tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5475357521701869265.post5540513823369576721..comments2023-04-29T06:23:15.959-04:00Comments on Defensive Indifference: Revisiting receiversJasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09834181305584355651noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5475357521701869265.post-15238827676876438892009-07-27T13:02:10.156-04:002009-07-27T13:02:10.156-04:00Joe,
You're right about the Witten/Evans comp...Joe,<br /><br />You're right about the Witten/Evans comparison (though it's possible Roy Williams could emerge as Dallas's #1).<br /><br /><i>What I'm getting at is that whether a #1 WR has lots of help or no help doesn't matter</i><br /><br />Exactly! :) Whether it's team pass attempts or whatever other factor, the point is that the existence of a good/bad #2 is irrelevant.<br /><br /><i>I feel similarly when people argue that you should stay away from RBs that split carries. </i><br /><br />Here's my issue with that...most of the time, a team has both its #1 and #2 receivers on the field. So, on any given play, you know "your guy" (whoever you have on your fantasy team) could catch the ball, regardless of whether a play is designed to go to him.<br /><br />Teams hardly ever have more than one tailback on the field, though. When a team is known to split carries, then "your guy" won't be on the field for a decent portion of time and has zero chance of racking up points at those times.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09834181305584355651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5475357521701869265.post-71671719295255316932009-07-22T13:46:43.803-04:002009-07-22T13:46:43.803-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5475357521701869265.post-3422252534631662782009-07-19T23:05:21.635-04:002009-07-19T23:05:21.635-04:00Not that I disagree with your analysis, but I'...Not that I disagree with your analysis, but I'm not sure the last two examples you use illustrate your findings. In neither case is a #1 WR getting a change in his #2. In Witten's case, he was the #2 option, his team got rid of the #1 option, and now he's the #1 option (though Witten barely trailed Owens in targets). That could possibly change his yardage totals (for better or worse). In Evans' case, he's was a #1 option who is now a #2 option paired with a very good WR, which could alter his yardage (for better or worse).<br /><br />I also think another factor is team pass attempts. Let me use two examples from 2008. <br /><br />The Carolina Panthers attempted few passes (32nd in attempts), and thus had fewer yards (19th overall). Steve Smith caught a massive percentage of his team's total passing yards (43%).<br /><br />The Arizona Cardinals attempted a lot of passes (2nd in the league), and thus had a lot of passing yards (2nd overall). The Cardinals targeted several receivers (three 1,000 yard receivers), with Larry Fitzgerald leading in percentage of yards (29%).<br /><br />Smith is a #1 that gets most of his team's yards, but his team doesn't throw much. Fitzgerald is a #1 that has to share a lot of receptions with teammates, but his team throws a lot. So who do you want, Smith or Fitzgerald? It really doesn't matter: both Smith and Fitzgerald had 1,400 yards.<br /><br />What I'm getting at is that whether a #1 WR has lots of help or no help doesn't matter so much as how much he is targeted. If Smith gets 43% of his team's yards and Fitzgerald gets 29%, it doesn't matter what they have for help: what matters his how often they get targeted.<br /><br />I feel similarly when people argue that you should stay away from RBs that split carries. Why is a timeshare RB that gets 1,200 yards and 9 TDs worth less than a workhorse RB that gets 1,200 yards and 9 TDs? Or if it's a question of opportunity, why is a timeshare RB that gets 300 carries worth less than a workhorse RB that gets 300 carries? I realize that in my arguments for WRs and RBs, I'm ignoring red zone targets and TDs.<br /><br />Anyway, I'm picking at little things--I appreciate the analysis and the effort to match conventional wisdom against numbers.pacifist vikinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02639283781758286098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5475357521701869265.post-6522832501605965012009-07-15T13:25:13.764-04:002009-07-15T13:25:13.764-04:00Hey man
I've been visiting your blog recently...Hey man<br /><br />I've been visiting your blog recently, I'm digging it quite a bit.<br /><br />I was wondering if you'd be interested in trading blog links.<br /><br />My blog is at <a href="http://minnesotavikings.contentquake.com" rel="nofollow">http://minnesotavikings.contentquake.com</a><br /><br />Check it out and let me know. You can email me at vikings@contentquake.comJason Hannahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00211305512360046601noreply@blogger.com