Average Offensive Starter PFF Scores for NFL

[coachbuns]

8 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

I could be wrong all day if I wanted, too.  I just choose to not be.

Maybe you should quit responding to me in this.  I’m trying really hard to be less of an ***hole and you’re making it really difficult.  Thanks.

LOL ... this site/forum has quite the group. 

[Nick_gb]

I would just like to add that Aaron Rodger's contract may look like a hindrance and that we are paying him like an Elite Quarterback. However, come 2021 if the Salary cap jumps to $230-$240 million that is being projected with the current proposed CBA, these Quarterbacks are going to get PAID. You're talking a $30-40 million increase in cap from 2020-2021. That's absolutely insane and will also provide teams options in free agency. This CBA getting ratified before March 18th matters and in my opinion, matters a lot more then what people are discussing currently. 

[ThatJerkDave]

15 hours ago, HighCalebR said:

add an E, you fool(s)!

Y'all are brutalizing me! 

[ThatJerkDave]

15 hours ago, Packerraymond said:

Also, I was being a butthead, for that I apologize.

 

[firstplace]

Can you please do this for the defenses?

[ThatJerkDave]

24 minutes ago, firstplace said:

Can you please do this for the defenses?

According to this:  https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/opponent-average-team-passer-rating

the Packers were tied for 5th best passer rating allowed in 2019, with the Chiefs.  

 

[MacReady]

Just now, firstplace said:

Can you please do this for the defenses?

Nah, man.  Then people would just say it doesn't count.  It's just too frustrating for me. 

I could literally go like this:

Okay, if you have an issue with this list, let's do it like this.  Packers are 6th overall on offense in the NFL.  Let's put it to the test.  Let's compare the Packers to the next team on the list.

Tampa Bay.

1. Is the combination of Jones/Williams better by roughly 10 points each than the combination of Tampa's backs? 
-Well derp a derp, I don't even know who the Tampa running backs are, but it doesn't matter their receivers are better. 

2. Okay, are the tight ends roughly similar?
-No way, man.  The Buccaneers use OJ Howard way wrong, and Cameron Brate is much better than either of our tight ends. 

3. Okay, is Davante/Lazard/MVS better than, worse than or equal to their receivers?
-Their receivers are way super duper better. 
Granted.

4. Name the Buccaneers offensive line. 
-No, I don't want to because it's going to fit your point more than mine.
Okay, I'll do it.  Donovan Smith was average.  Bakhtiari was significantly better.  Marpet was a slight improvement over Jenkins.  Their center was a slight to significant difference (better) than Linsley.  Their other guard was slightly worse than Turner.  Their other tackle was significantly worse than Bulaga.

5. Would having a HUGELY SIGNIFICANTLY better running game not make our offensive talent similar to the Buccaneers when the only significant difference is their #2 receiver?
-No.  OJ Howard is fast.  Stretches the field.  He was used terribly.  I don't care that our running back had literally three times as many touchdowns as theirs.  Tampa is way better. 

And I could literally go down the line. 

The Raiders are the next best.  Their running back is similar, their tight end is a significant improvement, Lazard was as effective as their leading receiver (Lazard had 150 less yards on 14 less receptions than Renfrow).  Having Davante Adams alone is better than their entire receiving corps.  Their offensive line is terrible.  TERRIBLE.  Their TACKLES were worse than our worst guard.  And yet "IT'S CLEAR TO EVERYBODY THAT OUR RECEIVERS ARE TERRIBLE."

NOBODY WILL TAKE PERSPECTIVE INTO ACCOUNT ON THIS SITE. 

OUR RECEIVERS ARE NOT ANY WORSE THAN THE MAJORITY OF THE NFL.

All they do is sit there and blame PFF. 

It's so frustrating to me because it's very simple.  Put PFF to the test.  Compare Billy Turner to Minnesota's guards.  Is he not similar in play to their guards? 

This whole thing is like...

Two people standing outside.  First person says it's raining.  Second person doesn't trust first person, so does not believe first person as raindrops hit his ****ing head. 

So WTF is the point? 

Have you READ the conversations I've had with others?  I've literally challenged someone to list 16 teams better than ours at the receiver position and every ****ing time he dances around it because he's petrified of the truth and refuses to believe it.  EYE TEST. 

[MacReady]

6 hours ago, mikemike778 said:

After Adams our receiving options are very poor. Adams is great but when you just have the one outstanding option then teams should be able to cover it and seriously hamper the passing game

So basically nothing new ....

Yes it is ****ing new. 

Look at the number two receivers in the NFL.  There are 20 MAXIMUM who are clearly better than Lazard.  At least four of those 20 teams don't have a #1 receiver as good as Adams.  At least 6 of those 16 don't have a RB as good as Jones.  At least 4 of those 6 teams don't have an OL as good as ours or a RB as good as ours.

How can you people be so stubborn to not see the point?

The Packers, offensively, are a top 10 team in the NFL in offensive talent. 

This isn't a league with a surplus of talent where we just said "**** it, let's not have a good #2." 

 

[MacReady]

@firstplace

It would actually be a lot easier to do defense though.  If you just picked the 12 players on defense with the most starts it would be really easy to find and sort out. 

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi

Just use that link, select DEFENSE under position, sort by GAMES STARTED. 

It would be a little off, but you could separate it by IDL/ILB/CB/S. 

Alexander - 72.3
Amos - 76.4
Clark - 79.9
Lowry - 63
Martinez -58.7
P. Smith - 66
Z. Smith - 90.2
King - 62.5
Savage - 68
Lancaster - 64.5
Goodson - 60.9
Tramon - 75.1

Greenlaw and Warner had 63.9 and 66.9 ratings at ILB. 
Damien Wilson and Anthony Hitchens had 55.3 and 48.9 ratings at ILB.

So you're going to run into the same issue.  The all-important EYE TEST issue.  Surely Warner and Greenlaw should be rated 1 billion and Martinez should be rated 2. 

The reality is that there are maybe 5 inside linebackers significantly better than Martinez.  By significant I mean 10 points higher than, which should be enough to get everyone to agree PFF cannot possibly that far off on.  But no, Martinez is one of the worst in the NFL and you could swing by a Home Depot and get a better replacement for in a day.  

Cory Littleton, whom everyone seems to think is HOF compared to Martinez, had a 78.9 rating.  Significantly better, but I find it very strange that his ratings in non-contract years were 66, 57 and 55. 

Littleton: 78.9, 66, 57, 55.
Martinez: 58.7, 74, 66.6, 59.6

This is the only year of their careers where Littleton was rated higher than Martinez.  Kinda poignant considering who was on Littlton's DL and who was on ours versus other years.  At least I'd say.

But eye test.  The eye test has it. 

Nevermind that the Rams had an average DL score of 77.1 while ours was 69.1.

That really begs the question WTF was up with Warner and Greenlaw?  Possibly one of the best if not the best DL in all of football, and yet they have extremely low ratings comparatively and let the Chiefs run their way to victory at the end. 

[AlexGreen#20]

Pick a random quarter. Q3 against the Vikings V2:

Lazard in the slot runs the wheel route. Has a step vertically. Rodgers underthrows it and hits the CB in the helmet. 

Lazard is the middle receiver. Nice route and nice slant on the follow concept.

Lazard is open at the top of the screen. Rodgers takes AN ETERNITY to come off of Adams on this play. He's supposed to have made that read coming out of the mesh point. Barr isn't moving off of the play action, so you're either brave enough to throw it past Barr here, or you come off the read. You can't do both. Lazard doesn't play this perfectly, he should have settled in the gap, but this should have been a completion and a first down even as it was run.

 

[coachbuns]

28 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Nah, man.  Then people would just say it doesn't count.  It's just too frustrating for me. 

I could literally go like this:

Okay, if you have an issue with this list, let's do it like this.  Packers are 6th overall on offense in the NFL.  Let's put it to the test.  Let's compare the Packers to the next team on the list.

Tampa Bay.

1. Is the combination of Jones/Williams better by roughly 10 points each than the combination of Tampa's backs? 
-Well derp a derp, I don't even know who the Tampa running backs are, but it doesn't matter their receivers are better. 

2. Okay, are the tight ends roughly similar?
-No way, man.  The Buccaneers use OJ Howard way wrong, and Cameron Brate is much better than either of our tight ends. 

3. Okay, is Davante/Lazard/MVS better than, worse than or equal to their receivers?
-Their receivers are way super duper better. 
Granted.

4. Name the Buccaneers offensive line. 
-No, I don't want to because it's going to fit your point more than mine.
Okay, I'll do it.  Donovan Smith was average.  Bakhtiari was significantly better.  Marpet was a slight improvement over Jenkins.  Their center was a slight to significant difference (better) than Linsley.  Their other guard was slightly worse than Turner.  Their other tackle was significantly worse than Bulaga.

5. Would having a HUGELY SIGNIFICANTLY better running game not make our offensive talent similar to the Buccaneers when the only significant difference is their #2 receiver?
-No.  OJ Howard is fast.  Stretches the field.  He was used terribly.  I don't care that our running back had literally three times as many touchdowns as theirs.  Tampa is way better. 

And I could literally go down the line. 

The Raiders are the next best.  Their running back is similar, their tight end is a significant improvement, Lazard was as effective as their leading receiver (Lazard had 150 less yards on 14 less receptions than Renfrow).  Having Davante Adams alone is better than their entire receiving corps.  Their offensive line is terrible.  TERRIBLE.  Their TACKLES were worse than our worst guard.  And yet "IT'S CLEAR TO EVERYBODY THAT OUR RECEIVERS ARE TERRIBLE."

NOBODY WILL TAKE PERSPECTIVE INTO ACCOUNT ON THIS SITE. 

OUR RECEIVERS ARE NOT ANY WORSE THAN THE MAJORITY OF THE NFL.

All they do is sit there and blame PFF. 

It's so frustrating to me because it's very simple.  Put PFF to the test.  Compare Billy Turner to Minnesota's guards.  Is he not similar in play to their guards? 

This whole thing is like...

Two people standing outside.  First person says it's raining.  Second person doesn't trust first person, so does not believe first person as raindrops hit his ****ing head. 

So WTF is the point? 

Have you READ the conversations I've had with others?  I've literally challenged someone to list 16 teams better than ours at the receiver position and every ****ing time he dances around it because he's petrified of the truth and refuses to believe it.  EYE TEST. 

Ok, you're right.  Packers receivers aren't the problem.  Time to move on to the defense.

Edited March 7, 2020 by coachbuns

[MacReady]

Eye Test trumps all.  Facts?  Aggregate scores?  Direct comparisons?  Worthless.

Nevermind that literally every site you go to will have the Packers at top 10 on the OL, PFF sucks and is worthless because eye test.

Lazard is hot trash and wouldn't be any team's #7 WR even though he's better than 12 other #2s in the NFL when you actually look at them.

[MacReady]

Just now, AlexGreen#20 said:

Pick a random quarter. Q3 against the Vikings V2:

Lazard in the slot runs the wheel route. Has a step vertically. Rodgers underthrows it and hits the CB in the helmet. 

Lazard is the middle receiver. Nice route and nice slant on the follow concept.

Lazard is open at the top of the screen. Rodgers takes AN ETERNITY to come off of Adams on this play. He's supposed to have made that read coming out of the mesh point. Barr isn't moving off of the play action, so you're either brave enough to throw it past Barr here, or you come off the read. You can't do both. Lazard doesn't play this perfectly, he should have settled in the gap, but this should have been a completion and a first down even as it was run.

 

@coachbuns, look with your eyes and tell me what you see. 

Does it pass your test? 

How's that list of 16 teams with better receivers looking? 

Still waiting on that response. 

 

[MacReady]

@cannondale, @coachbuns,

Pick 20 teams better overall offensively than the Packers. 

I think we're top 6, but I'm going to make it really easy for you to debunk it with your eye test. 

Don't get cute and avoid the challenge.  Accept the challenge. 

List 20 teams better overall offensively than the Packers.

If PFF is the horse**** you claim it is, should be easy. 

Just 20. 

Eagles, Cowboys, Colts, Saints, Ravens. 

Just made it easy for you.  Named 5.  Two of those teams didn't make the playoffs.  The other three didn't win a playoff game, but clearly we need more help. 

Coachbuns, FYI, two of those teams have worse receiving corps than we do.  And that's being generous. 

[coachbuns]

2 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Eye Test trumps all.  Facts?  Aggregate scores?  Direct comparisons?  Worthless.

Nevermind that literally every site you go to will have the Packers at top 10 on the OL, PFF sucks and is worthless because eye test.

Lazard is hot trash and wouldn't be any team's #7 WR even though he's better than 12 other #2s in the NFL when you actually look at them.

Really like Lazard a lot .. mentioned him often and think he's a 2/3 receiver.  Packers top 10 offense obviously  won't be an issue except for Rodgers this year.  Keep what we have as they are good enough and draft/sign strictly defense.  Super bowl here we come.