It's one of those things that you just know when you're awesome.
But you can kind of reverse engineer things with the same kind of projections. Like for example ... what's the least amount of passing yards you could have as a starting QB for the whole year? Zero yards, right? Well, no, you'd lose your job well before that. What about 3,000 yards? That's actually about right. (Look at last year's stats, low 3000s is where people either missed some games or lost their job https://www.pro-football-reference.c...sing::pass_yds)
So out of that 3,000 yards, how are they split up? Well, what's the worst you can do as a #1 receiver without being hurt or losing your job? 800 yards? That comes out about right too. What's the worst as a #2 WR? Call it 700. Another 400 for your baseline TE and 400 for your baseline RB group, you're at 2,100. So you've got 900 yards to split up among everyone else, which is basically your slot receiver, and the backup TEs, and WRs 4-5-6 who are like the sub-150 yard guys. The slot receiver ought to be getting the most out of that group, by virtue of getting the most playing time and targets. So if you're not pulling 400 yards as a #3 WR, sorry, but you really suck. (Well what if you have a really good #1 or #2 receiver taking more of the yards? Well, then your QB's overall passing yards probably aren't the worst in the league, we're talking about baseline replacement value).
Same idea with OLBs. How many sacks do the worst defenses in the league get per year? Low 30s is pretty typical. So what's the average player's share? About 3 a year, give or take. Well, your DBs probably only get 1 or 2, and the guys whose main job is actually rushing should get more. So 4-5 sacks is what the position is good for even if you are bad. That's also what YOU get by showing up, if you aren't so bad you lose your job.
That's the thing that's left out of these "______th best in the league" stats. People on the bottom half of the list lose their jobs a lot and don't always get a full season's worth of stats. Or sometimes they're down there because they missed games due to injury. You can get "league average" or even slightly "above-average" looking stats (Wheaton's 700-yard fluke) just based on the fact that you didn't get hurt and the coaches left you in!
There might be 100 OLBs who could produce Dupree's 3.5-4 sacks a year, but most of them get yanked halfway for playing like that, so they only get 2.5 sacks. "Dupree is doing better, see!" No, not really. We have a few players like that from time to time, who get THE MAXIMUM time to prove themselves because we want to see them succeed so badly. Wheaton's stats are basically what you get from giving a low-average player extended playing time, and the 700 year was a lucky break.
Back to the point again: If Washington's career turns out like Wheaton's, I would call that a big disappointment. Not really a ton of evidence to go by yet, although a lost year is not necessarily encouraging ... but that is what I hope he does NOT turn out to be.