Among the many times I'm beaten up on this site, the only time I actually care is when it's relation to the Giants. Last year I called Norman the best corner in the league and a whole lot of posters called me an idiot for it. Now I'm fully aware that the formula for full-on devastation on BBI is to not only start a thread tooting your own horn, but to do so utilizing PFF data. But that's what's happening. Josh Norman is the best corner in the NFL, IMO. Denial only makes it worse. At the absolute very least he deserves to be in the conversation, if not leading the pack.
I love that he's this good, because if we were to have the #1 receiver in the NFL (I think we have #2) it would make this rivalry even more fun. As it stands, it's still fucking fantastic.
There were then, and still are great arguments for other cornerbacks. But Norman is indisputably top 3, if not #1.
| Through two games, Redskins CB Josh Norman is the league’s leading cornerback, with a 91.6 overall grade—a higher mark even than his 87.9 from last season. |
Some thoughts on Norman not shadowing the best receivers in the game thus far:
When Norman faced Antonio Brown and Dez Bryant in Weeks 1 and 2, respectively, he kept a clean sheet across the board. The problem people have, though, is that he hasn’t done it enough. Many see tracking a No. 1 receiver as a necessary step to being classified as an elite corner, regardless of the fact that it’s not the cornerback’s decision to make.
Seahawks CB Richard Sherman is arguably the best cornerback in the game right now, but that comes with an asterisk to many because he isn’t asked to follow top receivers; guys like Jets CB Darrelle Revis and Cardinals CB Patrick Peterson are. Seattle believes the defense is better overall when keeping Sherman on one side and leaning coverage away from him to help the other side, allowing the No. 2 corner to have help from safeties buzzing down from bracket coverage, generally reducing the amount of space a great receiver can utilize to beat him. |
More PFF Norman content here. - (
New Window )
This is akin to the hoopla over Nnamdi Asomugha when he was a Raider and supposed to be god's gift to the cornerback position. No one threw at him because Me-Lo Hall and the rest of the Raiders secondary was so bad. He went to the Eagles and suddenly he was very ordinary.
I have no idea, but for a little context, Janoris is 4th in the NFL so far... and I'm positive you can't find a single BBIer who has issue with his play through 2 games.
This is akin to the hoopla over Nnamdi Asomugha when he was a Raider and supposed to be god's gift to the cornerback position. No one threw at him because Me-Lo Hall and the rest of the Raiders secondary was so bad. He went to the Eagles and suddenly he was very ordinary.
Nnamdi was God's gift, but he faded very quickly after two stellar seasons. It's certainly possible Norman will do the same, but I'm not claiming he's going to the Hall or that he's going to go down as one of the greats. I'm saying right now, there's no one better at covering wideouts... and it's a stance that, for some reason, is considered odd here.
And when that #1 is running rampant and we can't stop him, that #2 will just be sitting there, blanketed by Norman and watching him score touchdowns.
Look at that coverage!
thank you. why are there 3 threads on this dooshbag? who gives a fuck? He's famous because the Giants best player was too immature to be satisfied simply to do his job and torch the asshole and help win a game. Let's hope he's learned his lesson and just catches the damn ball. And if he hasn't that McAdoo will chain his ass to the bench until he grows up.
I don't know enough about how Washington is using Norman to assess whether he is truly refuting the criticism from last year: that he's basically a "system corner" who was great in the role he played in Carolina, but lacks scheme-versatility.
Anyway, the Skins have only played two games (and lost both). Over time, both Redskin corners will probably revert to their respective means somewhat.
Quote:
Brown in week1. I hate PFF, but for arguments sake what is Breeland's rating?
I have no idea, but for a little context, Janoris is 4th in the NFL so far... and I'm positive you can't find a single BBIer who has issue with his play through 2 games.
More context. The CBs opposite Jenkins aren't getting lit up like a xmas tree. PFF also has Snacks as a shitty player so far.
And when that #1 is running rampant and we can't stop him, that #2 will just be sitting there, blanketed by Norman and watching him score touchdowns.
Posts like this are just proof that no amount of data, information, or eye tests will change some people's mind. Last year he was dominant in Carolina where he blanketed top receivers plenty of times. Did that season and performance magically disappear after two games? This year the foolish Washington coaching staff that has guided an 0-2 football team chooses to not use him on top players and use their #2, and you hold him accountable for that... but in a parallel argument you'll critique Washington's coaching.
And not sure if you noticed, but Norman is covering Beckham this week. So I guess that makes Beckham not a #1 based on your logic?
What the Hell is the aversion to accepting a fact when it comes to Norman? He's one of the best and maybe the best. It's so peculiar people here (and here only) want to fight this tooth and nail.
I'm not positive on this one, but I'm pretty sure Patrick Peterson and Revis were the only players who had a lower opposing QB's completion percentage when thrown in their directions last year. He was most certainly shut-down.
Quote:
Brown in week1. I hate PFF, but for arguments sake what is Breeland's rating?
I have no idea, but for a little context, Janoris is 4th in the NFL so far... and I'm positive you can't find a single BBIer who has issue with his play through 2 games.
so jes nkt as good as your hero because he covered a better plauer in week one?
Which plauer had the harder assignment? Quoting PFF as a definitive source of proof shows a seruois lack of basic football football x and o theory.
Just because the rest of his secondary can't cover, doesn't mean he's shutting his WR down.
Quote:
In comment 13134421 figgy2989 said:
Quote:
Brown in week1. I hate PFF, but for arguments sake what is Breeland's rating?
I have no idea, but for a little context, Janoris is 4th in the NFL so far... and I'm positive you can't find a single BBIer who has issue with his play through 2 games.
so jes nkt as good as your hero because he covered a better plauer in week one?
Which plauer had the harder assignment? Quoting PFF as a definitive source of proof shows a seruois lack of basic football football x and o theory.
Swing & Miss, and a bad one... because not only did you understand my point, you somehow thought I was making the opposite point.
Forget their PFF rankings. Janoris Jenkins. Has he played well this year? That's rhetorical, because we all know he obviously has.
Now if I told you there was some metric out there that put Jenkins and Norman in the same boat, wouldn't you then consider the idea that the other player is playing very well, too? Now if I told you that same metric, while flawed (like ALL statistics and football evaluation tools) is a respected component of player analysis, so much so that more than 1/2 of NFL teams utilize it, would you then consider, just maybe that Norman is pretty good?
Finally, he's far from my hero. In fact, I've posted on multiple threads this week and last week that he and Dez Bryant are by far my least favorite players in the league. But I also enjoy being impartial, and it can be bang-head-on-desk bad here when it comes to BBIers giving credit where it's due for players on the Skins, Cowboys, and Eagles.
Quote:
There's no one better at covering wideouts - so good, we'll use him on the other team's #2, and have the #1 doubled.
And when that #1 is running rampant and we can't stop him, that #2 will just be sitting there, blanketed by Norman and watching him score touchdowns.
Posts like this are just proof that no amount of data, information, or eye tests will change some people's mind. Last year he was dominant in Carolina where he blanketed top receivers plenty of times. Did that season and performance magically disappear after two games? This year the foolish Washington coaching staff that has guided an 0-2 football team chooses to not use him on top players and use their #2, and you hold him accountable for that... but in a parallel argument you'll critique Washington's coaching.
And not sure if you noticed, but Norman is covering Beckham this week. So I guess that makes Beckham not a #1 based on your logic?
What the Hell is the aversion to accepting a fact when it comes to Norman? He's one of the best and maybe the best. It's so peculiar people here (and here only) want to fight this tooth and nail.
I blame myself, for bothering to engage with someone who writes 'you can't accept fact' and then that fact is 'he's one of the best and maybe the best'.
Do me a favor, find a 3rd grader and ask him to lend you his dictionary for a few minutes, and look up fact.
As for him covering Beckham - I can't judge Norman on what he hasn't done with the Skins (cover a #1), I can only judge him on the work to date. So far, about the only thing he has going for him is that nice contact tan he got from being so close to the fire on the other side of the field while Breeland got roasted.
Norman is extremely athletic and reads QBs well. I can't post the gif right now, but someone find the one where he, body all contorted, at the last second deflects the ball thrown to Vincent Jackson.
No one's saying he's Darrell Green, but it's fairly obvious some are loathe to admit that he's a really good corner merely because he was a big meanie to Beckham. Would definitely prefer he had stayed outside the NFC East.
Do me a favor, find a 3rd grader and ask him to lend you his dictionary for a few minutes, and look up fact.
Norman is a top 3 corner in the NFL. That is a fact. I'm sure you enjoyed indulging yourself with self-gratification by pointing out the obtuse and useless tidbit that, technically, "any opinion inherently can not be a fact," completely detracting from any reasonable discussion on Josh Norman. Because why wouldn't you turn to such a semantics-driven, totally irrelevant distraction? There is literally no logical or intelligent counter-argument at this point.
So a pat on the back for you, Sir.
Norman is extremely athletic and reads QBs well. I can't post the gif right now, but someone find the one where he, body all contorted, at the last second deflects the ball thrown to Vincent Jackson.
No one's saying he's Darrell Green, but it's fairly obvious some are loathe to admit that he's a really good corner merely because he was a big meanie to Beckham. Would definitely prefer he had stayed outside the NFC East.
Good corner - fine.
Good corner worth what Washington paid him? Unlikely.
Best in the NFL? C'mon.
It's not because he engaged Beckham - if Beckham hadn't lost his shit, he would have burnt Norman alive. Norman's saving grace was playing behind the front 7 of Carolina, which would make just about any CB look good.
Quote:
I blame myself, for bothering to engage with someone who writes 'you can't accept fact' and then that fact is 'he's one of the best and maybe the best'.
Do me a favor, find a 3rd grader and ask him to lend you his dictionary for a few minutes, and look up fact.
Norman is a top 3 corner in the NFL. That is a fact. I'm sure you enjoyed indulging yourself with self-gratification by pointing out the obtuse and useless tidbit that, technically, "any opinion inherently can not be a fact," completely detracting from any reasonable discussion on Josh Norman. Because why wouldn't you turn to such a semantics-driven, totally irrelevant distraction? There is literally no logical or intelligent counter-argument at this point.
So a pat on the back for you, Sir.
That's a lot of words for you to just admit you don't know the meaning of the word fact. If I were you, I'd start saving up for my next trip to the Israeli PC shop, you're going to need a new keyboard soon enough if you keep typing like that.
Not shitty exactly, but low-scoring, yes. The combination of a relatively low snap count and no contribution to the pass rush pretty much ensure that his numbers will be lacklustre.
Here's the basic issue: Snacks is unbelievably good at one thing - so good that opponents don't give him many opportunities to do it. That's a key part of his contribution: he dictates to the offense by making it almost impossible to do something they would probably like to do: run between the tackles. So they will throw a lot when he's on the field, forcing him to spend much of his time doing something at which he pretty much sucks: rushing the passer. PFF doesn't give him points for relegating large sections of the opponent's playbook to the scrapheap. Instead, it has to ding him for standing uselessly at the line of scrimmage on pass plays.
That's 2-for-2. Another pat on the back. But just a suggestion... instead of turning to childish distractions from Josh Norman how about try, I don't know, presenting a counter argument for a corner who in your eyes is distinctly better than him.
Your call, big man.
You'll figure it out on Sunday when he supposedly will shadow Beckham.
he also had the help of 2 of the best cover linebackers playing underneath...
this year jenkins has followed the best receiver, he shut down dez bryant in the first game, norman on the other hand let breeland get torched rather than saying ill follow him...
norman is not the best corner in the league, let him go 1 on 1 with a wr all game and then i will consider him the beat corner..
to be the best cornr you got to do what revis did
My guess is they were probably working on their defense throughout minicamps, camp, and preseason, thought they had a good philosophy in mind. After failing week 1, they figured they'd try one more time week 2... Didn't work out.
So they've adjusted this week, as all the reports have stated He's covering OBJ.
You'll figure it out on Sunday when he supposedly will shadow Beckham.
Does that mean PFF (a tool utilized by >half the team in the NFL) doesn't know what they're watching? Since they just rated him the best corner in the NFL? Again, what piece of data will actually show you and other people on BBI, who soo unbelievably clearly can't put aside biases and love of Giants/Beckham that Norman is exceptionally skilled at his craft.
You were one of the posters I referenced in my OP. As expected, and as usual, you just aren't able to admit when you're wrong, even if data is literally posted right in front of your eyes.
Quote:
PFF also has Snacks as a shitty player so far.
Not shitty exactly, but low-scoring, yes. The combination of a relatively low snap count and no contribution to the pass rush pretty much ensure that his numbers will be lacklustre.
Here's the basic issue: Snacks is unbelievably good at one thing - so good that opponents don't give him many opportunities to do it. That's a key part of his contribution: he dictates to the offense by making it almost impossible to do something they would probably like to do: run between the tackles. So they will throw a lot when he's on the field, forcing him to spend much of his time doing something at which he pretty much sucks: rushing the passer. PFF doesn't give him points for relegating large sections of the opponent's playbook to the scrapheap. Instead, it has to ding him for standing uselessly at the line of scrimmage on pass plays.
I was under the impression (possibly false) that PFF's new grades aren't dependent on snap count like their old +/- system. That said, I haven't really looked into how their new grades are computed.
And I disagree that Snacks stands uselessly at the LOS on pass plays. He may not get the QB hits/sacks (he did have a hurry nullified by a holding against Dallas), but he does help collapse the pocket and at least makes it uncomfortable for QBs to step up (unlike a guy like Kuhn who even got pushed back on pass plays).
DRC is very good. I'd certainly be willing to hear your argument. Do you actualy have one? Or just stating it without any proof?
-- if so -- how can you stand on PFF as proof of anything?
I think Beckham is going to be just OK this week, but that's less about Norman, really. Thankfully the Giants have a ton of weapons that will overmatch the rest of Washington's secondary. I'm expecting similarly good, but unspectacular stat lines from our big 3. Collectively, it will be a lot of successful pass offense.
-- if so -- how can you stand on PFF as proof of anything?
I haven't mentioned Snacks once. If you're referring to the fact that I said PFF is flawed, like all statistics in sports, then sure... of course it's not the end all, be all. But it also is useful, and perhaps one of the most useful measurements of success/talent. I don't care to prop up PFF. I care when biased posters pummel PFF when their data doesn't support a biased narrative. That's all that's happening here.
Quote:
Fekker proving once again that he has no idea what he is watching on Sundays.
You'll figure it out on Sunday when he supposedly will shadow Beckham.
Does that mean PFF (a tool utilized by >half the team in the NFL) doesn't know what they're watching? Since they just rated him the best corner in the NFL? Again, what piece of data will actually show you and other people on BBI, who soo unbelievably clearly can't put aside biases and love of Giants/Beckham that Norman is exceptionally skilled at his craft.
You were one of the posters I referenced in my OP. As expected, and as usual, you just aren't able to admit when you're wrong, even if data is literally posted right in front of your eyes.
Do you have any proof of this (repeated) claim? And proof that they use these 'grades', not just PFF for things like snap counts.
This is the same system that told you Dak Prescott was better than Eli in Week 1 except that anyone who actually watches and understands the game of football knew better.
Josh Norman is a good CB who benefited exponentially from an excellent front 7 and the type of defense he played in. This same player was made a fool of by Ramses Barden and benched only a few short years prior.
The Panthers had no interest in keeping him and felt he was totally replaceable. If he was anywhere near as good as you seem to think he is, that probably wouldn't have been the case. Gettleman didn't want him back.