Browns Official 53 Man Roster, Future Draft Picks

[Out of the Rafters at the Q]

As a constraint play sure. But your most targeted receiver shouldn't be running so many short routes. Doesn't make for an efficient offense.

The receiver who consistently gets open is going to get targeted. Sure, it'd be nice if every play went for 20+ but that's not reality.

Again, I think your really misconstruing what modern efficiency in other sports means and how it doesn't apply to the NFL. In the NBA, it's incredibly simple. You want the highest number of points per possession. In the NFL, yards per play isn't a good measure because teams don't get equal amounts of plays. If you get 10 yards, you get a new set of downs. So, you can't strictly say that plays that have a higher average number of yards are even better because you're not factoring in success rate.

4 plays, 1 of them goes for 30 yards, the next 3 all go for zero. You punt, but your yards per play is 7.5

4 plays, each of them goes for 5 yards. Your yards per play is 5 but you're marching the ball down the field and dominating the opposing team.

By your definitions, scenario 1 is more "efficient" but this is why I say you're not even using that word correctly, because it's not efficient.

You're judging a WR by things like yards per target, yards per reception, things that just don't matter.

If you want to look at advanced metrics and begin to evaluate efficiency in offenses, you could look at the percentage of successful plays, successful drives, or points scored per possession.

You understand that you can design plays to get different players open

Of course. What is your point here?

and that you [have?] different reads, right?

Again, of course we understand this. But what is your point?

If our only open guy is underneath

Then you throw him the ball. Agreed?

Baker's first read is an underneath guy

I don't believe this is the case. In the NFL, a decent QB's first read is going to be based off the defense. You use pre-snap motion to try and determine what defense they're using and who you should key off of. More often than not, that means identifying zone vs man, and reading where the safeties are shading. If it's zone, you know your routes and how they fit into the different zone defenses that the defense could be shifting into. If it's man, there's going to be a safety that the QB identifies as doubling (helping over the top) one of the primary receivers. In that situation, the QB's primary read is typically going to be a downfield route that avoids the double coverage. If another player shifts to help take away that primary read, then the QB's eyes turn towards the middle of the field. Again, it's a gross simplification of a modern offense, but for this discussion, it's probably more detail than required. Think anyone's still reading my wall of text?

thats not a very efficient offense.

You gave two scenarios. If our only open guy is underneath, dude, you have a completed pass and a way to continue to move the ball down the field, picking up first downs. In your scenario where "Baker's first read is an underneath guy" are you saying that Kitchens is calling plays where this is the case? Because, again, that's just not how a modern offense works. If Baker reads blitz, his first read might be hot, but that's because a blitzing defense leaves holes in the playing field for your playmaker to gain yardage.

It isn't like who gets open is completely random

Agreed. Sometimes, if you're in man coverage, it's based off a player's ability to get open (or if they're running a route that typically beats man coverage like a drag). If you're in zone coverage, it's more based off scheme. Typically, in any play, you have a mixture of routes that are designed to be man beaters and zone beaters.

or solely based on receiver skill

Nobody ever said "solely" but I'm glad you're admitting it plays a part.

Maybe Baker is being coached to throw to Landry

And... we've lost you again. No QB is being coached to throw the ball to a specific receiver. If you believe this is a possibility, I don't think we have a common ground to continue an honest discussion on this topic. I'd also be shocked and disappointed by how stupid you believe Kitchens is.

or routes are being called where Landry is his first read

See above where I've gone over how reads work.

You can absolutely change your offense so that other players can get open.

Are you saying that the Browns didn't take enough downfield shots last year? Because, I hate to break it to you, but last season after Kitchens took over as OC, we:

• Led the NFL in yards per play (6.86)
• Tied for the league lead in yards per pass attempt (8.72)
• 4th in yards per game (395.1)
• 4th in passing yards per game (285.9)
• 23.75 points per game (14th)

ALL WITH JARVIS LANDRY AS OUR MOST TARGETED PLAYER

Not necessarily. Could just be flawed play designs.

I think it's just flawed analysis and based on irrelevant metrics.

I think you are conflating skills with production.

Skill leads to production. Of course there are other variables involved, but if all variables were equal, an increase in skill leads to an increase in production.

Of course Jarvis can get open.

Glad to see you acknowledge this point.

But for his career he hasn't been good at turning "being open" into efficient yardage.

He's been one of the best receivers in the league at turning a pass attempt into a positive play. He, actually, has been one of the MOST efficient players in the league. Or, are we saying that creating a positive play out of uncertainty isn't efficient?

He can catch a lot of balls on a lot of touches

Agreed

but it doesn't translate into efficient offense.

Strong disagree. Again, I don't agree with your definition of "efficient." You're conflating yards per play with efficiency. The two are absolutely not equal, as shown above.

If him being open isn't helping the offense that much

It is. There's no need for this hypothetical. An open receiver is always going to help the offense, whether or not the QB throws him the ball.

I don't think there's a single team in the league that would claim having a receiver who can get open in short windows and be a reliable pass catcher for his QB isn't an amazing thing to have. Edelman just won Super Bowl MVP doing the exact same thing with less YAC ability than Jarvis. I also think that you're trying to apply a lot of what we use to evaluate the NBA to the NFL--and it doesn't translate directly.

 

[FiveThous]

So if he had 13 more yards that season you would be cool with him?

He didn't though.

 

[Lee]

He didn't though.

But if my Aunt had a dick she would be my Uncle.

This argument is a bit ridiculous. Jarvis is a very nice player, he isnt an elite WR though. He was a bit over rated in Miami, probably slightly overpaid for now until WR start making 25-30 mill in a couple years.

But Jarvis is a sure handed slot WR and one of the top 5 slot WR in the league, probably top 3. He isnt an outside WR that stretches the field, but he knows how to get open and he catches the ball. He is a first down maker so you can throw later to your TD maker.

Top 20 WR? probably not, top 30? Yes.

 

[Out of the Rafters at the Q]

But if my Aunt had a dick she would be my Uncle.

This argument is a bit ridiculous. Jarvis is a very nice player, he isnt an elite WR though. He was a bit over rated in Miami, probably slightly overpaid for now until WR start making 25-30 mill in a couple years.

But Jarvis is a sure handed slot WR and one of the top 5 slot WR in the league, probably top 3. He isnt an outside WR that stretches the field, but he knows how to get open and he catches the ball. He is a first down maker so you can throw later to your TD maker.

Top 20 WR? probably not, top 30? Yes.

You know how hard I'll defend Jarvis, but the wording gets fuzzy when you call Landry a top 5 slot receiver in today's NFL. When guys like Tyreek and Michael Thomas play a ton out of the slot, the prototypical slot receivers like Jarvis and Edelman get bumped way down.

I'd put Tyreek, Thomas, Keenan Allen as top three, with a healthy Kupp definitely in my #4 spot. Then it's up to your preference of Jarvis, Edelman, Juju, Tate, Shephard, etc... and don't forget old man Fitz too.

If you're gonna take the prototypical X receivers who just happen to play slot a bunch out of the equation, then I'm good with putting Jarvis solidly in the top 5. I'm really high on Cooper Kupp, but I think I'd take Landry next.

 

[FiveThous]

But if my Aunt had a dick she would be my Uncle.

This argument is a bit ridiculous. Jarvis is a very nice player, he isnt an elite WR though. He was a bit over rated in Miami, probably slightly overpaid for now until WR start making 25-30 mill in a couple years.

But Jarvis is a sure handed slot WR and one of the top 5 slot WR in the league, probably top 3. He isnt an outside WR that stretches the field, but he knows how to get open and he catches the ball. He is a first down maker so you can throw later to your TD maker.

Top 20 WR? probably not, top 30? Yes.

This is literally the point I made a year ago.

 

[Lee]

You know how hard I'll defend Jarvis, but the wording gets fuzzy when you call Landry a top 5 slot receiver in today's NFL. When guys like Tyreek and Michael Thomas play a ton out of the slot, the prototypical slot receivers like Jarvis and Edelman get bumped way down.

I'd put Tyreek, Thomas, Keenan Allen as top three, with a healthy Kupp definitely in my #4 spot. Then it's up to your preference of Jarvis, Edelman, Juju, Tate, Shephard, etc... and don't forget old man Fitz too.

If you're gonna take the prototypical X receivers who just happen to play slot a bunch out of the equation, then I'm good with putting Jarvis solidly in the top 5. I'm really high on Cooper Kupp, but I think I'd take Landry next.

Tyreek is a slot to me, and for sure #1 slot, as Thomas only plays slot to confuse the defense as he is really outside. Kupp cant stay healthy, which staying healthy is a top trait. I take Jarvis over Edelman, tate and Shephard, but JuJu is a top 10 reciever and would love to have him.

But you are right, i doubt i take Jarvis top 5 slot, lets say top 10 slot when you think of slots, top 25 over all?

 

[Out of the Rafters at the Q]

Tyreek is a slot to me, and for sure #1 slot, as Thomas only plays slot to confuse the defense as he is really outside. Kupp cant stay healthy, which staying healthy is a top trait. I take Jarvis over Edelman, tate and Shephard, but JuJu is a top 10 reciever and would love to have him.

But you are right, i doubt i take Jarvis top 5 slot, lets say top 10 slot when you think of slots, top 25 over all?

I'm definitely good with calling him top 10 among today's slot receivers.

Overall? I'm not sure... top 30 seems right. I'd have to make a list.

 

[Lee]

This is literally the point I made a year ago.

Yeah, but players like Kupp, Hill, and JuJu are redefining what you can do out of the slot, i got proven wrong, top 10 slot for sure though.

These modern offenses are so fun, love how creative some are.

Another thing not being mentioned about Jarvis that has value.....leadership

 

[Lee]

I'm definitely good with calling him top 10 among today's slot receivers.

Overall? I'm not sure... top 30 seems right. I'd have to make a list.

Personally my list starts with Hopkins, then Julio Jones....but .you couldnt pay me right now to take on AB though.

 

[col63onel]

4 plays, 1 of them goes for 30 yards, the next 3 all go for zero. You punt, but your yards per play is 7.5

4 plays, each of them goes for 5 yards. Your yards per play is 5 but you're marching the ball down the field and dominating the opposing team.

20 yards is dominating the other team? And 3 straight in completions? You're really reaching for an extreme example to make your point. You think I am advocating for an offense that has a 25% completion percentage? That's such an outlier, it's an absurd comparison.

Problem with your "5 yards a play model" is stuff like penalties and and sacks. If you try and dink and dunk down the field, eventually, you run into a bad play and can't convert a 3rd and long.

So even in your extreme example, your offense is not going to work. It may be better than your 25% completion offense you made up.

I don't believe this is the case. In the NFL, a decent QB's first read is going to be based off the defense. You use pre-snap motion to try and determine what defense they're using and who you should key off of. More often than not, that means identifying zone vs man, and reading where the safeties are shading. If it's zone, you know your routes and how they fit into the different zone defenses that the defense could be shifting into. If it's man, there's going to be a safety that the QB identifies as doubling (helping over the top) one of the primary receivers. In that situation, the QB's primary read is typically going to be a downfield route that avoids the double coverage. If another player shifts to help take away that primary read, then the QB's eyes turn towards the middle of the field. Again, it's a gross simplification of a modern offense, but for this discussion, it's probably more detail than required.

I know all this. Whats your point?

Are you saying that the Browns didn't take enough downfield shots last year? Because, I hate to break it to you, but last season after Kitchens took over as OC, we:

• Led the NFL in yards per play (6.86)
• Tied for the league lead in yards per pass attempt (8.72)
• 4th in yards per game (395.1)
• 4th in passing yards per game (285.9)
• 23.75 points per game (14th)

ALL WITH JARVIS LANDRY AS OUR MOST TARGETED PLAYER

It was also a on 6.9 targets a game, which would have equaled a career low, and over a full year would have put him the 30s in the NFL. During the first 8 weeks , he was targeted 11.8 per game. It's amazing that as we targeted him less, our offense got WAY better. And he was about the 4th or 5th most efficient pass catcher on the team during that stretch. It's more like he was a competent receiver.

So when we treated him like a #1, our offense sucked. When he treated him like a high end #2, our offense was great. I don't think that's a coincidence.

And why did he get less targets? Was he getting open less? Or did Freddie realize overtargeting him was bad?

Strong disagree. Again, I don't agree with your definition of "efficient." You're conflating yards per play with efficiency.

Jarvis' career ypt is 7.0. The last time 7.0 ypa for a QB would land in the top half of the league was 2007. Last year, it would've been 25th. Make up all the alternate definitions of efficient you want, he's solidly below average.

The two are absolutely not equal, as shown above.

You mean your BS example where a QB has a 25% completion percentage?

Think anyone's still reading my wall of text?

No and I'm done too. You were a dick to me in the Indians board and you're condescending here. I am done with this line of argument. Feel free to have the last word. I don't care.

 

[Out of the Rafters at the Q]

.

 

[Out of the Rafters at the Q]

It was also a on 6.9 targets a game, which would have equaled a career low, and over a full year would have put him the 30s in the NFL. During the first 8 weeks , he was targeted 11.8 per game. It's amazing that as we targeted him less, our offense got WAY better. And he was about the 4th or 5th most efficient pass catcher on the team during that stretch. It's more like he was a competent receiver.

So when we treated him like a #1, our offense sucked. When he treated him like a high end #2, our offense was great. I don't think that's a coincidence.

And why did he get less targets? Was he getting open less? Or did Freddie realize overtargeting him was bad?

I like this part of the post. There's some good stuff in here. But, are you really saying that the amount of targets Jarvis Landry received were one of the biggest changes on this team? Because, we all know that's not the case. You're picking a tiny variable needle out of a haystack of Hue Jackson.

Even at 6.9 targets per game, Jarvis Landry was the most targeted receiver on one of the best offenses in football.

Why did he get fewer targets? Most likely because we have a good QB who can read a field without zeroing in on his first read. The way Tyrod was forcing the ball to Landry with late throws was terrible, terrible offense. Targeting a guy 12 times a game probably isn't productive either--I'm certainly not arguing for that (even targeting OBJ 12 times would be high).

Back to the actual issue at hand, you can't say that Higgins's productivity on a per-target basis would stay consistent if you force him the ball more.

Do I hope our offense generates more open downfield shots? Hell yes. Do I think that our 3rd receiver is going to benefit from the amount of safety help that OBJ is going to demand? Of course (but I like Njokue's outlook even more). Does any of this mean that Jarvis Landry isn't good, productive, or efficient? No.

And, since you missed it, the point of the incredibly simple hyperbole scenario is to point out that yards per target do not indicate an efficient offense. We AGREE on this, as you said the first example isn't an efficient offense. At it's simplest, most basic form, yards per target do not indicate an efficient offense. Once you can agree on that, then the next point I'm trying to get you to is realizing that yards per target also do not indicate a receiver's talent or value on the field.

You shouldn't let discussions on a message board get to you man.

 

[J_J]

If we did not have Jarvis, we would not have OBJ. Even Taylor as well. Jarvis’s leadership is very underrated.

 

[Soda]

Moving the ball is valuable. If you're able to do something consistently, like run the ball, or get open for short easy completions, you're either going to be unstoppable doing that, or the defense is going to adjust which opens up other facets of the offense.

Yes. Efficacy matters in football. That's been JL's calling card & I'm a fan of it.

 

[Hurl Bruce]

That 2021 batch of draft picks is really piling up. 11 picks overall. Need that first page updated.