James Jones is pissing me off...

[denverYooper]

Interestingly, both Nelson and Jones are credited with 2 drops apiece by STATS LLC (via SI):

Nelson: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/foo...ng_splits.html

Jones: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/foo...ng_splits.html

[denverYooper]

Those SI pages had the game splits, too, which I was originally looking for above:

I'm trying to track down the game splits that show #targets in each game because I suspect that Nelson has gone from as bad as Jones to above average through the year and Jones has shown more game-to-game fluctuation in performance that has kept him in that below average performance range.

J = Jones, N=Nelson

Opp  J Target    J Catch     J Rate    N Target    N Catch   N Rate
PHI    3             2         67       2             1        50
BUF    7             3         43       2             2        100
CHI    5             5        100       4             3        75
DET    1             1        100       1             0        0
WAS    8             4         50       5             3        60
MIA    3             0          0       7             4        57 
MIN    8             4         50       7             4        57
NYJ    5             0          0       7             5        71

So my suspicion above is partly supported. Nelson, while he has had some bad plays, has not had any terrible games. He's not had any great games either. Jones has probably had one great game (would have been 2 if not for the fumble in CHI) but has been a lot less consistent game-to-game.

[RashanGary]

What the fuck is ass-fuckery?

[Patler]

"Targeted passes" is a misleading stat, and leads to very erroneous conclusions, especially when comparing two receivers with relatively few opportunities.

Every incomplete pass has to have a "targeted receiver", even if the pass is intentionally thrown 40 rows into the stands. Every time the QB escapes the pocket and tosses a "throw away" to the sidelines, one of the outside receivers will be designated as "targeted". Intentional throws 20 feet over a double-covered receiver are "targeted" to the receiver.

Driver, who does most of his work in the middle of the field, will be the targeted receiver on a throw away much less often than a receiver who works the sidelines, or than Jennings who is often "targeted" on deep ball throw aways.

"Targeted passes" is a stat category I virtually ignore.

Now if someone wants to analyze deeper, and ascertain catchable targeted passes, that would be a different thing.

[Patler]

My general feeling is that Jones and Nelson both are a bit disappointing. Each is capable, each has flaws. Both are better than many of the 3rd and 4th receivers of years past, but neither one will push Driver into retirement or justify letting Jennings go in free agency. I would be happy to see either or both stick around for depth, but we still need to find Driver's eventual replacement, because neither Jones nor Nelson has shown enough to fill his shoes.

[denverYooper]

"Targeted passes" is a misleading stat, and leads to very erroneous conclusions, especially when comparing two receivers with relatively few opportunities.

Every incomplete pass has to have a "targeted receiver", even if the pass is intentionally thrown 40 rows into the stands. Every time the QB escapes the pocket and tosses a "throw away" to the sidelines, one of the outside receivers will be designated as "targeted". Intentional throws 20 feet over a double-covered receiver are "targeted" to the receiver.

Driver, who does most of his work in the middle of the field, will be the targeted receiver on a throw away much less often than a receiver who works the sidelines, or than Jennings who is often "targeted" on deep ball throw aways.

"Targeted passes" is a stat category I virtually ignore.

Now if someone wants to analyze deeper, and ascertain catchable targeted passes, that would be a different thing.

I only used targeted passes as part of the story. And without paying to get NFL rewind to go and score which passes were catchable, it serves as at least a rough approximation for what kind of opportunity they're given and what they're doing with that opportunity. I grant that Jones usually works the sideline more often than Nelson and does see more OOB throws. BUT, that was not the only piece of evidence to support my story. The other part was FO's wr efficiency rating, which does attempt to correct for such things as you mention. It indicates that Nelson to the halfway point has performed slightly above average given his opportunities and that Jones has performed below average and lends another support for the idea that Nelson is generally the more reliable, if less exciting, performance.

I do agree with you that neither has set the world on fire but don't agree that they've shown equal performance. I feel that Nelson has been more reliable, if less exciting.

[Lurker64]

"Targeted passes" is a misleading stat, and leads to very erroneous conclusions, especially when comparing two receivers with relatively few opportunities.

Every incomplete pass has to have a "targeted receiver", even if the pass is intentionally thrown 40 rows into the stands. Every time the QB escapes the pocket and tosses a "throw away" to the sidelines, one of the outside receivers will be designated as "targeted". Intentional throws 20 feet over a double-covered receiver are "targeted" to the receiver.

Driver, who does most of his work in the middle of the field, will be the targeted receiver on a throw away much less often than a receiver who works the sidelines, or than Jennings who is often "targeted" on deep ball throw aways.

"Targeted passes" is a stat category I virtually ignore.

Now if someone wants to analyze deeper, and ascertain catchable targeted passes, that would be a different thing.

I think targeted passes exists as a statistic only because the sports world seems to be obsessed with fantasy football.

[Fritz]

What the fuck is ass-fuckery?

While Patler and Lurker and Denver Yooper screw around with meaningless numbers, you and I delve into the truly "deep" issues.

"Assfuckery" is essentially "buttfuckery."

I believe it's a noun, JH.

[Tarlam!]

What the fuck is ass-fuckery?

I believe it's a noun, JH.

Ya, but it could also be a verb, right? Na, you're right, it's a noun.

[Bretsky]

These guys are what they are; backup WR's. #3 and #4 WR's. Guys that show flashes but up to this point nothing special. Removing the homer glasses, without Jermichael Finley we have a decent set of receiving options and we stop talking about how our top 4 WR group is elite.

[Patler]

These guys are what they are; backup WR's. #3 and #4 WR's. Guys that show flashes but up to this point nothing special. Removing the homer glasses, without Jermichael Finley we have a decent set of receiving options and we stop talking about how our top 4 WR group is elite.

I agree, sort of. Jones and Nelson are nothing more than good #3 and #4 receivers, I agree. As I said, neither will push Driver into retirement. But, to have two of them on the team when other teams struggle to find a single quality backup, does put the Packers in a somewhat elite group as far as depth at the WR position. That doesn't mean that all of the receivers individually are elite, but the group does have uncommon depth and versatility.

The Packers do not have a single truly elite receiver. But the overall depth and quality at WR gives them options and versatility, not to mention the ability to handle injuries, that are better than most teams. The way this season is going for the Packers, that depth may be the most important attribute of the group.

[Bretsky]

These guys are what they are; backup WR's. #3 and #4 WR's. Guys that show flashes but up to this point nothing special. Removing the homer glasses, without Jermichael Finley we have a decent set of receiving options and we stop talking about how our top 4 WR group is elite.

I agree, sort of. Jones and Nelson are nothing more than good #3 and #4 receivers, I agree. As I said, neither will push Driver into retirement. But, to have two of them on the team when other teams struggle to find a single quality backup, does put the Packers in a somewhat elite group as far as depth at the WR position. That doesn't mean that all of the receivers individually are elite, but the group does have uncommon depth and versatility.

The Packers do not have a single truly elite receiver. But the overall depth and quality at WR gives them options and versatility, not to mention the ability to handle injuries, that are better than most teams. The way this season is going for the Packers, that depth may be the most important attribute of the group.

Actually I think we underestimate the depth several teams have at WR.

Look at San Diego.

Their Greg Jennings missed the first ten games and their offense hardly misses a beat. Malcolm Floyd steps up. Floyd gets hurt and then we got guys like Buster Davis and Legendu Nanae sp? filling the voids.

I think a lot of teams are four deep at WR and their local forums probably think they have an elite 1-4 as well.

[Patler]

Actually I think we underestimate the depth several teams have at WR.

Look at San Diego.

Their Greg Jennings missed the first ten games and their offense hardly misses a beat. Malcolm Floyd steps up. Floyd gets hurt and then we got guys like Buster Davis and Legendu Nanae sp? filling the voids.

I think a lot of teams are four deep at WR and their local forums probably think they have an elite 1-4 as well.

I agree some have good depth, but I don't know that I would say "a lot" of teams do.

Some teams are fortunate enough to have a real stud and reasonable depth. Other teams have no stud and no depth. The Packers are somewhere in the high middle between that. I think there are teams out there who would trade 4 for 4 with the Packers.

[Brandon494]

Nelson might not be talking in third person but he's not doing any better.

What the fuck does Nelson have to do with this? Even if he had something to do with Jones sucking massive radioactive cock, he's had nowhere near the number of opportunities, and from what I remember, Nelson hasn't had a problem dropping the ball or fumbling it after he catches it.

Of course, his body isn't a study in chocolate Adonis, so I know he doesn't flip your switch.

Maybe because both have failed to each expectations this season after getting raves in training camp, or maybe because they both play the same position, or maybe because they have both been fighting for the #3 WR job for a few years now, or maybe because both players have had trouble hanging onto the ball but I mean you can bring up race again.

BTW hows your boy Kuhn doing?

[pbmax]

"Targeted passes" is a misleading stat, and leads to very erroneous conclusions, especially when comparing two receivers with relatively few opportunities.

Every incomplete pass has to have a "targeted receiver", even if the pass is intentionally thrown 40 rows into the stands. Every time the QB escapes the pocket and tosses a "throw away" to the sidelines, one of the outside receivers will be designated as "targeted". Intentional throws 20 feet over a double-covered receiver are "targeted" to the receiver.

Driver, who does most of his work in the middle of the field, will be the targeted receiver on a throw away much less often than a receiver who works the sidelines, or than Jennings who is often "targeted" on deep ball throw aways.

"Targeted passes" is a stat category I virtually ignore.

Now if someone wants to analyze deeper, and ascertain catchable targeted passes, that would be a different thing.

Patler, if you have something on this, I would love to see it.

Football Outsiders uses the more generally available public information directly from the NFL Game Books. For instance, the Game Book does not list drops only incompletions. They occasionally list a throw as not targeted, spiked or thrown away, but I have no idea what the criteria are or how accurate.

STATs Inc., however, reviews game footage and counts WR drops and may very well be counting true targets/catchables. I have never seen an explanation for how they determine targeted passes. And this is not an exact science, as McGinn and STATs aren't even in agreement about the two WRs in question.

Its one more thing that the NFL could charge me for that I would pay. Watch the game and replays from the endzone cameras and get a complete set of stats from their provider. With definitions.