V. Jackson "Prepared to Sit out season"

If effectiveness assessments are based on the 10 other players on the field with him I don't know how you can put much stock in value assessments and effectively compare Vincent Jackson to Brandon Marshall or any other two players.

Personally I believe in "Plug a Player and Play™" which is a subjective measurement of a players ability to come in and play at a high "Alpha Gorilla Level™" for any team.

Yes I do, I just hold no value in it. I've already pointed out holes.

Look at it this way, here are Johnson's last 2 seasons:
08- Targets, 170, 115 rec, 1575 yds, 13.7 YPC, 8 td.
09- targets, 171, 101 rec, 1569 yds, 15.5 ypc, 9 tds.

How are those two seasons so vastly different in terms of value?Higher catch rate, similar yards per target, probably a bit different in role.

If you look at the sabermetrics, Johnson went from other-worldly in 2008 to merely quite good in 2009. But as you seem to have proven above, it's probably not predictive of anything. Johnson still is a threat to get 1,500 yards every year, and though his role may change by who is healthy (his role changed when Owen Daniels got hurt -- probably for the worst), I see no reason to think that Johnson isn't one of the five best receivers in football for the next four years.

Also, as you argued for Marshall (incorrectly), defenses probably were out to make sure that Johnson doesn't beat them as decisively as he did in 2008. You could argue that his 2009 season was even MORE impressive than 2008. However, it wasn't more valuable, at least on those 170 plays that show up in the statistics.

If effectiveness assessments are based on the 10 other players on the field with him I don't know who you can put much stock in value assessments and effectively compare Vincent Jackson to Brandon Marshall or any other two players.

Personally I believe in "Plug a Player and Play™" which is a subjective measurement of a players ability to come in and play at a high "Alpha Gorilla Level™" for any team.Well, you make a very interesting point, because if the argument between two players isn't completely academic, then they do have to produce consistently in the context of their offenses.

I figured that people already know that the Broncos passing offense is blown away by the Chargers. When you look at mediocre passing offenses, look no further than the Broncos from 2006-2009. When you want to look at the best in the league over the same timeframe, look no further than the Chargers.

Of course, people will always look at the quarterback and the offensive line and the coaching staff before looking at WR no. 1, as rightly they should. But that doesn't mean that there isn't enough difference to go around here. The Chargers have proven better at nearly every offensive position than the Broncos since 2006, with a possible exception to the offensive line.

I think the Chargers OL has been underrated, but the Broncos --save 2009-- has been one of the best.

There's no hole dude, Marshall is more explosive than Wes Welker.

wow...I think you are on an island with that one buddy.

Heck, Randle El had two GREAT years in the slot for us, but we figured we could do better than him.

Umm, what?????? I don't know what to say to that. I obviously believe you are waaaay off with your first statement cause everyone realizes that Welker is more explosive, but at least you have an opinion you are firm about...but this is borderline lunacy. Not only did you use the word "great", you capitalized it!!!! This is a guy that averaged ONLY 46.5 catches, 550.5 yards over 4 years, and had ONLY 8 tds (average of 2 a year). So I am morbidly curious to hear your explanation on this one.

You are correct on the explosive vs. effective thing, but Marshall has never been really effective in his career. He was used differently under two different coaches, with a similar aggregate result.

Yup...pro bowl.

Catches aren't anyone's idea of a value stat, see: Mike Furrey, 2006.
Sorry man, I hate to keep saying it, cause usually you offer very good comments, but wrong again. You would be correct if your sample set was only 1 year. But Marshall has 100+ catches for 3 straight seasons...something Furrey never even accomplished once. To compare the two is way off in any set or format.

Or for some more circular logic, any Brandon Marshall season. Yards per touch is a lot better for a value metric: yards are necessarily contested at least, unlike catches. But yards per touch is just yards per catch (which we've been using) without rushing attempts. At that point, you're combining things just to combine things to change results.

Actually what I did was blow your comments out of the water. This is exactly what you said (Marshall)"never ranked in the top ten in any value statistic in any one season of his career." Well, I provided 10 times in which he was (in 4 seasons mind you), and even if you think 2 are the same, that's 8 times which I proved you wrong. Yet, you refuse to acknowledge it. That's not really my issue. I've proved my point beyond a shadow of a doubt. Still it's a matter of opinion, and you are on an extreme island in think Marshall is middle of the pack wr. I can't make myself any more clear on my comments...so I guess we will have to agree to disagree even though you have provided no proof of your opinions like I have. To each his own.

Isn't nice to have to jsarno back?

Almost as refreshing as a Irish Springs commercial.

You're difficult to argue with because you attack a bunch of different evidences provided for my point with no actual semblance of a counter argument. You also started out with a bunch of incorrect premises (including, but not limited to, a "knowledge" of the Broncos offense you proved not to have).

I disagree. I provided point after point to counter your points. For instance, like I said in the last post how you used an opinion of saying Marshall never made the top 10 in anything, and I refuted it (to no real comment from you).
Also, I have pointed out the exact same opinions as you in regards to Denver's offense. I find it hard to believe that you are knowledgable of football but refuse to understand that Royal underachieved last year despite being moved around. (again, this is common knowledge)

You have one common strategy: discredit what I am saying because I don't agree with you. Problem is, I don't even think you comprehend what I am saying. Either that, or you know I am right, and want to be argumentative anyway. Wouldn't be the first time.

Maybe I don't comprehend what you are saying, because your incorrect points are getting in the way. You have used a TON of opinion to prove your point, very little fact like I have. You're right, wouldn't be the first time you have done that. Clearly you want to believe what you want to believe, and that's your choice...but like I said, a medicre, or middle of the pack wr would never get a 5 year 50 million contract. Obviously the NFL agrees with me too.

Anyway, those are the facts of the situation. And we already pointed out above that when receivers are getting 150-175 targets in a year, the difference between 12.3 yards per catch and 13.5 yards per catch is A LOT. Over 16 games, it's close to a win.

I disagree that it's a win, especially when the guy that had 12.3 ypc had 1 more td. 12.3 ypc X 101 catches = 1242.3. 13.5 YPC X 101 catches = 1363.5. That's 121.2 yards per season. Or 7.575 yards per game. So you are trying to tell me (and others) that 7.5 yards a game is a win somewhere????? 7.5 yards per game is negligible.

And I can easily name 20 current receivers more valuable than Marshall. Johnson, and many others, would be on that list.

Only per your opinion, or skewed stats.

I think you overrate Andre Johnson a little bit, he's probably not the very best receiver in football, but he's certainly in the discussion and is probably one of the most difficult matchups in all of sports. And he's proven that on the field.

Maybe you're right...Fitzgerald deserves some credit too. But to put him under the top 2 or even 3 at worst is certainly off. Again, ask ANY NFL team.

...you have provided no proof of your opinions like I have.

This is funny to me.

I figured that people already know that the Broncos passing offense is blown away by the Chargers. When you look at mediocre passing offenses, look no further than the Broncos from 2006-2009. When you want to look at the best in the league over the same timeframe, look no further than the Chargers.

See, this is where you go wrong, while you look at your own opinions, I tend to look at fact. You are amazingly incorrect here. 06 and 09 were the only years the Chargers had a better offense passing. Why would you say what you said if you knew what you were talking about? Clearly you did not know what you were talking about, and here is the proof:
06, Chargers 15th, Broncos 25th
07- Broncos 13th, Chargers 26th
08- Broncos 3rd, chargers 7th.
09- Chargers 5th, Broncos 15th.

Average rank for the Chargers 13.25.
Average rank for the Broncos 14.

So "the best passing offense in the league" averages a ranking of only 13.25 over 4 years, but a mediocre team averages a ranking of only .75 more?

I'm sure you will ignore this evidence as well and go about spouting your own opinions...can't stop you, but please, for once, look up stats before you spew opinions. You're better than this. How many times do I have to blatently show proof your comments are incorrect and you ignore them?

ps- if you want to look at the best in that time frame, may I suggest Saints, Colts, Cardinals for example?

This is funny to me.

LOOOL :lol:

Jsarno I just have one word for you man AWESOME!:food-smil