In my eternal quest to justify cutting Brockers, PFF provided me with some jarring grades against the Commies. They graded him at 61.0 in 25 snaps with one tackle and Aidan at 57.7 in 60 snaps with 6 tackles including 3 sacks.
Aidan was gimping around the field in the 2nd half, which probably lowered his grade. Still, it’s clear that where I saw 3 Aidan sacks, PFF evaluators saw 2 late hustle sacks resulting from other players forcing Wentz in Aidan’s direction and weren’t as impressed.
I suppose the PFF evaluators are more in tune with the subtleties of Campbell’s just-do-you-job mantra than I am. It makes me think I shouldn’t quit my day job…
Brockers playing time has decreased a ton compared to last year, which is good news. He offers nothing as a pass rusher, when used simply on running downs, he was okay this past week. When you are only playing 30% of the snaps, you’d better be able to hold up on the ground, especially with the money we are paying him.
PFF has their collective head up their ass.
I’m not paying attention to the “experts”, “opinions”, anymore.
I trust my own eyes. I’ve been watching football all of my 62 year life. I played in school, and I’ve coached soccer and basketball with success.
One of my players is in NBA Europe, right now.
What makes them more expert than me? A paycheck?
My eyes, and stats. That’s all I need.
While I agree with this, there’s a lot about what happens on a play that we can’t know even by looking at it. We don’t the way the defensive responsibilities are shaking out. Sometimes it’s clear but most of the time it isn’t.
Like a guy gets wide open deep because the CB let him go thinking there would be safety help over the top. Was he right, should there have been? Or was he supposed to carry the route down the field? We have no idea.
Of course that’s true of the people doing the grades at PFF as well. I know they try and factor scheme and assignment into their grades but unless they’re hearing it directly from staffs, it’s borderline impossible.
You know what makes them more of an expert then you? Disregard the following if you actually do this: Watching the film, all-22 fast forward, rewind over & over again.
A lot of value in an opinion that has actually watched each individual player on each play. Can those opinions be wrong, absolutely. Could you be more of an expert or better at the job than them. Certainly, but if you aren’t watching the film the way they are they offer more value than anyone of us that are just watching the game as a fan
Oh, I get that. I also know that a few others refuse to read their drivel, namely, MCDC, AG, Wash, and Hutch, but, as you say, they all watch the film.
My point is that “experts” also have their biases, and they have no problem putting them in print and selling it as fact.
Do they have a bank of people watching every game every snap writing down points .
We could have posters watch a game in slow motion 10 times an we wouldn’t agree on a lot.
That would be one game I think general facts based on yards passes stuff like that they can grade but in a pile of 300 plus players give me a break.
On the one sack if Hutch is not still working around blocker the QB would have escaped . He kept working an the DL made him turn t get away an hutch was there . It all depends on who is watching .
Another poster made solid point when WR breaks wide open is the CB wrong or did the S not get over an pick him up or did the S get blocked by another WR when he went to do his job.
Did Hutch ear sack or did OL make wrong block or miss the block or maybe RB missed Hutch.
They have no more idea than you or I Some O plays the RB may just fake the block looks like miss an goes for short pass but QB gets sacked QB’s fault RBs fault or Hutch good play we don’t except for end result an the graders don’t know either.
Yes exactly this. PFF uses 1-3 human editors to watch every single play and log every single player’s performance and I think they do give weighting to TFL/Picks/TDs etc.
What they are looking for is if that person beat the man across from them 1:1. 3 basic scenarios.
A beats B.
B beats A.
A nullifys B.
They get or lose points based on that. They don’t know what the coverages are or plays called. All they can do is look at each player and if they beat their individual opponent.
So if hutch does a stunt, it may look like he loses his battle. Also, if you look at Hutch on some of those sacks, he was losing his battle to the OT, but because he kept his head up and motor going, Wentz was eventually forced into him for the sack.
Brockers probably looked like he was winning his 1:1 battles but didn’t impact the play like Hutch did. Will Harris must have looked like he was winning his battles even though he gave up a clear TD.
PFF is a tool to use with a high quantity of data but the accuracy/quality/perspective is maybe 60%. It’s one more data point to use to tell a story but one must be wary of accuracy. On an entire season it probably does a pretty decent job of telling how well an individual is playing and winning their battles.
I don’t see them trying to pooh-pooh the sacks. And for sure lots of sacks are due largely to schemes or excellent coverage. But if you draft an edge rusher at #2 you hope you’re getting a guy who doesn’t need 5 seconds or stunts to get to the QB, right? You hope yer getting a guy who can beat the guy in front of him, mano a mano, in 2.5 seconds or less 25% or so of the time. That would make him an elite rusher. You don’t need to be an elite rusher to get a sack on a stunt if the DL blows the protection.
Hutch won’t really realize his promise for another year or two. He needs more technique, strength, film study and game play. He has the athleticism and, by all accounts, the discipline, football smarts, and want-to to be great. And 3 sacks is awesome, however a player gets them. But I saw elite production, not elite play from Hutch on Sunday. (Which, by the way, is exactly what some saw from Goff as well.)