From: fester@island.COM (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: RICE BY THE NUMBERS
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:12:06 GMT

In article <57356@olivea.atc.olivetti.com> rsmith@strobe.ATC.Olivetti.Com (Russ Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.160933.2039@island.COM> fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:
>>>>>10 - 19 yards - 16
>>>>> 1 -  9 yards - 25
>
>I guess I am the one that asked for this chart with my question earlier. Its
>pretty obvious that the 41 td's under 10 yards I had heard was really 41 TD's
>under 20 yards, a big difference but still a little surprising to me.

Not really TOO big a difference; defenses play differently inside the 20 than
outside it.

>>This chart pretty clearly (IMO) shows a) the real value of Rice and b) the 
>>effectiveness of the 49er offense. Good teams score TDs when they get the ball
>>close, and the 49ers are assuredly that. Other teams find a way to work these
>>"inside-the-20" opportunities into 3-point attempts (boy, that sounds like

>But doesn't it also show that the 49ers simply play differently down by
>the goaline? We shouldn't penalize Rice for this, but by the same token we
>shouldn't penalize the other receivers in the NFL whose teams either try
>to pound the ball in from close range(like the Cards who appear to have
>2 plays inside the 10, Johnson up the middle or throw to Butch Rolle). If
>you play for a team that doesn't do this, it minimizes your TD catches. I
>would love to see a similar chart for other receivers like Clayton or Largent,
>my guess is the guys way up on the TD ranks have a lot of under 20 yard TD's.

Nobody is "penalizing" anyone for anything here. Inside the 20, however, there
is a lot more pushing and shoving (more "incidental" contact), coverage is a 
lot tighter, more double coverage, etc, and if you DO catch the ball, you are
more likely to be hit by a gang of tacklers. And, you are less able to use
your speed in this region. Most offenses therefor resort to pounding the ball
inside, or dumping to TEs or RBs for these "tougher yards".

I would guess that Largent, too, had a lot of "under 20's". I would be surprised
if that many of Clayton's (or rather, that high a %age) TDs were of that 
type.

>Partly because they are good at getting open down there, partly because they
>play for a team who throws to wide receivers down there.

There are, IMO, a lot of "speed" receivers in the NFL incapable of getting
open consistantly in that region (Gault comes to mind). Rice is a guy who
can get open by moves OR speed (actually, Taylor is as well), and that is
what helps make him great.

>Rice is a great receiver, the best I have personally seen, but 101 TD catches 
>is in part a reflection of how the 49ers play football. Its not a tainted
>number by any means, I just don't thinl its fair to compare his TD rate 
>to other receivers and use it against them when they play in different
>systems.

I agree that Rice's numbers are aided greatly by his system, and by having so
many other quality players around him (an agreement that sends 49er fans into
a seeming rage). I agree that his TD total per se doesn't mean he is the 
greatest receiver in the game. However, 41 TDs from 20-and-in is an awesome
number for anyone, much less a wideout. 

Mike
-- 
Disclaimer - Oh come on! You didn't think I was serious, did you?
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro