Leonard Hankerson: Patience

[Oldfan]

Someone already pointed out that Hankerson's catch rate is 62.2%. You decided to ignore that figure, which is fairly typical when someone brings a stat into the conversation that you don't particularly care for or don't like or invalidates your argument.

This argumentative BS is typical of you when someone disagrees with your very precious opinions. I'll ignore your posts in the future, but I'll explain here that like most football stats, this one can be deceptive.

A drop rate of 62% might be very good if the player is targeted on a lot of deep passes and it could be terrible if he is targeted on shorter passes.

From your posts in the past, it's clear that you either don't realize that cherry-picked football stats can be deceptive or you don't care.

[pjfootballer]

The Cruz and Austin picks are deeply frustrating, but you can't expect to find starting WRs as UDFAs. Every team passed on them in the draft. As for the others:

Kelly and Thomas were Vinny mistakes, but IIRC most of the receivers taken in the second round that year didn't work out. At least we got Fred.

So the notion that receivers are supposed to come in and ball out with no problem is flawed. It happened with Julio and A.J but those two are once in a lifetime talents.

I totally see both your points and they are valid. I was speaking of the frustration that some fans may have when seeing our division rivals develop WRs and we don't. Laurent Robinson played well with the Cowboys and Manningham was good for the Giants. Just fan frustration when you are constantly trying to put 1 good WR on the field and other teams can put more than 1. The Garcon injury has exacerbated the situation as I belive he'd be amongst the leaders in WR stats if he were healthy. Just like safety, we seem to get bit at WR also.

[NLC1054]

This argumentative BS is typical of you when someone disagrees with your very precious opinions. I'll ignore your posts in the future, but I'll explain here that like most football stats, this one can be deceptive.

A drop rate of 62% might be very good if the player is targeted on a lot of deep passes and it could be terrible if he is targeted on shorter passes.

From your posts in the past, it's clear that you either don't realize that cherry-picked football stats can be deceptive or you don't care.

His DROP RATE isn't 62 percent. His CATCH RATE is 62 percent. There's a difference.

And I'd rather rely on stats then rely on the eyes of people who already have their mind made up.

And BTW, if you're going to ignore me, actually ignore me instead of saying you're going to ignore me and then replying to me anyway.

[braindx]

You mentioned Owens, but it isn't as though Owens took over games during his first 16 games of experience. In fact, for their first year or so together people thought that JJ Stokes was going to develop into the stud.

Hankerson actually compares favorably to Owens so far. In his first 16 games, Owens had 35 catches for 520 yards. In 12 games Hankerson has 36 catches for 460 yards. I don't think preaching patience is a bad thing here.

Don't forget Brandon Marshall in his first year (15 games) was 20 catches, 309 yds with 2 TDs.

Generally speaking, it takes WRs at least 2 full off seasons to get with the program. Kyle/Mike have said this offense takes ~3 to learn completely.

Last year we didn't have an offseason AND Hank got hurt. So he's still in growth mode.

[NLC1054]

I totally see both your points and they are valid. I was speaking of the frustration that some fans may have when seeing our division rivals develop WRs and we don't. Laurent Robinson played well with the Cowboys and Manningham was good for the Giants. Just fan frustration when you are constantly trying to put 1 good WR on the field and other teams can put more than 1. The Garcon injury has exacerbated the situation as I belive he'd be amongst the leaders in WR stats if he were healthy. Just like safety, we seem to get bit at WR also.

Other teams have been more stable for longer. I understand the frustration, but this whole "cut them if they're not in the Pro Ball" extends beyond the receiving core; see the brand spanking new, sparkly Ryan Kerrigan thread.

There's frustration, and then there's unfair expectations that every player has to be a knock it out of the park Hall of Famer.

[braindx]

Edit: nm I guess it was someone else.

[illone]

I'm starting to think we should just never draft wide receivers for all the "THESE GUYS WILL NEVER BE ANYTHING SPECIAL!" talk. Because what's even the point? If they're not Pro Bowlers right away, why even keep them around?.

Nobody said anything about making pro bowls right away.

I just want a WR corps that lays it on the line for the team every play. Its an attitude, how you carry yourself, and most importantly it shows up on Sunday. Garçon has it. Moss has it. Hankerson does not.

I could care less about pro bowls.

[steve09ru]

NVM - Missed something but anyway...

He has a 67% catch rate - that number ranks him ahead of floyd, johnson, cruz, colston, moore, wayne, green, austin, decker, johnson, marshall, smith, nicks (just to name a few)

[BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93]

I'm willing to bet nearly all of them have ****load more targets than him

That's a horrible way to look at that stat

[bedlamVR]

Someone already pointed out that Hankerson's catch rate is 62.2%. You decided to ignore that figure, which is fairly typical when someone brings a stat into the conversation that you don't particularly care for or don't like or invalidates your argument.

He catches far more passes than he dropped this season, period.

He also has a 12.7 yards per catch - not earth shattering but not necessarly a dump off target . Someone mentioned that Moss and Hankerson are garbage ( i am assuming it is some affiliation to the team that makes them garbage) - It is hard to discuss anything with a person whos mind is so closed his forhead puckers ..

[steve09ru]

I'm willing to bet nearly all of them have ****load more targets than him

That's a horrible way to look at that stat

I know, they do - here's a list of people who have around the same target as Hank (he's at 37 targets - list below ranges from 30-45)

henderson, heyward-bey, meachem, ogletree, blackmon, santana, holmes, nicks, golden tate, malcom floyd

the following list is at minimum,10% catch rate below Hank:

calvin johnson, colston, wayne, austin, julio, moore, steve smith, vincent jackson, brandon lloyd, holmes, stevie johnson, andre johnson,

[Oldfan]

NVM - Missed something but anyway...

He has a 67% catch rate - that number ranks him ahead of floyd, johnson, cruz, colston, moore, wayne, green, austin, decker, johnson, marshall, smith, nicks (just to name a few)

Did you notice the FO doesn't rank receivers by their catch rate? If that stat wasn't deceptive, why would they do that?

In fact, you should realize the stat is deceptive simply by looking at that player list you offered.

[steve09ru]

Did you notice the FO doesn't rank receivers by their catch rate? If that stat wasn't deceptive, why would they do that?

In fact, you should realize the stat is deceptive simply by looking at that player list you offered.

I know, it is a deceptive stat, but people were using it to back their case one way or the other - i'm just throwing it out there for comparison since people feel like that stat is a measure of talent

*NO, Hank is not on the level of the people I mentioned above, I think he will be a solid option but still has more to prove because he has been fairly inconsistent IMO

[Oldfan]

I know, it is a deceptive stat, but people were using it to back their case one way or the other - i'm just throwing it out there for comparison since people feel like that stat is a measure of talent

Okay, well I'm not one of those using it. I'm the one saying it's deceptive.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I've been walking the streets at night
Just trying to get it right
Its hard to see with so many around
You know I don't like being stuck in the crowd
And the streets don't change
But maybe the names
I ain't got time for the game cause I need you