Re: Sean Taylors play
 

[quote=BrunellMVP?;308197]Didn't we used to make the same arguements for another highly capable, pro-bowling, fan favorite and overall specimen named LaVar? don't get me wrong, i loved LaVar, but he was grossly overrated. In my eyes, so is ST. He COULD be great, but has yet to live up to expectations (more so last year, where he was not good at all).[/quote]

And i'm aware that injuries led to Arrington's demise, but i'd argue he was given WAY too much credit and made pro-bowls based on popularity. Note- i stuff ballots too...

Re: Sean Taylors play
 

[quote=BrunellMVP?;308197]Didn't we used to make the same arguements for another highly capable, pro-bowling, fan favorite and overall specimen named LaVar? don't get me wrong, i loved LaVar, but he was grossly overrated. In my eyes, so is ST. He COULD be great, but has yet to live up to expectations (more so last year, where he was not good at all).[/quote]
So I guess that he got voted to the Pro Bowl by his peers based on his college performance huh? I don't care if he was an Alternate, he still went which means that he received more votes than at least 12 of his peers in the same confrence. Overrated my ass. He was doing something right.

Re: Sean Taylors play
 

[quote=angryssg;308199]So I guess that he got voted to the Pro Bowl by his peers based on his college performance huh? I don't care if he was an Alternate, he still went which means that he received more votes than at least 12 of his peers in the same confrence. Overrated my ass. He was doing something right.[/quote]

Pro-bowls have little use in determining akill...its a popularity contest.

Re: Sean Taylors play
 

Using tackles to measure the impact of a safety is a very bad metric. Having your safeties make a ton of tackles is the last thing you want; you want the ball carrier tackled before he reaches that level of the defense.

The fact that Taylor had 129 tackles speaks more to the ineptitude of our front 7 than it does to Taylor's "production".

INTs are a decent measure, but even those are driven by the opportunities to make INTs. For many years, Champ Bailey had only 2 or 3 INTs per season because nobody threw at him. QBs went after Archuleta a lot more than they tested Taylor. Plus, a defensive line that gets to the QB can often force an ill-advised pass, increasing the opportunities for your safeties to intercept the ball. If you have a worthless pass rush, you can't expect that many INT opportunities.

Defensive player performance can't be easily measured by statistics. You really just have to watch the guys play. I saw Taylor taking bad angles at times last season. I also saw him having to cover for Archuleta's inept play, which Taylor deserves credit for. I saw Taylor make a handful of impact plays, ripping fumbles loose, a couple INTs, and several huge tackles (the Carolina game). And I also saw him fail to get on the same page in terms of communication with the rest of the secondary (Taylor may not be to blame here, that could have been the coaching staff's fault for all we know). Overall he had a good season but has some room for improvement.

Re: Sean Taylors play
 

To my point, the higher number of tackles, I feel, contributed to some of the lapses in coverage and so forth.

So when I speak of production, I consider that to be synonymous with "impact"...which sometimes can be measured by stats and sometimes it can't.

Re: Sean Taylors play
 

Honestly, I feel Sean Taylor was trying to do too much. A lot of times if you see him in the picture it's him going after someone else's man. Don't get me wrong, he's made his share of mistakes. He's still learning and I think this could be a real big year for Taylor if Landry is ready to step in and be productive as a rookie.

Re: Sean Taylors play
 

The instability at the other safety spot and the secondary in general definitely hurt Taylor's play.

Re: Sean Taylors play
 

[quote=Schneed10;308201]Using tackles to measure the impact of a safety is a very bad metric. Having your safeties make a ton of tackles is the last thing you want; you want the ball carrier tackled before he reaches that level of the defense.

The fact that Taylor had 129 tackles speaks more to the ineptitude of our front 7 than it does to Taylor's "production".

INTs are a decent measure, but even those are driven by the opportunities to make INTs. For many years, Champ Bailey had only 2 or 3 INTs per season because nobody threw at him. QBs went after Archuleta a lot more than they tested Taylor. Plus, a defensive line that gets to the QB can often force an ill-advised pass, increasing the opportunities for your safeties to intercept the ball. If you have a worthless pass rush, you can't expect that many INT opportunities.

Defensive player performance can't be easily measured by statistics. You really just have to watch the guys play. I saw Taylor taking bad angles at times last season. I also saw him having to cover for Archuleta's inept play, which Taylor deserves credit for. I saw Taylor make a handful of impact plays, ripping fumbles loose, a couple INTs, and several huge tackles (the Carolina game). And I also saw him fail to get on the same page in terms of communication with the rest of the secondary (Taylor may not be to blame here, that could have been the coaching staff's fault for all we know). Overall he had a good season but has some room for improvement.[/quote]Seconded. Good post.

Defensive rate stats are in their early stages. While these stats do measure what you want to know about a certain defender, the sample size is just too small to know anything conclusive.

Just for fun, here were some of the conclusions drawn from 2005 albiet in a small sample size:

-No corner defended the pass better in 2005 (in the entire league) than Shawn Springs.
-No corner defended the run better in 2005 than Carlos Rogers.
-Adam Archuleta (while in STL) allowed only 5 yards per play on plays he was involved in--a wonderful year for a safety.

As you can see, these numbers don't always stay consistent from year to year. One year's data is never conclusive. It will get more accurate with time though.

Re: Sean Taylors play
 

If you are an ESPN.com insider, check out some of KC Joyners work. He does a lot of stuff with yards per attempt for receivers and CBs. Obviously, Y/A is somewhat unscientific and dependant on QB/Line play, but in general everything a DB or WR does is based on QB/Line play.

Re: Sean Taylors play
 

[quote=Mattyk72;308217]The instability at the other safety spot and the secondary in general definitely hurt Taylor's play.[/quote]I don't think that hurt him as much as the weaknesses in the front seven.

I can see how we would think the Landry addition would help our defense, but that to me seems like the one pick on defense that wouldn't help ST. I mean, so much of how a safety's play is percieved is based on the 9 guys who play in front of him...and who do we draft? The one guy beside him.

While the team as a whole will benefit from having Landry back there, ST most certainly will not.

Re: Sean Taylors play
 

[quote=GTripp0012;308220]-Adam Archuleta (while in STL) allowed only 5 yards per play on plays he was involved in--a wonderful year for a safety.

As you can see, these numbers don't always stay consistent from year to year. One year's data is never conclusive. It will get more accurate with time though.[/quote]

That specific example shows how subjective those statistics are. Archuleta is traditionally a safety that plays close to the line for run support, so obviously his yards per play are going to be far lower than Ed Reed's, who generally floats around 10-15 yards off the line. And I imagine that plays where Archuleta was completely out of position or whiffed on a tackle aren't included as [I]plays he was involved in, [/I]as far as that particular stat.

Re: Sean Taylors play
 

[quote=Southpaw;308225]That specific example shows how subjective those statistics are. Archuleta is traditionally a safety that plays close to the line for run support, so obviously his yards per play are going to be far lower than Ed Reed, who generally floats around, 10-15 yards off the line. And I'd imagine that plays where Archuleta was completely out of position or whiffed on a tackle aren't included as [I]plays he was involved in, [/I]as far as that particular stat.[/quote]Well, they certainly would be considered in plays he was involved in.

But I would agree that Arch's numbers are probably skewed a tad by a tendency to attack the LOS. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. I mean, no safety, Archuleta or otherwise, will line up in the box frequently enough to completely alter a seasons data. Just remember that these plays include passes, so he apparently was back more than enough times to stop most deep passes.

Now, if Arch was being used uniquely compared to every other safety in the NFL, then these stats would have little meaning for him.

While the 5 yard number is a big subjective, the point is that the data supports the notion that Arch was great in 2005, and does justify his signing here.

Sometimes, you get boned.

Re: Sean Taylors play
 

I dont know guys, I mean we have been talking about this stuff all last season and honestly I am kinda optimistic about next year.

Our D seems better. Have a similar core, plus few additions. GW seems to know he needs to tweak his great system or whatever. Even if DL isnt addressed I think we have a good chance of doing well.

Same offensive coordinator, more run. Remember end of last year, things were kinda gelling. JC's 2nd year and times for everyone to learn the system.I mean this is the first time in a while the offense has stayed the same. It pretty much stayed the same in 05 and look what happened. And honestly, our D cant get much worst.

Re: Sean Taylors play
 

[quote=hooskins;308231]I dont know guys, I mean we have been talking about this stuff all last season and honestly I am kinda optimistic about next year.

Our D seems better. Have a similar core, plus few additions. GW seems to know he needs to tweak his great system or whatever. Even if DL isnt addressed I think we have a good chance of doing well.

Same offensive coordinator, more run. Remember end of last year, things were kinda gelling. JC's 2nd year and times for everyone to learn the system.I mean this is the first time in a while the offense has stayed the same. It pretty much stayed the same in 05 and look what happened. And honestly, our D cant get much worst.[/quote]

I tend to be kind of pessemistic, but I'm going to agree with you here. There are times when this we just suffer from paralysis by analysis (to use a horrible cliche). Are we really trashing Sean Taylor? He has problems getting out of position and trying to do too much, but I'd rather have him than most any other saftey in the league and I'm definitely not going to bash him here.

Re: Sean Taylors play
 

[quote=SC Skins Fan;308239]I tend to be kind of pessemistic, but I'm going to agree with you here. There are times when this we just suffer from paralysis by analysis (to use a horrible cliche). Are we really trashing Sean Taylor? He has problems getting out of position and trying to do too much, but I'd rather have him than most any other saftey in the league and I'm definitely not going to bash him here.[/quote]

Well I am pessimistic too, that is why I am surprised this year. I just thought about stuff for a bit, and I was optimisticf for once.

Re: Sean Taylors play
 

[QUOTE=hooskins;308231]I dont know guys, I mean we have been talking about this stuff all last season and honestly I am kinda optimistic about next year.
[/QUOTE]

Me too.

Our secondary will be much better with a healthy Springs along with Rogers and Smoot at CB, there is depth where there wasn't last year. Saftey should be a big plus aswell, Taylor will only get better, the guy is a phyiscal freak and that enables him to make plays that other guys just can't. From all reports Landry has alot of potential.

LB's look good to, Fletcher, is a tough veteran MLB, he knows the system and should make a difference right away. Washington back at full health is a beast and Marhsall back outside with McIntosh, should be good!

The line is the issue and i like many others here feel that we need to add something on the d-line. I like Griff and Golston, with other DT's rotating. And remembering the strides that Carter made at the end of last season, after a painful re-adjustment period, gives me some hope that he could be our pass rush guy. Meaning that all Daniels/Wynn will need to do consitently is clog the line, stuff the run. If they can do this i'm sure the line will produce more pressure and sacks.

[QUOTE=hooskins;308231]Same offensive coordinator, more run. Remember end of last year, things were kinda gelling. JC's 2nd year and times for everyone to learn the system.I mean this is the first time in a while the offense has stayed the same.[/QUOTE]

The offence should be great this year, not good, but [B]great[/B]!

Re: Sean Taylors play
 

I really don't foresee any big changes in performance attributable to our personnel. Our secondary can't be considered greatly improved just by the addition of Fred Smoot (horrible last year in Minn) and LaRon Landry (keep in mind, a rookie).

I do think London Fletcher will help the defense overall with his QB skills in the middle. But more so, I expect improvement just because of better scheming by GW. He's got a few more tools at his disposal, but I expect him to learn a lot from last year and come up with something great for this season.

GW is the guy our D is really riding on. Just like JC is the guy our offense is really riding on. We can make this game really complicated if we want, but honestly, it's going to come down to those two guys: GW and JC.

Re: Sean Taylors play
 

[quote=Schneed10;308252]I really don't foresee any big changes in performance attributable to our personnel. Our secondary can't be considered greatly improved just by the addition of Fred Smoot (horrible last year in Minn) and LaRon Landry (keep in mind, a rookie).

I do think London Fletcher will help the defense overall with his QB skills in the middle. But more so, I expect improvement just because of better scheming by GW. He's got a few more tools at his disposal, but I expect him to learn a lot from last year and come up with something great for this season.

GW is the guy our D is really riding on. Just like JC is the guy our offense is really riding on. We can make this game really complicated if we want, but honestly, it's going to come down to those two guys: GW and JC.[/quote]


I think we can close this thread now. It's all about JC and GW.

I've contended all along that 'everything' rides on GW and his ability to coach 'around' deficiencies and cater to his strengths.

Re: Sean Taylors play
 

[quote=BrunellMVP?;308200]Pro-bowls have little use in determining akill...its a popularity contest.[/quote]

Which is is exactly why he was an alternate, he is not that popular among players, but even they cannot deny his abilities.

Re: Sean Taylors play
 

Of course Sean Taylor regressed given the situation with the safeties and the lack of coordination in the secondary.

I hope that the safeties and corners meet in one room, at the same time this year. Led by one person.