Jump to content

Allen Robinson prefers to stay in Jacksonville


.Buzz

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Tugboat said:

Yeah.  You can scrape by without a "True #1 Receiver" when you have a "True Franchise Quarterback" who can spread the ball around and make things happen.

I've come to a point where I don't think it's wise to spend on a "TRUE #1 receiver" and put that money into a Franchise QB/ his protection/ RB/ Defense. I feel like WRs have been overvalued and much like the RB position, it's time to deflate the value for a position that rarely gets the ball 8 or more times a game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Jags said:

I've come to a point where I don't think it's wise to spend on a "TRUE #1 receiver" and put that money into a Franchise QB/ his protection/ RB/ Defense. I feel like WRs have been overvalued and much like the RB position, it's time to deflate the value for a position that rarely gets the ball 8 or more times a game. 

I’ll just say that the NFL is in desperate need of a WAR type stat. But we’re probably a good 10 years from one being accurately created.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, LinderFournette said:

I will say it would be real dissapointing to let a young number 1 wr leave for absolutely nothing.  Hes one of the few hits caldwell has had.

Caldwell has been bad and I want him gone but he's had more than a few. Fowler top 5 is looking iffy but based off the early returns this year he has made major strides and could be a legit solid rusher, just not that elite one we expected.

Ngakoue, Telvin, ARob, Linder, Jack, Ramsey (obvious, but still one of his picks that DAL was dumb enough to pass on), Colvin. Hurns and Abry were nice UDFA finds. Day has been a very solid rotational DT, provides solid pass rush. 

Cam Robinson and Fournette look like hits, but too early to tell. Smoot has shown serious flashes when given PT so far this season when I've focused in on him.

Again, isn't to say he's been a good GM (he hasn't), but there's a solid talent nucleus on this team. Problem is, our QB he missed badly and there were misses along the OL (that has been average this year, better than we expected but still worse than it should be).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jags said:

I've come to a point where I don't think it's wise to spend on a "TRUE #1 receiver" and put that money into a Franchise QB/ his protection/ RB/ Defense. I feel like WRs have been overvalued and much like the RB position, it's time to deflate the value for a position that rarely gets the ball 8 or more times a game. 

I actually kinda feel the opposite.  It depends on what you're talking about though.  If you're talking like...Julio Jones/AJ Green type total package?  Zero issues spending on that kind of guy.  They'll make any decent QB look a lot better.  It's more questionable because i don't think ARob is quite in that stratosphere - especially coming off an ACL, but he's definitely up there.  And the DeAndre Hopkins deal pretty much ensures ARob will be looking for that sort of money, as a guy who has made a pretty scrubby QB look okay at one point.

In an ideal world, obviously you'd like to have an absolutely Elite Quarterback to build around.  But the reality is, how many of those guys are there who can truly elevate mediocre-poor talent around them to Super Bowl calibre heights?  It'd be lovely to end up with one of those guys...but i'd hardly bank on it.  Like maybe half a dozen teams have that, and the rest are chasing and trying to pile up top tier weapons for their guy.

We're so very far from having to worry about paying any QB Matt Stafford "Franchise QB" sort of money anyway.  Unless we end up spending megabucks Franchise money on a mediocre guy like Cousins - which is kinda the worst of both worlds.  Any other sort of actual "Franchise QB money" worthy guy we find in the draft is gonna be 4-5 year off from that Franchise QB deal.  We've got time to spend money on a WR to help out the non-elite quarterback we're going to end up with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, iPwn said:

I’ll just say that the NFL is in desperate need of a WAR type stat. But we’re probably a good 10 years from one being accurately created.

I'm not sure they'll ever really be able to nail a truly reliable player-specific WAR type stat down.  It's so situation dependent.  Just too hard to adjust a WRs "value" under a system like that, while compensating for QB competency, scheme stuff, and just overall "fit" in a system.  A guy might be worth more with X quarterback who meshes perfectly with their strengths and has "chemistry" in the right system.  Or less with a "better" QB who doesn't quite gel with them, or under an OC who doesn't run them to their strengths.

Just too many moving pieces and variables to nail anything concrete down with the small/easily-skewed sample sizes we get in football and the variation we get in effectiveness curves with age/experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/5/2017 at 12:30 PM, iPwn said:

I’ll just say that the NFL is in desperate need of a WAR type stat. But we’re probably a good 10 years from one being accurately created.

 

On 10/5/2017 at 5:43 PM, Tugboat said:

I'm not sure they'll ever really be able to nail a truly reliable player-specific WAR type stat down.  It's so situation dependent.  Just too hard to adjust a WRs "value" under a system like that, while compensating for QB competency, scheme stuff, and just overall "fit" in a system.  A guy might be worth more with X quarterback who meshes perfectly with their strengths and has "chemistry" in the right system.  Or less with a "better" QB who doesn't quite gel with them, or under an OC who doesn't run them to their strengths.

Just too many moving pieces and variables to nail anything concrete down with the small/easily-skewed sample sizes we get in football and the variation we get in effectiveness curves with age/experience.

This just shows you how complex this sport is. Something else that makes it difficult is sample size. Teams only get 16 games a year so it's not a huge sample size. There a many variables and so many times where the same talent has been a failure on one team and then becomes a solid contributor on another. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Jags said:

 

This just shows you how complex this sport is. Something else that makes it difficult is sample size. Teams only get 16 games a year so it's not a huge sample size. There a many variables and so many times where the same talent has been a failure on one team and then becomes a solid contributor on another. 

Happens quite often in baseball too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, .Buzz said:

There a many variables and so many times where the same talent has been a failure on one team and then becomes a solid contributor on another. 

I feel like outside of this type of issue, where you’re discussing a theoretical WAR, I think there could be, with enough data points, some sort of validation of players created. Were have the all-22 film, so if someone could take that and actually quantify percentage of times a player gets open, his catch%, average route depth, you could create an actual value of what he is worth in that system above a theoretical standard player valuation. It may not be something where it can translate so thoroughly from team to team, where if a guy is a career 4 rating with one team, that he would have the same relatives impact with another. And obviously it would need controls in place (I.e. this player benefitted from a strong run game that put three in the secondary more often than not) that would take a lot of time to develop. But I think you could create something where the valuation would be able to show what that player contributed to that team in that system, that year or that game. Not nearly as cut and dry where you simply pull numbers from a box score and plug it into a formula as with WAR, but something could be done if someone had the interest. AI developments could help with parsing on-field data too. 

There needs to be a lot of growth in the analytics of the NFL before we ever get to that point, and a lot more information being available publicly before we can expect to see something like that, but I do think it’s possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/5/2017 at 5:33 PM, Tugboat said:

I actually kinda feel the opposite.  It depends on what you're talking about though.  If you're talking like...Julio Jones/AJ Green type total package?  Zero issues spending on that kind of guy.  They'll make any decent QB look a lot better.  It's more questionable because i don't think ARob is quite in that stratosphere - especially coming off an ACL, but he's definitely up there.  And the DeAndre Hopkins deal pretty much ensures ARob will be looking for that sort of money, as a guy who has made a pretty scrubby QB look okay at one point.

In an ideal world, obviously you'd like to have an absolutely Elite Quarterback to build around.  But the reality is, how many of those guys are there who can truly elevate mediocre-poor talent around them to Super Bowl calibre heights?  It'd be lovely to end up with one of those guys...but i'd hardly bank on it.  Like maybe half a dozen teams have that, and the rest are chasing and trying to pile up top tier weapons for their guy.

We're so very far from having to worry about paying any QB Matt Stafford "Franchise QB" sort of money anyway.  Unless we end up spending megabucks Franchise money on a mediocre guy like Cousins - which is kinda the worst of both worlds.  Any other sort of actual "Franchise QB money" worthy guy we find in the draft is gonna be 4-5 year off from that Franchise QB deal.  We've got time to spend money on a WR to help out the non-elite quarterback we're going to end up with.

I am saying to not overpay for those top 10 WRs. The AJ Greens, Julio Jones, Calvin Johnson, Antonio Brown, Odell Beckhams, Dez Bryant, etc. I'm saying that top tier WR don't have a huge impact on the account of getting a win. I think a top 25 - 12 WR is fine, but there is no reason to pay big bucks for those top 10 dominant WRs because they will not be seeing the ball more than 8 times a game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I was thinking about this the other day... but do we structure something the way we structured Beachum's contract? 1 year deal with a 4 year option type of thing? Think it would make a lot of sense for both sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/5/2017 at 2:55 PM, VLoo said:

I was thinking about this the other day... but do we structure something the way we structured Beachum's contract? 1 year deal with a 4 year option type of thing? Think it would make a lot of sense for both sides.

It's an interesting thought.  I'd imagine it only really makes sense from ARobs perspective if he's genuinely worried he might not be able to come back quite the same as he was next year though.

As long as he can bounce back, he's easily going to command a Hopkins-type deal where he isn't at the mercy of club options like that.  And it's not like playing on the Franchise Tag for a year is bad money either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...