The Myth of Gilmore's "Bad Hands"

[joeshmo]

Joe, you seem like a fairly reasonable and unbiased fan, from what I've seen.

Let me ask you this. Do you think that the increased "touches" of the ball have any correlation to the % shown in either the "drops per target" or "drop per reception"?

I would think, like most stats and probabilities, it is a factor.

Yes and no. When you cmpare a player with a lot of targets and receptions to one with a low amount that does play a factor.

But when you compare like numbers in the targeted and rec. categories it is very easy to compare 2 players percentages as they are on a level playing field. Which is why I would compare the numbers of Poole with Gilmore as the best indicator. Comparing Gilmore to Boldin or Harrison is unfair.

Just like I would be willing to bet that McCaddleys numbers wouldn't be quite so atrocious if he had a "domain" or "database" that was larger.

I shouldnt have even done McCaddleys numbers, as only 4 receptions is an unfair standard toi making his percentages but I do feel that 10 or more is more then fair.

I would compare it to flipping a coin...in a short period the odds are easier to be skewed...the more tries the more "accurate" the "reality" of those figures.
You can flip 10 heads in a row, but the more you flip the more those numbers will approach the theoretical 50%.

The odds of that happening are lower then 3% according to the little random number generator program i did really quickly, so that is a bad comparison. Plus flipping a coin flip relies on "chance" which is a big difference to catching a ball where the odds rely on skill. So this analogy has no baring or comparison on the percentages that I laid out.

Marvin Harrison might drop 4 balls in his first 16 receptions but none in the next 40...so as with all stats...they don't tell the WHOLE story.

That is true, players do go through hot and cold streaks so more receptions may or may not have a barring on the percentages of dropped balls. But the simple fact remains that Gilmore didnt get a lot of catches and dropped a lot of balls compared to his catches, he should have made better use of the limited chances he got(see Pooles numbers and see what I mean). So becuase Gilmores stats were very low and had to many dropped balls compared to those stats he leaves himself open to the critisizm of the "bads hands rap". It is all about preception and only 17 catches and 4 dropped balls doesnt look good any way you look at it.

 

[Crimson Warrior]

Because he has skillet hands,

yikes!

when I read that it was like listening to finger nails on a chalk board.

For some reason that is just wrong.

 

[Sandan]

Tango, I hate to disagree with a stat-fest but the fact is I watched Gilmore drop lots of passes in practice last year.

Having said that he seems to have figured out how to catch this year.

 

[CardinalChris]

why are you fighting about a starting wr with 16 catches. Shouldnt be in the nfl or nfl europe.

It's like fighting if the water boy should use Gatorade or Powerade.

 

[Tangodnzr]

Tango, I hate to disagree with a stat-fest but the fact is I watched Gilmore drop lots of passes in practice last year.

Having said that he seems to have figured out how to catch this year.

....and THAT is exactly part of my whole point.
....after all many here have already labeled, condemned and written him off.
....his "bad hands" seemingly some pervasive genetic defect that can never be overcome.

I only saw the two "drops" on tape. I didn't look at the Detroit game, in which he had one and the Vikes game, with one also. Two plays I screwed up the pause button and didn't get recorded. (we don't have none of that fancy Tivo stuff out here in the boonies.)
I do remember the one Harpo was probably referring to, but I haven't seen it in replaying the tapes.
The two that I saw were both almost carbon copies of each other. He basically ran stop patterns and was standing still with his shoulders square to the QB. On both occasions he did what TV color analysts are always referring to as, "not receiving the ball with his hands, but letting it get to his body and then try and trap it there. "
Usually that seems more a case of poor concentration than "bad hands" as in "stone fingers", etc.
That seems to happen to a surprising number of players once in awhile, where you can only shake your head at and wonder how they could NOT have caught it, as you would expect a Pop Warner kid to even consistantly do it.

It amazes me how, just because I don't agree with all the pre-determined perceptions some people seem to have, then in simplistic, dualistic fashion I get pidgeon-holed into being too pro-biased.
I just haven't written him off yet, like so many, seem so often to do, with so little provocation. with so many players.

His was the starting job last year, and he rightfully lost it. That concerns me, and I would pretty much agree with what Russ said, and while I agree that he doesn't have the "agility" or "elusiveness" of Quan, I haven't seen him as a purely straight line runner either.
He seems intelligent, no attitude problem, nor lazy, or "not trying".
For some reason, he just needs to put it together and produce more consistantly. To me he still seems to have the talent to do that...its just a question more of ...will he?

He's not a bum. I don't think he's hopeless. But it is time for him to unload or get off the pot. Unlike many, I haven't written him off yet.

joeschmo brought up an important point.....perception.

I agree with the numbers he put up last year, that he does leave himself open for criticism. But I think some of the pervading perceptions by some of the "fans" here may be a wee bit skewed.
If you check out his bio:
http://nfl.com/players/playerpage/192284

You will see that yes indeed he has been "on the team" for 4 years, but in 200 he played in 1 game, 2001 he played in 2 games, in 2002 played in 7 games,....with 1 reception for 14 yds. So going into this year he had 0 starts, little actual playing time, and 1 reception.
So, in that sense, this was his rookie year. Running routes in practice and standing on the sidelines is no where near the same as actual game experience...and this seems another area that those with their pre-meditated negative mindset gloss over or even try to twist in a way to seem compatible with their pre-determined take.

Should he be producing better? I have never argued that at all.

 

[Tangodnzr]

Originally Posted by swd1974
why are you fighting about a starting wr with 16 catches. Shouldnt be in the nfl or nfl europe.

LOL....and shouldn't YOU be able to compose a complete and coherant sentence, and maybe even add in correct grammar and punctuation?

BIM might eat you alive.

 

[Duckjake]

One thing that really jumps out in the stats posted on Gilmore is that he only caught around 37% of the passes thrown to him. Boldin and Harrison are in the 60%+ range.

Frank Sanders always had a reputation of dropping the easy one and then making a circus catch a couple of plays later. Regardless he was still a solid player for the Cardinals. In his first 5 seasons Frank had 364 catches and led the team with 89 grabs for over a 1000 yards in their playoff year. Not bad for a #2 WR.

 

[Tangodnzr]

One thing that really jumps out in the stats posted on Gilmore is that he only caught around 37% of the passes thrown to him. Boldin and Harrison are in the 60%+ range.

Frank Sanders always had a reputation of dropping the easy one and then making a circus catch a couple of plays later. Regardless he was still a solid player for the Cardinals. In his first 5 seasons Frank had 364 catches and led the team with 89 grabs for over a 1000 yards in their playoff year. Not bad for a #2 WR.

Obviously you seem to missing a fundamental concept here...exactly the one that my post addressed:
Namely that a lot of incompletes are more due to the fact that the ball was simply not catchable. "Target" means only that the receiver was the one the statistician designated as whom the likely target was, thus the need for adding the "drops" catagory...where the ball WAS catchable, but the receiver just didn't catch it.
A perfect example was Gilmore's incomplete in the Carolina game. McCown simply threw the ball out of bounds no where near any actual receiver, yet because Gilmore was deemed the closest...even though he was 10 yards or more away...he got credited with the incomplete.
The percentages you manufactured are totally bogus, and more likely an indictment of the QB's inability to accurately throw the ball than the receivers inability to catch it.

Using your faulty logic, then stats would tend to show that ALL receivers get worse the longer the distance of the pass play, as all % decrease as the length of the throw increases. Short dump offs will always be higher % completions than deep throws no matter who the receiver is...not because the receivers ability to catch a ball decreases, but the QB's ability to accurately deliver the ball does.

 

[JeffGollin]

Look. Regardless if the guy catches the ball or not. He has shown us (me, coaches, the general public) NOTHING!
There's a strong thread of truth in the above observation, but it may overstate the case.

Gilmore hasn't shown us very much lately.

Earlier in his career as a Cardinal - before the injuries and coaching changes, when he was trying to make a name for himself - Gilmore DID show us something. I remember an incredible catch and run slanting through the middle of the field for a long TD.

But there then came the past 2 years or so where - good hands, bad hands, injuries or whatever notwithstanding - Gilmore wasn't producing on the field.

There comes a point when you have to say to yourself - I need guys whom I can depend on to produce for me right now. Kasper has been available to play and has made plays. Poole has been available to play and has made plays. McAddley and Gilmore have not always been available to play and, of late, have not made plays. Johnson (perhaps due to youth/perhaps due to lack of ability) was available but didn't make many if any plays.

Ergo - if you don't have enough WR on your rosters whom you know will (a) be there and (b) deliver what you need in your pass offense - you go out and get yourself WR's who can.

My point - The assumption behind Tango's thread was faulty - it put the wrong words in our mouths. Few of us were specifically attacking Gilmore for "bad hands." We were critical because of his lack of production recently.

Finally, thank you, thank you thank you, JoeShmo for coming up with those incompletions-to-attempts stats. True, they may mask a few extenuating factors, but it's better to have this data than not to. And we never had it before.

 

[joeshmo]

Namely that a lot of incompletes are more due to the fact that the ball was simply not catchable. "Target" means only that the receiver was the one the statistician designated as whom the likely target was, thus the need for adding the "drops" catagory...where the ball WAS catchable, but the receiver just didn't catch it.

You are correct his numbers are not correct. Maybe I should have added the uncatchable column to the stats I gave to give a clearer picture. For the amount of uncatchable balls use this formula to that stats I gave.

Targeted - (Rec. + Drops) = uncatchable balls

So this statement is invalid -

"One thing that really jumps out in the stats posted on Gilmore is that he only caught around 37% of the passes thrown to him. Boldin and Harrison are in the 60%+ range."

Becuase it doesnt take into account the uncatchable balls thrown to a player.

 

[Tangodnzr]

Look. Regardless if the guy catches the ball or not. He has shown us (me, coaches, the general public) NOTHING!
There's a strong thread of truth in the above observation, but it may overstate the case.

Gilmore hasn't shown us very much lately.

Earlier in his career as a Cardinal - before the injuries and coaching changes, when he was trying to make a name for himself - Gilmore DID show us something. I remember an incredible catch and run slanting through the middle of the field for a long TD.

But there then came the past 2 years or so where - good hands, bad hands, injuries or whatever notwithstanding - Gilmore wasn't producing on the field.

There comes a point when you have to say to yourself - I need guys whom I can depend on to produce for me right now. Kasper has been available to play and has made plays. Poole has been available to play and has made plays. McAddley and Gilmore have not always been available to play and, of late, have not made plays. Johnson (perhaps due to youth/perhaps due to lack of ability) was available but didn't make many if any plays.

Ergo - if you don't have enough WR on your rosters whom you know will (a) be there and (b) deliver what you need in your pass offense - you go out and get yourself WR's who can.

My point - The assumption behind Tango's thread was faulty - it put the wrong words in our mouths. Few of us were specifically attacking Gilmore for "bad hands." We were critical because of his lack of production recently.

Finally, thank you, thank you thank you, JoeShmo for coming up with those incompletions-to-attempts stats. True, they may mask a few extenuating factors, but it's better to have this data than not to. And we never had it before.

Jeff, I would agree with everything you said except...I didn't "put the 'bad hands' words in people's mouths". The whole reason for my original post was prompted by the fact I have seen so many people dissing Gilmore for exactly that specific reason.

The "norm" is for many people to jump on an easy "label" to catagorize and pidgeon hole a person into the catagory, and thus render their overly simplistic "judgement" of the whole situation.

 

[Tangodnzr]

I can't resist adding one more additional comment to the statement that Marvin Harrison catches "in the 60+% range" while someone else like Gilmore only caught 37%.

What that is really saying more than anything else is that Payton Manning is a more accurate passer than Jeff Blake, or the nature of the pass plays the Colts run are higher % pass plays to begin with. Unless its the Rams Tory Holt "at will" torching David Barrett on go routes, the Rams receivers will always run fairly high % ratios due to the accuracy of Bulger/Warner and the nature of the patterns they run as a team.

Harrison may be able to do a lot of things, but only Quan can still come down with the "uncatchable" ball thrown 10 feet over his head, in front of, or behind him.

 

[JeffGollin]

One thing that really jumps out in the stats posted on Gilmore is that he only caught around 37% of the passes thrown to him. Boldin and Harrison are in the 60%+ range."
You conceivably could make the case that the kinds of passes thrown to Boldin were higher-percentage throws (slants over the middle) compared to Gilmore's (which, as often as not, were long heaves).

But the Completion % stats still provide heretofore unaccessible insight.

These stats are no different than commonly accepted stats like Total Ground Yards Gained Per Game. (While it's true that teams protecting leads tend to run the ball more and therefore winning teams correlate higher with high ground yardage figures) you still wouldn't discard Total Ground Yards as a useful statistic.

You'd just take those stats with the appropriate grains of salt. Same deal with Completion %'s.

Final points - All statistics really provide is a symbolic short-hand of what's actually happening in the real world. When I watch tape of Gilmore and see passes sail past him, off him or over his head, I simultaneously conjure up a mental image of those passes being thrown to a bigger, more physical receiver who'd be much more likely to come down with a number of those throws - Randy Moss. D-Bo (in his productive year), T.O., Fitzgerald. Mike Williams. Roy Williams.

When you think of competition between receivers, I don't think you can compare Gilmore with Boldin, Kasper or Poole. (Boldin, Kasper and Poole are thrown to for different reasons than Gilmore is). A fairer comparison might be between Gilmore and Bryant Johnson or the possible FNG.

 

[Sandan]

Tango, you can say what you like but in practice last year he had a major case of the dropsies.

 

[Sandan]

When you think of competition between receivers, I don't think you can compare Gilmore with Boldin, Kasper or Poole. (Boldin, Kasper and Poole are thrown to for different reasons than Gilmore is). A fairer comparison might be between Gilmore and Bryant Johnson or the possible FNG.

 

[Duckjake]

Manufactured? Bogus? Are you saying Gilmore caught a higher percentage of the passes thrown to him or lower?

Or are you saying that 17 divided by 45 does not equal approx. 37%?

The only thing Bogus around here is your defense of Gilmore.

 

[cardsunsfan]

I can't resist adding one more additional comment to the statement that Marvin Harrison catches "in the 60+% range" while someone else like Gilmore only caught 37%.

What that is really saying more than anything else is that Payton Manning is a more accurate passer than Jeff Blake, or the nature of the pass plays the Colts run are higher % pass plays to begin with. Unless its the Rams Tory Holt "at will" torching David Barrett on go routes, the Rams receivers will always run fairly high % ratios due to the accuracy of Bulger/Warner and the nature of the patterns they run as a team.

Harrison may be able to do a lot of things, but only Quan can still come down with the "uncatchable" ball thrown 10 feet over his head, in front of, or behind him.

I think the problem might be that Gilmore has a hard time getting open or is not in the position he is supposed to be when the ball is thrown so our QB's either throw the ball where he's supposed to be or throws it away. Quan looked wide open to me a lot of the time. I can't say the same for Gilmore.

 

[Russ Smith]

Obviously you seem to missing a fundamental concept here...exactly the one that my post addressed:
Namely that a lot of incompletes are more due to the fact that the ball was simply not catchable. "Target" means only that the receiver was the one the statistician designated as whom the likely target was, thus the need for adding the "drops" catagory...where the ball WAS catchable, but the receiver just didn't catch it.

But that begs the question as to why Boldin caught 23% more balls thrown to him by the same QB's? We are told Gilmore runs the best routes on the team so was Blake simply not in "tune" with him and it carried over to Josh, were they only going to him as a last ditch when Quan and Jones were covered and they wanted a WR who wasn't so closely watched a mistake could lead to a pick?

I didn't see every game but the games I saw Gilmore was largely a non factor in most of them. He'd get one grab, limp off and not be the same after. or he'd drop a ball and disappear, that's what concerns me about him. it's not fair to compare him to Quan for toughness of course but we had lots of WR's get laid out, bounce back up and play, Byran didn't seem to do that.

 

[SECTION 11]

Gilmore sucks.

 

[Sandan]

Gilmore sucks.

Not this year, he seems to have learned how to catch. I've not seen him drop one ball yet.

 

[Tangodnzr]

I think the problem might be that Gilmore has a hard time getting open or is not in the position he is supposed to be when the ball is thrown so our QB's either throw the ball where he's supposed to be or throws it away. Quan looked wide open to me a lot of the time. I can't say the same for Gilmore.

I would agree with your comments.

That's been part of my whole point. I have repeatedly said I felt Gilmore needs to show more, but that to simply just diss him due to "bad hands" was not accurate either.

That's all. Simplistic comments like "Gilmore sucks" only show who, if anyone, really does.