Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ClarkCam

Gilmore Overlooked By Board

73 posts in this topic

I don't think there's a position in football where stats are more worthless than CB. If a CB is doing his job, he's not going to rack up stats because the QB is going to be avoiding him.

I'm intrigued by Gilmore, but I don't want him at #9. The only CB I would want at #9 would be Claiborne.

Tackles maybe, but ints are in no way a meaningless stats when it comes to CBs. That's as important as sacks for DEs.

Dre had 3 ints versus Gilmore's 8, 4 of which he had this past season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the only pick we can make at 9 they would really make me rage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tackles maybe, but ints are in no way a meaningless stats when it comes to CBs. That's as important as sacks for DEs.

Dre had 3 ints versus Gilmore's 8, 4 of which he had this past season.

Not really. INTs are overrated when looking at how a CB performs. Just look at Reevis. I think it was two years ago that he had no INTs because he was able to shut down his side of the field. INTs do indicate you have good ball skills but it can also be an indication of being thrown at a lot. But lack of INTs isn't a bad sign either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really. INTs are overrated when looking at how a CB performs. Just look at Reevis. I think it was two years ago that he had no INTs because he was able to shut down his side of the field. INTs do indicate you have good ball skills but it can also be an indication of being thrown at a lot. But lack of INTs isn't a bad sign either.

Overrated isn't meaningless, and neither are they overrated. How many superbowls have been won, or secured, because of an interception returned for a touchdown? More than one in the past few years has.

It isn't a bad sign, but it can show bad ball skills when it's in the air. Dre doesn't have nearly the same skills that Gilmore does when the ball is in the air, and Revis has more than both of them.

You remember that 360 int Revis made when he was covering Smith? That wasn't meaningless or overrated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it's not meaningless but it's not something you look to when comparing corners like you did.

And yes I would consider it overrated. And Reevis isn't a good corner because he can make a 360 INT, he is good because he limits the throws to his side of the field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gilmore picked off Taylor Martinez, Justin Worley, Morgan Newton, and Larry Smith.

I could pick off those guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it's not meaningless but it's not something you look to when comparing corners like you did.

And yes I would consider it overrated. And Reevis isn't a good corner because he can make a 360 INT, he is good because he limits the throws to his side of the field.

Ball skills are something you look at when you compare corners, and I don't know who told you otherwise. Covering ability is the most important, but if you poo the bed when the ball is in the air and the WR can catch a jumpball over you every single time, that's not good.

I didn't say that was the reason Revis was good, but it's certainly a part of his game that makes him great, his ability while the ball is in the air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ball skills are something you look at when you compare corners, and I don't know who told you otherwise. Covering ability is the most important, but if you poo the bed when the ball is in the air and the WR can catch a jumpball over you every single time, that's not good.

I didn't say that was the reason Revis was good, but it's certainly a part of his game that makes him great, his ability while the ball is in the air.

I didn't say ball skills aren't something you look to when comparing corners. I said interceptions aren't something you look to, two different things.

You are better off being good in coverage with subpar ball skills than the other way around. Because if you get beat constantly it doesn't matter what kind of ball skills you have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lance tore him to pieces, i know him pretty well since i played against him multiple times and used to ball with him. but anyway gilmore isnt that good, just a last week guy that shoots up the boards from workouts and combine and not from the on-field work. I still want dre kirk a million times over gilmore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites