Dashon Goldson

Originally posted by Niners99:

Originally posted by 4everFaithful:

Originally posted by Niners99:

Originally posted by 4everFaithful:

Originally posted by Niners99:

Originally posted by 4everFaithful:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by Allx9er:
Only reason why this thread is 30 + pages is neither has done enough to seperate themselves

One's a starter the other is not coming back at his current salary...his not starter quality and hasn't been for a while.

http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/2773/deangelo-hall

CSN Mid-Atlantic's Tarik El-Bashir believes DeAngelo Hall could open 2016 as a starter at safety for the Redskins.

Hall performed well after making the switch to safety late last season, and an offseason working at the position will only make him more comfortable. Coach Jay Gruden said he think Hall will "solidify himself as one of the top safeties in the league." The spot next to Hall remains an open question. Dashon Goldson is unlikely to return at his current $8 million cap hit, and he is not starter quality at this point in his career anyway. The Redskins should address the position in free agency or the draft. Feb 20 - 9:44 AM
Source: CSN Washington

The reason it's 30 plus pages is because you have the same people that always hate on every player on SF commenting on it OR the same people hating on every single player Baalke has drafted...that's basically what this thread and many others have turned into... its pretty old and stale IMO.

If someone can't honestly see Reid is a better safety overall than Goldston then hey aren't being objective and have other motives.

If you watched Goldson at all this season, youd slap yourself

PFF watched more Goldson than you did, and said he was horrible last year.

You're not only calling yourself a better NFL scout than PFF, but youre saying PFF knows nothing about football. Is that really the stance you want to take?

No, im not denying PFF is a viable statistic, what im saying is, PFF is unreliable if used as THE only source of your argument... you cannot only look at PFF, but not watch the player, ignore his tackles, INTS, and passes deflected as if theyre pointles...

Do you really believe that scouts only use PFF and nothing else?? You dont think they watch the player with their own eyes? Or view other statistics? PFF is very flawed if used as your only tool, you have to take other factors in account as well.. cant just use the same argument over and over... "he sucks at coverage, here is the PFF".. when a majorirty of you bashing Goldson didnt even take the time to watch him this yr...

I played in a IDP fantasy league this yr where I had Goldson on my team, this dude was one of the highest scoring Safties in fantasy this league.. now im aware that doesnt mean he was good in coverage, but it does speak on belhalf of his playmaking ability.. he racked me up an average of 8 tackles a game, got and INT or a TD here and there, forced some fumbles.. hes not as bad as many of you claim.. and Reid has a lot to prove before I claim he was ever better than Goldson in his prime let alone even today

Fantasy sports mean nothing.

Scouts dont ONLY use PFF, but the fact that they DO use it shows you that its legit.

My point is, if the PFF scouts know what theyre talking about, which you seem to concede, then how do you explain the fact that Goldson has graded out at a -66.0 for his career? That is horrendous. Either PFF is lying, or youre way off base in calling Goldson a great player. Or even a good player...

Goldson is good at SOME things in the game of football. Hes fast, and he hits with a heavy shoulder, which can cause turnovers. But none of that matters if you cant cover, cant tackle properly, and commit tons of penalties. Those 3 negatives make up WAY more of his game than the occasional positives that hes good at.

Fans see big hits, and forced fumbles, and gravitate towards that. Thats such a small part of the picture.

The fact is, Goldson hurts his team more than he helps them. When he played on an elite D here in SF, he could hide his inefficiencies behind a spectacular front 7. He would hang back and play center field, looking for a big hit or just ballhawking. You cant do that in an average D. You have to be able to cover deep, and wrap up your tackles. Goldson doesnt do those things well, which is why he gets ripped apart in the PFF grades.

I disagree I disagree I disagree

You really think Goldson hurt the team more than he helped them??

And do you think scouts pay any attention to tackles and INTs as well? Or do they just use PFF and throw every other statistic in the trash?

Yes, I do. You dont seem to remember all the moronic late hit penalties, blown coverages, and missed tackles trying to make a highlight reel hits.

I dont think scouts GAF about tackles and INT's. Theyre statistically proven to be unreliable, and a product of happenstance. Did you play on a bad D that gets run on a lot, and stays on the field all day long? Your players are going to have higher tackle totals. Are you thrown at a lot? Those are extra opportunities for picks. Tipped balls factor in a ton, and are totally unpredictable. Picks and tackles are a waste of time for a scout to include in a report.

Scouts want to know how WELL you wrap up your tackles, and how good your coverage skills are.

I keep saying it without getting a response. If PFF knows what theyre talking about, Goldson is trash.

You cant say its both. Goldson is a career -66.0 player. Unless PFF's staff is a bunch of idiots who dont know football, you cant claim Goldson is a great player. -66.0 isnt a matter of opinion. Either hes not good, or PFF is incredibly stupid.

Scouts don't care about stats, because stats show they are unreliable?

Interesting take.

Originally posted by Young2Rice:

Originally posted by Niners99:

Originally posted by 4everFaithful:

Originally posted by Niners99:

Originally posted by 4everFaithful:

Originally posted by Niners99:

Originally posted by 4everFaithful:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by Allx9er:

Only reason why this thread is 30 + pages is neither has done enough to seperate themselves

One's a starter the other is not coming back at his current salary...his not starter quality and hasn't been for a while.

http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/2773/deangelo-hall

CSN Mid-Atlantic's Tarik El-Bashir believes DeAngelo Hall could open 2016 as a starter at safety for the Redskins.

Hall performed well after making the switch to safety late last season, and an offseason working at the position will only make him more comfortable. Coach Jay Gruden said he think Hall will "solidify himself as one of the top safeties in the league." The spot next to Hall remains an open question. Dashon Goldson is unlikely to return at his current $8 million cap hit, and he is not starter quality at this point in his career anyway. The Redskins should address the position in free agency or the draft. Feb 20 - 9:44 AM
Source: CSN Washington

The reason it's 30 plus pages is because you have the same people that always hate on every player on SF commenting on it OR the same people hating on every single player Baalke has drafted...that's basically what this thread and many others have turned into... its pretty old and stale IMO.

If someone can't honestly see Reid is a better safety overall than Goldston then hey aren't being objective and have other motives.

If you watched Goldson at all this season, youd slap yourself

PFF watched more Goldson than you did, and said he was horrible last year.

You're not only calling yourself a better NFL scout than PFF, but youre saying PFF knows nothing about football. Is that really the stance you want to take?

No, im not denying PFF is a viable statistic, what im saying is, PFF is unreliable if used as THE only source of your argument... you cannot only look at PFF, but not watch the player, ignore his tackles, INTS, and passes deflected as if theyre pointles...

Do you really believe that scouts only use PFF and nothing else?? You dont think they watch the player with their own eyes? Or view other statistics? PFF is very flawed if used as your only tool, you have to take other factors in account as well.. cant just use the same argument over and over... "he sucks at coverage, here is the PFF".. when a majorirty of you bashing Goldson didnt even take the time to watch him this yr...

I played in a IDP fantasy league this yr where I had Goldson on my team, this dude was one of the highest scoring Safties in fantasy this league.. now im aware that doesnt mean he was good in coverage, but it does speak on belhalf of his playmaking ability.. he racked me up an average of 8 tackles a game, got and INT or a TD here and there, forced some fumbles.. hes not as bad as many of you claim.. and Reid has a lot to prove before I claim he was ever better than Goldson in his prime let alone even today

Fantasy sports mean nothing.

Scouts dont ONLY use PFF, but the fact that they DO use it shows you that its legit.

My point is, if the PFF scouts know what theyre talking about, which you seem to concede, then how do you explain the fact that Goldson has graded out at a -66.0 for his career? That is horrendous. Either PFF is lying, or youre way off base in calling Goldson a great player. Or even a good player...

Goldson is good at SOME things in the game of football. Hes fast, and he hits with a heavy shoulder, which can cause turnovers. But none of that matters if you cant cover, cant tackle properly, and commit tons of penalties. Those 3 negatives make up WAY more of his game than the occasional positives that hes good at.

Fans see big hits, and forced fumbles, and gravitate towards that. Thats such a small part of the picture.

The fact is, Goldson hurts his team more than he helps them. When he played on an elite D here in SF, he could hide his inefficiencies behind a spectacular front 7. He would hang back and play center field, looking for a big hit or just ballhawking. You cant do that in an average D. You have to be able to cover deep, and wrap up your tackles. Goldson doesnt do those things well, which is why he gets ripped apart in the PFF grades.

I disagree I disagree I disagree

You really think Goldson hurt the team more than he helped them??

And do you think scouts pay any attention to tackles and INTs as well? Or do they just use PFF and throw every other statistic in the trash?

Yes, I do. You dont seem to remember all the moronic late hit penalties, blown coverages, and missed tackles trying to make a highlight reel hits.

I dont think scouts GAF about tackles and INT's. Theyre statistically proven to be unreliable, and a product of happenstance. Did you play on a bad D that gets run on a lot, and stays on the field all day long? Your players are going to have higher tackle totals. Are you thrown at a lot? Those are extra opportunities for picks. Tipped balls factor in a ton, and are totally unpredictable. Picks and tackles are a waste of time for a scout to include in a report.

Scouts want to know how WELL you wrap up your tackles, and how good your coverage skills are.

I keep saying it without getting a response. If PFF knows what theyre talking about, Goldson is trash.

You cant say its both. Goldson is a career -66.0 player. Unless PFF's staff is a bunch of idiots who dont know football, you cant claim Goldson is a great player. -66.0 isnt a matter of opinion. Either hes not good, or PFF is incredibly stupid.

Scouts don't care about stats, because stats show they are unreliable?

Interesting take.

Those 2 particular stats are. Turnovers in general are proven to be unpredictable. One year a team leads the NFL in turnover margin by a mile, and the next year they could be back to breaking even with little to no changes in personnel or coaching. Its just the way the ball bounces sometimes.

Agents will use stats, because theyll grasp at anything that will prove their client deserves more money. Its their job to present the information in a biased way.

Scouts are paid to find the truth about a players' abilities. They look more at technique and decision making skills. They want to get a better idea of how a player will be year to year in any circumstance, not so much what they did in one specific situation.

Just because im 23yrs old doesnt mean i cant have an opinion.

I dont have to be an old man, there is enough footage and stats that I can watch players from the past and compare them to players from the present.

I think Goldson is EASILY top 5 among safties in 49ers history...

But out of curiousty, where do you guys rank him? Because if I didnt know any better id say hes the worst safety in 49ers history in your guys opinion...

Of the safties in my era, I rank Goldson #1

1. Goldson
2. Whitner
3. Parrish
4. Bethea
5. Schulters

Originally posted by Young2Rice:

Originally posted by Niners99:

Originally posted by 4everFaithful:

Originally posted by Niners99:

Originally posted by 4everFaithful:

Originally posted by Niners99:

Originally posted by 4everFaithful:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by Allx9er:

Only reason why this thread is 30 + pages is neither has done enough to seperate themselves

One's a starter the other is not coming back at his current salary...his not starter quality and hasn't been for a while.

http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/2773/deangelo-hall

CSN Mid-Atlantic's Tarik El-Bashir believes DeAngelo Hall could open 2016 as a starter at safety for the Redskins.

Hall performed well after making the switch to safety late last season, and an offseason working at the position will only make him more comfortable. Coach Jay Gruden said he think Hall will "solidify himself as one of the top safeties in the league." The spot next to Hall remains an open question. Dashon Goldson is unlikely to return at his current $8 million cap hit, and he is not starter quality at this point in his career anyway. The Redskins should address the position in free agency or the draft. Feb 20 - 9:44 AM
Source: CSN Washington

The reason it's 30 plus pages is because you have the same people that always hate on every player on SF commenting on it OR the same people hating on every single player Baalke has drafted...that's basically what this thread and many others have turned into... its pretty old and stale IMO.

If someone can't honestly see Reid is a better safety overall than Goldston then hey aren't being objective and have other motives.

If you watched Goldson at all this season, youd slap yourself

PFF watched more Goldson than you did, and said he was horrible last year.

You're not only calling yourself a better NFL scout than PFF, but youre saying PFF knows nothing about football. Is that really the stance you want to take?

No, im not denying PFF is a viable statistic, what im saying is, PFF is unreliable if used as THE only source of your argument... you cannot only look at PFF, but not watch the player, ignore his tackles, INTS, and passes deflected as if theyre pointles...

Do you really believe that scouts only use PFF and nothing else?? You dont think they watch the player with their own eyes? Or view other statistics? PFF is very flawed if used as your only tool, you have to take other factors in account as well.. cant just use the same argument over and over... "he sucks at coverage, here is the PFF".. when a majorirty of you bashing Goldson didnt even take the time to watch him this yr...

I played in a IDP fantasy league this yr where I had Goldson on my team, this dude was one of the highest scoring Safties in fantasy this league.. now im aware that doesnt mean he was good in coverage, but it does speak on belhalf of his playmaking ability.. he racked me up an average of 8 tackles a game, got and INT or a TD here and there, forced some fumbles.. hes not as bad as many of you claim.. and Reid has a lot to prove before I claim he was ever better than Goldson in his prime let alone even today

Fantasy sports mean nothing.

Scouts dont ONLY use PFF, but the fact that they DO use it shows you that its legit.

My point is, if the PFF scouts know what theyre talking about, which you seem to concede, then how do you explain the fact that Goldson has graded out at a -66.0 for his career? That is horrendous. Either PFF is lying, or youre way off base in calling Goldson a great player. Or even a good player...

Goldson is good at SOME things in the game of football. Hes fast, and he hits with a heavy shoulder, which can cause turnovers. But none of that matters if you cant cover, cant tackle properly, and commit tons of penalties. Those 3 negatives make up WAY more of his game than the occasional positives that hes good at.

Fans see big hits, and forced fumbles, and gravitate towards that. Thats such a small part of the picture.

The fact is, Goldson hurts his team more than he helps them. When he played on an elite D here in SF, he could hide his inefficiencies behind a spectacular front 7. He would hang back and play center field, looking for a big hit or just ballhawking. You cant do that in an average D. You have to be able to cover deep, and wrap up your tackles. Goldson doesnt do those things well, which is why he gets ripped apart in the PFF grades.

I disagree I disagree I disagree

You really think Goldson hurt the team more than he helped them??

And do you think scouts pay any attention to tackles and INTs as well? Or do they just use PFF and throw every other statistic in the trash?

Yes, I do. You dont seem to remember all the moronic late hit penalties, blown coverages, and missed tackles trying to make a highlight reel hits.

I dont think scouts GAF about tackles and INT's. Theyre statistically proven to be unreliable, and a product of happenstance. Did you play on a bad D that gets run on a lot, and stays on the field all day long? Your players are going to have higher tackle totals. Are you thrown at a lot? Those are extra opportunities for picks. Tipped balls factor in a ton, and are totally unpredictable. Picks and tackles are a waste of time for a scout to include in a report.

Scouts want to know how WELL you wrap up your tackles, and how good your coverage skills are.

I keep saying it without getting a response. If PFF knows what theyre talking about, Goldson is trash.

You cant say its both. Goldson is a career -66.0 player. Unless PFF's staff is a bunch of idiots who dont know football, you cant claim Goldson is a great player. -66.0 isnt a matter of opinion. Either hes not good, or PFF is incredibly stupid.

Scouts don't care about stats, because stats show they are unreliable?

Interesting take.

Lol I know right? Ridiculous...

but ay according to them all you need is PFF and you never gotta watch football again!

people love to rewrite history regarding some of our ex-players that they didn't like....discrediting their accomplishments and what they brought to our team.

Dashon Goldson was voted ALL-PRO, by his peers and coaches... not just Probowl but All Pro. Best at his position, at a time when Ed Reed and Troy Polamalu were still in the league.

Originally posted by Afrikan:
people love to rewrite history regarding some of our ex-players that they didn't like....discrediting their accomplishments and what they brought to our team.

Dashon Goldson was voted ALL-PRO, by his peers and coaches... not just Probowl but All Pro. Best at his position, at a time when Ed Reed and Troy Polamalu were still in the league.

In before the "we had a dominant front 7 doe, lol."

Originally posted by Young2Rice:
In before the "we had a dominant front 7 doe, lol."

Well without that dominant front 7 he looked like dog crap in Tampa Bay.

Originally posted by Niners99:

Originally posted by Young2Rice:

Originally posted by Niners99:

Originally posted by 4everFaithful:

Originally posted by Niners99:

Originally posted by 4everFaithful:

Originally posted by Niners99:

Originally posted by 4everFaithful:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by Allx9er:
Only reason why this thread is 30 + pages is neither has done enough to seperate themselves

One's a starter the other is not coming back at his current salary...his not starter quality and hasn't been for a while.

http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/2773/deangelo-hall

CSN Mid-Atlantic's Tarik El-Bashir believes DeAngelo Hall could open 2016 as a starter at safety for the Redskins.

Hall performed well after making the switch to safety late last season, and an offseason working at the position will only make him more comfortable. Coach Jay Gruden said he think Hall will "solidify himself as one of the top safeties in the league." The spot next to Hall remains an open question. Dashon Goldson is unlikely to return at his current $8 million cap hit, and he is not starter quality at this point in his career anyway. The Redskins should address the position in free agency or the draft. Feb 20 - 9:44 AM
Source: CSN Washington

The reason it's 30 plus pages is because you have the same people that always hate on every player on SF commenting on it OR the same people hating on every single player Baalke has drafted...that's basically what this thread and many others have turned into... its pretty old and stale IMO.

If someone can't honestly see Reid is a better safety overall than Goldston then hey aren't being objective and have other motives.

If you watched Goldson at all this season, youd slap yourself

PFF watched more Goldson than you did, and said he was horrible last year.

You're not only calling yourself a better NFL scout than PFF, but youre saying PFF knows nothing about football. Is that really the stance you want to take?

No, im not denying PFF is a viable statistic, what im saying is, PFF is unreliable if used as THE only source of your argument... you cannot only look at PFF, but not watch the player, ignore his tackles, INTS, and passes deflected as if theyre pointles...

Do you really believe that scouts only use PFF and nothing else?? You dont think they watch the player with their own eyes? Or view other statistics? PFF is very flawed if used as your only tool, you have to take other factors in account as well.. cant just use the same argument over and over... "he sucks at coverage, here is the PFF".. when a majorirty of you bashing Goldson didnt even take the time to watch him this yr...

I played in a IDP fantasy league this yr where I had Goldson on my team, this dude was one of the highest scoring Safties in fantasy this league.. now im aware that doesnt mean he was good in coverage, but it does speak on belhalf of his playmaking ability.. he racked me up an average of 8 tackles a game, got and INT or a TD here and there, forced some fumbles.. hes not as bad as many of you claim.. and Reid has a lot to prove before I claim he was ever better than Goldson in his prime let alone even today

Fantasy sports mean nothing.

Scouts dont ONLY use PFF, but the fact that they DO use it shows you that its legit.

My point is, if the PFF scouts know what theyre talking about, which you seem to concede, then how do you explain the fact that Goldson has graded out at a -66.0 for his career? That is horrendous. Either PFF is lying, or youre way off base in calling Goldson a great player. Or even a good player...

Goldson is good at SOME things in the game of football. Hes fast, and he hits with a heavy shoulder, which can cause turnovers. But none of that matters if you cant cover, cant tackle properly, and commit tons of penalties. Those 3 negatives make up WAY more of his game than the occasional positives that hes good at.

Fans see big hits, and forced fumbles, and gravitate towards that. Thats such a small part of the picture.

The fact is, Goldson hurts his team more than he helps them. When he played on an elite D here in SF, he could hide his inefficiencies behind a spectacular front 7. He would hang back and play center field, looking for a big hit or just ballhawking. You cant do that in an average D. You have to be able to cover deep, and wrap up your tackles. Goldson doesnt do those things well, which is why he gets ripped apart in the PFF grades.

I disagree I disagree I disagree

You really think Goldson hurt the team more than he helped them??

And do you think scouts pay any attention to tackles and INTs as well? Or do they just use PFF and throw every other statistic in the trash?

Yes, I do. You dont seem to remember all the moronic late hit penalties, blown coverages, and missed tackles trying to make a highlight reel hits.

I dont think scouts GAF about tackles and INT's. Theyre statistically proven to be unreliable, and a product of happenstance. Did you play on a bad D that gets run on a lot, and stays on the field all day long? Your players are going to have higher tackle totals. Are you thrown at a lot? Those are extra opportunities for picks. Tipped balls factor in a ton, and are totally unpredictable. Picks and tackles are a waste of time for a scout to include in a report.

Scouts want to know how WELL you wrap up your tackles, and how good your coverage skills are.

I keep saying it without getting a response. If PFF knows what theyre talking about, Goldson is trash.

You cant say its both. Goldson is a career -66.0 player. Unless PFF's staff is a bunch of idiots who dont know football, you cant claim Goldson is a great player. -66.0 isnt a matter of opinion. Either hes not good, or PFF is incredibly stupid.

Scouts don't care about stats, because stats show they are unreliable?

Interesting take.

Those 2 particular stats are. Turnovers in general are proven to be unpredictable. One year a team leads the NFL in turnover margin by a mile, and the next year they could be back to breaking even with little to no changes in personnel or coaching. Its just the way the ball bounces sometimes.

Agents will use stats, because theyll grasp at anything that will prove their client deserves more money. Its their job to present the information in a biased way.

Scouts are paid to find the truth about a players' abilities. They look more at technique and decision making skills. They want to get a better idea of how a player will be year to year in any circumstance, not so much what they did in one specific situation.

Having good stats generally means a player is making plays at a high level. That includes decision making. Being in the right position to make a play on a ball and intercept it shown by interceptions, getting lots of sacks shows a guy is getting good pressure, lots of catches means a guy is getting open, not allowing sacks means pass protection is good, forced fumbles means the guy is bringing the wood on tackles , yards per carry shows a RB is being productive etc...

Of course that isn't the tell all. But to state that stats don't show much or scouts/coaches don't use at them much isn't accurate.

My thoughts, feel free to disagree.

Part of what makes Reid a great safety is the same thing that sometimes holds him back. His cerebral play has been a boon to the Niners, but him overthinking plays has also cost the team. Goldson was a much more instinctual player, and it showed on the field. But he lacked leadership ability and the ability to play "center field." Reid fills that rangy safety role that is so coveted in the NFL.

Reid is likely not a top 5 safety, but he is surely in the discussion for top 10. Good, consistent safety play is key in the NFL today. I think for the vast majority of the time Reid fills that role. He has range, size, the ability to diagnose a play, above average to good ball awareness, intelligence and leadership. Having a player who has all those traits is pretty difficult to find. While he is not lighting up the field like Thomas or Matthieu, he has quietly played very, very good football for his time in the NFL.

I do want to reiterate, sometimes Reid seems to overthink a play and it gets him out of position. He has the athleticism to make every play, but his intelligence sometimes overrules his instincts I believe. I absolutely love his ability to tackle, and while it may not be a highlight reel hit, for the most part when he is in on the play, he makes the stop. This is exactly what you want from a player.

If you wanted an overall synopsis, I would say Reid is above average in all aspects of safety play, but he doesn't truly excel in any of it. Goldson had phenomenal instincts and a knack for the big play, but he was sorely lacking in other aspects of the game. I'm a guy who loves consistency, so give me Reid any day.

Originally posted by Afrikan:

people love to rewrite history regarding some of our ex-players that they didn't like....discrediting their accomplishments and what they brought to our team.

Dashon Goldson was voted ALL-PRO, by his peers and coaches... not just Probowl but All Pro. Best at his position, at a time when Ed Reed and Troy Polamalu were still in the league.

Originally posted by 4everFaithful:

Just because im 23yrs old doesnt mean i cant have an opinion.

I dont have to be an old man, there is enough footage and stats that I can watch players from the past and compare them to players from the present.

I think Goldson is EASILY top 5 among safties in 49ers history...

But out of curiousty, where do you guys rank him? Because if I didnt know any better id say hes the worst safety in 49ers history in your guys opinion...

Of the safties in my era, I rank Goldson #1

1. Goldson
2. Whitner
3. Parrish
4. Bethea
5. Schulters

You can have an opinion, but you keep avoiding my question.

At a -66.0 career grade, either PFF has NO idea what theyre talking about, or Goldson is a bad player. There is no gray area. Which is it? An average player on the PFF grading system is at a 0.0, so a -66.0 is a damning score.

IF Goldson is a good player, hes nowhere near -66.0. Somebody is very, very wrong, and youre claiming its not you. I watched every game of Goldson's Niner career, and I agree with the PFF scores. I used my own discerning opinion, as well as PFF scores. The narrative that he was a great player doesnt line up with what I saw, or what PFF saw. Thats where my opinion comes from.

Originally posted by Niners99:

Originally posted by 4everFaithful:

Just because im 23yrs old doesnt mean i cant have an opinion.

I dont have to be an old man, there is enough footage and stats that I can watch players from the past and compare them to players from the present.

I think Goldson is EASILY top 5 among safties in 49ers history...

But out of curiousty, where do you guys rank him? Because if I didnt know any better id say hes the worst safety in 49ers history in your guys opinion...

Of the safties in my era, I rank Goldson #1

1. Goldson
2. Whitner
3. Parrish
4. Bethea
5. Schulters

You can have an opinion, but you keep avoiding my question.

At a -66.0 career grade, either PFF has NO idea what theyre talking about, or Goldson is a bad player. There is no gray area. Which is it? An average player on the PFF grading system is at a 0.0, so a -66.0 is a damning score.

IF Goldson is a good player, hes nowhere near -66.0. Somebody is very, very wrong, and youre claiming its not you. I watched every game of Goldson's Niner career, and I agree with the PFF scores. I used my own discerning opinion, as well as PFF scores. The narrative that he was a great player doesnt line up with what I saw, or what PFF saw. Thats where my opinion comes from.

There IS a grey area, thats what you fail to see. But if youre forcing me to choose a side, then ill side with the fact that PFF is unreliable. If -66.0 is what they score Goldson, indicating that hes a below avg player, then thats a flawed system.

Out of curiousty, can you pull up his PFF score during 2011-12? Because chances are it was also low back then, and he got voted first team all pro and pro bowl.. so obviously there is a flaw in PFF if its grading an all pro player below average..

Now you answer my question, do you believe scouts ONLY use PFF when evaluating talent? Or do they also look at tape.. tackles... INTs.. pass deflections... forced fumbles..etc..

Because according to you PFF is all that matters.. which is riduclous... i can google numerous flaws in PFF but im not tryna waste my time just to prove you wrong..

Im very curious, what would have Lotts PFF score looked like?

Originally posted by CityKing415:

Originally posted by 4everFaithful:

Originally posted by Niners99:

Originally posted by 4everFaithful:

Originally posted by Niners99:

Originally posted by 4everFaithful:

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Originally posted by crake49:

I still say that it should be obvious to fans that the NFL is trying to phase out 'enforcing' as a way of playing the position. My 'eye test' over the last few years tells me that Reid is faster, recognizes routes quicker and is usually closer to a given receiver than Goldson was. The stats say that last year, Reid was credited with 7 passes defended and Goldson was credited with 3 passes defended.

The rules are making guys like Goldson relics. Big hitter but often lost in coverage. Meanwhile Whitner, who was clearly the more cerebral player to go along with being a big hitter has continued to play well with the Browns while Goldson has gone off a cliff.




If you remember, Whitner was the guy making calls on the back end and often was visibly showing frustration with Goldson being out of position.


If I need to make a 1980s throwback team, I'll take Goldson....otherwise give me Reid.

This just isint true.. Goldson struggled with the buccaneers but he is coming off a tremendous season with the redskins, that is being overlooked by a majority of you

lol tremendous? Based on what?

Is this chart all you look at when evaluating talent??

Did you even take the time to watch Goldson play this yr?

I watched Goldson up close for 6 years. Ive seen enough. PFF scouted every one of his plays last year, so ill trust their word over generic tackle totals or INT's. Football is SO much more than simple counting stats.

Thats the thing, people love to critisize PFF because it makes their opinions look bad, yet nobody ever has an answer for WHY PFF isnt accurate, or what is a better system to use.

Goldson graded out at -12.9 last year, which is about on par with the rest of his career. Some people just refuse to admit hes not a good player, even though the grades are right there. PFF isnt 100% accurate, but when youve totaled a -66.0 career grade, it makes the argument that Goldson is a "great" player pretty laughable.

This is what you fail to understand, you claim PFF isint 100% accurate, yet you use it as 100% of your argument.. you claim tackles and INTs dont matter... and u didnt even watch goldson play a snap with the redskins this season

OWNED

Originally posted by 4everFaithful:

Originally posted by Niners99:

Originally posted by 4everFaithful:

Just because im 23yrs old doesnt mean i cant have an opinion.

I dont have to be an old man, there is enough footage and stats that I can watch players from the past and compare them to players from the present.

I think Goldson is EASILY top 5 among safties in 49ers history...

But out of curiousty, where do you guys rank him? Because if I didnt know any better id say hes the worst safety in 49ers history in your guys opinion...

Of the safties in my era, I rank Goldson #1

1. Goldson
2. Whitner
3. Parrish
4. Bethea
5. Schulters

You can have an opinion, but you keep avoiding my question.

At a -66.0 career grade, either PFF has NO idea what theyre talking about, or Goldson is a bad player. There is no gray area. Which is it? An average player on the PFF grading system is at a 0.0, so a -66.0 is a damning score.

IF Goldson is a good player, hes nowhere near -66.0. Somebody is very, very wrong, and youre claiming its not you. I watched every game of Goldson's Niner career, and I agree with the PFF scores. I used my own discerning opinion, as well as PFF scores. The narrative that he was a great player doesnt line up with what I saw, or what PFF saw. Thats where my opinion comes from.

There IS a grey area, thats what you fail to see. But if youre forcing me to choose a side, then ill side with the fact that PFF is unreliable. If -66.0 is what they score Goldson, indicating that hes a below avg player, then thats a flawed system.

Out of curiousty, can you pull up his PFF score during 2011-12? Because chances are it was also low back then, and he got voted first team all pro and pro bowl.. so obviously there is a flaw in PFF if its grading an all pro player below average..

Now you answer my question, do you believe scouts ONLY use PFF when evaluating talent? Or do they also look at tape.. tackles... INTs.. pass deflections... forced fumbles..etc..

Because according to you PFF is all that matters.. which is riduclous... i can google numerous flaws in PFF but im not tryna waste my time just to prove you wrong..

Im very curious, what would have Lotts PFF score looked like?

For the 50th time, I NEVER said PFF is 100% accurate. I never said its the ONLY factor. I never said scouts ONLY look at PFF either. You either arent reading my posts, or you arent understanding them.

Scouts dont look at stats, they look at ability. Anybody can look up stats. Scouts get paid to see past the stats. Thats the whole reason they exist.

Goldson was voted All-Pro by the same AP writers who look at counting stats and hype from the season. The All-Pro vote is not an absolute. In 2012 we had a Super Bowl caliber team, and half the defense got recognized as Pro Bowlers. Every year 1 or 2 teams have a fantastic year, get a ton of attention, and get a slew of Pro Bowl and All-Pro selections. Half our team either made the Pro Bowl or were Pro Bowl alternates that year. All that being said, PFF rated Goldson at a +5.5 grade that year, so while he wasnt the best S in football, they graded him as having a good year, and the best of his career.

The PFF scores for Ronnie Lott wouldve been great. He was a Hall of Famer who played all 4 DB positions at an elite level. Get the subject off of Lott. He has NOTHING to do with Goldson. He was THE standard at S, and Goldson is no comparison.

Like I said, go email PFF and ask them about Goldson. Theyll answer you.

Niners99- You say that Goldson's pff score isn't your only argument and then never use any other measuring stick to validate it. Instead you discredit every other measuring device that has been used against your argument.