Defending Courtney Taylor

by John Morgan on Nov 12, 2008 12:32 PM PST in Seahawks Commentary

People who bash Courtney Taylor after his poor showing in two career starts have no sense of history or perspective on player development. Let's review, pick Taylor's line from this list. (Here's a hint. Player K was notorious for his drops his first season.)

Player A: 5 receptions, 52 yards, 0 TDs

Player B: 4 receptions, 53 yards, 0 TDs

Player C: 4 receptions, 39 yards, 0 TDs

Player D: 5 receptions, 52 yards, 1 TD

Player E: 1 reception, 33 yards, 1 TD

Player F: 3 receptions, 77 yards, 0 TDs

Player G: 5 receptions, 82 yards, 1 TD

Player H: 3 receptions, 59 yards, 0 TDs

Player I: 2 receptions, 40 yards, 0 TDs

Player J: 5 receptions, 48 yards, 0 TDs

Player K: 6 receptions, 102 yards, 0 TDs

Player L: 5 receptions, 87 yards, 0 TDs

Player M: 5 receptions, 62 yards, 1 TD

Player N: 5 receptions, 73 yards, 1 TD

Player O: 1 reception, 17 yards, 0 TDs

Player P: 3 receptions, 70 yards, 0 TDs

Player Q: 9 receptions, 88 yards, 0 TDs

Should I belabor this point further? I didn't do much more than pick top wide receivers at random and remove the small handful who actually did have a gangbusters start to their career. Taylor's line is not among the best. It's somewhere in the lower half. I guess he's probably not going to be as good as most of these guys. Might as well cut him now.

A. Chad Johnson

B. Reggie Wayne

C. Courtney Taylor

D. Roddy White

E. Vincent Jackson

F. Lee Evans

G. Hines Ward

H. Bernard Berrian

I. Derrick Mason

J. Amani Toomer

K. Jerry Rice

L. Plaxico Burress

M. Bobby Engram

N. Laveranues Coles

O. Santana Moss

P. Rod Smith

Q. Keyshawn Johnson

Tweet Comment 21 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Targets....

I wonder how Targets factor into some of those stat lines? Taylor caught just 5 balls for 50 yards this season out of 15 targets (3 games, 2 starts). I think Nate Clements may have been a factor in game one. He’s a good corner.

I hope Courtney flourishes in his second go-round. It’s hard to predict at this point.

Nice post, John. I continue to enjoy your work.

by Misfit74 on Nov 12, 2008 12:47 PM PST reply actions

I would take targets with a grain of salt

without context that target could be a drop, a throw away, a pass defense or interception following a tip.

by John Morgan on Nov 12, 2008 1:07 PM PST up reply actions

yes

Good point.

I think, to some degree, the better receivers can create a ‘catch’ in those circumstances, excluding the throw-away or tip. A WR uses his body to shield a defender to prevent a PD and makes the catch or goes up higher for the ball and catching it above a defender, not allowing it to be batted away or picked off. The common example I see in games is when the WR doesn’t work back to the ball and allows a defender to beat the pass to it’s target while breaking it up or intercepting. The wideouts who fight for and want the ball more than the player(s) covering them would seemingly have the better catch-rate. Grain of salt, yes, but not without some value.

by Misfit74 on Nov 12, 2008 10:46 PM PST up reply actions

The problem is...

in just two games, we’re talking a handful of targets. While good receivers can improve their target to completion ratio over the long term, in a very small sample a few things out of their control can make them look bad when they’re not or good when they’re not.

by John Morgan on Nov 13, 2008 10:07 AM PST up reply actions

I think without context...

The stat lines themselves are largely irrelevent. I’m not arguing that many players – regardless of position – need time to adjust to the pro game but two points that stick out to me other than my sense of being underwhelmed by Taylor in each of the last two years:

1) Most of the WRs on your list posted those stat lines during their rookie seasons. This is Taylor’s second season; he’s had a year to learn this offense and has no excuse for being in the wrong place.

2) Bumpus and Taylor’s stat lines from this season are virtually identical; Bumpus is a rookie and one could argue that from a developemental level that he’s right where Taylor is plus can return punts and kicks.

by Azimeir on Nov 13, 2008 6:55 AM PST up reply actions

Taylor is more talented than Bumpus...

plus it’s put up or ship out time for Taylor while Bumpus is safe on the practice squad.

Also, regarding point one: many of the above started their first season because they were drafted higher. Many didn’t start their first season and still enjoyed strong careers. “Starting” is an important criteria because it means they certainly saw sufficient snaps to contribute. While I don’t disagree that spending a season in a system before starting helps a wide receiver, it’s difficult to know exactly how much. Once one enters complicating factors, then all sorts of thing can be entered into the conversation: Quality of overall offense, quality of quarterback, quality of surrounding wide receiver talent, quality of opponent. Each is important but each is also very hard to define and probably not worth it. Whatever I would find, it wouldn’t change the fact that after two games struggling it is premature to argue Taylor is a bust.

by John Morgan on Nov 13, 2008 10:14 AM PST up reply actions

It does seem like oversimplification to just list stat lines.

I haven’t watched tape specifically on Taylor (nor even able to watch a couple of games) so you guys would know better. But my recollection is that he was missing in action. If Taylor had been fighting free off the line, running crisp routes and springing open, he would’ve graded out well regardless of targets/receptions. He must not have been or they wouldn’t have thrown street-FAs on the field instead of their own draft pick.

by lemonverbena on Nov 12, 2008 1:57 PM PST up reply actions

First, that doesn't make sense.

You create your own criteria to prove your own point. It’s a basic circular argument.

If Taylor "had been fighting free off the line, running crisp routes and springing open"

Then "they wouldn’t have thrown street-FAs on the field instead of their own draft pick"

But since Seattle had "thrown street-FAs on the field instead of their own draft pick"

Then Taylor couldn’t possibly "had been fighting free off the line, running crisp routes and springing open"

Or the team signed McMullen (September 9th) to replace the injured Nate Burleson (injured September 7th) and not Courtney Taylor (cut October 7th). That McMullen is a split end and Taylor is not. And that Taylor was first inactive after the return of Branch and cut to make room for Jordan Kent who is also a split end.

No one is arguing Taylor played well, I’m arguing that young wide receivers often struggle. In fact, it’s more common than not that they do.

by John Morgan on Nov 12, 2008 2:35 PM PST up reply actions

I like arguments that prove themselves

But yeah. I guess I thought your point was that demoting Taylor was premature,and that those comparative stats were the supporting evidence. I was just saying that those stat lines in themselves are only one small part of what went into the coaching staff’s decision. Point taken though. Rarely do young receivers light the world on fire right out of the gate.

by lemonverbena on Nov 12, 2008 3:27 PM PST up reply actions

Don't you think your arguement here is a little on the "own criteria" side?

Were these actually “starts” (I can only assume they are since that is what you said)?

Throwing out more successful stat lines seems like a little manipulation of data to prove a point.

Not knowing how many times these guys were targeted IS a factor. So is who they were playing with (other WR’s, system, QB’s).

The fact that Taylor vanished when he was given an opportunity that many young WR’s would dream of is more compelling to me than the fact that these other WR’s had a mediocre stat lines in the first couple of games.

Again, I hope I’m wrong but I think we are dreaming to assume he is even close to these guys (or capable for that matter).

I’m not trying to say I have a better method to predict his future. I’m just disappointed that a guy with two years in a system did nothing for us when we needed him. I’m also not trying to pick a fight here soo I hope it didn’t come off that way.

I’m also probably being a little hard on a second year 6th round pick. I guess I’m just surprised you are trying to like him so much. There is a reason he was a 6th rounder and there is a reason he made it on and off the practice squad.

I'd like to kick Josh Brown in the privates!

by The Manchild on Nov 12, 2008 11:55 PM PST up reply actions

The point John is trying to make is that you can't develop any conclusions from two starts.

He’s not saying that Courtney Taylor is Jerry Rice reincarnated because they had similar lines after two NFL starts.

by BrianL on Nov 13, 2008 8:08 AM PST up reply actions

No.

Argument: Wide receivers often do not start strong but still have good careers.

Evidence: Wide receivers who played poorly in their first two starts (as listed by NFL.com), but went on to have successful careers.

There’s nothing circular or illogical about that. It’s a simple, effective and objective way to demonstrate that it’s far too early to assume Courtney Taylor is a failure.

by John Morgan on Nov 13, 2008 10:06 AM PST up reply actions

I agree that you can't count a guy out so quickly

But who are we going to keep around next year? We will certainly have Branch and Burly, will probably have Engram and Robinson… leaving one or two slots to fit in all the developmental guys (Taylor, Obu, Kent, Bumpus, etc.).

by djafrot on Nov 12, 2008 1:04 PM PST reply actions

I don't think Seattle re-signs Engram.

Bumpus can sit on the practice squad. Obo will have to prove himself. And Kent is a mystery. Love the potential, but after a strong preseason, the regular season has made me rethink his long term potential. Right now, Kent doesn’t look like he knows how to play football.

by John Morgan on Nov 12, 2008 1:09 PM PST up reply actions