The Most Productive Rookies Of 2012
-
Here is the list per the PFR career average statistic of the most productive rookies in the NFL in the 2012 season. As noted before this number attempts to quantify a persons performance/production to a single number....and also put skill and "non-skill" players on an even playing field. That number is next to the name of the player. The second number was their draft position in last years draft
Robert Griffin III...18....#2
Alfred Morris...17.....#173
Russell Wilson...16.....#75
Doug Martin...14.....#31
Andrew Luck...13.....#1
Ryan Tannehill...10.....#8
Bobby Wagner...10.....#47
Mike Harris...10.....#176
Luke Kuechly...9...#9
David Lavonte...9.....#58
Brandon Weeden...8....#22
Derek Wolfe...8.....#36
Janoris Jenkins...8.....#39
T.Y.Hilton...8.....#92
Matt Kalish...7...#4
Donta Hightower...7...#25
Kevin Zeitler...7.....#27
Harrison Smith...7.....#29
Jonathon Martin...7....#42
Zach Brown....7.....#52
Sixteen players were assigned a production number of 6....and those 16 include Trent Richardson, Billy Winn, Mitchell Schwartz and Josh Gordon
So, of the 36 top producing rookies of last season, 6 were Browns...per this stat. (or one out of every 6 best rookies was a Brown).
Here is the list per the PFR career average statistic of the most productive rookies in the NFL in the 2012 season. As noted before this number attempts to quantify a persons performance/production to a single number....and also put skill and "non-skill" players on an even playing field. That number is next to the name of the player. The second number was their draft position in last years draft
Robert Griffin III...18....#2
Alfred Morris...17.....#173
Russell Wilson...16.....#75
Doug Martin...14.....#31
Andrew Luck...13.....#1
Ryan Tannehill...10.....#8
Bobby Wagner...10.....#47
Mike Harris...10.....#176
Luke Kuechly...9...#9
David Lavonte...9.....#58
Brandon Weeden...8....#22
Derek Wolfe...8.....#36
Janoris Jenkins...8.....#39
T.Y.Hilton...8.....#92
Matt Kalish...7...#4
Donta Hightower...7...#25
Kevin Zeitler...7.....#27
Harrison Smith...7.....#29
Jonathon Martin...7....#42
Zach Brown....7.....#52
Sixteen players were assigned a production number of 6....and those 16 include Trent Richardson, Billy Winn, Mitchell Schwartz and Josh Gordon
So, of the 36 top producing rookies of last season, 6 were Browns...per this stat. (or one out of every 6 best rookies was a Brown).
I think Hilton and Hightower benefited a lot fro mbeing on better teams. Tannehill is rated too high.
-
A bit surprised not to see Trich on either list...But I assume you had certain criteria in mind or,you based this off something. None the less..Quite interesting,indeed..Thanks Gip.
-
Here is the list per the PFR career average statistic of the most productive rookies in the NFL in the 2012 season. As noted before this number attempts to quantify a persons performance/production to a single number....and also put skill and "non-skill" players on an even playing field. That number is next to the name of the player. The second number was their draft position in last years draft
Robert Griffin III...18....#2
Alfred Morris...17.....#173
Russell Wilson...16.....#75
Doug Martin...14.....#31
Andrew Luck...13.....#1
Ryan Tannehill...10.....#8
Bobby Wagner...10.....#47
Mike Harris...10.....#176
Luke Kuechly...9...#9
David Lavonte...9.....#58
Brandon Weeden...8....#22
Derek Wolfe...8.....#36
Janoris Jenkins...8.....#39
T.Y.Hilton...8.....#92
Matt Kalish...7...#4
Donta Hightower...7...#25
Kevin Zeitler...7.....#27
Harrison Smith...7.....#29
Jonathon Martin...7....#42
Zach Brown....7.....#52
Sixteen players were assigned a production number of 6....and those 16 include Trent Richardson, Billy Winn, Mitchell Schwartz and Josh Gordon
So, of the 36 top producing rookies of last season, 6 were Browns...per this stat. (or one out of every 6 best rookies was a Brown).
I think Hilton and Hightower benefited a lot fro mbeing on better teams. Tannehill is rated too high.
Skeptical2013 said:
I think Hilton and Hightower benefited a lot fro mbeing on better teams. Tannehill is rated too high.
Well, as I understand it this is not supposed to be some subjective rating. It is supposed to be an objective, quantifiable number.
As it is a "Career Average", one of the key components of it will be merely starting games....being on the field. But also performance and production help as well. The Browns had 6 rookies in the top 36 because they started and played 6 rookies.
But, to your question, when comparing Tannehill to Brandon Weeden you get these numbers:
Tannehill 16 games....282/484 for 3294 yards. 12 TD 13 Ints. 49 rushes for 211 yards
Weeden 15 games 297/517 for 3385 yards. 14 TDs 17 Ints. 27 rushes for 111 yards.
The question is then, why does Tannehill get a 10, and Weeden only an 8. I have no idea about the math that goes into this figure. I would probably have to find it and link it.....but Weeden had more completions/attempts/TDs.
Does just playing that one extra game give Tannehill that big of an edge in the math? Do Weeden's more Ints hurt him that badly? Do the rushes and yards gained running add to Tannehill's number? Does winning have anything to do with it? Not sure of any of that....but it does seem to me that Weeden had at least as good if not better year than Tannehill....yet is 2 points lower in this ranking.
-
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?page_id=518
Here is an explanation of the AV number that is assigned to a player and possibly how it is computed. The Career Average is simply the sum of each yearly average.
-
Tannehill won games, which is why his QBR (the ESPN thing) is much higher than Weeden's. He made plays that caused victories, when it mattered. For a guy without a ton of college starting experience, Tannehill did a lot to earn his franchise's trust... which they clearly showed in the offseason.
If we re-drafted with the current brass, I'd bet 3 of my 4 testicles Tannehill is a Brown. Same for Doug Martin.
-
Tannehill won games, which is why his QBR (the ESPN thing) is much higher than Weeden's. He made plays that caused victories, when it mattered. For a guy without a ton of college starting experience, Tannehill did a lot to earn his franchise's trust... which they clearly showed in the offseason.
If we re-drafted with the current brass, I'd bet 3 of my 4 testicles Tannehill is a Brown. Same for Doug Martin.
Tannehill won games, which is why his QBR (the ESPN thing) is much higher than Weeden's. He made plays that caused victories, when it mattered. For a guy without a ton of college starting experience, Tannehill did a lot to earn his franchise's trust... which they clearly showed in the offseason.
If we re-drafted with the current brass, I'd bet 3 of my 4 testicles Tannehill is a Brown. Same for Doug Martin.
The statistic I reference has nothing to do with the ESPN QBR.
-
Other Browns production numbers...
Tashaun Gipson- 2.
Yeah, but last season he was so great...
-
Other Browns production numbers...
Tashaun Gipson- 2.
Yeah, but last season he was so great...
Other Browns production numbers...
Tashaun Gipson- 2.
Yeah, but last season he was so great...
Again, it appears that an important criteria in the number is starts and games played. He only had 3 start and only played in 10 games...in fact, I think he started the season on the practice squad, maybe.
Dre Kirkpatrick, first round pick DB had a -0-. So, I guess that means he will never amount to anything.
And David DeCastro....go tell Vagitron that because DeCastro was hurt most of the year and got only a 1 rating here that his boy will suck forever.
-
Skeptical2013 said:
I think Hilton and Hightower benefited a lot fro mbeing on better teams. Tannehill is rated too high.
Well, as I understand it this is not supposed to be some subjective rating. It is supposed to be an objective, quantifiable number.
As it is a "Career Average", one of the key components of it will be merely starting games....being on the field. But also performance and production help as well. The Browns had 6 rookies in the top 36 because they started and played 6 rookies.
But, to your question, when comparing Tannehill to Brandon Weeden you get these numbers:
Tannehill 16 games....282/484 for 3294 yards. 12 TD 13 Ints. 49 rushes for 211 yards
Weeden 15 games 297/517 for 3385 yards. 14 TDs 17 Ints. 27 rushes for 111 yards.
The question is then, why does Tannehill get a 10, and Weeden only an 8. I have no idea about the math that goes into this figure. I would probably have to find it and link it.....but Weeden had more completions/attempts/TDs.
Does just playing that one extra game give Tannehill that big of an edge in the math? Do Weeden's more Ints hurt him that badly? Do the rushes and yards gained running add to Tannehill's number? Does winning have anything to do with it? Not sure of any of that....but it does seem to me that Weeden had at least as good if not better year than Tannehill....yet is 2 points lower in this ranking.
Well, as I understand it this is not supposed to be some subjective rating. It is supposed to be an objective, quantifiable number.
As it is a "Career Average", one of the key components of it will be merely starting games....being on the field. But also performance and production help as well. The Browns had 6 rookies in the top 36 because they started and played 6 rookies.
But, to your question, when comparing Tannehill to Brandon Weeden you get these numbers:
Tannehill 16 games....282/484 for 3294 yards. 12 TD 13 Ints. 49 rushes for 211 yards
Weeden 15 games 297/517 for 3385 yards. 14 TDs 17 Ints. 27 rushes for 111 yards.
The question is then, why does Tannehill get a 10, and Weeden only an 8. I have no idea about the math that goes into this figure. I would probably have to find it and link it.....but Weeden had more completions/attempts/TDs.
Does just playing that one extra game give Tannehill that big of an edge in the math? Do Weeden's more Ints hurt him that badly? Do the rushes and yards gained running add to Tannehill's number? Does winning have anything to do with it? Not sure of any of that....but it does seem to me that Weeden had at least as good if not better year than Tannehill....yet is 2 points lower in this ranking.
I think Tannehill has talent, but he sure did have his rough spots this past year. Weeden will benefit from now having one of Tannehill's 2012 targets, Bess, to throw to. And Weeden gets hurt, too, because he doesn't have a good TE to throw to. If the Browns had had a TE as good as what the Bengals and Steelrs have, Weeden would have had a better performance year. Just think if Weeden had had the Cincy receiving and TE corps in 2012? It would have made some difference, for sure. One wonders if Dalton is really that good, or it's his great receivers who make him look good.
-
Well, as I understand it this is not supposed to be some subjective rating. It is supposed to be an objective, quantifiable number.
As it is a "Career Average", one of the key components of it will be merely starting games....being on the field. But also performance and production help as well. The Browns had 6 rookies in the top 36 because they started and played 6 rookies.
But, to your question, when comparing Tannehill to Brandon Weeden you get these numbers:
Tannehill 16 games....282/484 for 3294 yards. 12 TD 13 Ints. 49 rushes for 211 yards
Weeden 15 games 297/517 for 3385 yards. 14 TDs 17 Ints. 27 rushes for 111 yards.
The question is then, why does Tannehill get a 10, and Weeden only an 8. I have no idea about the math that goes into this figure. I would probably have to find it and link it.....but Weeden had more completions/attempts/TDs.
Does just playing that one extra game give Tannehill that big of an edge in the math? Do Weeden's more Ints hurt him that badly? Do the rushes and yards gained running add to Tannehill's number? Does winning have anything to do with it? Not sure of any of that....but it does seem to me that Weeden had at least as good if not better year than Tannehill....yet is 2 points lower in this ranking.
I think Tannehill has talent, but he sure did have his rough spots this past year. Weeden will benefit from now having one of Tannehill's 2012 targets, Bess, to throw to. And Weeden gets hurt, too, because he doesn't have a good TE to throw to. If the Browns had had a TE as good as what the Bengals and Steelrs have, Weeden would have had a better performance year. Just think if Weeden had had the Cincy receiving and TE corps in 2012? It would have made some difference, for sure. One wonders if Dalton is really that good, or it's his great receivers who make him look good.
Skeptical2013 said:
I think Tannehill has talent, but he sure did have his rough spots this past year. Weeden will benefit from now having one of Tannehill's 2012 targets, Bess, to throw to. And Weeden gets hurt, too, because he doesn't have a good TE to throw to. If the Browns had had a TE as good as what the Bengals and Steelrs have, Weeden would have had a better performance year. Just think if Weeden had had the Cincy receiving and TE corps in 2012? It would have made some difference, for sure. One wonders if Dalton is really that good, or it's his great receivers who make him look good.
I personally think that Weeden will ultimately turn out better than Tannehill. Obviously, he may not have a longer career, but he will be better.
And I agree about the Bengals. They may in fact have the best WR/TE combination in the entire league.
-
Skeptical2013 said:
I think Tannehill has talent, but he sure did have his rough spots this past year. Weeden will benefit from now having one of Tannehill's 2012 targets, Bess, to throw to. And Weeden gets hurt, too, because he doesn't have a good TE to throw to. If the Browns had had a TE as good as what the Bengals and Steelrs have, Weeden would have had a better performance year. Just think if Weeden had had the Cincy receiving and TE corps in 2012? It would have made some difference, for sure. One wonders if Dalton is really that good, or it's his great receivers who make him look good.
I personally think that Weeden will ultimately turn out better than Tannehill. Obviously, he may not have a longer career, but he will be better.
And I agree about the Bengals. They may in fact have the best WR/TE combination in the entire league.
I personally think that Weeden will ultimately turn out better than Tannehill. Obviously, he may not have a longer career, but he will be better.
And I agree about the Bengals. They may in fact have the best WR/TE combination in the entire league.
That's a possibility -- but I don't think the differenital is that great. In 2012, Tannehill showed a little more poise in the pocket. He's better than I thought he would be.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login