Originally Posted by steelbtexan
Mostly agree with this post.
When do you think would be a good time to replace Walter as WR2?
Been rewatching some games (4 so far) concentrating on Walter.
I'll let you know my take after a few more games.
- A receiver can be open but if the QB doesn't look his way, it never has the chance to show up on the stat sheet. And Walter was open a fair amount of time considering the number of times he actually runs a route.
- It's not gonna be easy to find a receiver in the NFL today that is used to block for both the running game and the passing game as much.
- Walter is a mid 4.4 guy; he's not a burner, but he has decent speed (on top of his ability to run routes) to keep the defense honest (you leave him in single coverage often enough and he will have better than his percentage.) He did run a good number of deep routes to free AJ (or somebody else) underneath.
Now, I'm going to ramble a little bit here, kind of thinking aloud as I go through some numbers.
The number of catches Walter had last year (39) comprises some 8.35% of the number of pass attempts by the Texans QBs (467).
I think he had 2 or 3 "so-called" drops this year (at least one I don't think is a drop, but nervermind that.)
3 drops plus 39 catches; that's 42 passes "catchable passes" thrown his way.
So he was targeted about 9% of the time.
In 2010, he caught 51; we attempted 574.
In 2009, he caught 53; we attempted 592.
Basically, we know that Walter is one of the most sure-handed receiver in the league (since he became a Texan).
Over the past 3 seasons, Walter ranked #3 in this category (3.38%).
Roughly, the number of catchable passes thrown his way remains about 9% of the number of pass attempts; ie. the Texans QBs are targeting him roughly the same number of times in the last 3 years.
And AJ played all 16 games on 09.
It looks like Walter's role never changed whether AJ was healthy or not, which is what I always suspect.
BTW, I'm learning to get use to this new Season Plus Rewind package ($70) from NFL.com
They give us two views:
1. We can see all 22 players on the field for the most part (the important parts)
2. One end zone view that is constant through the game (ie. this camera is in one particular end zone; you don't see the camera that was place in the other end zone).
(The regular broadcast do offer us with these views on a few "selected" plays in a certain game.)
That's it; you don't have the overhead camera or anything else.
And there's no audio.
You have to combine this with the regular broadcast (and perhaps best, with the gamebook in hand on a different computer.)
I watch games with 2 computers (and or with a TV) often so it's not too hard for me to adjust.
They also have a condensed version of the game (nothing but the actual plays).
I have also watched games in this fashion, so it's also easy for me to toggle between versions.
I can also complement this with a replay version (which I occasionally get) in which there's actual commentary from the HCs (on a few particular plays).
You need to have a pretty good internet connection and computer set-up to really enjoy this.
I hook up one computer with my 55" TV via an HDMI cable (the quality is still not as good as what you normally see with Hi-Def - at least for me.)
I have my laptop in which I store the regular broadcast in Hi-Def and the game book (once in a blue moon, I can have 3 computers working at the same time, but I don't need to - not anymore.)
Personally, I think they're making it hard for a normal fan to learn the game.
Maybe they don't want it to be too transparent.
Maybe they have a reason.
But it's all good.
They offer me a couple of better views (consistently) to confirm the things I need to be confirmed.
I wouldn't reccommend it for the casual fans, but for those who love to study the game hard, any extra view is a definite plus... and I am in heaven, LOL!