It's bad, we heard here in Seattle for years how Sherman is protected by his safeties, he never travels, etc etc etc... Sherman is a baller, period, I miss the hell outta that dude... You know you're good when you get beat once and it's like a HUGE deal... He might not be what he was 5 years ago, but what he is now is still TOP level at the position, he's a leader emotionally also for that defense... I have my Sherman jersey and I sport it even today, will always respect what that guy did for Seattle... 49rs fans get it...
Just guys talking. Sherman has always been a whiny bitch, so I could care less about Revis speaking the truth.
Revis was a better man to man cover CB, doesnt take anything away from Sherman, but I like how he is poking Sherman
Sherman was and is still a top corner. But there is merit to him being protected by the LOB and he did for the most part only be asked to cover 1/3 of the field. This is fact.
Sherman was and is still a top corner. But there is merit to him being protected by the LOB and he did for the most part only be asked to cover 1/3 of the field. This is fact.
Just guys talking. Sherman has always been a whiny bitch, so I could care less about Revis speaking the truth.
Revis was a better man to man cover CB, doesnt take anything away from Sherman, but I like how he is poking Sherman
It's not like Revis is wrong here. Sherman got safety help every time Adams was on his side.
Merit on what level?
Because SEA had a scheme that worked with the players they had, it somehow makes Sherman less of a player? The CAR CB that WAS paid big FA money for...he's a great zone CB...Josh Norman.
The vast majority of teams in the NFL play zone DEF, with deep safety help probably more than 50% of the time. If it was the norm for NFL CBs to play man to man with no safety over the top most of the time...I can see there being a legit slight towards top CBs like Sherman that play mostly zone.
I can respect the difference in difficulty for the man to man CB, but it's so rare that I can't diminish the work of a really good zone CB.
Again I'm not taking anything away from Sherman. The merit I spoke of was referring to those comments that he played in a system that allowed him to succeed. He was part of the system so it has merit. Could he in his day handle any receiver one on one across the field? we'll never know because he wasn't asked to do it very often.
My personal thought is he'd still be a very effective one on one coverage guy. Certainly in the top 5-10.
It's true, Sherman played in a system that allowed him to flourish, as did Revis, or any star player at this level. I've yet to see a player that was a star playing in a system that didn't suit what they did. Jerry Rice was not a blazer, but he ran excellent short routes and it was perfect for the WC offense.
I think we look at known man to man CBs like Deion, and Revis as true shut down CBs, but most teams play zone most of the time. They have a unique skillset, but I don't really value them much more than a very good CB that flourishes in zone...if most teams played man to man most of the time, I can see the value a lot more.
Totally agree about players fitting a system. That's why I laugh when someone calls a player a system QB. Any organization that doesn't select a QB that fits their system are morons IMO.
The corner position has changed over the past few years certainly with all the zone coverages now. It's becoming more and more difficult to find a true shut down corner. Like a franchise QB a true shut down corner can totally change how a team schemes.