I don't really know another way to measure a players worth other than how they look on the field. Did I watch Pryor every snap? No, I watched mostly him and Coples (who is a piece of shit) a majority of the time. I also think its tough to grade olineman. If you asked me if Willie Colon played the best on the team I would have said no way. Only because he's a guard, and only a offensive line guru/ olineman at a high level can make that call. Further, did Marshall get points from that fumble recovery? No idea, but that was the turning point in the game, and he only got a middling grade.
a quantitative science? no perfect? absolutely not i don't believe PFF tries to claim either. how they calculate their grades is right there on the website. they aren't misleading. how are you going to quantify how good a block was, or how a defender sets the edge and turns a play inside? how do you quantify coverage? you can't. the best you can do is create a scale of reference, and then consistently apply that reference across all games, all plays. the PFF process goes thru 4 reviews and normalization for consistency. it's not just one persons opinion, neither is it perfect. but then again, certain statistics that can be quantified can also be inexact or misleading in nature. we all know that. for instance, a QB throws a 2yd pass, which turns into a 40YD YAC TD run. is that as good as a QB throwing a 40yd pass on a rope (in terms of measuring the QB's performance)? how about a great pass which is dropped? none of it is perfect. you have to watch the games, maybe even watch the games again in slow motion and single people out. i can't do that for every game. these guys are doing that, and doing it relatively consistently from the detailed analysis i've done myself for comparison. so while not perfect, better than anything else currently out there as a reference point. certainly much better than taking the word of 1 poster on this forum, who watched only 1 specific play closely, and then deemed that player as 'sucky'..
Analytics are the new cool thing in sports - teams believe they can predict present, and future contributions using things such as PFF and the NBA uses all sorts of formulas to judge performance. General Managers at times live by it. I think baseball is the only sport that works well with formulas and #s. I truly believe they are pulling some of these #s out of their respective asses. The top 2 guards from week 1 are Willie Colon and Richie Incognito. I highly doubt, they made enough plays to warrant that. Brady was on fire that game, and Ben while he had a good game - made more questionable throws.
Pittsburgh showed an atrocious defense. I don't know if that was a one game deal or not, we will see, but they couldn't cover Gronkowski when they knew that was where the ball was going.
I agree, but that shouldn't discredit Brady's performance just because the Steelers have one of their worst defenses in franchise history. They have an awful secondary.
I know wins are hard to come by, but I gotta tell ya - we just trounced the Browns for crying out loud. This kinda dawned on me - ANY team will look very good against the Browns.
Weren't all those TD tosses right at the goal line? All of them to the TE's? I hate those 1 yard playaction TD passes to the fullbacks and TE's. Mariota did the same.
I've given up on him, he's too slow and can't get off a block. He had a shot at the QB on Sunday, and it was Leonard Williams who came out of nowhere to provide the hurry...Coples had a huge head start, and got beat by the rookie.
The Browns won a lot more games last year than we did, in arguably a stronger division. They aren't good; but they're far from the worse team in the league.
Do you really think those guys have any clue who to give good grades in a blocking scheme? What are the odds that 95% of the good grade Colon received was all Mangold? But maybe Colon at age 30+ after years of being terrible just figured out how to be the best guard in football. Could be. Or maybe PFF is full of shit which probably is a little more likely.
your question prompted me to go back and look, as it was clear from the eye test that Mangold played well. it appears what i posted above was based on preliminary review, as many of the grades have since been adjusted. the PFF process goes through 4 different reviews and normalization before completed. so based on those updated findings, i'll repost their top 10: 1) Wilkerson 4.4 2) Mangold 2.7 3) Colon 2.6 3) Fitzpatrick 2.6 5) Pryor 2.3 6) Marshall 2.0 7) Harris 1.2 8) Carpenter 1.1 8) M Williams 1.1 10) essentially tied Ivory, Owusu, Snacks, Skrine Wilk got big scores for his run defending, while adding a Sack, 2 QB hits, and 2 QB hurries. personally i think Ivory played even better than his rating here. but taking it for what it is, i have no problems with these week 1 ratings as a whole.
if you think Colon has been terrible for years, i suggest you actually watch him play. you don't start in this league for 10 years while being terrible. He had a great game in what was a good matchup for our Oline.
I never said he stunk his entire career. He was a solid mauler early on for the Steelers but yes, he sucked the past few years. He was garbage especially last year and the year before. But I guess he did us a favor by returning on a 1 yr vet minimum deal. What a great guy. Could have landed a 100 mil. contract but he wanted to stick with us and be loyal because he loves this team so much. I know.
What's nice about this is someone takes time to watch a player on every single snap, not just the one or two fans remember the next day.
you are stating that PFF must be full of shit as Colon is over 30 and flat out terrible, so there is no way he could have rated out that well. I'm suggesting you watch Colon in the game, as you are full of shit, not PFF.
You really need to stop making shit up. This is the 3rd time you had to correct yourself. And yes, PFF is full of shit. Colon was not the best guard in football last week, or top 3, whatever they have him ranked. He wasn't even the best lineman for us against the Browns. Twice I caught him during the game trip over his own foot and fall to the ground when he was supposed to pull. Was he terrible against the Browns? No, nobody said that. Stop being so damn sensitive. He's been horrible for the past few years, part of why he was brought back on a 1 year vet minimum deal. Wait until we play a 4-3 defense when doesn't have constant help from Nick & Breno, wait until he's matched up 1 on 1 with a DT, it doesn't even have to be a very good one. There will be flags.
what am i making up? terrible was your own word. i directly quoted you on your BS assessment, while you were criticizing a different assessment from people who actually did watch Colon (you clearly did not). Colon played an excellent game against Cleveland. He also was very good all preseason, and no he has not been 'horrible' for years.
