Braylon Edwards will be the best WR in the division...

[dbatesman]

Also take into account the types of receivers. Welker has 10x the predictability with his hands that Edwards has. But even putting that aside, a guy who mostly runs 5-8 yard patterns is going to catch a higher percentage of his passes than a guy who goes on deeper routes far more frequently like Edwards (Edwards yards per reception are and have always been 50-60% higher than Welker's).

But note:

"Efficiency" in Cleveland went down after Edwards left.

Stuckey 45%, Massoquoi 36%, Robiskie 35%. Furrey was up at 59% and Cribbs 54% but those two only run 5 yard patterns (hardly comparable) and Stuckey not much more.

Randy Moss catch rate:

Oakland 2005: 48% (Collins)

Oakland 2006: 43% (Walter and Brooks)

New England 2007: 61% (Brady)

New England 2008: 55% (Cassel)

New England 2009: 61% (Brady)

No pattern to detect here.

Donte Stallworth catch rate:

New England 2007: 62% (Brady)

Cleveland 2008: 37% (Anderson-Dorsey-Quinn-Gradkowski)

No pattern to detect here either.

Brandon Stokley Indy 2005-2006: 70% (P.Manning)

Brandon Stokley Denver 2007-2008: 57% (Cutler)

Sensing anything?

Lee Evans is all over the map from year to year 60% to 49% to 62% to 46%. Does the guy only have good hands in even-numbered years and terrible hands in odd-numbered years, or did the percentage of catchable passes thrown to him simply vary based on the throws themselves?

Sidney Rice's "efficiency" jumped from 48% in '08 to 69% in '09. No one could have seen that coming as his QB went from Tavaris Jackson-Gus Frerotte to Brett Favre.

But sure, it has nothing to do with the QB.

This doesn't mean I don't think Edwards has some serious issues with dropping some easy passes because clearly he does. It just means that it's a stupid stat to assign too much weight to until the day comes when every player gets to play with similarly efficient and accurate QB's.

Don't remember saying catch rate was a consistent way to measure total performance.

I already said you can attribute catch rate to the QB. Once again: if you're going to do that, it doesn't exactly bode well for Edwards this season.

[Sperm Edwards]

Don't remember saying catch rate was a consistent way to measure total performance.

I already said you can attribute catch rate to the QB. Once again: if you're going to do that, it doesn't exactly bode well for Edwards this season.

I was attributing it to your comment of

Low catch rate doesn't necessarily mean the guy sucks, it means he makes your offense less efficient.

Does Randy Moss make an offense less efficient? Or do the numbers make it seem so when he has lousy and/or inaccurate QB's?

I would place more credence in that statistic if Derek Anderson's or Brady Quinn's completion percentage went way up with Edwards' departure. It went down in both cases. Quinn was 64% (50/77) the first 3+ games and 48% after Edwards was traded to the Jets. Derek Anderson's completion percentage dropped to 43% from week 5 onward.

There are other reasons, namely that both of them suck as did Cleveland's team as a whole. But the notion that it was Edwards that made the offense less efficient doesn't hold water. Those 2 crappy QB's were even crappier without him.

A player with a career ypc around 16 yards is going to catch a lower percentage of his passes than someone who runs possession-type routes. We may see more of it this year, but in the past Edwards wasn't asked to run too many quick slants that allow him to be the recipient of higher-percentage type throws. Basically it's analogous to blaming a short-yardage/goal-line back for having a lousy ypc.

I'm not giving Edwards a free pass (excuse the pun). Certainly not while he's dropping easy TD's. But in addition to being the recipient of a disproportionate percentage of low-efficiency deeper passes, here is the reality: Edwards has never played with a consistently accurate QB since he's been drafted.

[Larz]

edwards is what he is

a huge WR with deep speed who will face mask and easy bomb and then make a circus catch

that won't change I don't think

why don't we ever discuss keller or cotchery ?

those two are teh awesome

[SoFlaJets]

edwards is what he is

a huge WR with deep speed who will face mask and easy bomb and then make a circus catch

that won't change I don't think

why don't we ever discuss keller or cotchery ?

those two are teh awesome

the guys on Jets Nation are raving about Holmes now, saying he is the best route runner of all three and that Sanchez looks sharp

[SenorGato]

edwards is what he is

a huge WR with deep speed who will face mask and easy bomb and then make a circus catch

that won't change I don't think

why don't we ever discuss keller or cotchery ?

those two are teh awesome

The thing is that he's isn't. If he's on, he's a legit top WR with a prototype skillset.

[Bruce Banner]

The thing is that he's isn't. If he's on, he's a legit top WR with a prototype skillset.

YE2DCS1PnwU

In that whole season, when did a Jet WR have an easier catch?

[PatriotReign37]

The problem with a dumb stat like that is it assumes every pass thrown is equally catchable. A wobbly duck 10 yards off the mark or thrown out of bounds to avoid a pass rush is counted exactly the same as a perfectly thrown spiral right between the numbers. Any WR stat that weighs those two types of passes equally is not a stat worth paying attention to.

Edwards drops a lot of passes thrown right to him. Its been a common complaint about him ever since he was drafted.

Ask any Browns fan about that.

[PS17]

YE2DCS1PnwU

In that whole season, when did a Jet WR have an easier catch?

Ben Hartsock vs. the Titans?

[Aten]

Does Randy Moss make an offense less efficient? Or do the numbers make it seem so when he has lousy and/or inaccurate QB's?

Neither and both. What makes as offense inefficient is using Moss as though you have Tom Brady throwing to him when in fact you have a quarterback who is lousy and/or inaccurate. Take 2008. Moss became less productive because Cassel couldn't throw the deep ball as well as Brady. He became less efficient because they kept trying to bomb it out anyway. In any case, none of these fluctuations have any bearing on Braylon. He's always played with bad quarterbacks and he's never caught the ball well. If conditions hold he'll continue to be crap, and if Sanchez turns into a great quarterback, Braylon becomes an unaffordable luxury. You can pick and poke at the other side to your heart's content but there's zero takeaway to your argument.

[SenorGato]

Neither and both. What makes as offense inefficient is using Moss as though you have Tom Brady throwing to him when in fact you have a quarterback who is lousy and/or inaccurate. Take 2008. Moss became less productive because Cassel couldn't throw the deep ball as well as Brady. He became less efficient because they kept trying to bomb it out anyway. In any case, none of these fluctuations have any bearing on Braylon. He's always played with bad quarterbacks and he's never caught the ball well. If conditions hold he'll continue to be crap, and if Sanchez turns into a great quarterback, Braylon becomes an unaffordable luxury. You can pick and poke at the other side to your heart's content but there's zero takeaway to your argument.

That's not mutually exclusive. Also, considering he's playing with a pretty decent young QB (though I realize statistically he didn't look great and you really hold that close) I think conditions will change accordingly.

[Irish Jet]

Neither and both. What makes as offense inefficient is using Moss as though you have Tom Brady throwing to him when in fact you have a quarterback who is lousy and/or inaccurate. Take 2008. Moss became less productive because Cassel couldn't throw the deep ball as well as Brady. He became less efficient because they kept trying to bomb it out anyway. In any case, none of these fluctuations have any bearing on Braylon. He's always played with bad quarterbacks and he's never caught the ball well. If conditions hold he'll continue to be crap, and if Sanchez turns into a great quarterback, Braylon becomes an unaffordable luxury. You can pick and poke at the other side to your heart's content but there's zero takeaway to your argument.

Not possible.

[Larz]

Not possible.

ignore it

it is just trolling

[Sperm Edwards]

Edwards drops a lot of passes thrown right to him. Its been a common complaint about him ever since he was drafted.

Ask any Browns fan about that.

No, really?

The stat isn't about drops. Try reading.

Neither and both. What makes as offense inefficient is using Moss as though you have Tom Brady throwing to him when in fact you have a quarterback who is lousy and/or inaccurate. Take 2008. Moss became less productive because Cassel couldn't throw the deep ball as well as Brady. He became less efficient because they kept trying to bomb it out anyway. In any case, none of these fluctuations have any bearing on Braylon. He's always played with bad quarterbacks and he's never caught the ball well. If conditions hold he'll continue to be crap, and if Sanchez turns into a great quarterback, Braylon becomes an unaffordable luxury. You can pick and poke at the other side to your heart's content but there's zero takeaway to your argument.

Edwards has never played with an accurate QB. He may not be any more "efficient" if he had one (though that's pretty unlikely for anyone). But to claim he makes an offense less efficient is just nonsense and not supported by any silly Football Outsiders stat.

Edwards may show that he still drops stupidly easy catches that rip the heart out of the whole team. He may or may not prove to be worthy of an extension in general. But it isn't going to be because of a meaningless stat that counts a QB purposely throwing the ball out of bounds, or even just any horribly errant throw or one batted down at the LOS, as a legitimate WR target that counts the same as a perfectly-thrown pass.

It is a dumb statistic. Any statistic that shows Mike Thomas and Jason Avant measuring favorably to Larry Fitzgerald and Andre Johnson, by significant margins, is a statistic that isn't worth paying attention to for evaluative purposes.

[villain_the_foe]

In that whole season, when did a Jet WR have an easier catch?

I think that Braylon simply forgot his "Zen". lol

Nrk9I1jhJ9U

[Sperm Edwards]

I think that Braylon simply forgot his "Zen". lol

Nrk9I1jhJ9U

I think zen pills are now on the banned substances list. It's a damned conspiracy against the Jets.

[villain_the_foe]

I think zen pills are now on the banned substances list. It's a damned conspiracy against the Jets.

No more 5 hour energy for Braylon! lmao.

[Sperm Edwards]

No more 5 hour energy for Braylon! lmao.

Maybe we can just get him a pair of gloves made out of these:

[villain_the_foe]

Maybe we can just get him a pair of gloves made out of these:

lol. I remember those.

[Aten]

Edwards may show that he still drops stupidly easy catches that rip the heart out of the whole team. He may or may not prove to be worthy of an extension in general. But it isn't going to be because of a meaningless stat that counts a QB purposely throwing the ball out of bounds, or even just any horribly errant throw or one batted down at the LOS, as a legitimate WR target that counts the same as a perfectly-thrown pass.

Is on-base percentage meaningless because it counts a robbed home run the same as a strikeout?

It is a dumb statistic. Any statistic that shows Mike Thomas and Jason Avant measuring favorably to Larry Fitzgerald and Andre Johnson, by significant margins, is a statistic that isn't worth paying attention to for evaluative purposes.

It doesn't show Mike Thomas and Jason Avant measuring favorably to Larry Fitzgerald and Andre Johnson. It shows Mike Thomas and Jason Avant catching a larger percentage of the balls thrown their way than Larry Fitzgerald and Andre Johnson.

[SenorGato]

Is on-base percentage meaningless because it counts a robbed home run the same as a strikeout?

No, but OBP doesn't have two guys from the same team playing into the percentages either. Fact is, the QB probably has something to do with where, when, how, and even why the ball is thrown.

[Aten]

No, but OBP doesn't have two guys from the same team playing into the percentages either.

No. It has ten guys, nine on the same team, playing into the percentages, not to mention the random element of BABIP. Another evil number vanquished. Much rejoicing.

Fact is, the QB probably has something to do with where, when, how, and even why the ball is thrown.

And the receiver probably has something to do with whether said thrown ball is caught, so there's the quarterback's completion percentage out the window too. You know what you're left with once you've thrown out everything susceptible to reductio ad retard? Intangibles.

[JustInFudge]

Braylon was in Vegas this weekend. He bought my buddies shirt off his back for 100 bucks.

[Sperm Edwards]

Is on-base percentage meaningless because it counts a robbed home run the same as a strikeout?

It's the same thing. The hitter failed to hit safely because he didn't hit it well enough, whether he whiffs or hits it 1' over the wall and it's caught. If he hit it better it wouldn't be an out.

A WR who doesn't catch the ball because it's an errant throw 10' over his head is not able to do anything about it. No human has a 10' vertical so an errant throw is not the receiver's fault.

It doesn't show Mike Thomas and Jason Avant measuring favorably to Larry Fitzgerald and Andre Johnson. It shows Mike Thomas and Jason Avant catching a larger percentage of the balls thrown their way than Larry Fitzgerald and Andre Johnson.

You said Edwards makes an offense less efficient and used this statistic as your proof.

So going along with that logic, you must also believe that having Andre Johnson on your team makes the offense less efficient than if you had Jason Avant in his place. Therefore, in this instance (and using the very reasoning you used re Edwards), Jason Avant measures favorably to arguably the two best WR's in the game.

This is beyond ridiculous, so using that same stat to "prove" the same regarding Edwards makes equally little sense. If you have to rationalize your way through it, just skip the middle-man and ignore the stat altogether. We all have eyes and we all know Edwards drops some joke-easy passes. That's enough without this worthless stat from FO.

[SenorGato]

No. It has ten guys, nine on the same team, playing into the percentages, not to mention the random element of BABIP. Another evil number vanquished. Much rejoicing.

I don't believe BABIP to be random at all. Hit the ball harder and you'll see your BABIP go up.

As far as numbers being "evil"...whatever you say. I disagree and I've always been interested in the numbers games in sports...That said, catch rate is a cheap stat at best and even FO admits that there is a huge hole in the stat because of QB influence. The throwing in football isn't pitcher (QB) against batter (WR)....it's pitcher TO batter, and a better QB should theoretically be able to increase his WRs average. Even in Anderson's decent '07 season he couldn't complete more than 57% of his passes (league average in '07 was 61%). Watching and making note of Anderson that year I said many times that he was a fluke...he's easy to scare, he threw bullets when he didn't need to, he often threw behind his receivers...and that was the best QB play Edwards has ever had in his career.

WRs obviously play a part in whether they catch the ball, but fact is that offenses work as a unit and if the head unit (the QB) is inefficient by nature, then the offense will be so also.

Catch rate probably has it's value, but you clearly haven't found it and neither have I. It's just a number without context the way you're using it, and that really doesn't mean anything. It's actually kind of hacky coming from you Aten...you always paint yourself as much smarter than this.

[Aten]

It's the same thing. The hitter failed to hit safely because he didn't hit it well enough, whether he whiffs or hits it 1' over the wall and it's caught. If he hit it better it wouldn't be an out.

Nonstarter. Park dimensions. Exact same ball's a homer in one place and an out in another. I shoulda done this sooner. The moron side is a lot easier to argue.

[Aten]

As far as numbers being "evil"...whatever you say. I disagree and I've always been interested in the numbers games in sports...

That's nice. I'm interested in lots of things I don't understand.

That said, catch rate is a cheap stat at best and even FO admits that there is a huge hole in the stat because of QB influence. The throwing in football isn't pitcher (QB) against batter (WR)....it's pitcher TO batter, and a better QB should theoretically be able to increase his WRs average. Even in Anderson's decent '07 season he couldn't complete more than 57% of his passes (league average in '07 was 61%). Watching and making note of Anderson that year I said many times that he was a fluke...he's easy to scare, he threw bullets when he didn't need to, he often threw behind his receivers...and that was the best QB play Edwards has ever had in his career.

Of course it's a cheap stat. Of course there's a hole. It's a one-variable analysis. There is, however, a difference between saying that a stat isn't perfect and doesn't give you the entire picture and saying that the measure is so imperfect as to warrant reversing the conclusion entirely. Catch rate doesn't claim to accurately measure the degree Braylon's suckitude, but that doesn't mean it's wrong that he sucks. There are other factors that go into Braylon converting a low percentage of his chances besides his being bad at catching the ball, but that doesn't = throw him the ball more. Take the above, flip it, cap with '...and that was the best WR play Anderson has ever had in his career.' Bullish on Anderson now? Of course not.

[Sperm Edwards]

Nonstarter. Park dimensions. Exact same ball's a homer in one place and an out in another. I shoulda done this sooner. The moron side is a lot easier to argue.

A hitter can adjust his swing, open or close his stance, etc. He can also just hit it better. There is still plenty of field over which to hit the ball safely.

A receiver cannot make himself 14 feet tall.

It is not the same thing.

Being on FO doesn't instantly give credibility to everything on their website. The stat is dumb to use to evaluate WR's on an individual basis.

Where it could be useful is to evaluate an entire passing offense as a whole, which - to an extent - can collectively evaluate the combined efforts of the passer, the receivers, the protection, the coaching, and the playcalling.

A stat that shows mediocre to below-average WR's superior - in ANY way - to the likes of Fitzgerald and Andre Johnson has no value in evaluating WR ability or the "efficiency" of an offense with said receivers.

Are you sleeping with one of the FO guys that this troubles you so much? This website was started on something along those lines so it's all good. I'm just nosy is all.

[Aten]

It is not the same thing.

On-base percentage is the proportion of a hitter's plate appearances in which he reaches base. It is a function of his ability and of other things. Catch rate is the proportion of a receiver's targets in which he makes the reception. It is a function of his ability and of other things.

A stat that shows mediocre to below-average WR's superior - in ANY way - to the likes of Fitzgerald and Andre Johnson has no value in evaluating WR ability or the "efficiency" of an offense with said receivers.

Superior in terms of percentage of targets caught in the 2009 football season? Well, they were, so it seems to me that the useless stat would be one that says they weren't. Your insistence that the purely quantitative be evaluated in purely qualitative terms is senseless.

[Sperm Edwards]

On-base percentage is the proportion of a hitter's plate appearances in which he reaches base. It is a function of his ability and of other things. Catch rate is the proportion of a receiver's targets in which he makes the reception. It is a function of his ability and of other things.

Ugh. You have got to be kidding me.

A player can reach base if he does a better job at the plate. If a throw is so far errant there is nothing a WR can do about it.

Superior in terms of percentage of targets caught in the 2009 football season? Well, they were, so it seems to me that the useless stat would be one that says they weren't. Your insistence that the purely quantitative be evaluated in purely qualitative terms is senseless.

So therefore you believe an offense would be more efficient if it substituted Larry Fitzgerald for Jason Avant. Got it.

The whole point is that this stat may coincide with something meaningful and it may coincide with something that is meaningless. Therefore it is silly to cite this stat as proof of anything.

[SMC]

On-base percentage is the proportion of a hitter's plate appearances in which he reaches base.

No, it's not. OBP excludes certain opportunities when a player gets on base.

OBP only includes getting on base because of a hit, walk, or hit by a pitch.

Excluded are getting on base because of an error, fielder's choice, and passed ball/wild pitch after striking out.

If catch rate was comparable to OBP, then OBP would included all opportunities of getting on base.

[dbatesman]

So therefore you believe an offense would be more efficient if it substituted Larry Fitzgerald for Jason Avant. Got it.

The whole point is that this stat may coincide with something meaningful and it may coincide with something that is meaningless. Therefore it is silly to cite this stat as proof of anything.

I have to confess feeling a little guilty, because I think a lot of this is coming from an admittedly glib comment I made like fifty posts ago. Then again, the leaps being made here are utterly puzzling to me. No one thinks that a given player's superiority according to one imperfect statistical measure of efficiency constitutes prima facie evidence that said player would automatically elevate the efficiency of any offense of which he's a part, let alone to a greater degree than another player who's superior according to other statistical measures.

The idea that catch rate is of ambiguous or even dubious utility simply because it's dependent on factors beyond the receiver alone remains a completely inexplicable proposition to me.

[RutgersJetFan]

No one thinks that a given player's superiority according to one imperfect statistical measure of efficiency constitutes prima facie evidence that said player would automatically elevate the efficiency of any offense of which he's a part...

I sure hope not. Because that's precisely the one thing that efficiency statistics aren't meant to measure.

[Larz]

I move for a vote

second ?

[Irish Jet]

I sure hope not. Because that's precisely the one thing that efficiency statistics aren't meant to measure.

Wait, so Chad Pennington isn't better than Tom Brady?

[vinnytestaverde]

What's with all the Edwards hate? I think this guy will surprise this year with sticky hands.

Edwards has had more than his fair share of haters among Jets fans over the years. I think he's going to have a big year for us next year. He's playing for a contract, has all the tools and abilities and is developing chemistry with Sanchez. I'm predicting 1,000 yds and 10 tds minimum.