PFF: Top 10 WR's in the NFL today

Nav22 said:
LOL, Drake London wasn't ranked top 10 by coaches, scouts and execs.

That's the point.
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id...p-10-wide-receivers-2026-execs-coaches-scouts

My first post said Pickens is UNIVERSALLY regarded as a top 10 WR. That isn't true of London.

His counting stats simply weren't impressive enough.

Weird how those who are paid to know this sport inside and out seem to think "counting stats" matter a hell of a lot more than you do.

Say, how come every single WR in that coach/scout/exex top 10 list has had monster "counting stats" seasons???? Where are the efficiency darlings who have never cracked 1,200 in their careers????
:laugh::laugh::laugh:
Click to expand...

So we are just ignoring the rankings from the source the thread was started on and has been discussed for 5+ pages now?

Also the link you provided says there were voters who left Pickens off their list so I’m not sure it’s as universal as you claim.

Pickens is going to make a lot of lists, and deserves to, but as more of these come out I imagine that there will be several lists he fails to make as well. Just too many good WRs in the league where the difference between a top 10 and top 20 WR is pretty minimal.
 
kskboys said:
Still amazes me every time how fans don't comprehend simple volume stats. It's like a basketball player scoring 30 PPG but shooting 33%. That is not a good season.
Click to expand...
Fans of all sports seem to be resistant to the evolution of the data. 40 years ago all we had were the traditional stats in the newspaper to go off of. Now we have so much more to work with but many prefer simplicity and traditional ways over evolution and accuracy.

Baseball might have been the worst until after the actual moneyball era. Most fans hated that era in the moment, it wasn’t until years after when the education on what was going on happened that it started to be embraced. Fans loved measuring everything by batting average and RBIs for hitters, wins and ERA for pitchers. Now it’s almost gone too far the other direction and you’re looked at sideways if you reference wins or rbis in player evaluation.

Today I think football is where baseball was 20 years ago. The bulk of fans are starting to evolve and move past the 101 stats, but we still have many who are clinging onto the old ways of doing things….even basic things like you mentioned of looking at volume stats along with number of opportunities.

Rushing for 1000 yards on 200 attempts is significantly more valuable than 1000 yards on 250 attempts.
 
thunderpimp91 said:
So we are just ignoring the rankings from the source the thread was started on and has been discussed for 5+ pages now?

Also the link you provided says there were voters who left Pickens off their list so I’m not sure it’s as universal as you claim.

Pickens is going to make a lot of lists, and deserves to, but as more of these come out I imagine that there will be several lists he fails to make as well. Just too many good WRs in the league where the difference between a top 10 and top 20 WR is pretty minimal.
Click to expand...
1) I said "universally" in my very first post. I was never JUST talking about PFF's ranking, which I don't take NEARLY as seriously as I take the ESPN ranking which is based on the poll of NFL coaches, scouts and execs.

2) I'll repeat the question you ignored.

Say, how come every single WR in that coach/scout/exex top 10 list has had monster "counting stats" seasons???? Where are the efficiency darlings who have never cracked 1,200 in their careers????
:laugh:
 
diamonddelts said:
GP does not have multiple children out of wedlock, been beaten unconscious on video, let dogs attack his neighbors, have sex in a club parking lot, nor has he been accused of rape. Sorry not seeing the Dak effect.
Click to expand...
The diamonddelts effect would be to act like a jealous, broke loser online. Not seeing that from GP either, thankfully!
 
Nav22 said:
The diamonddelts effect would be to act like a jealous, broke loser online. Not seeing that from GP either, thankfully!
Click to expand...
The Nav effect is multiple low I.Q. posts full of smilies and low brow opinions. Be sure not to use your teeth next time you see Dak. He does not like that.
 
Nav22 said:
1) I said "universally" in my very first post. I was never JUST talking about PFF's ranking, which I don't take NEARLY as seriously as I take the ESPN ranking which is based on the poll of NFL coaches, scouts and execs.

2) I'll repeat the question you ignored.

Say, how come every single WR in that coach/scout/exex top 10 list has had monster "counting stats" seasons???? Where are the efficiency darlings who have never cracked 1,200 in their careers????
:laugh:
Click to expand...
1) In the rankings you shared those votes weren't even universal as it says Pickens had at least one unranked vote.

2) I'm happy to answer the question.....the issue is the question doesn't really reflect anything against my argument. The answer is that good players tend to have strong statistical seasons at some point in their career. Nowhere in the post have I suggested that counting stats wont matter, I've said that you need to use them along with the advanced metrics and efficiency stats as well to tell the full story.

So here is a question for you.....Was Jared Goff better than Dak Prescott in 2025 since he had a higher completion %, higher yards, more TDs, and fewer ints?
 
thunderpimp91 said:
1) In the rankings you shared those votes weren't even universal as it says Pickens had at least one unranked vote.

2) I'm happy to answer the question.....the issue is the question doesn't really reflect anything against my argument. The answer is that good players tend to have strong statistical seasons at some point in their career. Nowhere in the post have I suggested that counting stats wont matter, I've said that you need to use them along with the advanced metrics and efficiency stats as well to tell the full story.

So here is a question for you.....Was Jared Goff better than Dak Prescott in 2025 since he had a higher completion %, higher yards, more TDs, and fewer ints?
Click to expand...
1) No, you never said counting stats should be considered along with efficiency stats. Your entire premise is based on the idea that counting stats don't tell the story and we need efficiency stats to do so. You're changing your tune because you see how strong the correlation is between counting stats and WR rankings.

Why was CeeDee Lamb ranked 6th in the ESPN rankings??? Weren't his efficiency stats WELL below top 10 last year???

2) QBs aren't judged the same way WRs are. The rankings confirm this. There are no readily-available efficiency stats that the masses go off of for WRs the way there are for QBs. There's no "WRR" the way we have "QBR". So no, Goff and his 57 QBR weren't better than Dak and his 70 QBR.
https://www.espn.com/nfl/qbr
 
Nav22 said:
1) No, you never said counting stats should be considered along with efficiency stats. Your entire premise is based on the idea that counting stats don't tell the story and we need efficiency stats to do so. You're changing your tune because you see how strong the correlation is between counting stats and WR rankings.

Why was CeeDee Lamb ranked 6th in the ESPN rankings??? Weren't his efficiency stats WELL below top 10 last year???

2) QBs aren't judged the same way WRs are. The rankings confirm this. There are no readily-available efficiency stats that the masses go off of for WRs the way there are for QBs. There's no "WRR" the way we have "QBR". So no, Goff and his 57 QBR weren't better than Dak and his 70 QBR.
https://www.espn.com/nfl/qbr
Click to expand...
1) That statement is not accurate.
  • Post #85
The counting stats matter, but it’s a fraction of the story.
Click to expand...
  • Post #43
Going just off of the counting stats can be a horrible way to evaluate production if you ignore the effeciency metrics that go along with it.
Click to expand...
I think I've been fairly consistent that its counting stats w/ the advanced metrics to go along with it. If I had to pick one or the other yeah give me the advanced metrics over total yards to tell the fuller story, but both matter. If a WR has a 3.0 Y/RR and plays 30+ passing snaps every game of coures he is going to have monster counting stats to go along with it. I've never argued that a guy like Justin Jefferson shouldn't be considered a top WR, I'm just saying its foolish to rule out 1,000 yard player on lesser snaps. The WR with 1000 yards on 450 routes is way more valuable than the 1000 yard wr who ran 600 routes.


2) Lol so advanced metrics are a good thing when it props up your QB, bad when it's inconvenient and suggests your stud WR was good before the Cowboys acquired him. Just because these stats aren't readily available to the masses doesn't mean they don't offer value. I'm not sure how much the rankings even confirm QBR is a go to stat per the expert rankings you've shared....The top 3 QBR leaders from 2025 are ranked 8th, unranked, and unranked.
 
thunderpimp91 said:
1) That statement is not accurate.
  • Post #85

  • Post #43

I think I've been fairly consistent that its counting stats w/ the advanced metrics to go along with it. If I had to pick one or the other yeah give me the advanced metrics over total yards to tell the fuller story, but both matter. If a WR has a 3.0 Y/RR and plays 30+ passing snaps every game of coures he is going to have monster counting stats to go along with it. I've never argued that a guy like Justin Jefferson shouldn't be considered a top WR, I'm just saying its foolish to rule out 1,000 yard player on lesser snaps. The WR with 1000 yards on 450 routes is way more valuable than the 1000 yard wr who ran 600 routes.


2) Lol so advanced metrics are a good thing when it props up your QB, bad when it's inconvenient and suggests your stud WR was good before the Cowboys acquired him. Just because these stats aren't readily available to the masses doesn't mean they don't offer value. I'm not sure how much the rankings even confirm QBR is a go to stat per the expert rankings you've shared....The top 3 QBR leaders from 2025 are ranked 8th, unranked, and unranked.
Click to expand...
I said they don't rank WRs based on these efficiency metrics. I never said the metrics don't matter.

And they don't rank them based on those metrics. The ESPN list confirms that.

That's why you ignored these questions:

Why was CeeDee Lamb ranked 6th in the ESPN rankings??? Weren't his efficiency stats WELL below top 10 last year???
 
Nav22 said:
I said they don't rank WRs based on these efficiency metrics. I never said the metrics don't matter.

And they don't rank them based on those metrics. The ESPN list confirms that.

That's why you ignored these questions:

Why was CeeDee Lamb ranked 6th in the ESPN rankings??? Weren't his efficiency stats WELL below top 10 last year???
Click to expand...
Overall no, Lambs efficienty numbers were really strong outside of the obvious issue....the 10% drop rate.

As I mentioned back in post # 87 both Lambs and Pickens overall value was fairly similar in 2025. Lamb was actually #5 in the league in yards per route, behind just Nacua, JSN, Flowers, and St Brown. Pickens was #6. Lamb was better on a per route basis, but Pickens was more effecient on a per catch basis averaging 15.4ypc vs Lambs 14.4. Lamb was surprisingly the better deep threat with a strong ADOT and hauled in 14 of 25 deep balls (over 20 yards) compared to 11 of 22 for Pickens.

The major difference between Lamb and Pickens in 2025 really was just the volume of snaps. 609 routes ran for Pickens compared to 455 for Lamb. If healthy for all 17 games Lamb had a really good chance to out produces Pickens on yards and catches.
 
thunderpimp91 said:
Fans of all sports seem to be resistant to the evolution of the data. 40 years ago all we had were the traditional stats in the newspaper to go off of. Now we have so much more to work with but many prefer simplicity and traditional ways over evolution and accuracy.

Baseball might have been the worst until after the actual moneyball era. Most fans hated that era in the moment, it wasn’t until years after when the education on what was going on happened that it started to be embraced. Fans loved measuring everything by batting average and RBIs for hitters, wins and ERA for pitchers. Now it’s almost gone too far the other direction and you’re looked at sideways if you reference wins or rbis in player evaluation.

Today I think football is where baseball was 20 years ago. The bulk of fans are starting to evolve and move past the 101 stats, but we still have many who are clinging onto the old ways of doing things….even basic things like you mentioned of looking at volume stats along with number of opportunities.

Rushing for 1000 yards on 200 attempts is significantly more valuable than 1000 yards on 250 attempts.
Click to expand...
And the teams w/ the most .300 hitters end up in the world series. Low average HR hitters has become the thing, and that isn't what wins championships.
 
thunderpimp91 said:
Overall no, Lambs efficienty numbers were really strong outside of the obvious issue....the 10% drop rate.

As I mentioned back in post # 87 both Lambs and Pickens overall value was fairly similar in 2025. Lamb was actually #5 in the league in yards per route, behind just Nacua, JSN, Flowers, and St Brown. Pickens was #6. Lamb was better on a per route basis, but Pickens was more effecient on a per catch basis averaging 15.4ypc vs Lambs 14.4. Lamb was surprisingly the better deep threat with a strong ADOT and hauled in 14 of 25 deep balls (over 20 yards) compared to 11 of 22 for Pickens.

The major difference between Lamb and Pickens in 2025 really was just the volume of snaps. 609 routes ran for Pickens compared to 455 for Lamb. If healthy for all 17 games Lamb had a really good chance to out produces Pickens on yards and catches.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. They ought to make those stats as commonly available as targets/Rec/Yds/TD.
 
Starforever said:
Who was the QB and what does that have to do with him having talent? What changed is his location, team and his age.

Guffaw, tee hee, chuckle, lol.
Click to expand...
.......and his ranking among WRs, which was literally the entire point which flew over your little brain.
:lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Staff online

Members online

... and 35 more.
Total: 44,956 (members: 135, guests: 44,821)
Robots: 1,459

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
474,411
Messages
14,535,649
Members
24,211
Latest member
yurikodiaz21
Back
Top