zippo59 said:
No, it's the fact that he has put up comparable numbers to Branch.
I don't know if you are familiar with a site called Footballoutsiders.com, but their game charting says there is a large gap between Branch and Stalworth.
Here are the WR rankings for
2005
2004
2003
I will point out a few highlights if some of this doesn't make sense.
* In the three years listed Stalworth never caught more than 55% of catchable passes, with his worst year at 45%. Branch by comparison was at 55% at his worst year and 69% and 63% in the other two. Over 60% is the mark of a good receiver.
* The rankings are in DPAR, which is their way of saying how effective was this receiver per play times the number of plays. A great receiver who missed most of the year would grade out below a good receiver who played the whole season by this metric. The have another column called DVOA, this is just the per play metric, so it says how valuable someone was while they were on the field. According to DVOA, if you grade out at 0, it means that you are an average receiver. Due to the fact that both receivers have mssed games, I will just look at DVOA.
Stalworth
2003 1.4
2004 (-)1
2005 3.7
Branch
2003 23.3
2004 36.2
2005 19.5
So, Stalworth has been essentially a league average receiver over the past three years. Branch has been near the top 15 in DVOA for starting WRs. You will see a 65 on DVOA for guys that only get into 25-30 plays over the course of the season, but typically the top starter will be around 40.
Branch is much, much better than Stalworth. The comparison is silly, really.
BTW, I don't always agree with the
opinions of footballoutsiders. For instance, they just had an article listing NEs coaching staff as the 8th best in the league, falling behind such powerhouse staffs of Cincy and Indy. That said, their stats are usually quite accurate.