Hakeem Nicks (1 Viewer)

[Carl Eller's Dead Liver]

So as I do every morning.......I woke up, poured myself a cup of coffee, fired up my laptop, and opened my "Joe Bryant - Footballguys Daily Email". I was puzzled and shocked to see this:

NYG - WR Hakeem Nicks, Mario Manningham to compete for starting job

Source: Ohm Youngmisuk - ESPNNewYork.com

New York Giants WRs Hakeem Nicks and Mario Manningham will compete for the starting wide receiver job opposite WR Steve E. Smith during training camp, reports Ohm Youngmisuk, of ESPNNewYork.com.

OUR VIEW

Manningham tied for the league lead in drops last year and could be best served as only a deep threat for the Giants. Nicks looked great last season - with a broken toe. We feel he's got the potential to be an elite level receiver in the near future because of his athleticism, hands, and run after the catch ability.

I thought Nicks was already considered the starter? I know what everyone is thinking....Nicks is going to win the job, but in the eyes of the NYG coaching staff does Nicks already have the job or is it a competition? Is this cause for concern for us Nicks owners??

 

[Garts]

Does it really matter??

Nicks will light it up in 3 WR sets if he doesn't start and still play a ton.

 

[Carl Eller's Dead Liver]

Does it really matter??Nicks will light it up in 3 WR sets if he doesn't start and still play a ton.

Well yes it matters to me. Do you want him on the field for 90% of the plays as a starter or 60% if he plays the #3? I would take 90% hands down......you have to be joking if you don't think it matters.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

Nicks was the starter at the end of the season. This is more of one of those competitions to keep everyone hungry than one because the Giants arent really sure what they have. Nicks would have to collapse and Manningham would have to turn a major corner being consistent and mentally disciplined for Nicks to not be the starter in week 1.

 

[Sabertooth]

Very similar to when Javon Walker wasn't the starter in Green Bay. Robert Ferguson was the "starter" when Javon went off.

 

[T with T]

Does it really matter??Nicks will light it up in 3 WR sets if he doesn't start and still play a ton.

Well yes it matters to me. Do you want him on the field for 90% of the plays as a starter or 60% if he plays the #3? I would take 90% hands down......you have to be joking if you don't think it matters.

Come on man dont you understand the NFL by now... they have to put that out there so guys dont get lazy its a business.... Of course us NICKS owners know he is great and should prolly be number 1 wr on the giants and eventually will be... its all whistles and horns dont worry man... pour your coffee and enjoy Hakeem the dreams breakout season no worries dude

 

[redBourne]

I'm not sold just yet. I keep hearing all this hype of Nicks, but much of it is opinionated.

I'm not advocating either one just yet, but why did Manningham register more receptions by years end? Because Nicks had a bum ankle in training camp and injured his toe (which required surgery)? Would that label him more of a health risk? yes I know he's heavier and taller than Manningham, but ask Steve Smith (Car) if you need size to have big plays.

Manningham - 57 / 99

Nicks - 47 / 75

Manningham only caught 10 more receptions than Nicks, and posted just a mediocre 57% of his passes. Nicks saw 25% less targets than Manningham, but did convert more, at 62%. Both receivers recorded 2 games last year of 0 catches. (Nicks had a 1 catch -5 yards performance in week 17, but at least it was a catch. However, even in a .5 ppr this would negate to 0 so you could argue it was 3 games).

Nicks - 5tds and 16.8 ypc.

MHam - 6tds and 14.4 ypc.

So it would seem that Nicks does more with less, but he's only averaging 1td every 8 receptions. So add 10 receptions and we're still only talking about 6 tds, to match MHam. Can Nicks sustain the 16.8 ypc?

Nicks - 411 yac

Mham - 256 yac

That's pretty significant. I think this tells us that Nicks is a more explosive receiver and can do more once the ball is in his hands. His higher catch percentage could be to the fact that he is running shorter timing routes where the Giants are trying to take advantage of his more explosive ability High bigger physic would leave us to believe he is a better gold zone target, though I haven't seen any statistical analysis of whether size helps in this part of the field. Just assumptions.

The only other piece of info to chew own, which I completely disagree with, is that Manningham is entering his 3rd year.

All in all, I think I convinced myself that Hicks should land the #2 role, but I don't think he will do enough to separate himself from Manningham. I have Nicks ADP in the 4th, and I think I can get better value there elsewhere.

 

[Warehouse Nasty]

Does it really matter??Nicks will light it up in 3 WR sets if he doesn't start and still play a ton.

Well yes it matters to me. Do you want him on the field for 90% of the plays as a starter or 60% if he plays the #3? I would take 90% hands down......you have to be joking if you don't think it matters.

I'd be willing to bet that most of the plays where the Giants have less than 3 WR's on the field are running plays anyways so I'm not sure why you care who's on the field. When they pass it will be in 3 (or more) WR sets. So whether or not he "starts" shouldn't have any impact on his output.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

much like last year, I think both Mario n Nicks numbers will be very close.

Eli will spread it and the #1 scoring WR on NYG in PPR leagues will be S.Smith not Nicks

 

[*****]

People need to accept that both Nicks and Manningham are both very good young players. People forget that Manningham was considered a first round talent but had a horrible pre-draft period.

These two will both get their share of catches along with Smith. This means that both will show flashes of high productivity and neither will live up to the even higher hopes that owners have for them. It is a function of what a surprisingly deep and talented pool of WRs the Giants have assembled (see also, Steve Smith and Ramses Barden).

I just don't get how people have concluded that it's an all or nothing situation...even if Nicks starts, he won't necessarily be on the field for 90% of the plays (as one poster above suggested). Nor will Manningham if he starts.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

People need to accept that both Nicks and Manningham are both very good young players. People forget that Manningham was considered a first round talent but had a horrible pre-draft period.These two will both get their share of catches along with Smith. This means that both will show flashes of high productivity and neither will live up to the even higher hopes that owners have for them. It is a function of what a surprisingly deep and talented pool of WRs the Giants have assembled (see also, Steve Smith and Ramses Barden).I just don't get how people have concluded that it's an all or nothing situation...even if Nicks starts, he won't necessarily be on the field for 90% of the plays (as one poster above suggested). Nor will Manningham if he starts.

Nicks was on the field for 92.8 of snaps in week 16 and 84.8 of snaps in week 17. In the same two games, Steve Smith was on the field for 71% of the snaps and 87% of the snaps.

 

[redBourne]

People need to accept that both Nicks and Manningham are both very good young players. People forget that Manningham was considered a first round talent but had a horrible pre-draft period.These two will both get their share of catches along with Smith. This means that both will show flashes of high productivity and neither will live up to the even higher hopes that owners have for them. It is a function of what a surprisingly deep and talented pool of WRs the Giants have assembled (see also, Steve Smith and Ramses Barden).I just don't get how people have concluded that it's an all or nothing situation...even if Nicks starts, he won't necessarily be on the field for 90% of the plays (as one poster above suggested). Nor will Manningham if he starts.

Nicks was on the field for 92.8 of snaps in week 16 and 84.8 of snaps in week 17. In the same two games, Steve Smith was on the field for 71% of the snaps and 87% of the snaps.

Week 16 : Manningham - 6 receptions, 87 yds, 14.5 ypcNick ----------- 6 receptions, 44 yds, 7.3 ypcPlaying 20% less of the snaps, Manningham recorded the same amount of recpetions and double the yards.Week 17 : Manningham : 0 receptions, 0 yds, 0.0 ypcNicks -------- : 1 reception, -5 yds, -5.0 ypcWeek 17 seemed like a tough matchup against the Vikings. Either Manningham didn't play or was completely shut out. Nicks was completely shut out except for what appears to be a screen play gone terribly wrong. I don't care if my WR plays 100% of the snaps, all I care about are #s. Again, I'm not advocating one or the other, but the % of plays doesn't tell the story.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

People need to accept that both Nicks and Manningham are both very good young players. People forget that Manningham was considered a first round talent but had a horrible pre-draft period.These two will both get their share of catches along with Smith. This means that both will show flashes of high productivity and neither will live up to the even higher hopes that owners have for them. It is a function of what a surprisingly deep and talented pool of WRs the Giants have assembled (see also, Steve Smith and Ramses Barden).I just don't get how people have concluded that it's an all or nothing situation...even if Nicks starts, he won't necessarily be on the field for 90% of the plays (as one poster above suggested). Nor will Manningham if he starts.

Nicks was on the field for 92.8 of snaps in week 16 and 84.8 of snaps in week 17. In the same two games, Steve Smith was on the field for 71% of the snaps and 87% of the snaps.

Week 16 : Manningham - 6 receptions, 87 yds, 14.5 ypcNick ----------- 6 receptions, 44 yds, 7.3 ypcPlaying 20% less of the snaps, Manningham recorded the same amount of recpetions and double the yards.Week 17 : Manningham : 0 receptions, 0 yds, 0.0 ypcNicks -------- : 1 reception, -5 yds, -5.0 ypcWeek 17 seemed like a tough matchup against the Vikings. Either Manningham didn't play or was completely shut out. Nicks was completely shut out except for what appears to be a screen play gone terribly wrong. I don't care if my WR plays 100% of the snaps, all I care about are #s. Again, I'm not advocating one or the other, but the % of plays doesn't tell the story.

I think that's a good point, I was just adding more info to the discussion about 90% of snaps being some sort of benchmark we should look for in WRs.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

I don't know about everyone else but Nicks sure looked like the goods to me and he supposively had a broken toe? I finally got my hands on him in a redraft a couple weeks ago and am happy to be cheering him on this year. He makes an explosive WR3 if you start 3 WRs...in a combo with going WR/WR early on or even if you go WR/WR on the turn in the 2/3 if you draft early and can scoop him on the 4/5 turn...just too much upside IMO. He has talent around him, good solid if not an elite QB, strong WR1 lined up across from him...gonna be in a hotly contested NFC East where New York is gonna have to put 24-30 up almost every week in those match ups.

Technically he only started 6 games last year, most rookies don't start all the time. Weeks 2-5 he scored a TD each week, 16.8 ypc is pretty awesome. He seems like he only needs about 60-65 receptions to do some serious damage.

Not trying to overlook Manningham but I don't see any comparison between the 2 of them. Nicks has 25 lbs on him in the same frame, he's built like a tank with fast wheels, the Giants scored 113 points weeks 12-14 and MM had 6/70/Td total over that span vs Nicks posting 10/200+/2Tds...guy is explosive.

 

[redBourne]

I think that's a good point, I was just adding more info to the discussion about 90% of snaps being some sort of benchmark we should look for in WRs.

Yea, I should rephrase what I said about above not caring about the percentage of snaps. If my WR plays only 25% of the snaps but somehow records double digit marks at the end of the year, there should be some cause for concern. I remember my 2nd year playing fantasy football, I was all OVER Marc Boerigter because he caught around 8 tds to finish the season before. He was my sleeper pick, and he kept sleeping. I'm not sure what his % of the plays were but I'm getting they weren't that spectacular either, nor were his total catches, etc.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

I don't know about everyone else but Nicks sure looked like the goods to me and he supposively had a broken toe? I finally got my hands on him in a redraft a couple weeks ago and am happy to be cheering him on this year. He makes an explosive WR3 if you start 3 WRs...in a combo with going WR/WR early on or even if you go WR/WR on the turn in the 2/3 if you draft early and can scoop him on the 4/5 turn...just too much upside IMO. He has talent around him, good solid if not an elite QB, strong WR1 lined up across from him...gonna be in a hotly contested NFC East where New York is gonna have to put 24-30 up almost every week in those match ups. Technically he only started 6 games last year, most rookies don't start all the time. Weeks 2-5 he scored a TD each week, 16.8 ypc is pretty awesome. He seems like he only needs about 60-65 receptions to do some serious damage. Not trying to overlook Manningham but I don't see any comparison between the 2 of them. Nicks has 25 lbs on him in the same frame, he's built like a tank with fast wheels, the Giants scored 113 points weeks 12-14 and MM had 6/70/Td total over that span vs Nicks posting 10/200+/2Tds...guy is explosive.

The comparison between the two MoP are that they are both young talented wide receivers playing for the New York Giants. Manningham came out of college as a junior, got dinged up in preseason and hardly had a rookie season coming out of college as a junior. Last year was really his first year and he also looked pretty good, like he had some promise.I take nothing away from Nicks, he looks good too but when it's all said and done, I'll be surprised if there's this huge gap in between the two wide receivers numbers at the end of the season.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

I don't know about everyone else but Nicks sure looked like the goods to me and he supposively had a broken toe? I finally got my hands on him in a redraft a couple weeks ago and am happy to be cheering him on this year. He makes an explosive WR3 if you start 3 WRs...in a combo with going WR/WR early on or even if you go WR/WR on the turn in the 2/3 if you draft early and can scoop him on the 4/5 turn...just too much upside IMO. He has talent around him, good solid if not an elite QB, strong WR1 lined up across from him...gonna be in a hotly contested NFC East where New York is gonna have to put 24-30 up almost every week in those match ups. Technically he only started 6 games last year, most rookies don't start all the time. Weeks 2-5 he scored a TD each week, 16.8 ypc is pretty awesome. He seems like he only needs about 60-65 receptions to do some serious damage. Not trying to overlook Manningham but I don't see any comparison between the 2 of them. Nicks has 25 lbs on him in the same frame, he's built like a tank with fast wheels, the Giants scored 113 points weeks 12-14 and MM had 6/70/Td total over that span vs Nicks posting 10/200+/2Tds...guy is explosive.

The comparison between the two MoP are that they are both young talented wide receivers playing for the New York Giants. Manningham came out of college as a junior, got dinged up in preseason and hardly had a rookie season coming out of college as a junior. Last year was really his first year and he also looked pretty good, like he had some promise.I take nothing away from Nicks, he looks good too but when it's all said and done, I'll be surprised if there's this huge gap in between the two wide receivers numbers at the end of the season.

I see a big dip for Steve Smith from a year ago, so some of the receptions that Nicks will gain is going to be less targets for Smith. But I totally disagree between Nicks and Manningham. Not putting Mario down but I think Nicks is the most explosive of the bunch and will see plenty of action.Just off hand if I were going to post projections...Steve Smith 80/900/6...folks taking him in the 3rd or 4th IMO are going to be sorely disappointed. Hakeem Nicks 64/1000/8Manningham 48/650/4I think there will be a large difference between MM and Nicks, a much closer difference between nicks and Smith with Nicks possibly edging him. I could be way off but to me what I saw in Nicks was enough. I think owners are going to be kicking themselves for not grabbing him and in start 3WR leagues if you can do something like Moss/White in the 1st/2nd, then grab Nicks as your WR3 a couple rounds later...bombs away! I think it's relative to the team you assemble but in the right line up I think he will put some owners over the top. Put another way, we say that a handful of players truly make the difference and I think Nicks is a candidate(not a 100% lock) but a candidate to be one of those types. In 2011, I could see Nicks being a guy owners are targeting in the 2nd/3rd.

 

[T with T]

listen folks this is to much crap to process.. basically all you need to know son is to go get NICKS... who gives a crap about these percentages and all that bs... I have the predictions as follow

Smith 100- 1000-7

Nicks 75-1250-10

manningham 55-850-6

 

[T with T]

crabtree 70-1000-7

so nicks wins

 

[TheFanatic]

Watch the trends. Manningham started all but two games over the first twelve games of the season but didn't start the last four. Nicks started five of the last six games including the final four games. Manningham was not injured the last 4 games.

Manningham, as the 2nd year player, got the starts early, but the rookie supplanted him by the end of the season.

But the coaching staff can't say, "here kid, the starting spot is yours. Breath easy." They don't want players to breath easy. They want them to fight for everything. They want them hungry. They want healthy competition between their players.

 

[gregjcross]

Nicks was the starter at the end of the season. This is more of one of those competitions to keep everyone hungry than one because the Giants arent really sure what they have. Nicks would have to collapse and Manningham would have to turn a major corner being consistent and mentally disciplined for Nicks to not be the starter in week 1.

Manningham was injured when Nicks stepped in for him to start in late season games for 2009 and Nicks was playing like a stud. Nicks was injured early in the year. It doesn't make Manningham better than Nicks nor does it impact 2010. But all above does signify that Coughlin favors veterans and always has, par for the course as they say. He has done it with linebackers and everywhere else.I predict Nicks will take this job, but anyone who thinks he has it by default is drinking Kool-Aid. Additionally, they will probably rotate WRs and play 3 WR sets much of the time like last year. Of note, Manningham started the first play of the first game in 2009 over D. Hixon, who everyone thought was the entrenched starter and was even referred to a starter all of training camp.All in all, the best and most mature players who Coughlin trusts the most will start. Nicks will probably start but he has to earn it.

 

[Carl Eller's Dead Liver]

Does it really matter??

Nicks will light it up in 3 WR sets if he doesn't start and still play a ton.

Well yes it matters to me. Do you want him on the field for 90% of the plays as a starter or 60% if he plays the #3? I would take 90% hands down......you have to be joking if you don't think it matters.

Come on man dont you understand the NFL by now... they have to put that out there so guys dont get lazy its a business.... Of course us NICKS owners know he is great and should prolly be number 1 wr on the giants and eventually will be... its all whistles and horns dont worry man... pour your coffee and enjoy Hakeem the dreams breakout season no worries dude

You don't hear the Eagles saying there is a competition between Maclin and Avant for a starting job do you? NO....it's Jackson and Maclin all the way. To steal Bloom's words......"This casts just a little shadow over (insert player - Nicks') value heading into the season and when there are WR's so close in ranking....it's these subtle differences that drop (insert player - Nicks) down a few spots". Sorry Bloom, not exactly word for word what you said about Sidney Rice, but close.

 

[identikit]

Nicks was the starter at the end of the season. This is more of one of those competitions to keep everyone hungry than one because the Giants arent really sure what they have. Nicks would have to collapse and Manningham would have to turn a major corner being consistent and mentally disciplined for Nicks to not be the starter in week 1.

Manningham was injured when Nicks stepped in for him to start in late season games for 2009 and Nicks was playing like a stud. Nicks was injured early in the year. It doesn't make Manningham better than Nicks nor does it impact 2010. But all above does signify that Coughlin favors veterans and always has, par for the course as they say. He has done it with linebackers and everywhere else.I predict Nicks will take this job, but anyone who thinks he has it by default is drinking Kool-Aid. Additionally, they will probably rotate WRs and play 3 WR sets much of the time like last year. Of note, Manningham started the first play of the first game in 2009 over D. Hixon, who everyone thought was the entrenched starter and was even referred to a starter all of training camp.

All in all, the best and most mature players who Coughlin trusts the most will start. Nicks will probably start but he has to earn it.

I agree with the bolded.But I don't see any 'vet' advantage for a 3rd year wr (Mario) who only had 4 catches in his rookie year vs. a 2nd year wr (Nicks) who had 47 catches in his rookie year.

 

[Sweet Love]

I'm not sold just yet. I keep hearing all this hype of Nicks, but much of it is opinionated. I'm not advocating either one just yet, but why did Manningham register more receptions by years end? Because Nicks had a bum ankle in training camp and injured his toe (which required surgery)? Would that label him more of a health risk? yes I know he's heavier and taller than Manningham, but ask Steve Smith (Car) if you need size to have big plays.Manningham - 57 / 99Nicks - 47 / 75Manningham only caught 10 more receptions than Nicks, and posted just a mediocre 57% of his passes. Nicks saw 25% less targets than Manningham, but did convert more, at 62%. Both receivers recorded 2 games last year of 0 catches. (Nicks had a 1 catch -5 yards performance in week 17, but at least it was a catch. However, even in a .5 ppr this would negate to 0 so you could argue it was 3 games).Nicks - 5tds and 16.8 ypc.MHam - 6tds and 14.4 ypc.So it would seem that Nicks does more with less, but he's only averaging 1td every 8 receptions. So add 10 receptions and we're still only talking about 6 tds, to match MHam. Can Nicks sustain the 16.8 ypc?Nicks - 411 yac Mham - 256 yacThat's pretty significant. I think this tells us that Nicks is a more explosive receiver and can do more once the ball is in his hands. His higher catch percentage could be to the fact that he is running shorter timing routes where the Giants are trying to take advantage of his more explosive ability High bigger physic would leave us to believe he is a better gold zone target, though I haven't seen any statistical analysis of whether size helps in this part of the field. Just assumptions. The only other piece of info to chew own, which I completely disagree with, is that Manningham is entering his 3rd year.All in all, I think I convinced myself that Hicks should land the #2 role, but I don't think he will do enough to separate himself from Manningham. I have Nicks ADP in the 4th, and I think I can get better value there elsewhere.

I would take your initial assumtion (good post BTW) a step further and ask the broad question "Why did Manningham get so many more targets compared to Nicks?". We often look at stats like Nicks' and think, "wow, what if he got more targets", but we rarely stop to find out why he got so few. I know he was injured, but Manningham was not supposed to be much after such a lackluster rookie year. Instead, the guy rips off 57 catches for 700 and change yards and 6 TDs...not too shabby...and certainly not shabby enough to be relegated to the bench before the competition even starts. I am a UNC fan and watched Nicks in person in his Sr. year (i.e. I am pulling for him), but this is not by any means a done deal.

 

[Sweet Love]

Nicks was the starter at the end of the season. This is more of one of those competitions to keep everyone hungry than one because the Giants arent really sure what they have. Nicks would have to collapse and Manningham would have to turn a major corner being consistent and mentally disciplined for Nicks to not be the starter in week 1.

Sir, these two statements, taken together are about as clear as the Boston Harbor...it is either a hung jury or it is a shoe-in. I fail to see how it is both. In fact, this just accentuates the fact that this is not a done deal.

 

[sholditch]

try actually reading

 

[Avery]

I'm not sold just yet. I keep hearing all this hype of Nicks, but much of it is opinionated.

I'm not advocating either one just yet, but why did Manningham register more receptions by years end? Because Nicks had a bum ankle in training camp and injured his toe (which required surgery)? Would that label him more of a health risk? yes I know he's heavier and taller than Manningham, but ask Steve Smith (Car) if you need size to have big plays.

Manningham - 57 / 99

Nicks - 47 / 75

Manningham only caught 10 more receptions than Nicks, and posted just a mediocre 57% of his passes. Nicks saw 25% less targets than Manningham, but did convert more, at 62%. Both receivers recorded 2 games last year of 0 catches. (Nicks had a 1 catch -5 yards performance in week 17, but at least it was a catch. However, even in a .5 ppr this would negate to 0 so you could argue it was 3 games).

Nicks - 5tds and 16.8 ypc.

MHam - 6tds and 14.4 ypc.

So it would seem that Nicks does more with less, but he's only averaging 1td every 8 receptions. So add 10 receptions and we're still only talking about 6 tds, to match MHam. Can Nicks sustain the 16.8 ypc?

Nicks - 411 yac

Mham - 256 yac

That's pretty significant. I think this tells us that Nicks is a more explosive receiver and can do more once the ball is in his hands. His higher catch percentage could be to the fact that he is running shorter timing routes where the Giants are trying to take advantage of his more explosive ability High bigger physic would leave us to believe he is a better gold zone target, though I haven't seen any statistical analysis of whether size helps in this part of the field. Just assumptions.

The only other piece of info to chew own, which I completely disagree with, is that Manningham is entering his 3rd year.

All in all, I think I convinced myself that Hicks should land the #2 role, but I don't think he will do enough to separate himself from Manningham. I have Nicks ADP in the 4th, and I think I can get better value there elsewhere.

I would take your initial assumtion (good post BTW) a step further and ask the broad question "Why did Manningham get so many more targets compared to Nicks?". We often look at stats like Nicks' and think, "wow, what if he got more targets", but we rarely stop to find out why he got so few. I know he was injured, but Manningham was not supposed to be much after such a lackluster rookie year. Instead, the guy rips off 57 catches for 700 and change yards and 6 TDs...not too shabby...and certainly not shabby enough to be relegated to the bench before the competition even starts. I am a UNC fan and watched Nicks in person in his Sr. year (i.e. I am pulling for him), but this is not by any means a done deal.

That's it.Sometimes the simpliest explanation is the right one.

Nicks was injured and missed much of training camp. A death knell for playing time in your rookie year, especially for Coughlin.

Manningham put up solid numbers as a starter playing on a team that was often behind and threw the ball a ton. That doesn't put him in the same caliber as Nicks, regardless what his stats were last year.

 

[gregjcross]

I'm not sold just yet. I keep hearing all this hype of Nicks, but much of it is opinionated. I'm not advocating either one just yet, but why did Manningham register more receptions by years end? Because Nicks had a bum ankle in training camp and injured his toe (which required surgery)? Would that label him more of a health risk? yes I know he's heavier and taller than Manningham, but ask Steve Smith (Car) if you need size to have big plays.Manningham - 57 / 99Nicks - 47 / 75Manningham only caught 10 more receptions than Nicks, and posted just a mediocre 57% of his passes. Nicks saw 25% less targets than Manningham, but did convert more, at 62%. Both receivers recorded 2 games last year of 0 catches. (Nicks had a 1 catch -5 yards performance in week 17, but at least it was a catch. However, even in a .5 ppr this would negate to 0 so you could argue it was 3 games).Nicks - 5tds and 16.8 ypc.MHam - 6tds and 14.4 ypc.So it would seem that Nicks does more with less, but he's only averaging 1td every 8 receptions. So add 10 receptions and we're still only talking about 6 tds, to match MHam. Can Nicks sustain the 16.8 ypc?Nicks - 411 yac Mham - 256 yacThat's pretty significant. I think this tells us that Nicks is a more explosive receiver and can do more once the ball is in his hands. His higher catch percentage could be to the fact that he is running shorter timing routes where the Giants are trying to take advantage of his more explosive ability High bigger physic would leave us to believe he is a better gold zone target, though I haven't seen any statistical analysis of whether size helps in this part of the field. Just assumptions. The only other piece of info to chew own, which I completely disagree with, is that Manningham is entering his 3rd year.All in all, I think I convinced myself that Hicks should land the #2 role, but I don't think he will do enough to separate himself from Manningham. I have Nicks ADP in the 4th, and I think I can get better value there elsewhere.

I would take your initial assumtion (good post BTW) a step further and ask the broad question "Why did Manningham get so many more targets compared to Nicks?". We often look at stats like Nicks' and think, "wow, what if he got more targets", but we rarely stop to find out why he got so few. I know he was injured, but Manningham was not supposed to be much after such a lackluster rookie year. Instead, the guy rips off 57 catches for 700 and change yards and 6 TDs...not too shabby...and certainly not shabby enough to be relegated to the bench before the competition even starts. I am a UNC fan and watched Nicks in person in his Sr. year (i.e. I am pulling for him), but this is not by any means a done deal.

I think everyone realizes that its a genuine competition. Manningham would however have to improve significantly over last year where he showed big time flaws aside from his brilliant moments early on against WAS and DAL. Manningham struggles against good corners, Brandon Flowers owned him when they played KC and a few other secondaries beat him around as well later in the year, esp. when AZ visited. Thus Manningham needs more experience because he has less raw ability that Nicks has. Nicks, however, has to stay at a high level because Manningham is very quick and has great hands, he just doesnt have the nuances of route running down nor the physical tool set.

 

[redBourne]

I'm not sold just yet. I keep hearing all this hype of Nicks, but much of it is opinionated.

I'm not advocating either one just yet, but why did Manningham register more receptions by years end? Because Nicks had a bum ankle in training camp and injured his toe (which required surgery)? Would that label him more of a health risk? yes I know he's heavier and taller than Manningham, but ask Steve Smith (Car) if you need size to have big plays.

Manningham - 57 / 99

Nicks - 47 / 75

Manningham only caught 10 more receptions than Nicks, and posted just a mediocre 57% of his passes. Nicks saw 25% less targets than Manningham, but did convert more, at 62%. Both receivers recorded 2 games last year of 0 catches. (Nicks had a 1 catch -5 yards performance in week 17, but at least it was a catch. However, even in a .5 ppr this would negate to 0 so you could argue it was 3 games).

Nicks - 5tds and 16.8 ypc.

MHam - 6tds and 14.4 ypc.

So it would seem that Nicks does more with less, but he's only averaging 1td every 8 receptions. So add 10 receptions and we're still only talking about 6 tds, to match MHam. Can Nicks sustain the 16.8 ypc?

Nicks - 411 yac

Mham - 256 yac

That's pretty significant. I think this tells us that Nicks is a more explosive receiver and can do more once the ball is in his hands. His higher catch percentage could be to the fact that he is running shorter timing routes where the Giants are trying to take advantage of his more explosive ability High bigger physic would leave us to believe he is a better gold zone target, though I haven't seen any statistical analysis of whether size helps in this part of the field. Just assumptions.

The only other piece of info to chew own, which I completely disagree with, is that Manningham is entering his 3rd year.

All in all, I think I convinced myself that Hicks should land the #2 role, but I don't think he will do enough to separate himself from Manningham. I have Nicks ADP in the 4th, and I think I can get better value there elsewhere.

I would take your initial assumtion (good post BTW) a step further and ask the broad question "Why did Manningham get so many more targets compared to Nicks?". We often look at stats like Nicks' and think, "wow, what if he got more targets", but we rarely stop to find out why he got so few. I know he was injured, but Manningham was not supposed to be much after such a lackluster rookie year. Instead, the guy rips off 57 catches for 700 and change yards and 6 TDs...not too shabby...and certainly not shabby enough to be relegated to the bench before the competition even starts. I am a UNC fan and watched Nicks in person in his Sr. year (i.e. I am pulling for him), but this is not by any means a done deal.

I think everyone realizes that its a genuine competition. Manningham would however have to improve significantly over last year where he showed big time flaws aside from his brilliant moments early on against WAS and DAL. Manningham struggles against good corners, Brandon Flowers owned him when they played KC and a few other secondaries beat him around as well later in the year, esp. when AZ visited. Thus Manningham needs more experience because he has less raw ability that Nicks has. Nicks, however, has to stay at a high level because Manningham is very quick and has great hands, he just doesnt have the nuances of route running down nor the physical tool set.

Eh, I don't doubt that both struggle against good corners. They're still both pretty green in the NFL. However, Manningham's biggest knock is his tendency to drop passes, on big plays. I had him on my team last year and would watch as he would drop long first downs, bobble td passes, and fail to get 2 feet in bounds because he was running to close to the sideline. I didn't watch Nicks as closely and can only view the numbers for catch %, which Nicks outperforms by 5%. So I'm at a loss as to whether Nicks got his YAC on bombs or open space after slants/screens. I'd feel satisfied to switch their stats and grant them both, 5 more catches a piece. Keep the tds the same +- 1 for each, and take those numbers directly from S.Smith.I'm also inclined to reduce Nicks YPC to say, a more realistic (just my opinion) 15.8, rather than 16.8. This would put him at 63 receptions, and 995 yds.

 

[*****]

Because so many people will draft Nicks early with the idea that he is the starter and will emerge as a star, I think there is a good chance he goes a little to early in my drafts (given all the competition for recepeptions on the Gmen).

Manningham, on the other hand, will still be available very late and seems like the better value in this setting....a guy likely to produce okay in an offense skewing more toward the pass with upside in the event of injury or other opportunity.

Also, if Steve Smith were to get hurt, I get the feeling Manningham would get Smith's routes since he is a good route runner.

 

[MillenHOF]

There is also the team chemistry issue. I like Nicks as an outside complement to Smith much more than Mario, who should be able to fill the slot (assuming he deals with the dropsies)

 

[netnalp]

The "compete with Mannigham" is more coach speak. The coaches have also said that it's an open competition on the defensive line, even though Tuck is a lock to be a starter and Osi should regain his spot.

Missed in the numbers is that Mannigham bobbles the ball, it looks to me that he lets the ball hit his palms, causing the ball to bounce up, then he has to catch it again. I think this is why he had so many drops and makes him a turnover risk if he takes a hit while bobbling the ball.

 

[jwb]

Manningham did not go away last year, posting 9/131/1 in weeks 15 and 16 (with Nicks posting 8/110 in those two weeks). I like Nicks a little better, but Manningham is not a scrub - he's a good player.

I know we want our players to have clear roles, but honestly, I could almost see the NYG having 3 WR1's instead of a defined 1/2/3

 

[TheFanatic]

Nicks was the starter at the end of the season. This is more of one of those competitions to keep everyone hungry than one because the Giants arent really sure what they have. Nicks would have to collapse and Manningham would have to turn a major corner being consistent and mentally disciplined for Nicks to not be the starter in week 1.

Manningham was injured when Nicks stepped in for him to start in late season games for 2009 and Nicks was playing like a stud. Nicks was injured early in the year. It doesn't make Manningham better than Nicks nor does it impact 2010. But all above does signify that Coughlin favors veterans and always has, par for the course as they say. He has done it with linebackers and everywhere else.I predict Nicks will take this job, but anyone who thinks he has it by default is drinking Kool-Aid. Additionally, they will probably rotate WRs and play 3 WR sets much of the time like last year. Of note, Manningham started the first play of the first game in 2009 over D. Hixon, who everyone thought was the entrenched starter and was even referred to a starter all of training camp.

All in all, the best and most mature players who Coughlin trusts the most will start. Nicks will probably start but he has to earn it.

Do you have a link to this? He played in weeks 14, 15, and 16 but Nicks got the start in those weeks. Manningham didn't play week 17 but so did a lot of other guys. I'm pretty sure there was no injury at the end of last season for MM.ETA - Manningham did not appear on the injury report weeks 14 and 15. He was listed as not participating in practice due to illness but was not listed as Questionable, Probably, Doubtful, or Out. He also had like 80 yards receiving that game. Week 17 he was listed as questionable with a shoulder and didn't play.

Anyone attributing Nicks taking over for Manningham based on an injury to Manningham is playing some revisionist history or is a MM owner with wishful thinking...

 

[Inhiding]

Where does Ramses Barden fit into the equation?

 

[TheFanatic]

Where does Ramses Barden fit into the equation?

Huge target but really raw. With so many talented options to throw to, I'm not sure how he will ever get the polishing he needs...