Greg Little, WR, Cleveland Browns (1 Viewer)

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

I know he's an older rookie, but I still don't see how Weeden is going to come right in and post nice numbers. He'll air it out more, but I still expect a transition time. I guess I just don't want to depend on a rookie QB. Excluding Cam and Dalton, since they seem to be kind of exceptions, how many rookie QBs in the past 5 years have supported a WR1 or WR2? I can't imagine very many.

Roddy White put up 1300+ and 7 TDs Matt Ryan's rookie season, Derrick Mason had 80, 1000 and 5 TDs with Flacco QBing his rookie year. I think you have a good point but I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that Little puts up a decent season.

Anything is possible, but what is probable?I'm going to re-post the improvements that Little would need to hit 1000 yards or more.All on 120 targets:2011= 50.8 catch% 61 receptions 709 yards 11.6 YPC 2 TD= WR472012= 55 catch% 66 receptions 792 yards 12.0 YPC 3 TD= WR362012= 55 catch% 66 receptions 832 yards 12.6 YPC 4 TD= WR332012= 55 catch% 66 receptions 898 yards 13.6 YPC 5 TD= WR282012= 58 catch% 70 receptions 952 yards 13.6 YPC 6 TD= WR23For 1,000 yards to happen at his rookie year YPC he would need 87 receptions next year.

 

[NJ]

I'm curious how many other WRs targets are uncatchable. Where could those stats be found?

Its one of the Premium stats over at PFF, they have something called Drop Rate which takes into account catchable balls, not just targets and receptions. But its a pay site so I'm not going to post their numbers here, but all you really need to do is take someones targets and subtract out receptions + drops and you'll see how many "uncatchable balls" there were.For Little, FBG has him at 120 targets, he had 61 receptions and 14 drops so 45 were uncatchable. Best catch% he could have gotten was 62.5% with 0 drops (I don't know why I had 59% in my head must have been using a different target # since that seems to differ on many sites).Vs. say a guy like Welker who had 173 targets, 122 receptions, 13 drops so he could have gotten as high as a 78% catch % with 0 drops. 78% of his balls were "catchable" vs. 62.5% for Little. Now don't get me wrong, Little had a miserable season in terms of drops, everyone else that had double digit drops had more targets than he did. So his "drop rate" was still miserable, one of the worst in the league, I was just pointing out that when people use "catch %" to extrapolate out projected receptions, catch rate will be affected by the QB play, Drop Rate is all on the WR.Little's drop rate was 18.6% 14 drops on 75 catchable balls. But if 78% of his targets were catchable like Welker, he would have had 94 catchable balls instead of 75 so even with a miserable 18.6% drop rate, he'd be looking at 77 receptions and 17 drops instead of 61 receptions and 14 drops. 77 receptions on 120 targets would have had him at a respectable 64% catch rate despite still having a miserable drop rate. That's why I think Drop Rate is a much more important stat than catch% when evaluating a WRs play. You still need catch% to come up with your projections because obviously the QB is going to affect that greatly, but I don't think its fair to compare 2 WRs based on catch rate when they obviously have different QBs throwing them the ball.Is also not as black and white as the stats, some of it certainly falls on the WR to put himself in position for the QB to throw him a "catchable ball" so its not all on McCoy, but quite obviously Little would have a much better catch % with Brady than McCoy...

 

[Tau837]

I'm curious how many other WRs targets are uncatchable. Where could those stats be found?

Its one of the Premium stats over at PFF, they have something called Drop Rate which takes into account catchable balls, not just targets and receptions. But its a pay site so I'm not going to post their numbers here, but all you really need to do is take someones targets and subtract out receptions + drops and you'll see how many "uncatchable balls" there were.For Little, FBG has him at 120 targets, he had 61 receptions and 14 drops so 45 were uncatchable. Best catch% he could have gotten was 62.5% with 0 drops (I don't know why I had 59% in my head must have been using a different target # since that seems to differ on many sites).Vs. say a guy like Welker who had 173 targets, 122 receptions, 13 drops so he could have gotten as high as a 78% catch % with 0 drops. 78% of his balls were "catchable" vs. 62.5% for Little. Now don't get me wrong, Little had a miserable season in terms of drops, everyone else that had double digit drops had more targets than he did. So his "drop rate" was still miserable, one of the worst in the league, I was just pointing out that when people use "catch %" to extrapolate out projected receptions, catch rate will be affected by the QB play, Drop Rate is all on the WR.Little's drop rate was 18.6% 14 drops on 75 catchable balls. But if 78% of his targets were catchable like Welker, he would have had 94 catchable balls instead of 75 so even with a miserable 18.6% drop rate, he'd be looking at 77 receptions and 17 drops instead of 61 receptions and 14 drops. 77 receptions on 120 targets would have had him at a respectable 64% catch rate despite still having a miserable drop rate. That's why I think Drop Rate is a much more important stat than catch% when evaluating a WRs play. You still need catch% to come up with your projections because obviously the QB is going to affect that greatly, but I don't think its fair to compare 2 WRs based on catch rate when they obviously have different QBs throwing them the ball.Is also not as black and white as the stats, some of it certainly falls on the WR to put himself in position for the QB to throw him a "catchable ball" so its not all on McCoy, but quite obviously Little would have a much better catch % with Brady than McCoy...

I agree this is the methodology used by PFF, but I'm not sure I buy completely into how you are using it here. Obviously, all catches were catchable balls. So all they are doing is adding the drops, where drops are presumably balls that the receiver got his hands on but did not catch and should have (e.g., "should have caught it with normal effort", not unlike how errors are ruled in baseball).But here are examples that won't be flagged as catchable balls with this methodology:1. Receiver ran the wrong route, ran it too slow, ran it too shallow/deep, got bumped off the route by the defender, etc., but a catchable ball was thrown to the right spot at the right time.2. Receiver could/should have made the play but it was not judged to be a "normal effort" kind of play and thus not a drop.3. Receiver did not get both feet down in bounds but could/should have.4. Pass was broken up by the defender in a situation where the receiver could/should have come back to the ball or otherwise shielded off the defender.5. Receiver was hit as he made the catch and the ball was dislodged, when he could/should have held onto it.6. Receiver did not get his head around in time to see/adjust to the ball (e.g., on a hot read).I would expect that a veteran like Welker would have many fewer instances of these than any rookie WR, but particularly one who has questionable hands and route running skills. Not sure how valid it is to draw conclusions other than drop rate from the catchable balls tracking at PFF the way it is done now.

 

[NJ]

I agree this is the methodology used by PFF, but I'm not sure I buy completely into how you are using it here. Obviously, all catches were catchable balls. So all they are doing is adding the drops, where drops are presumably balls that the receiver got his hands on but did not catch and should have (e.g., "should have caught it with normal effort", not unlike how errors are ruled in baseball).But here are examples that won't be flagged as catchable balls with this methodology:1. Receiver ran the wrong route, ran it too slow, ran it too shallow/deep, got bumped off the route by the defender, etc.2. Receiver could/should have made the play but it was not judged to be a "normal effort" kind of play and thus not a drop.3. Receiver did not get both feet down in bounds but could/should have.4. Pass was broken up by the defender in a situation where the receiver could/should have come back to the ball or otherwise shielded off the defender.5. Receiver was hit as he made the catch and the ball was dislodged, when he could/should have held onto it.I would expect that a veteran like Welker would have many fewer instances of these than any rookie WR, but particularly one who has questionable hands and route running skills. Not sure how valid it is to draw conclusions other than drop rate from the catchable balls tracking at PFF the way it is done now.

I agree with some of what you're saying, i.e. receiver not properly running the route, etc. and thats why I ended what I said by saying some of the "uncatchable" balls will actually fall on the WR. It was wrong of me to say the best catch rate he could have had was 62% because I'm sure there were things he could have done to get himself in better position at times. But things like "he could have made the catch but it was not a "normal effort" in a lot of cases is going to probably be a poor throw. And I would hope that a case where the receiver clearly "should have" held onto a ball but didn't would be a ruled a drop? Or if he "should have" gotten 2 feet in bounds but didn't that probably should be ruled a "catchable" ball. But I don't know the exacty criteria they use to determine what's "catchable" and what is "uncatchable" and what is a drop but they actually have a column in their stats called "uncatchable" so it would kind of make their stats useless for them to label a ball "uncatchable" if it clearly should have been caught.At any rate, regardless of their exact methodology of determining catchable vs. uncatchable, there is no doubt that a better QB is going to help the catch rate% of a WR. The obvious counter argument to all this is that catch% does not take into account all of the times a QB misses a wide open WR, overthrows him, underthrows him, puts him in a position where he has to make a difficult off balanced catch when it should have been an easy catch and run, etc. How much a QB affects catch% is certainly debateable, but its definitely a factor. It's also debateable whether Weeden is actually an upgrade, but I can't imagine someone being much worse than McCoy was last year unless they trade for Gabbert.

 

[Tau837]

I agree with some of what you're saying, i.e. receiver not properly running the route, etc. and thats why I ended what I said by saying some of the "uncatchable" balls will actually fall on the WR. It was wrong of me to say the best catch rate he could have had was 62% because I'm sure there were things he could have done to get himself in better position at times. But things like "he could have made the catch but it was not a "normal effort" in a lot of cases is going to probably be a poor throw. And I would hope that a case where the receiver clearly "should have" held onto a ball but didn't would be a ruled a drop? Or if he "should have" gotten 2 feet in bounds but didn't that probably should be ruled a "catchable" ball. But I don't know the exacty criteria they use to determine what's "catchable" and what is "uncatchable" and what is a drop but they actually have a column in their stats called "uncatchable" so it would kind of make their stats useless for them to label a ball "uncatchable" if it clearly should have been caught.

I think you are probably overestimating how many of these situations would be classified as drops.

At any rate, regardless of their exact methodology of determining catchable vs. uncatchable, there is no doubt that a better QB is going to help the catch rate% of a WR. The obvious counter argument to all this is that catch% does not take into account all of the times a QB misses a wide open WR, overthrows him, underthrows him, puts him in a position where he has to make a difficult off balanced catch when it should have been an easy catch and run, etc. How much a QB affects catch% is certainly debateable, but its definitely a factor. It's also debateable whether Weeden is actually an upgrade, but I can't imagine someone being much worse than McCoy was last year unless they trade for Gabbert.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

For an FYI, FBG staffers have these 4 projections for Little:

70 900 4

68 865 5

64 787 5

52 648 2

 

[Fensalk]

As a general rule, I always project DOWN slightly WRs who change to unproven QBs. This is because there are a number of pitfalls:

1. The unproven QB is at high risk of not being very good.

2. The unproven QB may have other favorite targets.

3. The offense system may change in unexpected ways to give the WR in question less opportunities.

4. The unproven QB is at high risk of getting benched - and the other QB may not be good either, and the entire offense will stink.

Last year was 61/709/2. I'd go with 55/590/3

 

[Alex P Keaton]

As a general rule, I always project DOWN slightly WRs who change to unproven QBs. This is because there are a number of pitfalls:1. The unproven QB is at high risk of not being very good.2. The unproven QB may have other favorite targets.3. The offense system may change in unexpected ways to give the WR in question less opportunities.4. The unproven QB is at high risk of getting benched - and the other QB may not be good either, and the entire offense will stink.Last year was 61/709/2. I'd go with 55/590/3

Do you still project DOWN when the WR is changing from a proven-to-be-bad QB to an unproven QB? That seems like very odd logic.

 

[Fensalk]

As a general rule, I always project DOWN slightly WRs who change to unproven QBs. This is because there are a number of pitfalls:1. The unproven QB is at high risk of not being very good.2. The unproven QB may have other favorite targets.3. The offense system may change in unexpected ways to give the WR in question less opportunities.4. The unproven QB is at high risk of getting benched - and the other QB may not be good either, and the entire offense will stink.Last year was 61/709/2. I'd go with 55/590/3

Do you still project DOWN when the WR is changing from a proven-to-be-bad QB to an unproven QB? That seems like very odd logic.

Marginally. We don't really know that Weeden can even compete at this level. There's lots of guys who did absolutely nothing, like Leaf, Leinart, Brady Quinn, Gabbert, Couch, Akili Smith....I could go on forever.

 

[Fensalk]

We have no idea is Shurmur can call plays or if Shurmur can even coach at this level. We have no idea if Weeden can be a QB at this level. We have no idea if Little can be a WR at this level. Most guys probably ought to have projections raised. Its harder to find situations where you project down for young players. But YES I will say...project DOWN.

 

[amicsta]

As a general rule, I always project DOWN slightly WRs who change to unproven QBs. This is because there are a number of pitfalls:1. The unproven QB is at high risk of not being very good.2. The unproven QB may have other favorite targets.3. The offense system may change in unexpected ways to give the WR in question less opportunities.4. The unproven QB is at high risk of getting benched - and the other QB may not be good either, and the entire offense will stink.Last year was 61/709/2. I'd go with 55/590/3

I understand your points here, but sometimes unproven QBs will just lock in on a certain player and throw to him no matter what. My favorite example was Gus Frerotte who in 2003, while filling in for the injured Daunte Culpepper, targeted Randy Moss early and often. I still remember the highlights; double teams, triple teams, it didnt matter, Frerotte was going to Moss. More recently, we saw an unproven John Skelton BOOST Larry Fitzgerald's value simply because he was aggressive down the field and was unafraid to throw to Fitz in any situation.Now please do not mistake me for saying that Little is anywhere near as good as either of these players. My point is simply that sometimes the new quarterback whos "unproven" can help a WR with aggressiveness and willingness to throw to a particular player. With Colt McCoy at the helm, Little was targeted plenty, but how many of those were down the field where he excels? I could't find his aDOT anywhere, but I would imagine it to not be very high. Now with Weeden, while we certainly don't know if he will develop this kind of blatent aggression for Little in particular, we do know from his game tape that he is an aggressive QB by nature (ask Justin Blackmon). So while Weeden may be "unproven" he is probably a better fit for Little's play style and skills, even if he ends up being a below average NFL quarterback.

 

[Lavachebeadsman]

As a general rule, I always project DOWN slightly WRs who change to unproven QBs. This is because there are a number of pitfalls:1. The unproven QB is at high risk of not being very good.2. The unproven QB may have other favorite targets.3. The offense system may change in unexpected ways to give the WR in question less opportunities.4. The unproven QB is at high risk of getting benched - and the other QB may not be good either, and the entire offense will stink.Last year was 61/709/2. I'd go with 55/590/3

I understand your points here, but sometimes unproven QBs will just lock in on a certain player and throw to him no matter what. My favorite example was Gus Frerotte who in 2003, while filling in for the injured Daunte Culpepper, targeted Randy Moss early and often. I still remember the highlights; double teams, triple teams, it didnt matter, Frerotte was going to Moss. More recently, we saw an unproven John Skelton BOOST Larry Fitzgerald's value simply because he was aggressive down the field and was unafraid to throw to Fitz in any situation.Now please do not mistake me for saying that Little is anywhere near as good as either of these players. My point is simply that sometimes the new quarterback whos "unproven" can help a WR with aggressiveness and willingness to throw to a particular player. With Colt McCoy at the helm, Little was targeted plenty, but how many of those were down the field where he excels? I could't find his aDOT anywhere, but I would imagine it to not be very high. Now with Weeden, while we certainly don't know if he will develop this kind of blatent aggression for Little in particular, we do know from his game tape that he is an aggressive QB by nature (ask Justin Blackmon). So while Weeden may be "unproven" he is probably a better fit for Little's play style and skills, even if he ends up being a below average NFL quarterback.

Great point. If Weeden decides that he is going to lock on to Little, his value goes through the rough and it certainly is a plausible scenario. Little is the most talented wide out on the roster. At OSU, Weeden locked on to Blackmon like a creepy old man on an ### in yoga pants. If we see the situation duplicated,Little is in for huge things.

 

[sspunisher]

I think the reason I get frustrated with this thread is because I'm convinced some people don't realize how much blame the Browns QBs should be shouldering, and the main reason for that is because they didn't watch the games.

If you didn't watch any Browns games and just look at the Browns QB stats: You see a positive TD/INT ratio and a combined 3300 yards so it's logical to assume they were average or mediocre QBs. Their stats aren't THAT bad on paper unless you understand how to compare less common stats like yards per attempt. But the point is that the stats don't do justice to how bad the QBs in Cleveland were playing last year unless you really dig into them. This is why Holmgren was so desperate to get RGIII, and yes, even his consolation prize Brandon Weeden is an upgrade.

Of all the stats I can use to prove my point, I think the most telling is passes thrown beyond 20 yards. Only 13 of Little's 121 targets were beyond 20 yards. Think about what that means for a second. Those 13 targets beyond 20 yards don't only take into account hail mary passes, or deep playaction bombs. They also include a simple 20 yard post pattern or corner route.

13 targets beyond 20 yards is not even one per game. Vincent Brown had 14 passes thrown at him beyond 20 yards and he had about 80 less targets than Little. When compared with players who have a similiar number of targets, Little should have had about 30 or so passes thrown to him beyond the 20 yard mark. These numbers aren't an indication of Little's ability as a downfield threat. They are more directly related to McCoy's inability to get the ball downfield. And if you've watched Weeden throw the ball in college, you'd know he will be a huge upgrade in this department.

 

[r3t2]

I think the reason I get frustrated with this thread is because I'm convinced some people don't realize how much blame the Browns QBs should be shouldering, and the main reason for that is because they didn't watch the games.

If you didn't watch any Browns games and just look at the Browns QB stats: You see a positive TD/INT ratio and a combined 3300 yards so it's logical to assume they were average or mediocre QBs. Their stats aren't THAT bad on paper unless you understand how to compare less common stats like yards per attempt. But the point is that the stats don't do justice to how bad the QBs in Cleveland were playing last year unless you really dig into them. This is why Holmgren was so desperate to get RGIII, and yes, even his consolation prize Brandon Weeden is an upgrade.

Of all the stats I can use to prove my point, I think the most telling is passes thrown beyond 20 yards. Only 13 of Little's 121 targets were beyond 20 yards. Think about what that means for a second. Those 13 targets beyond 20 yards don't only take into account hail mary passes, or deep playaction bombs. They also include a simple 20 yard post pattern or corner route.

13 targets beyond 20 yards is not even one per game. Vincent Brown had 14 passes thrown at him beyond 20 yards and he had about 80 less targets than Little. When compared with players who have a similiar number of targets, Little should have had about 30 or so passes thrown to him beyond the 20 yard mark. These numbers aren't an indication of Little's ability as a downfield threat. They are more directly related to McCoy's inability to get the ball downfield. And if you've watched Weeden throw the ball in college, you'd know he will be a huge upgrade in this department.

THIS!

as a steeler fan, i am really gonna miss colt mccoy. so much of their playbook was off the table because mccoy simply could not make those throws. i'll give him credit: the kid is tough. but he's really bad. when seneca wallace came in for him last year he took the team right down the field. it was night and day. luckily colt got back in the game and threw an interception in the red zone. ANYONE is an upgrade. i don't care what the stats say, you have to watch the games. and believe me, i understand most people probably avoided watching cleveland, but you can't just extrapolate and project based on numbers.

 

[Abspara]

I think the reason I get frustrated with this thread is because I'm convinced some people don't realize how much blame the Browns QBs should be shouldering, and the main reason for that is because they didn't watch the games.

If you didn't watch any Browns games and just look at the Browns QB stats: You see a positive TD/INT ratio and a combined 3300 yards so it's logical to assume they were average or mediocre QBs. Their stats aren't THAT bad on paper unless you understand how to compare less common stats like yards per attempt. But the point is that the stats don't do justice to how bad the QBs in Cleveland were playing last year unless you really dig into them. This is why Holmgren was so desperate to get RGIII, and yes, even his consolation prize Brandon Weeden is an upgrade.

Of all the stats I can use to prove my point, I think the most telling is passes thrown beyond 20 yards. Only 13 of Little's 121 targets were beyond 20 yards. Think about what that means for a second. Those 13 targets beyond 20 yards don't only take into account hail mary passes, or deep playaction bombs. They also include a simple 20 yard post pattern or corner route.

13 targets beyond 20 yards is not even one per game. Vincent Brown had 14 passes thrown at him beyond 20 yards and he had about 80 less targets than Little. When compared with players who have a similiar number of targets, Little should have had about 30 or so passes thrown to him beyond the 20 yard mark. These numbers aren't an indication of Little's ability as a downfield threat. They are more directly related to McCoy's inability to get the ball downfield. And if you've watched Weeden throw the ball in college, you'd know he will be a huge upgrade in this department.

THIS!

as a steeler fan, i am really gonna miss colt mccoy. so much of their playbook was off the table because mccoy simply could not make those throws. i'll give him credit: the kid is tough. but he's really bad. when seneca wallace came in for him last year he took the team right down the field. it was night and day. luckily colt got back in the game and threw an interception in the red zone. ANYONE is an upgrade. i don't care what the stats say, you have to watch the games. and believe me, i understand most people probably avoided watching cleveland, but you can't just extrapolate and project based on numbers.

I think that's what some people are not considering is just how bad of a QB Cleveland had last year. If Weeden is half the QB that his resume displays, he will still be an upgrade over McCoy.

Little has his share of issues, but there's no reason to not assume that he will improve his numbers over last years attempts, especially since all offseason reports show he's working hard on his game and trying to improve all aspects of his play.

 

[Tau837]

With Colt McCoy at the helm, Little was targeted plenty, but how many of those were down the field where he excels?

Why do you say Little excels down the field?

 

[Tau837]

If Weeden decides that he is going to lock on to Little, his value goes through the rough and it certainly is a plausible scenario. Little is the most talented wide out on the roster. At OSU, Weeden locked on to Blackmon like a creepy old man on an ### in yoga pants. If we see the situation duplicated,Little is in for huge things.

Little had 120 targets last year. Just how many do you think he's going to get if Weeden locks onto him?

 

[Monsters of the Midway]

With Colt McCoy at the helm, Little was targeted plenty, but how many of those were down the field where he excels?

Why do you say Little excels down the field?

I'm probably too dependent on Matt Waldman, but he described Little as having those characteristics in the 2011 RSP. I don't know if his opinion has changed since then but he specifically described Little as a "Deep Threat" and also in the YAC attack section describing guys who can take a short pass a long way. Though that has nothing to do with being a deep threat does it More to the point, under Separation, which briefly described as "skills and techniques involved with gaining distance from an opponent assigned to coverage. Two contributing factors are speed and acceleration" Waldman lists Little as Starter Caliber-behind AJ Green and Denarius Moore, in a group of 13(!) behind them.Did I mention that the RSP is freakin' fantastic? Waldman compared Little to Anquan Boldin and Dez Bryant. That's a fine ceiling I'd say.Seems to me that Little is a talented but raw guy in a bad offense. So depending on your risk/reward characteristics and draft as it's happening-say you're in trouble at WR maybe you take an early pick on Little for upside-then he seems to make sense.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

As a general rule, I always project DOWN slightly WRs who change to unproven QBs. This is because there are a number of pitfalls:1. The unproven QB is at high risk of not being very good.2. The unproven QB may have other favorite targets.3. The offense system may change in unexpected ways to give the WR in question less opportunities.4. The unproven QB is at high risk of getting benched - and the other QB may not be good either, and the entire offense will stink.Last year was 61/709/2. I'd go with 55/590/3

Do you still project DOWN when the WR is changing from a proven-to-be-bad QB to an unproven QB? That seems like very odd logic.

Marginally. We don't really know that Weeden can even compete at this level. There's lots of guys who did absolutely nothing, like Leaf, Leinart, Brady Quinn, Gabbert, Couch, Akili Smith....I could go on forever.

Right - we don't know if Weeden can compete at this level. But we DO know that Colt can NOT compete at this level. In other words, minimal downside for Weeden relative to Colt. Really struggling to understand your logic as it applies to a guy taking over for Colt. I do get your point more broadly - it just doesn't happen to apply to a guy taking over for one of the worst starting QBs of the last decade.

 

[NJ]

Really struggling to understand your logic as it applies to a guy taking over for Colt. I do get your point more broadly - it just doesn't happen to apply to a guy taking over for one of the worst starting QBs of the last decade.

It's perfectly sound logic to project down for a WR that is going to be getting an unproven QB, but that only really makes sense if he was working with a proven QB the prior year. Not every theory applies to every single situation and in this situation, the QB cannot get any worse, there isn't much downside to Weeden because McCoy was atrocious, Weeden's likely going to either be just as bad, or better, but not worse.

 

[Fensalk]

Really struggling to understand your logic as it applies to a guy taking over for Colt. I do get your point more broadly - it just doesn't happen to apply to a guy taking over for one of the worst starting QBs of the last decade.

It's perfectly sound logic to project down for a WR that is going to be getting an unproven QB, but that only really makes sense if he was working with a proven QB the prior year. Not every theory applies to every single situation and in this situation, the QB cannot get any worse, there isn't much downside to Weeden because McCoy was atrocious, Weeden's likely going to either be just as bad, or better, but not worse.

If you've watched the Browns as long as I have, and seen things like every QB on the roster get benched, cut, and injured, and WR Kevin Johnson having to play QB, you know it can get worse than Colt McCoy.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Really struggling to understand your logic as it applies to a guy taking over for Colt. I do get your point more broadly - it just doesn't happen to apply to a guy taking over for one of the worst starting QBs of the last decade.

It's perfectly sound logic to project down for a WR that is going to be getting an unproven QB, but that only really makes sense if he was working with a proven QB the prior year. Not every theory applies to every single situation and in this situation, the QB cannot get any worse, there isn't much downside to Weeden because McCoy was atrocious, Weeden's likely going to either be just as bad, or better, but not worse.

If you've watched the Browns as long as I have, and seen things like every QB on the roster get benched, cut, and injured, and WR Kevin Johnson having to play QB, you know it can get worse than Colt McCoy.

Fair enough! It must be tough to be a Browns fan! I have fond memories of visiting Cleveland a few years back to watch the Packers-Browns face off. Cleveland fans were very friendly before the game.....but practically everyone we talked with said "you guys should have a really easy win today." Gotta love the confidence.....

 

[Biabreakable]

Really struggling to understand your logic as it applies to a guy taking over for Colt. I do get your point more broadly - it just doesn't happen to apply to a guy taking over for one of the worst starting QBs of the last decade.

It's perfectly sound logic to project down for a WR that is going to be getting an unproven QB, but that only really makes sense if he was working with a proven QB the prior year. Not every theory applies to every single situation and in this situation, the QB cannot get any worse, there isn't much downside to Weeden because McCoy was atrocious, Weeden's likely going to either be just as bad, or better, but not worse.

If you've watched the Browns as long as I have, and seen things like every QB on the roster get benched, cut, and injured, and WR Kevin Johnson having to play QB, you know it can get worse than Colt McCoy.

The Browns have been a bad team for as long as I can remember. Kosar is the best QB I can recall and that was a long time ago. The Browns have not had a player that interested me for so long that doing projections for them is something I wouldn't bother with. Waste of time.That changed when they drafted Richardson.I am thinking Childress may have sold the Walrus on ways the Vikings used Harlan, and maybe Little will get that role? I would think Josh Cribs would be in that mix as well. I am not expecting an increase in passing attempts for the Browns however with a rookie QB and a focus on the running game and helping the defense while reducing mistakes. This will be frustrating for fans at times because Childress is very committed to the running game regardless of how predictable it becomes. I was looking at how the Browns had 570 pass attempts last season which is a lot more than the 478 pass attempts in 2010 when they had a productive running game with Hillis. In 2009 they had 443 passing attempts in Jamal Lewis's last season. If I averaged those 3 seasons that would be 497 passing attempts. I actually expect this number to be lower than that despite the Browns being forced to throw the ball. This is going to be a run 1st team.If there were not so much change happening in Cleveland I would normally give more weight to the most recent seasons stats as a guide to what may be most likely to happen again this season. But in this case I think that would lead your projections to have too many passing attempts. This team is going to run the ball.As Childress is the new OC I decided to look at Viking offenses from his 1st 3 years with them as a guideline for how his influence on the team might change the distribution. The Vikings averaged 475 passing attempts during Childress's 1st 3 seasons as HC.I also noticed that the Browns have had many rushing attempts against them. Because they have been a bad team. However the Steelers will not have Mendenhall to rely on this season and the Bengals have let Benson go. So I do not see those teams running the ball as much or being as effective doing so against the Browns this season. The Ravens offensive line is aging and they lost Suggs to injury. I do not see this division as being quite as imposing for the Browns this year. The more they run and control the clock the less garbage runs the opposing team will be able to muster and the Browns can try to keep scores closer, maybe even win some games. The Rams and Lions were terrible for a long time too.So I decided to go with 486 passing attempts 437 rushing attempts from RB with another 30-40 QB runs for the distribution. But I am still trying to school myself on the Browns weapons and how that pie might be divided.

 

[Tau837]

Really struggling to understand your logic as it applies to a guy taking over for Colt. I do get your point more broadly - it just doesn't happen to apply to a guy taking over for one of the worst starting QBs of the last decade.

It's perfectly sound logic to project down for a WR that is going to be getting an unproven QB, but that only really makes sense if he was working with a proven QB the prior year. Not every theory applies to every single situation and in this situation, the QB cannot get any worse, there isn't much downside to Weeden because McCoy was atrocious, Weeden's likely going to either be just as bad, or better, but not worse.

If you've watched the Browns as long as I have, and seen things like every QB on the roster get benched, cut, and injured, and WR Kevin Johnson having to play QB, you know it can get worse than Colt McCoy.

The Browns have been a bad team for as long as I can remember. Kosar is the best QB I can recall and that was a long time ago. The Browns have not had a player that interested me for so long that doing projections for them is something I wouldn't bother with. Waste of time.That changed when they drafted Richardson.I am thinking Childress may have sold the Walrus on ways the Vikings used Harlan, and maybe Little will get that role? I would think Josh Cribs would be in that mix as well. I am not expecting an increase in passing attempts for the Browns however with a rookie QB and a focus on the running game and helping the defense while reducing mistakes. This will be frustrating for fans at times because Childress is very committed to the running game regardless of how predictable it becomes. I was looking at how the Browns had 570 pass attempts last season which is a lot more than the 478 pass attempts in 2010 when they had a productive running game with Hillis. In 2009 they had 443 passing attempts in Jamal Lewis's last season. If I averaged those 3 seasons that would be 497 passing attempts. I actually expect this number to be lower than that despite the Browns being forced to throw the ball. This is going to be a run 1st team.If there were not so much change happening in Cleveland I would normally give more weight to the most recent seasons stats as a guide to what may be most likely to happen again this season. But in this case I think that would lead your projections to have too many passing attempts. This team is going to run the ball.As Childress is the new OC I decided to look at Viking offenses from his 1st 3 years with them as a guideline for how his influence on the team might change the distribution. The Vikings averaged 475 passing attempts during Childress's 1st 3 seasons as HC.I also noticed that the Browns have had many rushing attempts against them. Because they have been a bad team. However the Steelers will not have Mendenhall to rely on this season and the Bengals have let Benson go. So I do not see those teams running the ball as much or being as effective doing so against the Browns this season. The Ravens offensive line is aging and they lost Suggs to injury. I do not see this division as being quite as imposing for the Browns this year. The more they run and control the clock the less garbage runs the opposing team will be able to muster and the Browns can try to keep scores closer, maybe even win some games. The Rams and Lions were terrible for a long time too.So I decided to go with 486 passing attempts 437 rushing attempts from RB with another 30-40 QB runs for the distribution. But I am still trying to school myself on the Browns weapons and how that pie might be divided.

This is a great post. I'm not saying I agree (or disagree) with the numbers, but this sort of thought process is what I was getting at when earlier in the thread I was asking people how often they expect the Browns to pass and for how many yards and TDs. There is likely to be a smaller pie in the passing game, which may very well negate any efficiency gains from a passing perspective.

 

[NJ]

If you've watched the Browns as long as I have, and seen things like every QB on the roster get benched, cut, and injured, and WR Kevin Johnson having to play QB, you know it can get worse than Colt McCoy.

Well of course things CAN get worse, anything CAN happen, aliens could come down and give Weeden an anal probe, but its not very likely. What % chance would you give it that Weeden is worse that McCoy, how about % likely he's better, how about the % likely he's the same? Unless you think the % chance that he'll be worse than McCoy is >50% then I don't understand the reason for projecting down based on the QB change. Even if you think its most likely Weeden is just the same and not better or worse, then it still doesn't make sense to project down for Little (at least not due to QB play, there are other reasons someone could make the case to project down for Little, but QB play should NOT be one of them based on what he had to work with last season).

 

[jurb26]

If you've watched the Browns as long as I have, and seen things like every QB on the roster get benched, cut, and injured, and WR Kevin Johnson having to play QB, you know it can get worse than Colt McCoy.

Well of course things CAN get worse, anything CAN happen, aliens could come down and give Weeden an anal probe, but its not very likely. What % chance would you give it that Weeden is worse that McCoy, how about % likely he's better, how about the % likely he's the same? Unless you think the % chance that he'll be worse than McCoy is >50% then I don't understand the reason for projecting down based on the QB change. Even if you think its most likely Weeden is just the same and not better or worse, then it still doesn't make sense to project down for Little (at least not due to QB play, there are other reasons someone could make the case to project down for Little, but QB play should NOT be one of them based on what he had to work with last season).

I'd say the chance of Weeden being worse than McCoy is 5% or less. The chance he is just as bad is 5% or less. The chance he is marginally better is 50% or less. The chance he is noticeably better is 30% or less. The chance he is substantially better is 10% or less.McCoy was awful.

 

[sspunisher]

My expectations for Weeden are pretty simple. He'll struggle a lot with pressure, particularly up the middle since it requires him to react faster. Since the AFC North is a defensive division, they'll definitely throw some tricky coverages and blitzes at him to confuse him. We'll definitely see some bad INTs due to clever NFL schemes, and we'll also see some INTs as a result of him getting flustered with the pressure or taking a hit as he throws. Throw a good amount of sack fumbles to boot, I fully expect Weeden to turn the ball over more than McCoy did. He'll also probably have way more bad throws than McCoy did and most definitely more interceptions. But what needs to be understood is that McCoy wasn't necessarily making bad throws. He just wasn't making great throws, he wasn't even making what I'd consider good throws. He was playing it safe the entire year as evidenced by his low YPA and a super pedestrian 14 TDs to 11 INTs.

Weeden has way more gunslinger in him than McCoy does. He'll make up for a lot of his mistakes with some great intermediate and deep balls, and he often puts them in a very nice location for his WRs to run after the catch. Even though I'm expecting more INTs and turnovers in general, I absolutely have to expect more TDs from Weeden, and this is a combination of his stronger arm, Richardson's presence, and Little having another year under his belt.

But what I like most about Weeden was what I saw in the Fiesta Bowl. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Stanford missed a field goal in overtime and when OU had the ball a simple FG would have won it. But on 2nd and 10 with the team well within field goal range, the coaches had faith in Weeden to throw the ball. And this wasn't just some safe pass to set up an easier field goal, it was an absolute 20 yard laser beam on a post pattern across the middle. That's not exactly the safest pass and I love love freakin love that the coaches had faith in the guy to throw that kind of a pass with the game on the line. Weeden will potentially make a lot of bad plays this year, but even if he just shows flashes in his rookie year, it'll be way more than McCoy showed last year.

 

[Fensalk]

What % chance would you give it that Weeden is worse that McCoy, how about % likely he's better, how about the % likely he's the same?

Well, Weeden was taken VERY close to round 2. We have lists of QBs selected in the second round to compare Weeden to:Second-round quarterbacks since Brees:

Andy Dalton (Bengals), 2011

Colin Kaepernick (49ers), 2011

Jimmy Clausen (Panthers), 2010

Pat White (Dolphins), 2009

Brian Brohm (Packers), 2008

Chad Henne (Dolphins), 2008

Kevin Kolb (Eagles), 2007

John Beck (Dolphins), 2007

Drew Stanton (Lions), 2007

Kellen Clemens (Jets), 2006

Tarvaris Jackson (Vikings), 2006

Second-round quarterbacks between Brees and Favre:

Quincy Carter (Cowboys), 2001 - 34 starts

Marques Tuiasosopo (Raiders), 2001 - 2 starts

Shaun King (Bucs), 1999 - 24 starts

Charlie Batch (Lions), 1998 - 53 starts

Jake Plummer (Cardinals) - 136 starts

Tony Banks (Rams), 1996 - 78 starts

Todd Collins (Bills), 1995 - 21 starts

Kordell Stewart (Steelers), 1995 - 87 starts, career 77:84 TD-to-INT ratio

Matt Blundin (Chiefs), 1992 - 0 starts

Tony Sacca (Cardinals), 1992 - 0 starts

I think I'll be generous and say Weeden stands a 33% chance of being better than Colt McCoy in his first year. Remember, even if he is worse than McCoy, he may still play because this is a developmental year for him. He's just trying to learn the NFL at this point, not set the world on fire. There's a very high chance he will do nothing in the NFL.

 

[Fensalk]

My fear with Weeden right now is the fanbase may be just tired of losing and has bought into the hype a little bit. Odds are he will struggle and so will the team, so those fans who bought in to Project Weeden will reverse their position and loathe the guy, which won't be fair to him either.

I'm not expecting much from Weeden or the pass offense until the 2014 season.

 

[NJ]

I think I'll be generous and say Weeden stands a 33% chance of being better than Colt McCoy in his first year.

ok, and what % chance would you say there is that Weeden plays worse than McCoy? I'm assuming there is a high % chance that they are equal i.e. both suck.

 

[Fensalk]

I think I'll be generous and say Weeden stands a 33% chance of being better than Colt McCoy in his first year.

ok, and what % chance would you say there is that Weeden plays worse than McCoy? I'm assuming there is a high % chance that they are equal i.e. both suck.

Well I think there's a difference in the wording there. I said "being better" and you said "plays better". Your wording excludes the fact that he could get injured, which is one of the issues. We don't know how durable he will be at the NFL level, in the physical AFC North.

 

[Warrior]

As a general rule, I always project DOWN slightly WRs who change to unproven QBs. This is because there are a number of pitfalls:1. The unproven QB is at high risk of not being very good.2. The unproven QB may have other favorite targets.3. The offense system may change in unexpected ways to give the WR in question less opportunities.4. The unproven QB is at high risk of getting benched - and the other QB may not be good either, and the entire offense will stink.Last year was 61/709/2. I'd go with 55/590/3

Do you still project DOWN when the WR is changing from a proven-to-be-bad QB to an unproven QB? That seems like very odd logic.

Marginally. We don't really know that Weeden can even compete at this level. There's lots of guys who did absolutely nothing, like Leaf, Leinart, Brady Quinn, Gabbert, Couch, Akili Smith....I could go on forever.

And there's "lots of guys" who DID have good rookie seasons. What's your point?I agree that it's faulty logic to downgrade a WR when they are likely getting an upgrade at QB. Are you downgrading a guy like Santana Moss from last season's numbers because the Redskins are 'downgrading' from Grossman to RG3 too?

 

[NJ]

Well I think there's a difference in the wording there. I said "being better" and you said "plays better". Your wording excludes the fact that he could get injured, which is one of the issues. We don't know how durable he will be at the NFL level, in the physical AFC North.

Good god man, you are twisting everything. Lets throw out specific QBs altogether then, answer this, do you think the QB play from the Browns in 2012 is MORE LIKELY to be worse than it was in 2011? If not, then there is no reason to project DOWN for Little based on QB play. Never mind being generous with 33% likely he's better, lets say its only 15% likely that the QB play is better and 15% likely the QB play is worse, that leaves 70% likely the QB play stays the same = ####ty. That means its 85% likely the QB play will be the same or better which is not a reason to PROJECT DOWN based on the QB change.

 

[Fensalk]

Well I think there's a difference in the wording there. I said "being better" and you said "plays better". Your wording excludes the fact that he could get injured, which is one of the issues. We don't know how durable he will be at the NFL level, in the physical AFC North.

Good god man, you are twisting everything. Lets throw out specific QBs altogether then, answer this, do you think the QB play from the Browns in 2012 is MORE LIKELY to be worse than it was in 2011? If not, then there is no reason to project DOWN for Little based on QB play. Never mind being generous with 33% likely he's better, lets say its only 15% likely that the QB play is better and 15% likely the QB play is worse, that leaves 70% likely the QB play stays the same = ####ty. That means its 85% likely the QB play will be the same or better which is not a reason to PROJECT DOWN based on the QB change.

Yes I think it is more likely the QB play will be worse this year. Brutal schedule, rookie QB. Its much more likely than not that Weeden cannot play at this level, but they may let him play the entire year even if he stinks just to try to develop him. They may endure any unforeseen growing pains. They've invested in him.

 

[amicsta]

You are missing the point. This is fantasy football, its a statistics based game. As far as Greg Little goes, it doesnt matter if Weeden ever ends up being a viable NFL QB. What matters is how his play affects Greg Little, and from that standpoint, the odds are quite high that Weeden is better. McCoy couldnt get the ball down the field and as ive already said, thats supposed to be where Little excels

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

You are missing the point. This is fantasy football, its a statistics based game. As far as Greg Little goes, it doesnt matter if Weeden ever ends up being a viable NFL QB. What matters is how his play affects Greg Little, and from that standpoint, the odds are quite high that Weeden is better. McCoy couldnt get the ball down the field and as ive already said, thats supposed to be where Little excels

I'm really not seeing this. I know someone posted that in the RSP Matt Waldman said something regarding it, but I've never came to that conclusion.1) His rookie year YPC=11.6

2) His long catch on the year was on a busted play where the defense lost him. Outside of a couple of seam passes, I didn't see many routes downfield...hitch/slant/out/crossing pattern.

3) Cribbs/Massaquoi had almost a full YPC better than Little.

4) His final college season YPC=11.7

5) Plays in an NFL offense on based on short timing routes.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

Really struggling to understand your logic as it applies to a guy taking over for Colt. I do get your point more broadly - it just doesn't happen to apply to a guy taking over for one of the worst starting QBs of the last decade.

It's perfectly sound logic to project down for a WR that is going to be getting an unproven QB, but that only really makes sense if he was working with a proven QB the prior year. Not every theory applies to every single situation and in this situation, the QB cannot get any worse, there isn't much downside to Weeden because McCoy was atrocious, Weeden's likely going to either be just as bad, or better, but not worse.

If you've watched the Browns as long as I have, and seen things like every QB on the roster get benched, cut, and injured, and WR Kevin Johnson having to play QB, you know it can get worse than Colt McCoy.

The Browns have been a bad team for as long as I can remember. Kosar is the best QB I can recall and that was a long time ago. The Browns have not had a player that interested me for so long that doing projections for them is something I wouldn't bother with. Waste of time.That changed when they drafted Richardson.I am thinking Childress may have sold the Walrus on ways the Vikings used Harlan, and maybe Little will get that role? I would think Josh Cribs would be in that mix as well. I am not expecting an increase in passing attempts for the Browns however with a rookie QB and a focus on the running game and helping the defense while reducing mistakes. This will be frustrating for fans at times because Childress is very committed to the running game regardless of how predictable it becomes. I was looking at how the Browns had 570 pass attempts last season which is a lot more than the 478 pass attempts in 2010 when they had a productive running game with Hillis. In 2009 they had 443 passing attempts in Jamal Lewis's last season. If I averaged those 3 seasons that would be 497 passing attempts. I actually expect this number to be lower than that despite the Browns being forced to throw the ball. This is going to be a run 1st team.If there were not so much change happening in Cleveland I would normally give more weight to the most recent seasons stats as a guide to what may be most likely to happen again this season. But in this case I think that would lead your projections to have too many passing attempts. This team is going to run the ball.As Childress is the new OC I decided to look at Viking offenses from his 1st 3 years with them as a guideline for how his influence on the team might change the distribution. The Vikings averaged 475 passing attempts during Childress's 1st 3 seasons as HC.I also noticed that the Browns have had many rushing attempts against them. Because they have been a bad team. However the Steelers will not have Mendenhall to rely on this season and the Bengals have let Benson go. So I do not see those teams running the ball as much or being as effective doing so against the Browns this season. The Ravens offensive line is aging and they lost Suggs to injury. I do not see this division as being quite as imposing for the Browns this year. The more they run and control the clock the less garbage runs the opposing team will be able to muster and the Browns can try to keep scores closer, maybe even win some games. The Rams and Lions were terrible for a long time too.So I decided to go with 486 passing attempts 437 rushing attempts from RB with another 30-40 QB runs for the distribution. But I am still trying to school myself on the Browns weapons and how that pie might be divided.

I don't agree with this.The general theory of running the ball more because they have Trent Richardson makes sense to take pressure off of Weeden...but history doesn't align with that.Childress is the OC...but Shurmur is calling the plays in 2012...all that matters IMO. Shurmur in 2009= 543 pass attempts/411 rushing. 2010=590 pass/429 rush. 2011=570 pass/415 rush.Lets also not forget that in 2010 Sam Bradford was a rookie QB and they had a very good vet RB Steven Jackson to take pressure off of him, yet the ratio was 590/429.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

You are missing the point. This is fantasy football, its a statistics based game. As far as Greg Little goes, it doesnt matter if Weeden ever ends up being a viable NFL QB. What matters is how his play affects Greg Little, and from that standpoint, the odds are quite high that Weeden is better. McCoy couldnt get the ball down the field and as ive already said, thats supposed to be where Little excels

I'm really not seeing this. I know someone posted that in the RSP Matt Waldman said something regarding it, but I've never came to that conclusion.1) His rookie year YPC=11.6

2) His long catch on the year was on a busted play where the defense lost him. Outside of a couple of seam passes, I didn't see many routes downfield...hitch/slant/out/crossing pattern.

3) Cribbs/Massaquoi had almost a full YPC better than Little.

4) His final college season YPC=11.7

5) Plays in an NFL offense on based on short timing routes.

1. he was a rookie. and McCoy - who can't throw more than 15 yds downfield - was his QB2. Not seeing routes downfield....wow, you are literally making amicsta's argument for him

3. how many catches did each of Cribbs/Massaquoi have? sample size?

4. college is borderline irrelevant to this discussion

5. I've already debunked this. It's a WCO, similar to what Antonio Freeman and Donald Driver played most of their careers in. Both had a career YPC of >13. So please stop pretending that 11.7 is his ceiling due to the offense.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

You are missing the point. This is fantasy football, its a statistics based game. As far as Greg Little goes, it doesnt matter if Weeden ever ends up being a viable NFL QB. What matters is how his play affects Greg Little, and from that standpoint, the odds are quite high that Weeden is better. McCoy couldnt get the ball down the field and as ive already said, thats supposed to be where Little excels

I'm really not seeing this. I know someone posted that in the RSP Matt Waldman said something regarding it, but I've never came to that conclusion.1) His rookie year YPC=11.6

2) His long catch on the year was on a busted play where the defense lost him. Outside of a couple of seam passes, I didn't see many routes downfield...hitch/slant/out/crossing pattern.

3) Cribbs/Massaquoi had almost a full YPC better than Little.

4) His final college season YPC=11.7

5) Plays in an NFL offense on based on short timing routes.

1. he was a rookie. and McCoy - who can't throw more than 15 yds downfield - was his QB2. Not seeing routes downfield....wow, you are literally making amicsta's argument for him

3. how many catches did each of Cribbs/Massaquoi have? sample size?

4. college is borderline irrelevant to this discussion

5. I've already debunked this. It's a WCO, similar to what Antonio Freeman and Donald Driver played most of their careers in. Both had a career YPC of >13. So please stop pretending that 11.7 is his ceiling due to the offense.

1) So it doesn't count because he's a rookie?2) If you can't read between the lines, I will help you. Greg Little isn't good at downfield routes...that's why he doesn't have a high YPC ever. That's why he didn't run the routes last season. Another piece of evidence is Cleveland spent a 4th round pick on a burner 4.34 speed.

3) 31 receptions/41 receptions...Little had 61. It's valid.

4) Borderline...but when compared to his rookie year it makes sense...consistency.

5) You used one of the best QB's of all time with one of the strongest arms of all time as a comparison...yeah sure fooled us

How about we use someone who's played in a West Coast system his entire career=Donovan McNabb. Want to guess what his career YPC is...11.8.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

I'm curious how many other WRs targets are uncatchable. Where could those stats be found?

Its one of the Premium stats over at PFF, they have something called Drop Rate which takes into account catchable balls, not just targets and receptions. But its a pay site so I'm not going to post their numbers here, but all you really need to do is take someones targets and subtract out receptions + drops and you'll see how many "uncatchable balls" there were.For Little, FBG has him at 120 targets, he had 61 receptions and 14 drops so 45 were uncatchable. Best catch% he could have gotten was 62.5% with 0 drops (I don't know why I had 59% in my head must have been using a different target # since that seems to differ on many sites).Vs. say a guy like Welker who had 173 targets, 122 receptions, 13 drops so he could have gotten as high as a 78% catch % with 0 drops. 78% of his balls were "catchable" vs. 62.5% for Little. Now don't get me wrong, Little had a miserable season in terms of drops, everyone else that had double digit drops had more targets than he did. So his "drop rate" was still miserable, one of the worst in the league, I was just pointing out that when people use "catch %" to extrapolate out projected receptions, catch rate will be affected by the QB play, Drop Rate is all on the WR.Little's drop rate was 18.6% 14 drops on 75 catchable balls. But if 78% of his targets were catchable like Welker, he would have had 94 catchable balls instead of 75 so even with a miserable 18.6% drop rate, he'd be looking at 77 receptions and 17 drops instead of 61 receptions and 14 drops. 77 receptions on 120 targets would have had him at a respectable 64% catch rate despite still having a miserable drop rate. That's why I think Drop Rate is a much more important stat than catch% when evaluating a WRs play. You still need catch% to come up with your projections because obviously the QB is going to affect that greatly, but I don't think its fair to compare 2 WRs based on catch rate when they obviously have different QBs throwing them the ball.Is also not as black and white as the stats, some of it certainly falls on the WR to put himself in position for the QB to throw him a "catchable ball" so its not all on McCoy, but quite obviously Little would have a much better catch % with Brady than McCoy...

Wow this is great stuff, I've been tempted to get a subscription over there many times. What about a middle of the road QB, instead of the one of the best in the NFL. Joe Flacco or Josh Freeman or Ryan Fitzpatrick and see how one of their WR1's numbers stack up for catchable...very interesting stuff IMO.

 

[Clifford]

As a general rule, I always project DOWN slightly WRs who change to unproven QBs. This is because there are a number of pitfalls:1. The unproven QB is at high risk of not being very good.2. The unproven QB may have other favorite targets.3. The offense system may change in unexpected ways to give the WR in question less opportunities.4. The unproven QB is at high risk of getting benched - and the other QB may not be good either, and the entire offense will stink.Last year was 61/709/2. I'd go with 55/590/3

Do you still project DOWN when the WR is changing from a proven-to-be-bad QB to an unproven QB? That seems like very odd logic.

Marginally. We don't really know that Weeden can even compete at this level. There's lots of guys who did absolutely nothing, like Leaf, Leinart, Brady Quinn, Gabbert, Couch, Akili Smith....I could go on forever.

And there's "lots of guys" who DID have good rookie seasons. What's your point?I agree that it's faulty logic to downgrade a WR when they are likely getting an upgrade at QB. Are you downgrading a guy like Santana Moss from last season's numbers because the Redskins are 'downgrading' from Grossman to RG3 too?

This thread is getting ridiculous. This is fairly simple. Weeden, in college, was worlds better than McCoy. McCoys weaknesses were primarily arm-strength and accuracy. Thus a lot of short, safe passes. Weedens strengths are his arm strength and accuracy. So even if the Browns passing attempts don't increase (which would go against the most visible trend in the Nfl today) it would be shocking if their ypa did not go up by a good bit. Therefore it's reasonable to expect that little's ypr goes up a good bit. Because of accuracy improving its reasonable to expect that his catch % goes up, and because he's entering his second season with a full offseason it's reasonable to believe that his drops improve. Little did not see full snaps last year so a target increase is reasonable too. So let's bump targets to 130, catch % to 62%, and ypr to 15That's 80 catches, around 1200 yards, and probably five tds

 

[Tau837]

Little did not see full snaps last year so a target increase is reasonable too.

According to ProFootballFocus, Little played 983 snaps last season, which was over 90% of Cleveland's offensive snaps. There may not be as much room for growth here as you think.However, I did note that his playing time increased after the first quarter of the season and the bye week, and his targets followed. In the first 4 games, he played 76% of the snaps. In the remaining 12 games, he played 96% of the snaps. In the first 4 games, he averaged 5.25 targets per game; then he averaged 8.25 targets per game in the final 12 games. If we were to project 8.25 targets per game for 16 games, that's 132 targets.That said, I don't think he will have that many targets. I think the passing attempts will come down enough that his targets will be similar to last year.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

5) You used one of the best QB's of all time with one of the strongest arms of all time as a comparison...yeah sure fooled us

How about we use someone who's played in a West Coast system his entire career=Donovan McNabb. Want to guess what his career YPC is...11.8.

And seriously, you wonder why I make fun of you. Guess what? That includes all of McNabb's throws, including to RBs. Want to know what Favre's YPC is for his career? 11.4 ypc.

Here's a link in case you doubt the facts: Favre stats

 

[JPeso]

80, 1,050, 6 = 221 PPR, 13.8 PPR PPG

 

[Fensalk]

As a general rule, I always project DOWN slightly WRs who change to unproven QBs. This is because there are a number of pitfalls:1. The unproven QB is at high risk of not being very good.2. The unproven QB may have other favorite targets.3. The offense system may change in unexpected ways to give the WR in question less opportunities.4. The unproven QB is at high risk of getting benched - and the other QB may not be good either, and the entire offense will stink.Last year was 61/709/2. I'd go with 55/590/3

Do you still project DOWN when the WR is changing from a proven-to-be-bad QB to an unproven QB? That seems like very odd logic.

Marginally. We don't really know that Weeden can even compete at this level. There's lots of guys who did absolutely nothing, like Leaf, Leinart, Brady Quinn, Gabbert, Couch, Akili Smith....I could go on forever.

And there's "lots of guys" who DID have good rookie seasons. What's your point?I agree that it's faulty logic to downgrade a WR when they are likely getting an upgrade at QB. Are you downgrading a guy like Santana Moss from last season's numbers because the Redskins are 'downgrading' from Grossman to RG3 too?

This thread is getting ridiculous. This is fairly simple. Weeden, in college, was worlds better than McCoy. McCoys weaknesses were primarily arm-strength and accuracy. Thus a lot of short, safe passes. Weedens strengths are his arm strength and accuracy. So even if the Browns passing attempts don't increase (which would go against the most visible trend in the Nfl today) it would be shocking if their ypa did not go up by a good bit. Therefore it's reasonable to expect that little's ypr goes up a good bit. Because of accuracy improving its reasonable to expect that his catch % goes up, and because he's entering his second season with a full offseason it's reasonable to believe that his drops improve. Little did not see full snaps last year so a target increase is reasonable too. So let's bump targets to 130, catch % to 62%, and ypr to 15That's 80 catches, around 1200 yards, and probably five tds

I think you make good points. However, Weedens still never done it in the pros against pro defenses. Maybe he can. But as a rookie? I give him a 33% chance, which i think is fair.If you had made all those points to conclude that Weeden will help Little jump up in production in the next 3 years, i like it a lot better.

 

[Biabreakable]

Really struggling to understand your logic as it applies to a guy taking over for Colt. I do get your point more broadly - it just doesn't happen to apply to a guy taking over for one of the worst starting QBs of the last decade.

It's perfectly sound logic to project down for a WR that is going to be getting an unproven QB, but that only really makes sense if he was working with a proven QB the prior year. Not every theory applies to every single situation and in this situation, the QB cannot get any worse, there isn't much downside to Weeden because McCoy was atrocious, Weeden's likely going to either be just as bad, or better, but not worse.

If you've watched the Browns as long as I have, and seen things like every QB on the roster get benched, cut, and injured, and WR Kevin Johnson having to play QB, you know it can get worse than Colt McCoy.

The Browns have been a bad team for as long as I can remember. Kosar is the best QB I can recall and that was a long time ago. The Browns have not had a player that interested me for so long that doing projections for them is something I wouldn't bother with. Waste of time.That changed when they drafted Richardson.I am thinking Childress may have sold the Walrus on ways the Vikings used Harlan, and maybe Little will get that role? I would think Josh Cribs would be in that mix as well. I am not expecting an increase in passing attempts for the Browns however with a rookie QB and a focus on the running game and helping the defense while reducing mistakes. This will be frustrating for fans at times because Childress is very committed to the running game regardless of how predictable it becomes. I was looking at how the Browns had 570 pass attempts last season which is a lot more than the 478 pass attempts in 2010 when they had a productive running game with Hillis. In 2009 they had 443 passing attempts in Jamal Lewis's last season. If I averaged those 3 seasons that would be 497 passing attempts. I actually expect this number to be lower than that despite the Browns being forced to throw the ball. This is going to be a run 1st team.If there were not so much change happening in Cleveland I would normally give more weight to the most recent seasons stats as a guide to what may be most likely to happen again this season. But in this case I think that would lead your projections to have too many passing attempts. This team is going to run the ball.As Childress is the new OC I decided to look at Viking offenses from his 1st 3 years with them as a guideline for how his influence on the team might change the distribution. The Vikings averaged 475 passing attempts during Childress's 1st 3 seasons as HC.I also noticed that the Browns have had many rushing attempts against them. Because they have been a bad team. However the Steelers will not have Mendenhall to rely on this season and the Bengals have let Benson go. So I do not see those teams running the ball as much or being as effective doing so against the Browns this season. The Ravens offensive line is aging and they lost Suggs to injury. I do not see this division as being quite as imposing for the Browns this year. The more they run and control the clock the less garbage runs the opposing team will be able to muster and the Browns can try to keep scores closer, maybe even win some games. The Rams and Lions were terrible for a long time too.So I decided to go with 486 passing attempts 437 rushing attempts from RB with another 30-40 QB runs for the distribution. But I am still trying to school myself on the Browns weapons and how that pie might be divided.

I don't agree with this.The general theory of running the ball more because they have Trent Richardson makes sense to take pressure off of Weeden...but history doesn't align with that.Childress is the OC...but Shurmur is calling the plays in 2012...all that matters IMO. Shurmur in 2009= 543 pass attempts/411 rushing. 2010=590 pass/429 rush. 2011=570 pass/415 rush.Lets also not forget that in 2010 Sam Bradford was a rookie QB and they had a very good vet RB Steven Jackson to take pressure off of him, yet the ratio was 590/429.

Is Shurmur is calling the plays? I thought I had read that the reason Childress was brought in was to reduce the workload for Shurmur? As in taking over the game planning and organizational activities of the offense so Shrmur can focus on the whole team and not so much on the offense as he did last year? Childress didn't call the plays for the Vikings as the head coach either, Bevel did (and Favre who did what he wanted). Based on the Browns drafting of Richardson combined with bringing in Childress indicates to me that they want to be a run 1st WCO. Not as pass out of desperation with a rookie QB when they have one of the best RBs in the game team.What does history have to say about pass/run distribution when a team is breaking in a rookie QB? I actually don't know but I think that would be very useful information.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

Really struggling to understand your logic as it applies to a guy taking over for Colt. I do get your point more broadly - it just doesn't happen to apply to a guy taking over for one of the worst starting QBs of the last decade.

It's perfectly sound logic to project down for a WR that is going to be getting an unproven QB, but that only really makes sense if he was working with a proven QB the prior year. Not every theory applies to every single situation and in this situation, the QB cannot get any worse, there isn't much downside to Weeden because McCoy was atrocious, Weeden's likely going to either be just as bad, or better, but not worse.

If you've watched the Browns as long as I have, and seen things like every QB on the roster get benched, cut, and injured, and WR Kevin Johnson having to play QB, you know it can get worse than Colt McCoy.

The Browns have been a bad team for as long as I can remember. Kosar is the best QB I can recall and that was a long time ago. The Browns have not had a player that interested me for so long that doing projections for them is something I wouldn't bother with. Waste of time.That changed when they drafted Richardson.I am thinking Childress may have sold the Walrus on ways the Vikings used Harlan, and maybe Little will get that role? I would think Josh Cribs would be in that mix as well. I am not expecting an increase in passing attempts for the Browns however with a rookie QB and a focus on the running game and helping the defense while reducing mistakes. This will be frustrating for fans at times because Childress is very committed to the running game regardless of how predictable it becomes. I was looking at how the Browns had 570 pass attempts last season which is a lot more than the 478 pass attempts in 2010 when they had a productive running game with Hillis. In 2009 they had 443 passing attempts in Jamal Lewis's last season. If I averaged those 3 seasons that would be 497 passing attempts. I actually expect this number to be lower than that despite the Browns being forced to throw the ball. This is going to be a run 1st team.If there were not so much change happening in Cleveland I would normally give more weight to the most recent seasons stats as a guide to what may be most likely to happen again this season. But in this case I think that would lead your projections to have too many passing attempts. This team is going to run the ball.As Childress is the new OC I decided to look at Viking offenses from his 1st 3 years with them as a guideline for how his influence on the team might change the distribution. The Vikings averaged 475 passing attempts during Childress's 1st 3 seasons as HC.I also noticed that the Browns have had many rushing attempts against them. Because they have been a bad team. However the Steelers will not have Mendenhall to rely on this season and the Bengals have let Benson go. So I do not see those teams running the ball as much or being as effective doing so against the Browns this season. The Ravens offensive line is aging and they lost Suggs to injury. I do not see this division as being quite as imposing for the Browns this year. The more they run and control the clock the less garbage runs the opposing team will be able to muster and the Browns can try to keep scores closer, maybe even win some games. The Rams and Lions were terrible for a long time too.So I decided to go with 486 passing attempts 437 rushing attempts from RB with another 30-40 QB runs for the distribution. But I am still trying to school myself on the Browns weapons and how that pie might be divided.

I don't agree with this.The general theory of running the ball more because they have Trent Richardson makes sense to take pressure off of Weeden...but history doesn't align with that.Childress is the OC...but Shurmur is calling the plays in 2012...all that matters IMO. Shurmur in 2009= 543 pass attempts/411 rushing. 2010=590 pass/429 rush. 2011=570 pass/415 rush.Lets also not forget that in 2010 Sam Bradford was a rookie QB and they had a very good vet RB Steven Jackson to take pressure off of him, yet the ratio was 590/429.

Is Shurmur is calling the plays? I thought I had read that the reason Childress was brought in was to reduce the workload for Shurmur? As in taking over the game planning and organizational activities of the offense so Shrmur can focus on the whole team and not so much on the offense as he did last year? Childress didn't call the plays for the Vikings as the head coach either, Bevel did (and Favre who did what he wanted). Based on the Browns drafting of Richardson combined with bringing in Childress indicates to me that they want to be a run 1st WCO. Not as pass out of desperation with a rookie QB when they have one of the best RBs in the game team.What does history have to say about pass/run distribution when a team is breaking in a rookie QB? I actually don't know but I think that would be very useful information.

http://dawgpounddaily.com/2012/02/08/head-coach-pat-shurmur-will-retain-play-calling-duties-for-cleveland-browns/

 

[Clifford]

I'm not sure how much history applies to this guy. He'll be 29 in his rookie season. How many QBs in the history of the NFL could say that? I'm betting not many.

Given his age the Browns are accelerating his development. He's already been rammed past the incumbent starter without even a competition.

How well his game will translate into NFL success is anyone's guess. But it's quite clear the Browns are going to ride and die with this dude. So while I think his NFL success will be shaky, being bad could actually work out for Little's fantasy owners as he is likely to put his defense in bad situations where they will give up points, leading the 4th quarter comeback attempts with a lot of long-bombs, and most of those will be going Little's way.

How well Weeden can handle pressure is an obvious question mark, but how well he can chuck a ball downfield isn't. Given time to throw he can make most if not all of the throws anyone could ask. McCoy couldn't do that.

I could seriously see something like 3500, 18 and 22 for Weeden's rookie year.

 

[gandalas]

What % chance would you give it that Weeden is worse that McCoy, how about % likely he's better, how about the % likely he's the same?

Well, Weeden was taken VERY close to round 2. We have lists of QBs selected in the second round to compare Weeden to:I think I'll be generous and say Weeden stands a 33% chance of being better than Colt McCoy in his first year. Remember, even if he is worse than McCoy, he may still play because this is a developmental year for him. He's just trying to learn the NFL at this point, not set the world on fire. There's a very high chance he will do nothing in the NFL.

If you are considering #22 overall to be VERY close to round 2, then you forgot the following 2nd round QBs as well:2003:

Rex Grossman (#22) - Never took off in Chicago, replaced after 1 year as starter in WAS last season.

2004:

JP Losman (#22) - not a great career.

2005:

Aaron Rodgers (#24) - pretty nice career going, yes?

Jason Campbell (#25) - not horrible as a starter, but nothing exciting.

2007:

Brady Quinn (#22) - eww...definitely hope that Weedon is not a redux of this other #22 overall pick.

2010:

Tim Tebow (#25) - He is either a miracle-worker or the worst QB ever, depending on who you talk to. Still, he led the 1-4 Broncos to the playoffs after gaining the starting job, including defeating the mighty Steelers in the playoffs.

Just seemed strange to me to compare him to 2nd round QBs when there has been a HOST of comps that were drafted within 2-3 picks of his position.

The history ranges from horrid (Quinn, Losman), to mediocre (Tebow, Grossman, Campbell), to the best QB in the game today (Rodgers). All just goes to show how much of a crapshoot the draft can be at the QB position. Of course, the same can be said of the top-10 QBs as well...just as many busts in there as in the later parts of the round.

 

[TS Garp]

3 or 4 months back, when I first started looking ahead to this season, I went to look up Little's numbers. I hadn't owned him last year (someone always reached for him) and assumed he'd put up something like 45/500/3, based on the negative reviews I'd heard and how low his stock seemed on here. I was surprised that he'd put up 61/709/2. Still not great and below many people's expectations, but very respectable for a rookie WR. And let's be more specific: very respectable for a rookie WR still learning his position in an offense where just about everything that could go wrong did go wrong. Going into last year, some people were bullish on McCoy, but he took several steps backward. Hillis got hurt. Hardesty got hurt (again). Remember that this was a team that had Chris Ogbonnaya starting at RB for a couple of weeks. I think we've seen what Little can do in a truly disastrous situation, and, all things considered, his numbers weren't that dismal. So, what's changed? They addressed the RB position in a big way and whether or not you think Richardson will be the next Adrian Peterson, it's safe to say that he'll be an upgrade over the Browns' running game last year and should help set up the passing game a bit more. Weeden is a wild card, but I thought Cecil made an interesting point on the Audible that Weeden would often throw balls to a spot and let Blackmon fight for them. Little is very physical and he's much more likely to have the confidence to let Little do this than McCoy. Little needs to improve his game, clearly, but it stands to reason that he'll be a bit more polished in his second season.

The Browns are still a work-in-progress, to be sure, but I think there's reason for optimism here, and, depending on the league, I think Little could be a bargain who could pay off nicely.

My prediction:

74 receptions, 925 yards, 6 td's

I think he has a fair chance to do 10% better.