We 18 guys playing regularly who grade out in the 50's or below

[*ochocincos*]

(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.