More Banjo - Packers vs Lions

[George Cumby]

JT singing #10's praises:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E5d67BNJGk

[Joemailman]

Things like communicating defensive adjustments are something that will never show up in a PFF score. They basically gave him a low score based on 2 plays. The 15 yard penalty and the 32 yard catch by LaPorta.

[MadScientist]

JT singing #10's praises:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E5d67BNJGk

He really praised the OLine and the RB's for their pass blocking. Deservedly so. Hard to see it when the game is live, but they did a fantastic job passing off stunts and twists.

[Patler]

Things like communicating defensive adjustments are something that will never show up in a PFF score. They basically gave him a low score based on 2 plays. The 15 yard penalty and the 32 yard catch by LaPorta.

My question is if they even KNOW that he was responsible for the LaPorta completion.

Just like two years ago when they kept dinging Love the first half of the season for interceptions and what looked like poor throws, when a little more digging into coaches comments revealed that his young receivers were running routes at wrong depths by 3-5 yards, or stopping routes completely, making throws look horrible; or were breaking the wrong direction, bringing more coverage into the area of the throw when they should have been drawing coverage away.

The PFF analysts can't possibly know or have time to discern exact responsibilities for all 22 guys on the field for 120+ plays each game and still get their "grades" out as quickly as they do. Their "grades" and "evaluations" are interesting, but I consider them as superficial, at best.

[Fritz]

My question is if they even KNOW that he was responsible for the LaPorta completion.

Just like two years ago when they kept dinging Love the first half of the season for interceptions and what looked like poor throws, when a little more digging into coaches comments revealed that his young receivers were running routes at wrong depths by 3-5 yards, or stopping routes completely, making throws look horrible; or were breaking the wrong direction, bringing more coverage into the area of the throw when they should have been drawing coverage away.

The PFF analysts can't possibly know or have time to discern exact responsibilities for all 22 guys on the field for 120+ plays each game and still get their "grades" out as quickly as they do. Their "grades" and "evaluations" are interesting, but I consider them as superficial, at best.

But of course things like PFF play directly to the audience: fans who want immediate analysis backed by what appear to be mathematically precise algorithms. If somebody gives you an acronym and some vague but precise-sounding formula and ends up with a number that you can compare to others' numbers, then it must be true!

[Fosco33]

Dp

[run pMc]

I think PFF grades are iffy on a game by game basis, and much better when used to grade out an entire season. Seems like they've farmed out a lot of the grading and it's gotten worse than it used to. I wonder about the people grading it, or if they are using some faulty AI model.

Just dropping into a zone and having a receiver cross into your area and catch a short dump-off pass shouldn't cause a defender to have a poor grade unless they miss the tackle IMO.

[ThunderDan]

I thought Bullard had a good game. Made all the tackles, dropped back in zone, closed quickly on the dump offs.

[bobblehead]

I thought Bullard had a good game. Made all the tackles, dropped back in zone, closed quickly on the dump offs.

They seem to have figured out what he does well and more importantly what he doesn't do well. Use him accordingly.

[Fritz]

Again, he’s been tackling well. Not playing horribly - the problem is that one of the things he does not do well is cover guys. And he’s a defensive back.

He’s been a sure tackler, and as a Packer fan I’m quite appreciative of that, considering how shoddy their tackling has been in the past. But he can easily be picked on by opposing QB’s.