PDA

View Full Version : Football Outsiders' Over/Underated FAs


nobodyinparticular
03-06-2008, 02:54 AM
http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/insider/columns/story?columnist=joyner_kc&id=3277748&action=upsell&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fnfl %2finsider%2fcolumns%2fstory%3fcolumnist%3djoyner_ kc%26id%3d3277748

BF-51 will like this part:

According to my estimations, Hackett is the second-best free-agent wide receiver on the market this offseason. I actually had him ranked in front of Berrian after doing a study of their YPA productivity over the past three years.

duckseason
03-06-2008, 03:25 AM
His attempt to mitigate Reeves' suckitude is quite laughable. It seems rather obvious that if you wipe away a handful of the big plays that any corner gave up, their YPA will drop accordingly. The bottom line is that the guy did give up those big plays, and they matter just as much as any big plays that everybody else allowed.

I think the value with Reeves lies in the fact that he is now battle tested as a starting corner, and does have pretty good physical tools with his speed and whatnot. Starting experience at that position is invaluable. For a team like the Texans, he is probably a better option than potentially having to start a rookie or pay a fortune for a more reputable corner.

nobodyinparticular
03-06-2008, 04:01 AM
His attempt to mitigate Reeves' suckitude is quite laughable. It seems rather obvious that if you wipe away a handful of the big plays that any corner gave up, their YPA will drop accordingly. The bottom line is that the guy did give up those big plays, and they matter just as much as any big plays that everybody else allowed.

I think the value with Reeves lies in the fact that he is now battle tested as a starting corner, and does have pretty good physical tools with his speed and whatnot. Starting experience at that position is invaluable. For a team like the Texans, he is probably a better option than potentially having to start a rookie or pay a fortune for a more reputable corner.

First of all, very good post. Very solid points all around. Secondly, I was thinking exactly the same thing in regards to how he came to the conclusion that Reeves was a good CB. Especially considering that Reeves was not a full-time player for the Cowboys (unless I'm sorely mistaken), to take away any amount of his statistics would greatly skew the results due to a small sample size. In essence, Joyner is taking an already small sample size and making it smaller--notice that he mentions 3 games. Out of a 16 game season, that's 19% of the games (or almost 1/5), and, again, for a non-starter, to take those away is to cheapen the value of his stats.

Jughead10
03-06-2008, 07:47 AM
If health wasn't an issue, Hackett would be one of the best overall FAs on the market.

However I really hate KC Joyner. Like it was said before, he just takes away certain factors to fit what he wants to say. You can't take away coverage sacks.

The Unseen
03-06-2008, 07:51 AM
This isn't Football Outsiders, it's The Football Scientist.

eaglesalltheway
03-06-2008, 08:54 AM
Either way now, Hackett is the best WR in FA, and I am surprised he is still available. I would have thought he would have been signed some time between Sunday and Tuesday, but its Thursday, and he is still around.

DiG
03-06-2008, 09:28 AM
If health wasn't an issue, Hackett would be one of the best overall FAs on the market.

However I really hate KC Joyner. Like it was said before, he just takes away certain factors to fit what he wants to say. You can't take away coverage sacks.
i think his injury concerns are being blown out of proportion. it wasnt a torn acl or mcl or something like turf toe that lingers. it was just a bad ankle. probably the easiest of injuries to overcome.

Jughead10
03-06-2008, 09:36 AM
i think his injury concerns are being blown out of proportion. it wasnt a torn acl or mcl or something like turf toe that lingers. it was just a bad ankle. probably the easiest of injuries to overcome.

Sometimes ankles are worse than an ACLs. Short term no, but long term yes. When you have bad ankles you are prone to spraining them over and over again. I'm not sure the same applies to an ACL. That seems more random.

XxXdragonXxX
03-06-2008, 09:46 AM
i think his injury concerns are being blown out of proportion. it wasnt a torn acl or mcl or something like turf toe that lingers. it was just a bad ankle. probably the easiest of injuries to overcome.


The injury concerns aren't because of a bad ankle, it's because he's had some inor injury that's kept him out of atleast a few games every year he's been in the NFL. He's on the injury report almost every week.

Geo
03-06-2008, 09:48 AM
I've been wondering aloud why Hackett hasn't been more desired by teams as a FA. It probably is the durability concerns in all likelihood, but he's very effective when healthy. He runs good routes, including in the red zone.

umphrey
03-06-2008, 10:18 AM
I don't think he's someone to chase after. He's just decent, if he goes to a team like Chicago or Minnesota he'll become invisible. He needs a good quarterback, he has to go somewhere where he can be just part of an offense and not the guy carrying it.

Cashmoney
03-06-2008, 11:02 AM
Damn I hate insiders.

JT Jag
03-06-2008, 12:42 PM
I refuse to accept his evaluation of Drayton Florence after he said that Jacques Reeves was underrated.

bigbluedefense
03-06-2008, 12:45 PM
ive said for a long time now that i hate metrics. metrics are garbage.

metrics said that leftwich is the best decision maker in the league. he can't even find a job right now. thats how useless metrics are.

Geo
03-06-2008, 12:47 PM
I'd like to see those metrics, lol.

d34ng3l021
03-06-2008, 12:52 PM
Does it say anything about Michael Turner or Erik Coleman?

duckseason
03-06-2008, 01:54 PM
First of all, very good post. Very solid points all around. Secondly, I was thinking exactly the same thing in regards to how he came to the conclusion that Reeves was a good CB. Especially considering that Reeves was not a full-time player for the Cowboys (unless I'm sorely mistaken), to take away any amount of his statistics would greatly skew the results due to a small sample size. In essence, Joyner is taking an already small sample size and making it smaller--notice that he mentions 3 games. Out of a 16 game season, that's 19% of the games (or almost 1/5), and, again, for a non-starter, to take those away is to cheapen the value of his stats.

Thanks.

Reeves really was a full-time player who did start the majority of Dallas' games this past year though. Between the injuries to Henry and Newman, he ended up starting 13 games on the left side.

nobodyinparticular
03-06-2008, 02:37 PM
Damn I hate insiders.

That's funny, it was open to non-Insiders last night when I posted it. That's the 2nd time that's happened... Funny.

d34ng3l021
03-06-2008, 03:34 PM
They are watching.