ProFootballFocus: Best/Worst drop rate for 2011 WRs

[NC_Skins]

Skinsguy, if you look at the list they have "catchable" so they aren't counting passes your are referring to.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Skinsguy, if you look at the list they have "catchable" so they aren't counting passes your are referring to.

I see that, but still one can't derive, clearly, that these receivers have the case of the drops when there are a lot of variables that go into this. For one thing, look how many more passing attempts are thrown Roddy White's way as opposed to Golden Tate. 115 to 35? How many of those are little hitch passes, bombs down field, perfectly thrown balls, etc.... And, the receivers with the best percentage of catches:drops ratio, why aren't they being thrown to more if they're that more fundamentally sound?

I just think this is one of those situations where unless you look at every single drop from these receivers, I'd be hard press to conclude their fundamentals are lacking.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

I just think this is one of those situations where unless you look at every single drop from these receivers, I'd be hard press to conclude their fundamentals are lacking.

No one is concluding this.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

I see that, but still one can't derive, clearly, that these receivers have the case of the drops when there are a lot of variables that go into this. For one thing, look how many more passing attempts are thrown Roddy White's way as opposed to Golden Tate. 115 to 35? How many of those are little hitch passes, bombs down field, perfectly thrown balls, etc.... And, the receivers with the best percentage of catches:drops ratio, why aren't they being thrown to more if they're that more fundamentally sound?

I just think this is one of those situations where unless you look at every single drop from these receivers, I'd be hard press to conclude their fundamentals are lacking.

The numbers are what they are. There are variables to everything if you really want to go down that path. You can use that line of reasoning with everything. Sacks, INTS, tackles, fumbles, passing yards, blocks, rushing yards, etc.

In the end, the numbers are what they are. Rex Grossman threw 20 INTs this year, I don't see a * denoting a few of those INTs were caused by the WR. Nope.

They presented the numbers and they are accurate. They aren't going to include some hail mary catch that isn't catchable as part of the stat, which is why they have "catchable" listed and not "targeted".

Also, nobody concluded their fundamentals are lacking. We are concluding their catching ability is.



Drew Brees has 3 WRs in the top 20 on this list and Aaron Rodgers has 2. Always helps a good QB when you have decent guys catching the ball.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

The numbers are what they are. There are variables to everything if you really want to go down that path. You can use that line of reasoning with everything. Sacks, INTS, tackles, fumbles, passing yards, blocks, rushing yards, etc.

In the end, the numbers are what they are. Rex Grossman threw 20 INTs this year, I don't see a * denoting a few of those INTs were caused by the WR. Nope.

They presented the numbers and they are accurate. They aren't going to include some hail mary catch that isn't catchable as part of the stat, which is why they have "catchable" listed and not "targeted".

Also, nobody concluded their fundamentals are lacking. We are concluding their catching ability is.



Drew Brees has 3 WRs in the top 20 on this list and Aaron Rodgers has 2. Always helps a good QB when you have decent guys catching the ball.

I'll give ya that those numbers are what they are, and I will even give you that every single one of those catchable passes were right in the bread basket. But, I can't agree that a player dropping 15 of those 115 passes is horrible. That's about 85% of catchable passes completed. Maybe I'm alone in thinking that. Am I saying a player doesn't need to improve past that? No, not at all. But, if you're going to judge a player solely on these stats, you're not cut out to be a GM in the league. While we are just using these stats to prove that a receiver is not as good as people think he is, you can also use the same stats and logic to determine that having the three most dependable receivers on your team, Tate, Bryant, and Floyd does not get you in the playoffs. Nor does having the "best" receiver from these stats, Tate, gets you a record above .500.

When I look at these stats, I see players who are being thrown to more than others because they are the "go to" receivers when you need a clutch catch. Yes, they dropped a few balls, but they obviously were dependable, otherwise the quarterback wouldn't throw to them. And when I see a receiver catching all 35 passes thrown to him, but knowing his team finished 7-9, that tells me those 35 passes were probably largely dump off passes, short high percentage passes. Or, that receiver benefited from the number one guy getting doubled a few times. Does that make him any less of a receiver? No not all, but it also doesn't make him the best receiver in the league.

And maybe it's just semantics, but if a player's catching ability is not up to par, that tells me he is lacking sound fundamentals. Skills are improved by sound fundamentals.

[Skins4L]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

I see that, but still one can't derive, clearly, that these receivers have the case of the drops when there are a lot of variables that go into this. For one thing, look how many more passing attempts are thrown Roddy White's way as opposed to Golden Tate. 115 to 35? How many of those are little hitch passes, bombs down field, perfectly thrown balls, etc.... And, the receivers with the best percentage of catches:drops ratio, why aren't they being thrown to more if they're that more fundamentally sound?

I just think this is one of those situations where unless you look at every single drop from these receivers, I'd be hard press to conclude their fundamentals are lacking.

this.

He's right. And its just one specific category. And who's determining catchable? I'm sure some could be disputed as well if we all sat and watched film.