<a class="postlink" href="http://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2013/04/04/the-elusiveness-factor-patterson-austin-woods-by-nick-whalen/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2013/04/04/th ... ck-whalen/</a>
Really long comparison of Patteron-Austin-Woods (link)
- Thread starter -X-
- Start date
-
To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
<a class="postlink" href="http://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2013/04/04/the-elusiveness-factor-patterson-austin-woods-by-nick-whalen/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2013/04/04/th ... ck-whalen/</a>
"The difference in how efficient these three players are with making defenders miss is startling. It’s hard to believe Austin and Woods combined still made fewer defenders miss than Patterson on a percentage-per-play basis."
.
.
.
"Patterson has made more defenders miss on fewer plays than Austin and Woods. To the naked eye, the Tennessee wide receiver’s open field skills are at a level above the rest of the wide receiver class."
.
.
.
"Woods may not make as many players miss as Austin or Patterson, but his skill as a route runner and pass catcher should make him a fit in any NFL system. Woods’ big plays come from the catch itself more often than after it.
Austin might show us a facet of his game that wasn’t used much at West Virginia, but it’s more likely that he’ll be a short-to-intermediate threat whose big plays come after the catch. It means he’ll have to become a high-volume receiver in the NFL with the versatility to contribute as a runner is packages that include screens, draws, toss plays and jet sweeps.
Patterson has the physical dimensions, budding skills, and experience to earn a living like Woods, but his special skill for creating after the catch at a higher level could make him a Pro-Bowl player, but if his skill at making defenders miss diminishes versus the enhanced athleticism of the NFL and he doesn’t compensate by learning the techniques that Woods displays to get open, the Tennessee wunderkind could flop. For Patterson it might come down to how special his elusiveness is and this sample reveals it might be good enough."
.
.
.
"Patterson has made more defenders miss on fewer plays than Austin and Woods. To the naked eye, the Tennessee wide receiver’s open field skills are at a level above the rest of the wide receiver class."
.
.
.
"Woods may not make as many players miss as Austin or Patterson, but his skill as a route runner and pass catcher should make him a fit in any NFL system. Woods’ big plays come from the catch itself more often than after it.
Austin might show us a facet of his game that wasn’t used much at West Virginia, but it’s more likely that he’ll be a short-to-intermediate threat whose big plays come after the catch. It means he’ll have to become a high-volume receiver in the NFL with the versatility to contribute as a runner is packages that include screens, draws, toss plays and jet sweeps.
Patterson has the physical dimensions, budding skills, and experience to earn a living like Woods, but his special skill for creating after the catch at a higher level could make him a Pro-Bowl player, but if his skill at making defenders miss diminishes versus the enhanced athleticism of the NFL and he doesn’t compensate by learning the techniques that Woods displays to get open, the Tennessee wunderkind could flop. For Patterson it might come down to how special his elusiveness is and this sample reveals it might be good enough."
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #3
Yep. It was a very interesting read.
If the Rams are invested in developing another receiver, then I'm ALL OVER them picking up Patterson. Just think about it. *IF* they both (Quick and Patterson) develop according to plan, we'd be set at SE and FL for the next several years. You can plug slot guys in year after year until you get it right, but getting a lethal combo on the outsides is an absolute luxury.
If the Rams are invested in developing another receiver, then I'm ALL OVER them picking up Patterson. Just think about it. *IF* they both (Quick and Patterson) develop according to plan, we'd be set at SE and FL for the next several years. You can plug slot guys in year after year until you get it right, but getting a lethal combo on the outsides is an absolute luxury.
shaunpinney
Hall of Fame
Was that article written by Patterson's agent??
One stat that I found interesting which wasn't in there was the TD count for this sample size, and you know what I think I know why....
So, I've added some of my own stats to this finding and using the % math the original article uses....
Patterson
REC: 46
Yds: 778
TD: 5
PCT: 11%
Austin
REC: 114
YDS: 1289
TD: 12
PCT: 11%
Woods
REC: 186
YDS: 2138
TD: 26
PCT: 14%
So, from using the sample period as with the original article, it looks like Woods can sniff out the end-zone a little more, and I don't care if he gets tackled there
One stat that I found interesting which wasn't in there was the TD count for this sample size, and you know what I think I know why....
So, I've added some of my own stats to this finding and using the % math the original article uses....
Patterson
REC: 46
Yds: 778
TD: 5
PCT: 11%
Austin
REC: 114
YDS: 1289
TD: 12
PCT: 11%
Woods
REC: 186
YDS: 2138
TD: 26
PCT: 14%
So, from using the sample period as with the original article, it looks like Woods can sniff out the end-zone a little more, and I don't care if he gets tackled there
Ram Quixote
Knight Errant
I dunno. Pursuit in the NFL is a beast. A player like Patterson can get into trouble trying to get extra yards instead of first downs.
One on one, that elusiveness will be dangerous, but getting him into space, particularly as a receiver, could be problematic.
One on one, that elusiveness will be dangerous, but getting him into space, particularly as a receiver, could be problematic.
shaunpinney
Hall of Fame
Sorry but I know I may be in the wrong camp to others when it comes to Patterson, but I've seen plenty of guys be able to dance, spin, jink and side-step their way around the opposition, but scoring TDs is an important factor, and being a WR in the right position is something we need....
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #7
I don't think there are any camps, per se'. There's a lot of receivers in this draft, and the opinions of them on this board are widely spread out it seems. I honestly haven't seen anyone with Patterson's moves since the days of Marshall Faulk, and I don't think his lack of TD production can be seen as a negative at this point. If he's got big play potential (and he does), then he'd just be part of the mix of guys who can get the ball TO the redzone, and then we can turn it over to guys like Cook, Kendricks or Pettis.shaunpinney said:
shaunpinney
Hall of Fame
The Dude said:
It's the raw-ness that worries me, I mean he's got a great catch radius and his elusiveness after the catch is great - but i think my biggest concern is raw-ness and the fact that in some games he doesn't seem to show up, has a few drop issues and of last years stats 220 yards and 1 TD came from 1 game (the same game had Hunter score 3TDs on 181 yards).
He does have big play potential, but is he just the same as Givens? Or is his upside his elusiveness? The below figures I also find interesting
Patterson: AVG per game 65
Austin: AVG per game 99
Woods: AVG per game 65
The only thing I can say is, there is not much between the WRs in this draft, it seems that the only thing we have to look at who is the best fit for the Rams and who will best compliment the existing WRs and Sam.
Who that is I don't know....
I know a lot of people think that choosing a player with Austin's skill set is kind of a "luxury" pick and "we have too many holes to be able to take a luxury pick" but I look at the filed position game as anything BUT a luxury. I seem to recall Fish talking about it quite a bit as well. We NEED to improve the return game. If we picked Tavon and all he did was return kicks and punts and come in on gadget plays and 3rd downs, I'd be ok with it.
I don't buy into the camp that says you have to get an every down player with your first round pick. Personally, I think you have to get a player that impacts the game - period. Every down players can actually be had up and down the board come draft day. Impact players are a different breed.
All that being said, I certainly wouldn't shed a tear at picking up Patterson OR Woods. I think Woods may surprise some and it is entirely possible he doesn't make it to the 2nd round. I think taking him at 22 or 16 would be a reach though. If we addressed other wants and he is sitting there at #46, I think that would be a pretty dam good pick up.
I'll be surprised if we have a shot at Patterson. That size and apparent skill set is going to be hard for teams to pass on. I'm going to guess that he goes in the top 10.
I don't buy into the camp that says you have to get an every down player with your first round pick. Personally, I think you have to get a player that impacts the game - period. Every down players can actually be had up and down the board come draft day. Impact players are a different breed.
All that being said, I certainly wouldn't shed a tear at picking up Patterson OR Woods. I think Woods may surprise some and it is entirely possible he doesn't make it to the 2nd round. I think taking him at 22 or 16 would be a reach though. If we addressed other wants and he is sitting there at #46, I think that would be a pretty dam good pick up.
I'll be surprised if we have a shot at Patterson. That size and apparent skill set is going to be hard for teams to pass on. I'm going to guess that he goes in the top 10.
bwdenverram
Legend
shaunpinney said:Was that article written by Patterson's agent??
One stat that I found interesting which wasn't in there was the TD count for this sample size, and you know what I think I know why....
So, I've added some of my own stats to this finding and using the % math the original article uses....
Patterson
REC: 46
Yds: 778
TD: 5
PCT: 11%
Austin
REC: 114
YDS: 1289
TD: 12
PCT: 11%
Woods
REC: 186
YDS: 2138
TD: 26
PCT: 14%
So, from using the sample period as with the original article, it looks like Woods can sniff out the end-zone a little more, and I don't care if he gets tackled there
You realize you're comparing Patterson and Austin's numbers of ONE year VS. Woods, I believe, his college career?
That's also not adding Austin's numbers as a RB as well. Woods may be the more polished WR, but when you factor in eveything Austin and Patterson have brought to special teams it probably not close to apples comparison.
JMO.
libertadrocks
Hall of Fame
Interesting read. I have to wonder about the conclusion tho.
I see a distinct difference in the way Patterson and Austin act with the ball in their hands. Patterson is more of an east/west guy. The cuts and moves he makes on defenders are sick, but because he doesnt always try and immediately go up field, thus he has more opportunities to make less athletic defenders miss. Those defenders are also often more flat footed. Austin goes go field quickly. He is more of a one cut and go guy. Trying to use his speed to outrun defenders to the endzone.
IMO the difference in running styles could have distorted the results of this study.
I think Patterson has the chance to be great. His ceiling is as high as any WR in the league(sans Megatron). Just not sure this author did a great job in the way he decided to conduct his study. JMHO
I see a distinct difference in the way Patterson and Austin act with the ball in their hands. Patterson is more of an east/west guy. The cuts and moves he makes on defenders are sick, but because he doesnt always try and immediately go up field, thus he has more opportunities to make less athletic defenders miss. Those defenders are also often more flat footed. Austin goes go field quickly. He is more of a one cut and go guy. Trying to use his speed to outrun defenders to the endzone.
IMO the difference in running styles could have distorted the results of this study.
I think Patterson has the chance to be great. His ceiling is as high as any WR in the league(sans Megatron). Just not sure this author did a great job in the way he decided to conduct his study. JMHO
shaunpinney
Hall of Fame
Interesting to see how our existing corps compare to the PAW trio...
Patterson
REC: 46
Yds: 778
TD: 5
PCT: 11%
AVG per game: 65yds
Austin
REC: 114
YDS: 1289
TD: 12
PCT: 11%
AVG per game: 99yds
Woods
REC: 186
YDS: 2138
TD: 26
PCT: 14%
AVG per game: 65yds
[hil]Quick
REC: 71
YDS: 1096
TD: 11
PCT: 14%
AVG per game: 91yds
Givens
REC: 83
YDS: 1330
TD: 9
PCT: 15%
AVG per game: 102yds
Pettis
REC: 71
YDS: 951
TD: 10
PCT: 14%
AVG per game: 102yds[/hil]
Patterson
REC: 46
Yds: 778
TD: 5
PCT: 11%
AVG per game: 65yds
Austin
REC: 114
YDS: 1289
TD: 12
PCT: 11%
AVG per game: 99yds
Woods
REC: 186
YDS: 2138
TD: 26
PCT: 14%
AVG per game: 65yds
[hil]Quick
REC: 71
YDS: 1096
TD: 11
PCT: 14%
AVG per game: 91yds
Givens
REC: 83
YDS: 1330
TD: 9
PCT: 15%
AVG per game: 102yds
Pettis
REC: 71
YDS: 951
TD: 10
PCT: 14%
AVG per game: 102yds[/hil]
shaunpinney
Hall of Fame
bwdenverram said:shaunpinney said:Was that article written by Patterson's agent??
One stat that I found interesting which wasn't in there was the TD count for this sample size, and you know what I think I know why....
So, I've added some of my own stats to this finding and using the % math the original article uses....
Patterson
REC: 46
Yds: 778
TD: 5
PCT: 11%
Austin
REC: 114
YDS: 1289
TD: 12
PCT: 11%
Woods
REC: 186
YDS: 2138
TD: 26
PCT: 14%
So, from using the sample period as with the original article, it looks like Woods can sniff out the end-zone a little more, and I don't care if he gets tackled there
You realize you're comparing Patterson and Austin's numbers of ONE year VS. Woods, I believe, his college career?
That's also not adding Austin's numbers as a RB as well. Woods may be the more polished WR, but when you factor in eveything Austin and Patterson have brought to special teams it probably not close to apples comparison.
JMO.
I do realize that I'm comparing 2 of woods year's in college to one of Austin and Patterson, but that's what the guy in the article had done...
And yes, i'm not comparing the RB numbers for Austin, again, because the guy in the article hadn't, I was taking his lead with my numbers...
And the article is comparing the players as WRs not RBs/KRs/PRs etc...
I'm not trying to knock any of the players, just picking out some stats the journo had not included.
I like Austin, he brings a lot to the table and has that x-factor, and Patterson has that elusiveness and Woods seems to be an NFL ready WR, and there are a lot of guys in the draft that could also do a job for us - I think it has a lot to do with the team though, which PERSON is the best fit - we saw how quickly Titus Young got ejected - "For the good of the team"
I have to take my hat off to Fisher and Snead, they're not trying to build a team of full of elite athletes or prima donnas they're building an elite team
bwdenverram
Legend
shaunpinney said:bwdenverram said:shaunpinney said:Was that article written by Patterson's agent??
One stat that I found interesting which wasn't in there was the TD count for this sample size, and you know what I think I know why....
So, I've added some of my own stats to this finding and using the % math the original article uses....
Patterson
REC: 46
Yds: 778
TD: 5
PCT: 11%
Austin
REC: 114
YDS: 1289
TD: 12
PCT: 11%
Woods
REC: 186
YDS: 2138
TD: 26
PCT: 14%
So, from using the sample period as with the original article, it looks like Woods can sniff out the end-zone a little more, and I don't care if he gets tackled there
You realize you're comparing Patterson and Austin's numbers of ONE year VS. Woods, I believe, his college career?
That's also not adding Austin's numbers as a RB as well. Woods may be the more polished WR, but when you factor in eveything Austin and Patterson have brought to special teams it probably not close to apples comparison.
JMO.
I do realize that I'm comparing 2 of woods year's in college to one of Austin and Patterson, but that's what the guy in the article had done...
And yes, i'm not comparing the RB numbers for Austin, again, because the guy in the article hadn't, I was taking his lead with my numbers...
And the article is comparing the players as WRs not RBs/KRs/PRs etc...
I'm not trying to knock any of the players, just picking out some stats the journo had not included.
I like Austin, he brings a lot to the table and has that x-factor, and Patterson has that elusiveness and Woods seems to be an NFL ready WR, and there are a lot of guys in the draft that could also do a job for us - I think it has a lot to do with the team though, which PERSON is the best fit - we saw how quickly Titus Young got ejected - "For the good of the team"
I have to take my hat off to Fisher and Snead, they're not trying to build a team of full of elite athletes or prima donnas they're building an elite team
Gotcha bro. I guess I'm just too much of an Austin homer. Can't seem to take the glasses off :cheese:
To be honest, I'll root for whoever we end up with. I just don't want any receiver though. I want someone who can break it to the house anytime he touches it from anywhere. So if we don't go Austin, I would prefer Patterson. He may be more raw now but obviously has a ton of upside. I have no issue with Woods, but I think it would be a reach pick in RD1. It's going to be very interesting to see how this thing shakes out for sure.
duckhunter
Starter
Here's some jumbled thoughts and questions rolling around in my head:
If you're a WR and the QB and OC can't get you the ball because you have poor hands or can't run routes or don't have enough experience to make the correct adjustments to the defensive alignment it doesn't do much good studying how well receivers do with the ball after it's in their hands. Because the OC will have you riding pine like Quick last year. This report very well could have been just that. It's like a pitcher with a 110 mph fastball with lots of movement but has no control to get it close to the plate.
There's a ton to love about Patterson but his route running isn't one of them and I've seen other analysis that question his hands. Another year would have gave him time to develop his craft and removed these doubts by putting up so bigger numbers on the outside and showing the hands and route running everyone is looking for. So I don't know how teams will eventually grade him. We've only got the one year of mediocre production #s and it's impossible to extrapolate any college numbers going forward.
Heck, the other day Polian was on TV questioning whether Patterson and Austin might not have reading deficiencies based off there intel scores. He said he had no inside info but that would have to be resolved before he, as a GM, went much farther on either one. He said he has seen and dealt with these issues before.
We just don't see the reliance of bubble screens, nine routes and drags in the pros as often as you do in college and that is how so many of spread offenses get the ball to these guys. The route tree in the pros trips up as many receivers as anything.
Just consider me cautious and old. I'd hate to be the one pulling the trigger because then you're putting your credentials in the hands of a receiver's coach who may or may not be able to get it out of someone.
If you're a WR and the QB and OC can't get you the ball because you have poor hands or can't run routes or don't have enough experience to make the correct adjustments to the defensive alignment it doesn't do much good studying how well receivers do with the ball after it's in their hands. Because the OC will have you riding pine like Quick last year. This report very well could have been just that. It's like a pitcher with a 110 mph fastball with lots of movement but has no control to get it close to the plate.
There's a ton to love about Patterson but his route running isn't one of them and I've seen other analysis that question his hands. Another year would have gave him time to develop his craft and removed these doubts by putting up so bigger numbers on the outside and showing the hands and route running everyone is looking for. So I don't know how teams will eventually grade him. We've only got the one year of mediocre production #s and it's impossible to extrapolate any college numbers going forward.
Heck, the other day Polian was on TV questioning whether Patterson and Austin might not have reading deficiencies based off there intel scores. He said he had no inside info but that would have to be resolved before he, as a GM, went much farther on either one. He said he has seen and dealt with these issues before.
We just don't see the reliance of bubble screens, nine routes and drags in the pros as often as you do in college and that is how so many of spread offenses get the ball to these guys. The route tree in the pros trips up as many receivers as anything.
Just consider me cautious and old. I'd hate to be the one pulling the trigger because then you're putting your credentials in the hands of a receiver's coach who may or may not be able to get it out of someone.
Here's the problem you run into with statistical analysis, people often fail to point out flaws in their own analysis. I find that evaluating by eye is much better.
What flaws might his analysis have? Lets consider the reception total:
Patterson - 16 receptions with 27 eluded
Austin - 44 receptions with 25 eluded
Woods - 66 receptions with 24 eluded
The sample sizes aren't fair to Austin or Woods...especially Woods. Patterson has a little over a third of the receptions that Austin does in the sample size and less than a fourth of Woods's sample size. You can't make accurate efficiency judgments off of sample sizes that differ so greatly.
For example:
<a class="postlink" href="http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:8353769" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:8353769</a>
<a class="postlink" href="http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:8586697" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:8586697</a>
<a class="postlink" href="http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:8587025" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:8587025</a>
<a class="postlink" href="http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:8587156" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:8587156</a>
That's 25% of Patterson's sample size and probably 50% to 75% if of his defender's eluded...and it came against Georgia State and Troy. Do you think it's a good idea to make judgments about a guy's pro potential based on Georgia State and Troy? I don't.
IMO, they should have removed non-conference games for all WRs...but Patterson likely wouldn't have had a big enough sample size to make a point here and his elusive numbers would have taken a big hit.
If people want to argue that Patterson is more elusive, that's perfectly fine. My own eyes tell me that it's not true. But it's a fair argument.
And as interesting as statistical analysis is, it often comes with a lot of flaws and biases which make you question if a person went into it objectively or if they were trying to prove their point.
Thank you for posting, X, it was a good read though.
What flaws might his analysis have? Lets consider the reception total:
Patterson - 16 receptions with 27 eluded
Austin - 44 receptions with 25 eluded
Woods - 66 receptions with 24 eluded
The sample sizes aren't fair to Austin or Woods...especially Woods. Patterson has a little over a third of the receptions that Austin does in the sample size and less than a fourth of Woods's sample size. You can't make accurate efficiency judgments off of sample sizes that differ so greatly.
For example:
<a class="postlink" href="http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:8353769" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:8353769</a>
<a class="postlink" href="http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:8586697" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:8586697</a>
<a class="postlink" href="http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:8587025" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:8587025</a>
<a class="postlink" href="http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:8587156" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:8587156</a>
That's 25% of Patterson's sample size and probably 50% to 75% if of his defender's eluded...and it came against Georgia State and Troy. Do you think it's a good idea to make judgments about a guy's pro potential based on Georgia State and Troy? I don't.
IMO, they should have removed non-conference games for all WRs...but Patterson likely wouldn't have had a big enough sample size to make a point here and his elusive numbers would have taken a big hit.
If people want to argue that Patterson is more elusive, that's perfectly fine. My own eyes tell me that it's not true. But it's a fair argument.
And as interesting as statistical analysis is, it often comes with a lot of flaws and biases which make you question if a person went into it objectively or if they were trying to prove their point.
Thank you for posting, X, it was a good read though.
shaunpinney
Hall of Fame
bwdenverram said:
I wouldn't be surprised if they don't take a WR in RD1, but in RD2, which is where I saw Woods landing...
shaunpinney
Hall of Fame
duckhunter said:
This is some of the issues I have with him, I've seen footage of him running all over the place, East - to West and back again, sometimes backwards - of course he's going to have eluded more defenders, he's running around more of them! He won't have that luxury in the NFL....
duckhunter said:
This is why I think we'll choose the right player for the team, not just the biggest name BPA, I can't see Fisher/Snead selecting a guy who's going to be a pain to work with or get anything out of....
(and I'm not saying any of these 3 are) just a comment on picking whats right for the team...
shaunpinney said:
Yeah - I can get with all this - especially the bolded part(s). I am no scout and haven't put in the time that even many of the non-scouts here and in the media have put in. I can look at some limited tape and look at stats, 40 times, blah blah blah but (stupid cliche here) at the end of the dayay, I'll rely on Fish, Snead, and our scouting dept. to really know what they're seeing.
And Duck - so considered. :7up:
