Who's turned into stars? Maybe played better then here but not star caliber. The only one might have been Welker but he didn't leave by his own accord. It was a stupid contract tender that did him in.
I'm not against analytics, but you have to use common sense too. Stills was a #4 option on a team that threw it 50 plus times, playing the monster defenses of the NFC south... Meanwhile Wallace is a #1 option getting triple covered at times and double covered... do I think stills is a better fit with tannehill, yes. do I think stills will be close or above his 2013 stats? nope, he'll be about 700-800 yards and 4tds do I think Wallace will have a better statistical season next year in Minn.? He'll have 1k yards, but not 10 Tds. I'd say 5-7 Tds. I think Wallace would have had a decent season next year in miami with the addition of cameron. but oh well.
I've watch enough football to be certain of what I'm saying. The statement I was replying to implied that if Stills was targeted as much as Wallace he would have maintained his efficiency numbers and produced a monster season. My point is that when a WR is the biggest threat on the field, as Wallace was in Miami, defenses focus their attention to limit him. Stills was a 3rd option in Nawlins. He's currently our #1. If that remains the case...It's not hard to predict what will happen. As you point out how much of it will happen is the key question?
Only thing I know for sure is Wallace is a quitter! Once a quitter always a quitter! Stills is a winner! Sent from my 6+
I have watched enough football to disagree with you having certainty. Some players have stepped up in that situation.
It's amazing how much stuff gets said here on the basis of speculation alone, with no further research done. Stills was the second option in New Orleans in 2014. Only Jimmy Graham was targeted more times per snap. And hey! Guess what? Mike Wallace was the second option on the Dolphins! Jarvis Landry was targeted more times per snap.
Also, on their respective teams.. - Kenny Stills was #1 in receiving yards, and #2 in receptions. - Mike Wallace was #1 in receiving yards, and #2 in receptions. So on their respective teams, Stills & Wallace had identical in-team rankings for targets, receptions, receiving yards.
Welker, the cb for the Colts forgot his name. I know there are other guys the patriots have snagged and made them a heck of a lot better, just cant remember their names.
...and Stills did that on a helluva lot fewer targets, and his catches were associated with a far greater number of typical points per catch than Wallace's, despite Wallace's 7 more touchdowns on the year. In essence you have a receiver (Wallace) who has to be force-fed the ball, only to produce less than Stills!
Another bit of info: http://www.advancedfootballanalytic...analysis/176-team-efficiency-rankings-week-13
just because they got more target doesn't mean they are the first option.... We are talking about QB reads... So if the #1,2,3, ect is covered, you're going to throw it to the open guy. The guy playing against crap DB's should catch more and be open more.... But when it comes to important situations, it's still going to colstong grahm, cooks or even the RB out of the backfield in N.O. you can't look at a number and just make something up. like oh well he was targeted the most so he was #1. that isn't how it works. Just as much as you can't say, stills will continue his numbers and improve in miami bc in NO he was better (by numbers) than wallace. this isn't played out on paper. Take Wallace and put him in NO, he would have better stats than if he was in miami too...
kenny stills caught 9% of brees td's... colston 15%.... cooks 9% but only in 10 games grahm 30%... josh hill 15% other 22% (6 tds from 5 players) but stills was clearly the top target............
You said "when it comes to important situations" in your post above. If a player catches a touchdown pass when the team is up let's say 35-10 (or down 35-10) with three minutes left to play in the fourth quarter, is that a touchdown reception in an important situation?
I would think actually superior, and I have no interest in you continually targeting exclusively Pittsburgh 2012, the premise is flawed. Regardless of what offensive system was used, and you never backed up anything specifically as per your continual references to the differences in the offensive system of Pittsburgh 2012 versus the other Wallce/Roethlisberger years, all the years count. Unless you can focus only on that one specific year your entire stat based thesis flops like a wet pancake.
That was the only year in Pittsburgh in which Wallace was playing in a system not unlike the one in Miami. Of course you're free to consider that irrelevant, however -- you have complete control over your own mind, not I.
You forgot his 3 yards after catch per reception average was worse than Hartline,Gibson,Wallace,and Matthews and one of the poorest averages in the NFL among wide receivers. Wide receivers with 50 or more receptions, only 5 wide receivers in the NFL had a worse YAC avg per reception than Stills Not sure he's going to be a perfect fit for Tannehill
That's like saying if your car doesn't start one morning, you consider all the mornings it did start only.
In the last 2 years: Mike Wallace: - Yards/Reception: 12.80 - Air Yards/Reception: 9.00 - YAC/Reception: 3.80 Kenny Stills: - Yards/Reception: 16.55 - Air Yards/Reception: 12.46 - YAC/Reception: 4.08 In the last 2 years, Kenny Stills had a higher yards/reception, air yards/reception, and YAC/reception.
Not sure what you're saying. If Wake is being chipped, doubled, etc. his "stats" would go down his impact would be felt in other areas. The same applies to WRs if more than one defender is assigned to covering/shading one area/player, what part of that do you disagree with?
That it causes a significant drop in production. Wake still gets sacks and pressures. In fact he is still one of the best at doing so, even last year when people thought he was slowing down. We do not know if being the focal point of the offense will cause Still's efficiency to go down a significant amount. At least not for certain. Sometimes, players step up and still perform.
Through week 11, when Cooks was still on the field, Stills had 431 yards. Once Cooks went down, Stills started to produce regularly. Through 10 games with Cooks he had 430 yards. A "meh" kind of season.
The same season that Roethlisberger publicly beefed with his OC, when his ypa took a hit, the same year Antonio Brown's ypc took a hit from 16.1 down to 11.9, and Ben and Haley were publicly sniping each other? That season right?
but but but stills led the team in targets he is clearly the saints go to guy!!! using your eyes and common sense is stupid. Look at the stats!!!
what about all of stills yards and catches when they where losing by let's say 35-10 or down 35-10, does that even matter? if you want to be crazy and say stills was the #1 option in NO for the whole year and saw double and triple teams like wallace then be my guest. no-one will agree with you. at least anyone that has a brain at least, or eyes.
Hell, yes. There have been several comebacks where a NFL team was down by 25 or more points, and came back to win.
I like Stills and think he can be very good. No need to invent stuff to argue that. Let's watch next season and root for them to kick some butt.
There's so much more to it than that. How about number of times vs opposing team's #1CB, being doubled or drawing safety help? The goal is to win games and stopping Wallace was vs Miami was a much bigger part of beating the Dolphins than stopping Stills was vs the Saints.
Lol don't forget salary. I just dont want the expectations for Stills to get out of hand. This talk of him out producing Wallace is very premature.
Wallace didn't produce that much. His only good production was "10 touchdowns" during the second season. His first season had 5. He never got 1,000 yards. He had less than 13 yards a catch. 1,000 yards 6+ touchdowns with over 14 ypc would be out producing Wallace.
This is an antithetical statement. Stats, and overall game impact are in no way contrasted, or separated from each other. Indeed, "stats", are the number one tool used by assessors to gauge overall game impact.
That's the point. The WPA numbers for the players you mentioned aren't consistent with your statement that Stills wasn't targeted on "important" plays. You have a personal theory that isn't supported by the data that measure it.
And if it were true, it would be relatively easy to do the research to show that when Wallace was shut down (giving him the benefit of the doubt that it was due to greater defensive attention to him, and not to his own shortcomings), other players benefited in a way that was greater than the norm in the league. You could do the same thing in reverse for Kenny Stills and Jimmy Graham, showing that Stills benefited from defensive attention to Graham (if that indeed happened, which we don't know). Of course it's much easier, though, to be grandiose and imply that people you've never met should trust that your expertise about football is so great that none of that information gathering and verification is necessary. You are the football "God," we are your "sheep," and we should all blindly assume that whatever you say about football can't possibly be incorrect.