Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

What is more valuable: 55 catches for 1100 yards and 12 touchdowns or 100 catches for 1100 yards and 12 touchdowns?

If I was a receiver I'd want the 55 catches for 1100 yards (more exciting plays and whatnot), but that might just be me. Perhaps those who read The Hidden Game of Football can provide a good answer.

****

The lack of interceptions bugs me in today's game. This was noted in a thread a couple months back. Another thing that bugs me is the number of wide receivers with repugnant yards per catch numbers. A WR with a single digit for yards per catch is a bit embarrassing in my opinion.

Look at some of these poor figures for the 2014 season-
Danny Amendola, 27 catches, 7.4 avg
Tavon Austin, 31 catches, 7.8 avg
Marquess Wilson, 17 catches, 8.2 avg
Jarvis Landry, 84 catches, 9.0 avg
James Jones, 73 catches, 9.1 avg
Wes Welker, 46 catches, 9.5 avg
Paul Richardson, 29 catches, 9.3 avg

Some, or most of those guys, are used liked 3rd down running backs and it is the way the game is played now. Maybe we (or I, if nobody agrees with me) should look at these players differently now and not crush a WR for failing to average 10 yards per catch? These players are valuable to some degree. I think Landry is good. But, yikes, 84 catches and none went for more than 25 yards.

What is more important - and more valuable - is how many of these catches resulted in a First Down.

oldecapecod 11 wrote:What is more important - and more valuable - is how many of these catches resulted in a First Down.

A 7-yard yard catch on 1st-and-10- bad play or not? It did not result in a first down.

It depends on the receiver's catch percentage, and it depends on what the rest of the team looks like. On a crappy team, the variance you get from a deep threat is more important than the expectation you get from a steady Eddie who is more consistent at moving the chains.

I heard someone once refer to those Eddie Royal-Jarvis Landry type WR's as "Loose Ends". Seemed like a good name to me.

To me, the answer is pretty obvious. Put it in different terms: Would you rather have an offense that averages 20 yards a play or one that averages 11 yards a play?

rhickok1109 wrote:To me, the answer is pretty obvious. Put it in different terms: Would you rather have an offense that averages 20 yards a play or one that averages 11 yards a play?

I'd rather have the offense where the pass is the play that precedes the extra point, rather than the play that precedes the punt.