WRs: Are targets more important than receptions? (1 Viewer)

[Maurile Tremblay]

Who would you rather have in 2006?

A. WR who had 150 targets, 80 receptions, for 1000 yards in 2005?

B. WR who had 120 targets, 90 receptions, for 1100 yards in 2005?

On the one hand, B looks like the more efficient receiver. Maybe his upside is higher if only he can get some more targets in 2006.

On the other hand, A seems to be a bigger part of his team's offensive gameplan. Maybe his upside is higher if only he can start converting a higher percentage of targets into catches.

(Would it make a difference if it were a PPR league?)

I don't know the answer.

 

[Blitzkrieg88]

Who would you rather have in 2006?A. WR who had 150 targets, 80 receptions, for 1000 yards in 2005?B. WR who had 120 targets, 90 receptions, for 1100 yards in 2005?On the one hand, B looks like the more efficient receiver. Maybe his upside is higher if only he can get some more targets in 2006.On the other hand, A seems to be a bigger part of his team's offensive gameplan. Maybe his upside is higher if only he can start converting a higher percentage of targets into catches.I don't know the answer.

Need more info to answer that, like:- Who was/is the QB throwing the ball? (Were the misses bad passes or drops?)- How many of those catches/targets are in the redzone?- Is the WR young, mid-career, on the decline?There is no clear-cut mathmatical evaluation that can be done... just look at ALL the data and take an educated guess.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

From a pure numbers standpoint the answer is "B".

Greater efficiency from the QB and or WR gets my vote.

 

[bostonfred]

Some more questions:

- Were there any significant injuries that forced the team to change their game plan in 2005?

- Are there new (or emerging) players competing for targets?

- Were there players competing for targets who have since left?

- Was the player healthy for the full 2005 season?

- Did the number of targets increase, decrease, or stay the same, from 2004 to 2005?

- Did the number of receptions increase, decrease, or stay the same, from 2004 to 2005?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Who would you rather have in 2006?A. WR who had 150 targets, 80 receptions, for 1000 yards in 2005?B. WR who had 120 targets, 90 receptions, for 1100 yards in 2005?On the one hand, B looks like the more efficient receiver. Maybe his upside is higher if only he can get some more targets in 2006.On the other hand, A seems to be a bigger part of his team's offensive gameplan. Maybe his upside is higher if only he can start converting a higher percentage of targets into catches.I don't know the answer.

Need more info to answer that, like:- Who was/is the QB throwing the ball? (Were the misses bad passes or drops?)- How many of those catches/targets are in the redzone?- Is the WR young, mid-career, on the decline?There is no clear-cut mathmatical evaluation that can be done... just look at ALL the data and take an educated guess.

Both WRs' QBs, redzone opportunities, and ages will remain constant from 2005 to 2006.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

- Were there any significant injuries that forced the team to change their game plan in 2005? - Are there new (or emerging) players competing for targets?- Were there players competing for targets who have since left?- Was the player healthy for the full 2005 season? - Did the number of targets increase, decrease, or stay the same, from 2004 to 2005? - Did the number of receptions increase, decrease, or stay the same, from 2004 to 2005?

No, no, no, yes, they were rookies in 2005, and they were rookies in 2005, respectively.

 

[boubucarow]

Another aspect of targets vs catch percentage is the different ways in which a receiver is utilized. A player like Plaxico probably has a low efficiency becuase of the types of throws that come his way. The way he is utilized is most likely not going to change so you would not expect his catch percentage to rise significantly either. In his case and in other cases like his, his value should not be affected by his targets vs receptions unless you have a very good reason to think he will become much more efficient or much less efficient with similar opportunities (i.e. qb suited to his skils, etc...).

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

It probably will "depend" on the team and player.

We would need to know a couple things.

Is catch/target % consistent from year to year generally? How much improvement is expected from a receiver?

A may be a bigger part of the gameplan for no other reason than he's the only healthy guy on the roster. A 53% catch would lead me to believe the team will look for a replacement sooner or later.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

We would need to know a couple things.

Is catch/target % consistent from year to year generally?

Yes, this would be helpful to know.

How much improvement is expected from a receiver?

None, from the average receiver. Stuff like whether we expect somebody to improve is beside the point. That has to do with a particular WR. I'm more interested in the general question. Given two otherwise identical WRs, do you want the guy who had more targets & fewer catches last year, or the guy who had fewer targets & more catches last year? (Edit: Or is your point that the answer still may differ depending on whether both WRs are young or old? Maybe if they are young, we want the guy with more targets because maybe he'll catch better the following year? But if they are old, we want the guy with more receptions because an old guy who can't catch is going to be replaced?)

A may be a bigger part of the gameplan for no other reason than he's the only healthy guy on the roster. A 53% catch would lead me to believe the team will look for a replacement sooner or later.

Yes, this is relevant.

 

[adonis]

Assuming nothing else changes and holding everything else but the year constant from last to this, I'd rather have the guy who was targetted more. There's every indication that a pro will get better from one year to the next, and with only a marginal difference in production, there comes a higher chance of an increase in production.

In other words, one has higher potential than the other.

 

[GDogg]

Who would you rather have in 2006?

A. WR who had 150 targets, 80 receptions, for 1000 yards in 2005?

B. WR who had 120 targets, 90 receptions, for 1100 yards in 2005?

On the one hand, B looks like the more efficient receiver. Maybe his upside is higher if only he can get some more targets in 2006.

On the other hand, A seems to be a bigger part of his team's offensive gameplan. Maybe his upside is higher if only he can start converting a higher percentage of targets into catches.

I don't know the answer.

Need more info to answer that, like:- Who was/is the QB throwing the ball? (Were the misses bad passes or drops?)

- How many of those catches/targets are in the redzone?

- Is the WR young, mid-career, on the decline?

There is no clear-cut mathmatical evaluation that can be done... just look at ALL the data and take an educated guess.

Both WRs' QBs, redzone opportunities, and ages will remain constant from 2005 to 2006.

I'd rather have the guy who has the ball thrown to him more. Since we have no idea why those targets weren't converted, I'd rather have the guy who has the chance to get more receptions. He's obviously getting the ball for some reason. Is it because he's getting open? Played designed to him? QB has a crush on him and wants to date him? Whatever the reason, I'd like the guy who has the chance to get more receptions, yards, and TD's.However, if we know that the guy is notorious for drops (bad hands), then he may lose the confidence of his QB, and then I'd rather have the other guy. Assuming this isn't the case, give me the guy with tons of targets.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I've got the numbers for 2004 and 2005 in a spreadsheet. Now I'll try to figure out whether 2004 receptions or 2004 targets were better predictors of 2006 yards. It'll take a little bit . . .

 

[SSOG]

Who would you rather have in 2006?A. WR who had 150 targets, 80 receptions, for 1000 yards in 2005?B. WR who had 120 targets, 90 receptions, for 1100 yards in 2005?On the one hand, B looks like the more efficient receiver. Maybe his upside is higher if only he can get some more targets in 2006.On the other hand, A seems to be a bigger part of his team's offensive gameplan. Maybe his upside is higher if only he can start converting a higher percentage of targets into catches.(Would it make a difference if it were a PPR league?)I don't know the answer.

All other things being equal, B without question or hesitation.WRB put up a 75% catch rate. I don't care who you are, if you catch 75% of the balls thrown your way, your team will throw more balls in your direction. On the other hand, WRA's 53.3% catch rate is the sort of thing that causes teams to start looking the other way with increasing frequency.Another thing to consider is that 150 targets is a TON, and would be a much harder feat to repeat than 120 targets. Simple regression to the mean suggests that WRB is more likely to see an increase and less likely to see a decrease in targets than WRA.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

How much improvement is expected from a receiver?

None, from the average receiver. Stuff like whether we expect somebody to improve is beside the point. That has to do with a particular WR. I'm more interested in the general question. Given two otherwise identical WRs, do you want the guy who had more targets & fewer catches last year, or the guy who had fewer targets & more catches last year? (Edit: Or is your point that the answer still may differ depending on whether both WRs are young or old? Maybe if they are young, we want the guy with more targets because maybe he'll catch better the following year? But if they are old, we want the guy with more receptions because an old guy who can't catch is going to be replaced?).

My point was what type of average improvement can we expect from a WR based on his age/experience if any? If catch% is relatively static, I take it for granted that WR A will always be a marginal receiver at best.Okay, from a theoretical standpoint, I would go with player B in year N+1.

Player A is inefficient. Your average team will look to replace him more often than not. Even if I feel he's still the best option going into the season, a younger emerging player has a better than average chance to replace him. I downgrade him compared to other WRs with similar stats and higher catch%.

Player B is hyper efficient. He's better than any NFL WR from last year at catch%. The average NFL team/QB will find a way to get him the ball more. The ball ends up in the hands of the team's best players. He is one of the team's best players.

 

[SSOG]

Is catch/target % consistent from year to year generally?

Yes. It fluctuates some, and there are obviously a few flukes, but for the most part, WRs always put up comparable catch% from season to season. You'll see players improve or get worse over the course of their careers, but WRs who put up 60+% catch% tend to maintain that level for several years. Holt, Harrison, Chad Johnson, Rod Smith, Jimmy Smith, Isaac Bruce... these are all guys who are examples of WRs with very consistant catch%s.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

I've got the numbers for 2004 and 2005 in a spreadsheet. Now I'll try to figure out whether 2004 receptions or 2004 targets were better predictors of 2006 yards. It'll take a little bit . . .

No fair, you already know the outcome of this year!

 

[Mungo Burrows]

Another thing to consider is that 150 targets is a TON, and would be a much harder feat to repeat than 120 targets. Simple regression to the mean suggests that WRB is more likely to see an increase and less likely to see a decrease in targets than WRA.

Funny, I saw the completion rates as being the outlier more likely to see regression to the mean meaning the WR A might catch more with his targets and WR B probably catches less.

 

[Mungo Burrows]

I've got the numbers for 2004 and 2005 in a spreadsheet. Now I'll try to figure out whether 2004 receptions or 2004 targets were better predictors of 2006 yards. It'll take a little bit . . .

No fair, you already know the outcome of this year!

He said it would take a little bit. He'll get back to us in january.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I've got the numbers for 2004 and 2005 in a spreadsheet. Now I'll try to figure out whether 2004 receptions or 2004 targets were better predictors of 2006 yards. It'll take a little bit . . .

No fair, you already know the outcome of this year!

He said it would take a little bit. He'll get back to us in january.

Yeah, I just got sidetracked. I'm going to start now. Shouldn't really take that long.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I've got the numbers for 2004 and 2005 in a spreadsheet. Now I'll try to figure out whether 2004 receptions or 2004 targets were better predictors of 2006 yards. It'll take a little bit . . .

No fair, you already know the outcome of this year!

I meant 2005.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I actually can't do a great job of answering this because my license has expired with the program I used before to do multi-variable regression analysis.

So all I've got now is Excel, which means doing only single-variable regression analysis.

But based on the tools at my disposal, it appears that targets are more important.

Looking at the sample I used (WRs with more than 100 targets in 2004), an extra reception/game in 2004 translates into an extra 12.5 expected yards/game in 2005. An extra target/game in2004 translates into an extra 8.6 expected yards/game in 2005.

The average rec/targ percentage for WRs is 54% (it is higher for RBs and TEs).

Since 8.6/12.5 = 68% > 54%, it looks like targets are more important.

Hold on, let me try this a different way . . .

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

In 2004, there were 40 WRs who had 100 targets or more.

I divided those WRs into two groups of 20 based on rec/targ. The top 20 all had a rec/target above 54.2% (ranging from 54.5% to 67.8%). The bottom 20 all had a rec/targ below 54.2% (ranging from 31.8% to 54.1%).

As a group, the yards/game of the WRs with the higher rec/targ decreased by a total of 298 total yards (or 14.9 yards/game per WR).

As a group, the yards/game of the WRs with the lower rec/targ decreased by a total of 59 total yards (or 3 yards/game per WR).

So given two guys who both had a lot of targets in Year N, it looks like the one with the lower catch rate is more likely to hold his value than the one with the higher catch rate.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

In 2004, there were 40 WRs who had 100 targets or more.

I divided those WRs into two groups of 20 based on rec/targ. The top 20 all had a rec/target above 54.2% (ranging from 54.5% to 67.8%). The bottom 20 all had a rec/targ below 54.2% (ranging from 31.8% to 54.1%).

As a group, the yards/game of the WRs with the higher rec/targ decreased by a total of 298 total yards (or 14.9 yards/game per WR).

As a group, the yards/game of the WRs with the lower rec/targ decreased by a total of 59 total yards (or 3 yards/game per WR).

So given two guys who both had a lot of targets in Year N, it looks like the one with the lower catch rate is more likely to hold his value than the one with the higher catch rate.

Any similarities among the WRs who increased their total yards?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Dividing them into quartiles instead of halves, the WRs in top quartile (in terms of rec/targ in 2004) decreased by an average of 17.9 yards/game, the next quartile decreased by an average of 11.9 yards/game, the third quartile decreased by an average of 1.7 yards/game, and the bottom quartile decreased by an average of 4.4 yards/game.

(BTW, it's not odd that all groups declined. WRs with over 100 targets were all well above average in yards/game, so it's just natural regression to the mean.)

Let me expand the sample now to include WRs with over 50 targets and see if the results still hold . . .

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

There were 73 WRs who had over 50 targets. I removed the exact median guy (Shaun McDonald, rec/targ = 53.6%) and divided the rest into quartiles from highest rec/targ to lowest.

The general pattern still holds.

The top quartile lost 12.3 yards/game per WR. The second quartile lost 5.7 yards/game per WR. The third quartile lost 0.6 yards/game per WR. The bottom quartile lost 3.8 yards/game per WR.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Any similarities among the WRs who increased their total yards?

The top gainers in yards/game from 2004 to 2005 (among WRs with over 50 targets in 2004) were Larry Fitzgerald, Joey Galloway, Anquan Boldin, and Santana Moss. These four really stood out from the crowd -- they each increased by 36 to 39 yards/game, with nobody else coming close to that. One thing that they have in common is that three of the four went from a well below average catch rate in 2004 to a well above average catch rate in 2005. (Fitzgerald from 46% to 62%, Boldin from 47% to 60%, Moss from 51% to 63%. The exception was Galloway, who was at 55% both years.)It looks like a key to finding guys who will significantly improve is to look for guys who got a decent amount of targets the previous year, but converted a below average percentage of them into catches. There is a strong correlation between targets/game in Year N and Year N+1. So if a WR can improve his catch rate in Year N+1, he can have a breakout year.I don't know exactly how to identify which WRs with below average catch rates in Year N will end up with above average catch rates in Year N+1, unfortunately.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

FWIW, here are some guys who got a lot of targets in 2005, but had low catch rates:

Plaxico Burress -- 154 targets, 46.1% catch rate

Randy Moss -- 113 targets, 46.9% catch rate

Muhsin Muhammad -- 136 targets, 47.1% catch rate

Chris Chambers -- 159 targets, 48.4% catch rate

Joe Horn -- 99 targets, 48.5% catch rate

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Here are the five guys who dropped the most sharply from 2004 to 2005 (not including Javon Walker).

Michael Clayton, Johnnie Morton, Muhsin Muhammad, Joe Horn, Nate Burleson.

All of them had above average catch rates in 2004 that declined in 2005. (Clayton went from 62% to 58%, Morton from 62% to 48%, Muhammad from 66% to 47%, Horn from 59% to 48%, Burleson from 61% to 58%.)

But the differences in catch rates were generally dwarfed by the differences in targets. Clayton went from 130 to 55! Morton from 89 to 44. Muhammad from 167 to 136. Horn from 159 to 102. And Burleson from 112 to 52. As a group, they went from an average of 8.5 targets/game to 5.8 targets a game.

So while their catch rates dropped 17% (from a collective 60% to a collective 50%), their targets dropped 32%!

Again, I unfortunately don't know how to predict which guys will lose a third of their targets this year.

 

[PahtyTom]

FWIW, here are some guys who got a lot of targets in 2005, but had low catch rateslaxico Burress -- 154 targets, 46.1% catch rateRandy Moss -- 113 targets, 46.9% catch rateMuhsin Muhammad -- 136 targets, 47.1% catch rateChris Chambers -- 159 targets, 48.4% catch rateJoe Horn -- 99 targets, 48.5% catch rate

Very interesting post. The one guy that stands out to me the most is Plaxico. His situation is EXACTLY the same as it was last year, which stands to reason that if he can see a moderate uptick in his catch rate it could pay HUGE dividends. The same can be said for the others but they all have a few factors altered from last year. Moss has a new HC, OC, and QB. Mush has a new QB for the most part, although that is a positive and his targets should still remain high. Chambers has a new QB and OC, but CPep could make his WR even better.Horn has a new QB and HC.

 

[The Duff Man]

Using FBG data for Burress his rates for the last four years have been:

76/166 - 45.8%

35/59 - 59.3%

60/124 - 48.3%

78/144 - 54.1%

Over these four years he averaged 50.5%. If he improves this year to equal his average over the last four years and gets the same number of targets his receptions will increase by 8 to 84. Using his ypc for the past four years 16.5 this is a 1386 yard season.

 

[The Duff Man]

Chambers has shown a fairly consistent % over the last four years. Unless you have a reason to believe his % will increase (more accurate throws?) he doesn't seem to fit the bill here.

In the three seasons prior to 2005 Horn had completion rates 10% higher. Will he bounce back to his previous levels or is this the start of his decline?

Moss had much higher % in 2002-2004. You have to expect an increase from him, but he is already in most top 10 lists.

Interesting way of looking at things.

 

[Biabreakable]

Plaxicos best catch percentage came from playing with the rookie Qb Big Ben.

While Eli should improve from last year I still do not see him being as efficient as Ben is/has been.

If you look at Plax's numbers without Ben you see a much clearer trend of his capabilities.

MT the decline in targets and the examples your giving of Michael Clayton, Johnnie Morton, Muhsin Muhammad, Joe Horn, Nate Burleson.. all of these guys were effected by injury except Mushy. Mushy was effected by Bears Qb injury trainwreck and offensive change.

Catch % is a number that from what I have looked at (multiple years) remains pretty steady and I think is more closely tied to the Wr. Although the Qb and scheme do have an impact.

Targets on the other hand are very dependent on team situation and not as specificly tied to the Wr.

 

[Muahahaha]

I make a habit of avoiding WRs with low targets. I also, based on Drinen's analysis, avoid WRs with a biased % of their FPs coming from TDs as opposed to yards. Taken together, the candidate for an undervalued WR is one with a ton of yards/targets, but relatively few receptions/TDs. These guys can bounce back quickly and easily. The opposite is also true.

This explains why TJ Housh's ADP is so low given he was 14th in FP last season:

FP Ranking (2005): 14th

ADP (2006): 21st

Target Rank: 27th

Yardage Rank: 22nd

Catch %: 68.8% (#3 among WRs with 100+ targets)

% of FPs represented by TDs: 28.9% (#13 among WRs with 100+ targets)

Market is pricing in regression to the mean.

Here is one I am somewhat boggled by:

FP Ranking (2005): 5th

ADP (2006): 22nd

Target Rank: 7th

Yardage Rank: 7th

Catch %: 54.9% (#24 among WRs 100+ targets)

% of FPs represented by TDs: 31.7 (#7 among WRs with 100+ targets)

I guess that is the appropriate fall-off for a soon to be 36 year old who had a career year last year???

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Maurile, can you look at what we could expect in catch rate change going from 1st to 2nd year WRs?

2nd to 3rd year?

3rd to 4th year?

 

[SSOG]

In 2004, there were 40 WRs who had 100 targets or more.

I divided those WRs into two groups of 20 based on rec/targ. The top 20 all had a rec/target above 54.2% (ranging from 54.5% to 67.8%). The bottom 20 all had a rec/targ below 54.2% (ranging from 31.8% to 54.1%).

As a group, the yards/game of the WRs with the higher rec/targ decreased by a total of 298 total yards (or 14.9 yards/game per WR).

As a group, the yards/game of the WRs with the lower rec/targ decreased by a total of 59 total yards (or 3 yards/game per WR).

So given two guys who both had a lot of targets in Year N, it looks like the one with the lower catch rate is more likely to hold his value than the one with the higher catch rate.

That's actually really interesting, and the opposite of what I'd expect.My big question is that how many of the people with a large number of targets and a low catch% had an ABNORMALLY low catch%, and how many people with a high catch% had an ABNORMALLY high catch%? I mean, if Eric Moulds put up a 68% catch%, I'd certainly expect him to regress in a big way, but if Holt or Johnson did it, I'd expect them to hold their value more. Also, if Terrell Owens put up a 54% catch%, I'd expect an improvement, because his career average is something like 58%. How much of that data is just regression to the mean in terms of catch%, and how much of it is players with consistantly low catch% holding their value better than players with consistantly high catch%?

 

[bbuster]

FWIW, here are some guys who got a lot of targets in 2005, but had low catch rateslaxico Burress -- 154 targets, 46.1% catch rateRandy Moss -- 113 targets, 46.9% catch rateMuhsin Muhammad -- 136 targets, 47.1% catch rateChris Chambers -- 159 targets, 48.4% catch rateJoe Horn -- 99 targets, 48.5% catch rate

B. Lloyd--109 targets, 48 receptionsI think QB play is very important to look at here. I'm not sure how Lloyd even managed 44% with T. Rattay and K. Dorsey throwing the ball last year. These guys could barely get the ball past the line of scrimmage.Muhammad is definitely an example of catch percentage going down because of poor QB play. Clayton dealt with both injuries and a rookie QB. Chambers is one who has never really had a great QB. I think another question that you could ask is: Would you rather have an average WR with a great QB throwing the ball or a great WR with a crappy QB throwing the ball? Can you imagine what kind of numbers these guys would put up with Brady throwing the balls? Brady seems to manage to put up good numbers year after year with a group of average WR's.Edited to add: Maybe the answer is average to above average QB throwing to a great WR. Very good QB's like Brady and McNabb who have average WR's tend to spread the ball around quite a bit.

 

[SSOG]

FWIW, here are some guys who got a lot of targets in 2005, but had low catch rateslaxico Burress -- 154 targets, 46.1% catch rateRandy Moss -- 113 targets, 46.9% catch rateMuhsin Muhammad -- 136 targets, 47.1% catch rateChris Chambers -- 159 targets, 48.4% catch rateJoe Horn -- 99 targets, 48.5% catch rate

B. Lloyd--109 targets, 48 receptionsI think QB play is very important to look at here. I'm not sure how Lloyd even managed 44% with T. Rattay and K. Dorsey throwing the ball last year.

Arnaz Battle managed a 59% catch% with the same QBs.

 

[bbuster]

FWIW, here are some guys who got a lot of targets in 2005, but had low catch rateslaxico Burress -- 154 targets, 46.1% catch rateRandy Moss -- 113 targets, 46.9% catch rateMuhsin Muhammad -- 136 targets, 47.1% catch rateChris Chambers -- 159 targets, 48.4% catch rateJoe Horn -- 99 targets, 48.5% catch rate

B. Lloyd--109 targets, 48 receptionsI think QB play is very important to look at here. I'm not sure how Lloyd even managed 44% with T. Rattay and K. Dorsey throwing the ball last year. These guys could barely get the ball past the line of scrimmage.Muhammad is definitely an example of catch percentage going down because of poor QB play. Clayton dealt with both injuries and a rookie QB. Chambers is one who has never really had a great QB. I think another question that you could ask is: Would you rather have an average WR with a great QB throwing the ball or a great WR with a crappy QB throwing the ball? Can you imagine what kind of numbers these guys would put up with Brady throwing the balls? Brady seems to manage to put up good numbers year after year with a group of average WR's.

Arnaz Battle managed a 59% catch% with the same QBs.

The WR's mentioned all had over 100 targets.

 

[Mapmaker]

Did WR A invest in contacts this offseason?

 

[SSOG]

FWIW, here are some guys who got a lot of targets in 2005, but had low catch rateslaxico Burress -- 154 targets, 46.1% catch rateRandy Moss -- 113 targets, 46.9% catch rateMuhsin Muhammad -- 136 targets, 47.1% catch rateChris Chambers -- 159 targets, 48.4% catch rateJoe Horn -- 99 targets, 48.5% catch rate

B. Lloyd--109 targets, 48 receptionsI think QB play is very important to look at here. I'm not sure how Lloyd even managed 44% with T. Rattay and K. Dorsey throwing the ball last year. These guys could barely get the ball past the line of scrimmage.Muhammad is definitely an example of catch percentage going down because of poor QB play. Clayton dealt with both injuries and a rookie QB. Chambers is one who has never really had a great QB. I think another question that you could ask is: Would you rather have an average WR with a great QB throwing the ball or a great WR with a crappy QB throwing the ball? Can you imagine what kind of numbers these guys would put up with Brady throwing the balls? Brady seems to manage to put up good numbers year after year with a group of average WR's.

Arnaz Battle managed a 59% catch% with the same QBs.

The WR's mentioned all had over 100 targets.

True, but you said that you didn't understand how Lloyd could have even posted a 44% with QBs who couldn't get the ball past the line of scrimmage, and I was responding saying that Battle didn't seem to have any problems in that regard. I'm not trying to say that Battle's a big sleeper this year, I'm just saying that Lloyd's catch% isn't as excusable as you might think.

 

[Bri]

Who would you rather have in 2006?A. WR who had 150 targets, 80 receptions, for 1000 yards in 2005?B. WR who had 120 targets, 90 receptions, for 1100 yards in 2005?On the one hand, B looks like the more efficient receiver. Maybe his upside is higher if only he can get some more targets in 2006.On the other hand, A seems to be a bigger part of his team's offensive gameplan. Maybe his upside is higher if only he can start converting a higher percentage of targets into catches.(Would it make a difference if it were a PPR league?)I don't know the answer.

The older of the two players or the player that's played with the QB more(like Mason+McNair)

 

[Bri]

Some more questions:- Were there any significant injuries that forced the team to change their game plan in 2005? - Are there new (or emerging) players competing for targets?- Were there players competing for targets who have since left?- Was the player healthy for the full 2005 season? - Did the number of targets increase, decrease, or stay the same, from 2004 to 2005? - Did the number of receptions increase, decrease, or stay the same, from 2004 to 2005?

These questions+this thread make me wonder if you guys project targets?

 

[Bri]

Who would you rather have in 2006?

A. WR who had 150 targets, 80 receptions, for 1000 yards in 2005?

B. WR who had 120 targets, 90 receptions, for 1100 yards in 2005?

On the one hand, B looks like the more efficient receiver. Maybe his upside is higher if only he can get some more targets in 2006.

On the other hand, A seems to be a bigger part of his team's offensive gameplan. Maybe his upside is higher if only he can start converting a higher percentage of targets into catches.

(Would it make a difference if it were a PPR league?)

I don't know the answer.

I just noticed something in the wording above that's distinct.generally, 1100 and up is a star or stud

under 1100 is an average(not really but a term people use like Antonio Bryant is average at best) WR

see how it drops?

http://www.nfl.com/stats/leaders/NFL/RECYDS/2005/regular

 

[bbuster]

FWIW, here are some guys who got a lot of targets in 2005, but had low catch rateslaxico Burress -- 154 targets, 46.1% catch rateRandy Moss -- 113 targets, 46.9% catch rateMuhsin Muhammad -- 136 targets, 47.1% catch rateChris Chambers -- 159 targets, 48.4% catch rateJoe Horn -- 99 targets, 48.5% catch rate

B. Lloyd--109 targets, 48 receptionsI think QB play is very important to look at here. I'm not sure how Lloyd even managed 44% with T. Rattay and K. Dorsey throwing the ball last year. These guys could barely get the ball past the line of scrimmage.Muhammad is definitely an example of catch percentage going down because of poor QB play. Clayton dealt with both injuries and a rookie QB. Chambers is one who has never really had a great QB. I think another question that you could ask is: Would you rather have an average WR with a great QB throwing the ball or a great WR with a crappy QB throwing the ball? Can you imagine what kind of numbers these guys would put up with Brady throwing the balls? Brady seems to manage to put up good numbers year after year with a group of average WR's.

Arnaz Battle managed a 59% catch% with the same QBs.

The WR's mentioned all had over 100 targets.

True, but you said that you didn't understand how Lloyd could have even posted a 44% with QBs who couldn't get the ball past the line of scrimmage, and I was responding saying that Battle didn't seem to have any problems in that regard. I'm not trying to say that Battle's a big sleeper this year, I'm just saying that Lloyd's catch% isn't as excusable as you might think.

Honestly, I don't know how B. Lloyd will do this year. One difference is that he becomes the WR2. I'm just curious about how some of these guys that seem to have some freakish talents(think circus catches) do with a stronger QB. I'm not saying that Brunell is going to tear it up this year, but he is experienced, and a definite upgrade from SF's QB's. I'm also curious to know how a guy like A. Johnson would do with someone other than D. Carr or the Texans in general. It will also be interesting to see how C. Chambers does with Culpepper at QB. Obviously targets + talent is key, but I'm adding that solid QB play can make a difference also.

 

[tmc94]

The top gainers in yards/game from 2004 to 2005 (among WRs with over 50 targets in 2004) were Larry Fitzgerald, Joey Galloway, Anquan Boldin, and Santana Moss. These four really stood out from the crowd --

With such a small sample group, we should be careful drawing easy conclusions. Let's take a look at each situation.Fitzgerald - a 2nd year WR who had the traditional breakout.

Boldin - a 3rd year WR returning from injury.

Both played for the Cardinals so let's compare 2004 and 2005. In 04, the QB was Josh McCown. In 05 it was Kurt Warner (generally).

Attempts - 533 (04) and 670 (05)

Completions - 299 (04) and 419 (05)

Pass Yds - 2882 (04) and 4437 (05)

Pass TDs - 14 (04) and 21 (05)

Arizona moved from one of the worst passing offenses to the best in one year. Certainly you could attribute some of this to Fitzgerald and Boldin. But you could also say a better QB who fit the system and a 2nd year in Green's system was the driving force. Finally, in looking for guys that will do this, we can't ignore the youth factor of Boldin and Fitzgerald. Should we only be looking for 2nd and 3rd year WRs with lots of targets? Which brings us to....

Joey Galloway - TB WR in his 11th season. Had not had a 1000 yard season since 1998. 2004 was his first year with the Bucs and he was hurt about half the season. Brian Griese was the QB for most of 04. Chris Simms was the QB for most of 05. But Galloway started putting up great stats with Griese at the helm. In fact, it's really hard to see where he had any dropoff or gain with the QB change (though I don't have game targets to look at). Bucs passing offense was actually worse than in 2004. Only situational factor you could attribute to Galloway was his 2nd year in Gruden's system.

Santana Moss - Was WR in his 5th season, first with the Skins. I'm not sure this can even be used with the premise because he switched teams, QBs, offensive schemes, etc. Nothing about Moss stayed steady.

I'd just be careful drawing neat conclusions here on these four players. Yes, the conclusion seems logical. Yes, it may even be likely. But I wouldn't jump all over Burress, Randy, Muhammed, Chambers, and Horn because of it. I'd say Galloway is the prime example in the above group. And so maybe being comfortable with your QBs and your routes (system) in your second year makes a big difference (which also holds with Boldin and Fitzgerald). If this is the case, only Muhammed and Burress really fit that mold.

 

[airraid81]

If you continuously catch a low percentage of passes, it doesn't matter how many times you get targetted.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I've always thought yards/target was more important than receptions/target. Of course, yards/target for whatever reason isn't as revealing as I would expect it to be (although I still believe it's better than r/t).

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If you continuously catch a low percentage of passes, it doesn't matter how many times you get targetted.

True. And if you never get any targets, it doens't matter what percentage of them you catch. The question is whether targets or catch rate seems to be more stable from year to year, and the answer appears to be targets, at least for guys who are prominently featured in their offense.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The top gainers in yards/game from 2004 to 2005 (among WRs with over 50 targets in 2004) were Larry Fitzgerald, Joey Galloway, Anquan Boldin, and Santana Moss. These four really stood out from the crowd --

With such a small sample group, we should be careful drawing easy conclusions. Let's take a look at each situation.

Very true, and I certainly wasn't drawing conclusions from four guys, though. I used samples of 40 and 73 guys -- still on the small side, but better. The four I named were in response to KRS's question; they were not the basis for any more generalized conclusions.

 

[Biabreakable]

If you continuously catch a low percentage of passes, it doesn't matter how many times you get targetted.

True. And if you never get any targets, it doens't matter what percentage of them you catch. The question is whether targets or catch rate seems to be more stable from year to year, and the answer appears to be targets, at least for guys who are prominently featured in their offense.

How do you come to this conclusion?The catch percentage seems to be very consistent for Wrs to me.