What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Wes Welker not a HoFer (1 Viewer)

The gamut of opinions in this thread is narrow and ridiculous. How could anyone believe he wasn't?

Ive argued this before and a lot of people disagree out of principle, but IMO to be a hall of famer you have to be one of the best at what you do. Anyone that says Welker isn't one of if not the best possession receiver to play the game is crazy - and he has done so significantly undersized.
If he were the best long snapper, the best kicker, the best punter, the best return man, or the best special teams gunner, he wouldn't be making the HOF either. The HOF doesn't have a position listing for "possession receiver"; it only has one for "receiver", and Welker is not one of the best of his generation. There are several better receivers who have been waiting for HOF inclusion already, and there will be more by the time Welker retires. Tim Brown is a better version of Welker and he's not in, may not ever get in the way things are going.
You're right about all those things, and all those things are dumb.
I'd be a happier fan with a HOF that made room for Ray Guy and Steve Tasker. :thumbup:

 
The gamut of opinions in this thread is narrow and ridiculous. How could anyone believe he wasn't?

Ive argued this before and a lot of people disagree out of principle, but IMO to be a hall of famer you have to be one of the best at what you do. Anyone that says Welker isn't one of if not the best possession receiver to play the game is crazy - and he has done so significantly undersized.
If he were the best long snapper, the best kicker, the best punter, the best return man, or the best special teams gunner, he wouldn't be making the HOF either. The HOF doesn't have a position listing for "possession receiver"; it only has one for "receiver", and Welker is not one of the best of his generation. There are several better receivers who have been waiting for HOF inclusion already, and there will be more by the time Welker retires. Tim Brown is a better version of Welker and he's not in, may not ever get in the way things are going.
You're right about all those things, and all those things are dumb.
You really think the best long snapper deserves the Hall of Fame more than, say, Charles Haley? Haley was both more famous and had way more impact on the game. Every time you select a minor role player into the Hall you're keeping a major player out.

 
I think Welker is a bit unappreciated as a player but still somewhat overhyped. Sure, he's caught a lot of passes. But do people turn around and really talk about how many carries a RB got or how many completions a QB got? I don't see anyone saying Kerry Collins should be in the HOF because he ranks 11th in career completions or Eddie George should be in for ranking 14th in career rushing attempts. Or Derrick Mason should get in because he ranks 12th in career receptions.

So I care more about yardage and TD totals. I less care about per carry/reception totals (although certainly being more efficient is better than being less efficient). My definition of a HOF is someone that was in the Top 5 in those key categories when he played. So having a long run of 1,000 yard seasons might make for good career totals, in this day and age that might rank 20th in any given season.

Anyway, Welker has ranked Top 5 in yardage twice and Top 5 in receiving TD once. So really his whole argument for being a HOFer is his reception total. Granted, those numbers have been off the chart, but give me the guy with 30 fewer receptions but 400 more receiving yards.

 
He's a really good football player playing with two of the best QB's ever. HOF? Probably not. Just a really good player with some luck on his side.

 
Just a really good player with some luck on his side.
Can't you say that about most players? If Marvin Harrison got drafted by Cleveland would anyone have thought he was a great WR had he put up 800 yard seasons playing with a rotating crop of meh QBs?

 
Just a really good player with some luck on his side.
Can't you say that about most players? If Marvin Harrison got drafted by Cleveland would anyone have thought he was a great WR had he put up 800 yard seasons playing with a rotating crop of meh QBs?
When Wes Welker puts up 8 10+ TD seasons in a row, give me a call. It's not that he had good QBs, it's that he put up mediocre stats with great QBs.

 
As rule changes inflate passing yards, comparing current receiving totals to those of guys already in the Hall is becoming even less of an apples to apples comparison.

I think the biggest knock for Welker may end up being that regardless of his stats, he generally hasn't been considered as one of the best receivers of his generation at any point along his career. And by that I mean, if you redrafted the entire NFL from scratch each year, where amongst WRs would be he be drafted? He's always had guys like CJ, Moss, Harrison, Owens, AJ, Fitzgerald, Wayne, Green, Julio, etc ahead of him.

That perception might be changing the longer he can continue to be dominant out of the slot. But I think it's still going to persist enough to detract from his chances.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't hold year one or two against him (maybe against SD or MIA but not him) as WRs often take time to develop.
He has five (or six if you're going to roll with 11 starts and do math toward a full season) season that are in "best of" territory especially the 122 and 123 catch years. That has oh so often not been a long enough period of top play for a RB so it sure can't be for Wes.
He has a grand total of two seasons in the top 5 in yardage, and only 4 in the top 10. He's never finished in the top 5 in receiving TDs, and has only finished in the top 10 once (sixth in 2011 with 9).

Really, he's only had one top season, 2011, with 1569 yards and 9 TDs. His second best season, 2009, he averaged just 11.0 yards per reception and had just 4 TDs. There's no receiver in the HOF with less than 12.5 yards per reception (C.Carter's at 12.6); Welker's career average is 11.1.
You left catches out of your post. I don't doubt or argue that stuff like you mentioned will be used against him by some.

It seems a fair prediction to put him in top ten all time for reception total in 2 or 3 years.

 
The Claymaker said:
If Wes has a normal season for him, he will have more catches than all but 3 HOF'ers after this year and would be around #11 in receiving yards.
:confused:

ETA: NM. I See what you're saying, though it's a bit misleading. A normal year for him, and he'll still be keeping company with Keenan McCardell on the all time receptions list.
Sorry, I meant in comparison to people in the HOF right now, Jerry has 1519, Cris Carter has 1101 and Monk has 940. Wes currently has 777 so if he catches 80 more passes this season, he will be at 857, which would put him 4th vs HOF guys, Largent currently is 4th at 819. So after this year, if he has 3 more 80 -100 catch seasons he will eclipse Carter rather easily.
1) Receptions are the least important receiving stat. Someone who has lots of receptions and not a lot of TDs (#176 on the receiving TDs list) is the definition of a compiler.

2) And, what about the 24 other guys who are still ahead of him in receptions? Even in this unimportant stat he doesn't have great career numbers. Gonzalez will stay ahead, so will Wayne (who has a much better HOF resume than Welker yet still will have difficulty getting in), Andre Johnson is ahead and will stay that way, Jason Witten may stay ahead as well. Larry Fitzgerald may catch up. Plus Isaac Bruce, Tim Brown, Marvin Harrison, and Terrell Owens. Truth be told, Welker will have to get well above 1000 receptions just to get in the top 10, and probably 1200 to get in the top 5.
Interesting info for point two, I hadn't thought of the current players also adding to their stats, should have.

Receptions are the least important receiving stat seems like an odd point of view to take. I see a few others think so as well.

 
I don't hold year one or two against him (maybe against SD or MIA but not him) as WRs often take time to develop.

He has five (or six if you're going to roll with 11 starts and do math toward a full season) season that are in "best of" territory especially the 122 and 123 catch years. That has oh so often not been a long enough period of top play for a RB so it sure can't be for Wes.
He has a grand total of two seasons in the top 5 in yardage, and only 4 in the top 10. He's never finished in the top 5 in receiving TDs, and has only finished in the top 10 once (sixth in 2011 with 9).

Really, he's only had one top season, 2011, with 1569 yards and 9 TDs. His second best season, 2009, he averaged just 11.0 yards per reception and had just 4 TDs. There's no receiver in the HOF with less than 12.5 yards per reception (C.Carter's at 12.6); Welker's career average is 11.1.
Remarkably Welker made the All Pro team in 2009. He was outplayed by a WR on his own team that didnt make it, Moss who had 1,264/13 vs his 1,348/4.
Did you hold this against Moss when Carter did better or Carter when Moss did better?

How about Owens when he played opposite Rice? too young?

Was it a negative when Holt did better than Bruce or Bruce did better than Holt?

Boldin and Fitzgerald?

 
I don't hold year one or two against him (maybe against SD or MIA but not him) as WRs often take time to develop.
He has five (or six if you're going to roll with 11 starts and do math toward a full season) season that are in "best of" territory especially the 122 and 123 catch years. That has oh so often not been a long enough period of top play for a RB so it sure can't be for Wes.
He has a grand total of two seasons in the top 5 in yardage, and only 4 in the top 10. He's never finished in the top 5 in receiving TDs, and has only finished in the top 10 once (sixth in 2011 with 9).

Really, he's only had one top season, 2011, with 1569 yards and 9 TDs. His second best season, 2009, he averaged just 11.0 yards per reception and had just 4 TDs. There's no receiver in the HOF with less than 12.5 yards per reception (C.Carter's at 12.6); Welker's career average is 11.1.
You left catches out of your post. I don't doubt or argue that stuff like you mentioned will be used against him by some.

It seems a fair prediction to put him in top ten all time for reception total in 2 or 3 years.
Yes, because catches are an input stat, and like all other input stats are not very useful in determining how good a player is. If you make the top 10 in career receptions without ever putting up good output stats, you are the definition of a compiler.

 
I don't hold year one or two against him (maybe against SD or MIA but not him) as WRs often take time to develop.

He has five (or six if you're going to roll with 11 starts and do math toward a full season) season that are in "best of" territory especially the 122 and 123 catch years. That has oh so often not been a long enough period of top play for a RB so it sure can't be for Wes.
He has a grand total of two seasons in the top 5 in yardage, and only 4 in the top 10. He's never finished in the top 5 in receiving TDs, and has only finished in the top 10 once (sixth in 2011 with 9).

Really, he's only had one top season, 2011, with 1569 yards and 9 TDs. His second best season, 2009, he averaged just 11.0 yards per reception and had just 4 TDs. There's no receiver in the HOF with less than 12.5 yards per reception (C.Carter's at 12.6); Welker's career average is 11.1.
Remarkably Welker made the All Pro team in 2009. He was outplayed by a WR on his own team that didnt make it, Moss who had 1,264/13 vs his 1,348/4.
Did you hold this against Moss when Carter did better or Carter when Moss did better?

How about Owens when he played opposite Rice? too young?

Was it a negative when Holt did better than Bruce or Bruce did better than Holt?

Boldin and Fitzgerald?
Are you asking if it would have been silly to put the worse from each of those equations onto the All-Pro team ahead of the one that did better? Because if so, then yes.

If you're asking anything else, you missed the point.

 
As rule changes inflate passing yards, comparing current receiving totals to those of guys already in the Hall is becoming even less of an apples to apples comparison.
100 catches now is probably more comparable to 80 or 90 in a previous era. I don't know, some smaller number though still fairly high. 122 is nothing to shake a stick at in any era though.

 
As rule changes inflate passing yards, comparing current receiving totals to those of guys already in the Hall is becoming even less of an apples to apples comparison.
100 catches now is probably more comparable to 80 or 90 in a previous era. I don't know, some smaller number though still fairly high. 122 is nothing to shake a stick at in any era though.
Which WR had a better season . . . the guy with 1500/10 or the one with 1100/5?

 
As rule changes inflate passing yards, comparing current receiving totals to those of guys already in the Hall is becoming even less of an apples to apples comparison.
100 catches now is probably more comparable to 80 or 90 in a previous era. I don't know, some smaller number though still fairly high. 122 is nothing to shake a stick at in any era though.
Which WR had a better season . . . the guy with 1500/10 or the one with 1100/5?
I fail to see how I can figure this out without knowing how many catches it took either of those guys to compile these stats.

 
I don't like saying if someone's a HOFer or not when their career isn't over yet, doesn't make a ton of sense really.
I agree in many cases, like Welker's. But there are certain guys we all know are HOF bound even with a few years left. Welker isn't one of those guys, but he's in the next tier of "maybe... let's see what else he does"

 
He's a really good football player playing with two of the best QB's ever. HOF? Probably not. Just a really good player with some luck on his side.
What's that make Rice?
This is a great example of what a GREAT player does in a GREAT situation. They set records. They enter the conversation as GOAT. They have single seasons that people remember for the rest of their lives.

Do you really want to compare Welker's yardage and TD totals to Harrison and Rice? Or even Reggie Wayne's?

 
I don't hold year one or two against him (maybe against SD or MIA but not him) as WRs often take time to develop.

He has five (or six if you're going to roll with 11 starts and do math toward a full season) season that are in "best of" territory especially the 122 and 123 catch years. That has oh so often not been a long enough period of top play for a RB so it sure can't be for Wes.
He has a grand total of two seasons in the top 5 in yardage, and only 4 in the top 10. He's never finished in the top 5 in receiving TDs, and has only finished in the top 10 once (sixth in 2011 with 9).

Really, he's only had one top season, 2011, with 1569 yards and 9 TDs. His second best season, 2009, he averaged just 11.0 yards per reception and had just 4 TDs. There's no receiver in the HOF with less than 12.5 yards per reception (C.Carter's at 12.6); Welker's career average is 11.1.
Remarkably Welker made the All Pro team in 2009. He was outplayed by a WR on his own team that didnt make it, Moss who had 1,264/13 vs his 1,348/4.
Did you hold this against Moss when Carter did better or Carter when Moss did better?How about Owens when he played opposite Rice? too young?

Was it a negative when Holt did better than Bruce or Bruce did better than Holt?

Boldin and Fitzgerald?
Are you asking if it would have been silly to put the worse from each of those equations onto the All-Pro team ahead of the one that did better? Because if so, then yes.If you're asking anything else, you missed the point.
Exactly. Bri, specifics please. Are there season in which those guys underperformed the other WR on their team and made the All Pro team over them? If so, then yes that too was a mistake. You are coming off as bias and bitter all hell here.

 
Yes, because catches are an input stat, and like all other input stats are not very useful in determining how good a player is. If you make the top 10 in career receptions without ever putting up good output stats, you are the definition of a compiler.
This is just something that you've made up out of thin air. We all have our own opinions, but I don't agree at all here. You're basically inferring that 1-trick pony deep threats with nothing but straight line speed are superior. I mean, 1 catch for 80 yards is better than 5 for 70, right?

Welker isn't asked to put up 16ypc. He runs a lot of routes that terminate towards the sideline or with him coming to a stop. Sure, it's easier to line up in the slot in man coverage and get open, but Welker does it with an ease and consistency that no one has ever replicated. You put him in the slot and give him one of 4 routes to run and no one in the NFL can cover him consistently. Given that no one in the NFL can do it, it's likely that means there's no one in the world that can do it. He's just too quick. You put him in the middle of the field in man coverage and it's impossible to prevent him from getting open with any kind of consistency. It's not like he's some slow plodder who gets left uncovered as a check-down. He's absurdly quick out of his cuts.

The notion that catches are just a compiler stat and touchdowns, the most variable and unpredictable of all statistics, are ever-important is one I can't agree with.

 
As rule changes inflate passing yards, comparing current receiving totals to those of guys already in the Hall is becoming even less of an apples to apples comparison.
100 catches now is probably more comparable to 80 or 90 in a previous era. I don't know, some smaller number though still fairly high. 122 is nothing to shake a stick at in any era though.
Which WR had a better season . . . the guy with 1500/10 or the one with 1100/5?
1100/5 without a doubt. Though it was actually 1100/6. Mac Speedie's 1947 season was the third highest receiving yards in NFL history to that point.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't hold year one or two against him (maybe against SD or MIA but not him) as WRs often take time to develop.
He has five (or six if you're going to roll with 11 starts and do math toward a full season) season that are in "best of" territory especially the 122 and 123 catch years. That has oh so often not been a long enough period of top play for a RB so it sure can't be for Wes.
He has a grand total of two seasons in the top 5 in yardage, and only 4 in the top 10. He's never finished in the top 5 in receiving TDs, and has only finished in the top 10 once (sixth in 2011 with 9).

Really, he's only had one top season, 2011, with 1569 yards and 9 TDs. His second best season, 2009, he averaged just 11.0 yards per reception and had just 4 TDs. There's no receiver in the HOF with less than 12.5 yards per reception (C.Carter's at 12.6); Welker's career average is 11.1.
You left catches out of your post. I don't doubt or argue that stuff like you mentioned will be used against him by some.

It seems a fair prediction to put him in top ten all time for reception total in 2 or 3 years.
Yes, because catches are an input stat, and like all other input stats are not very useful in determining how good a player is. If you make the top 10 in career receptions without ever putting up good output stats, you are the definition of a compiler.
Is there a good source for 1st downs by player?

 
Yes, because catches are an input stat, and like all other input stats are not very useful in determining how good a player is. If you make the top 10 in career receptions without ever putting up good output stats, you are the definition of a compiler.
This is just something that you've made up out of thin air. We all have our own opinions, but I don't agree at all here. You're basically inferring that 1-trick pony deep threats with nothing but straight line speed are superior. I mean, 1 catch for 80 yards is better than 5 for 70, right?

Welker isn't asked to put up 16ypc. He runs a lot of routes that terminate towards the sideline or with him coming to a stop. Sure, it's easier to line up in the slot in man coverage and get open, but Welker does it with an ease and consistency that no one has ever replicated. You put him in the slot and give him one of 4 routes to run and no one in the NFL can cover him consistently. Given that no one in the NFL can do it, it's likely that means there's no one in the world that can do it. He's just too quick. You put him in the middle of the field in man coverage and it's impossible to prevent him from getting open with any kind of consistency. It's not like he's some slow plodder who gets left uncovered as a check-down. He's absurdly quick out of his cuts.

The notion that catches are just a compiler stat and touchdowns, the most variable and unpredictable of all statistics, are ever-important is one I can't agree with.
Anyone who works with metrics for a living knows that input metrics suck. "Our library has 6 million books." Great, so what? Who is using them, how many of them get used, how does that compare to other libraries?

Eddie George's 1999 where he had 320/1304/9 was better than his 1998 when he had 348/1294/5. Are you seriously going to argue that that's not true? The input metric is meaningless; the output metrics are the important ones.

And yes, 1 for 80 is better than 5 for 70. If you're on the 20 yard line, one of them gets you into the end zone, the other gets you to the 10. You'd much rather your QB throw 1 pass for 80 yards than 5 passes for 70 yards, so it makes no sense to prefer a WR with 5 receptions for 70 yards over one with 1 reception for 80.

 
This is too narrow since Welker will be competing with far more players than I've included here, but I didn't think of that until after I'd already done this and I'm lazy so I'll be giving full refunds on request.

Here are the top 15 career yardage #s to date for WRs who entered the NFL from 2000-2008 (i.e. within four years of Welker on either side):

Reggie Wayne 13063Steve Smith 11452Andre Johnson 11254Chad Johnson 11059Larry Fitzgerald 10413Anquan Boldin 10170Santana Moss 9715Roddy White 8725Laveranues Coles 8609Wes Welker 8580Plaxico Burress 8499Calvin Johnson 7836Chris Chambers 7770Brandon Marshall 7768Marques Colston 7393Of those, Welker won't finish ahead of:Reggie Wayne 13063

Steve Smith 11452

Andre Johnson 11254

Larry Fitzgerald 10413

Calvin Johnson 7836

And he might not finish ahead of:

Chad Johnson 11059

Anquan Boldin 10170

Roddy White 8725

Brandon Marshall 7768

Marques Colston 7393

And TDs looks ever worse.

I'm sure the Hall of Fame voters would love to vote in a white, 'gritty' guy who played for teams with Tom Brady and Peyton Manning, but he's not even in the discussion as one of top five WRs from the narrow 'Wes Welker era'. He might not even be top 10 when all is said and done.

There's just no case to be made in his favor.

 
Yes, because catches are an input stat, and like all other input stats are not very useful in determining how good a player is. If you make the top 10 in career receptions without ever putting up good output stats, you are the definition of a compiler.
This is just something that you've made up out of thin air. We all have our own opinions, but I don't agree at all here. You're basically inferring that 1-trick pony deep threats with nothing but straight line speed are superior. I mean, 1 catch for 80 yards is better than 5 for 70, right?

Welker isn't asked to put up 16ypc. He runs a lot of routes that terminate towards the sideline or with him coming to a stop. Sure, it's easier to line up in the slot in man coverage and get open, but Welker does it with an ease and consistency that no one has ever replicated. You put him in the slot and give him one of 4 routes to run and no one in the NFL can cover him consistently. Given that no one in the NFL can do it, it's likely that means there's no one in the world that can do it. He's just too quick. You put him in the middle of the field in man coverage and it's impossible to prevent him from getting open with any kind of consistency. It's not like he's some slow plodder who gets left uncovered as a check-down. He's absurdly quick out of his cuts.

The notion that catches are just a compiler stat and touchdowns, the most variable and unpredictable of all statistics, are ever-important is one I can't agree with.
Anyone who works with metrics for a living knows that input metrics suck. "Our library has 6 million books." Great, so what? Who is using them, how many of them get used, how does that compare to other libraries?

Eddie George's 1999 where he had 320/1304/9 was better than his 1998 when he had 348/1294/5. Are you seriously going to argue that that's not true? The input metric is meaningless; the output metrics are the important ones.

And yes, 1 for 80 is better than 5 for 70. If you're on the 20 yard line, one of them gets you into the end zone, the other gets you to the 10. You'd much rather your QB throw 1 pass for 80 yards than 5 passes for 70 yards, so it makes no sense to prefer a WR with 5 receptions for 70 yards over one with 1 reception for 80.
Catch != Carry

You don't have to get open to get a carry.

Do you intend to argue that Desean Jackson is better than Wes Welker?

ETA: Targets are the input metric for WRs, not catches.

ETA2: You could even argue that running a route on a passing play is the input metric, since even a target typically requires getting open which is skill beyond just being there. Either way, trying to compare catches to a baseline input stat like carries is absurd.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
He's a really good football player playing with two of the best QB's ever. HOF? Probably not. Just a really good player with some luck on his side.
What's that make Rice?
This is a great example of what a GREAT player does in a GREAT situation. They set records. They enter the conversation as GOAT. They have single seasons that people remember for the rest of their lives.

Do you really want to compare Welker's yardage and TD totals to Harrison and Rice? Or even Reggie Wayne's?
Yeah I said let's discuss their yardage and catch totals, clearly that's typed in above.

You want to hold it against Wes that he has Brady and now Peyton throwing to him, but kudos to Harrison and Wayne because the same guy threw to them?

I mentioned Rice. He had two HOF QBs throwing to him. Your argument that great players set records in a great situation....

Patriots wide receiverWes Welker became the first player in NFL history with five seasons of 100 or more catches when he corralled his fifth catch of the evening in the fourth quarter of the Patriots' matchup with the San Francisco 49ers.Welker broke a record he previously shared withJerry Rice, Marvin Harrison and current Bears wide receiver Brandon Marshall, who each have four seasons of 100 or more catches.
ESPN article
 
As rule changes inflate passing yards, comparing current receiving totals to those of guys already in the Hall is becoming even less of an apples to apples comparison.
100 catches now is probably more comparable to 80 or 90 in a previous era. I don't know, some smaller number though still fairly high. 122 is nothing to shake a stick at in any era though.
Which WR had a better season . . . the guy with 1500/10 or the one with 1100/5?
Both as they miracuslously got those stats without catching the ball

 
The gamut of opinions in this thread is narrow and ridiculous. How could anyone believe he wasn't?

Ive argued this before and a lot of people disagree out of principle, but IMO to be a hall of famer you have to be one of the best at what you do. Anyone that says Welker isn't one of if not the best possession receiver to play the game is crazy - and he has done so significantly undersized.
If he were the best long snapper, the best kicker, the best punter, the best return man, or the best special teams gunner, he wouldn't be making the HOF either. The HOF doesn't have a position listing for "possession receiver"; it only has one for "receiver", and Welker is not one of the best of his generation. There are several better receivers who have been waiting for HOF inclusion already, and there will be more by the time Welker retires. Tim Brown is a better version of Welker and he's not in, may not ever get in the way things are going.
You're right about all those things, and all those things are dumb.
You really think the best long snapper deserves the Hall of Fame more than, say, Charles Haley? Haley was both more famous and had way more impact on the game. Every time you select a minor role player into the Hall you're keeping a major player out.
How is that what you got from what I said?

 
Yes, because catches are an input stat, and like all other input stats are not very useful in determining how good a player is. If you make the top 10 in career receptions without ever putting up good output stats, you are the definition of a compiler.
This is just something that you've made up out of thin air. We all have our own opinions, but I don't agree at all here. You're basically inferring that 1-trick pony deep threats with nothing but straight line speed are superior. I mean, 1 catch for 80 yards is better than 5 for 70, right?

Welker isn't asked to put up 16ypc. He runs a lot of routes that terminate towards the sideline or with him coming to a stop. Sure, it's easier to line up in the slot in man coverage and get open, but Welker does it with an ease and consistency that no one has ever replicated. You put him in the slot and give him one of 4 routes to run and no one in the NFL can cover him consistently. Given that no one in the NFL can do it, it's likely that means there's no one in the world that can do it. He's just too quick. You put him in the middle of the field in man coverage and it's impossible to prevent him from getting open with any kind of consistency. It's not like he's some slow plodder who gets left uncovered as a check-down. He's absurdly quick out of his cuts.

The notion that catches are just a compiler stat and touchdowns, the most variable and unpredictable of all statistics, are ever-important is one I can't agree with.
Anyone who works with metrics for a living knows that input metrics suck. "Our library has 6 million books." Great, so what? Who is using them, how many of them get used, how does that compare to other libraries?

Eddie George's 1999 where he had 320/1304/9 was better than his 1998 when he had 348/1294/5. Are you seriously going to argue that that's not true? The input metric is meaningless; the output metrics are the important ones.

And yes, 1 for 80 is better than 5 for 70. If you're on the 20 yard line, one of them gets you into the end zone, the other gets you to the 10. You'd much rather your QB throw 1 pass for 80 yards than 5 passes for 70 yards, so it makes no sense to prefer a WR with 5 receptions for 70 yards over one with 1 reception for 80.
It makes no sense to prefer one over the other without context. 1/80 is not automatically better than 5/70 as neither lists touchdowns or first downs. Maybe I'm alone in this, but the three stats that mean the most to me are scores (need to score to win) and first downs (move those chains, prolong drives, keep the offense on the field) and turnovers. Unfortunately, it seems almost everyone disagrees on the value of first downs as it's really difficult to find good sources for that stat.

And maybe I'm wrong on this, but from what I've seen, Wes moves the chains with the best of them.

 
Could eventually be one, but is not one right now. Odd conversation to have right now.
:goodposting:
Here's the problem I have in all these HOF discussion threads. People want to "see what happens," which somewhat makes sense. However, in some ways it doesn't. The odds strongly favor tht Welker's numbers are going to start dropping soon, especially as he gets older (and at this point he is far from young). Let's say he sticks it out 5 more years and averages 80 catches, 900 yards, and 5 TD a season. Sure that will pad his career numbers, and people will point to where he might end up ranked on career lists.

However, I have always had a problem with this, as guys in the twilight or last few years of their careers are almost always performing at a level worse than their primes and also nowhere near the top of the league by that point. So IMO, we should not be rewarding players for doing worse and perhaps becoming not much more than an above average player in their mid to late 30s.

Put another way, if someone started a thread about "Is PLAYER X a HOFer" after posting an 800-900-5 season, people would be LOLing all day long. While certainly possible that he could do better with Peyton, it's less likely that he will put up BETTER numbers the rest of the way toward the end of his career.

So long story long, if he's not trending as a HOFer now, IMO it's unlikely he's going to start trending up by performing worse . . . if that makes sense.

 
Yes, because catches are an input stat, and like all other input stats are not very useful in determining how good a player is. If you make the top 10 in career receptions without ever putting up good output stats, you are the definition of a compiler.
This is just something that you've made up out of thin air. We all have our own opinions, but I don't agree at all here. You're basically inferring that 1-trick pony deep threats with nothing but straight line speed are superior. I mean, 1 catch for 80 yards is better than 5 for 70, right?

Welker isn't asked to put up 16ypc. He runs a lot of routes that terminate towards the sideline or with him coming to a stop. Sure, it's easier to line up in the slot in man coverage and get open, but Welker does it with an ease and consistency that no one has ever replicated. You put him in the slot and give him one of 4 routes to run and no one in the NFL can cover him consistently. Given that no one in the NFL can do it, it's likely that means there's no one in the world that can do it. He's just too quick. You put him in the middle of the field in man coverage and it's impossible to prevent him from getting open with any kind of consistency. It's not like he's some slow plodder who gets left uncovered as a check-down. He's absurdly quick out of his cuts.

The notion that catches are just a compiler stat and touchdowns, the most variable and unpredictable of all statistics, are ever-important is one I can't agree with.
Anyone who works with metrics for a living knows that input metrics suck. "Our library has 6 million books." Great, so what? Who is using them, how many of them get used, how does that compare to other libraries?

Eddie George's 1999 where he had 320/1304/9 was better than his 1998 when he had 348/1294/5. Are you seriously going to argue that that's not true? The input metric is meaningless; the output metrics are the important ones.

And yes, 1 for 80 is better than 5 for 70. If you're on the 20 yard line, one of them gets you into the end zone, the other gets you to the 10. You'd much rather your QB throw 1 pass for 80 yards than 5 passes for 70 yards, so it makes no sense to prefer a WR with 5 receptions for 70 yards over one with 1 reception for 80.
Catch != Carry

You don't have to get open to get a carry.

Do you intend to argue that Desean Jackson is better than Wes Welker?

ETA: Targets are the input metric for WRs, not catches.

ETA2: You could even argue that running a route on a passing play is the input metric, since even a target typically requires getting open which is skill beyond just being there. Either way, trying to compare catches to a baseline input stat like carries is absurd.
OK, which do you think is better for a QB:

Drew Bledsoe, 400/691, 4555/25

Aaron Rodgers, 343/502, 4643/45

Bledsoe had almost 60 more completions (= receptions for his WRs).

 
Yes, because catches are an input stat, and like all other input stats are not very useful in determining how good a player is. If you make the top 10 in career receptions without ever putting up good output stats, you are the definition of a compiler.
This is just something that you've made up out of thin air. We all have our own opinions, but I don't agree at all here. You're basically inferring that 1-trick pony deep threats with nothing but straight line speed are superior. I mean, 1 catch for 80 yards is better than 5 for 70, right?

Welker isn't asked to put up 16ypc. He runs a lot of routes that terminate towards the sideline or with him coming to a stop. Sure, it's easier to line up in the slot in man coverage and get open, but Welker does it with an ease and consistency that no one has ever replicated. You put him in the slot and give him one of 4 routes to run and no one in the NFL can cover him consistently. Given that no one in the NFL can do it, it's likely that means there's no one in the world that can do it. He's just too quick. You put him in the middle of the field in man coverage and it's impossible to prevent him from getting open with any kind of consistency. It's not like he's some slow plodder who gets left uncovered as a check-down. He's absurdly quick out of his cuts.

The notion that catches are just a compiler stat and touchdowns, the most variable and unpredictable of all statistics, are ever-important is one I can't agree with.
Anyone who works with metrics for a living knows that input metrics suck. "Our library has 6 million books." Great, so what? Who is using them, how many of them get used, how does that compare to other libraries?

Eddie George's 1999 where he had 320/1304/9 was better than his 1998 when he had 348/1294/5. Are you seriously going to argue that that's not true? The input metric is meaningless; the output metrics are the important ones.

And yes, 1 for 80 is better than 5 for 70. If you're on the 20 yard line, one of them gets you into the end zone, the other gets you to the 10. You'd much rather your QB throw 1 pass for 80 yards than 5 passes for 70 yards, so it makes no sense to prefer a WR with 5 receptions for 70 yards over one with 1 reception for 80.
It makes no sense to prefer one over the other without context. 1/80 is not automatically better than 5/70 as neither lists touchdowns or first downs. Maybe I'm alone in this, but the three stats that mean the most to me are scores (need to score to win) and first downs (move those chains, prolong drives, keep the offense on the field) and turnovers. Unfortunately, it seems almost everyone disagrees on the value of first downs as it's really difficult to find good sources for that stat.

And maybe I'm wrong on this, but from what I've seen, Wes moves the chains with the best of them.
First downs are at least an output stat, but a weak one. It's obvious that 1 reception for 30 yards (=1 first down) is better than 2 receptions for 11 yards each (=2 first downs).

 
...And yes, 1 for 80 is better than 5 for 70. If you're on the 20 yard line, one of them gets you into the end zone, the other gets you to the 10. You'd much rather your QB throw 1 pass for 80 yards than 5 passes for 70 yards, so it makes no sense to prefer a WR with 5 receptions for 70 yards over one with 1 reception for 80.
I dislike this kind of example. I think it ignores too much of the reality of football.

Let me explain with a similar but clearer example before coming back to it. WR1 has 5 catches for 80 yards on 5 targets, WR2 has 5 catches for 80 yards on 10 targets. Which is preferable?

Look at it from the standpoint of targets as an input metric and you'd say WR1. And that would be completely wrong. Both players had 5 plays with catches which are identical. Then there were 5 additional plays where the QB had to throw the ball, and his choosing WR2 over WR1 on those plays suggests WR2 outplayed WR1 to where he was judged as the player most likely to make the catch. Because he got open, because he has better hands, whichever.

There's a lot more than averages that has to be taken into account in football stats. In most cases I'd rather have the player who is going to move the ball more consistently and contribute on more plays. A 1 catch guy, if I'm the DC I know I can cover him and shut him down the vast majority of the time with a single defender, and yes he might beat me for a TD at some point. But knowing he doesn't get open consistently means I can shift my defense to stop the players that are going to impact the other 70 offensive snaps I'm facing. I might take that chance of shutting down multiple drives potentially at the price of a single long TD. It definitely isn't clearcut as the example would suggest when you ignore football reality.

Not to mention would you rather your offense cover an equal distance in 1 play or in 5 plays? Unless time is running out, obviously you would rather have it take place over 5 times. That is time to rest your defense. That is time you wear down the opposing defense.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't hold year one or two against him (maybe against SD or MIA but not him) as WRs often take time to develop.

He has five (or six if you're going to roll with 11 starts and do math toward a full season) season that are in "best of" territory especially the 122 and 123 catch years. That has oh so often not been a long enough period of top play for a RB so it sure can't be for Wes.
He has a grand total of two seasons in the top 5 in yardage, and only 4 in the top 10. He's never finished in the top 5 in receiving TDs, and has only finished in the top 10 once (sixth in 2011 with 9).

Really, he's only had one top season, 2011, with 1569 yards and 9 TDs. His second best season, 2009, he averaged just 11.0 yards per reception and had just 4 TDs. There's no receiver in the HOF with less than 12.5 yards per reception (C.Carter's at 12.6); Welker's career average is 11.1.
Remarkably Welker made the All Pro team in 2009. He was outplayed by a WR on his own team that didnt make it, Moss who had 1,264/13 vs his 1,348/4.
Did you hold this against Moss when Carter did better or Carter when Moss did better?How about Owens when he played opposite Rice? too young?

Was it a negative when Holt did better than Bruce or Bruce did better than Holt?

Boldin and Fitzgerald?
Are you asking if it would have been silly to put the worse from each of those equations onto the All-Pro team ahead of the one that did better? Because if so, then yes.If you're asking anything else, you missed the point.
Exactly. Bri, specifics please. Are there season in which those guys underperformed the other WR on their team and made the All Pro team over them? If so, then yes that too was a mistake.You are coming off as bias and bitter all hell here.
Yeah I'll go do the research on WRs on the same team making the all-pro team and ignore the entire context of that post or many of the other posts within this thread. Sit tight, I'll be right back.

I began saying four or five years of this continued production. I didn't say he's in now.

That doesn't mean I think it's fair to discredit him for catching the ball, playing with two top QBs(which is curiously used against him after a single game with Peyton) or that at one point he had a top WR opposite him.

 
I don't hold year one or two against him (maybe against SD or MIA but not him) as WRs often take time to develop.

He has five (or six if you're going to roll with 11 starts and do math toward a full season) season that are in "best of" territory especially the 122 and 123 catch years. That has oh so often not been a long enough period of top play for a RB so it sure can't be for Wes.
He has a grand total of two seasons in the top 5 in yardage, and only 4 in the top 10. He's never finished in the top 5 in receiving TDs, and has only finished in the top 10 once (sixth in 2011 with 9).

Really, he's only had one top season, 2011, with 1569 yards and 9 TDs. His second best season, 2009, he averaged just 11.0 yards per reception and had just 4 TDs. There's no receiver in the HOF with less than 12.5 yards per reception (C.Carter's at 12.6); Welker's career average is 11.1.
Remarkably Welker made the All Pro team in 2009. He was outplayed by a WR on his own team that didnt make it, Moss who had 1,264/13 vs his 1,348/4.
Did you hold this against Moss when Carter did better or Carter when Moss did better?How about Owens when he played opposite Rice? too young?

Was it a negative when Holt did better than Bruce or Bruce did better than Holt?

Boldin and Fitzgerald?
Are you asking if it would have been silly to put the worse from each of those equations onto the All-Pro team ahead of the one that did better? Because if so, then yes.If you're asking anything else, you missed the point.
Exactly. Bri, specifics please. Are there season in which those guys underperformed the other WR on their team and made the All Pro team over them? If so, then yes that too was a mistake.You are coming off as bias and bitter all hell here.
Yeah I'll go do the research on WRs on the same team making the all-pro team and ignore the entire context of that post or many of the other posts within this thread. Sit tight, I'll be right back.I began saying four or five years of this continued production. I didn't say he's in now.

That doesn't mean I think it's fair to discredit him for catching the ball, playing with two top QBs(which is curiously used against him after a single game with Peyton) or that at one point he had a top WR opposite him.
Why stop now? You've managed to ignore a lot in this thread already....
 
Please feel free to post how your team stops Wes Welker and held him to 3 catches or less on so many occasions.

 
Wes Welkers biggest feat is his durability, missing only 3 regular season games since 2005. I'm not sure if thats a HoF attribute, but thats what made him accumulate those stats. I have the feeling that, if he won the 2 SB with the pats and maybe one with the broncos, he woud be a surefire HOF. Without rings? His drop and the fact that he catched from Peyton and Brady will probably make it very hard for him to get into the HoF

 
Yes, because catches are an input stat, and like all other input stats are not very useful in determining how good a player is. If you make the top 10 in career receptions without ever putting up good output stats, you are the definition of a compiler.
This is just something that you've made up out of thin air. We all have our own opinions, but I don't agree at all here. You're basically inferring that 1-trick pony deep threats with nothing but straight line speed are superior. I mean, 1 catch for 80 yards is better than 5 for 70, right?

Welker isn't asked to put up 16ypc. He runs a lot of routes that terminate towards the sideline or with him coming to a stop. Sure, it's easier to line up in the slot in man coverage and get open, but Welker does it with an ease and consistency that no one has ever replicated. You put him in the slot and give him one of 4 routes to run and no one in the NFL can cover him consistently. Given that no one in the NFL can do it, it's likely that means there's no one in the world that can do it. He's just too quick. You put him in the middle of the field in man coverage and it's impossible to prevent him from getting open with any kind of consistency. It's not like he's some slow plodder who gets left uncovered as a check-down. He's absurdly quick out of his cuts.

The notion that catches are just a compiler stat and touchdowns, the most variable and unpredictable of all statistics, are ever-important is one I can't agree with.
Anyone who works with metrics for a living knows that input metrics suck. "Our library has 6 million books." Great, so what? Who is using them, how many of them get used, how does that compare to other libraries?

Eddie George's 1999 where he had 320/1304/9 was better than his 1998 when he had 348/1294/5. Are you seriously going to argue that that's not true? The input metric is meaningless; the output metrics are the important ones.

And yes, 1 for 80 is better than 5 for 70. If you're on the 20 yard line, one of them gets you into the end zone, the other gets you to the 10. You'd much rather your QB throw 1 pass for 80 yards than 5 passes for 70 yards, so it makes no sense to prefer a WR with 5 receptions for 70 yards over one with 1 reception for 80.
Catch != Carry

You don't have to get open to get a carry.

Do you intend to argue that Desean Jackson is better than Wes Welker?

ETA: Targets are the input metric for WRs, not catches.

ETA2: You could even argue that running a route on a passing play is the input metric, since even a target typically requires getting open which is skill beyond just being there. Either way, trying to compare catches to a baseline input stat like carries is absurd.
OK, which do you think is better for a QB:

Drew Bledsoe, 400/691, 4555/25

Aaron Rodgers, 343/502, 4643/45

Bledsoe had almost 60 more completions (= receptions for his WRs).
Not really a relevant example as Bledsoe had almost 200 additional attempts. That's the input stat here, not completions.

Let's not even try to pretend no one cares about completions for QBs. There was no shortage of people going nuts over Tebow's low completion percentage even when his yards per attempt was still high (8.0).

Regardless, we're going to get nowhere as long as you stick to the absurd notion that a reception is just an input stat that anyone could walk out there and get. I could walk out onto an NFL football field and receive a carry or throw a pass. I could not walk out there and make a catch with an NFL DB covering me. I probably couldn't even get open enough to receive a target

 
Yes, because catches are an input stat, and like all other input stats are not very useful in determining how good a player is. If you make the top 10 in career receptions without ever putting up good output stats, you are the definition of a compiler.
This is just something that you've made up out of thin air. We all have our own opinions, but I don't agree at all here. You're basically inferring that 1-trick pony deep threats with nothing but straight line speed are superior. I mean, 1 catch for 80 yards is better than 5 for 70, right?

Welker isn't asked to put up 16ypc. He runs a lot of routes that terminate towards the sideline or with him coming to a stop. Sure, it's easier to line up in the slot in man coverage and get open, but Welker does it with an ease and consistency that no one has ever replicated. You put him in the slot and give him one of 4 routes to run and no one in the NFL can cover him consistently. Given that no one in the NFL can do it, it's likely that means there's no one in the world that can do it. He's just too quick. You put him in the middle of the field in man coverage and it's impossible to prevent him from getting open with any kind of consistency. It's not like he's some slow plodder who gets left uncovered as a check-down. He's absurdly quick out of his cuts.

The notion that catches are just a compiler stat and touchdowns, the most variable and unpredictable of all statistics, are ever-important is one I can't agree with.
Anyone who works with metrics for a living knows that input metrics suck. "Our library has 6 million books." Great, so what? Who is using them, how many of them get used, how does that compare to other libraries?

Eddie George's 1999 where he had 320/1304/9 was better than his 1998 when he had 348/1294/5. Are you seriously going to argue that that's not true? The input metric is meaningless; the output metrics are the important ones.

And yes, 1 for 80 is better than 5 for 70. If you're on the 20 yard line, one of them gets you into the end zone, the other gets you to the 10. You'd much rather your QB throw 1 pass for 80 yards than 5 passes for 70 yards, so it makes no sense to prefer a WR with 5 receptions for 70 yards over one with 1 reception for 80.
Catch != Carry

You don't have to get open to get a carry.

Do you intend to argue that Desean Jackson is better than Wes Welker?

ETA: Targets are the input metric for WRs, not catches.

ETA2: You could even argue that running a route on a passing play is the input metric, since even a target typically requires getting open which is skill beyond just being there. Either way, trying to compare catches to a baseline input stat like carries is absurd.
OK, which do you think is better for a QB:

Drew Bledsoe, 400/691, 4555/25

Aaron Rodgers, 343/502, 4643/45

Bledsoe had almost 60 more completions (= receptions for his WRs).
Not really a relevant example as Bledsoe had almost 200 additional attempts. That's the input stat here, not completions.

Let's not even try to pretend no one cares about completions for QBs. There was no shortage of people going nuts over Tebow's low completion percentage even when his yards per attempt was still high (8.0).

Regardless, we're going to get nowhere as long as you stick to the absurd notion that a reception is just an input stat that anyone could walk out there and get. I could walk out onto an NFL football field and receive a carry or throw a pass. I could not walk out there and make a catch with an NFL DB covering me. I probably couldn't even get open enough to receive a target
If you walk out there and don't get a target or a reception, you're doing no harm to the team. If you throw a pass or run the ball, you probably create a disaster.

If you absolutely had to run a route, about the only way you could possibly do the team any good at all would be to run a deep one, because at least then you're taking a defensive player out of position to do something else.

Which, incidentally, is another reason slot guys running underneath routes almost exclusively are relatively less valuable. Big, fast downfield targets create multiple problems for the defense to solve, because they spread the influence of the offense out over much larger portions of the field, meaning relatively less defensive force will be available at the point of attack, whatever it turns out to be.

A downfield guy not only takes defenders away, but he puts himself on that much-ballyhooed island, meaning if he wins that little war, he is in very good position to make a huge play, or even score.

An underneath guy does nothing to stretch the defense or spread it thin, and has few options for turning a completion into a big play, since his work tends to happen in the heart of the defense. That's fine, and it's the nature of the job. But it's also why guys like that are generally the checkdown guys. And it's why the world's best among them, like Welker, command the same sort of salaries place kickers get, while teams break the bank for his downfield counterparts.

 
Ok... there have been 26 WRs who had 800+ targets since 2002 (when the data dominator started including them)...

The first column is yards/target, the second is touchdown percentage/target and the third column is the two combined. This helps get around the problem of role in the offense. It doesn't get around the problem of QB quality at all however since the main driver of catch % is QB quality, but that's not an issue in this case since Welker's targets have overwhelmingly come from A+ QBs.

Code:
	Player	  Y/T	TD/T%	 TotalRandy Moss	 8.27 	 8.61 	 16.88 Marques Colston	 9.02 	 7.06 	 16.08 Terrell Owens	 8.12 	 7.81 	 15.93 Marvin Harrison	 8.30 	 7.31 	 15.61 Calvin Johnson	 8.86 	 6.11 	 14.97 Plaxico Burress	 7.82 	 6.28 	 14.11 Santana Moss	 8.40 	 5.54 	 13.94 Hines Ward	 7.99 	 5.86 	 13.85 Reggie Wayne	 8.54 	 5.25 	 13.79 Larry Fitzgerald 7.83 	 5.71 	 13.54 Steve Smith	 8.60 	 4.82 	 13.42 Donald Driver	 8.33 	 5.03 	 13.35 Chad Johnson	 8.26 	 5.08 	 13.34 Andre Johnson	 8.61 	 4.29 	 12.90 Roddy White	 8.05 	 4.81 	 12.86 Torry Holt	 8.11 	 4.65 	 12.76 Anquan Boldin	 8.01 	 4.65 	 12.66 Isaac Bruce	 8.06 	 4.15 	 12.21 T.J. Houshmandz	 7.47 	 4.69 	 12.17 Brandon Marshall 7.59 	 4.40 	 11.99 Muhsin Muhammad	 7.53 	 4.45 	 11.98 Deion Branch	 7.54 	 4.42 	 11.96 Derrick Mason	 7.80 	 4.06 	 11.86 Chris Chambers	 6.72 	 5.06 	 11.78 Wes Welker	 7.95 	 3.52 	 11.47 Laveranues Coles 7.23 	 4.02 	 11.26
Looking at Welker with his peers, the WRs good enough to get a ton of targets, he doesn't come off very well even if you spot him the benefit of using targets (where his high catch percentage gives him a boost) instead of receptions as the denominator.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you walk out there and don't get a target or a reception, you're doing no harm to the team. If you throw a pass or run the ball, you probably create a disaster.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the point that was being discussed.

 
Does that mean Colston is much better than the simple stats show?
Arguable IMO since he's played his entire career with a prime years Drew Brees. And his simple stats are pretty darn good in any event.

I do think it sort of makes the point about Welker though.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top