Can We Discuss WR Depth?

[averagejoe]

Here it is preseason. July 7th specifically. I've checked out a few depth charts on a few different web sites and there seems to be no uniformity. Lots of opinion though! So I went with the Football Guys as the source of the depth chart below.

Using the following as a basis for a discussion how do you see some of these position battles working out by the start of the season?

​

 

[averagejoe]

Packers
Let me start by saying that the GB core seems to be set, but no one honestly seems to know which of these 3 will start. Many are hoping for Cobb. It doesn't bother me to bump them down until it becomes more clear.

Chargers
Word on the street is that Meachem will be released. Brown and Alexander are both projected to be starters. Both have injury concerns. I'd like to see Rivers have a bouce-back year. One of these guys will benefit. I can wait on this battle too.

Other teams worth watching (to me) include Detroit, Niners and the Rams.

 

[TREFF]

My personal feelings are that Tavon Austin quickly becomes #1, And Coradelle Patterson easily takes over the #2 opposite Jennings...other than those two, I'm fully on boatd with the way the "guys" have it listed. What's more, I don'y even see very many places where it's even a question.

Although, ot's important to note, that just becuase a WR is listed as "WR3", doesn't mean he won't be the best, or second best fantasy WR on the roster (Welker/Cobb)

 

[JDM]

I think Dobson will play the role typically filled by a number one receiver. Targets will depend on how well he does getting open, but his routes should be closer to a "prototypical" #1

 

[TKOSpikes]

I agree with Treff. The only real concern is the "4th receiver", as a lot of teams are using 3-receiver sets most of the time. I certainly won't care which GB WR I get, if they're all there when I'm picking and I can't go another position (or receiver), I'm probably taking Cobb, but he could still be listed #3. That goes for Detroit too, I wouldn't care which one I get between Broyles and Burleson as (barring injury) I expect them both to put up Fantasy WR3 numbers.

I guess for teams that employ a double TE set so much that it would interrupt that 3rd receiver, it could get interesting... who would those teams be? Bengals? Sanu vs Hawkins. Hawkins seems like the proto-type slot guy, with Sanu being more apt on the outside kind of tells us how it will be, barring injury... but that's one I'll watch.

 

[wilwhite]

Like others, I take those designations with a grain of salt. I like Vincent Brown, but no way a guy with only 19 receptions in his entire career is a WR1.

 

[Barilko]

The thing standing out for me isnt about the depth so much as the 3 Names in New England
obviously not a revelation here its just doesnt look right....

as for the real question hard to argue and there may not be too much relevance here however i will say i like Patterson blowing by Simpson and Jennings in Minny..and Broyles to sneak by an aging Burleson in the Motor City.. and in Ol St Lou how long before Austin is the sure fire number 1...

 

[SmokingMonkey]

Im interested to see how the WR2/3 spots play out in BAL as well. (more so for potential WW pickup than for a guy that I draft) There are a few guys younger than Jacoby Jones that could easily earn playing time in BAL, and none of them will see too much coverage with Torrey Smith running deep routes all day. If BAL is truly transitioning to becoming 'Flacco's Team', than there should be a fantasy relevant receiving option better than Jones after Smith/Pitta.

 

[averagejoe]

Like others, I take those designations with a grain of salt. I like Vincent Brown, but no way a guy with only 19 receptions in his entire career is a WR1.

This statement brings up another point.

Maybe this is somewhat rhetorical, but why will some fantasy owners look at a guy like SD's Vincent Brown who has a small sample of actual NFL stats, and lower their expectations. But then (as Barilko said in the next post about Patterson), some guys will look at a rookie WR and raise their expectations?

I look at it this way, and it may be a somewhat simple or remedial idea, but either a guy can catch or he can't. Either a guy can play through double coverage, or he can't.

Maybe it's a small sample size, but a guy like Vincent Brown has already shown that he can catch in the NFL. Austin, Patterson and the other rookies have not. In fact, how often do we see players who are "expected" to play at the NFL level, and they continue to get opportunities, only to disappoint?

Admittedly, some of those opportunities may also include shoddy QB or O-line play. But if a WR truly does belong in the NFL, his talent will show immediately IMO. None of this 3-year "breakout" nonsense.

For example: I look at Cecil Shorts. Despite a woeful offense, revolving door QB, and a list of other team "negatives," the guy showed that he can catch and play in the NFL. But he gets no fantasy love.

 

[wilwhite]

Maybe this is somewhat rhetorical, but why will some fantasy owners look at a guy like SD's Vincent Brown who has a small sample of actual NFL stats, and lower their expectations. But then (as Barilko said in the next post about Patterson), some guys will look at a rookie WR and raise their expectations?

Disagree with your premise, Joe. Anybody who considers drafting a third-year player who only has 19 career catches is obviously raising their expectations. That depth chart is flat-out wrong for the Chargers, though. Obviously Floyd will be WR2 (if not WR1) to start the season, and they don't even list him.

And as JDM's points out, sometimes WR1 simply designates the guy who stretches the field, and that designation may not translate to targets.

 

[averagejoe]

I still like my premise. Vince Brown was just a poor example. Like I said afterwards, usually you can tell if a guy has what it takes to be a starter in the NFL.

It just amazes me that some fantasy owners will continue to give Amendola a shot and others like him (he fails based on my premise).

See how I clarify myself, and then set myself up for another public humiliation?

 

[TREFF]

Without agreeing to the blanket premise, I'm right there with ya on both Brown and Amendola, Joe. Just so, ya know, you're not entirely alone on this one.

when it comes to third,, fourth year WR's, I take a much more "prove it first" stance. Just being handed a starting role doesn't really excite me much.