Aaron Dobson

[TommyD4207]

Dobson's had 2 drops in 12 targets over three games. I think this "Dropson" nonsense is unwarranted.

Incidentally, his catch percentage is better than Edelman's.

This is a true story. Edelman drops plenty. But if you get 36 targets a game, they're easy to overlook.

 

[Deus Irae]

Dobson's had 2 drops in 12 targets over three games. I think this "Dropson" nonsense is unwarranted.

Incidentally, his catch percentage is better than Edelman's.

Watch the games. Using the 'official' drops stat is a waste of time, because they don't tally them with anything near an appropriate method.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Dobson's had 2 drops in 12 targets over three games. I think this "Dropson" nonsense is unwarranted.

Incidentally, his catch percentage is better than Edelman's.

2 drops in 12 targets isn't good. It's pretty bad.

Also, Edelman has twice as many drops (4), but in 3.5x as many targets (42) and over 3x as many catches, so his drops as a percentage of both targets and catches are considerably better than Dobsons, and in a larger sample size for good measure. None of which accounts for the fact that Edelman is being asked to make more difficult catches.

And that all requires taking drop numbers as gospel, which I don't, since I maintain that some of the drops that have been credited to Edelman weren't really drops. I can overlook an occasional drop from Edelman considering that he reliably makes difficult catches every week.

 

[Deus Irae]

And that all requires taking drop numbers as gospel, which I don't, since I maintain that some of the drops that have been credited to Edelman weren't really drops. I can overlook an occasional drop from Edelman considering that he reliably makes difficult catches every week.

I really hate the 'official' drops stat. It ignores so many passes that should be rated as drops that it's worse than useless, because it ends up offering a completely distorted view of things.

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

Dobson is the worst pass rusher we have.

 

[Oswlek]

I finally got to see the DPI this morning, I agree it should have been caught. At first glance it appeared that the contact impeded the catch, but another angle made it clear that Dobson had the ball tucked with both arms around it. Not only is he expected to hold on, I can't tell how he let the thing squirt out.

Anyone got a gif of the other drop? I still haven't seen that one.

 

[rexxar]

Dobson is the worst pass rusher we have.

No worse than #12

 

[PlainOldEd]

No worse than #12

If #12 decided he wanted to rush the passer he'd probably have 20 sacks this season. Remember Superman wears Tom Brady pajamas.

 

[meatface]

Yes, essentially. We're talking about NFL receivers here. Catching most of the catchable passes thrown your way is the norm. It's not a remarkable accomplishment, it's what he's supposed to do. If he does what he's supposed to do sometimes, and doesn't do what he's supposed to most of the time, that doesn't even out. One doesn't erase the other. It means that he's unreliable and can't consistently do what's expected of him.

This argument is like pointing to an OL who's constantly getting beaten and saying "but there are some games where he doesn't give up any sacks! Does that mean nothing?"

If you do a terrible job and **** up horribly at work tomorrow, will your boss be fine with it because you didn't **** up too badly yesterday and that evens out somehow?

With that logic though, shouldn't you just cut any player who has a bad game? Would you have benched Brady after his KC game?
Dobson has 9 receptions on 12 targats 75%
Edelman 30 receptions on 42 targets 71%
Amendola 8 receptions on 10 targets 80 %
Gronk 16 receptions on 28 targets 57%
Chandler 6 receptions on 8 targets 75%

So clearly Edelman, Gronk and Dobson need to be benched for Amendola and Chandler.
But even with your logic, yeah you need to take into account the whole performance; a player isn't one game or two, he is his entire body of work. Do you need to expect a RB to have 4 YPC and any player who has anything less than that in a game should be cut immediately, no that would be stupid.

 

[Gumby]

Well, looking at the film, at least one drop charged to Dobson (per the nfl text line under broadcast-is that official/final?) was a throw away by TB.View attachment 10677

 

[LJRomanoff]

Well, looking at the film, at least one drop charged to Dobson (per the nfl text line under broadcast-is that official/final?) was a throw away by TB.View attachment 10677

Incompletions and drops aren't the same. Dobson has been targeted 12 times, caught 9, dropped 2 - leaving one non-drop incompletion.

 

[BradyFTW!]

With that logic though, shouldn't you just cut any player who has a bad game? Would you have benched Brady after his KC game?
Dobson has 9 receptions on 12 targats 75%
Edelman 30 receptions on 42 targets 71%
Amendola 8 receptions on 10 targets 80 %
Gronk 16 receptions on 28 targets 57%
Chandler 6 receptions on 8 targets 75%

So clearly Edelman, Gronk and Dobson need to be benched for Amendola and Chandler.
But even with your logic, yeah you need to take into account the whole performance; a player isn't one game or two, he is his entire body of work. Do you need to expect a RB to have 4 YPC and any player who has anything less than that in a game should be cut immediately, no that would be stupid.

... no, that's not even remotely what I said. Maybe you need to go back and reread my post, because this is a bunch of nonsense that has literally no bearing at all on anything I wrote. And the implicit equivalency in targets here makes this kind of fourth-grade 'analysis' worse than useless. It's actively misleading, by suggesting such asinine conclusions as "apparently Chandler has better hands than Gronk".

Nobody in this thread has at any point claimed that one bad game is a benchworthy offense, or that the receiver depth chart should be ranked according to reception/target ratio. Trying to distort the many arguments against your point into such an obvious straw man is awfully disingenuous of you.

Everyone has bad games from time to time. Dobson has had a bad career with occasional blips of competence. Those small blips don't cancel out the many unremarkable-to-bad weeks that surround them. If you insist on being unable to distinguish between the two, then I don't think I can help you.

 

[Gumby]

The PI call looks like a bad catch by Dobson. He had it in his bread basket and let the defender reach in afterwards and knock it away (didn't cover it up-secure it enough). But it got covered up by the PI call, which I'm not sure we would get week in- week out on that same exact play.

 

[Gumby]

The snips I could get of the goal line drop were not terribly conclusive. Coaches film was best view as it gave a end zone replay, but quality bad so he appears fuzzy and hard to see hand-ball position. But IMO ball is, only slightly behind, very catchable and he is not really being hit/grabbed by defender, but looks like he might have left his feet (jumped) trying to catch the ball for some reason.




All in all, the film snips are not terribly optimistic for Dobson. To meet his potential, he has to hold onto those.

 

[meatface]

... no, that's not even remotely what I said. Maybe you need to go back and reread my post, because this is a bunch of nonsense that has literally no bearing at all on anything I wrote.

Nobody in this thread has at any point claimed that one bad game is a benchworthy offense, or that the receiver depth chart should be ranked according to reception/target ratio. Trying to distort the many arguments against your point into such an obvious straw man is awfully disingenuous of you.

Everyone has bad games from time to time. Dobson has had a bad career with occasional blips of competence. If you insist on being unable to distinguish between the two, then I don't think I can help you.

you are right, there is certainly no chance that someone can improve. Someone like edelman is a perfect example of a guy whose numbers from his early years dont jump out at you but he improved and obviously turned into a very good player.
You seem to be saying that because he has been inconsistent or in your view just bad then he will always be bad. I just dont see why you are rushing to judgment on this season when we really havent seen enough to say anything about it, the one time dobson got used significantly in the passing game he had a good game but now that he didnt make a catch on a call in which he got a PI call he is a bust.

 

[Deus Irae]

All in all, the film snips are not terribly optimistic for Dobson. To meet his potential, he has to hold onto those.

Indeed

Both balls should have been caught. Dobson probably wouldn't even be on this team if he weren't a former second round pick. Being that former second round pick won't protect him forever, though. If he's not going to knock it off with the double clutches and drops, he might want to talk to a certain former DE about getting those incriminating photos...

 

[TheFlyingWedge]

I think NOT... Lafell and Dobson are the only Big Spilt Ends that the Pats have, versus all the other small quick, smurf receivers.

Keshawn Martin, although not "Big", shared playing time with Dobson at the "X" or "SE" position last Sunday and was ok. I think Dobson realizes that he is on the hot seat to pull it together as he's losing playing time to a guy who most people thought was just here for special teams. When LaFell is back on the field, Dobson will be back on the bench, or maybe in street clothes.

 

[HawaiianPatsfan]

... no, that's not even remotely what I said. Maybe you need to go back and reread my post, because this is a bunch of nonsense that has literally no bearing at all on anything I wrote. And the implicit equivalency in targets here makes this kind of fourth-grade 'analysis' worse than useless. It's actively misleading, by suggesting such asinine conclusions as "apparently Chandler has better hands than Gronk".

Nobody in this thread has at any point claimed that one bad game is a benchworthy offense, or that the receiver depth chart should be ranked according to reception/target ratio. Trying to distort the many arguments against your point into such an obvious straw man is awfully disingenuous of you.

Everyone has bad games from time to time. Dobson has had a bad career with occasional blips of competence. Those small blips don't cancel out the many unremarkable-to-bad weeks that surround them. If you insist on being unable to distinguish between the two, then I don't think I can help you.

Amen.

Best not to argue with the clueless

 

[1960Pats]

Dobson's had 2 drops in 12 targets over three games. I think this "Dropson" nonsense is unwarranted.

Incidentally, his catch percentage is better than Edelman's.

He could be called Dropson for the way he drops to the ground with every catch he makes near a defender.

I don't follow college ball yet, but I thought the word on him was that he had good hands. I haven't seen that from him in the NFL. That makes me think that he's afraid of the contact.

 

[1960Pats]

If #12 decided he wanted to rush the passer he'd probably have 20 sacks this season. Remember Superman wears Tom Brady pajamas.

When Google can't find something it asks Tom Brady for help.

Tom Brady CAN teach an old dog new tricks.

When Tom Brady feels a breeze it's not the wind, it's just the air getting out of his way.