Jump to content

Packers QB Aaron Rodgers disgruntled; "Does not want to return to team"

RaidersAreOne

By RaidersAreOne
in NFL News

 Share

Recommended Posts

BayRaider

BayRaider

Posted
Posted (edited)

@incognito_man You define WR1 different than 99.9% of football fans and solely use the Depth Chart. That is fine if you want to define it your own way, but it also makes our debate useless because we have different definitions. WR1 is a skill level. Sure, he was WR1 on the depth chart, but that’s not what we are talking about. 
 

There is not 32 WR1’s in the NFL. Not by skill-level at least. 18 at the max, and probably like 15. 

Edited by BayRaider
Link to comment
Share on other sites
incognito_man

incognito_man

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Forge said:

Yep, that's what it is. 

Remember that year that Rod Streater was a WR1 in 2013? Good times. 

No, I don't have any specific memory of the year that Rod Streater was Oakland's #1 WR.

THerefore it didn't happen you're saying? Or what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
incognito_man

incognito_man

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, BayRaider said:

@incognito_man You define WR1 different than 99.9% of football fans and solely use the Depth Chart. That is find if you want to define it your own way, but it also makes our debate useless because we have different definitions. WR1 is a skill level. Sure, he was WR1 on the depth chart, but that’s not what we are talking about. 
 

There is not 32 WR1’s in the NFL. Not by skill-level at least. 18 at the max, and probably like 15. 

I do not use a depth chart.

And I do not define it differently than 99.9% of fans. It seems like we define it differently than 99.9% of fantasy football fans (which I'm fine with - I prefer reality).

Being #1 on an ACTUAL NFL team is the only thing that matters lol. He was a real #1 WR on a real NFL team. That's all that matters.

You are defining #1 WRs as #1 fantasy WRs which is influenced by your history of playing fantasy football in leagues of like 10-12 players which is why you think there's only 15ish in the league. This is 100% what is happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pwny

pwny

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, incognito_man said:

The joking about Funchess signing just shows a significant lack of understanding about who he is and what the actual role/production of a #2 WR is. "Average" #2 WRs in 2020 had a statline that looks like this: 56 rec, 739 yds, 4 TDs. Funchess would absolutely have been right in that range had he played and stayed healthy IMO. He surpassed that production on a per game basis his last two healthy seasons.

Why are you referencing bulk stats for one data set, and then comparing that to per game stats for Funchess? It wouldn't happen to be because it damages your narrative to use the same data for both groups, would it?

If we actually compare per game for every WR in the league, the average of the 33rd to 64th WR in 2020 would actually come out to 819 yards per 16. 80 yards below average #2. And he would actually be 58th in yards if we compared both across that.

Plus there's the whole target share thing. He had 111 targets in 2017, the average number of targets for a #2  was 82.9. So his numbers were wildly inflated by the fact that the next WR on the depth chart for half the year was a guy who had 200 total yards. If we actually take his yards per target for those two years and compare it to 2020 wide receivers, he would rank 85th. 

 

So in conclusion….

2 hours ago, incognito_man said:

He's literally an average to above average #2 and the evidence supports this conclusively.

Absolutely not. Not in any way, except in manipulating data can you come to this conclusion.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BayRaider

BayRaider

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

I do not use a depth chart.

And I do not define it differently than 99.9% of fans. It seems like we define it differently than 99.9% of fantasy football fans (which I'm fine with - I prefer reality).

Being #1 on an ACTUAL NFL team is the only thing that matters lol. He was a real #1 WR on a real NFL team. That's all that matters.

You are defining #1 WRs as #1 fantasy WRs which is influenced by your history of playing fantasy football in leagues of like 10-12 players which is why you think there's only 15ish in the league. This is 100% what is happening.

No, it’s not. I have always defined WR1 by skill-level. 20 years at least. There is not 32 WR1’s in the NFL. If the Raiders cut all their WR’s, hired John Cena as WR1, and WR1 on their depth chart, that does not mean he is a WR1 in the NFL. He would still be a practice level player and not even a WR4 skill level. The Raiders making him WR1, doesn’t mean he is a WR1.  
 

I guarantee 99% of football fans view this differently than you lol. WR1 is a skill level. WR2 is a skill level. Etc. If I’m ever talking about a Depth Chart, I will say “WR1 on the Depth Chart”. 

Edited by BayRaider
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Karnage84

Karnage84

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

I do not use a depth chart.

And I do not define it differently than 99.9% of fans. It seems like we define it differently than 99.9% of fantasy football fans (which I'm fine with - I prefer reality).

Being #1 on an ACTUAL NFL team is the only thing that matters lol. He was a real #1 WR on a real NFL team. That's all that matters.

You are defining #1 WRs as #1 fantasy WRs which is influenced by your history of playing fantasy football in leagues of like 10-12 players which is why you think there's only 15ish in the league. This is 100% what is happening.

Not trolling or anything, legitimately curious on your perspective on this.

How would you define Tyrell Williams and/or Breshad Perriman of the Lions in 2021? One of those guys is going to be WR1 on the depth chart (most likely) but most teams would probably be view each as 'solid depth' and be looking to find someone like a Julio Jones/Ja'Marr Chase, etc. If I have either of those guys I am looking to compliment them as opposed to wanting to upgrade from them (with the proper team built around them). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
incognito_man

incognito_man

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Forge said:

I'm not sure what this is, but it's definitely not a polling of every single NFL person that would disagree with my original post. 

yes it is

i just proved it. I can't help it if you can't recognize it.

The funny thing is, I think there's a less than 50% chance Funchess even makes the roster this year lol. He's a fringe roster player at this point in his career after missing 2 years of football.

But I don't get my panties in a bunch and can separate today from 1,2,3,4 years ago and analyze the situation without leaning on current information. The fact is that Funchess is a former #1 WR who was paid like a low-end #3 WR in GB with the hopes he could possibly live up to average #2 WR production.

Just mind-boggling how some of you feel the need to twist it into anything other than what I've consistently said. Is nobody reading?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Forge

Forge

Posted
Posted
Just now, BayRaider said:

Strange how his mind works. He just can’t seem to understand that most fans relate “WR1” “WR2”, etc as a skill level. Has always been this way, since the 90’s. 

I get it...I mentioned it earlier that he was just going to cling to the fact that he laid it out saying "literally"...but I think that when you have to cling to a very literal definition, or a very specific set of wording, you're treading thin ice. Its a feeble argument. 

But it's everyone else, clearly. Can't be on him. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...