comfortably numb
Footballguy
How would you rank the WR's as of today?Make a list ending with OwensConsidering:Boller throwing to OwensPalmer throwing to C JohnsonI would go:1. Harrison2. Moss3. Holt4. Ward5. OwensThis would be my early list of WR's
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Where would you rank Owens amongst the WR's? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter comfortably numb
- Start date
Jason Wood
Zoo York
1) Randy Moss (MIN) 2) Torry Holt (STL) 3) Marvin Harrison (IND) 4) Chad Johnson (CIN) 5) Hines Ward (PIT) 6) Laveranues Coles (WAS) 7) Santana Moss (NYJ) 8) Terrell Owens (BAL)
radballs.
Footballguy
No list yet, but Owens will not be in my top 10 period. Guys that I would take before him would include Moss, Harrison, Holt, C. Johnson, H. Ward, Boldin, Mason, Horn, Steve Smith, and maybe one or two others.
Backing this up with this thread and some of the numbers that I spent hours crunching.
How free agent wide receivers fare with their new team
Copy and pasted from other link for those with not enough time to read the entire thread.
"Okay Tick,
I ran some numbers as well and came to some of the same conclusions although I took it a step further with some of the analysis. Starting out I wanted to have enough data points to make the analysis meaningful, but I didn't want to use too low of a benchmark to render the results useless.
Study 1
Null Hypothesis: Using FBG scoring for WRs, receivers who score at least 120 fantasy points with their old team in year X, perform as well for their respective new team in year X+1.
Alternative Hypothesis: WRs who move to a new team after a good season tend to perform worse in the next season for whatever reason (age, a new system, etc.).
Data: Using pro-football-reference.com, there were 45 occasions in which a player scored over 120 fantasy points and then switched teams (Art Powell and Andre Rison actually made the list twice) over the last 50 years.
The results showed over a 36% decline in production in year X+1 with the new team. Of the 45 times that this occurred, only 7 cases showed improvement in the next year (only 4 cases in the last 31 years). Using a paired t-test for validity gave a t-stat of 6.34 > 1.68. It appears in this case that one can reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is, on average, a significant decline in production when a player hits this benchmark of 120 fantasy points or greater and then plays for a different team the next year.
Study 2
Null Hypothesis: After a WR has scored over 120 fantasy points with his old team in year X, a receiver needs a second season with his new team to begin performing up to his respective levels. Performance in year X with old team is similar to performance in year X+2 with the new team. Additional hypothesis is that performance in year X+2 is greater than in year X+1.
Alternative Hypothesis: WR still underperforms in the second year with his new team.
This study reduced the number of data points to 35 since some players did not play in that next year (X+2). Not only did their performance, on average, not bounce back up but the respective performance was down an additional 8.5% in year X+2 from year X+1. In other words, it even got worse than the first year with the new team. ((This reduction in year x+2 was not significant enough to reject that the results were different from year X+1 to year X+2 (t stat of 1.01 < 1.69)). However, the original null hypothesis can be rejected in this case because the t stat came in at 5.25 > 1.69. So, one can conclude that receivers do not necessarily improve upon their performance with the extra year of getting used to the system with their respective new teams.
Study 3
Null Hypothesis: Elite receivers are different. Anyone can score 120 fantasy points. That's only 900 yards and 5 TDs. However, stud WRs are different. For example, Terrell Owens is most likely switching teams this year. These numbers don't really apply to studs. Studs will be studs no matter where they go or who they play for.
Alternative Hypothesis: They still face a number of challenges such as a new system, a new QB throwing to them, getting older, etc.
Data: Terrell Owens had 164 fp in 2003. Using WRs who had at least this many fantasy points and then switched teams yielded only 7 data points over the last 50 years. Not one of them had more fantasy points with their new team in year X+1 or X+2. Only one of them, Keyshawn Johnson, went back over the pedestrian mark of 120 fp in his first year with his new team. Even with only 7 data points, the t stat is 6.14 > 1.94, so we can safely conclude that even elite receivers have difficulties making the adjustment to a new team.
The bottom line is I probably won't have Terrell Owens or any other big name FA WRs on my teams next year because someone will have them ranked higher than they should be. Coles was a nice exception to the rule last year, but determining which players are going to break these historical trends is not a game I want to get involved with."
Backing this up with this thread and some of the numbers that I spent hours crunching.
How free agent wide receivers fare with their new team
Copy and pasted from other link for those with not enough time to read the entire thread.
"Okay Tick,
I ran some numbers as well and came to some of the same conclusions although I took it a step further with some of the analysis. Starting out I wanted to have enough data points to make the analysis meaningful, but I didn't want to use too low of a benchmark to render the results useless.
Study 1
Null Hypothesis: Using FBG scoring for WRs, receivers who score at least 120 fantasy points with their old team in year X, perform as well for their respective new team in year X+1.
Alternative Hypothesis: WRs who move to a new team after a good season tend to perform worse in the next season for whatever reason (age, a new system, etc.).
Data: Using pro-football-reference.com, there were 45 occasions in which a player scored over 120 fantasy points and then switched teams (Art Powell and Andre Rison actually made the list twice) over the last 50 years.
The results showed over a 36% decline in production in year X+1 with the new team. Of the 45 times that this occurred, only 7 cases showed improvement in the next year (only 4 cases in the last 31 years). Using a paired t-test for validity gave a t-stat of 6.34 > 1.68. It appears in this case that one can reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is, on average, a significant decline in production when a player hits this benchmark of 120 fantasy points or greater and then plays for a different team the next year.
Study 2
Null Hypothesis: After a WR has scored over 120 fantasy points with his old team in year X, a receiver needs a second season with his new team to begin performing up to his respective levels. Performance in year X with old team is similar to performance in year X+2 with the new team. Additional hypothesis is that performance in year X+2 is greater than in year X+1.
Alternative Hypothesis: WR still underperforms in the second year with his new team.
This study reduced the number of data points to 35 since some players did not play in that next year (X+2). Not only did their performance, on average, not bounce back up but the respective performance was down an additional 8.5% in year X+2 from year X+1. In other words, it even got worse than the first year with the new team. ((This reduction in year x+2 was not significant enough to reject that the results were different from year X+1 to year X+2 (t stat of 1.01 < 1.69)). However, the original null hypothesis can be rejected in this case because the t stat came in at 5.25 > 1.69. So, one can conclude that receivers do not necessarily improve upon their performance with the extra year of getting used to the system with their respective new teams.
Study 3
Null Hypothesis: Elite receivers are different. Anyone can score 120 fantasy points. That's only 900 yards and 5 TDs. However, stud WRs are different. For example, Terrell Owens is most likely switching teams this year. These numbers don't really apply to studs. Studs will be studs no matter where they go or who they play for.
Alternative Hypothesis: They still face a number of challenges such as a new system, a new QB throwing to them, getting older, etc.
Data: Terrell Owens had 164 fp in 2003. Using WRs who had at least this many fantasy points and then switched teams yielded only 7 data points over the last 50 years. Not one of them had more fantasy points with their new team in year X+1 or X+2. Only one of them, Keyshawn Johnson, went back over the pedestrian mark of 120 fp in his first year with his new team. Even with only 7 data points, the t stat is 6.14 > 1.94, so we can safely conclude that even elite receivers have difficulties making the adjustment to a new team.
The bottom line is I probably won't have Terrell Owens or any other big name FA WRs on my teams next year because someone will have them ranked higher than they should be. Coles was a nice exception to the rule last year, but determining which players are going to break these historical trends is not a game I want to get involved with."
Last edited by a moderator:
Burning Sensation
Footballguy
I dont feel like typing a list that ends with owens, lets just say there is a long list of WR's i would take ahead of him.
WadeGarrett22
Footballguy
Anyone who puts Owens in their Top 10 is on crack.
comfortably numb
Footballguy
True, but I consider Maddux season last year to have been a big question mark as well, and Ward still gave us a solid
Jason Wood
Zoo York
Exactly right, if TO went to a team with a solid corps of players and an established fantasy QB, he would be a consideration in the top 10 regardless of the switch, but no way does TO end up on my 2004 fantasy teams barring a major, major fall in everyone's opinion of his production.
zoonation
Footballguy
you say that as if you have some insight into this world that the rest of us don't.Are you basing your opinion on ANY evidence whatsoever? Oh wait, the evidence shows Owens has been a FF monster for the past five years.On crack? I wish I had a crystal ball like you do. Get real buddy.
WadeGarrett22
Footballguy
Didn't you just put him at #8 on your list?
Rusty Shackleford
Footballguy
I know most people will knock Owens waaaaayyyyy down their draft lists from last year (and deservedly so), but which round would you be willing to roll the dice on him? Even if you're highly suspect of WRs who switch teams, there must be some point in a 16 round draft where you're tempted if you see he's still available.
Jason Wood
Zoo York
When doing rankings off the cuff, those were guys I would absolutely rank ahead of him, but once you start ranking Owens in the 7/8/9 spot, you might as well rank him 20th because you're not going to end up with him on draft day. It's not dissimilar to Boston last year. I could easily see a logical case for him to have put up top 15 numbers, but you knew someone would see him as a "steal" long before that.As we get into the heart of the preseason, you'll have a chance to call into question my rankings on a frequent basis, as you know we put them out and update them for all to see quite frequently.
zoonation
Footballguy
TO cannot be considered in the players changing team category like everyone else. He is TO. It is not about learning the system, it is about getting him the ball and seeing what he does once he catches it. IMO he is going to have more opportunities than he did last year in SF to make BIG plays given the layout of the Balt offence.I don't think it is right to compare TO to Coles and Boston, he has earned more FF respect than that.I'll wager any money that TO pulls down bigger FF numbers than Santana Moss.
Dutch Kincade
Footballguy
I can't think of anyone with a bigger chip on his shouler than Owens.I can't think of anyone who has enough ability and talent to use a chip on his shoulder more than Owens.I can't think of a team more thirsty and desperate to stretch the field than Baltimore.I can't think of a group of personalities Owens would mesh better with than Baltimore.I think Owens fits comfortably in the top 5. It baffles me someone would think different.
Jason Wood
Zoo York
On one hand, very few times in NFL history has someon the caliber of TO changed teams and been in his prime. On the other hand, there are inherent risks to any WR changing teams that are hard to ignore. As I said in my previous thread, were TO to go to a team that had a productive fantasy QB at the helm already, his talents would warrant a top 10 ranking despite the changing teams, but with Boller at the helm, and TO already being known for blaming his QB when he doesn't get enough looks (he said Garcia wasn't good enough, what is he going to do with Boller?), he's not worth the risks.
Jason Wood
Zoo York
There will probably be about 200 Sharks who would love for you to join their leagues when signups start, keep that opinion handy.
WadeGarrett22
Footballguy
Exactly. He won't be on my team regardless of where he's ranked.
Rusty Shackleford
Footballguy
Owens won't just be pissed at Boller - he'll also hate Heap in a hurry. If you thought he #####ed a lot when other wide-outs were being thrown to, wait until he starts sharing the limelight with a top-caliber TE.
zoonation
Footballguy
I can appreciate the fact that TO is a risk given the QB situation, and may not represent value where he has traditionally been drafted the last couple of years, but I still see him putting up big numbers.However, in my mind the Balt offense is way more suited to him than the situation he was in last year. If Boeller produces at all, Owens is easily top five, way too much talent.I will concede that some people will be reaching for him.Do you really think the unproven Santana Moss will outproduce him?
Rusty Shackleford
Footballguy
Yeah - Owens is a real team player. I'm sure his publicized falling out with Mooch was probably the result of Mooch's overbearing authoritarian approach.
Tau837
Footballguy
The evidence also shows the following:1. Owens peaked two years ago and has already begun a slow decline. See below.
Code:
+--------------------------+-------------------------+ | Rushing | Receiving |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| 1996 sfo | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 35 520 14.9 4 || 1997 sfo | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 60 936 15.6 8 || 1998 sfo | 16 | 4 53 13.2 1 | 67 1097 16.4 14 || 1999 sfo | 14 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 60 754 12.6 4 || 2000 sfo | 14 | 3 11 3.7 0 | 97 1451 15.0 13 || 2001 sfo | 16 | 4 21 5.2 0 | 93 1412 15.2 16 || 2002 sfo | 14 | 7 79 11.3 1 | 100 1300 13.0 13 || 2003 sfo | 15 | 3 -2 -0.7 0 | 80 1102 13.8 9 |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| TOTAL | 121 | 21 162 7.7 2 | 592 8572 14.5 81 |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
Banger
Footballguy
Numbers and stats don't predict all. When was the last time a top 5 WR went to a team via free agency that had a RB that rushed for more than 2,000 yrds the prior year? I would guess none. Teams are not going to be able to constantly double TO now that he's on the same offense as the leagues rushing leader. There was 8+ in the box vs Jamal last year and he still crushed most teams. This will make it extremely difficult to put 8 in the box and double TO. Somethings gotta give and TO will probably end up in one on one coverage fairly often. I don't care who is throwing the ball to TO, if you can put it in the air with one on one coverage he is gonna kill you.
WadeGarrett22
Footballguy
:rotflmao: That's if he can catch the ball.
SuperGreen
Footballguy
pass the pipei'd put him somewhere between 5-10
Anarchy99
Footballguy
Well, I am not on crack, and I have done EXTENSIVE research on Top WR and WR switching teams, and I would definitely not rank TO as a Top 10 WR for next season. This is based on a ton of evidence, and you are welcome to research the data I have posted on the topic.For starters, recent data suggests elite WR come from Top 5 passing teams with Top 5 passing QB. I don't see the Ravens fitting the bill on either of those fronts.The data also indicates that Top WR come from teams that have pourous defenses that give up a ton of points. Again, not the makeup of the Ravens. Typically, Top WR DO NOT traditionally come from teams that rush extensively.And we haven't even touched upon the plight of WR switching teams or how WR do with young or inexperienced QB.Add it all up, and I will go officially on record that Terrell Owens WILL NOT be a Top 10 WR next season. More importantly, the people that draft him expecting TO to post numbers like he did in his best years in SF will likely be disappointed, as he will very likely not earn back where he was drafted.
SuperGreen
Footballguy
it's all about making the most of your chances, and to his credit, smith did that. i have confidence that owens can make some big things happen with his chances, even though they may be more limited than in the past.not to mention i'll take owens/billick/fassell over smith/henning anyday.
Saints-Man
Footballguy
For FF purposes, I might take a chance on him in the 3rd round as long as he is not my #1 WR.
Only WR in the histopry of the league to have 1200 yards in consecutive season for two different teams. Let me say again first in the HISTORY of the league.I will not get sucked in again, as I think Tick, Anarchy, and radballs (three of the better minds on the board) laid out plenty of numbers in the other thread and in this one.Every year, someone is convinced that THIS FA WR is different - this year it'll be TO, who I will probably have as my #10 WR, with the full anticipation he'll be selected in the top-5.I'll just leave it at this: there is no chance he'll be my WR1, though I'd be fine drafting him as my WR2.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
I will say this, though. I will be happy to let some other schlep take Owens late 2nd/early 3rd and wait for a month into the season, only to try to acquire him when he should be ranked as the WR30. Owens might be Top 10 over the second half of the season, but I wouldn't hold my breath over the first half.
Doctor Detroit
Please remove your headgear
My top 10MossharrisonholtBoldinCJWardColesTOChambersS. Moss
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
I must be missing something. In my various leagues Owens fell between #9 and #11 in W.R. production last year. Of the players anywhere near him in production only Joe Horn was older. Several younger players are right behind him, had fewer starts, and clearly had better per start points production. He has never been a great hands guy, dropping way too many balls. He is now on the wrong side of 30, will be in a new system with a young Q.B., and has clearly lost a step. I will not have him ranked higher than #15 in redraft leagues nor higher than #20 if I draft in any new dynasty leagues.The top 3 W.R. are now four in number and they do not include Owens. They are Moss, Holt, Harrison and Boldin.
You forgot CJohn.In my main money league of 1/10, 6/TD +3 for >100, TO tied at #9 with Keenan McCardell, behind Mason, ahead of Coles and Horn. However he was 11.3/game, tied with SMoss at #6.I only chime back in to say that if you ignore Anarchy's extensive reasearch on this subject, especially the commonalities of top-5 WRs, all I can say to you is good luck with your WR research.You're gonna need it.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
Since I feel like being confrontational today, I will voice my opnion on Boldin. I see Arizona getting better offensively and Green trying his best to screw up a good thing in terms of Boldin's productivity.You heard it here first--Boldin takes a big step backwards next season. I think 'Zona tries to establish the run, spreads the ball more evenly through the air, and Boldin's numbers take a hit.Not everyone's numbers always go up. Top 5 in 2003, Top 15 in 2004.
