[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Good points and without turning this into a longer debate then neccesary I think the opposite of what you're saying above is true.
I'm talking specifically about Moss and Hankerson the expectations for the rest of the receiving corps is no different then any other NFL team that is trying to develop young WRs.
As far as the 'hope' theory goes for me there is less hope required players have actually achieved the level of play desired (Gaffney, Moss) vs expecting players that have not yet to reached the expected level of production.
Willie Smith was good for an UDFA back-up, Polumbus also was decent for a back-up, Jammal Brown was well terrible as a starter.
If the season started now we would not have a competent RT on the roster but even without Garcon and Morgan we would have 2 competent WRs in Moss and Gaffney.
And that ulitmately is the difference.
We would be hoping that Brown, Smith and Polumbus improve to a level that we've haven't seen yet(or recently in Jammal Brown's case).

We know what Gaffney and Moss provides, but it isn't much anyway, and age depreciation is not something to simply throw under the rug when talking about WRs. It is not foolish to expect Moss to trend downwards next season statistically; physically, he already has shown signs of aging. Expecting a "second wind" from a WR nearing 33 years of age is a course of action that will lead to disappointment.

Smith had to start, at a more difficult position, and he held his own for four games. Because he was a rookie and he has much to learn, it is not unreasonable to expect him to play at a higher level than he did last year and be better than Brown.

I understand your point here but I'm not using FBO to predict anything.
I posted the their stats as a reference.
And of course FBO metric has limitation every stat does but the limits you address apply to Garcon and Morgan just like the apply for Moss and Gaffney.

I would like a little clarification as to what specific points are you trying to establish with the use of the stat of DYAR and DVOA. As in what is this stat supposed to tell me specifically.

And I don't believe I'm guilty of selectively applying the stat. I believe there is no conclusive way to use DYAR as a solid estimator for the how good a reciever is. Morgan cannot be deemed as vastly superior to Garcon and Moss, if one ignores the small sample size of Mrogan's. Garcon and Moss might or might not be similar as the stats imply. Or as an example from last year, DeSean Jackson and Jabar Gaffney had the same DYAR, but the near-unanimous majority would rate DJax as the better receiver.

And the DYAR can vary considerably even for the same receiver over time, like Garcon had a positive DYAR the year before and an even higher DYAR two years ago.

I would say that QB is a push, but lets not forget Garcon was playing with Reggie Wayne and Dallas Clark.

Did the signing of Garcon and Morgan improve the WR corps? Yes.
But, again for me I think RT more so they any other position on offense was the weakest link on our starting 11.
I'm an oldschool type guy and I think physical superiority at the point of attack is the single most successful way to improve an offense.
I think finding a definitive upgrade at the RT position, more then any else, would be the most beneficial to support a rookie QB.
If people expect a Cam Newtonesque season from Griffin people shouldn't overlook the quality of Newton's OL.

So now we're back to talking physical impact after leaving the lovely ivory tower of blind statisical inferences? I'd like a RT too, but we are not in a position to sit back and relax at the state of our WR corps either, especially two years from now, when Gaffney cross that threshold into the realm of unproductiveness(33 years of age) and we only have Leonard Hankerson's game against Miami to say it's not a problem.