Michael Crabtree

[imac_21]

Oh hell no, Crabtree is all you baby - all you! You and Crimson should just bask in the glow of those 225 world-record setting motherfucking targets!!...Because that was 100% YOUR idea.

My idea WAS to give Morgan significantly fewer targets for even better results - remember?

But you and Crimson - now you two have the right idea!! I mean why in hell would we give Morgan 125 targets when for just 225 world-record setting motherfucking targets Crabtree can give us the same results - and make it to the pro-bowl!

Imac = fucking genius!

I'm flattered that your giving me credit for this, but the idea had been presented before I joined the conversation. You and Crimson were talking about how fantastic Morgan would have been if he had gotten Crabtree's targets.

Well, Brandon Lafell is just as good as Steve Smith, he just doesn't get the targets Smith gets. If the Panthers threw to Lafell as often as they threw to Smith, Lafell would have put up nearly identical numbers to Smith (a few more catches, a few more yards, same number of TDs). That's the beauty of extrapolation.

Hell, if we want to play your extrapolation game with the Niners, we should give Sop a lot more targets next year. He didn't have any TDs, but with Crabtree's targets over a 16 game schedule he would have had 126 catches for 2268 yards. I'm not sure how he could catch 126 balls and have over 2200 yards without getting in the endzone though.

Oh well, you so adamantly insisted earlier that we can extrapolate any players catches/yards/TDs to the targets another player received and come up with accurate projections.As a matter of fact, our starting WRs next year should be Sop and Staley, who would also produce 126 catches and 2142 yards with Crabtree's targets. Of course, neither of them would score, but with 4400 yards between them, I imagine they would be getting tackled inside the 3 a lot and we could run for a lot of TDs.

Or we could get Ryan Taylor from GB. He was a target one time this year and he caught a TD. I would love to get a 100% TD rate on targets from any of our WRs.

Because extrapolating numbers always results in accurate projections. . . Sample size be damned.

 

[wartyOne]

That leaves us with zero WRs.

Kind of like what we had in the NFCC, no? What difference does it make if no production is replaced with nothing?

 

[wartyOne]

Yes. If only we could lock up the elite receiving abilities of Ted Ginn Jr., we'd be perfectly set. I mean, let's be honest. Morgan, Ginn, and Bogan comprise a trio of sure-fire HOF receivers.

Here's the deal though. That production is what Crabtree is netting us, but for a much higher cost.

Honestly, I don't see how jettisoning Crabtree hurts us. He was a complete nonfactor in our postseason offense. Any poster on this board could have done what he did, for a fraction of the cost. Was his nothing for nothing performance so invaluable that NOBODY could have replicated it?

 

[wartyOne]

Here's the deal though. That production is what Crabtree is netting us, but for a much higher cost.

Honestly, I don't see how jettisoning Crabtree hurts us. He was a complete nonfactor in our postseason offense. Any poster on this board could have done what he did, for a fraction of the cost. Was his nothing for nothing performance so invaluable that NOBODY could have replicated it?

9ers receivers in NFCC: 1 fucking catch for three fucking yards.

Crabtree is a savant.

 

[MW49ers5]

!!!

I'm flattered that your giving me credit for this, but the idea had been presented before I joined the conversation. You and Crimson were talking about how fantastic Morgan would have been if he had gotten Crabtree's targets.

Well, Brandon Lafell is just as good as Steve Smith, he just doesn't get the targets Smith gets. If the Panthers threw to Lafell as often as they threw to Smith, Lafell would have put up nearly identical numbers to Smith (a few more catches, a few more yards, same number of TDs). That's the beauty of extrapolation.

Hell, if we want to play your extrapolation game with the Niners, we should give Sop a lot more targets next year. He didn't have any TDs, but with Crabtree's targets over a 16 game schedule he would have had 126 catches for 2268 yards. I'm not sure how he could catch 126 balls and have over 2200 yards without getting in the endzone though.

Oh well, you so adamantly insisted earlier that we can extrapolate any players catches/yards/TDs to the targets another player received and come up with accurate projections.As a matter of fact, our starting WRs next year should be Sop and Staley, who would also produce 126 catches and 2142 yards with Crabtree's targets. Of course, neither of them would score, but with 4400 yards between them, I imagine they would be getting tackled inside the 3 a lot and we could run for a lot of TDs.

Or we could get Ryan Taylor from GB. He was a target one time this year and he caught a TD. I would love to get a 100% TD rate on targets from any of our WRs.

Because extrapolating numbers always results in accurate projections. . . Sample size be damned.

Imac...Girlfriend...stop, just stop...Check this out!! Based on your fucking genius idea - we can target Crabtree just 243 fucking times and he would break Jerry Rice's single season yardage record!!! Just 243 targets Imac!!

Forget the fact that Sopoaga could break the record in 103 targets - Fuck that!! We will just target Crabtree until his fucking skin peels off - Whoot!

Imac = fucking genius!!

 

[imac_21]

Imac...Girlfriend...stop, just stop...Check this out!! Based on your fucking genius idea - we can target Crabtree just 243 fucking times and he would break Jerry Rice's single season yardage record!!! Just 243 targets Imac!!

Forget the fact that Sopoaga could break the record in 103 targets - Fuck that!! We will just target Crabtree until his fucking skin peels off - Whoot!

Imac = fucking genius!!

YOU started extrapolating numbers. I'm playing YOUR game. You are the one who took Morgan's numbers and extrapolated it to what he would have had with Crabtree's targets. I did the same for Lafell/Steve Smith.

Why is it an acceptable argument when you do it, and a laughable offense when I do?

I believe it's because you're unwilling to answer the questions I've posed regarding Lafell/Smith and Morgan Crabtree, so I will simplify them to one question. I know you'll avoid answering it again, but it doesn't take long to type.

Why do you think Crabtree/Smith received more targets per game than Morgan/Lafell?

To remind you of information previously brought forth in the thread (source in quotation marks).

Josh Morgan would considerably out-produce Michael Crabtree if given the same number of targets (MW49ers). This is based off the chart you posted a few pages back projecting both players to have 126 targets on the season.

2. Brandon Lafell would produce nearly identical numbers to Steve Smith if given the same number of targets (imac_21). This is based off extraploating Lafell's stats based on the number of targets Smith received.

Laughing at and dismissing my logic, is laughing at and dismissing your logic.

 

[clyde_carbon]

This thread is going in the wrong direction. Relax guys.

 

[MHSL82]

Imac...Girlfriend...stop, just stop...Check this out!! Based on your fucking genius idea - we can target Crabtree just 243 fucking times and he would break Jerry Rice's single season yardage record!!! Just 243 targets Imac!!

Forget the fact that Sopoaga could break the record in 103 targets - Fuck that!! We will just target Crabtree until his fucking skin peels off - Whoot!

Imac = fucking genius!!

This thread is confusing (since I haven't really paid much attention to it). How did MW49er5's extrapolating targets (to combat the by-game extrapolation by Crimson) turn into Imac's idea? That once happened to a colleague of mine and he had to go talk to one of the partners in the firm to explain it wasn't his genius to f-up the system. Was it 3x * y = zzzz turned into zzzz/y = 3x where one is a good formula and the other is f-ed up even though x's exactly the same?

 

[Crimsoncrew]

This thread is confusing (since I haven't really paid much attention to it). How did MW49er5's extrapolating targets (to combat the by-game extrapolation by Crimson) turn into Imac's idea? That once happened to a colleague of mine and he had to go talk to one of the partners in the firm to explain it wasn't his genius to f-up the system. Was it 3x * y = zzzz turned into zzzz/y = 3x where one is a good formula and the other is f-ed up even though x's exactly the same?

I'll try to clarify: MW got upset because he can't defend his idiotic targets argument, and Imac's entry into the thread and effective echoing of my earlier question (Jones vs. Jennings/Lafell vs. Smith; Sopoaga vs. the universe) provided a convenient excuse for him to avoid addressing the glaring weakness in his argument.

 

[MW49ers5]

This thread is confusing (since I haven't really paid much attention to it). How did MW49er5's extrapolating targets (to combat the by-game extrapolation by Crimson) turn into Imac's idea? That once happened to a colleague of mine and he had to go talk to one of the partners in the firm to explain it wasn't his genius to f-up the system. Was it 3x * y = zzzz turned into zzzz/y = 3x where one is a good formula and the other is f-ed up even though x's exactly the same?

My idea was to target Crabtree less and target Morgan more with the idea of getting more offensive production - Imac's and Crimson's idea is to target Crabtree more in order to make up for the potential production loss

Thus my extrapolation showed how targeting Morgan more could be more productive while Crimson's extrapolation, which Imac endorses, demonstrated how Crabtree would need to be targeted ~51% more to equal Morgan's production, but to them that is the better idea.

So you have two extrapolations not just one.

 

[MW49ers5]

I'll try to clarify: MW got upset because he can't defend his idiotic targets argument, and Imac's entry into the thread and effective echoing of my earlier question (Jones vs. Jennings/Lafell vs. Smith; Sopoaga vs. the universe) provided a convenient excuse for him to avoid addressing the glaring weakness in his argument.

Oooo - not even close - keep trying though...

 

[imac_21]

My idea was to target Crabtree less and target Morgan more with the idea of getting more offensive production - Imac's and Crimson's idea is to target Crabtree more in order to make up for the potential production loss

Thus my extrapolation showed how targeting Morgan more could be more productive while Crimson's extrapolation, which Imac endorses, demonstrated how Crabtree would need to be targeted ~51% more to equal Morgan's production, but to them that is the better idea.

So you have two extrapolations not just one.

I have never said anything about targeting Crabtree more, less or the same. I've taken your extrapolation theory and applied it to other teams. I'm really curious about Lafell and Smith. Meachem and Graham as well.

I also haven't endorsed anything Crimson has said about extrapolating Crabtree to more targets.

But hey, you can assign arguments and positions to me if it makes you feel better.

I'm going to keep asking you to explain why Lafell doesn't get as many targets as Smith.

Also, particularly, why Morgan doesn't get as many targets as Crabtree when it would lead to such a massive increase in production at the WR position.

 

[imac_21]

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you are applying to me all kinds of statements I haven't made and positions I haven't taken. It's clear you haven't been reading my posts. I've asked you two questions multiple times and you haven't even pretended to answer either of them.

 

[imac_21]

Did you know that if Larry Fitzgerald had Crabtree's targets this year he would have had 65 catches for 1162 yards and 6.5 TDs.

Morgan might be the best WR in the league.

 

[MHSL82]

I have a question. I'm not suggesting this, but if you three were in a room together with spontaneous responses, would you find a middle ground/understanding? Or would you end up destroying eachother? Or would one of you be sitting in the corner with your hands over your ears? Because I'm of the thought that if it's either of the last two, this thread should go into the abyss never to come back. The abyss can have Crabtree as far as I'm concerned. If there is a middle ground or at least an understanding of each others thoughts (not misrepresented to make the other look like an idiot) than this should go on. I feel that you three are all being sensible to a point, deliberately obtuse to a point, and genuinely misunderstanding the other to a point. As I've said before, I find it entertaining sometimes. To be honest, I've been waiting for clever put downs to arise somewhere.

 

[imac_21]

I'm confident MW would have his hands over his ears. He does a nice job of ignoring questions when posed to him on here. I imagine he would be covering his ears yelling "I can't hear you" repeatedly to avoid answering them in person.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

My idea was to target Crabtree less and target Morgan more with the idea of getting more offensive production - Imac's and Crimson's idea is to target Crabtree more in order to make up for the potential production loss

Thus my extrapolation showed how targeting Morgan more could be more productive while Crimson's extrapolation, which Imac endorses, demonstrated how Crabtree would need to be targeted ~51% more to equal Morgan's production, but to them that is the better idea.

So you have two extrapolations not just one.

See, now you're just demonstrating that you didn't understand my argument at any point. Either that, or you're just playing dumb - very convincingly, I might add - to once again weasel your way out of a position you cannot support.

You claimed that the key measure of Morgan's effectiveness is his production per target. I questioned that approach because Morgan is not targeted very much in games. While it is difficult when not at the games or reviewing coaches' film to determine with certainty why this is, I have two reasonable inferences: 1) Morgan is not as adept at getting open as Crabtree, and thus does not see as many balls; 2) the coaches believe Crabtree is the better receiver and thus call more plays in which Crabtree is the primary receiver.

When you used your extrapolation of targets, I pointed out that this was a silly measure, as Morgan has never shown an ability to sustain a central role in game-planning (i.e. as a primary receiver) to this point in his career.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

I have a question. I'm not suggesting this, but if you three were in a room together with spontaneous responses, would you find a middle ground/understanding? Or would you end up destroying eachother? Or would one of you be sitting in the corner with your hands over your ears? Because I'm of the thought that if it's either of the last two, this thread should go into the abyss never to come back. The abyss can have Crabtree as far as I'm concerned. If there is a middle ground or at least an understanding of each others thoughts (not misrepresented to make the other look like an idiot) than this should go on. I feel that you three are all being sensible to a point, deliberately obtuse to a point, and genuinely misunderstanding the other to a point. As I've said before, I find it entertaining sometimes. To be honest, I've been waiting for clever put downs to arise somewhere.

Imac and I are basically pretty close on this one. We both want MW to defend his extrapolation, according to which Joshua Morgan, a likeable, hard-working young man, is apparently one of the best receivers in the NFL. MW is just trying to divert attention from his poor argument.

 

[MW49ers5]

Imac/Crimson,

Sorry for the delay…

The reason(s) your questions go unanswered is because they are not legitimate questions they are straw man fallacies. Said another way, your questions are irrelative, nothing more than a high school attempt to draw attention away from the topic, which is Crabtree & Morgan, not Smith & LaFell, et al.

Imac your attempt to deliver the Brandy has failed, and judging from your questions and responses, I'm convinced you drank it yourself; so, you can run along now.

Crimson, as you know support for my position no longer comes from my incompetent use of targets; instead, we are now using your scientifically incompetent use of targets, which, I like even better because, after all, according to you, it's science.

My position here is simple. Crabtree is not 51% better than Morgan, I'm not even sure he is better than Morgan, but if he is, it is certainly not by 51%! I want to switch Morgan & Crabtree on the depth chart which would naturally target Morgan more often than Crabtree - especially within the balance of our offense.

According to your #'s below, and by adding 15 targets to Morgan, we would need to give Crabtree 51% more targets than Morgan to achieve the same or less production. Also according to you, these #'s clearly illustrate that Crabtree was 'more effective' than Morgan.

So what do you see about Crabtree that makes you think it is wise and more effective to continue targeting him at a rate of 51% more than Morgan for potentially the same or less production? Here is your quote;

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)

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Imac/Crimson,

Sorry for the delay…

The reason(s) your questions go unanswered is because they are not legitimate questions they are straw man fallacies. Said another way, your questions are irrelative, nothing more than a high school attempt to draw attention away from the topic, which is Crabtree & Morgan, not Smith & LaFell, et al.

Imac your attempt to deliver the Brandy has failed, and judging from your questions and responses, I'm convinced you drank it yourself; so, you can run along now.

Crimson, as you know support for my position no longer comes from my incompetent use of targets; instead, we are now using your scientifically incompetent use of targets, which, I like even better because, after all, according to you, it's science.

My position here is simple. Crabtree is not 51% better than Morgan, I'm not even sure he is better than Morgan, but if he is, it is certainly not by 51%! I want to switch Morgan & Crabtree on the depth chart which would naturally target Morgan more often than Crabtree - especially within the balance of our offense.

According to your #'s below, and by adding 15 targets to Morgan, we would need to give Crabtree 51% more targets than Morgan to achieve the same or less production. Also according to you, these #'s clearly illustrate that Crabtree was 'more effective' than Morgan.

So what do you see about Crabtree that makes you think it is wise and more effective to continue targeting him at a rate of 51% more than Morgan for potentially the same or less production? Here is your quote;

See, here's where your argument falls apart. As you mentioned in Post #83 of this thread:

By early August 2011 Crabtree was rightfully demoted from being our #1 WR.

By default, on October 16th, 2011, Crabtree was once again our undisputed #1 WR.

According to you, Morgan was already ahead of Crabtree on the depth chart. Despite the fact that Morgan was apparently our #1 receiver for a minimum of 3 3/4 games (I suppose you could argue Edwards was our #1 in the first game), we threw to Crabtree more than twice as often when both players were on the field.

So yet again, if Crabtree was demoted and Morgan promoted at the beginning of the season, why did we throw to Crabtree more than twice as often?