TheGoodBits Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 They have Tannehill as an above average QB. Whoa, and Roethlisberger is a blue chip QB? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 The 0-5 star porn rankings are more accurate. Seriously. The difference between a 3 star and 4.5 star is shockingly apparent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WakkaWakka Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 Andrew Luck is "high quality"? He's rated better than Romo sits to pee or Stafford. Not buying it. Looking at the slop theses sites produce, makes me sad I didn't get in the -->"1. Make shot up 2. Post on Internet 3. Profit" --> business. Brandon Marshall not a blue chipper is a head scratcher as well, considering Percy "never had a 1000 yard season" Harvin is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 Don't let Polls, top 100 lists bother you, The Redskins are the division champs, anyone not ranking Alfred Morris the no. 2 rusher last year as Blue Chip is moronic, RG3 can be questioned because of injury, but Almo can not, Kerrigan? A PB as above average is a joke, he is a high quality player, Trent? Wow that just verifies the stupid in this ranking system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 PFF= Pretty ****ing Flimsy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsciambi Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 They have Tannehill as an above average QB. Whoa, and Roethlisberger is a blue chip QB? If blue chip is top 2 or 3, or even 5, that one didn't make sense to me either. In what way is Roethlisberger even close to that description? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unforgiven Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 Wait...Antonio Cromartie is blue chip? When Johnathan Joseph, Champ Bailey and multiple other guys that are better are not? I just looked at non-Redskin and non-rival teams for fun to avoid bias and there are so many ridiculous ratings on there. It looks like someone who watched maybe 1 game a week just randomly sat down and rated everyone in 10 minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 I'm not convinced that the Redskins have many absolute blue chip elite players yet. I would put RGIII in there despite the small sample size and despite the injury. What he demonstrated was enough to make me think that any team would want him and almost every team would start him and be happy. That's elite. Alfred Morris is in the do it again, baby mode for me before I think of him as elite. Trent Williams is awfully close to elite, but I want to see him do it again for another season to see if he really has turned the corner. Then, there are out right silly ones like London Fletcher. Overall, I don't hate these ratings and I think that our talent is getting better, but could still improve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matugi Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 A lot of overreaction in this thread. PFF is a very accredited website and it's hard to rate any player on the Redskins as blue chip because they don't have any real top-5 players. It's a scenario where the whole is better than the individual (think Moneyball). That's not to say that there aren't great players, just that for some of the great players (Griff, Trent, Alf, etc.) it's hard to categorize them as blue chip after just one or two good seasons. And i unfortunately have to agree with Fletch being listed as poor. He was awful last season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinny21 Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 A lot of overreaction in this thread. PFF is a very accredited website and it's hard to rate any player on the Redskins as blue chip because they don't have any real top-5 players. It's a scenario where the whole is better than the individual (think Moneyball). That's not to say that there aren't great players, just that for some of the great players (Griff, Trent, Alf, etc.) it's hard to categorize them as blue chip after just one or two good seasons. And i unfortunately have to agree with Fletch being listed as poor. He was awful last season. If we're basing it off last season alone (see Fletcher's rating), than why wouldn't Morris be a blue chip player? And if its a body of work thing, then how is Fletcher rated as poor?Fletcher was in a tough spot last year. Between his injuries, the lack of pass rush and poor secondary play, he couldn't win. Yet he was still 8th in the league in tackles and managed 5 picks and 3 sacks. Looking at it a little closer, of the top 20 tacklers, no one had as many passes defended or ints, and only 2 players had more sacks (and one of those 2 was Perry Riley with 3.5). If that's poor (or awful), well I'll take a team full of poor players please. Health aside, if one of our safeties can match up with the tes more often, I expect a very good season from Fletcher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted July 21, 2013 Author Share Posted July 21, 2013 If we're basing it off last season alone (see Fletcher's rating), than why wouldn't Morris be a blue chip player? And if its a body of work thing, then how is Fletcher rated as poor? Bingo...my thoughts exactly. My belief is that their rankings/ratings/whatever is something like the Top 100 Players thing the players vote on: PFF takes their ratings/rankings from last season only...then extrapolates how well they think the player will do THIS upcoming season as well. Since Fletcher is 38, they chalk up whatever low rankings he had from their metrics last year to his age...and then says "Well, he's gonna be even older in 2013, so he'll do even worse in these same areas", and rate him as "poor". The guy was Defensive Player of the Month last December. Who here thinks Fletcher was the worst (or 2nd worst) player on defense last year?... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacePenguin Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 The guy was Defensive Player of the Month last December. Who here thinks Fletcher was the worst (or 2nd worst) player on defense last year?... Any safety that saw the field (outside of Meriweather for half a game arguably) was worse, so that puts him safely at 3rd worst, but he played well overall imo. Definitely not as consistent as earlier in his career, but made several impact plays, like ints and FFs. Ratings like this are what happens when you just look at numbers and don't watch the actual games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#BgMase76# Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 Once again another time burner. We could all pick this apart. My biggest beef would be how Dwayne Harris Scandrick,Chur, and Claiborne are listed as average. Dallass' secondary got torched last year. None of them including Carr had anything to brag about last season. So my question is this. Are the rankings based solely off last year's performance or does it average a period? I understand Fletcher under performed last season by his own standards let alone NFL. Then taking into account that we had no one on par to replace him. You still have to wonder how many ILB/MLB put up his numbers but were still listed as poor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laron Burgundy Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 A lot of overreaction in this thread. PFF is a very accredited website and it's hard to rate any player on the Redskins as blue chip because they don't have any real top-5 players. It's a scenario where the whole is better than the individual (think Moneyball). That's not to say that there aren't great players, just that for some of the great players (Griff, Trent, Alf, etc.) it's hard to categorize them as blue chip after just one or two good seasons. And i unfortunately have to agree with Fletch being listed as poor. He was awful last season. If we're basing it off last season alone (see Fletcher's rating), than why wouldn't Morris be a blue chip player? And if its a body of work thing, then how is Fletcher rated as poor?Fletcher was in a tough spot last year. Between his injuries, the lack of pass rush and poor secondary play, he couldn't win. Yet he was still 8th in the league in tackles and managed 5 picks and 3 sacks. Looking at it a little closer, of the top 20 tacklers, no one had as many passes defended or ints, and only 2 players had more sacks (and one of those 2 was Perry Riley with 3.5). If that's poor (or awful), well I'll take a team full of poor players please. Health aside, if one of our safeties can match up with the tes more often, I expect a very good season from Fletcher. It's not always about the plays you do make, but the plays you don't. London was targeted heavily on pass plays due to his height and injuries. https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2013/01/29/signature-stats-first-downs-allowed-linebackers/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Robert Griffin Experience Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 The problem with this ranking for Fletcher is that penalizes Fletcher for the plays he failed to make (21 missed tackles) while not rewarding for the plays he did make. I would argue that Fletcher's 5 INTs and 1 forced fumble and his 21 missed tackles are a wash at worst. Furthermore, if Fletcher is missing that many tackles and yet piling up so many, that means he's getting himself in position to make lots of tackles. So most likely, something like missed tackles to tackle attempts would be a better stat but I don't think PFF has it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 Wait, I thought Andrew Luck had no talent around him. As far as Harvin goes, I think they are saying he's an elite slot WR. Though I do think that's probably a bit of a stretch. Then again, he is a Seahawk and they are apparently the new darlings of the NFL (especially the defense ... good grief). Perry Riley is below average? Not sure how they came to that conclusion. And the only way one could call Meriweather below average is because he's injury-prone. But then again, so is Harvin ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 I don't care...as a team they are young and very good. That's my only concern. I would take division/conference/league titles over any Pro Bowl appearances or All-Pro honors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted July 21, 2013 Author Share Posted July 21, 2013 Wait, I thought Andrew Luck had no talent around him. So most likely, something like missed tackles to tackle attempts would be a better stat but I don't think PFF has it. I thought this as well...a missed tackles percentage would be better served than just the raw number of missed tackles. Couldn't they just add together the number of tackles and missed tackles, then divide the number of missed tackles by that number? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laron Burgundy Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 The problem with this ranking for Fletcher is that penalizes Fletcher for the plays he failed to make (21 missed tackles) while not rewarding for the plays he did make. I would argue that Fletcher's 5 INTs and 1 forced fumble and his 21 missed tackles are a wash at worst. Furthermore, if Fletcher is missing that many tackles and yet piling up so many, that means he's getting himself in position to make lots of tackles. So most likely, something like missed tackles to tackle attempts would be a better stat but I don't think PFF has it. Problem wasn't just missed tackles, but total amount of 1st downs and td's allowed. He was pretty disastrous in that field. A defender's job is to prevent 1st downs. His 5 ints and 3 sacks, as great of plays as they are, doesn't make up for allowing 5 tds and 33 first downs on passing plays when some of the better linebackers allowed half as many. It's same reason we get down on Deangelo Hall, which, surprisingly enough, I don't see anyone arguing against his below average ranking here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laron Burgundy Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 Wait, I thought Andrew Luck had no talent around him. I've loved this argument about the Colt's team for quite some time. They have no talent, just 3 future hall of famers in Wayne, Freeney and Vinatieri, a perennial pro bowler in Robert Mathis, and so bereft of talent in 2011 that they cut 9 guys WHO STARTED FOR OTHER TEAMS. Truth is somewhere in the middle, they weren't an ultra-talented team top-to-bottom like the 49ers, but they had pretty average talent on the team that Manning could lead to the playoffs on a yearly basis. Another 2-14 team, the 2008 Rams, could have cut their 9 best players and not have all 9 of them start for other teams (exaggeration, but not by much). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted July 22, 2013 Author Share Posted July 22, 2013 The problem with this ranking for Fletcher is that penalizes Fletcher for the plays he failed to make (21 missed tackles) while not rewarding for the plays he did make. I would argue that Fletcher's 5 INTs and 1 forced fumble and his 21 missed tackles are a wash at worst. Furthermore, if Fletcher is missing that many tackles and yet piling up so many, that means he's getting himself in position to make lots of tackles. So most likely, something like missed tackles to tackle attempts would be a better stat but I don't think PFF has it. Problem wasn't just missed tackles, but total amount of 1st downs and td's allowed. He was pretty disastrous in that field. A defender's job is to prevent 1st downs. His 5 ints and 3 sacks, as great of plays as they are, doesn't make up for allowing 5 tds and 33 first downs on passing plays when some of the better linebackers allowed half as many. It's same reason we get down on Deangelo Hall, which, surprisingly enough, I don't see anyone arguing against his below average ranking here. There's a stat that shows how many 1st downs a linebacker allowed? Ah, ok, you meant 1st down on passing plays. I think the issue is that, unilke Hall, nobody expects Fletcher (or any of the LBs) to be great in pass coverage...adequate, at best, yeah. It's Hall's primary job to cover receivers, though, so if he goes through a span of games where he's underperforming in that category it'll stick out like a sore thumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matugi Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 So most likely, something like missed tackles to tackle attempts would be a better stat but I don't think PFF has it. I thought this as well...a missed tackles percentage would be better served than just the raw number of missed tackles. Couldn't they just add together the number of tackles and missed tackles, then divide the number of missed tackles by that number? I'm pretty sure they have something like this. They've posted it as a bulk article for non-subscribers. Fletch missed something in the range of 14% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stp240 Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 Amerson Rambo Thomas Minnifield Meriweather Bernstine Biggers Shhh no one knows we upgraded the D. Nothing to worry about here London Fletcher is a blue chip player You go try to guard the Jason Whitten push off while hobbling on one leg! Lewis and Urlacher are gone, Fletcher is easily top 5 in the NFL Go watch the games we won down the stretch and tell me London Fletcher aint the heart and sole of this defense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSO Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 Guys, In case you have forgotten... London Fletcher led the NFL in missed tackles last year (most of which came in the first 8-10 games of the season) and he also got used in coverage during that time. Just a thought as to where these "ratings" came from. That said, it's hard to see how they rate the players after looking at the Cowboys starters and their ratings... Which is exactly the point. How you finish should always get more weight than how you start, and unfortunately their analysis simply ignores that. Which, as much as I like PFF, makes me think a hundred times before I assume anything from them from now on. I'm sure that's not what they want people to feel, since they're all about "deeper" and "more detailed" analysis. A guy like Fletcher should get an asterisk or something, at the very least. He's played at an elite level his entire career and then had a bad stretch when our entire defense was stinking it up. But post-bye week he was back to being elite. I mean, he's not some random first year player they know nothing about. It's actually ridiculous the more I think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphs56 Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 Trent Williams is the one person on our team that should be deemed blue chip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.