2008 Rookie Corner Class (how they performed statistically)

[theogt]

Just goes to show again hwo so may times there's not much differnce between the guys taken in rd1 and in rd 3 or so.

Eleven corners were we takn before Chevis Jackson. Nice get by Atlanta.
Twenty-four corners were taken before Scandrick. Now that's a bargain!

I wanted Chevis pretty bad. Of course, he was considered too slow by many, but his football instincts are top notch. It usually doesn't matter if one guy is .1 second faster than another, if the other guy can recognize and diagnose a play .5 seconds faster.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Let's say you're up by six points with two minutes remaining, and your opponent has the ball at its own 15-yard line.

Cornerback A gets targeted six times, allows six completions for 83 yards, giving your opponent a first-and-goal at your 2-yard line with 12 seconds left.

On first-and-goal, Cornerback B gets targeted for the first time on the drive, and he allows a 2-yard TD catch. You end up losing by one point.

Of the two cornerbacks, who was more responsible for losing the game?

It depends... Which one is Tracy Porter?

 

[jterrell]

I wanted Chevis pretty bad. Of course, he was considered too slow by many, but his football instincts are top notch. It usually doesn't matter if one guy is .1 second faster than another, if the other guy can recognize and diagnose a play .5 seconds faster.

In all fairness there are different expectations and requirements in different schemes.

Chevis had a heck of a year but he may well have spent 80% of his time in a zone playing the flats. If you take a guy lacking great speed and don't ask him to cover deep he can look pretty good on the stat sheet.

Jenkins looked pretty mediocre on paper but not alot of these rookies were asked to cover man on man even half as much as him. All that said, Jenkins really would be a bad fit if he weren't covering man on man because he doesn't have any type of run support play.

Here in Dallas Scandrick was covering 4th and 5th WR early in the year and he gave up literally nothign to them. When he got moved into the slot and played some better WRs he got exposed a couple times late in the year. So you can't just look at accumulated stats as the whole story.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

It depends... Which one is Tracy Porter?

he's Corner A

 

[DFWJC]

I wanted Chevis pretty bad. Of course, he was considered too slow by many, but his football instincts are top notch. It usually doesn't matter if one guy is .1 second faster than another, if the other guy can recognize and diagnose a play .5 seconds faster.

I know it's crazy to compare the two, but Chevis Jackson reminds me somewhat of Derrell Revis....who may be a top 5 or so corner, imo.

I guess we'll see if he grows to be a proBowler someday.

 

[theogt]

In all fairness there are different expectations and requirements in different schemes.

Chevis had a heck of a year but he may well have spent 80% of his time in a zone playing the flats. If you take a guy lacking great speed and don't ask him to cover deep he can look pretty good on the stat sheet.

Jenkins looked pretty mediocre on paper but not alot of these rookies were asked to cover man on man even half as much as him. All that said, Jenkins really would be a bad fit if he weren't covering man on man because he doesn't have any type of run support play.

Here in Dallas Scandrick was covering 4th and 5th WR early in the year and he gave up literally nothign to them. When he got moved into the slot and played some better WRs he got exposed a couple times late in the year. So you can't just look at accumulated stats as the whole story.

You could have just said, "stats don't tell the whole picture." Much more succinct.

Regardless, I seriously doubt someone who played all 16 games at corner spent 80% of his time covering the flats.

And the idea that Scandrick had better stats than Jenkins because he was babied in any way isn't convincing.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

Great year by Flowers. very impressive considering so many here said he'd suck cause he was just so darn slow.

DRC was pretty solid, as quite a few thought he'd be. Our two boys played pretty darn well.

As for Porter...ouch. What a painful rookie season. He only played in 5 games, because he got hurt if I remember correctly, I believe he tore up a knee, but to be targeted as much, or more, times in 5 games then the guys who played in 9 or more games is pretty bad.

I shudder to think how many yards, and TD's, he'd have given up as the season wore on at the rate he was going.

He'll have to improve dramatically over that clip this year.

And it's not like he was only targeted cause he was a rookie. I mean was there a single defensive back on his team that anyone would ever be afraid of?

No.

So to get targeted that much, rookie or not, means he was playing worse than anyone else in a piss poor secondary which isn't good, to say the least.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Great year by Flowers. very impressive considering so many here said he'd suck cause he was just so darn slow.

DRC was pretty solid, as quite a few thought he'd be. Our two boys played pretty darn well.

As for Porter...ouch. What a painful rookie season. He only played in 5 games, because he got hurt if I remember correctly, I believe he tore up a knee, but to be targeted as much, or more, times in 5 games then the guys who played in 9 or more games is pretty bad.

I shudder to think how many yards, and TD's, he'd have given up as the season wore on at the rate he was going.

He'll have to improve dramatically over that clip this year.

if other rookies were targeted as much as he was, they would be giving up the same TDs too

And it's not like he was only targeted cause he was a rookie. I mean was there a single defensive back on his team that anyone would ever be afraid of?

No.

so his inexperience had no correlation to the number of targets? I would think a rookie in bad secondary, on a team that didn't control the clock on offense, would see alot of passes thrown his way no matter how good he was

So to get targeted that much, rookie or not, means he was playing worse than anyone else in a piss poor secondary which isn't good, to say the least.

I'd have to look at the stats to see if he was in fact the worst secondary player before assuming that

 

[CATCH17]

Jenkins and Scandrick really stood out in the 2nd Giants game.

They played very well for Rooks.

 

[theogt]

if other rookies were targeted as much as he was, they would be giving up the same TDs too

If the other rookies were targeted as much as he was and gave up as many TDs, we'd be saying they sucked it up too.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Usama Young was actually worse than Porter

 

[Bob Sacamano]

If the other rookies were targeted as much as he was and gave up as many TDs, we'd be saying they sucked it up too.

if you're thrown at alot, you are going to give up your fair share of TDs

it's not rocket surgery

that's why the ratio is more important than just the TD number, wad

 

[theogt]

if you're thrown at alot, you are going to give up your fair share of TDs

it's not rocket surgery

that's why the ratio is more important than just the TD number, wad

And if you're thrown at a lot and give up a lot of TDs you suck. I agree, not rocket surgery.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

And if you're thrown at a lot and give up a lot of TDs you suck. I agree, not rocket surgery.

that's right, disregard the last sentence because it doesn't suit your agenda

it's funny that you knock KC Joyner for looking at stats in a vaccuum while you are guilty of doing the same, exact thing

 

[theogt]

that's right, disregard the last sentence because it doesn't suit your agenda

Was he thrown at a lot? Yes.

Did he give up a lot of yards? Yes.

Did he give up a lot of TDs? Yes.

He sucked.

it's funny that you knock KC Joyner for looking at stats in a vaccuum while you are guilty of doing the same, exact thing

I don't knock KC Joyner for looking at stats in a vacuum. I knock KC Joyner for focusing on the wrong stats.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

if other rookies were targeted as much as he was, they would be giving up the same TDs too


If, if, if, if. Tell me why they weren't targeted as much as he was? Were they not, in their first 5 starts, just as inexperienced? Why did it take Jenkins an entire season to have as many passes thrown his way, despite having vets Henry, Newman, and Jones around him, as it took Porter to have thrown his way in just 5 games?

Obviously, you'd think, by your thought process here that Jenkins should have been the only guy thrown at in the Dallas games because A) he was a rookie and B) Therefor had no experience.

Yet that clearly wasn't the case. The inexperience led to them testing Porter initially, most likely, the fact that he continued to allow catch, after catch, after catch, after catch, for yard, after yard, after yard, after yard is no doubt why they continued to go after him.

If he was good, or played good, or showed any semblance of making plays, in those game, when they threw at him then chances are that they wouldn't continue to just go after him for the sake of going after him simply because he has a (R) next to his name in the program.



so his inexperience had no correlation to the number of targets? I would think a rookie in bad secondary, on a team that didn't control the clock on offense, would see alot of passes thrown his way no matter how good he was


Then you have to apply the same inexperience factor to these other guys and explain to everyone why they were targeted less times through out the year, despite playing in twice as many, or more, games than Porter, despite not having any experience.

I mean why did Flowers see less targets, despite playing in 4 more games, in KC? He didn't have any experience either and it's not exactly like the KC secondary around him was a bunch of all pros.

Yet he was targeted less...why is that? Oh, I think we know why, because he showed, along the way, that he could, and would, make plays and stop them from just moving the ball down the field on him.



I'd have to look at the stats to see if he was in fact the worst secondary player before assuming that

Yes this is true. I'd need to see all the stats to see if he was the worst corner on that team in his 5 games that he played. That still wouldn't change the fact, even if there was a guy worse than him, that he was pretty clearly the worst of the bunch mentioned here and wasn't good, in the least, when he was on the field.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Yes this is true. I'd need to see all the stats to see if he was the worst corner on that team in his 5 games that he played. That still wouldn't change the fact, even if there was a guy worse than him, that he was pretty clearly the worst of the bunch mentioned here and wasn't good, in the least, when he was on the field.

actually better than Antoine Cason's and Leodis McKelvin's

as you can see here:

http://www.profootballfocus.com/by_...&pos=CB&stype=r&runpass=&teamid=-1&numgames=5

btw, "pretty clearly", "in the least", why are you so invested in this argument?

 

[jterrell]

I did the math, and if Tracy Porter played 16 games, he was likely to be targeted 131 times

that's unreal

That's why I go back to giving up too much cushion.

Teams just came out and completed passes in front of him, probably even as audible on the line.

They used to do that to Jacques Reeves and not surprisingly he was amongst the most targeted CBs again last year.

 

[bbgun]

And if you're thrown at a lot and give up a lot of TDs you suck. I agree, not rocket surgery.

Or brain science.

 

[jterrell]

You could have just said, "stats don't tell the whole picture." Much more succinct.

Regardless, I seriously doubt someone who played all 16 games at corner spent 80% of his time covering the flats.

And the idea that Scandrick had better stats than Jenkins because he was babied in any way isn't convincing.

Facts do not have to be convincing, they stand on their own as what they are.


And the specifics obviously were necessary even if you don't agree with them considering they drew added mentions.

Scandrick wasn't babied, he simply wasn't a first rounder and asked to man cover early on. By the same token he wasn't atrocious early on and Jenkins clearly was. For a 5th round pick, day 1 nickel duty is more than anyone can or should ask. He exceled there and never really had any issues until he was asked to play man coverage in the slots. He gave up some completions in those scenarios late in the season.

Jenkins was asked to cover early on and simply couldn't. He was getting lost on moves and then he was making sports center for his run support.... But late in the year Jenkins was starting outside and giving up next to nothing. He really improved as the year progressed. That's why he has a small lead now for the starting job. Not that it really matters as all 3 CBs will probably start considering the way offenses set up now. TNew is probably best inside as he covers so well from the slot.

While I do not believe we have a top 5 CB on the roster I would say our CB corps is top 5.

There was no coincidence Scandrick was discussed as a possible safety hybrid type. He plays well on the boundary coming up and covering or playing run and he plays zones well.

Jenkins is a raw cover corner who really needs to step up his run support game and get the discipline to play double moves.