Looking at the Patriots - 2018

i really don't get these rankings

lowest in completions, lowest attempts, lowest catch %, lowest first downs, middle of the road yards, ypa, and td but still is rated 3rd best?

should be moss-welker-cooks-gordon-lloyd and i could argue lloyd over gordon based on the huge diff in first downs.

They are ranked by a rate stat (passer rating), so counting stats like comps, attempts, first downs and yards only matter in the sense of efficiency.

Furthermore your description of lowest catch% is misleading. In actuality, there are two tiers of relative equals; it matter that Gordon is in the lower tier, but not where he falls within it.

Lastly, YPA and avoidance of ints are huge for passer rating, which explains why passes to Gordon grade out as being better than those to Welker.

You could argue that passer rating is the right stat to align them by, and I wouldn't put up much of a fuss. But when you understand the mechanics of how PR there is nothing surprising out how the WRs get ranked.
 
i really don't get these rankings

lowest in completions, lowest attempts, lowest catch %, lowest first downs, middle of the road yards, ypa, and td but still is rated 3rd best?

should be moss-welker-cooks-gordon-lloyd and i could argue lloyd over gordon based on the huge diff in first downs.

It's based on passer rating, which values YPA, and TDs. A higher GPA despite a lower completion percentage means he's being targeted deeper. As such it's expected and ok to have lower catch percentage. Remember it's yards per attempt not yards per completion.

It's obvious why he's ahead of Lloyd and as for Welker in addition to being way ahead in YPA, he's got 2 TDs and 0 picks vs 3 and 1. Picks are bad, thus the worse target rating. I mean he has more yards on 38 attempts than Welker has on 51. Target rating is a measure of 'when you throw this person the ball, how positive is the result'. The average result of a throw to Gordon is more positive than the average result of a throw to Welker. He seems to be exactly where he should be to me.

Btw you mention middle of the road in ypa, but seemingly miss that the two people above him are the ones with higher ypa. Thus being 3rd.
 
They are ranked by a rate stat (passer rating), so counting stats like comps, attempts, first downs and yards only matter in the sense of efficiency.

Furthermore your description of lowest catch% is misleading. In actuality, there are two tiers of relative equals; it matter that Gordon is in the lower tier, but not where he falls within it.

Lastly, YPA and avoidance of ints are huge for passer rating, which explains why passes to Gordon grade out as being better than those to Welker.

You could argue that passer rating is the right stat to align them by, and I wouldn't put up much of a fuss. But when you understand the mechanics of how PR there is nothing surprising out how the WRs get ranked.


sorry but passer rating (which is not even on the chart), and ypa are both in my mind the 2 worst ratings of a wr only chicks who dig the long ball and the zombied Al Davis care anymore about ypa.

give me the higher catch% (its the primary job of a wr to catch the friggin ball), the higher TD and higher first down receptions(showing the production of the catches) and finally completions showing repeated production.

this other stat is garbage imho no matter how much lipstick is placed on it.
 
:rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 02:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:51 PM ----------



I miss my Bentley...it was faster than most people think. It was a chick magnet.

Sorry man but it's the truth. Dude has been injury prone from all the way back in his days at Nebraska.
 
sorry but passer rating (which is not even on the chart), and ypa are both in my mind the 2 worst ratings of a wr only chicks who dig the long ball and the zombied Al Davis care anymore about ypa.

give me the higher catch% (its the primary job of a wr to catch the friggin ball), the higher TD and higher first down receptions(showing the production of the catches) and finally completions showing repeated production.

this other stat is garbage imho no matter how much lipstick is placed on it.

Why are you getting defensive? You expressed confusion as to the ordering and I explained the reason for it. No more, no less. :shrug_n:
 
Another Friday presser with a very relaxed Bill Belichick sharing his knowledge. This is good.


DrlNsE3W4AEm-1l.jpg:large


DrlNs0-W4AE0U7B.jpg:large
 
Updated Bend Don't Break Chart from Mike Dussault via FO. First time since 2007 the defense has been 15th or better across the board. I'd forgotten how bad the 2005 defense was.



Drlajd5VsAAY7nX.jpg
 
sorry but passer rating (which is not even on the chart), and ypa are both in my mind the 2 worst ratings of a wr only chicks who dig the long ball and the zombied Al Davis care anymore about ypa.



give me the higher catch% (its the primary job of a wr to catch the friggin ball), the higher TD and higher first down receptions(showing the production of the catches) and finally completions showing repeated production.



this other stat is garbage imho no matter how much lipstick is placed on it.



Need to look at some of the other stats per attempt too then if your goal is efficiency. For example you can’t look at total first downs if efficiency is your goal.

When you calculate the first downs per attempt, Gordon is only 1% behind Welker and both are ahead of Cooks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Need to look at some of the other stats per attempt too then if your goal is efficiency. For example you can’t look at total first downs if efficiency is your goal.

When you calculate the first downs per attempt, Gordon is only 1% behind Welker and both are ahead of Cooks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

i dont believe i used or talked about the word efficiency

just to demonstrate just how garbage this set of stats are, here is the int that somehow counts against welker @ 34:33 Brady is pressured and badly underthrows welker



<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/EuNPz4lH0MU?start=2073" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Just reread this and noticed a couple things:

sorry but passer rating (which is not even on the chart)

Perhaps I'm wrong, but "target rating" reads to me like passer rating on throws to those receivers.

only chicks who dig the long ball and the zombied Al Davis care anymore about ypa.

I suspect most analysts would disagree, largely because YPA is not at all synonymous with air yards.

i dont believe i used or talked about the word efficiency

Which is precisely the problem. You do realize that rate stats in the NFL are entirely about efficiency? And that more attempts can accumulate more counting stats at a lower efficiency? Meaning that sorting by a rate stat will often lead to people with higher counting stats being below those with few totals?

You reaction to this is confounding.
 
Jsnip

You reaction to this is confounding.

my apologies if i was unclear

the inclusion of "target rating" ( a very suspect stat for rating a wr if i have ever seen one) in this set of stats is garbage picked to fit a narrative and posted here because it says what pats fans want to hear.

i am not going to chase changing goalposts...
 
I don't think it's garbage. No goalposts have changed. If you think player x should not be ranked above player y because you don't like the stats used to rank that's fine. No one has said you must personally use or like those stats. As for me though ypa is an incomplete stat which ignores situational football, and though any ypa over 4 can move the chains which is the end goal, I certainly don't think it's a useless stat entirely and definitely don't think all efficiency stats are garbage. Rather than rail on how garbage these stats are why not post the stats you prefer and tell us why it would be better to use them instead?
 
Back
Top