Originally posted by soapbox
Originally posted by SheVegas
Originally posted by soapbox
Originally posted by SheVegas
Originally posted by soapbox
Put a terrible FS on a terrible team and you'll still have bad stats.
I'm not saying ITP is bad by any measure. I'm just saying that being #1 in the rankings isn't good with the way the rankings are currently calculated because it means the rest of your defense is getting beat. Some of the FS' on the really good teams don't get the stats not because of a lack of talent, but because the defense in front of them takes care of the plays.
Ok fair enough...But what about the teams who have their DE's play shallow zone in certain situations to block a screen pass?????They will not put up the hurries or sack stats like they used to....There are a lot of if's and but's, so to win FS rank number 1 two seasons in a row, for being such a low level is very very impressive.
Vegas
Well that's a special circumstance and you can make a note of it as far as DEs go.
And it's not very impressive the way the rankings are calculated. A flawed system is a flawed system.
It's the same reason Asante Samuel made the pro bowl last year and Sheldon Brown didn't, even though Brown had a better year. People see INTs and big plays and think the player is having a good season. CBs aren't supposed to be highlight reels. Even Deion Sanders was overrated just because he was able to make a name for himself.
There are no ifs nor buts about a free safety. If you have him playing out of position... I can't think of any good base defenses where the free safety doesn't play at the safety position. With strong safeties, there are circumstances (8 in the box, etc) where playing 'out of position' is fine. If you don't have the free safety in the traditional spot for like 75% of your snaps, it's a bad scheme most of the time (unless you're in the NFL and have a player like Kerry Rhodes or Ed Reed). In the free safety position, the best defensive play is where the FS doesn't have to make a play.
There is something inherently wrong with a FS compiling tackles and the such. I promise you that, if you look through all of his stat-gaining plays (except maybe the PDs if you had him double covering), most of them will have been made because one or more of the other 10 players on that defense messed up.
Edit: And no, I have no ulterior motive to posting this. Idc that you're SheVegas when it comes to this. This is just football theory.
Well I lose all faith in your voice, when you state Deion Sanders was overrated.....Hell the first and second year with the Boys teams would not even throw to his side of the field most of the time.......So, you make 2 good points and then drop back 3 saying Prime Time was overrated.
Vegas
I'm not saying Deion was bad at all, dude. Top 5 all time no question. The first true shut down corner in the modern era (meaning post 1978 rules change). But people think he's the best ever without question and that's debatable. Overrated doesn't mean bad.
Anyways, you're a Cowboys fan, so I'm not looking for your approval. I think Scrabble has had a better career as far as age goes compared to Prime time, and he's playing on a much worse team than Deion did (well... at least after he left Atlanta). I think Asomugha's 2008 season was probably the best season ever posted by a CB since the 1978 rules change. Only problem is that he's quiet and the Raiders suck, so he doesn't get nearly the attention that other CBs do (Antoine Winfield, Asante Samuel, Ronde Barber [<---lol]).
Well I have owned the NFL Ticket from the start, have never missed a Sunday or Monday night game ever in my life, I still remember Brent Musberger, Jimmy the Greek, Phylis George, Irv Cross, doing the pre games, and I have never seen for 2 seasons a cb shut down half a field like Prime Time did. In fact I think the Boys would have won 4 Superbowls in a row if Deion didn't play for San Fran in between their 3.
