Also, i totally agree on this WR/RB split. After the first three, all the other players have the quintessential frozen pond profile. Either size while missing the body, or body while missing size. If they're cheap enough, they'd be worthwhile- but you can already see the makings of people pushing Gainwell/Sermon/Hubbard into the 12th-18th overall just because they don't want to be the guy drafting the WR9-WR14 even if they might be one of the players who are better. I would gladly take a shot at Hubbard myself because he at least has that mix of one time production/tape + size, but when i have to choose him over Dyami Brown? Oof
Great writeup. I'm always surprised by how rarely Seth Williams seems to make peoples top WR lists because there doesn't appear to be a lot of reason for it as far as objective data for analytics guys. Film guys might have a different opinion (the familiar refrain of "can't separate" comes to mind) but his profile isn't far off from AJ Green, Davante Parker, Corey Davis, Denzel Mims. In a class that's lacking the size + production profile, how is a guy that meets both outside of everyones top 10? I'd even be willing to imagine, given the last few years of WRs entering the NFL, the lack of true Alpha types of this kind would make his draft capital potentially irrelevant. Few teams can draft him in the 4th round and not have an immediate need in their top 3 WRs for his player type.
Ben, a great piece as always, and it really gave me some new perspectives. But one thing I wanted to ask was to maybe help me battle some confirmation bias. I have the 1.02 in a SF/TEP rookie draft and had been pretty strongly leaning towards taking Fields (assuming Lawrence goes first). A strong QB prospect is always valuable. But the idea of taking Pitts had also been in the back of my mind. I recalled an analysis from last year (I think Rotoviz) that pointed out the boost that comes from TEP scoring is really only significant for the top 3 or so TEs, and after that becomes a trivial advantage. Together with the rarity of finding a truly exceptional TE, maybe Pitts should actually be above Fields (side note: my usable QBs are Jackson and Cousins, while my usable TEs are Gesicki, Hopper, and the unsupported hope that Herndon can still be something). Additionally, it seems that being able to trade for a good QB (maybe not a QB1, but at least a playable QB2) is much easier than trading for even a decent TE. So, over the last week I have been leaning Pitts for this pick. Your article only reinforced this, but maybe only is telling me what I want to hear. Would you mind expounding a bit on your thoughts about the value of an elite TE prospect vs a strong QB prospect in general, and the Pitts vs Fields question more specifically? Thanks!
Also, i totally agree on this WR/RB split. After the first three, all the other players have the quintessential frozen pond profile. Either size while missing the body, or body while missing size. If they're cheap enough, they'd be worthwhile- but you can already see the makings of people pushing Gainwell/Sermon/Hubbard into the 12th-18th overall just because they don't want to be the guy drafting the WR9-WR14 even if they might be one of the players who are better. I would gladly take a shot at Hubbard myself because he at least has that mix of one time production/tape + size, but when i have to choose him over Dyami Brown? Oof
Great writeup. I'm always surprised by how rarely Seth Williams seems to make peoples top WR lists because there doesn't appear to be a lot of reason for it as far as objective data for analytics guys. Film guys might have a different opinion (the familiar refrain of "can't separate" comes to mind) but his profile isn't far off from AJ Green, Davante Parker, Corey Davis, Denzel Mims. In a class that's lacking the size + production profile, how is a guy that meets both outside of everyones top 10? I'd even be willing to imagine, given the last few years of WRs entering the NFL, the lack of true Alpha types of this kind would make his draft capital potentially irrelevant. Few teams can draft him in the 4th round and not have an immediate need in their top 3 WRs for his player type.
Ben, a great piece as always, and it really gave me some new perspectives. But one thing I wanted to ask was to maybe help me battle some confirmation bias. I have the 1.02 in a SF/TEP rookie draft and had been pretty strongly leaning towards taking Fields (assuming Lawrence goes first). A strong QB prospect is always valuable. But the idea of taking Pitts had also been in the back of my mind. I recalled an analysis from last year (I think Rotoviz) that pointed out the boost that comes from TEP scoring is really only significant for the top 3 or so TEs, and after that becomes a trivial advantage. Together with the rarity of finding a truly exceptional TE, maybe Pitts should actually be above Fields (side note: my usable QBs are Jackson and Cousins, while my usable TEs are Gesicki, Hopper, and the unsupported hope that Herndon can still be something). Additionally, it seems that being able to trade for a good QB (maybe not a QB1, but at least a playable QB2) is much easier than trading for even a decent TE. So, over the last week I have been leaning Pitts for this pick. Your article only reinforced this, but maybe only is telling me what I want to hear. Would you mind expounding a bit on your thoughts about the value of an elite TE prospect vs a strong QB prospect in general, and the Pitts vs Fields question more specifically? Thanks!