A closer look at Miles Boykin

[RevBarnes]

I hear what you are saying.....trust me I do. And you are right....this is about logic.....Football logic. And its okay if you don't agree with it. And its fine if you don't take my word for it...do your own research....or ask a football coach/player that you know and ask them how plays are graded.

Oh, and you never responded....did you read the chart?
And I take that you won't be commenting on the rest of my response to your post?

OK, based on the two posts I just put up. I read your chart. You know a lot which is why I read your stuff. That said, as the pass against the Chiefs illustrates (as does at least one other play) the point I was trying to make is valid, sometimes "a miss is just a miss" and it is hard to assign blame to one individual.

To explain: You said that "Boykin had to make the play" but based on Walsh's criteria of blame, Lamar's pass made the receiver's job too hard (it was off by more than a foot) so the blame would be on him. I would throw in that the weather on 9/22/2019 at Arrowhead was bad and that trying to calculate for the wind could have been an extra variable.

btw - There was an earlier debate on this thread about what is a miss and what is a drop.

Anyway, my point actually is in keeping with some of your larger points about Boykin. It's all good stuff and I appreciate it.

Try to respond in a couple of weeks so that the thread will pop up again.

[edromeo]

OK, based on the two posts I just put up. I read your chart. You know a lot which is why I read your stuff. That said, as the pass against the Chiefs illustrates (as does at least one other play) the point I was trying to make is valid, sometimes "a miss is just a miss" and it is hard to assign blame to one individual.


To explain: You said that "Boykin had to make the play" but based on Walsh's criteria of blame, Lamar's pass made the receiver's job too hard (it was off by more than a foot) so the blame would be on him. I would throw in that the weather on 9/22/2019 at Arrowhead was bad and that trying to calculate for the wind could have been an extra variable.

It would be much easier to have this particular discussion, if you posted the play(s) you're talking about. My favorite part about this thread is that all of his Boykin's attempts (and then some) are in here.

And I agree its hard to assign fault. But from there we're gonna have to agree to disagree because from a coaching and grading standpoint its always done on every play by several different people on the staff.

I can't speak specifically to the play you're talking and quoting me on, but I can assure you that for every play,even if I didn't post it, I assign a +/- . So, what is happening here appears to be a misunderstanding of editorializing a play vs. grading a play.
Coaches always want a receiver to make a play but that doesn't mean they're gonna grade the receiver down. If that makes sense. For example, Miles caught a handful of passes that were off-target and on those passes if he didn't catch them I would probably say "he's gotta make that play" or something similar but I wouldn't grade him down for not making the play. One is comment about what I would like to happen and the other is how I would grade the play. I hope you appreciate the perhaps esoteric distinction.

TLDR: You want to see a receiver make a play on a bad ball. But, I (most coaches/people who grade or evaluate film) won't grade the receiver down for not making a catch on a bad ball.

Anyway, my point actually is in keeping with some of your larger points about Boykin. It's all good stuff and I appreciate it.

No worries, all good. Thanks for reading the chart...you're probably 1 on the 4 people that read it. I thought the target accuracy and target quality were an accurate quantification of what we saw in this thread about the quality of targets.

[RevBarnes]

It would be much easier to have this particular discussion, if you posted the play(s) you're talking about. My favorite part about this thread is that all of his Boykin's attempts (and then some) are in here.

And I agree its hard to assign fault. But from there we're gonna have to agree to disagree because from a coaching and grading standpoint its always done on every play by several different people on the staff.

I can't speak specifically to the play you're talking and quoting me on, but I can assure you that for every play,even if I didn't post it, I assign a +/- . So, what is happening here appears to be a misunderstanding of editorializing a play vs. grading a play.
Coaches always want a receiver to make a play but that doesn't mean they're gonna grade the receiver down. If that makes sense. For example, Miles caught a handful of passes that were off-target and on those passes if he didn't catch them I would probably say "he's gotta make that play" or something similar but I wouldn't grade him down for not making the play. One is comment about what I would like to happen and the other is how I would grade the play. I hope you appreciate the perhaps esoteric distinction.

TLDR: You want to see a receiver make a play on a bad ball. But, I (most coaches/people who grade or evaluate film) won't grade the receiver down for not making a catch on a bad ball.


No worries, all good. Thanks for reading the chart...you're probably 1 on the 4 people that read it. I thought the target accuracy and target quality were an accurate quantification of what we saw in this thread about the quality of targets.

All good. So I read your chart. I thought Andrews had more drops than were reported and wasn't sure of the takeaways other than Boykin does seem to have good hands and he obviously doesn't see a lot of targets. Was there another obvious point?

[edromeo]

All good. So I read your chart. I thought Andrews had more drops than were reported and wasn't sure of the takeaways other than Boykin does seem to have good hands and he obviously doesn't see a lot of targets. Was there another obvious point?

The obvious or maybe even surprising stats were for Boykin.
But, information was the point...actual data points.
There's a lot of good information that the playerprofiler site offers. (and I snuck Corey Davis into the chart ;)

I think there are a bunch of obvious points....but I guess they become obvious if you have the frame of reference of what other teams look like.....or even this team in 2019.

-In 2019 across the board all the got better service....they all had better target accuracy in 2019 then 2020

Some points that jump out in comparison to other teams/league:

-Hollywood and Andrews get a "number 1" receiver amount of target share by %....which is a much better stat for comparison to other then counting stats

-adot or distance of the route takes some of the shine of Duvernay's true catch % and drops because like we saw he's was basically catching a bunch of screens. (not taking anything away from his potential btw)

[JimZipCode]

That said, I can't sign off on the implications of, "he just needs to be given more opportunity." Much like I wasn't ready to buy the excuse in college that he needed a better quarterback throwing to him.

First off, I don't really think he's been denied opportunity, as the argument seems to imply.

Oh, I meant to add a comment about "opportunity" – my post had already gotten out of control for length.


Thinking about this, there seem to be at least two, uh, "layers" of opportunity. There's playing time opportunity, as represented by snaps and starts. And there's in-play opportunity – I don't know what else to call it? – where a receiver is at a certain "rank" in the read progression, and the QB decides who to throw to.

I agree with you that Boykin has not been denied "playing time opportunity". He's gotten approximately the right amount of playing time opportunity.

• Played in every game this past year, with 13 starts
• Other than the O-linemen and Lamar, Boykin was third on the team in (offensive) snaps, after Marquise & Andrews.

That's the right spot on the snaps list. I could wish that the delta of snaps was smaller between Boykin and the top two: but overall he's slotted where he should be.


My issue is mostly with the second kind of opportunity, the per-play or in-play opportunity. They're not using him enough in the passing game when he's on the field. But that's the kind of thing where, to evaluate whether it's a "fair" criticism or not, you'd have go look at gifs – focusing on plays where he is NOT targeted.

For a given play you'd have to ask the question, "Should Lamar have gone to Boykin here?" And Lamar made a bad decision? Or does Boykin's route-running suck, and he's not getting open or creating windows or whatever? And it's Boykin's fault that he's not getting more targets?

It would be a huge undertaking. Right from the start of this thread I've been unwilling to take it on, going back to LAST season (2019). Too many snaps, too big a job. But that's what the discussion is (from my point of view).

I do think Boykin got approximately the right amount of playing time this past year, give-or-take, as represented by starts and snaps. (Not so much the year before.) It's where Lamar went with the ball when Boykin was on the field, that I question from this past season.

[edromeo]

I wanted to revisit this when emotions were less raw.

The irony of that play and the important aspect that people miss is that Miles was (again) actually open.
Prior to Snead running his route too shallow and bumping into Miles.
Miles won on the slant like he had the week prior.
And IF Greg/Lamar had made Miles the primary read on the progression that probably get first down there....but the way that game was going he would have immediately fumbled when Snead would have crashed into him.



Look at that release btw....at this point Miles might be better off the lines vs press then Hollywood

all-22

[sflegend89]

all-22

This thread in a nutshell

[edromeo]

This thread in a nutshell...

Your response is a great example of this thread in a nutshell.

You don’t actually respond to the plays or even attempt to discuss the plays. You essentially ignore play after play....the only time dudes like you mentioned a play was if you thought it was a negative play for Boykin.

If all the troll posts were removed this thread would have been an easily searchable chronological film based database of all Miles Boykin targets....plus some key plays where he wasn’t targeted.

The visual data is important and necessary to make accurate assessments about a player. There is so much that can be gleaned and the plays would actually have to be discussed and *understood* to arrive at the true conclusion.

Plenty of posters either didn’t acknowledge the plays at all or had opinions about the plays that were wrong. Look at the Eagles interception for example. Plenty of posters blamed Miles and despite the play being carefully and patiently broken down; despite Lamar himself saying he could have thrown a better ball. It was only after a national football writer’s article did some posters agree. And even after that article the anti-Miles posters never responded to acknowledge that their opinion was wrong.

I posted a chart from PlayerProfiler of all the Ravens WRs. Naturally that chart is ignored but it is again an independent confirmation of the visual evidence provided in this thread.

Miles got the worst targets on the team.
Miles targets were the least accurate (6.14) and had the lowest quality targets (4.4) of any receiver on the team.
Miles catch rate was only 57.6%, the same ballpark as Hollywood 58.6 but Mile's had the 2nd highest true catch rate on the team at 86.4%.

Miles also had the lowest drop% (3.0%) on the team.



Advanced Stats Courtesy of:
https://www.playerprofiler.com/

Metrics	C.Davis	Brown	Andrews	Boykin	Snead	Duvernay
Target Share	23.1%(24th)	25.2%(12th)	24.9% (3rd)	10.5%	14.2 (78th)	7.1%
Target Rate	25% (41st)	23.1% (58th)	26.9% (35th)	14.5%	18.6% (119th)	14%
YPRR	2.67 (4th)	1.80 (47th)	2.12 (5th)	1.17	1.67 (58th)	1.08
Catchable Target%	80.4%(74tgts)	71.7%(71tgts)	77.5%(69tgts)	66.7%(15tgts)	83.3%(40tgts)	80.8%(21tgts)
Target Quality	6.5 (19th)	5.6 (59th)	5.7 (11th)	4.4	5.9 (37th)	4.7
Catch Rate	70..7%(83rd)	58.6%(83rd)	65.2%(23rd)	57.6%	68.8%(36th)	76.9%
True Catch Rate	87.8%(78th)	81.7%(78th)	84.1%(29th)	86.4%	82.5%(75th)	95.2%
Target Accuracy	7.28%(46th)	6.82%(86th)	7.28%(19th)	6.14%	7.40%(36th)	6.73%
Target Separation	1.55(69th)	1.87(24th)	1.69(11th)	1.65	2.19(3rd)	1.27
Drop%	2.2%(35th)	6.1%(35th)	3.4%(30th)	3.0%	12.5%(3rd)	3.8%

Target Share – measures the percentage of all passing targets directed at a particular wide receiver or tight end in games that that receiver was involved in the passing attack.

Target Rate – Ratio of total targets to total routes run by running backs, wide receivers, and tight ends.

Target Quality – combines catchable targets with average target depth putting a premium on deep, catchable targets and
discounting shorter, uncatchable passes.

Catch Rate – captures a player’s ability to secure to secure the football in all situations regardless of the level of difficulty by dividing the total receptions by total targets.

True Catch Rate – reception percentage based solely on catchable targets.

Accuracy Rating– grades the accuracy each of throw on a 1-10 scale. 1-3 representing the most errand throw, 4-7 representing throws in some range of catchable but sub-optimal, and 8-10 representing the most pinpoint passes allowing receivers to convert receptions and gain yards after the catch. Quarterbacks with Accuracy Ratings above 6.0 are considered highly accurate, and those below 4.0 are considered highly inaccurate.

Target Separation – A receiver’s average yards of separation from his assigned defender at the moment the pass arrives.

[BcRaven]

How underutilized is Miles Boykin? :

https://www.baltimorebeatdown.com/20...marquise-brown

" Although his first NFL reception was a touchdown, he never received more than three targets in any game during his rookie season. He also failed to exceed 55 yards in a game and only tallied two more scores throughout the year. Still, even with his unimpressive numbers, there was still hope to be had for the rookie who managed to work his way onto the field consistently due to his prowess as a blocker.

Boykin did end up scoring all four of his 2020 touchdowns after the signing of Dez Bryant, so hopefully that’s a sign that he understands he has to step up his game and will do so this offseason. The Ravens will almost certainly be adding a more dangerous veteran receiver in the next month, so it would be good if Boykin responds the same way a second time. "


... Bc

[JimZipCode]

How underutilized is Miles Boykin? :

https://www.baltimorebeatdown.com/20...marquise-brown

From the link:

Stats alone won’t tell the full story here, which will take a more in-depth film study—stay tuned—to paint the full picture

Look out for gifs, I guess.

[Valhain]

From the link:

Stats alone won’t tell the full story here, which will take a more in-depth film study—stay tuned—to paint the full picture

Look out for gifs, I guess.

And also from the link:

"Boykin was on the field for over 100 more offensive snaps in 2020, but only managed 68 more yards and one more touchdown. With less competition ahead of him and a year of experience under his belt, many were hoping for the young receiver to take the next step. Sadly, it appears he may have taken a step back if anything.

To put these numbers into context, let’s look at all of the receivers drafted since 2019:

28 wide receivers were drafted in 2019 and another 35 were selected in the 2020 draft, bringing the total to 63. Of those 63, six have never recorded an offensive snap in the NFL. Of the remaining 57, Boykin has out-snapped all but seven on offense. Despite those high snap counts, though, he ranks only 26th in total targets with 55 in two years. That leads to a target share of 5.67%, which, when adjusting for only players who have tallied 100 or more offensive snaps, puts him at 45th out of 47 qualifying players. Even rookies Devin Duvernay (26tgt, 347snp, 7.49%) and James Proche (3tgt, 25snp, 12%) were targeted on a more consistent basis than Boykin."

[edromeo]

(1) This guy’s target share numbers are off.

(2) Looking at total targets doesn’t make for an apples to apples comparison at all.
Comparing total targets for the 4th receiver on a team that throws the least in the league to the 3rd receiver on a team that throws the near the most in the league is obviously dubious.

(3) He better not steal the gifs from this thread

(4) The chart only a few posts above has accurate target share numbers plus a bunch of other receiving stats.

(5) Target share isn’t a measure of ‘quality’ of the receivers. Target share is more a combined function of scheme, passing volume, receiver role/position, QB play/QB chemistry.