The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

There are a handful of stats recorded for DB's and PD's happens to be one of them. I didn't make that up.

Again... other than int's, PD's and tackles, what other more appropriate standards of comparison are there for the purposes of comparing DB's? I covered all of these stats in regards to Rogers, not just PD's.

SkinsFreak wrote: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".

An objective statistic would be something like a quarterback rating formula, taking into account all of the most widely tracked statistics and deducting for plays against. We could probably create such a formula but would we agree on the formula itself, much less the results?

I'll see if I can create one later tonight, just to see if anyone thinks it would be remotely useful.

GSPODS wrote:

SkinsFreak wrote: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".

An objective statistic would be something like a quarterback rating formula, taking into account all of the most widely tracked statistics and deducting for plays against. We could probably create such a formula but would we agree on the formula itself, much less the results?

I'll see if I can create one later tonight, just to see if anyone thinks it would be remotely useful.

Really? You'll whip up some formula for us to "properly" evaluate CB's? Gee, after all these years, I wonder why no football experts or media types have deemed it appropriate, or even necessary, to come up with such a formula for evaluating corner backs. Hmm, maybe it's just too time consuming. Yeah, that's it. Oh wait, that can't be it, because they do it for QB's and pitchers in baseball. Hmm, must be some other reason....

CanesSkins26 wrote: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.

If that's the case, why then do they keep stats on anything? You could make a similar argument for every stat ever kept. Int's, passing yards, running yards, field goals, etc... Stats, in every sport, are kept and recorded for a reason, for the purpose of comparison. Everyone knows there are intricate variables, and I never said PD's were the sole standard for CB's. Again, FORGET the stats, it doesn't really matter in this case. Carlos was the starter, Smoot wasn't. The coaches deemed Rogers the better player and I tend to agree with them.

If that's the case, why then do they keep stats on anything? You could make a similar argument for every stat ever kept. Int's, passing yards, running yards, field goals, etc... Stats, in every sport, are kept and recorded for a reason, for the purpose of comparison. Everyone knows there are intricate variables, and I never said PD's were the sole standard for CB's. Again, FORGET the stats, it doesn't really matter in this case. Carlos was the starter, Smoot wasn't. The coaches deemed Rogers the better player and I tend to agree with them.

I see what you're saying. I just think that the defensive statistics available to fans are for the most part incomplete. Outside of total tackles, most other defensive statistics are meaningless. Even sacks is a mostly pointless statistic. I would much rather know how many qb hurries a player had than sacks. Offensive statistics for the NFL are much more comprehensive and allow for an easier comparison of players.

I would also agree with you that early on in the season last year Rogers was the better player. He was the starter and Smoot did not look comfortable in the system. Smoot did get much better and at the end of the year was playing very well. If he had played like that earlier on in the season I think that it would've been a tough battle for the starting job.

SkinsFreak wrote:

GSPODS wrote:

SkinsFreak wrote: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".

An objective statistic would be something like a quarterback rating formula, taking into account all of the most widely tracked statistics and deducting for plays against. We could probably create such a formula but would we agree on the formula itself, much less the results?

I'll see if I can create one later tonight, just to see if anyone thinks it would be remotely useful.

Really? You'll whip up some formula for us to "properly" evaluate CB's? Gee, after all these years, I wonder why no football experts or media types have deemed it appropriate, or even necessary, to come up with such a formula for evaluating corner backs. Hmm, maybe it's just too time consuming. Yeah, that's it. Oh wait, that can't be it, because they do it for QB's and pitchers in baseball. Hmm, must be some other reason....

I don't see the humor. You asked for an Objective statistical comparison. The only way to objectively compare two players at any position is to use the same criteria for the comparison. The fact that only quarterbacks are given this glorified (or, in some cases, horrified) number associated with the level of their talent is largely due to the fact that quarterback is the glorified, media-darling roster position.

Just because the same type of formula is not used for other position players does not mean it can't be used or shouldn't be used. Ever heard of Madden? How do you suppose they come up with those player ratings? I'm not implying that Madden gets it right but they use the same two dozen or so criteria to compare players at each position. That is Objective.

CanesSkins26 wrote:

SkinsFreak wrote: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.

This I agree with. Rogers was obviously drafted on potential. For that matter, EVERYONE'S drafted on potential. You have no idea how a constant will perform in a different set of variables. Whatever potential Rogers was thought to have, he hasn't lived up to yet I think is what most are saying(I am, at least). He's inconsistant, unlike Smoot, who, IMHO, played better last year. I think you also have to take into consideration that this was his first year back with the skins, unlike Rogers, so he'll need some games to get fluid with the new defense. I think he got comfortable in the 2nd half of the season.

With the new D coord (which I don't think is going to change much), I think we'll have a more even playing field to compare the two. All in all, I think the three DBs out there in the secondary is a nice look...even when Smoot was the nickel.

As far as your claim that "no football experts or media types have deemed it appropriate, or even necessary, to come up with such a formula for evaluating cornerbacks", you must have missed these:

http://sportsline.com/nfl/playerranking ... rseason/DB

Name / Sacks / Tackles / Solo / Int / PD
39. Asante Samuel, NE 55.25 0 44 36 6 24
39. LaRon Landry, WAS 55.25 1.5 95 48 0 6
44. Shawn Springs, WAS 54.51 0 62 47 4 19
89. Reed Doughty, WAS 27.52 0.5 53 23 0 2
99. Champ Bailey, DEN 19.83 0 84 63 3 17
184. Pierson Prioleau, WAS -24.65 0 45 24 0 0
238. Vernon Fox, WAS -92.89 0 12 9 0 0
243. Fred Smoot, WAS -103.31 0 50 39 1 11
295. Sean Taylor, WAS -292.97 0 42 27 5 14
320. Carlos Rogers, WAS -407.39 0 25 14 1 8

A simple Google search pulls several of these. Some are objective. Some appear subjective. I don't see any point in belaboring the issue.

Although the CBS ratings above use a smaller number of statistics than I would like, the same statistics are used for each player, thereby making an objective comparison. In principle, the more criteria used for any ratings system, the more accurate the ratings system would or should be.

VetSkinsFan wrote:He's inconsistant, unlike Smoot, who, IMHO, played better last year. I think you also have to take into consideration that this was his first year back with the skins, unlike Rogers, so he'll need some games to get fluid with the new defense.

That's not exactly true. Smoot played for Williams in 2004, so he was coming to a system he already knew.

GSPODS wrote:As far as your claim that "no football experts or media types have deemed it appropriate, or even necessary, to come up with such a formula for evaluating cornerbacks", you must have missed these:

http://sportsline.com/nfl/playerranking ... rseason/DB

First, and I could be wrong, but I believe that is from the 2007 season. Sure would like to see it for the 2006 season.

That list compiles the same stats as the list I previously posted, such as int's, tackles, solos, and passes defended. Sure would be interested to see the percentages applied to each individual statistic in the formula. If you click on any of those categories, it ranks players "specifically" for that category.

That's all I did. In my original post, I mentioned int's, tackles and passes defended, in my opinion, as well as most experts, the three main stats looked at for grading CB's. I mentioned Rogers' int's were low, and simply posted his rankings for tackles and PD's. That's all. And again, I never said PD's were the sole standard, as I qualified it as a "category".

Some are saying Smoot is better. I'm just curious what they are basing that on. No one has offered anything other than an opinion. I was simply trying to go beyond an opinion by mentioning some stats and Rogers starting role. I understand that an individual stat alone is not enough to go on and I never said it was.

SkinsFreak wrote:

GSPODS wrote:As far as your claim that "no football experts or media types have deemed it appropriate, or even necessary, to come up with such a formula for evaluating cornerbacks", you must have missed these:

http://sportsline.com/nfl/playerranking ... rseason/DB

First, and I could be wrong, but I believe that is from the 2007 season. Sure would like to see it for the 2006 season.

That list compiles the same stats as the list I previously posted, such as int's, tackles, solos, and passes defended. Sure would be interested to see the percentages applied to each individual statistic in the formula. If you click on any of those categories, it ranks players "specifically" for that category.

That's all I did. In my original post, I mentioned int's, tackles and passes defended, in my opinion, as well as most experts, the three main stats looked at for grading CB's. I mentioned Rogers' int's were low, and simply posted his rankings for tackles and PD's. That's all. And again, I never said PD's were the sole standard, as I qualified it as a "category".

Some are saying Smoot is better. I'm just curious what they are basing that on. No one has offered anything other than an opinion. I was simply trying to go beyond an opinion by mentioning some stats and Rogers starting role. I understand that an individual stat alone is not enough to go on and I never said it was.

I'm not looking to start an argument either for or against statistics. As far as the Rogers vs. Smoot issue, I just hope to have both of them back healthy this season. We need both of them on the field, regardless of which one is better.

I did think it was hilarious that LaRon Landry was rated the same as Asante Samuel and that Champ Bailey was rated lower than 99 other defensive backs by CBS.

PulpExposure wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:He's inconsistant, unlike Smoot, who, IMHO, played better last year. I think you also have to take into consideration that this was his first year back with the skins, unlike Rogers, so he'll need some games to get fluid with the new defense.

That's not exactly true. Smoot played for Williams in 2004, so he was coming to a system he already knew.

You still have an adjustment period.

Some within the Redskins' organization reportedly believe CB Carlos Rogers (torn ACL, MCL) will begin the season on PUP.

The 'Skins need to be careful with the 26-year-old corner, especially with two capable vets behind him in Shawn Springs and Fred Smoot. Of course, if one of them goes down in the first half of the season, they'd be in deep trouble.

http://www.rotoworld.com

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/redskinsinsider/2008/04/draft_ramblings.html?nav=rss_blog

a lot of the "we already know" stuff