Jermichael Finley: Look for him to have a great season· Page 4

beast
Select Member

11 years ago

Any time you are talking about passing, you are going to have a dependent relationship.

But the main point is that totals are very misleading. Teams may target a player more because of a lack of alternatives. Not because they are good.

Having more opportunities doesn't mean they did better with their opportunities. They can get more total catches being average if they are targeted enough to make up for the lack of ability.

For example, Brandon Marshall was targeted 192 times. He was probably about the 40th most productive WR per target. He just made up for his mediocrity with having twice the opportunities of James Jones, but put up fewer TDs.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister

Which proves my point... it's better to go with the caught/dropped numbers because you knew the player had a chance at those balls. Where targets can be the QB just getting rid of the ball and the ball not being even close...

Using NFL.com for yards and catches numbers. And Zero2Cool numbers for dropped numbers.

Finley
Yards: 667
Catches: 61
Drops: 9

667 / (61+9) = 9.528571 yards per should of grabbed.

Graham
Yards: 982
Catches: 85
Drops: 15

982 / (85+15) = 9.82 yards per should of grabbed.

No idea what the standard deviation is for this kind of thing and there for hard to tell how close is close... but the less than 0.3 seems very close.

Dexter_Sinister
Registered

11 years ago

#32

Originally Posted by: beast

Again, yes and no.

If Finley presented a better target, was more open, had fewer passes defended and saved more bad passes, he would have a higher catches per target.

Where Graham could have been unable to get open, didn't win a fight for a ball or couldn't save a bad pass, his completions per target would be lower.

A better receiver will increase the catches per target.

I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.

beast
Select Member

11 years ago

#33

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister

That's adding speculation... and you can speculate ether way. If player A is a better target or is player B a better target... is player A or player B fighting harder to make a catch? Numbers are numbers.

Dexter_Sinister
Registered

11 years ago

#34

Originally Posted by: beast

I agree with that.

But it is the same thing with YAC being counted for a QB.

It is one of those grey areas. A better WR will increase the catches per target, but some are still not catchable.

A better QB will create more opportunities for YAC but sometimes it is just like Donald Driver refusing to be tackled or Nelson trucking some poor little DB.

The receiver can increase the catches per target rate if they are good.

I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.

beast
Select Member

11 years ago

#35

The receiver can increase the catches per target rate if they are good.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister

They're both starters in the NFL on pretty good offensive teams... so assume they're both good. But still targets count the passes that they don't even have a chance to catch.

Back to the numbers of ones they did have a chance to catch.

Using NFL.com for yards and catches numbers. And Zero2Cool numbers for dropped numbers.

Finley
Yards: 667
Catches: 61
Drops: 9

667 / (61+9) = 9.528571 yards per should of grabbed.

Graham
Yards: 982
Catches: 85
Drops: 15

982 / (85+15) = 9.82 yards per should of grabbed.

No idea what the standard deviation is for this kind of thing and there for hard to tell how close is close... but the less than 0.3 seems very close.

Originally Posted by: beast

Dexter_Sinister
Registered

11 years ago

#36

They're both starters in the NFL on pretty good offensive teams... so assume they're both good. But still targets count the passes that they don't even have a chance to catch.

Originally Posted by: beast

Since the point is who is better, that assumption is contradictory. Or drop rates don't matter. Total catches don't matter. Yards and TDs don't matter. Because we are just assuming they are both good.

They count the bad throws, but the better the receivers is, the smaller that number will be. Because he can beat coverage better so the QB won't have to throw it away as much.

Missed targets count defended throws. A better receiver will have fewer of them because he will be open more. A better route runner will be open more. A receiver who fights for balls will have more. A receiver who has better communication with his QB will have more.

Per target catch rate does go up the better the receiver is.

I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.

beast
Select Member

11 years ago

#37

Since the point is who is better, that assumption is contradictory.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister

As is adding QB targets in the mix because that's the QB... not the receiver.

You pointed out the receiver can effect it some what but still it's more so QB and the question isn't about the QBs, so taking them out as much as possible it would make sense to look only at the ones you know they had a chance on which are the catches and the drops and messaging things that you can message such as yards and not how hard they did or didn't try because both were probably trying to make plays happen.

nerdmann
Premier Member

11 years ago

#38

QUARLESS WILL MAKE FINLEY AN AFTERTHOUGHT THIS YEAR.

MARK IT DOWN!

“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”

Dexter_Sinister
Registered

11 years ago

#39

Originally Posted by: beast

By taking them out, you take out the ones the Receiver is responsible for.

It doesn't really matter though. If a receiver reduces the number of missed targets because he is better, he should get credit for it.

By using his body to shield defenders, out running coverage, making the right cut at the right time, being open so the QB doesn't have to throw it away, etc.

The QB will have to throw fewer uncatchable balls if the receiver is better.

Regardless of the QB getting some responsibility for it.

I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.

DakotaT
Select Member

11 years ago

#40

QUARLESS WILL MAKE FINLEY AN AFTERTHOUGHT THIS YEAR.

MARK IT DOWN!

Originally Posted by: nerdmann

That boy took his rehab seriously. I hope you're right.

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

Mucky Tundra (1h) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol

buckeyepackfan (1h) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier

buckeyepackfan (1h) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol

Mucky Tundra (1h) : Jacobs gonna be OK???

Zero2Cool (1h) : Watson gonna be OK???

packerfanoutwest (5h) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath

packerfanoutwest (5h) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.

packerfanoutwest (5h) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed

Zero2Cool (7h) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them

Zero2Cool (7h) : I just checked. What tie breaker?

bboystyle (7h) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner

Zero2Cool (7h) : Ahh, ok.

bboystyle (7h) : yes due to tie breaker

Zero2Cool (7h) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.

Zero2Cool (7h) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?

bboystyle (7h) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference

Mucky Tundra (8h) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network

beast (9h) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th

beast (9h) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly

Zero2Cool (9h) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.

bboystyle (9h) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed

Mucky Tundra (9h) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv

Zero2Cool (10h) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno

beast (10h) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?

packerfanoutwest (10h) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans

Zero2Cool (11h) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (11h) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (11h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (11h) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (11h) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (11h) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (13h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (13h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (13h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (13h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (14h) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (14h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Zero2Cool (14h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (14h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

beast (14h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out

Zero2Cool (14h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (14h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

beast (14h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality

beast (14h) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs

Zero2Cool (14h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread

Zero2Cool (14h) : I literally just said it.

packerfanoutwest (14h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't

Zero2Cool (14h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.

Zero2Cool (14h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.

packerfanoutwest (14h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

34 - 0

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS