Packers Huddle

Seriously?

Yards Allowed:
Alexander: 817
King: 815

Pass Break Ups:
Alexander: 17
King: 13

Interceptions:
Alexander: 2
King: 5

Touchdowns Allowed:
Alexander: 5
King: 4

Passer Rating Allowed:
Alexander: 95.6
King: 99.6

I'm not seeing this gap between the two.

And I didn't vote King before 10. I think 3 is perfectly okay space between the two. And others agree which is why King will likely fall between 10 and 11.

go pak go wrote: ↑

12 May 2020 12:55

Seriously?

Yards Allowed:
Alexander: 817
King: 815

Pass Break Ups:
Alexander: 17
King: 13

Interceptions:
Alexander: 2
King: 5

Touchdowns Allowed:
Alexander: 5
King: 4

Passer Rating Allowed:
Alexander: 95.6
King: 99.6

I'm not seeing this gap between the two.

Someone coming it at number 10 on this list from a 13-3 team is no slander. You are acting like the gap is miles. Injury history alone could easily justify the gap.

But Yoop said it pretty well. King has a style he can defend pretty well against, and a style he struggles against. The coaches work to get him in matchups that are against styles that he covers pretty well against.

I dont think they think at all about who alexander covers. He is the number one CB and he covers the opponents number one WR, no matter what the WRs style is. That again will justify the gap in the ranking.

Keep in mind i say this as someone who is voting King over Amos, no hater of King. I just think they are pretty appropriately ranked.

yep, stats will never tell the true story here GPG, but thanks for bringing them.

to me it's nearly like night and day, Jaire does almost everything better then King, much better Cod skills enables him to play in and out, man, zone, once it all comes together he'll be considered one of the best corners in the league, but thats not to say King hasn't played very well, he has, and we should expect more of it, hopefully he can stay healthy, finally we have two quality boundry CB's again, Sullivan looks like he wants that nickle job

King, Amos, Linsley, thats a pretty good doz.

I said the advanced metrics that you, yourself posted.

Alexander: King: Your reaction:

go pak go wrote: ↑

11 May 2020 11:48

I guess looking at these advanced stats Alexander does deserve to be ahead of King.

My comment:

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

12 May 2020 12:12

I don't at all dislike King; I just don't understand the vast respect for him and thought that health is his only detriment. His play is fine with flashes, but your own analytics showed he's a clear step behind Alexander in results.

It's perfectly acceptable to posit that there are players on our team whose capabilities lie between Alexander's and King's. Nothing you've shown seems to indicate that they are so neck-and-neck as to eliminate breathing room between the two.

Your reaction, followed by more conventional stats:

go pak go wrote: ↑

12 May 2020 12:55

Seriously?

I don't think King's lowlights really have much to do with style WR across from him. One of his best games as a pro was against 49ers' Marquis Goodwin last year (Goodwin was gashing us, but not against King's coverage) because yeah, he may not be fast or twitchy but he's not slow and has the size/length to make up the disadvantage. OTOH some of his worst play has come against Lions' Marvin Jones despite being able to match up well with him on paper.

He needs to get more consistent and refined. Apart from that, though, even the best corners get beat.

go pak go wrote: ↑

12 May 2020 12:55

Seriously?

Yards Allowed:
Alexander: 817
King: 815

Pass Break Ups:
Alexander: 17
King: 13

Interceptions:
Alexander: 2
King: 5

Touchdowns Allowed:
Alexander: 5
King: 4

Passer Rating Allowed:
Alexander: 95.6
King: 99.6

I'm not seeing this gap between the two.

And I didn't vote King before 10. I think 3 is perfectly okay space between the two. And others agree which is why King will likely fall between 10 and 11.

Stats are misleading considering one covers other teams best WR while the other takes on whomever the other boundary WR in front of him is. Alexander is also more versatile being able to play inside or outside. King is 2 or 3 spots too high IMO. Not sure what the board is thinking here.

Picking King here though isnt nearly as bad as the person who picked Savage. That just makes no sense to take Savage over Amos. Savage looked ok in coverage. He was absolutely horrendous vs the run. Bad angles, barreled over, didnt look very physical. Cant have that happen when you are the last line of defense. This vote is very disrespectful. My only thought is they meant to click Amos, missed and didnt realize it.

We did not shadow much this past season, some, but not much.

Oh no! Not 2 to 3 spots too high. The insanity! The horror! The nerve!

Rodgers is also 2-3 spots too high.

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

12 May 2020 18:30

King is 2 or 3 spots too high IMO.

I agree. The degree of victory shows the board was pretty split on Amos and King, though, so, whatever. They are right on par, but I would have Linsley ahead of King, as well.

I put Kirksey and King on the same level. The "oh but for their health" and the "if they play at their peaks consistently, look out" and the "for all their athleticism and talent, their top-level play has been 'very good,' not 'elite'"

That's a debate I was ready to have, but King is already gone, so I guess I'll have to wait.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

13 May 2020 08:57

I put Kirksey and King on the same level. The "oh but for their health" and the "if they play at their peaks consistently, look out" and the "for all their athleticism and talent, their top-level play has been 'very good,' not 'elite'"

That's a debate I was ready to have, but King is already gone, so I guess I'll have to wait.

For me, it's more of a "what have you done lately" scenario and provable production. Kirksey's last good season being 2017 dings him for me (compared to King) and I don't believe his best was as good as King's best, thus far.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

13 May 2020 09:06

For me, it's more of a "what have you done lately" scenario and provable production. Kirksey's last good season being 2017 dings him for me (compared to King) and I don't believe his best was as good as King's best, thus far.

The "what have you done for me lately" makes sense if the player was older or the injuries thought to e permanently debilitating. But the dude is 27 years old and we're writing him off like he's 31 and had two injuries.

As for the highs being as high--it depends. Are we talking about his highs as in a single great game? Or his highs as in, like their best season--their best half season. I mean, this is a guy who in 2018 had 5 passes defensed in the 7 games he played prior to injury... that's very good for a LB.

But you look at a guy who in 2016 and 2017 was making TFL and passes defensed. Heck, even in 2018, he had 5 PDs in only 7 games before injury.

It's fine to give players a bump for reliable health. But I think sometimes the recency bias of injuries clouds judgement. Like, Funchess broke his collarbone, but had been healthy for the first 4 years of his career. I don't love him as a player... but his injury last year doesn't downgrade him to me, at all. Kirksey was a healthy player for 4 straight years before getting hit halfway through one season and then again before the next season. Gonna be some rust, for sure, but his ability to play shouldn't be diminished while he's still prime-age.

King it sucks because his shoulder issues have been chronic and it will always be a question if it's going to hold up.

I think Kevin King's highs have been higher thus far in his career compared to Kirksey. Having 5 PDs in 7 games is fantastic. King's 5 INTs were fantastic along with his 15 PDs. Having his best season in 2019 trumps having a best season 2016/17, in my opinion. There should be some recency bias. That's just where I would separate them and I don't think that is too unconventional.

I'm curious if the MN interception is included in that passer rating of "when targeted" because it was not King who was "targeted" on that play.

It was in his coverage. He was playing deep half. He intercepted it on his deep half.