Originally posted by Rascal:
Many thanks for bringing up the stats !! Before I comment, I would appreciate if you could help me to clarify some of those numbers. You mentioned the following :
Patterson - 12 kick returns for 671 yards
Austin - 97 kick returns for 2,407 yards
Then, you worked out the average yard / kick return to be :
Patterson - 27.96 yards
Austin - 23.93 yards
My question is, shouldn't that be :
Patterson - 52.92 yards
Austin - 24.81 yards
Just in case my Maths is right, that to me is quite a difference with Patterson's average being more than twice as much as Austin. Interestingly, this seems to be in line with your own admission of the average yards / punt return with Patterson also being somewhat higher at 25.25 yards as compared to 12.56 yards for Austin.
If you go by stats alone, both of these figures tell me Patterson is definitely better. OK, I admit I might have been a little excited when I said "far better". The question is should more than twice be classified as being "far better" ? It could be just semantics we are talking about here.
It seems to me your argument is that Patterson hasn't done as much time as Austin if you will. That I can't argue with you, but neither can I agree with you that Austin is better.
As a straight deduction from the stats you presented, you can perhaps say Austin is a proven returner over time simply because he has played longer. But, that doesn't necessarily mean he is better. On the contrary, I can argue based on the same numbers, Patterson looks to be the returner with more potential who can make bigger plays. I would say that would be a fair interpretation. Agree ?
Thanks. Your math is correct. My mistake. I had the the number of kick returns wrong. Patterson had 24, not 12, kick returns.
He played in 12 games. I inserted 12 and I should have put 24.
The averages for Patterson that I put were correct.
Your average of 24.81 for Austin is correct. I have no idea what I did there.
I will correct my post.
The corrected kick return averages are:
If we go by average kick return, Patterson is better, not far better. So, yes I agree that in your excitement you overstated your case.
If we go by production, Austin is better; he contributed more.
I agree that Patterson has potential to be a very good football player and yes, he has the potential to be a better football player than Austin.
The problem is that some people are claiming he is, not he potentially is, a better player.
That is not a defendable. Austin is a better player.
The critical question for those who would argue that Patterson is a better prospect
is his lack of playing time.
He has only played for one year and only in twelve games.
Baalke and company base their evaluation on three major factors: medical condition, character, and production over the career of the player.
Is Patterson a one year wonder?
In my estimation, he is not, but that fact that is taller and heavier, and almost as fast as Austin does not mean much.