Quote:
Originally Posted by That Guy
keep telling yourself that. let's extrapolate some other numbers from 4 games and randomly declare that's proof without considering reversion to mean and completely dismiss anything that doesn't fit our argument, like an entire year where both players played in the same system, because reasons!
btw, paul had 8 game starts, and most of them were 1 catch for 7 yard affairs. 2 of his games without reed ended up with 17 yards combined, which plunges his projected total down below 900 yards if you're only counting games reed didn't play (you can throw in his 17 yards from the TB game too if you want).
i'm not saying he's bad, and obviously kirk is going to help him, but you're not pulling reed for him. if you're managing people and you want to resign reed, pulling him on every 1st and 10 and denying him starts is a great way to make sure that doesn't happen.
|
Why would you look at Paul's receiving production in games where Reed played? The point is to illustrate that when Paul is given the role of being the primary receiving TE, he produces. Of course when Reed plays he is going to get first crack at the receiving targets, I've acknowledged all along that he's a better option in that regard. When Reed played in those games, Niles was given more of the in-line blocking responsibility, which speaks to why he didn't end up with huge receiving games. But that doesn't mean he can't do it, look at that four game production. And you're going to tell me after watching those games that that level of receiving production isn't sustainable? Why, because reversion to the mean, basically the statistical version of 'well I don't know he'll come back to Earth but I know he's never done this before, soo...'. Reversion to the mean works well when you're talking about a 30 year old first baseman whose track record is long established hitting .400 on balls put into play, but it means exactly jack squat when you're talking about a breakout player like Paul. Turn on the tape, what's not sustainable? The separating speed? The route running? The nose for the soft spot in the zone?
Get out of here with this reversion to the mean nonsense.