BuffaloBillsForever Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 (edited) On 10/20/2014 at 2:41 AM, Crayola64 said: Let's argue about how a hypothetical statistical analysis would be used in a sport that does not lend itself to that tool!!! With how popular advanced stats has become in sports (the NFL is still green in this area) there will be a WAR like/type metric soon enough for certain positions I'm sure. Edited October 20, 2014 by BuffaloBillsForever
thewildrabbit Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 On 10/20/2014 at 2:09 AM, NoSaint said: So the pace is now, roughly 80 catches 1050 yards and 8+ tds? That depends on how many times the OC wants to use him as a decoy again the rest of the year.
Dibs Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 On 10/20/2014 at 2:21 AM, NoSaint said: You are def right on the tds. That was me just glossing over the numbers too quick. I saw him at 454 yards though, less than halfway through- that should be 1000 plus, no? His yards are 433 at this point.....translates to 990.
mrags Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 On 10/20/2014 at 3:10 AM, Dibs said: His yards are 433 at this point.....translates to 990. actually it doesn't. 433 divided by 7, multiplied by 16 = 1,012.571428571429
NoSaint Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 On 10/20/2014 at 3:10 AM, Dibs said: His yards are 433 at this point.....translates to 990. Site I saw was wrong then - fair enough
mrags Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 On 10/20/2014 at 3:45 AM, NoSaint said: Site I saw was wrong then - fair enough 433 divided by 7, multiplied by 16 = 1,012.571428571429
Dibs Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 (edited) On 10/20/2014 at 3:16 AM, mrags said: actually it doesn't. 433 divided by 7, multiplied by 16 = 1,012.571428571429 Check it again. 433/7 = 61.857 multiplied by 16 = 989.714286 You accidentally plugged in 443. Edited October 20, 2014 by Dibs
mrags Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 On 10/20/2014 at 3:49 AM, Dibs said: Check it again. 433/7 = 61.857 multiplied by 16 = 989.714286 You accidentally plugged in 443. oh well. Doesn't matter. He will finish over 1,000
Dibs Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 On 10/20/2014 at 3:56 AM, mrags said: oh well. Doesn't matter. He will finish over 1,000 Agreed.
Kipers Hair Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 On 10/20/2014 at 3:47 AM, mrags said: 433 divided by 7, multiplied by 16 = 1,012.571428571429 will be interested to see how the fabled "rookie wall" impacts him...
truth on hold Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 (edited) With our spotty history the way I look at it, if he ends up a top 10 at his position (he may be alreasy), we're ahead of the game. Because we're running at a hit rate well below 50% (1 for every 2 1st round picks) on that measure: EJ never will be Gilmore never will be Dareus finally playing like one this year Spiller in only one season Mckelvin never will be Maybin Beast Mode (for someone else) McCargo Etc etc etc Edited October 20, 2014 by Joe_the_6_pack
NewEra Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 Crazy to me that some people still don't think sammy was worth it. He's a very special player. I loved the trade up when we drafted him. I love it even more now.
1B4IDie Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 (edited) On 10/20/2014 at 2:34 AM, BuffaloBillsForever said: The concept of WAR would be used in a similar manner like how it is used in baseball if it ever came to fruition. It would never be used in the manner that Sammy Watkins made 3 big plays that lead to the win in one game, made a spectacular catch on the final drive in another and had a pretty solid game today with one grab being the game winning touchdown. We would be 2-5 without him therefore he is 3 wins above replacement. This is the poor logic that you are using when you quoted WAR. Actually it is sound logic. It just doesn't fit into your opinion of what WAR might look like if it were calculated in Football. And more importantly we don't win those 3 games if Stevie Johnson is in instead of Watkins which is the !@#$ing point. Edited October 20, 2014 by Why So Serious?
RuntheDamnBall Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 On 10/20/2014 at 9:48 AM, Why So Serious? said: Actually it is sound logic. It just doesn't fit into your opinion of what WAR might look like if it were calculated in Football. And more importantly we don't win those 3 games if Stevie Johnson is in instead of Watkins which is the !@#$ing point. The "!@#$ing point" is that in a 16-game season you can't possibly attribute wins above replacement to single players. It works in baseball because you have a 162-game season. Even then, the marginal WAR upgrades of role players, where said upgrades are very incremental, tend to add up and be as meaningful as those of the star players.
BuffaloBillsForever Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 (edited) 2014 Projected Top WR 107 catches, 1627 yards, 14 touchdowns 2014 Projected Top 5 WR'S 105 catches, 1559 yards, 8 touchdowns 2014 Sammy Watkins 80 catches, 990, 9 touchdowns 2014 Calvin Benjamin 78 catches, 1090 yards, 11 touchdowns Through week 7 15 WR's have more catches, 21 WR's have more yards, 14 WR's have more touchdowns, 10 WR's have more receptions over 20 yards and 116 receivers have more YAC. Edited October 20, 2014 by BuffaloBillsForever
MDH Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 On 10/20/2014 at 12:05 PM, BuffaloBillsForever said: 15 WR's have more catches, 21 WR's have more yards, 14 WR's have more touchdowns, 10 WR's have more receptions over 20 yards and 116 receivers have more YAC. How many have better QBs?
BuffaloBillsForever Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 (edited) On 10/20/2014 at 12:09 PM, MDH said: How many have better QBs? Which also begs the question in this discussion is why do you trade up for a receiver when you don't have a proven QB to maximize the productivity you think this player has? Edited October 20, 2014 by BuffaloBillsForever
MDH Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 On 10/20/2014 at 12:11 PM, BuffaloBillsForever said: Which also begs the question in this discussion is why do you trade up for a receiver when you don't have a proven QB? I believe the idea was the make our pedestrian QB(s) better. I think it's worked. The OL does the QBs no favors either, which also hurts the WR numbers.
mrags Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 On 10/20/2014 at 12:11 PM, BuffaloBillsForever said: Which also begs the question in this discussion is why do you trade up for a receiver when you don't have a proven QB? in 7 games the kid is already turning into not only the best player we have but the best we've seen at the position since Moulds.
YoloinOhio Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 (edited) On 10/20/2014 at 12:12 PM, mrags said: in 7 games the kid is already turning into not only the best player we have but the best we've seen at the position since Moulds. he is a nightmare for most CBs. He's just going to get better. He expects to be great. He does not act like a rookie. Edited October 20, 2014 by YoloinOhio
Recommended Posts