Patrick Peterson thinks he’s the best cover corner in the game today.
Not Richard Sherman, not Darrelle Revis, not Aqib Talib, not Leon Sandcastle.
Peterson thinks he’s the best. And good for him, you’re supposed to play this game with confidence that you are the best there is. There’s just one problem: there isn’t a stat available that supports Peterson’s case, not against Sherman anyway.
Peterson believes that he’s a better cover corner as he is asked to frequently shadow the opposing team’s best receiving option regardless of where they line up, and that Sherman is asked to do less lining up exclusively on the left side of the defense. Sherman hasn’t been quiet about his dis-taste for that idea, using his stats to support his claim to the throne as the NFL’s best cover man, and letting his opinion known that he regards moving a player around as a sign of team weakness, rather than being seen as superior individual talent.
I can see both sides of that. Sherman has undoubtedly quieted everyone with his play since arriving in the NFL in 2011 as a 5th round selection. In his rookie season he started 10 games, recorded 4 interceptions, 1 forced fumble, 17 passes defensed, and 47 tackles. In 2012 he started 16 games, had 8 interceptions, 3 forced fumbles, 24 passes defensed, and 53 tackles. In 2013, he started 16 games, had 8 interceptions, 18 passes defensed, and 38 tackles.
By comparison, Peterson was the #5 overall selection in the 2011 NFL Draft and has started all 16 games in each of his three seasons. In 2011, he had 2 interceptions, 13 passes defensed, and 59 tackles. In 2012 he had 7 interceptions, 17 passes defensed, and 52 tackles. In 2013, he had 3 interceptions, 13 passes defensed, and 40 tackles.
Take a look at those career numbers:
Sherman, in 6 fewer games than Peterson, has 20 interceptions, 59 passes defensed, 4 forced fumbles, and 138 solo tackles. Peterson, in 6 more games than Sherman, has 12 interceptions, 43 passes defensed, 0 forced fumbles, and 151 solo tackles.
Now to the point that Sherman is less of a player as he does not move on defense to cover the opposing team’s best receiver, shouldn’t those receivers then have better numbers facing the Seahawks than when they play against Peterson, if they are in fact facing a corner assumedly less-talented than Sherman or Peterson?
Sherman and Peterson faced five of the same receivers last year among their shared opponents, and of course Michael Crabtree just had to be on that list. Sherman faced Larry Fitzgerald twice, which Peterson did not face (and probably won’t ever), but he did face Calvin Johnson and Desean Jackson.
Again, Sherman lines up at left corner regardless of who lines up opposite him, whether it’s Fitzgerald, Vernon Davis, or Crabtree himself. Peterson, on the other hand, covers the best receiver on the field, regardless of where they line up. In my opinion that doesn’t make Sherman worse or Peterson better, it just makes it harder to track and compare their play when they operate differently. That being said, again, in order for Peterson’s argument to work, his numbers against top wideouts would need to be better than what the Seahawks as a team gave up. Here’s how the numbers stack up:
Against Seattle and Richard Sherman: 274 yards, 1 TD
Steve Smith 6 rec 51 yards, 1 TD
Andre Johnson 9 rec 110 yards
Vincent Jackson 2 rec 11 yards
Marques Colston 4 rec 27 yards
Larry Fitzgerald 2 rec 17 yards / 3 rec 18 yards
Michael Crabtree 4 rec 40 yards
Against Arizona and Patrick Peterson: 376 yards 4 TD’s
Steve Smith 4 rec 60 yards
Andre Johnson 5 rec 37 yards, 2 TD’s
Vincent Jackson 2 rec 27 yards
Marques Colston 5 rec 71 yards
Calvin Johnson 6 rec, 116 yards, 2 TD’s
Desean Jackson 3 rec 36 yards
Michael Crabtree 3 rec 29 yards
Those numbers make a very compelling argument that Sherman is in fact better. Now one could argue that that’s Sherman and the Seahawks’ starting RCB vs Peterson. That’s fine, because that means that not only is Sherman better, but then you could make the argument that Peterson is the third best corner in the league behind Sherman and the player covering the right side of Seattle’s defense.
If you make the argument that Fitzgerald is not as good as the combination of D. Jackson and C. Johnson, that’s perfectly understandable. Remove them from those lists, and here is what you end up with:
Against Sherman: 25 receptions, 239 yards, 1 TD, 10 YPC
Steve Smith 6 rec 51 yards, 1 TD
Andre Johnson 9 rec 110 yards
Vincent Jackson 2 rec 11 yards
Marques Colston 4 rec 27 yards
Michael Crabtree 4 rec 40 yards
Against Peterson: 19 receptions, 224 yards, 2 TD’s, 12 YPC
Steve Smith 4 rec 60 yards
Andre Johnson 5 rec 37 yards, 2 TD’s
Vincent Jackson 2 rec 27 yards
Marques Colston 5 rec 71 yards
Michael Crabtree 3 rec 29 yards
When covering an identical list of some of the top wideouts in the game, a superior stat line was produced for the Seahawks and not the Cardinals. Why is that? Is it because Peterson can be beaten, or because Sherman doesn’t move around? If you choose the latter, that doesn’t excuse Peterson’s lack of improved stats for doing more, and if the argument is being made that either Richard Sherman covered those receivers and he’s clearly better than Peterson, or it makes the argument that the combination of Brandon Browner and Byron Maxwell sharing Seattle’s RCB spot, are better cover corners than Peterson.
No matter how you slice it, there’s an argument to be made that Peterson could be the better athlete, but when it comes down to refusing to allow the opposing team to catch passes and/or score touchdowns, Sherman and/or Browner/Maxwell simply had better numbers.
Sure, Seattle was the top-ranked passing defense (and #1 overall), whereas the Cardinals were ranked 14thin passing defense, and #6 overall. And yes those numbers play a factor that matters, but rather than weakening Sherman’s claim to being #1 in the league and certainly #1 in Seattle’s defense, doesn’t that also strengthen the argument that Peterson is not fit to be the #1 or #2 corner in Seattle’s defense, let alone #1 in the league?
Perhaps Sherman has a better sidekick and therefore can have more confidence. Perhaps it was better team defense for the Seahawks. Perhaps Peterson was tired from playing in all three phases of the game. Perhaps it was a lot of talk.
Peterson is reported to be concentrating solely on defense this season. Good. Let him show what his 100% effort on defense compares to Sherman’s.
For now, 2013 shared opponents is the best comparison we have. And with those numbers in hand, Peterson’s argument goes right out the window. If he wants to pass Sherman for the throne, he’ll need to start by defending better the passes that come his way. If he wants to prove that his approach makes him the better player, he need to do it by being more efficient than Sherman.
He needs to put up better numbers. Stats don’t lie. Contracts can.
Put up, or shut up.
Add The Sports Daily to your Google News Feed!
