Which WR is/was greater? Calvin Johnson or Larry Fitzgerald

[footbull3196]

1 hour ago, Malik said:

I feel like people are misremembering his peak for longer than what it was. He really only had 2 seasons that only the best of the best can compare to. The rest of his other great seasons are in line with other hall of fame receivers great seasons. People are acting like him getting almost 2000 yards was the norm for his career though.

Lol thank you.  That 2000 yard season was a result of over 200 targets from a quarterback that threw over 700 passes and still forced it to him when he was triple covered.  The Lions were a terrible team that year and he got a ton of yards in garbage time.  If anything his 2011 where he caught 9 TDs in the first 5 games was the best season of his career

[theuntouchable]

On 9/4/2018 at 10:38 AM, footbull3196 said:

Lol thank you.  That 2000 yard season was a result of over 200 targets from a quarterback that threw over 700 passes and still forced it to him when he was triple covered.  The Lions were a terrible team that year and he got a ton of yards in garbage time.  If anything his 2011 where he caught 9 TDs in the first 5 games was the best season of his career

Ton of yards in garbage time? Have any stats to back up that erroneous claim?

[footbull3196]

54 minutes ago, theuntouchable said:

Ton of yards in garbage time? Have any stats to back up that erroneous claim?

I'm so glad you asked.  Yes, as a matter of fact I do have stats to back it up, like I do with all of my opinions 

"Let’s say that garbage time is any point in the fourth quarter at which your team trails by more than one touchdown. By that definition, Calvin Johnson leads the league in garbage-time receiving, and it isn’t close: He has 416 receiving yards in that situation this year, and only Brandon Myers of the Raiders is approaching 300 yards in the same split. Solve for x and you can gather that Calvin Johnson has gotten a huge chunk of his yardage, 319 yards, this year in the fourth quarter while his team was down by eight to 14 points."

Source: https://rtipress.wordpress.com/2012/12/28/megatrons-garbage-time/amp/

If that's not garbage time stat padding, then I don't know what is.  This totally discredits his 2012 season and shows that he only achieved the record because of being targeted over 200 times by a quarterback who threw it over 700 times and CONSTANTLY forced it his way.  So much for erroneous claim lol

[theuntouchable]

 The term “garbage time” is a very loose term and the definition varies from person to person. You can’t just say “down by more than one score in the 4th quarter” that’s lazy and not even close to being accurate. 15 minutes is a LOT of football left. Hell, 8 minutes is a LOT of football left and that was the timeframe I used. I even counted the games that ended up closer than 8 points but the lions did not have a reasonable chance to score again (meaning they would have had to rely on an onside kick, turnover or the other team making a completely boneheaded play)

Of those games where the Lions were trailing by at least 8 points with 8 minutes remaining;

San Francisco - they ended up losing by 8 points but they had a very late TD to get it there. (22 yards)

1st Chicago Game - they lost by 6, but again it was a very late TD and they had no chance (barring an onside kick) (28 yards)

1st Minnesota game - lost by 10 (41 yards)

Arizona - lost by 28 points (8 yards)

Atlanta - lost by 13 points (18 yards)

these 5 games are the ones that would result in garbage time. He had a total of 95 yards in the final 8 minutes of those games. (I would also argue that 8 minutes left in the 4th is a lengthy time for “garbage time”, but I digress. 

So, 95 yards of nearly 2000 is a “ton” of yards in your opinion? 

“Oh he had 200+ targets!!!”

still caught just shy of 60% of those targets. He also still had 16 yards per catch (fitz only went above 16 ypc once in his entire career, while Calvin nearly averaged 16 ypc for his. 

- Source

its also funny that you only quote certain aspects of the writer you cite. From the very article you’re pounding your chest from

”

• A 37-yard gain with the Lions down 16-6 and 13:08 to go against the Eagles in a game the Lions eventually won
• A 30-yard gain with the Lions down 24-10 and 9:26 to go against the Cardinals in a game the Lions would lose 38-10
• A 26-yard gain with the Lions down 20-9 and 14:00 to go against the 49ers in a game the Lions would lose 29-17
• A 25-yard gain with the Lions down 24-10 and 11:59 to go against the Vikings in a game the Lions would lose 34-24, but on a play that brought them down to the 2-yard line
• A 22-yard gain with the Lions down 41-27 and 0:55 to go against the Titans in a game that the Lions would memorably tie up with two scores in the final minute and send to overtime before losing, 44-41
• A 20-yard gain with 1:08 left in that same game
• A 20-yard gain with the Lions down 16-6 and 10:56 to go against the Eagles in a game the Lions would win 26-23 in overtime, on a play that brought Detroit to the 1-yard line
• A 20-yard gain in the aforementioned Vikings game with 8:06 left and a 31-17 deficit, but one where Johnson fumbled the ball away to Minnesota

Those eight plays count for an even 200 yards, or close to two-thirds of the yardage we would consider to be otherwise meaningless stat padding from Megatron. Well, two of those plays came in games the Lions actually ended up winning, two more came in games that produced a comeback and overtime, a fifth came with nearly the entire quarter to go in an 11-point game, and a sixth moved the Lions to the 2-yard line for a score that came on the next play, putting the Vikings down seven with 11:34 to go. The other two might not even qualify as garbage time, either. The case for Johnson padding his stats in garbage time there, even with his league-leading yardage total, is specious.”

Here’s another gem of a quote by the same author in the same article 

“By my definitions of the concept, though, I don’t see any evidence that Johnson is unfairly accruing meaningless numbers.”

Next time, i suggest you actually read an article you propose to prove your point prior to beating your chest. 

So, yes, it was a completely erroneous claim. 

[theuntouchable]

33 minutes ago, footbull3196 said:

I'm so glad you asked.  Yes, as a matter of fact I do have stats to back it up, like I do with all of my opinions 

"Let’s say that garbage time is any point in the fourth quarter at which your team trails by more than one touchdown. By that definition, Calvin Johnson leads the league in garbage-time receiving, and it isn’t close: He has 416 receiving yards in that situation this year, and only Brandon Myers of the Raiders is approaching 300 yards in the same split. Solve for x and you can gather that Calvin Johnson has gotten a huge chunk of his yardage, 319 yards, this year in the fourth quarter while his team was down by eight to 14 points."

Source: https://rtipress.wordpress.com/2012/12/28/megatrons-garbage-time/amp/

If that's not garbage time stat padding, then I don't know what is.  This totally discredits his 2012 season and shows that he only achieved the record because of being targeted over 200 times by a quarterback who threw it over 700 times and CONSTANTLY forced it his way.  So much for erroneous claim lol

Did you even read that article?? I’m guessing you didn’t because you obviously missed the point of it. 

[theuntouchable]

@footbull3196 SPECIOUS!! SPECIOUS I TELL YOU!! 

[footbull3196]

35 minutes ago, theuntouchable said:

 The term “garbage time” is a very loose term and the definition varies from person to person. You can’t just say “down by more than one score in the 4th quarter” that’s lazy and not even close to being accurate. 15 minutes is a LOT of football left. Hell, 8 minutes is a LOT of football left and that was the timeframe I used. I even counted the games that ended up closer than 8 points but the lions did not have a reasonable chance to score again (meaning they would have had to rely on an onside kick, turnover or the other team making a completely boneheaded play)

Of those games where the Lions were trailing by at least 8 points with 8 minutes remaining;

San Francisco - they ended up losing by 8 points but they had a very late TD to get it there. (22 yards)

1st Chicago Game - they lost by 6, but again it was a very late TD and they had no chance (barring an onside kick) (28 yards)

1st Minnesota game - lost by 10 (41 yards)

Arizona - lost by 28 points (8 yards)

Atlanta - lost by 13 points (18 yards)

these 5 games are the ones that would result in garbage time. He had a total of 95 yards in the final 8 minutes of those games. (I would also argue that 8 minutes left in the 4th is a lengthy time for “garbage time”, but I digress. 

So, 95 yards of nearly 2000 is a “ton” of yards in your opinion? 

“Oh he had 200+ targets!!!”

still caught just shy of 60% of those targets. He also still had 16 yards per catch (fitz only went above 16 ypc once in his entire career, while Calvin nearly averaged 16 ypc for his. 

- Source

its also funny that you only quote certain aspects of the writer you cite. From the very article you’re pounding your chest from

”

• A 37-yard gain with the Lions down 16-6 and 13:08 to go against the Eagles in a game the Lions eventually won
• A 30-yard gain with the Lions down 24-10 and 9:26 to go against the Cardinals in a game the Lions would lose 38-10
• A 26-yard gain with the Lions down 20-9 and 14:00 to go against the 49ers in a game the Lions would lose 29-17
• A 25-yard gain with the Lions down 24-10 and 11:59 to go against the Vikings in a game the Lions would lose 34-24, but on a play that brought them down to the 2-yard line
• A 22-yard gain with the Lions down 41-27 and 0:55 to go against the Titans in a game that the Lions would memorably tie up with two scores in the final minute and send to overtime before losing, 44-41
• A 20-yard gain with 1:08 left in that same game
• A 20-yard gain with the Lions down 16-6 and 10:56 to go against the Eagles in a game the Lions would win 26-23 in overtime, on a play that brought Detroit to the 1-yard line
• A 20-yard gain in the aforementioned Vikings game with 8:06 left and a 31-17 deficit, but one where Johnson fumbled the ball away to Minnesota

Those eight plays count for an even 200 yards, or close to two-thirds of the yardage we would consider to be otherwise meaningless stat padding from Megatron. Well, two of those plays came in games the Lions actually ended up winning, two more came in games that produced a comeback and overtime, a fifth came with nearly the entire quarter to go in an 11-point game, and a sixth moved the Lions to the 2-yard line for a score that came on the next play, putting the Vikings down seven with 11:34 to go. The other two might not even qualify as garbage time, either. The case for Johnson padding his stats in garbage time there, even with his league-leading yardage total, is specious.”

Here’s another gem of a quote by the same author in the same article 

“By my definitions of the concept, though, I don’t see any evidence that Johnson is unfairly accruing meaningless numbers.”

Next time, i suggest you actually read an article you propose to prove your point prior to beating your chest. 

So, yes, it was a completely erroneous claim. 

So let me get this straight.  You ask for facts, I give you evidence to back up my claim.  You then proceed to cherry pick which data you would like to use and change the definition of garbage time to fit your own personal narrative, in essence, moving the goalposts.  Lmao none of this even dignifies a response at this point.  But ok sure, let's play this ridiculous game.  Out of those 8 situations you listed, ALL of them (except for the Eagles game) count as garbage time situations.  Just because you don't say that they do doesn't make it any less true, whether you would like to admit it or not.  The author said that he didn't believe Calvin was benefitting from garbage time BEFORE he was provided with the data.  That quote was completely taken out of context.  I know you desperately want to grab onto anything to believe Calvin's record isn't tainted because youre a Lions fan, but it might as well have an asterisk next to it because he was forcefed the ball all season long.  I don't take it seriously and neither does anyone else who witnessed that season, and I think if you were looking at this from an objective standpoint and not a subjective standpoint of a Lions fan, you would agree

[theuntouchable]

9 minutes ago, footbull3196 said:

So let me get this straight.  You ask for facts, I give you evidence to back up my claim.  You then proceed to cherry pick which data you would like to use and change the definition of garbage time to fit your own personal narrative, in essence, moving the goalposts.  Lmao none of this even dignifies a response at this point.  But ok sure, let's play this ridiculous game.  Out of those 8 situations you listed, ALL of them (except for the Eagles game) count as garbage time situations.  Just because you don't say that they do doesn't make it any less true, whether you would like to admit it or not.  The author said that he didn't believe Calvin was benefitting from garbage time BEFORE he was provided with the data.  That quote was completely taken out of context.  I know you desperately want to grab onto anything to believe Calvin's record isn't tainted because youre a Lions fan, but it might as well have an asterisk next to it because he was forcefed the ball all season long.  I don't take it seriously and neither does anyone else who witnessed that season, and I think if you were looking at this from an objective standpoint and not a subjective standpoint of a Lions fan, you would agree

BOTH quotes come after the “DATA”.  So absolutely nothing was taken out of context, by me. YOU are the one that took something out of context.

YOU posted the article, cherry picked one early excerpt from it and completely ignored where the AUTHOR of the article that YOU pointed to as evidence, completely refuted your entire argument. 

So what goal posts did I move here? Especially given the fact that the author YOU quoted even refuted your own statement, you just didn’t read that part of the article......

garbage time is in no way shape or form being down two scores in the 4th quarter. That is outright lazy and you’re moving goal posts to fit your agenda. 

If there is a reasonable chance that a team can come back, it’s not garbage time. 

If a team has to rely on low percentage plays to make a comeback of more than one score you could argue it as garbage time. For example, onside kicks, relying on a turnover, not having any timeouts left with 5 minutes remaining etc etc. (I even counted these in my example)

it’s not my fault you failed to actually read the article you posted to make your claim, it’s not my fault that the article you posted actually disproves your claim. 

Again, you should probably actually read a source you’re providing for your evidence before making any kind of claim. 

[theuntouchable]

So basically, you’re saying that if you are down 8+ points at ANY point in the 4th quarter it’s garbage time? 

But then you admit that the two catches in the 4th quarter against the eagles ARENT garbage time (because the lions won and it obviously can’t be garbage time if the team wins). 

But then you’re saying the yardage against the titans would be garbage time, even though the Lions came back, tied the game but lost in OT by a field goal? 

So are you even sure you’re using a consistent definition of garbage time?

[theuntouchable]

34 minutes ago, footbull3196 said:

So let me get this straight.  You ask for facts, I give you evidence to back up my claim.  You then proceed to cherry pick which data you would like to use and change the definition of garbage time to fit your own personal narrative, in essence, moving the goalposts.  Lmao none of this even dignifies a response at this point.  But ok sure, let's play this ridiculous game.  Out of those 8 situations you listed, ALL of them (except for the Eagles game) count as garbage time situations.  Just because you don't say that they do doesn't make it any less true, whether you would like to admit it or not.  The author said that he didn't believe Calvin was benefitting from garbage time BEFORE he was provided with the data.  That quote was completely taken out of context.  I know you desperately want to grab onto anything to believe Calvin's record isn't tainted because youre a Lions fan, but it might as well have an asterisk next to it because he was forcefed the ball all season long.  I don't take it seriously and neither does anyone else who witnessed that season, and I think if you were looking at this from an objective standpoint and not a subjective standpoint of a Lions fan, you would agree

Also, I didn’t list those situations. The author of the article you cited did ..... in his response to refuting the erroneous claim that a “large chunk” of his yards came in garbage time. 

Again, read an article before you make false claims. 

[footbull3196]

33 minutes ago, theuntouchable said:

BOTH quotes come after the “DATA”.  So absolutely nothing was taken out of context, by me. YOU are the one that took something out of context.

YOU posted the article, cherry picked one early excerpt from it and completely ignored where the AUTHOR of the article that YOU pointed to as evidence, completely refuted your entire argument. 

So what goal posts did I move here? Especially given the fact that the author YOU quoted even refuted your own statement, you just didn’t read that part of the article......

garbage time is in no way shape or form being down two scores in the 4th quarter. That is outright lazy and you’re moving goal posts to fit your agenda. 

If there is a reasonable chance that a team can come back, it’s not garbage time. 

If a team has to rely on low percentage plays to make a comeback of more than one score you could argue it as garbage time. For example, onside kicks, relying on a turnover, not having any timeouts left with 5 minutes remaining etc etc. (I even counted these in my example)

it’s not my fault you failed to actually read the article you posted to make your claim, it’s not my fault that the article you posted actually disproves your claim. 

Again, you should probably actually read a source you’re providing for your evidence before making any kind of claim. 

I'm not going to keep doing this if you choose to blatantly ignore everything I've been saying.  I'm not the one who set the goal posts, the author did when he said "Let’s say that garbage time is any point in the fourth quarter at which your team trails by more than one touchdown".  I just played by those goalposts.  You've been trying to move those goal posts ever since and claiming that your definition of garbage time is the correct one, because nobody can possibly know more about this subject than you right?  You're the one who is hell bent on using your own personal definition for garbage time so that you can have as strong of a case as possible for Calvin's record not being watered down and kind of a joke in itself.  The author CLEARLY said it could go either way depending on you interpret it.  I just choose to look at it from an objective standpoint.  Seems you have yet to do the same

We've already been over this, but basically, all but 57 of those yards in question (which I agreed to deduct because they came from the Eagles game) were part of garbage time.  That makes up just over 16% of his total yardage for 2012.  It's not a whole lot, but it's still enough that it raises eyebrows and shows that there were times where he clearly benefitted from not only being forcefed, but also the Lions being a terrible team that consistently trailed in games and were forced to pass the ball more than normal (even by their standards, where they were throwing it 50+ times a game).  You don't get 200 targets if you're not being forcefed or racking up garbage time targets, that's just common sense

Just please accept that a significant enough percentage of Calvin's yardage in 2012 came from garbage time and move on already.  Sorry that other people have opinions that differ from yours.  Get used to it, this is the world.  No need to blow up my notifications over it

23 minutes ago, theuntouchable said:

So basically, you’re saying that if you are down 8+ points at ANY point in the 4th quarter it’s garbage time? 

But then you admit that the two catches in the 4th quarter against the eagles ARENT garbage time (because the lions won and it obviously can’t be garbage time if the team wins). 

But then you’re saying the yardage against the titans would be garbage time, even though the Lions came back, tied the game but lost in OT by a field goal? 

So are you even sure you’re using a consistent definition of garbage time?

Yes, that is absolutely correct.  The Titans game was total garbage time because the team was down 2 touchdowns with less than a minute to play lol.  If it's not for a miracle sequence of events (such as scoring with less than 30 seconds left, recovering the onside kick, and then somehow completing a Hail Mary to TITUS YOUNG out of all people), then there is no comeback and nobody is even trying to dispute whether that game is "garbage time" or not.  This is why context of a situation is critical and you cant just pick and choose which ones you want to apply that context to and which ones you dont

[theuntouchable]

13 minutes ago, footbull3196 said:

I'm not going to keep doing this if you choose to blatantly ignore everything I've been saying.  I'm not the one who set the goal posts, the author did when he said "Let’s say that garbage time is any point in the fourth quarter at which your team trails by more than one touchdown".  I just played by those goalposts.  You've been trying to move those goal posts ever since and claiming that your definition of garbage time is the correct one, because nobody can possibly know more about this subject than you right?  You're the one who is hell bent on using your own personal definition for garbage time so that you can have as strong of a case as possible for Calvin's record not being watered down and kind of a joke in itself.  The author CLEARLY said it could go either way depending on you interpret it.  I just choose to look at it from an objective standpoint.  Seems you have yet to do the same

We've already been over this, but basically, all but 57 of those yards in question (which I agreed to deduct because they came from the Eagles game) were part of garbage time.  That makes up just over 16% of his total yardage for 2012.  It's not a whole lot, but it's still enough that it raises eyebrows and shows that there were times where he clearly benefitted from not only being forcefed, but also the Lions being a terrible team that consistently trailed in games and were forced to pass the ball more than normal (even by their standards, where they were throwing it 50+ times a game).  You don't get 200 targets if you're not being forcefed or racking up garbage time targets, that's just common sense

Just please accept that a significant enough percentage of Calvin's yardage in 2012 came from garbage time and move on already.  Sorry that other people have opinions that differ from yours.  Get used to it, this is the world.  No need to blow up my notifications over it

Yes, that is absolutely correct.  The Titans game was total garbage time because the team was down 2 touchdowns with less than a minute to play lol.  If it's not for a miracle sequence of events (such as scoring with less than 30 seconds left, recovering the onside kick, and then somehow completing a Hail Mary to TITUS YOUNG out of all people), then there is no comeback and nobody is even trying to dispute whether that game is "garbage time" or not.  This is why context of a situation is critical and you cant just pick and choose which ones you want to apply that context to and which ones you dont

You’re ignoring the source for your information!! You still obviously haven’t even read the article. The author of YOUR article refuted your claim. He said it could go either way but took time to specifically list instances that he didn’t feel were actually garbage time?

tell me how my definition of garbage time is wrong? What is your definition of garbage time? If it falls in line with down by 8+ points at any point in the 4th quarter, you are wrong. Dead wrong as a matter of fact. That’s not me moving goal posts, or twisting things. If you’re seriously going to tell me that I would be garbage time for a team down by 8 points at the beginning of the 4th quarter, then you have no idea what you’re talking about. The author very clearly stated that he saw zero evidence that Calvin unjustly gained yardage in garbage time. Again, you’d know that if you actually read the article.

ok, so now we’re getting somewhere. 16% is what you’re claiming is his total “garbage time” yards. (I’ll go ahead and give you a leg up and ignore that it should be 13.34% given the author stated 319 yards as also being his total “garbage time” stat)

what is everyone else at? The author also proved that Calvin was actually below the average earlier in the article when he talked about “garbage time” being when a team trailed by more than two touchdowns. (8.7% compared to league average of 11.8%)

now, I want to hear your definition of garbage time cause you’ve changed your stance. First you agreed that it was more than one TD behind at ANY point in the 4th. Then you stated that the eagles game would not have been garbage time, even though it would have fallen under that scope. But then you also state that the titans game would be, even though the lions game back and tied the game. So tell me, what definition do you actually follow?? 

You keep pointing to targets like Calvin is the only one to approach that number. You should look again. There are several players that are at or very near that amount, yet Calvin broke the record and they didn’t. 

You can’t just claim someone is ignoring something when they completely refute your claim and provide FACTS to back it up. You have provided no such thing. The article you provided as proof even refuted your claim. Even if you wanted to follow the guideline of the 416 yards (even though he lists 319 yards as the actual number). He only listed one other person, Brandon Myers as having 300 yards in “garbage time”. Brandon Myers ended up having 806 yards total that season giving him a percentage of at least 37% of garbage time yards. THAT is a significant amount. We already know that the average WR had 11.8% garbage time yards in the initial stat line. It’s very easy to think that number would also increase given the new measurement. 

Even if it didn’t, even if you wanted to base a guideline off of that number? Calvin would STILL only be 5% from the mean. 5% if his yards would be 98 yards. If you think 98 yards would be some form of giant mismatch that proves he got a “significant” amount of his yards in garbage time, you should think again. Especially given the second WR leading in yards was 400 yards short of Calvin. 

[theuntouchable]

Also, Titus Young was actually a decent talent. An absolute bonkers head case but he had talent. Wouldn’t have been listed as one of the greats if his head was on straight but he could have carved out a decent career. 

The entire point of what I’m asking is, what is the definition of garbage time then? If a team has a reasonable chance of coming back, it’s not garbage time. What would be considered a reasonable chance? What wouldn’t be? 

Is it too hard to make up 11 points in 14 minutes  of a quarter left? That’s garbage time?? In my eyes, no. That’s two TDS and they had the ball at that moment. They score on that drive, they’re down 4 points with probably at least 9 minutes left in the game. 

24-10 , roughly 10 minutes left in a game. Lions drive down the field and get within 5 yards of the endzone. If they score they’re only down by a TD with over 5 minutes left. Could you still argue garbage time there? Yea but when you look at the context, it’s closer to not being garbage time than what you originally thought. 

Down 24-10 with 12 minutes to go. The team scores a TD on the very next play making it 24-17. Should that be garbage time? No but then within the same game another play results in a TD making the score 34-24. Garbage time? Yes, absolutely. 

So how do you actually decide garbage time? What context applies where? 

If a team has the ball at the end of the third quarter but they are down 8 points at the beginning of the 4th. They score a TD quickly after the beginning of the 4th quarter and are now within 1 point. Would you honestly consider the plays on that drive as garbage time stat padding? 

[footbull3196]

11 minutes ago, theuntouchable said:

You’re ignoring the source for your information!! You still obviously haven’t even read the article. The author of YOUR article refuted your claim. He said it could go either way but took time to specifically list instances that he didn’t feel were actually garbage time?

tell me how my definition of garbage time is wrong? What is your definition of garbage time? If it falls in line with down by 8+ points at any point in the 4th quarter, you are wrong. Dead wrong as a matter of fact. That’s not me moving goal posts, or twisting things. If you’re seriously going to tell me that I would be garbage time for a team down by 8 points at the beginning of the 4th quarter, then you have no idea what you’re talking about. The author very clearly stated that he saw zero evidence that Calvin unjustly gained yardage in garbage time. Again, you’d know that if you actually read the article.

ok, so now we’re getting somewhere. 16% is what you’re claiming is his total “garbage time” yards. (I’ll go ahead and give you a leg up and ignore that it should be 13.34% given the author stated 319 yards as also being his total “garbage time” stat)

what is everyone else at? The author also proved that Calvin was actually below the average earlier in the article when he talked about “garbage time” being when a team trailed by more than two touchdowns. (8.7% compared to league average of 11.8%)

now, I want to hear your definition of garbage time cause you’ve changed your stance. First you agreed that it was more than one TD behind at ANY point in the 4th. Then you stated that the eagles game would not have been garbage time, even though it would have fallen under that scope. But then you also state that the titans game would be, even though the lions game back and tied the game. So tell me, what definition do you actually follow?? 

You keep pointing to targets like Calvin is the only one to approach that number. You should look again. There are several players that are at or very near that amount, yet Calvin broke the record and they didn’t. 

You can’t just claim someone is ignoring something when they completely refute your claim and provide FACTS to back it up. You have provided no such thing. The article you provided as proof even refuted your claim. Even if you wanted to follow the guideline of the 416 yards (even though he lists 319 yards as the actual number). He only listed one other person, Brandon Myers as having 300 yards in “garbage time”. Brandon Myers ended up having 806 yards total that season giving him a percentage of at least 37% of garbage time yards. THAT is a significant amount. We already know that the average WR had 11.8% garbage time yards in the initial stat line. It’s very easy to think that number would also increase given the new measurement. 

Even if it didn’t, even if you wanted to base a guideline off of that number? Calvin would STILL only be 5% from the mean. 5% if his yards would be 98 yards. If you think 98 yards would be some form of giant mismatch that proves he got a “significant” amount of his yards in garbage time, you should think again. Especially given the second WR leading in yards was 400 yards short of Calvin. 

My definition of garbage time is the same one that ive been using from my original quote.  To make it easier on both of us (because I do feel that's been part of the confusion here), I'm going to say down by 9 or more points instead of 8, because 8 is a 1 possession game where as 9 is a 2 possession game and I do feel that makes a difference in perception.  So now that we have that established, let's look at how that affects the situations that we could have classified as garbage time.  It realistically doesn't from what I'm seeing, because all of those situations involved Detroit being down by more than 1 score like I initially claimed.  I gave a pass for the Eagles game because it was a closely contested game that resulted in a win in the end

You're right about 13.34% being the true number, I accidentally used the initial yardage claim as my base for the percentage without accounting for the yards I deducted from the Eagles game. Either way that's still above the league average you mentioned

Considering that in the Titans game, both of Calvin's catches that were pointed out in the data came with the team down 2 scores, and the team had to have the ultimate bail out (getting a quick score, recovering the onside kick, then hitting a hail Mary to score twice in the last 30 seconds), it's not hard to see why that game fits the definition of garbage time.  The Eagles game was the exception, not the rule.  That's why I excluded it from garbage time stats

I give Calvin credit for catching 60% of his targets at a high volume rate because that's not easy to do when you're receiving as much attention as he is, but you have to realize that his target totals in 16 games were more than Wes Welker in 19 games from the previous season.  Calvin was targeted more in 16 games than Larry Fitzgerald was in 20 games in 2008.  The only guy whi was anywhere near him in terms of targets that year was Brandon Marshall 

You do bring up a good point about Myers, but this is a guy who was a 6th round pick and only had this 1 season with 50 or more catches in his career.  He played on a 4-12 Raiders team with no other true receiving threats and a horrific defense, so it shouldn't have been a surprise that he got a lot of yards when the game was already out of reach.  There's a reason he never came close to hitting his 2012 stats again.  I'm not sure this should be the company that Calvin wants to be mentioned in the same breath as when it comes to garbage time yards

If I really wanted to, I could expand the definition of garbage time to include when the Lions were up by 9 points or more which would undoubtedly skew the data in my favor.  I could also bring up how many of the Lions receiving threats werent readily available enough for most of that season given that the next closest yardage total on the team was Brandon Pettigrew at 567, the next closest yardage total for a receiver on the team was Titus Young at 383 (lol), and 3 of the Lions receivers missed 6 or more games.  However, I'm not going to do that because I'm not about to cherry pick here

In essence, he undoubtedly deserves a lot of credit for continuing to produce on a team with no other real consistent receiving threats while facing a boatload of attention from opposing defenses.  However, he also had plenty more opportunities to catch passes and rack up yards, so it has to work both ways in this situation

 

[theuntouchable]

1 hour ago, footbull3196 said:

My definition of garbage time is the same one that ive been using from my original quote.  To make it easier on both of us (because I do feel that's been part of the confusion here), I'm going to say down by 9 or more points instead of 8, because 8 is a 1 possession game where as 9 is a 2 possession game and I do feel that makes a difference in perception.  So now that we have that established, let's look at how that affects the situations that we could have classified as garbage time.  It realistically doesn't from what I'm seeing, because all of those situations involved Detroit being down by more than 1 score like I initially claimed.  I gave a pass for the Eagles game because it was a closely contested game that resulted in a win in the end

You're right about 13.34% being the true number, I accidentally used the initial yardage claim as my base for the percentage without accounting for the yards I deducted from the Eagles game. Either way that's still above the league average you mentioned

Considering that in the Titans game, both of Calvin's catches that were pointed out in the data came with the team down 2 scores, and the team had to have the ultimate bail out (getting a quick score, recovering the onside kick, then hitting a hail Mary to score twice in the last 30 seconds), it's not hard to see why that game fits the definition of garbage time.  The Eagles game was the exception, not the rule.  That's why I excluded it from garbage time stats

I give Calvin credit for catching 60% of his targets at a high volume rate because that's not easy to do when you're receiving as much attention as he is, but you have to realize that his target totals in 16 games were more than Wes Welker in 19 games from the previous season.  Calvin was targeted more in 16 games than Larry Fitzgerald was in 20 games in 2008.  The only guy whi was anywhere near him in terms of targets that year was Brandon Marshall 

You do bring up a good point about Myers, but this is a guy who was a 6th round pick and only had this 1 season with 50 or more catches in his career.  He played on a 4-12 Raiders team with no other true receiving threats and a horrific defense, so it shouldn't have been a surprise that he got a lot of yards when the game was already out of reach.  There's a reason he never came close to hitting his 2012 stats again.  I'm not sure this should be the company that Calvin wants to be mentioned in the same breath as when it comes to garbage time yards

If I really wanted to, I could expand the definition of garbage time to include when the Lions were up by 9 points or more which would undoubtedly skew the data in my favor.  I could also bring up how many of the Lions receiving threats werent readily available enough for most of that season given that the next closest yardage total on the team was Brandon Pettigrew at 567, the next closest yardage total for a receiver on the team was Titus Young at 383 (lol), and 3 of the Lions receivers missed 6 or more games.  However, I'm not going to do that because I'm not about to cherry pick here

In essence, he undoubtedly deserves a lot of credit for continuing to produce on a team with no other real consistent receiving threats while facing a boatload of attention from opposing defenses.  However, he also had plenty more opportunities to catch passes and rack up yards, so it has to work both ways in this situation

 

That’s my point though, I don’t think you could say a 9 point, or even 14 point deficit towards the beginning of the fourth quarter would deem garbage time. Especially if that team is already in the midst of a drive or score soon after the beginning of the quarter and push it to a one score game. Is it an uphill battle? Sure but it’s not something that is going to take crazy luck to come back from. Especially an offense that features players like Stafford and Calvin. 

But we don’t actually know if that figure would be above the average because we don’t know the average. The 11% average was given on the authors original meaning of garbage time, which was being down by 14 or more points at any point in a game. In that context of garbage time Calvin was actually below the average at 8%. Without knowing the average of the new parameters, we cannot determine if he is above the average and how far he would be. I just used the 11% as a baseline because it was the only average given. I don’t think it’s far fetched to see that average increase given the parameters of being down 9 points or more instead of being down 14 points or more. 

I can understand the titans game being arguable towards garbage time given the context of the game. I was being facetious in my attempt to point out how the context within the context can change the scope of the parameters. 

Wes Walker had 1737 yards on 196 targets in the year you mentioned. (3 more games than calvin)

Fitz had 1977 yards on 196 targets (4 more games than Calvin and a crazy performance in the playoffs that was above his average)

that year, yes Marshall was the only one close. He had 12 fewer targets and 400 less yards. Outside of that year, several players have been pretty close to that amount and a few even over that amount. None of them have the record or even had the record. Out of the top 25 targets in a season of all time, Calvin is listed once and that was 2012. 

Well, yeah, he wouldn’t be mentioned in the same breath. Myers had nearly 40% of his yards accrued in garbage time. Nearly three times as much as Calvin but that was my point. The only other person listed, had a crazy amount of his yards in garbage time. 

Same year, same parameters. Team down by 8 points in the 4th quarter. 

Larry Fitzgerald - 109 yards of his 798 yards. 13.65%

I say go ahead and include when the lions were up by 9, it wasn’t very often at all that season, one game Lol. The other WRs not being available should clue you in more on how much attention he received that season. Even with that, he was still able to catch 60% of his targets and get over 16 yards per catch. You could even go as far as to look at yards per target and Calvin would likely still trump all of them. 

Well, yeah, you’re best player is obviously going to see more targets when the team is struggling but he still had to face heavy resistance and do well. Which he did. 

And it’s not like he had some crazy never before seen numbers for targets, heck there was two people that year that were basically within 10. One within 9 and one within 12. He had 600 more yards than the guy who had 195 targets (Reggie Wayne) and 400 more yards than the guy who has 192 targets (Brandon Marshall). That’s a pretty significant difference in production output with minimal increase in targets. 

Did he have some garbage time then? absolutely the lions were bad that year. They didn’t have a consistent run game and had no other consistent threats. He still did it regardless of that. Did he have enough of it to say a large chunk of his yards? No, especially compared to his peers.

I would still argue though, that garbage time should be more like in the 8 minute mark and being down 8 points or more because a full quarter is a lot of football. If you wanted to include the entire 4th quarter because time could be difficult to follow with a change in context, then I would say the point differential should be 15+ for the beginning of the 4th