Interesting Chart. Care to explain it? It looks like some of the columns should be reversed, i.e. the Contested Catch Percentage should come first, then the Adj. Contested Catch Percentage. Looking at those numbers, Burks caught more of his targets (greater percentage) than any other WR in this draft class. He also didn't have the contested catch numbers that some people try to claim when they say he is just a contested catch guy. IMO this chart is just further evidence to me that Burks is the WR the Jets should draft, not London and not Wilson.
lol. I noticed. If you’d read the OPs post, you’d be even more confused. Column F is the amount of contested passes that are caught by the WR, often referred to as contested catch rate. The higher the number, the more likely the WR is to come down with the ball (they’re all relatively low sample sizes) Column H is the amount of passes passes are contested. This number, in theory, represents how often someone gets open. Example: if you have a rate of 100% you’ve literally never been able to get open. The lower number the better for this column. Edit: I think his column H is a little skewed as imo he should use contested targets as the numerator not contested catches.
He only catches about half his contested catches, so I definitely agree… he doesn’t have the contested catch numbers people claim.
He also didn't have that many contested catch opportunities. The problem with this chart and ones like it is that it doens't take into consideration whether the QB throwing the ball was accurate, had a tendency to throw the ball high or late or behind the WR. If you watched much vide of Burks at all, you see that he makes contested catches with DBs hanging all over him, and I saw enough of his QB play to know that they weren't very accurate and on a number of routes, they shouldn't have been contested catches, and wouldn't have been if the QB had made a better throw. I think one thing that Burks did that hurt himself is that sometimes he would try to make a basket catch rather than high pointing the ball. That can be easily fixed, however, as on a lot of other plays he does high point the ball. The main thing I was pointing out, however, is that in general, Burks caught more of the passes on which he was targeted than any other WR in his draft class. Burks caught 79% of the passes on which he was targeted. Wilson only caught 69%. That could represent a lot of drops/blown catches on Wilson's part. London caught 74%.
The chart is dealing with with measurables. Imo if you start putting up caveats, it becomes a slippery slope. Was a bad throw or a bad route run etc etc. I didn’t make the chart but I like numbers. I’m a fan of everyone having facts and deciding their individual truths from their. If you look deeper into the facts, you’ll see that Burk’s reception % is skewed by the amount of screen passes he gets. Backing out the screen passes, he’s at 67% which is still higher than Wilson’s 64%
Thanks for the data, interesting to see more screens to London than Wilson. If i had to rank it would be: 1. Burks 2. Wilson 3. London Each of them spike on something different, but Burks has the best blend of size, speed, and YAC ability. Wilson won't be too useful inside the 20 and London will probably struggle to get open (though it might not matter if he is). Everyone is going to have a different list and honestly, I'm not sure any one is more valid than the other at this stage. The receiver position is probably going to end up being a preference/fit thing on a team by team basis.
Numbers are useful...up to a point. But too often people focus on the stats and not enough on the tape - "forest for the trees" syndrome. That's why I prefer watching video of these players. That said, because they don't usually play the same competition, or the same schemes, or have consistently good talent around them, it's hard to judge - I just do the best I can to filter out those factors. For WRs I try to focus on moves/shiftiness/twitch whatever you want to call it, speed, and hands - ability to make catches no matter what. I think these traits are pretty independent of those other factors.
I agree whole heartedly. My reply was to the suggestion statisticians start taking measurements of subjective things like “was it a good throw”
I understand, and if possible, such numbers can be revealing, but too often they don't really answer the question despite the seeming "surety" of being based on measurables. I'm not saying to ignore them, but I don't weigh them as heavily as what my eyes tell me in conjunction with the numbers.
So you’re saying - using your eyes + knowing the numbers Is better than Just knowing the numbers??? mind blown s/ xoxo
Whose the last WR who passed the NCAAF eye test (for you) but didn’t have the numbers to back them up?
Meh. Wasn’t following the conversation. I was under the impression you were talking production when referencing numbers.
IDK. I don't keep track like that. Once a draft is over, unless there was something that really stood out about a guy, I forget them.
Seems like this thread has spun in another direction, but my two cents: I pity the dumb fucks that spend a first round pick on Jermaine Johnson and soon find out how lazy he is. Unless it’s the Dolphins. Draft away, geniuses.
Kinda seems like the draftniks are with you on that. But still counting on his generational talent to show through.
