(08-03-2016, 11:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What is fun about being proven wrong?


If you really think interceptions are the best way to judge a CB you have no clue what you are talking about.  Patrick Peterson only had 2 ints last year.  There were 22 CBs that had more than Peterson.  Do you really think Patrick peterson is not even one of the top 20 CBS in the league?

I suppose only you would have the answer to the orginal question posed.

Who mentioned anything about using INTs alone (although they are a stat)? I would use all stats that the NFL tracks to include tackles, PDs, FF, FR, ect....

Seems you're kind of talking out of both sides on your mouth here.

"I wanna use stats because they are legit!!"

"OK, let's use stats"

"I wanna use the stats derived from the forumlas that I like because they are legit"

(08-01-2016, 12:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There have been a certain group of people around here who have never had any respect for Dre Kirkpatrick.  After last season many of them threw around the fact that ProFootballFocus ranked Dre as one of the absolute worst CBs in the league.  Even after I pointed out that based on PFF logic a CB who played less and messed up more often could be ranked AHEAD of Dre they still insisted that Kirkpatrick was horrible.

I have been waiting for Football Outsiders to post their CB rankings for '15.  They just posted their top 20 and worst 20, and hopefully they will have their complete rankings available within a few days.  Unlike the ridiculous PFF ranking, FO tries to use actual measurable stats to rank CBs.  They required that a CB either start 8 games or be targeted 50 times to qualify for their ranking.  In 2015 seventy-five CBs qualified.  So if a player does not appear in the "worst 20" that means he ranks at least in the top 55.

Average Yards Per Target....Dre ranked 18th in the league (7.0 avg).  Patrick Peterson lead the league with a 4.4 avg, and Adam Jones was 2nd at 4.5.

Success Rate, the percentage of targets where the corner prevented a successful gain (45 percent of needed yards on first down, 60 percent on second down, and 100 percent on third or fourth down)....Dre ranked 32nd.  Patrick Peterson was also #1 in this catagory (70%) and Adam Jones was 5th (65%)

Completion Percentage Allowed....FO actually does not rank CBs by this stats, but from looking at the lists I can calculate the completion percentage allowed for 70 of the 75 qualifying CBs.  Dre's .483 ranks 19 of those 70.  Delvin Breaux ranked #1 with a .373 and Adam Jones was 13th with .455.

Estimated Target Rate, the percentage of possible targets with the corner on the field where the corner was targeted in pass coverage by the opposing offense....Dre ranked 54th.  I really don't put a lot of credibility in this stat because I think it is more about the other players in the secondary and which CB plays the #1 WR most often.  The Steelers William Gay ranked #1 (11.2%) mainly because the Steelers other two CBs were among the worst in the league (Antwon Blake was 73rd in Success Rate and Ross Cockrell was 65th)

Dre also finished in the top 20 in passes defended with 13.


Dre's biggest weakness was poor tackling.  His broken tackle percentage was the 8th worst in the league.  Despite ranking 3rd in tackles by a CB with 65 he had 16 broken tackles.







Just like everyone else here I have seen dre get beaten, but too many people think that no other CBs in the league get beat as often as Dre.  That just is not true.  It is good to finally find some stats to prove this.

Thanks for this Fred, these are good stats here that actually prove that Dre is not a terrible CB, he is a terrible tackler
and he is targeted more than any other player we have in the Secondary. He is just the weak link on a superb Secondary.

With the Dennard injury and the fact the coaches are thinking of Shaw as more of a swing player from Safey to CB i think
Kirkpatrick actually keeps his job this year but i doubt he is back once his contract is up for the very reasons you list here.
Still needs to work on those double moves beating him as well.

Bad tackler, is targeted tons and doesn't get ints and is the weak link here. He is not horrible though no question.

(08-02-2016, 08:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Where did we learn that "He ain't very good."?

Looks to me like he is probably top 20 in both "yards per target" and "Completion percentage allowed".  And he is top 10 in tackles by a CB.

That is pretty good.

Yes, i you count chasing down the receiver from behind after he had faked out Dre and made the catch.

(08-04-2016, 07:46 PM)Derrick Wrote: Yes, you count chasing down the receiver from behind after he had faked out Dre and made the catch.

Yes he does Derrick yes he does. Getting beat and tackling receivers from behind is a good thing to Fred.

But Dre is not horrible i will agree with Fred on that.

(08-04-2016, 08:39 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Yes he does Derrick yes he does. Getting beat and tackling receivers from behind is a good thing to Fred.

This is the same silly thing people used to say about Justin Smith when he was leading the league in tackles but "sucking" for the Bengals.

I have just posted a lot of stats showing that Dre does not get beaten nearly as often as most other CBs, but people like you and Derrick keep acting like it is a BAD thing to make tackles.

(08-04-2016, 11:20 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I suppose only you would have the answer to the orginal question posed.

Who mentioned anything about using INTs alone (although they are a stat)? I would use all stats that the NFL tracks to include tackles, PDs, FF, FR, ect....

Seems you're kind of talking out of both sides on your mouth here.

"I wanna use stats because they are legit!!"

"OK, let's use stats"

"I wanna use the stats derived from the forumlas that I like because they are legit"

So lame.

Pointing out hoiw stupid it is to judge a CB by interceptions is not talking out of both sides of my mouth.  It is nothing mnore than looking at how valid certain stats are at measuring a players ability.

Instead you are the one showing how little you know about statistocal analysis by trying to discredit any stat that requires a "formula".  Sounds like you only judge players by raw stats instead of the more precise metrics like "pass efficiency", "yards per carry", and others.

(08-03-2016, 08:49 AM)fredtoast Wrote: "Legit" meaning actually based on statistical analysis instead of "opinion" or PFF's highly flawed ranking system.

PFF is statistical analysis.....



So it's your confirmation Bias? Got it.


But I'll bite. What makes this study more statistically sound than PFF, exactly?

(08-04-2016, 10:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So lame.

Pointing out hoiw stupid it is to judge a CB by interceptions is not talking out of both sides of my mouth.  It is nothing mnore than looking at how valid certain stats are at measuring a players ability.

Instead you are the one showing how little you know about statistocal analysis by trying to discredit any stat that requires a "formula".  Sounds like you only judge players by raw stats instead of the more precise metrics like "pass efficiency", "yards per carry", and others.

One person has harped on INTs in this thread and that is you. Why do you make up something that someone has said and then try to point out how silly it is? You praised a site because they used stats, so I suggested we use stats. 

You praised a site for using stats, yet they put Dre in the top 20 because they do this:

Quote:We will be looking at plays where the cornerback was the primary defender in coverage, leaving out a few types of plays that do not properly reflect a cornerback's ability. These omitted plays include screens, balls tipped at the line or thrown away, Hail Marys, and plays where the quarterback was hit while throwing the ball. Defensive pass interference is included, but we ignore other defensive penalties that occur away from the pass. The "possible targets" from estimated target rate leave out the aforementioned omitted plays in addition to passes that were marked as "uncovered" or "blown coverage." However, if a play was marked as "hole in zone," the pass play was included.

Quote:Cornerback statistics are traditionally very volatile from year to year, and the best cornerbacks will often have worse results than expected because quarterbacks will be unlikely to target them unless they have already made a mistake. Seventy-five players met the benchmark of either starting eight games or facing 50 passes to be included in the list. It is important to note that with the number of players ranked, the difference between ranking 50th and 60th is not all that large, and therefore is not necessarily an indicator of a huge gap in talent.
We did change the way we did adjustments this year, in an attempt to partially solve the past problem where nickelbacks often ranked much higher than expected in these metrics. In the past, adjustments for offensive Team X were done by comparing Team X's No. 1 receiver to all No. 1 receivers, Team X's No. 2 receiver to all No. 2 receivers, and Team X's other receivers to all "other" receivers. In 2015, we adjusted instead by comparing Team X's No. 1 receiver to ALL wide receivers around the league. We hope this does a little bit more to penalize cornerbacks who cover nothing but slot receivers and boost the adjustments for cornerbacks who primarily cover No. 1 receivers.
First, we will look at best players by adjusted yards per pass allowed.

(perhaps just a tad more complicated than taking yards and dividing by carries to obtain YPC, but you knew this, you're just trying real hard)



Yep, this is legit analysis; yet PFF (a sight that over 1/2/the NFL teams pay a premium to access) is faulty.


Why, because Fred says so and anyone that disagrees doesn't understand statistical analysis.


F.O. lists Dre as a mediocre starting CB, because for some warped reason they give him added points for not playing the slot. Roll with that if you want. There's one dude in this thread that is buying it. 

(08-04-2016, 11:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: One person has harped on INTs in this thread and that is you. Why do you make up something that someone has said and then try to point out how silly it is? You praised a site because they used stats, so I suggested we use stats. 

You praised a site for using stats, yet they put Dre in the top 20 because they do this:

(perhaps just a tad more complicated than taking yards and dividing by carries to obtain YPC, but you knew this, you're just trying real hard)



Yep, this is legit analysis; yet PFF (a sight that over 1/2/the NFL teams pay a premium to access) is faulty.


Why, because Fred says so and anyone that disagrees doesn't understand statistical analysis.


F.O. lists Dre as a mediocre starting CB, because for some warped reason they give him added points for not playing the slot. Roll with that if you want. There's one dude in this thread that is buying it. 

Notice how he hand-waved PFF without explaining why this study was better. He only said "superior stats".

We have data analyctics changing the game of football with PFF leading the way, but they're all wrong.

Because Fred...

(08-04-2016, 10:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is the same silly thing people used to say about Justin Smith when he was leading the league in tackles but "sucking" for the Bengals.

I have just posted a lot of stats showing that Dre does not get beaten nearly as often as most other CBs, but people like you and Derrick keep acting like it is a BAD thing to make tackles.

Well no freaking crap fred; making tackles isn't a bad thing.

But It becomes a bad thing when you find yourself having to make a noticeable portion of your tackles because you get beat.

(08-04-2016, 11:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yep, this is legit analysis; yet PFF (a sight that over 1/2/the NFL teams pay a premium to access) is faulty.


Why, because Fred says so and anyone that disagrees doesn't understand statistical analysis.

Accoring to PFF a CB who only played 500 snaps and messed up once every 5 plays would rank HIGHER than a CB who played 300 MORE snaps and only messed up once every 7 plays.

So a player who plays LESS and messes up MORE OFTEN is ranked HIGHER.

Sorrry that you can not understand this and see how ridiculous it is.

(08-04-2016, 11:25 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: Notice how he hand-waved PFF without explaining why this study was better. He only said "superior stats".

We have data analyctics changing the game of football with PFF leading the way, but they're all wrong.

Because Fred...

Hey, I see that Fred also posts on in the Madden Forum. His is post #2 and gives a detailed reply to post #1:

http://www.muthead.com/forums/madden/mut-discussion/711906-pro-football-focus-vs-football-outsiders

(08-04-2016, 11:36 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: But It becomes a bad thing when you find yourself having to make a noticeable portion of your tackles because you get beat.

But that is not what happened to Dre at all.

(08-04-2016, 11:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Accoring to PFF a CB who only played 500 snaps and messed up once every 5 plays would rank HIGHER than a CB who played 300 MORE snaps and only messed up once every 7 plays.

So a player who plays LESS and messes up MORE OFTEN is ranked HIGHER.

Sorrry that you can not understand this and see how ridiculous it is.

Do they take into consideration good plays, plays that turned the tide, or was clutch.

You can bash PFF all you want. It's not like I or anyone else can take you less serious. 

(08-04-2016, 11:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hey, I see that Fred also posts on in the Madden Forum. His is post #2 and gives a detailed reply to post #1:

http://www.muthead.com/forums/madden/mut-discussion/711906-pro-football-focus-vs-football-outsiders

That post makes no sense.  He claims that FO does not take into account yards allowed, but I just posted their stats that specifically address "yards allowed per target".

That guy has no clue what he is talking about.

Can these people not even read?

(08-03-2016, 07:27 PM)Wyche Wrote: *ahem*

Thanks for the leg work b....the point in all of this is that he can be upgraded, and there's no need to overpay him going forward.  In fact, some might even say we should have let him test the market this year and got him for a discount, freeing up cash for a one or two year gig for Reggie Nelson.  Yeah, it would have been a risk with Leon down, and Dennard STILL an unknown.....but if Dennard can play at this level, would it really be that much of a step back?  Antonio Brown OWNED Dre at Pitt, I mean embarrassed him.  We gotta have people who can cover our division opponents.  As I said, dude is decent, but is he worth the nickels?  My opinion, no.  Maybe yours is different, and that's fine too.

Antonio Brown makes a lot of people look foolish; so how does that make Kirkpatrick a bust?

(08-04-2016, 11:36 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: Well no freaking crap fred; making tackles isn't a bad thing.

But It becomes a bad thing when you find yourself having to make a noticeable portion of your tackles because you get beat.

There was another thread similar to this where one of Dre's great attributes was not giving up TDs. I took the time to post threads containing videos of pretty much every passing TD we gave up last year and allowed folks to look for themselves. I'll see if I can link it here. 

(08-04-2016, 11:44 PM)J24 Wrote: Antonio Brown makes a lot of people look foolish; so how does that make Kirkpatrick a bust?

Who has called Dre a bust? 

(08-04-2016, 11:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: One person has harped on INTs in this thread and that is you. Why do you make up something that someone has said and then try to point out how silly it is? You praised a site because they used stats, so I suggested we use stats. 

I have no choice but to guess at what you mean by "stats" because so far you have posted zero "stats".

You have suggested that we look at stats yet you have refused to post any?  How can we discuss something that you refuse to post?

(08-04-2016, 11:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Who has called Dre a bust? 

Many people consider a player a bust when he does not live up to his draft status.