bleedspeed177 wrote:Looked at PFF. Looking at their grades the OL played bad expect Reiff.
I don't know fs Fantasy Footbal guru Paul Charchian is a great OL mind, but he said on the Allen show this morning that he graded out each offensive snap for Reiff, and gave him a solid A- for both run and pass blocking. With the time Brsdford had to throw and as potent as our offense was, I'm surprised the other lineman weren't graded well by PFF.
bleedspeed177 wrote:Reiff - 84.1 - Green
Easton - 36.0 - Red
Elfein -31.5 - Red
Berger - 74.0 - Yellow
Remmers - 68.6 - Orange
Thanks Bleed I was curious and if you google the guy's name and pro football focus you can see their grade. They must have regraded a bit because now Remmers is average at #20 and Berger is #12th guard which sounds pretty good to me honestly. The grades rose a bit for Easton and Elf but still plenty bad.
I'm thinking the lower grades may have been their run grade. Everyone likes Elf but expecting him to have a good grade as a rookie starting center might be hoping for a lot. We will see how everything plays out.
bleedspeed177 wrote:Reiff - 84.1 - Green
Easton - 36.0 - Red
Elfein -31.5 - Red
Berger - 74.0 - Yellow
Remmers - 68.6 - Orange
Thanks Bleed I was curious and if you google the guy's name and pro football focus you can see their grade. They must have regraded a bit because now Remmers is average at #20 and Berger is #12th guard which sounds pretty good to me honestly. The grades rose a bit for Easton and Elf but still plenty bad.
I'm thinking the lower grades may have been their run grade. Everyone likes Elf but expecting him to have a good grade as a rookie starting center might be hoping for a lot. We will see how everything plays out.
Good information, guys. I"m glad that the most important position (LT) graded out so well. The fact that Easton graded so poorly and the right side of the line was at leastr average explains to some extent why they tended to run right all night. I agree with monster that this may have more to do with run grades, because the pass protection was stellar across the entire line.
PFF has been criticized by the analytics community regarding the accuracy and veracity of its ratings . In contrast to the purely quantitative ratings released by sources like, Football outsiders, TeamRankings and NumberFire, PFF uses qualitative and opinion - based grading as the root of there ratings , As such. the ratings are not truly quantitative and could be seen as being prone to bias , poor sample sizing, or other issues.. I'll trust my eyes on this one , The line looked great, But like others said saints D is pretty bad. But i think last years line would of got lit up Monday night. Hell of a game!! Go Vikes!!!
bleedspeed177 wrote:Saints line had good games with all rating at 76-88 range.
LOL i rest my case.
To be fair they did ok facing the Vikings.
Personally my stance on PFF is that their numbers over a year or a big chunk of games are for sure worth considering. If some guy is ranked as terrible he probably isn't good. If some guy you didn't know about is highly ranked is worth looking into. It's not gospel and they have someone supposedly watching every player in every game so I don't completely dismisss it. There is another site that supposedly does a much better job evaluating the oline though.
