Gamble & Marshall

[Kal]

Thats the beauty of the game in that you can see a guy who has potential, where I see a guy who won't amount to much in this league.

Neither of us is right or wrong, we just have our opinions in terms of how we think a player is going to develop. Good luck to Moore, but a good half against a Vikings team that really didn't show up (and is overrated defensively considering how they've played for most of the year) isn't enough to convince me he has what it takes. If the Panthers are in a position to trade Peppers away and use that pick to get a QB in the draft I'd pull the trigger on that.

[Urrymonster]

All I care is for the past decade I have seen inconsistent QB play and I'm sick of it. I for one saw a QB that made a few mistakes early but as he got loosened up played just as good as any QB you could ask for.

He is young and the scary thing is I have seen improvement in Moore with every game. He is only going to get better guys and that gets my excited. I never see him as a Francise QB but a solid starter is very likely (think Delhomme in his first few years).

Whilst I agree with the sentiment, I think you are getting sidetracked. They purely analyze the stats, so the first half stunted drives would have weighted heavily against him. Let's be honest, if that fourth quarter did not happen it would have been a VERY average game for him.

If the Vikes DB doesn't slip you have a very different ball game...

[SorthNarolina]

I like marshall wayyyy better as a nickle back as we don't give up much in Run D or blitzes. He's a tenacious tackler and very agressive but he's just not refined enough to start. Reminds me of Karl Hankton. He's valuable to the team, just not as a starter. And definatley shouldn't see a big contract.

[jramsey4]

Whilst I agree with the sentiment, I think you are getting sidetracked. They purely analyze the stats, so the first half stunted drives would have weighted heavily against him. Let's be honest, if that fourth quarter did not happen it would have been a VERY average game for him.

If the Vikes DB doesn't slip you have a very different ball game...

His play was a direct reason for the W thats all that matters to me. If I get that every week, turns it on when it matters in the 2nd half, and wins it doesn't matter to me. All I want is a W in the stat sheet.

If its based on stats how did Matt Moore then get a - when he threw for almost 300 yards 3 tds 0 ints and completed 63 % of his passes.

[KillerKat]

I was looking at DE who lead the sack in QB pressures (finally a site that has them) and Pep is 6th in the league. But guess whos 1 and 2, Mathis and Freeny. Looks like we both got better on D with the Meeks firing/hiring.

lol and people said Pep wasn't getting any pressures.

[Kal]

His play was a direct reason for the W thats all that matters to me. If I get that every week, turns it on when it matters in the 2nd half, and wins it doesn't matter to me. All I want is a W in the stat sheet.

If its based on stats how did Matt Moore then get a - when he threw for almost 300 yards 3 tds 0 ints and completed 63 % of his passes.

You have to look at the throws he made. Were they good throws, was he helped out by his receiver. Thats how the judgement is done. A QB can throw for 300 yards and have 3 TDs but play worse than a guy who will walk away with 3 interceptions and 150 yards.

In scenario A the QB could have 3 dropped interceptions, have a receiver take 3 screen passes 80 yards and miss wide open receivers on open occasions. In scenario B a QB could have his receiver tip two balls into the hands of a DB while throwing a hail mary at the end of the half, and have his receivers drop numerous catchable balls. Stats dont ever tell the whole story, they just play a part in explaining it.

If Moore was making exceptional throws our analyst would have shown it. My guess is he made some good throws in the second half that balanced out with some bad ones in the first half, but his greatest success was probably just not making bad throws.

I'm speculating on that front but thats what I'd infer and I'll watch the second half later in the week to see what kind of throws Moore was making.

[unicar15]

Gamble is one of the better corners in the league. I like Marshall as our #2 if we can get him at a good price.

[Snake]

Intruiging you should say that, consider there was a fairly high profile game where the #1 Wr ran rampant against us. I believe the main criticism from fans, was that Gamble was not following him round like a bad smell...

We do not dictate the matchups, in our zone based defense, so any OC that wants to move his number 1 onto Marshall can easily do that. In addition, Welker who is NEs #2, was mainly operating out of the slot and yet NEITHER Gamble or Marshall followed him around. He was allowed to go whereever the OC wanted him.

Considering that and by your logic, most OCs would simply match their best receiver onto Marshall. I believe it is you sir, who's logic is flawed.

LOL considering Capt was in the slot that was not such a bad thing. I see what your getting at and really Marshall's stats are very good. He has been thrown at more and there is a less comp %.

[Wither]

Marshall is playing much better than Gamble. Flat out. Less TDs given up, much lower completion percentage and yards per attempt. He is even a MUCH more consistent tackler.

Dude, he plays against better receivers not to mention the tackles aren't limited to just pass plays.

Intruiging you should say that, consider there was a fairly high profile game where the #1 Wr ran rampant against us. I believe the main criticism from fans, was that Gamble was not following him round like a bad smell...

We do not dictate the matchups, in our zone based defense, so any OC that wants to move his number 1 onto Marshall can easily do that. In addition, Welker who is NEs #2, was mainly operating out of the slot and yet NEITHER Gamble or Marshall followed him around. He was allowed to go whereever the OC wanted him.

Considering that and by your logic, most OCs would simply match their best receiver onto Marshall. I believe it is you sir, who's logic is flawed.

:confused: What is your point? Yeah, they play a zone. Yeah, the CB's don't necessarily follow WR's around. But, all in all, the better CB usually lines up against the better receivers; not every team audibles every other down.

I think you are trying too hard with this thread.

He's judging the whole game. While Moore did good in the 2nd, it doesnt mean you get a mulligan for the first.

You can't take into account someones prior experience when judging their play, thats far too subjective. We're not scouts, we don't grade on potential we just analyse performance to keep it as objective as possible.

Then apparently what really matters is some of that subjective stuff. I think everyone agrees that stats don't tell the whole story. Maybe there should be a weight for that subjective stuff too (seriously)?

[Urrymonster]

Dude, he plays against better receivers not to mention the tackles aren't limited to just pass plays.

Huh? I know that and referred to that. It's not black and white though, so labelling Gamble as always going agaist the number one is just plain not true. I said right from the beginning of this thread that these only tell a bit of the story and that I was focusing on the core stats. He IS a more consistent tackler, has been his whole career, I also never said the tackle were purely from pass plays. Regardless tackling is still a vital part for any defensive player and Marshall is the better between the two, 10 missed tackles in three years compared to Gambles 24.

:confused: What is your point? Yeah, they play a zone. Yeah, the CB's don't necessarily follow WR's around. But, all in all, the better CB usually lines up against the better receivers; not every team audibles every other down.

You seem to be trying to turn this into an arguement??? Again, I mentioned that some things can't be refuted, such as blown coverages of opposing Wrs. Unfortunately like I said before it's really a mix of the two, both of the CBs come up against the oppositions number one. In addition, blanket statements such as ours probably means their number one was also give more double coverage with the safeties helping.

Both get thrown to an equal amount. Marshall has simply done better when the play has gone in his direction.

That is all I was saying, using the core stats, Marshall is playing better. I also mentioned that the scheme probably has a lot to say in their results and that if they were playing a different scheme, you might see different results. Marshall is not nec. a better CB, he is however PLAYING better with the opposrtunities presented to him.

I think you are trying too hard with this thread.

Fair enough, your opinion. Most of the thread has ctually been focused on the source material, but never mind. I just wanted to see what people thought about the core stats, as Marshall has been thrown under a bus more than once.

One thing I always try to do on these boards is to give another side to assumptions people have, as usually most assumptions are baseless and sometimes form a type of witch hunt. So I presented stats to show Marshall, at the least, is not playing at an inferior level to Gamble. It appears most have either ignored the thread, or not cared. Will be interesting to see what people say if he has a bad game.

[Wither]

Huh? I know that and referred to that. It's not black and white though, so labelling Gamble as always going agaist the number one is just plain not true. I said right from the beginning of this thread that these only tell a bit of the story and that I was focusing on the core stats. He IS a more consistent tackler, has been his whole career, I also never said the tackle were purely from pass plays. Regardless tackling is still a vital part for any defensive player and Marshall is the better between the two, 10 missed tackles in three years compared to Gambles 24.

My bad, I missed something you said I think.

You seem to be trying to turn this into an arguement??? Again, I mentioned that some things can't be refuted, such as blown coverages of opposing Wrs. Unfortunately like I said before it's really a mix of the two, both of the CBs come up against the oppositions number one. In addition, blanket statements such as ours probably means their number one was also give more double coverage with the safeties helping.

Both get thrown to an equal amount. Marshall has simply done better when the play has gone in his direction.

That is all I was saying, using the core stats, Marshall is playing better. I also mentioned that the scheme probably has a lot to say in their results and that if they were playing a different scheme, you might see different results. Marshall is not nec. a better CB, he is however PLAYING better with the opposrtunities presented to him./quote]

My personal feeling is that they are both about equal (which isn't necessarily a bad thing - wouldn't it mean neither of them got picked on more thus the defense is more consistent?). I guess I just flew off the handle when I seen you extrapolating something from statistics that don't necessarily tell the whole truth (I don't know if they do - I haven't really seen that many glaring mistakes by individual players on defense tbh).

Again, I might have flew off the handle a little. I'm not one of those people who have thrown him under a bus and I haven't really assumed he's any better nor any worse than Gamble. I'm not really who you were marketing the thread to, I suppose.

I see your points and I did notice your vague and somewhat neutral approach, I just don't want to see anyone drawing conclusions from the statistics if they weren't definite (as in, not definite in showing one was better than the other).