Shorttynaz Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 (edited) When you're ranking your WR's, do you rank the smaller / faster WR's higher, they're likely to have more YPC, but maybe not as many receptions or TD's. Or do you rank the bigger WR's higher, not likely to have a lot of YPC, but could have more targets/receptions and more TD's as (in my opinion) those bigger WR's are targeted more in redzone/goal line situations.. I haven't done any real drafts yet, but have done a lot of mock drafts - I find myself passing over the smaller / faster WR with a higher ADP for the bigger WR with a lower ADP. Edited August 13, 2014 by Shorttynaz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 I rank them more or less based on where they are in their career as far as development goes and also their situation....plus the QB throwing the ball and who they play this year. .. That supercedes whether they are big ot speedy imo if you factor in what kind of opportunity they are going to have and where they are at in their career (north or south of 3yrs experience) when gauging how likely they are to take advantage of those opportunities Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Football Follies Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 I tend to look at the quarterback and the offense, not necessarily the size of the WR. I feel like WR rankings are so subjective and tough to predict year to year. TD numbers are fluky. In PPR the slot WRs get a boost but standard its more outside WRs. I also think rankings put too much stock into the previous year finish. I remember when Derek Anderson and Braylon Edwards were ranked top 5 at their position because of that 10-6 year in cleveland. Both busted the next year of course. Basically I look at how many targets and where they play on the field (slot vs outside wr) more than size of the WR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImNotSoIgnorant Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 I've never thought about size. I think about who's throwing to them, the O-line, the team in general, and their past two years stats, and if they're on a different team than last year. Good WRs get the ball and do what they have to with it regardless of size. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever in debt to mo lewis Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 When you're ranking your WR's, do you rank the smaller / faster WR's higher, they're likely to have more YPC, but maybe not as many receptions or TD's. Or do you rank the bigger WR's higher, not likely to have a lot of YPC, but could have more targets/receptions and more TD's as (in my opinion) those bigger WR's are targeted more in redzone/goal line situations.. I haven't done any real drafts yet, but have done a lot of mock drafts - I find myself passing over the smaller / faster WR with a higher ADP for the bigger WR with a lower ADP. ypc isnt equated to height if you ask me josh gordon averaged over 18 ypc...hes a big guy.....megatron just under 18.....jeffrey is a big guy....michael floyd is a big guy........ you have some shorter guys like kenny stills and chris givens who had high ypc ....being about 6 ft tall....but they only caught like 30 balls each....the only real undersized receiver who caught more than 70 balls and still had a very high ypc was djax.....most of the other guys who had high ypc and high reception totals are big receivers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.