PDA

View Full Version : DAWES: The Fact of the matter


C-Mac
02-20-2007, 12:20 PM
DAWES: The Fact of the matter
Feb 19, 2007, 2:36:08 AM by Rufus Dawes - FAQ

Researching the WR position
Some light may be cast upon the ongoing criticism the Chiefs annually receive for not addressing their wide receiver position either through the draft or, the media’s preferred method of acquisition, unrestricted free agency. As my colleague Bob Gretz accurately pointed out in a recent “letters column,” (Mailbag Musings) Kansas City has struggled addressing its need for a qualified success at wide receiver through the draft.

Many great social scientists have understood that people are ultimately persuaded more by facts than by abstract theories, but too many people particularly in the media seem quite happy to engage in the Michael Moore style of insinuation, which is to mouth merely fashionable opinion without a scintilla of real argument. Not that they don’t cite what they take to be the reasons for such judgment. But these bear examination, so I went back and compiled some facts to demonstrate that much of what people claim about acquiring a wide receiver is either incorrect or exaggerated. Here are the facts of the wide receiver position and the various NFL teams’ attempts to land one.

Let’s start with this not-to-startling finding: the Chiefs are not alone. The record of all NFL teams in this field is not encouraging. It’s not a science and the position obviously carries a more severe learning curve than some of the more clueless media and some of the more naïve public might believe.

Since 1960 there have only been 13 wide receivers who had 1,000 yard seasons in their rookie years. Now, think about that for a moment before you tap the “favorites” on your Internet Explorer and move on to see if there’s anything new on who might be the father Anna Nicole Smith’s child.

Only 13 in the entire league since the founding year of the Chiefs franchise!

Other interesting facts concerning free agent wide receivers availability via the annual draft:

An average of four wide receivers have been taken in the first round over the past five years with highs of seven in 2004 and six in 2005 – a telling stat that will come to make more sense later in this column.
Of the 20 first round picks who were drafted over the last five years, only one started all 16 games and only Andre Johnson (976 yards) and Michael Clayton (1,193 yards) could be called absolute phenoms in their rookie seasons. The others, if they turned out to be what you might call successful, generally took a minimum of two seasons to make any kind of mark (Larry Fitzgerald, Ashley Lelie, Javon Walker, Roy Williams, Lee Evans.) Marques Colston (New Orleans) turns out to be the true find and knowing what they know now it’s not hard to predict the Saints would have taken him in the first round and not the seventh. Interestingly, Colston played at Hofstra where the Jets have their offices and train and they passed on him.
One’s status as a member of a high-octane college passing team is no guarantee of future success. (See Florida’s list of early round wide receiver draftees as examples).
The record in unrestricted free agency is not any better and considerably worse given what teams are likely to have to pay for what passes today as a hot commodity at the position. Again, there are exceptions but they more often come complete with a whole new set of issues for your team to handle. (See Terrell Owens, Keyshawn Johnson, Plaxico Burress). In short, there’s a reason they’re out there.

Here are some interesting facts to ponder on the unrestricted free agent pool:

Over the last five years there have been 51 unrestricted free agent wide receivers move teams with highs of 13 in 2006 and 2002. Note their names and, better still, note the names that are missing. This is a clear indication that the better ones re-sign with their team of origin. If you’ve got one you’re going to keep him.
Of those taken over the last two off-seasons, the majority had little to no impact on their respective teams: David Givens (Tennessee), Andre Davis (Buffalo), Tim Dwight (Jets), Bryan Gilmore (San Francisco), Troy Walters (Arizona), Cedrick Wilson (Pittsburgh), Travis Taylor (Minnesota), Eddie Berlin (Chicago). Do you know them? Look up their stats. Antonio Bryant (San Francisco) was reasonably successful but was suspended for two games this year and will miss two games next year as well.
Meanwhile, the number of busts acquired at a high price is staggering: Nate Burleson (7 years for $49 million), David Patten (5 years at $13.6 million), Antwaan Randle El (6 years for $31 million), and who can forget Lavernius Coles (7 years for $35 million), to name a prominent few.
Success appears so limiting in the free agent market as it pertains to wide receivers that it may be a reason why so many are taken in the first round of the draft. Teams appear to prefer to develop their own wideouts.
In summation, here’s all you need to know about the wide receiver pool. Mike Furrey, having played as a safety the previous year, signed for the minimum with Detroit this past season in hopes of playing wide receiver, his original position. He went on to lead the NFC in receiving. Find a good, young developing guy and develop him. That’s how you improve.
Remember to research the record, or even a précis of the record. If you don’t, then you’re just listening to the constant din from a media who reaches conclusions first before searching for the supporting evidence to confirm what they think they know. (See ESPN.com’s Greg Easterbrook’s “Another season of bad predictions” for proof of that.)

Phobia
02-20-2007, 12:23 PM
Yawn. Lost interest at "Many great social scientists have understood that people are ultimately persuaded more by facts than by abstract theories"

Know your audience. We're frick'n football fans. I'm not impressed by a bunch of pseudo-intellectual prose. Boring.

Mile High Mania
02-20-2007, 12:25 PM
Yeah, I stopped early on this one too... I'm guessing his point is that other teams also suck at finding WRs?

Chiefnj
02-20-2007, 12:28 PM
Cliffnotes: "It's okay that the Chiefs haven't tried to address WR via free agency or early rounds of the draft because it is really hard to do so."

Carl's ego has been stroked.

Halfcan
02-20-2007, 12:29 PM
Yawn. Lost interest at "Many great social scientists have understood that people are ultimately persuaded more by facts than by abstract theories"

Know your audience. We're frick'n football fans. I'm not impressed by a bunch of pseudo-intellectual prose. Boring.

yep- is he trying to convince us the Chiefs WR's are great and the problems we have seen year after year are just in our minds??

StcChief
02-20-2007, 12:30 PM
Some teams do better developing players....
Chiefs WRs haven't been our strongest of late.
Fortunate to get EK. and have him work out.

Brock
02-20-2007, 12:33 PM
The Chiefs literally have the worst website in the NFL, if not the entire internet.

jidar
02-20-2007, 12:34 PM
I agree with the article.
I also actually read it.

HemiEd
02-20-2007, 12:49 PM
The Chiefs literally have the worst website in the NFL, if not the entire internet.

Agreed, the latest overhaul was actually a downgrade IMO.

ILChief
02-20-2007, 01:05 PM
every time they post a "rufus" article, they embarass themselves more. their whole premise is that "it's ok that we suck because other teams do too"

Phobia
02-20-2007, 01:13 PM
The entire Rufus concept blows. Sure he's raised some interesting points - sometimes. It's infrequent.

One of the things Herm said to local journalists in his "Welcome to KC" press conference was this (paraphrased based upon my best recollection), "I don't care what you say or write about me or the team, just put your name on it - own it".

I'm guessing he didn't know about Rufus Dawes when he said those things.

Spicy McHaggis
02-20-2007, 01:29 PM
Since 1960 there have only been 13 wide receivers who had 1,000 yard seasons in their rookie years.

The record in unrestricted free agency is not any better and considerably worse given what teams are likely to have to pay for what passes today as a hot commodity at the position.

The moral of the story here seems to be "Rookies don't produce and FA's never pan out so let's never try."

Eventually we'll have a 51 year old Eddie Kennison and a Samie Parker who still can't catch shit starting for us because it wasn't ever prudent to find a replacement for them.

Here's an idea, so the **** what if a rookie WR doesn't get 1,000 yards in his first season? So long as he gets there in his 2nd, 3rd etc. I know NFL fans want instant gratification but I imagine if we got a highly touted wideout this draft most Chiefs fans would gladly wait for him to develop as long as he showed potential.

siberian khatru
02-20-2007, 01:41 PM
every time they post a "rufus" article, they embarass themselves more. their whole premise is that "it's ok that we suck because other teams do too"

And yet, 75% of the teams in the league have managed to reach a Super Bowl since the Chiefs last did.

Dr. Facebook Fever
02-20-2007, 01:49 PM
Yawn. Lost interest at "Many great social scientists have understood that people are ultimately persuaded more by facts than by abstract theories"

Know your audience. We're frick'n football fans. I'm not impressed by a bunch of pseudo-intellectual prose. Boring.
That's funny... that's exactly where I quit.

chagrin
02-20-2007, 01:53 PM
Holy cow dude, what a total waste of time, thanks Dawes

Otter
02-20-2007, 02:02 PM
I already know what it says by looking at the author:

It's OK the Chiefs suck because...

GoHuge
02-20-2007, 03:27 PM
The moral of the story here seems to be "Rookies don't produce and FA's never pan out so let's never try."

Eventually we'll have a 51 year old Eddie Kennison and a Samie Parker who still can't catch shit starting for us because it wasn't ever prudent to find a replacement for them.

Here's an idea, so the **** what if a rookie WR doesn't get 1,000 yards in his first season? So long as he gets there in his 2nd, 3rd etc. I know NFL fans want instant gratification but I imagine if we got a highly touted wideout this draft most Chiefs fans would gladly wait for him to develop as long as he showed potential.Yeah we've waited on Sims, Bell, Hicks, so a WR project would at least be a change up. The DT projects are really boring, I'm sure the WR project would be embraced.

Mr. Laz
02-20-2007, 03:54 PM
Some light may be cast upon the ongoing criticism the Chiefs annually receive ....


lost me right after this

seriously, why bother ... just another article by an employee of the Chiefs to deflect any and all criticism against the Chiefs organization.



sad .....