Which WW WR is the real deal? (1 Viewer)

[senyera]

Everyone is looking for the undrafted guy who rises to the occasion/situation and posts decent numbers.

These guys all saw a good amount of targets WK1 and are available in >2/3 of Yahoo leagues:

Clayton 10-119-0 Appears to be the #1 and Bradford's go to target

Gresham 6-25-1 How did Palmer look? Gresham is behind TO/Ocho who will draw coverage, could be decent spot start

Mike Thomas 6-89-0 Read that MSW was covered by Bailey all game

Amendola 6-67-0 Behind Clayton but could be decent spot start

Bess 6-51-0 Will see many targets when Marshall draws coverage

Brandon Lloyd 5-117-0 Royal had more targets but is Lloyd the deep threat?

Shipley 5-82-0 Same as Gresham

Mike Williams TB 5-30-1 Most targeted, TB has a decent schedule

Mike Williams SEA 4-64-0 Hass looked his way often, soft schedule

Luis Murphy 4-28-0 Behind McFadden in receptions but is he the #1 WR

Manningham 4-85-0 Eli spread the ball around, could be a decent spot start?

Anyone else? Did not include TEs but feel free to discuss if your league is WR/TE

Thoughts from those who watched the games? Who would you pick up and why?

 

[vondrak]

I like both Williams, any reason you left Royal off the list?

 

[jurb26]

Gresham and Manningham should be on nobodies WW. Nobodies.

 

[kingsofromance]

Amendola and lloyd. I can not believe I like Lloyd as much as I do....I am think of dropping Leon Washington for him.

 

[dmac37]

Everyone is looking for the undrafted guy who rises to the occasion/situation and posts decent numbers.

These guys all saw a good amount of targets WK1 and are available in >2/3 of Yahoo leagues:

Clayton 10-119-0 Appears to be the #1 and Bradford's go to target

Gresham 6-25-1 How did Palmer look? Gresham is behind TO/Ocho who will draw coverage, could be decent spot start

Mike Thomas 6-89-0 Read that MSW was covered by Bailey all game

Amendola 6-67-0 Behind Clayton but could be decent spot start

Bess 6-51-0 Will see many targets when Marshall draws coverage

Brandon Lloyd 5-117-0 Royal had more targets but is Lloyd the deep threat?

Shipley 5-82-0 Same as Gresham

Mike Williams TB 5-30-1 Most targeted, TB has a decent schedule

Mike Williams SEA 4-64-0 Hass looked his way often, soft schedule

Luis Murphy 4-28-0 Behind McFadden in receptions but is he the #1 WR

Manningham 4-85-0 Eli spread the ball around, could be a decent spot start?

Anyone else? Did not include TEs but feel free to discuss if your league is WR/TE

Thoughts from those who watched the games? Who would you pick up and why?

I think Mike Thomas is the real deal, it had been reported all pre-season that he was the best WR during camp. Not sure what level he will produce this year with Garrard and the Jax passing offense but he should be a great dynasty investment.Clayton is worth taking a flier on as Bradford looks pretty good and he received all these targets after only being there a week.

 

[coyote5]

Gresham and Manningham should be on nobodies WW. Nobodies.

In a 10 team league these guys should absolutely be rostered??? LOL, ease up on the hyperbole, guy.

 

[Casting Couch]

Gresham and Manningham should be on nobodies WW. Nobodies.

In a 10 team league these guys should absolutely be rostered??? LOL, ease up on the hyperbole, guy.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Everyone is looking for the undrafted guy who rises to the occasion/situation and posts decent numbers.

These guys all saw a good amount of targets WK1 and are available in >2/3 of Yahoo leagues:

Clayton 10-119-0 Appears to be the #1 and Bradford's go to target

Gresham 6-25-1 How did Palmer look? Gresham is behind TO/Ocho who will draw coverage, could be decent spot start

Mike Thomas 6-89-0 Read that MSW was covered by Bailey all game

Amendola 6-67-0 Behind Clayton but could be decent spot start

Bess 6-51-0 Will see many targets when Marshall draws coverage

Brandon Lloyd 5-117-0 Royal had more targets but is Lloyd the deep threat?

Shipley 5-82-0 Same as Gresham

Mike Williams TB 5-30-1 Most targeted, TB has a decent schedule

Mike Williams SEA 4-64-0 Hass looked his way often, soft schedule

Luis Murphy 4-28-0 Behind McFadden in receptions but is he the #1 WR

Manningham 4-85-0 Eli spread the ball around, could be a decent spot start?

Anyone else? Did not include TEs but feel free to discuss if your league is WR/TE

Thoughts from those who watched the games? Who would you pick up and why?

I was at the Giants game all day yesterday so I didn't see any of the other games, but FWIW I'd avoid a guy like Brandon Lloyd. He's been in the league a long time, has often been tagged as a "sleeper" but has never actually turned into a useful fantasy WR. Once in a while he'll put up a game with 100 yards and lots of people will pick him up, and then he'll go back to his typical 2 catches for 15 yards.When I'm loooking at WW WRs, I'm looking for rookie/young players, maybe guys who are getting their first shot in the leauge. Lloyd's had many chances and proven to be a bust, let someone else fall for that trap. I'm also looking at targets, which are a key indicator IMO. I haven't looked at them yet, but if I'm trying to pick between a handful of WRs who all put up surprisingly good numbers in week one, I'm probably taking the one who had the most targets as opposed to the one who scored a fluky TD.

Manningham is the kind of guy who might be useful in a best-ball type league but I wouldn't trust him as someone I'd have to start on any given week. He's still 3rd in line for targets behind Smith and Nicks.

 

[drfeelgood]

Manningham is the kind of guy who might be useful in a best-ball type league but I wouldn't trust him as someone I'd have to start on any given week. He's still 3rd in line for targets behind Smith and Nicks.

Plus Kevin Boss got knocked out of the game, and he is also a target for Eli.

 

[jurb26]

Gresham and Manningham should be on nobodies WW. Nobodies.

In a 10 team league these guys should absolutely be rostered??? LOL, ease up on the hyperbole, guy.

Where does it say it is a 10 man league?

 

[FantasyTrader]

I think it was where you said, "...nobodies WW. Nobodies."

That includes 10-team leagues.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Gresham and Manningham should be on nobodies WW. Nobodies.

In a 10 team league these guys should absolutely be rostered??? LOL, ease up on the hyperbole, guy.

Where does it say it is a 10 man league?

You said they should be on "nobodies [sic] WW." That would seem to include 10-team leagues.

 

[diggler]

Devin Aromashodu - Bears - 5 catches for 71 yards on 10 targets (compared to 7 targets for Johnny Knox-ville)

 

[jurb26]

Gresham and Manningham should be on nobodies WW. Nobodies.

In a 10 team league these guys should absolutely be rostered??? LOL, ease up on the hyperbole, guy.

Where does it say it is a 10 man league?

You said they should be on "nobodies [sic] WW." That would seem to include 10-team leagues.

Would that seem to include 10 team leagues with mandatory start 2 TEs and 4 WRs with the option of flexing a 5th WR as well?The % of 10 team leagues out there with standard lineup requirements are pretty slim. None the less, of course when someone doesn't specify otherwise it is commonplace to assume 12 man league as the norm.

 

[dagwood]

Bradford clearly likes Clayton.

 

[JHuber77]

You also forgot to mention Austin Collie. I'm sure he is available in quite a few leagues as well.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Gresham and Manningham should be on nobodies WW. Nobodies.

In a 10 team league these guys should absolutely be rostered??? LOL, ease up on the hyperbole, guy.

Where does it say it is a 10 man league?

You said they should be on "nobodies [sic] WW." That would seem to include 10-team leagues.

Would that seem to include 10 team leagues with mandatory start 2 TEs and 4 WRs with the option of flexing a 5th WR as well?The % of 10 team leagues out there with standard lineup requirements are pretty slim. None the less, of course when someone doesn't specify otherwise it is commonplace to assume 12 man league as the norm.

Yes, when you say "nobodies," it includes every possible league configuration. That's what "nobodies" means.If you meant they shouldn't be on WWs in 12-team leagues, you should have said so, instead of saying they shouldn't be on ANY WWs at all, and then following up that gem with, "Where does it say it is a 10 man league?" It's not everyone else's fault that you're not making sense.According to the OP, Manningham and Gresham are available in more than 2/3 of Yahoo leagues. Perhaps you should be sharking up those leagues.

 

[redBourne]

Gresham and Manningham should be on nobodies WW. Nobodies.

In a 10 team league these guys should absolutely be rostered??? LOL, ease up on the hyperbole, guy.

Where does it say it is a 10 man league?

You said they should be on "nobodies [sic] WW." That would seem to include 10-team leagues.

Would that seem to include 10 team leagues with mandatory start 2 TEs and 4 WRs with the option of flexing a 5th WR as well?The % of 10 team leagues out there with standard lineup requirements are pretty slim. None the less, of course when someone doesn't specify otherwise it is commonplace to assume 12 man league as the norm.

Point taken by everyone. Thank you. All parties cease and lets get back to the original topic.As for the OP...I think I like Clayton on the Rams. I know that Clayton hasn't proven much to the Fantasy leagues yet but there aren't a lot of options on the Rams. I don't expect 10 receptions every week, and I don't expect big plays from him considering the ~10 ypc. However, a consistent flow of targets could mean some decent play in my flex or WR2. 6 catches for 75 yds and the possibility of a score? Why not

 

[CobraCmdr]

Gresham and Manningham should be on nobodies WW. Nobodies.

In a 10 team league these guys should absolutely be rostered??? LOL, ease up on the hyperbole, guy.

Where does it say it is a 10 man league?

You said they should be on "nobodies [sic] WW." That would seem to include 10-team leagues.

Would that seem to include 10 team leagues with mandatory start 2 TEs and 4 WRs with the option of flexing a 5th WR as well?The % of 10 team leagues out there with standard lineup requirements are pretty slim. None the less, of course when someone doesn't specify otherwise it is commonplace to assume 12 man league as the norm.

for pete's sake. You said something a little silly and got called on it. it's not the end of the world. how about we talk about which waiver wire receivers are the real deal like this thread is advertising.I agree with above poster that I don't trust a guy to have a breakout year in his 8th season (or whatever Lloyd is at). I like the upside of the 2nd year guys. Mike Thomas had 7 targets, the next highest was MJD @ 3. Worth a shot.

 

[Eminence]

Mike Williams SEA 4-64-0 Hass looked his way often, soft schedule

Soft-schedule? He faces:Champ Bailey.Dominique Rogers-Cromartie, twice.Nnamdi AsomughaBarring Darrelle Revis; in my eyes those are the Top 3 corners in the game.

 

[purestrength]

Unbelievably (to me), I am thinking of dropping Donald Brown for Brandon Lloyd in one league.

 

[DoubleG]

Gresham and Manningham should be on nobodies WW. Nobodies.

In a 10 team league these guys should absolutely be rostered??? LOL, ease up on the hyperbole, guy.

Ummm...in the 10-teamer I'm in, both of them are rostered - as are most of the guys on the list.

 

[Casting Couch]

Mike Williams SEA 4-64-0 Hass looked his way often, soft schedule

Soft-schedule? He faces:Champ Bailey.Dominique Rogers-Cromartie, twice.Nnamdi AsomughaBarring Darrelle Revis; in my eyes those are the Top 3 corners in the game.

Not a whole lot more than that in the other 11 games.

 

[Clifford]

Everyone is looking for the undrafted guy who rises to the occasion/situation and posts decent numbers.These guys all saw a good amount of targets WK1 and are available in >2/3 of Yahoo leagues:Clayton 10-119-0 Appears to be the #1 and Bradford's go to targetGresham 6-25-1 How did Palmer look? Gresham is behind TO/Ocho who will draw coverage, could be decent spot startMike Thomas 6-89-0 Read that MSW was covered by Bailey all gameAmendola 6-67-0 Behind Clayton but could be decent spot startBess 6-51-0 Will see many targets when Marshall draws coverageBrandon Lloyd 5-117-0 Royal had more targets but is Lloyd the deep threat?Shipley 5-82-0 Same as GreshamMike Williams TB 5-30-1 Most targeted, TB has a decent scheduleMike Williams SEA 4-64-0 Hass looked his way often, soft scheduleLuis Murphy 4-28-0 Behind McFadden in receptions but is he the #1 WRManningham 4-85-0 Eli spread the ball around, could be a decent spot start?Anyone else? Did not include TEs but feel free to discuss if your league is WR/TEThoughts from those who watched the games? Who would you pick up and why?

Royal: resurrectionBreaston: Anderson not a WR killerCollie: WTH??Nate Washington: The perennial forgotten man

 

[senyera]

As I said in the original post, all the guys listed were available in more than two thirds, or 66%, of leagues in Yahoo as of this morning, that is a good amount. Conversely, guys like Collie, Royal, and Aromashodu are owned in about 66% of leagues. Clearly many are long gone in deeper leagues or highly competitive ones.

Concerning Seattle, the do have some tough matchups but also have StL, Ari x2, KC, and SF, Atl, TB for playoffs

 

[ufshowboat]

I was at the Giants game all day yesterday so I didn't see any of the other games, but FWIW I'd avoid a guy like Brandon Lloyd. He's been in the league a long time, has often been tagged as a "sleeper" but has never actually turned into a useful fantasy WR. Once in a while he'll put up a game with 100 yards and lots of people will pick him up, and then he'll go back to his typical 2 catches for 15 yards.

When I'm loooking at WW WRs, I'm looking for rookie/young players, maybe guys who are getting their first shot in the leauge. Lloyd's had many chances and proven to be a bust, let someone else fall for that trap. I'm also looking at targets, which are a key indicator IMO. I haven't looked at them yet, but if I'm trying to pick between a handful of WRs who all put up surprisingly good numbers in week one, I'm probably taking the one who had the most targets as opposed to the one who scored a fluky TD.

Manningham is the kind of guy who might be useful in a best-ball type league but I wouldn't trust him as someone I'd have to start on any given week. He's still 3rd in line for targets behind Smith and Nicks.

I follow the same line of thinking with Brandon Lloyd leading into the season. But if you watch his catches, they were impressive, and it seemed like they went his way a bunch...http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-cant-miss-pl...-Mile-low-catch

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlig...D-pass-to-Lloyd

His best catch was a one hander at the end of the game on 4th down, but his toe was out of bounds. He made some plays and impressed me.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I was at the Giants game all day yesterday so I didn't see any of the other games, but FWIW I'd avoid a guy like Brandon Lloyd. He's been in the league a long time, has often been tagged as a "sleeper" but has never actually turned into a useful fantasy WR. Once in a while he'll put up a game with 100 yards and lots of people will pick him up, and then he'll go back to his typical 2 catches for 15 yards.

When I'm loooking at WW WRs, I'm looking for rookie/young players, maybe guys who are getting their first shot in the leauge. Lloyd's had many chances and proven to be a bust, let someone else fall for that trap. I'm also looking at targets, which are a key indicator IMO. I haven't looked at them yet, but if I'm trying to pick between a handful of WRs who all put up surprisingly good numbers in week one, I'm probably taking the one who had the most targets as opposed to the one who scored a fluky TD.

Manningham is the kind of guy who might be useful in a best-ball type league but I wouldn't trust him as someone I'd have to start on any given week. He's still 3rd in line for targets behind Smith and Nicks.

I follow the same line of thinking with Brandon Lloyd leading into the season. But if you watch his catches, they were impressive, and it seemed like they went his way a bunch...http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-cant-miss-pl...-Mile-low-catch

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlig...D-pass-to-Lloyd

His best catch was a one hander at the end of the game on 4th down, but his toe was out of bounds. He made some plays and impressed me.

The guy's always had talent. I remember seeing him make some kind of eye-popping miracle catch a couple of years ago when he was with Washington. But for whatever reason, he's been in the league for like 8 years, on 3 or 4 different teams, and he's never been able to translate that talent into useful fantasy stats. I'll let someone else waste their WW pickup on him this week - they'll be dropping him again two weeks from now.

 

[ZWK]

Lloyd showed some rapport with Orton in Chicago in 2008, when he had 15/249/1 through 3.5 games before getting injured in week 4 (on pace for 69/1138/4.6). Once he came back in week 11 he had a smaller role and didn't do much, but I'd count those 3.5 games as a little bit of evidence in favor of Lloyd being the real deal with Orton in Denver, enough for him to be worth considering if you have the space.

 

[redBourne]

I was at the Giants game all day yesterday so I didn't see any of the other games, but FWIW I'd avoid a guy like Brandon Lloyd. He's been in the league a long time, has often been tagged as a "sleeper" but has never actually turned into a useful fantasy WR. Once in a while he'll put up a game with 100 yards and lots of people will pick him up, and then he'll go back to his typical 2 catches for 15 yards.

When I'm loooking at WW WRs, I'm looking for rookie/young players, maybe guys who are getting their first shot in the leauge. Lloyd's had many chances and proven to be a bust, let someone else fall for that trap. I'm also looking at targets, which are a key indicator IMO. I haven't looked at them yet, but if I'm trying to pick between a handful of WRs who all put up surprisingly good numbers in week one, I'm probably taking the one who had the most targets as opposed to the one who scored a fluky TD.

Manningham is the kind of guy who might be useful in a best-ball type league but I wouldn't trust him as someone I'd have to start on any given week. He's still 3rd in line for targets behind Smith and Nicks.

I follow the same line of thinking with Brandon Lloyd leading into the season. But if you watch his catches, they were impressive, and it seemed like they went his way a bunch...http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-cant-miss-pl...-Mile-low-catch

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlig...D-pass-to-Lloyd

His best catch was a one hander at the end of the game on 4th down, but his toe was out of bounds. He made some plays and impressed me.

Don't fall for the hype. Sometimes Brandon Lloyd will give you this :
(referencing the first catch shown, didn't watch the full video)Other times you will get this : http://www.walterfootball.com/images/blloyd.gif

He is as consistent with inconsistency as you'll see. When he was playing for the niners he was more interested in his rap career.

 

[CalBear]

Clayton: Should be picked up. Will be inconsistent, along with the St. Louis offense.

Gresham: Bye week filler at best. You can pick up someone at this level later.

Thomas: Probably decent but unspectacular production.

Amendola: Don't bother.

Bess: Poor man's Eddie Royal, who's a poor man's Wes Welker. How poor are you?

Lloyd: No. We know he's mediocre, and he's got Demaryius Thomas waiting to take the deep balls.

Shipley: Not even as valuable as Gresham.

Williams (TB): Good debut. Clearly worth a shot.

Williams (SEA): Comeback player of the year? Or David Boston part II? Certainly he's the sexy pick.

Murphy: He's only #1 WR until Schilens gets back, and even before then he's #2 or #3 receiver on a bad team. Desperation move only.

Manningham: See Thomas.

My wire ranking would probably be:

Williams (SEA)

Williams (TB)

Clayton

Manningham

Amendola

 

[Major]

I may be in the minority but in keeper leagues I've been scooping up Brandon Tate (#3 NE WR). I have my doubts about Moss this year and going forward with NE. Barring injury, Tate is a nice guy to keep on your radar. He's been doing good things.

 

[rolliehouliranson]

Anyone remember Frisman Jackson's 2005 debut?

 

[coltsnut]

You can't ignore a guy playing on a team with a bad defense, in a weak conference, who received 16 targets on wk1.

 

[gandalas]

Watching the Cincy game yesterday, Gresham looks like the real deal at TE. On his TD catch, he elevated to catch a high pass in the back of the endzone effortlessly. He was also around 6 inches short of another TD, so they are definitely targeting him in the red zone.

For Shipley, a LOT of those yards came on a hail-mary catch at the end of the first half. If not for that meaningless catch, he would have only had about 30 yards. He may be a decent fantasy option eventually, but I don't think this season.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

[Edited, post comments] This is how I currently have them:

1. Tampa Mike (Williams)

2. Collie

3. Royal

4. Seattle Mike (Williams)

5. Clayton

6. Manningham

7. Mike Thomas

8. Amendola

9. Legedu Naanee

 

[Casting Couch]

This is how I currently have them:1. Royal2. Collie3. Clayton4. Mike Thomas5. Manningham6. Seattle Mike (Williams)7. Tampa Mike (Williams)8. Amendola

Wow, Tampa Mike Williams 7th ? I've got him easily at the top of the list. I agree with most of your other slots.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This is how I currently have them:1. Royal2. Collie3. Clayton4. Mike Thomas5. Manningham6. Seattle Mike (Williams)7. Tampa Mike (Williams)8. Amendola

Wow, Tampa Mike Williams 7th ? I've got him easily at the top of the list. I agree with most of your other slots.

I saw some of the game and I can see what everyone's talking about, and I have read what others have been saying too. And that was a great TD catch. But it's Tampa, it's Josh Freeman (I think he has promise, but how much as a passer who will put up decent FF passing totals this year?), it was Cleveland, and the 5 for 30 line (4 for 13 outside the TD pass that Freeman basically missed on) didn't seem like the big reveal I might have hoped for.

 

[cubbie5150]

This is how I currently have them:1. Royal2. Collie3. Clayton4. Mike Thomas5. Manningham6. Seattle Mike (Williams)7. Tampa Mike (Williams)8. Amendola

Wow, Tampa Mike Williams 7th ? I've got him easily at the top of the list. I agree with most of your other slots.

I saw some of the game and I can see what everyone's talking about, and I have read what others have been saying too. And that was a great TD catch. But it's Tampa, it's Josh Freeman (I think he has promise, but how much as a passer who will put up decent FF passing totals this year?), it was Cleveland, and the 5 for 30 line (4 for 13 outside the TD pass that Freeman basically missed on) didn't seem like the big reveal I might have hoped for.

He officially got 9 targets (though I thought I counted 10, & I didn't watch every Tampa offensive play); I started him in a start 3 WR league... Freeman's thumb injury likely cost MW a long catch & run (perhaps a TD), and Sheldon Brown tipped away a pass that would've been a 50 yd TD, so it really looks like the opportunity is there. I like this kid.

 

[swirvenirvin]

Gresham and Manningham should be on nobodies WW. Nobodies.

Wow cool and good for you, in my league people don't waste roster sports on backup TE's

 

[G-King]

Mike Williams SEA 4-64-0 Hass looked his way often, soft schedule

Soft-schedule? He faces:Champ Bailey.Dominique Rogers-Cromartie, twice.Nnamdi AsomughaBarring Darrelle Revis; in my eyes those are the Top 3 corners in the game.

Not a whole lot more than that in the other 11 games.

I like him too. If you didnt see the game, he was so close to having a TD that would have improved his numbers. I like his upside if Hass can get it going.

 

[shadyridr]

Tampa Mike should absolutely be the #1 guy on this list if he wasnt drafted

 

[rascal]

You can't ignore a guy playing on a team with a bad defense, in a weak conference, who received 16 targets on wk1.

who was that?

 

[cstu]

I was at the Giants game all day yesterday so I didn't see any of the other games, but FWIW I'd avoid a guy like Brandon Lloyd. He's been in the league a long time, has often been tagged as a "sleeper" but has never actually turned into a useful fantasy WR. Once in a while he'll put up a game with 100 yards and lots of people will pick him up, and then he'll go back to his typical 2 catches for 15 yards.

When I'm loooking at WW WRs, I'm looking for rookie/young players, maybe guys who are getting their first shot in the leauge. Lloyd's had many chances and proven to be a bust, let someone else fall for that trap. I'm also looking at targets, which are a key indicator IMO. I haven't looked at them yet, but if I'm trying to pick between a handful of WRs who all put up surprisingly good numbers in week one, I'm probably taking the one who had the most targets as opposed to the one who scored a fluky TD.

Manningham is the kind of guy who might be useful in a best-ball type league but I wouldn't trust him as someone I'd have to start on any given week. He's still 3rd in line for targets behind Smith and Nicks.

I follow the same line of thinking with Brandon Lloyd leading into the season. But if you watch his catches, they were impressive, and it seemed like they went his way a bunch...http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-cant-miss-pl...-Mile-low-catch

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlig...D-pass-to-Lloyd

His best catch was a one hander at the end of the game on 4th down, but his toe was out of bounds. He made some plays and impressed me.

I got stuck watching the whole game and I barely recognized Lloyd - he actually played like an NFL receiver. The only thing to consider is that he had great chemistry with Smith, but I don't know if Smith can hold onto the job.

 

[pittstownkiller]

You can't ignore a guy playing on a team with a bad defense, in a weak conference, who received 16 targets on wk1.

who was that?

I'll take a stab at that; Clayton, right? 16 targets on 55 pass attempts; think that will happen often? Not to mention three picks, can you see ball control coming to STL? Clayton is a reach to me.

 

[ratbast]

I like em like this:

Tampa Mike (Buc Williams!) ********PICK HIM UP NOW!!!!!********

Royal

Louis Murphy

Mike Thomas

Seattle Mike (Hawk Williams!)

Collie

Manningham

Clayton

Amendola

 

[Fantaholic]

I was at the Giants game all day yesterday so I didn't see any of the other games, but FWIW I'd avoid a guy like Brandon Lloyd. He's been in the league a long time, has often been tagged as a "sleeper" but has never actually turned into a useful fantasy WR. Once in a while he'll put up a game with 100 yards and lots of people will pick him up, and then he'll go back to his typical 2 catches for 15 yards.

When I'm loooking at WW WRs, I'm looking for rookie/young players, maybe guys who are getting their first shot in the leauge. Lloyd's had many chances and proven to be a bust, let someone else fall for that trap. I'm also looking at targets, which are a key indicator IMO. I haven't looked at them yet, but if I'm trying to pick between a handful of WRs who all put up surprisingly good numbers in week one, I'm probably taking the one who had the most targets as opposed to the one who scored a fluky TD.

Manningham is the kind of guy who might be useful in a best-ball type league but I wouldn't trust him as someone I'd have to start on any given week. He's still 3rd in line for targets behind Smith and Nicks.

I follow the same line of thinking with Brandon Lloyd leading into the season. But if you watch his catches, they were impressive, and it seemed like they went his way a bunch...http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-cant-miss-pl...-Mile-low-catch

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlig...D-pass-to-Lloyd

His best catch was a one hander at the end of the game on 4th down, but his toe was out of bounds. He made some plays and impressed me.

It has never been a question of talent or a lack of impressive plays with Lloyd. He's been making circus catches since he entered the league several years ago. He just never seems to follow up his big games with any kind of consistent performances.

 

[kingmalaki]

Breaston is available in one of my standard scoring leagues. Is he an instant "must add" or should some of these guys go ahead of him?

 

[footballnerd]

I'm liking Jordan Shipley filling in the WR3 void left by Henry (RIP) and stretching the field for Palmer. TO is the new TJ, Chad is Chad, and now Shipley can come in and be that third option Palmer went to so much. 3rd Rd ROY?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I'm liking Jordan Shipley filling in the WR3 void left by Henry (RIP) and stretching the field for Palmer. TO is the new TJ, Chad is Chad, and now Shipley can come in and be that third option Palmer went to so much. 3rd Rd ROY?

Out of everyone listed in the OP, Shipley and Lloyd are the only ones who are still available in my big-money league. I'm not despparate for a WR but I'm always on the lookout for breakout guys, if only to keep them from my opponents. I didn't see the Bengals game and I'm not sure what kind of value Shipley will have, but from what I've read it sounds like he's only worth a chance if you have a deep roster and room to stash him. Keep in mind he was 4th in targets behind 85, Owens, and Gresham (and that probably won't change any time soon), and most of his yards apparently came on a hail mary, so his production will be very limited. Comparing to the Henry situation, the third WR on CIN isn't going to get enough catches/yards to be a useful starter; his value would really come from vulturing TDs, and it sounds like Gresham will fill that role, which doesn't leave much room for Shipley.But Owens is getting old and Gresham isn't exactly a proven commodity yet so there might be room for Shipley to become useful as the season wears on.

 

[Mr.Pack]

Gresham and Manningham should be on nobodies WW. Nobodies.

In a 10 team league these guys should absolutely be rostered??? LOL, ease up on the hyperbole, guy.

Where does it say it is a 10 man league?

You said they should be on "nobodies [sic] WW." That would seem to include 10-team leagues.

Would that seem to include 10 team leagues with mandatory start 2 TEs and 4 WRs with the option of flexing a 5th WR as well?The % of 10 team leagues out there with standard lineup requirements are pretty slim. None the less, of course when someone doesn't specify otherwise it is commonplace to assume 12 man league as the norm.

Nobodies