For the record, Zero's initial link does provide a look at the 2011 season. I forgot to include it in my post above. Their grade was a 14.5 on Bishop and a -3.1 on Hawk last season. This is based on 916 snaps for Bishop and 960 for Hawk.

Here is the link. It's the big chart in the middle of the article.

http://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2012/06/12/secret-superstar-d-j-smith-lb-green-bay-packers/ 

I'll say this, however. I'm not a huge stat guy. I don't mind them. They're a good starting point, but they aren't the end all of evaluating talent. You can find any sort of stat to backup just about any sort of argument.

For example, take the QB rating. A QB completes a five-yard pass on third and eight and that's considered a positive play in how the rating is measured. That's simply not true if there’s an open receiver 10 yards down field. That’s a negative play then.

Bishop does struggle in coverage. I agree with that sentiment. His impact is still felt in other aspects of the game. Hawk's isn't as much, though you can’t measure how good of a job he does at calling out signals.

For the sake of argument, let's argue that Hawk does cover better than Bishop does. It still doesn't change the fact that neither matches up with modern day tight ends. In their defense, nobody can. Patrick Willis can’t. There is just no way to matchup with Jimmy Graham. In 2005, it was just Antonio Gates and Tony Gonzalez. Now it's Gates, Gonzalez, Graham, JerMichael Finley, Vernon Davis, and Rob Gronkowski. They’re simply so many big and versatile tight ends. The position is insane now, which is why I’ll take Bishop's significant advantage in other aspects, especially pass rush, over Hawk’s minor advantage in matching up with players that he also can’t cover.

Originally Posted by: porky88 

For the record, Zero's initial link does provide a look at the 2011 season. I forgot to include it in my post above. Their grade was a 14.5 on Bishop and a -3.1 on Hawk last season. This is based on 916 snaps for Bishop and 960 for Hawk.

Here is the link. It's the big chart in the middle of the article.

http://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2012/06/12/secret-superstar-d-j-smith-lb-green-bay-packers/ 

I'll say this, however. I'm not a huge stat guy. I don't mind them. They're a good starting point, but they aren't the end all of evaluating talent. You can find any sort of stat to backup just about any sort of argument.

For example, take the QB rating. A QB completes a five-yard pass on third and eight and that's considered a positive play in how the rating is measured. That's simply not true if there’s an open receiver 10 yards down field. That’s a negative play then.

Bishop does struggle in coverage. I agree with that sentiment. His impact is still felt in other aspects of the game. Hawk's isn't as much, though you can’t measure how good of a job he does at calling out signals.

For the sake of argument, let's argue that Hawk does cover better than Bishop does. It still doesn't change the fact that neither matches up with modern day tight ends. In their defense, nobody can. Patrick Willis can’t. There is just no way to matchup with Jimmy Graham. In 2005, it was just Antonio Gates and Tony Gonzalez. Now it's Gates, Gonzalez, Graham, JerMichael Finley, Vernon Davis, and Rob Gronkowski. They’re simply so many big and versatile tight ends. The position is insane now, which is why I’ll take Bishop's significant advantage in other aspects, especially pass rush, over Hawk’s minor advantage in matching up with players that he also can’t cover.

Originally Posted by: porky88 

How do they come up with that stat. Does it include giving up a 123 passer rating? Does it include giving up 10 plays of 20+ yards?

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 

Are there statistics on what assignments players are asked to do? Bishop seemed to be in a lot of man-to-man coverage at times with tight ends and was obviously over matched. If he was so bad, why was he continually asked to do so? That's something I haven't understood yet. A player can only do what their ability allows them to do. I often blame coaches for continually putting certain players in a position to fail. As I said earlier, I'm assuming it's because Caper's had the most faith in Bishop. If not, I can't understand why he wasn't more flexible with his coverage's. If Hawk was truly better, he should have been the one in man to man coverage but instead he was often being "hidden" in coverage. If neither Hawk nor Bishop can handle the responsibilities, keep trying to find a combination of players that work. Making the same unsuccessful calls over and over again doesn't make much sense to me.

EDIT: Dexter, are the main statistics you're using to support that Hawk is better in coverage Rhasaam's (sp?) classification from 13 games in one season? I appreciated his efforts, but they are not concrete. He himself stated Hawk was often hidden in coverage. And of course as I (and a PFT article) said earlier, a rating system such as that is subjective unless he knows every detail of the defensive call (He doesn't. I remember at times saying he couldn't even see certain players and had to guess best he could). Obviously he doesn't know the specifics of every defensive call, who's responsibility was truly what, who actually messed up, etc.

It's a useful insight, but nothing worth forming any concrete opinions on (at least, not for me). Especially to only use his rating system and not factor in even more thorough analysis such as others have posted for an entire season +. You seem to be applying a bias yourself by putting so much stock into a very unofficial and proprietary rating system in hopes of defending Hawk or refuting others (which is fine, we all do things like that). I take it for what's it's worth: useful, but far from definitive.

Originally Posted by: doddpower 

Passer rating isn't as much about the yards or even each attempt. It is about efficiency. Scoring TDs, not throwing INTs and yards per attempt. If a QB is consistently failing to convert 3rd downs, he will have a low per attempt average and fewer TDs. So it will effect the over all passer rating in the long run.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 

It includes everything. Though I assume they are in coverage so much less than they are doing other things that it doesn't factor in so heavily. Passer rating is an average so if they only get thrown at 20-30 times over an entire season it's not going to be very reliable. Do you have their raw numbers given up instead of passer rating?

Originally Posted by: Stevetarded