Gilmore vs Law

Gilmore has a real chance here. To never lead the league in ints while playing for the NYJ.

Sliplady said:

Oh that is fine. Everyone is welcome to their own opinion. I don't see it that way. I don't care if the other posters don't like my opinion.

Click to expand...

So if someone asks you about your opinion your response is "so what if you dont like my opinion"

Maybe you wouldn't think every thread turns into a "pissing match" if you were a little more polite to people innocently asking you a very valid question?

I am hoping gilmore is one of those corners that can play well into their 30s.

I was thinking of starting a similar thread yesterday myself.

My take: Ty Law played in an era where you could maul receivers, but he also played AFTER Bill Polian whined to the competition committee. Gilmore plays in an era in which you cannot even breathe on receivers....so I would give nod to Gilmore for playing in a tougher era...rules wise. However, what elite receivers did Law face vs. Gilmore? That's what I'd like to see numbers on...Law faced Marv Harrison who was Manning's right hand basically....Gilmore has taken on some big receivers for us the last 2.13 seasons...

Not sure. Different era’s but I imagine if they were somehow able to crossover, Gilmore could play in either while I’m not sure if Law would be as effective in this one with the cupcake rules. Think he would of been a great FS though.

I like how the thread title showed 24 replies. Until now since I just ruined it.

I would go with Ty. I loved his physicality. Also a very heady player.

SG is great and I hope that ends up the clear-cut better player over time.

Patjew said:

I like how the thread title showed 24 replies. Until now since I just ruined it.

Click to expand...

We can always go for a 24x2 48

Bruins29 said:

So if someone asks you about your opinion your response is "so what if you dont like my opinion"

Maybe you wouldn't think every thread turns into a "pissing match" if you were a little more polite to people innocently asking you a very valid question?

Click to expand...

Nope, you didn't get the nasty unsolicited pm saying my opinion is idiocy.

Sliplady said:

Nope, you didn't get the nasty unsolicited pm saying my opinion is idiocy.

Click to expand...

Somebody sent you a nasty PM saying your opinion is idiocy?

Bruins29 said:

Somebody sent you a nasty PM saying your opinion is idiocy?

Click to expand...

As we say around here, it is what it is. Karma happens. No big deal. I am done in this thread.

Sliplady said:

Nope, you didn't get the nasty unsolicited pm saying my opinion is idiocy.

Click to expand...

I only got that once, seems a little harsh in this case.

I can see a situation where in two years the answer to this question will be Gilmore hands down. He took half a season or so to integrate himself into the system so is only hitting his Patriot prime now.

He might need a few more examples of shutting down the #1 WR given that he’s frequently on the #2 while the #1 is doubled with a CB / S combo.

Here is how I view it. Career is obviously Law but Gilmore (hopefully) still has a lot of games to play. As far as who is the best when it comes to who I would rather have in their prime there is a very good way to compare them. They actually line up very well for such a comparision.

Law's best years were 98'-06' He was between 24-32 years old. I forgot how young he was when he entered the league. He was the #1 CB during that first dynasty run. Particularly the sample size between 01-04 is very important. He was an absolute stud during those years. Particularly in the playoffs. Making huge plays and shutting down great WRs. Sadly he was injured in 04' and so couldn't join in for that run but clearly he was a driving force of those first 3 super bowls and particularly was steller in those playoff games.

Gilmore is right now in the middle of his best years 16'-?', Between the age of 26-???. He had a tad of a rocky start here for the first 4 games but it is hard to really care about that. So far in 2 playoff runs in his prime he has done incredibly well. True he only has 1 ring at this point but in his first 2 runs he has done about as well as anyone could expect.

At this point I would probably still take Law. Mostly in part cause I'm not a huge fan of the trail technique Gilmore leans on a bit too much IMO. Law had a more diverse game and it made him more of a ball hawk. Yesterday was the first pick 6 of Gilmore's career. Law had 8 including playoffs and was more of a ball hawk. This isn't just due to the era. Law had more skill at creating turnovers and I think that can be undervalued at times on this particular board. If Gilmore shows more plays like yesterday then he clearly wins this debate. But that is the one reason I give Law a slight nod.

Law played longer for the Pats, therefore he had seasons where he struggled at times in ‘99, 2000, and 2002. Most people look at ‘98 as his best season, but 2003 was his most dominant. There were also some frustrating times where he allowed pedestrian WR’s to have big games during the Carrol years. Keyshawn Johnson was also his kryptonite.

Gilmore has been elite for 3 straight years for the Pats.

With that being said, I’m not taking anyone yet.

I saw Law play a lot of games in Foxboro. I cant tell you how many times I saw him turn around at exactly the right time, high point the ball and snatch it out of the air before the reciever had a chance at it. Gilmore is good but he doesn't do that. Ill take Law and its not even close.

Law set the template for a dynasty and Gilmore is joining one.

It's kind of hard to say. I'm leaning towards Gilmore because he is playing in a much more difficult era for CBs. In addition, I've seen a few comments talking about INTs. I don't necessarily agree since CBs these days also don't get a lot of INTs to begin with. Look at the best CBs from this era. Guys like Sherman, Revis, Talib all have less than 40 INTs (Talib is leading all active CBs with 35 INTs). Gilmore has 19, so he is on pace to reach somewhere in between Talib and Revis. I'm not really sure why INTs have been decreasing these years but I don't think a lack of INTs should dock any points from Gilmore.

My biggest issue with Gilmore is once a game he will have zero awareness or a total mental lapse and straight up leave his receiver totally unguarded on a play. McCourty helps Gilmore look good.

Ty Law never had a FS as good as McCourty and Law was as automatic as you can get in terms of fully trusting a CB to blanket half the field.

Both awesome but I’ll go Law. While both are great cover corners Law had a real nose for the ball.

Law had 53 career INTs while Gilmore in his 8th year has 19 career INTs. If he keeps up his current pace he’ll probably finish with between 30-35 INTs. Just for reference no Hall of Fame corner has less then 40 INTs.

Flash said:

It's kind of hard to say. I'm leaning towards Gilmore because he is playing in a much more difficult era for CBs. In addition, I've seen a few comments talking about INTs. I don't necessarily agree since CBs these days also don't get a lot of INTs to begin with. Look at the best CBs from this era. Guys like Sherman, Revis, Talib all have less than 40 INTs (Talib is leading all active CBs with 35 INTs). Gilmore has 19, so he is on pace to reach somewhere in between Talib and Revis. I'm not really sure why INTs have been decreasing these years but I don't think a lack of INTs should dock any points from Gilmore.

Click to expand...

I think INTs definitely matter. Turnovers are game changers. Win the turnover battle and your chances of winning go way up.

As mentioned in my previous post no HOF corner has less than 40 INTs. Revise and Sherman while being the best in the last decade didn’t play at a top level for as long as other past greats. They both dealt with serious injuries. In his 6th season Revis blew out his knee and was never truly the same again. Sherman played on a bad MCL in his 6th year and ruptured his achilles in his 7th. He’s not the corner he was before the injuries. Talib is very good but not a HOFer in my opinion.

Boomer B said:

I think INTs definitely matter. Turnovers are game changers. Win the turnover battle and your chances of winning go way up.

As mentioned in my previous post no HOF corner has less than 40 INTs. Revise and Sherman while being the best in the last decade didn’t play at a top level for as long as other past greats. They both dealt with serious injuries. In his 6th season Revis blew out his knee and was never truly the same again. Sherman played on a bad MCL in his 6th year and ruptured his achilles in his 7th. He’s not the corner he was before the injuries. Talib is very good but not a HOFer in my opinion.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with your opinion on the importance of causing turnovers, but do you think Revis and Sherman are not going to be HOFers since they don't have 40 INTs? Sherman might make it to 40 if he plays for another five years but Revis only has 29 INTs. Sure, they got injured in the middle of their career, so do you think these guys are more similar to Calvin Johnson whose career peak is excellent but doesn't have the longevity to make it to the HOF?