Here’s the second part of the discussion we linked to last week.
document.write(‘<scr’ + ‘ipt src=http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/footballoutsiders.fsv/ros;sect=ros;fantasy=yes;game=no;tile=3;sz=300×250;ord=’ + random_number + ‘?></scr’ + ‘ipt>’);
<br /> <A HREF=”http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/footballoutsiders.fsv/ros;sect=ros;fantasy=yes;game=no;tile=3;sz=300×250;ord=’+random_number+’?” ><br /> <IMG SRC=”http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/footballoutsiders.fsv/ros;sect=ros;fantasy=yes;game=no;tile=3;sz=300×250;ord=’+random_number+’?” border=”0″ height=”250″ width=”300″></A><br />
- Catch rate has more to do with team- and quarterback-related variables than it does with the “hands” of a wide receiver. Although there are total fluke years like Chambers’ 2006 or Ike Hilliard’s 2008, the impact of a team’s offensive scheme and the quality of the quarterback in that scheme does have a legitimate impact on catch rate.
- Acquiring a player because he had a good catch rate or +/- in a particular scheme does not mean that he’s likely to perform as well in your scheme. You can call this the “D.J. Hackett Effect,” in which we saw the former DVOA Darling go from being a player we considered to be a sleeper free agent in 2007 to a street free agent this year.
- If a player has a +/- far better or worse than the players around him, though, you should expect some of that ability (or lack thereof) to stick in a new spot. Welker was superior to his fellow receivers in both 2005 and 2006; anyone would have gotten better playing for New England, but Welker was a sound player to target as undervalued in his scheme.
They imply the reason so many Colts show up on the good list has more to do with 18 than 88, 87, and 11.
Add The Sports Daily to your Google News Feed!
