Redskins Add WRs Pierre Garcon and Joshua Morgan

[30gut]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

There is much more hoping needed at the WR position for us than at the OL starters. We have to hope Moss's age has not caught up with him, that Gaffney can replicate his season....Wille Smith had a longer audition to showcase his stuff and he did quite well; hence, hoping for him is more plausible than hoping for the WR corps to magically transform itself into on that rivals the better ones in the league.

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).

Football Outsiders...Gaffney, without controlling for variables such as scheme, other receivers taking pressure off of him, play action effectiveness, o-line quality, etc might have indeed performed better than Moss last year, but that does not necessarily prove that he is the better, more valuable player on the field physically....
Also, if we are to use these stats to predict future performance, the real matter is whether past DYAR and DVOA is a good indicator of future DYAR and DVOA values.

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.

Garcon had even worse QBs and a worse supporting cast.

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.

[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.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

We know what Gaffney and Moss provides, but it isn't much anyway...Expecting a "second wind" from a WR nearing 33 years of age is a course of action that will lead to disappointment......it is not unreasonable to expect him to play at a higher level than he did last year and be better than Brown.

I feel like we're going in circles now where you devalue Moss and Gaffney's actual production while talking up heretofore unseen production from a UDFA rooke RT and a drastically underperforming and injured RT.
My point is simple net-net Gaffney and Moss are better WRs then Willie Smith and Jammal Brown are RTs.
I don't see how anyone can say they know what Gaffney and Moss provide and say its not much when compared against the level of play at the RT position.

2011
Jabar Gaffney 68 catches 947 yards 5 tds
Pierre Garcon 70 catches 947 yards 6 tds
Santana Moss 48 catches 548 yards 4 tds (missed 4 games with a broken hand)
Moss's 2010 season (then one where he didn't break his hand like this year) 93 catches(top 10), 1,115 yards(top 10) 6 tds

The stats are for reference.
For example when you say that Moss/Gaffney don't provide much you can look refer to the stats and see there actual production numbers.

Originally Posted by SCP

I believe there is no conclusive way to use DYAR as a solid estimator for the how good a reciever is

Me too.

Actually the only one making blind statistical inferences is you.
I posted the stats you made assumptions and inferences based on the stats.

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.

Who said anything about sitting back and relaxing about our WR corps? I surely did not:

Originally Posted by 30gut

I would have been just as happy with Early Doucet or Harry Douglas and saved some of that 21 mil/42mil/5

So again, simply put I think addressing the RT position this offseason with a proven quality starter provides greater benefit to our rookie QB then adding a couple of 2nd tier WRs with upside.
Or as i've stated previously:

Originally Posted by 30gut

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.

[los panda]

Originally Posted by 30gut

I feel like...
...stated previously:

how long did that take?

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by 30gut

I feel like we're going in circles now where you devalue Moss and Gaffney's actual production while talking up heretofore unseen production from a UDFA rooke RT and a drastically underperforming and injured RT.
My point is simple net-net Gaffney and Moss are better WRs then Willie Smith and Jammal Brown are RTs.
I don't see how anyone can say they know what Gaffney and Moss provide and say its not much when compared against the level of play at the RT position.

2011
Jabar Gaffney 68 catches 947 yards 5 tds
Pierre Garcon 70 catches 947 yards 6 tds
Santana Moss 48 catches 548 yards 4 tds (missed 4 games with a broken hand)
Moss's 2010 season (then one where he didn't break his hand like this year) 93 catches(top 10), 1,115 yards(top 10) 6 tds

We're on different pages. It is not that the numbers representing output are irrelevant, but rather whether such statistical outputs can be maintained given state of the player's inputs of production. Output is either performance on the field or on the statsheet. Inputs are things like scheme, speed, agility, hands, playbook knowledge, physical wear and tear.

I am more concerned with making projections about future production than about who was better in 2011-2012. So Moss and Gaffney produced those numbers. Can they maintain or surpass them next year, two years from now, etc? Similarly, will Smith and Brown be better, the same, or worse in 2012? Brown, Moss, and Gaffney are at the stage of their career where production trends downwards. This is correlated with the inputs becoming less productive. Whereas Smith is either going to do nothing and bust out of the league or he will improve his game because his inputs become "more productive".
Did Moss and Gaffney produce better than Brown and Smith in 2011-2012? Sure.
Can Moss and Gaffney keep up their level of play? Maybe. If not, production will trend downwards.
Can Brown get better? He'll either stay the same or get worse.
Can Smith improve substantially(aka get closer to his ceiling)? Yes, he can. He might stay the same or get worse...but he has to really slack off considering he held his own against fierce pass rushers.

Separate from the matter of maintaining statiscal production levels are on-field impacts that are not tangible on the statsheet, such as drawing double coverage or being a deep threat; valuable commodities for opening up an offense. These are things not captured on the statsheet.


Just as an aside, since you used Moss's 2010 stats, I will throw out there that Armstrong's DYAR that year was 133 compared to Moss' 117 and his DVOA was 7.4% compared to Moss's -2.1%. Food for thought.

The stats are for reference.
For example when you say that Moss/Gaffney don't provide much you can look refer to the stats and see there actual production numbers.

I know its purpose is for reference...and acquiring perspective. Stating its purpose is not a defining and then breaking down the stat's shortcomings.

I want to know what the stat means and what are its shortcomings. Such as if I were to explain what is Gross Domestic Product, I would have to explain what it measures and its shortcomings.

Actually the only one making blind statistical inferences is you.
I posted the stats you made assumptions and inferences based on the stats.

Um no, I made no inferences of any sort. In fact, my wall of text was precisely intended to show that no conclusive statements could be made from just telling me some rankings and showing me "advanced stats" without explanation.

You provided absolutely no explanation of what DYAR and DVOA mean or their shortcomings, but yet I'm supposed accept my initial point is countered:
1. based one year's worth of data(small sample)
2. from data loaded with confounding variables
3. by using stats that measure output, not inputs

And of course, rankings can hide things...like the actual values of the DYAR and DVOA.

So again, simply put I think addressing the RT position this offseason with a proven quality starter provides greater benefit to our rookie QB then adding a couple of 2nd tier WRs with upside.
Or as i've stated previously:

Given certain assumptions, this viewpoint is plausible. I do not believe those assumptions are well-founded enough. These assumptions include the inability for Willie Smith's inputs of production to become more "efficient"(i.e working on his technique, improving his strength, etc), that Moss and Gaffney's inputs of production are not going to deterioriate, and that our newcomers cannot have a spike in their output.

Separately, the use of the fallacious line of thought that the same output value is due to viritually identical inputs is commonplace in your posts. There are easy counterexamples to this faulty reasoning. For example, two countries produce 100 units of clothes. One country used 100 units of labor and no units of capital to produce that many clothes. The other country used 1 unit of capital and 20 units of labor to produce that many clothes.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

We're on different pages.

Ain't that the truth.

I am more concerned with making projections about future production than about who was better in 2011-2012....Can Smith improve substantially(aka get closer to his ceiling)? Yes, he can. He might stay the same or get worse...but he has to really slack off considering he held his own against fierce pass rushers.

Your aim might be to make projections and that's great but that has nothing to do with me or my point.
'Held his own' is relative.
My aim for the offseason would have been to find the best RT to bolster our OL and protect our rookie QB not to project and hope on the upside of a back-up UDFA rookie that was pressed into duty.

Just as an aside, since you used Moss's 2010 stats, I will throw out there that Armstrong's DYAR that year was 133 compared to Moss' 117 and his DVOA was 7.4% compared to Moss's -2.1%. Food for thought.

Armstrong's 2010 season was undoubted aided his own health (which failed him this year) and by McNabb's ability to throw the deep ball which lead to 19.8 YPC which undoubted aided both his DYAR and DVOA.
And if you used DYAR and DVOA to make 'projections' based on Armstrong from last year your projection would have been off.
That's why I look at the stats as a reference or record of what actually happened not a tool for prediction.

I want to know what the stat means and what are its shortcomings.

And you wrongly assume that everyone else doesn't realize the shortcomings.
Every metric has flaws, if you want to hash them out for every metric that is mentioned help yourself, but that's not my aim.

Um no, I made no inferences of any sort. In fact, my wall of text was precisely intended to show that no conclusive statements could be made from just telling me some rankings and showing me "advanced stats" without explanation.

Your wall of text was an arguement against nothing.
No conclusive statements were made, I posted the stats and rankings for reference which I've stated already.
If there were conclusive satements made by all means quote them.

You provided absolutely no explanation of what DYAR and DVOA mean or their shortcomings, but yet I'm supposed accept my initial point is countered:

See above.
I don't post stats with the intent to explain them, the interested members either already know or can look it up.
While you're looking for counters, I'm trying to have a discussion about football.

Given certain assumptions, this viewpoint is plausible. I do not believe those assumptions are well-founded enough. These assumptions include the inability for Willie Smith's inputs of production to become more "efficient"(i.e working on his technique, improving his strength, etc), that Moss and Gaffney's inputs of production are not going to deterioriate, and that our newcomers cannot have a spike in their output.

Your assumptions are all based on levels of performance the players have yet to reach.
My 'assumptions' are based on past performance.

Could Willie Smith become a great RT? Sure, I don't doubt that he could be.
But he could also wash out like Stephon Heyer.
Could Jammal Brown return to being a good OT? Sure.
But, I'm not willing to bet the protection of my rookie QB on it.

Our difference is this:
For me finding a solution at RT is more important then finding upgrades at WR.
Finding the 'Pierre Garcon' of RTs is more important to me then finding Pierre Garcon.

Separately, the use of the fallacious line of thought that the same output value is due to viritually identical inputs is commonplace in your posts.

More false assumptions.
Do you even know my point?
Because it sure seems like you're so intent on having an argument that my actuall points seem lost on you.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by 30gut

More false assumptions.
Do you even know my point?
Because it sure seems like you're so intent on having an argument that my actuall points seem lost on you.

Your initial point is not lost to me. In fact, I find this discourse rather fruitful and pleasant, at least for me; I intend no sarcasm and harbor no ill feelings. I'll provide a brief summary of your point, just to answer your question and show your own assumptions about my intents and my mental state are false.


Your main point: Our O-line is in a worse state than our WRs.

In particular, our RT situation is horrible.
Right tackle is a more important matter for us than wide receiver. We should used our resources to acquire a player that would have improved that position.

You attempted to justify your main point by addressing the following matters:
Why our WRs are in a relatively good state.
Why our OL is in a relatively bad state.
Why addressing WR the way we did was not good
Why not addressing the OL(RT), so far, was not good.



The rest of your post is not forgotten either, and I'll respond later, but sleep beckons.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

Your main point: Our O-line is in a worse state than our WRs.

In particular, our RT situation is horrible.
Right tackle is a more important matter for us than wide receiver. We should used our resources to acquire a player that would have improved that position.

Close, very close.
And maybe its too siblime a distinction to quibble over but my focus is on the benefit for the QB:

Originally Posted by 30gut

...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.

I have high hopes for Willy too but I would rather not rely on hope as a strategy for improvement when it comes to protect our franchise QB.

Originally Posted by SCP

Why our OL is in a relatively bad state.

Not the OL as a unit:

Originally Posted by 30gut

I think our OL as unit is greater then the sum of its parts and is better then most people think.
(Football outsiders ranks our OL: 10th in run blocking 15th in pass blocking)

Originally Posted by SCP

Why addressing WR the way we did was not good
Why not addressing the OL(RT), so far, was not good.

Never said the WRs moves weren't 'good.'
Nor did I say that not addressing the RT (yet) wasn't 'good.'

Originally Posted by 30gut

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.