More 2020 Hype: "If You Need A RB or WR, this is the draft for you."

[Cameron Giles]

Seeing someone like Edwards draft stock drop after missing the combine always makes me wonder how the Titans sunk a top 5 pick into Corey Davis off absolutely no athletic testing.

He looked really good on tape, route running and athleticism. At the time I really didn't' have any concerns about his athleticism b/c he looked plenty fast on tape. But in hindsight maybe not the best decision, players injured at combine time always seem like a toss up.

Davis was a pretty safe prospect. As you said, he could run all the routes, he had size, speed, athleticism wasn't a problem, he has some twitch, some YAC ability, and no character concerns. And for the stat grinders, Davis' breakout age and dominator rating were both 96th percentile. So, college production wasn't a question either.

Why he hasn't translated is very strange, but I think it's a combination of controllable and uncontrollable things.

To me, the process is more important than the result. I'll continue taking chances on players like Davis.

[FantasyFreak]

Seeing someone like Edwards draft stock drop after missing the combine always makes me wonder how the Titans sunk a top 5 pick into Corey Davis off absolutely no athletic testing.

He looked really good on tape, route running and athleticism. At the time I really didn't' have any concerns about his athleticism b/c he looked plenty fast on tape. But in hindsight maybe not the best decision, players injured at combine time always seem like a toss up.

Davis was a pretty safe prospect. As you said, he could run all the routes, he had size, speed, athleticism wasn't a problem, he has some twitch, some YAC ability, and no character concerns. And for the stat grinders, Davis' breakout age and dominator rating were both 96th percentile. So, college production wasn't a question either.

Why he hasn't translated is very strange, but I think it's a combination of controllable and uncontrollable things.

To me, the process is more important than the result. I'll continue taking chances on players like Davis.

Disagree. That's the problem. You don't know his athleticism. Watching tape doesn't give you that. Especially against poor competition. You don't have any credibility for your tape watching. Neither do I. That's all people had to go on. Tape. That's the point he was making. They missed. If you had Davis as a top player, you missed. Watching tape vs bad competition without any athletic testing did not give a good indication as to the prospect Davis was. If it did, he'd be a relevant football player. If you thought Davis was a top 5 pick, like the Titans did, you whiffed, period. I liked Davis, I saw very early on I was wrong, however. The idea that a small school prospect with good stats but no athletic measurables was "safe", is not a sound statement, IMO. You mention he had speed and athleticism, but we really don't know that in any quantifiable way, and the results suggest you are very wrong about that.

[Cameron Giles]

He looked really good on tape, route running and athleticism. At the time I really didn't' have any concerns about his athleticism b/c he looked plenty fast on tape. But in hindsight maybe not the best decision, players injured at combine time always seem like a toss up.

Davis was a pretty safe prospect. As you said, he could run all the routes, he had size, speed, athleticism wasn't a problem, he has some twitch, some YAC ability, and no character concerns. And for the stat grinders, Davis' breakout age and dominator rating were both 96th percentile. So, college production wasn't a question either.

Why he hasn't translated is very strange, but I think it's a combination of controllable and uncontrollable things.

To me, the process is more important than the result. I'll continue taking chances on players like Davis.

Disagree. That's the problem. You don't know his athleticism. Watching tape doesn't give you that. Especially against poor competition. You don't have any credibility for your tape watching. Neither do I. That's all people had to go on. Tape. That's the point he was making. They missed. If you had Davis as a top player, you missed. Watching tape vs bad competition without any athletic testing did not give a good indication as to the prospect Davis was. If it did, he'd be a relevant football player.

You're missing the part that he measured out great analytically too. Elite athleticism isn't necessary to be a great WR. It doesn't mean you can be the worst athlete ever, but Davis' athleticism on tape did not raise any flags. You don't need to be a professional scout to recognize that when you watch a game. If you need to add credibility to it, then read the opinions of scouts who know more, who also were not concerned about his athleticism or his skill level. Davis was universally praised as a prospect. I don't think anyone expected him to be drafted in the Top 10 though.

Also, the competition argument wasn't valid.

vs. Michigan State: 10/154/1
vs. Michigan State: 8/96/1
vs. Wisconsin: 6/73/1

Yes, people missed on Davis, but that doesn't mean the process of evaluating was wrong. The NFL missed on Sammy Watkins, but you still draft a prospect with the profile of Sammy Watkins 9 times out of 10.

[FantasyFreak]

Davis was a pretty safe prospect. As you said, he could run all the routes, he had size, speed, athleticism wasn't a problem, he has some twitch, some YAC ability, and no character concerns. And for the stat grinders, Davis' breakout age and dominator rating were both 96th percentile. So, college production wasn't a question either.

Why he hasn't translated is very strange, but I think it's a combination of controllable and uncontrollable things.

To me, the process is more important than the result. I'll continue taking chances on players like Davis.

Disagree. That's the problem. You don't know his athleticism. Watching tape doesn't give you that. Especially against poor competition. You don't have any credibility for your tape watching. Neither do I. That's all people had to go on. Tape. That's the point he was making. They missed. If you had Davis as a top player, you missed. Watching tape vs bad competition without any athletic testing did not give a good indication as to the prospect Davis was. If it did, he'd be a relevant football player.

You're missing the part that he measured out great analytically too. Elite athleticism isn't necessary to be a great WR. It doesn't mean you can be the worst athlete ever, but Davis' athleticism on tape did not raise any flags. You don't need to be a professional scout to recognize that when you watch a game. If you need to add credibility to it, then read the opinions of scouts who know more, who also were not concerned about his athleticism or his skill level. Davis was universally praised as a prospect. I don't think anyone expected him to be drafted in the Top 10 though.

Also, the competition argument wasn't valid.

vs. Michigan State: 10/154/1
vs. Michigan State: 8/96/1
vs. Wisconsin: 6/73/1

Yes, people missed on Davis, but that doesn't mean the process of evaluating was wrong. The NFL missed on Sammy Watkins, but you still draft a prospect with the profile of Sammy Watkins 9 times out of 10.

I watched him vs Michigan St. I liked Davis. I didn't expect a top 5 pick, though luckily I didn't draft him, because I don't take WR's over top RB prospects because it's bad process, but I missed. You draft Watkins over Davis every time, regardless. He was a better prospect, and it's not close, IMO, coming out of college. The small school domination without athletic testing can lead you astray. A couple of good games vs better teams is a small sample size, especially when he's going to get targeted, and most likely be trailing in those games. Davis was obviously a good player vs 2 good teams, but the athletic testing is important.

I'd continue to take "chances" on a guy like Davis: At his 1.01 to 1.02 price? What do you mean by that? You'd spend your top 2 or 3 pick on a guy from a small school who had no athletic testing but had good scoring metrics? It's just terrible process, if you do that, IMO. 2014 being an acception, but even then Sankey was not a great prospect or even close to the WR's in that draft relative to other years. It is better to take the best RB's in the draft over the top WR's, if they are fairly close in range of testing/production and understanding RB's tend to get slightly less draft capital. More often than not, they will net you that WR plus the next year, even if they were drafted half a round later if they had similar analytics vs their peers.

It's just like drafting Treadwell after his pro day. He had only breakout age working for him, and "tape".

Jacobs ans Sanders are perfect examples of why RB is usually the best pick early in a rookie draft. Even in a "down year" class, those 2 players, and AJB and DK are probably the next solid picks. Now Jacobs was a "tape guy", not an analytics guy, but he was going to gain touches and production due to his draft spot, and he ended up being extremely efficient with his touches, but regardless, he was going to hold good value based on touches alone, year 1.

I had AJB as my WR1, and DK as my WR2 on my final rankings, I had a good year, but unfortunately did not end up with DK anywhere, as my draft went. I don't value tape without athleticism because that's where my misses have fallen, and the Titans blew a top 5 pick on that. I still had Jacobs and Sanders above both WR's on my final rankings, although I had AJB ahead of Sanders as a player. I may have missed on that, as AJB may be value higher now, but more often than not, the RB's gain more value over WR's if the rankings are close, after year 1. Drafting WR's early in rookie drafts over RB's is doing it wrong, more often than not. That Davis draft had guys like CMC who should definitely have been taken over him. Fournette, too. Dalvin was an anomaly. He clearly seemed to be less than 100 percent at the combine. His tape did not match his testing at all, however, if you drafted a RB in the top 2 rounds of that draft, vs the top WR's in that draft, you won, most likely, and that is the case most years.

[Kmani6]

Disagree. That's the problem. You don't know his athleticism. Watching tape doesn't give you that. Especially against poor competition. You don't have any credibility for your tape watching. Neither do I. That's all people had to go on. Tape. That's the point he was making. They missed. If you had Davis as a top player, you missed. Watching tape vs bad competition without any athletic testing did not give a good indication as to the prospect Davis was. If it did, he'd be a relevant football player.

You're missing the part that he measured out great analytically too. Elite athleticism isn't necessary to be a great WR. It doesn't mean you can be the worst athlete ever, but Davis' athleticism on tape did not raise any flags. You don't need to be a professional scout to recognize that when you watch a game. If you need to add credibility to it, then read the opinions of scouts who know more, who also were not concerned about his athleticism or his skill level. Davis was universally praised as a prospect. I don't think anyone expected him to be drafted in the Top 10 though.

Also, the competition argument wasn't valid.

vs. Michigan State: 10/154/1
vs. Michigan State: 8/96/1
vs. Wisconsin: 6/73/1

Yes, people missed on Davis, but that doesn't mean the process of evaluating was wrong. The NFL missed on Sammy Watkins, but you still draft a prospect with the profile of Sammy Watkins 9 times out of 10.

I watched him vs Michigan St. I liked Davis. I didn't expect a top 5 pick, though luckily I didn't draft him, because I don't take WR's over top RB prospects because it's bad process, but I missed. You draft Watkins over Davis every time, regardless. He was a better prospect, and it's not close, IMO, coming out of college. The small school domination without athletic testing can lead you astray. A couple of good games vs better teams is a small sample size, especially when he's going to get targeted, and most likely be trailing in those games. Davis was obviously a good player vs 2 good teams, but the athletic testing is important.

I'd continue to take "chances" on a guy like Davis: At his 1.01 to 1.02 price? What do you mean by that? You'd spend your top 2 or 3 pick on a guy from a small school who had no athletic testing but had good scoring metrics? It's just terrible process, if you do that, IMO. 2014 being an acception, but even then Sankey was not a great prospect or even close to the WR's in that draft relative to other years. It is better to take the best RB's in the draft over the top WR's, if they are fairly close in range of testing/production and understanding RB's tend to get slightly less draft capital. More often than not, they will net you that WR plus the next year, even if they were drafted half a round later if they had similar analytics vs their peers.

It's just like drafting Treadwell after his pro day. He had only breakout age working for him, and "tape".

Jacobs ans Sanders are perfect examples of why RB is usually the best pick early in a rookie draft. Even in a "down year" class, those 2 players, and AJB and DK are probably the next solid picks. Now Jacobs was a "tape guy", not an analytics guy, but he was going to gain touches and production due to his draft spot, and he ended up being extremely efficient with his touches, but regardless, he was going to hold good value based on touches alone, year 1.

I had AJB as my WR1, and DK as my WR2 on my final rankings, I had a good year, but unfortunately did not end up with DK anywhere, as my draft went. I don't value tape without athleticism because that's where my misses have fallen, and the Titans blew a top 5 pick on that. I still had Jacobs and Sanders above both WR's on my final rankings, although I had AJB ahead of Sanders as a player. I may have missed on that, as AJB may be value higher now, but more often than not, the RB's gain more value over WR's if the rankings are close, after year 1. Drafting WR's early in rookie drafts over RB's is doing it wrong, more often than not. That Davis draft had guys like CMC who should definitely have been taken over him. Fournette, too. Dalvin was an anomaly. He clearly seemed to be less than 100 percent at the combine. His tape did not match his testing at all, however, if you drafted a RB in the top 2 rounds of that draft, vs the top WR's in that draft, you won, most likely, and that is the case most years.

I don’t think that’s necessarily true. Dmont got tons of touches and his value is pretty low because he just isn’t that good. The player will hold good value if they are a good player.

Also, I see where you’re coming from about athleticism, but at the same time many of the elite dynasty WR’s did not test as superior athletes by any means (I.e. KA, MT, Adams, Hopkins, JuJu)...

[Cameron Giles]

I watched him vs Michigan St. I liked Davis. I didn't expect a top 5 pick, though luckily I didn't draft him, because I don't take WR's over top RB prospects because it's bad process, but I missed. You draft Watkins over Davis every time, regardless. He was a better prospect, and it's not close, IMO, coming out of college. The small school domination without athletic testing can lead you astray. A couple of good games vs better teams is a small sample size, especially when he's going to get targeted, and most likely be trailing in those games. Davis was obviously a good player vs 2 good teams, but the athletic testing is important.

I'd continue to take "chances" on a guy like Davis: At his 1.01 to 1.02 price? What do you mean by that? You'd spend your top 2 or 3 pick on a guy from a small school who had no athletic testing but had good scoring metrics? It's just terrible process, if you do that, IMO. 2014 being an acception, but even then Sankey was not a great prospect or even close to the WR's in that draft relative to other years. It is better to take the best RB's in the draft over the top WR's, if they are fairly close in range of testing/production and understanding RB's tend to get slightly less draft capital. More often than not, they will net you that WR plus the next year, even if they were drafted half a round later if they had similar analytics vs their peers.

You have to show me what type of athletic concerns Davis had before the draft for this to be valid, because athleticism hasn't been his issue in college or in the NFL. WR isn't a position where you need to be a high-level athlete to succeed. It's mostly a position of technical skills and football IQ. If you happen to have elite athleticism on top of that, then it's a bonus.

I'm not buying the small school angle at all, especially when we're seeing more small school prospects succeed.

Greg Jennings, John Brown, Cooper Kupp, Antonio Brown, Julian Edelman, T.Y. Hilton, David Johnson, Adam Thielen, etc. Sure, the rest weren't drafted in the 1st round, but that doesn't matter. Davis was good regardless of who he played, and you have to scout the player and not the uniform.

I had AJB as my WR1, and DK as my WR2 on my final rankings, I had a good year, but unfortunately did not end up with DK anywhere, as my draft went. I don't value tape without athleticism because that's where my misses have fallen, and the Titans blew a top 5 pick on that. I still had Jacobs and Sanders above both WR's on my final rankings, although I had AJB ahead of Sanders as a player. I may have missed on that, as AJB may be value higher now, but more often than not, the RB's gain more value over WR's if the rankings are close, after year 1. Drafting WR's early in rookie drafts over RB's is doing it wrong, more often than not. That Davis draft had guys like CMC who should definitely have been taken over him. Fournette, too. Dalvin was an anomaly. He clearly seemed to be less than 100 percent at the combine. His tape did not match his testing at all, however, if you drafted a RB in the top 2 rounds of that draft, vs the top WR's in that draft, you won, most likely, and that is the case most years.

This is another conversation, and I've been on both sides of that argument. Right now, I don't have a preference with RB over WR, and vice versa. The goal should just be to get the best players. There's risk on both sides. RBs tend to accumulate value faster, but have shorter peaks due to injury and dependency on offensive lines. WRs tend to take more development, but have longer peaks with less hits.

[stoneghost28]

I think that's a bit overly simplistic. Normally I'd be right with you, and I do think it's true, if you give people a choice: if you could lock in, "a hit" but not the scale of it," or you have a risky pick, but one that mathematically has better odds than a similarly risky hit of returning higher value in the short term, people would want to just keep it simple and get their "hit".

The problem is, we don't have that, we just have an environment where there are hits, and there are misses, and there's a clear better ROI to drafting RB's early than drafting WR's early because they just hit earlier and more often than WR prospects when it comes to the top guys (and actually the day 3 guys as well, I would imagine (since my cursory study last year revealed an absolutely horrific hit rate for WR's drafted after round 4 the past 8-10 years).

We know RB's typically produce sooner, and climb faster in value than WR's, even WR's that eventual turn out to be studs. The cost is that the RB career is half the length of the WR career.

W/that knowledge in tow you kinda have to decide, am I drafting to get a hit, or am I drafting to get as much value as possible for my roster and/or for trade and risk a miss while I'm doing it (although in truth, all picks are risk).

In my first four rookie drafts playing dynasty, I just prioritized my valuations w/some occasional stumbles over need (idiotically taking Perine w/a 2nd in '17 when I didn't believe in the talent, taking Engram over Kamara in my cursed league that year (everything I've done in that league has blown up in my face over the years other than rookie picks w/those two exceptions-I'm about ready to go Full Costanza there) and have really benefited from it over the years. This is the first time I've considered prioritizing RB's and considering I've got 20 picks in the 1.01-1.06 zone across 13 leagues (and a further 7 in the 1.07-1.10 area), my difficulties are going to be with my 1.04-1.06 picks because I've got 11 or 12 of those compared to the 8 or 9 top 3 picks I've got. I imagine my decision will be completely contingent upon the combine and the draft and how impacts CEH and Akers and Higgins and Reagor.

[Orenthal Shames]

Ryan McDowell tweeted 8 of the top 50 dynasty WRs are 2020 rookies with Jeudy at 20 and Lamb at 21.

I need to explore the market for cashing in my 1.05.

[djeternal2]

Ryan McDowell tweeted 8 of the top 50 dynasty WRs are 2020 rookies with Jeudy at 20 and Lamb at 21.

I need to explore the market for cashing in my 1.05.

Rookie fever is a real thing and we haven't even gotten to the combine or draft yet. By August 5 of the top 8 dynasty WRs will be 2020 rookies.

[bjd5211]

Ryan McDowell tweeted 8 of the top 50 dynasty WRs are 2020 rookies with Jeudy at 20 and Lamb at 21.

I need to explore the market for cashing in my 1.05.

Rookie fever is a real thing and we haven't even gotten to the combine or draft yet. By August 5 of the top 8 dynasty WRs will be 2020 rookies.

I mean is that really that outlandish? Value and production are two totally different things. Ekeler was a top 5 RB in PPR scoring this year, but is anyone valuing him as anywhere near a top 5 RB? How many WRs are there that you would take over Jeudy and Lamb? I highly doubt there are many that can list 20-25 WRs they would take. Same with the next tier of rookie WRs compared to the top 50, part of their value is the fact that they can exponentially improve their value between today and a year from now, where a lot of veterans can't.

[bjd5211]

Just as a small snapshot look at Mizelle's latest ADP data for non-rookie WR data: http://mizelle.net/mfl/2020/

46 Anthony Miller
47 John Brown
48 Dede Westbrook
49 James Washington
50 Jamison Crowder

Anyone taking those guys over players like Higgins, Shenault, Ruggs, Reagor, Jefferson? I'm not.

[djeternal2]

Ryan McDowell tweeted 8 of the top 50 dynasty WRs are 2020 rookies with Jeudy at 20 and Lamb at 21.

I need to explore the market for cashing in my 1.05.

Rookie fever is a real thing and we haven't even gotten to the combine or draft yet. By August 5 of the top 8 dynasty WRs will be 2020 rookies.

I mean is that really that outlandish? Value and production are two totally different things. Ekeler was a top 5 RB in PPR scoring this year, but is anyone valuing him as anywhere near a top 5 RB? How many WRs are there that you would take over Jeudy and Lamb? I highly doubt there are many that can list 20-25 WRs they would take. Same with the next tier of rookie WRs compared to the top 50, part of their value is the fact that they can exponentially improve their value between today and a year from now, where a lot of veterans can't.

Really? You don't think it's outlandish pre-combine & draft that there's already 8 rookies in the top 50 WR? This is how we had ppl still holding onto Harmon & Butler as top 5 rookie picks after the NFL draft because they had they valued them there before any data came in.

[bjd5211]

Rookie fever is a real thing and we haven't even gotten to the combine or draft yet. By August 5 of the top 8 dynasty WRs will be 2020 rookies.

I mean is that really that outlandish? Value and production are two totally different things. Ekeler was a top 5 RB in PPR scoring this year, but is anyone valuing him as anywhere near a top 5 RB? How many WRs are there that you would take over Jeudy and Lamb? I highly doubt there are many that can list 20-25 WRs they would take. Same with the next tier of rookie WRs compared to the top 50, part of their value is the fact that they can exponentially improve their value between today and a year from now, where a lot of veterans can't.

Really? You don't think it's outlandish pre-combine & draft that there's already 8 rookies in the top 50 WR?

Nope, not at all. There are 6 (Jeudy, Lamb, Higgins, Shenault, Ruggs, Reagor) who are already basically locks as top 50 caliber, and 4-5 more you can make an argument for.

[Factory of Sadness]

These are interesting questions about rookie value. As long as you understand that the potential value of your rookie pick may realistically be that high, but that it also goes down to near zero, I don't see a problem with those rankings. They are very much IF rankings. If Jeudy is who we think he is, then he may go as far up as that. The great temptation of the running back is that in the right situation, a bunch of them could potentially be a top 6 back. They won't all be...

[honcho55]

Man, this class continues to get hyped out of control.

Just read an article that Daniel Jeremiah grades out 27 WRs as round 1-3 prospects. Insane!