SkinsFreak wrote: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.
SkinsFreak wrote: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.
SkinsFreak wrote: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.
SkinsFreak wrote: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.
SkinsFreak wrote: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.
SkinsFreak wrote: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.
SkinsFreak wrote: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.
SkinsFreak wrote: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.
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.
