Moss v. Welker (Your Help Needed)

[percyhoward]

I wanted to ask you guys in the main forum, but I'm about 100 posts short of being able to do so.

I'm using the passer rating formula to rank WR's (using catches, targets, and yards per target in place of completions, attempts, and yards per attempt) and have run into a problem when it comes to the INT stat. Interceptions can be counted (as passes intended for that particular receiver that were picked off), or they can be ignored.

The results yielded when you include or not include interceptions aren't vastly different, but since one large difference that does occur involves two Patriot players, I'm turning to you guys for some input on which one of them had the better season.

Counting INT's on passes targeted to the receiver, Welker ranks 5th in the NFL, and Moss ranks 15th:

Welker NE      123-152 80% 1,348  8.8ypa  4td 1int 109.4
Moss NE         83-136 61% 1,264  9.3ypa 13td 8int  99.0

Not counting INTs puts Moss 5th and Welker 14th:

Moss NE         83-136 61% 1,264  9.3ypa 13td 0int 123.5
Welker NE      123-152 80% 1,348  8.8ypa  4td 0int 112.4

I realize it's just a matter of opinion, but that's exactly what I'm asking you for--your opinion.

 

[jmt57]

Since an intercepted pass was indeed targeted to a receiver, in my opinion you should include it in your statistical analysis.

As far as who had a better season, I've never really thought of one having a better season than the other. They're both wide receivers by name, but the two have vastly different roles. I think what Moss does is more difficult to replace, and that's part of why he is paid more. But both are extremely important to the team's success.

The stats may point towards Welker, but the guy on the outside who is being covered by the opponent's number one guy, stretching the field, and is faster is probably the better player.

 

[Ian]

I just moved this in from the New Member's forum as he's looking for some more opinions.

 

[Triumph]

Welker had the better season, but Moss was playing hurt.

Brady trust Welker and 9 times out of 10 they read the defense the same way. Brady screwed up in the 09 Denver game on a 3rd down when Welker ran a pattern that very well could have gone for a TD but Brady was thinking 1st down.

Welker keeps the chains moving and IIRC, had the most 1st downs. Without sustained drives you dont get the opportunity to throw the long ball to Moss.

 

[JoeSixPat]

I'm going with Welker if you hold a gun to my head

But we're comparing two very different receivers with two very different roles - and one needs to acknowlege that having Moss on the field opens up the game for Welker and having Welker on the field opens up the game for Moss.

So really, even though they're both WRs I almost consider it comparing two players at different positions.

 

[eagle eye]

Ints should not be included, there are many factors not including the receivers route or coverage that can result in an interception like a hurried pass, a spy read etc.

 

[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.

 

[Kontradiction]

Didn't the majority of interceptions on passes intended for Moss come about because Brady was under or overthrowing him, which was allowing the CB to make a better play on the ball? IMO, it was much harder to underthrow or overthrow Welker based on the routes he was running. That's why I don't think interceptions should be counted.

 

[Stokes]

I wanted to ask you guys in the main forum, but I'm about 100 posts short of being able to do so.

I'm using the passer rating formula to rank WR's (using catches, targets, and yards per target in place of completions, attempts, and yards per attempt) and have run into a problem when it comes to the INT stat. Interceptions can be counted (as passes intended for that particular receiver that were picked off), or they can be ignored.

I'm not sure if you want to use INTs as a stat for WRs for reasons others have mentioned. Have you considered using drops in place of INTs? Seems like that's something entirely in the WR's control as opposed to INTs. The QB is ultimately responsible for all INTs because the ball is leaving his hand, and the decision to throw was his. The WR doesn't make the decision, and sometimes it can be his fault (mis-running a route, not turning around, knocking the ball up over the middle, etc), but sometimes he has nothing to do with it (over/underthrow, QB doesn't see safety/LB, QB confused about hot route being run, etc). A drop is a drop and its 100% on the WR. Just a thought. BTW from the stats I saw Welker had 6 drops in '09 and Moss had 7, but I'm not sure if those are accurate.

At any rate it is an interesting analysis to think about, good luck!

 

[Sciz]

The QB is responsible for all INTs. Except ones that bounce off Ben Watson's hands.

 

[Patspsycho]

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]

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.