DMN: Football Outsiders - Adam Jones Has Been Dallas' Best CB

[theogt]

DMN Blog

The best cornerbacks on the Cowboys
9:25 AM Fri, Nov 14, 2008 | Permalink | Yahoo! Buzz
Calvin Watkins E-mail News tips

Football Outsiders did a nice job of breaking down the cornerbacks on the Cowboys. I would agree that Pacman Jones has been the best corner this season. But I believe Orlando Scandrick has been the second best.

Here's how I would rank the corners.

1. Pacman Jones. Yes, he freelances but he still leads the team with 11 passes defensed.

2. Orlando Scandrick. Covers wideouts in the slot on the nickel. Is good in zone coverage.

3. Anthony Henry. Not popular with the fans. But hasn't missed any games due to injury.

4. Mike Jenkins. Still learning the position. Dave Campo loves him, maybe next year Jenkins will show you what he can do.

5. Terence Newman. The last time Mr. Newman was on the field, Santana Moss was pointing to the back of his jersey.



Comments (0) Leave comment | E-mail entry

Seems silly to rank Terence that low and Pacman that high. The only reason you'd rank Terence that low is that he's missed so much time, but apparently that doesn't apply to Pacman.

 

[Big Dakota]

THANK YOU!

After all those Pacman bashers here on the board i was looking for someone who writes something good about him just because to have someone with the same opinion i have.

Pacman besides his problems (that btw where taken totally out of perspective by most here on this board) was really a great find for us. For a player who sat out more then a year he plays way above what we could have ecpected from him.

I hope he will be reinstated and be welcomed by all of the players. Way to go Adam. Keep up your great work!

Jerry, shouldn't you be hard at your GM duties?

 

[Seven]

THANK YOU!

After all those Pacman bashers here on the board i was looking for someone who writes something good about him just because to have someone with the same opinion i have.

Pacman besides his problems (that btw where taken totally out of perspective by most here on this board) was really a great find for us. For a player who sat out more then a year he plays way above what we could have ecpected from him.

I hope he will be reinstated and be welcomed by all of the players. Way to go Adam. Keep up your great work!

Jerry, shouldn't you be hard at your GM duties?

Good one............

 

[Temo]

Seems silly to rank Terence that low and Pacman that high. The only reason you'd rank Terence that low is that he's missed so much time, but apparently that doesn't apply to Pacman.

He said his ranking is based on how people have played. Terrence Newman was awful in the 1.5 games he played (probably because of injury). Whereas Pacman was pretty good in the games he played.

 

[jimmy40]

THANK YOU!

After all those Pacman bashers here on the board i was looking for someone who writes something good about him just because to have someone with the same opinion i have.

Pacman besides his problems (that btw where taken totally out of perspective by most here on this board) was really a great find for us. For a player who sat out more then a year he plays way above what we could have ecpected from him.

I hope he will be reinstated and be welcomed by all of the players. Way to go Adam. Keep up your great work!

Suspensions:


Anthony Henry

0

Mike Jenkins

0


Terence Newman

0


Orlando Scandrick

0


Alan Ball

0

Adam "Pacman" Jones

1 still ongoing


Way to go Pacman keep up your great work! :bang2: :bang2: :bang2: :bang2:

 

[TNCowboy]

Ranking Newman last is just stupid. Assessing or ranking his play while he was trying to play injured is only slightly less moronic than saying Tom Brady is the Patriots #2 ranked QB right now.

What I take from this mess is this: Orlando Scandrick has been very good in limited play, and Anthony Henry has been very bad.

Which was pretty obvious to anyone watching the Cowboys thusfar this season.

 

[Stash]

Ranking Newman last is just stupid. Assessing or ranking his play while he was trying to play injured is only slightly less moronic than saying Tom Brady is the Patriots #2 ranked QB right now.

What I take from this mess is this: Orlando Scandrick has been very good in limited play, and Anthony Henry has been very bad.

Which was pretty obvious to anyone watching the Cowboys thusfar this season.

People are only using the numbers they have.

Numbers from this season.

Newman struggled when he did play this year.

Due to injury?

Most likely.

But the fact is that he did struggle.

And the raw numbers bear out the fact that despite being a first-class bonehead, Pacman Jones' numbers were better than the other corners.

I don't see anyone condoning his behavior or anything like that.

I just see some raw numbers being used to show how well or how poorly the Cowboys' cornerbacks were playing when they did play.

 

[kramskoi]

Now, maybe folks will understand why I want to chance having PACMAN back on the team.

The question is'nt so much his play as his attitude and conduct. Adam is playing a dangerous game with Goddell, who's probably had it up to his teeth with Jones.

Sadly, sometimes you just have to cut a man loose. There was a certain former Cowboys running back who just could'nt get with the program and soon "he" made the choice for Landry. This goes even beyond that because the commissioner will probably decide how long he remains a player in the NFL.

I don't know what his [Adam] underlying issues are personally or professionally but Dallas needs consistency and stability in the secondary. That means coaches and players must be able to trust him to look after himself both on and off the field.

It was much too soon to already have off the field issues. Not a good sign for the future. It seems that Tank learned his lesson but Jones has not.

If Goddell does let him come back i believe it to be the final straw for him. Someone in the organization better send him down to Houston to spend some time with Joel Olsteen.

His remaining days in the NFL will depend on how long he can tow the last line.

 

[TwentyOne]

It's hard for me not to think Pac's numbers would average out that way if he hadn't been suspended.

Really ? How do you think his numbers would have decresed ? He was planned as the third CB. Because Newman wasn't able to play his #1 spot Pacman was forced to do it. So he played already against the best WRs and not against #3 or #4. Even with one year out of football he had the best numbers on or team and he was getting better and better game after game.

To me i would expect his numbers to go way up after Newman could start again. Just because he has still potential to get better and he will play #3 CB again after Newmans return.

So explain how you consider his numbers to average out.

He played five games, correct?[/QUOTE]

Wrong. He played 6 games.
Seems easy to find the answer here: We played 9 games. Pacman's status will be revaluated atfer 4 games and that will be after the coming Commanders games. So he missed 3 games because of his suspension. So how many games did he play ?

If so, then maybe they should stack those games against the players who played the five games he participated in. Or maybe project his numbers for nine games.

Unless I misread the blog, I don't see that.

Tell me where would be the difference to project his numbers from 6 to nine games ?

- His ypa would still be 5.1.
- The complition rate on him would be still 50%
- When he has now 7 PBU which is the amount (-1) all the other CBs together have (for mostly 9 games!) don't you think that number would be much much more when you project this to 9 games ?

Given, the only thing in these stats would be the PI penaltiy. Now project 1 in six games to 9 games. Do you have the feeling that 1/2 PI would hurt his stats so much ?

The same thing of yourse takes effect for projecting the numbers of the other CBs down to 6 games. Those are average numbers. Average means average it doesn't matter how many games you take into consideration. That why they are called average.

Also since, Newman missed much of the season, I'm not sure he should be included in that metric, as well.

Newman did not miss much more games then Pacman. Newman played in 4 games Pacman in 6. In only 1 game Newman played his normal position as #1 CB. And he was toast that day. In most of these games Pacman played Newmans position just because Newman was hurt etc...

But i have to admit you are right. Newmans abilities shouldn't be measured by this 4 games. And this is no anti Newman thread this is a pro Pacman thread. So even if you consider Newman not into equation to me Pacman is still the best CB on this team and to me that means something considered from where he came.

 

[TwentyOne]

Suspensions:


Anthony Henry

0

Mike Jenkins

0


Terence Newman

0


Orlando Scandrick

0


Alan Ball

0

Adam "Pacman" Jones

1 still ongoing


Way to go Pacman keep up your great work! :bang2: :bang2: :bang2: :bang2:

I guess after all these post you still didn't get the subject of this thread.

Did you realize the initial post is all about his stats ON the field not off of it ? I don't think so. Because if you had you could have been able to show the maximum intellectual output to put my comment "keep up your great work" into relation with "ON the field".

Think about it before you start to post next time.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Pacman looked like the best corner we had the first 6 games of the season.

I don't dispute that, but like I said, what's that really saying? He was better than two rookies, Henry, and an injured guy?

I admit I never wanted Pacman, but that's because of his off-field stupidity. On the field, I expected a far better player than what we got.

 

[WoodysGirl]

People are only using the numbers they have.

Numbers from this season.

Newman struggled when he did play this year.

Due to injury?

Most likely.

But the fact is that he did struggle.

And the raw numbers bear out the fact that despite being a first-class bonehead, Pacman Jones' numbers were better than the other corners.

I don't see anyone condoning his behavior or anything like that.

I just see some raw numbers being used to show how well or how poorly the Cowboys' cornerbacks were playing when they did play.

Again, are the numbers based on a nine game projection? Or does those numbers just for the five games he played and everyone elses is based on their nine game numbers. That's where my confusion lies and so far no one has been able to clarify that for me.

I don't have an issue with ranking the cornerbacks. I think I'd limit the ranking to who played all nine games.

Those who haven't should be given incompletes.

 

[TNCowboy]

People are only using the numbers they have.

Numbers from this season.

Newman struggled when he did play this year.

Due to injury?

Most likely.

But the fact is that he did struggle.

And the raw numbers bear out the fact that despite being a first-class bonehead, Pacman Jones' numbers were better than the other corners.

I don't see anyone condoning his behavior or anything like that.

I just see some raw numbers being used to show how well or how poorly the Cowboys' cornerbacks were playing when they did play.

The numbers are pretty worthless: they don't really bear out much at all in the way of facts. All they are is someone's opinion. They can't assess who screwed up in coverage or missed an assignment. If a DB was completley in the wrong place, they have no idea and just credit the negative play to whatever poor sap happened to be closest. Just like on the TD that Newman gave up, the coverage was completely bolluxed.

By this idiotic way of assessing of Newman, Brad Johnson has been our #1 QB the last month. That's quite an accomplishment. Kudos, Brad. Big Romo fans will be disappointed to hear he's only our 3rd ranked QB for the month.

Pacman's #s are helped significantly by the fact that Braylon Edwards kept dropping passes against him.

Pacman did an adequate job while he was out there. He wasn't stellar, but he wasn't garbage either. But as far as these #s really proving something? Not really.

 

[Stash]

Again, are the numbers based on a nine game projection? Or does those numbers just for the five games he played and everyone elses is based on their nine game numbers. That's where my confusion lies and so far no one has been able to clarify that for me.

I don't have an issue with ranking the cornerbacks. I think I'd limit the ranking to who played all nine games.

Those who haven't should be given incompletes.

I would think that the numbers are cumulative and based on all of the plays each player participated in.

And if you used your limits, I think everyone would get an incomplete - even Henry missed half of a game.

I think the fairest comparison is the way they did it.

 

[AdamJT13]

Newman did not miss much more games then Pacman. Newman played in 4 games Pacman in 6.

Newman played in three games, not four, and he was playing hurt the whole time.

Also, after paying for Football Outsiders' game charting stats from last season, I lost a lot of faith in the accuracy of their numbers. And the numbers posted in this thread confirm that they're still not very accurate. But I guess that's what they get for using a mishmash of unpaid volunteers to chart games for them. Some of them just aren't good at it.

 

[Stash]

The numbers are pretty worthless: they don't really bear out much at all in the way of facts. All they are is someone's opinion. They can't assess who screwed up in coverage or missed an assignment. If a DB was completley in the wrong place, they have no idea and just credit the negative play to whatever poor sap happened to be closest. Just like on the TD that Newman gave up, the coverage was completely bolluxed.

Explain to me how numbers are 'someone's opinion'. I'd be interested in that rationale.

By this idiotic way of assessing of Newman, Brad Johnson has been our #1 QB the last month. That's quite an accomplishment. Kudos, Brad. Big Romo fans will be disappointed to hear he's only our 3rd ranked QB for the month.

Riiiiggggghhhhttttt.....

I don't even know how to respond to that.

Pacman's #s are helped significantly by the fact that Braylon Edwards kept dropping passes against him.

Pacman did an adequate job while he was out there. He wasn't stellar, but he wasn't garbage either. But as far as these #s really proving something? Not really.

Maybe you should take a closer look at reality and put less stock in which players are your favorites or more likeable guys?

 

[Stash]

Newman played in three games, not four, and he was playing hurt the whole time.

Also, after paying for Football Outsiders' game charting stats from last season, I lost a lot of faith in the accuracy of their numbers. And the numbers posted in this thread confirm that they're still not very accurate. But I guess that's what they get for using a mishmash of unpaid volunteers to chart games for them. Some of them just aren't good at it.

I always trust your numbers Adam and if you have different ones I'd sure like to see them.

 

[WoodysGirl]

Really ? How do you think his numbers would have decresed ? He was planned as the third CB. Because Newman wasn't able to play his #1 spot Pacman was forced to do it. So he played already against the best WRs and not against #3 or #4. Even with one year out of football he had the best numbers on or team and he was getting better and better game after game.

To me i would expect his numbers to go way up after Newman could start again. Just because he has still potential to get better and he will play #3 CB again after Newmans return.

So explain how you consider his numbers to average out.

I've never claimed to be a numbers person, that's why I'm asking for clarification. Is it really fair to base his numbers on the number of games he played and to the number of actual games played? I don't think so. If he'd played, then I think it would be a fair comparison.

Wrong. He played 6 games.
Seems easy to find the answer here: We played 9 games. Pacman's status will be revaluated atfer 4 games and that will be after the coming Commanders games. So he missed 3 games because of his suspension. So how many games did he play ?

Tell me where would be the difference to project his numbers from 6 to nine games ?

- His ypa would still be 5.1.
- The complition rate on him would be still 50%
- When he has now 7 PBU which is the amount (-1) all the other CBs together have (for mostly 9 games!) don't you think that number would be much much more when you project this to 9 games ?

Given, the only thing in these stats would be the PI penaltiy. Now project 1 in six games to 9 games. Do you have the feeling that 1/2 PI would hurt his stats so much ?

Ok, so I was off one game. Same principle applies, IMO.

Because at the same time Romo went down, he was suspended. He never had to play during the really rough stretch, where the defense was put under the duress of an offensive collapse. It's all speculation to try to project his performance. I applaud your effort, tho.

Newman did not miss much more games then Pacman. Newman played in 4 games Pacman in 6. In only 1 game Newman played his normal position as #1 CB. And he was toast that day. In most games Pacman played Newmans position just because Newman was hurt etc...

But i have to admit you are right. Newmans abilities shouldn't be measured by this 4 games. And this is no anti Newman thread this is a pro Pacman thread. So even if you consider Newman not into equation to me Pacman is still the best CB on this team and to me that means something considered from where he came.

This is NOT simply a pro/anti Pacman thread. This is an evaluation of the overall cornerback play for the Cowboys. Pac is ranked #1, but I find the evaluation to be a bit questionable.

 

[WoodysGirl]

I would think that the numbers are cumulative and based on all of the plays each player participated in.

And if you used your limits, I think everyone would get an incomplete - even Henry missed half of a game.

I think the fairest comparison is the way they did it.

If that's how the number were generated, then I really don't like their rankings.

Newman's injury makes his play incomplete. He's been injured all season. I just can't see how he should even be included.

Henry's injury history shows that when he wasn't injured, he was fairly solid. Age has caught up to him and with yet another injury, his contributions become even more suspect. But he's still played every game this season, that's why I have no problem including him in the rankings...with an asterisk of sorts.

 

[TwentyOne]

Newman played in three games, not four, and he was playing hurt the whole time.

Did Newman return for the third game ? I thought he was already playing in the second week ?! Not alot but he played.

And of course he was hurt thats why i also wrote measure his abilities by his stats this season isn't the way to go.

Also, after paying for Football Outsiders' game charting stats from last season, I lost a lot of faith in the accuracy of their numbers. And the numbers posted in this thread confirm that they're still not very accurate. But I guess that's what they get for using a mishmash of unpaid volunteers to chart games for them. Some of them just aren't good at it.

As long as they don't do that on purpose for example to fake one players numbers just to give a little more help to their arguments these not so accurate stats still can be used to prove the point. Statistically the wrong accuracy will be on every players stats so this will give you all in all a good foundation to compare players