The effect of a viable WR2 on stud WRs

[detlef]

True. And it's also true that the year in question he HAD to be accounted for and racked up over 1000 yards doing it.

 

You think that Ds prepped for Furrey's presence in Week 14 as they did in week 1? Because that's what you're trying to argue here. And again, pass attempts went up 20% and RWs yardage doubled.

 

And LMAO with the '3rd year WRs always break out in' - that's a nice concept and boy these guys really burned it up last year:

 

http://www.nfl.com/draft/story/09000d5d807...-wide-receivers

 

Still waiting for the approved Sexy List of Legit WR2s.

First off, why is up to me to provide the list of WR2s? Because I'm not prepared to accept the fact that when a journeyman WR caught lightning in a bottle one year and that happened to coincide with Roy Williams having is lone good year? What about the next year when they had Megatron across the way? What did that do for Williams? By this logic, you'd think he'd be running free? As it turns out, WR stud Shawn McDonald was the beneficiary of all that attention. So, again, how does Furrey mean dick here?

 

As for your link. Are you denying that the 3rd year deal simply holds no water? Great, they don't always break out that year. However, I was just listing all the factors besides the "Furrey-factor" that just might have had something to do with why Williams had his highest yardage total.

[tazinib1]

So why don't you just give us your theory instead of shooting down every response. You may have done so but I'm the bar and don't feel like going. Through 4 pages.

[detlef]

So why don't you just give us your theory instead of shooting down every response. You may have done so but I'm the bar and don't feel like going. Through 4 pages.

My theory is that I don't buy the notion that a solid WR2 statistically benefits a WR1 as a rule. I hear that notion thrown around a bit and don't think it has any substance. "Roddy White is going to blow up now that Jones is taking away coverage". Things like that. And, given the manner in which BB tried to dismiss questioning that logic, and the number of people who liked what he said, I'd say that it's fair to say that is a popular opinion. But how often do we actually see it happen? That a WR1 puts up better stats because a team brought in a strong WR2?

 

Sounds like it happened with Eric Moulds and Roy Williams (assuming you're prepared to include Mike Furrey into the "better WR2" category).

[tazinib1]

Well now that's said...I agree.

[WaterMan]

I don't remember the Green Bay Packers having three or four players covering Moss. Perhaps you meant the Brown County Sheriffs. I heard they always had three guys trailing Moss around at all times to keep him in line while in Green Bay. One could never be too sure Moss would not fire up a dutchie, get in a vehicle, and go looking for meter maids. Best to always have eyes on him.

 

I remember it. Even the god awful Joe Buck and Aikman commented on it.

 

You have the argument backwards...we are talking about whether a good WR2 helps a WR1, not viceversa.

 

Oops.

[Seahawks21]

BroncoBilly, if the D wants to respect the oppositions #2 WR, they will call plays that lead to more balanced coverage. The safety doesn't make that determination on his own and go off of his practiced assignments on any given play.

[WaterMan]

I don't remember the Green Bay Packers having three or four players covering Moss. Perhaps you meant the Brown County Sheriffs. I heard they always had three guys trailing Moss around at all times to keep him in line while in Green Bay. One could never be too sure Moss would not fire up a dutchie, get in a vehicle, and go looking for meter maids. Best to always have eyes on him.

 

Watch at 50 seconds. Probably more videos but I only went two deep into YouTube.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AslGgbiJs68...feature=related

[bpwallace49]

Sure - why not? You wanted an example and you pointed out that passing attempts went up 20% the same year Furrey became a viable WR2 AND RWs yardage doubled.

 

Please provide me a list of sexy career WR2s that meet your criteria. You're just going to poke holes in everything, and yes BB is right: you've made up your mind and are dismissive of anything that contradicts that.

 

As for the general rule thing - I jumped into this late and found Furrey in about 10 minutes. And if a schmutz like him can lend a nice example to this theory then more abound because we found one in Mike Furrey.

 

Furrey had a lot more to do with Mike Martz then anything else. Quite the outlier in this whole argument

[i_am_the_swammi]

So after all these pages, the best example of this "a better WR2 helps a WR1" is Eric Moulds from the 2003 Buffalo Bills?

 

Thanks, but no thanks...I'll stick to drafting the stud WR1 who has no help on the other side, and is being force-fed passes all day. You know, guys like Andre Johnson, Calvin Johnson, Roddy White, Hakeem Nicks....you know, the guys at the top of the rankings.

[Bier Meister]

det... i think a good experiment will be following crabtree (not that i think he is a stud yet... just the #1wr) and edwards (whom i believe is a solid upgrade for the 9ers as a #2). let's also see how this opens things up for davis.

[tazinib1]

det... i think a good experiment will be following crabtree (not that i think he is a stud yet... just the #1wr) and edwards (whom i believe is a solid upgrade for the 9ers as a #2). let's also see how this opens things up for davis.

 

Nice but I think Jones in Atlanta is gonna prove or disprove whatever arrument there is here. Kinda what I was talking about in the beginning.

[detlef]

det... i think a good experiment will be following crabtree (not that i think he is a stud yet... just the #1wr) and edwards (whom i believe is a solid upgrade for the 9ers as a #2). let's also see how this opens things up for davis.

 

 

Nice but I think Jones in Atlanta is gonna prove or disprove whatever arrument there is here. Kinda what I was talking about in the beginning.

Assuming Jones is the goods, I agree that ATL would be a better example than Crabtree and SF, because there's less variables. An already elite WR with the same QB throwing to him and the only real difference is an upgrade at WR2. With Crabtree, there's far too many other reasons why he could take a step up (assuming he does). New coach, QB situation (who knows what that's going to be at this point), the alarm finally going off in his head, any number of things.

 

Darin mentioned KC brought someone in, so Bowe would be another guy to watch. As would seeing of Evans helps Boldin out. Of course, the maturation of Flacco and having one more year to work with Boldin won't hurt either.

[Bronco Billy]

BroncoBilly, if the D wants to respect the oppositions #2 WR, they will call plays that lead to more balanced coverage.

 

Yes, you are correct and that is my point. And more balanced coverage provides greater opportunity for stud WR1s. That's twice people who have disagreed then reiterated my point exactly.

 

 

The safety doesn't make that determination on his own and go off of his practiced assignments on any given play.

 

Not sure why you added this, but ummm, okay?

Edited August 15, 2011 by Bronco Billy

[i_am_the_swammi]

Yes, you are correct and that is my point. And more balanced coverage provides greater opportunity for stud WR1s. That's twice people who have disagreed then reiterated my point exactly.

 

you just don't get it.

 

Just because there may be a little extra room for the WR1 to operate doesn't mean "greater opportunity for many stud WRs". Let's try to be real simple here, BB, since I think you are a tad overwhelmed by he concept:

 

In year 1, WR1 is the only decent receiver on his team. He is doubled almost every play. But he gets a hugh amount of targets thrown his way. Say, maybe 170-180 (like White, Wayne and Fitz last year). But because they are doubled, they can only haul in 110-115 of those passes, for a 63-65% completion rate. Thats about what White and Wayne caught last season. Heck, Fitz was actually way less...just 52%.

 

Now in Year 2, they add solid WR2, which does indeed open things up for WR1 a bit. But because there is a another viable option to throw to, WR1s targets go down from 170 to 140. So even though he has more a little more room to get open, and can now catch 75% of the balls thrown his way, he only has 105 receptions. In fact, he'd have to catch almost 80% to just equal his prior year's receptions. He'd need a whopping 85% (119 receptions) to have what I would call a meaningful increase in production.

 

Those types of completion percentages just ain't gonna happen. So unless the WR1 gets the same amount of targets as he had in prior years, even with the addition of the solid WR2, you won't see a noticeable increase in production.

 

And again, if you disagree, please provide me an example of your theory. So far, you haven't provided even one

[Bronco Billy]

you just don't get it.

 

And again, if you disagree, please provide me an example of your theory. So far, you haven't provided even one

 

Chad Ochocinco Johnson

 

2005-2008 w/ TJ Houshmanzedah (before anyone says anything about Housh, he was a guy who averaged over 90 catches and 1000 yds per season those 4 years)

 

Targets per game: 9.76

Catches per game: 5.69

Yards per game: 82.47

Yards per catch: 14.49

 

Chad Ochocinco Johnson

 

2009-2010 w/o TJ Houshmanzedah

 

Targets per game: 9.33

Catches per game: 5.15

Yards per game: 69.56

Yards per catch: 13.15

 

**************************************

 

Brandon Marshall, 2008 (w/ Eddie Royal getting 91 catches in 129 targets)

 

Targets per game: 12.07

Catches per game: 6.93

Yards per game: 84.33

Yards per catch: 12.16

 

Brandon Marshall, 2009 (w/ Jabbar Gaffney getting 54 catches in 87 targets)

 

Targets per game: 10.27

Catches per game: 6.73

Yards per game: 74.67

Yards per catch: 11.09

 

************************************

 

Torry Holt 2005-2007 (w/ Isaac Bruce)

 

Targets per game: 10.65

Catches per game: 6.26

Yards per game: 80.61

Yards per catch: 12.88

 

Torry Holt 2008 (After Isaac Bruce)

 

Targets per game: 7.44

Catches per game: 4.00

Yards per game: 49.74

Yards per catch: 12.85

[i_am_the_swammi]

Chad Ochocinco Johnson

 

2005-2008 w/ TJ Houshmanzedah (before anyone says anything about Housh, he was a guy who averaged over 90 catches and 1000 yds per season those 4 years)

 

Targets per game: 9.76

Catches per game: 5.69

Yards per game: 82.47

Yards per catch: 14.49

 

Chad Ochocinco Johnson

 

2009-2010 w/o TJ Houshmanzedah

 

Targets per game: 9.33

Catches per game: 5.15

Yards per game: 69.56

Yards per catch: 13.15

 

**************************************

 

Brandon Marshall, 2008 (w/ Eddie Royal getting 91 catches in 129 targets)

 

Targets per game: 12.07

Catches per game: 6.93

Yards per game: 84.33

Yards per catch: 12.16

 

Brandon Marshall, 2009 (w/ Jabbar Gaffney getting 54 catches in 87 targets)

 

Targets per game: 10.27

Catches per game: 6.73

Yards per game: 74.67

Yards per catch: 11.09

 

************************************

 

Torry Holt 2005-2007 (w/ Isaac Bruce)

 

Targets per game: 10.65

Catches per game: 6.26

Yards per game: 80.61

Yards per catch: 12.88

 

Torry Holt 2008 (After Isaac Bruce)

 

Targets per game: 7.44

Catches per game: 4.00

Yards per game: 49.74

Yards per catch: 12.85

 

 

1. Chad Johnson put up stellar years in 2003 & 2004 before Housh arrived as a solid WR2. The addition of Housh did nothing, except reduce his TDs. In fact, in 2003 when Housh missed the entire year, Ochocinco put up one of his best statistical seasons, and a career high in TDs.

 

2. Brandon Marshall was beast in 2007 (before) & 2009 (after) without Royal. In fact, again, his TDs went down with Royal in the mix. Comparing 2006 to 2007, he caught a whopping two more receptions, but for 60 less yards, and 1 less TD with Royal in the mix. Not the dramatic improvement you state the addition of a solid WR2 would provide.

 

3. Your going to use Torry Holt in 2008 with wobbled knees? On the downside of his career and in his last season before being released? please

 

Cmon dude....all three of your 'examples" are ridiculous, and in 2 of the 3 cases, just plain wrong.

[Bronco Billy]

 

1. Chad Johnson put up stellar years in 2003 & 2004 before Housh arrived as a solid WR2. The addition of Housh did nothing, except reduce his TDs. In fact, in 2003 when Housh missed the entire year, Ochocinco put up one of his best statistical seasons, and a career high in TDs.

 

2. Brandon Marshall was beast in 2007 (before) & 2009 (after) without Royal. In fact, again, his TDs went down with Royal in the mix. Comparing 2006 to 2007, he caught a whopping two more receptions, but for 60 less yards, and 1 less TD with Royal in the mix. Not the dramatic improvement you state the addition of a solid WR2 would provide.

 

3. Your going to use Torry Holt in 2008 with wobbled knees? On the downside of his career and in his last season before being released? please

 

Cmon dude....all three of your 'examples" are ridiculous, and in 2 of the 3 cases, just plain wrong.

 

 

I knew you'd be making all sorts of excuses as soon as someone found examples of this (btw - Housh was also in CIN in 2004 with 73 catches in 104 targets, and Warrick had 79 catches in 122 targets in 2003. As to Marshall, were his numbers overall better or not in 2008 with Royal as a WR2 getting a lot of attention? As to Holt, that guy with wobbly knees still managed the same ypc in 16 games - just a lot less opportunity).

Edited August 15, 2011 by Bronco Billy

[detlef]

 

I knew you'd ba making all sorts of excuses as soon as someone found examples of this (btw - Housh was also in CIN in 2004 with 73 catches in 104 targets, and Warrick had 79 catches in 122 targets in 2003).

Excuses? Since when is pointing out massive flaws in your argument "excuses"?

 

Was it an "excuse" when keggerz tried to use Wayne's 2007 season as an example as how great a season a WR1 can have when he has a great compliment and I illustrated that it was the exact opposite? Because that was, in fact, his greatest statistical season and he was missing Harrison for most of it and 2nd best receiver that year had the lowest total of any of the seasons worth discussing in regards to Wayne. In other words, that was the one year when you could argue that Indy had the least competent secondary receiver in the pattern and Wayne took full advantage of it by going off statistically.

 

Was it an "excuse" when I disputed the use of Mike-effing-Furrey as an example of what happens when you upgrade at WR2. Especially in light of the fact that, when they did, in fact, upgrade at WR the very next season by drafting Megatron, Williams' numbers went right back down despite Megatron being a rookie and not getting any more catches than you'd expect a WR2 to get? I mean, can we all agree that Megatron was an upgrade over Furrey? And one more thing, that draft was on the heels of Williams' best season to date, so it's not as if Detroit saw the writing on the wall and was looking to replace Williams with CJ at that point.

 

Yep, me and swammi are just full of "excuses". As in, if you bring BS examples, they will be challenged and/or shot down.

[i_am_the_swammi]

As to Marshall, were his numbers overall better or not in 2008 with Royal as a WR2 getting a lot of attention?

 

 

2007: 102/1325/7 TDS = 275.5 FF points

2008: 104/1265/6 TDs = 266.5 FF points

2009: 101/1120/10 TDs = 273 FF points

 

Uh, he had his lowest combined statistical season with Royal in 2008.

 

the bigger picture is that, with or without a solid WR2, it made no difference in the WR1s performance in this case.

Edited August 15, 2011 by i_am_the_swammi

[i_am_the_swammi]

BB-

 

let me start by saying that you usually are one of the more knowledgeable dudes on these boards when it comes to football acumen. And as I agreed earlier, there are times when the addition of a solid WR2 does open things up a bit more for the WR1. That's a no-brainer. The issue is when you add a capable WR2, chances appear confirmed that the WR2 will garner his share of looks, which unless the team changes its offensive gameplan completely and starts throwing considerably more passes, those looks have to come at the expense of someone else. That also is a no-brainer.

 

The bigger picture is that you boasted that your theory was correct, and even stated that the concept was "pretty simplistic if your coached a D before". Well, it appears the stats don't back your theory. In fact, they dispute it almost 100%, except for a very small handful of cases (Mike Furrey, Eric Moulds).

 

If you are trying to sell a blanket theory that "a solid WR2 definitely improves a WR1's output", and the best that can be shown to prove it is 2-3 cases from the last 10+ years....I'd say that theory holds little-to-no water.

[Bronco Billy]

BB-

 

let me start by saying that you usually are one of the more knowledgeable dudes on these boards when it comes to football acumen. And as I agreed earlier, there are times when the addition of a solid WR2 does open things up a bit more for the WR1. That's a no-brainer. The issue is when you add a capable WR2, chances appear confirmed that the WR2 will garner his share of looks, which unless the team changes its offensive gameplan completely and starts throwing considerably more passes, those looks have to come at the expense of someone else. That also is a no-brainer.

 

The bigger picture is that you boasted that your theory was correct, and even stated that the concept was "pretty simplistic if your coached a D before". Well, it appears the stats don't back your theory. In fact, they dispute it almost 100%, except for a very small handful of cases (Mike Furrey, Eric Moulds).

 

If you are trying to sell a blanket theory that "a solid WR2 definitely improves a WR1's output", and the best that can be shown to prove it is 2-3 cases from the last 10+ years....I'd say that theory holds little-to-no water.

 

My theory was and still remains that Ds have to change the way they play teams with a very good to great WR1 paired with a competent and capable WR2 as opposed to an also-ran what amounts to a WR3 or worse, and that the change in the way the D is set up benefits the WR1 in that they will have more room to work and their windows will open wider. It was to address the OP, which opened with this question:

 

When a team picks up a solid WR2 to line-up across from a proven stud, the popular opinion is that it's going to open things up for the stud WR. But why is that?

 

and then continued on to discredit the idea that pressure is alleviated from the WR1 when they get a stronger running mate at WR.

 

Now, a good to very good WR2, and even moreso a WR2 who is actually a WR1B, will certainly get attention from their QB, since they are more capable of making plays also than a WR3 is. But that doesn't take away from the fact that the WR1 will have better opportunities as the pressure is spread across the field more evenly.

 

I presented some cases that showed this to be true with some examples that some here made claimed didn't exist. They do.

 

And none of my statements have anything to do with FF scoring whatsoever. If anyone thinks that FF scoring is proof of the way Ds treat WR1s in real game different scenarios based upon their running mates at the other wide out, I'd suggest you put down the pipe and back away from the table.

Edited August 15, 2011 by Bronco Billy

[Darkhorse1251]

I'm not sure why the conversation is so technical, common sense tells you that if you have more than one receiving threat, the defense is at a much bigger disadvantage because they do not have free reign of pinning one safety to the stud pass catcher. Even if Jones isn't the threat Evans will be in Baltimore, he will at least serve the role Steve Smith did in NY. So when Roddy White is running his routes, he definitely won't feel as much pressure from the defense which will in turn free him up to be a better fantasy receiver.

Edited August 15, 2011 by Darkhorse1251

[Azazello1313]

 

2007: 102/1325/7 TDS = 275.5 FF points

2008: 104/1265/6 TDs = 266.5 FF points

2009: 101/1120/10 TDs = 273 FF points

 

Uh, he had his lowest combined statistical season with Royal in 2008.

 

not on a per game basis, if you consider he lost a game to suspension in 2008. on a per game basis, 2008 (the year royal had 91 catches) was better than 2007. 2009 was better still per game, and that year royal was no longer a clear #2 (mcdaniels had no idea how to use him) but he was still there, but with gaffney and scheffler and others, there were far better secondary receiving options in 2009 than in 2007 when marshall was the only legitimate threat.

[delfamdelfam]

Jeremy Maclin and Desean Jackson? Maclin as the WR2 actually benefited from having a great WR1, the opposite of this argument.

[Bronco Billy]

I'm not sure why the conversation is so technical, common sense tells you that if you have more than one receiving threat, the defense is at a much bigger disadvantage because they do not have free reign of pinning one safety to the stud pass catcher.

 

 

Of course common sense tells you it is true, but then that isn't one of the strengths of the author of the OP. When he proceeded to explain why common sense made no sense to him, the discussion became more technical.