FOF 2k4: Which of these WRs is the best?

[JeffW]

I'm looking for a 4th receiver to enter the game for multiple receiver sets and to occasionally spell the starters. Which of these three WRs(A,B,C) is the best choice?

http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/5238/scrubahy6.jpg

http://img336.imageshack.us/img336/9910/scrubbnp0.jpg

http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/8375/scrubckc8.jpg

Right now, I'm leaning towards WR C. He is very good on third down where multi-wr sets are most likely. His low route running means he'll steal fewer targets from my starting WRs. He also throws in some solid peripheral skills, but is prone to fumbling. One other strike against him is his age: 14 year vet. In my experience, older players are more likely to play well under their ratings for a season(en route to a massive off season ratings drop). The other two WRs are 8-9 year vets. All three are roughly the same price.

A minor decision, I know, but I'm taking over a team that had a lot of misfortune with their receiving corps and I want to maximize the unit's production.

Thanks,
-Jeff

[wade moore]

There is 0 chance I'd go for WR C.

His low route running means he'll steal fewer targets from my starting WRs.

From my experience, it means he will more than likely just be a complete non-factor.

I would probably go for A. The toher two have similar route running, but he seems to have better "catching" skills so that when it is thrown to him, he's more likely to catch it.

[Fonzie]

I'd go for "B" myself. I love the RR skill, and his 3rd-down and Big Play skills will also be important for the situations in which he'll play. I'm not very happy with B's hands, but on balance I'd still take B over A. And for me C wouldn't "C" the field (get it? get it?).

[RedKingGold]

IMO, most important WR skills include (in desending order):

Big Play Receiving, Route Running, Getting Downfield

I believe 3rd down conversion and courage have largely minimal situational impact, while avoid drops does not come into play enough for it to be a factor on a consistent basis.

I'm largely indifferent to adjust to ball. I think it has a greater impact when your QB has lower timing and accuracy skills.

In MP and SP, I have receivers maxed out solely in big play receiving that put up monster totals from game to game.

Translation: Go with B

[VPI97]

Whichever one has had the best stats in the past (# of drops, catch percentage, YAC)

[JeffW]

I believe 3rd down conversion largely minimal situational impact...

Really, so you think it's just a small multiplier to the other skills or does it only affect "avoid drops" or what?

Because on third down we're going to be passing quite a bit. On 3rd and short you have to pass some to mix it up and on 3rd and medium-long we're obv. passing most of the time.

[Vince]

Like the rest, I'd throw out C right now. I think the big determinant for me would be your QB, because of the disparity in "Adjust to Ball" between A and B. How are the QB's Accuracy and Timing ratings? If they are good, then I'd probably go with WR B -- he won't need to worry so much about catching errant passes. Otherwise, I like A's skillset better.

[JeffW]

Like the rest, I'd throw out C right now. I think the big determinant for me would be your QB, because of the disparity in "Adjust to Ball" between A and B. How are the QB's Accuracy and Timing ratings? If they are good, then I'd probably go with WR B -- he won't need to worry so much about catching errant passes. Otherwise, I like A's skillset better.

72 Accuracy, 42 Timing. So pretty good.

Thanks for all the help in this thread, I'm learning quite a bit about how to evaluate WRs.

[MizzouRah]

I'd go for "B" myself. I love the RR skill, and his 3rd-down and Big Play skills will also be important for the situations in which he'll play. I'm not very happy with B's hands, but on balance I'd still take B over A. And for me C wouldn't "C" the field (get it? get it?).

Ditto for me.

[Daimyo]

A. Route Running is by far the most important rating for a WR and Avoid Drops is #2.

[JPhillips]

I agree with VP that you really need to look at stats for guys that have been playing for this long.

Without that info, I'd go with B. I like his Big Play and the fact that he can fill in as a KR if you have some injuries. On the down side I hate his avoid drops, but you have to expect some problems from a fourth reciever.

[st.cronin]

B

I agree that big-play is what to look for in a reciever. Especially a 4th reciever, since you're probably not going to be throwing to him much. If he can make one big play every couple of weeks, I think you'll be happy.

[path12]

A. Route Running is by far the most important rating for a WR and Avoid Drops is #2.

Count me on the A train also. He's not that far behind on 3rd down catching and I love the fact he can run a route, catch the ball and adjust to the ball.

[Vince]

Whichever one has had the best stats in the past (# of drops, catch percentage, YAC)

As someone else mentioned, VPI has the right of it. I'd missed the mention that these guys are vets. Whoever has been the most productive in the past would probably be my choice, ratings be damned.

[Raiders Army]

A based on the red bars alone. Avoid Drops is better.

[cuervo72]

Bah, screw avoid drops (http://www.fof-ihof.com/player/player.php?playerid=4050), go B. ;)

[JeffW]

Going by production/play, I'd rank them C, A, B:

C - 8.2 Yards/Target (175 Targ; 1084 PPly)
A - 8.0 Yards/Target (127 Targ; 522 PPly)
B - 6.6 Yards/Target (138 Targ; 711 PPly)

So, by the metrics, looks like A is the best because he gets targetted far more often and is similarly productive with his targets.

[Vince]

Statistically, I like A way better than the other two.

[JeffW]

Statistically, I like A way better than the other two.

B has no excuse for his poor performance, either, his QB is 72/72, 63/72 Accuracy, 52 Timing with a career Y/A=7.6 over the 7 years they've played together.

At least I've eliminated C.

[LionsFan10]

Shouldn't these threads be pre-faced with an "OT" tag? I mean, who talks about Front Office Football anymore? That was soooo two years ago.

;)

[PilotMan]

When you factor in the skill sets as well as the statistical production, it makes the choice for A in my book. For a guy who is only going to be playing once in a while, you want him to be productive when he is out there. I just like the skill sets better there as well.

[oykib]

Are any of them mentors? If one is, that's the guy I'd pick.

[Subby]

Going by production/play, I'd rank them C, A, B:

C - 8.2 Yards/Target (175 Targ; 1084 PPly)
A - 8.0 Yards/Target (127 Targ; 522 PPly)
B - 6.6 Yards/Target (138 Targ; 711 PPly)

So, by the metrics, looks like A is the best because he gets targetted far more often and is similarly productive with his targets.
Are these guys all in the same situation/gameplan when generating the above stats? Probably not a huge deal, but it could possibly skew the differences.

[Daimyo]

Avoid drops is highly overrated. Over a season you are talking about maybe a 3 or 4 drop difference over average for guys with low ratings there.

Route running + Big Play Receiving = high yards per attempt, which is the key offensive stat (again in my opinion).

The problem is that "avoid drops" doesn't only impact drops. It actually has a pretty large correlation (second only to RR) for percentage of targeted passes that are caught.

In past versions it was named better and the help files often refer to is in the more universal sense. For example, in the general help file it is described as a receivers "ability to catch what's thrown in their direction." In the player and draft file generators the rating is listed as "Receiving Hands - ability to catch a thrown ball"

[JeffW]

Are these guys all in the same situation/gameplan when generating the above stats?

No, but C's target/pply is substantially lower than the other two guys, so it is likely that he would be a total nonfactor(except for taking up a CB or something I guess).

B had a 72/72 QB throwing to him(no other quarterback played there during B's career) as mentioned before whose average Y/A was 7.6 compared to 6.6 Y/T for B.

Probably not a huge deal, but it could possibly skew the differences.

I think sample size is the larger issue(no pun intended). The sample size for each is equivalent to about 1-2.5 seasons for a starting WR.

-Jeff

[QuikSand]

I like this debate. I don't think you can measure the value of a player by his own stats on the field. The original post started to defend player C, since he wouldn't take all that many targets away from the presumably more talented starters. I think there is indeed value in that.

Yes, the guys with higher route running will get more passes thrown their way, and will accumulate more stats. Player A would probably make the most catches, and I suppose that might make him appear nominally to be the most productive player of the lot.

But what would you get from Player C? Not many targets, but the passes that do go his way would probably have the best results. And the passes that do not go his way would probably be going to better players. There's an opportunity cost concept there that I think is being overlooked a bit.

I don't often stake out a position opposite of Daimyo, but I'll do it here. I'd still take C, assuming that my top WR targets are indeed pretty good. The last thing I want is to send out player A with his admittedly marginal skills, and have him getting open a lot and dragging targets away from my playmakers.

[JeffW]

Quiksand,

What are your thoughts on the importance of Big Play Receiving vs. Avoid Drops? There seem to be two opposing camps on the issue.

Also, do you agree with the consensus that Third Down Catching and Courage are lesser skills? Adjust to Ball and Getting Downfield seems to be somewhere in the middle.

Ideally, I'd like to come up with a rating system for receivers that properly weights the various skills so that I can identify arbitrage opportunities when WRs are better than their simple Overall Rating. Instead of every skill being rated at 1, the important skills might be weighted at 1.1-1.5 and the less important skills at .5-.9. So you might have two WRs who are a 40 overall:

Player A

70 Catching
10 Yards/Catch
70 Routes
10 Third Down
70 Big Play
10 Courage
40 Adjust to Ball
40 Avoid Fumbles

and Player B

10 Catching
70 Yards/Catch
10 Routes
70 Third Down
10 Big Play
70 Courage
40 Adjust
40 Fumbles

Clearly the first player is considerably more valuable than the second, but they might command similar prices on the market.

[Subby]

The problem is that "avoid drops" doesn't only impact drops. It actually has a pretty large correlation (second only to RR) for percentage of targeted passes that are caught.

In past versions it was named better and the help files often refer to is in the more universal sense. For example, in the general help file it is described as a receivers "ability to catch what's thrown in their direction." In the player and draft file generators the rating is listed as "Receiving Hands - ability to catch a thrown ball"
I don't know - I guess I just don't agree with that. Looking at the player creation file, you get the following for receivers:

Column AS: Receiving Hands - ability to catch a thrown ball.
Column AT: Getting Downfield - ability to gain yardage after the catch.
Column AU: Route-Running - ability to shoulder the load as a receiver. Receivers with high ratings in this category can be the target of more frequent pass attempts.
Column AV: Third-Down Receiving - ability to make catches in clutch third- and fourth-down situations.
Column AW: Big-Play Receiving - ability to catch long and very-long passes.
Column AX: Courage over the Middle - ability to hang in there on routes planned across the middle of the field.
Column AY: Adjusting to Bad Throws - ability to catch poorly thrown balls.

It seems like Receiving Hands (avoid drops) is pretty straightforward and that Route-Running + Adjusting to Bad Throws correlate better to getting to everything thrown in your direction.

When a pass play ends in a pass defense, is that because a player has a low Avoid Drops rating? That just seems difficult to believe.

[QuikSand]

Quiksand,

What are your thoughts on the importance of Big Play Receiving vs. Avoid Drops? There seem to be two opposing camps on the issue.

I tend to weight them roughly equally. I suppose if my offense were focused fairly heavily on long passes (remember, "big play receiving" is about catching passes that go a long way downfield, not about turning short passes into long gains) then I might shift to weight that more heavily.


I certainly think drops are important and possibly even underrated, since my best guess of the algorith is that a WR drop is truly a net loss of a reception -- that the play has essentially passed all the other tests, something like:

yes the WR got open enough to be targeted,
no the QB wasn't hurried into an incomplete pass,
yes the QB delivered it accurately enough,
no it wasn't blocked at the line by a pass rusher,
no the defender didn't break up the play...
and only then we find out the WR drops the ball

In my view, that makes a drop a more significant event than, say, a hurried pass. Yes, they both result in an interception, but if I'm right about the ordering of decisions, a hurry doesn't necessarily take a completion off the board -- it just cuts it to zero before the remaining calculations are made. Thus, it's a lesser net loss to the offense than the later calculations.

[QuikSand]

The problem is that "avoid drops" doesn't only impact drops. It actually has a pretty large correlation (second only to RR) for percentage of targeted passes that are caught.

Interesting statement... I know you are approaching this from a different angle than the rest of us. Any thoughts on how this fits in to my thinking just above? Is it still possible, given what you found with these correlations, that it really is just "whether the receiver drops a pass that gets to him" or are you convinced it has to transl;ate to more than that?

After all, a standard starting WR with pretty good overall skills might have, say 100 passes thrown his way over the course of a season. The difference between a guy who makes a lot of drops (low rating there) and a guy who does not (high rating there) might be, say, 5-10 drops over that entire period? I'd have to think that a difference of 5-10 catches is enough to explain an awful lot of the difference between what we'd expect to see from two receivers who are otherwise equally likely to get targeted, yes? Some things are out of their control... but a swing of even 5-10 plays is a pretty big difference to me. I'd think that would yield a pretty good correlation... but I don't have data in front of me to support or refute that, this is just back-of-napkin stuff (my specialty).

[Daimyo]

Unfortunately I don't have all my spreadsheets with me at work. Hopefully I can provide a better answer when I get home. My original assumption was that RR would determine the number of targets a player would get (and have little effect on what they did with those targets). However, what I found was that it was much more messy than that. RR does indeed correlate very well to targets per pass play, but in addition it also has the highest correlation to catches/target (by far).

Its possible that the correlate between AD and catches/target is entirely caused by the difference in drops... I don't have the data in front of me now. I'm pretty sure that it was more than just the drops though, but I could be misremembering.

Below are my own personal ratings weights for WR. I basically created by correlating the ratings to a modified yards/target stat. I didn't give any bonus vs for drops since I normalized everything except WR. Note that this was under AI gameplans so its very possible there would be changes for specialized plans (most likely affecting BPR or 3DR).

0.15 Avoid Drops
0.10 Getting Downfield
0.28 Route Running
0.10 Third Down
0.10 Big Play
0.11 Courage
0.13 Adjust to ball

[Daimyo]

Ideally, I'd like to come up with a rating system for receivers that properly weights the various skills so that I can identify arbitrage opportunities when WRs are better than their simple Overall Rating. Instead of every skill being rated at 1 . . .
The game actually weight ratings differently when it creates the overall score. For example, a DE's overall rating factors pass rush technique and pass rush strength more than run stopping or punishing hitter.

[cthomer5000]

C, B, A is my personal order of preference

[Ben E Lou]

C, B, A is my personal order of preferenceYup.

At the risk of sounding like a gushing fanboy, I can't help but comment: it really is the sign of a well-done game when here we are, three years later, and:

1. We're still playing it.
2. Experienced players aren't unanimous in their opinions regarding what's the best strategy here.

[Subby]

At the risk of sounding like a gushing fanboy, I can't help but comment: it really is the sign of a well-done game when here we are, three years later, and:

1. We're still playing it.
2. Experienced players aren't unanimous in their opinions regarding what's the best strategy here.
Word.

[stevew]

I don't often stake out a position opposite of Daimyo, but I'll do it here. I'd still take C, assuming that my top WR targets are indeed pretty good. The last thing I want is to send out player A with his admittedly marginal skills, and have him getting open a lot and dragging targets away from my playmakers.

Pretty well my take on the matter, unless the top 2 WR on the team aren't super. I want my 3rd and 4th WR to draw coverage, and hopefully allow WR 1 or 2 to get a favorable situation and get open for a nice gain.

[sabotai]

Yup.

At the risk of sounding like a gushing fanboy, I can't help but comment: it really is the sign of a well-done game when here we are, three years later, and:

1. We're still playing it.
2. Experienced players aren't unanimous in their opinions regarding what's the best strategy here.

Fo-rizzle.

And I'd go with A. My opinion being that if you are playing him as a 4th receiver, than most of his plays will be 3rd down plays (unless you run a spread or run-and-shoot style offense), so I wouldn't care much about him "taking away" passes from my better players, I just want him to get open and catch the damn ball.

I would go with C if we were looking for a player that would see more playing time, be in on 1st and 2nd down more oftan, etc. when I'd be wanting the QB to selectively get the ball to WR1 and WR2 more But for essentiall a 3rd and medium or 3rd and long player, I just want him to be able to get open and catch the ball.

[JPhillips]

I'm curious, does anyone else pay attention to special teams and return ratings for their reserves? I tend to put a lot of stock in those areas when I'm looking for a fourth receiver type guy. I try to get enough reserves playing special teams so they aren't loaded with starters.

Should I not worry about that as much?

[bulletsponge]

go with B.

plus he can KR

[stevew]

I'm curious, does anyone else pay attention to special teams and return ratings for their reserves? I tend to put a lot of stock in those areas when I'm looking for a fourth receiver type guy. I try to get enough reserves playing special teams so they aren't loaded with starters.

Should I not worry about that as much?

I'm not sure whether or not that matters. I dunno how much of it you can actually control, outside of your gunner, return men and long snappers. If you could pinpoint which specific players may play on coverage, it may make poinpointing which exact positions you want to have active easier.

[flounder]

I'll admit that I'm way out of my depth here, but isn't there something to be said for the fact that as a 4th receiver he'll be matched up against the other team's worst CB? So while he may draw targets away from more talented WRs, he may also have a better matchup so those targets could have a better result.

I'm not sure how much of an effect this would have, but it seems like something to take into account.

[Subby]

I don't know - I guess I just don't agree with that.
Recant. Daimyo is pretty much right on...

[Daimyo]

Recant. Daimyo is pretty much right on...
What changed your mind??

[Subby]

There is some overlap with the Adjust to Ball rating. Think of it like adjusting with hands while the other rating is adjusting with the rest of the body.
That did...

[MrBigglesworth]

Avoid drops is highly overrated. Over a season you are talking about maybe a 3 or 4 drop difference over average for guys with low ratings there.
...then 4 missed catches from bad courage, 4 missed passes from bad adjustments to the ball, and 2 fumbles from bad fumbling rating, etc...and all of a sudden a 70% catch all-pro receiver is a 50% catch former receiver.