Kevin Curtis (1 Viewer)

[14464]

Took Kevin Curtis in most of my leagues in the last round but noticed that in a few he is still available. I watched the Rams game and just like toward the end of last year and this preseason, Bulger looked for Curtis many times (think he had the most targets according to my sheet). I really don't know why he isn't talked about more in regards to becoming a big time, every week starter. If he is in your league's FA pool, GET HIM NOW!Note: I believe he was targeted 14 times during the game and only FOUR other WR in week 1 had more targets, three were Holt/Moss/Fitz.Edit: Injury to either starter or not, I can't see how Curtis won't at least be targeted at minimum 8 or 9 times a game.

 

[NYG Endzone]

He's great in Madden

 

[packersfan]

I like him a lot too. He's sitting on the WW in my league but due to a new rule we now have very limited roster space so if I want him I'd have to cut either Mewelde Moore or Charles Rogers. I'm not keen on dumping either guy after just one week even though I think Curtis has a chance to be this year's Brandon Stokely -- a No. 3 WR who steps up with quality fantasy production. He may not reach Stokley's 2004 production, but I think he'll end up being a solid WR3 option in more than half of the games this season.

 

[Jason Wood]

Reason #217 for why Ike Bruce is underrated right about now

 

[beefcake]

quiz; who were the 4 WRs on that 99 superbowl team.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Reason #217 for why Ike Bruce is underrated right about now

Totally agree.

 

[This_Is_Not_VRR]

You're playing in a half assed league if Kevin Curtis went undrafted.

 

[aardball44]

Reason #217 for why Ike Bruce is underrated right about now

Whew! With all the Kevin Curtis hype, I was starting to feel like Ike was dead weight on my squad.

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

You're playing in a half assed league if Kevin Curtis went undrafted.

Constructive input. Thanks.

 

[Hugh Duffy]

You're playing in a half assed league if Kevin Curtis went undrafted.

No, you aren't.

 

[The Football Freak]

quiz; who were the 4 WRs on that 99 superbowl team.

Holt, Bruce, Proehl, and was Hakim there yet?

 

[14464]

Reason #217 for why Ike Bruce is underrated right about now

I believe Bruce was/is drafted in 100% leagues, no? That said, I never indicated that he is underrated, in fact, all Bruce owners in legit leagues aren't devaluing him at all. Indy gave proof that you can have three legit WR in regards to fantasy production. Worst case is that Bulger spreads it around and Bruce/Holt don't get hurt and see KC get Stockley like numbers. Best case though is that Bulger keeps targeting him more and/or Bruce gets hurt and see KC easily produce top 10-15 type WR numbers. SOD.

 

[Jason Wood]

You're playing in a half assed league if Kevin Curtis went undrafted.

Kevin Curtis was the 47th receiver selected, on average, in 10-team real drafts according to Antsports, it would hardly be out of the question for him to be on waivers right now in quite a few leagues.

 

[This_Is_Not_VRR]

You're playing in a half assed league if Kevin Curtis went undrafted.

No, you aren't.

Keep telling yourself that.

 

[14464]

You're playing in a half assed league if Kevin Curtis went undrafted.

The only leagues that weren't were 8 league teams. The rest though I've got him.

 

[packersfan]

You're playing in a half assed league if Kevin Curtis went undrafted.

Constructive input. Thanks.

Not to mention being extremely silly. Without knowing the rules of certain leagues/roster requirements and limits etc. it's a bit ridiculous to throw around statements like that. And as much as people may like Curtis the fact remains he entered the season as a No. 3 WR and it's not like No. 3 WRs tend to be fantasy standouts.

 

[Hugh Duffy]

You're playing in a half assed league if Kevin Curtis went undrafted.

No, you aren't.

Keep telling yourself that.

Guy is the 3rd receiver on a team with three better options. Not everyone drafts 18 man teams.He could be Stokely of 2004. BFD.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Reason #217 for why Ike Bruce is underrated right about now

I believe Bruce was/is drafted in 100% leagues, no? That said, I never indicated that he is underrated, in fact, all Bruce owners in legit leagues aren't devalueing him at all. Indy gave proof that you can have three legit WR in regards to fantasy production. Worst case is that Bulger spreads it around and Bruce/Holt don't get hurt and see KC get Stockley like numbers. Best case though is that Bulger keeps targeting him more and/or Bruce gets hurt and see KC easily produce top 10-15 type WR numbers. SOD.

If I am reading this correctly, you just implied that Curtis' worst case scenario is Stokely 2004?

 

[14464]

It's funny when you see good things about a player who costs you next to nothing could end up being a big time player then people come aboard and say that other players (Bruce) are devalued. I don't see how you can equate the two. Facts are that since last quarter of last season plus this preseason plus first game of season, Bulger CLEARLY has KC in his sites. Double digit targets is incredible and Bruce doesn't have near the speed that KC has plus teams won't be using their best or second best DB to cover KC. Looks like a lock to me. You clearly have a HC and QB who are targeting a WR who is quick plus will typically be single covered by the weakest DB = success.

 

[Wheelhouse]

I'm thinking of starting Curtis this week over Cadillac who has a tough matchup with the Bills. Also to add - Curtis was targeted 3 times in the end zone against SF. Had he caught even one of those, we all be choking on our Kevin Curtis Kool-Aid. I'm so lovin' the Rams schedule. Re: Cadillac vs. the Bills - Who wants to do some research on what RB's did against the Bills last season?

 

[14464]

Reason #217 for why Ike Bruce is underrated right about now

I believe Bruce was/is drafted in 100% leagues, no? That said, I never indicated that he is underrated, in fact, all Bruce owners in legit leagues aren't devalueing him at all. Indy gave proof that you can have three legit WR in regards to fantasy production. Worst case is that Bulger spreads it around and Bruce/Holt don't get hurt and see KC get Stockley like numbers. Best case though is that Bulger keeps targeting him more and/or Bruce gets hurt and see KC easily produce top 10-15 type WR numbers. SOD.

If I am reading this correctly, you just implied that Curtis' worst case scenario is Stokely 2004?

 

[14464]

Also to add - Curtis was targeted 3 times in the end zone against SF. Had he caught even one of those, we all be choking on our Kevin Curtis Kool-Aid.

I'm so lovin' the Rams schedule.

 

[Jason Wood]

It's funny when you see good things about a player who costs you next to nothing could end up being a big time player then people come aboard and say that other players (Bruce) are devalued. I don't see how you can equate the two. Facts are that since last quarter of last season plus this preseason plus first game of season, Bulger CLEARLY has KC in his sites. Double digit targets is incredible and Bruce doesn't have near the speed that KC has plus teams won't be using their best or second best DB to cover KC. Looks like a lock to me. You clearly have a HC and QB who are targeting a WR who is quick plus will typically be single covered by the weakest DB = success.

Because implicit in your belief that Curtis can be as productive as you suggest is that Bruce won't live up to predraft expectations. What Brandon Stokley did last year was historic as a WR3, it's the exception that proves the rule. Unless you think Bulger is going to push for 50 TDs this year, it's silly to even think Curtis has that as his UPSIDE much less his downside assuming both Holt and Bruce stay healthy.I don't disagree that he's worth a roster spot particularly in 12 team leagues, but I wouldn't be foaming at the mouth for him as a "must have" either.

 

[14464]

Guy is the 3rd receiver on a team with three better options. Not everyone drafts 18 man teams.

He could be Stokely of 2004. BFD.

Getting 10 TDs ~1k rec yards for a player drafted late or taken off FA is BFD?

 

[Jason Wood]

Guy is the 3rd receiver on a team with three better options. Not everyone drafts 18 man teams.

He could be Stokely of 2004. BFD.

Getting 10 TDs ~1k rec yards for a player drafted late or taken off FA is BFD?

Again...he's only going to get 1,000 yards and 10 TDs IF Bruce or Holt go down in short order and Curtis starts the majority of the year.

Number of 3rd receivers in NFL history to do what you just suggested = ONE

 

[14464]

It's funny when you see good things about a player who costs you next to nothing could end up being a big time player then people come aboard and say that other players (Bruce) are devalued. I don't see how you can equate the two. Facts are that since last quarter of last season plus this preseason plus first game of season, Bulger CLEARLY has KC in his sites. Double digit targets is incredible and Bruce doesn't have near the speed that KC has plus teams won't be using their best or second best DB to cover KC. Looks like a lock to me. You clearly have a HC and QB who are targeting a WR who is quick plus will typically be single covered by the weakest DB = success.

Because implicit in your belief that Curtis can be as productive as you suggest is that Bruce won't live up to predraft expectations. What Brandon Stokley did last year was historic as a WR3, it's the exception that proves the rule. Unless you think Bulger is going to push for 50 TDs this year, it's silly to even think Curtis has that as his UPSIDE much less his downside assuming both Holt and Bruce stay healthy.I don't disagree that he's worth a roster spot particularly in 12 team leagues, but I wouldn't be foaming at the mouth for him as a "must have" either.

To be honest I am not as high as Bruce perhaps as some, especially where he was drafted vs. his production. Out of the two, KC represents extreme value, Bruce does not. Bruce's value lies on his rec yards, he doesn't produce near 10 TD in about 5 years. So, you take an older WR who doesn't traditional score TD but value lies in his receptrion yards to now having a younger explosive WR whose QB obviously targets and targets a lot it's pretty fair to say that unless Bruce as an anomoly and gets 10TD this year, his reception yards should decrease while KC TD opps increase (as evident Week 1 with three zone targets).

 

[packersfan]

Guy is the 3rd receiver on a team with three better options. Not everyone drafts 18 man teams.

He could be Stokely of 2004. BFD.

Getting 10 TDs ~1k rec yards for a player drafted late or taken off FA is BFD?

I like Curtis as I said but I agree with Jason that projecting him to emulate Stokley's 2004 production is a real reach. As I said earlier No. 3 WRs don't typically emerge as big-time threats. What Stokley did was unheard of and it was due -- as Jason said -- to Manning's record-setting season. Considering Bulger has never thrown 30 TDs in a season to assume Curtis is going to reach 10 means either Holt or Bruce or both will have to seriously under-achieve. I don't believe that will happen with Holt and while Bruce is a likely candidate to decline a bit, it's pretty obvious he's still a talented WR so it's illogical in my opinion to expect a massive decline. And Jackson and Faulk will be factors in the passing game as well as the season goes along.

No way can I see Curtis reaching 10 TDs. I like him and I'm tempted to grab him off the WW but I don't view him as being an elite fantasy WR.

 

[14464]

Guy is the 3rd receiver on a team with three better options. Not everyone drafts 18 man teams.

He could be Stokely of 2004. BFD.

Getting 10 TDs ~1k rec yards for a player drafted late or taken off FA is BFD?

Again...he's only going to get 1,000 yards and 10 TDs IF Bruce or Holt go down in short order and Curtis starts the majority of the year.

Number of 3rd receivers in NFL history to do what you just suggested = ONE

Bruce value has been the reception yards which should decrease this year given the amount of focus the HC and QB are clearly giving KC since last quarter of last season. I don't see how you don't see this.

 

[Hugh Duffy]

Again...he's only going to get 1,000 yards and 10 TDs IF Bruce or Holt go down in short order and Curtis starts the majority of the year.

Number of 3rd receivers in NFL history to do what you just suggested = ONE

Exactly. Sure, he's a good player but until he's higher on the pecking order there's no reason to be going ape #### over the guy.Breakout candidate, yes. Sure thing, no.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Shaun McDonald. Fewer targets, but a much higher conversion percentage (i.e. same catches on fewer looks) for more yards, more first downs and a higher YPC. Where are all of his hype threads? Since he's having a better season than Curtis so far (and oh by the way a better career so far as well), why isn't McDonald being compared to Stokely?Curtis did NOTHING exciting in the game. He had ZERO YAC and caught half of the balls thrown to him. He was covered by scrubs because all of the decent DBs were covering Holt and Bruce.I am completely mystified by the love for this guy around here.I can definitely see where he might be an emergency bye-week fill in in some leagues or even a semi-solid contributor in a really deep league because of his situation and reasonable talent. But all this talk of him replacing Bruce (not necessarily here but in other threads) or being a top 10 type receiver is crazy IMO.

 

[Jason Wood]

Guy is the 3rd receiver on a team with three better options. Not everyone drafts 18 man teams.

He could be Stokely of 2004. BFD.

Getting 10 TDs ~1k rec yards for a player drafted late or taken off FA is BFD?

Again...he's only going to get 1,000 yards and 10 TDs IF Bruce or Holt go down in short order and Curtis starts the majority of the year.Number of 3rd receivers in NFL history to do what you just suggested = ONE

Bruce value has been the reception yards which should decrease this year given the amount of focus the HC and QB are clearly giving KC since last quarter of last season. I don't see how you don't see this.

6
7
5
6Those are the TD totals for Bruce the last four years...over that span he's finished as the 17th, 16th, 18th and 12th ranked fantasy WR. Over that same span, Holt has scored 7, 4, 12 and 10 TDs...and ranked 8th, 15th, 2nd and 7th.

In those same four years...summing up ALL OTHER WRS who saw game action (i.e., WR3, WR4, etc...)

2004 -- 83 receptions for 1106 yards and 5 TDs
2003 -- 81 receptions for 759 yards and 3 TDs
2002 -- 71 receptions for 677 yards and 6 TDs
2001 -- 79 receptions for 937 yards and 8 TDsEven if you assumed Kevin Curtis nets 100% of all other WR output (i.e., no other WR catches a pass beyond the top 3), he STILL wouldn't match what Stokley delivered last year.

 

[14464]

Guy is the 3rd receiver on a team with three better options. Not everyone drafts 18 man teams.

He could be Stokely of 2004. BFD.

Getting 10 TDs ~1k rec yards for a player drafted late or taken off FA is BFD?

I like Curtis as I said but I agree with Jason that projecting him to emulate Stokley's 2004 production is a real reach. As I said earlier No. 3 WRs don't typically emerge as big-time threats. What Stokley did was unheard of and it was due -- as Jason said -- to Manning's record-setting season. Considering Bulger has never thrown 30 TDs in a season to assume Curtis is going to reach 10 means either Holt or Bruce or both will have to seriously under-achieve. I don't believe that will happen with Holt and while Bruce is a likely candidate to decline a bit, it's pretty obvious he's still a talented WR so it's illogical in my opinion to expect a massive decline. And Jackson and Faulk will be factors in the passing game as well as the season goes along.

No way can I see Curtis reaching 10 TDs. I like him and I'm tempted to grab him off the WW but I don't view him as being an elite fantasy WR.

And like Indy, the Rams is not a traditional offense. KC, in the Rams offense, can't be compared to other teams 3WR role in traditional offenses. Comparing KC to say last year Randle El in PIT offense is like apples to oranges.

The problem is that many people think that KC can't produce enough because he is their WR3, I view him more of a WR2b and again, you can't deny that KC is like any other WR3 due to the fact that his HC and QB clearly target him on key downs and key areas of the field (red zone). Also, he won't be double teamed nor covered by typically a good DB since they will focus on Holt/Bruce.

 

[Homer_Jay_Simpson]

Edit: Injury to either starter or not, I can't see how Curtis won't at least be targeted at minimum 8 or 9 times a game.

That would be something considering his game logs. While he does have the potential to put up a nice game here or there, I think double digit targets on a consistent basis is a bit much. Plus, although Martz is quite possibly the worst NFL head coach since Rich Kotite, you can't expect them to be behind by 20 points every game and thus having to throw 50 passes every week.Now of course if Bruce gets hurt then I'd agree that Curtis is definitely WR2 material.

 

[packersfan]

He was covered by scrubs because all of the decent DBs were covering Holt and Bruce.

That right there is a reason why people like him. It's one of the reasons why Stokley has excelled -- defenses simply can't cover everybody and they're going to assign their best cover corners on the team's top WRs (in Indy that's obviously Harrison and Wayne and in St. Louis that's obviously Holt and Bruce). Given that, the No. 3 WR will get a lot of single coverage, often working against backup CBs, safeties or maybe even a linebacker. All of that bodes well for the player's potential if he has a QB who can get him the ball and is in a system that will air it out plenty. The Rams and Bulger obviously qualify on both counts.Again, I don't think Curtis is going to reach Stokley's 2004 production but of the No. 3 WRs in the NFL this season he's the guy who's most likely going to emerge as a reliable fantasy option in my opinion.

 

[14464]

Guy is the 3rd receiver on a team with three better options. Not everyone drafts 18 man teams.

He could be Stokely of 2004. BFD.

Getting 10 TDs ~1k rec yards for a player drafted late or taken off FA is BFD?

Again...he's only going to get 1,000 yards and 10 TDs IF Bruce or Holt go down in short order and Curtis starts the majority of the year.

Number of 3rd receivers in NFL history to do what you just suggested = ONE

Bruce value has been the reception yards which should decrease this year given the amount of focus the HC and QB are clearly giving KC since last quarter of last season. I don't see how you don't see this.

6

7
5
6Those are the TD totals for Bruce the last four years...over that span he's finished as the 17th, 16th, 18th and 12th ranked fantasy WR. Over that same span, Holt has scored 7, 4, 12 and 10 TDs...and ranked 8th, 15th, 2nd and 7th.

In those same four years...summing up ALL OTHER WRS who saw game action (i.e., WR3, WR4, etc...)

2004 -- 83 receptions for 1106 yards and 5 TDs
2003 -- 81 receptions for 759 yards and 3 TDs
2002 -- 71 receptions for 677 yards and 6 TDs
2001 -- 79 receptions for 937 yards and 8 TDsEven if you assumed Kevin Curtis nets 100% of all other WR output (i.e., no other WR catches a pass beyond the top 3), he STILL wouldn't match what Stokley delivered last year.

Wood, I was the one who told you that Bruce's value isn't in his TDs but his yards, you don't need to quote stats that everyone knows.

I would strongly advise you to pick him up and watch a Ram game and notice when KC is targeted. This season will be exciting for all KC owners so when I say "I've told you so" I don't want you to come back and say "The historical WR3 stats didn't indicate..blah blah blah"

 

[14464]

Edit: Injury to either starter or not, I can't see how Curtis won't at least be targeted at minimum 8 or 9 times a game.

That would be something considering his game logs. While he does have the potential to put up a nice game here or there, I think double digit targets on a consistent basis is a bit much. Plus, although Martz is quite possibly the worst NFL head coach since Rich Kotite, you can't expect them to be behind by 20 points every game and thus having to throw 50 passes every week.Now of course if Bruce gets hurt then I'd agree that Curtis is definitely WR2 material.

8 or 9 targets = double digit

 

[Jason Wood]

Wood, I was the one who told you that Bruce's value isn't in his TDs but his yards, you don't need to quote stats that everyone knows.

I would strongly advise you to pick him up and watch a Ram game and notice when KC is targeted. This season will be exciting for all KC owners so when I say "I've told you so" I don't want you to come back and say "The historical WR3 stats didn't indicate..blah blah blah"

Fair enough...but the numbers to focus on there weren't Bruce's but the sum total of the Rams remaining WRs. Again, even if the guy got 100% of all passes not thrown to Holt and Bruce among WRs, he wouldn't do what Stokley did. And just so we can stop with this 14 targets nonsense...Curtis was targeted a grand total of 50 times last year, never more than 8 times in a game. He was targeted 3 or fewer times nine times.

http://footballguys.com/CurtKe00-3.php

 

[Holy Schneikes]

He was covered by scrubs because all of the decent DBs were covering Holt and Bruce.

That right there is a reason why people like him. It's one of the reasons why Stokley has excelled -- defenses simply can't cover everybody and they're going to assign their best cover corners on the team's top WRs (in Indy that's obviously Harrison and Wayne and in St. Louis that's obviously Holt and Bruce). Given that, the No. 3 WR will get a lot of single coverage, often working against backup CBs, safeties or maybe even a linebacker. All of that bodes well for the player's potential if he has a QB who can get him the ball and is in a system that will air it out plenty. The Rams and Bulger obviously qualify on both counts.Again, I don't think Curtis is going to reach Stokley's 2004 production but of the No. 3 WRs in the NFL this season he's the guy who's most likely going to emerge as a reliable fantasy option in my opinion.

I have no argument with that logic at all.My main concern with that scenario is that St Louis has 2 other receivers that will ALSO be getting those wide-open looks - McDonald and Looker have both shown they can catch the ball against scrubs too.

If I had to pick a #3 WR other than Stokely, I'd take Curtis, but I wouldn't want him as a starter in any of my leagues and may of them are pretty deep.

 

[Homer_Jay_Simpson]

Edit: Injury to either starter or not, I can't see how Curtis won't at least be targeted at minimum 8 or 9 times a game.

That would be something considering his game logs. While he does have the potential to put up a nice game here or there, I think double digit targets on a consistent basis is a bit much. Plus, although Martz is quite possibly the worst NFL head coach since Rich Kotite, you can't expect them to be behind by 20 points every game and thus having to throw 50 passes every week.Now of course if Bruce gets hurt then I'd agree that Curtis is definitely WR2 material.

8 or 9 targets = double digit

"At a minimum" implies that there will be some weeks when he gets more than the 8-9 targets. If 8-9 is the mimimum, I presume that you were referring to the number 10 which happens to be a double digit number. Regardless, enjoy Curtis, hope he wins the league for ya!

 

[Jason Wood]

Thinking of this another way...8 or 9 targets per game as you suggest = 128 to 144 targets over a 16-game schedule.

In 2004, only 15 WRs in the league were targeted 144 or more times, and only 21 got targeted 128 times or more.

http://apps.footballguys.com/wrtargetsfinal.cfm

1 Chad Johnson Cin 178 11.1 32.8% 95 53.4%

2 Laveranues Coles Was 173 10.8 32.6% 90 52.0%

3 Derrick Mason Ten 168 10.5 27.4% 96 57.1%

4 Muhsin Muhammad Car 167 10.4 30.3% 93 55.7%

5 Darrell Jackson Sea 166 10.4 30.0% 87 52.4%

6 Joe Horn NO 159 9.9 28.6% 94 59.1%

7 Eric Moulds Buf 157 9.8 33.9% 88 56.1%

8 Isaac Bruce StL 155 9.7 25.8% 89 57.4%

9 Chris Chambers Mia 151 10.1 25.1% 69 45.7%

10 Marvin Harrison Ind 150 9.4 26.6% 86 57.3%

11 Drew Bennett Ten 148 9.3 24.1% 80 54.1%

12 Donald Driver GB 146 9.1 23.4% 84 57.5%

13 Javon Walker GB 146 9.1 23.4% 89 61.0%

14 Rod Smith Den 145 9.1 27.1% 79 54.5%

15 Jimmy Smith Jac 145 9.1 26.6% 74 51.0%

16 Jerry Porter Oak 143 8.9 23.6% 64 44.8%

17 Andre Johnson Hou 142 8.9 29.8% 79 55.6%

18 Torry Holt StL 141 8.8 23.5% 94 66.7%

19 Terrell Owens Phi 133 9.5 23.1% 77 57.9%

20 Michael Clayton TB 130 8.1 24.3% 80 61.5%

21 Reggie Wayne Ind 128 8.0 22.7% 77 60.2%

 

[14464]

Thinking of this another way...8 or 9 targets per game as you suggest = 128 to 144 targets over a 16-game schedule.

In 2004, only 15 WRs in the league were targeted 144 or more times, and only 21 got targeted 128 times or more.

http://apps.footballguys.com/wrtargetsfinal.cfm

1 Chad Johnson Cin 178 11.1 32.8% 95 53.4%

2 Laveranues Coles Was 173 10.8 32.6% 90 52.0%

3 Derrick Mason Ten 168 10.5 27.4% 96 57.1%

4 Muhsin Muhammad Car 167 10.4 30.3% 93 55.7%

5 Darrell Jackson Sea 166 10.4 30.0% 87 52.4%

6 Joe Horn NO 159 9.9 28.6% 94 59.1%

7 Eric Moulds Buf 157 9.8 33.9% 88 56.1%

8 Isaac Bruce StL 155 9.7 25.8% 89 57.4%

9 Chris Chambers Mia 151 10.1 25.1% 69 45.7%

10 Marvin Harrison Ind 150 9.4 26.6% 86 57.3%

11 Drew Bennett Ten 148 9.3 24.1% 80 54.1%

12 Donald Driver GB 146 9.1 23.4% 84 57.5%

13 Javon Walker GB 146 9.1 23.4% 89 61.0%

14 Rod Smith Den 145 9.1 27.1% 79 54.5%

15 Jimmy Smith Jac 145 9.1 26.6% 74 51.0%

16 Jerry Porter Oak 143 8.9 23.6% 64 44.8%

17 Andre Johnson Hou 142 8.9 29.8% 79 55.6%

18 Torry Holt StL 141 8.8 23.5% 94 66.7%

19 Terrell Owens Phi 133 9.5 23.1% 77 57.9%

20 Michael Clayton TB 130 8.1 24.3% 80 61.5%

21 Reggie Wayne Ind 128 8.0 22.7% 77 60.2%

The point being that there is a good shot that KC will be top 20 target? 15 WR is a good chuck of WR, don't you think? You want WR who are targets or favored more than others, this looks to be the case with KC. Unlike most positions, it's virtually impossible to predict who will out-excel from their draft position given that WR MUST rely on their QB to excel. Unlike QB and RB, many WR get only a few targets a game which means less of a chance to score which means less of a chance to produce quality fantasy numbers. KC does not seem to me to fit what many other WR will go through, low target production. Will many targets result in scoring? Can't say. But what you can say is that if your QB in a passing offense with a crazy coach is willing to up the targets on a up and coming WR you can't dismiss that when he becomes a stud this year. You can't come back and throw stats that includes teams who don't attempt nearly the amount of passes thrown by STL and you can't compare stats from QB who dont have two established WR who are covered by players that leave the other WR being covered by a typically crappy DB. It's like trying to compare the run and shoot offense to a traditional PIT grind em up offense. Apples to Oranges.

 

[JaxBill]

Where does Shaun McDonald and his 10 targets factor into all of this?

 

[Jason Wood]

Thinking of this another way...8 or 9 targets per game as you suggest = 128 to 144 targets over a 16-game schedule.

In 2004, only 15 WRs in the league were targeted 144 or more times, and only 21 got targeted 128 times or more.

http://apps.footballguys.com/wrtargetsfinal.cfm

1 Chad Johnson Cin 178 11.1 32.8% 95 53.4%

2 Laveranues Coles Was 173 10.8 32.6% 90 52.0%

3 Derrick Mason Ten 168 10.5 27.4% 96 57.1%

4 Muhsin  Muhammad Car 167 10.4 30.3% 93 55.7%

5 Darrell Jackson Sea 166 10.4 30.0% 87 52.4%

6 Joe Horn NO 159 9.9 28.6% 94 59.1%

7 Eric Moulds Buf 157 9.8 33.9% 88 56.1%

8 Isaac Bruce StL 155 9.7 25.8% 89 57.4%

9 Chris Chambers Mia 151 10.1 25.1% 69 45.7%

10 Marvin Harrison Ind 150 9.4 26.6% 86 57.3%

11 Drew Bennett Ten 148 9.3 24.1% 80 54.1%

12 Donald Driver GB 146 9.1 23.4% 84 57.5%

13 Javon Walker GB 146 9.1 23.4% 89 61.0%

14 Rod Smith Den 145 9.1 27.1% 79 54.5%

15 Jimmy Smith Jac 145 9.1 26.6% 74 51.0%

16 Jerry Porter Oak 143 8.9 23.6% 64 44.8%

17 Andre Johnson Hou 142 8.9 29.8% 79 55.6%

18 Torry Holt StL 141 8.8 23.5% 94 66.7%

19 Terrell Owens Phi 133 9.5 23.1% 77 57.9%

20 Michael Clayton TB 130 8.1 24.3% 80 61.5%

21 Reggie Wayne Ind 128 8.0 22.7% 77 60.2%

The point being that there is a good shot that KC will be top 20 target? 15 WR is a good chuck of WR, don't you think? You want WR who are targets or favored more than others, this looks to be the case with KC. Unlike most positions, it's virtually impossible to predict who will out-excel from their draft position given that WR MUST rely on their QB to excel. Unlike QB and RB, many WR get only a few targets a game which means less of a chance to score which means less of a chance to produce quality fantasy numbers. KC does not seem to me to fit what many other WR will go through, low target production. Will many targets result in scoring? Can't say. But what you can say is that if your QB in a passing offense with a crazy coach is willing to up the targets on a up and coming WR you can't dismiss that when he becomes a stud this year. You can't come back and throw stats that includes teams who don't attempt nearly the amount of passes thrown by STL and you can't compare stats from QB who dont have two established WR who are covered by players that leave the other WR being covered by a typically crappy DB. It's like trying to compare the run and shoot offense to a traditional PIT grind em up offense. Apples to Oranges.

ClearCream....15 WRs in TOTAL had as many targets as you envision KC getting. There are 32 NFL teams, each with 2 starting WRs...that's 64. More than half of the NUMBER ONES in the league didn't get that many targets. The notion that a WR3 would is bordering on the ridiculous.

 

[14464]

Where does Shaun McDonald and his 10 targets factor into all of this?

That's actually the more relevant question. Unlike Bruce, McDonald could possible hurt KCs chances given that he won't be double covered and have one-on-one coverage from an inferior DB (at least out of the starting defense backfield). Part gut here, but it just seems that KC is targeted in key spots, and I've seen Bulger drop back and never look at another WR then throw a strike to KC. I haven't noticed that with McDonald but if Shaun does continue to improve it could hurt KC's chances.

 

[14464]

Thinking of this another way...8 or 9 targets per game as you suggest = 128 to 144 targets over a 16-game schedule.

In 2004, only 15 WRs in the league were targeted 144 or more times, and only 21 got targeted 128 times or more.

http://apps.footballguys.com/wrtargetsfinal.cfm

1 Chad Johnson Cin 178 11.1 32.8% 95 53.4%

2 Laveranues Coles Was 173 10.8 32.6% 90 52.0%

3 Derrick Mason Ten 168 10.5 27.4% 96 57.1%

4 Muhsin Muhammad Car 167 10.4 30.3% 93 55.7%

5 Darrell Jackson Sea 166 10.4 30.0% 87 52.4%

6 Joe Horn NO 159 9.9 28.6% 94 59.1%

7 Eric Moulds Buf 157 9.8 33.9% 88 56.1%

8 Isaac Bruce StL 155 9.7 25.8% 89 57.4%

9 Chris Chambers Mia 151 10.1 25.1% 69 45.7%

10 Marvin Harrison Ind 150 9.4 26.6% 86 57.3%

11 Drew Bennett Ten 148 9.3 24.1% 80 54.1%

12 Donald Driver GB 146 9.1 23.4% 84 57.5%

13 Javon Walker GB 146 9.1 23.4% 89 61.0%

14 Rod Smith Den 145 9.1 27.1% 79 54.5%

15 Jimmy Smith Jac 145 9.1 26.6% 74 51.0%

16 Jerry Porter Oak 143 8.9 23.6% 64 44.8%

17 Andre Johnson Hou 142 8.9 29.8% 79 55.6%

18 Torry Holt StL 141 8.8 23.5% 94 66.7%

19 Terrell Owens Phi 133 9.5 23.1% 77 57.9%

20 Michael Clayton TB 130 8.1 24.3% 80 61.5%

21 Reggie Wayne Ind 128 8.0 22.7% 77 60.2%

The point being that there is a good shot that KC will be top 20 target? 15 WR is a good chuck of WR, don't you think? You want WR who are targets or favored more than others, this looks to be the case with KC. Unlike most positions, it's virtually impossible to predict who will out-excel from their draft position given that WR MUST rely on their QB to excel. Unlike QB and RB, many WR get only a few targets a game which means less of a chance to score which means less of a chance to produce quality fantasy numbers. KC does not seem to me to fit what many other WR will go through, low target production. Will many targets result in scoring? Can't say. But what you can say is that if your QB in a passing offense with a crazy coach is willing to up the targets on a up and coming WR you can't dismiss that when he becomes a stud this year. You can't come back and throw stats that includes teams who don't attempt nearly the amount of passes thrown by STL and you can't compare stats from QB who dont have two established WR who are covered by players that leave the other WR being covered by a typically crappy DB. It's like trying to compare the run and shoot offense to a traditional PIT grind em up offense. Apples to Oranges.

ClearCream....15 WRs in TOTAL had as many targets as you envision KC getting. There are 32 NFL teams, each with 2 starting WRs...that's 64. More than half of the NUMBER ONES in the league didn't get that many targets. The notion that a WR3 would is bordering on the ridiculous.

Yes and many/most teams WR1 wouldn't be a WR2 for Indy or Rams. Just saying that there are many WR who shouldn't be part of a 64 list. A NUMBER ONE WR on a team does not equal stud WR. Again, WR rely on many other factors to produce. If Moss had a bottom tier QB with a bottom tier pass protecting O-line, Randy wouldn't be a stud WR in fantasy leagues.That said, again, you really can't compare this offense with ALL other offenses in the past for an apples to apples fair comparison.

 

[dapunisher]

Wow. Jason Wood is a much more patient man than I am. It's obvious that clearcream thinks Curtis will be at least what Stokley was last season. I do not. But that's the essence of fantasy football. I hope it works out for clearcream. If it does, he can gloat.

 

[Wheelhouse]

We can talk all day long about Curtis, Bruce, McDonald, Martz, his game logs from last year, etc.

The Bottom line that has me and others interested...

3 TD in preseason including a long 78-yarder

14 targets week 1 vs. 6 targets for Bruce

3 end zone targets week 1

Wide open Rams offense

The fact that Kevin Curtis had 8 targets more than Bruce interests me the most. If the game was so wide open, why did the Rams and Bulger look to Curtis so much more than they did Bruce?

 

[Jason Wood]

Thinking of this another way...8 or 9 targets per game as you suggest = 128 to 144 targets over a 16-game schedule.

In 2004, only 15 WRs in the league were targeted 144 or more times, and only 21 got targeted 128 times or more.

http://apps.footballguys.com/wrtargetsfinal.cfm

1 Chad Johnson Cin 178 11.1 32.8% 95 53.4%

2 Laveranues Coles Was 173 10.8 32.6% 90 52.0%

3 Derrick Mason Ten 168 10.5 27.4% 96 57.1%

4 Muhsin  Muhammad Car 167 10.4 30.3% 93 55.7%

5 Darrell Jackson Sea 166 10.4 30.0% 87 52.4%

6 Joe Horn NO 159 9.9 28.6% 94 59.1%

7 Eric Moulds Buf 157 9.8 33.9% 88 56.1%

8 Isaac Bruce StL 155 9.7 25.8% 89 57.4%

9 Chris Chambers Mia 151 10.1 25.1% 69 45.7%

10 Marvin Harrison Ind 150 9.4 26.6% 86 57.3%

11 Drew Bennett Ten 148 9.3 24.1% 80 54.1%

12 Donald Driver GB 146 9.1 23.4% 84 57.5%

13 Javon Walker GB 146 9.1 23.4% 89 61.0%

14 Rod Smith Den 145 9.1 27.1% 79 54.5%

15 Jimmy Smith Jac 145 9.1 26.6% 74 51.0%

16 Jerry Porter Oak 143 8.9 23.6% 64 44.8%

17 Andre Johnson Hou 142 8.9 29.8% 79 55.6%

18 Torry Holt StL 141 8.8 23.5% 94 66.7%

19 Terrell Owens Phi 133 9.5 23.1% 77 57.9%

20 Michael Clayton TB 130 8.1 24.3% 80 61.5%

21 Reggie Wayne Ind 128 8.0 22.7% 77 60.2%

The point being that there is a good shot that KC will be top 20 target? 15 WR is a good chuck of WR, don't you think? You want WR who are targets or favored more than others, this looks to be the case with KC. Unlike most positions, it's virtually impossible to predict who will out-excel from their draft position given that WR MUST rely on their QB to excel. Unlike QB and RB, many WR get only a few targets a game which means less of a chance to score which means less of a chance to produce quality fantasy numbers. KC does not seem to me to fit what many other WR will go through, low target production. Will many targets result in scoring? Can't say. But what you can say is that if your QB in a passing offense with a crazy coach is willing to up the targets on a up and coming WR you can't dismiss that when he becomes a stud this year. You can't come back and throw stats that includes teams who don't attempt nearly the amount of passes thrown by STL and you can't compare stats from QB who dont have two established WR who are covered by players that leave the other WR being covered by a typically crappy DB. It's like trying to compare the run and shoot offense to a traditional PIT grind em up offense. Apples to Oranges.

ClearCream....15 WRs in TOTAL had as many targets as you envision KC getting. There are 32 NFL teams, each with 2 starting WRs...that's 64. More than half of the NUMBER ONES in the league didn't get that many targets. The notion that a WR3 would is bordering on the ridiculous.

Yes and many/most teams WR1 wouldn't be a WR2 for Indy or Rams. Just saying that there are many WR who shouldn't be part of a 64 list. A NUMBER ONE WR on a team does not equal stud WR. Again, WR rely on many other factors to produce. If Moss had a bottom tier QB with a bottom tier pass protecting O-line, Randy wouldn't be a stud WR in fantasy leagues.That said, again, you really can't compare this offense with ALL other offenses in the past for an apples to apples fair comparison.

Right...which is why when you look at what the RAMS have done in terms of targets and output the last few years their WR3 has fallen MASSIVELY short of any projections you've hinted at for KC

 

[Muahahaha]

From what I can tell, Bruce was covered by a better corner, Plummer. Bulger just threw to Curtis to exploit a mismatch out of 3WR sets. This isn't going to happen every week. This is an anomaly, not the rule.

 

[14464]

We can talk all day long about Curtis, Bruce, McDonald, Martz, his game logs from last year, etc.

The Bottom line that has me and others interested...

3 TD in preseason including a long 78-yarder

14 targets week 1 vs. 6 targets for Bruce

3 end zone targets week 1

Wide open Rams offense

The fact that Kevin Curtis had 8 targets more than Bruce interests me the most. If the game was so wide open, why did the Rams and Bulger look to Curtis so much more than they did Bruce?

I was wondering the same thing while watching the game. Time after time, Bulger would drop back and LOCKED IN on Curtis. I am more than willing to roll the dice and jump into the Bulger/Curtis love affair. Preseason only means something to me when trends stay the same. Yes, it's one game, but when Curtis dominated the preseason because Bulger and Martz made a strong effort to give him the ball, I don't see why they would pull the plug now. I love the 3 endzone targets the most.