Week 4 waiver wire pickups (1 Viewer)

[Casting Couch]

FWIW I think Manningham is clearly better than Cruz. even when Cruz was hot in preseasons past I liked Mario better. I don't believe (others, please chime in) he'll keep the starting spot when Mario is healthy.

I hear this a lot, but the knock on both of them is questionable hands in big moments and even in not so big moments. Cruz seems to have some scary good big play ability in him and Manningham not so much. Why do people think he's so much better than Cruz that Manningham is the defacto starter when he returns? I'm not seeing it. Giants homers?

Giants homer here...Well they're size is almost identical... but they are completely different receivers. Manningham's strength is in the short pass game, he has the ability to turn a small 1 yard screen into a 60 yard TD everytime he touches the ball. He is insanely elusive in space and that is really what won him the job as the #3 a few years back and ultimately the #2 this year with the departure of Smith.

Cruz's strength is that he is able to get deep quick with his speed and his vertical is insane. Everytime the kid jumps for the ball it looks like he is flying. He is definitely a better deep ball receiver than Manningham. However that being said, the Giants already have Nicks for this same role. So do I think Manningham is better than Cruz or vice versa? No... I think they are both about at the same talent level for what they succeed at, that being said with Nicks being obviously better than Cruz at what Cruz does best Manningham is still clearly the #2 for awhile.

I've liked Cruz's potential though since that preseason game explosion last year and have really wanted to see them use him more in real game situations this was the first time he has proven he can be effective, I'm looking forward to the rest of this season to see what he can possibly do. Manningham has proven it time and time again. So until Cruz proves he can be consistently effective then Manningham is your guy.

My problem with Cruz and his viability going forward is that the 74 yard TD was almost entirely due to how horrendous Kurt Coleman was defensively on that play. He had Cruz dead and made one of the most pathetic tackling attempts you could see in the NFL and then he chased Cruz down but instead of then making the tackle, wiped out Asamough essentially leaving that side of the field empty for Cruz to scamper in. You take away that play (which was flukey) and what you have is 2 catches for 36 yards and 1 TD. That's about what you'd expect for a replacement level player (maybe a little better because of the other score).

I really wouldn't waste a roster spot on him unless it's clear Manningham is having lingering effects and may miss several weeks.

If you took away all of Barry Sanders 50yd+ runs........

Agreed. There needs to be some Shark Pool ban on these type of "if you take away x, y, and z he only really had a, b, and c" comments. They're not helpful at all.

I also think extrapolation is a joke, but in this case it makes sense.

 

[FlapJacks]

FWIW I think Manningham is clearly better than Cruz. even when Cruz was hot in preseasons past I liked Mario better. I don't believe (others, please chime in) he'll keep the starting spot when Mario is healthy.

I hear this a lot, but the knock on both of them is questionable hands in big moments and even in not so big moments. Cruz seems to have some scary good big play ability in him and Manningham not so much. Why do people think he's so much better than Cruz that Manningham is the defacto starter when he returns? I'm not seeing it. Giants homers?

Giants homer here...Well they're size is almost identical... but they are completely different receivers. Manningham's strength is in the short pass game, he has the ability to turn a small 1 yard screen into a 60 yard TD everytime he touches the ball. He is insanely elusive in space and that is really what won him the job as the #3 a few years back and ultimately the #2 this year with the departure of Smith.

Cruz's strength is that he is able to get deep quick with his speed and his vertical is insane. Everytime the kid jumps for the ball it looks like he is flying. He is definitely a better deep ball receiver than Manningham. However that being said, the Giants already have Nicks for this same role. So do I think Manningham is better than Cruz or vice versa? No... I think they are both about at the same talent level for what they succeed at, that being said with Nicks being obviously better than Cruz at what Cruz does best Manningham is still clearly the #2 for awhile.

I've liked Cruz's potential though since that preseason game explosion last year and have really wanted to see them use him more in real game situations this was the first time he has proven he can be effective, I'm looking forward to the rest of this season to see what he can possibly do. Manningham has proven it time and time again. So until Cruz proves he can be consistently effective then Manningham is your guy.

My problem with Cruz and his viability going forward is that the 74 yard TD was almost entirely due to how horrendous Kurt Coleman was defensively on that play. He had Cruz dead and made one of the most pathetic tackling attempts you could see in the NFL and then he chased Cruz down but instead of then making the tackle, wiped out Asamough essentially leaving that side of the field empty for Cruz to scamper in. You take away that play (which was flukey) and what you have is 2 catches for 36 yards and 1 TD. That's about what you'd expect for a replacement level player (maybe a little better because of the other score).

I really wouldn't waste a roster spot on him unless it's clear Manningham is having lingering effects and may miss several weeks.

If you took away all of Barry Sanders 50yd+ runs........

Agreed. There needs to be some Shark Pool ban on these type of "if you take away x, y, and z he only really had a, b, and c" comments. They're not helpful at all.

just the opposite.There need to be a ban on the "but you can't take that way from him" comments. They display a total lack of comprehension of the point(s) being made and resorting to sinple "conclusion-based" thinking.

 

[BroadwayG]

if you took away all of welker's receptions last week, he'd only have one rush for 19 yards

 

[ready5]

FWIW I think Manningham is clearly better than Cruz. even when Cruz was hot in preseasons past I liked Mario better. I don't believe (others, please chime in) he'll keep the starting spot when Mario is healthy.

I hear this a lot, but the knock on both of them is questionable hands in big moments and even in not so big moments. Cruz seems to have some scary good big play ability in him and Manningham not so much. Why do people think he's so much better than Cruz that Manningham is the defacto starter when he returns? I'm not seeing it. Giants homers?

Giants homer here...Well they're size is almost identical... but they are completely different receivers. Manningham's strength is in the short pass game, he has the ability to turn a small 1 yard screen into a 60 yard TD everytime he touches the ball. He is insanely elusive in space and that is really what won him the job as the #3 a few years back and ultimately the #2 this year with the departure of Smith.

Cruz's strength is that he is able to get deep quick with his speed and his vertical is insane. Everytime the kid jumps for the ball it looks like he is flying. He is definitely a better deep ball receiver than Manningham. However that being said, the Giants already have Nicks for this same role. So do I think Manningham is better than Cruz or vice versa? No... I think they are both about at the same talent level for what they succeed at, that being said with Nicks being obviously better than Cruz at what Cruz does best Manningham is still clearly the #2 for awhile.

I've liked Cruz's potential though since that preseason game explosion last year and have really wanted to see them use him more in real game situations this was the first time he has proven he can be effective, I'm looking forward to the rest of this season to see what he can possibly do. Manningham has proven it time and time again. So until Cruz proves he can be consistently effective then Manningham is your guy.

My problem with Cruz and his viability going forward is that the 74 yard TD was almost entirely due to how horrendous Kurt Coleman was defensively on that play. He had Cruz dead and made one of the most pathetic tackling attempts you could see in the NFL and then he chased Cruz down but instead of then making the tackle, wiped out Asamough essentially leaving that side of the field empty for Cruz to scamper in. You take away that play (which was flukey) and what you have is 2 catches for 36 yards and 1 TD. That's about what you'd expect for a replacement level player (maybe a little better because of the other score).

I really wouldn't waste a roster spot on him unless it's clear Manningham is having lingering effects and may miss several weeks.

If you took away all of Barry Sanders 50yd+ runs........

Agreed. There needs to be some Shark Pool ban on these type of "if you take away x, y, and z he only really had a, b, and c" comments. They're not helpful at all.

sure they are. would you consider a lottery to be a sound investment just because you won it once? look beyond the stats and consider the plays that produced those stats. if those plays are flukes, then so to are the stats.and in other news, i haven't died yet, therefore i'm immortal.

 

[FF Ninja]

Agreed. There needs to be some Shark Pool ban on these type of "if you take away x, y, and z he only really had a, b, and c" comments. They're not helpful at all.

sure they are. would you consider a lottery to be a sound investment just because you won it once? look beyond the stats and consider the plays that produced those stats. if those plays are flukes, then so to are the stats.and in other news, i haven't died yet, therefore i'm immortal.

Who are you and what do you think you are doing here with this... this... logic? You should know better than to bring that into the shark pool. Your kind ain't welcome 'round here.(good post)

 

[Grand Poobah]

OC set defenses up, they may run the same play or type of play several times just to get the def to bite, then big play. I do not think taking away big plays is logical.

 

[chinawildman]

It's easy to forget sample size when "throwing out" outliers. Case in point -> Jahvid Best's explosion week 2 2010. It's much easier to call that a "fluke" now as compared to week 3 of last year when we had a much smaller sample size.

So given Cruz's small sample size of opportunities, it's not sound to just start dismissing big plays as fluke plays. Usually when the sample size is small, it's more helpful to look at HOW the player did what they did, not WHAT they did. In other words, Cruz's long TD play was more impressive because he made people miss on a simple hitch route, as opposed to just running in the open on blown coverage or caught a tipped pass.

 

[One]

if you took away all of welker's receptions last week, he'd only have one rush for 19 yards

Good point.

 

[Mark in Tennessee]

Donnie Avery WR just signed by Titans. Don't know if he can help many people; just depends how depleted your wire is currently.

 

[Casting Couch]

sure they are. would you consider a lottery to be a sound investment just because you won it once? look beyond the stats and consider the plays that produced those stats. if those plays are flukes, then so to are the stats.

and in other news, i haven't died yet, therefore i'm immortal.

common sense wins the day.

 

[Instinctive]

sure they are. would you consider a lottery to be a sound investment just because you won it once? look beyond the stats and consider the plays that produced those stats. if those plays are flukes, then so to are the stats.

and in other news, i haven't died yet, therefore i'm immortal.

You can and you can't do the "well without this big run/catch" thing. It truly varies from player to player:For instance: You really can't do it with Desean Jackson. He is the essence of the big play - he doesn't get that many total receptions each year, but he has a high ypr because he is so big play dependent - and he's that explosive on a weekly basis. His value comes from the big plays - the "take away that big play" argument is stupid with this type of receiver. Just add the risk of no big plays into his value, and then take him for what he is: a big play artist.

(note - he can evolve as a receiver and become a guy with more catches, less big plays, and more consistency. The type of player is what matters, not the specific name)

It's probably ok to do it with Roddy White. His value comes from his consistency, not from his weekly 40+ yard TD bombs. He's a target hog, he gets a ton of catches, and he derives his value from his consistency.

So with a player like Welker, it's safe to say "Well, he's probably not gonna have a lot more 99 yard TD receptions. That seemed like a fluke."

But with, say, Chris Johnson, you can't just take away the big play. The 55 yard run is where he gets his value - you have to be aware of the risk that he doesn't have that run, but he has produced it at a higher rate than many others over the course of his career.

In short - both of the groups at play here are wrong. You can take away the big play to get a better idea of a player's performance. That being said, you also can't ALWAYS do it. Individual player types do matter here.

 

[Topes]

I am having trouble ranking Nate Washington as high as most. He's just never put it all together. I'm looking for somebody with upside to fill the space I'll be vacating by dumping Deion Branch. I look at Nate Washington's stats and see a slightly younger Deion Branch.

But, then, I remember how well my Brandon Lloyd pickup worked out last year. I'd been disappointed by Lloyd in years prior, but went back to the well.

So, that leaves me wondering whether I should entirely discount his opportunity.

Donnie Avery? Hmmm...

I just have a hard time ranking Nate Washington ahead of Torrey Smith.

Just thinking out loud is all.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

Just thinking out loud is all.

yeah I do that too sometimes.wait, did I just say that?

 

[glock]

Why is there no Devery Henderson love up in here? Is Meacham really a lock as #2 behind Moore now that he's in there? It that offense 2 of these guys should be valuable here on out...

 

[ready5]

sure they are. would you consider a lottery to be a sound investment just because you won it once? look beyond the stats and consider the plays that produced those stats. if those plays are flukes, then so to are the stats.

and in other news, i haven't died yet, therefore i'm immortal.

You can and you can't do the "well without this big run/catch" thing. It truly varies from player to player:For instance: You really can't do it with Desean Jackson. He is the essence of the big play - he doesn't get that many total receptions each year, but he has a high ypr because he is so big play dependent - and he's that explosive on a weekly basis. His value comes from the big plays - the "take away that big play" argument is stupid with this type of receiver. Just add the risk of no big plays into his value, and then take him for what he is: a big play artist.

(note - he can evolve as a receiver and become a guy with more catches, less big plays, and more consistency. The type of player is what matters, not the specific name)

It's probably ok to do it with Roddy White. His value comes from his consistency, not from his weekly 40+ yard TD bombs. He's a target hog, he gets a ton of catches, and he derives his value from his consistency.

So with a player like Welker, it's safe to say "Well, he's probably not gonna have a lot more 99 yard TD receptions. That seemed like a fluke."

But with, say, Chris Johnson, you can't just take away the big play. The 55 yard run is where he gets his value - you have to be aware of the risk that he doesn't have that run, but he has produced it at a higher rate than many others over the course of his career.

In short - both of the groups at play here are wrong. You can take away the big play to get a better idea of a player's performance. That being said, you also can't ALWAYS do it. Individual player types do matter here.

i.e. "if those plays are flukes". if they're not flukes, then yeah they aren't flukes.i think we'd agree that stats can be misleading and need to be contextualized. sometimes a long catch was a fluke, sometimes what would've been a long score ended up a PI call, sometimes that long gain gets called back for holding, etc, etc. if a player ends up wide open in the end zone, was that because they're that good at separation or did the defender fall down or was it bad defensive call or a particularly good one? those are the questions that stats alone can never answer.

 

[Instinctive]

sure they are. would you consider a lottery to be a sound investment just because you won it once? look beyond the stats and consider the plays that produced those stats. if those plays are flukes, then so to are the stats.

and in other news, i haven't died yet, therefore i'm immortal.

You can and you can't do the "well without this big run/catch" thing. It truly varies from player to player:For instance: You really can't do it with Desean Jackson. He is the essence of the big play - he doesn't get that many total receptions each year, but he has a high ypr because he is so big play dependent - and he's that explosive on a weekly basis. His value comes from the big plays - the "take away that big play" argument is stupid with this type of receiver. Just add the risk of no big plays into his value, and then take him for what he is: a big play artist.

(note - he can evolve as a receiver and become a guy with more catches, less big plays, and more consistency. The type of player is what matters, not the specific name)

It's probably ok to do it with Roddy White. His value comes from his consistency, not from his weekly 40+ yard TD bombs. He's a target hog, he gets a ton of catches, and he derives his value from his consistency.

So with a player like Welker, it's safe to say "Well, he's probably not gonna have a lot more 99 yard TD receptions. That seemed like a fluke."

But with, say, Chris Johnson, you can't just take away the big play. The 55 yard run is where he gets his value - you have to be aware of the risk that he doesn't have that run, but he has produced it at a higher rate than many others over the course of his career.

In short - both of the groups at play here are wrong. You can take away the big play to get a better idea of a player's performance. That being said, you also can't ALWAYS do it. Individual player types do matter here.

i.e. "if those plays are flukes". if they're not flukes, then yeah they aren't flukes.i think we'd agree that stats can be misleading and need to be contextualized. sometimes a long catch was a fluke, sometimes what would've been a long score ended up a PI call, sometimes that long gain gets called back for holding, etc, etc. if a player ends up wide open in the end zone, was that because they're that good at separation or did the defender fall down or was it bad defensive call or a particularly good one? those are the questions that stats alone can never answer.

I think we're on the same page. I just don't want too many people calling too many plays "flukes." Like the Moore run - if he's really that shifty and fast, then it wasn't a fluke. It may nto happen again on an end around, if only because the play won't be run much, but it wasn't a fluke, you know?I think you and I are on the same page.

 

[Anonymous Internet User]

Why is there no Devery Henderson love up in here? Is Meacham really a lock as #2 behind Moore now that he's in there? It that offense 2 of these guys should be valuable here on out...

because he's been on rosters for weeks by now? and now Moore and Colston are back?

 

[glock]

Why is there no Devery Henderson love up in here? Is Meacham really a lock as #2 behind Moore now that he's in there? It that offense 2 of these guys should be valuable here on out...

because he's been on rosters for weeks by now? and now Moore and Colston are back?

Shallow bench + only 3 F/A moves per owner for the season = Henderson still a F/AUnable to nab the flavor of the day every week, owners in this league wait a little longer on some guys. There is uncertainty surrounding the Saints WR pecking order here on out. Does Henderson just slide to WR4 now?

 

[Sam Quentin]

For instance: You really can't can do it with Desean Jackson. He is the essence of the big play - he doesn't get that many total receptions each year, but he has a high ypr because he is so big play dependent - and he's that explosive on a weekly basis. His value comes from the big plays - the "take away that big play" argument is stupid poignant with this type of receiver. Just add the risk of no big plays into his value, and then take him for what he is: a big play artist.

fixed

the "take this play away" analyis is what tells us what we know about DeSean Jackson and is spot on 100 % deterministic of what you are getting.