Rogers and McIntosh Injury Updates!!!

[Steve Spurrier III]

I disagree that the normal learning curve for a cornerback is three years - but it's certainly possible that it took Rogers a big longer to adjust.

I don't think that's the case, because it's not like he's brimming with athleticism but is struggling with knowing his role in the system. It usually appears that he knows what he needs to do, but just can't execute it. But who knows, maybe it's just a split second hesitation due to uncertainty.

Again, I'm rooting for him. I'm just not betting on him, especially with a surgically repaired knee.

[Chris Luva Luva]

The Redskins were tied for 16th in the league in sacks. Yeah, our pass rush ought to be better, but we were still a league average team. And since a slowed-down Smoot and an always banged-up Springs held up just fine, I'm not sure why the pass rush is relevant.

So average is good enough? When in life has being "average" paid off? You have to be at your best. You have to be the best. And AFAIK the BEST pass rushing team in the league just won a SB. Now we don't need to have the #1 rush in the league but we do need to be in the top 10...if not better...

And since a slowed-down Smoot and an always banged-up Springs held up just fine, I'm not sure why the pass rush is relevant.

What happened during the Seahawks game? We couldn't touch their QB and they were body slamming ours!

This team was inspired and playing above themselves due to Taylor death.

He's good enough to make an NFL roster, but he's our third best corner. And again, if you think it's a given that he's going to come back 100% from knee surgery, I've got some bad news.

I agree that he's our third best DB. And I don't dispute his return being delayed.

Unless your definition of "immediately" is "three years into his career", I'm not sure what you're talking about. How long does the #9 overall pick get? Five years? Just let me know when I am allowed to label Carlos Rogers a bust.

He gets a pass in my book until the Skins get a CONSISTENT pass rush. 16 sacks means jack if you got 8 of them in one game! Not a factual statement but you get my point. We do NOT pressure the QB consistently. That is not debatable.

Let's not forget.

People said Springs was washed up....
People said Smoot was a bum when we resigned him....
Walt Harris was chased out of here and THEN LED THE LEAGUE IN INT'S AND WENT TO THE PROBOWL....with the freaking 49ers....

Now Springs is a beast now!! Why cus he was aided by the rush during the stretch...
The same with Smoot....
And the same with Walt.

Get our guys a rush and we're set at DB if they're all healthy.

[Steve Spurrier III]

So average is good enough?

When it comes to evaluating cornerbacks? Abso-frickin-lutely. I'm not saying I'm satisfied with the Redskins' pass rush, I'm just saying Carlos Rogers can't get a pass when half the league is just as bad off as he is. That's pretty straightforward stuff, Chris.

What happened during the Seahawks game? We couldn't touch their QB and they were body slamming ours!

This team was inspired and playing above themselves due to Taylor death.

What does that have to do with Carlos Rogers? Rogers and Taylor got hurt in the same game (New England), so anything that happened afterward isn't relevant.

I'm not someone who rips on all the defensive backs. When Springs is healthy, he's an elite corner. And even though Smoot has lost a step since his injury (exhibit A as to why we should be concerned about Rogers' injruy), he is savvy enough to be effective. I was a Walt Harris supporter - in fact, here is what I said about him back in December 2005 when everyone was ripping him a new one:

please santa williams don't ever let walt harris play corner again, funny how we win when walt doens't play,

I know everybody loves to throw Walt Harris under the bus, but the reality is that he was brought here to be the nickel corner, and he performs that task very well. The coaches knew that Walt Harris shouldn't be starting, and that's why they drafted Carlos Rogers after we lost Fred Smoot.

Unfortunately, it took Rogers a bit longer to get ready than we had all hoped. But requesting that Walt Harris never see the field again is foolish, as he is a player who can be very valuable to this team.

So don't tell me I'm one of these guys who blames an entire group of people for the faults of another. I find that insulting. And by the way, here is what you said:

Walt Harris needs to be on the bench......

my goodness how many tackles has he missed today!

No, I'm just kidding. That was in a game thread after he missed a tackle - I ragged on him too.

[Chris Luva Luva]

When it comes to evaluating cornerbacks? Abso-frickin-lutely. I'm not saying I'm satisfied with the Redskins' pass rush, I'm just saying Carlos Rogers can't get a pass when half the league is just as bad off as he is. That's pretty straightforward stuff, Chris.

Im not giving him a free pass. I'm simply stating that I"m not writing the cat off until we get a decent pass rush. I happen to believe that with 2 major components this team will look totally different.

1. Pass rush
2. 24-28 offensive points a game without defensive assistance (generally)

What does that have to do with Carlos Rogers? Rogers and Taylor got hurt in the same game (New England), so anything that happened afterward isn't relevant.

Its relevant cus someone mentioned Springs and Smoot playing well. Im saying that they were assisted by an amazing pass rush which stemmed from inspired play. Once they got to a team that could negate the rush, our DB's suffered.

Simply showing the importance of the rush and how it effects our play.

I'm not someone who rips on all the defensive backs. When Springs is healthy, he's an elite corner.

I agree

And even though Smoot has lost a step since his injury (exhibit A as to why we should be concerned about Rogers' injruy), he is savvy enough to be effective.

I agree. Hopefully he'll be fully healed soon (smoot)

Walt Harris needs to be on the bench......

my goodness how many tackles has he missed today!

No, I'm just kidding. That was in a game thread after he missed a tackle - I ragged on him too.[/quote]

LOL @ myself. I know I go off the deep end, moreso back then, than now.
Kudos to you for discerning his value.

I only mention him because he flourished when he was given a pass rush. DB's and the pass rush work hand in hand.

I just see the hate Rogers gets, being the same that Walt got. I'd hate to lose a decent corner cus his play was hindered by a nonexistant pass rush.

Im not saying he's the next Champ but he's more than an adequate corner for us in his current capacity and I can see him improving greatly with a pass rush. Thats all.

[yupchagee]

Reading some of these posts, one would think that we were last in the league in pass defence. We were 16th. Not great, but not terrible, esp since we were 4th against the run meaning that teams were probably throwing more & running less than average against us. We need to address other problems ahead of DB.

[SkinsFreak]

Wow. I know Rogers dropped a few Int's in the past, but that stat alone isn't the only redeeming stat for defensive backs. Rogers is a far better corner than some of you are recognizing. His closing speed is incredible, he's rarely out of position, he's a great tackler and plays extremely physical for a CB.

How 'bout some facts, shall we?

In 2006, when Rogers really came on, he ended the year tied for 14th in passes defended. This category includes safeties as well, so for 32 teams, that's 14th place out of 128 "starting" DB's (if you were to include 2 CB's and 2 safeties per starting defense). That ranks Rogers in the top 11% of ALL DB's in the league for that catagory, and a very important category at that. That same year, he also finished the season tied for 26th in solo tackles.

Again, number of Int's doesn't tell the whole story. And wasn't 2006 the year we ranked last in pass defense? I disagree Rogers is our 3rd best corner. Smoot may be more popular, but he's not as talented as Rogers, evident by the fact that Rogers was a starter last year at corner, opposite of Springs, and Smoot was the nickel back.

[Steve Spurrier III]

I have to completley disagree with his "incredible" closing speed - I think that's one of his weaknesses. He is a fine tackler, that's true. I don't think Rogers is useless, but I don't think anyone will ever say he's lived up to being the #9 overall pick.

I couldn't care less about his interceptions. If he could catch, he would be playing offense. Darrell Green had feet for hands too - that's often just how things shake out.

But let's also not pretend that passes defended is a meaningful statistic either. The best corners usually don't have that many passes defended, simply because quarterbacks are reluctant to throw in their direction. Show me percentage of passes defended, and then we'll be getting somewhere. Of course those numbers aren't readily available, because keeping meaningful statistics for football, particularly defensive statistics, is pretty time-consuming. Not to mention subject to human error.

Smoot isn't more talented than Rogers, you're right (although I think he was before his injury). But he is more effective, and that's all that matters.

[CanesSkins26]

From Scouts, Inc...

His good technique and anticipation serve him well because he lacks the extra gear to run with elite receivers and does not have great recovery speed if out of position.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/players/scouting?statsId=7185

[SkinsFreak]

From Scouts, Inc...

His good technique and anticipation serve him well because he lacks the extra gear to run with elite receivers and does not have great recovery speed if out of position.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/players/scouting?statsId=7185

Well, I disagree with that assessment, based on factual numbers. Additionally, I watched him in college, where he won the Jim Thorpe Award, and his closing speed was great. He posted the 3rd fastest 3-cone drill time at the combine in 2005, and the 2nd fastest time since 2000 for a CB, which would be indicative of speed when changing direction, something a CB is forced to do in coverage.

When I mentioned great closing speed, I wasn't referring to catching up to speedy receivers if he had fallen down, he posted a 4.4 in the 40 yard dash. I was referring to plays when a receiver makes a catch in front of him, and he is able to close the distance quickly and make a tackle before the receiver has time to get YAC. I specifically recall commentators mention that, numerous times, in games when Rogers made a tackle.

The 3-cone drill is a test of agility, including speed, quickness, flexibility, change of direction, body control.

[SkinsFreak]

But let's also not pretend that passes defended is a meaningful statistic either.

If it wasn't relevant or meaningful, the NFL wouldn't keep track of that stat. If the ball is thrown away from a CB, then he isn't involved on that play and the stat is irrelevant. But when the ball IS thrown his way, he ranks among the best at defending passes, and that's what's important. Down play it all you want, but the numbers don't lie.

[Cappster]

:shock: Wow. I know Rogers dropped a few Int's in the past, but that stat alone isn't the only redeeming stat for defensive backs. Rogers is a far better corner than some of you are recognizing. His closing speed is incredible, he's rarely out of position, he's a great tackler and plays extremely physical for a CB.

How 'bout some facts, shall we?

In 2006, when Rogers really came on, he ended the year tied for 14th in passes defended. This category includes safeties as well, so for 32 teams, that's 14th place out of 128 "starting" DB's (if you were to include 2 CB's and 2 safeties per starting defense). That ranks Rogers in the top 11% of ALL DB's in the league for that catagory, and a very important category at that. That same year, he also finished the season tied for 26th in solo tackles.

Again, number of Int's doesn't tell the whole story. And wasn't 2006 the year we ranked last in pass defense? I disagree Rogers is our 3rd best corner. Smoot may be more popular, but he's not as talented as Rogers, evident by the fact that Rogers was a starter last year at corner, opposite of Springs, and Smoot was the nickel back.

Nice presentation of your case. The one thing Carlos needs to work on is his hands. He had an INT for a TD last year, but throughout the years, he hasn't done very well catching the ball.

[Steve Spurrier III]

If it wasn't relevant or meaningful, the NFL wouldn't keep track of that stat.

Please tell me you're joking.

But when the ball IS thrown his way, he ranks among the best at defending passes, and that's what's important. Down play it all you want, but the numbers don't lie.

Seriously?

Let's say Player A leads the league in passes defensed, with 100. His teammate, Player B, has 80. According to you, Player B is better at defending passes.

But what if we know that Player A was thrown at 200 times, while Player B was thrown at just 100 times. Do you still think Player A, who only successfully defended the ball 50% of the time, is better than Player B, was successful 80% of the time?

Drew Brees led the league in completions. Does that make him the best quarterback, or do you think we should maybe also look at how many passes he attempted?

I'm not trying to be condescending, but the concept of percentages is pretty basic.

[SkinsFreak]

The one thing Carlos needs to work on is his hands. He had an INT for a TD last year, but throughout the years, he hasn't done very well catching the ball.

No argument there. I think Carlos would even agree with that.

[SkinsFreak]

If it wasn't relevant or meaningful, the NFL wouldn't keep track of that stat.

Please tell me you're joking.

But when the ball IS thrown his way, he ranks among the best at defending passes, and that's what's important. Down play it all you want, but the numbers don't lie.

Seriously?

Let's say Player A leads the league in passes defensed, with 100. His teammate, Player B, has 80. According to you, Player B is better at defending passes.

But what if know that Player A was thrown at 200 times, while Player B was thrown at just 100 times. Do you still think Player A, who only successfully defended the ball 50% of the time, is better than Player B, was successful 80% of the time?

Drew Brees led the league in completions. Does that make him the best quarterback, or do you think we should maybe also look at how many passes he attempted?

I'm not trying to be condescending, but the concept of percentages is pretty basic.

I don't care when the ball is thrown away from him, that's not the point. I'm not saying he's the best CB in the league either. A CB is paid to defend passes, and Carlos does that pretty well. I was making the case that he is far better than some are willing to give credit for, and I proved that with FACTS. I agree that a stud CB "sometimes" forces the ball to be thrown elsewhere, I'm not denying that, although they throw at Champ Bailey plenty, and he gets burned plenty as well. But the relevance is when the ball is thrown his way, that's the point I making and the reason they keep that stat. They don't keep stats about how many times a QB throws away from a particular CB because there are far too many variables other than to just say the CB is good, I'm throwing elsewhere. If that wasn't the case, then they'd KEEP THAT STAT. BUT THEY DON"T, AND IT"S NOT BECAUSE IT"S TOO TIME CONSUMING.

[Steve Spurrier III]

I don't care when the ball is thrown away from him, that's not the point. I'm not saying he's the best CB in the league either. A CB is paid to defend passes, and Carlos does that pretty well. I was making the case that he is far better than some are willing to give credit for, and I proved that with FACTS.

You didn't prove anything, save that your grasp of statistics is pretty weak.

If we don't know how many times the ball was thrown at him, the number of times he defended a pass isn't useful. How you can't see that is mind-boggling.

They don't keep stats about how many times a QB throws away from a particular CB because there are far too many variables other than to just say the CB is good, I'm throwing elsewhere. If that wasn't the case, then they'd KEEP THAT STAT. BUT THEY DON"T, AND IT"S NOT BECAUSE IT"S TOO TIME CONSUMING.

You're missing the point. They need to keep track of how many times a quarterback throws at a given corner - not how many times they throw away from him (although that's ultimately the same thing). I don't care how many times the quarterback threw at Spring or Smoot or whoever, I care how many times he threw at Rogers. That way, we can determine how often he did his job correctly.

It's like Rod Gardner. He caught 46 passes his last season in Washington. That seems like a pretty good contribution. But as you may remember, he dropped plenty of balls too. The number of times he did something right only tells us half the story.

The reason they don't keep track of "times thrown at" is because it is time consuming (and thus expensive), and because there's no real demand for quality football statistics. Once upon a time, the NFL didn't keep track of sacks (or for that matter, passes defended). The NBA didn't use to keep track of steals. Does that mean those numbers weren't relevant, and suddenly they became meaningful?

I'm not arguing this anymore, because this is fifth grade stuff. You either get it or you don't. I'll just leave you with a quote:

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
- Benjamin Disraeli

[SkinsFreak]

I'm not arguing this anymore, because this is fifth grade stuff. You either get it or you don't. I'll just leave you with a quote:

The only argument you've made, and a weak one at that, is that a good corner doesn't get thrown at, and if a corner does get throw at, he isn't very good. That sir, is a fifth grade argument. I used NFL stats proving that Rogers defends the pass well as a CB in this league. A CB is graded on how well he defends a receiver, not how often the QB throws in another direction. There is no measurable barometer for that. Either you get that or you don't.

[yupchagee]

But let's also not pretend that passes defended is a meaningful statistic either.

If it wasn't relevant or meaningful, the NFL wouldn't keep track of that stat. If the ball is thrown away from a CB, then he isn't involved on that play and the stat is irrelevant. But when the ball IS thrown his way, he ranks among the best at defending passes, and that's what's important. Down play it all you want, but the numbers don't lie.

Just because statistics are kept & reported, doesn't make them important. I think leagues publish all sorts of meaningless stats to give fans something to argue about.

[SkinsFreak]

But let's also not pretend that passes defended is a meaningful statistic either.

If it wasn't relevant or meaningful, the NFL wouldn't keep track of that stat. If the ball is thrown away from a CB, then he isn't involved on that play and the stat is irrelevant. But when the ball IS thrown his way, he ranks among the best at defending passes, and that's what's important. Down play it all you want, but the numbers don't lie.

Just because statistics are kept & reported, doesn't make them important. I think leagues publish all sorts of meaningless stats to give fans something to argue about.

Well, I agree that some stats are over-exaggerated. But the number of passes defended or int's for a CB is pretty relevant. Just like the number of completions for a QB and yards per game for a RB are relevant. Are there other factors and forces on those stats? Sure. But it is a barometer, nonetheless. And the numbers I posted on Rogers, prove beyond a reasonable doubt, which was my intention, that he is better than some here are recognizing. I'm not saying stats are the only things that matter. I was using factual numbers to offer credible evidence to my opinion, rather than nonfactual conjecture.

[Steve Spurrier III]

I can't believe you sucked me back into this.

The only argument you've made, and a weak one at that, is that a good corner doesn't get thrown at, and if a corner does get throw at, he isn't very good.

That's not even close to my argument. You're taking what I said way too far. Here is what I said:

The best corners usually don't have that many passes defended, simply because quarterbacks are reluctant to throw in their direction.

That's a true, even if a bit exaggerated. Quarterbacks steered clear of Deion Sanders and Darrell Green for years - and if you don't believe me, take Phil Simms' word for it. In his autobiography, Sunday Morning Quarterback (I'm sorry I can't provide the exact quote, but I can't find my copy), he tells a story about the first time he played against Green. Parcells told him before the game not to throw in Green's direction, but Simms thought he was speaking generally, not so much a direct order. So Simms thinks he has his reciever open on Green's side, throws the pass, and Darrell jumps the route but drops the interception. Back on the sidelines, Parcells rips Simms a new one - he wasn't kidding. Simms was not allowed to throw at Darrell Green.

I am not saying that good corners never get thrown at. I am not saying that if a corner has more passes defensed that makes him a bad corner. What I am saying is that quarterbacks don't throw the same number of passes at every corner. Would you disagree?

This was my argument:

Show me percentage of passes defended, and then we'll be getting somewhere.

That's it. And since you keep dancing around me examples, I'll assume you either don't understand my real argument, or are unwilling to concede the point. Please, respond to my Rod Gardner example:

It's like Rod Gardner. He caught 46 passes his last season in Washington. That seems like a pretty good contribution. But as you may remember, he dropped plenty of balls too. The number of times he did something right only tells us half the story.

Do you disagree with that?

I used NFL stats proving that Rogers defends the pass well as a CB in this league.

You did not. But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you did. Even though the statistic is inherently flawed, let's assume that passes defended is indeed a good barometer of a cornerbacks ability.

In 2007, Rogers defended two passes in his five games. That would only be 6.4 passes defended over a 16 game season, good for 130th in the league. So what happened? Why did Rogers get so much worse in 2007?

[yupchagee]

But let's also not pretend that passes defended is a meaningful statistic either.

If it wasn't relevant or meaningful, the NFL wouldn't keep track of that stat. If the ball is thrown away from a CB, then he isn't involved on that play and the stat is irrelevant. But when the ball IS thrown his way, he ranks among the best at defending passes, and that's what's important. Down play it all you want, but the numbers don't lie.

Just because statistics are kept & reported, doesn't make them important. I think leagues publish all sorts of meaningless stats to give fans something to argue about.

Well, I agree that some stats are over-exaggerated. But the number of passes defended or int's for a CB is pretty relevant. Just like the number of completions for a QB and yards per game for a RB are relevant. Are there other factors and forces on those stats? Sure. But it is a barometer, nonetheless. And the numbers I posted on Rogers, prove beyond a reasonable doubt, which was my intention, that he is better than some here are recognizing. I'm not saying stats are the only things that matter. I was using factual numbers to offer credible evidence to my opinion, rather than nonfactual conjecture.

I didn't say int's & PD's aren't important, I'm only questioning the logic of:

"If it wasn't relevant or meaningful, the NFL wouldn't keep track of that stat."

That's all.

[PulpExposure]

From Scouts, Inc...

His good technique and anticipation serve him well because he lacks the extra gear to run with elite receivers and does not have great recovery speed if out of position.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/players/scouting?statsId=7185

For those who are interested, here's his entire report (but from preseason 2007, so before this past season)

The 2005 first-round draft choice has lived up to expectations and continues to develop, starting 20 of 27 games over his first two seasons and gaining confidence with each repetition. He has long arms that he effectively uses to jam receivers out of their release in press coverage, knocking them off their routes and disrupting timing. He has loose hips that are fluid in transition in off coverage and the speed to turn and run vertically with wide receivers on deep balls. He has strong ball skills and can adjust to bad passes as well as track deep throws. He is able to snatch the ball or knock it down using his wingspan. His good technique and anticipation serve him well because he lacks the extra gear to run with elite receivers and does not have great recovery speed if out of position. As good as he is in man coverage, he is too soft in zone coverage at times and allows receivers too much room. That can be a problem because he likes to peek into the backfield and is susceptible to biting on play-action. When he guesses wrong he is not a good open-field tackler. Rogers could add size to his frame, but he has the athleticism to handle coverage assignments and the overall skills to have a long career.

[SkinsFreak]

I can't believe you sucked me back into this.

The only argument you've made, and a weak one at that, is that a good corner doesn't get thrown at, and if a corner does get throw at, he isn't very good.

That's not even close to my argument. You're taking what I said way too far. Here is what I said:

The best corners usually don't have that many passes defended, simply because quarterbacks are reluctant to throw in their direction.

That's a true, even if a bit exaggerated. Quarterbacks steered clear of Deion Sanders and Darrell Green for years - and if you don't believe me, take Phil Simms' word for it. In his autobiography, Sunday Morning Quarterback (I'm sorry I can't provide the exact quote, but I can't find my copy), he tells a story about the first time he played against Green. Parcells told him before the game not to throw in Green's direction, but Simms thought he was speaking generally, not so much a direct order. So Simms thinks he has his reciever open on Green's side, throws the pass, and Darrell jumps the route but drops the interception. Back on the sidelines, Parcells rips Simms a new one - he wasn't kidding. Simms was not allowed to throw at Darrell Green.

I am not saying that good corners never get thrown at. I am not saying that if a corner has more passes defensed that makes him a bad corner. What I am saying is that quarterbacks don't throw the same number of passes at every corner. Would you disagree?

This was my argument:

Show me percentage of passes defended, and then we'll be getting somewhere.

That's it. And since you keep dancing around me examples, I'll assume you either don't understand my real argument, or are unwilling to concede the point. Please, respond to my Rod Gardner example:

It's like Rod Gardner. He caught 46 passes his last season in Washington. That seems like a pretty good contribution. But as you may remember, he dropped plenty of balls too. The number of times he did something right only tells us half the story.

Do you disagree with that?

I used NFL stats proving that Rogers defends the pass well as a CB in this league.

You did not. But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you did. Even though the statistic is inherently flawed, let's assume that passes defended is indeed a good barometer of a cornerbacks ability.

In 2007, Rogers defended two passes in his five games. That would only be 6.4 passes defended over a 16 game season, good for 130th in the league. So what happened? Why did Rogers get so much worse in 2007?

I previously agreed that good corners don't get thrown at as often as 2nd tier corners, that's blatantly obvious.

It's is my opinion, which differed from yours, that Rogers is not the 3rd best corner on the team. To support my opinion, I included two absolute facts that can't be disputed:

1. Fact #1 - Rogers has better numbers than Smoot.

If stats and numbers don't matter, what other unit of comparison is there? It cracks me up when some say stats and combine results, like 40 times, don't matter. I agree it's not the end-all for discussion, but what other measurable standard is there? How else do you compare players of the same position?

2. Fact #2 - Rogers was the starting corner opposite of Springs. Smoot was not a starter before Carlos was injured.

If Smoot was so much more effective than Rogers, please explain why Smoot wasn't the starter? Do you know something the coaches don't? Starters verses non-starters basically tells me who's better in the coaches eyes.

I like Smoot a lot and I'm very happy he's on our team. It turned out to be a blessing we had him on the roster to fill in when Rogers went down.

I used facts and tangible evidence to support my opinion. You used nothing more than conjecture that can't be substantiated but any measurable standard. I agree good corners don't get thrown at as often, I'm not arguing that. But for the purposes of comparison, numbers, stats and the fact that Rogers was the starter is all there is to evaluate.

You can't use the 2007 season as barometer for comparison between Smoot and Rogers. Rogers got injured and Smoot wasn't a starter for the whole season. I looked at the 2006 season when both Rogers and Smoot were starters. In the category of passes defended, Carlos tied for 14th place while Smoot tied for 122nd place. Are there other variables such as how many times they were thrown at? Sure. But Smoot was not the Vikings #1 corner either.

There are always other variables in all scenarios. For example, we can easily suggest a QB's completion percentage was low because the o-line didn't block for him. Or a RB's total yards were low for the same reason. But the numbers are evaluated for the purpose of comparison, nonetheless.

[Steve Spurrier III]

1. Fact #1 - Rogers has better numbers than Smoot.

Rogers had one single better number than Smoot two years ago when Smoot was playing in Minnesota. I'm not sure why you would ignore their 2007 numbers when both players got to play in the same system with the same teammates. Actually I am sure, it's because it doesn't fit your argument.

I could point to scores of other players whose passes defensed numbers highly fluctuated from 2006 to 2007. That doesn't make them different players. I'll give you a hint as to why Rogers' passes defensed plummeted in 2007 - because it's a flawed, incomplete statistic.

If stats and numbers don't matter, what other unit of comparison is there? It cracks me up when some say stats and combine results, like 40 times, don't matter. I agree it's not the end-all for discussion, but what other measurable standard is there? How else do you compare players of the same position?

Do you really think that NFL coaches, general managers and talent evaluators use passes defensed as a way to evaluate defensive backs? Do you really think they look at 40 times or cone drills for players who have been in the league for three years? We do that for pro prospects because we want to get an idea of how their game will translate to the pros. But once they're already arrived, we have game tape to tell us how fast they can play or how agile they can play. And I would bet my left foot that there are teams who track how many times each of their corners are thrown at, and thus their percentage of passes defensed.

2. Fact #2 - Rogers was the starting corner opposite of Springs. Smoot was not a starter before Carlos was injured.

If Smoot was so much more effective than Rogers, please explain why Smoot wasn't the starter? Do you know something the coaches don't? Starters verses non-starters basically tells me who's better in the coaches eyes.

Well, I could just say that since Smoot was re-entering the Williams defense, there was a small learning curve involved. I could say that since Rogers was the younger player, the Redskins wanted to give him every chance to succeed so he could become the key player that the Redskins hoped he could be (a decision I would agree with, by the way). I could say that they liked Rogers physical play more on the big receivers and left Smoot the smaller slot guys. Or I could just say that NFL coaches make personnel mistakes all the time, and who starts is just an indicator of who the coaches think is better, not who actually is better.

I used facts and tangible evidence to support my opinion.

That's true. You used useless facts and irrelevant tangible evidence, but you used them nonetheless.

You used nothing more than conjecture that can't be substantiated but any measurable standard.

Actually, I only asked that we use a meaningful statistic. Percentage of passes defensed. That's not some obscure, ridiculous notion. It would be like you wanting to compare quarterbacks on passes completed, and I want to compare quarterbacks on completion percentage.

But for the purposes of comparison, numbers, stats and the fact that Rogers was the starter is all there is to evaluate.

You mean that's all you can find on NFL.com to evaluate. We could go through the game tape and find all the information we've been talking about. In fact, it might be time-saving compared to this argument. Just because we don't have easy access to it on the Internet doesn't mean it doesn't exist or can't be found.

Rogers got injured and Smoot wasn't a starter for the whole season. I looked at the 2006 season when both Rogers and Smoot were starters.

So? Rogers gets full credit for each game started, and we won't even try to adjust Smoot's numbers. Yet Smoot still had more passes defensed (7 to 6.4). According to you, Smoot is the better cornerback.

It's a flawed statistic. It's a function of how many times the quarterback threw the ball at each given player. Unless we can adjust for the number of chances both Smoot and Rogers had to defend a pass, their raw totals aren't helpful. Just because it is all we have, doesn't mean it's useful.

There are always other variables in all scenarios. For example, we can easily suggest a QB's completion percentage was low because the o-line didn't block for him. Or a RB's total yards were low for the same reason. But the numbers are evaluated for the purpose of comparison, nonetheless.

If your trying to say that looking at something like passes defensed is just a comparison for comparison's sake, fine. But to act like it's conclusive, let alone proof as to who is the better talent, is ridiculous. Before the NFL kept track of passes defensed, the only number we had was interceptions. Wouldn't you agree that comparing defensive backs solely on interceptions is incomplete? If so, then you have to agree that comparing defensive backs on solely on passes defensed, while an improvement, could still also be incomplete.

PS: Way to not address my Rod Gardner example. That's twice.

[SkinsFreak]

If your trying to say that looking at something like passes defensed is just a comparison for comparison's sake, fine. But to act like it's conclusive, let alone proof as to who is the better talent, is ridiculous. Before the NFL kept track of passes defensed, the only number we had was interceptions. Wouldn't you agree that comparing defensive backs solely on interceptions is incomplete? If so, then you have to agree that comparing defensive backs on solely on passes defensed, while an improvement, could still also be incomplete.

Finally, after all that, you get to the core of the issue I presented. As I said, those stats are not the only factors, they are "supportive" factors for my conclusion.

Rogers was the starter, Smoot was not. Spin it any way you want and make all the excuses you want, that fact remain the same. Landry was a rookie with no experience and with a huge learning curve, yet he earned a starting role over veterans based solely on his talent level. You could speculate all kinds of things, doesn't make them fact. Rogers was the starter, period. I believe Rogers is the better player, you don't. But you've offered no evidence to support you opinion, except to ramble on with nothing more than conjecture and with nothing that can be substantiated. Whatever...

BTW - I don't care about Rod Gardner or any other player, I'm talking about Rogers and Smoot. The stats I posted with regard to Rogers are only meant as supportive indicators, not the end-all of the results.

[Steve Spurrier III]

Finally, after all that, you get to the core of the issue I presented. As I said, those stats are not the only factors, they are "supportive" factors for my conclusion.

Actually, you said you had supplied proof:

I was making the case that he is far better than some are willing to give credit for, and I proved that with FACTS.

***

Rogers was the starter, Smoot was not. Spin it any way you want and make all the excuses you want, that fact remain the same.

That's true. But again, that's not proof that Rogers is better. Once upon a time, Mark Brunell started over Jason Campbell. You probably supported Brunell though, correct? I mean, since he was the starter, he must have been better, right? From October 25, 2006:

I'll vote for Campbell...

I'd love to hear what's going on inside those meetings at Redskins park right now. Gibbs may be loyal to Mark, but he has to realize by now why the entire football viewing community is so baffled.

***

But you've offered no evidence to support you opinion, except to ramble on with nothing more than conjecture and with nothing that can be substantiated. Whatever...

I've provided numbers that fit your depressing low standards. Fred Smoot had more passes defensed per game for the Redskins last season than Carlos Rogers.
***

BTW - I don't care about Rod Gardner or any other player, I'm talking about Rogers and Smoot.

That's three.