DMN Blog: Gerald Sensabaugh vs. Roy Williams

[WoodysGirl]

They are one year off, and both years are the most recent each player started a full season.

Not sure why that isn't a valid comparison? Was there something significantly different in the NFL in 2007 vs. 2008?

Well I initially wasn't aware that Sensabaugh didn't get enough snaps in 2007 to make that a valid comparison.

I knew you couldn't use Roy's 2008 numbers, so I thought it made sense to use years in which they both played. I was simply questioning why they weren't using the same years. It didn't matter to me which year. 2007 just happens to be Roy's last year of playing significantly.

 

[Rampage]

Well I initially wasn't aware that Sensabaugh didn't get enough snaps in 2007 to make that a valid comparison.

I knew you couldn't use Roy's 2008 numbers, so I thought it made sense to use years in which they both played. I was simply questioning why they weren't using the same years. It didn't matter to me which year. 2007 just happens to be Roy's last year of playing significantly.

and totally sucking at it. RAGE ON!

 

[Bob Sacamano]

WG's getting slapped around in here

 

[wileedog]

Well I initially wasn't aware that Sensabaugh didn't get enough snaps in 2007 to make that a valid comparison.

I knew you couldn't use Roy's 2008 numbers, so I thought it made sense to use years in which they both played. I was simply questioning why they weren't using the same years. It didn't matter to me which year. 2007 just happens to be Roy's last year of playing significantly.

Gotchya, although I would think the most recent year would be more relevant for Sensabaugh anyway, especially given his age.

 

[theogt]

Based on the numbers posted, doesn't sound like too much of an upgrade on the field. Solid guy overal and he does come cheaper, so that's a plus.

Seems like a significant difference to me.

 

[AMERICAS_FAN]

Let what go? Sensabaugh's here. Roy's not. That's a fact.

I don't think what I'm questioning is unreasonable. I'm not questioning levels of suckitude. I'm not questioning the actual numbers. I'm questioning why they compared those specific numbers.

They took the last full season played by each player to compare, so that the comparison had a recency element to it and was also based over a similar duration. What they can't really control for is level of competition, but in today's NFL, with parity, that should even out, as best as poosible, over the course of a season, which is why that is the appropriate duration. It was quite the valid statistical test, and the success rate numbers are quite telling of Sensabaugh's superiority as a pass-defender.

 

[jobberone]

I got why they didn't compare '08. I guess it was a matter of comparing the seasons in which they both played.

And if you can't compare similarly played seasons, then why do the comparison?

It's reasonable. You can't really compare it that way anyway. It's all relative. There are way too many variables to make it statistically significant in a true meaningful way.

It's easier to use the computer in your head and just look at them play. Of course that's not perfect either.

 

[WoodysGirl]

WG's getting slapped around in here

You wish. Seeing as how much you get slapped around. :laugh2:

Gotchya, although I would think the most recent year would be more relevant for Sensabaugh anyway, especially given his age.

I think if we were simply discussing Sensabaugh his most recent numbers would certainly make sense.

Seems like a significant difference to me.

Didn't seem that way until the numbers were explained later in the thread.

 

[Frozen700]

You wish. Seeing as how much you get slapped around. :laugh2:

I think if we were simply discussing Sensabaugh his most recent numbers would certainly make sense.

Didn't seem that way until the numbers were explained later in the thread.

As a person i like Roy...as a player? no...he stinks..i think Gerald is a way more of an upgrade, he cant do no worse, teams went out of there way to exploit Roy's coverage, it was embarrassing and frustrating

i do root for him, wherever he goes tho

 

[tunahelper]

Let what go? Sensabaugh's here. Roy's not. That's a fact.

I don't think what I'm questioning is unreasonable. I'm not questioning levels of suckitude. I'm not questioning the actual numbers. I'm questioning why they compared those specific numbers.

I think Sensabaugh first year starting was last year?

 

[Roger78]

I wonder who was first

Sheesh!! I was wondering the same thing!

Maybe a deaf, jumb and blind kid who can only play a mean game of pinball.

BTW - No that wasn't a special ed joke.

 

[Woods]

Let what go? Sensabaugh's here. Roy's not. That's a fact.

I don't think what I'm questioning is unreasonable. I'm not questioning levels of suckitude. I'm not questioning the actual numbers. I'm questioning why they compared those specific numbers.

I think Sensabaugh first year starting was last year?

Yes, I think that's correct.

 

[AdamJT13]

I wonder who was first

Michael Huff.

The difference was that the clear majority of Roy's targets came within 10 yards of the line of scrimmage, while Huff was targeted on deep passes a lot.

Roy's YPA was about average that season, but giving up all of those short passes killed his success percentage.

 

[JonJon]

You would think an all-pro safety that didn't suck like Roy wouldv'e found a team by now. I guess those other teams didn't read the Roy Mythbuster thread.

 

[AKATheRake]

pretty big upgrade based on numbers.

Sensabaugh '08: 40 targets, 7.0 yards per attempt; 53% success rate. 5 passes defensed, 4 interceptions.
Williams '07: 59 targets, 8.1 yards per attempt; 37% success rate. 6 passes defensed, 2 interceptions.


That means Sensabaugh was successful over half the time, gave up over a 1 yard less per reception, and made 9 plays(4 picks) on the ball in 40 attempts.

RW38 was successful just over a third of the time, had 8 plays(on 2 picks) on the ball in 59 attempts.

Oh and Dallas has 49 sacks in 07 compared to 29 for Jax in 08 so you can figure coverage was a little easier to pull off for RW as he had more pressure helping the cause.

Awesome points and post.

 

[SLATEmosphere]

Sensabaugh will be a beast on this team! With some pass rush..Sensabaugh,Hamlin in the back field with Scandrick in the slot and Newman and Jenkins both on islands...maybe Scandrick playing FS on some passing situations.

I'm excited.

 

[ThreeSportStar80]

I hope he contributes well to the team... He sounds like a pretty good young player.

 

[Roger78]

Sheesh!! I was wondering the same thing!

Maybe a deaf, jumb and blind kid who can only play a mean game of pinball.

BTW - No that wasn't a special ed joke.

Jeez, no wonder I only post about 5 times a year. Nobody responds to either one of my jokes. Do you guys have any sense of humor at all? Maybe it was stupid, but I really want to know who was worse than RW?


BTW - Had a few beers - love you guys!!!

OK, it was a political joke - I take it back. Sorry, I'm biased. Forgive me, not appropriate for this board.

 

[Frozen700]

Only if TO wasnt such a prick......wed be so talented minus the drama...oh well

im ready to move on...we look so good right now...i actually feel more confident then i did, with all the talent

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Arbitrary stats like 'success percentage' are complete BS. If a safety is asked to guard the deep middle of the field he is going to have a lesser success percentage than someone that only has shallow coverage responsibilities assuming an equal completion percentage.

For example if a safety is targeted because a corner got beat and he has deep responsibilities then if he can keep it under 10 yards I would say that was 'success.' According to this stat it is not. If you only have the short part of the field then you are going to consistently only be targeted in less than 15 yards which will boost the stat. According to this metric giving up 5 yards over and over again on second down is 'success.'

I realize they do this to fill books but at the end of the day when you start creating completely new subjective stats is when I begin to disregard.