Daboll/Hodgins - Does their success bother you?

[Einstein]

1 hour ago, Big Turk said:

 

Yes...simply in a place where they had no WRs so he got playing time and balls thrown to him by default 

 

His numbers per snaps with the BILLS, were higher than every other WR on the team. When he saw the field in a Bills uniform, he put up greater numbers than every other WR on the Bills squad per snap.

 

And its not as if we have Cinci's WR core. We have a middling WR group outside of Diggs. The idea that Hodgins shouldn't have seen the field because McKenzie or Kumerow or Davis is silly to me. And the numbers prove it.

[Einstein]

52 minutes ago, Ya Digg? said:

To me this is manipulating stats to fit what you want it to fit

 

So... which number was manipulated? The answer is none of them. I think you're just surprised that his per snap production is as high as it is. No one is saying Hodgins is as good as Diggs. What is being stated is that when he was given an opportunity, Hodgins produced. And the numbers show it.

 

So to give him less than 20 snaps in a season where you had two WR's on IR, another WR whose hands resembled bricks, and Mckenzie.... is odd.

[HappyDays]

14 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

His numbers per snaps with the BILLS, were higher than every other WR on the team. When he saw the field in a Bills uniform, he put up greater numbers than every other WR on the Bills squad per snap.

 

And its not as if we have Cinci's WR core. We have a middling WR group outside of Diggs. The idea that Hodgins shouldn't have seen the field because McKenzie or Kumerow or Davis is silly to me. And the numbers prove it.

 

I would bet any amount of money that Davis' next contract will exceed Hodgins' next contract. I don't even like Davis that much but if you are just looking at stats to try to prove Hodgins is a better receiver than Davis you are not using sound analysis. Hodgins will perennially live on the edge of a 53 man roster/practice squad. Davis will perennially be a top 4 WR for some team.

[Einstein]

13 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

to prove Hodgins is a better receiver than Davis

 

I genuinely have no idea how you got that impression based on what I said. 

 

But being that you did, let me attempt to rephrase so as to avoid confusion. The idea that Hodgins shouldn't have seen the field because we have a WR group behind Diggs of McKenzie, Kumerow, and Davis is silly to me. Would a line-up of Diggs, Davis, Hodgins and McKenzie be any worse? Likely not. 

 

PS, if you want to talk to people who actually think Hodgins is better than Davis.

 

2022 PFF Rankings:

 

Isaiah Hodgins 76.6

Gabe Davis 65.8

Isaiah McKenzie 64.2

 

And I don't agree that Hodgins will perennially be a roster cut. I think he is firmly on the 53 now. 

[Radar]

No. I'm happy for them. Why shouldn't I be?

[BigAl2526]

Not at all.  Regarding Daboll, I think it's easier for a really good coach to create some instant success as long as there is a modicum of talent on the team, than for a really good coach to emerge from that small group of teams that are really good and win the Super Bowl.  Zac Taylor and Andy Reid are obviously very good coaches. There are a few other too that are trying to get in the big game from the AFC every year.  Please don't read that as complacency that Buffalo has only made it to the divisional round for a while now.  I'm just saying that McDermott had quick success in Buffalo too, and quick success doesn't necessarily mean Daboll is a better head coach.

[Never NEVER Give-up]

I love Daboll, but being in NY helped him get COTY.

Hodgins? - I am thrilled for him.  However, he's not as good as Davis, Shakir or Kumerow (not to mention Beasley). Getting plucked off of PS was inevitable.

[Mr. WEO]

34 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

So... which number was manipulated? The answer is none of them. I think you're just surprised that his per snap production is as high as it is. No one is saying Hodgins is as good as Diggs. What is being stated is that when he was given an opportunity, Hodgins produced. And the numbers show it.

 

So to give him less than 20 snaps in a season where you had two WR's on IR, another WR whose hands resembled bricks, and Mckenzie.... is odd.

 

come on--"production per snap" is meaningless when you play 16 snaps for your whole time with a team.  The guy caught 4 passes for a measly 10 yards per...

 

he has built a career on the Giants.  He was an absolute zero on the Bills.  Comparing to Diggs or Davis while he was on the Bills is complete nonsense.

[Einstein]

27 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

He was an absolute zero on the Bills.  

 

Because of a lack of opportunity. His time on the Giants has proven that.

 

Im not saying Hodgins is Brady quality, but your way of thinking is analogous to saying "Brady shouldn't start for the Patriots in 2001 because he was a zero for them in 2000." Well, yeah, he wasn't given the opportunity.

[RyanC883]

at least Bean made the tough move of holding Chad Hall accountable for his (Bean’s) inability to get a top WR and waiving of Hodgins—while letting McD and Dorsey’s putrid play calling off the hook. 

[Mr. WEO]

31 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

Because of a lack of opportunity. His time on the Giants has proven that.

 

Im not saying Hodgins is Brady quality, but your way of thinking is analogous to saying "Brady shouldn't start for the Patriots in 2001 because he was a zero for them in 2000." Well, yeah, he wasn't given the opportunity.

well I didn’t even hint at anything like that. You are the one stretching a 4 catch career into “the most  productive on the Bills” or whatever your point was.  That’s a joke.  
 

maybe he should have gotten a better shot here but he didn’t.  He didn’t exist, contributed nothing. 

[Einstein]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

well I didn’t even hint at anything like that. You are the one stretching a 4 catch career into “the most  productive on the Bills” or whatever your point was.  That’s a joke.  
 

maybe he should have gotten a better shot here but he didn’t.  

 

I said his per-snap production is the best of all the Bills receivers. That doesnt mean he is the best WR. It means it warrants a closer look. It means it warrants more playing time to see if his production stays as good over more snaps.

 

And guess what? He got more playing time with the Giants and his production stayed good.

 

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

He didn’t exist, contributed nothing. 

 

Because of the lack of opportunity.

 

It's so ridiculous for you to even write that. 

 

 

[TheyCallMeAndy]

23 hours ago, Virgil said:

While I know that McD was never leaving as our HC, nor am I calling for it, I still think about the rift between him and McD in the final year.  

 

With Dorsey's alleged struggles, and our inability to find a solid WR2 on the team, the Hodgins thing bothers me more.  We weren't so flush with talent that cracking our depth chart was hard.  Hell, we brought back Beasley and Smoke.  So how did we miss on the opportunity that Hodgins was so badly?

 

I don't know, maybe I'm just bitter.  

Here is what I think:

 

McD is better than Dabs and Davis is better than Hodgins until proven otherwise, and they are a long way away from proving anything. 

4 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

I said his per-snap production is the best of all the Bills receivers. That doesnt mean he is the best WR. It means it warrants a closer look. It means it warrants more playing time to see if his production stays as good over more snaps.

 

And guess what? He got more playing time with the Giants and his production stayed good.

 

 

Because of the lack of opportunity.

 

It's so ridiculous for you to even write that. 

 

 

Because he couldn’t beat out Davis for the flank, McKenzie for the slot, or Kumerow for the SP Ace. 

[Mr. WEO]

2 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

I said his per-snap production is the best of all the Bills receivers. That doesnt mean he is the best WR. It means it warrants a closer look. It means it warrants more playing time to see if his production stays as good over more snaps.

 

And guess what? He got more playing time with the Giants and his production stayed good.

 

 

Because of the lack of opportunity.

 

It's so ridiculous for you to even write that. 

 

 

 

 

Then why post a fake stat?:

"Per snap in Buffalo (opportunity), Hodgins outperformed EVERY RECEIVER (at the least the top 4) on the team!" 

 

.....in order to pretend he had ANY sort of production, let alone be compared to the actual receiving corps.   

 

By your logic, Mike Vrabel: 16 snaps, 12 catches (.75 per), 12 TDs (.75 per)...was the greatest receiver to ever play the game.

 

leave it at " he never got a chance here".  the rest of your posts on this are absurd.

 

[Einstein]

4 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

Then why post a fake stat?:

"Per snap in Buffalo (opportunity), Hodgins outperformed EVERY RECEIVER (at the least the top 4) on the team!" 

 

.....in order to pretend he had ANY sort of production, let alone be compared to the actual receiving corps.   

 

By your logic, Mike Vrabel: 16 snaps, 12 catches (.75 per), 12 TDs (.75 per)...was the greatest receiver to ever play the game.

 

leave it at " he never got a chance here".  the rest of your posts on this are absurd.

 

 

It is no way a fake stat. Per snap data is common in statistical analysis. Its really the ONLY way to analyze a player when they have not been given an opportunity.

 

It shows what they have done with the limited amount of opportunity they have been given. Everyone knows the limitations of the stat and the adjust their expectations accordingly.

 

I'm sorry you didn't know this but it doesn't make it absurd. 

 

PS, I don't want to spam the board with this debate so I wont respond anymore. You can have the last word.

[Einstein]

28 minutes ago, TheyCallMeAndy said:

Because he couldn’t beat out Davis for the flank, McKenzie for the slot, or Kumerow for the SP Ace. 

 

That's the age old question.

 

Did the player not beat out the competition, or did the evaluators fail at evaluating who the better player was? 

 

Lets not forget that this is the same coach that traded the Patrick Mahomes pick (or are we still pretending that Whaley did that?), moved Wyatt Teller for a bag of balls, and have wasted numerous defensive draft picks.

[HappyDays]

3 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

That's the age old question.

 

Did the player not beat out the competition, or did the evaluators fail at evaluating who the better player was? 

 

Lets not forget that this is the same coach that traded the Patrick Mahomes pick (or are we still pretending that Whaley did that?), moved Wyatt Teller for a bag of balls, and have wasted numerous defensive draft picks.

 

Mahomes

Teller

Hodgins

 

One of these things is not like the other.

[Einstein]

12 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

Mahomes

Teller

Hodgins

 

One of these things is not like the other.

 

Not yet anyway.

[Mr. WEO]

27 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

It is no way a fake stat. Per snap data is common in statistical analysis. Its really the ONLY way to analyze a player when they have not been given an opportunity.

 

It shows what they have done with the limited amount of opportunity they have been given. Everyone knows the limitations of the stat and the adjust their expectations accordingly.

 

I'm sorry you didn't know this but it doesn't make it absurd. 

 

PS, I don't want to spam the board with this debate so I wont respond anymore. You can have the last word.

 

All NFL stats have minimums to be included.  Otherwise, as I pointed out, you end up with  Mike Vrabel in your cohort.

 

I think you know this, but you painted yourself into a corner--an unforced error.  Weird hill to die on...

[streetkings01]

Hodgins is to the Giants what Justin Hunter was to us.