Jump to content
SteVo

Bay vs. Chernobyl: Richard Sherman vs. Earl Thomas

Recommended Posts

Richard Sherman vs. Earl Thomas

Which player is more important to the success of the Seahawks' defense?

 

Bay will argue for Earl Thomas, Chernobyl for Richard Sherman.

 

Bay will speak first, and then the two participants will debate the topic back and forth until both feel they have clearly made their point and responded to their opponent, at which point both players will give their closing statements; Chernobyl gets the last say.

 

For now, there is no set minimum or maximum in terms of time, post count, or anything. Let's just have a good football debate and see what happens.

 

Spectators/Voters, please refrain from posting in this thread until both have posted their closing statement. You are, of course, free to use the rep system to +/- posts you find to be strong/weak arguments.

 

Bay, you have the first word...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many safeties in the NFL are on a Earl Thomas level. The answer, very little if even any at all. Richard Sherman on the other hand could be replaced with mostly any other corner close to his play and Seattle wouldn't miss much of a beat. When you have other CBs like Thurmond and Maxwell playing so well what does that say about Sherman's importance. The fact is there are way more quality cornerbacks than top notch safeties like an Earl Thomas.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there is any doubt at all that there is a good group of CBs that could be successful in Seattle's defense, but that is nothing that can be personally held against Sherman. There are a lot of good cornerbacks in the NFL right now, but not as many good safeties. In terms of all-around what is done for the defense, it's obvious that Thomas does MORE. He is a safety, the job is to roam in the back and make plays and act as a fence for the endzone.

 

The difference is that Sherman is much better at his job than Thomas. You can claim Sherman's results are all solely based on how Thomas covers his back, but Sherman is a lockdown corner. Thomas doesn't have to worry about a defender breaking the top because Sherman doesn't allow it. I'll post stats of how many catches Sherman himself has allowed over the 2013 season when I get the chance.

 

Sherman is a lockdown guy with a knack for getting picks. Thomas is an all-around safety with a broader skill set. Thomas can make a play all over the field. Sherman can shut off 25% of it and destroy anything sent into that 25%; whether it be an interception or a tip to another player. Thomas watches Sherman's back, Sherman gives Thomas a quarter to half of the field to not worry about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, Earl plays the safety position better than Sherman does his job. Sherman isn't the only lockdown corner there is and doesn't do the same role as a true number one corner.

 

Sherman can be absolutely destroyed by WRs as physical or more physical as him evidenced by Anquan Boldin. While a guy like Vernon Davis struggles to do anything with ET taking care of that.

Edited by Bay
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sherman has never been "Absolutely destroyed" by an opponent. This past year he hasn't given up more than 50 yards to any opponent through 19 games. He didn't do extremely good at the beginning of the year but near the end of the year when it mattered he really turned it on.

 

In comparison to Earl Thomas from Week 1 to the superbowl.

 

Sherman was 31 of 64 when targeted while Thomas was 25 of 40 48.4% to 62.5%

 

Note that Sherman plays a role that is mainly based on coverage and was only targeted 3.37 times per game. If that doesn't speak to his coverage skills, then I don't know what would.

 

From week 9 to the super bowl Sherman only gave up 135 yards and 1 touchdown.

 

11 of 26 of completions when thrown against.

 

Thomas had 247 yards. 15 of 23.

 

While Sherman gave up 1 TD and got 4 picks, Thomas gave up 4 TDs and got 1 pick.

 

The overall passer rating through the season was Sherman 31.4 and Thomas 92.7

 

 

Sherman sweeps when it comes to what he does. He is a specialist but he is #1 at it.

 

 

Sherman gave up a passer rating of over 100 only 3 times. Thomas did it 7.

 

Of Sherman's 3 times.

 

1 of 1 for 9 yards.

 

2 of 2 for 46 yards and a TD (His only of 19 games).

 

 

2 of 3 for 31 yards.

 

 

Here are Thomas' 7 games.

 

4 of 4 for 80 yards and a TD.

 

4 of 6 for 62 yards and 2 TDs.

 

1 of 1 for 20 yards.

 

2 of 2 for 34 yards.

 

1 of 1 for 10 yards.

 

3 of 5 for 72 yards and a TD(Divisional)

 

3 of 3 for 39 yards and a TD (Championship)

 

Thanks Air for the PFF stats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sherman got destyoyed by The Falcons WRs two years ago playoffs. Namely Roddy White. That is a fact. So of Boldin's 6 for 93 game you're telling me only 50 or less were allowed by Sherman.

 

Will edit in the rest.

Edited by Bay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Y5T96fG.png

 

Didn't give up more than 50 all year.

 

Against the Falcons he was 2 of 8 with 3 passes defended. He was beat deep once for a 47 catch and also a 13 yard catch. He allowed a TD.

 

Wouldn't say he was great but excluding one fuck-up he was 1 of 7 for 13 yards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BC's repping me, I'm fucked. Kidding Ben. Maybe :troll:

 

 

Closing Statement

 

To sum up why Earl Thomas is more important to Seattle than Richard Sherman...

 

Earl caliber safeties are far and few between, Sherman could be easily replaced.

 

Who's there to back up Sherm if someone gets behind, Earl.

 

He may give up more yards, TDs, higher passer rating because he is asked to do more. Cover freak TEs, help over the top, run support, take away that "center field area". He does it all.

Edited by Bay
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Closing Statement

 

 

PFFs overall rating for Sherman vs. Thomas last year was Sherman winning at 17.7 compared to Thomas' 11.3

 

Sherman's final score for run defense was 1.3 in comparison to Earl's -2.6 score.

 

This is all while Earl only played 42 more snaps than Sherman. The "Earl does more" card only works so much. Sherman is more effective and much more dominant than Earl has been. You can claim that Sherman would not be good without Earl, but his numbers don't lie that he is enough of a superstar on his own.

 

Put him on any other team and he would still be a top 5 cornerback. People just seem to think that his stats and production are inflated because he has a guy like Earl Thomas over his shoulder patrolling the defensive backfield. This doesn't mean that Sherman isn't more important than Thomas.

 

I think the true defining piece backing Sherman is his PFF score from 2012 in comparison to Thomas.

 

Sherman scored a 26.8 in comparison to Thomas' 3.2

 

In pass coverage, Sherman scored a 27.8 in comparison to Thomas' 0.3

 

Sherman recorded 56 tackles, while Thomas recorded 61. This all comes with Sherman playing 10 less snaps than Thomas. Sherman missed 6 tackles, Thomas missed 20.

 

Let's take a final review at the stats over the past two years.

 

 

S T

PFF overall rating 2013: 17.7 to 11.3

PFF overall rating 2012: 26.8 to 3.2

PFF coverage rating 2013: 16.4 to 14.2

PFF coverage rating 2012: 27.8 to 0.3

PFF run defense rating 2013: 1.3 to - 2.6

PFF run defense rating 2012: -3.2 to -0.5

 

 

Tackles 2013: 50 to 95

Tackles 2012: 56 to 61

 

Missed Tackles 2013: 7 to 14

Missed Tackles 2012: 6 to 20

 

Snaps 2013: 1,194 to 1,236

Snaps 2012: 1,099 to 1,109

 

Coverage Stats

S T

Targets 2013: 64 to 40

Targets 2012: 99 to 44

Receptions 2013: 31 to 25

Receptions 2012: 44 to 30

Completion percentage 2013: 48.4% to 62.5%

Completion percentage 2012: 44.4% to 68.2%

Yards allowed 2013: 358 to 370

Yards allowed 2012: 697 to 348

TDS allowed 2013: 1 to 5

TDs allowed 2012: 3 to 1

INTs 2013: 8 to 5

INTs 2012: 8 to 5

Passes defended 2013: 7 to 3

Passes defended 2012: 18 to 1

Passer rating 2013: 31.4 to 92.7

Passer rating 2012: 44.9 to 59.8

 

By my count; of 28 categories, Sherman won 19. The 9 that Thomas won were

 

TDs allowed 2012

Yards allowed 2012

Receptions 2013

Receptions 2012

Snaps 2013

Snaps 2012

Tackles 2013

Tackles 2012

PFF run defense rating 2012

 

TDs allowed is fine.

 

Yards allowed is okay, I guess, but Sherman was targeted 2.25 times as much as Thomas. If he was targeted that much he'd have given up 783, by rough estimate

 

Receptions 2013 and 2012 are not okay given that Sherman was targeted 1.6 and 2.25 more times than Thomas. If Thomas was targeted that much he'd have given up 40 and 67.5 receptions, if the numbers held up.

 

Tackles 2013 is understandable, but 2012? Sherman was 5 short of Thomas. Does that speak about Thomas' ability to make the hit for his position? He did miss 20 tackles that year.

 

Run defense rating is okay, but if any of them are gonna be coming up close and making a play in the run game, it's probably Thomas.

 

 

The mind likes to say Thomas, based on his position.

The numbers like to say Sherman, and it's not even close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay guys, this topic is now open for voting! Anyone is free to vote by posting in this thread. Vote for who you think was the superior debater, not necessarily whom you agree with the most; also take into consideration who, in your estimation, had the more difficult side of the argument.

 

I'm voting for Chernobyl in this one, and not just because he posted more stats. I thought both had good opening arguments, but Chernobyl went farther during the back-and-forth exchange and did a better job replying to Bay's posts, in my opinion.

Edited by SteVo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I do think Thomas is better then Sherman, Bay going first and making the claim that Thomas was more important then Sherman, and that Sherman was more replaceable then Thomas, he has the burden of proof.

 

And with all the stats, etc, that Chernobyl used to prove that Sherman was too valuable to just be replaced, Bay didn't do enough to prove Sherman being easily replaceable.

 

I love you both, but Chernobyl gets my vote. (Sorry Bay :p)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll give the nod to Chernobyl, he did a good job using stats in his argument and definitely put a lot of effort into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a poll somewhere? Chernobyl gets my vote on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody else want to vote on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sat here for a good long while and as much as I want to go Bay for completely agreeing with him, Chern did way too good of a job outlining not only why Sherman is a great player but also pointed out the pros of each and even threw in counter arguments with Earl being valuable in the run game. Yet he still weighed everything out to show that Sherman plays out-of-his-skull awesome and allows virtually no offense where he is and that Earl's stats are elite, but not Sherman elite.

 

To nail home a "ETIII is more valuable than Sherman" argument you'd have to point out some of the things that Attyla does in the NFCW forum about the scheme that Seattle runs, thanks to #29 who can close on virtually any deeply thrown ball. Without Earl Thomas, Chancellor, Sherman, and Maxwell then all have to actually play their positions fully, as if its them all alone out there. The scheme is the key. Taking Earl out really would destroy that scheme. Brandon Browner goes to New England and plays in front of some slacker safeties. Same with Thurmond in NY. You'll see the drop-offs.

Edited by BC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sat here for a good long while and as much as I want to go Bay for completely agreeing with him, Chern did way too good of a job outlining not only why Sherman is a great player but also pointed out the pros of each and even threw in counter arguments with Earl being valuable in the run game. Yet he still weighed everything out to show that Sherman plays out-of-his-skull awesome and allows virtually no offense where he is and that Earl's stats are elite, but not Sherman elite.

 

I came into the debate thinking "Oh shit, how am I gonna defend Sherman?" simply because of the value Earl has in the Seahawks D. If I hadn't looked into it I would've been still sitting here swarming for Thomas. The simple fact of it is that Sherman doesn't have to do as much as Earl. Everyone knows that. But when you crack down the numbers, Sherman is border patrol on his side of the field.

 

You can argue "Well... He doesn't move to cover the #1 receiver all the time." And to that I say, "He shouldn't move to the #1. The #1 is moving FROM HIM."

 

Do I believe Earl does more? Yes.

Do I believe Sherman is too important to be replaced and is a big part of why Earl is successful? Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very well, then. Chernobyl wins the vote 5-0. He will advance in the Winners Bracket and face the Dmac/Brady winner; Bay goes to the Losers Bracket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very well, then. Chernobyl wins the vote 5-0. He will advance in the Winners Bracket and face the Dmac/Brady winner; Bay goes to the Losers Bracket.

:rock:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could not do what AtH does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I probably have to take on Dmac. Losers bracket here I come! :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Chatbox

    TGP has moved to Discord (sorta) - https://discord.gg/JkWAfU3Phm

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×