Bad news for the Vikings

[PackerDNA]

So 'it's only 3 games' doesn't apply to the Panthers defense? With their talent and track record, I think the odds are better than not that they get things turned around.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

So 'it's only 3 games' doesn't apply to the Panthers defense? With their talent and track record, I think the odds are better than not that they get things turned around.

The Panthers secondary was a huge question mark entering this season being ranked dead last by PFF, have played terrible over the first four games and in my opinion don't have the talent to turn things around.

 

[PackerDNA]

Cap, with all due respect, f**k PFF.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Cap, with all due respect, f**k PFF.

Whenever you stumble upon a source presenting a more in-depth analysis of the NFL let me know about it.

 

[PackerDNA]

Scouts, personnel guys, other people who know the game and what they're seeing, my own eyes and knowledge of the game, etc.

Whenever you stumble upon a source presenting a more in-depth analysis of the NFL let me know about it.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Scouts, personnel guys, other people who know the game and what they're seeing, my own eyes and knowledge of the game, etc.

I understand that guys working for teams have inside information and therefore a better knowledge about the performance of a team or a specific player. Unfortunately they aren't allowed to share it with the public.

I think it's kind of odd that several posters mention that PFF isn't capable of evaluating the level of play despite having paid professionals (some of them former team personnel) watching every single snap of an NFL game while on the other hand acting like having a ton of knowledge about it although mostly only watching the Packers play, probably without taking a single look at the coaches film.

 

[PackerDNA]

You 're big on them, God Bless ya, you can have them. I stand by my post above.
Plenty of' insiders'. if you look around, talk without their names given. McGinn is one who uses such sources extensively.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

You 're big on them, God Bless ya, you can have them. I stand by my post above.
Plenty of' insiders'. if you look around, talk without their names given. McGinn is one who uses such sources extensively.

Scouts from other teams talking about either Packers or opposing players don't have any inside information either. You never hear team personnel talking about own guys.

 

[swhitset]

I think PFF can sometimes underevaluate a players contribution because it can't measure certain intangibles. That was very evident last year when in my and many others opinions they graded Aaron Rodgers much lower than he deserved in a game last year. However, I also think they are the best source we have and that while PFF may not be able to accurately tell us who is number one and who is number two.... or who is worst and who is second to worst, If PFF has the Panthers secondary ranked last... I think we can safely assume they are not very good.

 

[Carl]

I think PFF can sometimes underevaluate a players contribution because it can't measure certain intangibles. That was very evident last year when in my and many others opinions they graded Aaron Rodgers much lower than he deserved in a game last year. However, I also think they are the best source we have and that while PFF may not be able to accurately tell us who is number one and who is number two.... or who is worst and who is second to worst, If PFF has the Panthers secondary ranked last... I think we can safely assume they are not very good.

Earlier this week a fan asked the Packers insider inbox about it and the answer was a good one.

Basically, the answer was it's hard to evaluate players accurately for every play without knowing their assignments so it provides good info, but it is not gospel.

I think PFF is more accurate for some positions than others. Looking at Bakh for example, we all know his assignment on all passing downs is to block someone in front of him.

If we look at a Jordy though, we have no idea if he ran the correct route or not.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Earlier this week a fan asked the Packers insider inbox about it and the answer was a good one.

Basically, the answer was it's hard to evaluate players accurately for every play without knowing their assignments so it provides good info, but it is not gospel.

I think PFF is more accurate for some positions than others. Looking at Bakh for example, we all know his assignment on all passing downs is to block someone in front of him.

If we look at a Jordy though, we have no idea if he ran the correct route or not.

Absolutely agree that PFF isn't gospel at all but provides a decent indicator of a player's performance.

 

[bigbubbatd]

People like PFF when it fits their narrative but not as much when it doesn't. You can not trust it for everything but it is a helpful tool.

The eye test often matches their findings. So far this year it has said that Daniels and Perry have been our best two defenders. That seems right. Carolina's secondary has not been viewed very well and after watching them and looking at stats that seems right too

 

[PikeBadger]

People like PFF when it fits their narrative but not as much when it doesn't. You can not trust it for everything but it is a helpful tool.

The eye test often matches their findings. So far this year it has said that Daniels and Perry have been our best two defenders. That seems right. Carolina's secondary has not been viewed very well and after watching them and looking at stats that seems right too

Passing the eye test of most of us should not be discounted. Overall, we catch a lot of things going on out there and may not be technique experts or know exactly all the scheme assignments, but imo, are pretty good at seeing and identifying good and poor play and effort.

 

[bigbubbatd]

Passing the eye test of most of us should not be discounted. Overall, we catch a lot of things going on out there and may not be technique experts or know exactly all the scheme assignments, but imo, are pretty good at seeing and identifying good and poor play and effort.

Sure it shouldn't but the team in question here is Carolina. Stats, eye test and PFF all say their defense is struggling and that their secondary is one of the worst. Arguing seems like you need glasses if your eye test says they are a top defense

 

[sschind]

Passing the eye test of most of us should not be discounted. Overall, we catch a lot of things going on out there and may not be technique experts or know exactly all the scheme assignments, but imo, are pretty good at seeing and identifying good and poor play and effort.

Unfortunately that technique and scheme is often key in determining good and poor play. If we can't ID the technique how can we evaluate the play. We see a defender get beat and assume it was poor play but we may not know if some other defender screwed up and failed to provide support.

In one of my nephews games the QB threw a quick pass that hit him right in the back. All the fans were grumbling "he wasn't even looking for the ball" turns out his job was to clear the defenders from the area and the pass was supposed to go to someone else. Watching the film 2 defenders were following him toward the middle leaving the guy who was supposed to get the pass wide open on the outside. No one was blaming the QB for failing the eye test. Some of the more football savvy parents (these are 8th graders so there may not be very many of those in the stands) suspected as much but we only knew that for sure because we asked him about it. Everybody else is left thinking he wasn't paying attention.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Unfortunately that technique and scheme is often key in determining good and poor play. If we can't ID the technique how can we evaluate the play. We see a defender get beat and assume it was poor play but we may not know if some other defender screwed up and failed to provide support.

I agree that it's impossible to accurately evaluate a player's performance because of lack of knowledge about the assignments. That's true for every single poster around here as well as PFF though.

In my opinion it's odd having fans discrediting PFF's work but on the other hand talking about their knowledge of the game when in reality they don't have access to additional information nor watch every single snap using coaches film.

 

[PackerDNA]

I seem to have opened a can of worms for you, CaptainWIMM, which was not my intent.
Merely if you know what you're looking at and for, well, that and the observations/opinions of others who know what they're talking about is my preference.
Stats are fun, but I'm not a guy who thinks they're a be all and end all. PFF is to football what polls are to politics or anything else; they can be very deceptive as to what's really what and what isn't, and to what is true or not.
My biggest problem with PFF and others like them? They're slowly killing discussion on sites like these. No opinions or arguments need apply- "PFF says..." and that's that.
You can muddy the waters all you like,too, with we didn't know the scheme or whatever. I can watch something and tell how it's going, I can watch someone perform and tell if they're any good or not, etc.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

You can muddy the waters all you like,too, with we didn't know the scheme or whatever. I can watch something and tell how it's going, I can watch someone perform and tell if they're any good or not, etc.

Well, if you are convinced that you're able to fairly evaluate a player's performance why is it that you think that professionals working at PFF (once again, some of them former team personnel) aren't able to???

 

[Royal Pain]

Funny how a thread about Teddy Bridgewater's injury can evolve into a discussion about the Panther's secondary.

The strength of the Panther defense last year was in their front seven and their ability to put pressure on the quarterback. They haven't been able to generate the same pressure this season and, while their secondary is weak, I feel this has had a big affect on their early season struggles.

A good pass rush can help cover for weak secondary play. W e pummeled Bradford numerous times in the Viking game but he was able to exploit our secondary the few times he had a chance. Same with Stafford in the Lions game. Most of his big plays down field came when he had time in the pocket.

 

[PackerDNA]

Well, if you are convinced that you're able to fairly evaluate a player's performance why is it that you think that professionals working at PFF (once again, some of them former team personnel) aren't able to???

They may very well do a good job(in fairness I've never been to their site), I just don't care. Rather than blindly trust someone else- and their methods and results have drawn critics here and elsewhere- I'll stick with my way.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The strength of the Panther defense last year was in their front seven and their ability to put pressure on the quarterback. They haven't been able to generate the same pressure this season and, while their secondary is weak, I feel this has had a big affect on their early season struggles.

A good pass rush can help cover for weak secondary play. W e pummeled Bradford numerous times in the Viking game but he was able to exploit our secondary the few times he had a chance. Same with Stafford in the Lions game. Most of his big plays down field came when he had time in the pocket.

It's true that a great pass rush can more than make up for a below average secondary.

That doesn't apply to the Panthers though as they still put pressure on opposing quarterbacks this season but struggle mightily because their defensive backs are absolutely terrible.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

They may very well do a good job(in fairness I've never been to their site), I just don't care. Rather than blindly trust someone else- and their methods and results have drawn critics here and elsewhere- I'll stick with my way.

Once again, I don't trust PFF blindly but think they offer a good indicator of a player's performance, especially for other teams I don't have the time to follow closely.

 

[PackerDNA]

Once again, I don't trust PFF blindly but think they offer a good indicator of a player's performance, especially for other teams I don't have the time to follow closely.

Fair enough, and the bolded part is the best reason for them.

 

[bigbubbatd]

They may very well do a good job(in fairness I've never been to their site), I just don't care. Rather than blindly trust someone else- and their methods and results have drawn critics here and elsewhere- I'll stick with my way.

How can you dismiss a site you have never even visited?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

How can you dismiss a site you have never even visited?

You must be logged in to see this image or video!