Myths of Fantasy Analysis of WR

[dmh100]

I happened to be reading a column at a different site and something came up that has beena pet peeve of mine for awhile. In the article the writer makes the point that Naanee is not the "go to guy" in SD, and we should temper the hype. He then supports that by noting (with video) that 59 yards and the TD Naanee had came on one play in which the defense overplayed Gates and lost Naanee in coverage - in other words, Naanee got lucky.

 

That defies logic as a reason for discounting any WRs stats - I can see a case made on targets (Naanee had 8 to Floyd's 12), but this idea that just because a player gets most of his points off one play or a busted coverage is illogical. Don't quite a few WR points each week come off big plays and TDs, and are not quite a few of those the result of coverage mistakes and WR/QB recognition of the mistake? Other than PPR leagues, the difference between an average WR game (say 80-90 yards, no TD) and a big game is whether or not a WR happens to get a TD or 2, and/or break free for a really long gain.

 

So I don't see why columnists insist on suggesting that a WR did not get his points legitimately and is not a solid play going forward simply because their big game came from one big play - that's how most big games happen!

[Big Country]

It's more a statement on consistency.

 

The WR that gets that 80-90 yards without a hugh play is moreconsistent than the guy that got 80-90 yards with 60 coming on one play.

 

The author is merely suggesting to temper expectations until we see just hoe Naanee is used and if he can put up similar numbers consistently, or if he is going to be a boom bust guy that will get you 30-40 yards most weeks and then have a couple mixed in weeks with 100+ and a score thanks to long plays. If it is the former, he can be a pretty regular start for you, if the latter, good luck guessing on the week he does it.

[darin3]

Lee freakin' Evans.

[Riffraff]

Sometimes circumstances do play a part. Example WR Shipley of the Bengals last week.

 

He had 80 something total yards, 50 something of which were on the final play of the half. Both Owens and Ocho Cinco were in the locker room. It was a hail mary that Shipley, the smallest guy on the field, just happened to end up with the ball. Was he the intended receiver? Not really, Palmer just threw it into the pack and crossed his fingers.

 

Good play? Yes. Likely to happen again and inflate his stat line? No.

 

Blown coverages can have the same effect: probably not going to be raining that hard and have a defender slip (or whatever) as a consistent reason for additional gains. Floyd could have had the game tying TD at the end of the game, but he fell down and Rivers threw it at his usual height. Game over.

 

I agree that there shouldn't be a debate on past performance because you can't take a fluke play away. But you can make future performance discussions on the likelihood of the fluke happening again.

Edited September 17, 2010 by Riffraff

[cre8tiff]

IMHO, a better indicator would be targets versus catches. I would expect that would be a good indicator of trend.

 

Though even that has holes (i.e: Fitzgerald).

Edited September 17, 2010 by cre8tiff

[Ramhock]

Gates had a 30 yarder on a blown coverage. He caught a 3 yard pass, turned around to expect a hit & NO ONE was there, and off he went.

 

Collie had a long one, also.

 

It is part of the game & in everyone's stats.

[kingfish247]

IMHO, a better indicator would be targets versus catches. I would expect that would be a good indicator of trend.

Yep. 'Opportunity' is a huge factor when evaluating a RB...or how many touches does the guy receive. Targets are the WR equivalent.

 

Tricky part with WRs is that it's not like most RBs in that RBs almost always do more with more. Some WRs do more with less which makes analysis a bit tougher.

[JustDoIt]

I happened to be reading a column at a different site and something came up that has beena pet peeve of mine for awhile. In the article the writer makes the point that Naanee is not the "go to guy" in SD, and we should temper the hype. He then supports that by noting (with video) that 59 yards and the TD Naanee had came on one play in which the defense overplayed Gates and lost Naanee in coverage - in other words, Naanee got lucky.

 

That defies logic as a reason for discounting any WRs stats - I can see a case made on targets (Naanee had 8 to Floyd's 12), but this idea that just because a player gets most of his points off one play or a busted coverage is illogical. Don't quite a few WR points each week come off big plays and TDs, and are not quite a few of those the result of coverage mistakes and WR/QB recognition of the mistake? Other than PPR leagues, the difference between an average WR game (say 80-90 yards, no TD) and a big game is whether or not a WR happens to get a TD or 2, and/or break free for a really long gain.

 

So I don't see why columnists insist on suggesting that a WR did not get his points legitimately and is not a solid play going forward simply because their big game came from one big play - that's how most big games happen!

 

I definitely have the same thoughts as the writer you are referring to. I agree with the assessment that you should "temper the hype," and I agree with him saying that Naanee essentially got lucky. If coverage was not blown, would you be happy with his performance? However, I would say similar things about Forte. You just can't count on those types of plays. With that being said, I wouldn't mind having Naanee on my team, I just wouldn't get accustomed to great games like that until he can do it without a broken play inflating his stats.

[piratesownninjas]

I've thought Naanee was the better option over Floyd all along. It's not as if either of them came in being "the" guy. It's Gates no.1, then its up to Naanee and Floyd to establish themselves as who should be next in the food chain.

[keggerz]

It is always important to look deeper into the numbers.

[STL Fan]

It's along the same lines as someone who says "If you take away the two 70-plus yard runs, our defense really played well today." Drives me nuts. You can't take them away THEY HAPPENED. To discount a receiver's performance because he broke a long one is silly. If it were rare, it would be different, but it happens all the time. Good receivers tend to make them happen.

[JustDoIt]

It's along the same lines as someone who says "If you take away the two 70-plus yard runs, our defense really played well today." Drives me nuts. You can't take them away THEY HAPPENED. To discount a receiver's performance because he broke a long one is silly. If it were rare, it would be different, but it happens all the time. Good receivers tend to make them happen.

 

Did you see the play?

 

It was nothing special, except no defensive player accounted for the kid. I would not say that this had anything to do with being a "good reciever"

[Big Country]

To discount a receiver's performance because he broke a long one is silly. If it were rare, it would be different, but it happens all the time. Good receivers tend to make them happen.

 

 

If Naanee regularly puts up these kinds of games and regularly puts up 60 yard TDs, then I agree, it is not something to discount. However, until he does that, I'd tend to agree with the author that this one performance should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

On the opposite end of the spectrum, we have Chris Johnson, who is regulalry putting up 50+ yard TDs, so in those cases, as he has shown that it is not just a fluke thing, they should not be discounted from his performance.

[wolfer]

Yep. 'Opportunity' is a huge factor when evaluating a RB...or how many touches does the guy receive. Targets are the WR equivalent.

 

Tricky part with WRs is that it's not like most RBs in that RBs almost always do more with more. Some WRs do more with less which makes analysis a bit tougher.

 

whoa now don't turn this into a Jamaal Charles thread!

 

If teams are willing to double/triple Gates, Rivers has NEVER shyed away from hucking the deep ball to one-on-one coverage. Naanee will have a few big games along the way for sure.

[STL Fan]

If Naanee regularly puts up these kinds of games and regularly puts up 60 yard TDs, then I agree, it is not something to discount. However, until he does that, I'd tend to agree with the author that this one performance should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

On the opposite end of the spectrum, we have Chris Johnson, who is regulalry putting up 50+ yard TDs, so in those cases, as he has shown that it is not just a fluke thing, they should not be discounted from his performance.

 

So it's OK to assume he'll never have a long reception again, but it's not OK to assume that a pro receiver will do that sort of thing fairly regularly? The point is, maybe you're discounting what it took for that play to happen. It may have looked really plain, but did he make a great read of the defense and change his route to get as open as he was? If that's the case, he's smart and he'll likely be able to do that regularly. All I'm saying is we all tend to over-analyze stuff like that sometimes. Fact is, he had a good game. One good game. Let's see how he does before we throw out a long play as a "fluke."

[Big Country]

So it's OK to assume he'll never have a long reception again, but it's not OK to assume that a pro receiver will do that sort of thing fairly regularly? The point is, maybe you're discounting what it took for that play to happen. It may have looked really plain, but did he make a great read of the defense and change his route to get as open as he was? If that's the case, he's smart and he'll likely be able to do that regularly. All I'm saying is we all tend to over-analyze stuff like that sometimes. Fact is, he had a good game. One good game. Let's see how he does before we throw out a long play as a "fluke."

 

And, as my post clearly stated, when he does that consistently, it won't be discounted, but with just one game, I would lean towards discounting the play until proven otherwise.

[muck]

As an aside, in case anyone was wondering, another "myth" of WR analysis is that there is no such thing as a QB/WR (or QB/TE) 'hookup'.

[devi0us]

Lee freakin' Evans.

 

+1

[LosGatosEnFuegos]

So it's OK to assume he'll never have a long reception again, but it's not OK to assume that a pro receiver will do that sort of thing fairly regularly? The point is, maybe you're discounting what it took for that play to happen. It may have looked really plain, but did he make a great read of the defense and change his route to get as open as he was? If that's the case, he's smart and he'll likely be able to do that regularly. All I'm saying is we all tend to over-analyze stuff like that sometimes. Fact is, he had a good game. One good game. Let's see how he does before we throw out a long play as a "fluke."

First of all, they're all pro receivers. Let's not front like this one deserves special consideration because he's a pro.

 

Secondly, no he did not make a great read. Watch the play. Head down all the way until the safety blows the coverage. (Maybe the CB was supposed to be on him. Either way, the safety should have stayed with him when the CB fell behind.) He did not alter his route.

 

And, as my post clearly stated, when he does that consistently, it won't be discounted, but with just one game, I would lean towards discounting the play until proven otherwise.

This.

 

There was a thread last season about Sproles in which I defended his low ranking due to his fantasy relevance relying on big plays. I then defended DeSean Jackson despite a lot of his points coming from big plays. It's not quite the same situation, but it will give you an idea of where I'm coming from here. (And I was correct regarding their big play potential for the rest of the season.)

 

You need to look at the context of the big plays & the consistency of the big plays. Naanee is 1 for 1. Maybe he'll be put in that situation many more times as the year goes on. Maybe Ds will be keying too much on Gates & Floyd and they'll blow Naanee's coverage. But we can't pretend that he did something to make that play. There is no question if you watch the tape. Since that's the case, you need to lean toward it being a fluke and reevaluate as the season progresses.

 

The OP has a point that we can't totally discount Naanee just because most of his points came from one big play. But given the context of the play, the article writer has a stronger leg to stand on.

[STL Fan]

First of all, they're all pro receivers. Let's not front like this one deserves special consideration because he's a pro.

 

Secondly, no he did not make a great read. Watch the play. Head down all the way until the safety blows the coverage. (Maybe the CB was supposed to be on him. Either way, the safety should have stayed with him when the CB fell behind.) He did not alter his route.

 

 

This.

 

There was a thread last season about Sproles in which I defended his low ranking due to his fantasy relevance relying on big plays. I then defended DeSean Jackson despite a lot of his points coming from big plays. It's not quite the same situation, but it will give you an idea of where I'm coming from here. (And I was correct regarding their big play potential for the rest of the season.)

 

You need to look at the context of the big plays & the consistency of the big plays. Naanee is 1 for 1. Maybe he'll be put in that situation many more times as the year goes on. Maybe Ds will be keying too much on Gates & Floyd and they'll blow Naanee's coverage. But we can't pretend that he did something to make that play. There is no question if you watch the tape. Since that's the case, you need to lean toward it being a fluke and reevaluate as the season progresses.

 

The OP has a point that we can't totally discount Naanee just because most of his points came from one big play. But given the context of the play, the article writer has a stronger leg to stand on.

 

And I'm not saying that you don't consider the long plays when evaluating a player, it's probably more like a glass half-full vs half-empty thing. I've seen the play, and agree it's not spectacular.I just think it's best to not discount a guys performance until you have more data. Your analysis on Sproles and Jackson were based on a much larger sample size, and were spot-on.

 

On a positive note, can I tell you guys how refreshing it is to have an intelligent conversation about a subject we disagree on (though we probably have more common ground here than not) without it dissolving into snark and name-calling? This is the kind of thing I come here for, and it seems more and more rare lately.

[REZ]

Rivers likes to throw the deep ball a couple times a game.

If Naanee is the one he favors for those plus some intermediate routes, he's worthy of a start.

If it's what happened with Chambers when the 1 deep ball is all he would get, he won't be worthy of a start.