Where do the Pats WR's rank relative to the NFL?

[Krazy Koz]

here I found some stuff http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/wr.php

WIDE RECEIVERS 2006
Regular season totals, playoffs not included
Revised as of 1/1/2007

Wide receivers are ranked according to DPAR, or Defense-adjusted Points Above Replacement. This number represents the total number of points scored due to plays where this WR caught the ball, compared to a replacement-level WR in the same game situations. DPAR (and its cousin, PAR, which isn't adjusted based on opponent) is further explained here.

The other statistic given is DVOA, or Defense-adjusted Value Over Average. This number represents value, per play, over an average WR in the same game situations. The more positive the DVOA rating, the better the player's performance. DVOA (and its cousin, VOA, which isn't adjusted based on opponent) is further explained here.

DPAR and DVOA include all passes intended for the receiver, both complete and incomplete. Catch % represents the percentage of passes to this receiver completed. This is a reference to incomplete passes, not dropped passes: dropped passes are not specified in publicly available play-by-play, and unfortunately we cannot yet correct for this.

* We cannot yet fully separate the performance of a receiver from the performance of his quarterback. Be aware that one will affect the other.
* These statistics measure only passes thrown to a receiver, not performance on plays when he is not thrown the ball, such as blocking and drawing double teams.
* "Points scored due to plays" is based on a larger model of how yards are translated into points, and is not a measurement strictly of touchdown passes.
* All fumbles are considered equal, whether recovered by the offense or defense.

 

[makewayhomer]

Would you mind explaining what the numbers mean to some extent. From someone on the outside, it seems like you just listed 9 groups of player/team with some numbers on the end with no perameters or other information to form our own opinion. It sounds like this info could be helpful. thanks for posting.

Koz,
Sorry I should have explained. maybe I should start another thread to discuss it, since it's really a larger issue.

Short issue: DPAR attempts to isolate a players performance, and rank it relative to the fictional "replacement" player. this is how value is judged.

for a long answer, see here

http://footballoutsiders.com/methods.php#dpar

now, I think for individual stats, DPAR is not perfect, but is better than traditional stats like receptions and TD's. I think as a team stat DPAR is much better

 

[patchick]

this is the best tandems in the league, as ranked by DPAR. I don't know if you guys visit footballoutsiders.com but they do some awesome stuff there. it's basically SABR metrics for football. Now, this analysis is much newer for football than it is for baseball, so you need to take some stuff with a grain of salt.

maybe I'll start another thread to discuss their work. anywho, here is their list of teams with 2 WR's who were each top 30 last year...

Thanks, interesting list. Of course, the criterion (2+ in top 30) by definition yields less than half the league! But looking at the full chart you recommended, and projecting Gaffney and Washington's numbers to a fuller season, then based on last year the Patriots have 3 guys in the #2 starter range (30-50) and two more in the borderline starter range (60-70)...but none in the solid #1 starter range (<20).

 

[Krazy Koz]

Koz,
Sorry I should have explained. maybe I should start another thread to discuss it, since it's really a larger issue.

Short issue: DPAR attempts to isolate a players performance, and rank it relative to the fictional "replacement" player. this is how value is judged.

for a long answer, see here

http://footballoutsiders.com/methods.php#dpar

now, I think for individual stats, DPAR is not perfect, but is better than traditional stats like receptions and TD's. I think as a team stat DPAR is much better

thanks for the additional info.

Here are some stats for our WR's sorry for the sloppyness the format makes it this way

Min = 50 passes
Player / Team / DPAR / DPAR Rank / PAR / PAR Rank / DVOA / DVOA Rank / VOA / Passes / Yards / TD / Catch %

87-R.Caldwell / NE / 15.7 / 32 / 12.7 / 37 / 9.4% / 32 / 4.1% / 102 / 767 / 4 / 60%

18-D.Stallworth / PHI / 12.3 / 39 / 13.6 / 33 / 7.4% / 35 / 10.4% / 78 / 725 / 5 / 49%

83-W.Welker / MIA / 9.6 / 46 / 8.9 / 52 / 0.1% / 47 / -1.2% / 100 / 687 / 1 / 67%

80-T.Brown / NE / 4.2 / 61 / 3.1 / 65 / -6.3% / 59 / -9.0% / 76 / 386 / 4 / 58%


10 - 49 passes
Player / Team / DPAR / PAR / DVOA / VOA / Passes / Yards / TD / Catch
%

17-C.Jackson / NE / 4.9 / 4.2 / 23.5% / 17.1% / 19 / 152 / 3 / 68%

85-D.Gabriel / NE / 4.1 / 2.9 / -1.2% / -5.7% / 47 / 344 / 3 / 53%

87-K.Washington / CIN / 4.3 / 4.6 / 36.6% / 40.9% / 12 / 115 / 1 / 75%

10-J.Gaffney / NE / 3.1 / 2.6 / 8.5% / 4.3% / 20 / 142 / 1 / 55%

 

[patsox23]

makewayhomer, welcome aboard. Helluva first thread.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

If you want depth, we probably have the best with all our WR could be average starters. Most teams have 2 or 3 good to great WR while we have 6 average receivers and one good WR.[/QUOTE}

thanks for the analysis from football outsiders above. their analytics are great. and welcome to the board.

 

[frankiesfly]

Comparing us to other teams i think we have the 3rd best recieving group in the AFC, behing the Colts and Cincy.

 

[drpatriot]

If we take the average of the DPAR and DVOA for every receiver now on our team, we have an average of 6.45 DPAR and 16.12% DVOA. A receiver with those numbers would be ranked #57 in DPAR and #17 in DVOA.

If I understand the system correctly, this is relatively good news because it says that the receivers we have on our roster aren't used very often, but are effective when they are used. Perhaps with more opportunities here, one or two will perform better.

 

[frankiesfly]

Comparing us to other teams i think we have the 3rd best recieving group in the AFC, behind the Colts and Cincy.

 

[stinkypete]

I'd say our top 2-3 guys put us in the middle of the pack, while our full unit is top 10 in the NFL.

There are some unknowns here. Washington is mainly unrealized potential here, while Stallworth is at best an above-average starter. Where our WR corps could shine is its depth, where we have 4 guys who could all make a case for starting on severall teams.

Also, we now have a group of players that all fit a role in the offense, a deep threat, pesky slot reciever, a blocker/big body, and two middle of the field Givens types. Plus, we have Jackson, who could develop into either the deep threat role or the big body/red zone role if he gets it together.

 

[makewayhomer]

I'd say our top 2-3 guys put us in the middle of the pack, while our full unit is top 10 in the NFL.

There are some unknowns here. Washington is mainly unrealized potential here, while Stallworth is at best an above-average starter. Where our WR corps could shine is its depth, where we have 4 guys who could all make a case for starting on severall teams.

Also, we now have a group of players that all fit a role in the offense, a deep threat, pesky slot reciever, a blocker/big body, and two middle of the field Givens types. Plus, we have Jackson, who could develop into either the deep threat role or the big body/red zone role if he gets it together.

I think in general, some people are overrating the 'depth' we have. depth is relatively easy to come by at WR.

Gaffney was on the street last year. Washington was had for a bucket of golf balls, he's done very little. Caldwell was a cheap UFA. even Welker came cheap. those are 4 of the guys who constitute our awesome depth

point is, many or all teams could have had these guys. it's finding the studs that is the hard part. 'depth' with middle of the road #3/ #4 types is the easy part....there isn't much difference between our #4 and #5 WR's and anybody else's #4 and #5 WR's. I think people are just excited b/c they are new.

now, all that said, I do think we've gone from a below average unit to an average unit. but as of now, it's not a "+" unit.