Chiefs *** Official I love Marcus Cooper Thread *** - Page 17

Mr. Laz · 08:33 PM

Tall,strong and can run ... without him they would have been toasting Dunta Robinson all game long.

Young guy saved our collective asses today

[/edited, because i'm a dumb ass with the wrong picture]

Height: 6-2
Weight: 192
Age: 23
College: Rutgers
Experience:R

Skyy God · 10-08-2013, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anyong Bluth

Just saw this via Twitter, nice!

@PFF_Jeff: Former #49ers draft pick Marcus Cooper is allowing a QB rating of 9.8 when targeted, best in NFL. Only three catches in 14 targets. #Chiefs

JIMP.gif

**the Talking Can** · 10-08-2013, 06:03 PM

this season could not be more opposite than last

jesus, almost every scrap of paper we pick up is a winning lottery ticket...

patteeu · 10-08-2013, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anyong Bluth

Just saw this via Twitter, nice!

@PFF_Jeff: Former #49ers draft pick Marcus Cooper is allowing a QB rating of 9.8 when targeted, best in NFL. Only three catches in 14 targets. #Chiefs

After week 5, Marcus Cooper has the 3rd highest per snap PFF rating among CBs:

1. Leon Hall +.03789
2. Darrelle Revis +.02841
3. Marcus Cooper +.02813

O.city · 10-08-2013, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu

After week 5, Marcus Cooper has the 3rd highest per snap PFF rating among CBs:

1. Leon Hall +.03789
2. Darrelle Revis +.02841
3. Marcus Cooper +.02813

Where is Sean smith?

patteeu · 10-08-2013, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O.city

Where is Sean smith?

Hang on, it will take a few minutes to calculate it.

DJ's left nut · 10-08-2013, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O.city

Where is Sean smith?

He'll have to make due with only having the 6th highest overall PFF ranking among CBs...

His per-snap rating is .019122 but truth be told, I'm not sure what utility that figure really has.

Even if you believe in PFF as dispositive, the overall ranking is more interesting than the per/snap ranking unless you're just looking to discount the fact that Cooper didn't get snaps early, but then you're disregarding small sample sizes unfairly.

O.city · 10-08-2013, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

He'll have to make due with only having the 6th highest overall PFF ranking among CBs...

His per-snap rating is .019122 but truth be told, I'm not sure what utility that figure really has.

Even if you believe in PFF as dispositive, the overall ranking is more interesting than the per/snap ranking unless you're just looking to discount the fact that Cooper didn't get snaps early, but then you're disregarding small sample sizes unfairly.

I was wondering about the small sample size.

Chiefshrink · 10-08-2013, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the Talking Can

this season could not be more opposite than last

jesus, almost every scrap of paper we pick up is a winning lottery ticket...

This is what a legit successful GM will do for ya. Keep you competitive at all times

Chiefshrink · 10-08-2013, 08:40 PM

Marcus Cooper = The 2nd coming of Albert Lewis

patteeu · 10-08-2013, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O.city

Where is Sean smith?

1. Leon Hall +.03789 (190 snaps)
2. Darrelle Revis +.02841 (264 snaps)
3. Marcus Cooper +.02813 (128 snaps)
4. Asante Samuel +.02778 (108 snaps)
5. Alterraun Verner +.02623 (324 snaps)
6. Aquib Talib +.02090 (354 snaps)
7. Marcus Sherels +.02028 (143 snaps)
8. Darius Butler +.01946 (149 snaps)
9. Sean Smith +.01912 (319 snaps)

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

He'll have to make due with only having the 6th highest overall PFF ranking among CBs...

His per-snap rating is .019122 but truth be told, I'm not sure what utility that figure really has.

Even if you believe in PFF as dispositive, the overall ranking is more interesting than the per/snap ranking unless you're just looking to discount the fact that Cooper didn't get snaps early, but then you're disregarding small sample sizes unfairly.

PFF rating is a cumulative number so people with lots of snaps are more likely to rack up a large positive or negative rating. So, yes, a per snap number wipes away differences caused by sample size, but an unmodified rating ignores outstanding play from people who don't have max snaps. The players with the smallest sample sizes are filtered out because I'm only including CBs who played at least 25% of their team's snaps to begin with. So I guess I disagree with you. I think the per snap rating is more interesting than the total rating as long as you aren't comparing a guy with 10 snaps to a guy with 300.

patteeu · 10-08-2013, 08:46 PM

By the way, Brandon Flowers is kind of in the middle of the pack with a +.00233 rating. It would be too much work to figure out where he ranks on that metric. He ties for 43rd based on total rating though.

Urc Burry · 10-08-2013, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu

By the way, Brandon Flowers is kind of in the middle of the pack with a +.00233 rating. It would be too much work to figure out where he ranks on that metric. He ties for 43rd based on total rating though.

It will take a few more games to make up for that showing against Dez for sure

DJ's left nut · 10-08-2013, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu

PFF rating is a cumulative number so people with lots of snaps are more likely to rack up a large positive or negative rating. So, yes, a per snap number wipes away differences caused by sample size, but an unmodified rating ignores outstanding play from people who don't have max snaps. The players with the smallest sample sizes are filtered out because I'm only including CBs who played at least 25% of their team's snaps to begin with. So I guess I disagree with you. I think the per snap rating is more interesting than the total rating as long as you aren't comparing a guy with 10 snaps to a guy with 300.

When a single bad play can really do a lot of damage to your rating, comparing a guy with 320 snaps to a guy with 130 isn't really that useful.

Cooper's played about 1/3 the snaps that Smith has (which has a value in its own right). That's 200 fewer chances to give up that long pass play that knocks a point off his coverage rating.

I'd take Smith's contributions to the team thus far over Coopers. And ultimately, PFF's rankings agree.

The issue I have and have always had with PFF is that people like Clay try to assign a predictive weight to it and I just don't think it's worth a damn in that regard. That's why he looks like a jackass now for wailing about the Smith signing based on nothing more than what PFF told him. PFF is very matchup/situation dependent and in the end it tells you very little about what a player will do, but rather only what they've done. While past performance is a good barometer for future results, PFF is simply too erratic on a week to week basis for me to trust it to give a long-term outlook.

patteeu · 10-08-2013, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

When a single bad play can really do a lot of damage to your rating, comparing a guy with 320 snaps to a guy with 130 isn't really that useful.

Cooper's played about 1/3 the snaps that Smith has (which has a value in its own right). That's 200 fewer chances to give up that long pass play that knocks a point off his coverage rating.

But it's also 200 fewer chances to make an interception that adds a point (or more accurately a fraction of a point, I think) to his coverage rating.

I agree that there's an intrinsic value in the football equivalent of an innings eater that isn't captured by the rating, but I think the per snap ratings for players that have played at least a threshold number of snaps is better for comparing how well two players have played when on the field than the total rating.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

I'd take Smith's contributions to the team thus far over Coopers. And ultimately, PFF's rankings agree.

I don't think there's any reason to rush into bumping either Smith or Flowers from the starting lineup in favor of Cooper, so I agree with you there.

**Saul Good** · 10-08-2013, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu

But it's also 200 fewer chances to make an interception that adds a point (or more accurately a fraction of a point, I think) to his coverage rating.

I agree that there's an intrinsic value in the football equivalent of an innings eater that isn't captured by the rating, but I think the per snap ratings for players that have played at least a threshold number of snaps is better for comparing how well two players have played when on the field than the total rating.

I don't think there's any reason to rush into bumping either Smith or Flowers from the starting lineup in favor of Cooper, so I agree with you there.

Smith and Cooper should play outside. Flowers should cover the slot.

09-29-2013, 02:48 PM
Mr. Laz Don't Tease Me Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: KS Casino cash: $11047037	* Official I love Marcus Cooper Thread * Tall,strong and can run ... without him they would have been toasting Dunta Robinson all game long. Young guy saved our collective asses today [/edited, because i'm a dumb ass with the wrong picture] Height: 6-2 Weight: 192 Age: 23 College: Rutgers Experience:R Last edited by Mr. Laz; 09-29-2013 at 08:33 PM..
Posts: 95,626

10-08-2013, 06:03 PM	#242
the Talking Can Supporter Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: street Casino cash: $10022208	this season could not be more opposite than last jesus, almost every scrap of paper we pick up is a winning lottery ticket... __________________ Clark Hunt: "Thank god for the Dominican pool boy"
Posts: 51,585

10-08-2013, 08:46 PM	#251
patteeu The 23rd Pillar Join Date: Sep 2002 Casino cash: $10019237	By the way, Brandon Flowers is kind of in the middle of the pack with a +.00233 rating. It would be too much work to figure out where he ranks on that metric. He ties for 43rd based on total rating though. __________________ “Boy, you all want power. God, I hope you never get it.” - Lindsay Graham
Posts: 110,871