Originally Posted by Texn4life
I'm not a big metrics guy, but I wonder if that number is somewhat reflective of Reed playing with some pretty suspect corners most of the year last year.
I more or less expressed the same reservations about the numbers myself. You never know how a surrounding cast truly impacts individual numbers. But evidently, there's another metrics type scoring system out there that ranked GQ right about average for the entire year and Ed Reed substantially below average. Both of those combined with my own eye test tell me that GQ is the better player now (even if that's just average) and going forward I expect that to continue.
We're just looking at Ed Reed a few years too late. But also as I said, if they sign him for less than what GQ got paid/what they wanted to pay GQ, then hey, I'm down with it. But I think they're going to overpay.