Gamble, the un-targeted

[magnus]

PFF has Gamble as the 7th least targeted CB.

It is done by % snaps so it takes in for injury, and in this case, whatever that shit was he went through at the end of the year. I will find a link in a bit.


Sent from my LS670 using Tapatalk

 

[magnus]

http://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2011/05/20/cornerbacks-cover-snaps-count/


So, while targets and receptions aren't all of the job, certainly there's plenty of evidence that hes doing his job, at least better than the guy who we're replacing.


Sent from my LS670 using Tapatalk

 

[Collin]

Admittedly I wasn't paying close attention to the team after the first few games, but that surprises me. He has the talent, he just hasn't always played intelligently. I guess Meeks is getting the best out of him.

 

[y2b]

lol...67th in catches per coverage snap...

Gamble gives up more big plays and misses more tackles then anybody on our defense yet gets paid like he's the best defensive player on the team... furthermore, at this point in his career, not going to get any better.

 

[Thelt]

He was thrown at 47 times and gave up a completion 29 times. Makes you wonder they do not throw it against him more often.

 

[magnus]

47 times in 11 games is 4 per game. 29 receptions is 2.6 receptions per game.

I mean, it'd be interesting to see if there's any legitimate correlation in the stats that suggest there was a particular reason why he did get targeted when he did - whether it was a mistake on his part, playing too far off, a good playcall versus the coverage, a weakness in his game - but whatever it is, the thing to understand is that either every NFL team doesn't understand it, including divisional opponents that have seen him 14 times apiece now - or if it's something negative he's doing, he's not doing it often at all.

Gamble gives up more big plays and misses more tackles then anybody on our defense yet gets paid like he's the best defensive player on the team... furthermore, at this point in his career, not going to get any better.

you bag on the guy, and I realize that. I can understand - I guess - people being terribly butthurt over a homegrown guy getting a huge contract but that doesn't change whether a player is doing his job or not.

Which seems to be a reality which passed you by a long time ago. He doesn't miss that many tackles, and clearly via the above, teams throw at both Marshall and Munnerlyn more.

 

[CosmikCatNip]

don't give 2 cents about his contract numbers. gamble is an adequate cover guy. nothing more nothing less. unfortunately adequate shouldn't be a term associated with your top coverage player. i swear our secondary seemed to be a problem of some sort every year under fox.

 

[y2b]

You really have to see games live to know how awful Gamble can be... he's often so far out of position or beat so badly, tv screen just isnt wide enough to capture

 

[Collin]

Another factor might be that Gamble is always covering the split end, and those tend to get targeted less often.

 

[magnus]

You really have to see games live to know how awful Gamble can be... he's often so far out of position or beat so badly, tv screen just isnt wide enough to capture

yes. Guys who charted every single game, every single play, happened to neglect to mention that Gamble covered his man 56 snaps per game and was "so badly beaten" 2.6 times per game. This is terribly logical.