Rogers and McIntosh Injury Updates!!!

[PulpExposure]

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. .

Uh, because one player played in 7 games and the other played in 13? You'd expect 2x the production in 2x the games played...

[Steve Spurrier III]

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. .

Uh, because one player played in 7 games and the other played in 13? You'd expect 2x the production in 2x the games played...

Smoot had more passes defensed per game.

[JansenFan]

I believe he was talking about PD per game, which theoretically should be the same, although I think SSIII is right in that you really would have to try to determine some way of objectively determining what consititutes a "thrown at" stat and then determine the percentage of those "thrown ats" that were successfully defended.

You can find stats that list how many times a receiver is "targeted" and how many catches they make and determine how many drops they have, but even then, targeted is subjective. If the QB throws the ball away towards a receiver, is that a target? Does the ball have to be catchable? Who decides whether it was catchable? Sometimes, even if a receiver gets a hand on the ball, it's not catchable.

[PulpExposure]

I have to say, this has to be one of the dumbest thread arguments in awhile.

Sorry Skinsfreak, but PD is one of the most useless & misleading stats in the NFL. It's a very poor way to determine CB play (as is INTs, really...Martin Mayhew would always have a decent number of INTs every year...but it was only because no one would throw at DG).

KC Joyner does a breakdown of position play, very stat-heavy. From the exerpts he posts on ESPN.com, it's pretty solid, from a statistical analysis viewpoint.

However, I'm too uninterested to buy his book to see where the Smoot v. Rogers breakdown lies.

To me, Rogers was playing very well in 2007 (and he was pretty bad before that, but I do think a lot had to do with us having zero pass rush in 2006). But he got injured...and now we don't know what we have.

[Steve Spurrier III]

You can find stats that list how many times a receiver is "targeted" and how many catches they make and determine how many drops they have, but even then, targeted is subjective.

Oh, there's no question. That's the biggest problem with Joyner's work - even when you try to break it down, human error becomes a big factor. In addition to all the problems you pointed out, what happens when the defense runs a zone, and the quarterback isn't even targeting a defender, but rather an area? What happens when a receiver is being bracketed - do both defenders get full credit? Half credit?

I believe we can find some answers in the numbers, but unlike baseball and basketball, football isn't always a game that lends itself to statistical work. For me, that's part of what makes it so great.

[SkinsFreak]

Again, I only used that stat to offer support for my opinion, nothing more. I was looking for something tangible rather than opinionated conjecture. I never said it is the only way to judge CB play. But when I stated my opinion that Rogers possesses better talent, I wanted some factual info to support that. That's all I was trying to do. Of course, we can sit around all day and pick apart every stat recorded and its relevance, that wasn't my purpose. I think Rogers is the better player. Until someone can offer evidence to the contrary, rather than just nitpick a stat relevance, I'll stick with my opinion, supported by the fact that Rogers was the starter and Smoot wasn't.

[SkinsFreak]

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.

OK, dude. Here's the point and why I don't care about this comment.

Now listen up, I want to make sure you get this...

Yes, much like in Rogers case, that only tells us part of the story, but...

I NEVER SAID PASSES DEFENDED WAS THE WHOLE STORY!

[Steve Spurrier III]

Yes, much like in Rogers case, that only tells us part of the story,

That wasn't so hard, was it?

[GSPODS]

And, the lesson to be learned here is that one cannot make an objective point using subjective statistics.

Clearly, one can use subjective statistics to make a subjective point.

Would anyone care to use objective statistics to make an objective point?

Or was this entire discussion pointless?

As of this very moment in time, Fred Smoot will be starting on opening day and Carlos Rogers will be on the PUP / IR list.

What's next? Are we going to argue that Michael Vick is better than someone who will actually be playing this season?

[SkinsFreak]

Yes, much like in Rogers case, that only tells us part of the story,

That wasn't so hard, was it?

Show me where I said it was the whole story.

I answered your question, now answer mine. You've yet to offer any evidence to support your claim that Smoot is a better corner. If you have it, I'd love to see it. You did a fine job at nitpicking a stat, but offered no substance, of any kind, to support an opinion that Smoot is better. Three pages of nitpicking stat relevance, yet no proof to support your initial claim.

Again, trying to look at the 2007 season isn't fair to either player, that's why I went back to the 2006 season. Neither player played the same position during the entire course of the 2007 season, much like they did in 2006. When Rogers was playing, Smoot was the nickel back.

[Steve Spurrier III]

Show me where I said it was the whole story.

It was your entire original argument. From your first post:

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.

I objected to your use of the stat, saying it was incomplete. You eventually agreed with me. I would like to point that I agreed with you from the beginning that Rogers is a good tackler, although just like PD, tackle statistics suffer from the lack of missed tackles.

You introduced other factors, such as his position as a starter, later. And that's fine - I think his starting offers some merit to your position, although that too is far from conclusive, for reasons I've previously mentioned.

I answered your question, now answer mine. You've yet to offer any evidence to support your claim that Smoot is a better corner. If you have it, I'd love to see it. You did a fine job at nitpicking a stat, but offered no substance, of any kind, to support an opinion that Smoot is better. Three pages of nitpicking stat relevance, yet no proof to support your initial claim.

My evidence is purely based on my own eyes - and I don't blame you if you don't think my opinion carries any weight. But I haven't been arguing who is the better corner (at least not since you and I got into it) - I've been arguing whether or not passes defensed is valid way to evaluate cornerback play. I know you think it's nitpicking, but I think it's a much more relevant and important discussion.

I had no problem with you and I disagreeing as to who is the better corner - I had a problem with you presenting faulty statistics as conclusive evidence.

Again, trying to look at the 2007 season isn't fair to either player, that's why I went back to the 2006 season. Neither player played the same position during the entire course of the 2007 season, much like they did in 2006. When Rogers was playing, Smoot was the nickel back.

Even if PD was useful, 2006 isn't a fair comparison either. Smoot was still recovering from his own injury, and was in a different system with a different team. I've never believed that 2007's PD numbers were a valid argument for Smoot - my point was that the PD numbers are flawed, and used 2007 to point out how wildly the numbers can fluctuate. Carlos Rogers didn't go from a top 11% defensive back in 2006 to a trash corner in 2007.

[SkinsFreak]

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.

I objected to your use of the stat, saying it was incomplete. Over twenty-four hours later, you agreed with me. I would like to point that I agreed with you from the beginning that Rogers is a good tackler, although just like PD, tackle statistics suffer from the lack of missed tackles.

Let's look at my original post again.

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.

I guess you missed that. There are many other ways and categories for evaluating CB's. I was pointing to one specific category and never claimed it was the ultimate determining factor. It merely offered support for my opinion. It's a stat recorded by the NFL, that's why I used it. I'm making comparisons of players, you're nitpicking stats. Still, no evidence to support your original claim that Rogers is the 3rd best corner on the team., other than your admitted conjecture. I was trying to offer something other than opinionated conjecture.

You introduced other factors, such as his position as a starter, later.

I also mentioned the fact the he was a starter in the same original post. I guess you missed that too. But whatever man, I know you have nothing more than an opinion. I posted mine and tried to offer support for it, that's all.

[Steve Spurrier III]

There are many other ways and categories for evaluating CB's.

But the only category you listed, or even acknowledged existed outside of interceptions, was passes defensed. If you list a single category, describe it as "very important", and then don't give any other statistical evidence, what are we supposed to think? It reads like you believe that passes defensed, by itself, is a valid statistical method of determining the coverage skills of a cornerback.

I pointed out that your "very important category" was misleading at best and useless at worst. You've admitted as much, so I'm not sure what the problem is.

I also mentioned the fact the he was a starter in the same original post.

That's true - that's my mistake and I apologize. Every time I looked at your original post, for whatever reason I stopped reading that sentence at "more talented". A sentiment I agree with, at least before Rogers' knee surgery.

I know you have nothing more than an opinion. I posted mine and tried to offer support for it, that's all.

That's completley legitimate. But when you use faulty logic to support your opinion, however valid that opinion may be, be prepared to get called on it.

[SkinsFreak]

But when you use faulty logic to support your opinion, however valid that opinion may be, be prepared to get called on it.

While I agree the stat doesn't tell the whole story, as you eluded to, in my opinion, it isn't completely worthless either.

Every stat can be nitpicked in the same fashion.

For example...

Strahan's single season sack record - you'd say... "Well that stat doesn't tell the whole story cause Favre laid down on the last one. Also, he got sacks against 2 rookies that year and he also played against 3 other guys with knee injuries. So that stat really isn't accurate."

or...

Owens dropped passes - you'd say... "Well, that stat is worthless unless you knew where the sun was in relation to Owen's position on the field...cause the sun was in his eyes on some of those drops."

or...

Portis' total rushing yards - you'd say... "Well that stat doesn't tell the whole story cause Portis slipped and fell on a dozen runs last year due to the NFL logo painted on the field. If that logo wasn't painted there, he wouldn't have slipped and would've gained more yards."

or...

Joey Harrington's low completion percentage - you'd say... "Well that stat doesn't tell the whole story cause Miami had no offensive line to block for him. If he had more time in the pocket, he would've completed more passes."

...and so on, and so on. Get my point? Yes, those are exaggerated and bull crap scenarios, but the point being, if you try hard enough, every stat can be nitpicked in the same fashion you nitpicked PD's. We all know there are other variables.

I started my original post by saying int's are not the only standard for CB's, meaning there are OTHER standards... more than one. Then I gave an example of another measured criteria. In no way, shape or form, did I ever insinuate that PD's were the sole barometer of for measuring talent.

There's not a person here that believes a single stat is the end-all to every debate, as in most cases, we all know there are other relevant variables. Nevertheless, stats are a barometer used to gauge players... to a certain degree. I never made the notion that Rogers is better than Smoot simply due to that single stat. I qualified it by making the distinction as a single "category", in addition to int's and other categories.

In the debate of who's better, you simply had no other ammo than to nitpick a stat, as you've just admitted to. Again, I was simply trying to go beyond what mostly exists on this board, a bunch of opinionated conjecture, by offering a stat recorded by the NFL.

Every time I looked at your original post, for whatever reason I stopped reading that sentence at "more talented". A sentiment I agree with, at least before Rogers' knee surgery.

Oh, well then, my bad... I didn't get that in any of your other posts. I was under the impression you were nitpicking a stat in some backward effort to justify your original post that Carlos is the 3rd best corner. If I'd known that you agree with my "more talented" opinion, I would've let this stupid debate die 3 pages ago. My bad...

Anyway... ... <sigh> ... ... I understand your issue with stats, thanks for clearing that up.

[Steve Spurrier III]

Wanting to look at statistics in terms of percentages rather than raw totals isn't nitpicking.

Strahan's single season sack record - you'd say... "Well that stat doesn't tell the whole story cause Favre laid down on the last one. Also, he got sacks against 2 rookies that year and he also played against 3 other guys with knee injuries. So that stat really isn't accurate."

You're right, to an extent. Playing against rookies and against guys that are hurt is part of the game, but since Strahan played in a division with very good right tackles (Jansen, Runyan), that does makes his accomplishments more impressive. And sacks don't tell the whole story. If we knew how many times Strahan was on the field when the opponents attempted a pass, that would tell us a lot more.

Owens dropped passes - you'd say... "Well, that stat is worthless unless you knew where the sun was in relation to Owen's position on the field...cause the sun was in his eyes on some of those drops."

Well, I'd never say that. The sun is part of the game. But another similar example: Mike Vanderjagt is the all-time leader in field goal percentage. Isn't the fact that he got to kick half his games in the RCA Dome relevant, while contemporaries like Adam Vinatieri and Jason Elam have to kick in tough conditions? Why wouldn't it be?

Portis' total rushing yards - you'd say... "Well that stat doesn't tell the whole story cause Portis slipped and fell on a dozen runs last year due to the NFL logo painted on the field. If that logo wasn't painted there, he wouldn't have slipped and would've gained more yards."

How could we not take that into account? I'm not saying we should strip the rushing title from Frank Gore or whoever and re-award it to Portis, but if we're trying to determine how good a runner Portis is, isn't the fact that he has to play on a field with a land mine relevant?

Joey Harrington's low completion percentage - you'd say... "Well that stat doesn't tell the whole story cause Miami had no offensive line to block for him. If he had more time in the pocket, he would've completed more passes."

No, Joey Harrington just plain sucks.

Get my point? Yes, those are exaggerated and bull crap scenarios, but the point being, if you try hard enough, every stat can be nitpicked in the same fashion you nitpicked PD's. We all know there are other variables.

I don't get your point. You just pointed out how flawed NFL statistics can be, and that's supposed to be an argument for using them? When it comes to record holders or what not, I couldn't care less. But when it comes to actually evaluating the talent, their value is questionable at best. Did Brett Favre suddenly become the best quarterback after he broke the passing record? And if so, what happened after he broke the interceptions record?

I started my original post by saying int's are not the only standard for CB's, meaning there are OTHER standards... more than one. Then I gave an example of another measured criteria. In no way, shape or form, did I ever insinuate that PD's were the sole barometer of for measuring talent.

You implied that PD's were a valid barometer of measuring talent. My point is that PD's aren't useful by themselves. Without more information, they're not worth the time it takes you to look them up on NFL.com. And trust me, if Smoot had more PD's than Rogers, I would say the same thing.

My point is that stats lie, and they lie in football more than any other sport - and especially on defense. The game is just too complex, too ever-evolving.

In the debate of who's better, you simply had no other ammo than to nitpick a stat, as you've just admitted to. Again, I was simply trying to go beyond what mostly exists on this board, a bunch of opinionated conjecture, by offering a stat recorded by the NFL.

Of course I didn't. We don't have access to any valuable defensive metrics. That the NFL records it is super, but it still doesn't help us answer our question. I get that you're thinking, "well, it's all we have why not throw it out there?"

Oh, well then, my bad... I didn't get that in any of your other posts. I was under the impression you were nitpicking a stat in some backward effort to justify your original post that Carlos is the 3rd best corner. If I'd known that you agree with my "more talented" opinion, I would've let this stupid debate die 3 pages ago. My bad...

No, it's not your bad. When I originally responded to your post, I said that I thought Rogers had more talent, but just wasn't as effective, so I'm pretty sure we still disagree.

But my issue isn't that you prefer Rogers to Smoot - they're certainly close enough that reasonable people can disagree.

[SkinsFreak]

blah, blah, blah <no substance> blah, blah, blah... I got it. Thanks.

[Steve Spurrier III]

Well, it doesn't sound like you've really gotten anything, but I'm happy to help. You're welcome.

[SkinsFreak]

Well, it doesn't sound like you've really gotten anything, but I'm happy to help. You're welcome.

Well, actually, you're right, I'll concede that one to you. I, and we, haven't gotten anything from you regarding the original debate about who's the better corner between Rogers and Smoot. All we've gotten is some commentary on the relevance and accuracy of stats.

Let's refresh your memory...

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.

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.

Carlos Rogers was a mediocre corner before he hurt his knee, and he'll be lucky if he's a mediocre corner after the injury.

for whatever reason I stopped reading that sentence at "more talented". A sentiment I agree with, at least before Rogers' knee surgery.

When I originally responded to your post, I said that I thought Rogers had more talent, but just wasn't as effective

I given you every opportunity to support your initial post that Rogers is the 3rd best corner. You say Rogers is more talented, but Smoot is more effective.

Alright, once again, detail for us how you've determined Smoot is more effective than Rogers. Then, back it up with something other than the ridiculous...

My evidence is purely based on my own eyes

BTW - One of your main arguments against the legitimacy and accuracy of the PD stat, was that good corners don't get thrown at as often, so their numbers should be inherently lower. Well, look at the list again. Asante Samuels led the league in PD's. Yeah, he sucks, that's why they throw at him so much and why he leads in that stat.

Other DB's ranked higher than Rogers other than Asante Samuels include Al Harris, Champ Bailey, Quentin Jammer, Nate Clements, Lito Sheppard, Charles Woodson, Dre Bly, Nnamdi Asomugha, Chris McAllister... among others. Those are "some" of the best DB's in the league. Some of the worst corners in the league, which, by your argument should get thrown at far more often, therefore should have more PD's, rank the lowest on that list. So your argument doesn't hold much weight... a little, but not very much. Again, I agree there are other variables to that stat.

But forget the accuracy of the stat, I don't really need that stat to support my opinion that Rogers is the better corner. The simple fact the he was the starter is adequate proof. Just detail for us how you've come to the conclusion that Smoot is more effective. That's all I've ever been looking for on the matter.

[VetSkinsFan]

They may not excel at defending the pass, more of a tackling/route jumper. There ARE other variables so the example could be put in a miriad of contexts...

[Hooligan]

Soooooo.....


How are the injuries doing?

[GSPODS]

Soooooo.....


How are the injuries doing?

The only injuries being discussed in this thread are bruised egos.

[SkinsFreak]

The only injuries being discussed in this thread are bruised egos.

It has nothing to do with egos. SSIII is correct about some things and I believe I'm correct about some things. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it, just as I think SSIII would.

I'm justing pushing the issue because folks always want to spout off about something without ever backing it up. A few here have blasted Rogers, his abilities and his ranking on the team.

*** I'm still waiting for anyone, not just SSIII, to prove Smoot is better than Rogers.

I'm not criticizing Smoot either, I love the guy. He's great for the locker room, has better than average talent, and always gets the fans pumped up at games.

When Rogers returns 100% healthy from his injury, I suspect he'll earn his starting job back.

I don't want to get too far sidetracked from the topic of Rogers, but we've been discussing the relevance of stats and I wish someone... anyone, would answer me this:

When someone says Jerry Rice was one of the best receivers of all time, what are they basing that opinion on? His personality?

When someone says Jim Brown was one of the best running backs of all time, again, what is used to determine that?

When a retired player is evaluated for the Hall Of Fame, what specifically do they look at to make that determination?

What is used to compare and gauge players, of ANY sport, with other players of the same position?

In a DB's case, other than int's, PD,s and tackles, all criteria I mentioned in my first post, what other, more appropriate criteria is there to gauge and compare DB's?

[GSPODS]

I posted this earlier in this thread but it answers your questions.

And, the lesson to be learned here is that one cannot make an objective point using subjective statistics.

Clearly, one can use subjective statistics to make a subjective point.

Would anyone care to use objective statistics to make an objective point?

Or was this entire discussion pointless?

As of this very moment in time, Fred Smoot will be starting on opening day and Carlos Rogers will be on the PUP / IR list.

Anyone can select any criteria to either prove their own point of view or to disprove anyone else's point of view. If individual statistics are the criteria, Jim Brown was among the very best. If team statistics are the criteria, Barry Sanders was a bum. If individual records are the criteria, Brett Favre is the best quarterback in NFL history. If team records are the criteria, even Jim Kelly's four-time losing Bills were a better team.

To bring this somewhat back to the thread topic, Fred Smoot has reached his maximum potential. He is as good as he will ever be. Carlos Rogers was beginning to reach his potential before he was injured. We have no way of knowing if Carlos will be physically or mentally able to pick up where he left off last season. Assuming the best, Rogers has more potential than Fred Smoot. But neither one of them are Darrell Green or Champ Bailey.

[SkinsFreak]

No, that doesn't answer my questions. We aren't talking about "team statistics". We are trying to compare Rogers and Smoot, and some say stats are not a reliable standard for comparison. So I'm trying to figure out what is. Give me an example of an "objective statistic".

[CanesSkins26]

No, that doesn't answer my questions. We aren't talking about "team statistics". We are trying to compare Rogers and Smoot, and some say stats are not a reliable standard for comparison. So I'm trying to figure out what is. Give me an example of an "objective statistic".

In order for the comparison to have any meaning you need more than just the passes defended. Like other posters have said, citing the number of passes defended really doesn't mean anything. It doesn't support or disprove anything. In order to do the comparison you would need to look at how many times a cb was targeted. Here is an example I found online...

Walt Harris' 2006 Stats:
Targeted 81 times; 52% Success Rate (38th); 21 passes defensed; 8 INTs

Nate Clements' 2006 Stats:
Targeted 93 times; 59% Success Rate (13th); 18 passes defensed; 3 INTs

Obviously stats like these are hard to come by, so doing a statistical analysis of Smoot vs. Rogers is going to be largely impossible. Complicating things further is the difficulty in figuring out how many times a cb was actually target. Was it man or zone, etc.

Personally, I think that at this point Smoot is the more valuable player. Rogers has more potential and was starting to live up to it last season, but until he shows that he is 100% and actually plays at a high level for an entire season, I consider Smoot to be the more reliable player. He plays hard and plays hurt, and really came on in the second half of the season. Rogers, on the other hand, has been up and down and has yet to live up to the expectations of being a top 10 pick.