I don't think he's saying sell CJ, rather he was just using him as an example of a guy that won't put up those near record breaking numbers again, because realistically people just don't do that.The difference between LT, Faulk, Alexander, Peyton, Brady, etc and DeSean Jackson is that even when you take away those record breaking statistics and bring them back down to their typical (still near league leading) range, you're still left with a stud. You take away Peyton's 48 TDs and bring them back down to 30, and he's still a stud. You take away LT's 31 TDs and bring them back down to 16, and he's still a stud. Etc. They have the other stats to supplement that.Jackson's "outlier" isn't a total TDs or total yards outlier like those guys, that is supplemented by other stats, and that even when brought down to just top 5 in the league still leaves him with great stats. His "outlier" is more akin to the TDs per reception outlier that came with guys like Lee Evans and Donte Stallworth early in their careers (and that comes with Robert Meachem right now, who is also a sell in my book).With DeSean, you're looking at a 1200/10 guy who needed to smash a record just to get to that. You take away his ridiculous number of long TDs (which WILL happen, you won't break the record every year) and bring them back down to even just "near the league lead", and what are you left with? Not much.That's not to say that Jackson can't develop into more consistent type guy who doesn't rely on those big plays, but that's something he's going to have to do no different than dozens of other WRs that haven't had record breaking long TD years to supplement what they lack in that department.Personally if I owned Jackson I would be in bigtime sell mode right now. I would not be in the least bit surprised if he ends up with a similar (but slightly better) career path to Lee Evans. A guy that might have two 1200 yard seasons over the course of 5 years, but puts up 700-800 yards in the other 3.
In my mind, the only way Desean delivers on that "3 seasons of 700-800 yards" prediction is if he's forced to play 3 years with Trent Edwards, a la Evans. Evans would totally be a consistent 1000+ yard a year WR if he only played actual NFL football for an actual NFL football team with an actual NFL offense. Put him in Denver, or Seattle, or, yes, Philadelphia, and suddenly Evans would be producing Santonio Holmes-type numbers on a consistent basis. Same thing for Desean- unless Philly replaces McNabb with a total stiff, I think he's a relatively safe play on a year-to-year basis, albeit one who won't often hit the explosive upside that he demonstrated this season.
If you know what you're doing and have some luck you can get elite players after the top 6 picks. Just look at the top performers in any league and I doubt you'll find more than 2 or 3 top 10 players that were drafted top 6 in a rookie draft. Top 20 might have 6, top 30 probably 9. There's LOTS of good players available later, just prepare to have some duds.
I think "top 6" is the wrong breakpoint. To me, the "money picks" are generally the top 3. Sometimes only the top 2. It depends a lot on the particular draft. For instance, in the Adrian Peterson draft, it was clear as day that Peterson, Calvin, and Lynch were a thousand lightyears better than everyone else, so the #3 pick should have been worth dramatically more than the #4 pick. On the other hand, this past season, there really wasn't any elite tier at all. I liked a bunch of guys, but there weren't many guys that I viewed as must-own, can't-miss prospects on par with Peterson, Calvin, Fitzgerald, or Stewart. Which means there were no "money picks", and anyone that's not a "money pick" is a "lottery pick".Anyway, the difference between the "money picks" and the "lottery picks" isn't necessarily one of upside (although money picks do have a much higher chance of returning a true uberstud of a Peterson or Calvin caliber), it's one of reliability. Money picks bust at a much, much lower rate than the lottery picks, and even if they do bust they generally have a window of fantasy value owing entirely to their workload and opportunity. Just look at some of recent "money picks" that haven't panned out- Mendenhall was thought to be a bust, but he's shown that it's far too early to write him off. Lynch already has a pair of top 15 seasons to his name. Stewart hasn't been a reliable fantasy starter yet, but he's flashed so much potential that it's obvious he will be. Reggie Bush has been a bust, but he's still at least given two RB2 seasons and two RB3 seasons (as well as a chance for any owners to recoup some value from him over the past 2 years, since his trade value was slow to fall). Roy Williams actually posted a top 10 season once... honest! Yes, there is the occasional Charles Rodgers or Laurence Maroney, but when you're talking about the real money picks, those are far more the exception than the rule.
My apologies, that was an obvious oversight. Corrected.Feel free to PM me next time if I err so poorly next time and I'll get it fixed.Happy New Year.
Hey Pasquino, good to see you in the thread. You should drop by and chime in more often, I'm always interested in your perspective on dynasty.