How do you see the T.Y. Hilton/DHB Split working out? (1 Viewer)

[We Tigers]

Why is DHB still going in the 12th or undrafted and Hilton is going in the 7th/8th?

Because hilton is the better player and will score more fantasy points?

I think that's one way to look at the question he asked, and a totally valid one, to boot.But I think another is this: if we're expecting enough out of Luck and Indy in the second season that a talent like Hilton is going ahead of some really established and high-upside receivers himself, why aren't we at least a little bit higher on DHB, too, considering all things?

I don't see any reason DHB should get less action than Avery did last year...

And I don't see any reason given a higher volume than he's seen before, why DHB shouldn't improve over his recent averages...

And I don't see any reason that given another year and a preseason where Luck shows that he appears to be a step closer to the promised land, why we'd expect him to be any less effective with his #2 WR than last year...

So all put another way, if we're this high on the #3, wouldn't we be justified in being a whole lot higher on the #2 than we currently are as a group? DHB's been a 50/800/5 type guy the last few. If we think a slight (or better) uptick from there is likely, why all the pessimism? I think the "bust" label has stained our perception of DHB more than the actual stats and situation dictate, here.

But DHB hasn't been a 50/800/5 guy the last few. He was only that in 2011--last year he had 41 catches for 606 yards in 15 games, and both were his second-best career marks in those categories. Luck is probably a better QB than Palmer at this point so maybe he can actually become a 50/800 guy this year.I did a quick projection of the whole Colts offense back on page 3. I'd recommend doing the same and seeing how fast the yards dry up. Giving Wayne only 1100, Hilton only 900, and DHB a little over 600, I still got to 3920 yards without considering all the deep players who catch 2-10 passes.

 

[Man of Zen]

Why is DHB still going in the 12th or undrafted and Hilton is going in the 7th/8th?

Because hilton is the better player and will score more fantasy points?

I think that's one way to look at the question he asked, and a totally valid one, to boot.But I think another is this: if we're expecting enough out of Luck and Indy in the second season that a talent like Hilton is going ahead of some really established and high-upside receivers himself, why aren't we at least a little bit higher on DHB, too, considering all things?

I don't see any reason DHB should get less action than Avery did last year...

And I don't see any reason given a higher volume than he's seen before, why DHB shouldn't improve over his recent averages...

And I don't see any reason that given another year and a preseason where Luck shows that he appears to be a step closer to the promised land, why we'd expect him to be any less effective with his #2 WR than last year...

So all put another way, if we're this high on the #3, wouldn't we be justified in being a whole lot higher on the #2 than we currently are as a group? DHB's been a 50/800/5 type guy the last few. If we think a slight (or better) uptick from there is likely, why all the pessimism? I think the "bust" label has stained our perception of DHB more than the actual stats and situation dictate, here.

But DHB hasn't been a 50/800/5 guy the last few. He was only that in 2011--last year he had 41 catches for 606 yards in 15 games, and both were his second-best career marks in those categories. Luck is probably a better QB than Palmer at this point so maybe he can actually become a 50/800 guy this year.I did a quick projection of the whole Colts offense back on page 3. I'd recommend doing the same and seeing how fast the yards dry up. Giving Wayne only 1100, Hilton only 900, and DHB a little over 600, I still got to 3920 yards without considering all the deep players who catch 2-10 passes.

He wasn't a 50/800/5 guy in 2011 either. He was higher in receptions and yards, and one under in TD's. Last year he was under in receptions and yards, and at the TD number, but missed a little time. I more or less averaged the two, rounding up instead of down because of time missed. His per game production over the past two seasons at least matches that. He's become a very consistent, if uninspiring, producer on a moribund offense.

 

[ponchsox]

Why is DHB still going in the 12th or undrafted and Hilton is going in the 7th/8th?

Because hilton is the better player and will score more fantasy points?

I think that's one way to look at the question he asked, and a totally valid one, to boot.But I think another is this: if we're expecting enough out of Luck and Indy in the second season that a talent like Hilton is going ahead of some really established and high-upside receivers himself, why aren't we at least a little bit higher on DHB, too, considering all things?

I don't see any reason DHB should get less action than Avery did last year...

And I don't see any reason given a higher volume than he's seen before, why DHB shouldn't improve over his recent averages...

And I don't see any reason that given another year and a preseason where Luck shows that he appears to be a step closer to the promised land, why we'd expect him to be any less effective with his #2 WR than last year...

So all put another way, if we're this high on the #3, wouldn't we be justified in being a whole lot higher on the #2 than we currently are as a group? DHB's been a 50/800/5 type guy the last few. If we think a slight (or better) uptick from there is likely, why all the pessimism? I think the "bust" label has stained our perception of DHB more than the actual stats and situation dictate, here.

But DHB hasn't been a 50/800/5 guy the last few. He was only that in 2011--last year he had 41 catches for 606 yards in 15 games, and both were his second-best career marks in those categories. Luck is probably a better QB than Palmer at this point so maybe he can actually become a 50/800 guy this year.I did a quick projection of the whole Colts offense back on page 3. I'd recommend doing the same and seeing how fast the yards dry up. Giving Wayne only 1100, Hilton only 900, and DHB a little over 600, I still got to 3920 yards without considering all the deep players who catch 2-10 passes.

Throwing out stat predictions is a little premature until we see the percentage of snaps played. If DHB is targeted more I don't see how he would have 300 less yards than Hilton.

Hilton owners seem to be butt hurt by the news DHB is starting. Lets look at this objectively and not biased based on what horse you have in the race.

 

[Bayhawks]

Why is DHB still going in the 12th or undrafted and Hilton is going in the 7th/8th?

Because hilton is the better player and will score more fantasy points?

I think that's one way to look at the question he asked, and a totally valid one, to boot.

But I think another is this: if we're expecting enough out of Luck and Indy in the second season that a talent like Hilton is going ahead of some really established and high-upside receivers himself, why aren't we at least a little bit higher on DHB, too, considering all things?

I don't see any reason DHB should get less action than Avery did last year...

And I don't see any reason given a higher volume than he's seen before, why DHB shouldn't improve over his recent averages...

And I don't see any reason that given another year and a preseason where Luck shows that he appears to be a step closer to the promised land, why we'd expect him to be any less effective with his #2 WR than last year...

So all put another way, if we're this high on the #3, wouldn't we be justified in being a whole lot higher on the #2 than we currently are as a group? DHB's been a 50/800/5 type guy the last few. If we think a slight (or better) uptick from there is likely, why all the pessimism? I think the "bust" label has stained our perception of DHB more than the actual stats and situation dictate, here.

Because the reason DHB is the #2, according to the reports, is because of his blocking ability, not his receiving ability?

 

[Bayhawks]

Why is DHB still going in the 12th or undrafted and Hilton is going in the 7th/8th?

Because hilton is the better player and will score more fantasy points?

I think that's one way to look at the question he asked, and a totally valid one, to boot.But I think another is this: if we're expecting enough out of Luck and Indy in the second season that a talent like Hilton is going ahead of some really established and high-upside receivers himself, why aren't we at least a little bit higher on DHB, too, considering all things?

I don't see any reason DHB should get less action than Avery did last year...

And I don't see any reason given a higher volume than he's seen before, why DHB shouldn't improve over his recent averages...

And I don't see any reason that given another year and a preseason where Luck shows that he appears to be a step closer to the promised land, why we'd expect him to be any less effective with his #2 WR than last year...

So all put another way, if we're this high on the #3, wouldn't we be justified in being a whole lot higher on the #2 than we currently are as a group? DHB's been a 50/800/5 type guy the last few. If we think a slight (or better) uptick from there is likely, why all the pessimism? I think the "bust" label has stained our perception of DHB more than the actual stats and situation dictate, here.

But DHB hasn't been a 50/800/5 guy the last few. He was only that in 2011--last year he had 41 catches for 606 yards in 15 games, and both were his second-best career marks in those categories. Luck is probably a better QB than Palmer at this point so maybe he can actually become a 50/800 guy this year.I did a quick projection of the whole Colts offense back on page 3. I'd recommend doing the same and seeing how fast the yards dry up. Giving Wayne only 1100, Hilton only 900, and DHB a little over 600, I still got to 3920 yards without considering all the deep players who catch 2-10 passes.

Throwing out stat predictions is a little premature until we see the percentage of snaps played. If DHB is targeted more I don't see how he would have 300 less yards than Hilton.

Hilton owners seem to be butt hurt by the news DHB is starting. Lets look at this objectively and not biased based on what horse you have in the race.

You ask questions, then throw out juvenile comments like this when you don't like the responses? As far as not throwing out stat predictions, that's why/how we draft players in FF, you asked why DHB is going later than Hilton, then when someone uses stats to answer your question, you say "we can't project yet." So why ask the question, if you are going to ignore the answers?

DHB has not shown he can put up 800/5 consistently. IF DHB owners are going to point to the fact that DHB is the #2 WR, they need to acknowledge that he is the #2 because of his blocking, not his receiving. If DHB owners are going to point out that this offense is different than the one in Indy last year, they need to also acknowledge that is is different than the vertical passing game DHB played in in Oakland.

 

[We Tigers]

Why is DHB still going in the 12th or undrafted and Hilton is going in the 7th/8th?

Because hilton is the better player and will score more fantasy points?

I think that's one way to look at the question he asked, and a totally valid one, to boot.But I think another is this: if we're expecting enough out of Luck and Indy in the second season that a talent like Hilton is going ahead of some really established and high-upside receivers himself, why aren't we at least a little bit higher on DHB, too, considering all things?

I don't see any reason DHB should get less action than Avery did last year...

And I don't see any reason given a higher volume than he's seen before, why DHB shouldn't improve over his recent averages...

And I don't see any reason that given another year and a preseason where Luck shows that he appears to be a step closer to the promised land, why we'd expect him to be any less effective with his #2 WR than last year...

So all put another way, if we're this high on the #3, wouldn't we be justified in being a whole lot higher on the #2 than we currently are as a group? DHB's been a 50/800/5 type guy the last few. If we think a slight (or better) uptick from there is likely, why all the pessimism? I think the "bust" label has stained our perception of DHB more than the actual stats and situation dictate, here.

But DHB hasn't been a 50/800/5 guy the last few. He was only that in 2011--last year he had 41 catches for 606 yards in 15 games, and both were his second-best career marks in those categories. Luck is probably a better QB than Palmer at this point so maybe he can actually become a 50/800 guy this year.I did a quick projection of the whole Colts offense back on page 3. I'd recommend doing the same and seeing how fast the yards dry up. Giving Wayne only 1100, Hilton only 900, and DHB a little over 600, I still got to 3920 yards without considering all the deep players who catch 2-10 passes.

Throwing out stat predictions is a little premature until we see the percentage of snaps played. If DHB is targeted more I don't see how he would have 300 less yards than Hilton.Hilton owners seem to be butt hurt by the news DHB is starting. Lets look at this objectively and not biased based on what horse you have in the race.

Aside from sounding like a five-year-old, you make a decent point. The difference in our thinking is that I don't expect DHB to be targeted significantly more than Hilton, if at all.In a base two-TE set, one of the two TEs is extremely likely to run a route on passing plays; it's not like half of the pass attempts when DHB is in are going to him just because there are only two WRs. That's why I have Allen/Fleener projected to combine for over 900 yards.

 

[JuniorNB]

I'm just going by 'gut' here, and not by some depth chart, but when I do the eyeball test with Hilton, I see a dynamic, future all-pro. He just looks like a superstar in the making. Everyone is talking about Hilton vs DHB, but I think he'll overtake Wayne as their WR1 before the season is over.

As for DHB, maybe he'll resurrect his career in Indy. Others have had a rebirth after going to a new team. But all I see is the first round bust that Al Davis reached for years ago. I realize that he's going late in drafts and may be worth the risk, but I have a hard time thinking of him as anything more than a 4-5 TD a year guy.

 

[Man of Zen]

Why is DHB still going in the 12th or undrafted and Hilton is going in the 7th/8th?

Because hilton is the better player and will score more fantasy points?

I think that's one way to look at the question he asked, and a totally valid one, to boot.

But I think another is this: if we're expecting enough out of Luck and Indy in the second season that a talent like Hilton is going ahead of some really established and high-upside receivers himself, why aren't we at least a little bit higher on DHB, too, considering all things?

I don't see any reason DHB should get less action than Avery did last year...

And I don't see any reason given a higher volume than he's seen before, why DHB shouldn't improve over his recent averages...

And I don't see any reason that given another year and a preseason where Luck shows that he appears to be a step closer to the promised land, why we'd expect him to be any less effective with his #2 WR than last year...

So all put another way, if we're this high on the #3, wouldn't we be justified in being a whole lot higher on the #2 than we currently are as a group? DHB's been a 50/800/5 type guy the last few. If we think a slight (or better) uptick from there is likely, why all the pessimism? I think the "bust" label has stained our perception of DHB more than the actual stats and situation dictate, here.

Because the reason DHB is the #2, according to the reports, is because of his blocking ability, not his receiving ability?

That's pretty much relevant on running plays, when no receptions were going anywhere anyway. Not a factor in anything but the amount of playing time each WR gets.

 

[Bayhawks]

Why is DHB still going in the 12th or undrafted and Hilton is going in the 7th/8th?

Because hilton is the better player and will score more fantasy points?

I think that's one way to look at the question he asked, and a totally valid one, to boot.

But I think another is this: if we're expecting enough out of Luck and Indy in the second season that a talent like Hilton is going ahead of some really established and high-upside receivers himself, why aren't we at least a little bit higher on DHB, too, considering all things?

I don't see any reason DHB should get less action than Avery did last year...

And I don't see any reason given a higher volume than he's seen before, why DHB shouldn't improve over his recent averages...

And I don't see any reason that given another year and a preseason where Luck shows that he appears to be a step closer to the promised land, why we'd expect him to be any less effective with his #2 WR than last year...

So all put another way, if we're this high on the #3, wouldn't we be justified in being a whole lot higher on the #2 than we currently are as a group? DHB's been a 50/800/5 type guy the last few. If we think a slight (or better) uptick from there is likely, why all the pessimism? I think the "bust" label has stained our perception of DHB more than the actual stats and situation dictate, here.

Because the reason DHB is the #2, according to the reports, is because of his blocking ability, not his receiving ability?

That's pretty much relevant on running plays, when no receptions were going anywhere anyway. Not a factor in anything but the amount of playing time each WR gets.

Exactly. He is the #2, because of his value in the running game, not because of his prowess as a receiver. Therefore, when the Colts are passing the ball, one would expect Hilton in the game. So while DHB might get a few more snaps on pass plays then Hilton, IMO, it won't be a meaningful difference. When the Colts are obviously passing, Hilton will be in the game, and (again, IMO) his superior talent should allow him to produce better FF numbers than DHB.

 

[massraider]

It's interesting how Palmer was a bum last year, and now DHB has a better QB, but it's funny, when I look it up, it appears that Palmer had 360 less yards than Luck did last year. DHB was competing with Moore and Streater for catches, and put up lesser numbers than Moore, and the same number as an undrafted free agent (Streater).

Now he is competing for catches with Wayne, Hilton, and two decent tight ends, in an offense trying to throw less, but his numbers are going to go dramatically up? Why is that?

The passing yards the offense produce should be similar to Oakland last year, and his competition just got a lot better.

 

[Tau837]

Why is DHB still going in the 12th or undrafted and Hilton is going in the 7th/8th?

Because hilton is the better player and will score more fantasy points?

I think that's one way to look at the question he asked, and a totally valid one, to boot.

But I think another is this: if we're expecting enough out of Luck and Indy in the second season that a talent like Hilton is going ahead of some really established and high-upside receivers himself, why aren't we at least a little bit higher on DHB, too, considering all things?

I don't see any reason DHB should get less action than Avery did last year...

And I don't see any reason given a higher volume than he's seen before, why DHB shouldn't improve over his recent averages...

And I don't see any reason that given another year and a preseason where Luck shows that he appears to be a step closer to the promised land, why we'd expect him to be any less effective with his #2 WR than last year...

So all put another way, if we're this high on the #3, wouldn't we be justified in being a whole lot higher on the #2 than we currently are as a group? DHB's been a 50/800/5 type guy the last few. If we think a slight (or better) uptick from there is likely, why all the pessimism? I think the "bust" label has stained our perception of DHB more than the actual stats and situation dictate, here.

Because the reason DHB is the #2, according to the reports, is because of his blocking ability, not his receiving ability?

That's pretty much relevant on running plays, when no receptions were going anywhere anyway. Not a factor in anything but the amount of playing time each WR gets.

Exactly. He is the #2, because of his value in the running game, not because of his prowess as a receiver. Therefore, when the Colts are passing the ball, one would expect Hilton in the game. So while DHB might get a few more snaps on pass plays then Hilton, IMO, it won't be a meaningful difference. When the Colts are obviously passing, Hilton will be in the game, and (again, IMO) his superior talent should allow him to produce better FF numbers than DHB.

If the base offense is a 2 TE set, it is likely that a very significant percentage of the Colts' passing attempts will occur from that set. Barring injuries, it appears Hilton won't play much in that set, so he likely won't be on the field for a significant percentage of the Colts' passing attempts.

I'm not saying that means DHB will outscore Hilton, though I certainly think that is possible. But the bolded statement is off base IMO. This is one reason why Hilton's upside is limited by this offense and his expected usage.

 

[Bayhawks]

Why is DHB still going in the 12th or undrafted and Hilton is going in the 7th/8th?

Because hilton is the better player and will score more fantasy points?

I think that's one way to look at the question he asked, and a totally valid one, to boot.

But I think another is this: if we're expecting enough out of Luck and Indy in the second season that a talent like Hilton is going ahead of some really established and high-upside receivers himself, why aren't we at least a little bit higher on DHB, too, considering all things?

I don't see any reason DHB should get less action than Avery did last year...

And I don't see any reason given a higher volume than he's seen before, why DHB shouldn't improve over his recent averages...

And I don't see any reason that given another year and a preseason where Luck shows that he appears to be a step closer to the promised land, why we'd expect him to be any less effective with his #2 WR than last year...

So all put another way, if we're this high on the #3, wouldn't we be justified in being a whole lot higher on the #2 than we currently are as a group? DHB's been a 50/800/5 type guy the last few. If we think a slight (or better) uptick from there is likely, why all the pessimism? I think the "bust" label has stained our perception of DHB more than the actual stats and situation dictate, here.

Because the reason DHB is the #2, according to the reports, is because of his blocking ability, not his receiving ability?

That's pretty much relevant on running plays, when no receptions were going anywhere anyway. Not a factor in anything but the amount of playing time each WR gets.

Exactly. He is the #2, because of his value in the running game, not because of his prowess as a receiver. Therefore, when the Colts are passing the ball, one would expect Hilton in the game. So while DHB might get a few more snaps on pass plays then Hilton, IMO, it won't be a meaningful difference. When the Colts are obviously passing, Hilton will be in the game, and (again, IMO) his superior talent should allow him to produce better FF numbers than DHB.

If the base offense is a 2 TE set, it is likely that a very significant percentage of the Colts' passing attempts will occur from that set. Barring injuries, it appears Hilton won't play much in that set, so he likely won't be on the field for a significant percentage of the Colts' passing attempts.

I'm not saying that means DHB will outscore Hilton, though I certainly think that is possible. But the bolded statement is off base IMO. This is one reason why Hilton's upside is limited by this offense and his expected usage.

Are you sure about that? I know that the Patriots ran a 2-TE set the last few years, but a majority of their passes were thrown with 3 "WRs" on the field (either a 3rd WR, or TE/RB in the slot). When teams know they are going to pass, they will generally put their receiving threats on the field.

 

[Man of Zen]

Why is DHB still going in the 12th or undrafted and Hilton is going in the 7th/8th?

Because hilton is the better player and will score more fantasy points?

I think that's one way to look at the question he asked, and a totally valid one, to boot.

But I think another is this: if we're expecting enough out of Luck and Indy in the second season that a talent like Hilton is going ahead of some really established and high-upside receivers himself, why aren't we at least a little bit higher on DHB, too, considering all things?

I don't see any reason DHB should get less action than Avery did last year...

And I don't see any reason given a higher volume than he's seen before, why DHB shouldn't improve over his recent averages...

And I don't see any reason that given another year and a preseason where Luck shows that he appears to be a step closer to the promised land, why we'd expect him to be any less effective with his #2 WR than last year...

So all put another way, if we're this high on the #3, wouldn't we be justified in being a whole lot higher on the #2 than we currently are as a group? DHB's been a 50/800/5 type guy the last few. If we think a slight (or better) uptick from there is likely, why all the pessimism? I think the "bust" label has stained our perception of DHB more than the actual stats and situation dictate, here.

Because the reason DHB is the #2, according to the reports, is because of his blocking ability, not his receiving ability?

That's pretty much relevant on running plays, when no receptions were going anywhere anyway. Not a factor in anything but the amount of playing time each WR gets.

Exactly. He is the #2, because of his value in the running game, not because of his prowess as a receiver. Therefore, when the Colts are passing the ball, one would expect Hilton in the game. So while DHB might get a few more snaps on pass plays then Hilton, IMO, it won't be a meaningful difference. When the Colts are obviously passing, Hilton will be in the game, and (again, IMO) his superior talent should allow him to produce better FF numbers than DHB.

If the base offense is a 2 TE set, it is likely that a very significant percentage of the Colts' passing attempts will occur from that set. Barring injuries, it appears Hilton won't play much in that set, so he likely won't be on the field for a significant percentage of the Colts' passing attempts.

I'm not saying that means DHB will outscore Hilton, though I certainly think that is possible. But the bolded statement is off base IMO. This is one reason why Hilton's upside is limited by this offense and his expected usage.

Are you sure about that? I know that the Patriots ran a 2-TE set the last few years, but a majority of their passes were thrown with 3 "WRs" on the field (either a 3rd WR, or TE/RB in the slot). When teams know they are going to pass, they will generally put their receiving threats on the field.

Doesn't matter.

If a "majority" of passes are thrown when all three guys are on the field, there's going to be some division of labor.

If a minority are thrown when only two guys are out there, the third guy gets no slice of that particular pie.

It adds up. That's all.

 

[pollardsvision]

Hilton dynasty owner. DHB worries me.

Maybe it doesn't matter who's starting, but if IND viewed Hilton as the next great superstar and planned on using him as such, it seems odd that they'd bring in a mediocre WR in the off-season, then start him over Hilton. If DHB really is starting for his "blocking ability", how often do future superstar WR's get benched for guys based on blocking ability.

Sure, the cream always rises, but it seems a little concerning that Hilton's own team doesn't seem to view him as "cream".

 

[JuniorNB]

Hilton dynasty owner. DHB worries me.

Maybe it doesn't matter who's starting, but if IND viewed Hilton as the next great superstar and planned on using him as such, it seems odd that they'd bring in a mediocre WR in the off-season, then start him over Hilton. If DHB really is starting for his "blocking ability", how often do future superstar WR's get benched for guys based on blocking ability.

Sure, the cream always rises, but it seems a little concerning that Hilton's own team doesn't seem to view him as "cream".

He's replacing Avery.

 

[pollardsvision]

Hilton dynasty owner. DHB worries me.

Maybe it doesn't matter who's starting, but if IND viewed Hilton as the next great superstar and planned on using him as such, it seems odd that they'd bring in a mediocre WR in the off-season, then start him over Hilton. If DHB really is starting for his "blocking ability", how often do future superstar WR's get benched for guys based on blocking ability.

Sure, the cream always rises, but it seems a little concerning that Hilton's own team doesn't seem to view him as "cream".

He's replacing Avery.

That's fine. Just saying it certainly tempers my hopes for a breakout a little.

Avery caught more balls than Hilton last year. Letting him go seemed like a nice time to start turning things over to Hilton. Instead, they brought in another burner to start over Hilton on a team that runs a lot of 2 TE sets.

No idea what'll happen, but at best, the situation stays muddy like last year. At worst, maybe Hilton's just a guy that had a decent year last year because IND didn't have a ton of other options.

 

[Bayhawks]

Why is DHB still going in the 12th or undrafted and Hilton is going in the 7th/8th?

Because hilton is the better player and will score more fantasy points?

I think that's one way to look at the question he asked, and a totally valid one, to boot.

But I think another is this: if we're expecting enough out of Luck and Indy in the second season that a talent like Hilton is going ahead of some really established and high-upside receivers himself, why aren't we at least a little bit higher on DHB, too, considering all things?

I don't see any reason DHB should get less action than Avery did last year...

And I don't see any reason given a higher volume than he's seen before, why DHB shouldn't improve over his recent averages...

And I don't see any reason that given another year and a preseason where Luck shows that he appears to be a step closer to the promised land, why we'd expect him to be any less effective with his #2 WR than last year...

So all put another way, if we're this high on the #3, wouldn't we be justified in being a whole lot higher on the #2 than we currently are as a group? DHB's been a 50/800/5 type guy the last few. If we think a slight (or better) uptick from there is likely, why all the pessimism? I think the "bust" label has stained our perception of DHB more than the actual stats and situation dictate, here.

Because the reason DHB is the #2, according to the reports, is because of his blocking ability, not his receiving ability?

That's pretty much relevant on running plays, when no receptions were going anywhere anyway. Not a factor in anything but the amount of playing time each WR gets.

Exactly. He is the #2, because of his value in the running game, not because of his prowess as a receiver. Therefore, when the Colts are passing the ball, one would expect Hilton in the game. So while DHB might get a few more snaps on pass plays then Hilton, IMO, it won't be a meaningful difference. When the Colts are obviously passing, Hilton will be in the game, and (again, IMO) his superior talent should allow him to produce better FF numbers than DHB.

If the base offense is a 2 TE set, it is likely that a very significant percentage of the Colts' passing attempts will occur from that set. Barring injuries, it appears Hilton won't play much in that set, so he likely won't be on the field for a significant percentage of the Colts' passing attempts.

I'm not saying that means DHB will outscore Hilton, though I certainly think that is possible. But the bolded statement is off base IMO. This is one reason why Hilton's upside is limited by this offense and his expected usage.

Are you sure about that? I know that the Patriots ran a 2-TE set the last few years, but a majority of their passes were thrown with 3 "WRs" on the field (either a 3rd WR, or TE/RB in the slot). When teams know they are going to pass, they will generally put their receiving threats on the field.

Doesn't matter.

If a "majority" of passes are thrown when all three guys are on the field, there's going to be some division of labor.

If a minority are thrown when only two guys are out there, the third guy gets no slice of that particular pie.

It adds up. That's all.

What are you talking about? What adds up?

If the Colts throw mostly out of 3 WR sets (I don't know if this will be the case or not), then Hilton is on the field for those plays, and in those situations, he should have the same possibility of catching a pass as the other receivers. If they Colts throw sometimes out of 2 WR sets, then DHB would be on the field, however, I believe that Hilton's superior talent will allow him to do more with his opportunities in 3-WR sets. The fact that DHB will be on the field in 2-WR sets (when they will usually be running) doesn't matter to me. I don't get points for WR blocks.

 

[Man of Zen]

Why is DHB still going in the 12th or undrafted and Hilton is going in the 7th/8th?

Because hilton is the better player and will score more fantasy points?

I think that's one way to look at the question he asked, and a totally valid one, to boot.

But I think another is this: if we're expecting enough out of Luck and Indy in the second season that a talent like Hilton is going ahead of some really established and high-upside receivers himself, why aren't we at least a little bit higher on DHB, too, considering all things?

I don't see any reason DHB should get less action than Avery did last year...

And I don't see any reason given a higher volume than he's seen before, why DHB shouldn't improve over his recent averages...

And I don't see any reason that given another year and a preseason where Luck shows that he appears to be a step closer to the promised land, why we'd expect him to be any less effective with his #2 WR than last year...

So all put another way, if we're this high on the #3, wouldn't we be justified in being a whole lot higher on the #2 than we currently are as a group? DHB's been a 50/800/5 type guy the last few. If we think a slight (or better) uptick from there is likely, why all the pessimism? I think the "bust" label has stained our perception of DHB more than the actual stats and situation dictate, here.

Because the reason DHB is the #2, according to the reports, is because of his blocking ability, not his receiving ability?

That's pretty much relevant on running plays, when no receptions were going anywhere anyway. Not a factor in anything but the amount of playing time each WR gets.

Exactly. He is the #2, because of his value in the running game, not because of his prowess as a receiver. Therefore, when the Colts are passing the ball, one would expect Hilton in the game. So while DHB might get a few more snaps on pass plays then Hilton, IMO, it won't be a meaningful difference. When the Colts are obviously passing, Hilton will be in the game, and (again, IMO) his superior talent should allow him to produce better FF numbers than DHB.

If the base offense is a 2 TE set, it is likely that a very significant percentage of the Colts' passing attempts will occur from that set. Barring injuries, it appears Hilton won't play much in that set, so he likely won't be on the field for a significant percentage of the Colts' passing attempts.

I'm not saying that means DHB will outscore Hilton, though I certainly think that is possible. But the bolded statement is off base IMO. This is one reason why Hilton's upside is limited by this offense and his expected usage.

Are you sure about that? I know that the Patriots ran a 2-TE set the last few years, but a majority of their passes were thrown with 3 "WRs" on the field (either a 3rd WR, or TE/RB in the slot). When teams know they are going to pass, they will generally put their receiving threats on the field.

Doesn't matter.

If a "majority" of passes are thrown when all three guys are on the field, there's going to be some division of labor.

If a minority are thrown when only two guys are out there, the third guy gets no slice of that particular pie.

It adds up. That's all.

What are you talking about? What adds up?

If the Colts throw mostly out of 3 WR sets (I don't know if this will be the case or not), then Hilton is on the field for those plays, and in those situations, he should have the same possibility of catching a pass as the other receivers. If they Colts throw sometimes out of 2 WR sets, then DHB would be on the field, however, I believe that Hilton's superior talent will allow him to do more with his opportunities in 3-WR sets. The fact that DHB will be on the field in 2-WR sets (when they will usually be running) doesn't matter to me. I don't get points for WR blocks.

Do you get points for when other receivers on the field catch the ball instead of the guy you drafted? How about receptions other guys get while your guy sits on the pine?

 

[jdoggydogg]

DHB is a better blocker. Great.

Two questions:

1) Do you think Indy's defense is good enough to keep their running game relevant?

2) Do you think Indy's run game is good enough to greatly reduce Luck's pass attempts?

Indy can say whatever they want about a better run/pass offense. But I think we'll see a lot of passing again this year, and that could spell fantasy success for both DHB and Hilton.

 

[Tau837]

Exactly. He is the #2, because of his value in the running game, not because of his prowess as a receiver. Therefore, when the Colts are passing the ball, one would expect Hilton in the game. So while DHB might get a few more snaps on pass plays then Hilton, IMO, it won't be a meaningful difference. When the Colts are obviously passing, Hilton will be in the game, and (again, IMO) his superior talent should allow him to produce better FF numbers than DHB.

If the base offense is a 2 TE set, it is likely that a very significant percentage of the Colts' passing attempts will occur from that set. Barring injuries, it appears Hilton won't play much in that set, so he likely won't be on the field for a significant percentage of the Colts' passing attempts.

I'm not saying that means DHB will outscore Hilton, though I certainly think that is possible. But the bolded statement is off base IMO. This is one reason why Hilton's upside is limited by this offense and his expected usage.

Are you sure about that? I know that the Patriots ran a 2-TE set the last few years, but a majority of their passes were thrown with 3 "WRs" on the field (either a 3rd WR, or TE/RB in the slot). When teams know they are going to pass, they will generally put their receiving threats on the field.

It seems rather obvious to me. Do you really think the Colts are going to use a base set for their offense and rarely pass from that base formation? That doesn't make any sense.

I don't know where to find snaps broken down by formation. But since you mentioned New England, Consider the total play counts for their QBs, TEs, and WRs in 2011 (I used 2011 because their top 2 TEs missed 11 games combined in 2012):

1149 Brady 12 Hoyer1118 Gronk 864 Hernandez (missed 2 games)1021 Welker 842 Branch (missed 1 game) 331 Chad Johnson 120 Edelman 87 Underwood 40 Slater 18 PriceChad Johnson, the #3 WR, was on the field for just 244 of the Pats' 690 pass plays, and 87 of those pass plays were in the 3 games missed by Branch and Hernandez. To put it another way, Johnson was only on the field for 157 pass plays in the 13 games during which the starters (Gronk, Hernandez, Welker, Branch) were all healthy... approximately 12 pass plays per game. (And note that pass plays include sacks and scrambles, so this does not equate to him being on the field for 12 passing attempts per game.)

Now, Chad Johnson was not a good fit for New England's offense, so no doubt that contributed to him not being on the field much. Hilton will certainly play more than Johnson did in 2011. However, this illustrates that a team that runs a 2 TE set as its base can be a very successful passing team without going to 3 WR sets very often.

 

[Tau837]

DHB is a better blocker. Great.

Two questions:

1) Do you think Indy's defense is good enough to keep their running game relevant?

2) Do you think Indy's run game is good enough to greatly reduce Luck's pass attempts?

Indy can say whatever they want about a better run/pass offense. But I think we'll see a lot of passing again this year, and that could spell fantasy success for both DHB and Hilton.

1) Yes.

2) Greatly reduce, no. Reduce, yes.

 

[Bayhawks]

Exactly. He is the #2, because of his value in the running game, not because of his prowess as a receiver. Therefore, when the Colts are passing the ball, one would expect Hilton in the game. So while DHB might get a few more snaps on pass plays then Hilton, IMO, it won't be a meaningful difference. When the Colts are obviously passing, Hilton will be in the game, and (again, IMO) his superior talent should allow him to produce better FF numbers than DHB.

If the base offense is a 2 TE set, it is likely that a very significant percentage of the Colts' passing attempts will occur from that set. Barring injuries, it appears Hilton won't play much in that set, so he likely won't be on the field for a significant percentage of the Colts' passing attempts.

I'm not saying that means DHB will outscore Hilton, though I certainly think that is possible. But the bolded statement is off base IMO. This is one reason why Hilton's upside is limited by this offense and his expected usage.

Are you sure about that? I know that the Patriots ran a 2-TE set the last few years, but a majority of their passes were thrown with 3 "WRs" on the field (either a 3rd WR, or TE/RB in the slot). When teams know they are going to pass, they will generally put their receiving threats on the field.

It seems rather obvious to me. Do you really think the Colts are going to use a base set for their offense and rarely pass from that base formation? That doesn't make any sense.

I don't know where to find snaps broken down by formation. But since you mentioned New England, Consider the total play counts for their QBs, TEs, and WRs in 2011 (I used 2011 because their top 2 TEs missed 11 games combined in 2012):

1149 Brady 12 Hoyer1118 Gronk 864 Hernandez (missed 2 games)1021 Welker 842 Branch (missed 1 game) 331 Chad Johnson 120 Edelman 87 Underwood 40 Slater 18 PriceChad Johnson, the #3 WR, was on the field for just 244 of the Pats' 690 pass plays, and 87 of those pass plays were in the 3 games missed by Branch and Hernandez. To put it another way, Johnson was only on the field for 157 pass plays in the 13 games during which the starters (Gronk, Hernandez, Welker, Branch) were all healthy... approximately 12 pass plays per game. (And note that pass plays include sacks and scrambles, so this does not equate to him being on the field for 12 passing attempts per game.)

Now, Chad Johnson was not a good fit for New England's offense, so no doubt that contributed to him not being on the field much. Hilton will certainly play more than Johnson did in 2011. However, this illustrates that a team that runs a 2 TE set as its base can be a very successful passing team without going to 3 WR sets very often.

But, while Chad Johnson was the "#3 WR," he wasn't the only person to play in the "3rd WR role." You have the other WRs, but more often than that, you had Hernandez lining up in the slot, Gronk lined up in the slot on occasion, and you had RBs line up in the slot. The "2-TE" set allows them to run the ball more effectively, but the Colts don't have the players the Pats did, so they are going to have to get out of the 2-TE set more often than the Pats did, in order to get Hilton (the bigger receiving threat than DHB) on the field.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This conversation (including the TYH thread) has gone from Hilton being an underappreciated sleeper to his being overvalued and overdrafted and Heyward-Bey being underdrafted and underappreciated.

The news about TYH being the no. 3 WR technically in the 21 formation reminds me a little bit of Laurent Robinson with the Cowboys a couple years ago. People passed on him often because he just wouldn't be on the field that much compared to Austin. Robinson was the man, when he was in there he produced and he helped win championships off the WW. The Cowboys were passing a lot. I do think the combo of the Indy defense with its run game will keep them passing plenty but folks Fleener & Allen will be getting 900-1100 yards receiving and red zone opportunities. I just don't know that Indy will be taking it to the level of the 2011 Cowboys with Bryant/Austin/Robinson/Witten. No. 3 WRs in 2-TE sets are shaky, the Robinson example is probably more of the exception but if you win you win big.

 

[ponchsox]

This conversation (including the TYH thread) has gone from Hilton being an underappreciated sleeper to his being overvalued and overdrafted and Heyward-Bey being underdrafted and underappreciated.

Can't we all just agree that both will have some value? Whether you want to call Hilton a WR 3 or 4 and DHB a 4 or 5 in fantasy is a matter of personal opinion. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

 

[Tau837]

Exactly. He is the #2, because of his value in the running game, not because of his prowess as a receiver. Therefore, when the Colts are passing the ball, one would expect Hilton in the game. So while DHB might get a few more snaps on pass plays then Hilton, IMO, it won't be a meaningful difference. When the Colts are obviously passing, Hilton will be in the game, and (again, IMO) his superior talent should allow him to produce better FF numbers than DHB.

If the base offense is a 2 TE set, it is likely that a very significant percentage of the Colts' passing attempts will occur from that set. Barring injuries, it appears Hilton won't play much in that set, so he likely won't be on the field for a significant percentage of the Colts' passing attempts.

I'm not saying that means DHB will outscore Hilton, though I certainly think that is possible. But the bolded statement is off base IMO. This is one reason why Hilton's upside is limited by this offense and his expected usage.

Are you sure about that? I know that the Patriots ran a 2-TE set the last few years, but a majority of their passes were thrown with 3 "WRs" on the field (either a 3rd WR, or TE/RB in the slot). When teams know they are going to pass, they will generally put their receiving threats on the field.

It seems rather obvious to me. Do you really think the Colts are going to use a base set for their offense and rarely pass from that base formation? That doesn't make any sense.

I don't know where to find snaps broken down by formation. But since you mentioned New England, Consider the total play counts for their QBs, TEs, and WRs in 2011 (I used 2011 because their top 2 TEs missed 11 games combined in 2012):

1149 Brady 12 Hoyer1118 Gronk 864 Hernandez (missed 2 games)1021 Welker 842 Branch (missed 1 game) 331 Chad Johnson 120 Edelman 87 Underwood 40 Slater 18 PriceChad Johnson, the #3 WR, was on the field for just 244 of the Pats' 690 pass plays, and 87 of those pass plays were in the 3 games missed by Branch and Hernandez. To put it another way, Johnson was only on the field for 157 pass plays in the 13 games during which the starters (Gronk, Hernandez, Welker, Branch) were all healthy... approximately 12 pass plays per game. (And note that pass plays include sacks and scrambles, so this does not equate to him being on the field for 12 passing attempts per game.)Now, Chad Johnson was not a good fit for New England's offense, so no doubt that contributed to him not being on the field much. Hilton will certainly play more than Johnson did in 2011. However, this illustrates that a team that runs a 2 TE set as its base can be a very successful passing team without going to 3 WR sets very often.

But, while Chad Johnson was the "#3 WR," he wasn't the only person to play in the "3rd WR role." You have the other WRs, but more often than that, you had Hernandez lining up in the slot, Gronk lined up in the slot on occasion, and you had RBs line up in the slot. The "2-TE" set allows them to run the ball more effectively, but the Colts don't have the players the Pats did, so they are going to have to get out of the 2-TE set more often than the Pats did, in order to get Hilton (the bigger receiving threat than DHB) on the field.

The other WRs on the team (Edelman, Underwood, Slater, Price) played on a combined total of 158 pass plays; 72 of those occurred in the 3 games missed by Branch and Hernandez. So the combined total of pass plays for all WRs other than Welker and Branch was 243 in the 13 games in which the starters were healthy... less than 19 pass plays per game. The Patriots attempted over 600 passes in 2011, so it's clear the majority of them came in the 2 TE set.

Agree that the Colts offensive personnel is not as strong as the Pats' in some ways. You are the one who brought up the Patriots, in an effort to provide an example of a base 2 TE set team that throws most of its passes from 3 WR sets. I've shown that is not true.

You seem to feel this is all about running for the Colts, but it is also about getting more snaps for both Allen and Fleener, who are both among the Colts' top offensive players.

 

[JackReacher]

Hilton owners are trying to cut down DHB but I can't get over what he did in Oakland with a crap QB. With a full season with Luck this guy is going to put up 1000/8.

I'm buying on DHB.

I'm buying also, especially in dynasty. You can get him for next to nothing. He has #2 potential immediately with Luck being the BEST QB that has ever thrown to him and has #1 upside once Wayne retires.

#1 what?

 

[massraider]

Hilton owners are trying to cut down DHB but I can't get over what he did in Oakland with a crap QB. With a full season with Luck this guy is going to put up 1000/8.

I'm buying on DHB.

I'm buying also, especially in dynasty. You can get him for next to nothing. He has #2 potential immediately with Luck being the BEST QB that has ever thrown to him and has #1 upside once Wayne retires.

#1 what?

blocker

 

[Bayhawks]

Exactly. He is the #2, because of his value in the running game, not because of his prowess as a receiver. Therefore, when the Colts are passing the ball, one would expect Hilton in the game. So while DHB might get a few more snaps on pass plays then Hilton, IMO, it won't be a meaningful difference. When the Colts are obviously passing, Hilton will be in the game, and (again, IMO) his superior talent should allow him to produce better FF numbers than DHB.

If the base offense is a 2 TE set, it is likely that a very significant percentage of the Colts' passing attempts will occur from that set. Barring injuries, it appears Hilton won't play much in that set, so he likely won't be on the field for a significant percentage of the Colts' passing attempts.

I'm not saying that means DHB will outscore Hilton, though I certainly think that is possible. But the bolded statement is off base IMO. This is one reason why Hilton's upside is limited by this offense and his expected usage.

Are you sure about that? I know that the Patriots ran a 2-TE set the last few years, but a majority of their passes were thrown with 3 "WRs" on the field (either a 3rd WR, or TE/RB in the slot). When teams know they are going to pass, they will generally put their receiving threats on the field.

It seems rather obvious to me. Do you really think the Colts are going to use a base set for their offense and rarely pass from that base formation? That doesn't make any sense.

I don't know where to find snaps broken down by formation. But since you mentioned New England, Consider the total play counts for their QBs, TEs, and WRs in 2011 (I used 2011 because their top 2 TEs missed 11 games combined in 2012):

1149 Brady 12 Hoyer1118 Gronk 864 Hernandez (missed 2 games)1021 Welker 842 Branch (missed 1 game) 331 Chad Johnson 120 Edelman 87 Underwood 40 Slater 18 PriceChad Johnson, the #3 WR, was on the field for just 244 of the Pats' 690 pass plays, and 87 of those pass plays were in the 3 games missed by Branch and Hernandez. To put it another way, Johnson was only on the field for 157 pass plays in the 13 games during which the starters (Gronk, Hernandez, Welker, Branch) were all healthy... approximately 12 pass plays per game. (And note that pass plays include sacks and scrambles, so this does not equate to him being on the field for 12 passing attempts per game.)Now, Chad Johnson was not a good fit for New England's offense, so no doubt that contributed to him not being on the field much. Hilton will certainly play more than Johnson did in 2011. However, this illustrates that a team that runs a 2 TE set as its base can be a very successful passing team without going to 3 WR sets very often.

But, while Chad Johnson was the "#3 WR," he wasn't the only person to play in the "3rd WR role." You have the other WRs, but more often than that, you had Hernandez lining up in the slot, Gronk lined up in the slot on occasion, and you had RBs line up in the slot. The "2-TE" set allows them to run the ball more effectively, but the Colts don't have the players the Pats did, so they are going to have to get out of the 2-TE set more often than the Pats did, in order to get Hilton (the bigger receiving threat than DHB) on the field.

The other WRs on the team (Edelman, Underwood, Slater, Price) played on a combined total of 158 pass plays; 72 of those occurred in the 3 games missed by Branch and Hernandez. So the combined total of pass plays for all WRs other than Welker and Branch was 243 in the 13 games in which the starters were healthy... less than 19 pass plays per game. The Patriots attempted over 600 passes in 2011, so it's clear the majority of them came in the 2 TE set.

Agree that the Colts offensive personnel is not as strong as the Pats' in some ways. You are the one who brought up the Patriots, in an effort to provide an example of a base 2 TE set team that throws most of its passes from 3 WR sets. I've shown that is not true.

You seem to feel this is all about running for the Colts, but it is also about getting more snaps for both Allen and Fleener, who are both among the Colts' top offensive players.

I didn't say that at all. What I posted was that the Patriots threw the majority of their passes with 3 "WRs" on the field, whether that 3rd "WR" was an actual WR, or a TE/RB playing the WR position. If Hernandez, Gronkowski, Woodhead, or Vereen lined up as a WR, the Pats are still in a "2-TE" set (assuming Gronk and Hernandez are both on the field), but they have 3 guys acting as WRs. Since neither Allen or Fleener (IMO) is as athletic as Hernandez or Gronk, and Ballard and Bradshaw aren't the receivers that Vereen and Woodhead are, the Colts won't really have that option. When they throw, they will be more likely (IMO) to have Hilton on the field, in order to get that 3rd "WR".

ETA-while you think (and the Colts might agree) that Fleener and Allen are top offensive players, they really haven't shown much, at the NFL level. They may want those two to allow them to keep both on the field, but I don't think they will be successful.

 

[Johnny Blood]

Hilton dynasty owner. DHB worries me.

Maybe it doesn't matter who's starting, but if IND viewed Hilton as the next great superstar and planned on using him as such, it seems odd that they'd bring in a mediocre WR in the off-season, then start him over Hilton. If DHB really is starting for his "blocking ability", how often do future superstar WR's get benched for guys based on blocking ability.

Sure, the cream always rises, but it seems a little concerning that Hilton's own team doesn't seem to view him as "cream".

Hilton didn't get benched, he is in the same spot he was last year. I know what you're saying, but the distinction is important.

Maybe there were some good faith guarantees to DHB about how he would slide into the offense. He's a vet.

I go back to what I said before. If the Colts thought DHB was so good, why did they give him a one year contract at John Kuhn salary?

The only praise from the coaches I've heard was for his blocking. Maybe he really is starting for his blocking. I understand the worries about volume and playing time but if Luck is a special QB then this can work itself out. We're not talking about Locker's #3.

About the 2 TE sets, yes, they say they want that. They also said the offense would be flexible to the talent. Wanting 2 TE sets and having a productive 2 TE set is not the same thing. Hilton has shown a ton, the TEs have shown squat.

 

[Tau837]

Exactly. He is the #2, because of his value in the running game, not because of his prowess as a receiver. Therefore, when the Colts are passing the ball, one would expect Hilton in the game. So while DHB might get a few more snaps on pass plays then Hilton, IMO, it won't be a meaningful difference. When the Colts are obviously passing, Hilton will be in the game, and (again, IMO) his superior talent should allow him to produce better FF numbers than DHB.

If the base offense is a 2 TE set, it is likely that a very significant percentage of the Colts' passing attempts will occur from that set. Barring injuries, it appears Hilton won't play much in that set, so he likely won't be on the field for a significant percentage of the Colts' passing attempts.

I'm not saying that means DHB will outscore Hilton, though I certainly think that is possible. But the bolded statement is off base IMO. This is one reason why Hilton's upside is limited by this offense and his expected usage.

Are you sure about that? I know that the Patriots ran a 2-TE set the last few years, but a majority of their passes were thrown with 3 "WRs" on the field (either a 3rd WR, or TE/RB in the slot). When teams know they are going to pass, they will generally put their receiving threats on the field.

It seems rather obvious to me. Do you really think the Colts are going to use a base set for their offense and rarely pass from that base formation? That doesn't make any sense.

I don't know where to find snaps broken down by formation. But since you mentioned New England, Consider the total play counts for their QBs, TEs, and WRs in 2011 (I used 2011 because their top 2 TEs missed 11 games combined in 2012):

1149 Brady 12 Hoyer1118 Gronk 864 Hernandez (missed 2 games)1021 Welker 842 Branch (missed 1 game) 331 Chad Johnson 120 Edelman 87 Underwood 40 Slater 18 PriceChad Johnson, the #3 WR, was on the field for just 244 of the Pats' 690 pass plays, and 87 of those pass plays were in the 3 games missed by Branch and Hernandez. To put it another way, Johnson was only on the field for 157 pass plays in the 13 games during which the starters (Gronk, Hernandez, Welker, Branch) were all healthy... approximately 12 pass plays per game. (And note that pass plays include sacks and scrambles, so this does not equate to him being on the field for 12 passing attempts per game.)Now, Chad Johnson was not a good fit for New England's offense, so no doubt that contributed to him not being on the field much. Hilton will certainly play more than Johnson did in 2011. However, this illustrates that a team that runs a 2 TE set as its base can be a very successful passing team without going to 3 WR sets very often.

But, while Chad Johnson was the "#3 WR," he wasn't the only person to play in the "3rd WR role." You have the other WRs, but more often than that, you had Hernandez lining up in the slot, Gronk lined up in the slot on occasion, and you had RBs line up in the slot. The "2-TE" set allows them to run the ball more effectively, but the Colts don't have the players the Pats did, so they are going to have to get out of the 2-TE set more often than the Pats did, in order to get Hilton (the bigger receiving threat than DHB) on the field.

The other WRs on the team (Edelman, Underwood, Slater, Price) played on a combined total of 158 pass plays; 72 of those occurred in the 3 games missed by Branch and Hernandez. So the combined total of pass plays for all WRs other than Welker and Branch was 243 in the 13 games in which the starters were healthy... less than 19 pass plays per game. The Patriots attempted over 600 passes in 2011, so it's clear the majority of them came in the 2 TE set.

Agree that the Colts offensive personnel is not as strong as the Pats' in some ways. You are the one who brought up the Patriots, in an effort to provide an example of a base 2 TE set team that throws most of its passes from 3 WR sets. I've shown that is not true.

You seem to feel this is all about running for the Colts, but it is also about getting more snaps for both Allen and Fleener, who are both among the Colts' top offensive players.

I didn't say that at all. What I posted was that the Patriots threw the majority of their passes with 3 "WRs" on the field, whether that 3rd "WR" was an actual WR, or a TE/RB playing the WR position. If Hernandez, Gronkowski, Woodhead, or Vereen lined up as a WR, the Pats are still in a "2-TE" set (assuming Gronk and Hernandez are both on the field), but they have 3 guys acting as WRs. Since neither Allen or Fleener (IMO) is as athletic as Hernandez or Gronk, and Ballard and Bradshaw aren't the receivers that Vereen and Woodhead are, the Colts won't really have that option. When they throw, they will be more likely (IMO) to have Hilton on the field, in order to get that 3rd "WR".

ETA-while you think (and the Colts might agree) that Fleener and Allen are top offensive players, they really haven't shown much, at the NFL level. They may want those two to allow them to keep both on the field, but I don't think they will be successful.

So Bradshaw and Fleener aren't capable of lining up in the slot or on the outside? I disagree.

I also think you are completely underestimating the talent of Allen and Fleener. Allen had one of the best fantasy seasons of all time for a rookie TE last year. And Fleener was on pace for that before he got injured. And that was in an offense that was not a good fit for Fleener's strengths; this year's offense is a fit for his strengths.

Bottom line, there is no team in the NFL that uses a base offense that they are not equally comfortable running or passing from. Otherwise, it wouldn't be their base offense. But that's what you are suggesting here.

 

[Man of Zen]

Hilton didn't get benched, he is in the same spot he was last year. I know what you're saying, but the distinction is important.

Which makes it worth remembering that Hilton was only the 3rd most frequent target in 3-wide sets, as well, with both Wayne and Avery out-targeting him when all three guys were out there.

 

[Thews40]

IMO Hilton will be hit/miss as will DHB... crapshoot, but Luck will find one of them in any given week.

 

[Bayhawks]

Exactly. He is the #2, because of his value in the running game, not because of his prowess as a receiver. Therefore, when the Colts are passing the ball, one would expect Hilton in the game. So while DHB might get a few more snaps on pass plays then Hilton, IMO, it won't be a meaningful difference. When the Colts are obviously passing, Hilton will be in the game, and (again, IMO) his superior talent should allow him to produce better FF numbers than DHB.

If the base offense is a 2 TE set, it is likely that a very significant percentage of the Colts' passing attempts will occur from that set. Barring injuries, it appears Hilton won't play much in that set, so he likely won't be on the field for a significant percentage of the Colts' passing attempts.

I'm not saying that means DHB will outscore Hilton, though I certainly think that is possible. But the bolded statement is off base IMO. This is one reason why Hilton's upside is limited by this offense and his expected usage.

Are you sure about that? I know that the Patriots ran a 2-TE set the last few years, but a majority of their passes were thrown with 3 "WRs" on the field (either a 3rd WR, or TE/RB in the slot). When teams know they are going to pass, they will generally put their receiving threats on the field.

It seems rather obvious to me. Do you really think the Colts are going to use a base set for their offense and rarely pass from that base formation? That doesn't make any sense.

I don't know where to find snaps broken down by formation. But since you mentioned New England, Consider the total play counts for their QBs, TEs, and WRs in 2011 (I used 2011 because their top 2 TEs missed 11 games combined in 2012):

1149 Brady 12 Hoyer1118 Gronk 864 Hernandez (missed 2 games)1021 Welker 842 Branch (missed 1 game) 331 Chad Johnson 120 Edelman 87 Underwood 40 Slater 18 PriceChad Johnson, the #3 WR, was on the field for just 244 of the Pats' 690 pass plays, and 87 of those pass plays were in the 3 games missed by Branch and Hernandez. To put it another way, Johnson was only on the field for 157 pass plays in the 13 games during which the starters (Gronk, Hernandez, Welker, Branch) were all healthy... approximately 12 pass plays per game. (And note that pass plays include sacks and scrambles, so this does not equate to him being on the field for 12 passing attempts per game.)Now, Chad Johnson was not a good fit for New England's offense, so no doubt that contributed to him not being on the field much. Hilton will certainly play more than Johnson did in 2011. However, this illustrates that a team that runs a 2 TE set as its base can be a very successful passing team without going to 3 WR sets very often.

But, while Chad Johnson was the "#3 WR," he wasn't the only person to play in the "3rd WR role." You have the other WRs, but more often than that, you had Hernandez lining up in the slot, Gronk lined up in the slot on occasion, and you had RBs line up in the slot. The "2-TE" set allows them to run the ball more effectively, but the Colts don't have the players the Pats did, so they are going to have to get out of the 2-TE set more often than the Pats did, in order to get Hilton (the bigger receiving threat than DHB) on the field.

The other WRs on the team (Edelman, Underwood, Slater, Price) played on a combined total of 158 pass plays; 72 of those occurred in the 3 games missed by Branch and Hernandez. So the combined total of pass plays for all WRs other than Welker and Branch was 243 in the 13 games in which the starters were healthy... less than 19 pass plays per game. The Patriots attempted over 600 passes in 2011, so it's clear the majority of them came in the 2 TE set.

Agree that the Colts offensive personnel is not as strong as the Pats' in some ways. You are the one who brought up the Patriots, in an effort to provide an example of a base 2 TE set team that throws most of its passes from 3 WR sets. I've shown that is not true.

You seem to feel this is all about running for the Colts, but it is also about getting more snaps for both Allen and Fleener, who are both among the Colts' top offensive players.

I didn't say that at all. What I posted was that the Patriots threw the majority of their passes with 3 "WRs" on the field, whether that 3rd "WR" was an actual WR, or a TE/RB playing the WR position. If Hernandez, Gronkowski, Woodhead, or Vereen lined up as a WR, the Pats are still in a "2-TE" set (assuming Gronk and Hernandez are both on the field), but they have 3 guys acting as WRs. Since neither Allen or Fleener (IMO) is as athletic as Hernandez or Gronk, and Ballard and Bradshaw aren't the receivers that Vereen and Woodhead are, the Colts won't really have that option. When they throw, they will be more likely (IMO) to have Hilton on the field, in order to get that 3rd "WR".ETA-while you think (and the Colts might agree) that Fleener and Allen are top offensive players, they really haven't shown much, at the NFL level. They may want those two to allow them to keep both on the field, but I don't think they will be successful.

So Bradshaw and Fleener aren't capable of lining up in the slot or on the outside? I disagree.

I also think you are completely underestimating the talent of Allen and Fleener. Allen had one of the best fantasy seasons of all time for a rookie TE last year. And Fleener was on pace for that before he got injured. And that was in an offense that was not a good fit for Fleener's strengths; this year's offense is a fit for his strengths.

Bottom line, there is no team in the NFL that uses a base offense that they are not equally comfortable running or passing from. Otherwise, it wouldn't be their base offense. But that's what you are suggesting here.

Allen is a "traditional" TE, not a "move" TE who would be as effective as a slot receiver. Yes, he had a decent season last year, but he (or Fleener, or Bradshaw)in the slot will not be as effective as Wayne in the slot, and Hilton outside. Bottom line, no team in the NFL will put inferior players on the field, to stay in their "base" offense, but that's what you are suggesting here.

 

[Tau837]

Exactly. He is the #2, because of his value in the running game, not because of his prowess as a receiver. Therefore, when the Colts are passing the ball, one would expect Hilton in the game. So while DHB might get a few more snaps on pass plays then Hilton, IMO, it won't be a meaningful difference. When the Colts are obviously passing, Hilton will be in the game, and (again, IMO) his superior talent should allow him to produce better FF numbers than DHB.

If the base offense is a 2 TE set, it is likely that a very significant percentage of the Colts' passing attempts will occur from that set. Barring injuries, it appears Hilton won't play much in that set, so he likely won't be on the field for a significant percentage of the Colts' passing attempts.

I'm not saying that means DHB will outscore Hilton, though I certainly think that is possible. But the bolded statement is off base IMO. This is one reason why Hilton's upside is limited by this offense and his expected usage.

Are you sure about that? I know that the Patriots ran a 2-TE set the last few years, but a majority of their passes were thrown with 3 "WRs" on the field (either a 3rd WR, or TE/RB in the slot). When teams know they are going to pass, they will generally put their receiving threats on the field.

It seems rather obvious to me. Do you really think the Colts are going to use a base set for their offense and rarely pass from that base formation? That doesn't make any sense.

I don't know where to find snaps broken down by formation. But since you mentioned New England, Consider the total play counts for their QBs, TEs, and WRs in 2011 (I used 2011 because their top 2 TEs missed 11 games combined in 2012):

1149 Brady 12 Hoyer1118 Gronk 864 Hernandez (missed 2 games)1021 Welker 842 Branch (missed 1 game) 331 Chad Johnson 120 Edelman 87 Underwood 40 Slater 18 PriceChad Johnson, the #3 WR, was on the field for just 244 of the Pats' 690 pass plays, and 87 of those pass plays were in the 3 games missed by Branch and Hernandez. To put it another way, Johnson was only on the field for 157 pass plays in the 13 games during which the starters (Gronk, Hernandez, Welker, Branch) were all healthy... approximately 12 pass plays per game. (And note that pass plays include sacks and scrambles, so this does not equate to him being on the field for 12 passing attempts per game.)Now, Chad Johnson was not a good fit for New England's offense, so no doubt that contributed to him not being on the field much. Hilton will certainly play more than Johnson did in 2011. However, this illustrates that a team that runs a 2 TE set as its base can be a very successful passing team without going to 3 WR sets very often.

But, while Chad Johnson was the "#3 WR," he wasn't the only person to play in the "3rd WR role." You have the other WRs, but more often than that, you had Hernandez lining up in the slot, Gronk lined up in the slot on occasion, and you had RBs line up in the slot. The "2-TE" set allows them to run the ball more effectively, but the Colts don't have the players the Pats did, so they are going to have to get out of the 2-TE set more often than the Pats did, in order to get Hilton (the bigger receiving threat than DHB) on the field.

The other WRs on the team (Edelman, Underwood, Slater, Price) played on a combined total of 158 pass plays; 72 of those occurred in the 3 games missed by Branch and Hernandez. So the combined total of pass plays for all WRs other than Welker and Branch was 243 in the 13 games in which the starters were healthy... less than 19 pass plays per game. The Patriots attempted over 600 passes in 2011, so it's clear the majority of them came in the 2 TE set.

Agree that the Colts offensive personnel is not as strong as the Pats' in some ways. You are the one who brought up the Patriots, in an effort to provide an example of a base 2 TE set team that throws most of its passes from 3 WR sets. I've shown that is not true.

You seem to feel this is all about running for the Colts, but it is also about getting more snaps for both Allen and Fleener, who are both among the Colts' top offensive players.

I didn't say that at all. What I posted was that the Patriots threw the majority of their passes with 3 "WRs" on the field, whether that 3rd "WR" was an actual WR, or a TE/RB playing the WR position. If Hernandez, Gronkowski, Woodhead, or Vereen lined up as a WR, the Pats are still in a "2-TE" set (assuming Gronk and Hernandez are both on the field), but they have 3 guys acting as WRs. Since neither Allen or Fleener (IMO) is as athletic as Hernandez or Gronk, and Ballard and Bradshaw aren't the receivers that Vereen and Woodhead are, the Colts won't really have that option. When they throw, they will be more likely (IMO) to have Hilton on the field, in order to get that 3rd "WR".ETA-while you think (and the Colts might agree) that Fleener and Allen are top offensive players, they really haven't shown much, at the NFL level. They may want those two to allow them to keep both on the field, but I don't think they will be successful.

So Bradshaw and Fleener aren't capable of lining up in the slot or on the outside? I disagree.

I also think you are completely underestimating the talent of Allen and Fleener. Allen had one of the best fantasy seasons of all time for a rookie TE last year. And Fleener was on pace for that before he got injured. And that was in an offense that was not a good fit for Fleener's strengths; this year's offense is a fit for his strengths.

Bottom line, there is no team in the NFL that uses a base offense that they are not equally comfortable running or passing from. Otherwise, it wouldn't be their base offense. But that's what you are suggesting here.

Allen is a "traditional" TE, not a "move" TE who would be as effective as a slot receiver. Yes, he had a decent season last year, but he (or Fleener, or Bradshaw)in the slot will not be as effective as Wayne in the slot, and Hilton outside. Bottom line, no team in the NFL will put inferior players on the field, to stay in their "base" offense, but that's what you are suggesting here.

No, that's not what I'm suggesting. Allen and Fleener are not inferior. That's what you are missing.

 

[Bayhawks]

Exactly. He is the #2, because of his value in the running game, not because of his prowess as a receiver. Therefore, when the Colts are passing the ball, one would expect Hilton in the game. So while DHB might get a few more snaps on pass plays then Hilton, IMO, it won't be a meaningful difference. When the Colts are obviously passing, Hilton will be in the game, and (again, IMO) his superior talent should allow him to produce better FF numbers than DHB.

If the base offense is a 2 TE set, it is likely that a very significant percentage of the Colts' passing attempts will occur from that set. Barring injuries, it appears Hilton won't play much in that set, so he likely won't be on the field for a significant percentage of the Colts' passing attempts.

I'm not saying that means DHB will outscore Hilton, though I certainly think that is possible. But the bolded statement is off base IMO. This is one reason why Hilton's upside is limited by this offense and his expected usage.

Are you sure about that? I know that the Patriots ran a 2-TE set the last few years, but a majority of their passes were thrown with 3 "WRs" on the field (either a 3rd WR, or TE/RB in the slot). When teams know they are going to pass, they will generally put their receiving threats on the field.

It seems rather obvious to me. Do you really think the Colts are going to use a base set for their offense and rarely pass from that base formation? That doesn't make any sense.

I don't know where to find snaps broken down by formation. But since you mentioned New England, Consider the total play counts for their QBs, TEs, and WRs in 2011 (I used 2011 because their top 2 TEs missed 11 games combined in 2012):

1149 Brady 12 Hoyer1118 Gronk 864 Hernandez (missed 2 games)1021 Welker 842 Branch (missed 1 game) 331 Chad Johnson 120 Edelman 87 Underwood 40 Slater 18 PriceChad Johnson, the #3 WR, was on the field for just 244 of the Pats' 690 pass plays, and 87 of those pass plays were in the 3 games missed by Branch and Hernandez. To put it another way, Johnson was only on the field for 157 pass plays in the 13 games during which the starters (Gronk, Hernandez, Welker, Branch) were all healthy... approximately 12 pass plays per game. (And note that pass plays include sacks and scrambles, so this does not equate to him being on the field for 12 passing attempts per game.)Now, Chad Johnson was not a good fit for New England's offense, so no doubt that contributed to him not being on the field much. Hilton will certainly play more than Johnson did in 2011. However, this illustrates that a team that runs a 2 TE set as its base can be a very successful passing team without going to 3 WR sets very often.

But, while Chad Johnson was the "#3 WR," he wasn't the only person to play in the "3rd WR role." You have the other WRs, but more often than that, you had Hernandez lining up in the slot, Gronk lined up in the slot on occasion, and you had RBs line up in the slot. The "2-TE" set allows them to run the ball more effectively, but the Colts don't have the players the Pats did, so they are going to have to get out of the 2-TE set more often than the Pats did, in order to get Hilton (the bigger receiving threat than DHB) on the field.

The other WRs on the team (Edelman, Underwood, Slater, Price) played on a combined total of 158 pass plays; 72 of those occurred in the 3 games missed by Branch and Hernandez. So the combined total of pass plays for all WRs other than Welker and Branch was 243 in the 13 games in which the starters were healthy... less than 19 pass plays per game. The Patriots attempted over 600 passes in 2011, so it's clear the majority of them came in the 2 TE set.

Agree that the Colts offensive personnel is not as strong as the Pats' in some ways. You are the one who brought up the Patriots, in an effort to provide an example of a base 2 TE set team that throws most of its passes from 3 WR sets. I've shown that is not true.

You seem to feel this is all about running for the Colts, but it is also about getting more snaps for both Allen and Fleener, who are both among the Colts' top offensive players.

I didn't say that at all. What I posted was that the Patriots threw the majority of their passes with 3 "WRs" on the field, whether that 3rd "WR" was an actual WR, or a TE/RB playing the WR position. If Hernandez, Gronkowski, Woodhead, or Vereen lined up as a WR, the Pats are still in a "2-TE" set (assuming Gronk and Hernandez are both on the field), but they have 3 guys acting as WRs. Since neither Allen or Fleener (IMO) is as athletic as Hernandez or Gronk, and Ballard and Bradshaw aren't the receivers that Vereen and Woodhead are, the Colts won't really have that option. When they throw, they will be more likely (IMO) to have Hilton on the field, in order to get that 3rd "WR".ETA-while you think (and the Colts might agree) that Fleener and Allen are top offensive players, they really haven't shown much, at the NFL level. They may want those two to allow them to keep both on the field, but I don't think they will be successful.

So Bradshaw and Fleener aren't capable of lining up in the slot or on the outside? I disagree.

I also think you are completely underestimating the talent of Allen and Fleener. Allen had one of the best fantasy seasons of all time for a rookie TE last year. And Fleener was on pace for that before he got injured. And that was in an offense that was not a good fit for Fleener's strengths; this year's offense is a fit for his strengths.

Bottom line, there is no team in the NFL that uses a base offense that they are not equally comfortable running or passing from. Otherwise, it wouldn't be their base offense. But that's what you are suggesting here.

Allen is a "traditional" TE, not a "move" TE who would be as effective as a slot receiver. Yes, he had a decent season last year, but he (or Fleener, or Bradshaw)in the slot will not be as effective as Wayne in the slot, and Hilton outside. Bottom line, no team in the NFL will put inferior players on the field, to stay in their "base" offense, but that's what you are suggesting here.

No, that's not what I'm suggesting. Allen and Fleener are not inferior. That's what you are missing.

To Wayne as a slot receiver? Yes they are. That's what you are missing.

 

[Tau837]

Exactly. He is the #2, because of his value in the running game, not because of his prowess as a receiver. Therefore, when the Colts are passing the ball, one would expect Hilton in the game. So while DHB might get a few more snaps on pass plays then Hilton, IMO, it won't be a meaningful difference. When the Colts are obviously passing, Hilton will be in the game, and (again, IMO) his superior talent should allow him to produce better FF numbers than DHB.

If the base offense is a 2 TE set, it is likely that a very significant percentage of the Colts' passing attempts will occur from that set. Barring injuries, it appears Hilton won't play much in that set, so he likely won't be on the field for a significant percentage of the Colts' passing attempts.

I'm not saying that means DHB will outscore Hilton, though I certainly think that is possible. But the bolded statement is off base IMO. This is one reason why Hilton's upside is limited by this offense and his expected usage.

Are you sure about that? I know that the Patriots ran a 2-TE set the last few years, but a majority of their passes were thrown with 3 "WRs" on the field (either a 3rd WR, or TE/RB in the slot). When teams know they are going to pass, they will generally put their receiving threats on the field.

It seems rather obvious to me. Do you really think the Colts are going to use a base set for their offense and rarely pass from that base formation? That doesn't make any sense.

I don't know where to find snaps broken down by formation. But since you mentioned New England, Consider the total play counts for their QBs, TEs, and WRs in 2011 (I used 2011 because their top 2 TEs missed 11 games combined in 2012):

1149 Brady 12 Hoyer1118 Gronk 864 Hernandez (missed 2 games)1021 Welker 842 Branch (missed 1 game) 331 Chad Johnson 120 Edelman 87 Underwood 40 Slater 18 PriceChad Johnson, the #3 WR, was on the field for just 244 of the Pats' 690 pass plays, and 87 of those pass plays were in the 3 games missed by Branch and Hernandez. To put it another way, Johnson was only on the field for 157 pass plays in the 13 games during which the starters (Gronk, Hernandez, Welker, Branch) were all healthy... approximately 12 pass plays per game. (And note that pass plays include sacks and scrambles, so this does not equate to him being on the field for 12 passing attempts per game.)Now, Chad Johnson was not a good fit for New England's offense, so no doubt that contributed to him not being on the field much. Hilton will certainly play more than Johnson did in 2011. However, this illustrates that a team that runs a 2 TE set as its base can be a very successful passing team without going to 3 WR sets very often.

But, while Chad Johnson was the "#3 WR," he wasn't the only person to play in the "3rd WR role." You have the other WRs, but more often than that, you had Hernandez lining up in the slot, Gronk lined up in the slot on occasion, and you had RBs line up in the slot. The "2-TE" set allows them to run the ball more effectively, but the Colts don't have the players the Pats did, so they are going to have to get out of the 2-TE set more often than the Pats did, in order to get Hilton (the bigger receiving threat than DHB) on the field.

The other WRs on the team (Edelman, Underwood, Slater, Price) played on a combined total of 158 pass plays; 72 of those occurred in the 3 games missed by Branch and Hernandez. So the combined total of pass plays for all WRs other than Welker and Branch was 243 in the 13 games in which the starters were healthy... less than 19 pass plays per game. The Patriots attempted over 600 passes in 2011, so it's clear the majority of them came in the 2 TE set.

Agree that the Colts offensive personnel is not as strong as the Pats' in some ways. You are the one who brought up the Patriots, in an effort to provide an example of a base 2 TE set team that throws most of its passes from 3 WR sets. I've shown that is not true.

You seem to feel this is all about running for the Colts, but it is also about getting more snaps for both Allen and Fleener, who are both among the Colts' top offensive players.

I didn't say that at all. What I posted was that the Patriots threw the majority of their passes with 3 "WRs" on the field, whether that 3rd "WR" was an actual WR, or a TE/RB playing the WR position. If Hernandez, Gronkowski, Woodhead, or Vereen lined up as a WR, the Pats are still in a "2-TE" set (assuming Gronk and Hernandez are both on the field), but they have 3 guys acting as WRs. Since neither Allen or Fleener (IMO) is as athletic as Hernandez or Gronk, and Ballard and Bradshaw aren't the receivers that Vereen and Woodhead are, the Colts won't really have that option. When they throw, they will be more likely (IMO) to have Hilton on the field, in order to get that 3rd "WR".ETA-while you think (and the Colts might agree) that Fleener and Allen are top offensive players, they really haven't shown much, at the NFL level. They may want those two to allow them to keep both on the field, but I don't think they will be successful.

So Bradshaw and Fleener aren't capable of lining up in the slot or on the outside? I disagree.

I also think you are completely underestimating the talent of Allen and Fleener. Allen had one of the best fantasy seasons of all time for a rookie TE last year. And Fleener was on pace for that before he got injured. And that was in an offense that was not a good fit for Fleener's strengths; this year's offense is a fit for his strengths.

Bottom line, there is no team in the NFL that uses a base offense that they are not equally comfortable running or passing from. Otherwise, it wouldn't be their base offense. But that's what you are suggesting here.

Allen is a "traditional" TE, not a "move" TE who would be as effective as a slot receiver. Yes, he had a decent season last year, but he (or Fleener, or Bradshaw)in the slot will not be as effective as Wayne in the slot, and Hilton outside. Bottom line, no team in the NFL will put inferior players on the field, to stay in their "base" offense, but that's what you are suggesting here.

No, that's not what I'm suggesting. Allen and Fleener are not inferior. That's what you are missing.

To Wayne as a slot receiver? Yes they are. That's what you are missing.

What is your projection for Hilton this season?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

C'mon guys, take a minute and trim that fargging text.

 

[need2know]

People are overthinking this. Ty hilton is the best playmaker on the team besides luck. If you draft him, play him as one of your wrs. You won't be disappointed.

 

[Bayhawks]

What is your projection for Hilton this season?

65 catches (110 targets), 1025 yards, 8 TDs

 

[JuniorNB]

People are overthinking this. Ty hilton is the best playmaker on the team besides luck. If you draft him, play him as one of your wrs. You won't be disappointed.

Thank you! Everyone's worried about former first round busts and who's moving to the slot and what some silly depth chart says that will matter for exactly one snap a game (the first one).

WATCH A GAME. That's still the best way to predict fantasy results. It is so glaringly obvious who the best playmaker is on the Colts. Arians took advantage of it the second half of last year. Luck has realized it this preseason. Do you really think that the new staff doesn't see it? Wake up folks. You're missing one of this year's breakout players.

 

[Man of Zen]

People are overthinking this. Ty hilton is the best playmaker on the team besides luck. If you draft him, play him as one of your wrs. You won't be disappointed.

I think, having watched preseason, that the same might well be said for Christine Michael in Seattle. I am not projecting him to be one of the year's top RB's.

 

[need2know]

People are overthinking this. Ty hilton is the best playmaker on the team besides luck. If you draft him, play him as one of your wrs. You won't be disappointed.

I think, having watched preseason, that the same might well be said for Christine Michael in Seattle. I am not projecting him to be one of the year's top RB's.

I am looking forward to bumping this thread many times this season

 

[SayWhat?]

People are overthinking this. Ty hilton is the best playmaker on the team besides luck. If you draft him, play him as one of your wrs. You won't be disappointed.

I think, having watched preseason, that the same might well be said for Christine Michael in Seattle. I am not projecting him to be one of the year's top RB's.

I get what you're attempting to say. But that's a pretty poor comparision, because you need to be on the field to score fantasy points and most team's don't simultaneously play more than one running back or give their backup RB enough touches to be fantasy worthy. That's not the case for WR's.

 

[drake_ovo]

how u gonna compare michael and hilton is on sentence? lmaoooooo

horrible comparison...that was my laugh for the morning

unreal. this was why i stopped searching players names on twitter hearing idiotic questions and comparison and assumptions.

 

[SteckerMVP]

It doesn't matter if Hilton is their #1, 2, or 3. He's not a high volume, high target WR. He can make a huge impact with just a few touches. Expect 55-70 catches, 900-1100 yards, and 6-10 TDs.

If you seriously think DHB will dramatically affect Hilton's production you're reaching for straws. There's a reason people aren't high on DHB, he's just not that good. DHB has the chance to become average in INDY, Hilton has the chance to become a star.

 

[Touchdown There]

I do not rate any player by his time with the Raiders. Fresh start for DHB and the Colts are trying build his confidence. DHB has always had the speed, now he has the QB and some experience. We are going to find out about his hands this year.

 

[cstu]

It doesn't matter if Hilton is their #1, 2, or 3. He's not a high volume, high target WR. He can make a huge impact with just a few touches. Expect 55-70 catches, 900-1100 yards, and 6-10 TDs.

If you seriously think DHB will dramatically affect Hilton's production you're reaching for straws. There's a reason people aren't high on DHB, he's just not that good. DHB has the chance to become average in INDY, Hilton has the chance to become a star.

The past two years he's produced these numbers:

105/183 (57%) for 1581 yards (15 YPR), 12 drops (6.5% drop rate)

He did that with Carson Palmer and now has luck.

BTW, DHB's yards/target was 8.6, Wayne's last year was 7.6. Wayne had 10 drops last year on 179 targets and DHB had 12 drops over the past two years on 183 targets.

 

[THE HITTER]

Hilton and Reggie are high end WR2s and dhb is a bye week flex. The talent of the players will work this out soon

Hilton is a big play guy and will score a lot of TD's but don't expect a lot of catches. I won't be surprised if DHB has more catches than Hilton due to their roles.

Agree with this

 

[SteckerMVP]

It doesn't matter if Hilton is their #1, 2, or 3. He's not a high volume, high target WR. He can make a huge impact with just a few touches. Expect 55-70 catches, 900-1100 yards, and 6-10 TDs.

If you seriously think DHB will dramatically affect Hilton's production you're reaching for straws. There's a reason people aren't high on DHB, he's just not that good. DHB has the chance to become average in INDY, Hilton has the chance to become a star.

The past two years he's produced these numbers:

105/183 (57%) for 1581 yards (15 YPR), 12 drops (6.5% drop rate)

He did that with Carson Palmer and now has luck.

BTW, DHB's yards/target was 8.6, Wayne's last year was 7.6. Wayne had 10 drops last year on 179 targets and DHB had 12 drops over the past two years on 183 targets.

That must mean DHB>>Wayne>>>>Hilton

Come on. DHB has shown very little in his 4 year NFL career (but he played in OAK!!!!). In one year Hilton showed us explosiveness that could lead to a very dynamic sophomore season. I'm not writing DHB off by any stretch, but a Donnie Avery type season is a safe guess.

 

[oswizzle]

DHB is going to Light up the Raiders Week 1 ...