Atlanta Skins Fan Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 As many know, I've got a long history posting about our WRs. Back in August 2002 I predicted McCants would eclipse Gardner within five years. Last November, I predicted Coles would never be the same receiver again, due to his toe injury. I'm not rehashing those arguments here: this is a new argument, based on some interesting (and disturbing) new data I've turned up from Stats Inc. Stats Inc. has a paid service which enables access to extended data such as "Targets" (number of times a receiver was thrown to) and "Percent First Down" (percent of throws toward a receiver that resulted in a first down). Dividing catches by targets yields reception percentage, also a very insightful stat. What are the important stats for receivers? In evaluating receivers statistically, it seems that the most useful thing a receiver could do would be to convert the highest percentage of throws into TD catches. Second to that, a receiver should convert the highest percentage of throws to first downs. Third, a receiver should simply catch the highest percentage of throws possible. So, these would all be important metrics, in order of importance: TD % First Down % Reception % (These are in addition to the obvious metrics, catches and yards.) I decided to compute these figures for McCants, Gardner, Coles and Thrash for 2003, and then throw them into the mix with 22 other notable receivers in the NFL. Most of the other receivers were NFL leaders, but I also threw in a few wildcards to see how they'd fare. Some wildcards had crappy seasons in 2003 (Derrius Thompson, Peerless Price), others were recently traded by their teams (Thrash, Galloway, Keyshawn Johnson, Booker). I was hoping to find out what made the top receivers different from these wildcards, what to make of these wildcards, and what to make of our top four receivers in this mix. Total contenders: 26. TD Percentage Again, this is the percent of throws toward receiver that resulted in a TD: Darnerien McCants 10.9% Randy Moss 9.9% Santana Moss 8.5% Chris Chambers 8.5% Marvin Harrison 7.0% Torry Holt 6.6% Hines Ward 6.4% Terrell Owens 6.2% Derrick Mason 6.0% Ike Hilliard 5.9% Keenan McCardell 5.8% Terry Glenn 5.2% Steve Smith 5.0% Anquan Boldin 4.8% Rod Gardner 4.3% Keyshawn Johnson 4.1% Marty Booker 3.8% Laveranues Coles 3.8% Koren Robinson 3.4% Amani Toomer 3.3% Antonio Bryant 2.4% Joey Galloway 2.4% Donald Driver 2.3% Peerless Price 2.1% James Thrash 1.1% Derrius Thompson 0.0% Here we have the fascinating phenomenon of McCants topping the list at #1, followed by Randy Moss. At the bottom of the list, we see Derrius Thompson and Thrash, with Coles and Gardner not far behind. No, I'm not arguing that McCants is better than Moss. But it's certainly interesting the company that McCants keeps ... and the company kept by Thrash, and to a lesser extent, Coles and Gardner. First Down Percentage This, to me, is the most fascinating statistic of all. Since the sample size of first downs is much higher than that for TDs, it should be a very telling statistic showing productive catches that move the chains and keep drives alive. It also happens to factor YAC more than simple reception percentage would. Derrick Mason 51.1% Torry Holt 45.9% Keyshawn Johnson 44.6% Randy Moss 44.2% Marvin Harrison 42.3% Santana Moss 41.9% Darnerien McCants 40.0% Chris Chambers 38.5% Hines Ward 38.5% Terry Glenn 38.5% Keenan McCardell 38.4% Terrell Owens 37.7% Anquan Boldin 37.6% Ike Hilliard 37.3% Donald Driver 34.9% Laveranues Coles 34.2% Steve Smith 33.3% Koren Robinson 32.8% Antonio Bryant 32.5% Joey Galloway 32.5% Derrius Thompson 32.2% Amani Toomer 31.6% Marty Booker 29.5% Peerless Price 28.4% Rod Gardner 26.1% James Thrash 26.1% Thrash and Gardner are tied for last, with 26.1%. Thrash was dumped by the Eagles. Just above them is Price, who turned in a horrible season for the Falcons. Just above Price is Booker -- just traded by the Bears. Just above Booker is Derrius Thompson (vilified in Miami) and Galloway, dumped by Parcells. Then you see the surprises. Keyshawn Johnson at #3. And McCants at #7, with 40.0%. Here again, McCants finds himself in elite company. And Gardner and Thrash are dead last. Reception Percentage Ah, but here's the rub. Derrick Mason 71.4% Marvin Harrison 66.2% Randy Moss 64.5% Torry Holt 63.9% Santana Moss 63.2% Steve Smith 62.4% Anquan Boldin 61.2% Hines Ward 60.9% Keenan McCardell 60.9% Keyshawn Johnson 60.8% Donald Driver 60.5% Ike Hilliard 58.8% Terrell Owens 54.8% Koren Robinson 54.6% Terry Glenn 54.2% James Thrash 53.3% Laveranues Coles 51.9% Rod Gardner 51.3% Marty Booker 49.5% Chris Chambers 49.2% Darnerien McCants 49.1% Antonio Bryant 47.0% Peerless Price 45.4% Derrius Thompson 44.1% Amani Toomer 41.4% Joey Galloway 41.0% The bad news for Skins fans: all four Skins receivers sucked for reception percentage. Thrash had 53.3%, Coles 51.9%, Gardner 51.3%, and McCants 49.1%. :doh: What it means Boiling these stats down, I make these observations: McCants is NFL-best in TD percentage, and NFL elite in first-down percentage. But he is decidedly mediocre in overall reception percentage. This corresponds to my subjective observation: McCants is quite poor in short interior routes, slow off the line and unable to get separation from the CB. McCants is a guy who needs to be in motion to be effective (because his mid-gear acceleration is excellent), which is why he's more effective in the intermediate routes that result in first downs. He's also better in out patterns and end-zone routes, where his size becomes a clear advantage. Used correctly, McCants is an elite receiver in the mold of Art Monk. Used incorrectly in short interior routes without a running start, McCants is an inferior receiver. My book on McCants: don't ever make him stop, reverse direction, go low, or start from a stop. Picture him as a horse in motion, and catch him in stride. Thrash and Gardner are practically statistical clones. They are quite awful when compared to elite NFL receivers, in all three categories of comparison. Coles hasn't been as good as we think of him being. Personally, I think he's got great heart and great hands, but he's simply not open enough, due to his foot injury -- which is why he is so average when it comes to reception percentage, first-down percentage and TD percentage. If the WR passing offense is going to succeed, its success will hinge on finding a way to exploit the strengths of McCants while avoiding his weaknesses. Depending excessively on Coles is foolhardy due to his foot problems, and depending heavily on Gardner and Thrash is simply stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 using percentages kind off hides reality. McCants had 6 tds. At 10% that is only 60 throws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 ASF I think the issue with McCants is he has never played well against the #1 or #2 CB's of other teams. He dominates the #3's but the better CB's on other teams. I still think Gardner is ahead of him due to his ability to be good during the drive and not just the endzone like McCants. Gardner I also believe is faster as well. The coaches just love Thrash, so he isn't going anywhere. I do think Gardner has to be the player he was 2 years ago this year because I don't see Coles lasting the entire season. I also think ability wise Jacobs could be better then all of them except Coles if he stays healthy and continues to improve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Ok I will tell you for a FACT that one major flaw in that percentage thing is it doesn't take into account and offensive system/scheme. I mean wouldn't WCO offensive WR's be more succeptable considering they are thrown 3-4yd dumpoff passes and relied on to turn them into 1st downs and more? How about Spurrier's offensive scheme last season where EVERY OTHER PASS, seemed to be that WR screen to Coles, which workd 50% of the time, and failed miserably the other 50% of the time. I mean he was basically catching the ball at the line of scrimmage and had to rely on good blocking(LOL) to get any yardage. Are you telling me, that Gibbs offensive scheme isn't going to make a difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chipper Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Wow, that is some terrifiec mathematics in percentages, but how many touchdowns has McCants caught while facing the number 1 corner and not some nickel back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Joe Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Meaningless stats. McCants hasn't played enough for those stats to mean anything. And why would you call Gardner and Thrash junk? Gardner is easily an above average #2 WR, and Thrash is a solid #3 for any team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Made Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Good Try, but your logic is flawed there for reasons stated above. Nice to know those stats though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Percertange of targets that were caught is less important the more that a QB is inaccurate and/or is under pressure due to poor o-line play (and therefore has to throw under pressure). After two years of skewering Kim Helton, you ought to know that ASF. As for percentage of receptions that result in scores, I would think that it's a big advantage for a WR like McCants to be used far less in the middle of the field than he is in the red zone, right? After all, McCants is certainly not 9% better than Randy Moss as a scoring threat, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 ASF, Let me sum up my response to you with a simple retort that should halt you in your path. McCants should start, or be the No. 3 receiver or be the No. 5 receiver or anywhere in between based on what Joe Gibbs and the offensive staff value him as. Not what you extrapolate STATS Inc. as standing for in a reserve player with limited opportunities. But, actual day to day evaluations by a quality NFL staff. If Gardner starts it's because he's the better man. If Thrash is No. 3 it's because he's the better man. If McCants rises it's because he is. No one's going to hold McCants back if he's the best option. If he isn't we'll know that too. That includes you, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlanta Skins Fan Posted August 23, 2004 Author Share Posted August 23, 2004 Originally posted by Art ASF, Let me sum up my response to you with a simple retort that should halt you in your path. McCants should start, or be the No. 3 receiver or be the No. 5 receiver or anywhere in between based on what Joe Gibbs and the offensive staff value him as. Not what you extrapolate STATS Inc. as standing for in a reserve player with limited opportunities. But, actual day to day evaluations by a quality NFL staff. If Gardner starts it's because he's the better man. If Thrash is No. 3 it's because he's the better man. If McCants rises it's because he is. No one's going to hold McCants back if he's the best option. If he isn't we'll know that too. Generally I agree with you here, Art. Obviously Gibbs is a million times smarter at football than I am. And yet, even Joe Gibbs can make a mistake or two -- draft Desmond Howard, say, or let McCardell walk off the team. There are some factors at work here favoring what I regard as an incorrect conclusion about projected productivity in games: Thrash is "all-Redskin" in terms of attitude. By all reports, he's exactly the kind of personality and Mr. Hustle that Gibbs is looking for in his players. This, however, does not necessarily make him a great WR. Gardner must practice better than he plays the games. That's my only conclusion after watching him stay entrenched so long. By my own eyes, McCants has huge weaknesses in his game. Some of these weaknesses are the most basic plays in football -- the 10-yard curl, let's say -- routes that emphasize precise footwork and reversing field. He also plays better in games, it seems, than in practice. So, someone watching McCants practice the really basic WR plays might conclude that he's not a very good receiver. The correct conclusion, in my view, is that McCants is an extremely effective receiver, especially in real games, but is limited in the types of routes that make him effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illone Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 I definitely enjoyed reading the info. While some of it does seem to make some sense, another part of me goes another way with it. Stats cannot account for heart, big play ability under pressure and also the biggest one in my mind: new coaching (schemes). While these stats do tell their own story, I imagine a couple years from now these same stats will tell an entirely different one. I already know for a fact that Gibbs will have our receivers looking like the posse in due time. I do like the correlation you made about McCants being better on the run, and on post patterns, and go routes. I myself never made that observation but it makes sense to me having seen it presented the way you did. I figure Gibbs sees the same thing from watching our guys practice, and will use each players unique abilities to the teams advantage on the field. I have to disagree on the Coles prediction. This guy has heart, and he'll overcome the toe. Nice post:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gfunk76p Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 by the way do those %s include the fact that most of the other receivers are up against a teams #1 CB????? because i know McCants wasn't but i bet Randy Moss was:helmet: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gfunk76p Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 and on the last % the top guys have pro bowl QBs throwing at them ramsey was just in his second year last year and lets not talk about who was throwing at gardner the year before! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 ASF the other advantage Thrash has is he has been the "man" on a team. McCants is young so don't rush him if you don't have too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swissarmy47 Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 perfect example of OVERanalysis. they tell us nothing that we don't already know - McCants had a very impressive season as a #3 last year, versus #3 CBs. he did especially well in the red zone. that said, he simply didn't have the PT against #1 CBs to prove that he is anything more than a pretty good #3 receiver. as far as the reception %... you said all of our receivers sucked. i would look at the whole passing offense here. there were alot of errant throws. to say our receivers were poor at this does not account for the fact that the QBs were mediocre at best (even though i really want Ramsey to do well the fact is he was like 51% last year), plus our blocking sucked. the whole offense sucked. its alot more than just the receivers getting a tad more open and holding on to a few more. last year our problems were much larger than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 I'm long on record as one who avoids using statistical analysis---no matter how artfully couched---as the main criterea for judging and/or comparing players. Football is simply too much a "team game," and players simply too interdependent on one another, the schemes they work within, and the coaches they play for, to lean too heavily on any individual's raw numbers in assessing their talent or impact. I think most Skins fans would agree that D. Mac has a flair for making the big catch in traffic, and that he's a guy you really like to see on the field in the red zone ... especially, as has been the case so far in his career, going against #3 and #4 corners. I think most Skins fans would also agree that his hands seem a bit inconsistent, and that at least to date, he's not really established himself as even a clear #2 on this team. In fact, he seems to be right about where he belongs. Until he gets the chance (earns the right?) to start against #1 or #2 corners, I don't think we can even begin to compare him to other great receivers around the league, it's just not fair to them. If it develops that he IS good enough to earn that right (in practice and in games), though, the one guy in the world we all KNOW is going to give it to him is Joe Gibbs. Art's right about that ... if DMac has "it," Joe will play him. I love having McCants on the team. He's an ace up the sleeve in clutch situations, a big guy with good hops and sometimes wonderful hands who seems to have a nose the end zone. I just think his raw numbers, while eye-opening when presented like ASF has, are also a bit misleading. Maybe Gibbs really just hasn't seen it yet ... but my money is on that he's good a pretty good idea what he's got there. * Oh. One more thing. When you suggest, ASF, that Coles "simply is not open enough," I wonder what you've been watching and/or reading. This goes completely against everything that's been said about him, from fans at the games to media covering them to coaches ... you know, coaching them. What we've been hearing for two full seasons is that Coles is running free all the damn time ... but that the ball, for any number of reasons we all could recite by heart, simply hasn't been getting there very often. I know you've taken the occasional break from STATS, INC. over the last couple of years for long enough to read at least some of those comments, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdsknbill Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Silly Useless information. More blather. Thanks ASF :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLusby Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 ASF: I thought it was interesting and appreciate the time and effort and research that went into that post. Statistics make the world turn! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlanta Skins Fan Posted August 23, 2004 Author Share Posted August 23, 2004 Originally posted by Om What we've been hearing for two full seasons is that Coles is running free all the damn time ... but that the ball, for any number of reasons we all could recite by heart, simply hasn't been getting there very often. I suppose it would be mean-spirited to point out that Coles has been playing for us for only one season. So I won't. What I will say is that, as with Ramsey, I've noticed that the memory of Redskin fans skews toward the positive when it comes to Coles. Coles was all-world in his first few games, and I think it was Art who made the nice comment that Coles could not be covered. But, then there was the Coles toe injury, never really acknowledged by Coles or the team during the season, and I saw Coles rapidly disappear thereafter. This was why I made the comment I made about Coles in early November: I was noticing that what was best about Coles, his burst, was gone. It was really sad to watch this proud, fearless, highly skilled man unable to do what he was best at doing. Yes, he still made catches, and more than once had a good game, but so often what I saw was a man unable to break to the ball, unable to leap, unable to accelerate away from the CB on the fly. These things showed up in the stats. Let this not be read as a criticism of Coles. To me, Coles is ten times the quality of any other receiver we have. But, mainly I'm talking about the man before the injury. What we have now is a proud shell of that man, still terrifically skilled, still courageous, still with great hands, but simply not the receiver he was. If we are lucky, he won't seriously hurt himself this year, will get the surgery he needs, and will come back as the man he once was. I just wouldn't bet on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSkins Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Originally posted by Atlanta Skins Fan Generally I agree with you here, Art. Obviously Gibbs is a million times smarter at football than I am. And yet, even Joe Gibbs can make a mistake or two -- draft Desmond Howard, say, or let McCardell walk off the team. McCardell was a 12 round pick whose success in the NFL could never have been anticipated. Keenan McCardell was a product of great circumstance in Jacksonville, much like Jimmy Smith was after his short career with the Cowboys and Mark Brunell's with the Packers. The three just clicked for whatever reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 ASF, Mean-spirited? No. Just accurate. I guess, with as many times as people in the know have said Coles has been open, it just seemed like it HAD to have been over the course of at least 2 years. As to Coles ... his production definitely trailed off as the season went along. But, as I’m sure you noticed, so did the whole durn offense once the league had a chance to look at a few weeks’ worth of film. Of course the injury slowed him some ... but, to me, not nearly to the extent you seem to be implying. Like I said, it’s a team game. Stats are fun to play with. I just don’t give individual stats anywhere near the weight you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Originally posted by Atlanta Skins Fan Generally I agree with you here, Art. Obviously Gibbs is a million times smarter at football than I am. And yet, even Joe Gibbs can make a mistake or two -- draft Desmond Howard, say, or let McCardell walk off the team. There are some factors at work here favoring what I regard as an incorrect conclusion about projected productivity in games: Thrash is "all-Redskin" in terms of attitude. By all reports, he's exactly the kind of personality and Mr. Hustle that Gibbs is looking for in his players. This, however, does not necessarily make him a great WR. Gardner must practice better than he plays the games. That's my only conclusion after watching him stay entrenched so long. By my own eyes, McCants has huge weaknesses in his game. Some of these weaknesses are the most basic plays in football -- the 10-yard curl, let's say -- routes that emphasize precise footwork and reversing field. He also plays better in games, it seems, than in practice. So, someone watching McCants practice the really basic WR plays might conclude that he's not a very good receiver. The correct conclusion, in my view, is that McCants is an extremely effective receiver, especially in real games, but is limited in the types of routes that make him effective. ASF, Drafting Howard wasn't a mistake and neither was not finding room for Keenan. Howard was a very sound football pick who didn't happen to work out. Keenan was here when we had good receivers and didn't actually emerge as a player for about five years. Putting that aside though, I get back to the fact that Gibbs plays guys who he feels deserve to be played. If Thrash is exactly the kind of personality that Gibbs likes, then Thrash is better for the team coached by Gibbs than McCants. That's the whole point. Gibbs will play the guys he feels give the team HIS personality. His recipe for victory is a sound one and if Thrash is his selection, I'm going to say it's a hell of a good selection. Even if McCants has more promise as a player overall. As you point out though, there are obvious flaws in McCants' game. Even Gibbs hinted at such when talking about his Carolina game saying something like McCants is a good player (paraphrasing) "if you give him the right routes." It sounded like McCants was a weapon Gibbs knew was not an all-around one and had to be used a specific way to make an impact. I think you are right in this assessment and this is likely why you don't see him emerge as a clear No. 2 or No. 3 to this point with this team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 D Mac all he does is catch TDs or make first downs. So lets not get carried away since he is unfairly doing this against the 2nd and 3rd corner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nace14 Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 i'm so tired of the mccants talk. i like the guy and think he is a good 3 or 4 but a 2, no way. the only reason spurrier ever put him in the game was because his routes were too deep to run in the redzone and he just stuck in the big guy. that's no knock to dmac, but if we had a decent coach smart enough to design a redzone offense, than those 6 td's would have been in coles/gardners stats. like i said, i think he is a good 3 or 4, but people have to stop sweating him as a number 2 receiver. there is a HUGE difference between being a number 2 and a number 3. and that is a difference that gibbs is more than capable of distinguishing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 I would only add Vin Scully's line about the way that statistics tend to be used in discussions about sports: Fans use statistics the way that a drunk uses a light post - they're more for support than illumination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.