Although the "normal" stats weren't there, Grimes was better in 2011 than he was in 2010.
In 2011, Grimes only allowed 45% completions, 4.6 YPA, and a passer rating of 62.9 against. In 2010, he allowed 50% completions, 5.6 YPA, and a passer rating of 61.3 against. In 2009, he allowed 62% completions, 7.6 YPA, and passer rating of 65.0.
If Grimes is only as good as he was in 2011, then he will be one of the 5 best corners in the league. He was in that year.
oh, good grief. Pudge, this is the exact kind of 'stat-mining' that I find funny. Lets review.
In 2010, Grimes started and was effective
for 16 games.
In 2011, it was.....twelve
. So, he had 'excellent stats' by virtue of his playing (no semantics, please) only 12 games, right?
here is The Mecca of numbers torture, Football Notwatchers, estimation of 2011:http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-a ... stats-2011
Can you imagine if Brentypoo decided to play in that Giant Fiasco(tm)? He might have hurt himself, but he might just have padded
those 'Yards after Hurt Feelings' stats, or some other such nonsense.
(cue the: only the FAN is loyal remark here)
a twelve game a year player, specifically LATE in the year injured player, approaching the cliff, and he has 'good stats'? Well, not 'normal' stats, you know like, games played, tackles, INT's, but 'Top 5'? 5!!
They are giving him a rating on a 12 game season
The Hamburg Sea Devils have a better chance withose kind of 'rules'. A guy plays 12-13 games, and is OUT for the postseason, does not get that benefit of the doubt. Especially if there are other CB's doing the 'job' ( cough *Mclain* cough) . or, at least appearing to being able to handle it.
Pudge, if Brent Grimes goes to Miami, and repeats 2011: you are WRONG. He is NOT WORTH IT.