****Our Wide Receivers Suck- Official Thread****

[Sofa King]

They can’t get open, they drop passes in their hands, their jet sweeps are slow and terrible. These guys are not good.

[O.city]

This week was better than last week.

Give it time. Let it mellow

[Chris Meck]

Originally Posted by MahomesMagic

We don't have a true #1 or #2 WR. It's all based on Kelce bailing them out.

Could it work? Sure, we have a generational QB and Reid. But why make things hard just to prove a point?

I'm sure Veach wanted the young guys to get reps. But someone has to really step up or a trade is needed.

We don't ****ing know yet. It's week 2.

You are acting like this is the finished product, and it's not anywhere close to that.

[O.city]

If the bears continue to suck and wanna trade us DJ moore? Sure

But I’d imagine they’re fine with what they’ve got

[WilliamTheIrish]

Originally Posted by MahomesMagic

And I will clap like a seal if Rice or Moore just goes super nova.

Just commenting on what we have seen so far which is admittedly a small sample size.

I’m probably out of line singling you out. There are, after all, many candidates who have said much worse about the WR group. My apologies.

[Chris Meck]

Originally Posted by Megatron96

Offs.


i didn't take out Skyy's catch. i simply stated that without that one big catch, the WR room did exactly what they did last week. Well, to be absolutely precise, this week they caught 8 more yards this week.

And your grasp of statistics is apparently not the greatest.

Here's an example:

WR "X" catches 10 balls in a game. The first 9 balls he catches for 1 yard a piece, for a total of 9 yards/9 catches. On the 10th catch, he catches another 1-yard ball, but runs for 89 yards.

So, player X has 10 catches for 99 yards.

Is his average/catch really 9.9 yards?

Of course not. No one with a brain would believe that.


And that's why you get rid of the outlier datapoints. otherwise, you easily can end up with completely skewed results.

No, my grasp is just fine, thanks. You like to take out the positive outliers, while leaning on the negative ones.

You do this repeatedly, constantly, whenever it suits your narrative.

It's bullshit.

A big play is a big play. It counts. Just like the drops counted last week.

You say their receivers repeatedly couldn't get their feet in, I say defenders were well aware of where they were on the field, and used the boundaries, you know - like they're ****ing trained to.

You try to apply statistics with no context all the time, removing only the outliers that would disprove your narrative.

[TwistedChief]

Originally Posted by Megatron96

Offs.


i didn't take out Skyy's catch. i simply stated that without that one big catch, the WR room did exactly what they did last week. Well, to be absolutely precise, this week they caught 8 more yards this week.

And your grasp of statistics is apparently not the greatest.

Here's an example:

WR "X" catches 10 balls in a game. The first 9 balls he catches for 1 yard a piece, for a total of 9 yards/9 catches. On the 10th catch, he catches another 1-yard ball, but runs for 89 yards.

So, player X has 10 catches for 99 yards.

Is his average/catch really 9.9 yards?

Of course not. No one with a brain would believe that.


And that's why you get rid of the outlier datapoints. otherwise, you easily can end up with completely skewed results.

Well, first, yes, his average/catch would be 9.9. That’s a fact.

“And that’s why you get rid of the outlier data points.” Uhm, wrong. Because who defines outlier? Did Pachecho rush for 12/95yds (7.9ypc) or do we just take out his 39yd run and then it’s 4.7ypc? What if it were a 29yd run? Would that then be okay to add in?

I guess Barry Sanders was just a really average running back if you just took out all of his explosive plays. That’s definitely the right way to look at it.

[MahomesMagic]

Originally Posted by WilliamTheIrish

I’m probably out of line singling you out. There are, after all, many candidates who have said much worse about the WR group. My apologies.

No worries.

I was fine not overspending in FA and getting the young ones reps but always said we need to be ready to add a vet if needed.

Plenty of football before the deadline, the path will be crystal clear in a few more weeks.

[Chris Meck]

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

It's offense that's likely to get better. We're breaking in TWO new tackles and, clearly, new WRs. Hell, this was Trav's first regular season game this year and he was clearly still shaking off the rust.

If you truly don't think we'll get better this season, then you're probably ON something.

Fixed your post.

[Chris Meck]

Originally Posted by TwistedChief

Well, first, yes, his average/catch would be 9.9. That’s a fact.

“And that’s why you get rid of the outlier data points.” Uhm, wrong. Because who defines outlier? Did Pachecho rush for 12/95yds (7.9ypc) or do we just take out his 39yd run and then it’s 4.7ypc? What if it were a 29yd run? Would that then be okay to add in?

I guess Barry Sanders was just a really average running back if you just took out all of his explosive plays. That’s definitely the right way to look at it.

This is what I'm talking about. It's football, not the ****ing stock market. Guys make plays, or they don't, but either way, it counts.

[Megatron96]

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

No, my grasp is just fine, thanks. You like to take out the positive outliers, while leaning on the negative ones.

You do this repeatedly, constantly, whenever it suits your narrative.

It's bullshit.

A big play is a big play. It counts. Just like the drops counted last week.

You say their receivers repeatedly couldn't get their feet in, I say defenders were well aware of where they were on the field, and used the boundaries, you know - like they're ****ing trained to.

You try to apply statistics with no context all the time, removing only the outliers that would disprove your narrative.

Oh boy. No idea why you're so upset. Too early in the season to get all riled up one way or the other.

And i do take out the 'negative' one, though I was taught to consider them "low value/least value" data points, not negative ones.


Btw, TL's TD throw to the rookie? He simply didn't drag his left toe. Probably forgot he had to in the NFL. Point being, he was open enough by a wide margin. He just forgot the rule.

Nother fun fact. If Zay did drag his toe and that TD counted, they didn't have to go for it on their last drive when it was 4th and 12. They could've kicked it and taken the lead.

[Megatron96]

Originally Posted by TwistedChief

Well, first, yes, his average/catch would be 9.9. That’s a fact.

“And that’s why you get rid of the outlier data points.” Uhm, wrong. Because who defines outlier? Did Pachecho rush for 12/95yds (7.9ypc) or do we just take out his 39yd run and then it’s 4.7ypc? What if it were a 29yd run? Would that then be okay to add in?

I guess Barry Sanders was just a really average running back if you just took out all of his explosive plays. That’s definitely the right way to look at it.

Lol, nope. We did that in a class. Didn't change his average rush yds/att by that much. The thousands of reps marginalize the few dozen or whatever big rushes. Leave them in, take them out, it's roughly the same.


When looking at small datasets, taking out the outliers is SOP. Sorry, but if you think player X in my example averaged 9.9yd/cth, well, you don't know what you're talking about.

[Chris Meck]

Originally Posted by Megatron96

Oh boy. No idea why you're so upset. Too early in the season to get all riled up one way or the other.

And i do take out the 'negative' one, though I was taught to consider them "low value/least value" data points, not negative ones.


Btw, TL's TD throw to the rookie? He simply didn't drag his left toe. Probably forgot he had to in the NFL. Point being, he was open enough by a wide margin. He just forgot the rule.

Nother fun fact. If Zay did drag his toe and that TD counted, they didn't have to go for it on their last drive when it was 4th and 12. They could've kicked it and taken the lead.

" IF THIS HAD HAPPENED INSTEAD, then this".

This is what I am talking about. In the Jags, you will give every benefit of the doubt, but for the team you supposedly root for, it's"take away this play, and it's actually this ".

It's intellectually dishonest, because I don't believe you're stupid.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by O.city

If the bears continue to suck and wanna trade us DJ moore? Sure

But I’d imagine they’re fine with what they’ve got

I was really hoping the Bucs sucking enough for them to trade Evans to us.

[Megatron96]

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

" IF THIS HAD HAPPENED INSTEAD, then this".

This is what I am talking about. In the Jags, you will give every benefit of the doubt, but for the team you supposedly root for, it's"take away this play, and it's actually this ".

It's intellectually dishonest, because I don't believe you're stupid.

I don't care how the Jags do. But when I look at KC, I want to see how they're really doing, not how a few skewed statlines make them look. It's called being as objective as possible.

Look, in today's game it says that Skyy caught three balls for 70.0 yards. Which is an average of 23.3 yards/catch. Which would be great, if he actually caught three balls that were all roughly 20 yards a piece.

But they weren't. Skyy caught a ball for 7 yards. Then in the 2nd half he caught another ball for 9 yards. Basically, we're talking about 8 yards/catch.

Then he catches that last ball, and after the RAC, he ends up with 70 yards on the day, for an averqge of 23.3yds/cach.

But we know that he didn't catch three balls for an average of 23 yards/catch. he caught a ball for 7 yards, and then a ball for 9 yards, or nowhere near 23 yards, right?

Right?


I mean, if you're Andy, when game-planning for next week, do you really think he's dumb enough to think to himself, "Skyy's been catching balls at a rate of TWO DOZEN YARDS PER RECEPTION. I need to replace MVS is Skyy!!!"


Yeah, not a chance in hell.

[Bob Dole]

Originally Posted by Megatron96

I don't care how the Jags do. But when I look at KC, I want to see how they're really doing, not how a few skewed statlines make them look. It's called being as objective as possible.

Look, in today's game it says that Skyy caught three balls for 70.0 yards. Which is an average of 23.3 yards/catch. Which would be great, if he actually caught three balls that were all roughly 20 yards a piece.

But they weren't. Skyy caught a ball for 7 yards. Then in the 2nd half he caught another ball for 9 yards. Basically, we're talking about 8 yards/catch.

Then he catches that last ball, and after the RAC, he ends up with 70 yards on the day, for an averqge of 23.3yds/cach.

But we know that he didn't catch three balls for an average of 23 yards/catch. he caught a ball for 7 yards, and then a ball for 9 yards, or nowhere near 23 yards, right?

Right?


I mean, if you're Andy, when game-planning for next week, do you really think he's dumb enough to think to himself, "Skyy's been catching balls at a rate of TWO DOZEN YARDS PER RECEPTION. I need to replace MVS is Skyy!!!"


Yeah, not a chance in hell.

Are you really confused about what an average is?