Starting WR vs. 2nd WR (1 Viewer)

[tytyty]

I was wondering if anyone has ever put together a list of about 3 to 5 years worth of WR stats to do an analysis on if it is better to take a #1 WR on a bad team vs. a #2 guy on a good passing team. I guess you can look at numbers for #1 WR and #2 WR, mesh them together and include the rank of the team they were passing for.

I may not have articulated this very well but I know every draft there is the battle in my mind of taking a 2nd WR from a good passing team or a #1 on a poor passing team. Since I have a computer and math IQ of 2 I wouldn't even know where to begin. If anyone can put this out here it would be great to see a historical prospective on when to start taking #2 guys over #1's.

 

[John Mamula]

It depends.

My gb Tiger Fan and I were having this discussion not too long ago. In the past 4 years the lowest a #1 WR has finished is:

2004: WR56 2003: WR50 2002: WR46 2001: WR52This tells me that by the time you are drafting your fifth WR and there are #1 WRs still out there you are getting value by grabbing one. It obviously depends on ADP but you also have to remember that a "#1 WR" at the beginning of the year may not be the one with the highest stats.This was essentially the gist of our conversation.

I noticed I am missing 2005. I will try to track that down.

 

[tytyty]

Interesting, so basically with 32 teams there are about 18-22 #2's you could take and still would be ahead of the #1's at the end of the year. Understanding that the season might flop them aroung, injuries and such. Looks like WR 20-45 should go #2 or even a top #3. Then grab a #1 later for the value.

 

[John Mamula]

Interesting, so basically with 32 teams there are about 18-22 #2's you could take and still would be ahead of the #1's at the end of the year. Understanding that the season might flop them aroung, injuries and such. Looks like WR 20-45 should go #2 or even a top #3. Then grab a #1 later for the value.

I think that is a sound approach.

 

[Z-Dog]

nice, s here.

I would like to hear more about the methodology of the study - was #1 decided by highest stats at end of season, or some other measure?

Our sense of who is the #1 at the beginning of a season isn't so great. Randy Moss hasn't been the #1 every year in his career, but I'll bet he was rated #1 every year after his rookie year. Every year guys like Bobby Engram pop up and grab the #1 role. And from the flipside, there's a guy like Reggie Wayne, who would be classified as a #2, but who came within about 10 points of outscoring Marvin Harrison.