Muhammad, Clayton, Horn, Burleson, Stokley (1 Viewer)

[Chase Stuart]

I looked at all WRs from 1985-2004 that scored at least 150 FPs in a season, and then played in no fewer than four less games the next year. Then I calculated the FP/G differential between the two years, and looked to see which WRs dropped off the most. Here's a list of the top ten:

Player Name         Yr1    Tm1   Age  FPYr1   GYr1 FP/GYr1  Yr2    Tm2  FPYr2   GYr2 FP/GYr2  DifferenceJerry Rice          1987   sfo   25   250.9   12   20.9     1988   sfo  201.3   16   12.6     -8.3Muhsin Muhammad     2004   car   31   238.0   16   14.9     2005   chi   99.0   15   6.6      -8.3Derrick Alexander   2000   kan   29   203.6   16   12.7     2001   kan   66.6   14   4.8      -8.0Michael Clayton     2004   tam   22   164.3   16   10.3     2005   tam   37.4   14   2.7      -7.6Joe Horn            2004   nor   32   205.9   16   12.9     2005   nor   71.4   13   5.5      -7.4Anthony Miller      1995   den   30   192.4   14   13.7     1996   den  101.4   16   6.3      -7.4Nate Burleson       2004   min   23   159.5   16   10.0     2005   min   38.2   12   3.2      -6.8Brandon Stokley     2004   ind   28   167.7   16   10.5     2005   ind   60.3   15   4.0      -6.5Antonio Freeman     1998   gnb   26   226.9   15   15.1     1999   gnb  143.2   16   8.9      -6.2Jerry Rice          1995   sfo   33   284.4   16   17.8     1996   sfo  187.1   16   11.7     -6.1

Curiously enough, five of the top seven WRs to see huge reductions were from 2004. Some of that is probably due the rule changes that increased league-wide passing in 2004. The question is, what can we expect out of these five guys? Who has the best chance to return to 2004 form? Most likely to stay at his 2005 level?

 

[Chase Stuart]

Of all WRs that met the original criteria, and who fell by at least 4.0 FP/G, only three since 1965 have then increased the third season by 4.0 FP/G compared to the second year: Terrell Owens, Donald Driver and Mark Clayton.

Terrell Owens   1998   12.8   7.1   16.0Donald Driver   2002   10.5   5.3   10.9Mark Clayton    1984   16.6   7.8   11.9

 

[LHUCKS]

I'll tell you the answer in a few weeks.

 

[Capt Hook]

No, No, No, Yes, No

 

[BassNBrew]

You'll have your answer in the odd rounds soon enough grasshopper.

 

[Franknbeans]

Good Clayton article

 

[TrueD]

Muhammad will on a contract year

 

[Captain Quinoa]

Muhammed - not in Chicago

Clayton - yes if healthy

Horn - probably not with Brees

Burleson - yes, going to a perfect situation

Stokely - probably not

 

[fsufan]

Bress makes Horn a top 10 WR this year

 

[fsufan]

Muhammed - not in Chicago

Clayton - yes if healthy

Horn - probably not with Brees

Burleson - yes, going to a perfect situation

Stokely - probably not

whyBress is one of the top 10 QBs in the NFL

 

[Captain Quinoa]

Muhammed - not in Chicago

Clayton - yes if healthy

Horn - probably not with BreesBurleson - yes, going to a perfect situation

Stokely - probably not

whyBress is one of the top 10 QBs in the NFL

not a great arm, especially coming off the injury. if he shows he can make the deep throw then yes Horn could rebound.

 

[shadyridr]

MM- agree, not in Chicago

Clayton- I think Simms likes Galloway better

Horn- I think he has a good year again, offense is too good not to

Burleson- see Horn

Stokley- no way, fluke 2 years ago in a ridiculous passing season by Manning

 

[joffer]

out of those choices, i only like Stokely. You can get him ridiculously late, and I like the Colts 2006 passing offense to more closely resemble 2004 than 2005.

 

[MLBrandow]

Yes on all of them. That was easy enough.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Any thoughts on why five of the seven biggest WRs bust over the last 25 years occurred last year?

 

[BassNBrew]

Any thoughts on why five of the seven biggest WRs bust over the last 25 years occurred last year?

Because 3 of the 5 were on my interboard challenge team. Clayton - injury

Horn - injury, huricane

Burleson - injury

Muhammad - change of teams, new contract already inked

Stokley - change in offensive philosophy

 

[The Jerk]

Any thoughts on why five of the seven biggest WRs bust over the last 25 years occurred last year?

Chase,I don't think there is any ONE reason.

From the moment Muhammad went to the Bears, his totals seemed certain to go down. Of course, he had a career year in 2004 anyway. But when Grossman got hurt, his downward trend was sealed.

Clayton and Burleson were never really healthy, and both starting QBs got hurt. In the case of Burleson, however, it appears that the loss of Moss would have hurt his numbers even more than the worst-case scenarios of last Aguust.

Horn was dealing with the aftermath of Katrina and the loss of Deuce McAllister on top of it.

Stokley was injured in the preseason and the NFL reacted to Manning's record-setting 2004 by changing the defensive game plan vs. the Colts.

So Clayton, Burleson and Stokley were all injured either before or early in the season. Horn, Muhammad and Burleson (again, due to the Moss departure) each ended up on a very different team than the year before. If you want to force a unifying aspect, I'd go with the fact that each of these WR faced major changes to the situations they had in 2004 when they had their great successes.

The lesson heading into 2006 is do not ignore the obvious changes (as in the case of Muhammad and Horn) and pay attention to offseason injuries (Stokley, Clayton). And don't assume that the loss of a top player leads to more opportunities for those remaining (Burleson).

Who fits these categories?

Known preseason injuries: Carson Palmer and all of the Bengals assume additional risk.

Known changes to situation: Edge might be this year's Muhammad.

Personnel changes that might hurt more than expected: Seahawks losing Hutchinson and Jurevicius, LJ losing two blockers and a head coach, LT with a new QB.

But...

the beauty of FF is you cannot be sure history repeats itself. The choices individual owners make in their assessments of the Bengals and Seahawks, Edge/LJ/LT are likely to define their seasons. Choose wisely, and you're the team to beat. Choose poorly and you have your hands full being .500

What is really unusual is that the top 3 picks all fit in this conversation.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Any thoughts on why five of the seven biggest WRs bust over the last 25 years occurred last year?

Because 3 of the 5 were on my interboard challenge team. Clayton - injury

Horn - injury, huricane

Burleson - injury

Horn, Clayton and Burleson combined to play 48 games, catch 242 passes for 3,598 yards and score 27 TDs in 2004. In 2005 they combined to play 39 games and caught 111 passes for 1354 yards and 2 TDs. Don't you think just saying "injury" grossly oversimplifies it? These were historic collapses. Lots of players get nicked up. They dont go from averaging 81/1200/9 to 37/451/1 because they miss three games. Dropping by over 7 FPs/game is enormous.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Any thoughts on why five of the seven biggest WRs bust over the last 25 years occurred last year?

Chase,I don't think there is any ONE reason.

From the moment Muhammad went to the Bears, his totals seemed certain to go down. Of course, he had a career year in 2004 anyway. But when Grossman got hurt, his downward trend was sealed.

I don't disagree. But there's a difference between having your totals destined to go down, and having your points decline more than any other receiver in the last twenty years.Maybe it's a big coincidence, maybe not, but seeing five of the biggest seven WR declines of the last 20 years happen in one season really caught my eye. It's not every day that players go from the 16th best WR to the 93rd; the 3rd to the 56th; the 13th to the 94th; the 11th to the 69th; and the 1st to the 37th.

Usually when it happens, it's because of injury (Germane Crowell - 8th to 63rd). But all of those guys played at least 12 games in 2005. For Joe Horn to remain relatively healthy and be terribly ineffective is odd.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Clayton - yes if healthy

Stokely - probably not

Here's something interesting:2004: Stokley: 68-1077-10

2004: Clayton: 80-1193-7

2005: Stokley: 41-543-1

2005: Clayton: 32-372-0

Stokley has been the better fantasy WR each of the past two seasons.

 

[The Jerk]

Any thoughts on why five of the seven biggest WRs bust over the last 25 years occurred last year?

Chase,I don't think there is any ONE reason.

From the moment Muhammad went to the Bears, his totals seemed certain to go down. Of course, he had a career year in 2004 anyway. But when Grossman got hurt, his downward trend was sealed.

I don't disagree. But there's a difference between having your totals destined to go down, and having your points decline more than any other receiver in the last twenty years.Maybe it's a big coincidence, maybe not, but seeing five of the biggest seven WR declines of the last 20 years happen in one season really caught my eye. It's not every day that players go from the 16th best WR to the 93rd; the 3rd to the 56th; the 13th to the 94th; the 11th to the 69th; and the 1st to the 37th.

Usually when it happens, it's because of injury (Germane Crowell - 8th to 63rd). But all of those guys played at least 12 games in 2005. For Joe Horn to remain relatively healthy and be terribly ineffective is odd.

Chase,Your focus on Muhammad misses the bigger picture.

I think the inflated 2004 passing numbers is a big part of this five-player decline. Manning and Culpepper both were unbelievable for the whole season (Stokley and Burleson greatly inflated) and the Panthers went on that late season tear. The Delhomme/Muhammad connection was ridiculous late in '04.

The fact Clayton by his own acknowledgement didn't rehab well and the Katrina situation belongs to 2005, but if you parse these separately, than it's more about 2004 than 2005.

If you're still not even slightly convinced, then perhaps the whole point is that there is no one correlation among the marked decline of these five players in 2005.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Any thoughts on why five of the seven biggest WRs bust over the last 25 years occurred last year?

Chase,I don't think there is any ONE reason.

From the moment Muhammad went to the Bears, his totals seemed certain to go down. Of course, he had a career year in 2004 anyway. But when Grossman got hurt, his downward trend was sealed.

I don't disagree. But there's a difference between having your totals destined to go down, and having your points decline more than any other receiver in the last twenty years.Maybe it's a big coincidence, maybe not, but seeing five of the biggest seven WR declines of the last 20 years happen in one season really caught my eye. It's not every day that players go from the 16th best WR to the 93rd; the 3rd to the 56th; the 13th to the 94th; the 11th to the 69th; and the 1st to the 37th.

Usually when it happens, it's because of injury (Germane Crowell - 8th to 63rd). But all of those guys played at least 12 games in 2005. For Joe Horn to remain relatively healthy and be terribly ineffective is odd.

Chase,Your focus on Muhammad misses the bigger picture.

I think the inflated 2004 passing numbers is a big part of this five-player decline. Manning and Culpepper both were unbelievable for the whole season (Stokley and Burleson greatly inflated) and the Panthers went on that late season tear. The Delhomme/Muhammad connection was ridiculous late in '04.

The fact Clayton by his own acknowledgement didn't rehab well and the Katrina situation belongs to 2005, but if you parse these separately, than it's more about 2004 than 2005.

If you're still not even slightly convinced, then perhaps the whole point is that there is no one correlation among the marked decline of these five players in 2005.

I agree that the inflated 2004 passing numbers plays a big part in this, although obviously it doesn't explain everything. Passing numbers dropped in 2005 to be sure, but they didn't drop by 400%. Maybe there's nothing to it and it is just an anomoly. Either way it's something to keep the stat geeks up late at night.

 

[The Jerk]

Any thoughts on why five of the seven biggest WRs bust over the last 25 years occurred last year?

Chase,I don't think there is any ONE reason.

From the moment Muhammad went to the Bears, his totals seemed certain to go down. Of course, he had a career year in 2004 anyway. But when Grossman got hurt, his downward trend was sealed.

I don't disagree. But there's a difference between having your totals destined to go down, and having your points decline more than any other receiver in the last twenty years.Maybe it's a big coincidence, maybe not, but seeing five of the biggest seven WR declines of the last 20 years happen in one season really caught my eye. It's not every day that players go from the 16th best WR to the 93rd; the 3rd to the 56th; the 13th to the 94th; the 11th to the 69th; and the 1st to the 37th.

Usually when it happens, it's because of injury (Germane Crowell - 8th to 63rd). But all of those guys played at least 12 games in 2005. For Joe Horn to remain relatively healthy and be terribly ineffective is odd.

Chase,Your focus on Muhammad misses the bigger picture.

I think the inflated 2004 passing numbers is a big part of this five-player decline. Manning and Culpepper both were unbelievable for the whole season (Stokley and Burleson greatly inflated) and the Panthers went on that late season tear. The Delhomme/Muhammad connection was ridiculous late in '04.

The fact Clayton by his own acknowledgement didn't rehab well and the Katrina situation belongs to 2005, but if you parse these separately, than it's more about 2004 than 2005.

If you're still not even slightly convinced, then perhaps the whole point is that there is no one correlation among the marked decline of these five players in 2005.

I agree that the inflated 2004 passing numbers plays a big part in this, although obviously it doesn't explain everything. Passing numbers dropped in 2005 to be sure, but they didn't drop by 400%. Maybe there's nothing to it and it is just an anomoly. Either way it's something to keep the stat geeks up late at night.

There is a real downside to mathematical and predictive inference drawing when it comes to predicting the next season. As the financial disclaimers go, "past performance is not indicative of future success" or something like that. Look no further than the 2005 postseason. No #5 or #6 seed had made it to the conference championship game prior to last year. If you relied on that to predict the winners of the wild card and divisional games, you didn't do to well...I try to understand these big picture trends (i.e., 3rd year WR breakout, etc.) but you have to analyze the individual player situation, too. Hope I'm not being Mr. Obvious here, but I've found my best FF success occurs when I find a healthy balance between stats research/trends and instinct/gut feeling.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Any thoughts on why five of the seven biggest WRs bust over the last 25 years occurred last year?

Chase,I don't think there is any ONE reason.

From the moment Muhammad went to the Bears, his totals seemed certain to go down. Of course, he had a career year in 2004 anyway. But when Grossman got hurt, his downward trend was sealed.

I don't disagree. But there's a difference between having your totals destined to go down, and having your points decline more than any other receiver in the last twenty years.Maybe it's a big coincidence, maybe not, but seeing five of the biggest seven WR declines of the last 20 years happen in one season really caught my eye. It's not every day that players go from the 16th best WR to the 93rd; the 3rd to the 56th; the 13th to the 94th; the 11th to the 69th; and the 1st to the 37th.

Usually when it happens, it's because of injury (Germane Crowell - 8th to 63rd). But all of those guys played at least 12 games in 2005. For Joe Horn to remain relatively healthy and be terribly ineffective is odd.

Chase,Your focus on Muhammad misses the bigger picture.

I think the inflated 2004 passing numbers is a big part of this five-player decline. Manning and Culpepper both were unbelievable for the whole season (Stokley and Burleson greatly inflated) and the Panthers went on that late season tear. The Delhomme/Muhammad connection was ridiculous late in '04.

The fact Clayton by his own acknowledgement didn't rehab well and the Katrina situation belongs to 2005, but if you parse these separately, than it's more about 2004 than 2005.

If you're still not even slightly convinced, then perhaps the whole point is that there is no one correlation among the marked decline of these five players in 2005.

I agree that the inflated 2004 passing numbers plays a big part in this, although obviously it doesn't explain everything. Passing numbers dropped in 2005 to be sure, but they didn't drop by 400%. Maybe there's nothing to it and it is just an anomoly. Either way it's something to keep the stat geeks up late at night.

There is a real downside to mathematical and predictive inference drawing when it comes to predicting the next season. As the financial disclaimers go, "past performance is not indicative of future success" or something like that. Look no further than the 2005 postseason. No #5 or #6 seed had made it to the conference championship game prior to last year. If you relied on that to predict the winners of the wild card and divisional games, you didn't do to well...I try to understand these big picture trends (i.e., 3rd year WR breakout, etc.) but you have to analyze the individual player situation, too. Hope I'm not being Mr. Obvious here, but I've found my best FF success occurs when I find a healthy balance between stats research/trends and instinct/gut feeling.

Fair enough. Keep doing whatever works for you. Like I said I was writing up the Muhsin Muhammad face-off when I thought it would be interesting to see just how big of a decline Muhammad had last year. I figured it was one of the biggest of all time, and it was. I cut the list down to the last 20 years. What shocked me was seeing all the guys from 2004 right at the front of the list.

 

[BassNBrew]

Any thoughts on why five of the seven biggest WRs bust over the last 25 years occurred last year?

Because 3 of the 5 were on my interboard challenge team. Clayton - injury

Horn - injury, huricane

Burleson - injury

Horn, Clayton and Burleson combined to play 48 games, catch 242 passes for 3,598 yards and score 27 TDs in 2004. In 2005 they combined to play 39 games and caught 111 passes for 1354 yards and 2 TDs. Don't you think just saying "injury" grossly oversimplifies it? These were historic collapses. Lots of players get nicked up. They dont go from averaging 81/1200/9 to 37/451/1 because they miss three games. Dropping by over 7 FPs/game is enormous.

I think you're grossly underestimating the severity of these injuries. I recall several times where a nagging injury has turned a top flight WR into a decoy during the season once an injury occurs.

 

[The Jerk]

Any thoughts on why five of the seven biggest WRs bust over the last 25 years occurred last year?

Chase,I don't think there is any ONE reason.

From the moment Muhammad went to the Bears, his totals seemed certain to go down. Of course, he had a career year in 2004 anyway. But when Grossman got hurt, his downward trend was sealed.

I don't disagree. But there's a difference between having your totals destined to go down, and having your points decline more than any other receiver in the last twenty years.Maybe it's a big coincidence, maybe not, but seeing five of the biggest seven WR declines of the last 20 years happen in one season really caught my eye. It's not every day that players go from the 16th best WR to the 93rd; the 3rd to the 56th; the 13th to the 94th; the 11th to the 69th; and the 1st to the 37th.

Usually when it happens, it's because of injury (Germane Crowell - 8th to 63rd). But all of those guys played at least 12 games in 2005. For Joe Horn to remain relatively healthy and be terribly ineffective is odd.

Chase,Your focus on Muhammad misses the bigger picture.

I think the inflated 2004 passing numbers is a big part of this five-player decline. Manning and Culpepper both were unbelievable for the whole season (Stokley and Burleson greatly inflated) and the Panthers went on that late season tear. The Delhomme/Muhammad connection was ridiculous late in '04.

The fact Clayton by his own acknowledgement didn't rehab well and the Katrina situation belongs to 2005, but if you parse these separately, than it's more about 2004 than 2005.

If you're still not even slightly convinced, then perhaps the whole point is that there is no one correlation among the marked decline of these five players in 2005.

I agree that the inflated 2004 passing numbers plays a big part in this, although obviously it doesn't explain everything. Passing numbers dropped in 2005 to be sure, but they didn't drop by 400%. Maybe there's nothing to it and it is just an anomoly. Either way it's something to keep the stat geeks up late at night.

There is a real downside to mathematical and predictive inference drawing when it comes to predicting the next season. As the financial disclaimers go, "past performance is not indicative of future success" or something like that. Look no further than the 2005 postseason. No #5 or #6 seed had made it to the conference championship game prior to last year. If you relied on that to predict the winners of the wild card and divisional games, you didn't do to well...I try to understand these big picture trends (i.e., 3rd year WR breakout, etc.) but you have to analyze the individual player situation, too. Hope I'm not being Mr. Obvious here, but I've found my best FF success occurs when I find a healthy balance between stats research/trends and instinct/gut feeling.

Fair enough. Keep doing whatever works for you. Like I said I was writing up the Muhsin Muhammad face-off when I thought it would be interesting to see just how big of a decline Muhammad had last year. I figured it was one of the biggest of all time, and it was. I cut the list down to the last 20 years. What shocked me was seeing all the guys from 2004 right at the front of the list.

Thanks for bringing it up, Chase! Good information like this is essential to helping me find that balance I described. Maybe it's not "instinct" as much as it is educated guessing. Threads like these are where I get some of my education.

 

[BassNBrew]

Any thoughts on why five of the seven biggest WRs bust over the last 25 years occurred last year?

Chase,I don't think there is any ONE reason.

From the moment Muhammad went to the Bears, his totals seemed certain to go down. Of course, he had a career year in 2004 anyway. But when Grossman got hurt, his downward trend was sealed.

I don't disagree. But there's a difference between having your totals destined to go down, and having your points decline more than any other receiver in the last twenty years.Maybe it's a big coincidence, maybe not, but seeing five of the biggest seven WR declines of the last 20 years happen in one season really caught my eye. It's not every day that players go from the 16th best WR to the 93rd; the 3rd to the 56th; the 13th to the 94th; the 11th to the 69th; and the 1st to the 37th.

Usually when it happens, it's because of injury (Germane Crowell - 8th to 63rd). But all of those guys played at least 12 games in 2005. For Joe Horn to remain relatively healthy and be terribly ineffective is odd.

Chase,Your focus on Muhammad misses the bigger picture.

I think the inflated 2004 passing numbers is a big part of this five-player decline. Manning and Culpepper both were unbelievable for the whole season (Stokley and Burleson greatly inflated) and the Panthers went on that late season tear. The Delhomme/Muhammad connection was ridiculous late in '04.

The fact Clayton by his own acknowledgement didn't rehab well and the Katrina situation belongs to 2005, but if you parse these separately, than it's more about 2004 than 2005.

If you're still not even slightly convinced, then perhaps the whole point is that there is no one correlation among the marked decline of these five players in 2005.

I agree that the inflated 2004 passing numbers plays a big part in this, although obviously it doesn't explain everything. Passing numbers dropped in 2005 to be sure, but they didn't drop by 400%. Maybe there's nothing to it and it is just an anomoly. Either way it's something to keep the stat geeks up late at night.

There is a real downside to mathematical and predictive inference drawing when it comes to predicting the next season. As the financial disclaimers go, "past performance is not indicative of future success" or something like that. Look no further than the 2005 postseason. No #5 or #6 seed had made it to the conference championship game prior to last year. If you relied on that to predict the winners of the wild card and divisional games, you didn't do to well...I try to understand these big picture trends (i.e., 3rd year WR breakout, etc.) but you have to analyze the individual player situation, too. Hope I'm not being Mr. Obvious here, but I've found my best FF success occurs when I find a healthy balance between stats research/trends and instinct/gut feeling.

Fair enough. Keep doing whatever works for you. Like I said I was writing up the Muhsin Muhammad face-off when I thought it would be interesting to see just how big of a decline Muhammad had last year. I figured it was one of the biggest of all time, and it was. I cut the list down to the last 20 years. What shocked me was seeing all the guys from 2004 right at the front of the list.

FYI...The Muhammad decline was easily predicted and there was plenty of historical reference to assit with the prediction.

 

[Super King]

out of those choices, i only like Stokely. You can get him ridiculously late, and I like the Colts 2006 passing offense to more closely resemble 2004 than 2005.

im totally on board with you on this. i expect at least 900/6 as the 3rd. if wayne or harrison get hurt then more like 1200/9. running game isnt going to have the impact it did with edge gone

 

[SSOG]

I think, if you're asking if Stokley can rebound, you're asking the wrong question.

The question isn't whether Stokley can rebound. It's whether Manning can rebound. Stokley is ultimately still just a WR3, and his value is going to have very little to do with his ability and rather a lot to do with the guy who gets him the ball.

 

[Sigfawn]

I think, if you're asking if Stokley can rebound, you're asking the wrong question.

The question isn't whether Stokley can rebound. It's whether Manning can rebound. Stokley is ultimately still just a WR3, and his value is going to have very little to do with his ability and rather a lot to do with the guy who gets him the ball.

Rebound? Manning pretty much put up his career averages. Edge cut into his yardage a little, but his TDs/INTs are what you'd expect.If you mean rebound to set another TD record, no I don't think he's going to pass for 50 TDs. But 28/10 4k yardages is pretty much what he does year in year out. Manning didn't have a down year. People expected 40 TDs, which was unrealistic.

 

[saintfool]

Usually when it happens, it's because of injury (Germane Crowell - 8th to 63rd). But all of those guys played at least 12 games in 2005. For Joe Horn to remain relatively healthy and be terribly ineffective is odd.

Horn missed games (3) for injury but also the QB change (Bouman for Brooks) effectively killed the offense the last 3 games of the year. Horn's injury - hamstring - made him less than effective, for far longer than games played.I think Joe rebounds. Brees doesn't have the arm that Brooks had. However, if the passing game changes to suit Brees' strengths it will be a lot of short passes. Joe's never been averse to working the middle of the field or taking a hit. He's still the #1 redzone threat for the Saints until proven otherwise.

 

[Franknbeans]

Any thoughts on why five of the seven biggest WRs bust over the last 25 years occurred last year?

Chase,I don't think there is any ONE reason.

From the moment Muhammad went to the Bears, his totals seemed certain to go down. Of course, he had a career year in 2004 anyway. But when Grossman got hurt, his downward trend was sealed.

I don't disagree. But there's a difference between having your totals destined to go down, and having your points decline more than any other receiver in the last twenty years.Maybe it's a big coincidence, maybe not, but seeing five of the biggest seven WR declines of the last 20 years happen in one season really caught my eye. It's not every day that players go from the 16th best WR to the 93rd; the 3rd to the 56th; the 13th to the 94th; the 11th to the 69th; and the 1st to the 37th.

Usually when it happens, it's because of injury (Germane Crowell - 8th to 63rd). But all of those guys played at least 12 games in 2005. For Joe Horn to remain relatively healthy and be terribly ineffective is odd.

Chase,Your focus on Muhammad misses the bigger picture.

I think the inflated 2004 passing numbers is a big part of this five-player decline. Manning and Culpepper both were unbelievable for the whole season (Stokley and Burleson greatly inflated) and the Panthers went on that late season tear. The Delhomme/Muhammad connection was ridiculous late in '04.

The fact Clayton by his own acknowledgement didn't rehab well and the Katrina situation belongs to 2005, but if you parse these separately, than it's more about 2004 than 2005.

If you're still not even slightly convinced, then perhaps the whole point is that there is no one correlation among the marked decline of these five players in 2005.

I agree that the inflated 2004 passing numbers plays a big part in this, although obviously it doesn't explain everything. Passing numbers dropped in 2005 to be sure, but they didn't drop by 400%. Maybe there's nothing to it and it is just an anomoly. Either way it's something to keep the stat geeks up late at night.

There is a real downside to mathematical and predictive inference drawing when it comes to predicting the next season. As the financial disclaimers go, "past performance is not indicative of future success" or something like that. Look no further than the 2005 postseason. No #5 or #6 seed had made it to the conference championship game prior to last year. If you relied on that to predict the winners of the wild card and divisional games, you didn't do to well...I try to understand these big picture trends (i.e., 3rd year WR breakout, etc.) but you have to analyze the individual player situation, too. Hope I'm not being Mr. Obvious here, but I've found my best FF success occurs when I find a healthy balance between stats research/trends and instinct/gut feeling.

Fair enough. Keep doing whatever works for you. Like I said I was writing up the Muhsin Muhammad face-off when I thought it would be interesting to see just how big of a decline Muhammad had last year. I figured it was one of the biggest of all time, and it was. I cut the list down to the last 20 years. What shocked me was seeing all the guys from 2004 right at the front of the list.

FYI...The Muhammad decline was easily predicted and there was plenty of historical reference to assit with the prediction.

Agreed. It seems rare for any receiver to change teams and produce at their historic level.

 

[sholditch]

Muhammed: Should rebound a little. His targets were right where they should have been last year and on par with most WR1s in the league. Trouble was, everyone on the field knew that it was going to Muhammed on passing plays ninety percent of the time, partially because there were no other major receiving threats, but also because Orton was rookie and didn't go all the way through his checkdowns, at least IMHO. The emergence of Bradley and having Grossman/Greise under center should help get him back above 1000 and likely 6+ TDs, which is a moderate uptick. Could become a solid WR2, but will never be a true fantasy WR1 in Chicago.

Clayton: He basically has to bounce back or quit the league. If healthy he should post solid WR2 numbers. If Galloway goes down and there's no one to take the pressure off, expect limited production.

Horn: Really hard to say. The injuries that kept him out so long last year were of the lingering type that most young receivers could have recovered from more quickly. He should post better numbers, but I would take the mean of the 04 and 05 seasons and use that as a projection.

Stokely: Will likely get back to about 850 and 5, but not any better as I don't see Peyton throwing 49 TDs in 06. He could approach 35 however.

Burleson: I've never been very high on him and it will be interesting to see how the battle between he and Engram plays out. Everyone assumes the no. 2 role is his, but I could see their production being quite similar.

 

[Banger]

I think you had several coincidental events occur in the same year.

Horn - a historical top wr struggled with a hammy injury all year. He's a gamer and tried to play but was ineffective. See Isaac Bruce 4 years ago....

Muhammad - he came off a career year and went to the worst passing offense in the league (with a healthy qb). His #'s will bounce up slightly but not near his Carolina days. His drop was not surprising at all.

Stokely - benefitted enormously from Manning's record setting year. The writing was on the wall last year for a huge dropoff so that's really not surprising.

Clayton - was injured and his rookie #'s were distorted due to Galloways injury. He will improve this year but not to his rookie level.

Burleson - was injured and the Vikes changed substantially from the prior year. I expect a good year from him this year in Seattle playing 2nd fiddle to Djax.

Of all the wr's I'd put money down on Horn to bounce back. He's been too good and too consistent and the reason for the decline was the hammy plain and simple.

 

[SSOG]

I think, if you're asking if Stokley can rebound, you're asking the wrong question.

The question isn't whether Stokley can rebound. It's whether Manning can rebound. Stokley is ultimately still just a WR3, and his value is going to have very little to do with his ability and rather a lot to do with the guy who gets him the ball.

Rebound? Manning pretty much put up his career averages. Edge cut into his yardage a little, but his TDs/INTs are what you'd expect.If you mean rebound to set another TD record, no I don't think he's going to pass for 50 TDs. But 28/10 4k yardages is pretty much what he does year in year out. Manning didn't have a down year. People expected 40 TDs, which was unrealistic.

I don't disagree, but remember that Stokley had a record setting year, as well (first #3 WR in history to get 1,000 yards and 10 scores). If we can talk about "Will Stokley 'rebound' to his record-setting form", then we're really talking about "Will Manning 'rebound' to his record-setting form".I view 2004 as one of the biggest fluke years in fantasy football. I very much doubt that I will ever in my lifetime see another fantasy season where a team's WR3 finishes in the top 12.