[Nick]

Originally Posted by rampete

but really, can you give specifics examples to refute it categorically?

Well for the record I've never tried to make the case that Fisher categorically looks back at the ball. My opinion is that he does on occasion and doesn't on other occasions, and I think use of the strategy depends on your body position and how easy it is to make that kind of turn. I should also note that I was critical of him on the PI call for making contact without making an effort to try and play the ball. Looking back at my responses, what I've refuted are claims that he NEVER looks back at the ball. And yes, if you'd like me to, I can provide some examples of him doing that. I've already provided one - the deflection in the Green Bay game.

In general terms, I do recall plays where he's in zone coverage looking back at the QB, and I would contend that when he's backed up off the line of scrimmage in loose coverage he has (or should have) his eyes on the quarterback as well as the receiver since both are in front of him in his line of sight. That being said, when he turns his back to the QB to run with a receiver in man coverage down field, I really don't expect him to look back simply because his focus needs to be on staying with his man. He can judge if the ball is coming by watching the receiver and looking for cues from him.

Originally Posted by rampete

most of us give opinions of players or coaches based on less than reliable cumulative memories and so when nick asks for evidence to prove or dissprove what is in fact an opinion it would seem pointless since it's painfully obvious that his opinion of the facts differ in the first place.

I'm not sure I follow you. If I say I don't think a person is good at something, I have to base that opinion on something, correct? I just don't pick someone at random and determine based on nothing that he's good or bad.

Okay, so I'm simply asking for that which such an opinion is based on so we can go back and take a closer look. If people are basing their opinions on less than reliable cumulative memories, then I would suggest that they perhaps not present such an opinion with the kind of certainty that we've seen in criticisms of Fisher and perhaps also be open-minded to changing those opinions when reliable accounts of plays are brought up that counter the opinion.

I mean, we're now on page five of this thread and how many additional examples have we accumulated outside of the two that AlphaRam brought up earlier? Not very many, I don't think. If anything I've probably been posting more specific examples of poor play by Fisher than anyone, and for some reason I'm getting criticized for not acknowledging his faults in the process!

I understand that people don't all have access to additional resources, but if a person thinks the guy's been playing poorly, it's based on something. I don't think I'm asking a heck of a lot when challenging people to recall those plays.

Originally Posted by rampete

i think fisher is a solid fringe-level CB who rarely makes a mistake and is disciplined enough and fast enough to avoid giving up the long balls over his head...but is not instinctive enough nor has the ball skills to make game changing plays on a consistent game to game basis like the better ones in this league.

Would you believe, for the most part, I agree with this assessment of Fisher being a solid - not great but not horrible - corner? Maybe some believe that I'm trying to argue Fisher into the Hall of Fame or Pro Bowl, but that's not the case at all. I'm simply trying to show that he's not playing at the largely poor level he's widely criticized of playing at.

Posters should recall the position I took in the spring regarding our secondary and its relation to our draft strategy - I was in favor of drafting players like Michael Huff or Tye Hill because I viewed our secondary as having a number of solid players but no true playmakers or game changers. I would suggest Fisher falls into the realm of being a solid player.

Originally Posted by rampete

nick makes a good point in his first post regarding the importance of the front line providing a pass rush, but this is less irrelevant, imo, in regards to fisher since he is one of the fastest players on the team and does play off the line well.

I generally disagree with this. Even the fastest of cornerbacks are going to get beat if the quarterback has all day to sit back and pick his spots, especially when a defense takes men out of coverage and blitzes them but does not get to the quarterback. Remember, the receiver knows where the ball is going and the corner does not. The corner is in chase mode, and even speed can get beat by a precise cut or turn and a well timed pass. Regardless of DB speed, the pass rush is an equally important part of the equation of pass defense, IMO.

Originally Posted by RealRam

As promissed, I refuse to discuss Travis Fisher w/you based on the above evidence but frankly, I think that even our own CB would be more flexible to admit his faults on the field than you, facts and all.

If you're implying that I've not been acknowledging Fisher's poor play or faults in this thread, then you haven't been reading my responses at all.

Again, I agreed with Alpha about the pass interference call and how Fisher needed to do a better job of looking back if he was going to get tangled up with Branch. This is the second time I've specifically reminded you about this yet you continue to look over it.

Furthermore, I acknowledged the legitimacy of Utter's complaint about Fisher breaking on balls in the air and also brought up criticisms I myself had about his reaction time. I responded to HUb's comment on the Detroit game by bringing up both positive AND negative plays made by Fisher, in fact I believe I specifically commented on three negative plays, and categorized his game performance as simply being okay or solid because he had some bad plays to go along with some good ones.

To sit here and imply I've not been flexible in admitting when Fisher has made mistakes or has faults is factually inaccurate and a complete misrepresentation of what I've presented in this thread. I've now not only summarized the instances in which I've discussed Fisher's mistakes and faults, but I've provided links to the individual posts in which they occur. That should hopefully shut the door on such implications.

Originally Posted by AlphaRam

WOW! I did not expect the discussion that has occurred in this thread. Yesterday was my first day back after serving 30 days away from the board to honor a bet with a Whiners fan when we lost the game to them.

You sure have a heck of a way fo making a comeback then!

Originally Posted by AlphaRam

2. Regarding the examples that I pointed out from the second half of NFL Replay from last night, Fisher never scoped the ball at any point in his defense of the receiver. Additionally, he got called for pass interference on a ball that he could have turned around to intercept had he not been grabbing the receiver's arm.

And I've provided a rather length analysis of why he wouldn't look back at the ball on the touchdown play, so I'd enjoy hearing your thoughts on some of those points.

As for the pass interference call, I agree that Fisher could have intercepted that pass had he turned around and found it because the ball was underthrown. However it's because we know the ball was underthrown that we can conclude Fisher could have intercepted it. It's a bit of a hindsight argument. When you're man to man on a guy streaking down the field, taking your attention off that player to turn around and look for the ball is not a strategy I would suggest doing.

It's easy to sit here and say he could have made a play if he'd have done something different because we have a clear knowledge of how everything transpired, but if that pass is on the money like you have to assume it's going to be and Fisher turns back to try and find it, he likely gives up space to the receiver and takes himself out of the play. I draw that conclusion because I've seen other defensive backs on our team do just that when turning to look back for the ball, and if necessary I can provide examples of that.

Also I previously said that if he's going to get tangled up with Branch like that he needs to at least turn his head in some manner to make it appear as if he's playing the ball so as to not draw the flag. I don't think it's reasonable to ask him to turn completely around in that instance, but at least turn your head in some fashion.

Originally Posted by AlphaRam

Not looking for the ball is inexcusable.

Not looking for the ball in some instances is inexcusable, I agree. Not looking for the ball in ALL instances, I disgaree with, and have hopefully illustrated in previous posts which instances a cornerback may not specifically turn to look for the ball, especially when it involves more than a 90-degree head turn which basically removes any focus he may have on the receiver.

Originally Posted by AlphaRam

4. The incident that I cited where Fisher poked Steve Smith in the eye across the line of scrimmage in 2003 was what got me following Fisher's play. I do not know how the officials missed it, but my opinion is that Fisher would get called for more penalties if the officials watched him better.

I do not recall Fisher poking Steve Smith in the eye in 2003, so I'll defer to your account of events. As for whether or not Fisher would be called for more penalties if the officials watched him better, this kind of statement is applicable to just about every player on the field. If the officials watched the offensive line better, there would likely be more holding calls. If the official watched the receivers better, there would likely be more offensive pass interference calls. I'm not sure why Fisher needs to be singled out as saying he'd likely be flagged more if he was being watched closer.

Originally Posted by AlphaRam

I have no problem with Nick's challenge to support my opinion and I respect his point of view.

I appreciate that. Similarly, I have no problem with people criticizing Travis Fisher or any other Ram, but I would simply suggest that anyone willing to make a claim about something should be able to support that claim when asked.

I don't think asking someone to defend their opinion with details and specifics is at all a negative thing. If anything, that kind of detailed analysis should serve to improve the quality of the board as a whole, I would think, because it means we're taking a closer look at what our team is doing and drawing conclusions directly from the specific things we see on the field.

Originally Posted by UtterBlitz

The defense has to be more free form than that. They are hunting down the ball and they have to be able to adapt to their situation more freely than the offense. I am sure the the CBs are given advice or even directions about where they should line up and how much cushion to give. I would think that it is the secondary coach, Willie Robinson who is barking those orders, not Haslett.

I am not trying to be difficult, but I think there is plenty of wiggle room on the defense to improvise as the players see fit.

I agree that the defense does need to be more flexible at times. A cornerback doesn't know where the ball is going, so the precise path he's going to take in man coverage on any specfic play is unknown to him. Just as the precise path Leonard Little is going to take to the quarterback is unknown, because it's going to depend on how he's blockeed. Does he speed around the edge or make a move toward the inside? That's a decision he makes as the play unfolds. So yes, there is some mystery and uncertainty in the responsibilities of the defense.

However, I would contend that where a player lines up on the field and how far or near he lines up to a man he's covering is not one of those decisions solely left up to him but is rather part of the scheme Haslett has instituted and is drilling into our players (and as you said is probably being handled primarily by Robinson the position coach), and it very likely depends on what part of the field they're on on any given play as well as the situation and specific defensive play called.

I just cannot buy into this idea that a defensive back is solely responsible for how near or far he is from his man on the line of scrimmage, nor have I seen a very compelling argument to convince me of such a claim. Furthermore for those that think it is the cornerback's responsibility, I have yet to hear the criticism of this nature made about our other DBs, who if you watch the tape are equally as guilty of lining up well off of receivers in certain situations. The vast majority of criticms is thrown Fisher's way, which is entirely unfair. It's because all of our guys do it that I believe you can't blame the player for it but rather need to look at it as a coaching issue.