Which rookie WR's are redraft-worthy (1 Viewer)

[Dirty Weasel]

For the sake of this thread, I will define "redraft-worthy" as someone who finishes in the top 60 (a low-end WR5)

2007

Dwayne Bowe - 70 catches, 995 yards, and 5 TD's - finished as WR24

Calvin Johnson - 48 catches, 756 yards, and 4 TD's - finished as WR35

James Jones - 47 catches, 676 yards, and 2 TD's - finished as WR54

2006

Marques Colston - 70 catches, 1038 yards, and 8 TD's - finished as WR14

Santonio Holmes - 49 catches, 824 yards, and 2 TD's - finished as WR41

Greg Jennings - 45 catches, 632 yards, and 3 TD's - finished as WR54

2005

Reggie Brown - 43 catches, 571 yards, and 4 TD's - finished as WR48

Matt Jones - 36 catches, 432 yards, and 5 TD's - finished as WR50

Chris Henry - 31 catches, 422 yards, and 6 TD's - finished as WR51

Braylon Edwards - 32 catches, 512 yards, and 3 TD's - finished as WR59

2004

Michael Clayton - 80 catches, 1193 yards, and 7 TD's - finished as WR13

Lee Evans - 48 catches, 843 yards, and 9 TD's - finished as WR24

Roy Williams - 54 catches, 817 yards, and 8 TD's - finished as WR29

Larry Fitzgerald - 58 catches, 780 yards, and 8 TD's - finished as WR30

Keary Colbert - 47 catches, 754 yards, and 5 TD's - finished as WR36

2003

Anquan Boldin - 101 catches, 1377 yards, and 8 TD's - finished as WR4

Andre Johnson - 66 catches, 976 yards, and 4 TD's - finished as WR23

2002

Antonio Bryant - 44 catches, 733 yards, and 6 TD's - finished as WR32

Donte Stallworth - 42 catches, 594 yards, and 8 TD's - finished as WR38

Andre Davis - 37 catches, 420 yards, and 6 TD's - finished as WR58

Antwaan Randle El - 47 catches, 489 yards, and 2 TD's - finished as WR59

2001

Chris Chambers - 48 catches, 883 yards, and 7 TD's - finished as WR30

Rod Gardner - 46 catches, 741 yards, and 4 TD's - finished as WR39

2000

Peter Warrick - 51 catches, 592 yards, and 4 TD's - finished as WR31

Darrell Jackson - 53 catches, 713 yards, and 6 TD's - finished as WR33

If you use 1-12 as WR1, 13-24 as WR2, 25-36 as WR3, 37-48 as WR4, and 49-60 as WR5, you will see:

WR1 - 1

WR2 - 5

WR3 - 7

WR4 - 4

WR5 - 7

Every year there are at least 2 redraft-worthy rookie WR's. I could've went back further, but I think an 8-year sample size is good enough. An average of 3 rookies make the cut each year. So, which rookies in 2008 will finish in the top-60?

 

[plastik]

This season I think that Hardy and Sweed have the potential to make the list - both have a shot at seeing significant playing time and figure to get (and capitalize on) red zone targets. I'd consider drafting them late - if they're still on the board. Maybe Devin Thomas, but I dont know what to make of the passing game (new system) in Washington yet. Other's I'll watch on the WW but won't draft and a lot of them depend on opportunity (fighting their way into a starting lineup or injury to a starter) Andre Caldwell, Donnie Avery, and Earl Bennet.

As for a REAL surprise - like Colston - I'll be watching Adrian Arrington in NO, I he's got skills and size and if nobody else steps up he could see more playing time than most would expect.

 

[David Yudkin]

For the sake of this thread, I will define "redraft-worthy" as someone who finishes in the top 60 (a low-end WR5)2007Dwayne Bowe - 3 - finished as WR24Calvin Johnson - 1 - finished as WR35James Jones - 14 - finished as WR542006Marques Colston - 33 - finished as WR14Santonio Holmes - 1 - finished as WR41Greg Jennings - 4 - finished as WR542005Reggie Brown - 7 - finished as WR48Matt Jones - 4 - finished as WR50Chris Henry - 13 - finished as WR51Braylon Edwards - 1 - finished as WR592004Michael Clayton - 5 - finished as WR13Lee Evans - 4 - finished as WR24Roy Williams - 2 - finished as WR29Larry Fitzgerald - 1 - finished as WR30Keary Colbert - 10 - finished as WR362003Anquan Boldin - 6 - finished as WR4Andre Johnson - 2 - finished as WR232002Antonio Bryant - 10 - finished as WR32Donte Stallworth - 1 - finished as WR38Andre Davis - 7 - finished as WR58Antwaan Randle El - 9 - finished as WR592001Chris Chambers - 10 - finished as WR30Rod Gardner - 3 - finished as WR392000Peter Warrick - 1 - finished as WR31Darrell Jackson - 15 - finished as WR33

I took out the WR production numbers and substituted where those players were taken in terms of WRs. For example, James Jones was drafted as the #14 receiver off the board in the NFL draft. The #1 WR was on your list 6 of the 8 seasons you referenced. After that, though, there was really no pattern as to who did well and who didn't. Note that there were 7 guys drafted 10th or later. There were 10 that were drafted in the first 3 WRs.

 

[bcr8f]

Both Skins WR's, Will Franklin KC(only has Darling to beat out), Avery St Louis, DeSean Jackson(possible but I think he's too small), Eddie Royal Denver, Harry Douglas Atlanta, Earl Bennett Chicago .

 

[Kirby]

Malcolm Kelly - will take over for Randle El pretty quickly.

DeSean Jackson - McNabb loves to throw balls into the dirt and Jackson is really short.

I don't really think anyone else is draft worthy for this year unless there is an injury. Maybe Hardy.

 

[FUBAR]

Both Skins WR's, Will Franklin KC(only has Darling to beat out), Avery St Louis, DeSean Jackson(possible but I think he's too small), Eddie Royal Denver, Harry Douglas Atlanta, Earl Bennett Chicago .

I would bet against both skins WRs, although one probably will be. I like the other picks in bold.I'd look for either the insanely talented (but I don't see any this year) or those heading to teams where they'll benefit from a very good QB.

I like Nelson and Bennett to step in and catch 40 for 600+ yards, but not quite enough to make top 60.

As you mention, Avery, Jackson, and Royal have a decent chance to contribute a lot immediately - Jackson is probably too small to be elite, but he can be top 60.

Simpson or Caldwell have a chance, I'd lean towards Caldwell.

Sweed can come in and contribute with one of the best young QBs.

My sleeper pick is Paul Hubbard, Cleveland.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Kelly, Hardy, Burton, Royal

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

Kelly, Hardy, Burton, Royal

Kelly will bust, and so will Royal.Hell, while I'm at it, so will Devin Thomas and Avery. Sweed, Hardy, and Jackson are the WRs to have from this draft. Sleepers include Burton (I agree with you on that one) and Caldwell.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

Hardy and Bennett are the only two I like right now, and it's only mild interest. Devin Thomas or Kelly could emerge, but right now, it's hard to say which one of the two to have.

This year's WR crop is not all that strong at the top, although it is pretty deep. I would not be shocked if I don't own any rookie WRs in redrafts this year.

 

[dmac37]

I tried to decide which WR's seemed most NFL ready and who has the best opportunity right away.

Earl Bennet- reports before the draft seem to indicate that he is one the rookies that should adjust to the NFL right away and he has a great chance to be the #1 or #2 WR in Chicago from day one.

Malcolm Kelly- he is more of a polished receiver than Thomas and him being a big possession type of receiver is more of an immediate need for the Redskins.

Keenan Burton- Rams need someone to step up and be the #2 WR and Bennet does not have a strong hold on that spot. Sirius NFL radio reported that Holt came on and in so many words questioned Avery and stated that he was not able to run a route. Burton seems more ready to make an impact, injuries have been his downfall.

Adrian Arrington- once again opportunity in NO for someone to grab the #2 WR spot, more than likely a long shot for this season but who knows. I would rather take a chance on a #2 WR in the Saints high powered offense than many of the weaker offensive situations.

Paul Hubbard- some experts that I respect have already named him as a sleeper pick in Cleveland and with JJ looking to be done there is a good chance for opportunity.

Hardy is the most obvious choice, so I did not really include him.

 

[FUBAR]

Kelly, Hardy, Burton, Royal

Kelly will bust, and so will Royal.Hell, while I'm at it, so will Devin Thomas and Avery.

Sweed, Hardy, and Jackson are the WRs to have from this draft. Sleepers include Burton (I agree with you on that one) and Caldwell.

Anything aside from your gut to base that on?

 

[MAC_32]

-Hubbard is likely going to be placed on the practice squad in 08, rightfully so

-Hardy is largely regarded as a raw prospect, he has a lot to learn before he contributes

I wouldn't expect anything out of them this year.

I think Earl Bennett's the best bet with Jerome Simpson and Will Franklin as players to closely monitor. I think Jordy Nelson is ready but has too many bodies in his way, he needs someone to get injured.

Thomas and Sweed will both have opportunities, but I do not believe in either of their talents. If I had to choose one or the other it'd be Thomas, if his game does translate to the NFL it will be in a west coast scheme.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

James Hardy

Devin Thomas

 

[Scooby]

DeSean Jackson - McNabb loves to throw balls into the dirt and Jackson is really short.

This is hilarious!!!

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

Kelly, Hardy, Burton, Royal

Kelly will bust, and so will Royal.Hell, while I'm at it, so will Devin Thomas and Avery.

Sweed, Hardy, and Jackson are the WRs to have from this draft. Sleepers include Burton (I agree with you on that one) and Caldwell.

Anything aside from your gut to base that on?

No need to repeat what's been said many times about these players. I guess it's a wait and see now. No one repeats themselves more than those in the Shark Pool. There's only so many ways you can say the same thing.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Kelly, Hardy, Burton, Royal

Kelly will bust, and so will Royal.Hell, while I'm at it, so will Devin Thomas and Avery. Sweed, Hardy, and Jackson are the WRs to have from this draft. Sleepers include Burton (I agree with you on that one) and Caldwell.

Well, I disagree some. But I think the main thing is that the OP asked about a redraft. I think Sweed, Jackson and Caldwell may be good, but I think all need some time to develop. Thus, they aren't good value in a redraft. I think that Kelly may end up busting, but I think he could do well this year. I think they'll try to feature him and he'll do decently as a rookie. But long term his desire and health will be his downfall. I think you're completely wrong on Royal. I think he'll be good this year and longer term, esp in leagues with some return points.

 

[Hackers]

DeSean Jackson - McNabb loves to throw balls into the dirt and Jackson is really short.

 

[T Bell]

For this year, of the two 'Skins WR's I'd rather have Kelly. He figures to be a nice red zone target and get some TD's. Going forward, I'm having great difficulty handicapping Kelly versus Thomas overall, especially because Moss and Cooley are there and it's tough to figure where the targets will go.

 

[saintfool]

As for a REAL surprise - like Colston - I'll be watching Adrian Arrington in NO, I he's got skills and size and if nobody else steps up he could see more playing time than most would expect.

Reports from the Saints OTAs indicate he has skills but will more than likely be a practice squad selection. He's got Patten, Meachem, Henderson,Moore and Copper ahead of him. It's tough for me to imagine him cracking the line-up for the Saints this year. He could be snagged by another team before the Saints can put him on he practice squad, of course...My guesses?Sweed - Ward is slowing down; Sweed has the size for a great red zone target. Bennet - He might have the most talent and could easily emerge from a crowded, lackluster receiving corpsDoucet - He's #3 in a very WR friendly offense; He'll get opportunities, especially if Fitz/Boldin miss any time.Simpson/Caldwell - see above.

 

[Dirty Weasel]

Why is it that 7 of the 10 FBG experts do not have a single rookie in their top-60? No less than 3 rookies have finished in the top 60 in each of the last 4 years. Only Norton and Tefertiller have more than 1 rookie on their list. Of the 15 rookie WR's over the last 4 years to make it into the top 60, 8 of them were starter-level (WR1 thru WR36). Am I missing something here? Does this year's crop really suck that bad, or are their individual situations the problem?

 

[T Bell]

Why is it that 7 of the 10 FBG experts do not have a single rookie in their top-60? No less than 3 rookies have finished in the top 60 in each of the last 4 years. Only Norton and Tefertiller have more than 1 rookie on their list. Of the 15 rookie WR's over the last 4 years to make it into the top 60, 8 of them were starter-level (WR1 thru WR36). Am I missing something here? Does this year's crop really suck that bad, or are their individual situations the problem?

I can't speak for any of them obviously, but there's no one or two rookies this year that stand out above all of the rest IMHO as being worthy of such a pick. There were no great prospects this year, just lots of good ones.

 

[David Yudkin]

Why is it that 7 of the 10 FBG experts do not have a single rookie in their top-60? No less than 3 rookies have finished in the top 60 in each of the last 4 years. Only Norton and Tefertiller have more than 1 rookie on their list. Of the 15 rookie WR's over the last 4 years to make it into the top 60, 8 of them were starter-level (WR1 thru WR36). Am I missing something here? Does this year's crop really suck that bad, or are their individual situations the problem?

Since my rankings aren't up yet, you can't point your finger at me (at least not yet), but the answer is pretty simple. Sure, there will likely be 2 or 3 rookies that wind up in the Top 60. But there were 35 rookies drafted this year (in addition to some undrafted free agent signings). Many of the rookies that rank in the Top 60 only do so because other players higher on the depth chart got hurt.So at this point in July, which rookies will see significant playing time is tought to predict, and which rookies will benefit from injuries are even tougher to predict.Similarly, we know from past seasons that 50% of the Top 10 running backs won't be Top 10 the following year . . . again mostly as a direct result of injuries. So in ranking the players, should we guess which players are going to get hurt? Would that make any sense?Which wuold make more sense for the rookie WRs . . . adding in 3 to the mix when they could very easily be W-A-Y off just because that what past history suggests will happen?

 

[BoulderBob]

Hardy and Bennett are the only two I like right now, and it's only mild interest. Devin Thomas or Kelly could emerge, but right now, it's hard to say which one of the two to have. This year's WR crop is not all that strong at the top, although it is pretty deep. I would not be shocked if I don't own any rookie WRs in redrafts this year.

It appears as though this is a poor year for rookie WR's. Of course, one or two will probably put up decent seasons, but good luck predicting who...James Hardy was fun to watch at Indiana, and I think he will pull in 5+ TD's this season...

 

[BLOX]

Jordy Nelson could hit the top 60.

He'll be a great red zone target and could end up with 35-40 rec, 500 yds, but could peak at 8TDs.

Earl Bennett could start this year as there isn't much he has in his way.

The WRs drafted in St. Louis are getting hyped pretty good.

 

[Dirty Weasel]

Why is it that 7 of the 10 FBG experts do not have a single rookie in their top-60? No less than 3 rookies have finished in the top 60 in each of the last 4 years. Only Norton and Tefertiller have more than 1 rookie on their list. Of the 15 rookie WR's over the last 4 years to make it into the top 60, 8 of them were starter-level (WR1 thru WR36). Am I missing something here? Does this year's crop really suck that bad, or are their individual situations the problem?

Since my rankings aren't up yet, you can't point your finger at me (at least not yet), but the answer is pretty simple. Sure, there will likely be 2 or 3 rookies that wind up in the Top 60. But there were 35 rookies drafted this year (in addition to some undrafted free agent signings). Many of the rookies that rank in the Top 60 only do so because other players higher on the depth chart got hurt.So at this point in July, which rookies will see significant playing time is tought to predict, and which rookies will benefit from injuries are even tougher to predict.Similarly, we know from past seasons that 50% of the Top 10 running backs won't be Top 10 the following year . . . again mostly as a direct result of injuries. So in ranking the players, should we guess which players are going to get hurt? Would that make any sense?Which wuold make more sense for the rookie WRs . . . adding in 3 to the mix when they could very easily be W-A-Y off just because that what past history suggests will happen?

2007Dwayne Bowe - 3 - finished as WR24Calvin Johnson - 1 - finished as WR35James Jones - 14 - finished as WR542006Marques Colston - 33 - finished as WR14Santonio Holmes - 1 - finished as WR41Greg Jennings - 4 - finished as WR542005Reggie Brown - 7 - finished as WR48Matt Jones - 4 - finished as WR50Chris Henry - 13 - finished as WR51Braylon Edwards - 1 - finished as WR592004Michael Clayton - 5 - finished as WR13Lee Evans - 4 - finished as WR24Roy Williams - 2 - finished as WR29Larry Fitzgerald - 1 - finished as WR30Keary Colbert - 10 - finished as WR36Do you think it's just coincidence that the #1WR drafted in each of the last 4 seasons has cracked the top 60? Of the list above, which ones made top-60 because of injury to a starter? Those guys didn't wait for injury... they proved their talent and earned playing time. Think about it - 56% of the top 4 WR's taken over the last 4 yrs have been top-60 in their rookie season (9 out of 16). I thought an 8-yr sample size was going to be big enough, but I'll dig back another 12 years for a total of a 20-yr sample size. It will take some time, but I am fairly confident the results will be similar. Stay tuned...

 

[fourd]

Why is it that 7 of the 10 FBG experts do not have a single rookie in their top-60? No less than 3 rookies have finished in the top 60 in each of the last 4 years. Only Norton and Tefertiller have more than 1 rookie on their list. Of the 15 rookie WR's over the last 4 years to make it into the top 60, 8 of them were starter-level (WR1 thru WR36). Am I missing something here? Does this year's crop really suck that bad, or are their individual situations the problem?

Since my rankings aren't up yet, you can't point your finger at me (at least not yet), but the answer is pretty simple. Sure, there will likely be 2 or 3 rookies that wind up in the Top 60. But there were 35 rookies drafted this year (in addition to some undrafted free agent signings). Many of the rookies that rank in the Top 60 only do so because other players higher on the depth chart got hurt.So at this point in July, which rookies will see significant playing time is tought to predict, and which rookies will benefit from injuries are even tougher to predict.Similarly, we know from past seasons that 50% of the Top 10 running backs won't be Top 10 the following year . . . again mostly as a direct result of injuries. So in ranking the players, should we guess which players are going to get hurt? Would that make any sense?Which wuold make more sense for the rookie WRs . . . adding in 3 to the mix when they could very easily be W-A-Y off just because that what past history suggests will happen?

2007Dwayne Bowe - 3 - finished as WR24Calvin Johnson - 1 - finished as WR35James Jones - 14 - finished as WR542006Marques Colston - 33 - finished as WR14Santonio Holmes - 1 - finished as WR41Greg Jennings - 4 - finished as WR542005Reggie Brown - 7 - finished as WR48Matt Jones - 4 - finished as WR50Chris Henry - 13 - finished as WR51Braylon Edwards - 1 - finished as WR592004Michael Clayton - 5 - finished as WR13Lee Evans - 4 - finished as WR24Roy Williams - 2 - finished as WR29Larry Fitzgerald - 1 - finished as WR30Keary Colbert - 10 - finished as WR36Do you think it's just coincidence that the #1WR drafted in each of the last 4 seasons has cracked the top 60? Of the list above, which ones made top-60 because of injury to a starter? Those guys didn't wait for injury... they proved their talent and earned playing time. Think about it - 56% of the top 4 WR's taken over the last 4 yrs have been top-60 in their rookie season (9 out of 16). I thought an 8-yr sample size was going to be big enough, but I'll dig back another 12 years for a total of a 20-yr sample size. It will take some time, but I am fairly confident the results will be similar. Stay tuned...

Of course all those #1's were first round picks, most very early 1st round. No receivers went in the first this year.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

For the sake of this thread, I will define "redraft-worthy" as someone who finishes in the top 60 (a low-end WR5)

... Every year there are at least 2 redraft-worthy rookie WR's.

... So, which rookies in 2008 will finish in the top-60?

Hardy and Nelson look to be the best bets. I can't envision anyone else right now with a shot to land in the top sixty. Sweed would have to beat out Ward and his main weakness, outside of the health of his wrist, is running routes which I think will be his ultimate downfall unless he vastly improves that weakness. The Nati WRs look great long term, especially Caldwell but with Chad doing his mea culpa and TJ more than likely coming back to reclaim his starting role, their would be three guys trying to land the Chris Henry third WR role and it doesn't look good. Hubbard has virtually no shot to make the roster let alone start and earn top sixty ranking this year. I see a timely injury and IR or practice squad in his future. The skin WRs have to deal with Cambell's development. I know I am missing some others and more than likely the chalk prospects won't hit but right now go with Hardy/Nelson as the obvious choices.

 

[Dirty Weasel]

Why is it that 7 of the 10 FBG experts do not have a single rookie in their top-60? No less than 3 rookies have finished in the top 60 in each of the last 4 years. Only Norton and Tefertiller have more than 1 rookie on their list. Of the 15 rookie WR's over the last 4 years to make it into the top 60, 8 of them were starter-level (WR1 thru WR36). Am I missing something here? Does this year's crop really suck that bad, or are their individual situations the problem?

Since my rankings aren't up yet, you can't point your finger at me (at least not yet), but the answer is pretty simple. Sure, there will likely be 2 or 3 rookies that wind up in the Top 60. But there were 35 rookies drafted this year (in addition to some undrafted free agent signings). Many of the rookies that rank in the Top 60 only do so because other players higher on the depth chart got hurt.So at this point in July, which rookies will see significant playing time is tought to predict, and which rookies will benefit from injuries are even tougher to predict.Similarly, we know from past seasons that 50% of the Top 10 running backs won't be Top 10 the following year . . . again mostly as a direct result of injuries. So in ranking the players, should we guess which players are going to get hurt? Would that make any sense?Which wuold make more sense for the rookie WRs . . . adding in 3 to the mix when they could very easily be W-A-Y off just because that what past history suggests will happen?

2007Dwayne Bowe - 3 - finished as WR24Calvin Johnson - 1 - finished as WR35James Jones - 14 - finished as WR542006Marques Colston - 33 - finished as WR14Santonio Holmes - 1 - finished as WR41Greg Jennings - 4 - finished as WR542005Reggie Brown - 7 - finished as WR48Matt Jones - 4 - finished as WR50Chris Henry - 13 - finished as WR51Braylon Edwards - 1 - finished as WR592004Michael Clayton - 5 - finished as WR13Lee Evans - 4 - finished as WR24Roy Williams - 2 - finished as WR29Larry Fitzgerald - 1 - finished as WR30Keary Colbert - 10 - finished as WR36Do you think it's just coincidence that the #1WR drafted in each of the last 4 seasons has cracked the top 60? Of the list above, which ones made top-60 because of injury to a starter? Those guys didn't wait for injury... they proved their talent and earned playing time. Think about it - 56% of the top 4 WR's taken over the last 4 yrs have been top-60 in their rookie season (9 out of 16). I thought an 8-yr sample size was going to be big enough, but I'll dig back another 12 years for a total of a 20-yr sample size. It will take some time, but I am fairly confident the results will be similar. Stay tuned...

Of course all those #1's were first round picks, most very early 1st round. No receivers went in the first this year.

Yes, 9 of the 15 listed above went in the 1st round. That leaves 6 WR's drafted in the 2nd or later. That's an average of 1.5 rookies per season drafted after the 1st round to make top-60.Here's another way to put it... there were 130 WR's drafted from 2004 thru 2007. 15 of those WR's made top-60. That comes out to 12%, or basically... one out of every 8 rookie WR's makes top-60 in his first season.One thing I did notice to piggyback on my first sentence above. There have been 20 WR's drafted in the first round in the last 4 years. Of those 20, 9 of them finished in the top-60. I like them odds.I've only worked back to 1998, as I am just starting to compile stats for 1988 thru 1999. 1999 had 4 rookies in the top-60; 2 of them in the 1st round, 1 in the 2nd, and 1 in the 5th. 1998 was a bad year for rookie WR's, as only one made the top-60 cut. Fortunately, it was Randy Moss... and he finished as the #1 FF WR with 69 catches for 1313 yards and 17 TD's! The Oilers were so ashamed of taking Kevin Dyson as the 1st WR in the draft, they changed to the Titans the following year.

 

[Tecmo]

James Hardy, Earl Bennett, and DeSean Jackson are my guesses for immediate production. Each is in a good situation

 

[-OZ-]

Why is it that 7 of the 10 FBG experts do not have a single rookie in their top-60? No less than 3 rookies have finished in the top 60 in each of the last 4 years. Only Norton and Tefertiller have more than 1 rookie on their list. Of the 15 rookie WR's over the last 4 years to make it into the top 60, 8 of them were starter-level (WR1 thru WR36). Am I missing something here? Does this year's crop really suck that bad, or are their individual situations the problem?

Since my rankings aren't up yet, you can't point your finger at me (at least not yet), but the answer is pretty simple. Sure, there will likely be 2 or 3 rookies that wind up in the Top 60. But there were 35 rookies drafted this year (in addition to some undrafted free agent signings). Many of the rookies that rank in the Top 60 only do so because other players higher on the depth chart got hurt.So at this point in July, which rookies will see significant playing time is tought to predict, and which rookies will benefit from injuries are even tougher to predict.

Similarly, we know from past seasons that 50% of the Top 10 running backs won't be Top 10 the following year . . . again mostly as a direct result of injuries. So in ranking the players, should we guess which players are going to get hurt? Would that make any sense?

Which wuold make more sense for the rookie WRs . . . adding in 3 to the mix when they could very easily be W-A-Y off just because that what past history suggests will happen?

2007Dwayne Bowe - 3 - finished as WR24

Calvin Johnson - 1 - finished as WR35

James Jones - 14 - finished as WR54

2006

Marques Colston - 33 - finished as WR14

Santonio Holmes - 1 - finished as WR41

Greg Jennings - 4 - finished as WR54

2005

Reggie Brown - 7 - finished as WR48

Matt Jones - 4 - finished as WR50

Chris Henry - 13 - finished as WR51

Braylon Edwards - 1 - finished as WR59

2004

Michael Clayton - 5 - finished as WR13

Lee Evans - 4 - finished as WR24

Roy Williams - 2 - finished as WR29

Larry Fitzgerald - 1 - finished as WR30

Keary Colbert - 10 - finished as WR36

Do you think it's just coincidence that the #1WR drafted in each of the last 4 seasons has cracked the top 60? Of the list above, which ones made top-60 because of injury to a starter? Those guys didn't wait for injury... they proved their talent and earned playing time. Think about it - 56% of the top 4 WR's taken over the last 4 yrs have been top-60 in their rookie season (9 out of 16). I thought an 8-yr sample size was going to be big enough, but I'll dig back another 12 years for a total of a 20-yr sample size. It will take some time, but I am fairly confident the results will be similar. Stay tuned...

Of course all those #1's were first round picks, most very early 1st round. No receivers went in the first this year.

Yes, 9 of the 15 listed above went in the 1st round. That leaves 6 WR's drafted in the 2nd or later. That's an average of 1.5 rookies per season drafted after the 1st round to make top-60.Here's another way to put it... there were 130 WR's drafted from 2004 thru 2007. 15 of those WR's made top-60. That comes out to 12%, or basically... one out of every 8 rookie WR's makes top-60 in his first season.



One thing I did notice to piggyback on my first sentence above. There have been 20 WR's drafted in the first round in the last 4 years. Of those 20, 9 of them finished in the top-60. I like them odds.

I've only worked back to 1998, as I am just starting to compile stats for 1988 thru 1999. 1999 had 4 rookies in the top-60; 2 of them in the 1st round, 1 in the 2nd, and 1 in the 5th. 1998 was a bad year for rookie WR's, as only one made the top-60 cut. Fortunately, it was Randy Moss... and he finished as the #1 FF WR with 69 catches for 1313 yards and 17 TD's! The Oilers were so ashamed of taking Kevin Dyson as the 1st WR in the draft, they changed to the Titans the following year.

Great, but what does that have to do with 2008?

 

[David Yudkin]

One thing I did notice to piggyback on my first sentence above. There have been 20 WR's drafted in the first round in the last 4 years. Of those 20, 9 of them finished in the top-60. I like them odds.

Not really that great odds wise IMO. There are 32 teams x 3 WR (normally not many WR4s in the Top 60) = 96 WRs. 60 of 96 = 63%. That's better odds than 45%, and we don't even really need to guess which rookies pass the muster or not.

 

[Biabreakable]

While I apprechiate the post DW and there is some good information here there is one simple thing that you should not ignore while looking back all these years.There was not one WR drafted in the 1st round in 2008. Not one. And that has not happened since 1990.Here are the WR that were drafted in 1990:

1 1990 2 26 Alexander Wright WR DAL 1990 1996 0 0 2 86 6 42 0 101 1597 10 Auburn 2 1990 2 28 Reggie Rembert WR NYJ 1991 1993 0 0 0 28 36 437 1 West Virginia 3 1990 2 50 Mike Bellamy WR PHI 1990 1990 0 0 0 6 Illinois 4 1990 3 58 Ricky Proehl WR PHO 1990 2006 0 0 6 244 19 115 0 669 8878 54 Wake Forest 5 1990 3 68 Ron Lewis WR SFO 1990 1994 0 0 0 34 27 325 0 Florida State 6 1990 3 77 Fred Barnett WR PHI 1990 1997 0 1 6 96 4 -2 0 361 5362 32 Arkansas State 7 1990 3 80 Greg McMurtry WR NWE 1990 1994 0 0 2 67 2 3 0 128 1631 5 Michigan 8 1990 4 83 Stacey Simmons WR IND 1990 1990 0 0 0 14 4 33 0 Florida 9 1990 4 88 Tony Moss WR CHI 0 0 0 LSU 10 1990 4 96 Fred Jones WR KAN 1990 1993 0 0 0 41 6 33 0 36 466 0 Grambling State 11 1990 4 97 Chris Calloway WR PIT 1990 2000 0 0 6 158 12 69 0 386 5497 30 Michigan 12 1990 5 116 Reggie Thornton WR MIN 1991 1993 0 0 0 6 1 38 0 Bowling Green 13 1990 5 118 Jeff Campbell WR DET 1990 1994 0 0 1 68 2 6 0 37 517 4 Colorado 14 1990 5 122 Lynn James WR CIN 1990 1991 0 0 0 25 1 11 0 10 139 1 Arizona State 15 1990 5 132 Charles Wilson WR GNB 1990 1995 0 0 2 76 7 25 0 113 1750 11 Memphis 16 1990 5 133 Calvin Williams WR PHI 1990 1996 0 0 6 100 5 29 0 308 3925 35 Purdue 17 1990 6 140 Terance Mathis WR NYJ 1990 2002 0 1 8 206 14 97 2 689 8809 63 New Mexico 18 1990 6 142 Tyrone Shavers WR PHO 1991 1991 0 0 0 1 Lamar 19 1990 6 153 Tony Jones WR HOU 1990 1993 0 0 0 43 1 -2 0 63 798 9 Texas 20 1990 6 155 Ronald Heard WR PIT 0 0 0 Bowling Green 21 1990 6 161 Tim Stallworth WR RAM 1990 1990 0 0 0 1 Washington State 22 1990 7 187 Nate Lewis WR SDG 1990 1995 0 0 3 82 12 44 1 130 1802 13 Oregon Tech 23 1990 8 194 Willie Green WR DET 1991 1998 0 0 4 114 1 1 0 237 3720 26 Mississippi 24 1990 8 205 Thomas Woods WR MIA 0 0 0 Tennessee 25 1990 8 220 Dwight Pickens WR SFO 0 0 0 Fresno State 26 1990 9 223 Dale Dawkins WR NYJ 1990 1993 0 0 0 36 8 106 0 Miami (FL) 27 1990 9 232 Darvell Huffman WR IND 1991 1991 0 0 0 3 1 -8 0 3 14 0 Boston University 28 1990 9 237 Pat Coleman WR HOU 1990 1994 0 0 0 52 2 3 0 42 575 2 Mississippi 29 1990 9 238 Clarkston Hines WR BUF 0 0 0 Duke

Ricky Proehl and Terrence Mathis ended up being the best WR from that draft class. And their rookie seasons were like this:Ricky Proehl 56 catches 802 yards 4 TDTerrence Mathis 19 catches 245 yards 0 TDYou have to have a situation where talent meets opportunity. The rookie being the best WR the team has leaving the team no other option but to go to him.I would say that Earl Bennett probably has the best chance of putting up Proehl type numbers as a rookie because he is one of the most polished and ready to play WR from this draft class and has the least compitition in front of him. However I still think Booker ends up being the Bears #1 WR and Bennett has to earn time over Bradley, Lloyd, Davis and Hester for playing time.I don't see 2008 as being a good year for predicting rookie WR success. Even marginal success (like WR 3 numbers to merit spot starting) without an injury or something else happening between now and the start of the season to increase a rookie WRs opportunity.

 

[Dirty Weasel]

One thing I did notice to piggyback on my first sentence above. There have been 20 WR's drafted in the first round in the last 4 years. Of those 20, 9 of them finished in the top-60. I like them odds.

Not really that great odds wise IMO. There are 32 teams x 3 WR (normally not many WR4s in the Top 60) = 96 WRs. 60 of 96 = 63%. That's better odds than 45%, and we don't even really need to guess which rookies pass the muster or not.

I disagree, and think 45% is a great number. Your 63% looks better, but an 18% difference when you consider vets vs rookies isn't that steep. Also, how many vets are typically shoe-ins to make it back into the top 60? Once you pencil in those vets, the numbers of remaining vets vs rookies become closer.I'm not trying to say rookie WR's should be taken early in a redraft. I guess I'm just saying if it gets to me and my choices are between a guy like James Hardy and a guy like Justin Gage, I'm taking Hardy. Gage, currently ranked as WR60 by FBG experts, is entering his 6th season. He finally "broke out" and finished as WR50 last year. In his first 4 yrs, his best finish was WR82.

 

[Dirty Weasel]

While I apprechiate the post DW and there is some good information here there is one simple thing that you should not ignore while looking back all these years.There was not one WR drafted in the 1st round in 2008. Not one. And that has not happened since 1990.Here are the WR that were drafted in 1990:

1 1990 2 26 Alexander Wright WR DAL 1990 1996 0 0 2 86 6 42 0 101 1597 10 Auburn 2 1990 2 28 Reggie Rembert WR NYJ 1991 1993 0 0 0 28 36 437 1 West Virginia 3 1990 2 50 Mike Bellamy WR PHI 1990 1990 0 0 0 6 Illinois 4 1990 3 58 Ricky Proehl WR PHO 1990 2006 0 0 6 244 19 115 0 669 8878 54 Wake Forest 5 1990 3 68 Ron Lewis WR SFO 1990 1994 0 0 0 34 27 325 0 Florida State 6 1990 3 77 Fred Barnett WR PHI 1990 1997 0 1 6 96 4 -2 0 361 5362 32 Arkansas State 7 1990 3 80 Greg McMurtry WR NWE 1990 1994 0 0 2 67 2 3 0 128 1631 5 Michigan 8 1990 4 83 Stacey Simmons WR IND 1990 1990 0 0 0 14 4 33 0 Florida 9 1990 4 88 Tony Moss WR CHI 0 0 0 LSU 10 1990 4 96 Fred Jones WR KAN 1990 1993 0 0 0 41 6 33 0 36 466 0 Grambling State 11 1990 4 97 Chris Calloway WR PIT 1990 2000 0 0 6 158 12 69 0 386 5497 30 Michigan 12 1990 5 116 Reggie Thornton WR MIN 1991 1993 0 0 0 6 1 38 0 Bowling Green 13 1990 5 118 Jeff Campbell WR DET 1990 1994 0 0 1 68 2 6 0 37 517 4 Colorado 14 1990 5 122 Lynn James WR CIN 1990 1991 0 0 0 25 1 11 0 10 139 1 Arizona State 15 1990 5 132 Charles Wilson WR GNB 1990 1995 0 0 2 76 7 25 0 113 1750 11 Memphis 16 1990 5 133 Calvin Williams WR PHI 1990 1996 0 0 6 100 5 29 0 308 3925 35 Purdue 17 1990 6 140 Terance Mathis WR NYJ 1990 2002 0 1 8 206 14 97 2 689 8809 63 New Mexico 18 1990 6 142 Tyrone Shavers WR PHO 1991 1991 0 0 0 1 Lamar 19 1990 6 153 Tony Jones WR HOU 1990 1993 0 0 0 43 1 -2 0 63 798 9 Texas 20 1990 6 155 Ronald Heard WR PIT 0 0 0 Bowling Green 21 1990 6 161 Tim Stallworth WR RAM 1990 1990 0 0 0 1 Washington State 22 1990 7 187 Nate Lewis WR SDG 1990 1995 0 0 3 82 12 44 1 130 1802 13 Oregon Tech 23 1990 8 194 Willie Green WR DET 1991 1998 0 0 4 114 1 1 0 237 3720 26 Mississippi 24 1990 8 205 Thomas Woods WR MIA 0 0 0 Tennessee 25 1990 8 220 Dwight Pickens WR SFO 0 0 0 Fresno State 26 1990 9 223 Dale Dawkins WR NYJ 1990 1993 0 0 0 36 8 106 0 Miami (FL) 27 1990 9 232 Darvell Huffman WR IND 1991 1991 0 0 0 3 1 -8 0 3 14 0 Boston University 28 1990 9 237 Pat Coleman WR HOU 1990 1994 0 0 0 52 2 3 0 42 575 2 Mississippi 29 1990 9 238 Clarkston Hines WR BUF 0 0 0 Duke

Ricky Proehl and Terrence Mathis ended up being the best WR from that draft class. And their rookie seasons were like this:Ricky Proehl 56 catches 802 yards 4 TDTerrence Mathis 19 catches 245 yards 0 TDYou have to have a situation where talent meets opportunity. The rookie being the best WR the team has leaving the team no other option but to go to him.I would say that Earl Bennett probably has the best chance of putting up Proehl type numbers as a rookie because he is one of the most polished and ready to play WR from this draft class and has the least compitition in front of him. However I still think Booker ends up being the Bears #1 WR and Bennett has to earn time over Bradley, Lloyd, Davis and Hester for playing time.I don't see 2008 as being a good year for predicting rookie WR success. Even marginal success (like WR 3 numbers to merit spot starting) without an injury or something else happening between now and the start of the season to increase a rookie WRs opportunity.

Here are the WR's that were drafted in 1990, and who ended up in the top-60:Fred Barnett - taken at 3.24 as the 7th WR, finished as WR19 with 36/721/8Calvin Williams - taken at 5.24 as the 17th WR, finished as WR23 with 37/602/9Rob Moore - taken in supplemental draft, finished as WR33 with 44/692/6Ricky Proehl - taken at 3.5 as the 4th WR, finished as WR34 with 56/802/4Tony Jones - taken at 6.16 as the 20th WR, finished as WR48 with 30/409/6Not only was 1990 an above average year for the amounts of top-60 WR's, but 4 of the 5 were starter-level (WR1 thru WR36).

 

[Biabreakable]

Ok DW its your thread. What rookie WR do you see as being worth drafting?

If you can sort out which rookie WR will perform well here your a lot smarter than me and the front offices of 32 teams that didn't consider any of these WR worth a 1st round pick.

 

[renesauz]

For the sake of this thread, I will define "redraft-worthy" as someone who finishes in the top 60 (a low-end WR5)2007Dwayne Bowe - 3 - finished as WR24Calvin Johnson - 1 - finished as WR35James Jones - 14 - finished as WR542006Marques Colston - 33 - finished as WR14Santonio Holmes - 1 - finished as WR41Greg Jennings - 4 - finished as WR542005Reggie Brown - 7 - finished as WR48Matt Jones - 4 - finished as WR50Chris Henry - 13 - finished as WR51Braylon Edwards - 1 - finished as WR592004Michael Clayton - 5 - finished as WR13Lee Evans - 4 - finished as WR24Roy Williams - 2 - finished as WR29Larry Fitzgerald - 1 - finished as WR30Keary Colbert - 10 - finished as WR362003Anquan Boldin - 6 - finished as WR4Andre Johnson - 2 - finished as WR232002Antonio Bryant - 10 - finished as WR32Donte Stallworth - 1 - finished as WR38Andre Davis - 7 - finished as WR58Antwaan Randle El - 9 - finished as WR592001Chris Chambers - 10 - finished as WR30Rod Gardner - 3 - finished as WR392000Peter Warrick - 1 - finished as WR31Darrell Jackson - 15 - finished as WR33

I took out the WR production numbers and substituted where those players were taken in terms of WRs. For example, James Jones was drafted as the #14 receiver off the board in the NFL draft. The #1 WR was on your list 6 of the 8 seasons you referenced. After that, though, there was really no pattern as to who did well and who didn't. Note that there were 7 guys drafted 10th or later. There were 10 that were drafted in the first 3 WRs.

I think the data is pretty clear when it comes to rookie WR's.....take a flyer late if you want, but your odds aren't very good. The truth is that it's easy to say 2 or 3 will produce...but it's VERY difficult to predict who those 2 or 3 will be, and it's almost impossible in June/early July.Generally speaking, rookie WR's are something to avoid at the draft in any redraft league. You're better off grabbing a flyer RB a single injury from starting.Call me wrong if you'd like...but look at this list again....exactly how many season-altering seasons do you see? And among those few, how many could you have predicted? How many DRAFTED Colston?I don't have the data, but I think you'd find that among those last round WR picks, there were more 2nd/3rd year WR's available who broke into the top 60 then rookies.

 

[Dirty Weasel]

Ok DW its your thread. What rookie WR do you see as being worth drafting?If you can sort out which rookie WR will perform well here your a lot smarter than me and the front offices of 32 teams that didn't consider any of these WR worth a 1st round pick.

I never claimed to be smarter. I simply decided to further research how well rookie WR's fared when I noticed that no rookies were ranked in the top 60. I've only completed 13 of the last 20 years so far, and of those 13 years, a total of 44 made the cut. That's an average of 3.4 per season.That said, here are my 3 choices:James Hardy - Evans has his spot as the top WR in BUF. The next in line are Josh Reed and Roscoe Parrish. Reed is entering his 7th season and barely cracked the top-60 in 2003, when he finished as WR59. He has 3 straight seasons finishing in the 70's. As for Parrish, he's played 3 seasons, but has increased his output in each season. Unfortunately, he has only climbed to WR81 at this point. He's quite a small WR (5'9", 170lbs) and I just don't see him breaking out. I think Hardy has a great shot at securing the WR2 spot this year. He is a big target (6'5", 217lbs) who should get a decent amount of EZ targets. While I don't think he will get 70 catches, I can see him cracking the top-60 with a statline like 40/500/5.Donnie Avery - Holt will be Bulger's main target once again, but there should be enough passing in STL to go around. Drew Bennett's best years (statistically speaking) are behind him. He is an average WR at best, albeit a nice EZ target due to his size. As for the Avery will see the field quite often, and has a very good shot at outproducing Drew. The Rams saw something they liked in Avery, and they took him as the first WR in the draft at 2.2. I think his game is polished enough to contribute in 2008. I throw out 40/550/4 as my projection.Malcolm Kelly - I decided to pass on the higher drafted Devin Thomas and pick Kelly here. It may be crowded with Moss, Randle El, and Thomas, but I think there is room for Kelly to post around 40/500/4. Those numbers should place him around WR55 in 2008. I think he is a nice pickup as your WR5 this year, and will be a decent guy as your WR3 in 2009.

 

[Dirty Weasel]

Well, I finally finished my research, and here are the results for the past 20 years...

- 70 rookie WR's cracked the top-60 (an average of 3.5 per season)

- Of those 70, exactly half (35) finished as starter-level (WR1 thru WR36)

- The #1 selected WR has cracked top-60 in 12 of the last 20 seasons (60%)

- The #1 selected WR has been starter-level in 7 of the last 20 seasons (35%)

- 42 of the 70 to crack the top-60 came from the first 5 WR's selected (60%)

- 14 of the 70 to crack the top-60 came from the WR's selected between 6 and 10 (20%)

- 8 of the 70 to crack the top-60 came from the WR's selected between 11 and 15 (11%)

- 4 of the 70 to crack the top-60 came from the WR's selected between 16 and 20 (6%)

- 1 of the 70 to crack the top-60 came from the WR's selected after 20 (Colston was the 33rd WR taken in his draft)

- 1 of the 70 to crack the top-60 came from the supplemental draft (Rob Moore, in 1990)

- 1992 was the only year that no rookie WR cracked top-60

- 1998 was the only year that only 1 rookie cracked top-60 (it was Randy Moss, who finished as WR1)

- 36 of the 70 to crack the top-60 were drafted in the 1st round

- 16 of the 70 to crack the top-60 were drafted in the 2nd round

- 10 of the 70 to crack the top-60 were drafted in the 3rd round

- 2 of the 70 to crack the top-60 were drafted in the 4th round

- 2 of the 70 to crack the top-60 were drafted in the 5th round

- 1 of the 70 to crack the top-60 were drafted in the 6th round

- 2 of the 70 to crack the top-60 were drafted in the 7th round

I know it's just a bunch of numbers, but I had fun doing the research. After looking at the results, I wouldn't hesitate to start taking the top guys when looking for a WR5 in a redraft league.

 

[David Yudkin]

- 70 rookie WR's cracked the top-60 (an average of 3.5 per season)

In the last 20 years, there have been 696 WR drafted, an average of 34.8 per season, so 3.5 of 34.8 = 10% cracked the Top 60. Since the Top 60 does not really represent any value, I prefer the Top 36 as being the noteworthy ones.

- Of those 70, exactly half (35) finished as starter-level (WR1 thru WR36)

So half of 10% = 5% of all drafted rookie receivers are starter worthy (1 out of 20).

- The #1 selected WR has been starter-level in 7 of the last 20 seasons (35%)

IMO, those are ok odds, but certainly not great. I don't really have the time, the energy or desire to research it, but I suspect the first drafted WR off the fantasy draft board goes way earlier than he should, so while he may have the best shot at being starter worthy, his ADP will have been too early.The difference between a WR5 and WR6 is minimal, so the Top 60 seems like an odd place to draw the line. Fantasy wise, although it would be difficult to prove or disprove, I suspect that 1) players remain in the Top 36 more frequently, 2) the corps of 24 players in the 37-60 ranking from the year before, and 3) players tabbed as their team's WR1, WR2, or WR3 heading in to the season have a greater chance of ranking in the Top 36 than rookie receivers taken as a whole. Note that there may be occasions where rookies are part of the last set, so IMO those would be the ones to target if someone were to target rookie WRs.I think there may be more to this, and I would expect that there is more to the story that we are missing, such as the team's that had rookies in the Top 36 did not have two WR the year before post certain levels, or the team the year before exceeded some passing yardage totals and were passing teams, oor the teams had certain records the year before, etc.In ter,s of using talent evaluation, the fact that none of these players played a down before makes it very problematic to use track record as a tool to decipher who to pick, so in many ways drafting rookies becomes a more random shot in the dark. Obviously at a certain point in the draft anyone you draft is really fishing for a home run, as the odds of having to play a WR5 or WR6 get pretty slim. Similarly, most leagues have free agents or waiver wires, so it's not like you have no chance to pick the higher scoring rookies up after the draft and during the season.

 

[Dirty Weasel]

- 70 rookie WR's cracked the top-60 (an average of 3.5 per season)

In the last 20 years, there have been 696 WR drafted, an average of 34.8 per season, so 3.5 of 34.8 = 10% cracked the Top 60. Since the Top 60 does not really represent any value, I prefer the Top 36 as being the noteworthy ones.

- Of those 70, exactly half (35) finished as starter-level (WR1 thru WR36)

So half of 10% = 5% of all drafted rookie receivers are starter worthy (1 out of 20).

- The #1 selected WR has been starter-level in 7 of the last 20 seasons (35%)

IMO, those are ok odds, but certainly not great. I don't really have the time, the energy or desire to research it, but I suspect the first drafted WR off the fantasy draft board goes way earlier than he should, so while he may have the best shot at being starter worthy, his ADP will have been too early.The difference between a WR5 and WR6 is minimal, so the Top 60 seems like an odd place to draw the line. Fantasy wise, although it would be difficult to prove or disprove, I suspect that 1) players remain in the Top 36 more frequently, 2) the corps of 24 players in the 37-60 ranking from the year before, and 3) players tabbed as their team's WR1, WR2, or WR3 heading in to the season have a greater chance of ranking in the Top 36 than rookie receivers taken as a whole. Note that there may be occasions where rookies are part of the last set, so IMO those would be the ones to target if someone were to target rookie WRs.

I think there may be more to this, and I would expect that there is more to the story that we are missing, such as the team's that had rookies in the Top 36 did not have two WR the year before post certain levels, or the team the year before exceeded some passing yardage totals and were passing teams, oor the teams had certain records the year before, etc.

In ter,s of using talent evaluation, the fact that none of these players played a down before makes it very problematic to use track record as a tool to decipher who to pick, so in many ways drafting rookies becomes a more random shot in the dark. Obviously at a certain point in the draft anyone you draft is really fishing for a home run, as the odds of having to play a WR5 or WR6 get pretty slim. Similarly, most leagues have free agents or waiver wires, so it's not like you have no chance to pick the higher scoring rookies up after the draft and during the season.

Good analysis, David. I've bolded the part that stood out to me, and the part that I will research further. 20 years worth of data should be a large enough sample size, and I think we may be able to extract some useful info here. Thank you for taking the time to post your thoughts.

 

[benbadman]

If in 1 in 8 rookie WRs makes the top60, and we are talking about redraft here, then it seems like the safer bet is to build your redraft team's WR4, WR5, WR6 depth on veterans. Would you rather draft a reliable bye week fill-in like Isaac Bruce, Ronald Curry, & Derrick Mason or waste a roster spot on one of the 20 rookie options? Heck, give me Ernest Wilford of Miami over your favorite rookie WR.

 

[FUBAR]

If in 1 in 8 rookie WRs makes the top60, and we are talking about redraft here, then it seems like the safer bet is to build your redraft team's WR4, WR5, WR6 depth on veterans. Would you rather draft a reliable bye week fill-in like Isaac Bruce, Ronald Curry, & Derrick Mason or waste a roster spot on one of the 20 rookie options? Heck, give me Ernest Wilford of Miami over your favorite rookie WR.

While I would take Bruce, Curry or Mason over the rookies, you can have Wilford, I'll take a chance of getting this year's Bowe, Colston, Fitzgerald, or even Calvin as my WR5 or 6.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Situations I like

Andre Caldwell could fill the Chris Henry role for the Bengals and it was reported that he was picking up things very well in Cincinnati.

The Packers reportedly love Jordy Nelson.

Even though Steve Breaston apparently looks much improved, I think Early Doucet could battle him for playing time.

James Hardy should get many opportunities in the red zone.

Lavelle Hawkins has as much of a chance as anyone in Tennessee. I would guess he's already their best receiver.

Dark Horse - Harry Douglass. Roddy White showed his abilty and Laurent Robinson flashed a bit, but the team must think they need the something else that Douglass brings.

Situations I don't like

Earl Bennet - When was the last time any Chicago WR put up decent numbers (Moose three years ago?)

DeSean Jackson - I think size will limit him his entire career.

Malcolm Kelly & Devin Thomas - Two rookies in a new offense fighting for the leftovers from Moss, Portis, and Cooley.

Limas Sweed - I can't see him taking significant production away from Wars and Holmes.

 

[Dirty Weasel]

If in 1 in 8 rookie WRs makes the top60, and we are talking about redraft here, then it seems like the safer bet is to build your redraft team's WR4, WR5, WR6 depth on veterans. Would you rather draft a reliable bye week fill-in like Isaac Bruce, Ronald Curry, & Derrick Mason or waste a roster spot on one of the 20 rookie options? Heck, give me Ernest Wilford of Miami over your favorite rookie WR.

Yes, I would certainly take guys like Bruce and Mason over any rookie WR in a redraft. But if you look, Mason is ranked around WR30 and Bruce is around WR40. Those 2 guys are considered as WR3/4 types. Wilford and Curry are ranked around WR50 (decent WR5's). I am not advocating reaching on a rookie WR in a redraft league simply because an average of 2 per year crack top-36. My goal when I started this research was to see if rookie WR's held any value in a redraft league, and the answer is yes.As for the stat about 1 in 8 rookie WR's making the top 60. Yes, that is correct, but that is when you factor in all WR's drafted, even the ones in later rounds. There have been 76 WR's drafted in the first round over the last 20 years. Of those 76, nearly half (36) made the top-60 cut. Here's the complete breakdown of top-60 WR's by round drafted:1st round - 36 out of 76 - 47% - average 1 out of 22nd round - 16 out of 82 - 20% - average 1 out of 53rd round - 10 out of 82 - 12% - average 1 out of 84th round - 2 out of 75 - 3% - average 1 out of 375th round - 2 out of 78 - 3% - average 1 out of 396th round - 1 out of 92 - 1% - - average 1 out of 927th round or later - 2 out of 211 - 1% - average 1 out of 105Look above at how the far right number skyrockets starting in round 4. As I said in an earlier post, I would only consider the rookies that are the top prospects, and of course they are going to be the ones drafted in the first 3 rounds. And again, we are talking about drafting your WR5's here. I'd much rather have James Hardy than Justin Gage sitting on my bench. I think of it this way - if I'm starting Hardy or Gage it's for one of the following reasons:- I've been riddled with injuries at WR- Hardy has become a FF starter-level WR and pushed my WR3 and WR4 down a notch- Gage has become a FF starter-level WR and pushed my WR3 and WR4 down a notchWhich of those 3 options is least likely to happen?

 

[EBF]

Who has a chance for early PT?

Earl Bennett

DeSean Jackson

James Hardy

Lavelle Hawkins

Devin Thomas

Malcolm Kelly

Eddie Royal

Donnie Avery

I don't like any of these guys to be an impact player right away, but I'll keep an eye on Kelly and Thomas. If one of those guys is able to win the WR2 job in Washington then he could produce immediately. Bennett and Hardy could be rookie starters, so they're also worth watching. I like Jackson as a late pick in best ball leagues. The rest will probably have to wait 1-2 years before they become relevant.

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

Who has a chance for early PT? Earl BennettDeSean JacksonJames HardyLavelle HawkinsDevin ThomasMalcolm KellyEddie RoyalDonnie AveryI don't like any of these guys to be an impact player right away, but I'll keep an eye on Kelly and Thomas. If one of those guys is able to win the WR2 job in Washington then he could produce immediately. Bennett and Hardy could be rookie starters, so they're also worth watching. I like Jackson as a late pick in best ball leagues. The rest will probably have to wait 1-2 years before they become relevant.

Neither Kelly nor Thomas will be relevant this year, and Kelly may never be relevant. Besides, I wouldn't get that excited about the WR #2 in Washington anyway. I agree with you about Jackson as a late pick. The guy will make plays.

 

[EBF]

Who has a chance for early PT? Earl BennettDeSean JacksonJames HardyLavelle HawkinsDevin ThomasMalcolm KellyEddie RoyalDonnie AveryI don't like any of these guys to be an impact player right away, but I'll keep an eye on Kelly and Thomas. If one of those guys is able to win the WR2 job in Washington then he could produce immediately. Bennett and Hardy could be rookie starters, so they're also worth watching. I like Jackson as a late pick in best ball leagues. The rest will probably have to wait 1-2 years before they become relevant.

Neither Kelly nor Thomas will be relevant this year, and Kelly may never be relevant. Besides, I wouldn't get that excited about the WR #2 in Washington anyway. I agree with you about Jackson as a late pick. The guy will make plays.

I actually think Kelly is one of the few rookie receivers capable of approaching 1,000 yards. He's considered more polished and game ready than Thomas.

 

[NorrisB]

DeSean Jackson - McNabb loves to throw balls into the dirt and Jackson is really short.

 

[zadok]

DeSean Jackan and Limas Sweed. Possibly Hardy but I hate his QB situation.

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

Who has a chance for early PT? Earl BennettDeSean JacksonJames HardyLavelle HawkinsDevin ThomasMalcolm KellyEddie RoyalDonnie AveryI don't like any of these guys to be an impact player right away, but I'll keep an eye on Kelly and Thomas. If one of those guys is able to win the WR2 job in Washington then he could produce immediately. Bennett and Hardy could be rookie starters, so they're also worth watching. I like Jackson as a late pick in best ball leagues. The rest will probably have to wait 1-2 years before they become relevant.

Neither Kelly nor Thomas will be relevant this year, and Kelly may never be relevant. Besides, I wouldn't get that excited about the WR #2 in Washington anyway. I agree with you about Jackson as a late pick. The guy will make plays.

I actually think Kelly is one of the few rookie receivers capable of approaching 1,000 yards. He's considered more polished and game ready than Thomas.

With his serious knee problem and lack of speed, he has bust written all over him. I'm surprised you don't see that. I'm not saying that all slow WRs are busts, but his knee issue throws up the biggest red flag.