Moss v. Welker (Your Help Needed) - Page 2 - New England Patriots Forums

Patspsycho · 06-10-2010, 12:00 AM

Long passes are much easier to intercept than short passes. To intercept short passes you usually have to be sitting on a route, or know exactly what's unfolding, or be luckily in the right place at the right time. With that being said, I don't think I would include interceptions against the receivers.

percyhoward · 06-10-2010, 12:19 AM

Thanks mods for allowing me to post here. I appreciate the input as well.

About drops, I considered including them. But while INT's are always turnovers, drops only hurt the team to varying degrees. It came down to including something that may or may not be the receiver’s fault (interceptions) but is always important, versus including something that may or may not be important (drops) but is supposedly always the receiver’s fault.

Based on some of your responses, I might start working on one list for possession receivers and another for deep receivers.

Anyway, here are the full versions of both WR Ratings lists. The first one counts INT's, the second one doesn't.

There's a 6 target per game minimum

Code:

Austin DAL      81-120 69% 1,320 11.0ypa 11td 2int 127.8
Rice MIN        84-120 70% 1,322 11.0ypa  8td 1int 125.1
Colston NO      70-102 69% 1,074 10.5ypa  9td 2int 124.4
VJackson SD     68-105 65% 1,167 11.1ypa  9td 2int 123.0
Welker NE      123-152 80% 1,348  8.8ypa  4td 1int 109.4

Bolden ARI      85-118 72% 1,029  8.7ypa  5td 2int 105.5 
AJohnson HOU   101-152 66% 1,569 10.3ypa  9td 6int 103.8
Driver GB       70-109 64% 1,061  9.7ypa  6td 3int 103.0
Marshall DEN   101-149 68% 1,120  7.5ypa 10td 4int 101.1
DJackson PHI    63-112 56% 1,168 10.4ypa  9td 5int 100.6

Fitzgerald ARI  97-147 66% 1,092  7.4ypa 13td 6int 100.5
Ward PIT        95-129 74% 1,167  9.0ypa  6td 5int 100.5
Smith NYG      107-151 71% 1,220  8.1ypa  7td 4int  99.2
Jennings GB     68-107 64% 1,113 10.4ypa  4td 3int  99.2
Moss NE         83-136 61% 1,264  9.3ypa 13td 8int  99.0

Sims-Walker JAX 63-100 63%   869  8.7ypa  7td 4int  97.5
Ochocinco CIN   72-124 58% 1,047  8.4ypa  9td 4int  96.4
Manningham NYG   57-96 59%   825  8.6ypa  5td 2int  96.1
Holmes PIT      79-127 62% 1,248  9.8ypa  5td 4int  94.9
Mason BAL       73-128 57% 1,028  8.0ypa  7td 2int  94.8

Code:

Austin DAL      81-120 69% 1,320 11.0ypa 11td 0int 134.7
Colston NO      70-102 69% 1,074 10.5ypa  9td 0int 132.6
VJackson SD     68-105 65% 1,167 11.1ypa  9td 0int 130.9
Rice MIN        84-120 70% 1,322 11.0ypa  8td 0int 128.5
Moss NE         83-136 61% 1,264  9.3ypa 13td 0int 123.5

AJohnson HOU   101-152 66% 1,569 10.3ypa  9td 0int 120.2
DJackson PHI    63-112 56% 1,168 10.4ypa  9td 0int 119.2
Wayne IND      100-146 68% 1,264  8.7ypa 10td 0int 118.1
Fitzgerald ARI  97-147 66% 1,092  7.4ypa 13td 0int 117.5
Ward PIT        95-129 74% 1,167  9.0ypa  6td 0int 116.7

Driver GB       70-109 64% 1,061  9.7ypa  6td 0int 114.5
Sims-Walker JAX 63-100 63%   869  8.7ypa  7td 0int 114.1
Boldin ARI      85-118 72% 1,029  8.7ypa  5td 0int 112.6
Welker NE      123-152 80% 1,348  8.8ypa  4td 0int 112.4
Marshall DEN   101-149 68% 1,120  7.5ypa 10td 0int 112.3

Smith NYG      107-151 71% 1,220  8.1ypa  7td 0int  110.3
Jennings GB     68-107 64% 1,113 10.4ypa  4td 0int  110.8
Ochocinco CIN   72-124 58% 1,047  8.4ypa  9td 0int  109.8
Holmes PIT      79-127 62% 1,248  9.8ypa  5td 0int  108.0
Manningham NYG   57-96 59%   825  8.6ypa  5td 0int  104.7

As an addendum, here are the top 5, substituting drops for INT’s
1. Austin
2. VJackson
3. Rice
4. Wayne
5. Fitzgerald

***ctpatsfan77*** · 06-10-2010, 01:17 AM

Percy:

Interesting work.

To play Devil's advocate for a second: why does it have to be an all-or-none response? In other words, I think it's fairly clear that at least some INTs are primarily a QB's fault (e.g., even if there's clearly no "intended receiver," the pass attempt is still 'charged' to the player closest to the ball), while others are clearly primarily the receiver's fault (e.g., a player bobbling a well-thrown ball). So why does it have to be either "they count" or "they don't count"? Why not count them at, say, 50 percent (e.g., a player assigned 4 INTs has them count as 2)? [Or, if you really want to make it 'accurate', you could sample recent INTs, and see what percentage of them are primarily the WR's fault.]

WelshPat · 06-10-2010, 05:56 AM

Theres more risk in throwing the ball deep than throwing 5 yards to Welker.

Welker is great but with Moss your talking about the a guy who's in the top 3 WR of all time. He's showed that he can catch a lot of short passes and move the chains when Welker is out, (the first Buffalo game comes to mind) but Welker can't be the deep threat that Moss is.

Kid~Brady · 06-10-2010, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woolster22

I think they are both equally important. Welker couldn't do what he does without Moss keeping the defense honest, and Moss wouldn't get half as many chances without Welker moving the chains and demanding attention on the short-intermediate routes. I would say that Welker had the better year, but it is sort of like comparing apples and oranges.

ditto. i totally agree with this.

Wretch · 06-10-2010, 08:09 AM

Great thread, bump. Actual football analysis not conjecture about a contract based on a rumor founded in innuendo.

I am a believer that stats are important but you need to be careful what data you use and how you interpret it. For example Randy Moss can have a dominating affect on a defense, because he may require double or triple teams to cover him. In this situation Moss could end up with 1 catch for 15 yards and Welker could end up with 10 catches for 150 yards and a TD because he faced single coverage all day. Who is the most dominate player on the field in this situation. Statistically it is Welker, but I think an argument can be made that Moss' performance was more important because he dictated to the defense what coverages they could run and opened up opportunities for Welker or other players.

Triumph · 06-10-2010, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WelshPat

Theres more risk in throwing the ball deep than throwing 5 yards to Welker.

Welker is great but with Moss your talking about the a guy who's in the top 3 WR of all time. He's showed that he can catch a lot of short passes and move the chains when Welker is out, (the first Buffalo game comes to mind) but Welker can't be the deep threat that Moss is.

This is so true.

IMO, the short passes in the NE offense set up opportunities for longer strikes down field.

***Rob0729*** · 06-10-2010, 09:07 AM

Using Intercepted passes is not a good indicator. Moss is more of a deep ball receiver than Welker. That means his passes have a far greater chance of being picked off. Many of Welker's passes are behind the line of scrimage before the defenders can cross the line which is virtually impossible to intercept.

Wretch · 06-10-2010, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob0729

Using Intercepted passes is not a good indicator. Moss is more of a deep ball receiver than Welker. That means his passes have a far greater chance of being picked off. Many of Welker's passes are behind the line of scrimage before the defenders can cross the line which is virtually impossible to intercept.

If the formula weighted longer receptions that could compensate for the extra risk of interception. I am not sure if it does take this into account however.

Palm Beach Pats Fan · 06-10-2010, 11:35 AM

I'd prefer NOT using INTs but definitely DO include drops. These are more in the receiver's control. The drawback is that judging a drop is somewhat subjective. The point that drops are not necessarily important seems a red herring. Receptions themselevs are not necessarily important, such as when Manning threw passes for no gain to Dallas Clark to get him to 100 receptions, or when Denver kept forcing short passes to Brandon Marshall in a hopeless game vs. Indy just to get him the single game reception record.

Dropping catchable balls is something for sure that makes a receiver a less desirable target.