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!