KC Joyner Hearts Fred Bennett [ESPN the Mag]

[Bigtinylittle]

I remember reading that Sanders used to play off receivers quite a bit sometimes, hoping to lure the QB into throwing to his man. That's scary good.

[NBT]

Still it's good to see some of these eastern writers start to pick up on how far the Texans have come along in just 2 short years.

I look for the pass defense, and the run defense to be much improved this year.

I think Bennet will continue to improve.

What I am wondering about now is whether or not Schaub is the QB we need to take us to that next level. Not knocking the kid, just need to see more than we were able to last year.

[dadmg]

For what its worth, the game charters at Football Outsiders are in agreement with Joyner on this. From the Texans chapter of their book Pro Football Prospectus 2008 (very interesting read, btw, although i liked the essays better last year):

Sometimes an injury - even to a key player - can have a silver lining. Such was the case with cornerback Dunta Robinson. The blow from his midseason injury was greatly softened by the wholly astonishing play of rookie Fred Bennett. Stepping into the starting lineup for Robinson in Week 9, Bennett not only outplayed the former first round pick he replaced - he outplayed most every corner in the league. Bennet led the league in Adjusted Yards per Pass and was second in Success Rate. He was at his best when covering the opposition's top reciever, allowing 4.0 Adjusted Yards per Pass with a 63 percent Success Rate (compared to 7.8 and 61 percent for Robinson, or 10.4 and 36 percent for Demarcus Faggins). He wasn't perfect - he needs to improve his tackling - but if Bennett's rookie performance is for real, and Robinson is able to return to full effectiveness in the second half of the season, the Texans will turn a historical weakness into a team strength.

To put this into more context, Bennet ranked 2nd in the NFL last year in their success rate statistic and first among corners (just ahead of Nnamdi Asomoghua, who was targeted so few times they had to change their minimum numbers...talk about a shutdown corner) and Dunta ranked 9th, up from 20th in 2006 and 41st in 2005.

Additional note: they also note that "C.C. Brown was not a favorite of our game charters, who noted his tendency to get lost in zone coverage and his poor tackling form in run support - the latter being his supposed strength."

[KJ3]

Originally Posted by ArlingtonTexan

That said, Bennett played well (better than I expected), but was not the "premier" corner in the league.

well if the numbers are there to back it up what do you have against them? stats don't tell the whole story, sure enough...but there is reason why they are kept!

Originally Posted by NBT

What I am wondering about now is whether or not Schaub is the QB we need to take us to that next level. Not knocking the kid, just need to see more than we were able to last year.

how many games do you give before you decide?

Originally Posted by dadmg

For what its worth, the game charters at Football Outsiders are in agreement with Joyner on this. From the Texans chapter of their book Pro Football Prospectus 2008

link?

[painekiller]

Originally Posted by KJ3

link?

Link to Football Outsiders

[ArlingtonTexan]

Originally Posted by KJ3

well if the numbers are there to back it up what do you have against them? stats don't tell the whole story, sure enough...but there is reason why they are kept!

I am not convinced that many (not all) stats kept are reflective of good or bad play. I do find both Joyner and football outsiders insteresting in looking at a game differently, but not better than people who have a good eye for the game. The flaw is the attempt to make everything quantifiable, somethings are not.

Overall, if I think the method is flawed, but yields a result that I like that does not override my feeling the method is flawed.

[kravix]

Originally Posted by ArlingtonTexan

I am not convinced that many (not all) stats kept are reflective of good or bad play. I do find both Joyner and football outsiders insteresting in looking at a game differently, but not better than people who have a good eye for the game. The flaw is the attempt to make everything quantifiable, somethings are not.

Overall, if I think the method is flawed, but yields a result that I like that does not override my feeling the method is flawed.

you are right.

Its like that commercial. 90% of all statistics can be made to say anything 60% of the time.

Stats need to be compared against tons of other factors to really make a point.

Take Reeves. He played opposite Newman, one of the better shut down corners in the league. His breakdown doesnt reflect that. He had one of the worst safeties in the league supporting him over the top. Stats dont reflect that.

Look at the Denver corners. They are an insane tandem. One of them has to come up on the short end of the stick stats wise. That doesnt mean he isnt a good corner.

[KJ3]

Originally Posted by Bigtinylittle

I remember reading that Sanders used to play off receivers quite a bit sometimes, hoping to lure the QB into throwing to his man. That's scary good.

put yourself in the qb's perspective (if you haven't already), this guy is actually daring you to throw. if you don't you're a punk, if you do you're in trouble.

Originally Posted by kravix

you are right.

Its like that commercial. 90% of all statistics can be made to say anything 60% of the time.

Stats need to be compared against tons of other factors to really make a point

like that bennett had petey faggins playing across from him and brown or demps over the top? our defensive backfield wasn't exactly chock full of stellar players when bennett came into the mold. roy williams sucks but he makes pro bowls somehow.

[Bigtinylittle]

Originally Posted by kravix

you are right.

Its like that commercial. 90% of all statistics can be made to say anything 60% of the time.

Stats need to be compared against tons of other factors to really make a point.

Take Reeves. He played opposite Newman, one of the better shut down corners in the league. His breakdown doesnt reflect that. He had one of the worst safeties in the league supporting him over the top. Stats dont reflect that.

Look at the Denver corners. They are an insane tandem. One of them has to come up on the short end of the stick stats wise. That doesnt mean he isnt a good corner.

I agree with this. Statistics are overrated. A good eye is more important. A good eye for talent comes from a long process of learning to understand what makes up talent. Football is a very complicated sport. I think the the main problem Casserly had is that compared to other GMs he just didn't really have a good eye for talent. And by that I mean not only how good someone HAS BEEN, but also how likely they will be to be good in the future. Of course, it's a guessing game even for the best of coaches and GMs, but the guys with the best eyes will tend to be the ones with the best quesses. One of the things that makes me so optimistic about the future of the Texans is that Kubiak and Smith DO seem to have that eye.

[dadmg]

Originally Posted by KJ3

link?

It's from their annual book, so i couldn't link, only quote.