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

[THE PISTONS]

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

[*bengalfan74*]

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.

[fredtoast]

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

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.

[THE PISTONS]

(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.

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.

[Whatever]

(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

A rating of 50-60 is classified as average on PFF.

[THE Bigzoman]

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.

[THE PISTONS]

(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.

It seems like the grades are fairly accurate to me. We have what the 28th ranked offense and the 32nd ranked defense.

We have a bad offensive line. The PFF numbers show a bad offensive line.

We have bad LB's, the numbers show really bad LB's.

The secondary is average. The defensive line grades out above average.

I looked at Mixon and Bernard and they are rated in the 70's now which I feel is fair as I've read we're the worst team in the league at screen passes to RB's, but they make a lot of yards out of nothing. Mixon being upper 70's.

[THE PISTONS]

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

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.

[*bengalfan74*]

(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.

The team has checked totally out, they're not even trying for the most part, it's a giant fubar !

Burfict is done.

[THE PISTONS]

(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.

His rating was in the 70's at the start of the year and has really fallen as the season progressed.

He might be playing injured? He might be trying to avoid fines too much and arm tackling? I don't know.

[lone bengal]

I know Price has been hurt most of the year and is a rookie but I really hope he improves somewhat these next few games. The offense line will be in big trouble again next year if he doesn’t take the next step. Someone posted these plays of Price on twitter from the Denver game. Looks like a technique issue to me.

https://mobile.twitter.com/john__sheeran/status/1069753746396205056
https://mobile.twitter.com/john__sheeran/status/1069755441532538880
https://mobile.twitter.com/john__sheeran/status/1069759878061793281

[Whatever]

(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.

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.

[Bengalfan4life27c]

Denver is a really good D. Driskel was below average. We need LB more than anything hope Haslett is gone at the end of season. I look for Ross to finally have real good year next year. 1 more quality Offensive lineman wouldnt hurt either. Obueghi has looked better if he could quit having so many false starts.

[THE PISTONS]

(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.

[Hoofhearted]

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

[*bengalfan74*]

(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.

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

[THE PISTONS]

(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

I know Geno started to decline 4-5 games ago. It seems Burfict has declined since then too.

[THE PISTONS]

(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

Yes...but how are they supposed to grade? They have to judge based on actual performance in the games.

Whether it's due to a bad gameplan, bad coaching, bad players...who knows?

And I think teams generally realized with guys like Justin Smith that they'd be better on a new team than on the Bengals.

[Whatever]

(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.

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. 

[THE PISTONS]

(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. 

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.