Big Monday on FBG (Subscriber Content) (1 Viewer)

[rascal]

Why Gates is the #1 TE:

4 Antonio Gates 2004--2005 36 20 56%

He gets it done inside the 20's and between them.

Don't expect that 56% to hold up this year

I don't which is why I think LT will have more.Look at how LT has performed when his QB had a marginal year. IMO he is the #1 choice this year not LJ.

 

[Marc Levin]

Yeah, I like to have fun with the whole schtick/persona thing, but really my motivation here was that I made the same point about TE value earlier in the thread that Rudnicki started to make later in the thread, thus supporting Rudnicki's argument.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I think it's a whole lot more likely that a really good goal-line target could, by random chance, catch just one TD in eight targets, than think that Gonzales is a well below average target near the red zone.

Exactly.This is one of those situations where the stats are misleading and you really just need to put a little more emphasis on what you actually see in games.

Right... And what we've seen in games is Gonzo not making plays at the goal line. It's not like he's not been targeted; he remains among the league's most targeted goal line receivers.

You've posted some persuasive stats that I wasn't aware of. But there are still a few things.1) We've got no idea what the correlation is from year to year of red zone effectiveness. If it's near zero (which I don't think it is, but I don't know), then these numbers are just about meaningless.

2) I still need an explanation. For example, if the next 100 coins I get in line at the bank all are heads, I'm still going to think that was more likely to happen by random chance then:

1) There's a government conspiracy plot to hand me coins facing heads-up

2) All the coins in my area have heads on both sides

So even something where it seems really unlikely that it could happen by random chance, still might need an explanation before you rule random chance out. And honestly, I can't think of any explanation for Gonzales that would make me downgrade him in the future.

Do you have any explanation?

 

[Jason Wood]

I think it's a whole lot more likely that a really good goal-line target could, by random chance, catch just one TD in eight targets, than think that Gonzales is a well below average target near the red zone.

Exactly.This is one of those situations where the stats are misleading and you really just need to put a little more emphasis on what you actually see in games.

Right... And what we've seen in games is Gonzo not making plays at the goal line. It's not like he's not been targeted; he remains among the league's most targeted goal line receivers.

You've posted some persuasive stats that I wasn't aware of. But there are still a few things.1) We've got no idea what the correlation is from year to year of red zone effectiveness. If it's near zero (which I don't think it is, but I don't know), then these numbers are just about meaningless.

2) I still need an explanation. For example, if the next 100 coins I get in line at the bank all are heads, I'm still going to think that was more likely to happen by random chance then:

1) There's a government conspiracy plot to hand me coins facing heads-up

2) All the coins in my area have heads on both sides

So even something where it seems really unlikely that it could happen by random chance, still might need an explanation before you rule random chance out. And honestly, I can't think of any explanation for Gonzales that would make me downgrade him in the future.

Do you have any explanation?

Again it gets back to using our eyes...Gonzo doesn't have the ability to get separation against solid coverage any more and/or (as LHUCKS suggested), teams have figured out how to defend him. If the Chiefs had changed their receiving situation, perhaps by finally adding an legit WR2 to change the way teams could scheme, I would be inclined to ignore Gonzo's woeful ranking; but they're still trotting out Eddie Kennison and ????

 

[Chase Stuart]

I think it's a whole lot more likely that a really good goal-line target could, by random chance, catch just one TD in eight targets, than think that Gonzales is a well below average target near the red zone.

Exactly.This is one of those situations where the stats are misleading and you really just need to put a little more emphasis on what you actually see in games.

Right... And what we've seen in games is Gonzo not making plays at the goal line. It's not like he's not been targeted; he remains among the league's most targeted goal line receivers.

You've posted some persuasive stats that I wasn't aware of. But there are still a few things.1) We've got no idea what the correlation is from year to year of red zone effectiveness. If it's near zero (which I don't think it is, but I don't know), then these numbers are just about meaningless.

2) I still need an explanation. For example, if the next 100 coins I get in line at the bank all are heads, I'm still going to think that was more likely to happen by random chance then:

1) There's a government conspiracy plot to hand me coins facing heads-up

2) All the coins in my area have heads on both sides

So even something where it seems really unlikely that it could happen by random chance, still might need an explanation before you rule random chance out. And honestly, I can't think of any explanation for Gonzales that would make me downgrade him in the future.

Do you have any explanation?

Again it gets back to using our eyes...Gonzo doesn't have the ability to get separation against solid coverage any more and/or (as LHUCKS suggested), teams have figured out how to defend him. If the Chiefs had changed their receiving situation, perhaps by finally adding an legit WR2 to change the way teams could scheme, I would be inclined to ignore Gonzo's woeful ranking; but they're still trotting out Eddie Kennison and ????

From 2002-2004, Gonzales had 16 TDs on 65 redzone targets. Randy Moss had 20 on 88; TO 19 on 65; Chad Johnson 12 on 58; Rod Smith 11 on 49; Eric Moulds 9 on 62.

 

[Jason Wood]

I think it's a whole lot more likely that a really good goal-line target could, by random chance, catch just one TD in eight targets, than think that Gonzales is a well below average target near the red zone.

Exactly.This is one of those situations where the stats are misleading and you really just need to put a little more emphasis on what you actually see in games.

Right... And what we've seen in games is Gonzo not making plays at the goal line. It's not like he's not been targeted; he remains among the league's most targeted goal line receivers.

You've posted some persuasive stats that I wasn't aware of. But there are still a few things.1) We've got no idea what the correlation is from year to year of red zone effectiveness. If it's near zero (which I don't think it is, but I don't know), then these numbers are just about meaningless.

2) I still need an explanation. For example, if the next 100 coins I get in line at the bank all are heads, I'm still going to think that was more likely to happen by random chance then:

1) There's a government conspiracy plot to hand me coins facing heads-up

2) All the coins in my area have heads on both sides

So even something where it seems really unlikely that it could happen by random chance, still might need an explanation before you rule random chance out. And honestly, I can't think of any explanation for Gonzales that would make me downgrade him in the future.

Do you have any explanation?

Again it gets back to using our eyes...Gonzo doesn't have the ability to get separation against solid coverage any more and/or (as LHUCKS suggested), teams have figured out how to defend him. If the Chiefs had changed their receiving situation, perhaps by finally adding an legit WR2 to change the way teams could scheme, I would be inclined to ignore Gonzo's woeful ranking; but they're still trotting out Eddie Kennison and ????

From 2002-2004, Gonzales had 16 TDs on 65 redzone targets. Randy Moss had 20 on 88; TO 19 on 65; Chad Johnson 12 on 58; Rod Smith 11 on 49; Eric Moulds 9 on 62.

Ah yes...more fun with numbers...first of all, why did you choose those particular players? Particularly when they're WRs and a fairly odd lot of them, no?TDs per target in the red zone

Gonzalez (2002-2003) -- 13 TDs/41 Targets = 32%
Gonzalez (2004-2005) -- 4 TDs/36 Targets = 11% :X
Moss (2002-2003) -- 11 TDs/67 Targets = 16%
Moss (2004-2005) -- 11 TDs/37 Targets = 30%
Johnson (2002-2003) -- 7 TDs/35 Targets = 20%
Johnson (2004-2005) -- 9 TDs/24 Targets = 22%
Smith (2002-2003) -- 7 TDs/22 Targets = 21%
Smith (2004-2005) -- 9 TDs/28 Targets = 32%
Moulds (2002-2003) -- 6 TDs/38 Targets = 16%
Moulds (2004-2005) -- 5 TDs/44 Targets = 11% :X

 

[Jason Wood]

So now we're comforted in the fact that Tony Gonzalez is as effective a red zone target as Eric Moulds? :X :X

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

So now we're comforted in the fact that Tony Gonzalez is as effective a red zone target as Eric Moulds? :X :X

it was the QBs fault

 

[David Yudkin]

Maybe we should rename the thread "FBG Staff Bicker on Relevance of Red Zone Stats for TE."

 

[Chase Stuart]

I think it's a whole lot more likely that a really good goal-line target could, by random chance, catch just one TD in eight targets, than think that Gonzales is a well below average target near the red zone.

Exactly.This is one of those situations where the stats are misleading and you really just need to put a little more emphasis on what you actually see in games.

Right... And what we've seen in games is Gonzo not making plays at the goal line. It's not like he's not been targeted; he remains among the league's most targeted goal line receivers.

You've posted some persuasive stats that I wasn't aware of. But there are still a few things.1) We've got no idea what the correlation is from year to year of red zone effectiveness. If it's near zero (which I don't think it is, but I don't know), then these numbers are just about meaningless.

2) I still need an explanation. For example, if the next 100 coins I get in line at the bank all are heads, I'm still going to think that was more likely to happen by random chance then:

1) There's a government conspiracy plot to hand me coins facing heads-up

2) All the coins in my area have heads on both sides

So even something where it seems really unlikely that it could happen by random chance, still might need an explanation before you rule random chance out. And honestly, I can't think of any explanation for Gonzales that would make me downgrade him in the future.

Do you have any explanation?

Again it gets back to using our eyes...Gonzo doesn't have the ability to get separation against solid coverage any more and/or (as LHUCKS suggested), teams have figured out how to defend him. If the Chiefs had changed their receiving situation, perhaps by finally adding an legit WR2 to change the way teams could scheme, I would be inclined to ignore Gonzo's woeful ranking; but they're still trotting out Eddie Kennison and ????

From 2002-2004, Gonzales had 16 TDs on 65 redzone targets. Randy Moss had 20 on 88; TO 19 on 65; Chad Johnson 12 on 58; Rod Smith 11 on 49; Eric Moulds 9 on 62.

Ah yes...more fun with numbers...first of all, why did you choose those particular players? Particularly when they're WRs and a fairly odd lot of them, no?TDs per target in the red zone

Gonzalez (2002-2003) -- 13 TDs/41 Targets = 32%
Gonzalez (2004-2005) -- 4 TDs/36 Targets = 11% :X
Moss (2002-2003) -- 11 TDs/67 Targets = 16%
Moss (2004-2005) -- 11 TDs/37 Targets = 30%
Johnson (2002-2003) -- 7 TDs/35 Targets = 20%
Johnson (2004-2005) -- 9 TDs/24 Targets = 22%
Smith (2002-2003) -- 7 TDs/22 Targets = 21%
Smith (2004-2005) -- 9 TDs/28 Targets = 32%
Moulds (2002-2003) -- 6 TDs/38 Targets = 16%
Moulds (2004-2005) -- 5 TDs/44 Targets = 11% :X

I still see Gonzalez with more TDs in a two-year stretch than anyone else. And that looks pretty good to me. I don't care about his targets, just his TDs.What do you think happenned to Moss to make him TWICE as effective in the red zone the past two years, which are unequivocably his worst two years, while he was at his worst during the two years prior? Moss might have lost a step last year and in 2004, but his TD/target numbers look great.

As Rod Smith got older, he became a better target too?

Gonzalez caught only 4 TDs the past two years in the red zone. There are lots of reasons why this might have happenned. Larry Johnson ran for 800 TDs last year. The Chiefs didn't pass as much.

But in the end, I don't think the reason is that Gonzo isn't a good red zone target. If you thow it to him nera the goal line, you're in good shape. He's quick and big, with very good hands. That makes him an ideal red zone target.

He could be a very good red zone target and still have bad TD/target numbers for a couple of seasons, ala Moss from 2002-2003.

 

[Jason Wood]

Maybe we should rename the thread "FBG Staff Bicker on Relevance of Red Zone Stats for TE."

It's evolved into that...but admit it, it's kind of fun to have this sort of debate no? It's been awhile

 

[Chase Stuart]

Maybe we should rename the thread "FBG Staff Bicker on Relevance of Red Zone Stats for TE."

It's evolved into that...but admit it, it's kind of fun to have this sort of debate no? It's been awhile

Is ten (now 11) straight posts by staff a lot?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I would buy the "1 out of 8 is almost like 2 out of 5" if there weren't 125 players who somehow managed to have a better percentage...it's kind of like the fallacy of the baseball wild card. A team may be three game out and "in the hunt" but if they've got to leap frog seven teams in the process, are they really in the hunt?

Trust me: my point was unrelated to baseball. My point was that someone who is morally a 33% receiver, meaning he'd be expected to catch around 33000 out of 100000 targets if we ran that many trials, will very often see streaks of 1 for 8 or 2 for 5 during those 100000 trials. Not a big deal. Short lucky or unlucky streaks happen all the time. If he hits a 1 for 8 streak it doesn't necessarily mean anything other than that he hit a short unlucky streak. Eight trials is nothing to fret over.

I just think that, from the standpoint of statistical significance, it's impossible to conclude from a one-for-eight streak that Gonzo is not morally a 33% (or even 50%) receiver.

 

[Jason Wood]

I think it's a whole lot more likely that a really good goal-line target could, by random chance, catch just one TD in eight targets, than think that Gonzales is a well below average target near the red zone.

Exactly.This is one of those situations where the stats are misleading and you really just need to put a little more emphasis on what you actually see in games.

Right... And what we've seen in games is Gonzo not making plays at the goal line. It's not like he's not been targeted; he remains among the league's most targeted goal line receivers.

You've posted some persuasive stats that I wasn't aware of. But there are still a few things.1) We've got no idea what the correlation is from year to year of red zone effectiveness. If it's near zero (which I don't think it is, but I don't know), then these numbers are just about meaningless.

2) I still need an explanation. For example, if the next 100 coins I get in line at the bank all are heads, I'm still going to think that was more likely to happen by random chance then:

1) There's a government conspiracy plot to hand me coins facing heads-up

2) All the coins in my area have heads on both sides

So even something where it seems really unlikely that it could happen by random chance, still might need an explanation before you rule random chance out. And honestly, I can't think of any explanation for Gonzales that would make me downgrade him in the future.

Do you have any explanation?

Again it gets back to using our eyes...Gonzo doesn't have the ability to get separation against solid coverage any more and/or (as LHUCKS suggested), teams have figured out how to defend him. If the Chiefs had changed their receiving situation, perhaps by finally adding an legit WR2 to change the way teams could scheme, I would be inclined to ignore Gonzo's woeful ranking; but they're still trotting out Eddie Kennison and ????

From 2002-2004, Gonzales had 16 TDs on 65 redzone targets. Randy Moss had 20 on 88; TO 19 on 65; Chad Johnson 12 on 58; Rod Smith 11 on 49; Eric Moulds 9 on 62.

Ah yes...more fun with numbers...first of all, why did you choose those particular players? Particularly when they're WRs and a fairly odd lot of them, no?TDs per target in the red zone

Gonzalez (2002-2003) -- 13 TDs/41 Targets = 32%
Gonzalez (2004-2005) -- 4 TDs/36 Targets = 11% :X
Moss (2002-2003) -- 11 TDs/67 Targets = 16%
Moss (2004-2005) -- 11 TDs/37 Targets = 30%
Johnson (2002-2003) -- 7 TDs/35 Targets = 20%
Johnson (2004-2005) -- 9 TDs/24 Targets = 22%
Smith (2002-2003) -- 7 TDs/22 Targets = 21%
Smith (2004-2005) -- 9 TDs/28 Targets = 32%
Moulds (2002-2003) -- 6 TDs/38 Targets = 16%
Moulds (2004-2005) -- 5 TDs/44 Targets = 11% :X

I still see Gonzalez with more TDs in a two-year stretch than anyone else. And that looks pretty good to me. I don't care about his targets, just his TDs.What do you think happenned to Moss to make him TWICE as effective in the red zone the past two years, which are unequivocably his worst two years, while he was at his worst during the two years prior? Moss might have lost a step last year and in 2004, but his TD/target numbers look great.

As Rod Smith got older, he became a better target too?

Gonzalez caught only 4 TDs the past two years in the red zone. There are lots of reasons why this might have happenned. Larry Johnson ran for 800 TDs last year. The Chiefs didn't pass as much.

But in the end, I don't think the reason is that Gonzo isn't a good red zone target. If you thow it to him nera the goal line, you're in good shape. He's quick and big, with very good hands. That makes him an ideal red zone target.

He could be a very good red zone target and still have bad TD/target numbers for a couple of seasons, ala Moss from 2002-2003.

Chase...you're going in circles here. He's NOT effective near the goal line any more, that's clear. You can argue the numbers are too small to be definitive but he's clearly been far below average at the goal line as compared to TEs, TEs+WRs or TEs+WRs+RBs...pick your population group.And this other part confuses me..."Gonzalez caught only 4 TDs the past two years in the red zone. There are lots of reasons why this might have happened. Larry Johnson ran for 800 TDs last year. The Chiefs didn't pass as much."

...OK, and Herm "Run Run Run" Edwards is now their head coach, Larry Johnson is still on the roster, and Mike "offensive line" Solari is now calling the plays. Even if your reasons do explain the drop off, aren't they still in effect?

Tony G = a very very good tight end, but his current ADP belies any value whatsoever these days.

 

[Jason Wood]

I would buy the "1 out of 8 is almost like 2 out of 5" if there weren't 125 players who somehow managed to have a better percentage...it's kind of like the fallacy of the baseball wild card. A team may be three game out and "in the hunt" but if they've got to leap frog seven teams in the process, are they really in the hunt?

Trust me: my point was unrelated to baseball. My point was that someone who is morally a 33% receiver, meaning he'd be expected to catch around 33000 out of 100000 targets if we ran that many trials, will very often see streaks of 1 for 8 or 2 for 5 during those 100000 trials. Not a big deal. Short lucky or unlucky streaks happen all the time. If he hits a 1 for 8 streak it doesn't necessarily mean anything other than that he hit a short unlucky streak. Eight trials is nothing to fret over.

I just think that, from the standpoint of statistical significance, it's impossible to conclude from a one-for-eight streak that Gonzo is not morally a 33% (or even 50%) receiver.

I would agree MT...which is why I immediately went and looked at the red zone stats after your post. And even those aren't large enough for a ton of significance. Ultimately last year may have been a complete anomaly; who knows? But when you're talking about paying a big time price on draft day for a guy you assume will be right at the top of the TE rankings, you better make sure you're not missing signs of degradation when they're there for an astute observer to see.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I would buy the "1 out of 8 is almost like 2 out of 5" if there weren't 125 players who somehow managed to have a better percentage...it's kind of like the fallacy of the baseball wild card. A team may be three game out and "in the hunt" but if they've got to leap frog seven teams in the process, are they really in the hunt?

Trust me: my point was unrelated to baseball. My point was that someone who is morally a 33% receiver, meaning he'd be expected to catch around 33000 out of 100000 targets if we ran that many trials, will very often see streaks of 1 for 8 or 2 for 5 during those 100000 trials. Not a big deal. Short lucky or unlucky streaks happen all the time. If he hits a 1 for 8 streak it doesn't necessarily mean anything other than that he hit a short unlucky streak. Eight trials is nothing to fret over.

I just think that, from the standpoint of statistical significance, it's impossible to conclude from a one-for-eight streak that Gonzo is not morally a 33% (or even 50%) receiver.

I would agree MT...which is why I immediately went and looked at the red zone stats after your post. And even those aren't large enough for a ton of significance. Ultimately last year may have been a complete anomaly; who knows? But when you're talking about paying a big time price on draft day for a guy you assume will be right at the top of the TE rankings, you better make sure you're not missing signs of degradation when they're there for an astute observer to see.

Sorry, I'm not seeing it. Gonzales led all TEs in receiving yards from week 7-17. Gonzalez caught the most catches in NFL history by a TE in 2004, and ranked third all-time in receiving yards. I'm not buying the "he's been slowing down" the past few years idea.Your points about Herm and LJ are solid. But Priest was a great TD threat too, and Gonzalez still managed to do more than fine. I just think last year was an anomoly, and I'd feel pretty confident that if you ran the year to year correlation coefficients on target/TD percentage for all TEs, WRs/TEs, whatever to how many total TDs they had in Year N+1, the correlation would be not worth considering.

Gonzalez seems like a steal to me in the fifth, in the sense that he's very likely to break 900 yards and 6 TDs. 1100 yards and 8 TDs isn't out of the question either (an average of what he did in 2003 and 2004). And I don't think the rest of the league's TEs are catching up near as much as people think. An extra 10 or fifteen points from TE12 doesn't put Gonzalez' value in the toilet.

 

[Chase Stuart]

JW: Eddie Kennison has averaged 24 more receiving yards per year than Gonzalez the past four seasons. The past two years, Kennison's avearged 13 more receiving yards than Gonzo.

Yet you've gone Kennison with 170 more receiving yards, despite Kennison being three years older. Kennison should slow down before Gonzalez. I think you've underprojected TG's receiving yards.

That being said, you've also given TG a VBD of 43. Last year, his VBD was 26. And last year, he ranked as the 44th best TE.

To sum: You've underprojected Gonzalez, but still project him to do better than last year, when he ranked 44th; now his ADP is 53, and you think he offers no value?

What am I missing here? (He would rank 30th in VBD last year with a value of 26)

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

And last year, he ranked as the 44th best TE.

 

[Chase Stuart]

And last year, he ranked as the 44th best TE.

Sorry. He ranked 44th in VBD last year.

 

[Leroy's Aces]

Chase,

I love your arguments. I already felt Gonzalez was a great value, but in the 5th round, he is a phenomenal value in almost any league that requires a TE. He says he is in excellent shape, and plan to play another 4 years at least. Plus, I believe it is a contract year. He has been under the radar for a lot of this offseason.

Everyone says that this is the year of the tight end (just like last year), until a bunch of those sleepers throw up a few 2 for 15 weeks. There is no guarantee that any of those guys like Watson, LJ Smith, Vernon Davis, Troupe, McMichael, or others will have success this year. And none of them have a chance to go for 1100 yards and 10 TDs. Gonzo likely will not, but he has a shot, as he is the best receiver on that team.

Dave

Leroy's Aces

 

[Jason Wood]

JW: Eddie Kennison has averaged 24 more receiving yards per year than Gonzalez the past four seasons. The past two years, Kennison's avearged 13 more receiving yards than Gonzo.

Yet you've gone Kennison with 170 more receiving yards, despite Kennison being three years older. Kennison should slow down before Gonzalez. I think you've underprojected TG's receiving yards.

That being said, you've also given TG a VBD of 43. Last year, his VBD was 26. And last year, he ranked as the 44th best TE.

To sum: You've underprojected Gonzalez, but still project him to do better than last year, when he ranked 44th; now his ADP is 53, and you think he offers no value?

What am I missing here? (He would rank 30th in VBD last year with a value of 26)

Chase...this gets back to the classic argument had many times on these boards, about whether static VBD is worth a damn. My contention, and I believe yours, is that it really isn't valuable in a competitive league. The TE situation is exactly evidence of this...even when Gonzo was at his best, people summarily avoided drafting him as his projected VBD. And furthermore, those who owned him in a given year would often say, "I didn't win my title, it didn't feel like Gonzo was the Xth best player."And that was a) before there were inklings of a degradation in his baseline skill set and b) before the league was chock full of real playmakers at his position.

Certainly in a static VBD environment one could look at his numbers and see "value"; but I thought we threw that fallacy out years ago? Didn't we?

For my money, I would consider Gonzo in the fifth round in a PPR league but it would have to be a situation where the first four rounds went almost perfectly in line with my projected values (i.e., no one fell through the cracks to me).

And also to be clear for those who may be reading this thread but haven't seen my projections, I'm not expecting Gonzo to suck...I have him at 75 receptions for 870 yards and 5 touchdowns.

Peace.

 

[BroncoFreak_2K3]

this has to be the all time worst thread....

 

[brakeyawself]

A search for Leroy hill brought me here. What a fantastic waste of time. Some funny posts though Maybe I'll have to actually broaden this search.