Originally Posted by Chiefnj2:
Sneed is the worst DB on the team? The kid is an open field tackling machine.
But his coverage is so-so. I don't have any idea on how they weight it but it feels like they value coverage more highly. Sneed is a tackling machine, great against the run, but his coverage really hasn't been great this year and I've no idea why nobody seems willing to recognise it.
On Hughes, the one thing I can't work out is how they grade negative plays where it leads to a short gain but a touchdown versus a play that leads to a massive gain for the opposition but no score. Feels like Hughes got smoked earlier in the year a fair bit but I don't know if that's just because every mistake seemed to lead to a touchdown. I remember, I think, Sneed getting beaten pretty badly against Buffalo for a score, but it feels like a lot of his misses in coverage have not lead to scores. Maybe that makes a difference? I think Hughes has been OK but probably not worth that score and Sneed is probably deserving of a higher one.
Or as others have put it....maybe its a load of ***t. [Reply]
Originally Posted by JPH83:
But his coverage is so-so. I don't have any idea on how they weight it but it feels like they value coverage more highly. Sneed is a tackling machine, great against the run, but his coverage really hasn't been great this year and I've no idea why nobody seems willing to recognise it.
On Hughes, the one thing I can't work out is how they grade negative plays where it leads to a short gain but a touchdown versus a play that leads to a massive gain for the opposition but no score. Feels like Hughes got smoked earlier in the year a fair bit but I don't know if that's just because every mistake seemed to lead to a touchdown. I remember, I think, Sneed getting beaten pretty badly against Buffalo for a score, but it feels like a lot of his misses in coverage have not lead to scores. Maybe that makes a difference? I think Hughes has been OK but probably not worth that score and Sneed is probably deserving of a higher one.
Or as others have put it....maybe its a load of ***t.
For being so bad at coverage he sure hasn't been beat much. [Reply]
Originally Posted by emaw1979:
The problem with PFF, or the biggest of their problems, is they don’t use coaches film or all 22 for their grading. They us the broadcast film we all see so they don’t get the full view of the field. It’s one reason their QB ratings are trash. Generally, the further they get from the line the less I trust of them.
I don't believe this is true. PFF has contracts with many NFL teams, and provide player evaluations, as well as other data to the teams, such as formation tendencies, etc.
There is no way an NFL team pays them money without providing the all-22 film.
Originally Posted by BWillie:
For being so bad at coverage he sure hasn't been beat much.
He's nowhere near bad. He's just not been as great as some have made out, imo. He's had to do a lot more this year though and tbh if there's one thing I'd trust Spags on it's wringing the best out of CBs. [Reply]
Originally Posted by emaw1979:
The problem with PFF, or the biggest of their problems, is they don’t use coaches film or all 22 for their grading. They us the broadcast film we all see so they don’t get the full view of the field. It’s one reason their QB ratings are trash. Generally, the further they get from the line the less I trust of them.
Every doofus with a gamepass subscription has access to all-22 footage.
You're a ****ing moron if you believe PFF is grading players (including safeties) off broadcast. [Reply]