Michael Crabtree

[MHSL82]

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

I can do this all day.

Smith is the chicken (pun intended) and Crabtree the egg. They have a symbiotic relationship where it doesn't start on one end or the other. Both have to be doing their best to figure it out (though, right or wrong, I give Smith the benefit of the doubt over Crabtree). If Crabtree gets open regularly, he'll get the ball regularly. There will be some misses on throws and pass blocking, just like there are times where you just can't get open.

Crabtree doesn't have the risk of throwing the INT. Heck, even when it bounces off his hands for an INT, people will say Smith threw it too hard or was off. So it's hard for Crabtree to criticize not taking the risk when the only surefire blame he'd get is if he caught the pass and fumbled it without getting touched. People treat drops more fairly than INTs IMO, but even then there are factors that mitigate Crabtree's drops. Smith gets defenders, as you see here, but there on the whole is more blame for the QB. QB does get a lot of credit for wins though, even when the credit is just doing what you're asked to do.

Hard to throw it somewhere catchable when your receiver doesn't get open and when he does, he's somewhat likely to drop it. Add in the risk on an INT for a five yard gain, it isn't worth it. I know you didn't mean it like some do, so I'm not criticizing you, but in general, I hate how people keep mentioning throwing in the dirt, as if Alex is just so inaccurate that he throws 6 feet lower than where he's aiming, when most acknowledge it was on purpose to avoid the clock running out further (sometimes), avoid an INT, etc. At least criticize his decision to throw it there instead. He might have had Crabtree open but didn't know it and threw it in the dirt.

I'd rather just criticize him for not finding the receiver, not leading the receiver, not going through his reads, staring down receivers, improper footwork, or at least say the hesitancy to take a risk if you really are talking about the dirted passes. And it's hard to convert third downs when they for the most part are all long conversion distances where the defence knows you need to pass it. When the running game was working, we abandoned it. When it wasn't we got third and long. He had almost as many first downs as the Giants did on two fewer possessions, just not on third down.

So could we have a better QB than Smith? Of course. But this is as chicken-and-egg as you can get. We all know he's a hesitant thrower, so we either need a different QB, different emphasis by the coaching staff, or the receivers need to know this and work harder on getting open. Because it could be Smith's fault but as long as you know that's his tendency and you don't do anything about it, you are holding yourself back, too. It's hard to get open in the NFL and that might lead to Smith being demoted, but you're not getting anywhere by not getting open, because I know Crabtree can't directly get Smith demoted.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

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

I haven't been entirely clear in my argument. No one would dispute that Morgan is more productive per target. But I feel Morgan is at least partially, if not largely to blame for the fact that he is not targeted nearly as much as Crabtree. As such, simply using targets doesn't tell the full story of his effectiveness as a WR. This is the James Jones-Greg Jennings issue.

My lack of clarity arises because I have used games as a substitute for what I believe is the best measure of a WR's effectiveness: productivity per route run. That is a much better gauge than targets because it accounts for a receiver's failure to get open, and gives the primary WR more credit as the primary read on a larger number of passes. I do not have numbers for routes run for either Crabtree or Morgan and do not know how to find that information short of rewatching all the games. However, when Morgan and Crabtree were on the field this year, they were on the field for a comparable proportion of passing plays (effectively all of them). Using games wasn't precise, but it's a better gauge for providing an accurate expectation level for Morgan than targets. My biggest mistake was not clarifying how I was viewing games as a proxy for routes earlier.

I will do this a bit more scientifically than the games approach. Smith threw 445 balls this year. In the first five games, Morgan was targeted once ever 6.6 passes. He caught the ball every 8.4 passes, so he was successful once every 8.4 routes assuming he was in on every pass play - again, that might not be true, but this goes back to Crabtree and Morgan missing roughly the same proportion of passing snaps. Crabtree was targeted every 3.6 passes, and caught the ball once every 6.2 passes.

If we extrapolate that rate of targets over Smith's full season, Morgan would have been targeted 67 times. That is a much more accurate number of expected targets in a 16-game season than the 126 you have applied. Crabtree would have been targeted 124 times. Extrapolating for those targets, or, as it were extrapolating for route success, gives us the following:

.............Crabtree...Morgan
Games........16............16
Targets.....124...........67
Catches......78...........53
Yards........951.........779
Yds/Gm......59............49
1st Dns.......44............42
20+ Gains....13............14
TD's.............4.............3.52 (didn't seem accurate to round this one up)

This is a much more accurate picture of what a healthy Morgan would have done this year than arbitrarily projecting 126 targets. This takes into account the fact that, even though you believe he was our "primary receiver," he was not regularly targeted, presumably either because the coaches were not calling his number or because Smith did not feel he was getting open. As you can see, it tends to favor Crabtree because Crabtree was more effective per route run this season.

I hope that explains my position more clearly. I would be interested to hear why you believe targets is a more accurate number.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

I just realized that my numbers are off here slightly. I forgot to account for Kaepernick throwing three balls against TB, two of which went to Morgan.

Accounting for those, Morgan was actually targeted once every 6.8 passes by either Smith or Kaepernick (once every 7.4 passes by Smith), and caught it once every 8.6 passes by Smith or Kaepernick (once every 9.7 passes by Smith). I didn't think it would be that big a deal, but it does have a decent impact. I'll try to update the table later today, accounting for both Smith and for both QBs.

 

[BINGO]

Crabtree's future in S.F.
10:18 AM ET
Michael Crabtree | 49ers

Amid the zeal with which everyone has been speculating on which wide receivers will be targeted in free agency and the draft by the San Francisco 49ers, current No. 1 wideout Michael Crabtree remains in the team's plans to some degree for the foreseeable future. Matt Maiocco of CSN Bay Area explains why:

"In a passing offense that ranked 29th in the NFL at just 183.1 yards per game, Crabtree was 28th in the NFL among wideouts with a career-high 874 yards receiving. And he also scored major bonus points with the coaching staff for his determination and effectiveness as a blocker in the 49ers' offense."

So while the team could target outside help -- the market is full of WR talent this offseason, such as Vincent Jackson, Dwayne Bowe, Wes Welker, DeSean Jackson, Marques Colston, Steve Johnson and Brandon Lloyd -- Crabtree remains a big part of what Jim Harbaugh and his henchmen are out to accomplish.

- Tim Kavanagh​

Mike Sando
Crabtree's under-appreciated blocking capabilities

"Crabtree's blocking was indeed fantastic. At one point, Crabtree resisted praise for that area of his game. Receivers known primarily for their blocking must not be producing all that much as receivers, the thinking goes. But Crabtree did make some important catches. I just haven't seen much evidence of progress in the on-field relationship/trust between Crabtree and quarterback Alex Smith. That's one area to monitor through the offseason."

 

[deep9er]

Crabtree's future in S.F.
10:18 AM ET
Michael Crabtree | 49ers

Amid the zeal with which everyone has been speculating on which wide receivers will be targeted in free agency and the draft by the San Francisco 49ers, current No. 1 wideout Michael Crabtree remains in the team's plans to some degree for the foreseeable future. Matt Maiocco of CSN Bay Area explains why:

"In a passing offense that ranked 29th in the NFL at just 183.1 yards per game, Crabtree was 28th in the NFL among wideouts with a career-high 874 yards receiving. And he also scored major bonus points with the coaching staff for his determination and effectiveness as a blocker in the 49ers' offense."

So while the team could target outside help -- the market is full of WR talent this offseason, such as Vincent Jackson, Dwayne Bowe, Wes Welker, DeSean Jackson, Marques Colston, Steve Johnson and Brandon Lloyd -- Crabtree remains a big part of what Jim Harbaugh and his henchmen are out to accomplish.

- Tim Kavanagh​

Mike Sando
Crabtree's under-appreciated blocking capabilities

"Crabtree's blocking was indeed fantastic. At one point, Crabtree resisted praise for that area of his game. Receivers known primarily for their blocking must not be producing all that much as receivers, the thinking goes. But Crabtree did make some important catches. I just haven't seen much evidence of progress in the on-field relationship/trust between Crabtree and quarterback Alex Smith. That's one area to monitor through the offseason."

yep, while Crabtree has been dissapointing, don't see a reason to cut him now? at very least let him compete this off-season against new talent, don't see why he wouldn't win a spot?

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Smith is the chicken (pun intended) and Crabtree the egg. They have a symbiotic relationship where it doesn't start on one end or the other. Both have to be doing their best to figure it out (though, right or wrong, I give Smith the benefit of the doubt over Crabtree). If Crabtree gets open regularly, he'll get the ball regularly. There will be some misses on throws and pass blocking, just like there are times where you just can't get open.

Crabtree doesn't have the risk of throwing the INT. Heck, even when it bounces off his hands for an INT, people will say Smith threw it too hard or was off. So it's hard for Crabtree to criticize not taking the risk when the only surefire blame he'd get is if he caught the pass and fumbled it without getting touched. People treat drops more fairly than INTs IMO, but even then there are factors that mitigate Crabtree's drops. Smith gets defenders, as you see here, but there on the whole is more blame for the QB. QB does get a lot of credit for wins though, even when the credit is just doing what you're asked to do.

Hard to throw it somewhere catchable when your receiver doesn't get open and when he does, he's somewhat likely to drop it. Add in the risk on an INT for a five yard gain, it isn't worth it. I know you didn't mean it like some do, so I'm not criticizing you, but in general, I hate how people keep mentioning throwing in the dirt, as if Alex is just so inaccurate that he throws 6 feet lower than where he's aiming, when most acknowledge it was on purpose to avoid the clock running out further (sometimes), avoid an INT, etc. At least criticize his decision to throw it there instead. He might have had Crabtree open but didn't know it and threw it in the dirt.

I'd rather just criticize him for not finding the receiver, not leading the receiver, not going through his reads, staring down receivers, improper footwork, or at least say the hesitancy to take a risk if you really are talking about the dirted passes. And it's hard to convert third downs when they for the most part are all long conversion distances where the defence knows you need to pass it. When the running game was working, we abandoned it. When it wasn't we got third and long. He had almost as many first downs as the Giants did on two fewer possessions, just not on third down.

So could we have a better QB than Smith? Of course. But this is as chicken-and-egg as you can get. We all know he's a hesitant thrower, so we either need a different QB, different emphasis by the coaching staff, or the receivers need to know this and work harder on getting open. Because it could be Smith's fault but as long as you know that's his tendency and you don't do anything about it, you are holding yourself back, too. It's hard to get open in the NFL and that might lead to Smith being demoted, but you're not getting anywhere by not getting open, because I know Crabtree can't directly get Smith demoted.

I am largely playing devil's advocate re: Smith, as I get tired of Iguana making any and every excuse for him. I have supported Smith through the years, and I think he's showing some of what we saw in him when we made him the first pick. But like Crabtree, I'm very skeptical that he will make the jump to the very good/elite level.

Re: the chicken or the egg, Crabtree bears a lot of responsibility for not working with Smith over the past offseasons. But Smith hasn't made any WRs look good. Crabtree did look pretty good when playing with Troy Smith.

 

[MW49ers5]

My lack of clarity arises because I have used games as a substitute for what I believe is the best measure of a WR's effectiveness: productivity per route run. That is a much better gauge than targets because it accounts for a receiver's failure to get open, and gives the primary WR more credit as the primary read on a larger number of passes. I do not have numbers for routes run for either Crabtree or Morgan and do not know how to find that information short of rewatching all the games. However, when Morgan and Crabtree were on the field this year, they were on the field for a comparable proportion of passing plays (effectively all of them). Using games wasn't precise, but it's a better gauge for providing an accurate expectation level for Morgan than targets. My biggest mistake was not clarifying how I was viewing games as a proxy for routes earlier.

This probably should be left alone but just for the sake of offering some guidance -

First, you did not use games as a proxy for anything - so just stop yourself right there. You and I both know statistics are not your strong suit and you got this 'routes run' idea from someone or somewhere else.

Second, wherever or whoever gave you this idea for 'routes run' should be slapped for leading you into a wall and making you sound ridiculous - you are smarter than this and I expect better from you.

Crimson, The only people on the planet who have the necessary information to accurately use 'routes run' as a denominator for a production analysis have the last names of, Harbaugh, Roman and Chris "the 49ers in-house statistician".

Even if you were to find a resource for this information and even if this information further proved MY point - I would reject the information sight unseen.

You cannot begin to imagine the complexity and the amount information required to ACCURATELY uses 'routes run' as a denominator for production analysis - So please, just put this one down and walk away.

Again, for the sake and the level of this discussion, the accuracy obtained by using targets is more than adequate. I will confess that I do use a different and more precise denominator in certain circles but the tests I ran under those parameters resulted a minimal change to Morgan's favor and thus were not at all worth the additional conversation.

I will do this a bit more scientifically than the games approach. Smith threw 445 balls this year. In the first five games, Morgan was targeted once ever 6.6 passes. He caught the ball every 8.4 passes, so he was successful once every 8.4 routes assuming he was in on every pass play - again, that might not be true, but this goes back to Crabtree and Morgan missing roughly the same proportion of passing snaps. Crabtree was targeted every 3.6 passes, and caught the ball once every 6.2 passes.

Dude whatever you are about to do is going to be one hot mess.

If we extrapolate that rate of targets over Smith's full season, Morgan would have been targeted 67 times. That is a much more accurate number of expected targets in a 16-game season than the 126 you have applied. Crabtree would have been targeted 124 times. Extrapolating for those targets, or, as it were extrapolating for route success, gives us the following:


.............Crabtree...Morgan
Games........16............16
Targets.....124...........67
Catches......78...........53
Yards........951.........779
Yds/Gm......59............49
1st Dns.......44............42
20+ Gains....13............14
TD's.............4.............3.52 (didn't seem accurate to round this one up)

This is a much more accurate picture of what a healthy Morgan would have done this year than arbitrarily projecting 126 targets.

Excellent!!! Your scientific method proves my point precisely almost as well as my non-scientific method did.

Here is what your scientific hot mess tells all of us - It tells us that we have to give Crabtree 51% more targets than Morgan just to achieve the same or LESS offensive production than Morgan! 51% more targets!!

How in your mind does it make sense to defend this as a good idea - no, seriously? - Crimson by your own crazy numbers, Morgan would have exceeded Crabtree's production totals with just 15 additional targets.

So please explain to me why you are defending this? Why are you defending giving Crabtree 51% more targets for the same or less offensive production - maybe I'm crazy, but that just makes no fucking sense at all…

Look if it will make it easier for you, I'll simply change my argument from giving Crabtree's "targets" to Morgan to, giving Crabtree's "routes" to Morgan.

Either way Morgan is STILL the more productive WR per route, per target, per whatever, and that goes for nearly every meaningful measurement you can think of.


Crimson, You began this post with the following:

No one would dispute that Morgan is more productive per target.

This was my argument when you claimed Crabtree was more productive because he had a higher yds/gm. You now know you were looking at the information incorrectly - and Crimson, nothing you do and no amount of wild denominator creations like 'routes run' is going to change that…

The answer to the question, "why we are targeting a less productive WR?" will begin to unfold here in the weeks ahead and I am eager to see what happens. Let's revisit this in a few months.

 

[MW49ers5]

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?

I haven't calc'd all of these numbers but the first two seem to indicate you are going off of ESPN's targets or perhaps even the game book - in either case someone higher than those sources (Harbaugh) corrected Morgan's targets from 19 to 18.

Yes I rounded

My 126 denominator was based on Crabtree having 1.9655172 targets per quarter. Multiply that by 64 and you get 125.79. Thus, I'm fine with my 126.

 

[MW49ers5]

I just realized that my numbers are off here slightly. I forgot to account for Kaepernick throwing three balls against TB, two of which went to Morgan.

Accounting for those, Morgan was actually targeted once every 6.8 passes by either Smith or Kaepernick (once every 7.4 passes by Smith), and caught it once every 8.6 passes by Smith or Kaepernick (once every 9.7 passes by Smith). I didn't think it would be that big a deal, but it does have a decent impact. I'll try to update the table later today, accounting for both Smith and for both QBs.

An updated table won't change a thing my friend - But knock yourself out.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

I just realized that my numbers are off here slightly. I forgot to account for Kaepernick throwing three balls against TB, two of which went to Morgan.

Accounting for those, Morgan was actually targeted once every 6.8 passes by either Smith or Kaepernick (once every 7.4 passes by Smith), and caught it once every 8.6 passes by Smith or Kaepernick (once every 9.7 passes by Smith). I didn't think it would be that big a deal, but it does have a decent impact. I'll try to update the table later today, accounting for both Smith and for both QBs.

Ok, let's give this a shot, Morgan with Smith and with Smith and Kaepernick:

.............w/ Smith...w/ both
Games........16..........16
Targets......60...........66
Catches.....46...........52
Yards........696.........767
Yds/Gm......44...........48
1st Dns......42...........42
20+ Gains...14...........14
TD's..........3.5..........3.5

 

[MW49ers5]

Ok, let's give this a shot, Morgan with Smith and with Smith and Kaepernick:

.............w/ Smith...w/ both
Games........16..........16
Targets......60...........66
Catches.....46...........52
Yards........696.........767
Yds/Gm......44...........48
1st Dns......42...........42
20+ Gains...14...........14
TD's..........3.5..........3.5

Yep, I'm still taking Morgan

 

[Crimsoncrew]

This probably should be left alone but just for the sake of offering some guidance -

First, you did not use games as a proxy for anything - so just stop yourself right there. You and I both know statistics are not your strong suit and you got this 'routes run' idea from someone or somewhere else.

Second, wherever or whoever gave you this idea for 'routes run' should be slapped for leading you into a wall and making you sound ridiculous - you are smarter than this and I expect better from you.

Crimson, The only people on the planet who have the necessary information to accurately use 'routes run' as a denominator for a production analysis have the last names of, Harbaugh, Roman and Chris "the 49ers in-house statistician".

Even if you were to find a resource for this information and even if this information further proved MY point - I would reject the information sight unseen.

You cannot begin to imagine the complexity and the amount information required to ACCURATELY uses 'routes run' as a denominator for production analysis - So please, just put this one down and walk away.

Again, for the sake and the level of this discussion, the accuracy obtained by using targets is more than adequate. I will confess that I do use a different and more precise denominator in certain circles but the tests I ran under those parameters resulted a minimal change to Morgan's favor and thus were not at all worth the additional conversation.




Dude whatever you are about to do is going to be one hot mess.



Excellent!!! Your scientific method proves my point precisely almost as well as my non-scientific method did.

Here is what your scientific hot mess tells all of us - It tells us that we have to give Crabtree 51% more targets than Morgan just to achieve the same or LESS offensive production than Morgan! 51% more targets!!

How in your mind does it make sense to defend this as a good idea - no, seriously? - Crimson by your own crazy numbers, Morgan would have exceeded Crabtree's production totals with just 15 additional targets.

So please explain to me why you are defending this? Why are you defending giving Crabtree 51% more targets for the same or less offensive production - maybe I'm crazy, but that just makes no fucking sense at all…

Look if it will make it easier for you, I'll simply change my argument from giving Crabtree's "targets" to Morgan to, giving Crabtree's "routes" to Morgan.

Either way Morgan is STILL the more productive WR per route, per target, per whatever, and that goes for nearly every meaningful measurement you can think of.


Crimson, You began this post with the following:



This was my argument when you claimed Crabtree was more productive because he had a higher yds/gm. You now know you were looking at the information incorrectly - and Crimson, nothing you do and no amount of wild denominator creations like 'routes run' is going to change that…

The answer to the question, "why we are targeting a less productive WR?" will begin to unfold here in the weeks ahead and I am eager to see what happens. Let's revisit this in a few months.

I was not consciously using games to substitute for routes run, but that is the concept I was trying to get at and it came to me this morning. You're right, it's an imperfect study. As is calculating what Morgan's numbers would be if he received 126 targets in a season. As said, that approach will make any player who catches a high volume of short passes (e.g., Wes Welker) look worse than any guy who catches a low volume of long passes (e.g., Malcom Floyd, who would have 2100 yards and 12 TDs with Welker's targets). Does that mean Floyd is better than Welker? Or does it take skill to see targets in the first place.


Look, at this point we're talking around in circles. Let's try this. One simple question: why wasn't Morgan targeted more this year? Or, as you put it, why were we targeting the less productive receiver?

 

[imac_21]

MW, I'm curious why you think Morgan gets less targets than Crabtree. That's obviously a factor in who is the better WR, no?

Simply extrapolating the WR with less targets to be the equal of the WR with more is faulty.

For example, if we project Early Doucett to have the same numbers of targets as Fitzgerald this year Doucett has 84 catches, 1075 yards and 8 TDs. That's more catches and equal TDs to Fitz, though significantly less yards. Does this put Doucett in the "elite" WRs category?

Projecting Brandon Lafell to Steve Smith's targets and Lafell has 83 catches (Smith had 79), 1412 yards (Smith had 1394) and 7 TDs (6.9 to be more precise, Smith had 7).

Can we say that Lafell is the equivalent to Smith, or is there something to be said for the WR that gets more targets per game?

These were two of the first 3 (the 3rd being the Giants where Cruz and Nicks were only 2 targets difference). Can we safely assume that all teams with an "elite" WR will have similar results based on a sample size of 2?

 

[MW49ers5]

One simple question: why wasn't Morgan targeted more this year? Or, as you put it, why were we targeting the less productive receiver?

I understand your question, but how do we know he wouldn't have been targeted more than Crabtree? Based on the statistics he should have been, we have already established that.

So the question isn't why wasn't he targeted more, but rather, would he have been targeted more? I think part of that answer comes in a few weeks with perhaps the rest of the answer coming during the first week of Sept, 2012.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

I understand your question, but how do we know he wouldn't have been targeted more than Crabtree? Based on the statistics he should have been, we have already established that.

So the question isn't why wasn't he targeted more, but rather, would he have been targeted more? I think part of that answer comes in a few weeks with perhaps the rest of the answer coming during the first week of Sept, 2012.

Here is what we know:

In games in which Morgan played, he was targeted less than four times on average.

In games in which Crabtree played, he was targeted just under 8 times on average.

In the 13 quarters during which they were both on the field, Crabtree saw 22 targets to Morgan's 10.

So yes, I think it's pretty safe to say Crabtree was targeted more than Morgan and would have been targeted more even if Morgan stayed healthy.

So again, why do you think that is?

 

[Crimsoncrew]

MW, I'm curious why you think Morgan gets less targets than Crabtree. That's obviously a factor in who is the better WR, no?

Simply extrapolating the WR with less targets to be the equal of the WR with more is faulty.

For example, if we project Early Doucett to have the same numbers of targets as Fitzgerald this year Doucett has 84 catches, 1075 yards and 8 TDs. That's more catches and equal TDs to Fitz, though significantly less yards. Does this put Doucett in the "elite" WRs category?

Projecting Brandon Lafell to Steve Smith's targets and Lafell has 83 catches (Smith had 79), 1412 yards (Smith had 1394) and 7 TDs (6.9 to be more precise, Smith had 7).

Can we say that Lafell is the equivalent to Smith, or is there something to be said for the WR that gets more targets per game?

These were two of the first 3 (the 3rd being the Giants where Cruz and Nicks were only 2 targets difference). Can we safely assume that all teams with an "elite" WR will have similar results based on a sample size of 2?

Forget these other guys.

Morgan with Fitz's targets: 128 receptions for 1870 yards and 8.5 TDs.

Morgan with Megatron's targets: 132 receptions for 1931 yards and 9 TDs

Morgan with Welker's targets: 143 receptions for 2102 yards and 9.5 TDs.

And finally, Morgan with Roddy White's targets: 151 receptions for 2212 yards and 10 TDs.

Why in the world are we looking for a primary receiver? All we need to do is feed Morgan the ball and he'll be the best receiver in the league. Isn't that the logical conclusion of this extrapolation, MW? And if not, why not?

 

[MW49ers5]

Forget these other guys.

Morgan with Fitz's targets: 128 receptions for 1870 yards and 8.5 TDs.

Morgan with Megatron's targets: 132 receptions for 1931 yards and 9 TDs

Morgan with Welker's targets: 143 receptions for 2102 yards and 9.5 TDs.

And finally, Morgan with Roddy White's targets: 151 receptions for 2212 yards and 10 TDs.

Why in the world are we looking for a primary receiver? All we need to do is feed Morgan the ball and he'll be the best receiver in the league. Isn't that the logical conclusion of this extrapolation, MW? And if not, why not?

Hell Yeah Baby! See, now you're getting it, Crimson!!

But you are not quite done, you now have to do the same extrapolations but this time use Crabtree instead of Morgan and then compare the difference and let me know what you get - Boom!

Did Crabtree get any better? Yeah, I didn't think he would...keep trying

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Hell Yeah Baby! See, now you're getting it, Crimson!!

But you are not quite done, you now have to do the same extrapolations but this time use Crabtree instead of Morgan and then compare the difference and let me know what you get - Boom!

Did Crabtree get any better? Yeah, I didn't think he would...keep trying

I'll take this as you admitting that your targets argument is asinine. Glad to see you finally came around to it.

 

[MW49ers5]

Here is what we know:

In games in which Morgan played, he was targeted less than four times on average.

In games in which Crabtree played, he was targeted just under 8 times on average.

In the 13 quarters during which they were both on the field, Crabtree saw 22 targets to Morgan's 10.

So yes, I think it's pretty safe to say Crabtree was targeted more than Morgan and would have been targeted more even if Morgan stayed healthy.

So again, why do you think that is?

Because Crabtree needed those additional 12 additional targets just to try and stay close to Morgan's production with just 10 targets. Because Crabtree needed those 12 additional targets so he could have fewer yards, so he could have fewer 1st downs, fewer 3rd down conversions, fewer TD's, even fewer catches...??

That is all I got...Did I win?

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Because Crabtree needed those additional 12 additional targets just to try and stay close to Morgan's production with just 10 targets. Because Crabtree needed those 12 additional targets so he could have fewer yards, so he could have fewer 1st downs, fewer 3rd down conversions, fewer TD's, even fewer catches...??

That is all I got...Did I win?

We threw the ball to Crabtree because he needed more targets? That's a great argument. After all, the offense's only goal is the pad Crabtree's stats.