12-04-2018, 01:52 PM
(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.
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.
