This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I've owned him as well and I understand what your saying but NO never targeted him heavily.......he's in line for more targets in NE than he ever had before.....no a lot more but 20-25 more targets could make him less volatile........
NO never targeted him like a #1 WR but he still produced #1 WR seasons.......no other WR in the top 12 was targeted less than Cooks.
In PPR there were 0 WR with fewer than 2 games in single digits and one (Nelson) with fewer than 3. Cooks had 4.
Seems an arbitrary way to measure this... even though your numbers back me up.
The point here is to examine how well Cooks played in this game, and, in doing so, we can see that he played very well. The point is not to somehow create an adjusted comprehensive set of "could have had" rankings.
You quoted a post indicating all WR get single-digit scoring saying "not like any WR1" when it was in fact "every WR1" that scores single digits. Cooks was #11 in scoring last year at 15.4 PPG. Your other point is measuring volatility, not WR1 status. Golden Tate, Cameron Meredith, Emmanuel Sanders, and Tyreek HIll had more "top 12" games than Cooks - are you calling them WR1's as a result? More importantly, are you drafting any of them over Cooks?
No, they don't. The list of WR's with fewer single digit games than Cooks:
3 catches = 48 all year. Obvious bust
As some others have mentioned is that Cooks did not look open on most of those targets. He looked like he was having trouble getting separationThe point here is to examine how well Cooks played in this game, and, in doing so, we can see that he played very well. The point is not to somehow create an adjusted comprehensive set of "could have had" rankings.
Cooks had 9 actual targets in 1 game, resulting in 7 official targets since 2 resulted in accepted penalties. One game sample size is not great for extrapolation, but that suggests his target range could be 112-144. It seems unlikely he will draw 2 accepted penalties per game, suggesting the middle to higher end of that range may be valid. This is generally the range that was expected prior to the season, which mitigates the one game sample size a bit.
He was targeted 2 times at the goal line, which projects to 32 times for the season; one of those would have been a TD if not for DPI. He was targeted deep multiple times, including a 54 yard catch and another play where he was behind the defense for a 50+ yard completion and possible long TD if not for a great play by the defender. Combine these facts and his TD potential seems pretty high.
It's as if some of you don't care to look at context but simply box score to make your assessments. To each his own, but IMO that isn't a great method.
Assume you are suggesting that, of all players who finished ranked as a WR1, Cooks had the most weeks where he did not rank as a WR1, where WR1 is defined as top 12 WR scores for the week.
You mean when they grabbed Cooks on purpose to give up the penalty instead of getting beat for a big play?
While I agree, I think that Cooks is much more likely to stay on a 1,400-yard pace than he is to catch no touchdowns or only 3 balls a game. And they just got one of their three, what I would call, toughest defensive matchups (KC) out of the way (Denver, Houston still to go).
I just watched all of his 9 actual targets again on NFL Game Pass. Taking the 9 actual targets in order:
Those defending Cooks as a fantasy stud are the ones using the box score. How many more times do we need reminded he's on pace for 1488 yards on 146 targets?The point here is to examine how well Cooks played in this game, and, in doing so, we can see that he played very well. The point is not to somehow create an adjusted comprehensive set of "could have had" rankings.
Cooks had 9 actual targets in 1 game, resulting in 7 official targets since 2 resulted in accepted penalties. One game sample size is not great for extrapolation, but that suggests his target range could be 112-144. It seems unlikely he will draw 2 accepted penalties per game, suggesting the middle to higher end of that range may be valid. This is generally the range that was expected prior to the season, which mitigates the one game sample size a bit.
He was targeted 2 times at the goal line, which projects to 32 times for the season; one of those would have been a TD if not for DPI. He was targeted deep multiple times, including a 54 yard catch and another play where he was behind the defense for a 50+ yard completion and possible long TD if not for a great play by the defender. Combine these facts and his TD potential seems pretty high.
It's as if some of you don't care to look at context but simply box score to make your assessments. To each his own, but IMO that isn't a great method.
From watching the game, I didn't see the all around threat many touted him as. He struggled on short and intermediate patterns against man coverage. The Pats should use him primarily as a deep threat, which makes him a hit or miss fantasy play like everybody else on this team. He'll have some big games, and by all means Thursday night should have been on of those; but it didn't quite work out. NBD. 
I'm shocked at the hate. He would have added another 20 yards (?) and a TD if he wasn't tackled in the endzone and drew two other PI penalties.
Love this post!! Pats played bad on both sides of the ball. Brady was inconsistent to say the least, & as many others have said Cooks drew a couple PI's and if not for a hold in the end zone he scores...and we're not talking about 3 catches for 88 yds being a 'disappointing' opening game.
For disappointing see: Chris Hogan.
I don't think we're there (yet) but while watching the game on Thursday I was wondering if we were watching Tom Brady get old (for football) in front of our eyes.
Or maybe we have to tip our caps to KC dropping 8 in coverage, rushing only 3 & playing stout D when needed. The 4th and 1 stops were critical. Those get converted Brady likely has 2 TDs.
NE has only two WR that know any of the playbook. Cooks and Hogan. I would be shocked if Cooks posted a line like that.
Oof, I missed on this one. Remember when we thought Cooks might have a hard time putting up numbers because there were too many mouths to feed? Having less weapons, due to injury, sure didn't help him today.
The Saints said earlier in the week they were not going to let Cooks go deep. If he was covered why would they force it to him?
I am down on Cooks as well, see my post last week. With that said the Hoodie has forgotten more about football than all of us on the board will ever know about football, combined!
I am down on him as well and this is far from the truth. I think he might just be Desean Jackson and people thought he was an upgraded version of Jackson.
DeSean was never a guy who went in the first two rounds that I recall as I've seen Cooks go in the past 2-3 years based on situation. Guy's just too short to be a viable red zone presence and that means he has to put up some serious between the 20's production. He does remind me of DeSean, particually the philly era Desean, where it feels like there'd be 3-4 average/down games and then a blow up game, which is fantasy death IMO. I'm glad I only got him in one league, I swallowed the kool aid
I think him going earlier than Desean is because the Philly offense was always considered good, Cooks has played on two teams where the offense was considered great.
Teams are just going to double and triple Cooks and force Brady to beat them with Allen, Burkhead, White and whoever else is playing receiver if those guys miss time.
