Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10
GTripp, I think what you do with the football stats and using metrics is really cool. But at some point you have to reconcile what you're doing with common sense.
Saying Samuel as the best in the division = an embarrassment is a statement that doesn't just contradict common sense, it flies in the face of it.
If you're going to make such a statement, you need to post some of your kick ass metric stuff and summarize it in such a way that you might convince us why you're right. Otherwise these outlandish statements -with no support behind them - convince us of little other than your credibility is questionable.
You've got to show you can convert the stats into common sense discussion or nobody's going to buy it.
|
If I had all my materials at hand I think I could give you a much stronger answer. Unfortunately, I'm on the road right now, and do not. But I reject that common sense dictates that Samuel is the best CB in the division. The NFL has no mainstream way to judge a CB outside of he-said, she-said.
Anyway, Mosley says:
Quote:
|
4. Asante Samuel, CB, Philadelphia Eagles: He's hands down the best cornerback in the division, although Terence Newman's close when healthy. The ball always seems to find Samuel, and that's the best compliment you can pay a defensive back.
|
This of course, is every bit as unsubstantiated as anything I said. There is not one reason given here to believe Samuel is deserving of being one of 10 NFC East building blocks.
Now, for his career, Samuel's
coverage numbers (metrically) have been remarkably average. A lot better than Ellis Hobbs, but still, you can throw on him. Most of his value
appears to be tied up in his 10 INT - pro bowl year in 2006. At that point, his value was at an all time high. I think, there was a lot of reasons to doubt Samuel then, (i.e. he came largely out of nowhere) but he was young, and promising, and had enjoyed a lot of postseason success as a beneficiary of a consistent playoff team.
So, since then, he's averaged 5 INTs a year, 6 in 07, and 4 in 08. A healthy rate, to be sure. But take Newman for example. The guy is basically 4 INTs a year, every year. So, what's the benefit of having a less established player in Samuel, over a top ten pick (both Newman and Rogers)? I know, for a fact that Carlos Rogers' coverage numbers are better than Samuels', and I think Newman has better numbers as well, though I'd like to look it up to be sure.
Nothing Asante Samuel accomplished this past season would have made me say, "Wow, that guy is the best corner in the NFC East." Admittedly, Rogers had much more of a chance to prove himself to me. But I got to watch two games of Newman, and two games of Samuel, and Newman has better instincts, he's a stronger cover corner, and his INT production is roughly identical, save an outliers year from Asante. So, I'm taking Newman, given what I know.
Until the argument
for Samuel is made, I don't have much to respond to. I can make a solid, contextual argument for either Rogers, Newman, or Webster, but if people are going to assert that Samuel is definitely the best in the division, I'd sure like to hear why.