Re: Wide Receivers/Shiny Hood Ornaments Theory

[wargograw]

Yes another football thread from your favorite local Texan (ok that doesn't even make sense). I see this theory bandied about a lot. "Wide receivers are just shiny hood ornaments in the NFL. They only matter if the rest of your offense is in place. Etc." The evidence that I usually see thrown out are just anecdotal examples like "we won 0 playoff games with Gordon," "Detroit's won 0 playoff games with Johnson," "the Bucs were still terrible with Jackson and Evans last year," "there were zero great receivers in the Super Bowl last year." Certainly all true.

 

So here's what I did. I listed all teams that did not have a franchise quarterback last year. Of course, there is some disagreement on what that means. The only disputable examples I can think of is Jacksonville (is Bortles the guy?), Minnesota (too early to tell), St. Louis (Bradford is a/their franchise guy but he was hurt), Kansas City (it's not that much of a question but Smith is kinda borderline nonetheless, at least IMO),and Philly (had their guy in Foles but A. he was hurt last year, B. they traded him).

 

Then I added the "known" receivers that were on each team last year. These guys aren't necessarily the best receivers so this is really a bunch of BS. This is just the public perception of each team. For example, public perception is that the Browns don't have any receivers. Truth is that both Hawkins and Gabriel are very good. Basically we could have drafted Sammy Watkins last year and I would list him even though he had a worse season last year than Gabriel. So a lot of it is just perception based on where they were drafted and again, this is kinda worthless, but it's something you can show people if you're trying to prove what the impact of "good" receivers is, or isn't, as it were.

 

NO FRANCHISE QUARTERBACK

Buffalo-Watkins

New York Jets-Decker

Cleveland-None

Tennessee-None

Houston-Johnson, Hopkins

Jacksonville-None, "but they added some quality rookies!"

Washington-Jackson, Garcon

Minnesota-None

Tampa Bay-Jackson, Evans

St. Louis-None

 

QUARTERBACK

Playoff teams listed first, no teams without a franchise quarterback made the playoffs

New England-None

Cincinatti-Green

Baltimore-Smith, Smith

Pittsburgh-Brown, Bryant

Indianapolis-Hilton, Wayne

Denver-Thomas, Sanders

Dallas-Bryant

Green Bay-Cobb, Nelson

Detroit-Johnson, Tate

Carolina-Benjamin

Arizona-Fitzgerald

Seattle-None

 

Miami-Landry, Wallace

San Diego-None

Oakland-None

Kansas City-Bowe

Philadelphia-Maclin, Cooper

New York Giants-Beckham, Randle (cruz was hurt)

Chicago-Marshall, Jeffery

Atlanta-Jones, White

New Orleans-Colston

San Francisco-Boldin, Crabtree

 

While yet again acknowledging that this list doesn't really tell you which teams actually have good receivers, I kinda have to push back on the "well neither Super Bowl team had any receivers" statement. The statement is true in itself, but the context tells you that every other playoff team did have at least one popular receiver.

 

But anyway, let's break out the Pro Football Focus numbers and see who actually has good (rather than popular per se) receivers. On PFF I can pull up a list of every receiver that played 25% of their team's offensive snaps. Not a perfect measurement because it's harder for your number 1 receiver having to go against the number 1 corner but it's still the best resource available.

 

NO FRANCHISE QUARTERBACK

Buffalo-Woods (T-69), Hogan (72), Watkins (79, is this remarkable or what?)

New York Jets-Decker (24), Harvin (34), Kerley (76), Nelson (109)

Cleveland-Hawkins (11), Gabriel (17), Austin (42), Benjamin (52) (NOTE: we have the highest ranked third receiver in Miles Austin; Buffalo, Tennessee, Jacksonville, Washington, Minnesota, Carolina, and Kansas City all haven't even had a single receiver ranked yet) (FURTHERMORE, we are the first team to have a 4th receiver listed with Benjamin; Buffalo, Tennessee yet to have anyone listed)

Tennessee-Wright (T-62), Washington (80), Hagan (83), Hunter (89)

Houston-Hopkins (12), A. Johnson (40), D. Johnson (T-107)

Jacksonville-Robinson (50), Lee (94), Shorts (98), Hurns (104)

Washington-Jackson (T-43), Garcon (57), Roberts (86)

Minnesota-Jennings (T-48), Wright (T-53), Johnson (T-69), Patterson (72)

Tampa Bay-Evans (13), Jackson (32), Murphy (102)

St. Louis-Bailey (27), Britt (35), Quick (T-53), Austin (T-91)

 

QUARTERBACK

New England-Lafell (33), Edelman (68), Amendola (93)

Cincinatti-Green (15), Tate (41), Sanu (88)

Baltimore-T. Smith (T-37), S. Smith (47), Brown (50), Aiken (58)

Pittsburgh-Brown (1), Bryant (30), Wheaton (T-53)

Indianapolis-Hilton (10), Moncrief (29), Nicks (105), Wayne (106)

Denver-Thomas (5), Sanders (8), Welker (71)

Dallas-Bryant (4), Beasley (T-48), Williams (61)

Green Bay-Nelson (2), Cobb (9), Adams (99)

Detroit-Johnson (7), Tate (25), Fuller (82), Ross (96)

Carolina-Brown (46), Cotchery (66), Avant (78), Benjamin (85, also pretty remarkable, huh?)

Arizona-Fitzgerald (31), Floyd (T-37), Brown (T-62)

Seattle-Baldwin (20), Richardson (59), Kearse (81)

 

Miami-Landry (16), Wallace (T-53), Gibson (T-100), Hartline (103)

San Diego-Floyd (21), Allen (35), Royal (T-43)

Oakland-Butler (39), Thompkins (74), Jones (89), Holmes (T-91)

Kansas City-Bowe (45)

Philadelphia-Maclin (14), Matthews (60), Cooper (110)

New York Giants-Beckham (3, would be 1 with a full season), Randle (19), Cruz (T-74), Parker (87)

Chicago-Marshall (26), Jeffery (28), Morgan (84), Wilson (97)

Atlanta-Jones (6), Douglas (64), Hester (77), White (T-107)

New Orleans-Stills (23), Cooks (T-64), Colston (T-100)

San Francisco-Boldin (18), Johnson (22), Lloyd (67), Crabtree (95)

 

Some teams have 4 receivers listed. Some have only 1. There was a total of 110 receivers listed. I think the best way to standardize this is just to take the average of everyone's receivers that are listed if they have 4. If a team had less than 4 receivers in the top 110, they will get 111 added for each player missing. So for example if your top 4 receivers were ranked numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the league, your average would be 2.5. If your top 2 receivers were ranked 25 and 50 but you had no one else ranked, then I do (25+50+111+111)/4, which comes out to 74.25. Here goes (playoff teams in bold):

 

1. Cleveland-30.5

2. New York Giants-45.75

3. Baltimore-48

4. Pittsburgh-48.75

4. Denver-48.75

6. San Francisco-50.5

7. St. Louis-51.5

8. San Diego-52.5

9. Detroit-52.5

10. Green Bay-55.25

11. Dallas-56

12. Chicago-58.75

13. Arizona-60.25

14. Minnesota-60.5

15. New York Jets-60.75

16. Indianapolis-62.5

17. Atlanta-63.5

18. Cincinatti-63.75

19. Tampa Bay-64.5

20. Houston-67.5

21. Seattle-67.75

22. Miami-68

23. Carolina-68.75

24. Oakland-73.25

25. Philadelphia-73.75

26. Washington-74.5

26. New Orleans-74.5

28. New England-76.25

29. Tennessee-78.5

30. Buffalo-82.75

31. Jacksonville-86.5

32. Kansas City-94.5

 

CONCLUSIONS

Well I think first and foremost you have to acknowledge that our own CLEVELAND BROWNS have the best group of 4 receivers in the league. I knew Hawkins and Gabriel were both strong at 11 and 17, respectively, but I had NO idea that the result of this research would look this good for us. So IMO the proper response to "but you guys don't have any receivers" is not "well receivers don't really matter in the NFL," I think it should be a resounding "yes we do!"

 

You can see in the last list that the strength of the receiving corps of playoff teams varies greatly. Playoff teams were sprinkled throughout the list. The average ranking (the number on the left, 1-32) of the receiving corps of playoff teams was 13.33. Pretty close to middle of the pack. The playoff teams at the bottom of the list (New England, Carolina, Seattle, Cincinatti) had good defenses that could overshadow any lack of offensive firepower. You take a team like the Browns, if we were to retain our receiver numbers as well as put together a good defense, we'd absolutely be sitting pretty.

 

I don't think wide receivers are necessarily "shiny hood ornaments," I think they're whatever you need them to be. New England didn't need great receiver play with such a great tight end, quarterback, and defense. Pittsburgh and Green Bay needed their receivers to make up for their lack of defense. Detroit and Arizona both needed good receiver play to cover up an awful offensive line.

 

Anyone have any other interpretations of the data?

[RoyceRolls]

Nice post, thanks for the research. The problem for many wasn't that we weren't deep at receiver, but that we don't have that "go to number 1" to which I respond: "so?"

 

Obviously every position is important, but the Browns had to prioritize their needs. I happen to agree with Farmer and Pett's priorities, but there is more than one way to skin a cat, so they say...

[wargograw]

Thanks Rolls. Let's address that point directly. I'll do the same analysis for the number 1 receiver for each team.

 

1. Pittsburgh-1

2. Green Bay-2

3. Giants-3

4. Dallas-4

5. Denver-5

6. Atlanta-6

7. Detroit-7

8. Indianapolis-10

9. Cleveland-11

10. Houston-12

11. Tampa Bay-13

12. Philadelphia-14

13. Cincinatti-15

14. Miami-16

15. San Francisco-18

16. Seattle-20

17. San Diego-21

18. New Orleans-23

19. Jets-24

20. Chicago-26

21. St. Louis-27

22. Arizona-31

23. New England-33

24. Baltimore-37

25. Oakland-39

26. Washington-43

27. Kansas City-45

28. Carolina-46

29. Minnesota-48

30. Jacksonville-50

31. Tennessee-62

32. Buffalo-69

 

Average ranking (the number on the left, 1-32) of the top receiver for playoff teams is 14. Middle of the pack again, but with 6 of the top 8. All 6 of the playoff teams outside of the top 8 had great defenses and only 2 in the top 8 (Denver, Detroit) had great defenses. So you continue to see a bit of the inverse relationship between defense and receiver play, although it's certainly not a hard and fast rule.

 

Top 2 receivers on each team:

 

1. Green Bay-5.5

2. Denver-6.5

3.New York Giants-11

4. Cleveland-14

5. Pittsburgh-15.5

6. Detroit-16

7. Indianapolis-19.5 (the second ranked receiver for all three of Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Indy didn't even start the entire year so these numbers could be even better last year)

8. San Francisco-20

9. Tampa Bay-22.5

10. Dallas-26

10. Houston-26

12. Chicago-27

13. Cincinatti-28

14. San Diego-28

15. Jets-29

16. St. Louis-31

17. Arizona-34

18. Miami-34.5

19. Atlanta-35

20. Philadelphia-37

21. Seattle-39.5

22. Baltimore-42

23. New Orleans-43.5

24. New England-45.5

25. Washington-50

26. Minnesota-50.5

27. Carolina-56

28. Oakland-56.5

29. Buffalo-70.5

30. Tennessee-71

31. Jacksonville-72

32. Kansas City-78

 

Average ranking of the top 2 receivers of playoff teams is 12.92, but that's with 6 of the top 10. Same story re: defenses. Only Denver and Detroit had good defenses in the top 6 of playoff teams.

 

Top 3 receivers on each team:

 

1. Cleveland-23.33

2. Pittsburgh-28

2. Denver-28

4. Giants-32

5. San Diego-33

6. San Francisco-35.7

7. Green Bay-36.7

8. Dallas-37.7

9. Detroit-38

10. St. Louis-38.3

11. Arizona-43.3

12. Jets-44.7

13. Baltimore-44.7

14. Chicago-46

15. Cincinnati-48

15. Indianapolis-48

17. Atlanta-49

18. Tampa Bay-49

19. Houston-53

20. Seattle-53.3

21. Miami-56.3

22. Minnesota-56.7

23. Philadelphia-61.3

24. Washington-62

25. New Orleans-62.3

26. Carolina-63.3

27. New England-64.7

28. Oakland-67.3

29. Buffalo-73.3

30. Tennessee-75

31. Jacksonville-80.7

32. Kansas City-89

 

Average ranking for the top 3 of playoff teams is 11.83, so this is the point when you start to leave the middle of the pack and start creeping up towards to the top 10. You'll notice in this list how much party there is. I'm not going to bust out a standard deviation formula but you can see how tight the teams are in the middle.

 

I'd like to think I've thouroughly debunked the shiny hood ornaments theory but who knows. I think if you were to include tight ends in this analysis you'd really see a lot more of the playoff teams closer to the top. Carolina and New England would be completely removed from the bottom area of all these rankings. Seattle gets away with the awful receivers AND tight ends by the defense. If we can have a defense anywhere near their level on top of our receiver play which looks downright elite, then we can be even better.

[Mudfly]

wow....looks like you did a lot of work here....good on ya.....

 

Im definitely a WR hater.....HA!,,,,,not really.....though I do believe it's not as important a position as so many think.....a big superstar "anything" is nice to have....but at WR, its not even close to a requirement......

[calfoxwc]

Great job !

 

I never see it as one part of the offense is not important.

"Shiny hood ornaments"... glad you dashed that asinine theory.

When the playoff teams you listed above ...are checked for having

highly rated offensive lines: (in red)

 

 

QUARTERBACK

Playoff teams listed first, no teams without a franchise quarterback made the playoffs

New England-None YES

Cincinatti-Green YES

Baltimore-Smith, Smith YES

Pittsburgh-Brown, Bryant YES

Indianapolis-Hilton, Wayne YES

Denver-Thomas, Sanders YES

Dallas-Bryant YES

Green Bay-Cobb, Nelson YES

Detroit-Johnson, Tate YES

Carolina-Benjamin YES?

Arizona-Fitzgerald YES?

Seattle-None YES?

I believe the rankings of any part of the offense, pretty much relates to the completeness

of the offensive talent. Like the Bengals, I don't see Andy Dalton as a "franchise qb".

He just has outstanding talent all around him. So, he is rated as one.

If Andy Dalton had been drafted by the Browns back then, he'd have been Colt McCoy !

[Unsympathetic]

This thread does NOT address the shiny hood ornament argument. Simply asserting that you are.. doesn't mean that you're actually doing it.

 

You invented your own metric which is entirely independent from any of the 3 components [yes three, not one] of the shiny hood ornament discussion.

 

But hey, keep fighting those strawmen if that makes you happy!

[wargograw]

Glad you could respond in such a classy manner with such thoughtful discussion, analysis, and counterpoints, unsympathetic. We're all very impressed.

[wargograw]

Great job !

 

I never see it as one part of the offense is not important.

"Shiny hood ornaments"... glad you dashed that asinine theory.

When the playoff teams you listed above ...are checked for having

highly rated offensive lines: (in red)

 

QUARTERBACK

Playoff teams listed first, no teams without a franchise quarterback made the playoffs

New England-None YES

Cincinatti-Green YES

Baltimore-Smith, Smith YES

Pittsburgh-Brown, Bryant YES

Indianapolis-Hilton, Wayne YES

Denver-Thomas, Sanders YES

Dallas-Bryant YES

Green Bay-Cobb, Nelson YES

Detroit-Johnson, Tate YES

Carolina-Benjamin YES?

Arizona-Fitzgerald YES?

Seattle-None YES?

I believe the rankings of any part of the offense, pretty much relates to the completeness

of the offensive talent. Like the Bengals, I don't see Andy Dalton as a "franchise qb".

He just has outstanding talent all around him. So, he is rated as one.

If Andy Dalton had been drafted by the Browns back then, he'd have been Colt McCoy !

Thanks Cal! If you're gonna be out at practice with Mike next Saturday I'll see you there.

 

As for OLs of playoff teams: Indianapolis was solid pass blocking but wasn't a complete unit. Detroit, Carolina, Arizona, Seattle all had average to bad OLs but all 4 of those teams had great defenses.

 

True on Dalton.

[wargograw]

By the way if you still believe in the shiny hood theory after seeing these grades, I guess we should go ahead and trade Hawkins and Gabriel to expedite the building process?

[Unsympathetic]

You addressed NONE of the elements of the shiny hood ornament theory, yet claimed your thread "disproves" it.

 

So until you link and quote from chff - this is just some analysis&discussion.

 

But it doesn't disprove anything - because you didn't address the exact concepts that you asserted you were confronting. Similar? Sure! But NOT exactly the same.

 

Demanding precision is not a personal attack.

[Tour2ma]

When someone throws rocks at a person's time consuming effort and leaves it at that, that person tends to take it personally...

 

 

So... what are "the (3) elements" of the SHOT?

 

Is one the round in which the SHO is drafted? And/or the Salary paid a UFA WR?

[Mudfly]

Shot?.....= Pb = Lead....Cu = copper.....Ag = silver (for vampires)

[Tour2ma]

lol...

 

SHOT = shiny hood ornament theory

[Mudfly]

lol...

 

SHOT = shiny hood ornament theory

Ohhhhh......

 

[gumby73]

When does the Mud Tour Show. Tour? LOL with Tears^^^^^priceless $$

[Tour2ma]

Thanks, but before my question to Unsym gets lost...

 

You addressed NONE of the elements of the shiny hood ornament theory, yet claimed your thread "disproves" it.

 

So until you link and quote from chff - this is just some analysis&discussion.

 

But it doesn't disprove anything - because you didn't address the exact concepts that you asserted you were confronting. Similar? Sure! But NOT exactly the same.

 

Demanding precision is not a personal attack.

When someone throws rocks at a person's time consuming effort and leaves it at that, that person tends to take it personally...

 

 

So... what are "the (3) elements" of the SHOT*?

 

Is one the round in which the SHO is drafted? And/or the Salary paid a UFA WR?

This time with footnotes...

_________________________________________________

* Shiny Hood Ornament Theory

[jrb12711]

Hey man, I really enjoyed the read! Don't let jackasses bring you down from doing more of this stuff.

 

Anywho, I've long been on the train, similar to Farmer, that WR is not a luxury position. As you've noted to some degree, when you look at the two Super Bowl teams last year neither had an elite WR but a core of good guys. I'm really excited at what Hartline will bring to this team (that TD catch in the scrimmage was nice) and Gabriel and Hawkins really work well too. Hopefully Mayle and Pryor (gasp!) bring us some size too.

 

This of course (and understandably for what you were doing) also overlooks the TE position, which IMO is quickly becoming the most important skill position on offense. A Jimmy Graham type talent creates HUGE mismatches and hopefully one of our later round dudes bring that.

[Unsympathetic]

Go to chff and look it up.

 

Shiny hood ornament isn't a random notion, it has a definition.

[wargograw]

SHOT points (these are quoted verbatim):

 

1. Wide receivers, for all their eye-catching flash and dash, are little more than shiny ornaments on the hood of an NFL offense. Oh, sure, they're nice to have. But they don't necessarily make your offense any better and they rarely if ever make your team any better.

 

Can't really prove or disprove this. There are so many changes that happen in a given offseason that it's impossible to isolate the variable that one receiver would represent.

 

2. You should add a flashy wide receiver only when all the other pieces of a great team are in place: a great driver (the quarterback), some sporty tires that provide plenty of traction (the offensive line and ground game), a powerful motor (the defense) and a great transmission (special teams) that allows you to change gears quickly and effectively.

 

Ok these here are the playoff teams:

Detroit

Dallas

Seattle

Green Bay

Arizona

Carolina

 

New England

Denver

Indianapolis

Baltimore

Pittsburgh

Cincinnati

 

-All have a QB. So no quibbling with that point.

-Detroit, Seattle Arizona, Carolina, and Indianapolis all had average offensive lines. Of this list, only Seattle had a strong ground game.

-Green Bay, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, Dallas all had bad defenses

 

I'm not going to break down special teams.

 

3. Even the greatest receivers of all time can make a big impact only when all those pieces are in place, and even then the impact is largely overstated. Even the great Jerry Rice, for example, touched the ball just four to five times per game. So the impact of even the greatest at the position is minimal compared with the impact of a certain position that touches the ball on every offensive snap. And remember, Rice did not make the 49ers a great team. He was drafted by the 18-1 defending Super Bowl champ 49ers in 1985.

 

Indianapolis has pretty much nothing in place outside of quarterback and receiver and they've done just fine. Outside of that I don't really know how I could push back on this point. The point is basically the same one they offered in point number 1, so my response is the same. It's impossible to isolate that variable.

 

The notion that a good receiver only touches the ball 4-5x/game and therefore those are the only times he can make an impact is asinine. If you have to double cover him on every play, THAT'S AN IMPACT. If you have to keep a safety back instead of bringing him in the box that's an impact. If your safety's job is to cover the slot but he's worried about the outside receiver that's burned him all day, he's going to still keep an eye on that receiver while he's covering the slot. That's an impact.

 

They listed a bunch of anecdotal examples to prove their theory. Problem is, they are using the popularity of a receiver to gauge his "goodness." I didn't do that. I used "cold, hard" (to borrow their expression) grades of every receiver, every play, every game. The receivers in their examples might have been guys that were popular, but were no longer actually good receivers.

 

And answer my question. If you believe so strongly in the theory, then shouldn't we trade Hawkins and Gabriel to expedite the building process?

[wargograw]

Let's break down their examples specifically. Each point is titled exactly how it is on the article.

 

1. Denver, Dallas foolishly draft WRs in first round, fire head coaches mid-season

 

Both teams still have those receivers. Both teams made the playoffs last year. Both teams will be Super Bowl contenders this year. Contrary to point 2 in my above post, Dallas made the playoffs with a great receiver but weak defense. Denver did have a great defense last year, but in the previous two years since Peyton Manning's arrival (including a Super Bowl loss) they did not.

 

Should they have drafted the guys at the time that they did? Probably not. But to suggest that the entire rest of the team had to be built before they could make an impact is false.

 

2. Miami gets WR fever, and zero benefit, when it trades two draft picks for "The Beast"

 

"The Beast" being Brandon Marshall. The article talks about how they were 15th in points scored in 2009, got Brandon Marshall in 2010, then were 30th in the same category. Per PFF, Brandon Marshall only threw up a grade of 1.7 in 2010. Safe to say he didn't play the way they were expecting. Had he done so, who knows what would have happened. As I mentioned in points 1 and 3 in my above posts, it's necessary to look at what other changes were made to the offense between the two years.

 

In 2009, the Dolphins had 7 different offensive linemen play throughout the year, with the fewest snaps for one being 462. Those guys threw up an average grade of 18. That's insanely good. Players with grades of 18 are pretty much surefire Pro Bowlers and they did that even with their backups. You know what the average grade for their 7 offensive linemen was in 2010? 7. Yes. Seven. 18 to 7 in one year. Literally half as good.

 

They got rid of Greg Camarillo, their second best receiver. They added Marlon Moore who was not good. Lousaka Polite, their FB, went from a 13.2 grade in 2009 to a -5.8 in 2010.

 

3. New England dumps Randy Moss, Tom Brady and the offense explode

 

Before I even look at the PFF grades for Moss in 2009 and the first four games of 2010 prior to them cutting him, I'm going to predict that they were terrible. In which case this is a classic case of confusing a popular receiver with a good receiver. He graded at 3.1 in 2009 and in those first 4 games of 2010 he was -5.5. He was no longer good.

 

4. Carson Palmer plays Week 16 without T.Ocho and has best game of his career

 

Basically the Bengals had both Ochocinco and Terrell Owens. They were 10-6 in 2009 and 4-12 in 2010. But the players combined for a -12 grade in 2010. Popular versus good, yet again.

 

5. Baltimore is burned badly by stud free-agent Shiny Hood Ornaments

 

This one basically talks about how they acquired T.J. Houshmandzadeh and Anquan Boldin. They go in to how bad both players were in 2010. The two combined for a -1.9 grade. Of course, CHFF acknowledges that those guys sucked. Do the writers of this article know how to form an argument? Don't tell me "good wide receivers are merely shiny hood ornaments," and then, to support your theory, tell me about a bunch of wide receivers that were not good.

 

My original post was a much better dissection of the SHOT than this post that actually used their own points.

[gumby73]

wow....looks like you did a lot of work here....good on ya.....

 

Im definitely a WR hater.....HA!,,,,,not really.....though I do believe it's not as important a position as so many think.....a big superstar "anything" is nice to have....but at WR, its not even close to a requirement......

Here's a QB theory for the Shiny hood ornament theory. SHOT. "Should Have Observed TE".. nobody can cover a good one. Bellycheck can't be the only smart coach to figure this out and Brady is not cheating on this one.

[wargograw]

Yeah by the way, meant to add this to my last post in response to the SHOT, but New England's OL was actually pretty average last year.

[Flugel]

Yes another football thread from your favorite local Texan (ok that doesn't even make sense). I see this theory bandied about a lot. "Wide receivers are just shiny hood ornaments in the NFL. They only matter if the rest of your offense is in place. Etc." The evidence that I usually see thrown out are just anecdotal examples like "we won 0 playoff games with Gordon," "Detroit's won 0 playoff games with Johnson," "the Bucs were still terrible with Jackson and Evans last year," "there were zero great receivers in the Super Bowl last year." Certainly all true.

 

So here's what I did. I listed all teams that did not have a franchise quarterback last year. Of course, there is some disagreement on what that means. The only disputable examples I can think of is Jacksonville (is Bortles the guy?), Minnesota (too early to tell), St. Louis (Bradford is a/their franchise guy but he was hurt), Kansas City (it's not that much of a question but Smith is kinda borderline nonetheless, at least IMO),and Philly (had their guy in Foles but A. he was hurt last year, B. they traded him).

 

Then I added the "known" receivers that were on each team last year. These guys aren't necessarily the best receivers so this is really a bunch of BS. This is just the public perception of each team. For example, public perception is that the Browns don't have any receivers. Truth is that both Hawkins and Gabriel are very good. Basically we could have drafted Sammy Watkins last year and I would list him even though he had a worse season last year than Gabriel. So a lot of it is just perception based on where they were drafted and again, this is kinda worthless, but it's something you can show people if you're trying to prove what the impact of "good" receivers is, or isn't, as it were.

 

NO FRANCHISE QUARTERBACK

Buffalo-Watkins

New York Jets-Decker

Cleveland-None

Tennessee-None

Houston-Johnson, Hopkins

Jacksonville-None, "but they added some quality rookies!"

Washington-Jackson, Garcon

Minnesota-None

Tampa Bay-Jackson, Evans

St. Louis-None

 

QUARTERBACK

Playoff teams listed first, no teams without a franchise quarterback made the playoffs

New England-None

Cincinatti-Green

Baltimore-Smith, Smith

Pittsburgh-Brown, Bryant

Indianapolis-Hilton, Wayne

Denver-Thomas, Sanders

Dallas-Bryant

Green Bay-Cobb, Nelson

Detroit-Johnson, Tate

Carolina-Benjamin

Arizona-Fitzgerald

Seattle-None

 

Miami-Landry, Wallace

San Diego-None

Oakland-None

Kansas City-Bowe

Philadelphia-Maclin, Cooper

New York Giants-Beckham, Randle (cruz was hurt)

Chicago-Marshall, Jeffery

Atlanta-Jones, White

New Orleans-Colston

San Francisco-Boldin, Crabtree

 

While yet again acknowledging that this list doesn't really tell you which teams actually have good receivers, I kinda have to push back on the "well neither Super Bowl team had any receivers" statement. The statement is true in itself, but the context tells you that every other playoff team did have at least one popular receiver.

 

But anyway, let's break out the Pro Football Focus numbers and see who actually has good (rather than popular per se) receivers. On PFF I can pull up a list of every receiver that played 25% of their team's offensive snaps. Not a perfect measurement because it's harder for your number 1 receiver having to go against the number 1 corner but it's still the best resource available.

 

NO FRANCHISE QUARTERBACK

Buffalo-Woods (T-69), Hogan (72), Watkins (79, is this remarkable or what?)

New York Jets-Decker (24), Harvin (34), Kerley (76), Nelson (109)

Cleveland-Hawkins (11), Gabriel (17), Austin (42), Benjamin (52) (NOTE: we have the highest ranked third receiver in Miles Austin; Buffalo, Tennessee, Jacksonville, Washington, Minnesota, Carolina, and Kansas City all haven't even had a single receiver ranked yet) (FURTHERMORE, we are the first team to have a 4th receiver listed with Benjamin; Buffalo, Tennessee yet to have anyone listed)

Tennessee-Wright (T-62), Washington (80), Hagan (83), Hunter (89)

Houston-Hopkins (12), A. Johnson (40), D. Johnson (T-107)

Jacksonville-Robinson (50), Lee (94), Shorts (98), Hurns (104)

Washington-Jackson (T-43), Garcon (57), Roberts (86)

Minnesota-Jennings (T-48), Wright (T-53), Johnson (T-69), Patterson (72)

Tampa Bay-Evans (13), Jackson (32), Murphy (102)

St. Louis-Bailey (27), Britt (35), Quick (T-53), Austin (T-91)

 

QUARTERBACK

New England-Lafell (33), Edelman (68), Amendola (93)

Cincinatti-Green (15), Tate (41), Sanu (88)

Baltimore-T. Smith (T-37), S. Smith (47), Brown (50), Aiken (58)

Pittsburgh-Brown (1), Bryant (30), Wheaton (T-53)

Indianapolis-Hilton (10), Moncrief (29), Nicks (105), Wayne (106)

Denver-Thomas (5), Sanders (8), Welker (71)

Dallas-Bryant (4), Beasley (T-48), Williams (61)

Green Bay-Nelson (2), Cobb (9), Adams (99)

Detroit-Johnson (7), Tate (25), Fuller (82), Ross (96)

Carolina-Brown (46), Cotchery (66), Avant (78), Benjamin (85, also pretty remarkable, huh?)

Arizona-Fitzgerald (31), Floyd (T-37), Brown (T-62)

Seattle-Baldwin (20), Richardson (59), Kearse (81)

 

Miami-Landry (16), Wallace (T-53), Gibson (T-100), Hartline (103)

San Diego-Floyd (21), Allen (35), Royal (T-43)

Oakland-Butler (39), Thompkins (74), Jones (89), Holmes (T-91)

Kansas City-Bowe (45)

Philadelphia-Maclin (14), Matthews (60), Cooper (110)

New York Giants-Beckham (3, would be 1 with a full season), Randle (19), Cruz (T-74), Parker (87)

Chicago-Marshall (26), Jeffery (28), Morgan (84), Wilson (97)

Atlanta-Jones (6), Douglas (64), Hester (77), White (T-107)

New Orleans-Stills (23), Cooks (T-64), Colston (T-100)

San Francisco-Boldin (18), Johnson (22), Lloyd (67), Crabtree (95)

 

Some teams have 4 receivers listed. Some have only 1. There was a total of 110 receivers listed. I think the best way to standardize this is just to take the average of everyone's receivers that are listed if they have 4. If a team had less than 4 receivers in the top 110, they will get 111 added for each player missing. So for example if your top 4 receivers were ranked numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the league, your average would be 2.5. If your top 2 receivers were ranked 25 and 50 but you had no one else ranked, then I do (25+50+111+111)/4, which comes out to 74.25. Here goes (playoff teams in bold):

 

1. Cleveland-30.5

2. New York Giants-45.75

3. Baltimore-48

4. Pittsburgh-48.75

4. Denver-48.75

6. San Francisco-50.5

7. St. Louis-51.5

8. San Diego-52.5

9. Detroit-52.5

10. Green Bay-55.25

11. Dallas-56

12. Chicago-58.75

13. Arizona-60.25

14. Minnesota-60.5

15. New York Jets-60.75

16. Indianapolis-62.5

17. Atlanta-63.5

18. Cincinatti-63.75

19. Tampa Bay-64.5

20. Houston-67.5

21. Seattle-67.75

22. Miami-68

23. Carolina-68.75

24. Oakland-73.25

25. Philadelphia-73.75

26. Washington-74.5

26. New Orleans-74.5

28. New England-76.25

29. Tennessee-78.5

30. Buffalo-82.75

31. Jacksonville-86.5

32. Kansas City-94.5

 

CONCLUSIONS

Well I think first and foremost you have to acknowledge that our own CLEVELAND BROWNS have the best group of 4 receivers in the league. I knew Hawkins and Gabriel were both strong at 11 and 17, respectively, but I had NO idea that the result of this research would look this good for us. So IMO the proper response to "but you guys don't have any receivers" is not "well receivers don't really matter in the NFL," I think it should be a resounding "yes we do!"

 

You can see in the last list that the strength of the receiving corps of playoff teams varies greatly. Playoff teams were sprinkled throughout the list. The average ranking (the number on the left, 1-32) of the receiving corps of playoff teams was 13.33. Pretty close to middle of the pack. The playoff teams at the bottom of the list (New England, Carolina, Seattle, Cincinatti) had good defenses that could overshadow any lack of offensive firepower. You take a team like the Browns, if we were to retain our receiver numbers as well as put together a good defense, we'd absolutely be sitting pretty.

 

I don't think wide receivers are necessarily "shiny hood ornaments," I think they're whatever you need them to be. New England didn't need great receiver play with such a great tight end, quarterback, and defense. Pittsburgh and Green Bay needed their receivers to make up for their lack of defense. Detroit and Arizona both needed good receiver play to cover up an awful offensive line.

 

Anyone have any other interpretations of the data?

 

Well done War! You did your research and backed your point.

[Flugel]

This thread does NOT address the shiny hood ornament argument. Simply asserting that you are.. doesn't mean that you're actually doing it.

 

You invented your own metric which is entirely independent from any of the 3 components [yes three, not one] of the shiny hood ornament discussion.

 

But hey, keep fighting those strawmen if that makes you happy!

 

If you kept an open mind to what War was saying rather than honing in on how he was applying Shiney Hood ornaments - there was an awareness he was delivering to anyone willing to accept it. You're too busy trying to prove Jerry Rice, Michael Irvin, Paul Warfield, Lynn Swann, John Stallworth, Tory Holt and others weren't important draft picks because you can tell me Calvin Johnson got sentenced to Detroit. If guys on the perimeter didn't matter, Peyton Manning would have hand selected the TN Titans rather choosing DeMaryius Thomas, Eric Decker as well as liking Elway's assurances that Wes Welker would be added in FA. Then, of course, there's Joe Flacco before Torry Smith and Anquan Boldin and Joe Flacco with a new contract because of those additions. That doesn't slam dunk QBs make it happen with perimeter mannequins from JC Pennys. When the Giants beat the unbeaten Patriots - the game winning points were thrown to a WR that was previously drafted in round 1 (Plex Burress). When Arizona got ahead of Pittsburgh on Fitzgerald's TD reception, Ben Rapen found his 1st round WR (Holmes) for a game winning TD pass. When there's a deficit to erase with little time to do it - you're gonna need your fellers on the perimeter like those examples I pointed out. Before Farmer took over - we weren't exactly finding undrafted gems like Victor Cruz, Wayne Chrebet, and Wes Welker so they we're liking planning for the 12th of Never here.

 

We can teeter these debates anyway we want to take them. You'll point out examples of 1st round WRs that got drafted by bad teams or 1 dimensional offenses.

 

We all know you win with balance. If you pose zero threat of throwing TD passes in the red zone - numbers can swarm your 5-6 blockers up front and limit you to FGs. Then, we're right back to fussing about how much we miss Phil Dawson's 50-60 yard FGs as our biggest sources of glory on game day. In a passing era, that won't cut it. Therefore, we all witnessed a massive off season effort to sign guys at 6'2" or taller such as Bowe, Hartline, Mayle, and Pryor. This league tells us former basketball players/guys with ideal frames are great help in the red zone and/or on 3rd downs. If anyone watched what Sean Payton did with Jimmy Graham when they played us - he put him wider so he could isolate his frame advantage on our elite corner. We've never Haden that helpless. The size difference in that matchup wasn't as easy/fair for Haden as he finds it vrs AJ Green. Now Seattle felt compelled to add such an intangible.

 

What was cool to see from War's research, is that Gabriel, Hawkins, Benjamin and others were more efficient than they got credit for being. In that sense, needing to get our awareness of that means they can only be shiney if we're aware of them. They're not big name guys around the league so they weren't advertised as shiney. The GOOD news here is our front office and coaching staff knew exactly what needed to be addressed this off season and did so. Adding the threat we can throw TD passes in the red zone doesn't handcuff our strength of running the ball - it should make it even tougher to stop. We're in a division with 3 playoff teams we play twice a year plus the rest of our brutal schedule. We're not going to be able to beat teams with any consistency if we can't assist our running game the way we did in 2007 with red zone targets like Edwards, Jurevicius and Winslow (all 1st round guys carrying a career backup QB to the height of 29 TD passes). That didn't make life more difficult for the Baltimore-diagnosed dead wheels of Jamal Lewis - it rejuvenated them. Both dimensions fed off each other and it was one of the rare seasons all the stars and planets aligned for 10 wins. The last 2 times this team had double digit wins - the QBs we looked to weren't shining before they got the right opportunity. That's where we are today right?

[Mudfly]

We all know you win with balance

There it is.....simple really.....

[wargograw]

Wow that was a great post Flug.

[Flugel]

Wow that was a great post Flug.

 

Thanks! I don't think any of us are really that far apart in what we want here. Those of us that read what you wrote - enjoyed it.

[Flugel]

When someone throws rocks at a person's time consuming effort and leaves it at that, that person tends to take it personally...

 

 

So... what are "the (3) elements" of the SHOT?

 

Is one the round in which the SHO is drafted? And/or the Salary paid a UFA WR?

 

I don't know. Can we get Snoop Dogg in here to tell us how he came up with this stuff?

[Canton Mike]

Wargograw,

 

Check your messages!

 

Mike