On Target – 2011 WR Target Wrap-up
At the end of each year, one of the stats that I look to look to begin preparation for the following year, is that of total targets at the wide receiver position.
Through a quick evaluation of targets, I can see very clearly the role receivers play within their respective offense. Taking the evaluation one step further, I then calculate the reception percentage to total targets and Yards per Reception (YPR). Why is this important? Because fantasy production stems from the point of reception, not the target.
By uncovering receivers that are converting at a lesser rate, you uncover greater potential for the following year should a variable in the offense change. Upgrades at quarterback, offensive line or a productive receiver acquisition all can help boost productivity. Obviously, too, any of these variables could also reduce the number of targets and corresponding receptions. It isn’t an exact science and the results aren’t always dramatic. But in the world of fantasy football, especially in PPR leagues, any number of extra points can equate to extra wins.
There hasn’t been a time yet that this exercise hasn’t uncovered a player or two that has surprised me in the number of targets, reception efficiency or YPR. Realize that every coaching staff in the NFL understands the efficiency of their passing game with respect to their receiver sets. What we’re looking for primarily are players who likely will receive an upgrade in productivity due to a corresponding upgrade in any offensive variable, usually at quarterback or offensive line play.
The YPR statistic is important as it helps to identify those receivers that are a down-field threat for their team. I typically like to identify receivers that have a high YPR. along with a high number of targets, but with a lower reception percentage. Remember, we are trying to identify upside potential, not verify that Calvin Johnson is a stud (unless that is what you are trying to verify).
Note that I only evaluate up through week 16.
Let’s take a look at the top 40 receivers ranked by Targets:
# | Name | Targets | Receptions | Rec. % | Yards | YPR. |
1 | White, Roddy ATL WR | 170 | 96 | 56.5% | 1,227 | 12.8 |
2 | Welker, Wes NEP WR | 162 | 116 | 71.6% | 1,518 | 13.1 |
3 | Johnson, Calvin DET WR | 141 | 85 | 60.3% | 1,437 | 16.9 |
4 | Lloyd, Brandon STL WR | 139 | 64 | 46.0% | 866 | 13.5 |
5 | Fitzgerald, Larry ARI WR | 136 | 71 | 52.2% | 1,262 | 17.8 |
6 | Bowe, Dwayne KCC WR | 135 | 75 | 55.6% | 1,066 | 14.2 |
7 | Marshall, Brandon MIA WR | 133 | 77 | 57.9% | 1,177 | 15.3 |
8 | Garcon, Pierre IND WR | 129 | 68 | 52.7% | 925 | 13.6 |
9 | Johnson, Steve BUF WR | 127 | 72 | 56.7% | 964 | 13.4 |
10 | Nicks, Hakeem NYG WR | 126 | 70 | 55.6% | 1,093 | 15.6 |
11 | Smith, Steve CAR WR | 122 | 73 | 59.8% | 1,308 | 17.9 |
12 | Williams, Mike TBB WR | 122 | 64 | 52.5% | 740 | 11.6 |
13 | Wayne, Reggie IND WR | 121 | 67 | 55.4% | 887 | 13.2 |
14 | Cruz, Victor NYG WR | 120 | 76 | 63.3% | 1,358 | 17.9 |
15 | Little, Greg CLE WR (R)Â | 115 | 61 | 53.0% | 709 | 11.6 |
16 | Brown, Antonio PIT WR | 114 | 63 | 55.3% | 1,018 | 16.2 |
17 | Washington, Nate TEN WR | 112 | 70 | 62.5% | 931 | 13.3 |
18 | Jackson, Vincent SDC WR | 110 | 58 | 52.7% | 1,077 | 18.6 |
19 | Wallace, Mike PIT WR | 109 | 71 | 65.1% | 1,182 | 16.6 |
20 | Boldin, Anquan BAL WR | 106 | 57 | 53.8% | 887 | 15.6 |
21 | Green, A.J. CIN WR (R)Â | 106 | 63 | 59.4% | 1,031 | 16.4 |
22 | Crabtree, Michael SFO WR | 104 | 64 | 61.5% | 788 | 12.3 |
23 | Gaffney, Jabar WAS WR | 104 | 64 | 61.5% | 919 | 14.4 |
24 | Harvin, Percy MIN WR | 104 | 77 | 74.0% | 852 | 11.1 |
25 | Holmes, Santonio NYJ WR | 100 | 51 | 51.0% | 654 | 12.8 |
26 | Burleson, Nate DET WR | 99 | 67 | 67.7% | 712 | 10.6 |
27 | Jennings, Greg GBP WR | 99 | 67 | 67.7% | 949 | 14.2 |
28 | Colston, Marques NOS WR | 97 | 73 | 75.3% | 998 | 13.7 |
29 | Jackson, DeSean PHI WR | 97 | 54 | 55.7% | 875 | 16.2 |
30 | Bryant, Dez DAL WR | 95 | 57 | 60.0% | 858 | 15.1 |
31 | Simpson, Jerome CIN WR | 95 | 45 | 47.4% | 671 | 14.9 |
32 | Doucet, Early ARI WR | 94 | 53 | 56.4% | 682 | 12.9 |
33 | Heyward-Bey, D. OAK WR | 94 | 55 | 58.5% | 845 | 15.4 |
34 | Breaston, Steve KCC WR | 93 | 60 | 64.5% | 776 | 12.9 |
35 | Nelson, David BUF WR | 93 | 59 | 63.4% | 635 | 10.8 |
36 | Decker, Eric DEN WR | 92 | 43 | 46.7% | 607 | 14.1 |
37 | Williams, Damian TEN WR | 92 | 43 | 46.7% | 571 | 13.3 |
38 | Burress, Plaxico NYJ WR | 91 | 41 | 45.1% | 555 | 13.5 |
39 | Branch, Deion NEP WR | 90 | 51 | 56.7% | 702 | 13.8 |
40 | Jones, Julio ATL WR (R)Â | 90 | 50 | 55.6% | 883 | 17.7 |
Avg. Reception % | 57.8% |
And now by reception %:
# | Name | Targets | Receptions | Rec. % | Yards | YPR. |
1 | Colston, Marques NOS WR | 97 | 73 | 75.3% | 998 | 13.7 |
2 | Harvin, Percy MIN WR | 104 | 77 | 74.0% | 852 | 11.1 |
3 | Welker, Wes NEP WR | 162 | 116 | 71.6% | 1,518 | 13.1 |
4 | Burleson, Nate DET WR | 99 | 67 | 67.7% | 712 | 10.6 |
5 | Jennings, Greg GBP WR | 99 | 67 | 67.7% | 949 | 14.2 |
6 | Wallace, Mike PIT WR | 109 | 71 | 65.1% | 1,182 | 16.6 |
7 | Breaston, Steve KCC WR | 93 | 60 | 64.5% | 776 | 12.9 |
8 | Nelson, David BUF WR | 93 | 59 | 63.4% | 635 | 10.8 |
9 | Cruz, Victor NYG WR | 120 | 76 | 63.3% | 1,358 | 17.9 |
10 | Washington, Nate TEN WR | 112 | 70 | 62.5% | 931 | 13.3 |
11 | Crabtree, Michael SFO WR | 104 | 64 | 61.5% | 788 | 12.3 |
12 | Gaffney, Jabar WAS WR | 104 | 64 | 61.5% | 919 | 14.4 |
13 | Johnson, Calvin DET WR | 141 | 85 | 60.3% | 1,437 | 16.9 |
14 | Bryant, Dez DAL WR | 95 | 57 | 60.0% | 858 | 15.1 |
15 | Smith, Steve CAR WR | 122 | 73 | 59.8% | 1,308 | 17.9 |
16 | Green, A.J. CIN WR (R) | 106 | 63 | 59.4% | 1,031 | 16.4 |
17 | Heyward-Bey, D. OAK WR | 94 | 55 | 58.5% | 845 | 15.4 |
18 | Marshall, Brandon MIA WR | 133 | 77 | 57.9% | 1,177 | 15.3 |
19 | Johnson, Steve BUF WR | 127 | 72 | 56.7% | 964 | 13.4 |
20 | Branch, Deion NEP WR | 90 | 51 | 56.7% | 702 | 13.8 |
21 | White, Roddy ATL WR | 170 | 96 | 56.5% | 1,227 | 12.8 |
22 | Doucet, Early ARI WR | 94 | 53 | 56.4% | 682 | 12.9 |
23 | Jackson, DeSean PHI WR | 97 | 54 | 55.7% | 875 | 16.2 |
24 | Bowe, Dwayne KCC WR | 135 | 75 | 55.6% | 1,066 | 14.2 |
25 | Nicks, Hakeem NYG WR | 126 | 70 | 55.6% | 1,093 | 15.6 |
26 | Jones, Julio ATL WR (R) | 90 | 50 | 55.6% | 883 | 17.7 |
27 | Wayne, Reggie IND WR | 121 | 67 | 55.4% | 887 | 13.2 |
28 | Brown, Antonio PIT WR | 114 | 63 | 55.3% | 1,018 | 16.2 |
29 | Boldin, Anquan BAL WR | 106 | 57 | 53.8% | 887 | 15.6 |
30 | Little, Greg CLE WR (R)Â | 115 | 61 | 53.0% | 709 | 11.6 |
31 | Jackson, Vincent SDC WR | 110 | 58 | 52.7% | 1,077 | 18.6 |
32 | Garcon, Pierre IND WR | 129 | 68 | 52.7% | 925 | 13.6 |
33 | Williams, Mike TBB WR | 122 | 64 | 52.5% | 740 | 11.6 |
34 | Fitzgerald, Larry ARI WR | 136 | 71 | 52.2% | 1,262 | 17.8 |
35 | Holmes, Santonio NYJ WR | 100 | 51 | 51.0% | 654 | 12.8 |
36 | Simpson, Jerome CIN WR | 95 | 45 | 47.4% | 671 | 14.9 |
37 | Decker, Eric DEN WR | 92 | 43 | 46.7% | 607 | 14.1 |
38 | Williams, Damian TEN WR | 92 | 43 | 46.7% | 571 | 13.3 |
39 | Lloyd, Brandon STL WR | 139 | 64 | 46.0% | 866 | 13.5 |
40 | Burress, Plaxico NYJ WR | 91 | 41 | 45.1% | 555 | 13.5 |
And lastly by YPR:
# | Name | Targets | Receptions | Rec. % | Yards | YPR. |
1 | Jackson, Vincent SDC WR | 110 | 58 | 52.7% | 1,077 | 18.6 |
2 | Smith, Steve CAR WR | 122 | 73 | 59.8% | 1,308 | 17.9 |
3 | Cruz, Victor NYG WR | 120 | 76 | 63.3% | 1,358 | 17.9 |
4 | Fitzgerald, Larry ARI WR | 136 | 71 | 52.2% | 1,262 | 17.8 |
5 | Jones, Julio ATL WR (R) | 90 | 50 | 55.6% | 883 | 17.7 |
6 | Johnson, Calvin DET WR | 141 | 85 | 60.3% | 1,437 | 16.9 |
7 | Wallace, Mike PIT WR | 109 | 71 | 65.1% | 1,182 | 16.6 |
8 | Green, A.J. CIN WR (R) | 106 | 63 | 59.4% | 1,031 | 16.4 |
9 | Jackson, DeSean PHI WR | 97 | 54 | 55.7% | 875 | 16.2 |
10 | Brown, Antonio PIT WR | 114 | 63 | 55.3% | 1,018 | 16.2 |
11 | Nicks, Hakeem NYG WR | 126 | 70 | 55.6% | 1,093 | 15.6 |
12 | Boldin, Anquan BAL WR | 106 | 57 | 53.8% | 887 | 15.6 |
13 | Heyward-Bey, D. OAK WR | 94 | 55 | 58.5% | 845 | 15.4 |
14 | Marshall, Brandon MIA WR | 133 | 77 | 57.9% | 1,177 | 15.3 |
15 | Bryant, Dez DAL WR | 95 | 57 | 60.0% | 858 | 15.1 |
16 | Simpson, Jerome CIN WR | 95 | 45 | 47.4% | 671 | 14.9 |
17 | Gaffney, Jabar WAS WR | 104 | 64 | 61.5% | 919 | 14.4 |
18 | Bowe, Dwayne KCC WR | 135 | 75 | 55.6% | 1,066 | 14.2 |
19 | Jennings, Greg GBP WR | 99 | 67 | 67.7% | 949 | 14.2 |
20 | Decker, Eric DEN WR | 92 | 43 | 46.7% | 607 | 14.1 |
21 | Branch, Deion NEP WR | 90 | 51 | 56.7% | 702 | 13.8 |
22 | Colston, Marques NOS WR | 97 | 73 | 75.3% | 998 | 13.7 |
23 | Garcon, Pierre IND WR | 129 | 68 | 52.7% | 925 | 13.6 |
24 | Burress, Plaxico NYJ WR | 91 | 41 | 45.1% | 555 | 13.5 |
25 | Lloyd, Brandon STL WR | 139 | 64 | 46.0% | 866 | 13.5 |
26 | Johnson, Steve BUF WR | 127 | 72 | 56.7% | 964 | 13.4 |
27 | Washington, Nate TEN WR | 112 | 70 | 62.5% | 931 | 13.3 |
28 | Williams, Damian TEN WR | 92 | 43 | 46.7% | 571 | 13.3 |
29 | Wayne, Reggie IND WR | 121 | 67 | 55.4% | 887 | 13.2 |
30 | Welker, Wes NEP WR | 162 | 116 | 71.6% | 1,518 | 13.1 |
31 | Breaston, Steve KCC WR | 93 | 60 | 64.5% | 776 | 12.9 |
32 | Doucet, Early ARI WR | 94 | 53 | 56.4% | 682 | 12.9 |
33 | Holmes, Santonio NYJ WR | 100 | 51 | 51.0% | 654 | 12.8 |
34 | White, Roddy ATL WR | 170 | 96 | 56.5% | 1,227 | 12.8 |
35 | Crabtree, Michael SFO WR | 104 | 64 | 61.5% | 788 | 12.3 |
36 | Little, Greg CLE WR (R) | 115 | 61 | 53.0% | 709 | 11.6 |
37 | Williams, Mike TBB WR | 122 | 64 | 52.5% | 740 | 11.6 |
38 | Harvin, Percy MIN WR | 104 | 77 | 74.0% | 852 | 11.1 |
39 | Nelson, David BUF WR | 93 | 59 | 63.4% | 635 | 10.8 |
40 | Burleson, Nate DET WR | 99 | 67 | 67.7% | 712 | 10.6 |
So what do we do from here? Again, I am trying to locate a few receivers that have under-performed in production compared to their number of targets, while also referencing respective YPR. An offensive upgrade can play a significant role in upgraded production.
Looking at the first table, first note that the average reception percentage is 57.8%. I’m setting my sites on those receivers that are close to 5% below this average along with higher target numbers and then continuing my evaluation. Those falling 10% below receive even greater focus. Considering the last table, I’m looking for high YPR receivers with a correspondingly low reception percentage with a higher target number.
Who stands out from above:
Brandon Lloyd and Larry Fitzgerald. But we know a lot about them already. It’s not likely that you will be acquiring Fitzgerald in a buy-low situation, even though his reception percentage is low. What this does tell you is that, obviously, Fitzgerald’s efficiency is suffering due to poor quarterback play, constant double teams, a poor offensive line or a combination of all of these. Fitzgerald’s numbers would likely increase with better quarterback play, but not enough to capitalize on considering his value. Moving on.
Brandon Lloyd’s situation is noteworthy. A very low 46% reception efficiency combined with a low-average YPR. An increase to the norm in reception percentage would be material. But with Lloyd, being a product of a, likely-departing, Josh McDaniels system puts his situation in doubt. Should McDaniels depart and reacquire Lloyd, who is a 2012 free agent, he would be a very nice sleeper play in 2012. With a new team not coached by McDaniels, however, too many variables are in play to make him noteworthy from this exercise in my opinion.
Greg Little was a surprise to me and I didn’t realize he had as many targets as he did. Certainly if Cleveland upgrades their quarterback situation or run-game, Hill is likely to benefit. It’s obvious he’s the go-to receiver in that offense. He did convert at a 53% rate, but in being a rookie, those numbers are noteworthy to me. Similarly, Mike Williams obviously is the focus in Tampa Bay but had a dismal year. Projecting a bounce-back year is difficult but there is certainly room for improvement in both reception efficiency and his 37th ranked YPR number. An increase in both of these next year would produce material increases in production that make him a relatively attractive buy-low candidate if you can.
Burress’ name comes up often from these tables but I am removing him from my list due to age.
The final three, save one last notation, are Jerome Simpson, Eric Decker and Damian Williams. All have noteworthy targets but poor reception efficiency. Difficult to project higher numbers for any of these players considering their situations, but an increase to the average would be material. As such, they will go on my list as good risk-reward or sleeper plays. For Jerome Simpson, a free agent in 2012, should he stay in Cincinnati or move to a system with a quality quarterback, I will give him a sleeper status as well.
One final notation. Vincent Jackson is an interesting case with poor reception efficiency but on the top of the list for YPR. Jackson is obviously a down-field threat with upside should he move to, or exceed, the reception efficiency average in 2012. As a free agent, should he move to a team with a quality quarterback, it’s safe to call him an up-side target for 2012. We can’t call a receiver like Jackson a sleeper due to his status.
The thing I like most about this exercise is that it’s easy to look at these three tables a number of different ways.  Each fantasy coach can see something different and forecast different results. While I perform this evaluation annually, often times twice, to locate under-performing receivers with upside, I also use it to ensure that my top names aren’t beginning what could be a noteworthy slide due to change of circumstance.
I hope you will find value in this exercise as well.
- Lineup Advice: Wrap-up, Thank You and Goodbye (TTFN) - January 1, 2024
- Lineup Advice: Week 17 – Championship Edition - December 26, 2023
- Lineup Advice: Week 16 – The “What is” Edition - December 19, 2023