Weak Links (According to PFF Ratings)

[THE PISTONS]

(10-20-2017, 08:10 PM)GreenCornBengal Wrote: Who cares when the Defensive unit is #2 overall. Vigil and Glasglow are sucking in the right ways.

And oh, the O-line grades poorly, what a surprise!

Yes - Clearly a unit can rank high overall and have some people that aren't great.

The issue with Vigil seems to be that people see him making a lot of tackles and thus think he is great. People also think he's fast too because he is undersized...but he's not really fast. And there is no transparency as to why he's rated low by PFF.

[TheUberHuber]

(10-20-2017, 08:18 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Yes - Clearly a unit can rank high overall and have some people that aren't great.

The issue with Vigil seems to be that people see him making a lot of tackles and thus think he is great. People also think he's fast too because he is undersized...but he's not really fast. And there is no transparency as to why he's rated low by PFF.

I also think just a slight improvement from last year's linebacking Corp makes him look a lot better than he is.. but I personally like him. Would like to see the bengals get a superstar at his position and use him as rotational depth. 

[SunsetBengal]

(10-20-2017, 01:48 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: This is an interesting read from a few years ago:

'What makes a Super Bowl contender? When Pro Football Focus analyzed the 28 teams that played in the conference championship games for the 2007 to 2013 seasons, it found that, on average, 40 percent of those rosters were composed of good/elite players (you had to play 250-plus snaps to qualify). Using that methodology, PFF determined how many above-average players stood between your team and contending for this year's Super Bowl.'

So essentially to get to a conference championship, you need 8-9 guys rated Good/Elite. Our roster has maybe 4-5. And we have a shocking amount of guys rated Poor.

http://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/12179331/how-many-players-away-super-bowl-was-team

I don't subscribe to PFF, but perhaps you could help me out?

I would be curious to see how the 2015 roster rated, in their eyes, as far as "number of players away".

[THE PISTONS]

(10-20-2017, 09:57 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I don't subscribe to PFF, but perhaps you could help me out?

I would be curious to see how the 2015 roster rated, in their eyes, as far as "number of players away".

I didn't see them do an analysis of it...but we could extrapolate it.

In the one above we had 1 Elite player and 3 Good.

In 2015, we had 2 Elite players in Atkins and Green. We then had 8 guys rated as Good (Burfict, Dunlap, Jones, Dansby, Whitworth, Zeitler, Eifert, and Dalton).

Then guys like Iloka who had a 79.7 and Boling who had a 79.4 were ranked Above Average but 80 is considered good. Williams and Bernard were Above Average too.

Boling, Kirkpatrick, and Michael Johnson were graded Poor.

Given that 40% of your starters need to be Elite/Good to compete in a Super Bowl then we're right at 10. And then we have 4 Above Average guys.

Note: I can't see Jones, Sanu, and Nelson's ratings...but I assume they'd be atleast Above Average. And Maualuga is missing who generally grades out as Poor.

The 2015 team was so far superior to 2017 where we have like 8 guys that are graded Poorly. Really Center and DE with Michael Johnson were the only issues on that team...potentially along with Maualuga.

I couldn't see them thinking we were more than 1 or 2 players away. The failure that year was clearly Coaching. You could blame the Dalton injury too...but we had a chance to win a few games at the end of the year to get a Bye and failed. The Steelers were without Leveon Bell too.

As I've contended...upgrading the Center position that year before the season may have reaped huge benefits.

[THE PISTONS]

(10-20-2017, 09:54 PM)TheUberHuber Wrote: I also think just a slight improvement from last year's linebacking Corp makes him look a lot better than he is.. but I personally like him. Would like to see the bengals get a superstar at his position and use him as rotational depth. 

Minter has been a sizeable improvement to Maualuga.

[SunsetBengal]

(10-20-2017, 10:12 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: I didn't see them do an analysis of it...but we could extrapolate it.

In the one above we had 1 Elite player and 3 Good.

In 2015, we had 2 Elite players in Atkins and Green. We then had 8 guys rated as Good (Burfict, Dunlap, Jones, Dansby, Whitworth, Zeitler, Eifert, and Dalton).

Then guys like Iloka who had a 79.7 and Boling who had a 79.4 were ranked Above Average but 80 is considered good. Williams and Bernard were Above Average too.

Boling, Kirkpatrick, and Michael Johnson were graded Poor.

Given that 40% of your starters need to be Elite/Good to compete in a Super Bowl then we're right at 10. And then we have 4 Above Average guys.

Note: I can't see Jones, Sanu, and Nelson's ratings...but I assume they'd be atleast Above Average. And Maualuga is missing who generally grades out as Poor.

The 2015 team was so far superior to 2017 where we have like 8 guys that are graded Poorly. Really Center and DE with Michael Johnson were the only issues on that team...potentially along with Maualuga.

I couldn't see them thinking we were more than 1 or 2 players away. The failure that year was clearly Coaching. You could blame the Dalton injury too...but we had a chance to win a few games at the end of the year to get a Bye and failed. The Steelers were without Leveon Bell too.

As I've contended...upgrading the Center position that year before the season may have reaped huge benefits.

Nice supposition, not much I would argue differently about your assessment.

[THE PISTONS]

(10-20-2017, 10:17 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Nice supposition, not much I would argue differently about your assessment.

Thanks - Yeah...I think overall the PFF rankings are pretty decent.

The sad thing with the Bengals seems to be the years we don't have talent, the coaching makes the team respectable and the years we do have talent the Coaching makes the team underperform.

re: Having 8 people rated Poor so far this year - We are a 2-3 team that is the 12th seed in the AFC right now. I think people forget how bad we played during the 1st 3 games. Even the defense had issues like the 49 yard Watson TD run and some of the long passes against the Packers in OT.

[McC]

(10-19-2017, 08:50 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: So what positions/players have been underperforming on our team? Lets look at the PFF ratings to date.

Defense
DT next to Atkins - Glasgow 57.0 or Poor, Billings 61.5 or Below Average, Sims 60.8 or Below Average.
LB Nick Vigil - Rated 47.6 or Poor.
CB Adam Jones - Rated 67.1 or Below Average.
CB Dre Kirkpatrick - Rated 47.6 or Poor.

So we essentially have 3 positions on defense where we start guys rated Poor. 2 of which rank REALLY BAD. (Kirkpatrick is the #86 ranked CB. Vigil is the #54 ranked LB.)

Offense
Tackle - Andre Smith - Rated 49.3 which is Poor, Jake Fisher - Rated 42.6 which is Poor (60th ranked Tackle), Cedric Ogbuehi - Rated 40.6 or the #62 ranked Tackle.
Guard - TJ Johnson - Rated 44.3 or the #51 ranked Guard. Hopkins rating is 35.0 from when he played which is Terrible.
Center - Bodine - Rated 43.3 or the #29 ranked Center.
WR2 - LaFell - Rated 44.1 or the #98 ranked WR.

On Offense we have 5 players ranked among the worst in the league at their position.

So out of 22 starting positions on the team, we have 8 ranked near the absolute worst in the league. We can change coordinators and get a boost from that...but to talk playoffs, we need some of these guys to atleast improve towards becoming average players.

Seems like the line is really getting killed for the lack of running game.  They have to be, since, at least lately, the pass blocking hasn't been terrible.  granted, the quick passing has helped, but if the QB isn't getting sacked, that has to count for something.


Also, agree with all the others about Vigil.  Why are they killing him?  He keeps looking better and better.  And it seems out of whack that one of the better defenses in the league is doing it with so many shitty players.

[THE PISTONS]

(10-20-2017, 11:31 PM)McC Wrote: Seems like the line is really getting killed for the lack of running game.  They have to be, since, at least lately, the pass blocking hasn't been terrible.  granted, the quick passing has helped, but if the QB isn't getting sacked, that has to count for something.


Also, agree with all the others about Vigil.  Why are they killing him?  He keeps looking better and better.  And it seems out of whack that one of the better defenses in the league is doing it with so many shitty players.

In response to your 2nd paragraph...it's just 3 guys rated poor on defense. And the groups they play at have so many dominant players that it makes up for them.

We haven't really played a great offense that was healthy so far too. Yeah we played the Packers with Rodgers...but BOTH of their tackles were out as was Randall Cobb and we put a ton of pressure on him.

The Bills lost their best TE during the game and had their #1 WR out.

The Ravens offense is terrible. The Browns offense is beyond terrible.

The Texans offense caught fire after Watson got some experience. We shut it down other than the 49 yard TD run. That was probably our most impressive outing.

I'd say the ratings are in line with what we're seeing from the defense and the level of competition they've played.

[McC]

(10-20-2017, 11:50 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: In response to your 2nd paragraph...it's just 3 guys rated poor on defense. And the groups they play at have so many dominant players that it makes up for them.

We haven't really played a great offense that was healthy so far too. Yeah we played the Packers with Rodgers...but BOTH of their tackles were out as was Randall Cobb and we put a ton of pressure on him.

The Bills lost their best TE during the game and had their #1 WR out.

The Ravens offense is terrible. The Browns offense is beyond terrible.

The Texans offense caught fire after Watson got some experience. We shut it down other than the 49 yard TD run. That was probably our most impressive outing.

I'd say the ratings are in line with what we're seeing from the defense and the level of competition they've played.

Does that figure into the ratings?  Guess we'll find out a lot about the defense Sunday too.

[THE PISTONS]

(10-20-2017, 11:52 PM)McC Wrote: Does that figure into the ratings?  Guess we'll find out a lot about the defense Sunday too.

I don't believe it does.

The strangest one to me is Joe Mixon. They have him rated over 80. He hasn't had many yards.

I saw a stat that 85% of his yards are after contact though. So our line is terrible.

[McC]

(10-20-2017, 11:56 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: I don't believe it does.

The strangest one to me is Joe Mixon. They have him rated over 80. He hasn't had many yards.

I saw a stat that 85% of his yards are after contact though. So our line is terrible.

He's had some two yard runs that could have been three yard losses.  And you see in him that, if he gets a crease, he can do something with it.  I'd like to see what he could do if he could ever get into the open field.

[THE PISTONS]

(10-21-2017, 12:01 AM)McC Wrote: He's had some two yard runs that could have been three yard losses.  And you see in him that, if he gets a crease, he can do something with it.  I'd like to see what he could do if he could ever get into the open field.

re: Vigil - He was rated 47.8 against the Ravens and he had an interception, 5 solo tackles, and 4 assists.

Overall - Dennard and Lawson are rated nearly the same as Burfict which is one of the reasons our defense is soo good. We have Atkins and Burfict playing at a high level, then Lawson applying pressure, and Dennard in coverage. That's a tough combo. Good players at every level.

[McC]

(10-21-2017, 12:05 AM)THE PISTONS Wrote: re: Vigil - He was rated 47.8 against the Ravens and he had an interception, 5 solo tackles, and 4 assists.

Overall - Dennard and Lawson are rated nearly the same as Burfict which is one of the reasons our defense is soo good. We have Atkins and Burfict playing at a high level, then Lawson applying pressure, and Dennard in coverage. That's a tough combo. Good players at every level.

Good for Dennard.    Very happy for him.  And he tackles like a LB, which I love to see. Probably make a bad ass Safety later in his career.

[Devils Advocate]

I’d be curious to know how other teams compare. Is Pittsburgh stacked with average to above average players ... is KC?
Or is having below avg and/or ‘poor’ players pretty much the norm?

[Socal Bengals fan]

vigil stunk the first 2 games. he had a lot of missed tackles

[Goalpost]

Tackles have to be graded subjectively. In the 1st game of the year, Baltimore, we lost 20-0 yet out tackled Baltimore 74-55. So Baltimore got out tackled, yet pitched a shutout. Of course 4 ints helped.

I guess what I am saying is the losing team usually puts up greater tackle numbers, so you have to look beyond just the final totals.

[THE PISTONS]

(10-21-2017, 11:15 AM)Goalpost Wrote: Tackles have to be graded subjectively.  In the 1st game of the year, Baltimore, we lost 20-0 yet out tackled Baltimore 74-55.   So Baltimore got out tackled, yet pitched a shutout.  Of course 4 ints helped.  

I guess what I am saying is the losing team usually puts up greater tackle numbers, so you have to look beyond just the final totals.

Precisely. A lot of things in football go beyond the stats.

[*Synric*]

Look at Pacman week 2 against Hopkins and Houston. Jones grades out poorly for that game but Hopkins and Pacman were in a fight the entire time both pushing off holding etc. He grades out poorly because of the penalties mostly but he actually won that week against Hopkins.

If only the offense didn't suck so bad...

[THE PISTONS]

(10-21-2017, 08:33 AM)Devils Advocate Wrote: I’d be curious to know how other teams compare. Is Pittsburgh stacked with average to above average players ... is KC?
Or is having below avg and/or ‘poor’ players pretty much the norm?

Sure - Steelers -
Roethlisberger 77 - Average
Bell 84.6 - Above Average
Brown 93.1 - Elite - #1 WR in football
Bryant - 58.6 - Poor
Jesse James - 47.9 - Poor
Pouncey - 72.4 - Average
DeCastro - 89.9 - High Quality. Close to Elite.
Foster - 62.3 - Below Average
Villaneuva - 79.6 - Above Average
Gilbert - 80.3 - Above Average

Haden 75.1 - Average
Gay 74.9 Average
Burns 81.1 - Above Average
Mitchell 73.8 Average
Davis - 44.8 Poor
Shazier 84.0 Above Average
Vince Williams 74.0 Average
Heyward 87.6 High Quality
Tuitt 86.4 High Quality
Watt 74.1 Average
Dupree 44.1 Poor

So the Steelers have 4 guys rated Poor that start.