After looking at our O, I thought it only right to do the same on D. Soliai- 8 Good, 4 Bad, 4 Average Starks- 6, 3, 7 Langford- 6, 3, 7 McD- 5, 4, 6 Wake- 12 Good, 1Bad, 3 Average Misi- 7, 3, 6 Dansby- 6, 2, 6 Crowder- 5, 0, 6 Dobbins- 3, 1, 12 Davis- 6 Good, 3 Bad, 7 Average Smith- 4, 1, 10 Sapp- 4, 5,7 Bell- 6, 2, 8 Clemons- 2, 4, 9 Wake tied Big Jake for the top spot, no surprise there. Who else stands out to the good or bad? One side note, KM mentioned how no one had a good game vs the Pats in week 17. I took a look and there was no one on O, with Jerry the closest needing one more good play. Carp or Fields did not have one either. However, on D Wake had a good game, although his worst good game of the year, and Langford had a good game. At leasta couple of guys showed up.
Looks like Clemons (mild surprise) was our worst defender, followed closely by Sapp (no surprise). I'd like to share the "no bad games for Crowder is interesting" sentiment.
Most plays Crowder was in on were running plays, which is his strength. I thought Dobbins had a nice year coming off the bench and Dansby did not disappoint as a FA.
Sorry SB, I'am havin a hard time takin this stuff seriously but I'am trying, what is it that makes the grade again?, They grade each individual play to come to these conclusions?
I find it interesting that Dansby has only 6 good games. I understand he was injured last year and played through a lot. I don't know what goes into these grades from PFF, but if correct or holding any weight, he should improve with the amount of cash he's getting paid.
I believe it's a play by play assessment of how each player carries out their responsibility on the play.
http://www.aolnews.com/2010/03/04/pro-football-focus-how-do-they-put-their-numbers-together/ DJ, here's a Q&A which will give you a better understanding od what PFF does. Current players have said that "They are light years ahead of most fans and media's understanding of the game." Their grades and rankings of players have been used by many in the national media, including our good friend Barry Jackson from the Herald's Sports Buzz, who has referred to them on a number of occasions. I believe that Omar of the Sun has done the same but, would not swear to it. They watch each play, and grade each player with a plus, a minus, or a zero. This differs from standard stats, which do not. For example, in NFL QB ratings, a pick is a pick, end of story. In PFF's grading, they will blame the int on who they see at fault, which may not be the QB. Take it for whatever you think it's worth but myself, and many others, believe it to be a much improved system to what we had.
I agree, I'd like to sit in the room to see if there running a scam or not, or if they have an eye...I mean the evaluation is only as good as the evaluator.
Let's take a sample look at what they provide. This is on Marshall in game #1 vs Buff. 65 snaps, 37 pass plays, 28 run block. Overall grade- 0.2, pass- -0.7, run block- 0.7. Thrown at 12 times, 8 catches, 53 yds, YAC- 19, long- 13, drops-2, MT (tackles broken or avoided)- 2. Covered by Dante Whitner 1 time, 1 catch, 5 yds, covered by Keith Ellison 1 time, 1 catch, 4 yds, covered by Leotis McKelvin 3 times, 0 catches, covered by Drayton Florence 3 times, 3 catches, 29 yds, YAC- 10 yds, long- 13 yds, covered by Terrence McGee 4 times, caught 3, 15 yds, YAC- 8 yds, long- 13 yds. Add in where Henne was throwing. He threw 3 times behind the line for 27 yds, Between 0-9 yds, 3-6, 12 yds to the left, 5-8, 47 yds middle, and 6-8 35 yds right. 10-19 yds- 1-1, 10 yds left, 3-5, 51 yds middle, and 0-1 right. 20+ yds- 0-2, both right. I did not include everything possible but, this is a fair indication of what info they provide for one player in one game with not a whole lot going on.
