06-17-2015, 02:02 PM
(06-17-2015, 11:41 AM)djs7685 Wrote: It's almost like you didn't even read this part...
Now, you have to remember that those are just rankings by overall +/- grade. Some guys weren't terrible in certain facets of the game but they got taken down by other things (Langford is 44 overall but is actually considered the 14th best against the run, his 10 total penalties brought his grade down significantly). You're not going to see any guys on top of the list that didn't have a good 2013, and you aren't going to find any guys on the bottom of that list that didn't suck in 2013 in one way or another. PFF isn't the end-all system of the world for ranking players, but they sure can point you in the right direction. You're never going to see guys at the bottom of any of their lists that had GOOD years.
For some reason, these guys don't agree with your absurd stance that having a decent amount of tackles automatically means you couldn't have had a rough year. Have fun being delusional and thinking Peko isn't bad because he had 30 tackles and the Bengals paid him a bunch of money this one time. That stuff obviously means he's awesome!!!
You are never going to find a player at the very bottom of PFF's rankings that had a good year, and you're never going to find a player at the top of PFF's rankings that had a bad year. Like I said, their grades aren't gospel, but they point you in the right direction moreso than "hurr durr he got some tackles so obv is good!".
I am not delusional to think that the ability of a player to shed blockers and make tackles is meaningless.
I am not delusional to believe that the opinions of NFL coaches and talent evaluators are meaningless.
I am not delusional to see that the PFF rankings are not very accurate.
You are the one that is delusional by ignoring ALL of the things I have just listed above and just blindly insisting that Peko is one of the worst DTs in the league just because PFF says so.
