Roddy White wants a new deal

by BigManChili on May 10, 2009 7:17 PM EDT Comment 61 comments

Rowdy Roddy White's contract expires after this season. Two years ago, we thought he was overpaid for a guy who didn't top 1,000 yards in his first two seasons. The last two seasons? Well, he's collected almost 2,600 yards. His rookie contract expires after this season, and he recently talked to D. Orlando Ledbetter of the Atlanta Journal Constitution about wanting a new deal.

“We haven’t come to an agreement,”White stated, but he added that he's not demanding the new contract before the season. "Whenever it happens, it happens,” White said. “We’ll just wait around for it.”

However, there's an issue: The pending CBA negotiation.

When the owners opted out of the current CBA, they set gears into motion that will result in 2010 being an uncapped year. This is where things get confusing. Many of the free-agency rules will change, including one that directly applies to this situation:

"Players must complete six years of service to be eligible for unrestricted free agency in the uncapped year.

If Roddy White isn't signed to a contract extension during this season, he won't be an unrestricted free agent (necessitating a franchise tag of upwards of $9M). He'll be restricted free agent, and we can keep him at 110% of his 2009 cap number ($2.28M), and we'd get a chance to meet any offer he receives or be compensated with a 1st and 3rd round pick from his new team.

For the record, I don't see why we wouldn't resign him this season like we resigned Jenkins and (The U.S.S.) Babineaux last season. I just wanted to make everyone else aware of this situation.

Any thoughts?

This FanPost was written by one of The Falcoholic's talented readers. It does not necessarily reflect the views of The Falcoholic.

0 recs | Comment 61 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

They need to get this done

Don’t waste time, Arthur Blank and Thomas Dimitroff. Get it done BEFORE this season even starts.

by Reid Adair on May 11, 2009 2:03 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree

we have the money and the guy is good.

Hopefully he’ll be deserving of even more money by the end of this season – I don’t think there is a better time to resign him than the present.

know what you believe in and why you believe in it

by MentallyMIA on May 11, 2009 5:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The question is

What is it gonna take to get a deal done? If Jenkins is 4yrs $20M, and Fitzgerald got 4 for $40M, then Roddy would have to be like $7-8 million per year, right? He’s been great the past two years.

I’m thinking 4 years, $30M might be OK for both sides…

by orang3b on May 11, 2009 4:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Fair

I think that is fair, but I wonder what he thinks is fair.

Anyone know who his agent is?

by BigManChili on May 11, 2009 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thank god

It’s not Drew Rosenhaus

by da fatchick thrilla on May 12, 2009 10:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I can't find

Any info about who his agent is…

And as long as he doesn’t think he’s worth $9M+, then they should be able to work out a decent contract…

by orang3b on May 12, 2009 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If we could lock up White for 4 years and $30 million

I think it has to be done. Drops aside, he’s our best receiver and he’s still quite young. That’s a very reasonable contract for a budding star.

by Dave the Falconer on May 12, 2009 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Roddy

Well, he turns 28 in November… so I don’t know if I’d still call him “young” – he should really be entering his peak years (maybe 28-30).

And I was absolutely shocked when I was looking up some info about the WR’s and saw that Jenkins was younger than him (he only turns 27 in June), even though he’s been in the league a year longer. I guess I had forgotten how young he was…

by orang3b on May 12, 2009 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jenkins just seems older

It might be that lack of blazing speed thing.

I think White seems younger because he was a late bloomer, and perhaps he’ll have a longer career because of it. Locking him up until his age 32 season doesn’t seem like all that bad an idea.

by Dave the Falconer on May 12, 2009 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yep

He should be plenty effective until then. I’d be mildly surprised if he didn’t get the extension before the season starts…

by orang3b on May 12, 2009 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I love Roddy but,

I’m sure the Falcons will give him a big contract and he’ll stay, but if gets into Braylon Edwardsville and demands 10Mill+ a year, I say we tag him twice and say goodbye, or take the first and the third for him. Recievers are a dime a dozen.

by Chandler12 on May 13, 2009 3:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I think Roddy

has more character than that… but I guess you never know

know what you believe in and why you believe in it

by MentallyMIA on May 13, 2009 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

a Dime a Dozen??

Ask the Panthers about WR’s being a dime a dozen… they were so unhappy about their #2 receiver opposite Steve Smith (Drew Carter or Keary Colbert, anyone?) that they had to bring back a (at the time) 35 year old Muhsin Muhammad.

Or ask Detroit, who used their first round pick on a WR for what felt like 10 years in a row before finally hitting on a player in Calvin Johnson.

I know WR is not as important of a position as QB, but it might be just as hard to find a good one…

But I agree $10M+ per for Roddy is probably too much.

by orang3b on May 14, 2009 7:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think that a quaterback makes the wide receivers though, yea you have to have a decent WR but the QB can make a crappy WR good. for exaple look at the patriots b4 welker and moss. Tom Brady won 2 superbowls with no big time WR, he had David Patten and David Givens and look at them now.. what about Brandon Stokely he was awesome in Indy why, bc of Manning he went to the broncos and hes done nothing since. look at Dante Stallworth he was great in New England and New orleans now look at him with the browns, Plaxico Burres was never really that succesfull in Pit. Went to play for NY and he became a superstar.. So its not the receiver all the time its the person throws the ball at him.. White was crappy when Vick was throwing the ball, but when Ryan or harrington threw the ball he was good..

by MTB33 on May 14, 2009 3:08 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

A Couple Things:

1) Brady went from about 3,700 yards and 26 TD’s per year (for like 5 straight years), and then in ‘07 when he got Moss and Welker, he exploded for 4,800 yards and 50 TD’s.

2) Stokely was in Indy for 4 years – he was good for one season. Injuries wiped out 2 years, but in ‘04 he had 68 Rec – 1,077 Yds – 10 TD’s. In ’05 he only had 41 Rec – 543 Yds – 1 TD; about the same as his numbers in Denver the last 2 years. (But I do think that Peyton Manning could make just about anybody into a decent receiver).

3) If you exclude his rookie year in 2000, Plaxico averaged 60 Rec – 972 Yds – 5.5 TD’s as a Steeler. He has averaged 61 Rec – 920 Yds – 8 TD’s in New York. Except for the higher TD’s, he’s the same player. (He even missed 5 games his last year in PIT; he missed the last 6 games last season).

4) I hope you’re not using Joey Harrington as a “good” QB to back up your point.

by orang3b on May 14, 2009 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

that's too funny, way to make an a valid case

I do agree with you completely that good receivers are hard to come by. I don’t believe in the whole “dime a dozen” for any position in the NFL to be completely honest with you.

I loved your fourth point too… I’m still laughing.

know what you believe in and why you believe in it

by MentallyMIA on May 14, 2009 5:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I understand that brady exploded but he still won 3 superbowls without any good WR, besides Deon Branch. Im not using Harrington to make my point im just saying that we saw what Roddy White can do after vick left. The year that Harrington, Leftwich and Redman were the Qb’s is when he exploded and last year, b4 than he was horrible.. Im just saying if you have a good enough QB you can make a WR good, you dont have to have big name big money WR’s on your team to be good..

by MTB33 on May 14, 2009 6:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

but the point I think he's trying to make

is yes, Tom Brady made those receivers “good”

sure, Matt Ryan is probably responsible for making Peele look good, and Jenkins look good, and even Rader looked good until he fumbled the ball 1 yard away from the end zone. The thing is though, good receivers + good quarterbacks equal GREAT players.

Tom Brady took the Patriots from “good” to “great” with the transition to better players.

know what you believe in and why you believe in it

by MentallyMIA on May 14, 2009 9:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Randy Moss makes QBs look good.

Did see see what Cris Carter and Randy Moss did for Culpepper? Also, Warner sure looked a lot better with Bruce/Holt and Fitzgerald/Bolden/Bresdin then he did for the NYG…

"We're not maxed out, ... The best is still ahead of us."

Bobby Bowden

by NaGaNole on May 15, 2009 11:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

you can't forget how bad Moss was in Oakland

by gritzblitz on May 21, 2009 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well,

Tom Brady didn’t win 3 Super Bowls – the New England Patriots did. He had worse receivers, but the team had a much, much better defense in say ’01 than in ’07.

With Roddy White – yes, kciV certainly wasn’t helping, but I think part of it was that he just started to figure out how to be a good receiver (he broke out in his 3rd year, the year that most commentators say a WR could jump in production).

I halfway agree with your last point, though:

if you have a good enough QB you can make a WR good, you dont have to have big name big money WR’s on your team to be good

For your team to be good… It’s all in how the GM & coach want to construct the team – obviously, in Indianapolis, Bill Polian decided that he had a great QB and would give him as many weapons as possible, and put most of the defense together with spare parts (DT’s, LB’s, and CB’s especially are continually drafted & let go after their rookie contracts run out, to keep costs down). A team like Baltimore, though, went the other way – they built a killer defense, but never really had much punch on offense (because they could never find good QB’s and WR’s). But both teams have had a lot of success the last 10 years or so…

QB’s can be anywhere from Hall-of-Fame calibur to good to below average to Ryan Leaf. It is the same with any other position, including WR. Andre Johnson is a great receiver, no matter if it’s Matt Schaub, or Sage Rosenfels, or even David Carr throwing the ball to him. So if you have a WR (Roddy) who looks to be somewhere between very good and great, I think you gotta lock them up long term (for the going rate for good-to-great WRs). Because the next guy you draft could be Andre Johnson, or he could be Reggie Williams…

by orang3b on May 15, 2009 9:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think there might be some misplaced finger pointing

If your underlying point is that you don’t need top flight WR’s to have a good team, then sure I could agree with that. But then again, you could say that about every position singularly, so it’s somewhat moot. On the surface of it though, you are claiming that there are no great WR’s and that they were all created by great QB’s. Unfortunately the logic in your reason doesn’t add up and is quite contradictory.

You are claiming that White had bad numbers because Vick was a bad QB when really, that statement should be reversed. Vick had low passing numbers because he was stuck with an oft injured and rookie WR corps. If your statement is true, then how do you explain Crumpler having Pro-Bowl seasons with Vick at QB? White and Jenkins dropped more passes in their first two years than I can recall watching in my lifetime. It was like I could go through every single game and come up with three plays for each of them where the ball hit them in the hands and they either clubbed it and let it go through. If Vick were a truly bad passing QB, then one could expect that Crumpler would not have been as prolific correct? Or does your logic only apply to the WR position versus every position that can catch a pass?

If anything, you White example proves that a WR can be great without a great QB because Redman, Harrington, and Leftwhich are not great QB’s by any stretch of the imagination. Vick’s numbers should be much better than they are and he is a much better QB than those three scrubs,but that can be saved for a different thread.

"If Woody were Captain of the Titanic, he'd argue the boat sinking speaks to how effectively they put rich people in life boats and lock the poor folks below."
-jrauch commenting at Hoopinion on Woody's (non)logic in his post-game comments

by Jesse28 on May 19, 2009 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also

I’m going to see if I can’t find some numbers to help illustrate my points, but last I checked Dropped Passes isn’t a normally tracked stat. Wish me luck!

by Jesse28 on May 19, 2009 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is probably way off

Because I’m going totally on memory here, but…

Roddy’s catch rate has gone up (considerably) since he came into the league:
‘05: ~45%
’06: ~50%
’07: ~58%
’08: 59% (that one’s right – I looked it up)
I have no idea about Jenkins’ catch #’s.

It’s possible that he (and Jenkins) figured out how to get just a half-step more open with their routes, to have more space to secure the catch; or the QB’s throwing to them in the last 2 years hit them in the hands more often – as opposed to the back shoulder or shins with kciV. I think it’s a little of both.

by orang3b on May 19, 2009 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting observation ...

but I have to wonder whether the contrast between Vick + Crumps and Vick + Roddy/Jenkins has something to do w/ Vick’s weaknesses and strengths. Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but maybe Vick was good at making the kind of passes the Crumps likes to make and bad at making the kinds of passes that Roddy/Jenkins liked to make at the time. I know I am way oversimplifying here, but I hope someone gets where I’m going w/ this.

Reporter: How will you address all of the dropped passes?

Mike Smith: I don’t think that we were as sharp as we have been catching the football. It’s something that is very fixable. It’s VERY fixable.

by FrankyWren on May 19, 2009 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Catch Percentages

Ok, here’s the real #s:
Roddy . . Year . . Jenkins
59% . . . 2008 . . . 62%
61% . . . 2007 . . . 62%
47% . . . 2006 . . . 47%
43% . . . 2005 . . . 51%
N/A . . . . 2004 . . . 35%

Is it a coincidence that both of their catch % numbers sky-rocketed when kciV wasn’t throwing them the ball? I think not. But I also noticed something while I was looking these #s up – both players are used better now. For instance (Football Outsiders charting #s):
2006 Roddy – 15% Short – 45% Mid – 13% Deep – 27% Bomb
2007 Roddy – 34% Short – 41% Mid – 16% Deep – 10% Bomb
(Short 5 yds or less; Mid 6-15 yds; Deep 16-25 yds; Bomb 26+ yds)
Jenkins had a similar shift, so whether all the long balls was by design (Greg Knapp calling too many deep passes) or because of bad decisions (kciV running around and chucking it deep), there definitely was a change for the good starting in the 2007 season.

Crumpler’s Catch #s, just for reference:
2007 – 60% (w/ 10.6 ypc)
2006 – 51% (13.9)
2005 – 55% (13.5)
2004 – 65% (16.1) – wow, that was a really great year!
I don’t have the #‘s before the 2004 season. As you can see, his catch % went up a bit in 2007, but his YPC # went down (running shorter routes). Those aren’t terrible, but a good TE should really be consistently up in the 65-70% range.

So we have a 53.8% career passer… almost everybody involved in the passing game looks better after he’s gone (even the sack #s went way down)… I feel pretty confident saying the majority of the blame for the dropped passes rests on kciV’s strong – but inaccurate – left shoulder. Frankly, I’m not sure I agree he is a better quarterback than “those 3 scrubs”.

by orang3b on May 20, 2009 9:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

great report man

and thanks for doing the research.

I always kinda had the feeling that Vick wasn’t a reliable passer, but this looks like cold hard facts to me.

To be fair though. Play calling. Vick’s ability to follow instructions. And Receiver development are all determining facts too. Honestly, I think that Vick is a little better than those numbers portray based on the fact he was throwing to undeveloped receivers, but you are right, he is no Matt Ryan and his ability as a passer may not even be as good as Harrington’s… but it isn’t significantly worse (than Harrington’s)… but at this point, that’s all a matter of opinion (mine anyways). Guess we’ll just have to wait and see what he does now that he’s out of jail.

know what you believe in and why you believe in it

by MentallyMIA on May 20, 2009 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agree

All those things were working together to hurt kciV’s numbers. I still don’t think he ever was (or ever will be) an above average passer in the NFL…

by orang3b on May 20, 2009 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly my point

In no way am I trying to state that Vick was the next Marino, just that White and Jenkins having better numbers wasn’t soley because Vick left. Sure Vick was not a pocket passer, and I don’t think anyone would think otherwise. I thought Mora used him wrong from the beginning, trying to throw him into a West Coast style offense that even the greats say take three years for a QB to truly shine in. He was forced into a system that did not play toward his strengths and frankly, only made his weakness more stark. Blank should have either hired a coach who would design an offense around the teams best player, Vick, or Mora should have done it himself.

I think it’s clear that there are a ton of factors that all contributed to both Vick’s and the WR’s numbers over those years. Be it coaching, offensive philosophy changes, and/or the experience of the WR’s growing, simply stating that White and Jenkins got better just because Vick wasn’t throwing is illogical.

As a whole, there is no way I will concede Vick not being better than Leftwhich, Harrington, or Redman. If you want to go through each stat category, then fine, those guys at one point or another will be better than Vick, but Vick has more ability and talent than the three of them combined. But that will only lead us into a very subjective discussion that is not wholy relevant to the current topic.

by Jesse28 on May 21, 2009 10:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That was my point

Of course kciV has more ability and talent than those 3. He is a much better athlete, just maybe not a better quarterback (at least in terms of what I would want my QB to do if I was the coach or GM).

by orang3b on May 21, 2009 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

Imagine what could have been had the offense been catered to his talents and abilities. Wildcat? Heck no, it’s called the Dirty Bird fools!

by Jesse28 on May 21, 2009 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Seriously, it's over....

Move on. I don’t care how elusive he is in the open field, he’ll never be the pro style QB Matt Ryan is. He’ll never be the leader Matt Ryan is. I understand he’s impressive on highlight reels. He’s the A.I. of the NFL. Never gonna win on this level w the types of offenses that are in the NFL right now…

"We're not maxed out, ... The best is still ahead of us."

Bobby Bowden

by NaGaNole on May 22, 2009 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

you are right

he’ll never be Matt Ryan. We are much better off without him.

Doesn’t change the fact that he makes for good conversation. It’s like all the Favre drama going on right now and the fact you can’t stop hearing about him on TV. This is the most debateable football news going on during the offseason at the moment.

know what you believe in and why you believe in it

by MentallyMIA on May 22, 2009 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You ever had...

…a buddy or a few that were great on their high school football team, but didn’t make it at the next level? Every time they get together they talk about the good old days. This is how I view Vick. It drives me nuts. Let’s talk about our predictions for rushing yards like over at CSR or something, but not this…

"We're not maxed out, ... The best is still ahead of us."

Bobby Bowden

by NaGaNole on May 22, 2009 12:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Then why post a comment?

That only goes to draw more attention to this thread, and more specifically, the above comments involving Vick. You could have easily not posted and it would have died, but it obviously intrigued you enough. It’s only being discussed because that’s where the conversation took us. If you don’t like it, then move along and not comment.

Plus, not once have I implied that Vick would ever be a standard pocket passer, in fact the opposite is exactly what I was trying to point out. Either way, I pretty much stated in a separate thread that the Vick discussion was pretty pointless.

But since you brought it up, St. Louis, J-Ville, Denver, Minn, and Oakland have all been mentioned as landing places for Vick when he returns. In fact, I read a great write-up this morning about the how the Jags make the most sense and how well he would fit there. It was very interesting. It actually isn’t a bad thing considering all the problems the jags have filling the seats, to the point of closing off large sections of the upper levels just to lower the total seat count so that the games don’t get blacked out every home game. They still do though, so at least you know that it might get better if they landed Vick. I think we as Falcons fans know exactly what he did for our blackout problems.

I could definitely see the other options as well, so this might actually get interesting during the preseason. One things for sure, defenses are going to have to account for him if he’s on a roster and that’s not easy to do.

by Jesse28 on May 22, 2009 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well,

I haven’t read the story, but I don’t see how Jacksonville makes sense. They just gave Garrard a huge extension (6 years $60 million) last year. So he wouldn’t be coming in to compete for the starting QB spot. And I think he could actually hurt ticket sales at first… think about it – everybody is all in a huff because they bring the dog killer into town, so a good chunk of people stay away (but if he were to get on the field and put up some highlights, I think people would quickly forgive and forget).

by orang3b on May 22, 2009 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Let's see...

Ahh, here it is.

He wouldn’t come in to compete right away obviously, but as a pure back-up QB in the first year, slowly building bac his game strength and appearing in spot situations late in the season, then maybe working on the starting spot the following year or in year three. There were a ton of people here in J-ville complaining about Garrard after last season so I’m assuming that if things don’t get better there will continue to be rumblings, not that it would make much difference I suppose. Maybe they look at moving him in the future, but I think the article meant for Vick to stick around as a #2 QB.

As for the ticket situation, I’m not so sure there is much else left that could possibly hurt ticket sales here. They have big businesses buying out large amounts of tickets and they can’t even give them away. Plus, I don’t buy into that idea that Vick would hurt tickets sales. I don’t see there being an extremely large amount of fans that are going to flat out boycott their favorite team just because said team took a chance on an immensely talented and game-changing player that has animal issues, or at least not enough to make a significant dent in the grand scheme of things. Seriously though, I don’t think his issue is much of one with the denizens of Duval and surrounding areas. He might actually have more fans here, haha.

by Jesse28 on May 22, 2009 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

If the ticket situation really is that bad already, it probably wouldn’t hurt sales (and I think people in Jacksonville would be more forgiving of what he did than in say… San Fransisco).

That really was a very good article (to be expected from Michael Lombardi).

by orang3b on May 22, 2009 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It didn't intrigue me,

It made my head hurt. Meh. I hope he does land on a roster of a team ATL is playing this year. The distractions would be at a T.O. level. Good for us….

"We're not maxed out, ... The best is still ahead of us."

Bobby Bowden

by NaGaNole on May 22, 2009 7:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Haha ok good points good points, however How about Randy Moss, Prolly one of the best wideouts in the NFL, Great in minesota with cunningham and Culpepper, went to oakland went to crap, why, bc all there QB’s sucked,then he went to the pats and broke records.. My point is like i said b4 you dont have to have great wr core if you have a good qb. but you can have 3 of the best WR in the nfl in one team and Joey Harrington, and do you think he will be succesfull, i dont.. Look how he did in detroit, he had Roy Williams, Charles Rogers, Mike Williams 3 pretty good WR at the time, and he still failed.. You have your points I have mine, I think its more important to have a Better QB then Better WR… But we could argue this for years im still going to beleive what i beleive and u think differently.. But your points were good..

by MTB33 on May 20, 2009 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think anyone is tracking on what points are specificially being argued

this turned into a debate of which is more important to have? WRs or QBs?

The answer is QB… hands down. Even if you have 3 golden receivers, if your QB doesn’t know where to throw the ball, they will never amount to anything.

Delhomme and Pennington single handedly lost the playoffs for their teams. You won’t see WRs throwing 5 interceptions… their role is specifically to run a route and catch a pass – they don’t have the make the game changing decisions that QBs have to make.

know what you believe in and why you believe in it

by MentallyMIA on May 20, 2009 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I COMPLETELY AGREE.. thats what i was trying to say this whole time, thats all..

by MTB33 on May 20, 2009 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh dear Lord

If you’re trying to prove that QB is more important than WR, then you’re arguing with yourself. To quote myself (from above):

I know WR is not as important of a position as QB, but it might be just as hard to find a good one…

I’m just trying to say that I strongly disagree with the idea that WR’s are “a dime a dozen” or “the QB can make a crappy WR good”.

Charles Rogers and Mike Williams are not good WR’s – neither one has ever had more than 29 catches in a season. One is out of the league and one is probably on his last chance. But no, Harrington probably wouldn’t have done too much better with 3 good WR’s – because he’s not a good QB.

And as for Randy “I play when I want to play” Moss – his 2005 #s were ok (not great): 60 Rec – 1,005 Yds – 8 TD. Yes, his 2006 #s were pretty awful for a WR of his abilities, but he missed 3 games, and I think he had completely given up on the coach/team. Remember, the Raiders that year had the worst offense in the league by a healthy margin. I think I’d lose interest if I was waiting for Andrew Walter and Aaron Brooks to make something happen, too!

Point being – I’m not saying WR is more important than QB – just that it IS important too…

by orang3b on May 20, 2009 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think we all kinda drew the same conclusion

I agree with you completely, and thanks again for throwing facts and numbers at us.

I’m curious to see if anyone is still arguing at this point :p

I’m pretty sure the general concensus at this point is:
A.) QBs are more important than WRs on offense
B.) QBs can make decent WRs better and vice versa, however, a horrible WR isn’t going to be made significant singly because of a QB
C.) There is no such thing as a ‘dime a dozen’ position in the NFL

please correct me if I’m wrong… this has by far been one of the most entertaining debates during this offseason.

know what you believe in and why you believe in it

by MentallyMIA on May 20, 2009 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Haha yea im likig these facts and numbers, its pretty interesting, and i think we are done arguing at this point but 1 more fact for ya guy, Who is a better WR Randy Moss or Joe Horn?? I think we can all agree that Randy Moss is. So with Aaron Brooks as his QB Joe Horn was a superstar in new orleans correct me if im wrong.. But im sure you’ll be back with some facts and numbers on that too. But anyway this argument isnt going anywhere Just like MentallyMIA said there is no dime a dozen positions but a QB is more of an important position then WR on offense point blank..

by MTB33 on May 20, 2009 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hey,

If you want numbers – I can always come up with more numbers for ya!

Yes, I agree Randy Moss is better, but don’t forget that Joe Horn was a great (not just good) WR in his prime…

Well, the simplist explanation in my mind is the overall difference in the quality of the team’s offenses. The Raiders in ‘06 were the #32 offense in the league; from 2000-2004 New Orleans was usually in the #10-#15 range… They also had a good running game (Ricky Williams & Deuce McAllister), and a better offensive line – the whole offense just performed better. Sidenote, Jeff Blake was the leading passer for NO in 2000 (Brooks only played 8 games). The Raiders had about 100 fewer offensive plays than a decent offense should have (they couldn’t make 1st downs), so fewer chances to put up decent stats… Maybe Oakland is simply a black hole that sucks all the life and skill out of a player…

by orang3b on May 21, 2009 8:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jesse,

Have you had any success finding numbers for dropped passes? I am hitting a wall. I got ‘08 numbers from The Washington Post, and the ’07 numbers from Football Outsiders (actually my Pro Football Prospectus book for that year – but they didn’t list them for years before then). Washington Post only lists the total # of drops (I got the # of targets from FO). I like the listing with % of drops better, because if you drop 5 passes out of 100 that’s ok, but 5 out of 20 is terrible…

Last season (2008) Roddy was tied for 5th most drops in the league.
1. Braylon Edwards – 16 drops – 138 targets (11.6%)
2. Dwayne Bowe – 13/157 (8.3%)
3. Brandon Marshall – 12/181 (6.6%)
4. Terrell Owens – 10/139 (7.2%)
5t. Calvin Johnson – 9/150 (6.0%)
5t. Roddy White – 9 drops – 148 targets (6.1%)
7t. seven players with 8 drops
Jenkins was not in the top 40 or so (he had less than 6 drops for sure), so even if he had 5 drops out of his 81 targets (6.2%), that’s not too bad.

2007 Roddy was tied for 17th most drops:
1. Brandon Marshall – 15/124 (12.1%)
2. Braylon Edwards – 12/153 (7.8%)
3t. Randy Moss – 11/160 (6.9%)
3t. Dwayne Bowe – 11/118 (9.3%)
3t. Devery Henderson – 11/43 (25.6%) – holy crap!!
etc
17t. Roddy White – 8 drops – 137 targets (5.8%)
17t. five others with 8 drops
Jenkins was not in the top 20 for drops or drop % this year either.

So basically, the only thing these lists show is that Roddy and Jenkins were not dropping passes at a high rate in ‘07 and ’08. I know the question was if they were dropping more passes in their first few years – unless you found something, we may never know for sure. Of course, you will always have those images of balls clanging off their hands seared into your memory. So you’ve got that going for you… which is nice.

by orang3b on May 21, 2009 9:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I almost forgot

There was a ton of cool stats at that Washington Post site…

There is a drop-down menu for 1st down catches on 3rd down (Roddy #1 in NFL – Finneran tied for #13 in NFC); % of 1st downs per Target (Jenkins #12 in NFL, or #6 in NFC – Roddy #16 in NFC); Yards after Catch; Drops; etc. And that’s just some of the stats for receivers… If you like stats (and I think you know I do), then check it out!

by orang3b on May 21, 2009 9:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's about it

I looked through a lot of different sites, but the only thing I could find with any regularity was last years and sometimes the one before that. Unfortunately, like you mentioned, Dropped Passes alone doesn’t give you the full picture. So, I tried expanding my search and still I couldn’t find enough information to support either side of the discussion.

Dropped Passes wasn’t going to be my sole focal point because its A) a stat not normally tracked and B) a stat that isn’t clearly defined when looking at another stat I found, Passes Not Caught. If a pass hits the WR and isn’t caught, which one does it go into? Does Passes not Caught include interception off of Dropped Passes, and if not, do those go in Dropped Passes? There are too many questions revolving around these randomly tracked stats for me make a solid opinion. I could derive something, but that leaves it somewhat stradling the fence of subjectivity.

So, I found a site that uses Stats Inc as its database, but it only covers lat year. Here’s what I found. It only seems to list the top 20 for both the AFC and the NFC, so it is somewhat limited. Targeted, Passes Dropped, Passes Caught(Rec), Passes Not Caught, and percentage stats of those, amongst others.

White: 148 Targeted, 88 Rec, 59.5% Rec Rate, 9 Drops, 60 Not Caught. This clearly shows that Statc Inc records Dropped Passes in the Not Caught stat.

My only conclusion is that game film shows us the truth more so than the numbers when trying to decide whether it was Vick who made the WR numbers bad or the WR’s who made Vicks numbers bad. From the beginning I have believed it to be a combination of both, though I may not have stated that clearly. I’m still inclined to believe, from memory mind you, that the rookie factor of the WR’s played a bigger role than the other way around, but thinking about everything makes me want to place some blame on Mora and the publics insistency that Vick become a pocket passer. He took a lot of flak for not throwing up huge passing numbers, and I think now, just as I did then, that it was wholey undeserved. None of this though makes a large difference now I suppose, but I still stand by my opinion that Vick’s presence was not the sole reason why our WR’s weren’t putting up better numbers.

Also, and this may have been a big part of it as well, but we all have to remember that the Falcons led the league in rushing or was naer the top for most of those years, partly because our WR corps was injured and young.

by Jesse28 on May 21, 2009 10:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well,

If you’re talking about the raw rushing Yardage Total, a big part of the reason we were at or near the top for those years was the huge chunk or yards kciV was putting up over an average QB. But I get it – they were definitely a run first team (for several reasons).

by orang3b on May 21, 2009 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

That was where I was going with that. The emphasis should never have been for him to be a pure passing QB because his strengths dictated that he wasn’t and the numbers proved it. I find it quite intriguing how the NFL is so slow to change things, like they are afriad of failure in trying something new. I’m not saying we should have adopted a full fledged option based offense, but just a few tweak for Vick could have resulted in many of the close games being outright wins.

by Jesse28 on May 21, 2009 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

Except I guess I can understand a team not wanting to expose it’s #1 draft pick (and all the $$ tied up in him) to extra hits and injury risk by having him run around all over the field…

by orang3b on May 21, 2009 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ya know

I understand that train of thought from a business standpoint, but really, as a fan, that sounds like an excuse for losing. Sure, you have to protect your assets for the longhaul, but to what extent? If simply designing more of the plays to provide and escape route for him to tear off 10-30 yards if nothing is downfield, then what’s wrong with that? Knowing Vick, he probably would have used that more than he would have tried making something downfield, but I think there were enough highlight plays as evidence that he could more than handle avoiding getting hit.

And as I’m typing this I’m struck with the realization that this is no more relevant than talking about how Glanville should have gotten over himself and played Favre. Moot and futile, yay me.

So yeah, I hear this Rawdy Roddy White fella is looking for a new deal huh?

by Jesse28 on May 22, 2009 8:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

kinda makes you wonder though

who would we be without Matt Ryan? Would our team have become what it did if Vick didn’t go to jail and Petrino hadn’t flown the coop? Probably not.

I’m glad things worked out the way they did.

I don’t care what anyone thinks either though, I loved watching Favre play and I honestly wouldn’t object to watching him again for one more season. Same with Vick. I love to watch the guy play. He has earned his previous living as an entertainer and I look forward to being entertained by him again, no matter who he happens to be playing for (but preferrably not the Panthers, Saints, or Bucs)

know what you believe in and why you believe in it

by MentallyMIA on May 22, 2009 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yea i definetly think we should resign him.. I think we have a great offensive starters.. Douglas and Finn in the mix, were good to go..

by MTB33 on May 15, 2009 4:04 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

whatev

Yeah I like Roddy. Re-sign him. I doubt Finn see’s much time this season if he is even on the roster. I think the whole argument about QB’s being able to make an avg reciever better just by virtue of their own talent is prepostorous. either you have talent or you dont. either you can catch the ball consistently or you cant. If the guy gets the ball within your reach you should catch it regardless.

Life is a garden. Dig it!

by Hardcore Falcon on May 20, 2009 11:09 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

This discussion is great

That’s why you guys kick ass!

by Dave the Falconer on May 20, 2009 5:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Dave give us your opinion!!!!!!!!!!!!

by MTB33 on May 20, 2009 6:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

See this is why i don’t like arthur blank he can’t take care of the easy SHIT.this deal should have been done as soon as the season ended .6yrs wat ever wat ever, it not rocket science artie it’s keeping good players on a good team.P.S. GET IT DONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by x-factor-bb on May 26, 2009 10:04 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Meh

Life is a garden. Dig it!

by Hardcore Falcon on May 27, 2009 11:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Double meh.

Oh yeah, boo Arthur Blank. Let’s go back to the Smith family days….I miss being able to buy those nosebleeds at the old Atl Fulton Co stadium and walk down to the field level… (beware of dripping sarcasm)

"We're not maxed out, ... The best is still ahead of us."

Bobby Bowden

by NaGaNole on May 27, 2009 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs