Bates, Thrash, Lockett, and value

[Terry]

It's hard to see us having a big improvement in our kickoff return game even if we do sign Bates.

Last year, Bates had 42 returns, 941 yds, 22.4 avg, 1 TD.

For us, Thrash had 45 returns, 1000 yds, 22.2 avg, 0 TDs.

I don't see a heck of a lot of difference there. In fact, Thrash suffered from shoddy blocking at times and might have done more.

We're getting wound up about Bates, but he's only gonna be as good as the guys blocking for him. If we only get him, and nothing else changes, then don't expect too much.

His career year was 52 returns, 1287 yds, 24.8 avg., only 2.4 yds better. Thrash's best average was in 1999, when he returned 14 for 355, a 25.4 avg.

So as it is, Bates would have to go some to give us much more than Thrash gave us. The only advantage he has is scoring TDs off returns. Thrash has 1 TD in 65 returns, Bates has 3 TDs in 150 returns (1 for every 50). But if Thrash's next return is for a TD then he beats Bates in that category.

As a receiver, in 4 yrs Thrash was 65/884, 13.6 avg, 3 TDs.

Lockett, in 4 yrs, was 87/1164, 13.4 avg, 4 TDs.

With Thrash, we had a decent returner AND a WR. With Bates, we get a returner only, and Lockett, a receiver only. I don't have the salary for the three players, and we don't know what Bates will get, but we appear to be replacing Thrash with Bates AND Lockett.

I'm not sure that we've gotten the best value in by replacing Thrash with two players. Both are marginally better than Thrash at their respective positions, but they represent two roster spots vs. one.

Incidently, Bates returned punts for the first time last year, 7 in all.

[indyskinsfan]

Stock trading type of analysis.

Lockett - major stock to have leverage and capital.

Thrash - Futures and a commodity, so over the long term, very solid pick! Makes you look like you know what you're doing in the market and when he's gone, you better scramble for

another one or it could be a serious downturn in your portfolio!

Bates - quick turn-around on the investment, pretty steady, but may a downturn, if there are no upgrades to some weak spots. Worth the investment though, since the output would still be better than what you had in last year's Money Market. If his percentages rises, the overall foundation of all investments become even greater!

[ by indyskinsfan on June 30, 2001.]

[NavyDave]

Thrash will still be remembered for his muffs at critical times. It's not Marty's fault that Thrash wasn't extended

prior to departing or that the previous coaches turned him off by playing aged veterans instead of giving him a chance til the last minute.

Bates isn't a long time solution and as you stated their numbers are near equal so there shouldn't be a dropoff in return yardage and if the blocking becomes better there may even be and imrovement.

------------------

Dave

[Jimbo]

And please don't overlook the fact that Bates made the Pro Bowl last year as a special teams player, NOT a return man. He's capable of playing most special teams roles and does them well. That's something that has been missing.

[Pete]

I couldn't agree more Terry. Thrash to me is still the biggest loss of the year. Once he began to start across from Connell, the double duty started to ware on him. As a third man out, we would have had a nice set along with Westy, and AC. It would have been even nicer to have Westbrook, Gardner, and Thrash as a set this year. Thrash has miles of hart, a great work ethic, and should do well. He has the ability to be at least the second man on many teams. All he ever needed was some play time to get his feet under him, and every day he plays he gets that much better. Wycheck all over again

[redman]

It's very tough on a player to play both special teams and offense full time. We'd have to split the duties up anyway.

I agree in general about Thrash though. He's a hard worker and an easy guy to like, with potential to be a very good #3 WR, and maybe even a good #2 WR.

------------------

"Loosen up, Sandy baby. You're just too damn tight!" - John Riggins to Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor

[Guest Matt Kyriacou]

A thought has been running through my mind recently. It may sound crazy, but I will let it fly anyway. How about having D. Green return punts and/or kickoffs this season? In my opinion he would have been the greatest return man to ever play the game if he had been given the opportunity. He was simply too valuable at CB to risk the injury. He still has the jets and if Deion is forced to return, then his value at CB is not so great that we cannot deal with the possibility of injury. I would be willing to bet a year's salary that he would be more productive in that role than the poster child for self-promotion was a year ago. Just a thought. What do you guys think?

[Zen-like Todd]

You mention value in the title of this thread, and that is exactly what brought about Thrash's being replaced by Lockett. Of course we would have liked to keep Thrash. He seems to be a nice guy, he's a hard worker, and is generally consistent. Is he a #1 receiver? Hell no (it says something about the Eagles that he looks to be their #1). The Eagles dropped $8.9 million over 5 years on him. We grabbed Kevin Lockett, who by all statistical accounts is virtually identical, For $2 over 2 years. For a team in our situation with the salary cap, I'll take it.

That is value.

Whether or not we sign Bates is not the issue. I seriously doubt Thrash would have returned kicks for us had we re-signed him. If you remember, playing full time at wideout, and returning kicks, was getting to him after awhile. The money saved on going with Lockett over Thrash could easily make the difference for us by allowing us to sign just one more useful player (maybe on the D-line ). I think the right choice was made.

If we want to go down the investment route, take a tip from Warren Buffett. Price is EVERYTHING. Dont chase a stock just because you like it. Buy only at the price point where it becomes a value. That's exactly what Marty did.