Rogers Ready to Move On

Why is everyone so obsessed with Rogers dropping the ball? He's a freakin' corner, not a wr. Jeez....I know it's pathetic but his job is to cover first.

Which is why I said it all depends on what Rogers roll was in each of the defenses; GW, Blache, and Haslett. It's easy to say his job is to cover first, thats what all CB are supposed to do. They are supposed to cover the WR. But I think it all depends on whether they are playing zone or man-to-man, or if his job is to rush the QB. I don't need to explain it but man-to-man is easy... he's to cover the WR. In zone he's supposed to watch and area and at some point from the LOS he has to release the WR to the safety. Sometimes I think Rogers released too soon and the safety was not in a position to take over the responsibility which led to a TD or 1st down. In man-to-man he bites hard on the first move sometimes. Which is why teams quickly figured out that if their WR did a stop and go they had a better chance of making the play.

Yeah, you're right, Hall did give up what could have been the game winner. However, I believe that play came after a Carlos Rogers dropped pick. An EASY pick that would have ended the game. Instead, him not catching it gave the Cowboys more shots at the end zone...but you're right, scoring the Skins' only touchdown totally didn't do anything for them in that one...Hall SUCKS!

I'm not going to sit here and act like Hall is a great player, but your blind hatred of him is really turning you into a broken record. Let me get this straight: you want to ditch the guy who won the team two games last year by scoring touchdowns/getting picks, says "this is my defense" and at least talks like he likes it in Washington and keep the guy who takes every chance he can to take shots at the team he plays for...that makes sense.

At the end of the day, they both have their deficiencies and neither one are all that good. Carlos can cover and Hall can change games when he's actually close enough to a receiver, or the football, to get a pick. Really, if they somehow melded into one player with Rogers' coverage skills and Hall's ability to catch and score once he has the ball they'd make a great corner. Instead, we have one who gambles too much and another who does a good job of coverage and breaking on the ball, he just can't catch it...unfortunately the latter never keeps his mouth shut and likes to lambaste his employer; I say let him walk.

Game. Set. Match

What stats are you using? D. Hall has never been a top ranked CB, in fact, he's been one of the worst ranked CBs in the NFL for many years now. I've shown those numbers repeatedly. The numbers I showed actually had Carlos (in one of the years) ranked really high in terms of his position. We aren't talking about "Hype" rankings here, we are talking about actual productivity. Or in the case of CBs, the lack of production (against you) is the key.


As I said NFL.com but remember they are using all DB's to include safeties.

NFL Stats: by Player Position (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?tabSeq=1&statisticPositionCategory=DEFENSIVE_BACK&conference=0015&season=2010&seasonType=REG)

Rogers has EVERY RIGHT to be bitter. Hall is GARBAGE as a cover corner and he tackles like a soft lil' bitch. I don't think either of them are going to Canton, but game in, game out, I want the guy that can cover and tackle. Think about it, Rogers has seen numerous free agents get paid here and a lot of them end up playing like crap. Yet the front office never seems to reward their own that have proven themselves. I hope those days are over. But Bruce Allen had a chance to give Rogers a raise and low balled him. Not right IMO.

Wow cowboy, Hall might be, as you put it, GARBAGE for not being a great tackler (which I don't know where you get that from), but then you'd have to say Roger's is GARBAGE also because he can't catch the ball. See both are CB's responsibilities and if you can't do one of them then your half good. Now I'll give Rogers credit that if he can't intercept the ball he atleast tries to make sure the WR does not get it. I honestly think your severely down playing Hall's tackling ability.

Halls 2010 highlights
YouTube - ‪DeAngelo Hall 2010 Highlights‬‏

I think he puts a pretty nice hit on someone at around 1:18. But it does seem to be special teams.

YouTube - ‪Washington Redskins Pro Bowl 2010‬‏

Carlos Roger 2010 highlights
None.

I guess when your really that good you don't need highlight reels.

Really? Lucky bounce? He FORCED THE DAMN FUMBLE and then he picked it up and scored.

Recovering a fumble is pure luck. The act of stripping it is skill. Don't confuse the two. Like I said, he picked up a lucky bounce. What if he stripped the ball, the ball bounced out of bounds, no score for the Skins. We lose that game. The fact the ball stayed in bounds and bounced/rolled in a fashion he could easily scoop up is luck.


FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | Football Outsiders Basics (a.k.a. "Pregame Show") (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/info/FO-basics)
Recovery of a fumble, despite being the product of hard work, is almost entirely random.

Stripping the ball is a skill. Holding onto the ball is a skill. Pouncing on the ball as it is bouncing all over the place is not a skill. There is no correlation whatsoever between the percentage of fumbles recovered by a team in one year and the percentage they recover in the next year. The odds of recovery are based solely on the type of play involved, not the teams or any of their players.

Fans like to insist that specific coaches can teach their teams to recover more fumbles by swarming to the ball. Chicago's Lovie Smith, in particular, is supposed to have this ability. However, since Smith took over the Bears, their rate of fumble recovery on defense went from a league-best 76 percent to a league-worst 33 percent in 2005, then back to 67 percent in 2006. Last year, they recovered 57 percent of fumbles, close to the league average.

Fumble recovery is equally erratic on offense. In 2008, the Bears fumbled 12 times on offense and recovered only three of them. In 2009, the Bears fumbled 18 times on offense, but recovered 13 of them.

Fumble recovery is a major reason why the general public overestimates or underestimates certain teams. Fumbles are huge, turning-point plays that dramatically impact wins and losses in the past, while fumble recovery percentage says absolutely nothing about a team's chances of winning games in the future. With this in mind, Football Outsiders stats treat all fumbles as equal, penalizing them based on the likelihood of each type of fumble (run, pass, sack, etc.) being recovered by the defense.

Other plays that qualify as "non-predictive events" include blocked kicks and touchdowns during turnover returns. These plays are not "lucky," per se, but they have no value whatsoever for predicting future performance.

I honestly think your severely down playing Hall's tackling ability.




uE7ZBTvrtIA

..lol

Wait.... I found a highlight reel.....

YouTube - ‪Eastern Motors Redskins Carlos Rogers Crushes Salesman‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aGNwiCEvRA)

Recovering a fumble is pure luck. The act of stripping it is skill. Don't confuse the two. Like I said, he picked up a lucky bounce. What if he stripped the ball, the ball bounced out of bounds, no score for the Skins. We lose that game. The fact the ball stayed in bounds and bounced/rolled in a fashion he could easily scoop up is luck.


FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | Football Outsiders Basics (a.k.a. "Pregame Show") (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/info/FO-basics)

Sooo your taking an opinionated article and using their definition of "fumble recovery" as "luck"?

Nice.

uE7ZBTvrtIA

..lol


and? Carlos never got owned? Ok.

Recovering a fumble is pure luck. The act of stripping it is skill. Don't confuse the two. Like I said, he picked up a lucky bounce. What if he stripped the ball, the ball bounced out of bounds, no score for the Skins. We lose that game. The fact the ball stayed in bounds and bounced/rolled in a fashion he could easily scoop up is luck.


FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | Football Outsiders Basics (a.k.a. "Pregame Show") (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/info/FO-basics)

First off, the quoted article doesn't really apply to the play where he scored. The crux of it is right here:

Stripping the ball is a skill. Holding onto the ball is a skill. Pouncing on the ball as it is bouncing all over the place is not a skill. There is no correlation whatsoever between the percentage of fumbles recovered by a team in one year and the percentage they recover in the next year. The odds of recovery are based solely on the type of play involved, not the teams or any of their players.

This article is really talking about the ability to predict who is more likely to recover a fumble based on the players involved more than saying, "when a football hits the ground, the following events are totally random and based on luck." You are correct that it was lucky the ball didn't bounce out of bounds and that it continued to roll/bounce backwards, however, picking up a bouncing football while running full speed is not easy and he did it while on his way to scoring the touchdown that ended up being the difference in that game. So, his strip and scoop were skillful, the luck came in the football going in the direction he pulled it and not taking an odd hop after hitting the ground.