SAM's NFL Hit List

[Geving]

 

 

Regarding CBs, I disagree with the arguments against Kareem Jackson. While he had the talent coming of Alabama, he was certainly porous in his first two seasons. There's no argument there. But the issue with Jackson was that he was prone to having isolated sub-par performances rather than struggling through an entire season. In both 2010 and 2011, 4 separate games made up more than the entirety of his negative coverage grade. I'd understand the argument had he been labeled a, "Great #1," or one against the current label had he turned in a slightly above average season. However, Jackson was one of the best cover CBs in the NFL last season, all while seeing the 11th most targets, the 7th most snaps and facing a Top 9 passing attack 7 times. And in light of his own awakening, he even bettered his performance while manning the #1 CB role, allowing just 21 receptions on 51 targets, 0 TDs to 3 INTs and a QB rating of 31.9 during those contests. Jackson will have the chance to prove himself as a great CB in 2013. I feel that the current label was already scaled back in order to account for what, at this moment, is a somewhat faint chance of him repeating the performance of his first two seasons as opposed to the following one.

 

I don't understand what you disagree with.

[-Truth-]

I don't understand what you disagree with.

 

I disagree with the notion that Jackson would be projected as less than a very good #1. He was an elite #2, and was arguably even more impressive more in the #1 role. It also wasn't in a small sample size, as he saw about half of his targets at each position. Perhaps the term itself is relative. I personally see, "very good," as a third tier, behind, "great," and, "elite." With that in mind, I believe that the first label was already scaled back to account for his struggles in the previous seasons.

[Geving]

I disagree with the notion that Jackson would be projected as less than a very good #1. He was an elite #2, and was arguably even more impressive more in the #1 role. It also wasn't in a small sample size, as he saw about half of his targets at each position. Perhaps the term itself is relative. I personally see, "very good," as a third tier, behind, "great," and, "elite." With that in mind, I believe that the first label was already scaled back to account for his struggles in the previous seasons.

I see. I just saw a lot of what you said in your post as the same as in the "arguments against KJ". Didn't see where we differed in opinion. He's your guy, so obviously you're high on him and like to project that he will continue to play on a high level. I don't really disagree with you. I like Jackson and the Texans as a whole. But I remember his porous play in his first couple of seasons, and even though he played great last year. I just think it's a bit premature to project him to be a very good #1. Very good #1's would have to play on a high level for more than one season in my book. But I guess it's just a difference in how we interpret the term "a very good #1".

[gabefergy]

Regarding Jackson, he was really good in coverage but he did let up 5 TDs which is on the steep end. He did get targeted a lot so it may stem from that. The other area if concern is his tackling. He let up a lot of YAC.

[-Truth-]

I see. I just saw a lot of what you said in your post as the same as in the "arguments against KJ". Didn't see where we differed in opinion. He's your guy, so obviously you're high on him and like to project that he will continue to play on a high level. I don't really disagree with you. I like Jackson and the Texans as a whole. But I remember his porous play in his first couple of seasons, and even though he played great last year. I just think it's a bit premature to project him to be a very good #1. Very good #1's would have to play on a high level for more than one season in my book. But I guess it's just a difference in how we interpret the term "a very good #1".

 

Ah, I see. I understand your point. Other than Houston fielding a historically bad defense in 2010 and Jackson's poor outputs hinging on a handful of games within those seasons, I can't defend his performances outside of 2012. I'd have a better point had he meddled with on-par play the year before. But while he improved considerably in 2011 compared to the previous year, it definitely fell short of the expectations, considering there was little excuse to underperform with the ascension of their defensive unit. I can't knock your standard for the title. To be honest, I am also weighing the College tape into the equation. Jackson was one of the prospects that I favored, so I could be more inclined than some to correlate his recent success with what he showed in Alabama, if that makes any sense. I agree with the last sentence.

[-Truth-]

Regarding Jackson, he was really good in coverage but he did let up 5 TDs which is on the steep end. He did get targeted a lot so it may stem from that. The other area if concern is his tackling. He let up a lot of YAC.

 

That he did, but my counter-argument would fall in line with your following point, as the amount of volume almost certainly had an effect on that total. I also don't necessarily see it as a foolproof barometer. For example, Sam Shields had an excellent campaign, but allowed 4 TDs on just over half of the targets. Brandon Flowers allowed 8 TDs the season before, but was very good in coverage from what I recall. All in all, Jackson still surrendered a QBR of just 69.6 despite the scores against him. It was aided by the fact that he gave up the 8th lowest burn percentage in 47.7% among 104 qualifiers. His 15 PDs were the 5th best. The YAC is a concern, and it plays into the issues he had in Alabama. Although he did finish within the Top 15 in tackling efficiency among that same group, which is very encouraging. He's not perfect, but considering that he graded out as the best cover CB in the AFC this season, I have very little concern with his ability on the outside.

[gabefergy]

That he did, but my counter-argument would fall in line with your following point, as the amount of volume almost certainly had an effect on that total. I also don't necessarily see it as a foolproof barometer. For example, Sam Shields had an excellent campaign, but allowed 4 TDs on just over half of the targets. Brandon Flowers allowed 8 TDs the season before, but was very good in coverage from what I recall. All in all, Jackson still surrendered a QBR of just 69.6 despite the scores against him. It was aided by the fact that he gave up the 8th lowest burn percentage in 47.7% among 104 qualifiers. His 15 PDs were the 5th best. The YAC is a concern, and it plays into the issues he had in Alabama. Although he did finish within the Top 15 in tackling efficiency among that same group, which is very encouraging. He's not perfect, but considering that he graded out as the best cover CB in the AFC this season, I have very little concern with his ability on the outside.

Best cover corner in the AFC is not an accurate statement IMO. Its just one way (out of many ways) to look at the stats.

[-Truth-]

Best cover corner in the AFC is not an accurate statement IMO. Its just one way (out of many ways) to look at the stats.

 

I'm only referring to Jackson's grade from 2012. I personally have other candidates for the AFC with Darrelle Revis gone, a la Brandon Flowers and potentially Joe Haden, Lardarius Webb and Jonathan Joseph when healthy and at their best. However, it's still obviously encouraging.

[gabefergy]

I'm only referring to Jackson's grade from 2012. I personally have other candidates for the AFC with Darrelle Revis gone, a la Brandon Flowers and potentially Joe Haden, Lardarius Webb and Jonathan Joseph when healthy and at their best. However, it's still obviously encouraging.

Well yeah, I'm assuming you are referring to the snaps in coverage/reception. Its certainly impressive, but that metric alone doesn't define him as the best coverage corner IMO. There are quite a few other means to evaluate a players performance.

[-Truth-]

Well yeah, I'm assuming you are referring to the completions/snaps in coverage. Its certainly impressive, but that metric alone doesn't define him as the best coverage corner IMO. There are quite a few other means to evaluate a players performance.

 

I was referring to their coverage grade of +12.5, which was the best figure in the AFC. It's obviously a subjective analysis, but it very much falls in line with what I've personally seen out of him this season. It also mirrors the burn percentage, allowed QBR and PDs, where he ranks highly in each category, as well as the tackling efficiency. You've already brought up the cover snaps per reception, where he ranks 5th, despite the 11th most targets. Personally, I tend to trust my own judgement. So while it may seem a bit overconfident, my best means of evaluating is via a personal visual assessment. And nothing that I've seen in 2012 tells me that he wasn't one of the best in the AFC in that span. The only negatives that have been brought up against Jackson thus far were TDs and YAC surrendered, where we've both agreed that volume had its effect. And neither by themselves are accurate barometers of a player's performance, so I'm a little confused about what this argument is attempting to achieve.