(12-04-2018, 10:58 AM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Say what you want about PFF, but it is a good barometer of play.

(12-04-2018, 11:02 AM)bengalfan74 Wrote: Our offensive line is awful which puts a giant yoke on anything else working. Our LBers are horrible which negates anything else being right. MJ never should have been brought back. You could go on and on.

(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

(12-04-2018, 11:05 AM)fredtoast Wrote: PFF is not a good barometer of play.  It uses subjective grades in a flawed formula.
But I am not going to argue that we have a lot of players performing well this year.

(12-04-2018, 11:08 AM)Whatever Wrote: A rating of 50-60 is classified as average on PFF.

(12-04-2018, 11:05 AM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Kind of disturbing to see Willis rated near MJ. His play must have fallen off lately.

Also, Burfict's play has fallen off a cliff unfortunately.

(12-04-2018, 11:11 AM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: I'd like to see Burifct's grade against pittburgh and see how that compares to the average.

I noticed his play has dropped off ever since his most recent fines.

(12-04-2018, 11:15 AM)THE PISTONS Wrote: It is, but if you look at the amount of players at a position it ranks among the bottom.

Like you might be 50.1 and rank #67 of 69 at your position. That's hardly average. It's Bad relative to the others.

(12-04-2018, 01:27 PM)Whatever Wrote: There's lots of players that don't play enough snaps to qualify for the rankings, however.  A lot of teams have mediocre starters that are covered up by the talent around them and gameplanning.  

Another issue with using PFF grades to judge talent is that the game plan and playcalling will directly impact how good or bad a player appears to perform.  I think we can all agree that we would doing a lot better with better coaching.  That would improve those PFF grades.

I also really question their grades.  Our OL grades are the same or worse than last year, but we're running the ball a lot better and on pace to give up a lot fewer sacks.  How can they be playing better as a group, but be graded worse as individuals?  For example, Price is graded at 51, and Fisher and Og were rated mid-50's last year.  He's had his struggles, but no way he was worse than those two last year.

(12-04-2018, 01:27 PM)Whatever Wrote: There's lots of players that don't play enough snaps to qualify for the rankings, however.  A lot of teams have mediocre starters that are covered up by the talent around them and gameplanning.  

Another issue with using PFF grades to judge talent is that the game plan and playcalling will directly impact how good or bad a player appears to perform.  I think we can all agree that we would doing a lot better with better coaching.  That would improve those PFF grades.

I also really question their grades.  Our OL grades are the same or worse than last year, but we're running the ball a lot better and on pace to give up a lot fewer sacks.  How can they be playing better as a group, but be graded worse as individuals?  For example, Price is graded at 51, and Fisher and Og were rated mid-50's last year.  He's had his struggles, but no way he was worse than those two last year.

(12-04-2018, 02:00 PM)Hoofhearted Wrote: Do they have a history of adjusted attributes? I know tez was in the 70s(?), and a few others have graded out better than they are currently. Would like to know when the players stop playing as well, and see if we can pinpoint when $hit started going down-hill

(12-04-2018, 02:01 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: No doubt,

Plus just the overall suckage of this team and HC has to drag a guy down, desire to win and play hard ? Pfftttt

(12-04-2018, 01:52 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Well you get rated no matter how many snaps you play...you just may not be ranked. The ones I have listed with a rating and no ranking are ones that played too few snaps.

On offense, the RB's make insane cuts to get yards when the original hole is collapsed. I saw it in person when I was at the game.

Price absolutely could be worse than them if you factor in the running game.

I say once again, we have the 28th ranked offense and the 32nd ranked defense. These ratings are about what I'd expect...maybe actually a bit generous.

(12-04-2018, 02:11 PM)Whatever Wrote: However, Mixon is PFF's #20 RB and is 12th in rushing yards despite missing a few games and frankly not getting the ball as much as he should.  That would seem to indicate that he's making yards because of good blocking, but the OL grades don't bear that out.

We need to upgrade some positions, certainly.  RG, RT, TE, 2 LB's, and another pass rusher of some kind are at the top of the list.  I'm not convinced we're making the best use of our talent in several position groups, though.