Patrick Peterson: "Sherman isn't a shutdown corner"

[RiverDog]

I wonder of Patrick Peterson actually believes what he's saying or if he's just laying the ground work for his own upcoming contract talks.

http://mynorthwest.com/292/2527822/Card ... hutdown-CB

[NorthHawk]

Probably a little of both.
Most top CBs have the attitude they're the best. I think they have to have that ego to play on an island and not lose their confidence.
Along with thinking they're the best comes wanting to be paid like the best.

[Hawk Sista]

The whole concept of getting a single answer to who is the best, who was the best, the greatest of all time... It's just silly. Sherman has statistically borne out to be the best over the last two years, largely because of improved D-line and superior play at all the defensive positions. Malcolm Smith was Super Bowl MVP and he arguably wasn't the best or most impactful player that day. (I kinda think it was Cliff). Not to take ANYTHING away from two fantastic players who excel and we are so lucky to have. On Sherm, he's clearly in the best conversation this year too.

Sherm is great and NO doubt one of the best. He benefits from playing with Earl, and Cam and he misses sometimes too. Whatever he needs to tell himself to perform well (reluctantly) suits me fine. And I know we are talking about Patrick... adding DRC to Peterson won't hurt at all. Several "experts" peg the Cards to have the best corner tandem in the league. The ones that didn't, picked Reavis & Browner (they weren't seeing what I was seeing, he'd have lost his job to Maxi anyway). Anyway, experts are picking the pats and the cards as having the better tandem.

Anyway... Back to my point. It's silly to say who the best is because it's never apples to apples. How many Super Bowl rings would Marino have with our D? How many would Dilfer have w/ the Vikings?

[Bird Droppings]

Yes, HawkSis, "best" is always an elusive variety of apple.

Like Revis creds from being in the NY market a couple years back before any Sherman "best" comparisons started, Sherman was out-cameraed.

But, now, the Mr. Sherman Corporation is recognized as one of the one hundred most identifiable USAmericans, and the Prez has torched him in a national media dinner ... not so Revis, not so Petersen.

I'm of the mind that the Pat Petersen Corp and the Richard Sherman Corp actually have conspired to help each other in their salary pursuits with scripted mouth-moving.

It does not make one whit of difference who is "best", they are still varieties of apples in a smorgasboard of life.

Sherman is getting the most attention at the moment. Petersen might next year. No matter.

What does matter is if kids take positivity from these guys exploits, not from what comes out of their mouths.

And, joined-at-the-hip with this topic, there is a new commercial featuring Mr. Sherman and Stephen A. Smith, the guy who made a career out of using black racism to reel in a fistful of dollars.

His depiction as existing inside Sherman's stomach in a beef jerky commercial is so out-there that I have actually gained a tad of respect for Smith, which I would have bet as an impossible lonshot before I saw it.

Making fun of yourself, and smiling at it, is a sign of class.

Sherman and Petersen and Revis are smiling all the way to the bank, and into a dent of the People Magazine personality cerebrum or medulla or somewhere up there elitism.

Play Ball! That's what they're doing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hB58RY1Pn08

zoom

[Hawk Sista]

We'll said!

[Futureite]

Being successful at any position has a lot to do with the system a player plays in and how his talents are utilized by the player's coaches. You see it at every position; Haynesworth was a dominant D-tackle in Tenn but not in Washington where he was asked to play a completely different technique. Deangelo Hall had the same issues when he left ATL. I honestly have no issues with Sherman calling himself the best. I just do not like it when he goes after other players in the process. For that reason I have enjoyed Peterson and a couple other corners enlightening us common fans as to the schemes, etc.

Regardless, Sherman is a player. He tackles. He understands scheme and tendencies. He plays great in big games and he always seems to be around the ball, whether it's a blocked kick return or a pick 6 in the 4th qtr in Hou. He is a football player. Have to respect what he does on the field.

[HumanCockroach]

There is complete and utter confusion as to what a "lock down" corner is in today's society and not just amongst the fans either. In order to be considered a "lock down" corner, you have to "lock down" the receivers you are covering. At this point Peterson simply doesn't do that. I'm not sure when people started equating "following the best receiver" is the same as being a lock down corner, but it simply isn't true. Keeping the receiver you are covering to low catches, no TD's, and porous QB rating against, and being targeted little is what a lock down corner IS not following a guy around the field.

[kalibane]

http://presnapreads.com/2014/04/02/patr ... #more-1927

http://presnapreads.com/2014/02/19/rich ... #more-1812

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2 ... ting-paid/

Patrick Peterson is fond of saying "the tape don't lie". Well guess that didn't work out how he expected. Two seperate highly detailed analysis of the 2013 season regarding corners. The pre snap reads pieces are really impressive as they chart every single play. Sherman would appear to be the clear victor in both comparisons (Well the pro football focus article just flat out says it). It basically echos what has been said. Peterson has superior athleticism but Sherman is just a better player right now.

I'd also like to call particular attention to one stat in Sherman's presnap reads analysis for the benefit of our resident niner fan. Sherman had a 97% success rate covering sideline routes over the entire season. Yeah I'm not letting this go until you just admit it was a bad decision to throw that ball.

[HumanCockroach]

Yep, it is truly baffling to me to hear guys like Peterson, or Deangelo Hall (yeah Deangelo Hall lmfao) equate them 'following' receivers to being a 'lock down' corner. Damn near peed my pants when he was claiming that. Peterson is gifted, fluid, and a great athlete, but he is woefully inconsistent, and has had the SAME benefits that Sherman has had in regards to pass rush (IN fact he has a consistent pass rush the entire time he has been playing) and whether he or anyone else acknowledges it, he HAS been targetted more, had more opportunites to make plays, and has WOEFULLY lacked in the type of production that Sherman has, and IMHO that simply can't be dismissed out of hand because he moves around the field.

[Futureite]

http://presnapreads.com/2014/04/02/patrick-peterson-the-numbers-the-tape-the-verdict-2014/#more-1927

http://presnapreads.com/2014/02/19/rich ... #more-1812

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2 ... ting-paid/

Patrick Peterson is fond of saying "the tape don't lie". Well guess that didn't work out how he expected. Two seperate highly detailed analysis of the 2013 season regarding corners. The pre snap reads pieces are really impressive as they chart every single play. Sherman would appear to be the clear victor in both comparisons (Well the pro football focus article just flat out says it). It basically echos what has been said. Peterson has superior athleticism but Sherman is just a better player right now.

I'd also like to call particular attention to one stat in Sherman's presnap reads analysis for the benefit of our resident niner fan. Sherman had a 97% success rate covering sideline routes over the entire season. Yeah I'm not letting this go until you just admit it was a bad decision to throw that ball.

Haha I will not admit that because according to Dilfer and T. Hasselbeck, it was the correct read. It was a bad throw. Just like the int he threw in the Dec 8th game to Lane (I believe) on the exact same route. Kaep throws a flat ball and is suseptible on balls that he should loop over the top, like the sideline route that Micah Hyde nearly picked in the WC rd. Goid read, bad throw.

[Futureite]

Yep, it is truly baffling to me to hear guys like Peterson, or Deangelo Hall (yeah Deangelo Hall lmfao) equate them 'following' receivers to being a 'lock down' corner. Damn near peed my pants when he was claiming that. Peterson is gifted, fluid, and a great athlete, but he is woefully inconsistent, and has had the SAME benefits that Sherman has had in regards to pass rush (IN fact he has a consistent pass rush the entire time he has been playing) and whether he or anyone else acknowledges it, he HAS been targetted more, had more opportunites to make plays, and has WOEFULLY lacked in the type of production that Sherman has, and IMHO that simply can't be dismissed out of hand because he moves around the field.

Cards didn't have Seattle's pass rush. That benefit is almost unquantifiable. And opposing QBs had a lower compl % when throwing at PP than they did v Sherman. Sherman posted thst stat himself. There is plenty of room for debate. Just remember who started the debate first. #25, per usual.

[kalibane]

Oh my god. Future... I swear you always act offended when people talk disrespectfully to you but then you make statements like "Arizona didn't have Seattle's pass rush". Dude.. they had MORE sacks than Seattle. What are you talking about?

And wow Peterson had a 2.5% lower completion percentage against. Sherman Had 4 times the number INTs, 3 times fewer TDs given up, 30 points lower in passer rating against, fewer targets, fewer yards given up, fewer yards per catch on catches that were made, fewer blown coverages, more passes defended, and is much better against the run on top of all of that. But yeah you're right that 2.5% difference in completion % against sure is convincing.

Sherman beats Peterson on every level over the past two years (including completion % against). The only thing Sherman detractors have to hold onto is "Well he doesn't follow the best WR around the field", which is specious logic to begin with, but is especially specious when you take into account the fact that when Sherman was allowed to follow a WR he completely shut that receiver down.

You're argument is paper... there is no real debate. It's all manufactured and the only reason why people are trying to manufacture it is because people dislike Sherman. Peterson is potential. Sherman is realized. And leave it to you to ignore the fact that Sherman defended against that route at a 97% clip over the entire year is neutralized by Trent Dilfer saying it was the proper read.

P.S. Peterson started this on a radio interview... not Sherman. But then you were wrong about everything else so why stop now.

[Eaglehawk]

Dude is just rattling the snake

[Futureite]

Oh my god. Future... I swear you always act offended when people talk disrespectfully to you but then you make statements like "Arizona didn't have Seattle's pass rush". Dude.. they had MORE sacks than Seattle. What are you talking about?

And wow Peterson had a 2.5% lower completion percentage against. Sherman Had 4 times the number INTs, 3 times fewer TDs given up, 30 points lower in passer rating against, fewer targets, fewer yards given up, fewer blown coverages, more passes defended, and is much better against the run on top of all of that. But yeah you're right that 2.5% difference in completion % against sure is convincing.

Sherman beats Peterson on every level over the past two years (including completion % against). The only thing Sherman detractors have to hold onto is "Well he doesn't follow the best WR around the field", which is specious logic to begin with, but is especially specious when you take into account the fact that when Sherman was allowed to follow a WR he completely shut that receiver down.

You're argument is paper... there is no real debate. It's all manufactured. Peterson is potential. Sherman is realized. And leave it to you to ignore the fact that Sherman defended against that route at a 97% clip over the entire year is neutralized by Trent Dilfer saying it was the proper read.

P.S. Peterson started this on a radio interview... not Sherman. But then you were wrong about everything else so why stop now.

My comment was not personal at all towards you. I had reviewed PFF's pass rush ratings throught the yr and in fact just brushed up with an article written late in the yr which gave Seattle a top rating of 10+ and AZ a rating of just over 6, which was almost exactly the median. You could be right and if I review PFF the end of yr numbers may look quite different, but I doubt it.

Yes Sherman does get INTs. So did 7th rd pick and late yr starter Malcolm Smith, a LB. And Byron Maxwell, who started 5 or 6 games if I am not mistaken. In fact, Smith was a direct beneficiary of that pass rush in the SB. I am not discreditung anyine's numbers, but it is clear Carroll has a system in place with the right guys plugged in - and everyone benefits. How do you honestly believe Peterson would perform in Sherman's role in Seattle?

To your last point, it was in fact Sherman that went after PP in 2012 for the probowl snub. His exact quote was "Peterson can't even cover Crabtree". I mean, should Peterson have replied "Sherman can't even cover Stevie Johnson"? He's ticked a lot of people off with his BS and some players are calling out what he actually does on a game by game basis. Rivalry or not, they are not all wrong.

Sherman is a hell of a player. He is a good corner in any system. But when you continually post numbers like he does and then get defensive or even flat out ignore the context behind them (which he does), it proves your argument has holes.

[HumanCockroach]

Yep, it is truly baffling to me to hear guys like Peterson, or Deangelo Hall (yeah Deangelo Hall lmfao) equate them 'following' receivers to being a 'lock down' corner. Damn near peed my pants when he was claiming that. Peterson is gifted, fluid, and a great athlete, but he is woefully inconsistent, and has had the SAME benefits that Sherman has had in regards to pass rush (IN fact he has a consistent pass rush the entire time he has been playing) and whether he or anyone else acknowledges it, he HAS been targetted more, had more opportunites to make plays, and has WOEFULLY lacked in the type of production that Sherman has, and IMHO that simply can't be dismissed out of hand because he moves around the field.

Cards didn't have Seattle's pass rush. That benefit is almost unquantifiable. And opposing QBs had a lower compl % when throwing at PP than they did v Sherman. Sherman posted thst stat himself. There is plenty of room for debate. Just remember who started the debate first. #25, per usual.

Ah, you're right they didn't have Seattle's pass rush LAST season, the first two, they decimated Seattle's pass rush ( or did you think Seattle had Avril, Bennett and Irvin the entire time?)

and you're right Peterson allows 2.5% less completion percentage against, course you once again chose to FIND the one area Peterson "beat" Sherman, no mention of the 30% lower QB rating, or the HUGE difference in TD to INT or any of the other stats. Simply put, Peterson ISN'T a shut down corner, now a corner that holds ALL QB's to an average QB rating of under 50? Hmm.

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2014/5/22/5 ... man-tweets

[Futureite]

Kalibane;

Let me respond to the "97%" comment, which I missed. As we debated before, if you are a top player and you are put in a podition where your coaching says in this set, with this D, you make X play, do you back away from the challenge? Did Reggie Miller back down in two straight eastern conference finals games from taking a long range 3 pointer to win with Jordan gaurding him? Did he analyze Jordan winning D player of the yr or the percentage of making a 3 pt shot? No. He just took the shot that the play called for him to take.

The problem is your point reaks of arrogance. And I direct that at your point, not you. It basically asserts that Sherman is so superior to both Crab and Kaep, why would they take that shot? Even though former NFL QBs are telling you in clear and unwavering language that in that D Kaep made the correct read, you deny it. It WAS the correct read, and I don't want any if my team's players backing away from "testing the best" as Sherman put it. Shying away from challeges is how you lose games.

Hey, I don't blame Sherman for being insulted and in retrospect, even for his rant. But I forsee a whole lot of PO'd fans in your area down the line. I guarantee he will be on the losing end of a one on one battled at some point, and some player is going to dish hard on him afterwards. You sound pretty sensitive to me to any opposing point of view regarding Sherman. If you dish it, you have to take it too.

[kalibane]

It's not just interceptions.. it's every statistical category, generic and advance metrics Sherman beats Peterson across the board because Peterson is inconsistant.

Your analogy sucks. Reggie Miller is a HOF player and the best pure shooter of his generation, nor is there any metric that shows that Michael Jordan stops 97% of three point attempts. Kaep and Crabtree haven't even made the pro-bowl much less been the best of their generation at something in the NFL.

Not to mention the fact that by the time Miller played Jordan in the Eastern Coference Finals Jordan had fully embraced the matador style of defense (that's not a compliment). Hell Jordan wasn't even playing defense on Reggie unless there was a switch. There was no way Jordan was chasing him around through all those screens. Ron Harper drew that assignment. In other words, don't use analogies from other sports when you don't even understand the matchups or how those teams played.

As I said from the begining... Sherman 1st team all pro corner. Film study shows you that Sherman successfully covers that pattern 97% of the time over the course of the season. Crabtree was well covered on the play. There was no place to put the ball. I don't even care about the interception, that just made it worse. It was a dumb play all around. Neither Kaep nor Crabtree has done anything whatsoever to merit that kind of confidence. We're not talking about Calving Johnson or Randy Moss. We're talking about Michael Crabtree coming off an Achilles injury against a guy you ignored for the entire game on a pattern that he has successfully defended 97% of the time. And no it was NOT the correct read because. If Kaep had gone through his progressions he had a WR wide open on the other side of the field on an underneath pattern. THAT was the correct read.

[Futureite]

Yep, it is truly baffling to me to hear guys like Peterson, or Deangelo Hall (yeah Deangelo Hall lmfao) equate them 'following' receivers to being a 'lock down' corner. Damn near peed my pants when he was claiming that. Peterson is gifted, fluid, and a great athlete, but he is woefully inconsistent, and has had the SAME benefits that Sherman has had in regards to pass rush (IN fact he has a consistent pass rush the entire time he has been playing) and whether he or anyone else acknowledges it, he HAS been targetted more, had more opportunites to make plays, and has WOEFULLY lacked in the type of production that Sherman has, and IMHO that simply can't be dismissed out of hand because he moves around the field.

Cards didn't have Seattle's pass rush. That benefit is almost unquantifiable. And opposing QBs had a lower compl % when throwing at PP than they did v Sherman. Sherman posted thst stat himself. There is plenty of room for debate. Just remember who started the debate first. #25, per usual.

Ah, you're right they didn't have Seattle's pass rush LAST season, the first two, they decimated Seattle's pass rush ( or did you think Seattle had Avril, Bennett and Irvin the entire time?)

and you're right Peterson allows 2.5% less completion percentage against, course you once again chose to FIND the one area Peterson "beat" Sherman, no mention of the 30% lower QB rating, or the HUGE difference in TD to INT or any of the other stats. Simply put, Peterson ISN'T a shut down corner, now a corner that holds ALL QB's to an average QB rating of under 50? Hmm.

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2014/5/22/5 ... man-tweets

Lol % of completions are a pretty damn important stat when comparing corners! Even if we go to a backyard and line up and throw 100 balls that each of us are trying to prevent a friend from catching, who is going to be the winner?? The guy that allows the least receptions. Sweet lord of any stat that should be the first that is noted.

And let's clarify one thing. I am not arguing that Peterson is better. Nowhere in any post did I say he was. And in fact I do not think he is. But he does bring up good points that Sherman will never address with anything other than his nonstop stat quoting.

What bugs me about Sherman is his consistent contradictions. He gets beat by White and blames it on the D. Someone didn't do their job in the scheme. Then someone calls out his success in a certain scheme, and he's all about the numbers suddenly. The guy is like this with everything. He gets caught on TV grabbing a player once, twice or even three times on a play, then pitches a fit afterwards claiming "the refs gave them the game". He turns some idiot comments on Twitter about him being a "thug" into some phony national dialogue to divert attention from his own post game rant. Now he's the victim. As if I and everyone else has not been called out on social media in some form by some idiot. I am not saying he is an evil dude, but the guy is well spoken and a master at manipulation. And your area has been starving for a sports hero like him for a long, long time. So almost every opinion he voices gets repeated as if 100% true.

He is a top 3 corner. No, he is not invincible. And Peterson brought up plenty of good points.

[Futureite]

It's not just interceptions.. it's every statistical category, generic and advance metrics Sherman beats Peterson across the board because Peterson is inconsistant.

Your analogy sucks. Reggie Miller is a HOF player and the best pure shooter of his generation, nor is there any metric that shows that Michael Jordan stops 97% of three point attempts. Kaep and Crabtree haven't even made the pro-bowl much less been the best of their generation at something in the NFL.

Not to mention the fact that by the time Miller played Jordan in the Eastern Coference Finals Jordan had fully embraced the matador style of defense (that's not a compliment). Hell Jordan wasn't even playing defense on Reggie unless there was a switch. There was no way Jordan was chasing him around through all those screens. Ron Harper drew that assignment. In other words, don't use analogies from other sports when you don't even understand the matchups or how those teams played.

As I said from the begining... Sherman 1st team all pro corner. Film study shows you that Sherman successfully covers that pattern 97% of the time over the course of the season. Crabtree was well covered on the play. There was no place to put the ball. I don't even care about the interception, that just made it worse. It was a dumb play all around. Neither Kaep nor Crabtree has done anything whatsoever to merit that kind of confidence. We're not talking about Calving Johnson or Randy Moss. We're talking about Michael Crabtree coming off an Achilles injury against a guy you ignored for the entire game on a pattern that he has successfully defended 97% of the time. And no it was NOT the correct read because. If Kaep had gone through his progressions he had a WR wide open on the other side of the field on an underneath pattern. THAT was the correct read.

And who the hell are you to tell 2 former NFL QBs and Herm Edwards (a former DB, btw) that they are wrong? I knew you'd go to your default. "Crab and Kaep are not . .(insert player)". Crab has not done "anything" to merit that sort of confidence? You watch playoff games, right. Go look up his numbers.

Were they good enough to test the other side, on Maxwell? s***, maybe they could've tested the middle with Tukuafu.
Nah, maybe they should have just curled up in the fetal position and bowed to every player that was superior to them. Why try to test any of them.

Predictable. So predictable that I literally almost adressed that line of thought in the very post you are referring to. But I figured why bother - you're going to go there anyway.

Quit acting like a ding dong and taking everything so personal. You are a grown man. Stop worshipping and quoting a 25 yr old kid that plays football. Jesus Christ dude you know not even a 1/100th of what an NFL coach or former QB knows and you dismiss their analysis entirely.

And while you're at it go Youtube Jordan chasing Miller.

And you never answered my question. What do you do for a living that makes you believe you can talk down to people consistently like this?

[HumanCockroach]

I'll take the DB that gives up 4 Receptions for 24 yards and no touchdowns with a pick, over a guy that gives up 2 For 85 and a TD in each and every game without batting an eye. When using completion percentage ( as you so emphatically tried to argue for Deion) targets matter. QB's don't throw Shermans way, why? they do Peterson's, why?

Some film study could help you figure out those really crucial questions. Maybe you should give it a whirl.

[Futureite]

I'll take the DB that gives up 4 Receptions for 24 yards and no touchdowns with a pick, over a guy that gives up 2 For 85 and a TD in each and every game without batting an eye. When using completion percentage ( as you so emphatically tried to argue for Deion) targets matter. QB's don't throw Shermans way, why? they do Peterson's, why?

Some film study could help you figure out those really crucial questions. Maybe you should give it a whirl.

Why? Could be any number of reasons. Could be that the other teams are throwing at Peterson mire because he is covering the best WR on that team. Or one could go with Kalibane's theory and believe all teams hide their best receiver when he is playing the opposing team's best corner. They pull out their "metric" sheet, the HC and OC look at each other nervously and say "oh no. Not him. We are not throwing his way. Especially with our WRs". There's a championchip mentality for you right there.

So that would be one reason - that the #1 receiver on any team receives most of the targets by design, and week in and week out Peterson covers that guy.

I am bowing out on this debate. I have expressed that Sherman is a top level corner but I do not believe he is good as some of you believe. I think Peterson did a great job of explaining why. We've argued this before and thrown insults each other's way. I am done with it.

[Futureite]

It's not just interceptions.. it's every statistical category, generic and advance metrics Sherman beats Peterson across the board because Peterson is inconsistant.

Your analogy sucks. Reggie Miller is a HOF player and the best pure shooter of his generation, nor is there any metric that shows that Michael Jordan stops 97% of three point attempts. Kaep and Crabtree haven't even made the pro-bowl much less been the best of their generation at something in the NFL.

Not to mention the fact that by the time Miller played Jordan in the Eastern Coference Finals Jordan had fully embraced the matador style of defense (that's not a compliment). Hell Jordan wasn't even playing defense on Reggie unless there was a switch. There was no way Jordan was chasing him around through all those screens. Ron Harper drew that assignment. In other words, don't use analogies from other sports when you don't even understand the matchups or how those teams played.

As I said from the begining... Sherman 1st team all pro corner. Film study shows you that Sherman successfully covers that pattern 97% of the time over the course of the season. Crabtree was well covered on the play. There was no place to put the ball. I don't even care about the interception, that just made it worse. It was a dumb play all around. Neither Kaep nor Crabtree has done anything whatsoever to merit that kind of confidence. We're not talking about Calving Johnson or Randy Moss. We're talking about Michael Crabtree coming off an Achilles injury against a guy you ignored for the entire game on a pattern that he has successfully defended 97% of the time. And no it was NOT the correct read because. If Kaep had gone through his progressions he had a WR wide open on the other side of the field on an underneath pattern. THAT was the correct read.

Go to YouTube. Search terms "Reggie Miller game 4 game winning shot Michael Jordan". Try this after you watch it. "Hey man, I was wrong". Just try it once in your life dude.

[kalibane]

Except I'm not wrong. Michael Jordan was a completely overrated defender after he came back from retirement and he didn't draw the Reggie Miller assignment. What did I say?

Hell Jordan wasn't even playing defense on Reggie unless there was a switch. There was no way Jordan was chasing him around through all those screens. Ron Harper drew that assignment.

Now how about you go watch that play and tell us what happened? The anouncer will call it out for you if you still continue to be blind. The call is "Harper on Miller"... Miller runs through 2 screens catches the ball and Michale Jordan comes over on a SWITCH (which he was late on). If he had got that off against Scottie Pippen (who was a great defender at that time) then you might have had a point (but not really), but he didn't. He got Michael Jordan, a mediocre defender, on a late switch.

Your analogy sucks.

[kalibane]

See here is the difference between you and I Future. You want to argue technicalities. I'm interested in arguing the truth of the matter. You seem to think if you can post one thing that can't be refuted it means you're correct, instead of taking the totality of the situation. You think because Michael Jordan was technically the closest defender when Reggie Miller shot the ball, that he was defending Miller like it was a one on one situation. You also draw a false parallel where Michael Jordan guarding someone is equivalent to Richard Sherman covering someone.

The truth of the matter is Michael Jordan was not even close to a good defender 1998. The truth of the matter is that Jordan doesn't defend Reggie. If Jordan had the assignment to defend Miller, Miller would have averaged like 40 points a per game. Why? Because the Pacers offense was built around Reggie Miller running through a series of screens to get open for catch and shoot opportunities. 1. Using Jordan's energy to fight through two and three screens on every defensive possession is a complete waste of energy that he needs to use on the offensive end. 2. Even if they did decide to give Jordan that assignment he couldn't stay with Miller and Miller would just get open jumper after open jumper which for him is like giving him a layup.

When you make statements like this it shows how much you really just don't actually pay attention. You think if you name drop Jordan that just because he's generally regarded as the best player in NBA history that it covers all arguments counting on his reputation to carry the day. Meanwhile, anyone who actually knows about basketball understands that Jordan was a minus defender at the end of his career and thus even if someone did beat him one on one it's really not much of an accomplishment (witness when Allen Iverson absolutely embarassed him with a crossover). And that's not even addressing the fact that he wasn't even really defending him, he was late on his rotation for the switch which doesn't constitute playing good defense for any coach I ever played for. Reggie was already elevating for the shot before Jordan got there.

You think that a technical difference in that Patrick Peterson has a 2.5% lower completion percentage against (a negligible number that equals approximately 4 receptions over the course of a season) balances out the avalanche of stats where Sherman has a large advantage at.

Should they have tested Maxwell, or the middle? Absolutely, they should have tested anywhere on the field except Sherman on that Pattern. Film study shows you have a 3% chance of completing that pass. It was dumb. The smart thing was to continue through the progression hit the underneath target who again was wide open and use one of your two timeouts. Throwing that ball was giving the game away.

Who am I to determine whether Kaep or Crabtree merit having the same confidence that Reggie Miller would have in a similar situation? I'm a guy with two eyes in a world where Reggie Miller was the best pure shooter of his generation (possibly the best pure shooter in NBA history) and in a world where Crabtree and Kaepernick have yet to make the pro-bowl rendering the comparison completely ridiculous. If you insist on a basketball comparison, Kaepernick making that throw to Crabtree against Sherman would be like if instead of drawing up a play for Reggie Miller, the Pacers ran a play for Jalen Rose who was locked up one on one with Scottie Pippen and then he forced up a well defended shot instead of passing it to Chris Mullin who was open on the wing.

You have not come close to addressing anything. You pluck strawmen (like the Miller shot) instead of addressing the fact that two EXTREMELY detailed analysis of cornerback play show that Sherman has clearly (not arguably but clearly) been the better corner. Instead you ignore all that analysis... not just stats, not just talking head blather, but film analysis where they broke down every play (including plays where Sherman and Peterson weren't targeted) and instead quote a stat that Peterson is 2.5% better in completion percentage... then turn around and complain about all of Sherman's stats.

As for what I do for a living, it wouldn't matter if I was a garbage man, you're still wrong on this. It's irrelevant (though I did make reference to it in other threads) and I'm not going to tell you because it amuses me to see you try to make it a part of every thread where we disagree.

[HumanCockroach]

I'll take the DB that gives up 4 Receptions for 24 yards and no touchdowns with a pick, over a guy that gives up 2 For 85 and a TD in each and every game without batting an eye. When using completion percentage ( as you so emphatically tried to argue for Deion) targets matter. QB's don't throw Shermans way, why? they do Peterson's, why?

Some film study could help you figure out those really crucial questions. Maybe you should give it a whirl.

Why? Could be any number of reasons. Could be that the other teams are throwing at Peterson mire because he is covering the best WR on that team. Or one could go with Kalibane's theory and believe all teams hide their best receiver when he is playing the opposing team's best corner. They pull out their "metric" sheet, the HC and OC look at each other nervously and say "oh no. Not him. We are not throwing his way. Especially with our WRs". There's a championchip mentality for you right there.

So that would be one reason - that the #1 receiver on any team receives most of the targets by design, and week in and week out Peterson covers that guy.

I am bowing out on this debate. I have expressed that Sherman is a top level corner but I do not believe he is good as some of you believe. I think Peterson did a great job of explaining why. We've argued this before and thrown insults each other's way. I am done with it.

Which is WHY I recommended you do some film study. Not interested in walking you by the hand to help you understand. Per your OWN admission, Deion was a "lock down" corner, Peterson, is emphatically NOT one. If you bothered to do the work, you could form an actual valid opinion, not just what you see when SC plays Seattle and Arizona. It's a BIG difference, which you refuse to even acknowledge exists. As such your perception ( what you believe you are seeing without factual information) isn't accurate.

[Futureite]

See here is the difference between you and I Future. You want to argue technicalities. I'm interested in arguing the truth of the matter. You seem to think if you can post one thing that can't be refuted it means you're correct, instead of taking the totality of the situation. You think because Michael Jordan was technically the closest defender when Reggie Miller shot the ball, that he was defending Miller like it was a one on one situation. You also draw a false parallel where Michael Jordan guarding someone is equivalent to Richard Sherman covering someone.

The truth of the matter is Michael Jordan was not even close to a good defender 1998. The truth of the matter is that Jordan doesn't defend Reggie. If Jordan had the assignment to defend Miller, Miller would have averaged like 40 points a per game. Why? Because the Pacers offense was built around Reggie Miller running through a series of screens to get open for catch and shoot opportunities. 1. Using Jordan's energy to fight through two and three screens on every defensive possession is a complete waste of energy that he needs to use on the offensive end. 2. Even if they did decide to give Jordan that assignment he couldn't stay with Miller and Miller would just get open jumper after open jumper which for him is like giving him a layup.

When you make statements like this it shows how much you really just don't actually pay attention. You think if you name drop Jordan that just because he's generally regarded as the best player in NBA history that it covers all arguments counting on his reputation to carry the day. Meanwhile, anyone who actually knows about basketball understands that Jordan was a minus defender at the end of his career and thus even if someone did beat him one on one it's really not much of an accomplishment (witness when Allen Iverson absolutely embarassed him with a crossover). And that's not even addressing the fact that he wasn't even really defending him, he was late on his rotation for the switch which doesn't constitute playing good defense for any coach I ever played for. Reggie was already elevating for the shot before Jordan got there.

You think that a technical difference in that Patrick Peterson has a 2.5% lower completion percentage against (a negligible number that equals approximately 4 receptions over the course of a season) balances out the avalanche of stats where Sherman has a large advantage at.

Should they have tested Maxwell, or the middle? Absolutely, they should have tested anywhere on the field except Sherman on that Pattern. Film study shows you have a 3% chance of completing that pass. It was dumb. The smart thing was to continue through the progression hit the underneath target who again was wide open and use one of your two timeouts. Throwing that ball was giving the game away.

Who am I to determine whether Kaep or Crabtree merit having the same confidence that Reggie Miller would have in a similar situation? I'm a guy with two eyes in a world where Reggie Miller was the best pure shooter of his generation (possibly the best pure shooter in NBA history) and in a world where Crabtree and Kaepernick have yet to make the pro-bowl rendering the comparison completely ridiculous. If you insist on a basketball comparison, Kaepernick making that throw to Crabtree against Sherman would be like if instead of drawing up a play for Reggie Miller, the Pacers ran a play for Jalen Rose who was locked up one on one with Scottie Pippen and then he forced up a well defended shot instead of passing it to Chris Mullin who was open on the wing.

You have not come close to addressing anything. You pluck strawmen (like the Miller shot) instead of addressing the fact that two EXTREMELY detailed analysis of cornerback play show that Sherman has clearly (not arguably but clearly) been the better corner. Instead you ignore all that analysis... not just stats, not just talking head blather, but film analysis where they broke down every play (including plays where Sherman and Peterson weren't targeted) and instead quote a stat that Peterson is 2.5% better in completion percentage... then turn around and complain about all of Sherman's stats.

As for what I do for a living, it wouldn't matter if I was a garbage man, you're still wrong on this. It's irrelevant (though I did make reference to it in other threads) and I'm not going to tell you because it amuses me to see you try to make it a part of every thread where we disagree.

Kalibane, I mean this sincerely. You are a very intelligent guy. You make good points. I just do not appreciate the way you consistently talk down to me.

At the onset of this, you asked me to agree with you. As I have have said before, if "I" were QB I'd not have gone after Sherman. I'd have continued to dink/dunk. But Seattle's D was one of if not THE best in the NFL in the redzone while our O struggled all yr. There is no guarantee that would have worked. In fact, taking a shot was probably the best approach to take. Kaep said they specifically ran that bunch formation to get Crab on one. You cannot expect pro athletes to hold your view of them - that they are not good enough to win that one on one battle.

In the same light you cannot basically call me stupid in every post and expect me not to take it a but personal. I am wrong a lot and freely admit it. You can never learn without making mistakes.

Sherman is a top 3 corner and quite possibly the best. To be the best you have to beat the best. I have no problem with Kap and Crab trying to do just that.

[HumanCockroach]

"I am wrong a lot and freely admit it. "

LOL. When?

[Futureite]

"I am wrong a lot and freely admit it. "

LOL. When?

I think I did in this thread when talking about PFF's pass rush stats "I could be wrong", even if I followed with "but I doubt it". Had you corrected me, I'd have been fine with it. Or when I conceded Kalibane was right about our receivers at the beginning of last yr. And when I conceded you were right about your D after the SB. There are plenty of examples from padt and current threads. In fact, I have been called out by just a couple of you so many times for "lying" that I have to preference almost everything I post with "I'd have to look it up" or "I am not 100% certain". But hey, on some level I appreciate it. You guys like to keep the technical merit of the argument intact and that's the way it should be.

[HumanCockroach]

When did hedging what one says, equate to admitting they are wrong? I must have missed a memo or something.

[Futureite]

When did hedging what one says, equate to admitting they are wrong? I must have missed a memo or something.

When did hedging what one says, equate to admitting they are wrong? I must have missed a memo or something.

You're right. I misstated the first part of my response. I am wrong.

[HumanCockroach]

When did hedging what one says, equate to admitting they are wrong? I must have missed a memo or something.

When did hedging what one says, equate to admitting they are wrong? I must have missed a memo or something.

You're right. I misstated the first part of my response. I am wrong.

[RiverDog]

"I am wrong a lot and freely admit it. "

LOL. When?

Do you want me to answer that question?

[HumanCockroach]

Just for you and Bane Future ( relax, take it with a grain of salt, all in good fun..... or is it?????? )

http://unitedhawknation.com/mobile/watc ... =6a47553ea

( and just out of curiosity, anyone know why changing the links color from the default cause the link to no longer work? Seems odd to me, but what do I know?)

[burrrton]

I've said it before, but what I find most amazing about that play, and I *think* it's something Kaep does a *lot*, is this (well, two things):

1. Kaep completely stared down Crabtree.
2. Crabtree was, at no point in that route, *anything* but completely and utterly covered. He couldn't have been more blanketed with Sherm pinning him under four of your Grandma's quilts.

Even ignoring all the talk about Sherm's success rate, that pass never had a chance in h3ll of being completed unless Kaep assumed Sherm was going to trip at some point.

I don't know what argument Dilfer and Herm made about it being the "right read", but I've been watching the NFL for 36 odd years (for whatever that's worth) and I don't see how that wasn't a stupid throw to make.

[edit- and now that I watch the rest of the vid, I see that was the entire argument of the video- ignore me]

[burrrton]

(and just out of curiosity, anyone know why changing the links color from the default cause the link to no longer work? Seems odd to me, but what do I know?)

When the user [color] tags are placed around the link, it apparently breaks the anchor tag the link is rendered with behind the scenes.

Pretty obviously a small bug in the forum software.

[Futureite]

Just for you and Bane Future ( relax, take it with a grain of salt, all in good fun..... or is it?????? )

http://unitedhawknation.com/mobile/watc ... =6a47553ea

( and just out of curiosity, anyone know why changing the links color from the default cause the link to no longer work? Seems odd to me, but what do I know?)

Wish I could open it but I do everything from my phone. And my phone struggles with almost every video (it's lowgrade). In fact, I go without cable TV by choice too. But thanks for posting, whatever it was.

[Futureite]

I've said it before, but what I find most amazing about that play, and I *think* it's something Kaep does a *lot*, is this (well, two things):

1. Kaep completely stared down Crabtree.
2. Crabtree was, at no point in that route, *anything* but completely and utterly covered. He couldn't have been more blanketed with Sherm pinning him under four of your Grandma's quilts.

Even ignoring all the talk about Sherm's success rate, that pass never had a chance in h3ll of being completed unless Kaep assumed Sherm was going to trip at some point.

I don't know what argument Dilfer and Herm made about it being the "right read", but I've been watching the NFL for 36 odd years (for whatever that's worth) and I don't see how that wasn't a stupid throw to make.

[edit- and now that I watch the rest of the vid, I see that was the entire argument of the video- ignore me]

Last yr around playoff time Greg Cosell was asked about a QB "staring" a receiver down. He said that term is a misused, because in his words "Peyton Manning stares down receivers. Every QB does". And Peyton does. All the time. He will drop back with his head looking to one side of the field and throw - because that was his read and it was open. There was no reason for him to intentionally look away from Crab. And on a rhythm throw like that it may have even been the worst thing to do. I played QB (obviously not on that level) and the last thing I want to do on a 20 freaking yard corner route is turn my hips and re-plant to throw. That ball is suppose to be out of your hand as your back foot hits the ground. It's completely different than throwing a 45 yd fade where you have time to look the safety off.

A LOT of former players say that is a TD if thrown correctly. It's the fans that are dissecting this and that attaching their own analysis or blame to it. Maybe it's a TD, maybe Crab was blanketed - who knows. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but it always baffles me when people dismiss the analysis of former players entirely. Whether you agree or disagree with the varied opinions on this, it was a poorly thrown ball - period. Put a goddamn pair of shoulder pads on me again and I promise you I throw that ball correctly so it drops over the top instead of flat as an arrow and we are not even having this debate. A lot of times "open" in the NFL is where your guy has a chance to outfight theirs for the ball - but Kap did not give Crab a chance to do that.

Was Boldin open on the TD over Thomas? Guy is the best safety in the game and they went right at him and won. Jesus Christ your guy made the play on the next battle. That's it. Wasn't a dumb play, a horrible decision or a referendum on anything or anyone. End of story, let's do it again in 2014.

[Hawk Sista]

You are forgetting it wasn't 3rd down yet, let alone 4th. Had it been, I could have seen making the "try."

One of the funniest quotes of the year last year was Kaep justifying that throw w/ if, if, if. To quote Charles Barkley - "if I didn't eat so much, I wouldn't be fat." And resting your points on cranked up Dilfer (sorry, I use to love Trent as a former bulldog and analyst, but something is up w/ him... He's hopped-up and practically screaming his analysis at the TV these days. He's had to retread his tires more than once of late (see pre-game analysis of the Hawks vs. the Saints #asssswhuppin)) is as credible to me as adding in Timmy, I never really made it in the league and I don't like the Hawks Hasslebeck.

[burrrton]

He will drop back with his head looking to one side of the field and throw - because that was his read and it was open. There was no reason for him to intentionally look away from Crab.

It wasn't open, though. At all. In any way. Crab was as UN-open as a receiver has ever been in one-on-one coverage.

So unless Kaep either thought Crab was going to outrun Sherm or trip him, it seems to me the evidence, and result, shows there was *every* reason for him to look elsewhere.

Your point about QB not necessarily running through progressions every play is well taken, though. It just seems to stand out with Kaep, but that could just be confirmation bias at this point.

Was Boldin open on the TD over Thomas?

First, no, he wasn't, but he was lot closer to being open than Crab was, and if I watched it again, I'll bet he could have arguably been considered open(ish) at some point.

Second, what down was it?

[Futureite]

You are forgetting it wasn't 3rd down yet, let alone 4th. Had it been, I could have seen making the "try."

One of the funniest quotes of the year last year was Kaep justifying that throw w/ if, if, if. To quote Charles Barkley - "if I didn't eat so much, I wouldn't be fat." And resting your points on cranked up Dilfer (sorry, I use to love Trent as a former bulldog and analyst, but something is up w/ him... He's hopped-up and practically screaming his analysis at the TV these days. He's had to retread his tires more than once of late (see pre-game analysis of the Hawks vs. the Saints #asssswhuppin)) is as credible to me as adding in Timmy, I never really made it in the league and I don't like the Hawks Hasslebeck.

Lol! "Cranked up Dilfer". I hadn't noticed that but I will have to look now. But I am not resting my point on either Dilf or Hasselbeck; just pointing out that the play is not black and white. Everyone's opinion is valid.

When I read these thoughts on the play, to me it sounds as though a lot of people are claiming Seattle's D broke down and Kaep made the wrong play becauae someone else was wide open for a TD. In reality, my guess is if he flips it to Patton, Patton is probably tackled inside the 10 and we are back to the same scenerio where we struggled all yr and Seattle's D played lights out. And wirh 16 seconds or so left he is forced into throwing into an even more congested endzone and chided for not getting what guys like Brees and Peyton could not get done either. I have a really hard time believing your D folded and Kaep just f'd up at the end.

Off to work and I hope cranked up Dilfer is on espn radio! .