Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Targets (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Eagle Eye
- Start date
Eagle Eye
Footballguy
16 according to some sites. Adjust accordingly.
Cathy Fazio
Token Chick
Which targets are you referring to? The targets in the game recaps are defined as any look in the passing offense, whether it is a reception, poorly thrown pass, dropped ball, batted ball, or called back because of penalty. That is where you will often see discrepancies, some places count the penalties, others do not. And is the reason why the targets will sometimes not equal the passing attempts of a quarterback. Doug Drinen would have to address how the other targets are counted and his definition of them.We do use nfl.com's gamecenter to confirm the targets that the recappers count while watching the games.16 according to some sites. Adjust accordingly.
Hi Eagle Eye,
As Cathy said, our target numbers are actually our numbers derived from our guys recording every play of the game. That's why you may sometimes see a difference between our targets and another sites.
I honestly have more faith in our numbers than any other site out there as I know the people who are watching the play and making the call.
But sometimes there are judgement calls. It may be a badly thrown pass that isn't really close to anyone or a pass thrown close to two receivers and you have to make a call as to which one gets the target. That kind of thing.
J
As Cathy said, our target numbers are actually our numbers derived from our guys recording every play of the game. That's why you may sometimes see a difference between our targets and another sites.
I honestly have more faith in our numbers than any other site out there as I know the people who are watching the play and making the call.
But sometimes there are judgement calls. It may be a badly thrown pass that isn't really close to anyone or a pass thrown close to two receivers and you have to make a call as to which one gets the target. That kind of thing.
J
Eagle Eye
Footballguy
Thanks Joe (& Cathy)I'm surprised the stat isn't being kept by the NFL by now.
redman
Footballguy
Joe, how closely do your target numbers reflect what the official gamebooks say about the intended receivers?
Cathy Fazio
Token Chick
There are only a handful of times each season that we record a different target in the recaps from what is recorded in the play by play on nfl.com's gamecenter. It is not often at all.
Last edited by a moderator:
Big Score
Footballguy
What I would really like to see FBG do in their targets, is differentiate between total taregets & then the actual catchable targets when coming up with the reception %.
For example;
Greg Jennings is shown as having 6 targets with only 1 reception for a targets to passes caught of 16.7%.
For folks who did not actually see the game, they will more than likely rely on the 16.7% reception percentage as being accurate.
However, that would be erroneous.
While Jennings was indeed targeted on 6 passes, only 4 of those passes from Favre were actually CATCHABLE balls.
So a reception percentage of 25% is actually the accurate number for Jennings, not 16.7%
My
FWIW
For example;
Greg Jennings is shown as having 6 targets with only 1 reception for a targets to passes caught of 16.7%.
For folks who did not actually see the game, they will more than likely rely on the 16.7% reception percentage as being accurate.
However, that would be erroneous.
While Jennings was indeed targeted on 6 passes, only 4 of those passes from Favre were actually CATCHABLE balls.
So a reception percentage of 25% is actually the accurate number for Jennings, not 16.7%
My
FWIW
Thanks BS.That's a layer we may add. And it tells you something very different. Catches as a percent of catchable balls gives you an idea of how good the guy's hands are. Although that brings on a new level of nuance as a guy like Jason Witten catching short passes should catch a much higher percentage than a stretch the field guy like Kevin Curtis. But still, it's useful.Targets as we have them now gives a totally different picture in it shows how much focus the team puts on a player. When you see Drew Bennett with 17 targets, that gets my attention just in and of itself. If he drops them all, that big target number will decline on it's own.But I definitely hear you and can see adding that maybe for next year.Thanks.JWhat I would really like to see FBG do in their targets, is differentiate between total taregets & then the actual catchable targets when coming up with the reception %.For example;Greg Jennings is shown as having 6 targets with only 1 reception for a targets to passes caught of 16.7%.For folks who did not actually see the game, they will more than likely rely on the 16.7% reception percentage as being accurate.However, that would be erroneous.While Jennings was indeed targeted on 6 passes, only 4 of those passes from Favre were actually CATCHABLE balls. So a reception percentage of 25% is actually the accurate number for Jennings, not 16.7%My
redman
Footballguy
The catchable balls stat would probably be more useful in analyzing QB's and overall passing games than it would be analyzing receivers. Also, what is a "catchable ball"? What if it's thrown within arms reach but behind the receiver on a crossing pattern, such that many receivers would make the play but it would be a difficult one nonetheless? Would all "non-catchable balls" necessarily result in an incompletion, or could there be a situation where a well-thrown pass should have resulted in significant YAC, but all the receiver was able to do was catch the ball as he fell down before being downed at the spot of the catch? I would respectfully suggest that you allow WR's to catch non-catchable balls - for example a WR who lays out on a deep pattern and comes up with a ball that ball all rights is overthrown by the QB and "shouldn't" have been caught. If the WR ends up with a reception % (with catchable balls as the denominator) of over 100%, that would be illuminating in and of itself. Interesting concept with a lot of subjectivity, which may make it useful or not depending upon how it's applied.Thanks BS.That's a layer we may add. And it tells you something very different. Catches as a percent of catchable balls gives you an idea of how good the guy's hands are. Although that brings on a new level of nuance as a guy like Jason Witten catching short passes should catch a much higher percentage than a stretch the field guy like Kevin Curtis. But still, it's useful.Targets as we have them now gives a totally different picture in it shows how much focus the team puts on a player. When you see Drew Bennett with 17 targets, that gets my attention just in and of itself. If he drops them all, that big target number will decline on it's own.But I definitely hear you and can see adding that maybe for next year.Thanks.JWhat I would really like to see FBG do in their targets, is differentiate between total taregets & then the actual catchable targets when coming up with the reception %.For example;Greg Jennings is shown as having 6 targets with only 1 reception for a targets to passes caught of 16.7%.For folks who did not actually see the game, they will more than likely rely on the 16.7% reception percentage as being accurate.However, that would be erroneous.While Jennings was indeed targeted on 6 passes, only 4 of those passes from Favre were actually CATCHABLE balls. So a reception percentage of 25% is actually the accurate number for Jennings, not 16.7%My
Last edited by a moderator:
TheCommish
Footballguy
As a Marvin Harrison and Drew Bennett owner, I sure hope those target numbers stay up there. I waited on WRs after nabbing Harrison, and after one week it looks like I may get away with it.
Yes redman, those are some of the issues with it. And there are lots more. What about an incredible hit from the DB as the ball is being caught. Or a great move just to even get a hand on it where many players wouldn't even have had an opportunity to touch the ball? Plus many more. We'll look at it for next year but anything we did would be in addition to what we have now as I don't want to do anything to compromise the target number we currently have as I think it's the most useful.JThe catchable balls stat would probably be more useful in analyzing QB's and overall passing games than it would be analyzing receivers. Also, what is a "catchable ball"? What if it's thrown within arms reach but behind the receiver on a crossing pattern, such that many receivers would make the play but it would be a difficult one nonetheless? Would all "non-catchable balls" necessarily result in an incompletion, or could there be a situation where a well-thrown pass should have resulted in significant YAC, but all the receiver was able to do was catch the ball as he fell down before being downed at the spot of the catch? I would respectfully suggest that you allow WR's to catch non-catchable balls - for example a WR who lays out on a deep pattern and comes up with a ball that ball all rights is overthrown by the QB and "shouldn't" have been caught. If the WR ends up with a reception % (with catchable balls as the denominator) of over 100%, that would be illuminating in and of itself. Interesting concept with a lot of subjectivity, which may make it useful or not depending upon how it's applied.Thanks BS.That's a layer we may add. And it tells you something very different. Catches as a percent of catchable balls gives you an idea of how good the guy's hands are. Although that brings on a new level of nuance as a guy like Jason Witten catching short passes should catch a much higher percentage than a stretch the field guy like Kevin Curtis. But still, it's useful.Targets as we have them now gives a totally different picture in it shows how much focus the team puts on a player. When you see Drew Bennett with 17 targets, that gets my attention just in and of itself. If he drops them all, that big target number will decline on it's own.But I definitely hear you and can see adding that maybe for next year.Thanks.JWhat I would really like to see FBG do in their targets, is differentiate between total taregets & then the actual catchable targets when coming up with the reception %.For example;Greg Jennings is shown as having 6 targets with only 1 reception for a targets to passes caught of 16.7%.For folks who did not actually see the game, they will more than likely rely on the 16.7% reception percentage as being accurate.However, that would be erroneous.While Jennings was indeed targeted on 6 passes, only 4 of those passes from Favre were actually CATCHABLE balls. So a reception percentage of 25% is actually the accurate number for Jennings, not 16.7%My
Big Score
Footballguy
To me, for a target to recieve the non catchable designation, it would need to be 100% clear that the ball was non catchable.IE:Yes redman, those are some of the issues with it. And there are lots more. What about an incredible hit from the DB as the ball is being caught. Or a great move just to even get a hand on it where many players wouldn't even have had an opportunity to touch the ball? Plus many more. We'll look at it for next year but anything we did would be in addition to what we have now as I don't want to do anything to compromise the target number we currently have as I think it's the most useful.JThe catchable balls stat would probably be more useful in analyzing QB's and overall passing games than it would be analyzing receivers. Also, what is a "catchable ball"? What if it's thrown within arms reach but behind the receiver on a crossing pattern, such that many receivers would make the play but it would be a difficult one nonetheless?Thanks BS.That's a layer we may add. And it tells you something very different. Catches as a percent of catchable balls gives you an idea of how good the guy's hands are. Although that brings on a new level of nuance as a guy like Jason Witten catching short passes should catch a much higher percentage than a stretch the field guy like Kevin Curtis. But still, it's useful.What I would really like to see FBG do in their targets, is differentiate between total taregets & then the actual catchable targets when coming up with the reception %.
For example;
Greg Jennings is shown as having 6 targets with only 1 reception for a targets to passes caught of 16.7%.
For folks who did not actually see the game, they will more than likely rely on the 16.7% reception percentage as being accurate.
However, that would be erroneous.
While Jennings was indeed targeted on 6 passes, only 4 of those passes from Favre were actually CATCHABLE balls.
So a reception percentage of 25% is actually the accurate number for Jennings, not 16.7%
My
Targets as we have them now gives a totally different picture in it shows how much focus the team puts on a player. When you see Drew Bennett with 17 targets, that gets my attention just in and of itself. If he drops them all, that big target number will decline on it's own.
But I definitely hear you and can see adding that maybe for next year.
Thanks.
J
Would all "non-catchable balls" necessarily result in an incompletion, or could there be a situation where a well-thrown pass should have resulted in significant YAC, but all the receiver was able to do was catch the ball as he fell down before being downed at the spot of the catch?
I would respectfully suggest that you allow WR's to catch non-catchable balls - for example a WR who lays out on a deep pattern and comes up with a ball that ball all rights is overthrown by the QB and "shouldn't" have been caught. If the WR ends up with a reception % (with catchable balls as the denominator) of over 100%, that would be illuminating in and of itself.
Interesting concept with a lot of subjectivity, which may make it useful or not depending upon how it's applied.
Skipping off the turf 5' feet away from the WR.
5' away from the WR.
10' above the WR.
Pass thrown away to avoid the sack but in the vicinity of a WR to avoid the penalty for intentional grounding, yet clearly uncatchable.
Pass thrown out of bounds in the direction of a WR to avoid the sack, yet clearly uncatchable.
Pass thrown too far to the sideline where the catch is actually made, the WR was definitely the target, but the catch was made several feet out of bounds.
Anything that is not obvious, or you have to think about for more than a second, should remain as a catchable target.
My
