I would bet you the house right now that Hunter has a better and longer career. Seems like a good bet to me....
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Dynasty Rankings (7 Viewers)
- Thread starter Fear & Loathing
- Start date
Concept Coop
Footballguy
I don't play in point per inch leagues. Pardon my ignorance on the subject and thanks for your insight. Unfortunately, I have nothing more to contribute on the subject.
Have you ever played one on one basketball with a smaller person? Physical domination occurs. Tavon does not have that as part of his game. Justin Hunter brings that advantage with Olympic type speed and jumping ability....I will bet on that all day! You can try and hit a straight flush with a guy like Tavon. Straight flushes are hard to hit. It's easier to win with three of a kind....
Hunter - three of a kind in your hand
Tavon - a straight flush draw
Why take that risk...???
Last edited by a moderator:
Concept Coop
Footballguy
I'm really done with the conversation, and apologize to the people that had to read it. But, because I'm petty, I just wanted to point out that saying something doesn't make it true. Look up the US Olympic track roster, their personal bests, and tell me where Hunter fits in. Via PM, because nobody else cares at this point.
1) he doesn't have Olympic speed
2) Charles Johnson should've been a 1st round pick on your board, right?
Bunch of over-respectful nose in the air goody goodys on this board.
Get a set and have a take. This is what people want to read. That is what I want to read and why I come here.
As a junior in high school in 2009, Hunter won the state title in both the long jump, and high jump. As a senior in 2010, he won the state title in the long jump, high jump and triple jump. Hunter was the 2010 USA junior national champion in the long jump, and represented the USA at the 2010 IAAF World Junior Championships.[3] Hunter also specialized in the 100 meter and 200 meter.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
Cam owners worried that he's not getting the GL touches anymore? I think he can make those points up through the air, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a little concerned, short term.
As a junior in high school in 2009, Hunter won the state title in both the long jump, and high jump. As a senior in 2010, he won the state title in the long jump, high jump and triple jump. Hunter was the 2010 USA junior national champion in the long jump, and represented the USA at the 2010 IAAF World Junior Championships.[3] Hunter also specialized in the 100 meter and 200 meter.
1) you're changing "thin college resume" to major college football to receptions. A bit unfair.
2) (this is all from memory) Patterson for 3 straight years went over 800 yards receiving + hundreds of rushing yards + return yards. Pretty good resume
3) he set an sec record during his only year in the sec...that's a thin resume?
Hunter was barely a 1,000 yard receiver, and only had 1,800 lifetime. To compare:
Tavon Austin- 1900 yards single season, 4400 lifetime
DeAndre Hopkins- 1400 single season, 3000 lifetime
Cordarrelle Patterson- 1000 single season, 1000 lifetime
Robert Woods- 1300 single season, 3000 lifetime
Aaron Dobson- 700 single season, 2400 lifetime
Terrance Williams- 1800 single season, 3300 lifetime
Keenan Allen- 1400 single season, 2800 lifetime
Marquise Goodwin- 600 single season, 1800 lifetime
Markus Wheaton- 1400 single season, 3600 lifetime
Stedman Bailey- 1600 single season, 3200 lifetime
Other than Patterson, Dobson, and Goodwin (a track star), most guys in the first three rounds had nearly as many yards in a single season as Hunter did in his three year career. No matter how you slice it, it was a very light resume for a top-40 pick.
Hunter tore his ACL at Tennessee.... The stats don't always tell the whole story...
EBF
Footballguy
Meh. He had 400 yards and 7 TDs as a freshman. Only played in 3 games as a sophomore due to injury (averaged 100+ yards in those three games). Came back and had 1000+ as a junior the next year. Skipped town after that. Of the guys you listed, many of them were four year players (Bailey, Wheaton, Austin, Williams, Dobson). Comparing two years of production with four years of production =
.
This is right on the money. Moreover, even the comps that control for draft position rely on the NFL remaining static. Let's say a guy crunches the numbers and discovers that the NFL underrates the importance of the 3-cone drill when evaluating prospects. That's great, that gives us useful information... but the NFL employs teams of stat guys poring over the same data. How long do you think you have before one of them discovers the same thing? How long until the market reacts to close the inefficiency? And when the market does that, you're going to be left holding the bag, overdrafting a bunch of receivers with impressive 3-cone times. Same thing happened in baseball. The Oakland A's made a killing for years because they identified that the market was undervaluing on-base percentage. The market found out about it, corrected, and the Oakland A's lost their advantage. Suddenly, a team with the best record in baseball was stringing together a bunch of losing seasons again.
People being what they are, and cognitive biases being what they are, I'm sure there are traits and attributes that are currently undervalued and overvalued in the NFL draft. People being what they are, I'm sure there are lots of smart guys out there who can find these inefficiencies. The NFL market being what it is, I think a lot of those inefficiencies will be prone to closing without warning, leaving these smart guys holding the bag. Russell Wilson demonstrated that short quarterbacks might be underrated. How confident are we that the next short quarterback will still be underrated after the league has seen Wilson's success?
I agree as well. I wrote about it last year. NFL priorities are not necessarily fantasy priorities, and we have to adjust for that.
As for the 6'4" Center example... Chuck Hayes had himself a pretty good run at 6'6". I think if we found a guy who was dramatically smarter, faster, more athletic, more coordinated, more technically sound, with better leaping ability and longer arms, but 2 inches shorter, you mean to tell me that guy couldn't succeed? I mean, granted, he'd have to be literally off the charts in pretty much every other category for a team to burn a lottery pick on him, but isn't that kind of the point? If a team drafted a 6'4" center in the lottery, wouldn't that practically guarantee that he's literally off the charts in every other category?
If anything, it seems like short players should be less susceptible to broken bones, since their bones will be shorter. Less exposed area to hit. Less distance between the center of the bone and the joint, which means a shorter lever, which means more force required to move it the certain number of degrees necessary to cause it to fracture. I would imagine, at least.
I don't think it's all that unfair. JUCO prospects get dinged for quality-of-competition concerns, just like Division II guys. 900 yards receiving and hundreds of rushing yards at the JUCO level just isn't that overwhelming, especially when we're comparing him to guys who had 1600+ yard seasons in BCS conferences.
As for his record... yes, you can set an SEC record and still have a thin resume, especially when your "record" is "combined kickoff and punt return average". First off, why on earth would anyone ever combine kickoff and punt return averages? They're completely different plays, with completely different standards of success. A guy who averaged 15 yards per punt return would be the best punt returner in the nation. A guy who averaged 15 yards per kickoff return would be the worst kickoff returner in the nation. So if someone had a 15 yard "combined kickoff and punt return average", that would either tell me they were the world's best punt returner, the world's worst kickoff returner, or both, or neither. In other words, it would tell me absolutely nothing. Second off, as people keep pointing out, special teams is great for the NFL, but for the majority of fantasy leagues, it means squat. Brandon Tate is the NCAA's career leader in return yards. That and fifty cents will buy you a can of soda.
Patterson got drafted high because of his measurables and his highlight reel, not because of his resume. His resume was a red flag to be overcome, not a point in his favor.
You're right. That was a really unfair comparison. In hindsight, I wish I had included something that was a bit more of a level playing field, like how many yards each guy got in his best single season, or something of that nature.Meh. He had 400 yards and 7 TDs as a freshman. Only played in 3 games as a sophomore due to injury (averaged 100+ yards in those three games). Came back and had 1000+ as a junior the next year. Skipped town after that. Of the guys you listed, many of them were four year players (Bailey, Wheaton, Austin, Williams, Dobson). Comparing two years of production with four years of production =
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
EBF
Footballguy
It's still super weak. For one thing, a player who only plays 2 seasons has fewer chances at a great season than a player who plays 4 seasons. Two lottery tickets compared to four. Secondly, players tend to progress in a linear pattern. It doesn't always work out this way, but in general if you look at a random NCAA prospect's career trajectory, you'll find that his best seasons come later in his career. Why? Because players develop and improve over time.You're right. That was a really unfair comparison. In hindsight, I wish I had included something that was a bit more of a level playing field, like how many yards each guy got in his best single season, or something of that nature.Meh. He had 400 yards and 7 TDs as a freshman. Only played in 3 games as a sophomore due to injury (averaged 100+ yards in those three games). Came back and had 1000+ as a junior the next year. Skipped town after that. Of the guys you listed, many of them were four year players (Bailey, Wheaton, Austin, Williams, Dobson). Comparing two years of production with four years of production =
Of the seniors you listed, 4 of the 6 had their best seasons as a senior. Tavon Austin, Stedman Bailey, Markus Wheaton, and Terrance Williams all improved their draft stock significantly with big senior seasons. What would Hunter have accomplished in his senior year? We'll never know because he never had a chance at a senior year. Based on the typical pattern, you'd estimate that he would've put up better numbers than his junior year, rendering the whole "best season of his career" thing a very different debate.
The idea that Hunter had serious production questions when his four years break down like this...
Freshman - Unproductive. Like most true freshmen.
Sophomore - Torn ACL in game 3. Averaged 100+ yards per game when healthy.
Junior - 1000+ yards.
Senior - Not in college.
...is pretty silly. He only really played two seasons. In one of those seasons, he was a true freshman. He had more yards in his true freshman season than Austin, Bailey, Wheaton, Goodwin, Williams, and Dobson. In the other season, he had 1000+ yards. It's probably fair to say he was productive when given the chance. So if you're going to say he had production questions, I think you might be confusing an "incomplete" with an "F." I don't believe in punishing players based on games they didn't play when I talk about their production. The durability is another matter, but that wasn't your initial point.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
I like my simple answer better. It says all the same things just with A LOT less typing!It's still super weak. For one thing, a player who only plays 2 seasons has fewer chances at a great season than a player who plays 4 seasons. Two lottery tickets compared to four. Secondly, players tend to progress in a linear pattern. It doesn't always work out this way, but in general if you look at a random NCAA prospect's career trajectory, you'll find that his best seasons come later in his career. Why? Because players develop and improve over time.You're right. That was a really unfair comparison. In hindsight, I wish I had included something that was a bit more of a level playing field, like how many yards each guy got in his best single season, or something of that nature.Meh. He had 400 yards and 7 TDs as a freshman. Only played in 3 games as a sophomore due to injury (averaged 100+ yards in those three games). Came back and had 1000+ as a junior the next year. Skipped town after that. Of the guys you listed, many of them were four year players (Bailey, Wheaton, Austin, Williams, Dobson). Comparing two years of production with four years of production =
Of the seniors you listed, 4 of the 6 had their best seasons as a senior. Tavon Austin, Stedman Bailey, Markus Wheaton, and Terrance Williams all improved their draft stock significantly with big senior seasons. What would Hunter have accomplished in his senior year? We'll never know because he never had a chance at a senior year. Based on the typical pattern, you'd estimate that he would've put up better numbers than his junior year, rendering the whole "best season of his career" thing a very different debate.
The idea that Hunter had serious production questions when his four years break down like this...
Freshman - Unproductive. Like most true freshmen.
Sophomore - Torn ACL in game 3. Averaged 100+ yards per game when healthy.
Junior - 1000+ yards.
Senior - Not in college.
...is pretty silly. He only really played two seasons. In one of those seasons, he was a true freshman. He had more yards in his true freshman season than Austin, Bailey, Wheaton, Goodwin, Williams, and Dobson. In the other season, he had 1000+ yards. It's probably fair to say he was productive when given the chance. So if you're going to say he had production questions, I think you might be confusing an "incomplete" with an "F." I don't believe in punishing players based on games they didn't play when I talk about their production. The durability is another matter, but that wasn't your initial point.
Hunter tore his ACL at Tennessee.... The stats don't always tell the whole story...
Rhythmdoctor
Footballguy
I have his combine weight at 195. After gaining his "man weight" I find it hard to believe he's lost 10 lbs as he's aged. There aren't many men, athletes or otherwise, who lose weight as they age unless they are overweight to begin with. It would certainly be an advantage for Welker and his team to skew his actual weight on the light side.
I'm not saying he was a bad prospect. I'm saying he had a light resume. You can't argue against that by presenting counterfactuals. Sure, if Stedman Bailey had left college a year earlier, his resume would have been crazy light, too... but he didn't, and it wasn't. Sure, if Justin Hunter had stayed a year longer, maybe he'd have put up a 2,000 yard receiving season and his resume wouldn't have been light. Justin Hunter didn't stay, though. He left early, and as a result his resume- the grand tally of all the things he did on a football field at the major college level- is extremely light when compared to the resumes of his peers by draft position. Justin Hunter had fewer catches than most guys drafted where he was drafted. He had fewer yards. He had fewer touchdowns. He played fewer games. There was less film on him. I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone could possibly argue otherwise.It's still super weak. For one thing, a player who only plays 2 seasons has fewer chances at a great season than a player who plays 4 seasons. Two lottery tickets compared to four. Secondly, players tend to progress in a linear pattern. It doesn't always work out this way, but in general if you look at a random NCAA prospect's career trajectory, you'll find that his best seasons come later in his career. Why? Because players develop and improve over time.You're right. That was a really unfair comparison. In hindsight, I wish I had included something that was a bit more of a level playing field, like how many yards each guy got in his best single season, or something of that nature.Meh. He had 400 yards and 7 TDs as a freshman. Only played in 3 games as a sophomore due to injury (averaged 100+ yards in those three games). Came back and had 1000+ as a junior the next year. Skipped town after that. Of the guys you listed, many of them were four year players (Bailey, Wheaton, Austin, Williams, Dobson). Comparing two years of production with four years of production =
Of the seniors you listed, 4 of the 6 had their best seasons as a senior. Tavon Austin, Stedman Bailey, Markus Wheaton, and Terrance Williams all improved their draft stock significantly with big senior seasons. What would Hunter have accomplished in his senior year? We'll never know because he never had a chance at a senior year. Based on the typical pattern, you'd estimate that he would've put up better numbers than his junior year, rendering the whole "best season of his career" thing a very different debate.
The idea that Hunter had serious production questions when his four years break down like this...
Freshman - Unproductive. Like most true freshmen.
Sophomore - Torn ACL in game 3. Averaged 100+ yards per game when healthy.
Junior - 1000+ yards.
Senior - Not in college.
...is pretty silly. He only really played two seasons. In one of those seasons, he was a true freshman. He had more yards in his true freshman season than Austin, Bailey, Wheaton, Goodwin, Williams, and Dobson. In the other season, he had 1000+ yards. It's probably fair to say he was productive when given the chance. So if you're going to say he had production questions, I think you might be confusing an "incomplete" with an "F." I don't believe in punishing players based on games they didn't play when I talk about their production. The durability is another matter, but that wasn't your initial point.
I'm not punishing Hunter for anything. I like Justin Hunter a lot. I've been arguing all season long that the only difference between Justin Hunter and Cordarrelle Patterson is about 3 rounds on the price tag. When Justin Hunter owners were hyperventilating early in the season when he was inactive, I was in the threads talking them off the ledges. I can like Justin Hunter and still make note of the inarguable fact that he had a light college resume. Just like I can like Tavon Austin and still make note of the inarguable fact that he's crazy small for a 1st round receiver.
EBF
Footballguy
But seeing as that's pretty easily explained by the fact that he wasn't on the football field as a sophomore or senior, I don't really get the significance of the observation. When he was on the field, he was productive. So the idea that he has a light resume only works if you're looking at total stats and not judging him based on what he did with the opportunities available to him. I am generally a big fan of assessing players based on the chances they get, not using the absence of chances as an argument for lack of performance. Total stats in absence of opportunity/health considerations are not a great way to compare production.
I kind of see where you're coming from. Part of the reason why I wasn't higher on Patterson is because he simply hadn't put a lot out there to evaluate at the major NCAA level as a one year player. However, you can't compare his career to a four year player like Wheaton or Williams when he was a one-and-done JUCO. Of course his numbers are never going to stack up. It's a meaningless observation.
ShaHBucks
Footballguy
Who's pimping Hunter as a SEC receiver? Against Florida, Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, Mississippi State and Vanderbilt -- Hunter averaged 4.5 receptions for 60.0 yards and 0.00 TDs per-game. Stop, he beat up on weak competition in college. He was not a game changer when the level of play dialed up.
Yes, you can very easily explain the fact that he had a light resume. The FACT that he had a light resume. Because the lightness of his resume is a FACT, and one which merits explanation. I know why Justin Hunter had a light resume, but just because I can explain it doesn't mean it wasn't light. It was. It was extremely light.
The significance of the observation is that a light resume is a red flag. It's much easier for a player to impress over a small sample size than it is for him to sustain it over a larger sample size. As a result, no observation about the size of the sample is ever meaningless. How many highly-regarded Juniors return to college their Senior year and see their draft stock plummet as scouts get more opportunity to see them on film? Brian Brohm, anyone? If Jamarcus Russell had played one more season, what are the odds he would have gone #1 overall? Or, to put it another way, one of two things are true. Either Justin Hunter is every bit as good of a player as he looked in limited action... or he's not as good as he looked, but we didn't get a chance to see his flaws because his exposure was limited. The more exposure he gets, the thicker his resume, the more likely the first is true and the less likely the second is true. If we could create a magical clone named, say, Schmustin Schmunter, and Schmustin returned for his Senior year and put up a massive season, I would posit that Schmustin was much more likely to be the real deal because we had a greater sample size to go on. Justin doesn't have that greater sample size. He has a very small sample size, and the smaller the sample, the less certain we can be that it presents a fair and accurate representation of his true ability level. That's a red flag. It's a risk. It's something that needs to be accounted for and priced.
It's something that's already baked into his draft position, though- if Hunter came back his senior year and looked just as good over a larger sample, I promise you he would have gone higher than 40th overall. Same with Patterson. If Patterson had that exact same quality of film with 200 career receptions, he wouldn't be going in the late 1st round, he'd be going in the early 1st round. That's the beauty of draft position- it gives us an estimate of a player's ability with all of these risks already priced in. It's not perfect, but as a single all-inclusive indicator, it has a lot of value. If I see two people with identical draft position, but one guy has a much thicker resume, then I'm automatically going to assume that the other guy must have some extra positives on his side of the ledger to offset that negative and keep their draft value roughly equal. The fact that Hunter and Patterson had such thin resumes is a risk, yes, but it also indicates the potential for huge rewards.
EBF
Footballguy
Or option #3, he's better than he looked because we never got a chance to see him at full health and peak development. That was what I was alluding to. Braylon Edwards was considered a late 1st rounder going into his senior season. He was ranked well behind Roy Williams, Larry Fitzgerald, and Reggie Williams. He went back to school instead of declaring with those guys, had a huge senior season, and jumped up all the way to pick #3 in a much weaker draft the next year. If he comes out as a junior, we never see that season.
If you want to have a smart conversation about Hunter's production, I think you've got to note that he missed most of his sophomore year and did not play in college as a senior. That isn't what you did. You compared him to 4 year seniors and acted like it meant something that he had fewer yards and a lower peak season. The only thing it meant is that he played fewer games and at a comparatively early stage in his development. It's a useless observation.
NFL evaluators (much like FF evaluators) have to be prepared to account for opportunity and the lack thereof. I don't think they would look at Hunter as a parallel case with a four year senior like Dobson, Williams, or Bailey and just count total stats to determine who had the best college career. Instead I think they would consider that Hunter was at an earlier stage of his development when he left college and that he missed almost an entire season with a serious injury (recovery from which might have slowed his junior year too). After accounting for those variables, maybe they would have said that he actually had more impressive production than any of the others. My guess is that if you ranked the seniors (i.e. Austin, Bailey, Williams, Goodwin, Dobson, Wheaton) based on receiving stats from their freshman-junior years, you would find that Hunter ranked near the top of the group both in terms of yards per game and in terms of peak season. So maybe someone would look at it from that perspective and actually determine that he had BETTER production than those players at each parallel stage of development and that the only reason he had inferior career totals is because he had a shorter career and didn't get to feast on college DBs as a senior because he was so good that he could already leave for the NFL.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
What if a 6'4" center had gorilla arms and didn't need to bend to touch his knees, 300 lbs. of chiseled muscle, a 54" VJ and could do a 720 dunk from the free throw line (not to say Austin is that kind of a mutant).
* Had not yet read post #21,179, which addressed this point in the same way.
Last edited by a moderator:
I feel like this has gone waaaaaaaaaaaaay off the rails, here. To bring it back, here is the original quote that sparked this whole rabbit trail:
Patterson and Hunter have the same thing in their favor. There are few enough receivers in the league whose college resumes were that thin. There are fewer still who were drafted in the top 40 picks. For NFL franchises to take a chance on them so high despite such a glaring concern, they must bring an awful lot to the table.
I stand completely behind that. Or, to put it another way...
Inarguable Fact #1: Patterson and Hunter, for whatever reason, had thin college resumes.
Inarguable Fact #2: Patterson and Hunter were drafted in the top 40 picks.
Inarguable Fact #3: Few receivers drafted in the top 40 picks have resumes as thin as Patterson and Hunter.
Educated Opinion: In order for Patterson and Hunter to both go in the top 40 despite such thin resumes, they must have had a lot else working in their favor.
I'm... not seeing why that's so controversial. You suggested that I was implying his college career was worse. I was not. You suggested that I was implying his production was less impressive. I was not. I said his resume was thin. And it was. Again, this isn't a subjective opinion, this is a demonstrable, verifiable, inarguable, immutable, a-lot-of-other-words-that-end-in-able fact, a fixed truth, an anchor point to reality, a bright and shining beacon of objectivity illuminating the path through the darkness of subjective interpretation. Justin Hunter's resume was extremely thin compared to most other receivers drafted in the same range. He had a freshman year where he didn't produce much (16 catches!), a sophomore year where he didn't play much (3 games!), and a junior year where he barely topped 1,000 yards... and that was it. College career over. That's a textbook thin resume- and a thin textbook, at that!
Is a thin resume a positive? Has there ever been a player you've looked at and said "Oh geez, I'm glad I didn't see more of him, because I think he's fantastic!"? Have you ever thought to yourself "Man, I really wish I had less film of this guy performing against top defensive competition..."? No, of course not. More resume is a good thing, and nobody in their right mind would argue otherwise. More tape, more chances to produce against top competition, gives us more to go on. It leads to more accurate evaluations. More tape is always a good thing. If more tape is always, in all circumstances, a good thing for evaluating a player, then it stands to reason that less tape is always, in all circumstances, a bad thing for evaluating a player. And the fact that Justin Hunter went as high as he did despite this thin resume, this lack of tape, this inarguably bad thing... that speaks quite well of the other good things Hunter brought to the table to offset.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
He is a great athlete. He is a very good WR prospect.
He was one of the better long jumpers in the nation as a prep. He wasn't close to being one of the fastest sprinters in the nation in college. Not Olympic caliber speed. He is plenty fast with a personal best 10.5 100 m., you don't need to oversell him. But Usain Bolt set the world record in 2009 with a 9.58 100 m. Tyson Gay is the American record holder (and second fastest time ever) with a 9.69 100 m.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
Agreed.If a player played two years at the JUCO level and that was it, that would be a very thin college resume. One additional year at the BCS level doesn't change that. I guess it was impressive that Cam Stewart won the JUCO national championship, but where would he have been drafted if he tried to turn pro straight out of the JUCO ranks? If JUCO experience carried much weight, we would see more players turn pro directly after a two year JUCO stint. But it doesn't, and we don't.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jeff Demps and Trindon Holliday are the fastest football players in college history, with each running the 100m in 10 flat (both have broken 10 seconds in the 100m, actually, but in both cases it was wind-aided). Demps wound up making the 2012 Olympic relay team as an alternate and raced in one qualifying heat. In other words, Demps was barely an Olympian, and Hunter is nowhere near as fast as Demps. There's a huge difference between winning state titles in High School and competing at an Olympic level.
There's no need to oversell Justin Hunter's athletic abilities. He's definitely a plus athlete, even if he's not a freak of nature or an elite track star. His real value, imo, lies in those crazy ball skills down the field, and you don't have to be an Olympic sprinter to take the top off a defense. Just look at Vincent Jackson, whose 4.46 forty isn't all that remarkable, but who has made a career as the premier deep receiver in the NFL. Among active players, only Josh Gordon and Devery Henderson have a higher career ypc average (both at 17.9, while Jackson is at 17.5). Justin Hunter could easily wind up being the next Vincent Jackson, even if the only way he'd ever get to the Olympics is by buying a ticket.
ShaHBucks
Footballguy
That's all I needed to know
Honestly, not really. I think his rushing production was never going to stay in the 14 TD a year range like when he was a rookie. I don't think its unreasonable to see that jump back up to 8 or 9, but I'd bet he settles in between 5-10 a year. He's too valuable too use all the time on those plays, but I don't think he'll ever be one of those guys who stops running, in order to satisfy some silly notion of being a pocket QB.
I think Newton may be a little bit underrated. I think there is a case to be made for him as the #1 QB in dynasty leagues. In 3 years, the guy has never finished lower than 4th at QB, and has done so, with a mediocre to bad supporting cast. Between an inconsistent running game, an aging Steve Smith who would be a #2 on most teams, and a #3 on many, a good but not great TE, and a black hole of secondary weapons, I think a good argument is that he's likely already performing with the worst supporting cast he's ever going to have.
EBF
Footballguy
I think I interpreted the "thin resume" comment as a criticism of their production. All I was saying is that you can't produce when you're not on the field. One of the mistakes people make in FF is looking at players with bad or limited opportunity and punishing them for their lack of ideal performance without accounting for the context. Given that Hunter suffered a torn ACL and skipped his senior season, I don't think his production was bad.
But that seems to be exactly what you're trying to say, so that's that.
Your splitting hairs here. Six foot four with an ability to run faster and jump higher and farther than most of his athletic counterparts is the point here. He is an athletic freak.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, I don't think it was that bad, either. Tennessee was something of a mess all around. He never really dominated the way that some WRs did, but I don't think he has to apologize for what he did. But guys like Hunter and Patterson are always going to represent heightened risk, because it's a lot easier to fool everyone over a tiny sample than it is over a huge sample.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
The point is you said several times he has Olympic caliber speed. To say splitting hairs would be relevant if he was close, but he isn't.
If somebody says something in the thread you know to be false, do you blindly agree just to be pleasant? No? Why would you expect others to be different?
If you didn't know it was a gross exaggeration, the correction was intended to help (no disrespectful language like, oh, i don't know, jabroni
). If you knew it was a gross exaggeration and stated it anyways, don't be surprised to have it questioned. After the splitting hairs remark, you changed "the point" to the far lower bar of runs faster than most. If you had said that initially, it wouldn't have been questioned. Sorry for not understanding the point you "really meant" before saying it, and mistaking what you did say for something you actually meant, my bad.* You are participating in a thread where hundredths of a second can be meaningful and impactful (4.40 different from 4.45 different from 4.49), and you are ignoring a difference of a HALF second to nearly a FULL second in the case of the top Olympians. The splitting hairs remark is good shtick.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
EBF
Footballguy
The big point with Austin for me is that little guy + getting hit a lot of the over the middle probably = problem in the NFL. That's what inspired the 6'4" center comment. You have to wonder if such a severe deficiency will prevent him from achieving huge success. Obviously he can play in the league and have a role in the attack, but to be FF-relevant he will need to do more than that. He will need to make a big impact on offense. I would feel a lot better if he'd been a top 10 pick as a 6'3" 230 pound WR than a top 10 pick as a player with no historical equivalent. I know the Rams felt he was an elite prospect, but then again...Darrius Heyward-Bey...Ted Ginn...Troy Williamson...Peter Warrick. Draft position is something nice and objective to anchor to, but ultimately even first round picks are a coin flip. Not exactly odds you want to bet your house on.
I think Austin is better than guys like Ginn and Williamson. On the other hand, I don't know that he's going to get the ball enough in the long run to score enough points to be an impact player in FF. As I said previously, I've got no problem with a mid-low WR3 price though, which is where he's falling on generic dynasty rankings. There's upside at the price and you won't suffer too bad if he flops. On the other hand, I wouldn't go big for him like I would've for Blackmon pre-suspensions or Crabtree pre-NFL. Too much risk that he's just a faster Dexter McCluster.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
Maybe we could use a pro player, and the same one, at different stages of his career, to illustrate the concept.After a great rookie season, A.J. Green was a hot commodity. But after THREE great seasons, I'm guessing his dynasty rank is even higher than it was after his first year. Rookie A.J. Green's pro resume was thinner than historically good three year vet Green, so he didn't rank as high as his more experienced counterpart.
As to Hunter, an incomplete might not be an F, but it isn't an A either.
Of course somebody who plays more will probably be more productive than somebody who plays less. But there are ways to extract information from this and interpret this that aren't meaningless. Something that hasn't been highlighted about this is information about resiliency and durability. We can't assume anything about Hunter and a hypothetical senior year. Maybe he would have gotten 2,000 yards, maybe he would have torn his other ACL. That is the point, we have no idea, his junior year was the best he had to form an opinion of. Bailey had several.
Let's not forget that Hunter is a rail thin bean pole, not a prototypical build. Ideally we could have seen him play at a high level for 2-3 seasons to answer that question. But he didn't. Rather than call the fact that Bailey played more meaningless, we could point out that in Hunter's case, the missing pages in his resume equates to potential information about his resiliency and durability we DON'T possess, relative to a WR like Bailey. We shouldn't be so cavalier and dismissive about that. So, yeah, I'm not getting what is so hard to grasp about this point that less doesn't equal more.
That said, I like Hunter a lot, you may recall I was one of his staunchest defenders in his thread also after some people with hair triggers wanted to trade him when there was word that he might not suit up in the first week or two. If you liked him before in a dynasty league, people IMO shouldn't let a minor hiccup like that alter their long range vision. I'm guilty of holding players too long at times, but abandoning such a tantalizing prospect after 1-2 weeks was borderline incomprehensible to me.
This was a prospect about which Bloom said, at his best, Randy Moss was his closest comp (but at his worst was Braylon Edwards-like, or something to that effect
). He isn't just a linear long strider, he can break down in the open field and make people miss, he has natural open field run instincts (trying to say he isn't just a track athlete playing football, he is a football player that fortuitously has track star athleticism) and the explosiveness to smoke defenders once he is in the clear.
Last edited by a moderator:
My guess is that most Olympic athletes have a high school resume similar to Justin Hunter below. History of success (state championship, national championships etc)... He just decided to ditch the spandex and grab a helmet...Bob Magaw said:The point is you said several times he has Olympic caliber speed. To say splitting hairs would be relevant if he was close, but he isn't.If somebody says something in the thread you know to be false, do you blindly agree just to be pleasant? No? Why would you expect others to be different?Brewtown said:
If you didn't know it was a gross exaggeration, the correction was intended to help (no disrespectful language like, oh, i don't know, jabroni
* You are participating in a thread where hundredths of a second can be meaningful and impactful (4.40 different from 4.45 different from 4.49), and you are ignoring a difference of a HALF second to nearly a FULL second in the case of the top Olympians. The splitting hairs remark is good shtick.
As a junior in high school in 2009, Hunter won the state title in both the long jump, and high jump. As a senior in 2010, he won the state title in the long jump, high jump and triple jump. Hunter was the 2010 USA junior national champion in the long jump, and represented the USA at the 2010 IAAF World Junior Championships.[3] Hunter also specialized in the 100 meter and 200 meter.
Similar threads
