Chris Chambers (1 Viewer)

[Thumper]

Chris Chambers has really been flying under the radar thus far. The man is a big time talent who was playing with small time qb's. He still has his youth and was considered a #1 wr in fantasy last season. He is only 29 years old and should have a couple of years left in his prime.

I think Chambers has a solid chance at a bounce back season in 2007 with Trent Green throwing to him.

I look for 1,000 yards and 8 td's.

any thoughts?

 

[King of the Wolfies]

No line. I'd love to see it happen, but just don't see it.

 

[gianmarco]

Chris Chambers has really been flying under the radar thus far. The man is a big time talent who was playing with small time qb's. He still has his youth and was considered a #1 wr in fantasy last season. He is only 29 years old and should have a couple of years left in his prime.

I think Chambers has a solid chance at a bounce back season in 2007 with Trent Green throwing to him.

I look for 1,000 yards and 8 td's.

any thoughts?

No, he really isn't a big time talent.

 

[cobalt_27]

Chris Chambers has really been flying under the radar thus far. The man is a big time talent who was playing with small time qb's. He still has his youth and was considered a #1 wr in fantasy last season. He is only 29 years old and should have a couple of years left in his prime.I think Chambers has a solid chance at a bounce back season in 2007 with Trent Green throwing to him. I look for 1,000 yards and 8 td's.any thoughts?

He'll do better than Wes Welker.

 

[DawnBTVS]

The one thing that's always concerned me about him is his penchant for dropped passes.

2006: 154 targets vs. 59 catches (38% catch rate)

2005: 166 targets vs. 82 catches (49% catch rate)

2004: 132 targets vs. 69 catches (52% catch rate)

2003: 130 targets vs. 64 catches (49% catch rate)

How much of that can be attributed to poor QB play, I don't know. At the same time though, to catch so few passes with that many targets raises some eyebrows. In the same situation last year, Wes Welker had a 67% rate (67 catches in 100 targets) and Marty Booker had a 61% rate (55 catches in 90 targets).

 

[AB in DC]

I think Chambers has a solid chance at a bounce back season in 2007 with Trent Green throwing to him.

If this were the 2004 version of Trent Green, I'd agree with you.But the 2007 version? Let's just say that I expect to see Cleo Lemon as a starter before Thanksgiving.

 

[thecardiackid]

Chris Chambers has really been flying under the radar thus far. The man is a big time talent who was playing with small time qb's. He still has his youth and was considered a #1 wr in fantasy last season. He is only 29 years old and should have a couple of years left in his prime.I think Chambers has a solid chance at a bounce back season in 2007 with Trent Green throwing to him. I look for 1,000 yards and 8 td's.any thoughts?

He'll do better than Wes Welker.

 

[Chase Stuart]

The one thing that's always concerned me about him is his penchant for dropped passes. 2006: 154 targets vs. 59 catches (38% catch rate)2005: 166 targets vs. 82 catches (49% catch rate)2004: 132 targets vs. 69 catches (52% catch rate)2003: 130 targets vs. 64 catches (49% catch rate)How much of that can be attributed to poor QB play, I don't know. At the same time though, to catch so few passes with that many targets raises some eyebrows. In the same situation last year, Wes Welker had a 67% rate (67 catches in 100 targets) and Marty Booker had a 61% rate (55 catches in 90 targets).

The question, then, is why does Chambers get so many targets?

 

[SSOG]

The man is a big time talent who was playing with small time qb's.

You want to see what a big-time talent does with a small-time QB, check out Randy Moss with Gus Frerotte and company, or Torry Holt with Ryan Fitzpatrick, or Lee Evans with J.P. Losman, Hines Ward with Tommy Maddox, or Steve Smith with Jake Delhomme, or...

 

[cacksman]

This may be true if Trent Green didnt suck...

 

[bonesman]

here's a little something from Sportsline (probably what prompted this thread) :

BONUS Q&A: CHRIS CHAMBERS

When it comes to wide receiver Chris Chambers, most Fantasy owners think of him as an overrated player. Plenty of talent, but he fails to produce.

But it's hard to blame Chambers for not living up to the hype. The Dolphins have used nine different starting quarterbacks since Chambers joined Miami in 2001. That stellar group includes A.J. Feeley, Ray Lucas and Sage Rosenfels.

Now Chambers will get his 10th starting quarterback in Trent Green. Chambers is hopeful that Green will help him turn around a disappointing 2006, where he had 59 catches for a career-low 677 yards and four touchdowns.

Chambers is excited for this season because of new coach Cam Cameron. Cameron has a good history of developing quarterbacks, sending his last two (Drew Brees and Philip Rivers) to the Pro Bowl. And given Green's history -- he averaged 4,023 yards and 22 touchdowns from 2001-05 -- he can still be counted on as a successful passer.

That gives Chambers reason for hope. He also doesn't think Fantasy owners should give up on him just yet.

Last year was a disaster for Chambers, but that had to do with Daunte Culpepper's injury and Joey Harrington's ineffectiveness. When Chambers had a full-time starter in quarterback Gus Frerotte in 2005, Chambers went to the Pro Bowl with 82 catches for 1,118 yards and 11 touchdowns.

Chambers said he can get back to that level again. He likes that he can sneak up on some people this year.

"I was signing autographs, and someone told me they picked me up in the seventh round (of a Fantasy draft)," Chambers said. "I was like, seventh round? I guess I'll be a sleeper for this year. That's fine."

Chambers talked about his outlook for this season, his thoughts on Green and the Dolphins offense in a recent conversation.

What do you think about Trent Green as your quarterback?

He's an easygoing guy. He's easy to communicate with. Our communication is speeding up a little bit. We have more time with each other. We're working on some things after practice. We're going to take what the defense gives us. He throws a good ball, and we're just going to try and make it happen.

How far along are you with Cam Cameron's offense?

Development is going to come each and every week. We have a ton of stuff we're still trying to work on. We're still trying to work on our bread and butter plays. Cam will call 10 or 20 runs in a row. He'll call the same pass play in a row if you can't stop it. That's what you like about the guy. He's going to use our strengths and get everybody involved in the offense.

How do you feel coming into the season?

I feel good. This is probably the best I felt about a situation for a long time now. I really like our philosophy and our approach.

Is it hard to get used to another new quarterback?

Just a little bit. With your quarterback, you want to have some years. For the most part, I've learned how to speed that up a little bit. Trent is very easy to communicate with. Of course we have to work on some things and learn. We're not going to be at our best probably until way into the second half of the season where you're going to see a lot of improvement.

How do you speed up working with a quarterback?

It's tough, but you try to overcome it. When Gus was here (2005), we were able to speed it up a little bit, and in the second half of the season we took off. Unfortunately with Daunte (Culpepper) it didn't work out at all. With Joey (Harrington), I didn't get any reps with him, and the next thing you know he's in the game. It takes a minute. As long as we keep talking, we'll be fine.

 

[DawnBTVS]

The one thing that's always concerned me about him is his penchant for dropped passes.

2006: 154 targets vs. 59 catches (38% catch rate)

2005: 166 targets vs. 82 catches (49% catch rate)

2004: 132 targets vs. 69 catches (52% catch rate)

2003: 130 targets vs. 64 catches (49% catch rate)

How much of that can be attributed to poor QB play, I don't know. At the same time though, to catch so few passes with that many targets raises some eyebrows. In the same situation last year, Wes Welker had a 67% rate (67 catches in 100 targets) and Marty Booker had a 61% rate (55 catches in 90 targets).

The question, then, is why does Chambers get so many targets?

Maybe the playcalling? He could be the go to read on most (50-55%) of the pass plays and QBs would lock onto him?Booker seems to be the bigger play threat (better YPC in 2006 and 2005, 12.8 vs. CC 13.0 in 2004) so maybe Chambers fills the Isaac Bruce/Cris Carter possession role while Marty Booker took over the Torry Holt/Randy Moss deep threat?

Also, Marty had a 50% rate in 2004 and 45% rate in 2005 before last season. Poor QB play could be the case for last season too but that doesn't explain why Chambers dropped off tremendously while Welker (and more so Booker) succeeded so much.

As an aside... for a guy who's the outright #1 he's only had 12 100+ yard receiving games (incl. that 238 yarder) in a total of 94 games. The only thing I can fathom is the offensive playcalling being the reason why Chambers gets his number called so often and the QB locking on him regardless of other options during the game as well.

 

[Louisville Slugger]

The one thing that's always concerned me about him is his penchant for dropped passes.

2006: 154 targets vs. 59 catches (38% catch rate)

2005: 166 targets vs. 82 catches (49% catch rate)

2004: 132 targets vs. 69 catches (52% catch rate)

2003: 130 targets vs. 64 catches (49% catch rate)

How much of that can be attributed to poor QB play, I don't know. At the same time though, to catch so few passes with that many targets raises some eyebrows. In the same situation last year, Wes Welker had a 67% rate (67 catches in 100 targets) and Marty Booker had a 61% rate (55 catches in 90 targets).

The question, then, is why does Chambers get so many targets?

Maybe the playcalling? He could be the go to read on most (50-55%) of the pass plays and QBs would lock onto him?Booker seems to be the bigger play threat (better YPC in 2006 and 2005, 12.8 vs. CC 13.0 in 2004) so maybe Chambers fills the Isaac Bruce/Cris Carter possession role while Marty Booker took over the Torry Holt/Randy Moss deep threat?

Also, Marty had a 50% rate in 2004 and 45% rate in 2005 before last season. Poor QB play could be the case for last season too but that doesn't explain why Chambers dropped off tremendously while Welker (and more so Booker) succeeded so much.

As an aside... for a guy who's the outright #1 he's only had 12 100+ yard receiving games (incl. that 238 yarder) in a total of 94 games. The only thing I can fathom is the offensive playcalling being the reason why Chambers gets his number called so often and the QB locking on him regardless of other options during the game as well.



Marty Booker as a deep threat?

You are kidding right?

Chambers is a very good #3 wr. He coul be an ok #2 if things go right for Miami.

 

[Tau837]

The one thing that's always concerned me about him is his penchant for dropped passes. 2006: 154 targets vs. 59 catches (38% catch rate)2005: 166 targets vs. 82 catches (49% catch rate)2004: 132 targets vs. 69 catches (52% catch rate)2003: 130 targets vs. 64 catches (49% catch rate)How much of that can be attributed to poor QB play, I don't know. At the same time though, to catch so few passes with that many targets raises some eyebrows. In the same situation last year, Wes Welker had a 67% rate (67 catches in 100 targets) and Marty Booker had a 61% rate (55 catches in 90 targets).

The good news is that last year's 38% looks like an outlier. If his targets stay high, I do think he has a great shot at top 30. I doubt we'll see another 2005 season from him, but maybe somewhere in the middle...

 

[SSOG]

The one thing that's always concerned me about him is his penchant for dropped passes. 2006: 154 targets vs. 59 catches (38% catch rate)2005: 166 targets vs. 82 catches (49% catch rate)2004: 132 targets vs. 69 catches (52% catch rate)2003: 130 targets vs. 64 catches (49% catch rate)How much of that can be attributed to poor QB play, I don't know. At the same time though, to catch so few passes with that many targets raises some eyebrows. In the same situation last year, Wes Welker had a 67% rate (67 catches in 100 targets) and Marty Booker had a 61% rate (55 catches in 90 targets).

The good news is that last year's 38% looks like an outlier. If his targets stay high, I do think he has a great shot at top 30. I doubt we'll see another 2005 season from him, but maybe somewhere in the middle...

I agree. I'm a big-time Chambers basher, but at some point, he has to present value. It's not often that you can find a player being drafted as a WR3 who is a near lock for 140+ targets.

 

[maxwell1295]

I don't think you can look at 'catch rate' and assume the incompleted passes are all drops. I'm sure a few of those can be attributed to drops, but there also have to be some overthrows, underthrows, passes forced into tight coverage, INTs, etc. Just because a receriver was 'targeted' doesn't mean the pass hit his hands or even reached him at all. A guy with that many targets has got to be worth something now that he has a decent QB. If they click, CC could be a steal...

 

[Chase Stuart]

The one thing that's always concerned me about him is his penchant for dropped passes.

2006: 154 targets vs. 59 catches (38% catch rate)

2005: 166 targets vs. 82 catches (49% catch rate)

2004: 132 targets vs. 69 catches (52% catch rate)

2003: 130 targets vs. 64 catches (49% catch rate)

How much of that can be attributed to poor QB play, I don't know. At the same time though, to catch so few passes with that many targets raises some eyebrows. In the same situation last year, Wes Welker had a 67% rate (67 catches in 100 targets) and Marty Booker had a 61% rate (55 catches in 90 targets).

The question, then, is why does Chambers get so many targets?

Maybe the playcalling? He could be the go to read on most (50-55%) of the pass plays and QBs would lock onto him?Booker seems to be the bigger play threat (better YPC in 2006 and 2005, 12.8 vs. CC 13.0 in 2004) so maybe Chambers fills the Isaac Bruce/Cris Carter possession role while Marty Booker took over the Torry Holt/Randy Moss deep threat?

Also, Marty had a 50% rate in 2004 and 45% rate in 2005 before last season. Poor QB play could be the case for last season too but that doesn't explain why Chambers dropped off tremendously while Welker (and more so Booker) succeeded so much.

As an aside... for a guy who's the outright #1 he's only had 12 100+ yard receiving games (incl. that 238 yarder) in a total of 94 games. The only thing I can fathom is the offensive playcalling being the reason why Chambers gets his number called so often and the QB locking on him regardless of other options during the game as well.

Which is particularly peculiar, since there were four offensive coordinators in that four year period. I wonder why Norv Turner (2003), Chris Foerster (2004), Scott Linehan (2005) and Mike Mularkey (2006) all decided to throw the ball to Chris Chambers a ton? Why would four different coordinators make him the the go to read on most of the pass plays, and why would Jay Fiedler, Brian Griese, A.J. Feeley, Gus Frerotte, Joey Harrington, Daunte Culpepper, Sage Rosenfels and Cleo Lemon lock onto him? Now that's not exactly a great collection of QBs, but it's a pretty good collection of OCs, two of whom are now head coaches. I think the use of catch/target and yards/target data is highly questionable in trying to determine a receiver's talent.

 

[phthalatemagic]

I think the use of catch/target and yards/target data is highly questionable in trying to determine a receiver's talent.

What is less questionable? Why is catch/target questionable?

 

[SSOG]

I don't think you can look at 'catch rate' and assume the incompleted passes are all drops. I'm sure a few of those can be attributed to drops, but there also have to be some overthrows, underthrows, passes forced into tight coverage, INTs, etc. Just because a receriver was 'targeted' doesn't mean the pass hit his hands or even reached him at all. A guy with that many targets has got to be worth something now that he has a decent QB. If they click, CC could be a steal...

The incomplete passes could also be examples of Chambers running sloppy routes, running incorrect routes, not making a play on the ball when it's in the air, or short-arming the ball. Generally speaking, with a large enough sample size, a QB is going to have as many bad throws to one WR as he would to any other, so given the DRASTIC difference between Booker/Welker and Chambers, in my mind, there clearly has to be some other explanation than the QB. Some people bring up the route excuse here- apparently, Harrington is super-accurate on short stuff (which is why Welker and Booker caught 60+% of their targets), but a total bum on deep routes. This one doesn't pass the smell test, since Chambers' ypc of 11.5 proves he was running plenty of short routes (Booker's ypc was 13.6).In addition, it's not like Gus Frerotte or A.J. Feeley are the worst starting QBs in league history, here. Frerotte is actually solid enough to still be in the NFL after 12 seasons, which is something very few QBs can claim. Guys like Rod Smith, Ed McCaffrey, and Randy Moss have all been plenty productive catching balls from him. Guys like Lee Evans and Arnaz Battle have been fine catching balls from the likes of J.P. Losman (back when he was a rookie and sucked) or Alex Smith (back when he was a rookie and sucked).

The one thing that's always concerned me about him is his penchant for dropped passes.

2006: 154 targets vs. 59 catches (38% catch rate)

2005: 166 targets vs. 82 catches (49% catch rate)

2004: 132 targets vs. 69 catches (52% catch rate)

2003: 130 targets vs. 64 catches (49% catch rate)

How much of that can be attributed to poor QB play, I don't know. At the same time though, to catch so few passes with that many targets raises some eyebrows. In the same situation last year, Wes Welker had a 67% rate (67 catches in 100 targets) and Marty Booker had a 61% rate (55 catches in 90 targets).

The question, then, is why does Chambers get so many targets?

Maybe the playcalling? He could be the go to read on most (50-55%) of the pass plays and QBs would lock onto him?Booker seems to be the bigger play threat (better YPC in 2006 and 2005, 12.8 vs. CC 13.0 in 2004) so maybe Chambers fills the Isaac Bruce/Cris Carter possession role while Marty Booker took over the Torry Holt/Randy Moss deep threat?

Also, Marty had a 50% rate in 2004 and 45% rate in 2005 before last season. Poor QB play could be the case for last season too but that doesn't explain why Chambers dropped off tremendously while Welker (and more so Booker) succeeded so much.

As an aside... for a guy who's the outright #1 he's only had 12 100+ yard receiving games (incl. that 238 yarder) in a total of 94 games. The only thing I can fathom is the offensive playcalling being the reason why Chambers gets his number called so often and the QB locking on him regardless of other options during the game as well.

Which is particularly peculiar, since there were four offensive coordinators in that four year period. I wonder why Norv Turner (2003), Chris Foerster (2004), Scott Linehan (2005) and Mike Mularkey (2006) all decided to throw the ball to Chris Chambers a ton? Why would four different coordinators make him the the go to read on most of the pass plays, and why would Jay Fiedler, Brian Griese, A.J. Feeley, Gus Frerotte, Joey Harrington, Daunte Culpepper, Sage Rosenfels and Cleo Lemon lock onto him? Now that's not exactly a great collection of QBs, but it's a pretty good collection of OCs, two of whom are now head coaches. I think the use of catch/target and yards/target data is highly questionable in trying to determine a receiver's talent.

Chris Chambers wouldn't be the first player whose potential coaches fell in love with, and he certainly won't be the last. Why did the Dolphins make Chambers the focal point of their offense? Who knows. Why did Wade Phillips start Rob Johnson over Doug Flutie? Why did Dallas give Ryan Leaf a chance after he flamed out spectacularly in San Diego?

 

[gianmarco]

I don't really understand much of the debate here. There's lots of talk about the #'s and dropped passes, etc. Surely you guys have watched a few Dolphins games here and there. Chris Chambers is nothing more than an average WR who was in the #1 WR role. That's it. Without any real #2 threats in the past, he got the majority of the balls thrown his way and rarely did much with it. Watching Booker, who is actually a pretty solid WR, outperform him in the 2nd half of last season was hardly surprising. Chambers would be lucky to be a #2 WR on many other teams in the league.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I don't think you can look at 'catch rate' and assume the incompleted passes are all drops. I'm sure a few of those can be attributed to drops, but there also have to be some overthrows, underthrows, passes forced into tight coverage, INTs, etc. Just because a receriver was 'targeted' doesn't mean the pass hit his hands or even reached him at all. A guy with that many targets has got to be worth something now that he has a decent QB. If they click, CC could be a steal...

The incomplete passes could also be examples of Chambers running sloppy routes, running incorrect routes, not making a play on the ball when it's in the air, or short-arming the ball. Generally speaking, with a large enough sample size, a QB is going to have as many bad throws to one WR as he would to any other, so given the DRASTIC difference between Booker/Welker and Chambers, in my mind, there clearly has to be some other explanation than the QB. Some people bring up the route excuse here- apparently, Harrington is super-accurate on short stuff (which is why Welker and Booker caught 60+% of their targets), but a total bum on deep routes. This one doesn't pass the smell test, since Chambers' ypc of 11.5 proves he was running plenty of short routes (Booker's ypc was 13.6).In addition, it's not like Gus Frerotte or A.J. Feeley are the worst starting QBs in league history, here. Frerotte is actually solid enough to still be in the NFL after 12 seasons, which is something very few QBs can claim. Guys like Rod Smith, Ed McCaffrey, and Randy Moss have all been plenty productive catching balls from him. Guys like Lee Evans and Arnaz Battle have been fine catching balls from the likes of J.P. Losman (back when he was a rookie and sucked) or Alex Smith (back when he was a rookie and sucked).

The one thing that's always concerned me about him is his penchant for dropped passes.

2006: 154 targets vs. 59 catches (38% catch rate)

2005: 166 targets vs. 82 catches (49% catch rate)

2004: 132 targets vs. 69 catches (52% catch rate)

2003: 130 targets vs. 64 catches (49% catch rate)

How much of that can be attributed to poor QB play, I don't know. At the same time though, to catch so few passes with that many targets raises some eyebrows. In the same situation last year, Wes Welker had a 67% rate (67 catches in 100 targets) and Marty Booker had a 61% rate (55 catches in 90 targets).

The question, then, is why does Chambers get so many targets?

Maybe the playcalling? He could be the go to read on most (50-55%) of the pass plays and QBs would lock onto him?Booker seems to be the bigger play threat (better YPC in 2006 and 2005, 12.8 vs. CC 13.0 in 2004) so maybe Chambers fills the Isaac Bruce/Cris Carter possession role while Marty Booker took over the Torry Holt/Randy Moss deep threat?

Also, Marty had a 50% rate in 2004 and 45% rate in 2005 before last season. Poor QB play could be the case for last season too but that doesn't explain why Chambers dropped off tremendously while Welker (and more so Booker) succeeded so much.

As an aside... for a guy who's the outright #1 he's only had 12 100+ yard receiving games (incl. that 238 yarder) in a total of 94 games. The only thing I can fathom is the offensive playcalling being the reason why Chambers gets his number called so often and the QB locking on him regardless of other options during the game as well.

Which is particularly peculiar, since there were four offensive coordinators in that four year period. I wonder why Norv Turner (2003), Chris Foerster (2004), Scott Linehan (2005) and Mike Mularkey (2006) all decided to throw the ball to Chris Chambers a ton? Why would four different coordinators make him the the go to read on most of the pass plays, and why would Jay Fiedler, Brian Griese, A.J. Feeley, Gus Frerotte, Joey Harrington, Daunte Culpepper, Sage Rosenfels and Cleo Lemon lock onto him? Now that's not exactly a great collection of QBs, but it's a pretty good collection of OCs, two of whom are now head coaches. I think the use of catch/target and yards/target data is highly questionable in trying to determine a receiver's talent.

Chris Chambers wouldn't be the first player whose potential coaches fell in love with, and he certainly won't be the last. Why did the Dolphins make Chambers the focal point of their offense? Who knows. Why did Wade Phillips start Rob Johnson over Doug Flutie? Why did Dallas give Ryan Leaf a chance after he flamed out spectacularly in San Diego?

To see four coaches fall in love with him seems peculiar if he's truly a bad player.

 

[Chase Stuart]

The incomplete passes could also be examples of Chambers running sloppy routes, running incorrect routes, not making a play on the ball when it's in the air, or short-arming the ball. Generally speaking, with a large enough sample size, a QB is going to have as many bad throws to one WR as he would to any other, so given the DRASTIC difference between Booker/Welker and Chambers, in my mind, there clearly has to be some other explanation than the QB.

On a given play when WRX gets a target and WRY and WRZ do not, who has done the best on that play?

 

[Chase Stuart]

I think the use of catch/target and yards/target data is highly questionable in trying to determine a receiver's talent.

What is less questionable? Why is catch/target questionable?

I'm not sure which is less questionable. It's a good question.Catch/target is questionable because I don't think Mike Furrey and Wes Welker are two of the best WRs in the NFL.

 

[packersfan]

Chambers is a big-time talent who has proven he can fare quite well with pedestrian (at best) quarterbacks. The lack of a standout quarterback has definitely hindered Chambers in my opinion but he has also failed to reach his full potential because he has never been able to completely overcome the concentration issues which have always plagued him. He's incredibly talented in my opinion but he often lacks focus and at the risk of psycho-analyzing him I wonder how the impact of playing with so many piss-poor quarterbacks over the years has affected him. I don't have high hopes for him this season because I think Trent Green is done. But Chambers is still young enough that if the Dolphins ever get a legitimate NFL starting QB he could bounce back and become a strong fantasy option again.

 

[Tau837]

I think the use of catch/target and yards/target data is highly questionable in trying to determine a receiver's talent.

What is less questionable? Why is catch/target questionable?

I'm not sure which is less questionable. It's a good question.Catch/target is questionable because I don't think Mike Furrey and Wes Welker are two of the best WRs in the NFL.

Exactly. You have to put things in context. Like what routes are the WRs asked to run; how do those routes mesh with the QB's talent (i.e., is the QB good at throwing those routes); how is the coverage for a WR affected by the offensive scheme and surrounding talent, in addition to his own talent; maybe even things like game situations (e.g., how often playing from behind against a prevent defense)...

 

[Sinatrasdead]

Yeah, let me stop and think of all the WRs Trent Green put on the map... ok well I can't think of any. To me Trent gives a boost to Donald Lee and Ronnie/Chatman but the WRs are still just a couple notches above worthless.

 

[Jeff Haseley]

I wrote an article about this very topic back in July - shown here

Some nuggets from this article include...

Who's to blame for Chambers low reception percentage? Is it Chambers himself or is it the four different subpar QBs that he's had over the last four years?

* Chambers 2006: 59 rec on 154 targets = 38%.

The primary Miami QB was Joey Harrington, who had a 59% completion percentage that year and finished the season ranked 27th among fantasy QBs.

* Chambers 2005: 82 rec on 166 targets = 49%.

The primary Miami QB was Gus Frerotte, who had a 52% completion percentage that year and finished the season ranked 17th among fantasy QBs.

* Chambers 2004: 69 rec on 132 targets = 52%.

The primary Miami QB was AJ Feeley, who had a 53% completion percentage that year and finished the season ranked 30th among fantasy QBs.

* Chambers 2003: 64 rec, 130 targets = 49%.

The primary Miami QB was Jay Fiedler, who had a 57% completion percentage that year and finished the season ranked 24th among fantasy QBs.

Average Miami QB completion % over the last 4 years = 55.25%

 

[phthalatemagic]

I think the use of catch/target and yards/target data is highly questionable in trying to determine a receiver's talent.

What is less questionable? Why is catch/target questionable?

I'm not sure which is less questionable. It's a good question.Catch/target is questionable because I don't think Mike Furrey and Wes Welker are two of the best WRs in the NFL.

I guess your issue is that it's easy to have many catches if you are running short routes? Perhaps if some sort of value related to difficulty of the pattern were assigned to each target, it would make rec/target more viable in your opinion? Sounds tough to keep data on, unless you want to sort through every play by play.

 

[SSOG]

To see four coaches fall in love with him seems peculiar if he's truly a bad player.

Again, it wouldn't be the first time someone fell in love with potential. Both of the last two coaches have been running the same Linehan offense (from what I hear), and prior to that he was a very raw but promising talent. I suppose he's still a very raw but promising talent, I just have given up hope of him ever reaching that promise. If it was going to happen, odds are it would have happened by now.

The incomplete passes could also be examples of Chambers running sloppy routes, running incorrect routes, not making a play on the ball when it's in the air, or short-arming the ball. Generally speaking, with a large enough sample size, a QB is going to have as many bad throws to one WR as he would to any other, so given the DRASTIC difference between Booker/Welker and Chambers, in my mind, there clearly has to be some other explanation than the QB.

On a given play when WRX gets a target and WRY and WRZ do not, who has done the best on that play?

Hard to say. Maybe WRX was the primary read, and WRY and WRZ were both more open, but the QB never made the progression. Maybe WRY and WRZ were viewed as bigger threats and received more defensive attention. Maybe the CB covering WRX screwed up. Even if WRX was the most open, imagine a WR who was the best in history at getting open. Imagine this WR got 3 yards of separation on every single play he ever participated in. Now imagine this WR quite literally has no hands. How good of a WR do you think he is? Getting open, getting targeted, means absolutely nothing if you do absolutely nothing with it.From what I recall, you watch a lot of AFC East games. Let me ask you- do you think many opposing fans have been worried about Chambers beating them at any point in the past 2 years? Personally, if Miami played Denver tomorrow, I'd rather they throw 15 passes at Chambers than Booker.

 

[SSOG]

I think the use of catch/target and yards/target data is highly questionable in trying to determine a receiver's talent.

What is less questionable? Why is catch/target questionable?

I'm not sure which is less questionable. It's a good question.Catch/target is questionable because I don't think Mike Furrey and Wes Welker are two of the best WRs in the NFL.

I guess your issue is that it's easy to have many catches if you are running short routes? Perhaps if some sort of value related to difficulty of the pattern were assigned to each target, it would make rec/target more viable in your opinion? Sounds tough to keep data on, unless you want to sort through every play by play.

Chambers yards per catch was around 11 last season. That sort of defies the idea that it's easy to have many catches if you're running short routes.

 

[cstu]

He seems to suffer from Moulds-disease so this should be a good year for him.

 

[phthalatemagic]

I think the use of catch/target and yards/target data is highly questionable in trying to determine a receiver's talent.

What is less questionable? Why is catch/target questionable?

I'm not sure which is less questionable. It's a good question.Catch/target is questionable because I don't think Mike Furrey and Wes Welker are two of the best WRs in the NFL.

I guess your issue is that it's easy to have many catches if you are running short routes? Perhaps if some sort of value related to difficulty of the pattern were assigned to each target, it would make rec/target more viable in your opinion? Sounds tough to keep data on, unless you want to sort through every play by play.

Chambers yards per catch was around 11 last season. That sort of defies the idea that it's easy to have many catches if you're running short routes.

I don't know Chambers' breakdown on his catches last year, but his ypc isn't conclusive of that IMO. If he fails to catch long patterns and is targeted on them 80% of the time, while catching the short ones, you could replicate those numbers without defying the possibility of what I suggested.Don't get me wrong, I think Chambers is a poor WR. I just think if Chase dislikes rec/target as a reliable datum, then he can add more variables to make it more descriptive and more reliable IMO.

 

[Chase Stuart]

To see four coaches fall in love with him seems peculiar if he's truly a bad player.

Again, it wouldn't be the first time someone fell in love with potential. Both of the last two coaches have been running the same Linehan offense (from what I hear), and prior to that he was a very raw but promising talent. I suppose he's still a very raw but promising talent, I just have given up hope of him ever reaching that promise. If it was going to happen, odds are it would have happened by now.

The incomplete passes could also be examples of Chambers running sloppy routes, running incorrect routes, not making a play on the ball when it's in the air, or short-arming the ball. Generally speaking, with a large enough sample size, a QB is going to have as many bad throws to one WR as he would to any other, so given the DRASTIC difference between Booker/Welker and Chambers, in my mind, there clearly has to be some other explanation than the QB.

On a given play when WRX gets a target and WRY and WRZ do not, who has done the best on that play?

Hard to say. Maybe WRX was the primary read, and WRY and WRZ were both more open, but the QB never made the progression. Maybe WRY and WRZ were viewed as bigger threats and received more defensive attention. Maybe the CB covering WRX screwed up. Even if WRX was the most open, imagine a WR who was the best in history at getting open. Imagine this WR got 3 yards of separation on every single play he ever participated in. Now imagine this WR quite literally has no hands. How good of a WR do you think he is? Getting open, getting targeted, means absolutely nothing if you do absolutely nothing with it.From what I recall, you watch a lot of AFC East games. Let me ask you- do you think many opposing fans have been worried about Chambers beating them at any point in the past 2 years? Personally, if Miami played Denver tomorrow, I'd rather they throw 15 passes at Chambers than Booker.

That doesn't really answer the question of why does Chambers get so many targets. If he was the primary read most times, why? If he was most open but had terrible hands, why would the QB keep throwing to him? I think targets are a relatively interesting piece of data on the ability of a receiver. I'm less certain that catches/target or yards/target are relevant. There's very likely a Simpson's paradox problem going on there, and it's unclear to what extent.

 

[SSOG]

To see four coaches fall in love with him seems peculiar if he's truly a bad player.

Again, it wouldn't be the first time someone fell in love with potential. Both of the last two coaches have been running the same Linehan offense (from what I hear), and prior to that he was a very raw but promising talent. I suppose he's still a very raw but promising talent, I just have given up hope of him ever reaching that promise. If it was going to happen, odds are it would have happened by now.

The incomplete passes could also be examples of Chambers running sloppy routes, running incorrect routes, not making a play on the ball when it's in the air, or short-arming the ball. Generally speaking, with a large enough sample size, a QB is going to have as many bad throws to one WR as he would to any other, so given the DRASTIC difference between Booker/Welker and Chambers, in my mind, there clearly has to be some other explanation than the QB.

On a given play when WRX gets a target and WRY and WRZ do not, who has done the best on that play?

Hard to say. Maybe WRX was the primary read, and WRY and WRZ were both more open, but the QB never made the progression. Maybe WRY and WRZ were viewed as bigger threats and received more defensive attention. Maybe the CB covering WRX screwed up. Even if WRX was the most open, imagine a WR who was the best in history at getting open. Imagine this WR got 3 yards of separation on every single play he ever participated in. Now imagine this WR quite literally has no hands. How good of a WR do you think he is? Getting open, getting targeted, means absolutely nothing if you do absolutely nothing with it.From what I recall, you watch a lot of AFC East games. Let me ask you- do you think many opposing fans have been worried about Chambers beating them at any point in the past 2 years? Personally, if Miami played Denver tomorrow, I'd rather they throw 15 passes at Chambers than Booker.

That doesn't really answer the question of why does Chambers get so many targets. If he was the primary read most times, why? If he was most open but had terrible hands, why would the QB keep throwing to him? I think targets are a relatively interesting piece of data on the ability of a receiver. I'm less certain that catches/target or yards/target are relevant. There's very likely a Simpson's paradox problem going on there, and it's unclear to what extent.

I agree with your basic point that the targets themselves generally point to how a coach views a certain player (although, again, with Chambers I think it's just another example of coaches falling in love with potential). With that said, I think catches/target and yards/target are INCREDIBLY relevant. In your mind, decide who you think the 5 best WRs during a certain span were and then go look at their catch% and y/t over that span. Stud WRs produce studly results, terrible WRs produce terrible results. As always, I just keep going back to the Lee Evans example- look at what kind of production Lee Evans put up with a still-terrible J.P. Losman (although I think Losman is underrated, he's currently mediocre-at-best, and he was TERRIBLE to begin his career). Evans did that despite running difficult routes against difficult coverages. Look at Steve Smith- Jake Delhomme is generally considered one of the worse starting QBs in the league, and no team in the entire league focuses more on their #1 WR (meaning the coverages he faced were INSANE- he's the only WR in the league who knows what it's like to get TRIPLE COVERED for an entire game, thanks to Seattle's playoff gameplan against him). And again, Smiff was running difficult, low-percentage routes.I think an argument could be made that Chris Chambers is one of the 17th-32nd best WRs in the league, but there's really no argument I can think of that would indicate that Chambers is one of the better WR1s in the league.Judging a WR based solely on the number of targets he received (or even on the number of targets he received in relation to his teammates) is a lot like judging a QB based on the number of passes he attempted.

 

[Chase Stuart]

To see four coaches fall in love with him seems peculiar if he's truly a bad player.

Again, it wouldn't be the first time someone fell in love with potential. Both of the last two coaches have been running the same Linehan offense (from what I hear), and prior to that he was a very raw but promising talent. I suppose he's still a very raw but promising talent, I just have given up hope of him ever reaching that promise. If it was going to happen, odds are it would have happened by now.

The incomplete passes could also be examples of Chambers running sloppy routes, running incorrect routes, not making a play on the ball when it's in the air, or short-arming the ball. Generally speaking, with a large enough sample size, a QB is going to have as many bad throws to one WR as he would to any other, so given the DRASTIC difference between Booker/Welker and Chambers, in my mind, there clearly has to be some other explanation than the QB.

On a given play when WRX gets a target and WRY and WRZ do not, who has done the best on that play?

Hard to say. Maybe WRX was the primary read, and WRY and WRZ were both more open, but the QB never made the progression. Maybe WRY and WRZ were viewed as bigger threats and received more defensive attention. Maybe the CB covering WRX screwed up. Even if WRX was the most open, imagine a WR who was the best in history at getting open. Imagine this WR got 3 yards of separation on every single play he ever participated in. Now imagine this WR quite literally has no hands. How good of a WR do you think he is? Getting open, getting targeted, means absolutely nothing if you do absolutely nothing with it.From what I recall, you watch a lot of AFC East games. Let me ask you- do you think many opposing fans have been worried about Chambers beating them at any point in the past 2 years? Personally, if Miami played Denver tomorrow, I'd rather they throw 15 passes at Chambers than Booker.

That doesn't really answer the question of why does Chambers get so many targets. If he was the primary read most times, why? If he was most open but had terrible hands, why would the QB keep throwing to him? I think targets are a relatively interesting piece of data on the ability of a receiver. I'm less certain that catches/target or yards/target are relevant. There's very likely a Simpson's paradox problem going on there, and it's unclear to what extent.

I agree with your basic point that the targets themselves generally point to how a coach views a certain player (although, again, with Chambers I think it's just another example of coaches falling in love with potential). With that said, I think catches/target and yards/target are INCREDIBLY relevant. In your mind, decide who you think the 5 best WRs during a certain span were and then go look at their catch% and y/t over that span. Stud WRs produce studly results, terrible WRs produce terrible results. As always, I just keep going back to the Lee Evans example- look at what kind of production Lee Evans put up with a still-terrible J.P. Losman (although I think Losman is underrated, he's currently mediocre-at-best, and he was TERRIBLE to begin his career). Evans did that despite running difficult routes against difficult coverages. Look at Steve Smith- Jake Delhomme is generally considered one of the worse starting QBs in the league, and no team in the entire league focuses more on their #1 WR (meaning the coverages he faced were INSANE- he's the only WR in the league who knows what it's like to get TRIPLE COVERED for an entire game, thanks to Seattle's playoff gameplan against him). And again, Smiff was running difficult, low-percentage routes.I think an argument could be made that Chris Chambers is one of the 17th-32nd best WRs in the league, but there's really no argument I can think of that would indicate that Chambers is one of the better WR1s in the league.Judging a WR based solely on the number of targets he received (or even on the number of targets he received in relation to his teammates) is a lot like judging a QB based on the number of passes he attempted.

I somewhat agree with your last sentence; but targets received does tell you a bit more about the quality of a receiver than passes attempted.I'm not sure your examples are very good. Smith's catch/target ratio wasn't very good last year. Neither was Evans'. Mike Furrey, Jericho Cotchery, Derrick Mason and Reche Caldwell all had better ratios. I think yards/target might be even less useful.Patrick Crayton had a better Y/T ratio than TO last year. Cotchery had a better receptions/target ratio than Coles. Mike Furrey had one of the best in the league. Ashley Lelie led the league in yards per target a few years back -- I think you would agree that's a pretty bad result for a statistic that's supposed to tell us who the best players are.Targets per team pass might be more useful than any of the other statistics.

 

[SSOG]

I somewhat agree with your last sentence; but targets received does tell you a bit more about the quality of a receiver than passes attempted.I'm not sure your examples are very good. Smith's catch/target ratio wasn't very good last year. Neither was Evans'. Mike Furrey, Jericho Cotchery, Derrick Mason and Reche Caldwell all had better ratios. I think yards/target might be even less useful.Patrick Crayton had a better Y/T ratio than TO last year. Cotchery had a better receptions/target ratio than Coles. Mike Furrey had one of the best in the league. Ashley Lelie led the league in yards per target a few years back -- I think you would agree that's a pretty bad result for a statistic that's supposed to tell us who the best players are.Targets per team pass might be more useful than any of the other statistics.

Steve Smith and Lee Evans had PHENOMINAL catch/target ratios. Both players had 60%, which is practically off the charts for a deep threat. Furrey, Cotchery, Mason, and Caldwell were all possession players with UNDER 12.5 YARDS PER CATCH (actually, outside of Caldwell, they were all under 12). Taken in context, Smith and Evans' catch% were way more impressive than the other three. I'm not advocating taking catch% in a vacuum, here.Crayton had a better y/t ratio than TO last year because TO had an incredibly overrated season last year. All fantasy players saw was that gaudy TD stat, but he also had a boatload of drops and was borderline mediocre outside of the redzone. Crayton, on the other hand, had a PHENOMENAL season, catching 75% of his targets while still averaging over 14 yards per reception. The biggest issue is one of sample size (which also is an issue of coverages, since infrequently targeted WRs tend to be facing softer coverages- although looking at historical trends, most WRs see no decline in catch% when they transition from WR2 to WR1, so I question how much of an impact coverage really has). Still, you highlight Crayton beating TO as if that's an indictment of TO, when I think that first and foremost it's a credit to Patrick Crayton, who I am very high on. He is excelling in many of the same metrics that Lee Evans was excelling in before he finally burst onto everyone's fantasy radar.Cotchery beat out Coles, yes. Makes sense, since Cotchery was a better WR than Coles last year. He had a significantly better catch% (66% compared to 60%) despite essentially the same yards per reception (11.7 compared to 12.1). Both essentially fit the profile of a possession WR, but Cotchery caught a high percentage of passes for a possession guy, while Coles caught a low percentage of passes for a possession guy. Mike Furrey again had one of the best catch% in the league, yes, but he had a very solid season. Once again, you have to compare the possession guys to the other possession guys, and the deep threats to the other deep threats. I have no problem with the statement that Furrey was one of the better possession guys in the league last season, and certainly the scheme helped. You keep coming up with these examples that I think you feel disprove my reliance on catch% as a tool for comparing WRs, when in reality these examples that you provide, in my mind, only reinforce its value. I agree with what it's saying in every example you've provided so far.Catch% is a limited stat, much like completion percentage is a limited stat, in that it cannot adequately compare players with different roles. A QB in a vertical offense will never have the comp% of a player in a WCO, simply because of the difficulty of the throws involved. Likewise, a player in a deep role won't have the catch% of a possession player because of the difficulty of the routes. With that said, just as Comp% can compare WCQBs with other WCQBs, so can catch% compare possession and deep WRs. If you want to compare a possession WR with a deep-threat WR, that's where yards per target comes in.I find it very odd that you seem resistant to the use of yards per target as a tool for evaluating WRs, since you're so big on using yards per attempt as a tool for evaluating QBs. Essentially, yards per target is just the opposite end of yards per attempt. If yards per attempt is a good indicator of quality, then logically speaking, yards per target must likewise be a good indicator of quality. Now, there might be other factors out there that we can use to adjust yards per target to make it even better, but the basic stat itself correlates very well to yards per target, a stat I know you're a fan of.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Essentially, yards per target is just the opposite end of yards per attempt. If yards per attempt is a good indicator of quality, then logically speaking, yards per target must likewise be a good indicator of quality. Now, there might be other factors out there that we can use to adjust yards per target to make it even better, but the basic stat itself correlates very well to yards per target, a stat I know you're a fan of.

This is my problem, and I actually fell into the same trap at first. But YPT is not the mirror of YPA, despite the mathematical certainty that they must equal each other. It's a classic Simpson's Paradox issue.Assume a team with two WRs -- neither is a deep threat or possession receiver, rather, both are somewhere in the middle. WRA is much better than WRB, however. When WRA is open, he gets every pass. When WRB is open, he gets every pass. When both WR are covered, WRA gets the target 90% of the time, because he's much better than WRB.On 50 passes, WRB is open, and converts 36 of those passes into receptions for 540 yards. On 50 passes, WRA is open, and converts all 50 into receptions for 850 yards. So far, it's clear that WRA is better. He's averaging 17 YPR, has a 100% catch/target ratio, and is averaging 17 YPT. WRB is averaging 15 YPR, has a 72% catch/target ratio, and is averaging 10.8 YPT. A blowout for WRA, on all counts. On 100 passes, both WR are covered. The QB throws 10 times to WRB, who can't log a single reception. The QB throws 90 times to WRA, who records 20 receptions for 200 yards. WRB stunk, while WRA was merely bad. Once again, clear advantage to WRA.Now look at the season totals. WRA has a 15 YPR average, a 50% catch/target ratio and is averaging 7YPT. WRB has a 15 YPR average, a 60% catch/target ratio and is averaging 9YPT. So WRB has much better catch/target and yards/target ratios despite clearly being the inferior receiver. The only sign we have that WRB is the inferior receiver, of course, is that he saw 90 fewer targets. So no, yards per pass attempt is not the same thing as yards per target. There's a much smaller threat of a Simpson's Paradox problem there (a threat exists to be sure, but it's on a much smaller level). The fact that a WR got a target is a very telling thing, because there are usually 3 or 4 other players on the field that could have gotten one.

 

[Tau837]

Essentially, yards per target is just the opposite end of yards per attempt. If yards per attempt is a good indicator of quality, then logically speaking, yards per target must likewise be a good indicator of quality. Now, there might be other factors out there that we can use to adjust yards per target to make it even better, but the basic stat itself correlates very well to yards per target, a stat I know you're a fan of.

This is my problem, and I actually fell into the same trap at first. But YPT is not the mirror of YPA, despite the mathematical certainty that they must equal each other. It's a classic Simpson's Paradox issue.Assume a team with two WRs -- neither is a deep threat or possession receiver, rather, both are somewhere in the middle. WRA is much better than WRB, however. When WRA is open, he gets every pass. When WRB is open, he gets every pass. When both WR are covered, WRA gets the target 90% of the time, because he's much better than WRB.On 50 passes, WRB is open, and converts 36 of those passes into receptions for 540 yards. On 50 passes, WRA is open, and converts all 50 into receptions for 850 yards. So far, it's clear that WRA is better. He's averaging 17 YPR, has a 100% catch/target ratio, and is averaging 17 YPT. WRB is averaging 15 YPR, has a 72% catch/target ratio, and is averaging 10.8 YPT. A blowout for WRA, on all counts. On 100 passes, both WR are covered. The QB throws 10 times to WRB, who can't log a single reception. The QB throws 90 times to WRA, who records 20 receptions for 200 yards. WRB stunk, while WRA was merely bad. Once again, clear advantage to WRA.Now look at the season totals. WRA has a 15 YPR average, a 50% catch/target ratio and is averaging 7YPT. WRB has a 15 YPR average, a 60% catch/target ratio and is averaging 9YPT. So WRB has much better catch/target and yards/target ratios despite clearly being the inferior receiver. The only sign we have that WRB is the inferior receiver, of course, is that he saw 90 fewer targets. So no, yards per pass attempt is not the same thing as yards per target. There's a much smaller threat of a Simpson's Paradox problem there (a threat exists to be sure, but it's on a much smaller level). The fact that a WR got a target is a very telling thing, because there are usually 3 or 4 other players on the field that could have gotten one.

 

[phthalatemagic]

A Simpson's Paradox manifests itself when one comparitive value is significantly smaller/larger than the other value. If you keep a small range for those values i.e. compare only WRs with (arbitrary) 110-140 targets then you avoid that. I frankly don't know why you'd compare a high target WR to a guy that only had 20 or so targets anyway. Any worthwhile comparison is lost in that case.