Jump to content
NBC Sports Edge Forums

Mark Andrews 2020 Outlook


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, PisEdiRin said:

Overvalued in PPR leagues. A bit Touchdown reliant. I don't see why he's a better PPR option than Darren Waller. Andrews will have negative TD regression, Waller will have positive TD regression. I'd rather get Waller later.

 

I think he has a legit shot to finish #1 TE. Hurst and Andrews each played 41% of snaps. Andrews lead TEs in targets of 20 or more yds and also redzone targets. Factor in that Hurst is gone and Andrews should now be playing 80-90% of the snaps like Waller, Kelce, kittle and the sky is the limit. I'd have no problem taking him in the 3rd in PPR over the sketchy rbs and wrs such as Moore or Thielen.

Edited by scheibler
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 267
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

What were you saying?

Would not surprise me he will be in the same tier as Kittle and Kelce soon

37 minutes ago, PisEdiRin said:

Overvalued in PPR leagues. A bit Touchdown reliant. I don't see why he's a better PPR option than Darren Waller. Andrews will have negative TD regression, Waller will have positive TD regression. I'd rather get Waller later.


I agree with you but you are using positive and negative regression wrong 

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, scheibler said:

 

I think he has a legit shot to finish #1 TE. Hurst and Andrews each played 41% of snaps. Andrews lead TEs in targets of 20 or more yds and also redzone targets. Factor in that Hurst is gone and Andrews should now be playing 80-90% of the snaps like Waller, Kelce, kittle and the sky is the limit. I'd have no problem taking him in the 3rd in PPR over the sketchy rbs and wrs such as Moore or Thielen.

 

I won’t say it’s impossible but I highly highly doubt he can become the TE1. He might have a hard time staying the TE3. Only reason he was that high Last year was Having 10tds. Almost 1/3 of lamars TDs.
 

Lamar will likely throw less TDs this year meaning andrews will likely catch less this year. And I don’t think he will put up the 90plus catches and 1200 yards that kelce does regularly along with his 8 TDs. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Stonej14 said:


I agree with you but you are using positive and negative regression wrong 

 

How did I use positive/negative regression wrong?

Andrews had 10 TDs last year, he will see negative regression this year (less than 10 TDs)

Waller had 3 TDs last year, he will see positive regression this year (more than 3 TDs)

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, PisEdiRin said:

 

How did I use positive/negative regression wrong?

Andrews had 10 TDs last year, he will see negative regression this year (less than 10 TDs)

Waller had 3 TDs last year, he will see positive regression this year (more than 3 TDs)


Sorry it’s a pet peeve of mine not a personal attack on you.


But there is no such thing as negative regression just.. regression. So you think andrews (like I do) will have less TDs thus regressing. 
 

positive regression doesn’t mean “you score more” it means your stats will “regress” to the stats you had years prior. 
 

Example. 2019 kamara had 5 rushing TDs we expect him to regress to his stats in 2018 and 2017 and have more TDs in 2020. It’s a stupid term and I shouldn’t care.. sorry. 
 

But Darren Waller has never had more than 3 TDs in a season so you expect regular ole boring progression. If he “regressed” to prior years stats he would have less than 3 TDs... so negative regression... maybe it is a real term??
 

Edited by Stonej14
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, scheibler said:

I think his floor is going to be 60/900/5 with upside of 90/1300/12

 

Both of those are lofty goals. He barely got 60 for 850 with Lamar having an mvp season and almost no other options to throw too. It can happen but I’m a Hollywood brown believer so I think he caps andrews from being the monster 90/1300/12 guy and is more like the 60/900/5 guy. 
 

however I hope you’re right. I was in pretty early on andrews last year and I’m a huge Jackson fan so the better andrews is the better Jackson is. I think andrews forum on here was started because of me last year.. (not so subtle brag)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Low volume passing game, unsustainable TD rate. I like Andrews a lot, and I do believe he’ll be a top 5 TE. But unless Baltimore unleashes Jackson’s arm at least a bit more, it’s going to be hard for Andrews to top 60-800-8. I know he did last year, but you have to think Hollywood and Boykin get more run this year, and Duvernay was a 3rd rd pick. He has zero chance at TE1 this year, but top 5 is still possible. But look out for guys like Hurst, Waller, and Gesicki to possibly pass him up this year...Engram if he can possibly stay healthy. 

Andrews might have hit his ceiling last year, tbh. And I say this as someone who owns Andrews in one league. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Flyman75 said:

Low volume passing game, unsustainable TD rate. I like Andrews a lot, and I do believe he’ll be a top 5 TE. But unless Baltimore unleashes Jackson’s arm at least a bit more, it’s going to be hard for Andrews to top 60-800-8. I know he did last year, but you have to think Hollywood and Boykin get more run this year, and Duvernay was a 3rd rd pick. He has zero chance at TE1 this year, but top 5 is still possible. But look out for guys like Hurst, Waller, and Gesicki to possibly pass him up this year...Engram if he can possibly stay healthy. 

Andrews might have hit his ceiling last year, tbh. And I say this as someone who owns Andrews in one league. 

 

Yea I'm targeting Waller or Hurst in the 6th instead of Andrews, but I don't expect him to regress due to a drastic increase in snaps. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, scheibler said:

 

Yea I'm targeting Waller or Hurst in the 6th instead of Andrews, but I don't expect him to regress due to a drastic increase in snaps. 


I don’t think we’ll see a drastic increase in snaps. I think Nick Boyle will simply take most or all of Hurst’s snaps. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/25/2020 at 12:10 PM, Stonej14 said:


Sorry it’s a pet peeve of mine not a personal attack on you.


But there is no such thing as negative regression just.. regression. So you think andrews (like I do) will have less TDs thus regressing. 
 

positive regression doesn’t mean “you score more” it means your stats will “regress” to the stats you had years prior. 
 

Example. 2019 kamara had 5 rushing TDs we expect him to regress to his stats in 2018 and 2017 and have more TDs in 2020. It’s a stupid term and I shouldn’t care.. sorry. 
 

But Darren Waller has never had more than 3 TDs in a season so you expect regular ole boring progression. If he “regressed” to prior years stats he would have less than 3 TDs... so negative regression... maybe it is a real term??
 

When people say positive and negative regression, they mean regression to the mean. You're the one the thinking of it wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Andrews because he's a solid/fast receiver and should be out there all the time because of limited receiving options in Baltimore. I don't even think he blocks much so he should be running a ton of routes. BUT defenses will have to be better next year against the Baltimore passing game. I feel like Lamar's receivers were always WIDE OPEN whenever he passed (selling out to stop the run), that has to regress with some better game planning. I could see myself drafting Andrews but won't be reaching considering there are lots of good tight ends to draft late.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, yanksman said:

When people say positive and negative regression, they mean regression to the mean. You're the one the thinking of it wrong.

People regularly use words they don't fully understand, mispronounce them or garble sentences. That doesn't make them right.

Almost any statistical term commonly used in Fantasy, is used wrong seen from a mathematical view point. The whole regression thing is generally completely misunderstood by people, and positive/negative regression is sort of a compound misunderstanding. Stonej14 was actually quite right in his understanding.

And it's also at the same time a pointless discussion. For instance: Waller didn't get only 3 TDs because of some statistical anomaly, he got 3 TD because they swapped him out at the goal line for Foster Moreau. It's not a weird accident, it was a clear strategy by Chucky Gruden. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrews was in a 3-man TE rotation & battled a few injuries late in the year.  Still managed to put up 64-852-10 on 98 targets.  The receptions & yardage should be his floor this season, health permitting.  TD's probably go down to the 7-8 range. With Hurst gone resulting in more snaps, over 100 targets with 75-900-8 seems like a reasonable projection

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lvsaint429 said:

Andrews was in a 3-man TE rotation & battled a few injuries late in the year.  Still managed to put up 64-852-10 on 98 targets.  The receptions & yardage should be his floor this season, health permitting.  TD's probably go down to the 7-8 range. With Hurst gone resulting in more snaps, over 100 targets with 75-900-8 seems like a reasonable projection

 

This^^^

 

I don't think reaching for him in the 3rd is prudent, but he's a rock solid 4th or 5th round pick IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
1 hour ago, fruitjacket said:

Andrews appears to have Jackson's eye in the RZ.  That's a good thing.

 

For good reason. That one handed TD snag was slick.

 

The people that faded him due to TD regression are going to regret it. Some dudes just catch TDs. His snap count and targets will both rise this year. Arrow pointing up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...