Better WR?

[Rhoadhoused]

Help me settle a bet. Who is better statistically? If you have a guess at who it is keep it to yourself. PM me or leave a rep message and I'll reply if you got it right or not. (maybe not till tomorrow)
WR1 WR2
Tds/game 0.76 0.65
Rec/game 4.72 5.11
yards/game 73.6 75.5
yards/rec 15.6 14.8
catches/TD 6.2 7.9
avg gms/ 20+ yard rec 0.93 1.6
Avg gms/ 40+ yard rec 2.7 7.14

[tazclone]

Tough choice there. WR1 looks like more of a big play type of receiver that has a couple big games that really boost his stats and WR2 looks more like a possession receiver.

In the end, the TD/game and yards/rec are pretty close. If those are that close, then I went with the guy that is more consistent and I can count on to move the chains

[brett108]

Tough choice there. WR1 looks like more of a big play type of receiver that has a couple big games that really boost his stats and WR2 looks more like a possession receiver.

In the end, the TD/game and yards/rec are pretty close. If those are that close, then I went with the guy that is more consistent and I can count on to move the chains

Agree. Even on a fantasy team you want that player that will consistently provide points. The problem is so many factors play into this that it is hard to judge. What does his supporting cast do? Is he the go to guy? Is he supposed to be the go to guy?

[Tailg8er]

Gotta love late night bar bets, where the only way to settle it is to go home & ask CF at 2:30 am!

[1100011CS]

Tough choice there. WR1 looks like more of a big play type of receiver that has a couple big games that really boost his stats and WR2 looks more like a possession receiver.

In the end, the TD/game and yards/rec are pretty close. If those are that close, then I went with the guy that is more consistent and I can count on to move the chains

I was going to say the opposite. They average about the same yds/game but WR2 has more big plays. To me that says WR2 has either a big game or nothing.

[nrg4isu]

I voted WR1, but really to differentiate them, you need a few more things to base your decision on. Most notably # of times targeted / catches, # of drops and just watching game tape. If WR1 wasn't targeted as much as WR2, then definitely WR1 has the better stats... making more of the opportunities he had. I guess you could have the counter argument and say that WR1 must not have been as good at getting open, but that's where the game tape comes in. Also you'd have to look at the style of play and personnel on the teams.

[Psiclone]

I was going to say the opposite. They average about the same yds/game but WR2 has more big plays. To me that says WR2 has either a big game or nothing.

Exactly. The other stats appear to be statistically insignificant.

[tazclone]

I was going to say the opposite. They average about the same yds/game but WR2 has more big plays. To me that says WR2 has either a big game or nothing.

How did you come to that conclusion.

WR2 has more receptions per game and a lower yards per reception.

If you are using the last two stats, I interpreted that as average games per 20+ yard reception. Meaning WR1 got a 20 yard reception every.93 game while WR2 had a 20+ yard reception every 1.6 games.
Same with the 40+ yard reception. WR1 got a 40+ yard reception every 2.7 games but WR2 got one every 7.14 games

those stats are hrd to intepret them the way they are presented but the way I interpreted them matches the other statittical data. There is no way you have more recpetions/game, fewer yards per catch if you are cathing longer passes.

[tazclone]

I voted WR1, but really to differentiate them, you need a few more things to base your decision on. Most notably # of times targeted / catches, # of drops and just watching game tape. If WR1 wasn't targeted as much as WR2, then definitely WR1 has the better stats... making more of the opportunities he had. I guess you could have the counter argument and say that WR1 must not have been as good at getting open, but that's where the game tape comes in. Also you'd have to look at the style of play and personnel on the teams.

Agree 100%

[awd4cy]

Looks to be like they are completely even. Can't really pick one or the other.

[CycloneNorth]

With the stats so close I would take whoever could block better.

[1100011CS]

How did you come to that conclusion.

WR2 has more receptions per game and a lower yards per reception.

If you are using the last two stats, I interpreted that as average games per 20+ yard reception. Meaning WR1 got a 20 yard reception every.93 game while WR2 had a 20+ yard reception every 1.6 games.
Same with the 40+ yard reception. WR1 got a 40+ yard reception every 2.7 games but WR2 got one every 7.14 games

those stats are hrd to intepret them the way they are presented but the way I interpreted them matches the other statittical data. There is no way you have more recpetions/game, fewer yards per catch if you are cathing longer passes.

Yeah, I misread that part.

[Rhoadhoused]

These are numbers over a career so they make a substantial difference. I picked WR1 because he had better stats in everything but yards and receptions. He scored more TDs, had twice as many big plays of both 20+ and 40+ yards, and turned a higher % of cathes into TDs.

[Rhoadhoused]

I think I confused some people with the last two categories.
I guess I'll let everyone in on who it was now.

WR1 was Randy Moss
WR2 was Jerry Rice

I said Moss was the best WR to ever step on an NFL football field and my friend said that Rice had it on stats alone. I refuted that.

I know not a lot of people will agree with me and it is difficult to argue against Rice's longevity which is what made him so great, but in terms of playing WR in a vacuum, gaining yards, scoring TDs, and making the defense change its plan according to you I don't think anyone is as good as Moss.

BTW I didn't factor in things like being a good teammate and championship rings and stuff. This is purely a discussion on who was a better WR.

[CycloneNorth]

So who are they?

Looks like you beat me to it.