Mark Clayton

[Ulterior Motives]

I've given up on players too soon before. He's worthy of a roster spot, imo. I usually don't have receivers ranking around 75th on my roster though.

Fortunately I have several Atlanta receivers (who also moved up and down in the rankings during the preseason), Drew Bennett, and Hackett that I can give up on first.

 

I wouldn't give up on either of those two yet, though the ATL receivers I might. The upside for both Bennett and Hackett is too high, especially due to the fact they didn't play due to minor injuries...Clayton played and just got ignored on a not so good offense....the other two play on big passing teams and were hurt. Big difference looking forward.

[steveg]

Actually, we do a fair bit of talking...obviously not going to catch everything, not to mention what is expected prior to the season starting and what happens in the season often are quite different...but hey, it is what it is. As for the down arrows...there are only direction arrows for those in the top 70...there were others dropped out that weren't noted either. Obviously it is noticeable because of the large fall, but if a guy isn't worth keeping high, there shouldn't be a stipulation that you not drop him more than a certain amount if it is justified...otherwise what good is that. If you drafted Clayton based on preseason rankings to be your third receiver, he still may produce some for you this year in that role. At the moment I believe it's not looking good for that, however, I could be wrong...someone may get hurt, Boller may go airborne, who knows. Bottom line is that I do not believe that right now he justifies being called one of the 70 best receivers for fantasy football players looking forward into the season.

 

Just kinda thought of this case in point. Many prognosticators had reservations about Cadillac Williams and Cedric Benson before the season started...however, most rankings from most sites and magazines kept them in the top 15 backs or so. Week one bore out the naysayers warnings. However, many experts still would have taken either of them in the first couple of rounds over some other backs. It all comes down to analysis and opinion. If you read the analysis for a given player on an expert site or magazine it gives that person's thoughts. Read three magazines, usually get three thoughts. You then have to judge where those fit with your analysis. If you think Clayton deserves to be top 70...keep him in your lineup and make me eat crow. I said before, I'm not afraid to stand by what I say/do, and if I'm wrong I'll say it. Right now I believe I'll be born out...we shall see.

 

Oh yes, and note, he's not 'off my radar dead and buried'. I rank about 125-130 receivers....then submit the top 70. He sits at 75 right now and a good outing this week likely puts him just above 70 next week...so he's definetly not off my radar. And I never mind email questions...and wouldn't use skull and crossbones for Clayton just yet either

 

I registered just so I could respond to this.

 

You have got to be kidding me. You guys ranked Clayton #21 and based on that a lot of us picked him high....and now after one game you rank him 75!!!!?? And what? The same guy that does the preseason rankings doesn't have a say in the in season rankings? Is this the best you can do? Did I pay for this website? Next year I will consider using some other fantasy football site?

[muck]

I registered just so I could respond to this.

 

You have got to be kidding me. You guys ranked Clayton #21 and based on that a lot of us picked him high....and now after one game you rank him 75!!!!?? And what? The same guy that does the preseason rankings doesn't have a say in the in season rankings? Is this the best you can do? Did I pay for this website? Next year I will consider using some other fantasy football site?

 

Uhhhh...

 

DMD does the preseason rankings.

 

Ulterior Motives does the inseason rankings.

 

They are not the same person.

 

They may have different opinions.

 

It's two different guys (each of whom have done a bunch of research and thinking about this) and simply have arrived at different conclusions ... with the only observation point of difference as the first weeks' game.

 

:grainofsalt:

[Timmypg]

Just because he was ranked 21st didn't mean you had to draft him. I avoided a lot of high ranking players. Luckily Clayton was one of them. Unluckily Moss was too.

[Bronco Billy]

Uhhhh...

 

DMD does the preseason rankings.

 

Ulterior Motives does the inseason rankings.

 

They are not the same person.

 

They may have different opinions.

 

It's two different guys (each of whom have done a bunch of research and thinking about this) and simply have arrived at different conclusions ... with the only observation point of difference as the first weeks' game.

 

:grainofsalt:

 

That may be true, muck, but it's a reasonable reaction from someone who is paying into this site for information. It's almost impossible to simply dismiss rankings being that divergent after 1 week of play.

[whoopazz]

I picked him up on waivers last week because he was ranked so high and undrafted in my local (the guy drafted michael clayton by mistake)

[keggerz]

That may be true, muck, but it's a reasonable reaction from someone who is paying into this site for information. It's almost impossible to simply dismiss rankings being that divergent after 1 week of play.

so what happens when you see someone in the game predictions(DMD) with 20yds and no TDs and then in the start bench(WW) you see the same player as a S1.....2 people different views and opinions....DMD did the preseason rankings...he then has others take over for the rest of season rankings....each one of those people have their own opinions too.....and I do agree that you shouldnt dismiss them....but the author answered the questions on why he dropped him

[Bronco Billy]

so what happens when you see someone in the game predictions(DMD) with 20yds and no TDs and then in the start bench(WW) you see the same player as a S1.....2 people different views and opinions....DMD did the preseason rankings...he then has others take over for the rest of season rankings....each one of those people have their own opinions too.....and I do agree that you shouldnt dismiss them....but the author answered the questions on why he dropped him

 

The point being that when someone pays for information, they are looking for someone with more expertise than themselves to help them out, or they are looking for insight that they either can't or won't find themselves. Having such a wide range of opinion for a player does a disservice to those people - which is who you want paying for information in the first place. People like you & I and many other regulars here don't need to ante up to get/find a ton of information on players and don't need a lot of help making player decisions.

 

To be dismissive of those peoples' concerns - valid in this case, IMO - only pushes them to other pay sites. I would think at the very least that anyone who does rankings here solicits other staff opinions before publishing to get a reality check on their opinions or see if they unintentionally ommitted a player at the very least.

 

That's a very valid concern on his part. Other than catastrophic injury, how do you justify a WR being ranked as a legit #2 FF WR one week and then after only 1 week he falls completely off the page? A player of that potential caliber shouldn't have that diverse of a range - something smells funny, and this guy noticed it.

[MikesVikes]

Ulterior, would you pick McCown as the 13th QB in a draft? What do you base that on? If another in your league grabbed two QBs early any you wouldn't have any problem with playing him for the year? I'm not disagreeing with you (well maybe I am). I just would like you to explain that one.

[justin]

Trust me on this one. As soon as McNair is unable to go (which by the looks of last night could be any time now) Boller will take over and the offense will improve, especially Williams. All he needs is a QB that can get the ball downfield and he can make some magic for this team.

 

I REALLY wish trusting you would be all that's needed. However, I just don't see (and BELIEVE me, I REALLY want to see it) how Boller improves the offense. Boller has a stronger arm than McNair, but then again, so does Jeff George. Boller has horrible game management skills. He will turn the ball over and make poor decisions behind center.

 

That being said, there is a higher probability that pure passing yards will increase because a Boller led offense may be playing from behind in the points column and teams will stack 8 in the box.

 

Williams is the faster WR, but I think both Clayton and Williams will have some yardage and big play opportunites, just not that many.

[Easy n Dirty]

Having such a wide range of opinion for a player does a disservice to those people ... I would think at the very least that anyone who does rankings here solicits other staff opinions before publishing to get a reality check on their opinions or see if they unintentionally ommitted a player at the very least.

 

This is kind of an interesting issue. I see what you're saying BB, but Ulterior states in a different post that they do talk among one another prior to publishing the preseason rankings. I guess he and DMD just disagreed on this one and DMD went with his own opinion - I don't see how you can really criticize DMD or the site for having a couple guys here and there ranked somewhere other than what might be considered "the norm" - if it's consensus opinions that you're looking for, then go print out the ADP for your draft, that's available for free from several sources.

 

And, quite frankly, DMD's ranking of Clayton wasn't that outrageous - he had him ranked #25 at WR when his ADP was #31, based on stuff I printed out on 9-6, or openng day. If anything, you might wonder why this guy plummeted like a rock from the 25-35 neighborhood (per ADP) to outside the top 70, per one man's opinion, in one week - and Ulterior has defended that decision fairly well IMO.

 

Again, I hear what you're saying, but I really don;t think this guy has a legitimate gripe here.

[Bronco Billy]

This is kind of an interesting issue. I see what you're saying BB, but Ulterior states in a different post that they do talk among one another prior to publishing the preseason rankings. I guess he and DMD just disagreed on this one and DMD went with his own opinion - I don't see how you can really criticize DMD or the site for having a couple guys here and there ranked somewhere other than what might be considered "the norm" - if it's consensus opinions that you're looking for, then go print out the ADP for your draft, that's available for free from several sources.

 

And, quite frankly, DMD's ranking of Clayton wasn't that outrageous - he had him ranked #25 at WR when his ADP was #31, based on stuff I printed out on 9-6, or openng day. If anything, you might wonder why this guy plummeted like a rock from the 25-35 neighborhood (per ADP) to outside the top 70, per one man's opinion, in one week - and Ulterior has defended that decision fairly well IMO.

 

Again, I hear what you're saying, but I really don;t think this guy has a legitimate gripe here.

 

I think I should be clear that I'm defending a position that I don't hold myself - I respect the staff here. That said, to have a WR one week who is projected as a #2 FF WR and then the next as a WR who shouldn't even be rostered in deep leagues, and there not being an injury keeping them out of the lineup, does make me think the guy has a legit gripe.

 

That's just a difference of opinion between you & I, and personally I do think he's talented enough to warrant at least a #3 FF WR spot, regardless of who plays QB in BAL. Hell, if one week's performance drops a WR that much, FF teams ought to be dropping Lee Evans all over the place also. I think the low ranking is a severe overreaction, and one that is a bit tough to swallow no matter what the rationale excepting disabling injury.

[Ulterior Motives]

Ulterior, would you pick McCown as the 13th QB in a draft? What do you base that on? If another in your league grabbed two QBs early any you wouldn't have any problem with playing him for the year? I'm not disagreeing with you (well maybe I am). I just would like you to explain that one.

 

 

Going to respond to the earlier posts, however, this one has me a bit confused. Not sure what the question here is or how McCown (assume you mean Josh) and someone grabbing two QBs fits into the discussion. Will be happy to respond, just need the question clarified.

[MikesVikes]

Going to respond to the earlier posts, however, this one has me a bit confused. Not sure what the question here is or how McCown (assume you mean Josh) and someone grabbing two QBs fits into the discussion. Will be happy to respond, just need the question clarified.

 

Yes I was referring to Josh McCown. You have him ranked now as the 13th QB. In a 12 man league, he'd be the first guy off the bench. If you have an owner in the league that takes a 2nd QB before you took your first one, Josh would be the guy, according to your ranking, to have for your QB.

 

Or if it would be more clear to describe it this way. What if you were in a 14 man league. He is now starter material.

 

I'm asking if you would be comfortable in drafting Josh McCown of the Oakland Raiders as your starting QB? And if so, please explain why you feel that way.

[Ulterior Motives]

Ok...where to start.

 

First, I understand completely the concerns voiced regarding paying to use a site such as this and having such a drop in rankings and such, it is valid. However, that being said, I also don't think one change in one ranking that seems to be massive but is logically explained is reason to drop a site either...but that's my opinion.

 

Next. I said the staff does 'talk'...I did not say we go over every ranking every week. If we did that there would be no reason for Dave and Whitney to hire staff...they would just as well do all the work themselves. Also, on that note. The Huddle staff...as is the case with most organizations such as this on the internet, are not all located in the same building somewhere. We're scattered all over the place and use phone and the internet to communicate, so for those of you who may have the wrong idea there, just want to clear it up.

 

Now, again, regarding the drop of Clayton, which is what this whole thing got started over. Here's the thing. If I was ranking the NFL offenses - based on overall effectiveness, not just passing game - I would probably rank the Ravens somewhere around 20...likely between 20-25. Why do I bring that up? Because...while we like to rank players individually, how we rank them usually is based on opportunity and the players around them. Now....most teams usually have two primary starting receivers. Some, like Indy, Detroit and the Rams, tend to have three who are genuinely fantasy worthy. Of the rest you usually have one primary guy and a secondary guy who may get a nice game now and then, but otherwise gets 400-700 yards and 3-5 TDs a season...and quite often those come in bunches rather than any consistant pattern. Now, with all that in mind, many indicators were there this year that had many 'experts' saying that Mason was done. Mason didn't look too done on Sunday, but he'll wear down over the season most likely. The problem is...he's still the main target. Most mags and rankings had D. Williams down around 100...in fact, ESPN's FF Mag had him at 100...in spite of 400 yards and 2 TDs in his rookie season...on Baltimore no less. The prognosticators lumped Clayton in that 'third year receiver' group and by default based on his surge at the end of last year annointed him king. Problem with that is, he plays on one of the historically worst passing offenses in the game, with a quarterback who's on his last leg and an unreliable backup. Note, the yardage for the team has been improving the past few years, (2517 - 2003, 2559 - 2004, 3381 - 2005, 3535 - 2006) but in the past four years they only have 67 passing TDs, Of those, 39 were caught by Mason and Heap. That is an average of 17 TD passes a season...another indication that the receivers are going to suffer. That being said, many felt Clayton would step up in his third year and bust out as a top flight number one receiver...but then Williams started grabbing all the attention in preseason. Now preseason stats usually are discounted, however, sometimes they hold over and become indicators for the season. The Ravens threw 26 times to their three top receivers. 13 went to Mason, 11 went to Williams and 2 went to Clayton. Now, I'm no rocket sceintist, but I do know numbers, and teams don't throw 7% of their throws to a number one, or even a number two receiver. So, taking into effect that I would have ranked Clayton more along the lines of 40-50 initially, and the fact that his team pretty much has given him the third fiddle role all year so far, preseason and game one, and conventional wisdom says he doesn't rate a high ranking right now going forward. Now, as I also stated before, if he goes nuts next week he'll be back in the top 70 and I'll take whatever comments come my way. However, I stand by the fact that in this case the third receiver on a team that has the kind of stats Baltimore tends to through the air can be argued not to be worthy of the top 70.

 

Now, on the case of some of the other names mentioned and why they aren't out of the top whatever. Lee Evans for example. Evans has been a top producer now for at least three years...averaging about 900 yards and 9 TDs each of those years. This is consistency at its finest. The team likes to throw the ball....to Evans at least...and has proven that they'll get him the ball. Another week like week one and he'll drop some, most definetly. Three weeks like week one and he too could see himself at the low end of the list...although his status as the number one receiver on the team likely will keep him in the top 70 at least.

 

I do love the thoughtful discussion, and I won't back down from anyone as long as I feel I can back up my stance. I'm sorry again for those who feel they've been somehow slighted, but I hope you'll consider some of the other comments on this thread regarding varied opinions and rankings.

[Brentastic]

The point being that when someone pays for information, they are looking for someone with more expertise than themselves to help them out, or they are looking for insight that they either can't or won't find themselves. Having such a wide range of opinion for a player does a disservice to those people - which is who you want paying for information in the first place. People like you & I and many other regulars here don't need to ante up to get/find a ton of information on players and don't need a lot of help making player decisions.

 

To be dismissive of those peoples' concerns - valid in this case, IMO - only pushes them to other pay sites. I would think at the very least that anyone who does rankings here solicits other staff opinions before publishing to get a reality check on their opinions or see if they unintentionally ommitted a player at the very least.

 

That's a very valid concern on his part. Other than catastrophic injury, how do you justify a WR being ranked as a legit #2 FF WR one week and then after only 1 week he falls completely off the page? A player of that potential caliber shouldn't have that diverse of a range - something smells funny, and this guy noticed it.

+1

 

There are plenty of us regulars that don't need to live and die by the huddle rankings - BUT, we must not ignore those that pay to rely on the huddle. Like BB, I don't hold the same opinion as the disgruntled poster but I can certainly see where he's coming from. When you go to a five star restaurant you want consistency. The huddle should be no different. Inconsistencies breed fear - fear breeds the loss of a customer most of the time.

[Ulterior Motives]

Yes I was referring to Josh McCown. You have him ranked now as the 13th QB. In a 12 man league, he'd be the first guy off the bench. If you have an owner in the league that takes a 2nd QB before you took your first one, Josh would be the guy, according to your ranking, to have for your QB.

 

Or if it would be more clear to describe it this way. What if you were in a 14 man league. He is now starter material.

 

I'm asking if you would be comfortable in drafting Josh McCown of the Oakland Raiders as your starting QB? And if so, please explain why you feel that way.

 

Ok...following you now. However, have to note that I had nothing to do with the QB ratings...that is Scott Boyter who does those in season. and, as i must note, his comment stated something that should be considered -

"Josh McCown, Oakland Raiders – Moving Up

Again, this is probably a knee-jerk reaction, but it was so stunning to see ANY Oakland quarterback put up good numbers that McCown deserves the props for one week. JaMarcus Russell is now in the fold, but that won’t make any difference; McCown firmly established himself as the No. 1 in Week 1. Of course, he’ll probably return to his Fantasy hole against Denver."

 

As for me...no, I wouldn't be comfortable at this point starting McCown for my team, but Boyter might. I would, based on that one week, bump him up...however I'd take into affect the fact that they were playing the Lions, number one, and, number two, I'd note that he has a bum finger and it appears that Culpepper will be starting, however I don't believe this was known until after the rankings were complete for this week. Bottom line is, with three very capable QBs on the roster it spells trouble for anyone, so I would pass....too many questions, not enough answers.

 

Also note that you ask if I'd be comfortable drafting McCown as my starting QB....that answer this year would have been flat out no. However, the rankings today on the 'rest of the season' area are NOT for drafting...they are where we feel things stand today...AFTER real, live games. There is less estimation now and more facts to go on...so we have to adjust accordingly. This should be noted with all these rankings. Hope I answered that clearly enough to make the point...if not just say so.

 

Good stuff guys and gals, keep it up, glad to be on board here with some very rabid ffballers....awesome stuff.

[Lady.hawke]

Tim AKA Ulterior Motives,

 

You make an excellent case for Clayton not to have been so highly Huddler ranked pre-season and therein lies the rub. If not for that, there would be no controversy. I seriously thought when I asked the question that started this thread that a mistake had been made, particularly when I saw Lee Evans remain in the top ten of your list.

 

I agree with the poster (please forgive my lack of how-to-quote knowledge) commenting that inconsistency destroys the trust of the customer, more, I think, than a mistake would.

 

It is interesting to learn about the process of determining the rankings and I thank you for that.

Edited September 13, 2007 by Lady.hawke

[Big Red]

Wow, this got short bus in a hurry.

 

Clayton was ranked high because he is in his 'magic' 3rd year and has had decent (not great) years to date. Add that to McNair's 2nd year in the system and Clayton knowing he was the clear #2. That got him ranked high. Then he got hurt in the first preseason game. The lowered him just a little. Then he missed the final two preseason games. Add that to him doing nothing along with Mason, Williams and Heap getting all the looks, and it adds up.

 

My take is that Williams will be the clear #1 by mid season. Mason and Clayton will go back and forth to be #3 as Heap will always be an option. I'd look for the Ravens to add a WR next season to complement Williams if Clayton can't stay healthy. After last season performance and running at the mouth, Mason is probably in his last year unless he really turns it around.

 

Sorry, no mention of the Chargers or Bucs.

[Ulterior Motives]

Wow, this got short bus in a hurry.

 

Clayton was ranked high because he is in his 'magic' 3rd year and has had decent (not great) years to date. Add that to McNair's 2nd year in the system and Clayton knowing he was the clear #2. That got him ranked high. Then he got hurt in the first preseason game. The lowered him just a little. Then he missed the final two preseason games. Add that to him doing nothing along with Mason, Williams and Heap getting all the looks, and it adds up.

 

My take is that Williams will be the clear #1 by mid season. Mason and Clayton will go back and forth to be #3 as Heap will always be an option. I'd look for the Ravens to add a WR next season to complement Williams if Clayton can't stay healthy. After last season performance and running at the mouth, Mason is probably in his last year unless he really turns it around.

 

Sorry, no mention of the Chargers or Bucs.

 

lol @ Chargers and Bucs....now THAT was funny.

 

Great points, well put, and boom....actually agree with you on just about everything there. As for the previous post, understand your concerns and they're valid to a point...but think the splendid job the Huddle does year in and year out speaks for itself...not going to ever be perfect in this game, but can be pretty darn close more often than not and I think they've got that down.

[broncosn05]

Dropped by me. I got him around the 40 mark at WRs when I did draft him, but I'm not buying into just hype anymore. Toomer or Randle El will take his place.

[MikesVikes]

Ok...following you now. However, have to note that I had nothing to do with the QB ratings...that is Scott Boyter who does those in season. and, as i must note, his comment stated something that should be considered -

"Josh McCown, Oakland Raiders – Moving Up

Again, this is probably a knee-jerk reaction, but it was so stunning to see ANY Oakland quarterback put up good numbers that McCown deserves the props for one week. JaMarcus Russell is now in the fold, but that won’t make any difference; McCown firmly established himself as the No. 1 in Week 1. Of course, he’ll probably return to his Fantasy hole against Denver."

 

As for me...no, I wouldn't be comfortable at this point starting McCown for my team, but Boyter might. I would, based on that one week, bump him up...however I'd take into affect the fact that they were playing the Lions, number one, and, number two, I'd note that he has a bum finger and it appears that Culpepper will be starting, however I don't believe this was known until after the rankings were complete for this week. Bottom line is, with three very capable QBs on the roster it spells trouble for anyone, so I would pass....too many questions, not enough answers.

 

Also note that you ask if I'd be comfortable drafting McCown as my starting QB....that answer this year would have been flat out no. However, the rankings today on the 'rest of the season' area are NOT for drafting...they are where we feel things stand today...AFTER real, live games. There is less estimation now and more facts to go on...so we have to adjust accordingly. This should be noted with all these rankings. Hope I answered that clearly enough to make the point...if not just say so.

 

Good stuff guys and gals, keep it up, glad to be on board here with some very rabid ffballers....awesome stuff.

 

Maybe I read the page wrong. I didn't see where it was for the week. I thought it was an updated ranking if your draft were to be held today. If it is the latter, than I don't know anybody that would take McCown as the 14th ranked QB and I play in local leagues with people that don't surprise me anymore.

[keggerz]

+1

 

There are plenty of us regulars that don't need to live and die by the huddle rankings - BUT, we must not ignore those that pay to rely on the huddle. Like BB, I don't hold the same opinion as the disgruntled poster but I can certainly see where he's coming from. When you go to a five star restaurant you want consistency. The huddle should be no different. Inconsistencies breed fear - fear breeds the loss of a customer most of the time.

just about every FF source had clayton ranked around the same....if the person that takes over the rankings feels there is a good reason to either RAISE or DROP a player and has a good reason for it then the paying customer should be happy that the huddle doesnt employ drones that just do what everyone else does....FF isnt an exact science and usually safe will keep you middle of the pack....while I dont agree with the clayton ranking, i certainly can respect it.

[Ulterior Motives]

Maybe I read the page wrong. I didn't see where it was for the week. I thought it was an updated ranking if your draft were to be held today. If it is the latter, than I don't know anybody that would take McCown as the 14th ranked QB and I play in local leagues with people that don't surprise me anymore.

 

My understanding is that it's not for the week necessarily, but for the remainder of the season...so kind of what you said, but looking ahead based on what we know from games played. So yes, if your draft was held today in a nutshell. But we then go back to the opinion thing...some might take McCown based on last week...I just wouldn't. Same would be true for those who wouldn't have dropped Clayton out of the top 70...they wouldn't...I would. Such is the great thing about opinions...we all have them!

[keggerz]

The point being that when someone pays for information, they are looking for someone with more expertise than themselves to help them out, or they are looking for insight that they either can't or won't find themselves. Having such a wide range of opinion for a player does a disservice to those people - which is who you want paying for information in the first place. People like you & I and many other regulars here don't need to ante up to get/find a ton of information on players and don't need a lot of help making player decisions.

 

To be dismissive of those peoples' concerns - valid in this case, IMO - only pushes them to other pay sites. I would think at the very least that anyone who does rankings here solicits other staff opinions before publishing to get a reality check on their opinions or see if they unintentionally ommitted a player at the very least.

 

That's a very valid concern on his part. Other than catastrophic injury, how do you justify a WR being ranked as a legit #2 FF WR one week and then after only 1 week he falls completely off the page? A player of that potential caliber shouldn't have that diverse of a range - something smells funny, and this guy noticed it.

you know as well as I that an ankle or hammy injury can be "catastrophic" for a WR....clayton didnt even start....the fact that he played showed he is going to try and play thru an injury(maybe as a decoy at times for all we know)....but again I dont agree with the ranking but completely understand TVP's reasoning and can respect it....