In general, the deeper a target to a receiver is downfield, the more fantasy points it’s worth. The chart above shows the exact relationship between a target’s air yards and PPR points. A target 40 yards downfield is worth 2.5 PPR points on average, while a target five yards beyond the line of scrimmage is worth just 1.6 PPR points.
Deep targets are obviously important for fantasy football, yet don’t get that much attention in fantasy analysis. That needs to change, even if deep targets are by far the most volatile type of target. To add some fire to the deep target discussion, I built loess regression models that predicted PPR points for every single target beyond 15 yards of the line of scrimmage in the 2019 season. I then added up the predicted PPR points for every single player who had a deep target (15+ air yards) to figure out which receivers played above/below expectations in 2019:
This chart has every pass catcher’s predicted PPR points on deep targets from my model (x-axis) and actual PPR points on deep targets (y-axis). The players labeled on the bottom are positive regression candidates -- they were unlucky, maybe bad, in 2019 but should be better in 2020 if their usage stays the same -- while the players at the top are negative regression candidates.
[[ad:athena]]
Top 100 WRs in Expected Fantasy Points Per Game on Deep Targets
The “PPR” column is the average PPR fantasy points per game on deep targets only (15+ air yards). The “Predicted” column is my models’ expected PPR fantasy points per game on deep targets. The “PPR +/-" is the difference between the two. A positive number means a receiver performed above expectations on deep targets given his usage.
Rank | Receiver | PPR | Predicted | PPR +/- | Deep Targets |
1 | 8.7 | 7.6 | 1.1 | 3.5 | |
2 | 6.1 | 7.1 | -1.0 | 3.5 | |
3 | 6.2 | 6.6 | -0.3 | 3.0 | |
4 | 8.2 | 6.3 | 1.9 | 2.9 | |
5 | 6.8 | 6.3 | 0.6 | 3.0 | |
6 | 4.5 | 5.8 | -1.3 | 2.8 | |
7 | 5.2 | 5.6 | -0.4 | 2.7 | |
8 | 5.5 | 5.6 | -0.1 | 2.6 | |
9 | 2.6 | 5.6 | -3.0 | 2.8 | |
10 | 6.0 | 5.5 | 0.5 | 2.6 | |
11 | 7.6 | 5.5 | 2.1 | 2.7 | |
12 | 4.8 | 5.4 | -0.6 | 2.8 | |
13 | 6.0 | 5.4 | 0.6 | 2.5 | |
14 | 5.2 | 5.4 | -0.2 | 2.7 | |
15 | 5.9 | 5.4 | 0.6 | 2.6 | |
16 | 7.5 | 5.2 | 2.3 | 2.4 | |
17 | 7.7 | 5.2 | 2.5 | 2.5 | |
18 | 5.1 | 5.2 | -0.1 | 2.4 | |
19 | 6.1 | 5.1 | 1.1 | 2.4 | |
20 | 3.0 | 5.1 | -2.0 | 2.6 | |
21 | 6.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 2.5 | |
22 | 6.2 | 5.0 | 1.2 | 2.4 | |
23 | 5.3 | 4.9 | 0.3 | 2.3 | |
24 | 6.5 | 4.9 | 1.6 | 2.3 | |
25 | 5.7 | 4.8 | 0.9 | 2.3 | |
26 | 4.8 | 4.8 | 0.0 | 2.3 | |
27 | 4.2 | 4.6 | -0.5 | 2.3 | |
28 | 7.5 | 4.5 | 3.0 | 2.0 | |
29 | 5.1 | 4.5 | 0.6 | 2.2 | |
30 | 4.6 | 4.4 | 0.2 | 2.1 | |
31 | 5.5 | 4.4 | 1.1 | 2.1 | |
32 | 6.0 | 4.4 | 1.6 | 2.1 | |
33 | 5.3 | 4.4 | 0.9 | 2.1 | |
34 | 2.6 | 4.4 | -1.7 | 2.1 | |
35 | 4.6 | 4.3 | 0.3 | 2.1 | |
36 | 3.7 | 4.3 | -0.7 | 2.3 | |
37 | 2.7 | 4.3 | -1.6 | 2.2 | |
38 | 3.6 | 4.2 | -0.6 | 2.0 | |
39 | 5.3 | 4.2 | 1.1 | 2.1 | |
40 | 3.9 | 4.1 | -0.2 | 2.0 | |
41 | 4.0 | 4.1 | -0.2 | 1.9 | |
42 | 4.9 | 4.1 | 0.8 | 2.0 | |
43 | Michael Thomas | 5.4 | 3.9 | 1.6 | 2.0 |
44 | 3.2 | 3.8 | -0.6 | 1.9 | |
45 | 1.9 | 3.7 | -1.8 | 1.8 | |
46 | 3.6 | 3.7 | -0.1 | 1.8 | |
47 | 4.2 | 3.6 | 0.6 | 1.8 | |
48 | 1.6 | 3.5 | -1.9 | 1.6 | |
49 | 2.5 | 3.5 | -1.0 | 1.6 | |
50 | 5.3 | 3.4 | 1.9 | 1.7 | |
51 | 1.7 | 3.4 | -1.7 | 1.7 | |
52 | 3.1 | 3.4 | -0.3 | 1.7 | |
53 | 2.6 | 3.2 | -0.7 | 1.6 | |
54 | 3.6 | 3.2 | 0.4 | 1.5 | |
55 | 2.5 | 3.2 | -0.7 | 1.6 | |
56 | 4.4 | 3.1 | 1.3 | 1.6 | |
57 | 3.9 | 3.1 | 0.8 | 1.4 | |
58 | 2.0 | 3.0 | -1.0 | 1.4 | |
59 | 4.2 | 3.0 | 1.2 | 1.5 | |
60 | 3.5 | 3.0 | 0.5 | 1.4 | |
61 | Scotty Miller | 2.3 | 2.9 | -0.6 | 1.3 |
62 | 3.3 | 2.9 | 0.5 | 1.4 | |
63 | 3.8 | 2.8 | 0.9 | 1.4 | |
64 | 3.1 | 2.7 | 0.3 | 1.3 | |
65 | 2.8 | 2.7 | 0.1 | 1.4 | |
66 | 2.4 | 2.6 | -0.2 | 1.3 | |
67 | 1.2 | 2.5 | -1.3 | 1.3 | |
68 | 0.0 | 2.5 | -2.5 | 1.2 | |
69 | 2.9 | 2.4 | 0.4 | 1.3 | |
70 | 2.4 | 2.4 | -0.1 | 1.1 | |
71 | 4.6 | 2.4 | 2.2 | 1.1 | |
72 | 3.1 | 2.4 | 0.8 | 1.2 | |
73 | 2.9 | 2.3 | 0.5 | 1.2 | |
74 | 3.0 | 2.3 | 0.7 | 1.1 | |
75 | 0.8 | 2.3 | -1.5 | 1.1 | |
76 | 0.2 | 2.3 | -2.1 | 1.0 | |
77 | 3.5 | 2.3 | 1.2 | 1.1 | |
78 | 0.9 | 2.2 | -1.3 | 1.1 | |
79 | 1.5 | 2.1 | -0.6 | 1.0 | |
80 | 2.1 | 2.1 | 0.0 | 1.0 | |
81 | 2.0 | 2.1 | -0.1 | 1.0 | |
82 | 0.8 | 2.1 | -1.2 | 0.9 | |
83 | 1.2 | 2.0 | -0.8 | 1.1 | |
84 | 4.1 | 2.0 | 2.1 | 0.9 | |
85 | 2.0 | 1.9 | 0.0 | 1.0 | |
86 | 2.2 | 1.9 | 0.3 | 0.9 | |
87 | 1.5 | 1.9 | -0.4 | 0.9 | |
88 | 3.9 | 1.9 | 2.1 | 0.9 | |
89 | 1.5 | 1.8 | -0.3 | 0.9 | |
90 | 2.5 | 1.8 | 0.7 | 0.9 | |
91 | 1.5 | 1.8 | -0.3 | 0.9 | |
92 | Tevin Jones | 1.3 | 1.8 | -0.5 | 0.8 |
93 | 0.7 | 1.8 | -1.1 | 0.9 | |
94 | Bennie Fowler | 0.0 | 1.7 | -1.7 | 0.8 |
95 | 1.6 | 1.7 | -0.1 | 0.8 | |
96 | 1.7 | 1.7 | 0.0 | 0.9 | |
97 | 0.6 | 1.6 | -1.0 | 0.8 | |
98 | 0.4 | 1.6 | -1.2 | 0.9 | |
99 | 1.1 | 1.5 | -0.4 | 0.7 | |
100 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 0.8 |
The Most Efficient WRs on Deep Targets in 2019
Some of these receivers are negative regression candidates for 2020 as long as their usage stays the same, but most of these receivers are just really talented. If you think any of these receivers aren’t very talented, then you should not take them in 2020 fantasy drafts after overperforming versus expectations this past season.
Rank | Receiver | PPR | Predicted | PPR +/- | Deep Targets |
1 | 7.5 | 4.5 | 3.0 | 2.0 | |
2 | 7.7 | 5.2 | 2.5 | 2.5 | |
3 | 7.5 | 5.2 | 2.3 | 2.4 | |
4 | 4.6 | 2.4 | 2.2 | 1.1 | |
5 | 4.1 | 2.0 | 2.1 | 0.9 | |
6 | 7.6 | 5.5 | 2.1 | 2.7 | |
7 | 3.9 | 1.9 | 2.1 | 0.9 | |
8 | 5.3 | 3.4 | 1.9 | 1.7 | |
9 | 8.2 | 6.3 | 1.9 | 2.9 | |
10 | 6.0 | 4.4 | 1.6 | 2.1 | |
11 | 6.5 | 4.9 | 1.6 | 2.3 | |
12 | Michael Thomas | 5.4 | 3.9 | 1.6 | 2.0 |
13 | 1.6 | 0.2 | 1.4 | 0.1 | |
14 | 4.4 | 3.1 | 1.3 | 1.6 | |
15 | 6.2 | 5.0 | 1.2 | 2.4 | |
16 | 3.5 | 2.3 | 1.2 | 1.1 | |
17 | 4.2 | 3.0 | 1.2 | 1.5 | |
18 | 5.5 | 4.4 | 1.1 | 2.1 | |
19 | 8.7 | 7.6 | 1.1 | 3.5 | |
20 | 2.0 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 0.5 | |
21 | 5.3 | 4.2 | 1.1 | 2.1 | |
22 | 6.1 | 5.1 | 1.1 | 2.4 | |
23 | 6.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 2.5 | |
24 | 3.8 | 2.8 | 0.9 | 1.4 | |
25 | 5.3 | 4.4 | 0.9 | 2.1 |
The Least Efficient WRs on Deep Targets in 2019
Some of these receivers are positive regression candidates for 2020 as long as their usage stays the same, but most of these receivers are just bad. If you think any of these receivers are truly talented, then you should get them slightly undervalued in 2020 fantasy drafts after underperforming versus expectations this past season.
Rank | Receiver | PPR | Predicted | PPR +/- | Deep Targets |
1 | 2.6 | 5.6 | -3.0 | 2.8 | |
2 | 0.0 | 2.5 | -2.5 | 1.2 | |
3 | 0.2 | 2.3 | -2.1 | 1.0 | |
4 | 3.0 | 5.1 | -2.0 | 2.6 | |
5 | 1.6 | 3.5 | -1.9 | 1.6 | |
6 | 1.9 | 3.7 | -1.8 | 1.8 | |
7 | 2.6 | 4.4 | -1.7 | 2.1 | |
8 | Bennie Fowler | 0.0 | 1.7 | -1.7 | 0.8 |
9 | 1.7 | 3.4 | -1.7 | 1.7 | |
10 | 2.7 | 4.3 | -1.6 | 2.2 | |
11 | 0.8 | 2.3 | -1.5 | 1.1 | |
12 | 0.0 | 1.4 | -1.4 | 0.6 | |
13 | 4.5 | 5.8 | -1.3 | 2.8 | |
14 | 0.9 | 2.2 | -1.3 | 1.1 | |
15 | 1.2 | 2.5 | -1.3 | 1.3 | |
16 | 0.8 | 2.1 | -1.2 | 0.9 | |
17 | 0.4 | 1.6 | -1.2 | 0.9 | |
18 | 0.3 | 1.4 | -1.1 | 0.7 | |
19 | 0.7 | 1.8 | -1.1 | 0.9 | |
20 | 0.6 | 1.6 | -1.0 | 0.8 | |
21 | 0.0 | 1.0 | -1.0 | 0.5 | |
22 | 2.0 | 3.0 | -1.0 | 1.4 | |
23 | 0.4 | 1.4 | -1.0 | 0.6 | |
24 | 2.5 | 3.5 | -1.0 | 1.6 | |
25 | 6.1 | 7.1 | -1.0 | 3.5 |
Outside vs. Middle Deep Targets
A target over the middle (red) is worth more fantasy points than a target near the sideline (blue). My projected PPR points models accounts for the differences between the two types of targets, but it’s worth highlighting which receivers are seeing most of their targets on the outside vs. over the middle. Receivers who had a heavy dosage of outside targets and are changing teams or changing roles within an offense could be buys in 2020 fantasy drafts as they should see more over the middle targets. Here is the data for receivers with at least 20 deep targets last season, ordered by the receivers who had the highest percentage of his deep targets coming on the outside:
Rank | Receiver | % of Deep Targets Outside | Deep Outside Targets Per Game | Deep Middle Targets Per Game |
1 | 100% | 2.6 | 0.0 | |
2 | 95% | 1.4 | 0.1 | |
3 | 91% | 2.5 | 0.3 | |
4 | 90% | 2.0 | 0.2 | |
5 | 88% | 2.1 | 0.3 | |
6 | 88% | 1.9 | 0.3 | |
7 | 87% | 2.4 | 0.4 | |
8 | 85% | 1.9 | 0.3 | |
9 | 85% | 1.8 | 0.3 | |
10 | 84% | 2.3 | 0.4 | |
11 | 83% | 1.7 | 0.4 | |
12 | 82% | 1.8 | 0.4 | |
13 | 81% | 2.0 | 0.5 | |
14 | 81% | 2.1 | 0.5 | |
15 | 81% | 1.6 | 0.4 | |
16 | 80% | 1.0 | 0.3 | |
17 | 80% | 2.2 | 0.6 | |
18 | 79% | 1.7 | 0.4 | |
19 | 79% | 2.8 | 0.7 | |
20 | 79% | 1.2 | 0.3 | |
21 | 79% | 2.1 | 0.6 | |
22 | 78% | 1.8 | 0.5 | |
23 | Michael Thomas | 78% | 1.6 | 0.4 |
24 | 77% | 2.0 | 0.6 | |
25 | 77% | 1.1 | 0.3 | |
26 | 77% | 1.1 | 0.3 | |
27 | 76% | 1.4 | 0.4 | |
28 | 76% | 1.8 | 0.6 | |
29 | 74% | 2.0 | 0.7 | |
30 | 74% | 1.4 | 0.5 | |
31 | 74% | 1.3 | 0.4 | |
32 | 74% | 1.7 | 0.6 | |
33 | 73% | 2.2 | 0.8 | |
34 | 73% | 1.6 | 0.6 | |
35 | 72% | 1.8 | 0.7 | |
36 | 72% | 2.1 | 0.8 | |
37 | 72% | 1.1 | 0.4 | |
38 | 71% | 1.4 | 0.6 | |
39 | 71% | 2.1 | 0.9 | |
40 | 71% | 1.0 | 0.4 | |
41 | 70% | 1.4 | 0.6 | |
42 | 70% | 0.9 | 0.4 | |
43 | 70% | 1.0 | 0.4 | |
44 | 69% | 1.6 | 0.7 | |
45 | 69% | 1.7 | 0.7 | |
46 | 69% | 1.3 | 0.6 | |
47 | 69% | 1.7 | 0.8 | |
48 | 68% | 1.1 | 0.5 | |
49 | 68% | 1.1 | 0.5 | |
50 | 67% | 1.6 | 0.8 | |
51 | 67% | 2.3 | 1.2 | |
52 | 65% | 1.7 | 0.9 | |
53 | 62% | 1.3 | 0.8 | |
54 | 61% | 1.3 | 0.8 | |
55 | 59% | 1.5 | 1.0 | |
56 | 58% | 1.3 | 0.9 |
It’s not surprising to see the least efficient receiver on deep targets in 2019 (Curtis Samuel) near the top of this table. The Panthers put Samuel in awful situations all year long. 92% of his total targets came on outside targets, and 42% of his targets traveled more than 15 yards downfield despite Kyle Allen having the arm strength and accuracy of a Rotoworld writer. No receiver needs a new quarterback and/or role change more than Samuel. If he gets one or both of those things this offseason, Samuel is a sure-fire buy-low candidate for August fantasy drafts. Very similar things can be said about Odell Beckham and Preston Williams.
What’s Next?
1. 2019 Receiving TD Report - Expected vs. Actual TDs
2. 2019 Expected Fantasy Points (WRs)
3. 2019 Expected Fantasy Points (TEs)
4. 2019 Rushing TD Report - Expected vs. Actual TDs
5. 2019 Expected Fantasy Points (RBs)
6. 2019 Passing TD Report - Expected vs. Actual TDs
7. 2019 Expected Fantasy Points (QBs)
As always, feel free to reach out to me on Twitter (@HaydenWinks) if you have questions or ideas on what to study next.