Kamar Aiken

[Restored]

18 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Drop % isn't relevant to the discussion, given his lack of targets. He had 3 drops last year. That's not a lot. (I thought he had a drop in 2015, but I was wrong.)

 

Every receiver has plays where he doesn't get open.

 

He doesn't have a complete lack of productivity. He had over 500 yards last year.

 

Luck wouldn't have to go through reads if the offense featured hot routes or other designed concepts that promote high efficiency. Against certain defensive looks, there should be an automatic hot that put the ball in a receiver's hands in space. We have virtually none of those in this offense. Against other looks, there should be automatic checks to screens or smokes. Again, they run almost none. Yes, Luck locks on to his #1 more than he should, but that flaw is exacerbated by the lack of common sense concepts in the offense.

 

When I see stuff like this in multiple games, the issue is bigger than personnel.

 

Unless you're telling me that Luck would have thrown to Kamar Aiken in the same circumstance, then I don't think Aiken is going to be any better than Dorsett in this offense. And if you are telling me that Aiken would have gotten the ball here, then we might as well get rid of Dorsett right now, because if Luck doesn't trust him then he shouldn't be on the field. But I don't think that's it. I think it's a poorly designed offense, bottom line.

 

Late reply here.

 

Drop% IS relative. There's no reason to believe that his percentage of dropped passes would decrease if his targets were to increase.

 

Every WR does have play's where they don't get open but it appears to be more consistent with Dorsett.

 

Yardage is one of the most overrated stats in judging a WR's productivity. Having one reception for 50 yards on three targets doesn't constitute solid productivity even though the yardage stat gives the impression of a half-way decent performance.

 

I'm not excusing the offensive philosophy but you simply can't always get into the perfect play offensively. Even the Manning-era offenses wouldn't always be able to change into a play to match the defense even though that was part of its design. The play you showed me points out a Luck problem more than anything. If he isn't seeing an open WR right in front of him, then he has to get better at going through his reads and throwing it to him. And if it's because Luck doesn't trust him, then there must be reasoning behind it either in practice or what has materialized on the field.

[Superman]

3 hours ago, Restored said:

 

Late reply here.

 

Drop% IS relative. There's no reason to believe that his percentage of dropped passes would decrease if his targets were to increase.

 

Sure there is. Statistically, you can expect a regression to the mean, given the relatively small sample size. Especially for a player that, when targeted more consistently in college, almost never dropped the ball.

 

Quote

Every WR does have play's where they don't get open but it appears to be more consistent with Dorsett.

 

I'd like to see charting that supports this conclusion.

 

Quote

Yardage is one of the most overrated stats in judging a WR's productivity. Having one reception for 50 yards on three targets doesn't constitute solid productivity even though the yardage stat gives the impression of a half-way decent performance.

 

You're moving the goal posts. There's quite a difference between "complete lack of productivity" and "solid productivity." Yardage is a measure of productivity. Dorsett actually had a higher catch rate and a far higher yards/target and yards/catch than Moncrief.

 

Quote

I'm not excusing the offensive philosophy but you simply can't always get into the perfect play offensively. Even the Manning-era offenses wouldn't always be able to change into a play to match the defense even though that was part of its design. The play you showed me points out a Luck problem more than anything. If he isn't seeing an open WR right in front of him, then he has to get better at going through his reads and throwing it to him. And if it's because Luck doesn't trust him, then there must be reasoning behind it either in practice or what has materialized on the field.

 

I'm obviously not asking for perfection. I'm simply asking for common sense adjustments that would promote greater productivity, make better use of the weapons we have, and minimize the weaknesses of the offensive line. I've been asking for those adjustments since 2012. Our passing offense is flawed, and until it's adjusted, we won't get premium production and efficiency out of our QB or our receivers.

 

If Luck has a wide open receiver in the middle of the field, directly in front of him, on 3rd and 2, in the shadow of his own goal post, and doesn't trust that receiver enough to throw him the ball, then that receiver shouldn't be on the field. Another coaching issue... but I don't believe that Luck simply doesn't trust Dorsett, not when you watch him throw lobs to Dorsett 60 yards down the field.

 

If you watch that play, though, it was designed to scheme Hilton open, and it worked, except he fell down. But even before he fell down, the defense bailed out and basically surrendered the first down across the middle, leaving Dorsett wide open right away. Not only was he wide open, he had no one near him, no one over the top, and had an angle to turn that short catch into a HUGE gain before a defender would even be able to engage him. This is the stuff a QB's dreams are made of. Luck simply missed him.

 

There are other examples of Luck missing Dorsett, getting pressured before Dorsett's long developing route is even complete, or the play calling sending Dorsett right into the teeth of the defense. And not just Dorsett; it hampers all of our receivers. And I'm not trying to make Dorsett out to be a victim. His drops last year hurt; he needs to tighten up his route running (though it's not as bad as some make it out to be); he seemed to fall down at times last year (Denver game?)... But he's not the problem with the offense.

 

And really, my point is not even to defend Dorsett, and I'm certainly not taking shots at Aiken. My point is that, until the offense is adjusted, I don't think it matters who we have at WR3, the offense isn't going to make good use of that player, by design.

 

Sorry for these long replies. This is my biggest pet peeve with this team, and you've gotten me started...

[Colts1324]

On 4/24/2017 at 1:55 PM, lollygagger8 said:

I'm probably in the minority, but to me, Aiken is the most exciting signing after Hankins. 

3rd most exciting. I'm really excited about John Simon. Takes a guy away from Houston and we get a playmaker. 

[Colts1324]

16 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Sure there is. Statistically, you can expect a regression to the mean, given the relatively small sample size. Especially for a player that, when targeted more consistently in college, almost never dropped the ball.

 

 

I'd like to see charting that supports this conclusion.

 

 

You're moving the goal posts. There's quite a difference between "complete lack of productivity" and "solid productivity." Yardage is a measure of productivity. Dorsett actually had a higher catch rate and a far higher yards/target and yards/catch than Moncrief.

 

 

I'm obviously not asking for perfection. I'm simply asking for common sense adjustments that would promote greater productivity, make better use of the weapons we have, and minimize the weaknesses of the offensive line. I've been asking for those adjustments since 2012. Our passing offense is flawed, and until it's adjusted, we won't get premium production and efficiency out of our QB or our receivers.

 

If Luck has a wide open receiver in the middle of the field, directly in front of him, on 3rd and 2, in the shadow of his own goal post, and doesn't trust that receiver enough to throw him the ball, then that receiver shouldn't be on the field. Another coaching issue... but I don't believe that Luck simply doesn't trust Dorsett, not when you watch him throw lobs to Dorsett 60 yards down the field.

 

If you watch that play, though, it was designed to scheme Hilton open, and it worked, except he fell down. But even before he fell down, the defense bailed out and basically surrendered the first down across the middle, leaving Dorsett wide open right away. Not only was he wide open, he had no one near him, no one over the top, and had an angle to turn that short catch into a HUGE gain before a defender would even be able to engage him. This is the stuff a QB's dreams are made of. Luck simply missed him.

 

There are other examples of Luck missing Dorsett, getting pressured before Dorsett's long developing route is even complete, or the play calling sending Dorsett right into the teeth of the defense. And not just Dorsett; it hampers all of our receivers. And I'm not trying to make Dorsett out to be a victim. His drops last year hurt; he needs to tighten up his route running (though it's not as bad as some make it out to be); he seemed to fall down at times last year (Denver game?)... But he's not the problem with the offense.

 

And really, my point is not even to defend Dorsett, and I'm certainly not taking shots at Aiken. My point is that, until the offense is adjusted, I don't think it matters who we have at WR3, the offense isn't going to make good use of that player, by design.

 

Sorry for these long replies. This is my biggest pet peeve with this team, and you've gotten me started...

I somewhat agree with your post.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're practically saying our WR3 is a decoy to get Hilton open? 

 

I do believe we ran Dorsett(WR3) deep a lot to get a safety to go with him overtop. But the problem is. Hilton was running 15-20 yard routes that took to long to develop. So the safety or slot corner had time to react and see where the ball was going to go. 

 

I think our plans got all screwed up when Moncrief got injured after week 2. We didn't have a "big" receiver. Dorsett could get bumped off coverage and Rogers was too raw to consistently count on to run the routes that Moncrief was designed to run. 

 

So, no I don't think our initial intentions were designed to only get Hilton open, but he was partly the only one that could get open consistently. So we gameplanned around him. I don't think Luck ever looked at someone wide open, and decided not to throw to him. But he may have though, "Dorsett/Allen is open, but I know Hilton is getting ready to break off his route and be wide open for a 30 yard gain instead of a 7 yard gain underneath." 

 

A lot of times Hilton did end up wide open, but sometimes he fell like in that case, or he never end up getting open. 

 

I think with a healthy Moncrief, Aiken, and Dorsett hopefully a little more developed, we will be able to run the offense how Chud anticipated. 

[Restored]

16 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Sure there is. Statistically, you can expect a regression to the mean, given the relatively small sample size. Especially for a player that, when targeted more consistently in college, almost never dropped the ball.

And what is that mean? If anything, his drop percentage relative to his catches would likely stay consistent if his receptions were to increase. Not the other way around. College is irrelevant. There's plenty of players that were successful in many different areas in college and don't always have those skills transfer to the pro level.

16 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

 

I'd like to see charting that supports this conclusion.

Don't have those for you. Going off what I've seen and reviewed since he's entered the league. I'm sure someone has the time to chart it or has already.

16 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

 

You're moving the goal posts. There's quite a difference between "complete lack of productivity" and "solid productivity." Yardage is a measure of productivity. Dorsett actually had a higher catch rate and a far higher yards/target and yards/catch than Moncrief.

The problem is, Dorsett isn't giving the team solid productivity either. Saying that yards is a measure of productivity doesn't make it so either. Maybe your way of measuring productivity is different but I believe most would agree that 1 catch for 50 yards hardly constitutes productivity.

16 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

 

I'm obviously not asking for perfection. I'm simply asking for common sense adjustments that would promote greater productivity, make better use of the weapons we have, and minimize the weaknesses of the offensive line. I've been asking for those adjustments since 2012. Our passing offense is flawed, and until it's adjusted, we won't get premium production and efficiency out of our QB or our receivers.

 

If Luck has a wide open receiver in the middle of the field, directly in front of him, on 3rd and 2, in the shadow of his own goal post, and doesn't trust that receiver enough to throw him the ball, then that receiver shouldn't be on the field. Another coaching issue... but I don't believe that Luck simply doesn't trust Dorsett, not when you watch him throw lobs to Dorsett 60 yards down the field.

 

If you watch that play, though, it was designed to scheme Hilton open, and it worked, except he fell down. But even before he fell down, the defense bailed out and basically surrendered the first down across the middle, leaving Dorsett wide open right away. Not only was he wide open, he had no one near him, no one over the top, and had an angle to turn that short catch into a HUGE gain before a defender would even be able to engage him. This is the stuff a QB's dreams are made of. Luck simply missed him.

 

There are other examples of Luck missing Dorsett, getting pressured before Dorsett's long developing route is even complete, or the play calling sending Dorsett right into the teeth of the defense. And not just Dorsett; it hampers all of our receivers. And I'm not trying to make Dorsett out to be a victim. His drops last year hurt; he needs to tighten up his route running (though it's not as bad as some make it out to be); he seemed to fall down at times last year (Denver game?)... But he's not the problem with the offense.

 

And really, my point is not even to defend Dorsett, and I'm certainly not taking shots at Aiken. My point is that, until the offense is adjusted, I don't think it matters who we have at WR3, the offense isn't going to make good use of that player, by design.

 

Sorry for these long replies. This is my biggest pet peeve with this team, and you've gotten me started...

I largely agree with what you're saying in this part. But I'm more apt to believe that Dorsett's lack of productivity is more centered around his playing ability rather than the offensive system. And like you, I don't want to see him fail (especially given the pick they spent on him) but he hasn't proven it so far. Dorsett himself and the coaches have acknowledged this as well. Time will tell.

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, Colts1324 said:

I somewhat agree with your post.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're practically saying our WR3 is a decoy to get Hilton open? 

 

I do believe we ran Dorsett(WR3) deep a lot to get a safety to go with him overtop. But the problem is. Hilton was running 15-20 yard routes that took to long to develop. So the safety or slot corner had time to react and see where the ball was going to go. 

 

I think our plans got all screwed up when Moncrief got injured after week 2. We didn't have a "big" receiver. Dorsett could get bumped off coverage and Rogers was too raw to consistently count on to run the routes that Moncrief was designed to run. 

 

So, no I don't think our initial intentions were designed to only get Hilton open, but he was partly the only one that could get open consistently. So we gameplanned around him. I don't think Luck ever looked at someone wide open, and decided not to throw to him. But he may have though, "Dorsett/Allen is open, but I know Hilton is getting ready to break off his route and be wide open for a 30 yard gain instead of a 7 yard gain underneath." 

 

A lot of times Hilton did end up wide open, but sometimes he fell like in that case, or he never end up getting open. 

 

I think with a healthy Moncrief, Aiken, and Dorsett hopefully a little more developed, we will be able to run the offense how Chud anticipated. 

 

That's not really what I'm saying. Hilton runs a greater variety of routes and from more spots on the field than any other receiver, and I think he's a primary read twice as much as the next guy. I'm fine with that, by the way; he's clearly our best receiver.

 

But the passing offense by design stretches the defense vertically as its first function, then the shorter routes are secondary reads -- more drag routes and comebacks than slants and quick ins. So even the shorter routes aren't necessarily quick hitters, and don't come open right away, as they're 3rd or 4th in the progression.

 

Along with that, we have an OL that has struggled to pass protect throughout the last five years. So how often is the QB going to get to his 3rd or 4th read? 

 

And, outside of five yards from the goal line, how often do any of our receivers run slants? How often do we run pick/rub routes? How often do we run bubble screens (and how many of the 12 that we run throughout the season are absolutely butchered by poor execution)?

 

I want to see the QB make a presnap read to identify the hot route -- the player that will most likely be available for a quick outlet. Especially in short yardage passing situations. I want to see the QB check to high percentage throws against specific defensive alignments, plays that will put the ball in the receivers' hands, stress the defense horizontally and underneath, and take pressure off of the OL. But these concepts are not major components of the Air Coryell offense. I don't think it matters whether the skill guys are healthy or not, this is just not what Chud does, historically (or any other Air Coryell coach, save for Norv Turner, to an extent). 

 

Long story short, I want a different offense, because I think Chud's offensive philosophy is one that values big hitting plays over efficiency. I don't think the offense will ever be consistent with that philosophy, and I think Luck will continue to get pressured more than he should.

[Superman]

1 minute ago, Restored said:

And what is that mean? If anything, his drop percentage relative to his catches would likely stay consistent if his receptions were to increase. Not the other way around. College is irrelevant. There's plenty of players that were successful in many different areas in college and don't always have those skills transfer to the pro level.

Don't have those for you. Going off what I've seen and reviewed since he's entered the league. I'm sure someone has the time to chart it or has already.

The problem is, Dorsett isn't giving the team solid productivity either. Saying that yards is a measure of productivity doesn't make it so either. Maybe your way of measuring productivity is different but I believe most would agree that 1 catch for 50 yards hardly constitutes productivity.

I largely agree with what you're saying in this part. But I'm more apt to believe that Dorsett's lack of productivity is more centered around his playing ability rather than the offensive system. And like you, I don't want to see him fail (especially given the pick they spent on him) but he hasn't proven it so far. Dorsett himself and the coaches have acknowledged this as well. Time will tell.

 

Dorsett didn't drop any passes as a rookie, on 39 targets. Last year, he dropped 3, on 59 targets. (This is still a very small sample size; there are about 40 receivers with about 100 targets in 2016 alone.) Even if you use his two year rate as the mean, his drop rate should be projected more like 3.1%. 

 

For example, Swoope had 2 drops in 22 targets. No one would project that he'd drop 9% of his targets over a meaningful sample size. 

 

I disagree that college is irrelevant. Just like we'd question a player's hands if he had a lot of college drops (Will Fuller had a higher than average drop rate in college, and we dinged him for it; then he dropped five passes on 92 targets last year), we give credence to a player who had 1 drop in an entire season. Again, we expect a regression to the mean. In fairness, Dorsett struggled with drops early in his career at Miami, but that problem had all but disappeared by his final season.

 

I never said Dorsett was giving solid production. I disagreed with your assertion that he had a "complete lack of productivity." That's objectively false. One catch for 50 yards is absolutely "production." Maybe not ideal, but production nonetheless.

 

The reason I pin this on the offense -- besides my conviction from the beginning that the approach is inherently flawed, even at its best -- is not to excuse the player. We've had multiple receivers struggle in secondary roles on this team over the years. That includes Hilton at times; in early 2013, he was splitting #2 reps with DHB, and his production was up and down. None of our secondary or tertiary receivers, outside of Hilton, have thrived in that role.

[Restored]

16 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Dorsett didn't drop any passes as a rookie, on 39 targets. Last year, he dropped 3, on 59 targets. (This is still a very small sample size; there are about 40 receivers with about 100 targets in 2016 alone.) Even if you use his two year rate as the mean, his drop rate should be projected more like 3.1%. 

Again, how can we determine what that mean is for Dorsett? Is it based on his number of targets vs. drops? Is it relative to what other WR's ratios are? There really isn't a set criteria for it. My point is, we can't definitively say what his drop percentage would or would not be. All that we can accurately say for sure is that he had a high drop percentage last season based on his number of targets.

16 hours ago, Superman said:

 

For example, Swoope had 2 drops in 22 targets. No one would project that he'd drop 9% of his targets over a meaningful sample size. 

 

I disagree that college is irrelevant. Just like we'd question a player's hands if he had a lot of college drops (Will Fuller had a higher than average drop rate in college, and we dinged him for it; then he dropped five passes on 92 targets last year), we give credence to a player who had 1 drop in an entire season. Again, we expect a regression to the mean. In fairness, Dorsett struggled with drops early in his career at Miami, but that problem had all but disappeared by his final season.

There's a significant difference between 22 and 59 targets (Swoope and Dorsett) and your comparing two different skill positions where one has more of an emphasis on pass catching ability and is often targeted more.

 

It's only irrelevant once that player has become pro. Of course you must take into account what a player did or did not do well at the collegiate level early on  but often times, that barometer becomes skewed fairly quickly once a player has turned pro. Players who had fumbling issues may not have them once they enter the league (for a linty of reasons) while others who never had issues with it all of a sudden will. This applies to other positions as well.

16 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I never said Dorsett was giving solid production. I disagreed with your assertion that he had a "complete lack of productivity." That's objectively false. One catch for 50 yards is absolutely "production." Maybe not ideal, but production nonetheless.

Again, one catch for 50 yards does not constitute productivity. If you want to argue semantics on what is consider productive then that's fine but you and I both know that your argument for his productivity hinges on a very thin statistic with yardage which I've already shown is one of the most overrated and inflated measurable stats for WR's. It's the same logic that people use to point out yardage as a barometer for productivity for a QB like Blake Bortles who racked up a ton of yards in garbage time over the past couple of seasons. Now, Dorsett's yardage isn't a product of garbage time but the idea that yardage=production is often highly mid-judged.

16 hours ago, Superman said:

 

The reason I pin this on the offense -- besides my conviction from the beginning that the approach is inherently flawed, even at its best -- is not to excuse the player. We've had multiple receivers struggle in secondary roles on this team over the years. That includes Hilton at times; in early 2013, he was splitting #2 reps with DHB, and his production was up and down. None of our secondary or tertiary receivers, outside of Hilton, have thrived in that role.

But to be fair, is that not considerate of the players rather the system? Arians had his own offensive system. Pep did in 2013 and then opened it up significantly more in 2014. Then obviously Chud is running his system now. It would just seem odd that over the course of these different offensive systems that the same slotted player would not succeed. Instead, I think it's more pertinent to look at how these players (DHB, Nicks, Avery for example) have faired outside of the Colts offensive system to gain perspective on if it was the player or the offensive system.

[HOZER]

[Superman]

4 hours ago, Restored said:

Again, how can we determine what that mean is for Dorsett? Is it based on his number of targets vs. drops? Is it relative to what other WR's ratios are? There really isn't a set criteria for it. My point is, we can't definitively say what his drop percentage would or would not be. All that we can accurately say for sure is that he had a high drop percentage last season based on his number of targets.

 

We can say definitively that he has too small a sample size to make a big deal out of 3 drops in 2016. All I'm saying is that 3 drops is not that big of a deal. I'm not turning a blind eye to them, only saying let's not blow them out of proportion.

 

In general, regression to the mean would mean, just like we didn't expect Dorsett to have a 0% drop rate just because he didn't drop any passes as a rookie, we shouldn't hold a 5.1% drop rate over his head because of a bad sophomore season. 

 

Quote

There's a significant difference between 22 and 59 targets (Swoope and Dorsett) and your comparing two different skill positions where one has more of an emphasis on pass catching ability and is often targeted more.

 

You're completely missing the point. Whether it's 22 targets or 59 targets, it's too small a sample size to worry about drop rate. Doesn't matter what position.

 

Quote

It's only irrelevant once that player has become pro. Of course you must take into account what a player did or did not do well at the collegiate level early on  but often times, that barometer becomes skewed fairly quickly once a player has turned pro. Players who had fumbling issues may not have them once they enter the league (for a linty of reasons) while others who never had issues with it all of a sudden will. This applies to other positions as well.

 

It's still not irrelevant. The goal is to project what the player can become. If you have a player who dropped a bunch of passes in college, and he's still dropping passes as a pro at a similar rate, then you can nail that guy down as a pass dropper. For Dorsett, a 5.1% drop rate isn't typical.

 

Quote

Again, one catch for 50 yards does not constitute productivity. If you want to argue semantics on what is consider productive then that's fine but you and I both know that your argument for his productivity hinges on a very thin statistic with yardage which I've already shown is one of the most overrated and inflated measurable stats for WR's. It's the same logic that people use to point out yardage as a barometer for productivity for a QB like Blake Bortles who racked up a ton of yards in garbage time over the past couple of seasons. Now, Dorsett's yardage isn't a product of garbage time but the idea that yardage=production is often highly mid-judged.

 

Actually, you're the one making the stretch here. Your comment was objectively false, whether or not yardage is overrated (which you have not proven to any degree). A complete lack of productivity would mean no productivity. Dorsett does not have a complete lack of productivity.

 

Quote

But to be fair, is that not considerate of the players rather the system? Arians had his own offensive system. Pep did in 2013 and then opened it up significantly more in 2014. Then obviously Chud is running his system now. It would just seem odd that over the course of these different offensive systems that the same slotted player would not succeed. Instead, I think it's more pertinent to look at how these players (DHB, Nicks, Avery for example) have faired outside of the Colts offensive system to gain perspective on if it was the player or the offensive system.

 

Chud's system is very similar to Arians' system, it has the same origins, and for the most part, the same drawbacks. I don't know what to say about Pep's offense; it lacked identity from start to finish, which was its major flaw, IMO.

 

In general, this offense doesn't have highly productive receivers outside of the top 2 guys. And more importantly, it doesn't promote passing efficiency, no matter who the receivers are. The QB is going to take more pressure, he's not going to be an upper 60s percentage passer (in general; there are some exceptions), and the passing concepts are going to stretch vertically more than horizontally. 

 

Beyond that, even within this (flawed, IMO) offense, there are times when Dorsett is open, but he doesn't get targeted. The Raiders scenario is just the most recent and most glaring example, but I can document others. That's why I push back when people say 'he doesn't get open,' because it's simply not true. We can blame whoever or whatever, but Dorsett gets open more often than his targets would suggest.

 

And then, there's the belief that he and everyone else would have more open opportunities if our offense would scheme them open against certain defensive looks.

[NewColtsFan]

 

So I clicked on this thread to see the latest on Kamar Aiken.     I'm here on Page 2 and everything in the thread is about..........    Phillip Dorsett.

 

OK......     I'll just mind my own business and move along.......         

[Restored]

3 hours ago, Superman said:

 

We can say definitively that he has too small a sample size to make a big deal out of 3 drops in 2016. All I'm saying is that 3 drops is not that big of a deal. I'm not turning a blind eye to them, only saying let's not blow them out of proportion.

 

In general, regression to the mean would mean, just like we didn't expect Dorsett to have a 0% drop rate just because he didn't drop any passes as a rookie, we shouldn't hold a 5.1% drop rate over his head because of a bad sophomore season. 

Then it's a difference of opinion given that your saying his 3 drops are not that big of a deal. Especially when he already has a fair amount of targets given the role he's been playing in the offense.

 

I say we should given his workload in the offense increased and his number of targets increased in a fair amount as well.

 

 

Quote

 

 

You're completely missing the point. Whether it's 22 targets or 59 targets, it's too small a sample size to worry about drop rate. Doesn't matter what position.

I'd disagree. There is a significant difference between 59 targets and 22 targets. And position is even more important if we look at what role is being asked of the specific WR. It's expected that your #3 WR will not likely get as many receptions or targets as some of the other #2 and #1 WR's.

Quote

 

 

It's still not irrelevant. The goal is to project what the player can become. If you have a player who dropped a bunch of passes in college, and he's still dropping passes as a pro at a similar rate, then you can nail that guy down as a pass dropper. For Dorsett, a 5.1% drop rate isn't typical.

Why would you need college to tell you the story that you are seeing at the pro level at the present time? If a player is dropping passes now in the pros and didn't in college, it shouldn't matter because what you are dealing with presently is a player who is struggling with catching the ball. We can say that college should or shouldn't tell us what a player can do but the truth is, once that player turns pro, you have to begin evaluating what he is doing at that level.

Quote

 

 

Actually, you're the one making the stretch here. Your comment was objectively false, whether or not yardage is overrated (which you have not proven to any degree). A complete lack of productivity would mean no productivity. Dorsett does not have a complete lack of productivity.

It is highly overrated and I can give more examples to prove this point about yardage but it really isn't necessary. It's pretty common to have WR's and QB's appear to have a level of productivity if we examine their yardage totals (ie. Dorsett and Blake Bortles and numerous other examples) when in reality they are not. You're arguing semantics on "complete lack of productivity" to corner your argument when my main premise for that was to point Dorsett's overall production has been severely lacking since he's been drafted which is clearly document statistically.

Quote

 

 

Chud's system is very similar to Arians' system, it has the same origins, and for the most part, the same drawbacks. I don't know what to say about Pep's offense; it lacked identity from start to finish, which was its major flaw, IMO.

 

In general, this offense doesn't have highly productive receivers outside of the top 2 guys. And more importantly, it doesn't promote passing efficiency, no matter who the receivers are. The QB is going to take more pressure, he's not going to be an upper 60s percentage passer (in general; there are some exceptions), and the passing concepts are going to stretch vertically more than horizontally. 

If this were to be true concerning the top 2 guys in the offense, why didn't Dorsett excel last season when Moncrief missed a number of games? Wayne and Hilton were productive in 13' also (for the part of the season Wayne played).

Quote

 

Beyond that, even within this (flawed, IMO) offense, there are times when Dorsett is open, but he doesn't get targeted. The Raiders scenario is just the most recent and most glaring example, but I can document others. That's why I push back when people say 'he doesn't get open,' because it's simply not true. We can blame whoever or whatever, but Dorsett gets open more often than his targets would suggest.

 

And then, there's the belief that he and everyone else would have more open opportunities if our offense would scheme them open against certain defensive looks.

I don't disagree with how the offensive philosophy may be hindering the productivity of the WR's on some level but we also have to acknowledge that Dorsett simply hasn't produced at the level expected of a first round WR which fair or not, plays into people's perception of him. Add in the fact that coaches and himself have acknowledged his short-comings and you begin to understand why people around here are so critical of him. I sincerely hope he improves next season.

[Superman]

10 minutes ago, Restored said:

Then it's a difference of opinion given that your saying his 3 drops are not that big of a deal. Especially when he already has a fair amount of targets given the role he's been playing in the offense.

 

I say we should given his workload in the offense increased and his number of targets increased in a fair amount as well.

 

 

I'd disagree. There is a significant difference between 59 targets and 22 targets. And position is even more important if we look at what role is being asked of the specific WR. It's expected that your #3 WR will not likely get as many receptions or targets as some of the other #2 and #1 WR's.

Why would you need college to tell you the story that you are seeing at the pro level at the present time? If a player is dropping passes now in the pros and didn't in college, it shouldn't matter because what you are dealing with presently is a player who is struggling with catching the ball. We can say that college should or shouldn't tell us what a player can do but the truth is, once that player turns pro, you have to begin evaluating what he is doing at that level.

It is highly overrated and I can give more examples to prove this point about yardage but it really isn't necessary. It's pretty common to have WR's and QB's appear to have a level of productivity if we examine their yardage totals (ie. Dorsett and Blake Bortles and numerous other examples) when in reality they are not. You're arguing semantics on "complete lack of productivity" to corner your argument when my main premise for that was to point Dorsett's overall production has been severely lacking since he's been drafted which is clearly document statistically.

If this were to be true concerning the top 2 guys in the offense, why didn't Dorsett excel last season when Moncrief missed a number of games? Wayne and Hilton were productive in 13' also (for the part of the season Wayne played).

I don't disagree with how the offensive philosophy may be hindering the productivity of the WR's on some level but we also have to acknowledge that Dorsett simply hasn't produced at the level expected of a first round WR which fair or not, plays into people's perception of him. Add in the fact that coaches and himself have acknowledged his short-comings and you begin to understand why people around here are so critical of him. I sincerely hope he improves next season.

 

I think you'd agree that we could parse this out all offseason, so let me just go back to my main point:

 

I'm not arguing that Dorsett has done everything right and is just a victim of circumstance. I am arguing that our passing game is flawed, and I don't see anyone outside of the main guys being significant contributors unless the gameplans change significantly. 

 

I will say that there were various times when Dorsett was open and didn't get thrown to, as well as times when he was used poorly.

 

Whatever issues Dorsett has, whatever level of optimism or pessimism any of us have about him, I don't think the second bolded portion is deniable. 

 

As for the first bolded, I think it's obvious that our first couple of receivers, and maybe a TE, are the main producers in our passing offense, over the years. I think that's a product of the system, for all the reasons I've stated already. Unless Aiken (or anyone else not named Hilton) is going to be featured, maybe in the red zone, I don't think our passing offense is going to have a significant third receiving option, outside of a TE. Aiken, Dorsett, whoever, in that role, will have limited production.

 

For that reason, and given my general concerns about the design of the passing offense, I'm sure you can see why I'm not very bullish on Aiken, or any other WR3 candidate for that matter. I think major adjustments are needed in our passing system, and sadly, I don't see those adjustments happening until/unless we have a new OC, and maybe a new head coach.