Patrick Peterson takes aim at Sherm

[RichNhansom]

I won't say PP is not "good" but his pointed exclamation was that Sherman "is not a shutdown corner" by definition of the system he plays in.

I counter that PP is not a shutdown corner by definition of the success of his opponents. He doesn't shut anyone down.

Only 8 QBs finished last season with a 96 or better rating. PP faced 3 of them (Foles, Brees, Wilson twice). So in 12 games, 75% of last season, he was challenged with a QB who would finish the season below 96. Yet, collectively, all QBs achieved a 96 rating when throwing at PP. They were more efficient and successful when throwing at Peterson than they were the rest of the season.

According to Pro Football Focus’s play-by-play grading system, Sherman has finished no lower than sixth among cornerbacks over the past two years; meanwhile, Peterson has finished no higher than 16th. More stats here.

PP is riding the lingering excitement over his athleticism from the 2011 draft and his punt returns his rookie year. His coverage skills have not been close to elite. I'll keep it to the "shutdown corner" topic, but his returning averages have gone down, and when the opponent runs the ball, PP becomes Passive Peterson, so those don't really factor into any "elite player" conversation.

Peterson's statement that his job is more challenging serves more as an excuse for his average stats than a reason to be considered more valuable than Sherman.

Seems to me he is just insulting his team mates. If AZ had other decent DB's and safeties they wouldn't slide him around. For Seattle to move Sherman would be an insult to every other DB we have had out there playing opposite him. Would you want to explain to Maxwell why you are moving Sherman to his side so he can cover the opponents bets receiver?

It also speaks volumes that in a secondary as good as ours he is still being avoided. In AZ you can change up and go after supposedly lessor DB's so then why aren't QB's doing that? The answer is because they aren't afraid of him. The post above shows why and there is no debate. QB's do their best against him. Why would they avoid him even when easier targets are available?

 

[SoulfishHawk]

He's damn good, just not as good as Sherman, that's all.

 

[The Great Hawktini]

Peterson is burnt more then a Gingers nose!!

 

[Shadowhawk]

So we're really going to do this thing where posters pretend that Peterson isn't good because he's not a Seahawk? Is this the troglodytic third cousin of "Andrew Luck isn't that good because he isn't Russell Wilson"?

No, we're going to do this thing where posters say Peterson is a good cornerback with elite potential that he hasn't reached yet because it's the truth, rather than call Peterson an elite cornerback just because the same "experts" who thought Russell Wilson couldn't play in the NFL (and now write him off as nothing more than a "game manager") say that Peterson is an elite cornerback.

 

[Escamillo]

Numbers Never Lie discussion on this. Both guest side with Sherm.
[youtube]TF0YlsFw6eo[/youtube]

 

[HawkAroundTheClock]

Seems to me he is just insulting his team mates. If AZ had other decent DB's and safeties they wouldn't slide him around. For Seattle to move Sherman would be an insult to every other DB we have had out there playing opposite him. Would you want to explain to Maxwell why you are moving Sherman to his side so he can cover the opponents bets receiver?

That is an excellent point and a perfectly reasonable deduction based on PP's comments. The other Cardinals DB's have to accept one of the following:

1) They do not possess the skills to provide help over the top, nor to "own" their portion of the field.
2) They do possess the skills, but their coaches implement a system that prevents them from maximizing those skills.
3) They do what their coaches ask, and for some reason the coaches ask PP to allow All-Pro-level passer efficiency, lol.
4) PP is full of it.

If they ignore logic and choose to believe that PP is so flippin' special that they need a scheme to allow his play to shine, how do they explain the very dull and tarnished 96 passing rating against him?

 

[Escamillo]

First Take discussion on this. Stephen A and Ryan Clark side with Sherm, Skip Baylis "sides with Peterson" even while proclaiming Sherm as the league's best corner.
Discussion starts at 39:44
http://youtu.be/XLAB9RaW4HM

Ryan Clark's comments were on point. He says that all the recent discussions on who is the nest corner have one common denominator: Sherm. The comparisons are always Cornerback X vs Sherm, Cornerback Y vs Sherm, Cornerback Z vs Sherm. That, according to Clark, indicates which CB sets the standard. Clark also says the reason these other CB's talk about scheme so much is that they have no other argument. They can't go after Sherm on stats (nor, as Clark adds in the NNL video upthread, can they go after him for not being a clutch player or not being a champion), so they switch the discussion to scheme. They've been forced to resort to that as their one and only talking point.

 

[-The Glove-]

I knew I liked Ryan Clark for a reason

 

[chris98251]

Read another article today saying LOB needs to move over that the Pats and Cards have a claim for best secondary now.

Keep this stuff coming, I know it is just adding to the fire.


http://network.yardbarker.com/nfl/a...ksrc=story_article_msn_mainhead_head_16534903

Also the dudes an idiot, it's LOB not LOD.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

First thing I thought of, Legion of Doom? What a jacknut

Nobody is "moving over", and no way in hell will they be better than the Hawks D.

 

[Pandion Haliaetus]

On LOB:

Yeah, nah what makes Legion of Boom so perfect is that its a great complement of unique players coached up by two ex-DBs and a HC who came into the league as DBs coach.

Best FS, Best SS, Best CB...in the game... all are physical, all are intelligent and all are coachable where if they make mistakes they will put in the work to correct them. Egos on the field, but not in the class-room.


On PP:

The "I cover the #1 WR" logic is getting old with every CB vs Sherman.

1. This is the NFL, most rosters are 3-4 deep in quality WRs. Just because you're covering the #1 doesn't mean the #2 isn't good.

2. Sherman also does cover #1 WRs and he shut them down as well as he does any other WR.

3. If you're a CB and are tasked to follow the #1 WR around. Doesn't that make you're peparation easier, I mean you can spend like 70% of your film study focusing on 1 player.

Where as with Sherman he might might see the full line-up of opposing WRs, and he has to be prepared for everyone one. And that's his thing, he not the best CB in game because, he has elite athleticism + quality worth ethics, he's the best because he's the most prepared CB in the game + quality athleticism. Sherman has to work harder than any #1 CB that shadows #1 because he doesn't who he'll be facing opposite of him but the end result is usually the same he "shuts" them down.

Furthermore, Sherman is only going to continue to get better practicing against guys like Percy Harvin and Paul Richardson.

Guys like Tye Hilton, Jarius Wright, and Titus Young won't be surprising or out-running the Defense with all-world speed anymore.

 

[Escamillo]

I don't know if this link has already been posted here (too lazy to re-read the whole thread), but here's a pretty awesome link that breaks it down:
Patrick Peterson is Wrong About Richard Sherman

 

[Throwdown]

I love the "rising star" argument, Peterson's been one for 3 years now, when does it just become what he is? a pretty damn good corner who isn't the best?

AZ's secondary better than the LOB, yeah, that's a joke.

 

[-The Glove-]

Potential doesn't mean a damn thing if it's not being realized.

 

[MidwestHawker]

I love the "rising star" argument, Peterson's been one for 3 years now, when does it just become what he is? a pretty damn good corner who isn't the best?

He's a two-time first-team all-pro in the NFL. He's done that twice in the past three years, along with making the pro bowl in each of the last three years. Peterson isn't just some unrealized potential; he's one of the top corners in the game.

 

[Throwdown]

I didn't say he isnt a top corner, I just said he wasn't the best.

 

[MidwestHawker]

Yeah, I mean that's fine and I'm pretty sure I agree with that. Guess I should have quoted the post below yours. There just seem to be a number of posters who sell him short.

 

[Scottemojo]

Yeah, I mean that's fine and I'm pretty sure I agree with that. Guess I should have quoted the post below yours. There just seem to be a number of posters who sell him short.

Do you think Peterson sells Sherman short?

 

[-The Glove-]

What I mean, is all we hear about Peterson is how athletic and explosive he is. That's fine, but the numbers don't support that he's the best.

 

[MidwestHawker]

Yeah, I mean that's fine and I'm pretty sure I agree with that. Guess I should have quoted the post below yours. There just seem to be a number of posters who sell him short.

Do you think Peterson sells Sherman short?

Yes.