What is the proper way to judge an elite CB???

[SouthSida773]

This has to be the toughest position to accurately grade.

Is it interceptions???

Passes defended (broken up)???

Passes not thrown your way (respect)???

Yards or TDs given up???

Tackles???

A combination of these things???

If you are not getting passes thrown your way, then you really have no basis to judge that player. Saying his man is not open (therefore making him a shutdown corner) is not good enough. Maybe they were just playing against a Ryan Tannehillish QB. And on the flip side, if someone gets a lot of passes thrown their way, their numbers can be inflated either good or bad (even a great DB will give up some yards/TDs if enough passes come his way, and he is sure to defend/intercept some).



For Example:

I mean if you say a CB is the best, because QBs don't look his way, but then you see teams are just running all over his team and hitting the other WR or TE for throws, how much credit does that CB get for that? i.e. the "Sherman Effect".

And what if the CB has so much respect that he can hold and grab WRs all day, and only has to make a few interceptions a year to be considered one of, if not the best CB in the league, year after year? Even though he gets roasted several times a year??? We'll just call this case "The Island".

And what about those one year wonder guys. The guys that show up one year, and are immediately put in the convo with the other great CBs in the league... then they are nowhere to be found come the next year??? A good scientific name for this might be the "Haden/Peterson field".

I don't know guys. What do you think???

 

[Broc]

 

[da_bears6]

It's Revis and everyone else.

 

[james sanders]

It's Fuller and everyone else.

fify

 

[da_bears6]

If we're going from the bottom to the top you're correct.

 

[Nick80]

Stickum.

 

[Penny Traitor]

Take the opposing QBs QBR when throwing it at said CB. Average that number out over a season.

Compare that with the number of targeted passes at the CB and come up with some sort of ratio where the lowest QBR along side the highest targets gets you the best of the best.

(turnovers are like extra credit)

 

[RisWell01]

How well does he cover/ run with a receiver one on one. Now there are benifits such as height, read and reaction, etc.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

 

[Pegger]

There are two types of base coverages: Man and Zone. Zone is how aware the player is when asked to monitor a specific area and how well they communicate with other teammates in coverage. Man coverage is the ability to 'shadow' a receiver and get themselves in position to make a play on the ball.

Man coverage is the more difficult to perform because they need to be athletic enough, understand the route tree/concepts they can be facing, have the ability to convert 'following a receiver' to 'making a play on the ball' and finally put in the time to understand habits of the players they will face on gameday.

I'd add traditionally teams wouldn't jump from zone to man concepts as quickly as they are asked today, so they could get by with either a man or a zone guy depending on their scheme. Now teams need corners that can do both at a very high level. If I'm rating corners here's the guys I regard as 'elite' in no particular order"

Darrelle Revis - To me the thing that stands out is how physical he can be without getting called for PI. It's truly an art and he's amazing at disrupting the timing of the receiver while always playing right to the line where the officials are biting their wistles.

Richard Sherman - He studies like every Sunday is a final exam and he needs an A. Add in that he's 6'3 with great ball skills and he's just a great corner. The knock on him is that he only plays one side and this year he's been doing a lot more shadowing, playing the slot and even jumping to the other side.

Patrick Peterson - Physically he's a bull. 6'0, 220 lbs and runs a legit 4.3. Where he's a bit different than the other two is his return ability transitions into turnovers turning into 6 points the other way.

Aquib Talib - Transitions extremely well to whatever scheme he's asked to play in and has exceptional length when making a play at the ball.

Josh Norman - IMO it's too early to put him on this list, but from what I've seen he's just a flawless corner who creates turnovers.

 

[Pegger]

I should add, stats are the worst measure of any defensive back. One of the greatest corners of all time, Deion Sanders, only outright lead his team in Ints and PDs less than a handful of seasons. That's largely because whomever the other cornerback was would get picked on like they were a scab.

The best corners just get avoided all together. The bad corners get picked on, so naturally generate higher stats.

 

[Leon Sandcastle]

Depends on my agenda

 

[Larsonite]

This has to be the toughest position to accurately grade.

Is it interceptions???

Passes defended (broken up)???

Passes not thrown your way (respect)???

Yards or TDs given up???

Tackles???

A combination of these things???

If you are not getting passes thrown your way, then you really have no basis to judge that player. Saying his man is not open (therefore making him a shutdown corner) is not good enough. Maybe they were just playing against a Ryan Tannehillish QB. And on the flip side, if someone gets a lot of passes thrown their way, their numbers can be inflated either good or bad (even a great DB will give up some yards/TDs if enough passes come his way, and he is sure to defend/intercept some).



For Example:

I mean if you say a CB is the best, because QBs don't look his way, but then you see teams are just running all over his team and hitting the other WR or TE for throws, how much credit does that CB get for that? i.e. the "Sherman Effect".

And what if the CB has so much respect that he can hold and grab WRs all day, and only has to make a few interceptions a year to be considered one of, if not the best CB in the league, year after year? Even though he gets roasted several times a year??? We'll just call this case "The Island".

And what about those one year wonder guys. The guys that show up one year, and are immediately put in the convo with the other great CBs in the league... then they are nowhere to be found come the next year??? A good scientific name for this might be the "Haden/Peterson field".

I don't know guys. What do you think???

Stats are a terrible way to judge a player. There are many aspects to a cb to judge that only all22 film will show and it takes a good position coach to accurately grade.

Judging a few plays can tell you if he's struggling at an aspect of his game. ie. Fuller not turning his head at the right time.

Sent from a spaghetti monster circling the earth

 

[rawdawg]

This is a really good thread. I think it's a combination of all those things the OP listed. But i do like QB rating against. Teams could not throw at a guy because he's covering a lesser WR and the other CB sucks. For example, I don't think when a team lights up McManis is because Fuller shut his guy down.

A CB could get turnovers because teams throw his way a lot (see Bowman, Zack).

But I think QB rating against shows how much a guy is being targeted and how many times the play is not successful. It takes into account yards per attempt allowed, completion percentage allowed, and values INTs appropriately.

And yes Josh Norman is a complete stud.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[satchice]

Stats are a horrible way to judge just about every position. In the case of a cornerback what if the defense of line is bring in a shit ton of pressure on the quarterback and he is throwing a eratic passes all day does the cornerback get credit for Shutting his man down and coming up with a interception on a poorly thrown ball because of pressure.

Quarterback is probably the second worst position to judge based on stats

The only good position that you can look at stats to judge a position is maybe punter, kicker, Oline somewhat, and Dline somewhat


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Pegger]

This is a really good thread. I think it's a combination of all those things the OP listed. But i do like QB rating against. Teams could not throw at a guy because he's covering a lesser WR and the other CB sucks. For example, I don't think when a team lights up McManis is because Fuller shut his guy down.

A CB could get turnovers because teams throw his way a lot (see Bowman, Zack).

But I think QB rating against shows how much a guy is being targeted and how many times the play is not successful. It takes into account yards per attempt allowed, completion percentage allowed, and values INTs appropriately.

And yes Josh Norman is a complete stud.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

QB rating still has it's flaws. Let's say a corner is only targetted once all game, but he's left on an island with the other teams best WR. They run a bubble screen where no other defenders follow and he's blocked immediately giving up a 90 yard TD. The QB rating against that corner is 1/1, 90 yards and a TD, or a perfect rating.

I do agree with you in principle. When looking at a larger group of games that can start to be more meaningful, but on the flip side better corners are left alone more often, so any success against them could be for longer yardage (like double moves). It would also be less relevant if there is no pass rush to be found.

 

[rawdawg]

QB rating still has it's flaws. Let's say a corner is only targetted once all game, but he's left on an island with the other teams best WR. They run a bubble screen where no other defenders follow and he's blocked immediately giving up a 90 yard TD. The QB rating against that corner is 1/1, 90 yards and a TD, or a perfect rating.

I do agree with you in principle. When looking at a larger group of games that can start to be more meaningful, but on the flip side better corners are left alone more often, so any success against them could be for longer yardage (like double moves). It would also be less relevant if there is no pass rush to be found.

Yeah I'm talking about long term and substantial data. And I think if a CB is giving up longer yardage plays with any frequency, then he's probably not very good. I also don't think throws behind the line count against a CB. Unless it's a clear 1 on 1.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[emaugust]

This must be universal, but I have to believe tackling ability is an important measurable for a corner. How many times do we see a 5'10 170 pound corner throw himself at some stud back/wr's legs trying to make a big HIT only to miss a tackle and be brushed aside.

If anyone is smart about football, how many "good" man players does a team need to make Cover-1 work? Is it like an elite corner, a good corner, and then a serviceable Nickel DB and Safeties? Do the linebackers need skills for Man? I am just wondering what the situation is for teams when it is so hard to find guys with the skill set.

Or is it not hard to find guys with the skills, just hard to find elite ones?

 

[Trump32]

Take the opposing QBs QBR when throwing it at said CB. Average that number out over a season.

Compare that with the number of targeted passes at the CB and come up with some sort of ratio where the lowest QBR along side the highest targets gets you the best of the best.

(turnovers are like extra credit)

Start with the QBR, multiply it by the PFF grading, and throw that shit in the toilet...


If the opposing QB will not throw to that side for fear of getting intercepted, that is elite. The very best CB would have zero stats.

 

[Bearly]

Don't ask flippy floppy Stephen A. Smith?

 

[airtime143]

I should add, stats are the worst measure of any defensive back. One of the greatest corners of all time, Deion Sanders, only outright lead his team in Ints and PDs less than a handful of seasons. That's largely because whomever the other cornerback was would get picked on like they were a scab.

The best corners just get avoided all together. The bad corners get picked on, so naturally generate higher stats.

That is what it all boils down to.
If someone were to point at percentage of catches when thrown at, I would still look at that suspiciously... it seems that the only time the greats get thrown at is when they leave a guy WIDE open... maybe tangled feet or whatnot.

If Revis is on the top WR all day and that guy only gets 5-10% of the targets, that is all you need to know.