View Single Post
Old 02-01-2013   #39
sandman
All Pro
 
sandman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: London, England
Age: 45
Posts: 686
Rep Power: 87806 sandman is a quality contributor and well respectedsandman is a quality contributor and well respectedsandman is a quality contributor and well respectedsandman is a quality contributor and well respectedsandman is a quality contributor and well respectedsandman is a quality contributor and well respectedsandman is a quality contributor and well respectedsandman is a quality contributor and well respectedsandman is a quality contributor and well respectedsandman is a quality contributor and well respectedsandman is a quality contributor and well respected
Default Re: WR catch rate: Texans

Quote:
Originally Posted by thunderkyss View Post
You make a good argument.

Different strokes & all that. Their star WR is their slot WR. He's the Yac guy. Our Yac guy is Andre. Their other big play maker is Gronk. We got OD, a step down, but OD is better than your avg TE. Their speed guy is Lloyd. Who is our speed guy? Oh, that's Andre again.

So what function does Walter play? He's not stretching the field. He's not a play maker. He's not a mismatch for anyone on the defensive side of the ball. He's our "possession" guy..... but Andre is a better possession WR than Walter & he's more likely to get thrown to on 3rd down... so what is Walter's purpose again?

Our #1 receiver vs their #1 receiver;
--Andre 1598 yards 4TDs
--Welker 1354 yards 6 TDs

comparable I think.

Our TE vs their TE
--Owen 716 yards, 6 TDs
--Gronk 790 yards, 11 TDs

Comparable... sorta

Our #2 WR vs their #2
--KDub 518 yards, 2 TDs
--Lloyd 911 yards, 4 TDs





By the way, New England had more rushing attempts than we did.


New England also had a guy, 51 catches, 483 yards, 5 TDs..... pretty comparable to Walter

They've got another guy, 40 catches, 446 yards, 3 TDs... pretty comparable to Walter.

That's Aaron Hernandez their 2nd TE & Danny Woodhead their 3rd down back.
The important thing to note that while their "Big Three" have more catches/yards than the Texans "Big Three", NE had 100+ more pass attempts than the Texans. That is why I was showing it based on percentages, to normalize the comparison.

The ball distribution percentages between the Patriots and Texans are very similar. It's just that NE does it a hell of a lot better than the Texans.

It's their ability to trot out #4 through #8 and have them get the same average YPC that their starters do that make them so dangerous. I don't have an issue with the Texans having a cadre of 40-60 reception WR/TE.

And yes, NE was just as good as the Texans with rushing this year. The point I was trying to make is that while the Texans have a similar offense to NE, the Patriots are CLEARLY better in executing it. I want the Texans to get better in what they already do, than to go after another "stud" receiver.

If you look at the Broncos, their "Big Three" stats from a percentage perspective is just like the Texans and Patriots.

Heck, the Ravens had FOUR receivers between 50-65 receptions (and none over 65) and yet are in the Super Bowl. In fact, in a quick check of all of the other playoff teams, only San Fran had the same percentage disparity to their "Big Three" as the Falcons did, and yet their #2 (TE) and #3 (WR) guys caught 42 passes each. And yet, despite catching 20 less balls than the Texans #2 (TE) and #3 (WR), they are in the Super Bowl as well.

Again, not saying the Texans can't do what they do in the passing game a whole lot better, starting with the QB position, but there is league wide statistical evidence that the successful teams this year utilized their entire receiving corps a whole lot more than locking into a Big Three.

And I think with the rules heavily favoring the offenses and QB's, you've got to be able to put out multiple receiver sets and take advantage of it.

I'll say it again, KW is not the reason this offense faltered later in the season. I've always supported Schaub, but it sits on his shoulders. Well, and Dennison for the completely predictable and unimaginative play-calling.
sandman is offline   Reply With Quote