WRs and Targets (1 Viewer)

[Joe Bryant]

One of the challenging parts of projecting what players, especially WRs, will do is how to value targets.

Malik Nabers is #1 in Targets per game over the first 12 weeks. https://www.footballguys.com/targets?pos=wr&team=all&year=2024&startweek=1&week=12&sortby=tpg

He's #4 in Targets per game from weeks 6 - 12. https://www.footballguys.com/targets?pos=wr&team=all&year=2024&startweek=6&week=12&sortby=tpg

After yesterday's game with 13 targets, that average will go up.

The reality though as we saw yesterday is targets don't always translate to points.

Wondering if there's a good discussion to be had around targets and value of targets.

 

[zamboni]

When I am seeking WRs, the ability to earn targets is basically at the top of my list. While there certainly are situations where targets don’t translate to significant points due to poor QB play (e.g., Nabers, CeeDee), situations can change and IMO talent will eventually win out in the end. Unfortunately for the Nabers and CeeDees of the world, that probably is not happening this year.

 

[rockaction]

We need to also know how far the ball is thrown to the receiver (on average), what his conversion rate is (his catch rate), and his yards after the catch. Then if we can guess his targets, we have a much better picture of the receiver’s prowess.

There are stats for this. Air yards, air yard share, aDOT (average depth of target) and RACR (receiver air conversion ratio) are all tools to help people project a receiver and how well he will do.

Here’s a primer on what air yards are from My Fantasy Life

Air Yards - NFL Air Yards and Related Stats

Fantasy Life has compiled the most important air yards data, including WOPR and RACR statistics to help fantasy players win their leagues.

www.fantasylife.com

Here is air yards explained by Josh Hermsmeyer of 4for4

Air Yards Explained

What Are Air Yards? It turns out that a wide receiver’s production depends on four distinct areas of play.

www.4for4.com

This is a good example of what is and how to use aDOT, which was created by Mike Clay of ESPN (formerly of PFF)

What is aDOT and how to use it in Fantasy Football?

aDot is meant to track how far downfield the ball is traveling, on average, for a specific player on the total sum of his targets

www.fantasylife.com

This is also a good primer

NFL Advanced Stats and Metrics | PlayerProfiler Guide Vol. 2: WRs

Welcome to the PlayerProfiler Guide to NFL Advanced Stats and Metrics. In this article, fantasy gamers can learn about key terms.

www.playerprofiler.com

This is from T.J. Hernandez and is a study in predictability

The Most Predictable Wide Receiver Stats

Some stats accumlated by wide receivers bode well for the future, while others can fluctuate wildly from year to year. Focusing on the right ones can help you build a reliable group at the receiver position in your fantasy league.

www.si.com

Catch rate and yards per routes run are also important when looking at players and whether they are potentially viable members of a fantasy squad.

 

[eighsse2]

I would start Laquon Treadwell if you guaranteed me he is getting 13 targets. There will be games where you don't get points out of targets, but generally any NFL WR is going to average very good points on 13 targets.

It's like, imagine a target is a roll of a die, and the most talented WR's are a 12-sided die, the least talented are a 6-sided die. And the number of targets is the number of times that you can roll the die. Your score is the sum of all the rolls. (You can debate whether that's a good analogy ... good enough for me at the moment.)

Give me 13 rolls of the D6, if I don't know how many rolls my D10 or D12 is going to get.

 

[rockaction]

I would start Laquon Treadwell if you guaranteed me he is getting 13 targets. There will be games where you don't get points out of targets, but generally any NFL WR is going to average very good points on 13 targets.

It's like, imagine a target is a roll of a die, and the most talented WR's are a 12-sided die, the least talented are a 6-sided die. And the number of targets is the number of times that you can roll the die. Your score is the sum of all the rolls. (You can debate whether that's a good analogy ... good enough for me at the moment.)

Give me 13 rolls of the D6, if I don't know how many rolls my D10 or D12 is going to get.

But you need to know how far the targets are downfield, whether they’re quality opportunities, etc.

Targets are the sina qua non of receiver prowess in fantasy, but then there are factors beyond targets where we see points being scored. Player A and B can each have ten targets, but depending on depth, quality, and conversion of those targets we might have wildly different scores between the two players.

 

[eighsse2]

I would start Laquon Treadwell if you guaranteed me he is getting 13 targets. There will be games where you don't get points out of targets, but generally any NFL WR is going to average very good points on 13 targets.

It's like, imagine a target is a roll of a die, and the most talented WR's are a 12-sided die, the least talented are a 6-sided die. And the number of targets is the number of times that you can roll the die. Your score is the sum of all the rolls. (You can debate whether that's a good analogy ... good enough for me at the moment.)

Give me 13 rolls of the D6, if I don't know how many rolls my D10 or D12 is going to get.

But you need to know how far the targets are downfield, whether they’re quality opportunities, etc.

Targets are the sina qua non of receiver prowess in fantasy, but then there are factors beyond targets where we see points being scored. Player A and B can each have ten targets, but depending on depth, quality, and conversion of those targets we might have wildly different scores between the two players.

True, I see you posted some very good sounding research that I don't have time to read at the moment, so I'll take your word for it! I guess I just assume that most WR's get a decent mix of short and deep targets? But surely there are outliers.

 

[rockaction]

I guess I just assume that most WR's get a decent mix of short and deep targets?

I think that wouldn’t be the case and that certain guys tend to run certain routes, though there are certainly players that run diverse route trees (especially the really good ones). From the article

"As a metric, aDOT tends to be a reliable indicator in the sense that a player’s aDOT, year over year, will be more consistent than other stats, like yards per reception. That doesn't necessarily mean though that ADOT, on its own, will be a great predictor for fantasy football success."

You can’t just look at aDOT and say “higher aDOT is good” (because it isn’t necessarily). What it does do is tell you what kind of receiver you’re dealing with. If you have a receiver with an aDOT of 5, you know he doesn’t get the ball very far from the line of scrimmage often. If he has an aDOT of 15, then you know he gets the ball deep.

Add to that that aDOTs are sticky (they’re consistent year-to-year) and you’ve got a valuable tool in learning what type of receiver a guy is.

 

[zamboni]

We need to also know how far the ball is thrown to the receiver (on average), what his conversion rate is (his catch rate and his yards after the catch) and if we can guess his targets, we have a much better picture of the receiver’s prowess.

There are stats for this. Air yards, air yard share, aDOT (average depth of target) and RACR (receiver air conversion ratio) are all tools to help people project a receiver an how well he will do.

Here’s a primer on what air yards are from My Fantasy Life

Air Yards - NFL Air Yards and Related Stats

Fantasy Life has compiled the most important air yards data, including WOPR and RACR statistics to help fantasy players win their leagues.

www.fantasylife.com

Here is air yards explained by Josh Hermsmeyer of 4for4

Air Yards Explained

What Are Air Yards? It turns out that a wide receiver’s production depends on four distinct areas of play.

www.4for4.com

This is a good example of what is and how to use aDOT, which was created by Mike Clay of ESPN (formerly of PFF)

What is aDOT and how to use it in Fantasy Football?

aDot is meant to track how far downfield the ball is traveling, on average, for a specific player on the total sum of his targets

www.fantasylife.com

This is also a good primer

NFL Advanced Stats and Metrics | PlayerProfiler Guide Vol. 2: WRs

Welcome to the PlayerProfiler Guide to NFL Advanced Stats and Metrics. In this article, fantasy gamers can learn about key terms.

www.playerprofiler.com

This is from T.J. Hernandez and is a study in predictability

The Most Predictable Wide Receiver Stats

Some stats accumlated by wide receivers bode well for the future, while others can fluctuate wildly from year to year. Focusing on the right ones can help you build a reliable group at the receiver position in your fantasy league.

www.si.com

Catch rate and yards per routes run are also important when looking at players and whether they are potentially viable members of a fantasy squad.

Excellent work, rock. Targets are far from everything and those are key metrics. The way I look at it though, if WRs aren't doing much with the targets they get, and their QB play is at least credible, then they'll stop getting as many targets. And if they are productive, that earns more targets for the most part. So it becomes somewhat cyclical, I guess, and targets is typically a good measure of how the WR is viewed.

 

[ShamrockPride]

Targets are the #1 factor I look at.

Sure there are a few bottom of the barrel cases for QBs where high targets don't amount to much for the WR (Rush/injury replacement types).

But most top 20 QBs can get enough balls to their WRs on a consistent basis that can do fantasy damage.

Then you factor in the WRs themselves. Shifty dudes like Flowers only need a 5-7 yard route and you just get them the ball and let them do their thing. Others like Metcalf will just shove off at least 1 DB per catch.

I 100% of the time want a guy who gets high targets than big play types like Tyreek or Christian Watson who only get 5-8 looks a game. Too risky if they don't convert those 2 or 3 deep passes.

 

[Joe Bryant]

We need to also know how far the ball is thrown to the receiver (on average), what his conversion rate is (his catch rate and his yards after the catch) and if we can guess his targets, we have a much better picture of the receiver’s prowess.

There are stats for this. Air yards, air yard share, aDOT (average depth of target) and RACR (receiver air conversion ratio) are all tools to help people project a receiver and how well he will do.

Here’s a primer on what air yards are from My Fantasy Life

Air Yards - NFL Air Yards and Related Stats

Fantasy Life has compiled the most important air yards data, including WOPR and RACR statistics to help fantasy players win their leagues.

www.fantasylife.com

Here is air yards explained by Josh Hermsmeyer of 4for4

Air Yards Explained

What Are Air Yards? It turns out that a wide receiver’s production depends on four distinct areas of play.

www.4for4.com

This is a good example of what is and how to use aDOT, which was created by Mike Clay of ESPN (formerly of PFF)

What is aDOT and how to use it in Fantasy Football?

aDot is meant to track how far downfield the ball is traveling, on average, for a specific player on the total sum of his targets

www.fantasylife.com

This is also a good primer

NFL Advanced Stats and Metrics | PlayerProfiler Guide Vol. 2: WRs

Welcome to the PlayerProfiler Guide to NFL Advanced Stats and Metrics. In this article, fantasy gamers can learn about key terms.

www.playerprofiler.com

This is from T.J. Hernandez and is a study in predictability

The Most Predictable Wide Receiver Stats

Some stats accumlated by wide receivers bode well for the future, while others can fluctuate wildly from year to year. Focusing on the right ones can help you build a reliable group at the receiver position in your fantasy league.

www.si.com

Catch rate and yards per routes run are also important when looking at players and whether they are potentially viable members of a fantasy squad.

Absolutely. All that has to factor in addition to the actual target number.

 

[rockaction]

One thing about targets is that they too are “sticky." They’re consistent year-to-year. A receiver that earns targets can be reasonably assumed to earn future targets. The converse is also true.

In addition, targets are valuable because they let you know who the team thinks is their most valuable players because the play is designed to go to them. Much like Nabers and CeeDee (both were mentioned in the OP an in recent target-centric threads) demonstrate, a heavy target share usually indicates a high first-read target share, and first-read target shares correlate into fantasy points.

In short, this article below states what we should know intuitively; that the best receivers get the bulk of the first-reads by their play callers and by their quarterbacks. This leads to fantasy points.

First-Read Targets and Fantasy Football | Fantasy Points

Ryan Heath digs deep into the importance, predictiveness, and power of one of Fantasy Points Data's native statistics: first-read targets.

www.fantasypoints.com

 

[The Dude]

Target share is more important than targets. 6 targets on 30 attempts up is more important than 6 on 50as an indicator

 

[jobarules]

Targets on a good offense. For weeks all i hear how demario Douglas gets a bunch of targets and the guy isn't even a wr3 imo.

 

[Chaka]

All I know is considering who is launching the targets, I will probably have CeeDee & Nabers on my bench going forward.

 

[Dizzy]

Target data is only relevant in highly functional offenses. Bad QB play probably produces the same (or more) targets as a high-quality offense, but the results are lacking.

As an example: Amari Cooper in CLE was 3rd in the NFL in targets through 5-6 weeks but I doubt he was inside the top-30 in WR fantasy production.

 

[TheWinz]

Targets are the easiest predictor of WR fantasy success IMO. Sure, there are other factors like target share, quality of QB, quality of offense, but at the end of the year, the top target earners are typically the top fantasy scorers. Over the last 10 years, here are how the top target earners finished in PPR:
#1 target earner - WR1, WR1, WR1, WR3, WR1, WR1, WR1, WR4, WR1, WR1
#2 target earner - WR10, WR3, WR2, WR4, WR7, WR2, WR2, WR3, WR4, WR2
#3 target earner - WR2, WR2, WR8, WR21, WR5, WR4, WR4, WR1, WR2, WR6

As you see above, only one player out of 30 did not finish as a top 10 WR, and nearly two-thirds finished in the top 3. Don't dig too far into it. I doubt there is a single stat that correlates closer to overall fantasy output for WR's than targets.

 

[ShamrockPride]

Targets are the easiest predictor of WR fantasy success IMO. Sure, there are other factors like target share, quality of QB, quality of offense, but at the end of the year, the top target earners are typically the top fantasy scorers. Over the last 10 years, here are how the top target earners finished in PPR:
#1 target earner - WR1, WR1, WR1, WR3, WR1, WR1, WR1, WR4, WR1, WR1
#2 target earner - WR10, WR3, WR2, WR4, WR7, WR2, WR2, WR3, WR4, WR2
#3 target earner - WR2, WR2, WR8, WR21, WR5, WR4, WR4, WR1, WR2, WR6

As you see above, only one player out of 30 did not finish as a top 10 WR, and nearly two-thirds finished in the top 3. Don't dig too far into it. I doubt there is a single stat that correlates closer to overall fantasy output for WR's than targets.

Damn. Nice work.

/topic

 

[Insein]

Targets is basically like touches for a RB. We all want the bell cow RB that gets 20+ touches a game over the part timer only getting 12. More targets means more opportunities. Of course not all targets are equal. 15 targets from Drew Lock are not the same as 10 from Pat Mahomes.

 

[BassNBrew]

Targets are the easiest predictor of WR fantasy success IMO. Sure, there are other factors like target share, quality of QB, quality of offense, but at the end of the year, the top target earners are typically the top fantasy scorers. Over the last 10 years, here are how the top target earners finished in PPR:
#1 target earner - WR1, WR1, WR1, WR3, WR1, WR1, WR1, WR4, WR1, WR1
#2 target earner - WR10, WR3, WR2, WR4, WR7, WR2, WR2, WR3, WR4, WR2
#3 target earner - WR2, WR2, WR8, WR21, WR5, WR4, WR4, WR1, WR2, WR6

As you see above, only one player out of 30 did not finish as a top 10 WR, and nearly two-thirds finished in the top 3. Don't dig too far into it. I doubt there is a single stat that correlates closer to overall fantasy output for WR's than targets.

This explains why the fantasy community has kept nabers so high in the weekly rankings.

 

[TheWinz]

Targets is basically like touches for a RB. We all want the bell cow RB that gets 20+ touches a game over the part timer only getting 12. More targets means more opportunities. Of course not all targets are equal. 15 targets from Drew Lock are not the same as 10 from Pat Mahomes.

While I understand what you are saying, I'll take the guy getting 15 vs 10, no matter who the QB is. I'd bet good money a WR getting 150 targets from a scrub will outscore a WR getting 100 targets from the world's best QB most of the time. Let's use last year as an example. Rashee Rice had 102 targets and finished WR27. There were 17 WR's that had 132+ targets last year, and all of them outscored Rashee in PPR. Some of the QB's hucking the ball were Zach Wilson, Aidan O'Connell, Justin Fields, Bryce Young, Will Levis, etc.

Yes, I do think the target quality from a better QB matters, but not as much as people think, and it's nowhere close to as important as the sheer volume.

 

[Insein]

Targets is basically like touches for a RB. We all want the bell cow RB that gets 20+ touches a game over the part timer only getting 12. More targets means more opportunities. Of course not all targets are equal. 15 targets from Drew Lock are not the same as 10 from Pat Mahomes.

While I understand what you are saying, I'll take the guy getting 15 vs 10, no matter who the QB is. I'd bet good money a WR getting 150 targets from a scrub will outscore a WR getting 100 targets from the world's best QB most of the time. Let's use last year as an example. Rashee Rice had 102 targets and finished WR27. There were 17 WR's that had 132+ targets last year, and all of them outscored Rashee in PPR. Some of the QB's hucking the ball were Zach Wilson, Aidan O'Connell, Justin Fields, Bryce Young, Will Levis, etc.

Yes, I do think the target quality from a better QB matters, but not as much as people think, and it's nowhere close to as important as the sheer volume.

I disagree. If we're relying on stats from a game we didn't witness, we can look at 15 targets and say "wow that guy was getting tons of work." But if he's 5/15 and 5 of the targets are just complete misses from a bad QB, it's not a real 15 targets then.

 

[TheWinz]

Targets is basically like touches for a RB. We all want the bell cow RB that gets 20+ touches a game over the part timer only getting 12. More targets means more opportunities. Of course not all targets are equal. 15 targets from Drew Lock are not the same as 10 from Pat Mahomes.

While I understand what you are saying, I'll take the guy getting 15 vs 10, no matter who the QB is. I'd bet good money a WR getting 150 targets from a scrub will outscore a WR getting 100 targets from the world's best QB most of the time. Let's use last year as an example. Rashee Rice had 102 targets and finished WR27. There were 17 WR's that had 132+ targets last year, and all of them outscored Rashee in PPR. Some of the QB's hucking the ball were Zach Wilson, Aidan O'Connell, Justin Fields, Bryce Young, Will Levis, etc.

Yes, I do think the target quality from a better QB matters, but not as much as people think, and it's nowhere close to as important as the sheer volume.

I disagree. If we're relying on stats from a game we didn't witness, we can look at 15 targets and say "wow that guy was getting tons of work." But if he's 5/15 and 5 of the targets are just complete misses from a bad QB, it's not a real 15 targets then.

Huh? That makes no sense. Last year Rashee Rice got 102 targets from the very QB you mention as the gold standard QB. He finished behind every single WR who had at least 132 targets last year (17 of them). It didn't matter that some of those WR's were getting their passes thrown to them by the worst QB's in the league, because even the worst NFL QB's still complete about 60% of their passes. Last year, 31 QB's attempted at least 250 passes, and only 2 of them had lower than 60%. Bryce Young was at 59.8%, and even he managed to have a WR outscore Rashee Rice. Will Levis was at 58.4%, and even he managed to have a WR outscore Rashee Rice. I don't need to see all of Bryce Young's crappy throws to Adam Thielen or Will Levis's crappy throws to DeAndre Hopkins last year to know that Thielen and Hopkins did in fact outscore Rashee Rice.

I do agree that a better QB throwing the same number of passes will likely lead to a better WR finish, but even the worst NFL QB can still make a great fantasy WR with a bunch of targets. We see it every single year. For fantasy purposes, 150 targets from a crappy QB will get you more fantasy points than 100 targets from a great QB way more often. I can provide more stats to back up my argument if you'd like.

 

[Chaka]

Targets is basically like touches for a RB. We all want the bell cow RB that gets 20+ touches a game over the part timer only getting 12. More targets means more opportunities. Of course not all targets are equal. 15 targets from Drew Lock are not the same as 10 from Pat Mahomes.

While I understand what you are saying, I'll take the guy getting 15 vs 10, no matter who the QB is. I'd bet good money a WR getting 150 targets from a scrub will outscore a WR getting 100 targets from the world's best QB most of the time. Let's use last year as an example. Rashee Rice had 102 targets and finished WR27. There were 17 WR's that had 132+ targets last year, and all of them outscored Rashee in PPR. Some of the QB's hucking the ball were Zach Wilson, Aidan O'Connell, Justin Fields, Bryce Young, Will Levis, etc.

Yes, I do think the target quality from a better QB matters, but not as much as people think, and it's nowhere close to as important as the sheer volume.

I disagree. If we're relying on stats from a game we didn't witness, we can look at 15 targets and say "wow that guy was getting tons of work." But if he's 5/15 and 5 of the targets are just complete misses from a bad QB, it's not a real 15 targets then.

Huh? That makes no sense. Last year Rashee Rice got 102 targets from the very QB you mention as the gold standard QB. He finished behind every single WR who had at least 132 targets last year (17 of them). It didn't matter that some of those WR's were getting their passes thrown to them by the worst QB's in the league, because even the worst NFL QB's still complete about 60% of their passes. Last year, 31 QB's attempted at least 250 passes, and only 2 of them had lower than 60%. Bryce Young was at 59.8%, and even he managed to have a WR outscore Rashee Rice. Will Levis was at 58.4%, and even he managed to have a WR outscore Rashee Rice. I don't need to see all of Bryce Young's crappy throws to Adam Thielen or Will Levis's crappy throws to DeAndre Hopkins last year to know that Thielen and Hopkins did in fact outscore Rashee Rice.

I do agree that a better QB throwing the same number of passes will likely lead to a better WR finish, but even the worst NFL QB can still make a great fantasy WR with a bunch of targets. We see it every single year. For fantasy purposes, 150 targets from a crappy QB will get you more fantasy points than 100 targets from a great QB way more often. I can provide more stats to back up my argument if you'd like.

Is Rice a good example? He was a rookie, late second round pick who didn't get his first start until week 7. He was no Nabers, auto-start, unquestioned #1 from the jump.

Real tale of two seasons with Rice.

When he became a full time starter last year Rice's numbers looks a lot like where Nabers is trending so far this year on about 70 fewer targets.

Rice's 17 game projection as a starter last year: 126 targets for 99-1,178-8

Nabers full season projections: 197 targets for 128-1,257-5

 

[Chaka]

Pretty sure Terry McLaurin is going to be top 10 and he's on pace for 107 targets.

Anything's possible when you have a catch rate in the 75% range.

 

[TheWinz]

Targets is basically like touches for a RB. We all want the bell cow RB that gets 20+ touches a game over the part timer only getting 12. More targets means more opportunities. Of course not all targets are equal. 15 targets from Drew Lock are not the same as 10 from Pat Mahomes.

While I understand what you are saying, I'll take the guy getting 15 vs 10, no matter who the QB is. I'd bet good money a WR getting 150 targets from a scrub will outscore a WR getting 100 targets from the world's best QB most of the time. Let's use last year as an example. Rashee Rice had 102 targets and finished WR27. There were 17 WR's that had 132+ targets last year, and all of them outscored Rashee in PPR. Some of the QB's hucking the ball were Zach Wilson, Aidan O'Connell, Justin Fields, Bryce Young, Will Levis, etc.

Yes, I do think the target quality from a better QB matters, but not as much as people think, and it's nowhere close to as important as the sheer volume.

I disagree. If we're relying on stats from a game we didn't witness, we can look at 15 targets and say "wow that guy was getting tons of work." But if he's 5/15 and 5 of the targets are just complete misses from a bad QB, it's not a real 15 targets then.

Huh? That makes no sense. Last year Rashee Rice got 102 targets from the very QB you mention as the gold standard QB. He finished behind every single WR who had at least 132 targets last year (17 of them). It didn't matter that some of those WR's were getting their passes thrown to them by the worst QB's in the league, because even the worst NFL QB's still complete about 60% of their passes. Last year, 31 QB's attempted at least 250 passes, and only 2 of them had lower than 60%. Bryce Young was at 59.8%, and even he managed to have a WR outscore Rashee Rice. Will Levis was at 58.4%, and even he managed to have a WR outscore Rashee Rice. I don't need to see all of Bryce Young's crappy throws to Adam Thielen or Will Levis's crappy throws to DeAndre Hopkins last year to know that Thielen and Hopkins did in fact outscore Rashee Rice.

I do agree that a better QB throwing the same number of passes will likely lead to a better WR finish, but even the worst NFL QB can still make a great fantasy WR with a bunch of targets. We see it every single year. For fantasy purposes, 150 targets from a crappy QB will get you more fantasy points than 100 targets from a great QB way more often. I can provide more stats to back up my argument if you'd like.

Is Rice a good example? He was a rookie, late second round pick who didn't get his first start until week 7. He was no Nabers, auto-start, unquestioned #1 from the jump.

Real tale of two seasons with Rice.

When he became a full time starter last year Rice's numbers looks a lot like where Nabers is trending so far this year on about 70 fewer targets.

Rice's 17 game projection as a starter last year: 126 targets for 99-1,178-8

Nabers full season projections: 197 targets for 128-1,257-5

Yes, Rice is a perfect example. Rice did have 102 targets. Rice had an amazing 77.5 catch percentage. Stats don't care if you're a rookie, or what round you were selected in. So, why did Rice finish ONLY as WR27? He did not have enough targets. He did great with the targets thrown to him; he just needed more. Would Rice have finished as a top 10 WR if he was in the top 10 in targets? I'm quite sure he would've.

The whole point I am trying to make is targets are the most closely correlated stat to WR fantasy finish. Quality of QB is way way way down the list. There's a reason 8 of the last 10 yearly target leaders have finished as THE WR1, and that reason is... TARGETS!

 

[Chaka]

Targets is basically like touches for a RB. We all want the bell cow RB that gets 20+ touches a game over the part timer only getting 12. More targets means more opportunities. Of course not all targets are equal. 15 targets from Drew Lock are not the same as 10 from Pat Mahomes.

While I understand what you are saying, I'll take the guy getting 15 vs 10, no matter who the QB is. I'd bet good money a WR getting 150 targets from a scrub will outscore a WR getting 100 targets from the world's best QB most of the time. Let's use last year as an example. Rashee Rice had 102 targets and finished WR27. There were 17 WR's that had 132+ targets last year, and all of them outscored Rashee in PPR. Some of the QB's hucking the ball were Zach Wilson, Aidan O'Connell, Justin Fields, Bryce Young, Will Levis, etc.

Yes, I do think the target quality from a better QB matters, but not as much as people think, and it's nowhere close to as important as the sheer volume.

I disagree. If we're relying on stats from a game we didn't witness, we can look at 15 targets and say "wow that guy was getting tons of work." But if he's 5/15 and 5 of the targets are just complete misses from a bad QB, it's not a real 15 targets then.

Huh? That makes no sense. Last year Rashee Rice got 102 targets from the very QB you mention as the gold standard QB. He finished behind every single WR who had at least 132 targets last year (17 of them). It didn't matter that some of those WR's were getting their passes thrown to them by the worst QB's in the league, because even the worst NFL QB's still complete about 60% of their passes. Last year, 31 QB's attempted at least 250 passes, and only 2 of them had lower than 60%. Bryce Young was at 59.8%, and even he managed to have a WR outscore Rashee Rice. Will Levis was at 58.4%, and even he managed to have a WR outscore Rashee Rice. I don't need to see all of Bryce Young's crappy throws to Adam Thielen or Will Levis's crappy throws to DeAndre Hopkins last year to know that Thielen and Hopkins did in fact outscore Rashee Rice.

I do agree that a better QB throwing the same number of passes will likely lead to a better WR finish, but even the worst NFL QB can still make a great fantasy WR with a bunch of targets. We see it every single year. For fantasy purposes, 150 targets from a crappy QB will get you more fantasy points than 100 targets from a great QB way more often. I can provide more stats to back up my argument if you'd like.

Is Rice a good example? He was a rookie, late second round pick who didn't get his first start until week 7. He was no Nabers, auto-start, unquestioned #1 from the jump.

Real tale of two seasons with Rice.

When he became a full time starter last year Rice's numbers looks a lot like where Nabers is trending so far this year on about 70 fewer targets.

Rice's 17 game projection as a starter last year: 126 targets for 99-1,178-8

Nabers full season projections: 197 targets for 128-1,257-5

Yes, Rice is a perfect example. Rice did have 102 targets. Rice had an amazing 77.5 catch percentage. Stats don't care if you're a rookie, or what round you were selected in. So, why did Rice finish ONLY as WR27? He did not have enough targets. He did great with the targets thrown to him; he just needed more. Would Rice have finished as a top 10 WR if he was in the top 10 in targets? I'm quite sure he would've.

The whole point I am trying to make is targets are the most closely correlated stat to WR fantasy finish. Quality of QB is way way way down the list. There's a reason 8 of the last 10 yearly target leaders have finished as THE WR1, and that reason is... TARGETS!

No it's not a perfect example. You're trying to shoehorn your argument with a bad example.

There is an absolute argument in favor of more targets, it's obvious and doesn't need a huge intellectual investment to make. But a rookie, second round pick is a bad case study.

 

[TheWinz]

Targets is basically like touches for a RB. We all want the bell cow RB that gets 20+ touches a game over the part timer only getting 12. More targets means more opportunities. Of course not all targets are equal. 15 targets from Drew Lock are not the same as 10 from Pat Mahomes.

While I understand what you are saying, I'll take the guy getting 15 vs 10, no matter who the QB is. I'd bet good money a WR getting 150 targets from a scrub will outscore a WR getting 100 targets from the world's best QB most of the time. Let's use last year as an example. Rashee Rice had 102 targets and finished WR27. There were 17 WR's that had 132+ targets last year, and all of them outscored Rashee in PPR. Some of the QB's hucking the ball were Zach Wilson, Aidan O'Connell, Justin Fields, Bryce Young, Will Levis, etc.

Yes, I do think the target quality from a better QB matters, but not as much as people think, and it's nowhere close to as important as the sheer volume.

I disagree. If we're relying on stats from a game we didn't witness, we can look at 15 targets and say "wow that guy was getting tons of work." But if he's 5/15 and 5 of the targets are just complete misses from a bad QB, it's not a real 15 targets then.

Huh? That makes no sense. Last year Rashee Rice got 102 targets from the very QB you mention as the gold standard QB. He finished behind every single WR who had at least 132 targets last year (17 of them). It didn't matter that some of those WR's were getting their passes thrown to them by the worst QB's in the league, because even the worst NFL QB's still complete about 60% of their passes. Last year, 31 QB's attempted at least 250 passes, and only 2 of them had lower than 60%. Bryce Young was at 59.8%, and even he managed to have a WR outscore Rashee Rice. Will Levis was at 58.4%, and even he managed to have a WR outscore Rashee Rice. I don't need to see all of Bryce Young's crappy throws to Adam Thielen or Will Levis's crappy throws to DeAndre Hopkins last year to know that Thielen and Hopkins did in fact outscore Rashee Rice.

I do agree that a better QB throwing the same number of passes will likely lead to a better WR finish, but even the worst NFL QB can still make a great fantasy WR with a bunch of targets. We see it every single year. For fantasy purposes, 150 targets from a crappy QB will get you more fantasy points than 100 targets from a great QB way more often. I can provide more stats to back up my argument if you'd like.

Is Rice a good example? He was a rookie, late second round pick who didn't get his first start until week 7. He was no Nabers, auto-start, unquestioned #1 from the jump.

Real tale of two seasons with Rice.

When he became a full time starter last year Rice's numbers looks a lot like where Nabers is trending so far this year on about 70 fewer targets.

Rice's 17 game projection as a starter last year: 126 targets for 99-1,178-8

Nabers full season projections: 197 targets for 128-1,257-5

Yes, Rice is a perfect example. Rice did have 102 targets. Rice had an amazing 77.5 catch percentage. Stats don't care if you're a rookie, or what round you were selected in. So, why did Rice finish ONLY as WR27? He did not have enough targets. He did great with the targets thrown to him; he just needed more. Would Rice have finished as a top 10 WR if he was in the top 10 in targets? I'm quite sure he would've.

The whole point I am trying to make is targets are the most closely correlated stat to WR fantasy finish. Quality of QB is way way way down the list. There's a reason 8 of the last 10 yearly target leaders have finished as THE WR1, and that reason is... TARGETS!

No it's not a perfect example. You're trying to shoehorn your argument with a bad example.

There is an absolute argument in favor of more targets, it's obvious and doesn't need a huge intellectual investment to make. But a rookie, second round pick is a bad case study.

Agree to disagree

 

[ChiefD]

The whole point I am trying to make is targets are the most closely correlated stat to WR fantasy finish. Quality of QB is way way way down the list. There's a reason 8 of the last 10 yearly target leaders have finished as THE WR1, and that reason is... TARGETS!

For some reason I read the bolded in the voice of Mel Brooks.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

this thread was a spinoff and kind of a backdoor way of trying to justify the Nabers stuff...will be interesting to see where he ends up this week...currently at WR7.....feel like if he was on his bye thats where he would still be ranked...