If we’re comparing to Gophers I think the more apt comparison is Eric decker- except faster and without the medical red flags. Similar ability to adjust to bad throws (amazing how bad some of the throws are on both their highlights). Good route running/knowledge, good use of hands at the line to avoid the jam.Was anyone debating that? Did you bring him just because both he and Bateman are Gophers?
I was comparing them because they are both Gophers. Mostly to point out that there are some things Bateman can improve on that Johnson already did well.Andy Dufresne said:Was anyone debating that? Did you bring him just because both he and Bateman are Gophers?
I should also mention that I have a very high opinion of Tyler Johnson and what he does well. So that Bateman or a lot of guys may not have his body control and hands is not a severe criticism. I think Johnson does those things at a very high level.rockaction said:The thing that Tyler Johnson lacks is Bateman's speed. And size. Which is part of the reason why Johnson went in the fifth round. But hands and route running are not a question with Tyler Johnson. See his twisting, turning catch against the New Orleans Saints in a huge moment in a tight NFC Divisional game. That's another thing Bateman isn't yet. A world champion.
But yeah, there's really not much similarity to their game other than they're Golden Gophers and Biabreakable is a Minnesota guy who got to watch them both out of interest to the program. I don't think he ever really compared them other than to say who he thought was more productive overall at Minnesota. And Johnson was incredibly productive there. Knock on him was and always will be speed.
Same here.I should also mention that I have a very high opinion of Tyler Johnson and what he does well.
Makes sense and that is a guy I think Bateman would have drawn a lot of comps too before we saw his actual measurements. Decker was 25 pounds heavier and 3 inches taller though. So Bateman will need that extra athleticism because he doesn't that big body to shield him like Decker did.Snorkelson said:If we’re comparing to Gophers I think the more apt comparison is Eric decker- except faster and without the medical red flags. Similar ability to adjust to bad throws (amazing how bad some of the throws are on both their highlights). Good route running/knowledge, good use of hands at the line to avoid the jam.
You could compare him to any WR really but I think it's a bit more apples to apples comparing Johnson and Bateman as they played for the same coach, same QB and same supporting cast/competition.Snorkelson said:If we’re comparing to Gophers I think the more apt comparison is Eric decker- except faster and without the medical red flags. Similar ability to adjust to bad throws (amazing how bad some of the throws are on both their highlights). Good route running/knowledge, good use of hands at the line to avoid the jam.
Dont forget that Bateman has exceptional release. Every time I watch his release, it often reminds Keenan Allen. The way he toys with DB for last few years was pure clinic.The thing that Tyler Johnson lacks is Bateman's speed. And size. Which is part of the reason why Johnson went in the fifth round. But hands and route running are not a question with Tyler Johnson. See his twisting, turning catch against the New Orleans Saints in a huge moment in a tight NFC Divisional game. That's another thing Bateman isn't yet. A world champion.
But yeah, there's really not much similarity to their game other than they're Golden Gophers and Biabreakable is a Minnesota guy who got to watch them both out of interest to the program. I don't think he ever really compared them other than to say who he thought was more productive overall at Minnesota. And Johnson was incredibly productive there. Knock on him was and always will be speed.
Is that a lot?Bateman was listed 6'2", 210.
Pro day he was 6', 190.
People may still be using the wrong info. But he's 2 inches shorter, and 20 pounds lighter than we were told.
If you look at the metrics of successful fantasy WRs, no, I don't think so. That size is totally fine.Is that a lot?
I'm in almost lockstep agreement with this, from the theory to the particulars. Bateman is fine. He's about 6 and a half feet tall and at 190, he's fine for playing weight. He's well within the range of a receiver who might indeed crack the top 24 for fantasy purposes; he's not a drastic outlier in terms of either height or weight. That said, 6'2", 210 is better, and if he played at his tested speed with the previous height and weight (which I thought he did before his pro day) it would have been a boon to his prospects. As it is, he's well within range. You have to decide whether you like the player at that point, really. I'm sure they can refine height/weight and success further, but I'm not aware of it. It took someone until this year to correlate forty times with yards received, so I'm not holding my breath that they've done height/weight things that finely (they might have, I'm just unaware).If you look at the metrics of successful fantasy WRs, no, I don't think so. That size is totally fine.
Look at it like this: 6'2'', 210, pretty darn close to Prototype. 6', 190, is Fine.
If he was taller, or heavier, it would be more preferred, of course, but those smaller numbers are well within the range where really good WRs live. If there are no analytic/age related red flags, just give everyone a check, and move on to how you like them as a player.
If an OT was listed at 6'7", 330, but came in at 6'5'', 310, that's a decent comp. Would you prefer taller, bigger, sure? Are there Hall of Famers at the smaller numbers? Yes, many. So, if the smaller guy is the better OT, give me that guy.
@rockaction and I have been talking about metrics in another thread, and this is a great example of something we were talking about. There are pretty clear minimums a guy needs to reach at certain positions, and if they don't, chances drop dramatically. There are always outliers, but I don't wanna draft them in the 1st round. Tyler Lockett is an outlier.
If Batemen went from 200 to 175, that's a problem. If he went from 5'11" to 5'9" or 5'8", that's a thing.
Rondale Moore measured at 5'7", and that's a real problem. History says, very unlikely. Same with Devonta at 6'1", 170 lbs. All these short dudes, Waddle, Moore, it's an issue, and the history of players that size is clear. They are unlikely to become top 24 fantasy WRs.
All those rookies last year, through two rounds, thirteen dudes. You know the one guy that didn't meet the height/weight minimums? KJ Hamler.
Batemen is fine, just not as big as we thought.
I hadnt heard that.If you look at the metrics of successful fantasy WRs, no, I don't think so. That size is totally fine.
Look at it like this: 6'2'', 210, pretty darn close to Prototype. 6', 190, is Fine.
If he was taller, or heavier, it would be more preferred, of course, but those smaller numbers are well within the range where really good WRs live. If there are no analytic/age related red flags, just give everyone a check, and move on to how you like them as a player.
If an OT was listed at 6'7", 330, but came in at 6'5'', 310, that's a decent comp. Would you prefer taller, bigger, sure? Are there Hall of Famers at the smaller numbers? Yes, many. So, if the smaller guy is the better OT, give me that guy.
@rockaction and I have been talking about metrics in another thread, and this is a great example of something we were talking about. There are pretty clear minimums a guy needs to reach at certain positions, and if they don't, chances drop dramatically. There are always outliers, but I don't wanna draft them in the 1st round. Tyler Lockett is an outlier.
If Batemen went from 200 to 175, that's a problem. If he went from 5'11" to 5'9" or 5'8", that's a thing.
Rondale Moore measured at 5'7", and that's a real problem. History says, very unlikely. Same with Devonta at 6'1", 170 lbs. All these short dudes, Waddle, Moore, it's an issue, and the history of players that size is clear. They are unlikely to become top 24 fantasy WRs.
All those rookies last year, through two rounds, thirteen dudes. You know the one guy that didn't meet the height/weight minimums? KJ Hamler.
Batemen is fine, just not as big as we thought.
Did they now?I'm in almost lockstep agreement with this, from the theory to the particulars. Bateman is fine. He's about 6 and a half feet tall and at 190, he's fine for playing weight. He's well within the range of a receiver who might indeed crack the top 24 for fantasy purposes; he's not a drastic outlier in terms of either height or weight. That said, 6'2", 210 is better, and if he played at his tested speed with the previous height and weight (which I thought he did before his pro day) it would have been a boon to his prospects. As it is, he's well within range. You have to decide whether you like the player at that point, really. I'm sure they can refine height/weight and success further, but I'm not aware of it. It took someone until this year to correlate forty times with yards received, so I'm not holding my breath that they've done height/weight things that finely (they might have, I'm just unaware).
What I'm about to say is that I'm guilty of this too, and that is that we get a bias for or against a player and we will argue our point until our nose bleeds. Then we look foolish later and wish we hadn't taken such a hard stance on a player. This works both ways too. Not just those we are bias against, but those where we have rose colored glasses on for. I'm starting to try and get outside my comfort zone with players I like and try and see what NFL teams are saying about them. After all, I'm not the expert here. NFL teams get it wrong too and I think the Raiders taking Ruggs as the first WR was stupid, but in general teams know more than us wannabees. Not saying Ruggs won't eventually pan out either.Did they now?
I would like to see that. I have seen some things that would suggest otherwise.
Oh I agree with most of what you are saying.What I'm about to say is that I'm guilty of this too, and that is that we get a bias for or against a player and we will argue our point until our nose bleeds. Then we look foolish later and wish we hadn't taken such a hard stance on a player. This works both ways too. Not just those we are bias against, but those where we have rose colored glasses on for. I'm starting to try and get outside my comfort zone with players I like and try and see what NFL teams are saying about them. After all, I'm not the expert here. NFL teams get it wrong too and I think the Raiders taking Ruggs as the first WR was stupid, but in general teams know more than us wannabees. Not saying Ruggs won't eventually pan out either.
Chase Stuart in Football Perspective did for WRs. I thought I'd posted links.Oh I agree with most of what you are saying.
The post you are quoting was in response to rockaction saying that someone had found a correlation between 40 time and yardage gained in the NFL.
I was looking for more information about that.
Chase Stuart in Football Perspective did for WRs. I thought I'd posted links.
eta* I've posted links elsewhere, but not here. It's at footballperspective.com. You need only dig a very little and you'll find the two-part series. Here they are.
http://www.footballperspective.com/are-40-yard-dash-times-correlated-with-success-for-wide-receivers/
http://www.footballperspective.com/are-40-yard-dash-times-correlated-with-success-for-wide-receivers-part-ii/
I think his conclusion is incorrect with regard to speed. It only takes one team to be enamored by a fast kid, rocketing his draft capital higher than 31 other teams would have ranked him. In that sense, draft capital/speed/production are not as correlated as he claims.If you believe that 40 times are overrated by the NFL, you would think that a player who ran the 40 in 4.38 seconds and was drafted with the 30th pick should do WORSE than a player who ran the 40 in 4.58 seconds and was drafted say, at 40th overall. That’s because you think NFL decisionmakers overstate the importance of the 40
Fair enough. I took his conclusions at more or less face value, not really questioning the dependent/independent variable (isn't that where that would come in?) aspects of his findings.I think his conclusion is incorrect with regard to speed. It only takes one team to be enamored by a fast kid, rocketing his draft capital higher than 31 other teams would have ranked him. In that sense, draft capital/speed/production are not as correlated as he claims.
Ravens selected Minnesota WR Rashod Bateman with the No. 27 overall pick in the 2021 NFL Draft.
Bateman (6'0/190) led the country in Yards per Route Run from out wide as a 20-year-old sophomore (and Big Ten's Receiver of the Year) alongside Bucs WR Tyler Johnson before being moved into the slot for 61% of his snaps in 2020 in order to see more schemed targets. His career marks of 36 broken tackles (on 147 catches) and 15.7 YPC are still pigeonhole-proof in the NFL since he succeeded across Minnesota's formation with at least one catch in all 31 games. An average athlete, Bateman's basketball background and production from anywhere on the field should earn him reps as the team's No. 2 receiver alongside Marquise Brown.
Apr 29, 2021, 11:33 PM ET
Love him but this is the worst possible landing spotWas really really high on this guy before he landed in Baltimore.
This sums it up the best one can. They run the ball all the time, and don't apologize for it. Harbaugh went out of his way last year to answer critics who said they run the ball too much. He flat said that was who they were. As far as volume goes, Marquise Brown had a target share of around 35% last year and barely cracked WR12 even in his best weeks.I love Bateman, I hate he’s in Balt.
He’s a very good WR. Jackson is a good QB. But the volume man, the volume. They’re a run heavy team
Brown and Andrews will get their share of targets. Jackson will break off and run some times.
We’re splitting a small pie.
It seems like those were always the spots they were going to.Boy, DeVonta Smith or Jaylen Waddle vs. Bateman just became a much less fun debate. I don't like where any of them landed.
Thought Smith or Waddle was linked to the Giants. They got leapfrogged. But Miami was always going to wind up with one of them, yes.It seems like those were always the spots they were going to.
Why would Brown not be a factor? Brown looked to be coming on strong late last season.While I like Bateman, reading the last few posts about it not being a good landing spot because the Ravens are a run heavy team, I can go along with that. However, I disagree about his competition for targets. If anything you fade Brown and while Andrews will still get his, he may get a few less that will now go to Bateman. Not a perfect landing spot, but not as bad as some of you are making it out to be.
I'm not going to try and paint a pretty picture for Bateman, because we don't really know for sure the impact he will have, but if he is the alpha on that team it won't be as bad as some fear. Brown is the least of my worries. What does worry me is the run/pass ratios, including Jackson running, and of course his favorite target Andrews. All of this could mean mediocre numbers for Bateman, but like I said, if he can break away from all the others and prove he's "The Guy", then I don't feel as bad about it. The ball is in Bateman's court now, let's see what he does with it.Why would Brown not be a factor? Brown looked to be coming on strong late last season.
I agree you fade Brown. But I’m having a hard time seeing this situation not also being bad for Bateman. It’s certainly not a mutually exclusive situation.
I think Bateman is a better player. But Brown is good enough and already has NFL experience, the playbook down, and chemistry with Jackson.
This.Seems to be an ideal late 1st pick in fantasy. Drafted by the league champ or contender, who probably doesn't NEED him to ball out year one. (as that does seem unlikely in this offense)
I don’t think there’s a lot of room to move him down the WR rankings.This.
The above posts are why people are gonna draft some slot WRs with no chance of becoming the WR1 on their team.