FantasySharks.com

There are two types of Fantasy Football Owners: Sharks and Chum, which are you?
It is currently Wed 04.23.2014, 02:01

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue 07.10.2012, 22:12 
Offline
Mako Shark
User avatar

Joined: Wed 09.05.2007, 22:13
Posts: 680
Sand$: 1636
Donate
jnadke wrote:
It's rare for a 1st year WR to start and make a measurable impact. It's not a perennial thing unlike RBs.


I'm taking this quote a bit out of context in an attempt to not hijack a thread, but I do believe the above is what typically passes for traditional thought process regarding rookie NFL players. The thought process makes sense, it seems like it would take longer for a WR to acclimate themselves to NFL routes and coverage, vs. an RB where the say 'we hand you ball, you run through hole here', and before the last couple of years it seemed fairly accurate. However, it seems to me that this theory is not bearing itself out these days. Last year, AJ and Julio were solid with top 20 finishes, and Torrey was right behind them, and all contributed pretty quickly. Leshoure and Williams got injured, Murray showed flashes once he got the starting job, Ingram and Thomas both played but didn't do much impressive. 2010 had Mike Williams finishing top 20 for WR and no rookie RBs doing the same. 2009 we had Percy, Mike Wallace and Maclin all seeming solid while Knowshon was the standout of the rookie RB class. Since 2009 rookie RBs have won rookie of the week honors only 7 times (4 of those being Knowshon) while rookie WRs have won it 13. Is this a trend worthy of note, an anomaly, based on weak RB classes, or strong WR ones, or am I missing something?

_________________
-


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 07.10.2012, 22:19 
Offline
Supreme Megalodon
Supreme Megalodon
User avatar

Joined: Sun 09.11.2005, 10:42
Posts: 35505
Sand$: 33447
Donate
Location: Rock Hill, SC
car.gif
Absolute statements are never correct.

Whenever I see things like "I'll never draft player X or players from Team A or I won't draft a rookie" I just wonder if the poster is really a moron.

_________________
34-17/ 29-7 / 34-13 / 27-17 / 31-17

2010 & 2011 Baseball National Champs

You're like the Michael Jordan of being a son of a beetch.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 07.10.2012, 22:38 
Offline
Mako Shark
User avatar

Joined: Wed 09.05.2007, 22:13
Posts: 680
Sand$: 1636
Donate
pwbowen wrote:
Absolute statements are never correct.

Whenever I see things like "I'll never draft player X or players from Team A or I won't draft a rookie" I just wonder if the poster is really a moron.


I'm not positing it as an absolute. I'm just wondering if rookie WRs may be a little safer than they have been in the past, and/or rookie RBs less so. I've tended to shy away from rookie WRs in the past because of a lack of a track record, and I'm wondering if that's an outdated bias.

_________________
-


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 07.10.2012, 22:43 
Offline
Mako Shark
User avatar

Joined: Wed 09.05.2007, 22:13
Posts: 680
Sand$: 1636
Donate
pwbowen wrote:
Absolute statements are never correct.


Also, I think that is a really ironic standalone statement. :lol:

_________________
-


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 07.10.2012, 22:59 
Offline
Supreme Megalodon
Supreme Megalodon
User avatar

Joined: Sun 09.11.2005, 10:42
Posts: 35505
Sand$: 33447
Donate
Location: Rock Hill, SC
car.gif
jcalebmoore wrote:
pwbowen wrote:
Absolute statements are never correct.

Whenever I see things like "I'll never draft player X or players from Team A or I won't draft a rookie" I just wonder if the poster is really a moron.


I'm not positing it as an absolute. I'm just wondering if rookie WRs may be a little safer than they have been in the past, and/or rookie RBs less so. I've tended to shy away from rookie WRs in the past because of a lack of a track record, and I'm wondering if that's an outdated bias.


I agree with your premise, they do seem to be performing better earlier but is it opportunity or better prepared? I think teams are loosening the reins a bit more now and there are some guys who are coming into the league ready to work and study and play. WR is definitely were the most immature guys seem to go so I think rookie WRs will still be a dangerous minefield to try to dance in.

And yes, my statement was meant to be silly. Most players are draftable, it's simply about finding the right value. :wink:

_________________
34-17/ 29-7 / 34-13 / 27-17 / 31-17

2010 & 2011 Baseball National Champs

You're like the Michael Jordan of being a son of a beetch.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 07.11.2012, 11:43 
Offline
Great White Shark
Great White Shark
User avatar

Joined: Thu 09.15.2005, 18:00
Posts: 5346
Sand$: 2111
Donate
Location: Alpha Quadrant, Sector 001
cin.gif
jcalebmoore wrote:
pwbowen wrote:
Absolute statements are never correct.

Whenever I see things like "I'll never draft player X or players from Team A or I won't draft a rookie" I just wonder if the poster is really a moron.


I'm not positing it as an absolute. I'm just wondering if rookie WRs may be a little safer than they have been in the past, and/or rookie RBs less so. I've tended to shy away from rookie WRs in the past because of a lack of a track record, and I'm wondering if that's an outdated bias.


I do think it is a somewhat outdated bias. Not only did the guys you listed have solid rookie seasons, but reaching back even further, guys like Anquan Boldin and Marques Colston also came out of the gate hot with stellar rookie seasons.

With offenses becoming more and more pass oriented every year, I think this trend is likely to continue. I think one reason rookie RBs are still favored more over rookie WRs is they are perceived be less risky, have more immediate opportunity (usually), and also RBs are more scarce.

It really just depends on what kind of a drafter/player you are in those middle and late rounds. Are you the kind that prefers sold-but-unspectacular veterans with a track record of mediocrity but you at least know won't crap out on you? Or do you prefer to swing for the fences. Personally I like to go for a little of both, and I never shy away from a rookie WR in a good situation / with good upside simply because he is a rookie.... (that said TRich is still the first rookie that should be drafted this year).

_________________
Mike Brown - terrorizing Cincinnati and Bengals fans everywhere since 1991!
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 07.11.2012, 12:03 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri 07.07.2006, 10:59
Posts: 41810
Sand$: 94469
Donate
Location: The North Coast
bunnywafer wrote:
Are you the kind that prefers sold-but-unspectacular veterans with a track record of mediocrity but you at least know won't crap out on you? Or do you prefer to swing for the fences?

The more I play this game the less I think the former strategy is a good one. I don't remember off hand who specifically was dropped last year in my leagues, but I do remember seeing uninteresting veteran names like Anquan Boldin, Lance Moore, Robert Meachem, etc. hitting waivers. What uninteresting veterans have emerged as top 20 options this year? I'm not finding any. What gambles from last year are in the top 20 this year? Julio Jones, AJ Green, Victor Cruz, and Jordy Nelson. Antonio Brown, Eric Decker, Torrey Smith, and Denarius Moore aren't far behind. You might not strike gold with a risky mid-late round pick (not all of the mentioned guys were reliable last year), but if you miss you can just go to waivers and find that miscellaneous uninteresting veteran to plug in - or the flavor of the week. I understand playing a bit conservative with mid round QB's and RB's if you have risky starters/poor depth because waivers isn't always friendly in-season, but WR and TE? No. Go for it.

_________________
Follow me @mchamberlin32


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 07.11.2012, 12:17 
Offline
Great White Shark
Great White Shark
User avatar

Joined: Thu 09.24.2009, 11:46
Posts: 6547
Sand$: 13019
Donate
I don't follow college football closely any longer, but it seems to me there are a lot more "pro-style" offenses in CFB. And certainly more wide-open passing attacks than ever before.

So I would tend to side with the "better-prepared" argument.

Hakeem Nicks is another example. Just three years in the league and he's already been a top producer and is widely considered one of the best WRs in the league.

_________________
12-tm PPR-QB/RB/3WR/2FLEX/TE/D-ST-PK FAAB

Cutler, Ben
Forte, AndreB, Vereen, Trent, Starks
Andre, VJax, Torrey, Cooper, Cordy, Terrance
Martellus, Wright
CIN

Lost to INJ/dope/Shanny: Cobb-Wayne-MJames/Blackmon/RGIII

10-4, 1 seed,


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 07.11.2012, 13:33 
Offline
Megalodon
Megalodon
User avatar

Joined: Thu 12.21.2006, 15:58
Posts: 14918
Sand$: 8916
Donate
Location: Home of the Pittsburgh Steelers and 6 Super Bowls
pit.gif
Last years Yahoo Fantasy Football Magazine (pretty sure it was this one as opposed to Lindy's) had an article which chronicled rookie WR reception / yardage / RD totals for the last 6-8 years leading into 2011.

The impact that rookie WR's have had has grown exponentionally over that time frame which they attributed to and were touched on in above posts .....

- more college teams running pro offenses minimizing the yr 1 learning curve
- Bigger, stronger, faster WR's coming into the league as rookies
- NFL's evolution over time for offenses, in general, to be more pass dependent

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 07.11.2012, 13:44 
Offline
Great White Shark
Great White Shark

Joined: Mon 09.27.2010, 23:48
Posts: 5299
Sand$: 10447
Donate
gb.gif
pwbowen wrote:
Absolute statements are never correct.

Whenever I see things like "I'll never draft player X or players from Team A or I won't draft a rookie" I just wonder if the poster is really a moron.

The statement was slightly out of context (it was from the Bengals thread).

I'll put my statement in perspective. I drafted AJ Green in the 8th last year expecting him to do well and got MWTB in 2010.


It's all a matter of circumstance. I was just saying rookie RBs have less working toward their circumstance than rookie WRs.

Factors that determine WR success:
-Snap Count
-Targets
-Ability
-QB Ability
-QB Chemistry
-Offensive Scheme

Factors that determine RB success:
-OLine
-Ability
-Attempts
-Blocking Scheme (see: Tom Cable Effect)


My essential point was this:
After scrounging the history books, it's far more often a 1st round rookie RB gets over 1000 yards than a 1st round rookie WR going over 1000 yards. Being that the 1000 yards generally counts the same in standard scoring, an RB is a better investment.

Of course, common sense applies.


In the context, people were talking about Sanu like he was going to be the next Antonio Brown.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 07.11.2012, 14:25 
Offline
Supreme Megalodon
Supreme Megalodon
User avatar

Joined: Sun 09.11.2005, 10:42
Posts: 35505
Sand$: 33447
Donate
Location: Rock Hill, SC
car.gif
jesteva wrote:
Last years Yahoo Fantasy Football Magazine (pretty sure it was this one as opposed to Lindy's) had an article which chronicled rookie WR reception / yardage / RD totals for the last 6-8 years leading into 2011.

The impact that rookie WR's have had has grown exponentionally over that time frame which they attributed to and were touched on in above posts .....

- more college teams running pro offenses minimizing the yr 1 learning curve
- Bigger, stronger, faster WR's coming into the league as rookies
- NFL's evolution over time for offenses, in general, to be more pass dependent


AND NFL DBs and Safeties can't manhandle the rookie WRs anymore like they did in the past.

_________________
34-17/ 29-7 / 34-13 / 27-17 / 31-17

2010 & 2011 Baseball National Champs

You're like the Michael Jordan of being a son of a beetch.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 07.11.2012, 14:31 
Offline
Mako Shark
User avatar

Joined: Wed 09.05.2007, 22:13
Posts: 680
Sand$: 1636
Donate
jnadke wrote:
pwbowen wrote:
Absolute statements are never correct.

Whenever I see things like "I'll never draft player X or players from Team A or I won't draft a rookie" I just wonder if the poster is really a moron.

The statement was slightly out of context (it was from the Bengals thread).

I'll put my statement in perspective. I drafted AJ Green in the 8th last year expecting him to do well and got MWTB in 2010.


It's all a matter of circumstance. I was just saying rookie RBs have less working toward their circumstance than rookie WRs.

Factors that determine WR success:
-Snap Count
-Targets
-Ability
-QB Ability
-QB Chemistry
-Offensive Scheme

Factors that determine RB success:
-OLine
-Ability
-Attempts
-Blocking Scheme (see: Tom Cable Effect)


My essential point was this:
After scrounging the history books, it's far more often a 1st round rookie RB gets over 1000 yards than a 1st round rookie WR going over 1000 yards. Being that the 1000 yards generally counts the same in standard scoring, an RB is a better investment.

Of course, common sense applies.


In the context, people were talking about Sanu like he was going to be the next Antonio Brown.


Sorry if it seemed in any way like I was trying to say you were wrong. I did mention it was taken out of context, and again I think this is an historically accurate theory. I also briefly outlined why I thought the rationale has made sense as well. I'm just wondering if there has been a shift as of late.

Again, I was not trying to put that statement out as your personal opinion either, I was just saying I think that general statement (taken completely out of context) seemed to reflect what I believed was a traditionally held view.

_________________
-


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 07.11.2012, 15:22 
Offline
Great White Shark
Great White Shark

Joined: Mon 09.27.2010, 23:48
Posts: 5299
Sand$: 10447
Donate
gb.gif
jcalebmoore wrote:
Again, I was not trying to put that statement out as your personal opinion either, I was just saying I think that general statement (taken completely out of context) seemed to reflect what I believed was a traditionally held view.


No offense taken. True, but this is a thread in relation to WRs.

On the teams with prolific passing games, how many receivers are consistently fantasy viable in a 12 team?

NO:
Graham
Colston
Sproles

GB:
Jennings
Nelson
Finley?

NE:
Gronk
Welker
Hernandez

In fact, this year will be the test with NE to see if they can support 4 consistently fantasy startable WRs (Gronk/Welker/Hernandez/Lloyd). Everyone seems to be betting on it, but history hasn't shown it yet (correct me if I'm wrong).

My point is:
There's no evidence the "traditionally" held view has dramatically changed. Teams have really only bumped from passing games that can support 2 fantasy consistently-startable receivers to 3. And in some cases that extra WR is an RB.

These teams do well because they throw the ball to 4 or 5 other guys consistently and keep defenses constantly guessing. Unfortunately these 4 or 5 other guys aren't worth a damn in fantasy.

Rookie WRs usually aren't in a position to be one of those "2-3" guys. With RBs, it's usually more clear.


Now, it's different if you're talking WW Flavor of the Week.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 07.11.2012, 19:23 
Offline
Mako Shark
User avatar

Joined: Wed 09.05.2007, 22:13
Posts: 680
Sand$: 1636
Donate
jnadke wrote:
jcalebmoore wrote:
Again, I was not trying to put that statement out as your personal opinion either, I was just saying I think that general statement (taken completely out of context) seemed to reflect what I believed was a traditionally held view.


No offense taken. True, but this is a thread in relation to WRs.

On the teams with prolific passing games, how many receivers are consistently fantasy viable in a 12 team?

NO:
Graham
Colston
Sproles

GB:
Jennings
Nelson
Finley?

NE:
Gronk
Welker
Hernandez

In fact, this year will be the test with NE to see if they can support 4 consistently fantasy startable WRs (Gronk/Welker/Hernandez/Lloyd). Everyone seems to be betting on it, but history hasn't shown it yet (correct me if I'm wrong).

My point is:
There's no evidence the "traditionally" held view has dramatically changed. Teams have really only bumped from passing games that can support 2 fantasy consistently-startable receivers to 3. And in some cases that extra WR is an RB.

These teams do well because they throw the ball to 4 or 5 other guys consistently and keep defenses constantly guessing. Unfortunately these 4 or 5 other guys aren't worth a damn in fantasy.

Rookie WRs usually aren't in a position to be one of those "2-3" guys. With RBs, it's usually more clear.


Now, it's different if you're talking WW Flavor of the Week.


I agree that that has been historically true, but am not seeing it within the past three seasons. Maybe it's just a drought, but there have been zero 1000 yard rookie RBs in the past 3 years, and the rookie WRs have generally outproduced the rookie RBs within that period. It just seems that these rookie pass catchers are getting a shot earlier and are doing more with it, within the past three years. I don't think you need to expand the number of legitimate pass catchers to make that a reality. It seems that more of these guys are getting a chance to immediately be the #1 or #2 receiving option on their respective teams. Number of legitimate starters per team is irrelavant to the conversation. Again, I'm not seeing your bolded point bearing out as true. Who were the rookie RBs with clear cut situations that favored immediate production last year? Ingram? He's one of 4 guys there. Thomas? One of two with Bush at the least. Meanwhile AJ was the team's immediate #1 receiving option, Julio was the immediate #2 guy. Torrey and Little were legitimate options right out of the gate as well. I know it's not a ton of data, and that's why I'm trying to determine whether or not it's meaningful.

_________________
-


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 07.11.2012, 21:27 
Offline
Megalodon
Megalodon
User avatar

Joined: Sun 07.30.2006, 15:53
Posts: 19748
Sand$: 38494
Donate
Location: Pensacola, where we make HOFers
det.gif
bunnywafer wrote:
I do think it is a somewhat outdated bias. Not only did the guys you listed have solid rookie seasons, but reaching back even further, guys like Anquan Boldin and Marques Colston also came out of the gate hot with stellar rookie seasons.

With offenses becoming more and more pass oriented every year, I think this trend is likely to continue. I think one reason rookie RBs are still favored more over rookie WRs is they are perceived be less risky, have more immediate opportunity (usually), and also RBs are more scarce.

It really just depends on what kind of a drafter/player you are in those middle and late rounds. Are you the kind that prefers sold-but-unspectacular veterans with a track record of mediocrity but you at least know won't crap out on you? Or do you prefer to swing for the fences. Personally I like to go for a little of both, and I never shy away from a rookie WR in a good situation / with good upside simply because he is a rookie.... (that said TRich is still the first rookie that should be drafted this year).


yup. that's me. i take solace in the fact that my research and knowledge will help me find players on the WW for the strikeouts. solid "meh" guys can always be found on the wire. home run hits? there might be a half dozen tops that come off the wire for the whole season. i don't want to perform admirably. i want to win.

_________________
"and i said...we said...i said are you strong...they said i'm strong if you strong...and i said we strong then!"


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group