Interseptopus
Footballguy
!
Last edited by a moderator:
Basically just looks at how big of a part of the teams passing game the player received-since college football offenses can vary widely in scheme and success. Oklahoma threw the ball 400 times last year, Georgia Tech threw 126 passes. The dominator is just is a way of evening the playing field.wgoldsph said:Explain "dominator" please
People have been using this stuff for almost a decade now. There is plenty of evidence to create minimum thresholds for success. Yes, there are outliers, like Tyreek Hill, but you increase your success by playing within the thresholds.ÂThe evidence provided of the 2017 WR draft class  is a small sample size. Too small to draw any conclusions from.
The OP states there is data going back the past ten years?The evidence provided of the 2017 WR draft class  is a small sample size. Too small to draw any conclusions from.
I'm with you, I really can't see any of that actually meaning much.Numbers and stats? What about this “gut feeling” I’m always having? Where do I factor in gut %?
I've got 73/92 = 79% not 74%. Which only helps the case you're making. Good work.ÂAlright... I ran the data for the last 10 years, 2008 through 2018. Any WR who finished in the top 12 for the season in PPR:
Davante Adams: 74th/40.7%
Keenan Allen: 98th/49.5%
Miles Austin: 99th/48.0%
Doug Baldwin (EXCEPTION): 65th/27.0%
Odell Beckham Jr: 70th/34.5%
Anquan Boldin: 67th/41.2%
Dwayne Bowe (EXCEPTION): 38th/35.4%
Antonio Brown: 87th/32.8%
Antonio Bryant: Unable to find
Dez Bryant: 92nd/62.5%
Randall Cobb (EXCEPTION): 63rd/28.2%
Marques Colston: 85th/34.6%
Brandin Cooks: 91st/39.8%
Michael Crabtree: 64th/34.3%
Victor Cruz (EXCEPTION): 19th/39.9%
Eric Decker: 52nd/44.5%
Mike Evans: 89th/30.2%
Larry Fitzgerald: 90th/51.3%
A.J. Green: 61st/42.4%
Josh Gordon (EXCEPTION):82nd/25.0%
Percy Harvin (EXCEPTION): 84th/21.4%
T.Y. Hilton: 93rd/41.9%
Tyreek Hill (EXCEPTION): NA/19.4%
DeAndre Hopkins: 99th/39.3%
DeSean Jackson: 94th/32.1%
Vincent Jackson (EXCEPTION): 47th/70.3%
Alshon Jeffery: 77th/39.7%
Greg Jennings (EXCEPTION):Â 17th/47.5%
Andre Johnson (EXCEPTION): 60th/28.8%
Calvin Johnson: 66th/55.3%
Steve Johnson (EXCEPTION):Â 35th/30.3%
Julio Jones: 77th/34.4%
Marvin Jones (EXCEPTION): 80th/26.3%
Jarvis Landry: 71st/40.0%
Brandon Lloyd: 59th/32.2%
Tyler Lockett 66th/44.2%
Jeremy Maclin (EXCEPTION): 83rd/29.5%
Brandon Marshall (EXCEPTION): 27th/42.5%
Rishard Matthews (EXCEPTION): 40th/44.1%
Randy Moss: Unable to find
Jordy Nelson: 57th/49.6%
Hakeem Nicks: 96th/52.2%
Terrell Owens: Unable to find
Sidney Rice: 90th/47.0%
Allen Robinson: 90th/37.9%
Emmanuel Sanders: 80th/34.2%
JuJu Smith-Schuster: 94th/31.9%
Steve Smith: 55th/31.0%
Demaryius Thomas: 74th/70.9%
Adam Thielen: 63rd/45.9%
Michael Thomas (EXCEPTION):25th/39.6%
Mike Wallace (EXCEPTION): 61st/29.6%
Reggie Wayne: 93rd/32.1%
Wes Welker (EXCEPTION): 55th/17.4%
Roddy White (EXCEPTION): 41st/50.5%
Robert Woods: 98th/31.6%
Total with data: 73
Exceptions: 19
Percentage: 74%
Data still shows that chances are higher than you have a WR1 with both of these metrics.
You could lower the Dominator threshold a little bit (25%) and capture 83.5% of the players.
Since 2014 as stated in the article. 5 years.People have been using this stuff for almost a decade now. There is plenty of evidence to create minimum thresholds for success. Yes, there are outliers, like Tyreek Hill, but you increase your success by playing within the thresholds.Â
Then why not use that instead of talking about 2017?The OP states there is data going back the past ten years?
Thanks for all the leg work on this. Extending beyond the earlier picks, this is also useful to see who might be on the fringe and worth looking into to for the mid and later pick dart throws. For example, Parris Campbell is 34th percentile and 23% dominator score. Looking at his situation, he was in an offense with a lot of talented skill players, which might explain a lower dominator score. Similarly, with a log jam of talent at OSU over the years, he may not have had opportunity until he was older. He may be a player that is higher on someone's rankings accordingly.Players who did not:
Boykin, Miles: 18th percentile age, 30.1% dominator
Brown, Marquis: 31st percentile age, 26.2% dominator
Butler, Hakeem: 30th percentile age, 43.5% dominator
Campbell, Parris: 34th percentile age, 23.5% dominator
Harmon, Kelvin: 31st percentile age, 31.2% dominator
Ridley, Riley: 14th percentile age, 22.2% dominator
Samuel, Deebo: 27th percentile age, 27.2% dominator
McLaurin, Terry: NA percentile age, 17.7% dominator
I didn’t read the article. In fact, I don’t put too much stock into what any one person says anymore. Looking at Ridley with what I know today, surface level production was a quality product with concerns of BMI and Age. Final season >28% dominator, breakout age 20.7, speed score 63rd percentile (can be a moving target if a player is a slot reciever). That BMI of 24.9 is very concerning and suggests fragility will occur. Also you’re going to be looking at the Stering Shepard effect with Ridley if he doesn’t take an immediate step this year. By comparison Donte Moncrief is only a half year older than Ridley on his third NFL contract.  People will start claiming he is old before he is even off his rookie contract which will expeditiously lower his value if there isn’t a major breakout before 26. In other words he was and still is a higher risk than DJ Moore, Cam Sutton or Christian Kirk. I would say his rookie year production would have to place him over James Washington though.ÂSince 2014 as stated in the article. 5 years.
I think the logic behind this is pretty sound however I'm not very convinced by the nuts and bolts demonstrated.
The main point of the article was that only 2 of the top 24 WR in 2017 had a breakout age below 50%
That would be more meaningful if you looked at the top 24 of the last 5 seasons. Is 2017 favorable to the argument that break out age is of critical importance? Or is this a normal distribution every year?
I dont know. Maybe looking at a larger sample size makes an even stronger case.
The point is that the author is pushing an idea of analytics but makes a antedoctal argument.
That's fishy.
Then the article goes on to say how Ridley is being over valued and his low college production is a clear sign of why he won't be good in the NFL.
Oops
My formula agrees with the majority of these.Players who made the cut:
Arcega-Whiteside, JJ: 74th percentile age, 42.7% dominator
Brown, A.J.: 59th percentile age, 32.6% dominator
Hall, Emanuel: 56th percentile age, 35.7% dominator
Harry, N’Keal: 95th percentile age, 43.9% dominator
Humphrey, Lil’Jordan: 54th percentile age, 32.3% dominator
Isabella, Andy: 71st percentile age, 52.2% dominator
Metcalf, D.K.: 72nd percentile age, 32.1% dominator 
Players who did not:
Boykin, Miles: 18th percentile age, 30.1% dominator
Brown, Marquis: 31st percentile age, 26.2% dominator
Butler, Hakeem: 30th percentile age, 43.5% dominator
Campbell, Parris: 34th percentile age, 23.5% dominator
Harmon, Kelvin: 31st percentile age, 31.2% dominator
Ridley, Riley: 14th percentile age, 22.2% dominator
Samuel, Deebo: 27th percentile age, 27.2% dominator
McLaurin, Terry: NA percentile age, 17.7% dominator
Not really a surprise since the high profile guys are high profile for a reason.  The more useful aspect is discounting highly rated players that don't make the cut and vice versa.I find this interesting because the "made the cut" list contains 4 of my top 5.Â
Theres definitely more to it than over simplifying with 2 stats to create a hard cut off, but it sure shows some correlation.Â
I can always use ZWKs sheet... which I'm more encouraged after hearing it liked Miller a lot. After doing this I was a little bummed that Miller didnt make the cut from 2018s class, but I have high hopes for him to be an exception
I'm sure many. in 2017 there were wr2s that met the criteria.Â
My evidence based practice health care mind is looking at this differently than you and most are:
Sensitivity vs specificity. A study with a high sensitivity does a great job ruling something OUT. A study with high specificity does a great job ruling something IN. MRIs are a great example: they have a 96ish percent specificity (if it finds a tear on your MRI theres a 96% chance you have a tear), but it has a very very low (25%ish) sensitivity: if it shows you dont have a tear there is a 25% chance you do not have a tear. Most people dont realize this about MRIs and your MD is unlikely to tell you because it costs 3k. I digress...
I see this method as having a high SENSITIVITY: it does a great job at ruling OUT those who are unlikely to become WR1s rather than ruling them IN. That's why I said ablve: not all WRs who meet this threshold become wr1s, but almost all wr1s meet this threshold.Â
The reason I like this method: there is no fool proof way to predict a hit, so maybe working backwards is the better approach; why not focus on minimizing the misses rather than maximizing the hits?Â
We have threads dedicated toward bashing analysists who "get it wrong," and we say "well everyone has misses." My rationale is of you can minimize the misses then maybe you're doing better than those trying to predict the hits.Â
Maybe we are looking for a method with highspecificity, and missing the methods with high sensitivity
This method will give you insight on who to avoid, rather than who to pick.Â
How many college WRs met your criteria and didn’t become WR1s (or even pro WRs for that matter)?  I looks to me like you’re working backwards from the conclusion.  If your conclusion is going to be reliable, shouldn’t you work from front to back?  That’s the way you’re intending to use it for future WRs, right?
I feel like the bolded in the OP already addressed the concern. Nobody here is making the claim that meeting the criteria will result in a WR1 in the NFL.ÂIf true, I take this as: not everyone who meets the above criteria becomes a top 10-15 WR, but almost every top 10-15 WR meets the above criteria. Basically, if you're going to draft a WR round 1, you've got a better chance at landing a future WR1 if you can check both of these boxes than if you can't.Â
Did a little thought experiment to narrow the focus a bit.Alright... I ran the data for the last 10 years, 2008 through 2018. Any WR who finished in the top 12 for the season in PPR:
Davante Adams: 74th/40.7%
Keenan Allen: 98th/49.5%
Miles Austin: 99th/48.0%
Doug Baldwin (EXCEPTION): 65th/27.0%
Odell Beckham Jr: 70th/34.5%
Anquan Boldin: 67th/41.2%
Dwayne Bowe (EXCEPTION): 38th/35.4%
Antonio Brown: 87th/32.8%
Antonio Bryant: Unable to find
Dez Bryant: 92nd/62.5%
Randall Cobb (EXCEPTION): 63rd/28.2%
Marques Colston: 85th/34.6%
Brandin Cooks: 91st/39.8%
Michael Crabtree: 64th/34.3%
Victor Cruz (EXCEPTION): 19th/39.9%
Eric Decker: 52nd/44.5%
Mike Evans: 89th/30.2%
Larry Fitzgerald: 90th/51.3%
A.J. Green: 61st/42.4%
Josh Gordon (EXCEPTION):82nd/25.0%
Percy Harvin (EXCEPTION): 84th/21.4%
T.Y. Hilton: 93rd/41.9%
Tyreek Hill (EXCEPTION): NA/19.4%
DeAndre Hopkins: 99th/39.3%
DeSean Jackson: 94th/32.1%
Vincent Jackson (EXCEPTION): 47th/70.3%
Alshon Jeffery: 77th/39.7%
Greg Jennings (EXCEPTION):Â 17th/47.5%
Andre Johnson (EXCEPTION): 60th/28.8%
Calvin Johnson: 66th/55.3%
Steve Johnson (EXCEPTION):Â 35th/30.3%
Julio Jones: 77th/34.4%
Marvin Jones (EXCEPTION): 80th/26.3%
Jarvis Landry: 71st/40.0%
Brandon Lloyd: 59th/32.2%
Tyler Lockett 66th/44.2%
Jeremy Maclin (EXCEPTION): 83rd/29.5%
Brandon Marshall (EXCEPTION): 27th/42.5%
Rishard Matthews (EXCEPTION): 40th/44.1%
Randy Moss: Unable to find
Jordy Nelson: 57th/49.6%
Hakeem Nicks: 96th/52.2%
Terrell Owens: Unable to find
Sidney Rice: 90th/47.0%
Allen Robinson: 90th/37.9%
Emmanuel Sanders: 80th/34.2%
JuJu Smith-Schuster: 94th/31.9%
Steve Smith: 55th/31.0%
Demaryius Thomas: 74th/70.9%
Adam Thielen: 63rd/45.9%
Michael Thomas (EXCEPTION):25th/39.6%
Mike Wallace (EXCEPTION): 61st/29.6%
Reggie Wayne: 93rd/32.1%
Wes Welker (EXCEPTION): 55th/17.4%
Roddy White (EXCEPTION): 41st/50.5%
Robert Woods: 98th/31.6%
Total with data: 73
Exceptions: 19
Percentage: 79%
Data still shows that chances are higher than you have a WR1 with both of these metrics.
You could lower the Dominator threshold a little bit (25%) and capture 91.3% of the players.
Percent of players who had breakout age below 50th percentile: 89% (percent in 2017: 91.6%)
Maybe that's a larger sample size
When exactly did Michael Thomas and Tyreek Hill return to being good WR2's? And Andre Johnson didn't have WR1 longevity?Did a little thought experiment to narrow the focus a bit.
Out of the "exception" players, I count 6 with longevity of WR1 status based on my memory. Most of the others might have had a good year or two that maybe put them in the conversation but ultimately they returned to good WR2's rather than WR1's. Those WR's are Roddy White, Michael Thomas, Brandon Marshall, Andre Johnson, Tyreek Hill, Josh Gordon (fell out of WR1 status due to off the field, but I don't doubt he'd be in consideration still if he hadn't had those problems).Â
Out of the players that made the critera I count 19 that had longevity of being viewed as a WR1. Again based on my memory. Davante Adams, Keenan Allen, Odell Backham Jr, Antonio Brown, Dez Bryant, Brandin Cooks, Mike Evans, Larry Fitzgerald, AJ Green, DeAndre Hopkins TY Hilton, Calvin Johnson, Julio Jones, Randy Moss, Terrell Owens, Jordy Nelson, JuJu Smith-Schuster, Demaryius Thomas, Reggie Wayne. ***Honorable mentions just to add a few of possibly making the cut in your own view; Robert Woods, Adam Thielen, Alshon Jeffery***
Seems to me when/if they exceptions to the rule produce well, you should probably sell when the longevity of dominance isn't likely to be there. Â
I believe he is listing those as the 6 exceptions that retained WR1 status vs the other exceptions that fell to wr2 or worse statusWhen exactly did Michael Thomas and Tyreek Hill return to being good WR2's?
Ah yeah I see now. My bad. ThanksI believe he is listing those as the 6 exceptions that retained WR1 status vs the other exceptions that fell to wr2 or worse status
ETA: I read it the same way the first time too
So you don't think 92 targets 64 receptions 821 yards and 10 TD as a rookie is impressive? He needs to take the next step?I didn’t read the article. In fact, I don’t put too much stock into what any one person says anymore. Looking at Ridley with what I know today, surface level production was a quality product with concerns of BMI and Age. Final season >28% dominator, breakout age 20.7, speed score 63rd percentile (can be a moving target if a player is a slot reciever). That BMI of 24.9 is very concerning and suggests fragility will occur. Also you’re going to be looking at the Stering Shepard effect with Ridley if he doesn’t take an immediate step this year. By comparison Donte Moncrief is only a half year older than Ridley on his third NFL contract.  People will start claiming he is old before he is even off his rookie contract which will expeditiously lower his value if there isn’t a major breakout before 26. In other words he was and still is a higher risk than DJ Moore, Cam Sutton or Christian Kirk. I would say his rookie year production would have to place him over James Washington though.Â
Well sure if you move the chains the percentage increases.Thank you! eyes crossed after looking all of that up. fixedÂ
So if you lower the threshold to 25% for dominator rating you capture 91% of the field. maybe that's a better numberÂ
I had a very similar impression looking through the list.Did a little thought experiment to narrow the focus a bit.
Out of the "exception" players, I count 6 with longevity of WR1 status based on my memory. Most of the others might have had a good year or two that maybe put them in the conversation but ultimately they returned to good WR2's rather than WR1's. Those WR's are Roddy White, Michael Thomas, Brandon Marshall, Andre Johnson, Tyreek Hill, Josh Gordon (fell out of WR1 status due to off the field, but I don't doubt he'd be in consideration still if he hadn't had those problems).Â
Out of the players that made the critera I count 19 that had longevity of being viewed as a WR1. Again based on my memory. Davante Adams, Keenan Allen, Odell Backham Jr, Antonio Brown, Dez Bryant, Brandin Cooks, Mike Evans, Larry Fitzgerald, AJ Green, DeAndre Hopkins TY Hilton, Calvin Johnson, Julio Jones, Randy Moss, Terrell Owens, Jordy Nelson, JuJu Smith-Schuster, Demaryius Thomas, Reggie Wayne. ***Honorable mentions just to add a few of possibly making the cut in your own view; Robert Woods, Adam Thielen, Alshon Jeffery***
Seems to me when/if they exceptions to the rule produce well, you should probably sell when the longevity of dominance isn't likely to be there. Â
It was a very impressive rookie year but that target to TD ratio is unsustainable- a bit of an anomaly. Based on his number of targets and now many RZ targets he got, he should have scored 3-4 TDs.ÂSo you don't think 92 targets 64 receptions 821 yards and 10 TD as a rookie is impressive? He needs to take the next step?
His production nothing like Sterling Shephards rookie year. Ridley had 8.9 yards per target as a rookie. Shephard had 6.5
I think the key is just looking at it as a way to reduce risk. As we have seen with Michael Thomas, Tyreek Hill, Roddy White, etc. it is possible for a WR didn't produce at a young age in college or didn't dominate their college passing game to develop into a WR1 for fantasy. However, it seems one is safer betting on the players that have done it. They won't all work out either but it's a better gamble.This thread took me a couple of times to concentrate enough to see what you were saying, but now that I'm able to read it with some fortitude, it's an awesome tool. Thanks. Â
I dont think that is a realistic expectation for a round one rookie pick becoming a top 12 WR.I did this about an hour ago above
The reason I cut it at wr1 originally is because if you're drafting a wr round 1, you want a future wr1
Yeah, it was skimming the premises that got me. I didn't read the OP carefully enough. Now that I've sat and read it and the linked article carefully, I think I really get what Dr. Dan is trying to say.ÂI think the key is just looking at it as a way to reduce risk. As we have seen with Michael Thomas, Tyreek Hill, Roddy White, etc. it is possible for a WR didn't produce at a young age in college or didn't dominate their college passing game to develop into a WR1 for fantasy. However, it seems one is safer betting on the players that have done it. They won't all work out either but it's a better gamble.
Depends on your perspective:So you don't think 92 targets 64 receptions 821 yards and 10 TD as a rookie is impressive? He needs to take the next step?
His production nothing like Sterling Shephards rookie year. Ridley had 8.9 yards per target as a rookie. Shephard had 6.5
No that is not what a predictive model does. Nor should it.this is what a predictive model does, tries to narrow into the highest predictability percentage by "moving the chains"
for the top 24, the percentage is probably not significant (62 vs 70%). if anything it shows that if someone falls outside of both of these metrics, they are more likely to end up as a wr2. which may not be a bad thing, but if I'm drafting a wr high round 1 I'm hoping to avoid someone who may never be a wr1
You are talking about the players perceived value based on age. An idea that I think is strongly supported by concepts like break out age in college.Depends on your perspective:
DeAndre Hopkins, Age 23
111 1521 13.7 11
JuJu Smith-Schuster Age 22
111 1426 12.8 7
Mike Evans Age 23
96 1321 13.8 12
OBJ Age 23
96 1450 15.1 13
I could go about this all day but you get the point. You percieve it as a rookie season but when you look at it by age it is hardly impressive. In fact, as I stated previously, this is mostly a make or break season for him. So he has to overcome Julio or become a JuJu light with Sanu still eating target share. If he posts 800/900 yds again it will look like a ceiling entering age 26 season. This was always what you were getting from a dynasty perspective and is what still makes him less valuable than those I mentioned.
It should be another tool in your belt, not a drafting dogma. Back-testing whether for the purposes of ruling in OR out is still just a look into the past. You gotta stay nimble with your evaluations because all that matters when you make a pick is how that one subject performs.I understand this may throw a damper on some people's rankings, but the correlation is what it is, and it's strong.Â
If you arent drating round 1 hoping to avoid a WR who is unlikely to be a wr1, or even a strong 2 at that, then I guess you do you.Â
If you like creating a tier system and watch film and what not, that's awesome, but I'm not trying to predict who is going to hit... I'm minimizing the misses.Â
Itll be fun to track this each year going forward.Â
This is my thought too. And I love the another tool in the toolbelt.ÂIt should be another tool in your belt, not a drafting dogma. Back-testing whether for the purposes of ruling in OR out is still just a look into the past. You gotta stay nimble with your evaluations because all that matters when you make a pick is how that one subject performs.
It's thought provoking info, for sure. Getting married to any singular method though is probably, actually almost certainly, a bad idea.
This is probably best used if you're 50/50 on whether to draft say Harry or Butler. Just one example.
I disagree a bit. For me I use this method to skim off the players with a lower chance of success. From there, you can watch tape and sort out the players who are more likely to succeed. That’s not to say I would never draft Hakeem Butler but he’s really unlikely to slide to a point where I will bite. He might end being the next AJ Green and the guy I take turns out to be the next Corey Coleman but if we can use numbers to reduce the risk to any reasonable degree it’s a benefit. This along with draft capital are more effective than any film analyst or film grade that I’m aware of.skinfanjon said:It should be another tool in your belt, not a drafting dogma. Back-testing whether for the purposes of ruling in OR out is still just a look into the past. You gotta stay nimble with your evaluations because all that matters when you make a pick is how that one subject performs.
It's thought provoking info, for sure. Getting married to any singular method though is probably, actually almost certainly, a bad idea.
This is probably best used if you're 50/50 on whether to draft say Harry or Butler. Just one example.
Thanks for doing this.ÂDr. Dan said:Total 102:
No Data: 18
Total with Data: 84
Exceptions @ >30.0% DR: 32
Percent Met: 62%
Exceptions @ > 25% DR: 25
Percent Met: 70%
I think this supports the rule out claim even further... the drop from WR1 to WR1 and WR2 with meeting the criteria is significant (91% to 70%)
For me, it immediately eliminates me drafting "a miss player" in round 1. I'd definitely take a flier round 2, but Butler is unlikely to fall that far. I'd definitely take Campbell over Humphery if those were my 2 options.ÂFor me I use this method to skim off the players with a lower chance of success. From there, you can watch tape and sort out the players who are more likely to succeed.
Yeah and I know you just have to be objective when doing it. The numbers are what they are. I would be interested seeing the guys who were exemptions vs the guys who weren’t when measuring more than one season to remove the guys like Knox.Thanks for doing this. These were people that at least once had a wr1 or 2 season... Many of them just 1 season, and otherwise were not good fantasy assets
Here is some context for players who were exemptions of you had no data on. I will finish the other half some other time.Â
Tavon Austin (EXCEPTION): 99th/26.3%- hard to call him a success as a fantasy WR even if he did have 1 WR2 season. He is a posterboy for failed dynasty assets.
Doug Baldwin (EXCEPTION): 65th/27.0%-Â came close, played with 3 future NFL pass catchers, took 4/5 years to really make a mark in the NFL
Kelvin Benjamin (EXCEPTION): 6th/29.3%- 1 good rookie year where he caught an excessive number of TDs and then has totally flamed out
Benard Berrian: Unable to find- weird case:Â had a 1300/13 season as a Junior, returned for senior year but lost the year to injury and returned for RS senior year with 25% dominator- also had 3 non receiving TDs.Â
Dwayne Bowe (EXCEPTION): 38th/35.4%: Are you sure this is right? I know it is what Playerprofiler says but it looks to me like Bowe had a breakout age of 20 which was his sophomore season. By my quick math he had over 20% of the Tiger passing attack but maybe I am doing the math wrong.Â
John Brown (EXCEPTION): 27th/42.4%: He had WR2Â fantasy season but mostly has been a WR3-4.
Antonio Bryant: Unable to find- Breakout age of 19 where he had a massive sophomore year 1300/11. He took a step back as a senior 659/9 but I think that still met the minimum requirement for dominator since he had 9 of the teams 20 passing TDs.Â
Randall Cobb (EXCEPTION): 63rd/28.2% This is a weird one because his receiving production had him just short of the desired dominator rating but he also had 400/5 rushing so that might have revealed some more of his full potential.Â
Riley Cooper (EXCEPTION): 15th/30.6%: I forget again what your qualifications were here but Riley Cooper stunk and was not a guy you wanted on your dynasty team. Hs 16 game average over his career was 440/3.Â
Victor Cruz (EXCEPTION): 19th/39.9% That 39.0% dominator is really high (80th percentile) but his breakout age was low because he was twice dismissed from college due to failing grades.Â
Donald Driver: Unable to find, Looks lie he probably qualified for both. Was leading WR on the team as a sophomore and as a junior.Â
Braylon Edwards: Unable to find. Definitely would have qualified. As a sophomore he had 1000/10, junior 1110/14 and senior 1300/15. He is especially disappointing and if there is a guy we could point to and say this is how N'Keal Harry fails, it's Braylon.
Josh Gordon (EXCEPTION):82nd/25.0% His college career is basically the same as his pro career: Showed promise but couldn't stay on the field after being busted with pot and then later failing a drug test.Â
Percy Harvin (EXCEPTION): 84th/21.4% Like Cobb, he was also a run game weapon. He had 1800 yards and 19 TDs rushing alone so I think when he was taken, it was assumed he would be a hybrid- which he was. During his 3 years of good fantasy play, he was adding 200/1 rushing to push him over the edge.Â
Tyreek Hill (EXCEPTION): NA/19.4%Â The craziest case here because he did nothing at a really small school. We know why his breakout was late. Yet despite that he looks like one of the best WRs in the NFL.
Santonio Holmes (EXCEPTION): 25th/48.6%Â This also seems off to me, at age 20 he caught 7 of the 14 OSU passing TDs and had 36% of the receiving yards.Â
Vincent Jackson (EXCEPTION): 47th/70.3%Â Â 99th percentile dominator, barely missed the age cutoff. I can't find any stats but it did say he was an All American punt returner as a true freshman.Â
Greg Jennings (EXCEPTION):Â 17th/47.5%Â Breakout age seems wrong-maybe I just don't know how it is being calculated. As a sophomore at age 20 he had 1000/14, at 21 he had 1000/11 and then at 22 he had 1200/14
 Andre Johnson (EXCEPTION): 60th/28.8% His production seemed limited by sharing the field with Kellen Winslow, and Jeramy Shockey.
Chad Johnson: Unable to find. Ocho bounced around a few small colleges so I assume he had some personal issues coming out of college so it wasn't until 22 that he broke-out.Â
Steve Johnson (EXCEPTION):Â 35th/30.3% He also was a transfer from a small schoolÂ
James Jones (EXCEPTION): 11th/44.1% It took him 4 years to breakout at San Jose State. Not a great prospect at all and if he hadn't ended up Rodgers, he might not have made this list.Â
Marvin Jones (EXCEPTION): 80th/26.3% He shared the field with Keenan Allen so it's understandable why he fell short on dominator as Allen got 96 targets that in Marvin's last year.Â
Johnny Knox: Unable to find This guy was not a good fantasy asset.Â
Brandon Lafell (EXCEPTION): 19th/45.7%Â Also not a good fantasy asset. He had one good random season in his 5th year
Jeremy Maclin (EXCEPTION): 83rd/29.5%Â Missed by 0.5% but Maclin was an All American at age 19 and 20.Â
I don’t have the links, maybe Dr does but I’m pretty sure there’s mathematical evidence of a relationship with breakout age, dominantor rating and draft capitol and fantasy success.Thanks for doing the digging, lov.
Dr - I’m always skeptical of trying to create hard boundaries on players. The human variable in the equation makes this pure chaos theory stuff.  The mathematician in me is always looking at the angle that equations have to work equally front to back and back to front, and predictive models have to function retroactively as proof of their reliability in assessing future events.  Those principles seem to be sorely missing in a lot of crap put forth these days, and not just in FF.
It doesn’t mean that I don’t appreciate the effort - I just let the skepticism rise to the forefront a lot of times.  You did some strong work.
Welker is an interesting one. He was very productive in college. One of the greatest punt returners in college history with 8 career TDs. He also contributed as a rusher. He had 1298/7 and 1245/10 in total yards as a junior and senior. He played for the crazy Texas Tech offense though so the ball was spread around a lot. To his credit, he led the team in yards as a junior and receptions as a senior. So while his dominator was really low, he contributing significantly. Also, he had an odd career. After 4 seasons, he had 1000 yards and 1 receiving TD. Then he landed with Brady and Manning where he thrived. Add in being undrafted in the NFL and he wasn't the kind of player who would have been on dynasty radars.Âread my mind...
I went through and found out how many times each appeared in the top 24. I figured if someone appeared more than twice, that would be considered a legitimate placeholder in the top 24 over the 10 year period. Here's what I found:
Total : 44
Exceptions: 11 (<50 age or <25%)
Percentage: 75% (was 70% for the entire last 10 years, regardless of number of seasons in the top 24 back on page 1)
There are a lot of guys who were never WR1s but always WR2s, or guys who were WR2 twice and snuck into WR1 once. So, if we looked at guys who appeared in the top 12 at least twice and top 24 at least once:
Total: 31
Exceptions: 6 (<50 age or <25%)
Percentage: 80%
As you said- it stands to reason that if you have a player who falls into this exception, that you should probably trade him away after his big season
The only WRs to have a dominant presence in the top 24 over the last 10 years, and fall into the exception category are:
Brandon Marshall (I forgot how much of a beast he was! 6 years top 12, 1 year top 24)
Wes Welker (4 years top 12, 2 years top 24)
Roddy White (5 years top 12, 1 year top 24)
WRs who do not check both boxes (exceptions) seem less likely to not only achieve WR1 or WR2 status, but to stay there greater than 2 years.