A Metrics Breakdown of Patterson, Allen, Hopkins and Bailey

[Firewall]

This tells us how these guys got to their yard totals over the course of limited sample number of games.
A more important thing imo is to determine what these guys are, what type of receiver and then rank them as such.
For example, I see Allen, Hopkins, and Dobson as very similar possession receivers, receivers who will be reliable hitch and catch receivers up to 15 yards--something like Hartline. I like Dobson the best because I think he has the best hands. (I expect him to have the best vertical too from watching games but I do not know this.)
I see Williams and Bailey as intermediate to deep slant receivers primarily--like Jennings.
Swoop and Austin are the the hitch and go threat like Welker, slot types. I like Swoop.

You really have to watch the receivers. IMO, the important things are fluidity, quickness, strength, hands, effort. The metrics, the route tree, the offensive system, the qb, are less important, much less.

[ckparrothead]

That could be possible, but the funny part is If I remember correctly it wasn't long ago that you yourself admitted Patterson wasn't a good deep ball catcher. Now don't quote me on that, and I'm to lazy to check, but I could of sworn you said that once.

I was critical of Cordarrelle's overall physicality and I wondered about his body catching habit, until I dug into his full tape. I came to have a lot of respect for his physicality and for his hands, based on the tape. Anything I've brought up about his deep ball catching was just within the context of him having a little trouble with the over-the-shoulder catch and not being sure if that's a persistent problem or just a fluke. And that persists to this day, really. The difference is you seem SURE that he has problems with that, and you've fallen into exaggeration and hyperbole on the issue. I just don't see that warranted.

Now it seems you invested so much debate in Patterson as a #12 pick that You've resorted to making things up, such as he has good hands.

This is all kinds of wrong. I've never even stated that Cordarrelle should be taken at #12 overall. I've said he should be on the list, and that's all. Never even said he's my first choice there. I'm not "making things up" about his hands being good. It's an evaluation based on an entire season's worth of observations.

Some day you'll have to learn that there is such thing as a difference of opinion.

At the end of the day, Patterson Constsntly catches the ball with his body, RARELY if ever catches the ball away from his body.

This statement is just NOT supported by the facts and evidence. I don't know any other way to put it. I can come up with like 50 clips of catches he made with his hands away from his body (and indeed I've probably already linked clips to about 15 such catches) but then you're going to accuse me of "cluttering the issue with unimportant details".

[ckparrothead]

Hey NUGap, terrific stuff. Really.

One thing I mentioned early in this thread and strikes me also looking at the second tier guys. YAC from a screen or short pass is going to be harder than YAC on longer passes. Significantly harder I would say. So you'll get guys like Williams and Hunter who don't run any short stuff of note - their YAC is probably inflated against guys who run a lot of screens like Patton. Patton still leads the field in your second tier, but he should probably be leading by more on the basis that he's running with the defense in front of him a lot more - and still making guys miss.

Your yards per screen pass chart certainly helps a lot to show the differences between receivers.

Just an observation.

Actually one of the things that I noted positively about Terrance Williams was that despite his overall lack of screen plays, he averaged a healthy 5 to 6 yards per catch on the screens that he did run, which supports my theory that even though he's been a deep specialist at Baylor, he has a good all-around skill set and is versatile.

---------- Post added at 10:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:54 AM ----------

CK, care to elaborate? Are you saying that you think Hopkins will fail at the next level due to lack of speed and/or lack of YAC on screens?

I'm not sure how to elaborate more than what I already said. I'm wary of guys that made their living as deep threats at the college level and didn't show a varied skill set, and yet they don't have the size/strength/athleticism to make them compelling as deep threats at the NFL level.

[WaxOn WaxOff]

---------- Post added at 10:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:54 AM ----------

I'm not sure how to elaborate more than what I already said. I'm wary of guys that made their living as deep threats at the college level and didn't show a varied skill set, and yet they don't have the size/strength/athleticism to make them compelling as deep threats at the NFL level.

He seemed to do fine against LSU- He caught a 4th and 16 while being covered by Eric Reid who many project as a first round pick. I'll wait for the combine to see his measurables, but his athleticism seems fine to me, although that is not easy to measure and a bit subjective. If you are using his YAC on screens to gauge this, I think that is a bit simplistic. How many screens did he receive? How much did they practice the screen, how good did they mask it, and how good were his blockers? I don't think WR screens played a big roll in the Clemson offense, unlike at Cal.

[JC]

Thread of the year. Hands down. Awesome stuff.

[ckparrothead]

He seemed to do fine against LSU- He caught a 4th and 16 while being covered by Eric Reid who many project as a first round pick. I'll wait for the combine to see his measurables, but his athleticism seems fine to me, although that is not easy to measure and a bit subjective. If you are using his YAC on screens to gauge this, I think that is a bit simplistic. How many screens did he receive? How much did they practice the screen, how good did they mask it, and how good were his blockers? I don't think WR screens played a big roll in the Clemson offense, unlike at Cal.

You're forgetting that before NU_Gap even posted the screen averages, I had already stated that I didn't think Hopkins was a physically compelling player with the ball in his hands and I bet that his lack of screens was due to the fact that he's not very effective with it. The data bore out that hypothesis. But you're putting the cart before the horse if you think I'm suddenly deciding Hopkins doesn't have a varied skill set because of a screen average number.

[WaxOn WaxOff]

You're forgetting that before NU_Gap even posted the screen averages, I had already stated that I didn't think Hopkins was a physically compelling player with the ball in his hands and I bet that his lack of screens was due to the fact that he's not very effective with it. The data bore out that hypothesis. But you're putting the cart before the horse if you think I'm suddenly deciding Hopkins doesn't have a varied skill set because of a screen average number.

OK, I'll bite again... 1st off I'm not sure the "data bore out" your hypothesis. Some of these reasons I feel this way are outlined in my post above. I am a Clemson graduate and have watched pretty much all of Hopkins' play for 3 years. I'll admit I may be biased, but please understand I don't beat the drum for every Clemson player. Hopkins was different from the first game of his Freshman year and it was easy to see that sitting in the stands. I do not remember seeing Hopkins on screens, that is why I asked earlier for the number of attempts. You can say they didn't run Hopkins because of lack of efficacy, but there may be more to it than that as I noted above. It just isn't a play that Clemson ran often, at least not since Chad Morris took over the offense.

As far as me putting the cart before the horse on assuming that was the basis for your thoughts, I did say "if", and I also gave you the opportunity to elaborate on your misgivings on Hopkins, but you declined. You are usually very thorough with analysis, I would love to know what your basis is here. I have said that I was willing to wait for the measurables on Hopkins to pass final judgement on Hopkins vis a vis draft position, obviously at 4.7 he is not a 1st or 2nd round pick. My take on Hopkins is that regardless of the measurables he will NOT be a bust, at a position with high bust potential this is a great thing. At worst he will be a Bess type slot receiver because he has rare hands (he pretty much snags everything thrown his way) and great quickness. I do not think he will take the top off the D, that is why I would want to pair him with Wallace. I feel, assuming he runs a 4.5, he will be a much better #2 than Hartline. The kid catches touchdowns, unlike Bess or Hartline. Look at his TD catch on Eric Reid in the LSU game, or the 4th and 16 catch against the same player. This is a kid many believe is the best Safety in college football. His numbers this year were actually deflated as Clemson put in the 2nd string at halftime in several games this year.

My dream for the Dolphins next year is Wallace, Hopkins, Bess, and Findley.

[j-off-her-doll]

I'm not big on the idea of signing Wallace. I'll admit that I'd feel a little relieved if we did - know that we did SOMETHING to address the WR position. I think he would have a positive effect on the offense, but I think there are other, better, cheaper ways to add that type of player. Markus Wheaton would be my first choice (not to be mistaken by my preferred pick at 12). I still think there's a good shot he's there at 42 - because of the cluster**** of really good WR prospects in the draft. Unpopular opinion around here, but I prefer Wheaton to Bailey. That's not at all a knock on Bailey. I'd be thrilled to draft Bailey anytime after the first round - even if Wheaton is still on the board. Anyway, Wheaton is very fast, quick, goes up and fights for the ball, has improved his strength, and I think his route-running has steadily improved, and I think he cares a lot about it. He's not a guy that's like, 'Bitch, I smoked De'Anthony Thomas. I don't need to work on nothin'.' He works on getting bigger and stronger; he works on routes; when you hear him speak, he comes off as very humble and self-aware. In a dead sprint, I don't think he's quite as fast as Wallace, but I think he's probably faster than D. Jackson. In fact, as a physical specimen, I see him somewhere between the two. Not as big (speaking of bulk; he's about the same height) as big or fast as Wallace, but he's quicker; not as quick as Jackson, but he's bigger and faster.

But I'm with you on Hopkins. He plays bigger than he is, maybe the best in the draft at high-pointing the ball, runes good routes, doesn't waste his movements, and - above all - he plays with exceptional balance. He and Hartline are polar opposites in this regard. Hartline is always tripping all over himself. Hopkins looks like he's operating on solid ground while in situations where other look like their waste deep in water. And I don't think he's slow. With this crop of WR's, though, I find it difficult to create a situation where I draft him. If he falls to 54, that's where I start to think hard about him, but I don't think he will fall that far, and even if he does, some other guys, who will probably be there, would have to be off the board.