KellysHeroes
Footballguy
AJ has only scored TDs in 2 Games this yr
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Is Marques Colston the top reciever in the league? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter billjohnson
- Start date
billjohnson
Footballguy
Well..at the 200 vote point...looks to be:
1. AJ
2. Wayne
3. Fitz
4. Colston
5. Moss
6. Calvin
7. VJax
8. Ocho
1. AJ
2. Wayne
3. Fitz
4. Colston
5. Moss
6. Calvin
7. VJax
8. Ocho
Last edited by a moderator:
footballnerd
Footballguy
Gotta give it up to Colston. He is producing way more consistent than prior years.
Sidewinder16
Footballguy
You neither asked nor allowed anyone to rank the WRs. Your poll does not show that voters think Colston is the #4 WR. What it does show is that over 91% of voters (at the 211 vote mark) would rather have someone other than Colston as their WR1.billjohnson
Footballguy
You neither asked nor allowed anyone to rank the WRs. Your poll does not show that voters think Colston is the #4 WR. What it does show is that over 91% of voters (at the 211 vote mark) would rather have someone other than Colston as their WR1.
But that beats the 95% who would rather have someone other than Moss or the 98% who would rather have someone other than VJax. So for this list...at this time....in this thread...referencing this poll....Colston will be number 4.Bills_Fan11
Footballguy
lol @ putting Welker in the same breath as Moss. Why not just copy the ytd stats from nfl.com and say "here are the rankings, not debatable"?
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
Did you not see the playoffs last season? Fitz was about as studly as you can get.Fantasy points = production....and i'm equating "the best' in this case with statistical significance. Too hard to argue who has the most talent or that so-and-so would possibly do (x) if insituation. I'm saying, "who's getting it done right now...and who is most likely to get it done in the future". And again, I do think Fitz is a stud...but not quite as high on him as some of you
Bill
And no offense, but anyone who actually thinks that Welker is a better WR than Moss does not understand football.Tanner9919
Footballguy
What makes any receiver better than Colston? Let me count the ways.Larry Fitzgerald- health, size, strength, leaping ability. Best hands in the league. Bigger target in the red zone, one of the toughest 1-on-1 covers in the entire NFL.Andre Johnson- health, size, strength, speed, for my money *THE HARDEST* 1-on-1 coverage responsibility in the league.Calvin Johnson- health, size, speed, strength, hands, leaping ability, "the total package".Reggie Wayne- longer history of production, health, and... oh yeah... he's outproducing Colston so far this year. By a huge margin.Vincent Jackson- probably the best size/speed combo in the league. Really underrated threat in the middle of the field. Health, again.Randy Moss- do I really need to spell this one out?
Colston's first two years- 168/2240/19Fitzgerald's first two years- 161/2189/18I'd say the difference between 30 games of Drew Brees and 19 games of Josh McCown, 10 games of pre-2008 Warner, 2 games of Shaun King, and 1 game of John Navarre more than accounts for the difference of 7 grabs, 51 yards, and a score. But sometimes I get this crazy idea that great QBs like Brees or Manning make their WRs look good.Again whats your proof, Colston has had very few drops in his career and has always played at a high level since his rookie year!I might be mistaken, but does he not have the record for most catches for any wr in history after his first 2 years in the league?....if thats the case your right Colston is well behind the WR's in this poll.
Stats say that Steve Smith (NYG) is only a point behind Colston, and that Miles Austin is more than two points ahead of Colston. Would you trade Marques Colston for Steve Smith or Miles Austin? Or are you perhaps ready to admit that sometimes stats lie?
'bout time someone mentioned VJax. He's second in the league right now, having scored more points in 7 games than Andre has in 8. He has one more reception for 113 more yards than Colston. He's also been one of the most consistent WRs in the league. Why aren't the "stats don't lie" crowd all over him? Whither the love?I would also include Vincent Jackson and , without a doubt, Chad OchoCinco..and the problem with AJ is that he gets lots of recs, lots of yards, not many TD's.
spider321
Footballguy
SSOG must be watching a different Marques Colston than the one I've seen.
If you watch the games, instead of watching StatTracker, you will see that Colston is HUGE.(and yes, he is bigger than Fitz)
I don't think Colston is the best WR, but let's not get carried away with putting him down, SSOG.
If you watch the games, instead of watching StatTracker, you will see that Colston is HUGE.(and yes, he is bigger than Fitz)
I don't think Colston is the best WR, but let's not get carried away with putting him down, SSOG.
Last edited by a moderator:
billjohnson
Footballguy
Size
Fitzgerald--6'3'', 218 lbs
Colston--6'4, 225 lbs
Speed:
Fitzgerald--4.53 forty
Colston--4.5 forty
Hops:
Fitzgerald-35 inch vertical
Colston-37 inch vertical
Strength:
Fitzgerald: 225lb bench reps-20
Colston: 225lb bench reps-21
What am I missing here???
Bill
Edit to add: Stats from NFL site.
Fitzgerald--6'3'', 218 lbs
Colston--6'4, 225 lbs
Speed:
Fitzgerald--4.53 forty
Colston--4.5 forty
Hops:
Fitzgerald-35 inch vertical
Colston-37 inch vertical
Strength:
Fitzgerald: 225lb bench reps-20
Colston: 225lb bench reps-21
What am I missing here???
Bill
Edit to add: Stats from NFL site.
Last edited by a moderator:
ScottyFargo
Footballguy
The only guy on that list that I'd take Colston over is Vincent Jackson. I think the list is also missing DeSean Jackson, because I'd rather have him, too.
billjohnson
Footballguy
I just want to clarify once again that I DO think Fitzgerald is definitely on of the best receivers in the league. Just DON'T think he some kind of hands down, no questions asked, number one beast that dwarfs all the other guys.
By the way, did you Calvin lovers see where he is on Dodd's Top 250 going forward (ppr and non-ppr)?? According to the 250, he isn't worthy of being in this discussion or on this poll list. Just saying...
Best,
Bill
By the way, did you Calvin lovers see where he is on Dodd's Top 250 going forward (ppr and non-ppr)?? According to the 250, he isn't worthy of being in this discussion or on this poll list. Just saying...
Best,
Bill
Eh, there's a difference between combine size and playing size. There's a difference between being able to leap high and being able to time your leap so that you're grabbing the ball at the very apex every time. There's a difference between having a large frame and being able to consistently use it to shield the defender from the ball. There's a difference between having long arms and having a huge functional radius that you can catch a ball within.Also, I never knew that saying there were six better WRs in the league than Colston was "getting carried away with putting him down". I betcha there are hundreds of WRs out there that wish I was as "down" on them as I am on Colston. Colston's a great WR, and there's no shame in being less talented than Larry Fitzgerald or Andre Johnson.spider321 said:
See above. Track speed is not football speed, or else Usain Bolt would be the highest paid man in the NFL. Vertical height is not NFL Leaping ability, or else teams would be hiring Olympic high jumpers as red zone specialists. Few WRs in the league play to the fullest extent of their own physical attributes like Fitzgerald does.Also, fwiw, I never said that Fitzgerald was faster than Colston.billjohnson said:What am I missing here???
billjohnson
Footballguy
Subjectivity > objectivity. Even though Colston is technically bigger, faster, stronger, and can jump higher...it's your subjective opinion that Fitzgerald is still better b/c he can better use his smaller frame, weaker body, slower speed, and shorter vertical. I get it now....Eh, there's a difference between combine size and playing size. There's a difference between being able to leap high and being able to time your leap so that you're grabbing the ball at the very apex every time. There's a difference between having a large frame and being able to consistently use it to shield the defender from the ball. There's a difference between having long arms and having a huge functional radius that you can catch a ball within.Also, I never knew that saying there were six better WRs in the league than Colston was "getting carried away with putting him down". I betcha there are hundreds of WRs out there that wish I was as "down" on them as I am on Colston. Colston's a great WR, and there's no shame in being less talented than Larry Fitzgerald or Andre Johnson.spider321 said:See above. Track speed is not football speed, or else Usain Bolt would be the highest paid man in the NFL. Vertical height is not NFL Leaping ability, or else teams would be hiring Olympic high jumpers as red zone specialists. Few WRs in the league play to the fullest extent of their own physical attributes like Fitzgerald does.Also, fwiw, I never said that Fitzgerald was faster than Colston.billjohnson said:What am I missing here???
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
Actually, if you look at their numbers over the years, Fitzgerald is objectively better than Colston (since both guys are still in their prime, so there is no circumstance where you could argue that a player clearly on the downslide, like Owens, is still a top WR because of stats from years ago), unless you want to base your subjective opinion off of a small sample size this year, in which case one could then argue that Miles Austin is the best NFL WR.
Last edited by a moderator:
thatguy
Footballguy
Do your eyeballs really tell you that Colston is a better WR than Fitz? Because that's the road you're going down...We're long past the point where combine numbers mean anything. All we have to go on is what our eyeballs tell us, and of course the numbers the players produce. Fitz has outproduced Colston. Most of us see a better WR when we watch Fitz. In fact, many of us see one of the best WR's we've ever seen when we watch Fitz. Apparently, you do not.Subjectivity > objectivity. Even though Colston is technically bigger, faster, stronger, and can jump higher...it's your subjective opinion that Fitzgerald is still better b/c he can better use his smaller frame, weaker body, slower speed, and shorter vertical. I get it now....Eh, there's a difference between combine size and playing size. There's a difference between being able to leap high and being able to time your leap so that you're grabbing the ball at the very apex every time. There's a difference between having a large frame and being able to consistently use it to shield the defender from the ball. There's a difference between having long arms and having a huge functional radius that you can catch a ball within.Also, I never knew that saying there were six better WRs in the league than Colston was "getting carried away with putting him down". I betcha there are hundreds of WRs out there that wish I was as "down" on them as I am on Colston. Colston's a great WR, and there's no shame in being less talented than Larry Fitzgerald or Andre Johnson.spider321 said:See above. Track speed is not football speed, or else Usain Bolt would be the highest paid man in the NFL. Vertical height is not NFL Leaping ability, or else teams would be hiring Olympic high jumpers as red zone specialists. Few WRs in the league play to the fullest extent of their own physical attributes like Fitzgerald does.Also, fwiw, I never said that Fitzgerald was faster than Colston.billjohnson said:What am I missing here???
Last edited by a moderator:
So, you're saying that I should just be like you and subjectively choose which objective measurements to use, and which to disregard?Colston is outproducing Fitz this year. That's an objective measurement that supports Colston being better than Fitz, so let's use it! Fitz has outproduced Colston for their respective careers. That's an objective measurement that supports Fitz being better, so let's ignore it! Colston has better objective measurables than Fitz, so let's use them as proof that he's better than Fitz! Colston has SUBSTANTIALLY worse objective measurables than Vincent Jackson, so let's ignore them!Besides, subjectivity is the cornerstone of fantasy football. Before this season, Couch Potato said that Mike Sims-Walker was a stud. That was a subjective jdugement with no objective basis... and it was right. If all you're doing is looking at objective measurements, then you're just chasing last year's stats. The key is to make SUBJECTIVE judgments about how players will perform going forward. I think Fitz will outperform Colston going forward, because subjectively I think he's more talented, because subjectively he has been much better to this point in his career at important WR skills like shielding the defender, catching the ball at the highest point, gaining separation in a very small space, breaking contact, securing the football, and catching balls thrown outside of his breadbasket.Besides, if we want to talk strictly about objective facts- all of the objective data says that Bree is is SUBSTANTIALLY better than Warner, so producing even comparable numbers with such a clear disparity in QB play should objectively demonstrate that Fitz is better.Subjectivity > objectivity. Even though Colston is technically bigger, faster, stronger, and can jump higher...it's your subjective opinion that Fitzgerald is still better b/c he can better use his smaller frame, weaker body, slower speed, and shorter vertical. I get it now....Eh, there's a difference between combine size and playing size. There's a difference between being able to leap high and being able to time your leap so that you're grabbing the ball at the very apex every time. There's a difference between having a large frame and being able to consistently use it to shield the defender from the ball. There's a difference between having long arms and having a huge functional radius that you can catch a ball within.Also, I never knew that saying there were six better WRs in the league than Colston was "getting carried away with putting him down". I betcha there are hundreds of WRs out there that wish I was as "down" on them as I am on Colston. Colston's a great WR, and there's no shame in being less talented than Larry Fitzgerald or Andre Johnson.spider321 said:See above. Track speed is not football speed, or else Usain Bolt would be the highest paid man in the NFL. Vertical height is not NFL Leaping ability, or else teams would be hiring Olympic high jumpers as red zone specialists. Few WRs in the league play to the fullest extent of their own physical attributes like Fitzgerald does.Also, fwiw, I never said that Fitzgerald was faster than Colston.billjohnson said:What am I missing here???
jurb26
Footballguy
I don't really care to go on and on about who is better based on throwing stats around. However, on a per game basis for their careers here is how things play out for Colston and Fitz:Fitz:5.7 receptions, 78.1 yds, 0.61 TDsColston:5.23 receptions, 74 yds, 0.625 TDsClearly these guys are very close and IMO it's splitting hairs as to who is better. I prefer Fitz as I stated in my above rankings. But very little separates these guys.So, you're saying that I should just be like you and subjectively choose which objective measurements to use, and which to disregard?Colston is outproducing Fitz this year. That's an objective measurement that supports Colston being better than Fitz, so let's use it! Fitz has outproduced Colston for their respective careers. That's an objective measurement that supports Fitz being better, so let's ignore it! Colston has better objective measurables than Fitz, so let's use them as proof that he's better than Fitz! Colston has SUBSTANTIALLY worse objective measurables than Vincent Jackson, so let's ignore them!Besides, subjectivity is the cornerstone of fantasy football. Before this season, Couch Potato said that Mike Sims-Walker was a stud. That was a subjective jdugement with no objective basis... and it was right. If all you're doing is looking at objective measurements, then you're just chasing last year's stats. The key is to make SUBJECTIVE judgments about how players will perform going forward. I think Fitz will outperform Colston going forward, because subjectively I think he's more talented, because subjectively he has been much better to this point in his career at important WR skills like shielding the defender, catching the ball at the highest point, gaining separation in a very small space, breaking contact, securing the football, and catching balls thrown outside of his breadbasket.Besides, if we want to talk strictly about objective facts- all of the objective data says that Bree is is SUBSTANTIALLY better than Warner, so producing even comparable numbers with such a clear disparity in QB play should objectively demonstrate that Fitz is better.Subjectivity > objectivity. Even though Colston is technically bigger, faster, stronger, and can jump higher...it's your subjective opinion that Fitzgerald is still better b/c he can better use his smaller frame, weaker body, slower speed, and shorter vertical. I get it now....Eh, there's a difference between combine size and playing size. There's a difference between being able to leap high and being able to time your leap so that you're grabbing the ball at the very apex every time. There's a difference between having a large frame and being able to consistently use it to shield the defender from the ball. There's a difference between having long arms and having a huge functional radius that you can catch a ball within.Also, I never knew that saying there were six better WRs in the league than Colston was "getting carried away with putting him down". I betcha there are hundreds of WRs out there that wish I was as "down" on them as I am on Colston. Colston's a great WR, and there's no shame in being less talented than Larry Fitzgerald or Andre Johnson.spider321 said:See above. Track speed is not football speed, or else Usain Bolt would be the highest paid man in the NFL. Vertical height is not NFL Leaping ability, or else teams would be hiring Olympic high jumpers as red zone specialists. Few WRs in the league play to the fullest extent of their own physical attributes like Fitzgerald does.Also, fwiw, I never said that Fitzgerald was faster than Colston.billjohnson said:What am I missing here???
Again, though, it's a question of QBs. Colston has had Drew Brees throwing to him for every single game of his career. Fitzgerald had 2008 Warner, true... but he also had John Navarre, Josh McCown, Matt Leinart, and pre-2008 Warner in there, too. If you don't think elite QBs make a difference, take a look at Wes Welker's career. Or Brandon Stokley's. Or Randy Moss's. Torry Holt's.I don't think it's splitting hairs. I think that Colston is a great WR, easily one of the top 10 in the league... but I also think he's benefitted tremendously from his supporting cast (a la Reggie Wayne), and I think Fitz is clearly on another level entirely. Sort of like Peyton Manning vs. Philip Rivers. Rivers is clearly one of the best QBs in the league, but it's not "splitting hairs" to say that Manning is substantially better.
jurb26
Footballguy
Sure a great QB makes a difference. You know what else makes a difference though? Having great WRs playing along side you. Welker benefits from Moss just as much as he does Brady. Stokley benefited from Harrison and Wayne just as much as he did from Manning. And Fitz benefits from having Boldin where as until now, Colston has had nobody playing along side him worth squat.I'd be curious to see the target numbers for each of these guys over the years. Anyone have that information for as far back as 2004?
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
Not trying to take anything away from Colston, who is a great WR, but when he was out for a month or so last year, the Saints offense didn't miss a beat, and Lance Moore stepped in to his starting spot and put up very similar numbers.
Instinctive
Footballguy
I think Wayne bein up top is a little bit bogus. The guy's a great receiver and all, but he's not that special. Peyton Manning is.
Fitzgerald
Colston Johnson Johnson (I prefer Colston, but really in no particular order)
Brandon Marshall Randy Moss
(2 years ago, Moss is higher. But he's gettin old)
Here's the deal:
Those 6 are simply physical freaks. Tall. Unusually Muscular. Fast (some). Huge freakin hands. Sticky hands. Run after the catch ability. Leaping (vertical). Body control. Instinct.
Anybody else can be great, but without the height advantage, the vertical advantage, and the amazingly talented hands, it is almost impossible to be on the same level as these guys. They all cn pull any ball away from any defender, adjust in midair, burn guys deep, take a short slant to the house...on and on and on.
Their physical talent is simply unmatched. Reggie Wayne, on the other hand, is a great guy, great at a lot fo things, but simply isn't as physically gifted. He'd be a WR1 anywhere, but more of a fantasy WR2 with anyone but Manning, IMHO.
Fitzgerald
Colston Johnson Johnson (I prefer Colston, but really in no particular order)
Brandon Marshall Randy Moss
(2 years ago, Moss is higher. But he's gettin old)
Here's the deal:
Those 6 are simply physical freaks. Tall. Unusually Muscular. Fast (some). Huge freakin hands. Sticky hands. Run after the catch ability. Leaping (vertical). Body control. Instinct.
Anybody else can be great, but without the height advantage, the vertical advantage, and the amazingly talented hands, it is almost impossible to be on the same level as these guys. They all cn pull any ball away from any defender, adjust in midair, burn guys deep, take a short slant to the house...on and on and on.
Their physical talent is simply unmatched. Reggie Wayne, on the other hand, is a great guy, great at a lot fo things, but simply isn't as physically gifted. He'd be a WR1 anywhere, but more of a fantasy WR2 with anyone but Manning, IMHO.
I've seen a strong correlation between the quality of the QB and the numbers the WR puts up. I've yet to see any correlation between the quality of the WR2 and the numbers the WR puts up. On the one hand, it loosens up coverages. On the other hand, it gives the QB another place to go.Also, FBGs has all of the target numbers on everyone's player page. Here's Fitz, and here's Colston.
Where's Vincent Jackson? 6'5", 241 pounds, sub 4.4 forty. Probably the second best deep threat in the league behind only Desean, and still big/tall/physical enough, and a great enough leaper, to still be one of the top 5 red zone threats in the league.
Colston has started 34 of a possible 48 games in the previous 3 years, or an average of 11 a season. It's not like he had one injury that cost him a lot of time like Andre Johnson, it's just been a string of injuries. Also worth mentioning that when Colston is out, the Saints have just plugged in Lance Moore and not missed a beat (not so for the Houston Texans or the Detroit Lions when Calvin or Andre miss time).Yes, Calvin and Andre have both missed time, but Colston has missed MORE time, and Colston has also had more total injuries. And Colston's injuries have illustrated that he's a far more replaceable talent than either of the Johnsons, too.at the statment of fact that AJ or Calvin having a better condition of health than Colston up to this point. All 3 have missed significant time since being in the league.
Shawnky
Footballguy
Sorry, but you're nitpicking here. Colston has had a hand injury and swelling in his knee. AJ has had leg\knee injuries. Calvin has knee and back issues. There is no health advantage with any of these guys. That's the only point I'm trying to make here. As far as the talent\best wr argument here, I will leave it to you dorks to pick and jab at each other. I could care less about "talent" opinions. It's about who produces when on the field.Colston has started 34 of a possible 48 games in the previous 3 years, or an average of 11 a season. It's not like he had one injury that cost him a lot of time like Andre Johnson, it's just been a string of injuries. Also worth mentioning that when Colston is out, the Saints have just plugged in Lance Moore and not missed a beat (not so for the Houston Texans or the Detroit Lions when Calvin or Andre miss time).Yes, Calvin and Andre have both missed time, but Colston has missed MORE time, and Colston has also had more total injuries. And Colston's injuries have illustrated that he's a far more replaceable talent than either of the Johnsons, too.at the statment of fact that AJ or Calvin having a better condition of health than Colston up to this point. All 3 have missed significant time since being in the league.
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
Injuries aside, Lance Moore still managed to step in for Colston last year and produce at almost the same level. I cannot imagine any unknown WR on the Cardinals doing that for Fitzgerald.
MCguidance
Footballguy
That guy Boldin isn't half bad.EDIT: Didn't see "unknown." My fault. Breaston is there too. I think the argument that Brees over anyone OTHER than Warner is valid. But let's also not pretend that Warner is a slouch. Both are in great situations. I know this is a different argument, but Colston is the better value play this year relative to his ADP.Again, I'd take Fitz love his talent, but Colston is no slouch.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
Oh, so Boldin is an unknown receiver now?
MCguidance
Footballguy
I realized I glanced over it, lol, my fault, as I posted above.Oh, so Boldin is an unknown receiver now?
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
It's all good. 
Again, me saying that is not denigrating Colston. I think he is a great WR, but he does benefit by playing with a magnificent QB in an offense that is very WR-friendly. And there is certainly no shame in not being as good as Larry Fitzgerald. It simply puts you in the same boat with every other WR in the NFL. 
Again, me saying that is not denigrating Colston. I think he is a great WR, but he does benefit by playing with a magnificent QB in an offense that is very WR-friendly. And there is certainly no shame in not being as good as Larry Fitzgerald. It simply puts you in the same boat with every other WR in the NFL. billjohnson
Footballguy
LOL..all the Fitzgerald lobbying has helped propel him into first place!!
Instinctive
Footballguy
Umm....the New Orleans Saints are in the bottom half of the NFL is passing attempts. Hardly what I would go so far as to call WR-friendly.49% of the completions they actually do make aren't to WRs.....I would say we could call that half, for simplicity's sake. So, we have a team in the bottom half of the NFL in passing attempts, whose WR's only get half the catches, and of whom Colston is only ONE wide receiver, and has a penchant for "sharing the wealth" according to many on this board...and that is wide receiver friendly?It's all good.Again, me saying that is not denigrating Colston. I think he is a great WR, but he does benefit by playing with a magnificent QB in an offense that is very WR-friendly. And there is certainly no shame in not being as good as Larry Fitzgerald. It simply puts you in the same boat with every other WR in the NFL.
Ok. I can CAN'T see that...
You make a good point, I think i'd add Vincent to that list at the bottom. He's showing some pretty nic ehands this year too. I suppose I leave him off because he hasn't really had that big time season yet. Last year was very good, and I expect him to jump into this tier of players...but he hasn't quite done it yet, in my book.
jurb26
Footballguy
So Fitz averages over a target per game more.Fitz, 8.4Colston, 7.2
FUBAR
Footballguy
When your QB is as accurate as Brees is, you don't need to throw it a lot. 3rd best %, 2nd in NY/A, 9th in completions, 1st in TD%, 7th in yardage. In short, Brees throws it accurate deep when he throws to WRs. Considering just how often he does pass to other-than-WRs, those are downright impressive stats. So yes, the Saints offense is WR-friendly, or at least the QB is.Umm....the New Orleans Saints are in the bottom half of the NFL is passing attempts. Hardly what I would go so far as to call WR-friendly.49% of the completions they actually do make aren't to WRs.....I would say we could call that half, for simplicity's sake. So, we have a team in the bottom half of the NFL in passing attempts, whose WR's only get half the catches, and of whom Colston is only ONE wide receiver, and has a penchant for "sharing the wealth" according to many on this board...and that is wide receiver friendly?It's all good.Again, me saying that is not denigrating Colston. I think he is a great WR, but he does benefit by playing with a magnificent QB in an offense that is very WR-friendly. And there is certainly no shame in not being as good as Larry Fitzgerald. It simply puts you in the same boat with every other WR in the NFL.
billjohnson
Footballguy
I think it's more about number of targets than QB accuracy.
A lot of times, targets serve as a pretty solid measurement of player skill. The QB doesn't throw to you unless (a.) you're open, or (b.) you're so great that he doesn't care that you're covered. It's pretty darn impressive that Larry Fitzgerald is commanding 8.4 targets a game in the same passing offense as Anquan Boldin (who's sort of good, himself).Look at the guys who routinely dominate the target leaderboards. It's mostly your Mosses, Harrisons, Owenses, Holts, Marshalls, and Johnsons.
Childress
Footballguy
I'm watching the NFL replay of the NO/ATL game and it makes me wonder does anyone go up and get the ball at it's highest point better than Colston? I know LarryFitz did it well in the playoffs last year, but it seems Colston has made huge play after huge play doing it this year. Because Brees can put it just high enough for Colston to get it everytime, he seems to do just that.
Lucky Lefty
Footballguy
so true
Shawnky
Footballguy
This is one of the most ridiculous things I've read. I'd like to hear the rationale behind this. Colston has done nothing but dominate those around him since coming into the league. Granted, he has the most accurate QB in the league, but he has the size, speed, and hands to dominate most DBs that cover him.
JuSt CuZ
Footballguy
Lay off the crack, ur right we are so wrong for putting a guy with as many tds and more catches in the same breath...another person with credebility lost!dude just cuz u say so dont mean crap, u need proof or stats.lol @ putting Welker in the same breath as Moss. Why not just copy the ytd stats from nfl.com and say "here are the rankings, not debatable"?
JuSt CuZ
Footballguy
And anyone who says that just dont understand football, but is just straight up "ignint"Did you not see the playoffs last season? Fitz was about as studly as you can get.Fantasy points = production....and i'm equating "the best' in this case with statistical significance. Too hard to argue who has the most talent or that so-and-so would possibly do (x) if in
And again, I do think Fitz is a stud...but not quite as high on him as some of you
Bill
The Saints offense doesn't miss a beat when Colston misses time. Detroit's offense, on the other hand, grinds to a halt when Calvin misses time.
JuSt CuZ
Footballguy
And lets not forget this!Colston's first two years- 168/2240/19Size
Fitzgerald--6'3'', 218 lbs
Colston--6'4, 225 lbs
Speed:
Fitzgerald--4.53 forty
Colston--4.5 forty
Hops:
Fitzgerald-35 inch vertical
Colston-37 inch vertical
Strength:
Fitzgerald: 225lb bench reps-20
Colston: 225lb bench reps-21
What am I missing here???
Bill
Edit to add: Stats from NFL site.
Fitzgerald's first two years- 161/2189/18
And lets not forget better this year then Fitz too!
Your opinios are just that, opinions, and everyone has one!
But the numbers above dont lie and makes the Colston lovers right!
No one is better then Colston...NO one!
Argue and get mad all u want, u Colston haters just got smacked with stats!
But your right stats dont matter, after all its not what football and fantasy is all about!
LOL...Bill way to take it to all the Fitz lovers and Colston haters!
Stats dont lie...
Shawnky
Footballguy
Which means the Saints have a much be OL, QB, and other talent that the Lions don't. It in no way says anything about the 2 WR.Tell me again how many wins Detroit has with Calvin in the lineup.....The Saints offense doesn't miss a beat when Colston misses time. Detroit's offense, on the other hand, grinds to a halt when Calvin misses time.This is one of the most ridiculous things I've read. I'd like to hear the rationale behind this. Colston has done nothing but dominate those around him since coming into the league. Granted, he has the most accurate QB in the league, but he has the size, speed, and hands to dominate most DBs that cover him.
Similar threads
