http://www.operationsports.com/forums/pro-football/289299-top-50-cbs-nfl.html
Nope. Clements wasn't even on the radar. Check out Nnamdi Asomugha's godly stats compared to Clement's horrible ones. Funny thing is, Asomugha is by far the best CB in the league, but I still think he's underrated. No one knows who this dude is.
"1. Nnamdi Asomugha, Oakland Raiders
Season Totals: 29 attempts, 4.97 YPA, 62.07 Forced INC%, 0 TDs, 1 INT
My two cents: Was this the best season every for a CB? Asomugha was only thrown at 29 times the entire season and allowed just 9 receptions. He allowed two catches (both to Tony Gonzalez) over an eight game span in the middle of the season. He allowed 144 yards receiving for the season, and 46 of those came on one play against the Chargers where he misjudged an underthrown pass to Vincent Jackson. If a CB has had a better season than this, I’d like to see the numbers."
Clements wasn't even on the list. Plus he gave up the 2nd most TD's in the NFL. Ouch.
"Nate Clements, San Francisco 49ers
Season Totals: 96 attempts, 8.19 YPA, 26.04 Forced INC%, 7 TDs, 2 INTs
My two cents: Not only did Clements have horrible numbers, but he was also second in the league with 17 unforced incompletions. Clements was one TD allowed away from the league lead and only managed two INTs in 96 attempts. Clements has not lived up to the ridiculous contract the 49ers gave him a couple years before. Clements is actually a good CB in short coverage, but is horrible just about everywhere else. If the 49ers can get an actual pass rush Clements could be an average CB."
[ Edited by Method on Aug 11, 2009 at 17:56:22 ]
There are 219 users in the forums
Top 50 CBs in the NFL - Did Clements Make the list?
Aug 11, 2009 at 5:55 PM
- Method
- Veteran
- Posts: 9,709
Aug 11, 2009 at 5:57 PM
- HoneyBadger49er
- Veteran
- Posts: 19,054
Asomugha had Burgess rushing the passer....we had
Aug 11, 2009 at 6:16 PM
- crzy
- Hall of Fame
- Posts: 40,285
Misleading numbers. Nate is way better than those stats indicate. Several times this season Nate Clements had to make up for blown safety coverage.
Like in the Saints game, where Devery Henderson ran past Clements, who was playing the short zone and there was supposed to be safety help up top, so Clements on the video tape looks like he got burned.
Like in the Saints game, where Devery Henderson ran past Clements, who was playing the short zone and there was supposed to be safety help up top, so Clements on the video tape looks like he got burned.
Aug 11, 2009 at 6:29 PM
- crzy
- Hall of Fame
- Posts: 40,285
I don't see why this thread was moved to the NFL section. We were discussing whether or not Nate Clement's performance justifies his contract?
Aug 11, 2009 at 6:31 PM
- HoneyBadger49er
- Veteran
- Posts: 19,054
Originally posted by crzy:
I don't see why this thread was moved to the NFL section. We were discussing whether or not Nate Clement's performance justifies his contract?
damn Nazi's
Aug 11, 2009 at 7:10 PM
- Young2Rice
- Veteran
- Posts: 69,963
His opinions are solely based on stats, which we all know don't tell the whole story. Which is why he has Charles Woodson at number 4 and why Champ Bailey didn't even make the list.....!!!
[ Edited by Young2Rice on Aug 11, 2009 at 19:13:36 ]
[ Edited by Young2Rice on Aug 11, 2009 at 19:13:36 ]
Aug 11, 2009 at 7:13 PM
- WillistheWall
- Veteran
- Posts: 22,848
Not fair to judge him on last season because he had no safety help and nolan didnt have an effective pass rvsh for the 7 games he was here. im not going to say hes in namdi's league but hes not as bad as the numbers indicate. hes maybe the only guy who played well vs fitz all year, AND he did it in single coverage.
[ Edited by WillistheWall on Aug 11, 2009 at 19:16:16 ]
[ Edited by WillistheWall on Aug 11, 2009 at 19:16:16 ]
Aug 11, 2009 at 7:23 PM
- 49wyztoscore
- Veteran
- Posts: 7,048
Numbers as CB are overrated when you factor in the teams schedule that season. If you played alot of teams with a good passing game then the numbers will be scewed. All I know is our corners did well agianst the best WR duo in the NFL.
Aug 11, 2009 at 7:26 PM
- lamontb
- Veteran
- Posts: 30,016
I read this from Maiocco's defensive player breakdonw earlier, and sadly it makes a lot of sense. Nate gets beat pretty often on deep balls.
22-Nate Clements: Somebody who knows a lot about CB play told me -- after watching Clements this summer -- that he is not as technically sound as you'd expect from a nine-year veteran. He is susceptible to double-moves because he sometimes commits to the receiver's first move before the wideout takes his third step. A receiver can make a double-move on the first step or the third step, and if a corner closes before the third step, he can't recover. OK, that said, Clements brings a lot more positive than negative to the table. He's still clearly the team's best corner.
Nate isn't elite, and he is being overpaid. But he's in the top 50 easy. And Once I saw Carlos Rodgers on this list at number 9 this list really lost any merit. Rodgers is barely average, and constantly injured.
[ Edited by lamontb on Aug 12, 2009 at 08:07:53 ]
22-Nate Clements: Somebody who knows a lot about CB play told me -- after watching Clements this summer -- that he is not as technically sound as you'd expect from a nine-year veteran. He is susceptible to double-moves because he sometimes commits to the receiver's first move before the wideout takes his third step. A receiver can make a double-move on the first step or the third step, and if a corner closes before the third step, he can't recover. OK, that said, Clements brings a lot more positive than negative to the table. He's still clearly the team's best corner.
Nate isn't elite, and he is being overpaid. But he's in the top 50 easy. And Once I saw Carlos Rodgers on this list at number 9 this list really lost any merit. Rodgers is barely average, and constantly injured.
[ Edited by lamontb on Aug 12, 2009 at 08:07:53 ]
Aug 11, 2009 at 8:08 PM
- Overkill
- Moderator
- Posts: 10,783
So... Three of the top 11 CB's play for the Raiders?
Aug 11, 2009 at 11:23 PM
- babyshaq90
- Veteran
- Posts: 5,315
Originally posted by Overkill:
So... Three of the top 11 CB's play for the Raiders?
wow that seems weak.
Aug 12, 2009 at 1:27 AM
- English
- Moderator
- Posts: 40,211
Don't see this at all. With limited support from the safeties and no pass rush, who could have done much better?
Pass rush. God I am tired of moaning about that. We haven't had a decent, consistant passrush in ages
Pass rush. God I am tired of moaning about that. We haven't had a decent, consistant passrush in ages
Aug 12, 2009 at 9:16 AM
- BobS
- Veteran
- Posts: 10,638
Originally posted by English:
Don't see this at all. With limited support from the safeties and no pass rush, who could have done much better?
Pass rush. God I am tired of moaning about that. We haven't had a decent, consistant passrush in ages
Seems like a long time ago but 20 years ago the pass rush was so awesome QBs would lay down before it got there.
Jim Everett's Phantom Sack
Aug 12, 2009 at 9:47 AM
- TheSixthRing
- Beer Gut
- Posts: 71,989
Originally posted by babyshaq90:Originally posted by Overkill:
So... Three of the top 11 CB's play for the Raiders?
wow that seems weak.
Those CB numbers for the Raiders are ridiculously misleading. Sure they have a good secondary, but why would teams pass on the Raiders when they can get 4.7 yards per clip on the ground against one of the worst run stop defenses in the league?
Aug 12, 2009 at 10:20 AM
- WheresWaldo
- Member
- Posts: 2,440
That list is a complete joke. I haven't even heard of half of the guys in the top 10.