King will be on Lazard wherever he lines up
- Thread starter khawk4
- Start date
Actually I would say he is 3rd with Chesson and Godwin being the top 2 followed by Lazard, Darboh and Westerkamp
Lazard is better than Chesson. Don't know much about Godwin to be honest with you
Simply based on NFL draft projections I would say Chesson is better. Pro football focus had said he graded out as the 3rd best returning WR in the country. But that is not taking anything away from Lazard.
Being drafted higher doesn't make you a better college WR. Lazard has averaged 65.6 ypg in college with terrible QB's, Chesson has averaged 38.3 ypg. That should end the debate right there
To be fair, YPG is a pretty bad barometer. Better one would be yards/reception and maybe even yards after contact mixed in there.
Why? What difference does it make? I get the YAC but why is yards per catch any more useful than ypg?
Disagree. Would you rather have a guy play the whole game and make 1 catch for 65 yards a guy play the whole game and have 7 catches for 110 yards?
The 1 big play is nice but I'd rather have the guy that contributes throughout the game.
That exact same logic works both ways. If you have a guy make 3 catches for 60 yards, and a guy make 9 catches for 80 yards, which one was more efficient to you? To me, that depends on number of targets (which can vary on teams that have multiple talented receivers versus teams that have a few OK receivers and one stud receiver). It's great that that player made 9 catches, but what if they were targeted 13 or 15 times, versus the guy that had 5 catches on 7 targets?
Is there a stat similar to something like yards/target? That seems to me to be a fairly objective barometer to compare receivers than just total yards, because total yards can be manipulated both ways by number of targets.
Another example: zero targets, zero yards? Not necessarily a bad receiver.
If you're getting zero targets and zero yards that means you're not getting open or not playing so I think that makes you a bad receiver for that game
That's leaving out a lot of room for other variables [QB/line play, game playstyle adjustments, defensive scheme, etc.] It's possible to be a bad receiver, but that can't just automatically be assumed.
Obviously number of targets matters. So does the situation. Ideally a team would have a stretch the field guy that would have a higher YPC average (think Torrey Smith), a possession guy that moves the chains consistently (think Larry Fitzgerald), and an underneath threat that has the ability to take any catch to the house at any time (think Tavon Austin).
As for the guy with zero targets and zero yards, only a bad receiver if he played the majority of the game and never got open enough to even get a ball thrown his way.
I'd rather have the guy that scores more often. One averages a TD every 8.6 receptions, the other every 11.4. Chesson also has two rushing TD's. Both have things working against them, like Chesson playing on a good team but having to compete with 2-3 current/future draft picks to get touches. The other plays on a lousy team but has little competition for receptions. Both guys are studs though, no debating that. Either of them would make a solid second option after Vandeberg.
You got a link to that? This lists 9 WR's and Chesson isn't on it
https://www.profootballfocus.com/college-pff-101-best-players-fournette-mccaffrey-garrett/
Rudock had more TD's than Beathard last year and played in one less game.