From a dynasty perspective, name a player who is unlikely to contribute this year but could be a monster later in his career.
Adam Harstad: Plenty of rookies make super-obvious choices here, especially at QB and TE where the learning curve has historically proven to be more daunting.
Looking past the obvious, though, one of my favorite fountains of cheap talent in dynasty leagues is the pool of talented backups. The last two years have seen Nick Foles and Colin Kaepernick go from fantasy afterthoughts to potential positional anchors, and players like Ben Tate, Rashad Jennings, and Toby Gerhart have left roles as clipboard-carriers to take over as football-carriers for new teams. QB and RB are the best places to mine for talented backups, because the difference between being the best QB and the second-best QB on a team is about 500 pass attempts, and the difference between being the best RB and the second-best RB is often 200+ touches. Meanwhile, thanks to multiple-receiver sets, the difference between the best WR and the second-best (or even third-best) WR on any given team might only be a dozen catches.
Who are some talented backup QBs and RBs that I currently have my eye on? Brock Osweiler was a high draft pick playing for a franchise that's loaded with weapons. Mike Glennon looked decidedly unlike a rookie as Tampa's signal-caller last season, and would have some nice big targets to throw to if he can unseat Josh McCown. Christine Michael was drafted to be a starter, and his opportunity will probably be here soon. Joique Bell is starting to get a bit old for dynasty purposes, but he's been a fantasy dynamo every time he's gotten an opportunity and is very much worth gambling on. Finally, the Bills didn't trade for Bryce Brown because they envision him warming the bench forever. Often, guys like these are available as cheap throw-ins (although Michael's price is already quite high), but even if no one on this list is the next Priest Holmes or Aaron Rodgers, there's a pretty good chance that several will at worst be the next Matt Hasselbeck or Chester Taylor, and that's still valuable.
James Brimacombe: When I think of this question rookies immediately come to my mind. Guys like Robert Herron in Tampa Bay and Kevin Norwood in Seattle, and Tre Mason in St.Louis have some appeal to me as guys I can stash and not expect much from them in their rookie seasons but in years 2 and 3 they could become household names. Herron and Norwood can both be had at the back end of rookie drafts or maybe undrafted (depending on how many rounds are in your draft). Herron is going to have plenty of open looks in Tampa with both Vincent Jackson and Mike Evans in front of him on the depth chart and he could develop into a solid possession/slot WR that can produce week to week in PPR formats. Norwood has a chance to be the number one WR in Seattle down the road as they have a well balanced WR group with only Percy Harvin on the level of stardom. As far as Tre Mason goes he is being drafted in the early 2nd round in rookie drafts and I feel that is because Zac Stacy is currently being overvalued. Mason was selected in the 3rd round by the Rams and possesses a very fierce running style and one that is used to running hard and taking a pounding. With the Rams being in one of the toughest divisions of all of football they are going to need a couple of options at the RB position and Mason and Stacy could be in for more of a split than most people are counting on.
A few other names I like are Robert Turbin in Seattle, Vance McDonald in San Francisco, Gavin Escobar in Dallas, Junior Hemingway in Kansas City, and Stedman Bailey in St Louis. Everyone is is already valuing Christine Michael as the future RB in Seattle and Turbin is viewed as just a career backup. If you try to trade for Michael now in dynasty leagues you are going to have to be willing to overspend, but for Turbin he can be had as a throw in at this point. As for the TE's McDonald and Escobar they are currently in offenses that have always been fond of the position and have produced top 10 or even top 5 fantasy TE's year in and year out. The thing with them is that the opportunity might not be there for a few more years and unless you have a deep roster with plenty of space to stash them away they might not be worth the short term wait. Hemingway and Bailey are two WR names I like to throw out there as well as they both have an incredible opportunity to produce now and in the future. Obviously Bailey is dealing with a suspension currently, which has dropped his value to nearly non-existence. Hemingway on the other hand will continue to develop and now entering year 3 in the NFL, he could come with more knowledge of the game and have a lot more confidence in his ability.
Chad Parsons: Going by position....
At quarterback I like Ryan Tannehill quite a bit to progress into a very good fantasy performer. He has the right mix of rushing ability and pocket presence to see a boost in the coming seasons.
For the running back position, Jerick McKinnon and Isaiah Crowell are underrated from a talent perspective out of the rookie class. Christine Michael is an easy choice behind Marshawn Lynch in Seattle as he has top-5 ability with the ball in his hands.
As for the wide receiver position, Michael Floyd and Cordarrelle Patterson are on the short list of breakout candidates. In 2015 Davante Adams and Donte Moncrief have good combinations of ability and depth charts that could be far more wide open for a prominent role.
Finally, for the tight ends Ladarius Green and Austin Seferian-Jenkins are two easy calls. Both were hyper productive in college and Green has flashed big-play ability already in his NFL career. Gavin Escobar and Colt Lyerla are wildcards in the tier below Green and Seferian-Jenkins on my board. Escobar needs a decline from Jason Witten in front of him or a change in scenary like Martellus Bennett had as a former Witten backup. Lyerla is his own roadblock with off-the-field issues that derailed his early round talent to go undrafted this offseason.
Adam Harstad: I'm a big Tannehill fan, but if he doesn't break out this year, I'm going to become a lot more pessimistic about his chances of becoming a quality fantasy starter even further down the line. Historically, there are very, very few guys who were not starter-caliber fantasy quarterbacks within their first 2-3 seasons under center who later went on to be valuable fantasy assets.
Stephen Holloway: I would agree with that three year window with most quarterbacks, but Tannehill had so little experience at the position, playing wide receiver first at Texas A&M that I would give him a longer leash, particularly considering the poor offensive line play last year. If he shows some improvement this season, I would still hold out hope for future improvement.
Matt Waldman: Rarely do players become "monsters" who don't contribute right away. However, I do have a player that I think is capable of becoming a strong WR2 with elite WR1 upside if the offense evolves for his new team the way I expect them in 2-3 years. That player is one I've been touting all winter: Seattle wide receiver Paul Richardson Jr.
When the Seahawks traded back (twice) to begin the draft, GM John Schneider and Pete Carroll had Richardson as its de facto pick if the trades didn't pan out. It means Seattle valued Richardson as a first-round pick, but hoped that the buzz on the rookie from Colorado would remain low enough that the team could get him later.
Seattle raved about Richardson for 15 minutes during the press conference after day two and they said just about everything I saw from this rookie that I observed watching him for the Rookie Scouting Portfolio:
- Speed to run by cornerbacks (4.3-40 range).
- Advanced route skills that will only get better, but make him capable of playing outside this year.
- Toughness to defeat press coverage and win the ball against physical coverage (tight play and hits).
- Uncommon ability to adjust to the ball in flight.
- Agility, quickness, and vision to gain yards in the open field.
- Excellent reach/wingspan for his height (6-0)
There will be a faction of fantasy owners who will not like Richardson. They will cite his body mass index (BMI) or look at past history and make the argument that most elite wide receivers are at least 6-2 and 210 lbs. They'll throw around words about people like me who are willing to evaluate shorter/smaller receivers on the same plain as bigger/taller receivers and claim that the process is not "calibrated." They supply percentages from the past that show how a large percentage of big receivers are top fantasy options. And they'll question the efficacy of even taking a shorter/smaller receiver in the first place--especially in fantasy.
I believe in the value of analytics/data analysis for football. However there is a faction of folks I call "stats ministers," because they claim or suggest that what they're doing has some level objectivity with their process because they are using numbers when it's anything but the case.
First, there is a large enough sample size of shorter/smaller receivers that have been impact players in the NFL that their argument is moot: Isaac Bruce, Derrick Mason, Wes Welker, Marvin Harrison, DeSean Jackson, Torry Holt, Steve Smith, Jerry Rice, Tim Brown, Antonio Brown, Pierre Garcon, Victor Cruz, and Reggie Wayne are just small same of players who did not match this 6-2, 210-pound requirement. I'll add that folks I have spoken with who do analytics for the NFL--not a website, but statistically trained individuals who still abide by what they've learned and use it to help pro football teams--explain that there is an effective player archetype of the small, quick receiver.
This size/weight notion and discussion of "calibration" or what I think they actually mean--reverse regression--is also a classic statistical case of overfitting. There are too many variables and complexities to the game and the position to throw up two data points like height and weight and derive a predictive model on quality talent among receivers. The only fact about big/tall receivers is that they tend to have a large catch radius. Otherwise, there is no factual basis to assume that these players have more talent and skill.
The dangerous thing about this type of thinking is that many of these "stats ministers" were trained using perfect data sets in the classroom and their math is reliant on "high fit" equations. When they tackle a real world environment like football they still expect these lessons to help them when it won't. However, there are plenty of people who are reading and buying into what they're selling. Doug Drinen and Chase Stuart are two excellent examples of football writers and data analysts that don't behave in this manner.
This all applies to Richardson, because I think it's important that if you're going to be dissuaded from investing in a player don't do it for the wrong reasons. If the whole height/weight issue never bothered you or you accept my points about the flaws of some data work that's out there then there are two valid reasons why Richardson might not be worth the pick despite his talent.
The first is BMI. There is enough evidence that lower BMI scores can be predictive of injury. If Richardson qualifies then it would be reason for concern.
The second is his fit with the Seahawks. At this point, Seattle is a run-first team and if you believe the potential futures of Christine Michael or Robert Turbin is an indication that this team will continue to support a ground game like the one they have with Marshawn Lynch then Richardson might offer WR3 production, at best.
However, I believe that Seattle wants its offense to evolve into a high-octane passing game and hopes to make this transition as Lynch's career as a Seahawk wanes 1-2-3 years from now. Russell Wilson has "only" been a low-end fantasy QB1 during his first two seasons in the NFL. Even so, his 52 touchdowns and 19 interceptions during those first two years without a receiving corps that has a star option is as good or better than the first two years we saw from Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, or Tom Brady.
Seattle is unlikely to sustain its excellent defensive play long-term unless it can re-sign it's stars to sweetheart deals or develop young players with the same success it's had in the past. Because this is unlikely, the best player to invest in long-term is its quarterback and the way to do it is develop an offense that can score at a prolific rate.
Percy Harvin should be healthy enough this year for Wilson to have a true star as a target for the first time in his career. Although the team lost Golden Tate to free agency, Richardson has more upside as a complete receiver than Tate. It may take a few years to see this offense evolve in this direction because Lynch is still playing well and the defense is still together, Seattle will lean hard on its running game while it's championship window remains open with this personnel.
Richardson should earn some playing time this year, but it could be a limited set of packages that he does well. Seattle's brass said in this post-draft press conference that they like to get young players on the field early, but in situations where they believe the player can do well without being overwhelmed. Richardson is talented enough that he could progress fast and force his way into the lineup on a consistent basis with a Sidney Rice or Percy Harvin injury. However, if Rice and Harvin buck their past histories, Richardson might be the WR4-WR5 this year.
Rice will be gone next year so it's possible Richardson can vy for a spot opposite Harvin. If this happens and the Seahawks begin to open the aerial attack, Richardson could be an 1100-yard 10-touchdown threat by year 3 or 4.
Chad Parsons: I agree with Matt on the idea that successful receivers come in all shapes and sizes. Steve Smith, Wes Welker, Pierre Garcon, and Victor Cruz off that outlier list were pretty thick for their height, which in my research is more important than raw height. Wingspan, hand size, college production, and more are important data-driven elements as well.
Andy Hicks: Sometimes it is easy to over analyze and look at the player and not the environment he is going to.
There will be lots of rookies who will not have their skill set truly understood by coaching staffs who many times will try to put a square peg in a round hole. They'll convince themselves that they can mould the player into their system and as a result the player will underachieve.
On the other hand there are scouting departments who excel at getting guys that have skill sets often overlooked by other teams and know how to get that guy to work on their team.
That's why I'm looking at Martavis Bryant who was drafted by the Pittsburgh Steelers in the 4th round.
Just look at the Steelers record of drafting mid round receivers in the last few years:
- 2013 - Markus Wheaton - R3-79 - The Jury is still out on him, but big things are expected in 2014.
- 2013 - Justin Brown - R6-186 - Was on the practice squad last year and will be lucky to survive roster cuts.
- 2010 - Emmanuel Sanders - R3-82 - 35th ranked receiver in 2013 and projected to do even better on a new team in the Denver Broncos this year
- 2010 - Antonio Brown - R6-195 - Finished 2013 as the 7th ranked fantasy receiver.
- 2009 - Mike Wallace - R3-84 - two WR1 seasons in his 2nd and 3rd years with the team before being allowed to leave to the Dolphins
- 2008 - Limas Sweed - R2-53 - OK not every one is a home run.
It's not perfect, but getting WR1 fantasy production from middle rounds of the NFL draft is a difficult exercise.
Martavis Bryant is 6'4" and has a 40 time of 4.41. That normally equates to a higher draft slot, but questionable hands and an even more questionable work ethic saw him drop. The Steelers were going to take him in the 3rd, but when he was still there in the 4th they grabbed him.
He has the upside to be a top fantasy wide receiver and if the Steelers can continue their excellent development of wide receivers, he'll be great in 2015 onward.
Adam Harstad: I think there's some danger here of the same kind of overfitting that Matt Waldman talked about. If we assume that draft success is perfectly, 100% random, we should expect to see teams go through successful streaks at a position simply due to random chance. Maybe one team would hit on 4 quarterbacks in a row, while another team missed on 6 straight. Maybe one team had the midas touch at cornerback but was terrible at drafting defensive linemen. This doesn't mean that the data wasn't random, or that these teams are better than others at scouting a certain position... it means that random is often streaky. If you flip a coin a lot of times, you'll occasionally flip "heads" eight times in a row. That doesn't mean you're better at flipping "heads" than everyone else, it's just random noise.
We have a lot of evidence suggesting that, in the long run, no team drafts consistently better or worse than any other. In light of that evidence, it's dangerous to look at a team like Pittsburgh that has had a lot of recent success at a position and conclude that success has been the result of some inherent skill rather than that they've simply found themselves on the right side of random chance. And if the truth is that Pittsburgh's recent success really has owed to random chance, then we shouldn't have any heightened expectations for Martavis Bryant just because he happened to get picked by the Steelers instead of, say, the Raiders.
Andy Hicks: But the truth is that it is not 100% random and if you are comparing it to a coin toss, then I find that difficult to comprehend. Sure if we take 100 years of an eg NFL and compare draft successes at various positions for each team, we will end up with roughly a similar number of wins and losses in the draft for all 32 teams. That's statistical nonsense and bears no relevance to an individual scouting department right here, right now.
I can even take the supposition that no team is better at drafting than another over a 20 year period, even though I disagree with it, but to say there aren't scouts who are better at their job than others defies belief.
Often a teams "success" at drafting is down to luck, but there are skilled personnel working here, as well as awful ones and many average ones. Frequently it is down to good judgement, thorough analysis of prospects and ability to mesh coaching schemes, holes in a teams roster and a good network of scouts, management and coaching staff working together for the common good.
If a team or individual lose their midas touch it could be for any one of a variety of factors, maybe a key scouting personnel member moving on or trying to cut corners or maybe something as simple as someone losing touch with their ability to draft good players. Even bad luck factors into it. Everyday people all over the world get worse at their job, some get better, some stay the same. No reason it shouldn't apply to NFL talent evaluators either.
Back to my original point, I'm not saying Martavis Bryant will become a Pro Bowler simply because he was drafted by the Steelers. If he were drafted by let's say the Jets, then he could end up like a player he has been compared to a lot in Stephen Hill. The right environment is crucial to so many of these young men and Bryant lands on a seemingly perfect one in the Steelers. Maybe they're a bad match together, maybe Bryant can't translate to the NFL, but I like how Pittsburgh has been able to get the absolute best out of guys that other teams passed on numerous times at this position. Maybe he ends up like Plaxico Burress, maybe not. A lot can go wrong, but he fits a team need (tall, fast receiver), has a reliable quarterback and a solid team environment.
Maurile Tremblay: The point isn't that the draft is random. Of course it's not. Knowledgeable NFL scouts put a lot of effort into figuring out which players are better than others, and first-rounders as a group consistently outproduce seventh-rounders as a group by a significant amount. That shows that the draft is decidedly non-random.
The point is that a clump of good picks at a certain position by a certain team over a period of a few years is not good evidence that the team is especially good at evaluating players at that position. We'd see such clumps whether or not some teams were significantly better than others at it. If an observation is equally consistent with two competing hypotheses, it doesn't count as evidence in favor of either one against the other. The observation that the Steelers have recently made a bunch of good picks at WR is consistent both with the notion that the Steelers are especially good at evaluating WRs, and with the notion that they are not better -- only that they've been luckier -- in which case we should not count on the trend to continue.
I have not studied the issue myself, but I am aware of attempts by others to analyze whether the observed clumps of success in the NFL draft -- their frequency, duration, etc. -- signal genuine differences in scouting talent among NFL teams, or are just the kind of random variation we'd see if teams were pretty much equally talented in scouting. Their conclusions have favored the latter hypothesis.
The question about the role of skill versus random variation comes up in other contexts as well. People sometimes ask, for example, whether winning at poker over the course of some 5,000 hands is more a matter of luck or skill. The answer is that it depends. Poker is a game of skill, and if there is a large difference in skill between a player and his opponents, his results will be largely explained by that difference in skill. But if there is no significant difference in skill between a player and his opponents, his results will be determined by luck instead.
It's the same with scouting. Evaluating talent requires skill. If some teams slack off by cutting corners, they'll create a skill differential between themselves and other teams, and they should expect to get below-average results in the draft. But if all teams take scouting seriously and use the best practices known within the industry for evaluating talent, the teams will be close enough in skill that any significant differences in draft outcomes will likely be the product of factors unrelated to skill, such as random variation -- i.e., luck.
If that's the case -- and a number of people who've studied the issue have concluded that it probably is -- believing that the Steelers' recent success in drafting WRs portends future success as well is to mistake noise for a signal. (The principle works in reverse as well. How many people regret downgrading Calvin Johnson because the Lions had previously spent first-rounders on Charles Rodgers, Roy Williams, and Mike Williams?)
All that said, if the Steelers' recent success in drafting mid-round WRs isn't a particularly strong reason in itself to like Martavis Bryant, it is certainly not a reason not to like him. If you have Martavis Bryant and another player rated about equally based on other factors, the Steelers' recent history drafting WRs can certainly act as a tie-breaker in Bryant's favor, giving him a small bump that moves him ahead of other players in his tier. After all, it's possible that the analyses I mentioned earlier are wrong, and that the Steelers really are better at evaluating WRs than other teams are. That possibility, even if it's not a terribly strong one, is worth giving some weight to in close cases.
Andy Hicks: You've done very well in analyzing this and I feel I may be on a hiding to nothing...but here goes.
The hypothesis that all teams would be using best practices within the industry is a deeply flawed one. I understand that it is a theoretical exercise, but it would never happen. Some teams follow what are currently or were the best practices, others are ahead of the game and using what will be tomorrows best practices. Of course luck comes into it. How do we evaluate the Tennessee WR scouting department and whether it missed on Kenny Britt or not? Until his knee injury he looked like he was going to be a superior talent.
I'll move away from Pittsburgh and go to Green Bay. Again I'll stick with wide receivers under Ted Thompson and restrict it to non 1st rounders in the top 100:
- 2005 - Terrence Murphy R2-58 - Suffered a spinal stenosis injury in his rookie season and never played again
- 2006 - Greg Jennings R2-52 - 2 Pro Bowls
- 2007 - James Jones R3-78 - Led NFL receivers in touchdowns in 2012
- 2008 - Jordy Nelson R2-36 - 2-time fantasy WR1
- 2011 - Randall Cobb R2-64 - Up and comer projected to finish as a fantasy WR1 this year
- 2014 - Davante Adams R2-53 - Who knows?
That's a pretty good record. Are Green Bays scouting department better than other NFL teams at drafting these kind of guys?
Let's compare it to St. Louis over the same time period:
- 2008 - Donnie Avery - R2-33 - Never finished higher than the 39th ranked fantasy receiver
- 2010 - Mardy Gilyard - R4-99 - 8 career receptions
- 2011 - Austin Pettis - R3-78 - Never finished higher than the 67th ranked fantasy receiver
- 2012 - Brian Quick - R2-33 - 29 career receptions
- 2012 - Chris Givens - R4-96 - Went backwards in 2nd year after promising debut
- 2013 - Stedman Bailey - R3-92 - Starting 2nd year with a suspension after 17 catches in rookie season
There is still time for some of the Ram receivers, but it doesn't look good.
Are the Packers better at drafting receivers between 33 and 100 than St.Louis over the last 10 years, obviously yes. That doesn't mean that Davante Adams isn't going to flame out or the next guy St. Louis takes isn't going to hit it big, but if all other things are equal, then I'm going with the Green Bay receiver for now. Take it back to 20 years, 30 years or 50 years and we are going to have both teams with similar hits and misses.
Ted Thompson has been a great talent evaluator for almost 10 years now, same with Ozzie Newsome for even longer. Kevin Colbert in Pittsburgh has been consistently good for years. We can go back to guys like Bill Polian, Ron Wolf, Bobby Beathard, Bill Walsh etc.
Sure they miss or eventually lose their spark, just look at Bobby Beathard with Ryan Leaf, but they were superior to their compatriots.
They will all probably or have been replaced by guys who fail bringing teams back to the average.
Over analyzing statistics of teams successes in a draft over a long period of time will be closer to a head vs a tail on a coin toss. The here and now is a much wider spread and some teams are playing with coins that are more likely to land on a head than a tail. It is obvious to me that not all NFL scouting departments are of equal skill in the past, right now and it will probably the same in the future.
Adam Harstad: We're ranging a bit far afield, but I think it's a good and valuable discussion, so I'll just leave it to Clayton to sort through it all and decide what's worthwhile for publication. :)
Anyway, let's use your weighted coin analogy. If I'm flipping a fair coin, and I flip heads this year, what are the odds I will flip heads next year? Since the coin is fair, the odds will be 50%. On the other hand, let's say I'm flipping a weighted coin. If I flip heads this year, what are the odds that I will flip heads again next year? Those odds are going to depend on how heavily the coin is weighted, but they will be greater than 50%. Weighting increases the chances of repeating outcomes.
With this in mind, what is the best way to determine if some scouting departments are better than others? We could look at long timelines and analyze results, but you're absolutely right about the problems inherent in that methodology- scouting departments will turn over several times over a long enough timeline, leaving a very messy batch of results. A much simpler and more elegant approach to the problem is simply to compare each draft to the year before. If a team had a good draft in year N, what are the odds they will have a good draft in year N+1? If a team had a bad draft in year N, what are the odds that they will have a bad draft in year N+1? If drafting well were 100% the domain of repeatable skill, we should expect the correlation between draft quality from one year to the next to be 1.0. If drafting well were 100% the domain of random chance, we should expect the correlation between draft quality from one year to the next to be 0.0. Which is the case?
When Neil Paine performed the exercise, he found the correlation between how well a team drafted in year N and how well they drafted in year N+1 was just 0.06. The correlation between how well they drafted with pick N and how well they drafted with pick N+1 was 0.02. When Chase Stuart ran the numbers, he found a correlation of 0.07. Cade Massey looked at it in two ways. He repeated the same process as Neil and Chase (looking at individual teams over multiple years), and also found no correlation from year to year. He also looked at how the talent was distributed in individual years and calculated the correlation between team skill and talent distribution, and found that, in his own words, there was "literally zero difference across teams in talent-picking ability". So there have been several statistical analyses that have all come down against the idea of "talent-picking" as some sort of persistent, repeatable skill. I'm unaware of any such analyses that have supported the opposite position.
If some teams, scouting departments, or individual scouts were better than others at identifying talent, we should expect the world to look one way. If no teams, scouting departments, or individual scouts were better than others at identifying talent, we should expect the world to look another way entirely. When we look at the world, we find it very closely resembles the latter reality and bears little resemblance to the former. None of this conclusively disproves the idea that maybe Pittsburgh's scouting department is just really good at identifying receivers... but on the whole, it's enough to make me extremely skeptical that Pittsburgh's success is attributable to anything other than the fact that random chance is often streaky. And since I believe their past success owes almost entirely to good fortune rather than repeatable skill, I believe they are no more likely to be successful in the future than any other team would be.
In fact, if anything, this suggests that there might be some value in zigging while everyone else zags. Presumably many owners are aware of Pittsburgh's success in selecting receivers, and they will factor that into their evaluation, increasing Bryant's cost as a result (undeservedly, in my opinion). On the other hand, they might be simultaneously downgrading receivers from teams that have struggled to identify talent at that position in recent years (also undeservedly, in my opinion). If faced with a choice between searching for good talent on "bad drafting" teams at a discount, or searching for good talent on "good drafting" teams at a premium, I would much rather do the former. Just look at the top dynasty receivers in recent years. Calvin, Larry, and Andre were all drafted by horrible teams with poor track records in the draft (in Andre's case, with no track record in the draft). A.J. Green was drafted by a team that, over the 20 years prior to his arrival, was consistently one of the worst in the league- a team famous for its underfunded scouting department and spendthrift owner. Dez and Demaryius went to teams that were mediocre, but run by regimes that were mocked for their drafting ability. The same is true for Brandon Marshall. Alshon Jeffery went to a team so bad at drafting receivers that its all-time leading receiver retired all the way back in 1967 (and only had a single 1,000 yard season during his career, anyway). Players like Jordy Nelson, Randall Cobb, and Antonio Brown- players who were drafted by programs with a history of success and who carried on that history- are the exception and not the rule. It's been far more common for studs to emerge from unlikely locations, unearthed by lightly-regarded scouting departments on the heels of a string of failures.
There are plenty of reasons to like Bryant. Pittsburgh is a pass-friendly offense, and Roethlisberger is a good quarterback to get paired with for fantasy production. I just don't find the fact that he was rated higher by the Pittsburgh Steelers' scouting department than he was by, say, the New York Jets' scouting department to be a particularly compelling reason to like him.
Jeff Pasquino: I'm going to stick to the basic nature of this question - who is unlikely to contribute much this year but be a stud later.
I have three names, two RBs and one WR.
The first RB is Ka'Deem Carey. Matt Forte is getting up there (28 and turns 29 in December) and has been a workhorse for the Bears. He's had nearly 1,900 touches for his career and might have 1-2 more years left in the tank before he starts to decline. His contract aligns well with this (signed through next year, with a hefty $6.65M plus over $1M in bonuses in 2015) as he is a free agent come 2016. Carey was regarded by several experts as the top running back prospect prior to the NFL Draft this year and he scored a phenomenal 44 touchdowns in the last two seasons while at Arizona. Carey was the first RB drafted by the Bears since 2008 - when they drafted Forte in the second round. I see Carey working in as the goal line option this year, much like Michael Bush used to do - and staat to chop away at Forte's touches towards the end of the year until he pushes for more playing time next year. He might push Forte and his big contract off the roster next season, but certainly Carey is in line for the top spot for 2016.
The second running back is Devonta Freeman in Atlanta. It should surprise no one that the Falcons are planning to replace Steven Jackson, who was terrible last year. Atlanta was the worst rushing team last season with under 80 yards a game and running the ball less than a third of the offensive snaps. Jackson has fallen off of the cliff and needs to be replaced, and Freeman has the skills to play all three downs. I expect Freeman to steal third down duties right away and could be starting for the Falcons in the second half of this season.
As for wide receiver, we all know that Peyton Manning runs the best passing game in the NFL right now. Wes Welker is going to see an increase in targets as the possession receiver this year with Eric Decker gone, but Welker could be out next year due to contract reasons (or age), opening the door for second round selection Cody Latimer. If Latimer learns well this year as the fourth wide receiver and starter in waiting, he could be primed for a fantasy explosion next season.
Matt Waldman: I agree with all three of Jeff's picks. Very clear, safe, and obvious succession situations with talent most people know about.