Who does Sherman cover week 2 vs. SD? M.Floyd or K.Allen? (1 Viewer)

[Black]

Who does Sherman cover week 2 vs. SD? M.Floyd or K.Allen?

I think Sherman stays on one side, but who does that put on his side week 2?

 

[MCguidance]

I would imagine they would do something like GB does, and move their best WR to the other side on most occasions. But maybe someone here with more concrete knowledge/local homer knows better.

 

[Insein]

Who ever is on his side. So maybe SD puts Eddie Royal out there.

 

[tkrull]

Obviously it works for Seattle, but I don't get it. If I lined up on the right-side of the offense and Megatron was on the left, I'd get Sherman?

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

Obviously it works for Seattle, but I don't get it. If I lined up on the right-side of the offense and Megatron was on the left, I'd get Sherman?

Sherman stays on one side. He did not move to cover Jordy Nelson.

Therefore, the claims that he is the best corner in the league are patently false.

 

[tone1oc]

From what I saw on Monday night (and last year) Keenan Allen lines up in the slot as well as outside on both sides so he won't be shadowed by Sherman. Having said that the whole Seattle defense scares me and I'm probably going to look else where in my league that I own KA.

 

[biju]

Obviously it works for Seattle, but I don't get it. If I lined up on the right-side of the offense and Megatron was on the left, I'd get Sherman?

Sherman stays on one side. He did not move to cover Jordy Nelson.

Therefore, the claims that he is the best corner in the league are patently false.

This is always my favorite from the people who hate Sherman. We could just as easily assert on this logic that Aaron Rodgers is clearly the worst QB in the league because he only used one side of the field while the other 31 QBs used the whole field.

 

[SameSongNDance]

Once a week, one WR will be sacrificed to Sherman. I think it will be Floyd next week but honestly I'm not sure.

 

[Concept Coop]

Once a week, one WR will be sacrificed to Sherman. I think it will be Floyd next week but honestly I'm not sure.

Who was it last week?

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Once a week, one WR will be sacrificed to Sherman. I think it will be Floyd next week but honestly I'm not sure.

Who was it last week?

Jarrett Boykin

 

[Insein]

Once a week, one WR will be sacrificed to Sherman. I think it will be Floyd next week but honestly I'm not sure.

Who was it last week?

Jarrett Boykin

Exactly. Now Seattle didn't suffer from it but why wouldn't you line your worst WR on him all day?

 

[seahawk 17]

Obviously it works for Seattle, but I don't get it. If I lined up on the right-side of the offense and Megatron was on the left, I'd get Sherman?

Sherman stays on one side. He did not move to cover Jordy Nelson.

Therefore, the claims that he is the best corner in the league are patently false.

This is always my favorite from the people who hate Sherman. We could just as easily assert on this logic that Aaron Rodgers is clearly the worst QB in the league because he only used one side of the field while the other 31 QBs used the whole field.

Forget the fact that he has the least amount of passes thrown at him/ but most INT's in the NFL for the last two seasons.

ETA: I believe it will be mostly Royal.

 

[Avery]

Obviously it works for Seattle, but I don't get it. If I lined up on the right-side of the offense and Megatron was on the left, I'd get Sherman?

Sherman stays on one side. He did not move to cover Jordy Nelson.

Therefore, the claims that he is the best corner in the league are patently false.

I just don't understand this argument.

I'm not saying Sherman is the best CB in the NFL, but why does having a strong "supporting" cast and a DC that keeps him on one side of the field equate to him not being as good? Do you think that if the DC had the defensive plan for him to move over the field he'd refuse to do it?

 

[jurb26]

Obviously it works for Seattle, but I don't get it. If I lined up on the right-side of the offense and Megatron was on the left, I'd get Sherman?

Sherman stays on one side. He did not move to cover Jordy Nelson.

Therefore, the claims that he is the best corner in the league are patently false.

I just don't understand this argument.

I'm not saying Sherman is the best CB in the NFL, but why does having a strong "supporting" cast and a DC that keeps him on one side of the field equate to him not being as good? Do you think that if the DC had the defensive plan for him to move over the field he'd refuse to do it?

Because covering an area of the field, cover 3 the majority of the time, isn't nearly as hard as covering the leagues best WRs all over the field in man coverage.

 

[Avery]

Obviously it works for Seattle, but I don't get it. If I lined up on the right-side of the offense and Megatron was on the left, I'd get Sherman?

Sherman stays on one side. He did not move to cover Jordy Nelson.

Therefore, the claims that he is the best corner in the league are patently false.

I just don't understand this argument.

I'm not saying Sherman is the best CB in the NFL, but why does having a strong "supporting" cast and a DC that keeps him on one side of the field equate to him not being as good? Do you think that if the DC had the defensive plan for him to move over the field he'd refuse to do it?

Because covering an area of the field, cover 3 the majority of the time, isn't nearly as hard as covering the leagues best WRs all over the field in man coverage.

Yes. I get that point.

But my point is that he isn't asked to cover one WR. He has a strong supporting cast and his DC doesn't game plan that way.

What I'm trying to say is not being asked to do something doesn't equate to not being capable of doing it well.

 

[jurb26]

Obviously it works for Seattle, but I don't get it. If I lined up on the right-side of the offense and Megatron was on the left, I'd get Sherman?

Sherman stays on one side. He did not move to cover Jordy Nelson.

Therefore, the claims that he is the best corner in the league are patently false.

I just don't understand this argument.

I'm not saying Sherman is the best CB in the NFL, but why does having a strong "supporting" cast and a DC that keeps him on one side of the field equate to him not being as good? Do you think that if the DC had the defensive plan for him to move over the field he'd refuse to do it?

Because covering an area of the field, cover 3 the majority of the time, isn't nearly as hard as covering the leagues best WRs all over the field in man coverage.

Yes. I get that point.But my point is that he isn't asked to cover one WR. He has a strong supporting cast and his DC doesn't game plan that way.

What I'm trying to say is not being asked to do something doesn't equate to not being capable of doing it well.

Maybe not. But if he were capable of doing it why not do it? It allows you a significant advantage to isolate a CB on the teams best WR and leave the other 10 defenders to roam and create havoc. Perhaps Sea doesn't need him to do it because the unit is so good anyway. Understandable. But when other guys are asked to do it it's not really fair to penalize them for a much harder task.

 

[Avery]

Obviously it works for Seattle, but I don't get it. If I lined up on the right-side of the offense and Megatron was on the left, I'd get Sherman?

Sherman stays on one side. He did not move to cover Jordy Nelson.

Therefore, the claims that he is the best corner in the league are patently false.

I just don't understand this argument.

I'm not saying Sherman is the best CB in the NFL, but why does having a strong "supporting" cast and a DC that keeps him on one side of the field equate to him not being as good? Do you think that if the DC had the defensive plan for him to move over the field he'd refuse to do it?

Because covering an area of the field, cover 3 the majority of the time, isn't nearly as hard as covering the leagues best WRs all over the field in man coverage.

Yes. I get that point.But my point is that he isn't asked to cover one WR. He has a strong supporting cast and his DC doesn't game plan that way.

What I'm trying to say is not being asked to do something doesn't equate to not being capable of doing it well.

Maybe not. But if he were capable of doing it why not do it? It allows you a significant advantage to isolate a CB on the teams best WR and leave the other 10 defenders to roam and create havoc. Perhaps Sea doesn't need him to do it because the unit is so good anyway. Understandable. But when other guys are asked to do it it's not really fair to penalize them for a much harder task.

I'm not sure the answer but I bet it isn't Sherman's decision.

It would fit into what from the outside appears to be the Seahawks mentality of everyone fitting a role on the team rather than certain players being above the team. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, no top CB in the NFL has such an impressive defensive team playing with him.

Edit to add: You said as much as I did above. Must be late... reading comprehension is fading.

 

[MG345]

Obviously it works for Seattle, but I don't get it. If I lined up on the right-side of the offense and Megatron was on the left, I'd get Sherman?

Sherman stays on one side. He did not move to cover Jordy Nelson.

Therefore, the claims that he is the best corner in the league are patently false.

I just don't understand this argument.

I'm not saying Sherman is the best CB in the NFL, but why does having a strong "supporting" cast and a DC that keeps him on one side of the field equate to him not being as good? Do you think that if the DC had the defensive plan for him to move over the field he'd refuse to do it?

Because covering an area of the field, cover 3 the majority of the time, isn't nearly as hard as covering the leagues best WRs all over the field in man coverage.

Then why doesn't every team do it? This is the logical fallacy in this argument, if other CBs are so much better than Sherman, then why not ask them to do the same thing with the same results? As much as Thomas makes Sherman, Sherman makes Thomas, and other teams have very good to great FS so that can't be why. As good as the other CBs have been opposite Sherman, they have been relatively unheralded, so it isn't like Seattle is lining up star after star after star across from him. If it is so much easier for Sherman, the rest of the league will follow suit. As you can see, teams are already starting to do it. I don't think Peterson moved around NEARLY as much as years past, but I will bet you it doesn't matter a lick when it comes to his end of the year stats and QBR against.

Sherman has shadowed players around the field before, notably Boldin in their first matchup last year. Boldin got 1 catch near the end of the game, in a decided blowout. It isn't like he is incapable. He is asked to one specific thing, and he does it better than large majority of players that have come before him at the position. Least targets, most INTs, if you think that is a fluke or by system design, you just don't understand the way Sherman plays the game. Peterson is a much more gifted individual physically, but he is no where near the CB that Sherman is.

 

[jurb26]

Obviously it works for Seattle, but I don't get it. If I lined up on the right-side of the offense and Megatron was on the left, I'd get Sherman?

Sherman stays on one side. He did not move to cover Jordy Nelson.

Therefore, the claims that he is the best corner in the league are patently false.

I just don't understand this argument.

I'm not saying Sherman is the best CB in the NFL, but why does having a strong "supporting" cast and a DC that keeps him on one side of the field equate to him not being as good? Do you think that if the DC had the defensive plan for him to move over the field he'd refuse to do it?

Because covering an area of the field, cover 3 the majority of the time, isn't nearly as hard as covering the leagues best WRs all over the field in man coverage.

Then why doesn't every team do it? This is the logical fallacy in this argument, if other CBs are so much better than Sherman, then why not ask them to do the same thing with the same results? As much as Thomas makes Sherman, Sherman makes Thomas, and other teams have very good to great FS so that can't be why. As good as the other CBs have been opposite Sherman, they have been relatively unheralded, so it isn't like Seattle is lining up star after star after star across from him. If it is so much easier for Sherman, the rest of the league will follow suit. As you can see, teams are already starting to do it. I don't think Peterson moved around NEARLY as much as years past, but I will bet you it doesn't matter a lick when it comes to his end of the year stats and QBR against.Sherman has shadowed players around the field before, notably Boldin in their first matchup last year. Boldin got 1 catch near the end of the game, in a decided blowout. It isn't like he is incapable. He is asked to one specific thing, and he does it better than large majority of players that have come before him at the position. Least targets, most INTs, if you think that is a fluke or by system design, you just don't understand the way Sherman plays the game. Peterson is a much more gifted individual physically, but he is no where near the CB that Sherman is.

I understand it very well and the truth of the matter is that Thomas is the most critical piece to the Sea secondary, not Shurman. He has the far more difficult responsibility as he covers the center of the field and pretty much makes the cover 3 work. Not only that, but Sea doesnt just have the best S in the league, they have the best pair. Add to it that they have a top 5 front 7 and get by with not having to rush more than 4 on a consistent basis becaus their 4 can create pressure and you have a near utopia for a cover 3 CB. Sure Sherman plays his role outstandingly and he too is a big part of the overall unit. But when you compare guys who are the very best at their position you need to be a bit more critical IMO.

 

[ImTheScientist]

Obviously it works for Seattle, but I don't get it. If I lined up on the right-side of the offense and Megatron was on the left, I'd get Sherman?

Yup....Patrick Peterson and revis both stayed on one side all game week 1.

 

[proninja]

Once a week, one WR will be sacrificed to Sherman. I think it will be Floyd next week but honestly I'm not sure.

Who was it last week?

Jarrett Boykin

Exactly. Now Seattle didn't suffer from it but why wouldn't you line your worst WR on him all day?

Because then Seattle's all-world safeties can focus all of their attention on a much smaller field. The last four games they've shut down Manning, Rodgers, Brees, and Kaepernick, and in the process held one of the best offenses ever to 8 points while winning a ring.

I'm not really sure where all the hate for their defensive strategy is coming from. It seems to be working pretty well. Maybe you can help me understand?

 

[MG345]

Obviously it works for Seattle, but I don't get it. If I lined up on the right-side of the offense and Megatron was on the left, I'd get Sherman?

Sherman stays on one side. He did not move to cover Jordy Nelson.

Therefore, the claims that he is the best corner in the league are patently false.

I just don't understand this argument.

I'm not saying Sherman is the best CB in the NFL, but why does having a strong "supporting" cast and a DC that keeps him on one side of the field equate to him not being as good? Do you think that if the DC had the defensive plan for him to move over the field he'd refuse to do it?

Because covering an area of the field, cover 3 the majority of the time, isn't nearly as hard as covering the leagues best WRs all over the field in man coverage.

Then why doesn't every team do it? This is the logical fallacy in this argument, if other CBs are so much better than Sherman, then why not ask them to do the same thing with the same results? As much as Thomas makes Sherman, Sherman makes Thomas, and other teams have very good to great FS so that can't be why. As good as the other CBs have been opposite Sherman, they have been relatively unheralded, so it isn't like Seattle is lining up star after star after star across from him. If it is so much easier for Sherman, the rest of the league will follow suit. As you can see, teams are already starting to do it. I don't think Peterson moved around NEARLY as much as years past, but I will bet you it doesn't matter a lick when it comes to his end of the year stats and QBR against.Sherman has shadowed players around the field before, notably Boldin in their first matchup last year. Boldin got 1 catch near the end of the game, in a decided blowout. It isn't like he is incapable. He is asked to one specific thing, and he does it better than large majority of players that have come before him at the position. Least targets, most INTs, if you think that is a fluke or by system design, you just don't understand the way Sherman plays the game. Peterson is a much more gifted individual physically, but he is no where near the CB that Sherman is.

I understand it very well and the truth of the matter is that Thomas is the most critical piece to the Sea secondary, not Shurman. He has the far more difficult responsibility as he covers the center of the field and pretty much makes the cover 3 work. Not only that, but Sea doesnt just have the best S in the league, they have the best pair. Add to it that they have a top 5 front 7 and get by with not having to rush more than 4 on a consistent basis becaus their 4 can create pressure and you have a near utopia for a cover 3 CB. Sure Sherman plays his role outstandingly and he too is a big part of the overall unit. But when you compare guys who are the very best at their position you need to be a bit more critical IMO.

It seems like you understand some of the basic concepts yes, but maybe you haven't watched enough of Seattle to really understand. Sherman makes Thomas just as much as the other way around. The reason WHY Thomas is free to roam is because Sherman has his side locked down at all times, he plays with very little help over top. Chancellor is amazing as well, but doesn't truly affect whether Sherman can do his job or not, he has more of an affect on Thomas.

Critical how? Like QBR against? Or INT/Target ratio? What exactly is your standard?

 

[ImTheScientist]

Obviously it works for Seattle, but I don't get it. If I lined up on the right-side of the offense and Megatron was on the left, I'd get Sherman?

Sherman stays on one side. He did not move to cover Jordy Nelson.

Therefore, the claims that he is the best corner in the league are patently false.

I just don't understand this argument.

I'm not saying Sherman is the best CB in the NFL, but why does having a strong "supporting" cast and a DC that keeps him on one side of the field equate to him not being as good? Do you think that if the DC had the defensive plan for him to move over the field he'd refuse to do it?

Because covering an area of the field, cover 3 the majority of the time, isn't nearly as hard as covering the leagues best WRs all over the field in man coverage.

Yes. I get that point.But my point is that he isn't asked to cover one WR. He has a strong supporting cast and his DC doesn't game plan that way.

What I'm trying to say is not being asked to do something doesn't equate to not being capable of doing it well.

Maybe not. But if he were capable of doing it why not do it? It allows you a significant advantage to isolate a CB on the teams best WR and leave the other 10 defenders to roam and create havoc. Perhaps Sea doesn't need him to do it because the unit is so good anyway. Understandable. But when other guys are asked to do it it's not really fair to penalize them for a much harder task.

The stats say he is the best....what more you need?

 

[proninja]

Obviously it works for Seattle, but I don't get it. If I lined up on the right-side of the offense and Megatron was on the left, I'd get Sherman?

Sherman stays on one side. He did not move to cover Jordy Nelson.

Therefore, the claims that he is the best corner in the league are patently false.

I just don't understand this argument.

I'm not saying Sherman is the best CB in the NFL, but why does having a strong "supporting" cast and a DC that keeps him on one side of the field equate to him not being as good? Do you think that if the DC had the defensive plan for him to move over the field he'd refuse to do it?

Because covering an area of the field, cover 3 the majority of the time, isn't nearly as hard as covering the leagues best WRs all over the field in man coverage.

Then why doesn't every team do it? This is the logical fallacy in this argument, if other CBs are so much better than Sherman, then why not ask them to do the same thing with the same results? As much as Thomas makes Sherman, Sherman makes Thomas, and other teams have very good to great FS so that can't be why. As good as the other CBs have been opposite Sherman, they have been relatively unheralded, so it isn't like Seattle is lining up star after star after star across from him. If it is so much easier for Sherman, the rest of the league will follow suit. As you can see, teams are already starting to do it. I don't think Peterson moved around NEARLY as much as years past, but I will bet you it doesn't matter a lick when it comes to his end of the year stats and QBR against.Sherman has shadowed players around the field before, notably Boldin in their first matchup last year. Boldin got 1 catch near the end of the game, in a decided blowout. It isn't like he is incapable. He is asked to one specific thing, and he does it better than large majority of players that have come before him at the position. Least targets, most INTs, if you think that is a fluke or by system design, you just don't understand the way Sherman plays the game. Peterson is a much more gifted individual physically, but he is no where near the CB that Sherman is.

I understand it very well and the truth of the matter is that Thomas is the most critical piece to the Sea secondary, not Shurman. He has the far more difficult responsibility as he covers the center of the field and pretty much makes the cover 3 work. Not only that, but Sea doesnt just have the best S in the league, they have the best pair. Add to it that they have a top 5 front 7 and get by with not having to rush more than 4 on a consistent basis becaus their 4 can create pressure and you have a near utopia for a cover 3 CB. Sure Sherman plays his role outstandingly and he too is a big part of the overall unit. But when you compare guys who are the very best at their position you need to be a bit more critical IMO.

Sherman and Maxwell aren't that good because Thomas and Chancellor cover their backside. Thomas and Chancellor aren't that good because the line causes a lot of pressure. The line isn't that good because Sherman and Maxwell are so good in coverage it gives them lots of time.

 

[jurb26]

Obviously it works for Seattle, but I don't get it. If I lined up on the right-side of the offense and Megatron was on the left, I'd get Sherman?

Sherman stays on one side. He did not move to cover Jordy Nelson.

Therefore, the claims that he is the best corner in the league are patently false.

I just don't understand this argument.

I'm not saying Sherman is the best CB in the NFL, but why does having a strong "supporting" cast and a DC that keeps him on one side of the field equate to him not being as good? Do you think that if the DC had the defensive plan for him to move over the field he'd refuse to do it?

Because covering an area of the field, cover 3 the majority of the time, isn't nearly as hard as covering the leagues best WRs all over the field in man coverage.

Then why doesn't every team do it? This is the logical fallacy in this argument, if other CBs are so much better than Sherman, then why not ask them to do the same thing with the same results? As much as Thomas makes Sherman, Sherman makes Thomas, and other teams have very good to great FS so that can't be why. As good as the other CBs have been opposite Sherman, they have been relatively unheralded, so it isn't like Seattle is lining up star after star after star across from him. If it is so much easier for Sherman, the rest of the league will follow suit. As you can see, teams are already starting to do it. I don't think Peterson moved around NEARLY as much as years past, but I will bet you it doesn't matter a lick when it comes to his end of the year stats and QBR against.Sherman has shadowed players around the field before, notably Boldin in their first matchup last year. Boldin got 1 catch near the end of the game, in a decided blowout. It isn't like he is incapable. He is asked to one specific thing, and he does it better than large majority of players that have come before him at the position. Least targets, most INTs, if you think that is a fluke or by system design, you just don't understand the way Sherman plays the game. Peterson is a much more gifted individual physically, but he is no where near the CB that Sherman is.

I understand it very well and the truth of the matter is that Thomas is the most critical piece to the Sea secondary, not Shurman. He has the far more difficult responsibility as he covers the center of the field and pretty much makes the cover 3 work. Not only that, but Sea doesnt just have the best S in the league, they have the best pair. Add to it that they have a top 5 front 7 and get by with not having to rush more than 4 on a consistent basis becaus their 4 can create pressure and you have a near utopia for a cover 3 CB. Sure Sherman plays his role outstandingly and he too is a big part of the overall unit. But when you compare guys who are the very best at their position you need to be a bit more critical IMO.

It seems like you understand some of the basic concepts yes, but maybe you haven't watched enough of Seattle to really understand. Sherman makes Thomas just as much as the other way around. The reason WHY Thomas is free to roam is because Sherman has his side locked down at all times, he plays with very little help over top. Chancellor is amazing as well, but doesn't truly affect whether Sherman can do his job or not, he has more of an affect on Thomas.

Critical how? Like QBR against? Or INT/Target ratio? What exactly is your standard?

He should never get help over the top in cover 3. That is the scheme. He has deep 3rd. Thomas doesn't roam he covers his area of the zone as well but has the responsibility of reading the line and rolling downhill in run plays. They aren't remotely the same.

 

[jurb26]

Obviously it works for Seattle, but I don't get it. If I lined up on the right-side of the offense and Megatron was on the left, I'd get Sherman?

Sherman stays on one side. He did not move to cover Jordy Nelson.

Therefore, the claims that he is the best corner in the league are patently false.

I just don't understand this argument.

I'm not saying Sherman is the best CB in the NFL, but why does having a strong "supporting" cast and a DC that keeps him on one side of the field equate to him not being as good? Do you think that if the DC had the defensive plan for him to move over the field he'd refuse to do it?

Because covering an area of the field, cover 3 the majority of the time, isn't nearly as hard as covering the leagues best WRs all over the field in man coverage.

Then why doesn't every team do it? This is the logical fallacy in this argument, if other CBs are so much better than Sherman, then why not ask them to do the same thing with the same results? As much as Thomas makes Sherman, Sherman makes Thomas, and other teams have very good to great FS so that can't be why. As good as the other CBs have been opposite Sherman, they have been relatively unheralded, so it isn't like Seattle is lining up star after star after star across from him. If it is so much easier for Sherman, the rest of the league will follow suit. As you can see, teams are already starting to do it. I don't think Peterson moved around NEARLY as much as years past, but I will bet you it doesn't matter a lick when it comes to his end of the year stats and QBR against.Sherman has shadowed players around the field before, notably Boldin in their first matchup last year. Boldin got 1 catch near the end of the game, in a decided blowout. It isn't like he is incapable. He is asked to one specific thing, and he does it better than large majority of players that have come before him at the position. Least targets, most INTs, if you think that is a fluke or by system design, you just don't understand the way Sherman plays the game. Peterson is a much more gifted individual physically, but he is no where near the CB that Sherman is.

I understand it very well and the truth of the matter is that Thomas is the most critical piece to the Sea secondary, not Shurman. He has the far more difficult responsibility as he covers the center of the field and pretty much makes the cover 3 work. Not only that, but Sea doesnt just have the best S in the league, they have the best pair. Add to it that they have a top 5 front 7 and get by with not having to rush more than 4 on a consistent basis becaus their 4 can create pressure and you have a near utopia for a cover 3 CB. Sure Sherman plays his role outstandingly and he too is a big part of the overall unit. But when you compare guys who are the very best at their position you need to be a bit more critical IMO.

Sherman and Maxwell aren't that good because Thomas and Chancellor cover their backside. Thomas and Chancellor aren't that good because the line causes a lot of pressure. The line isn't that good because Sherman and Maxwell are so good in coverage it gives them lots of time.

I've never once said the Safeties cover their backside. That's not how cover 3 works.

 

[Hooper31]

I don't understand how so many people fall for this. These contrived arguments aren't based in fact. One person spouts off about a perception. Another reads it and repeats it. It happens enough that people start to parrot it like its fact. Talking heads on TV start to repeat it too. Because they played in the NFL and can piece together a few coherent sentences doesn't mean they aren't talking out of their asses half the time.

Life on the intergoogle.

FACT: Seattle's CBs don't flop sides from play to play.

FICTION: Other elite CBs shadow the other team's #1 all the time. Does it happen sometimes? Yes, but its not a standard operating procedure.

To assume that other teams are going to drastically alter their game plan because Green Bay might have altered their game plan last week is far fetched. No, Rodgers didn't target Boykins last week when covered by Sherman, but that doesn't mean they were keeping Nelson away from Sherman on purpose. From what I understand Nelson plays the split end in the Green Bay offense. He lines up to the left almost all the time anyway.

Final thought. Maxwell can play. Hell, Tharold Simon and Jeremy Lane can play too. Seattle isn't running out horribly weak corners opposite Sherman every down. They don't need to flop sides.

 

[IheartGuinness]

Obviously it works for Seattle, but I don't get it. If I lined up on the right-side of the offense and Megatron was on the left, I'd get Sherman?

Sherman stays on one side. He did not move to cover Jordy Nelson.

Therefore, the claims that he is the best corner in the league are patently false.

I just don't understand this argument.

I'm not saying Sherman is the best CB in the NFL, but why does having a strong "supporting" cast and a DC that keeps him on one side of the field equate to him not being as good? Do you think that if the DC had the defensive plan for him to move over the field he'd refuse to do it?

Because covering an area of the field, cover 3 the majority of the time, isn't nearly as hard as covering the leagues best WRs all over the field in man coverage.

Then why doesn't every team do it? This is the logical fallacy in this argument, if other CBs are so much better than Sherman, then why not ask them to do the same thing with the same results? As much as Thomas makes Sherman, Sherman makes Thomas, and other teams have very good to great FS so that can't be why. As good as the other CBs have been opposite Sherman, they have been relatively unheralded, so it isn't like Seattle is lining up star after star after star across from him. If it is so much easier for Sherman, the rest of the league will follow suit. As you can see, teams are already starting to do it. I don't think Peterson moved around NEARLY as much as years past, but I will bet you it doesn't matter a lick when it comes to his end of the year stats and QBR against.Sherman has shadowed players around the field before, notably Boldin in their first matchup last year. Boldin got 1 catch near the end of the game, in a decided blowout. It isn't like he is incapable. He is asked to one specific thing, and he does it better than large majority of players that have come before him at the position. Least targets, most INTs, if you think that is a fluke or by system design, you just don't understand the way Sherman plays the game. Peterson is a much more gifted individual physically, but he is no where near the CB that Sherman is.

I understand it very well and the truth of the matter is that Thomas is the most critical piece to the Sea secondary, not Shurman. He has the far more difficult responsibility as he covers the center of the field and pretty much makes the cover 3 work. Not only that, but Sea doesnt just have the best S in the league, they have the best pair. Add to it that they have a top 5 front 7 and get by with not having to rush more than 4 on a consistent basis becaus their 4 can create pressure and you have a near utopia for a cover 3 CB. Sure Sherman plays his role outstandingly and he too is a big part of the overall unit. But when you compare guys who are the very best at their position you need to be a bit more critical IMO.

Nice points.

 

[MG345]

Obviously it works for Seattle, but I don't get it. If I lined up on the right-side of the offense and Megatron was on the left, I'd get Sherman?

Sherman stays on one side. He did not move to cover Jordy Nelson.

Therefore, the claims that he is the best corner in the league are patently false.

I just don't understand this argument.

I'm not saying Sherman is the best CB in the NFL, but why does having a strong "supporting" cast and a DC that keeps him on one side of the field equate to him not being as good? Do you think that if the DC had the defensive plan for him to move over the field he'd refuse to do it?

Because covering an area of the field, cover 3 the majority of the time, isn't nearly as hard as covering the leagues best WRs all over the field in man coverage.

Then why doesn't every team do it? This is the logical fallacy in this argument, if other CBs are so much better than Sherman, then why not ask them to do the same thing with the same results? As much as Thomas makes Sherman, Sherman makes Thomas, and other teams have very good to great FS so that can't be why. As good as the other CBs have been opposite Sherman, they have been relatively unheralded, so it isn't like Seattle is lining up star after star after star across from him. If it is so much easier for Sherman, the rest of the league will follow suit. As you can see, teams are already starting to do it. I don't think Peterson moved around NEARLY as much as years past, but I will bet you it doesn't matter a lick when it comes to his end of the year stats and QBR against.Sherman has shadowed players around the field before, notably Boldin in their first matchup last year. Boldin got 1 catch near the end of the game, in a decided blowout. It isn't like he is incapable. He is asked to one specific thing, and he does it better than large majority of players that have come before him at the position. Least targets, most INTs, if you think that is a fluke or by system design, you just don't understand the way Sherman plays the game. Peterson is a much more gifted individual physically, but he is no where near the CB that Sherman is.

I understand it very well and the truth of the matter is that Thomas is the most critical piece to the Sea secondary, not Shurman. He has the far more difficult responsibility as he covers the center of the field and pretty much makes the cover 3 work. Not only that, but Sea doesnt just have the best S in the league, they have the best pair. Add to it that they have a top 5 front 7 and get by with not having to rush more than 4 on a consistent basis becaus their 4 can create pressure and you have a near utopia for a cover 3 CB. Sure Sherman plays his role outstandingly and he too is a big part of the overall unit. But when you compare guys who are the very best at their position you need to be a bit more critical IMO.

It seems like you understand some of the basic concepts yes, but maybe you haven't watched enough of Seattle to really understand. Sherman makes Thomas just as much as the other way around. The reason WHY Thomas is free to roam is because Sherman has his side locked down at all times, he plays with very little help over top. Chancellor is amazing as well, but doesn't truly affect whether Sherman can do his job or not, he has more of an affect on Thomas.

Critical how? Like QBR against? Or INT/Target ratio? What exactly is your standard?

He should never get help over the top in cover 3. That is the scheme. He has deep 3rd. Thomas doesn't roam he covers his area of the zone as well but has the responsibility of reading the line and rolling downhill in run plays. They aren't remotely the same.

That is my point. You are essentially proving why Sherman makes Thomas. :"Covers his area of the field" is roaming, when you are covering as much ground as Thomas does. It is a semantics thing, but regardless you are proving exactly why Sherman has just as much impact on Thomas, as Thomas does on Sherman. The part you are missing as much as the play cover 3, Thomas almost ALWAYS rolls to the right away from Sherman.

 

[proninja]

Obviously it works for Seattle, but I don't get it. If I lined up on the right-side of the offense and Megatron was on the left, I'd get Sherman?

Sherman stays on one side. He did not move to cover Jordy Nelson.

Therefore, the claims that he is the best corner in the league are patently false.

I just don't understand this argument.

I'm not saying Sherman is the best CB in the NFL, but why does having a strong "supporting" cast and a DC that keeps him on one side of the field equate to him not being as good? Do you think that if the DC had the defensive plan for him to move over the field he'd refuse to do it?

Because covering an area of the field, cover 3 the majority of the time, isn't nearly as hard as covering the leagues best WRs all over the field in man coverage.

Then why doesn't every team do it? This is the logical fallacy in this argument, if other CBs are so much better than Sherman, then why not ask them to do the same thing with the same results? As much as Thomas makes Sherman, Sherman makes Thomas, and other teams have very good to great FS so that can't be why. As good as the other CBs have been opposite Sherman, they have been relatively unheralded, so it isn't like Seattle is lining up star after star after star across from him. If it is so much easier for Sherman, the rest of the league will follow suit. As you can see, teams are already starting to do it. I don't think Peterson moved around NEARLY as much as years past, but I will bet you it doesn't matter a lick when it comes to his end of the year stats and QBR against.Sherman has shadowed players around the field before, notably Boldin in their first matchup last year. Boldin got 1 catch near the end of the game, in a decided blowout. It isn't like he is incapable. He is asked to one specific thing, and he does it better than large majority of players that have come before him at the position. Least targets, most INTs, if you think that is a fluke or by system design, you just don't understand the way Sherman plays the game. Peterson is a much more gifted individual physically, but he is no where near the CB that Sherman is.

I understand it very well and the truth of the matter is that Thomas is the most critical piece to the Sea secondary, not Shurman. He has the far more difficult responsibility as he covers the center of the field and pretty much makes the cover 3 work. Not only that, but Sea doesnt just have the best S in the league, they have the best pair. Add to it that they have a top 5 front 7 and get by with not having to rush more than 4 on a consistent basis becaus their 4 can create pressure and you have a near utopia for a cover 3 CB. Sure Sherman plays his role outstandingly and he too is a big part of the overall unit. But when you compare guys who are the very best at their position you need to be a bit more critical IMO.

Sherman and Maxwell aren't that good because Thomas and Chancellor cover their backside. Thomas and Chancellor aren't that good because the line causes a lot of pressure. The line isn't that good because Sherman and Maxwell are so good in coverage it gives them lots of time.

I've never once said the Safeties cover their backside. That's not how cover 3 works.

I think you might have missed the point of that post just a little bit. Apologies if you thought it was hardcore football analysis.

 

[jurb26]

Obviously it works for Seattle, but I don't get it. If I lined up on the right-side of the offense and Megatron was on the left, I'd get Sherman?

Sherman stays on one side. He did not move to cover Jordy Nelson.

Therefore, the claims that he is the best corner in the league are patently false.

I just don't understand this argument.

I'm not saying Sherman is the best CB in the NFL, but why does having a strong "supporting" cast and a DC that keeps him on one side of the field equate to him not being as good? Do you think that if the DC had the defensive plan for him to move over the field he'd refuse to do it?

Because covering an area of the field, cover 3 the majority of the time, isn't nearly as hard as covering the leagues best WRs all over the field in man coverage.

Then why doesn't every team do it? This is the logical fallacy in this argument, if other CBs are so much better than Sherman, then why not ask them to do the same thing with the same results? As much as Thomas makes Sherman, Sherman makes Thomas, and other teams have very good to great FS so that can't be why. As good as the other CBs have been opposite Sherman, they have been relatively unheralded, so it isn't like Seattle is lining up star after star after star across from him. If it is so much easier for Sherman, the rest of the league will follow suit. As you can see, teams are already starting to do it. I don't think Peterson moved around NEARLY as much as years past, but I will bet you it doesn't matter a lick when it comes to his end of the year stats and QBR against.Sherman has shadowed players around the field before, notably Boldin in their first matchup last year. Boldin got 1 catch near the end of the game, in a decided blowout. It isn't like he is incapable. He is asked to one specific thing, and he does it better than large majority of players that have come before him at the position. Least targets, most INTs, if you think that is a fluke or by system design, you just don't understand the way Sherman plays the game. Peterson is a much more gifted individual physically, but he is no where near the CB that Sherman is.

I understand it very well and the truth of the matter is that Thomas is the most critical piece to the Sea secondary, not Shurman. He has the far more difficult responsibility as he covers the center of the field and pretty much makes the cover 3 work. Not only that, but Sea doesnt just have the best S in the league, they have the best pair. Add to it that they have a top 5 front 7 and get by with not having to rush more than 4 on a consistent basis becaus their 4 can create pressure and you have a near utopia for a cover 3 CB. Sure Sherman plays his role outstandingly and he too is a big part of the overall unit. But when you compare guys who are the very best at their position you need to be a bit more critical IMO.

Sherman and Maxwell aren't that good because Thomas and Chancellor cover their backside. Thomas and Chancellor aren't that good because the line causes a lot of pressure. The line isn't that good because Sherman and Maxwell are so good in coverage it gives them lots of time.

I've never once said the Safeties cover their backside. That's not how cover 3 works.

I think you might have missed the point of that post just a little bit. Apologies if you thought it was hardcore football analysis.

I get it. Just think it's important to show how the scheme works. It's pretty critical to the point of why its hard to acknowledge Shurman as the best CB for many.

 

[jurb26]

Obviously it works for Seattle, but I don't get it. If I lined up on the right-side of the offense and Megatron was on the left, I'd get Sherman?

Sherman stays on one side. He did not move to cover Jordy Nelson.

Therefore, the claims that he is the best corner in the league are patently false.

I just don't understand this argument.

I'm not saying Sherman is the best CB in the NFL, but why does having a strong "supporting" cast and a DC that keeps him on one side of the field equate to him not being as good? Do you think that if the DC had the defensive plan for him to move over the field he'd refuse to do it?

Because covering an area of the field, cover 3 the majority of the time, isn't nearly as hard as covering the leagues best WRs all over the field in man coverage.

Then why doesn't every team do it? This is the logical fallacy in this argument, if other CBs are so much better than Sherman, then why not ask them to do the same thing with the same results? As much as Thomas makes Sherman, Sherman makes Thomas, and other teams have very good to great FS so that can't be why. As good as the other CBs have been opposite Sherman, they have been relatively unheralded, so it isn't like Seattle is lining up star after star after star across from him. If it is so much easier for Sherman, the rest of the league will follow suit. As you can see, teams are already starting to do it. I don't think Peterson moved around NEARLY as much as years past, but I will bet you it doesn't matter a lick when it comes to his end of the year stats and QBR against.Sherman has shadowed players around the field before, notably Boldin in their first matchup last year. Boldin got 1 catch near the end of the game, in a decided blowout. It isn't like he is incapable. He is asked to one specific thing, and he does it better than large majority of players that have come before him at the position. Least targets, most INTs, if you think that is a fluke or by system design, you just don't understand the way Sherman plays the game. Peterson is a much more gifted individual physically, but he is no where near the CB that Sherman is.

I understand it very well and the truth of the matter is that Thomas is the most critical piece to the Sea secondary, not Shurman. He has the far more difficult responsibility as he covers the center of the field and pretty much makes the cover 3 work. Not only that, but Sea doesnt just have the best S in the league, they have the best pair. Add to it that they have a top 5 front 7 and get by with not having to rush more than 4 on a consistent basis becaus their 4 can create pressure and you have a near utopia for a cover 3 CB. Sure Sherman plays his role outstandingly and he too is a big part of the overall unit. But when you compare guys who are the very best at their position you need to be a bit more critical IMO.

It seems like you understand some of the basic concepts yes, but maybe you haven't watched enough of Seattle to really understand. Sherman makes Thomas just as much as the other way around. The reason WHY Thomas is free to roam is because Sherman has his side locked down at all times, he plays with very little help over top. Chancellor is amazing as well, but doesn't truly affect whether Sherman can do his job or not, he has more of an affect on Thomas.

Critical how? Like QBR against? Or INT/Target ratio? What exactly is your standard?

He should never get help over the top in cover 3. That is the scheme. He has deep 3rd. Thomas doesn't roam he covers his area of the zone as well but has the responsibility of reading the line and rolling downhill in run plays. They aren't remotely the same.

That is my point. You are essentially proving why Sherman makes Thomas. :"Covers his area of the field" is roaming, when you are covering as much ground as Thomas does. It is a semantics thing, but regardless you are proving exactly why Sherman has just as much impact on Thomas, as Thomas does on Sherman. The part you are missing as much as the play cover 3, Thomas almost ALWAYS rolls to the right away from Sherman.

Not really because as I pointed out Thomas is far more critical to run responsibility, has more reads and has no sideline to help his coverage. The middle of the field is by it's very nature more difficult to cover. His job is more difficult and more important.

 

[MG345]

Obviously it works for Seattle, but I don't get it. If I lined up on the right-side of the offense and Megatron was on the left, I'd get Sherman?

Sherman stays on one side. He did not move to cover Jordy Nelson.

Therefore, the claims that he is the best corner in the league are patently false.

I just don't understand this argument.

I'm not saying Sherman is the best CB in the NFL, but why does having a strong "supporting" cast and a DC that keeps him on one side of the field equate to him not being as good? Do you think that if the DC had the defensive plan for him to move over the field he'd refuse to do it?

Because covering an area of the field, cover 3 the majority of the time, isn't nearly as hard as covering the leagues best WRs all over the field in man coverage.

Then why doesn't every team do it? This is the logical fallacy in this argument, if other CBs are so much better than Sherman, then why not ask them to do the same thing with the same results? As much as Thomas makes Sherman, Sherman makes Thomas, and other teams have very good to great FS so that can't be why. As good as the other CBs have been opposite Sherman, they have been relatively unheralded, so it isn't like Seattle is lining up star after star after star across from him. If it is so much easier for Sherman, the rest of the league will follow suit. As you can see, teams are already starting to do it. I don't think Peterson moved around NEARLY as much as years past, but I will bet you it doesn't matter a lick when it comes to his end of the year stats and QBR against.

Sherman has shadowed players around the field before, notably Boldin in their first matchup last year. Boldin got 1 catch near the end of the game, in a decided blowout. It isn't like he is incapable. He is asked to one specific thing, and he does it better than large majority of players that have come before him at the position. Least targets, most INTs, if you think that is a fluke or by system design, you just don't understand the way Sherman plays the game. Peterson is a much more gifted individual physically, but he is no where near the CB that Sherman is.

I understand it very well and the truth of the matter is that Thomas is the most critical piece to the Sea secondary, not Shurman. He has the far more difficult responsibility as he covers the center of the field and pretty much makes the cover 3 work. Not only that, but Sea doesnt just have the best S in the league, they have the best pair. Add to it that they have a top 5 front 7 and get by with not having to rush more than 4 on a consistent basis becaus their 4 can create pressure and you have a near utopia for a cover 3 CB. Sure Sherman plays his role outstandingly and he too is a big part of the overall unit. But when you compare guys who are the very best at their position you need to be a bit more critical IMO.

Sherman and Maxwell aren't that good because Thomas and Chancellor cover their backside. Thomas and Chancellor aren't that good because the line causes a lot of pressure. The line isn't that good because Sherman and Maxwell are so good in coverage it gives them lots of time.

I've never once said the Safeties cover their backside. That's not how cover 3 works.

I think you might have missed the point of that post just a little bit. Apologies if you thought it was hardcore football analysis.

I get it. Just think it's important to show how the scheme works. It's pretty critical to the point of why its hard to acknowledge Shurman as the best CB for many.

The stats, the game flow, the opposing game plans, and the actual games won, all favor Sherman in this argument. You can try to spin away some rationale as to why Sherman is a less important cog in the system (he isn't), or that he is only asked to one basic thing (he isn't), but truly all it does is show your lack of understanding of Seattle's defense - maybe not from an x's and o's stand point, but in the way that it actually is put into action on the field.

I suggest you watch more Seattle games.

 

[MG345]

Obviously it works for Seattle, but I don't get it. If I lined up on the right-side of the offense and Megatron was on the left, I'd get Sherman?

Sherman stays on one side. He did not move to cover Jordy Nelson.

Therefore, the claims that he is the best corner in the league are patently false.

I just don't understand this argument.

I'm not saying Sherman is the best CB in the NFL, but why does having a strong "supporting" cast and a DC that keeps him on one side of the field equate to him not being as good? Do you think that if the DC had the defensive plan for him to move over the field he'd refuse to do it?

Because covering an area of the field, cover 3 the majority of the time, isn't nearly as hard as covering the leagues best WRs all over the field in man coverage.

Then why doesn't every team do it? This is the logical fallacy in this argument, if other CBs are so much better than Sherman, then why not ask them to do the same thing with the same results? As much as Thomas makes Sherman, Sherman makes Thomas, and other teams have very good to great FS so that can't be why. As good as the other CBs have been opposite Sherman, they have been relatively unheralded, so it isn't like Seattle is lining up star after star after star across from him. If it is so much easier for Sherman, the rest of the league will follow suit. As you can see, teams are already starting to do it. I don't think Peterson moved around NEARLY as much as years past, but I will bet you it doesn't matter a lick when it comes to his end of the year stats and QBR against.Sherman has shadowed players around the field before, notably Boldin in their first matchup last year. Boldin got 1 catch near the end of the game, in a decided blowout. It isn't like he is incapable. He is asked to one specific thing, and he does it better than large majority of players that have come before him at the position. Least targets, most INTs, if you think that is a fluke or by system design, you just don't understand the way Sherman plays the game. Peterson is a much more gifted individual physically, but he is no where near the CB that Sherman is.

I understand it very well and the truth of the matter is that Thomas is the most critical piece to the Sea secondary, not Shurman. He has the far more difficult responsibility as he covers the center of the field and pretty much makes the cover 3 work. Not only that, but Sea doesnt just have the best S in the league, they have the best pair. Add to it that they have a top 5 front 7 and get by with not having to rush more than 4 on a consistent basis becaus their 4 can create pressure and you have a near utopia for a cover 3 CB. Sure Sherman plays his role outstandingly and he too is a big part of the overall unit. But when you compare guys who are the very best at their position you need to be a bit more critical IMO.

It seems like you understand some of the basic concepts yes, but maybe you haven't watched enough of Seattle to really understand. Sherman makes Thomas just as much as the other way around. The reason WHY Thomas is free to roam is because Sherman has his side locked down at all times, he plays with very little help over top. Chancellor is amazing as well, but doesn't truly affect whether Sherman can do his job or not, he has more of an affect on Thomas.

Critical how? Like QBR against? Or INT/Target ratio? What exactly is your standard?

He should never get help over the top in cover 3. That is the scheme. He has deep 3rd. Thomas doesn't roam he covers his area of the zone as well but has the responsibility of reading the line and rolling downhill in run plays. They aren't remotely the same.

That is my point. You are essentially proving why Sherman makes Thomas. :"Covers his area of the field" is roaming, when you are covering as much ground as Thomas does. It is a semantics thing, but regardless you are proving exactly why Sherman has just as much impact on Thomas, as Thomas does on Sherman. The part you are missing as much as the play cover 3, Thomas almost ALWAYS rolls to the right away from Sherman.

Not really because as I pointed out Thomas is far more critical to run responsibility, has more reads and has no sideline to help his coverage. The middle of the field is by it's very nature more difficult to cover. His job is more difficult and more important.

But his run responsibilities have no bearing on how Sherman covers his WRs, and is somewhat ridiculous that you think that is even a salient point. We are talking about coverage here.

 

[Hooper31]

Add to it that they have a top 5 front 7

Loaded with pro-bowlers in that front 7. How many was it this past year? How about the year before that?

 

[jurb26]

The stats, the game flow, the opposing game plans, and the actual games won, all favor Sherman in this argument. You can try to spin away some rationale as to why Sherman is a less important cog in the system (he isn't), or that he is only asked to one basic thing (he isn't), but truly all it does is show your lack of understanding of Seattle's defense - maybe not from an x's and o's stand point, but in the way that it actually is put into action on the field.

I suggest you watch more Seattle games.

Can you even tell me what Shurmans first read is vs. Thomas first read is in their base D?

 

[Hooper31]

Jerb,

Can you describe what Sherman does well, or perhaps what he does poorly? It would be cool to hear your perception of his play alone without referencing any other player. Could you focus on his skill set alone and describe that for us? TIA.

 

[jurb26]

Add to it that they have a top 5 front 7

Loaded with pro-bowlers in that front 7. How many was it this past year? How about the year before that?

For years Casey Hampton was the most crucial player in Pitt to making their 3-4 scheme work yet he made 1 Pro Bowl. This doesn't really change anything. How many guys do they rotate in game in and game out?

 

[biju]

Jerb,

Can you describe what Sherman does well, or perhaps what he does poorly? It would be cool to hear your perception of his play alone without referencing any other player. Could you focus on his skill set alone and describe that for us? TIA.

Why bother? I don't really ####### care if he thinks he's the worst CB to ever play the game. Folks who actually have to throw at him have already made up their mind and have chosen elsewhere. The internet wizards will never be wrong in their own minds.

 

[Hooper31]

jerb,

Are you of the opinion that Patrick Peterson is a better CB than Sherman?

 

[jurb26]

Jerb,

Can you describe what Sherman does well, or perhaps what he does poorly? It would be cool to hear your perception of his play alone without referencing any other player. Could you focus on his skill set alone and describe that for us? TIA.

He's a great player with few weaknesses. I'd say his weakness is in turning his hips when in man coverage. Probably nitpicking. He's strength is his read and recognition of routes and QB drops while in his back pedal. He anticipates routes exceptionally well and clearly studies his WRs well. He's got good ball skills. He's very good at jamming at the LOS when he knows he is bailing into his deep 3rd. Uses his hands well. Not as good when jamming in man as he struggles to get his hips around and read the man, not the route/QB drop.

 

[Phenomena]

Obviously it works for Seattle, but I don't get it. If I lined up on the right-side of the offense and Megatron was on the left, I'd get Sherman?

Sherman stays on one side. He did not move to cover Jordy Nelson.

Therefore, the claims that he is the best corner in the league are patently false.

You're joking, right?

Every team in the league would do this if they had a corner as good as Sherman. Green Bay didn't throw one pass at him. They cut the field in half with ONE GUY. That PROVES he's the best corner in the league.

 

[jurb26]

jerb,

Are you of the opinion that Patrick Peterson is a better CB than Sherman?

Yes, I think Peterson can do more than Sherman. Haden as well.

 

[MG345]

jerb,

Are you of the opinion that Patrick Peterson is a better CB than Sherman?

Yes, I think Peterson can do more than Sherman. Haden as well.

CAN do more? Unfortunately none of what these guys do, is anywhere near as good as what Sherman does.

 

[Hooper31]

jerb,

Are you of the opinion that Patrick Peterson is a better CB than Sherman?

Yes, I think Peterson can do more than Sherman. Haden as well.

I ask this because I don't know. Would be curious to find out.

How many TDs did Peterson give up last year? And who exactly scored those TDs?

 

[jurb26]

jerb,

Are you of the opinion that Patrick Peterson is a better CB than Sherman?

Yes, I think Peterson can do more than Sherman. Haden as well.

I ask this because I don't know. Would be curious to find out.

How many TDs did Peterson give up last year? And who exactly scored those TDs?

Not sure the totals. I know Calvin beat Peterson in 1 on 1 coverage.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

The seahawks have the best defence in the NFL but they should probably stop what is working and let Sherman cover the other teams top receiver just to put an end to his stupid argument.

 

[jurb26]

I find it kind of hilarious that Sea fans get so puffy about this Sherman thing. In reality you should be embracing just how good Thomas is.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

I find it kind of hilarious that Sea fans get so puffy about this Shurman thing. In reality you should be embracing just how good Thomas is.

Who is Shurman?

 

[jurb26]

I find it kind of hilarious that Sea fans get so puffy about this Shurman thing. In reality you should be embracing just how good Thomas is.

Who is Shurman?

Haha, exactly.