How can the Bills defeat the Patriots?

That would be true if "shut down CBs" were considerably better than good to average CBs. However, that's not the case. If Sean Smith were a top 10 CB he would have stopped about 3 more passes this year. How much of a premium would you pay to stop three more passes per year?

 

Why do you think that the averages don't apply to your so-called "shut-down CBs"? The fact is that against the best CBs that pass would have been completed 40% - 50% of the time.

 

Actually 10% isn't a large gap. If Smith had allowed 10% fewer passes then there would have been 6 fewer completions against us over the whole year. You're talking less than one completion every other game.

And yes YAC is part of it, but you just can't pretend that the completion wouldn't have happened. For even the best CBs that's a coin flip.

Also since when do shut down CBs play zone and allow the catch to happen? When you have shut down CBs you put them on an island and that side of the field is shut down. At least that's how it used to be. Nowadays that doesn't happen. A guy like Revis is targeted 6+ times a game b/c the offense knows that even the best CB will lose about half of the time.

 

On the original question:

The Pats are 8-5 while the Bills are 5-8. To me that is not such a huge gap that I go into the game expecting the Pats will dominate.

 

Actually the YPC allowed for most every CB falls in a narrow range. There are a few outliers and our young CBs have been bad there, but the YPC allowed for the so-called shut down CBs is not much different than for your typical average to good CB.

It's seems that you want to believe so bad that shut down CBs still exist that you keep throwing up these unsupported statements. But the reality is they don't. There once was a time when teams avoided a great CB, but the facts show that doesn't happen anymore. Teams now know that no matter how good the CB he's going to get beat about half of the time.

 

I was always a big believer in CBs. I felt they were the best athletes on the field. But it's clear that they don't have the impact they once did. So I looked at the stats to see if they confirmed what was obvious on the field. When I looked at the stats I was shocked b/c the difference between the best CBs and the average CBs was miniscule.

And it's not like I'm the only one saying it. Many football people have been saying it for years. But I guess some people get so locked in that they will argue against facts with nothing to support their position.


And that hypothetical is ridiculous. Of course there are situations that you will let the somebody catch it short. But unless you have something to show that teams are only throwing against certain CBs in those situations it's a baseless argument. The fact is that there are no CBs which teams avoid. And there isn't a big difference in the completion percentage between average to good CBs and the best CBs.

 

I believe stats tell a lot of things.

However I believe looked at purely in a vaccuum, then can be made to see whatever you'd like to see.

 

Except I didn't want to see CBs be marginalized, it was one of my favorite positions on the field. I even played it some. But I'm not going to be self -delusional and just ignore facts. Here's an excerpt from an old article from 2006:

To be honest, I don't think today's cornerbacks are any less talented than those players. What's different, however, is the entire environment that current defensive backs have to endure. The expectations on that position have reached such outrageous levels that man-to-man coverage in the NFL is quickly becoming a lost art. The rules, for one, don't help. When the league decided to penalize defenders for touching receivers more than five yards downfield, they basically "legislated the shutdown cornerback right out of the league," as one AFC personnel director put it.

Philadelphia Eagles cornerback Sheldon Brown says the rules are so biased against defenders these days that "there isn't a cornerback in this league who can hold a receiver down for an entire game anymore." The rules are bad enough, and with today's bigger, faster receivers, it's hard to argue against Brown. And for those defensive backs with enough skill to handle those challenges, there's also the very real possibility that opposing coaches can neutralize them with schemes.


So how have defenses responded to this trend? In the words of another personnel director, "They've basically become more passive." Cover Two has become a more popular scheme because teams don't need great cover corners to play it. They can rely on players with smarts, vision, instincts and the toughness to tackle opposing running backs galloping in their direction. It's easier and cheaper to find players for such a system (Pro Bowlers like Vasher and Tampa Bay's Ronde Barber fall into this category) and it's also smarter to find another way to defend the pass. In fact, one scout says that today's game is all about pressuring the quarterback into making a tough throw. If a good signal-caller gets enough time, he'll pick apart most of the players covering his receivers.

What is also fascinating about this trend is how much it will impact the acquisition of cornerbacks in the future. It's hard to imagine the money paid to free-agent cornerbacks drying up -- it's still one the highest paid positions in the game, with 12 players in 2005 earning more than $6 million in total salary -- but you certainly won't see the heavy demand for so-called cover cornerbacks in the near future. Woodson discovered this when he hit free agency this offseason. Only Tampa Bay and Green Bay were seriously interested in paying him top dollar and the Bucs were talking about converting him to safety.

My point here is that we've quietly seen the end of an era that made football more interesting. Maybe the NFL got tired of 14-10 scores a long time ago. Maybe it just realized that it's easier to market offensive players than defensive stars. Whatever the case, there's a different type of defender roaming secondaries these days and if you're wise, you'll cherish the next chance you get to watch Champ Bailey operate. Unless something changes in the next few years, he's easily one of the last members of a dying breed.

This article still talked about Champ Bailey as a shut down CB. And the truth is he was one of the few who teams still avoided. Then he got torched on Monday Night Football and since then the stats show that nobody is avoided consistently. Asomougha (sp?) was for a while and then he became good to average.

And these aren't the kind of stats that are vague. Teams either throw at a guy or they don't. The pass is either completed or it's not. The people who ignore these things are the ones who are seeing what they want to see.

 

Raf logic falls apart is the problem.

If you assume that a corner has no impact as an individual, you have to assume that neither does a receiver. What you're pointing at is a situation where a corner will lose to a receiver half the time regardless of either individual.

If that were true, think of the implications even as far as our own team goes.

 

Stopping Tom Brady's passing attack, and keep Lynch, and TO busy with the rock.

 

No, it doesn't. CBs lose anywhere from 40% of the time to 60% of the time. The good ones tend to be about 50%. The great ones will occasionally have a 40% year but will average about 50%. The bad ones will be about 60%. These are facts not opinions.

WRs will vary. There is a considerable difference in the success rates of good WRs and poor WRs. This year they range from 23% to 91%. These are also facts. You can't say that those numbers aren't possible b/c they happen every year.

So, if you have a 55% CB the most you can reasonably expect to improve is by getting an elite CB is about 5% over a several year average and you might get lucky and get that guy who pulls the 40% one year.

If you have a poor WR, you can get a huge amount of improvement by getting an elite WR.

I really don't understand how anybody can argue this. These numbers are not estimated. These are facts. The only thing I can figure is that either people are seeing what they want to see or they just don't understand the numbers. They keep posting ridiculous comments like this CB shut down this WR in this game. Who cares? The fact is that the CB couldn't do it all year and over a several years he is still at 50%.

I could understand people having different evaluations about the quality of players as those are opinions. But it is a fact that if you are average or poor there is greater potential for improvement in your passing offense than your passing defense. The ceiling is simply higher.

It is also a fact that you get more of an effect from improving your passing offense than your passing defense assuming you improve them equal amounts. I have posted the regression analysis of those stats in other threads, but I can only guess that people either ignore them or don't understand them.

Honestly, I don't think I can say it any plainer than that.

 

no snow in buffalo?

 

How is it that there's a blizzard in most of the northeast USA and there is no snow in Buffalo? LOL
Posted via Mobile Device