Does Devin McCourty belong at FS?

[kudzif]

Ah, I get it. So McCourty plays two good games out of three, but his bad game is the real deal and not a fluke. But Kolb's good game against a good defense is a fluke and not the real deal? Can't have it both ways.

Arizona game he had safety help the whole game so any cb would do well in that situation. The other game was against a Qb having his first start.Context matters you don't just evaluate results in a vacuum. Against a legit Qb with no double coverage help he failed miserably. By the way we weren't fumbling the ball like madman like the Eagles O that tends to help the opposing team o's stats.McCourty and Kolb have had enough time to establish who they are as players these are not some first year starters.

 

[Rob0729]

You may not have bothered reading the article I quoted with Fitzgerald, but it was the Patriots scheme that shut down Fitzgerald. It wasn't McCourty putting the clamps on his man.

Never said it was all McCourty. The Pats run mostly a Cover 2. So on most plays at least one of the CBs have a safety assisting. To diminish what McCourty did just exposes your agenda.

Again, if any CB could shutdown Fitzgerald with the double team, Fitzgerald would be shutdown every week.

McCourty sucked on Sunday, and I think it's very amusing that you continue to be a hypocrite and do the same things you accused me of doing.

What I am doing what I am accusing you of? When did I ever say some of the analysts who said he sucked had an agenda or were idiots? I did once with SMY (since you portrayed her as an expert because she said he sucked) to counter your assertion Reiss sucks as an analysis.

As for McCourty sucking, there is no consensus. Some very good analysts in the media like Bedard and Zolak have said otherwise. They looked at the All 22. Have you.

 

[Rob0729]

Arizona game he had safety help the whole game so any cb would do well in that situation. The other game was against a Qb having his first start.Context matters you don't just evaluate results in a vacuum. Against a legit Qb with no double coverage help he failed miserably. By the way we weren't fumbling the ball like madman like the Eagles O that tends to help the opposing team o's stats.McCourty and Kolb have had enough time to establish who they are as players these are not some first year starters.

Again, Fitzgerald draws the double team on almost every play in almost every game. Only guys like Revis would ever go one on one with him on a regular basis. I also am sure that at least a few times, McCourty drew Fitzgerald one on one.

As for Kolb, this was not his first start. He has started many other games. It was his first start of the season. In fact Kolb's in first start ever, he threw for 391 yards, 2 TDs, and 3 INTs. His second start ever he threw for 327 yards and 2 TDs. The week before Kolb's first start this year, 32 other QBs had their "first start" and not all 32 struggled.

Also, according to Zolak who watched the All 22, McCourty was in single coverage a lot because Gregory was "standing in quicksand". When the Pats play Cover 2 (which they play a lot), the CBs are rarely truly in single coverage down the field. Well, unless the safety is slow to react. It was the same way when Law was here too (as far as the over the top help in the Cover 2).

 

[Ring 6]

I wouldn't call getting outplayed an error of judgement.

Our front 7 dominated the first two games. Whether McCourty did well in coverage or not, our front 7 made sure Kolb and Locker didn't have enough time survey the field.

That statement is totally out of touch with reality. Both QBs had plenty of time for routes to develop on dozens of plays.

 

[Ring 6]

Fitzgerald Waits For Opportunity

Seems it wasn't McCourty v. Fitzgerald.

Your quote passage does say on SOME plays. Clearly the truth is somewhere in the middle.

 

[Sicilian]

Arizona game he had safety help the whole game so any cb would do well in that situation.

Which explains why Fitzgerald only averages 1 catch for 4 yards every game. Because it's just so easy to shut him down with a double team. Oh wait? He gets significantly more than that most games? Well, other coaches must just be too dumb to double him then.

The other game was against a Qb having his first start.

And McCourty was part of a defense that made him LOOK like a QB making his first start. What more would you expect him to do in that situation? Force him to throw for negative yards?

Against a legit Qb with no double coverage help he failed miserably

He also had no help up front and inconsistent officiating rules. And to say he "failed miserably" is such an overstatement. He had decent coverage most of the game, but his stones hands and weak tackling is what made his game bad. Other than the one legit PI at the end, I can't think of another time he got beat soundly.

By the way we weren't fumbling the ball like madman like the Eagles O that tends to help the opposing team o's stats.

That doesn't change the fact that Fitzgerald went off considerably more than he did against the Pats. Field position doesn't change those stats, just the score.

McCourty and Kolb have had enough time to establish who they are as players these are not some first year starters.

Because players never change from season to season, especially young players entering their third year. The fact that McCourty was an all-pro his rookie year and a liability his second shows precisely that we DON'T know what we have with this guy yet. And one bad game (NOT the disaster people are claiming it was, but a bad game) with strange circumstances doesn't mean more than the two good games leading up to it.

 

[Ring 6]

Which explains why Fitzgerald only averages 1 catch for 4 yards every game. Because it's just so easy to shut him down with a double team. Oh wait? He gets significantly more than that most games? Well, other coaches must just be too dumb to double him then.



And McCourty was part of a defense that made him LOOK like a QB making his first start. What more would you expect him to do in that situation? Force him to throw for negative yards?



He also had no help up front and inconsistent officiating rules. And to say he "failed miserably" is such an overstatement. He had decent coverage most of the game, but his stones hands and weak tackling is what made his game bad. Other than the one legit PI at the end, I can't think of another time he got beat soundly.



That doesn't change the fact that Fitzgerald went off considerably more than he did against the Pats. Field position doesn't change those stats, just the score.



Because players never change from season to season, especially young players entering their third year. The fact that McCourty was an all-pro his rookie year and a liability his second shows precisely that we DON'T know what we have with this guy yet. And one bad game (NOT the disaster people are claiming it was, but a bad game) with strange circumstances doesn't mean more than the two good games leading up to it.

Of course the other side of this whole thing is if you diminish McCourtys coverage vs Fitzgerald because of getting extraordinary help, then you would you have to equally sing his praises for his coverage when Fitz wasn't his man and the secondary was focussed on him, leaving McCourty on an island.

 

[Rob0729]

Your quote passage does say on SOME plays. Clearly the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Yep, missed that. Here is the quote:

The Patriots made sure they were not going to let Fitzgerald beat them. On some plays, Fitzgerald drew double coverage with one of the defenders leaving his back to the play just to make sure he shadowed Fitzgerald, without an ability to know what else was going on.

So based on this writer, the CBs (most likely McCourty) were in single coverage on Fitzgerald.

 

[Sicilian]

Of course the other side of this whole thing is if you diminish McCourtys coverage vs Fitzgerald because of getting extraordinary help, then you would you have to equally sing his praises for his coverage when Fitz wasn't his man and the secondary was focussed on him, leaving McCourty on an island.

No, because then they'll just say that he was covering a scrub that anyone should be able to cover. You see, to some, no Patriots player can ever be good, they can only do what they're supposed to or the other team is screwing up. McCourty made some bad plays in an overall sub-par game (for himself and the defense as a whole), and suddenly every good thing he's done all year (including that game), should be thrown out and written off as circumstantial.

 

[Deus Irae]

Your quote passage does say on SOME plays. Clearly the truth is somewhere in the middle.

The quote passage says that on some plays the second defender didn't even bother following the play because he was dedicated to the coverage. In other words, the Patriots were essentially playing 10-on-9 on some plays because the scheme was so keyed on stopping Fitzgerald.

I'm not sure how you take that and come up with the truth clearly being somewhere in the middle. It's got to be that "if it's not 100%, it doesn't count" argument that so many choose to incorrectly use around here.

 

[Deus Irae]

No, because then they'll just say that he was covering a scrub that anyone should be able to cover. You see, to some, no Patriots player can ever be good, they can only do what they're supposed to or the other team is screwing up. McCourty made some bad plays in an overall sub-par game (for himself and the defense as a whole), and suddenly every good thing he's done all year (including that game), should be thrown out and written off as circumstantial.

Please explain what he's done all year that's been great, in comparison to what he's done that's been terrible. In doing so, remember that even CBs who aren't good enough to play in the NFL can cover well sometimes, and that CB play is generally differentiated by the number of blown plays as opposed to the number of not-blown plays. What's McCourty done to justify the "He's been great/very good" type of arguments?

 

[Avenger]

And McCourty was part of a defense that made him LOOK like a QB making his first start. What more would you expect him to do in that situation? Force him to throw for negative yards?

Woudn't be the first time

TEN PASSING: K. Collins: 2/12, -7 yds, -0.6 AVG, 0 TD, 1 INT

 

[Rob0729]

The quote passage says that on some plays the second defender didn't even bother following the play because he was dedicated to the coverage. In other words, the Patriots were essentially playing 10-on-9 on some plays because the scheme was so keyed on stopping Fitzgerald.

I'm not sure how you take that and come up with the truth clearly being somewhere in the middle. It's got to be that "if it's not 100%, it doesn't count" argument that so many choose to incorrectly use around here.

But you said when you posted the link that "it wasn't Fitzgerald vs. McCourty" in that game. This article doesn't suggest anything that other than "some plays" McCourty or Arrington had help covering. Fitzgerald lined up on both sides of the field and the article doesn't even specify that it was McCourty or Arrington lining up on him on these plays.

 

[Deus Irae]

But you said when you posted the link that "it wasn't Fitzgerald vs. McCourty" in that game. This article doesn't suggest anything that other than "some plays" McCourty or Arrington had help covering. Fitzgerald lined up on both sides of the field and the article doesn't even specify that it was McCourty or Arrington lining up on him on these plays.

It wasn't Fitzgerald v. McCourty in that game, and they were showing the double coverage on television, so I don't see your point here.

Reality: You're giving me grief about my responses regarding Bedard and Reiss when McCourty acknowledged his lousy play and you chose to dismiss it. Your level of hypocrisy on this topic has been astoundingly high.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

Maybe the problem with the Arizona game was that TOO much respect was given to keep Fitzgerald under wraps that the team didn't gameplan well for the other guys on offense.

Its Never a good idea to focus on stopping ONE player when your defense isn't all that good to begin with

 

[Rob0729]

It wasn't Fitzgerald v. McCourty in that game, and they were showing the double coverage on television, so I don't see your point here.

And against the Ravens they highlighted plays where McCourty had excellent coverage like when he bumped Smith off the line early or directed Smith to the sidelines to force Flacco to throw out of bounds, but you choose to ignore that.

Besides, they did not show the coverage on every play vs. Fitzgerald. You didn't see the coverage on every play unless you watched the All 22. So yes, they showed a selection of plays in double coverage, but just like your quote it doesn't prove that McCourty never went against him one on one and potentially more than one or two times.

 

[Rob0729]

Maybe the problem with the Arizona game was that TOO much respect was given to keep Fitzgerald under wraps that the team didn't gameplan well for the other guys on offense.

Its Never a good idea to focus on stopping ONE player when your defense isn't all that good to begin with

What was wrong with the defensive gameplan there? You do realize that the Cards got half their points on drives where they gained a total of 9 yards. They scored three points off the Brady INT where the Pats held them to a three and out and 7 yards. They scored a TD on a two yard drive off the blocked punt.


The defensive gameplan was near perfect in my eyes and turnovers by the offense and special teams are the only thing that stopped the Pats from holding the Cards to 10 points.

Even when the Pats' defense was dominant, they made a living taking away what the opposing offense does best and make them beat the Pats outside their comfort zone. I don't know how you could argue with the Pats' strategy of shutting down Fitzgerald. The defense did their part in that game. The offense and special teams let the Pats' down.

 

[Sicilian]

Please explain what he's done all year that's been great, in comparison to what he's done that's been terrible. In doing so, remember that even CBs who aren't good enough to play in the NFL can cover well sometimes, and that CB play is generally differentiated by the number of blown plays as opposed to the number of not-blown plays. What's McCourty done to justify the "He's been great/very good" type of arguments?

And sometimes good cover corners give up big plays. The point is he had a great rookie year and a bad second year. This year we're waiting to see how he responds to that, and the ire directed at him for having one bad game (again, in SOME areas), out of three is unjustified. He's played well overall in all but one wacky, poorly officiated game.

 

[Deus Irae]

And against the Ravens they highlighted plays where McCourty had excellent coverage like when he bumped Smith off the line early or directed Smith to the sidelines to force Flacco to throw out of bounds, but you choose to ignore that.

But I'm not ignoring that at all. I've never made the claim that McCourty was beaten on every play. That's just a red herring you're tossing out there.

You're becoming more like Ray Ray with every post on this topic. Again, CB play, like QB play, is not 100% or nothing. To take it to an extreme in the way you're arguing, if a CB in for 15 plays, is beaten without a throw on 5 of those plays, is beaten for a TD on 5 of those plays and comes up with an INT on the other 5 plays, the QB had a really bad day if he's Cromartie and a great day if he's McCourty.

Besides, they did not show the coverage on every play vs. Fitzgerald. You didn't see the coverage on every play unless you watched the All 22. So yes, they showed a selection of plays in double coverage, but just like your quote it doesn't prove that McCourty never went against him one on one and potentially more than one or two times.

Fitzgerald was lying, and so was his coach. It's got to be 100% or nothing. You saw every snap and followed it with the man acknowledged to be the world's greatest CB film analyst. Got it. :bricks:

 

[Deus Irae]

And sometimes good cover corners give up big plays. The point is he had a great rookie year and a bad second year.

He had an awful second year.

This year we're waiting to see how he responds to that, and the ire directed at him for having one bad game (again, in SOME areas), out of three is unjustified. He's played well overall in all but one wacky, poorly officiated game.

1.) Same crappy officiating in all 3 games. You can't let McCourty off the hook for game 3 without throwing out games 1-2 as well.

2.) "He's played well overall" is meaningless without context, though. In game 2, the Patriots designed a game plan specifically to shut down Fitzgerald and force Kolb away from that read, so talking about the game Fitzgerald had as if it's some great reflection on McCourty is, at best, an incomplete representation of that game. In game one, the Patriots were facing a QB who was making his first start, who was without his WR1, and who followed up that start with an even worse performance the next week.

One can reasonably make the argument that McCourty's only had one legitimate high-end game to play, and that he failed miserably in that game. Saying that the ire is unjustified is your opinion, but it's pretty clearly not one that can't honestly be argued against.