beast
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.
UserPostedImage
Dexter_Sinister
11 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
11 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
11 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
11 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
11 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
11 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
11 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
11 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
11 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
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (1h) : Chiefs again huh? I guess another Super Bowl I'll be finding something else to do.
Mucky Tundra (11h) : Chiefs Eagles...again...sigh
dfosterf (12h) : Happy Birthday Dave!
Mucky Tundra (13h) : happy birthday dhazer
TheKanataThrilla (15h) : Exactly buck...Washington came up with the ball. It is just a shitty coincidence one week later
buckeyepackfan (15h) : I forgot, they corrected the call a week later. Lol btw HAPPY BIRTHDAY dhazer!
buckeyepackfan (15h) : That brings up the question, why wasn't Nixon down by contact? I think that was the point Kanata was making.
buckeyepackfan (16h) : Turnovers rule, win the turnover battle, win the game.
packerfanoutwest (16h) : well, he was
TheKanataThrilla (16h) : Eagles down by contact on the fumble....fuck you NFL
Mucky Tundra (16h) : I think this games over
beast (17h) : Eagles sure get a lot of fumbles on kickoffs
Mucky Tundra (17h) : This game looks too big for Washington
packerfanoutwest (20h) : that being said, The Ravens are the Browns
packerfanoutwest (20h) : Browns, Dolphins have longest AFC Championship droughts
packerfanoutwest (20h) : As of today, Cowboys have longest NFC Championship drought,
beast (26-Jan) : Someone pointed out, with Raiders hiring Carroll, the division games between Carroll and Jim Harbaugh are back on (who can whine more games)
beast (26-Jan) : I'm confused, Pete Carroll and Brian Schottenheimer? When Todd Monken, Joe Brady, Kellen Moore, Kliff Kingsbury and Zac Robinson are availab
Zero2Cool (25-Jan) : Any reason I'm catching a shot here about my intelligence?
Martha Careful (25-Jan) : thank you Mucky for sticking up for me
Martha Careful (25-Jan) : some of those people are smarter than you zero. However Pete Carroll is not
Mucky Tundra (24-Jan) : Rude!
beast (24-Jan) : Martha? 😋
Zero2Cool (24-Jan) : Raiders hired someone from the elderly home.
dfosterf (24-Jan) : I'm going with a combination of the two.
beast (24-Jan) : Either the Cowboys have no idea what they're doing, or they're targeting their former OC, currently the Eagles OC
Zero2Cool (23-Jan) : Fake news. Cowboys say no
Zero2Cool (23-Jan) : Mystery candidate in the Cowboys head coaching search believed to be Packers ST Coordinator Rich Bisaccia.
beast (23-Jan) : Also why do both NYC teams have absolutely horrible OL for over a decade?
beast (23-Jan) : I wonder why the Jets always hire defensive coaches to be head coach
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Still HC positions available out there. I wonder if Hafley pops up for one
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Trent Baalke is out as the Jaguars GM.
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Jeff Hafley would have been a better choice, fortunately they don't know that. Someone will figure that out next off season
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Aaron Glenn Planning To Take Jets HC Job
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Martha- C'est mon boulot! 😁
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you
wpr (22-Jan) : Z, glad you are feeling better.
wpr (22-Jan) : My son and D-I-L work for UM. It's a way to pick on them.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you. I rarely get sick, and even more rarely sick to the point I can't work.
wpr (22-Jan) : Beast- back to yesterday, I CAN say OSU your have been Michigan IF the odds of making the playoffs were more urgent.
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Glad to hear you are feeling a bit better.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : I've been near death ill last several days, finally feel less dead and site issues.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : It is a big deal. This host is having issues. It's frustrating.
Martha Careful (22-Jan) : just kidding...it was down
Martha Careful (22-Jan) : you were blocked yesterday, due to a a recalcitrant demeanor yesterday in the penalty box for a recalcitrant demeanor
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Was that site shutdown on your end or mine? No big deal, just curious
beast (21-Jan) : That way teams like Indiana and SMU don't make the conference championships by simply avoiding all the other good teams in their own confere
beast (21-Jan) : Also, with these "Super Conferences" instead of a single conference champion, have 4 teams make a Conference playoffs.
beast (21-Jan) : Also in college football, is a bye week a good or bad thing?
Martha Careful (21-Jan) : The tournament format was fine. Seeding could use some work.
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 12 @ 3:30 PM
Eagles
Recent Topics
1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

25-Jan / Random Babble / Martha Careful

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

19-Jan / Random Babble / Martha Careful

18-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

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