Bills' WR Corps DFL in the NFL in Separation with the Ball in the Air

[26CornerBlitz]

Just now, PolishDave said:

 

So then I presume it measures receiving corps as a unit over the course of games and the season.   That does suggest that the Bills receivers as a unit are inferior.

 

Yep. It's another tool in the arsenal that can be used for a more complete evaluation of the position. . 

[GoBills808]

2 minutes ago, PolishDave said:

 

So then I presume it measures receiving corps as a unit over the course of games and the season.   That does suggest that the Bills receivers as a unit are inferior.

It really doesn't, unless you're prepared to suggest that the New York Jets had a superior receiving unit to the Pittsburgh Steelers.

[PolishDave]

1 minute ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Yep. It's another tool in the arsenal that can be used for a more complete evaluation of the position. . 

 

It is essentially a reflection of the finished product.   The combination of individual talent and the coaching/passing schemes across numerous situations in game throughout the season.    Doesn't paint a rosy picture for either the coaches or the receivers themselves.

[PolishDave]

6 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

It really doesn't, unless you're prepared to suggest that the New York Jets had a superior receiving unit to the Pittsburgh Steelers.

It doesn't necessarily mean their receivers are better talent wise.   It is a measurement of the finished product on the field at the point the ball is thrown.   It is entirely possible that on average, the Jet's receivers had more separation than Pittsburgh's did.   Doesn't mean Jet's receivers are more talented overall.   Just means they outperformed the other guys in that one area.

 

Separation doesn't necessarily equal production though either.   It is one part of their job which makes delivering the ball and catching the ball easier.   Other important factors come into play in terms of scoring points or completing passes.   Catching ability.  Catching radius.   Ability to win battles.   Raw speed.   Ability to break tackles.  Jump ability.   etc.

 

Seems this just measures their ability as a unit to consistently get separation.

 

How else would you measure it?   Isn't that essentially what they are trying to measure.   Is there a different stat somewhere that measures separation somehow?

[26CornerBlitz]

2 minutes ago, PolishDave said:

It doesn't necessarily mean their receivers are better talent wise.   It is a measurement of the finished product on the field at the point the ball is thrown.   It is entirely possible that on average, the Jet's receivers had more separation than Pittsburgh's did.   Doesn't mean Jet's receivers are more talented overall.   Just means they outperformed the other guys in that one area.

 

Separation doesn't necessarily equal production though either.   It is one part of their job which makes delivering the ball and catching the ball easier.   Other important factors come into play in terms of scoring points or completing passes.   Catching ability.  Catching radius.   Ability to win battles.   Raw speed.   Ability to break tackles.  Jump ability.   etc.

 

Seems this just measures their ability as a unit to consistently get separation.

 

How else would you measure it?   Isn't that essentially what they are trying to measure.   Is there a different stat somewhere that measures separation somehow?

 

Here's the NextGen Stats for Individual Receivers in 2017: https://nextgenstats.nfl.com/stats/receiving#yards

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, PolishDave said:

It doesn't necessarily mean their receivers are better talent wise.   It is a measurement of the finished product on the field at the point the ball is thrown.   It is entirely possible that on average, the Jet's receivers had more separation than Pittsburgh's did.   Doesn't mean Jet's receivers are more talented overall.   Just means they outperformed the other guys in that one area.

 

Separation doesn't necessarily equal production though either.   It is one part of their job which makes delivering the ball and catching the ball easier.   Other important factors come into play in terms of scoring points or completing passes.   Catching ability.  Catching radius.   Ability to win battles.   Raw speed.   Ability to break tackles.  Jump ability.   etc.

 

Seems this just measures their ability as a unit to consistently get separation.

 

How else would you measure it?   Isn't that essentially what they are trying to measure.   Is there a different stat somewhere that measures separation somehow?

I agree with everything you just said here. What I don't understand is how you came to the conclusion I replied to: that based on this statistic the Bills wideouts are an inferior unit.

 

Now, that's not to say they AREN'T an inferior unit. They may well be. But this statistic, as you've just said, doesn't come close to making that case. 

[twoandfourteen]

7 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

I agree with everything you just said here. What I don't understand is how you came to the conclusion I replied to: that based on this statistic the Bills wideouts are an inferior unit.

 

Now, that's not to say they AREN'T an inferior unit. They may well be. But this statistic, as you've just said, doesn't come close to making that case. 

 

You obviously don't get it. 

 

If the Bills WRs could have pulled off 6-8" more of separation... Tyrod throws for 4500 & 50 TDs. 

 

It's clearly the WRs fault, as this not-at-all subjective and incredibly useful metric demonstrates.

[PolishDave]

Just now, GoBills808 said:

I agree with everything you just said here. What I don't understand is how you came to the conclusion I replied to: that based on this statistic the Bills wideouts are an inferior unit.

 

Now, that's not to say they AREN'T an inferior unit. They may well be. But this statistic, as you've just said, doesn't come close to making that case. 

 

Yes.   It would suggest that they are inferior as a unit in that one specific area (getting separation).  Not any others.  Maybe there are advanced stats for other areas.  I gotta look at that link 26 sent.

 

Earlier in the year there were some people (Kirby was one I think) who made the observation that the Bills receivers sucked at getting separation and therefore made it harder for a guy like Tyrod (who likes wide open receivers) to throw to.    As per usual, people just said it was because Tyrod sucked and that these receivers were just fine.

 

Turns out, it looks like the receivers weren't fine.   Maybe Tyrod sucked too.   But the receivers weren't doing at least one really important part of their job requirement.

 

And I am not trying to defend Tyrod.   I am done with him too.   Must be upgraded ASAP.   I am just pointing out, they were right about the "not getting enough separation" thing all along.

 

And I think it has a lot to do with the offensive scheme too.    It is generally easier for a defender to play tighter coverage on a short route inside 10 yards than it is for them to cover a guy going for the endzone.    If you have receivers constantly running straight down the sideline you will often see the coverage back off a bit and give them the underneath stuff so as to not give up the big play.     This year it didn't feel like defenses gave them anything really.

[Joe Miner]

What's their separation at the time the ball should have been released?

 

Or are we just excusing Taylor being late on a large number of throws?

 

A piece of data does not a metric make.

[Boatdrinks]

6 hours ago, Doc said:

By the time he actually threw the ball, the receivers were better covered. 

Exactly ... which QB waited the longest to actually pull the trigger? DB 's can close the longer the ball is held . We know Tyrod holds it forever. This stat shouldn't be any kind of a surprise. 

[PolishDave]

10 minutes ago, Joe Miner said:

What's their separation at the time the ball should have been released?

 

Or are we just excusing Taylor being late on a large number of throws?

 

A piece of data does not a metric make.

 

That was just explained.   It was measuring all the receivers on the field at the time the ball was thrown.   In other words, the entire receiving unit as a whole on average.   Not just the targeted receiver.

 

So on average, play after play, game after game over the season, the Bills receivers got less separation than other teams.

 

In fact, worst in the league at getting and/or staying open.    As some people accused them of being.

Edited January 11, 2018 by PolishDave

[Starr Almighty]

There's no arguing that we have some slow WRs. We can keep KB and Zay (cause he's on a rookie contract) but the rest need an overhaul in the worst way. We need a play maker bad.

Edited January 11, 2018 by Starr Almighty

[GoBills808]

2 minutes ago, PolishDave said:

 

Yes.   It would suggest that they are inferior as a unit in that one specific area (getting separation).  Not any others.  Maybe there are advanced stats for other areas.  I gotta look at that link 26 sent.

 

Earlier in the year there were some people (Kirby was one I think) who made the observation that the Bills receivers sucked at getting separation and therefore made it harder for a guy like Tyrod (who likes wide open receivers) to throw to.    As per usual, people just said it was because Tyrod sucked and that these receivers were just fine.

 

Turns out, it looks like the receivers weren't fine.   Maybe Tyrod sucked too.   But the receivers weren't doing at least one really important part of their job requirement.

 

And I am not trying to defend Tyrod.   I am done with him too.   Must be upgraded ASAP.   I am just pointing out, they were right about the "not getting enough separation" thing all along.

 

And I think it has a lot to do with the offensive scheme too.    It is generally easier for a defender to play tighter coverage on a short route inside 10 yards than it is for them to cover a guy going for the endzone.    If you have receivers constantly running straight down the sideline you will often see the coverage back off a bit and give them the underneath stuff so as to not give up the big play.     This year it didn't feel like defenses gave them anything really.

Ok. I misunderstood you, because I agree again. This statistic shows that the Bills' receivers, at the moment the QB released the ball, had the least distance between themselves and a defender in the NFL. But you can't really make the case that the receivers 'weren't doing at least one really important part of their job requirement' IMO because:

 

1. There were several VERY GOOD units that scored poorly in this statistic, notably the Steelers, who seemingly had no issue performing their jobs despite not having much 'separation distance'.

 

2. I am unclear on whether or not this statistic refers specifically to wideouts, or all pass catchers. This would be pertinent because the Bills threw VERY LITTLE in comparison to the rest of the league at their WRs and threw to RBs and TEs at a very high percentage. McCoy caught the most passes in 2017, and Clay was second most. That's relevant for me because RBs are generally catching the ball around the LOS where there are always defenders in their general vicinity and would (I imagine) have on average less separation distance than wideouts. This would skew the statistic. Tight ends, Clay and O'Leary no exception, are generally not as mobile in their route running as are wideouts and I would hazard a guess that the TE position would trend toward less separation distance than wideouts. This would further skew the statistic. 

 

In all, I find that this statistic says very little other than the distance measured between two players' shoulder pads at the time of a pass.

[GoBills808]

*It seems like it's just the wideouts, but all the wideouts, at the moment that the QB throws the ball...which is even more meaningless IMO. There are going to be WRs blocking downfield (sometimes early), some guys who aren't getting the ball and other guys clearing out space, some guys that the play wasn't designed to go to (or who the QB just missed) running go routes with have tons of separation, other guys who fell down or slipped and never got near their DB, still other guys who were held up at the LOS on a quick throw and whose separation will be nil...and none of these things have anything to do with anything other than how far you were away from a defender when the QB threw the ball. I don't think it's useful IMO. It's just a data point.

[PolishDave]

3 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Ok. I misunderstood you, because I agree again. This statistic shows that the Bills' receivers, at the moment the QB released the ball, had the least distance between themselves and a defender in the NFL. But you can't really make the case that the receivers 'weren't doing at least one really important part of their job requirement' IMO because:

 

1. There were several VERY GOOD units that scored poorly in this statistic, notably the Steelers, who seemingly had no issue performing their jobs despite not having much 'separation distance'.

 

2. I am unclear on whether or not this statistic refers specifically to wideouts, or all pass catchers. This would be pertinent because the Bills threw VERY LITTLE in comparison to the rest of the league at their WRs and threw to RBs and TEs at a very high percentage. McCoy caught the most passes in 2017, and Clay was second most. That's relevant for me because RBs are generally catching the ball around the LOS where there are always defenders in their general vicinity and would (I imagine) have on average less separation distance than wideouts. This would skew the statistic. Tight ends, Clay and O'Leary no exception, are generally not as mobile in their route running as are wideouts and I would hazard a guess that the TE position would trend toward less separation distance than wideouts. This would further skew the statistic. 

 

In all, I find that this statistic says very little other than the distance measured between two players' shoulder pads at the time of a pass.

 

Yeah.

 

I am sure Tyrod holding onto the ball an extra long time also did skew this somewhat.   It wasn't just Tyrod holding the ball though, it would be the combination of him holding the ball and the routes the receivers are running.

 

When you have a receiver run a 10 yard route and stop or sit in a spot, the coverage on that receiver is going to get tighter over time because the defenders are going to sit right next to him if they have enough time to do so.

 

If, however, you have receivers running routes where they keep running - like a go route, well then you have increased separation as time ticks on.

 

The problem with Dennison is he historically doesn't do much of those long developing routes.   He does the short ones.   I think that also helps explain the backwards regression this passing offense took compared to the last two years.     If Dennison was an awesome offensive coordinator, you would think he would have more plays where receivers got more open over time to exploit the two truly awesome things Tyrod can do for you regularly 1) extend a play way beyond what defenses should allow and 2) hit fast receivers running deep.

 

This is why I think Tyrod would absolutely kill defenses if he was used in that manner.    Maybe I am nuts and totally wrong.   It is just my opinion.    He should have been used that way all year.   Use his legs to extend plays.   Used designed plays that spread the defenders way out farther and farther over time so there is more separation than should ever be allowed by a defense.    Score in a handful of plays instead of trying to perfectly execute 15 plays to get to the endzone.

 

Anyway, I don't think Dennison did these receivers any favors in the schematic design of this passing game.

[GoBills808]

Just now, PolishDave said:

 

Yeah.

 

I am sure Tyrod holding onto the ball an extra long time also did skew this somewhat.   It wasn't just Tyrod holding the ball though, it would be the combination of him holding the ball and the routes the receivers are running.

 

When you have a receiver run a 10 yard route and stop or sit in a spot, the coverage on that receiver is going to get tighter over time because the defenders are going to sit right next to him if they have enough time to do so.

 

If, however, you have receivers running routes where they keep running - like a go route, well then you have increased separation as time ticks on.

 

The problem with Dennison is he historically doesn't do much of those long developing routes.   He does the short ones.   I think that also helps explain the backwards regression this passing offense took compared to the last two years.     If Dennison was an awesome offensive coordinator, you would think he would have more plays where receivers got more open over time to exploit the two truly awesome things Tyrod can do for you regularly 1) extend a play way beyond what defenses should allow and 2) hit fast receivers running deep.

 

This is why I think Tyrod would absolutely kill defenses if he was used in that manner.    Maybe I am nuts and totally wrong.   It is just my opinion.    He should have been used that way all year.   Use his legs to extend plays.   Used designed plays that spread the defenders way out farther and farther over time so there is more separation than should ever be allowed by a defense.    Score in a handful of plays instead of trying to perfectly execute 15 plays to get to the endzone.

 

Anyway, I don't think Dennison did these receivers any favors in the schematic design of this passing game.

It's totally plausible. I agree that the passing game left a LOT to be desired, and while I tend to think that's primarily due to the QB there are definitely a bunch of contributing factors. I just don't think this statistic speaks to any of them.

[PolishDave]

If you look back at the passing plays the Bills were most successful at the two years prior to Dennison, you will see they often came in 3 and 4 receiver sets where the receivers ran routes that created more and more separation over time.

 

There were some plays in there where the receivers bunched up in their routes.   Those plays generally sucked.  The Bills could not execute them and they would go incomplete.

 

The big plays were ones that took longer to develop and had the receivers in every corner of the field.  Then Tyrod would find the right guy and throw him the ball.

[GoBills808]

Further: I haven't personally verified this but the Cover1 writeup says that defenses have played a lot more man than zone vs the Bills this season. That could inform this number. 

[Thurman#1]

18 minutes ago, PolishDave said:

If you look back at the passing plays the Bills were most successful at the two years prior to Dennison, you will see they often came in 3 and 4 receiver sets where the receivers ran routes that created more and more separation over time.

 

There were some plays in there where the receivers bunched up in their routes.   Those plays generally sucked.  The Bills could not execute them and they would go incomplete.

 

The big plays were ones that took longer to develop and had the receivers in every corner of the field.  Then Tyrod would find the right guy and throw him the ball.

 

 

There's no possible way to tell if this is true beyond going through play by play. I'm sure you're not going to do that anymore than anyone else is.

 

IMHO you're remembering what you want to remember, a very human characteristic, it's confirmation bias, something we're all very subject to.

 

 

16 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Further: I haven't personally verified this but the Cover1 writeup says that defenses have played a lot more man than zone vs the Bills this season. That could inform this number. 

 

Yeah, so many variables here.

 

We can all agree that the wide receivers weren't very good this year, I think, but the stat this thread is about has so many variables. Would short passes tend to have smaller separations? Tyrod threw shorter than most QBs. Man vs. zone. Whether the QB held the ball longer, how the routes affected things ... there's just a million variables that make it a stat that's not particularly informative as far as coming to definitive conclusions on what it means.

Edited January 11, 2018 by Thurman#1

[PolishDave]

Just now, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

There's no possible way to tell if this is true beyond going through play by play. I'm sure you're not going to do that anymore than anyone else is.

 

IMHO you're remembering what you want to remember, a very human characteristic, it's confirmation bias, something we're all very subject to.

 

Yes I am going off memory.

 

I did specifically look into it last year trying to figure out why the passing game looked so dominating at times and yet so crappy other times.

 

Those scenarios are what stuck.    That is why I refer to Tyrod as a back yard baller.   His best performances remind me of backyard football.   I think he has gotten as far as he has on his sheer athletic ability.   He is so gifted athletically, that he just runs away from would be tacklers and buys so much time that eventually some receiver has two steps on his guy.   He sees him and chucks the ball just like anyone of you did playing backyard ball as a kid.   A pure pocket passer he is not and never has been.   He can beat you on the ground with his legs.   And he can beat you on a deep route where a guy clearly has his man beat.

 

This offense isn't designed to allow him to beat the defense with his legs.   And it isn't designed to spread receivers in routes where they are in constant motion so they become more open over time.   

 

Those are two reasons that contributed to its failure this year in my opinion.    And I know the Bills aren't going to change their stripes.   So they may as well change the QB.   This experiment was a waste of time.   Probably would have had a better offensive production with Fitzpatrick in all honesty.