Terry McLaurin

[burgold]

I think point about dependent positions is an interesting one. I’ve generally contended that coaching can raise or drop a player by half a letter grade. So, an A-level receiver maxes out at B+ with Scott Turner calling the plays. Likewise, Gibbs in his glory days turned B players into A players.

The question here is whether a QB also has a half grade impact, meaning if you a Player is a solid B level player, but has a bad coach and a poor QB will they seem to be a C.

 

[tshile]

To me a #1 is the prototypical tall, strong, quality route running WR that just gives you something no other wr gives you. Can catch anything, can go up and get anything. Antonio Brown, Calvin Johnson, Chase, Randy moss, those types of guys. McLaurin is not that

I do think I take those non stat items into account. And I have given him credit for his character and leadership on the team which is also not a stat.

I think he’s top 32. I believe I said he’s not top 20 and an argument can be made he’s not top 25 at the moment either.

I just don’t agree with the idea that makes him elite or a true #1. And neither do most people.

With a high quality qb, a good OC, and a good team, he may turn into an elite wide receiver. It’s certainly not out of the realm of possibilities. But to date he’s not been an elite wide receiver.

And nothing is going to change his height and strength to put him in that “true #1” category

And I don’t think any of that is “bad.” It’s not a “knock on him.” It’s just reality and he’s still a great player that anyone would want on their roster.

Edit: hah I didn’t mean Antonio brown I meant AJ brown. Antonio brown is 5’10”

 

[tomwvr]

i think terry is a top 20 and perhaps top 15 wr. Ive never said or thought he is top 10. But anyone top 32 is a number 1 receiver since there are 32 teams. Now the difference between 1-5 5-10 10-20 and 20-32 is wide. They are all number one wrs.

 

[Boone]

I think that assumes that every team's '#1' receiver is better than every other #2 WR in the league. That might be difficult to argue in every case. It's like saying every state has a top restaurant, therefore those restaurants are the top 50 in the US. I'm not sure it works that way

Look - I doubt there's a Washington fan that doesn't love Terry McLaurin. What's he's accomplished with marginal QBing is pretty great. He's a very, very good WR - tenacious, professional, and a leader with a great attitude. He's not a top 10 WR currently either based on talent or production, and by definition that means he's nowhere near elite. And nowhere near elite means he probably isn't a future HOFer - although there is still time for that to change.

 

[tshile]

Yeah I’d argue lots of teams don’t have a real #1 - they have a guy that’s in the position but he’s not truly on that level.

But I also didn’t mean to derail a thread meant to celebrate a player that’s truly worth celebrating, being proud off and happy for now that he has a qb that can actually make use of him.

He’s been rotting away under the likes of EB, Taylor and Sam, among some others. And I loved rooting for Sam and Taylor - but they were not good enough to use terry the way he should be, they’re no where near Daniels and I think it’s fair to say Scott and EB aren’t as good as Kliff

Apologies for the derailment.

 

[Boone]

I don’t think you derailed it, it’s an interesting convo. Like I said, who doesn’t love them some Terry McLaurin?!!!

 

[Knightingale]

Here’s a question…

If you were drafting Fantasy now, knowing what you know about Jayden Daniels and the Kingsbury offense, does Terry get taken much higher?

Or if we continue to be this ruthlessly efficient for the rest of the season, where do JD and Terry get fantasy drafted next year?

Now Terry’s stats haven’t jumped hugely under JD yet, but I think there’s a strong possibility as this offense settles in (because I’m not sure they’ve peaked yet!) his numbers could jump.

He could easily jump way up the fantasy draft board next year. So would that mean he suddenly makes the jump to Elite? Or has his stock been held down by the person throwing the ball to him?

 

[burgold]

Been thinking about my definition of a #1 WR and I don't think I have one, but I don't think it'd be based on size and speed measurables. I suspect it would be based on how much sleep DC's lose because they have to specifically plan for them and how much effort they have to put in to try to limit their production. For the moment, I'll agree that Terry isn't a number one, but that's because he gets neutralized a little bit too easily. That may not be all Terry. Some of it could be bad play design and weak QBing, but whatever it is, we've seen him taken out of way too many games.

 

[SkinsNumberOne]

I think that assumes that every team's '#1' receiver is better than every other #2 WR in the league. That might be difficult to argue in every case. It's like saying every state has a top restaurant, therefore those restaurants are the top 50 in the US. I'm not sure it works that way

Look - I doubt there's a Washington fan that doesn't love Terry McLaurin. What's he's accomplished with marginal QBing is pretty great. He's a very, very good WR - tenacious, professional, and a leader with a great attitude. He's not a top 10 WR currently either based on talent or production, and by definition that means he's nowhere near elite. And nowhere near elite means he probably isn't a future HOFer - although there is still time for that to change.

That’s not what he said - I think you misunderstood because I believe tom and I are making the same argument.

If you take all WRs and re-draft them, the 32 first picks are the number ones.

Tom and I contend that Terry is one of those 32.

After being totally cratered in value by EB last year, he still managed ADP of 31 apparently, which (again) by tom’s and my definition, still makes him a number one.

We were defining it with a real metric, and I think it holds. I don’t think many people would pick 32 WRs before Terry, period. I don’t see that happening.

People forget how good he is because he is quiet and he does lack in size. He did have some pass happy coordinators, that is true, but generally bad at scheming (many at least wrote that way about Scott and EB) and with consensus well below average QBs. To put up the numbers he did with the QBs and OCs he had (although again I admit they were pass happy), it is actually impressive. He had a lot going against him.

I understand looking at a physical definition of a number one but to me that doesn’t make sense. If a player has talent to transcend their physical limitations, there shouldn’t be a weird definition that precludes a higher status of recognition. That seems really weird. Is he as tall as a prototypical #1? No. Do his stats merit him being called a number one? Again for me it is a matter of him being one of the top 32 WRs which even with qb and oc issues, he has managed. For me he is a lock as a number one.

His character is icing on the cake.

 

[Boone]

Tom said “anyone who is the top 32 is a number 1”. I am not arguing McLaurin is not top 32, I’m just stating I don’t think that’s necessarily true - since some teams have a #2 WR who is better than other team’s ‘#1’,

If I misunderstood, my bad.

For the 3rd time - McLaurin is a very good receiver and I don’t think there’s any argument to be had on that front.

 

[tshile]

Here’s a question…

If you were drafting Fantasy now, knowing what you know about Jayden Daniels and the Kingsbury offense, does Terry get taken much higher?

In general, yes, a little, very slightly. Probably essentially no.

Personally, in my important league, I took him in the 7th round. I went wr, qb, wr, rb, te, rb, and then terry. And I drafted him only slightly high, and I go pass catcher first. I took a qb early cause I had his #1 from the first round ( Neophyte )

So I took him. And I took him early. And I bet there’s a good chance I could get him at about the same spot if everyone redrafted right now.

In my leagues scoring his score by week have been: 3, 8, 20, 18
Two ok games and two total horse shit games. I’m the highest scorer in the league right now and he’s my worst starter.

I think we follow him closely and see a shit ton of potential. Reality is he’s just not in that tier 1 receiver group.

If your argument is *he will be soon now that we have Jayden* then I think there’s a good chance you might be right. And I’m rooting for it just like you are.

 

[Knightingale]

In general, yes, a little, very slightly. Probably essentially no.

Personally, in my important league, I took him in the 7th round. I went wr, qb, wr, rb, te, rb, and then terry. And I drafted him only slightly high, and I go pass catcher first. I took a qb early cause I had his #1 from the first round ( Neophyte )

So I took him. And I took him early. And I bet there’s a good chance I could get him at about the same spot if everyone redrafted right now.

In my leagues scoring his score by week have been: 3, 8, 20, 18
Two ok games and two total horse shit games. I’m the highest scorer in the league right now and he’s my worst starter.

I think we follow him closely and see a shit ton of potential. Reality is he’s just not in that tier 1 receiver group.

If your argument is *he will be soon now that we have Jayden* then I think there’s a good chance you might be right. And I’m rooting for it just like you are.

I think in general what I meant by my post was perception rather than stats.

For years, Terry has played with bad coaching, bad schemes, and bad QBs. Or at the very least suspect QBs. Those on one leg (Smith), rookies who were bad (Haskins), old re-run QBs (Wentz), of QBs that were deficient in the physical attributes (Heineke), or just in the wrong scheme (Howell). Many could say he has overperformed in the WR role despite those things. But looking at the team and generally how anemic we've been on offense for a very long time will surely have an impact on where Terry is view on a Fantasy scale. This year would be a case in point. Pre-season Jayden Daniels was in no way expected to be putting up these kind of numbers, so any fantasy team owner would be forgiven for thinking that, even optimistically, Washington would be a bottom half of the league team in offense. Maybe even bottom of the league till they gelled properly. I mean, new QB, new coach, now OC, suspect OLine... all the factors were there.

Nobody really expected what we have got so far.

Much will depend on how JD and Terry gel over the rest of the season, but if they keep this up I could see them being picked very high next year, especially JD.

For S&Gs let's say that Jayden continues to ascend this year and ends up as a top 5 QB by season's end. And let's say he brings Terry along for the ride pushing Terry's stats up a notch. Would he go top 10? Top 15?

For what it's worth, I love Terry but the jury is weirdly still a little out for me. I just want to see what he has with a GOOD QB throwing to him for a prolonged period. But, that said, it's hard to say he's elite when we just watched Nabors tear us apart. Now granted our defense sucked at that point, but that rookie just looked special out of the box. Even with Daniels throwing to him on a garbage Giants team. You'd think a pro like Terry would be putting up much better stats already with JD throwing to him.

However, what we're also seeing here is that those first couple of games Kingsbury still had the training wheels on JD and the offense. It's going to be really interesting to watch the rest of the season now that the limitations are coming off slowly and JD is allowed to do more. Terry is already becoming more involved and I just really hope that blossoms.

As a side note, and going slightly off topic, it's fantastic to see our oft maligned Washington organisation as being the team that has set the standard for bringing in and developing a rookie QB. We did everything just perfectly. I think it helps that JD seems like a super well adjusted kid, but it's all been handled so well.

Even looking at that Tampa game in hindsight, yes we lost, but that's a playoff team and we were essentially the first game of a new team. Nobody panicked, they just stuck with the plan and we're now reaping the fruits of that labour.

Gotta say it... Really impressed!

 

[tshile]

I think in general what I meant by my post was perception rather than stats

Well stats inform perception, right? How much depends on the person. I think stats are just one datapoint, I think eye test is another, and I think context is yet another (and context is a super ambiguous description of a number of possible things - like brand new offense, new qb, schedule, new owners, on and on and on)

Some people (lots of “analytics” people) are hung up on stats and probabilistic statistics as the end all be all decision maker. Anyone who’s an expert in these things would tell you that’s utterly foolish. But lots of people kneel at the alter of analytics and refuse to inform themselves using anything else.

All that is to say that while everyone has flaws with how they choose to analyze things, and the blind spots they create, generally fantasy football is a very large economy of a subset of diverse opinions, that coalesces on a general value for players. It’s not infallible. If used correctly, it is but one data point.

I think the real issue (which I’ve been hinting at all along) is the notion of working with known information you have, and projecting out what you think will be in the future.

You asked “knowing what we know now” - and to me what we know now is that Terry is not producing on a level that is really any different than he has over his career. He’s never been in that tier 1 group and he still isn’t. He’s a guy that can get you (in my league) 20-25 points randomly, but he can also get you 3. He’s a survivable rotational bench player. He can fill in for byes, injuries, or matchups. In a deep league like mine he can be a started because your (and others) draft strategy made him the best option for you.

A tier 1 receiver is (in my scoring format) gonna get you 20+ every week. Occasionally 30+. Sometimes only 10+. And never single digits without an injury or unexpectedly being on the receding end of a total blowout. That’s not what he’s done.

Yes. On some level it’s about projecting performance. Guessing what’s going to be different this year, because the nfl is different year to year and even week to week. It cracks me up how all these clowns out out season projections and if you hold them up to last seasons summary it’s almost identical. It’s like these people don’t actually pay attention because they did they’d know you can’t do that because it *never* works out that way.

You’re asking if peoples projections would be wildly different based on 4 games, 2 that were good and 2 that were garbage. I think the answer is no.

And I think you’d only find skins fans willing to say yes. And I think in most leagues where he was taken high this year, you’ll find he was taken high by a skins fan… just a guess.

Our fan base has complained for 25 years about the lack of respect for our team or for individual players of ours. But in hindsight over the last 25 years we’ve been total and utter garbage, with a few blips of bright spots along the way that mostly turned out to be fools gold.

And I think that right now, if the NFL did a redraft, Daniels would be among the first Qb’s to go, and Terry would not be among the first 15 (maybe 20, maybe even 25) receivers to go.

If you want to say that means those people are stupid and underestimating him - that’s fine, you can say that. But you’d be projecting out a future no one’s seen yet and many are skeptical is realistic, while most everyone else is working with real information in the moment.

And again - I think “true #1 receiver” has a specific definition, and I think “elite” is thrown around *way* too carelessly. Arguing subjective opinions is hard enough - doing it when we’re using different definitions for labels makes it impossible and almost pointless.

And there’s 32 gms that are paid very well and expected to be football experts, they devote their career to this, and they screw up picks and projecting out players *all the time*

To think a bunch of random fans somehow know it all and are the ones that really get it? Idk. If your that good there’s 32 teams that would pay you a lot of money full time to do it, if you can prove that you’re that good at it

 

[tshile]

I tried to fix various typos but sometimes when I go to edit a post it won’t let me. Some error when I hit save. Very frustrating, sorry for the typos.

But I also wanted to add - San Fran is supposedly a good front office. They wiffed hard on a first round qb, and are rolling with Mr irrelevant. They passed on him on every pick until their last - and 31 other teams passed on him every single round. Cousins will go down as one of the most highly paid QBs of their time ever, and he was a fourth round pick by a team that has already picked a qb in the first round of the same draft…

The point is projecting out players is hard and virtually impossible, for people that do it for a living. So it shouldn’t be surprising we all have different ways of evaluating this and we come to different conclusions.

At the end of the day one thing that seems concrete is his character. Which is always a great thing. He reminds me of Garçon in a lot of ways.

 

[Bulldog]

When you look at the rogue’s gallery of quarterbacks that have played in DC, it’s virtually impossible to know what Terry is capable of.

That’s one story line that makes 2024 interesting as we go through Daniels’ maturation over 17 games.

It seemed obvious last year that both McLauren and Robinson were wasted in Bieniemy’s much lamented scheme ripoff of Andy Reid.

 

[SkinsNumberOne]

Tom said “anyone who is the top 32 is a number 1”. I am not arguing McLaurin is not top 32, I’m just stating I don’t think that’s necessarily true - since some teams have a #2 WR who is better than other team’s ‘#1’,

If I misunderstood, my bad.

For the 3rd time - McLaurin is a very good receiver and I don’t think there’s any argument to be had on that front.

I may be misunderstanding - but I know everyone is agreeing he is a very good receiver.

The only thing I was clarifying is that taking the top 32 WRs from the whole league's pool of WRs already accounts for #2s who are better than #1s. It's a pool of ALL WRs, not just the supposed #1s. Taking ALL WRs, the contention is that Terry is top-32, and by our definition, that makes him a #1 receiver. There are 32 teams, and the first guy you take out of the WHOLE WR pool (including #1s, #2s, #3s, all of 'em) is (by tom and my definition) a #1.

So in that world, it looks like we agree that Terry is a number 1. His stats bear this out too. I may be misunderstanding a lot here, because it sounded like tshille was saying his stats don't bear him out as a #1, but I don't really get that argument either - again though, using the measurement as stated. He has great stats over the last 3 years. 1000 yards receiving isn't some small number, and again, the metric (at least for tom and me) is top-32. His stats get him there too. The (in my opinion) very weak ADP argument gets him there too, even if it's barely at 31.

For me, it's a slam dunk. Actually a lot of this discussion sounds like the arguments against Art Monk in the HoF. These are guys who don't always make big splashes, don't talk, but they make huge catches. Since they don't showboat, they end up quietly producing without much fanfare. Since their main asset is amazing catching ability and not amazing speed, they tend to get overlooked especially when combined with the limited gloating. It just seems similar to me.

 

[Boone]

I think 99% of the fanbase gets that Terry is not a self-promoter, he's unselfish, he's accomplished a lot with generally very poor QBing on bad teams, not to mention he's had a different QB throwing to him and multiple OCs already in his career. How good could McLaurin be on a team like the Bills with a stable and consistent environment and a top QB? I think it's impossible to say. The Art Monk stuff, I'd only point out, reflects his rep externally, and also the fact that his stats while very good, have not been eye-popping. We know the context in which those stats were achieved, so for Washington fans they are more appreciated. But from a pure statistical standpoint, he is a very good WR and it's hard to argue anything more than that. I don't know any Washington fans who have anything but the highest regard for McLaurin's talent levels. There is always going to be a media bias that results in higher rankings of players who self-promote and who try to be celebrities with their own 'brand'. That's the way of the NFL.

Thanks for clarifying what you all meant by 'top 32'.

I don't think McLaurin has been or likely ever will be 'elite'. HOF? I think he would really have to put up some monster numbers (or contribute to a SB win or two) to be in that conversation - but it's the HOF so who knows? But he's definitely a #1 for all the reasons cited in this thread.

 

[tshile]

Taking ALL WRs, the contention is that Terry is top-32, and by our definition, that makes him a #1 receiver. There are 32 teams, and the first guy you take out of the WHOLE WR pool (including #1s, #2s, #3s, all of 'em) is (by tom and my definition) a #1.

Right. Here’s where our conflict is. It’s just my opinion but…

to use a different position that may help clarify - there are 32 teams in the league, there are 32 quarterbacks that are starting for those teams, but I wouldn’t dare say there are 32 “true starting quarterbacks” or “32 franchise quarterbacks” in the league.

Gardner Minshew, Jacoby Brissett, will Levis, Derek Carr, Geno Smith, Joe Flacco, Tyler Huntley, and Andy Dalton all current starting quarterbacks that are not currently considered franchise quarterbacks or true starters. They may have been at one point, but now they’re journeymen. They’re solid backups, and may receive starting roles due to injury, the player being the best available for whatever reason, or because the team took a flyer on someone and it’s not working out (Andy Dalton for Bryce Young) being an example of that. There are also a number of rookie quarterbacks that are starting and no one knows if they’ll turn into a franchise level QB, a bottom half of the league starter, a career backup, or wash out all together.

Being one of the top 32 doesn’t make you a true #1 anything. If the league redrafted QB’s right now, the people I listed would be taken as a last resort and some of them might not be taken at all.

That’s why I reject this notion that terry fits the traditional/typical use of “true #1 wr” simply because he’s currently our #1 on our depth chart. Someone has to occupy that role, if I was occupying it no one would suggest I’m a true #1 receiver. Just like no one would prefer their team have Andy dalton or Gardner minshew right now - the fact two teams are starting them because it’s their best option doesn’t really change that.

 

[tomwvr]

Right. Here’s where our conflict is. It’s just my opinion but…

to use a different position that may help clarify - there are 32 teams in the league, there are 32 quarterbacks that are starting for those teams, but I wouldn’t dare say there are 32 “true starting quarterbacks” or “32 franchise quarterbacks” in the league.

Gardner Minshew, Jacoby Brissett, will Levis, Derek Carr, Geno Smith, Joe Flacco, Tyler Huntley, and Andy Dalton all current starting quarterbacks that are not currently considered franchise quarterbacks or true starters. They may have been at one point, but now they’re journeymen. They’re solid backups, and may receive starting roles due to injury, the player being the best available for whatever reason, or because the team took a flyer on someone and it’s not working out (Andy Dalton for Bryce Young) being an example of that. There are also a number of rookie quarterbacks that are starting and no one knows if they’ll turn into a franchise level QB, a bottom half of the league starter, a career backup, or wash out all together.

Being one of the top 32 doesn’t make you a true #1 anything. If the league redrafted QB’s right now, the people I listed would be taken as a last resort and some of them might not be taken at all.

That’s why I reject this notion that terry fits the traditional/typical use of “true #1 wr” simply because he’s currently our #1 on our depth chart. Someone has to occupy that role, if I was occupying it no one would suggest I’m a true #1 receiver. Just like no one would prefer their team have Andy dalton or Gardner minshew right now - the fact two teams are starting them because it’s their best option doesn’t really change that.

In the NFL today if there was a draft of all WRs in the NFL would Terry be drafted before number 32? Yes Like I said previously he is not a top 5 or top 10 and perhaps not to15 but he is a top WR in the NFL.

 

[SkinsNumberOne]

Right. Here’s where our conflict is. It’s just my opinion but…

to use a different position that may help clarify - there are 32 teams in the league, there are 32 quarterbacks that are starting for those teams, but I wouldn’t dare say there are 32 “true starting quarterbacks” or “32 franchise quarterbacks” in the league.

Gardner Minshew, Jacoby Brissett, will Levis, Derek Carr, Geno Smith, Joe Flacco, Tyler Huntley, and Andy Dalton all current starting quarterbacks that are not currently considered franchise quarterbacks or true starters. They may have been at one point, but now they’re journeymen. They’re solid backups, and may receive starting roles due to injury, the player being the best available for whatever reason, or because the team took a flyer on someone and it’s not working out (Andy Dalton for Bryce Young) being an example of that. There are also a number of rookie quarterbacks that are starting and no one knows if they’ll turn into a franchise level QB, a bottom half of the league starter, a career backup, or wash out all together.

Being one of the top 32 doesn’t make you a true #1 anything. If the league redrafted QB’s right now, the people I listed would be taken as a last resort and some of them might not be taken at all.

That’s why I reject this notion that terry fits the traditional/typical use of “true #1 wr” simply because he’s currently our #1 on our depth chart. Someone has to occupy that role, if I was occupying it no one would suggest I’m a true #1 receiver. Just like no one would prefer their team have Andy dalton or Gardner minshew right now - the fact two teams are starting them because it’s their best option doesn’t really change that.

We definitely have a simple difference of opinion, but at least it's very clear. I am not sure I totally understand yours but it's all good. I get what you're saying, but the logic of it seems a bit random to me.

Let me explain here -
The fact is, the NFL has 32 teams. I didn't make the NFL have 32 teams; they just do. If they had 50 teams, well, then the top 50 WRs are the #1 WRs in the league. I mean, to me (and I think tom too, not sure who else but I imagined it would be more) that's what a "#1 WR" really *is* - it isn't a type of WR, because that can clearly change. Sort of like, the type of #1 QB can clearly change. I think you heard tom (and Boone, and even me maybe? but at least now I will say it) say, Terry is not elite. See, elite is a different word, we can argue where the boundary is there, it's more subjective. I also don't see him as HoF at this stage. I think we all agree on those points.

The thing is, this term "#1" has a particular meaning. #1 of what? Of the depth-chart. Sure, I get what you're saying (and Boone), you thought we were tying it to being on the actual depth chart of the team since that is indeed what #1 means, but when people talk about a player *generally* being a #1 and not *specifically* being a #1, this isn't totally arbitrary, like he is a top-10? A top-15? No, he is a top-N receiver where N is the number of teams in the NFL - that is what a #1 in general terms is. When they talk about him being #1 on a team, yes that is something different and has no value in NFL-wide rankings for too many obvious reasons to list.

To further illustrate, here is a blurb from ESPN about Fantasy (w/r/t Jayden)
**
ESPN Fantasy Projection: Daniels was selected second overall by the Commanders in April's draft, and he may be more valuable in fantasy than the quarterback who went first (Caleb Williams), thanks to his elite running ability. Daniels not only compiled 10 times as many touchdown passes as interceptions while winning the Heisman Trophy in 2023, he also rushed for more than 1,100 yards and 10 more scores. Washington is a good landing spot for Daniels, with savant Kliff Kingsbury directing the offense and ample offensive options around him. Daniels probably slips outside the QB1 options on draft day, but he may end up there by season's end.
**
You see where they talk about him slipping outside the QB1 options? That is a reference to him getting drafted as, indeed, a number 2 QB. That generally means he was not a top-N QB where N is the number of teams. He may have been much lower than N by the way, because there could have been other QBs drafted as #2s, possibly before the last number 1s were even drafted or he was drafted.

It has nothing to do with him being a #1 on a team. It has everything to do with him being a top-N player, that is what defines a player as a #1 at his position in the NFL, and it has nothing to do with particular characteristics, it is literally, would he be drafted top-N? Yes? Cool, then he's a #1.

So, for me, it's truly an undebatable point, because I think it's part of the definition. I don't totally get where you're coming from specifically but I get that you are ascribing something akin to the word "elite" (not equivalent, but similarly vague) to the term #1, but I don't agree that "#1" is vague. You can see in that blurb above, it has a fairly consistent meaning. I don't think we should muddy that. McLaurin, even by ADP right now, is a #1 WR - but personally fantasy ADP does not define an NFL #1 for me, it defines a "fantasy #1" - I believe Terry is higher than #31 if they draft the top WRs.

Pretty sure this convo is running its course. Good convo but I just wanted to clarify that while we can disagree on anything, this particular thing to me at least has a definition. I get we don't agree on that (apparently you don't think it has a definition) but I try here to point out that... well, yes... it does. Cheers regardless!