armchairgm
all sports, all you
+ Add Friends
You are not logged-in.
Sign Up - Log In
Main Page
Sports
Write
Articles
Hot Links
Images
Meet People
Fun
Explore
MLB - NFL - NBA - NHL - College Basketball - College Football - Soccer - Nascar - Other
Article - Locker Room Discussion
All Articles - New Articles - Today's Articles
Submit a Link - Approve Links
Picture Game - Ratings - Polls - Pick Game - Quiz Game - Spring Silliness
Random Page - Random Image - Random Fan

About the Author

Crackajg
The Resume

More By Crackajg

Fantasy Football 2009's Comatose Sleepers
13 votes, 7 comments
The Freudian Fumble Quiz: What Kind of Fantasy Football Personality Do You Have?
17 votes, 11 comments
Seventh Heaven: The Top Seven Fantasy Rookie Running Backs of 2009
5 votes, 0 comments
View All

Other recent voters

If you like the article, vote for it.
Edit
Page history Discuss pageWhat links here

The Magical 110: Analyzing WR Targets

by Crackajg
created August 20, 2008, last edited September 03, 2008
11
Vote

To be honest, I’ve never really paid much attention to targets. Don’t ask me why, I just didn’t. I knew about them, but I never really tried to put them in context -- probably because I was too lazy. When you do think about them though, the more targets a player gets, the more his chance is to succeed. To the better his chance to succeed, the more points he’ll likely put up for your fantasy squad. It’s not that hard of a concept to wrap your mind around. If I can do it...

With the help of Football Guys excellent Game Log Dominator (to which I have officially become addicted) I compiled a list of the top WR targets from 2002-2007 and separated them by year. After studying the list and getting a decent handle on the fluxations from year to year, I tried to find a mark off point. One hour and two slices of pizza later, I found one. At least, I think I found one.

That cut off point was 110 targets per year. Not knowing quite where I was going but too intrigued to stop, I calculated the minimum and maximum average receptions, yards and TD’s from 2002-2007 combined. I dropped the highest and lowest each year to get a more realistic sampling. I’m not entirely sure if that was mathematically correct, but it made sense at the time. So I did it.



Out of all the players who had at least 110 targets from 2002-2007, the minimum average was:

62 receptions, 790 receiving yards and 3 TD’s

A fair amount of 1 and 2 TD performances bogged the minimum down a bit, but it’s still an impressive line none-the-less. On the positive end, the maximum average was:

104 receptions, 1,444 receiving yards and 13 TD’s

I think I speak for everyone when I say I’d take that! The summation I eventually came to was that if you could predict the WR’s who had a good shot at getting at least 110 targets then you had a great shot at having that player have a pretty respectable season, at worst.

But I didn’t stop there. On average over the 6 years, 27 WR’s managed to be targeted at least 110 times. In the interests of seeing the amount of players who broke into that list on average each year, I continued upon my statistical, math-complimented quest. Without even a calculator, mind you! If only my third grade teacher could see me now..

Two hours and two cigarettes later, I came up with the average of 10 players over the past six years who broke into or back onto that top 27/at least 110 targets list each year. To get to the point of the purpose for the post, here are the 10 players who I don’t think will manage to acquire 110 targets that they saw in 2007:

Derrick Mason (BAL) - With Steve McNair gone and rookie Ray Rice wowing the crowds, the Ravens very well may run a lot more than they will pass this year. Especially with either Troy Smith or Kyle Boller at QB.

Lee Evans (BUF) - Marshawn Lynch proved last year he could be a workhorse back and rookie WR James Hardy gives Trent Edwards another actual option besides Evans to throw to.

Reggie Brown (PHI) - King of RB targets, Brian Westbrook, will still see a massive amount of targets for a RB. DeSean Jackson will in turn steal some more targets away from Brown.

Marques Colston (NO) - Pass catching TE Jeremy Shockey should see his fair share of targets in 2008. The emergence of rookie WR Robert Meachem should as well.

Bobby Engram (SEA) - You can’t get targets if your not on the field.

Chris Chambers (SD) - This may be a long shot, but if Gates can return soon then he’ll resume his hoarding of the targets. LaDainian Tomlinson and Vincent Jackson won’t help Chambers totals either.

Shaun McDonald (DET) - No Mike Martz system? No targets.

Bernard Berrian (CHI) - I don’t think I need to go on a limb and say that the Vikings may run a lot this year. The more they run, the less targets Berrian will get.

Donald Driver (GB) - Aaron Rodgers has plenty of weapons to spread the targets around. Driver will get some, but not 110.

Hines Ward (PIT) - Santonio Holmes? Willie Parker? Rashard Mendenhall? Heath Miller? All will get targets that Hines Ward will not.

Who will the ten be that fill the vacancies you say? Ask and you shall receive! The 2007 target totals are in parentheses:

Anquan Boldin (99) (ARI) - Should get at least 110 targets no matter who ends up being the starting QB.

Calvin Johnson (95) (DET) - He’s going to get more and more targets as the years go by.

Santonio Holmes (85) (PIT) - With Hines Ward on the decline, Holmes will benefit from increased targets.

Ted Ginn Jr. (71) (MIA) - Ginn’s likely targets got a huge boost with the arrival of Chad Pennington.

Muhsin Muhammad (81) (CAR) - Muhammed should see a lot of targets in Steve Smith’s two-game absence and even some when he returns. He’ll get more if Jake Delhomme can stay healthy.

Andre Johnson (86) (HOU) - The only reason Johnson didn’t total 110 last year was because he was injured for 7 games.

Jerry Porter (103) (JAX) - Porter should be a favorite target of Jaguars QB David Garrard.

Roy Williams (104) (DET) - With Mike Martz now gone, the Lions will have to throw to their top two WR’s a whole lot just like the normal teams.

Patrick Crayton (81) (DAL) - Someone has to get Terry Glenn’s targets and with Crayton now the WR2, he very likely will.

Laveranues Coles (89) - Maybe that Brett Favre character will have an effect on Coles' targets?


Enable Comment Auto-Refresher
CheezerAll-Star
451 days ago
Score 4+-
"But I didn’t stop there. On average over the 6 years, 27 WR’s managed to be targeted at least 110 times. In the interests of seeing the amount of players who broke into that list on average each year, I continued upon my statistical, math-complimented quest. Without even a calculator, mind you! If only my third grade teacher could see me now..

Two hours and two cigarettes later, I came up with the average of 10 players over the past six years who broke into or back onto that top 27/at least 110 targets list each year..."

Huh? Do you mean 27 WRs were targeted an average of 110 times over the last six years? Then how can the "break back onto" that list? You're talking about an average value. I don't follow

By the way, average doesn't mean a lot without standard deviation. For example, let's examine to fake back to back seasons for Joe Dropsalot, first round WR. During his rookie season, the team spent a ton of money on him so they made sure he was a big part of the game plan. They targeted him 140 times. Unfortunately, he only caught 40% of the passes thrown his way. During the offseason, the team signed Free Agent receiver Bobby Possession. The following year, with Bobby Possession catching 75% of the passes thrown his way, Joe didn't get as much opportunity and he was only targeted 80 times. How good do you think Joe will do this season? According to your math, he'll get targeted 110 times.
Permalink | Reply
CrackajgDraft Pick
451 days ago
Score 0+-
By 'on average over the 6 years' I meant 27 WR's were targeted an average of 110 times. And there's no set calculation to see if someone is going to get to 110, I don't think you were getting where I was going with this.


Your supposed to take into account the intangibles and make a list of the 27 WR's who will get 110 targets this season.
Permalink
Baltimoresports247All-American
451 days ago
Score 0+-
i agree with cheezer...you need st dev in any statistical analysis like this
Permalink
CheezerAll-Star
451 days ago
Score 0+-
Crack-That's why I said I didn't follow.
Permalink
AmphibiousSportsDuoVarsity
451 days ago
Score 0+-
I'm just glad I'm not the only person that gets sucked into this. Every time I open Excel for fun, I start to question if this is why I'm lonely. Then I turn up the Air Supply and jam out with hair-brained analysis (mine, not yours).

I understand what you're going for, and I believe in it's value, but the standard deviation is crucial. For one, it'll show you guys that had one amazing year (or the converse), and the consistent performers.

One thing to consider in conjunction with this, is players moving from the WR2 position to WR1. I believe it is one of the toughest transitions in sports (not a hijack attempt), and look at the stats of players like Drew Bennett a couple years ago with the Titans, and potentially this year Jerry Porter. Some guys are able to make the leap and others aren't.
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
451 days ago
Score 1+-
Wait til I tell my wife she's not the only one in the world who listens to Air Supply.
Permalink
AmphibiousSportsDuoVarsity
451 days ago
Score 1+-
At least you know if she's listening to "All out of Love" it's gonna be a good night.
Permalink
CrackajgDraft Pick
451 days ago
Score 2+-
Okay, I just researched it and I agree. That would definitely make it mathematically legit. But uh, did anyone understand where this was attempting to go? You know, outside of the realm of mathmeticians?
Permalink | Reply
CheezerAll-Star
451 days ago
Score 4+-
Not a mathematician. Mathematicians are just engineers that couldn't cut it. :-)

I liked what you were doing and where you took the article, I just didn't follow how your math led to those conclusions. Also, I do not think that intangibles should be included in a mathematic evaluation. Math and observation are both tools that should be used by the observer but I think they should be mutually exclusive of each other.

Your work is appreciated. Your third grade teacher would be proud!
Permalink
CrackajgDraft Pick
451 days ago
Score 0+-
No problem, Cheeze, your input is always greatly valued. I'm trying to wrap my mind around standard deviation as we speak.. even when I should probably be working.
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
451 days ago
Score 6+-
Mathematicians are just engineers that couldn't cut it. :-) In baseball, they're called "sabermatricians"
Permalink | Reply
Baltimoresports247All-American
451 days ago
Score 0+-
lol
Permalink
Add your Comment
ArmchairGM welcomes all comments. If you don't want to be anonymous, Register or Login. It's free
Categories: Opinions | Opinions by User Crackajg | August 20, 2008 | August 2008 | NFL Opinions | Fantasy football Opinions | Targets Opinions | Wide receivers Opinions | Crackajg Opinions | Galligan Opinions

Don't Miss

Phillies World Series 2009: A Year Later, and They Still Don't Want Us
Sorry, But I'm Not Sorry
2009 NHL Preview
In Which Ricketts Wins World Series
2009 Week 3: Let’s Talk About Your Favorite NFL Team

In the News

Brian Westbrook has been cleared from his latest injury and will play against the Dallas Cowboys.

Play the Quiz Game

Who was on the cover of the Video Game MLB '02'?

New Articles

Johnny Damon is No Derek Jeter
PRESS RELEASE ....... Skin vs. C-TACKT......Rugby Union........Rugby Gloves
Week 10 Postgame: "Don't Want No Drama!"
The Silver Lining of a Gold Glove
From Ninth to First: What If the Red Sox Had Tony Conigliaro in October?

Retrieved from "http://armchairgm.wikia.com/Article:The_Magical_110:_Analyzing_WR_Targets"

This page was last modified 04:37, 3 September 2008. Content is available under the GFDL.

Main Page About Special Pages Help Terms of Use Advertise