Warrior General Games

Originally posted by fallingmercury
Why are you measuring CB performance on INTs? If your CB is good, he will rarely be thrown at and will not get many chances to get ints. If your CB is average or sucky, he'll get thrown at a lot and get occasional interceptions off volume - in between the regular spankings he gets from the offense.

You need to measure coverage performance, not INTS.

I have talked to Pabst about getting a new stat: Thrown On. It would measure how many time the CB was thrown on so you can see how many time a WR made a catch against him as well as factor in PD's and INT's. The way the game is coded, they can not get this stat to work.

I agree with INT's =/= Super Awesome CB.

One of my CBs last year had the same PT as two other CBs - about 46 plays per game.

After tracking the Thrown-On stat manually all year, I found that my CB was thrown at less than half as much as each of the other two guys. My CB was thrown at 3.1 times per game while the other two guys averaged around 7 per game.

Despite that, my CB had 8 ints compared to them getting 4 and 3. So my guy intercepted about 16% of passes thrown his way. I'd consider him successful though even if he had 0 ints. He also only gave up one TD pass in coverage in the regular season and a second one in the playoffs against the eventual league champ.

He played 80% of his games against QBs that were higher level than him - often 5-8 levels higher.

You need to look at these sorts of things when evaluating a CB.

Then you also need to look at the level or how good the WR's are that you are covering compared to theirs. It is more complicated really.

Originally posted by fallingmercury
One of my CBs last year had the same PT as two other CBs - about 46 plays per game.

After tracking the Thrown-On stat manually all year, I found that my CB was thrown at less than half as much as each of the other two guys. My CB was thrown at 3.1 times per game while the other two guys averaged around 7 per game.

Despite that, my CB had 8 ints compared to them getting 4 and 3. So my guy intercepted about 16% of passes thrown his way. I'd consider him successful though even if he had 0 ints. He also only gave up one TD pass in coverage in the regular season and a second one in the playoffs against the eventual league champ.

He played 80% of his games against QBs that were higher level than him - often 5-8 levels higher.

You need to look at these sorts of things when evaluating a CB.

Doing that for your own player is a labor of love. Doing it as a D-Co for a handful of teams is insane. Its a shame really that it can not be coded in.

Kinda like the Sacks Given Up stat for O-Linemen that won't ever be included.

Originally posted by Stonewall Paul
Then you also need to look at the level or how good the WR's are that you are covering compared to theirs. It is more complicated really.

That's impossible since you cant see builds. Just levels.

Originally posted by fallingmercury
Why are you measuring CB performance on INTs? If your CB is good, he will rarely be thrown at and will not get many chances to get ints. If your CB is average or sucky, he'll get thrown at a lot and get occasional interceptions off volume - in between the regular spankings he gets from the offense.

You need to measure coverage performance, not INTS.

+1,000,000,000,000,000

Not really impossible. You have to look at the WRs stats on the season against quality opponents. It takes a lot of work but if you really want to measure how successful a CB is you can compare how your player shuts them down compared to other players.

Originally posted by Stonewall Paul
Not really impossible. You have to look at the WRs stats on the season against quality opponents. It takes a lot of work but if you really want to measure how successful a CB is you can compare how your player shuts them down compared to other players.

It's almost impossible. Against quality opponents, maybe the team didnt even throw all that much. Only like 20-30% of games nowadays are competitive matchups, so your analysis will suffer greatly from small sample size.

There's also double-coverage issues here. If they have 1 badass and 3 mediocre WR's, I would double that guy most plays, especially those that have him as the primary. At the end of the game, that WR may very well have poor stats but the CB1 isn't wholly responsible for it.