FootballOutsiders - Worst Cornerback Charting Stats 2010 ( D. Hall #2 worst)

[rumplestilskin]

I didn't read through all the posts and it may be mentioned earlier but some of Halls bad numbers come from gambling while the ball is in the air and trying to strip the ball after the catch. He plays for the turnover and is one of the elite players in the league in that regard. I love his play.

[Loyal2Washington]

What is your definition of playmaker? I'd think for a CB picks, fumble recoveries, and TDs would fit the bill. As you can see Halls numbers fair well compared to the playmakers you mentioned.

Sanders: 188 games/53 Ints/13 FRs/10 TDs

Green: 295 games/54 Ints/10 FRs/8 TDs

Hall: 101 games/32 Ints/10 FRs/6 TDs

By your definition Hall is a better playmaker then both Darrell Green and Deion Sanders. Would you take Hall on your team over either player? Of course you wouldn't because Hall is no where near the caliber of Green or Sanders. Playmakers don't have a great game or two they have great seasons.

Hall has more INT's because QB's do not fear Hall. Green and Sanders would go games where QB's went at them only a couple times because QB's were terrified of throwing it their way. Hall doesn't take away half the field and gives up big plays rather routinely. His gambles payoff more for the house then himself, which while not a gambling historian myself understands that's how Vegas stays in business.

The term "playmaker" in my book is reserved for guys that have an effect on every game they play, Hall does not. It's now just another cliche word thrown around and applied to every above avg player to get people excited or for fans to numb the pain and trick themselves into believing that a player on their squad is truly better then he actually his. Hall is an above avg. CB that makes a handful of good/great plays every season. Now what's wrong with that? Hall and Rogers make a formidable duo at CB but your fooling yourself if you think Hall is in the same realm as Darrell Green.

[SkinsFTW]

Well said, DeAngelo always is lurking for 6.

I guess now I'm happy with that, this D needs this kind of player.

You just never know whether it's 6 for us or 6 for the opponent. And I'm willing to bet that more often than not, it's 6 for the opponent.

[Parsec2010]

Who cares about that analysis. We all know that Deangelo Hall pretty much won 2 games for us last season. Dallas and Chicago. If it weren't for him we would have more losses to add to our abysmal season.

[VaSkinsNut]

With more pass rush and better safety play Hall would not be on that list.

[KDawg]

I'll bite

Would you take Hall on your team over either player? Of course you wouldn't because Hall is no where near the caliber of Green or Sanders.

Of course you wouldn't take Hall, a guy who isn't in the Hall of Fame or won't be in the Hall of Fame over two Hall of Famers. But comparing DeAngelo hall to Darrell Green and Deion Sanders, two of the greatest corners to ever play the game is a bit of a short sighted and off opinion. Looking around the NFL today, there aren't many guys who are better playmakers than DeAngelo Hall at the corner position. There are better cover corners, sure. But not many better playmakers. A playmaker is a person who makes plays. It's a person who makes the big play that turns the game and playmakers are often people who make mistakes. The rare exceptions are Darrell and Deion. Darrell, though, as a whole, wasn't a great playmaker as a corner. Darrell was a very sound cover man who could make a play. Looking at his numbers, when you play 295 games and come away with 54 INTs, you're a guy extremely capable of making a play, but your goal was more to shut down an opposing teams top receiver. That's not the goal with DeAngelo Hall or this system. His job is to make a play. And he does that. He doesn't cover as well as any of those guys. Sure, I'd rather have two shut down corners on the team, but that's not how our defense is designed (Haslett is the gift that keeps on giving) and that's not how Hall plays.

Hall has more INT's because QB's do not fear Hall.

Which is stupid on the QBs part. One thing that should be respected about Hall is that if you continually attempt to pick on him, he's going to hurt you. It's risk vs. reward, but all quarterbacks should be aware of the fact that Hall can hurt you.

Green and Sanders would go games where QB's went at them only a couple times because QB's were terrified of throwing it their way. Hall doesn't take away half the field and gives up big plays rather routinely. His gambles payoff more for the house then himself, which while not a gambling historian myself understands that's how Vegas stays in business.

I still feel that it's unfair that you're comparing Hall to two of the greatest corners of all time. He's not Darrell or Deion. He never will be.

The term "playmaker" in my book is reserved for guys that have an effect on every game they play, Hall does not.

See, this is the crux of the issue. How you define "playmaker".

Here is dictionary.com's definition:

playmaker (ˈpleɪˌmeɪkə)

— n

sport a player whose role is to create scoring opportunities for his or her team-mates

DeAngelo Hall fits that definition to a T. Darrell and Deion weren't playmakers... They were Hall of Famers who had playmaking ability. They were well rounded. Hall isn't. Hall is ONLY a playmaker.

It's now just another cliche word thrown around and applied to every above avg player to get people excited or for fans to numb the pain and trick themselves into believing that a player on their squad is truly better then he actually his.

Again, I don't think the term playmaker should be reserved for the best players. It should be reserved for the guys capable of exploding and creating scoring opportunities for their team at any time. Hall fits that definition. He doesn't fit the definition of Hall of Famer or well rounded.

Hall is an above avg. CB that makes a handful of good/great plays every season. Now what's wrong with that? Hall and Rogers make a formidable duo at CB but your fooling yourself if you think Hall is in the same realm as Darrell Green.

Erm... Okay, so I didn't see this line until I typed my reply... However, I don't see very many people saying that he IS Green or Sanders...

[Loyal2Washington]

I'll bite

And in your attempt missed the question I was answering

To be clear the question was what was "MY" definition of a "playmaker", hence my opinion. I provided two examples of what I consider to be "playmakers" in their primes. I clearly explained in the post that, again IMO, the term playmaker should be used only to compliment a player that exemplifies great play throughout the entire season not just a handful of games. So yea in my book playmakers belong in the HOF.

If you believe in tagging every above avg. player a "playmaker" then that's OK with me, I don't understand it but to each his own.

[TheLongshot]

By your definition Hall is a better playmaker then both Darrell Green and Deion Sanders. Would you take Hall on your team over either player? Of course you wouldn't because Hall is no where near the caliber of Green or Sanders. Playmakers don't have a great game or two they have great seasons.

Hall has more INT's because QB's do not fear Hall. Green and Sanders would go games where QB's went at them only a couple times because QB's were terrified of throwing it their way. Hall doesn't take away half the field and gives up big plays rather routinely. His gambles payoff more for the house then himself, which while not a gambling historian myself understands that's how Vegas stays in business.

The term "playmaker" in my book is reserved for guys that have an effect on every game they play, Hall does not. It's now just another cliche word thrown around and applied to every above avg player to get people excited or for fans to numb the pain and trick themselves into believing that a player on their squad is truly better then he actually his. Hall is an above avg. CB that makes a handful of good/great plays every season. Now what's wrong with that? Hall and Rogers make a formidable duo at CB but your fooling yourself if you think Hall is in the same realm as Darrell Green.

Would you want him instead of Green? No.

Would you want him on the opposite side of the field from Green? Hell yes.

[Loyal2Washington]

Would you want him instead of Green? No.

Would you want him on the opposite side of the field from Green? Hell yes.

OK, I'm not understanding your point LS. I said I thought Hall was a good above avg. CB. So yea if Green can make Wilburn, Mayhew and others look good I'm sure Hall's game would be enhanced playing next to a real big time playmaker. That's part of what great players do, they make others around them better and I'd imagine it would be no different for Hall.

[KDawg]

And in your attempt missed the question I was answering

To be clear the question was what was "MY" definition of a "playmaker", hence my opinion. I provided two examples of what I consider to be "playmakers" in their primes. I clearly explained in the post that, again IMO, the term playmaker should be used only to compliment a player that exemplifies great play throughout the entire season not just a handful of games. So yea in my book playmakers belong in the HOF.

If you believe in tagging every above avg. player a "playmaker" then that's OK with me, I don't understand it but to each his own.

Not every above average player is a playmaker... And I'll one up you here... DeAngelo is an average player as a whole. He's an excellent playmaker.

[Diesel__44]

This shouldn't be a shock to anyone. DHall is a liability in coverage but has good ball skills. The fact that he made the pro bowl further proves what a joke the pro bowl is.

[Big Blue Joe]

Would you want him instead of Green? No.

Would you want him on the opposite side of the field from Green? Hell yes.

Hall played opposite Nnamdi Asomugha in 2008, and Deangelo was so awful in coverage that the Raiders couldn't even wait until the end of the season to cut him. Having a guy who QB's are afraid to challenge play opposite Hall is a bad idea. Teams would target Deangelo all day long every single game. And it would just highlight his deficiencies as a cover corner.

[TheLongshot]

OK, I'm not understanding your point LS. I said I thought Hall was a good above avg. CB. So yea if Green can make Wilburn, Mayhew and others look good I'm sure Hall's game would be enhanced playing next to a real big time playmaker. That's part of what great players do, they make others around them better and I'd imagine it would be no different for Hall.

Point being that if you have a guy who is "shut down" on one side (something that isn't really true anymore. No one is truly a "shutdown" corner nowadays.) you want the guy on the other side to be able to take advantage of it. While guys like Wilburn and Mayhew had one year where they had high interception stats, a guy like Hall would take massive advantage of such a situation.

---------- Post added March-23rd-2011 at 10:25 AM ----------

Hall played opposite Nnamdi Asomugha in 2008, and Deangelo was so awful in coverage that the Raiders couldn't even wait until the end of the season to cut him. Having a guy who QB's are afraid to challenge play opposite Hall is a bad idea. Teams would target Deangelo all day long every single game. And it would just highlight his deficiencies as a cover corner.

Only if they were expecting him to be something that he was not. Given past history here, you shouldn't be shocked that a coaching staff would misuse a player.

[icbmayday]

Like everybody said hes a play maker...I wonder what Charles Woodson ranked they guys aren't known for there coverage skills

[Diesel__44]

I wouldn't put DHall in the same sentence as the future HOF'er Charles Woodson.

[washedup2]

He had one great game, the rest were average. He does gamble and he gave up some big plays. I think he is fine but lets not get out of hand and say this ranking is totally wrong.

[Loyal2Washington]

Point being that if you have a guy who is "shut down" on one side (something that isn't really true anymore. No one is truly a "shutdown" corner nowadays.)

Revis?

Taking advantage of the situation, or making plays, is far different then being a playmaker. Guys like Green made/make it possible for others to make plays, that doesn't mean guys like Hall are the actual "playmaker", they just happen to be in the right place at the right time and capitalize on the moment.

I also never said Wilburn or Mayhew were better then Hall, they are however two great examples of avg. run of the mill CB's becoming near pro bowlers by playing along side a true playmaker. If paired with a true playmaking CB Hall would be a much better CB then he is now and have more chances to make plays, Hall could have been Gary Clark to Green's Art Monk, see what I'm saying.

I guess I'm just less flexible then others when it comes to tagging players with terms.

---------- Post added March-23rd-2011 at 04:22 PM ----------

Not every above average player is a playmaker... And I'll one up you here... DeAngelo is an average player as a whole. He's an excellent playmaker.

I don't know I think Hall is above avg. He'll make a few plays, give some up, make a nice tackle, whiff here and there but as a whole he's by far from being our weakest link on D. I just differ from most and feel he's not a legit big time playmaker, but agree that he does make plays.

[Hitman21ST]

I don't know I think Hall is above avg. He'll make a few plays, give some up, make a nice tackle, whiff here and there but as whole he's by far our weakest link on D. I just differ from most and feel he's not a legit big time playmaker, but agree that he does make plays.

That's a BIIIIIIIIG stretch. I might buy the weakest link in the secondary, but we have some pretty weak links on the d-line and the other OLB spot opposite Rak.

[Loyal2Washington]

That's a BIIIIIIIIG stretch. I might buy the weakest link in the secondary, but we have some pretty weak links on the d-line and the other OLB spot opposite Rak.

No no you misunderstood Hitman21, or more appropriately I miss typed. I was saying Hall's game as a whole makes him far from our weakest link. That's my bad

I edited my original thought to make sense now.