WR's who break out in Year 1 are GOLD JERRY, GOLD!

[jjleurquin]

Curious, do you think Lock made the wrong decision throwing to the guy that had a step on his guy in the endzone? Or are you impressed with Jeudy juking out 33 year old safety Jason McCourty?

Not looking at the ball at all, purely looking at the route and footwork to turn the defender. It's nice.

The point of the videos was to show that Jeudy is showing the right signs for better production in the future, and as a few others pointed out, context matters when evaluating box scores. Essentially, that is what this thread is about, the end box score. Thus, without analysis of the situation and viewing videos of what is actually occurring on the field we cannot definitively assert the raw production. I get it though, this is purely a statistical thread for WR rookie production thresholds and the likely implications on their future production.

I mean to be honest none of the examples that were shared swayed my opinion in any way. The particular example that got extra praise here doesn't make much sense. The defender was acting in a logical way. Not sure how he was supposed to expect a double move 30 yards down the field 3.5 seconds after the ball was snapped.

[philosophy]

I understand the premise of this thread and the historical data used, however, every statistical model has it's limitations and a few considerations need to be made.

Firstly, the resultant percentages of future success should be of no surprise to anyone on planet Earth without any data whatsoever, they merely show that if you produce as a rookie, i.e. at a young age, you have a greater chance of future success. That statement applies to all aspects of life, does it not? Ceteris paribus, if you asked anyone to choose between player X who had 1000 yards and player Y who had 500 yards, everyone would choose player X. However, context matters, not every individual prospect is the same, has the same draft capital, plays on the same offense, etc. To put it bluntly, this thread and data does not show anything of interest, everyone knows that a person who succeeded today is more likely to succeed tomorrow compared to a person who failed today. It's no different to the breakout age when evaluating a college WR prospect.

Historical data is usually the last option used in statistical models, especially for forecasting. What happened to player X 15 years ago, or even all the players used in this data, tells us nothing about player Z today. Compound that fact with the fact the original data used was from 1995-2015; the NFL has evolved considerably since those years, particularly the earlier years. Passing yards have increased by 30-40 yards/game, and so has scoring. Rule changes, young coordinators being more innovative allowing their skill players, even as rookies, to maximise their production, and excellent offensive players entering the league recently are among some of the reasons for the increased offensive output. Thus, it is easier to produce in today's NFL as a receiver.

Situation matters for production, there is a reason why 3rd and 4th string WRs produce on potent offenses and not so much on bad ones. I'll stop here and conclude that historical success percentages don't tell us anything we didn't know. A player will either be a hit or not, 1 or 0, only time will tell, and it will have nothing to do with these percentages.

[FantasyFreak]

I understand the premise of this thread and the historical data used, however, every statistical model has it's limitations and a few considerations need to be made.

Firstly, the resultant percentages of future success should be of no surprise to anyone on planet Earth without any data whatsoever, they merely show that if you produce as a rookie, i.e. at a young age, you have a greater chance of future success. That statement applies to all aspects of life, does it not? Ceteris paribus, if you asked anyone to choose between player X who had 1000 yards and player Y who had 500 yards, everyone would choose player X. However, context matters, not every individual prospect is the same, has the same draft capital, plays on the same offense, etc. To put it bluntly, this thread and data does not show anything of interest, everyone knows that a person who succeeded today is more likely to succeed tomorrow compared to a person who failed today. It's no different to the breakout age when evaluating a college WR prospect.

Historical data is usually the last option used in statistical models, especially for forecasting. What happened to player X 15 years ago, or even all the players used in this data, tells us nothing about player Z today. Compound that fact with the fact the original data used was from 1995-2015; the NFL has evolved considerably since those years, particularly the earlier years. Passing yards have increased by 30-40 yards/game, and so has scoring. Rule changes, young coordinators being more innovative allowing their skill players, even as rookies, to maximise their production, and excellent offensive players entering the league recently are among some of the reasons for the increased offensive output. Thus, it is easier to produce in today's NFL as a receiver.

Situation matters for production, there is a reason why 3rd and 4th string WRs produce on potent offenses and not so much on bad ones. I'll stop here and conclude that historical success percentages don't tell us anything we didn't know. A player will either be a hit or not, 1 or 0, only time will tell, and it will have nothing to do with these percentages.

Very true. Amazing post.

[philosophy]

Not looking at the ball at all, purely looking at the route and footwork to turn the defender. It's nice.

The point of the videos was to show that Jeudy is showing the right signs for better production in the future, and as a few others pointed out, context matters when evaluating box scores. Essentially, that is what this thread is about, the end box score. Thus, without analysis of the situation and viewing videos of what is actually occurring on the field we cannot definitively assert the raw production. I get it though, this is purely a statistical thread for WR rookie production thresholds and the likely implications on their future production.

I mean to be honest none of the examples that were shared swayed my opinion in any way. The particular example that got extra praise here doesn't make much sense. The defender was acting in a logical way. Not sure how he was supposed to expect a double move 30 yards down the field 3.5 seconds after the ball was snapped.

I admit they weren't anything special lol, but I literally just searched Jerry Jeudy in twitter under the videos tab and found them. He has not lived up to the hype yet unfortunately, but he is stuck on an offense with a questionable QB, 2 other low caliber QBs for a few games and he is the only true threat on that offense which as a rookie makes it difficult. Their offensive output is bottom 5 in the league, however he does need to improve his catching and overall play, so it's a combination of both the team and him.

We all hate speaking hypothetically but we can't ignore the fact that if he went to one of the other teams where the rookie WRs are producing he would've likely had a better yardage total than now; it would've made his acclimation to the NFL easier and smoother.

[Dynasty DeLorean]

I understand the premise of this thread and the historical data used, however, every statistical model has it's limitations and a few considerations need to be made.

Firstly, the resultant percentages of future success should be of no surprise to anyone on planet Earth without any data whatsoever, they merely show that if you produce as a rookie, i.e. at a young age, you have a greater chance of future success. That statement applies to all aspects of life, does it not? Ceteris paribus, if you asked anyone to choose between player X who had 1000 yards and player Y who had 500 yards, everyone would choose player X. However, context matters, not every individual prospect is the same, has the same draft capital, plays on the same offense, etc. To put it bluntly, this thread and data does not show anything of interest, everyone knows that a person who succeeded today is more likely to succeed tomorrow compared to a person who failed today. It's no different to the breakout age when evaluating a college WR prospect.

Historical data is usually the last option used in statistical models, especially for forecasting. What happened to player X 15 years ago, or even all the players used in this data, tells us nothing about player Z today. Compound that fact with the fact the original data used was from 1995-2015; the NFL has evolved considerably since those years, particularly the earlier years. Passing yards have increased by 30-40 yards/game, and so has scoring. Rule changes, young coordinators being more innovative allowing their skill players, even as rookies, to maximise their production, and excellent offensive players entering the league recently are among some of the reasons for the increased offensive output. Thus, it is easier to produce in today's NFL as a receiver.

Situation matters for production, there is a reason why 3rd and 4th string WRs produce on potent offenses and not so much on bad ones. I'll stop here and conclude that historical success percentages don't tell us anything we didn't know. A player will either be a hit or not, 1 or 0, only time will tell, and it will have nothing to do with these percentages.

I don’t really agree with this at all. The premise of your argument is not necessarily supported by the data. Higher production totals, yes. But the data also shows pretty consistently that a wr with 600 yards as a rookie is more or less the same as a wr with 150 yards as a rookie. So more is not necessarily always better.

You claim the data is no longer relevant but you can look at just the past 5 years and it looks like it holds up to me. You claim data from the past is irrelevant and it’s so much easier to produce today yet I posted how many rookie wrs hit the 47 ypg threshold and there have been very few in years 2015-2018.

I have no doubt passing numbers overall is up, but you didn’t show any evidence of how that effects rookie wrs in particular and if so how that invalidates the data presented in this thread. The 20 year average from 1995-2015 is about 3 rookie wrs per year that reach the 47 ypg mark, and that holds consistent with what we’ve been seeing lately, of course outside of the years where the rookie talent is insane like in 2014 and this year in particular.

Number of players that eclipsed 47+ ypg
2020 - 8 (so far)
2019 - 6
2018 - 3 [Ridley, DJM, Kirk]
2017 - 2 [Juju, Kupp]
2016 - 1 [Michael Thomas]
2015 - 2 [Cooper, Diggs]
2014 - 9

[Yarnith]

I understand the premise of this thread and the historical data used, however, every statistical model has it's limitations and a few considerations need to be made.

Firstly, the resultant percentages of future success should be of no surprise to anyone on planet Earth without any data whatsoever, they merely show that if you produce as a rookie, i.e. at a young age, you have a greater chance of future success. That statement applies to all aspects of life, does it not? Ceteris paribus, if you asked anyone to choose between player X who had 1000 yards and player Y who had 500 yards, everyone would choose player X. However, context matters, not every individual prospect is the same, has the same draft capital, plays on the same offense, etc. To put it bluntly, this thread and data does not show anything of interest, everyone knows that a person who succeeded today is more likely to succeed tomorrow compared to a person who failed today. It's no different to the breakout age when evaluating a college WR prospect.

Historical data is usually the last option used in statistical models, especially for forecasting. What happened to player X 15 years ago, or even all the players used in this data, tells us nothing about player Z today. Compound that fact with the fact the original data used was from 1995-2015; the NFL has evolved considerably since those years, particularly the earlier years. Passing yards have increased by 30-40 yards/game, and so has scoring. Rule changes, young coordinators being more innovative allowing their skill players, even as rookies, to maximise their production, and excellent offensive players entering the league recently are among some of the reasons for the increased offensive output. Thus, it is easier to produce in today's NFL as a receiver.

Situation matters for production, there is a reason why 3rd and 4th string WRs produce on potent offenses and not so much on bad ones. I'll stop here and conclude that historical success percentages don't tell us anything we didn't know. A player will either be a hit or not, 1 or 0, only time will tell, and it will have nothing to do with these percentages.

So your argument that this data isn't useful at all is based on the highlighted? Just to clarify, WR's and Offenses from 1995-2015 were less productive under the old schemes and rules as opposed to the current modern game. Rookies are better now than they ever were being more prepared and it is easier to produce than ever. So if that is all true wouldn't that mean we should see even more 1000yd rookies than ever before and if they don't hit 1000yds you should be MORE alarmed than ever? Just carrying your own argument out to its logical conclusion.

The idea 1000yd season as a rookie shows a good sign of growth is no surprise. The sheer drop off on success after that is no less valid than things like "only 3 1-5 teams have ever made the playoffs be worried". Of course its not the be all of things. It should still be something to consider. Keep in mind and I will use Jeudy since people are latched onto him. Just because he doesn't hit 1000yds doesn't mean he is personally a bust. Yes QB play is bad, coach scheme isn't helping etc etc. That can all be true but how many years does it take for those things to all change and give him the chance to succeed? Teams can spend years chasing a good qb and coach combo and by then Jeudy, talented or not is a FA hunting a better team and you sat on a 800yd a year WR for 4 seasons of meh. Its just another stat to consider not the single defining rule to make your team with.

[OhCruelestRanter]

I still haven’t seen if the rookie season is included in the outcome metric of “3 1000 yard seasons”.

[philosophy]

Yarnith answered this himself in the second paragraph because he used a context. Context matters, hence every WR is at the mercy of his own circumstance. That outcome may very well become true, but again, it happened because of a number of REASONS and not because the historical data said there are 3 or 2 or 10 WRs expected to produce multiple 1000 yard seasons in every draft class. Thus, the historical data is not predictive but rather reactionary, i.e. we have this information from the past showing us that this is the statistical normal and let's hope the future holds the same.

To produce in the NFL a WR needs talent, volume and a competent QB providing the targets. If a WR reaches 1000 yards in their rookie season they likely have all 3 of those going for them, and thus will likely continue going for them unless of an injury or their QB gets injured/retires. If a player X has more talent than player Y, but Y has the better QB and volume and thus Y produces the desired threshold, how are we to decide who to choose. It won't be because of the historical data but rather who we are more bullish on given other factors.

Whether one has the percentages in the original post or not their rankings will not change I am sure. Without even looking at history most people will have Thomas and Brown within their top few WRs from that list, more often than not they would be top 2. Before the draft many would have been bullish on Gallup, now with Lamb there and Dalton for this year, at least, it gets murkier. He obviously has the talent but will it materialise is the question. You could've said yes before the draft and no after and I would've preferred that thought process than well he is 52% likely because of historical evidence.

My apologies on the yardage as it does even out because now it's easier for vets just as much it is for rookies to get yards and offensive production is spread around more, hence there are less heavily targeted WRs today.

[TimeWillTell]

I still haven’t seen if the rookie season is included in the outcome metric of “3 1000 yard seasons”.

DD (I believe it was) did try to answer your question above. To paraphrase, Basically, yes 1 is the 1000 yard rookie season but a vast majority of those players ended up having more than just 3 1000 yard seasons. But he couldn’t give you the specific data because it is now behind a pay wall

[OhCruelestRanter]

I still haven’t seen if the rookie season is included in the outcome metric of “3 1000 yard seasons”.

DD (I believe it was) did try to answer your question above. To paraphrase, Basically, yes 1 is the 1000 yard rookie season but a vast majority of those players ended up having more than just 3 1000 yard seasons. But he couldn’t give you the specific data because it is now behind a pay wall

That’s concerning.

[Dynasty DeLorean]

I still haven’t seen if the rookie season is included in the outcome metric of “3 1000 yard seasons”.

DD (I believe it was) did try to answer your question above. To paraphrase, Basically, yes 1 is the 1000 yard rookie season but a vast majority of those players ended up having more than just 3 1000 yard seasons. But he couldn’t give you the specific data because it is now behind a pay wall

Thanks, but I did manually go double check and they all had 4+. It’s all posted in my reply to him which he never bothered to find and read lmao.

[TimeWillTell]

I still haven’t seen if the rookie season is included in the outcome metric of “3 1000 yard seasons”.

DD (I believe it was) did try to answer your question above. To paraphrase, Basically, yes 1 is the 1000 yard rookie season but a vast majority of those players ended up having more than just 3 1000 yard seasons. But he couldn’t give you the specific data because it is now behind a pay wall

Thanks, but I did manually go double check and they all had 4+. It’s all posted in my reply to him which he never bothered to find and read lmao.

Sorry, I read before the edit and since it was on the last page I didn't notice the change. Good info and thanks for checking on it!

[OhCruelestRanter]

Oh wow I scrolled right past it. It’s really unfortunate (but understandable) that PFR put their Play Index behind a paywall. It’s an outstanding tool.

[Cameron Giles]

Oh wow I scrolled right past it. It’s really unfortunate (but understandable) that PFR put their Play Index behind a paywall. It’s an outstanding tool.

And there's nothing out there even close to it, that's available for free.

I can't blame them for it considering the times, but it really sucks.

[CGW]

One more game with DiNucci under center and Lamb won't be in our "can't miss" group anymore... I plan on continuing to target him the remainder of the year in anticipation of Prescott or a rookie taking over next year.