The truth on Allen Robinson

[modo]

Yes and No. That is, in essence, the purpose of statistics. You take the data you have and extrapolate it out. Mooney had around 55ish less targets than Arob and was catching about 70% of balls thrown his way. So if he had even 50 more targets and continues his tread of catching 70% of the balls his way, that would have given him 35 more catches and he was averaging about 11 yards a catch so that would have brought him to over 1000 yards on the season.

There really is no perfect science on how to construct a team, I just believe that the concept of having a #1 is a completely overrated concept, you seem to disagree. All is good!

That is why coaches go over tape and see what the players do on route running catch radius etc....

So simply just extrapolating stats on increased activity is not useful....

I had a conversation just yesterday regarding Golden Tate in this exact circumstance.

His targets went from 99 to 144 yet his yards per catch went down and his TD production went down.....

 

[DC]

Heres the truth. He’s a good receiver. Not elite by any means. Elite WRs change the game. Robinson puts up stats he doesn’t change the game.

While I agree that his $ may be better spent elsewhere and it seems all but certain we are about to start a major rebuild in 2022, Bears offense would be dead last in every meaningful category if it were not for him bailing out Mitch and the Bears consistently with ridiculous catches. I'd venture to guess we don't make the playoffs in 18 and 20 without his contributions.

Time to move on from ARob, but he did great things with shitty QB's here in Chicago IMO. And don't get me wrong, him getting punked in 2020 a couple of times still has me stinging mad too.

 

[Deep Dish Pizza]

you don’t know when it started because it hasn’t started. Owners make a fuck ton more than players do

 

[Deep Dish Pizza]

Really you think that? Most teams are owned by a number of investors. You really think that each one (or one) has a contract paying them $40 million a year? And even if they do make more aren't they the ones who bought the team in the first place? Do players pay for the guys who work at the stadium? Yea nobody pays to see us work, but why does that matter? Owners pay this crazy salaries because there's still dummies who still pay those high prices. Are you married with say two kids? You telling me it's worth to pay over $400 to see a game? Tickets, parking and food extra. That why we don't go to Disney World any longer because I don't want to take out a second mortgage. If you still pay and enjoy it, good for you.

 

[knoxville7]

Really you think that? Most teams are owned by a number of investors. You really think that each one (or one) has a contract paying them $40 million a year? And even if they do make more aren't they the ones who bought the team in the first place? Do players pay for the guys who work at the stadium? Yea nobody pays to see us work, but why does that matter? Owners pay this crazy salaries because there's still dummies who still pay those high prices. Are you married with say two kids? You telling me it's worth to pay over $400 to see a game? Tickets, parking and food extra. That why we don't go to Disney World any longer because I don't want to take out a second mortgage. If you still pay and enjoy it, good for you.

youre dumber than a deep dish pizza if you think players make more money than owners do. Look up the net worths of owners. You’re talking billionaires

 

[Chicago Staleys]

Really you think that? Most teams are owned by a number of investors. You really think that each one (or one) has a contract paying them $40 million a year? And even if they do make more aren't they the ones who bought the team in the first place? Do players pay for the guys who work at the stadium? Yea nobody pays to see us work, but why does that matter? Owners pay this crazy salaries because there's still dummies who still pay those high prices. Are you married with say two kids? You telling me it's worth to pay over $400 to see a game? Tickets, parking and food extra. That why we don't go to Disney World any longer because I don't want to take out a second mortgage. If you still pay and enjoy it, good for you.

I can’t figure out what you are trying to say...

 

[Montucky]

youre dumber than a deep dish pizza if you think players make more money than owners do. Look up the net worths of owners. You’re talking billionaires

Aside from the Rooney's and McCaskeys types basically all pro sports owners were already stinking rich when they bought their franchise.

 

[Chicago Staleys]

Aside from the Rooney's and McCaskeys types basically all pro sports owners were already stinking rich when they bought their franchise.

and oblivious Green Bay.

 

[knoxville7]

Aside from the Rooney's and McCaskeys types basically all pro sports owners were already stinking rich when they bought their franchise.

and your point? Owners still bring in more $$$ than players

 

[Montucky]

and your point? Owners still bring in more $$$ than players

Not even close. The profit each NFL franchise brings in pales in comparison to player payroll. The Packers are the only team that actually has numbers we can look at because their silly public ownership farce, but they are generally top ten in revenue. About ten percent of revenue turns into profit while more than half goes to player payroll alone. Its not even close who is taking in more money. Ten NFL team's profits combined barely amount to one NFL team's player payroll in a given season.

 

[knoxville7]

Not even close. The profit each NFL franchise brings in pales in comparison to player payroll. The Packers are the only team that actually has numbers we can look at because their silly public ownership farce, but they are generally top ten in revenue. About ten percent of revenue turns into profit while more than half goes to player payroll alone. Its not even close who is taking in more money. Ten NFL team's profits combined barely amount to one NFL team's player payroll in a given season.

not what I was arguing, first off. If you think nfl owners only means of revenue is their football teams, well...I don’t know what to really tell you. How the hell do you think they made their money to buy an nfl franchise to begin with.

then there’s the fact that nfl teams split 7.3 billion in revenue which comes out to over 220 million per team. Last I checked there’s no single player making 220 million in a season off football. And 7.3 billion total revenue for ownership is more than total player salaries. But okay

I guess it’s a good thing David tepper bought the panthers so he could finally have some income

 

[nc0gnet0]

That is why coaches go over tape and see what the players do on route running catch radius etc....

So simply just extrapolating stats on increased activity is not useful....

I had a conversation just yesterday regarding Golden Tate in this exact circumstance.

His targets went from 99 to 144 yet his yards per catch went down and his TD production went down.....

Which you failed to take into account his utilization in the system and the fact he was primarily used as a short to intermediate route receiver and seldom ran deep go routes.

You ignored the fact that his yard per game totals as well as his catch percentage and total 1st downs both increased as well.

 

[Montucky]

not what I was arguing, first off. If you think nfl owners only means of revenue is their football teams, well...I don’t know what to really tell you. How the hell do you think they made their money to buy an nfl franchise to begin with.

I guess it’s a good thing David tepper bought the panthers so he could finally have some income

 

[jooo83]

not what I was arguing, first off. If you think nfl owners only means of revenue is their football teams, well...I don’t know what to really tell you. How the hell do you think they made their money to buy an nfl franchise to begin with.

then there’s the fact that nfl teams split 7.3 billion in revenue which comes out to over 220 million per team. Last I checked there’s no single player making 220 million in a season off football. And 7.3 billion total revenue for ownership is more than total player salaries. But okay

I guess it’s a good thing David tepper bought the panthers so he could finally have some income

I have no idea how much profit the average NFL team makes. But you are failing to distinguish between net revenue and gross revenue. Or put differently, the difference between revenue and profit.

 

[dennehy]

There's well over $15billion in total revenue now. A set percentage of revenue goes to players, which is the total of the salary cap (plus maybe insurance, and some other things, I think).

No individual player makes as much as owners take home, but in most cases owners' actual profits year over year aren't even close to what they spend on players' salaries.

I'm sure the owners do fine but the value is in the franchise worth, not yearly profits.

 

[Montucky]

I have no idea how much profit the average NFL team makes. But you are failing to distinguish between net revenue and gross revenue. Or put differently, the difference between revenue and profit.

He has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. Not knowing the difference between revenue and profit borders on illiteracy. Just when you think the userbase of this board has reached the bottom they find a new way.

 

[knoxville7]

I have no idea how much profit the average NFL team makes. But you are failing to distinguish between net revenue and gross revenue. Or put differently, the difference between revenue and profit.

i said the owners split that revenue, thus I’d imagine it’d have to be profit. Again, no individual nfl player makes more off of football salary than a singular owner brings in. It’s basic business, you don’t pay your employees more than you make

 

[jooo83]

i said the owners split that revenue, thus I’d imagine it’d have to be profit. Again, no individual nfl player makes more off of football salary than a singular owner brings in. It’s basic business, you don’t pay your employees more than you make

Revenue minus expenses = profit. Let's use the 220 million dollar number you cited above. The 220 million is gross revenue not profit. The 2020 salary cap was 198 million. So let's use 198 million for expenses to keep it simple. That means 220 minus 198=22 million profit (before taxes). 22 million would also be considered the net revenue. Of course there are other revenue streams besides the 7.3 billion (ticket sales, concessions, merchandise, etc) as well as other other expenses (rent, insurance, non player salaries, equipment, etc) but you get the point. I am not disputing that most NFL teams probably make a large profit or at least do not lose money. I was merely pointing out that in the example you gave you were not drawing a distinction between net revenue and gross revenue.

 

[TheWinman]

Lol @ all of the posts basically saying how the bears don’t need Robinson.

if you think the offense was bad the last couple years, just imagine watching the same shit show minus the best offensive player we have.

Montgomery is the best offensive player we have.

 

[HeHateMe]

Montgomery is the best offensive player we have.

Montgomery can't do anything without good blocking. He's a RB who doesn't have any sort of top end speed. Mooney is a better offensive player than Montgomery lol. Such a meatball take smh.