Originally Posted by 76Texan
Walter didn't lose snaps.
Before the bye week he was in between 64-70% of the time.
After the bye week, he was normally in between 74-86% of the time.
There were a couple of exceptions (week 15, when the Texans had a comfortable 23-10 lead over the Colts, and the last regular game of the season, when Kubiak probably wanted to give him a little rest.)
His snap counts picked right back up in the play-offs.
It was Jean and Martin who lost snaps to Posey.
His playcount did pick up in the playoffs as Kubiak has been known to prefer experience as it is in such a position so no doubt he would for the playoffs. Well, until we were down to the Patriots and we needed to actually pass and someone to get open without playaction. But saying Walter didn't lose snaps during the end of the year? Incorrect.
After the bye Walter had usual snap count up to week 13. A span of five games he averaged 64.2 plays. After that? The next four games his playcount went down and he averaged 42.25. Last I checked a -22 differential is a drop in snaps.
And while the screenshots are nice it is mainly one game and not play after play. His issue is performing in such a manner consistently
. Not to mention the missed opportunities you try to show...every receiver has them including those who already have better production than Walter.
Having someone capable of actually getting separation on a consistent basis in [b]any[b] situation. That means not needing just scheme and playaction because some times the run game will be halted and we will need to open it up, i.e. the Patriots game. Well....unless you don't wish to beat the top tier teams.
And yes, stats don't illustrate the full picture all the time. That is why I alluded to PFF which does not rely merely on stats. It was formatted for that specific purpose. To evaluate play after play and get a better understanding than just the numbers and it is why others like GM's and scouts turn to it as well.
At any rate, Walter isn't even the third option on this team.
He's been the fourth option since 2010. Foster is third with 239 targets to Walter's 219.
That's just the way the Texans run their offense.
In fact, when Jacoby was here, he had more targets than Walter in 2010 and 2012 (3 and 4 more respectively.) So if you go strictly by numbers, Walter was the fifth option in those two years.
Umm...that is part of the problem. Your #2 should never
be that far down as an option. That is a hindrance to an offense. Plus...you are a bit incorrect again.
This past season target % of the passes was:
So Walter was the third option last year. And again this is not how the system is. Any coach will have his system go along with the personnel at his disposal unless he is one horrible coach.
2006 - #2 option was WR Eric Moulds by 28 target more than OD
2007 - #1 target (w/Dre injured WR Kevin Walter with 106. #2 was OD and then Dre
2008 - It went Dre (170), O.D. (101) and Walter (95) A 6 point differential and the last season Walter was very contributing to pass game
2009 - It went Dre (170), Walter (70) and O.D. (57 - injured year)
2010 - It went Dre (138), Foster (84) and Walter (80)
2011 - It went O.D. (84), Foster (71), Jacoby (64) and Walter (59)
What this illustrates is one, you are wrong about him being a 5th option. Not sure where you even got that one. Two, this system isn't circled in concrete about getting the ball to just Dre then TE's or RB's. It's about getting the ball to the playmakers
. Walter was one in '07-'08 so he saw the ball more. O.D. then became more than Walter, Foster and as much as we moan about Jacoby he had more playmaking abilities than our current Walter as well. This system is the same by Shanny and is part of the west coast which is about getting the ball to playmakers hence why we could use one.
There's a reason why Jacoby and Walter combined had so many targets. You want to get the ball to those who can make plays in a short-medium passing game. Walter was that but now, he is not. A decent third or fourth receiver maybe (but not at his current contract) but a #2? Hardly.