The Jarvis Landry Thread: Bless 'Em

[The Human Q-Tip]

Keep grasping at those straws my dude.

Landry's blocking helped the other receivers produce better? How many WR screens do you think the Browns were running exactly?

I agree wholeheartedly with @MGMT. Teams *want* the Browns to throw the ball more to Landry because it's not an efficient play for the offense compared to literally everyone else they could be throwing to.

I think people are forgetting where this team was at when this season/offseason began. We had zero reliable, veteran receivers. We were bringing in a brand new QB in Tyrod Taylor, and knew that we were drafting a rookie QB as well. The receivers room had basically nobody who knew what the fuck they were doing.

Landry was brought in to be a reliable veteran with a lot of leadership -- to show the other guys how to do things "the right way". That includes how they practiced, building the right attitudes, the importance of blocking, etc.. The true measure of what he contributed is looking at how the receivers performed as a whole. Did they progress in terms of skills? How was their attitude mindset? Did they embrace blocking? etc...

Judging by results, I think he turned out to be a great acquisition. He was never a true No. 1, and so was overmatched a lot of time when covered by the defense's No 1 corner. So in terms of his individual numbers, they weren't great. But he was a core leader who helped keep other players focused during all that drama with Hue, Haley, etc.. I don't think Higgins, Callaway, and even Perriman end up progressing as much as they did without Landry.

So, maybe his individual stats don't warrant being named to the Pro Bowl. But I'm glad he made it anyway.

 

[Jordan]

How often was he used in legit pass pro? Can't be very often.

Blocking downfield after a pass is a similar skillset to blocking on a run play. It's weird he's bad at that but good at run blocking. And that he's so bad at it that it completely counteracts a really good blocking grade.

This is a fair point, good catch.

Fyi, it was four times over two games. He gave up hits all four times.

 

[CBBI]

Yeah, I'm not all into group think. You guys can stroke in a circle about how Jarvis isn't good and get your "gotcha"s on Sundays as you painfully comb tape for Jarvis Landry missteps. He will still be worth the money. I'll be here ready to read it, but I do not think anyone here is an authority on good WRs.

Basic factual evidence = group think these days ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I notice that your argument is subtly starting to shift away from stats (which are obviously not in your favor) to more of a "you can't put a price on leadership and intangibles!" take. Now of course since that's entirely opinion based, you'll never be "wrong".

 

[col63onel]

This is a fair point, good catch.

Fyi, it was four times over two games. He gave up hits all four times.

Welp, my plan to beef him up this offseason and move him to LT is now dead.

 

[Amherstcavsfan]

You think it's funny, I think the inability to see what I point out is pathetic.

The only thing you have pointed out is that he has good hands * which I haven't really disputed* and that hes a pro bowler, which I put no stock in whatsoever.

I dont understand why he deserves this defending? Sitting there, putting ear muffs and regurgitating meaningless facts is, in my opinion, a troll move.

 

[dark2332]

Dude, by every metric Landry was one of the ten least efficient receivers in the NFL.

You want advanced metrics? DVOA ranks him as 44/48.

Maybe you think anybody can make fancy stats lie and just don’t understand them? Fine, he gets a horrifically low yards after the catch (3.5 YAC), drops around 5% of his targets, and only caught 45% of passes thrown to him beyond ten yards.

And, unlike Njoku, Landry was even less efficient under Kitchens.

Alright, so maybe you’re an eye-test guy? Andy Benoit - the king of the eye test - also thinks Landry is way overrated.

Like I struggle to find one area where you’ve actually substantiated your point beyond him being a good locker room guy and run blocker. I like having him and think he’ll be better next year, but he really was the definition of “average” this season.

I agree that he wasn't good enough this past season. Part of that was the attention he was receiving, part of that was learning a new offense, part of it was adjusting to new personnel, and the last part of it was him not performing up to his standards.

His target to catch percentage this season was 54.4%. That's not acceptable. He'd be the first to tell you that. There are many factors that go into that stat, and we know it. His previous 4 seasons, this career number was 70.6%. Significantly better.

That said, I also think he brings a lot of positives to the table, even in a down year. @Soda mentions the attitude, the leadership, the willingness to set an example by doing the small things--blocking, toughness, defending his quarterback. He brings credibility to this team.

Despite being inefficient this season, he still led us in catches and yards. It wasn't a great year for him by any means, but he still was on the Pro Bowl map based on how the league thinks of him.

He had 81 catches. 976 yards receiving. 60 yards rushing. 1036 yards from scrimmage. 5 total touchdowns, not including his passing TD.

He's still a guy capable of making plays.

After a year to adjust to this team, I think he'll be moving back toward his career mark with target conversion. A little less volume, a little more efficiency.

Next year, I see him as a guy capable of getting us 80 catches, 1100 yards, and 5-6 TD's on less volume while doing all the little things. To me, that's a very solid #2 receiver.

He's certainly not the garbage player many would choose to have you believe.

 

[Soda]

Basic factual evidence = group think these days ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I notice that your argument is subtly starting to shift away from stats (which are obviously not in your favor) to more of a "you can't put a price on leadership and intangibles!" take. Now of course since that's entirely opinion based, you'll never be "wrong".

Well, it's shallow to not be able to see past a spreadsheet. My argument will always be that he's "worth it". You disagree in that your metric is "bang for your buck" as you put it. IDGAF about "bang for buck" when the Browns are trying to get out of the basement of the NFL. You have a snobby opinion on who deserves roster spots.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Basic factual evidence = group think these days ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I notice that your argument is subtly starting to shift away from stats (which are obviously not in your favor) to more of a "you can't put a price on leadership and intangibles!" take. Now of course since that's entirely opinion based, you'll never be "wrong".

But your response to his point amounts to "leadership and intangibles don't matter because they can't be quantified". Just because we can't measure something objectively doesn't make it any less important.

 

[CBBI]

I think people are forgetting where this team was at when this season/offseason began. We had zero reliable, veteran receivers. We were bringing in a brand new QB in Tyrod Taylor, and knew that we were drafting a rookie QB as well. The receivers room had basically nobody who knew what the fuck they were doing.

Landry was brought in to be a reliable veteran with a lot of leadership -- to show the other guys how to do things "the right way". That includes how they practiced, building the right attitudes, the importance of blocking, etc.. The true measure of what he contributed is looking at how the receivers performed as a whole. Did they progress in terms of skills? How was their attitude mindset? Did they embrace blocking? etc...

Judging by results, I think he turned out to be a great acquisition. He was never a true No. 1, and so was overmatched a lot of time when covered by the defense's No 1 corner. So in terms of his individual numbers, they weren't great. But he was a core leader who helped keep other players focused during all that drama with Hue, Haley, etc.. I don't think Higgins, Callaway, and even Perriman end up progressing as much as they did without Landry.

So, maybe his individual stats don't warrant being named to the Pro Bowl. But I'm glad he made it anyway.

This all depends on how much you actually believe in things like leadership and players teaching other players.

Even if all of the things you mentioned were as true and impactful as you think (which is debatable at best, dramatically overstated at worst), is it still worth paying a guy like a top 7 NFL WR?

At the end of the day I'm firmly on the production > intangibles train 10 times out of 10.

 

[Soda]

The only thing you have pointed out is that he has good hands * which I haven't really disputed* and that hes a pro bowler, which I put no stock in whatsoever.

I dont understand why he deserves this defending? Sitting there, putting ear muffs and regurgitating meaningless facts is, in my opinion, a troll move.

Glad you think I'm trolling after 10 years. I think it's pathetic that you can't look at the article I posted. Or that you looked at it and still don't see it.

 

[Soda]

This all depends on how much you actually believe in things like leadership and players teaching other players.

Even if all of the things you mentioned were as true and impactful as you think (which is debatable at best, dramatically overstated at worst), is it still worth paying a guy like a top 7 NFL WR?

At the end of the day I'm firmly on the production > intangibles train 10 times out of 10.

I agree with you on the first sentence wholeheartedly and have been saying it for several posts. If it's not on a spreadsheet, many act like it doesn't exist. Glad Dorsey beat DePodesta on this one if that's the case.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I agree that he wasn't good enough this past season. Part of that was the attention he was receiving, part of that was learning a new offense, part of it was adjusting to new personnel, and the last part of it was him not performing up to his standards.
Next year, I see him as a guy capable of getting us 80 catches, 1100 yards, and 5-6 TD's on less volume while doing all the little things. To me, that's a very solid #2 receiver.

He's certainly not the garbage player many would choose to have you believe.

He's a really good No. 2 guy. If we have someone else capable of being that No. 1 guy to draw the attention of the defense, I think he'll be money.

 

[Amherstcavsfan]

I think people are forgetting where this team was at when this season/offseason began. We had zero reliable, veteran receivers. We were bringing in a brand new QB in Tyrod Taylor, and knew that we were drafting a rookie QB as well. The receivers room had basically nobody who knew what the fuck they were doing.

Landry was brought in to be a reliable veteran with a lot of leadership -- to show the other guys how to do things "the right way". That includes how they practiced, building the right attitudes, the importance of blocking, etc.. The true measure of what he contributed is looking at how the receivers performed as a whole. Did they progress in terms of skills? How was their attitude mindset? Did they embrace blocking? etc...

Judging by results, I think he turned out to be a great acquisition. He was never a true No. 1, and so was overmatched a lot of time when covered by the defense's No 1 corner. So in terms of his individual numbers, they weren't great. But he was a core leader who helped keep other players focused during all that drama with Hue, Haley, etc.. I don't think Higgins, Callaway, and even Perriman end up progressing as much as they did without Landry.

So, maybe his individual stats don't warrant being named to the Pro Bowl. But I'm glad he made it anyway.

Now this is a well reasoned and legitimate post. I dont necessarily agree with some of these points, but I can follow the logic.

I do think a lot of Callaway, Higgins and Perriman improvement came from QB play, game planning/calling, and coaching from coaches but I cannot say for sure.

 

[CBBI]

But your response to his point amounts to "leadership and intangibles don't matter because they can't be quantified". Just because we can't measure something objectively doesn't make it any less important.

Personally? I believe "leadership and intangibles" from players who aren't QBs is dramatically overstated in importance.

Give me a leader at QB and surround him with guys who can produce. That's all you really need.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

This all depends on how much you actually believe in things like leadership and players teaching other players.

Quite right. Please feel free to stake out and defend the "I don't believe in leadership" position.

Even if all of the things you mentioned were as true and impactful as you think (which is debatable at best, dramatically overstated at worst), is it still worth paying a guy like a top 7 NFL WR?

No, at best they're true, not debatable.

At the end of the day I'm firmly on the production > intangibles train 10 times out of 10.

I guess you were pissed we didn't sign/extent Josh Gordon to a huge contract....