Dynasty Rankings (28 Viewers)

[Adam Harstad]

What is specifically that you don't like about Ellington? You always go to bat for the undersized backs. He is heavier than Chris Johnson and CJ Spiller. One pound lighter than Jamaal Charles. Thicker than all of them when you factor in his shorter height. Had 5.5 YPC as a rookie including 8 runs of 20+ yards (only five RBs had more - Morris, Gore, Forte, McCoy, and Spiller). Out of the 40+ backs in the league who had 100 or more carries, he was the best in the NFL at breaking long runs (went for 20 or more yards on almost 7% of his carries).

I kind of doubt that he's ever going to be a 200+ carry back, but if efficiency stats were all that mattered to me, I'd be buying him in every league.

I don't always go to bat for the undersized backs, and the fact that I'm not going to bat for Ellington is pretty compelling proof on that count.

I do believe that a back being undersized is not, by itself, proof that he cannot handle a full workload. In Ellington's case, though, we aren't just going on the fact that he's undersized and extrapolating that he can't handle a full workload. We're going off of the fact that his head coach flat out said he couldn't handle a full workload, and extrapolating from that that he couldn't handle a full workload.

 

[EBF]

It took Spiller and Charles until their third season in the NFL to get 200+ carries. I didn't necessarily agree, but a lot of people felt like Spiller was being wasted in Buffalo and that he wasn't getting carries because his coaches were too dumb to give him the ball (and not because he isn't cut out for a full workload). I think you were one of the guys saying Spiller would be getting 300+ touches this season. Without seeing how that would've gone, we can't really say what might have happened. But what Charles did in KC this year should give hope for undersized high-efficiency dynamos. Maybe Arians is just wasting Ellington when he could be using him more like how the Chiefs use Charles. That's one take on the situation.

Personally, I think Ellington probably benefited by getting a lot of the "good" carries while Mendenhall probably suffered a bit by doing more of the heavy lifting. Thus one of them looks like a truly awful performer and the other looks awesome when in reality the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Mendenhall was bad, but probably not quite as bad his usage suggests. Ellington was good, but probably in part because he didn't have to shoulder all of the workload. If you add up their totals from the 2013 season you get 335 carries for 1339 yards, which is about 4.0 YPC on the nose. That's not too far off from what Eddie Lacy did for the Packers. And that kinda makes sense because when you're getting both the "good" carries and the "bad" carries for your team, it's going to be harder for you to have really outstanding per-touch metrics.

That goes back to what I said about high efficiency-high volume seasons being so impressive. In 2012 Calvin Johnson had 205 targets and 1964 receiving yards. High volume and high efficiency. That same season Adrian Peterson had 348 carries and 2097 rushing yards (6.0 YPC). High volume and high efficiency. Peyton Manning and Drew Brees have put together several seasons where they rank near the top of the NFL in both pass attempts and yards per attempt. When you are picking your spots and only getting pass attempts/carries/targets in favorable situations, it's going to be a lot easier for you to put up stellar efficiency stats. When you are shouldering a massive workload and still putting up efficiency stats that rank near the top of your position, it's a lot more impressive.

From that perspective, Calvin Johnson has probably been the best WR over the past couple seasons. Demaryius Thomas has probably been the second best. Other high volume players haven't had the same degree of efficiency (Marshall, Fitzgerald, VJax, Green). Other high efficiency players haven't quite had the same volume (like Josh Gordon and Julio Jones). Some guys like Dez, DeSean, and Jordy have put together at least one great season, but in at least one of the years their level has dropped. So there's a little bit of subjectivity in the framing, but I don't think I'm being too hypocritical in touting Thomas as a real candidate for the title of second best WR in football. He probably has as good a case as anyone right now, so the notion that he is clearly below guys like Green/Dez in the talent hierarchy is a little dubious. I think that owes mostly to the fact that he had a lower profile in college and that some of his numbers are attributed to Manning's greatness, and not because those players have actually outperformed him in the NFL.

 

[Xue]

Personally, I think Ellington probably benefited by getting a lot of the "good" carries while Mendenhall probably suffered a bit by doing more of the heavy lifting. Thus one of them looks like a truly awful performer and the other looks awesome when in reality the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Mendenhall was bad, but probably not quite as bad his usage suggests.

Define "good" carries.

 

[ZWK]

It took Spiller and Charles until their third season in the NFL to get 200+ carries. I didn't necessarily agree, but a lot of people felt like Spiller was being wasted in Buffalo and that he wasn't getting carries because his coaches were too dumb to give him the ball (and not because he isn't cut out for a full workload). I think you were one of the guys saying Spiller would be getting 300+ touches this season. Without seeing how that would've gone, we can't really say what might have happened. But what Charles did in KC this year should give hope for undersized high-efficiency dynamos. Maybe Arians is just wasting Ellington when he could be using him more like how the Chiefs use Charles. That's one take on the situation.

Personally, I think Ellington probably benefited by getting a lot of the "good" carries while Mendenhall probably suffered a bit by doing more of the heavy lifting. Thus one of them looks like a truly awful performer and the other looks awesome when in reality the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Mendenhall was bad, but probably not quite as bad his usage suggests. Ellington was good, but probably in part because he didn't have to shoulder all of the workload. If you add up their totals from the 2013 season you get 335 carries for 1339 yards, which is about 4.0 YPC on the nose. That's not too far off from what Eddie Lacy did for the Packers. And that kinda makes sense because when you're getting both the "good" carries and the "bad" carries for your team, it's going to be harder for you to have really outstanding per-touch metrics.

That goes back to what I said about high efficiency-high volume seasons being so impressive. In 2012 Calvin Johnson had 205 targets and 1964 receiving yards. High volume and high efficiency. That same season Adrian Peterson had 348 carries and 2097 rushing yards (6.0 YPC). High volume and high efficiency. Peyton Manning and Drew Brees have put together several seasons where they rank near the top of the NFL in both pass attempts and yards per attempt. When you are picking your spots and only getting pass attempts/carries/targets in favorable situations, it's going to be a lot easier for you to put up stellar efficiency stats. When you are shouldering a massive workload and still putting up efficiency stats that rank near the top of your position, it's a lot more impressive.

From that perspective, Calvin Johnson has probably been the best WR over the past couple seasons. Demaryius Thomas has probably been the second best. Other high volume players haven't had the same degree of efficiency (Marshall, Fitzgerald, VJax, Green). Other high efficiency players haven't quite had the same volume (like Josh Gordon and Julio Jones). Some guys like Dez, DeSean, and Jordy have put together at least one great season, but in at least one of the years their level has dropped. So there's a little bit of subjectivity in the framing, but I don't think I'm being too hypocritical in touting Thomas as a real candidate for the title of second best WR in football. He probably has as good a case as anyone right now, so the notion that he is clearly below guys like Green/Dez in the talent hierarchy is a little dubious. I think that owes mostly to the fact that he had a lower profile in college and that some of his numbers are attributed to Manning's greatness, and not because those players have actually outperformed him in the NFL.

Gordon was 2nd in the NFL in targets per game this season, with 159 in 14 games. That puts him on pace for 181.7 targets per 16 games, which nestles right in between #1 Garcon's 182 & #3 Andre Johnson's 181.

On his 159 targets, Gordon averaged 10.4 yards per target. On Cleveland's other 522 pass attempts, they averaged 4.6 yards per attempt.

Hard to top that as a combo of volume & efficiency (though other guys do have a longer track record of elite performance).

 

[EBF]

Personally, I think Ellington probably benefited by getting a lot of the "good" carries while Mendenhall probably suffered a bit by doing more of the heavy lifting. Thus one of them looks like a truly awful performer and the other looks awesome when in reality the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Mendenhall was bad, but probably not quite as bad his usage suggests.

Define "good" carries.

Any obvious passing down would be a good example. My high school football coach thought he was really clever by running the inside draw when we were against 3rd-and-long. Sure, it might be a safe bet for 6 yards, but 6 yards on 3rd-and-long is not much better than 0 yards.

"Good" carries could involve a lot more variables though. If one guy gets most his carries up the middle while another gets most of the outside carries, that could affect the results. Especially if the line blocks better for one type of play than the other. Blocking schemes and playcalls can also help cover or highlight a player's flaws. For example, I always thought Darren McFadden was pretty good in one-cut-and-go situations where he had a big lane to work with. If you could have limited his usage to blocking schemes and play calls that emphasized that skill set and de-emphasized his weaknesses (like leg drive and elusiveness) then he probably could've put up some very nice efficiency stats on limited volume. If you were forced to use him as your cover-all RB handling every type of carry and every type of play call, I'm sure his effectiveness would've suffered.

That kind of shows how having two backs and playing to their strengths could result in a more effective overall running game than having one back who's mediocre at everything. Of course, it would also make you more predictable.

If you want to get more meta, I think there's an advantage to only touching the ball 10-12 times per game because you're simply taking fewer shots and exerting less energy. Likewise, I think carries on fresh legs at the end of the season are probably less meaningful because the defenses are more likely to be worn out or to have given up completely. So as much as I think Bryce Brown is a pretty good prospect, the fact that he's piled up some pretty huge games late in the season when he's barely carried the ball for most of the year probably means less than if he were to reel off those games against motivated starters in weeks 1-4. But of course defenses adapt and become more familiar with one another over the course of the year, so you end up with even more complicating variables.

Anyway, even putting all that aside, it's pretty clear to me that X efficiency on high volume is more impressive than X efficiency on low volume in most cases.

 

[EBF]

It took Spiller and Charles until their third season in the NFL to get 200+ carries. I didn't necessarily agree, but a lot of people felt like Spiller was being wasted in Buffalo and that he wasn't getting carries because his coaches were too dumb to give him the ball (and not because he isn't cut out for a full workload). I think you were one of the guys saying Spiller would be getting 300+ touches this season. Without seeing how that would've gone, we can't really say what might have happened. But what Charles did in KC this year should give hope for undersized high-efficiency dynamos. Maybe Arians is just wasting Ellington when he could be using him more like how the Chiefs use Charles. That's one take on the situation.

Personally, I think Ellington probably benefited by getting a lot of the "good" carries while Mendenhall probably suffered a bit by doing more of the heavy lifting. Thus one of them looks like a truly awful performer and the other looks awesome when in reality the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Mendenhall was bad, but probably not quite as bad his usage suggests. Ellington was good, but probably in part because he didn't have to shoulder all of the workload. If you add up their totals from the 2013 season you get 335 carries for 1339 yards, which is about 4.0 YPC on the nose. That's not too far off from what Eddie Lacy did for the Packers. And that kinda makes sense because when you're getting both the "good" carries and the "bad" carries for your team, it's going to be harder for you to have really outstanding per-touch metrics.

That goes back to what I said about high efficiency-high volume seasons being so impressive. In 2012 Calvin Johnson had 205 targets and 1964 receiving yards. High volume and high efficiency. That same season Adrian Peterson had 348 carries and 2097 rushing yards (6.0 YPC). High volume and high efficiency. Peyton Manning and Drew Brees have put together several seasons where they rank near the top of the NFL in both pass attempts and yards per attempt. When you are picking your spots and only getting pass attempts/carries/targets in favorable situations, it's going to be a lot easier for you to put up stellar efficiency stats. When you are shouldering a massive workload and still putting up efficiency stats that rank near the top of your position, it's a lot more impressive.

From that perspective, Calvin Johnson has probably been the best WR over the past couple seasons. Demaryius Thomas has probably been the second best. Other high volume players haven't had the same degree of efficiency (Marshall, Fitzgerald, VJax, Green). Other high efficiency players haven't quite had the same volume (like Josh Gordon and Julio Jones). Some guys like Dez, DeSean, and Jordy have put together at least one great season, but in at least one of the years their level has dropped. So there's a little bit of subjectivity in the framing, but I don't think I'm being too hypocritical in touting Thomas as a real candidate for the title of second best WR in football. He probably has as good a case as anyone right now, so the notion that he is clearly below guys like Green/Dez in the talent hierarchy is a little dubious. I think that owes mostly to the fact that he had a lower profile in college and that some of his numbers are attributed to Manning's greatness, and not because those players have actually outperformed him in the NFL.

Gordon was 2nd in the NFL in targets per game this season, with 159 in 14 games. That puts him on pace for 181.7 targets per 16 games, which nestles right in between #1 Garcon's 182 & #3 Andre Johnson's 181.

On his 159 targets, Gordon averaged 10.4 yards per target. On Cleveland's other 522 pass attempts, they averaged 4.6 yards per attempt.

Hard to top that as a combo of volume & efficiency (though other guys do have a longer track record of elite performance).

He has a case for best WR season in 2013. Last season he didn't get as many targets or do quite as well with them (though he was still pretty awesome).

I remember looking at his rookie numbers last year and realizing how much more effective he was than Justin Blackmon with his chances. It was something that got my attention and while I didn't add him anywhere in dynasty, I think that was part of what motivated me to target him in my redraft.

If you could take out the character stuff, it would be tempting to rank him as a top 2-3 dynasty WR. He has accomplished a lot so far, especially when you consider that he plays on a crap team and was out of football for a year before his rookie season.

 

[ShaHBucks]

Anyway, even putting all that aside, it's pretty clear to me that X efficiency on high volume is more impressive than X efficiency on low volume in most cases.

This is hard to put into context. It's like saying two given people are just as deadly, but one has a higher body count. On the other side we would never think an inefficient player would do better with increased volume. Back to Wilson vs Luck... The volume debate has everything to do with coaching. Every time Lynch runs the ball Sea is saying they would rather have 4 yards instead of 8 on average. Game theory suggest that they should be a lot more pass happy. That isn't Wilson's fault. How much variation would you expect if Sea decided to "let Russell Wilson loose?" A good passer and decision maker will not turn into Geno Smith all of a sudden. The only way to rule out other factors, like coaching, and evaluate each player individually is on a per throw basis. In that light, Wilson has been so far superior than Luck the past two season; its not even close. The fact that Wilson can throw for more TDs and less INTs with over 160 less attempts speaks for itself. What do you think will happen in 160 more passes?

What I will agree with is high Volume + high Efficiency tells who had a greater season. Nick Foles would have every passing record that Manning just broke, but the gap in attempts allows the separation in stats compiled. As far as say Lacy vs Ellington the sample is too small for me. After a certain amount of touches where a big play or two doesn't drastically move the needle I'd say yes, definitively. Ellington was getting 15+ touches in college, so maybe he can handle the load. If he doesn't get the touches and maintains his efficiency he'll be another Pierre Thomas, CJ Spiller, Jamal Charles ect..

 

[ghostguy123]

Personally, I think Ellington probably benefited by getting a lot of the "good" carries while Mendenhall probably suffered a bit by doing more of the heavy lifting. Thus one of them looks like a truly awful performer and the other looks awesome when in reality the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Mendenhall was bad, but probably not quite as bad his usage suggests.

Define "good" carries.

As mentioned, any carry on 3rd and long (or even 1st or 2nd and long like 15-20 yards to go or so) is a "good" carry where it is easier to get more yards.

A "bad" carry is a 3rd or 4th down carry with inches or a yard to go.

The good carries simply go for longer gains than the bad carries.

In teh Ellington/Mendy example though, I think Mendenhall sucks, and Ellington should get a MUCH bigger workload.

 

[Adam Harstad]

It took Spiller and Charles until their third season in the NFL to get 200+ carries. I didn't necessarily agree, but a lot of people felt like Spiller was being wasted in Buffalo and that he wasn't getting carries because his coaches were too dumb to give him the ball (and not because he isn't cut out for a full workload). I think you were one of the guys saying Spiller would be getting 300+ touches this season. Without seeing how that would've gone, we can't really say what might have happened. But what Charles did in KC this year should give hope for undersized high-efficiency dynamos. Maybe Arians is just wasting Ellington when he could be using him more like how the Chiefs use Charles. That's one take on the situation.

Personally, I think Ellington probably benefited by getting a lot of the "good" carries while Mendenhall probably suffered a bit by doing more of the heavy lifting. Thus one of them looks like a truly awful performer and the other looks awesome when in reality the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Mendenhall was bad, but probably not quite as bad his usage suggests. Ellington was good, but probably in part because he didn't have to shoulder all of the workload. If you add up their totals from the 2013 season you get 335 carries for 1339 yards, which is about 4.0 YPC on the nose. That's not too far off from what Eddie Lacy did for the Packers. And that kinda makes sense because when you're getting both the "good" carries and the "bad" carries for your team, it's going to be harder for you to have really outstanding per-touch metrics.

That goes back to what I said about high efficiency-high volume seasons being so impressive. In 2012 Calvin Johnson had 205 targets and 1964 receiving yards. High volume and high efficiency. That same season Adrian Peterson had 348 carries and 2097 rushing yards (6.0 YPC). High volume and high efficiency. Peyton Manning and Drew Brees have put together several seasons where they rank near the top of the NFL in both pass attempts and yards per attempt. When you are picking your spots and only getting pass attempts/carries/targets in favorable situations, it's going to be a lot easier for you to put up stellar efficiency stats. When you are shouldering a massive workload and still putting up efficiency stats that rank near the top of your position, it's a lot more impressive.

From that perspective, Calvin Johnson has probably been the best WR over the past couple seasons. Demaryius Thomas has probably been the second best. Other high volume players haven't had the same degree of efficiency (Marshall, Fitzgerald, VJax, Green). Other high efficiency players haven't quite had the same volume (like Josh Gordon and Julio Jones). Some guys like Dez, DeSean, and Jordy have put together at least one great season, but in at least one of the years their level has dropped. So there's a little bit of subjectivity in the framing, but I don't think I'm being too hypocritical in touting Thomas as a real candidate for the title of second best WR in football. He probably has as good a case as anyone right now, so the notion that he is clearly below guys like Green/Dez in the talent hierarchy is a little dubious. I think that owes mostly to the fact that he had a lower profile in college and that some of his numbers are attributed to Manning's greatness, and not because those players have actually outperformed him in the NFL.

I have a pretty big problem with this being the measure of "efficiency", though. First of all, it is an absolute truth that the sum of all receivers' yards divided by the sum of all receivers' targets has to equal the quarterback's yards per attempt (ignoring inconveniences like spikes, throwaways to avoid sacks, and other annoying untargeted passes). You talk about how Manning had a ton of attempts and great efficiency, and Demaryius had a ton of targets and great efficiency, but never connected the dots between the two. Wide receivers who play with great quarterbacks are more efficient... because great quarterbacks are, by definition, more efficient.

Second, the problem with "yards per target" is that by putting it in the denominator, you treat targets as by definition a bad thing- the more of them you have, the lower the number falls. But, as you (quite rightly) pointed out in the Jordy Nelson discussion, targets are themselves an indicator of player quality! Great players get more targets, so by dividing by targets, you're automatically penalizing great players for being great. Is Larry Fitzgerald "inefficient" because every Arizona QB's default instinct is "chuck it somewhere near Larry and pray he manages to make something out of nothing"?

Finally, by setting arbitrary volume thresholds based on raw targets rather than usage rates, you're creating a situation where a receiver who gets 150 targets on 600 attempts is considered "high volume", while a receiver who gets 120 targets on 400 attempts is not, despite the second guy dominating the passing game to a much greater degree (30% of targets vs. 25% of targets).

There are a couple of ways around these problems. Pro Football Focus uses "Yards per Route Run", which I think is a fantastic stat. One could just as easily do "Yards per Team Pass Attempt". Neither of these disentangle a WR's production from his quarterback's production, but they're a much better start for measuring efficiency. Neither of those is perfect, either- a guy who shares the field with other great receivers will tend to be hurt in "Yards per Route Run" (although this offsets the fact that he was benefitted in Yards per Target by the softer coverages faced). One benefit of YPRR is that it's one of the few efficiency metrics that isn't trying to tell us that Denver has three of the top 10 receivers in the NFL (what a coincidence! How lucky is Peyton Manning that he gets to play with such efficient receivers!) In terms of "Yards per Route Run", Demaryius finished 11th. In 2012, he was 5th (and the "inefficient" Brandon Marshall was second). Both seasons, Demaryius' finish has been within 3 places of A.J. Green (who was 7th in 2012 and 8th in 2013). Again, it's not perfect either, but I think it's a much better starting point than simply using yards per target and creating arbitrary target thresholds.

Another metric that I think shows promise would be "Yards per Team Pass Attempt", although I don't know of any place where that's already compiled so I don't have to calculate it by hand. Again, it's not perfect, and none of these make an effort to disentangle a WR's performance from that of his teammates. But they're better starting points from which to measure efficiency.

All of these stats are flawed but potentially useful. It's just that, when you use them, you need to do so with a massive freaking helping of context. You can't just go tossing them around saying things like "Demaryius Thomas is the 2nd best WR in the NFL because 2-year running yard per target totals adjusted with an arbitrary minimum attempt threshold in each of the seasons individually says he is!"

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Took twenty minutes and ginned this up... it's yards/game divided by team attempts/game and team completions per game for receivers with 400+ yards on the season. WRs, then TEs, then RBs.

So the result is Yards/Team Attempts and Yards/Team Completions per game played. It's sorted by Y/TC because completion percentage is driven by QB play -- which isn't what we're trying to measure here.

This doesn't account for situations where a guy gets a larger or smaller percentage of targets than he would normally due to exceptional competition for them (Denver for example) or lack of competition (Gordon, VJax, Garcon). But overall it does a nice job IMO.

Player	          Y/G    Y/TA	 Y/TCJosh Gordon*+ 	 117.6 	 2.76 	 4.96 Justin Blackmon  103.8 	 2.80 	 4.76 Calvin Johnson*+ 106.6 	 2.69 	 4.60 Anquan Boldin 	 73.7 	 2.81 	 4.42 DeSean Jackson 	 83.3 	 2.62 	 4.30 Vincent Jackson  76.5 	 2.38 	 4.21 Julio Jones 	 116.0 	 2.82 	 4.17 Antonio Brown* 	 93.7 	 2.56 	 3.98 A.J. Green* 	 89.1 	 2.43 	 3.92 Alshon Jeffery 	 88.8 	 2.45 	 3.81 Andre Johnson* 	 87.9 	 2.22 	 3.79 Pierre Garcon 	 84.1 	 2.20 	 3.79 Jordy Nelson 	 82.1 	 2.31 	 3.59 Victor Cruz 	 71.3 	 2.01 	 3.51 Brandon Marshal* 80.9 	 2.24 	 3.47 Golden Tate 	 56.1 	 2.14 	 3.36 Kendall Wright 	 67.4 	 2.02 	 3.29 Dez Bryant* 	 77.1 	 2.10 	 3.29 Reggie Wayne 	 71.9 	 1.98 	 3.28 Randall Cobb 	 72.2 	 2.03 	 3.15 Torrey Smith 	 70.5 	 1.82 	 3.11 Demaryius Thom*	 89.4 	 2.12 	 3.10 T.Y. Hilton 	 67.7 	 1.86 	 3.09 Rod Streater 	 55.5 	 1.71 	 2.98 Keenan Allen 	 69.7 	 2.05 	 2.95 Hakeem Nicks 	 59.7 	 1.69 	 2.94 Doug Baldwin 	 48.6 	 1.85 	 2.91 Denarius Moore 	 53.5 	 1.65 	 2.87 Michael Floyd 	 65.1 	 1.81 	 2.87 Brian Hartline 	 63.5 	 1.71 	 2.85 Nate Washington  57.4 	 1.72 	 2.80 Eric Decker 	 80.5 	 1.91 	 2.79 Cecil Shorts 	 59.8 	 1.62 	 2.74 Steve Smith 	 49.7 	 1.68 	 2.72 Riley Cooper 	 52.2 	 1.64 	 2.69 Steve Johnson 	 49.8 	 1.52 	 2.66 Greg Jennings 	 53.6 	 1.57 	 2.64 Larry Fitzgerald 59.6 	 1.66 	 2.63 Jeremy Kerley 	 43.6 	 1.45 	 2.62 Mike Wallace 	 58.1 	 1.57 	 2.61 James Jones 	 58.4 	 1.64 	 2.55 Santonio Holmes  41.5 	 1.38 	 2.49 Harry Douglas 	 66.7 	 1.62 	 2.40 Julian Edelman 	 66.0 	 1.62 	 2.37 Andre Holmes 	 43.1 	 1.33 	 2.31 Marques Colston  62.9 	 1.55 	 2.26 Robert Woods 	 41.9 	 1.29 	 2.24 Jerome Simpson 	 45.4 	 1.33 	 2.23 Nate Burleson 	 51.2 	 1.29 	 2.21 DeAndre Hopkins  50.1 	 1.27 	 2.16 Dwayne Bowe 	 44.9 	 1.31 	 2.16 Brandon LaFell 	 39.2 	 1.33 	 2.15 David Nelson 	 35.3 	 1.18 	 2.12 Wes Welker 	 59.8 	 1.42 	 2.08 Tiquan Underwood 36.7 	 1.14 	 2.02 Roddy White 	 54.7 	 1.33 	 1.97 Emmanuel Sanders 46.3 	 1.26 	 1.96 Terrance William 46.0 	 1.26 	 1.96 Marvin Jones 	 44.5 	 1.21 	 1.96 Ted Ginn Jr. 	 34.8 	 1.18 	 1.90 Danny Amendola 	 52.8 	 1.30 	 1.89 Chris Givens 	 35.6 	 1.12 	 1.89 Rueben Randle 	 38.2 	 1.08 	 1.88 Jarrett Boykin 	 42.6 	 1.19 	 1.86 Mike Brown 	 40.5 	 1.10 	 1.86 Delanie Walker 	 38.1 	 1.14 	 1.86 Donnie Avery 	 37.3 	 1.09 	 1.79 Eddie Royal 	 42.1 	 1.24 	 1.78 Tavon Austin 	 32.2 	 1.02 	 1.71 Jacoby Jones 	 37.9 	 0.98 	 1.67 Marlon Brown 	 37.4 	 0.97 	 1.65 Jerricho Cotcher 37.6 	 1.03 	 1.60 Aaron Dobson 	 43.3 	 1.06 	 1.55 Ace Sanders 	 32.3 	 0.87 	 1.48 Cordarrelle Patt 29.3 	 0.86 	 1.44 Jason Avant 	 27.9 	 0.88 	 1.44 Kenny Stills 	 40.1 	 0.98 	 1.44 Kenbrell Thompki 38.8 	 0.95 	 1.39 Jarius Wright 	 27.1 	 0.79 	 1.34 Kris Durham 	 30.6 	 0.77 	 1.32 Andre Roberts 	 29.4 	 0.82 	 1.30 Santana Moss 	 28.3 	 0.74 	 1.27 Lance Moore 	 35.2 	 0.86 	 1.26 Rishard Matthews 28.0 	 0.75 	 1.25 Mohamed Sanu 	 28.4 	 0.78 	 1.25 Vincent Brown 	 29.5 	 0.87 	 1.25 Greg Little 	 29.1 	 0.68 	 1.23 Player	          Y/G    Y/TA	 Y/TCVernon Davis* 	 56.7 	 2.16 	 3.40 Rob Gronkowski 	 84.6 	 2.08 	 3.03 Greg Olsen 	 51.0 	 1.73 	 2.79 Jimmy Graham*+ 	 75.9 	 1.87 	 2.72 Jordan Cameron*  61.1 	 1.44 	 2.58 Jordan Reed 	 55.4 	 1.45 	 2.50 Antonio Gates 	 54.5 	 1.60 	 2.31 Jason Witten 	 53.2 	 1.45 	 2.27 Jared Cook 	 41.9 	 1.33 	 2.23 Scott Chandler 	 40.9 	 1.25 	 2.19 Charles Clay 	 47.4 	 1.28 	 2.13 Martellus Bennet 47.4 	 1.31 	 2.03 Tim Wright 	 35.7 	 1.11 	 1.96 Julius Thomas* 	 56.3 	 1.33 	 1.95 Tony Gonzalez 	 53.7 	 1.30 	 1.93 Garrett Graham 	 41.9 	 1.06 	 1.81 Heath Miller 	 42.4 	 1.16 	 1.80 Coby Fleener 	 38.0 	 1.04 	 1.74 Brent Celek 	 31.4 	 0.99 	 1.62 Brandon Myers 	 32.6 	 0.92 	 1.61 Rob Housler 	 34.9 	 0.97 	 1.54 Zach Ertz 	 29.3 	 0.92 	 1.51 Jermaine Gresham 32.7 	 0.89 	 1.44 Mychal Rivera 	 25.4 	 0.78 	 1.37 Tyler Eifert 	 29.7 	 0.81 	 1.30 Brandon Pettigr	 29.7 	 0.75 	 1.28 Player	          Y/G    Y/TA	 Y/TCJamaal Charles*+ 46.2 	 1.35 	 2.22 Shane Vereen 	 53.4 	 1.31 	 1.91LeSean McCoy*+ 	 33.7 	 1.06 	 1.74 Dexter McCluste* 34.1 	 1.00 	 1.64  Danny Woodhead 	 37.8 	 1.11 	 1.60 Matt Forte* 	 37.1 	 1.03 	 1.59 Reggie Bush 	 36.1 	 0.91 	 1.56 Joique Bell 	 34.2 	 0.86 	 1.47 Darren Sproles 	 40.3 	 0.99 	 1.44 Giovani Bernard  32.1 	 0.88 	 1.41 Knowshon Moreno  34.3 	 0.81 	 1.19Pierre Thomas    32.1    0.79    1.15

 

[Adam Harstad]

Took twenty minutes and ginned this up... it's yards/game divided by team attempts/game and team completions per game for receivers with 400+ yards on the season. WRs, then TEs, then RBs.

So the result is Yards/Team Attempts and Yards/Team Completions per game played. It's sorted by Y/TC because completion percentage is driven by QB play -- which isn't what we're trying to measure here.

This doesn't account for situations where a guy gets a larger or smaller percentage of targets than he would normally due to exceptional competition for them (Denver for example) or lack of competition (Gordon, VJax, Garcon). But overall it does a nice job IMO.

Player Y/G Y/TA Y/TCJosh Gordon*+ 117.6 2.76 4.96 Justin Blackmon 103.8 2.80 4.76 Calvin Johnson*+ 106.6 2.69 4.60 Anquan Boldin 73.7 2.81 4.42 DeSean Jackson 83.3 2.62 4.30 Vincent Jackson 76.5 2.38 4.21 Julio Jones 116.0 2.82 4.17 Antonio Brown* 93.7 2.56 3.98 A.J. Green* 89.1 2.43 3.92 Alshon Jeffery 88.8 2.45 3.81 Andre Johnson* 87.9 2.22 3.79 Pierre Garcon 84.1 2.20 3.79 Jordy Nelson 82.1 2.31 3.59 Victor Cruz 71.3 2.01 3.51 Brandon Marshal* 80.9 2.24 3.47 Golden Tate 56.1 2.14 3.36 Kendall Wright 67.4 2.02 3.29 Dez Bryant* 77.1 2.10 3.29 Reggie Wayne 71.9 1.98 3.28 Randall Cobb 72.2 2.03 3.15 Torrey Smith 70.5 1.82 3.11 Demaryius Thom* 89.4 2.12 3.10 T.Y. Hilton 67.7 1.86 3.09 Rod Streater 55.5 1.71 2.98 Keenan Allen 69.7 2.05 2.95 Hakeem Nicks 59.7 1.69 2.94 Doug Baldwin 48.6 1.85 2.91 Denarius Moore 53.5 1.65 2.87 Michael Floyd 65.1 1.81 2.87 Brian Hartline 63.5 1.71 2.85 Nate Washington 57.4 1.72 2.80 Eric Decker 80.5 1.91 2.79 Cecil Shorts 59.8 1.62 2.74 Steve Smith 49.7 1.68 2.72 Riley Cooper 52.2 1.64 2.69 Steve Johnson 49.8 1.52 2.66 Greg Jennings 53.6 1.57 2.64 Larry Fitzgerald 59.6 1.66 2.63 Jeremy Kerley 43.6 1.45 2.62 Mike Wallace 58.1 1.57 2.61 James Jones 58.4 1.64 2.55 Jordan Reed 55.4 1.45 2.50 Santonio Holmes 41.5 1.38 2.49 Harry Douglas 66.7 1.62 2.40 Julian Edelman 66.0 1.62 2.37 Andre Holmes 43.1 1.33 2.31 Marques Colston 62.9 1.55 2.26 Robert Woods 41.9 1.29 2.24 Jerome Simpson 45.4 1.33 2.23 Nate Burleson 51.2 1.29 2.21 DeAndre Hopkins 50.1 1.27 2.16 Dwayne Bowe 44.9 1.31 2.16 Brandon LaFell 39.2 1.33 2.15 David Nelson 35.3 1.18 2.12 Wes Welker 59.8 1.42 2.08 Tiquan Underwood 36.7 1.14 2.02 Roddy White 54.7 1.33 1.97 Emmanuel Sanders 46.3 1.26 1.96 Terrance William 46.0 1.26 1.96 Marvin Jones 44.5 1.21 1.96 Ted Ginn Jr. 34.8 1.18 1.90 Danny Amendola 52.8 1.30 1.89 Chris Givens 35.6 1.12 1.89 Rueben Randle 38.2 1.08 1.88 Jarrett Boykin 42.6 1.19 1.86 Mike Brown 40.5 1.10 1.86 Delanie Walker 38.1 1.14 1.86 Donnie Avery 37.3 1.09 1.79 Eddie Royal 42.1 1.24 1.78 Tavon Austin 32.2 1.02 1.71 Jacoby Jones 37.9 0.98 1.67 Marlon Brown 37.4 0.97 1.65 Jerricho Cotcher 37.6 1.03 1.60 Aaron Dobson 43.3 1.06 1.55 Ace Sanders 32.3 0.87 1.48 Cordarrelle Patt 29.3 0.86 1.44 Jason Avant 27.9 0.88 1.44 Kenny Stills 40.1 0.98 1.44 Kenbrell Thompki 38.8 0.95 1.39 Jarius Wright 27.1 0.79 1.34 Kris Durham 30.6 0.77 1.32 Andre Roberts 29.4 0.82 1.30 Santana Moss 28.3 0.74 1.27 Lance Moore 35.2 0.86 1.26 Rishard Matthews 28.0 0.75 1.25 Mohamed Sanu 28.4 0.78 1.25 Vincent Brown 29.5 0.87 1.25 Greg Little 29.1 0.68 1.23 Player Y/G Y/TA Y/TCVernon Davis* 56.7 2.16 3.40 Rob Gronkowski 84.6 2.08 3.03 Greg Olsen 51.0 1.73 2.79 Jimmy Graham*+ 75.9 1.87 2.72 Jordan Cameron* 61.1 1.44 2.58 Antonio Gates 54.5 1.60 2.31 Jason Witten 53.2 1.45 2.27 Jared Cook 41.9 1.33 2.23 Scott Chandler 40.9 1.25 2.19 Charles Clay 47.4 1.28 2.13 Martellus Bennet 47.4 1.31 2.03 Tim Wright 35.7 1.11 1.96 Julius Thomas* 56.3 1.33 1.95 Tony Gonzalez 53.7 1.30 1.93 Garrett Graham 41.9 1.06 1.81 Heath Miller 42.4 1.16 1.80 Coby Fleener 38.0 1.04 1.74 Brent Celek 31.4 0.99 1.62 Brandon Myers 32.6 0.92 1.61 Rob Housler 34.9 0.97 1.54 Zach Ertz 29.3 0.92 1.51 Jermaine Gresham 32.7 0.89 1.44 Mychal Rivera 25.4 0.78 1.37 Tyler Eifert 29.7 0.81 1.30 Brandon Pettigr 29.7 0.75 1.28 Player Y/G Y/TA Y/TCJamaal Charles*+ 46.2 1.35 2.22 Shane Vereen 53.4 1.31 1.91LeSean McCoy*+ 33.7 1.06 1.74 Dexter McCluste* 34.1 1.00 1.64 Danny Woodhead 37.8 1.11 1.60 Matt Forte* 37.1 1.03 1.59 Reggie Bush 36.1 0.91 1.56 Joique Bell 34.2 0.86 1.47 Darren Sproles 40.3 0.99 1.44 Giovani Bernard 32.1 0.88 1.41 Knowshon Moreno 34.3 0.81 1.19Pierre Thomas 32.1 0.79 1.15

This is excellent and much-appreciated work, but regarding the bolded, isn't that actually an argument for sorting by yards per team attempt rather than yards per team completion?

If QB1 completes 250 out of 500 passes for 4,000 yards, and QB2 completes 350 out of 500 passes for 4,000 yards, yards per team completion will rate guys on the first team WAY higher than guys on the second team, despite both teams having roughly equivalent passing attacks (one predicated on the deep ball, one predicated on the short passing game). Yards per Team Completion is inherently biased towards teams that get more of their yards on fewer completions.

Edit: also, as long as I'm being an ungrateful, nit-picking git, you've got Jordan Reed lumped in with the WRs instead of the TEs.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I think the part of the difference in rankings between Yards/Attempts and Yards/Completion that's driven by depth of routes run is dwarfed by the part of the difference that's driven by QB accuracy. At least at the team level, on average. And using Yards/Completion cuts QB accuracy out of the equation.

For example...

If Larry Fitzgerald and Demaryius Thomas were exactly the same quality, ran exactly the same routes, averaged exactly 14 yards/catch, both teams threw the ball 500 times and both guys were targeted 150 times, but Manning completes 65% of his passes while John Max Halleton completed 50% of his here's what you'd get...

Fitz -- 2.25y/a; 4.50y/c

Thomas -- 2.73y/a; 4.14y/c

Using Y/A Thomas is +21% vs Fitz, while using Y/C means Fitz would be +9%. So neither is perfect (since we stipulated they're equivalent players), but Y/C seems less imperfect (to me).

But feel free to use that however you see fit if you disagree -- I included both options in case people had a different take. An average of both might be worth looking at too.

 

[EBF]

There are a couple of ways around these problems. Pro Football Focus uses "Yards per Route Run", which I think is a fantastic stat. One could just as easily do "Yards per Team Pass Attempt". Neither of these disentangle a WR's production from his quarterback's production, but they're a much better start for measuring efficiency. Neither of those is perfect, either- a guy who shares the field with other great receivers will tend to be hurt in "Yards per Route Run" (although this offsets the fact that he was benefitted in Yards per Target by the softer coverages faced). One benefit of YPRR is that it's one of the few efficiency metrics that isn't trying to tell us that Denver has three of the top 10 receivers in the NFL (what a coincidence! How lucky is Peyton Manning that he gets to play with such efficient receivers!) In terms of "Yards per Route Run", Demaryius finished 11th. In 2012, he was 5th (and the "inefficient" Brandon Marshall was second). Both seasons, Demaryius' finish has been within 3 places of A.J. Green (who was 7th in 2012 and 8th in 2013). Again, it's not perfect either, but I think it's a much better starting point than simply using yards per target and creating arbitrary target thresholds.

I'll have to look at some of those other stats. You pointed out that those stats don't separate a WR's performance from his QB's stats and I think that's always going to be a problem. There is literally no way to know how guys like Fitz, Demaryius, Green, and Nelson would look if you swapped their situations. One thing you could do is look at the receiver's yards/target in relation to his QB's yards/attempt, but that's not going to be perfect either. You would expect a QB with good complementary options (such as Romo, Rodgers, or Manning) to have a higher YPA than a QB with horrible supporting options (such as Luck, Brady, or RG3). So it might be harder for a guy like DT to have a big edge over his own teammates than a guy like Garcon who's surrounded by garbage.

I don't think yards per target is a perfect efficiency stat. If I did, I wouldn't have AJ Green ranked as a top 5 dynasty WR because he's horrible from this standpoint. On the other hand, I don't think simply looking at FF points scored (which is basically what most people do) is the best indicator of who had the best season. Anything that offers hints and glimmers of the "real" performance is more interesting to me than mere raw stats alone.

 

[Spike]

Blackmon and Nicks, to me, represent an interesting contrast of risk/reward proposals. I think Blackmon has higher upside, fewer questions about his ability, but significantly more risk due to his addiction/abuse/whatever issues. I don't even know if he's going to be playing next year, or when.

Nicks, on the other hand, is "safer" in that he'll be playing next year, but as greater questions about if he's still the same guy, or if he's just having his career (or at least the peak of his career) cut short due to the ongoing injuries. To add a little twist into it, he's also a FA and likely to go somewhere else, which further expands his range of up/down side.

Just thought it was an interesting comparison.

I agree with this. I think buying low on Blackmon is the way to go right now. I have him far ahead of Nicks based on talent alone.

I'm betting his head will be straight by opening day 2014.

Here's the only issue with this. I don't doubt Blackmon's talent, and the situation is likely to improve in 2014 due to a new QB being brough to town (I don't think anyone expects the Jags to go to war with Henne/Gabbert again). But we're in unchartered territory with Blackmon and the NFL. Who knows how Goodell handles this? If I recall, wasn't the suspension "indefinite" with a chance to apply for reinstatement in the future?

It's certainly possible that Blackmon has received the wake-up call loud and clear, but when does he actually get re-instated and allowed back on the field? That's a huge question mark, assuming the first issue (him getting his head on straight) is a go, which is also not a lock. Does anyone have any clarity on when he will potentially be re-instated?

With Nicks, he's certainly put up some ugly tape the past couple of seasons, and drew the ire of Coughlin after the season saying there were times Nicks didn't attack the ball like he had in the past. Part of it was likely due to conditioning as he missed a good chunk of training camp rehabbing yet another injury. I'd suspect part of it was also due to him trying to protect himself on a team headed nowhere. We've seen this before -- DeSean Jackson comes to mind specifically. I wouldn't completely write off Nicks given his age and production in the past. The injuries are concerning, sure. And perhaps he'll never be the same. Or perhaps he goes out and gets an incentive-laden deal and breaks out again, a la Jackson.

My understanding was that anyone in stage 3 of the substance abuse program (which we believed Justin Blackmon to be) would receive a mandatory 1-year suspension for any further violations. As a result, I was surprised to hear that Blackmon could apply for reinstatement before next season (although an ability to apply is not to be confused with a guarantee of success).

After this last season, I think there is a very strong probability that Justin Blackmon is an addict. Testing positive for something just four games after getting off a suspension for testing positive for something is a major red flag. I don't pretend to know Justin Blackmon, or that everyone is the same, but I know addiction is a ridiculously bad thing. The number of people who succeed at overcoming addiction is low. The number who do it without a single relapse is much lower, still. With every relapse carrying the potential for a year-long vacation, that's a crazy risk surrounding Blackmon. Further, for an addict, getting clean isn't just deciding not to use anymore. It involves a lot of effort and focus, and who knows how that distraction will impact his football performance. We've seen players given extended time off and come back like nothing ever happened (including this year's presumptive MVP), and we've also seen players who, when given a year off, have never looked the same again (such as Mo Clarett and Big Mike Williams). Blackmon is very wealthy and will have the best support system money can buy, but it's just one more risk on the pile.

No matter what happens, Justin Blackmon is either going to be someone who was ranked too high or too low. Either he stays clean and he blows away all of his risk-adjusted expectations, or else he tests positive again, throws away his career, and ten years from now we lament the fact that we even had such an obvious risk ranked at all. I tend to err on the side of letting someone else make that gamble. I like gambles (as evidenced by my stance on injured players), but I think I'll pass on the potential addict in what might be the deepest and most talented crop of receivers we've ever seen. Especially at what seem to be his current prices.

So where would you put Blackmon in relation to this year's rookie draft?

 

[Tau837]

Seattle runs to set up the pass and occasionally he catches the defense asleep with his arm. Stick him in Luck's shoes and he would not have those rosy efficiency stats.

You state this as if it's a fact. It's not.

 

[Tau837]

Where does Percy Harvin rank in dynasty?

He has barely played in a season and a half, but was putting up career high numbers the first half of 2012. Hopefully the hip injury isn't chronic. Too bad we didn't get to see how much SEA might feature him.

It seems like he should be older, but he is just 25 (turns 26 in May).

I've very consistently had a "top 6" of Calvin, Green, Julio, Dez, Demaryius, and Harvin. Harvin's injuries haven't changed that any more than Julio's have.

How much did you move up Josh Gordon based on his incendiary 2013 soph season?.

Still need to do my end-of-season rankings, but he'll be close. Probably 7th or 8th. I think his suspension concerns represent a slightly bigger risk than Harvin's injury concerns (current concussion notwithstanding). I think he has slightly less track record of success. I think Harvin is a slightly better NFL talent. We're not talking about huge differences, but the net effect places Harvin at the bottom of one tier and Gordon at the top of the next.

How is Harvin in the top 6? I could see an argument of these guys in front of him: Gordon, Jeffery, A. Brown, Floyd, Nelson. Gordon has off field risk, but has put up more impressive #'s on the field. Jeffery in his 2nd season(age 23) had 1400 yards, Brown is a month older and just had a 110/1500/8 season(Harvin can't touch that right now), Floyd might be a stretch, Nelson has a great QB and a couple of season better than Harvin, although older.

Harvin is still grossly over rated by some. He has had one good fantasy season in his 5 years in the league and has injury/character concerns.

#1 rated high school recruit in the nation

One of the greatest players in college football

1st round pick

WR25 (and Offensive Rookie of the Year)

WR20 (in 14 games)

WR7

WR3 at the time of his injury (and earning legit, non-ironic MVP consideration)

Traded for a king's ransom, given a $60m contract.

That looks very much like the kind of player profile I desperately want on my fantasy teams.

One reason to be concerned about Harvin's injury history is that it might affect his workload. If Seattle is worried about his injury risk, they might hold back on his touches, especially as a rusher. And a lot of his fantasy value has come from his carries (without his rushing numbers, his VBD would've been about half of what it was).

Adam, I recall that you were excited about Harvin in Seattle in part because they were talking up how much they were going to use him (in particular, they even wanted to use him in the return game). Given how things have gone this year, it seems like there's a good chance that they'll be a little bit more careful with him going forward.

Yeah, if you see Harvin's injury history as a troubling trend that calls for a reduction in his workload to keep him fresh, then that would call for a drop in his ranking. If you view Harvin's injury history as an unfortunate collection of unrelated injuries with little predictive power, that would not.

The way you worded this makes me think you didn't quite respond to his point. He is saying the team might feel it is appropriate to reduce his workload, not that he (ZWK) -- or anyone doing rankings -- feels that way.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Am I the only one who sees Harvin as a WR version of Jon Stewart?

 

[Adam Harstad]

So where would you put Blackmon in relation to this year's rookie draft?

Don't really know until after the draft, but I'd probably put Blackmon somewhere around WR30, which will traditionally correspond with guys going at the end of the 1st round of rookie drafts. Sort of in the Justin Hunter / Robert Woods range of rookie picks.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Where does Percy Harvin rank in dynasty?

He has barely played in a season and a half, but was putting up career high numbers the first half of 2012. Hopefully the hip injury isn't chronic. Too bad we didn't get to see how much SEA might feature him.

It seems like he should be older, but he is just 25 (turns 26 in May).

I've very consistently had a "top 6" of Calvin, Green, Julio, Dez, Demaryius, and Harvin. Harvin's injuries haven't changed that any more than Julio's have.

How much did you move up Josh Gordon based on his incendiary 2013 soph season?.

Still need to do my end-of-season rankings, but he'll be close. Probably 7th or 8th. I think his suspension concerns represent a slightly bigger risk than Harvin's injury concerns (current concussion notwithstanding). I think he has slightly less track record of success. I think Harvin is a slightly better NFL talent. We're not talking about huge differences, but the net effect places Harvin at the bottom of one tier and Gordon at the top of the next.

How is Harvin in the top 6? I could see an argument of these guys in front of him: Gordon, Jeffery, A. Brown, Floyd, Nelson. Gordon has off field risk, but has put up more impressive #'s on the field. Jeffery in his 2nd season(age 23) had 1400 yards, Brown is a month older and just had a 110/1500/8 season(Harvin can't touch that right now), Floyd might be a stretch, Nelson has a great QB and a couple of season better than Harvin, although older.

Harvin is still grossly over rated by some. He has had one good fantasy season in his 5 years in the league and has injury/character concerns.

#1 rated high school recruit in the nation

One of the greatest players in college football

1st round pick

WR25 (and Offensive Rookie of the Year)

WR20 (in 14 games)

WR7

WR3 at the time of his injury (and earning legit, non-ironic MVP consideration)

Traded for a king's ransom, given a $60m contract.

That looks very much like the kind of player profile I desperately want on my fantasy teams.

One reason to be concerned about Harvin's injury history is that it might affect his workload. If Seattle is worried about his injury risk, they might hold back on his touches, especially as a rusher. And a lot of his fantasy value has come from his carries (without his rushing numbers, his VBD would've been about half of what it was).

Adam, I recall that you were excited about Harvin in Seattle in part because they were talking up how much they were going to use him (in particular, they even wanted to use him in the return game). Given how things have gone this year, it seems like there's a good chance that they'll be a little bit more careful with him going forward.

Yeah, if you see Harvin's injury history as a troubling trend that calls for a reduction in his workload to keep him fresh, then that would call for a drop in his ranking. If you view Harvin's injury history as an unfortunate collection of unrelated injuries with little predictive power, that would not.

The way you worded this makes me think you didn't quite respond to his point. He is saying the team might feel it is appropriate to reduce his workload, not that he (ZWK) -- or anyone doing rankings -- feels that way.

It's hard to respond to his point about what Seattle might do. The coaching staff might, theoretically, decide to limit his workload, but I haven't seen them give any reason or indication to believe that they will, so at this point it seems like it's mostly just uninformed speculation. If Pete Carroll said something to the effect of "we're going to have to limit Percy Harvin and keep him protected, he's too valuable to be risking all the time", then I'd drop Percy Harvin in my rankings.

I mean, in theory, Atlanta might limit Julio Jones' work to protect his foot, and New England might start using Rob Gronkowski more situationally, and Minnesota might decide it's time to start platooning Adrian Peterson more. All of those outcomes are possible reactions to each player's injuries this season, but I'm not going to rank any of those players based on the possibility that the coaching staff might approach them differently unless and until the coaching staff gives me some indication that they plan on approaching them differently.

 

[EBF]

Seattle runs to set up the pass and occasionally he catches the defense asleep with his arm. Stick him in Luck's shoes and he would not have those rosy efficiency stats.

You state this as if it's a fact. It's not.

It's not fact, but it's a reasonable estimate.

Much was made of the fact that RG3 and Wilson had better efficiency stats than Luck last year. I think scheme/supporting cast played a large role in that. Through two seasons Wilson and Griffin have been low volume passers on dominant running offenses whereas Luck has been a high volume passer on a poor running team.

Their career numbers:

PASS ATTEMPTS/GAME:

Luck - 37.4

Griffin - 30.3

Wilson - 25.0

During this time frame the Redskins and Seahawks have ranked in the top 5 in total rushing yards among all NFL teams both seasons while the Colts have finished 22nd and 20th despite also having a good runner at QB. The Seahawks have also had the top defense in the NFL each of the past two seasons.

If you got back and look at the rookie QBs who have had high yards/attempt averages in the past decade, almost all of them were low volume passers. Roethlisberger. Ryan. Newton. Griffin. Wilson. That makes sense because teams don't usually want their rookie QB being the spine of their offense. What Luck did by coming in and ranking top 5 among all NFL QBs in pass attempts as a rookie is nearly unheard of. It's very hard to compare him to guys who have a dominant running game to lean on and are only called upon to throw the ball a fraction of the time.

So no, it's not a "fact" that their stats would be mirrored if you flipped their situations, but I think it's a safe guess that these game manager types would see their per-throw numbers plummet if their situations were less favorable. Over time Wilson and Luck may grow into high volume/high efficiency players, but right now one of them is high volume/low efficiency and the other is low volume/high efficiency. It's tough to stack up their numbers and say "this guy played better" when their usage is so different.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Rivers, Roethlisberger and Brady were all highish efficiency low-volume QBs at one point too and they scaled up just fine.

ETA: I just finished a pretty in depth look at young QBs from the last 35 years or so, and based on that I'd rank the current crop as Foles, Wilson, Luck and Griffin at this point.

 

[EBF]

Rivers, Roethlisberger and Brady were all highish efficiency low-volume QBs at one point too and they scaled up just fine.

Rivers threw 30 passes his first two years in the league. Guys like him and Rodgers are tough to stack up alongside guys who started from day one because they had the benefit of being on the sidelines and practicing for years before their "rookie" season. We'll never know how terrible they might have looked if they'd been thrown to the wolves from week one.

As for Brady and Ben, it took them years to reach that level. The crazy YPA is part of why I was a huge buyer on Ben back in the day. After his rookie year he was ranked around QB18-QB20. He never quite became a mega FF star, but he had some nice seasons. It took quite a bit of patience to see that reward though.

I have Wilson on a couple of my FF teams and I'm cautiously optimistic that he can eventually mimic a Brady/Roethlisberger type of ascent. The key word there is eventually. If you had him throwing it 600+ times as a rookie I'm guessing he would've been quite bad. Even now, he doesn't seem like he's ready to consistently control games, although it would help if he had a real WR corps.

 

[Tau837]

One reason to be concerned about Harvin's injury history is that it might affect his workload. If Seattle is worried about his injury risk, they might hold back on his touches, especially as a rusher. And a lot of his fantasy value has come from his carries (without his rushing numbers, his VBD would've been about half of what it was).


Adam, I recall that you were excited about Harvin in Seattle in part because they were talking up how much they were going to use him (in particular, they even wanted to use him in the return game). Given how things have gone this year, it seems like there's a good chance that they'll be a little bit more careful with him going forward.

Yeah, if you see Harvin's injury history as a troubling trend that calls for a reduction in his workload to keep him fresh, then that would call for a drop in his ranking. If you view Harvin's injury history as an unfortunate collection of unrelated injuries with little predictive power, that would not.

The way you worded this makes me think you didn't quite respond to his point. He is saying the team might feel it is appropriate to reduce his workload, not that he (ZWK) -- or anyone doing rankings -- feels that way.

It's hard to respond to his point about what Seattle might do. The coaching staff might, theoretically, decide to limit his workload, but I haven't seen them give any reason or indication to believe that they will, so at this point it seems like it's mostly just uninformed speculation. If Pete Carroll said something to the effect of "we're going to have to limit Percy Harvin and keep him protected, he's too valuable to be risking all the time", then I'd drop Percy Harvin in my rankings.

I mean, in theory, Atlanta might limit Julio Jones' work to protect his foot, and New England might start using Rob Gronkowski more situationally, and Minnesota might decide it's time to start platooning Adrian Peterson more. All of those outcomes are possible reactions to each player's injuries this season, but I'm not going to rank any of those players based on the possibility that the coaching staff might approach them differently unless and until the coaching staff gives me some indication that they plan on approaching them differently.

I don't think the Julio or Peterson examples are very comparable. Seattle just went 15-3 and made it to the Super Bowl with virtually no contribution from Harvin. (And even if you want to say he contributed in 2 wins, then they went 13-3 with zero contribution from him.) That isn't the case with Julio or Peterson; those franchises don't have the luxury of being able to limit their touches and still win most of their games. Furthermore, Peterson is different anyway, as he has entered an age range that is typically associated with declining performance.

I think the Gronk comparison is a better one. We know Gronk got hurt once playing on special teams for an extra point. I think it's very possible the Pats won't put him out for special teams anymore. I think it is similarly possible the Seahawks will do that with Harvin. Or, at least, they may pick important spots to use him.

I agree it would be more worrisome if the coaching staff said something to this effect, and to my knowledge they haven't. But I do agree with ZWK that there is at least a little risk of Harvin's workload being reduced, and, generally speaking, I don't feel that way about the other guys in contention for a top 10 dynasty WR ranking.

 

[Tau837]

Seattle runs to set up the pass and occasionally he catches the defense asleep with his arm. Stick him in Luck's shoes and he would not have those rosy efficiency stats.

You state this as if it's a fact. It's not.

It's not fact, but it's a reasonable estimate.

Much was made of the fact that RG3 and Wilson had better efficiency stats than Luck last year. I think scheme/supporting cast played a large role in that. Through two seasons Wilson and Griffin have been low volume passers on dominant running offenses whereas Luck has been a high volume passer on a poor running team.

Their career numbers:

PASS ATTEMPTS/GAME:

Luck - 37.4

Griffin - 30.3

Wilson - 25.0

During this time frame the Redskins and Seahawks have ranked in the top 5 in total rushing yards among all NFL teams both seasons while the Colts have finished 22nd and 20th despite also having a good runner at QB. The Seahawks have also had the top defense in the NFL each of the past two seasons.

If you got back and look at the rookie QBs who have had high yards/attempt averages in the past decade, almost all of them were low volume passers. Roethlisberger. Ryan. Newton. Griffin. Wilson. That makes sense because teams don't usually want their rookie QB being the spine of their offense. What Luck did by coming in and ranking top 5 among all NFL QBs in pass attempts as a rookie is nearly unheard of. It's very hard to compare him to guys who have a dominant running game to lean on and are only called upon to throw the ball a fraction of the time.

So no, it's not a "fact" that their stats would be mirrored if you flipped their situations, but I think it's a safe guess that these game manager types would see their per-throw numbers plummet if their situations were less favorable. Over time Wilson and Luck may grow into high volume/high efficiency players, but right now one of them is high volume/low efficiency and the other is low volume/high efficiency. It's tough to stack up their numbers and say "this guy played better" when their usage is so different.

I agree that it is reasonable to believe Wilson's efficiency numbers (or some of them at least) would be lower if his volume of passes went up significantly. Where we disagree is that I don't think it is a given that they would "plummet." He could move smoothly into high volume/high efficiency.

He has played for two years with a weak set of targets -- weak WRs, weak TEs, and weak pass catching RBs. He also played this year with a lousy offensive line, at least for purposes of pass protection. According to PFF, he was under pressure on 49.3% of his dropbacks this season, which was the most in the NFL.

So, yes, he has benefitted from having a great run game and great defense, but he has also put up great efficiency numbers despite some issues with his supporting cast.

 

[ZWK]

Harvin is still grossly over rated by some. He has had one good fantasy season in his 5 years in the league and has injury/character concerns.

#1 rated high school recruit in the nation

One of the greatest players in college football

1st round pick

WR25 (and Offensive Rookie of the Year)

WR20 (in 14 games)

WR7

WR3 at the time of his injury (and earning legit, non-ironic MVP consideration)

Traded for a king's ransom, given a $60m contract.

That looks very much like the kind of player profile I desperately want on my fantasy teams.

One reason to be concerned about Harvin's injury history is that it might affect his workload. If Seattle is worried about his injury risk, they might hold back on his touches, especially as a rusher. And a lot of his fantasy value has come from his carries (without his rushing numbers, his VBD would've been about half of what it was).

Adam, I recall that you were excited about Harvin in Seattle in part because they were talking up how much they were going to use him (in particular, they even wanted to use him in the return game). Given how things have gone this year, it seems like there's a good chance that they'll be a little bit more careful with him going forward.

Yeah, if you see Harvin's injury history as a troubling trend that calls for a reduction in his workload to keep him fresh, then that would call for a drop in his ranking. If you view Harvin's injury history as an unfortunate collection of unrelated injuries with little predictive power, that would not.

The way you worded this makes me think you didn't quite respond to his point. He is saying the team might feel it is appropriate to reduce his workload, not that he (ZWK) -- or anyone doing rankings -- feels that way.

It's hard to respond to his point about what Seattle might do. The coaching staff might, theoretically, decide to limit his workload, but I haven't seen them give any reason or indication to believe that they will, so at this point it seems like it's mostly just uninformed speculation. If Pete Carroll said something to the effect of "we're going to have to limit Percy Harvin and keep him protected, he's too valuable to be risking all the time", then I'd drop Percy Harvin in my rankings.

I mean, in theory, Atlanta might limit Julio Jones' work to protect his foot, and New England might start using Rob Gronkowski more situationally, and Minnesota might decide it's time to start platooning Adrian Peterson more. All of those outcomes are possible reactions to each player's injuries this season, but I'm not going to rank any of those players based on the possibility that the coaching staff might approach them differently unless and until the coaching staff gives me some indication that they plan on approaching them differently.

Harvin is a little different from guys like Julio or Gronk because he has an unconventional role which puts him in a position that is at extra risk of injury. And a significant chunk of his fantasy value depends on him keeping that unconventional role. So there are two ways that injuries could hurt his fantasy value: 1) he could in fact be injury prone, and lose fantasy value by missing games in the future (or having reduced effectiveness from repeated injuries), or 2) his team could worry about his injuries and shrink his role in order to protect him. I was focusing on #2, since you seemed to have already accounted for #1 but not for #2.

Harvin has his main role on offense of lining up at wide receiver and running pass routes, which he is very good at. He also has a secondary role on offense of lining up in the backfield and taking handoffs, which he is also very good at but which exposes him to a higher risk of injury. So if the team wants to be a little more careful about protecting him, they can cut back on his secondary role while continuing to make use of him in his main role. He is at higher risk than most players of having his role shrunk, because it's not just a matter of cutting his workload - it's shifting his role towards something more conventional because his unconventional role creates extra injury risk.

There aren't many other players who have this kind of unconventional role. One analogue is players who are used on special teams, which is a higher-injury-risk role. It's relatively common for players who take on a bigger offensive role to have their role in the return game cut. And if a player who is good on offense had some injury problems then I'd suspect that he'd be more likely to see his use as a returner reduced (even if the injuries did not come on returns, and even if his coaches had not explicitly said anything yet about reducing his role in the return game). If I was in a return yardage league, I'd be extra worried about a guy who had some injury trouble if his value depended on getting significant usage in the return game as well as on offense. That is basically the situation that Harvin is in, except replace returns with rushes (although it is also true of him with returns).

 

[Tau837]

Harvin is still grossly over rated by some. He has had one good fantasy season in his 5 years in the league and has injury/character concerns.

#1 rated high school recruit in the nation

One of the greatest players in college football

1st round pick

WR25 (and Offensive Rookie of the Year)

WR20 (in 14 games)

WR7

WR3 at the time of his injury (and earning legit, non-ironic MVP consideration)

Traded for a king's ransom, given a $60m contract.

That looks very much like the kind of player profile I desperately want on my fantasy teams.

One reason to be concerned about Harvin's injury history is that it might affect his workload. If Seattle is worried about his injury risk, they might hold back on his touches, especially as a rusher. And a lot of his fantasy value has come from his carries (without his rushing numbers, his VBD would've been about half of what it was).

Adam, I recall that you were excited about Harvin in Seattle in part because they were talking up how much they were going to use him (in particular, they even wanted to use him in the return game). Given how things have gone this year, it seems like there's a good chance that they'll be a little bit more careful with him going forward.

Yeah, if you see Harvin's injury history as a troubling trend that calls for a reduction in his workload to keep him fresh, then that would call for a drop in his ranking. If you view Harvin's injury history as an unfortunate collection of unrelated injuries with little predictive power, that would not.

The way you worded this makes me think you didn't quite respond to his point. He is saying the team might feel it is appropriate to reduce his workload, not that he (ZWK) -- or anyone doing rankings -- feels that way.

It's hard to respond to his point about what Seattle might do. The coaching staff might, theoretically, decide to limit his workload, but I haven't seen them give any reason or indication to believe that they will, so at this point it seems like it's mostly just uninformed speculation. If Pete Carroll said something to the effect of "we're going to have to limit Percy Harvin and keep him protected, he's too valuable to be risking all the time", then I'd drop Percy Harvin in my rankings.

I mean, in theory, Atlanta might limit Julio Jones' work to protect his foot, and New England might start using Rob Gronkowski more situationally, and Minnesota might decide it's time to start platooning Adrian Peterson more. All of those outcomes are possible reactions to each player's injuries this season, but I'm not going to rank any of those players based on the possibility that the coaching staff might approach them differently unless and until the coaching staff gives me some indication that they plan on approaching them differently.

Harvin is a little different from guys like Julio or Gronk because he has an unconventional role which puts him in a position that is at extra risk of injury. And a significant chunk of his fantasy value depends on him keeping that unconventional role. So there are two ways that injuries could hurt his fantasy value: 1) he could in fact be injury prone, and lose fantasy value by missing games in the future (or having reduced effectiveness from repeated injuries), or 2) his team could worry about his injuries and shrink his role in order to protect him. I was focusing on #2, since you seemed to have already accounted for #1 but not for #2.

Harvin has his main role on offense of lining up at wide receiver and running pass routes, which he is very good at. He also has a secondary role on offense of lining up in the backfield and taking handoffs, which he is also very good at but which exposes him to a higher risk of injury. So if the team wants to be a little more careful about protecting him, they can cut back on his secondary role while continuing to make use of him in his main role. He is at higher risk than most players of having his role shrunk, because it's not just a matter of cutting his workload - it's shifting his role towards something more conventional because his unconventional role creates extra injury risk.

There aren't many other players who have this kind of unconventional role. One analogue is players who are used on special teams, which is a higher-injury-risk role. It's relatively common for players who take on a bigger offensive role to have their role in the return game cut. And if a player who is good on offense had some injury problems then I'd suspect that he'd be more likely to see his use as a returner reduced (even if the injuries did not come on returns, and even if his coaches had not explicitly said anything yet about reducing his role in the return game). If I was in a return yardage league, I'd be extra worried about a guy who had some injury trouble if his value depended on getting significant usage in the return game as well as on offense. That is basically the situation that Harvin is in, except replace returns with rushes (although it is also true of him with returns).

 

[Adam Harstad]

Harvin is a little different from guys like Julio or Gronk because he has an unconventional role which puts him in a position that is at extra risk of injury. And a significant chunk of his fantasy value depends on him keeping that unconventional role. So there are two ways that injuries could hurt his fantasy value: 1) he could in fact be injury prone, and lose fantasy value by missing games in the future (or having reduced effectiveness from repeated injuries), or 2) his team could worry about his injuries and shrink his role in order to protect him. I was focusing on #2, since you seemed to have already accounted for #1 but not for #2.

Harvin has his main role on offense of lining up at wide receiver and running pass routes, which he is very good at. He also has a secondary role on offense of lining up in the backfield and taking handoffs, which he is also very good at but which exposes him to a higher risk of injury. So if the team wants to be a little more careful about protecting him, they can cut back on his secondary role while continuing to make use of him in his main role. He is at higher risk than most players of having his role shrunk, because it's not just a matter of cutting his workload - it's shifting his role towards something more conventional because his unconventional role creates extra injury risk.

There aren't many other players who have this kind of unconventional role. One analogue is players who are used on special teams, which is a higher-injury-risk role. It's relatively common for players who take on a bigger offensive role to have their role in the return game cut. And if a player who is good on offense had some injury problems then I'd suspect that he'd be more likely to see his use as a returner reduced (even if the injuries did not come on returns, and even if his coaches had not explicitly said anything yet about reducing his role in the return game). If I was in a return yardage league, I'd be extra worried about a guy who had some injury trouble if his value depended on getting significant usage in the return game as well as on offense. That is basically the situation that Harvin is in, except replace returns with rushes (although it is also true of him with returns).

Does that secondary role expose him to a higher risk of injury? Do we have any data supporting this? Percy Harvin played in 54 of his first 57 possible games, and the three he missed were due to migraines (that he no longer suffers from). He broke his ankle on a deep pass (I believe- I just rewatched the game, and I'm not 100% positive which play he broke it on). There have been similar players (Reggie Bush, Dexter McCluster, Eric Metcalf) who have handled rush attempts just fine. I don't know of any evidence suggesting that Harvin is more likely to get hurt on an end-around or a draw play than he is on a bubble screen. In the grand scheme of thing, 50 rush attempts a season seems like a pretty minor extra injury risk.

I do think there's a pretty decent chance that Seattle rethinks Percy's special teams involvement based on his injuries this season. I don't know, maybe I'm missing something, but I don't know why I would expect them to change their mind about his rushing involvement (if, in fact, they originally planned to involve him in the rushing game) because he has gotten a couple of injuries, all of which have occurred on receptions.

I would absolutely be downgrading Percy Harvin in return-yardage leagues (and, in fact, I own Percy Harvin in one such league and have downgraded him). Downgrading Harvin in return yardage leagues, though, is a matter of moving him from where he was (WR #1, or close to it) down more in line with where I have him in traditional leagues (WR6, or possibly as low as WR8 behind Randall Cobb and Antonio Brown, who jump up a tier).

 

[Kleck]

Am I the only one who sees Harvin as a WR version of Jon Stewart?

No. He's a player I'd love to trade if he were on any of my teams. But he's not because the cost has always been too high for my liking.

 

[EBF]

I think injuries are difficult to predict, but apart from the random stuff there are two things that seem like they might contribute to durability risk:

1. Volume of violent collisions (through usage and/or playing style).

2. Durability against violent collisions.

A lot of the obvious injury locks like McFadden, Murray, Gronk, Knile, Lattimore, and Beanie are guys who are exposed to a high volume of violent collisions (because they lack the agility and movement skills to avoid/deflect tacklers) and who have a poor constitution to survive violent collisions (because of their thinnish lower bodies). I think any one of those two traits alone is not enough to cause acute durability issues, but when you combine them it seems like a recipe for trouble.

Harvin is agile enough not to qualify for #1 on the basis of his innate playing style, but the way he's used as a linebacker/safety magnet over the middle of the field might expose him to a high volume of hits. He's also very thin for a WR. Although he looks jacked up, he was only 5'11 1/8" and 192 pounds at the combine, which is good for a BMI of just 26.6. To put that into perspective, that's roughly equivalent to a typical thin finesse WR like Reggie Wayne or AJ Green. Most of the "big" receivers in the NFL are in the 27.5-29 range (Fitzgerald, Andre, Calvin, Dez, Crabtree, VJax, etc).

It might be tempting to say that other undersized WR/slot receivers offer a blueprint for success, but I'd urge caution there. Even most of the "small" gadget/open field players who have been successful over multiple seasons are bigger than Harvin. Reggie Bush is 5'10 7/8" 201, which is good for a BMI of 28.1. That's thin for a RB, but quite thick for a WR (and Bush has hardly been the picture of durability). Darren Sproles is 5'6 1/8" and 187, which is good for a BMI of 30.1. That's right on par with guys like Ray Rice and Brian Westbrook. It's basically average for a RB. Sproles isn't a small guy. He's just short. Perhaps the king of surviving violence over the middle is Wes Welker. People think of him as undersized, but with 195 pounds stacked onto a 5'8 3/4" frame, he has a huge 29.0 BMI.

The guy who was supposed to replace Welker, Danny Amendola, has a miniscule 25.9 BMI. You've got to wonder if that slight frame coupled with his violent role is the primary culprit behind his inability to stay healthy. My guess would be yes. When you take a "bad" body and expose it to a lot of violence, I think it's more likely to break. That could explain a lot of Harvin's injury issues. He has a slight frame by NFL standards and his role in the offense subjects him to a lot of violence.

 

[ZWK]

Harvin is a little different from guys like Julio or Gronk because he has an unconventional role which puts him in a position that is at extra risk of injury. And a significant chunk of his fantasy value depends on him keeping that unconventional role. So there are two ways that injuries could hurt his fantasy value: 1) he could in fact be injury prone, and lose fantasy value by missing games in the future (or having reduced effectiveness from repeated injuries), or 2) his team could worry about his injuries and shrink his role in order to protect him. I was focusing on #2, since you seemed to have already accounted for #1 but not for #2.

Harvin has his main role on offense of lining up at wide receiver and running pass routes, which he is very good at. He also has a secondary role on offense of lining up in the backfield and taking handoffs, which he is also very good at but which exposes him to a higher risk of injury. So if the team wants to be a little more careful about protecting him, they can cut back on his secondary role while continuing to make use of him in his main role. He is at higher risk than most players of having his role shrunk, because it's not just a matter of cutting his workload - it's shifting his role towards something more conventional because his unconventional role creates extra injury risk.

There aren't many other players who have this kind of unconventional role. One analogue is players who are used on special teams, which is a higher-injury-risk role. It's relatively common for players who take on a bigger offensive role to have their role in the return game cut. And if a player who is good on offense had some injury problems then I'd suspect that he'd be more likely to see his use as a returner reduced (even if the injuries did not come on returns, and even if his coaches had not explicitly said anything yet about reducing his role in the return game). If I was in a return yardage league, I'd be extra worried about a guy who had some injury trouble if his value depended on getting significant usage in the return game as well as on offense. That is basically the situation that Harvin is in, except replace returns with rushes (although it is also true of him with returns).

Does that secondary role expose him to a higher risk of injury? Do we have any data supporting this? Percy Harvin played in 54 of his first 57 possible games, and the three he missed were due to migraines (that he no longer suffers from). He broke his ankle on a deep pass (I believe- I just rewatched the game, and I'm not 100% positive which play he broke it on). There have been similar players (Reggie Bush, Dexter McCluster, Eric Metcalf) who have handled rush attempts just fine. I don't know of any evidence suggesting that Harvin is more likely to get hurt on an end-around or a draw play than he is on a bubble screen. In the grand scheme of thing, 50 rush attempts a season seems like a pretty minor extra injury risk.

I do think there's a pretty decent chance that Seattle rethinks Percy's special teams involvement based on his injuries this season. I don't know, maybe I'm missing something, but I don't know why I would expect them to change their mind about his rushing involvement (if, in fact, they originally planned to involve him in the rushing game) because he has gotten a couple of injuries, all of which have occurred on receptions.

I would absolutely be downgrading Percy Harvin in return-yardage leagues (and, in fact, I own Percy Harvin in one such league and have downgraded him). Downgrading Harvin in return yardage leagues, though, is a matter of moving him from where he was (WR #1, or close to it) down more in line with where I have him in traditional leagues (WR6, or possibly as low as WR8 behind Randall Cobb and Antonio Brown, who jump up a tier).

Running backs do get injured more than WRs. And some of Harvin's handoffs have been relatively standard RB-like carries (like running it up the gut inside the opponent's 10). So I'm reducing my estimate for Harvin's expected number of carries, especially the more standard RB-like ones.

A year ago, you saw a link between Harvin's special teams usage & his offensive usage - when Seattle said that they wanted to use Harvin on special teams, you took that as a sign that he'd get a heavier workload on offense (since it indicated that they wanted to get the ball in his hands as much as possible). Now that we expect them to give him less of a special teams role due to signs of fragility, doesn't the framework that you were using imply that we should also expect him to get a lighter workload on offense?

(By the way, I still have Harvin in my top 10. But he's behind Gordon, Cobb, and Jeffery.)

 

[squistion]

What is specifically that you don't like about Ellington? You always go to bat for the undersized backs. He is heavier than Chris Johnson and CJ Spiller. One pound lighter than Jamaal Charles. Thicker than all of them when you factor in his shorter height. Had 5.5 YPC as a rookie including 8 runs of 20+ yards (only five RBs had more - Morris, Gore, Forte, McCoy, and Spiller). Out of the 40+ backs in the league who had 100 or more carries, he was the best in the NFL at breaking long runs (went for 20 or more yards on almost 7% of his carries).

I kind of doubt that he's ever going to be a 200+ carry back, but if efficiency stats were all that mattered to me, I'd be buying him in every league.

I don't always go to bat for the undersized backs, and the fact that I'm not going to bat for Ellington is pretty compelling proof on that count.

 

[ShaHBucks]

Rivers, Roethlisberger and Brady were all highish efficiency low-volume QBs at one point too and they scaled up just fine.ETA: I just finished a pretty in depth look at young QBs from the last 35 years or so, and based on that I'd rank the current crop as Foles, Wilson, Luck and Griffin at this point.

Would you trade Foles for Luck?

 

[Adam Harstad]

Harvin is a little different from guys like Julio or Gronk because he has an unconventional role which puts him in a position that is at extra risk of injury. And a significant chunk of his fantasy value depends on him keeping that unconventional role. So there are two ways that injuries could hurt his fantasy value: 1) he could in fact be injury prone, and lose fantasy value by missing games in the future (or having reduced effectiveness from repeated injuries), or 2) his team could worry about his injuries and shrink his role in order to protect him. I was focusing on #2, since you seemed to have already accounted for #1 but not for #2.

Harvin has his main role on offense of lining up at wide receiver and running pass routes, which he is very good at. He also has a secondary role on offense of lining up in the backfield and taking handoffs, which he is also very good at but which exposes him to a higher risk of injury. So if the team wants to be a little more careful about protecting him, they can cut back on his secondary role while continuing to make use of him in his main role. He is at higher risk than most players of having his role shrunk, because it's not just a matter of cutting his workload - it's shifting his role towards something more conventional because his unconventional role creates extra injury risk.

There aren't many other players who have this kind of unconventional role. One analogue is players who are used on special teams, which is a higher-injury-risk role. It's relatively common for players who take on a bigger offensive role to have their role in the return game cut. And if a player who is good on offense had some injury problems then I'd suspect that he'd be more likely to see his use as a returner reduced (even if the injuries did not come on returns, and even if his coaches had not explicitly said anything yet about reducing his role in the return game). If I was in a return yardage league, I'd be extra worried about a guy who had some injury trouble if his value depended on getting significant usage in the return game as well as on offense. That is basically the situation that Harvin is in, except replace returns with rushes (although it is also true of him with returns).

Does that secondary role expose him to a higher risk of injury? Do we have any data supporting this? Percy Harvin played in 54 of his first 57 possible games, and the three he missed were due to migraines (that he no longer suffers from). He broke his ankle on a deep pass (I believe- I just rewatched the game, and I'm not 100% positive which play he broke it on). There have been similar players (Reggie Bush, Dexter McCluster, Eric Metcalf) who have handled rush attempts just fine. I don't know of any evidence suggesting that Harvin is more likely to get hurt on an end-around or a draw play than he is on a bubble screen. In the grand scheme of thing, 50 rush attempts a season seems like a pretty minor extra injury risk.

I do think there's a pretty decent chance that Seattle rethinks Percy's special teams involvement based on his injuries this season. I don't know, maybe I'm missing something, but I don't know why I would expect them to change their mind about his rushing involvement (if, in fact, they originally planned to involve him in the rushing game) because he has gotten a couple of injuries, all of which have occurred on receptions.

I would absolutely be downgrading Percy Harvin in return-yardage leagues (and, in fact, I own Percy Harvin in one such league and have downgraded him). Downgrading Harvin in return yardage leagues, though, is a matter of moving him from where he was (WR #1, or close to it) down more in line with where I have him in traditional leagues (WR6, or possibly as low as WR8 behind Randall Cobb and Antonio Brown, who jump up a tier).

Running backs do get injured more than WRs. And some of Harvin's handoffs have been relatively standard RB-like carries (like running it up the gut inside the opponent's 10). So I'm reducing my estimate for Harvin's expected number of carries, especially the more standard RB-like ones.

A year ago, you saw a link between Harvin's special teams usage & his offensive usage - when Seattle said that they wanted to use Harvin on special teams, you took that as a sign that he'd get a heavier workload on offense (since it indicated that they wanted to get the ball in his hands as much as possible). Now that we expect them to give him less of a special teams role due to signs of fragility, doesn't the framework that you were using imply that we should also expect him to get a lighter workload on offense?

(By the way, I still have Harvin in my top 10. But he's behind Gordon, Cobb, and Jeffery.)

Running backs touch the ball 2-3 times more than wide receivers. Do they suffer injuries at rates 2-3 times higher? Do they get injured more often on a per-play basis?

I've always said that I don't know how Seattle will use Harvin. I don't know whether they'll give him 50 carries or 5. I don't know if they'll use him as a deep threat or just keep rocking the screens. I'm not sure. I just know that, as much as they spent to acquire him, they've got a plan for him, and I'm eager to see what it is. The early talk from Carroll about how they were going to use Harvin all over, in every role, including special teams was a huge positive. Whether Carroll actually used him on special teams or not, that showed that his mindset was to feature Harvin. Now, I'm speculating that they might scale back his special teams involvement, but that's just blind speculation- pure, unadulterated, random guessing on my part. As far as I know, Pete Carroll's mindset is still "Harvin is a weapon; feature him". Or, in other words, Carroll's stated commitment to use Harvin on special teams was a positive indicator, but whether he actually wound up getting used on special teams wasn't all that important.

And again, the "scaled back on special teams" thing is a complete, total, 100% shot-in-the-dark guess. It's important to note that when Harvin first returned from his labral tear, Seattle said they were going to give him a very limited workload, and that limited workload still included special teams work. So, at least prior to his concussion, Seattle was still committed to getting him in on special teams. I'm just trying to be a bit more risk-adverse in my ranking in return yardage leagues and start treating his returns more as a good bonus than a cornerstone of his value.

Edit: I also don't know why 80-100 receptions and 50 carries seems like such a daunting workload. Bruce Arians basically says straight up that he thinks Andre Ellington isn't built to handle a full load, that Ellington is small and has durability concerns and will likely break down, and that seems like exactly the kind of easy workload Arians would prescribe for Ellington to keep him fresh. Ellington got 39 receptions and 118 carries this year, and if we buy your theory that rushes are more dangerous than receptions, that's a bigger/more daunting workload than the 80-100/30-50 breakdown I'm proposing Harvin could easily handle. If we think of Percy Harvin as an undersized CoP back, that's the kind of workload we'd be prescribing for him. Nobody would say of Dexter McCluster (who is substantially smaller than Harvin) "Oh, I don't know if he can handle the pounding of 50 carries or 150 total touches, I'm sure KC will scale back his workload out of fear of him getting injured".

 

[Tool]

Rivers, Roethlisberger and Brady were all highish efficiency low-volume QBs at one point too and they scaled up just fine.ETA: I just finished a pretty in depth look at young QBs from the last 35 years or so, and based on that I'd rank the current crop as Foles, Wilson, Luck and Griffin at this point.

Would you trade Foles for Luck?

interesting question. I would. And i am a Foles owner. Have to account for some risk Foles performance doesn't stay at this level / keep getting better. With Luck that risk is much smaller.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Rivers, Roethlisberger and Brady were all highish efficiency low-volume QBs at one point too and they scaled up just fine.ETA: I just finished a pretty in depth look at young QBs from the last 35 years or so, and based on that I'd rank the current crop as Foles, Wilson, Luck and Griffin at this point.

Would you trade Foles for Luck?

interesting question. I would. And i am a Foles owner. Have to account for some risk Foles performance doesn't stay at this level / keep getting better. With Luck that risk is much smaller.

It's a tough call. I wouldn't do it just because I like keeping the # of guys I own as small as possible, but that's personal preference. If not for that, I'd probably do it because Luck's trade value is higher.

And even though I have Wilson ahead of Luck up there I wouldn't do that trade. Foles-Wilson-Luck-Griffin is based on my long-term take on their talent/risk, but Wilson's upside is capped for the time being by the run-heavy offense.

 

[ShaHBucks]

Rivers, Roethlisberger and Brady were all highish efficiency low-volume QBs at one point too and they scaled up just fine.ETA: I just finished a pretty in depth look at young QBs from the last 35 years or so, and based on that I'd rank the current crop as Foles, Wilson, Luck and Griffin at this point.

Would you trade Foles for Luck?

interesting question. I would. And i am a Foles owner. Have to account for some risk Foles performance doesn't stay at this level / keep getting better. With Luck that risk is much smaller.

It's a tough call. I wouldn't do it just because I like keeping the # of guys I own as small as possible, but that's personal preference. If not for that, I'd probably do it because Luck's trade value is higher.And even though I have Wilson ahead of Luck up there I wouldn't do that trade. Foles-Wilson-Luck-Griffin is based on my long-term take on their talent/risk, but Wilson's upside is capped for the time being by the run-heavy offense.

This is why I asked. Eagles are a run team as well. Luck seems like the only one that will possibly get to Peyton Mannings level of usage where he's darn near the OC. Assuming he reaches his destiny this might the last buy low window for Luck. Watching Luck in the playoff made me wonder did the flip just switch where he starts to throw for 300+ with 2-3 TDs every week.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Rivers, Roethlisberger and Brady were all highish efficiency low-volume QBs at one point too and they scaled up just fine.ETA: I just finished a pretty in depth look at young QBs from the last 35 years or so, and based on that I'd rank the current crop as Foles, Wilson, Luck and Griffin at this point.

Would you trade Foles for Luck?

interesting question. I would. And i am a Foles owner. Have to account for some risk Foles performance doesn't stay at this level / keep getting better. With Luck that risk is much smaller.

It's a tough call. I wouldn't do it just because I like keeping the # of guys I own as small as possible, but that's personal preference. If not for that, I'd probably do it because Luck's trade value is higher.And even though I have Wilson ahead of Luck up there I wouldn't do that trade. Foles-Wilson-Luck-Griffin is based on my long-term take on their talent/risk, but Wilson's upside is capped for the time being by the run-heavy offense.

This is why I asked. Eagles are a run team as well. Luck seems like the only one that will possibly get to Peyton Mannings level of usage where he's darn near the OC. Assuming he reaches his destiny this might the last buy low window for Luck. Watching Luck in the playoff made me wonder did the flip just switch where he starts to throw for 300+ with 2-3 TDs every week.

Had the same thought re: the penny dropping for Luck except that his good run of games actually started at the end of the regular season and ended with a thud vs New England.

Weeks 13-16...100-152 (65.8%), 1029 yards, 8/1

 

[jeter23]

Rivers, Roethlisberger and Brady were all highish efficiency low-volume QBs at one point too and they scaled up just fine.

ETA: I just finished a pretty in depth look at young QBs from the last 35 years or so, and based on that I'd rank the current crop as Foles, Wilson, Luck and Griffin at this point.

So you have Foles as your QB1?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Rivers, Roethlisberger and Brady were all highish efficiency low-volume QBs at one point too and they scaled up just fine.

ETA: I just finished a pretty in depth look at young QBs from the last 35 years or so, and based on that I'd rank the current crop as Foles, Wilson, Luck and Griffin at this point.

So you have Foles as your QB1?

Rodgers is #1 overall IMO. Brees, Ryan, Manning, Romo, Rivers, Roethlisberger and Brady round out the vets.

In terms of young guys who might be annual top-5 for a long time I think it's Foles and Luck. (I talked myself into reordering it Foles-Luck; Wilson-Cam-Griffin; Stafford-Kaepernick upthread after looking at Luck's end of season run again.)

How you marry those two lists depends on your team and preferences/perception of value.

 

[Concept Coop]

Is Gordon being overrated a bit, if treated as a top 5 overall player? He had a monster year, is a physical freak and is, potentially, a special player. But I think we're overlooking some questions if we expect his 2013 production to continue.

The change in staff is a very concerning variable for Gordon. He played with poor QBs, but his situation was a big plus for him, despite that. Cleveland led the league in passing attempts, and the passes thrown Gordon's way were actually quite catchable. He was put in a situation to play to his strengths, and wasn't pushed to do much outside of them.

A lot of his yardage was racked up in bunches after missed tackles or poor angles, and while he had plenty to do with that and will continue to run away from defenders in the future--see:Cruz, Victor--those plays vary from year to year. Gordon didn't show the ability to dominate in the redzone or consistently beat double coverage. Not to say he can't, but they're two important questions when talking about a top 5 startup pick. Dez Bryant got more redzone attention than anyone outside of Calvin and still finished with 13 TDs - many in the redzone. Could Gordon do the same? In a diffferent offense, and in a season where a couple of his 50+ yard TDs are tipped or otherwise go the other way, he might have to.

I don't think Gordon belongs in the top tier, consisting of Calvin, Dez, Green, Thomas, and Julio. He'd have a valid argument without the off-the-field issues, but not considering them. In fact, I think Alshon Jeffery is a better dynasty own right now. His numbers weren't far behind Gordon's and they came in a more repeatable fashion; he showed that he can beat double teams, dominate in traffic, in the redzone, and his situation is much more stable. We know what to expect. And, most importantly, he's not one strike away from missing a season and putting his career in jeopardy.

Gordon has put his ability to earn money at risk many times in the past, including last season. He got kicked out of two schools and failed multiple tests at Baylor, at least, if not Utah, too. Despite his GM not being a fan of his going into the season, Gordon still got popped for a banned substance. Having a lot to lose hasn't been enough motivation in the past, and past behavior is the best idicator we have for future behavior.

There's plenty of upside with this kid, but I don't see the margin for error needed for a player like him, when spending a first round startup pick. I wouldn't feel comfortable paying that price for Gordon when there are 5 or 6 like prospects with significantly less risk. I think his baseline will prove to be closer to 90/1300/8--very nice numbers. But is that production worth the price paid, considering the risk?

 

[Adam Harstad]

Is Gordon being overrated a bit, if treated as a top 5 overall player? He had a monster year, is a physical freak and is, potentially, a special player. But I think we're overlooking some questions if we expect his 2013 production to continue.

The change in staff is a very concerning variable for Gordon. He played with poor QBs, but his situation was a big plus for him, despite that. Cleveland led the league in passing attempts, and the passes thrown Gordon's way were actually quite catchable. He was put in a situation to play to his strengths, and wasn't pushed to do much outside of them.

A lot of his yardage was racked up in bunches after missed tackles or poor angles, and while he had plenty to do with that and will continue to run away from defenders in the future--see:Cruz, Victor--those plays vary from year to year. Gordon didn't show the ability to dominate in the redzone or consistently beat double coverage. Not to say he can't, but they're two important questions when talking about a top 5 startup pick. Dez Bryant got more redzone attention than anyone outside of Calvin and still finished with 13 TDs - many in the redzone. Could Gordon do the same? In a diffferent offense, and in a season where a couple of his 50+ yard TDs are tipped or otherwise go the other way, he might have to.

I don't think Gordon belongs in the top tier, consisting of Calvin, Dez, Green, Thomas, and Julio. He'd have a valid argument without the off-the-field issues, but not considering them. In fact, I think Alshon Jeffery is a better dynasty own right now. His numbers weren't far behind Gordon's and they came in a more repeatable fashion; he showed that he can beat double teams, dominate in traffic, in the redzone, and his situation is much more stable. We know what to expect. And, most importantly, he's not one strike away from missing a season and putting his career in jeopardy.

Gordon has put his ability to earn money at risk many times in the past, including last season. He got kicked out of two schools and failed multiple tests at Baylor, at least, if not Utah, too. Despite his GM not being a fan of his going into the season, Gordon still got popped for a banned substance. Having a lot to lose hasn't been enough motivation in the past, and past behavior is the best idicator we have for future behavior.

There's plenty of upside with this kid, but I don't see the margin for error needed for a player like him, when spending a first round startup pick. I wouldn't feel comfortable paying that price for Gordon when there are 5 or 6 like prospects with significantly less risk. I think his baseline will prove to be closer to 90/1300/8--very nice numbers. But is that production worth the price paid, considering the risk?

Pretty much agree on all counts. I don't have Gordon in my "top tier" (which consists of the five you mentioned plus Harvin), and I also have Alshon ahead of him, which leaves him at 8th in my rankings. I worry about how repeatable his production is. I know that Norv Turner probably runs the most deep threat friendly offense in the NFL, and I worry what his loss will mean. I worry about the repeated poor choices Gordon has made, and I think that you HAVE TO price that risk into his value (pricing risk is the difference between expectations and expected value). On the other hand... the guy doesn't turn 23 until April. This is partly good because people typically make better decisions as they get older. This is also good because Gordon's upside is ridiculous. How many points do you think Josh Gordon will score in the next 3 seasons? Because after those seasons are over, Josh Gordon will still be the same age that Demaryius Thomas and A.J. Green are today. That's pretty crazy.

I do technically agree with you that I wouldn't spend a first-round pick on him, since I've got him ranked 13th overall, but I don't really have a problem with him going in the late 1st/early 2nd range. But yeah, grabbing Gordon over guys like Green, Julio, Dez, or Demaryius seems crazy to me. Do we really believe that Josh Gordon is a BETTER receiver than those guys? Because he'd have to be better by a pretty decent margin to offset that extra risk factor.

 

[Concept Coop]

How many points do you think Josh Gordon will score in the next 3 seasons? Because after those seasons are over, Josh Gordon will still be the same age that Demaryius Thomas and A.J. Green are today.

This is a good point, but it's hard to project how some of these guys will age, Gordon included.

For example, I treat Larry like a 27-28 YO. He's been healthy throughout his career, he's a HOF talent, and his game seems likely to translate even after he's lost a step. Gordon doesn't meet any of that criteria yet.

Despite the difference in age, I don't feel comfortable projecting extra seasons for Gordon--ignoring the off-the-field stuff, even--over Dez or AJ.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Is Gordon being overrated a bit, if treated as a top 5 overall player? He had a monster year, is a physical freak and is, potentially, a special player. But I think we're overlooking some questions if we expect his 2013 production to continue.

The change in staff is a very concerning variable for Gordon. He played with poor QBs, but his situation was a big plus for him, despite that. Cleveland led the league in passing attempts, and the passes thrown Gordon's way were actually quite catchable. He was put in a situation to play to his strengths, and wasn't pushed to do much outside of them.

A lot of his yardage was racked up in bunches after missed tackles or poor angles, and while he had plenty to do with that and will continue to run away from defenders in the future--see:Cruz, Victor--those plays vary from year to year. Gordon didn't show the ability to dominate in the redzone or consistently beat double coverage. Not to say he can't, but they're two important questions when talking about a top 5 startup pick. Dez Bryant got more redzone attention than anyone outside of Calvin and still finished with 13 TDs - many in the redzone. Could Gordon do the same? In a diffferent offense, and in a season where a couple of his 50+ yard TDs are tipped or otherwise go the other way, he might have to.

I don't think Gordon belongs in the top tier, consisting of Calvin, Dez, Green, Thomas, and Julio. He'd have a valid argument without the off-the-field issues, but not considering them. In fact, I think Alshon Jeffery is a better dynasty own right now. His numbers weren't far behind Gordon's and they came in a more repeatable fashion; he showed that he can beat double teams, dominate in traffic, in the redzone, and his situation is much more stable. We know what to expect. And, most importantly, he's not one strike away from missing a season and putting his career in jeopardy.

Gordon has put his ability to earn money at risk many times in the past, including last season. He got kicked out of two schools and failed multiple tests at Baylor, at least, if not Utah, too. Despite his GM not being a fan of his going into the season, Gordon still got popped for a banned substance. Having a lot to lose hasn't been enough motivation in the past, and past behavior is the best idicator we have for future behavior.

There's plenty of upside with this kid, but I don't see the margin for error needed for a player like him, when spending a first round startup pick. I wouldn't feel comfortable paying that price for Gordon when there are 5 or 6 like prospects with significantly less risk. I think his baseline will prove to be closer to 90/1300/8--very nice numbers. But is that production worth the price paid, considering the risk?

I have Gordon and Alshon on my dynasty team, and I am putting forth the contention that Alshon should be rated higher than Gordon. Everyone agrees that Gordon is a beast, but that he's raw. But Alshon's a beast and he *isn't* raw. Thoughts?

 

[JFS171]

How many points do you think Josh Gordon will score in the next 3 seasons? Because after those seasons are over, Josh Gordon will still be the same age that Demaryius Thomas and A.J. Green are today.

This is a good point, but it's hard to project how some of these guys will age, Gordon included.

For example, I treat Larry like a 27-28 YO. He's been healthy throughout his career, he's a HOF talent, and his game seems likely to translate even after he's lost a step. Gordon doesn't meet any of that criteria yet.

Despite the difference in age, I don't feel comfortable projecting extra seasons for Gordon--ignoring the off-the-field stuff, even--over Dez or AJ.

I guess for me when we're discussing ages between a 22 YO and a 25 YO, I'm not likely to split hairs and give a substantial amount of credit to the younger player. Perhaps that boils down to how I often manage my teams, but I'm an extremely active trader, and the two or three years of age difference isn't likely to equate to two-three more years on my roster.

If you're debating Gordon at 22 vs. a 28 or 29 YO, then I'm more likely to give it credence. But if we're looking at Gordon vs. Percy, for example… I won't weigh age all that much personally.

 

[karmarooster]

Hmm, who would've thought, the quality of discussion here is better than in the 2+ pages for the standalone Gordon threat (Jerry Rice arguments and such).

If you were VERY risk averse, what's the lowest Gordon could be ranked? I'm going to say 10-12ish (Calvin-Dez-AJ-DT-Julio-Jeffery-Harvin-Brown-Cobb-Cruz).

Also please note we are now discussing Josh Gordon on p.420.

 

[Concept Coop]

If you were VERY risk averse, what's the lowest Gordon could be ranked? I'm going to say 10-12ish (Calvin-Dez-AJ-DT-Julio-Jeffery-Harvin-Brown-Cobb-Cruz).

I've got him at 7. I can personally understand an argument for Cobb, too. I don't see another name in the conversation, after that point, however.

 

[Adam Harstad]

If you were VERY risk averse, what's the lowest Gordon could be ranked? I'm going to say 10-12ish (Calvin-Dez-AJ-DT-Julio-Jeffery-Harvin-Brown-Cobb-Cruz).

I've got him at 7. I can personally understand an argument for Cobb, too. I don't see another name in the conversation, after that point, however.

Brandon Marshall would be a popular one among the risk adverse. Antonio Brown, Victor Cruz, and Jordy Nelson could also get some love, since we're talking about someone who is stipulated to be VERY risk adverse.

 

[squistion]

If you were VERY risk averse, what's the lowest Gordon could be ranked? I'm going to say 10-12ish (Calvin-Dez-AJ-DT-Julio-Jeffery-Harvin-Brown-Cobb-Cruz).

I've got him at 7. I can personally understand an argument for Cobb, too. I don't see another name in the conversation, after that point, however.

Brandon Marshall would be a popular one among the risk adverse. Antonio Brown, Victor Cruz, and Jordy Nelson could also get some love, since we're talking about someone who is stipulated to be VERY risk adverse.

My, my, how times have changed. I remember when Marshall was considered the riskiest high upside WR in fantasy circles (in fact, Chris Wesseling wouldn't even consider owning him in any of his leagues, citing the knucklehead factor).

 

[Coeur de Lion]

If you were VERY risk averse, what's the lowest Gordon could be ranked? I'm going to say 10-12ish (Calvin-Dez-AJ-DT-Julio-Jeffery-Harvin-Brown-Cobb-Cruz).

I've got him at 7. I can personally understand an argument for Cobb, too. I don't see another name in the conversation, after that point, however.

Brandon Marshall would be a popular one among the risk adverse. Antonio Brown, Victor Cruz, and Jordy Nelson could also get some love, since we're talking about someone who is stipulated to be VERY risk adverse.

My, my, how times have changed. I remember when Marshall was considered the riskiest high upside WR in fantasy circles (in fact, Chris Wesseling wouldn't even consider owning him in any of his leagues, citing the knucklehead factor).

The market has, at least somewhat, corrected this inefficiency. The mandatory suspensions and random testing associated with substance abuse problems make those issues a potentially really big deal. Arrests for other types of nonsense not so much. It's still usually a good idea to send out some lowballs after a player makes negative headlines though. You never know...

 

[cloppbeast]

Where do you guys put Antonio Brown in your WR ranks?

I don't see why he isn't mentioned as one of the top WRs. In 2013, Brown posted some elite numbers. I struggle to find reasons won't continue to put up great stats.