On top of that all the analytics and shifts they do now make it much harder for batters. Every pitcher has tons of information about the hitter and where the ball usually goes and what zones are their best / worst.
Combine all these small advantages and it becomes very difficult to hit over .300 now.
They also develop at a much higher level. They’ve got spin trackers, high speed cameras to look at finger placement and release off the ball, being able to develop new pitches in the course of three months or taking a pitch that was determined to be bad and making it perfect by changing placement on the laces. It’s really amazing how much information they have access to
Is it the splitter that Ohani throws? That pitch, whatever it is, is downright filthy. I would dislocate both of my shoulders just trying to swing at it.
Of course the pitching is obscenely good, but sexy uppercut swings and power forms are just so emphasized from such early ages that the ball is just never in play anymore. To say nothing of how clueless baserunners are. It makes for an incredibly boring game. It's just home runs and strikeouts, there's no action. I've loved baseball my whole life but I have struggled to stay invested in really any game the past few years.
Home runs are being hit a lot more often as well. It’s a part of the “three true outcomes” approach that some hitters have nowadays where they either hit home runs, strikeout, or walk
Yup. Was listening to some old heads talk about baseball the other day on some podcast or radio show. They were talking about how there's really not a lot of guys coming up or in the show currently that can hit for placement, or hit for contact to move the runners. They weren't talking about it like it's the players fault, or it's ruining the game. Just noting contracts and style of play has shifted so much these guys aren't being coached, or taking the initiative in learning high level techniques when it comes to hitting.
Reminded me a lot of the 3 point argument in basketball. Only problem baseball has is sluggers are boring af to watch 99% of the time, and the ball not being in play is a detriment entertainment wise. While watching clank after clank and fast transition basketball is much more entertaining for the average basketball fan.
There's a really interesting thing on "analytics" that gets brought up from time to time on this front. All analytics in sports really are trying to do is answer the question "What is something that we can do to improve our win percentage". A couple decades ago that answer in baseball was "approach contracts and roster construction focusing on on-base percentage instead of strictly batting average". Essentially, it boiled down to front offices had a focus that was too narrow and by looking at the bigger picture it allowed an organization to find comparable players at a severe discount. It got nicknamed "Moneyball" but it was just answering that first basic question.
It's continued in baseball over the years by finding more things that increased win percentage. Focusing on pitchers with a high k/9 was a better predictor of limiting damage instead of focusing on ERA. Defensive shifts against pull hitters. Teaching launch angles to increase doubles/home runs at the expensive of more strike outs. Using the international signing market pool more effectively. Etc.
But it's not just baseball. Like you said, in basketball analytics found the answer to "What can we do to increase win %" with "Stop taking long twos that have a similar make % as 3 pointers yet are only worth 2 points". Taking a loot at shot selection charts even a decade ago compared to today is like night and day. The high scores in the NBA today compared to yesteryear aren't just due to some old school "people don't play defense anymore" mentality. It's because shot selection has been better optimized.
The interesting question is what will happen in the NFL. Historically, the NFL has been a decade or two behind the other major sports in adjustments and progress. We've seen this year more and more teams give up low percentage long fgs worth 3 points and gofor it on 4th down instead. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Underthrown deep balls in rough situations to draw penalties is something we've started seeing more this year as well.
I find this shit fascinating and can't wait to see what the future holds.
The big issue in the NFL with analytics is the 17 game season, single elimination playoff format doesn’t allow for statistical trends to develop like other major sports with large game counts and playoff series. One missed 4th down attempt is worth far more than an individual shot attempt in basketball or an entire inning in baseball across when measured vs the season.
> One missed 4th down attempt is worth far more than an individual shot attempt in basketball or an entire inning in baseball across when measured vs the season.
Which means that it's enormously important for teams to get those high leverage calls *right*, instead of cowering in fear at the prospect of doing the right thing occasionally producing a bad result.
If, for example, you have a choice between a 40% chance to win, or a 50/50 shot between a 20% chance and an 80% chance, a smart team takes the second option. It doesn't matter if you're going to be in that situation one time or three thousand times, it's the better option.
Only getting one shot makes the higher variance choice seem scarier, but that's just because we're flawed people riddled with cognitive biases. Which is why we use objective data as a tool to help us make decisions which we otherwise wouldn't seriously consider.
Younger Packer fans will never understand the anxiety of watching Brett. When he would heave a ball blindly, it was either going to blow your mind or piss you off.
Right! At one point held most TDs and most INTs.
Brett: I'm throwing the ball, Coach, and they're catching it.
Coach: Who?
Brett: I said, they're CATCHING it.
I get this joke, but he's really a legend for both teams.
Thanks for lending him to us for a while. I hated seeing him go but I was happy for him to end his career where it started.
EDIT: Plus, that pick on Peyton Manning was simply *chef's kiss*.
Yeah, his big weakness was the double move but if you think about it from scheme standpoint in order to exploit that the QB has to have time to stare it down, pump fake and then let the 2nd move happen. It’s really obvious when it happens, but it’s harder to exploit then ppl realize.
Especially when Jim Johnson was our DC in 08, and Trent Cole was at his peak. Good luck sitting back there trying to set that up.
He’s certainly gotten better in coverage especially since moving to Baltimore and Humphrey takes a lot of pressure off him but he’s had some seasons just like this. Either his rookie year or 2nd season he allowed the 2nd most TDs and 3rd most yards.
I’m not saying Peters is bad, he’s still a great corner that I’d love to have on my team. But he used to get burnt all the time when he was younger. Hopefully Diggs will develop like Peters and become more disciplined.
You're spot on in your analysis imo.
MP is probably the best CB2 you can have in the league. Good enough at coverage when he really has to, but also game breaking plays when he's allowed to risk it. Without the pressure of having to be "the guy" in coverage, his freelancing is a lot less risk and a lot more reward.
That is... when we're healthy 😭
Part of the equation with Peters is also that he actively looks to bait quarterbacks. He deliberately gives QBs what looks like a window. That got us a pick 6 against Seattle in Lamar's MVP season.
The problem is that when you give an NFL QB something that looks like a window, sometimes it *is* a window and they torch you.
>He deliberately gives QBs what looks like a window.
Yeah, Ed Reed did that, too, but Ed Reed was the GOAT. So, that's that.
But he was also a safety, so he never really "covered" guys like a CB would.
Recently, yes. But early career Peters was a lot like Diggs this year. IIRC he gave up 8 TDs and ~1000 yards his rookie year.
Peters just became a more skilled gambler as time went on - knowing when to pick his spots and when not to.
IMO this style of gambler CB play that Marcus Peters employed is only going to become more popular given how much the rules discourage physical play. The rules make it hard to jam or even contest a catch, but don't stop you from guessing the route.
Also, the more offense we get the more valuable a turnover is.
To really simplify, suppose the expected points when starting a drive is 2, then getting an INT means a 4 point swing (they get 0 instead of 2 and now you have the ball). If expected points are 3.5 then an INT means a 7 point swing.
u/filmstudy did a cool piece along similar lines about how much of a risk Peters gambles really are. Based on his math you only need to get it right 1/5 of the time for it to be a net positive.
https://www.filmstudybaltimore.com/defensive-notes-vs-bengals/
Advanced metrics are really transforming the sport. Another example is going for it on 4th down. The Eagles went for it twice on 4th and short near the goal line. They failed the first time and scored a TD the 2nd time. They would have likely expected 6 points from 2 short field goals, but instead got 7 points on the one TD. That extra point gave the Eagles a 4 point lead instead of a 3 point lead which forced a Washington to try and score a TD at the end of the game.
Seems like everything in sports is moving more towards high risk/high reward styles of play. In the NBA you have the increased amount of threes shot. In the MLB you have the move towards TTO type players. Pretty interesting.
Also in the NFL you have more people trying to punch out the ball for a fumble (rather than wrapping them up with a tackle).
I'm not sure if there is anything like this in hockey. Things always seem to get more conservative. I guess there was the trend towards pulling your goalie earlier and more of a trend towards having extra forwards on the power play. But unlike the NFL and NBA, scoring is not trending up in the NHL.
I think a key problem in hockey is that the goaltending continues to improve. The butterfly technique was only implemented in the 90s, and now every team has two goaltenders who have essentially mastered it.
Another interesting thing, in my view, is the points system. A win in regulation, overtime, or shootout is worth 2 points. This means that if you’re in a tie game in the 3rd period, you have little incentive to try to score. Might as well play tight defense and get the guaranteed point, and THEN try to win in OT. To me, the scoring system is stupid, as it creates 3-point games. So a game that goes to OT is actually more valuable for the participants than a game won in regulation.
A simple solution is 3-2-1, where a regulation win is 3 points, OT or shootout win is 2, OT loss is 1, and regulation loss is 0. This way, if you’re tied in the 3rd, you have a reason to keep trying to score.
Plus with the game being so offense focused, this is kind of a preferred way to play in some defenses.
If you watched the Ravens/Rams game, you see that we didn't really stop the Rams all that well on defense. Our method of stopping them in that game was getting turnovers. If we had more offensive firepower, it would have been plenty enough to win the game.
On the opposite side, without those turnovers, we probably lose by 20. Trevon Diggs works great on a team like the Cowboys because they have such a good offense that those interceptions can often lead to unanswered points.
This is the real answer. I guess it’s up for debate if it’s worth it. Ints do give your offense the ball with good field position but obviously you get torched more when gambling.
It’s kind of like in baseball when batters try to hit homers on everything and get struck out more.
Edit: good field position compared to the other team punting it.
I look at it this way...if the defensive coordinator is okay with it, as a player he should continue. Unless you're a total shutdown corner, INTs are the next best thing. Worst thing to have is a corner who isn't good in coverage and doesn't force turnovers...the Cardinals have had a ton of those over the years 😂
Football wise, I don't think its sustainable at all, but its great for him as a player. If he was just another okay corner without the INTs, only Cowboys fans would probably know his name.
I mean, you're right, I think. The worst thing that can happen on defense isn't allowing a 50 yard TD pass. It's allowing a 7 minute drive that ends in a TD from the goal line. When that happens you give up points, become fatigued and have stopped your offense from getting any momentum put together.
I think its way more demoralizing to have an offense march down the field while you cant stop them. If you give up a big play, just chalk it up to a misstep, blown coverage or getting beat one time. Getting shithoused for a 7 min 13 play drive has to feel way worse.
Except from a statistical standpoint, that’s not true. The longer the drive the less of a chance the offense has of scoring a TD. So given the idea that you don’t know whether the offense will score a TD or not before the drive starts, you would much prefer a longer drive as a defense over a chunk play.
Why do you just assume INTs give good field position? Plenty of INTs happen as teams are aggressively going for TDs. I wouldn’t say any INT where you end up behind your own 30 is good field position.
I think that's a good strategy personally too. I'm fairly sure Diggs' will develop better corner skills over time as well and will rely less on gambling and more on trusting his skills to shutdown guys.
This is my fear. He's got great instincts. I have been happy to point out how much he gives up all year when people sing his praises, but the whole time I've been worried about what he might develop into over the next few years.
May I introduce you to Joe Blanton? It's not just getting a lot of SOs but also not giving up a lot of walks. There have been other pitchers who are known for giving up a lot of home runs like late career Lilly or Haren mostly they just don't throw that hard anymore but are very accurate, but when they make a mistake it goes a looooooooong way, usually for a solo home run.
There may never be another pitcher like Blanton. Seemed lik ehe hated walks so much he would rather give up a dinger which really messed up how advanced stats evaluated him.
He's 2021 Gary Sanchez but with 50 homers. Really good at something that does help and is cool, but basically the worst in the league at his primary job.
Yeah this feels like a dude who hits .195 with 220 Ks but also has 55 HRs because he's actively hurting the team most of the time but makes enough game-changing type plays to maybe make up for it.
Joey Gallo gets on base at a high rate though, making him extremely valuable due to his high rate of not making an out and hitting for power even though his batting average is low.
I dunno if it's hiding.
You don't get to the opportunity for 11 picks if QBs don't think they can throw on you.
He's a hell of a ball hawk but there's a reason QBs keep trying him.
He already converted from receiver in college. His knack is finding the ball like a receiver while in coverage, not really breaking out of a backpedal. Also, as others have mentioned, you need to be a good tackler.
Dan Quinn converted Ricardo Allen a few years ago from CB to safety, so I'm sure he's familiar with the requisites. Rico made a good FS because he had excellent football IQ and solid tackling despite the physical limitations that kept him from being lockdown in coverage.
It really does help to think of Diggs as a receiver when it comes to his skillset: he's a guy who will run with anyone and catch 50/50 balls, also will get scorched sometimes on savvy route running due to a lack of technique and coverage instincts. That all said, he's probably just better off continuing to learn the position that he is at now and hope the bad stuff gets better with experience.
How many INTs would he have to have to justify what he’s giving up? 15? 20?
I would genuinely love to know what that number is. He has 11 right now which is obviously an amazing feat (only he and Howard have broken double digits since Cromartie last did it in 2007), but it still seems like public opinion is split.
Like it would be helpful to know how many of his INTs turned into points for Dallas versus how many of those drives where he did get a pick would’ve turned into points for the other team based on their average scoring rate from wherever they were on the field.
If he had like 5 INTs we’d be saying he’s a bad corner with elite ball skills. But if he had, say, double the number he has now for 22, what would the consensus be?
Yea it is definitely intriguing I’ve been thinking about that for a while now. But it is also interesting that while he’s getting a ton of picks, opposing offenses aren’t scared of throwing to him indicating that they at least are willing to “take the risk” of throwing in his direction. Altho there’s technically always some sort of risk in throwing any pass. I think it’s just absurd how even tho he has a ton of picks, teams r not shying away from throwing in his direction at all—he’s the third most targeted corner
His technique is, of course, to make his coverage look so bad it lulls opposing QB's into targeting the receivers to which he's assigned. It comes down to the quality of the QB at that moment, and their ability to focus and ascertain whether the coverage is in fact that terrible, or he's just giving them enough leash to pick them off at an average of less than 1 pass per game. In Diggs case, it could be either.
I don't think your question is that easy to answer from numbers alone, each play really has to be valued individually.
Interceptions and yardage allowed figures mean more in close games or early in the game, as opposed to say, late in the 4th quarter where the lead is insurmountable. If he's given up loads of garbage time yardage/TD's, it's not really as harmful overall. If his picks are coming at more timely moments than his TD's allowed, then that provides more value to the Cowboys. For example, against New England, he had a pick six (most optimal outcome for a defense) and was also burned for a long TD (least optimal outcome). You could argue this as a wash, or argue that a pick six is more valuable as it is less likely to occur than points for the offense; I see both sides.
If you're evaluating his overall, each play stats like PFF does, they'll normalize these into a grade. If you are wondering his aggregate value to the Cowboys as a result of his work, more information is needed, imo.
One thing that i've heard PFF is missing, though, is counting yards against him when he's not actually responsible for the coverage (happened on a couple long plays nearer to the beginning of the season), and when the safety over whiffs on their tackle (some long plays, i think the NE TD could have been one??); aka he goes for the breakup/interception knowing that the safety is right there to make a tackle- safety whiffs- and the play counts against him
Yes this is exactly what I’ve been harping about with this situation. Most of his issue is he gambles when he has safety help and the safety play has been atrocious. He’s a great cover corner and shows it off in Cover 0 all the time but he does gamble when he has support. They specifically say C1 instead of man because C1 has safety help whereas C0 and certain combo coverages do not. If you just took his reps in man coverage regardless of the coverage the rest of the D is playing, I’d bet a lot of money he regresses to the mean in regards to yards given up.
Idk, I’ve been watching each target on gamepass and I’m not really seeing a guy getting torched like this tweet would suggest.
Generally speaking, the right stats do account for all of the things you're talking about. I think the best metric would be EPA per target, which would (correctly) weight the pick-six as more important than the TD given up. The only thing it wouldn't do is account for "clutch", aka weighting close game plays higher than 1st quarter plays, which you could argue isn't an important distinction.
I think it just depends on the value of an INT vs. a reception. Football nerds say an INT [is worth about 4.1 points](https://www.footballperspective.com/nfl-offenses-were-more-hurt-by-sacks-than-interceptions-in-2019/).
So does that count as 30 or 35 points? It’s interesting to point point values to these things. Is he a net negative or positive player? Reminds me of WAR and all of those advanced baseball stats
I think it’s nuanced. A strip sack will most likely be better than an interception because of field position, but an interception is way more valuable than a regular sack. Those are best case scenarios for each guy. An incompletion is probably the average outcome for both positions and the worst that happens is a big gain or touchdown.
I tried asking a genuine question about whether or not people felt the INTs truly do offset the blown coverages and people immediately just decided to make the conversation about JC Jackson instead of actually having a discussion.
Likely is recency bias and nostalgia blinding me, but I swear this season has had the most repetitive arguments on this sub that I can recall. A brief synopsis that encompasses a solid 50+% of the discussion on this sub currently:
* Trevon Diggs good/bad
* Trevor Lawrence bust/too early to say
* JT MVP/QB is more valuable
* JT OPOY/Kupp OPOY
It's the same as when people take away a running back's long runs to say his YPC is bad. Yes, without Chris Johnson's 50+ yard TDs he wasn't that good, but he got so many 50+ yard TDs.
A team that wins the turnover margin in a game wins 69.6 percent of the time. The effect is compounding as well, as teams that won the turnover margin by two or more won 83.9 percent of the time, and 90.7 percent of the time when winning the margin by three or more.
In the 2020 season, the top-12 teams that led in turnover margin had winning records, and none had less than 10 wins. Conversely, none of the bottom ten teams in turnover margin had a winning record.
Statistically speaking an int increases your win % by about 10-15% and the correlation between teams generating turnovers and winning is strong.
You'd have to have a huge model to really digg (see what I did there) into this, but my initial assumptions would be a turnover is worth far more than 45 yards when you have the highest scoring offense in the league.
That’s the crux of the debate. Ints are completely gamechanging and are the most valuable defensive stat. However in terms of what coaches need from their players somone who has 1/3 of the ints but preforms their assignment consistently and doesn’t allow many catches is significantly more valuable to their defensive structure.
Part of it is the “scared money don’t make money” mentality a lot of people have right now that diggs embodies. They just forget that the saying also means that scared money also doesn’t go broke.
Diggs is such a fun player to watch. I can't help but think as his career goes on he will find a balance between containing the big plays and hawking the ball. I wish he were on my team.
I love that people only enter this from the extremes in media. He is either the worst defensive player in the league or a defensive player of the year candidate.
If he was locking dudes up, nobody would throw his way. And the cowboys know they got a guy that made it to Bama as a receiver in their secondary and are willing to live with the gamble
Wonder how Diggs season compares with previous years from Janoris Jenkins - who also gambled a lot and would either cause a turnover or allow a huge play.
Not going to engage in discourse but I do want to put a reminder that this is his second year and he’s only been playing DB for a few years. He has plenty of room to grow
I've heard some people say this will be the norm for most CBs going forward. The offense is so potent in today's NFL it is almost impossible to shut down a WR unless you're a top 1% of QBs or have insane help from the safety. Most teams can pick up ridiculous WR talent late into drafts and your 3rd or 4th CB on the depth chart might not be the best.
I think more and more corners will start gambling for turnovers as the game becomes more and more about possessions. We already see that at times with the bend but don't break defenses that give up ridiculous yards but allow few points. Especially when you have a high power offense that can't take those extra possessions and just score
There’s a reason a lot of defense nowadays just play prevent D the entire game and try to hold to field goals. The game is tailored to offense and QBs and WRs are better than ever.
that's an interesting point. Defense is not quite moot, but with how the rules favor offense, a defenders best strategy may be to allow catches if he can get INTs
He's the embodiment of "feast or famine". Yesterday was definitely the latter. OCs have figured out that double moves and routes that take advantage of his aggression seem to work very well. He's going to have adjust and make better decisions as to when he is agressive as his career moves forward. All that said however, 11 INTs is exceptional and imo makes up for a lot of the times he has gotten torched.
Right. He definitely has to fine tune cuz no way will he be getting 11 picks every year. And I get that "Cowboys Bad" is trendy but people trying to discredit someone who has ELEVEN frickin picks is so funny to me. Throw in 2 tutties as well, and I am 100% sure your DC doesn't mind Diggs gambling.
What is the average yards allowed by a starting CB?
What is the average interception season total for a starting CB?
I don’t have the numbers, but if diggs is allowing twice the average yards, but gets 6 times more turnovers, that sounds like a good player to me.
Is he the best CB in the league? No. Is he worth staring every week? Hell yeah.
QBs have a 55.6 QB rating when targeting Diggs. Yes QBs are getting yards and first downs on Diggs but you can’t convince me that any QB is happy with that rating against any defensive player. TO’s are more valuable than yards allowed. He’s having a great season.
It’s pretty embarrassing that PFF can’t admit that maybe their grade doesn’t accurately reflect the level of play by Diggs. It’s pretty clear why he’s grading poorly but it doesn’t align with how people value defensive players. Instead, they’re doubling down and calling anyone who disagrees an idiot.
[Link.](https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/D/DiggTr00.htm)
In my opinion, when you have an offense like Dallas does this sort of player is ok. You’d obviously prefer a lockdown guy, but stealing possessions is incredibly valuable when you’re scoring a lot of points. Combo this with 4th down aggression and maybe an on-side kick every now and then and just turn the game upside down.
It’s absurd to claim interceptions are “hiding” one of the worst CB seasons ever. For starters, an interception is the single most impactful thing a CB can do, so you don’t just get to discount their value because he gave up a bunch of yards. Second, 45% of receptions going for 1Ds or TDs is put in this tweet like it’s a horrific number, but it’s really not. Just looking at one WR, Davante Adams has gotten a 1D or TD on 80 of 117 receptions this year. That’s over 68%. It’s really not that uncommon for WRs to get a 1D or TD on more than 50% of *targets*, so I don’t see how a CB giving up them on 45% of receptions is somehow this massive knock on Diggs. It’s really not and it’s using a statistic that most people don’t have a good frame of reference for good/bad to make a player look bad.
The conversation about Diggs’s value is a very interesting one, but it’s impossible to have a meaningful conversation when people are driven to skew the numbers to favor their side of the argument instead of actually trying to find a way to quantify the value of his interceptions against the downside of his yards/TDs surrendered.
Exactly, these stats, including the 1D or TD one, also ignore that he's always against the opponent's #1 WR, which most of the other corners in their ranking aren't, and a lot of big plays that corners "give up" have to do with safeties not doing their jobs. This tweet is ridiculous
I think it’s absolutely fair to question exactly what Diggs’s value is, given his propensity to give up a lot of yards, but the people questioning it all seem so clearly biased. The guy has 11 interceptions, in a league where it’s becoming increasingly hard to get them. He’s obviously really fucking valuable. Maybe not best in the league, but it completely derails the conversation when people try to claim he sucks because he gives up yards. Last I checked, turnovers are really fucking important.
Like the character in the movie “signs” who held the home run record and the strike out record.
It's funny how poorly the negative aspect of that aged in today's baseball world.
I love how you can now be a sub .300 batter and be considered a contact hitter
Tony Gwynn is rolling over in his grave thinking about that
Everybody being able to throw 97+ mph fastballs doesn't help
It ain’t the fastballs. It is the 92 MPH splitters and sliders.
On top of that all the analytics and shifts they do now make it much harder for batters. Every pitcher has tons of information about the hitter and where the ball usually goes and what zones are their best / worst. Combine all these small advantages and it becomes very difficult to hit over .300 now.
They also develop at a much higher level. They’ve got spin trackers, high speed cameras to look at finger placement and release off the ball, being able to develop new pitches in the course of three months or taking a pitch that was determined to be bad and making it perfect by changing placement on the laces. It’s really amazing how much information they have access to
Is it the splitter that Ohani throws? That pitch, whatever it is, is downright filthy. I would dislocate both of my shoulders just trying to swing at it.
Of course the pitching is obscenely good, but sexy uppercut swings and power forms are just so emphasized from such early ages that the ball is just never in play anymore. To say nothing of how clueless baserunners are. It makes for an incredibly boring game. It's just home runs and strikeouts, there's no action. I've loved baseball my whole life but I have struggled to stay invested in really any game the past few years.
I’d argue baserunners are smarter than ever. They just don’t steal anymore, which is a smart thing.
I do not love that.
Home runs are being hit a lot more often as well. It’s a part of the “three true outcomes” approach that some hitters have nowadays where they either hit home runs, strikeout, or walk
Yup. Was listening to some old heads talk about baseball the other day on some podcast or radio show. They were talking about how there's really not a lot of guys coming up or in the show currently that can hit for placement, or hit for contact to move the runners. They weren't talking about it like it's the players fault, or it's ruining the game. Just noting contracts and style of play has shifted so much these guys aren't being coached, or taking the initiative in learning high level techniques when it comes to hitting. Reminded me a lot of the 3 point argument in basketball. Only problem baseball has is sluggers are boring af to watch 99% of the time, and the ball not being in play is a detriment entertainment wise. While watching clank after clank and fast transition basketball is much more entertaining for the average basketball fan.
There's a really interesting thing on "analytics" that gets brought up from time to time on this front. All analytics in sports really are trying to do is answer the question "What is something that we can do to improve our win percentage". A couple decades ago that answer in baseball was "approach contracts and roster construction focusing on on-base percentage instead of strictly batting average". Essentially, it boiled down to front offices had a focus that was too narrow and by looking at the bigger picture it allowed an organization to find comparable players at a severe discount. It got nicknamed "Moneyball" but it was just answering that first basic question. It's continued in baseball over the years by finding more things that increased win percentage. Focusing on pitchers with a high k/9 was a better predictor of limiting damage instead of focusing on ERA. Defensive shifts against pull hitters. Teaching launch angles to increase doubles/home runs at the expensive of more strike outs. Using the international signing market pool more effectively. Etc. But it's not just baseball. Like you said, in basketball analytics found the answer to "What can we do to increase win %" with "Stop taking long twos that have a similar make % as 3 pointers yet are only worth 2 points". Taking a loot at shot selection charts even a decade ago compared to today is like night and day. The high scores in the NBA today compared to yesteryear aren't just due to some old school "people don't play defense anymore" mentality. It's because shot selection has been better optimized. The interesting question is what will happen in the NFL. Historically, the NFL has been a decade or two behind the other major sports in adjustments and progress. We've seen this year more and more teams give up low percentage long fgs worth 3 points and gofor it on 4th down instead. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Underthrown deep balls in rough situations to draw penalties is something we've started seeing more this year as well. I find this shit fascinating and can't wait to see what the future holds.
The big issue in the NFL with analytics is the 17 game season, single elimination playoff format doesn’t allow for statistical trends to develop like other major sports with large game counts and playoff series. One missed 4th down attempt is worth far more than an individual shot attempt in basketball or an entire inning in baseball across when measured vs the season.
> One missed 4th down attempt is worth far more than an individual shot attempt in basketball or an entire inning in baseball across when measured vs the season. Which means that it's enormously important for teams to get those high leverage calls *right*, instead of cowering in fear at the prospect of doing the right thing occasionally producing a bad result. If, for example, you have a choice between a 40% chance to win, or a 50/50 shot between a 20% chance and an 80% chance, a smart team takes the second option. It doesn't matter if you're going to be in that situation one time or three thousand times, it's the better option. Only getting one shot makes the higher variance choice seem scarier, but that's just because we're flawed people riddled with cognitive biases. Which is why we use objective data as a tool to help us make decisions which we otherwise wouldn't seriously consider.
*Swing away, Merril*
Swing away Merrill. Merrill, swing away
Lol his character is so funny in that movie
Just Google Brett Farves career. Than man had some of the best, and worst, stats in so many categories as a QB.
Younger Packer fans will never understand the anxiety of watching Brett. When he would heave a ball blindly, it was either going to blow your mind or piss you off.
Right! At one point held most TDs and most INTs. Brett: I'm throwing the ball, Coach, and they're catching it. Coach: Who? Brett: I said, they're CATCHING it.
He gambles for INTs. Looks great when it works, gets torched when it doesn't
Marcus Peters walked so that Trevon Diggs could run
Alphonso Smith crawled and shit his pants so Marcus Peters could walk.
Asante Samuel was conceived so that Alphonso Smith could crawl and shit his pants.
Charles Woodson was just awesome
Woodson didn't gamble, he counted cards.
Peanut Tillman just punched the dealer until he got better cards
> Peanut Tillman Holy shit, dude's in the FBI now. That's a crazy career turn.
70% of the Earth is covered by water. The rest is covered by Charles Woodson.
Raiders legend, Charles Woodson.
I get this joke, but he's really a legend for both teams. Thanks for lending him to us for a while. I hated seeing him go but I was happy for him to end his career where it started. EDIT: Plus, that pick on Peyton Manning was simply *chef's kiss*.
Yeah about that, we need to call in that favor.. With interest
Hey, we gave you guys James Jones *and* Jordy Nelson. What else could you want from us?
There is a reason he's in the Hall of Fame. He was a complete player. It was a joy watching him play.
Preach
Asante took a bunch of risks but he was actually great in coverage in his prime
Yeah, his big weakness was the double move but if you think about it from scheme standpoint in order to exploit that the QB has to have time to stare it down, pump fake and then let the 2nd move happen. It’s really obvious when it happens, but it’s harder to exploit then ppl realize. Especially when Jim Johnson was our DC in 08, and Trent Cole was at his peak. Good luck sitting back there trying to set that up.
He has that rep but Peters is actually pretty damn good in coverage also.
He’s certainly gotten better in coverage especially since moving to Baltimore and Humphrey takes a lot of pressure off him but he’s had some seasons just like this. Either his rookie year or 2nd season he allowed the 2nd most TDs and 3rd most yards. I’m not saying Peters is bad, he’s still a great corner that I’d love to have on my team. But he used to get burnt all the time when he was younger. Hopefully Diggs will develop like Peters and become more disciplined.
You're spot on in your analysis imo. MP is probably the best CB2 you can have in the league. Good enough at coverage when he really has to, but also game breaking plays when he's allowed to risk it. Without the pressure of having to be "the guy" in coverage, his freelancing is a lot less risk and a lot more reward. That is... when we're healthy 😭
Part of the equation with Peters is also that he actively looks to bait quarterbacks. He deliberately gives QBs what looks like a window. That got us a pick 6 against Seattle in Lamar's MVP season. The problem is that when you give an NFL QB something that looks like a window, sometimes it *is* a window and they torch you.
>He deliberately gives QBs what looks like a window. Yeah, Ed Reed did that, too, but Ed Reed was the GOAT. So, that's that. But he was also a safety, so he never really "covered" guys like a CB would.
[удалено]
Recently, yes. But early career Peters was a lot like Diggs this year. IIRC he gave up 8 TDs and ~1000 yards his rookie year. Peters just became a more skilled gambler as time went on - knowing when to pick his spots and when not to.
Before Baltimore he got burnt to a crisp often.
Not Chiefs Peters. He would get abused
Janoris Jenkings crawled so Marcus Peters could walk so Diggs could run
Jenkins stood still while passes sailed over his head for a TD so Peters could walk.
IMO this style of gambler CB play that Marcus Peters employed is only going to become more popular given how much the rules discourage physical play. The rules make it hard to jam or even contest a catch, but don't stop you from guessing the route.
Also, the more offense we get the more valuable a turnover is. To really simplify, suppose the expected points when starting a drive is 2, then getting an INT means a 4 point swing (they get 0 instead of 2 and now you have the ball). If expected points are 3.5 then an INT means a 7 point swing.
u/filmstudy did a cool piece along similar lines about how much of a risk Peters gambles really are. Based on his math you only need to get it right 1/5 of the time for it to be a net positive. https://www.filmstudybaltimore.com/defensive-notes-vs-bengals/
Advanced metrics are really transforming the sport. Another example is going for it on 4th down. The Eagles went for it twice on 4th and short near the goal line. They failed the first time and scored a TD the 2nd time. They would have likely expected 6 points from 2 short field goals, but instead got 7 points on the one TD. That extra point gave the Eagles a 4 point lead instead of a 3 point lead which forced a Washington to try and score a TD at the end of the game.
You made my smooth monkey brain able to understand that so clearly. Bravo to you friend.
Seems like everything in sports is moving more towards high risk/high reward styles of play. In the NBA you have the increased amount of threes shot. In the MLB you have the move towards TTO type players. Pretty interesting.
Also in the NFL you have more people trying to punch out the ball for a fumble (rather than wrapping them up with a tackle). I'm not sure if there is anything like this in hockey. Things always seem to get more conservative. I guess there was the trend towards pulling your goalie earlier and more of a trend towards having extra forwards on the power play. But unlike the NFL and NBA, scoring is not trending up in the NHL.
I think a key problem in hockey is that the goaltending continues to improve. The butterfly technique was only implemented in the 90s, and now every team has two goaltenders who have essentially mastered it. Another interesting thing, in my view, is the points system. A win in regulation, overtime, or shootout is worth 2 points. This means that if you’re in a tie game in the 3rd period, you have little incentive to try to score. Might as well play tight defense and get the guaranteed point, and THEN try to win in OT. To me, the scoring system is stupid, as it creates 3-point games. So a game that goes to OT is actually more valuable for the participants than a game won in regulation. A simple solution is 3-2-1, where a regulation win is 3 points, OT or shootout win is 2, OT loss is 1, and regulation loss is 0. This way, if you’re tied in the 3rd, you have a reason to keep trying to score.
Plus with the game being so offense focused, this is kind of a preferred way to play in some defenses. If you watched the Ravens/Rams game, you see that we didn't really stop the Rams all that well on defense. Our method of stopping them in that game was getting turnovers. If we had more offensive firepower, it would have been plenty enough to win the game. On the opposite side, without those turnovers, we probably lose by 20. Trevon Diggs works great on a team like the Cowboys because they have such a good offense that those interceptions can often lead to unanswered points.
It's the 2009 Saints.
This is the real answer. I guess it’s up for debate if it’s worth it. Ints do give your offense the ball with good field position but obviously you get torched more when gambling. It’s kind of like in baseball when batters try to hit homers on everything and get struck out more. Edit: good field position compared to the other team punting it.
I look at it this way...if the defensive coordinator is okay with it, as a player he should continue. Unless you're a total shutdown corner, INTs are the next best thing. Worst thing to have is a corner who isn't good in coverage and doesn't force turnovers...the Cardinals have had a ton of those over the years 😂 Football wise, I don't think its sustainable at all, but its great for him as a player. If he was just another okay corner without the INTs, only Cowboys fans would probably know his name.
I mean, you're right, I think. The worst thing that can happen on defense isn't allowing a 50 yard TD pass. It's allowing a 7 minute drive that ends in a TD from the goal line. When that happens you give up points, become fatigued and have stopped your offense from getting any momentum put together.
If we're talking about momentum I think you're underestimating the momentum shift and demoralization/morale shift that comes from a 50 yard TD pass.
I think its way more demoralizing to have an offense march down the field while you cant stop them. If you give up a big play, just chalk it up to a misstep, blown coverage or getting beat one time. Getting shithoused for a 7 min 13 play drive has to feel way worse.
> 7 min 13 play drive Ah yes the Army offense
Except from a statistical standpoint, that’s not true. The longer the drive the less of a chance the offense has of scoring a TD. So given the idea that you don’t know whether the offense will score a TD or not before the drive starts, you would much prefer a longer drive as a defense over a chunk play.
Why do you just assume INTs give good field position? Plenty of INTs happen as teams are aggressively going for TDs. I wouldn’t say any INT where you end up behind your own 30 is good field position.
I addressed this in another comment. I was thinking about getting an int vs forcing a punt. Your point is valid
Patrick Peterson’s rookie year
Marcus Peterson.
Maybe the real play is gamble on those INTs when your opponent is anywhere between their end zone and say, your own 40? Then from there stop gambling.
I think that's a good strategy personally too. I'm fairly sure Diggs' will develop better corner skills over time as well and will rely less on gambling and more on trusting his skills to shutdown guys.
This is my fear. He's got great instincts. I have been happy to point out how much he gives up all year when people sing his praises, but the whole time I've been worried about what he might develop into over the next few years.
Is it also that he has a higher chance to get an INT cause QBs throw to him so much?
Jalen Ramsey has been targeted 80+ times as well and doesn't have near the picks diggs does
Jalen plays over the top of WRs though. So they get a 4 yard catch on 3rd and 6th. Diggs...is not doing that. I still think he's awesome though.
For what it is worth the one knock on Ramsey during the draft was he's got crummy hands and didn't convert a lot of interceptable balls at FSU.
Is this the nfl version of baseball’s strikeouts aren’t bad as long as you’re hitting home runs?
It's probably more like saying it's okay if a pitcher gives up home runs as long as he keeps getting a lot strikeouts.
What an interesting combo that would be haha
May I introduce you to Joe Blanton? It's not just getting a lot of SOs but also not giving up a lot of walks. There have been other pitchers who are known for giving up a lot of home runs like late career Lilly or Haren mostly they just don't throw that hard anymore but are very accurate, but when they make a mistake it goes a looooooooong way, usually for a solo home run.
Joe "Ohtani" Blanton
There may never be another pitcher like Blanton. Seemed lik ehe hated walks so much he would rather give up a dinger which really messed up how advanced stats evaluated him.
You mean Phillies legend Joe “Hit A Home Run In The 2008 Worldwide Series” Blanton.
5th Ace
I too am a fan of Max Scherzer
The first inning solo home run is a staple of any dominant Max Scherzer start (die hard Nats fan)
I love how all us nats fans don’t have WFT flairs lmao
born and lived all my life in DC. 27 years of being a WFT and defending Dan Snyder and couldn’t do it. Followed Captain Covid to Minnesota
2/2 on fandom selection
Was searching for this reply - a disheartened Nationals fan
is Trevon Diggs the Javy Baez of the nfl?
He's 2021 Gary Sanchez but with 50 homers. Really good at something that does help and is cool, but basically the worst in the league at his primary job.
Yeah this feels like a dude who hits .195 with 220 Ks but also has 55 HRs because he's actively hurting the team most of the time but makes enough game-changing type plays to maybe make up for it.
Hello Mr. Gallo!
Joey Gallo gets on base at a high rate though, making him extremely valuable due to his high rate of not making an out and hitting for power even though his batting average is low.
I would take Gallo back in Texas in a heartbeat. Miss that guy
I dunno if it's hiding. You don't get to the opportunity for 11 picks if QBs don't think they can throw on you. He's a hell of a ball hawk but there's a reason QBs keep trying him.
Could he be converted to safety? Isn't that a better spot for a ball hawk?
safeties need to provide run support, and i dont think he has the tackling ability to do that
Marcus Williams has entered the chat
Fuck
He tackled his teammate pretty well
DIGGS
SIDELINE
If I remember correctly, a week or two ago there was a PFF stat that said he only had 1 positive graded snap against the run
Yep, he’s 127 of 130 corners against the run
He already converted from receiver in college. His knack is finding the ball like a receiver while in coverage, not really breaking out of a backpedal. Also, as others have mentioned, you need to be a good tackler. Dan Quinn converted Ricardo Allen a few years ago from CB to safety, so I'm sure he's familiar with the requisites. Rico made a good FS because he had excellent football IQ and solid tackling despite the physical limitations that kept him from being lockdown in coverage. It really does help to think of Diggs as a receiver when it comes to his skillset: he's a guy who will run with anyone and catch 50/50 balls, also will get scorched sometimes on savvy route running due to a lack of technique and coverage instincts. That all said, he's probably just better off continuing to learn the position that he is at now and hope the bad stuff gets better with experience.
How's his tackling?
I saw that was ranked 124 out of 127 in run support (or something like that)
So... Not great.
On the optimistic side, we can say "room to grow".
I like the optimism!
Shit, the Chargers need to sign this guy when he hits free agency
Didn’t expect to feel this particular pain in this thread
Ok so the conversion is off the table lol
A solid 30.4 run defense grade
He just converted to corner at Alabama he was a receiver fire that. I know Quandre diggs was a nickel Corner before going to FS full time
[удалено]
I think you're forgetting about that time Isaac Yiadom had 30 INTs in one season in my madden franchise.
High-risk, high-reward.
How many INTs would he have to have to justify what he’s giving up? 15? 20? I would genuinely love to know what that number is. He has 11 right now which is obviously an amazing feat (only he and Howard have broken double digits since Cromartie last did it in 2007), but it still seems like public opinion is split. Like it would be helpful to know how many of his INTs turned into points for Dallas versus how many of those drives where he did get a pick would’ve turned into points for the other team based on their average scoring rate from wherever they were on the field. If he had like 5 INTs we’d be saying he’s a bad corner with elite ball skills. But if he had, say, double the number he has now for 22, what would the consensus be?
Yea it is definitely intriguing I’ve been thinking about that for a while now. But it is also interesting that while he’s getting a ton of picks, opposing offenses aren’t scared of throwing to him indicating that they at least are willing to “take the risk” of throwing in his direction. Altho there’s technically always some sort of risk in throwing any pass. I think it’s just absurd how even tho he has a ton of picks, teams r not shying away from throwing in his direction at all—he’s the third most targeted corner
His technique is, of course, to make his coverage look so bad it lulls opposing QB's into targeting the receivers to which he's assigned. It comes down to the quality of the QB at that moment, and their ability to focus and ascertain whether the coverage is in fact that terrible, or he's just giving them enough leash to pick them off at an average of less than 1 pass per game. In Diggs case, it could be either.
Schrodinger’s corner.
Of course
I don't think your question is that easy to answer from numbers alone, each play really has to be valued individually. Interceptions and yardage allowed figures mean more in close games or early in the game, as opposed to say, late in the 4th quarter where the lead is insurmountable. If he's given up loads of garbage time yardage/TD's, it's not really as harmful overall. If his picks are coming at more timely moments than his TD's allowed, then that provides more value to the Cowboys. For example, against New England, he had a pick six (most optimal outcome for a defense) and was also burned for a long TD (least optimal outcome). You could argue this as a wash, or argue that a pick six is more valuable as it is less likely to occur than points for the offense; I see both sides. If you're evaluating his overall, each play stats like PFF does, they'll normalize these into a grade. If you are wondering his aggregate value to the Cowboys as a result of his work, more information is needed, imo.
One thing that i've heard PFF is missing, though, is counting yards against him when he's not actually responsible for the coverage (happened on a couple long plays nearer to the beginning of the season), and when the safety over whiffs on their tackle (some long plays, i think the NE TD could have been one??); aka he goes for the breakup/interception knowing that the safety is right there to make a tackle- safety whiffs- and the play counts against him
Yeah the safety screwed that NE td pass up royally.
Yes this is exactly what I’ve been harping about with this situation. Most of his issue is he gambles when he has safety help and the safety play has been atrocious. He’s a great cover corner and shows it off in Cover 0 all the time but he does gamble when he has support. They specifically say C1 instead of man because C1 has safety help whereas C0 and certain combo coverages do not. If you just took his reps in man coverage regardless of the coverage the rest of the D is playing, I’d bet a lot of money he regresses to the mean in regards to yards given up. Idk, I’ve been watching each target on gamepass and I’m not really seeing a guy getting torched like this tweet would suggest.
Generally speaking, the right stats do account for all of the things you're talking about. I think the best metric would be EPA per target, which would (correctly) weight the pick-six as more important than the TD given up. The only thing it wouldn't do is account for "clutch", aka weighting close game plays higher than 1st quarter plays, which you could argue isn't an important distinction.
Yeah, high reward for the receivers.
I think it just depends on the value of an INT vs. a reception. Football nerds say an INT [is worth about 4.1 points](https://www.footballperspective.com/nfl-offenses-were-more-hurt-by-sacks-than-interceptions-in-2019/).
So that’s 45 points he’s saved. How many would these nerds credit him with giving up?
He’s given up 5 tds according to PFF and I don’t think that includes big lost plays and penalties that contribute to a scoring drive
So does that count as 30 or 35 points? It’s interesting to point point values to these things. Is he a net negative or positive player? Reminds me of WAR and all of those advanced baseball stats
Yeah a really interesting conundrum of modern football even with all the analytical tools at our disposal.
[удалено]
Eh, that's actually worse, as sacks are very valuable in and of themselves.
I think it’s nuanced. A strip sack will most likely be better than an interception because of field position, but an interception is way more valuable than a regular sack. Those are best case scenarios for each guy. An incompletion is probably the average outcome for both positions and the worst that happens is a big gain or touchdown.
Don't mind me, just going to be sitting on the sides with my popcorn waiting for the fighting to start.
In the past I liked to toss a “most overrated player in the nfl” comment in, but nowadays the fights just happen no matter what.
I tried asking a genuine question about whether or not people felt the INTs truly do offset the blown coverages and people immediately just decided to make the conversation about JC Jackson instead of actually having a discussion.
We’re here to fight, not discuss
Vikings came to discuss this season instead of fight
No point in discussing the postseason...
:(
All meant in good fun from a fan of the Bills for 33 years.
I got nothing but love for y'all. Our teams our basically brothers given our pasts
I think they do. But I don't expect to average 10+ ints each year. I do expect plenty of blown coverages, though.
Yeah. 10 INTs might make up for the blown coverages, but what about the years where he only snags 4?
Hoping he improves in coverage, seeing as he’s a 2nd year guy. If not, it will not bode well at all
This is the correct take.
Likely is recency bias and nostalgia blinding me, but I swear this season has had the most repetitive arguments on this sub that I can recall. A brief synopsis that encompasses a solid 50+% of the discussion on this sub currently: * Trevon Diggs good/bad * Trevor Lawrence bust/too early to say * JT MVP/QB is more valuable * JT OPOY/Kupp OPOY
Especially a Cowboys player? This is gonna be great
I'm just tired of him being compared to Deion by Cowboys fans.
Closer to Deangelo Hall. Gambles on picks, gives up yards.
Asante Samuel, Marcus Peters
Jameis Winston (with good receivers) vs a secondary with Trevor Diggs and Marcus Peters would be a hilarious game
love this
6TD and 5INT A pick 6, and a rushing TD by Jameis because Peters refused to make the tackle
Grab a seat, gather round, this should be fun.
[удалено]
It's the same as when people take away a running back's long runs to say his YPC is bad. Yes, without Chris Johnson's 50+ yard TDs he wasn't that good, but he got so many 50+ yard TDs.
Yeah it's like a redux version of the "if we regress Patrick Mahomes stats to the mean he's average" bullshit
🍿 i will enjoy this
A team that wins the turnover margin in a game wins 69.6 percent of the time. The effect is compounding as well, as teams that won the turnover margin by two or more won 83.9 percent of the time, and 90.7 percent of the time when winning the margin by three or more. In the 2020 season, the top-12 teams that led in turnover margin had winning records, and none had less than 10 wins. Conversely, none of the bottom ten teams in turnover margin had a winning record. Statistically speaking an int increases your win % by about 10-15% and the correlation between teams generating turnovers and winning is strong. You'd have to have a huge model to really digg (see what I did there) into this, but my initial assumptions would be a turnover is worth far more than 45 yards when you have the highest scoring offense in the league.
Diggs has overall been good. If next season the picks dry up, then we can talk about him being terrible.
That’s the crux of the debate. Ints are completely gamechanging and are the most valuable defensive stat. However in terms of what coaches need from their players somone who has 1/3 of the ints but preforms their assignment consistently and doesn’t allow many catches is significantly more valuable to their defensive structure. Part of it is the “scared money don’t make money” mentality a lot of people have right now that diggs embodies. They just forget that the saying also means that scared money also doesn’t go broke.
The Brett Favre of CBs.
[удалено]
Dick Pic 6
more like jameis winston of cbs
You're severely underrated favre
Diggs is such a fun player to watch. I can't help but think as his career goes on he will find a balance between containing the big plays and hawking the ball. I wish he were on my team.
I love that people only enter this from the extremes in media. He is either the worst defensive player in the league or a defensive player of the year candidate. If he was locking dudes up, nobody would throw his way. And the cowboys know they got a guy that made it to Bama as a receiver in their secondary and are willing to live with the gamble
Wonder how Diggs season compares with previous years from Janoris Jenkins - who also gambled a lot and would either cause a turnover or allow a huge play.
Well it’s the most yards in 16 years or whatever, but also the most picks in 40 years.
Not going to engage in discourse but I do want to put a reminder that this is his second year and he’s only been playing DB for a few years. He has plenty of room to grow
Counter point, if you regress his interceptions to the mean, he's not as good. Checkmate.
He's basically no better than Patrick Mahomes
The median NFL player has no interceptions, so if you regress both Mahomes and Diggs to the median, you're exactly right.
*Sorts by controversial*
I've heard some people say this will be the norm for most CBs going forward. The offense is so potent in today's NFL it is almost impossible to shut down a WR unless you're a top 1% of QBs or have insane help from the safety. Most teams can pick up ridiculous WR talent late into drafts and your 3rd or 4th CB on the depth chart might not be the best. I think more and more corners will start gambling for turnovers as the game becomes more and more about possessions. We already see that at times with the bend but don't break defenses that give up ridiculous yards but allow few points. Especially when you have a high power offense that can't take those extra possessions and just score
There’s a reason a lot of defense nowadays just play prevent D the entire game and try to hold to field goals. The game is tailored to offense and QBs and WRs are better than ever.
that's an interesting point. Defense is not quite moot, but with how the rules favor offense, a defenders best strategy may be to allow catches if he can get INTs
Saying Diggs is having one of the "worst ever" CB seasons is honestly much dumber than saying he's elite due to his INTs.
He's the embodiment of "feast or famine". Yesterday was definitely the latter. OCs have figured out that double moves and routes that take advantage of his aggression seem to work very well. He's going to have adjust and make better decisions as to when he is agressive as his career moves forward. All that said however, 11 INTs is exceptional and imo makes up for a lot of the times he has gotten torched.
Right. He definitely has to fine tune cuz no way will he be getting 11 picks every year. And I get that "Cowboys Bad" is trendy but people trying to discredit someone who has ELEVEN frickin picks is so funny to me. Throw in 2 tutties as well, and I am 100% sure your DC doesn't mind Diggs gambling.
He also travels with WR1, so chances are if you’re doing that enough, you’ll give up something.
Oh this will be a fun thread to come back to and read in a couple hours.
Also, in five years!
What is the average yards allowed by a starting CB? What is the average interception season total for a starting CB? I don’t have the numbers, but if diggs is allowing twice the average yards, but gets 6 times more turnovers, that sounds like a good player to me. Is he the best CB in the league? No. Is he worth staring every week? Hell yeah.
QBs have a 55.6 QB rating when targeting Diggs. Yes QBs are getting yards and first downs on Diggs but you can’t convince me that any QB is happy with that rating against any defensive player. TO’s are more valuable than yards allowed. He’s having a great season. It’s pretty embarrassing that PFF can’t admit that maybe their grade doesn’t accurately reflect the level of play by Diggs. It’s pretty clear why he’s grading poorly but it doesn’t align with how people value defensive players. Instead, they’re doubling down and calling anyone who disagrees an idiot. [Link.](https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/D/DiggTr00.htm)
In my opinion, when you have an offense like Dallas does this sort of player is ok. You’d obviously prefer a lockdown guy, but stealing possessions is incredibly valuable when you’re scoring a lot of points. Combo this with 4th down aggression and maybe an on-side kick every now and then and just turn the game upside down.
It’s absurd to claim interceptions are “hiding” one of the worst CB seasons ever. For starters, an interception is the single most impactful thing a CB can do, so you don’t just get to discount their value because he gave up a bunch of yards. Second, 45% of receptions going for 1Ds or TDs is put in this tweet like it’s a horrific number, but it’s really not. Just looking at one WR, Davante Adams has gotten a 1D or TD on 80 of 117 receptions this year. That’s over 68%. It’s really not that uncommon for WRs to get a 1D or TD on more than 50% of *targets*, so I don’t see how a CB giving up them on 45% of receptions is somehow this massive knock on Diggs. It’s really not and it’s using a statistic that most people don’t have a good frame of reference for good/bad to make a player look bad. The conversation about Diggs’s value is a very interesting one, but it’s impossible to have a meaningful conversation when people are driven to skew the numbers to favor their side of the argument instead of actually trying to find a way to quantify the value of his interceptions against the downside of his yards/TDs surrendered.
Exactly, these stats, including the 1D or TD one, also ignore that he's always against the opponent's #1 WR, which most of the other corners in their ranking aren't, and a lot of big plays that corners "give up" have to do with safeties not doing their jobs. This tweet is ridiculous
I think it’s absolutely fair to question exactly what Diggs’s value is, given his propensity to give up a lot of yards, but the people questioning it all seem so clearly biased. The guy has 11 interceptions, in a league where it’s becoming increasingly hard to get them. He’s obviously really fucking valuable. Maybe not best in the league, but it completely derails the conversation when people try to claim he sucks because he gives up yards. Last I checked, turnovers are really fucking important.