Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Keelan Cole, WR, Jets


Recommended Posts

Blake Bortles - QB - Jaguars

Jaguars OC Nathaniel Hackett believes Blake Bortles' progression will allow the passing game "to be a lot more aggressive."

"We’re in a great situation, because a very good line, and we have very good running backs, which will allow us to run the ball," Hackett said. "Now it’s going to allow us to be a lot more aggressive because you can trust that Blake is going to make the right decision more consistently." Bortles dominated down the field during his best season in 2015, completing a league-high 72 passes of 20 yards or more and averaging 12.5 yards per completion, but he has struggled to recapture that form the last two years. While the offense should remain run-heavy, it sounds like Bortles will get more opportunities to push it deep this season. Bortles is a good value in two-quarterback formats.

Source: MMQB

Jul 2 - 10:33 AM

 

https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/07/02/atlanta-falcons-dan-quinn-military-chip-kelly-ucla-eagles-blake-bortles-supplemental-draft

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/28/2018 at 5:07 PM, Pwingles said:

In Dynasty, I think Chark>Cole>Westbrook>Moncrief in that order, factoring in likely cost. Also, Lazard to stash for free might be profitable.

Oh God here we go again. When are you people going to just be able to give the credit a guy has earned and deserves?

We just did this last year with Westbrook. This year Chark. Who's the rookie going to be next year to illogically for no quality reason beat out Cole?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, ShamrockPride said:

Oh God here we go again. When are you people going to just be able to give the credit a guy has earned and deserves?

We just did this last year with Westbrook. This year Chark. Who's the rookie going to be next year to illogically for no quality reason beat out Cole?

lol wut?

First of all, he was a rookie last year. So its not like this guy is perpetually being passed over for the shiny new thing.

Second of all, he was UDFA who had late season success in games 14,15,16. My reasoning for me personally liking Chark is mostly just athletic profile and draft capital. Its by no means a condemnation of Cole. I actually like Cole, as represented by me having him 2nd in my list from the post you quoted, but somehow misread.

You like Cole a lot. Thats fine. Me too. But if you think that 3 flashy games from a UDFA at the end of the season, against turrble pass D's is enough to anoint Cole as Jax's WR1 without debate.. I disagree

He is also largely dependent on the deep ball. 25% of his catches were 20+ yds. Seems like a figure thats not sustainable.

 

Edited by Pwingles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/28/2018 at 4:07 PM, Pwingles said:

The problem is, they have all flashed, but thats all they have done. Every one of those guys ( i guess sans Chark for the moment) is in the same boat. It won't likely work itself out until 5-6 games in, or a couple injuries force something to happen.

I think Chark is gonna be good. I don't know if I trust BB to get the ball down the field accurately, but he did it before for ARob so maybe. In re draft if i am taking a flyer on one, it would be moncrief.

In Dynasty, I think Chark>Cole>Westbrook>Moncrief in that order, factoring in likely cost. Also, Lazard to stash for free might be profitable.

From DLF's dynasty ADP:
WR71 Westbrook
WR72 Chark
WR75 Moncrief
WR82 Cole

If those values are to be trusted then the cost difference is negligible. Given that, do you still rank them that way?

Fun fact: Moncrief is somehow younger than Cole 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FF Ninja said:

From DLF's dynasty ADP:
WR71 Westbrook
WR72 Chark
WR75 Moncrief
WR82 Cole

If those values are to be trusted then the cost difference is negligible. Given that, do you still rank them that way?

Fun fact: Moncrief is somehow younger than Cole 

Yeah, Id pay more for Chark than Cole. Cole is reasonably cheaper but I do not believe his upside is the same, so the higher draft cost for me is justified. Westbrook is not much different to me than Cole skill set wise. Moncrief is just not good IMO.

So for me;

Chark (potential talent), Cole and Westbrook (same guy, flip a coin), Moncrief, (one time i caught a bunch of TDs at a crazy rate, but am seemingly fragile)

Which I dont think is unreasonable. I wouldnt fault people for ranking them differently, as I said above, theyre all kind of in the same boat. None of them have consistently been good. But this is how I see them, and why.

Also, thanks. I wasnt aware of the fact Moncrief was younger than Cole

Edited by Pwingles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Pwingles said:

Yeah, Id pay more for Chark than Cole. Cole is reasonably cheaper but I do not believe his upside is the same, so the higher draft cost for me is justified. Westbrook is not much different to me than Cole skill set wise. Moncrief is just not good IMO.

So for me;

Chark (potential talent), Cole and Westbrook (same guy, flip a coin), Moncrief, (one time i caught a bunch of TDs at a crazy rate, but am seemingly fragile)

Which I dont think is unreasonable. I wouldnt fault people for ranking them differently, as I said above, theyre all kind of in the same boat. None of them have consistently been good. But this is how I see them, and why.

Also, thanks. I wasnt aware of the fact Moncrief was younger than Cole

At the risk of being a Moncrief apologist, after four years we've managed to never see him have 1) snaps, 2) health, and 3) a decent QB all at the same time. Sounds crazy to say about a guy who has been in the league 4 years, but it just never happened. Given that they're likely paying him over $10M for this season, I think he's the play here. I don't understand the signing and don't like the fit for him, but if we betting on one guy to be fantasy relevant, he's the guy, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FF Ninja said:

At the risk of being a Moncrief apologist, after four years we've managed to never see him have 1) snaps, 2) health, and 3) a decent QB all at the same time. Sounds crazy to say about a guy who has been in the league 4 years, but it just never happened. Given that they're likely paying him over $10M for this season, I think he's the play here. I don't understand the signing and don't like the fit for him, but if we betting on one guy to be fantasy relevant, he's the guy, IMO.

Yeah, in my earlier post I said that he was the guy for redraft, for the reasons you stated. My opinion for Dyno is different and am in wait and see mode with DM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, FF Ninja said:

At the risk of being a Moncrief apologist, after four years we've managed to never see him have 1) snaps, 2) health, and 3) a decent QB all at the same time. Sounds crazy to say about a guy who has been in the league 4 years, but it just never happened. Given that they're likely paying him over $10M for this season, I think he's the play here. I don't understand the signing and don't like the fit for him, but if we betting on one guy to be fantasy relevant, he's the guy, IMO.

Hes on a one year deal...the jax coaches dont care what he is making they are playing to win. He is playing for his next contract so lets see how bad he wants to stay in the league

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just remember, I've seen dozens of guys get paid like starters see the bench.

Robert Meachem got PAID to be in San Diego. Never did anything.

Tedd Ginn got PAID to be in Arizona. Never did anything.

 

The list goes on. Moncrief is probably being groomed to be a starter, but I've seen situations like this backfire all the time. As for Cole, he's made bigger impact plays than I've seen Moncrief make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Pwingles said:

Yeah, in my earlier post I said that he was the guy for redraft, for the reasons you stated. My opinion for Dyno is different and am in wait and see mode with DM

I saw that. But the 1-year contract is part of why I like him better for dynasty. He gets to gtfo of JAX before the other guys.

5 hours ago, Stuart Ullman said:

Just remember, I've seen dozens of guys get paid like starters see the bench.

Robert Meachem got PAID to be in San Diego. Never did anything.

Tedd Ginn got PAID to be in Arizona. Never did anything.

 

The list goes on. Moncrief is probably being groomed to be a starter, but I've seen situations like this backfire all the time. As for Cole, he's made bigger impact plays than I've seen Moncrief make.

:lmao: Then you aren't looking. Moncrief's career has been marred with injuries and poor QB play, but he does have 18 TDs to Cole's 3, despite being younger than him. I'm sure there are plenty of impact plays out there if one wanted to look for them, even if half of them are coming from Hasselbeck or Brissett. His age 22 season alone was better than Cole's age 24 season, and he was backing up Hilton and Andre Johnson that season.

That's not to say Cole isn't good. I'm just wary of 24 year old rookies (undrafted or not). But the main problem with Cole is that I think he's a "buy high" right now. Through no fault of his own, he's likely to enter the season as the WR3, at best. With Lee and Moncrief getting paid, I expect they'll be the week 1 starters. I hear what BSS is saying about the coaches not caring about contracts, but the reality is that contracts are VERY indicative of playing time. I'm not saying it's the way it should be, but it's the way it is. I think Cole will be a nice mid-season target when people will have given up on him emerging in JAX this year. That plan will go to crap if Lee or Moncrief gets injured.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, FF Ninja said:

Find me one (healthy) WR who is making the most money that year on his team (out of the WRs) and not playing starter's snaps and I'll be impressed.

So this rule is only valid for WRs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 03/07/2018 at 11:15 PM, FF Ninja said:

I saw that. But the 1-year contract is part of why I like him better for dynasty. He gets to gtfo of JAX before the other guys.

:lmao: Then you aren't looking. Moncrief's career has been marred with injuries and poor QB play, but he does have 18 TDs to Cole's 3, despite being younger than him. I'm sure there are plenty of impact plays out there if one wanted to look for them, even if half of them are coming from Hasselbeck or Brissett. His age 22 season alone was better than Cole's age 24 season, and he was backing up Hilton and Andre Johnson that season.

That's not to say Cole isn't good. I'm just wary of 24 year old rookies (undrafted or not). But the main problem with Cole is that I think he's a "buy high" right now. Through no fault of his own, he's likely to enter the season as the WR3, at best. With Lee and Moncrief getting paid, I expect they'll be the week 1 starters. I hear what BSS is saying about the coaches not caring about contracts, but the reality is that contracts are VERY indicative of playing time. I'm not saying it's the way it should be, but it's the way it is. I think Cole will be a nice mid-season target when people will have given up on him emerging in JAX this year. That plan will go to crap if Lee or Moncrief gets injured.

How can he be a buy high when his ADP (last I checked) is lower than the other Jags WRs, including Westbrook? You don’t need to buy him high - hardly anyone seems to rate him or acknowledge his existence. Westbrook is routinely mentioned above him on the depth chart. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RushHour said:

How can he be a buy high when his ADP (last I checked) is lower than the other Jags WRs, including Westbrook? You don’t need to buy him high - hardly anyone seems to rate him or acknowledge his existence. Westbrook is routinely mentioned above him on the depth chart. 

A penny stock worth 17 cents is a buy high if it is worth 8 cents later.

In this case, I am talking about buying him from his current dynasty owner. The owner remembers what he did last year and will (probably) not be selling him off cheaply despite his startup ADP. However, if he's getting WR3/4/5 snaps a month or two into the season, the owner might be willing to part with Cole for less than he was willing to in the offseason. I think Cole will be a great "throw-in" type target by mid-season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, FF Ninja said:

I thought we were talking about WRs in this thread.

Your statement was vague enough that it could be taken either way.  So your assertion is that the highest paid receivers receive playing time commensurate with the percentage of the total WR salary cap on a team?  I'm trying to figure out how this can be quantified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, tangfoot said:

Your statement was vague enough that it could be taken either way.  So your assertion is that the highest paid receivers receive playing time commensurate with the percentage of the total WR salary cap on a team?  I'm trying to figure out how this can be quantified.

Apologies. I don't really pay attention to salary of positions other than WR and RB, because those are the only two where positional competition matters to me.

I don't think you're going to be able to put some sort of formula together, but I do think you'll find that WRs who get paid the most on their team have to work hard to play themselves out of snaps. The best example I can think of was Britt in Cleveland last year. It wasn't until week 11 that his snaps took a significant hit. At that point his season high was 3 rec and 54 yards. Torrey Smith didn't work out in SF, but he routinely received the most snaps on the team. Remember when Tavon Austin got that inexplicable extension for the Rams in 2016? He got 731 snaps in 2016 and produced... 58/509/3. 

Currently, Moncrief ($9.6M) and Lee ($8.5M) are slated to be the 19th and 21st highest paid WRs per year in 2018. It would be extremely unusual for those two to not lead the team in snaps at WR, at least through the first half of the year. Thus, I think they are the two to target in redraft (if you choose to invest in this passing attack - I do not advise) and all the other WRs will likely decrease in trade value as the season goes along - the longer they ride the bench, the quicker their owners lose interest. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, FF Ninja said:

Apologies. I don't really pay attention to salary of positions other than WR and RB, because those are the only two where positional competition matters to me.

I don't think you're going to be able to put some sort of formula together, but I do think you'll find that WRs who get paid the most on their team have to work hard to play themselves out of snaps. The best example I can think of was Britt in Cleveland last year. It wasn't until week 11 that his snaps took a significant hit. At that point his season high was 3 rec and 54 yards. Torrey Smith didn't work out in SF, but he routinely received the most snaps on the team. Remember when Tavon Austin got that inexplicable extension for the Rams in 2016? He got 731 snaps in 2016 and produced... 58/509/3. 

Currently, Moncrief ($9.6M) and Lee ($8.5M) are slated to be the 19th and 21st highest paid WRs per year in 2018. It would be extremely unusual for those two to not lead the team in snaps at WR, at least through the first half of the year. Thus, I think they are the two to target in redraft (if you choose to invest in this passing attack - I do not advise) and all the other WRs will likely decrease in trade value as the season goes along - the longer they ride the bench, the quicker their owners lose interest. 

What is the direct relevance of snap counts for fantasy purposes?  I guess in theory, the more snaps you get, the more chances you have for points, but snap counts are far less relevant that targets when it comes to WR.  For example, Sammy Watkins led the other Rams WR in terms of snap counts (74%) but was a distant third when it came to targets.  I really do not care how many snaps a WR gets if he is being used as a high profile decoy or downfield blocker.  

On Moncrief, changing teams and offensive systems is hard and quite of few WR have failed or taken most of a season to adjust. 

Take a look at the top WR FAs from last year on this page:  http://walterfootball.com/freeagents2017WR.php  My quick review of the players on that list shows that Alshon Jeffrey and Robert Woods were the only ones to switch teams, be fantasy relevant and perform at least as better as the year before.  Meanwhile, the others players that changed teams (terrell Pryor, Pierre Garcon, Jeremy Maclin, Eric decker, DeSean Jackson, Brandon Marshall, Corderelle Patterson, Torrey Smith, Michael Floyd, Kamar Aiken, kendallWright, Tedd Ginn, Kenny Britt, and Victor Cruz) all disappointed.  Thats a 1 in 8 hit rate for FA WR that switch teams.  Those are not safe odds.  (A surprising number of them also lost significant time to injury... I wonder if changing strength/conditioning coaches makes one more prone to injury?)

Being high dollar may be indicative of more snaps early in the season, but targets are far more relevant.  More importantly, WR that switch teams normally take some time to adjust (if they ever do).  

For redraft, I would easily pick Cole over Moncrief.  For Dynasty its a lot closer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, FF Ninja said:

Apologies. I don't really pay attention to salary of positions other than WR and RB, because those are the only two where positional competition matters to me.

I don't think you're going to be able to put some sort of formula together, but I do think you'll find that WRs who get paid the most on their team have to work hard to play themselves out of snaps. The best example I can think of was Britt in Cleveland last year. It wasn't until week 11 that his snaps took a significant hit. At that point his season high was 3 rec and 54 yards. Torrey Smith didn't work out in SF, but he routinely received the most snaps on the team. Remember when Tavon Austin got that inexplicable extension for the Rams in 2016? He got 731 snaps in 2016 and produced... 58/509/3. 

Currently, Moncrief ($9.6M) and Lee ($8.5M) are slated to be the 19th and 21st highest paid WRs per year in 2018. It would be extremely unusual for those two to not lead the team in snaps at WR, at least through the first half of the year. Thus, I think they are the two to target in redraft (if you choose to invest in this passing attack - I do not advise) and all the other WRs will likely decrease in trade value as the season goes along - the longer they ride the bench, the quicker their owners lose interest. 

This is correct...Highly drafted players/paid are given every chance to be the starter even though they are obviously not as talented as players drafted lower or free agents on their team..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Brisco54 said:

What is the direct relevance of snap counts for fantasy purposes?  I guess in theory, the more snaps you get, the more chances you have for points, but snap counts are far less relevant that targets when it comes to WR.  For example, Sammy Watkins led the other Rams WR in terms of snap counts (74%) but was a distant third when it came to targets.  I really do not care how many snaps a WR gets if he is being used as a high profile decoy or downfield blocker.  

On Moncrief, changing teams and offensive systems is hard and quite of few WR have failed or taken most of a season to adjust. 

Take a look at the top WR FAs from last year on this page:  http://walterfootball.com/freeagents2017WR.php  My quick review of the players on that list shows that Alshon Jeffrey and Robert Woods were the only ones to switch teams, be fantasy relevant and perform at least as better as the year before.  Meanwhile, the others players that changed teams (terrell Pryor, Pierre Garcon, Jeremy Maclin, Eric decker, DeSean Jackson, Brandon Marshall, Corderelle Patterson, Torrey Smith, Michael Floyd, Kamar Aiken, kendallWright, Tedd Ginn, Kenny Britt, and Victor Cruz) all disappointed.  Thats a 1 in 8 hit rate for FA WR that switch teams.  Those are not safe odds.  (A surprising number of them also lost significant time to injury... I wonder if changing strength/conditioning coaches makes one more prone to injury?)

Being high dollar may be indicative of more snaps early in the season, but targets are far more relevant.  More importantly, WR that switch teams normally take some time to adjust (if they ever do).  

For redraft, I would easily pick Cole over Moncrief.  For Dynasty its a lot closer.

Which of those guys did you expect to have an impact?? Pryor and Alshon were the only guys that people drafted to start. Pryor was a bust but he only had one year of production before that so I guess we shouldn't have been surprised. Woods was actually a surprise success, as I don't think his ADP was in the top 36. He was being drafted very low. Garcon was actually on a decent pace (1000 yards) before injury, although I don't think anyone expected much of him. Maclin, Decker, and Marshall all appear to have been gassed. DeSean got hurt and is kind of old. 

Basically all I can draw from last year is that you shouldn't rely on old free agents. The young-ish ones (Alshon and Woods) did fine. Notable wide receivers don't change teams a whole lot, but Maclin's best season with the Chiefs was his first one. Crabtree rejuvenated his career with a 1-year deal in Oakland. Vincent Jackson's best year in his career was his first year with Tampa. 

Actually, as I was writing this I remembered Rotoworld has a top FA list every year. Going from that (and only talking about names worth mentioning):

2017: already discussed
2016:
Marvin Jones (DET) - success
Mike Wallace (BAL) - success
Mohamed Sanu (ATL) - meh... they overpaid him to be their WR2 and he put up NFL WR2 numbers 
2015:
Torrey Smith (SF) - bust (but then again so was the whole offense, so 663/4 was relatively decent)
Jeremy Maclin (KC) - success
Andre Johnson (IND) - age related bust
2014:
DeSean Jackson (WAS) - success
Eric Decker (NYJ) - success
Golden Tate (DET) - success
Steve Smith (BAL) - success
Emmanuel Sanders (DEN) - success

So I gotta disagree that switching teams is some sort of universal stumbling block.

I also thought it was kind of obvious that snaps are correlated to targets. There are exceptions, but it is rare for a guy to be 3rd in snaps at WR and to put up fantasy relevant stats. I'm sure it happens from time to time, but it is far more rare than a WR getting paid and successfully changing teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, FF Ninja said:

Find me one (healthy) WR who is making the most money that year on his team (out of the WRs) and not playing starter's snaps and I'll be impressed.

2017 Vikings' starters were Thielen and Diggs but...

Thielen: 3.7 M cap hit

Jarius Wright 3 M

Treadwell, 2.25 M

Floyd, 1.137 M

Diggs, 671K

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, az_prof said:

2017 Vikings' starters were Thielen and Diggs but...

Thielen: 3.7 M cap hit

Jarius Wright 3 M

Treadwell, 2.25 M

Floyd, 1.137 M

Diggs, 671K

This is not a notable case. Diggs was still on his rookie contract and was the obvious starter there, which is exactly why nobody outside of Thielen was getting paid starter's money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, FF Ninja said:

 

Actually, as I was writing this I remembered Rotoworld has a top FA list every year. Going from that (and only talking about names worth mentioning):

2017: already discussed
2016:
Marvin Jones (DET) - success
Mike Wallace (BAL) - success
Mohamed Sanu (ATL) - meh... they overpaid him to be their WR2 and he put up NFL WR2 numbers 
2015:
Torrey Smith (SF) - bust (but then again so was the whole offense, so 663/4 was relatively decent)
Jeremy Maclin (KC) - success
Andre Johnson (IND) - age related bust
2014:
DeSean Jackson (WAS) - success
Eric Decker (NYJ) - success
Golden Tate (DET) - success
Steve Smith (BAL) - success
Emmanuel Sanders (DEN) - success

So I gotta disagree that switching teams is some sort of universal stumbling block.

I also thought it was kind of obvious that snaps are correlated to targets. There are exceptions, but it is rare for a guy to be 3rd in snaps at WR and to put up fantasy relevant stats. I'm sure it happens from time to time, but it is far more rare than a WR getting paid and successfully changing teams.

By "only talking about the names worth mentioning" you are using the benefit of hindsight to seriously cherry pick.  For example, you decided to include Steve Smith on your list when he was the #23 ranked FA WR and the #59 ranked fantasy WR (preseason 2014) as a player "worth mentioning" while many other higher ranked players were apparently not "worth mentioning."     It would be the equivalent of currently arguing that Brandon Marshall (#22) is  "worth mentioning"  but Sammy Watkins, Paul Richardson, Jordy Nelson, Michal Crabtree, and Jordan Matthews are not "worth mentioning."   

Walter Football has both historical FA rankings and season rankings for each year.  I will stick with that page for consistency.

 2014 did have a lot of success... but make sure you look at the whole list. http://walterfootball.com/freeagents2014WR.php  #1 and #2 were both successful, but the #3 FA James Jones was a bust, 4,5,6 stayed with their teams, but #7 Hakeem Nicks busted, #8 didnt move, but #9 Dexter McCluster was a bust.  #10 Tate did well, but #11 Britt was a bust as was Hester at 12.  Sanders did well at 13, Ginn did not at 14.  15 & 16 stayed the same team, 17 (roberts) was a bust, 18 (Holmes) was a bust) 19 (Hawkins) 20 stayed and 21 Manningham was a bust as was miles austin at 22.  That's a comparably great hit rate of 4 out of the top 15.

2015?  Here is the list:  http://walterfootball.com/freeagents2015WR.php

(I will only include those that switched teams) #4 (maclin) did succeed, #5 Torrey Smith) did not.  Neither did Percy harvin (#6) Crabtree succeeded at #7, AJ Johnson at 8 diid not.  Nor did Cecil Shorts at #9, Eddie Royal at #11, Dwayne  Bowe at 12, Jacoby Jones at #17, Reggie Wayne at 19 or Stevie johnson at 20.  That's a 2 of 9 hit rate.

So it looks like two to four of the top wr that switch teams will make it each year. 

Looking at the current class, http://walterfootball.com/freeagents2018WR.php my money is on (#1) Landry, (#2) ARob or (#3) Sammy being the ones that hit rather than #13 Moncrief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Brisco54 said:

By "only talking about the names worth mentioning" you are using the benefit of hindsight to seriously cherry pick.  For example, you decided to include Steve Smith on your list when he was the #23 ranked FA WR and the #59 ranked fantasy WR (preseason 2014) as a player "worth mentioning" while many other higher ranked players were apparently not "worth mentioning."     It would be the equivalent of currently arguing that Brandon Marshall (#22) is  "worth mentioning"  but Sammy Watkins, Paul Richardson, Jordy Nelson, Michal Crabtree, and Jordan Matthews are not "worth mentioning."   

Walter Football has both historical FA rankings and season rankings for each year.  I will stick with that page for consistency.

 2014 did have a lot of success... but make sure you look at the whole list. http://walterfootball.com/freeagents2014WR.php  #1 and #2 were both successful, but the #3 FA James Jones was a bust, 4,5,6 stayed with their teams, but #7 Hakeem Nicks busted, #8 didnt move, but #9 Dexter McCluster was a bust.  #10 Tate did well, but #11 Britt was a bust as was Hester at 12.  Sanders did well at 13, Ginn did not at 14.  15 & 16 stayed the same team, 17 (roberts) was a bust, 18 (Holmes) was a bust) 19 (Hawkins) 20 stayed and 21 Manningham was a bust as was miles austin at 22.  That's a comparably great hit rate of 4 out of the top 15.

2015?  Here is the list:  http://walterfootball.com/freeagents2015WR.php

(I will only include those that switched teams) #4 (maclin) did succeed, #5 Torrey Smith) did not.  Neither did Percy harvin (#6) Crabtree succeeded at #7, AJ Johnson at 8 diid not.  Nor did Cecil Shorts at #9, Eddie Royal at #11, Dwayne  Bowe at 12, Jacoby Jones at #17, Reggie Wayne at 19 or Stevie johnson at 20.  That's a 2 of 9 hit rate.

So it looks like two to four of the top wr that switch teams will make it each year. 

Looking at the current class, http://walterfootball.com/freeagents2018WR.php my money is on (#1) Landry, (#2) ARob or (#3) Sammy being the ones that hit rather than #13 Moncrief.

I didn't cherry pick. I used contract size. If a guy changed teams and didn't get starter's money, then he's irrelevant. Like how are we even talking about Cecil Shorts?? 2015 was not a 2 of 9 hit rate. Most of those guys were never expected to contribute and their contracts reflected that. You are using some seriously flawed logic here. James Jones signed a 3-year $11.3M contract with Oakland. A marginal player on a marginal contract in a marginal offense. He's not a data point. A washed up Nicks signed a 1-year $4M prove it deal and proved why nobody signed him to a real contract. Dexter McCluster... was he even a WR?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Jags ostensibly have five WRs that can credibly contribute this year (although I am skeptical of Chark for 2018); with their offensive scheme, they really only need three to do so

I'm not sure it matters to Coughlin and the front office which three step up...the best three will get the most reps over the course of the season.

Lee will likely lead the team in WR snaps, if only for blocking.  And I agree with Ninja that Moncrief is the second best bet for the rotation at least for the first 1/2 of the season.

They are in a win now mode, and that's why they signed Moncrief to just the one-year deal, so it's not the end of the world if he loses PT as the season progresses if other receivers are outplaying him

What Moncrief brings that the others don't is the big body that replaces Allen Robinson, (but faster than AR) giving Bortles another type of look. 

So maybe everyone is right here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, doeseatplace said:

The Jags ostensibly have five WRs that can credibly contribute this year (although I am skeptical of Chark for 2018); with their offensive scheme, they really only need three to do so

I'm not sure it matters to Coughlin and the front office which three step up...the best three will get the most reps over the course of the season.

Lee will likely lead the team in WR snaps, if only for blocking.  And I agree with Ninja that Moncrief is the second best bet for the rotation at least for the first 1/2 of the season.

They are in a win now mode, and that's why they signed Moncrief to just the one-year deal, so it's not the end of the world if he loses PT as the season progresses if other receivers are outplaying him

What Moncrief brings that the others don't is the big body that replaces Allen Robinson, (but faster than AR) giving Bortles another type of look. 

So maybe everyone is right here?

Moncrief is half the man Allen Robinson was. And Lee as a big blocker? He is tiny!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/5/2018 at 4:56 PM, FF Ninja said:

I didn't cherry pick. I used contract size. If a guy changed teams and didn't get starter's money, then he's irrelevant. Like how are we even talking about Cecil Shorts?? 2015 was not a 2 of 9 hit rate. Most of those guys were never expected to contribute and their contracts reflected that. You are using some seriously flawed logic here. James Jones signed a 3-year $11.3M contract with Oakland. A marginal player on a marginal contract in a marginal offense. He's not a data point. A washed up Nicks signed a 1-year $4M prove it deal and proved why nobody signed him to a real contract. Dexter McCluster... was he even a WR?

You do realize that Steve Smith made less than Jones, Nicks...?

I picked a random page and simply used the top rated FA WR on that page as well as the top rated WR for that preseason.  I am willing to switch to any other listing that you can provide.  My point is that it is NOT the norm that WR that switch teams then live up to fantasy expectations their first year with the new team.  Can you rebut this using any consistent data set? 

If you want to change the data set to "WR that receive starters money" then please define that term.  Is it WR that earn in the top 64 at the wr position?  That would make sense since there are a minimum of 64 wr starters at the NFL level, so the top 64 would be making "starter money."  Of course that is not really accurate either since 62 of the top 64 earning WR are on their second or greater contracts and only 2 are still on rookie deals (DJ Morre and John Ross), yet many others on rookie deals are certainly starters (ODB for one example).  Plus for most rosters there are 3 starters, so maybe the number should be closer to 96?  Of course the problem is that once we go to 96 we are including almost every single WR not on their initial contract.  

You know what, I know an easier way to settle this... here are the top FA WR for the current year according to Walter football:  http://walterfootball.com/freeagents2018WR.php

You can pick any 15 you like that changed teams using any defining characteristics you want.  We will then record their current projected fantasy points from this site (FBG) ... again you can pick whether its PPR or not PPR, and I will bet that 8 of the 15 will not meet the predicted mark.  In fact I will even feel very safe in betting that 60% (9 of 15) will not meet the mark... and you get to hand select those 15, remember.

Or, if you would prefer, we can combine the conversations of two threads... I will take Alex Collins + Cole and you get Moncrief + Kerryon Johnson?  You can pick, you can choose total points scored or we can go with total value according to Hindery's dynasty value chart one year from today.

Since I try to be law abiding the stakes would have to be pride based rather than money.  How about Winner gets to pick Loser's icon and auto-signature on all FBG posts for one year?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Brisco54 said:

You do realize that Steve Smith made less than Jones, Nicks...?

I picked a random page and simply used the top rated FA WR on that page as well as the top rated WR for that preseason.  I am willing to switch to any other listing that you can provide.  My point is that it is NOT the norm that WR that switch teams then live up to fantasy expectations their first year with the new team.  Can you rebut this using any consistent data set? 

If you want to change the data set to "WR that receive starters money" then please define that term.  Is it WR that earn in the top 64 at the wr position?  That would make sense since there are a minimum of 64 wr starters at the NFL level, so the top 64 would be making "starter money."  Of course that is not really accurate either since 62 of the top 64 earning WR are on their second or greater contracts and only 2 are still on rookie deals (DJ Morre and John Ross), yet many others on rookie deals are certainly starters (ODB for one example).  Plus for most rosters there are 3 starters, so maybe the number should be closer to 96?  Of course the problem is that once we go to 96 we are including almost every single WR not on their initial contract.  

You know what, I know an easier way to settle this... here are the top FA WR for the current year according to Walter football:  http://walterfootball.com/freeagents2018WR.php

You can pick any 15 you like that changed teams using any defining characteristics you want.  We will then record their current projected fantasy points from this site (FBG) ... again you can pick whether its PPR or not PPR, and I will bet that 8 of the 15 will not meet the predicted mark.  In fact I will even feel very safe in betting that 60% (9 of 15) will not meet the mark... and you get to hand select those 15, remember.

Or, if you would prefer, we can combine the conversations of two threads... I will take Alex Collins + Cole and you get Moncrief + Kerryon Johnson?  You can pick, you can choose total points scored or we can go with total value according to Hindery's dynasty value chart one year from today.

Since I try to be law abiding the stakes would have to be pride based rather than money.  How about Winner gets to pick Loser's icon and auto-signature on all FBG posts for one year?

Um, I pretty sure I just did rebut it. If you are saying I'm inconsistent because I included Smith, then throw him out. I only added him in there because, despite his small-ish contract, he proved that a WR can switch teams and perform well in year 1. 

Why do you keep bringing up walter football? Do you work for them? I'm not using their crappy rankings. I'm using NFL contracts. That's already been established. While you are correct that we haven't precisely nailed down an annual contract size, you can pretty much eyeball the contracts and compare them with the other WRs of that year to see who is getting paid to be a starter and who isn't.

The fact that you want to count 15 WRs from this year proves you are missing the point. There are typically only a few WRs that change teams and are paid to be a starter. You can see this in my list of WR FAs from 2014-2017. For our purposes, we don't care how a backup WR performs on his new team, and even if we did, I don't know how we'd evaluate him. Is he a bust if he only gets 40 targets as the WR5? That's all they ever planned to give him as a WR5. I feel like I already tried to tell you this when you brought up Cecil Shorts previously. What are you missing about this? Backups don't matter.

There is no utility in your proposed bet. I've already established that veteran WR starters who switch teams do not have a significant failure rate. The failures often seem more age or injury related than anything.

Could Moncrief be this year's Pryor? Certainly. But it is far more likely that if he fails, it'll be due to his own abilities than because of the team switch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, FF Ninja said:

Um, I pretty sure I just did rebut it. If you are saying I'm inconsistent because I included Smith, then throw him out. I only added him in there because, despite his small-ish contract, he proved that a WR can switch teams and perform well in year 1. 

Why do you keep bringing up walter football? Do you work for them? I'm not using their crappy rankings. I'm using NFL contracts. That's already been established. While you are correct that we haven't precisely nailed down an annual contract size, you can pretty much eyeball the contracts and compare them with the other WRs of that year to see who is getting paid to be a starter and who isn't.

The fact that you want to count 15 WRs from this year proves you are missing the point. There are typically only a few WRs that change teams and are paid to be a starter. You can see this in my list of WR FAs from 2014-2017. For our purposes, we don't care how a backup WR performs on his new team, and even if we did, I don't know how we'd evaluate him. Is he a bust if he only gets 40 targets as the WR5? That's all they ever planned to give him as a WR5. I feel like I already tried to tell you this when you brought up Cecil Shorts previously. What are you missing about this? Backups don't matter.

There is no utility in your proposed bet. I've already established that veteran WR starters who switch teams do not have a significant failure rate. The failures often seem more age or injury related than anything.

Could Moncrief be this year's Pryor? Certainly. But it is far more likely that if he fails, it'll be due to his own abilities than because of the team switch.

Please note that I am willing to use any published list of free agents.  If you want to go with the top eleven FA WR that switched teams in terms of salary, i am fine with that. Of if you want to go with the top 5, 7, or 9 in terms of salary, ranking  or you can just pick any 5,7,9,11,13,or 15 FA WR that switched teams.

I keep using Walter football because when I typed "top FA WR 201x" their's is the first page that comes up for each year.  I have no association with them nor have I ever used them prior to doing this exercise.  As I said, i will use any page/ranking you like or allow you to simply select your own.

I am sorry, but testing a hypothesis, I prefer actual agreed upon standards rather than "eyeballing" which lends itself to confirmation bias.

Just to be clear, I am not disputing that a FA WR "can switch teams and perform well in year 1"  Of course it is possible.  I simply believe that this is the aberration rather than the norm. 

You said:  "I don't know how we'd evaluate him. Is he a bust if he only gets 40 targets as the WR5? That's all they ever planned to give him as a WR5."

As I mentioned, we simply use currently fantasy projections from this site.  Pick any scoring system and we can use total points scored as the metric.  Its pretty straightforward... did the player score as many points as this site predicted or not?  I do not understand your confusion.

I am giving you total control over the data set.  You get to pick how many WR we will look at and you can use any metric you like on how to select them, provided that they share a single characteristic:  They are FA wr that switched teams.  You also get to pick the metric by which we decide success, using either total fantasy points or fantasy value.  You can pick any scoring system you want or any published ranking from any major page, as long as you pick it now and not after the season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Brisco54 said:

Please note that I am willing to use any published list of free agents.  If you want to go with the top eleven FA WR that switched teams in terms of salary, i am fine with that. Of if you want to go with the top 5, 7, or 9 in terms of salary, ranking  or you can just pick any 5,7,9,11,13,or 15 FA WR that switched teams.

I keep using Walter football because when I typed "top FA WR 201x" their's is the first page that comes up for each year.  I have no association with them nor have I ever used them prior to doing this exercise.  As I said, i will use any page/ranking you like or allow you to simply select your own.

I am sorry, but testing a hypothesis, I prefer actual agreed upon standards rather than "eyeballing" which lends itself to confirmation bias.

Just to be clear, I am not disputing that a FA WR "can switch teams and perform well in year 1"  Of course it is possible.  I simply believe that this is the aberration rather than the norm. 

You said:  "I don't know how we'd evaluate him. Is he a bust if he only gets 40 targets as the WR5? That's all they ever planned to give him as a WR5."

As I mentioned, we simply use currently fantasy projections from this site.  Pick any scoring system and we can use total points scored as the metric.  Its pretty straightforward... did the player score as many points as this site predicted or not?  I do not understand your confusion.

I am giving you total control over the data set.  You get to pick how many WR we will look at and you can use any metric you like on how to select them, provided that they share a single characteristic:  They are FA wr that switched teams.  You also get to pick the metric by which we decide success, using either total fantasy points or fantasy value.  You can pick any scoring system you want or any published ranking from any major page, as long as you pick it now and not after the season.

You misunderstand the term eyeballing in this exercise. When there are only a few guys getting paid and even fewer switching teams, no players are missed in the eyeballing process. If you use a rigid number (top 5 would be best, IMO, but not ideal as going case-by-case) then you are going to miss some players that switched teams and got paid starter's money some years and other years you are going to include players that did not. If six players got paid like starters and switched teams, you should maximize your data set. If only four players did, you don't want to taint your data set by including the fifth guy who is being signed as a backup.

I've already gone back and looked at the past four years and I don't see anything to back up your hypothesis that WRs struggle when switching teams (in fact plenty of players re-signed to the same team managed to struggle). I've done all the research I intend to do and gleaned the information I needed. If you want to do more, be my guest. I suggest you google something like "rotoworld free agent tracker 20xx" since they include the contract length and value, as well as designate "signed" or "re-signed" (until the 2018 version) so you can tell if teams were switched.

But to save you time, here's a copy of what I did. Do with it what you will:

2017: 5 big contracts (as cap increases, $6M not notable)
Alshon Jeffrey (PHI) - success
DeSean Jackson (TB) - semi-success (signed as WR2, had 425/3 thru 8 games)
Robert Woods (LAR) - success
Pierre Garcon (SF) - success until injury
Kenny Britt (CLE) - bust

2016: really only 1 big contract... everybody else was around $6M or less
Marvin Jones (DET) - success
Mike Wallace (BAL) - success
Mohamed Sanu (ATL) - meh... they overpaid him to be their WR2 and he put up NFL WR2 numbers
Travis Benjamin (SD) - semi-success? (like Sanu, signed to be WR2, was on pace for 1000 yards thru 8 games before quad injury)
Michael Crabtree (OAK) - success (note: did not meet minimum, but did move teams and succeeded in year 1)

2015: 3 big contracts (Dez & DT franchised) and two fringe ($6M)
Torrey Smith (SF) - bust (but then again so was the whole offense, so 663/4 was relatively decent)
Jeremy Maclin (KC) - success
Andre Johnson (IND) - age related bust
Percy Harvin (BUF) - semi-success before injury (was decent through 4 games)
Dwayne Bowe (CLE) - the curious case of Dwayne Bowe (he never played another game after this year)

2014: 4 big contracts
DeSean Jackson (WAS) - success
Eric Decker (NYJ) - success
Golden Tate (DET) - success
Emmanuel Sanders (DEN) - success
Steve Smith (BAL) - success (note: did not meet minimum, but did move teams and succeeded in year 1)

--------------------------

Since you mentioned 2018, I looked at it and to be honest, I wouldn't want to bet on this year's crop of free agent WRs. The top 5 contracts for WRs switching teams... kind of scary:
Sammy Watkins (LAR - $16M/yr) - dude thinks the earth is flat.. can he learn a playbook and read a defense?
Jarvis Landry (CLE - $15.1M/yr) - I've never been a big fan and now he's sharing time with Gordon and Coleman with Tyrod Taylor throwing the ball
Allen Robinson (CHI - $14M/yr) - best bet to succeed (how was he cheaper than Watkins??)
Donte Moncrief (JAX - $9.6M/yr) - lots of mouths to feed, team is perfectly designed to not have to throw much, and Lee getting $8.5M x 4 years
Paul Richardson (WAS - $8M/year) - big contract for a guy who has done very little

This was the year of the free agent WR. After the top 5, we've got some more notables:
Albert Wilson (MIA - $8M/year) - I've liked his game for a while, but that's a lot of money... and then they signed Amendola who also plays the slot (wtf Miami?)
*Ryan Grant almost got $7.25M x 4 years from Baltimore!*
Jordy Nelson (OAK - $7.1M/year) - they cut Crabtree for him??
Michael Crabtree (BAL - $7M/year) - I like his situation this year
Hurns, Amendola, and Gabriel all got about $6M per year, showing how little $6M equates to anymore... 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

(RotoWire) Cole and Marqise Lee are listed as the starting wide receivers on the Jaguars' unofficial preseason depth chart, Mike Kaye of First Coast News reports.

Analysis: Cole gets the nod over Donte Moncrief, who signed a one-year, $9.6 million contract (fully guaranteed) this offseason. While Moncrief's salary may imply starter status, Cole is coming off a rookie season with 17.8 yards per catch and 9.2 yards per target. Moncrief didn't help his case when he missed the first week of training camp with a knee injury, though he does now seem to be healthy and still has time to push Cole for the starting job. With Dede Westbrook and second-round pick D.J. Chark also on hand, the Jaguars have stiff competition for playing time at wide receiver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/8/2018 at 3:47 PM, steelers1080 said:

Cole is definitely talented, and works hard, but will he have a shot with how crowded that WR corps is?

I'm holding him for now, but I'm not as excited as I was. 

Cole was inactive last night.  Here is the Jags opening drive chart, the only one in which the starters played:

·  1-10-JAX 21 (14:54) 27-L.Fournette up the middle to JAX 29 for 8 yards (43-M.Williams).

·  2-2-JAX 29 (14:20) (Shotgun) 5-B.Bortles pass short left to 80-J.O'Shaughnessy to JAX 34 for 5 yards (47-A.Anzalone). {TE split wide left, Fournette split wide right. Formation used later on the Kessler to Orndorff TD}

·  1-10-JAX 34 (13:46) 27-L.Fournette right end pushed ob at JAX 40 for 6 yards (20-K.Crawley).

·  2-4-JAX 40 (13:11) 5-B.Bortles pass incomplete deep right to 12-D.Westbrook. {Bortles slightly off target in tight coverage; Westbrook makes a great catch but OOB}

·  3-4-JAX 40 (13:04) (Shotgun) 5-B.Bortles pass short left to 11-M.Lee to JAX 45 for 5 yards (21-P.Robinson). {Lee on the slant--his bread and butter}

·  1-10-JAX 45 (12:24) (Shotgun) 27-L.Fournette up the middle to JAX 48 for 3 yards (56-D.Davis).

·  2-7-JAX 48 (11:46) 5-B.Bortles pass short left to 10-D.Moncrief pushed ob at NO 46 for 6 yards (23-M.Lattimore).

·  3-1-NO 46 (11:15) 27-L.Fournette up the middle to NO 43 for 3 yards (29-K.Coleman).

·  1-10-NO 43 (10:39) (Shotgun) 5-B.Bortles pass short right to 10-D.Moncrief to NO 34 for 9 yards (20-K.Crawley).

·  2-1-NO 34 (10:06) (Shotgun) 5-B.Bortles pass short left to 12-D.Westbrook pushed ob at NO 22 for 12 yards (20-K.Crawley).

·  1-10-NO 22 (9:33) 5-B.Bortles pass incomplete short left to 10-D.Moncrief (56-D.Davis).

·  2-10-NO 22 (9:30) (Shotgun) 5-B.Bortles pass incomplete deep right to 11-M.Lee (21-P.Robinson). {Bortles under throws Lee in the end zone.}

·  3-10-NO 22 (9:24) (Shotgun) 5-B.Bortles pass deep middle to 12-D.Westbrook to NO 6 for 16 yards (43-M.Williams) [91-T.Hendrickson].

·  1-6-NO 6 (8:49) (Shotgun) 27-L.Fournette left end to NO 2 for 4 yards (29-K.Coleman).

·  2-2-NO 2 (8:05) 5-B.Bortles right end for 2 yards, TOUCHDOWN.

Efficient Seven minute drive. 4 Fournette runs, 3 targets each for Westbrook and Moncrief, 2 for Lee, 1 for O'Shaughnessy and Bortles vultures the TD on a naked bootleg.

No targets to ASJ or the RBs on this drive, but those plays will be part of the gameplan.

This is what it's going to be like for Jags WRs.  None of them will be any better than a WR3, but all of them have potential for multiple big best ball weeks.

Hackett will gameplan the offense to put Bortles in a position to succeed, utilizing multiple, interchangeable receiving weapons (with different strengths and characteristics) to create matchup problems after softening up the defense with a strong run game.

It was only one drive in the first pre-season game, but it confirmed the intel coming out of camp.  From a fantasy perspective, if anything, I might consider (gasp!) upgrading Bortles to a low end QB1, because there are a lot of complementary weapons on this team

Edited by doeseatplace
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bortles is going to spread it around a ton, kind of reminding me of Kirk Cousins from the last couple years, minimizing his WR upside. That said, Cole is a deep threat that only needs 1 big pass to have a great game. He could have opportunities for success even if the ball is spread around, but predicting it could be the issue.

Not happy to see him not in there, but still happy that he's listed as the starter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎7‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 10:03 AM, RushHour said:

How can he be a buy high when his ADP (last I checked) is lower than the other Jags WRs, including Westbrook? You don’t need to buy him high - hardly anyone seems to rate him or acknowledge his existence. Westbrook is routinely mentioned above him on the depth chart. 

I got him for Austin Hooper earlier in the offseason - he's hardly selling "high".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Things could still get dicey in 2-wide sets as it pertain to rotating Cole, Lee and Westbrook but Cole has run the most snaps (22 of 29) with the ones so far this preseason. Also, coming out the bye week last year his target share by week was 16%, 16%, 20%, 21%, 8%, 11%, 31%, 26% and 24%. That's an average market share of ~20%. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, SameSongNDance said:

Things could still get dicey in 2-wide sets as it pertain to rotating Cole, Lee and Westbrook but Cole has run the most snaps (22 of 29) with the ones so far this preseason. Also, coming out the bye week last year his target share by week was 16%, 16%, 20%, 21%, 8%, 11%, 31%, 26% and 24%. That's an average market share of ~20%. 

By far the best route runner on the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/8/2018 at 2:47 PM, steelers1080 said:

Cole is definitely talented, and works hard, but will he have a shot with how crowded that WR corps is?

I'm holding him for now, but I'm not as excited as I was. 

A shot for what? What's your hope with Cole? I like him a lot as my wr4. Maybe a 3. Which is pretty close to his ADP, if not a bit better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How high do we bump him with Marquis Lee's injury?  (Presumably out for the season).

I had Lee as my WR 43, and Cole at 62, but I'm inclined to put Cole a bit higher than Lee because of his big play ability. Thinking he slots in around Funchess/Robert Woods territory, around WR40 or so.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/21/2018 at 7:42 PM, SameSongNDance said:

Things could still get dicey in 2-wide sets as it pertain to rotating Cole, Lee and Westbrook but Cole has run the most snaps (22 of 29) with the ones so far this preseason. Also, coming out the bye week last year his target share by week was 16%, 16%, 20%, 21%, 8%, 11%, 31%, 26% and 24%. That's an average market share of ~20%. 

With Lee out, sky’s the limit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess there will be some value with a Jags WR but what is the real upside? Just not loving that offense or QB for fantasy puroposes. Actually really like the WR corps though. Cole, Westbrook, Chark, etc... a lot of young guys that all seem to have potential but that offense... bleh

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, FreshiZ said:

I guess there will be some value with a Jags WR but what is the real upside? Just not loving that offense or QB for fantasy puroposes. Actually really like the WR corps though. Cole, Westbrook, Chark, etc... a lot of young guys that all seem to have potential but that offense... bleh

 

If they don't bring in another WR, there is a possible fantasy purpose for them...  You can get all 4 of their top guys for around $20 in the FBG Subscriber contest, then just sit back and hope Bortles picks a favorite target each week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For all the Bortles haters out there - he led my teams to more than one fantasy championship last year...methinks you do not look closely at his historical ceiling. 

I think Cole is getting a significant uptick with the injury to Lee.  But I still expect the team to spread the ball around.   

Edited by Hairy Snowman
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Truebluey said:

How high do we bump him with Marquis Lee's injury?  (Presumably out for the season).

I had Lee as my WR 43, and Cole at 62, but I'm inclined to put Cole a bit higher than Lee because of his big play ability. Thinking he slots in around Funchess/Robert Woods territory, around WR40 or so.

Bloom has Cole as a target around WR #44 overall and #95 overall - a 13th round or later pick up. But, word is out now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, FreshiZ said:

I guess there will be some value with a Jags WR but what is the real upside? Just not loving that offense or QB for fantasy puroposes. Actually really like the WR corps though. Cole, Westbrook, Chark, etc... a lot of young guys that all seem to have potential but that offense... bleh

 

The upside is the Jags have one of the easiest schedules against the pass. Laugh at Bortles but this schedule is a gift.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, TwinTurbo said:

The upside is the Jags have one of the easiest schedules against the pass. Laugh at Bortles but this schedule is a gift.

Bortles has finished as Qb12 and QB8 the past 2 years in my league that does nothing special with scoring except -2 for INT's.  He gets a bad rep but he isn't nearly as bad as people think.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
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...