mi_keys
8 years ago

I'm the #1 Davante "hater"...never thought much of him but can't dismiss what he's done in multiple games this season. The one thing that has really stood out to me is he's gotten open on several go routes where he has a lot of separation between himself and the DB. I'm not sure how this is occurring as I don't have all 22 but it's hard for me to imagine it's due to his raw speed which isn't anything but a tick below average. Perhaps, he's winning at the line if they're pressing him with his strength?

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 



I agree some of it does have to do with him beating press. While his top end speed is nothing special, he has good lateral agility. I've seen him freeze corners with his stutter step move both inside on a slant or outside on the fade route. If the corner doesn't effectively press or he ends up flat footed on Davante's move, Adams can get on top of the corner on the fade route.

Adams already has one strong playoff game against Dallas. Let's be tops that this Sunday and keeps building on a good season.
Born and bred a cheesehead
Barfarn
8 years ago

How is that a statistical analysis? You've taken a minuscule, non-random sample from a data set that's already small (roughly 30 receivers drafted a year plus however many UDFA). And you have not provided any numbers attempting to quantify the speed or production/skill/ability of each receiver so no comparison can be made.

Originally Posted by: mi_keys 



That's why I said I could make a statistical argument as opposed to saying here is a statistical argument. This constitutes a prima facie showing that a stat argument can be made that speed is a negative trait.

As rated by SportsXchange this sample of 60 top 10 WRs over 6 years. And it is unequivocal that the 3 slowest WRs of each year are predictably better NFL WRs than the 3 fastest of each year. This is powerful stuff!

Of course, we know speed can only help, so its impossible to be a negative trait. Surely if we statistically made all other variables equal, the faster WR would be the better WR. But, what this shows is that speed is WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY overvalued as a critically important trait for WRs. And in GB's system its even less important as precise route running, reading defenses and being able to quickly process the defense's reactions are the accentuated traits. This also provides a healthy cap savings. Imagine what Nelson, Adams and Cobb would cost if they ran a 4.30.
PackFanWithTwins
8 years ago
If Jordy is out, it is a perfect chance for Adams to display how special he really is. Can he do the same things when he gets more attention from the defense.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
uffda udfa
8 years ago
You would think if the NFL teams who spend millions preparing for the draft wouldn't prioritize speed as much as they do if it's been shown to be unimportant.

I guess the crux of the matter is a fast guy and slow guy can bust just as easily before the fact so take your chances on speed because if they can play you've got a difference maker. Not to say slower guys like Rice and Fitzgerald weren't big time difference makers.
UserPostedImage
Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."


Laser Gunns
8 years ago
If he cuts out the horrid untimely drops I would say this has been a great year.

So for now I'd say, he's improving, but not "special"

MintBaconDrivel
Dec, 11, 2012 - FOREVER!
Porforis
8 years ago
TFW people conflate statistics with "Choosing numbers selectively that support my argument"
mi_keys
8 years ago

That's why I said I could make a statistical argument as opposed to saying here is a statistical argument. This constitutes a prima facie showing that a stat argument can be made that speed is a negative trait.

As rated by SportsXchange this sample of 60 top 10 WRs over 6 years. And it is unequivocal that the 3 slowest WRs of each year are predictably better NFL WRs than the 3 fastest of each year. This is powerful stuff!

Originally Posted by: Barfarn 



It's about as powerful as a kitten's fart. What you've listed does not--on its face or otherwise--show speed and ability as a receiver are negatively correlated.

Your sample size of 36 receivers is too small to make any meaningful statements.

Your sample specifically excludes receivers that were viewed as mediocre or bad by however SportsXchange rates receivers. Issues of sampling size aside, that is a non-random sample and is not likely to be representative of the entire pool of receivers. If the top 10 receivers are, on average, materially faster than the rest of the receivers, that would support the opposite claim.

From digging around on SportsXchange, these appear to be the top 10 receivers based on pre-draft rankings. If that's the case, the rankings have little to do with actual realized ability.

The receivers in the faster subgroup are not unequivocally worse than the receivers in the slower subgroup. Beckham and Julio Jones are arguably the best receivers of any you listed and both are among the fastest. Likewise, Brandin Cooks, Golden Tate and Sammy Watkins (who you ignored, missing the cut by .01 with a 4.39) are both 1,000 yard receivers. The slower subgroup contains some mediocre receivers like Lafell, Sanu, and Quick and some complete no names like Jon Baldwin and Salas.

In some cases, the difference in 40 times between receivers in the fast subgroup and the slow subgroup is minimal. Mike Evans ran a 4.46 and Odell Beckham ran a 4.38. That's a much smaller difference than Mike Evans to Kelvin Benjamin, who ran a 4.61. Yet this method groups Evans in the slow group with Benjamin? Many of the receivers in the slow subgroup run in the 4.4s, which is not slow.

Many of the top 10 receivers in the slower groups are among the tallest, helping to explain why they were rated highly. Demaryius Thomas, Eric Decker, Alshon Jeffery, Brian Quick, and Allen Robinson are 6'3". AJ Green and Jon Baldwin are 6'4". Mike Evans is 6'5".

So no, you don't come remotely close to even alluding to a statistical argument that speed is negatively correlated with receiving ability.

Of course, we know speed can only help, so its impossible to be a negative trait. Surely if we statistically made all other variables equal, the faster WR would be the better WR. But, what this shows is that speed is WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY overvalued as a critically important trait for WRs. And in GB's system its even less important as precise route running, reading defenses and being able to quickly process the defense's reactions are the accentuated traits. This also provides a healthy cap savings. Imagine what Nelson, Adams and Cobb would cost if they ran a 4.30.



It doesn't show anything.
Born and bred a cheesehead
Barfarn
8 years ago

It's about as powerful as a kitten's fart. What you've listed does not--on its face or otherwise--show speed and ability as a receiver are negatively correlated.

Your sample size of 36 receivers is too small to make any meaningful statements.

Your sample specifically excludes receivers that were viewed as mediocre or bad by however SportsXchange rates receivers. Issues of sampling size aside, that is a non-random sample and is not likely to be representative of the entire pool of receivers. If the top 10 receivers are, on average, materially faster than the rest of the receivers, that would support the opposite claim.

From digging around on SportsXchange, these appear to be the top 10 receivers based on pre-draft rankings. If that's the case, the rankings have little to do with actual realized ability.

The receivers in the faster subgroup are not unequivocally worse than the receivers in the slower subgroup. Beckham and Julio Jones are arguably the best receivers of any you listed and both are among the fastest. Likewise, Brandin Cooks, Golden Tate and Sammy Watkins (who you ignored, missing the cut by .01 with a 4.39) are both 1,000 yard receivers. The slower subgroup contains some mediocre receivers like Lafell, Sanu, and Quick and some complete no names like Jon Baldwin and Salas.

In some cases, the difference in 40 times between receivers in the fast subgroup and the slow subgroup is minimal. Mike Evans ran a 4.46 and Odell Beckham ran a 4.38. That's a much smaller difference than Mike Evans to Kelvin Benjamin, who ran a 4.61. Yet this method groups Evans in the slow group with Benjamin? Many of the receivers in the slow subgroup run in the 4.4s, which is not slow.

Many of the top 10 receivers in the slower groups are among the tallest, helping to explain why they were rated highly. Demaryius Thomas, Eric Decker, Alshon Jeffery, Brian Quick, and Allen Robinson are 6'3". AJ Green and Jon Baldwin are 6'4". Mike Evans is 6'5".

So no, you don't come remotely close to even alluding to a statistical argument that speed is negatively correlated with receiving ability.

It doesn't show anything.

Originally Posted by: mi_keys 



Sometimes we get so close to the trees we cant see the forest.

Reading comprehension is just so important. The argument in NO WAY states that speed is negatively correlated; the exact OPPOSITE statement is made!

The sample size is 60 not 36. Bad poker players make this mistake; odds of winning with pocket aces is different if there are 10 people at the table than 2.

The comparisons is between the fastEST and the slowEST of the sampled WRs.

Now clear your mind of all prejudice and verbal gobbledy-gook; now open it.

Imagine the reasonable response to the question: Of the top 10 receivers as rated by SXCH over 6 years. If we take the top 3 fastEST and top 3 slowEST of each year, what % of slowEST receivers will be better than the fastEST?

If you are honest, you will admit, that the expected answer is very small %; but the reality is the slower receivers are significantly better.

The significance in the analysis is the STARK departure from the expected answer and the actual.

And there is only one explanation: in projecting the rating of WRs ability to pay in the NFL, SXCH is overvaluing speed. That a significant number of the fastest WRs, with lesser skills, get vaulted near the top of SXCH ratings. If there is a strong correlation between the SXCH rating and the position drafted, then it means a bunch of NFL GMs are doing the same thing.

And this fits my common sense impressions. So many super fast guys, like Archer, Young; some big and fast like Hill, Patterson and Hunter are just complete busts; while some 30+ guy who ran a 4.71 11 years before, running close to 5.0, gets 1000 yards with a lousy QB [Kapernick] and the touted opposite WR [Crabtree] only gets 600 and change.
mi_keys
8 years ago

Sometimes we get so close to the trees we cant see the forest.

Reading comprehension is just so important. The argument in NO WAY states that speed is negatively correlated; the exact OPPOSITE statement is made!

Originally Posted by: Barfarn 



You said in two separate posts:

I could make a statistical argument that there is an inverse relation between speed and being a good WR, to wit:

Barfarn wrote:



This constitutes a prima facie showing that a stat argument can be made that speed is a negative trait.

Barfarn wrote:



You even posted an explanation for why speed would be negatively correlated:

I think the reason is that College speedsters don’t need to learn to run routes to get open, so they don’t devote themselves to their craft [Guys like Beckham and Julio took to pro caliber WR coaching in college]. Suddenly they come into NFL and these speedsters can’t even run by slow pokes like Sherman and Gunter because these guys turn 4.33 speed to 4.65 speed with a touch of the finger.

Barfarn wrote:





The sample size is 60 not 36. Bad poker players make this mistake; odds of winning with pocket aces is different if there are 10 people at the table than 2.

Originally Posted by: Barfarn 



In your poker game, you have six tables of ten players. Except, four of the players on each table are never given a blind, have no chips, never show their cards, are never allowed to bet, and never play their cards. You excluded receivers 4 through 7. For different reasons than you excluded receivers 11 through everyone else, but you excluded them all the same. The sample is 36.

The comparisons is between the fastEST and the slowEST of the sampled WRs.

Originally Posted by: Barfarn 



I know.

Now clear your mind of all prejudice and verbal gobbledy-gook; now open it.

Originally Posted by: Barfarn 



Please, do tell me what my prejudice is.

Imagine the reasonable response to the question: Of the top 10 receivers as rated by SXCH over 6 years. If we take the top 3 fastEST and top 3 slowEST of each year, what % of slowEST receivers will be better than the fastEST?

Originally Posted by: Barfarn 



Let me respond with a handful of reasonable responses:

Who the fuck are SXCH?


...I should just stop there...






Why should I care about the SXCH ratings?

How does SXCH rate their players? Are the differences in ratings statistically significant?

How do you quantify "better"? Is it strictly to do with the SXCH ratings? If so, see the above questions. If not, how did you decide on your methodology for determining who is "better"?

Why 6 years?

Why the non-random sample? Why only 6 of the top 10? Why not the entire class?

Assuming the ratings of SXCH are in any way relevant, what is the difference in speed between the 3 fastest and 3 slowest? How do the speeds vary year to year? Are any of the differences in speed statistically significant?

Are you controlling for any other variables? If so, which variables and how? Are there any other confounding variables you haven't considered?

The bottom line is that your question lacks the detail and context to provide a reasonable answer. It only begs more questions.

If you are honest, you will admit, that the expected answer is very small %; but the reality is the slower receivers are significantly better.

Originally Posted by: Barfarn 



If I were answering on the spot going in to your question honest, I'd have told you I have no idea who the fuck SXCH is and that I need more information.

Failing to ask that question before Googling SXCH and finding some of the additional information to answer my questions, I'd have told you exactly what I did in my last post, that your methodology is awful and your conclusions unsubstantiated.

The significance in the analysis is the STARK departure from the expected answer and the actual.

Originally Posted by: Barfarn 



Only if you assume your initial answer is what everyone would expect (btw, go back and ask yourself your own bias question) and that your "analysis" provided what you assume to be an "actual" answer. Unfortunately, you've assumed an expected answer that ignores any other variable that could impact receiving ability (e.g. height, vertical, agility, hands, and so on) or assumes the question controls for those variables (it obviously does not).

And there is only one explanation: in projecting the rating of WRs ability to pay in the NFL, SXCH is overvaluing speed. That a significant number of the fastest WRs, with lesser skills, get vaulted near the top of SXCH ratings. If there is a strong correlation between the SXCH rating and the position drafted, then it means a bunch of NFL GMs are doing the same thing.

Originally Posted by: Barfarn 



No, there's plenty of possible explanations, the first being that your insignificant, non-random sample size doesn't provide any useful information so we can't make any definitive conclusions. Others include sampling error, confounding variables, non-statistically significant results, and measurement errors.

And this fits my common sense impressions. So many super fast guys, like Archer, Young; some big and fast like Hill, Patterson and Hunter are just complete busts; while some 30+ guy who ran a 4.71 11 years before, running close to 5.0, gets 1000 yards with a lousy QB [Kapernick] and the touted opposite WR [Crabtree] only gets 600 and change.

Originally Posted by: Barfarn 



There is a world of difference from saying you can name fast receivers that were busts and saying there is a statistical argument for negative correlation between speed and being a good receiver. Name a trait that's beneficial to receivers--whether that's speed, height, jumping, arm span, hands, route running, agility, vision, or anything else--and you can find college receivers that had that trait but busted all the same. Speed is no different in that sense; it's not the be-all, end-all to the wide receiver position. But that's not at all what you showed with your insignificant, 36 sized, non-random sample. And that's not what you initially argued.

And even your anecdotal evidence is poorly chosen: Archer is 5'8", a hybrid running back / receiver and return specialist, not a proper wide receiver; Titus Young sucker punched a teammate, had multiple off field issues, and potentially had/has mental health issues; Boldin beat out one of the receivers you had listed among the slowEST subgroups.
Born and bred a cheesehead
Zero2Cool
8 years ago
I'm glad I'm not the only one that is insanely baffled by the plethora of abbreviations and their randomness.

Davante Adams is special in he is consistently able to get open. He is not special with speed. He is not special with uber reliable hands, but he can make some special catches.

I watch a lot of football and not often do I see a WR that can get his body contorted to even get his hands on the ball the way Adams has.

Overall, I would say he just has some special qualities, some, a few, but he's not a Julio Jones type special.
UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
Mucky Tundra (20-Jun) : GB-Minnesota 2004 Wild Card game popped up on my YouTube page....UGH
beast (20-Jun) : Hmm 🤔 re-signing Walker before Tom? Sounds highly questionable to me.
Mucky Tundra (19-Jun) : One person on Twitter=cannon law
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Well, to ONE person on Tweeter
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : According to Tweeter
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Packers are working on extension for LT Walker they hope to have done before camp
dfosterf (18-Jun) : E4B landed at Andrews last night
dfosterf (18-Jun) : 101 in a 60
dfosterf (18-Jun) : FAFO
Zero2Cool (18-Jun) : one year $4m with incentives to make it up to $6m
dfosterf (18-Jun) : Or Lions
dfosterf (18-Jun) : Beats the hell out of a Vikings signing
Zero2Cool (18-Jun) : Baltimore Ravens now have signed former Packers CB Jaire Alexander.
dfosterf (14-Jun) : TWO magnificent strikes for touchdowns. Lose the pennstate semigeezer non nfl backup
dfosterf (14-Jun) : There was minicamp Thursday. My man Taylor Engersma threw
dfosterf (11-Jun) : There will be a mini camp practice Thursday.
Zero2Cool (11-Jun) : He's been sporting a ring for a while now. It's probably Madonna.
Martha Careful (10-Jun) : We only do the tea before whoopee, it relaxes me.
wpr (10-Jun) : That's awesome Martha.
Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : How's the ayahuasca tea he makes, Martha?
Martha Careful (10-Jun) : Turns out he like older women
Martha Careful (10-Jun) : I wasn't supposed to say anything, but yes the word is out and we are happy 😂😂😂
Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : I might be late on this but Aaron Rodgers is now married
Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : Well he can always ask his brother for pointers
Zero2Cool (10-Jun) : Bo Melton taking some reps at CB as well as WR
Zero2Cool (10-Jun) : key transactions coming today at 3pm that will consume more cap in 2025
Zero2Cool (9-Jun) : Jaire played in just 34 of a possible 68 games since the start of the 2021 season
Zero2Cool (9-Jun) : reported, but not expected to practice
Zero2Cool (9-Jun) : Jenkins has REPORTED for mandatory camp
Zero2Cool (9-Jun) : I really thought he'd play for Packers.
buckeyepackfan (9-Jun) : Packers releasing Jaire Alexander.
Mucky Tundra (8-Jun) : (Context: he wants his defense to create turnovers)
Mucky Tundra (8-Jun) : Giants DC Shane Bowen tells players to “be a damn pirate."
dfosterf (6-Jun) : Semper fi !
Cheesey (6-Jun) : This is why I have so much respect for those that have gone through battles
Cheesey (6-Jun) : I can't even imagine what that would have been like
wpr (6-Jun) : "Come on, you sons of bitches. Do you want to live forever?"
wpr (6-Jun) : Facing a line of machine guns 2 time medal of Honor recipient, First Sergeant Dan Daly told his men,
wpr (6-Jun) : Another detachment went into the Belleau Wood.
wpr (6-Jun) : On the 6th the Marines took Hill 142 but suffered terrible losses.
wpr (6-Jun) : It’s time to remember dfoster’s Marine brothers in Belleau Wood. The battle went on from June 1-26. Nearly 10,000 casualties.
packerfanoutwest (6-Jun) : Nick Collins and Morgan Burnett have signed with the PACK
packerfanoutwest (6-Jun) : he won't be wearing #12, maybe he will wear number two
packerfanoutwest (6-Jun) : He will fail this season, should have retired
Mucky Tundra (5-Jun) : Thus the cycle of Hall of Fame Packer QBs going to the Jets and then the Vikings is broken
bboystyle (5-Jun) : Rodgers to steelers on 1 year contract
Zero2Cool (5-Jun) : It's the cycle of civilizations. Get lazier, lazier, softer, softer and vanish.
Martha Careful (5-Jun) : great point. every aspect of society, including art, culture and sports has degraded.
dfosterf (4-Jun) : Green Bay sweep meant something to society about stopping pure excellence. We have the tush push now
dfosterf (4-Jun) : We old Martha.
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
3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

18-Jun / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

16-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

15-Jun / Random Babble / Martha Careful

14-Jun / Around The NFL / beast

14-Jun / Community Welcome! / dfosterf

13-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

13-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / Adam

12-Jun / Random Babble / Martha Careful

12-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

12-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

12-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

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