Who has the best receivers in the NFL?

[vicjagger]

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/7033282


1. Dallas (1)
After six weeks of Drew Bledsoe, the Cowboys' receivers were struggling. While Terry Glenn had a very respectable 16.8 percent DVOA, Terrell Owens was at a woeful -7.7 percent, and Patrick Crayton (the likely third or fourth target on most plays) had only been thrown 12 passes in six weeks because Bledsoe couldn't stay upright long enough to find him. Even Jason Witten's 17.0 percent DVOA had him at a mediocre 13th amongst tight ends. By the end of the year, Glenn's DVOA had improved to 20.4 percent, while Owens got all the way up to 12.2 percent. Crayton got 36 more attempts in the final 10 games and was the best third receiver in football. Witten's DVOA went up to 19.1 percent, seventh amongst all tight ends. The point: Having an even competent quarterback can be the difference between a group of receivers struggling, or being amongst the league's elite. While Owens and Glenn are getting up there in age, both have yet to show an appreciable level of decline in their metrics, and Owens will likely see an improved catch rate after healing his finger injury. Crayton remains one of the unsung threats in the league, and Witten, the best tight end in a division full of them. A team's top four receivers will see 65-70 percent of all the throws made by a quarterback over the course of a season; one through four, no one's better than the Cowboys.

 

[Bryan8284]

That's nice and all, but TO and Glenn over Harrison and Wayne? No way

Chad and Housh are a great duo too.

 

[LaTunaNostra]

Interesting, but i had no idea what "DVOA' means.

It's a ranking criterion

From the article -

What goes into the rankings

We'll be using three metrics to provide insight into how the players have performed in previous seasons:

DVOA, or Defense-adjusted Value Over Average, measures performance per play adjusted for situation and opponent. It is explained further here.

DPAR, or Defense-adjusted Points Above Replacement, measures performance compared to a replacement-level receiver in the same situations. Some players gain a lot of DPAR with average performance with tons of passes, others with great performance as slot receivers with less usage.

Catch Rate is, simply, the percentage of the time a receiver catches a ball for which he is the intended target. Note that this metric doesn't measure how catchable a ball was; a pass that hits the receiver in the foot is still intended for him. With that being said, remember that everyone gets bad passes. Tom Brady skips a ball or two a game; Aaron Brooks, four or five. Catch rate should be taken with a grain of salt, but it's still a useful metric in determining a receiver's ability to go and get the ball

 

[Rampage]

the ravens wrs at 4??????

 

[03EBZ06]

That's nice and all, but TO and Glenn over Harrison and Wayne? No way

Chad and Housh are a great duo too.

This ranking isn't solely on Top 2 WRs, it includes all receivers, including TEs.

 

[LaTunaNostra]

It's a KC Joyner world all right.

But just as Troy Aikman has for ages been arguing for a more meticulous examination of QB rankings, these folks at Football outsiders are looking at the receiver skills, not the passing game per se.

While Football Outsiders is known for trafficking in statistics and data, the solution here is to watch as much as possible and notice the subtleties of how receivers play. Do they run out their routes every time, even if they're the third or fourth option? Are they unable to adapt when they get bumped on the line? Do they block well? Do they sell their routes well enough to create space? And, of course, after getting open and shouting the quarterback's name as loud as possible like you did when you were eight, do NFL receivers do what they're paid to do: catch the ball?

Taking all these things into account and combining them with the statistical toolbox we employ, we've ranked the receiving corps of all 32 NFL teams, accounting for both their wide receivers and tight ends. Remember that we're grading the performance and talent of a group of receivers, not a team's passing attack.

 

[tomson75]

Oh noes...another "metrics" thread!

 

[LaTunaNostra]

Oh noes...another "metrics" thread!

I've been among the missing for awhile tomson75, but something tells me the offseason saw a few threads of that nature? :laugh2:

 

[tomson75]

I've been among the missing for awhile tomson75, but something tells me the offseason saw a few threads of that nature? :laugh2:

Oh yeah. They were gems.

Word of advise. ..dont' ever base an argument for a players ability on metrics. Scratch that. Don't open any threads with "metrics in the title. Don't even search the word...unless of course you want your hubby mad at ya.

 

[LaTunaNostra]

Oh yeah. They were gems.

Word of advise. ..dont' ever base an argument for a players ability on metrics. Scratch that. Don't open any threads with "metrics in the title. Don't even search the word...unless of course you want your hubby mad at ya.

Are you kidding? When I read an article that has TG's metrics that high, I am COMMITTING THE FORMULA TO MEMORY:laugh2:

I bought KC Joyner's first year of the Manhattan phone book sized "Football Scientist", and immensely enjoyed pouring over his numbers, and admiring both his desire to incorporate so many stats into his 'system' and the work that went into it.

But all metric arguments lead to the same end - somebody's eyes, somebody's gut instinct, somebody's understanding, somebody's bias, and sometimes somebody's logic - inevitably finds the flaws in the equation.

 

[tomson75]

Are you kidding? When I read an article that has TG's metrics that high, I am COMMITTING THE FORMULA TO MEMORY:laugh2:

I bought KC Joyner's first year of the Manhattan phone book sized "Football Scientist", and immensely enjoyed pouring over his numbers, and admiring both his desire to incorporate so many stats into his 'system' and the work that went into it.

But all metric arguments lead to the same end - somebody's eyes, somebody's gut instinct, somebody's understanding, somebody's bias, and sometimes somebody's logic - inevitably finds the flaws in the equation.

It's just that, there are flaws, and they've been beaten to death here in the last month or so. Oh, I agree though, he's got some great stuff.

...but the trolls can smell metrics a mile away. I hear them coming now!

*Chants of "newman's metrics suck" echoing throughout CBZ*

 

[LaTunaNostra]

*Chants of "newman's metrics suck" echoing throughout CBZ*

Remind me NOT to do a thread search on the above.

 

[Timbo2st]

I'd say Colts are #1 with the Cardinals #2.

 

[tomson75]

...but the trolls can smell metrics a mile away. I hear them coming now!

I'd say Colts are #1 with the Cardinals #2.

Told you so!

 

[gazmc_06]

I think T.O. is still the best reciever in football but the Colts' duo of Harrison and Wayne are a better duo. we have the best individual reciever but they have a better duo. 1 through 4 we are better again, Witten against Clarke is a tough match but I give the nod to Witten.

 

[LaTunaNostra]

Told you so!

:laugh2:

think he actually READ the metric formula?

or just saw 'best', knew it wasn't his team, and was hell bent on saying it wasn't ours?

 

[lane]

marvin harrison is the best receiver in football..

 

[vicjagger]

Here's how they rate all positions:

QB(21) WR(1) RB(9) OL(22) DL(17) LB(5) DB(7) ST(15)

ST is special teams. DB included CBs and safeties. WR includes TEs.

 

[tomson75]

:laugh2:

think he actually READ the metric formula?

or just saw 'best', knew it wasn't his team, and was hell bent on saying it wasn't ours?

:laugh2: I think you've got the "troll formula" down to a science.

marvin harrison is the best receiver in football..

I don't disagree. 'Sup Lane.

 

[gazmc_06]

Harrison is a great reciever, I think T.O. is better though.
​