Projecting 2015 season

[Deleted member 6794]

While being the first to acknowledge that business is business, haggling over some finer points in the contract in lieu of getting to work to win a starting job is a bit concerning, if not short-sighted from his own personal business standpoint. The term "availability" is frequently used in the McCarthy lexicon. Randall sat out the rookie OTA with a "minor ankle injury". Hmm...I might have done the same myself if I was not under contract.

He'll sign sooner rather than later, and sooner would be in his best interests. Where's he going otherwise? Canada, where they pay peanuts? Centerfield, or was it shortstop , riding busses in the deep minors?

I don't put too much stock into Randall haven't signed with the Packers so far. He probably wants more guaranteed money than the team is offering but it will get done sooner than later.

 

[Vrill]

Randall needs to sign already and get to work.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Randall needs to sign already and get to work.

He's able to participate in OTAs by signing a waiver.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I don't put too much stock into Randall haven't signed with the Packers so far. He probably wants more guaranteed money than the team is offering but it will get done sooner than later.

I don't put a lot of stock in it...but I do put some stock in it.

 

[HardRightEdge]

He's able to participate in OTAs by signing a waiver.

What kind of waiver? What are the player protections in that waiver?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

What kind of waiver? What are the player protections in that waiver?

I don't know anything about the details of such a waiver.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I agree with nearly all of what you said about Hayward and I would prefer the Packers to play him in the slot as well. The problem is that both Randall and Rollins aren't best suited to play outside either but one of the group will have to start opposite Shields.

Just curious why neither Randall nor Rollins are suited to play outside. They're both 5'11" and close to 200 pounds. Shields is the same height and actually weighs less than either. Randall ran the 40 faster than Marcus Peters and Rollins ran the 40 0.04 seconds slower. I guess the one knock on both would be that their arms are 30.5" long, which is slightly below average? Randall had a higher vertical jump than Peters but Rollins was about an inch lower on the vertical jump.

People forget that Hayward actually played outside corner for a few games his rookie season when Shields was injured and Hayward was actually a pretty good outside corner. Physically, Hayward and Rollins are almost indentical. Same arm length, height and 40 time. The main difference appears to be that Hayward was more nimble coming out of college while Rollins is more powerful (Rollins had slower shuttle times but weighs more and had higher/longer jumps). Randall is also very similar in a lot of ways to Hayward but Randall was quite a bit faster in the 40 and almost as fast in the 3-cone drill (Randall also had a significantly higher vertical).

None of the above is to say that either player will be better (or even as good as) Hawyard; Hayward has amazing instincts and ball skills, which is why he's so terrific in the slot, Hayward can use his instincts and agility to jump routes and make spur of the moment decisions in an area of the field where things happen extremely quickly. I would also not be shocked to see Hayward playing the slot and letting a rookie take his lumps on the outside since the Packers should be able to feel pretty good about HaHa playing deep to try and help erase any mistakes.

We're also completely ignoring the possibility of Hyde playing in the slot and Hayward playing outside and basically letting Randall play as a dime safety and let Rollins learn the NFL from the bench for a year.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I don't know anything about the details of such a waiver.

Upon further investigation, I found a thorough explanation of the topic in the context of Dante Fowler blowing out an ACL in rookie OTAs without a contract.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on...owlers-injury-will-likely-impact-his-contract

In the event of injury, while the player is guaranteed to get a contract in-line with what he would have gotten otherwise, the team would have bargaining leverage on the finer points. The CBA has general language guiding the process; it's interesting to note that each team writes it's own language into their particular agreement.

So, it stands to reason that if a player is haggling over the finer points of the contract to begin with, he might also be disinclined to risk blowing out a knee running around in shorts without a deal being finalized, even if Fowler was not so inclined.

I'm sure we'll be duly advised by our erstwhile beat reporters as to whether Randall is actively participating or still nursing that minor knee injury.

 

[paulska]

Just curious why neither Randall nor Rollins are suited to play outside. They're both 5'11" and close to 200 pounds. Shields is the same height and actually weighs less than either. Randall ran the 40 faster than Marcus Peters and Rollins ran the 40 0.04 seconds slower. I guess the one knock on both would be that their arms are 30.5" long, which is slightly below average? Randall had a higher vertical jump than Peters but Rollins was about an inch lower on the vertical jump.

People forget that Hayward actually played outside corner for a few games his rookie season when Shields was injured and Hayward was actually a pretty good outside corner. Physically, Hayward and Rollins are almost indentical. Same arm length, height and 40 time. The main difference appears to be that Hayward was more nimble coming out of college while Rollins is more powerful (Rollins had slower shuttle times but weighs more and had higher/longer jumps). Randall is also very similar in a lot of ways to Hayward but Randall was quite a bit faster in the 40 and almost as fast in the 3-cone drill (Randall also had a significantly higher vertical).

None of the above is to say that either player will be better (or even as good as) Hawyard; Hayward has amazing instincts and ball skills, which is why he's so terrific in the slot, Hayward can use his instincts and agility to jump routes and make spur of the moment decisions in an area of the field where things happen extremely quickly. I would also not be shocked to see Hayward playing the slot and letting a rookie take his lumps on the outside since the Packers should be able to feel pretty good about HaHa playing deep to try and help erase any mistakes.

We're also completely ignoring the possibility of Hyde playing in the slot and Hayward playing outside and basically letting Randall play as a dime safety and let Rollins learn the NFL from the bench for a year.

You make some really good points here. I don't mean to say that we don't have guys that have potential to succeed/excel on the outside- we definitely have guys with tools. Some guys have size/power, some instinct, some speed/fast twitch. I guess what I'm guilty of here is discomfort at the absence of someone that we know can perform with certainty at the position.

As I mentioned before, one reason we have done well in the win column with a healthy ARod is that our QB play is generally so much better than our opponents that it translates to winning football. It's not an absolute rule, but when your QB can outplay the opposing QB by a fair to wide margin, it's a good predictor that you're going to win. The backside of this limited equation is that in addition to ARod's great play, our defense does enough to cause opposing QBs to play below how they might play otherwise. Over ARod's tenure, we've had pretty stable and effective play at CB. We don't send many CB's to the probowl/All Pro ranks, but we do better than most.

The constant variable, apart from ARod being consistently otherworldly, is effective CB play. We still have that with Shields. I guess I have some concern over our stable of unknown variables and their ability to deliver similar effectiveness/consistency as we had with Tramon until he fell off last year.

That said, perhaps it's opportune that Hayward only has one year left and that there are two highly drafted guys with skill sets similar to his own who are going to be expected to make a real push to win that spot outright. If he wants to get paid next season at starter money, he's going to have to deliver starter play after being injured in year two and having limited playing time in year 3.

If there's one thing I would love to see from the Seahawks way of doing things with personnel is to create tough competition within the roster. It hardens the guys who start for them, and they have good depth to go behind them. Maybe what looks like a mess of question marks is the genesis of some excellence- from this hash of players comes forth a player driven to dominate and motivated to not lose his job. I can think of worse scenarios to end up with (see: any team who pays a mediocre FA CB to be the unquestioned starter with no one of substance behind them. Feels like Jacksonville, Minny and Detroit have done this for YEARS).

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Just curious why neither Randall nor Rollins are suited to play outside. They're both 5'11" and close to 200 pounds. Shields is the same height and actually weighs less than either. Randall ran the 40 faster than Marcus Peters and Rollins ran the 40 0.04 seconds slower. I guess the one knock on both would be that their arms are 30.5" long, which is slightly below average? Randall had a higher vertical jump than Peters but Rollins was about an inch lower on the vertical jump.

People forget that Hayward actually played outside corner for a few games his rookie season when Shields was injured and Hayward was actually a pretty good outside corner. Physically, Hayward and Rollins are almost indentical. Same arm length, height and 40 time. The main difference appears to be that Hayward was more nimble coming out of college while Rollins is more powerful (Rollins had slower shuttle times but weighs more and had higher/longer jumps). Randall is also very similar in a lot of ways to Hayward but Randall was quite a bit faster in the 40 and almost as fast in the 3-cone drill (Randall also had a significantly higher vertical).

None of the above is to say that either player will be better (or even as good as) Hawyard; Hayward has amazing instincts and ball skills, which is why he's so terrific in the slot, Hayward can use his instincts and agility to jump routes and make spur of the moment decisions in an area of the field where things happen extremely quickly. I would also not be shocked to see Hayward playing the slot and letting a rookie take his lumps on the outside since the Packers should be able to feel pretty good about HaHa playing deep to try and help erase any mistakes.

We're also completely ignoring the possibility of Hyde playing in the slot and Hayward playing outside and basically letting Randall play as a dime safety and let Rollins learn the NFL from the bench for a year.

I've posted on several occasions that Hayward has played on the outside with him getting four of his interceptions lining up there. He has given up long completions though as well with an average gain of more than 30 yards.

Randall played free safety during his time at Arizona State, so while he's fast enough to play the position I expect it would at least take some time for him to develop into a solid cover corner.

Rollins has lined up outside but has only played one season of college football and is extremely raw. He will need some time to get used to the pro level as well.

I would be extremely disappointed if the only production we get out of our girst two picks in the draft would be Randall playing some snaps in the dime package.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I've posted on several occasions that Hayward has played on the outside with him getting four of his interceptions lining up there. He has given up long completions though as well with an average gain of more than 30 yards.

Randall played free safety during his time at Arizona State, so while he's fast enough to play the position I expect it would at least take some time for him to develop into a solid cover corner.

Rollins has lined up outside but has only played one season of college football and is extremely raw. He will need some time to get used to the pro level as well.

I would be extremely disappointed if the only production we get out of our girst two picks in the draft would be Randall playing some snaps in the dime package.

I'm sort of on the fence about the first two picks playing. If they're on the bench because the guys ahead of them are playing really well, then I'll be very happy. As you mentioned, both are new to the cornerback position so staying on the bench and learning the position wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. On the flip side, if the vets are playing well enough that the two rookies aren't getting on the field, I would be a little disappointed that the Packers didn't go a different direction in the draft. However, considering today's NFL and the need for a good secondary, I wouldn't be that upset.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'm sort of on the fence about the first two picks playing. If they're on the bench because the guys ahead of them are playing really well, then I'll be very happy. As you mentioned, both are new to the cornerback position so staying on the bench and learning the position wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. On the flip side, if the vets are playing well enough that the two rookies aren't getting on the field, I would be a little disappointed that the Packers didn't go a different direction in the draft. However, considering today's NFL and the need for a good secondary, I wouldn't be that upset.

There´s no denying the Packers needed to address the cornerback position in the draft. I´m absolutely fine with the Packers selecting Rollins in the second round. While he´s extremely raw he has all the talent needed to develop into a solid outside corner, which will take some time with him though. While I like Randall as a player I don´t really see the fit in the team´s secondary as of right now and I would have preferred Thompson to go in a different direction with the first round pick.

 

[HardRightEdge]

We're also completely ignoring the possibility of Hyde playing in the slot and Hayward playing outside and basically letting Randall play as a dime safety and let Rollins learn the NFL from the bench for a year.

I don't think that's been ignored. It's the presumptive depth chart at this point.

If Randall can't work his way into a respectable number of snaps as the season goes along, if not a starting position as was the case with Dix last season, that will be a disappointment.

What might be overlooked is what happens in the event of injury. The Packers play nickel about 2/3 of the time. That represents 80 DB "starts". What's a minimum reasonable number of lost starts in that group in the risk avoidance calculus? 6 perhaps? More? What happens if a guy is lost for the season?

Let's assume the nickel starters are Shields-Hayward-Hyde-Burnett-Dix in week 1.

If Burnett goes down, Hyde would be the logical candidate for SS with Richardson getting some snaps when a box safety is called for. Then who takes over nickel for the bulk of the snaps when Hyde isn't in there? There are a couple of possibilities. Hayward might move to nickel with Randall or Rollins outside depending on who's up to the task. Or Hayward stays where he is and Rollins takes over nickel. In this scenario, the two rookies are in direct or indirect competition for snaps.

If Dix were to go down, who goes to FS? Randall would be the logical choice since that's his natural position without getting into backfield musical chairs. If he's not up to the task, then Hyde can go to FS with Rollins at nickel, or the musical chairs commence with Hyde going to FS, Hayward swings to nickel and Randall or Rollins go outside. Again, the rookies are in competition.

If Shields or Hayward goes down, Randall and Rollins are in direct competition for the outside spot.

If Hyde goes down, Rollins would be the logical choice at nickel if he's up to it. Otherwise, Hayward goes to nickel and Randall takes over outside.

In these scenarios there are some platoon possibilities. In the past we saw Woodson outside in base and inside in nickel, and that worked swimmingly for awhile. After Woodson departed, there was preseason talk of using Williams in the same way, but that ended up being used sparingly and then largely dropped. An injury to a safety might set up that scenario with Hayward outside in base, then moving inside in nickel and either Randall or Rollins manning the perimeter.

These injury scenarios go some ways in clarifying Thompson's statement that the new guys offer scheme flexibility which goes to the point that, "This is not fun and games...life happens, injuries happen."

That there are two high picks represents bet-hedging and sets up direct and indirect competition between them...having two guys competing doubles the odds of having a guy step up successfully.

Hayward being a free agent after 2015 provides a further kicker.

There's a chance Mr. Goodson will have something to say about all this. But given his preseason performance last year and the fact Thompson drafted high for two guys, you'd have to conclude he's not viewed all that favorably and would be a long shot in making a meaningful contribution.

 

[rodell330]

I bet Hayward has a better season than Shields. I also bet he finishes the year with more than four ints.

 

[Half Empty]

I bet Hayward has a better season than Shields. I also bet he finishes the year with more than four ints.

Even I can determine if he gets five or more INTs, but if someone digs this out next year, what constitutes having 'a better season'?

 

[rodell330]

Mo

Even I can determine if he gets five or more INTs, but if someone digs this out next year, what constitutes having 'a better season'?

More picks, passes broken up or defensed, and completions allowed .

 

[HardRightEdge]

More picks, passes broken up or defensed, and completions allowed.

It wouldn't be a bad idea to look at TDs surrendered and yards per catch.

A guy can excel in the categories you named by gambling, while the big mistakes won't show up in the categories you cited.

Hmmm...if you put it all together you get passer-rating-against.

I'll be interested to see if Shields takes the #1 receiver all over the field or the corners stick to one side.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Even I can determine if he gets five or more INTs, but if someone digs this out next year, what constitutes having 'a better season'?

Comparing corners is pretty much the perfect scenario for using stats however you want to tell whatever story you want. There will be no definitive stat that shows one is better than the other, assuming both play relatively well; I mean if Hayward becomes DPOY and Shields gets benched after two games then obviously Hayward was better.

Interceptions don't tell everything because Shields could be so good at covering his man that QBs throw 1,000 more passes at Hayward (hopefully the hyperbole is evident). QB rating might help but it will depend on who is covering who.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

It wouldn't be a bad idea to look at TDs surrendered and yards per catch.

A guy can excel in the categories you named by gambling, while the big mistakes won't show up in the categories you cited.

Hmmm...if you put it all together you get passer-rating-against.

I'll be interested to see if Shields takes the #1 receiver all over the field or the corners stick to one side.

I'm a little bit worried about Hayward's injury and him missing valuable practice time during the offseason. Hopefully he will be able to get back in time for training camp.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Comparing corners is pretty much the perfect scenario for using stats however you want to tell whatever story you want. There will be no definitive stat that shows one is better than the other, assuming both play relatively well; I mean if Hayward becomes DPOY and Shields gets benched after two games then obviously Hayward was better.

Interceptions don't tell everything because Shields could be so good at covering his man that QBs throw 1,000 more passes at Hayward (hopefully the hyperbole is evident). QB rating might help but it will depend on who is covering who.

I think that yards allowed per coverage snaps in combination with TDs and interceptions is a pretty good indicator of a cornerback's performance.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I think that yards allowed per coverage snaps in combination with TDs and interceptions is a pretty good indicator of a cornerback's performance.

I'm highly suspicious of yards-per-coverage-snap data.

Passing offenses are "right handed" (or "left handed" in the rare cases of lefty QBs; the rest of these observations will assume a righty QB). I can't recall if I saw Rodgers' intermediate-to-deep 2014 throws charted in a link posted here or elsewhere, but even his throw frequency and completion rate on those passes is predominantly to the right side. The difference was quite striking, in fact. It's just plain more difficult to turn and throw left in a mechanically sound position, i.e., not across the body, than it is to the right side...there's simply fewer degrees of turn going right.

Further, the QB's vision dropping back from center is to the right side. They don't call the left side the "blind side" for nothing; if the QB is blind to the rusher, he's bound to be at least somewhat blind to the routes on that side as well.

There's also the matter of called roll-outs and ad lib plays when bailing the pocket...those are predominantly right-sided specifically to avoid having to throw across the body. Some are better than others at going left. Rodgers may be the best throwing across his body, but there's bound to be a drop off in range and accuracy regardless. With lesser QBs the difference is more pronounced. When watching QB coaching sessions with high draft prospects ((Mariucci, Chucky, et. al.) you see them hammering away on footwork and mechanics on the left-side throws.

There's no getting around these left-right factors; the closest you can get to mitigating those factors is using shotgun, where the QB is not back-pedaling facing right.

Consequently, the default position in the NFL is put the #1 receiver on the right side, with the defense sticking the best coverage corner opposite that receiver at left cornerback. Certainly, there are plays where the offense tries to exploit a match up and switch the #1 receiver to the left side against the weaker corner. And some defenses switch sides with their cornerbacks to counter. But the default is strength-against-strength on the right side.

To illustrate, this week's reports from the underwear workouts have Shields working left cornerback (offense's right side) with the first team, taking over Williams' spot.

Then there's the matter of comparing nickel corners to cover corners. Nickels do a lot of duty against slot receivers and tight ends in short routes and/or in the crowded middle of the field where there is frequently help, minimizing yards even if the coverage is blown. In a yards-per-coverage snap comparison, nickel corners clearly need to be evaluated separately from cover corners.

More subtly, cover corners who are fixed at left corner, or who follow the #1 all over the field need to be evaluated separately from those that are fixed at right corner or who follow the #2.

Even more subtly perhaps, corners that play in a defense that dishes a high frequency of two-high safety are afforded more protection from long yardage plays than a defense that plays a lot of single-high safety.

And then there's the difficulties in accounting for the help that a good 4 man pass rush provides. How do you compare Buffalo's corners, where the defense will go entire games in nickel and dropping 7 while getting pressure with 4, to a team with a lousy pass rushing front that relies on blitzes? Or what if you have a bad free safety, as with M.D. Jennings, where the corner is burned and the end zone yapping begins over a blown top-side assignment?

Then there's the weak link factor...if there's a big fall-off from the #1 to the #2 corner, opponents will be inclined to go after the weakness. In a way, a #1 corner will look better in yards-per-coverage snap if his compatriot on the the other side stinks. That is, after all, what a good deal of game prep goes into identifying, or as the euphemism goes, "finding favorable match ups." Under this scenario, the offense is likely to stray more frequently from the strength-against-strength default.

All in all, evaluating corner performance in statistical isolation is a very tricky business.

 

[TJV]

I'm highly suspicious of yards-per-coverage-snap data.

I agree. You’ve detailed a lot of contingencies the stat does not take into account. I – hell we – look forward to you formulating a stat that takes them all into account. When you’re done with that, if you could get started on tackling the uniform field theory, I – hell we – would be doubly grateful.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I agree. You’ve detailed a lot of contingencies the stat does not take into account. I – hell we – look forward to you formulating a stat that takes them all into account. When you’re done with that, if you could get started on tackling the uniform field theory, I – hell we – would be doubly grateful.

That's not going to happen, and for some good reasons too. The system is too complex.

The idea is to understand the limitations of the stats. In fact, what they should be doing is helping to assist in confirming or debunking the eye test, not the other way around.

Similarly, the QB rating is very dependent on the quality of the offensive line and the receivers, if not the balance brought by the running backs and the quality of the coaching. But by and large it has proved useful in having a fairly good correlation to scoring points.

At least QB-rating-against for a CB measures what happens when the ball is thrown at him (as opposed to assumptions about why it wasn't), which alleviates some of the problems with per-coverage-snap data noted above, such as there being other glaring weaknesses to attack.

As for the unified field theory, perhaps nature is not constructed to allow for one. Perhaps the behavior of subatomic particles and the functioning of gravity and space/time at the subatomic level are simply different than at the macro level. Or you can go with the multiverse fudge-factors of string theorists which account for some things but have not been empirically tested (and may never be). Personally, I tend to agree with the thinking of some Eastern religions...that's it is all an illusion.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'm highly suspicious of yards-per-coverage-snap data.

Passing offenses are "right handed" (or "left handed" in the rare cases of lefty QBs; the rest of these observations will assume a righty QB). I can't recall if I saw Rodgers' intermediate-to-deep 2014 throws charted in a link posted here or elsewhere, but even his throw frequency and completion rate on those passes is predominantly to the right side. The difference was quite striking, in fact. It's just plain more difficult to turn and throw left in a mechanically sound position, i.e., not across the body, than it is to the right side...there's simply fewer degrees of turn going right.

Further, the QB's vision dropping back from center is to the right side. They don't call the left side the "blind side" for nothing; if the QB is blind to the rusher, he's bound to be at least somewhat blind to the routes on that side as well.

There's also the matter of called roll-outs and ad lib plays when bailing the pocket...those are predominantly right-sided specifically to avoid having to throw across the body. Some are better than others at going left. Rodgers may be the best throwing across his body, but there's bound to be a drop off in range and accuracy regardless. With lesser QBs the difference is more pronounced. When watching QB coaching sessions with high draft prospects ((Mariucci, Chucky, et. al.) you see them hammering away on footwork and mechanics on the left-side throws.

There's no getting around these left-right factors; the closest you can get to mitigating those factors is using shotgun, where the QB is not back-pedaling facing right.

Consequently, the default position in the NFL is put the #1 receiver on the right side, with the defense sticking the best coverage corner opposite that receiver at left cornerback. Certainly, there are plays where the offense tries to exploit a match up and switch the #1 receiver to the left side against the weaker corner. And some defenses switch sides with their cornerbacks to counter. But the default is strength-against-strength on the right side.

To illustrate, this week's reports from the underwear workouts have Shields working left cornerback (offense's right side) with the first team, taking over Williams' spot.

Then there's the matter of comparing nickel corners to cover corners. Nickels do a lot of duty against slot receivers and tight ends in short routes and/or in the crowded middle of the field where there is frequently help, minimizing yards even if the coverage is blown. In a yards-per-coverage snap comparison, nickel corners clearly need to be evaluated separately from cover corners.

More subtly, cover corners who are fixed at left corner, or who follow the #1 all over the field need to be evaluated separately from those that are fixed at right corner or who follow the #2.

Even more subtly perhaps, corners that play in a defense that dishes a high frequency of two-high safety are afforded more protection from long yardage plays than a defense that plays a lot of single-high safety.

And then there's the difficulties in accounting for the help that a good 4 man pass rush provides. How do you compare Buffalo's corners, where the defense will go entire games in nickel and dropping 7 while getting pressure with 4, to a team with a lousy pass rushing front that relies on blitzes? Or what if you have a bad free safety, as with M.D. Jennings, where the corner is burned and the end zone yapping begins over a blown top-side assignment?

Then there's the weak link factor...if there's a big fall-off from the #1 to the #2 corner, opponents will be inclined to go after the weakness. In a way, a #1 corner will look better in yards-per-coverage snap if his compatriot on the the other side stinks. That is, after all, what a good deal of game prep goes into identifying, or as the euphemism goes, "finding favorable match ups." Under this scenario, the offense is likely to stray more frequently from the strength-against-strength default.

All in all, evaluating corner performance in statistical isolation is a very tricky business.

I agree with all of the things you said that factor into a cornerback's performance. But every single one of them has an affect on opponent's passer rating against and yards per attempt as well.

Last season, 7 out of the top 10 cornerbacks in yards allowed per coverage snap were also ranked in the top 10 in passer rating against. IMO it's as good of an indicator (with the eye test being the most important one) as any of the other stats available to judge a CB's performance.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I agree with all of the things you said that factor into a cornerback's performance. But every single one of them has an affect on opponent's passer rating against and yards per attempt as well.

Last season, 7 out of the top 10 cornerbacks in yards allowed per coverage snap were also ranked in the top 10 in passer rating against. IMO it's as good of an indicator (with the eye test being the most important one) as any of the other stats available to judge a CB's performance.

Actually, yards-per-coverage-snap covers only half of what goes into the passer rating. There are big differentiators in the passer rating calculation involving TD and INT frequency. Those should be regarded as just as important with CBs as with QBs.

Can you name the other 3 cornerbacks and their respective ranks? I remain skeptical of statistics that make a positive assumption about why a player is not involved in a play.

Following on this logic, we should then rate receivers on yards-per-pass-snap. Do you endorse that?

Perhaps the best answer to this complex question is to look at both yards-per-coverage snap and passer-rating-against simultaneously...perhaps in a blended quotient. With the latter gauge, we see how he does when the ball is thrown at him, which supports or debunks the assumption about why offenses don't target him as often, or more often, as the case might be.