You are a **** hair.
[Reply]

I actually thought Sneed did look a little rusty the first 2 games. Watson got beaten on 2 long-ish throws late, I believe, the last game. But I totally agree. There are some scores where every individual score could be 70+ for a DL guy - like coverage, run D, pass-rush, tackling, all above 70 and then the overall score is 55 or something. Sometimes it's probably a result of fumbles and things you need to look into more, but frequently I'm scratching my head.

Also some guys they just reeaaally seem to dislike. Gay is one, which I sort of get, he's inconsistent. But if I remember they always gave McKinnon crappy blocking grades - I have no idea what they are seeing.

Re Karlaftis they always mark down his run D, which again I think is sometimes actually pretty fair. I think he could improve there. But this last game they marked him down and he looked solid to me. They DID give him a 75-ish for pass-rush which looked fair, he was great. But man, i dunno, just all over the shop.
[Reply]

The same way Trevor Lawrence, who couldn't hit a receiver in the end zone if his life depended on it, is presently their 2nd best passer.

PFF makes shit up as they go. It's not even moderately useful for those 'fine motor' grading efforts. It can grade guys into tiers well enough. And it has stats that are interesting.

But those efforts at grading are so clearly impacted by early biases that it's not worth using at all for that purpose.
[Reply]

By Pat’s standards he’s been average-ish through 3 games. And he’s at a 90.0 through 3 games.

It was 2 or 3 years ago when he was playing at his absolute best through the first month and he was like a 70.

PFF can still be useful, but they still don’t know what the hell they’re doing. I trust Seth Keysor’s breakdowns a lot more than them
[Reply]

He's at a 90 because he's evidently Lamar Jackson in their world. As a pure passer they have him level with Goff.

But what I don't get is Lawrence - they believe he played an outstanding game last week. Huh?

And here's what REALLY doesn't make sense -- his 3 scores for the season have been 84.4, 71.4 and 83.1; his score for the season is 85.9.

So according to PFF his average grade is HIGHER than any single week he's had all year.

And I guess the argument would be that it speaks to relative consistenty in relation to his peers, but I'm sorry, that doesn't check out when I watched that guy take points off the board against KC.
[Reply]

McDuffie District
[Reply]

I also was wondering on this, and does it follow for the opposite i.e. 3 below average performances can mean an even worse aggregate score? Sometimes if feels like a couple of bad early performances and PFF won't let you off the rest of the season.
[Reply]

Quality entertainment.
[Reply]

I'm sorry, but anybody who had takes like this about this pick should probably just stay out of draft discussion forever.

McDuffie was about as clean of a prospect as you could possibly get. If he were an inch taller and him arms were longer, he would've been a top 5 pick.
[Reply]

.
[Reply]

Which just goes to show how stupid NFL front offices are, he should have clearly been a top 10 pick anyway.

Whatever, thanks idiots!
[Reply]

In all fairness, has anyone ever seen a quality take come from any of those goofs you quoted?
[Reply]

Taking your quality girlfriend to Belize for a dirty weekend is a quality take in my book.
[Reply]

I liked the pick. We needed a replacement for Ward and I like the "build from the back" approach as much as anything
[Reply]

Best thing about the pick is it swam against all the supposed Spags and Veach priorities on physical characteristics. Do they like tall and rangey CBs? Sure. Does it overrule picking a great player who's a little undersized? Nope.
[Reply]