2009 NFL DPOY: Charles Woodson Over Darrelle Revis?
Charles Woodson was voted today as the Defensive Player of the Year . The speculation was that the award would go to either the aforementioned Woodson, or to New York Jets CB Darrelle Revis. Of the 50 voters, 28 chose Woodson, with just half of that number, 14, voting for Revis.
There is no debating who had the better stats this year; Woodson had 20 more tackles, a 2-0 lead in sacks, a 4-0 lead in forced fumbles, three more interceptions, and two more touchdowns. No question about it, Woodson had the better stats, and deserved the award on that merit.
If awards were given out just based off of stats, there wouldn't be any discussions or debates for awards such as this. Anyone that has watched more than a quarter of a Jets game has seen the impressive graphic of receivers that Revis has shut down. The list includes: Andre Johnson, Randy Moss, Marques Colston, T.O., Steve Smith (Carolina), Roddy White, Reggie Wayne, and most recently, Chad Ochocinco.
Watching Revis though, he, like any corner in the league has bad coverage on a play or two. QB's throughout the league fail to take advantage of these rare opportunities, because of the reputation Revis has already built for himself at the age of 24.
QB's playing against the Jets often completely forget about their number one target because almost all the time, he is blanketed. So even those rare times when the number one option is open, he usually won't get the ball.
Revis' performance not only affects the play of the WR, but also the QB. Take Carson Palmer's last two games as examples. Palmer's stat line in week 17: 1-11, 0 yards, 1 INT.
So, while Woodson is the obvious choice looking at the stats, Coach Rex Ryan puts it best, "And you've got to look at all the numbers, not just a number about this, or this stat or that stat."
All things considered, Revis was the more deserving option for Defensive Player of the Year.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?