Brandon Lafell = best hands in the NFC South

[SZ James (banned)]

Naane had few "drops" because anything that wasnt thrown right into his chest was he wasnt going to try to catch

[bleys]

as a soon to be 4th receiver, he's very solid..

[ed bell]

Added total receptions...Statistically, many of these figures are relatively equal. It starts dropping off from Lance Moore through Roddy White.

Marques Colston, Saints, 97.6, 80 receptions

Preston Parker, Buccaneers, 97.6, 40 receptions

Brandon LaFell, Panthers, 97.3, 36 receptions

Dezmon Briscoe, Buccaneers, 97.2, 35 receptions

Legedu Naanee, Panthers, 95.7, 44 receptions

Steve Smith, Panthers, 95.2, 79 receptions

Robert Meachem, Saints, 95.2, 40 receptions

Harry Douglas, Falcons, 95.1, 39 receptions

Lance Moore, Saints, 94.5, 52 receptions

Devery Henderson, Saints, 94.1, 32 receptions

Julio Jones, Falcons, 93.1, 54 receptions

Mike Williams, Buccaneers 89.0, 65 receptions

Roddy White, Falcons 87.7, 100 receptions

[JawnyBlaze]

I think Naanee was targeted twice in the four downs at the end of the Arizona game, both were incomplete. One of those looked like it could have been snagged for a touchdown if he would have been a bit more outside. Off target throw or bad route? Couldn't say either way, but that was the beginning of the critical posts pegging Nannee as a poor receiver. I always had trouble seeing why folks thought he was terrible. Lafell and Naanee turned out to be good for each other competition-wise IMO.

There was also the Chicago game where Cam put it high where only Naanee could catch it and he slowed it down with his hands or something so the defender ended up intercepting it. That was when I really began to hate Naanee.

He did stop dropping easy passes later in the year, but the volume of drops early in the year makes that 95% number fuging impossible, in my opinion.

[bleys]

There was also the Chicago game where Cam put it high where only Naanee could catch it and he slowed it down with his hands or something so the defender ended up intercepting it. That was when I really began to hate Naanee.

He did stop dropping easy passes later in the year, but the volume of drops early in the year makes that 95% number f**king impossible, in my opinion.

:lol: @ "volume of drops"...

[bleys]

There was also the Chicago game where Cam put it high where only Naanee could catch it and he slowed it down with his hands or something so the defender ended up intercepting it. That was when I really began to hate Naanee.

He did stop dropping easy passes later in the year, but the volume of drops early in the year makes that 95% number f**king impossible, in my opinion.

:lol: @ "volume of drops"...

yeah lafell only had 1 or 2 drops this year. smitty probably had less than 5. naanee had to be nearing 10 so i'm gonna call bs on this.

I love this thread.. it's eye opening how many people form their opinion based on emotion rather than actual facts. AND THEN rationalize their faulty memory by saying things like "but if everyone agreed, this forum would be boring!"... because one thing that surpasses accuracy and a respectable opinion is sensationalizing a story line.. and in the same breath will have the balls to criticize ESPN, PFT, etc for the same bullshit...

here are some names with the same amount of drops as Naanee (all tied with 5): Jimmy Graham, Fred Davis, Jake Ballard, Brent Celek, LeSean McCoy, Laurent Robinson, Darren Sproles, and Jonathan Stewart..

Yes, a few of those guys had more catches and therefore more targets.. however, 5 drops on 44 catches isn't a "volume of drops", nor is it an atrocity either... This isn't just about Naanee... This is just one of a billion examples on this forum that occurs on a routine basis..

[Jackofalltrades]

now that his hands are better lafell can finally focus on learning the english language lmao

Should read: Now that his hands are better LaFell can finally focus on learning the English language, l.m.a.o.

J/k, but you asked for that one.

[Swarly]

Although not 100 percent scientific I think this provides a little bit of credibility to the argument that we are not in dire need of a stud wr opposite Smith.

idk, for me it's not about NEEDING a WR opposite Smitty, it's the fact if Blackmon is available when we pick he would be far and away the BPA and would be hard to resist passing.

[Proudiddy]

what's hard to believe is how people come up with the idea that a few dropped balls early in the season defines a guy throughout the rest of the season..

that and everyone crying about LaFell having bricks for hands is why the huddle is a joke to the few rational people who stick around...

people rather attach their opinion to a stigma rather than the games themselves.. but hey, that's all gravy in the name of being fanatics right!? who cares about having a reasonable opinion, the huddle would be boring!

Where is this coming from bleys?

Damn man.

What was so negative about my post?

And my post wasn't derived from some asinine assumption based on opinion or stigma, it was based off of the fact that Legs actually led the league in dropped passes several weeks into the season IIRC.

He played a lot better towards the end and I think a lot of that can be credited to him moving to the slot after LaFell started getting the starts.

Furthermore, I've said nothing but good about LaFell this year as far as I can remember. I've loved his effort in every aspect of the game and he showed some serious gamebreaking ability this year.

Where is this coming from? It seems every thread I make, you jump all over it for no apparent reason.

[Marguide]

:lol: @ "volume of drops"...

here are some names with the same amount of drops as Naanee (all tied with 5): Jimmy Graham, Fred Davis, Jake Ballard, Brent Celek, LeSean McCoy, Laurent Robinson, Darren Sproles, and Jonathan Stewart..

This isn't about Naanee... Yes, a few of those guys had more catches and therefore more targets.. however, 5 drops on 44 catches isn't a "volume of drops", nor is it an atrocity either... This is just one of a billion examples on this forum that occurs on a routine basis..

While I understand the case you are trying to make, it is odd that your group contains only 1 WR, with the rest being running backs and tight ends.

It might be more compelling to state that Naanee had a higher catch rate than H. Nicks, A.J. Green, and Vincent Jax.

But let's be honest. Even if Naanee had hands equal to Graham, Nicks, Green, and V. Jax, he does not bring the same production to the table. PFF had him rated as the #73 WR following the regular season.

We can do better.

[JawnyBlaze]

:lol: @ "volume of drops"...

I love this thread.. it's eye opening how many people form their opinion based on emotion rather than actual facts. AND THEN rationalize their faulty memory by saying things like "but if everyone agreed, this forum would be boring!"... because one thing that surpasses accuracy and a respectable opinion is sensationalizing a story line.. and in the same breath will have the balls to criticize ESPN, PFT, etc for the same bullpoo...

here are some names with the same amount of drops as Naanee (all tied with 5): Jimmy Graham, Fred Davis, Jake Ballard, Brent Celek, LeSean McCoy, Laurent Robinson, Darren Sproles, and Jonathan Stewart..

Yes, a few of those guys had more catches and therefore more targets.. however, 5 drops on 44 catches isn't a "volume of drops", nor is it an atrocity either... This isn't just about Naanee... This is just one of a billion examples on this forum that occurs on a routine basis..

You're basing your opinion on a stat that I completely distrust. If that stat were accurate, I would totally agree with you. I think whoever that stat keeper is has a very strange definition of a "drop". I'd like it if they came out and defined a "drop" for us so we're all on the same page. To me, a drop is when the ball hits the receiver in the hands (or chest or helmet) and he doesn't catch it, unless it hits him in the back or the back of the helmet or something and couldn't reasonably be expected to know it's there. Based on that definition, Naanee isn't anywhere CLOSE to 95%. Most numbers across the board would go down, but Naanee's would go down drastically. Lafell's wouldn't go down much as far as I remember, I don't remember many hitting him in the hands and not being caught.

Sooner or later, maybe this weekend, I'll put my GamePass to good use and rewatch some games and count for myself.

[chef17]

While I understand the case you are trying to make, it is odd that your group contains only 1 WR, with the rest being running backs and tight ends.

It might be more compelling to state that Naanee had a higher catch rate than H. Nicks, A.J. Green, and Vincent Jax.

But let's be honest. Even if Naanee had hands equal to Graham, Nicks, Green, and V. Jax, he does not bring the same production to the table. PFF had him rated as the #73 WR following the regular season.

We can do better.

Those are just some names. Roddy White, Nate Burleson, DeSean Jackson, Michael Crabtree, Victor Cruz, Hakeem Nicks, Smitty, Calvin Johnson all had more drops. If you think we can do better than Legs (who will probably be 4th anyway) that's fine but I think bleys point was he didn't have near as many drops as people act.

[MadHatter]

You're basing your opinion on a stat that I completely distrust. If that stat were accurate, I would totally agree with you. I think whoever that stat keeper is has a very strange definition of a "drop". I'd like it if they came out and defined a "drop" for us so we're all on the same page. To me, a drop is when the ball hits the receiver in the hands (or chest or helmet) and he doesn't catch it, unless it hits him in the back or the back of the helmet or something and couldn't reasonably be expected to know it's there. Based on that definition, Naanee isn't anywhere CLOSE to 95%. Most numbers across the board would go down, but Naanee's would go down drastically. Lafell's wouldn't go down much as far as I remember, I don't remember many hitting him in the hands and not being caught.

Sooner or later, maybe this weekend, I'll put my GamePass to good use and rewatch some games and count for myself.

Summarize your post......

The stat compiled by experts does not support my opinion (which is based solely on emotion). Therefore, I chose to disregard the statistic.

[carolinarolls]

yet another statistic that supports just how flawed most statistics are.