Old Mother Hubbard: The Cornerbacks

Now, we get to the heart of the matter. As usual, a disclaimer: this review is working off of Pro Football Focus player grades and statistics;  CB play is the hardest to assess from TV broadcast footage. Figuring out a player’s true assignment, and assessing how well he carries it out, takes a lot more education and intuition when it comes to DB play than line play. That having been said, I think this chart matches up well with our armchair understanding of the Lions’ CB situation:

The purple line with the ridiculous overall grade is Antoine Winfield, who—unlike most other top PFF graders—has an exceptional mark in every single area of play. He’s ranked in the top ten of 100 qualifying cornerbacks in every graded dimension. At the bottom is Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie, who despite half his last name isn’t the player is cousin is. A strongly negative coverage grade, combined with 8 called penalties (one declined/offset) make him the low man on the cornerback totem pole.

Then again, Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie played the second-highest number of snaps in the NFL, over 1,130. The only corner who played more snaps than Cromartie was Cortland Finnegan, with just over 1,200 . . . and he had the lowest coverage grade in the NFL, –13. This suggests that the more snaps a corner gets, the worse his coverage grade is bound to be—even though the PFF folks normalize the final grades by snap count. Just to be sure, I ran a regression:

Nope, no correlation. I think the effect in play is the old line, “You have to be a pretty good pitcher to lose 20 games.” Maybe Cortland Finnegan and Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie aren’t great cover guys—but they’re far and away the best corners on their team, and they kept getting run out against their opponents’ best wideouts. Even normalized for snap counts, though, they simply didn’t grade out like KC’s Brandon Carr (+5.4) or New England’s Devin McCourty (+9.4), players with similar snap counts but much better coverage grades.

Lions’ best corner, far and away is Chris Houston—but the PFF grades don’t reflect it. Houston played over 900 snaps; the only Lion above the league average of 750. Though near NFL average in pass rush and run support, Houston’s coverage grade was decidedly below (-4.5), and his five called penalties weren’t great either. From the grades alone, the 5’-11”, 178-pound Houston turned in a subpar performance in 2010. However, I dug a little deeper.

Houston was thrown at 85 times, once every 10.7 snaps; that exactly matches the NFL average. Sixty percent of those passes were caught, which matches up to the average of 60.2. However, he allowed only 10.6 yards per catch—yards less than the average. His TD allowed/INT ratio was near average (3/1 vs. 3/2), his passes defensed were above average (9 vs. 6), and his NFL passer rating allowed was slightly better than average (85.5 vs. 88.0).

The overall picture this paints is, well, average. Compared to every other starting, or heavily-rotated, cornerback, Chris Houston was just about average. That’s better than any Lions cornerback has been in a while, especially wire to wire. He also had some great individual games, turning in a +1.8 (+1.2 coverage) in the first Green Bay game, and +3.2 (+2.3 coverage) against Washington. Unfortunately, he did poorly against the Cowboys and Bucs, and was absolutely abused by the Patriots (-4.5 coverage).

Bottom Line: With a full #1 starter’s workload, Chris Houston performed at an average, maybe just-below-average, level for an NFL starter. Considering the pittance the Lions paid to get him, performance like that is impressive. As the Lions’ #1 corner, they should draft someone with flashier coverage skills to pair with him. As the Lions’ #2 corner, he’d be excellent. Further, he’s only 26—if the Lions can hold onto this likely RFA, he may continue to improve.

With just over 350 snaps and a –0.9 overall grade, Nathan Vasher is the best-graded Lion cornerback with a significant number of snaps. Snaps had been hard to come by for the 2005 Pro Bowler, and the Bears finally released Vasher a year ago. Despite his productive history, and that ESPN article suggesting he’d wind up as a starter somewhere soon, the 5’-11”, 185-pound Vasher was available for the Lions to sign when the regular season started.

He didn’t see much action until the last four weeks. 250 of his snaps came in those last four games, where he barely came off the field. When he did, he turned in two very good performances, and two not-so-good ones. He turned in coverage grades of +1.2 and +2.8 against Green Bay and Miami, alternated with –0.9 and –2.2 coverage marks against Tampa Bay and Miami. What it all averages out to is “average.”

When we look at the statistical metrics that PFF charts, Vasher was thrown at 31 times, and only 16 were completed; an excellent 51.6%. Though he gave up yards at a 13.1 YpC clip, had just one INT, and defensed only one pass, Vasher’s Allowed Passer Rating was a miniscule 70.6; 14th-best in the NFL!

Bottom Line: Nathan Vasher is only 29, and proved he can still play corner in the NFL. The Lions re-signed him to a one-year deal, and he’ll be in the mix in the summer. If Houston sticks around, I like him as a #2 for a rookie to challenge. If Houston leaves, Vasher replaces Houston as the cross-your-fingers-and-hope-this-guy-returns-to-form #1 corner.

One of the more outrageous moves Josh McDaniels did in his short time with the keys to the Denver franchise, was trading 2009 second-round pick Alphonso Smith, who he’d dealt a 2010 first-rounder to acquire, to the Lions for Dan Gronkowski. Smith, a 5’-9”, 190-pound fireplug who some thought would be a great fit for the Lions at the slot that ended up being Louis Delmas, was disappointing in his rookie year—but to dish a player you burned a first and second-rounder to acquire after one season? In a position that traditionally requires a year or two of development?

Sure enough, Smith flashed some of the potential that caused the Broncos to go crazy for him; leading the Lions’ corners in INTs with 5 (in fact, he was the only to get more than one). However, Smith also flashed the mental mistakes that drove the Broncos crazy. Smith looked like a fool in key moments against the Patriots and Jets, and it cost the Lions two ENORMOUS possible (probable, in the Jets’ case) wins. However, Smith has a very bright future on this team . . . as a slot corner.

In the first three games, Smith's overall grades were +1.6, +1.8, and +0.2, influnced by very strong performances against the run, and in pass rush, and neutral pass coverage grades. Unfortunately, when the Lions moved him to the starting right cornerback spot, he turned in a poor game. They put him back in the slot against St. Louis, and he had one of his best coverage games all year. Then he went back outside, and was either neutral (WAS, NYJ, @DAL) or a disaster (@BUF, NEP, CHI). The only exception to this was the Giants game, when Smith started at right corner and received, by far, his best coverage grade of the year (+3.0), while also turning in, by far, his worst effort against the run (-1.3).

Bottom Line: Alphonso Smith is a gifted natural slot cornerback, with the tenacity to play well against the run, and even be dangerous as a pass rusher. His instincts and hands are enough to make him a ballhawk, but his repeated brain farts make him a liability as an outside cornerback. Perhaps time and development will iron this out, but for now pencil him in as a multi-year “starting” nickel back.

As for the rest, Aaron Berry and Jack Williams are talented youngsters who lost the entire season, or nearly so, to injury. Prince Miller barely played, but has been tendered a contract for next year—as has Paul Pratt, a practice-squadder from last season.

SHOPPING LIST: As it stands, Chris Houston, Nathan Vasher, and Alphonso Smith performed like a just below-average-but-not-awful starting trio (even though they didn’t play as a triumvirate much this year). However, Vasher has already worn out his welcome at a team he was a Pro Bowler for; he’s not likely to be a long-term fix. If Houston stays, the Lions need to draft a cover corner, a guy who can challenge Vasher by the end of his first season, and challenge Houston by the beginning of his third. If Houston leaves, the Lions need to acquire a starter of Houston’s caliber, and draft that developmental cornerback.

Technorati Tags: nfl,detroit lions,cornerbacks,chris houston,nathan vasher,alphonso smith,nfl draft,team needs

Read more...

Lame content promise

Hey, all, I’m busting my tail on two pieces right now, including the cornerback OMH and the latest lockout stuffs. PLUS, make it three I guess, the “every other rule change analysis” article. So.

I can’t promise it’ll be up tonight, because my eldest has a figure skating competition tomorrow and I’ll be on the road, but this weekend should see a flurry of stuff go up. Don’t forget to watch the USMNT’s best take on the Argentina Reigning World’s Greatest Player, Lionel Messi: Saturday night, 7:00, ESPN2.

Read more...

The NFL Changes Kickoff Rules, but Not Enough

No sooner did I blog about the league changing the rules to the detriment of the game, than the NFL changed some rules. Competition Committee chairman Rich McKay, on moving the kickoff position to the 35-yard-line:

This proposal is not one that if you were asking the committee to vote on it from a tactical standpoint and for the betterment of the game. I believe the committee would be 0-7 against.

So, when considering the betterment of the game, this change is an overwhelming failure; it makes the game demonstrably worse. What on Earth could they be thinking?

From a safety issue, 7-0 in favor, because I think this gives us an opportunity to shorten the field and to lessen the impacts, if you will, that are happening on a play that is a popular play, historical play, been a part of our game forever and a play that we want to keep in the game. And so, this was our attempt at that.

This I understand very well. Even back in Tecmo Super Bowl, injuries occurred at a higher rate on kickoff returns than on plays from scrimmage. I remember the manual explicitly pointed this out! Of course, a more recent example would be our own Zack Follett, who suffered a very scary season- (possibly career-) ending neck injury on a kickoff return. What did Follett have to say about rule change?

Change to the kickoff rules! HOW BORING! This is coming from the one who got hurt!

So, everyone thinks the rule change will be bad. Everyone thinks kickoff returns will be steeply reduced by this rule change. The Competition Committee, though, hopes it will reduce injuries—and of course, I support that. The cynic in me chirps that the league is doing this to “prove” their commitment to player safety during negotiations—but any real step towards reducing head and neck trauma has to be lauded. So, I’ll laud it.

But what will the effect on the game be? Let’s look at all of the originally proposed changes:

• Move kickoffs from the 30-yard line back to the 35, where it was prior to 1994.
• Keep the coverage team within five yards of the ball (no more 15-yard running starts).
• Change touchbacks to place the ball on the 25-yard line.
• Eliminate the two-man wedge, just one year after eliminating three-man wedges.

It’s undeniable that the move back to the 35 will result in more touchbacks. Per Pro Football Focus, only one kicker averaged kickoffs past the goal line, but 19 would have under the new rules. However, touchbacks shouldn’t return to pre-1994 levels. For starters, the ‘94 changes also lowered the kicking tees to one inch—meaning kickers could no longer get underneath a three-inch tee and pop the ball up for five-second-plus hang times. Further, the NFL has since introduced the “K” ball, which prevents kickers from doing any of the extensive modifications they used to do for balls reserved for kicks.

I’m not a special teams coach, so I can’t tell you how much different it will be for coverage teams, with just a five-yard runup. It certainly seems like they’ll be hitting the 35-yard-line after just a couple steps instead of at full stride, but how much of a reprieve will that grant the returner?  Will it be enough to return a kick out of the end zone? To me, though, the most intriguing possibilities are the ones created by the rules they didn’t adopt.

With touchbacks on the 20, coaches have every incentive to try and boot it into the endzone. If you have a Billy Cundiff, you can eliminate the other team’s return game. Functionally, you’ll be placing the ball on the 20, every single time. But moving the touchbacks up to the 25 would have given more coaches pause. A well-executed sideline kickoff is likely to prevent a return beyond the 25, so coaches would be disincentivized to order their kicker to boot it as far as possible. Meanwhile, anytime a gifted returner touches the ball, big things can happen . . .

Last season, there was a lot—well, not a lot, but a little—of hue and cry over the elimination of the three- and four-man wedge; the kick return technique with origins in the leather-helmet days. So, what happened? Special Teams coordinators innovated. They stacked two-man wedges, and they drew up return plays that drew blockers from one side of the field to the other. What was the result? Long kick returns actually went up. Again, Rich McKay:

The story I would tell you, and I’m not speaking out of school because I’m not going to tell you who it was, but I did have a special teams coach that I know pretty well call me when the elimination of the three-man wedge came in and he called me to tell me that he did not think there would be another kickoff return for a touchdown in the league. Ever. I think this year there were 23, I think it’s the second most ever. So one thing I know about those guys, they’re bright guys, they’ll find ways to return, they’ll continue to innovate as they have and I think the play will still remain an exciting and integral part of our game. It’s just simply in our opinion a play that we need to try to find a way make safer. That’s the intent.”

Honestly, I’m not mourning the death of the kick return—I’m mourning the return game that would have been if the NFL had adopted the full proposal. Kickers with a short field, but trying not to get a touchback, and the return team can’t make a wedge the coverage team can’t get a running start. It would have been like the cat-and-mouse game offensive and defensive coordinators play. Instead of everyone returning behind a wedge, and everyone trying to bust the wedge, you’d have coordinators drawing up whole new 10-man return formations, whole new plays designed to create seams, to create paths, to misdirect.

Further, it would all play out a little more slowly—instead of maniacs all flying around as fast as possible, there’d be a craft and technique involved. The difference in value between a linebacker who’s forced to play special teams, and a special teamer would be much greater. From what I can tell, if all four proposals had been adopted, it would have reemphasized the return game, and special teams in general, as the “third phase of the game.” Kick returns would have been both safer, and more fun to watch. Instead, we’re just going to get more touchbacks.

Technorati Tags: nfl,rules changes,kickoffs,special teams,kickers

Read more...