ESPN: Miles Austin has surpassed Andre Johnson as best WR in NFL

[MattFancy]

LMAO lol :ols::ols:

http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/insider/columns/story?columnist=joyner_kc&id=5398251

If such a system existed in the world of statistical analysis, there would be many potential challengers to Houston Texans wide receiver Andre Johnson for the title of best wide receiver in the NFL. Larry Fitzgerald, Randy Moss and Reggie Wayne all would serve as worthy foes for Johnson, but surprisingly enough, none of them would rank as the No. 1 contender.

The real competition for Johnson as the NFL's premier wideout comes from within the state in which he plays pro football. Many might not consider Miles Austin to be an elite wideout yet, but he actually had a better set of metrics than any of the three other aforementioned contenders this past season.

Simply put, as great as Johnson is, in 2009 he not only wasn't the best wide receiver in the NFL, but wasn't even the best wide receiver in Texas. That honor belonged to Austin.

This is the funniest thing I've read in a long time lol

[Obibyn23]

Johnson had more yards and catches, while Miles had 2 more Td's with a 10 catch 250 yard 2 td game to pad those stats...how that makes Miles better then Johnson is beyond me.

Crap article.

[Conn]

AHAHAHAHAHA.

Oh, whew, wow......let me catch my breath.....

BAHAHAHAHA....HAHAHAHAHA.....OH HAHAHAHA.

Bogus. Can't wait to see TR1 vs. DOTS the Wiki-Wonder and the Cowboys Brigade on this one.

[KDawg]

Ridiculous. ESPN has some serious Cowboy homers.

[OWUeagleMD]

There's no part of me that thinks Miles Austin is the best receiver in football.

But did either of you take the time to recognize that this post is simply reporting the findings of advanced metrics, which by their very nature are absolutely objective? They certainly aren't infalible, or even necessarily accurate, but to dismiss them with a laugh or to think that you've done your research by looking up the basic statlines on NFL.com is both lazy and stupid.

The writer here is clearly as surprised as anyone else would be. This isn't the case of someone who wanted to find evidence that Austin was the best receiver, and went looking for a statistical model that would make the case. This is a year-in, year-out metric system that produced results that are unexpected given collective wisdom. Hopefully, despite having rooting interests that make it unfortunate, we can find a way to be interested in something so unexpected (even if we don't subscribe to it fully).

[sideshow24]

Austin is so good that Jerry traded the world to bring in Roy Williams and used a 1st round pick this year on a receiver. Would he have done that if he had Andre Johnson? :no:

[MattFancy]

Ridiculous. ESPN has some serious Cowboy homers.

This is worse than homerism. I don't think Cowboy fans would even admit Miles Austin is the best WR in the league. This is the most idiotic article I've ever read on ESPN.

[sideshow24]

But did either of you take the time to recognize that this post is simply reporting the findings of advanced metrics, which by their very nature are absolutely objective?

"Simply put, as great as Johnson is, in 2009 he not only wasn't the best wide receiver in the NFL, but wasn't even the best wide receiver in Texas. That honor belonged to Austin."

Doesn't sound like someone "simply reporting the findings" to me.

[Conn]

There's no part of me that thinks Miles Austin is the best receiver in football.

But did either of you take the time to recognize that this post is simply reporting the findings of advanced metrics, which by their very nature are absolutely objective? They certainly aren't infalible, or even necessarily accurate, but to dismiss them with a laugh or to think that you've done your research by looking up the basic statlines on NFL.com is both lazy and stupid.

The writer here is clearly as surprised as anyone else would be. This isn't the case of someone who wanted to find evidence that Austin was the best receiver, and went looking for a statistical model that would make the case. This is a year-in, year-out metric system that produced results that are unexpected given collective wisdom. Hopefully, despite having rooting interests that make it unfortunate, we can find a way to be interested in something so unexpected (even if we don't subscribe to it fully).

Yes, I at least read the entire post, about all of the advanced metrics used to find this.

But sometimes, you need to decide when these advanced metrics don't have a big enough sample size to be fully accurate, and I think that only one season of this performance, fits under "not long enough".

Keep in mind that another set of defensive advanced metrics have Reed Doughty as the best safety in football. When in reality, its just that his strengths play to the most heavily weighted stats in that system. I'd bet the same is true here. YPA is the most important part of these metrics, and Austin has a very high YPA number.

[Oldskool]

Did Jerry Jones write this article?

[MattFancy]

There's no part of me that thinks Miles Austin is the best receiver in football.

But did either of you take the time to recognize that this post is simply reporting the findings of advanced metrics, which by their very nature are absolutely objective? They certainly aren't infalible, or even necessarily accurate, but to dismiss them with a laugh or to think that you've done your research by looking up the basic statlines on NFL.com is both lazy and stupid.

The writer here is clearly as surprised as anyone else would be. This isn't the case of someone who wanted to find evidence that Austin was the best receiver, and went looking for a statistical model that would make the case. This is a year-in, year-out metric system that produced results that are unexpected given collective wisdom. Hopefully, despite having rooting interests that make it unfortunate, we can find a way to be interested in something so unexpected (even if we don't subscribe to it fully).

You can make stastics say anything you want. Sports are about more than statistics.

[Obibyn23]

but to dismiss them with a laugh or to think that you've done your research by looking up the basic statlines on NFL.com is both lazy and stupid.

So I am lazy and stupid for going off of what the main post said? The title of the thread is whats misleading then...I am so sorry the op didn't make it more clear to us all that the article is based on some sort of pointless scoring method which doesn't get used...and in doing so allowed you to label a few of us lazy and stupid.

But if the pointless scoring system is so pointless...then saying the article is pointless is 100% true. And looking up the basic stats and comparing them like I did is all I need to separate the two players.

Thanks for your :2cents: though...it was about as pointless as the article.

[TheLongshot]

While I can't read the whole article, in my mind when you are comparing a WR who has had many great seasons in comparison to a WR who had one great season it is really hard to argue that the younger receiver is better. Get back to me when he has as many as Johnson.

[MattFancy]

While I can't read the whole article, in my mind when you are comparing a WR who has had many great seasons in comparison to a WR who had one great season it is really hard to argue that the younger receiver is better. Get back to me when he has as many as Johnson.

And Johnson has been great on some bad teams with not much of a QB.

[Conn]

So I am lazy and stupid for going off of what the main post said? The title of the thread is whats misleading then...I am so sorry the op didn't make it more clear to us all that the article is based on some sort of pointless scoring method which doesn't get used...and in doing so allowed you to label a few of us lazy and stupid.

But if the pointless scoring system is so pointless...then saying the article is pointless is 100% true. And looking up the basic stats and comparing them like I did is all I need to separate the two players.

Thanks for your :2cents: though...it was about as pointless as the article.

To be fair, all he's saying is that the article uses advanced metrics to see trends and different stats (AKA stats that don't depend so much on the team around you to accrue, possibly making them a more accurate way to determine who is "better"). Now, you can make the argument that those aren't the RIGHT metrics, but you can't say that he's wrong in that. And if you haven't considered that before blasting the article, then yeah, I'd say that that's pretty stupid.

[stoney26]

Would love to hear what our resident puke trolls have to say about this.

[mcterry7]

While I can't read the whole article, in my mind when you are comparing a WR who has had many great seasons in comparison to a WR who had one great season it is really hard to argue that the younger receiver is better. Get back to me when he has as many as Johnson.

"Simply put, as great as Johnson is, in 2009 he not only wasn't the best wide receiver in the NFL, but wasn't even the best wide receiver in Texas. That honor belonged to Austin."

The article was only referring to the 2009 season not as a blanket statement going into 2010. I think that the thread title has been taken out of context.:2cents:

[MattFancy]

"Simply put, as great as Johnson is, in 2009 he not only wasn't the best wide receiver in the NFL, but wasn't even the best wide receiver in Texas. That honor belonged to Austin."

The article was only referring to the 2009 season not as a blanket statement going into 2010. I think that the thread title has been taken out of context.:2cents:

I titled the thread after the title of the article

[LD0506]

"ESPN- Taking sucking up to heights never seen before"

[mcterry7]

I titled the thread after the title of the article

Then ESPN titled it that way to get more clicks. I apologize for calling you out on that.

[Big Blue Joe]

To be fair, all he's saying is that the article uses advanced metrics to see trends and different stats (AKA stats that don't depend so much on the team around you to accrue, possibly making them a more accurate way to determine who is "better"). Now, you can make the argument that those aren't the RIGHT metrics, but you can't say that he's wrong in that. And if you haven't considered that before blasting the article, then yeah, I'd say that that's pretty stupid.

When the claim is as ridiculous as Miles Austin being the best WR in the NFL, I don't see how it's stupid at all.

There's no part of me that thinks Miles Austin is the best receiver in football.

But did either of you take the time to recognize that this post is simply reporting the findings of advanced metrics, which by their very nature are absolutely objective? They certainly aren't infalible, or even necessarily accurate, but to dismiss them with a laugh or to think that you've done your research by looking up the basic statlines on NFL.com is both lazy and stupid.

What leads you to believe that Miles Austin isn't the best WR in the NFL? Because I'm not seeing why it's unreasonable to dismiss this article with a laugh.

[Conn]

When the claim is as ridiculous as Miles Austin being the best WR in the NFL, I don't see how it's stupid at all.

You obviously didn't see my first post in this thread, because I agree with you:

AHAHAHAHAHA.

Oh, whew, wow......let me catch my breath.....

BAHAHAHAHA....HAHAHAHAHA.....OH HAHAHAHA.

Bogus. Can't wait to see TR1 vs. DOTS the Wiki-Wonder and the Cowboys Brigade on this one.

I'm just saying that if you're going to criticize the article, the main point of which is stupid as all get out, you should be criticizing the metrics that came to that stupid conclusion, because that's where it came from.

[Santana_89]

[bedlamVR]

Okay this may be breaking the rules BUT I am not quoting an entire articule . What I am doing is posting a thread posted elsewhere . (COWBOYSZONE) to be specific .

I also think the thread is a worth a couple of yucks but unfortunately the cowboys fans over there are not as disfunctional as I would like .

But for anyone who is interested

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=187849

Miles Austin has seized the WR crown

By KC Joyner

ESPN Insider

If the Cowboys are to reach a Super Bowl in their stadium, Miles Austin needs to play a huge role.

One of the methods that former college football coach Bear Bryant used to settle positional battles early in his coaching career was the "challenge system." This allowed any player to call for a one-on-one battle with a starter. The two would go head-to-head in a variety of areas (blocking, tackling, receiving, etc.) to see who was the best at executing the key responsibilities of the position. The winner would claim the prize as starter.

If such a system existed in the world of statistical analyses, there would be many potential challengers to Houston Texans wide receiver Andre Johnson for the title of best wide receiver in the NFL. Larry Fitzgerald, Randy Moss and Reggie Wayne all would serve as worthy foes for Johnson, but surprisingly enough, none of them would rank as the No. 1 contender.

The real competition for Johnson as the NFL's premier wideout comes from within the state in which he plays pro football. Many might not consider Miles Austin to be an elite wideout yet, but he actually had a better set of metrics than any of the three other aforementioned contenders this past season.

So did he do enough last season to beat the perceived champion for the belt?

Andre Johnson

#80 WR

Houston Texans

2009 STATS

* Rec101

* Yds1569

* TD9

* Avg15.5

* Long72

* YAC532

To find out, let's do it like Bryant's players and run a 10-stage challenge. We'll compare both Austin's and Johnson's yards per attempt (YPA) metrics in 10 main receiving categories. At the end, whoever has the most victories will win the honor of best wide receiver in the NFL.

A full chart follows the breakdown by category.

Short passes (thrown downfield 10 yards or fewer)

Austin's 9.4 YPA topped Johnson's 6.0 mark by a 50 percent margin. That is enough to give him a win, but it is also worth noting that Austin didn't just beat Johnson in this metric but also led the entire league in this category.

Challenge status: Austin 1, Johnson 0

Medium passes (11-19 yards downfield)

OK, so Austin wins on dinks and dunks, but can he beat Johnson on the deep out, deep in and comeback routes that make up the bulk of the medium-depth patterns? Not exactly, but he didn't lose to him, either. Austin and Johnson both gained 12.1 YPA on medium routes last season.

Challenge status: Austin 1, Johnson 0, 1 tie

Deep passes (20-29 yards downfield)

For most receivers, the deeper the pass, the more likely it is they would lose to Johnson, but Austin won this category as well. His 20.3 mark ranked ninth in the league and nearly doubled Johnson's 10.9 YPA.

Challenge status: Austin 2, Johnson 0, 1 tie

Bomb-length passes (30 or more yards downfield)

Go patterns are the kings of this route depth, and this is where Johnson starts to make his stand. His 26.1 YPA was seventh-best in the league overall and second-best among wideouts with 10 or more bomb attempts. It also nearly doubled Austin's 13.8 YPA mark.

Challenge status: Austin 2, Johnson 1, 1 tie

Vertical (all medium, deep and bomb passes)

Johnson's lead in the bomb-pass category helped vault him over Austin in this all-encompassing category, but not by much. Johnson posted a 14.5 YPA mark, ranking 10th in the league, while Austin checked in with a 13.7 YPA total (which ranked 15th).

Challenge status: Austin 2, Johnson 2, 1 tie

Overall YPA (all route depths)

Johnson's bomb-pass prowess helped him close enough ground to win the vertical category, but it wasn't enough to overcome Austin here. Austin's 11.2 overall YPA mark ranked fourth-best and was more than 2 yards ahead of Johnson's 9.9 YPA total.

Challenge status: Austin 3, Johnson 2, 1 tie

Miles Austin

#19 WR

Dallas Cowboys

2009 STATS

* Rec81

* Yds1320

* TD11

* Avg16.3

* Long60

* YAC588

In the portion of this challenge based on depth of the pass route, Austin is the winner -- but distance alone is not the only indicator of how good a receiver is. Another way to measure receiving excellence is to see how well each wideout did when facing varying levels of competition.

I went through the breakdown charts I did for every game from the 2009 season and pulled out the plays on which a receiver faced a cornerback. I then assigned color-coded grades to the cornerbacks based on their 2009 YPA totals (which can be found in the KC Joyner Metricmania section in the 2010 ESPN The Magazine fantasy football preview).

Against cornerbacks who yield YPAs of 7 yards or fewer on average (red-rated CBs)

Austin was hardly fazed by elite competition, as he posted 12.0 YPA against them. Johnson's 8.0 YPA in this category ranked 18th in the league but didn't keep up with Austin's total.

Challenge status: Austin 4, Johnson 2, 1 tie

Against CBs who yield 7-9 YPA on average (yellow-rated CBs)

Austin put up 9.8 YPA here versus Johnson's 6.9. Another win for Austin.

Challenge status: Austin 5, Johnson 2, 1 tie

Against CBs who yield 9 or more YPA on average (green-rated CBs)

Johnson was very good at dominating overmatched cornerbacks, something shown by his 14.6 YPA total here. He wasn't as good as Austin and his 17.7 YPA mark, however.

Challenge status: Austin 6, Johnson 2, 1 tie

Against CBs in general

With wins in all three color-coded cornerback categories, it is obvious Austin won this part of the challenge as well (13.4 YPA versus Johnson's 9.9 mark), but just as was the case on short passes, it is worth noting that Austin ranked No. 1 in the league in this metric.

It also means he won the competition by a score of 7-2-1.

Here's the full breakdown, minus the category of "vertical" from above and organized by YPA.

The Texas battle

Here's a full breakdown of Andre Johnson versus Miles Austin in several key metric categories, as graded by YPA (yards per attempt). The colors associated with cornerbacks are explained within the article above and within the 2010 ESPN The Magazine fantasy football preview.

Name Short Routes Medium Routes Deep Routes Bomb Routes Overall Routes Vs. Red CBs Vs. Yellow CBs Vs. Green CBs Vs. CBs overall Miles Austin 9.4 12.1 20.3 13.8 11.2 12.0 9.8 17.7 13.4 Andre Johnson 6.0 12.1 10.9 26.1 9.9 8.0 6.9 14.6 9.9

Some might say these categories don't tell the whole story, but Austin also beat Johnson in yards per reception (16.3 to 15.5), touchdown receptions (11 to 9) and success percentage (69.4 percent to 64.6 percent).

Simply put, as great as Johnson is, in 2009 he not only wasn't the best wide receiver in the NFL but wasn't even the best wide receiver in Texas. That honor belonged to Austin.

KC Joyner, aka the Football Scientist, is a regular contributor to ESPN Insider. He also can be found on Twitter @kcjoynertfs and at his website. He is also the author of "Blindsided: Why the Left Tackle is Overrated and Other Contrarian Football Thoughts."

[illone]

Wow.

Ok.

Now I've heard it all.

Just when you thought........