Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Dynasty: WR Rashod Bateman, Baltimore Ravens


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 244
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Lenscrafters is having a sale right now.  Bateman may end up being the best WR in the draft and definitely top 4.

Is it really much different from AJ Brown going to Tennessee?

If you look at the metrics of successful fantasy WRs, no, I don't think so.   That size is totally fine.   Look at it like this: 6'2'', 210, pretty darn close to Prototype.  6', 190, is Fine.  😉

The thing that Tyler Johnson lacks is Bateman's speed. And size. Which is part of the reason why Johnson went in the fifth round. But hands and route running are not a question with Tyler Johnson. See his twisting, turning catch against the New Orleans Saints in a huge moment in a tight NFC Divisional game. That's another thing Bateman isn't yet. A world champion.

But yeah, there's really not much similarity to their game other than they're Golden Gophers and Biabreakable is a Minnesota guy who got to watch them both out of interest to the program. I don't think he ever really compared them other than to say who he thought was more productive overall at Minnesota. And Johnson was incredibly productive there. Knock on him was and always will be speed.

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

Was anyone debating that? Did you bring him just because both he and Bateman are Gophers?

If we’re comparing to Gophers I think the more apt comparison is Eric decker- except faster and without the medical red flags. Similar ability to adjust to bad throws (amazing how bad some of the throws are on both their highlights). Good route running/knowledge, good use of hands at the line to avoid the jam. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Andy Dufresne said:

Was anyone debating that? Did you bring him just because both he and Bateman are Gophers?

I was comparing them because they are both Gophers. Mostly to point out that there are some things Bateman can improve on that Johnson already did well.

In my view Batemans flaws are all things that can be improved with practice and coaching. 

What Bateman has that Johnson does not is great speed and that cant be improved (much) by coaching. That is why he will most likely be a higher pick than Johnson was.

The comparison is just to point out specific areas Bateman needs to improve on and to offer a different opinion than the fluffy prospect articles we are inundated with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, rockaction said:

The thing that Tyler Johnson lacks is Bateman's speed. And size. Which is part of the reason why Johnson went in the fifth round. But hands and route running are not a question with Tyler Johnson. See his twisting, turning catch against the New Orleans Saints in a huge moment in a tight NFC Divisional game. That's another thing Bateman isn't yet. A world champion.

But yeah, there's really not much similarity to their game other than they're Golden Gophers and Biabreakable is a Minnesota guy who got to watch them both out of interest to the program. I don't think he ever really compared them other than to say who he thought was more productive overall at Minnesota. And Johnson was incredibly productive there. Knock on him was and always will be speed.

I should also mention that I have a very high opinion of Tyler Johnson and what he does well. So that Bateman or a lot of guys may not have his body control and hands is not a severe criticism. I think Johnson does those things at a very high level.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Biabreakable said:

I should also mention that I have a very high opinion of Tyler Johnson and what he does well.

Same here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Snorkelson said:

If we’re comparing to Gophers I think the more apt comparison is Eric decker- except faster and without the medical red flags. Similar ability to adjust to bad throws (amazing how bad some of the throws are on both their highlights). Good route running/knowledge, good use of hands at the line to avoid the jam. 

Makes sense and that is a guy I think Bateman would have drawn a lot of comps too before we saw his actual measurements. Decker was 25 pounds heavier and 3 inches taller though. So Bateman will need that extra athleticism because he doesn't that big body to shield him like Decker did. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Snorkelson said:

If we’re comparing to Gophers I think the more apt comparison is Eric decker- except faster and without the medical red flags. Similar ability to adjust to bad throws (amazing how bad some of the throws are on both their highlights). Good route running/knowledge, good use of hands at the line to avoid the jam. 

You could compare him to any WR really but I think it's a bit more apples to apples comparing Johnson and Bateman as they played for the same coach, same QB and same supporting cast/competition.

I haven't brought up Bell who is a decent WR as well but nothing he does really stands out to me as better than Bateman.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/3/2021 at 1:17 PM, rockaction said:

The thing that Tyler Johnson lacks is Bateman's speed. And size. Which is part of the reason why Johnson went in the fifth round. But hands and route running are not a question with Tyler Johnson. See his twisting, turning catch against the New Orleans Saints in a huge moment in a tight NFC Divisional game. That's another thing Bateman isn't yet. A world champion.

But yeah, there's really not much similarity to their game other than they're Golden Gophers and Biabreakable is a Minnesota guy who got to watch them both out of interest to the program. I don't think he ever really compared them other than to say who he thought was more productive overall at Minnesota. And Johnson was incredibly productive there. Knock on him was and always will be speed.

Dont forget that Bateman has exceptional release.  Every time I watch his release, it often reminds Keenan Allen.  The way he toys with DB for last few years was pure clinic.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bateman was listed 6'2", 210.

Pro day he was 6', 190.  

People may still be using the wrong info.  But he's 2 inches shorter, and 20 pounds lighter than we were told.  

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

Bateman was listed 6'2", 210.

Pro day he was 6', 190.  

People may still be using the wrong info.  But he's 2 inches shorter, and 20 pounds lighter than we were told.  

Is that a lot?

  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Mister CIA said:

Is that a lot?

If you look at the metrics of successful fantasy WRs, no, I don't think so.   That size is totally fine.  

Look at it like this: 6'2'', 210, pretty darn close to Prototype.  6', 190, is Fine.  😉

If he was taller, or heavier, it would be more preferred, of course, but those smaller numbers are well within the range where really good WRs live.  If there are no analytic/age related red flags, just give everyone a check, and move on to how you like them as a player.  

If an OT was listed at 6'7", 330, but came in at 6'5'', 310, that's a decent comp.  Would you prefer taller, bigger, sure? Are there Hall of Famers at the smaller numbers? Yes, many.  So, if the smaller guy is the better OT, give me that guy.  

@rockaction and I have been talking about metrics in another thread, and this is a great example of something we were talking about. There are pretty clear minimums a guy needs to reach at certain positions, and if they don't, chances drop dramatically.  There are always outliers, but I don't wanna draft them in the 1st round. Tyler Lockett is an outlier.  

If Batemen went from 200 to 175, that's a problem.  If he went from 5'11" to 5'9" or 5'8", that's a thing.  

Rondale Moore measured at 5'7", and that's a real problem.  History says, very unlikely.  Same with Devonta at 6'1", 170 lbs.  All these short dudes, Waddle, Moore, it's an issue, and the history of players that size is clear.  They are unlikely to become top 24 fantasy WRs.  

All those rookies last year, through two rounds, thirteen dudes.  You know the one guy that didn't meet the height/weight minimums? KJ Hamler.  

Batemen is fine, just not as big as we thought.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, massraider said:

If you look at the metrics of successful fantasy WRs, no, I don't think so.   That size is totally fine.  

Look at it like this: 6'2'', 210, pretty darn close to Prototype.  6', 190, is Fine.  😉

If he was taller, or heavier, it would be more preferred, of course, but those smaller numbers are well within the range where really good WRs live.  If there are no analytic/age related red flags, just give everyone a check, and move on to how you like them as a player.  

If an OT was listed at 6'7", 330, but came in at 6'5'', 310, that's a decent comp.  Would you prefer taller, bigger, sure? Are there Hall of Famers at the smaller numbers? Yes, many.  So, if the smaller guy is the better OT, give me that guy.  

@rockaction and I have been talking about metrics in another thread, and this is a great example of something we were talking about. There are pretty clear minimums a guy needs to reach at certain positions, and if they don't, chances drop dramatically.  There are always outliers, but I don't wanna draft them in the 1st round. Tyler Lockett is an outlier.  

If Batemen went from 200 to 175, that's a problem.  If he went from 5'11" to 5'9" or 5'8", that's a thing.  

Rondale Moore measured at 5'7", and that's a real problem.  History says, very unlikely.  Same with Devonta at 6'1", 170 lbs.  All these short dudes, Waddle, Moore, it's an issue, and the history of players that size is clear.  They are unlikely to become top 24 fantasy WRs.  

All those rookies last year, through two rounds, thirteen dudes.  You know the one guy that didn't meet the height/weight minimums? KJ Hamler.  

Batemen is fine, just not as big as we thought.

I'm in almost lockstep agreement with this, from the theory to the particulars. Bateman is fine. He's about 6 and a half feet tall and at 190, he's fine for playing weight. He's well within the range of a receiver who might indeed crack the top 24 for fantasy purposes; he's not a drastic outlier in terms of either height or weight. That said, 6'2", 210 is better, and if he played at his tested speed with the previous height and weight (which I thought he did before his pro day) it would have been a boon to his prospects. As it is, he's well within range. You have to decide whether you like the player at that point, really. I'm sure they can refine height/weight and success further, but I'm not aware of it. It took someone until this year to correlate forty times with yards received, so I'm not holding my breath that they've done height/weight things that finely (they might have, I'm just unaware). 

Edited by rockaction
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, massraider said:

If you look at the metrics of successful fantasy WRs, no, I don't think so.   That size is totally fine.  

Look at it like this: 6'2'', 210, pretty darn close to Prototype.  6', 190, is Fine.  😉

If he was taller, or heavier, it would be more preferred, of course, but those smaller numbers are well within the range where really good WRs live.  If there are no analytic/age related red flags, just give everyone a check, and move on to how you like them as a player.  

If an OT was listed at 6'7", 330, but came in at 6'5'', 310, that's a decent comp.  Would you prefer taller, bigger, sure? Are there Hall of Famers at the smaller numbers? Yes, many.  So, if the smaller guy is the better OT, give me that guy.  

@rockaction and I have been talking about metrics in another thread, and this is a great example of something we were talking about. There are pretty clear minimums a guy needs to reach at certain positions, and if they don't, chances drop dramatically.  There are always outliers, but I don't wanna draft them in the 1st round. Tyler Lockett is an outlier.  

If Batemen went from 200 to 175, that's a problem.  If he went from 5'11" to 5'9" or 5'8", that's a thing.  

Rondale Moore measured at 5'7", and that's a real problem.  History says, very unlikely.  Same with Devonta at 6'1", 170 lbs.  All these short dudes, Waddle, Moore, it's an issue, and the history of players that size is clear.  They are unlikely to become top 24 fantasy WRs.  

All those rookies last year, through two rounds, thirteen dudes.  You know the one guy that didn't meet the height/weight minimums? KJ Hamler.  

Batemen is fine, just not as big as we thought.

I hadnt heard that.

That does worry me a bit more than 5'8" for some reason. I dont think it matters for the way I have seen Moore win but it might limit his ability to win in ways that I still wonder about.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, rockaction said:

I'm in almost lockstep agreement with this, from the theory to the particulars. Bateman is fine. He's about 6 and a half feet tall and at 190, he's fine for playing weight. He's well within the range of a receiver who might indeed crack the top 24 for fantasy purposes; he's not a drastic outlier in terms of either height or weight. That said, 6'2", 210 is better, and if he played at his tested speed with the previous height and weight (which I thought he did before his pro day) it would have been a boon to his prospects. As it is, he's well within range. You have to decide whether you like the player at that point, really. I'm sure they can refine height/weight and success further, but I'm not aware of it. It took someone until this year to correlate forty times with yards received, so I'm not holding my breath that they've done height/weight things that finely (they might have, I'm just unaware). 

Did they now?

I would like to see that. I have seen some things that would suggest otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/9/2021 at 7:30 AM, Biabreakable said:

Did they now?

I would like to see that. I have seen some things that would suggest otherwise.

What I'm about to say is that I'm guilty of this too, and that is that we get a bias for or against a player and we will argue our point until our nose bleeds.  Then we look foolish later and wish we hadn't taken such a hard stance on a player.  This works both ways too.  Not just those we are bias against, but those where we have rose colored glasses on for.  I'm starting to try and get outside my comfort zone with players I like and try and see what NFL teams are saying about them.  After all, I'm not the expert here.  NFL teams get it wrong too and I think the Raiders taking Ruggs as the first WR was stupid, but in general teams know more than us wannabees.  Not saying Ruggs won't eventually pan out either.

Edited by JohnnyU
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/14/2021 at 8:58 AM, JohnnyU said:

What I'm about to say is that I'm guilty of this too, and that is that we get a bias for or against a player and we will argue our point until our nose bleeds.  Then we look foolish later and wish we hadn't taken such a hard stance on a player.  This works both ways too.  Not just those we are bias against, but those where we have rose colored glasses on for.  I'm starting to try and get outside my comfort zone with players I like and try and see what NFL teams are saying about them.  After all, I'm not the expert here.  NFL teams get it wrong too and I think the Raiders taking Ruggs as the first WR was stupid, but in general teams know more than us wannabees.  Not saying Ruggs won't eventually pan out either.

Oh I agree with most of what you are saying.

The post you are quoting was in response to rockaction saying that someone had found a correlation between 40 time and yardage gained in the NFL.

I was looking for more information about that.

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

Oh I agree with most of what you are saying.

The post you are quoting was in response to rockaction saying that someone had found a correlation between 40 time and yardage gained in the NFL.

I was looking for more information about that.

Chase Stuart in Football Perspective did for WRs. I thought I'd posted links.

eta* I've posted links elsewhere, but not here. It's at footballperspective.com. You need only dig a very little and you'll find the two-part series. Here they are.

http://www.footballperspective.com/are-40-yard-dash-times-correlated-with-success-for-wide-receivers/

http://www.footballperspective.com/are-40-yard-dash-times-correlated-with-success-for-wide-receivers-part-ii/

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

Chase Stuart in Football Perspective did for WRs. I thought I'd posted links.

eta* I've posted links elsewhere, but not here. It's at footballperspective.com. You need only dig a very little and you'll find the two-part series. Here they are.

http://www.footballperspective.com/are-40-yard-dash-times-correlated-with-success-for-wide-receivers/

http://www.footballperspective.com/are-40-yard-dash-times-correlated-with-success-for-wide-receivers-part-ii/

Quote

If you believe that 40 times are overrated by the NFL, you would think that a player who ran the 40 in 4.38 seconds and was drafted with the 30th pick should do WORSE than a player who ran the 40 in 4.58 seconds and was drafted say, at 40th overall. That’s because you think NFL decisionmakers overstate the importance of the 40

I think his conclusion is incorrect with regard to speed.  It only takes one team to be enamored by a fast kid, rocketing his draft capital higher than 31 other teams would have ranked him.  In that sense, draft capital/speed/production are not as correlated as he claims.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, tangfoot said:

I think his conclusion is incorrect with regard to speed.  It only takes one team to be enamored by a fast kid, rocketing his draft capital higher than 31 other teams would have ranked him.  In that sense, draft capital/speed/production are not as correlated as he claims.

Fair enough. I took his conclusions at more or less face value, not really questioning the dependent/independent variable (isn't that where that would come in?) aspects of his findings.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the links. It is new work by Chase who I think is very solid with his math and processes. I think looking at the player performance over the players first 4 seasons is good. I have used 3 years and others have used 3 years instead. I think both are fine. I dont think we care about the players production beyond this as the combine metrics should change somewhat over time.

The study uses very small partitions of the 40 times and you see variance in those results. The WR who averaged 1000 yards per season were 4.42 or faster.

The 2nd study shows that the NFL highly values speed and that players with high recorded speeds are drafted much earlier than WR who do not and that lines up with other studies I have seen in the past that show the NFL over valuing certain traits like 40 time and bench press for WR. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My updated WR ranking:

1) Chase

2) Waddle

3) Smith

4) Bateman

5) E Moore

6) T Marshall (recent injury concerns dropped him 1 spot for now)

7) R Moore

8 - Toney

9) Terry

10) St. Brown

11) Rodgers

12) Wallace

13) Brown

14) Eskridge

15) Darden

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Ravens selected Minnesota WR Rashod Bateman with the No. 27 overall pick in the 2021 NFL Draft.

Bateman (6'0/190) led the country in Yards per Route Run from out wide as a 20-year-old sophomore (and Big Ten's Receiver of the Year) alongside Bucs WR Tyler Johnson before being moved into the slot for 61% of his snaps in 2020 in order to see more schemed targets. His career marks of 36 broken tackles (on 147 catches) and 15.7 YPC are still pigeonhole-proof in the NFL since he succeeded across Minnesota's formation with at least one catch in all 31 games. An average athlete, Bateman's basketball background and production from anywhere on the field should earn him reps as the team's No. 2 receiver alongside Marquise Brown.

Apr 29, 2021, 11:33 PM ET

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bateman and Lamar gonna connect well, now they have the framework of a complete offense. Just need to take some O-lineman to give Lamar time to throw.

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

Was really really high on this guy before he landed in Baltimore. 

Love him but this is the worst possible landing spot

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Ravens are not a team that has developed good WR play that is useful for fantasy for a long time and there are many different reasons for that.

One of the reasons was the lack of QB talent prior to them getting Lamar Jackson. They got a couple good seasons out of Flacco and even won a Super Bowl with him but this team has always been about good defense and a more conservative offense. They won a Super Bowl with Trent Dilfer too.

When the Ravens have used high picks on WR those players havent panned out.

Here are the guys they have drafted in the top 64 picks since 2000

1	2019	1	25	Marquise Brown	WR	22	2019	2020	0	0	1	17	30	25	Oklahoma	College Stats
2	2015	1	26	Breshad Perriman	WR	21	2016	2020	0	0	1	13	63	22	Central Florida	College Stats
3	2011	2	58	Torrey Smith	WR	22	2011	2018	0	0	7	37	119	106	Maryland	College Stats
4	2005	1	22	Mark Clayton	WR	23	2005	2011	0	0	5	28	83	65	Oklahoma	College Stats
5	2000	1	10	Travis Taylor	WR	22	2000	2007	0	0	7	32	101	90	Florida	College 

Taylor and Clayton were 1st round busts but again the Ravens did not have good QB play or an offense that really strived for that at that time.

Torrey Smith had some success and not that bad for a 2nd round pick. He was able to make big plays off of play action that fit their offense.

While I was critical of the Perriman pick he also had very bad injuries that derailed him.

Brown still has another season before we can completely turn the page but I have always been skeptical of him being a great WR for fantasy.

I think Bateman could change all of that. He is a good route runner and I think a player who can become a true number one WR for their team. Something they have been lacking for a long long time. I think he will make Lamar Jackson better. I have a very high opinion of Jacksons ability as well. Now he has a WR to unlock that talent I think.

The coaches are likely still a draw back. Harbaugh does not care about your fantasy team so there is still that.

I think Bateman is good enough to perhaps change this story and I hope he does.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I love Bateman, I hate he’s in Balt.

He’s a very good WR.  Jackson is a good QB.  But the volume man, the volume.  They’re a run heavy team

Brown and Andrews will get their share of targets.  Jackson will break off and run some times.  
 

We’re splitting a small pie.  Can he be a 1,000 yard guy?  Probably.  But he also may be a 60 for 800 guy.  And he could have been so special elsewhere.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jm192 said:

I love Bateman, I hate he’s in Balt.

He’s a very good WR.  Jackson is a good QB.  But the volume man, the volume.  They’re a run heavy team

Brown and Andrews will get their share of targets.  Jackson will break off and run some times.  

We’re splitting a small pie.  

This sums it up the best one can. They run the ball all the time, and don't apologize for it. Harbaugh went out of his way last year to answer critics who said they run the ball too much. He flat said that was who they were. As far as volume goes, Marquise Brown had a target share of around 35% last year and barely cracked WR12 even in his best weeks. 

They're an outlier. J.J. Zachariason had a podcast about their volume and said he'd ding any receiver that went to Baltimore, even though he had learned not to draft rookies based on situation. He said there were just too many things working against any guy that went there. He mentioned the above stats and asked where the targets would come from. I think he's right. 

This sucks. I was going to take him. There's barely any pie to split, and Brown to split it with.

Waldman liked the move on Twitter. I disagree. 

Edited by woodstock
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, woodstock said:

Boy, DeVonta Smith or Jaylen Waddle vs. Bateman just became a much less fun debate. I don't like where any of them landed. 

It seems like those were always the spots they were going to. 

I guess maybe the Giants were in the mix but that's not much different from Philly.

Edited by Andy Dufresne
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Andy Dufresne said:

It seems like those were always the spots they were going to. 

Thought Smith or Waddle was linked to the Giants. They got leapfrogged. But Miami was always going to wind up with one of them, yes. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, they still lack “QB” talent. Hopefully Jackson can develop more as a passer as he matures. Big Ben was a game managing running QB early on and eventually turned into a gun slinger.

Will be interesting to see where his ADP shakes out after today’s guys get drafted. I would guess last few picks of the 1st round where people will gamble on the 1st round talent overcoming a team with an offensive philosophy that has put them in the bottom half of pass offenses nearly every year for 2 decades.

Toney enters the mix with Waddle, Smith, & Bateman IMO, plus need to see where Elijah Moore and a few others land today.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bateman at 31 to the Pack was always the pipe dream, wasn't it? Four more picks. Thing is, most people that would have taken him going in would have been priced out due to landing spot if that happened. I was one of the rare ones that was reaching for him, so this one hurts. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

While I like Bateman, reading the last few posts about it not being a good landing spot because the Ravens are a run heavy team, I can go along with that.  However, I disagree about his competition for targets.  If anything you fade Brown and while Andrews will still get his, he may get a few less that will now go to Bateman.  Not a perfect landing spot, but not as bad as some of you are making it out to be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JohnnyU said:

While I like Bateman, reading the last few posts about it not being a good landing spot because the Ravens are a run heavy team, I can go along with that.  However, I disagree about his competition for targets.  If anything you fade Brown and while Andrews will still get his, he may get a few less that will now go to Bateman.  Not a perfect landing spot, but not as bad as some of you are making it out to be.

Why would Brown not be a factor?  Brown looked to be coming on strong late last season.

I agree you fade Brown.  But I’m having a hard time seeing this situation not also being bad for Bateman.  It’s certainly not a mutually exclusive situation.

I think Bateman is a better player.  But Brown is good enough and already has NFL experience, the playbook down, and chemistry with Jackson.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jm192 said:

Why would Brown not be a factor?  Brown looked to be coming on strong late last season.

I agree you fade Brown.  But I’m having a hard time seeing this situation not also being bad for Bateman.  It’s certainly not a mutually exclusive situation.

I think Bateman is a better player.  But Brown is good enough and already has NFL experience, the playbook down, and chemistry with Jackson.

I'm not going to try and paint a pretty picture for Bateman, because we don't really know for sure the impact he will have, but if he is the alpha on that team it won't be as bad as some fear. Brown is the least of my worries.  What does worry me is the run/pass ratios, including Jackson running, and of course his favorite target Andrews.  All of this could mean mediocre numbers for Bateman, but like I said, if he can break away from all the others and prove he's "The Guy", then I don't feel as bad about it.  The ball is in Bateman's court now, let's see what he does with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think we're going to see the same Ravens offense we're accustomed to. The versions from the last 2 seasons may be good enough to get through December, but it's not strong enough to get through January. I think we're going to see a transformation and Bateman is going to be the primary beneficiary.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ffmail4me said:

Seems to be an ideal late 1st pick in fantasy. Drafted by the league champ or contender, who probably doesn't NEED him to ball out year one. (as that does seem unlikely in this offense) 

This.  

The above posts are why people are gonna draft some slot WRs with no chance of becoming the WR1 on their team.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, massraider said:

This.  

The above posts are why people are gonna draft some slot WRs with no chance of becoming the WR1 on their team.  

I don’t think there’s a lot of room to move him down the WR rankings.  
 

I had him neck and neck with Marshall.  Marshall probably moves ahead if he gets drafted to a solid spot today.  
 

People may move Lawrence past him and look more at that 2nd group of RB’s before Bateman. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Cjw_55106 changed the title to Dynasty: WR Rashod Bateman, Baltimore Ravens

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...