KC Joyner: Big-name safeties vulnerable to deep ball

[ThreeSportStar80]

Ed Reed is very good, but he had a bad year last season. Base him on his entire career for all the good he has done and then look at last year and I can see where he is over rated. He did not live up to the high standard he set in previous years. That probably is not a good predictor for what may happen this season. I think he will be good again.

One year under par doesn't not qualify as overrated...

 

[Vintage]

One year under par doesn't not qualify as overrated...

No. Under par qualifies as great.

Wish I could shoot under par. Wish I could do that for one round, let alone a whole year...

 

[Alexander]

Not all of which are deserved though.

:laugh2:

I guess if my head coach sent weekly videotapes soaked in tears to the league office I would feel this way as well.

 

[WoodysGirl]

Actually I know a few of those former Univ. Miami guys, I helped organize a few functions...
:wink2:
I just think he's a better player than Roy Williams and wish to god Dallas had drafted him back in 2002.

Ok so there's a bit of bias towards the "U" gotcha.

Even with a half glimpse at Reeds numbers last year, they were way down from previous years. Solid enough, but not near as good as he has been. In the past, you could argue he was far and away better than Roy (true or not), but last year, their numbers were fairly similar across the board.

Down year for safeties, I guess.

 

[junk]

I guess there is no reason for any of us to discuss football games by your logic. None of us can be accurate with any breakdown of any play based on the broadcast tapes apparently.

No, I don't think we can be accurate on the breakdown of every play either. We are subject to game broadcasts as well.

We can form opinions on what we see, but we're not trying to sell that opinion to consumers for $50 a pop either.

You said his info is useless and doesn't provide anything useful at all.

Adam pointed out flaws in Joyner's RANKINGS in the way he formulates a players success. There will always be a certain degree of inaccuracy with breaking down football, but for the most part, you can accurately figure out who is responsible for what on a given play.

"but for the most part" throws out any sort of "scientific" principles. What if Joyner consistently misreads coverage responsibilities in a certain Cover 2 scheme? A Cover 2 corner or safety's stats will be skewed worse than a team that play primarily man coverage.

There are so many variables that can be (and likely are) wrong, that it makes the "stats" almost worthless.

Where is your evidence that he is wrong on a large percentage of statistics?

As I've stated numerous times, he doesn't know the coverages and he is watching off a TV broadcast where he cannot see the safeties all the time. He can't even see the progression of the coverage. It's guess work.

So, basically your contention is that people can't learn anymore about football after they've stopped playing it in high school? Yeah, that makes sense.

Sure, they can learn more. But do you honestly think someone who has only played a limited amount of football in their career can accurately understand NFL coverage schemes?

Players and coaches spend years honing their skills are reading and creating coverage schemes.

What industry do you work in? If its not football, then you're saying you don't have the knowledge to be posting any opinions at all about football related matters.

KC Joyner isn't posting opinion. He is trying to sell "fact". It isn't, yet people are buying into as fact.

I'm not saying its some simple thing... I'm saying its not as hard as some, like you, are making it out to be. You're acting like the only people that can look at a play AFTER its happened and know what happened are the people that called the plays or coaches that, apparently, need to spend MONTHS breaking down an opponents' scheme.

No, you misunderstood. I said it does take months for a defense to learn and understand their coverage schemes. If not, why bother with coaching and training camp?

I do believe it is more complicated than sitting on your couch, watching a game where you can't see the secondary until the ball gets there and deciding who was responsible. I think there are too many variables that aren't seen on TV. Look at how much is revealed on instant replay with different angles.. What if a particular play isn't replayed?

You're at home sitting on your couch too watching the game broadcast. You ever chime in on a discussion about what happened on a particular play? If so, how is it that you're able to determine responsibilities on the play to form your opinion of what happened... I mean, anyone sitting on their couch can't determine anything at all about a play that's happened. We're all football idiots sitting on our couches watching a game we can't possibly understand in the slightest.

I'm not trying to sell my opinion as "fact". I'm also not using my opinion as a sure fire justification for something. What I say on here is my opinon, but I get these "stats" thrown in my face as some sort of justification for my opinion being wrong.

There are certainly plays that we watch on our couch where we are unable to determine responsibility. Some of them get discussed for months.

Your assumption would be wrong. KC is not saying Ed Reed is not a good safety, what he's saying is that he's not this never make a mistake or give up a catch safety that many people act like he is.

Where did I ever say that?

 

[joseephuss]

One year under par doesn't not qualify as overrated...

It does for last season. Some out there think Reed was great last season because he is Ed Reed. Just isn't true. He was not great and in some ways was not even good. Some can't separate his entire career for one season and he gets a pass for his performance. That is being over rated for last year. Pretty much meets the definition of over rated. Now I would not hold his past season against him going into this season. He has too many good attributes and contributions to over rate him going into a new year.

 

[ThreeSportStar80]

Ok so there's a bit of bias towards the "U" gotcha.

Even with a half glimpse at Reeds numbers last year, they were way down from previous years. Solid enough, but not near as good as he has been. In the past, you could argue he was far and away better than Roy (true or not), but last year, their numbers were fairly similar across the board.

Down year for safeties, I guess.

I agree, last year he indeed had a down year but to say he's overrated as this guy KC Joyner stated is crazy to me,

 

[ThreeSportStar80]

It does for last season. Some out there think Reed was great last season because he is Ed Reed. Just isn't true. He was not great and in some ways was not even good. Some can't separate his entire career for one season and he gets a pass for his performance. That is being over rated for last year. Pretty much meets the definition of over rated. Now I would not hold his past season against him going into this season. He has too many good attributes and contributions to over rate him going into a new year.

Since you explained that, fair enough to me. Like WG said safeties overall didn't have particularly stellar stats last year...

 

[TEK2000]

No, I don't think we can be accurate on the breakdown of every play either. We are subject to game broadcasts as well.

We can form opinions on what we see, but we're not trying to sell that opinion to consumers for $50 a pop either.


"but for the most part" throws out any sort of "scientific" principles. What if Joyner consistently misreads coverage responsibilities in a certain Cover 2 scheme? A Cover 2 corner or safety's stats will be skewed worse than a team that play primarily man coverage.

There are so many variables that can be (and likely are) wrong, that it makes the "stats" almost worthless.

I don't disagree with you on that. I see that your issue is the way he markets his material as well as the accuracy. I don't believe he is right on every single play but I do think he (as well as the rest of us that watch the games) can figure out who is responsible for what on a great majority of plays. So, you're right, can't really call it "scientific".

I do not believe the stats are worthless though. Yes, there are going to be some degree of innaccuracies, but the stats are still a valid measure of a players' performance in each particular stats category. I don't think you can simply say that they are worthless and toss them out as meaning nothing at all.

As I've stated numerous times, he doesn't know the coverages and he is watching off a TV broadcast where he cannot see the safeties all the time. He can't even see the progression of the coverage. It's guess work.


Sure, they can learn more. But do you honestly think someone who has only played a limited amount of football in their career can accurately understand NFL coverage schemes?

Players and coaches spend years honing their skills are reading and creating coverage schemes.

KC Joyner isn't posting opinion. He is trying to sell "fact". It isn't, yet people are buying into as fact.

You don't have to play football in order to understand it.

Of course, Coaches and elite players are going to be the very best at breaking down plays.

No, you misunderstood. I said it does take months for a defense to learn and understand their coverage schemes. If not, why bother with coaching and training camp?

I do believe it is more complicated than sitting on your couch, watching a game where you can't see the secondary until the ball gets there and deciding who was responsible. I think there are too many variables that aren't seen on TV. Look at how much is revealed on instant replay with different angles.. What if a particular play isn't replayed?

I was talking about coaches breaking down film of their opponents and then you said the "months" thing where, as you've stated now, you were talking about Coaches/Players learning and implementing their OWN coverages. That's where the misunderstanding occured.

I'm not trying to sell my opinion as "fact". I'm also not using my opinion as a sure fire justification for something. What I say on here is my opinon, but I get these "stats" thrown in my face as some sort of justification for my opinion being wrong.

There are certainly plays that we watch on our couch where we are unable to determine responsibility. Some of them get discussed for months.

Noone is claiming KC Joyner's work is infallible facts. The stats are a point of reference to support an opinion. You have reasons for why you formed your opinion... other have reasons for their opinions and try to find supporting information for their opinions.

I absolutely agree.. the 2 Santana Moss TD's were discussed to death and are STILL debated.
But, do you not agree that in most cases, its not quite that troublesome to figure out who was responsible for covering what reciever?

Where did I ever say that?

You said you assumed I wouldn't want Ed Reed as my free safety... I said you assumed wrong.

 

[TEK2000]

Since you explained that, fair enough to me. Like WG said safeties overall didn't have particularly stellar stats last year...

The way he explained it is exactly the way I see it too.

Joyner is basing his overrated rating on the 2006 season performance vs the opinion of the player.

Its just like Newman, Joyner said Newman's metrics weren't as good as he thought they'd be, so he puts him down as overrated because.. the OPINION of Newman was higher than how he performed during the 2006 season. Its not because Newman isn't good... its just because Newman wasn't AS GOOD as he (and others) thought he was.

 

[Vintage]

The way he explained it is exactly the way I see it too.

Joyner is basing his overrated rating on the 2006 season performance vs the opinion of the player.

Its just like Newman, Joyner said Newman's metrics weren't as good as he thought they'd be, so he puts him down as overrated because.. the OPINION of Newman was higher than how he performed during the 2006 season. Its not because Newman isn't good... its just because Newman wasn't AS GOOD as he (and others) thought he was.

Yep. The opinion that Newman was a top CB didn't match the results...

 

[WoodysGirl]

Yep. The opinion that Newman was a top CB didn't match the results...

I would add "in 2006 vs 2005."

 

[ScipioCowboy]

What really should be taken from this entire thread is that every safety gets beat deep. Pretty often, it seems, at that.

Not surprising...especially when one consider the prevalence of cover 2 defenses.

 

[AdamJT13]

I would add "in 2006 vs 2005."

And I would add "in Joyner's metrics."

 

[PhillyCowboysFan]

The safety position also has a unique coverage metric that I call the deep-assist coverage metric. This metric is used to distinguish when a safety is helping another player cover a receiver over the top. In addition to that metric, I also use the direct coverage metric when the safety is directly responsible for covering a receiver one on one.

So he looked at every play played by these players last season and also know exactly what their coverage resposibilites were, just amazing!

 

[stilltheguru]

so basically brian dawkins is king of safeties? GOT IT!

 

[Eskimo]

No, Hamlin never was in a coma. He was conscious after the attack -- or at least semi-conscious, because he talked to police at the scene. He was out of the hospital less than a week later.

those discharged from hospital appropriately within a week tend to have much, much better outcomes than those in hosptial more than two weeks.

 

[burmafrd]

Joyner needs to combine his numbers with a guy who does not care a rip about numbers but just watches the players. Put both of them together and you would get a real read on a player.