Discussion in 'Fan Zone' started by Ntegrase96, Nov 26, 2013.
I think we all know the only "scout" responsible for making him a costly 6th pick...
I really don't think the scouting team took the time to watch him, because they thought he would be gone by the 5th pick. This guy was rated high, however that scouting team has a black eye atm. Give Mo some time and let's see what plays out.
Give me a break. It's hilarious how people pretend MC was a reach when, during the draft, people were stunned he fell out of the top 5. Revisionist history.
Scandrick was called trash for the longest and people were getting on Jerry for giving him that contract, but now the tune has changed. Dez was a loser thug with a low IQ who couldn't memorize the playbook, but all of a sudden the tune has changed. Let's give this guy time to develop before we say the pick was wasted.
Amazing post. Illustrates the chess game that is the position. I love the "66% success%" you give him, interesting concept. For a guy of his status you'd hope to see that get a little closer to 90%. At least I'd like to see around 80% in his second year.
Two things that strike me
1) Even in Man with zone under, he seems to not have the greatest concept of the under protection and relies on it. The dig play, it looks like he though he was protected on the dig route by Carter.
2) VERY risk averse it seems. He is approaching the game as though he refuses to give up the big play. I really think this is probably coaching; that fits into the kiffin concept, even in man. I think you will rarely see them ask Claiborne to use trail technique even in straight man coverage. Not sure if they just don't trust him or the coaching staff doesn't believe in it.
THIS ^^^^^ Very Nice Post
Scouts evaluate the entire cast of characters comprehensively, grading and comparing, so that they can assign value to their picks.
If there is a guy from Angelo State who grades out as well as the top 2 or 3 blue-chips, they would be inclined to spend their picks with that in mind.
The Cowboys had Claiborne rated as their top defensive player, in their top 2 or 3 overall (that's what JJ said).
Knowing that, I think we are correct to expect more athleticism, intelligence, and instincts from this CB. Yes, he deserves more time to develop and learn the system, but most would say that he is behind the learning curve that we projected for him.
I, for one, hope he gets comfortable and lives up to expectations by next year; I think that's reasonable. If not, I think he's trade bait.
a 6th overall pick should be value for money from the get go
we have no choice but to give him more time to develop
if our GM had bothered to do his homework instead of looking for the splash play, we would never have traded up tp get the flashy over-rated player
i would not have a problem with this production from a rd 2 or 3 player but not from a top 6 pick
Mo needs to stay healthy enough to participate in the offseason program and training camp. No second year player is good enough to miss so much on field instruction in minicamp and training camp.
Mo admitted early this year he does not watch much film. That is why he is guessing a lot...
I'm down for sending him to Tampa next year for Revis. We don't have time for players who don't want to put in work . Football is 40% physical but 60% mental.
Plenty of people expressed displeasure at what we gave up to get that pick, myself included, for a position we seemed already set at. That is why the comment mentions the costly 6th pick. Nobody said he was a 2nd round talent taken early - I did not call him a "reach". Reading comprehension - look into it.
Besides, I guess there is a reason he fell out of the top 5. Suckers always think they are getting a bargain... that's what makes them suckers.
Can we all be honest here? Mo is a bust..I wish MJ never mess up his shoulder but he was x3 better than Mo. MJ was locking players down his second year. He had is one bad year but the whole team was trash. A up and down MJ is still x2 better than Mo. !!!
Right. And nobody should be inclined to give up on him.
It's frustrating at what we sacrificed for his services, especially with our lack of depth in other areas. But one thing I feel like I did not do a good job of in the post was emphasizing how much his errors seemed to be all mental.
From a physical standpoint, he's a fantastic player. He's got elite physical characteristics, but really just lacks great top end speed and maybe a bit of bulk (when it comes to coverage... run game is a different story).
He just needs to put it together. I don't think his health necessarily bothered him in this game until the end of the third quarter-- he didn't play a snap in the 4th. But I think not being healthy has inhibited him from immersing himself in his role. He's not getting the reps he needs which hurts him in many ways.
He could certainly turn things around and be the player we all want him to be.
Can we be honest here? Anyone who thinks they proclaim a second year player a "bust" doesn't understand the NFL.
This is a very good write up. When I was watching the game, it just seemed like Claiborne was lost and didn't do much when he was on the field but after reading OP, I realized that he played lot better than my own assessment. I don't hate on Claiborne, I want to see him play well and become a great CB for the Boys and I hope he does.
I apologize in advance for any confusion.
I was hesitant to include success rate just because I haven't made any other similar posts with that kind of grading scale, so there's nothing really to reference it with.
Overall 66% is actually pretty decent game. Take for instance, our game against the Jets in early 2011... Revis had a success rate of about 67.5%, and everyone remembers how well he did (albeit against a hobbled Bryant).
Just for reference sake
81% and over = A+
76%-- 80%= A
71%-- 75%= A-
But from there the scale kind of breaks down because a guy with 50% success rate is not really a C- effort. So that's also not a perfect example.
Also, it doesn't really take into consideration the different tasks each CB is asked to do, like difficulty of opponent, lack of help, situation, etc etc. It also doesn't place any special weight on how many 'shut downs' I assign, which is ultimately considered a success when creating a percentage of bad snaps to good ones.
So while Revis had a pretty similar success rate in that game, he was still far more impressive
But overall, a good rule of thumb is, if you're successful on 70% of your snaps or more over the course of the season you're a top 10 kind of guy. 75% and above, and you're elite.
For reference sake, last year, Sherman was successful on about 83% of snaps.
But even that's not perfect as Revis is a low 60% kind of guy and it's still pretty evident that he's the best corner in the league.
Again, sorry for muddling what is supposed to be a decent grading system.
EDIT: I'm working on putting together a better grading system to accompany the success rate.
Probably helped that he went against Randle every day in practice for 2 or 3 years at LSU
i was shocked to see those words in a post from you as most of your posts are made up of excuses to explain away the inept decisions of our FO or HC
Also to add (I can't edit the other post again), I initially stated that 66% is "not good". But what I meant was that this particular 66% was not truly a good showing.
66% is a pretty decent game normally.
I have not seen any physical limitations from him in coverage. All of his coverage issues appear to be mental, IMO.
He could use a little more strength to play the run.