+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (https://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Cincinnati Bengals / NFL (https://thebengalsboard.com/forum-3.html)
+--- Forum: JUNGLE NOISE (https://thebengalsboard.com/forum-2.html)
+--- Thread: We 18 guys playing regularly who grade out in the 50's or below (/thread-18332.html)
Pages:
1
2
RE: We 18 guys playing regularly who grade out in the 50's or below - ochocincos - 12-04-2018
(12-04-2018, 11:08 AM)Whatever Wrote: A rating of 50-60 is classified as average on PFF.
This is not quite true.
Looking at Billy Price's rating (50.9), he is categorized in the "below average" category.
However, Hopkins is at 59.6 and is categorized as "average".
It looks like the cutoff is actually about 55 for below average vs average.
RE: We 18 guys playing regularly who grade out in the 50's or below - Whatever - 12-04-2018
(12-04-2018, 02:15 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: The offensive line is bad at run blocking. Mixon routinely reverses field from where the run was called to and makes yards. Routinely.
Also, PFF has an article about how we run more screens to HB than most teams, yet we have the least amount of success. I suspect this factors into their rankings.
Lots of run plays set up cutback lanes and the RB picks a hole rather than being designed to go to one soecspec hole, though. Whatever is going on, he's finding holes that weren't there last year. It still doesn't explain why their grades aren't better.
If the back gets his grade dinged because the LB recognizes an obvious playcall and hit's him when the ball arrives, that's pretty silly. You can see Lazor's RB screens coming from a mile away.
RE: We 18 guys playing regularly who grade out in the 50's or below - Bengalitis - 12-04-2018
The only consistency we have lately is of losing. That is the only thing consistent.
RE: We 18 guys playing regularly who grade out in the 50's or below - ochocincos - 12-04-2018
(12-04-2018, 10:58 AM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Say what you want about PFF, but it is a good barometer of play. Look at these ratings, then try to dispute that the unit is good if you can.
(With that said, their grades of RB's seems to be off somewhat.)
To win in the NFL, you need atleast average starters at most positions sprinkled in with some elite players. I'll define a bad starter as a guy with a grade below 60 on PFF.
We have a bunch of Bad Starters:
Offense - We have 8 guys who play regularly rated in the 50's or below:
Line
Hart 51.9 #72 Tackle
Glenn 57.6 #64 Tackle
Price 50.9 #32 Center (Falling)
Hopkins 59.6 #24 Center (Rising - Seems to bear out people wanting him to start at Center)
Redmond 58.5 #48 Guard (Rising slightly)
Boling - Not listed is 66.3. You aren't going to have a good offense in the NFL with 4 starters on the line rated in the 50's. Bottom line. Blame the QB. Blame the RB. Blame the receivers. Not going to happen.
TE
Uzomah 55.2 #55 TE
Kroft was 55.8 in the limited time he played
WR
Ross 56.4 #108 WR
Erickson 48.8 #120 WR
Defense - 10 guys that play regularly that grade out as bad.
CB
Kirkpatrick 58.7 #84 CB
Phillips 59.4
LB
Rey 46.0
Evans 50.7 #71 LB
Burfict 49.7 #72 LB
Nickerson 45.1 #74 LB
Brown 55.2 #66 LB
MJ 58.2 #85 Edge
Willis 58.8 #82 Edge
Hubbard 55.7 #97 Edge
I think it's more important to focus on those who were meant to be the starters at the beginning of the season, not those who became starters only due to injury.
So Glenn, Price, Hopkins, Redmond, and Hart for OL.
Brown and Burfict at LB.
Kirkpatrick at CB.
MJ at DE.
Ross at WR.
RE: We 18 guys playing regularly who grade out in the 50's or below - fredtoast - 12-04-2018
(12-04-2018, 02:15 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: The offensive line is bad at run blocking. Mixon routinely reverses field from where the run was called to and makes yards. Routinely.
Then he should be rated higher.
This is a perfect example of how worthless the PFF individual rankings are. Mixon is 8th in rushing yards per game and 11th in yards per carry (among 35 RBs with at least 100 carries). Despite missing 2 games Mixon is 20th in receptions by a RB and only 14 players have more rushing tds.
If he is that productive behind a terrible O-line then how the hell is he the #20 RB?
RE: We 18 guys playing regularly who grade out in the 50's or below - THE PISTONS - 12-04-2018
(12-04-2018, 02:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Then he should be rated higher.
This is a perfect example of how worthless the PFF individual rankings are. Mixon is 8th in rushing yards per game and 11th in yards per carry (among 35 RBs with at least 100 carries). Despite missing 2 games Mixon is 20th in receptions by a RB.
If he is that productive behind a terrible O-line then how the hell is he the #20 RB?
Besides RB, what other positions do you disagree with?
RE: We 18 guys playing regularly who grade out in the 50's or below - Wyche'sWarrior - 12-04-2018
Question, how do penalties factor into line grading?
RE: We 18 guys playing regularly who grade out in the 50's or below - fredtoast - 12-04-2018
(12-04-2018, 02:51 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Besides RB, what other positions do you disagree with?
I don't know enough about the rankings of the rest of the players in the NFL to say. But over the years I have seen many examples of PFF grades being useless.
I don't even know what formula PFF uses now to rank players, but the old one allowed a player to be ranked behind another one at his position who both played fewer snaps and messed up more often. Plus the ratings were based on subjective opinions. Two players could both do their job but one would get bonus points while the other would not.
This year we have a horrible offense and a horrible defense. So it is hard to say exactly who should be ranked higher. But Mixons ranking is enough to show that PFF individual rankings are worthless.