Redskins Free Agency 2016

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I definitely think some of you guys here have short memories. I think you're vastly underrating his ability to uncover. Reed took great strides forward this past season, but you need to be reminded that Paul is a very nice mix of blocking AND an ability to uncover.

Niles Paul 2014 Highlights

jordan reed: 55 yd/gm in 2013, 42 yd/gm in 2014, 68 yd/gm in 2015
niles paul: 9.5 yd/gm in 2012, 3.4 yd/gm in 2013, 32 yd/gm in 2014

not sure how jordan isn't the obvious #1. blocking is nice, and i'm sure paul's stat will also improve with cousins too, but reed makes plays that most TEs don't, and it's not like last year was the first time he looked good, it's just the first time he stayed healthy.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by That Guy

jordan reed: 55 yd/gm in 2013, 42 yd/gm in 2014, 68 yd/gm in 2015
niles paul: 9.5 yd/gm in 2012, 3.4 yd/gm in 2013, 32 yd/gm in 2014

not sure how jordan isn't the obvious #1. blocking is nice, and i'm sure paul's stat will also improve with cousins too, but reed makes plays that most TEs don't, and it's not like last year was the first time he looked good, it's just the first time he stayed healthy.

This only confirms what I've know all along. I'm the smartest motherfucker here.

Comparing Paul's stats from 2012 and 2013 isn't even relevant. In 2014 looking at total yards per game is even stupid because Reed started ahead of him for all but 4 games. But those 4? 4 catches for 86 yards. 8 catches for 99 yards and a TD. 6 catches for 68 yards. 4 catches for 60 yards.

That's well over a 1000 yard pace.

Listen, I'm not saying that after last season Reed doesn't deserve to be considered our #1 tight end. But Paul really came on in 2014 in subbing for Reed. His blocking is stronger, obv. So if I'm the coach, and Paul is healthy? I probably use Paul before Reed on most 1st and 10s. Now, 2nd and 7? 3rd and 5? I'd use Reed over Paul, if they're not both on the field at the same time. So Reed would end up getting more snaps than Paul for coach Schneed, but Paul would probably start simply because the game starts on a running down - 1st and 10. They're 1 and 1A.

I know the Redskins better than all y'all chumps and this proves it. Vernon Davis won't even sniff either of their jocks.

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

This only confirms what I've know all along. I'm the smartest motherfucker here.

I know the Redskins better than all y'all chumps and this proves it. Vernon Davis won't even sniff either of their jocks.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

This only confirms what I've know all along. I'm the smartest motherfucker here.
.

keep telling yourself that. let's extrapolate some other numbers from 4 games and randomly declare that's proof without considering reversion to mean and completely dismiss anything that doesn't fit our argument, like an entire year where both players played in the same system, because reasons!

btw, paul had 8 game starts, and most of them were 1 catch for 7 yard affairs. 2 of his games without reed ended up with 17 yards combined, which plunges his projected total down below 900 yards if you're only counting games reed didn't play (you can throw in his 17 yards from the TB game too if you want).

i'm not saying he's bad, and obviously kirk is going to help him, but you're not pulling reed for him. if you're managing people and you want to resign reed, pulling him on every 1st and 10 and denying him starts is a great way to make sure that doesn't happen.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by That Guy

keep telling yourself that. let's extrapolate some other numbers from 4 games and randomly declare that's proof without considering reversion to mean and completely dismiss anything that doesn't fit our argument, like an entire year where both players played in the same system, because reasons!

btw, paul had 8 game starts, and most of them were 1 catch for 7 yard affairs. 2 of his games without reed ended up with 17 yards combined, which plunges his projected total down below 900 yards if you're only counting games reed didn't play (you can throw in his 17 yards from the TB game too if you want).

i'm not saying he's bad, and obviously kirk is going to help him, but you're not pulling reed for him. if you're managing people and you want to resign reed, pulling him on every 1st and 10 and denying him starts is a great way to make sure that doesn't happen.

Why would you look at Paul's receiving production in games where Reed played? The point is to illustrate that when Paul is given the role of being the primary receiving TE, he produces. Of course when Reed plays he is going to get first crack at the receiving targets, I've acknowledged all along that he's a better option in that regard. When Reed played in those games, Niles was given more of the in-line blocking responsibility, which speaks to why he didn't end up with huge receiving games. But that doesn't mean he can't do it, look at that four game production. And you're going to tell me after watching those games that that level of receiving production isn't sustainable? Why, because reversion to the mean, basically the statistical version of 'well I don't know he'll come back to Earth but I know he's never done this before, soo...'. Reversion to the mean works well when you're talking about a 30 year old first baseman whose track record is long established hitting .400 on balls put into play, but it means exactly jack squat when you're talking about a breakout player like Paul. Turn on the tape, what's not sustainable? The separating speed? The route running? The nose for the soft spot in the zone?

Get out of here with this reversion to the mean nonsense.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Why would you look at Paul's receiving production in games where Reed played? The point is to illustrate that when Paul is given the role of being the primary receiving TE, he produces.
Get out of here with this reversion to the mean nonsense.

did you bother reading my post? i absolutely did not look at production when reed was playing. 2 games were niles played and reed didn't (SEA/SF) resulted in a grand total of 2 catches for 17 yards. another game the week before reed missed SF (in TB) paul had 2 catches for 17 yards. your only counting 3 of his 5 games without reed, and one game with reed (where he got hurt, and thus i added the option of the TB game). so, there's 2-3 games worth of data where he absolutely didn't produce when reed wasn't there, yet that was skipped over in your extrapolation, hence the questions.