Very few rookies can enter the league and dominate. Most take time to adjust. Look at Patrick Peterson, scouts drooled over him as "the next big thing" at the combine and draft but he's been a barely average CB in the NFL at this point. Rating him higher than NFL starters before he's displayed a high level of play is ignorant and short-sighted, and most of all wrong. Should we go down the list of high draft picks who were busts like Alex Smith, Troy Williamson, Matt Leinart, JaMarcus Russell, Gaines Adams (RIP) Levi Brown, Jammal Anderson, Ted Ginn and countless others? We'd be here all day! What a player has done in college means ABSOLUTELY SQUAT. They should be rated on NFL performance--and until they have some, they deserve a basic baseline rating based on draft position. We decided on a value of 60 for 1st rounders, 50 for second rounders and 40 for 3rd rounders. Anything after the 3rd round? 30 overall rating. It makes no sense to rate these players like they've played well in the NFL until they actually have. Want proof? Reggie Bush came into Madden rated an 87 (yes--three points from elite) and we all know how THAT turned out. Yet and still these high rookie ratings persist.
One thing we decided early on in our rating system was that the earlier a player showed dominance the more value it had (while players like Brandon Lloyd and Jason Babin who had late breakout seasons with little to no consistency would progress more slowly) We also decided that their impact on their teams overall success and win totals would do a great job illustrating their high level of play as well. The three players we rated as "The Standard" for early dominance were Randy Moss, Dwight Freeney and Adrian Peterson. All three of these players not only dominated from Day One, but also dramatically affected the fortunes of their teams in ways that went beyond numbers. It was evident early on that these guys weren't cut from the same cloth as most players. In short, they were players that had to immediately be schemed for and that could do the one thing that only elite players truly accomplish, dominate despite being the focus of an opposing team's gameplan every week. Just in case you've forgotten how good each of them were, here's a look at their rookie years.
Moss - Vikings finished 15-1, scored the most points in the league. #1 offense. 69 rec, 1313yds, 17TDs
Freeney - Colts finished 10-6 after 6-10 previous year. Defense ranked 7th. 45 tackles, 13 sacks, 9 FFs
Peterson - Vikings finished 8-8. Rushing Offense ranked #1. 1,341 yds, 5.6 avg, 12TDs
Not bad huh? Guess what we ranked each at the end of their rookie years? 88. Its important to avoid the one-year-wonder players like Michael Clayton, Michael Bennett, and Eddie Royal when rating. As good as these guys were its our belief that you wait to see if a player can be consistent before maintaining a high rating, or entering them into the elite category (90+) in their second year in the NFL. We all know how the story ends for these three, however. By midseason of their second years it was obvious all three were elite players. So you can imagine the looks on our faces when we see elite ratings given out like they're going out of style in Madden's current worse-than-horrible rating system. Where is the consistency? Can a few weeks turn you into an elite player? Look at Dez Bryant, this guy came into the league rated an 82. Higher than half of the starting WRs in the league. Based on what he did at Oklahoma State? LUDICROUS. So tell us, what's he done to validate that rating?
Dez's Career Stats
A rookie year that produced 45rec, 561yds and 6 TDs on a non-playoff team? Take away the name and rate a first-year receiver with those numbers. We'd give him a 71 max. We'll tell you what we see so far from Bryant. A receiver who's yet to catch 70 balls and is still yet to reach 1,000yds receiving but is rated an 85? How in God's name? Does the #88 jersey have a +10 rating perk or something? Its past time for a Vince Lombardi "What the HELL's going on out here?!" when it comes to Madden Ratings. Then we remembered the one thing casual football fans and people who don't truly understand the game fall for every day of the week and twice on sunday: THE EYEBALL TEST.
You know what the eyeball test is. Its when these guys see the BIG, STRONG, FAST combination and automatically think great football player, its when they see an ultra-athletic catch or tackle and get STARS in their eyes. Its Cromartie's one-handed pick against the Colts, JaMarcus and Kyle Boller's arm strength at the combine, Mike Vick making a defender look silly and then firing a laser for a TD, a big Roy Williams tackle, Cam Newton's QB TD rushing record, Tebow's runs for a first down and Peyton Hilis' entire 2010. Its all flash with little to no substance and real affect on the game, and very little of the most important stat of all: WINS. Look at the Madden stats, they're basically a huge tribute to the "eyeball test". Great athletes get countless accolades for Sportscenter highlights while real and consistent production gets totally overlooked. Cam Newton's 6'6" 250 gets him an 87 despite his 5-9 record and essentially a 1-1TD/INT ratio, while Andy Dalton plays a big role on an 8-6 playoff team (in a harder division, no less) and gets an 81 despite throwing 18TDs and 13 TDs. By that rationale, Gold help us if Cam plays "average" in the future, if numbers like that get him 3 points from elite, his rating might crack 130 when he actually plays well. Look at the TE example, Jason Witten is by far the leader in production based on 3-year numbers (before Gronkowski and Graham this year, who we rated 90 and 85 respectively) and even his "down year" in 2011 (60 catches, 800 yds, 5 TDs) is almost elite by TE standards. The highest rated TE? Antonio Gates. Are you kidding me? The numbers aren't remotely close. While Gates is certainly elite, its embarassing to rate him higher than Witten. So why's it done? The Eyeball Test. People see Gates go up over a defender for a TD and become enamored with potential and "ability" and consider it more important than production. Ratings people should know better. The saddest part? There are athletes who meet the eyeball test criteria, are contributing to their team's success AND are putting up numbers, so there's no need to overrate players who lack production. Calvin Johnson is certainly an athlete of the first caliber, does anyone NOT remember his monster game in the clutch last week to get Detroit close to a playoff spot? His numbers this year? 81 catches, 1334 yds, 14 TDs. Now that's production. If Dez Bryant is an 85, Megatron can't be rated anything less than 150.
We agree that guys like JPP and Babin should improve but slow down just a tad. Elite players? How? Babin had his first productive season in 6 years last year and all of a sudden he's Strahan? He's certainly moved out of the fluke category with his performance this year but that means he's showing some consistency, not elite. He's in the 85-87 range at this point. JPP certainly looks like a keeper as well. There's no question Osi Umenyiora better get used to coming off the bench. He showed flashes with 5 sacks last year and broke out in 2011 but "one good year do not make a player elite." These guys shouldn't be rated near the likes of Trent Cole and John Abraham. Those guys have consistency on their side. If you bat .300 for one year it doesn't equal my doing it for 5 straight, especially if i'm STILL a .300 hitter. If good-from-day-one guys like Freeney are an 88 after their rookie years, second year standouts like Pierre Paul rank in the 85 range. And if 99 is the pinnacle in Madden, 85 should be an excellent rating reserved for breakout, almost-elite players on the cusp of Pro Bowls! Instead its handed out to anyone who's ever had a good game. Much like Madden 10, the ratings are once again in dire need of shrinking. The inflation is getting out of hand. A consistent system that disregards who the player is or what team he plays for and concentrates more on WHAT he does is paramount.
So what's the solution? Stop the friggin' ratings based on the eyeball test, subjective views and flat-out bad analyzing. PRODUCTION. There's simply no substitute for it. Something like 48 of the top 50 NFL individual season performances have occured on playoff teams. News Flash! Good things happen when players produce. Marino throws 48TDs? Superbowl. Peyton Throws 49? Playoffs. Brady Throws 50? Superbowl. Jamal Lewis and Chris Johnson run for 2,000 yards? Playoffs. What's that you say? All five of the top-rated passers are on playoff teams? Amazing. Say What? So are four of the top 5 leading rushers? Incredible. You mean to tell me four of the top five leading receivers are going to the playoffs too? Unbelievable. It isn't algebra or some stars-must-be-aligned coincidence. If there's one Consistent, Accurate and Impartial criteria for success and rating players its NUMBERS--it makes you look like an idiot to disregard them as "stuff people use in fantasy football". In the end, all they are is Production in Numerical Form. SIMPLE. A better idea would be to stop relying on the horribly flawed opinions of people that give clutch ratings to average QBs on their favorite teams who've never sniffed the playoffs (Yes Josh Freeman--that means you) Madden deserves better.
wow. u guys went hard on this one.
ReplyDeleteAgree with a lot of this but you're way off base on Gates/Witten. The numbers "aren't remotely close?" Were you drinking when you wrote this?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/te
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/extra-points/2010/antonio-gates-ridiculous
http://www.nfl.com/player/antoniogates/2505299/profile
http://www.nfl.com/player/jasonwitten/2505629/profile
http://wp.advancednflstats.com/playerstats.php?pos=TE
This season their raw stats are almost indistinguishable:
57 ypg/11.5 YPC/6 TD for Gates in 11 games
61 ypg/12.5 YPC/5 TD for for Witten in 14 games.
On their careers Gates has a full 2 yards/catch over Witten, more TD, more yards, more yards/game, fewer fumbles. Witten has more catches and is 'a better blocker,' which is definitely true but virtually impossible to quantify.
And again, those are the raw numbers. As far as advanced stats go Football Outsiders has Gates significantly better than Witten, Brian Burke has it the other way around. (I don't pay for PFF's crapfest, so I don't know how they have him ranked but that's fine because I don't care either. They blow.)
Long story short, unless you're religiously devoted to one advanced stat site over another Witten vs. Gates this year is a push at best. Last year it was Gates by a mile. On raw career totals it's Gates by a leg. Throw in Witten's blocking and we're back to a push.
I mean, I really can't stress how badly acting like Gates don't have elite production undercuts this entire post. You have a good head of steam going, you're making strong points, your arguments are well supported and then bam... out of left field comes this monumental, credibility-killing, Donny-level factual error. You guys are better than this.
ReplyDelete"Can't stress enough" ... damn it. Anyway, I'll stop beating the dead horse in just a second. But when you're in the middle of a righteous rant about how other people keep falling for the eyeball test, declaring that Gates doesn't actually have elite production because your gut doesn't "feel" like his line is as good as Witten's is just as bad. It's obvious you didn't check, because if you had you would've seen his line's actually better.
ReplyDeleteGates last 3 yrs 79-1157-8, 51-782-10, 59-672-6. Witten 94-1030-2, 94-1002-9, 72-873-5. Seems pretty obvious to us. Witten has done something only WRs do in 2 of the last three years. (90 catches, 1000yds) he basically set a new bar. Think about this. His "down year" exceeds every year but Gates' career high. And Gates had that year three years ago! We can all agree 60 catches, 800 yards and 5+ TDs are elite for a TE. Witten Averages 86-968-5. BEYOND ELITE. TDs aren't the end-all, be-all. Even this year Witten has more catches, 200 more yards and its basically a wash TD-wise. The production isn't close. Tell you what, take a look again and get back to us.
ReplyDeletewe've never submitted to the "if he had played 16 games he WOULD have done (insert inflated stat here)" those aren't facts. thats speculation. we deal in what actually happened. per game averages? lol...how about YEARLY AVERAGES. if anything we TAKE AWAY points when players play less games. There is absolutely no substitute for playing. Its a big part of consistency. case in point: Felix Jones 8.9 yards per carry in 2008 clearly mean he was destined to run for 2000 yds right? many Dallas fans thought so. not so fast. In the three years since then he's rushed for a whopping career high of 800 yds. AGAIN: FACTS and REALITY. Speculation is overrated.
ReplyDeletetwo one thousand yards receiving years at tight end back to back? has gonzalez even done that?
ReplyDeleteAh, I've been mostly with you guys until this rating thing. Ratings aren't about production because that doesn't tell the whole story. if it did we'd just give them ratings on a 1-99 scale and call it that. As it stands we have different ratings to portray the player's skills. Dez, while overrated surely, has ethereal talent, but his production sucks because of inconsistencies in his game, attention paid to him and the presence of miles Austin, an Jason Witten. Both highly regarded players in their own right. He's not better than them, but saying he isn't comparable to Stevie Johnson (who I think if he was in that offense he'd be better than). Basically, ratings are subjective. unless you use a service like PFF, which I'd love for them to do, but even then there's some judgement to be made.
ReplyDeleteyes, the best TE ever did it in his last two years in KC, he had 99-1172-5 and 96-1058-10. Scary thing is that Witten's years are comparable.
ReplyDeleteiBliven5, there will always be some measure of subjective ratings (even we use it for 10%) but using stats and a consistent system is the most accurate way to rate. and AGAIN, stats don't make excuses for poor performance. every player's "got a story" where fans make excuses why they aren't producing. NO MULLIGANS because of PT, swollen big toes, sore throats, hurt feelings or because the tampon was in wrong. Aaron Hernandez plays with Wes Welker and a dominant player AT HIS SAME POSITION. He still produced at an elite level (72-772-6) so what's Dez Bryant's excuse now? don't worry--i'll wait.
and for the record i never said Gates wasnt elite. he is. there's just no logic for rating him higher than Witten.
ReplyDeletehold on, this: "but saying he isn't comparable to Stevie Johnson (who I think if he was in that offense he'd be better than)" is part of your problem. SPECULATION. what you're saying isnt real, it NEVER happened. DEAL WITH REALITY. He's not in johnson's offense and claiming Bryant is better than a guy who DWARFS his production because his talent is "ethereal" (chuckle) probably just means you're a Dallas fan. JJ Stokes had "ethereal" talent too. hahahaha.
who's jj stokes?
ReplyDeletecouldnt have said it better myself, eric.
ReplyDeleteDez has 57-858-9 TDs in 14 games, Stevie Johnson has 72-964-6 in 15 games. They're similar. Tom Brady is having one of his best years ever. That partially explains Hernandez, also Hernandez is a TE in depth chart only, which is also a factor. I'm saying ratings aren't black and white or can be strictly translated to ratings. it's a combo of scouting, production, and role. Production is a great baseline though.
ReplyDeleteBrady is having one of his best years ever? lol..and? again, thats what productive players do PRODUCE! The comment about Hernandez' position isnt worthy of a response. Don't cater the stats to suit your argument...its not Johnson's fault Dez can't stay healthy. All we need are the stats for the year. When you look at the last two years its not remotely close. Johnson is working on his second straight 1,000 yard season. Dez still doesn't have ONE.
ReplyDeletebut we do agree that its a combination. but stats are 90% of that combo. Opinions and other subjective opinions 10%. When u don't you get too many arguments like "ethereal" talent and other stuff that has nothing to do with play on the field. Jamarcus had ethereal talent too.
you asked about Hernandez's production. it's rare to have a 3rd option have so many yards but when essentially a 3rd WR, and your qb is on track to break a record for yards, it matters. he's hardly a TE so he and gronk don't really play the same position.
ReplyDeleteDez's stats this year are simlar to Johnson's without being the number one option. they're similar is that point.
you're confusing production with statistics. example: Larry Fitzgerald doesn't have super elite stats BUT he's playing with a terrible QBing duo, what's your idea about him? do we not rate him as one of the top WRs because he's not in the top for yards? or do we evaluate him for his talent and production with his team and factors around him.
What about pass rushers who are great at actually rushing the passer but don't get the gaudy sack numbers but consistently apply pressure? one goes on a stat sheet the other doesn't. Same for coverage, tackles or yards produced. it's not just that player.
again--not worth commenting on. pretty sure he's listed at the right position.
ReplyDeletesimilar? only in your mind bro. players like Dez and Maclin are the reason we love stat minimums. 1,000 yards receiving or u NEVER see a rating higher than 76. PERIOD. Randy Moss (a REAL ethereal talent btw) found a way to produce despite playing with Cris Carter.
LOL!! Fitzgerald? ur serious? dude you make this too easy. people are going to think you're a ringer i brought here to make my point. Fitzy's 3 years numbers are RIDICULOUS. this year (71-1262-8) is no different. he's a perfect example of why players like Bryant are a 74/75 based on production. You could make 1,000 excuses for why Fitzgerald, but instead of whining about qb play, coaching staff or playcalls he produces. numbers may not be perfect, but they tell the truth 90 times out of 100.
ur right. some players like DTs and OL aren't easy to rate because their impact isnt always tangible. they're the reason we leave 10% of the rating up to opinion and look at things like wins, team rush, pass and overall ranking for defense. PFF also had great breakdowns for many of positions that are hard to quantify. production isnt always easy to find, but its there if you look hard enough.
owned.
ReplyDeleteu had a pt if fitz had bad numbers. he doesnt though, and most elite and good player produce.
ReplyDeleteits not about owning just like its not about rating players on your team high. we take favoritism and fanboyism out of the equation. too many of these guys have production only a mother could love but fanboys cant see it because theyre looking at things through their team colored sunglasses.
ReplyDeleteAs a hawks fan i've seen Chris Clemons improve (back-to-back years of 11 sacks) but the numbers say it took 6 years for him to reach a high level of play and that he probably wont sustain it. He's probably about an 80 at this point.
pretty much sums it up.
ReplyDeletewhats difference between bryant and braylon? nada.
ReplyDeleteThe thing you said was production over all. By that reasoning, Fitz isn't one of the top 2-3 receivers this year. I had actually forgotten that you use 3 year averages which is somewhat fair, but shafts people like victor cruz.
ReplyDeleteAll i'm saying is that, I agree that players shouldn't be rated on hype. Hype is the Cam Newton TD, the Suh sack or the 4 sack game Barnes had a couple weeks ago. But plays like those 4 sacks or a Matt Stafford prayer to Megatron yield production without there being a tremendous amount of skill on the player's part.
Also, read PFF, Hernandez is a TE in name only. He's not asked to play the traditional role like Gronk.
You can't read these things as black and white is my point.
we like PFF alot, but their word isnt gospel to us. we draw info from a number of scouting services. Hernanadez isn't just a big WR because they say so.
ReplyDeleteLeading the league is nice but Fitzgerald's numbers are great. how is cruz shafted? he gets credit for performance (we rated him in the 77/78 range) and thats a very good rating if the top is 99. especially after one year. its just that we reward guys who show consistency MORE. make no mistake he keeps performing like he has been he'll crack 90 just like any other player who produces would.
we just cant in good conscience rate him as high as a guy like Fitz (5 straight seasons of 70 rec, 1000 yards--would have been 7 if not for 69-946- in 2006) it just defies logic.
actually that was our rating because its Cruz's second year. He spent 2010 on IR. We'd have given him 81/82 if he was a rookie. still in the 77-80 range tho.
ReplyDeleteOk, this is long but I trust it adequately 'splains my position. I'm going to have to post it as multiple comments, 'cuz I'm blowing up the comment box's char limit.
ReplyDeleteYo MAG. Problem: you're referencing counting stats, I'm referencing rate stats. In a reasonably-similar sample size (IE, discounting Dreesen from the FO list for this year) I'm more interested in value on a per-play basis, because that's what the receiver/RB/whatever can control. From there it's a function of how many touches they get.
Why would Witten get credit for his raw catch totals, for instance? Wes Welker has like 30 more catches than Calvin Johnson this year, but those catches have gone for only about 70 more yards and have yielded 6 fewer touchdowns.
That's one level deep- then we check the targets and see that Welker has actually been targeted only 20 more times, so catch-rate wise he's doing more with his opportunities. Johnson is catching 60%, Welker 72%.
Oh ok, so things are looking better for Welker again! But hold on. Johnson's averaging almost 4 more yards/catch. In spite of the 10 "free" targets that Johnson's drops have given him - since we measure WRs in YPC and not yards/target - there's still no way I can argue that Welker's catches have been anywhere near as difficult as Johnson.
So he gets a pass on some of the catch rate difference, but how much? And how much should we ding Welker for getting 45% of his yardage in the first 4 games? Sure, those yards happened, but consistency is important too. He had a 99-yarder in the first Miami game for instance- at what point does the result stop being about skill? The difference between the same screwup on D giving up a 30-yard and 99-yard TD is field position. There's a crapload of stuff to take into account here.
Now suppose we're talking about QBs: Saints, Packers. Rodgers has more yards, more TD and fewer INT on fewer throws. It follows that he has better yards/attempt, TD & INT percentages. His completion percentage is comparable, so given how much better his other stats are he's going to have a better QB Rating.
Drew Brees has more total yards, fewer TDs, and more interceptions on more throws. All of his rate stats are worse except for his completion percentage - he throws touchdowns less often, he throws picks more often, and when he throws the ball it goes for less yards. If Rodgers threw the ball as many times as Brees he would've broken the record a couple weeks ago. At the same rate and 622 throws he'd have 56 TD, 7 INT and 5,750 yards.
I wouldn't give Rodgers full credit for the pro-rated numbers, because you're right- it's hypothetical. That'd be like assuming he was going to finish off the season on the ridiculous 140+ QB rate streak he had for 3 games. Obviously he's going to come back to earth, but I'd give him some credit because he is playing *that well*, and 502 throws is a pretty good sample size. It isn't Rodgers' fault that his defense, which is otherwise very similar to the Saints, has taken the ball away something like 20 more times. That's going to have an effect on the amount of yardage Rodgers needs to get a TD, as is Mike McCarthy's tendency to go conservative with a lead a lot sooner than Sean Payton would. If Brees was throwing the ball 33 times/game like Rodgers he wouldn't sniff the Marino record- he'd have ~4110 yards, 34 TD and 10 INT to this point. IMO there has to be some acknowledgement of the disparity in touches/pass attempts/whatever- it isn't the whole story but it's very important.
ReplyDeleteI get the whole thing about not going too overboard with the hypothetical scenarios, and if I'm designing the system it takes this into account and starts discounting guys by increasing amounts depending on how much pro-rating we're talking about. But at the same time, as silly as it sounds stuff that *has* happened doesn't always prove what we think it does either. There was a game earlier this year, I want to say vs. the Rams, where Jordy Nelson scored like a 90-yard TD because 2 Ram DBs ran into each other. That proves that those two guys screwed up - and this is in addition to whatever discounting of Nelson's numbers needs to be done to account for the fact that there are/were two other guys (Jennings, Finley) on the field with him that are worthy of double coverage.
Back to Gates and Witten. Let's forget about games played and just look at targets.
ReplyDeleteCompare the last four years, w/ this one incomplete obviously. Football outsiders Numbers- (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/info/FAQ)
Gates:
2011- 59 catches/83 targets, 71% catch rate, 11.4 YPC
2010- 50/65, 77%, 15.6 YPC
2009- 79/114, 69%, 14.6 YPC
2008- 60/92, 65%, 11.7 YPC
Last 4: 248/354, 3315yd, 13.4 YPC, 70%, 32 TD, 1 TD every 7.75 catches
Witten:
2011- 72/109, 66%, 12.1
2010- 94/128, 73%, 10.7
2009- 94/124, 76%, 11.0
2008- 81/120, 68%, 11.8
Last 4: 341/481, 3857yd, 11.3 YPC, 71%, 20 TD, 1 TD every 17.05 catches
Gates with Witten's targets:
337/481, 4515yd, 43 TD
Witten with Gates' targets:
251/354, 2836yd, 15 TD
This is hypothetical. There's the whole blocking issue, plus the simple fact that producing more yards per touch is going to lead to less touches when you run out of field to gain yards on. Still, that is a DRAMATIC difference in the rate of production. Pro-rating aside, Gates has 500 fewer yards the last four years, despite being targeted *130* fewer times. The career and last-four differences in YPC are significant enough that you know Witten's had a lot more touches before you even see the target numbers- otherwise the raw yardage wouldn't work out. And sure enough, Witten has caught about the same number of balls as Gates has been *thrown* over the last four years. Gates has an identical catch rate and better production in every rate stat. The only reason he isn't absolutely dominating is the number of touches.
We can have the same conversation about running backs: would you rather have 1000 yards at 5 ypc, or 1500 at 4ypc? If we want to go nuts on this we can point out the disparity in career ints between DeAngelo Hall and Nnamdi Asomugha -- this proves DeAngelo is better lolrofl! Or we can say FG record shows how awesome Akers is without pointing out the Niners have the league's worst red zone offense. There's an example of this for pretty much every position, and it's why I prefer rate stats. Dudes can't throw themselves the ball and all that.
This is without even getting into the advanced stats, which are a whole can of worms as you have the issue of different people finding different sites more credible. I like Football Outsiders; as I was saying, they have Gates listed as superior on both a cumulative and per-play basis for several years running now. (Free data goes back to 2008 at the moment.) Brian Burke likes Witten - he's good, though I'm much less familiar w/ his methodology than FO's. PFF... well, as i said, until they stop pretending they can identify and grade the work of 22 guys, half of which don't even show up on screen at a given time and whose assignments on a given play the PFF staff can only guess at, I'm not very interested in what they have to say.
Anyone using TV tape is going to run into this issue, but at least FO is based on regressions and fancy stuff like that. They know what can be expected from an average team against an average defense in a given situation and they reward or punish based on how much the result deviates from that, and then adjust for a variety of factors.
PFF is a bunch of folks watching TV tape and going, "Oh, I know what was supposed to happen on that play. Here's how all 22 players, including the ones I can't see, executed what I think they were supposed to do." It's a fancified version of some dude in front of a TV taking notes on his opinions- it's on wonder Donny likes them so much.
Completely agree that all of the ratings need an overhaul, but you were incorrect in the fact that Chris Johnson running for 2006 yards = playoffs..
ReplyDeleteThe Titans ended 8-8 that year and just missed moving on.
Another way to look at it: Witten would have to miss about a season and a half before Gates' targets would catch up at this rate. Yeah, Gates has less yards. He has less catches. But the yards are close, and he has more than 50% more touchdowns on about two and a half years' worth of Witten's targets.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'd add: this idea of "minimum x yards receiving before you even dream of y" is just ludicrous. On an offense like GB or NO they'll have 4-5-6+ guys with 30 catches each- the Packers have 5 guys with 32+ catches atm, and 2 more with 25+. James Jones is the 4th, sometimes 5th receiver in that environment even though he's a 2 on a lot of lesser teams. Does that mean his ~500 yards at a mere 17.1 per should be discounted?
A guy like Roddy White that gets the ball forced to them a billion times a game has a natural advantage on a Greg Jennings, Jermichael Finley, etc. when it comes to racking up total yards. Speaking of which, here's a crazy one:
Malcolm Floyd has been thrown the ball 61 times and has turned this into 730 yards. He's averaging over 20 yards a catch.
Roddy White has been thrown the ball *170* times for 1,227 yards. He's turned almost three times as many opportunities into about 1.8x as many yards. He's dropped a higher passes at a higher rate than Floyd despite that the stats - and the game tape - show that Floyd's targets are coming farther down the field.
But from what you're saying here everything else goes out the window. White has 1220 yards, Floyd has 730 yards. Floyd sucks, White rocks, end of story.
Huh...?! It's like saying "don't talk to me about Lechler being a 99 until he punts for over 5,000 total yards in a season." Or whatever- I don't have any idea what a normal cumulative punt yardage total is, because that's one area where we have good enough sense that the rate stat is the accepted figure. We get that playing for a team like the Saints or Packers where you punt two or three times a games isn't to be held against the punter. If this idea was applied more widely we'd be in good shape.
ugh. that made my head hurt..#walloftext
ReplyDeleteugh. that made my head hurt #walloftext
ReplyDeleteahhh...i see we're still speculating. FACTS trump speculation man, embrace it, love it, learn to live it. i love these little conversations but the law of diminishing returns and flat-out common sense means that if-then statements like "if gates had as many attempts as witten" are folly. he didnt, doesnt and "IF" he did..we STILL dont know if he would do more or not. again, FACTs only please and thank you.
ReplyDeletelol@ 56TDs and 7 INTS. again...wake up from wonderland, Alice. if my aunt had a penis she'd be my uncle.
gates and witten? lol..your first sentence sums it all up. "this is hypothetical." no thanks, hypothetically the eagles and chargers were talented enough to make the playoffs. take a look at a schedule and tell me who they play first round next chance u get ok? FACTS! to quote morpheus from the matrix: "You're living in a dreamworld, Neo."
you rail on PFF. (we read FO all the time, btw) but fall victim to worse logic. I agree that unless you've got a scout AT the game its impossible to rate all 22 players. but you say "this guy had 1 pick in his first game...even tho he missed the other 15 games his INT ratio says that he'd have broken the NFL record for INTs." wait..what? are you listening to yourself? thats like telling me how many yards and TDs vick "would have" thrown for if he didn't miss three games. Oooops! he didn't and HE DID. Reality rears its ugly head once again.
teams like the packers would benefit from team success and offense ranking. the scout would also be able to give them a high % of the 10% opinion rating we use. but no, we're not about to give a third or 4th receiver for a good team the same rating as a quality starter like Roddy White until it actually HAPPENS. we know reality is overrated to you but kevin Curtis had great years in the "greatest show on turf" and steve breaston and bryant johnson looked great beating up on 3rd and 4th CBs when they weren't starters, let me know how they dominated when they lined up on 1st string guys--don't worry, i'll wait.
a "thrown to" number isn't as relevant as white's last 3 years (which i wont even put here) take a look at them and then look at Floyd's. you should be embarassed even mentioning them in the same breath. Floyd has yet to catch 50 balls or 800 yards and ur comparing him to one of the league's most productive WRs? but thats right! if he'd had as many attempts he'd have broken every receiving record known to man, that about it? by that rationale every player in the league with limited attempts is a future pro-bowler.
common sense unfortunately, lets us know better.
My point is that it's *somewhat* hypothetical, so we can't assume the efficiency remains identical, but we can expect it to stay in the same ballpark. The rates of production in question have been sustained over 15 games for Rodgers, for 3 years with Floyd, and since 2003 on Gates and Witten. It's funny- this whole post is you going on about the importance of sustained production, and then when I suggest that knowing how well 2 QBs have performed over 500+ throws/each gives us a pretty good idea of what to expect in week 17 you start cracking wise about your aunt having a dong. I suggest that we have a decent idea what to expect from two TEs that entered the league shortly after we invaded Iraq, and you figure it's reasonable to compare that to projecting one game into a season and pretend that I'm just pulling figures out of thin air. Could you be a *little* more blatant with the bad-faith argumentation?
ReplyDelete"You rail on PFF ... but you say, 'this guy had 1 pick'..."
Right, except I never said anything approaching that level of hypothetical. I said 15 games gives us an idea how QBs are playing in a season. I said 3 years straight of 700+ yards on 18+ YPC shows us Floyd is efficient. And I said 9 years in the league gives us a pretty good idea what to expect from Gates and Witten.
"FACTs only please and thank you."
Fact: Jason Witten does less with his opportunities than Gates, but he gets more of them. From there it's all opinion. You're laying down these yardage and catch requirements as though they're written in stone in the book of ESPN, but it's all opinion. That yours matches up closer with the conventional wisdom on how to evaluate NFL stats than mine doesn't make it any more correct.
"Until it actually happens" ... it is happening, that's the point! Witten really has been thrown the ball way more. White really did take 170 targets to get his totals this year. Brees really did throw the ball more times. On a given play where Brees, Witten or White touches the ball they do less with it than Rodgers, Gates and Floyd do. This isn't a situation where a guy with 3 touches has 26 yard average because of busted coverage on one play; those differences in efficiency are just as real as the differences in cumulative production that the guys with more opportunities are racking up.
I didn't say White and Floyd should be rated the same; I didn't say anything at all about where they should be rated, actually. The point is about what they're doing with their opportunities, and the details that you miss if you just look at cumulative stats. There are noteworthy levels of production short of the ESPN-style magic round number cutoff points and relying on things like 1,000 yard seasons is a very Donny-ish way to go about things.
ReplyDeleteHere's my thing. What I don't don't see is an explanation for why these thresholds you're choosing are important. Floyd doesn't have 50 catches or 800 yards? Ok, well, I notice the cutoff point seems to have jumped right out in front of what Floyd could possibly achieve this season- bit convenient there, but anyway let's not be concerned about his catch total. In Norv's offense, Floyd's line is ideal- they want him getting as big of chunks as he can. Assuming there is some special quality about receivers who top 800 yards, they'd want him getting there in as few catches as possible. If he falls short, wouldn't getting very close means he'd get most of that credit? This seems like a very pass/fail approach. He's at 36/729 right now, averaging 2.4 catches a game at 20.3 per. If he ends up at 38/775 instead, is that bad? Why?
"by that rationale every player in the league with limited attempts is a future pro-bowler."
"Every player in the league with limited attempts" is not pulling 700+ yards on 18.8 yards/catch for 3 years straight. And like I said, the point isn't that Floyd should be a pro bowler or that White shouldn't or anything like that. It's that they're doing things that screw up the idea of throwing down an arbitrary line at 50/800 or 65/1000 or what-have-you and calling it a day. White is having a down year and Floyd is quietly having consistent and highly-effective production. I'm talking about what should be considered when doing the ratings; as far as what I'd rate any of the guys I've been discussing here I haven't really thought about it.
Btw- You threw 50/800 on Floyd, now you're crapping on Breaston for 60/776/13ypc in a worse offense. He isn't even the 1; that would be Bowe. I'm not going to defend Johnson - guy who sucked at original team continues to suck on new teams; dog bites man - but Curtis had a good season in Philly before injuries ate his career. I get the story you're trying to tell, but the guys you're throwing out aren't supporting it: One guy did well and then got derailed by injury, one guy is looking decent a year into his new gig, and one guy always sucked.
Vick- again, you're assuming I buy into this idea of cumulative totals equaling quality of performance. I wouldn't be telling you how many yards he racked up, as it ought to be pretty obvious by now that I have that stat pretty low on my priority list. Vick has a set of ratings that determine how well he plays- they're overrated, but whatever. Not the point here. He also has a rating that determines how often he's able to play. We know that Vick is injury-prone, so it makes sense that his INJ sucks. But his other stats should be based on how well he plays when he is able to get on the field, right? Otherwise what's the point of a Vick or a Darren McFadden or someone like that? If they're hurt all the time *and* they suck even when they're healthy then they're being punished twice for the low INJ. Hard to imagine a player like that being worth a roster spot anywhere in the league if that was the way it played out in real life.
ReplyDelete"we know reality is overrated to you"
And I know that you're unwilling to acknowledge that right now, in real life, actual reality, Roddy White is having a down year. He was very good in '10 and '08, but also had a down year in '09. Every other year being a bit off seems to be a short-run pattern for him, but one thing that's constant is that this dude gets the ball forced to him at a rate that would make Welker envious- 170 so far this year, 180 last year, 165 in '09 and 148 in '08. When he's off his catch rate gets down near 50%. Without Ryan forcing him the ball as often, his cumulative stats go down and you'd be saying that proves he wasn't as good a player.
I mean, look. I get that you're not quite following some of the points I'm making here and are compensating by talking increasing amounts of shit. But a bare-minimum understanding of what I'm saying here would include that I haven't said a word about where Jordy Nelson, Malcom Floyd, White, Rodgers, Brees, or any of these other players but Vick (drop him!) should be rated. I didn't say Floyd should be rated higher- you made that up, just like you did the example about the INTs. I've been talking about problems with using top-level stats to determine this stuff, about the problems with Magic Round Number Syndrome, etc. and the case of Floyd and White is about illustrating how much context you miss without target numbers and catch rates.
Bottom line, Gates is better at catching the ball than Witten. When he gets a chance he does a lot more with it. You obviously are of the mind that Witten has a special talent for having Garrett call plays where Romo throws him the ball, and that Antonio Gates should be dinged for failing to use his own mind-control powers as effectively. I say it's scheme, you say that the only way Gates can be as good a player is if he gets the ball as often. I guess he really can throw the ball to himself.
"Bottom line, Gates is better at catching the ball than Witten." more if-then fantasy i see...for the last time. DIDNT HAPPEN. all in all, i enjoyed it but we'll simply have to agree to disagree. we believe in using actual production in generating rating baselines and then relying on opinions to a limited degree, you believe otherwise. everyone's certainly entitled to their opinion. We like the fact that our rating system is consistent, accurate and slots players correctly. its nice when carlos dunlap isn't rated higher than John Abraham because he had a great year generating more pressures per pass rush attempt.
ReplyDeleteas an eagles fan i think the eagles/kevin curtis was good reference is comical. he's the perfect reason we use a scout for each team who's responsibility is to watch each team. curtis failed to catch the ball consistently, was horrible vs man coverage and he had a third of his yardage and half of his TD total (221 yds, 3 tds) in a laugher against the woeful Lions. the definition of empty numbers and an average receiver, he certainly would have taken a hit on the opinion % rating. 77 at best. his sports hernia while disappointing for him, was the best thing that could have happened to the eagles receiving corps. he, breaston and johnson are all good examples of why trying to extrapolate numbers instead of looking at real production is flawed imo.
ReplyDelete