Football Outsiders: Worst rated CBs in the NFL in 2010 (DeAngelo ranked #2)

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Maybe because I see him as a huge liability on this defense. (and he is) The numbers and video evidence support everything I (and many others) have been saying for sometime.

What do you want me to do? Put on a pair of these?

Pretend nothing is wrong? Pretend we have the best talent in the league and we are on verge of a 16-0 season? I'm sorry, but I work on the realm of reality. My realm says this team is lacking a lot of talent, and it's going to take some time to replace that talent. During the meantime, I'm still going to pull for my beloved Redskins no matter how dysfunctional they seem.

Neither does saying D. Hall is a good CB, but doesn't stop people from doing it.

The team is lacking a lot of talent, but getting rid of Hall is not the answer. I've always said that Hall and Rogers compliment each other, and by themselves are not that great. Adding Otogwe should help, and hopefully improving the pass rush can help the secondary.

With Hall you get high risk and high reward. Instead of b*tching about how terrible Hall or Rogers, let's talk about how the team needs to improve to play to their strengths and limit their weaknesses.

[skinsfaninok]

Get off Hall my god, the guy is a solid CB, is he a great player? No but there is only 2-3 CB's worth being called ELITE today

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

Get off Hall my god, the guy is a solid CB, is he a great player? No but there is only 2-3 CB's worth being called ELITE today

No apparently he's the sole reason this team lost last year. Like I said, he's the new Jason Campbell. Get rid of him and we're money.

[skinsfaninok]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

No apparently he's the sole reason this team lost last year. Like I said, he's the new Jason Campbell. Get rid of him and we're money.

When Hall had 4 INT'S against Chicago I don't think many folks hated him then.. In fact I made a thread about it but I don't feel like searching for it lol

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

When Hall had 4 INT'S against Chicago I don't think many folks hated him then.. In fact I made a thread about it but I don't feel like searching for it lol

But...but...but....he sucks [/sarcasm]

[MonkFan4Life]

The funny thing is that you can throw a bunch of numbers out there and say yeah he's the second worst in the league but I doubt that if 32 teams could choose from the starting corners in the league he'd be the second to last to get picked. Let's be real, he's a gambler and we know that but what that man does is make plays, period. If we had a corner like that then he wouldn't be here. He is what we needed, and now that he's here naturally we have to find a reason to not like it.

[Chico23231]

Our secondary is our strongest area on the team. Sorry it is.

Not the LBs, not the D-Line, ha not our special teams for sure, not our Oline, not our QBs, not RBs, and def not our WRs. Maybe our TEs but Cooley play last year doesnt justify it.

[44ever]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Adding Otogwe should help, and hopefully improving the pass rush can help the secondary.

With Hall you get high risk and high reward. Instead of b*tching about how terrible Hall or Rogers, let's talk about how the team needs to improve to play to their strengths and limit their weaknesses.

This is the only way to see it at this point in time.

It's amazing Hall has been able to do anything with the time our D-line give opposing QB's and how weak the mid field has been. Build a more solid interior and get some pressure on the QB's and watch Halls stats climb.

[Swarley]

You can not possibly mean that dhalls play is somehow affected by the play of the rest of the defense could you?? That's a really outlandish comment....

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

The team is lacking a lot of talent, but getting rid of Hall is not the answer. I've always said that Hall and Rogers compliment each other, and by themselves are not that great. Adding Otogwe should help, and hopefully improving the pass rush can help the secondary.

With Hall you get high risk and high reward. Instead of b*tching about how terrible Hall or Rogers, let's talk about how the team needs to improve to play to their strengths and limit their weaknesses.

There's a smart comment. DHall looks a whole lot better if we improve our pass rush.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

The team is lacking a lot of talent, but getting rid of Hall is not the answer. I've always said that Hall and Rogers compliment each other, and by themselves are not that great. Adding Otogwe should help, and hopefully improving the pass rush can help the secondary.

With Hall you get high risk and high reward. Instead of b*tching about how terrible Hall or Rogers, let's talk about how the team needs to improve to play to their strengths and limit their weaknesses.

I think you're misusing the concepts of risk and reward to describe Hall. The reward to Hall, in 2010, is that he scored two touchdowns. Maybe a replacement level corner scores a touchdown every two or three years by just being in the right place at the right time. Doing a little bit of fuzzy math, maybe the reward to having Hall vs some other corner (Justin Tryon, for example), is that our point differential is ten points better than it would have been without him.

So if you replace Hall with an equally incompetent cover player (someone who would be out of the league after such a poor performance) who doesn't have Hall's ability to score touchdowns, the Redskins probably lose another one game (the Bears game, for example). Of course, if you replace Hall with a competent cover player who may lack inate TD scoring ability, you get a lot better than 10 points better on defense. Maybe 25 points better on defense is overstating the ability of a competent cover player vs. Hall, but I think 18-21 is reasonable. And then you lose multiple TD scores, so you maybe improve your team half a win to a win.

I guess what I'm saying is that if the end game is points and wins, the only risk in a player like Hall is the erratic-ness of his TD scoring. Sure you could get 2 TD's in 2010 and be only a little worse than average, or you could get 0 TD's like in 2008 or 2009 and be multiple wins below average. The only erratic part of Hall's player profile is not whether he's a liability -- but how much of one he is.

My belief - in 2010, he was less of a liability than he usually was because he probably scored enough (twice) to offset his lost coverage value. I just think he's very unlikely to do that again in 2011, or 2012.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by GreekSkin

No one noticed DeAngelo's improved tackling and general improvement in hustle (for lack of better term)?

or are we all about the numbers?

I don't know anyone wanted to talk about DeAngelo Hall's much improved run defense (seriously), I mean there are people who still think he's good against the pass.

I don't know about general improvement in hustle. He's always been that kind of player that puts that chip back on his shoulder when things are going well and raises his level of play to prove a point. A true frontrunner who, ironically, will never be employed by a frontrunner.

I'll say this: I'd never bet against Hall once he feels he has a quarterback figured out. If he actually starts to be right on his reads, he's as dangerous as anyone out there. The numbers are just there to remind us that this doesn't get to that level all that often. I mean, fourth quarter of the Lions game on: did he ever really get in a groove the rest of the year? No, he never got a good read on the quarterbacks he was facing, and was held without an INT for 8 games.

But boy, whoever put Matt Cassel in the pro bowl played right into his hands. He definitely had his number that game.

[Masshole]

[QUOTE=NC_Skins;790085]Maybe because I see him as a huge liability on this defense. (and he is) The numbers and video evidence support everything I (and many others) have been saying for sometime.

What do you want me to do? Put on a pair of these?



Pretend nothing is wrong? Pretend we have the best talent in the league and we are on verge of a 16-0 season? I'm sorry, but I work on the realm of reality. My realm says this team is lacking a lot of talent, and it's going to take some time to replace that talent. During the meantime, I'm still going to pull for my beloved Redskins no matter how dysfunctional they seem.


Thank you for all of this NC Skins, you've done an incredible job defending your points, and this last one is really what it's all about. Whether its conventional stats or Football Outsiders or Advanced Stats, we simply have a roster devoid of talent, and an organization-wide philosophy of failing to realize this. It's not that we're rooting against players like Deangelo Hall or Donovon McNabb to succeed. I would love for him to actually be as good as his reputation, but as NC Skins just showed, it's not just the stats that show he's bad in coverage, the tape does as well. As proud as I am as a Skins fan of Hall's Pro Bowl MVP, I think that pretty much is his ceiling, to use his incredible athleticsim to excel in flag football situations. But, re: the future of the Redskins, the first thing an addict needs to do to get better is admit we have a problem, and that we should really have no expectations of winning the Super Bowl or even getting to the playoffs with the roster we currently have, including our lack of a reliable #1 CB.

We can go one of two directions: continue to overvalue our players, repeat the 2010 offseason mindset of playing for right now, and continue to do what we've been doing -suck. Or we can acknowledge that we are at least 2-3 years away, and begin the process of rebuilding. A process that like others have said, D.Hall fits into for this season most likely, but not in the long term, because he's not that good of a player, and he makes far too much money.

Loose ends
-re: D.Hall's tackling - so true, I can't believe how much improvement he made
Kevin Barnes - Didn't he 'win' the Jacksonville game? Love that dude.

[Masshole]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I don't know anyone wanted to talk about DeAngelo Hall's much improved run defense (seriously), I mean there are people who still think he's good against the pass.

I don't know about general improvement in hustle. He's always been that kind of player that puts that chip back on his shoulder when things are going well and raises his level of play to prove a point. A true frontrunner who, ironically, will never be employed by a frontrunner.

I'll say this: I'd never bet against Hall once he feels he has a quarterback figured out. If he actually starts to be right on his reads, he's as dangerous as anyone out there. The numbers are just there to remind us that this doesn't get to that level all that often. I mean, fourth quarter of the Lions game on: did he ever really get in a groove the rest of the year? No, he never got a good read on the quarterbacks he was facing, and was held without an INT for 8 games.

But boy, whoever put Matt Cassel in the pro bowl played right into his hands. He definitely had his number that game.

As someone who spent the entire 2010 offseason complaining about how Hall would be a disaster in the 3-4 because he can't tackle anyone, I definitely was surprised by how much better Hall was as an open-field tackler, and yes, that deserves some credit. But that's really not the point. Deangelo Hall and Jim Haslett really are perfect bed fellows, guys with wildly overinflated reputations in terms of their value and accomplishments, and critical, demonstrable flaws in terms of their career records. For Hall, it lies in what NC Skins said, years upon years of terrible coverage metrics, whether it's KC Joyner, Football Outsiders, or Pro Football Focus. Of course those numbers aren't perfect and won't be so long as the NFL refuses to share coaches tape. But they're the only numbers we have, and the other top cornerbacks routinely make it into the top 10's, so they can't be that off.

But still, its the same thing with Haslett, go back and look at the completely non-controversial, boring conventional stats over the past 10 years, and you'll see that neither guy is ever on a defense that wasn't in the bottom half of the league or (more often that than that) bottom 5-10 teams. Then add that to the fact that our defense was one of the 5 worst in the league last year, and I think there's more than enough evidence to support the fact that Set A, let's call it NFL team success (as quantified by playoff victories), seems to be mutually exclusive from Set B (teams with Haslett led defenses) and Set C (defenses with D. Hall on them).

Einstein always said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and then expecting a different result. I agree. It is positively insane to expect the Redskins to be successful with Jim Haslett at defensive coordinator and D. Hall as our CB1 (though to a lesser extent on Hall). And we will not experience success until both of these guys are gone. Period.

[Swarley]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I don't know anyone wanted to talk about DeAngelo Hall's much improved run defense (seriously), I mean there are people who still think he's good against the pass.

I don't know about general improvement in hustle. He's always been that kind of player that puts that chip back on his shoulder when things are going well and raises his level of play to prove a point. A true frontrunner who, ironically, will never be employed by a frontrunner.

I'll say this: I'd never bet against Hall once he feels he has a quarterback figured out. If he actually starts to be right on his reads, he's as dangerous as anyone out there. The numbers are just there to remind us that this doesn't get to that level all that often. I mean, fourth quarter of the Lions game on: did he ever really get in a groove the rest of the year? No, he never got a good read on the quarterbacks he was facing, and was held without an INT for 8 games.

But boy, whoever put Matt Cassel in the pro bowl played right into his hands. He definitely had his number that game.

ok fair enough, I'll buy that.