Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Recommended Posts

Hopkins ran 4.46 and 4.41 at his Pro Day. Maybe he'll never be a top 5 WR but he looks talented enough to be a low WR1 for many years.

I don't buy those times. He isn't that fast on the field. Other sources list different times for him:

Hopkins (6-1, 214) has consistently clocked in the mid-to-high 4.5s by scouts on hand for his combine and Pro Day workouts. - Rob Rang, NFLDraftScout.com

You'll be hard-pressed to find an elite WR1 in the NFL with a worse broad jump than his 9'7". That mark in conjunction with his slow-ish 40 times paints the picture of a guy who lacks explosiveness, which is consistent with what he looks like on the field. He's overrated because he's young, he was a high pick, and his rookie production was okay. He's not a top shelf talent though. I can name quite a few in the league that he'll probably never be as good as:

Calvin Johnson

Andre Johnson

Larry Fitzgerald

Victor Cruz

Vincent Jackson

Dez Bryant

Percy Harvin

Demaryius Thomas

Julio Jones

Brandon Marshall

Josh Gordon

AJ Green

That's twelve names right there. If he's going to be a WR1 in the future, he'll have to be approximately as good as that group. I don't think he has that in him. If people are valuing him around WR11 then I think there's a built in assumption that he has a WR1 ceiling. I don't think he does, which is why I wouldn't pay that price. It's not a reasonable compromise between his risk/reward. It's far too optimistic. You're basically buying him at (or above) his ceiling.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 22.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Fear & Loathing

    2096

  • Concept Coop

    1467

  • SSOG

    1403

  • EBF

    1210

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Brewtown, the other day I posted that you were the worst thing to happen to draft discussion here in a long time--within hours it had 7-8 likes. That should tell you something.

I've been a part of this thread almost from the beginning. I've learned a lot. I've made some friends. But...let's please keep the personal attacks to a minimum. It isn't fun. Tell me what you think

Good. It's settled then. I'll continue to disregard your "analysis" and you can ignore mine. I don't think anyone in this thread will miss these exchanges.

Boldin: 6-0 5/8, 216, 4.72, 33.5" vertical, 9-06" broad, 4.33 SS, 7.35 3cone

Hopkins: 6-0, 214, 4.57, 36" vertical, 9-07" broad, 4.50 SS, 6.83 3cone

Like Boldin, what he lacks in speed and explosiveness he makes up for with great route running and hands. He doesn't fit the prototype for a WR1 but is it that outrageous that if Antonio Brown could catch 100 passes he could do the same given the opportunity?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like Boldin, what he lacks in speed and explosiveness he makes up for with great route running and hands. He doesn't fit the prototype for a WR1 but is it that outrageous that if Antonio Brown could catch 100 passes he could do the same given the opportunity?

I don't think so. But I find myself on EBF's side of the argument. His price is far too close to his ceiling for my tastes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Boldin is insanely elusive in the open field. He's like Keenan Allen. Slow, but very quick. Allen played some wildcat QB in college and Boldin was an option QB. They could do that because they're so good with the ball in their hands. Hopkins is a catch-and-fall possession guy. Much like with Lacy and Bell, he's hugely overrated because he's young and people exaggerate his talent level in relation to the rest of the league. He's a solid receiver. Nothing incredible.

If you value him with the idea that he has the potential to become a Dez/Demaryius/Marshall, you're in for a rude awakening IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Much like with Lacy and Bell, he's hugely overrated because he's young and people exaggerate his talent level in relation to the rest of the league. He's a solid receiver.

It's much more damning than overrating Bell/Lacy. The WR field is as deep as it's ever been, and it's still growing. Bell and Lacy are one of 10-15 RBs in bell-cow roles. Hopkins is one of 60 WRs who could put up solid WR2 numbers depending on situation.

I like him and view his as solid enough dynasty WR2. But what did he do in 2013 to elevate beyond a generic late first round NFL WR? In this current class, you can nab one of those in the late first round. Don't know why you'd pay 3x more than that for Hopkins.

ETA: Just my thoughts. But, obviously, if you watched him and saw something--get your guy. My opinion is based on how I project what I saw from him.

Edited by Concept Coop
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you value him with the idea that he has the potential to become a Dez/Demaryius/Marshall, you're in for a rude awakening IMO.

I don't think the Dez/DT territory is really in question here, but what about that topic a page or two back re: "VBD totals from today through the end of career" when it comes to Hopkins vs:

Cruz

Crabtree

Garcon

A.Brown

Hilton

IMO, seems like Hopkins best case scenario is close to A.Brown, a high volume PPR receiver, but not a huge threat for big yards or TD totals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the best strategy for ranking players in dynasty is to separate between tiers based on talent hierarchies and to separate within tiers based on age. In other words, a young "elite" WR like Dez Bryant is worth more than an old "elite" WR like Larry Fitzgerald, but almost any elite WR is worth more than even the youngest merely "good" WR. That's my big sticking point with Hopkins. I don't think he has elite talent or the potential to become elite. Therefore it seems to me that when you take him with in insanely high startup pick like this, you're making a mistake. I think you're paying a premium price for a non-premium talent.

Ultimately, I think it comes down to what you see when you look at Hopkins. I think there's a camp that looks at him and says, "Young WR. First round pick. Decent rookie year. Aging veteran across from him." If you look at it that way, you could think he's no different from Dez Bryant or Demaryius Thomas right before they busted out. I put a lot of emphasis on breaking a player down in terms of his physical traits though and that's an area where Hopkins doesn't really stack up with a lot of the best-case scenarios. He isn't all that athletic or explosive. Subjectively, he's not very elusive with the ball in his hands. If you remove the mega star VJax/Fitzgerald/Dez/Demaryius possibility from the range of his potential career outcomes, you'll probably end up seeing him more like I do. Which is basically a weak dynasty WR2 or a solid dynasty WR3. I don't think he's athletic enough to be a superstar. I see him more as a Decker/Mike Williams type. He'll need the right situation to be a force in FF because he's not going to do it on his own merits.

I'm not keen on paying high 3rd round startup value on a guy who's probably a 6th-8th round startup talent. He's just overrated IMO. Doesn't mean he's garbage or that he can't have some good seasons. I don't view him as a premium talent. If you need to take a young WR that high, I think Patterson, Hunter, and Floyd all offer more upside from the guys who are already in the league. There are some rookie WRs I'd prefer as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ultimately, I think it comes down to what you see when you look at Hopkins. I think there's a camp that looks at him and says, "Young WR. First round pick. Decent rookie year. Aging veteran across from him."

Yes, those of us who might like him only make that deep of an analysis and we aren't really capable of anything beyond that. There certainly can't be any more to it other than young WR, 1st round pick, decent rookie year and aging veteran across from him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Should give some props to FBGs/Sig Bloom for slotting this guys more reasonably:

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/apps/article.php?article=bloomtop50dynWR

Hopkins balanced with high upside but risky guys like Blackmon/Austin, and putting Wright after Justin Hunter, and in the same tier as Terrance WIlliams and Marvin Jones.

I kind of do not like him putting Kendall Wright and Marvin Jones in a break out category. Those players broke out already last season. Jones may not see as many targets again with the Bengals.

Kenny Stills only gets honorable mention (outside the top 50) when Stills should be in the same category as Terrance Williams.

Wheaton has shown much less than Williams, Hunter. Stills, so I do not see how he can be listed there but not Stills.

Overall a very good list as usual for Sig

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like Boldin, what he lacks in speed and explosiveness he makes up for with great route running and hands. He doesn't fit the prototype for a WR1 but is it that outrageous that if Antonio Brown could catch 100 passes he could do the same given the opportunity?

I don't think so. But I find myself on EBF's side of the argument. His price is far too close to his ceiling for my tastes.

Agreed. Hopkins could easily have some WR1 seasons in his future, but I wouldn't be interested in buying him at WR1 prices (or close).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the best strategy for ranking players in dynasty is to separate between tiers based on talent hierarchies and to separate within tiers based on age. In other words, a young "elite" WR like Dez Bryant is worth more than an old "elite" WR like Larry Fitzgerald, but almost any elite WR is worth more than even the youngest merely "good" WR. That's my big sticking point with Hopkins. I don't think he has elite talent or the potential to become elite. Therefore it seems to me that when you take him with in insanely high startup pick like this, you're making a mistake. I think you're paying a premium price for a non-premium talent.

As an aside, can we talk about how insane Aaron Rodgers at 33, Cam Newton at 46, and Drew Brees at 66 is? This "Quarterbacks aren't as valuable as other positions" nonsense has gone WAY too far. Even in redraft, top QBs are worth way more than that. In Dynasty, when you're adding their year-to-year consistency and extended careers to the equation, that's just absurd. People are too smart for their own good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Should give some props to FBGs/Sig Bloom for slotting this guys more reasonably:

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/apps/article.php?article=bloomtop50dynWR

Hopkins balanced with high upside but risky guys like Blackmon/Austin, and putting Wright after Justin Hunter, and in the same tier as Terrance WIlliams and Marvin Jones.

I kind of do not like him putting Kendall Wright and Marvin Jones in a break out category. Those players broke out already last season. Jones may not see as many targets again with the Bengals.

Kenny Stills only gets honorable mention (outside the top 50) when Stills should be in the same category as Terrance Williams.

Wheaton has shown much less than Williams, Hunter. Stills, so I do not see how he can be listed there but not Stills.

Overall a very good list as usual for Sig

I don't really understand preferring Austin and Hopkins to Hunter with a whole different tier. I just don't think they showed that much more and have lower ceilings IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the best strategy for ranking players in dynasty is to separate between tiers based on talent hierarchies and to separate within tiers based on age. In other words, a young "elite" WR like Dez Bryant is worth more than an old "elite" WR like Larry Fitzgerald, but almost any elite WR is worth more than even the youngest merely "good" WR. That's my big sticking point with Hopkins. I don't think he has elite talent or the potential to become elite. Therefore it seems to me that when you take him with in insanely high startup pick like this, you're making a mistake. I think you're paying a premium price for a non-premium talent.

As an aside, can we talk about how insane Aaron Rodgers at 33, Cam Newton at 46, and Drew Brees at 66 is? This "Quarterbacks aren't as valuable as other positions" nonsense has gone WAY too far. Even in redraft, top QBs are worth way more than that. In Dynasty, when you're adding their year-to-year consistency and extended careers to the equation, that's just absurd. People are too smart for their own good.

For sure. I think in startups people don't want to invest a high pick in a Qb, but once the league is established it's extremely hard to get a Rodgers/Luck/Cam type unless you give up a ton.

Looking at some of the mediocre RB's and WR's going ahead of elite QB's is baffling to me as well, it makes no sense in a dynasty league. Redraft i can understand the QB's dropping some, but not in longterm dynasty leagues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The scarcity and relative value at RB/WR lead to people taking a lot of marginal players there instead of the safe, but boring investment at QB or TE. Eifert is probably a better prospect relative to the rest of his position than Patterson/Hopkins/Hunter and he went 101st overall in that draft. I don't think it's a bad thing to make the boring pick with a guy like that when you're building a team from scratch. Same goes for using a somewhat early pick on a Rodgers/Luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The scarcity and relative value at RB/WR lead to people taking a lot of marginal players there instead of the safe, but boring investment at QB or TE. Eifert is probably a better prospect relative to the rest of his position than Patterson/Hopkins/Hunter and he went 101st overall in that draft. I don't think it's a bad thing to make the boring pick with a guy like that when you're building a team from scratch. Same goes for using a somewhat early pick on a Rodgers/Luck.

I just don't get how QBs are boring investments. I mean, have you seen how many points the elite tier of QBs has been putting up over the last couple of years? Yes, the "replacement level" QB has gone up, too, but those top guys are still putting up crushing VBD advantages on par with your top RBs and WRs. And, you know, there's the fact that a lot of those QBs are potential Hall of Famers with 8+ years of career left in front of them, too. Ten years from now, would you rather tell stories about your dynasty league and say "I owned Drew Brees for his entire New Orleans career", or "I owned Matt Forte for his entire Chicago career"? If your league is 20 years old, would you rather tell people that you owned Steve Young in his prime or Jamaal Lewis in his prime? Would you rather be the guy who had Brett Favre for 20 years or the guy who had Rudi Johnson for his entire Bengals career? Why on earth are people not viewing that as an exciting investment? Who's not excited at the prospect of Aaron Rodgers retiring on their fantasy team?

TEs I understand. They score fewer points, so you have to remind yourself that it's all about the positional advantage. But quarterbacks put up "Star Wars Numbers". They should be the most exciting players in dynasty. Ask the PFM owner how boring his investment was last year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't get how QBs are boring investments. I mean, have you seen how many points the elite tier of QBs has been putting up over the last couple of years? Yes, the "replacement level" QB has gone up, too, but those top guys are still putting up crushing VBD advantages on par with your top RBs and WRs. And, you know, there's the fact that a lot of those QBs are potential Hall of Famers with 8+ years of career left in front of them, too. Ten years from now, would you rather tell stories about your dynasty league and say "I owned Drew Brees for his entire New Orleans career", or "I owned Matt Forte for his entire Chicago career"? If your league is 20 years old, would you rather tell people that you owned Steve Young in his prime or Jamaal Lewis in his prime? Would you rather be the guy who had Brett Favre for 20 years or the guy who had Rudi Johnson for his entire Bengals career? Why on earth are people not viewing that as an exciting investment? Who's not excited at the prospect of Aaron Rodgers retiring on their fantasy team?

TEs I understand. They score fewer points, so you have to remind yourself that it's all about the positional advantage. But quarterbacks put up "Star Wars Numbers". They should be the most exciting players in dynasty. Ask the PFM owner how boring his investment was last year.

VBD isn't the only measurement for dyansty value, as it can be in re-draft. 5 years of RB production =/= 5 years of QB production, even if the VBD matches. Everything needs to be measured above replacement, not just points. Duration being the big one missing here.

And it's not Rodgers vs. Lacy. It's Rodgers and Stacy vs. Lacy and Brees. It's Rodgers and Cruz vs. Alshon and Brees.

ETA: Anything that increases value across an entire position (duration for QBs) shouldn't be measured outside of the position. Drafting a QB because they last longer in dynasty leagues is equivalent of drafting them in redraft because they score more points.

Edited by Concept Coop
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ten years from now, would you rather tell stories about your dynasty league and say...

If I'm telling stories about my 2014 fantasy football teams 10 years from now, someone please pull the plug cuz I've lost it and my time is clearly up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The scarcity and relative value at RB/WR lead to people taking a lot of marginal players there instead of the safe, but boring investment at QB or TE. Eifert is probably a better prospect relative to the rest of his position than Patterson/Hopkins/Hunter and he went 101st overall in that draft. I don't think it's a bad thing to make the boring pick with a guy like that when you're building a team from scratch. Same goes for using a somewhat early pick on a Rodgers/Luck.

I just don't get how QBs are boring investments. I mean, have you seen how many points the elite tier of QBs has been putting up over the last couple of years? Yes, the "replacement level" QB has gone up, too, but those top guys are still putting up crushing VBD advantages on par with your top RBs and WRs. And, you know, there's the fact that a lot of those QBs are potential Hall of Famers with 8+ years of career left in front of them, too. Ten years from now, would you rather tell stories about your dynasty league and say "I owned Drew Brees for his entire New Orleans career", or "I owned Matt Forte for his entire Chicago career"? If your league is 20 years old, would you rather tell people that you owned Steve Young in his prime or Jamaal Lewis in his prime? Would you rather be the guy who had Brett Favre for 20 years or the guy who had Rudi Johnson for his entire Bengals career? Why on earth are people not viewing that as an exciting investment? Who's not excited at the prospect of Aaron Rodgers retiring on their fantasy team?

TEs I understand. They score fewer points, so you have to remind yourself that it's all about the positional advantage. But quarterbacks put up "Star Wars Numbers". They should be the most exciting players in dynasty. Ask the PFM owner how boring his investment was last year.

Just comes down to knowing your league and your scoring system. In the HyperActive leagues that a lot of FBG play in, there's not a big gap in the QB scoring. When you add in that it's only 12 teams and 1 QB in each lineup every week, there's not a big demand for QBs. You'd have a tough time even getting a first round pick for someone like Russell Wilson or Matt Ryan. So while I like the idea of grabbing Luck or Rodgers and forgetting about your QB spot for the next 5-6 years, you can make an argument that it's more sensible to take an inferior player at RB/WR knowing that you'll be able to fix your QB spot cheaply. With 3 (now 4) flex spots for WR/RB, there's also probably a pretty good argument that a mediocre WR2 makes a bigger difference each week than a stud QB1.

From my experience, nothing will kill you more in a dynasty league than flubbing your startup draft. I think if you want to be successful in the first couple seasons, you need to walk away with 4-5 solid players that you can count on for the next few years. From that perspective I sort of like the idea of being the guy who makes the boring conservative pick with a guy like Rodgers or Eifert when other teams are swinging for the fences at RB/WR, but there's a reason why people aren't jazzed to take a QB or TE that high and isn't necessarily because they're making an obvious mistake. A couple years of Darrell Jackson might be worth a couple years of Peyton Manning in some formats. Nevermind the fact that people go crazy for RB/WR in trade value (look at Patterson, Bell, Lacy, and Stacy) while even successful QBs are usually somewhat difficult to move.

Edited by EBF
Link to post
Share on other sites

From my experience, nothing will kill you more in a dynasty league than flubbing your startup draft. I think if you want to be successful in the first couple seasons, you need to walk away with 4-5 solid players that you can count on for the next few years.

I agree. But you can get a staple at QB in rounds 6-8 right now. Can't say that about RB and WR, at least. So if your goal is to have as many staples as possible--not sure QB early is the way to go.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

From my experience, nothing will kill you more in a dynasty league than flubbing your startup draft. I think if you want to be successful in the first couple seasons, you need to walk away with 4-5 solid players that you can count on for the next few years.

I agree. But you can get a staple at QB in rounds 6-8 right now. Can't say that about RB and WR, at least. So if your goal is to have as many staples as possible--not sure QB early is the way to go.

The staple you get at round 6-8 is not as good a staple. Either the upside is lower (Ryan), the window < 1/2 (Peyton, Brees), or the risk is higher (RG3).

There are no staples at RB in round 6-8, but it is easy to create a hodge podge of short term starters and upside plays to make a good roster. If the basis of comparison is a nonelite RB, replacement level production is everywhere; the same as nonelite QB.

Of course this is a philosophical question so there are no right answers.

Edited by thriftyrocker
Link to post
Share on other sites

If the basis of comparison is a nonelite RB, replacement level production is everywhere; the same as nonelite QB.

If we set the baseline that high--you're right. Not sure that's logical except in very shallow leagues, however. If we replace staple with elite, the QB value moves from 6-8 to 3-4. But you're still not finding elite players at RB/WR in that range.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In a hypothetical race for elite players, taking QB in Rnd 1 is suicide.

I think you're arguing against a stronger stance than anyone here is standing up for. The argument, I thought, was that once the bonafide elite RB and WR are gone, why is there such a big gap until the elite QB.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In a hypothetical race for elite players, taking QB in Rnd 1 is suicide.

I think you're arguing against a stronger stance than anyone here is standing up for. The argument, I thought, was that once the bonafide elite RB and WR are gone, why is there such a big gap until the elite QB.

Yeah -- JAGs like Zac Stacy and Pierre Garçon going ahead of Rodgers in startups is the issue.

But it's still a legitimate question. Why take Rodgers in the 3rd vs Romo (etc) in the 12th?

Link to post
Share on other sites

did EBF really equate Rodgers to Eifert as comparable assets? Or are they just two examples of players who play boring positions?

"both boring conservative picks"

What they have in common is that they're much better NFL players than a lot of the RB/WR drafted around them.

Look at some of the scrubs who went ahead of Eifert in that startup I posted:

Julian Edelman

Aaron Dobson

Rashad Jennings

Ka'Deem Carey

Davante Adams

Bishop Sankey

Kenny Stills

Terrance Williams

The odds of those guys having better NFL careers are about zilch. I think those picks are mostly explained by the relative positional values that encourage people to roll the dice on shoddy RB/WR rather than taking a fairly bulletproof lock at a less glamorous position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eifert is a 'lock'?

I thought he was the best skill prospect in last year's draft. He's not an uber Jimmy Graham level monster, but he's the next step down.

His combine was kind of insane last year. He didn't have any one single freakish mark, but he was a "top performer" in every single drill. That's a little easier to accomplish at TE because you're competing against less guys than you would be at RB or WR, but it's still a testament to what type of athlete he is. No real weaknesses. Size? Check. Strength? Check. Speed? Check. Fluidity? Check. Explosiveness? Check.

He was a first round pick at a position where first round picks rarely bust outright. Here are the TEs chosen in the first round in the preceding decade:

Jermaine Gresham

Brandon Pettigrew

Dustin Keller

Greg Olsen

Vernon Davis

Marcedes Lewis

Heath Miller

Kellen Winslow

Ben Watson

Dallas Clark

Jeremy Shockey

Daniel Graham

Jerramy Stevens

That list doesn't read like a who's-who of elite FF TEs, as there are quite a few mediocrities in there. The best argument against Eifert as a strong FF asset is that it's rare for a TE to reach that level. However, it's also rare for a first round TE to be an outright bust. Ben Watson, Daniel Graham, and Jerramy Stevens are probably the only guys on this list who never had a top 10 TE season. Those are pretty good odds and IMO Eifert is way better than most of these guys.

Then there's his rookie production. He had more yards as a rookie than:

Jimmy Graham

Dallas Clark

Kyle Rudolph

Dennis Pitta

Antonio Gates

Greg Olsen

Vernon Davis

Tony Gonzalez

Jason Witten

Owen Daniels

To be fair, Heath Miller and Jermaine Gresham were also first round picks and they also had more yards as a rookie than any of those guys. It doesn't guarantee stardom, but when I add the objective variables to my own subjective opinion that Eifert was the best TE prospect to come along in years, I think he's a lock to have at least a good career and a candidate to have a great one.

If I were doing startup drafts this year, I'm guessing that he'd end up on about 100% of my teams based on where his ADP is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're a guy who is high on Eifert than I think now is a time to try and trade for him. He has cooled a great deal from his draft day stock. I think that cooling is warranted personally. He didn't look anything close to elite in a Bengals uniform last year. He could mature into that, but I doubt it.

Personally, I always liked Ertz as the top TE from that class and I'm buying him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think TE value is so closely tied with scheme... and a TE has to be option 1 or option 2 in the passing game to be a potential FF difference maker. Eifert has Green so he is at least option 2. If Jones builds on his last quarter and playoffs (about 7+ targets a game), then we are looking at option 3.

I like Eifert, but don't see him as a Tier 1 difference maker. More of a Tier 3 guy right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good players demand targets. His rookie season was excellent when you consider that:

1. The Bengals already had a decent TE in Gresham to split targets.

2. Rookie TEs generally don't do anything.

#2 is probably the most salient point. I can't remember too many TEs who were mega hyped after their rookie seasons. Jimmy Graham wasn't. Jason Witten wasn't. Gates was seen as an intriguing sleeper, but nothing more. Shockey's stock exploded as a rookie, Reed did well last year, and Winslow was huge in his first real season of playing time. I think Gronk and Hernandez got quite a bit of buzz, but neither was valued anywhere near what he eventually accomplished. In general, TE is not a position where you're going to see a lot of rookies come in and massively pump up their stock. So if people are downgrading Eifert based on last season, I don't really know what they were expecting. 600 yards? 800 yards? He did a little better than I expected.

I think he's a player you can plug into your TE1 spot for the next 4-5 years and at least get a Greg Olsen type of return. The potential is there for him to become something like Jason Witten or a poor man's Jimmy Graham. His ADP on DLF is ~88th overall. I'd probably feel fine taking him around the 5th-6th round in most formats. So probably about 20-30 spots higher than his ADP. It's a wide enough gap that he's found his way onto a lot of my teams.

Edited by EBF
Link to post
Share on other sites

did EBF really equate Rodgers to Eifert as comparable assets? Or are they just two examples of players who play boring positions?

"both boring conservative picks"

What they have in common is that they're much better NFL players than a lot of the RB/WR drafted around them.

Look at some of the scrubs who went ahead of Eifert in that startup I posted:

Julian Edelman

Aaron Dobson

Rashad Jennings

Ka'Deem Carey

Davante Adams

Bishop Sankey

Kenny Stills

Terrance Williams

The odds of those guys having better NFL careers are about zilch. I think those picks are mostly explained by the relative positional values that encourage people to roll the dice on shoddy RB/WR rather than taking a fairly bulletproof lock at a less glamorous position.

Bullet proof lock? Your nuts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So if people are downgrading Eifert based on last season, I don't really know what they were expecting. 600 yards? 800 yards? He did a little better than I expected.

This thread should help bring perspective to that.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=684768&hl=%20tyler%20%20eifert&page=3

Yeah, he didn't live up to nearly anyone's expectations last year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eifert is a 'lock'?

Ebf owns eifert...just like jstew, c Michael, gerhart, etc

Those 39 receptions really looked elite :lol:

Rookie TEs are rarely productive. It's one of the toughest transitions in the sport.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, he didn't live up to nearly anyone's expectations last year.

:oldunsure:

He had more yards than Gonzo, Gates, Witten, and Graham did in their rookie seasons. If anyone was expecting startable numbers from him as a rookie in a committee, their expectations were ridiculous in the first place. His rookie year was fine. Once Gresham is shown the door after next season, Eifert should be a perennial top 10 guy at his position. He could even do it next year depending on how much he improves and how heavily they feature him. He only had 59 targets last year. Nowhere to go but up.

Edited by EBF
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please keep the trolling and Dbaggery out of this thread. The pollution in the rest of the SP is one thing; ruining the best dynasty discussion on the net is another. Grow up dude.

Here come the Dudley Do-Rights.... Whateves....

I cannot disagree more with some of the recent opinions that I've seen and I simply want to share that sentiment along with the degree that I disagree....

Edited by Brewtown
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, he didn't live up to nearly anyone's expectations last year.

:oldunsure:

He had more yards than Gonzo, Gates, Witten, and Graham did in their rookie seasons. If anyone was expecting startable numbers from him as a rookie in a committee, their expectations were ridiculous in the first place. His rookie year was fine. Once Gresham is shown the door after next season he should be a perennial top 10 guy at his position. He could even do it next year depending on how much he improves and how heavily they feature him.

I think he's a fine investment for the future. The hype last year was ridiculous though. Right or not, expectations were set remarkably high... Hence my buy if you like him earlier. It's hard to gage the tangible numbers people expected but I'd say it was in the range of 650 yds, 4 TDs. He delivered 445 yds and 2 TDs. Worse yet, 3 other rookie TEs severely out produced him. Had you said he would rank as TE30 overall and TE4 among rookies in August of last year FBG may have banned you. But, that exactly what happened.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Rookie TEs are rarely productive. It's one of the toughest transitions in the sport.

Historically yes, but given how the NFL has changed and TEs can be hybrid slot WR/TE does it really matter anymore. Comparing him to Tony Gonzalez or Jason Witten's career is pointless. May as well compare college FT %.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, he didn't live up to nearly anyone's expectations last year.

:oldunsure:

He had more yards than Gonzo, Gates, Witten, and Graham did in their rookie seasons. If anyone was expecting startable numbers from him as a rookie in a committee, their expectations were ridiculous in the first place. His rookie year was fine. Once Gresham is shown the door after next season he should be a perennial top 10 guy at his position. He could even do it next year depending on how much he improves and how heavily they feature him.

I think he's a fine investment for the future. The hype last year was ridiculous though. Right or not, expectations were set remarkably high... Hence my buy if you like him earlier. It's hard to gage the tangible numbers people expected but I'd say it was in the range of 650 yds, 4 TDs. He delivered 445 yds and 2 TDs. Worse yet, 3 other rookie TEs severely out produced him. Had you said he would rank as TE30 overall and TE4 among rookies in August of last year FBG may have banned you. But, that exactly what happened.

Reed and whom else?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, he didn't live up to nearly anyone's expectations last year.

:oldunsure:

He had more yards than Gonzo, Gates, Witten, and Graham did in their rookie seasons. If anyone was expecting startable numbers from him as a rookie in a committee, their expectations were ridiculous in the first place. His rookie year was fine. Once Gresham is shown the door after next season he should be a perennial top 10 guy at his position. He could even do it next year depending on how much he improves and how heavily they feature him.

I think he's a fine investment for the future. The hype last year was ridiculous though. Right or not, expectations were set remarkably high... Hence my buy if you like him earlier. It's hard to gage the tangible numbers people expected but I'd say it was in the range of 650 yds, 4 TDs. He delivered 445 yds and 2 TDs. Worse yet, 3 other rookie TEs severely out produced him. Had you said he would rank as TE30 overall and TE4 among rookies in August of last year FBG may have banned you. But, that exactly what happened.

Reed and whom else?
Ertz and Wright.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The hype last year was ridiculous though. Right or not, expectations were set remarkably high... Hence my buy if you like him earlier. It's hard to gage the tangible numbers people expected but I'd say it was in the range of 650 yds, 4 TDs.

Yeah, I don't buy that. I don't recall people having any significant redraft expectations for him. They might have hoped that he could somehow deliver startable numbers, but I think he would've been projected for a modest TE2 finish by most reasonable redrafters. I don't know if FBG 2013 projections are available anywhere, but ESPN had him penciled in for 41 catches, 529 yards, and 2 TDs. He finished with 39 catches, 445 yards, and 2 TDs despite missing the last game of the season with injury. If you prorate those stats to 16 games, he would've been on track for ~ 42 catches, 475 yards, and 2 TDs. Almost right on the nose of the projections.

The idea that he somehow had a really disappointing rookie year has little grounding in reality. His production was actually above average in the context of your average rookie TE season. It wasn't that bad in the context of the overall NFL TE landscape either. If my numbers are right he finished 23rd among TEs in targets and 25th in yards. For a rookie, I don't see a huge problem with that. He wasn't outstanding, but he was solid. If there's a perception that he had a disappointing season then either people had ridiculous expectations (I don't see much evidence of people predicting huge redraft finishes last year) or he's being unfairly punished by having a slow rookie year at a position where that's the norm. If you draft a rookie TE expecting and instant boom, you're usually in for disappointment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rookie TEs are rarely productive. It's one of the toughest transitions in the sport.

Historically yes, but given how the NFL has changed and TEs can be hybrid slot WR/TE does it really matter anymore. Comparing him to Tony Gonzalez or Jason Witten's career is pointless. May as well compare college FT %.

How many recent rookie TEs have been fantasy starters? Maybe Reed last year for a brief stretch and Gronk and Hernandez a fe years back...

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think he's a fine investment for the future. The hype last year was ridiculous though. Right or not, expectations were set remarkably high... Hence my buy if you like him earlier. It's hard to gage the tangible numbers people expected but I'd say it was in the range of 650 yds, 4 TDs. He delivered 445 yds and 2 TDs. Worse yet, 3 other rookie TEs severely out produced him. Had you said he would rank as TE30 overall and TE4 among rookies in August of last year FBG may have banned you. But, that exactly what happened.
Reed and whom else?
Ertz and Wright.

Ah, Wright slipped my mind as a UDFA. I would disagree that Ertz severely outproduced him, as they put up similar stats.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, he didn't live up to nearly anyone's expectations last year.

:oldunsure:

He had more yards than Gonzo, Gates, Witten, and Graham did in their rookie seasons. If anyone was expecting startable numbers from him as a rookie in a committee, their expectations were ridiculous in the first place. His rookie year was fine. Once Gresham is shown the door after next season he should be a perennial top 10 guy at his position. He could even do it next year depending on how much he improves and how heavily they feature him.

I think he's a fine investment for the future. The hype last year was ridiculous though. Right or not, expectations were set remarkably high... Hence my buy if you like him earlier. It's hard to gage the tangible numbers people expected but I'd say it was in the range of 650 yds, 4 TDs. He delivered 445 yds and 2 TDs. Worse yet, 3 other rookie TEs severely out produced him. Had you said he would rank as TE30 overall and TE4 among rookies in August of last year FBG may have banned you. But, that exactly what happened.
Reed and whom else?
Ertz and Wright.

Here are the numbers for last year's prominent rookie TEs:

Jordan Reed - 59 targets, 499 yards, 3 TDs (8.45 yards per target)

Zach Ertz - 56 targets, 469 yards, 4 TDs (8.38 yards per target)

Tim Wright - 76 targets, 571 yards, 5 TDs (7.51 yards per target)

Tyler Eifert - 59 targets, 445 yards, 2 TDs (7.55 yards per target)

Mychal Rivera - 60 targets, 407 yards, 4 TDs (6.78 yards per target)

I'd be somewhat reluctant to say that anyone on this list "severely outproduced" the others. Wright had the most yards, but that's easily explained by him also having the most targets. Reed and Ertz were a little more effective than Wright and Eifert with their targets. However, the difference is so small that one single big catch could swing the pendulum either way. So to me, their numbers are close enough that they basically fall within the same general range and any separation could be attributed to random variance more than significant differences in performance.

It's a moot point really because arguing that Ertz, Wright, and Reed had strong rookie seasons doesn't ultimately address the question of whether or not Eifert had a strong rookie season. If I said Demaryius Thomas had a great 2013 season and your rebuttal was to pull up stats for Dez Bryant, Vincent Jackson, and Brandon Marshall, have you actually addressed my question in any way? Not really. If ALL of those other receivers had great seasons, it doesn't somehow mean that Demaryius didn't also have a great season.

The idea that Eifert had a disappointing rookie year is pretty weak when his numbers were not only on par with (or even better than) most of the best TEs in his draft class, but also most of the best TEs in recent NFL history at the same stage of their development. He didn't quite light it up like Rob Gronkowski or Aaron Hernandez. Short of that, he was fine. Statistically, I don't see much in his numbers that justifies a downgrade. It's just bad analysis to panic over a quiet season by a rookie TE. Especially when he's sharing the field with another first round TE who just had a top 10 season the year before. Bad situation + being a rookie at a position where rookies don't usually make an impact = nobody should've expected a big impact in his rookie year.

Edited by EBF
Link to post
Share on other sites

No real weaknesses. Size? Check. Strength? Check. Speed? Check. Fluidity? Check. Explosiveness? Check.

He was a first round pick at a position where first round picks rarely bust outright.

That's a great resume for an nfl tight end and a long career, but I'm not sure it translates to fantasy. In ff, I want my te to have a weakness. I want him to suck at blocking. That's what mad aaron =

^hernandez and sharpe studs. If he's got elite talent, I want him to be unpolished, so they don't trust him to block right away, like graham and gates. Its a rare player who is truly that good at everything, like gronk and shockey, and both of those guys got hurt more than their share because they went from violent collisions at the line of scrimmage to violent collisions up field after making a catch. if anything, that feels like a liability to me. Add in the situation - competing for targets with another talented te, an elite wr, and very good receiving options at the other wr spots and at rb with a non elite qb and a defense minded head coach, and its hard to picture him emerging as a high end receiving tight end. But I do see him having a longer nfl career, because he is valuable in multiple roles and won't get killed catching the ball 80 times a year.

And that's where I think the rookie te analysis falls off the rails. Maybe its not that so many first round tes bust or are mediocre, its that the things that get tes drafted in the first round aren't good predictors for fantasy success.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The hype last year was ridiculous though. Right or not, expectations were set remarkably high... Hence my buy if you like him earlier. It's hard to gage the tangible numbers people expected but I'd say it was in the range of 650 yds, 4 TDs.

Yeah, I don't buy that. I don't recall people having any significant redraft expectations for him. They might have hoped that he could somehow deliver startable numbers, but I think he would've been projected for a modest TE2 finish by most reasonable redrafters. I don't know if FBG 2013 projections are available anywhere, but ESPN had him penciled in for 41 catches, 529 yards, and 2 TDs. He finished with 39 catches, 445 yards, and 2 TDs despite missing the last game of the season with injury. If you prorate those stats to 16 games, he would've been on track for ~ 42 catches, 475 yards, and 2 TDs. Almost right on the nose of the projections.

The idea that he somehow had a really disappointing rookie year has little grounding in reality. His production was actually above average in the context of your average rookie TE season. It wasn't that bad in the context of the overall NFL TE landscape either. If my numbers are right he finished 23rd among TEs in targets and 25th in yards. For a rookie, I don't see a huge problem with that. He wasn't outstanding, but he was solid. If there's a perception that he had a disappointing season then either people had ridiculous expectations (I don't see much evidence of people predicting huge redraft finishes last year) or he's being unfairly punished by having a slow rookie year at a position where that's the norm. If you draft a rookie TE expecting and instant boom, you're usually in for disappointment.

The idea that his rookie season was a disappointment is clearly displayed in the thread I posted. It's also apparent in the dialog that he had great expectation, though few projections. It's pretty easy to piece together that he didn't live up to the expectations because he was outperformed by 3 other rookies at his position and he was said to be an ubber prospect, many including yourself saying the best fantasy prospect in that class. He also didn't even live up to a backup quality player in fantasy, finishing at TE29.

Just because people don't assign a projection to that doesn't change the message that language speaks. For a guy who was as highly touted as Eiffert, I don't see any way it can't be deemed disappointing that he was only the 4th best rookie TE last year. On top of that, this mystical rookie TE success that is being talked about really isn't that mystically anymore. In the past 3 years we've had 8 TEs put up better number than even the full season calculation of Eiffert's 475/2.

It's fine that he underperformed. Many would say its a blessing as a matter of fact. If you were a guy who wanted him as a rookie but got snubbed you have a nice opp to buy now IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...