Claiborne included in PFF's Worst Player at Every Position for Week 5

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Is looking just at his targets a complete picture?

Could only four targets to a primary receiver indicate good coverage which took that receiver out of the play?

Seems like a ridiculous metric to entirely base a performance on.

Welcome to PFF secondary statistics. A target also is not necessarily a target. It is the 'closest DB' to an incompletion which as we know is not going to tell the story particularly with zone coverage.

 

[big dog cowboy]

PFF actually grades Carr out better this year

 

[CCBoy]

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2015/10/12/worst-players-at-every-position-for-week-5/

Cornerbacks: Tim Jennings, Buccaneers (-6.1) and Morris Claiborne, Cowboys (-4.8)

Jennings was targeted 10 times, and allowed seven catches for 123 yards and two touchdowns. Not a great day at the office for him. He also missed two tackles and had a pass interference penalty. Claiborne was targeted far less, only four times. But, he allowed all four to be completed, and even worse, allowed 80 yards after the catch. When your average catch allowed goes for 30 yards, you definitely didn’t have a great day.

I guess next season, he might learn enough to understand a pick....pick...pick. Claiborne will know recognition of this tendency, far before the mediot will.

 

[xwalker]

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2015/10/12/worst-players-at-every-position-for-week-5/

Cornerbacks: Tim Jennings, Buccaneers (-6.1) and Morris Claiborne, Cowboys (-4.8)

Jennings was targeted 10 times, and allowed seven catches for 123 yards and two touchdowns. Not a great day at the office for him. He also missed two tackles and had a pass interference penalty. Claiborne was targeted far less, only four times. But, he allowed all four to be completed, and even worse, allowed 80 yards after the catch. When your average catch allowed goes for 30 yards, you definitely didn’t have a great day.

PFF is crap; however, after my review I determined that Claiborne was a bigger problem that it appeared when watching the game in real-time.

Yes, some of it is from the pick plays, but I think they target him more because they know the Cowboys won't try anything complicated with him in terms of mixing up the coverage.

He also had some fails tacking after the catch and against the run.

 

[perrykemp]

PFF is crap; however, after my review I determined that Claiborne was a bigger problem that it appeared when watching the game in real-time.

Yes, some of it is from the pick plays, but I think they target him more because they know the Cowboys won't try anything complicated with him in terms of mixing up the coverage.

He also had some fails tacking after the catch and against the run.

I read your analysis and thought to myself it matched up with PFF's analysis.

 

[jterrell]

PFF is crap; however, after my review I determined that Claiborne was a bigger problem that it appeared when watching the game in real-time.

Yes, some of it is from the pick plays, but I think they target him more because they know the Cowboys won't try anything complicated with him in terms of mixing up the coverage.

He also had some fails tacking after the catch and against the run.

That's a completely fair take.
Mo had easily his worst day of the young season.
But he was not a bottom 5 CB for the week.

Thus the issue with PFF and their metrics.

Jerry Rice catches a 6 yard pass in tight man overage with no help and runs 30 yards and it counts the same as a play where a scrub beat you like a drum for a 25 yard out where you had help over the top.

They have to include a component for passes not thrown and they needed to mention the offensive pick play Mo won which was a time he had been targeted.
So he was targeted and either counted negatively or they simply ignored the targeting altogether. Either way an issue in their scoring.

Mo is not now and may never be a good tackler. Knocks there are well earned.

But his PFF grade should be accounting for playing ODB, Julio Jones, Edelman et al.
Patmon who lost his job shouldn't score higher based on guarding a 3rd or 4th WR and even air many plays.
Percentage of plays you provide good coverage as well as times you draw WR1 versus WR2 or WR3 should be factored in.

 

[TimHortons]

One bad play. He's still fine and is surely due an int. I hope.

This team has been gifted multiple ints this year and dropped them all. The QB would have to hand the ball to one of our DBs to get a pick

 

[Direwolf63]

They're only questionable if you don't understand their methods and if you believe their grade is an actual indication of how good or bad a player is.

What happens when Claiborne is covering the QB's #1 option, but he goes elsewhere because his WR was covered. How does PFF grade that? I'm asking because I have no idea.

 

[black label]

I don't drink a lot
but when I do
I don't drink the
Claiborne
kool-Aid

 

[xwalker]

I read your analysis and thought to myself it matched up with PFF's analysis.

I actually think that how I only looked at the critical plays might be what PFF does. I really have doubts that they look at all plays for all games. The man power to do that would be huge for a small company.

 

[DogFace]

Actually, it was 4 plays. Did you read? They targeted him 4 times, for an average of 30 yards. He also had another hands to the face or holding penalty that extended a drive.

I feel it was one bad play. Receivers make catches. The hands to the face was real weak. He brushed the mask while trying to bump his body and the receiver ducked. Another play I bet the cheatriots practice. No grab or actual touching of the face.

 

[DogFace]

This team has been gifted multiple ints this year and dropped them all. The QB would have to hand the ball to one of our DBs to get a pick

Ok. I hope that happens because we need one. Bad.

 

[TheCount]

What happens when Claiborne is covering the QB's #1 option, but he goes elsewhere because his WR was covered. How does PFF grade that? I'm asking because I have no idea.

I have no idea how anyone other than the players know what the #1 option is but if Claiborne goes somewhere else because the receiver in front of him is covered, then he's playing zone defense and dropping off to cover your zone when a receiver leaves it is part of the scheme - you don't get bonus points for knowing your responsibility.

 

[texbumthelife]

I would bet my bank account, that some of the same guys in this thread bashing Mo after a bad game, have been praising him the previous four weeks. He had a bad game, in a bad match up. He has always struggled against the smaller, quicker guys.

I've never liked Mo, but he's been hands down our best DB this season.

 

[Direwolf63]

I have no idea how anyone other than the players know what the #1 option is but if Claiborne goes somewhere else because the receiver in front of him is covered, then he's playing zone defense and dropping off to cover your zone when a receiver leaves it is part of the scheme - you don't get bonus points for knowing your responsibility.

That's kind of the point: you have no idea, I have no idea and PFF has no idea how specific plays are supposed to work. Claiborne could have his receiver blanketed all day, forcing QB's to go elsewhere and he doesn't get any credit. On the other hand, he slips on one play, the receiver catches and runs for a big play and Claiborne is hammered by a poor rating.

Doesn't sound very fair to me.

 

[perrykemp]

I've never liked Mo, but he's been hands down our best DB this season.

I'd be very surprised if anybody here on CZ would argue against the fact that Mo been playing the best overall ball of the starting defensive backs so far this season.

What that says about the overall state of the secondary IS probably the larger concern.

 

[TheCount]

That's kind of the point: you have no idea, I have no idea and PFF has no idea how specific plays are supposed to work. Claiborne could have his receiver blanketed all day, forcing QB's to go elsewhere and he doesn't get any credit. On the other hand, he slips on one play, the receiver catches and runs for a big play and Claiborne is hammered by a poor rating.

Doesn't sound very fair to me.

Eh, I think it's pretty easy to figure out if a defense is in man or zone after a play is run so I'm not sure if your example really validates the point you're trying to make, however I understand where you're coming from.

Again, PFF's number does not represent how good or bad a player is - in which case fairness would be a concern.

Any CB giving up 30 yards per target is probably not having a great day, but the fact of the matter is that there is no number in the world that can accurately say how well a player performed because football is a team sport - there is simply too much context involved.

 

[Nightman]

I don't drink a lot
but when I do
I don't drink the
Claiborne
kool-Aid

The apologists are strong with this one.

He has been so bad and so absent since he was drafted and now he is everyone's pet right before we can dump him.

Fans are actually talking about giving him 20m in new guarantees.

Fool me thrice and shoot me.

 

[ShiningStar]

PFF is still under the impression stats can give them an opinion.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Again, PFF's number does not represent how good or bad a player is - in which case fairness would be a concern.

Matching actual reality and intent is a part of fairness . They have a hall of shame here essentially and they use their numbers to justify it. PFF links it themselves.