Concept Coop's Dynasty Rankings (2 Viewers)

[rschroeder1]

That's an interesting philosophy going forward.  I'm pretty excited about the new QB's coming into the league this year specifically so the deficit in your mind, is young QB and young WR growing together in mine.  Either way they are targets for future fantasy seasons.  I think those WR's you listed as targets are more about talent than trying to target guys who thrive in the short passing game.  We've seen more WR's in the last while that aren't height weight speed gods be more and more successful and if you haven't already shouldn't think those are requirements to be a good WR.  

It's always cyclical like that, when someone disappears from relevance (retirement or whatever other reason), someone new arises to take their spots.  This year or 5 years down the road we don't know, but I'm confident there will be at least 3 QB's this year that will become at least serviceable in the league, with the potential to be more.  

Yes, you illustrate a good point.  In fairness, I am no fantasy genius.  Kupp and Juju were both obviously talented players.  I guess I should rephrase my statement as saying I was willing to perhaps spend a little extra beyond their (perceived) value to rope them in.

I definitely agree with your statement about things being cyclical.  CBs are becoming shorter and faster to match the changes in the passing game.  We'll probably see a shift back towards an emphasis on big, tall, jump ball guys 4-5 years down the line when all the CBs are shutting down the short, quick passing game.

As far as the new QBs go, I have no chops to evaluate talent whatsoever.  I guess I'm just skeptical automatically of any new QB and feel the odds of any of them panning out as an every year starter over a long period like Eli, Rivers, etc., is low.

 

[FF Ninja]

@Concept Coop

I can do more digging if you want, but here's why I'm wary of garbage time stats: 

1) teams are more likely to be throwing the ball when trailing big, so unless we can predict game scripts, in the future, it's hard to predict these stats going forward. It doesn't always happen, but usually 4-12 teams do better the next year and 12-4 teams do worse. If a large portion of a player's targets come when trailing big then I think it is safe to assume their target load in the future will be less.

2) garbage time targets yield more fantasy points.

So I didn't go crazy. Just spent about 15 minutes this morning with a few sample players to see if the second hypothesis was true (I think the first one is pretty well known). I used FBG stats and splits. 

The first guy that comes to mind when it comes to garbage time stats, besides Hopkins, is Allen Robinson in 2015. It was a common notion that his numbers were inflated due to situation. Interestingly, Hopkins in 2017 scored 14% more than AR did in 2015 under those circumstances. Anyway, AR averaged 2.01 ppr points per target (ppt) on the season, but 2.73 while trailing big (35 targets for 22/436/5). His non-trailing big average was a still impressive 1.79 ppt. Hopkins in 2017 averaged 1.79 ppt, 2.10 TB ppt (52-26/411/7), and 1.66 non-TB ppt. I figured I'd check someone else and since we've been talking about Landry I figured he was as good as anyone to check. His average was 1.64 ppt this year, 1.82 TB ppt, and 1.52 non-TB ppt. And finally, just for grins I checked Keenan. He was at 1.74, 1.85, 1.73, respectively. To give some perspective, trailing big stats counted for 8.6% of Keenan's stats, 35.0% of Hopkins', 31.4% of AR's, and 44.9% of Landry's. 

To put it in a more visually appealing way:

NameYear, avg ppt, TB ppt, nTB ppt, pts%TB

• Hop'17 1.79, 2.10, 1.66, 35%
  
• Landry'17 1.64. 1.83, 1.52, 44.9%
  
• AR15'15 2.01, 2.73, 1.79, 31.4%
  
• Keenan'17 1.74, 1.84, 1.73, 8.6%
  

Those were the only four I checked, so the sample size isn't big enough to be definitive, but it does seem like garbage time targets are much more valuable than targets when the game is close. So if you consider that the targets are more plentiful AND more prosperous then you can see why I hesitate to get excited about a player's dynasty value based on a season or two in which a large % of their stats came from garbage time. Long term, they should end up on at least average teams (~8 wins) where these garbage time stats normalize with everyone else.

I'll add some more player later to see if this trend continues. Or if you get bored and/or curious, feel free to jump in.

 

[bostonfred]

@Concept Coop

I can do more digging if you want, but here's why I'm wary of garbage time stats: 

1) teams are more likely to be throwing the ball when trailing big, so unless we can predict game scripts, in the future, it's hard to predict these stats going forward. It doesn't always happen, but usually 4-12 teams do better the next year and 12-4 teams do worse. If a large portion of a player's targets come when trailing big then I think it is safe to assume their target load in the future will be less.

2) garbage time targets yield more fantasy points.

So I didn't go crazy. Just spent about 15 minutes this morning with a few sample players to see if the second hypothesis was true (I think the first one is pretty well known). I used FBG stats and splits. 

The first guy that comes to mind when it comes to garbage time stats, besides Hopkins, is Allen Robinson in 2015. It was a common notion that his numbers were inflated due to situation. Interestingly, Hopkins in 2017 scored 14% more than AR did in 2015 under those circumstances. Anyway, AR averaged 2.01 ppr points per target (ppt) on the season, but 2.73 while trailing big (35 targets for 22/436/5). His non-trailing big average was a still impressive 1.79 ppt. Hopkins in 2017 averaged 1.79 ppt, 2.10 TB ppt (52-26/411/7), and 1.66 non-TB ppt. I figured I'd check someone else and since we've been talking about Landry I figured he was as good as anyone to check. His average was 1.64 ppt this year, 1.82 TB ppt, and 1.52 non-TB ppt. And finally, just for grins I checked Keenan. He was at 1.74, 1.85, 1.73, respectively. To give some perspective, trailing big stats counted for 8.6% of Keenan's stats, 35.0% of Hopkins', 31.4% of AR's, and 44.9% of Landry's. 

To put it in a more visually appealing way:

NameYear, avg ppt, TB ppt, nTB ppt, pts%TB

• Hop'17 1.79, 2.10, 1.66, 35%
  
• Landry'17 1.64. 1.83, 1.52, 44.9%
  
• AR15'15 2.01, 2.73, 1.79, 31.4%
  
• Keenan'17 1.74, 1.84, 1.73, 8.6%
  

Those were the only four I checked, so the sample size isn't big enough to be definitive, but it does seem like garbage time targets are much more valuable than targets when the game is close. So if you consider that the targets are more plentiful AND more prosperous then you can see why I hesitate to get excited about a player's dynasty value based on a season or two in which a large % of their stats came from garbage time. Long term, they should end up on at least average teams (~8 wins) where these garbage time stats normalize with everyone else.

I'll add some more player later to see if this trend continues. Or if you get bored and/or curious, feel free to jump in.

Heres a great example of the difference between Sometimes and Always.

Sometimes it's good to double check the things that "everyone knows."

It's always better when somebody else does it for you. 

Thanks for putting in the work. 

 

[Concept Coop]

@Concept Coop

I can do more digging if you want, but here's why I'm wary of garbage time stats: 

1) teams are more likely to be throwing the ball when trailing big, so unless we can predict game scripts, in the future, it's hard to predict these stats going forward. It doesn't always happen, but usually 4-12 teams do better the next year and 12-4 teams do worse. If a large portion of a player's targets come when trailing big then I think it is safe to assume their target load in the future will be less.

2) garbage time targets yield more fantasy points.

So I didn't go crazy. Just spent about 15 minutes this morning with a few sample players to see if the second hypothesis was true (I think the first one is pretty well known). I used FBG stats and splits. 

The first guy that comes to mind when it comes to garbage time stats, besides Hopkins, is Allen Robinson in 2015. It was a common notion that his numbers were inflated due to situation. Interestingly, Hopkins in 2017 scored 14% more than AR did in 2015 under those circumstances. Anyway, AR averaged 2.01 ppr points per target (ppt) on the season, but 2.73 while trailing big (35 targets for 22/436/5). His non-trailing big average was a still impressive 1.79 ppt. Hopkins in 2017 averaged 1.79 ppt, 2.10 TB ppt (52-26/411/7), and 1.66 non-TB ppt. I figured I'd check someone else and since we've been talking about Landry I figured he was as good as anyone to check. His average was 1.64 ppt this year, 1.82 TB ppt, and 1.52 non-TB ppt. And finally, just for grins I checked Keenan. He was at 1.74, 1.85, 1.73, respectively. To give some perspective, trailing big stats counted for 8.6% of Keenan's stats, 35.0% of Hopkins', 31.4% of AR's, and 44.9% of Landry's. 

To put it in a more visually appealing way:

NameYear, avg ppt, TB ppt, nTB ppt, pts%TB

• Hop'17 1.79, 2.10, 1.66, 35%
  
• Landry'17 1.64. 1.83, 1.52, 44.9%
  
• AR15'15 2.01, 2.73, 1.79, 31.4%
  
• Keenan'17 1.74, 1.84, 1.73, 8.6%
  

Those were the only four I checked, so the sample size isn't big enough to be definitive, but it does seem like garbage time targets are much more valuable than targets when the game is close. So if you consider that the targets are more plentiful AND more prosperous then you can see why I hesitate to get excited about a player's dynasty value based on a season or two in which a large % of their stats came from garbage time. Long term, they should end up on at least average teams (~8 wins) where these garbage time stats normalize with everyone else.

I'll add some more player later to see if this trend continues. Or if you get bored and/or curious, feel free to jump in.

What are you taking this to mean?  Hopkins' nTB ppt isn't far from Allen's.  I'm sure his quality target rate is much worse, however.  He only dropped 4 of the 78 targets that he did't catch.  

Looking at this: Using only Hopkins' nTB ppt, and applying it to his total targets, he'd be WR4, one spot ahead of Allen, and only dropping 2 spots.  Now you can argue that he wouldn't get that target volume outside of garbage time, but put him in a better situation and he wouldn't need it. 

AR15's 2015 is a bit of a whipping boy, but his nTB ppt was higher than Allen's ppt.  Isn't that counter to your point?

Again, I'm not quite sure what you're taking from this, but I don't think it supports your overall thesis, that DeAndre Hopkins' dynasty value is inflated by his situation.  Or the original thesis, that garbage time production is a lesser indicator of future production/talent.  

 

[FF Ninja]

Once I had the excel sheet made, it was actually pretty easy/quick to plug in numbers. First, I wanted to check how an elite QB affected ppt, so I plugged in Adams and Jordy from 2016. That was interesting, but then I decided if I wanted any statistical significance I need some big garbage time samples so I hopped on the data dominator and searched the past 5 years, sorting by most targets (not most points, because that would skew my results - I wanted a large sample of targets, not a large sample of guys that scored a lot in garbage time). Guess whose names came up in the top 20? Landry and Hopkins each had 3 entries in the top 20 from a 5 year span! Garbage time extraordinaires! I take this to mean that if either of their respective teams improves, they are due for a dip in targets as well as a decrease in points per target. Anyway, I did the exercise for each of their 3 seasons in the top 20 along with a several other of the players with a large 

NameYear, avg ppt, trailing big ppt, non-trailing big ppt, % pts from trailing big

• Hop17-1.79-2.10-1.66-35%
  
• Hop16-1.31-1.74-1.09-44.9%
  
• Hop15-1.71-1.68-1.73-33.1%
  
• Landry17-1.64-1.82-1.52-44.9%
  
• Landry16-1.77-1.86-1.70-46.5%
  
• Landry15-1.50-1.51-1.49-37.4%
  
• DT17-1.49-1.81-1.29-46.1%
  
• Garcon13-1.53-1.26-1.69-30.8%
  
• Alshon14-1.78-1.94-1.71-33.1%
  
• KB14-1.57-2.08-1.31-44.8%
  
• Pryor16-1.43-1.44-1.42-33.7%
  

Those guys all had between 44 (Alshon) and 65 (Hopkins) targets. So those were the strongest sample sizes. As you can see, it isn't ALWAYS true (Garcon '13 & Hopkins '15) that trailing big ppt > nTB ppt, but there seems to be a strong correlation.

These are the others:

• Keenan17-1.74-1.85-1.73-8.7%
  
• Keenan15-1.83-1.83-1.83-28.2%
  
• Julio17-1.69-2.06-1.64-16.4%
  
• AB17-1.90-2.03-1.87-25%
  
• AJG17-1.61-1.38-1.64-9.6%
  
• MT17-1.73-2.01-1.67-21%
  
• Adams16-2.03-2.80-1.88-23.8%
  
• Jordy16-2.01-1.77-2.10-21.9%
  
• GBduo16-2.03-2.14-2.00-22.8%
  

Most of those guys have less than 30 targets while trailing big with the exception of Jordy and AB. I thought it was interesting that Jordy dipped in garbage time, but if you add Jordy and Adams together, garbage time is still more valuable.

So in conclusion, I think it is clear that trailing big leads to more targets AND adds value to the targets. It seems Hopkins and Landry both have had their targets & ppt inflated due to lots of garbage time in the past 3 years.

 

[Concept Coop]

70% of Hopkins' targets were catchable and he scored 21.8% more fantasy points per target than his teammates.  HOU's QB rate jumped 10.8% when targeting Hopkins.  Hopkins lined up in the slot on 10% of his snaps.

76% of Allen's targets were catchable and he scored 0.8% fewer fantasy points per target than his teammates.  SD's QB rate jumped 4.2% when targeting Allen.  Allen lined up in the slot on 38% of his snaps (Landry - 47%).   

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Teams pass more when they are losing? No way......

 

[Concept Coop]

Once I had the excel sheet made, it was actually pretty easy/quick to plug in numbers. First, I wanted to check how an elite QB affected ppt, so I plugged in Adams and Jordy from 2016. That was interesting, but then I decided if I wanted any statistical significance I need some big garbage time samples so I hopped on the data dominator and searched the past 5 years, sorting by most targets (not most points, because that would skew my results - I wanted a large sample of targets, not a large sample of guys that scored a lot in garbage time). Guess whose names came up in the top 20? Landry and Hopkins each had 3 entries in the top 20 from a 5 year span! Garbage time extraordinaires! I take this to mean that if either of their respective teams improves, they are due for a dip in targets as well as a decrease in points per target. Anyway, I did the exercise for each of their 3 seasons in the top 20 along with a several other of the players with a large 

So in conclusion, I think it is clear that trailing big leads to more targets AND adds value to the targets. It seems Hopkins and Landry both have had their targets & ppt inflated due to lots of garbage time in the past 3 years.

So many holes.  Again, nobody is arguing that garbage time isn't good for fantasy production.  I'm arguing that bad QB play is bad for fantasy production, even taking that into account. 

 

[FF Ninja]

What are you taking this to mean?  Hopkins' nTB ppt isn't far from Allen's.  I'm sure his quality target rate is much worse, however.  He only dropped 4 of the 78 targets that he did't catch.  

I'm taking it to mean that garbage time inflates targets and points per target. When looking at a young player for dynasty purposes, I would want to know if he's in for a dip in targets and a dip in points per target should his team stop being awful (Texans) or should he switch to a better team (Landry = UFA).

You obviously bring up a great point when discussing quality of target. I can't isolate that here and it wasn't the point of this exercise. You seemed incredulous at the thought that garbage time should even be considered while I thought it should bring some caution when looking forward long term.

Looking at this: Using only Hopkins' nTB ppt, and applying it to his total targets, he'd be WR4, one spot ahead of Allen, and only dropping 2 spots.  Now you can argue that he wouldn't get that target volume outside of garbage time, but put him in a better situation and he wouldn't need it. 

Yes, indeed I would argue that his target volume would decrease. Also, I think that the value of TB targets more than offsets quality of target during nTB time.

AR15's 2015 is a bit of a whipping boy, but his nTB ppt was higher than Allen's ppt.  Isn't that counter to your point?

No. I never discussed AR15 vs. KA. I think AR15's 2015 season was amazing. Keep in mind, KA is not my focus/point here. My point continues to be that garbage time is something we should factor in when looking forward at dynasty value.

Again, I'm not quite sure what you're taking from this, but I don't think it supports your overall thesis, that DeAndre Hopkins' dynasty value is inflated by his situation.  Or the original thesis, that garbage time production is a lesser indicator of future production/talent.  

I think it supports it quite strongly. Garbage time = more targets. Garbage time = more valuable targets. If we predict a regression to the mean (bad teams improve to average, good teams regress to average) for long term dynasty value, then we should consider a decrease in targets and ppt for players that have the most TB targets in the past 3 years. Sorted by total, the players in the past 3 years with the most: Landry, Hopkins, DT, Evans, Stills, Marshall, Sanders, Parker, Hilton. But keep in mind, the drop off is pretty steep (Hilton has half the TB targets than Landry does).

Just for fun, some big names that are relatively low on that list (that have been mostly healthy): Baldwin, Cooper, AJ Green.

 

[Snorkelson]

When I think garbage time compiler, I think kelvin Benjamin. When I watch Hopkins, I’m always impressed. If Houston isn’t in garbage time, it probably means Watson is playing well anyway, so while he may not get some of the garbage time #s he’s probably getting better regular time #s. Sure, Antonio Brown may have a ridiculous season if they are playing from behind all the time, but that doesn’t mean he won’t have solid seasons anyway. 

 

[FF Ninja]

Teams pass more when they are losing? No way......

 way to prove you're missing the point entirely while making a lame, snarky remark

 

[Concept Coop]

You seemed incredulous at the thought that garbage time should even be considered while I thought it should bring some caution when looking forward long term.

My apologies if I wasn't clear.  My argument is that bad QB play is bad for fantasy production.  Put the garbage time stats away for just a minute, and show me that bad QB play is good for fantasy production.  If your thesis is correct, you should be able to prove it without using garbage time splits.  It should display itself in the gross production. 

This is a non sequitur:  Garbage time is good > bad QB play leads to garbage time > bad QB play is good.  

Edit: Yes, garbage time is a benefit of playing with a bad QB.  Playing with a bad QB is still a net negative. 

 

[FF Ninja]

70% of Hopkins' targets were catchable and he scored 21.8% more fantasy points per target than his teammates.  HOU's QB rate jumped 10.8% when targeting Hopkins.  Hopkins lined up in the slot on 10% of his snaps.

76% of Allen's targets were catchable and he scored 0.8% fewer fantasy points per target than his teammates.  SD's QB rate jumped 4.2% when targeting Allen.  Allen lined up in the slot on 38% of his snaps (Landry - 47%).   

Something doesn't add up here. If 70% of his targets were catchable and he only dropped 4, then why is his catch rate so low? Also, I'd argue Keenan's WR/TE teammates are better than Hopkins'. I'm seeing that Keenan had 3 drops. Where did you get catchable targets, btw?

So many holes.  Again, nobody is arguing that garbage time isn't good for fantasy production.  I'm arguing that bad QB play is bad for fantasy production, even taking that into account. 

No, there aren't so many holes. I've never argued against your point that bad QB play is bad for fantasy production. You, however, did seem to disagree with me that a large amount of TB targets in recent history should be considered when looking to the future.

You asked, and I quote, "Do you have anything tangible to support your stance on garbage time production?"

Thus, I went through this exercise. I finish the exercise and suddenly "nobody is arguing that garbage time isn't good for fantasy production."

 

[Concept Coop]

Something doesn't add up here. If 70% of his targets were catchable and he only dropped 4, then why is his catch rate so low? Also, I'd argue Keenan's WR/TE teammates are better than Hopkins'. I'm seeing that Keenan had 3 drops. Where did you get catchable targets, btw?

Catchable target is measured by radius alone, the criteria is loose relative to the criteria for defining a drop.  If a target is such that the player can make a play, but it is not reasonable to expect him to come down with it, it is scored as a catchable target, but not a drop.  

Yes, LAR has better weapons that HOU, which is why Hopkins sees so many double teams.  

Playerpofiler.com

You asked, and I quote, "Do you have anything tangible to support your stance on garbage time production?"

Thus, I went through this exercise. I finish the exercise and suddenly "nobody is arguing that garbage time isn't good for fantasy production."

Your greater stance that garbage time production is less of an indicator of future production, or talent, than non garbage time production.  Again, I never argued that garbage time isn't good for fantasy production.  Just that bad QB play is bad for it.  Show me that Hopkins' fantasy production is likely to dip if put in a better NFL situation.  Yes, the garbage time production will slow, but the target quality will increase.  

 

[FF Ninja]

My apologies if I wasn't clear.  My argument is that bad QB play is bad for fantasy production.  

Actually, I feel like the way it went was:

CC: Hopkins = dynasty WR1

FFN: I feel like Hopkins is the beneficiary of a lot of garbage time and will fall back to earth in the coming years.

CC: please support your stance on garbage time

FFN: provides data

CC: changes topic to bad QB play

Put the garbage time stats away for just a minute, and show me that bad QB play is good for fantasy production.  If your thesis is correct, you should be able to prove it without using garbage time splits.  It should display itself in the gross production. 

This is a non sequitur:  Garbage time is good > bad QB play leads to garbage time > bad QB play is good.  

Edit: Yes, garbage time is a benefit of playing with a bad QB.  Playing with a bad QB is still a net negative.

My thesis was never that bad QB play is good for fantasy production. My concern was that Hopkins will get fewer targets if his team gets better and that targets while not trailing big will be worth less, thus resulting in fewer targets and lower points per target. It is known that trailing = more passing. My thesis was that targets while trailing big result in more fantasy points than other targets. The early data supports my thesis. I don't know why you are trying to change the thesis.

I think you know you are being overly simplistic when you imply that garbage time is the direct result of playing with a bad QB. We both know there are tons of reasons why a team could find itself playing from behind. Bad coaching, turnovers, bad defense, leaky offensive line, bad special teams, etc. Bad QB play is merely one of the many factors. 

 

[Concept Coop]

Actually, I feel like the way it went was:

CC: Hopkins = dynasty WR1

FFN: I feel like Hopkins is the beneficiary of a lot of garbage time and will fall back to earth in the coming years.

CC: please support your stance on garbage time

FFN: provides data

CC: changes topic to bad QB play

Show me this.  Please.  Show me that the decline in garbage time will offset the increase in target quality.  

It is known that trailing = more passing.

LAR had 58 more passing attempts, 67 more completions, and 1,153 more yards passing yards than HOU did this year.  Houston was 23rd in attempts, 28th in completions, and 21st in passing yards.  How much do you expect those to drop once the offense starts playing better? 

My thesis was that targets while trailing big result in more fantasy points than other targets.

If that was the point you were trying to make, then we are 100% on the same page.  I never argued against that. 

 

[FF Ninja]

Catchable target is measured by radius alone, the criteria is loose relative to the criteria for defining a drop.  If a target is such that the player can make a play, but it is not reasonable to expect him to come down with it, it is scored as a catchable target, but not a drop.  

Yes, LAR has better weapons that HOU, which is why Hopkins sees so many double teams.  

Playerpofiler.com

Your greater stance that garbage time production is less of an indicator of future production, or talent, than non garbage time production.  Again, I never argued that garbage time isn't good for fantasy production.  Just that bad QB play is bad for it.  Show me that Hopkins' fantasy production is likely to dip if put in a better NFL situation.  Yes, the garbage time production will slow, but the target quality will increase.  

Ah, that's right. I forgot playerprofiler had that number. I knew I'd seen it somewhere. Speaking of sites, I was trying to find some data on which receivers got double teamed the most (couldn't find it), and stumbled on this: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/wr

Kind of interesting. Worth a glance.

I'll have to think about how I could achieve the last part. I really don't know right now. I think it is clear that TB targets carry a premium value but it's also clear that targets vary in value by QB play. It's possible that things could go either way for Hopkins. The difference could be negligible or an increase in QB play with a decrease in TB targets could feasibly still be a net negative. Or it could be a positive. I really don't know. But one thing that is clear is that there will be fewer targets if the team as a whole (not just QB) improve from terrible status. That alone should be a red flag.

 

[Concept Coop]

But one thing that is clear is that there will be fewer targets if the team as a whole (not just QB) improve from terrible status. That alone should be a red flag.

That's far from a given.  Again, the Texans were 23rd in passing attempts, 28th in completions, and 21st in yards.  

But I think we've both made our points.  Maybe we should move on.  The good news is that if Watson is for real, we'll find out soon enough. 

 

[FF Ninja]

Show me this.  Please.  Show me that the decline in garbage time will offset the increase in target quality.  

LAR had 58 more passing attempts, 67 more completions, and 1,153 more yards passing yards than HOU did this year.  Houston was 23rd in attempts, 28th in completions, and 21st in passing yards.  How much do you expect those to drop once the offense starts playing better? 

If that was the point you were trying to make, then we are 100% on the same page.  I never argued against that. 

I believe my quote was that I expect 150 targets. It would take a large increase in quality of target to offset a loss of 24 targets, especially if that reduction is in valuable TB targets, from 52 to a reasonable 28. But like I said in my reply that I wrote while you were writing that one, I haven't thought of a way to numerically represent quality of target, nor could I predict what the Houston quality of targets will be in 2018 and beyond. I guess we'll have to just look back on it and see if he's able to achieve 1.79 ppt in 2018 (and receives 174 targets again). The 52 targets at 2.10 ppt while trailing big were a boon to his production. That's clear. How many of those he'll have in 2018 and how he fares on the non-TB targets will be interesting as well as the overall total targets. If I could give you definitive proof of exactly what will happen in 2018, I'd be a prophet and would have better things to do than play fantasy football.

Wasn't LAR the most effective offense in the NFL? Why are you choosing them for this comparison? Maybe the Rams led a hurry up offense and Houston was just slow at the line. My thinking is that the Texans are going to be much better at defense in 2018 than 2017. They'd also like to run the ball more effectively, I'm sure. Also, keep in mind Houston was missing all their TEs and their not-so-good WR2 for a large portion of the year.

On the third point, I'm expecting 2018 to bring fewer targets and a lower ppt. Can't prove it to you beyond a shadow of a doubt, but that was always my logic on why I don't want any part of Hopkins at his current valuation.

 

[FF Ninja]

That's far from a given.  Again, the Texans were 23rd in passing attempts, 28th in completions, and 21st in yards.  

But I think we've both made our points.  Maybe we should move on.  The good news is that if Watson is for real, we'll find out soon enough. 

That's a good point. But if everyone else is healthy and they're playing from behind less, I do think Hopkins targets will decrease from 174.

Yes, I'm down to move on. Really didn't want to get into so much detail about one player in a thread about all RB and WR dynasty rankings. You kept digging and it's your thread, so I figured I'd keep answering as best I could.

ETA: still wary about Watson - largely because I have no faith in Rick Smith and that trade seemed like a total desperation move on his part. Will be exciting to see if we witnessed a 7 game mirage or if he's the real deal. Remember when Washington fans thought RG3 was their franchise QB? 

 

[Concept Coop]

That's a good point. But if everyone else is healthy and they're playing from behind less, I do think Hopkins targets will decrease from 174.

Yes, I'm down to move on. Really didn't want to get into so much detail about one player in a thread about all RB and WR dynasty rankings. You kept digging and it's your thread, so I figured I'd keep answering as best I could.

I enjoyed the debate and appreciate your research.  A lot of it was really interesting.  

 

[Concept Coop]

...I just feel a lot more comfortable about Zeke maintaining his stud status long-term than Kamara, and am willing to give up some value to secure that.  I'd rather count on Zeke being the 80th (made up number ) workhorse back to maintain elite production long-term than count on Kamara being the 1st pass-catching back to do it.

I missed this the first time around, but just wanted to point out that I think this is perfectly reasonable.  I'd also agree that Kamara looks smaller than most guys under 6' who weigh in at 215.  FTR, I'd likely add the 1.09 to Kamara for Zeke; without question if not for the DV strike.  I'd certainly do it for Gurley.  

Not my intention to re-open a can of worms, but can we think of anyone in Kamara's situation who didn't go on to get a crack as the main back?  Plenty did and failed, which we can't rule out for Kamara, but even smaller guys like Reggie and Spiller got a shot.  I'm sure I'm forgetting someone, but can't think of anyone off the top of my head.  

 

[FreeBaGeL]

My apologies if I wasn't clear.  My argument is that bad QB play is bad for fantasy production.  Put the garbage time stats away for just a minute, and show me that bad QB play is good for fantasy production.  If your thesis is correct, you should be able to prove it without using garbage time splits.  It should display itself in the gross production. 

This is a non sequitur:  Garbage time is good > bad QB play leads to garbage time > bad QB play is good.  

Edit: Yes, garbage time is a benefit of playing with a bad QB.  Playing with a bad QB is still a net negative. 

Bad QB play doesn't always lead to garbage time.  Blake Bortles is a bad QB.  An even worse one than he was in 2015.  But the Jags had a lot less garbage time this year.

Obviously in a dream scenario every WR on our fantasy teams would be catching balls from Aaron Rodgers, but a bad enough team that is capable of cleaning up in garbage time is another pretty good path to fantasy success at times.  There are multiple ways to get there.

Though if you're looking for how bad QBs can still put together good fantasy performances through garbage time, look no further than that 3 of the top 5 scoring WRs in PPR this year were catching balls from Blaine Gabbert, Drew Stanton, Jay Cutler, Matt Moore, and Tom Savage.

Regardless, personally when I watch Hopkins I see an elite player so I am not as worried as FF Ninja.  His catch radius and body control pop off the screen to me.

 

[Concept Coop]

Bad QB play doesn't always lead to garbage time.  Blake Bortles is a bad QB.  An even worse one than he was in 2015.  But the Jags had a lot less garbage time this year.

Obviously in a dream scenario every WR on our fantasy teams would be catching balls from Aaron Rodgers, but a bad enough team that is capable of cleaning up in garbage time is another pretty good path to fantasy success at times.  There are multiple ways to get there.

Though if you're looking for how bad QBs can still put together good fantasy performances through garbage time, look no further than that 3 of the top 5 scoring WRs in PPR this year were catching balls from Blaine Gabbert, Drew Stanton, Jay Cutler, Matt Moore, and Tom Savage.

Regardless, personally when I watch Hopkins I see an elite player so I am not as worried as FF Ninja.  His catch radius and body control pop off the screen to me.

Certainly true, but I'd argue there is a strong correlation between garbage time and QB play.  Good point.  You're certainly right that the dream scenario is GB, NO, NE when their defenses are bad.  And I'll even grant that things would have been worse for Hopkins if his defense was a lot better.  But I still balk at the idea that his awful QB/offense situation was a net positive. 

The Texans weren't blown out once in Watson's 6 starts, went 3-3, and even had a couple lopsided wins.  Hopkins' PPG was higher during that span than outside of it.  

But I'm curious, would you rather have your fantasy WRs in Hopkins' 17 situation or Allen's 17 situation?  

 

[knole]

I am sure I just can’t find it.   Where do I find footballguys updated dynasty rankings?  I have looked everywhere on the site.  

 

[Concept Coop]

I am sure I just can’t find it.   Where do I find footballguys updated dynasty rankings?  I have looked everywhere on the site.  

Forecast > Rankings > Dynasty

 

[SayWhat?]

I am sure I just can’t find it.   Where do I find footballguys updated dynasty rankings?  I have looked everywhere on the site.  

You typically don't.  

Otherwise, they're here.

 

[Andrew74]

I’ve tried to follow this Hopkins debate. I do have a question to pose. Nuk gets lots of garbage time stats. If Watson improves HOU’s QB play and the garbage time targets drop but quality targets improve, how much will Nuk benefit?  One negative that many have on Nuk is he can’t seperate. If coverage is tighter in non-garbage time, can he step up?  Lots of ifs and so, and maybe it all comes down to if you think Nuk is elite like Julio, AB, AJG, etc. 

 

[knole]

Thanks guys that’s is where I looked but it hadn’t been updated in over a month.  I guess I will just wait.

 

[thriftyrocker]

It seems your rankings were before Robby Anderson's arrest. I'm kind of torn on how it affects him. On one hand he isn't good enough to catch many breaks. On the other hand it's mild enough with a good lawyer it should be pleaed down to something inconsequential to his career. It's not enough for me to bail on him below value, but it's enough I would take a lot of guys over him, including Goodwin, Westbrook, Thomas to cherry pick a few.

The ESPN ranking on Fuller (51 overall) gave me pause that maybe I was underrating him if I believe Watson should continue to be successful. But then looking at him again, it kind of put me back into thinking he's right where you have him at WR4 prices. And noted ESPN is also way too high on Stills (65 overall) for what he is - similar upside issues. I'm not sure how I feel about him compared to the other WR4s, though. Probably worth getting a few shares using high 2nds, or as soon as the RBs I like are off the board.

 

[Concept Coop]

I’ve tried to follow this Hopkins debate. I do have a question to pose. Nuk gets lots of garbage time stats. If Watson improves HOU’s QB play and the garbage time targets drop but quality targets improve, how much will Nuk benefit?  One negative that many have on Nuk is he can’t seperate. If coverage is tighter in non-garbage time, can he step up?  Lots of ifs and so, and maybe it all comes down to if you think Nuk is elite like Julio, AB, AJG, etc. 

Nuk scored more with Watson than Savage/Yates, despite significantly less garbage time.  As a dynasty owner, I see Watson as a good thing for Nuk in general, assuming he's legit.  

I don't get into projections much, and I certainly don't think it's safe to project his 2017 TD rate moving forward, but I feel good expecting high-to-mid WR1 numbers moving forward.  With the exception of Brown, that's all you can ask for.  

 

[Concept Coop]

It seems your rankings were before Robby Anderson's arrest. I'm kind of torn on how it affects him. On one hand he isn't good enough to catch many breaks. On the other hand it's mild enough with a good lawyer it should be pleaed down to something inconsequential to his career. It's not enough for me to bail on him below value, but it's enough I would take a lot of guys over him, including Goodwin, Westbrook, Thomas to cherry pick a few.

The ESPN ranking on Fuller (51 overall) gave me pause that maybe I was underrating him if I believe Watson should continue to be successful. But then looking at him again, it kind of put me back into thinking he's right where you have him at WR4 prices. And noted ESPN is also way too high on Stills (65 overall) for what he is - similar upside issues. I'm not sure how I feel about him compared to the other WR4s, though. Probably worth getting a few shares using high 2nds, or as soon as the RBs I like are off the board.

Good, tough question on Robby.  His value certainly took a hit, but I haven't really put much thought in how much it should impact his value.  While it may not keep him off the field this year, it's points at a pattern of behavior that should be concerning.  I will say that I was considering an offer of my 1.10 +/- a bit for him, but have no interest in that now.

I think I was overvaluing Fuller at one point this season, but he looked really good for a stretch.  Even ignoring the crazy TD rate that has no chance of holding, he was a tough cover this year.  I think an early 2nd sounds about right.  The ceiling is a concern, as you point out, but I can see 70/960/8 if Watson is legit. 

 

[Zyphros]

Good, tough question on Robby.  His value certainly took a hit, but I haven't really put much thought in how much it should impact his value.  While it may not keep him off the field this year, it's points at a pattern of behavior that should be concerning.  I will say that I was considering an offer of my 1.10 +/- a bit for him, but have no interest in that now.

Just wanted to add that I had a standing offer of Jordy and 3.10 for Robby (the guy who owns Robby doesn't have any picks).  Not a great offer of mine honestly, but figured it was worth mentioning in discussions about Anderson.  I revoked that offer the second I heard about the arrest.  

 

[FF Ninja]

I’ve tried to follow this Hopkins debate. I do have a question to pose. Nuk gets lots of garbage time stats. If Watson improves HOU’s QB play and the garbage time targets drop but quality targets improve, how much will Nuk benefit?  One negative that many have on Nuk is he can’t seperate. If coverage is tighter in non-garbage time, can he step up?  Lots of ifs and so, and maybe it all comes down to if you think Nuk is elite like Julio, AB, AJG, etc. 

The question none of us can answer is how much of an improvement is Watson going to be? Will he regress in year 2 ala RG3? He was averaging 8.3 YPA and had a TD rate of 9.3%. These things almost certainly won't happen again, but they did contribute to Hopkins nice stats with Watson. He threw 19 TDs in 6.5 games and Hopkins caught 7 of them. That TD rate is likely unsustainable for both of them.

So projections are not a great tool for all things, but they can help flush out what to reasonably expect. I'd suggest setting your own expected targets, then use an expected catch rate (if Watson is an improvement, Hopkins catch rate should increase from 55%), select a reasonable YPR, and then pick a TD rate. Keep in mind, WR catch rate (especially an outside WR) is usually lower than QB completion rate (TE and RB should be higher). 

If I'm doing that exercise, I'm picking 150 x 58% = 87 x 14 ypr = 1218 yds and I'd go with 11 rec/TD (fairly aggressive), yielding 87/1218/8. 

But the problem with projections is that there are a lot of moving parts and they don't capture upside or downside. 

FWIW, rec/TD rates in 2017: Hopkins-7.4, AB-11.2, Julio-29.3, Keenan-17, AJG-9.4, MThomas-20.8 (Hopkins '15 - 10.1, Hopkins 16' - 19.5)

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I feel like the Watson to Hopkins connection isn't as much of a matter of garbage time as it is that Watson knows how to put Hopkins in a position to make a play where other QBs wouldn't give the chance. It's not a quantifiable thing but it is observable.

He doesn't throw it up for grabs but puts the ball in a place where either Hopkins makes the play or it's incomplete. Other QBs wouldn't even make the throw.

 

[Hankmoody]

I don't buy into the garbage time argument at all.  You know why AB doesn't get a lot of garbage points?  Because they score more points earlier in the game.  And when they don't, AB will get garbage points.  That could be a Geico commercial.  That goes for any WR.  If HOU scored more points earlier in the game then yes, Hopkins would lose some garbage points - but he'd already have non-garbage points by virtue of HOU having scored earlier.  It's a huge strawman position.  If the guy is scoring the guy is scoring, period.  The only concern I have is if someone better comes along or if someone worse throws him the football - but even then he's pretty immune.  Even with as awful as Brockweilier was and with as painful as a few games where, Hopkins still finished 2016 at WR35 in PPR.  That's a high-end WR3 in 16 man and solid WR3 in 12 man.  We've seen "busts" do much, much worse.  If that's his floor, with his ceiling, I'll start 3 copies of him all day long.

 

[FF Ninja]

I don't buy into the garbage time argument at all.  You know why AB doesn't get a lot of garbage points?  Because they score more points earlier in the game.  And when they don't, AB will get garbage points.  That could be a Geico commercial.  That goes for any WR.  If HOU scored more points earlier in the game then yes, Hopkins would lose some garbage points - but he'd already have non-garbage points by virtue of HOU having scored earlier.  It's a huge strawman position.  If the guy is scoring the guy is scoring, period.  The only concern I have is if someone better comes along or if someone worse throws him the football - but even then he's pretty immune.  Even with as awful as Brockweilier was and with as painful as a few games where, Hopkins still finished 2016 at WR35 in PPR.  That's a high-end WR3 in 16 man and solid WR3 in 12 man.  We've seen "busts" do much, much worse.  If that's his floor, with his ceiling, I'll start 3 copies of him all day long.

You're really missing it. If what you're saying is true then the targets would all have the same value. You just score points whenever you score points and the score of the game doesn't matter. However, the numbers don't show that to be true. We all know that, generally speaking, teams run more when ahead and throw more when behind. But now I've shown that those targets when trailing big are actually scoring more fantasy points than the targets when not trailing big. It's not a straw man at all.

I mean, you're free to ignore the data and draft with your gut, but don't call it a straw man and don't try to make something simple just because you want it to be simple. "If the guy is scoring, the guy is scoring." No! Not that simple when trying to project years ahead. If the guy is scoring a large % of his points while trailing big, more thought is required.

 

[Hankmoody]

You're really missing it. If what you're saying is true then the targets would all have the same value. You just score points whenever you score points and the score of the game doesn't matter. However, the numbers don't show that to be true. We all know that, generally speaking, teams run more when ahead and throw more when behind. But now I've shown that those targets when trailing big are actually scoring more fantasy points than the targets when not trailing big. It's not a straw man at all.

I mean, you're free to ignore the data and draft with your gut, but don't call it a straw man and don't try to make something simple just because you want it to be simple. "If the guy is scoring, the guy is scoring." No! Not that simple when trying to project years ahead. If the guy is scoring a large % of his points while trailing big, more thought is required.

You spent 15 minutes looking at 4 guys and call that "the numbers"?  That discussion looks a lot more like someone fitting a very small sample size into a box that supports their narrative than a study.  That's a self-fulfilling prophecy - "let's look at guys with big garbage points and see what % of their points came during garbage time".   And the nTB ppt isn't very meaningful - 1.73 vs. 1.66 would only yield 10.5 points on 150 targets. 

The TB ppt is an interesting data point, you may be onto something there.  How did you define it and where did you get it from?  I may be much more interested with a proper sample size.

 

[FF Ninja]

You spent 15 minutes looking at 4 guys and call that "the numbers"?  That discussion looks a lot more like someone fitting a very small sample size into a box that supports their narrative than a study.  That's a self-fulfilling prophecy - "let's look at guys with big garbage points and see what % of their points came during garbage time".   And the nTB ppt isn't very meaningful - 1.73 vs. 1.66 would only yield 10.5 points on 150 targets. 

The TB ppt is an interesting data point, you may be onto something there.  How did you define it and where did you get it from?  I may be much more interested with a proper sample size.

Scroll down that page (page 4 I think). I did a lot more digging later. I chose guys via data dominator that had large numbers of targets while trailing big (not large fantasy production while trailing big) in order to avoid the self fulfilling prophecy while still maintaining a reasonable sample (10-15 garbage time targets don't make for a compelling sample). I also picked a few top performers and ran the numbers for them. The TB target samples were smaller for those player, so less meaningful, but still interesting to look at. Most of the top performers had less than 30 TB targets while the other selection of players had at least 45 TB targets, I think.

As for TB ppt, I just used data from FBG's splits and plugged them into an excel sheet. I had 3 lines. The year's targets, rec, yds, catch %, ypr, rec/TD, ppr points, and pts/target. Then I had a line for the same stats while trailing big and then I subtracted line 2 from line 1 to get non-TB stats. In most cases, TB ppt was quite a bit more than non-TB ppt. Typically at least 2 of the 3 major fantasy factors changed favorably: catch rate increased, YPR increase, rec/TD decreased.

I can throw some more guys into the spreadsheet if you have a few requests. There are exceptions to the rule if you dig hard enough. Garcon in 2013 was one of them, but clearly the negative game script at least allowed for him to set a career high in targets which still led to him aggregating some good numbers even if his efficiency strangely went down while trailing big. Other exceptions I found were Pryor in 2016 and Landry in 2015. Their ppt was almost flat between nTB and TB (only 0.02 favoring TB), however this can mostly be explained by the fact that they only managed 1 TD each while TB, despite over a third of their targets coming in that scenario. Even while TB, touchdowns can be a fickle b****.

 

[Hankmoody]

I don't use DD - does it track data like scoring delta on every play?

 

[FF Ninja]

yes

 

[Biabreakable]

I think its interesting considering Watsons effect on the Texans offense and how that will likely benefit Hopkins and Fuller.

I was not much of a fan of Fuller as a rookie prospect. However I think Andy makes a very good point about Watson being able to put the ball where only Hopkins or Fuller can make a play on it. Its a safe throw and a calculated risk that gives the receivers more opportunity than a lesser QB would give them to make plays.

The only real threat to passing volume from a game script perspective is if the Texans are able to run the ball more effectively in years ahead, which could cause the total passing attempts to decline and therefore the total targets for the receivers. The per target numbers would likely be improved on less volume due to the defense being more focused on stopping the run, play action and just a bit more surprise factor.

The Texans have run the ball quite a bit relative to other teams despite being in negative game scripts more often. I do think there is something to if the Texans start playing better defense, (healthy personnel such as Watt and Clowney helping that) that they might not run as many offensive plays as they have been, this also goes both ways though that turnovers and more effective third downs may give the offense more opportunities.

The total offense the last 3 seasons

2017 525 pass attempts 448 rushing attempts
2016 583 pass attempts 456 rushing attempts
2015 619 pass attempts 472 rushing attempts

As it turns out the Texans threw the ball the least amount of times in 2017 than they have the previous two seasons. I would expect the attempts to progress towards the 3 year average of 576. So 550 pass attempts would be the average of 2017 and the 3 year average, as a median range projection for pass attempts. Going up slightly from last season.

The stats for the two WRs

2017 15 games Hopkins 174 targets 96 receptions 1378 yards 13 TD 14.4 ypr catch rate 55.2%
2016 16 games Hopkins 151 targets 78 receptions 954 yards 4 TD 12.2 ypr catch raate 51.7%
2015 16 games Hopkins 192 targets 111 receptions 1521 yards 11 TD 13.7 ypr catch rate 57.8%

Hopkins targets actually went up despite him missing a game in 2017 and the team having the fewest number of pass attempts of their last 3 seasons.

Hopkins catch rate, yards per reception both improved towards 2015 level last season. His 11.6 targets per game would be 186 over 16 games. As you see when I lay out the QBs later in this post, 14 games of Brock Osweiler is going to be an improvement, even if the QB is Tom Savage or Brian Hoyer. For projections Hopkins floor looks like 150 targets and that is volume that makes a WR one a very safe bet. The TD numbers actually improved from 2015 making double digit TD for Hopkins seem more likely in my view than with other WR.

2017 10 games Fuller 50 targets 28 receptions 423 yards 7 TD 15.1 ypr catch rate 51.1%
2016 14 games Fuller 92 targets 47 receptions 625 yards 1 TD 13.5 ypr catch raate 56.0%

Fuller actually regressed in terms of games played, targets per game and catch rate. He had a string of 4 games when returning from injury where he scored 6 TDs before being hurt again. All of those games were with Watson as the QB. Which is very promising if Fuller is able to stay healthy for all of the 2018 season along with Watson.

2017

Deshaun Watson 7 games 204 pass attempts 61.8% completion rate 1699 yards 19 TD 8 INT 8.3 ypa 19 sacks
Tom Savage 8 games 223 pass attempts 56.1% completion rate 1412 yards 5 TD 6 INT 6.3 ypa 21 sacks
TJ Yates 4 games 97 pass attempts 48.5% completion rate 4 TD 3 INT 5.4 ypa 13 sacks

2016

Brock Osweiler 15 games 510 pass attempts 59% completion rate 2957 yards 15 TD 16 INT 5.8 ypa 27 sacks
Tom Savage 3 games 73 pass attempts 63% completion rate 461 yards 0 TD 0 INT 6.3 ypa 5 sacks

2015

Brian Hoyer 11 games 369 pass attempts 60.7% completion rate 2606 yards 18 TD 7 INT 7.1 ypa 25 sacks
Ryan Mallet 6 games 147 pass attempts 53.1% completion rate 770 yards 3 TD 4 INT 5.2 ypa 4 sacks
TJ Yates 4 games 57 pass attempts 49.1% completion rate 370 yards 3 TD 0 INT 6.5 ypa 5 sacks
Brandon Weeden 2 games 42 pass attempts 61.9% completion rate 305 yards 3 TD 0 INT 7.3 ypa 2 sacks
 

As you can see from these numbers Watson was by far the most effective QB the Texans have started over the last 3 years. As a rookie, I would expect some of Watsons numbers to improve, such as his completion rate and perhaps fewer sacks as he gains experience. Considering that most of Hopkins QB play has been below average, although Hoyer was not too bad in 2015 with his 11 games, I would expect Hopkins efficiency stats to go up, even if the targets do come down, and coming down for Hopkins is still likely 150 targets anyways.

I think Will Fuller stands to gain a lot more value from Watson than Hopkins does, mainly because Hopkins is already at the top of WRs right now. Fuller still obviously has a lot to prove.

 

[Boston]

Rankings assume 12 Tm - 1.0 PPR - QRRWWWTF

Thoughts and are welcome.

Fantastic thread...how about giving us your QB and TE rankings...lot of guys to talk about...I'm particularly intrigued by the young QBs...Wentz, Watson, Goff and Jimmy G are all guys I think have a chance to put up real big #'s for an extended period of time...all 4 are in great situations... 

 

[battlestar]

Biabreakable, you are spectacular.