PDA

View Full Version : Brandon Lloyd: Great year but not very efficient when compared to other WRs



vandammage13
07-06-2011, 09:23 AM
It might be attributed to a number of things, but Lloyd's Targets to Completion ratio does not measure up well against other top WR's last year.

I just used the top 10 WRs by yardage:
http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/player/_/stat/receiving/sort/receivingYards

Brandon Lloyd: 77 REC, 158 TGTs, 50.3%

Roddy White: 115 REC, 179 TGTs, 64.2%

Reggie Wayne: 111 REC, 173 TGTs, 64.1%

Greg Jennings: 76 REC, 125 TGTs, 60.8%

Mike Wallace: 60 REC, 100 TGTs, 60.0%

Andre Johnson: 86 REC, 138 TGTs, 62.3%

Dwayne Bowe: 72 REC, 132 TGTs, 54.5%

Larry Fitzgerald: 90 REC, 174 TGTs, 51.7%

Calvin Johnson: 77 REC, 137 TGTs, 56.2%

Santana Moss: 93 REC, 146 TGTs, 63.6%


B. Lloyd did excel in YPC, TDs, and Total YDS, but in terms of Completion % it was all or nothing with him. He ranked dead last out of the top 10 in this category.

Perhaps it was due to Lloyd primarily being used on the deep ball, or having an average QB throwing him the ball, or perhaps he's just not that good...I just wouldn't expect him to have the same type of year in 2011, especially with the conservative John Fox running the show.

I hope I'm wrong, but I think Lloyd's got 1 year wonder written all over him. He's never shown this type of productivity in 7 previous years, and without McD's system, I feel like we're in for a major dropoff in terms of his production this year.

Lonestar
07-06-2011, 09:47 AM
I take heart in seeing the Larry F is just a bit higher in %. And not many of the game breakers have much higher percentages.

The biggie WR bon the list are mostly possession guys.

Lonestar
07-06-2011, 09:51 AM
Btw the playbook has not changed. It is Joshes with McCoy calling the plays.

vandammage13
07-06-2011, 10:01 AM
I take heart in seeing the Larry F is just a bit higher in %. And not many of the game breakers have much higher percentages.

The biggie WR bon the list are mostly possession guys.

Yeah I was surprised to see Fitzgerald so low, until I remembered who he had throwing him the ball. As average as I think Orton is, those guys they were starting down in AZ were downright terrible.

vandammage13
07-06-2011, 10:03 AM
Btw the playbook has not changed. It is Joshes with McCoy calling the plays.

I understand that McCoy is a holdover from the McD regime, but make no mistake about it, this offense won't resemble what it looked like last year. I guarantee we will be seeing way more 2 WR sets than we did the last two years.

TXBRONC
07-06-2011, 10:03 AM
It might be attributed to a number of things, but Lloyd's Targets to Completion ratio does not measure up well against other top WR's last year.

I just used the top 10 WRs by yardage:
http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/player/_/stat/receiving/sort/receivingYards

Brandon Lloyd: 77 REC, 158 TGTs, 50.3%

Roddy White: 115 REC, 179 TGTs, 64.2%

Reggie Wayne: 111 REC, 173 TGTs, 64.1%

Greg Jennings: 76 REC, 125 TGTs, 60.8%

Mike Wallace: 60 REC, 100 TGTs, 60.0%

Andre Johnson: 86 REC, 138 TGTs, 62.3%

Dwayne Bowe: 72 REC, 132 TGTs, 54.5%

Larry Fitzgerald: 90 REC, 174 TGTs, 51.7%

Calvin Johnson: 77 REC, 137 TGTs, 56.2%

Santana Moss: 93 REC, 146 TGTs, 63.6%


B. Lloyd did excel in YPC, TDs, and Total YDS, but in terms of Completion % it was all or nothing with him. He ranked dead last out of the top 10 in this category.

Perhaps it was due to Lloyd primarily being used on the deep ball, or having an average QB throwing him the ball, or perhaps he's just not that good...I just wouldn't expect him to have the same type of year in 2011, especially with the conservative John Fox running the show.

I hope I'm wrong, but I think Lloyd's got 1 year wonder written all over him. He's never shown this type of productivity in 7 previous years, and without McD's system, I feel like we're in for a major dropoff in terms of his production this year.

Brandon Lloyd: 77 REC, 158 TGTs, 50.3% Kyle Orton and Tim Tebow

Roddy White: 115 REC, 179 TGTs, 64.2% Matt Ryan

Reggie Wayne: 111 REC, 173 TGTs, 64.1% Peyton Manning

Greg Jennings: 76 REC, 125 TGTs, 60.8% Aaron Rodgers

Mike Wallace: 60 REC, 100 TGTs, 60.0% Ben Roethlisberger

Andre Johnson: 86 REC, 138 TGTs, 62.3% Matt Schaub

Dwayne Bowe: 72 REC, 132 TGTs, 54.5% Matt Cassel

Larry Fitzgerald: 90 REC, 174 TGTs, 51.7% Derek Anderson, John Skelton, Max Hall, and Richard Bartel

Calvin Johnson: 77 REC, 137 TGTs, 56.2% Shaun Hill, drew Stanton, and Matthew Stafford

Santana Moss: 93 REC, 146 TGTs, 63.6% Donovan McNabb and Rex Grossman

vandammage13
07-06-2011, 10:05 AM
Roddy White: 115 REC, 179 TGTs, 64.2% Matt Ryan

Reggie Wayne: 111 REC, 173 TGTs, 64.1% Peyton Manning

Greg Jennings: 76 REC, 125 TGTs, 60.8% Aaron Rodgers

Mike Wallace: 60 REC, 100 TGTs, 60.0% Ben Roethlisberger

Andre Johnson: 86 REC, 138 TGTs, 62.3% Matt Schaub

Dwayne Bowe: 72 REC, 132 TGTs, 54.5% Matt Cassel

Larry Fitzgerald: 90 REC, 174 TGTs, 51.7% Derek Anderson, John Skelton, Max Hall, and Richard Bartel

Calvin Johnson: 77 REC, 137 TGTs, 56.2%

Santana Moss: 93 REC, 146 TGTs, 63.6%

I noticed the trend as well, but I didn't want to totally throw Orton under the bus on this one and make this thread about him, but yeah, I know what youre getting at...

TXBRONC
07-06-2011, 10:12 AM
I noticed the trend as well, but I didn't want to totally throw Orton under the bus on this one and make this thread about him, but yeah, I know what youre getting at...

I'm not trying throw Orton under a bus or Lloyd for that matter but it looks to me like the guys that were in the mid 50 percentile all had less than stellar quarterbacks throwing to them.

topscribe
07-06-2011, 10:18 AM
I take heart in seeing the Larry F is just a bit higher in %. And not many of the game breakers have much higher percentages.

The biggie WR bon the list are mostly possession guys.

Good catch. Fitzgerald's stats blows that comparison all to hell. Without
separating the possession receivers from the deep receivers, that sets up
invalid comparisons.

Frankly, it's invalid, anyway: There are so many other variables.

-----

vandammage13
07-06-2011, 10:20 AM
I'm not trying throw Orton under a bus or Lloyd for that matter but it looks to me like the guys that were in the mid 50 percentile all had less than stellar quarterbacks throwing to them.

Valid point, but I guess what bothers me most about Lloyd is he's only had 1 great year out of 8 seasons. That's the main reason that makes me doubt he will continue that kind of production next year....

To add more validity to your point, though, I guess you can look at his career and see that he's never really had a stellar QB throwing him the ball...

TXBRONC
07-06-2011, 10:20 AM
Yeah I was surprised to see Fitzgerald so low, until I remembered who he had throwing him the ball. As average as I think Orton is, those guys they were starting down in AZ were downright terrible.

Jr wont see so I'll say it to you. It's weak argument that most of the guys on that list are possession receivers. More than half of the receivers on that list are deep threats and their the ones at 60% or better.

Ravage!!!
07-06-2011, 10:21 AM
Btw the playbook has not changed. It is Joshes with McCoy calling the plays.

The playbook will change. Who's system do you suppose he feels more comfortable running, the system he had been running and coaching for YEARS in Carolina or the one that he learned and failed with with Joshy? He was the assistant HC in Carolina with Fox, yet you think they are going to run josh's offense? I bet not.

vandammage13
07-06-2011, 10:24 AM
Good catch. Fitzgerald's stats blows that comparison all to hell. Without
separating the possession receivers from the deep receivers, that sets up
invalid comparisons.

Frankly, it's invalid, anyway: There are so many other variables.

-----

As I stated before Top...Look who Fitz had throwing him the ball. Hall/Skelton are so bad they make Orton look like the ProBowler that only you dream he is.....:coffee:

vandammage13
07-06-2011, 10:27 AM
Jr wont see so I'll say it to you. It's weak argument that most of the guys on that list are possession receivers. More than half of the receivers on that list are deep threats and their the ones at 60% or better.

Exactly....Just Mike Wallace and Santana Moss come to mind. Greg Jennings is another guy I wouldn't label as a possession guy.

TXBRONC
07-06-2011, 10:32 AM
The playbook will change. Who's system do you suppose he feels more comfortable running, the system he had been running and coaching for YEARS in Carolina or the one that he learned and failed with with Joshy? He was the assistant HC in Carolina with Fox, yet you think they are going to run josh's offense? I bet not.

Some of little joshy boy's stuff will be implement but it still wont look like his offense. We're actually going the novel idea using a fullback and having the quarterback work from under center.

TXBRONC
07-06-2011, 10:35 AM
Exactly....Just Mike Wallace and Santana Moss come to mind. Greg Jennings is another guy I wouldn't label as a possession guy.

Andre Johnson and Calvin Johnson are not possesion receivers and neither is Dwayne Bowe. If you count Lloyd as deep threat that's seven receivers that are deep threats.

topscribe
07-06-2011, 10:39 AM
We can try to justify these comparisons until we're blue in the face, but in the
end, it's just another shallow analysis, devoid of many other factors that would
have to be considered, and even then other variables that could not be applied
may invalidate the whole process . . .

-----

SOCALORADO.
07-06-2011, 10:41 AM
Some of little joshy boy's stuff will be implement but it still wont look like his offense. We're actually going the novel idea using a fullback and having the quarterback work from under center.

I hope to see Tebow going 12-18 for 185 yards with 1 PASS TD and 1 RUN TD, and the ground game averaging 180 yards a game. Obviously there needs to be different RBs for this to happen. I also see the Defense being the focal point of Fox's team.
Now i gotta "hope" EFX are active in FA for this to happen. .......Sheesh.
I just see Fox doing what PIT did with Big Ben those 1st few years. Or at least attempting something along those lines.

Ravage!!!
07-06-2011, 10:47 AM
Some of little joshy boy's stuff will be implement but it still wont look like his offense. We're actually going the novel idea using a fullback and having the quarterback work from under center.

The only difference will be that they will keep the terminology the same. Makes sense. The main difference between systems is the terminology anyways. Keep the terms the same because it wouldn't make sense to change it now when all the QBs know the prior.

Since all the pass routes are the same from system to system, then it doesn't matter what you call them, but keeping them the same "names" as last year seems to be a pretty wise choice.

Other than that, I don't think we see the same offense at all.

vandammage13
07-06-2011, 10:49 AM
We can try to justify these comparisons until we're blue in the face, but in the
end, it's just another shallow analysis, devoid of many other factors that would
have to be considered, and even then other variables that could not be applied
may invalidate the whole process . . .

-----

I love how top fails to acknowledge that I stated that the numbers can be attributed to a number of factors (which opens it up for discussion)....Just another feeble attempt to discredit a fellow poster without presenting facts or reasons as to why it is invalid.

TXBRONC
07-06-2011, 10:50 AM
The only difference will be that they will keep the terminology the same. Makes sense. The main difference between systems is the terminology anyways. Keep the terms the same because it wouldn't make sense to change it now when all the QBs know the prior.

Since all the pass routes are the same from system to system, then it doesn't matter what you call them, but keeping them the same "names" as last year seems to be a pretty wise choice.

Other than that, I don't think we see the same offense at all.

Our base set in joshy's system was three receivers and one running back. I don't think that will be the base set anymore.

vandammage13
07-06-2011, 10:57 AM
Our base set in joshy's system was three receivers and one running back. I don't think that will be the base set anymore.

Too bad joshy got rid of Hillis....I bet he would thrive in this system. My main worry is that Knowshow won't be able to hold up in a run-heavy offense, and I'm not sold on our depth at the position. Hopefully we can pick up a solid #2 in FA.

Juriga72
07-06-2011, 11:03 AM
Brandon Lloyd: 77 REC, 158 TGTs, 50.3% Kyle Orton Sucky

Roddy White: 115 REC, 179 TGTs, 64.2% Matt Ryan VERY good

Reggie Wayne: 111 REC, 173 TGTs, 64.1% Peyton Manning VERY Good-Super Bowl Winner

Greg Jennings: 76 REC, 125 TGTs, 60.8% Aaron Rodgers Super Bowl MVP

Mike Wallace: 60 REC, 100 TGTs, 60.0% Ben Roethlisberger-2X Super Bowl Winner

Andre Johnson: 86 REC, 138 TGTs, 62.3% Matt Schaub-3x Pro Bowl

Dwayne Bowe: 72 REC, 132 TGTs, 54.5% Matt Cassel-Meh....

Larry Fitzgerald: 90 REC, 174 TGTs, 51.7% Derek Anderson, John Skelton, Max Hall, and Richard Bartel Defines "Suckage"

Calvin Johnson: 77 REC, 137 TGTs, 56.2% Shaun Hill, drew Stanton, and Matthew Stafford-Meh....

Santana Moss: 93 REC, 146 TGTs, 63.6% Donovan McNabb and Rex Grossman Bad and bad

See this trend too?

TXBRONC
07-06-2011, 11:04 AM
Too bad joshy got rid of Hillis....I bet he would thrive in this system. My main worry is that Knowshow won't be able to hold up in a run-heavy offense, and I'm not sold on our depth at the position. Hopefully we can pick up a solid #2 in FA.

I think he can handle about 250 carries maybe a little more if can stay healthy.

underrated29
07-06-2011, 11:04 AM
I have not seen it mentioned yet. But Lloyd only dropped 3 Passes last year. Just 3 of them. (iirc)


So when he was able to get his hands on the ball- he caught it! Period, end of story. So the rest of the targets- well, it is pretty simple to see where the blame goes.

TXBRONC
07-06-2011, 11:05 AM
See this trend too?

Hey I'm trying to be civil. :laugh:

vandammage13
07-06-2011, 11:06 AM
I think he can handle about 250 carries maybe a little more if can stay healthy.

I haven't seen anything in his first two years to make me believe that, but I hope you're right.

TXBRONC
07-06-2011, 11:07 AM
I haven't seen anything in his first two years to make me believe that, but I hope you're right.

His rookie season he had 247 carries.

vandammage13
07-06-2011, 11:08 AM
I have not seen it mentioned yet. But Lloyd only dropped 3 Passes last year. Just 3 of them. (iirc)


So when he was able to get his hands on the ball- he caught it! Period, end of story. So the rest of the targets- well, it is pretty simple to see where the blame goes.

I was trying to find stats on drops but I couldn't...can you post a link that displays drops, because it was something I thought about putting in there when I started this thread, just couldn't find it.

Just 3 drops is pretty impressive though...Yeah, I think the evidence is starting to point toward someone.

vandammage13
07-06-2011, 11:14 AM
His rookie season he had 247 carries.

That's pretty close to 250...For some reason I was thinking that he missed a game or 2 his rookie year, but I see that he played all 16.

TXBRONC
07-06-2011, 11:15 AM
The only difference will be that they will keep the terminology the same. Makes sense. The main difference between systems is the terminology anyways. Keep the terms the same because it wouldn't make sense to change it now when all the QBs know the prior.

Since all the pass routes are the same from system to system, then it doesn't matter what you call them, but keeping them the same "names" as last year seems to be a pretty wise choice.

Other than that, I don't think we see the same offense at all.

Agreed for the most part but like I said I think we'll see more two back sets. From what I remember from the after the draft press conference they mentioned Virgil Green the tight end we drafted out of Nevada-Reno could possible transiton to fullback they also mentioned using him as H back.

underrated29
07-06-2011, 11:20 AM
I was trying to find stats on drops but I couldn't...can you post a link that displays drops, because it was something I thought about putting in there when I started this thread, just couldn't find it.

Just 3 drops is pretty impressive though...Yeah, I think the evidence is starting to point toward someone.




sorry brother. I do not have a link and would probably not be able to post it correctly.

However, I do remember reading it, it was an article that someone posted here. Not sure if it was klis, woody or burger bill.....I will try the search to find it, but I recommend you do too, just because I suck with computers and probably will not.



Anyone remember the lloyd article about his drops? It would be appreciated.

TXBRONC
07-06-2011, 11:21 AM
sorry brother. I do not have a link and would probably not be able to post it correctly.

However, I do remember reading it, it was an article that someone posted here. Not sure if it was klis, woody or burger bill.....I will try the search to find it, but I recommend you do too, just because I suck with computers and probably will not.



Anyone remember the lloyd article about his drops? It would be appreciated.

Hey I trust ya Under. :2thumbs:

vandammage13
07-06-2011, 11:24 AM
sorry brother. I do not have a link and would probably not be able to post it correctly.

However, I do remember reading it, it was an article that someone posted here. Not sure if it was klis, woody or burger bill.....I will try the search to find it, but I recommend you do too, just because I suck with computers and probably will not.



Anyone remember the lloyd article about his drops? It would be appreciated.

No prob man. Thanks for the effort.

Juriga72
07-06-2011, 11:27 AM
BUT.... BUT.....This year it showed Kyle was "Accurate downfield"......Oh wait

Llyod was nowhere near the NFL lead in dropped passes right?

NOT even the top 16......(Course there IS BM at #3...lol)

Top with "Kyle Orton excuse " in 3...2....1

......http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/leaders.asp?range=NFL&type=Receiving&rank=232

Checked AFC also ( we Play there right???) and Llyod isnt in the top 17 AFC leaders either....

underrated29
07-06-2011, 11:28 AM
ok I was wrong. He dropped 4 passes. Also it was a PFW or PFT article.

Hopefully this link works...Its like the 2nd or 3rd paragraph.


http://forums.denverbroncos.com/showthread.php?t=188271&highlight=brandon+lloyd+dropped+passes

vandammage13
07-06-2011, 11:29 AM
BUT.... BUT.....This year it showed Kyle was "Accurate downfield"......Oh wait

Llyod was nowhere near the NFL lead in dropped passes right?

NOT even the top 16......(Course there IS BM at #3...lol)

To with "Kyle Orton excuse " in 3...2....1

......http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/leaders.asp?range=NFL&type=Receiving&rank=232

Good job on the link...Surprised to see Welker topping that list. Too bad the list is not a complete one.

Juriga72
07-06-2011, 11:32 AM
Good job on the link...Surprised to see Welker topping that list. Too bad the list is not a complete one.

Welker runs those short routes under... and gets KILLED by LB's..... IMHO thats why he has so many drops, or one reason.


BTW.... in that other article... LOL

With a better quarterback in place, Lloyd could have stood out even more to the general audience.

vandammage13
07-06-2011, 11:33 AM
ok I was wrong. He dropped 4 passes. Also it was a PFW or PFT article.

Hopefully this link works...Its like the 2nd or 3rd paragraph.


http://forums.denverbroncos.com/showthread.php?t=188271&highlight=brandon+lloyd+dropped+passes

No harm no foul....4 dropped passes is still good.

vandammage13
07-06-2011, 11:34 AM
Welker runs those short routes under... and gets KILLED by LB's..... IMHO thats why he has so many drops, or one reason.


BTW.... in that other article... LOL

With a better quarterback in place, Lloyd could have stood out even more to the general audience.

lol...i saw that line, too.

NightTerror218
07-06-2011, 11:39 AM
No harm no foul....4 dropped passes is still good.

So if Lloyd had 4 dropped passes, those are considered ones that touched his hands and considered catch-able right? THen all the others were bad throws. And since not a single Denver WR was on that list of dropped passes. You could assumed that most of the throws not completed were bad passes.

underrated29
07-06-2011, 11:41 AM
So if Lloyd had 4 dropped passes, those are considered ones that touched his hands and considered catch-able right? THen all the others were bad throws. And since not a single Denver WR was on that list of dropped passes. You could assumed that most of the throws not completed were bad passes.

Pretty much. Yup.

NightTerror218
07-06-2011, 11:51 AM
Pretty much. Yup.

Brady had 3 receivers on the list with 25 passes, so that is 25 passes on target at least, and Manning had 2 receivers with 21 passes on target. If you figure Llyod, Gaffney, Thomas, Royal, Decker and Moreno/Buckhalter all dropped 4 passes each that would be 24 on target passes. Not very good, with 205 incomplete passes. 11% on target and just assumed 4 dropped passes per. So that would be a little high in favor of Orton.

Compare those 3 receivers of Brady to his 168 incomplete passes 15% were on target and that is only with 3 receivers not counting all receivers.

Not posting any FACTS here or anything just being hypothetical. But just trying to show Orton was not as accurate as some of the top QBs in league and that he had good receivers that did not drop much.

topscribe
07-06-2011, 11:53 AM
Pretty much. Yup.

Once again, we are reaching for assumptions that do not take into consideration
other factors. Some throws are bad passes, some well defended, and some just
plain dropped. We cannot just assume that absolutely all incompletions are bad
passes. That is with any QB and any receiver.

But if Lloyd dropped four passes, I would say that was a pretty good year for him.

-----

TXBRONC
07-06-2011, 11:55 AM
Welker runs those short routes under... and gets KILLED by LB's..... IMHO thats why he has so many drops, or one reason.


BTW.... in that other article... LOL

With a better quarterback in place, Lloyd could have stood out even more to the general audience.


lol...i saw that line, too.

:whistle:

NightTerror218
07-06-2011, 11:57 AM
Once again, we are reaching for assumptions that do not take into consideration
other factors. Some throws are bad passes, some well defended, and some just
plain dropped. We cannot just assume that absolutely all incompletions are bad
passes. That is with any QB and any receiver . . .

-----

Assuming deflections are bad passes, is an assumption on the safe side with considering that means a QB is throwing into a tight spot. Deflections are not considered catch-able balls. Hence they are not ones that got against a WR stats, they go against the QB.

nevcraw
07-06-2011, 12:30 PM
just to back up what a few had alluded to already -- the argument that the majority of those guys listed were possesion recievers is total bunk.. you could pretty much make a case for every guy not being one.

nevcraw
07-06-2011, 12:31 PM
Andre Johnson and Calvin Johnson are not possesion receivers and neither is Dwayne Bowe. If you count Lloyd as deep threat that's seven receivers that are deep threats.

this

TXBRONC
07-06-2011, 12:33 PM
Assuming deflections are bad passes, is an assumption on the safe side with considering that means a QB is throwing into a tight spot. Deflections are not considered catch-able balls. Hence they are not ones that got against a WR stats, they go against the QB.

I am curious as how the NFL fits all that into their formula. I wouldn't think all deflected passes are bad passes because defensive can make great plays. It wouldn't surprise if the lion share of negative effects went on the quarterback rather than receiver given that he's the guy throwing the ball.

SOCALORADO.
07-06-2011, 12:35 PM
So were all in agreement.
Orton sucks and is inaccurate, and Tebow will start and we will see what we got by seasons end, and if TT's the real deal, then great, and if hes not, then we go after Luck or Barkley.
Got it.
(sorry for the run on sentence)

NightTerror218
07-06-2011, 12:38 PM
I am curious as how the NFL fits all that into their formula. I wouldn't think all deflected passes are bad passes because defensive can make great plays. It wouldn't surprise if the lion share of negative effects went on the quarterback rather than receiver given that he's the guy throwing the ball.

I would think it counts against the QB because he is taking a chance through into tight spot or up for grabs on deep balls. But an accurate QB can throw a little high or a little far out to avoid a defender. It is like an interception, if a receiver gets a hand on the ball then the receiver in theory has a chance to intercept the ball too.

TXBRONC
07-06-2011, 12:39 PM
Good catch. Fitzgerald's stats blows that comparison all to hell. Without
separating the possession receivers from the deep receivers, that sets up
invalid comparisons.

Frankly, it's invalid, anyway: There are so many other variables.

-----

All but Wallace are their respective teams number one receiver and as mentioned in another post seven of those guys are considered deep threats including Lloyd. Even so it doesn't matter if you define them a possession receiver or deep threat they still have to catch the rock.

TXBRONC
07-06-2011, 12:42 PM
just to back up what a few had alluded to already -- the argument that the majority of those guys listed were possesion recievers is total bunk.. you could pretty much make a case for every guy not being one.

As I said Top it doesn't matter if you lable a possesion receiver or not they still have to catch the ball. Besides that all but Wallace are their respective team's number one receiver.

T.K.O.
07-06-2011, 12:46 PM
are we looking at the top 10 in the league ? and then saying maybe Lloyd was not that good ?:confused:

vandammage13
07-06-2011, 12:46 PM
are we looking at the top 10 in the league ? and then saying maybe Lloyd was not that good ?:confused:

compared to the others.......still a great season any way you cut the cake.

T.K.O.
07-06-2011, 12:51 PM
Lloyd also commented in an interview recently that he thought it was a good season but would trade all the catches and yards for W's.
also said if he were thrown at 1/2 as many times this year he would make it a mission to catch a higher percentage.
i realize any player should say that,tha is the recievers job.....to catch the freakin' ball
but it's nice to know he is willing to accept a lessor role and play his ass off !
any team needs a lot of those guys !:salute:

Lonestar
07-06-2011, 12:52 PM
I understand that McCoy is a holdover from the McD regime, but make no mistake about it, this offense won't resemble what it looked like last year. I guarantee we will be seeing way more 2 WR sets than we did the last two years.

I suspect if the playbook is the same they plan on running the spread more than you would like and they will run the ball with options to throw to the RB

topscribe
07-06-2011, 12:55 PM
All but Wallace are their respective teams number one receiver and as mentioned in another post seven of those guys are considered deep threats including Lloyd. Even so it doesn't matter if you define them a possession receiver or deep threat they still have to catch the rock.

Take a look at my final sentence. It doesn't matter about the classification of
the receivers, anyway. There are so many other variables that such a
comparison among the receivers is shallow and needs a far more in depth
analysis to come up to anything smacking of validity.

I just don't believe there is any other way you can argue this. :whoknows:

-----

broncohead
07-06-2011, 12:55 PM
I suspect if the playbook is the same they plan on running the spread more than you would like and they will run the ball with options to throw to the RB

I read an interview that said we plan on running the ball a lot more. I believe it came from Fox. It was a while ago

SOCALORADO.
07-06-2011, 01:11 PM
I read an interview that said we plan on running the ball a lot more. I believe it came from Fox. It was a while ago

http://buffalowdown.com/files/2011/04/DeAngeloWilliams_MIP.jpg

http://www5.picturepush.com/photo/a/3719558/480/Pics/Michael-Bush.jpg?v0

Either one.

vandammage13
07-06-2011, 01:13 PM
I suspect if the playbook is the same they plan on running the spread more than you would like and they will run the ball with options to throw to the RB

I'm not opposed to running the spread so long as it is the best fit for the personnel we have and it translates into W's. As long as we are winning I could care less what type of offense we run.

I just happen to think that all signs are pointing toward us having a more run-oriented team this year.

TXBRONC
07-06-2011, 01:58 PM
Take a look at my final sentence. It doesn't matter about the classification of
the receivers, anyway. There are so many other variables that such a
comparison among the receivers is shallow and needs a far more in depth
analysis to come up to anything smacking of validity.

I just don't believe there is any other way you can argue this. :whoknows:

-----

In a response to Jr you said mattered if the receivers were possession receiver or deep threats.

There are always lost variables no matter what position you're looking. If this is invalid then that opens up stats you've brought on other players to the same scrutiny.

NightTerror218
07-06-2011, 02:04 PM
In a response to Jr you said mattered if the receivers were possession receiver or deep threats.

There are always lost variables no matter what position you're looking. If this is invalid then that opens up stats you've brought on other players to same scrutiny.

Like Orton?

TXBRONC
07-06-2011, 02:06 PM
Like Orton?

I'm sure it's a factor for all the receivers on the list.

robert ethan
07-06-2011, 03:25 PM
True way to measure "efficiency" would be yards and touchdowns in relation to targets. You will find that running backs and tight ends have higher completion ratios than anyone on that list. Are they more "efficient" receivers? If that was the case teams would only use short area receivers.

topscribe
07-06-2011, 03:40 PM
In a response to Jr you said mattered if the receivers were possession receiver or deep threats.

There are always lost variables no matter what position you're looking. If this is invalid then that opens up stats you've brought on other players to same scrutiny.

I am not talking about my other quotes, and your allusion to them comprises a
desperately lame response. I am not as prepared to defend them as you are
to attack them because I am not focused on that. But it makes no difference:
I am not going to bite to your baiting, anyway.

Now, regarding my response to JR, many posts have been entered since then.
It is to my credit (even though you think otherwise) that I might have
altered my opinion a bit. That shows open-mindedness on my part (even
though you think otherwise).

That being said, there still remains the neglected variables that could alter
significantly this still shallow comparison among receivers. Your reference
to your opinion of my past posts does not change that fact.


Side Note: It is amazing to me how someone can take a neutral approach
like this and be opposed, including personal dispersions. :tsk:

-----

NightTerror218
07-06-2011, 04:00 PM
I am not talking about my other quotes, and your allusion to them comprises a
desperately lame response. I am not as prepared to defend them as you are
to attack them because I am not focused on that. But it makes no difference:
I am not going to bite to your baiting, anyway.

Now, regarding my response to JR, many posts have been entered since then.
It is to my credit (even though you think otherwise) that I might have
altered my opinion a bit. That shows open-mindedness on my part (even
though you think otherwise).

That being said, there still remains the neglected variables that could alter
significantly this still shallow comparison among receivers. Your reference
to your opinion of my past posts does not change that fact.


Side Note: It is amazing to me how someone can take a neutral approach
like this and be opposed, including personal dispersions. :tsk:

-----


Your "neutral approach" is that this thread is dumb and should not exist because it does not have enough in depth information. An attack on the poster and then you just respond for the sake of responding same people are dumb or lame basically. No point to even speak now is there, unless you want to become the topic of another thread.

vandammage13
07-06-2011, 04:02 PM
Your "neutral approach" is that this thread is dumb and should not exist because it does not have enough in depth information. An attack on the poster and then you just respond for the sake of responding same people are dumb or lame basically. No point to even speak now is there, unless you want to become the topic of another thread.

Perhaps I should have caveated the thread with "discuss your opinions as to why," for Top, but I assumed that this being a discussion board, it was implied.

topscribe
07-06-2011, 04:30 PM
Please. You're being a :drama:

This . . . and you have something to say about my posts?

-----

topscribe
07-06-2011, 04:39 PM
Come on Top I haven't attacked you. Besides you're the toughest drama queen I know. :D

And you cannot seem to be able to stick to the issue. A reference to my
manner of posting is your response. I'm sorry I tried to converse with you.

-----

SOCALORADO.
07-06-2011, 04:47 PM
And you cannot seem to be able to stick to the issue. A reference to my
manner of posting is your response. I'm sorry I tried to converse with you.

-----

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_GIgdkJHWbDw/R_MCZVVBxZI/AAAAAAAAADw/FI2jkmBpUSE/s320/Drama%2520Queen.bmp

TXBRONC
07-06-2011, 04:55 PM
And you cannot seem to be able to stick to the issue. A reference to my
manner of posting is your response. I'm sorry I tried to converse with you.

-----

I'm sorry you feel that way.

topscribe
07-06-2011, 04:55 PM
So that is what this board has come to. He who tries to discuss the topic at
hand and objects to personal references is a drama queen. It distresses me
that this is the type of posters we have seemed to have drawn . . .

-----

topscribe
07-06-2011, 04:56 PM
I'm sorry you feel that way.

No you're not. I know you too well for that . . .

I'm out of here.

-----

TXBRONC
07-06-2011, 04:58 PM
No you're not. I know you too well for that . . .

-----

I've deleted my two responses about you being a drama queen.

T.K.O.
07-06-2011, 05:01 PM
i'm sorry......
in other news the owners apparently scheduled a meeting for the 21st......
oh **** ing hell:mad:

silkamilkamonico
07-06-2011, 05:06 PM
It might be attributed to a number of things, but Lloyd's Targets to Completion ratio does not measure up well against other top WR's last year.

I just used the top 10 WRs by yardage:
http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/player/_/stat/receiving/sort/receivingYards

Brandon Lloyd: 77 REC, 158 TGTs, 50.3%

Roddy White: 115 REC, 179 TGTs, 64.2%

Reggie Wayne: 111 REC, 173 TGTs, 64.1%

Greg Jennings: 76 REC, 125 TGTs, 60.8%

Mike Wallace: 60 REC, 100 TGTs, 60.0%

Andre Johnson: 86 REC, 138 TGTs, 62.3%

Dwayne Bowe: 72 REC, 132 TGTs, 54.5%

Larry Fitzgerald: 90 REC, 174 TGTs, 51.7%

Calvin Johnson: 77 REC, 137 TGTs, 56.2%

Santana Moss: 93 REC, 146 TGTs, 63.6%


B. Lloyd did excel in YPC, TDs, and Total YDS, but in terms of Completion % it was all or nothing with him. He ranked dead last out of the top 10 in this category.

Perhaps it was due to Lloyd primarily being used on the deep ball, or having an average QB throwing him the ball, or perhaps he's just not that good...I just wouldn't expect him to have the same type of year in 2011, especially with the conservative John Fox running the show.

I hope I'm wrong, but I think Lloyd's got 1 year wonder written all over him. He's never shown this type of productivity in 7 previous years, and without McD's system, I feel like we're in for a major dropoff in terms of his production this year.

This list has Larry Fitzgerald only slightly better than Lloyd, and much less efficient than the others. With that being said I'm just going to go ahead and disregard this.

Roddy White and Santana Moss? ROTFLMAOCOPTER

TXBRONC
07-06-2011, 05:10 PM
This list has Larry Fitzgerald only slightly better than Lloyd, and much less efficient than the others. With that being said I'm just going to go ahead and disregard this.

Roddy White and Santana Moss? ROTFLMAOCOPTER

Knowing who was throwing to Fitzgerald puts things into perspective.

Canmore
07-06-2011, 05:22 PM
Knowing who was throwing to Fitzgerald puts things into perspective.

How many quarterbacks did they have chucking the rock last season? Was it four I saw or do I have the wrong team?

Ravage!!!
07-06-2011, 05:42 PM
How many quarterbacks did they have chucking the rock last season? Was it four I saw or do I have the wrong team?

4 had at least one start. 3 Nearly had 100 passes or more (one had 78). The only one that completed more than 51 % was the one QB that completed 16 of 28 passes for the season (57%).

Anderson
Skelton
Hall
Bartel

Canmore
07-06-2011, 05:52 PM
4 had at least one start. 3 Nearly had 100 passes or more (one had 78). The only one that completed more than 51 % was the one QB that completed 16 of 28 passes for the season (57%).

Anderson
Skelton
Hall
Bartel

That's just insane. No possible way to build any offensive continuity that way. With that list, it's easy enough to see why it's a possible landing spot for Kyle Orton.

MOtorboat
07-06-2011, 05:57 PM
Roddy White and Santana Moss? ROTFLMAOCOPTER

So, um, newsflash: Roddy White is one of the best wide receivers in the league, Mmmkay?

TXBRONC
07-06-2011, 06:11 PM
4 had at least one start. 3 Nearly had 100 passes or more (one had 78). The only one that completed more than 51 % was the one QB that completed 16 of 28 passes for the season (57%).

Anderson
Skelton
Hall
Bartel


That's just insane. No possible way to build any offensive continuity that way. With that list, it's easy enough to see why it's a possible landing spot for Kyle Orton.

One of my first posts I went back and put the quarterback(s) by each receiver's name. To me that puts things into perspective. IIRC the guys with highest percentages have an very good to elite quarterback throwing to them. The guy chucking the rock makes a world of difference.

Ravage!!!
07-06-2011, 06:13 PM
One of my first posts I went back and put the quarterback(s) by each receiver's name. To me that puts things into perspective. IIRC the guys with highest percentages have an very good to elite quarterback throwing to them. The guy chucking the rock makes world of difference.

Its not a coincidence that the greatest WR of all time spent his entire career catching passes from two HoF QBs.

NightTerror218
07-06-2011, 06:15 PM
Its not a coincidence that the greatest WR of all time spent his entire career catching passes from two HoF QBs.

But he also was amazing after the catch too and was able to make the space for catches. Jerry Rice was all around amazing to watch.

MOtorboat
07-06-2011, 06:17 PM
One of my first posts I went back and put the quarterback(s) by each receiver's name. To me that puts things into perspective. IIRC the guys with highest percentages have an very good to elite quarterback throwing to them. The guy chucking the rock makes world of difference.

Its not a coincidence that the greatest WR of all time spent his entire career catching passes from two HoF QBs.

I know Jerry Rice is the GOAT, but i honestly believe Randy Moss is the BEST receiver i have ever seen. Now, don't get me wrong, he doesn't go down as GOAT...that belongs to Jerry, I'm just saying he was the BEST pure receiver of the football. And he had two mediocre quarterbacks and then one HOF quarterback throwing to him (He made Culpepper great, I believe the only wide receiver to make a quarterback good, ever).

TXBRONC
07-06-2011, 06:22 PM
But he also was amazing after the catch too and was able to make the space for catches. Jerry Rice was all around amazing to watch.

This is true but two guys throwing to him both had completion percentages above 60%. In fact both Young and Montana each a full season where they completed 70% of their passes.

Canmore
07-06-2011, 06:24 PM
One of my first posts I went back and put the quarterback(s) by each receiver's name. To me that puts things into perspective. IIRC the guys with highest percentages have an very good to elite quarterback throwing to them. The guy chucking the rock makes a world of difference.

No doubt about it. That why we are searching so desperately for the next franchise quarterback.

TXBRONC
07-06-2011, 06:32 PM
I know Jerry Rice is the GOAT, but i honestly believe Randy Moss is the BEST receiver i have ever seen. Now, don't get me wrong, he doesn't go down as GOAT...that belongs to Jerry, I'm just saying he was the BEST pure receiver of the football. And he had two mediocre quarterbacks and then one HOF quarterback throwing to him (He made Culpepper great, I believe the only wide receiver to make a quarterback good, ever).

Most definitely pure physical talent Randy Moss was one best pure deep threats the game has seen.

NightTerror218
07-06-2011, 06:39 PM
Most definitely pure physical talent Randy Moss was one best pure deep threats the game has seen.

Moss had a great style for the way he would go against a corner, using his size he would jump and lean into them and let the ball come to him while his body is between the ball and receiver. It was unblockable because of his reach and height over them, they would have to go through him to catch the ball.

SOCALORADO.
07-07-2011, 08:19 AM
I've deleted my two responses about you being a drama queen.

I too will remove my awsome drama queen pic if it will make top come out and play again.

silkamilkamonico
07-07-2011, 04:49 PM
Knowing who was throwing to Fitzgerald puts things into perspective.

I could make that same argument about Kyle Orton. When Orton threw Lloyds way, but threw the ball out of bounds, to they count those as targets?


So, um, newsflash: Roddy White is one of the best wide receivers in the league, Mmmkay?

What's Larry Fitzgerald and Santana Moss's excuse?

MOtorboat
07-07-2011, 04:59 PM
What's Larry Fitzgerald and Santana Moss's excuse?

:confused:

Roddy White was tops on that list. He's talented and has a good quarterback. I guess I have no idea what point you're trying to make...

Shananahan
07-07-2011, 05:28 PM
Most definitely pure physical talent Randy Moss was one best pure deep threats the game has seen.
I don't think there's been anybody truly better than Moss, physically. I mean there are some guys who are probably up there at the top with him, like Megatron, etc, but I can't think of anybody who has/had more to offer from a talent standpoint.

Jerry Porter, maybe?

Northman
07-08-2011, 05:02 AM
Yeah I was surprised to see Fitzgerald so low, until I remembered who he had throwing him the ball. As average as I think Orton is, those guys they were starting down in AZ were downright terrible.

And thats the crux of it. Both Bowe and Fitz had average to poor QB's to work with. When you look at the rest of the list the QB's they have are top of the line and thus better percentages. While i agree that Lloyd will probably only be a one year wonder based off his career until we see him with a stellar QB its hard to measure how good he can be.

Lonestar
07-08-2011, 11:23 PM
But he also was amazing after the catch too and was able to make the space for catches. Jerry Rice was all around amazing to watch.

he was ROD SMith with more talent.. he was driven and worked harder than anyone else in improving the game..

does anyone think that just maybe he was a huge factor in those "two" QB being HOF guys.. maybe even the scheme they were playing.

MOtorboat
07-08-2011, 11:44 PM
he was ROD SMith with more talent.. he was driven and worked harder than anyone else in improving the game..

does anyone think that just maybe he was a huge factor in those "two" QB being HOF guys.. maybe even the scheme they were playing.

He was great, but no, on both accounts. Montana and Young are Hall of Famers on their own. Same with Rice. Together, they become legends, which they are.

Lonestar
07-08-2011, 11:53 PM
He was great, but no, on both accounts. Montana and Young are Hall of Famers on their own. Same with Rice. Together, they become legends, which they are.

I guess that we may have to agree to disagree.

I doubt seriously that Monatan and I loved the guy would have made it big elsewhere without a "cannon arm" and being shorter than most QB at the time..the scheme was almost made for his skills .. would he have been a HOF QB without bill Walsh and his genius I doubt that very much Now steve young is another story all together a great athlete over all with a great arm. who was surrounded by lots of talent loads in fact.

do not get me wrong Montana played well in KC, but had Walsh not been in FO when he got there I think he would have been another ND QB failure good but not a star. who would have bounced around the league

night folks time to head for home..

tubby
07-09-2011, 12:29 AM
WTF is the point of this thread anyway?

Lets look at first down % and ypc. Lloyd pwns. the end. Great year. Lets just hope it can continue. Either way the Broncos are set at WR. Really high on Eric Decker personally.