Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
Amendola and Shorts.Amendola and Shorts? Or Amendola and Sanders?Yes. They are both low floor and low ceiling receivers.
Amendola and Shorts.Amendola and Shorts? Or Amendola and Sanders?Yes. They are both low floor and low ceiling receivers.
This is a dynasty rankings thread after all. Being situation dependent for your upside means you lack long term upside. It means you are replaceable. You are beat-out-able. Brandon Lafell lacks upside. Unless he goes to NE at a time when every WR they brought in completely sucked and suddenly he's the #1 WR.I wasn't wrong in thinking that that role was a valuable one and Amendola would be valuable if he did win it. Danny Amendola was a massive bust. That doesn't mean he didn't have upside.
So you're defining any player who's upside relies on situation as having no upside?This is a dynasty rankings thread after all. Being situation dependent for your upside means you lack long term upside. It means you are replaceable. You are beat-out-able. Brandon Lafell lacks upside. Unless he goes to NE at a time when every WR they brought in completely sucked and suddenly he's the #1 WR.I wasn't wrong in thinking that that role was a valuable one and Amendola would be valuable if he did win it. Danny Amendola was a massive bust. That doesn't mean he didn't have upside.
Amendola is a unique story because they spent a lot of money on him and took him over Welker. The NEP treated him like a player with long term upside. But ultimately those who said he lacked upside were right. He was replaceable. He was beat out by the guy everyone was lampooning. (Shorts' story is far from unique. Alright player on a bad team. Not for long.)
Amendola was given a 5-year deal by the Patriots, who had just let Wes Welker walk. I don't think it was at all unreasonable to expect that there was a good chance that he could be the long-term slot receiver in that offense. New England certainly thought he would be.This is a dynasty rankings thread after all. Being situation dependent for your upside means you lack long term upside. It means you are replaceable. You are beat-out-able. Brandon Lafell lacks upside. Unless he goes to NE at a time when every WR they brought in completely sucked and suddenly he's the #1 WR.I wasn't wrong in thinking that that role was a valuable one and Amendola would be valuable if he did win it. Danny Amendola was a massive bust. That doesn't mean he didn't have upside.
Amendola is a unique story because they spent a lot of money on him and took him over Welker. The NEP treated him like a player with long term upside. But ultimately those who said he lacked upside were right. He was replaceable. He was beat out by the guy everyone was lampooning. (Shorts' story is far from unique. Alright player on a bad team. Not for long.)
Well obviously RBs and WRs are different positions with different rules. But I'd feel pretty safe saying Murray would start for 20+ teams in the NFL and be a valuable fantasy RB no matter what. He is elite this year due to situation but he is not situation dependent to be a great fantasy player. He had worse lines earlier in his career and was still a RB1 or high RB2. I'm sure you can rip apart my statement in a variety of ways, like point out the Max Hall era of Fitzgerald, or whatever, but that's just quibbling over extremes.So you're defining any player who's upside relies on situation as having no upside?
Odd, because I guess that means the guy that's on pace to break the NFL rushing record has little upside.
You didn't read what I wrote so I won't spend any time reading what you wrote.Amendola was given a 5-year deal by the Patriots, who had just let Wes Welker walk. I don't think it was at all unreasonable to expect that there was a good chance that he could be the long-term slot receiver in that offense. New England certainly thought he would be.This is a dynasty rankings thread after all. Being situation dependent for your upside means you lack long term upside. It means you are replaceable. You are beat-out-able. Brandon Lafell lacks upside. Unless he goes to NE at a time when every WR they brought in completely sucked and suddenly he's the #1 WR.I wasn't wrong in thinking that that role was a valuable one and Amendola would be valuable if he did win it. Danny Amendola was a massive bust. That doesn't mean he didn't have upside.
Amendola is a unique story because they spent a lot of money on him and took him over Welker. The NEP treated him like a player with long term upside. But ultimately those who said he lacked upside were right. He was replaceable. He was beat out by the guy everyone was lampooning. (Shorts' story is far from unique. Alright player on a bad team. Not for long.)
It's not like I had him 12th. He was outside my top 30. But did he have upside? Absolutely. Just like Wes Welker put up five top-10 seasons (two of them top-5, one of them #2) in PPR, despite many people believing he was just a replaceable talent and a product of the system for probably 90% of his time in New England (assuming they didn't still believe that when he walked and all he could get on the open market was $12m).
Again, all of these arguments would have worked equally well for Emmanuel Sanders last offseason. I'm sorry, let me rephrase that- that's Emmanuel "Currently A Top 10 Fantasy Receiver Despite Being a Bust in Pittsburgh and Getting a Pretty Small Contract in Free Agency Just Because He Happened to Land in WR Heaven" Sanders.
Danny Amendola could have been last year's Emmanuel Sanders. The fact that he ultimately wasn't doesn't mean he couldn't have been.
Ok, how about Emmanuel Sanders?Well obviously RBs and WRs are different positions with different rules. But I'd feel pretty safe saying Murray would start for 20+ teams in the NFL and be a valuable fantasy RB no matter what. He is elite this year due to situation but he is not situation dependent to be a great fantasy player. He had worse lines earlier in his career and was still a RB1 or high RB2. I'm sure you can rip apart my statement in a variety of ways, like point out the Max Hall era of Fitzgerald, or whatever, but that's just quibbling over extremes.So you're defining any player who's upside relies on situation as having no upside?
Odd, because I guess that means the guy that's on pace to break the NFL rushing record has little upside.
I did read it. I read it twice before responding. I've just read it again. Am I not understanding it? If so, could you please clarify it for me?You didn't read what I wrote so I won't spend any time reading what you wrote.Amendola was given a 5-year deal by the Patriots, who had just let Wes Welker walk. I don't think it was at all unreasonable to expect that there was a good chance that he could be the long-term slot receiver in that offense. New England certainly thought he would be.This is a dynasty rankings thread after all. Being situation dependent for your upside means you lack long term upside. It means you are replaceable. You are beat-out-able. Brandon Lafell lacks upside. Unless he goes to NE at a time when every WR they brought in completely sucked and suddenly he's the #1 WR.I wasn't wrong in thinking that that role was a valuable one and Amendola would be valuable if he did win it. Danny Amendola was a massive bust. That doesn't mean he didn't have upside.
Amendola is a unique story because they spent a lot of money on him and took him over Welker. The NEP treated him like a player with long term upside. But ultimately those who said he lacked upside were right. He was replaceable. He was beat out by the guy everyone was lampooning. (Shorts' story is far from unique. Alright player on a bad team. Not for long.)
It's not like I had him 12th. He was outside my top 30. But did he have upside? Absolutely. Just like Wes Welker put up five top-10 seasons (two of them top-5, one of them #2) in PPR, despite many people believing he was just a replaceable talent and a product of the system for probably 90% of his time in New England (assuming they didn't still believe that when he walked and all he could get on the open market was $12m).
Again, all of these arguments would have worked equally well for Emmanuel Sanders last offseason. I'm sorry, let me rephrase that- that's Emmanuel "Currently A Top 10 Fantasy Receiver Despite Being a Bust in Pittsburgh and Getting a Pretty Small Contract in Free Agency Just Because He Happened to Land in WR Heaven" Sanders.
Danny Amendola could have been last year's Emmanuel Sanders. The fact that he ultimately wasn't doesn't mean he couldn't have been.
How about Eric Decker? How about Julius Thomas? How about Virgil Green? How about Aaron Dobson? How about I take a nap while we quibble over whether every player in the NFL is realllly elite or just you know one of the best 60 WRs in the US.Ok, how about Emmanuel Sanders?
That was your conversation with the other guys. Or a straw man. Danny Amendola could have put up 5 straight years of 100 receptions in NE but you still shouldn't trade Kelvin Benjamin for Emmanuel Sanders which is what you were recommending when you ranked Jeffery behind Amendola for about an infinity too long.The conversation we are having, as I understand it, revolves around the claim that since two players did not achieve their upside, their upside never existed in the first place.
I'm sorry, I thought by responding to my conversation with the other guys that you were joining the conversation with the other guys.That was your conversation with the other guys. Or a straw man. Danny Amendola could have put up 5 straight years of 100 receptions in NE but you still shouldn't trade Kelvin Benjamin for Emmanuel Sanders which is what you were recommending when you ranked Jeffery behind Amendola for about an infinity too long.The conversation we are having, as I understand it, revolves around the claim that since two players did not achieve their upside, their upside never existed in the first place.
You're trying to reshape the argument. To go back to the OP, we weren't talking about Jeffery at the combine after he slimfasted down to 210, the post was after his first 200 yd game. Which came off the heals of a 100+ yard game. At that point we're not talking about guessing compared to the glut of "late 1st/early 2nd receivers out there" we're talking about buying in. Or paying attention. There were plenty of positive indicators, including Jeffery's physique and workout regime which was the main knock on him as a prospect, Trestman, and some monster games. If Marqise Lee answers the concerns "we" had about him going into the game, then yeah you buy him even if he's not putting up Sanders stats yet.Adam Harstad said:"Don't rank Emmanuel Sanders above Kelvin Benjamin" is really useful advice provided I can tell ahead of time which rookies are Kelvin Benjamin and which are, say, Marqise Lee.
It's great that your kid is in the honor roll too. But there is no reason to revisit Robert Meachem in 2014 other than the fact that it presents an interesting downturn scenario for Sanders given he's also delivering a lot of value based on helping a HOF QB convert TDs. And great job thinking the guy with a mid WR2 ceiling would perform as a WR4 for half of one season. If you need something to hang your hat on, the public bathroom stall does have a hook on the door.Adam Harstad said:Kenny Britt ... pro-Patterson .... Torrey Smith .... Robert Meachem
So the solution is to be slow to acknowledge when we're right about good talents.Adam Harstad said:We're all pretty quick to label guys as mediocre talents (sometimes with the full benefit of hindsight), but we're pretty slow to acknowledge how often we're wrong about those early proclamations.
I never bought into a lot of those players. For example I was the one arguing Da'Rick over Woods last year because of exactly what we're talking about - I'd rather have the small chance of something great than the good chance of something mediocre. I would never fault anyone for taking a chance on a prospect if its someone they've researched and started to like. Even if they do end up as woeful as Torrey Smith (sarcasm). You've stated yourself about your willingness to take a hit short term if it improves your projection long term. There is little difference between conviction about an injured player like Crabtree or Harvin returning to peak and liking a player enough to gamble on upside. Both are educated guesses based on knowledge of past performance and risk assessment.Adam Harstad said:Because there's nothing at all wrong with ranking Emmanuel Sanders above Marqise Lee, is there? Above Jordan Matthews and Paul Richardson? How about ahead of Robert Woods and Aaron Dobson? Kendall Wright, Brian Quick, Ryan Broyles, and Reuben Randle? John Baldwin, Titus Young, and Greg Little?
Alshon Jeffery is not unique because he had a 200 yard game. All of the guys I mentioned being lower on also had huge stretches. Kenny Britt scored in five consecutive games his sophomore year, finishing the run with a 10/225/3 game. When I was taking all that heat for being down on Robert Meachem, he was coming off a stretch of his own with touchdowns in five straight games, finishing with a 10/142/1 game. Some were saying he was the best receiver on the Saints. Cordarrelle Patterson was a top-5 receiver at the end of last season, again scoring touchdowns in five straight games including a 7/141/1 receiving game. Torrey Smith had 8/152/3 in his third career game and added a 7/165/1 game later in his rookie season. It's not like Alshon Jeffery was self-evidently a better prospect after his few hot games than these guys were after theirs.You're trying to reshape the argument. To go back to the OP, we weren't talking about Jeffery at the combine after he slimfasted down to 210, the post was after his first 200 yd game. Which came off the heals of a 100+ yard game. At that point we're not talking about guessing compared to the glut of "late 1st/early 2nd receivers out there" we're talking about buying in. Or paying attention. There were plenty of positive indicators, including Jeffery's physique and workout regime which was the main knock on him as a prospect, Trestman, and some monster games. If Marqise Lee answers the concerns "we" had about him going into the game, then yeah you buy him even if he's not putting up Sanders stats yet.Adam Harstad said:"Don't rank Emmanuel Sanders above Kelvin Benjamin" is really useful advice provided I can tell ahead of time which rookies are Kelvin Benjamin and which are, say, Marqise Lee.
There's absolutely a reason to revisit Robert Meachem in 2014. We're critiquing one of my processes. My rankings have a higher than average degree of inertia and I tend to remain more skeptical than the common owner when a young player starts putting up a few big games. We're having a discussion of whether that's a good process or a bad process. The only way I know of to evaluate a process is to look at its history and see what kind of results it has produced. If I just discard processes based only on the most recent example, that's reactionary.It's great that your kid is in the honor roll too. But there is no reason to revisit Robert Meachem in 2014 other than the fact that it presents an interesting downturn scenario for Sanders given he's also delivering a lot of value based on helping a HOF QB convert TDs. And great job thinking the guy with a mid WR2 ceiling would perform as a WR4 for half of one season. If you need something to hang your hat on, the public bathroom stall does have a hook on the door.Adam Harstad said:Kenny Britt ... pro-Patterson .... Torrey Smith .... Robert Meachem
So it sounds once again like the advice is just "like the right players in the first place." If I know in advance which players are Alshon Jeffery and which are Stephen Hill, then I don't have to worry about bumping a Danny Amendola above an Alshon Jeffery instead of a Stephen Hill.I never bought into a lot of those players.Adam Harstad said:Because there's nothing at all wrong with ranking Emmanuel Sanders above Marqise Lee, is there? Above Jordan Matthews and Paul Richardson? How about ahead of Robert Woods and Aaron Dobson? Kendall Wright, Brian Quick, Ryan Broyles, and Reuben Randle? John Baldwin, Titus Young, and Greg Little?
If we're using Meachem as a halloween eve tale of foreboding we should go with full disclosure and admit he was hot swappable for a late 1st until and through his training camp in SD. He ended up not being an elite fantasy player, ok, but the market is forgiving for some guys. Usually the guys that most look the part. Patterson isn't worth what he was 2 months ago but he's still worth a whole heaping lot. You can get Sanders for him in the right opportunity for sure, I mean, if you wanted to. People bought Lambos with bitcoins. But you can't trade your Camry for one.When I was taking all that heat for being down on Robert Meachem, he was coming off a stretch of his own with touchdowns in five straight games, finishing with a
It's not like Sanders was self-evidently better suited to capitalize on his opportunity as a vet with mediocre resume thrust into the limelight. Brady has churned through a half dozen failed FA WR. What does it say if LaFell ends up being the best one? When people spent top 75 startup picks on Dola, Lloyd and Ocho. Certainly there are people on the interwebs quantifying and cross correlating college careers, size, age, etc. to evaluate prospects and Jeffery usually does well in that sort of analysis. It only lacks evidence if you summarily dismiss all the evidence. If that fits your confirmation bias, its no use going on and on.It's not like Alshon Jeffery was self-evidently a better prospect
Certainly that is a key part of fantasy football, picking the right players. I would dismiss anyone who said you can win more by picking the wrong players. I thought my advice was more don't pick the wrong players, but I'm not really sure. I do like picking the right players, though. It is fun to draft, right? At least we can agree on that. Even if you get all Twizzlers it was still a good night.So it sounds once again like the advice is just "like the right players in the first place."
Totally 100% fair. This has been brought up w/r/t my rankings several times and I always clarify that I'm not ranking based on market value, I'm ranking mostly based on my expectations for the rest of the guy's career. I mean, that golden parachute is very nice and I wouldn't turn it down, all else being equal. But if I really think the EV of Danny Amendola is greater than the EV of Alshon Jeffery, I'm going to rank Amendola ahead of Jeffery, even if in the event that both are busts I could recoup a lot more of my losses from Jeffery.If we're using Meachem as a halloween eve tale of foreboding we should go with full disclosure and admit he was hot swappable for a late 1st until and through his training camp in SD. He ended up not being an elite fantasy player, ok, but the market is forgiving for some guys. Usually the guys that most look the part. Patterson isn't worth what he was 2 months ago but he's still worth a whole heaping lot. You can get Sanders for him in the right opportunity for sure, I mean, if you wanted to. People bought Lambos with bitcoins. But you can't trade your Camry for one.
Right, but it's not like I had Amendola 12th an Jeffery 63rd. Both guys were in the low-to-mid 30s. There were reasons to believe that Amendola was different than Brandon Lloyd and Ochocinco- his age and the length of his contract, most notably. The correlation in timing between the departure of Welker and the signing of Amendola added credence to the idea that Amendola was a "Welker replacement". Maybe I got suckered by the timing too much. Though, again, we're ranging a bit far afield- the original question was "was Danny Amendola a low-upside receiver", and I still say no, any guy with a 5-year contract and a great shot to be the slot receiver in New England is not a "low-upside receiver", even ignoring Amendola's previous production (which was quite strong, at least between stints on the injury report).It's not like Sanders was self-evidently better suited to capitalize on his opportunity as a vet with mediocre resume thrust into the limelight. Brady has churned through a half dozen failed FA WR. What does it say if LaFell ends up being the best one? When people spent top 75 startup picks on Dola, Lloyd and Ocho. Certainly there are people on the interwebs quantifying and cross correlating college careers, size, age, etc. to evaluate prospects and Jeffery usually does well in that sort of analysis. It only lacks evidence if you summarily dismiss all the evidence. If that fits your confirmation bias, its no use going on and on.It's not like Alshon Jeffery was self-evidently a better prospect
For sure. In a lot of ways, the rookie draft is a lot like buying real-life lottery tickets. It's not about whether you hit the jackpot or not, it's about the days or weeks prior to the jackpot being announced when you have free reign to fantasize about what it would be like if you won, and what you would do with that massive windfall. Nothing lets you play "let's pretend" with your roster quite like a fistful of rookie picks.Certainly that is a key part of fantasy football, picking the right players. I would dismiss anyone who said you can win more by picking the wrong players. I thought my advice was more don't pick the wrong players, but I'm not really sure. I do like picking the right players, though. It is fun to draft, right? At least we can agree on that. Even if you get all Twizzlers it was still a good night.So it sounds once again like the advice is just "like the right players in the first place."
Hopefully, Webster's will delete that reference from their 2015 edition to avoid future embarrassment.Sanders is in the dictionary under JAG.Reuben Randle to me is the 2013 Emmanuel Sanders. Both had promise of big years based upon increased role in offense and both are really just guys. A 52% catch rate isn't exactly promising to me. If you project last years performance to 120 targets (which is what Cruz saw, and unlikely for Randle) he would be in line for around 60/800 which is what I'd expect.
I haven't been able to find a buyer for Randle at anywhere near his ADP right now in my experience.
Peyton makes JAG's look great, by both being a great QB and WR coach.squistion said:Hopefully, Webster's will delete that reference from their 2015 edition to avoid future embarrassment.Sanders is in the dictionary under JAG.Reuben Randle to me is the 2013 Emmanuel Sanders. Both had promise of big years based upon increased role in offense and both are really just guys. A 52% catch rate isn't exactly promising to me. If you project last years performance to 120 targets (which is what Cruz saw, and unlikely for Randle) he would be in line for around 60/800 which is what I'd expect.
I haven't been able to find a buyer for Randle at anywhere near his ADP right now in my experience.
Manning certainly doesn't hurt, but Sanders has been slick this year. There's a reason why he's on pace for 150+ targets while Julius Thomas is only on pace for 88. Manning goes to the guy who is open, and Sanders is open. A lot.Peyton makes JAG's look great, by both being a great QB and WR coach.
I try to watch a good chunk every game excluding 2nd halves of blowouts(NFL Rewind is my BFF), Sanders does look improved, especially as a route runner. I give that credit to Manning for coaching him up and making him a better player. Before that he definitely was JAG from what I saw from him.Manning certainly doesn't hurt, but Sanders has been slick this year. There's a reason why he's on pace for 150+ targets while Julius Thomas is only on pace for 88. Manning goes to the guy who is open, and Sanders is open. A lot.Peyton makes JAG's look great, by both being a great QB and WR coach.
Aye. Sanders is a product of the system if ever there was one. Just look at his Steelers career.Peyton makes JAG's look great, by both being a great QB and WR coach.squistion said:Hopefully, Webster's will delete that reference from their 2015 edition to avoid future embarrassment.Sanders is in the dictionary under JAG.Reuben Randle to me is the 2013 Emmanuel Sanders. Both had promise of big years based upon increased role in offense and both are really just guys. A 52% catch rate isn't exactly promising to me. If you project last years performance to 120 targets (which is what Cruz saw, and unlikely for Randle) he would be in line for around 60/800 which is what I'd expect.
I haven't been able to find a buyer for Randle at anywhere near his ADP right now in my experience.
No one has claimed that he is an elite receiver.Aye. Sanders is a product of the system if ever there was one. Just look at his Steelers career.Peyton makes JAG's look great, by both being a great QB and WR coach.squistion said:Hopefully, Webster's will delete that reference from their 2015 edition to avoid future embarrassment.Sanders is in the dictionary under JAG.Reuben Randle to me is the 2013 Emmanuel Sanders. Both had promise of big years based upon increased role in offense and both are really just guys. A 52% catch rate isn't exactly promising to me. If you project last years performance to 120 targets (which is what Cruz saw, and unlikely for Randle) he would be in line for around 60/800 which is what I'd expect.
I haven't been able to find a buyer for Randle at anywhere near his ADP right now in my experience.
27 years old and suddenly a switch flips and he's an elite receiver? No. He's just benefiting from favorable matchups created by better players around him.
That's weird, I've never seen an offensive system that revolves around putting JAGs into positions where they're forced to routinely make spectacular grabs. Seems like an ill-conceived system.Aye. Sanders is a product of the system if ever there was one. Just look at his Steelers career.
27 years old and suddenly a switch flips and he's an elite receiver? No. He's just benefiting from favorable matchups created by better players around him.
That's weird, I've never seen an offensive system that revolves around putting JAGs into positions where they're forced to routinely make spectacular grabs. Seems like an ill-conceived system.Aye. Sanders is a product of the system if ever there was one. Just look at his Steelers career.
27 years old and suddenly a switch flips and he's an elite receiver? No. He's just benefiting from favorable matchups created by better players around him.
Damn I hadn't heard that or seen it mentioned on twitter either. Best wishes to Chris.He just got diagnosed with esophageal cancer. Best wishes to Chris
They discussed it on the last episode of Around the NFL. Wesseling sounded good, like he had no doubt he'd kick it.Damn I hadn't heard that or seen it mentioned on twitter either. Best wishes to Chris.