But I kind of disagree with the interpretation of the stat in general. I will never buy the lack of targets as an excuse for lack of production unless the player is not even in the game.

I agree with this part. You can't conclude much with targets. There are tons of variables to explain the lack of targets. I still tend to lean to think lack of targets is more a negative versus and excuse for lack of production, unless the player wasn't on the field at all trying to get open. But, I grant you there are lots of factors and the stat overall is one that doesn't have much value unless you really break down the analysis and are an insider on why the targets don't go to the player.

But I appreciate the information. That is definitely a positive indicator. I just see a season that Watkins missed between a 1/3 to 1/2 of the season and still not much got done by Woods. And when Watkins did play, he was hobbled so this was the perfect season for Woods to shine. I go back to Kevin Curtis and how productive he was when Bruce and Holt was out and it was a strong indicator he be a 1000 yard receiver if he played more snaps and sure enough he wracked up like 1100 yards in his first season as a starter before he got cancer.

But in all fairness, Woods also missed 3 games. Give him 3 more games and give him a better offense around him and those 2 factors combined could get him close to 1000 yards. The problem is the Rams offense was actually worse. Yet, the Rams offense should be dramatically improved with the better offensive coaching and I suspect will be way ahead of the Bills offensively this year.

So, there is hope. Plus, coaching can actually make the player fundamentally better and by all reports, he is already a good route runner.