The overvaluation of Wide receivers

[ColoradoBills]

1 hour ago, US Egg said:

I’m thinking it’s simply due to the fact that almost 2/3 of offensive plays target WR’s. 

 

I find that hard to believe.

Between running plays and minus passing plays to TEs and RBs, it seems to me that would be closer to 40%.

Do you have numbers for this?

[GASabresIUFan]

16 minutes ago, Magox said:

I think every situation and team is unique, unique in that teams are constructed differently and have different needs, the reality is that there are many factors at play.

 

However, at these overinflated WR rates, from a probability standpoint it wouldn’t make sense for most teams to pay top tier WR rates.  
 

Which is why I do think putting resources in premium draft picks do make sense for WR’s.  If you can get 4 to 5 really good years from a WR without having to pay the overinflated rate then obviously that would be very beneficial for that team.    
 

I do think WR’s are very valuable to most teams and from my perspective the way this league is built I believe it to be the 3rd  or 4th most important position grouping even though they are the clear 2nd highest paid group.

 

I think it’s logical that the QB is the highest paid primarily to how often he handles the ball and the outcomes of those 32 attempts are literally in his hands.

 

Top tier WR’s will be targeted around 8-12 times a game which gives them around 5-8 times they actually come down with the ball.    
 

I think it’s more logical for most teams to spend the 2nd most money by position groupings on the defensive line more specifically Defensive end.  They are the primary people tasked at disrupting the most valuable position QB on passing plays and are used in a large extent to stop the run.

I generally agree with what you said

 

I agree.  There will be circumstances where a 2nd contract may be justified, but after the Diggs forced feeding I'm no longer willing to become so one dimensional when throwing the ball.

 

In my the mock drafts I've done for this draft I'm keep drafting Bond early and then Kyle Williams later.  Here is a link to info on Williams for those who aren't familiar.  https://www.nfldraftbuzz.com/Player/Kyle-Williams-WR-UNLV

Edited Sunday at 06:55 PM by GASabresIUFan

[T.E.]

1 hour ago, Dan said:

In other words… stay ahead of the curve and pay Cook.  
 

I think we’d be fine with Cooper on the outside.  The only real question is will he be fine with what we’d likely pay him, assuming they extend Cook.  

I don't know if you can justify paying him more than Barkley when Cook's two backups are as good as they are.

[BADOLBILZ]

1 hour ago, Magox said:

This board and for that matter much of the league greatly values the worth of Wide receivers to their teams prospects to having success.   As it stands there are 23 total receivers who make at least $20 million per year of which 11 make more than $25 Million.  Just a couple years ago there were 14 who made $20M+ and just 5 that made $25M+.

 

The rate of inflation for paying receivers has outpaced the rate of the salary cap inflation as a whole.   To put this into perspective, by the time the 2025 season begins nearly half the league will have allocated pretty close to 10% of their entire salary cap towards their star receiver.

 

Justin Jefferson made up 13.7% in 2024

Devante Adams 13.5%

CeeDee Lamb 13.3%

Cooper Kupp 12.8%

AJ Brown 12.5%

Amon-Ra St. Brown 11.8%

Brandon Aiyuk 11.8%

Tyreek Bill 11.8%

Dk Metcalf 11.5%

Deebo Samuel 11.5%

 

Out of which 4 of them made the playoffs this past year.

https://theanalyst.com/2024/09/are-the-highest-paid-wide-receivers-worth-it

 

The league over the past 17 years had steadily increased their rate of passing which justified an increase in the rate of inflation to receivers.    Back in 2005 teams were throwing on average for 203.5 and saw a steady increase all the way to 2020 peaking out at 240.2 yards per game.   Since 2020, teams have began to run the ball more often and more successfully, seeing the passing rate steadily decline to 217.6 yards per game which is a substantial 10% rate of decline in passing yardage over the past 5 years.   It makes sense that teams have evolved and have adjusted to playing more bully ball against teams that were designed to stop passes who employed lighter boxes and base nickel defenses leading to the decline in passing yards.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/NFL/passing.htm

 

It's not coincidence that sometime around 2020 NFL teams which was when teams were at their zenith in terms of passing yards had begun to seriously deflate Running back valuations comparatively to the rest of the NFL rate of player personnel pay and began the inflation of wide receiver pay relative to the NFL pay as a whole.

 

The question begs is the rate of pay inflation in the NFL for receivers justified?

 

Before I get into that, I wanted to share some stats.

 

The four teams that threw the ball the least in 2024 was Philadelphia, Baltimore, Green Bay and Buffalo.   All 4 teams were playoff teams, one won the Super Bowl, another went to the AFC championship.  Out of the top 10 teams that passed the ball least 7 made the playoffs.

 

This past year in 2024, out of the top 10 receivers in terms of receiving yards only 3 played in the playoffs, Justin Jefferson, Amon-Ra St. Brown and Ladd McConkey.

 

Out of the top 10 of the teams that spent the most for wide receivers in 2024 only 3 made the playoffs. Out of the bottom 17 teams that spent the least in wide receivers in 2024, nearly half of them did make the playoffs.  

 

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/position/wide-receiver/_/year/2024/table/active/sort/cash_total

 

It's clear that for NFL teams to be successful that it is not necessary to have true blue #1 blue chip boundary WR's.  Chiefs, Bills and Ravens are examples of this.  Out of the 14 teams that made the playoffs, only 5 teams have receivers that are being paid over $20M a year.

 

It's evident that the NFL has begun to trend towards running against lighter boxes more and passing the ball less.   It takes a little time for GM's to adjust to realities on the ground, but we are beginning to see the deflationary cycle break in terms of paying playmaking RB's, but we've yet to see this happen in the wide receiver market.  There are traditional factors at play such as basic supply and demand, in which unfortunately for RB's, the supply of RB's are expected to increase through this years RB crop of rookies which may put a damper on the overall RB market and that inversely there aren't that many stellar WR's in this year rookie crop which may prevent a lid for WR's.

 

With all that said, I do expect to see the inflationary rate of pay for Wide receivers to begin to subside sometime in the near future.   I don't advocate for having bottom tier talent at the receiver spot, what I am advocating is that it's not necessary to pay these extreme high wages that eat up so much cap room for a WR, specially in a league that has consistently been trending towards passing the ball less over the past 4 seasons.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Individual-pay comes down to a players individual-ability to impact a game.

 

Those guys are going to get paid disproportionately and because they are under-supplied they will likely continue to outpace the cap in general.

 

That's why edge and island positions(like boundary WR) get paid and ultra dependent positions like RB's do not and should not.  

 

Brief fluctuations in how teams play offense or defense don't really change that.

 

After a couple years of offense's fighting against the current league scoring in 2024 returned back to the perceived "high flying" 2021 levels that caused defense's to back off in the first place.

 

The Bills have been one of those "prevent the deep ball at any cost" teams since McD got here.  Years prior to the league shift.

 

And what are we talking about here?  

 

Changing it up defensively.   

 

So I wouldn't bet the house on the entire league going with one style of defense again........that was the anomaly, IMO.

 

Maybe passing yards per game topped out in 2020-2021 but it will bounce back.

 

 

[US Egg]

5 minutes ago, ColoradoBills said:

I find that hard to believe.

Between running plays and minus passing plays to TEs and RBs, it seems to me that would be closer to 40%.

Do you have numbers for this?

Google AI: “According to data from various sources, the average percentage of plays in the NFL that are targeted towards Wide Receivers (WRs) is around 60-65% of passing plays”…..

[ColoradoBills]

2 minutes ago, US Egg said:

Google AI: “According to data from various sources, the average percentage of plays in the NFL that are targeted towards Wide Receivers (WRs) is around 60-65% of passing plays”…..

 

Okay, so my point of 40%ish of total plays makes sense.

[US Egg]

Just now, ColoradoBills said:

Okay, so my point of 40%ish of total plays makes sense.

So then what was so hard to believe?

[Low Positive]

4 minutes ago, US Egg said:

Google AI: “According to data from various sources, the average percentage of plays in the NFL that are targeted towards Wide Receivers (WRs) is around 60-65% of passing plays”…..

It also says "According to recent data, the average percentage of plays that are passing plays in the NFL is around 61-62%" So that is 65% or 61%, so about 40%

[ColoradoBills]

1 minute ago, US Egg said:

So then what was so hard to believe?

 

I thought you meant 2/3 of total offensive plays.

[Low Positive]

Since we brought AI into this, here's what ChatGPT says:

"

When looking at total offensive plays (including both run and pass plays), wide receivers are targeted on a smaller percentage of the plays compared to just passing attempts. On average, around 25-30% of all offensive plays in the NFL are designed to target wide receivers.

This percentage accounts for both passing plays where wide receivers are targeted and the overall number of plays, including run plays where wide receivers may not be directly involved. Teams that have a more pass-heavy offense will see a higher percentage, while run-heavy teams will have a lower percentage.

In essence, if you consider both pass and run plays, the wide receiver's involvement in total offensive plays would be around this range."

[GASabresIUFan]

The 5 teams with the lowest passing % were Philly (44%), Baltimore (46.5%), GB (49%), Buffalo (51%) and Pitt (51.5%).  Det was 8th (53%) and Wash 7th (52.5%).  All playoff teams.

 

Even if 65% of the passing plays are to WRs, that equates to about 33% of our plays.  Considering we tend to have 3-4 WRs in the pattern, is it really worth 20-25 million to just one of those top  3-4 receivers?  I'd rather give Cook 15 mill for 3 years as he is critical to both the rushing and passing game. 

 

 

[Buffalo716]

20 minutes ago, Low Positive said:

It also says "According to recent data, the average percentage of plays that are passing plays in the NFL is around 61-62%" So that is 65% or 61%, so about 40%

The bills ran around a 1011 plays

 

295 were pass plays targeted at a WR

Edited Sunday at 07:29 PM by Buffalo716

[ColoradoBills]

1 minute ago, Buffalo716 said:

The bills ran around a 1110 plays

 

295 were pass plays targeted at a WR

 

Wow, that's 27%.  Way lower than I thought.  It does justify the crux of this subject.

[Buffalo716]

3 minutes ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

Wow, that's 27%.  Way lower than I thought.  It does justify the crux of this subject.

I mistyped.. it's 1011 plays not 1110

 

So 295 of 1011 is 29%

[MikePJ76]

Low hanging fruit or the shiny object if you will.

 

You just need good ones that play well in your system and stay healthy.  
 

 

[ColoradoBills]

Just now, Buffalo716 said:

I mistyped.. it's 1011 plays not 1110

 

So 295 of 1011 is 29%

 

Still a little lower than I would have guessed.

[US Egg]

18 minutes ago, ColoradoBills said:

I thought you meant 2/3 of total offensive plays.

Yeah, one best be specific or else….😅 

 

 

[Beck Water]

25 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

The bills ran around a 1110 plays

295 were pass plays targeted at a WR

 

I'm late to the show here so need to catch up on what point is trying to be supported with the various stats?

Correct on the WR target pass plays.  Bills had 520 passing attempts, so that would be 295/520 or 57% of their pass plays targeting a WR
The Bills are listed in pro.football.reference as having 1025 plays: the sum of their pass attempts and rush attempts is 1011.

That makes them 49% rush, 51% pass.
 

Overall 29% of the Bills offensive plays targeted a WR.
 

32 minutes ago, GASabresIUFan said:

The 5 teams with the lowest passing % were Philly (44%), Baltimore (46.5%), GB (49%), Buffalo (51%) and Pitt (51.5%).  Det was 8th (53%) and Wash 7th (52.5%).  All playoff teams.

 

Even if 65% of the passing plays are to WRs, that equates to about 33% of our plays.  Considering we tend to have 3-4 WRs in the pattern, is it really worth 20-25 million to just one of those top  3-4 receivers?  I'd rather give Cook 15 mill for 3 years as he is critical to both the rushing and passing game. 

 

Close - see above, 29%. 

 

I expect the Bills might have liked to have more pass plays targeting a WR, but their WR weren't up to the job, which is why we saw Ty Johnson getting critical targets in critical games.  

Edited Sunday at 07:46 PM by Beck Water

[Low Positive]

Couple things.

1) These numbers are skewed by teams like the Ravens who ran a lot and the Bengals who almost never ran the ball.

 

2) What we can’t know is how many plays the Bills ran where the primary read was a WR but Josh had to check down to a TE or a RB due to a lack of separation. 

[JerseyBills]

Have to sign them at the right time