Game 9: Packers at Steelers - 11/12/23 - Noon - CBS

[ReasonablySober]

Well well well

Read on Twitter

According to Sports Info Solutions, only 22 of the 33 passes thrown to Watson have been deemed “catchable.” That’s the lowest rate in the NFL – just ahead of his former teammate, Allen Lazard, who is trying to catch passes from the Jets’ Zach Wilson.

[MVP2110]

Well well well

Read on Twitter

According to Sports Info Solutions, only 22 of the 33 passes thrown to Watson have been deemed “catchable.” That’s the lowest rate in the NFL – just ahead of his former teammate, Allen Lazard, who is trying to catch passes from the Jets’ Zach Wilson.

Watson has 14 receptions this year. That means of 22 catchable passes he's only caught 14 of them. Considering the contested catch number we were discussing was 2/12 the numbers aren't super far apart. There were 2 passes in there that PFF deemed catchable that SIS did not but they are mostly on the same page.

[ReasonablySober]

Well well well

Read on Twitter

According to Sports Info Solutions, only 22 of the 33 passes thrown to Watson have been deemed “catchable.” That’s the lowest rate in the NFL – just ahead of his former teammate, Allen Lazard, who is trying to catch passes from the Jets’ Zach Wilson.

Watson has 14 receptions this year. That means of 22 catchable passes he's only caught 14 of them. Considering the contested catch number we were discussing was 2/12 the numbers aren't super far apart. There were 2 passes in there that PFF deemed catchable that SIS did not but they are mostly on the same page.

Again, lowest rate of catchable balls in the entire league.

[MVP2110]

Well well well

Read on Twitter

Watson has 14 receptions this year. That means of 22 catchable passes he's only caught 14 of them. Considering the contested catch number we were discussing was 2/12 the numbers aren't super far apart. There were 2 passes in there that PFF deemed catchable that SIS did not but they are mostly on the same page.

Again, lowest rate of catchable balls in the entire league.

Sure. I don't think anyone is necessarily complaining about catches he didn't make that weren't catchable. But it seems for the most part SIS agrees with the same assessment that PFF made on contested catches, that those were catchable passes. If anything the numbers you pointed out back up the idea that Watson has been terrible in contested catch situations.

[M-C-G]

Love has not been good on his deep accuracy, Watson is or should be a deep play WR. So that makes sense.

But it also makes sense Watson is terrible adjusting to the ball in flight, which probably makes even more of his catch attempts as uncatchable. Dude needs to be hit in stride or it doesn't really work with him, certainly not maximizing what you are getting from him trying to make him a possession WR. FIX IT MLF and LOVE

[skones]

Sure. I don't think anyone is necessarily complaining about catches he didn't make that weren't catchable. But it seems for the most part SIS agrees with the same assessment that PFF made on contested catches, that those were catchable passes. If anything the numbers you pointed out back up the idea that Watson has been terrible in contested catch situations.

That's exactly what he's saying you're doing, and I agree with him. There's a reason he posted all of these videos. Out of all of them, please include, in your response to this, which ones you believe to be entirely catchable (particularly at the 44 percent average rate), and state the reasons why. I think that's more than fair given the work RS put in here.

[Wooderson]

According to this Watson faces single coverage less than any other receiver in the league

Read on Twitter

[M-C-G]

According to this Watson faces single coverage less than any other receiver in the league

Read on Twitter

That's wild, also explains why it has been tough to get him in more catches on the move i.e. that drag route against Philly last year. I think Watson will be one of those guys that does more for the team in real football than he does collecting individual stats.

I still think there are ways we can use him so much better but looks like our opponents are worried about him when he is on the field.

[MVP2110]

Sure. I don't think anyone is necessarily complaining about catches he didn't make that weren't catchable. But it seems for the most part SIS agrees with the same assessment that PFF made on contested catches, that those were catchable passes. If anything the numbers you pointed out back up the idea that Watson has been terrible in contested catch situations.

That's exactly what he's saying you're doing, and I agree with him. There's a reason he posted all of these videos. Out of all of them, please include, in your response to this, which ones you believe to be entirely catchable (particularly at the 44 percent average rate), and state the reasons why. I think that's more than fair given the work RS put in here.

I think I've documented pretty well which ones I thought were catchable when RS & I had that debate a couple nights ago and if youd like you can go back and find my responses to the videos he posted.

I only responded to RS because the data he posted from SIS as evidence seems to mostly agree with PFFs work that Watson has struggled on catching passes deemed catchable. Of his 33 targets, 22 were catchable according to the link RS posted. That means 11 targets were not and those I don't blame Watson at all for. But that also means Watson had 8 passes he did not come down with that both PFF & SIS agree were catchable.

[MVP2110]

According to this Watson faces single coverage less than any other receiver in the league

Read on Twitter

That's wild, also explains why it has been tough to get him in more catches on the move i.e. that drag route against Philly last year. I think Watson will be one of those guys that does more for the team in real football than he does collecting individual stats.

I still think there are ways we can use him so much better but looks like our opponents are worried about him when he is on the field.

I am open to the idea that Watson is our version of MVS where even though the stats MVS put up weren't great, the offense was immensely more successful when he was on the field. While I was hoping Watson would be more than MVS 2.0 I still think thats a useful role to occupy on an offense

[skones]

Sure. I don't think anyone is necessarily complaining about catches he didn't make that weren't catchable. But it seems for the most part SIS agrees with the same assessment that PFF made on contested catches, that those were catchable passes. If anything the numbers you pointed out back up the idea that Watson has been terrible in contested catch situations.

That's exactly what he's saying you're doing, and I agree with him. There's a reason he posted all of these videos. Out of all of them, please include, in your response to this, which ones you believe to be entirely catchable (particularly at the 44 percent average rate), and state the reasons why. I think that's more than fair given the work RS put in here.

I think I've documented pretty well which ones I thought were catchable when RS & I had that debate a couple nights ago and if youd like you can go back and find my responses to the videos he posted.

I only responded to RS because the data he posted from SIS as evidence seems to mostly agree with PFFs work that Watson has struggled on catching passes deemed catchable. Of his 33 targets, 22 were catchable according to the link RS posted. That means 11 targets were not and those I don't blame Watson at all for. But that also means Watson had 8 passes he did not come down with that both PFF & SIS agree were catchable.

No, you didn't, and that's why I'm asking. You pointed to the Minnesota game specifically and when pressed on the "why" of a pass being catchable you posted a bunch of tweets to the effect of, "See, other people think he's bad at contested catches TOO" while then going on to tell us that you form your own conclusions separate of the PFF and Twitter heads you've parroted all season. (One was particularly hilarious about "late hands" as receivers are actually TAUGHT to have late hands so DBs don't know when the ball is coming)

Go through, tell me why a pass is catchable, and tell me if you think that it's a "league average 44% chance opportunity ball." Don't give me tweets, don't give me PFF or SIS numbers, tell me whether throw was in a good spot for the receiver, give me this actual independent analysis you claim you do.

[skones]

Shocked that a lot of these guys have one thing in common when it comes to lowest "catchable" target rate. Outside of two guys, it's bad QB play.

Read on Twitter

[MVP2110]

That's exactly what he's saying you're doing, and I agree with him. There's a reason he posted all of these videos. Out of all of them, please include, in your response to this, which ones you believe to be entirely catchable (particularly at the 44 percent average rate), and state the reasons why. I think that's more than fair given the work RS put in here.

I think I've documented pretty well which ones I thought were catchable when RS & I had that debate a couple nights ago and if youd like you can go back and find my responses to the videos he posted.

I only responded to RS because the data he posted from SIS as evidence seems to mostly agree with PFFs work that Watson has struggled on catching passes deemed catchable. Of his 33 targets, 22 were catchable according to the link RS posted. That means 11 targets were not and those I don't blame Watson at all for. But that also means Watson had 8 passes he did not come down with that both PFF & SIS agree were catchable.

No, you didn't, and that's why I'm asking. You pointed to the Minnesota game specifically and when pressed on the "why" of a pass being catchable you posted a bunch of tweets to the effect of, "See, other people think he's bad at contested catches TOO" while then going on to tell us that you form your own conclusions separate of the PFF and Twitter heads you've parroted all season.

Go through, tell me why a pass is catchable, and tell me if you think that it's a "league average 44% chance opportunity ball." Don't give me tweets, don't give me PFF or SIS numbers, tell me whether throw was in a good spot for the receiver, give me this actual independent analysis you claim you do.

I have said I believe all 3 passes in the Vikings game were catchable, at least 2 in the Raiders game(2nd and 4th video)imo were catchable, the Rams one was catchable. The lions one I agree probably wasn't and the Broncos one was tough and I could see an argument either way on it. That's not to say they were good throws because most of these weren't so I'm not defending Love on these throws. But I think several of these were certainly catchable balls and the neutral sites tend to agree with that assertion. I'm not sure if your theory here is that PFF and SIS are grading Watson harder than they are other WRs or what but most neutral parties and most Packer observers would tend to agree that Watson has been bad in these scenarios.

[skones]

I have said I believe all 3 passes in the Vikings game were catchable, at least 2 in the Raiders game(2nd and 4th video)imo were catchable, the Rams one was catchable. The lions one I agree probably wasn't and the Broncos one was tough and I could see an argument either way on it. That's not to say they were good throws because most of these weren't so I'm not defending Love on these throws. But I think several of these were certainly catchable balls and the neutral sites tend to agree with that assertion. I'm not sure if your theory here is that PFF and SIS are grading Watson harder than they are other WRs or what but most neutral parties and most Packer observers would tend to agree that Watson has been bad in these scenarios.

This is another non-answer and another deflection pinning it on "so and so sites I agree with." My assertion is that PFF and SIS's loose attribution of "catchable balls" is BS. And that's why I've asked for specific criteria which you've again neglected to provide in a succinct manner.

Even here, while standing up for these websites, you've already loosely eliminated like 5 plays from that "catchable" area. You see how that's an issue with your argument and bullishness in falling back on PFF and SIS right?

[MVP2110]

I have said I believe all 3 passes in the Vikings game were catchable, at least 2 in the Raiders game(2nd and 4th video)imo were catchable, the Rams one was catchable. The lions one I agree probably wasn't and the Broncos one was tough and I could see an argument either way on it. That's not to say they were good throws because most of these weren't so I'm not defending Love on these throws. But I think several of these were certainly catchable balls and the neutral sites tend to agree with that assertion. I'm not sure if your theory here is that PFF and SIS are grading Watson harder than they are other WRs or what but most neutral parties and most Packer observers would tend to agree that Watson has been bad in these scenarios.

This is another non-answer and another deflection pinning it on "so and so sites I agree with." My assertion is that PFF and SIS's loose attribution of "catchable balls" is BS. And that's why I've asked for specific criteria which you've again neglected to provide in a succinct manner.

Even here, while standing up for these websites, you've already loosely eliminated like 5 plays from that "catchable" area. You see how that's an issue with your argument and bullishness in falling back on PFF and SIS right?

You asked me for direct examples of which videos RS posted that I thought were catchable and I provided that. And yes I've eliminated a handful of throws that I think PFF graded too harshly but the sentiment doesn't change that I think Watson has been bad in contested catch situations. And even if you don't agree with how either site defines a catchable ball I'm not sure that really changes anything unless you think they are deliberately grading Watson tougher then they do other WRs. If they are holding everyone to the same standard then even if they are harsh graders Watson is still below everyone else

[skones]

You asked me for direct examples of which videos RS posted that I thought were catchable and I provided that. And yes I've eliminated a handful of throws that I think PFF graded too harshly but the sentiment doesn't change that I think Watson has been bad in contested catch situations. And even if you don't agree with how either site defines a catchable ball I'm not sure that really changes anything unless you think they are deliberately grading Watson tougher then they do other WRs. If they are holding everyone to the same standard then even if they are harsh graders Watson is still below everyone else

No. THIS is what I asked for.

Go through, tell me why a pass is catchable, and tell me if you think that it's a "league average 44% chance opportunity ball." Don't give me tweets, don't give me PFF or SIS numbers, tell me whether the throw was in a good spot for the receiver, give me this actual independent analysis you claim you do.

[MVP2110]

You asked me for direct examples of which videos RS posted that I thought were catchable and I provided that. And yes I've eliminated a handful of throws that I think PFF graded too harshly but the sentiment doesn't change that I think Watson has been bad in contested catch situations. And even if you don't agree with how either site defines a catchable ball I'm not sure that really changes anything unless you think they are deliberately grading Watson tougher then they do other WRs. If they are holding everyone to the same standard then even if they are harsh graders Watson is still below everyone else

No. THIS is what I asked for.

Go through, tell me why a pass is catchable, and tell me if you think that it's a "league average 44% chance opportunity ball." Don't give me tweets, don't give me PFF or SIS numbers, tell me whether the throw was in a good spot for the receiver, give me this actual independent analysis you claim you do.

You also asked for "Out of all of them, please include, in your response to this, which ones you believe to be entirely catchable (particularly at the 44 percent average rate), and state the reasons why. I think that's more than fair given the work RS put in here."

You seem to ask for quite a bit for me to defend an opinion that most people have. I'm not sure how to do define to you what the term a catchable pass means other than I think those are throws where Watson had a chance to catch the pass. It's pretty much in the name itself. I went through and listed which of the throws I thought were catchable and not catchable(for the 2nd time)

If you want to say that those sites graded some of those catch opportunities too harshly I'm open to it, but again unless you think they are grading Watson harder than everyone else I don't think it really matter.

Let's say someone else goes through and scraps a handful of those throws to Watson as uncatchable, well if they go look at Doubs contested opportunities in the same manner then some of his are likely to not count either and Doubs would still be ranked higher than Watson.

[skones]

You also asked for "Out of all of them, please include, in your response to this, which ones you believe to be entirely catchable (particularly at the 44 percent average rate), and state the reasons why. I think that's more than fair given the work RS put in here."

You seem to ask for quite a bit for me to defend an opinion that most people have. I'm not sure how to do define to you what the term a catchable pass means other than I think those are throws where Watson had a chance to catch the pass. It's pretty much in the name itself. I went through and listed which of the throws I thought were catchable and not catchable(for the 2nd time)

If you want to say that those sites graded some of those catch opportunities too harshly I'm open to it, but again unless you think they are grading Watson harder than everyone else I don't think it really matter.

Let's say someone else goes through and scraps a handful of those throws to Watson as uncatchable, well if they go look at Doubs contested opportunities in the same manner then some of his are likely to not count either and Doubs would still be ranked higher than Watson.

Another refusal. You claim to do all of this analysis on your own time, but when actually asked for it after RS went through and uploaded ALL of these, it's "a lot to ask" since most people have this opinion. This isn't independent analysis like RS is actually offering himself and providing you with an opportunity to do the same. It sounds like you know that when pressed for reasons why these balls are catchable and getting into the actual detail of the play, you know you'll be poking holes in your own argument.

I'll just take the refusal as acknowledgement of a leaky premise on your part.

[MVP2110]

You also asked for "Out of all of them, please include, in your response to this, which ones you believe to be entirely catchable (particularly at the 44 percent average rate), and state the reasons why. I think that's more than fair given the work RS put in here."

You seem to ask for quite a bit for me to defend an opinion that most people have. I'm not sure how to do define to you what the term a catchable pass means other than I think those are throws where Watson had a chance to catch the pass. It's pretty much in the name itself. I went through and listed which of the throws I thought were catchable and not catchable(for the 2nd time)

If you want to say that those sites graded some of those catch opportunities too harshly I'm open to it, but again unless you think they are grading Watson harder than everyone else I don't think it really matter.

Let's say someone else goes through and scraps a handful of those throws to Watson as uncatchable, well if they go look at Doubs contested opportunities in the same manner then some of his are likely to not count either and Doubs would still be ranked higher than Watson.

Another refusal. You claim to do all of this analysis on your own time, but when actually asked for it after RS went through and uploaded ALL of these, it's "a lot to ask" since most people have this opinion. Doesn't sound independent to me at all. It sounds like you know that when pressed for reasons why these balls are catchable and getting into the actual detail of the play, you know you'll be poking holes in your own argument.

I'll just take the refusal as acknowledgement of a leaky premise on your part.

You can take it however you want, I went through and watched the videos RS uploaded and acknowledged which ones I thought were catchable and weren't catchable. I don't know what you mean for reasons that they are catchable or not, some hit him in the hands, some he needed to do a better job of fighting through defenders, some he mistimed his adjustment, etc. This is common stuff. You seem to think none of these are catchable, so my assumption is then if you went back and watched every Doubs contested catch opportunity you'd feel very similar no? Or am I wrong about that and you think Watson is just graded harsher then everyone else?

[skones]

You can take it however you want, I went through and watched the videos RS uploaded and acknowledged which ones I thought were catchable and weren't catchable. I don't know what you mean for reasons that they are catchable or not, some hit him in the hands, some he needed to do a better job of fighting through defenders, some he mistimed his adjustment, etc. This is common stuff. You seem to think none of these are catchable, so my assumption is then if you went back and watched every Doubs contested catch opportunity you'd feel very similar no? Or am I wrong about that and you think Watson is just graded harsher then everyone else?

If a ball is thrown behind you and you're at a dead sprint, I think boiling it down to, "eh, you need to be better at adjusting" is a cop out in the highest. The expectation seems to be, ah, Watson should fight more and do more contact to bail Jordan Love out of a bad decision. That's what many of these INTs are. BAD decisions. I think if you look at Doubs contested catch opportunities, those balls are just better throws with him being more open because he has a deeper route tree that he excels at than just a go. That's the context I've specifically been speaking to over and over.

We can acknowledge that Love forces balls in bad situations to Watson far more than he does other receivers. I think that's a pretty obvious thing that we can all see. It is in that context that I'm viewing this rather than oh, PFF says this was a contested catch opportunity, and then making them all equal just because. In making all contested catch opportunities equal, you are actively turning a blind eye to the specificity of football.