قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Sports / NFL Draft 2019: These are the WR numbers that should be relevant to teams

NFL Draft 2019: These are the WR numbers that should be relevant to teams



Here's a quick look under your hood: In February, the process of creating the NFL offseason app from SB Nation started with a semi-blind exercise from my side. I looked at the statistical profiles of each NFL team, listed strengths and weaknesses, and asked myself, "If I did not know about this roster, what would be my needs for 2019?" [19659002] Occasionally, the process was a bit strange – "The efficiency of the Seahawks was missing, especially on the descent? Normally, I would say they might need a better QB … "- but mostly it was enlightening.

It also helped to emphasize how many teams need additional help from recipients. With all the talk about an offensive revolution in the NFL, this revolution has left a lot of teams behind.

Since I mention four presumptive needs for each team, I finally mentioned 20 times wide receivers. More than 60 percent of the league could use recipient assistance. Some obviously need more help than others, but this would be a very good time for a WR premium design award.

This WR class does not necessarily have a "bounty" reputation, but it may not give top-1

0 overall prospects, the depth is not bad.

As we did last year, let's dive into the college statistics of the 2019 recipient outlook to find out what we can find out. Here are the main processes when we went through this exercise in the last year:

1. As with QBs and RBs, your college stats usually define your per capita. Thanks to the improvement in quarterback play at the pro level, there are some exceptions to this rule for WR, but for most there is the upper limit.


. 2 Beyond the caps, there were fairly strong correlations between the following factors: 40 Time to Explosivity, Catch-to-Pro-Catch Rate for Colleges and Marginale Efficiency from Colleges to Pro-Marginal.

Recipients are harder to figure out than quarterbacks or running backs, which makes sense – no matter how good you are, someone has to give you the ball before you can prove it. However, we can still ensure that we look at the statistics that give us the best and most accurate picture of a potential customer's potential.

Before we dive into this year's class, let's see how it did last year.

Including a tight end last year, 22 NFLers completed at least 20 passes in the first year. Atlanta's Calvin Ridley was the clear leader, but four other wideouts had over 40 receptions.

2018 NFL rookie passport

Player Receptions Yds / Catch Yds / Tgt Ctch% Rookie mEff College mEff
Player Receptions Yds / Catch Yds / Tgt Ctch% Rookie mEff (ATL) 64 12.8 8.9 70% 9% 8%
DJ Moore (CAR) 55 9.6 67% 15% 2%
Christian Kirk (ARI) 43 [19659026] 13.7 8.7 63% 4% 5%
Antonio Callaway (CLE) 43 13.6 7.4 54% 4 % 2%
Courtland Sutton (DEN) 42 16.8 8.4 50% 4% 8%
Chris Herndon (NYJ) [19659026] 39 12.9 9 70 14% 12%
Marquez Valdes-Scantling (GB) 38 [19659026] 15.3 8 52% 1% 1% 1% Ian Thomas (CAR) 36 9.3 6.8 74% [19659026] 13% 10%
Mark Andrews (BAL) 34 16.2 [19659028] 11 68% 17% 19%
Dallas Goedert PHI) 33 10.1 7.6 75% 11% 11% ] 15%
Michael Gallup (DAL) 33 15.4 7.5 49% 4% 15%
Anthony Miller (CHI) 33 12.8 7.8 61% 5% 13%
DaeSean Hamilton (DEN) 30 8.1 5.4 67% ] -5% 8%
Tre & quot; Quan Smith (NOR) 28 15.3 9.7 64% 24% 10%
Dante Pettis (SF) 27 17.3 [19659026] 10.4 60% 3% 13% [19659034] Zach Pascal (IND) 27 9.9 5.8 59% 6% 8%
Robert Foster (BUF) 27 20 [19659028] 12.3 61% 6% -1%
Tim Patrick (DEN) 23 13.7 7.7 56% 1% 19659028] 15%
Jason Croom (BUF) 22 11.8 7.4 63% 11% 10%
Mike Gesicki (MIA) 22 9.2 6.3 69% 4% 4%
Simultaneous St. Brown (GB) 21 15.6 9.1 [19659026] 58% 5% 10%
Jordan Thomas (HOU) 20 10.8 8 74% 9% 17% [19659281] The receivers achieved an overall 9.9 percent higher margin efficiency * in the university and a plus 7.5 percent marginal efficiency in their respective rookie season. Those who were higher in college in this respect had a higher average than those who were worse.

There were, however, some interesting exceptions. While high-profile speakers such as Ridley (# 26 overall) and Christian Kirk (# 47) saw their rookie efficiency almost mirror what they produced in college, three receivers were outperformed by a good deal. [19659183] * What is marginal efficiency? It takes your overall success rate and adjusts it for down, distance and field position. A positive limit efficiency means that your success rate was higher than expected. Ridley at 9.4 percent, means it was 9.4 percentage points higher.


  Atlanta Falcons vs. Carolina Panthers

DJ Moore
Photo by Streeter Lecka / Getty Images

DJ Moore

The 24th overall result in the draft of 2018, had only an improvement in efficiency by 2.2 percent in college, the worst all the big prospects. But maybe he benefited more than anyone from a QB upgrade. He took on the role of direct recipient for a variety of soon-to-be-injured Maryland QBs to receive passes from Cam Newton and serve as a cog in a fascinating young Carolina corps.

Three Panthers wideouts (Moore, Devin Funchess and Curtis Samuel) were targeted between 65 and 82 times, and if none of them were open, Newton simply sent himself to Christian McCaffrey with often fantastic results. Moore, meanwhile, enjoyed a modest efficiency of plus -14.6 percent making it the most positive translation you've ever seen.

Of course we'll see if he keeps this up – There's a reason why I looked at the first four seasons of a prospectus to be compared to their college production – but this was a very, very good one Begin.

Two other rookies who dramatically surpassed what their college statistics considered possible:

  • Tre Quan Smith the number 91, was either the No. 2 or 3 WR of the Saints (depending on whether Ted Ginn was healthy), and with Michael Thomas and Alvin Kamara staring at goals, he stung out a niche with three goals per game developed well, converting a good 9.6 percent gain in college marginal efficiency into one unsustainable brilliant plus of 23.6 percent. That's going to go down, but he's obviously well on his way to agreeing with his college efficiency in the worst case .
  • Robert Foster is the poster child for all Chance "prospects out there. Foster had only caught 35 passes in four injury-stricken seasons in Alabama, but in the end he had 27 receptions for a desperate Buffalo Corps, 25 of whom have played their last seven games. He rose from a terrible minus of 0.6 percent in college to solid 5.8 percent. We will see how much of it was new and how much of it was sustainable, but it was a nice first impulse.

Now it's time for this year's rookie class. What can statistics like marginal efficiency, yards per target and good, old-fashioned 40 times say who will most likely succeed?


  Oklahoma vs West Virginia

Marquise "Hollywood" Brown
Photo by Justin K Aller / Getty Images

First a data dump. Here are the most important statistics for the 30 WRs that I've seen most often in bogus drafts and prospective rankings, sorted by their college marginal efficiency.


Here are the players listed alphabetically, which were above the average in the rest of this class) in terms of fishing quota, marginal efficiency and 40 times:

  • AJ Brown, Ole Miss
  • Marquess "Hollywood" Brown, Oklahoma (OK, he sustained an injury and never did the 40 during Combine / Pro-Day exercises, but you and I know he was in the 4.3 range.)
  • Parris Campbell, Ohio (State )
  • Gary Jennings, Jr., West Virginia
  • Terry McLaurin, Ohio (State)

The Browns and Buckeyes listed here are at the top of most analyst lists, and this is not the case of hard to understand why. A.J. Brown has been the most impressive recipient of college football for the last two years. Hollywood Brown has a breathtaking speed, and although neither Campbell nor McLaurin had so many downfield opportunities in Ohio State's quick offense, they both had opportunity to prove both their track running skills and, with the number of screens, the Buckeyes cast her blocking skills .

If you asked me to make a list of the safest things in the draft, Brown, Brown, Campbell, and McLaurin might be the list. Your recording here supports this.

It is not very entertaining to say good recipients.

I like looking for sleepers, and Jenning's name is an interesting shot here.


<img srcset = "https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/hE3nNK4NG-FnEe7Lgmf0CpBdh88=/0x0:4828×3219/320×0/filters:focal(0x0:4828×3219):no_upscale()/cdn.vox- 320p, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/4hajQIwmWFSGbeD5JVXbjgUfGTY=/0x0:4828×3219/520×0/filters:focal(0x0:4828×3219) : no_upscale () / cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/16177088/1057021616.jpg.jpg 520w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/0Weydn3uMeIl6x2L_aDmgDRdYIk=/0x0:4828×3219/720×0 /filters:focal(0x0:4828×3219):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/16177088/1057021616.jpg.jpg 720w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor /_vRD9znM8UF2kx0jDLsREVQSdOc=/0x0:4828×3219/920×0/filters:focal(0x0:4828×3219):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/16177088/1057021616.jpg.jpg 920w, https: // cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/ZmOpWqWmhEpS_rDR4DbMSLnPMao=/0x0:4828×3219/1120×0/filters:focal(0x0:4828×3219):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/16177088/105702 1616.jpg.jpg 1120w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/4aXZest8Gfg_aLngYXO69kyrMuY=/0x0:4828×3219/1320×0/filters:focal(0x0:4828×3219):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com /uploads/chorus_asset/file/16177088/1057021616.jpg.jpg 1320w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/eYTMUtTEplNC3V4slcCUTpVbv6s=/0x0:4828×3219/1520×0/filters:focal (0x0: 4828×3219): no_upscale ( ) /cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/16177088/1057021616.jpg.jpg 1520w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/nZITmsQuDN0Ew-XvxGJ-ReESuvk=/0x0:4828×3219/ 1720×0 / filters: focal (0x0: 4828×3219): no_upscale () / cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/16177088/1057021616.jpg.jpg 1720w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/ thumbor / yoirOPWlBfKjtPVsvkk2wqFHGpA = / 0x0: 4828×3219 / 1920×0 / filters: focal (0x0: 4828×3219): no_upscale () / cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/16177088/1057021616.jpg.jpg 1920w "sizes =" (min-width: 1221px) 846px, (min-width: 880px) calc (100vw – 334px), 100vw "alt =" West Virginia v Texas [19659211] Gary Jennings Jr. Photo by Tim Warner / Getty Images

Jennings received NFL.com's "NFL Support or Special Team Potential" rating and appears to be selected as fourth through sixth rounds. [19659214] As a slot receiver at Dana Holgorsen's College of Air-raid Hospitals, Jennings was at the entrance to numerous stat-padding screens and clutches, but he was also asked to be popular at intersections and many other routes below him as an NFL slot. To walk. The NFL.com scouting report called "schema-created board games" as one of its weaknesses, but I believe that slot receivers and tight ends can sometimes be left open. His potential seems to be high for a guy of the fourth round.


  Missouri vs. Florida

Emanuel Hall
Photo by Sam Greenwood / Getty Images

Two receivers above had quite similar profiles. Both Ole Miss' D.K. Metcalf and Missouri's Emanuel Hall combined mediocre catch rates with exceptional yard-per-catch averages and 40x. They were both injured in college a lot. They were both high-maintenance, high-maintenance sports cars.

Metcalf will probably race in the first lap, but Hall could still be available in the third or fourth lap. It's hard to ignore his injuries – he either injured or injured in 28 outings in Missouri in 2017/18 in nine out of 26 Missouri's injured but in his last 13 full games he scored 61 passes for 1,358 yards. Its averages per catch are what would normally be seen by a broad receiver in a triple-option system, averaging two goals per game, rather than option # 1 in a massive SEC attack.

To be sure, Hall struggled with sometimes sinking and even more with injuries. If he was well, he was the best deep-seated threat to college football, and this spring he was able to support his stats 40 times with 4.39. He's not the absurd physical specimen of the 6 & 3; 228-pound Metcalf, but with 6 & 2, 201 he's not small either.


  CFP National Championship

Hunter Renfrow
Photo by Tom Pennington / Getty Images

Out of curiosity, I wanted to look at a few situational statistics just to see what it could say about this year's outlook. I think there are two particular "situations" in which a receiver can provide a lot of added value: passing red zones and speeding downs.

First the red zone. For my advanced statistics, I tend to use my own red zone definition: the opponent's 40-yard line and not the 20. Why? Two main reasons. First, I'm anti-social. It is what it is. Second, and more importantly, good offenses tend to be more different if we stretch the boundaries a bit. The average average difference between good and bad offenses in the 20s is not really big. However, if the calls usually change as a team approaches the opponent's 30, extending the definition helps to distinguish between good and bad.

It obviously helps to distinguish good recipients from bad ones.


I'm not even sure if you can call Hunter Renfrow a sleeper at this time after his outstanding Senior Bowl performance, but he's still planned in the fourth round or so, I say he's qualified.

In any case, during his four seasons, Renfrow went from complementary owner to All-American as Clemson approached the endzone. He scored the most famous touchdown catch of Clemson history on a two-meter throw.

The saying goes that you need a beautiful, full-bodied target to score in the red zone. This list could not put this truism back harder. Metcalf, the largest of the recipients with the largest body, had the second worst catch rate in the red zone and the worst target value of the group. David Sills V, another big body, scored an absurd number of landings in college (33 in 2017/18), but required a ton of targets to reach the finish. Notre Dame 6 & 4; 4 Miles Boykin was also at the bottom of the catch-rate equation.

By now, Renfrow was by far the most efficient one here. He proves that Mesh does what we believe fade routes work in the red zone. Hollywood Brown, the second-best from the catch-up perspective, is also 5 & # 39; 10. A.J. Brown and Terry McLaurin are 6-0, Terry Godwin 5/11.

Indeed, the only big body close to this list is that of Tennessee, RB-turn-Baylor, WR Jalen Hurd.

This is the type of passports that are thrown. Faded routes are inherently low percentages – most of them have the knowledge that either your guy will catch it or that it will be incomplete. But it's not the fault of Renfrow or Brown that other offensive coordinators called inefficient games.

As a Blend Downs I define the Downs, in which the pass-pass rate goes extremely strong. The definitions for the college and the pro-definitions are different, but for the college level, there are first or second-and-22 or more and third or four-and-5 or more. These are the depths in which the college defense can safely try to relegate to quarterback.

Here are the fishing quotas and the average of the prospects for lightning lows.


Due to Ohio State's screen-heavy railways, Parris Campbell had a nice 72 percent catch rate at lightning-downs, but on average not as many meters per target as others. Emanuel Hall was a great guy with a 50-50 ball on the sideline, and Hollywood Brown was even more dominant in these key situations than in others.

One name, however, is particularly noteworthy and not in a good range way: DK Metcalf was absolutely, positively horrible at Lightning Downs.

Let me rewrite: In the Downs, where the offense needed his playmakers to get the most, Metcalf was not only mediocre – he was terrible. He caught one of four lightning passes and generally did not go anywhere. His battery mate DaMarkus Lodge did not do much either.

No, when Ole Miss Quarterbacks – whether it was Shea Patterson (before moving to Michigan) or Jordan Ta'amu – needed a degree, they knew that they were A.J. Brown. Not only did he offer pretty easy pitch-and-catch possibilities from the slot, he also did something with these catches.


  Arkansas vs Mississippi

A.J. Brown
Photo by Wesley Hitt / Getty Images

That should mean something, right? Metcalf is an exciting downfield threat and looks extraordinary when his shirt is off. But he is like a one-piece helper – an intimidating Lee Smith level certainly, but still a helper. Brown was the staff ace. (And, to be honest, the liver is not exactly a pattern.)

Composing potential is great, but Brown has potential and was a detectable producer. Based on what we know about each, it is absurd that Metcalf in the draft is likely to go before Brown.


Source link