Kyle Arrington not getting it done per PFF

[Ring 6]

How is that a fail? When teams throw at Arrington, they usually complete those passes and for big yardage. That's pretty much it. Even if he's got absolutely perfect coverage when teams don't go after him, it's still a strong indicative of bad performance. You can't just discard this information as meaningless.

1) It is meaningless because of the source. The source is not accurate. The source is awful at evaluating football
2) It is ludicrous to think a corner should be judged by only the balls thrown at him.
If corner A allows 5 out of 5 complete and corner B allows 7 out of 10 in the same plays, corner A played better in all liklihood.
Covering your man so he isn't open to throw to is a huge part of the equation.

 

[supafly]

Andy, do you know of any other decent statistical site since PFF seems to be so obviously flawed?

Are there any other sites than can offer some statistical analysis on certain passes completed, CB ratios, etc?

Thanks.

 

[Ring 6]

Andy, do you know of any other decent statistical site since PFF seems to be so obviously flawed?

Are there any other sites than can offer some statistical analysis on certain passes completed, CB ratios, etc?

Thanks.

Sadly no, and that makes PFF even worse because people rely on it when it is total garbage since there is nothing else that gives such stats

 

[UK_Pat37]

Can anyone name a player...ANY player...even ONE player in this secondary that would be a certain starter on most teams??.........anyone?,anyone?

It is what it is

Can you name every starter in the secondary of all 32 NFL teams and give me a thorough analysis of all of them with their skill sets compared to our players?


It is what it is.

 

[RodThePat]

1) It is meaningless because of the source. The source is not accurate. The source is awful at evaluating football
2) It is ludicrous to think a corner should be judged by only the balls thrown at him.
If corner A allows 5 out of 5 complete and corner B allows 7 out of 10 in the same plays, corner A played better in all liklihood.
Covering your man so he isn't open to throw to is a huge part of the equation.

So is making a play to avoid a completion when the football is thrown your way. If 80% of the time a QB throws at a CB the pass is complete, do you think he's really doing a great job in coverage every single other time the ball is thrown somewhere else? Not very likely. It isn't a coincidence that the guys considered the best CBs in the league also allow the lowest percentage of completions, generally speaking. You are coming at it from the perspective that, when the ball isn't thrown to Arrington's man, he has good coverage. That isn't necessarily true.

 

[Sicilian]

This seems like an impossible stat to track accurately. Maybe if the NFL outlawed zone coverage, safety help, double coverage, and mandated that every QB be allowed 5 seconds to throw the ball (no more no less). Then we would have consistent drop backs, and nothing but strict one on one coverage. Then it would be EASY to attribute stats like this to a player, and have them mean something.

As it is, these numbers don't take any of those things into account, which makes them fundamentally flawed. Arrington may not be fit to be a top two CB on any team, but these numbers aren't the proof of that, not by a long shot.

 

[Ring 6]

So is making a play to avoid a completion when the football is thrown your way. If 80% of the time a QB throws at a CB the pass is complete, do you think he's really doing a great job in coverage every single other time the ball is thrown somewhere else? Not very likely. It isn't a coincidence that the guys considered the best CBs in the league also allow the lowest percentage of completions, generally speaking. You are coming at it from the perspective that, when the ball isn't thrown to Arrington's man, he has good coverage. That isn't necessarily true.

No, I am TAKING IT INTO CONSIDERATION, because it is an important part of the analysis.
And, over time, yes it absolutely is true that fewer targets means better coverage, it is ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

Also, since completion percentage against is not a valid statistic reported by any legitimate source your other comment is useless.

 

[BradyFTW!]

No, I am TAKING IT INTO CONSIDERATION, because it is an important part of the analysis.
And, over time, yes it absolutely is true that fewer targets means better coverage, it is ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

Also, since completion percentage against is not a valid statistic reported by any legitimate source your other comment is useless.

Pretty much the highest compliment that can be paid to a CB is that the opposing quarterback doesn't even look in his direction when going through his reads, so yeah. The best CBs are typically the ones that are targeted fewest.

Incidentally, that's also why I'd take an elite pass rusher over an elite CB any day.