beast
12 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.
UserPostedImage
Dexter_Sinister
12 years ago

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.

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
12 years ago

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.

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.





UserPostedImage
Dexter_Sinister
12 years ago

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.




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
12 years ago

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 




UserPostedImage
Dexter_Sinister
12 years ago

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
12 years ago

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.



UserPostedImage
nerdmann
12 years ago
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
12 years ago

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.


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
12 years ago

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.
UserPostedImage
Users browsing this topic
    Fan Shout
    Zero2Cool (8h) : Both LB Quay Walker and Rookie DB Micah Robinson have passed their physicals
    Zero2Cool (9h) : Happy to see site feels more snappy snappy
    Zero2Cool (9h) : No sir. I did not.
    dfosterf (9h) : You didn't get free childcare when you were at work?
    wpr (10h) : These guys make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Pay for their own childcare.
    dfosterf (11h) : 2nd issue. Number 1 issue was no gameday childcare. 1 of 3 teams not providing it
    Zero2Cool (11h) : Suppose if locker room is main issue, we sitting pretty
    wpr (11h) : I thought so Mucky. In those useless player polls GB always rates high overall. Locker is a part of it.
    Mucky Tundra (12h) : Wasn't the locker room just updated like 6 or 7 years ago?
    Zero2Cool (12h) : I have forum updated on different site. We'll see how this one goes before going to that
    Zero2Cool (13h) : Elgton Jenkins has a back injury, is expect to end contract dispute
    wpr (15h) : It's funny the PA complained about the locker room. It wasn't that long ago it was top shelf. Things change in a hurry.
    wpr (15h) : The site is much more better.
    Zero2Cool (15h) : NFLPA report said Packers lockerroom needed upgrade. Whining bout where you change?
    Zero2Cool (15h) : I saw that and thought it was kind of lame.
    dfosterf (15h) : Packers new locker room is pretty awesome. Great for morale, imo
    Zero2Cool (16h) : Shuffled things on the web server. Hope it makes it faster.
    Zero2Cool (16h) : Other times, it's turtle ass
    Zero2Cool (16h) : Sometimes it's snappy, like now.
    beast (17h) : I feel like it's loading at the top of the next minute, or something like that.
    beast (17h) : Also the thanks/heart takes FOREVER to load, and posting in the shout box takes three times FOREVER!
    beast (17h) : Thanks for saying something, I thought it was slow, but assumed it was on my end
    beast (17h) : Thanks for saying something, I thought it was slow, but assumed it was on my end
    Zero2Cool (18h) : Yeah, I noticed that too. Is it slow for PackerPeople.com too?
    wpr (18h) : I don't know what you IT guys call it but the page loading is very slow for me today.
    Zero2Cool (18h) : SSL might be settled now.
    Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Still working through SSL cert issues
    wpr (23-Jul) : Glad to be back
    Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : I think PH original finally working.
    dfosterf (22-Jul) : Can tell you are having a fun day Kev
    Zero2Cool (22-Jul) : Yep, I had to manually move them. It'll fix itself after more posts.
    Mucky Tundra (22-Jul) : Same deal with the songs/videos thread, says you replied last but when I go there it's what I posted earlier is last
    Zero2Cool (22-Jul) : I had to manually move three posts.
    Mucky Tundra (22-Jul) : But when I go it, Martha's is the last reply
    Mucky Tundra (22-Jul) : Still a little screwy; it shows on the main forum that you were the last person to reply to the Jenkins trade thread
    Zero2Cool (22-Jul) : Host issues, been crazy day
    Mucky Tundra (22-Jul) : Connect 4?
    Zero2Cool (22-Jul) : Connecting to new database
    Zero2Cool (22-Jul) : What the hell
    beast (22-Jul) : Packershome going to the Whiteout unis again
    Zero2Cool (21-Jul) : Oh wait, they got Cam Ward. 1st overall right? haha oops
    Zero2Cool (21-Jul) : They could send Packers a 1st for a QB they are familiar with
    Zero2Cool (21-Jul) : Titans QB Will Levis to have season-ending shoulder surgery
    Zero2Cool (19-Jul) : Their season did kind of start there, so 🤷
    dfosterf (19-Jul) : Eagles put an engraved Brazil flag on their super bowl rings
    Zero2Cool (18-Jul) : Benton unsigned no more
    Zero2Cool (17-Jul) : That's good analysis, yes you are getting old. It'd a blessing!
    dfosterf (14-Jul) : *analysis* gettin' old
    dfosterf (14-Jul) : One of the best analyisis I"ve ever watched at this time of an offseason
    dfosterf (14-Jul) : Andy Herman interviewed Warren Sharp on his Pack a day podcast
    Please sign in to use Fan Shout
    2025 Packers Schedule
    Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
    LIONS
    Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
    COMMANDERS
    Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
    Browns
    Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
    Cowboys
    Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
    BENGALS
    Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
    Cardinals
    Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
    Steelers
    Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
    PANTHERS
    Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
    EAGLES
    Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
    Giants
    Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
    VIKINGS
    Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
    Lions
    Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
    BEARS
    Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
    Broncos
    Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
    Bears
    Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
    RAVENS
    Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
    Vikings
    Recent Topics
    24m / Around The NFL / beast

    1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    3h / Around The NFL / Mucky Tundra

    6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    18h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

    23-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    22-Jul / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

    22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    20-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    20-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    18-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    15-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    Headlines
    Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.