back, I have a hard time seeing Marshall increasing his TD totals by much. For another thing, you say you expect Denver to score more TDs next year and then automatically assume that means Denver will score more PASSING TDs next year. Denver's currently on pace for 21.7 passing scores this year. Since Elway left, Denver has scored 20, 18, 27, 19, 21, 26, 28, and 16 passing TDs (21.9 passing TDs per year average). Looks like they're right at their mean, and it's the rushing TDs that are down.

Now, if you want to say that Denver hasn't had a QB like Cutler since Elway and predict that Denver's offense will remind people of the SB-winning juggernauts, here are the 4 passing TD totals in the Elway/Shanahan era: 32, 27, 26, 27. So maybe, best case scenario, I can see Denver milking another 5 passing TDs out... but who's to say that they go to Marshall instead of Walker, Stokley, Scheffler, or Graham?

So we're comparing John Elway with Terrell Davis and a top 5-8 defense to what Cutler is (will be) asked to do in this offense for the next 3-4 years? I'm not claiming Cutler is the next coming - but this will be much more of a pass oriented team than ANY of the Elway years.

From watching a lot of Denver games recently, it appears that Marshall gets a lot of attention in the red zone (can anyone verify red zone targets??). It makes sense because of his size and strenght. It seems as though every game he has had 1-2 targets in the red zone that were either poor throws when he got open or he just couldn't come up with the big grab. Based on this I would think that his TD totals only have one way to go and that is up, even with Walker there. Just as people as saying that his targets will likely decrease to the mean, so should his TDs/reception ratio IMO. This guy is just too good of a target in the 0-10 yard range to not score more TDs.

I looked through the redzone stats among wr's:Targets Rcpt td's (%)

Moss 32 19 11 34

Housh 24 17 7 29

Edwards 23 11 7 30

Colston 23 15 9 39

Ward 22 11 6 27

Wayne 22 11 3 14

Toomer 22 10 3 14

Mason 20 16 4 20

Marshall 20 10 4 20

Chad J. 20 8 4 20

Looks like he gets enough targets and his % isn't that bad compared to the others. Leads me to think his low TD numebrs is because he doesn't egt many deep balls thrown to him. Will only get a long TD if he busts a quick slant or a hitch. Compare that to Wayne who probably has as many 20+ yard TDs as <20 yd TDs.

 

[SSOG]

A 10% drop might not seem like much, but if Marshall drops 10%, and Holmes increases 10%, that's a pretty significant change. And this is if Holmes just increases 10%- I barely covered him, but I personally believe Holmes ranking 57th in tpg is also a big fluke and likely to regress to the mean (in this case, an upwards change).

Now, here is where it looks like you're are suggesting they regress to a league mean. Your statement is just pure speculation and has nothing to do with a regression to a player's mean. Holmes averaged 5.37 last year and 6.18 this year. His current mean is 5.79. If he's going to regress to his own mean, he's going down. The only way he's regressing upward is to someone else's mean.

A player's "true mean" and a player's "career average" are two totally different numbers. A player's "true mean" is what they would get if they played 1,000 seasons *AT THEIR CURRENT TALENT LEVEL AND SITUATION*, which is key. Expecting Holmes to outproduce his rookie numbers and expecting Holmes to "regress to the mean" are not mutually exclusive propositions.

A lot of good posts in here but one thing that needs to be considered when looking at pts per target stat and it's that not all targets are created equally. I like that SSOG likes to concentrate on pts per target stat when looking at Marshall, why not look at the YAC? Hmmm, because maybe he's in the top 2 or 3 in the league in that stat. Could that be why he has so many targets compared to others because once you get the ball in his hands he runs better than nearly every WR in the league. They throw the ball to him a RB several times a game where they throw it to him at the line and let him try to beat 2-3 players for 8-9 yards.

The reason I don't look at YAC is because it's a meaningless stat. Tell me- if two WRs have a 60% catch rate, and average 10 yards per target and 16.7 yards per reception, and both WRs convert first downs and score TDs at exactly the same rate and get the same number of targets, but one WR averages 0 YAC per reception while the other averages 14 YAC per reception, which is the better WR? Answer: Neither, they're exactly the same. YAC doesn't mean anything. Yards per reception, catch%, conversion%, TD%, yards per target, and targets... all of these metrics are meaningful. YAC carries about as much meaning as "yards on throws to the left" or "yards while tightroping the sideline". It might tell us how a WR is used, but it doesn't mean that that WR is better.

#1. I'm pretty confused here. How was he 'brutal'? Through week 5, he had two 100 yard games, and was averaging 4 catches for 72.8 yards. As a rookie. And the reason I stop at week 5 is because that's when Jennings was injured; an injury that lingered all season long. Still, he finished with 45 catches for 632 yards and 3 touchdowns in 14 games. How is that Brutal? By comparison, Holmes only caught 4 more balls in 16 games, and fnished with 824 yards and 2 touchdowns. So tell me me how Jennings was brutal?

#2. Now this I can buy. If you're unsure because of the Favre factor, that's fine.

Frankly, I can't understand why everyone is so quick to pile on Greg Jennings right now.

How was he brutal? 43% catch%, 6.02 yards per target. That is brutal.

I haven't heard anything negative about him prior to this, but attitude has ruined many a talented WR.

There were concerns about his attitude coming out of college (let's just say he's not just called "Baby TO" because he's good with the ball in his hands), and he's already been involved in a domestic violence charge.

So you are down on him...and questioned his talent in your first post...but admit you have not seen much of him?

Yup.