Tweet
The OL discussion seems to be heating up around here like it does every year, so here you go:
-
-
Re: PFF's OL Rankings 2012
-
Re: PFF's OL Rankings 2012
Comment
-
Re: PFF's OL Rankings 2012
The OG rankings are the only ones that don't have all guards that played 25% or more of the team's snaps listed.Comment
-
Re: PFF's OL Rankings 2012
where are you getting the info ..
I have to admit I do not know how to translate what I am seeing ?
Comment
-
Re: PFF's OL Rankings 2012
So, the middle of the line is pretty damn good and we need new tackles.
Tell me something I didn't know.
Comment
-
Re: PFF's OL Rankings 2012
This is ProFootballFocus.com's numbers.Originally posted by ddaryl
They grade players every year, I'm not saying these are the end-all for anything.
Look at the categories in green at the top, sacks allowed, pressures and so on. The other numbers are values assigned by their film analysis of wins/losses (on an individual level, did this player execute his assignment on this play etc) by the players and graded.
A VERY IMPORTANT NUMBER TO PAY ATTENTION TO IS NUMBER OF SNAPS PLAYED.
A higher overall grade on a high amount of snaps played shows they are consistent players.
I have a subscription to the site so I'm just sharing their system's result for 2012.Comment
-
Re: PFF's OL Rankings 2012
Pretty much.Originally posted by Dujek
People are now saying they think we should go G at #10. They should just lock up what they have.
Hairston did show promise though in this grading analysis, ranking ahead of several 1st round OTs.Comment
-
Re: PFF's OL Rankings 2012
Agreed no chance buddy is drafting decastro
Comment
-
Re: PFF's OL Rankings 2012
I just think that if anyone knows how good their guards are it is the team itself.Originally posted by mrbojanglezs
That would also mean that they know their real weaknesses, and guard isn't in the top 5.Comment
-
Re: PFF's OL Rankings 2012
So, Demetrius Bell ranked 17th among LT's, while Hairston ranked 43rd... That's what this is telling me?Originally posted by JCBills
I take it they don't take being out of games due to injury into account...?
-Bill
Comment
-
Re: PFF's OL Rankings 2012
It's just scoring them based on the snaps they took. I don't think it factors injuries in.Originally posted by BLeonardComment
-
Re: PFF's OL Rankings 2012
Right, they don't punish you for not playing due to injury. If your playing out of position they don't factor that either, so when Levitre and Urbik played T and C respectively, they didn't factor it in and graded both out as they would any other tackle or center.Originally posted by Ed
Only problem with the interior OL discussion is that both Levitre and Urbik are FAs after the 12 season, doubt we resign both along with Freddie, have to make choices.Last edited by kingJofNYC; 04-06-2012, 03:05 PM.Comment
-
Re: PFF's OL Rankings 2012
Read what I said about snaps played.Originally posted by BLeonard
It is much harder to have a good grade over 16 games. This is why the first number listed is the number of snaps that player played.
During the time Bell played he graded #17 among all OTs, not just LTs. For LT, he graded #10. Would he have been able to maintain that for 16 games? Who knows.
Hairston impressively ranked #23 among LTs as a rookie, ahead of notable 1st round OTs like Russel Okung, Michael Oher, Sam Baker and Ryan Clady. He didn't play as many snaps as all of them, which should be taken into account, but shows promise for his future.Comment
-
Re: PFF's OL Rankings 2011
Does anyone seeing this understand what those numbers even mean?Comment
Comment