• Our developer will be working on RCF over the next few weeks. Things may look wonky at times, normal functions may not work or dissappear completely. It's the nature of the beast but we'll try to make sure this is painless as possible.

Browns Official 53 Man Roster, Future Draft Picks

col63onel

Joe Thomas Fan Club
Joined
May 3, 2008
Messages
14,837
Reaction score
15,102
Points
223
Because, in this sport, what you define as "efficiency" is next to worthless. Efficiency is trying to measure the amount of output given similar input. The input a short-yardage slot receiver like Landry (or Edelman, Golden Tate, etc) is not the same as an ancillary weapon who runs deeper routes. Landry's job isn't to gain inside leverage on a corner 30 yards downfield on a post route. It's to use his ability to get open to consistently get open underneath in man coverage, or to find the soft spot in a zone coverage.

I don't know if it's the (trashy) fantasy football pundits talking about volume over talent, or if it's our desire to apply the advanced metrics that fit baseball and basketball to football. Either way, disregarding a player's talents is foolish. If you want to criticize Landry for his unusually bad season in terms of drops last year? Go for it--they were inexcusable and I'd bet on them not re-occurring. But, if you want to take a guy whose talent is getting open in small windows, and then criticize him because his targets aren't further downfield, or his YAC isn't as high as someone who catches the ball with more space to operate? That's as foolish as criticizing a fish for not being able to climb a tree.

Getting open is a talent. You don't average 150 targets a season if you can't get open. Landry beating a man underneath will either be death by a thousand cuts, or it will force the defense to adjust, which then opens up other things like the running game or a downfield threat (or even Landry himself going downfield after a corner jumps a double move).
No one is saying he's not a good football player or that he has no talent. Just that his production, both last year and for his career, doesn't justify his contract or how many targets he gets. What he is good at isn't as valuable as other receivers.

Saying he's not that efficient isn't the same as saying he's bad. It's saying he isn't great.
 

Out of the Rafters at the Q

Out of the Rafters
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
5,356
Reaction score
7,037
Points
113
No one is saying he's not a good football player or that he has no talent. Just that his production, both last year and for his career, doesn't justify his contract or how many targets he gets. What he is good at isn't as valuable as other receivers.

Saying he's not that efficient isn't the same as saying he's bad. It's saying he isn't great.
When you talk about production, what do you mean? What do you deem valuable?

I'll say that earning 150+ targets a year is incredibly valuable production.

It feels like your logic implies that targets are equal and that a WR can be targeted on any play. I'm sure you'd agree that would be foolish.

Higgins isn't getting open with the same regularity as someone like Landry, so he won't see as many targets. And that's expected. Higgins's routes aren't the same routes as Jarvis's.
 

col63onel

Joe Thomas Fan Club
Joined
May 3, 2008
Messages
14,837
Reaction score
15,102
Points
223
When you talk about production, what do you mean? What do you deem valuable?

I'll say that earning 150+ targets a year is incredibly valuable production.
It depends what you do with those targets. Getting the ball thrown to you a bunch and not getting a lot of yards from it isn't as valuable.

It's the whole reason why teams pass more than they run. You on average get more yards out of a passing target than rushing target, and a bigger chance of a big play. Just feeding someone the ball so they have good counting numbers at the end of the day doesn't mean it was wise to give them all those touches.

Similarly, you want to target WRs that get you more yards when you target them.

It feels like your logic implies that targets are equal and that a WR can be targeted on any play. I'm sure you'd agree that would be foolish.
I have no idea how you get that. You're the one saying getting 150+ targets is valuable on its own. It seems like you're saying targets are equal if simply having more of them means more value.

Higgins isn't getting open with the same regularity as someone like Landry, so he won't see as many targets. And that's expected. Higgins's routes aren't the same routes as Jarvis's.
And the Browns get more yards from a Higgins target than a Landry target on average. So Higgins routes are better for the Browns and I think they'd be better if they threw him the ball more. Or to Njoku or Callaway (when he's back).
 

jking948

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
9,121
Reaction score
14,608
Points
123
Because, in this sport, what you define as "efficiency" is next to worthless. Efficiency is trying to measure the amount of output given similar input. The input a short-yardage slot receiver like Landry (or Edelman, Golden Tate, etc) is not the same as an ancillary weapon who runs deeper routes. Landry's job isn't to gain inside leverage on a corner 30 yards downfield on a post route. It's to use his ability to get open to consistently get open underneath in man coverage, or to find the soft spot in a zone coverage.

I don't know if it's the (trashy) fantasy football pundits talking about volume over talent, or if it's our desire to apply the advanced metrics that fit baseball and basketball to football. Either way, disregarding a player's talents is foolish. If you want to criticize Landry for his unusually bad season in terms of drops last year? Go for it--they were inexcusable and I'd bet on them not re-occurring. But, if you want to take a guy whose talent is getting open in small windows, and then criticize him because his targets aren't further downfield, or his YAC isn't as high as someone who catches the ball with more space to operate? That's as foolish as criticizing a fish for not being able to climb a tree.

Getting open is a talent. You don't average 150 targets a season if you can't get open. Landry beating a man underneath will either be death by a thousand cuts, or it will force the defense to adjust, which then opens up other things like the running game or a downfield threat (or even Landry himself going downfield after a corner jumps a double move).
I actually think most legit analytics people in the NFL would tell you that metrics used to evaluate X and Y receivers should not be used for a slot receiver.

I.E., something like "average depth of target" is a great way to start an evaluation on a guy like OBJ. Slot guys should be different, though, because of what they do to the middle of the field. There are certain metrics that evaluate how a receiver attracts attention, and my guess is Landry is attracting a DB and linebacker on most 11 and 0 plays this season.

FWIW, I actually think Landry is somewhat overrated. He does have certain weaknesses that teams may pay attention to if the Browns are killing it in the middle of the field. But at this point, Landry is the best solution the team has at preventing inside rushes from getting to Baker, because lord knows our offensive line won't provide that protection.
 

Soda

Listen To The Kids!
Joined
Feb 21, 2008
Messages
14,684
Reaction score
12,407
Points
123
And the Browns get more yards from a Higgins target than a Landry target on average. So Higgins routes are better for the Browns and I think they'd be better if they threw him the ball more. Or to Njoku or Callaway (when he's back).
This theory doesn't take into account the increase in coverage skill/attention that one gets when targeted more frequently. I think we all have heard the POV and some simply don't agree.
 

col63onel

Joe Thomas Fan Club
Joined
May 3, 2008
Messages
14,837
Reaction score
15,102
Points
223
This theory doesn't take into account the increase in coverage skill/attention that one gets when targeted more frequently. I think we all have heard the POV and some simply don't agree.
Giving Higgins 1 or 2 more targets a game isn't going to drastically shift how teams guard him.

I'd love for OBJ to get a good chunk of targets (10+) a game, and split the remaining targets amongst everybody else. If teams continue to give Landry a lot of attention, and Higgins is still getting favorable matchups, then give Higgins more touches. If teams start letting Landry run free, then give some more targets, but now he'll be way more efficient.

I just don't see why anyone would insist on giving Landry so many targets when we have so many other efficient weapons. If teams just stop covering him, then fine. But if they play him like they have their entire career, spread the ball around more.
 

FiveThous

His name was Sashi Brown
Joined
Dec 21, 2008
Messages
6,657
Reaction score
4,347
Points
113
I'm still in the restructure Landry & keep Higgins camp.

Is Higgins a "must keep"? Probably not.

However, I do think some are really underestimating how much it means to have a non-#1 WR that a QB trusts & has an obvious connection with.

Keep & restructure Landry, have him keep eating in the slot. Keep Higgins & have him keep eating in that role.

I'm not advocating overpaying Higgins, but I'd do what I could, within reason, to keep him.
This is my exact thought with Jarvis & Higgins.
 

Out of the Rafters at the Q

Out of the Rafters
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
5,356
Reaction score
7,037
Points
113
It depends what you do with those targets. Getting the ball thrown to you a bunch and not getting a lot of yards from it isn't as valuable.
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.
It's the whole reason why teams pass more than they run.
There are lots of reasons for this. I'm not sure what your antecedent is here so I can't comment further.
You on average get more yards out of a passing target than rushing target, and a bigger chance of a big play. Just feeding someone the ball so they have good counting numbers at the end of the day doesn't mean it was wise to give them all those touches.
Here's where you lose me. Again, it sounds like you think that a receiver can be targeted on any play, or that an effective slot receiver is just being fed the ball to increase counting stats. Like, you realize neither of those statements is based in reality, right? Are you claiming that Baker is consistently disregarding an open receiver downfield just to force the ball to a covered Landry?

Similarly, you want to target WRs that get you more yards when you target them.
This is where it goes from confusing to just flat out wrong. You're insinuating that Baker is eschewing a productive play for a crappier opportunity. That's just not how football works. If you get open, you get targeted. If a receiver isn't being targeted, guess what? That dude's probably not getting open.

And the Browns get more yards from a Higgins target than a Landry target on average. So Higgins routes are better for the Browns and I think they'd be better if they threw him the ball more. Or to Njoku or Callaway (when he's back).
Again man, you can't just say "Because this guy runs deeper routes, we need to force him the ball more!"

Go on Game Pass, look at the routes Higgins runs. Show me all the times when Baker missed him because he "forced the ball" to someone else.

We have a good QB. We have a good offense. When players get open, Baker can get them the ball. Jarvis Landry just happens to be really damn good at getting open. Rashard Higgins is a good receiver, but consistently getting open with short area quickness is not a talent he possesses. That's always going to lead to him getting fewer targets than players who possess that ability.

This doesn't mean the answer is to throw the ball to Higgins more. The answer it to take your shots when they're good shots--and to take your chain movers when they're open.
 

Out of the Rafters at the Q

Out of the Rafters
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
5,356
Reaction score
7,037
Points
113
I just don't see why anyone would insist on giving Landry so many targets when we have so many other efficient weapons. If teams just stop covering him, then fine. But if they play him like they have their entire career, spread the ball around more.
Why do you feel like we're "assigning" targets to guys?

If a guy gets open, he gets targeted. We're not doling them out ahead of time.
 

col63onel

Joe Thomas Fan Club
Joined
May 3, 2008
Messages
14,837
Reaction score
15,102
Points
223
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.
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.
Here's where you lose me. Again, it sounds like you think that a receiver can be targeted on any play, or that an effective slot receiver is just being fed the ball to increase counting stats. Like, you realize neither of those statements is based in reality, right? Are you claiming that Baker is consistently disregarding an open receiver downfield just to force the ball to a covered Landry?
You understand that you can design plays to get different players open and that you different reads, right? If our only open guy is underneath, or Baker's first read is often an underneath guy, thats not a very efficient offense. It isn't like who gets open is completely random or solely based on receiver skill. Maybe Baker is being coached to throw to Landry, or routes are being called where Landry is his first read. You can absolutely change your offense so that other players can get open.
This is where it goes from confusing to just flat out wrong. You're insinuating that Baker is eschewing a productive play for a crappier opportunity. That's just not how football works. If you get open, you get targeted. If a receiver isn't being targeted, guess what? That dude's probably not getting open.
Not necessarily. Could just be flawed play designs.
Jarvis Landry just happens to be really damn good at getting open.
I think you are conflating skills with production. Of course Jarvis can get open. But for his career he hasn't been good at turning "being open" into efficient yardage. He can catch a lot of balls on a lot of touches, but it doesn't translate into efficient offense. If him being open isn't helping the offense that much, then it's not that as useful a skill as some may think.
 

FiveThous

His name was Sashi Brown
Joined
Dec 21, 2008
Messages
6,657
Reaction score
4,347
Points
113
Props to all of you carrying the Jarvis isn't efficient torch. I was tired after trying to enlighten the masses after we acquired and extended him.
 

bob2the2nd

member 32
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
16,075
Reaction score
10,828
Points
123
Props to all of you carrying the Jarvis isn't efficient torch. I was tired after trying to enlighten the masses after we acquired and extended him.
In 5 years he is a 4 time pro bowler that hasn't missed a game, averages almost 100 receptions a year, and catches 67% of his targets. 2 years ago he had the 5th best catch percentage of any reciever with more than 100 targets, 3 years ago he was 4th, 4 years ago 9th, 5 years ago 1st.

But he is inefficient. Thanks for that.
 

AZ_

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
36,559
Reaction score
38,446
Points
148
In 5 years he is a 4 time pro bowler that hasn't missed a game, averages almost 100 receptions a year, and catches 67% of his targets. 2 years ago he had the 5th best catch percentage of any reciever with more than 100 targets, 3 years ago he was 4th, 4 years ago 9th, 5 years ago 1st.

But he is inefficient. Thanks for that.
His aDot sort of spoke for itself in those most efficient years.

He’s a really nice player.
 

FiveThous

His name was Sashi Brown
Joined
Dec 21, 2008
Messages
6,657
Reaction score
4,347
Points
113
In 5 years he is a 4 time pro bowler that hasn't missed a game, averages almost 100 receptions a year, and catches 67% of his targets. 2 years ago he had the 5th best catch percentage of any reciever with more than 100 targets, 3 years ago he was 4th, 4 years ago 9th, 5 years ago 1st.

But he is inefficient. Thanks for that.
Any WR that catches 100 balls and can't break 1000 yards will NEVER be good to me. I don't care if he played on the worst offense in NFL history. Jarvis is set up for success this season as a 3rd/4th option. He should thrive in his ideal role.
 

bob2the2nd

member 32
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
16,075
Reaction score
10,828
Points
123
Any WR that catches 100 balls and can't break 1000 yards will NEVER be good to me. I don't care if he played on the worst offense in NFL history. Jarvis is set up for success this season as a 3rd/4th option. He should thrive in his ideal role.
So if he had 13 more yards that season you would be cool with him?
 

Humane Society of Summit County

Total amount
$1,540.00
Goal
$1,500.00
Donation ends:

Radio

Top