Clayton Vs. Crayton

[berad]

[quote name='BOLDnPurPnBlacK' date='29 May 2010 - 02:00 PM' timestamp='1275156032' post='415737']
its a surprising argument you make considering that the 2009 stats, crayton is better across the board. (receptions, yards, ypc, and TDs). clayton was slight better in 2008. the only other season clayton was better was in 2006 and was way better that year. crayton has had more TDs in every year though, by a pretty good margin too. an important stat your stats do not include is # of targets in which crayton has had less each year, and in 2009 has 7 less targets but still had better numbers.

im not saying its a clean sweep, but clayton was a starting receiver, crayton a back up. other than 2006 clayton had 1 year (2008) with better stats and that was with more targets. crayton every other year, and notably in 2009 has had better stats across the board (especially TDs) while being targeted less. hes gotten more done with less opportunities to do so.

not only that he's also been a return man, so if you go by all purpose yards, its not even close.

PS- i did make the argument now that crayton has been better (by whatever margin) in less targets... in my former post each statement was preceded by IF... as in IF we were to assume those points (which it seemed the consensus was). so IF those statements are true it makes sense, but IF NOT true, then it doesnt. thats all.
[/quote]

All I said was that Mark Clayton has been more productive receiving the ball. Is that true, or not? - Throw out touchdowns because, honestly, that's not an effective measuring stick. LT, Willis McGahee, Laurence Maroney, Tim Hightower, and Joseph Addai (among others) all had more rushing TDs than Ray Rice. Does that mean they are better running backs?

Also, if you think Clayton only out-performed Crayton in 2006, you need to take another look at 2005 and 2008.

And, yes, Clayton has been a starter for much longer than Crayton. But, since 2007, Crayton has compiled 26 starts, an average of about 9 a year. Let's not pretend he wasn't a vital component to the passing game.

But, again, I was only saying Mark Clayton was more productive than Patrick Crayton - which is true.

[berad]

[quote name='flynismo' date='29 May 2010 - 02:00 PM' timestamp='1275156015' post='415736']
That is completely ignoring the fact that Crayton has spent his career as a number 3-4 WR. But when he gets the chance to start, he produces. I'm not sure what his career totals are, but I'm willing to bet that despite his part time role, Crayton probably has DOUBLE the career TDs as Clayton.
[/quote]

You're right, Crayton has 23 TDs to Clayton's 12. Yet, over the past three years, Crayton has started 26 games, compiling 16 TDs in that time. He's not always been the third or fourth receiver.

[flynismo]

[quote name='berad' date='29 May 2010 - 01:32 PM' timestamp='1275157924' post='415750']
You're right, Crayton has 23 TDs to Clayton's 12. Yet, over the past three years, Crayton has started 26 games, compiling 16 TDs in that time. He's not always been the third or fourth receiver.
[/quote]

No he hasn't always been third or fourth, which is why I was saying that when given the chance, he produces.

For comparison purposes, Crayton started 26 games over the past three years, which is what, 9 starts a year? Clayton started what, 48 (dont remember if he missed any starts)? That's a MASSIVE difference in production.

[berad]

[quote name='flynismo' date='29 May 2010 - 02:38 PM' timestamp='1275158309' post='415751']
No he hasn't always been third or fourth, which is why I was saying that when given the chance, he produces.

For comparison purposes, Crayton started 26 games over the past three years, which is what, 9 starts a year? Clayton started what, 48 (dont remember if he missed any starts)? That's a MASSIVE difference in production.
[/quote]

In touchdown production, yes. But when Clayton's and Crayton's receptions and receiving yards are compared, Clayton clearly has the edge. That was my argument.

To be honest, I should have just not commented at all. Any thread involving Clayton goes nowhere. As much as people hate him or hope for him, he's still on the Ravens.. for now, at least.

[flynismo]

[quote name='berad' date='29 May 2010 - 01:29 PM' timestamp='1275157759' post='415749']
All I said was that Mark Clayton has been more productive receiving the ball. Is that true, or not? - [b]Throw out touchdowns because, honestly, that's not an effective measuring stick.[/b]
[/quote]

Cmon, berad, you know better than that.


[quote]
And, yes, Clayton has been a starter for much longer than Crayton. But, since 2007, Crayton has compiled 26 starts, an average of about 9 a year. Let's not pretend he wasn't a vital component to the passing game.

But, again, I was only saying Mark Clayton was more productive than Patrick Crayton - which is true.
[/quote]


Yes, Patrick played a solid role in their passing game. But Clayton was a full time starter for us, who was expected to be our #1...Clayton played a far bigger role than Crayton did.
On a per start basis, Clayton certainly was not more productive than Crayton. Not even close. It's only when you include the games that Crayton did not start that let's Mark catch up....and even then, Mark cant match Crayton's TD production.

[flynismo]

[quote name='berad' date='29 May 2010 - 01:41 PM' timestamp='1275158511' post='415754']
In touchdown production, yes. But when Clayton's and Crayton's receptions and receiving yards are compared, Clayton clearly has the edge. That was my argument.

To be honest, I should have just not commented at all. Any thread involving Clayton goes nowhere. As much as people hate him or hope for him, he's still on the Ravens.. for now, at least.
[/quote]


Why not state your opinion? That's why we're here....all we can do is disagree. Which again, is why we're here. Would be boring if everyone agreed on everything.

[berad]

[quote name='flynismo' date='29 May 2010 - 02:45 PM' timestamp='1275158757' post='415757']
Cmon, berad, you know better than that.
[/quote]

They're not in some cases. Would you say Matt Jones is better than Mark Clayton? He has more touchdowns. Or did I just open up a whole 'nother can of worms?

[quote name='flynismo' date='29 May 2010 - 02:45 PM' timestamp='1275158757' post='415757']
Yes, Patrick played a solid role in their passing game. But Clayton was a full time starter for us, who was expected to be our #1...Clayton played a far bigger role than Crayton did.
On a per start basis, Clayton certainly was not more productive than Crayton. Not even close. It's only when you include the games that Crayton did not start that let's Mark catch up....and even then, Mark cant match Crayton's TD production.
[/quote]

I'll take your word for it. Again, that's not what I was arguing and I didn't factor in his starts.

[berad]

[quote name='flynismo' date='29 May 2010 - 02:48 PM' timestamp='1275158937' post='415759']
Why not state your opinion? That's why we're here....all we can do is disagree. Which again, is why we're here. Would be boring if everyone agreed on everything.
[/quote]

Yeah but, on the other hand, we could argue this for ten pages or I could bump up an old Clayton thread, both would have the same content.

Just saying, I'm definitely not satisfied with Clayton's production, I don't think any Ravens fan is. But, he's under contract here and he's always been willing to help the team. He's not a cancerous player just an inconsistent producer. I'd much rather stick with Mark Clayton than trade him away for a player who would, most likely, produce similar statistics.

[Ed_Reed20]

Crayton is a quality punt returner but offers little value as WR. I'd take Clayton over him.

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

[quote name='berad' date='29 May 2010 - 01:29 PM' timestamp='1275157759' post='415749']
All I said was that Mark Clayton has been more productive receiving the ball. Is that true, or not? - Throw out touchdowns because, honestly, that's not an effective measuring stick. LT, Willis McGahee, Laurence Maroney, Tim Hightower, and Joseph Addai (among others) all had more rushing TDs than Ray Rice. Does that mean they are better running backs?

Also, if you think Clayton only out-performed Crayton in 2006, you need to take another look at 2005 and 2008.

And, yes, Clayton has been a starter for much longer than Crayton. But, since 2007, Crayton has compiled 26 starts, an average of about 9 a year. Let's not pretend he wasn't a vital component to the passing game.

But, again, I was only saying Mark Clayton was more productive than Patrick Crayton - which is true.
[/quote]


In 2009 Crayton was more productive across the board. The amount of games played or started isn't the measuring stick... and you are right about TDs not being a great measuring stick either. One thing I think needs to be considering is number of times targeted. Having more catches is great, but if you were targetd many more times you should have more catches, yards, ect... Percentage of catches to targets is more accurate than total catches. Yards per catch is accurate as well. 2009 Crayton led all these categories, and I didn't go as far to calculate the targets to ctach ratio for each year, but I do know Crayton has been targeted less in each year. Considering that he may have been more productive per chance given to be productive.

And, I will say it again, in 2009 with less targets Crayton had more yards, more receptions, more YPC, and TDs.... 2009 being the most recent year it is the most relevant stat line to go by.

One point that you didn't bring up that does help your side of the argument (and allow me to reiterate, I'm not for one side or the other just trying to compile the best arguments for each side so we can make the best informed decision on the matter) is that Clayton has been the #2 option. Crayton has compiled these numbers facing 3rd and 4th DB's. Clayton receiving the same level of coverage may accel and may have much more success.

[Ed_Reed20]

[quote name='BOLDnPurPnBlacK' date='29 May 2010 - 03:16 PM' timestamp='1275160601' post='415771']
In 2009 Crayton was more productive across the board. The amount of games played or started isn't the measuring stick... and you are right about TDs not being a great measuring stick either. One thing I think needs to be considering is number of times targeted. Having more catches is great, but if you were targetd many more times you should have more catches, yards, ect... Percentage of catches to targets is more accurate than total catches. Yards per catch is accurate as well. 2009 Crayton led all these categories, and I didn't go as far to calculate the targets to ctach ratio for each year, but I do know Crayton has been targeted less in each year. Considering that he may have been more productive per chance given to be productive.

And, I will say it again, in 2009 with less targets Crayton had more yards, more receptions, more YPC, and TDs.... 2009 being the most recent year it is the most relevant stat line to go by.

One point that you didn't bring up that does help your side of the argument [b](and allow me to reiterate, I'm not for one side or the other just trying to compile the best arguments for each side so we can make the best informed decision on the matter)[/b] is that Clayton has been the #2 option. Crayton has compiled these numbers facing 3rd and 4th DB's. Clayton receiving the same level of coverage may accel and may have much more success.
[/quote]

None of us are in a position to make any decision of consequence.

[flynismo]

[quote name='BOLDnPurPnBlacK' date='29 May 2010 - 02:16 PM' timestamp='1275160601' post='415771']

One point that you didn't bring up that does help your side of the argument (and allow me to reiterate, I'm not for one side or the other just trying to compile the best arguments for each side so we can make the best informed decision on the matter) is that Clayton has been the #2 option. Crayton has compiled these numbers facing 3rd and 4th DB's. Clayton receiving the same level of coverage may accel and may have much more success.
[/quote]


On the one hand, you have a point.

On the other hand, as berad mentioned earlier, in 26 starts over the past three years facing #2 CBs, Crayton racked up 16 TDs.

[Dan The Man Ravens #1 Fan]

I keep hearing people say that Clayton is a lock for the number 4 spot and battling Stallworth for the 3 spot. I totally disagree. IMO dont be suprised come mid season to see Stallworth at the 2 spot. I think as far as matchups go he will give any corner a hard battle especially with his speed. This would put Mason in the slot where I think he will do the most damage. With the top 3 spots locked up with Boldin, Mason and Stallworth the 4 spot will likely go to our best reciever who also produces the most at a special teams position. I dont think that Clayton will prove to be that player. We may carry 5 or even 6 recievers on the roster but dont expect all of them to be active each week. If Clayton does not beat out Stallworth then I believe he will be released because of the amount of money he would recieve only to ride the pine. Wont happen. My final opinion on Crayton would be the same as Clayton. Not worth the money or the question marks he would bring to the locker room.

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

[quote name='Ed_Reed20' date='29 May 2010 - 02:51 PM' timestamp='1275162692' post='415775']
None of us are in a position to make any decision of consequence.
[/quote]

if by consequence you mean pull the strings to make a trade happen. but we can make a decision as to which side we feel is correct, or atleast more correct.

[berad]

[quote name='BOLDnPurPnBlacK' date='29 May 2010 - 04:52 PM' timestamp='1275166360' post='415792']
if by consequence you mean pull the strings to make a trade happen. but we can make a decision as to which side we feel is correct, or atleast more correct.
[/quote]

And then what?

I'd be willing to bet that, whatever [u][b]we[/b][/u] decide, Patrick Crayton will not become a Baltimore Raven. And, furthermore, Mark Clayton will most likely remain on the team.

For my part, I see Clayton as a more productive receiving threat than Crayton. I'm basing this off of the entirety of their careers, yes, and the fact that Clayton has started for much of his career (78% starter) while Crayton hasn't (only 39% starter). And, yeah, I discounted the touchdowns because, although important, they aren't a good indication of talent (McGahee vs Rice).

Throw all of that on top of the fact that Crayton is now 31 years old and would need to learn our system while Clayton, only 27, knows the system and has a relationships built with our quarterbacks and personnel, already.

If I were calling the shots, I would stick with Clayton.

[flynismo]

How are TD's not an indication of talent??I mean besides the obvious that points are what we play for, you need a certain skill set to be a TD machine. You have to either be big and physical, and have the ability to make and hold onto catches in traffic, or have a very quick burst and route running skill, or be great after the catch. All of these skills not only translate well inside the red zone, they are what make you a successful reciever between the twenties as well.

[XxSizzleXx]

He is right when he says that they are keeping him for insurance because that's what he is to them, he's in a tough situation down there being behind Bryant, Austin and Williams.

[berad]

[quote name='flynismo' date='29 May 2010 - 07:16 PM' timestamp='1275174982' post='415823']
How are TD's not an indication of talent??I mean besides the obvious that points are what we play for, you need a certain skill set to be a TD machine. You have to either be big and physical, and have the ability to make and hold onto catches in traffic, or have a very quick burst and route running skill, or be great after the catch. All of these skills not only translate well inside the red zone, they are what make you a successful reciever between the twenties as well.
[/quote]

Not a [b][i]good[/i][/b] indication of talent is what I said. If I were to judge a receivers talent off of statistics, I would look at receptions/receiving yards before touchdowns. Just my opinion.

[Ravenfano3]

[quote]Willis McGahee and Trevor Pryce? [/quote]

well, i see the point you are making Berad, but I would say in a league where running back and defensive line rotations have become the trend, the backups at those positions hold more value than a 4th WR.

To the topic of the original post, to me it seems it would be a trade for the sake of trading. We would be trading two equal caliber players, but getting a 31 year old in exchange for a 27 year old. That alone would red flag it for me.

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

[quote name='Ravenfano3' date='29 May 2010 - 11:03 PM' timestamp='1275192180' post='415875']
well, i see the point you are making Berad, but I would say in a league where running back and defensive line rotations have become the trend, the backups at those positions hold more value than a 4th WR.

To the topic of the original post, to me it seems it would be a trade for the sake of trading. We would be trading two equal caliber players, but getting a 31 year old in exchange for a 27 year old. That alone would red flag it for me.
[/quote]


to an extent, yes, i agree... but i wouldnt say they are equal. crayton is a great special teams contributor and a serious red zone threat. clayton is neither, but with youth on his side who knows? he has more time to develop (if the ravens are willing to give him any more time that is).

[Ravenfano3]

[quote name='BOLDnPurPnBlacK' date='30 May 2010 - 12:22 AM' timestamp='1275193378' post='415880']
to an extent, yes, i agree... but i wouldnt say they are equal. crayton is a great special teams contributor and a serious red zone threat. clayton is neither, but with youth on his side who knows? he has more time to develop (if the ravens are willing to give him any more time that is).
[/quote]

well i dont know that i would call crayton great. solid? sure. But his is at taht 30+ plateau. and in the ST game, injuries being already more common, his age could add to his chance of being injured. I wouldnt be convinced that we could get a full season of special teams play from him. Not that clayton is mr. durable. but we do have some other very solid special teams guys. And who knows. playing as a 3 or 4 WR, it's possible we might actually see some production from clayton. ( I say 3 or 4, because with Boldin's and Stallworth's histories, its very plausible that clayton could be our #3 at some point this season, if only for a few games.)

[Mahatma_Sloth]

'crayton is not coming here, clayton is a lock, opinions are fun.....
you know TDs are pretty much the only thing that separate stallworth and claytons numbers maybe we could trade stallworth for crayton. BOLDnPurPnBlacK great argument there i would love for you to return kicks but just like Reed you have no NFL experience so excuse me if i am not quick to trust your or his skills(yet). berad they dont care about stats theres always something wrong if they dont back up a viewpoint much like they dont care that we have other high paid backups or that a player can be unproductive but still get TDs because of redzone packages. how many tds did willis get from other players production? lol, willis is down with OPP

if clayton is not a lock then it will be terrifying to watch boldin, mason, and stallworth get hit because right at claytons heels there is a sheer cliff and the other WR behind him are on the ground way below. Reed excluded.... im reserving hope for him

[Ed_Reed_Pick_Six]

I'm happy with the depth of our receiving corp now.

Crayton has produced some decent numbers as a number 2 receiver for Dallas though; in saying that, we'll keep Clayton I'd imagine.

Dallas has a nice thing going their if he's their [i]fourth[/i] receiver!

[flynismo]

Yes, we all know that this trade isn't going to happen. It was presented as a hypothetical, so no need to keep mentioning it, or that Clayton is a lock to stay here.

Here's the thing. Yes, Clayton is magnificent for a #4. We could do a lot worse than him at that slot. However, we also know that Clayton cannot produce as a starting reciever. That is well documented.

On the other hand, in the limited opportunities that Crayton has had as a starter, he has produced on a near All Pro level in those 26 games. If we were forced to start one of those two, I would feel much safer seeing Crayton on the field.

In addition, not only is he a better reciever than Clayton (if you honestly doubt that, then I don't know what to tell ya), we know Crayton is also a solid punt returner. I think that Clayton could probably be pretty good returning kicks too, at least on paper...but until we see it for ourselves, we don't know that.

I cannot honestly think of one single reason to keep Clayton over Crayton. It has been said that Clayton knows our system. So? What has he done with that knowledge, other than play his way out of a starting job...and possibly a job, period.

My verdict...if I were Oz, and the opportunity presented itself, I would do this trade in a heartbeat.

[joemak]

Just keep Clayton around this year, then cut him after we win the Super Bowl. At least hes a lot younger than Crayton.

[Mahatma_Sloth]

hypotheticals are fun like opinions too but a bit disillusioning. dont get all caught up and lost in your daydreaming i know we all hate clayton and want him gone so we can try out ppl that couldnt beat him on their best day (our practice squad [excluding reed of course, still need to see him play]) but he is here and he will be on the roster guaranteed and the sooner you come to terms with that the better. i have heard the claton sucks and clayton sucks compaired to this guy arguments for the better part of 2 years now and weather the argument is correct or not clayton is still here and everyone still acts surprised

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

[quote name='Mahatma_Sloth' date='31 May 2010 - 09:48 AM' timestamp='1275317329' post='416095']
hypotheticals are fun like opinions too but a bit disillusioning. dont get all caught up and lost in your daydreaming i know we all hate clayton and want him gone so we can try out ppl that couldnt beat him on their best day (our practice squad [excluding reed of course, still need to see him play]) but he is here and he will be on the roster guaranteed and the sooner you come to terms with that the better. i have heard the claton sucks and clayton sucks compaired to this guy arguments for the better part of 2 years now and weather the argument is correct or not clayton is still here and everyone still acts surprised
[/quote]


first off, i dont know that anyone has said that clayton sucks. i actually like the guy and dont know that his lack of production is entirely his fault.

about hypotheticals, and "daydreaming".... everything we discuss is a hypothetical. until you become a member of the front office, or make the team everything you do or say as a fan is hypothetical. look at every post and every thread. "which defense is better" "who should return kicks" "what should the nickname be" "who will make the team"... even the news articles about "flacco finding a voice", "mcclain 4rb", "stallworth looks good" anything you comment about any of it will be hypothetical bc we are not there. you dont know, we're talking about abstract things, or things that will happen in the future. even if we discuss facts they are given to us second-hand by a reporter whom we must trust is reporting accurately. so to scoff at others and their "hypothetical daydreams" is pretty silly considering its impossible to post something on a fansite that isnt hypothetical.

bc IF no one gets injured, everyone plays according to their previous stats, no one has a serious drop off, the team chemistry doesnt turn well then this D will be better. or IF this guy performs to his ability, starters dont go down... this guy will make the team. or IF this reporter is telling the truth than flacco should be a leader this year.... so you see everything we talk about has big IF's surrounding it so its ALL hypothetical. arguing that youve said something non-hypothetical or that isnt just a fanatical "daydream" (you are just a fan, and though you may think you know more but its the future and impossible to know anything) and if you know the future more than anyone else then please let me know bc you have a magical gift for talking about future, unknowable things in a definite way.

sorry if that came off angry, but it was a completely pompous, and ridiculous comment.

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

i appologize for going off topic for a moment, but please allow me to clarify something. this thread is intended to pose a hypothetical question: IF this trade was on the block and your the GM do you pull the trigger and grab Crayton and let Clayton go, or as a fan would be you happy to see it go down?

It's an opinion question, and no one's opinion should be debated. If someone presents "facts" in support to their opinion those of course may always be debated. BUT if someone says, yea id like to see it, how can that be debated? Can you really tell someone what theyd like, or not like, to see?

So please, let's stick to that hypothetical question. If you are in favor, please say so and say why. If you wouldn't be in favor, again please say why. But no one here is saying clayton sucks and lets get rid of him any way imaginable. These were just two comprable players who would make an intriguing trade, whether you like it or not. They are so close, each with their pluses and minuses, that make it such an interesting proposal.

[BuckWilds]

[quote name='BOLDnPurPnBlacK' date='29 May 2010 - 04:52 PM' timestamp='1275166360' post='415792']
if by consequence you mean pull the strings to make a trade happen. but we can make a decision as to which side we feel is correct, or atleast more correct.
[/quote]

And if people think it's a worthy topic for their attention, they will (and probably already have). At some point, however, it's out of the fans hands - and I'm sure Ozzie has decided what he wants to do already.

[3-4ravdef509]

I know he (Clayton) hasn't lived up to what we thought we were getting when we used a 1st round pick to acquire him...and I'm well aware the anger that he was subject to when he cost us the Pats game.
But is he really as bad as some of us sayhe is? i myself have bashed him over the past months...but I went back and watched a lot of the games from the past two years, and he's made a lot of clutch catches at key moments, and he's made plenty of plays. The statistics don't show it, but Clayton was a beast at time last year. He made some huge plays against Minnesota, had a great game vs. Pittsburg, and besides the major drops at NE, I didn't see many drops that were as costly, or as much his fault. So he hasn't impressed us to the level we wanted. As a slot receiver though, and with Mason and Boldin taking the brunt of defenses attention...Clayton could easily come in as the 3rd or 4th option and make even more of an impact. I like Stallworth, and Washington was an asset making tough catches in the middle. I think Clayton could easily have a breakout year next year though, if he wins a spot during the offseason. And you gotta love his humble personlity. I dont care what Crayton has, I think Clayton is worth keeping a little longer.