Browns vs. Rams...The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (or the Ronald McDonald)
I was at the game on Saturday and also ended up watching the replay on TV. There were some things that really stood out to me. Some were good, some were bad, and some were plain ugly to watch.
Edit by Chris: I promoted this to the front page and adjusted the formatting a tiny bit.
The Good
- Our Coverage. Combined, the Rams QBs threw for only 115 yards with 3.7 ypa, 41% completion, and a 61 QB Rating. Brown and Ward both made nice plays to save TDs and both had good games. Elam was also solid.
- Haden/Wright. I mention them specifically, because they were particularly good in coverage and contributed in other areas. Wright was extremely good in coverage and really made a statement today. both he and Haden also had some nice plays against the run. Haden also returned kicks and showed he could be effective in this department, reducing the need to have a guy like Lawson on the roster purely for returns.
- Peyton Hillis. Hillis was a beast and would not go down when carrying the ball. He kept his feet moving and kept dragging tacklers with him. he did what a North-South runner is supposed to do; not lose yardage. I don't believe he had negative yardage on any of his runs. He also had a couple of nice catches.
- Jake Delhomme. Delhomme had a great game throwing for 127 yards and a 118.5 QB rating. I liked what I saw out of him. the thing i liked the best is he generally made the right decisions. He looked poised and always seemed to know what to do. Most of his incompletions were just throws that were a bit off the mark and a couple that were tipped at the line (which is more of a credit to good D, including one tip by Laurinitis and another by Chris Long).
- Red Zone D. Although we let them get good field position WAY too much, our D was able to hold them well to just getting mostly field goals. They only had one TD in 4 red zone attempts (most of which were all inside the 10).
- Linebackers. I felt the LBs were able to get good pressure in the game and force Bradford to make decisions quicker. I also liked how Fujita and Gocong played at LB especially, against the run and the pass. Both were solid in coverage and made some nice plays there. Both were able to step up and play against the run too. Both were effective in coverage, against the run, and blitzing. Roth also had a decent game.
- Reggie Hodges. Hodges was hitting some booming punts with very good consistency. every one of his punts looked great tonight.
- Watson & Stuckey. Both of these guys were key in the passing game and made some clutch catches. I liked what I saw from Watson and am excited to have a legitimate receiving option at TE again. Stuckey came up with some nice plays and looks very comfortable in the slot role.
The Bad
- The Right side of the line. Even more so than in the first game, everything to the left of Mack looked Horrific. St. Clair was bad as usual, but we now had Yates in because Lauvao and Womack were out. Its hard to throw as a QB when 2 defenders are coming at you because your RG and RT can't block to save their life. Once St. Clair was gone, and the backups were in, that side looked better. However, Yates still wasn't that good
- Josh Cribbs as a WR. Yes, Cribbs had 5 catches. However, he still doesn't look like a legitimate WR in the NFL. He had only 30 yards in those 5 catches with a long of 15. Cribbs never seemed to be open when going deeper. This may be a sign that he really can't stretch the field and is only good for short passes. His hands looked good, but he was getting a lot of the easy, short throws. Seeing him there makes me long for MoMass back so he and Robo can start.
- Lack of plays on D. The d was solid last night and held the rams to 1.2 yards per carry and 8.2 yards per reception. However, this was a D in lacking key plays. We knocked some balls down and got in the QBs face, but never made the big sack or INT. it is those key plays that change the momentum of a drive or game that separate the good defenses from the great ones. We have had only one sack and one INT in the first 2 games, which would be averaging 8 of each over a 16 game season. you NEED to make more plays than that on D. Period.
- Eric Barton. Speaking of making plays, where was Eric Barton? I was at the game but found out later that he started. I think I remember seeing him, but he never seemed to have made a play. I just don't know if he has it anymore to be a starter in the NFL.
- Ratliff and his roster spot. Yes, he only threw 4 throws, but one WAS a pick. As it stands, he probably was on the outside looking in before the game if they had to make the 53 man roster then. It is becoming more of a guarantee to me that he doesn't make the team, and might not even be put on the PS.
- Our Backups on D. Keith Null was terrible. However, somehow he led the rams to victory by getting field goals on 2 straight drives and 92 combined yards on those drives. Our backups on D just couldn't stop them. Outside of the drives where they were obviously going to run it to eat out the clock, they were getting positive yardage on every play (except incompletions).
- Careless/Undisciplined football. We had 7 penalties and 5 turnovers. Mangini is obviously not going to be happy. If you have to point to one reason why we lost, it is clearly here. We dominated the rams in every area except this. the turnovers especially hurt us in other areas too, like clock management. We couldn't hold onto the ball so we lost the time of possession battle.
The Ugly
- The Penalties/Refereeing. Just like its preseason for the Browns, its also preseason for the Refs. There were quite a few calls that were very questionable that went against the browns (including PI calls where the receiver may not have even been touched). However, the browns still looked undisciplined and had their fair share of stupid penalties.
- Ball Security. The ball security may have been a product of the weather, but the amount of turnovers is still inexcusable. even in the worst weather, 5 turnovers is ridiculous...and it could have been more. We fumbled the ball 5 times but got it back twice. One of the biggest problems with ball security may have been on punts (which is often an issue) because 2 of the 3 fumbles lost were on punt returns.
- Syndric Steptoe. The only positive I can say is at least he wasn't also playing WR. Steptoe was our main punt returner and he was flat out awful. most of his problem that I saw was more mental aspects. He doesn't seem to know when to call a fair catch. He did call one fair catch, but on at least 3 others, he easily should have called it (and there was better coverage than on his one FC) but he didn't. One of those that he didn't FC directly led to his fumble. I thought he had only an outside shot to make it before this game, but I would be SHOCKED if he makes the roster now.
- Weather. OK, the weather was ugly. Mark Nolan (I believe he was the sideline Meteorologist) lied. He said the rain was about to stop and would during the game. It never did...I didn't have a poncho...
- Special Teams. Overall, I thought our special teams (outside of the kicking) was pretty ugly. the return game was not particularly good (even with Cribbs) and there were turnovers and mental mistakes galore. We didn't seem to give our returners a lot of room to work and the blocking didn't seem to be very good on returns. they also burned us badly on some returns and our punt and kick coverage teams looked pretty bad at times.
- Brandon McDonald. Overall, this game made me want BMac off the team. He was bad in every facet of the game. he was not good in coverage and gave up some plays he shouldn't have (including a TD where he just got beat). McDonald played on special teams on Punt coverage (gunner). He wasn't any more successful here. he missed a couple tackles while playing gunner and took bad angles more than once to get to the returner.
There was one play where he had the guy in his sights, took a bad angle, and then instead tried to tackle a blocker (who was about 4-5 feet away from the returner) and MISSED. To me, this epitomized the McDonald experience. McDonald made no plays in coverage and his only blip on the stat sheet was on tackle (where the guy literally laid down for him).
- (continued) I also didn't like the play where the ball bounced in the dirt in front of him and he high stepped it to the end zone. This pissed me off because there were only 2 reasons I could see him doing that:
1. He legitimately thought that it hadn't hit the ground, or that it wasn't a forward pass.
2. He saw it hit the ground, but wanted to pick it up and dance to the end zone.
If it was the former, that is a testament to his intelligence (or lack thereof at times) on D that he didn't pay attention. If it is the latter, it is a testament to his character and how he is maybe starting to be a headcase. Personally, I am inclined to think it was the latter. You can make a legitimate argument for keeping a headcase on your team when he is producing (like Edwards was in 2007) but its hard to make a case for keeping a guy when he is your 4th CB and isn't that good.
This is a fan-created post. Dawgs By Nature assumes no responsibility for the content listed.
294 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Besides the rain, did you have fun?
I haven’t been to Browns game in Cleveland since ’94.
It’s not a lie if you believe it.
by Brownie's Year on Aug 22, 2010 12:16 PM EDT reply actions
I think you mean to the RIGHT side of Mack.
Overall I agree but there are a few things I think you hitting too harsh on and are wrong about but overall, agreed.
I can't believe Cribbs was considered the second best athlete in Cleveland.
LBJ. Lying. Backstabbing. Jackass.
Yeah like the PI call, personally, when I saw the replay at a better angle, I saw that Haden’s hands were all over the receiver from the line of scrimmage until the play was blown dead.
"My mother always told me: ‘You will see the light of people when they hit adversity. You’ll get a good sense of their character." - Ironic words from LeBron James
For the love of Joe Thomas.....
by North Coast Flea on Aug 22, 2010 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, if you’re looking at it from the Defense’s P.O.V. it’s is RIGHT.
by BrownDawg1409 on Aug 22, 2010 9:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Eric Mangini and Jake Delhomme did not agree with you on your assessment of Josh Cribbs. Both commended him for his efforts and his development as a WR in their postgame interviews.
As for your frustrations, I think Steptoe is done with the Browns, and his terrible game did not influence that one bit. Thankfully with both Cribbs and Stuckey ahead of him, he is gone. However, I think I have a little bad news in the McDonald will make the team ahead of Coye Francies and other flunkies. He has above average coverage skills for a 4th cornerback. Not saying much – but enough for him to stick.
3rd, the Browns are very lucky to have a fan like you. After the product from last year to sit through that weather and then re-watch the game puts you in the true blue fan category. Hope you are not sick this week.
Note to Bill Byrne "Because you aren´t Texas and you´ll never be Texas"
The ting I’d have to disagree with you on here is that I think we can find a scrub from another teams leavings that will be as good if not better than Ronald and he should be left on the cutting room floor.
"My mother always told me: ‘You will see the light of people when they hit adversity. You’ll get a good sense of their character." - Ironic words from LeBron James
For the love of Joe Thomas.....
by North Coast Flea on Aug 22, 2010 2:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Good point – perhaps there is a waiver wire add here. I still say he is an above average coverage corner for a 4th CB
Note to Bill Byrne "Because you aren´t Texas and you´ll never be Texas"
probably above average, but his play even in the preseason has been bad. if it was his play enough, I would consider cutting him, but its small things like threatening to rape TO on his twitter account that make me want to cut him. why keep a marginal player who is a headcase?
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I appreciate Male Beauty
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
my point about cribbs is maybe he is getting more polished, and I saw a bit of that, but I STILL do not like him as a major option in the passing game. He was pretty much getting dumpoff throws or short throws, which makes me question their confidence in him ever going deep.
It was actually fun sitting through the game (except for the end b/c my 'coat' wasn't waterproof and I was soaked to the bone)I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I appreciate Male Beauty
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
Agreed. Cribbs plays WR on this team out of necessity. I think he is making big strides, but he had a really long way to go.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
I agree with that exact wording. I thought he had a chance to shine here and he played decent, but didn’t really shine (if ever he would, in the preseason against a garbage team).
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I appreciate Male Beauty
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
We actually won that game
We win the game if we kick the field goal instead of going for it on that second fourth down in the red zone. I commend Mangini for doing that cause he realizes this is just the pre-season and why not get some good practice in.
One other thing I noticed is during the second half we saw a plethora of players on the field I’ve never even heard of or knew was on the team, especially on the defensive line. Swanson Miller (95)? Derrick Robinson (67)? A good number of folks who won’t make the 53. Also can we actually get to see Colt play with an offensive line who can block? It seems like every time he drops back to pass the defense is immediately on him .
The 2nd half is where these no name players fight for a ST or PS roster spot.
"My mother always told me: ‘You will see the light of people when they hit adversity. You’ll get a good sense of their character." - Ironic words from LeBron James
For the love of Joe Thomas.....
by North Coast Flea on Aug 22, 2010 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions
exactly. we somehow got beat by Keith null and his terrible QB play. guys like Swanson Miller and Blake Costanzo just couldn’t stop the run…plus steptoe gave them great field position.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I appreciate Male Beauty
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
not a bad write up at all.
why do I hear so much about other guys on kick/punt return duty? I’m assuming this job is 100% Cribbs’. Are we simply assessing other possible talent?
I’m just hoping that this doesn’t foreshadow Josh’s forte (kick returns AND gunner) being taken away from him. at all.
by discoinferno083 on Aug 22, 2010 3:38 PM EDT reply actions
Dude, it’s preseason.
It’s not a lie if you believe it.
by Brownie's Year on Aug 22, 2010 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions
I am assuming that
a) they already knew what they were getting from cribbs
b) they didn’t want to injure him
c) they wanted to test out possible backups if (god forbid) he goes down.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I appreciate Male Beauty
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
I’m just saying… why the heck is steptoe returning kicks, period? Even if it is pre-season.
by discoinferno083 on Aug 22, 2010 3:48 PM EDT reply actions
He’s had experience returning kicks in each of his past three seasons I believe. And actually, in the past, he hasn’t been horrible at punt returns, just average.
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
by Chris Pokorny on Aug 22, 2010 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions
They don’t want Cribbs getting injured and they do want to see what other guys can do in case of a Cribbs injury. There are a few guys who could improve their value to the team if they show they can return kicks if Cribbs gets hurt. We should find out who those guys are before making cuts.
If Haden or someone else who has some clear value on Regular Teams can take on the backup kick returner role, that leaves a roster spot for a developmental player who can’t return kicks (i.e. Geathers).
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
We really don’t need Haden getting hurt either though. Another lost rookie season and who knows what else for a guy whose looking good in coverage so far.
by HenryDawg on Aug 25, 2010 12:49 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
That’s fair. They just need to see that Haden can do it, which is probably why Steptoe was back there so much. Can’t be afraid of Haden getting hurt before he shows what he can do. We know what Cribbs can do.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Nice recap.
I think you are being a little harsh on McDonald. I’ve always been higher on him than most Browns fans, but I really don’t think he was that bad yesterday. And by taking the ball and running into the end zone, he did what ever player is taught to do. He played until he heard the whistle. I thought it might not have hit the ground, and even if he did see it hit the ground, maybe the refs didn’t. He did the right thing. As for high stepping, it was more of a slow long step after realizing the play might be over, not a full Deon high-step.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
Today I learned that Brandon McDonald apologists do exist
by Monsters of the Midway on Aug 22, 2010 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, I’m here. I was much more supportive before his play last year. His tackling has regressed to an amazing unacceptable level and unless that changes, I don’t want him playing regularly. I do think he is the 4th best corner right now, and I hope he makes the team.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
I hope he makes the team as the fourth corner, he’s better in coverage than Adams and if we have four corners on the field the other team is probably passing so his tackling won’t be as exposed. yesterday he looked bad a couple times because he had to play against the run.
I have been complimented many times and they always embarrass me; I always feel that they have not said enough.
by notthatnoise on Aug 22, 2010 5:57 PM EDT up reply actions
I guess I saw that play differently. I understand the argument that play to the whistle, but I am pretty sure the whistle was blown when the ball hit the ground.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I appreciate Male Beauty
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
Hm, no.
I can't believe Cribbs was considered the second best athlete in Cleveland.
LBJ. Lying. Backstabbing. Jackass.
by SpecialBrownie on Aug 22, 2010 7:14 PM EDT up reply actions
Why would the Bill’s make this trade?
"i want to suck the f-ing quarterback. This is football." -discoinferno083
Delhomme might not be a "star" but at least
he is somewhat dependable. The same cannot be said for Edwards.
by Muscle-Dolphin on Aug 22, 2010 7:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Thanks for the recap bross. I found your comments on Cribbs at WR very interesting because I posted in the other thread that I thought he looked good on a few catches yesterday. I’ve always believed that he would never become a good WR because he didn’t have the skills for that position, but it seemed to me like he improved quite a bit from last year. Of course, those were just a couple of plays so he could have been playing poorly the rest of the game, which is why I am interested in your take since you can see more of the action at the stadium.
I mentioned that it seemed like Cribbs ran a couple nice routes and had a nice push-off on the TD catch which didn’t get flagged by the officials, and those are skills that WR’s need to have. During the game, Bernie said that he’d been working a lot on the WR position this offseason and he looked much more comfortable out there. So it will be interesting to see over the next two games and in to the regular season if Cribbs can continue to develop and become a decent WR or if he’s still going to be very inconsistant.
I’d be interested in hearing what other people thought about Cribbs’ play at WR yesterday and if we think he can actually become an average WR at some point this season. I still have my doubts, but if he could become a playmaking WR then we’d be a much better offense going forward.
. . . says the man from Columbus.
I’ve always been a fan of using Cribbs as a WR at least some of the time. I would particularly like to see him in motion towards the line as a part of the IS zone running game, the pin and pull zone, and the series of shallow cross plays that can be run off of that action (most of the passing plays I described this offseason).
Against the Rams, it looked like he did a lot more than that upon the first live viewing. I haven’t looked at the tape yet. No matter what we have Cribbs doing, I would hope we are trying to get the ball in his hands in space with a chance to make a play. We should all know he is quite good when he’s in that situation.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I agree that there are certain plays where Cribbs can be used at WR and that’s how we need to use him. Some people seemed to think that Cribbs can be a full-time WR who can learn to run all the routes and this is what I disagree with.
. . . says the man from Columbus.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 23, 2010 10:01 AM EDT up reply actions
I would hope we are trying to get the ball in his hands in space with a chance to make a playI have some confidence in him as an option if we are doing this, but if we try to get more fancy, my confidence wavers. we did seem to try to do that at times, but I also saw cribbs go deep at least once or twice. While you have to do this to keep them honest, I am just glad Jake didn't throw to him.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I appreciate Male Beauty
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
I mentioned that it seemed like Cribbs ran a couple nice routes and had a nice push-off on the TD catch which didn’t get flagged by the officials, and those are skills that WR’s need to have
I did like that. I do acknowledge he is a better route runner and has learned some more skills. I was more commenting on him and his overall skills. He may be able to be an option in the passing game, but I don’t think he will ever be a legitimate WR. He seems like he can fill the role of running a lot of short, ‘dumpoff’ patterns, kind of like the kind running backs get.
To me, he is a weapon that you need to know how to use. Like many RBs when they catch the ball, they are best in the flat, often with a blocker, so they can have some open space to work. He can also be used as a weapon in the run game. However, when you stop throwing it to him on short slants or in the flat, you take away much of his effectiveness IMO.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I appreciate Male Beauty
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
I’m going to reserve judgement until the real games start. If I recall, he seemed like he had taken a major leap last preseason and then completely lost it once the normal season started. of course, we have to account for quarterbacks when discussing last year’s receivers.
I have been complimented many times and they always embarrass me; I always feel that they have not said enough.
by notthatnoise on Aug 23, 2010 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions
thats true…but at least Massaquoi and Stuckey looked like they belonged on the field as a Receiver last year whereas the same cannot be said IMO about Cribbs.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I appreciate Male Beauty
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
Not sure that Stuckey looked much better than Cribbs. And Massaquoi only marginally so.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Aug 23, 2010 11:52 PM EDT up reply actions
As a WR, Mass looked a lot better than Cribbs in 2009.
"I spoil a lot of people with my play."
"But I mean, even my family gets spoiled at times watching me doing things that I do, on and off the court." -Lebron James
I have abundant faith that we haven’t seen the top end of Josh’s development at WR yet, but I’d agree with this.
Never underestimate the powers of Josh Cribbs
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Aug 24, 2010 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions
I say this more as an indictment on Stuckey and Massaquoi than a plus for Cribbs. One thing is clear, the QBs and game plans last year gave almost no chance of fairly, objectively, evaluating our WRs.
That said, I’m not sold on Massaquoi. He had some big raw number games. But, his catch rate was embarrassing, he gave up on plays way too often, ran sloppy routes more than a few times, and misread option routes and hot-reads constantly.
I understand that he was a rookie. And if eased in more slowly, like most rookie WRs, those things could be overlooked. But he was pushed into a starting role last year and his flaws were exposed and magnified.
Cribbs is what he is- a freak of an athlete, a decoy, a returner, a runner, with ok hands. But Massaquoi, as a receiver, has a long way to go.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
ran sloppy routes more than a few times, and misread option routes and hot-reads constantly.
I would like to know where you witnessed this. I saw him involved in a few bad chemistry plays but I can’t say he was to blame, exactly. He also was one of the first to disappear from the screen when running routes.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Hm, trying to figure out the best way to show you/cite examples…
this misreads seemed so constant- a couple every game. His catch rate was an unfathomable 36% – only michael clayton and louis murphy were worse – that really can only happen with more than your normal amount of reading plays differently than the QB. I wish I could isolate this more, but I"m not sure how to at this point.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
How are catch rates calculated though?
If the ball is in the vicinity, is it still considered a no catch by MoMass? If it is, that stat is on BQ and DA, not him.
I can't believe Cribbs was considered the second best athlete in Cleveland.
LBJ. Lying. Backstabbing. Jackass.
by SpecialBrownie on Aug 24, 2010 8:52 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s possible that the QB’s had something to do with the low catch rate but I don’t think you can put the entire blame on them.
. . . says the man from Columbus.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 24, 2010 10:09 PM EDT up reply actions
If they are calculated against the WR though, with DA and BQ, it’d have at least a marginal effect on his %.
I can't believe Cribbs was considered the second best athlete in Cleveland.
LBJ. Lying. Backstabbing. Jackass.
by SpecialBrownie on Aug 24, 2010 10:42 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree that it might have some effect, and I said so above. But you said that it was all on the QB’s and that is taking it much too far.
. . . says the man from Columbus.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 24, 2010 10:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Must you hark me for using a hyperbole? Jeez.
I can't believe Cribbs was considered the second best athlete in Cleveland.
LBJ. Lying. Backstabbing. Jackass.
by SpecialBrownie on Aug 24, 2010 11:10 PM EDT up reply actions
I didn’t think it was hyperbole; I thought you actually meant it.
. . . says the man from Columbus.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 24, 2010 11:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, like I said, our receivers were so difficult to get a fair objective reading on last year because the QB play was so bad. But catch rate is an example of a measure that shows how terribly, terribly below average MoMass was.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
I am pretty skeptical of catch rate as a stat not because I don’t trust it, but because I don’t know how important it is. I will be very curious to see what happens this year with not the two worst QBs in the NFL.
"I spoil a lot of people with my play."
"But I mean, even my family gets spoiled at times watching me doing things that I do, on and off the court." -Lebron James
Take your pick of other advanced stats, they all say Massaquoui was pretty bad. Then again, a lot of them are based on catch rate, so maybe there is no convincing you.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
Ultimately I just believe that bad QB play will affect the advanced stat numbers more than the WR himself. I am open to change though, and will keep an eye on these things depending on how our QBs play this year.
"I spoil a lot of people with my play."
"But I mean, even my family gets spoiled at times watching me doing things that I do, on and off the court." -Lebron James
Looking at catch rates for 2008 and for 2009:
Stallworth 38%
Steptoe 46%
Edwards 40%
Massaquoi 36%
Stuckey 45%
Robiskie 35%
Furrey 59%
Cribbs 54%
The better wide receivers in the leage have a catch rate in the 60’s or 70’s. Also, the better receivers in the league have better quarterbacks than DA and Quinn.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.™
by golanbatrac on Aug 26, 2010 11:38 AM EDT up reply actions
Notice the two WRs on the Browns with the highest catch rates are also the two guys that were the recipient of the shortest pass plays.
"I spoil a lot of people with my play."
"But I mean, even my family gets spoiled at times watching me doing things that I do, on and off the court." -Lebron James
I never EVER saw MoMass give up on plays, though his route running may have4 not been the best (granted, he was a rookie). Saying he misred option routes (which is a stat that is hard to calculate) is just speculation.
You also use catch rate, which is not a terrible stat, but is not at ALL an accurate judge of ho9w good a WR was last year.
The browns passing game was built on short passes. Most of Quinns and anderson’s attempts were short passes (less than 10 yards). This was likely because the coaching staff didn’t trust either throwing it deep (and for good reason). Neither one was that accurate, but at least they could throw it on target a bit better on the short throws (though its questionable in DA’s case).
Last year, about 70% of the targets cribbs got were short passes. Massaquoi only got passed to short 21% of the time he was targeted. This shows 2 things.
a) as a receiver, Cribbs was fairly one dimentional. He could run with the ball, but couldn’t stretch the field and the coaching staff didn’t have confidence in him outside of short throws. It also shows that massaquoi is a weapon from anywhere. massaqoi got at least 21% of his targets in each short, medium, deep, and bomb throw categories.
b) Cribbs’ catch rate is higher because he benefits from how he is used. They went to Massaquoi deep. Neither Quinn nor Anderson is any good at targeting guys deep (but DA was better). Cribbs gets the benefit of getting high percentage throws (in a similar statistical way that solid shooting centers have shooting s of close to 60 while great jump shooters don’t average 50).
I can’t find a stat for Massaquoi’s catch rate on his short throws, but I bet its about 50%. He just gets hurt by the fact he was used deep and our QBs were less effective deep. Also, for all the talk about Cribbs being a weapon with the ball in his hands, Massaquoi was able to get more YAC (even though cribbs was used more in screens and other patterns that yield yigh YAC).
Harrison had a 68% catch rate. He might have good hands, but does he have the best on the team? No, he just got thrown to short ALL THE TIME.
Usually, with most teams and most QBs, catch rate is a fairly good way of comparing WRs. however, considering cribbs’ style and considering our QBs, it is not the foolproof method you seem to make it out to be.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I appreciate Male Beauty
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
I’m pretty sure he never said — or implied — that it was foolproof.
. . . says the man from Columbus.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 24, 2010 10:11 PM EDT up reply actions
but he did use it as the primary evidence to state that Cribbs was a better receiver than MoMass. besides that, he gave some speculations that may or may not be true.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I appreciate Male Beauty
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
whoa, I don’t know where you got any of that. I said:
I say this more as an indictment on Stuckey and Massaquoi than a plus for Cribbs. One thing is clear, the QBs and game plans last year gave almost no chance of fairly, objectively, evaluating our WRs.
That said, I’m not sold on Massaquoi. He had some big raw number games. But, his catch rate was embarrassing, he gave up on plays way too often, ran sloppy routes more than a few times, and misread option routes and hot-reads constantly.
I wasn’t using it as evidence that Cribbs was better at all. In fact, I never cited Cribbs’ number because I didn’t think it was relevant. I don’t think its really all that useful to compare Cribbs and Massaquoi because they are such different players.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
I totally agree that the QB play makes objective evaluation extremely difficult.
But, his catch rate was embarrassing, he gave up on plays way too often, ran sloppy routes more than a few times, and misread option routes and hot-reads constantly.
I agree, the catch rate was embarassing, but how much of that was the fact that he had ‘bad hands’ or the fact that our QBs couldn’t throw a catchable ball more than 10 yards and almost 80% of the balls he got were medium, deep, or bombs as throws. I don’t think you can use catch rate as (like you say) a fair, objective stat to evaluate Momass. He, more than others suffers from the QB play because he got the least amount of throws short (what I think of as ‘high percentage throws’).
Where did he give up on plays and misread options and hot routes? I didn’t see any of this, so I don’t know exactly when this happened. I do agree his routes were sloppy at times, but he was a rookie, not known for his route running. I thought he looked better later on in the season which is definitely a good sign.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I appreciate Male Beauty
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
almost 80% of the balls he got were medium, deep, or bombs as throws
I would love to know where you got that stat.
. . . says the man from Columbus.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 25, 2010 11:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Your 80% stat is just completely made up. That doesn’t even make any sense.
catch rate is not supposed to just measure hands, but also the ability to get to balls, and make the most out of the your chances.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
so now you have resorted to accusing me of making up stats without finding out if these stats are actually true or doing any research of your own?
Go to Massaquoi’s FO profile. they outline the distribution of how far down the field he was thrown to.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I appreciate Male Beauty
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
what? http://www.footballoutsiders.com/player/22403/mohammed-massoquoi
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
actually, it looks like I have been the victim of a glitch at FO. They misspelled his name on the 2009 WR rankings and it directs you to an empty profile for MassOquoi. MassAquoi has a complete profile that shows the stats you refer to. Sorry about that.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
I didn’t put words into his mouth, but the way he used it in evidence, he seemed to have a lot of confidence and faith in this one stat. maybe he didn’t think it was foolproof, but are you going to really argue that irrelevant point?
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I appreciate Male Beauty
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
How is that irrelevent?
And I’m not sure why you say that he had a lot of confidence and faith in that one stat — he quoted it, but it’s not like he went on a long diatribe about how infallible the stat was. He also gave other arguments.
The problem is that he mentions the stat once in his arguments then you respond with a 9-paragraph rebuttle about it. He never said it was foolproof or perfect or the only measure that he was using, he just mentioned it as part of his argument. You’re taking your response was too far and putting words in other people’s mouths, as you often do.
. . . says the man from Columbus.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 24, 2010 10:52 PM EDT up reply actions
He never said it was foolproof or perfect
and I didn’t say he thought of it this way,
he just mentioned it as part of his argument
what you also fail to mention is the other parts of his argument are observations that are highly subjective that even Rufio doesn’t completely agree with (and I defer to him for game tape). If he had other stats, I wouldn’t think of this one that highly, however his argument is based on highly subjective observations, and one fact. Those observations have little meaning in an argument without the catch rate stat. It might not be the only piece, but it is the key piece and the glue that helps to make his argument valid.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I appreciate Male Beauty
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
it is not the foolproof method you seem to make it out to be
That certainly sounds like you saying that he thought of it that way.
Also, your response to him also contained arguments which were highly subjective.
. . . says the man from Columbus.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 25, 2010 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions
you, in fact, put words in my mouth. 2/3 of your post above is about Cribbs and Harrison’s catch rate and why they aren’t helpful in this discussion. Even though I never used their numbers.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
but you used Massaquoi’s catch rate as an indictment of his hands, however I am merely pointing out how this stat hinders fair, objective evaluation.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I appreciate Male Beauty
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
Fair, objective evaluation . . . like you going by what you remember happening last year? That’s fair and objective?
. . . says the man from Columbus.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 25, 2010 11:41 PM EDT up reply actions
The evaluation of WRs necessitates subjectivity. Not only is it hard to isolate a WR’s impact due to the variables around him on his own team, it is really hard to isolate considering his teammates and the defense—if either of these things are possible at all.
It is a fact that Mass’ catch rate as evaluated by FBO is low. But what exactly does that mean?
# We cannot yet fully separate the performance of a receiver from the performance of his quarterback. Be aware that one will affect the other.
# These statistics measure only passes thrown to a receiver, not performance on plays when he is not thrown the ball, such as blocking and drawing double teams.
WRs with the 5 lowest catch rates played for:
Cleveland
Oakland
Tampa
Detroit
Tennessee/KC
I’d be willing to bet that there would be at least a slight correlation between some measure of QB effectiveness and WR catch rate.
Catch rate does not account for throwaways, poor throws, throws that could be considered throwaways where it is “only my WR can get it” but no one really has a good shot, and as far as I can tell it doesn’t account for differences between players’ styles. Massaquoi went deep a lot last year. Forget how bad Quinn was at throwing 15+ yards downfield, and consider that deep balls get completed much less than shorter passes being thrown to guys like Welker. in fact, I would expect that as a WR goes deeper, his chances of catching a ball drop exponentially. How many quick, 2 yard swing passes will a defense let you complete? How many completed bombs do you see in the NFL?
Consider Welker’s 11.0 yards/reception and 5.9 YAC. Consider also Massaquoi’s 18.4 yards/reception and 5.0 YAC, and Massaquoi is catching the ball 8 yards deeper on average. That’s significant. I’d say the difference between Moss and Robiskie/Stuckey is significant as well, and defenses are going to have to give Welker some easier coverages than they give Mass. This is not to say that Massaquoi is the better player, he clearly is not.
Comparing the yards per attempt to Massaquoi (6.6) to the YPA to another young receiver with a better catch rate (say, Crabtree’s 7.2) doesn’t make it look as bad. I’d say Alex Smith could easily be worth .6 YPA over DA/BQ.
In fact, I’d interpret the stats to say exactly what a subjective analysis of watching Massaquoi does: he was a rookie WR on a team with a terrible passing offense and he is not a #1 NFL wideout but could be a good #2.
This is the argument that Bross should be making.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
by rufio on Aug 26, 2010 3:41 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I don’t disagree with any of that. My only problem was with the arguments that bross was making; he was making subjective arguments then criticizing Ryan for doing the same thing. And it’s completely ridiculous for him to act like him going off of his memory from what happened last year is “fair, objective evaluation” because that’s not even close to being true.
There are legitimate arguments to be made by MoMass might not be as bad as his catch rate says he is, but bross didn’t make any of those arguments.
. . . says the man from Columbus.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 26, 2010 7:52 AM EDT up reply actions
And it’s completely ridiculous for him to act like him going off of his memory from what happened last year is "fair, objective evaluation"
I NEVER SAID THAT. I said that I don’t remember MoMass giving up on throws, but I NEVER said that meant he didn’t. I didn’t even use that as any sort of significant piece in my point. If anything, RK was using what he remembers from last year A LOT MORE.
There are legitimate arguments to be made by MoMass might not be as bad as his catch rate says he is, but bross didn’t make any of those arguments.
False. While my point was not as eloquent as Rufio’s, it gets down to the same point: that catch rate is subjective, deeper throws generally have a lower completion %, our QBs couldn’t throw deep, and Momass was often tried more downfield. These were the arguments I tried to make, though I didn’t make them well.
Don’t try to put words into my mouth, and after the fact, completely change my argument and compliment what Rufio is saying when I pretty much said the same thing in different (and less eloquent words)
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I appreciate Male Beauty
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
catch rate is subjective
This is not what rufio was saying, and is also untrue.
Anyway, rufio’s points were well made. I agree with most of them, and I think we are really arguing symantics here. As far as him giving up on plays, rufio pointed out one specific example, I don’t know how to objectively show you – but it is my memory that he did this on multiple occasions.
Look, this started with a silly comparison of Cribbs and MoMass- and my critique of that comparison should have been, “they are so different, they shouldn’t be compared.” Instead, I said that the difference was only marginal in how good they looked as WRs. Let’s move on.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
maybe he didn’t say it was subjective (in those exact words) but he DID imply and say it wasn’t objective
Catch rate is not an objective measure of a WR’s quality
Your memory is quite possibly better than mine so maybe he gave up on a couple plays. We definitely should move on.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I appreciate Male Beauty
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
I disagree that catch rate is objective. FBO is objective in that they look at a stat sheet that says “incomplete pass to X receiver” and do some calculations based on those occurrences.
The way in which a pass was determined to be incomplete to the receiver is the subjective part.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Jeez.
The way in which a pass was determined to be incomplete to the receiver
That is not part of the stat. The OBJECTIVE statistic is set up to ignore this subjective element.
The only arguably subjective element is the NFL employee who determines who the pass was intended for.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
The only arguably subjective element is the NFL employee who determines who the pass was intended for.
This is exactly what I am referring to.
The pass was determined to be complete by some NFL employee, who makes a subjective choice. The way in which it is determined to be complete to that receiver is that someone decides that it was, which is subjective.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Maybe I haven’t explained my thoughts on this yet, which is part of the problem. The subjective element of determining who the pass was intended for is such a small part of it that i don’t think that’s enough to call it subjective. It is very rare for a pass to be thrown close enough to two receivers that you can’t tell who it was intended for. Maybe that happens once or even twice a game (at most), but that’s per quarterback, not per receiver, so it happens so very rarely over the course of a season that I don’t think it has a noticable effect on the stat. Plus, those instances can balance out between receivers, so I really don’t think it effects the measure of the stat in any significant way. That’s why I think it’s fair to call it objective.
. . . says the man from Columbus.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 27, 2010 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Mass had 34 catches, with his 36% catch rate, he was targeted 94 times.
If 5 of those over the course of the season went down as being “to” him, but were not to him (throw-aways, for example), that’s a 4% variance. Because of the SSS, even a few instances of this matter.
To me, that’s easily significant.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
But wouldn’t this be true of EVERY receiver? Thus you can still compare them with each other using the same criteria?
. . . says the man from Columbus.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 27, 2010 11:51 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t know, does Peyton have more throwaways to Wayne or Collie? Did Quinn to Stuckey or Mass?
I think that because the sample size is so small, some receivers are bound to be hurt by this more than others, even if throwaways were as likely to happen “to” every receiver in an offense (and I wouldn’t guess that they are), there would still be a strong probability that randomness would affect the stat.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
That is part of the stat!
The only arguably subjective element is the NFL employee who determines who the pass was intended for.
That’s exactly what rufio said that you quoted. Obviously i’m no statmagician but how can you have an objective stat if it’s composed of subjective elements.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
This is all I am saying. Regardless of the statistical significance (or lack thereof) of this subjective element, there IS indeed a subjective element in the stat itself.
Obviously this is not what others such as SB have mistakenly argued made the stat subjective, but it does mean there is a subjective element to the stat.
Therefore, the stat itself cannot be purely objective.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
by rufio on Aug 27, 2010 11:38 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
But doesn’t every stat have some small degree of subjective elements? Take yards, for example, which shows up in many stats — the scorekeeper determines whether a run was for 5 or 6 yards when the runner stops somewhere in between. That’s subjective. So is deciding when to give a player a full sack or a half a sack or no sack. So, if you break it down, almost all stats have a small element of subjectivity.
. . . says the man from Columbus.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 27, 2010 11:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah they do, but no one is arguing that they are objective. Also even with their subjectivity I think you get a better idea of what a player is doing by looking at those stats individually than you can by looking at catch rate on its own.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
like you going by what you remember happening last year?
now you are putting words into MY mouth. I am merely going by what I looked at in Football Outsiders, as a combination of catch rate and passing distribution.
I did say that I don’t remember MoMass giving up on throws, which is going by what i remember from last year. However, this was a RESPONSE, to RK remembering something different also from LAST YEAR. so he is fair and objective for using stuff he remembers but I am the hypocrite for wanting fair and objective evaluation (which is what you seem to paint me as).
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I appreciate Male Beauty
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
I used his catch rate as one objective measure of his quality- not just his hands. As evidence of his misreads, his hands, everything else showing how good of a year he had.
And your “pointing out” the flaws in this stat were already pointed out… when I made the point in the first place!
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
but as Rufio pointed out, catch rate is NOT an objective stat, and if you and BB decided to actually legitimately think about my long comment instead of focusing on the small parts (like the fact that I used cribbs instead of focusing on the aspect of short throws vs. long throws), you would have seen the same thing. It seems like rufio saw semblances of that and just expanded.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I appreciate Male Beauty
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
I see your point on short throws vs. long throws. It made less sense when you said it and you still are missing some nuance. In fact, I wasn’t convinced you realized what catch rate was at all.
But it is a fair point. And it is probably a good reason to explain why Massaquoi’s catch rate was lower than average. I don’t think it explains why it is lower than almost the entire league.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
yes. I completely missed any sort of nuance in what I said and the point was lost because of it. That was completely my bad for not articulating well and organizing my thoughts.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I appreciate Male Beauty
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
Catch rate is not an objective measure of a WR’s quality.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
It is not a perfect measure, but it is quite objective. I think we’d have the same conversation, but his DVOA, DYAR, etc. are also pretty darn ugly. I’m not sure how else to put that he didn’t have a very good season, and I thought he looked really freaking bad at times.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
With my argument, it’s not objective because of all the variables put into place. I doubt it’s quite objective. It’s objective in the perfect setting, which can never be attained unless you have a consistent playing surface, QB, and defense, which we never really saw.
I can't believe Cribbs was considered the second best athlete in Cleveland.
LBJ. Lying. Backstabbing. Jackass.
by SpecialBrownie on Aug 26, 2010 6:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Its totally objective because it is catches/targets. the only subjective element is identifying the intended receiver. FO uses official game play-by-play info, so they are making absolutely no subjective determination. .
Now, if you want to debate how useful it is, that is fine. But don’t call it subjective. Please.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
Yes, it’s objective when determining if the ball was for MoMass or not, this is evident.
What’s subjective is what variables caused the ball to be caught or dropped, it’s more than just MoMass’s hands suck, much more.
It’s not an objective stat, IMO.
I can't believe Cribbs was considered the second best athlete in Cleveland.
LBJ. Lying. Backstabbing. Jackass.
by SpecialBrownie on Aug 26, 2010 6:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Please look up “objective”, then please look up “catch rate” at FO.
Now, what isn’t objective about catch rate? If you added in the subjective variables, then it would become a subjective stat. As it is, it is a pretty freaking raw, objective stat.
This isn’t an “IMO” thing, this is a true or false thing.
Also, it is not a measure of hands, I never said it was, in fact I’ve explicitly said it was NOT several times.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
Just give up; it’s pointless. Some people are just going to believe whatever they want to believe, and say whatever they need to say to continue an argument.
. . . says the man from Columbus.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 26, 2010 9:42 PM EDT up reply actions
What?
Don’t play that because you do that ALL THE TIME. I was down with it till you felt you had to throw in your 2 cents about it.
I can't believe Cribbs was considered the second best athlete in Cleveland.
LBJ. Lying. Backstabbing. Jackass.
by SpecialBrownie on Aug 26, 2010 9:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Actually, you know what? YOU JUST NOW DID IT. I was done with this for hours, I didn’t care anymore, I moved on, whatever. Then YOU came in, hours later after it was over and antagonized me about it again JUST FOR THE SAKE OF THE DAMN ARGUMENT. Really Bro? That’s so dumb. In no way were you in this line of comments, so I don’t understand why you had to comment other than antagonize me for the damn argument.
I can't believe Cribbs was considered the second best athlete in Cleveland.
LBJ. Lying. Backstabbing. Jackass.
by SpecialBrownie on Aug 26, 2010 10:05 PM EDT up reply actions
1. How did I antagonize you?
2. I’ve been part of this discussion since the beginning. Please read the comment above.
3. There have been many, many, many times where you antagonized me (and many other people here) about an argument that you weren’t involved with at all, so don’t even start with me about this. You are being ridiculously hypocritical right now.
. . . says the man from Columbus.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 26, 2010 10:51 PM EDT up reply actions
3. There have been many, many, many times where you antagonized me (and many other people here) about an argument that you weren’t involved with at all, so don’t even start with me about this. You are being ridiculously hypocritical right now.
I never said I didn’t do it, and if anyone is being hypocritical, it’s you. Don’t say you don’t do it. And I was talking about the main stream that just included me and Ryan, and not YOU.
I can't believe Cribbs was considered the second best athlete in Cleveland.
LBJ. Lying. Backstabbing. Jackass.
by SpecialBrownie on Aug 26, 2010 11:03 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t know what “mean stream” you were talking about. I’ve been part of this discussion the whole time, and I didn’t know there were certain streams that I was allowed to take part in and other streams where I wasn’t allowed to.
. . . says the man from Columbus.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 27, 2010 9:54 AM EDT up reply actions
The comment you made had nothing to do with the original argument.
It was pointless to say and you’re just getting extremely annoying now, just like in BB fashion.
I can't believe Cribbs was considered the second best athlete in Cleveland.
LBJ. Lying. Backstabbing. Jackass.
by SpecialBrownie on Aug 27, 2010 10:01 AM EDT up reply actions
Why do you have to jump on SB every time he disagrees with you?
I disagree with Ryan here, we have gone point/counterpoint, I am not going to leave thinking he is some idiot who is just going to say whatever he needs to say to continue arguing.
Sure, SB has been inflammatory in the past (and he would admit that). I honestly don’t think he was trying to be here.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
it might be an objective stat on its own, in many cases. However, even objective stats can seem subjective and misleading and this is the case for Massaquoi’s catch rate.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I appreciate Male Beauty
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
misleading, maybe. subjective, no.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Aug 26, 2010 10:10 PM EDT up reply actions
I guess on that point, we may just agree to disagree (though I agree that on the surface, and in most situations, it is a very good, objective stat)
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I appreciate Male Beauty
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
Huh?
Listen . . . a statistic is either objective or it’s not. It can’t be objective sometimes and not objective other times. Now, you can certainly say that it’s misleading or not relevant or many other things which detract from it’s usefulness, but please explain how a stat can be objective in most situations but not in this one. I don’t think you know the meaning of objective.
. . . says the man from Columbus.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 26, 2010 10:53 PM EDT up reply actions
This thread is so long i’m not really sure where to put this question.
How do they determine who gets the incompletion if more than one receiver is in the area? Does a receiver get credited with an incompletion if the QB is obviously throwing the ball away, say out of bounds, but the receiver happens to be the closest person in the area?
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
I believe that they go off the official play by play.
If I am wrong someone can correct me.
by Bernie19Kosar on Aug 26, 2010 11:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Thanks. I would imagine that would give the stat the appearance of objectivity but to me it would seem like that could be like scoring an error.
Also, it seems to have any use this stat would need to be used subjectively because it really doesn’t tell you anything.
As Rufio poster earlier and as they state on their site, they don’t take into consideration any outside information, to me what they they take in does not include enough information to make this stat useful on its own.
It seems to me they are trying to create an objective stat out of a receiver’s value, but they only way they can do so is by removing all the information that would be of any benefit because they can’t adequately remove the subjectivity of that information. So all they are left with is incomplete/complete which really tells you nothing about what is happening on the field.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
THANK YOU!
I can't believe Cribbs was considered the second best athlete in Cleveland.
LBJ. Lying. Backstabbing. Jackass.
by SpecialBrownie on Aug 27, 2010 12:04 AM EDT up reply actions
On the first part, yes if two receivers are in the area, there could be some subjectivity by the NFL play-by-play. I would argue that would occur across the baord and therefore be statistically insignificant.
On the part about how valuable it is- that’s fine to debate. It is not a perfect stat on its own, and in fact FO does a lot with it to make it better in coming up with DVOA and DYAR, etc. But that isn’t the same as calling it a subjective stat. That is just factually incorrect.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
This is correct.
. . . says the man from Columbus.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 27, 2010 9:30 AM EDT up reply actions
No, you yourself have admitted that the stat is partially subjective.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I guess the best comparison is batting average in baseball. It is the simplest of stats. And yes, it does depend on a human making a judgment call in determining if something was a hit or an error. But that’s true for every hitter, plus there are only so many close plays- the official scorer is going to get it right, almost always. That “subjectivity” is statistically insignificant.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
The difference, I think, is that when an umpire, a referee or an official scorer rules on a play, it’s done in the open and is subject to public scrutiny. FO isn’t subject to the same scrutiny. We don’t really know how they determine if a receiver is targeted or not.
That’s not to say that I question their motives or that they’re meeting in secret to conspire against Mohammed Massaquoi or anything, but the lack of public scrutiny introduces an additional layer of subjectivity (whether real or perceived) that statistics which rely on the subjective determinations of official scorers, referees and umpires do not have.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.™
by golanbatrac on Aug 28, 2010 11:22 AM EDT up reply actions
he difference, I think, is that when an umpire, a referee or an official scorer rules on a play, it’s done in the open and is subject to public scrutiny. FO isn’t subject to the same scrutiny. We don’t really know how they determine if a receiver is targeted or not.
Yes we do. FO goes by the NFL’s official play-by-play data.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
How many ABs does a batter average a year compared to the number of targets a receiver averages a year? No sarcasm, real question.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
Andre Johnson led the league in targets last season with 172.
Aaron Hill led MLB with 682 at bats last season.
by Bernie19Kosar on Aug 28, 2010 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions
And the average batter probably gets somewhere around 500-550 at bats with the average starting WR may get about 100-130 targets. (the Marques Colston/Ochocinco range).
So, each target in Football has 4 times more weight on the stat than an At Bat in baseball…so one mistake has 4 times more weight (at least)
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I appreciate Male Beauty
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
the inherent challenge of reducing football to stats, which I don’t think anyone here has argued for.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
I am not trying to purely reduce football to stats…I was merely adding on to what Bernie said about how a target has more weight than an at bat (about 4 times more) and therefore a mistake in calculation has more of an effect…
plus, a target, like its been pointed out, is not a foolproof stat (in that sometimes, an uncatchable ball may be counted as a target) and the amount of at-bats calculated is more foolproof (much easier to tell whats an at bat).
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I appreciate Male Beauty
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
So it’s semi-objective like Bross said?
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
A statistic is either objective or not. Once a subjective element enters the equation the stat becomes subjective.
There is no such thing as ‘semi-objective’ or ‘partially subjective’ I’d guess both bross are referring to the fact that the statistics being discussed are comprised of at least one objective component (bross) and one subjective component (rufio). In both cases, the statistic is subjective.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.™
I was joking about the fact that it appears it is a wikipedia fact that the stat is objective, but yet somehow it’s still subjective.
Probably just a bad joke on my part.
I believe it’s not an objective stat.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
THIS IS WHAT I’M SAYING! Far too many variables for it to be a viable stat to use.
I can't believe Cribbs was considered the second best athlete in Cleveland.
LBJ. Lying. Backstabbing. Jackass.
by SpecialBrownie on Aug 26, 2010 11:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Are you paying attention to what Ryan has been saying?
. . . says the man from Columbus.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 27, 2010 9:30 AM EDT up reply actions
I used his catch rate as one objective measure of his quality
This is the problem:
Catch rate is an objective measure—of how many times a WR caught the ball vs. how many times it was thrown “to them” (as determined by someone who makes this into a stat).
It is not an objective measure of a WR’s quality, and to say so is ridiculous. We’ve discussed many of the factors BESIDES A WR’S QUALITY that go into the catch rate stat. Because of this, it does not measure the quality of the WR in an objective way.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
THIS. It may be an objective stat in its very core essence, but outside of what it measures (% of balls thrown to that were caught), it is not entirely objective to use.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I appreciate Male Beauty
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
So what you are saying is that catch rate is “totally objective”, but also has a subjective element, and additionally that the stat is completely worthless in determining a WR’s quality.
You can’t win both the subjective/objective and meaningful points.
Catches/“Targets” is meaningless because it doesn’t separate a QB’s performance from a WRs. Or an OL’s. Or any of the various other things that could be working for/against the WR.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
A stat can be objective and meaningless. I happen to believe that the stat is meaningful, but am fine with people disagreeing with that.
It has a statistically insignificant subjective element of determining the targeted receiver.
Look, its not perfect, there are stats that are better. But I think it shows a lot of the problems with Massaquoi. I’m not going to explain that again.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
It may not be perfect, but it’s not completely worthless. It certainly tells you something. Of course, you need to take other things in to consideration (such as quality of the QB and whether the WR ran mostly long or short routes), but that doesn’t make it completely worthless. That’s the problem with your agument.
Most stats aren’t perfect — there are other considerations you need to take in to give you a better idea of the player’s value. But that doesn’t mean you can just ignore them completely, otherwise we really wouldn’t have any stats to look at. Ryan has never said it was a perfect stat and has repeated mutliple times that there were other considerations to take in along with it, so I don’t know why everyone keeps getting on his case.
You could use your last paragraph for practically every single stat in football. Football is a team game and the success of one player depends on others doing their job. So no matter what stat you’re talking about — yards per carry, completion %, yards per catch, TD/INT ratio, sacks, just to name a few — you could say that they’re dependent on other players on the team doing their job that could work for or against the player. Does that mean that all those stats are completely worthless? Should we stop looking at all statistics in football because of this?
. . . says the man from Columbus.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 27, 2010 9:40 AM EDT up reply actions
Catch rate is an especially terrible measure of a WR’s quality, if you couldn’t understand that I was trying to get that across.
As in: the stat tells us so little about the quality of a WR that traditional stats are probably better and catch rate is more or less worthless.
There are so many things that factor in to the stat that are not dependent on the quality of the WR that it seems especially absurd to take this stat seriously. Consider that the sample size in this particular example is < 100 and every single instance of this phenomenon means the stat is changing by > 1%.
Every stat in football should be examined and critiqued. This one is no different, except that is sucks more than usual stats. Perhaps “wothless” was hyperbole, but on the scale from “not perfect” to “worthless”, catch rate is down toward worthless. Thanks for the condescension, though.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I wasn’t trying to be condescending and I’m sorry if it came off that way. I’m just trying to point out how those arguments can be made for many other stats which we often use on this site so I wasn’t sure why this particular stat is getting so much discussion.
. . . says the man from Columbus.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 27, 2010 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Hm, I think we are stuck.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
I wouldn’t say stuck. I really have no dog in this fight … I mean, nevermind. I was just confused about the discussion about the stat and I posted my interpretation of it.
I’m definitely willing to hear how it’s useful or why it’s completely objective, no sarcasm. I would imagine that the stat is there for some reason, I’m just not that versed in stats to lean one way or the other.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
I have to disagree with you rufio for the first paragraph. With a very good QB, catch rate can be valuable, and can help measure a WRs quality. However, QBs who can’t throw on target make it a terrible measure.
Plus, you add in the chances of completing a pass in all sections of the field. I feel its much better when combined with FOs calculation of where balls are thrown…because the more deeper balls you get, the lower your catch rate will drop inherently (even if you can catch those balls just as well).
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I appreciate Male Beauty
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
Can it still be valuable even though it doesn’t take into consideration drops? What is it telling you besides the fact that a pass towards the receiver was incomplete?
Did he drop it, was hit high, did the defense make a good play, did the receiver run the wrong route out of the huddle, did he miss an audible, did he miss a read, was he smacked silly and dropped the ball, was there holding, pass interference, etc.?
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
Exactly. Was the pass floated up in a crowd at the end of the game? Was the defense rolling coverage toward the WR, who had to beat both a CB and a S? Did the WR make a spectacular grab that other WRs couldn’t have made?
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I agree that adding where balls are thrown helps the stat.
But even with a good QB, it doesn’t really measure the quality of the WR. If Reggiee Wayne catches 80% of Manning’s throws, is it because Manning is throwing a really catchable ball and defenses are afraid of other targets (good QB play, potentially other WRs getting Wayne a better chance to catch the ball)? Or are the Colts’ OL getting beaten and Manning has to throw up jump balls that Wayne is winning (good WR play).
Something where drops are factored in would be much more valuable. Or even “good plays by WR”
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Catch rate is not an objective measure of a WR’s quality.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
This is a nuance that I understand, but not others.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
Many times on here the nuance of arguments goes way over some people’s heads. It’s happened to me many times and it’s very frustrating. No matter how many times you try to explain yourself, either they don’t listen to your arguments or they don’t understand them. I’m not sure what it is, but it’s frustrating and it impedes intelligent discussion.
. . . says the man from Columbus.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 27, 2010 9:45 AM EDT up reply actions
Brad I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but this nuance did not go over my head.
In fact, this is about the 3rd time I am pointing it out, and I still have major issues with the stat.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I wasn’t speaking about you, if that makes you feel better. I have no problem having football discussion with you.
. . . says the man from Columbus.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 27, 2010 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions
You replied to that comment in such a way that I was under the impression you did not. My apologies.
This is where I really wanted to go with the “objectivity” thing, not what I believe to be the statistically relevant subjectivity of the stat-maker deciding who the pass was to (though I understand you do not believe it is statistically relevant).
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Mass gave up on a pass against the Chiefs that was intercepted. To be fair, it was a horribly thrown ball and he had no shot at it when he pulled up. HOWEVER, if he would have not given up he could have tackled the Chief immediately. A DB with the ball is often very dangerous.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
That’s probably the most obvious example that is burned in my mind. It is one of those effort type plays that I have a hard time forgiving.
I remember other plays where he broke off routes or appeared to be taking plays off. The problem is that the TV camera rarely shows a receivers route on plays that they don’t get thrown to. So some of my memories could be from the games I went to or caught glimpses of the endzone cam.
The misreads were damn near every game. DA or Quinn would throw a five yard out and Massaquoi would be running a go or a post. The QBs might have made a couple of those wrong reads or made a mental mistake, but I’m guessing that is on the receiver most of the time.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
but I’m guessing that is on the receiver most of the time.
so your point is based on guessing? If I had to guess, I would say a lot more would rest on the QBs than in a normal situation because our QBs sucked.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I appreciate Male Beauty
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
Yes, my educated guess is that when the QB throws an out and a WR runs a go, it is usually a misread or mistake by the WR. Likely, because they didn’t identify a blitz or the coverage correctly.
The suckiness of our QBs last year is something we agree on, and makes this converation more difficult.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
I do agree with you. In many situations, I would more likely blame the WR (even though, as I believe Rufio pointed out, sometimes the WR gets blamed b/c of this for bad QB reads). However, BQ and DA throw a wrench into any objectivity for anything about our WRs.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I appreciate Male Beauty
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
But just because they didn’t have the physical skills to throw an accurate pass doesn’t mean they misread the route. Those are two completely different problems, and just because our QB’s couldn’t do one you can’t assume that they couldn’t do the other one.
. . . says the man from Columbus.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 26, 2010 10:54 PM EDT up reply actions
But just because they didn’t have the physical skills to throw an accurate pass doesn’t mean they misread the route
I was not at all talking about their physical skills. Where did I mention that? DA had great physical skills but was still a horrible QB.
I am not at all talking about accuracy here. I am talking about decision making and pretty much all of the mental aspects of passing (except poise, because they affect in some way, making reads).
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I appreciate Male Beauty
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
I know you didn’t mention physical skills, but you were saying that DA and BQ weren’t good QB’s and that’s what I meant — they didn’t have the skills to be a good QB. And DA doesn’t have great physical skills because accuracy is part of that skill and he doesn’t have it.
My point is that decision making is different than those skills, and just because they didn’t have the skills to be a good QB doesn’t mean that their decision-making is bad. Of course, it doesn’t mean that it’s good, either, but you can’t just assume the QB made the wrong decision on the routes. Maybe they made the right decision every time but they just didn’t have the skills to get the ball to the WR accurately and on time.
. . . says the man from Columbus.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 27, 2010 9:49 AM EDT up reply actions
aybe they made the right decision every time
Based on all of the incorrect reads you have seen both of those QBs make…forget it.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I know that’s not true, but I was just pointing out the different possibilities. The point is that you can’t just assume that the mistakes were always the fault of the QB just because they played horribly last year. I certainly know they did make many mistakes.
. . . says the man from Columbus.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 27, 2010 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions
No, you can’t assume they were always the QB’s fault, and you can’t assume they were always the WR’s fault. I think it would be safe to say that over the course of the season the QBs and every WR messed up at least once.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I agree. Decision making and physical skills are independent of one another…however, with both BQ and DA, we have seen many examples of poor decision making (as rufio said).
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I appreciate Male Beauty
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
This sounds like politics.
QB profiling.
I’ll be here all weekend.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
by Villeslgr on Aug 27, 2010 6:11 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I don’t know where Bross was arguing about the accuracy of our QBs, but if they were inaccurate on such passes, it would negitively effect our WRs’ catch rates.
Also if the QBs made poor reads on these types of plays, this would negatively effect the WRs’ catch rates. Which I think is what Bross was trying to say.
DA and Quinn could have made the correct read 9/10 times, but I highly doubt they were infallible last year. Even 1/10 times is enough to affect the WRs’ catch rates—especially considering we didn’t pass very much making for an extremely small smaple size.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
exactly. and 9/10 times they make the wrong read, it gets blamed on the WR. my point is more that when there is miscommunication, it almost always seems to get blamed on the WR (like QBs are infallible in this situation). Look at clausen when he was talking to gruden? everyone blames the WR, its just the ‘sexy’ thing to do.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I appreciate Male Beauty
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
That’s because wide receivers are naturally sexy people . . .

. . . says the man from Columbus.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 27, 2010 11:59 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Dammit, I knew I should have played football.
They get such cool ass hats.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
No offense but I’ll trust Rufio over you 100% of the time. Your comments of late have caused me to deny you of a credible source. You really remind me of Rocland so, yeah.
I can't believe Cribbs was considered the second best athlete in Cleveland.
LBJ. Lying. Backstabbing. Jackass.
by SpecialBrownie on Aug 25, 2010 11:36 PM EDT up reply actions
I see . . . when someon isn’t positive about the Browns all the time then he’s “not a credible source”?
Also, rufio wasn’t disagreeing with him but he was actually giving an example to support his statement, so I’m not sure what you’re talking about.
. . . says the man from Columbus.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 25, 2010 11:43 PM EDT up reply actions
I see . . . when someon isn’t positive about the Browns all the time then he’s "not a credible source"?
And if someone doesn’t agree with you they’re “wrong”, correct?
It’s just he’s like no longer positive at all basically and to top that, I feel like he doesn’t give credit where credit is due. I don’t trust what he says anymore okay? LET ME TRUST THE OPINIONS I WANT TO TRUST. Or do you want to try to control what I think on top of what I say to?
Rufio isn’t necessarily agreeing with him. Rufio was saying that he’s not perfect obviously, but he’s not as bad as Ryan was saying, so I’m not sure what you’re talking about.
I can't believe Cribbs was considered the second best athlete in Cleveland.
LBJ. Lying. Backstabbing. Jackass.
by SpecialBrownie on Aug 25, 2010 11:55 PM EDT up reply actions
To be fair, RK is positive about some things. And to be even more fair, Roc is also positive about some things.
To clarify: I do not think Massaquoi is a gamebreaker. I think he can be a really good #2 WR in the league—which is much better than “below average” IMO. And by that, I mean if he was playing with a competent QB and next to someone who’s physical talent opposing defenses had to respect, he could be like Ward (from a few years ago)/Holmes, Donald Driver, Maclin, Manningham, etc. Probably not Boldin or Welker, but right in that next group of #2s. Putting up 1000 yards in a season.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
And I am just not there yet. I think he has a lot of potential, but I don’t think he would have been in that Driver/Maclin/Manningham group last year, even with a good QB/talent around him. Could he get there in the next year or two? Yes.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
Manningham had a couple nice games early, but New Yorkers were ready to toss him into the garbage bin by the end of the season, he really struggled down the stretch.
"I spoil a lot of people with my play."
"But I mean, even my family gets spoiled at times watching me doing things that I do, on and off the court." -Lebron James
I never, ever, ever, ever said that people who don’t agree with me are wrong. Never. So please don’t make things up.
If you want to think that Ryan isn’t a credible source then I don’t really care, but I don’t want to hear you telling him that after every comment he makes that you don’t like.
. . . says the man from Columbus.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 26, 2010 7:59 AM EDT up reply actions
Fair enough.
I can't believe Cribbs was considered the second best athlete in Cleveland.
LBJ. Lying. Backstabbing. Jackass.
by SpecialBrownie on Aug 26, 2010 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions
Also, when I said that rufio was agreeing with him I was referring to the comment he made above which Ryan replied to (because that’s the comment which you replied to). So I thought that was the comment you were talking about, which is why I said that he was supporting Ryan’s statement. You are correct that elsewhere rufio was making points which disagreed with him (slightly), so if that’s what you’re talking about then I’m sorry, it was a misunderstanding.
. . . says the man from Columbus.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 26, 2010 8:19 AM EDT up reply actions
It’s all good.
I can't believe Cribbs was considered the second best athlete in Cleveland.
LBJ. Lying. Backstabbing. Jackass.
by SpecialBrownie on Aug 26, 2010 11:03 AM EDT up reply actions
I don’t know, like I said elsewhere, I just find the areas we need improvement more interesting than the areas we are really good in. And the areas where I disagree with a lot of people are the areas where I’m going to make the most comments, because that is the more interesting conversation.
Want me to be positive? We have the best special teams in football by a wide margin over the last 5 years. It is actually incredible how good almost all phases of special teams have been for the Browns. Also, Joe Thomas is one of the best, if not the best LTs in the game, and is on a HOF trajectory. Finally, I think Ryan is a hell of a defensive coordinator. He has some habits I don’t agree with, but he gets his guys to play hard, and play above their ability more often than not.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
Cool, cool
I can't believe Cribbs was considered the second best athlete in Cleveland.
LBJ. Lying. Backstabbing. Jackass.
by SpecialBrownie on Aug 26, 2010 6:29 PM EDT up reply actions
We need to get better in the passing game, no doubt. I think you will see our young guys make big strides this year.
I also think we need either a 3rd guy as good as Massaquoi/Robi or someone who is physically a #1 WR—someone especially big, fast, etc. If we don’t get either of those guys, it will be hard for our offense to be consistently good.
Obviously, we will need a QB at some point as well.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Sorry. That is a very personal and cryptic way of saying you don’t agree with me now or ever.
In fact, I think you simply have slightly higher opinions of our LB corps and one of our WRs, but if that means you won’t consider me credible, well, so be it.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
Eh, That may have been a little harsh, just feel like you’re trying to find every little bad detail of the team and expand it to unworldly proportions and claim it’s a large issue. I could be just a little too optimistic, but I just feel like you’re too pessimistic.
I can't believe Cribbs was considered the second best athlete in Cleveland.
LBJ. Lying. Backstabbing. Jackass.
by SpecialBrownie on Aug 26, 2010 6:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, let’s dumb this way down for a second- what is your projected W/L right now?
I say 6 to 9 wins, if you made me pick a W/L, I’d go 7-9.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
I’ve been on an 8-8 with a high of 10.
I can't believe Cribbs was considered the second best athlete in Cleveland.
LBJ. Lying. Backstabbing. Jackass.
by SpecialBrownie on Aug 26, 2010 7:00 PM EDT up reply actions
I wish I could say we would get 10 wins. However, I am not sure if I see 10 wins on our schedule. I only see 12 ‘winnable’ games. i see us losing in Baltimore, against the Jets, Pats, and Saints. I also think that even though its ‘winnable’, we would lose in Pittsburgh (they have 5th week bye, its likely going to be Big ben’s first game back).
So that means out of the winnable games as I see them, we have to go 10-2.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I appreciate Male Beauty
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
Should I imply from this you think the Steelers will be tougher than the Bengals?
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Aug 26, 2010 10:12 PM EDT up reply actions
yeah…Forgot about them. They will be tough on the road. I see us at best going 3-3 in the division. I guess I am not THAT scared by their D and we will play them in Cincy by week 15. By that point, the locker room would have imploded.
But yeah, Forgot about the bengals…they will be tough too to beat. i think a game on the road against them is still ‘winnable’ but just about as winnable as a game in Pittsburgh.
I just think we are more likely to win in cincy b/c of the timing of the games (I honestly see an implosion sometime this year and Big Ben will play us in his first game back which will likely be a statement game.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I appreciate Male Beauty
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
Washington almost beat New Orleans last year. Anything can happen. Certainly doesn’t look like a 10 win season on paper.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
thats what I feel. there are too many teams that would be tough to beat. yes, anything could happen. However, that means that we would have to go 5-6 against the: Falcons, Ravens (twice), Bengals (twice), Saints, Falcons, Steelers (twice), Jets, Patriots; (which would be tough in of itself) and then beat all of the easier teams on our schedule.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I appreciate Male Beauty
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
I think it would be wrong to pin these “misreads” on the WR. These types of sight adjustments require both players to be on the same page. I have definitely heard announcers blaming the WR for not being where the ball was thrown when the WR was in fact in the “right” place and the ball went to the “wrong” place. This is, of course based on the way I have seen these types of routes coached. There is no way to tell exactly what someone’s rules for choosing one route over another are. Massaquoi may in fact have been wrong on these, but I don’t think we can really tell either way.
The only one of these I remember going terribly wrong was one to Stuckey against pitt. We use some routes from the run-n-shoot where the WR runs a fade but can turn it into a “glance”/skinny post or a deep comeback depending on the CB. Stuckey was into his fade with the CB deep and looking at the QB. Quinn threw the comeback and Stuckey almost committed PI because he wasn’t expecting the ball. Is this on Stuckey? I don’t know, I don’t think anyone can. He probably should have run the comeback but I don’t know if the break would have been based on steps (or how many steps) or the CB’s leverage.
The other thing involving reads we sucked at last year was the X look/X stay thing where teams call a running play but give the QB the option of throwing. I have something prepped on this coming whenever grad school allows, but for whatever reason we couldn’t pull it off last year. Again, hard to tell exactly who is to blame. The one I have images for was to Massaquoi, but I forget who I would have blamed if there were a gun to my head.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
the “x look/x stay thing” is definitely one of the areas I am remembering (though I’ve never heard it called that). I look forward to it.
Its true that the QB is at fault some of the times. And maybe I’m too quick to assume that most of the blame goes to the WR.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
You really depress me. I don’t really trust your assumptions.
I can't believe Cribbs was considered the second best athlete in Cleveland.
LBJ. Lying. Backstabbing. Jackass.
by SpecialBrownie on Aug 24, 2010 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions
I tend to post more about my criticisms/the negatives. Saying “Joe Thomas is awesome” doesn’t really interest me.
Sorry.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
That’s fine. I appreciate hearing your opinion.
. . . says the man from Columbus.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 24, 2010 5:53 PM EDT up reply actions
I think the criticism of the offense is completely fair, as we sucked. But I am not sure Stuckey and Mass being poor all-around WRs was to blame.
Massaquoi had to learn a few rookie lessons, to be sure. His hands could be better. But I just don’t see how Cribbs came close to him as a WR last year.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Yeah, like I said above the QB play and play calling last year made it very hard to get a good read on our WRs.
Cribbs was disappointing in a different way. I guess thats probably what bross was getting at when he said that he didn’t look like he belonged on the field as a WR.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
yeah. I don’t think he is at all close to being a threat except getting the ball where he can run with it. He still can’t stretch the field and doesn’t run routes or get targeted deep often. For what they use cribbs as (short option, in the flats where he can have room to run) he is fine. However, I would NOT want him starting, or even really being my slot guy on a regular basis from what i’ve seen.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I appreciate Male Beauty
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
Thanks for the review bross; getting feedback like this from people who attend the game live is the next step in elevating DBN to another level.
On television, there weren’t a lot of fans in the visible seats. Were a ton of fans packed underneath the overhangs, and where were you sitting?
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
I was wondering the same thing about the overhangs because you really couldn’t tell from the broadcast.
"My mother always told me: ‘You will see the light of people when they hit adversity. You’ll get a good sense of their character." - Ironic words from LeBron James
For the love of Joe Thomas.....
by North Coast Flea on Aug 23, 2010 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions
There were fans spread out all over the place. The dawg pound was packed. However, there was some sparse seating in places. I think a lot of this is because
a) its a preseason game
b) the browns weren’t great last year
c) it was pouring
Supposedly, the official attendance was 58,000 but I don’t buy it. It was probably at least 25-30 thousand, but nowhere near the official number. Personally, I went b/c my dad has season tickets and his brother didn’t want to go (just got back from disney world). I think most of the people who go to preseason games are families and season ticket holders because they make people with season tickets by the preseason.
There were a decent number of fans where I was siting (but that section is usually more packed)
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I appreciate Male Beauty
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
I know its deceptive but on TV it looked like there were about 100 ppl there
by HenryDawg on Aug 25, 2010 2:31 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
yet no mention of...
Colt McCoy, go ahead and add him to the ugly
Behind that line Peyton Manning would look ugly.
"My mother always told me: ‘You will see the light of people when they hit adversity. You’ll get a good sense of their character." - Ironic words from LeBron James
For the love of Joe Thomas.....
by North Coast Flea on Aug 25, 2010 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions
he had marginal playing time with an O-line that wouldn’t let him throw. Yes, ratliff was on this list and he was behind that pretty bad O-Line. However, my point with him was that for him to make the roster, he really had to shine…and he didn’t.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I appreciate Male Beauty
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
The best thing you can say about Colt at this point is that he’s no worse than Bradford and a fraction of the cost.
by HenryDawg on Aug 25, 2010 2:33 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
you can also say he’s in a good situation for a young quarterback. not a great one like Mark Sanchez with the Jets, but better than many rookie QBs can hope for.
I have been complimented many times and they always embarrass me; I always feel that they have not said enough.
by notthatnoise on Aug 25, 2010 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Somebody please bookmark this page for future reference when catch rate is inevitably brought up again sometime. I’d hate togo thru this again.
We can make it a prerequisite for anyone who wants to talk about catch rate.
No one will want to talk about catch rate.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Except that some of the argument used above could be said about any statistic in football, so I guess we shouldn’t mention stats at all on here. I think the reason that catch rate is getting all this discussion is because it’s a “new” stat by FO which some people don’t know very well and isn’t part of the normal football statistics we use.
. . . says the man from Columbus.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 27, 2010 9:52 AM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think anyone here is actually arguing that we should ban all use of football stats, BB. (Paging Bross! Logical fallacy alert!) There is a bit more nuance here than that; I think some people do have specific concerns about this stat.
Rufio’s right. This thread is turning into the sort of black hole into which you send someone you never want to return!
Never underestimate the powers of Josh Cribbs
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Aug 27, 2010 10:02 AM EDT up reply actions
I know who I want to send…
I can't believe Cribbs was considered the second best athlete in Cleveland.
LBJ. Lying. Backstabbing. Jackass.
by SpecialBrownie on Aug 27, 2010 10:05 AM EDT up reply actions
Continuing the personal attacks. Good job. Keep “mixing it up” like you love to do just to get people upset.
. . . says the man from Columbus.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 27, 2010 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Who are you talking about? I’m talking about Ben Roethlisberger.
I can't believe Cribbs was considered the second best athlete in Cleveland.
LBJ. Lying. Backstabbing. Jackass.
by SpecialBrownie on Aug 27, 2010 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I assumed you were talking about me, considering the way you’ve been attacking me recently and the fact that I’ve made many comments on this thread. I’m sorry for making that assumption.
. . . says the man from Columbus.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 27, 2010 5:17 PM EDT up reply actions
the answer is always Ben Roethlisberger.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I appreciate Male Beauty
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
Unless it’s Braylon Edwards.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
by Villeslgr on Aug 27, 2010 6:15 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Its 6:25 PM and Braylon still sucks
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I appreciate Male Beauty
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
its 9:55 PM (PST) and this discussion about catch rate still sucks
by talonk on Aug 28, 2010 12:56 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Obviously I know that. But it also doesn’t make sense to criticize that stat because it depends on other players besides just the WR when all football stats have the same reliance on teammates. If you’re going to judge a QB’s completion % then you have to take in to account the quality of WR he’s throwing to and the quality of his O-line to give him time to throw, just as an example. But you don’t see huge discussions breaking out about the use of completion % and you don’t hear people saying that it’s not an objective stat.
All statistics are useful within a certain context. That’s the nuance of the discussion. Ryan never claimed it was a perfect stat, but (some of) his opponents built it up as if he did so they could tear down his argument. We could have the same discussion that we just had about catch rate about pretty much any other football statistic. I think part of the reason this got so heated was (1) that it wasn’t a “normal” stat that most people are used to using and (2) Ryan used it to be critical of a Browns player which as Browns fans we don’t like to hear.
. . . says the man from Columbus.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 27, 2010 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Fair enough, mostly. I can’t agree that all statistics are useful within a certain context, though. Some are so flawed that they are just more confusing than enlightening and so we’d be better off not citing them at all. Honestly I didn’t have really strong feelings about catch rate going in, but rufio’s comment above is pretty convincing to my ears.
Never underestimate the powers of Josh Cribbs
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Aug 27, 2010 5:02 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes, you’re right, all is too broad of a term. I’m not sure why I said that.
. . . says the man from Columbus.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 27, 2010 5:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Disclaimer: I haven’t followed this discussion closely, so the following could be completely wrong or could repeat what’s already been said.
There are two components to statistics; the statistics themselves, and the comparative analysis of the statistics. As far as the statistics themselves are concerned, catches, completion percentage, interceptions, etc are absolute. The reciever either caught the ball or he didn’t; the quarterback threw the ball x number of times and the ball was caught y number of times; a db either intercepts a pass or he doesn’t. A statistic like Catch Rate is not absolute. The denominator (targets) is a subjective determination and introduces a degree of subjectivity to the stat.
Both absolute stats and non-absolute stats are equally subject to subjective analysis. This is where considerations like west-coast vs. vertical passing; good or bad qb play or receiver play; defensive formation or position; and sample size come into play.
I think the degree to which people discount ‘new statistics’ comes first from the fact that there’s a degree of subjectivity to the stats, and second, from a tendency to conflate the statistics and the analysis of the statistics. Statistics like DYAR and DVOA, which are complicated, highly subjective, and which to some degree attempt to include the analysis within the statistic itself, tend to complicate things even more as people are presented with statistics that are hard to decipher and near impossible to pick apart. You really have to dig into a stat like DVOA or simply take their word for it, so I don’t find it surprising at all that people tend to discount these ‘new statistics’ offhand.
That being said, I find what FO is doing interesting, not so much as a means of comparing players just yet, but more as a work in progress; a large statistical experiment where they’re slowly, year-after-year, whittling away some of the subjectivity through observation of a large and constantly changing data set. The next five or ten years should be incredibly interesting as I’d expect them to develop (or further develop) complex algorithms based on observed data that attempt to adjust on the fly for variables such as offensive and defensive formation, weather, and the quality of the players on the field.
I’m not sure if that’s where they’re heading, but I get the feeling that they are, and hope that they’re that ambitious.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.™
by golanbatrac on Aug 27, 2010 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
^ If any of that sounded like a lecture, that wasn’t my intention. There’s a reason why I stick to the one-liners.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.™
Not at all golan, good reading. I think many of these new stats are things people are still grappling with as far as what their real value is, and how much of their apparent value is just there because people tend to value what can be statistically measured, whether it’s truly useful or not.
Never underestimate the powers of Josh Cribbs
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Aug 27, 2010 9:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Not at all. I agree with a large part of what you said there, but believe that statisticians will never be able to fully rid the analysis of subjectivity nor account for the dependency on other players and the contingencies of the game. I believe that due to the very nature of the game, all of this will be impossible.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
this misreads seemed so constant- a couple every game. His catch rate was an unfathomable 36% – only michael clayton and louis murphy were worse – that really can only happen with more than your normal amount of reading plays differently than the QB
This might be the problem, the second statement about catch rates. He used catch rate as if it was a predictor of something, receivers reading plays differently. Well obviously that created the question is it the receiver or the QB making the misread. I think the whole dislike for catch rate came about because it was associated with this statement and then declared objective. When obviously the catch rate can’t objectively tell you this and in that particular statement it was the phrase that ended the statement that lacked objectivity.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
I think this is pretty much right. I still think it is a useful stat. And every metric I have seen, including catch rate, has ranked Massaquoi in the lowest tier of receivers last year. Now, part of that was because he played in a really bad passing offense, but it can’t be ignored that he was, in fact part of that really bad passing offense. Not to mention, he had worse rate stats than other WRs that played with the same QB, same line, etc.
That was the larger point. The stuff really got lost in the semantics of catch rate and objectivity. I do want to explore these stats more, and their usefulness, but I fear I don’t have the time to do so.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Aug 28, 2010 12:08 AM EDT up reply actions
I think it was a useful conversation, might have started out a bit rough, but I think it might have turned a new leaf for DBN.
Anyone see that glen beck rally?
Joking please no one comment on that last part, it’s a joke. If it’s a bad one, mods just delete this comment.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
And this is why stats can never tell the entire story in football. But the basic, objective things that some stats tell you mean more. I don’t want to get into constraint plays and game theory stuff right now, but to me if a QB can throw for a ton of yards over the course of the season, the essential, objective, basic element of that stat means more to me than X% of the throws “to” Y WR were complete. If a QB has 4000 yards, it means he (or rather, the offense) was able to move the ball through the air.
I just really don’t see the context in which catch rate is useful. I would really be willing to hear someone out on it, but it doesn’t sound like it can measure a WR’s hands, speed, moxie, route running ability, or really anything else about the WR himself. It doesn’t really say anything about how good the offense is when they go to the WR in question either, because it does not factor in yards or scores or first downs (assuming the offense’s two main goals are score and move the ball). A WR could have a 100% catch rate but have gained no yards or even lost yardage.
Some stats have bigger sample sizes than other, which makes them less likely to be skewed by randomness. To me, this makes completion % more dependable than catch rate, which I thought makes it a better stat.
So in all seriousness, what is the useful context for catch rate?
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I really want to insert a long answer here. I don’t have the time or energy now, but I will try.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Aug 28, 2010 12:09 AM EDT up reply actions
I can’t speak for everyone, but this is not how I feel at all about the stat. I question it’s legitimacy because of flaws in the calculation and actual meaningfulness of which I don’t see a ton if we are trying to isolate WR performance.
"I spoil a lot of people with my play."
"But I mean, even my family gets spoiled at times watching me doing things that I do, on and off the court." -Lebron James
I agree. Glad you said it too, he would’ve just complained if I said it.
I can't believe Cribbs was considered the second best athlete in Cleveland.
LBJ. Lying. Backstabbing. Jackass.
by SpecialBrownie on Aug 27, 2010 10:15 AM EDT up reply actions
Seriously? Seriously?
I am afraid of this stat because it is “new”? After all of that work up there, you think I don’t understand this stat?
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I am afraid of this stat because it is "new"?
Change scares me!
I can't believe Cribbs was considered the second best athlete in Cleveland.
LBJ. Lying. Backstabbing. Jackass.
by SpecialBrownie on Aug 27, 2010 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions
Again, I’m sorry if you thought I was referring to you. I’m talking about people like bross, who said that catch rate “was objective most of the time but sometimes it isn’t” which makes completely no sense. With a statement like that it’s obvious he doesn’t understand what he’s talking about.
. . . says the man from Columbus.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 27, 2010 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions
Did i ever say those exact words first of all?
Second of all, i am not ‘scared’ of this stat. I actually embrace it and I understand its place and see its use. however, (like rufio said) it does not objectively judge the quality of a WR like it was at one point attempted to be used.
Please stop always assuming I am some idiot that doesn’t know what he is talking about. I may not be as eloquent as rufio, but everything I said has pretty much lined up with what he was saying about catch rates. From the beginning, I pointed out that, while the stat had some merit, in this situation it is definitely misleading, because using it as an objective stat to observe the quality of our players, we should start harrison at Flanker because he had our highest catch rate.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I appreciate Male Beauty
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
Don’t forget you also quoted a true stat above.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
??
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I appreciate Male Beauty
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
You quoted something earlier, and everyone thought you had made it up, but you hadn’t. Claim your props son!
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
though I agree that on the surface, and in most situations, it is a very good, objective stat
Those were your words in reply to Ryan above. A stat is either objective or not — it can’t be objective in most situations but not in others.
And, for the record, I don’t think you’re an idiot at all. I just think that often times you type before you think (which happens to all of us sometimes but you seem to do it more than others) and you sometimes say things which contradict yourself. But you’ve made many comments on here which were very insightful and thought-provoking, and I’m sorry if I haven’t pointed that out before.
. . . says the man from Columbus.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 28, 2010 12:05 AM EDT up reply actions
I can attest that sometimes I type before I think much more than others…If I did say that above, it was me just not being eloquent with what I typed when what I meant was more that on the surface it is objective (in its basic elements) but when put in context of evaluating a player, it loses much of its objectivity…but i didn’t say that which was the point.
Thank you too for the compliment.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I appreciate Male Beauty
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
My comment was slightly in jest.
But in my defense, first I have no problem with new or old stats. Second, I have no problem with discussions on either as well.
What I do have a problem with is that over half of the comments turn into this “He said/She said” type of discussion. I hate to tell you this, but a lot of these arguments, you, bross and a few others get into, sound like a bunch of girls bickering in a hair salon. “Well she said this”. “But then she said this” and so on and so forth.
It really detracts from the quality of the discussions elsewhere on the site. If you guys want to get into these type of name calling debates, please take it to the emails, not this site.
by talonk on Aug 27, 2010 5:13 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Yes, you are exactly right. I try not to do that and stick to football discussions, but I’ve gotten so many personal attacks here lately that it has made me upset and I’m reciprocating those remarks. That’s wrong, though, and I will stop.
. . . says the man from Columbus.
by Buckeye Brad on Aug 27, 2010 5:22 PM EDT up reply actions
when i saw 86 new comments in one day, I really should have been smart enough to stay away.
I have been complimented many times and they always embarrass me; I always feel that they have not said enough.
it’s nice to not be part of the problem for once.
I have been complimented many times and they always embarrass me; I always feel that they have not said enough.
by notthatnoise on Aug 27, 2010 10:57 PM EDT up reply actions
I hereby propose that everyone making pointed comments about a specific person, but couching them in terms vague enough to confuse everyone and actually convince other people that they’re the intended target instead, stop this practice immediately. Just say what you mean. Masks off everyone.
Oh, and in the interest of eating my own dog food, BB and SB, I’m thinking of you two. Cheers!
Never underestimate the powers of Josh Cribbs
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Aug 27, 2010 5:10 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I’ve honestly blown by any comment that mentions catch rate, so I don’t even officially know what it means yet. I’m content with my current judgment of receivers.
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
Catch rate % = passes caught / times the receiver in question was “the intended receiver” of a pass thrown * 100. Who the intended receiver is is determined by someone watching the game.
Catch Rate represents the percentage of passes to this receiver completed. This is a reference to incomplete passes, not dropped passes: dropped passes are not specified in publicly available play-by-play, and unfortunately we cannot yet correct for this.
* We cannot yet fully separate the performance of a receiver from the performance of his quarterback. Be aware that one will affect the other.
* These statistics measure only passes thrown to a receiver, not performance on plays when he is not thrown the ball, such as blocking and drawing double teams.
* All fumbles are considered equal, whether recovered by the offense or defense.
* Because his runs primarily come as the quarterback in the Wildcat (a.k.a. Flash) formation, Josh Cribbs’ rushing value in 2009 is rated as a quarterback, not as a wide receiver.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I just check to see if they look freaky or not.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
I understand, as a big daddy come and take my spot type of demeanor?
by mooncamping on May 14, 2010 7:24 AM EDT
by Villeslgr on Aug 28, 2010 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

by 



















