Bob Sanders was named NFL Defensive Player of the Year today. Explain this to me. This seems like the quintessential (just picked this word up!) case of a player getting an award because TV analysts slobber over him. People think Bob Sanders is great, but couldn't tell you anything substantive that actually proves that he is as good as people claim. Basically, where are the stats to prove that he, according to the award, is the best defensive player in the game. We can get into the "most valuable" argument, but I would argue that there are other players that are more indispensable to their teams. Here's the stat breakdown on Sanders, a strong safety: tied for 42nd in the league in tackles with 96 (which ties him for second among SS's, and puts him six ahead of Bernard Pollard, who?...exactly), he had 8 passes defensed, 2 interceptions and no forced fumbles. He also rang up 3.5 sacks. I really don't get this it all. The Colts were number one in the league in points per game, but do you think that Bob Sanders was more responsible for that (the Colts giving up 16.4 ppg) than say, Vrabel was in the Pats giving up 17.1 per game, or than Barrett Ruud or Derrick Brooks were for the Bucs, or than Gary Brackett was for the same Colts? I'm not saying that I don't think he's good, I just would like to know what the argument was, statistically, tangibly, for his being chosen. Can someone do this for me?
Oh, I pooped today.
Peace.
No comments:
Post a Comment