Draft Countdown Forums

Draft Countdown Forums (http://www.draftcountdown.com/forum/index.php)
-   Pro Football (http://www.draftcountdown.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=44)
-   -   Leave Patrick Crayton Alone!!! (http://www.draftcountdown.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24665)

DMWSackMachine 08-19-2008 12:43 AM

Leave Patrick Crayton Alone!!!
 
HE'S A HUUUMAAAAN!!!!!!


Its time to debunk a myth: that of the "Cowboys have no 2nd WR" aka "Patrick Crayton
I have no idea where this came from. Neither do I know how it gained so much steam. Maybe it was the crucial 3rd down (and likely TD) drop in the playoffs that is so often referred to by anti-Cowboys propagandists. Maybe it is all the loud trash he talks, or the way that--during games--his big eyes make him look like "Headlights" Caldwell right after a 10-car pile up.

Like I said, I. don't. know.

But its time to put a stop to it.

First of all, let's determine what exactly qualifies as a "good" 2nd reciever. Well, unfortunately this is not basketball or baseball, where an abundance of numbers allow us to approximate a player's impact on the game much more precisely. We only have catches, yards and tds, or if we are interested in bringing them into the debate, a few more advanced numbers based upon deeper analysis like DVOA (sp?) and YPA. But since those numbers are not readily available, we are left with the standard forms. Unfortunately, a players production can vary wildly based upon opportunity, so we must have context with which to examine these numbers.

Ideally, a 2nd WR fits into your scheme perfectly. That means, depending on the players you currently have, he is whatever you need to fill in around the edges of their abilities. Therefore, say you have a strong, big bodied #1 WR who doesn't have your prototypical deep speed, but excels over the middle and getting YAC, you then want your 2nd guy to be able to stretch the field vertically and get behind the defense, etc etc. Beyond that, you have your philosophy as a team, what your approach to winning is, and what other high profile players you have at which positions who need to have the ball in their hands, etc etc. So, a running team with two strong RBs, a great OL and a bus-driver QB with a "keep the defense honest" philosophy and a solid #1 WR doesn't need anything beyond a solid, reliable target who doesn't complain and blocks downfield well (in other words, what Minnesota is aiming for).

As you see, a lot of things must be considered when evaluating what would be considered a quality 2nd WR. So let's look at the factors in play in this particular scenario:

1) What kind of #1 option does the team possess?
TO. Simply put, the guy is as complete a WR as has ever played the game. He can stretch the field vertically, run every route in the game at an elite level, is big, strong, fast and has good leaping ability. After Jerry Rice, might be the best RAC WR in the history of the game.

2) What is the team philosophy?
Dallas runs a vertical passing game in the Coryell geneology that favors outside timing routes and deep passes set up from play action. A balanced team who favors the pass slightly (though not necessarily by design) with two good backs who require touches. An explosive offense who tries to put points on the board moreso than controlling the clock, though it certainly possesses the ability to do the latter as well.

3) What other offensive options require attention?
The #1 WR is an outspoken give-me-the-damn-ball type who requires regular attention, and has the ability to warrant it. Along with a Pro Bowl RB who excels at both running the ball and catching it out of the backfield, they also have a good 2nd option who needs to be involved to be productive. Finally, they possess one of the elite TEs in the league who is a lethal weapon over the middle and down the seam. In other words, the #2 WR is the 3rd passing option at best, and as low as #5 overall in the touches pecking order.



Now that the table is set, we can begin our evaluation.

Being as that TO can do everything well, any type of WR would be a good complement to him. Ideally, however, you want your other WR to be capable of making the big play, meaning having the ability to really stretch the field vertically. How does Crayton measure up? He possesses decent speed, and is capable of sneaking by a CB for a big gain, but won't ever be confused with Bob Hayes. However, as a strong character guy who won't complain about touches and always stays involved, he scores out fairly well in this category.

Given the fact that Dallas has a fairly pass heavy attack, there should be a lot of touches to go around in the passing game. However, this must be balanced out with the fact that the #1 WR demands plenty of looks, as well as the presence of a big time receiving threat at TE who also gets plenty. There should be some left over, just not too many.

Finally, what are the reciever's strengths and weaknesses? Crayton is a very detailed player who has gotten the nuances of the game down pat. He runs good routes, blocks well and has superb hands. In Parcells second to last season with the team, going into TC he dubbed Crayton as having the best hands on the team....a team which also boasted Keyshawn Johnson (some of the best hands in NFL history) and Terry Glenn (another soft handed wideout who has seen a lot of success). A solid player, but one who simply lacks the elite measurables to make himself into a star.





All told, Crayton is a good NFL player. But here is the part that most here need to pay attention to: the talk has been that Dallas is weak at their 2nd WR position, and that they need a stronger player there to be successful. Hmm. That's funny, the tale of the tape says something entirely different.

I looked at every WR in the NFL, ranked according to reception, yards and tds. I sought out which teams possesed 2nd WRs who out produced Patrick Crayton in these categories and calculated where PC ranked among NFL 2nd WRs based purely upon last season's production. Here's what I discovered:


Catches
Crayton comes in tied for 60th here with a number of players at 50 receptions on the year. That leaves 59 players with more rec than him. Of those 59, 9 were TEs and 6 were RBs. Breaking it down according to teams with one, two, or three WRs with more catches than him, it looks like this:

Teams w/3 more: 1
Teams w/2 more: 14
Teams w/1 more: 13
Teams w/0 more: 3

As you can see, Crayton placed in the middle of the league according to WRs. He outproduced 16 teams' #2 WR, and would have been the leading reciever on 3 teams.


YARDS
Crayton placed tied for 52nd in this cat, and of the 51 above him, 6 were TEs and one was a RB. Here is the breakdown:

Teams w/3 more: 1
Teams w/2 more: 14
Teams w/1 more: 12
Teams w/0 more: 4

Almost identical to the reception totals, Crayton out shone 16 NFL teams' 2nd WRs according to receiving yards, and would have led 4 teams in the category.

TOUCHDOWNS
Scoring 7 TDs, Pat was able to place tied for 20th in the league here, with 3 TEs and no RBs finishing ahead of him. Breakdown:

Teams w/3 more: 0
Teams w/2 more: 3
Teams w/1 more: 8
Teams w/0 more: 20

An impressive showing for Pat here, as he would have been the leading TD catcher on over half of all NFL teams, and outproduced all 2nd WRs but 3(Cincy, Ari, NE).

Add the numbers up and he finished, on average, as the 12th most productive 2nd WR in the league.

When factored in with all the other options, on a team that certainly didn't pass the ball excessively like Det, NE or NO did, and considering that he was waaaay down the totem poll in terms of opportunity on his own team, I think its fair to conclude that Patrick Crayton was one of the better 2nd options in the league, but certainly, unequivocally, and without argument he was at least a solid #2 WR.


Can we stop with the unfounded criticism now?

K

Thx

Bye

Brent 08-19-2008 12:46 AM

but ESPN doesnt talk about him, so obviously he's garbage!

Shane P. Hallam 08-19-2008 12:48 AM

This topic is highly unnecessary, lol.

Malaka 08-19-2008 12:50 AM

Patrick Crayton can only be considered good once he becomes more consistent, because he is very inconsistent right now. He is decent right now, but we will se what happens when the season starts.

DMWSackMachine 08-19-2008 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malaka (Post 1178522)
Patrick Crayton can only be considered good once he becomes more consistent, because he is very inconsistent right now. He is decent right now, but we will se what happens when the season starts.

Thank you for spewing the same lines that you have heard from one uninformed, blurb driven media outlet after another.

Crayton is extremely consistent. He is the same reliable guy every day in practice and in games. You do nothing but expose yourself by making an accusation like that. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

619 08-19-2008 12:53 AM

I'd rather talk about Sam Hurd or Miles Austin. Pfffft .

Malaka 08-19-2008 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMWSackMachine (Post 1178524)
Thank you for spewing the same lines that you have heard from one uninformed, blurb driven media outlet after another.

Crayton is extremely consistent. He is the same reliable guy every day in practice and in games. You do nothing but expose yourself by making an accusation like that. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Okay w/e you want, you are right, I know nothing :rolleyes:

Crayton is a decent #2, I never even said he is bad I just said he needs more consistency, Crayton might change all that in this season. But I am uniformed and brainless ESPN drone... my bad

DMWSackMachine 08-19-2008 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JBond93 (Post 1178521)
This topic is highly unnecessary, lol.

Not true, go look at ScottyBoy in the preseason rankings thread, along with nearly every Giants poster on this site.

They have the image of Crayton dropping that pass in the playoffs last year and its the only thing that they can remember of him, so they feed the beast in putting him down.

Not just that, but nearly every MSM outlet lists #2 WR as the big "weak spot" on Dallas team when its clearly not one, unless we are now grading NFL teams based upon their inability to field Pro Bowlers at every position. Crayton is an above average player for his position.

DMWSackMachine 08-19-2008 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malaka (Post 1178527)
Okay w/e you want, you are right, I know nothing :rolleyes:

Crayton is a decent #2, I never even said he is bad I just said he needs more consistency, Crayton might change all that in this season. But I am uniformed and brainless ESPN drone... my bad

Is it or is it not true that he is inconsistent? No, its not, and its not even close.

I'm not trying to put you down or anything, just saying that what you said was dead wrong and you should be aware of it. That's all :)

Malaka 08-19-2008 01:03 AM

Look at his stats over the course of the season, there were games where Crayton had 8 receptions, and there were games where he had 0-2. In the end he racked up 50 receptions, and 700 yards and 7 TDs, and that is pretty average.

You are right about people thinking he is bad just because of the drop in the playoffs, but still he talked **** in that game and could not back it up.

Crayton is average, and IS inconsistent.

Shane P. Hallam 08-19-2008 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMWSackMachine (Post 1178528)
Not true, go look at ScottyBoy in the preseason rankings thread, along with nearly every Giants poster on this site.

They have the image of Crayton dropping that pass in the playoffs last year and its the only thing that they can remember of him, so they feed the beast in putting him down.

Not just that, but nearly every MSM outlet lists #2 WR as the big "weak spot" on Dallas team when its clearly not one, unless we are now grading NFL teams based upon their inability to field Pro Bowlers at every position. Crayton is an above average player for his position.

Then PM the Giants fans. The whole board doesn't need to hear about this :P I think the above average fan knows about Crayton. Whether they consider it a weakness or not is their own prerogative.

Either way, it's not a strength by any means. You look at some of these WR tandems, and Crayton isn't lighting the world on fire yet. But, it is better than a lot of teams as well.

Flyboy 08-19-2008 01:12 AM

...

LOL.

Seriously?

Patrick Crayton isn't even worthy of being talked about.

eaglesfan_45 08-19-2008 01:15 AM

This Thread = Epic Fail.....

Crap, I tried to wing it but I don't have any argument, I just feel as if I should be involved in an NFC East argument seeing as I am the one who usually starts them. :D

Paul 08-19-2008 01:22 AM

I am just as bothered when people say he's to "inconsistent", I don't understand that at all. Crayton has always been a sure handed guy for us, but one bad game and he gets killed for it. Understandably it was in the playoffs in front of a national audience, so people who haven't seen him play a lot will jump to the conclusion that he has hands of stone, but thats just wrong. He isn't spectacular and he isn't going to blow by anyone, but he has been a productive and reliable guy for us for sometime. I understand other people's concern about our depth at WR and Crayton's big play ability, that is fine, there could be improvements, but to call Crayton inconsistent I do have a problem with.

Malaka 08-19-2008 01:38 AM

Okay look, he is not bad but he is inconsistent. I will not use anything about the playoffs.

Week 1 vs NYG 3 Rec
Week 2 vs MIA 0 Rec
Week 3 vs CHI 3 Rec

First 3 games... he has been below average with 0 TDs and 6 Recs, and disappeared in the Miami game. Now he gets hot.

Week 4 vs STL 7 Rec 2 TDs
Week 5 vs BUF 6 Rec 1 TD
Week 6 vs NE 5 Rec 1 TD

He got hot in the next few games, and got 4 out of his 7 season TDs in these 3 games. He slows down again now.

Week 7 vs MIN 2 Rec
Week 8 BYE
Week 9 vs PHI 0 Rec

He was shut down by the Eagles, and only had 2 rec against the Vikings.

Week 10 vs NYG 5 Rec 1 TD
Week 11 vs WAS 2 Rec
Week 12 DNP
Week 13 vs Green Bay 3 Rec 2 TDs

By week 13 he was done with TD receptions, and looked pretty good in this stretch especially against the Giants.

Week 14 vs DET 3 Rec
Week 15 vs PHI 2 Rec
Week 16 vs CAR 7 Rec
Week 17 vs WAS 2 Rec

Now he has a great game vs the Panthers, but before and after that game he was stalled.

End of Season

Final Stats

697 Yards 7 TDs 50 Rec = Average

Paul 08-19-2008 01:56 AM

Are you solely using stats to make a judgment on the inconsistency of a player, or have you actually seen enough of Crayton to truly believe that. If so you might want to take into account that he isn't even the 2nd receiving option on our team. When you have two perennial pro bowlers in Witten and Owens in front of you, having career years, you are not going put up a 10 TD 1,000+ yard year, now are you?

CashmoneyDrew 08-19-2008 01:59 AM

You make good points in your argument and I somewhat agree, however, this kind of came out of nowhere and probably more belongs in the Cowboys team thread.

Geo 08-19-2008 02:08 AM

Crayton is a servicable at best #3 option behind Witten and TO, the only real bread-winners in that receiving core. All the fuss in the world can't change that.

Addict 08-19-2008 02:21 AM

He's the definition of average. So yes, I will leave him alone.

yourfavestoner 08-19-2008 03:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Addict (Post 1178573)
He's the definition of average. So yes, I will leave him alone.

Bingo. He's a receiver that is good at everything, but exceeds at nothing. When people talk about #2 WR being a weakness for Dallas, they mean it's a weakness compared to the other positions on their team. Like DMW said, he is very consistent. It's just that his consistent is not great. So yay for being consistently pretty good.

eaglesalltheway 08-19-2008 06:42 AM

Crayton is a solid #2 option at WR. He isn't exactly consistent, but its hard to say he is inconsistent. WR are naturally not consistent. Any WR will have games where he makes fewer receptions than normal, and they will have games where they produce more than normal. But in terms of WRs in the NFL, he is not inconsistent. One thing about the games where he had less production (Stat wise, not always an indicator of how he played) I would also like to see how other players on the offense did. Some of those games may be TO or Witten really had a big game, or Sam Hurd really stepped it up, or maybe in some of those games Anthony Fasano stepped it up. There are lots of other factors that could lead to receptions being down in a game besides how well a player was doing. Perhaps the run game was very successful in some of those games and thus hadn't had as many opportunities to make plays. I've been saying for two years that the Cowboys will be fine with Crayton as the #2 when Glenn leaves. Well now he is gone (for good) and all we have seen from Crayton is a solid #2 WR in an offense that does have two high calibur weapons in front of him. Yes his numbers are average. But those are more than acceptable numbers for a #2 WR considering he has (arguably) the best WR in the NFL and (arguably, I think so) the best TE in the game. I'm going to go vomit now, having defended a Cowboy player.:)

bigbluedefense 08-19-2008 08:16 AM

I think Patrick Crayton is a solid WR. I like him a lot more in the slot than on the edge though. I also think he highly benefits from the attention that TO and Witten get. He's more of a complimentary player.

But still, a very good complimentary player, who's at his best in the slot. He gets a lot of heat for that drop, but for the most part has had a pretty good career the past 2 seasons.


He does need to shut up though. Giving the opponents bulletin board material doesn't help your team in any way. Its dumb.


The depth behind TO and Crayton should be more of a concern than Crayton himself. Crayton is fine.

A Perfect Score 08-19-2008 08:25 AM

I agree with what most people have said...he is an average reciever, nothing more, nothing less. I do think he plays his best ball in the slot, and it will be interesting to see how he translates to the #2 position. I know he got some time there last year with glenn out, but I want to see him play a full year there and put up solid numbers before im ready to call him anything more then average.

That said, you made a solid argument, and I am certainly not going to rag on Crayton when Baltimore's receivers are not that impressive themselves. Crayton is the #3 option down there in Dallas and rightfully so...TO and Witten are both probably top 5 at their respective positions.

And I think you are looking at this the wrong way. When people say #2 WR is your biggest need, and you have a player like Crayton there, doesnt that mean that the rest of your team is in pretty damn good shape? I mean if the worst player on your team is average, that means everyone else is above average or better and you are in damn good shape. Its a compliment man!

Bengalsrocket 08-19-2008 10:30 AM

All receivers are inconsistent at some point in their careers. The receiver position relies heavily on the QB's performance, so if your QB is getting a lot of pressure, he's going to have less time to decide who to throw to and that may involve a certain receiver getting less looks.

That being said, Romo probably checks T.O. and then Witten before looking for Crayton on the majority of his passes.

I don't get to watch enough Dallas games to really evaluate him, but from the small sample size I do have, and the stats I can easily check I think Crayton is a fine receiver (though, I don't know anything about his secondary skills like blocking etc.).

smittyjs 08-19-2008 10:50 AM

I would take Justin gage or roydell williams over crayton.....


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:54 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.