6 minutes ago, brkmsn said:

Blankenship was excellent while CJGJ was out. How do you know Williams won't be a "solid starter?" lol --- People said the same thing about Sweat, TJ Edwards, Hurts, etc...

Blankenship was.  And we've seen players have a sort of beginner's luck and then fade away.  Remember Travis Fulgham was going to be an elite receiver gem plucked from the practice squad?  He had 4 really great games then...nothing.  That kind of thing happens and you have to see if it lasts long term or not.  I trust the coaches here, and I like Blankenship.  But there is still a huge dropoff in talent from CJG to Blankenship and we'll probably see that play out throughout the entire next season.  I hope I'm wrong and Blankenship is great.  Just saying there's a big step back if you lose CJG and expect Blankenship to be the only answer at safety. Epps is average at best as well.  Epps and Blankenship would be ok if they have Slay and Bradberry but they won't have both.  So they need another upgrade at safety to pair with Blankenship.

Williams just hasn't impressed me much and again I think the drop off in quality from Hargrave to Williams would be huge.  Hargrave and Davis: great.  Williams and Davis (who we don't know if he can be conditioned enough to play full-time starter snaps): question marks.

2 hours ago, Swoop said:

Neat.

Aaron Rodgers received a negative grade from PFF some years back for 330+ passing yards, 5 TDs and 0 INT.

 I've posted their grading explanation several times for people that care to understand it. They DO NOT GRADE THE OUTCOME of the play. They grade the pass. Some throws that are "expected" do not receive grades. So if the QB is throwing smart, safe, easy throws all day and  the receivers make great plays after the catch, The QB is still having a great day, but it isn't helping his grade. If in the same game he threw bad passes that were or should have been intercepted (once again, outcome isn't important), he will receive a negative grade. If he makes a bad decision, fumbles, or misses a completion because of a poor throw, he can also receive negative grades on that play. 

The point of analytic analysis is to separate the factors of the play from the end stat. Foles would clearly receive a negative grade for this --- even if it had ended as a TD:

PFF never claimed Rodgers had a bad night or game. He just didn't do anything extraordinary to help his grade. That was also about 8 years ago. Analytics are improving each year. I understand that fans want stats. They want stats to be everything. Unfortunately, a good player can make a bad player seem better than he is (and vice versa), if we just went off stats. There would also be no way to measure some other positions like offensive line play that don't have stats. 

It's unusual to have a poorly graded, but statistically superior game, but it can happen and it isn't the end of the world. What Rodgers did that day was smart football and he helped his team win. 

 

Former Jets' DE Mark Gastineau should be the greatest heavyweight boxer ever after this 12 second KO resulting from a combo to the shoulder and elbow:

Hey, it's the end result that matters, right?

36 minutes ago, RememberTheKoy said:

 

Blankenship can be the Epps replacement.  Bringing back CJGJ wouldn't stop Blankenship from starting.

Ideally, that would have been my wish. It's more likely we bring back Epps at 1/3 the cost of what CJGJ will sign for. 

29 minutes ago, NOTW said:

Blankenship was.  And we've seen players have a sort of beginner's luck and then fade away.  Remember Travis Fulgham was going to be an elite receiver gem plucked from the practice squad?  He had 4 really great games then...nothing.  That kind of thing happens and you have to see if it lasts long term or not.  I trust the coaches here, and I like Blankenship.  But there is still a huge dropoff in talent from CJG to Blankenship and we'll probably see that play out throughout the entire next season.  I hope I'm wrong and Blankenship is great.  Just saying there's a big step back if you lose CJG and expect Blankenship to be the only answer at safety. Epps is average at best as well.  Epps and Blankenship would be ok if they have Slay and Bradberry but they won't have both.  So they need another upgrade at safety to pair with Blankenship.

Williams just hasn't impressed me much and again I think the drop off in quality from Hargrave to Williams would be huge.  Hargrave and Davis: great.  Williams and Davis (who we don't know if he can be conditioned enough to play full-time starter snaps): question marks.

Fulgham was too good to be true. Outside of the 5 game stretch, he never stood out --- not in practice, in camp, or in a preseason game. Blankenship stood out in camp and in the preseason and lived up to it as an injury replacement. He's a player that plays well and should be expected to improve as well. I didn't see the dropoff you're talking about. CJGJ was a "playmaker" for sure, but his tackling was off and on. I have him as one of the better young safeties in the NFL, but not yet s a top one. He could become that guy if he becomes a more reliable tackler. I just think we were enamored with all the INTs, several of which were just about being in the right place at the right time. CGJG also offers more positional versatility than Blankenship, so there's a valid case for that. 

But, yeah, I understand I'm being optimistic and I was burned before with Fulgham. The difference is Blankenship has been a standout since day 1. He didn't just come out of nowhere like Fulgham after 15 injuries at the position. 

There will always be question marks until you get answers. How many question marks did the Eagles have going into 2022?

1 hour ago, brkmsn said:

Fulgham was too good to be true. Outside of the 5 game stretch, he never stood out --- not in practice, in camp, or in a preseason game. Blankenship stood out in camp and in the preseason and lived up to it as an injury replacement. He's a player that plays well and should be expected to improve as well. I didn't see the dropoff you're talking about. CJGJ was a "playmaker" for sure, but his tackling was off and on. I have him as one of the better young safeties in the NFL, but not yet s a top one. He could become that guy if he becomes a more reliable tackler. I just think we were enamored with all the INTs, several of which were just about being in the right place at the right time. CGJG also offers more positional versatility than Blankenship, so there's a valid case for that. 

But, yeah, I understand I'm being optimistic and I was burned before with Fulgham. The difference is Blankenship has been a standout since day 1. He didn't just come out of nowhere like Fulgham after 15 injuries at the position. 

There will always be question marks until you get answers. How many question marks did the Eagles have going into 2022?

Like I said, I like Blankenship and I'm hopeful.  I would just like to see another upgrade over Epps if they're losing CJG.  Valid about his tackling.  I also think his veteran experience and "swag" presence helps the aggressive nature of the secondary.  The Eagles do not draft secondary well at all.  I hate their depth.  So when they have a talent like CJG who they traded draft picks away to acquire, I want to keep him.  

For me there are always question marks every season, but this year with the higher than usual amount of pending free agents there are more questions.  Even with a guy like Jordan Davis.  They traded up for him and lost out on mid round picks that could have been used to get a couple more guys to develop.  It was known that Davis didn't play all the snaps in college, he had conditioning issues and he played a fairly low number of snaps in his rookie season.  He was a high reward potential gamble that his ceiling would be so high that it was worth it, which I'm all for.  But losing Cox and Hargrave and relying on Davis to be the main guy and hoping Williams can complement that well enough IMO is a big drop off.  This becomes more confident if Davis makes a great leap in year 2, plays majority of the snaps, develops as a pass rusher and is well conditioned.  He already missed time as a rookie due to injury.  High ceiling, high hopes but just another example of a big question mark.  Re-signing Hargrave makes that situation so much better, but that might be tough financially.

5 hours ago, brkmsn said:

PFF never claimed Rodgers had a bad night or game. He just didn't do anything extraordinary to help his grade.

No, they just gave him a negative grade. Making the smart/right read and his teammate making the play that much better shouldn't take away from that. Essentially, he throws a screen that goes for 60 yards and a TD. That's "bad" because the back did a lot of the work. If he threw a 14 yard out route that's "good" because PFF says it is.

It's a highly flawed system.

1 hour ago, Swoop said:

No, they just gave him a negative grade. Making the smart/right read and his teammate making the play that much better shouldn't take away from that. Essentially, he throws a screen that goes for 60 yards and a TD. That's "bad" because the back did a lot of the work. If he threw a 14 yard out route that's "good" because PFF says it is.

It's a highly flawed system.

You're caught up on results. They are basically grading the throws. The screen isn't a negative play. It just doesn't get factored into the grade because it's expected that even a kicker can make that throw. There's nothing notably flawed about their grading system. You just can't grasp the concept of grading an action instead of a result. A QB passer rating is a measurement based purely on a result. According to that measurement, Derrick Henry is the best QB in the NFL over the last 2 seasons. 

 

Here is their breakdown of how they grade a QB:

https://www.pff.com/news/pro-how-pff-grades-quarterback-play

 

9 hours ago, brkmsn said:

You're caught up on results. They are basically grading the throws. The screen isn't a negative play. It just doesn't get factored into the grade because it's expected that even a kicker can make that throw. There's nothing notably flawed about their grading system. You just can't grasp the concept of grading an action instead of a result. A QB passer rating is a measurement based purely on a result. According to that measurement, Derrick Henry is the best QB in the NFL over the last 2 seasons. 

 

Here is their breakdown of how they grade a QB:

https://www.pff.com/news/pro-how-pff-grades-quarterback-play

 

No, I get it. What it's not taking into account though is pre-snap reads, making checks at the line, disguising plays, calling an audible, the game plan, etc.

Using the Rodgers example again, how can we be sure that he didn't see something from the defense and audible to a screen, which had a positive result? PFF looks at it as "meh, expected".

They can see a tackle get beat by a DE and automatically assume that it's the tackles fault and not realize that the guard was supposed to pull and make the block of that maybe someone else on the line failed to do their job and the tackle is trying to overcompensate.

If you want to take their word as Gospel, go ahead. I choose not to. 

Can it be used in addition to other things when compiling an argument? Maybe, but it's subjective and it's flawed.

5 hours ago, Swoop said:

Using the Rodgers example again, how can we be sure that he didn't see something from the defense and audible to a screen, which had a positive result? PFF looks at it as "meh, expected".

Because they are grading the throw, not the result. How was the throw? Was it a difficult throw? Was it a tight window? Was it far down the field? Was it accurate? It is NOT about the result. It's a grade and for QBs, they will get a passing grade and an overall grade (when there are runs to factor as well). 

It was simply a passing grade that they had with Rodgers that day. It was 8 years ago. I don't remember if I even saw the game. So I can hardly agree or disagree with their final grade for him that day. Being 8 years ago, they've come a long way, improved their product and have  become a much bigger influence in how players are evaluated by teams, analysts, media and fans.

Nobody said it was gospel, but it cracks me up when stat-junkies can't wrap their brains around singling out the player's part in a play instead of an outcome that took 11 guys. It's not a perfect system. Neither is reading stats on a computer screen. But it has certainly become relevant to discussions. I find that the people that tend to discredit PFF and other analytic-based info, usually are doing so because it doesn't align with their most "important" arguments. In 2021, for example, PFF had Hurts ranked as the 12th QB at the end of the season and ... well ... we have an entire (Part 1) thread about that ...

1 hour ago, brkmsn said:

Because they are grading the throw, not the result. How was the throw? Was it a difficult throw? Was it a tight window? Was it far down the field? Was it accurate? It is NOT about the result. It's a grade and for QBs, they will get a passing grade and an overall grade (when there are runs to factor as well). 

I'm not simply talking about the result. I'm saying that their system simply looks at the throw and sees it as "expected". It doesn't consider the game plan. It doesn't consider pre-snap reads. It doesn't consider an audible. It doesn't consider checks at the line. It doesn't consider disguising plays. All of that doesn't include the result. 

That is why it's flawed.

 

17 minutes ago, Swoop said:

I'm not simply talking about the result. I'm saying that their system simply looks at the throw and sees it as "expected". It doesn't consider the game plan. It doesn't consider pre-snap reads. It doesn't consider an audible. It doesn't consider checks at the line. It doesn't consider disguising plays. All of that doesn't include the result. 

That is why it's flawed.

 

Did you even click on the link I provided earlier? I'll post some of it here for you without the videos clips they provide:

 

Quote

 

POSITIVELY GRADED PLAYS:

Accuracy and decision-making are all baked into the play-by-play grading, with positive grades being earned on passes that lead to first downs and more.

A stat doesn't consider anything except the outcome. If a QB clocks the ball, it's an incomplete pass. If he kneels in victory formation it's a run for -1 yards. If he runs out of bounds behind the LOS on a pass play, it's a sack. 

The system accounts for the timing and difficulty of the throw, while also gauging the decision-making with respect to the quarterback’s progression on a given play.

The better the throw, the higher the grade, and passes that earn a +1.0 or better are considered big-time throws:

The key to remember is that the result of the play doesn’t change the quarterback's grade, so pinpoint downfield passes that are dropped will still earn the same grade despite showing up as 0-for-1 in the boxscore:

Big-time throws have different levels of credit as the passes are thrown further down the field or the windows are tightened.

 

NEGATIVELY GRADED PLAYS

Passes that are missed, or ones that essentially ensure an incompletion, will earn a negative grade.

Passes that are graded as -1.0 or worse will receive the "turnover-worthy label” as interceptions occur on about 50% of such throws, and that percentage rises as the grade lowers:

Of course, just like the positively-graded plays, we are evaluating each throw individually and the result will not change the grade. The worst throws that result in dropped interceptions will still receive a harsh downgrade:

 

EXPECTED PLAYS

There are many throws which fall into the "expected” category, and they will fall into the 0-graded category. Screen passes are a good example of this as we expect NFL quarterbacks to throw these passes with timing and accuracy. As always, the result of the play does not change the grade for the quarterback, whether the pass is taken for a touchdown.

 

THE QB’S ROLE IN PASS PROTECTION

We also take seriously the QB’s role in mitigating the pass-rush. We will downgrade QB’s for holding the ball too long and taking unnecessary sacks.

 

Stats only take the end result into consideration. If a QB clocks the ball, it's an incomplete pass. If he kneels in victory formation it's a run for -1 yard. If he runs out of bounds behind the LOS on a pass play, it's a sack.

 

That one broke the single season sack record. Go STATS!

I came in here to see if there was any news on Cj Gardner- Johnson.  Must be the wrong thread. 

1 hour ago, brkmsn said:

Did you even click on the link I provided earlier? I'll post some of it here for you without the videos clips they provide:

 

Stats only take the end result into consideration. If a QB clocks the ball, it's an incomplete pass. If he kneels in victory formation it's a run for -1 yard. If he runs out of bounds behind the LOS on a pass play, it's a sack.

 

That one broke the single season sack record. Go STATS!

Again, none of that is taking into account what I'm talking about. I am not talking about the end result.

I see you're going to choose to be obtuse, intentionally.

It's sorta of silly to compare RB and CJ.  CJ made plays and set the tone out on the field.  Made all our corners better by being their security blanket in the back.  Sorry to see him go (if it happens).  We got better when Malcolm Jenkins joined the team and likewise with CJ.  Easy to see their value and presence.  We need more playmakers on the defensive side of the ball so hopefully we draft or sign some good new players because there are a lot of spots on defense now in flux.

4 hours ago, Swoop said:

Again, none of that is taking into account what I'm talking about. I am not talking about the end result.

I see you're going to choose to be obtuse, intentionally.

Oh brother ...  

You're really one to talk. I literally just posted their explanation that states:

 

"Accuracy and decision-making are all baked into the play-by-play grading, with positive grades being earned on passes that lead to first downs and more."

"The system accounts for the timing and difficulty of the throw, while also gauging the decision-making with respect to the quarterback’s progression on a given play."

Of course they don't grade the QB on his audibles. Their grading begins when the ball is snapped. The game plan is more of a coaching decision. The QB simply plays within it. Reads are clearly part of the play whether they happen before or after the snap. Those are being factored into the grade. Honestly, you're being absurd, suggesting that analysts need to sit down with the player and coach to determine the gameplan, the audibles, the reads, the disguises, the fakery, etc... It all comes down to what the QB does with the ball after the snap, regardless of what was committed to. If the QB made the wrong read before the snap, it might make a play less successful, but his decision and ability to throw is still gradable and thus will be graded according to their scale. 

I'd sure love to see you come up with a realistic grading system for every position that is widely respected around the league.

 

 

As with any sport that requires judges, a grading system will always be subjective. Trying to over-complicate the grading system by incorporating all the things you mentioned would make it 10 times worse. I get it. You don't like PFF. Unfortunately for you, they are main stream now and only getting bigger. You're going to have to start watching games without sound and stay off the internet and talk radio if you want to pretend they aren't relevant. 

30 minutes ago, brkmsn said:

Honestly, you're being absurd, suggesting that analysts need to sit down with the player and coach to determine the gameplan, the audibles, the reads, the disguises, the fakery, etc..

I don't think I ever said they needed to?

It ignores a lot. You said it yourself. That's why it's flawed. It only focuses on after the snap. Clearly it can't take into account everything pre-snap, because as you pointed out, that would be absurd. While it can be useful to an extent, there are clear flaws and shortcomings within the system. It shouldn't be used as someone's only argument.

I'm not going to derail the thread anymore. You can sit and believe that Blankenship who did nothing aside from STs was the best rookie on the field for the Super Bowl.

 

31 minutes ago, pgcd3 said:

 

With Bradberry probably priced out, Slay seeing what is price is worth elsewhere, Epps probably going to find a more lucrative contract elsewhere it would be surprising if Howie isn't going to at least try and bring back CGJ. If they don't come to an agreement that tells me CGJ's group is looking for unrealistic guaranteed money.

There's a chance the eagles could have to replace all 4 secondary positions and that would be a potential disaster.

29 minutes ago, pgcd3 said:

 

Gut feeling all along was that they would try to make a strong push to keep him in an Eagles uniform.  He's only 25, played very well (relatively speaking), and they haven't been reluctant to give fairly large contracts to safeties in the past (most recently ... Jenkins and McLeod).  

3 minutes ago, time2rock said:

Gut feeling all along was that they would try to make a strong push to keep him in an Eagles uniform.  He's only 25, played very well (relatively speaking), and they haven't been reluctant to give fairly large contracts to safeties in the past (most recently ... Jenkins and McLeod).  

Yeah to me it feels like he's the only special young player in the mix.  I like Edwards & Epps but I'm not as high on them as others.  They are solid starters who would need to be replaced but they aren't worth a lot of cap space. Seumalo is worth some $$$ but I don't think the Eagles can allocate all that to OL. Sometimes you just need to go young in some spots

Please please please re-sign him!!!

👏

1 hour ago, CheesesteakNBeer said:

With Bradberry probably priced out, Slay seeing what is price is worth elsewhere, Epps probably going to find a more lucrative contract elsewhere it would be surprising if Howie isn't going to at least try and bring back CGJ. If they don't come to an agreement that tells me CGJ's group is looking for unrealistic guaranteed money.

There's a chance the eagles could have to replace all 4 secondary positions and that would be a potential disaster.

There's ZERO chance they will lose all four of their starters in the secondary. No team with any legit playoff aspirations, let alone SB aspirations is going to allow that to happen. I don't think they lose more than two.

1 hour ago, time2rock said:

Gut feeling all along was that they would try to make a strong push to keep him in an Eagles uniform.  He's only 25, played very well (relatively speaking), and they haven't been reluctant to give fairly large contracts to safeties in the past (most recently ... Jenkins and McLeod).  

Yep, he fits the exact mold of the type of player they are willing to lock up long term at big money. That's why it's been so surprising over the last couple of weeks to hear that he was likely leaving. Hopefully this is a legit report and not them using Clark to put out information to make the fans think they are really trying hard to sign him before he leaves.

27 minutes ago, T-1000 said:

There's ZERO chance they will lose all four of their starters in the secondary. No team with any legit playoff aspirations, let alone SB aspirations is going to allow that to happen. I don't think they lose more than two.

That was my point,  there is no chance that Howie and crew aren't trying to bring some of them back. 

It’s gonna be CJ. On a very *creative* complex deal. Hargrave Cox and Bradberry are gone.

 

Then again I thought Carson Strong would make a good backup so don’t mind my predictions too much.