Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: RedskinsInsider and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Redskins and Sports  |  RSS

Poll: Which RBs will survive?

The Redskins have made an offer to free agent Brian Westbrook, raising the possibility that the team could soon have four veteran running backs in camp.

By Washington Post editors  |  June 4, 2010; 2:41 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: McCardell adjusting from player to coach
Next: McNabb working overtime to grasp new offense

Comments

Tough Call, if all 4 are on the roster at the pre-season I would be shocked

Posted by: alex35332 | June 4, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

I voted for Willie Parker, but it could just be the vodka/cranberry talking.

Posted by: iH8dallas | June 4, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

*writing Ladell Betts on the ballot*

Love being right.

Posted by: mattsoundworld | June 4, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Man that was a fast beep. Wonder where else they run this poll, because there were 80 votes within seconds of its going up.

I like McCardell. I was one of the people saying "don't sigh him" when we signed him. I was wrong on that call and I was very impressed with McCardell. He didn't have much talent left, but he had a great sense of what to do. If he can teach that to our current WR group, that'd be huge.

Always felt our prior WR coach left something to be desired. Hopefully McCardell can impart a lot of that savvy he had to his students -- in a very short time.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | June 4, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Thumbs down to those who voted for Clinton

Posted by: iH8dallas | June 4, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

"Thumbs down to those who voted for Clinton."

It says who will not be on the roster the first game, but if it said who would not finish the season as the #1 starter my vote would go to Mr.Portis.

- Ray

Posted by: rmcazz | June 4, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Wonder where else they run this poll, because there were 80 votes within seconds of its going up.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | June 4, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse
----------------------------

The ubiquitous 'Washington Post Editors' have been taking text message votes from inside sources.

Posted by: mattsoundworld | June 4, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Hall, on the other hand, does tend to gamble. Because of that, he gives up a lot of completions ... and that's a problem. Even more so because once a player has caught it, there's a real chance Hall will miss the tackle (even whiff) and a modest play will become a big play.


Posted by: zcezcest1 | June 4, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse


DeAngelo Hall surrendered 36 receptions last season which ties him for 7th in the league among CBs that played at least 50% of their teams d-snaps.

D.Hall surrendered FEWER receptions than Charles Woodson, Courtland Finnegan, Champ Bailey, and (don't look now) Darrelle Revis.

Hall surrendered a 56.3% completion percentage in his coverage which puts him at 20th in the league among CBs who played 50% or mroe of their teams D-snaps.

A better % than Asante Samuel, Courtland Finnegan and NNamdi Asomguah.

D.Hall is credited with 8 missed tackles - the same number as Charles Woodson and N. Asamoughoa.

The longest pass play that Hall surrenderd was a 50 yard reception - Charles Woodson and Darelle Revis got burned for longer passing plays last season.


Anyone else have an ignorant non-fact based view they want to throw out in this dicussion?

Posted by: p1funk | June 4, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: p1funk | June 4, 2010 12:48 PM

I believe someone showed you how your reliance on those stats was flawed. Nevertheless, I know what I see when I watch the games. And, it's my opinion. Stats like those you posted don't settle the issue. These types of arguments are probably why you no longer practice law. Finally, its not as if I said Rogers was better than Asomugah or Revis. We're talking the difference between Rogers and Hall. Some of you all are reacting as if it isn't even debatable.

Posted by: learnedhand1 | June 4, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse


Stats alone don't settle the issue - I put up about 10 different metrics showing that Hall is clearly a superior cover-corner and that's flawed??

These arguments are why I no longer practice law??? Arguments where I present hard measurable evidence of Hall's superiority??? And your counterpoint is that you just think Rogers is better because that's just waht you think and it's your opinion??? Arguments like that are why you'd never even get into law school.

Don't be ridiculous.

So what settles the issue? Your couch-potato assessment of the matter?

Carlos Rogers has been benched and lost his starting spot each of the last 2 years at some point - his coaches clearly have had mixed feelings about his performances. Do their opinions matter? If measurable data isn't sufficient, do the opinions of his coaches count for anything???

Probably not, after all, you watch the games from your living room and your opinion is what it is... I guess that settles the matter.

Posted by: p1funk | June 4, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Always felt our prior *Insert any coaching staff position* coach left something to be desired.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | June 4, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse
----------------------

Fixed.

Posted by: mattsoundworld | June 4, 2010 3:05 PM | Report abuse

The ubiquitous 'Washington Post Editors' have been taking text message votes from inside sources.


Posted by: mattsoundworld | June 4, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Are you talking about League/talent/beep?

Posted by: skinsfanintampa | June 4, 2010 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Surprised so many people voted for Willie Parker considering Westbrook isn't even on the roster right now and would still be somewhat of a longshot to sign here.

Posted by: psps23 | June 4, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Hall, on the other hand, does tend to gamble. Because of that, he gives up a lot of completions ... and that's a problem. Even more so because once a player has caught it, there's a real chance Hall will miss the tackle (even whiff) and a modest play will become a big play.


Posted by: zcezcest1 | June 4, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse


DeAngelo Hall surrendered 36 receptions last season which ties him for 7th in the league among CBs that played at least 50% of their teams d-snaps.

D.Hall surrendered FEWER receptions than Charles Woodson, Courtland Finnegan, Champ Bailey, and (don't look now) Darrelle Revis.

Hall surrendered a 56.3% completion percentage in his coverage which puts him at 20th in the league among CBs who played 50% or mroe of their teams D-snaps.

A better % than Asante Samuel, Courtland Finnegan and NNamdi Asomguah.

D.Hall is credited with 8 missed tackles - the same number as Charles Woodson and N. Asamoughoa.

The longest pass play that Hall surrenderd was a 50 yard reception - Charles Woodson and Darelle Revis got burned for longer passing plays last season.


Anyone else have an ignorant non-fact based view they want to throw out in this dicussion?

Posted by: p1funk | June 4, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

I will throw in something that is fact...the Redksins stunk last season and teams did not throw as much in the second half against the Skins....Teams with the a mid 3rd or 4th QT lead...tend to not throw the ball as much...Also look at the corners last year...i don't think hall was the choice to throw at..teams threw more at the other Corners so I say those stats on hall can be an illusion.

Posted by: leevi98 | June 4, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse

I'm not weighing in on the who's better argument but your stats fail to take into the 1 biggest factor of a corner. Ask this question: How many times was his receiver NOT thrown to because he was covered? No stats for that.

Posted by: scampbell1975

Truth in that. If the QB looks, sees good coverage and has to go somewhere else, the CB gets no stat for that. Having to go to the next receiver increases the chances of a drive killing sack or a holding penalty on the offense.

Its the reason many QBs were told not to even bother looking at the guy Darrell Green was covering. Wasting valuable time just to find out there's nothing there.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | June 4, 2010 2:18 PM |

This is for you p1. Your stats don't really prove anything because of my reasons above. The only way to measure that is to see how many pass plays each corner was on the field and then how many times they were NOT thrown at. Even then you can't gauge because the first receiver thrown to could have been wide open. Your stats only take into account when the corner was thrown at. Not reliable enough I'm sorry to say.

Posted by: scampbell1975 | June 4, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Always felt our prior *Insert any coaching staff position* coach left something to be desired.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | June 4, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse
----------------------

Fixed.

Posted by: mattsoundworld |

Might be some truth in that. Its really hard to know how a position coach is doing. Still Hixon, stood out ... he was here a long time and no one seemed to get better.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | June 4, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Surprised so many people voted for Willie Parker considering Westbrook isn't even on the roster right now and would still be somewhat of a longshot to sign here.

Posted by: psps23 | June 4, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse
-----------------------

Ah, the classic underestimation of RI group think. Your indoctrination is not yet complete, young grasshopper.

Posted by: mattsoundworld | June 4, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else have an ignorant non-fact based view they want to throw out in this dicussion?

Posted by: p1funk | June 4, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

I will throw in something that is fact...the Redksins stunk last season and teams did not throw as much in the second half against the Skins....Teams with the a mid 3rd or 4th QT lead...tend to not throw the ball as much...Also look at the corners last year...i don't think hall was the choice to throw at..teams threw more at the other Corners so I say those stats on hall can be an illusion.

Posted by: leevi98 | June 4, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse


Fact:

DeAngelo Hall thrown at 64 times.

Carlos Roger thrown at 61 times.


Anyone else???

Posted by: p1funk | June 4, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

he was here a long time and no one seemed to get better.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | June 4, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse
------------------------

Still don't understand how Danny Smith has survived it all. He must have some compromising photos of Snydely. When was the last time an adjective more positive than mediocre could be applied to our teams?

Posted by: mattsoundworld | June 4, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

omgarewestillarguingaboutcarlosrogersversusdeangelohall?

Posted by: mattsoundworld | June 4, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

My bro is on a plane right now and he is sitting behind Mike Sellers.... He just ordered a coke and rum haha

Posted by: Rashad8o4 | June 4, 2010 3:19 PM | Report abuse

I'm not weighing in on the who's better argument but your stats fail to take into the 1 biggest factor of a corner. Ask this question: How many times was his receiver NOT thrown to because he was covered? No stats for that.

Posted by: scampbell1975

Truth in that. If the QB looks, sees good coverage and has to go somewhere else, the CB gets no stat for that. Having to go to the next receiver increases the chances of a drive killing sack or a holding penalty on the offense.

Its the reason many QBs were told not to even bother looking at the guy Darrell Green was covering. Wasting valuable time just to find out there's nothing there.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | June 4, 2010 2:18 PM |

This is for you p1. Your stats don't really prove anything because of my reasons above. The only way to measure that is to see how many pass plays each corner was on the field and then how many times they were NOT thrown at. Even then you can't gauge because the first receiver thrown to could have been wide open. Your stats only take into account when the corner was thrown at. Not reliable enough I'm sorry to say.

Posted by: scampbell1975 | June 4, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse


The only way to measure that is to get inside of the QBs head and figure out his decision-making.

Maybe he doesn't throw at a certain corner because his progressions on that particular play work in a different manner?

Maybe he doesn't throw at a particular reciever b/c the QB just plain misses him?

Maybe he doesn't throw at a particular corner b/c the play gets busted and he can;t go through his progressions and has to look for a dump-off pass.

But since it's going to be difficult to factor "QB mind-reading" into this discussion in a realistic way, we are forced to go with the information that we have, aren't we?

So again, I ask you. If measurable data AND the opinion of coaches isn't sufficient to determine who is a better CB, then what exactly are we going with???

I know that criteria #1 is couch-potato opinions, but besides that, is there anything else???

Posted by: p1funk | June 4, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

The only way to measure that is to get inside of the QBs head and figure out his decision-making.

Maybe he doesn't throw at a certain corner because his progressions on that particular play work in a different manner?

Maybe he doesn't throw at a particular reciever b/c the QB just plain misses him?

Maybe he doesn't throw at a particular corner b/c the play gets busted and he can;t go through his progressions and has to look for a dump-off pass.

But since it's going to be difficult to factor "QB mind-reading" into this discussion in a realistic way, we are forced to go with the information that we have, aren't we?

So again, I ask you. If measurable data AND the opinion of coaches isn't sufficient to determine who is a better CB, then what exactly are we going with???

I know that criteria #1 is couch-potato opinions, but besides that, is there anything else???

Posted by: p1funk | June 4, 2010 3:20 PM

My point is that you are trying to corner people on an opinion based on facts that don't tell the whole story. The measurables do say a lot but they can't be the whole basis for a concrete assessment on who's better. They don't tell the whole story.

Posted by: scampbell1975 | June 4, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Tom Brandstater... come on down. You are the next QB to visit Washington and please, say good-bye to Colt Brennan on your way in.

Seriously, Denver just release this guy. He wasn't drafted by Shanahan but he was scouted by a Broncos org attuned to Shanny's vision. I got this feeling this guy is on a plane to Redskins park right now.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | June 4, 2010 3:17 PM

Posted by: RedSkinHead | June 4, 2010 3:29 PM | Report abuse

ok, so I understand that league-source killed the fun of beeps.

but even Red was left poking around in the dregs of the McCardell thread, while the rest of you were frolicking around with a poll.

maybe I missed it, but a gentle (even cryptic) reminder would be a nice courtesy.

Posted by: moodlymoodlymoo | June 4, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

My point is that you are trying to corner people on an opinion based on facts that don't tell the whole story. The measurables do say a lot but they can't be the whole basis for a concrete assessment on who's better. They don't tell the whole story.

Posted by: scampbell1975 | June 4, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse


So what does tell the whole story? You can't seriously adopt the position that there really is no way to assess whether one corner is better than another.

I'm pretty sure you think Darelle Revis and Asamgouah and Woodson are darn good corners. Why would you think that? Based on what?

Posted by: p1funk | June 4, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

My bro is on a plane right now and he is sitting behind Mike Sellers.... He just ordered a coke and rum haha

Posted by: Rashad8o4 | June 4, 2010 3:19 PM
------------------------------------------
Tell your bro to slap him on the back of the head real hard and say, "That's for not blocking for Clinton!"

Posted by: RedSkinHead | June 4, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

omgarewestillarguingaboutcarlosrogersversusdeangelohall?

Posted by: mattsoundworld | June 4, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse


It's not an argument; it's basically a slaughter.

People keep saying things that are diametrically opposed to the available facts.

Things like "Hall surrenders alot of receptions" - except that he doesn't, he surrendered the 7th fewest receptions in the league among CBs that played 50% of more of their D-snaps.

And "they don't target Hall as much as they target the other CBs" - except that Hall was targeted on 3 more occassions than Rogers.

I don't know when this will end, but it's kind of fun shooting fish in a barrel when people keep stating things that are factually untrue.

Posted by: p1funk | June 4, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

My point is that you are trying to corner people on an opinion based on facts that don't tell the whole story. The measurables do say a lot but they can't be the whole basis for a concrete assessment on who's better. They don't tell the whole story.

Posted by: scampbell1975 | June 4, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse


So what does tell the whole story? You can't seriously adopt the position that there really is no way to assess whether one corner is better than another.

I'm pretty sure you think Darelle Revis and Asamgouah and Woodson are darn good corners. Why would you think that? Based on what?

Posted by: p1funk | June 4, 2010 3:31 PM |

Again, I'm not weighing in on the who's better argument. I stated that your measurables were a good starting point and tell SOME of the story. Only real way is to ask QB's, offensive coordinators, and WR's which one's they'd rather stay away from. Hall and Rogers are 2 different types of corner's that have 2 different skill sets for their positions. Who's better? Well, I think Hall is better at getting turnovers. I think Carlos is a better off the line guy. He's more physical. Hall is faster and can take risks a little more. Rogers is a little more disciplined when not biting on double moves.

Posted by: scampbell1975 | June 4, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Tell your bro to slap him on the back of the head real hard and say, "That's for not blocking for Clinton!"

Posted by: RedSkinHead | June 4, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse
------------------------------

There's a Monica Lewinski joke hidden in there, but in 2010, I just can't bring myself to pull the trigger.

Posted by: mattsoundworld | June 4, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

But since it's going to be difficult to factor "QB mind-reading" into this discussion in a realistic way, we are forced to go with the information that we have, aren't we?

Posted by: p1funk | June 4, 2010 3:20 PM

No we're not. You are because that's what your arguments based on. We're n ot forced to play your game. Your asking for an opinion which isn't always based on your precious little statistics. Plus, you're little stats are only taking into account last year. I don't know what the cumulative results are but that's still not the point. Many things in this world aren't proven necessarily be the numbers.

Posted by: scampbell1975 | June 4, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

I don't think my bro would make out of the plane in one piece if he did that. Apparently he is wearing a wifebeater and looks massive...so no slapping allowed

Posted by: Rashad8o4 | June 4, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

in any case, the more interesting question is which (if any) of these running backs will be on the Redskins roster for the first regular season game of 2011.

Posted by: moodlymoodlymoo | June 4, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Tell your bro to slap him on the back of the head real hard and say, "That's for not blocking for Clinton!"

Posted by: RedSkinHead | June 4, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse
------------------------------

There's a Monica Lewinski joke hidden in there, but in 2010, I just can't bring myself to pull the trigger.

Posted by: mattsoundworld | June 4, 2010 3:42 PM
-----------------------------------------
I'm a Republican but even I miss those Clinton years.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | June 4, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

I don't think my bro would make out of the plane in one piece if he did that. Apparently he is wearing a wifebeater and looks massive...so no slapping allowed

Posted by: Rashad8o4 | June 4, 2010 3:44 PM
------------------------------------------
Yes, but he's real slow. I think your bro could get away after he did it. Just wait until the plane lands...

Posted by: RedSkinHead | June 4, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Rashad8o4 | June 4, 2010 3:44 PM

he should try doing what our little ones do... just kick the back of the seat incessantly.

100% guaranteed to drive Sellers insane.

Posted by: moodlymoodlymoo | June 4, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

p1, I'd argue that we really haven't developed effective stats for corners. Sometimes, a stat will jump out at you. Give you an example.

Andre Johnson, his last 3 games in 2008:
11 catches, 207 yds, 1TD
2 catches, 19 yds
10 catches, 148 yds, 2TDs

Now, guess which game Nnamdi was covering him, one on one.

But its rarely that clear.

I recall a play where D Hall got credit for a tackle. That's a positive thing. Except, in reality, the guy he tackled was Jake Delhomme, who'd just run over him for a game clinching 1st down.

You can bring your stats, but I don't think they tell the whole story. Or anything close to the whole story.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | June 4, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: scampbell1975 | June 4, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

DeAngelo Hall has been a starting CB and been in the lineup (barring injury) since he's arrived.

Carlos Rogers has been benched each of the last 2 seasons at some point for poor/inconsistent play.

When D.Hall became a free agent after his first half-season here in Washington, a number of teams bid for his services and Washington won out with a pretty high bid which certainly suggests that other teams were ready to also pay some farily big bucks for him.

When Carlos Rogers became a restricted free agent, not one single solitary team anted-up the tender to grab him - and it wasn't even the highest tender possible.

And what exactly is "my game" in this discussion?

So far "my game" has been to utilize the available objective data to formulate an argument on the matter.

If folks are interested in playing a different game to have this discussion, what would that approach be?

Posted by: p1funk | June 4, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

My stats tell me that they'll all live past this summer.

Posted by: RomoLongballs | June 4, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Last time P1, the point is that you are asking for an opinion based on n umbers that don't tell the whole story. Your "gam" is to force people into your way of thinking because of some numbers you found that don't tell the whole story. If you asked me I would tell you based on which receivers are on the field which corner would be the better one to cover him.

Posted by: scampbell1975 | June 4, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse

maybe a little context is needed here, given who we have available on the roster.

Hall ~ Carlos > all the rest

Posted by: moodlymoodlymoo | June 4, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Tell your bro to slap him on the back of the head real hard and say, "That's for not blocking for Clinton!"

Posted by: RedSkinHead | June 4, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse
------------------------------

There's a Monica Lewinski joke hidden in there, but in 2010, I just can't bring myself to pull the trigger.

Posted by: mattsoundworld | June 4, 2010 3:42 PM |

She's not a blocking tight end. She's better at catching passes.

Posted by: SonofNero | June 4, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Last time P1, the point is that you are asking for an opinion based on n umbers that don't tell the whole story. Your "gam" is to force people into your way of thinking because of some numbers you found that don't tell the whole story. If you asked me I would tell you based on which receivers are on the field which corner would be the better one to cover him.

Posted by: scampbell1975 | June 4, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse


I've posted it several times now.

You were talking about interviewing head coached, offensive coordinators, etc. etc.

I pointed out that Rogers has been benched twice in the last 2 years for poor play, while Hall has always been a starter.

I pointed out how the FA market played out for Hall versus Rogers.

Both of those indicate that "football people" in the NFL have a higher opinion of Hall than Rogers.

So, I'm combining the numbers-oriented data (which HEAVILY slants in favor of Hall) with evidence/opinions from football people in the league. And it all stacks up pretty conclusively that Hall is a better CB.

I don't know scamp, I'd think that you'd be putting the interrogation on this issue to the people with zero statistical evidence and nothing but their personal bald assertions on the matter...guess not.

Posted by: p1funk | June 4, 2010 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Just to throw in my 2 cents here to support what scamp is saying;
Based on the facts that the statistics would “prove”, Emmitt Smith is the greatest running back to ever play the game, and Brett Favre is the greatest QB ever. Do you really think that the stats each guy has is an “end of story” to that “debate”?

Posted by: dlhaze1 | June 4, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

maybe a little context is needed here, given who we have available on the roster.

Hall ~ Carlos > all the rest

Posted by: moodlymoodlymoo | June 4, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

I'd bet a chelada that Tryon could take Rogers if he continues to work hard. But I'm hoping that Rogers and Hall fell victim to poor safety play and scheme and we'll have a discussion about who's better mid-season, rather than who's worse.

Posted by: RomoLongballs | June 4, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

I don't know scamp, I'd think that you'd be putting the interrogation on this issue to the people with zero statistical evidence and nothing but their personal bald assertions on the matter...guess not.

Posted by: p1funk | June 4, 2010 4:09 PM |

You're more fun to argue with. They give up too easily. I'm not saying that you don't have a good argument because you do. I'm just saying it's not the whole enchilada. Personally, if you had to guard T.O. I would have Carlos on him. If you had to guard DeSean Jackson, i would pick Hall. Different corners for different styles.

Posted by: scampbell1975 | June 4, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

I think DLhaze just said much better what I was trying to get at. Stats don't tell the whole story.

Posted by: scampbell1975 | June 4, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

1, I'd argue that we really haven't developed effective stats for corners. Sometimes, a stat will jump out at you. Give you an example.

Andre Johnson, his last 3 games in 2008:
11 catches, 207 yds, 1TD
2 catches, 19 yds
10 catches, 148 yds, 2TDs

Now, guess which game Nnamdi was covering him, one on one.

But its rarely that clear.

I recall a play where D Hall got credit for a tackle. That's a positive thing. Except, in reality, the guy he tackled was Jake Delhomme, who'd just run over him for a game clinching 1st down.

You can bring your stats, but I don't think they tell the whole story. Or anything close to the whole story.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | June 4, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse


The metric out there for measuring CB performance are just as good as any of the other stats that measure any other position.

QB stats (for instance) don't take into account things like how good your Oline or receivers are.

Running back yardage total doesn't take into account things like whether your team has a good passing game that opens up lanes and gets people out of the box.

Linebacker tackles and sacks don't take into account whether you play in a 3-4 or 4-3.

So you can ALWAYS play the card that "stats don't tell the whole story"; but they certainly tell a much more accurate story than bald assertions from arm-chair scouts like us; particularly when our opinions run completely counter to what those stats do indicate.

Like how many receptions a player actually gives up.

Posted by: p1funk | June 4, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: RomoLongballs | June 4, 2010 4:11 PM

maybe... although I thought Tryon was struggling a little in OTAs? just hearsay stuff though.

Posted by: moodlymoodlymoo | June 4, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: p1funk | June 4, 2010 3:53 PM

Who bid for Hall's services when he became a FA in 2009? When did they do it? I'll tell you right now you won't be able to name one team.

If Hall was a good as Woodson and Revis as your earlier posts suggests, why didn't a team claim him off of the waiver wire before he could become a free agent?

And how many RFAs have been signed by teams other than their own this off season?

Posted by: learnedhand1 | June 4, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

actually think that p1funk has put together the better overall argument today.

as someone who works with stats for a living, quantitative data is tricky and open to manipulation.

although on the basis of measureables presented, DH and CR appear to be comparable, with a slight edge to DH.

as a semi-casual fan, my own opinion from watching games is also that DH is somewhat better.

the clincher for me is the free agent market results, although the two situations were not identical.

but who cares which is better or worse? barring injury or some leap in the performance of our second-stringers, these two will be our starters.

Posted by: moodlymoodlymoo | June 4, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse

When all else fails... manipulate the data.

Posted by: mattsoundworld | June 4, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse

** WARNING- Longest, most boring re-post followed by new one in the history of RI **


According to the stat-keeping at profootballfocus.com -

Among cornerbacks who played at least 50% of their teams snaps -

DeAngelo Hall was tied for 7th fewest receptions surrendered in the league(36), tied at 20th in the league for completion % in his coverage (56.3%), and was 4th in the league in cumulative opposing QB rating when throwing into his coverage (54.2).

Posted by: p1funk | June 1, 2010 5:20 PM

Once again, you prove that 81% of stats can be 69% misrepresented 92% of the time.

Using your metric of "played at least 50% of their teams snaps," DHall is ranked 43rd out of 65 CBs, while Carlos Rogers is 31st out of 65. [link to your profootballfocus.com boys provided below]. So, according to these "experts," Rogers was 18.5% better than DHall last year.

Also, F statistics.

http://profootballfocus.com/by_position.php?tab=by_position&season=2009&pos=CB&stype=r&runpass=&teamid=-1&numsnaps=50&numgames=1

__________________________

Above is the response from the other night.

Now you're going with:

'Things like "Hall surrenders alot of receptions" - except that he doesn't, he surrendered the 7th fewest receptions in the league among CBs that played 50% of more of their D-snaps.

And "they don't target Hall as much as they target the other CBs" - except that Hall was targeted on 3 more occassions than Rogers.'

[Me talking now]...again, according to your boys, only 11 of the 65 CBs from your 50% metric had fewer balls thrown at them than Hall. Carlos Rogers was one of those 11, yet he played 100 snaps more than Hall.

Again, you prove that 74.81% of statistics can be 86.6843% misrepresented 99.44% of the time.

Also again, F statistics. And F me for getting into this crap, about who's less bad on a 4-12 team. And F chRIs larRy. And F RI.

** End longest, most boring post ever **

Posted by: 4-12 | June 4, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Moodly, like a lot of jurors, has been swayed by false testimony.

Posted by: learnedhand1 | June 4, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Moodly, like a lot of jurors, has been swayed by false testimony.

Posted by: learnedhand1 | June 4, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse
----------------------

I believe the term is cow-tipped.

Posted by: mattsoundworld | June 4, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: learnedhand1 | June 4, 2010 4:26 PM
Posted by: mattsoundworld | June 4, 2010 4:30 PM

MOL... mainly wanted to re-articulate the various criteria for evaluation, so that hamsters could argue over merits rather than methods. as noted above, don't really care about the particulars of AH versus CR. too busy crunching other numbers to drag myself into the details of this one.

Posted by: moodlymoodlymoo | June 4, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

I think D Hall is better than what most people give him credit for. Remember, last year he played against some of the best Qbs and did decently. The year before when he played with the skins the second half, he played against some mediocre qbs mainly and played dominant. What does that tell you? He is better than solid and he brings in the skill of being able to intercept the ball. Take it one step further and he is one of the best cbs in HISTORY (saw this stat on FBO) at yards per interception. He is not in the Nnamdi/Revis level (even though, I think Revis isn't as good as he played last year/ that pass rush for the Jets can make any corner look amazing as Fat Al made Courney look like an All Pro with the Titans) but he is good.

Posted by: merajc86 | June 4, 2010 4:41 PM | Report abuse

'Things like "Hall surrenders alot of receptions" - except that he doesn't, he surrendered the 7th fewest receptions in the league among CBs that played 50% of more of their D-snaps.

And "they don't target Hall as much as they target the other CBs" - except that Hall was targeted on 3 more occassions than Rogers.'

[Me talking now]...again, according to your boys, only 11 of the 65 CBs from your 50% metric had fewer balls thrown at them than Hall. Carlos Rogers was one of those 11, yet he played 100 snaps more than Hall.

Again, you prove that 74.81% of statistics can be 86.6843% misrepresented 99.44% of the time.

Also again, F statistics. And F me for getting into this crap, about who's less bad on a 4-12 team. And F chRIs larRy. And F RI.

** End longest, most boring post ever **

Posted by: 4-12 | June 4, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse


Great use of statistics; except that you've not really drawn out a point.

But this is at least the kind of discussion that could be had reasonably because you are using real data instead of "I watch the games on Sunday and I think X is better".

So Rogers played about 100 more snaps - which would make sense since D.Hall had to sit out a game or so with an injury.

And the way you would serve to equalize the metrics is to use percentages.

DeAngelo Hall still has a better % when it comes to completions into his coverage (one of the dozen or so metrics that I originally threw out there), thus indicating that Carlos Rogers allows more receptions than D.Hall.

So the overall point still stands.

Posted by: p1funk | June 4, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Based on the facts that the statistics would “prove”, Emmitt Smith is the greatest running back to ever play the game, and Brett Favre is the greatest QB ever. Do you really think that the stats each guy has is an “end of story” to that “debate”?

Posted by: dlhaze1 | June 4, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse


I don't think anyone would think you are crzy for putting Emmitt Smith and/or Brett Favre into those discussions. And I would imagine a fair few people might argue that point for them.

The reason why is because they have measurable data and evidence to support the notion that they are great great players.

Which is why it is mind-boggling for me that folks seem married to the notion that Carlos Rogers is a better cover-corner than D.Hall...based on what??? The data does not bear that out??? Where are you getting that notion from???

Posted by: p1funk | June 4, 2010 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: p1funk | June 4, 2010 3:53 PM

Who bid for Hall's services when he became a FA in 2009? When did they do it? I'll tell you right now you won't be able to name one team.

If Hall was a good as Woodson and Revis as your earlier posts suggests, why didn't a team claim him off of the waiver wire before he could become a free agent?

And how many RFAs have been signed by teams other than their own this off season?

Posted by: learnedhand1 | June 4, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse


1) No, Hall was signed outright by the Skins b/c he gave them first crack and it was a good offer. But there were other teams that apparently expressed interest such as the Patriots. So I can openly admit that I overstated the point and was incorrect...see how simple that is?

2)I don't like fish, so save the red herring. The core issue is not Hall vs. Revis/Woodson. It is Hall vs. Rogers. Teams didn't claim him off of waivers b/c no one like the contract that Oakland gave him. But reports indicated that there several scenarios for him to consider and that the Saints, Steelers and Patriots pursued him aggressively before he agreed to come to Washington. The fact that there was alot of competition for his services is favorable toward what people thought of him.

3)It doesn't matter. Whether other RFAs were signed or not says nothing about Roger's individual perceived value to another team.

Posted by: p1funk | June 4, 2010 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Moodly, like a lot of jurors, has been swayed by false testimony.

Posted by: learnedhand1 | June 4, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse


Right.

The truth is lh's bald opinion made from the living room couch.

That's compelling testimony.

Posted by: p1funk | June 4, 2010 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: p1funk | June 4, 2010 5:08 PM

p1funk continues to take the upper hand here.

also, no need to concede point #1... even given the wastrel ways of Cerrato and company, the contract would not have been that large in the absence of competition. so this line of argument should still be considered in play, albeit as inferential evidence.

Posted by: moodlymoodlymoo | June 4, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Using your metric of "played at least 50% of their teams snaps," DHall is ranked 43rd out of 65 CBs, while Carlos Rogers is 31st out of 65. [link to your profootballfocus.com boys provided below]. So, according to these "experts," Rogers was 18.5% better than DHall last year.


Posted by: 4-12 | June 4, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse


Sorry broham, those rankings are not based on the stats. Those rankings are based on the personal assessment of the bean-counters who run the website; and they are entitled to their opinions like us all.


They downgrade D.Hall based on his run-support.

We have been talking about coverage.

According to those rankings, if you look at coverage only D.Hall is ranked ahead of Carlos Rogers.

Posted by: p1funk | June 4, 2010 5:20 PM | Report abuse

For what it's worth, I concur with Learned Hand's opinion that Carlos Rogers has been and remains the Redskins' best cornerback.

Sure, I wish we had a friggin' super duper "shutdown" corner on the roster, since I have no illusions about the dudes we have... but we don't, so okay, we move forward with the guys we have.

Rogers and Hall bring different things to the table, and I think they're both solid... not great, but good enough that I'm not worried about our starters at that position, which is more than I can say for some of the other units on the team at this point...

Posted by: NateinthePDX | June 4, 2010 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Turnovers are a game-changer. That's why I will defend LeVar against all his haters. He was a game-changing LB.

Whatever CR22's coverage skills, he strikes no fear in a QB--they can throw his way all day and there's an extremely low probability he'll make them pay.

The Skins ranked 28th in the league last year in turnover differential. CR22 was a major reason why. If he held onto half his INTs, the team would at least have been average in that area.

Posted by: Alan4 | June 4, 2010 5:23 PM | Report abuse

So you can ALWAYS play the card that "stats don't tell the whole story"; but they certainly tell a much more accurate story than bald assertions from arm-chair scouts like us; particularly when our opinions run completely counter to what those stats do in

Posted by: p1funk

Actually, stats without context have little meaning. For example, the Skins had 2 of the top 10 sack leaders in the league (the ONLY team to do so), plus Albert Haynesworth, who was a force in the middle. This QB pressure meant the Redskins secondary should have had less time in coverage, and therefore better stats.

Part of the context is that the Skins played some of the league's worst passing teams (in terms of rating, 6 of the bottom 8). 2 other games, we played against backup QBs for most of the game after the starters had lit up the defense (SD and Den). That's nearly 1/2 the season vs the bottom of the barrel.

Obviously, McNabb is an upgrade over Campbell, but if you only look at their stats, no way you make that trade.

Not saying don't bring stats with you when you want to make a point. But don't get your panties twisted when someone wants to put some context around them.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | June 4, 2010 5:23 PM | Report abuse

part of what is great about sports blogs, is that that they mimic the academic peer review process in real time, complete with citations, rebuttals, personal vendettas, and pointless debates.

now mooooooooooooove along please.

that was the clanging of a cow bell that you heard.

Posted by: moodlymoodlymoo | June 4, 2010 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Westbrook is least likely to be on the Skins roster.

Posted by: coparker5 | June 4, 2010 5:42 PM | Report abuse

P1funk: "So I can openly admit that I overstated the point and was incorrect...see how simple that is?"

You didn't just overstate it you made it up. Just like you're making up the Patriots' interest. It didn't happen. Any expression of interest would have been tampering.

And I stated to you that someone (turns out it was 4-12) had debunked your stats but I guess you didn't see that. So the guy who has 100 more plays and but fewer targets is the bad CB?

And don't tell me about coaches opinions or who they're playing. I recall that fool Blache playing Warrick Holdman over LaVar Arrington. Coaches do things for reasons other than play on the field.

Why must you be an sjkhole about the whole thing anyway. You and I don't agree on this but you keep coming back with snide comments directed at me when responding to others. But if it will provide you with some measure of accomplishment I'll end by saying you're right. Happy now.

Posted by: learnedhand1 | June 4, 2010 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Not saying don't bring stats with you when you want to make a point. But don't get your panties twisted when someone wants to put some context around them.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | June 4, 2010 5:23 PM | Report abuse


How did you know I wear panties?!?!?

Errr, ummm...I mean, right, I get your point.

I'm not upset about context surrounding the stats. I welcome a discussion about that. I don't think the context of the stats changes any point that I've made.

Hall and Rogers play on the same team, on the same defense and against the same teams.

The context of their performances is about as similar as it gets. Hall is still the better cover corner.

Posted by: p1funk | June 4, 2010 5:48 PM | Report abuse

once again...

clang, clang.

Posted by: moodlymoodlymoo | June 4, 2010 5:48 PM | Report abuse

For what it's worth, I concur with Learned Hand's opinion that Carlos Rogers has been and remains the Redskins' best cornerback.


Posted by: NateinthePDX | June 4, 2010 5:22 PM | Report abuse


And everyone is entitled to their opinion.

But in this vicious blogging game that we all play, we like to assess each other's opinions.

So my obvious and simple follow-up question to you is:

"Why are you of the opinion that Rogers is a better corner than Hall?"

Posted by: p1funk | June 4, 2010 5:51 PM | Report abuse

the cowbell is fading into the distance on the next thread...

Posted by: moodlymoodlymoo | June 4, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Enjoyed the D.Hall back and forth.
If you torture the statistics long enough, they'll tell you anything you want to hear.

Anyhow, I seem to have a short term memory, I thought last years offense was the most pathetic display out of the skins, EVER. But a quick look at the 'stats' showed 2008, 2004 and 2001 were horrendous as well. You are hard pressed to find such a consistent offensive sucking sound throughout their history.

I'm digressing, I do think the lack of ability to put points on the board made the D look better since teams didn't have to take any chances. Seemed like when an opposing team really needed a drive/score they got it.
Football is such a team game it's hard to compare players only using stats, as a fan you can get a feel for impact. Could another 'average' safety put up numbers better than Sean T. - yes, but ST had an impact on the game. Could Rogers/Hall have stats the matched a recent corner like S. Springs in receptions at, I guess, but you could see in games where Springs made an impact.
What's my point - stats aren't everything.

Posted by: outsourced_in_va | June 4, 2010 5:57 PM | Report abuse

* beep beep *

new post...

also, mooooooooo...

and etc.

Posted by: NateinthePDX | June 4, 2010 6:09 PM | Report abuse

If the new management can get Carlos in the right frame of mind, and he can keep his man wrapped up, and the front seven gets more pressure, there will be a few more loose balls heading Hall's way.

Imagine it? A short field for McNabb? I concur with the poster who said let's have this debate at midseason about who is the better CB in 2010, preferably while the team is at 6-2.

HTTR!

Posted by: stevebeagrie | June 5, 2010 8:01 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company