Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 209
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ashton Dulin also meets this mark, albeit with inferior competition. You should also look at BMI (26 being the magic number) and speed score has some correlation as well. Breakout age isn’t as set in stone as what you’re suggesting but is massively important. Breakout age compared to draft position is what is relevant. A guy drafted in the first with a breakout age <21.5ish still has a good shot at succeeding. Sub 28% dominator in the last season is pretty much a no go.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, wgoldsph said:

Explain "dominator" please

Basically just looks at how big of a part of the teams passing game the player received-since college football offenses can vary widely in scheme and success. Oklahoma threw the ball 400 times last year, Georgia Tech threw 126 passes. The dominator is just is a way of evening the playing field.

Edited by Ilov80s
Link to post
Share on other sites

Should AJ and DK be skewed higher since they have a teammate that's also at the top of each list, and another talented WR in Lodge? I would assume that they get pushed down the Dominator % just because there's another very talented WR taking targets.  Potentially the same with the Ohio St WRs where there are so many talented players that they all siphon off targets from each other. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Biabreakable said:

The evidence provided of the 2017 WR draft class  is a small sample size. Too small to draw any conclusions from.

 

People have been using this stuff for almost a decade now. There is plenty of evidence to create minimum thresholds for success. Yes, there are outliers, like Tyreek Hill, but you increase your success by playing within the thresholds. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Dr. Dan said:

Alright... I ran the data for the last 10 years, 2008 through 2018. Any WR who finished in the top 12 for the season in PPR:

Davante Adams: 74th/40.7%
Keenan Allen: 98th/49.5%
Miles Austin: 99th/48.0%
Doug Baldwin (EXCEPTION): 65th/27.0%
Odell Beckham Jr: 70th/34.5%
Anquan Boldin: 67th/41.2%
Dwayne Bowe (EXCEPTION): 38th/35.4%
Antonio Brown: 87th/32.8%
Antonio Bryant: Unable to find
Dez Bryant: 92nd/62.5%
Randall Cobb (EXCEPTION): 63rd/28.2%
Marques Colston: 85th/34.6%
Brandin Cooks: 91st/39.8%
Michael Crabtree: 64th/34.3%
Victor Cruz (EXCEPTION): 19th/39.9%
Eric Decker: 52nd/44.5%
Mike Evans: 89th/30.2%
Larry Fitzgerald: 90th/51.3%
A.J. Green: 61st/42.4%
Josh Gordon (EXCEPTION):82nd/25.0%
Percy Harvin (EXCEPTION): 84th/21.4%
T.Y. Hilton: 93rd/41.9%
Tyreek Hill (EXCEPTION): NA/19.4%
DeAndre Hopkins: 99th/39.3%
DeSean Jackson: 94th/32.1%
Vincent Jackson (EXCEPTION): 47th/70.3%
Alshon Jeffery: 77th/39.7%
Greg Jennings (EXCEPTION):  17th/47.5%
Andre Johnson (EXCEPTION): 60th/28.8%
Calvin Johnson: 66th/55.3%
Steve Johnson (EXCEPTION):  35th/30.3%
Julio Jones: 77th/34.4%
Marvin Jones (EXCEPTION): 80th/26.3%
Jarvis Landry: 71st/40.0%
Brandon Lloyd: 59th/32.2%
Tyler Lockett 66th/44.2%
Jeremy Maclin (EXCEPTION): 83rd/29.5%
Brandon Marshall (EXCEPTION): 27th/42.5%
Rishard Matthews (EXCEPTION): 40th/44.1%
Randy Moss: Unable to find
Jordy Nelson: 57th/49.6%
Hakeem Nicks: 96th/52.2%
Terrell Owens: Unable to find
Sidney Rice: 90th/47.0%
Allen Robinson: 90th/37.9%
Emmanuel Sanders: 80th/34.2%
JuJu Smith-Schuster: 94th/31.9%
Steve Smith: 55th/31.0%
Demaryius Thomas: 74th/70.9%
Adam Thielen: 63rd/45.9%
Michael Thomas (EXCEPTION):25th/39.6%
Mike Wallace (EXCEPTION): 61st/29.6%
Reggie Wayne: 93rd/32.1%
Wes Welker (EXCEPTION): 55th/17.4%
Roddy White (EXCEPTION): 41st/50.5%
Robert Woods: 98th/31.6%

Total with data: 73
Exceptions: 19

Percentage: 74%

 

Data still shows that chances are higher than you have a WR1 with both of these metrics.
You could lower the Dominator threshold a little bit (25%) and capture 83.5% of the players.

I've got 73/92 = 79% not 74%. Which only helps the case you're making. Good work. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Bojang0301 said:

People have been using this stuff for almost a decade now. There is plenty of evidence to create minimum thresholds for success. Yes, there are outliers, like Tyreek Hill, but you increase your success by playing within the thresholds. 

Since 2014 as stated in the article. 5 years.

I think the logic behind this is pretty sound however I'm not very convinced by the nuts and bolts demonstrated.

The main point of the article was that only 2 of the top 24 WR in 2017 had a breakout age below 50%

That would be more meaningful if you looked at the top 24 of the last 5 seasons. Is 2017 favorable to the argument that break out age is of critical importance? Or is this a normal distribution every year?

I dont know. Maybe looking at a larger sample size makes an even stronger case.

The point is that the author is pushing an idea of analytics but makes a antedoctal argument.

That's fishy.

Then the article goes on to say how Ridley is being over valued and his low college production is a clear sign of why he won't be good in the NFL.

Oops

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/4/2019 at 12:03 PM, Dr. Dan said:

Players who did not:

Boykin, Miles: 18th percentile age, 30.1% dominator

Brown, Marquis: 31st percentile age, 26.2% dominator

Butler, Hakeem: 30th percentile age, 43.5% dominator

Campbell, Parris: 34th percentile age, 23.5% dominator

Harmon, Kelvin: 31st percentile age, 31.2% dominator

Ridley, Riley: 14th percentile age, 22.2% dominator

Samuel, Deebo: 27th percentile age, 27.2% dominator

McLaurin, Terry: NA percentile age, 17.7% dominator

Thanks for all the leg work on this. Extending beyond the earlier picks, this is also useful to see who might be on the fringe and worth looking into to for the mid and later pick dart throws.  For example, Parris Campbell is 34th percentile and 23% dominator score.  Looking at his situation, he was in an offense with a lot of talented skill players, which might explain a lower dominator score. Similarly, with a log jam of talent at OSU over the years, he may not have had opportunity until he was older.  He may be a player that is higher on someone's rankings accordingly.

Please note I'm not claiming Campbell will necessarily be a mid round pick or that his age and dominator scores are "justified".  I'm only trying to illustrate how this list and method can provide added guidance for the mid rounds of rookie drafts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed that college production is a strong predictor of NFL success for WRs. Other folks who have come up with their own approach to slicing up the data include Football Outsiders with Playmaker Score, Hayden Winks, and me.

Something like the dominator rating is part of most of these systems (the more common name is market share; Playmaker Score uses yards & TDs per team attempt which is very similar).

Breakout age is something different which seems promising. I might go look it up for a bunch of players and think about adding it to my system; it's not currently in my spreadsheets.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Biabreakable said:

Since 2014 as stated in the article. 5 years.

I think the logic behind this is pretty sound however I'm not very convinced by the nuts and bolts demonstrated.

The main point of the article was that only 2 of the top 24 WR in 2017 had a breakout age below 50%

That would be more meaningful if you looked at the top 24 of the last 5 seasons. Is 2017 favorable to the argument that break out age is of critical importance? Or is this a normal distribution every year?

I dont know. Maybe looking at a larger sample size makes an even stronger case.

The point is that the author is pushing an idea of analytics but makes a antedoctal argument.

That's fishy.

Then the article goes on to say how Ridley is being over valued and his low college production is a clear sign of why he won't be good in the NFL.

Oops

I didn’t read the article. In fact, I don’t put too much stock into what any one person says anymore. Looking at Ridley with what I know today, surface level production was a quality product with concerns of BMI and Age. Final season >28% dominator, breakout age 20.7, speed score 63rd percentile (can be a moving target if a player is a slot reciever). That BMI of 24.9 is very concerning and suggests fragility will occur. Also you’re going to be looking at the Stering Shepard effect with Ridley if he doesn’t take an immediate step this year. By comparison Donte Moncrief is only a half year older than Ridley on his third NFL contract.  People will start claiming he is old before he is even off his rookie contract which will expeditiously lower his value if there isn’t a major breakout before 26. In other words he was and still is a higher risk than DJ Moore, Cam Sutton or Christian Kirk. I would say his rookie year production would have to place him over James Washington though. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/4/2019 at 10:03 AM, Dr. Dan said:

Players who made the cut:

Arcega-Whiteside, JJ: 74th percentile age, 42.7% dominator

Brown, A.J.: 59th percentile age, 32.6% dominator

Hall, Emanuel: 56th percentile age, 35.7% dominator

Harry, N’Keal: 95th percentile age, 43.9% dominator

Humphrey, Lil’Jordan: 54th percentile age, 32.3% dominator

Isabella, Andy: 71st percentile age, 52.2% dominator

Metcalf, D.K.: 72nd¬†percentile age, 32.1% dominator ÔĽŅ

 

Players who did not:

Boykin, Miles: 18th percentile age, 30.1% dominator

Brown, Marquis: 31st percentile age, 26.2% dominator

Butler, Hakeem: 30th percentile age, 43.5% dominator

Campbell, Parris: 34th percentile age, 23.5% dominator

Harmon, Kelvin: 31st percentile age, 31.2% dominator

Ridley, Riley: 14th¬†percentile age, 22.2% domiÔĽŅnator

Samuel, Deebo: 27th percentile age, 27.2% dominator

McLaurin, Terry: NA percentile age, 17.7% dominator

My formula agrees with the majority of these.

Thumbs up from both: JJ Arcega-Whiteside, AJ Brown, Emanuel Hall, N'Keal harry, Andy Isabella, DK Metcalf
Makes their cut but my formula doesn't like him: Lil'Jordan Humphrey
Don't make their cut but my formula likes him: Hakeem Butler
Don't make their cut, but my formula has him as borderline decent: Marquise Brown, Deebo Samuel
Thumbs down from both: Miles Boykin, Parris Campbell, Kelvin Harmon, Riley Ridley, Terry McLaurin

Going into more detail on the disagreements:

Lil'Jordan Humphrey has terrible athleticism and borderline production. I had some optimism about him earlier in the offseason, but his combine sunk him for me.

Hakeem Butler is an extreme case of a player with a late breakout and then huge production. My inclination is to count this as checking the production box, but I'm open to changing my mind based on historical data. The examples I've found from the first 3 rounds are Ryan Broyles, Terrance Williams, Robert Meachem, Santonio Holmes, A.J. Jenkins, and Anthony Miller. That's 4 failures, 1 modest success, 1 jury still out. Makes me a little more hesitant on Butler, but too small a sample to be a compelling case against him.

Marquise Brown had a 1000 yard season in 2017 which apparently didn't count as a breakout, and 75/1318/10 this year despite missing 2 games, while averaging 13 YPT over those 2 seasons. I think his production was good and this is a problem with relying solely on market share (and apparently not pro-rating).

With Deebo Samuel, I think the main differences are that I'm giving him some credit for his rushing & return production (he has 7 rushing TDs and 4 return TDs over the past 3 years), plus I pro-rate his stats for missed games (2 missed games in 2016 and 1 in 2018). Plus I have a continuous scale rather than sharp cutoffs; I think Samuel comes pretty close to some of the cutoffs that Player Profiler uses. So borderline decent seems appropriate to me.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Dr. Dan said:

I find this interesting because the "made the cut" list contains 4 of my top 5. 

Theres definitely more to it than over simplifying with 2 stats to create a hard cut off, but it sure shows some correlation. 

I can always use ZWKs sheet... which I'm more encouraged after hearing it liked Miller a lot. After doing this I was a little bummed that Miller didnt make the cut from 2018s class, but I have high hopes for him to be an exception

 

Not really a surprise since the high profile guys are high profile for a reason.   The more useful aspect is discounting highly rated players that don't make the cut and vice versa.

I'm always concerned with the variables beyond those in the analysis.   Somebody mentioned the variation in college schemes and depth of the programs.   Break-out age could hinge on an individual's personal situation.  Injury and college supporting cast could also be a factor.  Since we're talking WRs, caliber of QB play is significant too...  Glancing through the "exceptions" above...  several were paired with very good QBs (Cobb, Jennings, Welker, Thomas, Marshall, Wallace...).   Andre Johnson just missed the "cut" but I would attribute that to talent at the "U" (depth of the program).

Some of the guys on the list made one year appearances in the top "n".  Would be interesting to refine the analysis to players who made the top "n" in multiple years.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

How many college WRs met your criteria and didn’t become WR1s (or even pro WRs for that matter)?  I looks to me like you’re working backwards from the conclusion.  If your conclusion is going to be reliable, shouldn’t you work from front to back?  That’s the way you’re intending to use it for future WRs, right?

Edited by Bronco Billy
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dr. Dan said:

I'm sure many. in 2017 there were wr2s that met the criteria. 

My evidence based practice health care mind is looking at this differently than you and most are:

Sensitivity vs specificity. A study with a high sensitivity does a great job ruling something OUT. A study with high specificity does a great job ruling something IN. MRIs are a great example: they have a 96ish percent specificity (if it finds a tear on your MRI theres a 96% chance you have a tear), but it has a very very low (25%ish) sensitivity: if it shows you dont have a tear there is a 25% chance you do not have a tear. Most people dont realize this about MRIs and your MD is unlikely to tell you because it costs 3k. I digress...

 

I see this method as having a high SENSITIVITY: it does a great job at ruling OUT those who are unlikely to become WR1s rather than ruling them IN. That's why I said ablve: not all WRs who meet this threshold become wr1s, but almost all wr1s meet this threshold. 

 

The reason I like this method: there is no fool proof way to predict a hit, so maybe working backwards is the better approach; why not focus on minimizing the misses rather than maximizing the hits? 

We have threads dedicated toward bashing analysists who "get it wrong," and we say "well everyone has misses." My rationale is of you can minimize the misses then maybe you're doing better than those trying to predict the hits. 

 

Maybe we are looking for a method with highspecificity, and missing the methods with high sensitivity

This method will give you insight on who to avoid, rather than who to pick. 

 

The point being that there could be all sorts if misses that fall within what you consider criteria for hits that you may not be counting.  I understand what you’re trying to accomplish, but it’s only half the work that needs to be done and the remainder is the dirty work.  Hell, there’s a whole batch of allegedly credible high profile scientists who have done the exact same thing and have drawn some very high impact conclusions without following through, and when the follow through is done the veracity goes right out the window.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bronco Billy said:

How many college WRs met your criteria and didn’t become WR1s (or even pro WRs for that matter)?  I looks to me like you’re working backwards from the conclusion.  If your conclusion is going to be reliable, shouldn’t you work from front to back?  That’s the way you’re intending to use it for future WRs, right?

 

On 4/4/2019 at 10:03 AM, Dr. Dan said:

 

 

If true, I take this as: not everyone who meets the above criteria becomes a top 10-15 WR, but almost every top 10-15 WR meets the above criteria. Basically, if you're going to draft a WR round 1, you've got a better chance at landing a future WR1 if you can check both of these boxes than if you can't. 

 

I feel like the bolded in the OP already addressed the concern. Nobody here is making the claim that meeting the criteria will result in a WR1 in the NFL. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Dr. Dan said:

Alright... I ran the data for the last 10 years, 2008 through 2018. Any WR who finished in the top 12 for the season in PPR:

Davante Adams: 74th/40.7%
Keenan Allen: 98th/49.5%
Miles Austin: 99th/48.0%
Doug Baldwin (EXCEPTION): 65th/27.0%
Odell Beckham Jr: 70th/34.5%
Anquan Boldin: 67th/41.2%
Dwayne Bowe (EXCEPTION): 38th/35.4%
Antonio Brown: 87th/32.8%
Antonio Bryant: Unable to find
Dez Bryant: 92nd/62.5%
Randall Cobb (EXCEPTION): 63rd/28.2%
Marques Colston: 85th/34.6%
Brandin Cooks: 91st/39.8%
Michael Crabtree: 64th/34.3%
Victor Cruz (EXCEPTION): 19th/39.9%
Eric Decker: 52nd/44.5%
Mike Evans: 89th/30.2%
Larry Fitzgerald: 90th/51.3%
A.J. Green: 61st/42.4%
Josh Gordon (EXCEPTION):82nd/25.0%
Percy Harvin (EXCEPTION): 84th/21.4%
T.Y. Hilton: 93rd/41.9%
Tyreek Hill (EXCEPTION): NA/19.4%
DeAndre Hopkins: 99th/39.3%
DeSean Jackson: 94th/32.1%
Vincent Jackson (EXCEPTION): 47th/70.3%
Alshon Jeffery: 77th/39.7%
Greg Jennings (EXCEPTION):  17th/47.5%
Andre Johnson (EXCEPTION): 60th/28.8%
Calvin Johnson: 66th/55.3%
Steve Johnson (EXCEPTION):  35th/30.3%
Julio Jones: 77th/34.4%
Marvin Jones (EXCEPTION): 80th/26.3%
Jarvis Landry: 71st/40.0%
Brandon Lloyd: 59th/32.2%
Tyler Lockett 66th/44.2%
Jeremy Maclin (EXCEPTION): 83rd/29.5%
Brandon Marshall (EXCEPTION): 27th/42.5%
Rishard Matthews (EXCEPTION): 40th/44.1%
Randy Moss: Unable to find
Jordy Nelson: 57th/49.6%
Hakeem Nicks: 96th/52.2%
Terrell Owens: Unable to find
Sidney Rice: 90th/47.0%
Allen Robinson: 90th/37.9%
Emmanuel Sanders: 80th/34.2%
JuJu Smith-Schuster: 94th/31.9%
Steve Smith: 55th/31.0%
Demaryius Thomas: 74th/70.9%
Adam Thielen: 63rd/45.9%
Michael Thomas (EXCEPTION):25th/39.6%
Mike Wallace (EXCEPTION): 61st/29.6%
Reggie Wayne: 93rd/32.1%
Wes Welker (EXCEPTION): 55th/17.4%
Roddy White (EXCEPTION): 41st/50.5%
Robert Woods: 98th/31.6%

Total with data: 73
Exceptions: 19

Percentage: 79%

 

Data still shows that chances are higher than you have a WR1 with both of these metrics.
You could lower the Dominator threshold a little bit (25%) and capture 91.3% of the players.

Percent of players who had breakout age below 50th percentile: 89% (percent in 2017: 91.6%)

Maybe that's a larger sample size

Did a little thought experiment to narrow the focus a bit.

Out of the "exception" players, I count 6 with longevity of WR1 status based on my memory.  Most of the others might have had a good year or two that maybe put them in the conversation but ultimately they returned to good WR2's rather than WR1's.  Those WR's are Roddy White, Michael Thomas, Brandon Marshall, Andre Johnson, Tyreek Hill, Josh Gordon (fell out of WR1 status due to off the field, but I don't doubt he'd be in consideration still if he hadn't had those problems). 

Out of the players that made the critera I count 19 that had longevity of being viewed as a WR1.  Again based on my memory.  Davante Adams, Keenan Allen, Odell Backham Jr, Antonio Brown, Dez Bryant, Brandin Cooks, Mike Evans, Larry Fitzgerald, AJ Green, DeAndre Hopkins TY Hilton, Calvin Johnson, Julio Jones, Randy Moss, Terrell Owens, Jordy Nelson, JuJu Smith-Schuster, Demaryius Thomas, Reggie Wayne.  ***Honorable mentions just to add a few of possibly making the cut in your own view; Robert Woods, Adam Thielen, Alshon Jeffery***

Seems to me when/if they exceptions to the rule produce well, you should probably sell when the longevity of dominance isn't likely to be there.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Zyphros said:

Did a little thought experiment to narrow the focus a bit.

Out of the "exception" players, I count 6 with longevity of WR1 status based on my memory.  Most of the others might have had a good year or two that maybe put them in the conversation but ultimately they returned to good WR2's rather than WR1's.  Those WR's are Roddy White, Michael Thomas, Brandon Marshall, Andre Johnson, Tyreek Hill, Josh Gordon (fell out of WR1 status due to off the field, but I don't doubt he'd be in consideration still if he hadn't had those problems). 

Out of the players that made the critera I count 19 that had longevity of being viewed as a WR1.  Again based on my memory.  Davante Adams, Keenan Allen, Odell Backham Jr, Antonio Brown, Dez Bryant, Brandin Cooks, Mike Evans, Larry Fitzgerald, AJ Green, DeAndre Hopkins TY Hilton, Calvin Johnson, Julio Jones, Randy Moss, Terrell Owens, Jordy Nelson, JuJu Smith-Schuster, Demaryius Thomas, Reggie Wayne.  ***Honorable mentions just to add a few of possibly making the cut in your own view; Robert Woods, Adam Thielen, Alshon Jeffery***

Seems to me when/if they exceptions to the rule produce well, you should probably sell when the longevity of dominance isn't likely to be there.  

When exactly did Michael Thomas and Tyreek Hill return to being good WR2's?  And Andre Johnson didn't have WR1 longevity?

Interesting thread.  I value statistical analysis and there's no denying a trend here. 

Edited by skinfanjon
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, skinfanjon said:

When exactly did Michael Thomas and Tyreek Hill return to being good WR2's?

I believe he is listing those as the 6 exceptions that retained WR1 status vs the other exceptions that fell to wr2 or worse status

 

ETA: I read it the same way the first time too

Edited by Maven25
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Maven25 said:

I believe he is listing those as the 6 exceptions that retained WR1 status vs the other exceptions that fell to wr2 or worse status

 

ETA: I read it the same way the first time too

Ah yeah I see now.  My bad.  Thanks

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Bojang0301 said:

I didn’t read the article. In fact, I don’t put too much stock into what any one person says anymore. Looking at Ridley with what I know today, surface level production was a quality product with concerns of BMI and Age. Final season >28% dominator, breakout age 20.7, speed score 63rd percentile (can be a moving target if a player is a slot reciever). That BMI of 24.9 is very concerning and suggests fragility will occur. Also you’re going to be looking at the Stering Shepard effect with Ridley if he doesn’t take an immediate step this year. By comparison Donte Moncrief is only a half year older than Ridley on his third NFL contract.  People will start claiming he is old before he is even off his rookie contract which will expeditiously lower his value if there isn’t a major breakout before 26. In other words he was and still is a higher risk than DJ Moore, Cam Sutton or Christian Kirk. I would say his rookie year production would have to place him over James Washington though. 

So you don't think 92 targets 64 receptions 821 yards and 10 TD as a rookie is impressive? He needs to take the next step?

His production nothing like Sterling Shephards rookie year. Ridley had 8.9 yards per target as a rookie. Shephard had 6.5

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Dr. Dan said:

Thank you! eyes crossed after looking all of that up. fixed 

 

So if you lower the threshold to 25% for dominator rating you capture 91% of the field. maybe that's a better number 

Well sure if you move the chains the percentage increases.

While I appreciate your effort looking at a larger sample size you only looked at the top 12 WR which is important, but a higher goal than what the original article was talking about, the top 24 WR in anu given year. You are going to miss a lot of players with such a high cut off. Which seems counter productive to the questions of how much does market share and break out age matter.

If you reduce the threshold further you are just are putting a larger sample of players on one side and isolating the fewer players who did not produce to that threshold. You are creating more forest and losing sight of trees.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Zyphros said:

Did a little thought experiment to narrow the focus a bit.

Out of the "exception" players, I count 6 with longevity of WR1 status based on my memory.  Most of the others might have had a good year or two that maybe put them in the conversation but ultimately they returned to good WR2's rather than WR1's.  Those WR's are Roddy White, Michael Thomas, Brandon Marshall, Andre Johnson, Tyreek Hill, Josh Gordon (fell out of WR1 status due to off the field, but I don't doubt he'd be in consideration still if he hadn't had those problems). 

Out of the players that made the critera I count 19 that had longevity of being viewed as a WR1.  Again based on my memory.  Davante Adams, Keenan Allen, Odell Backham Jr, Antonio Brown, Dez Bryant, Brandin Cooks, Mike Evans, Larry Fitzgerald, AJ Green, DeAndre Hopkins TY Hilton, Calvin Johnson, Julio Jones, Randy Moss, Terrell Owens, Jordy Nelson, JuJu Smith-Schuster, Demaryius Thomas, Reggie Wayne.  ***Honorable mentions just to add a few of possibly making the cut in your own view; Robert Woods, Adam Thielen, Alshon Jeffery***

Seems to me when/if they exceptions to the rule produce well, you should probably sell when the longevity of dominance isn't likely to be there.  

I had a very similar impression looking through the list.

Great thread @Dr. Dan and others!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Biabreakable said:

So you don't think 92 targets 64 receptions 821 yards and 10 TD as a rookie is impressive? He needs to take the next step?

His production nothing like Sterling Shephards rookie year. Ridley had 8.9 yards per target as a rookie. Shephard had 6.5

 

It was a very impressive rookie year but that target to TD ratio is unsustainable- a bit of an anomaly. Based on his number of targets and now many RZ targets he got, he should have scored 3-4 TDs. 

As for yards per target, Shep was in the slot with a worse QB so it’s not a surprise he was lower. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread took me a couple of times to concentrate enough to see what you were saying, but now that I'm able to read it with the required concentration, it's an awesome tool. Thanks.  

Edited by rockaction
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rockaction said:

This thread took me a couple of times to concentrate enough to see what you were saying, but now that I'm able to read it with some fortitude, it's an awesome tool. Thanks.  

I think the key is just looking at it as a way to reduce risk. As we have seen with Michael Thomas, Tyreek Hill, Roddy White, etc. it is possible for a WR didn't produce at a young age in college or didn't dominate their college passing game to develop into a WR1 for fantasy. However, it seems one is safer betting on the players that have done it. They won't all work out either but it's a better gamble.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dr. Dan said:

I did this about an hour ago above

 

The reason I cut it at wr1 originally is because if you're drafting a wr round 1, you want a future wr1

I dont think that is a realistic expectation for a round one rookie pick becoming a top 12 WR.

Of course that is what you want, but only 12 players can do that in any given year. Most of them will not do that in their rookie seasons if they ever do.

This is why I use tiers when ranking rookies. A tier one player is one I think actually has a good chance of becoming top 12 at their position within their top 3 seasons. Most won't be able to do that, its not easy. There are a lot of very good WR in the NFL.

The 2014 WR actually had a lot of top 12 WR. But that is the best WR class I have ever seen. Most won't be like that.

I will look again at the top 24 above. I was going to do that because genuinely curious. I appreciate you doing some compilation of data here and I hope this is something we can all learn from.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

I think the key is just looking at it as a way to reduce risk. As we have seen with Michael Thomas, Tyreek Hill, Roddy White, etc. it is possible for a WR didn't produce at a young age in college or didn't dominate their college passing game to develop into a WR1 for fantasy. However, it seems one is safer betting on the players that have done it. They won't all work out either but it's a better gamble.

Yeah, it was skimming the premises that got me. I didn't read the OP carefully enough. Now that I've sat and read it and the linked article carefully, I think I really get what Dr. Dan is trying to say. 

It's almost -- almost -- like sufficient and necessary conditions in logic, only with exceptions in this case, as this isn't pure logic, but human. I think looking at it your way is better, but I'm not great with numbers and logic helps me to contextualize mathematical concepts.  

Edited by rockaction
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Biabreakable said:

So you don't think 92 targets 64 receptions 821 yards and 10 TD as a rookie is impressive? He needs to take the next step?

His production nothing like Sterling Shephards rookie year. Ridley had 8.9 yards per target as a rookie. Shephard had 6.5

 

Depends on your perspective:

DeAndre Hopkins, Age 23

111 1521 13.7 11

JuJu Smith-Schuster Age 22

111 1426 12.8 7

Mike Evans Age 23

96 1321 13.8 12

OBJ Age 23

96 1450 15.1 13

I could go about this all day but you get the point. You percieve it as a rookie season but when you look at it by age it is hardly impressive. In fact, as I stated previously, this is mostly a make or break season for him. So he has to overcome Julio or become a JuJu light with Sanu still eating target share. If he posts 800/900 yds again it will look like a ceiling entering age 26 season. This was always what you were getting from a dynasty perspective and is what still makes him less valuable than those I mentioned.

Edited by Bojang0301
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dr. Dan said:

this is what a predictive model does, tries to narrow into the highest predictability percentage by "moving the chains"

for the top 24, the percentage is probably not significant (62 vs 70%). if anything it shows that if someone falls outside of both of these metrics, they are more likely to end up as a wr2. which may not be a bad thing, but if I'm drafting a wr high round 1 I'm hoping to avoid someone who may never be a wr1

No that is not what a predictive model does. Nor should it.

The article mentions that a player needs 20% market share to be considered "breaking out" which is cross referenced with the age this occurs. That is a really low percentage to begin with. To lower that threshold further will increase the number of players who are included in the sample, because that is how percentages work. It is not predictive when on one side you have basically the entire field.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Bojang0301 said:

Depends on your perspective:

DeAndre Hopkins, Age 23

111 1521 13.7 11

JuJu Smith-Schuster Age 22

111 1426 12.8 7

Mike Evans Age 23

96 1321 13.8 12

OBJ Age 23

96 1450 15.1 13

I could go about this all day but you get the point. You percieve it as a rookie season but when you look at it by age it is hardly impressive. In fact, as I stated previously, this is mostly a make or break season for him. So he has to overcome Julio or become a JuJu light with Sanu still eating target share. If he posts 800/900 yds again it will look like a ceiling entering age 26 season. This was always what you were getting from a dynasty perspective and is what still makes him less valuable than those I mentioned.

You are talking about the players perceived value based on age. An idea that I think is strongly supported by concepts like break out age in college.

I cannot deny the truth of peoples perceptions about this. Youth is king to a lot of people in dynasty and how people perceive Ridley may be how you describe. He will be 25 years old in the 2019 season and if he doesn't improve his numbers he will be a 26 year old WR in 2020 where people may be looking to sell because of early exit window.

While I am aware of this perception, it isn't something I do in dynasty. In fact I use this perception to trade for players. Maybe Ridley will be a great buy low in 2020 because of this.

The peak years of performance for a WR historically have their best seasons at age 25 to 27 so Ridley is entering this 3 year period now going into his second season. WR still maintain a good percentage of their production from age 28 to 32 but usually not performing at as high of a level as their age 25 to 27 seasons. Then WR tend to decline at age 32 although some of the very good ones have been able to perform at a high level until they are 35.

Yes Ridley was just a rookie and people can rationalize that he is too old already. Even though he has his best 3 seasons immediately ahead of him, with potentially another 4 years of good production following that.

While I wouldn't project RIdley to score 10 TD again in 2019 I do think he will improve in targets and therefore yards in the 2019 season. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dr. Dan said:

I understand this may throw a damper on some people's rankings, but the correlation is what it is, and it's strong. 

If you arent drating round 1 hoping to avoid a WR who is unlikely to be a wr1, or even a strong 2 at that, then I guess you do you. 

If you like creating a tier system and watch film and what not, that's awesome, but I'm not trying to predict who is going to hit... I'm minimizing the misses. 

 

Itll be fun to track this each year going forward. 

It should be another tool in your belt, not a drafting dogma.  Back-testing whether for the purposes of ruling in OR out is still just a look into the past.  You gotta stay nimble with your evaluations because all that matters when you make a pick is how that one subject performs.

It's thought provoking info, for sure.  Getting married to any singular method though is probably, actually almost certainly, a bad idea.

This is probably best used if you're 50/50 on whether to draft say Harry or Butler.  Just one example.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, skinfanjon said:

It should be another tool in your belt, not a drafting dogma.  Back-testing whether for the purposes of ruling in OR out is still just a look into the past.  You gotta stay nimble with your evaluations because all that matters when you make a pick is how that one subject performs.

It's thought provoking info, for sure.  Getting married to any singular method though is probably, actually almost certainly, a bad idea.

This is probably best used if you're 50/50 on whether to draft say Harry or Butler.  Just one example.

This is my thought too. And I love the another tool in the toolbelt. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, skinfanjon said:

It should be another tool in your belt, not a drafting dogma.  Back-testing whether for the purposes of ruling in OR out is still just a look into the past.  You gotta stay nimble with your evaluations because all that matters when you make a pick is how that one subject performs.

It's thought provoking info, for sure.  Getting married to any singular method though is probably, actually almost certainly, a bad idea.

This is probably best used if you're 50/50 on whether to draft say Harry or Butler.  Just one example.

I disagree a bit. For me I use this method to skim off the players with a lower chance of success. From there, you can watch tape and sort out the players who are more likely to succeed. That’s not to say I would never draft Hakeem Butler but he’s really unlikely to slide to a point where I will bite. He might end being the next AJ Green and the guy I take turns out to be the next Corey Coleman but if we can use numbers to reduce the risk to any reasonable degree it’s a benefit. This along with draft capital are more effective than any film analyst or film grade that I’m aware of.

I’m not locked in totally though. I would still take every one on the misses over someone like Liljordan. I also do agree with what another poster said that a low dominator could potentially be excused if a case where there other good options in the passing game (like the OSU WRs). 

Edited by Ilov80s
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dr. Dan said:

Total 102:
No Data: 18
Total with Data: 84
Exceptions @ >30.0% DR: 32
Percent Met: 62%


Exceptions @ > 25% DR: 25
Percent Met: 70%


I think this supports the rule out claim even further... the drop from WR1 to WR1 and WR2 with meeting the criteria is significant (91% to 70%)

Thanks for doing this. 

I think the 18 players who you do not have data for should be included somehow. They did have top 24 seasons. It increases the percentage of players who meet the criteria by excluding them.

Now it is possible that half or more of these 18 players did meet the criteria. We don't know.

It would be a true statement to say that 58% of the players met the criteria. 27% of the players did not meet the criteria and 15% of the sample was unknown.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

For me I use this method to skim off the players with a lower chance of success. From there, you can watch tape and sort out the players who are more likely to succeed.

For me, it immediately eliminates me drafting "a miss player" in round 1. I'd definitely take a flier round 2, but Butler is unlikely to fall that far. I'd definitely take Campbell over Humphery if those were my 2 options. 

However I'm probably taking a look at the entire draft board at that point. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is some context for players who were exemptions of you had no data on. I will finish the other half some other time. 

Tavon Austin (EXCEPTION): 99th/26.3%- hard to call him a success as a fantasy WR even if he did have 1 WR2 season. He is a posterboy for failed dynasty assets.

Doug Baldwin (EXCEPTION): 65th/27.0%-  came close, played with 3 future NFL pass catchers, took 4/5 years to really make a mark in the NFL

Kelvin Benjamin (EXCEPTION): 6th/29.3%- 1 good rookie year where he caught an excessive number of TDs and then has totally flamed out

Benard Berrian: Unable to find- weird case: had a 1300/13 season as a Junior, returned for senior year but lost the year to injury and returned for RS senior year with 25% dominator- also had 3 non receiving TDs. 

Dwayne Bowe (EXCEPTION): 38th/35.4%: Are you sure this is right? I know it is what Playerprofiler says but it looks to me like Bowe had a breakout age of 20 which was his sophomore season. By my quick math he had over 20% of the Tiger passing attack but maybe I am doing the math wrong. 

John Brown (EXCEPTION): 27th/42.4%: He had WR2 fantasy season but mostly has been a WR3-4.

Antonio Bryant: Unable to find- Breakout age of 19 where he had a massive sophomore year 1300/11. He took a step back as a senior 659/9 but I think that still met the minimum requirement for dominator since he had 9 of the teams 20 passing TDs. 

Randall Cobb (EXCEPTION): 63rd/28.2% This is a weird one because his receiving production had him just short of the desired dominator rating but he also had 400/5 rushing so that might have revealed some more of his full potential. 

Riley Cooper (EXCEPTION): 15th/30.6%: I forget again what your qualifications were here but Riley Cooper stunk and was not a guy you wanted on your dynasty team. Hs 16 game average over his career was 440/3. 

Victor Cruz (EXCEPTION): 19th/39.9% That 39.0% dominator is really high (80th percentile) but his breakout age was low because he was twice dismissed from college due to failing grades. 

Donald Driver: Unable to find,  Looks lie he probably qualified for both. Was leading WR on the team as a sophomore and as a junior. 

Braylon Edwards: Unable to find. Definitely would have qualified. As a sophomore he had 1000/10, junior 1110/14 and senior 1300/15. He is especially disappointing and if there is a guy we could point to and say this is how N'Keal Harry fails, it's Braylon.

Josh Gordon (EXCEPTION):82nd/25.0% His college career is basically the same as his pro career: Showed promise but couldn't stay on the field after being busted with pot and then later failing a drug test. 

Percy Harvin (EXCEPTION): 84th/21.4% Like Cobb, he was also a run game weapon. He had 1800 yards and 19 TDs rushing alone so I think when he was taken, it was assumed he would be a hybrid- which he was. During his 3 years of good fantasy play, he was adding 200/1 rushing to push him over the edge. 

Tyreek Hill (EXCEPTION): NA/19.4%  The craziest case here because he did nothing at a really small school. We know why his breakout was late. Yet despite that he looks like one of the best WRs in the NFL.

Santonio Holmes (EXCEPTION): 25th/48.6%  This also seems off to me, at age 20 he caught 7 of the 14 OSU passing TDs and had 36% of the receiving yards. 

Vincent Jackson (EXCEPTION): 47th/70.3%   99th percentile dominator, barely missed the age cutoff. I can't find any stats but it did say he was an All American punt returner as a true freshman. 

Greg Jennings (EXCEPTION):  17th/47.5%  Breakout age seems wrong-maybe I just don't know how it is being calculated. As a sophomore at age 20 he had 1000/14, at 21 he had 1000/11 and then at 22 he had 1200/14

 Andre Johnson (EXCEPTION): 60th/28.8% His production seemed limited by sharing the field with Kellen Winslow, and Jeramy Shockey.

Chad Johnson: Unable to find. Ocho bounced around a few small colleges so I assume he had some personal issues coming out of college so it wasn't until 22 that he broke-out. 

Steve Johnson (EXCEPTION):  35th/30.3% He also was a transfer from a small school 

James Jones (EXCEPTION): 11th/44.1% It took him 4 years to breakout at San Jose State. Not a great prospect at all and if he hadn't ended up Rodgers, he might not have made this list. 

Marvin Jones (EXCEPTION): 80th/26.3% He shared the field with Keenan Allen so it's understandable why he fell short on dominator as Allen got 96 targets that in Marvin's last year. 

Johnny Knox: Unable to find  This guy was not a good fantasy asset. 

Brandon Lafell (EXCEPTION): 19th/45.7%  Also not a good fantasy asset. He had one good random season in his 5th year

Jeremy Maclin (EXCEPTION): 83rd/29.5%  Missed by 0.5% but Maclin was an All American at age 19 and 20. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dr. Dan said:

Thanks for doing this. These were people that at least once had a wr1 or 2 season... Many of them just 1 season, and otherwise were not good fantasy assets

Yeah and I know you just have to be objective when doing it. The numbers are what they are. I would be interested seeing the guys who were exemptions vs the guys who weren’t when measuring more than one season to remove the guys like Knox.

Edited by Ilov80s
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

Here is some context for players who were exemptions of you had no data on. I will finish the other half some other time. 

Tavon Austin (EXCEPTION): 99th/26.3%- hard to call him a success as a fantasy WR even if he did have 1 WR2 season. He is a posterboy for failed dynasty assets.

Doug Baldwin (EXCEPTION): 65th/27.0%-  came close, played with 3 future NFL pass catchers, took 4/5 years to really make a mark in the NFL

Kelvin Benjamin (EXCEPTION): 6th/29.3%- 1 good rookie year where he caught an excessive number of TDs and then has totally flamed out

Benard Berrian: Unable to find- weird case: had a 1300/13 season as a Junior, returned for senior year but lost the year to injury and returned for RS senior year with 25% dominator- also had 3 non receiving TDs. 

Dwayne Bowe (EXCEPTION): 38th/35.4%: Are you sure this is right? I know it is what Playerprofiler says but it looks to me like Bowe had a breakout age of 20 which was his sophomore season. By my quick math he had over 20% of the Tiger passing attack but maybe I am doing the math wrong. 

John Brown (EXCEPTION): 27th/42.4%: He had WR2 fantasy season but mostly has been a WR3-4.

Antonio Bryant: Unable to find- Breakout age of 19 where he had a massive sophomore year 1300/11. He took a step back as a senior 659/9 but I think that still met the minimum requirement for dominator since he had 9 of the teams 20 passing TDs. 

Randall Cobb (EXCEPTION): 63rd/28.2% This is a weird one because his receiving production had him just short of the desired dominator rating but he also had 400/5 rushing so that might have revealed some more of his full potential. 

Riley Cooper (EXCEPTION): 15th/30.6%: I forget again what your qualifications were here but Riley Cooper stunk and was not a guy you wanted on your dynasty team. Hs 16 game average over his career was 440/3. 

Victor Cruz (EXCEPTION): 19th/39.9% That 39.0% dominator is really high (80th percentile) but his breakout age was low because he was twice dismissed from college due to failing grades. 

Donald Driver: Unable to find,  Looks lie he probably qualified for both. Was leading WR on the team as a sophomore and as a junior. 

Braylon Edwards: Unable to find. Definitely would have qualified. As a sophomore he had 1000/10, junior 1110/14 and senior 1300/15. He is especially disappointing and if there is a guy we could point to and say this is how N'Keal Harry fails, it's Braylon.

Josh Gordon (EXCEPTION):82nd/25.0% His college career is basically the same as his pro career: Showed promise but couldn't stay on the field after being busted with pot and then later failing a drug test. 

Percy Harvin (EXCEPTION): 84th/21.4% Like Cobb, he was also a run game weapon. He had 1800 yards and 19 TDs rushing alone so I think when he was taken, it was assumed he would be a hybrid- which he was. During his 3 years of good fantasy play, he was adding 200/1 rushing to push him over the edge. 

Tyreek Hill (EXCEPTION): NA/19.4%  The craziest case here because he did nothing at a really small school. We know why his breakout was late. Yet despite that he looks like one of the best WRs in the NFL.

Santonio Holmes (EXCEPTION): 25th/48.6%  This also seems off to me, at age 20 he caught 7 of the 14 OSU passing TDs and had 36% of the receiving yards. 

Vincent Jackson (EXCEPTION): 47th/70.3%   99th percentile dominator, barely missed the age cutoff. I can't find any stats but it did say he was an All American punt returner as a true freshman. 

Greg Jennings (EXCEPTION):  17th/47.5%  Breakout age seems wrong-maybe I just don't know how it is being calculated. As a sophomore at age 20 he had 1000/14, at 21 he had 1000/11 and then at 22 he had 1200/14

 Andre Johnson (EXCEPTION): 60th/28.8% His production seemed limited by sharing the field with Kellen Winslow, and Jeramy Shockey.

Chad Johnson: Unable to find. Ocho bounced around a few small colleges so I assume he had some personal issues coming out of college so it wasn't until 22 that he broke-out. 

Steve Johnson (EXCEPTION):  35th/30.3% He also was a transfer from a small school 

James Jones (EXCEPTION): 11th/44.1% It took him 4 years to breakout at San Jose State. Not a great prospect at all and if he hadn't ended up Rodgers, he might not have made this list. 

Marvin Jones (EXCEPTION): 80th/26.3% He shared the field with Keenan Allen so it's understandable why he fell short on dominator as Allen got 96 targets that in Marvin's last year. 

Johnny Knox: Unable to find  This guy was not a good fantasy asset. 

Brandon Lafell (EXCEPTION): 19th/45.7%  Also not a good fantasy asset. He had one good random season in his 5th year

Jeremy Maclin (EXCEPTION): 83rd/29.5%  Missed by 0.5% but Maclin was an All American at age 19 and 20. 

 

Thanks for doing the digging, lov.

Dr - I’m always skeptical of trying to create hard boundaries on players. The human variable in the equation makes this pure chaos theory stuff.  The mathematician in me is always looking at the angle that equations have to work equally front to back and back to front, and predictive models have to function retroactively as proof of their reliability in assessing future events.  Those principles seem to be sorely missing in a lot of crap put forth these days, and not just in FF.

It doesn’t mean that I don’t appreciate the effort - I just let the skepticism rise to the forefront a lot of times.  You did some strong work.

Edited by Bronco Billy
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Bronco Billy said:

 

Thanks for doing the digging, lov.

Dr - I’m always skeptical of trying to create hard boundaries on players. The human variable in the equation makes this pure chaos theory stuff.  The mathematician in me is always looking at the angle that equations have to work equally front to back and back to front, and predictive models have to function retroactively as proof of their reliability in assessing future events.  Those principles seem to be sorely missing in a lot of crap put forth these days, and not just in FF.

It doesn’t mean that I don’t appreciate the effort - I just let the skepticism rise to the forefront a lot of times.  You did some strong work.

I don’t have the links, maybe Dr does but I’m pretty sure there’s mathematical evidence of a relationship with breakout age, dominantor rating and draft capitol and fantasy success.

JJ Zacharison has a couple short and interesting podcasts on it. 

Edited by Ilov80s
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Dr. Dan said:

read my mind...

I went through and found out how many times each appeared in the top 24. I figured if someone appeared more than twice, that would be considered a legitimate placeholder in the top 24 over the 10 year period. Here's what I found:

Total : 44
Exceptions: 11 (<50 age or <25%)
Percentage: 75% (was 70% for the entire last 10 years, regardless of number of seasons in the top 24 back on page 1)

 

There are a lot of guys who were never WR1s but always WR2s, or guys who were WR2 twice and snuck into WR1 once. So, if we looked at guys who appeared in the top 12 at least twice and top 24 at least once:

Total: 31
Exceptions: 6 (<50 age or <25%)
Percentage: 80%

As you said- it stands to reason that if you have a player who falls into this exception, that you should probably trade him away after his big season

The only WRs to have a dominant presence in the top 24 over the last 10 years, and fall into the exception category are:
Brandon Marshall (I forgot how much of a beast he was! 6 years top 12, 1 year top 24)
Wes Welker (4 years top 12, 2 years top 24)
Roddy White (5 years top 12, 1 year top 24)

 

WRs who do not check both boxes (exceptions) seem less likely to not only achieve WR1 or WR2 status, but to stay there greater than 2 years.

Welker is an interesting one. He was very productive in college. One of the greatest punt returners in college history with 8 career TDs. He also contributed as a rusher. He had 1298/7 and 1245/10 in total yards as a junior and senior. He played for the crazy Texas Tech offense though so the ball was spread around a lot. To his credit, he led the team in yards as a junior and receptions as a senior. So while his dominator was really low, he contributing significantly. Also, he had an odd career. After 4 seasons, he had 1000 yards and 1 receiving TD. Then he landed with Brady and Manning where he thrived. Add in being undrafted in the NFL and he wasn't the kind of player who would have been on dynasty radars. 

 

Marshall had a great 85% dominator but was a late bloomer at 21.5. Part of the reason might have been that the team suffered a serious string of injuries that left them with no safeties.UCF moved him to safety for his junior year. He started at safety for 7 games and he led UCF in tackles for the 2004 season. So while his breakout age is bad- especially for a player at mid-tier D1 school and it makes you wonder why he was moved to safety. Was it because he wasn't that valued as a WR or was it because they saw how talented he was and figured he was the only player good enough to pull off the position switch? No matter what it speaks to what kind of athlete he was that he could just switch to safety for a season and play so well. 

There is not much to say with Roddy. He was at UAB and just took awhile to come on. It took him 3 years to establish himself at the NFL level but once he did, he was a rock. 

  • Like 1
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...