WR stats to keep you informed

[EastStreet]

Lately I've seen a lot of love for WRs who really didn't perform all that well, and a lot of hate for WRs that performed better than average. A lot of it is driven simply by the "eye test", and not by stats, which all of us are guilty of sometimes.

 

I've also seen some folks compare individuals who aren't playing the same WR position, or position in general. For instance, a traditional slot WR or APB typically will not see near as many RZ snaps or targets as a possession X, big/bully slot, or TE (example Hines or Rogers vs any big bodied WR or TE). Not sure if some folks really understand our O, or the differences between traditional X, possession X, traditional slot, big/bully slot, and Z, and when they are used, or not used depending on down and distance or field position.

 

Anyway,  here are mostly basic stats, and a few advanced stats. If anyone has a special request for a specific stat, let me know and I will try to pull it. I've included Funch's Carolina stats, and a few guys who are no longer here (Inman and Grant).  Enjoy.

 

 

Receiving Snaps (out of a total 1136 offensive snaps)
WR
Hilton- 67.17% (763)
Funchess - *58.79% (622 Carolina) *ranked 3rd on team
Rogers - 52.2% (593)
Grant - 49.30% (560)
Pascal - 46.39% (527)
Inman - 32.66 (371)
Johnson - 8.36% (95)
Fountain - 0.26 (3)

TE
Ebron - 55.81% (634)
Doyle - 29.14% (331)
Alie-Cox - 21.30% (242)

RB
Hines - 43.93 (499/*414) *removing 85 rush attempts
Mack - 39.08% (444/*249) *removing 195 rush attempts.
Wilkins - 17.43% (198/*138) *removing 60 rushing attemps

 

Note - I removed rushing attempt snaps for RBs, but "blocking" snaps are included. Just trying to get as close to reality as possible. In short, take the RB numbers with a grain of salt knowing they are not exactly comparative to WR and TE.

 

 

Total Receiving Yards (targets / receptions)
WR
Hilton - 1270 (120/76)
Funchess - 549 (82/55)
Rogers - 485 (72/53)
Grant - 334 (52/35)
Inman - 304 (39/28)
Pascal - 268 (46/27)
Johnson - 102 (8/6)

TE
Ebron - 750 (110/66)
Doyle - 245 (33/26)
Alie-Cox - 133 (13/7)

RB
Hines - 425 (81/63)
Mack - 103 (26/17)
Wilkins - 85 (17/16)

Receiving Yards Per Snap (*per non rushing attempt snap for RBs) 
More or less a measurement showing bang per buck/snap

WR
Hilton - 1.66
Johnson - 1.07
Funchess - 0.88
Rogers - 0.82
Inman - 0.82
Grant - 0.60
Pascal - 0.51

TE
Ebron - 1.18
Doyle - 0.74
Alie-Cox - 0.55

RB
Hines - 1.03
Wilkins - 0.62
Mack - 0.41

 

 

Receiving Yards Per Target
WR
Johnson - 12.75
Hilton - 10.58
Inman - 7.79
Rogers - 6.74
Funchess - 6.70
Grant - 6.42
Pascal - 5.83

TE
Alie-Cox - 10.23
Doyle - 7.42
Ebron - 6.82

RB
Hines - 5.25
Wilkins - 5.0
Mack - 3.96

 

Receiving Yards Per Reception
WR
Johnson - 17
Hilton - 16.7
Funchess - 12.5
Inman - 10.9
Pascal - 9.9
Grant - 9.5
Rogers - 9.2

TE
Ali-Cox - 19.0
Ebron - 11.4
Doyle - 9.4

RB
Hines - 6.7
Mack - 6.1
Wilkins - 5.3

 

 

Catch %
WR - 
Johnson - 75.0%
Rogers - 73.6%
Inman - 71.8%
Grant - 67.3%
Hilton - 63.3%
Pascal - 58.7%
Funchess - 55.7%

TE
Doyle - 78.8%
Ebron - 60.0%
Alie-Cox - 53.8%

RB
Wilkins - 94.1%
Hines - 77.8%
Mack - 65.4%

 

 

Drop Rate % / National Rank

WR
Inman - 2.6% / #87
Hilton - 5.0% / #49
Grant - 5.9% / #35
Rogers - 8.3% / #16
Pascal - 8.9% / #11
Johnson - 12.5% (not ranked due to low op)
Funchess - 13.9% / #1

TE
Ebron - 8.2% / #4 (among TEs)
Alie Cox - 7.1% / NR due to low op
Doyle - NR due to low op

RB
Wilkins - 0% / NR due to low op
Hines - 3.7% / #13 (among RBs)
Mack - 11.5% / NR due to low op

 

 

Target Separation / National Rank

WR
Johnson - 4.12 (not ranked due to low op)
Rogers - 1.81 / #9
Pascal - 1.54 / #40
Grant - 1.30 / #76
Funchess - 1.14 / #91
Hilton - 1.04 / #100 (note, TY took a huge step back in 2018 vs 2017's #25)
Inman - 0.97 / #105

TE
Ebron - 1.63 / #10 (among TEs)
Doyle - 1.45 / NR due to low op
Alie-Cox - 1.14 / NR due to low op
RB - NA

[ProblChld32]

Interesting statistics, I find it odd how close Hines and Rogers are in receiving yards and other categories. Rogers statistics seem very underwhelming. 

[EastStreet]

21 minutes ago, ProblChld32 said:

Interesting statistics, I find it odd how close Hines and Rogers are in receiving yards and other categories. Rogers statistics seem very underwhelming. 

Traditional slot WRs and APBs have a lot in common. A lot of short to intermediate routes in the middle of the field. A lot of APBs in college end up being slot WRs.

 

If you think Rogers stats are underwhelming, you must really think bad of Pascal. Grant, and Inman.

[WoolMagnet]

1 hour ago, Irish YJ said:

Traditional slot WRs and APBs have a lot in common. A lot of short to intermediate routes in the middle of the field. A lot of APBs in college end up being slot WRs.

 

If you think Rogers stats are underwhelming, you must really think bad of Pascal. Grant, and Inman.

I was thinking the same thing.  I thought rogers numbers were good relative to the whole wr group.  All addd up, he was our 2nd or 3rd "best" wr last year.  Rogers will never be asked to be a #1 or 2.  Unless of course ir is full of WRs.

  Thanks for the #s.  I love #s.  All the injuries at wr probably helped rogers #s last year a little tho.

[EastStreet]

15 minutes ago, WoolMagnet said:

I was thinking the same thing.  I thought rogers numbers were good relative to the whole wr group.  All addd up, he was our 2nd or 3rd "best" wr last year.  Rogers will never be asked to be a #1 or 2.  Unless of course ir is full of WRs.

  Thanks for the #s.  I love #s.  All the injuries at wr probably helped rogers #s last year a little tho.

You're welcome, and... Yup, Rogers at slot is never expected to be a 1 or 2. He was a pretty solid #3.

 

If we look at the league, some dirty/simple math brings some reality to the topic. The rough median of a #1 WR is ~1200 yards. The rough medium of a #2 WR is ~700 yards. The rough median for a #3 WR is ~500 yards. Chester was close enough to that #3. What we lacked was a clear and well rounded #2 at X to keep double teams off our #1. His separation and catch rate were well above that of most #3s.

 

At X, quite honestly we had a bunch depth and PS guys. Our arguably best X last year (Inman), can't even make a dent in NE's depth chart. And while NE has some good WRs, they aren't overly stacked with talent so much that a good/decent X can't make it.

 

And while I love and cheer for Pascal when he wears the horseshoe, not sure I understand a lot of the love he gets. He's at a prime position that has more opportunity for yards, yet his stats are not very good at all. Rogers beat him in all but one above.

[DougDew]

Not sure what good it is to have a bias towards stats when judging things as opposed to the eye, which is more accurate way to judge things for many.  Seems like it could create a bias that says that a WR who ranks highly on the stats is a better player.

 

What do these stats mean?  Does it suggest that Rogers will stay on the roster as the #4 or #5 WR?. 

 

Neither Cain nor Campbell produced NFL stats last year, so how do they fit in? 

 

And do any of the younger receivers who did not get much opportunity last year have more upside worth cultivating as the #4 or #5/6 than Rogers? 

 

How do the return stats look, since that's part of Rogers' game?  And how do any potential replacements compare?

[aaron11]

i dont see anything eye popping here

 

we probably keep 5 WRs like most teams do, which means choosing between rogers, pascal and fountain.  i'd pencil in rogers for now, but if someone else takes or punt returns then this spot is up for grabs 

[Creekside]

Interesting to me is that Rogers gets open. He has a very good catch rate even though he dropped too many passes. But to his credit, he did improve as the year went on. 

[Creekside]

4 hours ago, DougDew said:

 

 

How do the return stats look, since that's part of Rogers' game? 

 

He has a 9. something yards ave per punt return which is pretty average.

 

But he is very good at protecting the ball. ..... In three years with the Colts he has touched the ball a total of 192 times and has not lost a fumble. 

[DEColtsLover36]

Thanks for the stats! I actually thought Hilton had a better catch %, hoping he can raise that number up some this season 

[EastStreet]

11 hours ago, DougDew said:

Not sure what good it is to have a bias towards stats when judging things as opposed to the eye, which is more accurate way to judge things for many.  Seems like it could create a bias that says that a WR who ranks highly on the stats is a better player.

If someone's eye told them that TY sucked, you'd likely say they are crazy, either citing the stats that say he is a top receiver, or citing that your "eye" is better than their eye. It's pretty simple. The "eye" is subjective. Stats are objective. Stats don't always tell the whole story, but they are fact based and aren't biased. The eye can be biased by all kinds of things.

 

Quote

What do these stats mean?  Does it suggest that Rogers will stay on the roster as the #4 or #5 WR?. 

 

Stats by themselves only give unbiased data points to compare to others.

 

Quote

Neither Cain nor Campbell produced NFL stats last year, so how do they fit in?

 

They don't fit in to this thread/discusion. They have zero comparative stats in the NFL. At this stage, one can only look at 1) the fact that both succeeded at big time D1 programs, 2) camp reports, and 3) how they perform starting tomorrow in preseason (doubt we see PC due to injury).

 

Quote

And do any of the younger receivers who did not get much opportunity last year have more upside worth cultivating as the #4 or #5/6 than Rogers?

 

It's a question of 1) ceiling and floor, 2) mixed with what else (guys who we know are locks) we have on the roster, and 3) how much risk the coaches and FO want to take.

 

If we compare WRs playing the same or similar positions, the only 3 that were in the traditional slot and Z bucket last year were Rogers, TY, and Fountain. We know TY is a lock, so subtract him from the discussion. That leaves you with Rogers, Fountain, and rookie Campbell. For the sake of argument, let's assume Campbell is a lock because he was second rounder and looks the part (even though he is injured, and was sitting at 3rd on the depth chart behind Rogers and TY in the Z/slot bucket.

 

So that leaves Rogers vs Fountain. Rogers has a lower ceiling but higher floor,,,, but is very consistent with a high catch % and good separation stats. Fountain at this point is sitting at 4th on the depth chart behind PC. We know he's very fast and has a great vertical, but also know he played against poor competition, was a poor route runner, and had inconsistent hands from reports. We've heard he's worked very hard on routes, but is everything coming together for him enough to displace a consistent guy like Rogers who also was a big part of the return game? I don't know yet.

 

What we do know, is that Reich has said this is Rogers best camp ever, and our OC gushed about him in the last week. The good news is (if we keep Rogers) we can probably hide Fountain on our PS for another year to let him continue to develop if needed. 

 

Quote

How do the return stats look, since that's part of Rogers' game?  And how do any potential replacements compare?

 

Rogers was 11th in the league in average yards per return. Not flashy, but better than average. And he has not given up the ball.

 

As far as replacements, Hines struggled when given the opportunity last year. PC was up and down so far this year, and has been injured/NP for over a week know IIRC. 

[EastStreet]

7 hours ago, egg said:

 

He has a 9. something yards ave per punt return which is pretty average.

 

But he is very good at protecting the ball. ..... In three years with the Colts he has touched the ball a total of 192 times and has not lost a fumble. 

 

The median for the NFL's top 32 PRs is 7.55. Rogers is 9.3 and puts him at 11th overall.

[EastStreet]

9 hours ago, aaron11 said:

i dont see anything eye popping here

 

we probably keep 5 WRs like most teams do, which means choosing between rogers, pascal and fountain.  i'd pencil in rogers for now, but if someone else takes or punt returns then this spot is up for grabs 

 

I'd say TY's yards ypc is a bit eye popping.

 

Rogers is top 10 in the league in both catch % (#10), and target separation (#9). Most would say top 10 stats are eye popping, but again, probably not many look at catch % and separation (although they are both extremely important).

 

[LockeDown]

 When scouts say they watch a players tape that is an eye test. When a player “pops” that means they visually are very good.  Ballard would never draft a guy sight unseen. Just saying stats are helpful and supportive but not the be all end all.

[aaron11]

12 minutes ago, Irish YJ said:

 

I'd say TY's yards ypc is a bit eye popping.

 

Rogers is top 10 in the league in both catch % (#10), and target separation (#9). Most would say top 10 stats are eye popping, but again, probably not many look at catch % and separation (although they are both extremely important).

 

people might care about his catch % if he had more yards and TDs.  solid catch rate, but not eye popping.  you can dig and find stats that make people look great on their own but you have to look at everything

 

Wilkins has a ypc average up there with some of the all time great RBs.  hes a back up on a team that was 20th in rushing though 

[EastStreet]

1 hour ago, aaron11 said:

people might care about his catch % if he had more yards and TDs.  solid catch rate, but not eye popping.  you can dig and find stats that make people look great on their own but you have to look at everything

 

Wilkins has a ypc average up there with some of the all time great RBs.  hes a back up on a team that was 20th in rushing though 

I think your expectations of a traditional slot (in our O) might be unrealistic or perhaps you just don't understand what is expected of Rogers based on Reich's play calling. Traditional slots don't run the same routes as an outside WR runs (like a Z or X), and in our O those routes are typically shallow and many are across the middle.

 

To add, in most Os, one of the slot's primary responsibilities is to get OTHER WRs open (by reading the D and drawing coverage). Reich uses the "dagger" concept which can use a slot or TE to go straight, drawing coverage, which frees up the X or Z outside receiver who cuts across (which is supposed to be the primary read). 

 

In short, Rogers doesn't control the route options he runs, but he is to an extent responsible for reading the Ds and getting open (which he did very well by being ranked 9th).  In terms of comparison, his average target distance (when Luck throws him the ball) is 7.1 yards (which is ranked #102 among WRs) and gives him low opportunity for big yards. Tyreek Hill is a slot, but in a very different offense. His average target distance is 15.3, which is ranked #13 for comparison. While very different stats, both are products of the play calling and scheme.

[EastStreet]

1 hour ago, LockeDown said:

 When scouts say they watch a players tape that is an eye test. When a player “pops” that means they visually are very good.  Ballard would never draft a guy sight unseen. Just saying stats are helpful and supportive but not the be all end all.

a guy with bad stats typically isn't going to get a look by Ballard in the first place. stats typically get you in the door, and the eye test and intangibles sell you.

 

i'd also say that the average fan's eye test is not anywhere close to the level of Ballard's (or any coach or scout's) eye test.

[Fisticuffs111]

I like Chester enough. I think he has a good chemistry with Luck and will get quite a bit of work this season.

 

I think for a lot of people who don't like him, they just remember some key drops from him. Of course, he and Pascal both had a bad drop rate (not to mention Funchess' atrocious drop rate last year), but Chester had a very solid catch %. I think people just remember how many of Luck's INT's last year came from balls that were dropped/tipped by Pascal and Chester.

But yeah, Pascal doesn't get as much heat as Chester does for this. I'm not low on Pascal or anything, I'd be fine with him as the 6th guy.

[ProblChld32]

On 8/7/2019 at 12:40 AM, Irish YJ said:

Traditional slot WRs and APBs have a lot in common. A lot of short to intermediate routes in the middle of the field. A lot of APBs in college end up being slot WRs.

 

If you think Rogers stats are underwhelming, you must really think bad of Pascal. Grant, and Inman.

Grant was bought in to be a number 2 WR, I can’t give a real opinion on his season because he was significantly injured for a majority of it.

[EastStreet]

2 minutes ago, ProblChld32 said:

Grant was bought in to be a number 2 WR, I can’t give a real opinion on his season because he was significantly injured for a majority of it.

started 10 games IIRC and played in 14. not really a factor at X when he was "healthy".

not sure he was ever "healthy" to begin with. keep in mind he signed a big contract with Washington that was voided because he failed his physical. then shortly after he passed the Colt's physical and signed with him.

 

He's with the Raiders now. We'll see if he sticks, and how he does if he makes the 53

 

[LockeDown]

4 hours ago, Irish YJ said:

a guy with bad stats typically isn't going to get a look by Ballard in the first place. stats typically get you in the door, and the eye test and intangibles sell you.

 

i'd also say that the average fan's eye test is not anywhere close to the level of Ballard's (or any coach or scout's) eye test.

Ebron and Funchess had bad years and bad stats but Reich saw their potential visually and bad Ballard bring them in. Campbell has virtually never ran the route tree in college but our FO sees his talent and thinks he can do those things. Never once have I heard them mention stats.  They talk measurables.

[EastStreet]

17 minutes ago, LockeDown said:

Ebron and Funchess had bad years and bad stats but Reich saw their potential visually and bad Ballard bring them in. Campbell has virtually never ran the route tree in college but our FO sees his talent and thinks he can do those things. Never once have I heard them mention stats.  They talk measurables.

Bad years isn't exactly the same as bad stats, or bad history. Ebron was a 1st rounder (10th overall) and has great measureables. Funch was picked in the first half of the 2nd round and has rare size for a WR.

 

Ebron had almost 1000 yards in his senior year in college, and had 3 500+ years at TE in the NFL. I think Ballard saw a guy he could use differently by upping his RZ targets. Case in point, the year before he came to Indy, he had 12 RZ targets. In Indy his first year, he had almost double that in 21. IMO, Ballard saw a guy he perhaps new was good (based on previous stats), and simply wasn't utilized correctly.

 

I'm guessing he seems similar opportunity in Funch (who by coincidence also only had 12 RZ targets last year). I think Ballard also knows that Funch was asked to be a #1 WR in Carolina, which he never should have been. IMO he's still hasn't proved to be a well rounded X that can run all the routes (and catch it). But he is a guy that can be bad butt in the RZ, a great possession X, and be a monster as a big/bully slot. 

 

BTW, if Campbell didn't have the stats in college, he wouldn't have been looked at in the first place. Let's not pretend he didn't have good stats. Fountain also was even more raw from a route tree perspective, but had the measureables and stats to get noticed.

 

 

 

 

[DougDew]

17 hours ago, Irish YJ said:

If someone's eye told them that TY sucked, you'd likely say they are crazy, either citing the stats that say he is a top receiver, or citing that your "eye" is better than their eye. It's pretty simple. The "eye" is subjective. Stats are objective. Stats don't always tell the whole story, but they are fact based and aren't biased. The eye can be biased by all kinds of things.

 

 

Stats by themselves only give unbiased data points to compare to others.

 

 

They don't fit in to this thread/discusion. They have zero comparative stats in the NFL. At this stage, one can only look at 1) the fact that both succeeded at big time D1 programs, 2) camp reports, and 3) how they perform starting tomorrow in preseason (doubt we see PC due to injury).

 

 

It's a question of 1) ceiling and floor, 2) mixed with what else (guys who we know are locks) we have on the roster, and 3) how much risk the coaches and FO want to take.

 

If we compare WRs playing the same or similar positions, the only 3 that were in the traditional slot and Z bucket last year were Rogers, TY, and Fountain. We know TY is a lock, so subtract him from the discussion. That leaves you with Rogers, Fountain, and rookie Campbell. For the sake of argument, let's assume Campbell is a lock because he was second rounder and looks the part (even though he is injured, and was sitting at 3rd on the depth chart behind Rogers and TY in the Z/slot bucket.

 

So that leaves Rogers vs Fountain. Rogers has a lower ceiling but higher floor,,,, but is very consistent with a high catch % and good separation stats. Fountain at this point is sitting at 4th on the depth chart behind PC. We know he's very fast and has a great vertical, but also know he played against poor competition, was a poor route runner, and had inconsistent hands from reports. We've heard he's worked very hard on routes, but is everything coming together for him enough to displace a consistent guy like Rogers who also was a big part of the return game? I don't know yet.

 

What we do know, is that Reich has said this is Rogers best camp ever, and our OC gushed about him in the last week. The good news is (if we keep Rogers) we can probably hide Fountain on our PS for another year to let him continue to develop if needed. 

 

 

Rogers was 11th in the league in average yards per return. Not flashy, but better than average. And he has not given up the ball.

 

As far as replacements, Hines struggled when given the opportunity last year. PC was up and down so far this year, and has been injured/NP for over a week know IIRC. 

I had an issue with the tone of your OP; that it implied we are now “informed” where I assumed you were saying we weren't informed before because we didn’t have your stats.  A few things about how I took the the tone of your OP and stats in general:

 

The fact is, some (if not many/most) people can use their eyes to make accurate, quick judgments about things, then observe and process new information to make adjustments as the observe new things.  Maybe people who have had history of little success doing that feel more comfortable laying-out their analysis in terms of stats, but stats are no more objective than someone who has an accurate eye. 

 

The notion that the eye can have bias when stats do not is a biased notion, if not just plain incorrect. The algorithms used to collect the data and process it into stats are written by individuals.  Example: how is a "target" defined, or "getting open"?  Is there bias introduced when producing the stats?  Is a WR that got a 1.5 step separation open where the WR who got between 1 and 1.5 steps not open?  Just because something uses complex math as its root does not mean it’s without bias.   There is always judgment when choosing how to write formulas that weigh and prioritize data, and since by definition all human judgment is susceptible to bias because its human, stat formation is therefore biased.  Using math in a scientific endeavor is inescapably objective.  2+2=4.  Using math to determine “how often a WR got open” is usually awash in bias.  Was it a noncatch or a bad throw, given the circumstances at the time.  In baseball, was it an error or a hit?

 

The usage of stats over human judgment is driven by consolidation of decision making into centralized areas, usually urban areas, and the fact that its expensive to employ experienced humans to observe what’s taking place at all locations (in NFL terms, watching film of every game) relative to employing recent college grads to mine data (process the box scores, so to speak).  Virtually every large organization is doing that for expense savings, not because the resulting decision is less biased or smarter.  The goal, actually, is to process data in such a way that the decision is as good as an experience human could make within a tolerance of error so it doesn’t have to pay a team of humans to be in every city to interact with real customers. It’s not being done because the resulting decision comes less biased or is smarter.

 

Artificial Intelligence is trying to use data in a way that also considers judgment. It can process the one-offs, data anomalies better.   It might consider that when one WR gets only 1 step separation and would not be considered “open”,  that WR has 2 inch longer arms and a higher vertical to make up for it.  Something that an experienced human coach, or fan, would already have factored in after watching about 3 quarters of one game.  Sorry, analytics just hasn’t progressed far enough yet to be able to make an informed decision to strip away the noisy data and add in important data in any one play that an experience human can see.

 

As far as the Colts:  anybody on this forum could see by actually watching the games that: (supported by your stats)

 

Inman was the most consistent WR outside of TY in terms of making important plays with an acceptable level of consistency.  That Grant neither made big plays or had enough targets (assumed as a failure to get open) with a catch rate that was disappointing relative to what we expected.  That Rogers did most things competently, but neither had a catch rate or made enough big plays to warrant much attention, but was overall better than Grant.   That Ebron had more splash plays than Doyle but less catch competency. (and which TE you favor over the other has a lot to do with what area you prefer a TE to excel).

 

Now 9 months later, you give us stats that simply show what nearly everybody else, IMO, already knew by November.  And it was delivered with a tone that now we are "informed".  

 

As far as Rogers:

 

IMO that I think is shared by many; Rogers, being basically the third best WR last year,  was good enough to pencil in for a roster spot this year, but is replaceable.  Overall, I agree that Rogers is more likely to stick on the roster over any younger WR outside of Cain and obviously Campbell.  So what is he in terms of raw rank, #5?  I hope nobody is going to strongly advocate an opinion over who should be #5.

 

If a point of your OP is to show the people who reactively say someone "sucks" because the WR missed a play they should have made, or if people say Rogers shouldn't be retained because he "sucked" when they are comparing him to TY, I can understand the tone and the need for showing stats to spoon feed information to those who few can't see things objectively at the time. 

[Stephen]

Rogers  will make the team as we don't  have another punt returner. Hopefully  Cain and Campbell  do so well they keep him off the field. 

[aaron11]

Fountain could be a lot better than Rogers.  he might make this interesting

 

PC or hines could return punts, maybe one of the corners could too

[Myles]

On 8/7/2019 at 7:44 PM, LockeDown said:

 When scouts say they watch a players tape that is an eye test. When a player “pops” that means they visually are very good.  Ballard would never draft a guy sight unseen. Just saying stats are helpful and supportive but not the be all end all.

I agree.  If I had to judge a players worth on just one (either the stats or by watching them play), it would be the eye test for certain.   

[throwing BBZ]

On 8/7/2019 at 8:58 PM, Irish YJ said:

I think your expectations of a traditional slot (in our O) might be unrealistic or perhaps you just don't understand what is expected of Rogers based on Reich's play calling. Traditional slots don't run the same routes as an outside WR runs (like a Z or X), and in our O those routes are typically shallow and many are across the middle.

 

To add, in most Os, one of the slot's primary responsibilities is to get OTHER WRs open (by reading the D and drawing coverage). Reich uses the "dagger" concept which can use a slot or TE to go straight, drawing coverage, which frees up the X or Z outside receiver who cuts across (which is supposed to be the primary read). 

 

In short, Rogers doesn't control the route options he runs, but he is to an extent responsible for reading the Ds and getting open (which he did very well by being ranked 9th).  In terms of comparison, his average target distance (when Luck throws him the ball) is 7.1 yards (which is ranked #102 among WRs) and gives him low opportunity for big yards. Tyreek Hill is a slot, but in a very different offense. His average target distance is 15.3, which is ranked #13 for comparison. While very different stats, both are products of the play calling and scheme.

 

 Excellent. You are on a roll with some superior analysis.
Read and learn true Blue FB Fans.

[aaron11]

On 8/7/2019 at 8:58 PM, Irish YJ said:

I think your expectations of a traditional slot (in our O) might be unrealistic or perhaps you just don't understand what is expected of Rogers based on Reich's play calling. Traditional slots don't run the same routes as an outside WR runs (like a Z or X), and in our O those routes are typically shallow and many are across the middle.

 

To add, in most Os, one of the slot's primary responsibilities is to get OTHER WRs open (by reading the D and drawing coverage). Reich uses the "dagger" concept which can use a slot or TE to go straight, drawing coverage, which frees up the X or Z outside receiver who cuts across (which is supposed to be the primary read). 

 

In short, Rogers doesn't control the route options he runs, but he is to an extent responsible for reading the Ds and getting open (which he did very well by being ranked 9th).  In terms of comparison, his average target distance (when Luck throws him the ball) is 7.1 yards (which is ranked #102 among WRs) and gives him low opportunity for big yards. Tyreek Hill is a slot, but in a very different offense. His average target distance is 15.3, which is ranked #13 for comparison. While very different stats, both are products of the play calling and scheme.

i know what his job is, just never been that impressed with rogers.  he leaves too much on the table with his fair catches too imo.  i think fountain has lot more upside, but he may never reach that either

[throwing BBZ]

On 8/8/2019 at 12:41 PM, DougDew said:

I had an issue with the tone of your OP; that it implied we are now “informed” where I assumed you were saying we weren't informed before because we didn’t have your stats.  A few things about how I took the the tone of your OP and stats in general:

 

The fact is, some (if not many/most) people can use their eyes to make accurate, quick judgments about things, then observe and process new information to make adjustments as the observe new things.  Maybe people who have had history of little success doing that feel more comfortable laying-out their analysis in terms of stats, but stats are no more objective than someone who has an accurate eye. 

 

The notion that the eye can have bias when stats do not is a biased notion, if not just plain incorrect. The algorithms used to collect the data and process it into stats are written by individuals.  Example: how is a "target" defined, or "getting open"?  Is there bias introduced when producing the stats?  Is a WR that got a 1.5 step separation open where the WR who got between 1 and 1.5 steps not open?  Just because something uses complex math as its root does not mean it’s without bias.   There is always judgment when choosing how to write formulas that weigh and prioritize data, and since by definition all human judgment is susceptible to bias because its human, stat formation is therefore biased.  Using math in a scientific endeavor is inescapably objective.  2+2=4.  Using math to determine “how often a WR got open” is usually awash in bias.  Was it a noncatch or a bad throw, given the circumstances at the time.  In baseball, was it an error or a hit?

 

The usage of stats over human judgment is driven by consolidation of decision making into centralized areas, usually urban areas, and the fact that its expensive to employ experienced humans to observe what’s taking place at all locations (in NFL terms, watching film of every game) relative to employing recent college grads to mine data (process the box scores, so to speak).  Virtually every large organization is doing that for expense savings, not because the resulting decision is less biased or smarter.  The goal, actually, is to process data in such a way that the decision is as good as an experience human could make within a tolerance of error so it doesn’t have to pay a team of humans to be in every city to interact with real customers. It’s not being done because the resulting decision comes less biased or is smarter.

 

Artificial Intelligence is trying to use data in a way that also considers judgment. It can process the one-offs, data anomalies better.   It might consider that when one WR gets only 1 step separation and would not be considered “open”,  that WR has 2 inch longer arms and a higher vertical to make up for it.  Something that an experienced human coach, or fan, would already have factored in after watching about 3 quarters of one game.  Sorry, analytics just hasn’t progressed far enough yet to be able to make an informed decision to strip away the noisy data and add in important data in any one play that an experience human can see.

 

As far as the Colts:  anybody on this forum could see by actually watching the games that: (supported by your stats)

 

Inman was the most consistent WR outside of TY in terms of making important plays with an acceptable level of consistency.  That Grant neither made big plays or had enough targets (assumed as a failure to get open) with a catch rate that was disappointing relative to what we expected.  That Rogers did most things competently, but neither had a catch rate or made enough big plays to warrant much attention, but was overall better than Grant.   That Ebron had more splash plays than Doyle but less catch competency. (and which TE you favor over the other has a lot to do with what area you prefer a TE to excel).

 

Now 9 months later, you give us stats that simply show what nearly everybody else, IMO, already knew by November.  And it was delivered with a tone that now we are "informed".  

 

As far as Rogers:

 

IMO that I think is shared by many; Rogers, being basically the third best WR last year,  was good enough to pencil in for a roster spot this year, but is replaceable.  Overall, I agree that Rogers is more likely to stick on the roster over any younger WR outside of Cain and obviously Campbell.  So what is he in terms of raw rank, #5?  I hope nobody is going to strongly advocate an opinion over who should be #5.

 

If a point of your OP is to show the people who reactively say someone "sucks" because the WR missed a play they should have made, or if people say Rogers shouldn't be retained because he "sucked" when they are comparing him to TY, I can understand the tone and the need for showing stats to spoon feed information to those who few can't see things objectively at the time. 

 

 The flaw in your theory is people that watch it on tv are not seeing the whole play in the few seconds it takes to happen. Nor do most really understand what the routes of all participants are intended to do to create openings.
 The stats, given enough opportunities, can give the layman a better idea of what is consistently being done.
 I do not believe you are properly informed to be able to have a vaild opinion as to the hiring practices and training of the analytics producers ability to create consistent data. JMO of course.
And our players are being graded by our own staff on every play for some reason.

[EastStreet]

14 hours ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 Excellent. You are on a roll with some superior analysis.
Read and learn true Blue FB Fans.

I'm not even a big fan Rogers. Love him because he's a Colt, but also won't be said if someone comes in and performs better at slot. I just hate when folks expect apples and oranges to taste the same.... the traditional slot position in our offensive scheme has very different routes, goals, responsibilities, expectations, etc. than the other WR positions.

 

I'm guessing that's why we've heard Reich and Ballard talk about starting Campbell at slot but gradually moving him outside. Either they don't want to waste his abilities on slot routes, or they don't want to change their scheme to treat the slot more like KC and some other WC Os do.

[EastStreet]

On 8/8/2019 at 12:41 PM, DougDew said:

I had an issue with the tone of your OP; that it implied we are now “informed” where I assumed you were saying we weren't informed before because we didn’t have your stats.  A few things about how I took the the tone of your OP and stats in general:

 

The fact is, some (if not many/most) people can use their eyes to make accurate, quick judgments about things, then observe and process new information to make adjustments as the observe new things.  Maybe people who have had history of little success doing that feel more comfortable laying-out their analysis in terms of stats, but stats are no more objective than someone who has an accurate eye. 

 

The notion that the eye can have bias when stats do not is a biased notion, if not just plain incorrect. The algorithms used to collect the data and process it into stats are written by individuals.  Example: how is a "target" defined, or "getting open"?  Is there bias introduced when producing the stats?  Is a WR that got a 1.5 step separation open where the WR who got between 1 and 1.5 steps not open?  Just because something uses complex math as its root does not mean it’s without bias.   There is always judgment when choosing how to write formulas that weigh and prioritize data, and since by definition all human judgment is susceptible to bias because its human, stat formation is therefore biased.  Using math in a scientific endeavor is inescapably objective.  2+2=4.  Using math to determine “how often a WR got open” is usually awash in bias.  Was it a noncatch or a bad throw, given the circumstances at the time.  In baseball, was it an error or a hit?

 

The usage of stats over human judgment is driven by consolidation of decision making into centralized areas, usually urban areas, and the fact that its expensive to employ experienced humans to observe what’s taking place at all locations (in NFL terms, watching film of every game) relative to employing recent college grads to mine data (process the box scores, so to speak).  Virtually every large organization is doing that for expense savings, not because the resulting decision is less biased or smarter.  The goal, actually, is to process data in such a way that the decision is as good as an experience human could make within a tolerance of error so it doesn’t have to pay a team of humans to be in every city to interact with real customers. It’s not being done because the resulting decision comes less biased or is smarter.

 

Artificial Intelligence is trying to use data in a way that also considers judgment. It can process the one-offs, data anomalies better.   It might consider that when one WR gets only 1 step separation and would not be considered “open”,  that WR has 2 inch longer arms and a higher vertical to make up for it.  Something that an experienced human coach, or fan, would already have factored in after watching about 3 quarters of one game.  Sorry, analytics just hasn’t progressed far enough yet to be able to make an informed decision to strip away the noisy data and add in important data in any one play that an experience human can see.

 

As far as the Colts:  anybody on this forum could see by actually watching the games that: (supported by your stats)

 

Inman was the most consistent WR outside of TY in terms of making important plays with an acceptable level of consistency.  That Grant neither made big plays or had enough targets (assumed as a failure to get open) with a catch rate that was disappointing relative to what we expected.  That Rogers did most things competently, but neither had a catch rate or made enough big plays to warrant much attention, but was overall better than Grant.   That Ebron had more splash plays than Doyle but less catch competency. (and which TE you favor over the other has a lot to do with what area you prefer a TE to excel).

 

Now 9 months later, you give us stats that simply show what nearly everybody else, IMO, already knew by November.  And it was delivered with a tone that now we are "informed".  

 

As far as Rogers:

 

IMO that I think is shared by many; Rogers, being basically the third best WR last year,  was good enough to pencil in for a roster spot this year, but is replaceable.  Overall, I agree that Rogers is more likely to stick on the roster over any younger WR outside of Cain and obviously Campbell.  So what is he in terms of raw rank, #5?  I hope nobody is going to strongly advocate an opinion over who should be #5.

 

If a point of your OP is to show the people who reactively say someone "sucks" because the WR missed a play they should have made, or if people say Rogers shouldn't be retained because he "sucked" when they are comparing him to TY, I can understand the tone and the need for showing stats to spoon feed information to those who few can't see things objectively at the time. 

Sorry, missed this. And apologies if the "tone" or title triggered you. I only wanted to arm folks with data and information. "Inform" is the base of "information". Anyway, I disagree with most of the above. Basic stats aren't bias. Pure yards, catches, targets, catch % (catches/targets) are all simple and unbiased data points. You can make a small case for potential bias with "advanced" stats, but if all formulas/algorithms are applied the same to all, the potential bias is small. To say the "eye" is less bias, is kind of silly. Numbers aren't biased. Humans are.

 

I've also said many times that stats aren't everything. Simply data points that should be used collectively with other things to form a well rounded, and informed opinion. Your point about separation stats and arm length is a good point. It also proves my point about collectively using multiple stats (along with the eye test). If a guy has poor separation stats, but a great catch %, you'll probably find other stats (like contested catch %) or measurables (arm lengthy or catch radius) to explain the disparity. If a guy has poor separation stats, and a poor catch %, it doesn't really matter. I'd bet that separation stats correlate pretty well with catch % though. But again, it's not the whole story.

 

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I will point out that Ballard is a big fan of stats. IIRC, he increased the size of his geek team substantially last year, and pretty sure they added several more prior to the draft. And if we agree that Ballard has a great eye given his scouting history, we can also agree that his actions show he also values data.

[NewColtsFan]

On 8/8/2019 at 9:41 AM, DougDew said:

I had an issue with the tone of your OP; that it implied we are now “informed” where I assumed you were saying we weren't informed before because we didn’t have your stats.  A few things about how I took the the tone of your OP and stats in general:

 

The fact is, some (if not many/most) people can use their eyes to make accurate, quick judgments about things, then observe and process new information to make adjustments as the observe new things.  Maybe people who have had history of little success doing that feel more comfortable laying-out their analysis in terms of stats, but stats are no more objective than someone who has an accurate eye. 

 

The notion that the eye can have bias when stats do not is a biased notion, if not just plain incorrect. The algorithms used to collect the data and process it into stats are written by individuals.  Example: how is a "target" defined, or "getting open"?  Is there bias introduced when producing the stats?  Is a WR that got a 1.5 step separation open where the WR who got between 1 and 1.5 steps not open?  Just because something uses complex math as its root does not mean it’s without bias.   There is always judgment when choosing how to write formulas that weigh and prioritize data, and since by definition all human judgment is susceptible to bias because its human, stat formation is therefore biased.  Using math in a scientific endeavor is inescapably objective.  2+2=4.  Using math to determine “how often a WR got open” is usually awash in bias.  Was it a noncatch or a bad throw, given the circumstances at the time.  In baseball, was it an error or a hit?

 

The usage of stats over human judgment is driven by consolidation of decision making into centralized areas, usually urban areas, and the fact that its expensive to employ experienced humans to observe what’s taking place at all locations (in NFL terms, watching film of every game) relative to employing recent college grads to mine data (process the box scores, so to speak).  Virtually every large organization is doing that for expense savings, not because the resulting decision is less biased or smarter.  The goal, actually, is to process data in such a way that the decision is as good as an experience human could make within a tolerance of error so it doesn’t have to pay a team of humans to be in every city to interact with real customers. It’s not being done because the resulting decision comes less biased or is smarter.

 

Artificial Intelligence is trying to use data in a way that also considers judgment. It can process the one-offs, data anomalies better.   It might consider that when one WR gets only 1 step separation and would not be considered “open”,  that WR has 2 inch longer arms and a higher vertical to make up for it.  Something that an experienced human coach, or fan, would already have factored in after watching about 3 quarters of one game.  Sorry, analytics just hasn’t progressed far enough yet to be able to make an informed decision to strip away the noisy data and add in important data in any one play that an experience human can see.

 

As far as the Colts:  anybody on this forum could see by actually watching the games that: (supported by your stats)

 

Inman was the most consistent WR outside of TY in terms of making important plays with an acceptable level of consistency.  That Grant neither made big plays or had enough targets (assumed as a failure to get open) with a catch rate that was disappointing relative to what we expected.  That Rogers did most things competently, but neither had a catch rate or made enough big plays to warrant much attention, but was overall better than Grant.   That Ebron had more splash plays than Doyle but less catch competency. (and which TE you favor over the other has a lot to do with what area you prefer a TE to excel).

 

Now 9 months later, you give us stats that simply show what nearly everybody else, IMO, already knew by November.  And it was delivered with a tone that now we are "informed".  

 

As far as Rogers:

 

IMO that I think is shared by many; Rogers, being basically the third best WR last year,  was good enough to pencil in for a roster spot this year, but is replaceable.  Overall, I agree that Rogers is more likely to stick on the roster over any younger WR outside of Cain and obviously Campbell.  So what is he in terms of raw rank, #5?  I hope nobody is going to strongly advocate an opinion over who should be #5.

 

If a point of your OP is to show the people who reactively say someone "sucks" because the WR missed a play they should have made, or if people say Rogers shouldn't be retained because he "sucked" when they are comparing him to TY, I can understand the tone and the need for showing stats to spoon feed information to those who few can't see things objectively at the time. 

 

I'm sorry, Doug....     I'm sure you either wince, or roll your eyes when you see that I've responded to a post of yours.     I don't blame you.    I give you my word,  I'm not stalking you.   I just clicked on this thread and started scrolling and reading.    I wasn't looking for your post.

 

But I confess,  once I read it, my eyes popped and my chin dropped.    There are large sections that are just filled with opinion backed by nothing.    The fact is,  that analystics is winning everywhere.    Football, Baseball,  Basketball, Hockey.    Every team in all four of those sports are now using analystics.    Why?    Not to save money,  but because analystics is giving as close to unbiased information as you can find.    Doesn't mean that the eyeball test a scout uses isn't helpful and important.    But teams are using both.  

 

Where the flaws are is human error,  not analytics.   Teams can come up with different results based on the same analytics.   That's not an analytical problems,  it's a human problem.   And another issue,  is that most analystics is different from team to team.   All 32 teams aren't looking at nothing but the same stat print outs.   They are in some cases.   But all teams then have their own, proprietary analytics inserting their own beliefs and biases.    You often hear Ballard talk about players have to meet certain criteria.    He's talking about height, weight, speed, all sorts of testing results.    What the Colts want is likely different than what other teams want.    Every team has their own likes and wants.   What works best for their system.   Again,  not a flaw of analytics,  a flaw of human beings.

 

If you think all teams in all sports are simply using analytics to cut down on staffing needs,  then the analytical movement has literall passed you by.    Analystics work.   Everywhere. Every successful team are using them and winning with them.     Teams that aren't successful are using them too.    Perhaps wrongly (human error)  or perhaps their problems is bad front office, or bad coaching.    That doesn't mean there's an analytical problem, again, it's human flaws.

 

Sorry,  there are no examples that I'm aware of that would support your view of things.  The closest I could come up with is Marge Schott from 35 years ago who famously said...    "What do scouts do?    They spend all day sitting around and watch baseball games."    She fired many scouts in the Reds started going in the wrong direction.    The debate is long over.    The analytics community has won, and it's not even close.

 

You can get much better results WITH analytics than you can without.

 

[holeymoley99]

Stats are always fun and tell part of a story. Wondering if you have ranking of td % per catch (Huge importance compared to some stats, money catches in the words of the great Bear Bryant) and catch rate/drop rate of potential td catches. Some Colts numbers last season

 

TY 76 catches 6 tds  1 per 12.6

Pascal  27 for 2 tds  1 per  13.5

Rogers 53 for 2 tds  1 per 26.5

Hines 63 for 2 tds     1 per 31.5

Mack 17 for 1            1 per 17

Ebron 66 for 13        1 per 5.1 (Amazing number compared to league avg would wager)

Doyle  26 for 2          1 per 13

Grant 35 for 1           1 for 35

Inman 28 for 3         1 per 9.3

Swope 8 for 3           1 per 2.7

Alie- Cox 7 for 2       1 per 3.5

Johnson 6 for 1        1 per 6

Wilkins 16 for 0      -----------

 

[EastStreet]

4 hours ago, holeymoley99 said:

Stats are always fun and tell part of a story. Wondering if you have ranking of td % per catch (Huge importance compared to some stats, money catches in the words of the great Bear Bryant) and catch rate/drop rate of potential td catches. Some Colts numbers last season

 

TY 76 catches 6 tds  1 per 12.6

Pascal  27 for 2 tds  1 per  13.5

Rogers 53 for 2 tds  1 per 26.5

Hines 63 for 2 tds     1 per 31.5

Mack 17 for 1            1 per 17

Ebron 66 for 13        1 per 5.1 (Amazing number compared to league avg would wager)

Doyle  26 for 2          1 per 13

Grant 35 for 1           1 for 35

Inman 28 for 3         1 per 9.3

Swope 8 for 3           1 per 2.7

Alie- Cox 7 for 2       1 per 3.5

Johnson 6 for 1        1 per 6

Wilkins 16 for 0      -----------

 

Good stats. Thanks. If you get a chance, take a look at the TDs per target, I like even more than per catch.  It's more bang for buck.

 

On the above. Keep in mind that some positions are used a lot more (TE, Possession X / Slot Bully)  in the RZ, and targeted much more in the RZ, than other positions. Also, deep/speed positions like (speed X or Z) are going to get more opportunity as well. I think TY had like 22 "Big" (big yardage) plays according to ESPN. And last year we didn't have a speed X. And specifically in our O, traditional slot is not going to have many TDs. Between the 20s, deep routes are typically X and Z, and in RZ situations, traditional slot is subbed for a "big" or "bully" slot.

 

 

[DougDew]

On 8/10/2019 at 9:50 AM, throwing BBZ said:

 

 The flaw in your theory is people that watch it on tv are not seeing the whole play in the few seconds it takes to happen. Nor do most really understand what the routes of all participants are intended to do to create openings.
 The stats, given enough opportunities, can give the layman a better idea of what is consistently being done.
 I do not believe you are properly informed to be able to have a vaild opinion as to the hiring practices and training of the analytics producers ability to create consistent data. JMO of course.
And our players are being graded by our own staff on every play for some reason.

How do you know that I don't work with Quants every day and I'm basically repeating what they are telling me and showing me?

 

There is a popular idea that stats are superior to the eye.  That idea is wrong, and that is not why stats are developed or used. 

 

Stats are used when someone cannot see for themselves what is going on, yet they still need/want to form an opinion about what is going on.  The proliferation and processing of data as allowed a lot more opinionated people to have a basis for an opinion where before they would simply choose to not have one because they didn't see it for themselves, but it doesn't mean stats are a good basis for having one. The notion that stats are superior to the eye because the eye is biased is dogma that's used to sell algorithms.

 

If a company in NYC wants to sell product in Montana, they probably use stats because they don't have a bunch of employees in Montana telling them in the flesh what is going on.  The decision makers are in NYC, and what they want to know what is going on in Montana.  They use stats because that's all they have, not because its better.  If they believe the stats are sound enough to allow for a decision within their risk tolerance for error, they will make a decision.  If the stats are poor and too noisy, they'll pass.  Stats are useful.  Algorithms have value.  But they are not superior to accurate human judgment.  They are trying to replace accurate human judgment.

 

There was a bunch of stats thrown about back when Funchess was signed.  Way too noisy to make any conclusions about what he would do under Colts coaching, game plan, and Luck. 

 

One person brought up the stats about Funchess' success with certain routes or patterns in which Reich uses a lot in the offense.  THAT was a very good stat.  It showed some correlation between between his performance and what the Colts do, so that would be useful in forecasting his performance with the Colts. 

 

Many of the stats within the thread (and many comments within the forum) are simply not granular enough to mean anything, which is why they simply reflect what many observers already concluded months ago.

[aaron11]

Fountain is starting to look better than rogers.  the stats wont say this, but the eye test does. 

 

Im actually a big fan of stats myself, but i dont think they are good for much when looking at 4th-6th WRs on the depth chart.  none of these guys have been given many chances 

[holeymoley99]

I wonder if there is a spot for us to get all the info breakdown we want ?  Im thinking Ebron's td % of catches and even targets has to be among the best TE numbers in many years. TDs per snaps played maybe even higher on the list. Really would like to see a chart.