WR Heyward-Bey & DB Huff Released By Oakland

[Mr Mojo Risin]

LOL, now DHB is Randy Moss? Are you kidding? The production isn't there. Not even close.

No I'm saying the fact that dhb is a vertical threat type reciever meaning he runs more vertical routes (like moss who made a career of beating coverages deep) he is unlike moss because he has unreliable hands which I said was the problem and it has been a problem since he was drafted.

[CRA]

No.

I never made the argument that attempts means your better. Feel free to show the post where.

I used attempts to counter your argument that he doesn't throw the ball downfield. Furthermore I said attempt percentage. ( How many attempts deep per dropback ).

This would be the equlivent analogy:

Newton throws a deep attempt percentage of 16.6. Clausen throws 7.8 percentage . Therfore Newton throws the ball deep more often then Clausen.

I said Campbell was more successfull because he had a higher completion percentage on deep throws then Palmer.

The equlivent analogy:

Newton completes 66.7 percent of his deep throws. Clausen completes 60.7 of his. Therefore Newton is more succesfull at throwing deep balls.

yes, you are claiming b/c you technically throw the ball unsuccessfully downfield.....it means you are a good downfield passer.

Campbell sucks balls at throwing downfield to WRs. That is a fact. Him having unsuccessful pass attempts or throwaways doesn't dispute it.

Again, it is why the numbers for WRs doubled and tripled when Palmer took over. Palmer can throw downfield. Throwing downfield means having success.....

[CRA]

Smitty had a track record of excellence outside of 2010. DHB has none of that. When skills are apparent, you can start making excuses based on the play of others. But he doesn't have those. He's never been a game-changer, and he's got one trick. I don't see the comparison.

Murphy's not good, but why spend money to go from not good to not good?

if cost turns out to be ultimately the same at the position....why not improve from not good to slightly better (with more potential) at a spot?

QB play matters when judging WRs. Just does. You don't have to be a superstar. The entire WR corp in Oakland OVERALL was night and day more productive once Mr. TE/RB checkdown Campbell was gone.

[CRA]

Different coach and system, one that mirrors ours. Hue Jackson was the coach for that season remember. Do you ignore blatant facts in all your posts? I am just wondering.

Different QB. Oakland ran a vertical passing scheme when Campbell was there....Campbell has simply always been more productive throwing down to TEs/RBs. That is why he didn't work out in Oak. It is why Palmer rolled off his couch, didn't know the playbook, and immeidately was more productive downfield than Campbell in midseason of 2011. They pulled a Vinny T with Palmer. When from the couch to gameday starter.

Tell me, what was different about there passing scheme in 2010 vs 2012? Different coach yes. Scheme were different but still were of the same principles. Irrevelvant fact in this discussion.

[IamSoClutch]

the bottom line of this forum is the DHB and Huff would no doubt be immediate upgrades to our current roster. no arguing that

[MaineManPanther]

yes, you are claiming b/c you technically throw the ball unsuccessfully downfield.....it means you are a good downfield passer.

Campbell sucks balls at throwing downfield to WRs. That is a fact. Him having unsuccessful pass attempts or throwaways doesn't dispute it.

Again, it is why the numbers for WRs doubled and tripled when Palmer took over. Palmer can throw downfield. Throwing downfield means having success.....

No.

If you have have a higher attempt percentage that means you throw it downfield frequently.

That does not mean your more successfull. Again, to be clear, attempt percentage does not have anything to do with success. I am solely using that stat to that show your claim that Campbell didnt throw it downfield frequentley as false.

Again to be crystal: Attmpt % mean frequency not success. That's it.

What I am saying means success is completion percentage. If a player completes a higher percentage of his passes downfield. Then that player was more successfull throwing the ball downfield. Thats it.

[jungleking]

if cost turns out to be ultimately the same at the position....why not improve from not good to slightly better (with more potential) at a spot?

QB play matters when judging WRs. Just does. You don't have to be a superstar. The entire WR corp in Oakland OVERALL was night and day more productive once Mr. TE/RB checkdown Campbell was gone.

If the costs are the same, I'd be fine with it. But signing a free agent and then cutting a player already on the roster usually means you have less cap space than you started with. I don't want to sacrifice what little room we have to get a player that isn't good.

[MaineManPanther]

Delete double post

[CRA]

No.

If you have have a higher attempt percentage that means you throw it downfield frequently.

That does not mean your more successfull. Again, to be clear, attempt percentage does not have anything to do with success. I am solely using that stat to that show your claim that Campbell didnt throw it downfield frequentley as false.

Again to be crystal: Attmpt % mean frequency not success. That's it.

What I am saying means success is completion percentage. If a player completes a higher percentage of his passes downfield. Then that player was more successfull throwing the ball downfield. Thats it.

throwing downfield frequently AND unsuccesfully to WRs....means diddly poo.

Jason Campbell has ALWAYS strugged to get WRs involved. He isn't a downfield passer. This conversation is and has always been about being able to GET THE BALL TO WRS DOWNFIELD. Yes, you can nitpick a stat and say well technically he attempted some passes but the WR production is never there with him b/c he sucks and is scared to make good throws out to WRs.

The fact he had such a high frequency with comical production just renforces my point about what a crappy passer he is outside of his TE/RB game.

[Who Said What?]

Saying us bringing Vinny T out of retirment at nearly 40 is nothing like taking Palmer from the Bengals in his early 30s. 2011 was DHBs best season under Jackson and yes Palmer was the QB. DHB is not coming here so its a moot point.

[MaineManPanther]

throwing downfield frequently AND unsuccesfully to WRs....means diddly poo.

Jason Campbell has ALWAYS strugged to get WRs involved. He isn't a downfield passer. This conversation is and has always been about being able to GET THE BALL TO WRS DOWNFIELD. Yes, you can nitpick a stat and say well technically he attempted some passes but the WR production is never there with him b/c he sucks and is scared to make good throws out to WRs.

The fact he had such a high frequency with comical production just renforces my point about what a crappy passer he is outside of his TE/RB game.

I said he threw frequently downfield in 2010, You said he didn't. I proved otherwise. Never argued anything different. He and Palmer had the same number of downfield completions to Wr's. Campbell did it with less attempts.

I also never argued Campbell throuought his career was good at getting the ball to his receivers.

Or that he was successfull at deep passing in context with the rest of the league. He wasn't.

The point is, if 2012 Palmer's deep passing is good enough to judge Bey. Then so is Campbell's 2010.

Campbell had just as many deep completions to Wr's ( not TE/ RB) as Palmer. Campbell did it with less attempts. ( Note that this doesn't mean Palmer didnt target his Wr's alot more then Campbell in the end zone or in general,hence the more yards and TDs).

All it means is 2010 Campbell used his Wr's just as much downfield (20 yards or more) as 2012 Palmer. And he did it more accurately, which is why I question his 2010 DP should be ruled out and not Palmer.

Personally I think both seasons should be taken with a grain of salt. The only year that Bey had decent Qb play ( DP or otherwise) was 2011 Palmer. And he did relatively well. But if your really believe Palmer's 2012 DP is good enough, then so is 2010 Campbell's.