Tyler Lockett - Get him before it's too late

[jimmycricket14]

Almost forgot and left him in this week, but ended up taking him out.

That may seem wrong in retrospect but it was the right move. It took until week 15 for him finally to have a great game is a major concern for his future. Seattle clearly doesn't trust him despite all of the supposed confidence they heaped on him during the off season. You can't beat yourself up over benching someone who hasn't had double digits more than a couple of times the entire year and zero TDs.

This is the wrong game to claim that Seattle doesn't trust him seeing as he got his first start of the season and had the most targets of any Seattle WR. I am really not all that concerned for his future. He didn't have the breakout year we all hoped he would but he still looks legit when involved in the offense. If he manages to keep a spot in 2 WR sets I suspect we will see much more boom than bust next year

[Lotto4Life]

Almost forgot and left him in this week, but ended up taking him out.

That may seem wrong in retrospect but it was the right move.

All my other options are either on the injury report, or named Jeremy Maclin.

[skip]

This is the wrong game to claim that Seattle doesn't trust him seeing as he got his first start of the season and had the most targets of any Seattle WR.

Those are the reasons why... Go back to the off season and take a look at what Pete Carroll was saying about him. The team expected him to be their #1. Not only has that not been the case, it took until week 15 until he received his first start? Maybe that doesn't bother you but that is a HUGE red flag for me for a player that supposedly had so much promise. This situation is one that Lockett owners were indeed sitting back and waiting for...but it isn't as though his value is suddenly back to where it was just a few short months ago. Seattle HAS to make a commitment to start him not only for the remainder of this season but into next as well or he's just going to be another overdrafted young WR with "upside".

[Fezzik]

This is the wrong game to claim that Seattle doesn't trust him seeing as he got his first start of the season and had the most targets of any Seattle WR.

Those are the reasons why... Go back to the off season and take a look at what Pete Carroll was saying about him. The team expected him to be their #1. Not only has that not been the case, it took until week 15 until he received his first start? Maybe that doesn't bother you but that is a HUGE red flag for me for a player that supposedly had so much promise. This situation is one that Lockett owners were indeed sitting back and waiting for...but it isn't as though his value is suddenly back to where it was just a few short months ago. Seattle HAS to make a commitment to start him not only for the remainder of this season but into next as well or he's just going to be another overdrafted young WR with "upside".

Skip, perhaps this question is best answered elsewhere, but I've noticed a pretty consistent pattern to your posting that I wanted to ask you about. You seem to consistently value production over potential, which I certainly don't argue with - however, in this kind of a format (dynasty), isn't it best to build your team with a balance of buying low? Why not pay a lower price for a player that you think will break out instead of full price for a player that has broken out?

I'm thinking of players like Lockett. Also Moncrief, McKinnon, etc. You seem to shade these guys a lot for a price where I think they're reasonable buys.

It just seems like you're always gonna pay full retail price paying for a guy like say, a Jordan Howard who has been producing well for the last 8 weeks or whatever.

Go back to the off season and take a look at what Pete Carroll was saying about him. The team expected him to be their #1.

I actually don't think that's the case. Thought it was always Baldwin, and I think most people agreed with that. They did say they were going to get him heavily involved, but I don't think anyone expected him to be the most targeted WR on Seattle. I for one was happy to hold at my cost (got him at 2.09 in the rookie draft) rather than cash out at the first I was offered for him. Yeah it's a running team, yeah the situation isn't great, nobody is really disputing that. Sure we'd have liked to see him get more involved. I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I'll jsut ask - at what price do you think is reasonable to cash out on Lockett for? What is the latest rookie pick in a 2017 12 team 0.5 PPR you'd take for him, a 2.10? But you'd keep a 2.09?

[Phaded]

I stashed Lockett as I got him cheap around week 8-9 or so.

He is still only 24 and has had a lot more flashes at the NFL level than guys who are constantly ranked ahead of him.
(He was the 42nd WR off the board in November ADP, I would have a hard time picking 41 WRs above him).

The usage last night is encouraging and provides reason for optimism, but it also does not mean I am screaming he is a must-have at this point.

Also - it seems to be overlooked that Lockett has been hurt almost all year.

[btv802]

The usage last night is encouraging and provides reason for optimism, but it also does not mean I am screaming he is a must-have at this point.

Yeah the only reason I unearthed the thread was because I feel the same way as this comment. Just a small win for the patient Lockett owner who didn't wet their pants and sell because he hasn't done what Matt Harmon said he would do.

Also - it seems to be overlooked that Lockett has been hurt almost all year.

Agreed.

[Friction]

I got him off waivers late last year as somebody dropped him after a dud game or two, which surprised me. My plan was always to hold for a couple years to see how the 'Hawks offense evolves from the run-heavy approach with Beast Mode. Unfortunately, Wilson was dinged, Oline struggles, and the overall offense has been bland for most of the year. I think he is still a decent stash as I still think he can be a WR3/Flex type in PPR leagues, in the near future.

[maxhyde]

I agree the injury was a factor. Noticeable in returns anyway
However, let's not make excuses for anything. SEA was pretty bad offensively while Wilson was hurting but CMike (surprisingly) kept them somewhat respectable. Wilson got healthy and Baldwin/Graham were healthy and major factors. It would have been foolish to highlight a less than 100% Lockett.
Besides other than at QB/RB SEA is going to be an inconsistent place for fantasy stats imo...that is part of why Wilson is a great young QB. I am sure he has favorites but he wants to win more

[skip]

You seem to consistently value production over potential, which I certainly don't argue with - however, in this kind of a format (dynasty), isn't it best to build your team with a balance of buying low? Why not pay a lower price for a player that you think will break out instead of full price for a player that has broken out?

I have no issue with buying low but the players you mention (Lockett, Moncrief, McKinnon and others) are not that at all. And I have plenty of young upside players I do like (Doctson, Coleman for examples) but I don't like the idea of paying a price based on assumptions of realized potential. I actually think this is a bit of a common mistake among dynasty owners and why you see some make "too many" trades. They get ideas in their heads about upside and make roster moves based on the idea that ALL of the players they go after will reach that upside. When enough of them fail their overall teams suffers.

Go back and look at startup drafts this past off season and see where these guys were going. In many leagues Moncrief was getting drafted before Hilton. Lockett was getting drafted shortly thereafter. So these guys are worth paying high end WR2 prices? This isn't "buy low" this is paying a price assuming these players will meet their supposed potential. In rookie draft terms you would have been paying early 1st round pick prices.

You asked specifically about Lockett's value. Fair value is a middle 2nd. I had him as a borderline 1st in this past rookie draft and he's even performed lower than my expectations (850 yards). It wouldn't surprise me at all if Lockett owners use this specific game to try to justify that he's recovered basically all of the value he lost over the first 3 months of the season. If you are able to pay the 2.09 TODAY, that's a "buy low" type of price. I wouldn't pay a 1st but it wouldn't surprise me if that is what his market is suddenly demanding again...

I went back to look for comments by Pete Carroll regarding Lockett and found this:
Coach Pete Carroll confirmed following minicamp that Tyler Lockett is "a starting wide receiver for us." 6/21 then later that week:
http://www.espn.com/blog/seattle-seahaw ... sive-plans

While he didn't specifically state he was their #1, there were certainly much higher expectations and it should be concerning that Carroll was planning to have him as a starter and that changed. I have to believe that even his staunchest of supporters have to have concerns.

[btv802]

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Lockett owners use this specific game to try to justify that he's recovered basically all of the value he lost over the first 3 months of the season.

I actually packaged him in a deal to get Amari Cooper earlier this season, and after he changed teams again I had the opportunity to buy him back from the league leader (I sold him his '18 1st back to him) and I have no regrets there. As a Lockett owner I'll just chime in here and be honest, I'm not really trying to use this as an opportunity to sell. Seems a bit too transparent, no? Like somebody said a few posts back, just a promising game and an example of how Lockett can be best utilized in the Seahawks offense.

[Shoreline Steamers]

You seem to consistently value production over potential, which I certainly don't argue with - however, in this kind of a format (dynasty), isn't it best to build your team with a balance of buying low? Why not pay a lower price for a player that you think will break out instead of full price for a player that has broken out?

I have no issue with buying low but the players you mention (Lockett, Moncrief, McKinnon and others) are not that at all. And I have plenty of young upside players I do like (Doctson, Coleman for examples) but I don't like the idea of paying a price based on assumptions of realized potential. I actually think this is a bit of a common mistake among dynasty owners and why you see some make "too many" trades. They get ideas in their heads about upside and make roster moves based on the idea that ALL of the players they go after will reach that upside. When enough of them fail their overall teams suffers.

Go back and look at startup drafts this past off season and see where these guys were going. In many leagues Moncrief was getting drafted before Hilton. Lockett was getting drafted shortly thereafter. So these guys are worth paying high end WR2 prices? This isn't "buy low" this is paying a price assuming these players will meet their supposed potential. In rookie draft terms you would have been paying early 1st round pick prices.

You asked specifically about Lockett's value. Fair value is a middle 2nd. I had him as a borderline 1st in this past rookie draft and he's even performed lower than my expectations (850 yards). It wouldn't surprise me at all if Lockett owners use this specific game to try to justify that he's recovered basically all of the value he lost over the first 3 months of the season. If you are able to pay the 2.09 TODAY, that's a "buy low" type of price. I wouldn't pay a 1st but it wouldn't surprise me if that is what his market is suddenly demanding again...

I went back to look for comments by Pete Carroll regarding Lockett and found this:
Coach Pete Carroll confirmed following minicamp that Tyler Lockett is "a starting wide receiver for us." 6/21 then later that week:
http://www.espn.com/blog/seattle-seahaw ... sive-plans

While he didn't specifically state he was their #1, there were certainly much higher expectations and it should be concerning that Carroll was planning to have him as a starter and that changed. I have to believe that even his staunchest of supporters have to have concerns.

I think you make some valid points Skip about perceived value and upside, and what we as fantasy owners are willing to pay for it. Sometimes it pans out and other times not so much.

But Phaded, myself, and likely others pointed out earlier in the thread that part of the reason for Lockett's inclusion in the witness protection program was his knee injury that affected him up until the last couple of games. I realize that's not news to you though, but I still think it's an important component in evaluating his 2016. What Carroll said this summer wasn't disingenuous, but rather derailed by injury. He wasn't going to necessarily be the teams #1 WR, but a starter. Now healthy, he's leapfrogged Kearse to take the #2 spot in the WR rotation.

I'd also add that I agree a rookie 2nd-rounder is probably fair value for Lockett, and it would be tough to find another owner willing to pay a 1st for him at this point. But should he remain healthy and the Seahawks make a deep run in the playoffs his value could continue to rise heading into the offseason. I'm not a truther per-se, I just liked his upside enough to grab him off waivers when his owner in my league became impatient and dropped him. Any value increase above free would be a solid win in that situation, so I'm holding. And hoping.

[timmahawk]

others have said this already, but I think it's important to highlight again. Lockett had a bum knee since week 1 or so. the past few games he's looked much more dynamic as that knee has healed.

[CharlieKelly]

Those are the reasons why... Go back to the off season and take a look at what Pete Carroll was saying about him. The team expected him to be their #1. Not only has that not been the case, it took until week 15 until he received his first start? Maybe that doesn't bother you but that is a HUGE red flag for me for a player that supposedly had so much promise. This situation is one that Lockett owners were indeed sitting back and waiting for...but it isn't as though his value is suddenly back to where it was just a few short months ago. Seattle HAS to make a commitment to start him not only for the remainder of this season but into next as well or he's just going to be another overdrafted young WR with "upside".

I really don't see why anyone should be freaking out about Lockett's lack of production this season. What happened this season is pretty easy to explain.

He's been nursing injuries throughout most of the season,and between the lower body injuries to Wilson and the horrible OLine play, the deep game opportunities (which Lockett excels in) just hasn't been there that often.

This kid showed elite upside as a rookie, but he gets injured as a sophomore and struggles a bit and all of a sudden it's time to jump ship on a sophomore WR?

Some of you guys have no patience with these young guys.

[sloth8u]

[quote="Fezzik]

...This situation is one that Lockett owners were indeed sitting back and waiting for...but it isn't as though his value is suddenly back to where it was just a few short months ago. Seattle HAS to make a commitment to start him not only for the remainder of this season but into next as well or he's just going to be another overdrafted young WR with "upside".[/quote]


Skip, perhaps this question is best answered elsewhere, but I've noticed a pretty consistent pattern to your posting that I wanted to ask you about. You seem to consistently value production over potential, which I certainly don't argue with - however, in this kind of a format (dynasty), isn't it best to build your team with a balance of buying low? Why not pay a lower price for a player that you think will break out instead of full price for a player that has broken out?

I'm thinking of players like Lockett. Also Moncrief, McKinnon, etc. You seem to shade these guys a lot for a price where I think they're reasonable buys.

It just seems like you're always gonna pay full retail price paying for a guy like say, a Jordan Howard who has been producing well for the last 8 weeks [/quote]

The differing strategies....love it!

I can't help but side with proven production, although I'm notorious for hunting down a buy low bargain

[AussieMate]

I like him as a talent, Wish he got more looks on that team. But for the people wondering how his price could possible go down its quite easy for me. People draft in hopes of someone turning into a stud, over a season you may watch some games and believe the ceiling isn't as high as you hoped when drafting so price is therefore lowered. I don't believe hos price should be lower than when drafting but I can definitely see how someone might have a lower view on someone since that view was built off of college production/tape.