Great video of Tracy Porter

[Goldenrichards83]

I wouldn't touch him. If he gets abused in college, what makes you think he can do better in the NFL?

What are you talkin about abused in college? If you are abused I doubt they would vote you 1st team all Big ten when you have zero to no TV coverage. 83 tackles, 5.5 for loss, 1 sack and 2 FF and 6 ints. You feel he was abused because of the completion persentage? How much of that was short passes that he stopped immediately. How many Tds did he give up? Don't just look at the numbers and not the games you won't get the whole story. I watch almost every game and I am telling you the kid is a baller. But I respect your position, I just hope you are making your evals by more than numbers.

 

[theogt]

What are you talkin about abused in college? If you are abused I doubt they would vote you 1st team all Big ten when you have zero to no TV coverage. 83 tackles, 5.5 for loss, 1 sack and 2 FF and 6 ints. You feel he was abused because of the completion persentage? How much of that was short passes that he stopped immediately. How many Tds did he give up? Don't just look at the numbers and not the games you won't get the whole story. I watch almost every game and I am telling you the kid is a baller. But I respect your position, I just hope you are making your evals by more than numbers.

I think giving up 60% of the passes targeted at you is getting abused. He was targeted 97 times. That's a lot. That means he was targeted more often that the average corner (implying that opponents liked to throw at him) and he gave up very high percentage of catches when targeted. He had a grand total of 4 passes defended out of 97 passes.

I mean, these are pretty grotesque numbers.

Edit: He also gave up 5 TDs.

 

[Goldenrichards83]

I think giving up 60% of the passes targeted at you is getting abused. He was targeted 97 times. That's a lot. That means he was targeted more often that the average corner (implying that opponents liked to throw at him) and he gave up very high percentage of catches when targeted. He had a grand total of 4 passes defended out of 97 passes.

I mean, these are pretty grotesque numbers.

Edit: He also gave up 5 TDs.

If he was that bad shouldn't he have more Tds against him. I mean 97 times targeted and all. And make that 10 out of 97, 6 of those were ints. So why would the big ten put this guy on the 1st team, why would every draft guru have him listed in there top 7 dbacks if he was so terrible? Do you have the numbers for all the top 7 defensive backs just so I can compare?

And have you watched any games of him?

 

[theogt]

If he was that bad shouldn't he have more Tds against him. I mean 97 times targeted and all. And make that 10 out of 97, 6 of those were ints. So why would the big ten put this guy on the 1st team, why would every draft guru have him listed in there top 7 dbacks if he was so terrible? Do you have the numbers for all the top 7 defensive backs just so I can compare?

And have you watched any games of him?

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113512

By the way, Talib's numbers aren't in that link, but they are much better than Porter's as well. I imagine those 6 INTs is why he gets the recognition he does. INTs are an easy stat to track and are readily available. This is a good example of why just looking at total INTs is a bad idea.

 

[Goldenrichards83]

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113512

By the way, Talib's numbers aren't in that link, but they are much better than Porter's as well. I imagine those 6 INTs is why he gets the recognition he does. INTs are an easy stat to track and are readily available. This is a good example of why just looking at total INTs is a bad idea.

Actually this is a good example of just looking at numbers and not the game is a terrible idea. By looking at that Terrel Thomas is the best corner in the nation but you and I know that isn't true. He's a decent prospect but he is in noway as good as some of the guys on that list.

You never watched him play have you? Don't just go by the numbers dog, really he's better than that but your numbers do show he has the 4th best int per attempt, 4th in completion percentage, 4th in int per attempt and 1st in ints.

By the way it was 91 times he was targeted not 97

 

[theogt]

Actually this is a good example of just looking at numbers and not the game is a terrible idea. By looking at that Terrel Thomas is the best corner in the nation but you and I know that isn't true. He's a decent prospect but he is in noway as good as some of the guys on that list.

You never watched him play have you? Don't just go by the numbers dog, really he's better than that but your numbers do show he has the 4th best int per attempt, 4th in completion percentage, 4th in int per attempt and 1st in ints.

By the way it was 91 times he was targeted not 97

I don't care if he looks like the best prospect on earth. You can't just ignore those numbers. They're terrible. He was ABUSED in college. College. Not the NFL. College.

Thomas's numbers are great. But he was advantaged to some unknown extent by a terrific front seven. There's also the possibility that Thomas is simply better than most people give him credit. Regardless, I'd certainly draft him before Porter.

 

[dbair1967]

Porters' last season was abysmal. I wouldn't touch him before the 5th round.

but yet you'd draft a WR that averaged 9.2 yds per catch in the 1st rd?

as for Porter, I've only seen a little of him...but he has good size and tremendous speed, and it appears he makes alot of plays (16 ints in 4 seasons, 6 last yr, 10 passes broken up and 83 tackles)

David

 

[dbair1967]

I think giving up 60% of the passes targeted at you is getting abused. He was targeted 97 times. That's a lot. That means he was targeted more often that the average corner (implying that opponents liked to throw at him) and he gave up very high percentage of catches when targeted. He had a grand total of 4 passes defended out of 97 passes.

I mean, these are pretty grotesque numbers.

Edit: He also gave up 5 TDs.

I'm thinking you're going a little over board with your crusade against this guy Theo...

Indiana isnt exactly lining up 6-8 NFL prospects on the defensive side of the ball...

David

 

[dbair1967]

Anyone who allows 60% completion against him in college is obviously not a finished product.

again, some of those numbers might not be all his fault. Indiana isnt exactly an NFL hotbed of talent on either side of the ball

he makes alot of plays, has great speed and is very aggressive...I like those traits in a DB.....he's gonna get drafted in the 2nd rd by somebody

David

 

[theogt]

but yet you'd draft a WR that averaged 9.2 yds per catch in the 1st rd?

Yes. That's a totally different scenario. His YPC was low because of the way he was used. And his total production was low because of his injury. No such explanations exist for Porter's terrible numbers.

as for Porter, I've only seen a little of him...but he has good size and tremendous speed, and it appears he makes alot of plays (16 ints in 4 seasons, 6 last yr, 10 passes broken up and 83 tackles)

David

4 passes defended is extremely low. He had a respectable INT/attempt percentage, though, but that doesn't make up for the rest of his abysmal numbers.

 

[theogt]

again, some of those numbers might not be all his fault. Indiana isnt exactly an NFL hotbed of talent on either side of the ball

he makes alot of plays, has great speed and is very aggressive...I like those traits in a DB.....he's gonna get drafted in the 2nd rd by somebody

David

Indiana was 8th in the nation in sacks and 24th in the nation in TFL, so apparently the front seven was doing its job. You can't blame his terrible numbers on them.

 

[dbair1967]

4 passes defended is extremely low. He had a respectable INT/attempt percentage, though, but that doesn't make up for the rest of his abysmal numbers.

where are you getting 4? PFW has it as 10

and again, if the team is medeiocre and has no pass rush, the DB's numbers are going to look bad in terms of comp% against

David

 

[Goldenrichards83]

I don't care if he looks like the best prospect on earth. You can't just ignore those numbers. They're terrible. He was ABUSED in college. College. Not the NFL. College.

Thomas's numbers are great. But he was advantaged to some unknown extent by a terrific front seven. There's also the possibility that Thomas is simply better than most people give him credit. Regardless, I'd certainly draft him before Porter.

He wasn't abused in college, you didn't read the scouting report. Your basing your entire argument on numbers when you haven't said you have watched one game of this kids career. And those same numbers your are basing your argument on says a guy who noone is picking before the 4th rd is the #1 guy. And I am not bashing Thomas I actually like him but we know those numbers are based on more than him as an individual defender. He had an amazing front 7 as you readily admit, he was advantaged. Could it be possible that Porter was disadvantage because of a lack thereof a front 7. Think about that and as far as you drafting him before Porter my friend you are certainly in the minority on that one.

 

[theogt]

where are you getting 4? PFW has it as 10

and again, if the team is medeiocre and has no pass rush, the DB's numbers are going to look bad in terms of comp% against

David

NFLDraftScout.

 

[dbair1967]

Indiana was 8th in the nation in sacks and 24th in the nation in TFL, so apparently the front seven was doing its job. You can't blame his terrible numbers on them.

52 pts vs Mich St, 36 Penn St, 33 Wisconsin, 31 Northwestern, 49 Oklahoma St

thats their scoring defense in those games...that blows, and I seriously doubt that its because of the CB that everyone has rated as a 2nd/early 3rd rd pick

David

 

[theogt]

He wasn't abused in college, you didn't read the scouting report. Your basing your entire argument on numbers when you haven't said you have watched one game of this kids career. And those same numbers your are basing your argument on says a guy who noone is picking before the 4th rd is the #1 guy. And I am not bashing Thomas I actually like him but we know those numbers are based on more than him as an individual defender. He had an amazing front 7 as you readily admit, he was advantaged. Could it be possible that Porter was disadvantage because of a lack thereof a front 7. Think about that and as far as you drafting him before Porter my friend you are certainly in the minority on that one.

I'm having a hard time figuring out what your argument is. I'm showing you facts. These numbers represent how he played in college. Would you consider spending a high pick on a QB out of college that had one of the worst QB ratings in his entire draft class? No, of course not.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I wouldn't touch him. If he gets abused in college, what makes you think he can do better in the NFL?

NFL coaching, maturity, experience, Porter is extremely raw

if players were drafted solely on college production, your boy Terrell Thomas would be the #1 CB taken although he's probably already reached his ceiling and won't get much better

 

[dbair1967]

"strong SR season indicates more improvement to come"

"dynamic playmaker"

"didnt benefit from a strongest pass rush"

thats from Lindy's

David

 

[Goldenrichards83]

Indiana was 8th in the nation in sacks and 24th in the nation in TFL, so apparently the front seven was doing its job. You can't blame his terrible numbers on them.

Or maybe the CB who was covering the top WR was doing his by the way he had more than a quarter of those TFL with 5.5 and 1 sack.

 

[dbair1967]

I'm having a hard time figuring out what your argument is. I'm showing you facts. These numbers represent how he played in college. Would you consider spending a high pick on a QB out of college that had one of the worst QB ratings in his entire draft class? No, of course not.

I believe your being a hypocrite tonight Theo

you cant use numbers as your story to bash this guy and then try to downplay the horrendous numbers of Early Doucet and defend him as a 1st rd pick...

David