PDA

View Full Version : Per ESPN: Kennison 3rd Most Efficient Reciever Last Season


KcKing
07-06-2006, 11:58 PM
Searched Kennison and didn't see this already posted, But it probably was anyway. So sorry if repost.


Unheralded Parker has high value
Insider
Joyner
By KC Joyner
ESPN Insider
Archive

Who was the best wide receiver in the NFL last season? When I rank receivers, I am looking for pass catchers with well-rounded skill sets. I want players who are both productive and efficient, but I place more emphasis on efficiency. I use this approach because to be both highly efficient and productive, you must have a wider variety of talents.

In ranking wide receiver efficiency, I use the same three criteria I used for tight ends in last week's rankings. The first two are TYPCA (total yards per catchable attempt) and success percentage. The third metric is derived by multiplying TYPCA by the wide receiver's success percentage. This combination metric provides the best overall balance between production and efficiency and is the one I used to determine who was the most efficient wide receiver. There is a 40-catch minimum to qualify.

I'll detail the top five receivers in this category, starting from the No. 5 spot and counting up to No. 1.

5. Joe Jurevicius, 7.0 yards. Everyone knows Jurevicius has good hands, so it would come as no shock that he ranked No. 1 in the success percentage category according to Scientific Football 2006 (now available for preorder at www.TheFootballScientist.com).

Success percentage alone won't place a receiver high in this category, though. A receiver usually also has to have a high yards per attempt on deeper passes, which was the really surprising part of Jurevicius' statistics. He had the seventh-highest yards per attempt on deep passes (20-plus yards) and had the 13th-highest yards per attempt on medium passes (11-20 yards).

4. Eric Parker, 7.2 yards. When you play on an offense that has LaDainian Tomlinson, Antonio Gates and Keenan McCardell, it can be awfully hard to get noticed, but Parker's numbers deserve some attention.

Parker had the second-highest success percentage last year, but a large portion of that success came on vertical passes. Parker had the third-highest pass success percentage at both the medium and the deep pass levels. He also had a very high short pass success percentage, ranking seventh in that category.

3. Eddie Kennison, 7.3 yards. Kennison is proof that a receiver doesn't have to rank near the top of the league in success percentage to be listed high in this metric. Kennison ranked second in the NFL in yards per attempt despite having only the 20th-highest success percentage. Kennison was especially deadly on deep passes, gaining an eye-popping 40.8-yard average on his successful deep pass plays.

2. Santana Moss, 7.6 yards. Moss was the deadliest deep threat in the NFL by far last year, averaging an astounding 26.4 yards per deep pass attempt. What makes this number even more impressive is that Moss did this despite being the Redskins' only deep threat. Moss was also successful on 63 percent of his deep passes, so it easily can be said he was the most efficient deep threat in the NFL last year.

1. Steve Smith, 7.7 yards. Smith was a viable MVP candidate for much of the season, as he was the epitome of an efficient and productive receiver. The best illustration of this was that Smith ranked first in the league in yards per attempt at both the short and medium pass depths. It is rare to have a receiver who can be just as effective running a hitch route as a deep in route, and Smith wasn't just effective at both. He was explosive.

Here are the top five receivers in each of the metric categories:

Yards Per Attempt
1. Santana Moss -- 11.4
2. Eddie Kennison -- 10.9
3. Steve Smith -- 10.7
4. Ernest Wilford -- 10.2
5. Terry Glenn -- 9.8

Success %
1. Joe Jurevicius -- 75.6%
2. Eric Parker -- 75.3%
3. Bobby Engram -- 73.1%
4. Steve Smith -- 72.4%
T5 Derrick Mason -- 71.9%
T5 Rod Smith -- 71.9%

Success % x Yards Per Attempt
1. Steve Smith -- 7.7
2. Santana Moss -- 7.6
3. Eddie Kennison -- 7.3
4. Eric Parker -- 7.2
5. Joe Jurevicius -- 7.0

KC Joyner, aka The Football Scientist, is a regular contributor to ESPN Insider. His latest book, Scientific Football 2006, is available for preorder at his Web site, http://thefootballscientist.com.

Der Flöprer
07-07-2006, 12:00 AM
Interesting. I don't think Kennison is a good #2 WR.

Halfcan
07-07-2006, 12:04 AM
Plus Eddie puts on a helluva fashion show!

Count Alex's Losses
07-07-2006, 12:04 AM
Interesting. I don't think Kennison is a good #2 WR.

That's because you're a f*cking idiot.

Der Flöprer
07-07-2006, 12:06 AM
That's because you're a f*cking idiot.



Yeah, he's come up gold for us hasn't he?

Count Alex's Losses
07-07-2006, 12:07 AM
Yeah, he's come up gold for us hasn't he?

Yes, yes he has.

Der Flöprer
07-07-2006, 12:08 AM
Yes, yes he has.


Get me his stats, stat man. I think the problem with our passing game last year was a lack of good WR's. Wasn't it you that said around week 8 that our passing game just "hadn't jelled yet"?

Count Alex's Losses
07-07-2006, 12:15 AM
Get me his stats, stat man. I think the problem with our passing game last year was a lack of good WR's. Wasn't it you that said around week 8 that our passing game just "hadn't jelled yet"?

Um, no?

Kennison has about 2300 yards and 13 TDs over the last two years. Pretty solid numbers in an offense where no one is going to catch 90 passes. He's the best and most consistent wide receiver we've had here in a long time and I'm not going to poo-poo him for it.

Moooo
07-07-2006, 12:17 AM
Um, no?

Kennison has about 2300 yards and 13 TDs over the last two years. Pretty solid numbers in an offense where no one is going to catch 90 passes. He's the best and most consistent wide receiver we've had here in a long time and I'm not going to poo-poo him for it.

People forget too that we have a TE which is a WR in his self. I'm not saying we couldn't use more WR depth, but it explains why we can get away with starting Kennison (who I like) and Parker (needs improvement), and still go 10-6.

Moooo

Halfcan
07-07-2006, 12:17 AM
poo poo????

Der Flöprer
07-07-2006, 12:18 AM
Um, no?

Kennison has about 2300 yards and 13 TDs over the last two years. Pretty solid numbers in an offense where no one is going to catch 90 passes. He's the best and most consistent wide receiver we've had here in a long time and I'm not going to poo-poo him for it.


| 2004 kan | 14 | 2 15 7.5 0 | 62 1086 17.5 8 |
| 2005 kan | 16 | 7 43 6.1 0 | 68 1102 16.2 5




Last catagory. Catches, Yards, Avg. and then TD's. Not what I'd call #1 WR stats, but respectable none the less. I'll take a big helping of crow. He's not near as bad as I made him out to be.

Count Alex's Losses
07-07-2006, 12:19 AM
I'll take a big helping of crow. He's not near as bad as I made him out to be.

Wow. I didn't know you were this ignorant on the subject. Eat up.

beer bacon
07-07-2006, 12:21 AM
Get me his stats, stat man. I think the problem with our passing game last year was a lack of good WR's. Wasn't it you that said around week 8 that our passing game just "hadn't jelled yet"?

KC had the #6 passing offense in the league last season. The problem was that Trent and Gonzo never seemed to gel in the redzone. This led to only two TDs for Gonzo and 17 for Trent. Kennison was fifth in the AFC in receiving yards.

Der Flöprer
07-07-2006, 12:22 AM
Wow. I didn't know you were this ignorant on the subject. Eat up.



ROFL You're making him out like he's the best thing that KC has had since sliced bread. Tony G. has been just as productive in the TE role. Let's not make it out like you know what the f*ck you're talking about either.



2004 kan | 16 | 102 1258 12.3 7 |
| 2005 kan | 16 | 78 905 11.6 2

Count Alex's Losses
07-07-2006, 12:23 AM
Let's not make it out like you know what the f*ck you're talking about either.


But, I do. That's my whole point. You came into this discussion almost completely unaware of the revelant facts.

beer bacon
07-07-2006, 12:24 AM
ROFL You're making him out like he's the best thing that KC has had since sliced bread. Tony G. has been just as productive in the TE role. Let's not make it out like you know what the f*ck you're talking about either.



2004 kan | 16 | 102 1258 12.3 7 |
| 2005 kan | 16 | 78 905 11.6 2

Wow, Gonzalez, one of the best TEs in NFL history is a better receiving threat then Kennison. Obviously that means Kennison sucks!

Count Alex's Losses
07-07-2006, 12:25 AM
Kennison was fifth in the AFC in receiving yards.

Fun fact: Eddie Kennison leads all AFC West wide receivers in yards per game over the last three seasons.

Count Alex's Losses
07-07-2006, 12:26 AM
I don't believe anyone here doesn't like Eddie.

If the rest of the team played the Broncos like Eddie plays the Broncos, we'd have been sweeping those equine bitches for three seasons in a row.

Der Flöprer
07-07-2006, 12:26 AM
Um, no?

Kennison has about 2300 yards and 13 TDs over the last two years. Pretty solid numbers in an offense where no one is going to catch 90 passes.


That's funny, it seems like Tony had over 100 receptions in 2004 so I guess someone could in the offense would have 90 receptions. I guess you don't know the relevant facts either.

Count Alex's Losses
07-07-2006, 12:27 AM
That's funny, it seems like Tony had over 100 receptions in 2004 so I guess someone could in the offense would have 90 receptions. I guess you don't know the relevant facts either.

That's clearly an aberration. It only happened once in the Vermeil era, and the Chiefs were force-feeding Gonzalez at the end of the year. He had something like 30 catches in the last two games.

|Zach|
07-07-2006, 12:30 AM
But, I do. That's my whole point. You came into this discussion almost completely unaware of the revelant facts.
ROFL Nice.

Halfcan
07-07-2006, 12:34 AM
This thread is poo poo!

NJ Chief Fan
07-07-2006, 12:37 AM
Interesting. I don't think Kennison is a good #2 WR.

most chiefs fans know he isnt your typical #1 wr, but to say he isnt a good #2 wr, well thats poop

our #1 recieving threat has always been t-goat, then priest and then eddie

SNR
07-07-2006, 01:02 AM
Eddie just broke something on dey ass

Miles
07-07-2006, 01:10 AM
ROFL You're making him out like he's the best thing that KC has had since sliced bread. Tony G. has been just as productive in the TE role. Let's not make it out like you know what the f*ck you're talking about either.



2004 kan | 16 | 102 1258 12.3 7 |
| 2005 kan | 16 | 78 905 11.6 2

Name a better WR we have had in the last 15 years.

Miles
07-07-2006, 01:12 AM
That's clearly an aberration. It only happened once in the Vermeil era, and the Chiefs were force-feeding Gonzalez at the end of the year. He had something like 30 catches in the last two games.

It was only 25 receptions and 268 yds in two meaningless games. Get your facts straight.

Moooo
07-07-2006, 01:22 AM
Name a better WR we have had in the last 15 years.

J.J. Birden :)

Moooo

Miles
07-07-2006, 01:39 AM
J.J. Birden :)

Moooo

He's no Chris Penn.

pr_capone
07-07-2006, 03:34 AM
Name a better WR we have had in the last 15 years.

Joe Horn has put up nice numbers.... even though it was not with us. :D

That said... I like Kennison quite a bit. I remember when they announced his signing and I was not feeling to plussed about it.... but he has definately been a diamond in the rough for us.

KCChiefsMan
07-07-2006, 04:10 AM
I have to agree with gochiefs on this battle. Mr Flipnuts said that Kennison wasn't even a good #2 WR with 2 straight 1,000 yard seasons......I mean.....come on now

Inspector
07-07-2006, 07:10 AM
I like Eddie cause the Broncos hate him.

DaKCMan AP
07-07-2006, 07:14 AM
Eddie is serviceable and would be a great #2. I hope one of the young guys (Parker, Thorpe, Webb, McIntyre) can step it up. Also would like to see TonyG perform better this year.

rad
07-07-2006, 07:23 AM
"I'd rather be 13-3 frauds than hangin' by a string with Mike Shannahan...."

ROFL

Still funny

the Talking Can
07-07-2006, 07:34 AM
I'm sure he meant to say Rod Smith.

dtebbe
07-07-2006, 11:16 AM
Name a better WR we have had in the last 15 years.

Joe Horn... not that WE ever got to see how good he was...

DT

jidar
07-07-2006, 11:36 AM
This thread is just another example of how a large # of fans think every player should be a superstar or they aren't worth shit.
Kennison isn't a superstar or a hall of famer, but he's a good receiver in this league.

bobbything
07-07-2006, 12:04 PM
Everyone wants a Randy Moss or Terrell Owens or Chad Johnson. Well, so does 20something other teams in the NFL. We've got a 4000 yard passer. (Basically) a 1000 yard tight end, and 1500+ yard rusher. AND, and and and, we've got a receiver who catches 1000 yards worth of passes. Plus an O-line that 31 other teams would love to have.

Look at the teams that have a top tier receiver and compare the positions to that of the Chiefs:

Indy vs. KC
QB - advantage Indy
RB - advantage KC
Oline - advantage KC
WR's - advantage Indy
TE's - advantage KC

3-2 KC

Dallas vs. KC
QB - advantage KC
RB - advantage KC
Oline - advantage KC
WR's - advantage Dallas
TE's - advantage KC

4-1 KC

St Louis vs. KC
QB - advantage KC
RB - advantage KC
Oline - advantage KC
WR's - advantage St Louis
TE's - advantage KC

4-1 KC

Oakland vs. KC
QB - advantage KC
RB - advantage KC
Oline - advantage KC
WR's - advantage Oakland
TE - advantage KC

4-1 KC

Cinci vs. KC
QB - advantage Cinci
RB - advantage KC
Oline - advantage KC
WR - advantage Cinci
TE - advantage KC

3-2 KC

Carolina vs. KC
QB - advantage KC
RB - advantage KC
Oline - advantage KC
WR - advantage Carolina
TE - advantage KC

4-1 KC

Arizona vs. KC
QB - advantage KC
RB - advantage KC
Oline - advantage KC
WR - huge advantage Zona
TE - advantage KC

4-1 KC

You get the point. Bottom line is this offense doesn't necessarily NEED a top shelf receiver to be a great offense. Top 5 QB, RB, TE, and Oline.

joel_barlow
07-07-2006, 02:05 PM
eddie never gets enough love

sedated
07-07-2006, 02:39 PM
I don't believe anyone here doesn't like Eddie.

If the rest of the team played the Broncos like Eddie plays the Broncos, we'd have been sweeping those equine bitches for three seasons in a row.

"We'd rather be 11-1 frauds than 7-5, you know, hanging from a string from Mike Shanahan sucking on his behind all the time."

"This weekend--y'all can quote me, y'all can do what you want to do--but we're going to put something on their ass, you can believe that. You think I'm not serious? Huh, I'm about to get emotional right now just thinking about it. Put something on their ass, that's what we're going to do."

petegz28
07-07-2006, 02:43 PM
No he HAS to suck! Everyone on this board keep whining for receivers each year so Kennison MUST suck!

jspchief
07-07-2006, 02:43 PM
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=127811&page=1&pp=15

Lzen
07-07-2006, 03:04 PM
bobbything,
I like your breakdown, but one thing is kind of curious. I don't agree with putting Carson Palmer ahead of Trent Green. That's silly. At the very least, it's a draw.

Mr. Laz
07-07-2006, 03:10 PM
yards per catch doesn't include drops and overall impact.


it just means that when he does catch a pass that it's a meaningful one.


very incomplete stat

jspchief
07-07-2006, 03:12 PM
yards per catch doesn't include drops and overall impact.


it just means that when he does catch a pass that it's a meaningful one.


very incomplete statThe stat in the thread starter is yards per attempt.

Not sure if that's where your comment was directed.

Mr. Laz
07-07-2006, 03:24 PM
The stat in the thread starter is yards per attempt.

Not sure if that's where your comment was directed.
hmmm ... i missed the "per catchable attempt" part


so he watched every play of every game and ranked each ball as catchable??









what about feasibly getting open vrs not?

jspchief
07-07-2006, 03:42 PM
hmmm ... i missed the "per catchable attempt" part


so he watched every play of every game and ranked each ball as catchable??









what about feasibly getting open vrs not?There's only so much non-subjective information available for evaluating a WR. This guy seems to have created a formula that goes beyond bare stats from NFL.com. Whether or not it's accurate is certainly debateable, and I have no idea how he aquires his information.

I think it's up to the individual to buy into it or not. At the very least, it's no more subjective than any other method.

My personal opinion is that Eddie Kennison is not a top 5 WR. I do however think he's a capable #1, who is both a product of our scheme, and hampered by it at the same time. I don't think he's a guy that would flourish anywhere he played, but he has been very solid for us (especially the last 2 years) and his numbers undoubtedly suffer from having to share touches with Gonzo in a system that spreads the ball around a lot.

StcChief
07-07-2006, 03:57 PM
There's only so much non-subjective information available for evaluating a WR. This guy seems to have created a formula that goes beyond bare stats from NFL.com. Whether or not it's accurate is certainly debateable, and I have no idea how he aquires his information.

I think it's up to the individual to buy into it or not. At the very least, it's no more subjective than any other method.

My personal opinion is that Eddie Kennison is not a top 5 WR. I do however think he's a capable #1, who is both a product of our scheme, and hampered by it at the same time. I don't think he's a guy that would flourish anywhere he played, but he has been very solid for us (especially the last 2 years) and his numbers undoubtedly suffer from having to share touches with Gonzo in a system that spreads the ball around a lot.

Agreed. He does fit into our scheme.

He did well in STL in 1996 only. Rich Brooke's system.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/KennEd00.htm
after bouncing around NO/Dungver

Found his way in KC. at produced well. IMO. Scheme works with him and does look touches because of the spread it around approach.

But this may yield to improving his stats since they aren't alway keying on him. Makes the most of his opportunities

#1 well not a True one IMO. But puts up good numbers. I'm content
that he's a good bang for the buck receiver.

rad
07-07-2006, 04:01 PM
"We'd rather be 11-1 frauds than 7-5, you know, hanging from a string from Mike Shanahan sucking on his behind all the time."

"This weekend--y'all can quote me, y'all can do what you want to do--but we're going to put something on their ass, you can believe that. You think I'm not serious? Huh, I'm about to get emotional right now just thinking about it. Put something on their ass, that's what we're going to do."


That's what I meant.

Why you always gotta one-up me? :p

Fruit Ninja
07-07-2006, 05:03 PM
wow, GoChiefs actually won a thread. Good job man, you owned that other dude. lol