Great White Shark
Posts: 1867
Joined: Thu Sep 7, 2017
Sand$: 4,760.98
Uh huh...

:F
Great White Shark
Posts: 1995
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015
Sand$: 8,146.36
Did you read what either of us said? I never said anything about not wanting him. I said its unrealistic to expect him to maintain 25% target share. Hes averaging 35 attempts/game on the season so for Gordon to continue to see 9 targets Brady would have to start throwing it a lot more. James White has around 23% target share, and Gronk has 16% can see Gordon hovering somewhere around the 15% mark. May have a few games where he sees a bump like tonight... but not consistently seeing 9 targets unless they are way behind or in a shootout(where score would be a factor)
_______________________________________

Balls of Steel Dynasty League
Too Deep Dynasty
United We Served Dynasty League
DFL
The Longest Yard Dynasty
Seadogs Dynasty
Deep Black Dynasty
2018 Best Ball
NFL Challenge
One and Done
LoT Norse League Odin
User avatar
Megalodon
Posts: 11444
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008
Sand$: 36,697.28
ubertaco wrote:Do you guys like not watch the Patriots or something?


Only glory hunters watch the Patriots.
_______________________________________

Great White Shark
Posts: 8318
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010
Sand$: 17,450.92
Pretty sure Gordon is a weekly start at this point.

The Patriots made a point to make him involved.


He played 63 out of 78 snaps (81%).


Gordon and Brady have more work to do to get synchronized, but Gordon was a PI from being on a 2 TD streak, and they had a few missed connections early.
Last edited by jnadke on Mon 10.15.2018, 08:36, edited 2 times in total.
Great White Shark
Posts: 1867
Joined: Thu Sep 7, 2017
Sand$: 4,760.98
I said AROUND 9 targets, that's what '~' in front of something means. I did not say 25% or exactly 9 or that he should be a must add or a must start.

Brady has averaged 35.6 attempts per game, Gordon has ramped up his snap count, all the news out of the Patriots indicates that Gorden has picked up the offense and his actual in game usage suggests that Brady is happy with him and will target him.

Brandin Cooks who Gordon might be the 'replacement' for averaged just over 7 targets a game last season.

Look, if you want to nit pick about what AROUND 9 means, feel free, I still don't get what you are trying to accomplish, but enjoy whatever it is.
User avatar
Moderator
Posts: 45915
Joined: Sun Aug 2, 2009
Sand$: 51,200.75
I'm more comfortable starting him moving forward after his involvement in this game than I was after last week's lucky touchdown. I still don't want to though. But if I have to, I will. The upside is there for a boom or bust FLEX or bye week filler.
_______________________________________

#NewJackCity
Supreme Megalodon
Posts: 27316
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008
Sand$: 74,360.80
ubertaco wrote:I said AROUND 9 targets, that's what '~' in front of something means. I did not say 25% or exactly 9 or that he should be a must add or a must start.

Brady has averaged 35.6 attempts per game, Gordon has ramped up his snap count, all the news out of the Patriots indicates that Gorden has picked up the offense and his actual in game usage suggests that Brady is happy with him and will target him.

Brandin Cooks who Gordon might be the 'replacement' for averaged just over 7 targets a game last season.

Look, if you want to nit pick about what AROUND 9 means, feel free, I still don't get what you are trying to accomplish, but enjoy whatever it is.



All im saying is it’s the patriots. Pay attention? Around 9 targets doesn’t Include a range of 14-2 targets. This the same team that places guys on the inactive lists for no reason, same team that claimed Michael Floyd off waivers for 2 games then was inactive for the rest of the season. Same team who dat Butler for the Super Bowl. He could get 3 targets next game simply because he sneezed funny.
Supreme Megalodon
Posts: 27316
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008
Sand$: 74,360.80
ubertaco wrote:Do you guys like not watch the Patriots or something?
.



It’s like you haven’t watched the patriots for the past 15 years or Josh Gotdon for the past 6 years
Great White Shark
Posts: 8318
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010
Sand$: 17,450.92
Patriots players will always be streaky outside of the WR1 (Edelman) and TE1 (Gronkowski).


That said, any player that gets clear and consistent snaps must be started (Brandin Cooks last year). But they have a very low floor by definition.
User avatar
Megalodon
Posts: 11444
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008
Sand$: 36,697.28
rugger48 wrote:
ubertaco wrote:Do you guys like not watch the Patriots or something?
.



It’s like you haven’t watched the patriots for the past 15 years or Josh Gotdon for the past 6 years


To be fair, we haven't seen much of him for the last four years.
_______________________________________

Great White Shark
Posts: 1867
Joined: Thu Sep 7, 2017
Sand$: 4,760.98
rugger48 wrote:
All im saying is it’s the patriots. Pay attention? Around 9 targets doesn’t Include a range of 14-2 targets. This the same team that places guys on the inactive lists for no reason, same team that claimed Michael Floyd off waivers for 2 games then was inactive for the rest of the season. Same team who dat Butler for the Super Bowl. He could get 3 targets next game simply because he sneezed funny.


That's a completely useless way to assess players. Seriously, this isn't Ocho Cinco, pay some attention to what the Patriots are doing, and saying.

Have you watched the last two games?

When the Patriots start to freeze out guys they don't play them in 80% of the snaps and target them the most of any player.

Around 9 targets is a range of 6-12 to me, you can say it's whatever you think it is. Brady is still throwing it ~35 times a game, and last year Cooks averaged 7.1 targets per game. I'm fine if you think 9 is too high, but 7 isn't, and if Gordon is going to take some additional targets as they seem to be trying to use Gronk less (or Gronk is just banged up to where he's not as effective) then that's good. Eddelman and White are the only other guys who should see a consistent number of targets. Even if they combine for 20 targets a game that still leaves 15 targets for everyone else, if Gordon is the 3rd option and sees half of those that puts him in the 7-8 range.

I'm ignoring Hogan, but I think he's ignorable. He'll have his plays, but his targets per game isn't going to do much of anything. If you look at what Dorsett was doing he was getting 7 targets early on, now he's not going to play, Patterson is only in there for a handful of snaps, Michel is only going to take away from White, Devlin or whomever else is going to get a few dump offs.

I dunno, you can say there might be games where he only gets 2 targets, but really there's games where a lot of WRs get very few targets, and no one is suggesting that Gordon should be considered a WR1 or probably even WR2 right now. Only that he's in line to get a decent number of targets. If you don't believe in his talent that's cool too, I really don't know about him, I don't own him anywhere, but if I did, or if he were available and I wasn't happy with my current WR group, I'd be fairly optimistic that I could use him as a flex or WR2 as byes/injuries/performance dictates.
User avatar
Supreme Megalodon
Posts: 37582
Joined: Tue Sep 6, 2005
Sand$: 162,541.12
Expecting targets is one thing.. thats a bit sketchy. Keep in mind a "target" could be a thow-a-way to a players general vicinity.

anywho..

For a legit match-up offense w/a QB and OC that'll 9/10 take whats there and attempt to expose it? I noticed a schiton of snaps last night where Gordon was out wide, opposite side of Gronk, had single coverage w/-0- help in sight and the play went elsewhere. Even in the redzone. I'm expecting that to change in most scenarios as they move along. Thats a pretty levelheaded expectation aside from his health status.

2 endzone targets. 2 which I recall anyway.
-1st was a felony grade PI he fought through yet nearly caught.. brutal landing, tent visit, a short breather and back out he went.
-2nd was across the back of the endzone thrown well behind him that legitimately looked like a chemistry snafu or bad toss. He was handily open though by 2 steps

Could've been better, could've been worse. Arrows undoubtedly pointed up.
_______________________________________

"This whole world would be successful if everybody stopped quitting." - Evander Holyfield
Great White Shark
Posts: 1867
Joined: Thu Sep 7, 2017
Sand$: 4,760.98
Targets are just a metric by which you can assess how many times the QB threw the ball in the players direction.

I mean, I'm not sure what else you would use, and I'm not sure why anyone would prefer guys who average less than 5 targets a game over guys who average more than 7 (not that either of those numbers have anything to do with Gordon or the Patriots).

You can look at snap counts too just to know if a guy is getting on the field, but eventually you have to care about if the player is getting chances when they are on the field.

So, sure, not all targets are created equally, but even if some are throw aways, those should be parceled out across all players, not clumped on one guy... so... yeah, I'll use targets as an indicator of potential use ;)
Great White Shark
Posts: 8318
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010
Sand$: 17,450.92
ubertaco wrote:Targets are just a metric by which you can assess how many times the QB threw the ball in the players direction.

I mean, I'm not sure what else you would use, and I'm not sure why anyone would prefer guys who average less than 5 targets a game over guys who average more than 7 (not that either of those numbers have anything to do with Gordon or the Patriots).

You can look at snap counts too just to know if a guy is getting on the field, but eventually you have to care about if the player is getting chances when they are on the field.


I know the tank likes to use Target Share % as the new metric.

Problem is the NFL season is only 16 games long. Teams are schemed against. You can't extrapolate target share %. It only really indicates if a player was fluky or not. It's a great metric when deciding whether to pluck a guy off waivers.


What matters in WSIS discussions:
1. Snaps
2. The quality of the opponents DBs
3. The offense of the team they play against (will it be a shootout or a beat down)

If a guy isn't getting snaps he isn't worth sh%1
Supreme Megalodon
Posts: 27316
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008
Sand$: 74,360.80
ubertaco wrote:
rugger48 wrote:
All im saying is it’s the patriots. Pay attention? Around 9 targets doesn’t Include a range of 14-2 targets. This the same team that places guys on the inactive lists for no reason, same team that claimed Michael Floyd off waivers for 2 games then was inactive for the rest of the season. Same team who dat Butler for the Super Bowl. He could get 3 targets next game simply because he sneezed funny.


That's a completely useless way to assess players. Seriously, this isn't Ocho Cinco, pay some attention to what the Patriots are doing, and saying.

No , Not when your discussing the patriots. No its not ocho cinco, but is Gordon all of sudden a great route runner and a model teammate or something?

Have you watched the last two games?


Key words "two games" are you telling me you figured out the patriots in the past 2 games? Youi need to work for a NFL team as a DC.

When the Patriots start to freeze out guys they don't play them in 80% of the snaps and target them the most of any player.

Not true, many times they have had player play significant minutes, and then turn around and drop them, inactivate them or simply reduce their role on and off through the season. this is not new,Im not making this up

Around 9 targets is a range of 6-12 to me, you can say it's whatever you think it is. Brady is still throwing it ~35 times a game, and last year Cooks averaged 7.1 targets per game. I'm fine if you think 9 is too high, but 7 isn't, and if Gordon is going to take some additional targets as they seem to be trying to use Gronk less (or Gronk is just banged up to where he's not as effective) then that's good. Eddelman and White are the only other guys who should see a consistent number of targets. Even if they combine for 20 targets a game that still leaves 15 targets for everyone else, if Gordon is the 3rd option and sees half of those that puts him in the 7-8 range.


again, your taking 2 games and claiming you have an idea of what the patriots are doing , for instance , their game plan is to use gronk les is part of that game plan?

I'm ignoring Hogan, but I think he's ignorable. He'll have his plays, but his targets per game isn't going to do much of anything. If you look at what Dorsett was doing he was getting 7 targets early on, now he's not going to play, Patterson is only in there for a handful of snaps, Michel is only going to take away from White, Devlin or whomever else is going to get a few dump offs.


that kind of where I have him, in Hogan territory as far as targets and game play. I think his production is volatile. I dont expect 12-6 targets a game, but Im not sure because its only been 2 games


I dunno, you can say there might be games where he only gets 2 targets, but really there's games where a lot of WRs get very few targets, and no one is suggesting that Gordon should be considered a WR1 or probably even WR2 right now. Only that he's in line to get a decent number of targets. If you don't believe in his talent that's cool too, I really don't know about him, I don't own him anywhere, but if I did, or if he were available and I wasn't happy with my current WR group, I'd be fairly optimistic that I could use him as a flex or WR2 as byes/injuries/performance dictates.