I don't understand this stuff very well, but I do know that Bess has been better than good thus far..and I don't give a sh&$ if he doesn't have great speed..

 

A deeper explanation of how Brian figures out WPA:

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2010/01/win-probability-added-wpa-explained.html

I like this stat because it eliminates a lot of the bias that fans have relative to plays that are "flashy" plays. When you look at Davone Bess, he isn't a receiver that makes a lot of flashy plays. Therefore, the fans don't think he is as good as he really is. However, Davone comes up with plays that keep drives going and have an obvious effect on the game.

It also shows why Ryan's WPA was relatively low for him having a 400+ yard passing game. That INT he threw in OT took Miami from a 0.58 WPA to a 0.28 WPA. Ryan had a 0.32 WPA in the game to that point. His WPA finished at 0.02 WPA.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


The biggest impact player in the league is on a 1-3 team and has 1 TD through 4 games? Come on man. First everyone wants to talk about how bad our WR corp is all off-season now they have a couple good games in which we still lose and you would think we have future hall of famer all world WRs on this team by the way this forum is reacting.

 

I like Davone but really? biggest impact player in the league? Why do I have hard time believing that regardless of what those stats say. He's not even the biggest impact WR in the division let alone the league.

 

Dan Marino was asked about the wr from Cinci and Devon Bess and Dan said neither Bess or the cinci wr will have good stats . odd coming from Marino but he knows how good Miami wrs are .

Trowa I agree with you . we havent played the toughest of teams except for Houston.

 

He has ZERO tds this season
which makes your point even more true

 

He is so reliable on third downs. Gotta be the haircut

 

Bess & Hartline are outstanding receivers, but IMHO if we're going to frequently be rolling with 2 receivers on the field at a time, we're still 2 receivers away from being a high octane offense rather than the possession-oriented, ball-controlled one we are with Bess & Hartline, and IMO that's completely underutilizing Philbin's offensive mind, as well as Cam Wake who would be twice as productive if we could pin his ears back more often.

In a perfect world Hart & Bess are our #3 & #4 receivers serving in a talented rotation and in 3+ WR formations (as well as 3rd downs where Bess excels). We've seen what Bush offers as far as homerun threat capability, and we're missing that aspect from the WR position every play that Hart & Bess are the primary 2 receivers, made all the worse considering Fasano isn't your typical big play threat. If we're to have a big play QB, then we need significantly better big play potential at the WR position that's not just a result of play design. That's not an insult to Bess & Hartline b/c they probably form one of the best #3-#4 tandems in the league, and we'll be sitting pretty if we can make them such.

 

I touched on this in the WP thread against Arizona. I think a lot of it is Bess' effectiveness on 3rd down. Basically, he's the difference between maintaining possession and what amounts to a turnover (which is basically what a punt is). And a significant part of win probability is possession. That's because you have to possess the ball in order to score. And you also don't give up points when you have the ball. So I think it's that along with the fact that he doesn't drop a lot of passes. Thus the amount of yardage he is gaining per target is good despite the fact that he doesn't gain much per reception.

 

Yeah, well just don't act surprised when Ireland drafts a pass rusher in the first rd next year. Because none of the WR talent looks like they will be worth gambling on until the late first, early second. However, the way things are looking we might be staring at a late first round pick anyway.

I am getting tired of the whole incongruous arguments that include number rankings for our receivers. It's just not the blueprint these west coast guys roll with...

 

That's ok, playmaking receivers aren't limited to the 1st round. We still have 2 second rounders.

Ahhh, you mean like how Hartline & Bess (2 receivers) currently account for all of our WR production? Yeah, that's really "WCO" style. :unsure:

It's not even close to an incongruous argument. It's only "incongruous" when you try to make it about semantics, which is ridiculous considering the previous point I made about Hartline (and Bess) seeing ALL of our WR production despite supposedly being a WCO. Perhaps you need to look at GB's 2011 stats and see if there were 2 clear cut top receivers (a #1 and a #2) or if EVERYTHING was spread out EVENLY amongst their WCO. :wink2: Didn't the best receiver with the most yards & TDs play in a WCO?

WADR, I'm tired of people saying it essentially doesn't matter how talented or playmaking the receivers are (or aren't) just b/c Philbin is the HC and we supposedly run a WCO. In case you haven't noticed we don't spread it out every play, not even close at the moment, and there's nothing about a WCO that says you don't need playmakers & scorers.

 

I guess I am just sick of posters indirectly denigrating Bess and Hartline despite their awesomeness...

 

lol, when i saw the thread title, i knew this would be trouble

 

awesomeness? As in all the TD's they score, big plays they break, and effectiveness in our opponent's territory? Or do you mean their awesomeness as possession receivers who help move the chains? :tongue2:

I'll post those 2011 Packer receiving stats with Philbin as the OC just for you, Panda. :wink2:

Jennings & Nelson: 135 catches, 2212 yards, 24 TDs.
All the rest: 100 catches, 1454 yards, 14 TDs.

Hey, lookie that, GB had 2 receivers account for most of the action rather than spreading the ball around perfectly among them all, not to mention their 5 receivers pose a better scoring threat than any of ours considering yards don't count as points.
Did I mention their #1 & #2 receivers scored nearly twice as much last year as Hartline & Bess's entire careers combined?
Did I also mention that, regardless of a WCO, we can't throw to receivers who are standing on the sidelines if we have multiple TEs and a FB on the field (considering the NFL frowns upon more than 11 guys on the field at once)?

I also forgot to mention that one of their "other" receivers was a 2011 2nd rounder...... or that another of those "other" receivers (James Jones) would most likely be ahead of Hartline & Bess if they were Packers. What I'm basically saying is that either Hartline or Bess would be the #5 receiver in GB, with the other one fighting for a roster spot considering they might not roll with 6 receivers. Just for perspective.

 

However you want to slice it. Coverage dictates who gets the ball in this offense, not pedigree...At least that what this regime preaches as being the ideal.

 

Wow, that is an amazing and I mean amazing cherry picking of stats. Even still, it shows the exact opposite of what your point is. That is a good distribution when the top two wide receivers 58% of the catches OF ALL OTHER RECEIVERS.

 

Are you peacocking right now?

[video=youtube;HIFKAu75HKo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIFKAu75HKo[/video]

 

I wouldn't put James Jones ahead of Hartline and Bess. IMO Jones would be another #2 in this offense and would give us three #2 WRs. I would put all three on about the same tier, but with Hartline higher up on the tier and Bess and Jones about the middle of the tier. I might even have Bess slightly above Jones due to his consistency which is more important in this offense than Jones' greater big play ability.

 

This thread is full of people completely misunderstanding the stat and what it means IMO.

 

You mean compared to our current 93%? :wink2:
.... and how many TD receptions do we have in 5 games out of that 93%? 1 is it?


BTW, perhaps your math needs refreshing b/c 2 of 5 receivers accounting for 58% of WR receptions equates to 29% each as apposed to 14% per each of the other three. By my math that's more than a 2:1 ratio. :wink2:

I also find it convenient of you to leave out the yardage and TDs where Jennings & Nelson EACH accounted for, on average, 33% of WR scoring AND yards compared to the the #3, #4, and #5 whom EACH averaged 12% of the scoring & yards. That's nearly a 3:1 ratio. :wink2:

That might not mean much to you, but it does when your current receivers combine for 1 TD in 5 games. :wink2:


My point still stands, and your ridiculous attempt to make mine appear ridiculous makes you seem ridiculous.

 

If you believe all three would be our #2's, who presents the best scoring threat of the three?

Respectfully, saying "might even" doesn't reassure me that our current top 2 receivers should remain our top 2.
We're essentially debating GB's #3 outside receiver as to whether or not he's better than our current top 2. That in an of itself is a problem.
So essentially GB has 2 receivers (possibly 3 depending on your viewpoint of Jones vs Hartline) who are better than our top outside receiver (Hartline), and a 2nd round slot receiver (Cobb) who is more talented than our best slot receiver (Bess). How do you expect to beat Aaron Rodgers in a SB when his receivers are incredibly more talented than ours?

 

That is still a pretty good distribution.

That is a lot of winking without a lot of substance. Your point is still ridiculous.

 

It's about more than just being a scoring threat. This isn't fantasy football. The most important characteristic is consistency.

That's Philbin's stated goal, to have several WRs who can beat man coverage and catch the ball. We have two guys who can do that, Jones would be a third. As for GB, there's more to football than just QB and WR. Right now, I'd like our chances against them b/c their D is way below ours.

 

You mean compared to the $5.8 million/year we currently have tied up in the starting QB-WR position, the lowest in the NFL?


To answer your question. Peanuts. It would cost us peanuts to sign a 2nd round pick to supplant one of them, and the cost of signing a FA to supplant the other would still leave us short of the league average spent on WR/QB combined.

 

Ridiculous? You insinuated that GB's production from WR was equal across the board, which it clearly is NOT.
A 2:1 ratio for receptions and 3:1 ratio for scoring & yards aren't remotely close to equal. Nice try.
There was clearly 2 dominant WRs in that offense, and only a fool would argue against it.

 

So? Hartline getting paid $3M/year won't change anything. That still leaves us at only $10M/year at QB/WR (including the drafting of a 2013 2nd rounder).
For comparison, Brady/Gronkowski/Hernandez/Lloyd: $32 million/year...... and that's not including Welker.
Probably half the league has either a QB or WR who earns close to $10M/year all by himself.

WADR, what part of them not posing as scoring threats enamors you? 1 TOUCHDOWN combined; that's it. It's not a new revelation that they aren't scorers. You want us to run a WCO with little ability to score from the WR position? Cmon.

Performing among the "league's best"? Really? League's best at what?--> being possession receivers who help move the chains? What about on the opponents side of the field and especially inside FG range & the RZ where they combine to form one of the poorer tandems in the league? All they do is gradually make us more 1 dimensional the closer we get to the endzone. A #3 & #4 (possibly #2 & #3), that's what they are, and in a true WCO they'll still see plenty of snaps and opportunities w/o costing us points once we're in the money zone.

 

No I didn't.

You are really good at creating other people's arguments.

 

I feel like I'm talking to Dan Henning, no offense. This is the kind of stuff he would pull. :tongue2:

 

So you're saying receivers cant score AND be consistent? I'll respectfully disagree.
Are you trying to say that consistently moving the ball w/o scoring from the WR position is more important than consistently moving the ball AND scoring from the WR position?

Why are you arguing with my point if you're stating that it's Philbin's goal to have several receivers rather than just 2 combining for 93% of the WR yards?

So you like our chances against GB b/c of our defense but not our receivers? Wouldn't that be a reason to upgrade our receivers if given the opportunity?