Dynasty League Football Forum

IZigUZag wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:23 pm 1. Kirk racked up 1,000 yards receiving as a true freshman at Texas A&M.
2. Christian Kirk outproduced Larry Fitzgerald as a rookie.
3. Kirk's 26.8% dominator rating was 23rd in the NFL among WRs, as a rookie. This means he likely would've been a 1,000+ yard receiver if the Cardinals threw for even 4,000 yards-- which should be very attainable in an up tempo, high passing volume offense.

Kirk came into the league as a very good prospect, and has already proven to be a quality NFL receiver.

4. Most receivers make a massive jump from year 1 to year 2.
5. His competition for touches are now a year odler (Fitz), and 2 very green receivers that are struggling through OTAs; and one rookie Receiver taken in the 6th round.
6. He ran a similar offense in college, putting him even further ahead of the curb.

So he's a quality receiver that could become even better this season, and his new competition are incredibly overrated at least for this season. And while we don't know exactly how things are going to shake out in the long term, Kirk came into the NFL with by far the most impressive college profile.

The potential that this offense blows up is there, but I like Kirk's chances of at least being a 1,000 yard 6TD receiver this season; with the potential to become a building block for your fantasy team.

djeternal2 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:29 pm
I like Kirk. I think he's got plenty of upside; but, I don't know how you can say that he's already proven to be a quality NFL WR. He had 43 590 3 in his rookie season. He showed flashes on a bad AZ team.

1. Kirk racked up 1,000 yards receiving as a true freshman at Texas A&M.
2. Christian Kirk outproduced Larry Fitzgerald as a rookie.
3. Kirk's 26.8% dominator rating was 23rd in the NFL among WRs, as a rookie. This means he likely would've been a 1,000+ yard receiver if the Cardinals threw for even 4,000 yards-- which should be very attainable in an up tempo, high passing volume offense.

IZigUZag wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:42 pm

djeternal2 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:29 pm
I like Kirk. I think he's got plenty of upside; but, I don't know how you can say that he's already proven to be a quality NFL WR. He had 43 590 3 in his rookie season. He showed flashes on a bad AZ team.

1. Kirk racked up 1,000 yards receiving as a true freshman at Texas A&M.
2. Christian Kirk outproduced Larry Fitzgerald as a rookie.
3. Kirk's 26.8% dominator rating was 23rd in the NFL among WRs, as a rookie. This means he likely would've been a 1,000+ yard receiver if the Cardinals threw for even 4,000 yards-- which should be very attainable in an up tempo, high passing volume offense.

That's my process. His production as a rookie was very impressive. Because he was in such a bad offense, his production has to be measured in context; which is why I used his dominator rating to compare his production with other receivers in better offenses.

It's not a perfect system; obviously elite receivers elevate their offenses (AJG, Julio Jones for instance)... but I think it tells you a lot more than his raw counting stats from an offense that only threw for 2523 yards and in a season where he only played 12.5 games.

djeternal2 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:49 pm

IZigUZag wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:42 pm

djeternal2 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:29 pm
I like Kirk. I think he's got plenty of upside; but, I don't know how you can say that he's already proven to be a quality NFL WR. He had 43 590 3 in his rookie season. He showed flashes on a bad AZ team.

1. Kirk racked up 1,000 yards receiving as a true freshman at Texas A&M.
2. Christian Kirk outproduced Larry Fitzgerald as a rookie.
3. Kirk's 26.8% dominator rating was 23rd in the NFL among WRs, as a rookie. This means he likely would've been a 1,000+ yard receiver if the Cardinals threw for even 4,000 yards-- which should be very attainable in an up tempo, high passing volume offense.

That's my process. His production as a rookie was very impressive. Because he was in such a bad offense, his production has to be measured in context; which is why I used his dominator rating to compare his production with other receivers in better offenses.

It's not a perfect system; obviously elite receivers elevate their offenses (AJG, Julio Jones for instance)... but I think it tells you a lot more than his raw counting stats from an offense that only threw for 2523 yards and in a season where he only played 12.5 games.

I never said he can't get better which is why I started with saying i like Kirk. But in no way has he shown that he's a quality NFL WR. Especially considering one of your 3 points has to do with college stats not NFL. Not sure what you are looking at for #2 since pro football reference shows Fitz putting up 58 780 8 in his rookie year. So that leaves #3 and even that is suspect since you are extrapolating out what his stats may have been if AZ was a better team last year. I hate to say it if AZ was better last year his stats would have likely gone up but most of that would've gone to DJ & Fitz the 1 & 2 in AZ last year. Again I like him as a prospect but to say he's already a proven quality NFL WR is just false.

IZigUZag wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 1:00 pm

No, I mean he outproduced Larry Fitzgerald while they were both healthy, in 2018...

I mentioned his college production to say that he entered the NFL with a very good chance to succeed, and has demonstrated that ability in the NFL.

You're really underestimating how important he was to that offense... since Josh Rosen took over center in week 3 until Kirk got injured the team averaged 16.9 ppg; after that the team averaged 12.5 ppg against some very soft defenses.

It's cool if you don't agree with my process. You seem to be one of those guys that needs to see it (raw stats), to believe it, which is fine. I'm perfectly fine trying to analyze data in context. Agree to disagree, man.

djeternal2 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 1:15 pm

IZigUZag wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 1:00 pm

No, I mean he outproduced Larry Fitzgerald while they were both healthy, in 2018...

I mentioned his college production to say that he entered the NFL with a very good chance to succeed, and has demonstrated that ability in the NFL.

You're really underestimating how important he was to that offense... since Josh Rosen took over center in week 3 until Kirk got injured the team averaged 16.9 ppg; after that the team averaged 12.5 ppg against some very soft defenses.

It's cool if you don't agree with my process. You seem to be one of those guys that needs to see it (raw stats), to believe it, which is fine. I'm perfectly fine trying to analyze data in context. Agree to disagree, man.

I don't think you understand what the word proven means. You can have whatever system you want to project players but that does not make them proven.


proven
/ˈpro͞ovn/

adjective

demonstrated by evidence or argument to be true or existing.
"a proven ability to work hard"

(of a new method, system, or treatment) tried and tested.


Also if you are stating a stat you might want to provide the context when you quote it. It would clear up any misinterpretations. Like for instance saying Kirk outperformed Fitz in 2018 when they were both healthy is much clearer than just saying Kirk outperformed Fitz as a rookie. And just did the #s

Kirk: 43 590 3 = 120 pts
Fitz: 47 503 5 = 127 pts

Also if you are stating a stat you might want to provide the context when you quote it. It would clear up any misinterpretations. Like for instance saying Kirk outperformed Fitz in 2018 when they were both healthy is much clearer than just saying Kirk outperformed Fitz as a rookie

IZigUZag wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 1:33 pm

djeternal2 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 1:15 pm

IZigUZag wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 1:00 pm

No, I mean he outproduced Larry Fitzgerald while they were both healthy, in 2018...

I mentioned his college production to say that he entered the NFL with a very good chance to succeed, and has demonstrated that ability in the NFL.

You're really underestimating how important he was to that offense... since Josh Rosen took over center in week 3 until Kirk got injured the team averaged 16.9 ppg; after that the team averaged 12.5 ppg against some very soft defenses.

It's cool if you don't agree with my process. You seem to be one of those guys that needs to see it (raw stats), to believe it, which is fine. I'm perfectly fine trying to analyze data in context. Agree to disagree, man.

I don't think you understand what the word proven means. You can have whatever system you want to project players but that does not make them proven.


proven
/ˈpro͞ovn/

adjective

demonstrated by evidence or argument to be true or existing.
"a proven ability to work hard"

(of a new method, system, or treatment) tried and tested.


Also if you are stating a stat you might want to provide the context when you quote it. It would clear up any misinterpretations. Like for instance saying Kirk outperformed Fitz in 2018 when they were both healthy is much clearer than just saying Kirk outperformed Fitz as a rookie. And just did the #s

Kirk: 43 590 3 = 120 pts
Fitz: 47 503 5 = 127 pts

We just have ideological differences on what constitutes a proven NFL player. In my opinion, you don't have to have the raw counting stats to be a quality NFL player; just like the converse is true.. just because you have the raw counting stats doesn't necessarily mean you are either. Kirk was by far the most efficient receiver in that offense, the offense's ppg went down after he was injured indicating that he was indeed elevating the offense to some degree; which is rare for a rookie WR. When you combine this with his college resume, I'm as sure as I can be that he's already proven he's at least a quality NFL WR... he was likely already a good receiver in his rookie year.

The fact that Fitz outproduced him (fantasty wise, not receiving yards) with a non-sticky stat like TD's on far more targets is pretty irrelevant. If you really want to get down to the nitty gritty with that statement Fitzgerald caught a 32 yard pass after Kirk was injured in that game... but Either way, it's close.. and you're really focusing on the wrong details here. He was comparably productive to Fitzgerald as a 21 year old rookie... that's the facet of my argument you should be focusing on.

Also if you are stating a stat you might want to provide the context when you quote it. It would clear up any misinterpretations. Like for instance saying Kirk outperformed Fitz in 2018 when they were both healthy is much clearer than just saying Kirk outperformed Fitz as a rookie

Or.. now this is a crazy idea; but you could also use your critical thinking skills to clear up very obvious ambiguity in statements.

gameaholica wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 9:38 pm Have an offer for Kirk, 2019 1.8, 2019 1.11, and I would receive Melvin Gordon.

hoos89 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 2:36 pm

gameaholica wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 9:38 pm Have an offer for Kirk, 2019 1.8, 2019 1.11, and I would receive Melvin Gordon.

I don't love Gordon, but that seems like crazy value for him to me given that 1.8 and 1.11 in this year's draft aren't all that valuable.