Depth at DB

Yeah, it really is honest. He needs to be better than he was. Not missing assignments is neat, but sitting in deep, deep centerfield and not being in on that many plays for having played so many snaps? Yeah, he's gotta improve to be given a new contract and to be the long term safety. He's gotta beat out a good enough backup, at the very least. If they feel as you do, that Williams is the top backup and Branch competition, then the need becomes less, but Williams is chancy depth right now and we don't have anything else. I'd rather improve than just hand a guy a job again. I know you dig on Branch and all, but we need a remedy. This defense was better with a worse coverage player in McCree, who was sticking his nose in and smacking people around despite not only being mediocre in coverage, but also making mistakes.

 

Suggesting that we need him to improve is fine. Saying that the "honest reality" is that Branch isn't better than a cheap safety is flat out wrong. Disagreement over how valuable Branch is to the team is fine, but the preponderance of actual evidence supports the idea that he's solid, and at the least that's more than enough to outright dismiss any idea that he's worth less to us than a generic cheap safety. That's just your bias speaking again.

:supergrin At least you remembered one of the statistics. Perhaps you'd also care to remember that Branch had fewer balls in his area than Minter (don't offenses usually target weak links?), he gave up fewer yards per attempt than Minter (you'd think the guy playing SS would have a natural advantage there), and he gave up fewer touchdowns than Minter. So yeah, it's pretty conclusive. Like I said, I'm all for upgrading, but I get annoyed when someone indulges in a particular bias and trashes a player unreasonably, especially when they've already been proven wrong about that player before.

No, I actually don't. I don't give a flying crap about Branch, I have simply defended him because you have let your bias against him lead you to say things that aren't true. That's the thing; I dig on the truth. It's the same reason I defended Willig, criticized Gross (which only made me look bad since I had pimped him in the draft), and criticized then later praised Peppers.

Do you really want to make yourself look silly by attributing the improvement to McCree rather than Ken Lucas (and an improved Chris Gamble)?

 

Shaun Williams is basically the same player.

 

Actually, a correct quote couldn't hurt. If he can't improve on what he did after starting another year, he's not worth more than the average player.

Yep. I know Branch was targeted less, too. Minter also made more plays on the ball.

Of course, it was also kinda clear that he was playing very cautious football, though it wasn't something I'd noticed to be as big of a problem until the next preseason when he was barely in on anything at all. They certainly worked hard to cover him. And he certainly wasn't, by any means, an active or eager run defender. He made the hit-and-don't-wrap Grant look

ehh. It's always curious to see the absolute outrage at saying "Branch needs to actually beat someone out". That's all I'm saying, and stating that he'd have to improve to gain a new contract and a long-term starting position. You're stating we can upgrade, and you're fine with that, but you always bypass that to get angry that I said something uncomplimentary about a guy who we brought 4 guys in last year to replace? We certainly didn't bring any of those guys in to replace Minter, we re-upped him in the same motion.

Furthermore, while he's not getting the INTs he used to, I feel like he was as good at FS as he'd been in a few years. I'm more than happy to have Minter on the team, and while I worry about his decline coming, that's not where we're in need of the upgrade. Honestly, having a guy with some size v/s the TE is a significant need, IMO, and while it's not imperative that we run-bias at SS, I do think that having a player there more willing to stick his nose into the pile than Branch seems to be, wouldn't be awful either.

Hell, statistically, Grant was better than Minter over the time that both started, but Minter's here.

Statistics generally permeate a version of the truth. It's obvious that Gross isn't what he should be, but the Willig stat is a perfect embodiment of this problem - well, for one, Willig started 9 games. Gross did struggle at LT, but money or not, he's still here, he's still the starter. I know the end result obviously wasn't to lift up Willig as much as to show that Gross wasn't the Pro Bowl player he was being touted as by some, but the idea that Willig's stats were better in two portions of his game than Gross's, and yet was replaced by Fordham.

That's the same situation as negating that Minter had a lot more PDs, tackles, and in general, made more of a difference on that 2004 team.

I sincerely believe both played a part. Having all eleven players being involved in both the run and the pass, that was kinda nice.

 

when he's healthy.
And if we pit Williams against Branch, good. I do feel like we need another player. McAdam is crap.

 

I did quote you correctly, although you've always had trouble with contradicting yourself and forgetting what you actually said. To refresh your memory, here it is yet again: "The honest reality of things is that unless Branch starts all year, and plays at a level higher than he had, he's not worth keeping compared to the average safety you can get on the cheap."

No, that's actually not true unless you mean in run support. The yards per attempt for Minter in 2004 show that he wasn't helping anyone else out on most of those passes. He was the one being targetted because he was getting beat with regularity.

#1) I'm not outraged. When I'm outraged I use words like "fuck," and talk about what a coward and a pussy I think you are. :supergrin If anyone is upset in this exchange, I'm betting it's you, because you hate the fact that your bias against Branch is disputed by the actual facts.

#2) I'm not at all opposed to the idea that we should have someone to compete with Branch for the starting job. In fact, I specifically praised the Shaun Williams signing for that very reason.

#3) That clearly wasn't what I objected to, given that I didn't quote that statement. I quoted the statement where you made the laughable argument that Branch should be let go in favor of some generic cheap safety if he doesn't improve (in your eyes).

Only marginally so. Grant actually gave up a lot more yards than you'd think, and he also had more blown assignments than even Minter.

And also that Willig was getting an undue amount of criticism. He wasn't meant to be the starter, he went out and did his best in a tough situation when the team needed him. I certainly never suggested he was good or even average, but I didn't like the way certain people had it out for Willig and would trash him regardless of the facts. Sound familiar?

 

I know that's what I said. That's what I reiterated. You stated:

When that's certainly not what I said. Though the actions of the past two years have suggested that the team may not value Branch more than that.

PDs: Minter, 10, Branch 5. But most definitely, Minter was very much more involved in run support. I wasn't happy that Minter came up without any INT in 2004, or it'd be stacked a bit further toward Minter.

I'd say you are, when you're more worried about handling some bias that others have "against Branch" and that you have for Branch, than anything else. Since, in general, you don't disagree that there's a potential need here, and instead you're looking to play argument tricks on making it about whoever said it, rather than about Branch. Maybe instead of screaming bloody murder about bias, you could just get that you and I don't agree on him.

I know. Which is why it's curious that you're more worried about how people perceive Branch than whether he's actually playing. If he were that good in 2004, he wouldn't have been moved, and had 4 guys lined up on his ass waiting to take his job.

Link me. Yes, I'm asking for a link. You're the only "source" for the "omgzor Branch is the 1337" stats, so you should defend that statement. I don't doubt that Grant blew some assignments. He also made more plays on the ball, and was better in actual coverage, than anybody we've had back there since. I'd rather have a guy jump a ball and miss one out of 3 times, than a guy timidly lay off ten yards and make three tackles on huge first downs. That's not the spirit of our defense.

Expecting him to earn a job and be more active does not equal trashing, but have it your way.

 

Now you're confusing me as well as yourself. You said that Branch isn't worth keeping if he doesn't improve, because if he doesn't then he wouldn't be better than the average cheap safety. Given that Branch doesn't make a lot of money and isn't expected to make much more come free agency, that statement makes no sense given Branch's solid level of performance.

Fair enough, although you've noted in the past at how misleading PDs are as an indicator of coverage quality. Moreover, I think the full body of statistics regarding the amount of yardage given up and the quality of coverage on each particular pass tells us more than the number of PDs. And as for Minter's lack of INTs, I don't find that particularly troubling because we don't do a lot of ballhawking in the secondary anyway. Having a low number of INTs doesn't mean you're a bad cover man, although giving up a lot of yards does.

I'm pretty sure that Clay can tell you that I'm not. Moreover, let's not pretend that you don't have a lengthy history of being biased in favor of or against particular coaches and players. You're known for it, magnus, so it's not like I'm being unreasonable in suggesting that this is another example.

My mistake, I thought he was listed as the starting strong safety from the start of training camp right up until the point that he was lost for the season. I missed the part where someone passed him on the depth chart, so maybe you can tell me when that was.

You always do and yet never provide any of your own. Funny how you can be so lazy yourself and yet so demanding of others. Anyway, you already know that I can't give you a link to something that was published in a book. You or anyone else can buy it if you choose to do so, but until then you just have to deal with me copying what's in the book for you to see it. Moreover, let's just be clear that I am not the source. I'm not the one who went through every game and recorded these statistics on passing charts. It's also meaningful to note that the person who did (who now writes for ESPN, mind you) isn't a Panthers fan and thus has no reason to like or dislike Colin Branch. Given his objectivity, the fact that his statistics prove something very different from the picture you try to paint is fairly telling.

Uhm ... dude, you do realize what you're arguing, right? You're saying that you care more about how aggressive a guy is in coverage than actually how many yards and points he gives up (the things these statistics actually measure). Now unless the NFL added style points to the scoreboard, I'm pretty sure that yards and points allowed are the only two things that matter.

Yet again, I've consistently said that I like the Shaun Williams signing, that I want him to compete with Branch for the starting job, and that I wouldn't be surprised if Williams wins it. You want to pretend this is about me being biased in favor of Branch instead of it really being about you being biased against him. You'd also like to pretend that I'm the one getting mad instead of you, but again, Clay can tell you that I'm not.

 

Gah, forget it. :banginghe