Keenan McCardell = Pure Value in 2005 (1 Viewer)

[David Yudkin]

As far as the 35 year old data set, I suppose each individual will have to decide whther McCardell's career has been closer to:

Tim Brown (10) - 91/1165/9

James Lofton (10) -57/1072/8

Cris Carter (9) - 96/1274/9

or

Jake Reed (4) - 21/360/3

Tony Martin (4) - 26/393/0

Ed McCaffery (3) - 19/195/0

Terance Mathis (3) - 23/218/2

JT Smith (3) - 18/225/2

We'll have to wait until January to find out . . .

Fortunately for McCardell, his career is not over. I'd also suggest his career after reaching 30 years of age is much closer to the guys at the top of this list. You realize his first three years in the league he didn't play right?Also, my second prediction is that after McCardell puts up 1000 and 6 or better, Yudkin will either be no where to be found or will claim 'he got lucky, my assumptions were still right on the money.'

Does not playing make him any younger? I'm 38 and haven't played a down . . . for NFL purposes would I be considered like a 23 year old or a 38 year old? Are you implying that McCardell is really a 32 year old masquerading in a 35 year old's body?In actuality, he did play his first three years, just not very much. I can't remember that far back, but he played in only 2, 4, and 14 games his first three seasons . . . was that be inury, lack of playing time, or some other reason?

 

[Joe T]

Does not playing make him any younger? I'm 38 and haven't played a down . . . for NFL purposes would I be considered like a 23 year old or a 38 year old? Are you implying that McCardell is really a 32 year old masquerading in a 35 year old's body?

No the point was not that he is younger because of not playing his first three seasons... but his stats are skewed versus the guys you are comparing him to who had 3 more seasons to rack up lesser stats than McCardell did.The 3 less seasons was in response to... 'Who's career is he more close to?' well, yes, its closer to the retiries at the bottom because he's played 3 less seasons than those guys at this point in his career.

Thus, 'lucky for McCardell his career is not over' like the guys you would like people to compare him to.

How'd Jimmy Smith do last year? I didn't see him on either list.

 

[David Yudkin]

I may be the only one here, but I think that McCardell will take receptions away from Gates. Defenses will focus more on Gates this year and McCardell will have the benifit of camp and plays designed to get him the ball.

With that said, I think 800 to 900 yards and 5 TDs would be about the highest upper bound I would be comfortable with. And if so, it will likely come with fewer receptions for LT and AG. 600 to 700 yds and 4 TDs would be not inconceivable.

FBG has 700 and 5 and about WR43 in 1 ppr leagues (which I hate).

FBG has him at WR45 with 700/5 and no points per reception (not sure where you got that part from).I have McCardell at 800/4 which is pretty close to what you have him slotted for.

The other issue which hasn't even been brought up is that many are projected the Chargers passing numbers to improve.

IMO, SD faces a must tougher schedule and Brees had a very fortunate season last year. Ask Chargers fans and see how many times potential gift interceptions were dropped or tip passes got caught instead of picked off.

That's part of why I am not super high on any of the Chargers receiving options this year (including Gates who I think takes a step backward this year--but not because someone else is eating away at his production).

 

[Unlucky]

You guys do realize that McCardell has only TWICE put up 1000 and 6 TDs, right? (He has had 1207/5 and 1164/5)I actually expect more passing attempts for SD this year, but I have McCardell at 65/793/5. Gates, Tomlinson, Parker, and Caldwell will all get receptions, and there won't be enough left over for McCardell. Unlike Kenninson, who has deep speed and can average 15 YPC, McCardell isn't a deep threat. Kennison can get 1000 yards on his 60+ catches, while McCardell needs 75 to 80. He isn't going to get that many receptions, barring injuries to Gates and other WRs.Comparing McCardell to Muhammad last year is also flawed, as Muhammad put up a rediculous season because S. Smith and all of the RBs were hurt. So, if you think Gates and Tomlinson get hurt, and SD will air it out every game, then maybe you should move McCardell up your board.The reason most people have McCardell ranked around WR40 is that he belongs there. The "upside" Joe T is talking about is asking McCardell to match his career highs, and the "downside" Joe T brings up is really his career average. A realistic "upside" is 75/1000/7, "downside" of 50/650/3, and his expected should be somewhere in between. You should also realize that there are plenty of WRs in this range with equal or better upsides than McCardell. A. Toomer, J. McCariens, M. Jenkins, A. Bryant, A. Randle EL, etc. Plenty of young WRs, or other veterans that may bounce back. McCardell may end up being a nice pick, but I don't think he screams value, and in fact, has less upside than some of the other WRs around him.

 

[Joe T]

You should also realize that there are plenty of WRs in this range with equal or better upsides than McCardell. A. Toomer, J. McCariens, M. Jenkins, A. Bryant, A. Randle EL, etc. Plenty of young WRs, or other veterans that may bounce back. McCardell may end up being a nice pick, but I don't think he screams value, and in fact, has less upside than some of the other WRs around him.

I will give you Toomer. But his QB situation is not as good. The rest of those guys are not as good.Thanks.

 

[mbuehner]

I think McCardell has some value where he is being picked, but nothing earth shattering. He'll be a good WR3, or great bye-week filler. Much of San Diegos passing value will depend on how their games go. They pass when they need to, unlike teams like the Pats and Colts who pass because that is what they do. Last season Brees threw the ball _six_ times when they blew out Cleveland, and _42_ times in the OT loss to the Jets. Thats a huge range. Needless to say, in the games where 6 and 8 passes are being completely, nobody is going to have much value in the passing game, and if Schottenheimer feels he can win without passing, the balls just not going to get thrown. San Diego has a pretty tough schedule this season so I dont see a lot of blowouts. The good news is they are playing against all the high powered offenses in the league: Indy, Philly, New England, and of course their division of Oakland, Denver, and KC is going to put up a ton of points. For that reason i actually think the Chargers will air the ball out more than they have in the past (more than they want to), and McCardell will threfore see his value improve. i dont think he hits 1000 yards, but he will be in the neighborhood. 900 yards and 7 TDs seems reasonable, if Brees has to throw the ball 500 times.

 

[ko-jack]

I may be the only one here, but I think that McCardell will take receptions away from Gates. Defenses will focus more on Gates this year and McCardell will have the benifit of camp and plays designed to get him the ball.

With that said, I think 800 to 900 yards and 5 TDs would be about the highest upper bound I would be comfortable with. And if so, it will likely come with fewer receptions for LT and AG. 600 to 700 yds and 4 TDs would be not inconceivable.

FBG has 700 and 5 and about WR43 in 1 ppr leagues (which I hate).

why draft someone in the later rounds with a celing of 800-900 and 5 tds?draft the next reggie wayne, j. walker, etc.

800 yards can be had on the waiver wire after the draft

 

[Family Matters]

Wow. Some great insight to thoughts about McCardell. I do want to add one thing. People have underestimated him his entire career and yet he continues to prove folks wrong. There is nothing to suggest that "he" won't prove folks wrong again. Now I'm not suggesting he'll be top 20 or anything crazy like that but he could be real close.

 

[Gr00vus]

Slightly off topic, but I just wanted to agree with those who see the Chargers are in for a very tough season. I actually do expect a bit of a drop off for them this year, which should affect everyone's numbers except LaDainain. This year will definitely be a much bigger challenge for the Bolts than last year was. Anyone know what the over/under for season wins is on them? I won money last year taking the over - I think I might want to do the opposite this year, though it pains me to say it as a Charger fan.Back OT: I really wouldn't expect much from any of the Chargers' receivers this year - if you have to start one on a regular basis in FF you're either in big trouble, or your roster is very strong at the other positions.

 

[cstu]

Keenan is a 35 year old receiver who has 6 or fewer TDs in 12 of his 13 years, and 1 TD in 7 games last year and all of the sudden 6 TDs is his DOWNSIDE? Wow.

SD has:

Gates, who will take a BUNCH of goal-line looks and a lot of targets in general

Parker, who looked just as good as McCardell last year if not better

Caldwell, who had a very nice start to the season last year

Vincent Jackson, who is listed behind McCardell but has the talent to eat into his numbers this year if he shows any kind of development

The reason McCardell has such a low ADP is that there is NO guarantee he will be a focal point in the passing game or even remain a starter all year long. What you list as his downside I feel he would be lucky to get as an upside.

This is correct, McCardell has a lot of competition at WR, not to mention the TE is actually WR #1 in their offense. The problem with the Chargers WR's is two-fold: Shotty is a run first coach (think he'd rather throw the ball or run in late in a game?) and there are a lot of relatively unknown, but very talanted, WR's on the Chargers. Caldwell is probably the better pick if you are looking for a flyer since he's the big play guy. McCardell and Parker are very similar, good receivers but not the breakaway type like Caldwell. It's way too early to tell with Jackson, he's got the talent but coming straight from a CC to the NFL is going to tough. He's one of those guys that could develop into a stud in his 3rd year, but I don't seem him being consistent enough to have on your team this year.

 

[On The Rocks]

my prediction for K-Mc = 74/890/6

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The problem with McCardell is that Parker and Caldwell may be just as good or better. I don't know what kind of fantasy value the Chargers #1 WR will have this year, but the #2 or #3 WR will probably have very little (given that he'll actually be the #4 or #5 option in the passing game).How confident are you that McCardell will be the #1 guy? I'd say it's no better than even money.That said, McCardell certainly could end up being a very nice value pick.Is there a go-to wide receiver on the roster?

Keenan McCardell, a two-time Pro Bowler, would certainly seem to fit the bill. And the veteran the Chargers acquired just prior to last October's trading deadline is the favorite to seize the role.But McCardell can't outrun Father Time, and some wonder if the 14-year pro has the stamina to be a factor in all 16 games. He was slowed by a bum hamstring late last year, and did very little in the offseason minicamps because of it.The Chargers, though, were likely just being cautious. But his health, at his age, is worth watching.Eric Parker had a breakthrough year last season, setting career-highs in receptions (47), yards (690) and touchdowns (four). Parker is fearless, which is good and bad for the Chargers.They love his tenacity in going up for passes in traffic, but there's concerns his 6-foot, 180-pound frame can take the punishment.Reche Caldwell is another candidate. After a solid start last season, a serious knee injury derailed his year. How fast he rebounds - so far, so good - is a key.And what about newcomer Vincent Jackson? Although the second-round pick won't be in the running to be the top receiver, his sturdy body and athleticism can't be overlooked. Same goes, though, for him trying to make the jump from Division I-AA Northern Colorado to the NFL.

 

[-OZ-]

Keenan is a 35 year old receiver who has 6 or fewer TDs in 12 of his 13 years, and 1 TD in 7 games last year and all of the sudden 6 TDs is his DOWNSIDE?  Wow.

SD has:

Gates, who will take a BUNCH of goal-line looks and a lot of targets in general

Parker, who looked just as good as McCardell last year if not better

Caldwell, who had a very nice start to the season last year

Vincent Jackson, who is listed behind McCardell but has the talent to eat into his numbers this year if he shows any kind of development

The reason McCardell has such a low ADP is that there is NO guarantee he will be a focal point in the passing game or even remain a starter all year long.  What you list as his downside I feel he would be lucky to get as an upside.

This is correct, McCardell has a lot of competition at WR, not to mention the TE is actually WR #1 in their offense. The problem with the Chargers WR's is two-fold: Shotty is a run first coach (think he'd rather throw the ball or run in late in a game?) and there are a lot of relatively unknown, but very talanted, WR's on the Chargers. Caldwell is probably the better pick if you are looking for a flyer since he's the big play guy. McCardell and Parker are very similar, good receivers but not the breakaway type like Caldwell. It's way too early to tell with Jackson, he's got the talent but coming straight from a CC to the NFL is going to tough. He's one of those guys that could develop into a stud in his 3rd year, but I don't seem him being consistent enough to have on your team this year.

http://www.unco.edu/ Not exactly an elite program, but not a CC either.

 

[MelvinTScupper]

my prediction for K-Mc = 74/890/6

I agree. And, I'm with HoeT; that's value, based on where he's been drafted.

 

[Double Agent]

In Tampa Bay, he was second fiddle to Johnson. Only after Johnson left the team and TB had a lot of injuries to their WR did McCardell become the primary WR--and that was for a total of 6 games.

The rest of the argument aside for just a moment, I wanted to address this real quick since I'm in Tampa and watch all their games. The above is a common misconception as Meshawn was the #1 in name only that year. In fact here are their numbers for the first 10 games(with Key in the lineup) of 2003:Johnson: 45-600-3

Keenan: 49-748-7

That said, I don't expect big things from McCardell by any means but I do agree he's being overlooked.

 

[MyAwesomePrizeAlias]

McCardell is off to a good start.

 

[Joe T]

17 257 4 you know what those numbers are?they are a top 10 receiver you could have had in the 9th or 10th round of your draft.

 

[Joe T]

If this were a poll, I would vote flaVVed.

The Chargers have been one of the worst teams for WR production the past three years.

Their WR corps has produced:

2002: 146/1951/11

2003: 129/1770/12

2004: 126/1921/13

For those three seasons, SD has ranked 30th in receptions, 28th in receiving yards, and 22nd in TD for WR.

Add in the Gates and LT factors, and I don't see any way at all that McCardell comes close to 1000/6 unless Parker and Caldwell fall off of the face of the earth.

The numbers cited above average out to 1880/12. If McCardell did get 1000/6, that would leave only 880/6 for the rest of their WRs. So unless the Chargers drastically change their game plan, I don't see any of their WR having much fantasy value.

 

[ZJilla]

If this were a poll, I would vote flaVVed.

The Chargers have been one of the worst teams for WR production the past three years.

Their WR corps has produced:

2002: 146/1951/11

2003: 129/1770/12

2004: 126/1921/13

For those three seasons, SD has ranked 30th in receptions, 28th in receiving yards, and 22nd in TD for WR.

Add in the Gates and LT factors, and I don't see any way at all that McCardell comes close to 1000/6 unless Parker and Caldwell fall off of the face of the earth.

The numbers cited above average out to 1880/12. If McCardell did get 1000/6, that would leave only 880/6 for the rest of their WRs. So unless the Chargers drastically change their game plan, I don't see any of their WR having much fantasy value.

Good call Joe. I hope he keeps it up.

 

[Joe T]

It's a perfectly good argument if you really think he's the 39th best WR on the board; which I do

Hey JWood!

 

[Joe T]

so you're saying this doesn't scream value in the 9th round?

I've already addressed the first in about 6 ways in this thread and don't see a great chance of the 1000/6 happening.

I love preseason threads.

 

[Stinger Ray]

must be "pat a hoe" on the back day

 

[Joe T]

As far as the 35 year old data set, I suppose each individual will have to decide whther McCardell's career has been closer to:

Tim Brown (10) - 91/1165/9

James Lofton (10) -57/1072/8

Cris Carter (9) - 96/1274/9

or

Jake Reed (4) - 21/360/3

Tony Martin (4) - 26/393/0

Ed McCaffery (3) - 19/195/0

Terance Mathis (3) - 23/218/2

JT Smith (3) - 18/225/2

We'll have to wait until January to find out . . .

Fortunately for McCardell, his career is not over. I'd also suggest his career after reaching 30 years of age is much closer to the guys at the top of this list. You realize his first three years in the league he didn't play right?

Also, my second prediction is that after McCardell puts up 1000 and 6 or better, Yudkin will either be no where to be found or will claim 'he got lucky, my assumptions were still right on the money.'

 

[Joe T]

You should also realize that there are plenty of WRs in this range with equal or better upsides than McCardell. A. Toomer, J. McCariens, M. Jenkins, A. Bryant, A. Randle EL, etc. Plenty of young WRs, or other veterans that may bounce back. McCardell may end up being a nice pick, but I don't think he screams value, and in fact, has less upside than some of the other WRs around him.

 

[Urinal Mint]

Seriously, that's enough self-back-patting to last until 2006.

 

[The_Hunchback]

Seriously, that's enough self-back-patting to last until 2006.

He can do it all night long, if he makes sure to post the same threads he messed up on to the front like this one.

 

[amnesiac]

Seriously, that's enough self-back-patting to last until 2006.

He can do it all night long.

Just the self-back-patting.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

he is the best value play at WR so far. He should be able to keep up decent production the rest of the year as well.

 

[Tyler_Durden]

Don't over-react on McCardell yet. look at his targets so far10-8-4, thats not a good trend...

 

[Joe T]

Seriously, that's enough self-back-patting to last until 2006.

McCardell finished '05 as the #17 WR in non-PPR leagues.I don't have a PPR league ranking handy... anyone know where he finished in those leagues?



TIA

 

[Sack-Religious]

Seriously, that's enough self-back-patting to last until 2006.

McCardell finished '05 as the #17 WR in non-PPR leagues.I don't have a PPR league ranking handy... anyone know where he finished in those leagues?



TIA

17th

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Another thing to look out for is whether the Charger defensive backfield can improve, and if the pass rush can improve (lousy cheap Merryman).

Hey man, take that back.

 

[bagger.]

Seriously, that's enough self-back-patting to last until 2006.

McCardell finished '05 as the #17 WR in non-PPR leagues.I don't have a PPR league ranking handy... anyone know where he finished in those leagues?



TIA

JoeT = speed

nice work joe.

 

[Family Matters]

I have to agree with Joe T that McCardell is a decent value pick. Considering what he did last year I expect to see an improvement this year. Consider this:

1. He sat out 9-10 games in a contract dispute with TB before being traded to SD.

2. No camp for him by either team.

3. He steps in and produces decent numbers (except for TD's) without the benefit of a camp, practice with Brees or an team members.

4. Further he had to learn a totally new offemse and personel.

So when you consider these facts it's realistic that he can improve and that puts him in the 900-1000 yard range with 6-8 TD's as realistic upside. Based on his past performance that's not unrealistic. As for SD'd past performance in passing they could improve some and the distribution could also change as McCardell has undoubtedly gained Bree's trust.

So to argue against that he's a decent value is not a good arguement. To get a decent WR with 900-1000 yard potentiol after 37 or more have been drafted is what I consider to be decent if not good value.

As for those making a case against it happenning, certainly it's possible but let's not forget this offense is evolving. Last year was the first year Brees demostrated he can throw. With new targets like Gates & McCardell to go along with a couple of burners like Cladwell & Parker and the awesome LT, they are more dynamic then they have been in a while. So I could accept an improved offense spurred by the improved passing game.

He finished with 917 yards and 9 TD's. Not too bad Joe!

 

[David Yudkin]

If this were a poll, I would vote flaVVed.

The Chargers have been one of the worst teams for WR production the past three years.

Their WR corps has produced:

2002: 146/1951/11

2003: 129/1770/12

2004: 126/1921/13

For those three seasons, SD has ranked 30th in receptions, 28th in receiving yards, and 22nd in TD for WR.

Add in the Gates and LT factors, and I don't see any way at all that McCardell comes close to 1000/6 unless Parker and Caldwell fall off of the face of the earth.

The numbers cited above average out to 1880/12.  If McCardell did get 1000/6, that would leave only 880/6 for the rest of their WRs.  So unless the Chargers drastically change their game plan, I don't see any of their WR having much fantasy value.

2005: 160/2074/13In a nutshell, SD's corps of WR produced roughly 150 more receiving yards than in 2004. They got very little production from anyone other than McCardell and Parker.

 

[Tiger Fan]

Current FBG concensus ranking = 39 (high =32, low =54)

Antsports ADP of 9.12 and 37th receiver taken overall

xpert leagues ADP of 11.12 and the 42nd receiver taken overall

I'm a big value believer and the upside with McCardell is high in that he is only one year removed from an 1100 yard 8 TD season with 84 catches.

After sitting out most of last season, McCardell signed a new 2 year contract and returns as the #1 receiver on an improving Charger passing offense. The Chargers could easily see 3,800 yards passing and 30 passing TD's with only a slight improvement over last season.

Even if you see McCardell as the number 3 option on offense on this team behind LT and Gates, he will still rack up plenty of catches and yards. Look at what Eddie Kennison did for the Chiefs last year to find a similar situation... Eddie put up 1086 yards and 8 TD on 62 catches.

McCardell has historically been an 80-90 catch per year guy. In McCardell's six years in Jacksonville he never caught less that 75 passes in a season. He could very easily give you 75 catches for 1100 yards and 6 TD this season which would be top 12 numbers for a guy you can get in the 9th round (or later) of your draft. On the high side, he could get 85 catches for 1200 yards and 8 TD which would be in the 7-9 range of WR's. On the low end, he should give you Kennison like numbers with 65 catches for a little over 1000 yards and 5 or 6 TD's which would still be top 25 WR numbers.

If you like value and maybe you'd like to win your league, you can't go wrong getting a player of McCardell's caliber in the 9th round.

Good luck this year.

Joe T.

you da man GB

 

[BassNBrew]

Way to go Bass. Between this and Smith call I don't know why I'm not on staff.

 

[Joe T]

Way to go Bass. Between this and Smith call I don't know why I'm not on staff.

lol.You should be.

don't forget about the Muhammad call in '04.

 

[Capella]

Current FBG concensus ranking = 39  (high =32, low =54)

Antsports ADP of 9.12 and 37th receiver taken overall

xpert leagues ADP of 11.12 and the 42nd receiver taken overall

I'm a big value believer and the upside with McCardell is high in that he is only one year removed from an 1100 yard 8 TD season with 84 catches.

After sitting out most of last season, McCardell signed a new 2 year contract and returns as the #1 receiver on an improving Charger passing offense.  The Chargers could easily see 3,800 yards passing and 30 passing TD's with only a slight improvement over last season.

Even if you see McCardell as the number 3 option on offense on this team behind LT and Gates, he will still rack up plenty of catches and yards.  Look at what Eddie Kennison did for the Chiefs last year to find a similar situation... Eddie put up 1086 yards and 8 TD on 62 catches.

McCardell has historically been an 80-90 catch per year guy.  In McCardell's six years in Jacksonville he never caught less that 75 passes in a season.  He could very easily give you 75 catches for 1100 yards and 6 TD this season which would be top 12 numbers for a guy you can get in the 9th round (or later) of your draft.  On the high side, he could get 85 catches for 1200 yards and 8 TD which would be in the 7-9 range of WR's.  On the low end, he should give you Kennison like numbers with 65 catches for a little over 1000 yards and 5 or 6 TD's which would still be top 25 WR numbers.

If you like value and maybe you'd like to win your league, you can't go wrong getting a player of McCardell's caliber in the 9th round.

Good luck this year.

Joe T.

you da man GB

JoeT = KobeTigerFan = Tgunz

:suck:

 

[Urinal Mint]

Look, it's 2006!

Seriously, that's enough self-back-patting to last until 2006.

McCardell finished '05 as the #17 WR in non-PPR leagues.I don't have a PPR league ranking handy... anyone know where he finished in those leagues?



TIA

 

[Tiger Fan]

Way to go Bass. Between this and Smith call I don't know why I'm not on staff.