Joe Thomas Fan Club
- May 3, 2008
- Reaction score
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.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).
Saying he's not that efficient isn't the same as saying he's bad. It's saying he isn't great.