I find it hard to really accept some of these to be perfectly frank. It comes across like they penalize players HEAVILY for one bad play (ie the long Seahawk TD pass, the Dalton fumble, Ross's early drops). I trust my eyes more quite frankly, and my eyes tell me our guys played much better than this.

Hell, Boyd seemed to be catching everything that was thrown his way early on before Ross took over, and he gets less than a 70? For what, slipping on a wet field?

Could you possibly post the Seattle PFF scores? That might provide some nice perspective. Can't see their offensive line scoring much higher than ours, or their secondary.

(09-10-2019, 02:08 PM)yang Wrote: I disagree, it was Dre's fault on that call as Jessie was designed to move up for shorter routes and the run.  

Dre's fault, even though he was on the other side of the field, covering someone else?

It was WJax, stop with the hate.

(09-10-2019, 02:19 PM)NKURyan Wrote: I find it hard to really accept some of these to be perfectly frank. It comes across like they penalize players HEAVILY for one bad play (ie the long Seahawk TD pass, the Dalton fumble, Ross's early drops). I trust my eyes more quite frankly, and my eyes tell me our guys played much better than this.

Hell, Boyd seemed to be catching everything that was thrown his way early on before Ross took over, and he gets less than a 70? For what, slipping on a wet field?

Could you possibly post the Seattle PFF scores? That might provide some nice perspective. Can't see their offensive line scoring much higher than ours, or their secondary.

This is why the new scoring system is terrible.

I hate to bring it up in every PFF thread, but I just like to remind people that it used to be better and MUCH more objective/transparent...

(09-10-2019, 02:19 PM)NKURyan Wrote: I find it hard to really accept some of these to be perfectly frank. It comes across like they penalize players HEAVILY for one bad play (ie the long Seahawk TD pass, the Dalton fumble, Ross's early drops). I trust my eyes more quite frankly, and my eyes tell me our guys played much better than this.

Hell, Boyd seemed to be catching everything that was thrown his way early on before Ross took over, and he gets less than a 70? For what, slipping on a wet field?

Could you possibly post the Seattle PFF scores? That might provide some nice perspective. Can't see their offensive line scoring much higher than ours, or their secondary.

They look at blocking too. All kinds of things.

I doubt that the slip impacted Boyd. It seems they deemed Dalton put the ball in the wrong spot.

But, I do think Boyd should have been a little higher.

(09-10-2019, 02:24 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: This is why the new scoring system is terrible.

I hate to bring it up in every PFF thread, but I just like to remind people that it used to be better and MUCH more objective/transparent...

It seems like people agree with 85% of their scoring...just not for a couple players here and there.

Miller’s grade will always be low cause he is a horrid run blocker. He didn’t look bad at all in pass protection from what I remember. Definitely a better option than what we had last year. We knew these factors when we signed him.

I don’t know if Price ever graded well in run blocking but I imagine he’d be better than Miller in that area. Like Hart, we gave Miller starter money so I don’t think a change will be made at this moment.

(09-10-2019, 02:45 PM)Whodey614 Wrote: Miller’s grade will always be low cause he is a horrid run blocker. He didn’t look bad at all in pass protection from what I remember. Definitely a better option than what we had last year. We knew these factors when we signed him.

I don’t know if Price ever graded well in run blocking but I imagine he’d be better than Miller in that area. Like Hart, we gave Miller starter money so I don’t think a change will be made at this moment.

Hopefully Hopkins can keep up his level of play at Center.

That said, Hopkins is the only guy grading out like a starter on a Good team. There others must improve.

(09-10-2019, 02:31 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: It seems like people agree with 85% of their scoring...just not for a couple players here and there.

Was like that previously as well.

Part of the problem here is if you only call 12 runs the run grades inherently will be weird due to the small sample size.

(09-10-2019, 03:16 PM)Joelist Wrote: Part of the problem here is if you only call 12 runs the run grades inherently will be weird due to the small sample size.

Yes - But it was apparent they got no push. On 20-25 runs, they would have still got no push.

(09-10-2019, 01:44 PM)McC Wrote: It is impossible to reconcile the crazy low score given to WJIII with what happened on the field.  Not sure what the hell game they were watching in that case.

Missed parts of this game, and I have no access to more detailed film, but I think WJIII has looked bad all pre-season, being beat often in camp and in games.  He got beat pretty bad yesterday as well and I don't remember any notably good plays on his behalf.

I think the guy is overrated and teams are going to start picking on him in a major way.

But having said that the score still seems low.

Surprised at how universally mediocre the D-line grades were given the job they did.

But all just gut opinions with little depth of assessment.

The whiff by bates on the Lockett pass seemed really bad.

All in all, the performance was more than the sum of their scores - which I find very encouraging.

Hopkins was the better C last year he just sucked at G. But we had to start Price when healthy because he was a 1st round pick. you dont bench a first round pick. arrgh

(09-10-2019, 01:54 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Well I read where some of the drops by Ross didn't negatively impact Dalton's score...so IF a DB is there and not doing anything and the guy drops it, but should have caught it...it probably reflects negatively on the DB. That's my guess.

It should negatively affect both of them (Ross and the DB--not Dalton). 

(09-10-2019, 01:57 PM)Bengalfan4life27c Wrote: I wonder if their is confirmation bias in some of these grades. Bengals are supposed too suck so they get graded accordingly

I chalk it up to them not knowing their asshole from a hole in the ground.

(09-10-2019, 02:24 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: This is why the new scoring system is terrible.

I hate to bring it up in every PFF thread, but I just like to remind people that it used to be better and MUCH more objective/transparent...

Do you have any idea, now, how wide their scoring margin is? -2 to +2 or is it wider than that? From the looks of some of these scores, they're getting a super bad grade for one play and they're not able to make it up on all the other plays combined.

(09-10-2019, 02:30 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: They look at blocking too. All kinds of things.

I get that, but at the end of the day what do you think had the bigger impact - Boyd catching 8 passes on 11 targets, or Boyd (supposedly) missing a block on the, what, 1 or 2 plays where they actually needed him to block someone? I think it's a lot of nitpicking TBH, and I think it's a cop out on their part because it's an easy excuse for scoring players they way they did ("oh yeah, he totally missed like 6 blocks at WR") and they know nobody is going to call them out on it.

The Seahawk WRs essentially got locked down outside of 2 big catches by Metcalf and the blown coverage on the Lockett TD. I get that those are big plays, but where the hell were these guys the rest of the game? And yet our secondary scores that low?

We were running a brand new offense. Nobody had any idea what ZT and BC were going to call or how they were going to approach the game, and yet somehow I'm supposed to believe that PFF knows exactly what the call is and who is supposed to do what on each play? I dunno man... I don't buy it.

FWIW, it doesn't really have anything to do with this batch of scores either. I've never been a big fan of PFF's scoring system, whatever that may be.

(09-10-2019, 05:13 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Do you have any idea, now, how wide their scoring margin is? -2 to +2 or is it wider than that? From the looks of some of these scores, they're getting a super bad grade for one play and they're not able to make it up on all the other plays combined.

That's how it used to be; 0.5 up or down for a REALLY great or REALLY bad play, less for somewhat better or somewhat worse and 0 for neutral. Starts at 0, above or below is how well you do. Period.

Now, its the same thing and I think they mentioned the actual number used (can't remember), but not the context and most importantly, what number they start off at, then start grading up or down.

(09-10-2019, 03:58 PM)3wt Wrote: Missed parts of this game, and I have no access to more detailed film, but I think WJIII has looked bad all pre-season, being beat often in camp and in games.  He got beat pretty bad yesterday as well and I don't remember any notably good plays on his behalf.

I think the guy is overrated and teams are going to start picking on him in a major way.

But having said that the score still seems low.

Surprised at how universally mediocre the D-line grades were given the job they did.

But all just gut opinions with little depth of assessment.

The whiff by bates on the Lockett pass seemed really bad.

All in all, the performance was more than the sum of their scores - which I find very encouraging.

I didn't really watch the game and think WJ3 was terrible while the game was going on. It's not like Seattle hung 40 points on us.

(09-10-2019, 06:51 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: That's how it used to be; 0.5 up or down for a REALLY great or REALLY bad play, less for somewhat better or somewhat worse and 0 for neutral. Starts at  0, above or below is how well you do. Period.

Now, its the same thing and I think they mentioned the actual number used (can't remember), but not the context and most importantly, what number they start off at, then start grading up or down.

So basically, they're ass at grading. 

Wilson completed 14 passes for 196 yards. Seattle ran for 72 yards. Hard to believe anyone on the defense could have graded out poorly.