The best ability is not availability

[nobody 2,641]

I wish this phrase would die.  I'm available.  does that mean I'm better than Anthony Richardson and his bum shoulder?  At worst we'd be the exact same and that's if Richardson was in a coma.  

No. the best ability depends on the position.  QBs need to be able to throw with accuracy to all areas of the field. That's probably the best ability for QBs.

[JagFan 155]

1 hour ago, nobody said:

I wish this phrase would die.  I'm available.  does that mean I'm better than Anthony Richardson and his bum shoulder?  At worst we'd be the exact same and that's if Richardson was in a coma.  

No. the best ability depends on the position.  QBs need to be able to throw with accuracy to all areas of the field. That's probably the best ability for QBs.

His best ability has been disability.

[polecatt 478]

9 hours ago, nobody said:

I wish this phrase would die.  I'm available.  does that mean I'm better than Anthony Richardson and his bum shoulder?  At worst we'd be the exact same and that's if Richardson was in a coma.  

No. the best ability depends on the position.  QBs need to be able to throw with accuracy to all areas of the field. That's probably the best ability for QBs.

I think for a QB it's the ability to make quick reactions that separates the men from the boys

For RBs, good vision

[Ray_T 751]

8 hours ago, JagFan said:

His best ability has been disability.

well, on this one issue I'll say this.   it does not matter how good your player is if they are not on the field.

to that end the best ability is availability but nearly all players have it.   so then you go to the tiebreakers.  which would involve the skill of the player

[Vikings4ever 548]

I see both sides.

You cannot help your team much sitting on the sidelines (yeah, injured players can use their knowledge of the game to help their teammates, but...).

But at the same time, would you rather have Patrick Mahomes for 8 games or Bailey Zappe for 17? A true difference maker can help the team more in limited appearances than a JAG can being always healthy.

[nobody 2,641]

I think the saying should be "the first ability is availability."

[JagFan 155]

1 hour ago, nobody said:

I think the saying should be "the first ability is availability."

Sayings get messed up all the time.  “You can’t eat your cake and have it too” has been said incorrectly for hundreds of years.  Just ask the Unabomber.

[TBayXXXVII 2,512]

On 6/12/2025 at 4:23 AM, nobody said:

I wish this phrase would die.  I'm available.  does that mean I'm better than Anthony Richardson and his bum shoulder?  At worst we'd be the exact same and that's if Richardson was in a coma.  

No. the best ability depends on the position.  QBs need to be able to throw with accuracy to all areas of the field. That's probably the best ability for QBs.

I think you're oversimplifying.  Clearly, no one talking about the NFL knows who you are... hence, they'll never compare you to an NFL player.  They're also making the point that if you're not on the field, you're not helping your team.  This is pretty obvious, no?  Then there's context.  No one is saying the difference between Mahomes and Richardson is availability... but they would say that with respect to Mayfield vs Tua.  Across the board, Tua's metrics are better than Mayfield's... except like 1, and it took a career year by Mayfield to even sneak past Tua.  Yet, Tua is likely to miss 3 or 4 games every year and outside of 1 season, Mayfield's been very durable.  When given the choice, availability could be the difference maker in why someone would choose Mayfield over Tua.

[nobody 2,641]

Very reasonable.  However, you said it yourself... No one is comparing mahomes to Richardson based on their availability

So yes availability is a nice "ability."   I just wish people would stop saying it's the best.  

I should clarify and supplement why I have distaste for the phrase.  The first person to ever say it... Kudos.  It's clever.  The person said it knowing two things.  The first is availability isn't an actual ability per se, and second they were just trying to to make a clever turn of phrase.  

But nowadays people say it seriously like it actually makes sense.  And then on top of that it's tired and overused and no longer in any way clever.  

If people want to say things that don't make sense, I'm usually fine with it if we're all in on the joke, but these idiots on sports center are saying it straight faced in their faked, practices announcer voices like it's some kind of insight.  

Just say the guy gets injured too much.  

[TBayXXXVII 2,512]

On 6/14/2025 at 1:45 AM, nobody said:

Very reasonable.  However, you said it yourself... No one is comparing mahomes to Richardson based on their availability

So yes availability is a nice "ability."   I just wish people would stop saying it's the best.  

I should clarify and supplement why I have distaste for the phrase.  The first person to ever say it... Kudos.  It's clever.  The person said it knowing two things.  The first is availability isn't an actual ability per se, and second they were just trying to to make a clever turn of phrase.  

But nowadays people say it seriously like it actually makes sense.  And then on top of that it's tired and overused and no longer in any way clever.  

If people want to say things that don't make sense, I'm usually fine with it if we're all in on the joke, but these idiots on sports center are saying it straight faced in their faked, practices announcer voices like it's some kind of insight.  

Just say the guy gets injured too much.  

Well, no one is comparing Mahomes to Richardson in the first place.  If they are, then they're idiots, and the discussion about availability would be moot.

If they're using that saying in that context (Mahomes/Richardson), you are correct... I just don't think people are.  Well, at least to the extent you think so, but I could be wrong.  I only ever hear it when the discussion is about 2 (or more), similar players.  Like I said previously, Mayfield / Tua would be an apt comparison.  Another one could be Henry / McCaffrey.

 

Nobody: "Just say the guy gets injured too much."

Nobody (2028): "Hot take:  Why is the phrase 'the guy gets injured too much', overused"?

 

To note, I've heard many people say 'How come everyone says players are 'Injury prone'?  Everyone in the NFL gets injured.  It's so overused'.

[Ray_T 751]

17 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Well, no one is comparing Mahomes to Richardson in the first place.  If they are, then they're idiots, and the discussion about availability would be moot.

If they're using that saying in that context (Mahomes/Richardson), you are correct... I just don't think people are.  Well, at least to the extent you think so, but I could be wrong.  I only ever hear it when the discussion is about 2 (or more), similar players.  Like I said previously, Mayfield / Tua would be an apt comparison.  Another one could be Henry / McCaffrey.

 

Nobody: "Just say the guy gets injured too much."

Nobody (2028): "Hot take:  Why is the phrase 'the guy gets injured too much', overused"?

 

To note, I've heard many people say 'How come everyone says players are 'Injury prone'?  Everyone in the NFL gets injured.  It's so overused'.

I get where you are coming from.  but at the same time there are definitely some players who get injured more than average and some who just never seem to get hurt.

while this is not the sole reason to pick or reject a player, I'd suggest that its important in determining risk.

there are an awful lot of people who ignore this in their risk analysis, and players prone to injury will sometimes not be drafted when they should.   without a doubt injury history of the player needs to factor into your analysis and ranking system.    if you dont do it, you probably should.

determining risk of a player with injury isnt just about saying hes injured and not performing.   you actually need to research the reasons and the recovery timelines as well.   ACL injuries are generally 16-20 month injuries.  you can usually play in 12 months, but likely wont be able to perform at 100% at that point.   There are exceptions to this, but not many.    If the ACL is combined with an additional ligament injury or meniscus, you can likely tack on 6-12 months onto that recovery time as the rehab is slower and more difficult.

there is also the risk of additional soft tissue injuries after returning from surgery (especially if you return early)

these are the numbers I go with and I've researched this fairly extensively a couple years back so I'm reasonably confident in this recommendation.  I have also not seen anything recently that suggests the numbers have changed on this recently.

if you go back I have made similar posts to this effect.  feel free to reference those if you like.

 

[TBayXXXVII 2,512]

18 minutes ago, Ray_T said:

I get where you are coming from.  but at the same time there are definitely some players who get injured more than average and some who just never seem to get hurt.

while this is not the sole reason to pick or reject a player, I'd suggest that its important in determining risk.

there are an awful lot of people who ignore this in their risk analysis, and players prone to injury will sometimes not be drafted when they should.   without a doubt injury history of the player needs to factor into your analysis and ranking system.    if you dont do it, you probably should.

determining risk of a player with injury isnt just about saying hes injured and not performing.   you actually need to research the reasons and the recovery timelines as well.   ACL injuries are generally 16-20 month injuries.  you can usually play in 12 months, but likely wont be able to perform at 100% at that point.   There are exceptions to this, but not many.    If the ACL is combined with an additional ligament injury or meniscus, you can likely tack on 6-12 months onto that recovery time as the rehab is slower and more difficult.

there is also the risk of additional soft tissue injuries after returning from surgery (especially if you return early)

these are the numbers I go with and I've researched this fairly extensively a couple years back so I'm reasonably confident in this recommendation.  I have also not seen anything recently that suggests the numbers have changed on this recently.

if you go back I have made similar posts to this effect.  feel free to reference those if you like.

 

I don't disagree with you.  I was merely commenting on his initial post of "availability being the best ability", being overused.  I initially said that I think he's oversimplifying, but in retrospect, I think he's just hearing way more often than I think he his... or at least, hearing it way more often than I do.  I don't think I hear that phrase more than 2 or 3 times a year, and in those circumstances, they're comparing like players to justify why Player A over Player B, as the deciding factor.

The rest about injuries/injury prone, I'm just having fun with @nobody, that's all.

[nobody 2,641]

People will cry if folks say players are injury prone, but that's based on the coddling of players by sports media who need access to the players.  Ray is right.  And teams themselves classify players are injury prone.  They use coded language you hear at the draft all the time... "His medicals"

But I get the point.  I still would rather them say a guy is injury prone.  It's more accurately conveys the intent than "best ability is availability" whether the player is injury prone or not.

[WhiteWonder 2,716]

On 6/13/2025 at 5:10 PM, TBayXXXVII said:

I think you're oversimplifying.  Clearly, no one talking about the NFL knows who you are... hence, they'll never compare you to an NFL player.  They're also making the point that if you're not on the field, you're not helping your team.  This is pretty obvious, no?  Then there's context.  No one is saying the difference between Mahomes and Richardson is availability... but they would say that with respect to Mayfield vs Tua.  Across the board, Tua's metrics are better than Mayfield's... except like 1, and it took a career year by Mayfield to even sneak past Tua.  Yet, Tua is likely to miss 3 or 4 games every year and outside of 1 season, Mayfield's been very durable.  When given the choice, availability could be the difference maker in why someone would choose Mayfield over Tua.

 

Very well said.  Topic seems a little pointless as, obviously, we are talking about comparing NFL players to other NFL players and usually players who are rated similarly. 

Also this saying is more born out of people saying "Player A is really good. Look what he did in the first 6 games last season. Now extrapolate that over a full season and he'd have been a top 12 WR!". That's great, but if player A misses chunks of the season on a consistent basis, he offers you nothing for fantasy purposes or his team for real life purposes when he's not on the field. 

[WhiteWonder 2,716]

On 6/14/2025 at 1:45 AM, nobody said:

So yes availability is a nice "ability."   I just wish people would stop saying it's the best.  

As TBay noted, I doubt you are hearing it as much as you claim. It's a cutesy saying that you maybe hear 3-4 times a year from a talking head. 

But technically, it is the best. Bottom line is if you can't stay on the field, none of your other talents and abilities really matter.

[nobody 2,641]

Not the best.  There are thousands of players who are available that would be worthless on the field.

[TBayXXXVII 2,512]

1 hour ago, WhiteWonder said:

 

Very well said.  Topic seems a little pointless as, obviously, we are talking about comparing NFL players to other NFL players and usually players who are rated similarly. 

Also this saying is more born out of people saying "Player A is really good. Look what he did in the first 6 games last season. Now extrapolate that over a full season and he'd have been a top 12 WR!". That's great, but if player A misses chunks of the season on a consistent basis, he offers you nothing for fantasy purposes or his team for real life purposes when he's not on the field. 

Exactly.  Chris Godwin is the epitome of this.

• 2019 (played 14 games), finished the season as WR2 overall points
• 2020 (played 12 games), finished the season as WR15 fpg.
• 2021 (played 12 games), finished the season as WR7 fpg.
• 2022 (played 15 games... played game 1, missed 2 & 3), from weeks 4-18, finished as WR7 overall points.
• 2023 (played full season), finished as WR 28 in overall points.  Crappy offensive season.
• 2024 (played 7 games), From weeks 1 through 7, was WR2 overall... only 0.3 points behind Ja'Marr Chase.

Heading into 2025, ADP he's WR34.  Why?  Because "availability is the most important ability".  Since 2019, you can assume Chris Godwin will be a top 15 WR in games he plays... likely to be a WR1.  Why are 33 other guys going in front of him?

 

[GobbleDog 989]

1 hour ago, TBayXXXVII said:

• 2023 (played full season), finished as WR 28 in overall points.  Crappy offensive season.

Actually the Bucs insanely decided to move Godwin out of slot that year.  Put him directly back after that disaster. 

[Showboat 256]

8 hours ago, Ray_T said:

determining risk of a player with injury isnt just about saying hes injured and not performing.   you actually need to research the reasons and the recovery timelines as well.   ACL injuries are generally 16-20 month injuries.  you can usually play in 12 months, but likely wont be able to perform at 100% at that point.   There are exceptions to this, but not many.    If the ACL is combined with an additional ligament injury or meniscus, you can likely tack on 6-12 months onto that recovery time as the rehab is slower and more difficult.

This is true, but getting the exceptions right create value and separate the champs from also-rans.  I recall the year Adrian Peterson was coming back from ACL (and I think it came late the previous season - want to say December).  People had him on DND lists and were avoiding him like the plague.  I was not even all that high on him, but he fell to a point where I thought it would be ridiculous not to take him.  In that sense, not being inflexible with DND lists and such actually saved me because it allowed me to scoop up value where others had already made a predetermined decision that the player was toast.

Getting back to the original topic, I don't think I've ever heard "availability is the best ability".  It is a bit silly to label anything as the "best" ability - speed elusiveness, strength, smarts, etc. all play a role in football, but not sure how any one ability could be labeled as best.  However, availability is fundamental because without it, none of your other abilities matter.  If a player is not on the field he's of limited value to his team and he is worthless in fantasy.

[TBayXXXVII 2,512]

11 hours ago, GobbleDog said:

Actually the Bucs Canales' insanely decided to move Godwin out of slot that year.  Put him directly back after that disaster. 

That's definitely part of the reason, but not the whole story.  It's why I said crappy "offense".  He did have over 80 receptions and 1000 yards... he just only had 2 TD's.  If he had 7, that's another 30 points and he's WR16 and a quality WR2... in a "down" year.  In part and parcel, their hope was that Trey Palmer would be an excellent slot receiver (why, I have no idea),  but that got corrected last year. 

The rest of the reason is that their OLine wasn't that good and run game sucked.  Pass blocking, they ranked 16th and run blocking ranked 30th.  Their rushing game ranked dead last.  Tampa ranked 20th in scoring that year because they weren't very efficient as a whole.