Chad Jackson in the playoffs

[belichickaholic]

All I know is that it was fun to watch him last week. Even if it was just a few plays. I hope we get to see more of him because when you watch him, he certainly looks like a can't miss kid.

 

[RayClay]

* Frankly Nemo, I think Jabar is past the age of growing and he isn't getting any bigger I think we have to put the Patriots WR's in perspective. Like my perspective. None of them were widely sought after by other teams when the Patriots signed them. There has to be a reason for that. Every team doesn't have Matt Millen as GM Caldwell's nay have been partly because he never played a whole season. And 3 are played at Florida - 4 with Jackson counted. I would guess on average every team has 2 WR's better than Caldwell, Gaffney and Kight. Some teams have 3 some may only have 1 better I wouldn't put Caldwell, who's done the best of the Patriots WR's, in the top 40 WR'S, would you? He's tied for 40th in catches and 40 in yards, but I think even that's inflated because the Pats don't have a real #1 WR or anyone doing better to go to consistently. Gaffney may not be in the top 60. Kight even lower maybe.
And Florida WR's can't run slants -

Neither was David Patten. Or Troy Brown, for that matter.

Actually Givens wasn't even our first 7th round pick. I forgot Branch, 64th pick? How many receivers were picked before him?

I guess none of our starting receivers were widely sought after by other teams.

Well, there's your perspective.

 

[Kasmir]

* I would guess on average every team has 2 WR's better than Caldwell, Gaffney and Kight. Some teams have 3 some may only have 1 better I wouldn't put Caldwell, who's done the best of the Patriots WR's, in the top 40 WR'S, would you? He's tied for 40th in catches and 40 in yards, but I think even that's inflated because the Pats don't have a real #1 WR or anyone doing better to go to consistently. Gaffney may not be in the top 60. Kight even lower maybe.
And Florida WR's can't run slants -

Folks may be tired of my intercessions on Caldwell's behalf, but maybe one more time given that the final stats are out

Caldwell finished 32nd ranked in both DPAR and DVOA (+9.4%). With 32 teams starting 64 WRs, teams obviously cannot average having 2 WR's better than #32.

At #32, you can consider Caldwell a terrible #1 receiver -- or a good #2. I think Caldwell will be a quality #2 or a great #3 next year.

It's a good question on whether Caldwell would have done better or worse if there were a true #1 on the team with him. You would expect his total productivity (DPAR) to go down, because he would get less attempts, but you would also expect his performance per attempt to go up, as measured by DVOA, as a true #1 would draw the best coverage away.

There's actually some evidence that there is productivity synergy between two good receivers; notice that Harrison and Wayne are #1 and #2 in both DVOA and DPAR, and Houshmandzadeh and C. Johnson are #4 and #5 in both. So I would certainly have expected Caldwell's per play performance (DVOA) to go up if (say) Branch had stayed, and it's possible his total productivity (DPAR) might have increased as well.

What is certain is that Caldwell has gotten little help from his fellow receivers this year.

Troy Brown finished with a 59th DVOA rank of -6.3%, i.e. below a bench scrub. Doug Gabriel was a -1.2% when he was here. Gaffney has been more promising, he is unranked but has slightly lower DVOA (+8.5%) than Caldwell. Last year at Houston he was terrible, 74th ranked in DVOA at -13.1%. Kight doesn't even have stats at FO. Watson and Graham both had negative DVOA (-2.5% and -3.6%).

Dave Thomas was the bright spot, with a +46.2% DVOA, regrettably on only 16 attempts (Gonzales led the league at +36.9%). Thomas had too few attempts to help Caldwell much during the course of the year, but speculatively, his incredible game vs Jax might have helped free Caldwell up against Tenn.

Our running backs clearly did well: Faulk was 11th ranked (+19.0%) in receiving DVOA, Maroney 16th (+12.5%). Dillon had only 16 receiving attempts, but finished with a DVOA of +23.8%. I would expect WR synergies with RB's to be less direct than with other WR's and TE's, because of the different patterns run, but Faulk at least was split out like a WR many times.

Our best WR by far in DVOA was Chad Jackson, at a DVOA of 23.5%! He was only thrown to 19 times, but if he had maintained that performance for 31 more attempts, he'd have been the 3rd ranked WR in the NFL, behind only Harrison and Wayne, and slightly ahead of Lee Evans (probably the best WR in the NFL this year, given who was throwing to him, and the lack of other receiving talent on that team).

Obviously players with limited attempts may have success out of sheer luck or because they don't yet demand defensive attention, and you'd expect regression to the NFL mean with more attempts, but it's still a lot better to see excellent performance in limited appearances than not. So there is indeed reason for hope for Jackson as well as Dave Thomas.

The mystery is why we don't use them more.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/wr.php
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/wr2005.php

 

[VJCPatriot]

Nice stastitical breakdown. Thanks for taking the time to look up the numbers. I know that it's mostly thankless work. I too have hopes that Thomas and Chad Jackson will contribute more. And I've been saying for a few weeks now that Caldwell has quietly become the Pats best receiver. These numbers seem to bear out those hopes and thoughts.

But those numbers go out the window once we get to the postseason. We are now facing the best of the best. And all our players, particularly our wideouts will need to raise their game to the next level. Let's hope we see at least one breakthrough performance by a Pats player against the Jets. We'll need it I'm sure.

 

[Robdude]

Clearly Chad has tons of physical tools. If he is lining up as the 4th, 5th, or 6th receiver I would think the opponents are going to have a hard time finding someone big/strong enough to cover him in certain situations.

The real question is this: If he lines up as the 6th receiver on the field who will throw to him?

 

[VJCPatriot]

LOL. Good point. I think maybe Troy Brown? We've used him on trick plays before right?

 

[Brownfan80]

LOL. Good point. I think maybe Troy Brown? We've used him on trick plays before right?

Bingo, we've got Bingo again!

 

[BradyManny]

Those stats are interesting - in limited time, Jackson was productive, but again, it was a limited sample.

Let me use this area to reiterate once again that the "he needs to earn his playing time in practice" is a catch-22. I think some fans might not realize this if they haven't played sports or are far removed from having played sports, but you can only learn so much in practice.

A basketball player can fine tune his jump shot in practice - a golfer can work on his sand game in practice - a baseball player can work on hitting in the cage - but at some point, in order for a player to really maximize their potential they need playing time. They need the actual game, the real deal, to get better. Period, there is no arguing this point.

Take the recent success of Papelbon, Gerald Green or Big Al - now, the problem is, in football, you don't have the luxury of a 162 or an 82 game season where you have that ability to let a youngster grow.

Point is, if Bill Belichick wanted Chad Jackson to reach his potential this season, he would've given him more playing time. BB doesn't see the rush that many fans do - and I'm sure BB will find spots in the playoffs to take advantage of Jackson's raw talents which far exceed any other receiver on the team in terms of speed, size & hands. But, as for are we going to see Jackson replace Gaffney or Kight...unfortunately no is what I would tend to believe.

 

[PatsSteve1]

Neither was David Patten. Or Troy Brown, for that matter.

Actually Givens wasn't even our first 7th round pick. I forgot Branch, 64th pick? How many receivers were picked before him?

I guess none of our starting receivers were widely sought after by other teams.

Well, there's your perspective.

* Patten, Givens and Branch all were obviously sought after by other teams. One reason they still aren't Patriots. There's your perspective.

 

[PatsSteve1]

Folks may be tired of my intercessions on Caldwell's behalf, but maybe one more time given that the final stats are out

Caldwell finished 32nd ranked in both DPAR and DVOA (+9.4%). With 32 teams starting 64 WRs, teams obviously cannot average having 2 WR's better than #32.

At #32, you can consider Caldwell a terrible #1 receiver -- or a good #2. I think Caldwell will be a quality #2 or a great #3 next year.

* I really don't care that much about his stats. They are for MLB fans and fantasy players. Caldwell does not get good seperation against a decent m2m corner. It's not difficult when at a game to see his struggles to get open most plays. Mayeb on YV you can't see that. Where do you think he'd rank as a WR?

 

[PatsSteve1]

At #32, you can consider Caldwell a terrible #1 receiver -- or a good #2. I think Caldwell will be a quality #2 or a great #3 next year.

* I should have read the post a little better. I have a tendency to see stats
and mostly ignore them - I agree Caldwell makes a good #3 WR and maybe even a decent #2 if the #1 is really good. But that's my whole point. If he's just a decent #2 or good #3 then what are Gaffney and Kight? I know someone's going to reply that in 2001 we had ....., and 2003 whatever......
My reply was to Nemo about Gaffney, not about comparing 2006 WR's to another year or if thier good enough to win or anything else someone wants to try to make of it.

 

[spacecrime]

I gotta be honest, I am disappointed in Gaffney so far.

Are you dissapointed because he is dropping passes thrown his way, or dissappointed in him because he is not playing a lot of snaps?

 

[RayClay]

* Patten, Givens and Branch all were obviously sought after by other teams. One reason they still aren't Patriots. There's your perspective.

I think you misunderstood. The poster said Caldwell and Gaffney couldn't have been any good because they were available to us in free agency. Not high draft picks, not expensive free agents.

I just pointed out none of our receivers were highly sought after when we acquired them.

Of course they were after success with us, but that's not what was being compared.

 

[BradyManny]

Are you dissapointed because he is dropping passes thrown his way, or dissappointed in him because he is not playing a lot of snaps?

Wideouts are going to drop passes, that doesn't bother me. He's only dropped a couple and has made some good plays when he is in there. But he hasn't been in there all that much.

All of the above could apply to Chad Jackson, I guess I was expecting more from Gaffney with 4 years of solid play.

You could say "well, why don't they get more snaps" and someone will reply with "they haven't earned the snaps" and I'd reply with "they'll get better if they have more snaps" and it's a vicious endless cycle. The bottom line is I think our offense is much more explosive if Chad Jackson is on the field instead of Kelvin Kight - especially if teams are going to put 8 in the box, we know that if CJ gets man, he's got the physical ability to beat that man.

Whatever anybody says about CJ this season, I bet if you statiscally went through and looked at all the plays CJ is in on, good things have always happened when he is in the game. Mostly, I think his lack of PT is a lack of trust and time practiced - in a system based so much on timing, recognition & adjustments - trust is the most important thing for a QB.

In the end, you gotta trust BB and TB, they've both earned free passes for life. Literally, these guys could start torturing small animals and I'd find a way to defend it. I'm sure whatever BB decides to do regarding CJ and Gaffney's snaps is right, but simply as a spectator, yeah, you'd like to see Jackson - and Gaffney - out there.

 

[Kasmir]

Whatever anybody says about CJ this season, I bet if you statiscally went through and looked at all the plays CJ is in on, good things have always happened when he is in the game. Mostly, I think his lack of PT is a lack of trust and time practiced - in a system based so much on timing, recognition & adjustments - trust is the most important thing for a QB

Her, I already did this for you, earlier in this thread as a matter of fact:

Our best WR by far in DVOA was Chad Jackson, at a DVOA of 23.5%! He was only thrown to 19 times, but if he had maintained that performance for 31 more attempts, he'd have been the 3rd ranked WR in the NFL, behind only Harrison and Wayne, and slightly ahead of Lee Evans (probably the best WR in the NFL this year, given who was throwing to him, and the lack of other receiving talent on that team).

 

[BradyManny]

I already did this for you, earlier in this thread as a matter of fact:

Yup, great stats & info, thanks for the lookout :rocker:

I also think that if those stats took into account plays that Jackson was merely in on you'd see an even higher success rate (ie, the 62 yard Caldwell bomb happened while Jackson was in.) I believe those stats are only on passes thrown his way, correct?

 

[Oswlek]

Those stats are interesting - in limited time, Jackson was productive, but again, it was a limited sample.

Let me use this area to reiterate once again that the "he needs to earn his playing time in practice" is a catch-22. I think some fans might not realize this if they haven't played sports or are far removed from having played sports, but you can only learn so much in practice.

A basketball player can fine tune his jump shot in practice - a golfer can work on his sand game in practice - a baseball player can work on hitting in the cage - but at some point, in order for a player to really maximize their potential they need playing time. They need the actual game, the real deal, to get better. Period, there is no arguing this point.

Take the recent success of Papelbon, Gerald Green or Big Al - now, the problem is, in football, you don't have the luxury of a 162 or an 82 game season where you have that ability to let a youngster grow.

Point is, if Bill Belichick wanted Chad Jackson to reach his potential this season, he would've given him more playing time. BB doesn't see the rush that many fans do - and I'm sure BB will find spots in the playoffs to take advantage of Jackson's raw talents which far exceed any other receiver on the team in terms of speed, size & hands. But, as for are we going to see Jackson replace Gaffney or Kight...unfortunately no is what I would tend to believe.

Quoted for truth. Great post.

 

[Kasmir]

Yup, great stats & info, thanks for the lookout :rocker:

I also think that if those stats took into account plays that Jackson was merely in on you'd see an even higher success rate (ie, the 62 yard Caldwell bomb happened while Jackson was in.) I believe those stats are only on passes thrown his way, correct?

That's my understanding of Football Outsider's DVOA, yes. For passing plays, it measures success only on plays where a pass was attempted to the player.

As I said in another place, the mystery with Jackson so far is why Brady doesn't throw to him more often, given the success he's had when he does throw to him. Is he running poor routes, is he not getting open, or does Brady not trust him?

 

[BradyManny]

As I said in another place, the mystery with Jackson so far is why Brady doesn't throw to him more often, given the success he's had when he does throw to him. Is he running poor routes, is he not getting open, or does Brady not trust him?

Maybe a combination of all of the above - he hasn't run that many pass plays as of late and hasn't since the Bears game in which he did get open on a few deep routes.