2008 Rookie Corner Class (how they performed statistically)

[theogt]

you do realize that that's 1.4 TDs more than what DRC allowed?

The group average, excluding Porter, is .19 touchdowns per game. That's less than half of what Porter gives up. I'd say 100% more touchdowns given up over the average qualifies for "many more."

 

[Bob Sacamano]

The group average, excluding Porter, is .19 touchdowns per game. That's less than half of what Porter gives up. I'd say 100% more touchdowns given up over the average qualifies for "many more."

largely because of Jackson, Scandrick, Flowers and Thomas, remember, Jackson allowed no TDs, that definitely is going to keep the group medium low

not guys like DRC and McKelvin

 

[jterrell]

Touchdowns allowed per game (according to PFF) --

.00 Chevis Jackson
.07 Orlando Scandrick
.11 Brandon Flowers
.19 Terrell Thomas
.20 Aqib Talib
.23 Mike Jenkins
.27 Antoine Cason
.31 Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie
.33 Leodis McKelvin
.40 Tracy Porter


Hmm, Porter looks more likely to give up a touchdown than any of the others.

Adam, you are a sharp guy but we are on post 135 and you don't get his argument yet?

He has made it clear his argument, no matter how valid, is that Porter was TARGETED MORE per game thus gave up more TDs per game but that IF others were targeted as heavily they'd give up AS MANY OR MORE TDs. He offered up some stats about TDS per pass allowed as his evidence there.

 

[jterrell]

Facts might not have to be "convincing," but they should be somewhat close to the truth.

If a fact is in question then you refute the fact not argue how convincing it is.

If you want to specifically dispute a point than do so.

Popular opinion is about the worst form of fact there is.

 

[theogt]

largely because of Jackson, Scandrick, Flowers and Thomas, remember, Jackson allowed no TDs, that definitely is going to keep the group medium low

not guys like DRC and McKelvin

In other words, he was much worse than the majority of his peers.

 

[theogt]

Adam, you are a sharp guy but we are on post 135 and you don't get his argument yet?

He has made it clear his argument, no matter how valid, is that Porter was TARGETED MORE per game thus gave up more TDs per game but that IF others were targeted as heavily they'd give up AS MANY OR MORE TDs. He offered up some stats about TDS per pass allowed as his evidence there.

I think he fully understands his argument. And I think he fully understands why it's a stupid argument. The question is does Bob. And the answer is, no.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

In other words, he was much worse than the majority of his peers.

and yet not that worse than the DROY, and btw, the rookie corner who faced the most amount of passes

let's see you sidestep DRC 3 times

I think he fully understands his argument. And I think he fully understands why it's a stupid argument. The question is does Bob. And the answer is, no.

how is looking at whose more likely to give up a TD, a stupid argument?

 

[theogt]

how is looking at whose more likely to give up a TD, a stupid argument?

It's not, rather it's the context of when they're more likely to give up a TD. Porter may be less likely to give up a TD every time he's targeted. But he's more likely to give up a TD in a game. The latter is more important than the former given that he's targeted so much in a game. If he was targeted less in a game, and was able to keep his TDs per attempt ratio constant, he would perform much better. But he didn't perform better, so that's where we are.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

It's not, rather it's the context of when they're more likely to give up a TD. Porter may be less likely to give up a TD every time he's targeted. But he's more likely to give up a TD in a game. The latter is more important than the former given that he's targeted so much in a game. If he were targeted less in a game, and were able to keep his TDs per attempt ratio constant, he would perform much better. But he didn't perform better, so that's where we are.

but isn't it a given, no matter the performance, that the more the targets, the likelihood that you'll give up more TDs increases exponentially? so shouldn't we look deeper than that in order to do a compare and analysis?

 

[theogt]

but isn't it a given, no matter the performance, that the more the targets, the likelihood that you'll give up more TDs increases exponentially? so shouldn't we look beyond that in order to do a compare and analysis?

No, I can't see any argument for looking past how many TDs a player gives up in a game. The number of times targeted is a significant factor in judging corner backs, so I can't see why we'd normalize times targeted to compare either.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

No, I can't see any argument for looking past how many TDs a player gives up in a game. The number of times targeted is a significant factor in judging corner backs, so I can't see why we'd normalize times targeted to compare either.

of course you don't, because you judged long ago that Porter was going to suck, and you hate being wrong

Chris Johnson says hello

 

[masomenos]

and yet not that worse than the DROY



how is looking at whose more likely to give up a TD, a stupid argument?

The end-season player awards are based on subjective voting, you know that. It's a system where people vote based on their gut and what they think they saw, rather than statistical truths.

Looking at who's most likely to give up a TD isn't a stupid argument, but it's an incomplete one. That's why I included "TD rate against" in the little formula that I made up. Even before I added the "completion % against" metric, Porter was the worst CB because of the amount of yards he gave up per completion compared to the number of plays on the ball that he made.

Porter gave up more than 13 yards per catch and only made a play on the ball 10% of the time. Compare that to the 2nd worst player in the group, according to my formula, Leodis McKelvin. He gave up 11 YPC but he made a play on the ball 17% of the time. McKelvin and Porter had the same completion percentage against and similar YPC given up, the difference is that McKelvin made plays.

It's difficult to look at some of Porter's stats with any definitiveness because of the number of games he played. While it may seem like you can just take his TD per attempt rate and compare it to guys who played 3 times as many games, you can't. The fact that the sample size for data is smaller means that it is more prone to be skewed. In this case the data gets misrepresented because there are only so many TDs that can occur in one game. As an example, it's more likely for a player two give up 2 TDs in two games than it is in one, even if there are an equal # of targets. This is due to the amount of times that a CB will face certain situations in a given week. That's why Adam's method of looking at the TD/G ratio isn't as inaccurate as you might think.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

The end-season player awards are based on subjective voting, you know that. It's a system where people vote based on their gut and what they think they saw, rather than statistical truths.

Looking at who's most likely to give up a TD isn't a stupid argument, but it's an incomplete one. That's why I included "TD rate against" in the little formula that I made up. Even before I added the "completion % against" metric, Porter was the worst CB because of the amount of yards he gave up per completion compared to the number of plays on the ball that he made.

Porter gave up more than 13 yards per catch and only made a play on the ball 10% of the time. Compare that to the 2nd worst player in the group, according to my formula, Leodis McKelvin. He gave up 11 YPC but he made a play on the ball 17% of the time. McKelvin and Porter had the same completion percentage against and similar YPC given up, the difference is that McKelvin made plays.

It's difficult to look at some of Porter's stats with any definitiveness because of the number of games he played. While it may seem like you can just take his TD per attempt rate and compare it to guys who played 3 times as many games, you can't. The fact that the sample size for data is smaller means that it is more prone to be skewed. In this case the data gets misrepresented because there are only so many TDs that can occur in one game. As an example, it's more likely for a player two give up 2 TDs in two games than it is in one, even if there are an equal # of targets. This is due to the amount of times that a CB will face certain situations in a given week. That's why Adam's method of looking at the TD/G ratio isn't as inaccurate as you might think.

his sample size wasn't smaller if you look at it, he did face 41 attempts

 

[theogt]

of course you don't, because you judged long ago that Porter was going to suck, and you hate being wrong

Chris Johnson says hello

At least with Chris Johnson, I can admit I was wrong based on the evidence from his first season. You can't even do that. You just keep digging the hole deeper and deeper.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

At least with Chris Johnson, I can admit I was wrong based on the evidence from his first season. You can't even do that. You just keep digging the hole deeper and deeper.

the thing is is that I'm not a huge Porter fan, and I don't try to push my opinion that a rookie will suck in the NFL as loud and vociferously as you do

in surmise, I'm not a huge ******* like you are

talent scout, my ***

 

[masomenos]

his sample size wasn't smaller if you look at it, he did face 41 attempts

But attempts isn't the only thing that matters when talking about the significance of the # of TD's allowed. The number of games also matters because the more games a CB plays in, the more times he will be in coverage in the red zone and in other scoring opportunities. If a CB gives up 5 catches in back to back weeks he's more likely to give up 2 TDs than if he gave up 10 catches in one week. The fact that his games played is so much lower really does matter.

 

[theogt]

the thing is is that I'm not a huge Porter fan, and I don't try to push my opinion that a rookie will suck in the NFL as loud and vociferously as you do

in surmise, I'm not a huge ******* like you are

You're right, you're not the kind of ******* that constantly brings up old arguments in attempts to be right all of the time.

Oh wait...no, it was you that brought up Porter (and Chris Johnson) in this read and were proven wrong, but continually try to push your opinion despite the evidence. "In surmise," you're being a ******* in this thread.

And I didn't push my opinion that Chris Johnson would suck. I pushed my opinion that he didn't have "wiggle" and wasn't "elusive" like some people insisted. He gets by on pure speed and a good bit of lower body power. I didn't think that was enough to get by in the NFL, but apparently when you have those abilities in such massive quantities as Chris Johnson, it is.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

You're right, you're not the kind of ******* that constantly brings up old arguments in attempts to be right all of the time.

no, I just brought him up to push him down your stupid throat

Oh wait...no, it was you that brought up Porter (and Chris Johnson) in this read and were proven wrong, but continually try to push your opinion despite the evidence. "In surmise," you're being a ******* in this thread.

do you even know what my opinion in this thread was?

And I didn't push my opinion that Chris Johnson would suck. I pushed my opinion that he didn't have "wiggle" and wasn't "elusive" like some people insisted. He gets by on pure speed and a good bit of lower body power. I didn't think that was enough to get by in the NFL, but apparently when you have those abilities in such massive quantities as Chris Johnson, it is.

:laugh1: revisionist history at it's best

we already know who the bitter one is anyway, Mr. "I hate most people"

 

[theogt]

no, I just brought him up to push him down your stupid throat



do you even know what my opinion in this thread was?



:laugh1: revisionist history at it's best

we already know who the bitter one is anyway, Mr. "I hate most people"

Yeah, I think it's pretty clear who's being the *******.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Yeah, I think it's pretty clear who's being the *******.

validating your own claim *shakes head*