PFF roster rankings

[Rainmaker90]

https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-roster-rankings-for-all-32-teams-for-2021-strengths-weaknesses-and-x-factors-for-every-teams-starting-lineup
 

GB 6th behind Tampa, KC, Cleveland , Buffalo and Baltimore . Roster wise I think we stack up with anyone. 
 

I don’t think it’s as simple as highest grades. I think high grades at key positions are much more important.

 

What are some good and bad aspects of PFF? They have some very funky grades . 
 

Tre White 68

Elgton Jenkins 67

Devin White 48

Damien Harris 90

Daniel Jones 78

These are 5 head scratchers to me. I just don’t get how they grade . 

 

 

[Joe]

Damien Harris made the most of his few opportunities last year and if he had as many opportunities as James White or even Rex Burkhead, his score is probably more like a 76. JMO, but I think the more plays you log-in, the better the chances of you having a worse score unless you're Aaron Donald or Davante Adams. The Devin White and Elgton Jenkins scores do baffle me as well. You'd think Jenkins would at least be an 80+ while White should at least be a 65 at worst.

Maybe one of us here could hit the Powerball/Mega Millions and sacrifice some money for a subscription to MAYBE get an explanation FWIW.

[MrBobGray]

I think the biggest issues with roster grade to me is that it really depends on the team's philosophy and scheme.  Not every player is going to grade the same in every scheme, and a team with a super stacked roster can easily underperform if the talent isn't being used well. 

As an example: the Vikings win a lot of paper championships because they tend to field a lot of high end talent, but it falls apart when they try to slot them into roles that either they don't fit or the team as a whole isn't capable of making use of.  The Vikings had three elite skill position players and a top ten QB in 2019, but ended up 8th in points, 16th in yards offensively.  People will blame the offensive line, but that's only part of the issue; the bigger problem is that the offensive group they fielded required a strong OL to excel.  Cook is as good as there is in the game if you can get him some kind of path to the second level, but asking him to navigate backfield trash all the time dampens what he does best, even if he has the ability to do it.  It's made worse because neither starting receiver can block on the edges, so you're almost forced to keep it between the tackles where your line is likely to let you down, and WR screens where Diggs in theory excels end up like this.  The trade-off is supposed to be that Diggs and Thielen are both elite timing receivers who excel at route running and making plays on the ball in tight coverage, which should be a good match with a timing QB like Kirk, but only if you can actually keep to the timing which they rarely could because the line couldn't keep a clean pocket.  So all of this super high end offensive talent ends up mired in a negative feedback loop, each part's inability to excel reducing the ability of the rest.  If you just had to grade each player individually they look great, but they end up with a sum lesser than its parts year after year.

Edited July 16, 2021 by MrBobGray

[AlexGreen#20]

2 hours ago, MrBobGray said:

I think the biggest issues with roster grade to me is that it really depends on the team's philosophy and scheme.  Not every player is going to grade the same in every scheme, and a team with a super stacked roster can easily underperform if the talent isn't being used well. 

As an example: the Vikings win a lot of paper championships because they tend to field a lot of high end talent, but it falls apart when they try to slot them into roles that either they don't fit or the team as a whole isn't capable of making use of.  The Vikings had three elite skill position players and a top ten QB in 2019, but ended up 8th in points, 16th in yards offensively.  People will blame the offensive line, but that's only part of the issue; the bigger problem is that the offensive group they fielded required a strong OL to excel.  Cook is as good as there is in the game if you can get him some kind of path to the second level, but asking him to navigate backfield trash all the time dampens what he does best, even if he has the ability to do it.  It's made worse because neither starting receiver can block on the edges, so you're almost forced to keep it between the tackles where your line is likely to let you down, and WR screens where Diggs in theory excels end up like this.  The trade-off is supposed to be that Diggs and Thielen are both elite timing receivers who excel at route running and making plays on the ball in tight coverage, which should be a good match with a timing QB like Kirk, but only if you can actually keep to the timing which they rarely could because the line couldn't keep a clean pocket.  So all of this super high end offensive talent ends up mired in a negative feedback loop, each part's inability to excel reducing the ability of the rest.  If you just had to grade each player individually they look great, but they end up with a sum lesser than its parts year after year.

I feel like this is a really round about way of saying that all their talent with the exception of Kirk and Hunter (and I'll say Tomlinson) is at the non-premiums?

[vegas492]

14 hours ago, MrBobGray said:

I think the biggest issues with roster grade to me is that it really depends on the team's philosophy and scheme.  Not every player is going to grade the same in every scheme, and a team with a super stacked roster can easily underperform if the talent isn't being used well. 

As an example: the Vikings win a lot of paper championships because they tend to field a lot of high end talent, but it falls apart when they try to slot them into roles that either they don't fit or the team as a whole isn't capable of making use of.  The Vikings had three elite skill position players and a top ten QB in 2019, but ended up 8th in points, 16th in yards offensively.  People will blame the offensive line, but that's only part of the issue; the bigger problem is that the offensive group they fielded required a strong OL to excel.  Cook is as good as there is in the game if you can get him some kind of path to the second level, but asking him to navigate backfield trash all the time dampens what he does best, even if he has the ability to do it.  It's made worse because neither starting receiver can block on the edges, so you're almost forced to keep it between the tackles where your line is likely to let you down, and WR screens where Diggs in theory excels end up like this.  The trade-off is supposed to be that Diggs and Thielen are both elite timing receivers who excel at route running and making plays on the ball in tight coverage, which should be a good match with a timing QB like Kirk, but only if you can actually keep to the timing which they rarely could because the line couldn't keep a clean pocket.  So all of this super high end offensive talent ends up mired in a negative feedback loop, each part's inability to excel reducing the ability of the rest.  If you just had to grade each player individually they look great, but they end up with a sum lesser than its parts year after year.

Diggs is a Bill.  Was last year, too.

And yah, they have some great players at non-premium positions.

Games are won and lost in the trenches.  Their o-line is suspect.  They invested pretty heavily in that DL.  If you can't be strong in one, be strong in the other.  Our roster is similar in the trenches.

[Rainmaker90]

How can everyone else be so high on Tre White but they have him as basically average?

[MrBobGray]

16 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

I feel like this is a really round about way of saying that all their talent with the exception of Kirk and Hunter (and I'll say Tomlinson) is at the non-premiums?

Well sure if you want to suck all the fun out of it, then yeah that's another way to sum it up.  Look it's mid-July, what else is there to do but pontificate? 

Having said that, it's like 85% that, 15% that if you don't have the premiums you better make sure your elite non-premiums can produce in that environment.  If my OL can't block, I'd rather have Keenan Allen than Stefon Diggs, essentially.  And don't pay a pocket passer that contract until the OL is in place, find a guy who excels in off-schedule plays because they're all gonna be off-schedule anyway.  

But mostly it's the premiums thing.

[squire12]

4 hours ago, vegas492 said:

Diggs is a Bill.  Was last year, too.

And yah, they have some great players at non-premium positions.

Games are won and lost in the trenches.  Their o-line is suspect.  They invested pretty heavily in that DL.  If you can't be strong in one, be strong in the other.  Our roster is similar in the trenches.

The post was about 2019.  Diggs was with MIN

[vegas492]

34 minutes ago, squire12 said:

The post was about 2019.  Diggs was with MIN

I missed that in the post.  No wonder I was confused.

[JaireAlex]

Grades don't take positional value into account nor units.

TB in the playoffs last year was on a whole nother level with their front 6. The only team that could compete with them in the playoffs was GB with AR. GB is just hitting their prime --- very young team.

[MrBobGray]

On 7/6/2021 at 12:20 PM, Rainmaker90 said:

https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-roster-rankings-for-all-32-teams-for-2021-strengths-weaknesses-and-x-factors-for-every-teams-starting-lineup
 

GB 6th behind Tampa, KC, Cleveland , Buffalo and Baltimore . Roster wise I think we stack up with anyone. 
 

I don’t think it’s as simple as highest grades. I think high grades at key positions are much more important.

 

What are some good and bad aspects of PFF? They have some very funky grades . 
 

Tre White 68

Elgton Jenkins 67

Devin White 48

Damien Harris 90

Daniel Jones 78

These are 5 head scratchers to me. I just don’t get how they grade . 

 

 

Biggest issue with PFF grades is that they very openly don't take position, scheme, assignment or opponent into consideration.  They're solely a grade of how well each player performed in a vacuum on each play, to the best of PFF's ability to tell.  This isn't useless - it has value in terms of giving you an idea of who's out-performing their given role and who's falling short of what they're being asked to do.  But you need to map that data then on the actual role each player is being asked to play if you want any kind of true, stand-alone grade.  As it is now, the best ranked players will generally be players with less demanding roles, as they're much more likely to succeed play to play and thus build up positive grades.  

It's a similar issue to how role players often look significantly better than they end up being as full time starters, as they no longer get to come off the field in situations that magnify their weaknesses.

Edited July 19, 2021 by MrBobGray
Removed part of another post.

[Rainmaker90]

25 minutes ago, MrBobGray said:

I'll say this: I'm not sure what I would grade each part of the roster in a vacuum, but in terms of what this offensive wants to do they're as stacked as can be.  Sky's the limit, they just need to find a way to 

Biggest issue with PFF grades is that they very openly don't take position, scheme, assignment or opponent into consideration.  They're solely a grade of how well each player performed in a vacuum on each play, to the best of PFF's ability to tell.  This isn't useless - it has value in terms of giving you an idea of who's out-performing their given role and who's falling short of what they're being asked to do.  But you need to map that data then on the actual role each player is being asked to play if you want any kind of true, stand-alone grade.  As it is now, the best ranked players will generally be players with less demanding roles, as they're much more likely to succeed play to play and thus build up positive grades.  

It's a similar issue to how role players often look significantly better than they end up being as full time starters, as they no longer get to come off the field in situations that magnify their weaknesses.

That makes sense . Thank you .