PDA

View Full Version : Yac? When did this become a negative stat?


BoiseBluTurf
09-14-2010, 12:05 PM
Why do some posters on the Mane speak so negatively of YAC yards when trying to prove a negative about QB 1? It makes no sense! Getting the ball to a playmaker in open space is the object of many successful offensive systems. How is it a negative to have QB 1 can get the ball in the hands of a wide open receiver 6 or 7 yards down the field in open space allowing the receiver to make one or two people miss resulting in a 15 to 20 yard gain? Doesn’t that describe a successful play? If it is a successful play? If it is a successful play… don’t both players deserve credit for the success? Some on this board would have you believe that it’s a great play by the receiver and a negative for QB 1!

Those same posters would have you believe that the only positive way to gain big chunks of yards is by going Vertical! Even though its probably (I’m not a state geek) has a very low percentage of being completed. Before I go any further… let me be clear… I do believe that the deep ball needs to be thrown a couple times a game. That being said… YOU NEED TIME TO GET THE BALLL DOWN FIELD… and with the current offensive line, time is something that the Broncos can’t depend on. Believe it or not, when the coaches put the game plan together they take the current state of the offensive line into consideration… weird hu?

Let me ask you something would be Raider Fan… how has the vertical stretch game for the Raiders over the past 20 years? How did it work with a QB that could only throw it deep (Russell)? I think that dude has a bright future in the game!

Contrast that with a couple teams over the past 20 years, The Niners and Broncos… Both ran the West Coast offense and both had some decent yet not great players. Some dudes by the name or Rice, Montana, Elway, Eddie Mac, Rod Smith just to name a few. You may not be familiar with these players because they were held back by the “Dink and Dunk” offense. As a result, none of them ever had any individual or team success.

Wait, I think Montana and Elway managed to fool people into thinking they were Hall of Famers… and both teams lucked into a few Super Bowl Victories.

Of course none of that counts because "Dink and Dunk (or YAC)" accomplishments don’t count!

Forgot the fact that Jerry Rice made a career out of YAC. All those yards Rice had after the catch should be ignored. At the very least Montana deserves no praise for getting it to his open reciever. Nope, instead Joe be scorned for not waiving Jerry deeper and forcing the ball into tight coverage for style points! If Joe did have to throw it short, Jerry should have stopped right when he caught the ball. Frisbee Football anyone?

Now I know that some of you will rightfully point out the fact that both of these teams would huck it deep from time to time. I'm not arguing against that point. On the contrary, its my opinion that the “Dink and Dunk” offense opened up some of these opportunities. And in keeping with my earlier statement, both teams had time to throw it deep because of great offensive lines and solid if not stellar running games.

Why turn every positive into a negative? It would appear to a long time lurker that most on this board back themselves into a corner with early proclamations about players/coaches and game plans. Once these proclamations have been made it snowballs and pretty soon objectivity is out the door.

Keeping that in mind as I try to look at the current Broncos with some objectivity I see a team that will be limited in the running game and the vertical game until the O-line is solid again. In the mean time, take advantage of Royal, Lloyd and Gaffney in open space. Try to get the ball to playmakers quickly because the line won’t allow much more. And finally… try to appreciate the fact that QB 1 is trying to take what is there and not wait to force what may not be there… or get him sacked.

Sorry about the long post and poor grammar… I pounded it out while my boss was on break.

Spider
09-14-2010, 12:08 PM
hey first off , i spent a week in Boise ..... kick ass city ;D ..Secondly , alot of Morons here .....

BoiseBluTurf
09-14-2010, 12:11 PM
I resemble that remark... When were you here Spider? Or was that just an opener to get your moron jab in?

Spider
09-14-2010, 12:14 PM
I resemble that remark... When were you here Spider? Or was that just an opener to get your moron jab in?

from the second to the 8 th hung out with a gal named deb .... lot of fun ;) went to Crouch Idaho got a room ... I dont need an opening to call someone an Idiot ..... I just do it

Irish Stout
09-14-2010, 12:23 PM
The funny thing is, those same posters like to argue that we're screwed without Marshall because of his YAC, but also point out that Orton's yardage on Sunday was all YAC and not on Orton.

Really, there are negative stats that are clearly negative and their are positive stats. YAC is a positive stat for both WR and QB. The other teams special team return yards are a negative stat for Denver.

What we really need are some motherfing wins.

Kaylore
09-14-2010, 12:25 PM
hey first off , i spent a week in Boise ..... kick ass city ;D ..Secondly , alot of Morons here .....

First of all, I've never been to Boise. Second of all, you're right.

Third of all, some of our biggest plays were not a result of YAC. See: Lloyd.

chex
09-14-2010, 12:25 PM
It's not a negative stat, it's an overlooked stat.

See, when some people here open up the newspaper and see in the boxscore "Forte 80 yd pass from Cutler", it is generally assumed and asserted the pass was a rainbow from the Bears 20 yard line to the endzone. Then we hear them howl we don't have a QB who can throw it 80 yards!

If a boxscore says "Royal 80 yd pass from Orton", then you will hear how the ball only traveled about 10 yards, and how Royal did the heavylifting and Orton should not be given credit for it. Which I guess doesn't make it an overlooked stat. I guess more like a stat of convenience, but regardless, you get the idea.

OBF1
09-14-2010, 12:39 PM
I have to back spider on his... "Bunch of morons" comment, but he is alot nicer than I am. I guess his is mellowing with age.

Great comment Kaylore, I caught it :thumbs:

Rock Chalk
09-14-2010, 12:41 PM
Its not looked at negatively.


Chex stated rather succintly its about perceptions. Orton is not perceived as a guy that stretches the field and anytime a long pass is made by Orton its a dump off (even if thats not the case) and people make that assumption that we cant stretch the defense with him.

Conversely, those same people will conveniently point to Cutler as a guy that can (but rarely connects) because of his strong arm. Cutler's longest pass last week was like 95% YAC as a 6 yard dumpoff to Forte turned into a huge gain.

So the argument that a pass was YAC is made on both sides depending on what you wish to argue and whose side you are taking.

Spider
09-14-2010, 12:49 PM
First of all, I've never been to Boise. Second of all, you're right.

Third of all, some of our biggest plays were not a result of YAC. See: Lloyd.
:wiggle:
still doesnt make YAC a neg stat ........

Spider
09-14-2010, 12:50 PM
I have to back spider on his... "Bunch of morons" comment, but he is alot nicer than I am. I guess his is mellowing with age.

Great comment Kaylore, I caught it :thumbs:

just decided to display my mad people skills ;D

jhns
09-14-2010, 12:56 PM
What is funny about this is the only people I see saying anything about it are the "and it wasn't just yac either!" people. They are saying this to prove Orton has deep accuracy. They can't do that if it was a short throw with yac. I haven't seen anyone arguing against what Orton did with a yac argument. It is pretty funny that people talk **** about others as they whine about nothing.

Spider
09-14-2010, 12:58 PM
What is funny about this is the only people I see saying anything about it are the "and it wasn't just yac either!" people. I haven't seen anyone arguing against what Orton did with a yac argument. It is pretty funny that people talk **** about others as they whine about nothing.

i dont remember inviting the peanut gallery to comment

MaloCS
09-14-2010, 01:01 PM
This is exactly why stats in football are misleading; they do not tell the entire story. In the case of "Yards After Catch", a QB gets credit for the receiver's effort and the receiver gets credit for the QB's effort. This particular stat, in and of itself, DOES NOT separate between the two players and DOES NOT paint an accurate picture of the effort given by each player.

There is only one sport out of the Big 3 that can accurately diagram the ebb and flow of the game; that sport is baseball. Just by looking at the game's box score one can accurately deduce what happened in the game and the effort a particular player gave. Football, on the other hand, is full of misleading stats because we're focusing on individual accomplishments in a game that relies on the cohesiveness of many people.

As you can see I really don't care for these type of stats in the game of football. There are so many variables involved that it's almost impossible to ascertain the effectiveness of a specific player by just looking at their individual numbers. You really have to watch that player perform in order to get an idea of their effectiveness on the field.

jhns
09-14-2010, 01:05 PM
i dont remember inviting the peanut gallery to comment

You also seem to have forgotten your way to the Raider board. Why would you Raider fans want to spend so much time here?

Spider
09-14-2010, 01:06 PM
You also seem to have forgotten your way to the Raider board. Why would you Raider fans want to spend so much time here?

it seems here in prison the raider board is blocked , so we can only access this place .......... go figure hey ....... But still doesnt change the peanut gallery thing ......

jhns
09-14-2010, 01:12 PM
But still doesnt change the peanut gallery thing ......

Yes it does. I have told you this multiple times today. Nobody cares what raiders fans think.

Spider
09-14-2010, 01:16 PM
Yes it does. I have told you this multiple times today. Nobody cares what raiders fans think.

your just saying that to be nice ...........

Bronco Yoda
09-14-2010, 01:25 PM
I hate that blue turf. Now that really makes me wanna yac.

Mountain Bronco
09-14-2010, 01:38 PM
Its not a negative stat, the QB has to put it in the right place for runners to get YAC, so it can be attributed to the QB's play.

That One Guy
09-14-2010, 07:17 PM
1, why make a sarcastic OP? Who are you being sarcastic to? If it's so thoroughly being discussed elsewhere that the sarcasm has merit then the thread isn't necessary.

2, YAC has way more to do with the WR than the QB. Sure, a quick pass helps but if you do a swing pass to Corey Dillon at the end of his career, it doesn't matter how quick you got it there - he isn't getting much YAC. Conversely, if that swing pass is to a Chris Johnson or Jamal Charles then the YAC could pile up quickly. Anyone citing a play like Cutler's as a play made by him is trying to mold statistics into something to support an argument. That pass can be completely by every QB in the league and their backups. Yippie. I might even be able to do it.

3, dink and dunk isn't necessarily the same thing as the WC offense. WC is precision routes and timing. Dink and dunk is dumping it off for short yardage that quite often has little or no chance for YAC. When someone says dink and dunk, it's usually more like the WR goes and squats in a gap in the zone. Yeah, you can pick up a few yards and that works fine but the YAC isn't often going to do much as you're instantly swarmed by the defenders which you're splitting.

Nice try being a smartass though.