PFF: Teams targeting one specific need

Collapse
X
Collapse
First Prev Next Last
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Kyle
    Registered Charger Fan
    • Jun 2013
    • 385
    • Send PM

    PFF: Teams targeting one specific need

    The Carolina Panthers went into the 2013 NFL draft with one glaring need. It was a weakness on defense that dated back to the 2009 season, when Ma'ake Kemoeatu tore his Achilles tendon during training camp. Since that time, we at Pro Football Focus had not graded a single Panthers defensive tackle as anything other than below average or (far more usually) poor. Kemoeatu's 2008 season was the last positively graded year, and the days of him teaming with Kris Jenkins to form an impenetrable inner wall were a long distant memory.

    Panthers GM Dave Gettleman and his scouts rectified that in one draft, taking interior defenders with their first two selections. Star Lotulelei and Kawann Short had excellent rookie seasons, turning a severe vulnerability into a significant strength, helping to guide the team to its first division title since, you guessed it, 2008.

    Heading into the 2014 draft, which teams have similar positional frailties and could stand a little drafting for need? All of the following could do worse than using a high pick (or two) on certain positions:



    Dallas Cowboys
    Need: Edge rushers
    Clearly, you don't need to wait four years to repair a nose-diving position, and hopefully Dallas won't, but the fact that your hopes for getting pressure on the opposing QB currently rest in the hands of, among others, a Jacksonville Jaguars cut (Jeremy Mincey) and a guy who managed an average of one team per season for the past five years (George Selvie) doesn't bode well.
    The six players manning the depth chart right now managed 97 QB disruptions total in 2013 on 845 pass rushes, nearly equivalent to what the St. Louis Rams' Robert Quinn managed on his own in about half as many snaps. Edge rushers for the Cowboys ranked 22nd in pass-rush productivity last year, and that was with DeMarcus Ware on the team. There is no question this group will need major bolstering.



    Kansas City Chiefs
    Need: Receivers
    Dwayne Bowe is a talented player, but his uneven performances along with a brilliant ground game mask a problem far older than that of the Panthers. Not since the early 1980s -- the days of Carlos Carson, Henry Marshall and Stephone Paige -- have the Chiefs boasted much of a receiving corps.
    Bowe's production by route type

    Go 0.15 0.60
    Post -- 1.41
    Corner 3.82 --
    Hitch 2.69 1.48
    In 2.31 1.26
    Out 1.59 0.92
    Slant 4.71 1.26
    Cross 1.17 2.44
    Quick out -- 2.00
    In yards per route run

    Tight end Tony Gonzalez, a laundry list of fine RBs and the occasional productive season from a receiver here and there have been more the stock in trade at Arrowhead Stadium. Perhaps it's Bowe who is the real issue. He signed a contract after the 2012 campaign that averages $11.2 million per year, and followed it up with remarkably poor production last year. Of receivers with over 90 targets in 2013, only Greg Little had a lower yards per route run (YPRR) than Bowe's 1.23.
    In fact, when you drill down deeper into the data to look at his production based on each route he ran (see chart, above right), you'll see Bowe only produced good YPRR numbers on two of the 15 routes on which he caught passes in 2013 -- slants run from the slot and corner routes run from the slot.
    The Chiefs would do well to add a receiver or two in the draft to try to bolster this unit.



    Chicago Bears
    Need: Safeties
    It would be far from unfair to say the worst position group in football last year was the Bears' collection of safeties. Both regular starters were listed in the worst five of our 86 ranked players at the position. Major Wright and Chris Conte combined to give up more than 1,000 yards in the air, and if anything, were worse as run defenders. Both missed more than 10 tackles in that phase alone, and were both in the top 10 for missed tackles overall.
    Picking up Ryan Mundy in free agency was a decent start to building depth, but there's still tundra rolling back deep for Chicago at the moment -- just as there was for most of last year. Seeing as how the Bears already have addressed their needs along the defensive line in free agency, they'd do well to upgrade the safety position in the draft.



    New York Jets
    Need: Offensive line
    On the surface, this may seem a strange selection given that both D'Brickashaw Ferguson and Nick Mangold are still on board and the team replaced departed right tackle Austin Howard with Super Bowl winner Breno Giacomini.
    However, we are now close to the nadir of a group that was as recently as 2010 the best in football. Things started to go downhill with the departure of the remarkably underrated Damien Woody (who in a fairer world would at least be discussed as a Hall of Fame candidate) and this was exacerbated further by the loss of Brandon Moore and the decline of Mangold and Ferguson. It's just as well Chris Ivory is a tough runner (he ranked tied for third in yards after contact per attempt in 2013, with 3.0) because he got very little help from his linemen this past season: not a single one graded green as a run-blocker.



    San Diego Chargers
    Need: Edge rushers
    When Dwight Freeney went down in Week 4 of this past season, it laid in clear relief an issue that the Chargers have had since Shawne Merriman was in his prime: an inability to get pressure from their outside linebackers. When your top three rushers in terms of total pressure are two 5-technique defensive ends and a linebacker, Reggie Walker, who played the first 11 games of 2013 on the inside, you know you have problems.
    At his best, Jarret Johnson was probably the best run-defending OLB of the PFF era, but he was never -- even in his prime days -- much of a pass-rusher. Combine that with Freeney's health (and age) and two first-round selections in Melvin Ingram and Larry English who already have drawn concerns with their poor early-career performances, and you have significant reason for concern. A pass-rusher or two in the early rounds of the 2014 draft could help the Chargers in this area.
    sigpic
  • Beerman
    Registered Charger Fan
    • Jun 2013
    • 9834
    • Eastlake
    • Send PM

    #2
    Duh We need pass rushers.

    Comment

    • Stinky Wizzleteats+
      Grammar Police
      • Jun 2013
      • 10606
      • Send PM

      #3
      News flash we need egg breakers to make QB omlets you pork chops!!!
      Go Rivers!

      Comment

      • ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR
        Registered Charger Fan
        • Jun 2013
        • 7310
        • Send PM

        #4
        Ingram has drawn early concerns about performance that aren't injury related?

        Comment

        • MakoShark
          Disgruntled
          • Jun 2013
          • 2837
          • North Alabama
          • Send PM

          #5
          Originally posted by ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR View Post
          Ingram has drawn early concerns about performance that aren't injury related?
          Yes, because PFF says so. :facepalm1:
          sigpic

          Comment

          • Yubaking
            Registered Charger Fan
            • Jul 2013
            • 3661
            • Send PM

            #6
            Originally posted by MakoShark View Post
            Yes, because PFF says so. :facepalm1:
            Yeah, I think PFF is pretty unreliable when it comes to marginal grades, either positive or negative. Last year, in very limited play, Ingram was assigned a marginally negative grade (-1.9). I don't think it means anything.

            Where I think it is problematic to dismiss PFF's grades is with respect to the grades that are either very positive (such as Rivers) or very negative (such as Clary). If a mistaken scoring on a play is just as likely to be made for a player as opposed to against a player, then it stands to reason that the more positive or negative an overall grade is, the more likely the grade is to be correct as to whether the player was actually good or bad. The more extreme the grade is, the greater the number of net mistakes in one direction would have to be for that grade to be wrong as to the general direction.

            Other than as a general directional tendency indicator either good or bad in more extreme cases, I wouldn't use PFF's grades for much else.

            Comment

            • Panama
              パナマ
              • Aug 2013
              • 5335
              • London
              • Opera singer and web developer.
              • Send PM

              #7
              Originally posted by Yubaking View Post
              Where I think it is problematic to dismiss PFF's grades is with respect to the grades that are either very positive (such as Rivers) or very negative (such as Clary). If a mistaken scoring on a play is just as likely to be made for a player as opposed to against a player, then it stands to reason that the more positive or negative an overall grade is, the more likely the grade is to be correct as to whether the player was actually good or bad. The more extreme the grade is, the greater the number of net mistakes in one direction would have to be for that grade to be wrong as to the general direction.
              I think, whether marginal or extreme, if the methodology used to determine a grade isn't sound, then the grade should be dismissed as worthless. We know their methodology isn't sound when grading OL, and the fact that PFF gives Clary a very negative grade when everyone in the organization praises him should throw up big red flags.
              Adipose

              Comment

              • Yubaking
                Registered Charger Fan
                • Jul 2013
                • 3661
                • Send PM

                #8
                Originally posted by Panama View Post
                I think, whether marginal or extreme, if the methodology used to determine a grade isn't sound, then the grade should be dismissed as worthless. We know their methodology isn't sound when grading OL, and the fact that PFF gives Clary a very negative grade when everyone in the organization praises him should throw up big red flags.
                Clary scored a positive pass blocking grade, but a very negative run blocking grade. After 2012, anything resembling pass blocking should be valued by the team. But a number do think Clary did struggle some on running plays.

                That said, I think it is best only use the -20+ (whatever it was exactly) grade to say that Clary was not a good run blocker in general, not to say that that he was slightly worse than the guy at -19 or slight better than the guy at -23.

                To me, their methodology seems okay in theory. I think some like Steve have questioned whether or not those doing the grading know what to look for. That is a problem of execution more so than methodology, isn't it?

                Comment

                • Steve
                  Administrator
                  • Jun 2013
                  • 6845
                  • South Carolina
                  • Meteorologist
                  • Send PM

                  #9
                  Originally posted by Yubaking View Post
                  Clary scored a positive pass blocking grade, but a very negative run blocking grade. After 2012, anything resembling pass blocking should be valued by the team. But a number do think Clary did struggle some on running plays.

                  That said, I think it is best only use the -20+ (whatever it was exactly) grade to say that Clary was not a good run blocker in general, not to say that that he was slightly worse than the guy at -19 or slight better than the guy at -23.

                  To me, their methodology seems okay in theory. I think some like Steve have questioned whether or not those doing the grading know what to look for. That is a problem of execution more so than methodology, isn't it?
                  The way you are referring to it, yes it more of a mechanics/observation problem. Most coaches I know use grade their players using a similar system to PFF. I don't know if it is the best system for this sort of thing, but I don't think it is too bad. The thing coaches like about the + or - 2 system (with half point increments) is that it assigns about the right amount of detail that you can actually observe. You could refine it more, but then you just start splitting hairs.

                  The other issue I keep coming back to is that I am not quite sure how they combine them. It seems like they add/subtract everything for the season, which seems to put a disproportionate weight to the grade if you make a couple of big mistakes, but are otherwise pretty steady. But sometimes I think they add/subtract the grades from each game, which seems more fair in the sense that it doesn't handicap you for a bad game here or there, but then you don't capture how much variation occurs, and how that combines (Simpson's Paradox). Stuff like how they combine screens and penalties with the OL really make a huge difference depending on how they combine them (we run hardly any screens anymore).

                  Comment

                  • Steve
                    Administrator
                    • Jun 2013
                    • 6845
                    • South Carolina
                    • Meteorologist
                    • Send PM

                    #10
                    Originally posted by Yubaking View Post
                    Clary scored a positive pass blocking grade, but a very negative run blocking grade. After 2012, anything resembling pass blocking should be valued by the team. But a number do think Clary did struggle some on running plays.

                    That said, I think it is best only use the -20+ (whatever it was exactly) grade to say that Clary was not a good run blocker in general, not to say that that he was slightly worse than the guy at -19 or slight better than the guy at -23.

                    To me, their methodology seems okay in theory. I think some like Steve have questioned whether or not those doing the grading know what to look for. That is a problem of execution more so than methodology, isn't it?
                    The way you are referring to it, yes it more of a mechanics/observation problem. Most coaches I know use grade their players using a similar system to PFF. I don't know if it is the best system for this sort of thing, but I don't think it is too bad. The thing coaches like about the + or - 2 system (with half point increments) is that it assigns about the right amount of detail that you can actually observe. You could refine it more, but then you just start splitting hairs.

                    The other issue I keep coming back to is that I am not quite sure how they combine them. It seems like they add/subtract everything for the season, which seems to put a disproportionate weight to the grade if you make a couple of big mistakes, but are otherwise pretty steady. But sometimes I think they add/subtract the grades from each game, which seems more fair in the sense that it doesn't handicap you for a bad game here or there, but then you don't capture how much variation occurs, and how that combines (Simpson's Paradox). Stuff like how they combine screens and penalties with the OL really make a huge difference depending on how they combine them (we run hardly any screens anymore).

                    The PFF folks like to point out that the grades are not intended to make direct comparisons between players. However, they and many others then go on and use the grades for exactly that. In fact, why would you not do that? Isn't that the point of assigning grades to everyone? There is a fair amount of uncertainty, just as there is with any other measured value, but assigning numbers in a systematic methodology is going to get used that way.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X