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
wpr (12h) : Hollywood Henderson said Bradshaw “is so dumb, he couldn't spell 'cat' if you spotted him the C and an A.”
Mucky Tundra (12h) : Cooper stock=BUY BUY BUY
Mucky Tundra (12h) : Also notes he’s playing with more confidence.
Mucky Tundra (12h) : @AndyHermanNFL MLF says there was a time last year where Cooper was at 220 pounds. Now he’s at 240 and still flying around.
Mucky Tundra (12h) : And don't even get me started on Frank Caliendos "impersonations"
Mucky Tundra (12h) : I got tired of them being circle jerks with them overlaughing at each others jokes.
Zero2Cool (12h) : It used to be must watch TV for me. now it's "meh" maybe to hear injury update
Mucky Tundra (12h) : I haven't watched the pregame shows in years and I don't feel like I've missed a thing
Zero2Cool (13h) : Love says knee affected him all season, groin injury didn't help matters.
Zero2Cool (13h) : I used to enjoy him on FOX Pregame. Now it's like a frat party of former Patriots.
Zero2Cool (13h) : LaFleur on Watson: “Christian is doing outstanding. I would say he’s ahead of schedule.”
Martha Careful (13h) : Bradshaw is a dumb ass cracker. I am so tired of his "aw shucks" diatribe. He should shrivel up and go away.
buckeyepackfan (16h) : He wad all butt hurt because Aaron duped the media saying he was immunized.
buckeyepackfan (16h) : Bradshaw needs to retire. He's been ripping on Rodgers ever since the covid crap. He was all hury
Zero2Cool (20h) : Terry Bradshaw doesn't want Rodgers in Pittsburgh lol wow
Zero2Cool (27-May) : one day contract, which he also feels is pointless, but if Packers came to him, he would
packerfanoutwest (27-May) : Aaron Rodgers talks possibility of retiring with Packers, just another rumor
dfosterf (27-May) : Go watch 2001
Zero2Cool (26-May) : 1984
dfosterf (26-May) : That movie sent a chill through many. 1968.
dfosterf (26-May) : "Open the pod bay doors, HAL"
buckeyepackfan (25-May) : Haven't we all seen thus movie? It doesn't end well!! Lol
Zero2Cool (25-May) : lol Anthropic’s new AI model turns to blackmail when engineers try to take it offline
dfosterf (25-May) : Claude Opus 4
dfosterf (25-May) : AI system resorts to blackmail when its developers threaten to take it offline
beast (22-May) : Colts Owner Jim Irsay has passed away
Zero2Cool (21-May) : Well, emailing should work now. After not working for almost a year. Oops.
Zero2Cool (21-May) : Brotherly Shove did not get enough votes.
Zero2Cool (20-May) : lol our email hasn't worked in months. 7 pages of unverified users
Zero2Cool (20-May) : MySpace Screaming Lord Byron ... Brett Favre.
Zero2Cool (19-May) : Packers have signed first-round pick Matthew Golden, leaving second-round tackle Anthony Belton as their only unsigned draft pick
beast (19-May) : Supposedly he has to take his image, and name off of it... but otherwise could keep selling wine if he wanted to.
Zero2Cool (19-May) : he giving up his win business?
beast (19-May) : Speaking of Woodson, sounds like he'll be a minority owner (0.1%) of the Browns
Mucky Tundra (15-May) : Zero, regarding Woodson, that'd why I find the timing with Williams peculiar
dfosterf (15-May) : Ryan Hall y'all does a great job of tracking thesr
Zero2Cool (15-May) : Fear not!! I planned to do 33mi bike ride tomorrow morning, so ... yeah
Zero2Cool (15-May) : We got some dark clouds and nasty winds right bout now.
Zero2Cool (15-May) : Madison they had hail 4pm.
dfosterf (15-May) : Sure looks like these tornadoes are headed towards Green Bay
Zero2Cool (15-May) : Woodson of Charles fame was reluctant and then loved it. that didn't really come out until post career
Mucky Tundra (15-May) : IE "We bought into the Bears and they let us down, we have no choice to seek alternatives"
Mucky Tundra (15-May) : Or that Williams and his family are preparing an exit ramp if they don't like how things are going in a few years
Mucky Tundra (15-May) : Either Williams thought it would make him look good (reluctant but then embraces the city and franchise)
Mucky Tundra (15-May) : I can only assume that the Williams camp agreed to cooperate with that article tells me 2 things
dfosterf (15-May) : Ya. They are in a great mood
Zero2Cool (15-May) : I should visit again
dfosterf (15-May) : ChiCity Sports entering freakout mode due to Caleb and his dad not wanting him to go there
Zero2Cool (15-May) : "He's looking really good out there," Derrick Ansley said of Kalen King. Adds that he's been playing inside and out.
Zero2Cool (15-May) : Him saying he doesn't have one to give haha
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
9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

27-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

27-May / Random Babble / Martha Careful

24-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

24-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

23-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / greengold

23-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / earthquake

22-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

22-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

21-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / greengold

21-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / earthquake

20-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

19-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

19-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

16-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

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