Started By
Message
re: Top 3 returning WR passer rating when targeted
Posted on 3/19/18 at 11:58 am to djsdawg
Posted on 3/19/18 at 11:58 am to djsdawg
Another thread of Georgia telling us how great they are.. or going to be. Just win something first.. then beat your chest.
Your jumping up and down about second place...congrats I guess
Your jumping up and down about second place...congrats I guess
This post was edited on 3/19/18 at 11:59 am
4
Posted on 3/19/18 at 12:04 pm to BamaBo7
There is no concrete evidence for anything like this general argument.
I'm very excited about our young wide receivers as a group moving forward. Wouldn't trade them for anyone. I'm sure other teams feel the same way.
I'm very excited about our young wide receivers as a group moving forward. Wouldn't trade them for anyone. I'm sure other teams feel the same way.
This post was edited on 3/19/18 at 12:05 pm
Posted on 3/19/18 at 12:19 pm to SummerOfGeorge
That someone even took the time to calculate this stat is sad, much less brag about it. I mean I guess when you don't have any catching at least 40 balls you have to find some way to recruit the position. Neither of these guys would crack the top 3 at Ole Miss.
Posted on 3/19/18 at 12:23 pm to BamaBo7
quote:
Another thread of Georgia telling us how great they are.. or going to be.
Dude. Look at the thread then decide if you have a leg to stand on.
Can you tell us how the Alabama receivers are better than the Georgia receivers right now? Based upon what? Answer those two things, then we can discuss. But don't you ever get tired of coming into a thread and making a blanket statement then not addressing the actual conversation?
quote:
Your jumping up and down about second place...congrats I guess
1. Nobody is jumping up and down
2. Nobody is talking about 2nd place.
3. We are talking about a narrow metric used for receivers.
Now that I have to caught up to the thread, why don't you explain how, based on the metrics given, the Alabama receivers are better. We'll wait for a bit, but I certainly won't hold my breath on you coming back with a reasoned reply that relies on more than "I think...." or "I believe..."
Posted on 3/19/18 at 12:25 pm to BamaBo7
quote:
Another thread of Georgia telling us how great they are.. or going to be. Just win something first.. then beat your chest.
Your jumping up and down about second place...congrats I guess
Man you really suck at reading
Posted on 3/19/18 at 12:26 pm to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
There is no concrete evidence for anything like this general argument.
Exactly.
quote:
I'm very excited about our young wide receivers as a group moving forward.
AS you should be. They look like a strong group and should do very well.
quote:
I'm sure other teams feel the same way.
Absolutely. We do, I'm sure. And I would be willing to bet there are 3-4 other teams that would argue their receivers are better than Georgia or Alabama's.
Posted on 3/19/18 at 12:37 pm to Quicksilver
quote:
That someone even took the time to calculate this stat is sad, much less brag about it. I mean I guess when you don't have any catching at least 40 balls you have to find some way to recruit the position. Neither of these guys would crack the top 3 at Ole Miss.
Advanced stats from pro football focus aren't for everyone. Don't cry about it though.
Posted on 3/19/18 at 1:42 pm to djsdawg
quote:
Useless stats from bored nerds aren't for everyone
Posted on 3/19/18 at 1:44 pm to Quicksilver
Effiency ratings aren't uselsss. Some people don't quite understand them perhaps?
Posted on 3/19/18 at 1:54 pm to djsdawg
Efficiency ratings aren't useless. This stat is completely useless though.
Posted on 3/19/18 at 1:56 pm to Quicksilver
This stat is about efficiency, therefore it isn't useless.
Posted on 3/19/18 at 2:07 pm to djsdawg
The stat is a bit useless as those efficiency ratings are due to bad defenses having to crowd the box and those WRs getting 1 on 1s down the field. That will change some next year.
So, interesting and worth considering, but not entirely applicable going forward. Good to be used in a broader discussion.
So, interesting and worth considering, but not entirely applicable going forward. Good to be used in a broader discussion.
Posted on 3/19/18 at 2:21 pm to SummerOfGeorge
Assuming our running game suddenly stinks, you could argue its useless, but that's Not a safe assumption.
Posted on 3/19/18 at 2:33 pm to Dawgsontop34
quote:
I've still yet to see an actual reason as to why Bama's receivers are way better, but I guess it's pretty understandable when it doesn't exist.
Ruggs Smith and Jeudy - 100% national championship efficiency rating.
Posted on 3/19/18 at 2:44 pm to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
The stat is a bit useless as those efficiency ratings are due to bad defenses having to crowd the box and those WRs getting 1 on 1s down the field.
He doesn't want to hear it, man.
Posted on 3/19/18 at 2:50 pm to BamaBo7
quote:
Another thread of Georgia telling us how great they are.. or going to be. Just win something first.. then beat your chest.
The fear is growing
Posted on 3/19/18 at 3:06 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
Says the guy who didnt want to hear it when his point was proven wrong on Friday. Hilarious as usual. Made funnier by the fact that I already pointed the flaw out of his point.
Posted on 3/19/18 at 3:27 pm to Quicksilver
quote:
Useless stats from bored nerds aren't for everyone
I see you conveniently glossed over the fact that djs did not sit and come up with these stats, like you thought. It was done by a service that specializes in stats that might be of interest to professional sports teams. But, yeah. nerds.
Just admit you didn't know what you were talking about and move on. Or, you might just drop out of this conversation altogether?
You might not like it. Cool. Don't get in the thread would be my suggestion. See how easy that was?
Posted on 3/19/18 at 3:35 pm to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
The stat is a bit useless as those efficiency ratings are due to bad defenses having to crowd the box and those WRs getting 1 on 1s down the field. That will change some next year.
So, interesting and worth considering, but not entirely applicable going forward. Good to be used in a broader discussion.
Maybe. Maybe not. The OP didn't claim it to mean anything other than, "here are the top 3 receivers in this stat." Nobody held it up to mean they were the best receivers, or anything like that. It was Alabama posters who decided to take it that way, and then claim Alabama receivers were better than Georgia receivers....and apparently that statement was based upon, "I think...." or "I feel...." Not rankings. Not stats. Nothing.
Hey. We get it. Alabama beat us and are the National Champions. But why do Alabama fans have such a hard time giving up this very limited statistic to Georgia?
Does it lessen Alabama in some way if Georgia's returning receivers had a better "passer rating when targeted"?
Posted on 3/19/18 at 3:36 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
He doesn't want to hear it, man.
Yet hear you are angsting that Georgia might have 2 of the top 3 gus in this one stat. Why does this threaten you so much?
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News