Evans, Reggie Brown, & Wilford (1 Viewer)

[Limp Dogg Bizkits]

How do you rank these 3 WR's who all are in situations where they should see a significant increase in their targets?

Brown has the best QB throwing to him and no real competiotion for the #1 WR.

Wilford has a good QB and the best numbers last year, but now is slipping on his teams WR charts?

Evans is probably the most talented player, has no real competion, but has the worst QB.

What other WR's are in simillar situations?

 

[Mystery Achiever]

Brown, Evans, Wilford...for pretty much the reasons you mention.

 

[slayer666]

Brown, Evans, Wilford...for pretty much the reasons  you mention.

I agree for this season.Long term I like Lee Evans. If the Buffalo Bills could get some NFL caliber quarterback play I think he will be a special player.

 

[Weiner Dog]

Evans

Brown

.

.

.

Wilford

 

[oswizzle]

Evans

Brown

.

.

.

Wilford

 

[Limp Dogg Bizkits]

would you trade Wilford and Brown for Evans and Mason in a keeper league? I like the upside of Wilford and Brown, but I really like Evans.

 

[Joe T]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Evans

Brown

Wilford

Pretty much a list of 3 guys I don't want on my team this year.

 

[C Boswell]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Evans

Brown

Wilford

Pretty much a list of 3 guys I don't want on my team this year.

not sure why you would not want a Brown or Evans on your team unless you already have 3/4 guys in the top 20 or so.Evans

Brown

Wilford (not sure why he makes this list. he has never shown the ability the other 2 have.

 

[Joe T]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Evans

Brown

Wilford

Pretty much a list of 3 guys I don't want on my team this year.

not sure why you would not want a Brown or Evans on your team unless you already have 3/4 guys in the top 20 or so.Evans

Brown

Wilford (not sure why he makes this list. he has never shown the ability the other 2 have.

Wow. I would say Wilford has shown more ability than the other two but has less opportunity than them.Wilford scored 17 less fantasy points last season than Evans and he wasn't even a starter.

Brown did little if anything last year. He's in his second year and will be asked to handle WR 1 duties. He will no doubt underperform where he is currently going in drafts (around the 7th round in WCOFF satellites). He's going ahead of guys like Eddie Kennison, Jerry Porter, Keyshawn Johnson, Keenan McCardell, Eric Moulds... guys who have proven they can be top 20 WR's in this league. I'll pass... I would take another Philly WR (not sure who at this point) late in a draft at value because you have potential upside in another WR there to step up and do well.

Lee Evans is a good player. He's in a terrible situation. He has a bad QB. He has lost a good WR on the other side of the field and now will be taking the brunt of the coverage. I don't like his chances to outperform where he is being taken either which is around the 7th round as well.... ahead of the players mentioned above. Other players in that range 7th round with far higher probability to live up to that lofty draft status are : Stallworth, Coles, and Terry Glenn (who is my favorite in that range).

 

[Weiner Dog]

would you trade Wilford and Brown for Evans and Mason in a keeper league? I like the upside of Wilford and Brown, but I really like Evans.

 

[FUBAR]

would you trade Wilford and Brown for Evans and Mason in a keeper league?  I like the upside of Wilford and Brown, but I really like Evans.

I'd trade Wilford for Mason, and trade Brown for Evans. This is among the easier "WWYD" questions.

Evans has top talent

Brown is McNabb's #1, which may mean nothing or may mean a lot

Wilford is looking like the 5th option in a running offense.

 

[FUBAR]

Wow. I would say Wilford has shown more ability than the other two but has less opportunity than them.

When did you enter bizzaro world? This is pretty much the opposite of reality.Evans has shown flashes of greatness, which is pretty much all we can expect with that team so far.

How often has Reid relied on a rookie?

Wilford had little competition for the #2 spot in Jacksonville. He did well with that opportunity, but didn't show top ability. He has the opportunity to become the #1 WR now, with a much better QB than Evans, but isn't taking advantage.

 

[alg]

would you trade Wilford and Brown for Evans and Mason in a keeper league? I like the upside of Wilford and Brown, but I really like Evans.

In a heartbeat. I think the better question is "Is there anyone in your league foolish enough to make that trade?"

 

[Marc Levin]

Wilford scored 17 less fantasy points last season than Evans and he wasn't even a starter.

Wilford started 8 games for the Jags in 2005, 3 in 2004. He also did the most damage in the games in which he was the starter and in the 145 yard/1 TD performance in the game immediately before he was named starter.

 

[EBF]

I think Evans is head-and-shoulders above the other two. The guy was a top 15 pick and a dominant college player. He has two solid seasons under his belt and seems poised for a 1,000 yard campaign now that he's the #1 in Buffalo.

After that I'd go with Brown. He's probably a bit overrated right now, but he was a pretty high pick, he has good athletic ability, and he had a nice rookie year.

Wilford would finish a distant third. He's been productive, but looks like Jacksonville's WR2 at best. Factor in Lewis vulturing a healthy amount of red zone looks, and I just don't see much cause for optimism.

 

[Marc Levin]

Evans scares me in the world of fantasy only b/c he has a tremendous number of TDs in years 1 and 2 and TDs are notoriously iffy to predict.

 

[Marc Levin]

Evans scares me in the world of fantasy only b/c he has a tremendous number of TDs in years 1 and 2 and TDs are notoriously iffy to predict.

replyinng to myself: that said, I also like him best of all three of these named players.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

Brown

.

.

.

.

Evans

Wilford

.

 

[Bri]

Evans is the clear choice here IMO, esp with Moulds in Houston.

Eagles have a bunch of WR and would love for Brown to step up. Will he?

Reggie Williams and Wilford have been playing musical chairs at the #2 spot so I'd take a sure bet starter over one of them anyday.

 

[Bri]

Evans scares me in the world of fantasy only b/c he has a tremendous number of TDs in years 1 and 2 and TDs are notoriously iffy to predict.

Me too, I don't know if he can hack it as a #1 WR or even a #2 WR that gets the most passes thrown to him (as some have called it). I just figure ya gotta go with opportunity though

 

[Joe T]

Wilford scored 17 less fantasy points last season than Evans and he wasn't even a starter. 

Wilford started 8 games for the Jags in 2005, 3 in 2004. He also did the most damage in the games in which he was the starter and in the 145 yard/1 TD performance in the game immediately before he was named starter.

How many games did Evans start?Wilford averaged 1 PPG less with far fewer opportunities. That was the point of my post.

 

[Marc Levin]

Wilford scored 17 less fantasy points last season than Evans and he wasn't even a starter. 

Wilford started 8 games for the Jags in 2005, 3 in 2004. He also did the most damage in the games in which he was the starter and in the 145 yard/1 TD performance in the game immediately before he was named starter.

How many games did Evans start?Wilford averaged 1 PPG less with far fewer opportunities. That was the point of my post.

Well, if you JUST want to talk opportunity, you don't talk starts - you talk targets.Evans had 92 targets in 2005.

Wilford had 74 targets.

Since you went on a "per game" basis, Wilford had no more than 4 targets in any game weeks 1-6 - and he most often had only 1 or 2 targets in weeks 1-6. Meanwhile, he also caught two TDs in weeks 1-6, thereby increasing his fantasy PPG in those two games.

Evans, OTOH, had a steady stream of targets all year long and, similar to Wilford, only had "big" fantasy days when he caught a TD.

If you don't believe me, you can check the stats at fbguys.com

I would call the two players equivelant in terms of opportunity, and equivelant in terms fantasy production. Though, I am sure you can argue the opposite side.

 

[BoltBacker]

Wilford scored 17 less fantasy points last season than Evans and he wasn't even a starter.

Wilford started 8 games for the Jags in 2005, 3 in 2004. He also did the most damage in the games in which he was the starter and in the 145 yard/1 TD performance in the game immediately before he was named starter.

How many games did Evans start?Wilford averaged 1 PPG less with far fewer opportunities. That was the point of my post.

Well, if you JUST want to talk opportunity, you don't talk starts - you talk targets.Evans had 92 targets in 2005.

Wilford had 74 targets.

Since you went on a "per game" basis, Wilford had no more than 4 targets in any game weeks 1-6 - and he most often had only 1 or 2 targets in weeks 1-6. Meanwhile, he also caught two TDs in weeks 1-6, thereby increasing his fantasy PPG in those two games.

Evans, OTOH, had a steady stream of targets all year long and, similar to Wilford, only had "big" fantasy days when he caught a TD.

If you don't believe me, you can check the stats at fbguys.com

I would call the two players equivelant in terms of opportunity, and equivelant in terms fantasy production. Though, I am sure you can argue the opposite side.

But if he's getting more targets with less playing time, couldn't that just mean he's getting open more often? It still doesn't mean he had the same opportunity........ he just more out of the opportunities he had.

 

[Marc Levin]

Wilford scored 17 less fantasy points last season than Evans and he wasn't even a starter. 

Wilford started 8 games for the Jags in 2005, 3 in 2004. He also did the most damage in the games in which he was the starter and in the 145 yard/1 TD performance in the game immediately before he was named starter.

How many games did Evans start?Wilford averaged 1 PPG less with far fewer opportunities. That was the point of my post.

Well, if you JUST want to talk opportunity, you don't talk starts - you talk targets.Evans had 92 targets in 2005.

Wilford had 74 targets.

Since you went on a "per game" basis, Wilford had no more than 4 targets in any game weeks 1-6 - and he most often had only 1 or 2 targets in weeks 1-6. Meanwhile, he also caught two TDs in weeks 1-6, thereby increasing his fantasy PPG in those two games.

Evans, OTOH, had a steady stream of targets all year long and, similar to Wilford, only had "big" fantasy days when he caught a TD.

If you don't believe me, you can check the stats at fbguys.com

I would call the two players equivelant in terms of opportunity, and equivelant in terms fantasy production. Though, I am sure you can argue the opposite side.

But if he's getting more targets with less playing time, couldn't that just mean he's getting open more often? It still doesn't mean he had the same opportunity........ he just more out of the opportunities he had.

go look at both players' game logs on fbguys.comyou'll see they are statistically comparable in every way.

If you REALLY want to examin it, you also look at their splits.

IMO, they gave similar production on similar opportunity.

 

[Joe T]

IMO, they gave similar production on similar opportunity.

I don't see how you can say 8 more starts and 18 more targets (25% more) is similar opportunity, but whatever. There will be no convincing you here.My contentention is Wilford did more with less. If 16 starts and 92 targets is eqivalent to 8 starts and 74 targets in your eyes, so be it.

 

[BoltBacker]

go look at both players' game logs on fbguys.com

you'll see they are statistically comparable in every way.

But that's what I'm saying. I think they are statistically comparable in every way....... despite the fact that Evans was on the field a lot more than Wilford was on the field. Is there some place to find out how many plays they actually participated in? Or better yet how many passing plays each participated in?

 

[Marc Levin]

go look at both players' game logs on fbguys.com

you'll see they are statistically comparable in every way.

But that's what I'm saying. I think they are statistically comparable in every way....... despite the fact that Evans was on the field a lot more than Wilford was on the field. Is there some place to find out how many plays they actually participated in? Or better yet how many passing plays each participated in?

targets is the only one I can think of.

 

[Marc Levin]

My contentention is Wilford did more with less. If 16 starts and 92 targets is eqivalent to 8 starts and 74 targets in your eyes, so be it.

Actually your contention was that Wilford showed more "ability" with less "opportunity":

Wow. I would say Wilford has shown more ability than the other two but has less opportunity than them.

Wilford scored 17 less fantasy points last season than Evans and he wasn't even a starter.

I was correctoing your misstatements - one being that he "wasn't even a starter."I also argue they showed similar production on similar opps. Your blanket statement about their year long opp notwithstanding, they had similar stats from weeks 7 through 16 - when they were given similar opportunities, and they translated those opps into similar production.

 

[Joe T]

But that's what I'm saying. I think they are statistically comparable in every way....... despite the fact that Evans was on the field a lot more than Wilford was on the field.

I don't think there is any way to argue against the fact that Evans was on the field fairly significantly more than Wilford.

 

[Joe T]

My contentention is Wilford did more with less.  If 16 starts and 92 targets is eqivalent to 8 starts and 74 targets in your eyes, so be it.

Actually your contention was that Wilford showed more "ability" with less "opportunity":

Wow. I would say Wilford has shown more ability than the other two but has less opportunity than them.

Wilford scored 17 less fantasy points last season than Evans and he wasn't even a starter.

I was correctoing your misstatements - one being that he "wasn't even a starter."I also argue they showed similar production on similar opps. Your blanket statement about their year long opp notwithstanding, they had similar stats from weeks 7 through 16 - when they were given similar opportunities, and they translated those opps into similar production.

He wasn't a "STARTER." He is a WR3. Comprehension down?He only became one because of injury to Williams.

So, I didn't have a "misstatement." Perhaps you had a "misinterpretation."

 

[Marc Levin]

But that's what I'm saying. I think they are statistically comparable in every way....... despite the fact that Evans was on the field a lot more than Wilford was on the field.

I don't think there is any way to argue against the fact that Evans was on the field fairly significantly more than Wilford.

nope - no way to argue THAT - but that does NOT mean they had significantly divergent "opportunities."

 

[Marc Levin]

He wasn't a "STARTER." He is a WR3. Comprehension down?

He only became one because of injury to Williams.

So, I didn't have a "misstatement." Perhaps you had a "misinterpretation."

Joe - you need to lose the 'tude.Wilford STARTED 8 games for the Jags in 2005 - including after Williams returned from injury.

you made the misstatement, not I.

 

[Joe T]

Let me bottom line this argument because really arguing over who was and wasn't a starter is irrelevant. Arguing over amounts of targets and playing times being equivalent is irrelevant as well.

Bottom line: Evans is being drafted too high. He is in a terrible situation due to the bad offense he plays on and the terrible QB he has. He will be going against tougher coverage this year than he has ever faced. This does not bode well for his season.

That is all.

 

[Joe T]

Joe - you need to lose the 'tude.

I need to lose the 'tude?

ok.

You are misquoting me left and right...

I think my 'tude is ok here.

 

[Marc Levin]

Let me bottom line this argument because really arguing over who was and wasn't a starter is irrelevant. Arguing over amounts of targets and playing times being equivalent is irrelevant as well.

Bottom line: Evans is being drafted too high. He is in a terrible situation due to the bad offense he plays on and the terrible QB he has. He will be going against tougher coverage this year than he has ever faced. This does not bode well for his season.

That is all.

I am in 100 percent agreement.That said, I don't think Wilford repeats last year's performance, either - in fact, I believe he drops to the third or fourth receiving option for the team once Matt Jones and Mercedes Lewis hit their stride as starters.

In ranking these players, I still have Evans on top, then Brown, then Wilford. Purely because I see Evans as a "for sure" to get 130+ targets and the rest are total question marks for number of targets.

 

[MelvinTScupper]

Let me bottom line this argument because really arguing over who was and wasn't a starter is irrelevant. Arguing over amounts of targets and playing times being equivalent is irrelevant as well.

Bottom line: Evans is being drafted too high. He is in a terrible situation due to the bad offense he plays on and the terrible QB he has. He will be going against tougher coverage this year than he has ever faced. This does not bode well for his season.

That is all.

I am in 100 percent agreement.That said, I don't think Wilford repeats last year's performance, either - in fact, I believe he drops to the third or fourth receiving option for the team once Matt Jones and Mercedes Lewis hit their stride as starters.

In ranking these players, I still have Evans on top, then Brown, then Wilford. Purely because I see Evans as a "for sure" to get 130+ targets and the rest are total question marks for number of targets.

Mercedes Lewis? So, now rookies are emerging automatically as the #2 option?

 

[Marc Levin]

Let me bottom line this argument because really arguing over who was and wasn't a starter is irrelevant.  Arguing over amounts of targets and playing times being equivalent is irrelevant as well.

Bottom line:  Evans is being drafted too high.  He is in a terrible situation due to the bad offense he plays on and the terrible QB he has.  He will be going against tougher coverage this year than he has ever faced.  This does not bode well for his season.

That is all.

I am in 100 percent agreement.That said, I don't think Wilford repeats last year's performance, either - in fact, I believe he drops to the third or fourth receiving option for the team once Matt Jones and Mercedes Lewis hit their stride as starters.

In ranking these players, I still have Evans on top, then Brown, then Wilford. Purely because I see Evans as a "for sure" to get 130+ targets and the rest are total question marks for number of targets.

Mercedes Lewis? So, now rookies are emerging automatically as the #2 option?

actaully, I thought of him as the possible THIRD option, thus bumping Wilford to four.I believe it'll go Matt Jones the way it was Jimmy Smith, then possibly a RB, then Wilford/Lewis/Williams or whatever as the third most targeted player.

And, BTW, what receiving option do you see SF using Vernon Davis???? Lewis is, IMO, almost as good a receiver as Davis - kid is insanely athletic. I could see Lewis receiving 60-70 targets this year.

 

[BoltBacker]

That said, I don't think Wilford repeats last year's performance, either - in fact, I believe he drops to the third or fourth receiving option for the team once Matt Jones and Mercedes Lewis hit their stride as starters.

Last season Jones/Smith came up with 1455/11 and Wilford had 750/5.What do you think Jones/Lewis come up with in '06?

 

[Marc Levin]

That said, I don't think Wilford repeats last year's performance, either - in fact, I believe he drops to the third or fourth receiving option for the team once Matt Jones and Mercedes Lewis hit their stride as starters.

Last season Jones/Smith came up with 1455/11 and Wilford had 750/5.What do you think Jones/Lewis come up with in '06?

not 100 percent sure yet - I need to see how he develops in TC - right now I "feel" like he coul dbe a HUGE weapon for the team - esp. in the red zone.Considering 5 of Wilford's 7 TDs were from inside the 20, that could significantly damage Wilford's FF value.

 

[BoltBacker]

And, BTW, what receiving option do you see SF using Vernon Davis???? Lewis is, IMO, almost as good a receiver as Davis - kid is insanely athletic. I could see Lewis receiving 60-70 targets this year.

I think Davis should end up #3 but could end up the #4 receiver in SF to be honest despite the fact he was drafted 22 picks earlier than Lewis(who I also like).

 

[Marc Levin]

wow - I don't think the team spent a top-10 pick on Davis for him to be the team's fourth receiving option.

That's what makes FF great though - different perspectives.

How do you see the target numbers ultimately spread out in SF?

 

[Banger]

In redraft I'd go...

Brown

.

Evans

.

.

Wilford

...for the simple reason that despite their #'s being comparable Brown's situation is likely to change the least. Evans is promoted to #1 and has an awful qb (regardless of who wins the starting job). Yeah, he's talented but has anyone heard of Andre Johnson? Wilford may not even start. Brown has the best QB and offense by far and has almost no competition. In redraft I'm not even sure why anyone would take Evans over Brown. Give me the guy with the least risk....

 

[mightyeskimo]

Evans

Brown

Wilford

All receivers who will struggle to put up 1000 yards. Last I heard Wilford was running with the second team and was listed as the #3 WR.

 

[BoltBacker]

wow - I don't think the team spent a top-10 pick on Davis for him to be the team's fourth receiving option.

That's what makes FF great though - different perspectives.

How do you see the target numbers ultimately spread out in SF?

An awful lot depends on how healthy EJ is. If EJ is healthy he's simply the best receiver they have and my opinion is in the minority but I think he splits receptions down the middle with Davis at TE. Davis will get more playing time but EJ will be on the field a ton in passing situations which could also have the benefeit of keeping him healthy and allowing him to focus on what he does best.I also don't like any of the #3 WR's on SF so I think Bryant/Battle will finish #1/#2 yardage wise.

 

[Marc Levin]

An awful lot depends on how healthy EJ is. If EJ is healthy he's simply the best receiver they have and my opinion is in the minority but I think he splits receptions down the middle with Davis at TE.

Interesting. Def. a topic for another thread, though I now understand your reasoning.

 

[BoltBacker]

Brown has the best QB and offense by far and has almost no competition.

It's very possible Westbrook and LJ smith finish #1/#2 in PHI.Their #2 WR is below average(whoever that is) but their #3 and #4 WR's aren't that bad and they could rotate their WR's more than most seem to think they will. Before Owens got their they were pretty much a WRBC and I wouldn't be at all surprised if they return to that.