Statistically Speaking: Browns Receiver With Highest Completion Rate
It is time for another edition of "statistically speaking." It is easy to look at the receivers on the Browns with the highest number of receptions this season and believe they were a focal point of the offense. Today, we're going to take a look at another statistic: the number of times a receiver was targeted, and then what percentage of those targets were caught by the receiver.
If you don't know what a target is, here is an example: if Colt McCoy throws to Ben Watson on three straight plays but two of the balls sailed over his head and incomplete (with the other being caught), you would say he was targeted three times. A low percentage does not necessarily guarantee that a receiver was bad, but it could reflect the lack of chemistry between a quarterback and receiver or a receiver's lack of ability to get open.
In this list, I only included receivers with a minimum of nine targets on the season. I decided on this minimum because it was the right amount to not include players such as Mike Bell, Jerome Harrison, or Seneca Wallace. Here we go:
| Player | Targets | Catches | Percentage |
| P. Hillis | 77 | 61 | 79.22% |
| B. Watson | 102 | 68 | 66.67% |
| C. Stuckey | 63 | 40 | 63.49% |
| E. Moore | 26 | 16 | 61.54% |
| B. Robiskie | 49 | 29 | 59.18% |
| J. Cribbs | 39 | 23 | 58.97% |
| M. Massaquoi | 73 | 36 | 49.32% |
| L. Vickers | 9 | 4 | 44.44% |
| R. Royal | 12 | 5 | 41.67% |
Overall, the results aren't too surprising. Here is a text-description of the results above:
- It is no surprise to see Peyton Hillis at the top of the list, as he was a nice security blanket for all three quarterbacks this season. Running backs are expected to have a pretty high percentage though since the throws are usually safe or dumpoff routes. Hillis' average is pretty much on par with other good receiving backs (Maurice Jones-Drew, Ray Rice, and Adrian Peterson were a little lower; LeSean McCoy was at an impressive 86.66% rate on 90 targets).
- No surprise to see Benjamin Watson listed second on the list. His percentage was best in the AFC North among starting tight ends; Todd Heap, Heath Miller, and Jermaine Gresham were all the same around 62.5%.
- I expected Evan Moore's percentage to be third best on the team, but he was a tad behind Chansi Stuckey. I guess it makes sense, but unfortunately Stuckey's higher percentage of catches did not go for as many first down or memorable plays like Moore. This is a case where the percentage doesn't necessarily mean one receiver is more of a threat than the other.
- Mohamed Massaquoi's percentage, which is a little bit below 50%, is painful to look at, especially when you consider he was the third most targeted receiver on the team. His rate has to be so low because many times when the Browns tried to stretch the field with Massaquoi down the field, he would have trouble adjusting to or fighting for the football. If Massaquoi does not improve his ability to get open or makes adjustments down the field next season, then Pat Shurmur should focus on getting him the ball on quick slants where he can try to do damage after the catch.
- At the bottom of the list were Robert Royal and Lawrence Vickers. I'm not surprised about Royal, but I would really like to have seen a higher percentage for Vickers. Just like Hillis was open on a lot of plays, I think we could have hit Vickers right off the line after a playfake for some positive yardage. Our passes to Vickers seemed to involve passes where he was stationary in the flat and had to think about catching the ball before he could even get going.
- As for the other two receivers on the team (Brian Robiskie and Joshua Cribbs), I wanted to compare their percentages to other AFC North receivers. In Cincinnati, Terrell Owens' and Chad Ochocinco's percentages were both lower. In Pittsburgh, Mike Wallace's and Hines Ward's percentages were both a tad higher, but lower than Stuckey's. In Baltimore, T.J. Houshmandzadeh's and Anquan Boldin's percentages were lower, while Derrick Mason's was higher but lower than Stuckey's.
- It isn't surprising to see that three of our wide receivers have better percentages than other receivers in our division. So many of our throws were safe and did not pick up first downs to help move the chains, something that wasn't the case for other teams in the division. The biggest thing I take out of the percentages, combined with what I saw during the games this season, is this: Hillis and Watson were money, and way too many plays were wasted on Massaquoi -- we didn't know how to use him effectively.
- Disclaimer: I am fully aware that the percentages fail to account for many important factors for receivers. This article is simply meant to isolate the statistic to highlight certain extremes, such as Hillis (good) and Massaquoi (bad).
37 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Emily, I was not even aware Royal caught 5 balls, maybe they were counting practice when no one was covering him. He actually looks unathletic, when trying to catch a football.
I think most of those targets were because Colt saw someone wide open and didn’t know any better not to throw to Royal.
Your friendly neighborhood Mangini apologist.
by North Coast Flea on Jan 23, 2011 1:52 PM EST up reply actions
The genius move would be to switch Royal to CB. He sure can break up a pass…
Are we not men?
by mister serious on Jan 24, 2011 1:19 PM EST up reply actions 8 recs
Quite possibly the best first comment ever.
Your friendly neighborhood Mangini apologist.
by North Coast Flea on Jan 24, 2011 2:38 PM EST up reply actions
Very interesting.
What a great season Watson had. Wonder what % of the total offense he was responsible for? The guy is a real gem. He and Hillis had almost 50% of the catches between them according to these stats.
Robi and Mo Mass should step it up with another season under their belts. I like both these guys and hopefully the new offense will highlight their skills better. However, something tells me one of them may be at risk.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice there is. -- Yogi Berra
by JustPlainBrowns on Jan 22, 2011 10:35 PM EST reply actions
If Shurmur is going to run a true WCO where he depends a lot on quick slants and other short passes looking for yards after the catch to open up the running game and a deep threat (please A.J. Green, please A.J. Green), then I expect all these numbers to improve considerably, especially MoMass, Robiskie, and Stuckey (Chansi only slightly cause they were so high already, just more effective next year). I really think a WCO is the best fit for this team with the pieces we already have and what we’re in position to gain.
by Don'tByBrownsQBJerseys on Jan 23, 2011 11:48 AM EST up reply actions
I guess MoMass just isn’t a deep guy. Thinking back I don’t know if that should be put on him or the QB though. How often did Seneca just throw the ball out of bounds rather than giving Mass a chance? And we all know that Colt doesn’t have a rocket arm to put the ball right in his hands. Hopefully MoMass and Colt develop some chemistry next preseason. It’ll be nice to see a good QB and his WRs on the same page.
18+ Yards per catch as a rookie. I don’t think MoMass will ever be the kind of player who can come back for an underthrown ball (I’m lookin’ at you Colt) and wrestle it away from a defender who is in better position than he is, but I think he can definitely be a good receiver in the league (though probably somewhere else).
Dawgs by Nature -- where Mike Holmgren, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Jan 23, 2011 12:19 PM EST up reply actions
How about this,
In catch rate:
Collie, moore, Welker>>>Andre Johnson, Calvin Johnson, Roddy White
While the state has its merit, it is not a stat where you can truly compare apples to apples and like many stats in football, context is extremely key.
That was the whole thing in 5,000 less words.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
by bross09 on Jan 23, 2011 1:36 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I didn’t have to look at the #s to know where guys ranked.
It would go
Hillis
Stuckey
Watson
moore
Robo
Cribbs
momass
I just went by guesstimating the average distance from the LOS, the passes they got were.
Though momass was unlucky enough to be the only guy the team targeted consistently deep (which partially caused his low catch rate), he definitely needs to improve there.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
QBs and teams are evaluated on yards per attempt YPA and it makes sense to evaluate receivers in the same way.
You didn't get me down, Ray.
Yep, I anticipate this being a future article.
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
by Chris Pokorny on Jan 23, 2011 9:37 AM EST up reply actions
I agree. both stats are effective, but neither one is 100% foolproof. Together, they help tell the story of a player’s production.
Personally, i like DVOA on football outsiders. It takes things like catch rate (it measures overall per-play production so catches count) and yards and adjusts them to SoS and to how much a player was on the field. The only thing it doesn’t really account for is for the roles played (i.e. accounting for the difference that momass and Robi are both #2s at best but momass had to go up against the #1 CB more often)
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
this is an excellent team stat breakdown link here CNN SI Browns Page you can get a lot of good stuff with this. Stats.com puts it together for CNN so its a reliable and neutral observer.
Very nice. Thanks. Added to favorites.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice there is. -- Yogi Berra
by JustPlainBrowns on Jan 23, 2011 10:36 AM EST up reply actions
We threw to Massaquoi downfield a lot. It really doesn’t surprise me that his catch rate was lower than the other WRs. You just aren’t going to convert a bunch of jump balls in the NFL—and if that’s what you are trying to do, you shouldn’t be throwing to Massaquoi.
Place the blame wherever you wish as fans, but I think this is more a chemistry thing between the QB, Mass, and the coaches than it was about any one of them sucking individually.
If I had to put our passing offense into one sentence it would have been “have the widest guys run the top off of the coverage, throw to the inside receivers”. It follows that the guys running the shorter routes would catch a higher % of balls. I would be interested to see this somehow combined with yards and/or first-downs, TDs, etc.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
1dn
Watson – 40
Hillis -25
Mass – 24
Stuckey – 21
Robiskie -12
Moore -11
Cribbs – 11
royal – 2
vickers – 1
YAC
Hillis – 453
Watson – 258
Stuckey – 199
Mass – 132
Cribbs – 113
Moore – 95
Robo – 56
Royal – 17
Vickers – 12
This proves that I think Watson was our best WR and momass was actually our 2nd best passing option.
I am not surprised that hillis got a lot of YAC. that is generally how RBs get a lot of their yards. I am surprised that Watson got about 3.8 YAC per catch
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
Averages don’t work well for small sample sizes. A guy can catch 20 balls and his defender slips on one of them adding 60 yards to YAC. It adds 3 extra yds to his average.
You didn't get me down, Ray.
So? Like what Browns8 said, that’s part of the game. They shouldn’t have played on a sucky field.
If you haven't watched Inception, do it now. Right now.
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 24, 2011 12:38 PM EST up reply actions
this is true. But Ben Watson caught about 70 balls and not one huge YAC play, so this is not very relevant.
I understand what you are saying, it just doesn’t apply to our #1 WR. the only player I can truly say this would maybe apply to would be momass, and even without his best YAC play (which was about 30 yards), he still has above 3 YAC which is solid for a WR.
Also on watson, TEs as a position tend to get less YAC than RBs/WRs. WRs have more physical tools to create separation and elude tacklers better. The same goes for RBs (at least on eluding tacklers) and they tend to get their throws in positions where they get a good amount of YAC (i.e. swing passes out of the backfield, dumpoffs when they aren’t being covered, screens). a 3.8 YAC for a tight end is quite good and I am guessing it might be among the league leaders with at least 20+ catches at the position
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
Certain plays and players don’t require YAC. Possession type receivers get to the first down market, catch the ball and get clobbered. Other plays, such as swing passes are certain to contain YAC because the pass is behind the line of scrimmage in space. But, when you mix it all together in a big bowl, you lose the detail.
You didn't get me down, Ray.
I’ll give you another example of why football stats are deceiving. Pitt gave up a total of 12 yds to the Jets in that playoff game until they had built a 24 pt lead. Every yd the Jets gained after that was against a different defensive alignment meant to contain. When you look at the final stats, it looks like NY did pretty well on offense. But, if NY had not allowed a large lead, the stats would have ended much differently.
You didn't get me down, Ray.
I am not arguing football stats can’t be deceiving.
However, what does this have to do at all with watson? He never received swing passes/screen passes. This whole thing started about watson and you are talking about YAC in general. I agree with you on YAC issues, however they really don’t apply to watson and this is what I have been talking about all along: Ben Watson Rocks!
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
Whether or not the stats of your choice support your view on Watson, I agree that Ben Watson is very good. He gets open and has soft hands. Plus, he gets open somewhere beyond the first down marker (read this part Chansi).
You didn't get me down, Ray.
yep.
and just my final bit on Watson: I was able to watch every game we played and remember most of Watson’s passes. He did not have one that I can recollect where the YAC for the one catch was more than 15-20 yards. He also did not get a lot of screen passes/swing passes. I agree with what you are saying, that these affect YAC and thats partially why Hillis’ is so high Imo (lots of swing passes). I do feel that given the evidence and what I know about the looks our players got, Watson may have been our most dangerous receiver after the catch (and second was cribbs)
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!

by 




















