At what point do we put Mark Andrews ahead of Travis Kelce? Kelce has been good for a lot of years, but he’s 32. Andrews is six years younger and finished with better numbers last year – more catches and yards and almost as many touchdowns.
But I think I’m still leaning towards Kelce. With him, you know what you’re getting. Kansas City will have a good passing offense, and he’ll be their main pass catcher.
With the Ravens, I wonder (given their struggles last year) if they might go back to a more run-oriented approach, making the offense look more like it did in 2019 and 2020. They traded away Hollywood Brown while drafting a pair of tight ends.
And it bugs me that Andrews’ best games last year came when Lamar Jackson wasn’t even playing. Andrews was a lot more productive when Tyler Huntley was at quarterback.
Andrews played 11 full games with Jackson at quarterback last year. He averaged 5 catches for 67 yards in those games, with 5 TDs. That’s fine. But in the six games that others did the bulk of the quarterbacking, Andrews averaged 8.5 catches for 104 yards and 4 TDs.
Andrews caught at least 8 passes six times last year, and all but one of those games came when Jackson was sidelined.
He averaged 3.5 more catches and 37 more yards when others were at quarterback.
| MARK ANDREWS: BUSIEST GAMES | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wk | Opp | Score | Tgt | No | Yds | TD | PPR |
| 5 | Ind. | W 31-25 | 13 | 11 | 147 | 2 | 41.7 |
| 14 | at Cle. | L 22-24 | 11 | 11 | 115 | 1 | 28.5 |
| 15 | G.B. | L 30-31 | 13 | 10 | 136 | 2 | 35.6 |
| 11 | at Chi. | W 16-13 | 10 | 8 | 73 | 0 | 15.3 |
| 16 | at Cin. | L 21-41 | 10 | 8 | 125 | 1 | 26.5 |
| 18 | Pitt. | L 13-16 | 15 | 8 | 85 | 0 | 16.5 |
| 10 | at Mia. | L 10-22 | 8 | 6 | 63 | 1 | 18.3 |
| 17 | LAR | L 19-20 | 6 | 6 | 89 | 0 | 14.9 |
| 2 | K.C. | W 36-35 | 5 | 5 | 57 | 0 | 10.7 |
| 6 | LAC | W 34-6 | 6 | 5 | 68 | 1 | 17.8 |
| 9 | Min. | W 34-31 | 10 | 5 | 44 | 0 | 9.4 |
| 4 | at Den. | W 23-7 | 8 | 5 | 67 | 0 | 11.7 |
| 3 | at Det. | W 19-17 | 7 | 5 | 109 | 0 | 15.9 |
| 12 | Clev. | W 16-10 | 10 | 4 | 65 | 1 | 16.5 |
| 13 | at Pitt. | L 19-20 | 9 | 4 | 50 | 0 | 9.0 |
| 1 | at L.V. | L 27-33 | 5 | 3 | 20 | 0 | 5.0 |
| 7 | Cin. | L 17-41 | 7 | 3 | 48 | 0 | 7.8 |
—Ian Allan