Start/Bench List

[godtomsatan]

I drunk talked him into doing it in Vegas.

 

 

When I was introduced to Whitney @ TI, I started in on it while shaking his hand.

[DMD]

Always show all targets. Only the obviously uncatchable passes should be noted as such. Anytime you have to stop and think if the pass was catchable or not, it should remain as a legitimate catchable pass.

 

Examples of obviously uncatchable passes:

 

10' away from the WR.

QB throwing the ball in the vicinity of a WR to avoid the sack.

QB throwing the ball out of bounds in the vicinity of a WR.

QB skipping the ball off the turf.

 

I understand what you're saying about liking any WR with a high number of targets Loogie, but look at this hypothetical situation.

 

WR A is an undisputed starter for his team. WR A had 15 targets of which 10 were catchable passes. WR A caught 8 of the catchable passes for 100 yards.

 

WR B is an undisputed starter for his team. WR B had 15 targest of which 15 were catchable passes. WR B caught 8 of the catchable passes for 100 yards.

 

Both WR's had 15 targets. Both WR's caught 8 passes for 100 yards.

 

You've got your choice of the WR's. Which WR would you rather have, A or B?

 

Now do you understand the value of looking deeper at the WR targets, than just how many looks a WR got?

 

 

There are several issues with the above that I see.

 

1. You used the amount of 15 targets just as an example, but there were only 28 times in all of last season that many ever happened and the list of those reads like a who's who of stud wideouts. There were 278 times that a wide out at least ten targets in a game - about 16 per NFL week so about one per game played - and again it was largely just the stud #1 wideouts that we all know about anyway. This is pertinent because the lower you go, the more a single target causes a bigger or smaller percentage. In the average league, there are 36 starting wideouts and easily the lion's share of those are in that "10+" target range each week (and only about half of them at that). For the wideouts that you are tracking because you believe they are rising in importance and that they are likely to improve in the future, they will typically have less than ten and maybe only 6 or 8 in a game? That's a decent number for any non-#1 Wr for a team so the percentages you apply and the considerations that you are giving are really impacted by just one or two passes potentially.

 

2. Targets are highly subjective things. Two people can see the same play and have different opinions if it was a true target or not, if it was catchable or not, etc. It is all highly subjective even in the best case. So use any statistical breakdown or percentages from targets is using something highly subjective in many cases and considering that it is a reliable number.

 

3. The amount of passes thrown to a player has many possible reasons, the fact that they are open may not even be the primary one. A pass is thrown to a receiver because the quarterback believes, in that split second decision, that he is the best option. That can be for many reasons :

 

a.) he is the first read and he is open

b.) he is the second read and the first one was covered

c.) he is the third read and the first/second were covered

d.) in the process of eluding the rush, the receiver appears closest to the QB

e.) he has the route nearest the sideline so it allows the QB to throw a safer pass than over the middle

f.) he has the outside route and the QB is really trying to get rid of the ball wihtout penalty

g.) he has the outside route and the QB is trying to kill the clock

 

There are many more reasons why a pass would be thrown to a WR and each time it is usually a combination of several reasons.

 

4.) Targets - or better said passes thrown to a WR by a QB - is greatly impacted by the secondary in terms of who is open or not, and where the QB believes the pass has the greatest chance of success. Players do not go out for a pass by themselves hoping the QB "likes them best", but his availability on a pass play will be more reliant on the coverage than the actual player. So attributing targets to a player (AKA passes he did could not catch for whatever reason) ignores the fact that the biggest determinant is the coverage and not the player (since we are talking about non-#1 WRs assumedly).

 

5. Pass plays are called by the OC (or HC in some cases) and that directs where the pass is going to go unless blocking breaks down or the receivers are all covered during the execution of the play and the QB has enough time to then find a WR not in the route called. There is a big difference if you are attributing significance to passes that were not caught anyway.

 

Personally I think that targets themselves are misleading for the reasons above and it is very easy to read into them things that are not turly there. Receptions - extremely important and absolutely objective as a measurement. Receptions matter exponentially more than a pass that was thrown and not caught for any of the myriad of reasons. I would pay great attention to receptions but targets are only mildly interesting to me and you have to be aware of what you are truly looking at before making judgments from them.

 

Drops are probably more telling in evaluating a WR than targets, but they too are highly subjective. I could write a whole lot more about targets and what they mean, but I think you get the gist.

[Turf Smurf]

what i said......he's just trying to look more important with his big words...

 

[Big Score 1]

Responding to your post DMD by the numbered points

 

1. 15 targets was a purely hypothetical number that I plucked from the air. Feel free to substitute whatever number you're more comfortable with.

 

2. I understand catchable passes are extremely subjective and are not an official NFL stat (same as drops). That is why I clearly explained one way a non catchable pass could be defined;

Only the obviously uncatchable passes should be noted as such.

Anytime you have to stop and think if the pass was catchable or not, it should remain as a legitimate catchable pass.

 

Examples of obviously uncatchable passes:

 

10' away from the WR.

QB throwing the ball in the vicinity of a WR to avoid the sack.

QB throwing the ball out of bounds in the vicinity of a WR.

QB skipping the ball off the turf.

3. Why a WR is targeted, is not relevant to whether or not the passes that did go to the WR, were actually catchable or not.

 

4. Why a WR was not targeted (for whatever reason), is not relevant to whether or not the passes that did go to the WR, were actually catchable or not.

 

5. Why a OC or Coach did not call a pass play for a particular WR (for whatever reason), is not relevant to whether or not the pass plays that were called for that WR and did go to that WR, were actually catchable or not.

 

Personally, I find great value in the targets information.

 

For example:

 

A few years ago I drafted Gates at the butt end of all my leagues before he exploded. I identified him simply by going through the full "Play-by-Play" at NFL.com and reviewing all of the Chargers offensive series from the year before. After a few weeks of awesome production, one of my league mates posted on our message board how only I could find beauty in the San Diego passing game. Gates was instrumental to me for winning the Championship that year.

 

Same with Chad Johnson. I needed a WR in season and started looking at the sexyles. Again going by NFL.com's "Play-By-Play" and watching all the sexyles offensive series, I identified Chad Johnson as their most targeted WR and got him offf the WW that year. He blew up in the last 3 quarters of that season and was instrumental in getting me to the money rounds that year, though I did not win it all.

 

The point is, while WR targets may be only mildly interesting to you, others may find WR targets extremely useful and the next step in the WR targets stat, is to idenitfy exactly how many of the targets a WR is getting are actually catchable.

 

This is really was a disguised heads up for you & WW.

 

I'll stop beating around the bush & lay it out in the open for you. From my understanding, one of your main competitors is looking into implementing this particular stat line next year. I want to see you guys at least maintaining par in fantasy football information offerred, if not setting the industry standard.

[LooGie]

Always show all targets. Only the obviously uncatchable passes should be noted as such. Anytime you have to stop and think if the pass was catchable or not, it should remain as a legitimate catchable pass.

 

Examples of obviously uncatchable passes:

 

10' away from the WR.

QB throwing the ball in the vicinity of a WR to avoid the sack.

QB throwing the ball out of bounds in the vicinity of a WR.

QB skipping the ball off the turf.

 

I understand what you're saying about liking any WR with a high number of targets Loogie, but look at this hypothetical situation.

 

WR A is an undisputed starter for his team. WR A had 15 targets of which 10 were catchable passes. WR A caught 8 of the catchable passes for 100 yards.

 

WR B is an undisputed starter for his team. WR B had 15 targest of which 15 were catchable passes. WR B caught 8 of the catchable passes for 100 yards.

 

Both WR's had 15 targets. Both WR's caught 8 passes for 100 yards.

 

You've got your choice of the WR's. Which WR would you rather have, A or B?

 

Now do you understand the value of looking deeper at the WR targets, than just how many looks a WR got?

 

i dont see how that is relevent. It seems I would want the QB throwing to WR B?

[Big Score 1]

i dont see how that is relevent. It seems I would want the QB throwing to WR B?

 

[DMD]

I certainly appreciate the sentiment and it's not my intention to say that targets have no value in evaluating a player, but any place that is going to take subjective targets and add even further subjective decisions on each pass won't neccesssarily make them any more useful than they already are.

 

Just to illustrate my point using your examples:

 

Gates at the end of 2003 had the following targets-catches-yards in the last 4 games:

 

 

3	2	1811	5	1178	5	643	2	36

 

 

Any tight end that can come in at the end of the season and have five catches in two consecutive games for a total of 191 yards obviously merits attention. That he had six and three passes not caught that game would be less interesting to me than the fact that he had such a high rate of catches and yards than an average tight end did. In the other two games he played that year, he had just 3 targets and 2 catches. While it is interesting that the Chargers would throw 19 times to him in two games, it is more interesting that he would catch 10 of them for such great yardage for a tight end.

 

There's nothing wrong with considering targets and there is some useful information there, but unless you really understand what you are looking at and are using that information in conjunction with the number of catches and how that player fits into the scheme, many people will draw an unrealistic impression of what is happening. I absolutely applaud anyone who takes analysis to this level. Usually only "veteran" FF'ers know what to correctly do with it in all cases.

 

I could give a bunch of examples where players had significant numbers of targets and yet it led to nothing because it was about the in-game situations that caused them and it led to nothing. Until there is a trend established over several games, statistics alone cannot be relied on and by then, the number of receptions and yardage already tell the story.

 

Targets are one tool to use in evaluating a player, but my point I guess is that they are not the best one and my biggest concern with them for the average FF'er is that they can be misleading when misread.

[Big Score 1]

I certainly appreciate the sentiment and it's not my intention to say that targets have no value in evaluating a player, but any place that is going to take subjective targets and add even further subjective decisions on each pass won't neccesssarily make them any more useful than they already are.

 

Just to illustrate my point using your examples:

 

Gates at the end of 2003 had the following targets-catches-yards in the last 4 games:

 

 

3	2	1811	5	1178	5	643	2	36

 

 

Any tight end that can come in at the end of the season and have five catches in two consecutive games for a total of 191 yards obviously merits attention. That he had six and three passes not caught that game would be less interesting to me than the fact that he had such a high rate of catches and yards than an average tight end did. In the other two games he played that year, he had just 3 targets and 2 catches. While it is interesting that the Chargers would throw 19 times to him in two games, it is more interesting that he would catch 10 of them for such great yardage for a tight end.

 

There's nothing wrong with considering targets and there is some useful information there, but unless you really understand what you are looking at and are using that information in conjunction with the number of catches and how that player fits into the scheme, many people will draw an unrealistic impression of what is happening. I absolutely applaud anyone who takes analysis to this level. Usually only "veteran" FF'ers know what to correctly do with it in all cases.

 

I could give a bunch of examples where players had significant numbers of targets and yet it led to nothing because it was about the in-game situations that caused them and it led to nothing. Until there is a trend established over several games, statistics alone cannot be relied on and by then, the number of receptions and yardage already tell the story.

 

Targets are one tool to use in evaluating a player, but my point I guess is that they are not the best one and my biggest concern with them for the average FF'er is that they can be misleading when misread.

 

You are correct in that generally the WR targets need to be examined over the course of a few games, but to say that by then, the cat is out of the bag and everyone will be able to identify the player is not necessarily true.

 

Both leagues I used the targets to identify and then pick Gates & pluck Chad Johnson off the WW are filled with skilled & knowledgeable owners.

 

Secondly, the usefulness of knowing catchable ~ vs ~ non catchable targets, is when you're comparing like WR's in both talent, situation & with similar stats for targets, receptions & yardage. And certainly DO NOT use subjective analysis on determining what is catchable & what is non catchable.

 

Again, ONLY THE OBVIOUSLY NON CATCHABLE PASSES, SHOULD BE LABELED AS SUCH!!!

 

In the above instance, the catchable ~ vs ~ non catchable stat would certainly help to separate/differentiate between the two.

 

One thing I've learned that you need to do in any business that is service oriented such as the Huddle is, is to divorce yourself from your own preconceived notions. Just because I think something is unnecessary and mostly irrelevant, does not mean that other people have the same view. (I learned that the hard way - left a ton of money on the table until I figured that out).

 

Also the basic function of fantasy football sites, is to provide as much as info as possible & instructions on how to best utilize the info provided (Like I'm saying you something you didn't already know ). You can't be worried about the idiots who don't comprehend the info & miss use it. The savvy fantasy football players will recognize & then correctly utilize any & all info provided.

 

The more in depth quality and unique services a business can offer, the better that business differentiates itself from the rest of the pack. The better that business separates itself from the pack, the better that business does.

 

Again, this is just food for thought as to an additional feature/service you & WW might want to consider providing.

 

As interesting as our discussion is, I'll have to check back on this thread in a little bit. Right now I've got to go outside and paint some widow trim

 

Took some time off work to get this painting done and as much as I hate it and would prefer continuing this discussion, it's got to be done.

Edited September 15, 2006 by Big Score 1

[Sugar Magnolia]

Responding to your post DMD by the numbered points

 

1. 15 targets was a purely hypothetical number that I plucked from the air. Feel free to substitute whatever number you're more comfortable with.

 

2. I understand catchable passes are extremely subjective and are not an official NFL stat (same as drops). That is why I clearly explained one way a non catchable pass could be defined;

3. Why a WR is targeted, is not relevant to whether or not the passes that did go to the WR, were actually catchable or not.

 

4. Why a WR was not targeted (for whatever reason), is not relevant to whether or not the passes that did go to the WR, were actually catchable or not.

 

5. Why a OC or Coach did not call a pass play for a particular WR (for whatever reason), is not relevant to whether or not the pass plays that were called for that WR and did go to that WR, were actually catchable or not.

 

Personally, I find great value in the targets information.

 

For example:

 

A few years ago I drafted Gates at the butt end of all my leagues before he exploded. I identified him simply by going through the full "Play-by-Play" at NFL.com and reviewing all of the Chargers offensive series from the year before. After a few weeks of awesome production, one of my league mates posted on our message board how only I could find beauty in the San Diego passing game. Gates was instrumental to me for winning the Championship that year.

 

Same with Chad Johnson. I needed a WR in season and started looking at the sexyles. Again going by NFL.com's "Play-By-Play" and watching all the sexyles offensive series, I identified Chad Johnson as their most targeted WR and got him offf the WW that year. He blew up in the last 3 quarters of that season and was instrumental in getting me to the money rounds that year, though I did not win it all.

 

The point is, while WR targets may be only mildly interesting to you, others may find WR targets extremely useful and the next step in the WR targets stat, is to idenitfy exactly how many of the targets a WR is getting are actually catchable.

 

This is really was a disguised heads up for you & WW.

 

I'll stop beating around the bush & lay it out in the open for you. From my understanding, one of your main competitors is looking into implementing this particular stat line next year. I want to see you guys at least maintaining par in fantasy football information offerred, if not setting the industry standard.

 

 

I agree here. I only use the target info. for developing players who are thought to have upside. I am watching Matt Jones closely right now. Does he continue to get the most targets week to week, or is the trend shifting where the targets are becoming more evenly distributed between him, Williams, and Wilford. A player I will be watching targets for this week will be Colston. I guess the challenge to using this info. is targets can largely be based on the CB's and Saftey match-ups week to week. If you are being covered by Champ Bailey, you will probably have a quiet week, unless you are a stud WR.