Is Landry a Sell high ?

[Cameron Giles]

And last year it had him in the top 20 ahead of Odell Beckham (among many others) while Hopkins and ARob were near the bottom.

Strange how a couple of great WRs like Hopkins end up near the bottom of the list when playing alongside terrible QB play. It's almost like that stat isn't as good as filtering out poor QB/team play as you're advertising.

But hey, sorry I forgot that this year is the only year that happened. Unless we're talking about YatC I guess, then since that's like the one stat that is near his career averages this year it's OK to talk about the rest of his career there too.

It's strange that you're not acknowledging the other side of the discussion, but I am.

Landry is one of the top slot receivers in the NFL. He would be a luxury in an offense that has an actual possession receiver to move the ball more efficiently, along with a more proven deep threat to create more space down low. He would probably hold more real life NFL value because of it. However, that upside is not likely to carry over the same volume from Miami, where he is the primary option with no possession receiver and sketchy deep threats in Parker and Stills. He's in the perfect situation to get the most out of his stats long-term for fantasy owners. Even in a "down" year, Landry is on pace for 245 points in PPR.

If Landry goes to a duplicate of Miami's offense, where the team is comfortable on an inefficient game plan, then this discussion means nothing. But, the goal of this discussion is merely to point out the downside of a strategy that makes up a lot of Landry's dynasty value over his career.

[Jfever]

^ The thing is... this take that Landry is who Landry is simply assumes that he is incapable of doing anything else. I think it is short sighted. He is young and in my honest opinion, could be used as more than a short range target if called upon. Miami has used him in a fashion that limits the depth of his routes yes. Is that because he sucks at all other fazes of the route tree? Is that because he is incapable of doing anything else? It seems to me that some here are of that mindset and - frankly that seems odd to me.

I don't understand how someone could confidently say that Landry, if given a large FA contract and subsequently then on a different offense, with a different offensive coordinator, system, qb, different o-line, different wr corp, different running game, etc - would, without a doubt, be relegated to only short routes out of the slot.

Like, hmmm. how is it that you feel you know this?

[Ghosted]

^ The thing is... this take that Landry is who Landry is simply assumes that he is incapable of doing anything else. I think it is short sighted. He is young and in my honest opinion, could be used as more than a short range target if called upon. Miami has used him in a fashion that limits the depth of his routes yes. Is that because he sucks at all other fazes of the route tree? Is that because he is incapable of doing anything else? It seems to me that some here are of that mindset and - frankly that seems odd to me.

I don't understand how someone could confidently say that Landry, if given a large FA contract and subsequently then on a different offense, with a different offensive coordinator, system, qb, different o-line, different wr corp, different running game, etc - would, without a doubt, be relegated to only short routes out of the slot.

Like, hmmm. how is it that you feel you know this?

Because there's plenty of evidence to support it? Whether it's reception perception, air yards, racr, aDOT, blah blah blah - there's statistical data behind it. He's also had two coaches with eyes on him that are industry proclaimed offensive guys in Philbin and Gase, and another in Campbell for a brief stint (although he probably shouldn't be considered in this argument due to the interim tag), who were/are putting Landry in the best position to succeed in their opinion. Should we put more weight into all of that when all things are considered, or this magical assumption that he is all-of-the-sudden going to become something that he has never been, based on absolutely, for all intents and purposes, a blind hunch?

If there was an actual argument to be made on the other side that provides something tangible outside of "well he's productive and has been productive so obviously he will always be productive," then I would honestly love to hear it. I like Landry a lot as a player, and want him to be as successful as he can for my own selfish-related fantasy purposes. I just really haven't heard a well-constructed argument supporting it.

[Ghosted]

Think of Landry like an elite RB with a bad QB. Hard to be ultraproductive when every defense you play knows you are getting the ball more often than not. Kenny Stills and Parker are OK but I think it is clear teams would rather take their chances against them downfield rather than let Jarvis catch the ball short and get YAC for first downs all day long. Too easy for Jarvis to move the chains if you don't keep a close eye on him.

NE or NO as offenses that spread the ball around well would probably be ideal places for Jarvis from a productivity stand point but neither are likely. I think him in Carolina would be pretty interesting and he would be a superstar in Seattle, maybe not the best for PPR but I guarantee his depth per target would change dramatically with a QB who can extend plays. But if he goes to a bad team just expect more of the same. 80-100 catches for about 1,000 yards.

Except that it won't because it's something that he's been historically bad at.

Which efficiency stats are you using to determine that? His catch rate is below average, but not horribly far behind a guy like DeAndre Hopkins. His RACR, which is the efficiency stat that site really seems to push as important, doesn't drop below average until you get to 40+ yard targets (Antonio Brown's drops below average at 35+ yards, Odell Beckham's at 30+ yards, Julio's between 27 and 40 yards).

Granted, I'm still figuring out how to use the site, but while downfield targets certainly aren't his strength I have found much yet to say he's been historically bad with them.

This is not true at all. Hopkins is comfortably ahead of him in every plane after 15 yards (that's also the area that Hopkins starts facing bracket coverage). Hopkins also completely dominates him in air yards, which is a big thing to consider when looking over those particular tables. They're really not even comparable as receivers, anyway.

[Vcize]

Except that it won't because it's something that he's been historically bad at.

Which efficiency stats are you using to determine that? His catch rate is below average, but not horribly far behind a guy like DeAndre Hopkins. His RACR, which is the efficiency stat that site really seems to push as important, doesn't drop below average until you get to 40+ yard targets (Antonio Brown's drops below average at 35+ yards, Odell Beckham's at 30+ yards, Julio's between 27 and 40 yards).

Granted, I'm still figuring out how to use the site, but while downfield targets certainly aren't his strength I have found much yet to say he's been historically bad with them.

This is not true at all. Hopkins is comfortably ahead of him in every plane after 15 yards (that's also the area that Hopkins starts facing bracket coverage). Hopkins also completely dominates him in air yards, which is a big thing to consider when looking over those particular tables. They're really not even comparable as receivers, anyway.

You still didn't answer my question. What are all these depth of target efficiency stats you're using? As best I can tell those charts provide only two true efficiency stats. One (catch rate) Landry does poorly at after 20 yards, but is about on pace with DeAndre Hopkins from 15-20 yards. The other (RACR), which the site seems to push as most important, Landry actually fairs quite well and is stride for stride with Hopkins throughout the range.

So what are these "historically bad" efficiency stats that Landry has on passes traveling deep downfield? Is it just catch rate you're talking about?

Also, you do realize how tiny the sample sizes we're talking about here are right? We are talking about less than 10 total targets in each of the 20-25 and 25-30 buckets, and literally ONE target in the 30-35, TWO targets in 35-40, and ONE target at 40+. Are you really trying to draw conclusions on his efficiency on targets 40+ yards down field based on the ONE career target he has 40+ yards downfield?

We are talking less than 20 targets total for the entire 20+ yard range with all buckets combined.

[Vcize]

And last year it had him in the top 20 ahead of Odell Beckham (among many others) while Hopkins and ARob were near the bottom.

Strange how a couple of great WRs like Hopkins end up near the bottom of the list when playing alongside terrible QB play. It's almost like that stat isn't as good as filtering out poor QB/team play as you're advertising.

But hey, sorry I forgot that this year is the only year that happened. Unless we're talking about YatC I guess, then since that's like the one stat that is near his career averages this year it's OK to talk about the rest of his career there too.

It's strange that you're not acknowledging the other side of the discussion, but I am.

Landry is one of the top slot receivers in the NFL. He would be a luxury in an offense that has an actual possession receiver to move the ball more efficiently, along with a more proven deep threat to create more space down low. He would probably hold more real life NFL value because of it. However, that upside is not likely to carry over the same volume from Miami, where he is the primary option with no possession receiver and sketchy deep threats in Parker and Stills. He's in the perfect situation to get the most out of his stats long-term for fantasy owners. Even in a "down" year, Landry is on pace for 245 points in PPR.

If Landry goes to a duplicate of Miami's offense, where the team is comfortable on an inefficient game plan, then this discussion means nothing. But, the goal of this discussion is merely to point out the downside of a strategy that makes up a lot of Landry's dynasty value over his career.

This whole string started from a specific sub-point where I mentioned that you are erroneously harping on this "he needs 170 targets to get 800 yards" thing as if that's some meaningful predictor.

Sure, he's not likely to get 170 targets next year. But you're assuming he needs 170 targets because you're assuming only this year's efficiency with those targets. Last year he was WR13 on 130 targets, yet his buying value on the market is WR20.

He doesn't have to get 170 targets to be worth a WR20 price because he's not likely ever going to have this crazy outlier 7.7ypr again.

[Ghosted]

Which efficiency stats are you using to determine that? His catch rate is below average, but not horribly far behind a guy like DeAndre Hopkins. His RACR, which is the efficiency stat that site really seems to push as important, doesn't drop below average until you get to 40+ yard targets (Antonio Brown's drops below average at 35+ yards, Odell Beckham's at 30+ yards, Julio's between 27 and 40 yards).

Granted, I'm still figuring out how to use the site, but while downfield targets certainly aren't his strength I have found much yet to say he's been historically bad with them.

This is not true at all. Hopkins is comfortably ahead of him in every plane after 15 yards (that's also the area that Hopkins starts facing bracket coverage). Hopkins also completely dominates him in air yards, which is a big thing to consider when looking over those particular tables. They're really not even comparable as receivers, anyway.

You still didn't answer my question. What are all these depth of target efficiency stats you're using? As best I can tell those charts provide only two true efficiency stats. One (catch rate) Landry does poorly at after 20 yards, but is about on pace with DeAndre Hopkins from 15-20 yards. The other (RACR), which the site seems to push as most important, Landry actually fairs quite well and is stride for stride with Hopkins throughout the range.

So what are these "historically bad" efficiency stats that Landry has on passes traveling deep downfield? Is it just catch rate you're talking about?

Also, you do realize how tiny the sample sizes we're talking about here are right? We are talking about less than 10 total targets in each of the 20-25 and 25-30 buckets, and literally ONE target in the 30-35, TWO targets in 35-40, and ONE target at 40+. Are you really trying to draw conclusions on his efficiency on targets 40+ yards down field based on the ONE career target he has 40+ yards downfield?

We are talking less than 20 targets total for the entire 20+ yard range with all buckets combined.

First, Landry is poor after 15 yards, not 20. He is marginally better within 10 yards than the league average, which is an area that he's supposed to dominate. And I'll agree that it's a smaller sample size when compared to X receivers, but it's a small sample size for a REASON. As for the specifies of my particular algorithm, I use information from a lot of sources. I'm not going to get into the logistics of it in this thread topic, but some of the components are listed here. I also use reception perception data. There's a lot to it. Another thing, I think we're talking about the word "historically" in a different context - I meant throughout his history as a time as a receiver. I'm not sure if you thought I meant historically when compared to other receivers throughout the history of the league, but it sounded like it. These are all things that I use to draw my own conclusion.

Again, I have still yet to have heard a well-constructed argument supporting the fact that Landry is something different than what he has always been, just because. Is there something tangible that you can provide to support your stance?

[Vcize]

First, Landry is poor after 15 yards, not 20.

I was citing that number with regards to his comparison to Hopkins. .37 for Landry vs. .40 for Hopkins at 20 yards. Given that you just cited Landry as being "only marginally" better than the league average at 10 yards when his is .08 above average, I'm going to guess the .03 difference here isn't something you consider significant.

My point was relative to the efficiency data I have, he's on pace with Hopkins up to 20 yards in one metric, and through the whole range in the other.

I'll agree that it's a smaller sample size when compared to X receivers, but it's a small sample size for a REASON

If your argument was "we don't really know how good he is downfield, but given no one has used him that way he probably isn't" then I would say sure. Heck, that's probably where I stand on the issue too. But your stance was a direct COUNTER to that notion. That's what someone else said and you were replying that it isn't just probably based on how coaches have used him, it is known based on data of how he has played in those situations. As someone with a stats minor, I don't think that extremely limited data makes anything known.

Again, I have still yet to have heard a well-constructed argument supporting the fact that Landry is something different than what he has always been, just because. Is there something tangible that you can provide to support your stance?

It's not my stance. Someone else made the point that for all we know he may be good enough downfield, and I just jumped in when you said it is known that it is false.

I wouldn't even say it's likely, but in all the potential outcomes that Landry has for his career beyond this season, the one that says "he actually turned out to be a pretty decent downfield receiver" is still in play. Not likely, but another possible outcome with some value.

I didn't ask what data you were referencing in coming to the conclusion that it is empirically true that he is a poor downfield receiver to be argumentative. I asked because I genuinely wanted to know. I don't own Landry in any leagues but am strongly considering buying right now given his moderate cost to acquire. If there is a compelling argument, especially an empirical one, not to do that then I want to see it. I am not hard headed, I play at too high of stakes leagues to stubbornly make a bad move just to try and prove I'm right about something. If there is a compelling argument, especially an empirical one, not to do that then I am all ears. Catch rate on a small sample size is not something I would consider to fit that mold.

I'm not saying if he is truly terrible downfield that would necessary kill my interest in him entirely, but if we eliminate that "maybe he turns out pretty decent downfield" possible outcome then that certainly eliminates the value of that potential outcome, whatever it may be.

[dynastyninja]

Alright, time to move on from the metrics discussion that nobody is following. Current ADP is WR20. Agree or disagree?

[Cameron Giles]

This whole string started from a specific sub-point where I mentioned that you are erroneously harping on this "he needs 170 targets to get 800 yards" thing as if that's some meaningful predictor.

Sure, he's not likely to get 170 targets next year. But you're assuming he needs 170 targets because you're assuming only this year's efficiency with those targets. Last year he was WR13 on 130 targets, yet his buying value on the market is WR20.

He doesn't have to get 170 targets to be worth a WR20 price because he's not likely ever going to have this crazy outlier 7.7ypr again.

Why is that not likely? Again, this is simply the downside of the way Miami uses Landry. When you rely on dinking to a player at high volume close to the LOS, seasons like this can happen. Hell, it can happen at low volume too. The closer you are to the LOS, the less room there is for YAC. It can catch up to you.

[Ghosted]

First, Landry is poor after 15 yards, not 20.

I was citing that number with regards to his comparison to Hopkins. .37 for Landry vs. .40 for Hopkins at 20 yards. Given that you just cited Landry as being "only marginally" better than the league average at 10 yards when his is .08 above average, I'm going to guess the .03 difference here isn't something you consider significant.

My point was relative to the efficiency data I have, he's on pace with Hopkins up to 20 yards in one metric, and through the whole range in the other.

I'll agree that it's a smaller sample size when compared to X receivers, but it's a small sample size for a REASON

If your argument was "we don't really know how good he is downfield, but given no one has used him that way he probably isn't" then I would say sure. Heck, that's probably where I stand on the issue too. But your stance was a direct COUNTER to that notion. That's what someone else said and you were replying that it isn't just probably based on how coaches have used him, it is known based on data of how he has played in those situations. As someone with a stats minor, I don't think that extremely limited data makes anything known.

Again, I have still yet to have heard a well-constructed argument supporting the fact that Landry is something different than what he has always been, just because. Is there something tangible that you can provide to support your stance?

It's not my stance. Someone else made the point that for all we know he may be good enough downfield, and I just jumped in when you said it is known that it is false.

I wouldn't even say it's likely, but in all the potential outcomes that Landry has for his career beyond this season, the one that says "he actually turned out to be a pretty decent downfield receiver" is still in play. Not likely, but another possible outcome with some value.

I didn't ask what data you were referencing in coming to the conclusion that it is empirically true that he is a poor downfield receiver to be argumentative. I asked because I genuinely wanted to know. I don't own Landry in any leagues but am strongly considering buying right now given his moderate cost to acquire. If there is a compelling argument, especially an empirical one, not to do that then I want to see it. I am not hard headed, I play at too high of stakes leagues to stubbornly make a bad move just to try and prove I'm right about something. If there is a compelling argument, especially an empirical one, not to do that then I am all ears. Catch rate on a small sample size is not something I would consider to fit that mold.

I'm not saying if he is truly terrible downfield that would necessary kill my interest in him entirely, but if we eliminate that "maybe he turns out pretty decent downfield" possible outcome then that certainly eliminates the value of that potential outcome, whatever it may be.

Fair enough. I'll just end by saying that it's perfectly understandable for anyone to use whatever data they want to draw whatever conclusion they want in this great hobby we all enjoy. I look at things through a lense of probability, and for me personally, I have seen enough data (when combined with multiple coach utilization) to draw a conclusion I'm comfortable with. Especially when you think about the fact that they've had him in their system for years now. It's not just about in-game targets, they've seen him in every practice scenario possible, as well. They're putting him in the scerios they believe he'll succeed in, and when he steps out of those boundaries (the ones he would need to to succeed with less volume) he's failing. It's a lot to digest and it's not an exact science, but it's something that people need to be thinking about.

[Cameron Giles]

^ The thing is... this take that Landry is who Landry is simply assumes that he is incapable of doing anything else. I think it is short sighted. He is young and in my honest opinion, could be used as more than a short range target if called upon. Miami has used him in a fashion that limits the depth of his routes yes. Is that because he sucks at all other fazes of the route tree? Is that because he is incapable of doing anything else? It seems to me that some here are of that mindset and - frankly that seems odd to me.

I don't understand how someone could confidently say that Landry, if given a large FA contract and subsequently then on a different offense, with a different offensive coordinator, system, qb, different o-line, different wr corp, different running game, etc - would, without a doubt, be relegated to only short routes out of the slot.

Like, hmmm. how is it that you feel you know this?

I would love to see if Landry is actually a big play, deep route receiver. I'm not sure if he can seperate vertically at high volume, but it would be interesting at least.

Have we seen anything to believe that Landry is more than what he is? Landry has 9 receptions on passes that travel 21 yards or more through his career. Is he so good at being a short route receiver that his coaches don't care to use him as anything more? That would seem weird. As someone acknowledged, Joe Philbin and Adam Gase are well-respected offensive minds. Philbin was the OC of a Super Bowl team and Gase helped revitalize Peyton Manning. Did they not see that Landry is actually a well-rounded receiver?

[Tsunami]

Again, I have still yet to have heard a well-constructed argument supporting the fact that Landry is something different than what he has always been, just because. Is there something tangible that you can provide to support your stance?

Landry was 2nd in the league in YAC last season and 26th in yards per target, which is not horrible. He was 11th in 20+ yard receptions, 7th in yards per route run and 2nd in yards per route run from the slot (behind Edelman). All of those numbers are way down this season, so I don't see how you can say this is "what he has always been". I don't know for sure the reason for this decline, but something has definitely changed from last year.

It's ridiculous to say he wouldn't be used heavily by a new team. Last year the QB's rating targeting Landry was 101.6, this year it's 79.1. That's Drew Brees level production out of Ryan Tannehill and Matt Moore. He's 8th in the league this year in first downs, so though his yardage is low he's still a productive and efficient slot receiver.

[Jfever]

^ The thing is... this take that Landry is who Landry is simply assumes that he is incapable of doing anything else. I think it is short sighted. He is young and in my honest opinion, could be used as more than a short range target if called upon. Miami has used him in a fashion that limits the depth of his routes yes. Is that because he sucks at all other fazes of the route tree? Is that because he is incapable of doing anything else? It seems to me that some here are of that mindset and - frankly that seems odd to me.

I don't understand how someone could confidently say that Landry, if given a large FA contract and subsequently then on a different offense, with a different offensive coordinator, system, qb, different o-line, different wr corp, different running game, etc - would, without a doubt, be relegated to only short routes out of the slot.

Like, hmmm. how is it that you feel you know this?

I would love to see if Landry is actually a big play, deep route receiver. I'm not sure if he can seperate vertically at high volume, but it would be interesting at least.

Have we seen anything to believe that Landry is more than what he is? Landry has 9 receptions on passes that travel 21 yards or more through his career. Is he so good at being a short route receiver that his coaches don't care to use him as anything more? That would seem weird. As someone acknowledged, Joe Philbin and Adam Gase are well-respected offensive minds. Philbin was the OC of a Super Bowl team and Gase helped revitalize Peyton Manning. Did they not see that Landry is actually a well-rounded receiver?

Seems to me likely that he hasn't been used down field to high volume in the past 2.5 seasons due to other variables than what some are considering. His qbs for one... Why haven't folks mentioned the VERY well known rep that Tannehill has as a dink n dunker? Other wr's that are simply better or worse at other routes, ie: Parker and Still better at deep routes. Still not known for short routes, No consistent TE play of note to mention at Miami while Landry has been in league, running game emphasis and not a lot of short passes going to Rb. Seems that these factors should be considered. No?

[dipANDglide]

Another day, another 20 point performance. I wish I had more shares of him.