Reluctantly Looking Back At The Wide Receivers Performance Against Stanford
by Mark Sandritter on Oct 19, 2011 5:45 PM PDT
in 2011 WSU Football News
Email
PrintWhen I came up with the idea to write a weekly post on the wide receivers I thought it would be fun. The wide receivers are awesome, it will be all sunshine, lollipops and rainbows! Then Saturday happened and sometime in between Jared Karstetter's second and third fumble I began to regret the entire concept.
To make matters worse, this is a trend not an isolated bad game. Here is a look at the receivers yards per target and drop percentage each week.
Week 1: 8.42, 6.45
Week 2: 12.88, 0.00
Week 3: 9.68, 13.16
Week 4: 8.05, 7.32
Week 5: 6.09, 11.76
Week 6: 5.05, 16.22
That week two performance against UNLV seems like ancient history. Since Pac-12 play began, the YPT have dropped each week while the drops have risen. Forget about contending for a bowl game, WSU will not win another game in the wide receivers keep combining for 5.05 YPT.
Player
Targets
Catches
Yards
Drops
1st Downs
YPT
Catch%
Drop%
1st Down%
Isiah Barton
15
7
63
3
2
4.20
46.67
20.00
13.33
Bennett Bontemps
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Henry Eaddy
2
1
3
0
0
1.50
50.00
0.00
0.00
Jared Karstetter
5
3
26
2
2
5.20
60.00
40.00
40.00
Isiah Myers
3
2
12
0
0
4.00
66.67
0.00
0.00
Bobby Ratliff
5
4
33
0
2
6.60
80.00
0.00
40.00
Gino Simone
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Kristoff Williams
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Marquess Wilson
7
5
50
1
3
7.14
71.43
14.29
42.86
WR Totals
37
22
187
6
9
5.05
59.46
16.22
24.32
If 15 targets for Isiah Barton seems like a lot, it's because it is. It's the most any Cougar receiver has been targeted in a game this season. Barton has played pretty well this season but it's probably not ideal for him to get twice as many targets as Wilson. Wilson was involved early with three targets on the first two drives but was targeted just twice in the second half.
The 5.20 YPT was only the third lowest for Karstetter this season (side note: ouch), but two drops and two fumbles on five targets makes his actual performance even worse than the charted numbers. On the bright side, it would be nearly impossible to be any worse against Oregon State...I hope.
Player
Targets
Catches
Yards
Drops
1st Downs
YPT
Catch%
Drop%
1st Down%
Isiah Barton
54
33
380
7
19
7.04
61.11
12.96
35.19
Bennett Bontemps
2
1
10
0
1
5.00
50.00
0.00
50.00
Henry Eaddy
9
4
35
0
1
3.89
44.44
0.00
11.11
Jared Karstetter
46
27
280
6
16
6.09
58.70
13.04
34.78
Isiah Myers
11
6
63
0
3
5.73
54.55
0.00
27.27
Bobby Ratliff
25
18
189
1
12
7.56
72.00
4.00
48.00
Gino Simone
4
1
20
0
1
5.00
25.00
0.00
25.00
Kristoff Williams
10
7
113
1
4
11.30
70.00
10.00
40.00
Marquess Wilson
53
36
688
5
25
12.98
67.92
9.43
47.17
WR Totals
214
133
1778
20
82
8.31
62.15
9.35
38.32
This chart used to be so much fun to look at. After the Colorado game the receivers were averaging a robust 9.68 YPT. Now, their numbers are only slightly above the NCAA average. Barton's poor game against Stanford dropped his season numbers to below average levels meaning currently Wilson is the only receiver with more than 10 targets to post an above average YPT.
Karstetter's YPT is almost a full yard less than the 7.0 he averaged last year, but it that is largely a result of his lower catch rate. His current catch percentage of 58.70 is a substantial drop from the 65.96 he produced in 2010.
Take Marquess Wilson out of this chart and the totals would begin to look really ugly.
19 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I doubt it will get any worse that this last Saturday...
The rusty starting QB making his first start of the year against the best defense on the schedule. Yup, it can only get better from here…
Well lets looks at how the Coug's YPT related to S&P+ on passing downs
Predicting from the mediocre linear regression yields these YPT values for the rest of the season
ORST: 8.68
ORE: 6.36
CAL: 8.66
AZST: 6.81
UTAH: 7.38
WASH:10.32
Of course in reality these predictions are a bit spurious because Tuel will be in at QB and the original linear regression wasn’t that tight (R^2~0.3). I could probably get a better fit trying different predictive measures of defenses or fitting a non-linear model, but that is too much work.
by Kirt on Oct 19, 2011 7:30 PM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
Just curious.
Why did you use passing downs instead of overall passing S&P?
CougCenter In Reid We Trust, Twitter!
by Craig Powers on Oct 19, 2011 9:10 PM PDT up reply actions
My gut told me that a team's passing down defense would correlate tighter with the YPT by receivers than overall S&P, and I only really had time to try one thing quick.
Now, if I really had the time I would get the whole S&P & FEI, along with several traditional stats, and use either stepwise multiple regression or principal component analysis to tease out what seems to be the best predictor(s) for YPT, and then try to built a model around that. Also the relationship between YPT and opponent defense doesn’t look linear to me, but I didn’t really feel like going through the hassel of fitting a non-linear model.
The only player that has really worried me has been Karstetter
He is supposed to be Tuel’s security blanket. When the big play doesn’t work with Marquess or Barton it is nice to have a steady, reliable check down option, especially in a pass first offense. Those drops/fumbles were frustrating. On the plus side, everybody who knows him has said that he is a hard worker, smart, etc etc, so hopefully this is something he can work on and improve.
To me it looked like Karstetter was grasping the ball a bit late during the catch, like he was expecting a slower ball
…So I am hoping it was just a case of Karstetter not being used to the zip of Tuel’s throws, and that another week of practice will work it out.
Catch%
Hey Sandritter, I see there is one kid with at least 25 targets with a catch% of 72 and a 1st down% of 48 and a drop% of 4.0. WOW!! These numbers are the best of all the WR. Why Why Why isn’t this kid getting more targets. LOOK AT THE DROP%. Maybe he should have gotton some of those 15 that Barton got.
A very high percentage of those catches are on screen passes.
But that just makes the 1st down % that much more impressive.
I looked him up
Marvin Jones from Cal went to the same HS. Jones said 2 years ago on Scout.com that that kid catches everything… Maybe we should try more then screens. He has “12” 1st downs and has half the targets of each of our big 3
I agree we need to get him more targets.
I’ve been more impressed with Ratliff than any of our receivers this year. Maybe because I wasn’t expecting much. I also think if our offense is still stalling after a few drives in the OSU game it might be time for the offense to get a little more creative. Sometimes a successful trick play can really get a team going.
Trick play??
Don’t get me wrong, I like trick plays. I don’t think we are ready. I let my kids do them only if they are successful with the regular plays. Its like a prize. hahaha//
His catch rate is boosted by a lot of screens but Ratliff is going to be very good.
He’s only a redshirt freshman so he’s relatively inexperienced still. I’d expect a major breakout year from him next year when he takes over the primary slot duties and will be in line for most of Barton’s targets.
Next season you will likely see a lot of Wilson, a lot of Ratliff and then a group of about 4-5 others rotating.
by Mark Sandritter on Oct 19, 2011 8:08 PM PDT up reply actions
Lot of sreens
I agree but like cdalto said, “But that just makes the 1st down % that much more impressive.”
48% 1st downs?? Man that is good. I saw one catch of his on youtube in the UNLV game for 32 yards over the middle. I would like to find out if he can do more. I agree about next year but we need him or somebody NOW.
13 of his 18 catches have gained at least 8 yards.
Keep in mind though, Barton has been very good in four of the games and I’ve only seen Ratliff play the slot so he’s not likely to steal a ton of targets unless Barton gets hurt or his productivity falls off a cliff.
by Mark Sandritter on Oct 19, 2011 8:29 PM PDT up reply actions
Cougs have got to get back to stretching the field
As the long throws have diminished, so has efficiency. The safeties are up- denying the mid level throws and screens… testing the deep six early is a must. Many bubbles were close to braking against the stellar D of the Cardinal, vs. lesser defenses I think a few of those break. But surrendering the deep ball isn’t logical w/ Wilson’s skill set. Reestablish the deep test shots… it will back off the cover two veiled press coverage.
If you can't Go Cougs... don't go.
by hollyweirdcoug on Oct 19, 2011 10:07 PM PDT reply actions
I'm sure we'll see more of it moving forward
But going deep hasn’t really been a viable option the past two weeks. Nusser did a good job detailing the issues with throwing deep against UCLA (cover 2 + Marshall’s lack of arm strength) and this past week our offensive line gave us no ability whatsoever to take shots down field. Moving forward, neither of those two things should be an issue since Tuel has a stronger arm and we might not see a better front 7 than Stanford has for the rest of the season.
Streamin' and Threadin' and Shellin
by Shellin on Oct 20, 2011 12:24 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
Related FanPosts on CougCenter
Related FanShots on CougCenter
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
