Game Changers: The Changing Face of the Receiving Corp
|
Sponsored Post: This post is presented by Sprint. Bringing you the first wireless 4G network from a national carrier. Only on the Now Network. |
I'd like to go on record as saying that I was dead wrong about the Brandon Marshall situation. I truly thought that McDaniels/Xanders were pursuing a strategy to convince Brandon that he was more valued by the Broncos than by any other team, and thus woo him back into the fold. I believed that the high tender, the lack of obvious interest -- read just a single visit with Seattle -- and the public statements by both sides were leading us towards a scenario in which Brandon would choose to remain in Denver and the Broncos would extend to him an equitable contract. The trade to Miami, and Marshall's subsequently signing a huge contract has shown me the error of my ways. The Broncos' Front Office had obviously figured out that Brandon was about the money, and personal records (witness his statement to Florida reporters: "I play because I want to have my name in the books and win lot of games") and Denver wanted a team-first player, and was not about to pay him what he wanted. There are other posts that have, and I'm sure will continue to examine whether or not he's worth that kind of money. That's not what I'd like to look at here. The focus in this article will be on how Marshall's departure, beyond any shadow of a doubt, will be a game-changer for Denver.
| Category |
2009 NFL Ranking |
| Attempts |
9th |
| Completions |
11th |
| Completion Percentage |
14th |
| Attempts Per Game |
9th |
| Yards |
13th |
| Average Per Attempt |
15th |
| Yards Per Game |
13th |
| Touchdowns |
16th |
| Interceptions |
7th (fewest) |
| First Downs |
16th |
| First Down Percentage |
16th |
| Longest |
3rd |
| 20+ |
15th |
| 40+ |
13th |
| Sacks |
15th (fewest) |
| Rating |
15th |
The departure of Marshall and Hillis, and the likely departure of Scheffler will have an impact on the passing game. The question becomes how much of the passing production was created by these three players? The next table breaks down the individual player 2009 receiving stats.
| Player |
Position |
Targets |
Receptions |
Reception % |
Yards |
Average |
Touchdowns |
| Brandon Marshall |
WR |
154 |
101 |
65.5 |
1120 |
11.1 |
10 |
| Jabar Gaffney |
WR |
88 |
54 |
61.3 |
732 |
13.6 |
2 |
| Tony Scheffler |
TE |
50 |
31 |
62.0 |
416 |
13.4 |
2 |
| Eddie Royal |
WR |
79 |
37 |
46.8 |
345 |
9.3 |
0 |
| Brandon Stokley |
WR |
33 |
19 |
57.6 |
327 |
17.2 |
4 |
| Daniel Graham |
TE |
42 |
28 |
66.7 |
289 |
10.3 |
1 |
| Correll Buckhalter |
RB |
38 |
31 |
81.6 |
240 |
7.7 |
0 |
| Knowshon Moreno |
RB |
41 |
28 |
68.3 |
213 |
7.6 |
2 |
| Brandon Lloyd |
WR |
18 |
8 |
44.4 |
117 |
14.6 |
0 |
| Peyton Hillis |
RB |
6 |
4 |
66.7 |
19 |
4.8 |
0 |
This table shows that Marshall accounted for 29.6% of the catches. Scheffler had 9.1% of them, while Hillis accounted for 1.1%. Together, these three caught 39.8% of the Broncos' receptions. Marshall amassed 29.2% of Denver's receiving yards; Scheffler had 10.9% and Hillis had less than 1%. As a group, these three produced a little over 40% of the Broncos' receiving yards. Marshall had 47.6% of Denver's passing touchdowns, while Scheffler added 9.5%. Together they scored 57.1% of the Broncos' passing touchdowns. This means that there is a very large hole in the passing production to fill. It's helpful to break out these stats by per game average since the players did not all play the same number of games.
| Player |
Catches/Game |
Yards/Game |
TDs/Game |
| Brandon Marshall |
6.3 |
70 |
0.625 |
| Jabar Gaffney |
3.4 |
45.75 |
0.125 |
| Tony Scheffler |
1.9 |
26.0 |
0.125 |
| Eddie Royal |
2.3 |
21.6 |
0.0 |
| Brandon Stokley |
1.2 |
20.4 |
0.25 |
| Daniel Graham |
1.75 |
18.0 |
0.06 |
| Correll Buckhalter |
1.9 |
15.0 |
0.0 |
| Knowshon Moreno |
1.75 |
13.3 |
0.125 |
| Brandon Lloyd |
0.5 |
7.3 |
0.0 |
| Peyton Hillis |
0.25 |
1.2 |
0.0 |
Per game, we see the same trend, that Marshall and Scheffler were important producers for the Broncos passing attack.
The part of the story that the total numbers, and even the per game numbers fail to highlight is the consistency of the players. How they fared from game to game. Now it is important to remember that players will have good games and bad games. There will be some teams that a player matches up against very while, and others who seem to get inside that same player's head and cause him to play poorly. For example, Marshall had big games against Oakland (twice) and Indianapolis, in those three games catching 33 passes for 340 yards and 4 touchdowns. While he was less successful against Baltimore and Cincinnati, being held to 8 catches for 51 yards and no touchdowns in those two games. For this reason, it can be helpful to consider the consistency of the production by these two players. For this instance, I am ignoring Hillis' production since it was minimal. With Marshall, it is important to note the following facts:
| Catches |
Yards |
Touchdowns |
| 20.7% came in 1 game |
17.9% came in 1 game |
60% came in 3 games |
| 31.7% came in 2 games |
29.9% came in 2 games |
100% came in 7 games |
| 47.5% came in 4 games |
39.9% came in 3 games |
Over 1/2 of his TDs came in 1/5 of the games he played |
| 61.3% came in 6 games |
56.4% came in 5 games |
His 3 biggest games came in a win and 2 losses |
| Over 60% of his catches came in 40% of the games he played |
Over 50% of his yardage came in 1/3 of the games he played |
|
| His 4 biggest games came in 1 win and 3 losses |
His 3 biggest games all came in losses |
Scheffler posted the similar stats in the same categories:
| Catches |
Yardage |
Touchdowns |
| 19.3% came in 1 game |
24.2% came in 1 game |
His touchdowns came in 2 separate games |
| 51.6% came in 4 games |
37% came in 2 games |
|
| 61.2% came in 5 games |
48.6% came in 3 games |
|
| Over 60% of his catches came in 1/3 of the games he played |
59.3% came in 4 games |
|
| His 4 biggest games came in 3 wins and a loss |
Almost 60% of his yardage came in 4 games |
|
| His biggest 4 games came in 3 wins and a loss (though not the exact same games as his biggest games in terms of catches) |
What this breakdown suggests is that while overall Marshall and Scheffler were very productive, they were also "streak" players. Their production came in clumps. In both cases, the majority of their production came in less than a third of the games that they played. By way of comparison, Larry Fitzgerald -- to whom Marshall has been compared by others -- spread 61% of his catches over 8 games, 56% of his yardage was spread over 7 games, and his touchdowns were spread over 11 games. Now, we have to acknowledge that stats such as these are the result (in equal parts) of play-calling, quarterback choice, and receivers getting open.
This is all a long winded way of saying that Marshall and Scheffler were very talented and will leave a large hole that will need to be filled. As a result, the question now becomes, we have lost two players who contributed a great deal to the productivity of the receiving corp for the Broncos in 2009, so who do we have to replace them?
The answer is neither simple, nor clear. As of the time of the writing of this article, these are the players that we have who will have to step up their games if Denver's passing game is to become an effective threat to opposing defenses.
| Player |
Position |
2009 Catches |
2009 Yards |
2009 TDs |
| Jabar Gaffney |
WR |
54 |
732 |
2 |
| Eddie Royal |
WR |
37 |
345 |
0 |
| Brandon Stokley |
WR |
19 |
327 |
4 |
| Daniel Graham |
TE |
28 |
289 |
1 |
| Correll Buckhalter |
RB |
31 |
240 |
0 |
| Knowshon Moreno |
RB |
28 |
213 |
2 |
| Brandon Lloyd |
WR |
8 |
117 |
0 |
All of these players will need to step up their games. Royal, in particular, stands out in that regard -- he must have a better 2010 than his 2009 season. Stokley will continue to be a situational player. Graham is a steady producer -- though he did have a number of drops on easy passes last year. Lloyd will need to become more consistent and involved. The running backs will need to, at the very least, maintain their level of production.
We also have the following players waiting in the wings (using the most recent full season stats I could find for each; in most cases it is their stats from their senior year in college; Arrington's are from the 2008 NFL season):
| Player |
Position |
Catches |
Yards |
Average |
TDs |
| JJ Arrington |
RB |
29 |
255 |
8.8 |
1 |
| Lance Ball |
RB |
18 |
88 |
4.9 |
0 |
| Marquez Branson |
TE |
45 |
737 |
16.3 |
11 |
| Bruce Hall |
RB |
10 |
101 |
10.1 |
0 |
| Kenny McKinley |
WR |
54 |
642 |
11.9 |
4 |
| Richard Quinn |
TE |
8 |
97 |
12.1 |
1 |
| Matthew Willis |
WR |
21 |
219 |
10.4 |
2 |
If these players were to all make the team, and were all to match their last full season stats, they would come close to matching the 2009 production of Marshall, Scheffler and Hillis. Marshall, et al, accounted for 136 catches, 1555 yards and 12 touchdowns. This group, during the seasons cited, posted 185 catches, 2139 yards and 19 touchdowns. Add in the possibility of Royal rising closer to his rookie year form, and we may not see as much of a drop-off in receiving production as might be feared.
I acknowledge that there are a lot of "if's" in this evaluation. Yet there are some things that are very clear. The trade of Marshall and Hillis, along with the probable departure of Scheffler, will have an impact in a number of areas for the Broncos this off season.
First, it will directly impact the Broncos' draft strategy and off season player acquisitions. The front office will definitely be looking for additional help in the wide receiver position. This may not be a first, nor even a second round, pick, but we will most likely see the Broncos take at least one wide receiver during the draft. Another scenario might have us making a trade which would include a current NFL wide receiver. Plus, there will be receivers to be found in college free agency.
Second, there will a greater importance placed on participation by the receivers in off season workouts, OTAs, training camp and the preseason. Where in 2009, it was pretty much a given which players would be starting, which would be leaned upon for production, etc., the 2010 off season will be seeing positions that are up for grabs. Gaffney is most likely a lock for the #1 position, and his 213 yards in the Kansas City game show that he can be counted on as a go-to guy. Lloyd's 95 yards in that same game show what he's capable of when he brings his "A-game," though it's too early to tell if he can consistently produce at that level. Royal may well find himself on the hot seat and -- if he fails to produce during the off season -- find himself on the outside looking in when it comes to being a starter. We'll have young, hungry players pushing for roster spots and playing time, in Kenny McKinley and Matthew Willis. Competition will most likely be fierce this off season, with all receivers seeing an open opportunity to "strut their stuff," since there is no longer an established "pecking order."
Third, we will most likely see an even greater emphasis on situational players. McDaniels has consistently advocated situational playing and situational players. Both Correll Buckhalter and J. J. Arrington were brought in in 2009 with the view that they would fill situational roles in the Denver offense. Arrington was the more notable of the two in that regard, with the belief being that he would be used mainly as a 3rd down back who could block, and then slide out for an outlet pass if needed. Just as Shanahan several seasons ago ran a running back by committee season, we may well see a wide receiver by committee style approach in 2010.
So, while the initial reaction might be to panic, and worry about what we no longer have, the reality is not nearly as grim. Last season, Denver's receiving corp was comprised of 7 wide receivers, 3 tight ends and 4 running backs. Currently, Denver's roster includes 6 wide receivers, 3 tight ends and 5 running backs. That does not take into account whatever additional players may be gained through the draft and college free agency. There are also still free agent wide receivers currently on NFL rosters which could be traded for, if the Broncos were so inclined. If our current roster players (Gaffney, Stokley, Graham, Buckhalter, Moreno, Lloyd) can match their 2009 production, if Royal can bring his game back up to the level of his rookie play, if the players waiting in the wings can contribute at a level commensurate with the last full season (whether in the NFL or in college), then the Broncos could be looking at a 363 catch, 4000 yard season.
A lot of "ifs?" Of course, but that is the nature of any NFL season. Every season is affected by a myriad of factors from personnel, to coaching, to injuries, and so forth. I think all of us would be hard pressed to find an example wherein the loss of one player, or the addition of one player broke or made a team's season. There are lots of reasons that Denver won 8 games last season, and the passing game was but one facet. There's lots of questions about that facet going into 2010, but there are also lots of possibilities. It's going to be a wild and exciting ride to see who rises to the occasion and shines in the coming season.
71 comments
|
10 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
“If these players were to all make the team, and were all to match their last full season stats, they would come close to matching the 2009 production of Marshall, Scheffler and Hillis.”
I’d guess half those players don’t make the team. And it will be hard for those that do to match production of their college years (McKinley, Willis)
Could well be
On the other hand, it is as easily likely that either McKinley or Willis will have a breakout year in which they look like Royal did in his rookie year.
The point of the “if’s” is that it is way too early to tell which way it will go, and therefore, IMHO, way too early to for me (personally) to begin espousing a doom and gloom attitude. Other people may not feel the same way, and that’s okay by me.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Apr 17, 2010 8:58 AM MDT up reply actions
We could field an OK WR corps right now if we had to...
But I’m right there with you on the Marshall saga….I felt exactly the same way you did. I can’t even change my signature yet because I was so wrong I have to admit it LOL….
I think we will be fine, even if we don’t bring in another WR prospect in the draft (not likely). I just hope we don’t blow the 1st on Bryant unless he really blew McX’s socks off…. :)
"Brandon Marshall will be a happy BRONCO WR in 2010"
Broncotodd - 2009...Boy, was I wrong or what?
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
John Adams
I'm inclined to agree at this point
With a new QB who was not familiar with his receivers, and who are both learning a new offensive system, we were 11th in passing yards. Not so good in passing touchdowns, but not the worst either.
I would anticipate that after a year of building rapport, and becoming more familiar with the offense, Orton, Gaffney, Royal, et al will be more proficient at producing not only yards but points. I would expect to see each of the receivers production improve in 2010.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Apr 17, 2010 9:02 AM MDT up reply actions
I'd say you're right on the money.
Spreading the ball around more, to more different players rather than targeting one specific receiver, will also keep the opposing defenses a little more off balance, and will lead to more yards, more points, and ultimately more wins.
Dez Bryant is a stud
Why wouldn’t we a top 5 talent if he is there at 11? I think he has some maturity issues, but I don’t sense he is a trouble maker in the mold of Marshall (at least in his time here) off the field. I see an ultra talented football player that made a mistake by lying about his relationship with Prime.
I’ve see a lot of posts and comments saying why take the same guy at 11 we just traded out of town. I’m not sure that is what this kid is. Not saying we will take him, but I would not be upset if we did. I think he will be a great play maker in the NFL and I think that is what we need right now – play makers. I think he may actually be off the board at 11 anyway, but we need football players and Dez is one of the top 5 in this draft, IMHO.
by 5280FT on Apr 17, 2010 9:02 AM MDT reply actions 1 recs
Thanks
I have mixed emotions about Bryant. It seems like people either really love him, or really hate him. He is very definitely a talented player.
The one concern I have is he is coming into the draft as a junior, and one who was suspended for his junior year. So he has only played 2 years of college ball. Add that to the apparent immaturity we’ve seen, and I’m skeptical that he will mature in the high pressure system of the NFL. I don’t have hard stats on that, but I’m suspicious that that type of personality has less success in the NFL than other players. I get the feeling that he has patterned his attitude after Owens and Marshall. If it didn’t work for Marshall with McDaniels, I’m not sure it would work for Bryant.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Apr 17, 2010 9:38 AM MDT up reply actions
My gut tells me
That McDaniels feels the way you do about him. We need upgrades at a lot of positions, so the possibilities for our draft are numerous in terms of players and movement up/down the board. Should be fun.
i dunno...
read/listen mcdaniel’s predraft presser. it seemed like mcdaniels kind of liked bryant
I'd agree
He also spoke very highly of Tim Tebow.
I’m not sure that McDaniels is so naive as to announce to the rest of the league which players he’s going to go after. I could be totally wrong, though. ;-p
I keep hearing that you shouldn’t believe much of what coaches say in the days leading up to the draft, since they don’t want to telegraph who they truly want. So that was the way I chose to interpret McDaniels’ comments in the presser.
Now, having said that, I’ve probably just jinxed the entire thing & we’ll end up drafting both Bryant and Tebow. LOL
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Apr 17, 2010 9:57 AM MDT up reply actions
The draft is a poker game
Don’t take what McDaniels says at face value. I’m sure the other FOs don’t.
"Surprised to see you, Captain, though pleased." — from Star Trek episode Space Seed.
Great post
Whether the players can all match their college years, do better or do worse, it’s nice to see how the stats could equal out. I’d much rather see a team effort, where a defense with one great cornerback has no idea how to stop us then having to bow our heads to the Denver Brandon Marshalls. Don’t get me wrong, last year was fun watching him. But I’m sold hook, line and sinker on this all about the team concept.
by Poster_Formerly_Known_As_Royal_Fan on Apr 17, 2010 9:04 AM MDT reply actions 1 recs
You and me both.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Apr 17, 2010 9:38 AM MDT up reply actions
Great post!
I was wrong too. I thought he was overvaluing himself and would sign with us for a reasonable price. I am thrilled we didn’t pay what he did end up getting. The percentages show if the passes go elsewhere somebody will get more catches than they did last year. Maybe the reason he was targeted so much was to keep his value up and therefore secure his way out of town. He was not the team player we are trying to build our future with. Great talent and hard to watch walk out the door, but no matter what we got for picks the contract was way beyond what a WR will make in our system. Best of luck to him on staying out of trouble.
I think the targeting had more to do with
a QB who didn’t know the system and his receivers as well as he might have wished. So he defaulted to the tall guy who could out-muscle the competition.
We saw the same sort of thing in the Kansas City game where Orton locked onto Gaffney more often than not.
One of the keys for the offense in 2010 will be how well Orton is able to look off his preferred receiver and get the other guys involved in the game.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Apr 17, 2010 9:44 AM MDT up reply actions
i was wanting to fit in somewhere that that last gane still didn't have us spreading the ball around much...
hopefully this camp will cure a bit of that type of play calling. …Whether it be Orton getting comfortable with a guy, lack of options or level of playbook understanding…
by Whidbey Bronco on Apr 17, 2010 11:52 AM MDT up reply actions
Nice thank you
What stood out to me. Was the Reception Percentage. Marshall has recieved a lot of flack for this yet only Buckhalter was significantly better. Maybe that was the new offense, new qb thing. It is obvious that Denver recievers need to catch the ball more than 2/3 of the time they are thrown to.
What would have Denver’s offense and record looked like if they just caught the ball.
I do have one question about that. If a qb is throwing the ball away and throws it into the ground or 8 feet over someones head, are they considered targeted?
Derek Anderson is just as much a probowl quarterback as Jay Cutler
That's a really good question
I have no clue. I’ll ask around to some of the other staff and members & see if anyone knows.
I agree that the receivers have got to do a better job of catching the ball. For example, i was watching the 2nd Kansas City game on NFL Rewind the other day & noted that Graham had two dropped passes in the 1st half. Both would have been for first downs and kept a drive alive. Both came when he had separation from the defender. Those are the types of plays that have to be made in 2010.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Apr 17, 2010 9:47 AM MDT up reply actions
Kyle Orton's completions precentage was 62.1
So looking at your graph without doing the math, I’d say targets include throwaways. So that stat doesn’t mean much to me because Brandon Marshall may get an inordinate amount of throw aways thrown his way when compared to Fitzgerald. I realize Brandon has his share of drops, but this is an unfair statistic when comparing players to one another.
Derek Anderson is just as much a probowl quarterback as Jay Cutler
For what it's worth
Marshall was credited with 154 targets & caught 101. Fitzgerald was targeted 153 times & caught 97. The only reason I used Fitzgerald as a point of comparison is that Marshall is often compared to him and their catches, yards and touchdowns were very similar. The difference between the two was in how those catches, yards and touchdowns were spread out over the course of the season.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Apr 17, 2010 3:15 PM MDT up reply actions
OK
Its just that others has used this statistic to downgrade Marshall and I don’t think its a fair stat. I wasn’t trying to criticize you. I think you did an excellent job and I appreciate your hard work.
Derek Anderson is just as much a probowl quarterback as Jay Cutler
I replied before reading below
Thank you for the research and answer. Now I have to backtrack and say sorry to everyone. But, Kirk did show that he considers the stat different than a lot of NFL scorers, so I guess its where a person gets his information from. Thanks to Kirk also.
Derek Anderson is just as much a probowl quarterback as Jay Cutler
No worries, I didn't read it as a criticism
I saw it as a continuation of the discussion.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Apr 17, 2010 4:12 PM MDT up reply actions
Me too
It was a great question 3nS, and it stirred me to find an answer.
Character may be manifested in the great moments but it is made in the small ones -- Philip Brooks
The reasons BM has been downgraded for catch %
1) I think last year was his highest percentage of his career. 60% is considered fine, and I don’t believe BM had ever hit that mark until 2009.
2) BM’s total is over-inflated by a larger proportion of smoke screens, etc. than most “#1 WRs”. His YPCatch has consistently been lower than other typical elite WRs… so while 60% is good for the “typical” WR, BM’s should be higher… yet he consistently hasn’t been able to reach even that standard 60% benchmark.
In comparison, Welker typically hits a 70% catch rate in the NE offense…. but that is likely a little over-inflated due to his almost complete lack of the longer routes where completion % is typically lower (though it is still very impressive). In contrast, Philly tends to throw a lot downfield, so its WRs typically have catch rates on the low end…
Where does that leave us? It a somewhat subjective analysis, but I tend to think BM’s had are relatively poor compared to his peers. The only reason he got 100 catches per year, is because he’s the most targeted WR in the NFL.
However, what makes BM elite is not his route running or hands… it is his YAC ability. Therefore I think it is very possible for Denver to find a WR or group of WRs to match BM’s # of receptions on a similar number of targets… the question will be, if they get on average 1 less YAC per reception compared to BM, how does that effect the offense as a whole? Say we get the same # of receptions, but 100 less yards total… how does that distribute? Does that mean we get 50 fewer 1st downs? Or does that distribute as 2 big plays we don’t make where didn’t break a tackle take it 50 yards? What combination….
Given BM has never had a particularly good 1st down percentage, or TD production, my guess is we will miss him far less than folks assume. We often ran a BM screen in 3rd and 3 as the coaches felt that was often our best shot at picking up the 1st. Lets say that play has a 65% chance of working, but a different play call (a run, or a more traditional pass to a non-BM receiver) has only a 60% chance of working. That case will definitely cost a few first downs on the season… but how many first downs will we get by being able to spend the salary savings and the new 2nd round picks, etc.
How many of BM’s extra YAC resulted in a 3rd-and-7 play getting 6 yards, vs. the 3rd-and-7 play getting only 5 yards? Sure, BM’s elite talent got us an extra yard, but the end result is still a punt…
It is impossible to know how all this will play out. Losing BM will definitely cost us in lost YAC… whether the team can make up for that through more diverse playcalling and investing the trade picks and salary savings in other aspects of the team (for example, WRs with a better catch rate) is the open question.
Nice Analysis CJ
Thanks for adding it to the discussion
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Apr 18, 2010 3:50 PM MDT up reply actions
If the ball is thrown away
in a given player’s general direction, doesn’t that mean he didn’t get open enough for the QB to risk trying to fit it in?
"Surprised to see you, Captain, though pleased." — from Star Trek episode Space Seed.
That
Or he didn’t have enough time to throw.
Character may be manifested in the great moments but it is made in the small ones -- Philip Brooks
Hey 3nS
Kirk Davis did some leg work for me in response to your question and he forwarded this explanation from Pro Football Focus on the criteria they use for assessing passes:
I got this answer from Profootball focus regarding “Targets.” It may help you in the future. Brian, go ahead and use this to respond to 3nS in your post..
Kirk
Hi Kirk,
In answer to your questions:
Is it for chances to make a catch, such as dropped balls and batted away balls?
Yes
If a qb is throwing the ball away and throws it into the ground or 8 feet over someones head, are they considered targeted?
No, they are specifically labelled as Throw Aways ("TA" on the QB stats pages). This is one area we differ a lot from the NFL scorers who seem determined to make someone the target of the play no matter how far away the ball was thrown.
Hope this helps,
Neil
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Apr 17, 2010 3:27 PM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
Marshall and QB playing catch.....
I’ve said it before……Marshall has the largest number of balls thrown to him. It’s easy to get 100 catches when you get 21 balls in one game. I don’t remember the team we played that day. It was the same way with Cutler. Marshall was the go-to guy with no better percentage of receptions than two or three other receivers. If they spread the ball around more in Miami, Marshall will not be happy.
I think part of the problem is
and I don’t remember who told me this (it might have been Steve Nichols or Emmett Smith), but Marshall is a really big target who shields defenders off the ball with his body. The comment was made that when you watch the game tape, a large number of his catches come when he has turned back to face the QB. That makes a relatively safe throw for the QB. It would seem to me that when an offense is struggling the QB is more likely to go for that safe throw to keep the ball moving.
Add in the lower reception rate of other receivers and a lack of rapport with them, you get the QB targeting one receiver more than the others. I’m inclined to believe that this is not something that happens only in Denver, but I’d have to do a team-by-team comparison to find out.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Apr 17, 2010 9:51 AM MDT up reply actions
Could have been either of us
I’ve made the comment, but I’m sure nothing that I mention is exactly news to Steve. Marshall’s big strength is using his body well. His biggest weakness, IMO, is that he doesn’t catch well over his shoulder. That and the whole suspension thing, anyway.
By the way, I sent you an invite on Marquez Branson’s research document. This is what he had for final stats in college:
CENTRAL ARKANSAS CAREER
After community college, Branson transferred to Central Arkansas, where he led the team in receptions and touchdown catches in his first season. He was a second team All-Southland Conference selection as a junior. In his senior season, he caught a career and team-high 11 touchdowns, and finished second on the team with 45 receptions and 737 yards. He was a first team All-Southland Conference Selection. Branson finished his college football career with 119 receptions for 1,612 yards and 21 touchdowns at two levels. He was a first team FCS All-America selection as a senior.
He’s a tweener in body type, and that may cost him but he’s got good hands and is productive.
It all starts with the lines
Cool, thanks Emmett
I’ll edit the table right now.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Apr 17, 2010 10:58 AM MDT up reply actions
hopefully KO's accuracy in close doesn't show it'self to be an issue.
Don’t mean to stir anything up, I’m behind KO for this year but noticed several Royal near misses that the bigger guys (read BM) were able to reach out or behind and get…
by Whidbey Bronco on Apr 17, 2010 11:58 AM MDT up reply actions
Interesting post
What I take away is the Reception . Royal was AWFUL on that and even an improvement to say 55 with him receiving 100 targets over the season, Gaffney getting 100 targets at his reception rate will only lead to 24 catches.
Now the fact that both Gaffney and Royal seem to be better at getting downfield those could be 24 very productive catches (8+ yards each on average perhaps). Add this to what is likely to be a more productive running game (DRAFT LINEMEN!) and Moreno one more year of experience in receiving out of the backfield and I think we can see a real improvement in the offense next year.
Add that to an improved defense (say 50% of the Free Agents work out) and suddenly this is a VERY good team
Going to be interesting.
TULO MVP 2010, Gold Glove 2010-2024 (The last 3 on merit rather than skill) HOF 2029 on the fact he breaks Bond's HR record in 2017 while voluntarily submitting blood tests for HCG
Yay for Floyd Little HOF . Now lets get Sharpe, Davis, Atwater, Smith, Gradishar, Tom Jackson and all the other Broncos greats in there.
User name pronounced Air-Ah-Miss Originally from my days in the SCA, became a gamer and forum tag because it is odd and it is a name I like
I'd agree
Things are not as dire as some in the media might have us believe.
I’m inclined to believe that part of the issue is that Gaffney and Royal were, for all practical purposes, splitting time. I’m not sure it allowed either one to get into the rhythm of the game and build the necessary rapport with Orton. Look what happened when Gaffney was forced to be the number 1 receiver in the last game. Orton suddenly started connecting with him like he had previously connected with Marshall.
I’m hoping that having had a year to work with these guys, Orton will have a better handle on what to expect each one to do in any given situation, and the receivers will have a better handle on how to adjust to help Orton out when the pressure comes.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Apr 17, 2010 9:54 AM MDT up reply actions
Orton did such a good job of picking up the offense last year... I think we can expect a great deal furthor progress in his understanding of the plays ...especially when it comes to 2nd and 3rd options and blocking schemes.
Our WRs will surely be beneficiaries of this.
by Whidbey Bronco on Apr 17, 2010 12:01 PM MDT up reply actions
Royal and Gaff were splitting time. Even McD commented on that right after the season
A lot went into that. Royal struggled to find his pace and place; he and Orton weren’t on the same page and Gaff frequently is targeted in 3rd and long situations, from what I recall. I think that Brian’s comment regarding Orton having a better handle on each guy is a huge point that sometimes doesn’t get much air time as it deserves. Yes, it takes time to implement a new system, but a lot of that time is the players getting to know each other. As an example:
Many years ago, there was a catch that they played over and over on slo-mo (which was fairly new at the time, and yes, I’m showing my age). The point is this: the QB and the receiver had been together for years. When you watched this one TD pass, you could see that the ball suddenly rose slightly, just above the hand of the defender as if it was remote controlled.It was probably just a favorable gust of wind, but the intent of the two players, both later claimed, was so strong that the pass HAD to be complete. I don’t expect that kind of experience, but it makes a point. Time together learning tendencies, where the receiver likes the ball, what patterns you can change on the fly and which you can’t with that receiver is something that will always require time and endless repetition. No matter who the QB and receiver are, that’s going to help as experience alters previous patterns.
It all starts with the lines
What makes Royal's 47% so surprising
is he was, I think, at 71% his rookie year. He literally fell off a cliff, and I wonder how much of it was timing due to opponents successfully holding him up at the line of scrimmage? Moving him to slot might help fix that.
"Surprised to see you, Captain, though pleased." — from Star Trek episode Space Seed.
this could partly explain marshall and scheff getting benched in that KC game...
..maybe McD wanted to show them that the offense could function without them and maybe give the team confidence that they could move on without them? oh politics politics
May well have been
Though most of what I’ve seen on that incident was that it was a response by McDaniels to some team leaders (Dawkins, Bailey, etc) that the players be held accountable for their attitudes. I’m inclined to believe that it was more about overall locker room attitude/team philosophy than simply on object lesson aimed at those two.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Apr 17, 2010 9:59 AM MDT up reply actions
I wonder if Kenny McKinley has healed from his injury fully enough to make a run at making the team? He did show some speed and promise from what I recall in the preseason before his knee or whatever injury he had sidelined his season.
Gaffney, if given the reps can make some catches and yardage as we all saw him do against Philly and KC.
Eddie Royal. What happened to this guy? He seemed to lose his hands and confidence from week to week. True sophomore slump if there ever was one. I hope that he can bounce back.
The fact is that Orton needs more than one guy to rely on and last season there wasn’t a consistent #2 receiver to throw to when Marshall was covered well. I’d like to see Daniel Graham start earning that $5 million a season contract and make some key 3rd down catches. Let’s see what Quinn can can do if they opt for the two TE formations.
Taking a WR in the 2nd or 3rd round would be a wise move. Taking another one in the later rounds would be even better to create some depth and hopefully some speed as they are lacking that in the WR corps. Taking Dez Bryant would be a huge mistake as they have pressing needs at MLB and C that nullify drafting a WR in the 1st round.
Cannot wait for the draft.
I can agree with all your points.
Royal I think was caught by a couple of things: 1)He was no longer a surprise to the league, teams were pressing him harder than they did his rookie year; 2)He was having to learn his 2nd offense in 2 years; and 3)I believe he had at least two nagging injuries (an ankle and later a neck) that may have thrown him off his game. The important thing will be for him to show what he can do this year — or he may find himself slipping down on the depth chart.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Apr 17, 2010 10:02 AM MDT up reply actions
A couple of concussions also happened to Royal, so 4 injuries
That had to affect him. I believe that McD made a comment to that effect recently.
It all starts with the lines
Marshall accounted for 29% of the catches but he also accounted for 28% of the targets.
Are we to assume that we’re not going to throw those 154 passes in 2010? I don’t think so…. those attempts will be distributed to other receivers and their individual stats will rise accordingly. Even assuming a lower rate of reception from Marshall’s 65.5% to 52.5% that’s still 81 catches compared to Marshall’s 101.
Marshall was a big target for Orton and an easy target for someone in the first year of this offense and because of his size he presented additional problems for defenses. While both of those are intangible and hard to quantify with statistics, so are Marshall’s negative effects on the team because of his behavior and attitude. I expect the team passing statistics will not be significantly decreased in 2010, I expect the team morale will be significantly improved.
by sirfiver on Apr 17, 2010 10:27 AM MDT reply actions 1 recs
I think improved O-line play
and a second year in McDaniels’ system for Orton and his teammates will do more to help the offense than the loss of Marshall will hurt it. That’s even if Royal doesn’t improve as much as I think he will. I don’t think whoever we draft at WR will make a big difference this year.
"Surprised to see you, Captain, though pleased." — from Star Trek episode Space Seed.
by spock on Apr 17, 2010 6:56 PM MDT up reply actions 2 recs
Good point
… that tailors nicely to my post above on Marshall’s catch rate.
What folks need to remember is that what we lost by trading Marshall is his marginal production over the replacement WR(s), not his total production.
You demonstrate that nicely, though it isn’t quite as simple as Marshall’s marginal production also resulted in new first downs, which create opportunity for future production. So for example because of the lost marginal production, we may only get 140 attempts rather than 154 targets Marshall had… Marshall, by creating new first downs that others do not, in essence creates the opportunity for more targets. Its completely impossible to quantify, but your main point about marginal production is completely correct.
BShrout great post
A great look at our receiving corp for next season, and I really do agree we can still have a good passing attack without Marshall.
I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.
Great post BShrout
Excellent, detailed work. This is the kind of stuff that makes me keep coming back to Mile High Report day after day (although I need to log in more often and not just lurk).
Take my advice... I'm not using it!
"If you can't be kind, at least have the decency to be vague."
Brian
I think you’ve been hanging around “the Dude” too long. Did you know that he used to be a Roadie for Metallica?
Nice work.
Character may be manifested in the great moments but it is made in the small ones -- Philip Brooks
Great Info
If we just double Royal’s targets then he should catch over 74 balls.
We all know Royal can catch. I think that the hits on Kick Returns caused a Concussion and his production dipped.
Look for McDaniels to really get Royal open and I expect a 80 catch 7 TD season
I could live with that
the greedy part of me wants to see another 90 catch 900 yard season from him. ;-p
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Apr 17, 2010 3:19 PM MDT up reply actions
Thanks Brian
Great post and happy to give rec #9. I think we will be okay. I was with you on the Marshall line of thinking. I also can see the FO’s thinking also. Way to much money to pay out. Brandon needed to get a bigger paycheck but this was way too much. Wish him well and all but I don’t think about him any more because he’s gone and we are moving on.
I look for Royal to have a bust out year now that Premadonna is gone!
And you talked about Llyod needing to step up? It wasn’t his fault he was inactive for most of the season. That’s on McD.
Lloyd will need to become more consistent and involved.
Look for great things to happen and it will…
Lloyd has had 7+ years in this league
… and has never been able to step up and produce consistently. He has consistently failed to do so for every team that has given him a starting role (SF, WAS, CHI). I wouldn’t put much hope in that basket….
I don't think that it was a matter of 'fault'
You only have so many slots, and they wanted to give Royal a chance to develop. With the TEs, a few RB receptions, Stokes, Royal, Gaffney and Marshall, the position was pretty well full. Lloyd is someone who Orton likes and is familiar with. He needs to prove that he can keep his head in the game and be willing to experience contact, but he’s very athletic and can make tough catches. Hopefully, he and/or McKinley can step up. I know that McKinley spent a lot of time being abused by Tuten – we’ll see if he can stay healthy. If he is, he’s a very fine young receiver and returner.
It all starts with the lines
What I love about Lloyd is his awareness of where the ball is going to be and his hands.
The knock on him is, that he at times dodges the play to keep from getting hit and getting hit is a prerequisite of playing wide receiver. What little we did see him play brought a glimpse of what he can be for the team. I think he will have to compete for a roster position in TC. Are you saying Rich Tuten is abusing McKinley in a good way or bad way. I would like to see him add 10 or so lbs of muscle to his frail frame. Steve Spurrier did say he was one of the best receivers that he ever worked with and that speaks pretty highly of the kid…I hope both of these players have a break-out type of year.
I was referring to Tuten's work in a good way, bfree
McKinley needs the extra conditioning. Every rookie does – the NFL is a very different game – but with a player that slender, you need to make sure that he’s solid muscle to get off press coverage and to take the hits. Add to that the ‘rookie wall’ and the conditioning will be essential if he’s to make a difference for Denver this coming year.
It all starts with the lines
lloyd makes acrobatic catches...
… and consistently drops the easy ones. His hand, IMO, are terrible.
Sorry… As a DC-area resident and occasional ‘skins fan (far below broncos), I guess I’m just scarred from watching him almost singlehandedly ruin WAS’s offense through easy drops, running the wrong routes, etc. Lloyd was perhaps the worst starting WR I have ever seen in his time in Washington.
Of course… I could say the same thing about Orton’s QB skills as a rookie. He was terrible, and he has definitely progressed into probably a top-20 NFL QB. But Orton was a rookie, and Lloyd was a vet who repeated such terrible play with 2 other teams.
Its hard to say that Orton zoned in on marshall when no one can give the alternative of who else was able to make the play
I always thought that Eddie got his feelings hurt when marshal returned and struggled with that . He was being talked up all summer long by the coaches and Orton but once Marshall return Eddie went from being the #1 to being the decoy who clears out an area for the underneath receiver . Once you add in the injuries and special teams duty he could never catch up . But also as ES mentioned he was splitting reps with Gaffney and if you add both of there numbers through the first 14 games you will see they were gonna match Royals numbers of the previous year.
I do however think Gaffney will play well as he knows every wr position and a part of the problem is that I dont think Marshall or Eddie had much success in learning multiple positions so Josh kept it simple . Thats why if you watch the KC game the one thing thats stands out about Gaffneys performance that it came from all over the field . He lined up in every spot and had the most passes over 15 yards all season that game . If Marshall and Royal couldve moved around like that from play to play WOW that wouldve been something to watch .
This occurred with Lloyd not even knowing all the adjustments so Orton was directing him every play and that gives me hope because I expect to see the no huddle early and often. So if Gaff,Lloyd,Stoke,and Graham can come out and that well under those circumstances then having an entire offseason to prepare along with any new additions and improved running game which will lead to improved play action abilities then we will be okay .

by 









































