Garcon accounted for 7.5% of our cap space last year.
Preliminarily, the average points per game previously given is skewed b/c in games Garcon played, the defense scored no points while it scored 21 in games he did not play. Thus, the actual average points per game
by the offense without Garcon was 21.14, over the course of the season that is a difference of ~ 70 points.
Thus, when Garcon was in the game:
The offense scored 20.3% more points;
The offense produced 10.6% more yards; and
The passing game produced 36% more yardage.
Further, when playing, Garcon accounted for 35% of the receiving yards produced in the passing game. As to the total yardage amassed over the year, Garcon accounted for 17.5% of the receiving yards and 9% of the total offensive yards produced.
All of those numbers appear to be greater than 7.5%.
As to his, not "producing given lots of targets", of Hankerson, Morgan, Moss and Garcon. Garcon had the highest average yards/target last year: 9.45 (67 targets); Moss was close at 9.39 (61 targets). Davis (31 targets), Paul (15)and Robinson (19) had slightly higher per target yards but also had significantly less targets. Despite being targeted only six fewer times than Garcon, Moss only had one game with more than 70 yards and averaged only 35 yards/game. On the other hand, Garcon had five games over 80 yards (Two 100+ yard games) and averaged 70 yards/game (take out his two "injury" games and it shoots up to 89 yards/game). On YAC, Garcon was the clear leader - 6.7/catch. Moss was 5.5./catch. No one else was is even in the ballpark.
Your statement that "Garcon was the leading receiver in games played because he was targeted often" as somehow either bolstering your argument or refuting mine is nonsensical and, as with many of your assertions, illogical. By all statistical measures save touchdowns, when he was on the field, Garcon was the best receiver and, thus, was legitimately the primary target. Your assertion that Garcon got his yards in junk minutes is just stupid and you need to show me something to prove it. Here's what I remember about his "junk minutes":
Did he score less TD's than Moss. Yup. However, comparing the "with Garcon offense" to the "without Garcon" offense, your assertion that:
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Goat
[T]he offensive production wasn't hugely different over the course of the season, with or without Garcon.
|
is, simply:
And, since you wish only to look at individual scoring without doing any delving into the numbers behind the scoring (with the implicit assertion that point production is the only legitimate bottom line), I suggest the REAL bottom line is wins and losses:
With Garcon: 8-1
Without Garcon: 2-5
Whether the defense played better or not, when Garcon was on the field the Skins won. When he was not, they lost.
In terms of win percentage, offensive scoring, total offensive yardage produced and yardage produced in the passing game, Garcon's impact on the offense easily exceeded the 7.5% of the cap space dedicated to him. As usual, and in any way relevant to actual factual information or logical thought, you are wrong. <cue Dr. Cox>
Finally, I am not asserting that Garcon
is an elite receiver. While I believe he certainly has the potential to be so, elite status is something that is earned with consistent production. Regardless, it is clear to me that, for this offense, Garcon is a game changer and, if he stays healthy, was well worth the money spent.