Boldin and the domino effect

[john h]

This issue has more far-reaching implications than simply Boldin.

More and more the Cardinal franchise (who's not used to winning consistently) will have to deal with the problems that accompany growing success.

As more and more players arrive who play at a high level, more attention has to be paid toward retaining as many as possible. This, in turn, will place greater and greater stress on the budget and cap and challenge the front office's creativity in putting together deals.

I imagine that management of perennial playoff contenders are used to this situation and can automatically go to their "negotiations playbooks" to come up with the right answers. This figures to be more unexplored territory for the Cardinals.

In addition, well-intrenched contenders need only point to their W & L track records to sell their key players on remaining (let alone attract new players)

I think it's important we (a) make Q feel wanted and (b) get a deal done. Because it will help establish a positive precedent for addressing the challenges that figure to come fast and furious in the future.

I just do not think we can make a judgement on keeping him based on he fact that we know he is an outstanding receiver. We need to know what we are not going to get by signing him. What if signing Quan meant we would not sign an all pro running back? Quan or an all pro running back and I would take the running back as we need one and we still would have decent receivers. No one seem to be taking into consideration what is signing him going to cost and I do not mean in terms of money but players we want be able to sign.

 

[john h]

I also wonder if there's any residual "anger" over the way his knee injury was handled this year? Remember the stuff about who read the MRI and declared him fit to play, was he rushed back to practice etc? Quan himself said while rehabbing he wanted to make sure he was ok before he came back this time, implying that he felt someone screwed up the first time.

He might be thinking look they just showed me this year what their priority is, get me back on the field, so I better take care of myself and get my money now?

I think losing Quan would have much greater negative impact than some people realize, Quan is the heart and soul of this team in many ways from what I can tell. Portis had his friends in Denver, but a lot of his teammates didn't like him, I guarantee you there were people GLAD to see him get traded. I don't think that'll be true with Quan I'd bet he's one of the more popular players on the team.

I just hope we handle it well, if we don't it could be a major stumbling block.

I have sure never thought of him as the heart and soul of the team. Of course I am not in AZ but I do not see it on the field. Is he the heart and soul of the team? I do not know. If he is then it is hard to imagine him going public with his intention of holding out.

 

[Russ Smith]

I just do not think we can make a judgement on keeping him based on he fact that we know he is an outstanding receiver. We need to know what we are not going to get by signing him. What if signing Quan meant we would not sign an all pro running back? Quan or an all pro running back and I would take the running back as we need one and we still would have decent receivers. No one seem to be taking into consideration what is signing him going to cost and I do not mean in terms of money but players we want be able to sign.

OK but underpaying him the last 2 years should have allowed us to sign better players, and we won how many games as a result?

 

[Reddog]

I am of the mind that we get the deal done with Boldin in the next 30 days to clear the way for a productive off season with no distractions.

Luckily Dansby and Dockett didn't get any love in the D Rookie of the year area which creates separation between them and Quan (hey look Q finally got some separation). Each of them will get paid in their next contract if they continue to play which I believe they will. Drafting a R1 DT or LB at #8 could complicate things like it did with Q & Fits but I don’t see that happening.

 

[jerryp]

His DPAR at FootballOutsiders.com was in the 60s or 70s. His rookie season, Anquan didn't crack the top 10 in those rankings.

You know full well that DPAR is a cumulative stat and that playing more games will increase it. So obviously a player with only 10 starts will rank low in the category. DPAR per game might be a more valid comparison but I don't think misrepresenting FO's stats is going to help them overcome the "Gee, all catches are created equal so more is better!" mentality.

You read the site, you know this. Win converts by spreading the thruths of the system.

Edit: After reading Russ and k9 go back and forth over DVOA numbers. VOA is not good for individual players, it's meant for teams. Look at how the Cards offense ranks in VOA and you'll see why no one can separate themselves on the individual rankings. Which brings me to the second point, VOA was not designed as some metric that ranks all players. It's a tool for seeing how everyone compares when all their similar plays are compared. The idea isn't that you go "Quan's DPAR his rookie year sucked! How can you give him so much cash?" The purpose is so that you can look at the disconnect between his traditional stats and and VOA/PAR rating and ask, "Why does he have great regular numbers but poor FO numbers?"

This article on their site talks about receptions that are not considered successful. The article explains it all but basically things like screen passes that get blown up for a yard loss go on the stats as completions and inflate things like QB rating and completion percentage even though the play itself is pointless and in some cases (like my examples here) even worse than an incomplete pass. Read the article and see who had the most failed completes. That may give some insight into why Quan had great numbers his rookie year but was merely league average in VOA.

I also asked the main FO stat guy who was leading in complete failures this year. McCown was ranked tenth (I think) for QB's. I can't remember if I asked during the period he was benched or not. I can look up details if you're interested. Point is, it looks like according to FO's numbers our offense as a whole features conservative play calling the results in a high percentage of completions that don't accomplish their objective (first downs).

Now, don't you people who actually get to watch the games often complain about poor play calling and wasn't Green's goals to lead in first downs (which we failed)?

 

[john h]

OK but underpaying him the last 2 years should have allowed us to sign better players, and we won how many games as a result?

The first year we did not underpay him as we had no idea what we had. Neither did the rest of the league as he was paid according to where he was drafted. I think few players get a raise in their second year regardless of how good they played their first year. Teams have to have some integrity with their contracts as once you start renegotating with every players who has a good year it will be never ending and it will be expected by all your quality players. Management needs to maintain some sort of control over their expenses in an orderly manner. I sure do not want to lose him and it would be a toss up as to whether I had rather lose him or Fitz other than I still do not know much about his injury. If he wants money and bonus equal to Fitz then I think we are in a world of hurt. I DO think the Cards will be willing to give him a raise and new contract but not on the order of Fitz as he was a number 3 pick. If Boldin insist on a Fitz contract it tells me he wants out of here. He wold be an idiot to sit for a year as it is hard to make up the money lost and other teams are not looking for a guy to cause trouble. That being said I think he will be here next year and will play but may not attend training camp. He will not throw away the money. Just how much money does everyone think we should give him and how long a contract? Do people think we should match the Fitz deal? There would be very serious consequences with other players, not having enough money to get players we need,etc. It is not enough to just say resign him we must say resign him at what price?

 

[john h]

You know full well that DPAR is a cumulative stat and that playing more games will increase it. So obviously a player with only 10 starts will rank low in the category. DPAR per game might be a more valid comparison but I don't think misrepresenting FO's stats is going to help them overcome the "Gee, all catches are created equal so more is better!" mentality.

You read the site, you know this. Win converts by spreading the thruths of the system.

Edit: After reading Russ and k9 go back and forth over DVOA numbers. VOA is not good for individual players, it's meant for teams. Look at how the Cards offense ranks in VOA and you'll see why no one can separate themselves on the individual rankings. Which brings me to the second point, VOA was not designed as some metric that ranks all players. It's a tool for seeing how everyone compares when all their similar plays are compared. The idea isn't that you go "Quan's DPAR his rookie year sucked! How can you give him so much cash?" The purpose is so that you can look at the disconnect between his traditional stats and and VOA/PAR rating and ask, "Why does he have great regular numbers but poor FO numbers?"

This article on their site talks about receptions that are not considered successful. The article explains it all but basically things like screen passes that get blown up for a yard loss go on the stats as completions and inflate things like QB rating and completion percentage even though the play itself is pointless and in some cases (like my examples here) even worse than an incomplete pass. Read the article and see who had the most failed completes. That may give some insight into why Quan had great numbers his rookie year but was merely league average in VOA.

I also asked the main FO stat guy who was leading in complete failures this year. McCown was ranked tenth (I think) for QB's. I can't remember if I asked during the period he was benched or not. I can look up details if you're interested. Point is, it looks like according to FO's numbers our offense as a whole features conservative play calling the results in a high percentage of completions that don't accomplish their objective (first downs).

Now, don't you people who actually get to watch the games often complain about poor play calling and wasn't Green's goals to lead in first downs (which we failed)?

Informative post.

 

[Russ Smith]

Edit: After reading Russ and k9 go back and forth over DVOA numbers. VOA is not good for individual players, it's meant for teams. Look at how the Cards offense ranks in VOA and you'll see why no one can separate themselves on the individual rankings. Which brings me to the second point, VOA was not designed as some metric that ranks all players. It's a tool for seeing how everyone compares when all their similar plays are compared. The idea isn't that you go "Quan's DPAR his rookie year sucked! How can you give him so much cash?" The purpose is so that you can look at the disconnect between his traditional stats and and VOA/PAR rating and ask, "Why does he have great regular numbers but poor FO numbers?"

)?

That was my point to K9 that DPAR seemed to be the correct stat to use for comparison because it was comparing a player to replacement value and thus seemed to be "designed" to be used for comparison.

I admit I haven't read enough on that site to know for example that the stat is rewarding a player for games played and in effect punishing a player for missing games(not arguing with it just didn't know that to be the case) which as you said explains why Quan's value is lower.

I'll have to read more but I think the probelm I have with your useless play thing is that not all screen passes go for losses, some of them go for first downs, big gains, and touchdowns. So saying it lost yardage it was useless misses the point, if the defense makes the play good for them, if they don't, it's a very safe pass that can work, both the Colts and Denver used it repeatedly yesterday with success.

QUan had 101 catches as a rookie, 62 for first downs, so if he had the highest number of "useless" plays it was because of the sheer number of balls thrown to him. Certainly being the favorite target means more catches, but it also means more times where you're not open and the ball is thrown near you incomplete.

There was one game last year, I think it was the blowout to SF, where Fox was showing a montage of plays where Quan was "open" and Blake missed him. On most of those plays the safety was sitting there waiting and Blake threw wide to be "safe" as in the only guy who will catch this is Quan, if he can't, it's incomplete. There will be no pick, and no QUan getting laid out by the safety. That goes down on the stats as a throw to Quan that failed, but it was in essence a QB throwing a ball away, but in the vicinity of his best WR in case the guy can make a great catch.

I have no doubt the 101 catches were padded by the team always being behind and Blake being a QB who finds a WR he likes and goes to him, although McCown went to him a lot too. I don't think Quan is Moss or Harrison, but I think he's better than K9 is giving him credit for. The real knock on him is can he stay healthy. WR's who catch lots of balls and move the chains are valuable whether they are fast or not, and Quan should be faster next year when he's healthy and presumably slimmed down a bit, I think he bulked up too much after the pounding he took in 03 in the Sullivan system.

 

[Russ Smith]

Here's the quote from Aaron Schatz on "complete failures" which makes it pretty clear he's aware that his stat probably doesn't "fairly" account for "Anquan Boldin in 2003.

Over on the wide receiver side, Anquan Boldin was the league leader in failed completes which helps to explain why his DVOA was near league average. These numbers for both Boldin and Tomlinson are a good demonstration of why DVOA and DPAR, as proud as I am of their creation, are still imperfect for measuring receivers. They still depend on the offense the player is in and the quarterback throwing the ball. That means that a player like Boldin is thrown the ball on more long yardage downs, and even though the system corrects for the fact that it is harder to succeed on these downs, it doesn’t correct for the fact that it is harder to succeed on these downs when your quarterback isn’t very good and you are the team’s only quality receiver. Hello, double teams! "

Basically what he said is both Quan and LT in 2003 were the victim of an offense that would consistently dump the ball off short of the first down and punt. LT had 58 such catches, Quan only 24, which led the NFL, just slightly ahead of that piker Marvin Harrison.

I gotta read that site more frequently, they're basically taking the sabermetric baseball stuff and applying it to football, I like what they'e doing.

 

[HookemCards]

Players that had more passes thrown to them than Anquan Boldin in 2003 (165):

Torry Holt: 183 (12 TDs)
Randy Moss: 172 (18 TDs)

Anquan had more balls thrown to him last year than Marvin Harrison, but a number of players (besides Harrison) notched 10 or more TDs in fewer chances, like Chad Johnson (11 in 154), Hines Ward (10 in 156), Santana Moss (11 in an astounding 117), Chris Chambers (12 in 130), Joe Horn (10 in 130).

Not one of those guys were rookies, and a vast majority of them played on far superior offensive teams. I'll agree that Boldin isn't the speed reciever that most of your tier one and two recievers are, but its next to impossible to see his importance in this offense. If you look at rookie numbers for all those guys, they were far less impressive than Boldin's.