Projecting 2015 season

[Deleted member 6794]

I feel it is incumbent on me to point out that the statements in those two paragraphs do not address my argument.

If I had to choose one Packer wide out for the 2015 season it would be Nelson. Cobb was more valuable in 2014.

I never said receivers should be judged solely on first downs per target or reception. They are part of the overall picture and certainly a differentiating factor when comparing Cobb to Beckham in evaluating 2014 performance. That said, moving the chains is clearly an underappreciated value, one that I anticipated being reflected in responses.

It's the per target numbers, across the board, in both possession and long ball categories, together with impressive gross numbers, on which I base the argument.

There´s absolutely no denying that Cobb had fantastic numbers per target in 2014. One thing you haven´t addressed so far is his high number of drop percentage (8.08%) compared to other top receivers. I agree with Sunshinepacker that there isn´t a definite answer to naming the best receiver in the league and Cobb for sure belongs into the top-tier.

Cobb had 1,287 yards 2014. The Packers threw the ball 536 times.

If Cobb had run a route on every single Packer pass play his yards per pass route would have been 2.40. Certainly he was not on the field for every one of those plays, so his actual number is higher than 2.40. So, your number is incorrect on the low side. I can't speak to the other numbers, other than to say gross snaps are irrelevant unless we're going to be assessing their run blocking too.

It seems like Pro Football Focus takes all dropbacks into consideration when calculating yards per pass route run.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

https://www.packerforum.com/threads/cobb-stronger-than-he-looks.56811/#post-585662



Upon further review, I concluded he needed an upgrade from "possession receiver of the year".

Stop asking these questions...do you know how hard it is to find these things among 5000+ posts?

He wanted to be a lawyer as a kid .

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

He wanted to be a lawyer as a kid .

Only joking there Capt W .

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Only joking there Capt W .

I know, I think HRE´s reply was to something TJV posted though.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

I know, I think HRE´s reply was to something TJV posted though.

Yes, but I don`t care if I upset HIM . (Sorry TJV, I`m only kidding !!!)

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Cobb had 1,287 yards 2014. The Packers threw the ball 536 times.

If Cobb had run a route on every single Packer pass play his yards per pass route would have been 2.40. Certainly he was not on the field for every one of those plays, so his actual number is higher than 2.40. So, your number is incorrect on the low side. I can't speak to the other numbers, other than to say gross snaps are irrelevant unless we're going to be assessing their run blocking too.

The Giants were 3 - 5 in games where Beckham led the Giants in receiving; they were 3 - 5 when he did not play at all or was not the leading receiver. And the team went 6 - 10. That makes it very difficult to give him "most valuable receiver" consideration.

First, what does a team's record have to do with the quality of the receiver? How is it a positive for Cobb that he plays with a great team while Beckham is dinged because his team has a terrible oline, terrible linebackers (actually worse than the Packers ILBs if you can believe that), terrible RBs and a mediocre QB? There are no receivers in the NFL better than Julio Jones or AJ Green and yet both teams didn't exactly excel last year. It's one of the reasons I don't think teams should really spend a ton of money on receivers.

Second, your 536 passing attempt number is ignoring all the plays in which Cobb ran a route but Rodgers/Flynn were sacked (30 times) or Rodgers/Flynn decided to run the ball (53 times). If you add those 83 additional plays to 536 (unless you think the Packers called a bunch of designed QB runs) you get 619 passing plays. If Cobb ran routes on all of those then his yards per route would be 2.08...so I think the PFF number is very likely.

 

[HardRightEdge]

There´s absolutely no denying that Cobb had fantastic numbers per target in 2014. One thing you haven´t addressed so far is his high number of drop percentage (8.08%) compared to other top receivers. I agree with Sunshinepacker that there isn´t a definite answer to naming the best receiver in the league and Cobb for sure belongs into the top-tier.

Various sources are all over the board on their Cobb drop counts, so I'm not quite sure what to make of it. When looking at these "eye of the beholder" stats, I'm disinclined to embrace one over the other.

I'm assuming the 8.08% comes from PFF who had him for 125 targets per your earlier post. That would imply 10 drops. Why it's not 8.00% is peculiar.

sportingcharts.com had him for 6 drops on 127 targets for 4.7%, in the range of "good" and not something I'd mark him down for:

http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/drops/2014/

By comparison, sportingcharts had Nelson at 2.7%, using incorrect rounding...4/151 = 2.6490. His number should have been posted as 2.6%. PFF and sportingcharts seem to have some problems with elementary school math in their algorithms; that raises some questions for discussion at some other time about "black boxes" with minimal transparency. They have Beckham for 2 drops / 130 targets / 1.5%, an outstanding number. I would not consider Cobb having one additional drop every 4 games significant unless somebody can cite a game changer or two (I can't recall one) if Beckham hand none.

Interestingly, McGuin cites an entirely different set of numbers:

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/pack...andall-cobb-leaves-b99455123z1-294947891.html

McGuin says Cobb had 9 drops on 145 targets for a 6.27% drop rate. (As an aside, there's more bad math here...it should be 6.21%...what is up with these guys?) He had Nelson for 9 drops on 163 targets for a 5.64% rate.
(Note 9/163 = 5.52%...what the h*ll?).

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/pack...andall-cobb-leaves-b99455123z1-294947891.html

Math issues aside, McGuin's target numbers are meaningfully higher than the other sources cited earlier in this thread. He does not say where he gets his numbers. In some other instances he has cited "Packer sources". That his numbers are the coaches' (or more likely a Packer quality control assistant's) is probably as good a guess as any. In any event, the disparity in targets indicates a quite different methodology at work than with other sources which makes comparisons with other methods problematic.

In short, there is so much inconsistency in the numbers from various sources that trusting one over the other without a lot more detail on the various methodologies proves problematic. They should all start by cleaning their 4th. grade math.

In any case, Rodgers throws bullets; receivers playing with QBs with less than elite arm strength might suffer in other categories, but drops is not one of them.

It seems like Pro Football Focus takes all dropbacks into consideration when calculating yards per pass route run.

Yes it does. Without getting into the details, the data clearly indicates PFF's numbers include sack plays and those where the QB drops back and then runs.

Doesn't that strike you as a little bizarre? Receivers being penalized for a porous O-Line or QB's who extends plays past the LOS instead of behind it, or benefiting in the opposite instances?

In any case, disparities in yards gained per drop back among comparable receivers in other respects correlate to targets per drop back. For instance, Beckham had more yards per drop back than Cobb because he got more targets per drop back. As in the case of receiver-QB-rating over the QB's rating, this might say as much about the disparity of receiver talent within the team.

In this category, Dez Bryant should be the clear winner among those receivers who qualify for consideration. He netted 1320 yards while Cowboys threw a very low 476 times, while Romo had a couple of other outstanding options in Witten and Murray.

As we've dug into all of these receiver stats in great detail, I've come to the conclusion that the strongest argument against my awarding Cobb the "2014 most valuable receiver award" is Dez Bryant. The AP All Pro voters got that right.

 

[HardRightEdge]

First, what does a team's record have to do with the quality of the receiver?

I'm not talking about the "quality of the receiver". I'm talking about the most valuable receiver in 2014.

By the way, you don't add all of the QB runs to the drop backs. There are a lot of kneel downs in there, as Flynn's 10 runs for -10 would indicate. While the Packers don't do called QB runs, some teams do; those should be culled from the drop backs. Another interesting thought comes to mind on this score...Seattle uses run/pass options...Wilson can hand off, run himself, or drop and throw. How the h*ll are those supposed to be counted?

PFF's method is too clever by half. Count the passes and and see what the receivers do with them.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Various sources are all over the board on their Cobb drop counts, so I'm not quite sure what to make of it. When looking at these "eye of the beholder" stats, I'm disinclined to embrace one over the other.

I'm assuming the 8.08% comes from PFF who had him for 125 targets per your earlier post. That would imply 10 drops. Why it's not 8.00% is peculiar.

sportingcharts.com had him for 6 drops on 127 targets for 4.7%, in the range of "good" and not something I'd mark him down for:

http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/drops/2014/

By comparison, sportingcharts had Nelson at 2.7%, using incorrect rounding...4/151 = 2.6490. His number should have been posted as 2.6%. PFF and sportingcharts seem to have some problems with elementary school math in their algorithms; that raises some questions for discussion at some other time about "black boxes" with minimal transparency. They have Beckham for 2 drops / 130 targets / 1.5%, an outstanding number. I would not consider Cobb having one additional drop every 4 games significant unless somebody can cite a game changer or two (I can't recall one) while Beckham hand none.

Interestingly, McGuin cites an entirely different set of numbers:

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/pack...andall-cobb-leaves-b99455123z1-294947891.html

McGuin says Cobb had 9 drops on 145 targets for a 6.27% drop rate. (As an aside, there's more bad math here...it should be 6.21%...what is up with these guys?) He had Nelson for 9 drops on 163 targets for a 5.64% rate.
(Note 9/163 = 5.52%...what the h*ll?).

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/pack...andall-cobb-leaves-b99455123z1-294947891.html

Math issues aside, McGuin's target numbers are meaningfully higher than the other sources cited earlier in this thread. He does not say where he gets his numbers. In some other instances he has cited "Packer sources". That his numbers are the coaches' (or more likely a Packer quality control assistant's) is probably as good a guess as any. In any event, the disparity in targets indicates a quite different methodology at work than with other sources which makes comparisons with other methods problematic.

In short, there is so much inconsistency in the numbers from various sources that trusting one over the other without a lot more detail on the various methodologies proves problematic. They should all start by cleaning their 4th. grade math.

In any case, Rodgers throws bullets; receivers playing with QBs with less than elite arm strength might suffer in other categories, but drops is not one of them.

PFF makes a difference between catchable balls and targets. According to them Cobb had 8 drops on 99 catchable balls. I really don´t know where the other sources have their numbers from but I like PFF because they re-watch every single game multiple times and adjust their numbers accordingly.

Yes it does. Without getting into the details, the data clearly indicates PFF's numbers include sack plays and those where the QB drops back and then runs.

Doesn't that strike you as a little bizarre? Receivers being penalized for a porous O-Line or QB's who extends plays past the LOS instead of behind it, or benefiting in the opposite instances?

In any case, disparities in yards gained per drop back among comparable receivers in other respects correlate to targets per drop back. For instance, Beckham had more yards per drop back than Cobb because he got more targets per drop back. As in the case of receiver-QB-rating over the QB's rating, this might say as much about the disparity of receiver talent within the team.

In this category, Dez Bryant should be the clear winner among those receivers who qualify for consideration. He netted 1320 yards while Cowboys threw a very low 476 times, while Romo had a couple of other outstanding options in Witten and Murray.

As we've dug into all of these receiver stats in great detail, I've come to the conclusion that the strongest argument against my awarding Cobb the "2014 most valuable receiver award" is Dez Bryant. The AP All Pro voters got that right.

I think including sacks and scrambles by a QB isn´t the best way to measure yards per pass route run although someone could argue that receivers not getting open are to be blamed at least on some of those occasions.

A.J. Green is leading the league in yards per route run because he missed three games and only had a total of 352 snaps with the QB dropping back to pass. Demaryius Thomas and Julio Jones had a significantly higher number of receiving yards while Beckham had fewer snaps in passing plays than Bryant, so he´s ranked fifth in the league.

Once again, I think we could pick any of at least 10 receivers and make a valid argument for any of them being the best one in the league. I prefer to rank all of them in the top-tier though.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Once again, I think we could pick any of at least 10 receivers and make a valid argument for any of them being the best one in the league. I prefer to rank all of them in the top-tier though.

I agree 100%.

In the final analysis, the body of work is evaluated over multiple seasons in judging "the best". Further, consistent performance over an extended period of time is a better predictor of future performance than a single flash season. It's a matter of establishing a personal mean to which a regression range can be reasonably assigned.

But to bludgeon the point, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm assigning a "most valuable" designation. Being on the field for a high percentage of snaps is a consideration; a receiver cannot contribute to wins if he's missed several games or is not on the field a meaningful number of times when his team is throwing the ball.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I think including sacks and scrambles by a QB isn´t the best way to measure yards per pass route run although someone could argue that receivers not getting open are to be blamed at least on some of those occasions.

Right...some occasions. But which ones and how many? It strikes me if one claims to provide advanced analytics, if there's an important aspect that's being assumed, not measured, it should be dropped from the equation until such time measurements are actually taken.

As for PFF, as of about 2 years ago they made mention of the fact they use volunteers, and at one point had a call for volunteers on their web site. Further, they did not have all-22 tape available to them until nfl.com started selling it, for $20 bucks I believe with a rewind subscription, starting in 2013 or 2014, I can't recall which. I know this because they said so. How you could rate DBs without that tape is beyond me, yet they did it anyway. I'm not saying their stuff doesn't have value; what I am saying is it's questionable to value their data over other sources. There are no independent audits.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

But to bludgeon the point, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm assigning a "most valuable" designation. Being on the field for a high percentage of snaps is a consideration; a receiver cannot contribute to wins if he's missed several games or is not on the field a meaningful number of times when his team is throwing the ball.

If I had to pick the most valuable receiver of the 2014 I would have to go with Antonio Brown. He had at least five receptions in every single game and had 20 more receptions, 185 more receiving yards and one TD more than all other Steelers receivers combined.

I think it´s tough to make an argument for Cobb as the Packers featured another receiver in Nelson who had more receptions and receiving yards than him.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Right...some occasions. But which ones and how many? It strikes me if one claims to provide advanced analytics, if there's an important aspect that's being assumed, not measured, it should be dropped from the equation until such time measurements are actually taken.

As for PFF, as of about 2 years ago they made mention of the fact they use volunteers, and at one point had a call for volunteers on their web site. Further, they did not have all-22 tape available to them until nfl.com started selling it, for $20 bucks I believe with a rewind subscription, starting in 2013 or 2014, I can't recall which. I know this because they said so. How you could rate DBs without that tape is beyond me, yet they did it anyway. I'm not saying their stuff doesn't have value; what I am saying is it's questionable to value their data over other sources. There are no independent audits.

The NFL started providing the all-22 cameras to interested fans in 2013. I agree that PFF is far from perfect and I don´t put a lot of stock into their grading system. But I really like to use their indivdiual stats as they put way more time and effort into accumulating them than any other source I know of.

 

[HardRightEdge]

If I had to pick the most valuable receiver of the 2014 I would have to go with Antonio Brown. He had at least five receptions in every single game and had 20 more receptions, 185 more receiving yards and one TD more than all other Steelers receivers combined.

I think it´s tough to make an argument for Cobb as the Packers featured another receiver in Nelson who had more receptions and receiving yards than him.

Well, league MVPs get voted nearly always from teams that make the playoffs, and they're nearly always QBs surrounded by some pretty decent talent. Somehow giving the receiver award to guys who benefit from being coupled with less than stellar talent goes against my best instincts.

In the end, Cobb's superior productivity in the first down and and long gain departments represents the margin of victory. Or, put another way, the unique combination of both outstanding possession receiver numbers and outstanding wide-out-like numbers, is a deciding factor.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Where was all this information on Cobb when we were discussing his worth to the offense (before he signed his current contract)?

Call me crazy, but having met your challenge I expected something more than a "funny" designation. How about "informative", or perhaps "winner"?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Well, league MVPs get voted nearly always from teams that make the playoffs, and they're nearly always QBs surrounded by some pretty decent talent. Somehow giving the receiver award to guys who benefit from being coupled with less than stellar talent goes against my best instincts.

I think it´s fair to argue that teams shifted coverage more towards Brown because of the Steelers not having any other talented receivers but he still continued to produce at an elite level.

In the end, Cobb's superior productivity in the first down and and long gain departments represents the margin of victory. Or, put another way, the unique combination of both outstanding possession receiver numbers and outstanding wide-out-like numbers, is a deciding factor.

Well, it´s my opinion because of the aforementioned reasons that Antonio Brown was the most valuable receiver in 2014. There´s no right or wrong when discussing about it. I respect your opinion that Cobb would deserve it but as posted above I don´t share it.

 

[HardRightEdge]

PFF makes a difference between catchable balls and targets. According to them Cobb had 8 drops on 99 catchable balls.

I would not claim Cobb was the most sure-handed player in the league; certainly he drops some balls, though the debate over "how many", and whether the number is "good" or less so is a matter for debate, as illustrated earlier.

Further, I'm not completely averse to some subjective judgements going into the stats, judiciously applied on a limited basis.

However, in this case we have a two-variable equation where both variables have meaningful levels of subjectivity...what constitutes a "drop" and what constitutes a "catchable ball".

To draw an analogy, the NFL goes to great lengths in "coaching" referees. They put together tapes illustrating that this play is not a penalty, that play is a penalty, etc. with the intent of bringing some consistency to the process.

And how is that working out? Not very well, I would say. Different crew chiefs and ref crews have their own stubborn ideas about how the game should be played despite the league's best efforts. I believe there is a general consensus among fans and "professional" commentators alike that ref crews are meaningfully inconsistent, with teams actually scouting them for tendencies.

So, how is it we're to believe that PFF or anybody else is better able to enforce consistency in subjective calls among their many analysts? I don't think we can believe that.

Consequently, subjective variables should be kept to a minimum and reserved for those things where there's minimal margin for disagreement.

I'm inclined to value such numbers when the results from various sources are tightly clustered.

 

[HardRightEdge]

In keeping with my thought that Cobb both "drives for show and putts for dough", I'm off to the links.

Thereby refreshed, I hope not to be tempted to write again on this subject for some time to come (as are many of you, I'm certain).

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I would not claim Cobb was the most sure-handed player in the league; certainly he drops some balls, though the debate over "how many", and whether the number is "good" or less so is a matter for debate, as illustrated earlier.

Further, I'm not completely averse to some subjective judgements going into the stats, judiciously applied on a limited basis.

However, in this case we have a two-variable equation where both variables have meaningful levels of subjectivity...what constitutes a "drop" and what constitutes a "catchable ball".

To draw an analogy, the NFL goes to great lengths in "coaching" referees. They put together tapes illustrating that this play is not a penalty, that play is a penalty, etc. with the intent of bringing some consistency to the process.

And how is that working out? Not very well, I would say. Different crew chiefs and ref crews have their own stubborn ideas about how the game should be played despite the league's best efforts. I believe there is a general consensus among fans and "professional" commentators alike that ref crews are meaningfully inconsistent, with teams actually scouting them for tendencies.

So, how is it we're to believe that PFF or anybody else is better able to enforce consistency in subjective calls among their many analysts? I don't think we can believe that.

Consequently, subjective variables should be kept to a minimum and reserved for those things where there's minimal margin for disagreement.

I'm inclined to value such numbers when the results from various sources are tightly clustered.

There's a difference between a referee having to make a split second decision on the field and someone being able to watch game film for several times to figure out if a receiver dropped a ball though.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I'm not talking about the "quality of the receiver". I'm talking about the most valuable receiver in 2014.

By the way, you don't add all of the QB runs to the drop backs. There are a lot of kneel downs in there, as Flynn's 10 runs for -10 would indicate. While the Packers don't do called QB runs, some teams do; those should be culled from the drop backs. Another interesting thought comes to mind on this score...Seattle uses run/pass options...Wilson can hand off, run himself, or drop and throw. How the h*ll are those supposed to be counted?

PFF's method is too clever by half. Count the passes and and see what the receivers do with them.

Seattle's run/pass option is a read-option play in which someone is going to run with the ball no matter what. The WRs in that instance are run blocking. If you're considering the plays in which Russell scrambles after finding nobody open, then yes, that would skew the numbers. However, we're not discussing Wilson, we're discussing more traditional quarterback/WR tandems where those kind of plays are very rare. You're also missing the point when I discussed the run plays; you can't just look at successful passes and say those are the only routes that count. There are numerous other plays during the season where the receiver is running a route and something happens which prevents a pass from occurring. Your assumption of ONLY using attempted passes is flawed, if you did that then pretty much EVERY receiver in the NFL would get a jump in yards per pass route, not just Cobb.

Right...some occasions. But which ones and how many? It strikes me if one claims to provide advanced analytics, if there's an important aspect that's being assumed, not measured, it should be dropped from the equation until such time measurements are actually taken.

As for PFF, as of about 2 years ago they made mention of the fact they use volunteers, and at one point had a call for volunteers on their web site. Further, they did not have all-22 tape available to them until nfl.com started selling it, for $20 bucks I believe with a rewind subscription, starting in 2013 or 2014, I can't recall which. I know this because they said so. How you could rate DBs without that tape is beyond me, yet they did it anyway. I'm not saying their stuff doesn't have value; what I am saying is it's questionable to value their data over other sources. There are no independent audits.

They actually hire people now, if I recall correctly the actual application is fairly detailed in that they send you game tape and you have to grade players with something like 95% accuracy (again, I could be off on some of that) and they DO use the All 22 tapes. They did not use the All 22 when it wasn't available to the public but since it's been offered, it's something they have used.

 

[HardRightEdge]

In keeping with my thought that Cobb both "drives for show and putts for dough", I'm off to the links.

Thereby refreshed, I hope not to be tempted to write again on this subject for some time to come (as are many of you, I'm certain).

There are certain ref crews known to call a tight game; others loose. And the league can't seem to get them on the same page. If it were just a matter of snap decisions, teams would not scout ref crews for tendencies.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Seattle's run/pass option is a read-option play in which someone is going to run with the ball no matter what.

Actually, that is not always the case. They have run/throw option plays mixed in. What's old is new again.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Actually, that is not always the case. They have run/throw option plays mixed in. What's old is new again.

There's an excellent illustration of Seattle's run/pass option out of a read-option-run look, that might ring a bell. We could call it a run/pass triple option. In this instance, the play is resolved with a "pop pass" in the current lingo.

http://insidethefilmroom.com/seattle-seahawks-shredded-packer-college-style-spread-offense/3/

Wilson is taking the snap from a pistol position 5 yards deep, he pulls the ball back from the RB (Lynch) on the read and moves left giving the QB-option-run look, but he has a run/pass option in this case depending on the cornerback's (Shields) action. With Shields biting on run from the snap, he throws to the receiver Shields has abandoned. If Shields had stuck with Lockett, Wilson would have the run option.

In this case, Matthews bit on Lynch with his first couple of steps, but adjusted quickly and had the angle on Wilson. Had Shields stuck with Lockett, Wilson might have had to throw the ball away.

(As an unrelated aside, note the Packers are in a hybrid 4-3 look. It appears the hybrid RDE/LB in a squat has press coverage responsibility on the TE if Seattle goes to pass without a run fake and the TE releases.)

On the off side, note the WR Kearse blocking down (lamely) on the CB. That's because the play is strictly a left side option...it gives Kearse something to do and increases the odds of a longer gain if he takes the CB out of the play and the receiver or QB cuts backs...standard issue when the play call is fixed to one side.

Seattle could add another wrinkle. Wilson sees single high safety from the start, then he's looking right at Shields as he bites on run right at the snap. There's no reason why Kearse on the offside couldn't run a route putting both WRs into man coverage. Then instead of moving left to show the QB run option, Wilson could just take a step or two back in what amounts to play-action out of pistol, and choose between his receivers.

That's a lot for the QB to digest in short order in a "quad option" (hand to the RB / roll and run / roll and pass / drop and pass), but you could certainly see how they could incorporate a dual option (hand to the RB / drop and pass).

In this case they're looking for an intermediate gain, with the possibility of more if the WR can beat the safety in space, which is what happened.

Note the comments at the end of this link relating to the rule differences between the NCAA and the NFL, and the fact Unger committed an uncalled penalty. The frequency with which this O-Line action goes uncalled in the NFL on play action and center screens is almost laughable.

On another forum, we had a good chuckle a few years back over a Packer center screen from something like the 10 yard line where the defense blew the play up, Rodgers pulled the ball back, ditched the pocket right, and threw a TD. Wells was wandering around in the end zone at the point where the ball was thrown. I guess all ref eyes were on Rodgers.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Here's another thought that now occurs to me regarding the #123 post above.

When PFF, or anybody else, compiles their data for passer-rating-against, who gets charged for this big gain and TD? Is it Shields or Dix? On the one hand, Shields bit on the run and in the final analysis mis-read the play. On the other hand, he's not in coverage so it would be questionable to charge him with it...he's in run defense.

Conversely, Dix is in single-high and Seattle did not give him the play in advance. He has to wait until after the snap (unless he guesses like Shields) to read whether he needs to go right or left. His reaction is appropriate and fairly timely, even if he did blow the tackle, while at the same time one could not expect him to defend this pass.

One supposes this is a situation of an "uncovered receiver" where nobody gets charged.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Here's another thought that now occurs to me regarding the #123 post above.

When PFF, or anybody else, compiles their data for passer-rating-against, who gets charged for this big gain and TD? Is it Shields or Dix? On the one hand, Shields bit on the run and in the final analysis mis-read the play. On the other hand, he's not in coverage so it would be questionable to charge him with it...he's in run defense.

Conversely, Dix is in single-high and Seattle did not give him the play in advance. He has to wait until after the snap (unless he guesses like Shields) to read whether he needs to go right or left. His reaction is appropriate and fairly timely, even if he did blow the tackle, while at the same time one could not expect him to defend this pass.

One supposes this is a situation of an "uncovered receiver" where nobody gets charged.

PFF charged Shields with the TD pass to Lockette on that play.