Cafe June Player Rankings: WR (Part 3 of 5) - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to Football Talk

Cafe June Player Rankings: WR (Part 3 of 5)

Moderator: Football Moderators

Postby Cornbread Maxwell » Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:06 pm

davidmarver wrote:
Cornbread Maxwell wrote:Nice list. Obviously not everyone agrees - however - there is one that really sticks out to me: Troy Williamson. This list has him rated higher than both MRobinson and TTaylor - even though both of those guys are ahead of him in the depth chart.

Too funny - a prime example of rookie hype. :-b

I think it's more rookie promise or rookie potential than it is actual hype. I think most people realize that Taylor and Robinson's potential isn't that great so Williamson becomes the second best reciever to have in that offense.


Williamson has the potential to go 1400 and 9? Because thats the apparant potential ceiling for MRob (1999).
There are just so many reasons to think Troy Williamson will be a bust for fantasy purposes, basically for him to be fantasy worthy in '05 he has to overcome way too many obstacles.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Cornbread Maxwell
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertSweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 5924
Joined: 7 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby davidmarver » Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:27 pm

Cornbread Maxwell wrote:
davidmarver wrote:
Cornbread Maxwell wrote:Nice list. Obviously not everyone agrees - however - there is one that really sticks out to me: Troy Williamson. This list has him rated higher than both MRobinson and TTaylor - even though both of those guys are ahead of him in the depth chart.

Too funny - a prime example of rookie hype. :-b

I think it's more rookie promise or rookie potential than it is actual hype. I think most people realize that Taylor and Robinson's potential isn't that great so Williamson becomes the second best reciever to have in that offense.


Williamson has the potential to go 1400 and 9? Because thats the apparant potential ceiling for MRob (1999).
There are just so many reasons to think Troy Williamson will be a bust for fantasy purposes, basically for him to be fantasy worthy in '05 he has to overcome way too many obstacles.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.


Robinson had the ceiling of 1400 and 9. His potential six years later, though, is low. Using 1999 as Robinson's potential is like using a mid-90's season as Rice's potential and that's not realistic.
davidmarver
Offensive Coordinator
Offensive Coordinator

User avatar
Cafe Ranker
Posts: 656
Joined: 11 Jan 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Qualcomm Gate C; Tailgating

Postby Azrael » Mon Jun 06, 2005 8:40 pm

Here's the problem with Muhammed

1. Before last year he never scored more than 8 TDs and had a career high in yardage.

2. He's now moving from a team that was forced to throw much more than they wanted to because they couldn't run to a team who will do their best to run the ball, who has a QB that they would not like to put alot of pressure on, who plays in a division against teams who were not great at stopping the run.
Image
Azrael
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 8283
(Past Year: 7)
Joined: 29 Jun 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Keeping da cafe sucka free for 9 years straight

Postby Kensat30 » Mon Jun 06, 2005 8:54 pm

I would look to Booker's 2001 and 2002 seasons as Muhammad's upside. He can catch potentially catch a lot of passes, being the only legit WR threat and all, but that offense is not going to produce major yardage or touchdowns IMO, especially at the WR position.

If anyone is going to outperform their draft position in Chicago, it's Benson or the defense.
Kensat30
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe Writer
Posts: 6427
Joined: 2 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Football

Postby deluxe_247 » Mon Jun 06, 2005 9:00 pm

Cornbread Maxwell wrote:
davidmarver wrote:
Cornbread Maxwell wrote:Nice list. Obviously not everyone agrees - however - there is one that really sticks out to me: Troy Williamson. This list has him rated higher than both MRobinson and TTaylor - even though both of those guys are ahead of him in the depth chart.

Too funny - a prime example of rookie hype. :-b

I think it's more rookie promise or rookie potential than it is actual hype. I think most people realize that Taylor and Robinson's potential isn't that great so Williamson becomes the second best reciever to have in that offense.


Williamson has the potential to go 1400 and 9? Because thats the apparant potential ceiling for MRob (1999).
There are just so many reasons to think Troy Williamson will be a bust for fantasy purposes, basically for him to be fantasy worthy in '05 he has to overcome way too many obstacles.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.


thats the reason i left him off my rankings altogether. looks like i was the only one that thinks like you.
Image
deluxe_247
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe RankerBig Sig ChampionMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerWeb SupporterCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 15165
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Giggity Giggity

Postby Kensat30 » Mon Jun 06, 2005 9:12 pm

davidmarver wrote:
Cornbread Maxwell wrote:
davidmarver wrote:
Cornbread Maxwell wrote:Nice list. Obviously not everyone agrees - however - there is one that really sticks out to me: Troy Williamson. This list has him rated higher than both MRobinson and TTaylor - even though both of those guys are ahead of him in the depth chart.

Too funny - a prime example of rookie hype. :-b

I think it's more rookie promise or rookie potential than it is actual hype. I think most people realize that Taylor and Robinson's potential isn't that great so Williamson becomes the second best reciever to have in that offense.


Williamson has the potential to go 1400 and 9? Because thats the apparant potential ceiling for MRob (1999).
There are just so many reasons to think Troy Williamson will be a bust for fantasy purposes, basically for him to be fantasy worthy in '05 he has to overcome way too many obstacles.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.


Robinson had the ceiling of 1400 and 9. His potential six years later, though, is low. Using 1999 as Robinson's potential is like using a mid-90's season as Rice's potential and that's not realistic.


Could have said the same thing about Muhammad last year. The biggest knock on Marcus Robinson is not his talent level and potential production, but his injury issues. If Marcus Robinson manages to stay fully healthy in 2005. his numbers could rival career highs in a lot of categorys in the Minnesota offense.

I mean he was basically the #3 WR for the Vikes last year and he still scored 8 touchdowns to go along with multiple 100 yard games and 2 touchdown games. Really the Vikings were not that far behind the Colt's last season when you look at the production from their 3rd WR and TE.

Robinson was fighting Moss and Burleson for playing time in 2004 and this year he may have the opportunity to be the full time starter with Moss is no longer there. Additionally Wiggins may have a reduced role with the return of Kleinsasser.
Kensat30
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe Writer
Posts: 6427
Joined: 2 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Football

Postby Cornbread Maxwell » Mon Jun 06, 2005 10:48 pm

davidmarver wrote:Using 1999 as Robinson's potential is like using a mid-90's season as Rice's potential and that's not realistic.


Troy Williamson will not be a fantasy worthy player in 2005. He's a project. MIN is WR deep. He is not going to get enough PT or passes thrown his way to contribute significantly enough. Ranking him higher than Marcus Robinson is unrealistic to me.
Cornbread Maxwell
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertSweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 5924
Joined: 7 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Rankings

Postby Daddymike59 » Tue Jun 07, 2005 8:13 am

No love for Coles slaw? He's basically Chads only option unless Justin breaks out this year. I like him higher than both Arizona recvs just because of the q/b situation. I also think Muhammad would not have had NEAR those numbers had Smith not gone down early. Other than that Great Job Fellas. Thanks
Image


Props to Leber for the nice artwork!
Daddymike59
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 2915
Joined: 6 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: GOM=30 Home of the Buckeyes

Re: Rankings

Postby Cornbread Maxwell » Tue Jun 07, 2005 8:27 am

Daddymike59 wrote:No love for Coles slaw? He's basically Chads only option unless Justin breaks out this year. I like him higher than both Arizona recvs just because of the q/b situation. I also think Muhammad would not have had NEAR those numbers had Smith not gone down early. Other than that Great Job Fellas. Thanks


I agree - I would draft him ahead of the 4 guys immediately above him: Boldin, Roy, Porter, and Fitz.
Cornbread Maxwell
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertSweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 5924
Joined: 7 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Re: Rankings

Postby Azrael » Tue Jun 07, 2005 12:00 pm

Daddymike59 wrote:No love for Coles slaw? He's basically Chads only option unless Justin breaks out this year.


Could have said the same thing about S. Moss last year.

Cornbread - you could be onto something with M-Rob. He might actually turn out to be Culpepper's main deep target while Williamson develops. IF he's healthy he could rival career highs I think.
Image
Azrael
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 8283
(Past Year: 7)
Joined: 29 Jun 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Keeping da cafe sucka free for 9 years straight

PreviousNext

Return to Football Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 14:04 hours
(and 45 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


  • Fantasy Football
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact