Redskins Add WRs Pierre Garcon and Joshua Morgan

[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.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by 30gut

For the life of me I don't understand why everyone has written Moss off.

Dude played through a broken hand this year and is only one year removed from a top 10 season in catches and yards.

And Moss knows this offense and plays a lot in the slot.

I'll bet Moss will become Griffin safety blanket.



I think Hankerson is a talented receiver but he's a 2nd year receiver coming off a major injury, he's still adjusting to the league and to the offense.

Garcon, Morgan, Moss, Davis, Gaffney are all pro's that either know the scheme or have already earned there stripes as NFL WRs.

Hankerson is gonna have an uphill battle for reps and playing time.

There's gonna be stiff competition in the WRs corps at training camp.

Not writing him off just with the youth coming in (Garcon, Morgan) and Hank returning from injury there is no need for both Gaffney and Moss. I'd keep Moss over Gaffney but at this point maybe it's time to move on from Moss.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by EARTHQUAKE2689

Not writing him off just with the youth coming in (Garcon, Morgan) and Hank returning from injury there is no need for both Gaffney and Moss. I'd keep Moss over Gaffney but at this point maybe it's time to move on from Moss.

I think Moss is being seriously undervalued here.
If finding WRs to match Moss 2010 production every team would simply plug in a WR and churn out a 90 catch 1,000 yard WR.
Moss was near 50 catches and 500 yards despite playing though a broken hand that sidelined him for 4 games, and the passing offense suffered without him.
At the end of the day he's a productive veteran receiver that knows the offense and he's cheap.
Knowing the offense is going to be at premium come training camp with a rookie QB.
Gaffney also fits the bill for cheap, knows the system and was productive.
Players like Moss and Gaffney have value in any passing offense.

[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.

[DynamiteRave]

All these big words are starting to make my head hurt. I wish conversation stayed on a level where it was like people chilling over beers and discussing ideas and not whacking each other over the head with dictionaries.

[tryfuhl]

Welcome to DC.

[SkinItup]

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

Ouch. Interesting you add Moss though since I think almost everyone has written him off as a goner.

4 number 2's = 8

a one, a two, a three, and a four = 10

Maybe the goal is to get the lowest number. In that case between Gaffney, moss, garcon, hankersn, and morgan we might have 4 number 2s.

next years teams is going to be a 45% runs with a lot of deep and shallow passes off of play-actions and bootlegs. Its the system the shannys wanted to run all the time.

[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.

[The Goat]

Well only time can tell the real story as to which group (WR vs OL) needs more help. I wanna believe in our braintrust (Bruce Mike and maybe Kyle) even through myriad gaffes we've seen. Mike in particular has shown the ability to build solid offensive lines, if fact I would say it's the one area where his historical performance is formidable. Let's hope he called this right and we see the oline gel together for our new franchise QB.

[los panda]

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

All these big words are starting to make my head hurt. I wish conversation stayed on a level where it was like people chilling over beers and discussing ideas and not whacking each other over the head with dictionaries.

you talk good

[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.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

All these big words are starting to make my head hurt. I wish conversation stayed on a level where it was like people chilling over beers and discussing ideas and not whacking each other over the head with dictionaries.

That's where I try to keep it, doesn't always work out though.

No worries this round's on me.

Cheers

[REDSKINS4ever]

Originally Posted by The Goat

Well only time can tell the real story as to which group (WR vs OL) needs more help. I wanna believe in our braintrust (Bruce Mike and maybe Kyle) even through myriad gaffes we've seen. Mike in particular has shown the ability to build solid offensive lines, if fact I would say it's the one area where his historical performance is formidable. Let's hope he called this right and we see the oline gel together for our new franchise QB.

The offensive line, which was average last year, has experience now and should be much better by the start of the 2012 season. The offensive line does need help, but not significantly. They can play well in the trenches with who they already have.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by REDSKINS4ever

They can play well in the trenches with who they already have.

I guess you and I have very different definitions of 'well'.

[Pigskins]

I'd take 4 #2s over a 1 2 3 4 anyday