Michael Crabtree

[MW49ers5]

It's convenient you've picked Morgan's performance "at the time of his injury." What about his performance in the first three games? Even with two strong games prior to injury, Morgan still only averaged 44 yards/game in his five games. That's well below Crabtree's performance, even with the "excuse" of the injury.

I like Morgan and I think this offense is a good fit for him, but he has never put more than two good games together. Especially coming of an injury, I'm not terribly convinced he will do so, especially early in the season.

You may be right about Morgan and Crabtree. Certainly Morgan's personality is the better fit for the Niners at present. Crabtree has shown a lot more on the field IMO, but I guess we'll see what the FO thinks in a few months.

Crimson, the reasoning you invoked to misinterpret my statement is fascinating.

My comment "...as long as his performance remained at the level it was at the time of his injury." is an all-inclusive, denotive statement. The only implication was the season, which you seemed to correctly interpret as 2011.

If I had wanted to isolate the two games prior to his injury I would have said "...as long as his performance remained at the level it was in the two games prior to his injury."


The 44Yds/Gm you quoted is a nice gesture but woeful as a comparison. This is because your use of 'games' as the denominator for this type of analysis produces an inconsequential statistic.

Although not entirely perfect, you would have made a much better choice if you had selected 'targets' as your denominator. Earlier in this thread you extrapolated production #'s for Crabtree based on 16 games.

Therefore, I decided I would post an extrapolated comparison between Crabtree & Morgan based on Crabtree's 7.9 targets per game and a 16 game season.

Crabtree vs Morgan - based on Crabtree's 7.9 Tar/Gm, 16 games, 2011 season.

.............Crabtree...Morgan
Games........16............16
Targets.....126...........126
Catches......79...........105
Yards........956.........1544
Yds/Gm.......60............97
1st Dns.......44............84
20+ Gains....13............28
TD's.............4.............7

Now, in the spirit of fairness, Morgan was having a 'highly efficient' season when his injury occurred; nevertheless, you can clearly see why I would rather target Morgan than Crabtree.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Crimson, the reasoning you invoked to misinterpret my statement is fascinating.

My comment "...as long as his performance remained at the level it was at the time of his injury." is an all-inclusive, denotive statement. The only implication was the season, which you seemed to correctly interpret as 2011.

If I had wanted to isolate the two games prior to his injury I would have said "...as long as his performance remained at the level it was in the two games prior to his injury."


The 44Yds/Gm you quoted is a nice gesture but woeful as a comparison. This is because your use of 'games' as the denominator for this type of analysis produces an inconsequential statistic.

Although not entirely perfect, you would have made a much better choice if you had selected 'targets' as your denominator. Earlier in this thread you extrapolated production #'s for Crabtree based on 16 games.

Therefore, I decided I would post an extrapolated comparison between Crabtree & Morgan based on Crabtree's 7.9 targets per game and a 16 game season.

Crabtree vs Morgan - based on Crabtree's 7.9 Tar/Gm, 16 games, 2011 season.

.............Crabtree...Morgan
Games........16............16
Targets.....126...........126
Catches......79...........105
Yards........956.........1544
Yds/Gm.......60............97
1st Dns.......44............84
20+ Gains....13............28
TD's.............4.............7

Now, in the spirit of fairness, Morgan was having a 'highly efficient' season when his injury occurred; nevertheless, you can clearly see why I would rather target Morgan than Crabtree.

Why would we look at targets instead of yards/game? Is there any evidence that Morgan would ever be targeted 126 times in a season? You mentioned that Crabtree was demoted to start the year, only resuming his role as the primary receiver after Morgan was injured. Accepting that premise, in five games as our primary receiver, Morgan received 19 targets. You claim that he was our go-to guy, and yet we targeted him less than half as often as we targeted Crabtree over the course of the season. The reality is that Morgan has never demonstrated that he would be targeted as much as Crabtree was this past year, or even close to it. That's part of the problem with Morgan IMO. He disappears from the game in terms of targets and receptions far too often.

The logic here is just silly. Primary receivers regularly have lower YPC, and markedly lower yards per target. There are many reasons for this: they see the ball more often generally, and much more often in crucial situations. The QB looks for them when he is being pressured. Primary receivers draw more attention from the D. Etc.

The target approach you adopt here could be applied to make an argument that a slew of third and fourth receivers should be starting. If most starting receivers in the league had Wes Welker's 172 targets, they would have blown Welker's numbers out of the water. There is a reason Welker saw so many targets, and it's a big part of why he is such a great receiver. Similarly, if James Jones had received the 124 targets Greg Jennnings was on pace for, he would have put up 1431 yards and 16 TDs compared to Jennings' 1165 yards and 11 TDs. No one would make the mistake of thinking Jones is the better receiver. There is a reason he didn't receive as many targets as Jennings, just as there is a reason Morgan averaged less than four targets a game while Crabtree averaged almost eight.

While we're talking productive targets, though, forget Morgan. If Sopoaga received Crabtree's 124 targets, he would have put up 2,232 yards.

Morgan played a few games in which he was targeted infrequently (again, despite apparently being our #1 receiver; why is that?), but saw several balls when he was open and made some big plays. Extrapolating those five games to a full season gives you completely meaningless numbers. At least when we extrapolate his actual production in games we're looking at what he produced on the field.

 

[MW49ers5]

Crimson,

I did read your above response, but respectfully and honestly I could not identify a single relevant point - (we are clearly not on the same page); and trust me, I looked for one, it just wasn't there. If you think there is a point in your post that I missed, perhaps you can bring it to my attention.

My post prior to yours is precisely how one would do an extrapolated comparison. You can't use just 'games' as your denominator because it satisfies only part of what is compulsory in a denominator in order to provide a meaningful production analysis.

Thanks for the conversation - But again, after reading your entire post, I am perhaps even more convinced that our offense would be more productive if we gave Crabtree's targets to Morgan. (Or Sopoaga to your point - or perhaps even Staley )

But like I've said a few times now, we'll know in a few weeks how our FO feels.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Crimson,

I did read your above response, but respectfully and honestly I could not identify a single relevant point - (we are clearly not on the same page); and trust me, I looked for one, it just wasn't there. If you think there is a point in your post that I missed, perhaps you can bring it to my attention.

My post prior to yours is precisely how one would do an extrapolated comparison. You can't use just 'games' as your denominator because it satisfies only part of what is compulsory in a denominator in order to provide a meaningful production analysis.

Thanks for the conversation - But again, after reading your entire post, I am perhaps even more convinced that our offense would be more productive if we gave Crabtree's targets to Morgan. (Or Sopoaga to your point - or perhaps even Staley )

But like I've said a few times now, we'll know in a few weeks how our FO feels.

I agree. Nor can you use just targets.

Over the past three years, including 31 starts in 37 games, Morgan has had eight or more targets just five times. He has never seen more than nine targets in a game. And during that span, he has averaged just under five receptions per game. So as said, expecting him to suddenly see eight targets a game on average is unrealistic and a rather useless statistic.

Now, there might be some merit in simply extrapolating targets, but to apply it to a 16-game schedule? There's simply no basis for that sort of extrapolation. Do you honestly believe Morgan would put up anything like those numbers if we threw him the ball 126 times in a season?

If we could just "give" Crabtree's targets to Morgan, maybe we would be more productive. But it strikes me that there might be reasons that we aren't doing that, and haven't been doing that over the last three years, including this year when Morgan was our #1 receiver. It seems to me that if a guy isn't getting open consistently, he won't get as many targets. That has been my sense of Morgan's performance to date. It's hard to see what a WR is doing when the ball doesn't go to him, but I have never gotten the sense that Morgan is regularly wide open and his QB simply didn't see him.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Crimson, the reasoning you invoked to misinterpret my statement is fascinating.

My comment "...as long as his performance remained at the level it was at the time of his injury." is an all-inclusive, denotive statement. The only implication was the season, which you seemed to correctly interpret as 2011.

If I had wanted to isolate the two games prior to his injury I would have said "...as long as his performance remained at the level it was in the two games prior to his injury."


The 44Yds/Gm you quoted is a nice gesture but woeful as a comparison. This is because your use of 'games' as the denominator for this type of analysis produces an inconsequential statistic.

Although not entirely perfect, you would have made a much better choice if you had selected 'targets' as your denominator. Earlier in this thread you extrapolated production #'s for Crabtree based on 16 games.

Therefore, I decided I would post an extrapolated comparison between Crabtree & Morgan based on Crabtree's 7.9 targets per game and a 16 game season.

Crabtree vs Morgan - based on Crabtree's 7.9 Tar/Gm, 16 games, 2011 season.

.............Crabtree...Morgan
Games........16............16
Targets.....126...........126
Catches......79...........105
Yards........956.........1544
Yds/Gm.......60............97
1st Dns.......44............84
20+ Gains....13............28
TD's.............4.............7

Now, in the spirit of fairness, Morgan was having a 'highly efficient' season when his injury occurred; nevertheless, you can clearly see why I would rather target Morgan than Crabtree.

By the way, I think your math is off a bit here. Morgan's yardage at 126 targets should be 1459, his catches at 99, yards/game at 91, first downs at 73, 40+ at 26, and TDs at 7 (hey, you got one!). The numbers for Crabtree are also off slightly. Perhaps this is a product of rounding catches/game?

 

[Crimsoncrew]

One last thought: even if we only look at the games in which Morgan has had 8+ targets, a sampling that, not surprisingly, includes most of his best statistical performances, Morgan doesn't come close to the numbers you extrapolate to. In his five games, he produced 30 receptions on 42 targets for 358 yards and 1 TD. Those numbers extrapolated for 126 targets net 1074 yards and 3 TDs. Decent numbers, the low TD figures aside, but not the crazy numbers you're suggesting he would or could achieve. I suppose it's also worth noting that the Niners went 1-4 in those games.

I just don't see any reason, whatsoever, to 1) expect Morgan is the type of receiver who would routinely see eight targets a week, or 2) expect that his numbers would not suffer a fairly serious drop-off if they did.

As said, I like Morgan, and I thought he was really starting to come on in a system that I believe is a good fit for him when he went down with the injury. But I think the fact that he has very rarely stepped up as a primary target is telling.

 

[Flyingiguana]

arguing crabtree vs morgan as a primary target is like arguing over who's the smartest kid on the short bus...

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

Morgan looks very good.....but so did Marcus Maxwell. Its precision and other subtle elements that make WRs successful, so its really hard to count on a guy to produce until he's proven he can do so.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

arguing crabtree vs morgan as a primary target is like arguing over who's the smartest kid on the short bus...

Funny, I seem to recall people making the same argument about Smith and Hill.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Morgan looks very good.....but so did Marcus Maxwell. Its precision and other subtle elements that make WRs successful, so its really hard to count on a guy to produce until he's proven he can do so.

Agreed. Morgan has already shown some things, certainly more than Maxwell ever did, but I just haven't seen the week-in and week-out consistency from him that I'd like to.

 

[Flyingiguana]

Funny, I seem to recall people making the same argument about Smith and Hill.

wr's dont take 4+ years to develop...

 

[Crimsoncrew]

wr's dont take 4+ years to develop...

Neither do successful high-first-round QBs. Crabtree's performance through three years puts Smith's to shame, comparatively speaking. There were extenuating circumstances for Smith, but those circumstances have also been there for Crabtree. I don't think either guy is an elite player, but both can be solid players and can contribute to a playoff-contending roster.

 

[Flyingiguana]

crabtree will never be in the pro bowl. neither him nor morgan has any business being a primary option at wr.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

crabtree will never be in the pro bowl. neither him nor morgan has any business being a primary option at wr.

Nor will Alex Smith. No one here is arguing that either guy should be a number one. The question is which is best-suited to be our number two.

 

[Flyingiguana]

if crabtree and morgan were 3rd and 4th on the depth charts maybe smith could make a pro bowl...

it looks like they will be fighting for the 2nd wr spot, but ideally we have 2 new wr's to keep them out of starting.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

if crabtree and morgan were 3rd and 4th on the depth charts maybe smith could make a pro bowl...

it looks like they will be fighting for the 2nd wr spot, but ideally we have 2 new wr's to keep them out of starting.

And if Smith were second or third on the depth chart, perhaps Crabtree or Morgan could make the pro bowl. Every excuse you make for Smith can very easily go the other way. The reality is that our two weakest positions, perhaps on the entire team, are QB and WR.

 

[Flyingiguana]

hard to make the pro bowl when u make webster look like the second coming of deion sanders...

 

[Crimsoncrew]

hard to make the pro bowl when u throw at your receivers' feet and convert no third downs...

I can do this all day.

 

[h0ckeysk83r]

I dont see crabtree going anywhere. I feel they wanna keep crabs at the #2 positon and try to resign Morgan for a #3 role. They will look for a #1 through FA/maybe even draft but at pick 30 thats will be tough.

Let them draft some wR's and battle it out with Bogan, Williams, Ginn? for 4th and 5th WR's.

1. FA
2. Crabs
3. Morgan
4/5. Williams/bogan/Ginn/Draft picks/UDFA.

 

[MW49ers5]

I agree. Nor can you use just targets.

Over the past three years, including 31 starts in 37 games, Morgan has had eight or more targets just five times. He has never seen more than nine targets in a game. And during that span, he has averaged just under five receptions per game. So as said, expecting him to suddenly see eight targets a game on average is unrealistic and a rather useless statistic.

Now, there might be some merit in simply extrapolating targets, but to apply it to a 16-game schedule? There's simply no basis for that sort of extrapolation. Do you honestly believe Morgan would put up anything like those numbers if we threw him the ball 126 times in a season?

I agree. Nor can you use just targets.

Although, using targets alone would create a more meaningful and useful statistic, than games alone; for the sake of this discussion that is correct, which is why I used both targets & games.


Over the past three years, including 31 starts in 37 games, Morgan has had eight or more targets just five times. He has never seen more than nine targets in a game. And during that span, he has averaged just under five receptions per game. So as said, expecting him to suddenly see eight targets a game on average is unrealistic and a rather useless statistic.

Crimson, I'm sensing a lot of confusion by my use of 7.9 targets per game. This number was based on Crabtree's targets for this year. The 'number' could have been any number.

I honestly do not care what the number is, I care only about what each receiver is doing with their respective targets. Is he catching them, dropping them, moving the chains, scoring, making clutch catches on 3rd & 4th downs, getting good YAC, making explosive plays. What is his YPR? How efficient is he? How dependable is he, etc.

Reviewing their receptions and studying the subsequent statistics including trends, outliers and underlying influences leads me to Morgan every time. Said simply, Morgan has done more with his targets than has Crabtree.

Therefore if we sign Morgan, I hope he is above Crabtree on the depth chart, because not only could he handle Crabtree's targets, whether that number is 6, 8, or 28, he is likely to produce more offense with those targets as well.


Now, there might be some merit in simply extrapolating targets, but to apply it to a 16-game schedule? There's simply no basis for that sort of extrapolation. Do you honestly believe Morgan would put up anything like those numbers if we threw him the ball 126 times in a season?

I wanted to address this separately because this is not even close. First, there is no 'might' about it - extrapolation is prevalent in nearly every business on the globe, and therefore we can conclude that the merit of doing extrapolations is absolutely conclusive.

Second, why would anyone perform a production extrapolation for a time frame less than the full production period? That!, would be the very definition senseless. A better argument on your behalf would have been against my use of a five game sample to do a 16 game extrapolation. To which I would have simply responded by suggesting the historical data supported such use.

In closing,

What Morgan would actually produce with 126 targets is, for the sake of this discussion, completely irrelevant and demonstrates that you are missing the point. The question we are trying to answer and thus the point, is not 'how much' but rather, 'how much more'.

And the answer, at least for the moment, is Morgan, not Crabtree