Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Wide Receiver


  • Please log in to reply
69 replies to this topic

#61 fieryprophet

fieryprophet

    WARNING: Do not annoy!

  • ALL-PRO
  • 5,340 posts
  • LocationLa Grange, NC

Posted 02 April 2012 - 09:21 AM

Those are pretty extreme examples - I don't think anyone would consider Clausen, Orlovsky, or Painter to be even below-average QBs at this point in time. Steve Smith/Matt Moore, Calvin Johnson/Jon Kitna, Randy Moss/Matt Cassel or Kerry Collins, or Andre Johnson/Matt Schaub are probably better examples, and with those QBs the elite receivers still put up pretty good numbers. There are a lot of factors invovled, and to say that receivers are purely dependent on the quality of their QBs is not an entirely accurate statement.


Yes, but again, with average QBs those "elite" receivers only turned in decent numbers. The production bottleneck still rests with the QB. That's why I would wait until we can pick up a potential #1 in the later rounds than trade away picks for a chance at the same thing with someone like Blackmon or Wright. Cam gives us that flexibility.

#62 ClarkCam

ClarkCam

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 226 posts

Posted 02 April 2012 - 09:49 AM

Steve Smith yards per target in '11: 10.8
Brandon LaFell yards per target in '11: 10.9

You can't explain that...


Two things. 1. Smith was target a TON. And only about 60 some percent were actually completed, so of course "per target" its not going to be terribly high, so its not a completely fair comparison. However, I am interested to where you find those statistics? Because those are really interesting.

#63 ClarkCam

ClarkCam

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 226 posts

Posted 02 April 2012 - 09:52 AM

Yes, but again, with average QBs those "elite" receivers only turned in decent numbers. The production bottleneck still rests with the QB. That's why I would wait until we can pick up a potential #1 in the later rounds than trade away picks for a chance at the same thing with someone like Blackmon or Wright. Cam gives us that flexibility.


I feel like we were reading each other on extremes on each others posts. I am with you on this one, I just don't think Lafell has shown enough to warrant your guys' unwavering loyalty to him. I still think we should pick up some WR vet, I understand not wanting to go high because of our horrible defense, that was more of a suggestion. If Smith, Gettis, or Lafell get hurt... Armanti is next up and I honestly, as much as I love the guy, we are in trouble if that happens.

#64 Johnny Kilroy

Johnny Kilroy

    Kilroy Kicks Butt

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,648 posts

Posted 02 April 2012 - 10:16 AM

I strongly disagree with this statement. Just because a QB is good, does not mean you should not upgrade them. If Gettis and Lafell don't produce as they should next year, yet are still average and not "world beaters" I think you MUST upgrade them. Look at the Patriots. Tom Brady is a HOF quarterback, who granted won a superbowl with not so great receivers (but a kick ass defense). However, they continue to upgrade his weapons and receivers all the time.

Of course the season has not started yet, but I simply don't see Lafell as the answer. Gettis I think has serious potential. He was putting up decent numbers with Clausen and no Steve Smith. Lafell, he simply did not produce even when he got into the lineup when Naanee went down. As I said earlier, yes he can catch and I was more harping on two seasons ago and the preseason... BUT, if you watch the games, he simply does not put up great numbers. The last three games he put up 0, 100, and 27 receiving yards. The 100 yard game was mainly off a 91 yard TD catch that was busted coverage..... I simply don't have faith in his ability to get open.


I am not saying just because we have a good QB, don't upgrade them. You should always look to upgrade any position you can. But when you have other positions that are in worse shape you don't start upgrading a position that is currently in adequate shape. You don't want to hinder the CB, DL, LB position by drafting a WR in the early rounds. Also, if you look at Brady's and Manning's WRs in the past, they really weren't that great. You'd have a top receiver like Marvin Harrison or a Wes Welker but that was about it with them. LaFell should be fine, he looked just as good as Gettis their rookie seasons. It's just going to be difficult to replace Smitty.

#65 ClarkCam

ClarkCam

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 226 posts

Posted 02 April 2012 - 10:25 AM

^^ I'm with you. I mentioned a few receivers I liked and everyone seemed to take that as "screw defense"... I'm not playing madden here. Defense definitely needs another DT and DE..... And possibly even LB because of how thin we are there if Davis goes down again, or Beason, for some reason or other, has a setback. Then we have CB, Munnerlyn just doesn't cut it opposite Gamble. Point being, I realize our needs, but I still think picking up some insurance behind those three is a valid point.

#66 Johnny Kilroy

Johnny Kilroy

    Kilroy Kicks Butt

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,648 posts

Posted 02 April 2012 - 10:30 AM

I mean you did suggest WRs that were going in the first couple of rounds and Braylon Edwards who probably wouldn't add too much to our WR corps as it is now. It'd be best to wait until the 4th, maybe even 5th round to consider a WR. And we all know our money is tight so FA isn't looking likely to add a WR of substance.

Plus, with our offense we get a lot of offense from our TE position and receiving out of our backfield.

#67 mario

mario

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 202 posts
  • LocationSpain

Posted 02 April 2012 - 04:18 PM

Two things. 1. Smith was target a TON. And only about 60 some percent were actually completed, so of course "per target" its not going to be terribly high, so its not a completely fair comparison. However, I am interested to where you find those statistics? Because those are really interesting.

Who cares if Smitty was targeted much more (obviously, he has to be cause he's the best WR on the team), that stat only shows that LaFell was the most productive receiver on the team considering the chances given to each player. Naanee had a horrid 6.1 yards per target, which only shows who was the better #2 and how much we lost with LaFell sitting behind Naanee for half of the season. We could be talking now about a 800 yards WR#2, which is pretty darn good.

http://hosted.stats....tion&position=1 Find a player and scroll down to see the targets (and drops) for this season.

#68 ClarkCam

ClarkCam

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 226 posts

Posted 02 April 2012 - 04:21 PM

^^ If that was the statistic you measured receivers by, then Lafell is a better receiver than Steve Smith.

#69 mario

mario

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 202 posts
  • LocationSpain

Posted 02 April 2012 - 04:33 PM

^^ If that was the statistic you measured receivers by, then Lafell is a better receiver than Steve Smith.

Good thing that i'm not then.

Is a pretty good fact to deny your "LaFell was no productive" statement, tho.

#70 ClarkCam

ClarkCam

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 226 posts

Posted 02 April 2012 - 05:27 PM

Just because he has that as a higher statistic really doesn't mean anything.... Jeremy Maclin, Stevie Johnson, Santonio Holmes... Not gonna lie its not like I knew this off the top of my head, all had lower Y/receptions than Lafell. Lafell posted 0,20, and 20 yards for three games in a row (one of those games he had 100 due to a single bomb from broken coverage). You are measuring receivers in a very misconstrued way. If you wanted to make the argument that Lafell was a productive receiver, there were/are many better ways to argue it. However, with your measurement, it simply makes no sense the way you are approaching it.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com