Isn't it a little strange that a defensive player can be given a PA even if they weren't the player given the target.
Forum > FAQ's, Player Guides and Newbie Help > Targets/Pass allowed
Phantom Of The Opera
offline
offline
I think it is stranger that a player can be held responsible for receptions allowed and not even have been targeted. 
Greg B
offline
offline
Working as intended because a MLB is responsible for every pass that the offense makes even if he is not in the area.
I no longer pay attention to the PA stat or Targeted stat since they don't work worth a ****. 
toobad4u_00
offline
offline
Originally posted by Theo Wizzago
I no longer pay attention to the PA stat or Targeted stat since they don't work worth a ****.
they work as desired by the coder, they just don't work for anything helpful at all.
I no longer pay attention to the PA stat or Targeted stat since they don't work worth a ****.
they work as desired by the coder, they just don't work for anything helpful at all.
AZSEAfan
offline
offline
Originally posted by toobad4u_00
they work as desired by the coder, they just don't work for anything helpful at all.
I find it somewhat helpful when evaluating CB's but not really any other position.
they work as desired by the coder, they just don't work for anything helpful at all.
I find it somewhat helpful when evaluating CB's but not really any other position.
Originally posted by AZSEAfan
I find it somewhat helpful when evaluating CB's but not really any other position.
Last game my CB had 5 targets and 4 allowed. The WR he was assigned to cover didn't make a single catch (when my CB was covering him). But the TE, the HB, and the slot receiver all had catches... one was around 5 yards away from my CB and it wasn't his man... but he got hit with the "allowed". This happens SO many times I simply cannot consider the stat as a reliable source of info. Which sucks because it COULD be, as you say, helpful when evaluating a dot or a play.
I find it somewhat helpful when evaluating CB's but not really any other position.
Last game my CB had 5 targets and 4 allowed. The WR he was assigned to cover didn't make a single catch (when my CB was covering him). But the TE, the HB, and the slot receiver all had catches... one was around 5 yards away from my CB and it wasn't his man... but he got hit with the "allowed". This happens SO many times I simply cannot consider the stat as a reliable source of info. Which sucks because it COULD be, as you say, helpful when evaluating a dot or a play.
AC
offline
offline
I think it's dumb to get credited with a RA if you get a knock loose on the play. If it was a reception, then the knock loose should be a fumble. If it's not a fumble, then it wasn't a reception! OMG! I hate that so much.
MileHighShoes
offline
offline
Yeah, there's so much wrong with the Targets/receptions allowed that it's pretty much meaningless.
KL's aren't included, it doesn't account for zone correctly, and even on dots in a lot of man coverage it's still horridly inaccurate due to the "nearby" player. I've seen players with more receptions allowed then they have targets in that season. That alone says a lot about the stats usefulness. That'd be like dots getting credited with missed tackles just for being nearby but not participating when the ballcarrier was tackled.
KL's aren't included, it doesn't account for zone correctly, and even on dots in a lot of man coverage it's still horridly inaccurate due to the "nearby" player. I've seen players with more receptions allowed then they have targets in that season. That alone says a lot about the stats usefulness. That'd be like dots getting credited with missed tackles just for being nearby but not participating when the ballcarrier was tackled.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
