"WR X's numbers have to go somewhere" (1 Viewer)

[Joe T]

You see it over and over here in the shark pool and it just ain't true. Any time you have a good WR leave a team or retire and someone is going to post, "Well his numbers have to go somewhere."

It's not true. In fact, most of the time the passing offense declines after a good WR leaves.

One example is the Buffalo Bills. Well, Moulds numbers have to go somewhere. Do they? What if only half of his numbers move because the WR's just aren't as good and now they are doubling Evans? This happens a good deal of the time, but the tendency I see here in the "Shark Pool" is to give all of Moulds numbers to someone.

I've seen people who are quality FF players and minds try to give Evans half of Moulds red zone targets. This just isn't possible.

Please stop using this inaccurate phrase.

The numbers don't really have to go anywhere.



That is all.

Rant ovah.

 

[wannabee]

You see it over and over here in the shark pool and it just ain't true. Any time you have a good WR leave a team or retire and someone is going to post, "Well his numbers have to go somewhere."

It's not true. In fact, most of the time the passing offense declines after a good WR leaves.

One example is the Buffalo Bills. Well, Moulds numbers have to go somewhere. Do they? What if only half of his numbers move because the WR's just aren't as good and now they are doubling Evans? This happens a good deal of the time, but the tendency I see here in the "Shark Pool" is to give all of Moulds numbers to someone.

I've seen people who are quality FF players and minds try to give Evans half of Moulds red zone targets. This just isn't possible.

Please stop using this inaccurate phrase.

The numbers don't really have to go anywhere.



That is all.

Rant ovah.

So, does this mean that Matt Jones will get at least half of Jimmy Smith's production?

 

[David Yudkin]

I agree that 100% in Year X does not = 100% in Year X + 1. But 100% does not ever really = 0% the next year either. So some % of that production would have to go somewhere.

 

[Joe T]

I agree that 100% in Year X does not = 100% in Year X + 1. But 100% does not ever really = 0% the next year either. So some % of that production would have to go somewhere.

Yes, they usually do go "somewhere" but most of the time it is far less than what people are allocating out. And this smaller allocation is usually spread over more people than what is forecast.

 

[Joe T]

Lets take a look at the 2003 49ers.

Their WR's hauled in 2305 yards and 20 TD's. 1102/9 of these were by Owens who left the team. Well, his yards have to go somewhere, don't they?

Here comes the 2004 49ers where the WR's haul in 1912 total yards and 13 TD. So instead of spreading out the 1102 and 9 TD's lost you should really be spreading out 709 and 2. Makes a pretty big difference. Add in the fact that this gets spread out over 2 or 3 guys and you don't really have anyone seeing a huge increase year over year.

 

[BlueDredSo]

I agree that 100% in Year X does not = 100% in Year X + 1. But 100% does not ever really = 0% the next year either. So some % of that production would have to go somewhere.

So, what you're REALLY saying is: X +1(X*.01)/X-1(X) = JUST BECAUSE A GUY LEAVES TOWN DOESN'T MEAN THAT JOE 'NFL EUROPE' SCHMO IS GONNA CATCH 70+ BALLS WITH 5+ TOUCHDOWNS!Well, after researching the subject further I find your conclusion to be 100% true. Now that I'm done with that I can go pwn some newbs on the new server!

YESSSHHHH!

 

[mightyeskimo]

I agree that 100% in Year X does not = 100% in Year X + 1.  But 100% does not ever really = 0% the next year either.  So some % of that production would have to go somewhere.

So, what you're REALLY saying is: X +1(X*.01)/X-1(X) = JUST BECAUSE A GUY LEAVES TOWN DOESN'T MEAN THAT JOE 'NFL EUROPE' SCHMO IS GONNA CATCH 70+ BALLS WITH 5+ TOUCHDOWNS!Well, after researching the subject further I find your conclusion to be 100% true. Now that I'm done with that I can go pwn some newbs on the new server!

YESSSHHHH!

What is variable *?

 

[Joe T]

Vikings 2004

WR's pull in 2797 and 31.

Exit Randy Moss and his 767 and 13.

Enter 2005.

WR's pull in 1562 and 9.

Where did Moss's yards and TD's go?

My basic point is that forecasting based on "because WR X left, now we can give those yards and TD's to then next guy in line" is crazy and dangerous.

Please stop doing this.

TIA

 

[David Yudkin]

Lets take a look at the 2003 49ers.

Their WR's hauled in 2305 yards and 20 TD's. 1102/9 of these were by Owens who left the team. Well, his yards have to go somewhere, don't they?

Here comes the 2004 49ers where the WR's haul in 1912 total yards and 13 TD. So instead of spreading out the 1102 and 9 TD's lost you should really be spreading out 709 and 2. Makes a pretty big difference. Add in the fact that this gets spread out over 2 or 3 guys and you don't really have anyone seeing a huge increase year over year.

Could you pick an example anymore flaVVed than this one?Yes, Owens left. But so did Garcia . . . and Hearst . . . and Streets . . . and Weaver . . . and some guys on the OL . . .

Not exactly one guy left and the rest remained constant. The 49ers were a completely different team the next year.

 

[Joe T]

Lets take a look at the 2003 49ers.

Their WR's hauled in 2305 yards and 20 TD's.  1102/9 of these were by Owens who left the team.  Well, his yards have to go somewhere, don't they?

Here comes the 2004 49ers where the WR's haul in 1912 total yards and 13 TD.  So instead of spreading out the 1102 and 9 TD's lost you should really be spreading out 709 and 2.  Makes a pretty big difference.  Add in the fact that this gets spread out over 2 or 3 guys and you don't really have anyone seeing a huge increase year over year.

Could you pick an example anymore flaVVed than this one?Yes, Owens left. But so did Garcia . . . and Hearst . . . and Streets . . . and Weaver . . . and some guys on the OL . . .

Not exactly one guy left and the rest remained constant. The 49ers were a completely different team the next year.

I have lots of examples.Just because a WR leaves doesn't mean his yards have to go somewhere.

Do you agree or disagree?

 

[David Yudkin]

Vikings 2004

WR's pull in 2797 and 31.

Exit Randy Moss and his 767 and 13.

Enter 2005.

WR's pull in 1562 and 9.

Where did Moss's yards and TD's go?

My basic point is that forecasting based on "because WR X left, now we can give those yards and TD's to then next guy in line" is crazy and dangerous.

Please stop doing this.

TIA

Culpepper getting hurt had as much to do with this as Moss leaving.

 

[Joe T]

Kansas City in 2000

WR's pull in 2527 and 15 led by the soon to be departing Derrick Alexander and his 1391 and 10.

Alexander's yards and TD's "have to go somewhere".

Kansas City in 2001

WR's pull in 1749 and 7.

I'm thinking that Derrick packed his bags and took some of the yards and TD's with him.

If you have lesser WR's filling the shoes, the numbers don't have to go anywhere... at least not anywhere on the team losing the player. They probably follow the good player to his new team or into retirement as the case may be with Jimmy Smif.

 

[tytyty]

I know you are but what am I

 

[David Yudkin]

Lets take a look at the 2003 49ers.

Their WR's hauled in 2305 yards and 20 TD's.  1102/9 of these were by Owens who left the team.  Well, his yards have to go somewhere, don't they?

Here comes the 2004 49ers where the WR's haul in 1912 total yards and 13 TD.  So instead of spreading out the 1102 and 9 TD's lost you should really be spreading out 709 and 2.  Makes a pretty big difference.  Add in the fact that this gets spread out over 2 or 3 guys and you don't really have anyone seeing a huge increase year over year.

Could you pick an example anymore flaVVed than this one?Yes, Owens left. But so did Garcia . . . and Hearst . . . and Streets . . . and Weaver . . . and some guys on the OL . . .

Not exactly one guy left and the rest remained constant. The 49ers were a completely different team the next year.

I have lots of examples.Just because a WR leaves doesn't mean his yards have to go somewhere.

Do you agree or disagree?

Agree AND disagree. Production does not have to go from WR to WR. It can go to rushing yards or receiving yards to RB or TE as well. And it doesn't always have to be 100% of the missing production, thus why I said *SOME* of the production would get offloaded to other positions.Yes, there are probably some examples where teams DID lose 100%, but I suspect the huge majority did not lose 100%.

 

[MCG321]

Vikings 2004

WR's pull in 2797 and 31.

Exit Randy Moss and his 767 and 13.

Enter 2005.

WR's pull in 1562 and 9.

Where did Moss's yards and TD's go?

My basic point is that forecasting based on "because WR X left, now we can give those yards and TD's to then next guy in line"  is crazy and dangerous.

Please stop doing this.

TIA

Culpepper getting hurt had as much to do with this as Moss leaving.

Agreed - you made a good point but gave two examples full of holes.

 

[-OZ-]

If you have lesser WR's filling the shoes, the numbers don't have to go anywhere... at least not anywhere on the team losing the player. They probably follow the good player to his new team or into retirement as the case may be with Jimmy Smif.

Your premise is right. Most of the time when a HOF (or close) caliber player leaves a team, at least some production goes with him. Seems like an easy concept.BUT, when you have very talented players stepping up, a QB on the rise, you will not lose all of the production either.

For JAX - with 3 improving young WRs, a better TE, and a couple RBs who can catch well, I doubt we'll see much of a loss in passing production.

In Buffalo, I think we'll see some, as nobody is able to step into Moulds' role, but the QB should be a little better.

All I'm saying is I agree, but so what?

 

[Joe T]

All I'm saying is I agree, but so what?

You may not be one of the ones trying to give Moulds yards/td's/targets or Jimmy Smith's to another guy on his team, so it may literally be:You: So What?

Me: Nothing.

But if you are one of the guys doing this, then the point is to take a minute and think that those yards/td's/targets aren't fixed, they often go down, and they often are spread over multiple players so the impact is minimal the next season.

 

[Ozymandias]

The numbers DO go somewhere. Sometimes they go to the receiver bank in the sky, where angels dole them out to wide receivers, usually in their third year in the league (although some will argue there is no third year gift from angels).

But that's another thread.

 

[SSOG]

Vikings 2004

WR's pull in 2797 and 31.

Exit Randy Moss and his 767 and 13.

Enter 2005.

WR's pull in 1562 and 9.

Where did Moss's yards and TD's go?

My basic point is that forecasting based on "because WR X left, now we can give those yards and TD's to then next guy in line" is crazy and dangerous.

Please stop doing this.

TIA

Culpepper getting hurt had as much to do with this as Moss leaving.

Oh? Culpepper was on pace for 3574 passing yards and 14 TDs. If 60% of this goes to the WRs (like it did the season before), then a healthy C'Pep would have resulted in 2144/8.4 for the WRs. Which means that even if he'd stayed healthy, Moss's numbers would have essentially just "disappeared" (and then some).

 

[David Yudkin]

Vikings 2004

WR's pull in 2797 and 31.

Exit Randy Moss and his 767 and 13.

Enter 2005.

WR's pull in 1562 and 9.

Where did Moss's yards and TD's go?

My basic point is that forecasting based on "because WR X left, now we can give those yards and TD's to then next guy in line"  is crazy and dangerous.

Please stop doing this.

TIA

Culpepper getting hurt had as much to do with this as Moss leaving.

Oh? Culpepper was on pace for 3574 passing yards and 14 TDs. If 60% of this goes to the WRs (like it did the season before), then a healthy C'Pep would have resulted in 2144/8.4 for the WRs. Which means that even if he'd stayed healthy, Moss's numbers would have essentially just "disappeared" (and then some).

I already said that there are likely SOME circumstances where 100% of a departed player evaporates, but without researching it I believe that more often than not there will be a % that stays. In previous threads I even outlined cases where proudction WENT UP after the stud left. WR production does not always stay at WR . . . it can go to other players.

 

[Aabye]

Kansas City in 2000

WR's pull in 2527 and 15 led by the soon to be departing Derrick Alexander and his 1391 and 10.

Alexander's yards and TD's "have to go somewhere".

Kansas City in 2001

WR's pull in 1749 and 7.

I'm thinking that Derrick packed his bags and took some of the yards and TD's with him.

If you have lesser WR's filling the shoes, the numbers don't have to go anywhere... at least not anywhere on the team losing the player. They probably follow the good player to his new team or into retirement as the case may be with Jimmy Smif.

Derrick Alexander didn't leave after the 2000 season. He left after the 2001 season.

 

[Padraig]

Kansas City in 2000

WR's pull in 2527 and 15 led by the soon to be departing Derrick Alexander and his 1391 and 10.

Alexander's yards and TD's "have to go somewhere".

Kansas City in 2001

WR's pull in 1749 and 7.

I'm thinking that Derrick packed his bags and took some of the yards and TD's with him.

If you have lesser WR's filling the shoes, the numbers don't have to go anywhere... at least not anywhere on the team losing the player. They probably follow the good player to his new team or into retirement as the case may be with Jimmy Smif.

You may be right,but every example youve used is a poor example.Alexanders #s went to Priest,some rushing,some receiving.

KCs leading rushers stats for 2000:Richardson combined yds 1165 and 6 TDs

KCs leading rusher in 2001:2001 Priest combined yds 2169 and 10 TDs

Richardson ran the ball 147 times in 2000,compared to Priests 327 carries in 2001.

KC WRs #'s dropping coincided with a new QB,RB and doubling the # of rushes.

It wasnt Alexander "packing his bags and taking hisyards and TDs with him"

 

[-OZ-]

All I'm saying is I agree, but so what?

You may not be one of the ones trying to give Moulds yards/td's/targets or Jimmy Smith's to another guy on his team, so it may literally be:You: So What?

Me: Nothing.

But if you are one of the guys doing this, then the point is to take a minute and think that those yards/td's/targets aren't fixed, they often go down, and they often are spread over multiple players so the impact is minimal the next season.

FWIW, I'm one of those guys thinking "Matt Jones is a stud, his stats have to go up, Jimmy's retirement helps", but also "Evans is a stud, but I hope he can handle those double teams all year without a good #2 across from him or a good QB throwing the ball". Just the two guys I happen to have in my leagues, so they are of interest.

 

[coolnerd]

I am assuming that you are trying to critique an overgeneralization that is made by certain posters when they make a statement the "yards have to go somewhere." The problem in this thread in order to prove the falseness of that generalization is that the generalization is being committed the other way, by stating nearly that the retired/FA Wrs yards don't go anywhere. Examples exist which could prove either side, but in reality to measure the impact exactly, we would need a situation where the only significant chance on offense is the loss of the star WR. As we have seen that rarely happens because of injury, coaching changes, adding other players etc.

The answer is that a fanstasy player needs to consider the impact of losing a star WR in a situation by situation case. The yards can just disappear, have some form of percentage distribution or simply transfer to a player ready to step up into the superstar's role. In the end, the best way to go is not try to take an easy way out. At the end of the day, you still need analyze the talent, scheme and situation of the offense and players.

 

[MLBrandow]

All I'm saying is I agree, but so what?

You may not be one of the ones trying to give Moulds yards/td's/targets or Jimmy Smith's to another guy on his team, so it may literally be:You: So What?

Me: Nothing.

But if you are one of the guys doing this, then the point is to take a minute and think that those yards/td's/targets aren't fixed, they often go down, and they often are spread over multiple players so the impact is minimal the next season.

Matt Jones is going to be great this year. So is Mercedes Lewis.2 legitimate targets out of 5 isn't so bad.

To phrase your argument differently, Byron Leftwich has to throw 2500 yards to SOMEONE.

Why not 1100 to Jones and 750 to Lewis?

Who's this Jimmy Smith you speak of? Didn't they cut him because they had all these other studs on the roster like Reggie Williams and Ernest Wilford and that one guy that started at TE?

 

[-OZ-]

I am assuming that you are trying to critique an overgeneralization that is made by certain posters when they make a statement the "yards have to go somewhere." The problem in this thread in order to prove the falseness of that generalization is that the generalization is being committed the other way, by stating nearly that the retired/FA Wrs yards don't go anywhere. Examples exist which could prove either side, but in reality to measure the impact exactly, we would need a situation where the only significant chance on offense is the loss of the star WR. As we have seen that rarely happens because of injury, coaching changes, adding other players etc.

The answer is that a fanstasy player needs to consider the impact of losing a star WR in a situation by situation case. The yards can just disappear, have some form of percentage distribution or simply transfer to a player ready to step up into the superstar's role. In the end, the best way to go is not try to take an easy way out. At the end of the day, you still need analyze the talent, scheme and situation of the offense and players.

Good stuff, one question though.Have any, and if so, how many, offenses improved the year after losing a HOF type WR?

 

[SSOG]

I am assuming that you are trying to critique an overgeneralization that is made by certain posters when they make a statement the "yards have to go somewhere." The problem in this thread in order to prove the falseness of that generalization is that the generalization is being committed the other way, by stating nearly that the retired/FA Wrs yards don't go anywhere. Examples exist which could prove either side, but in reality to measure the impact exactly, we would need a situation where the only significant chance on offense is the loss of the star WR. As we have seen that rarely happens because of injury, coaching changes, adding other players etc.

The answer is that a fanstasy player needs to consider the impact of losing a star WR in a situation by situation case. The yards can just disappear, have some form of percentage distribution or simply transfer to a player ready to step up into the superstar's role. In the end, the best way to go is not try to take an easy way out. At the end of the day, you still need analyze the talent, scheme and situation of the offense and players.

Good stuff, one question though.Have any, and if so, how many, offenses improved the year after losing a HOF type WR?

The 49ers did in 2001 after losing Rice, although at that point he was only the WR2. The problem is that very few HoF type WRs tend to switch teams while they're still in their primes.

 

[-OZ-]

I am assuming that you are trying to critique an overgeneralization that is made by certain posters when they make a statement the "yards have to go somewhere." The problem in this thread in order to prove the falseness of that generalization is that the generalization is being committed the other way, by stating nearly that the retired/FA Wrs yards don't go anywhere. Examples exist which could prove either side, but in reality to measure the impact exactly, we would need a situation where the only significant chance on offense is the loss of the star WR. As we have seen that rarely happens because of injury, coaching changes, adding other players etc.

The answer is that a fanstasy player needs to consider the impact of losing a star WR in a situation by situation case. The yards can just disappear, have some form of percentage distribution or simply transfer to a player ready to step up into the superstar's role. In the end, the best way to go is not try to take an easy way out. At the end of the day, you still need analyze the talent, scheme and situation of the offense and players.

Good stuff, one question though.Have any, and if so, how many, offenses improved the year after losing a HOF type WR?

The 49ers did in 2001 after losing Rice, although at that point he was only the WR2. The problem is that very few HoF type WRs tend to switch teams while they're still in their primes.

2000: 6,201 yards, 47 TDs. 4th best yardage, 4th best passing TD, 11th rushing TD2001: 5,802 yards, 48 TDs, 5th best yardage, 2nd best passing TD, 6th rushing TD

Pretty darn close, but not an improvement in yardage. That was the example that came to my mind first.

 

[SSOG]

I am assuming that you are trying to critique an overgeneralization that is made by certain posters when they make a statement the "yards have to go somewhere." The problem in this thread in order to prove the falseness of that generalization is that the generalization is being committed the other way, by stating nearly that the retired/FA Wrs yards don't go anywhere. Examples exist which could prove either side, but in reality to measure the impact exactly, we would need a situation where the only significant chance on offense is the loss of the star WR. As we have seen that rarely happens because of injury, coaching changes, adding other players etc.

The answer is that a fanstasy player needs to consider the impact of losing a star WR in a situation by situation case. The yards can just disappear, have some form of percentage distribution or simply transfer to a player ready to step up into the superstar's role. In the end, the best way to go is not try to take an easy way out. At the end of the day, you still need analyze the talent, scheme and situation of the offense and players.

Good stuff, one question though.Have any, and if so, how many, offenses improved the year after losing a HOF type WR?

The 49ers did in 2001 after losing Rice, although at that point he was only the WR2. The problem is that very few HoF type WRs tend to switch teams while they're still in their primes.

2000: 6,201 yards, 47 TDs. 4th best yardage, 4th best passing TD, 11th rushing TD2001: 5,802 yards, 48 TDs, 5th best yardage, 2nd best passing TD, 6th rushing TD

Pretty darn close, but not an improvement in yardage. That was the example that came to my mind first.

I was looking at seasonal ranks. They ranked 6th in points and 4th in yards in '00 (avg 5th), and 3rd in points and 5th in yards in '00 (avg 4th). I suppose a better way would be to use DVOA from Football Outsiders. According to FO, San Fran's offense had 14.8% DVOA in 2000 and ranked 4th in the league, and had 16.1% DVOA in 2001 and ranked 2nd in the league. Not a ton of improvement, but when you're already an elite offense, there's not a whole lot of room for improvement. Regardless, their offense clearly improved the season they lost Rice.

 

[-OZ-]

I am assuming that you are trying to critique an overgeneralization that is made by certain posters when they make a statement the "yards have to go somewhere." The problem in this thread in order to prove the falseness of that generalization is that the generalization is being committed the other way, by stating nearly that the retired/FA Wrs yards don't go anywhere. Examples exist which could prove either side, but in reality to measure the impact exactly, we would need a situation where the only significant chance on offense is the loss of the star WR. As we have seen that rarely happens because of injury, coaching changes, adding other players etc.

The answer is that a fanstasy player needs to consider the impact of losing a star WR in a situation by situation case. The yards can just disappear, have some form of percentage distribution or simply transfer to a player ready to step up into the superstar's role. In the end, the best way to go is not try to take an easy way out. At the end of the day, you still need analyze the talent, scheme and situation of the offense and players.

Good stuff, one question though.Have any, and if so, how many, offenses improved the year after losing a HOF type WR?

The 49ers did in 2001 after losing Rice, although at that point he was only the WR2. The problem is that very few HoF type WRs tend to switch teams while they're still in their primes.

2000: 6,201 yards, 47 TDs. 4th best yardage, 4th best passing TD, 11th rushing TD2001: 5,802 yards, 48 TDs, 5th best yardage, 2nd best passing TD, 6th rushing TD

Pretty darn close, but not an improvement in yardage. That was the example that came to my mind first.

I was looking at seasonal ranks. They ranked 6th in points and 4th in yards in '00 (avg 5th), and 3rd in points and 5th in yards in '00 (avg 4th). I suppose a better way would be to use DVOA from Football Outsiders. According to FO, San Fran's offense had 14.8% DVOA in 2000 and ranked 4th in the league, and had 16.1% DVOA in 2001 and ranked 2nd in the league. Not a ton of improvement, but when you're already an elite offense, there's not a whole lot of room for improvement. Regardless, their offense clearly improved the season they lost Rice.

I was just going by yardage, but you're right that they stayed on top, which is downright impressive.Minnesota lost Carter in 2002, I realize Moss was already the better WR, but Carter is still a HOF caliber WR.

2001: 5,463 / 33 TD

2002: 6,458 / 45 TD

So it does happen.

 

[Doug Drinen]

Real quick data dump.

I looked for every team in the past 10 years that satisfied the following criteria:

1. Main QB (as measured by attempts) was the same for two straight years

2. Main RB was the same for two straight years main RB in year 1 was on the team in year 2.

3. WR2 from year 1 was also on the team in year 2.

4. WR1 from year 1 was NOT on the team in year 2. (WR1 and 2 measured by yards)

Here they are. No conclusions expressed or implied.

1997 Pittsburgh Steelers

QB: Kordell Stewart

RB: Jerome Bettis

WR1: Yancey Thigpen (1398 / 7)

WR2: Charles Johnson

Passing yards / TDs: 3215 / 22

WR1 next year: Charles Johnson

WR2 next year: Courtney Hawkins

Passing yards / TDs next year: 2781 / 13

2002 New York Jets

QB: Chad Pennington

RB: Curtis Martin

WR1: Laveranues Coles (1264 / 5)

WR2: Wayne Chrebet

Passing yards / TDs: 3619 / 25

WR1 next year: Santana Moss

WR2 next year: Curtis Conway

Passing yards / TDs next year: 3524 / 20

2001 Cincinnati Bengals

QB: Jon Kitna

RB: Corey Dillon

WR1: Darnay Scott (819 / 2)

WR2: Peter Warrick

Passing yards / TDs: 3291 / 12

WR1 next year: Chad Johnson

WR2 next year: Peter Warrick

Passing yards / TDs next year: 3732 / 17

2002 San Diego Chargers

QB: Drew Brees

RB: LaDainian Tomlinson

WR1: Curtis Conway (852 / 5)

WR2: Tim Dwight

Passing yards / TDs: 3368 / 17

WR1 next year: David Boston

WR2 next year: Kassim Osgood

Passing yards / TDs next year: 3226 / 21

1996 Denver Broncos

QB: John Elway

RB: Terrell Davis

WR1: Anthony Miller (735 / 3)

WR2: Ed McCaffrey

Passing yards / TDs: 3662 / 26

WR1 next year: Rod Smith

WR2 next year: Ed McCaffrey

Passing yards / TDs next year: 3704 / 27

2004 Atlanta Falcons

QB: Michael Vick

RB: Warrick Dunn

WR1: Peerless Price (575 / 3)

WR2: Dez White

Passing yards / TDs: 2691 / 15

WR1 next year: Brian Finneran

WR2 next year: Michael Jenkins

Passing yards / TDs next year: 2907 / 19

1998 New Orleans Saints

QB: Billy Joe Tolliver

RB: Lamar Smith

WR1: Sean Dawkins (823 / 1)

WR2: Keith Poole

Passing yards / TDs: 3514 / 19

WR1 next year: Eddie Kennison

WR2 next year: Keith Poole

Passing yards / TDs next year: 3598 / 16

2003 San Diego Chargers

QB: Drew Brees

RB: LaDainian Tomlinson

WR1: David Boston (880 / 7)

WR2: Kassim Osgood

Passing yards / TDs: 3226 / 21

WR1 next year: Eric Parker

WR2 next year: Keenan McCardell

Passing yards / TDs next year: 3506 / 29

1996 Tampa Bay Buccaneers

QB: Trent Dilfer

RB: Errict Rhett

WR1: Courtney Hawkins (544 / 1)

WR2: Robb Thomas

Passing yards / TDs: 2944 / 12

WR1 next year: Karl Williams

WR2 next year: Reidel Anthony

Passing yards / TDs next year: 2638 / 21

1997 Atlanta Falcons

QB: Chris Chandler

RB: Jamal Anderson

WR1: Bert Emanuel (991 / 9)

WR2: Terance Mathis

Passing yards / TDs: 3445 / 26

WR1 next year: Tony Martin

WR2 next year: Terance Mathis

Passing yards / TDs next year: 3744 / 28

1998 Carolina Panthers

QB: Steve Beuerlein

RB: Fred Lane

WR1: Raghib Ismail (1024 / 8)

WR2: Muhsin Muhammad

Passing yards / TDs: 3624 / 25

WR1 next year: Muhsin Muhammad

WR2 next year: Patrick Jeffers

Passing yards / TDs next year: 4447 / 36

1998 Atlanta Falcons

QB: Chris Chandler

RB: Jamal Anderson

WR1: Tony Martin (1181 / 6)

WR2: Terance Mathis

Passing yards / TDs: 3744 / 28

WR1 next year: Terance Mathis

WR2 next year: Tim Dwight

Passing yards / TDs next year: 3691 / 22

2004 Carolina Panthers

QB: Jake Delhomme

RB: Nick Goings

WR1: Muhsin Muhammad (1405 / 16)

WR2: Keary Colbert

Passing yards / TDs: 3889 / 29

WR1 next year: Steve Smith

WR2 next year: Ricky Proehl

Passing yards / TDs next year: 3485 / 25

 

[FreeBaGeL]

How about Buffalo and Peerless Price? Wasn't Moulds supposed to explode with Peerless' 1252/9 going somewhere? Sure he had some injuries the next year but even prior to that his numbers were much worse on a per game basis.

I generally agree with the OP 100%. Not only can the numbers be greatly reduced the next year, but they're generally spread out over so many players that they don't have any real impact. It is rare for a WR that put up worthwhile numbers to be removed and then be replaced by an equally talented WR.

The fact of the matter is that when a talented WR is removed from an offense the offense changes pretty drastically, and the effect on the next season is quite unpredictable and has more to do with the guy replacing him than the numbers of the guy leaving.

 

[Donnybrook]

Real quick data dump.

2. Main RB was the same for two straight years

2004 Carolina Panthers

QB: Jake Delhomme

RB: Nick Goings

WR1: Muhsin Muhammad (1405 / 16)

WR2: Keary Colbert

Passing yards / TDs: 3889 / 29

WR1 next year: Steve Smith

WR2 next year: Ricky Proehl

Passing yards / TDs next year: 3485 / 25

Carolina started who ever wasn't injured at RB.

 

[Doug Drinen]

Real quick data dump.

2. Main RB was the same for two straight years

2004 Carolina Panthers

QB: Jake Delhomme

RB: Nick Goings

WR1: Muhsin Muhammad (1405 / 16)

WR2: Keary Colbert

Passing yards / TDs: 3889 / 29

WR1 next year: Steve Smith

WR2 next year: Ricky Proehl

Passing yards / TDs next year: 3485 / 25

Carolina started who ever wasn't injured at RB.

Oops. I meant: main RB from year 1 was on the team in year 2. I'll correct in the original.

 

[SSOG]

Real quick data dump.

2. Main RB was the same for two straight years

2004 Carolina Panthers

QB: Jake Delhomme

RB: Nick Goings

WR1: Muhsin Muhammad (1405 / 16)

WR2: Keary Colbert

Passing yards / TDs: 3889 / 29

WR1 next year: Steve Smith

WR2 next year: Ricky Proehl

Passing yards / TDs next year: 3485 / 25

Carolina started who ever wasn't injured at RB.

Oops. I meant: main RB from year 1 was on the team in year 2. I'll correct in the original.

Also, if you don't mind, could we see a data dump from every team that met those conditions, except instead of losing WR1, they lost a 1,000 yard receiver? That'll include Peerless Price in Buffalo and exclude Peerless Price in Atlanta (seriously, I don't think anyone was saying that Price's 500 yards had to go SOMEWHERE).

 

[Doug Drinen]

Also, if you don't mind, could we see a data dump from every team that met those conditions, except instead of losing WR1, they lost a 1,000 yard receiver? That'll include Peerless Price in Buffalo and exclude Peerless Price in Atlanta (seriously, I don't think anyone was saying that Price's 500 yards had to go SOMEWHERE).

Teams that lost a 1000-yard WR1 would have been listed above. Here are all teams meeting the same conditions but keeping the WR1 and losing a WR2 who caught more than 800 yards worth of passes.2002 Buffalo Bills

QB: Drew Bledsoe

RB: Travis Henry

WR1: Eric Moulds (1287 / 10)

WR2: Peerless Price (1252 / 9)

Passing yards / TDs: 4364 / 24

WR1 next year: Eric Moulds

WR2 next year: Bobby Shaw

Passing yards / TDs next year: 3069 / 11

2000 New York Jets

QB: Vinny Testaverde

RB: Curtis Martin

WR1: Wayne Chrebet (937 / 8)

WR2: Dedric Ward (801 / 3)

Passing yards / TDs: 4023 / 23

WR1 next year: Laveranues Coles

WR2 next year: Wayne Chrebet

Passing yards / TDs next year: 2871 / 17

2001 Jacksonville Jaguars

QB: Mark Brunell

RB: Stacey Mack

WR1: Jimmy Smith (1373 / 8)

WR2: Keenan McCardell (1110 / 6)

Passing yards / TDs: 3670 / 20

WR1 next year: Jimmy Smith

WR2 next year: Bobby Shaw

Passing yards / TDs next year: 3019 / 18

2001 Minnesota Vikings

QB: Daunte Culpepper

RB: Michael Bennett

WR1: Randy Moss (1233 / 10)

WR2: Cris Carter (871 / 6)

Passing yards / TDs: 3854 / 23

WR1 next year: Randy Moss

WR2 next year: Kelly Campbell

Passing yards / TDs next year: 3951 / 19

1996 Detroit Lions

QB: Scott Mitchell

RB: Barry Sanders

WR1: Herman Moore (1296 / 9)

WR2: Brett Perriman (1021 / 5)

Passing yards / TDs: 3463 / 20

WR1 next year: Herman Moore

WR2 next year: Johnnie Morton

Passing yards / TDs next year: 3605 / 19

1999 Carolina Panthers

QB: Steve Beuerlein

RB: Tim Biakabutuka

WR1: Muhsin Muhammad (1253 / 8)

WR2: Patrick Jeffers (1082 / 12)

Passing yards / TDs: 4447 / 36

WR1 next year: Muhsin Muhammad

WR2 next year: Donald Hayes

Passing yards / TDs next year: 3850 / 19

2004 New England Patriots

QB: Tom Brady

RB: Corey Dillon

WR1: David Givens (874 / 3)

WR2: David Patten (800 / 7)

Passing yards / TDs: 3750 / 29

WR1 next year: Deion Branch

WR2 next year: David Givens

Passing yards / TDs next year: 4322 / 28

2002 Green Bay Packers

QB: Brett Favre

RB: Ahman Green

WR1: Donald Driver (1064 / 9)

WR2: Terry Glenn (817 / 2)

Passing yards / TDs: 3823 / 29

WR1 next year: Javon Walker

WR2 next year: Donald Driver

Passing yards / TDs next year: 3377 / 32

 

[Captain Quinoa]

Conclusion: replace a departing WR with a better WR and the numbers go up, with a worse WR the numbers go down.

Shocking.

 

[-OZ-]

Conclusion: replace a departing WR with a better WR and the numbers go up, with a worse WR the numbers go down.

Shocking.

It's not that simple. Was Dedric Ward better than Lav. Coles?

Are Chris Carter and Kelly Campbell close to equals?

Did we know Morton would be better than Perriman?

And the key question - is it possible that Jones is better than Smith?

Do we have a ready made list of the WR groups who are losing a 1,000 yard WR?

Is it just Jacksonville and Cleveland?