Best and Worst PFF Grades from Week 12 vs Rams...

[tynimiller]

As always here we go fellas...

OFFENSE BEST
1. WR Randall Cobb, 87.7
2. QB Aaron Rodgers, 85.8
3. WR Davante Adams, 80.2
4. RB A.J. Dillon, 77.4
5. TE Dominique Dafney, 71.0

OFFENSE WORST
1. TE Marcedes Lewis, 35.5
2. LG Jon Runyan, 38.2
3. WR Allen Lazard, 41.6
4. C Lucas Patrick, 43.4
5. RG Royce Newman, 51.5

DEFENSE BEST
1. CB Rasul Douglas, 91.2
2. LB Krys Barnes, 89.4
3. OLB Rashan Gary, 77.4
4. CB Eric Stokes, 70.8
5. OLB La’Darius Hamilton, 70.3

DEFENSE WORST
1. DL Dean Lowry, 30.5
2. CB Chandon Sullivan, 44.9
3. S Henry Black, 46.3
4. LB De’Vondre Campbell, 48.1
5. DL Kenny Clark, 50.1

MY NOTES

Clearly PFF grades don't punish a WR for receiving issues or Cobb probably gets nocked for his turnover fumble. He played lights out otherwise though as you all know.
Dafney caught my eye with the amount of times he was in on plays, and dude did not dissappoint at all with his chances, excelled in his blocking assignments which earned him his spot on the BEST.
Dillon...dude forced 6 missed tackles officially, caught all five of his targets and converted seven first downs....BEAST
Run blocking was main issue for three OL finding their way to the WORST list...Lewis had an off night even on the blocking front. Newman gave up four pressures with Runayn and Patrick both two.
Kenny Clark I'm baffled with his low grade and didn't see him struggle against the run as they claim. He was dealing with doubles often and a few times even won them. Three pressures, a sack...he deserved a higher grade IMO.
Campbell I knew was going to make this list with his lack of coverage woes last night and atleast one missed tackle he was credited with if not more.

 

[thequick12]

Clearly PFF grades don't punish a WR for receiving issues or Cobb probably gets nocked for his turnover fumble. He played lights out otherwise though as you all know.

Apparently even the fumble was a bad call by the officials...I didnt know this but once you signal for fair catch even if you muff the punt you are still guranteed the right to complete the catch

I think it was pretty clear Cobb was going to eventually corall that ball before it hit the ground had the opposing player not intereferred

 

[tynimiller]

Apparently even the fumble was a bad call by the officials...I didnt know this but once you signal for fair catch even if you muff the punt you are still guranteed the right to complete the catch

I think it was pretty clear Cobb was going to eventually corall that ball before it hit the ground had the opposing player not intereferred

I knew the rule was something like this but I think it was too far forward for him to have caught it before it hit ground…but if the rule says anything about till contact with ground they missed that for sure

 

[thequick12]

I knew the rule was something like this but I think it was too far forward for him to have caught it before it hit ground…but if the rule says anything about till contact with ground they missed that for sure

Item 3. Muff. After a valid fair-catch signal, the opportunity to catch a kick does not end if the ball is muffed. The player who signaled for a fair catch must have a reasonable opportunity to catch the muffed ball before it hits the ground without interference by members of the kicking team, and regardless of whether the ball strikes another player or an official.

Penalty: For interference with the opportunity to make a fair catch after a muff: A fair catch is awarded at the spot of the interference even if the ball is not caught.

"must have a reasonable opportunity to catch the muffed ball before it hits the ground without interference..."

I mean still a judgement call but id say MLF had a case...

 

[OldSchool101]

Item 3. Muff. After a valid fair-catch signal, the opportunity to catch a kick does not end if the ball is muffed. The player who signaled for a fair catch must have a reasonable opportunity to catch the muffed ball before it hits the ground without interference by members of the kicking team, and regardless of whether the ball strikes another player or an official.

Penalty: For interference with the opportunity to make a fair catch after a muff: A fair catch is awarded at the spot of the interference even if the ball is not caught.

"must have a reasonable opportunity to catch the muffed ball before it hits the ground without interference..."

I mean still a judgement call but id say MLF had a case...

It was really close, it was hitting the ground as he reached out for it and probably could’ve gotten called either way. If we wanted to get technical, we could easily argue Cobb got “boxed out” just as it contacted the ground. One thing I noticed is these Referees went out of their way not to call ticky tack fouls. Which I commend after watching that Dallas game. That Thanksgiving Day game got totally ridiculous in fouls.

I was surprised afterwards that the referee didn’t even consult with his group on that close a play and it’s my opinion that they weren’t aware of the rule. Turnovers are supposed to be automatically reviewed and none stopped to even look at it? that tells me someone dropped the ball in the referee group.

It probably wasn’t enough to overturn the ruling on the field, but still a good heads up by MLF or ST coach or whoever knew the rule.

 

[Schultz]

Apparently even the fumble was a bad call by the officials...I didnt know this but once you signal for fair catch even if you muff the punt you are still guranteed the right to complete the catch

I think it was pretty clear Cobb was going to eventually corall that ball before it hit the ground had the opposing player not intereferred

Negative ghostrider. Like you I did not know this rule either. On his 1st bobble he had a chance to complete the catch but after bobble number 2 he was not near enough to corral it. The Ram player pretty much caught the 2nd bobble just before it hit the ground.

 

[thequick12]

Negative ghostrider. Like you I did not know this rule either. On his 1st bobble he had a chance to complete the catch but after bobble number 2 he was not near enough to corral it. The Ram player pretty much caught the 2nd bobble just before it hit the ground.

This is after the 2nd bobble...Idk to me it looks like Cobb has a reasonable chance to still catch this ball if the rams player gets out of the way...

 

[Schultz]

This still does not take into count that the ball is moving towards the Ram player and away from Cobb.

 

[thequick12]

This still does not take into count that the ball is moving towards the Ram player and away from Cobb.

The point is cobb has a right to the ball until it hits the ground without interference if hes trying to complete the fair catch

Yes the ball was moving away but i cintend if hes able to dive unimpeded he makes the catch

 

[tynimiller]

The point is cobb has a right to the ball until it hits the ground without interference if hes trying to complete the fair catch

Yes the ball was moving away but i cintend if hes able to dive unimpeded he makes the catch

No "The player who signaled for a fair catch must have a reasonable opportunity to catch the muffed ball before it hits the ground without interference by members of the kicking team, and regardless of whether the ball strikes another player or an official."

I in no way believe Cobb was going to or had a chance at catching that ball before it hit the ground personally.

 

[OldSchool101]

Negative ghostrider. Like you I did not know this rule either. On his 1st bobble he had a chance to complete the catch but after bobble number 2 he was not near enough to corral it. The Ram player pretty much caught the 2nd bobble just before it hit the ground.

In that case it was interference. If you read that rule it clearly states the returner has an opportunity without interference “before it touches the ground”.

That’s not my opinion. Just stating the rule. I never saw conclusive evidence one way or the other if it hit the ground before the kicking team recovered it. It’s my opinion if it was borderline they would’ve sided with the initial call n the field though. It would’ve been tough to overturn without clear and compelling evidence that the Returner was going to catch it before the ground. I don’t believe Cobb would’ve the ball was too far out front imo

I like to see those failures as opportunities not to make the same mistake at 11 degrees with a crosswind during the playoffs. Just let the kick go. The other thing I picked up on if I’m s ST coach eek is I’d have a 2nd returner for support nearby waiting for that to happen. I saw 3 games this week alone that returns were muffed and fumbled to the kicking team. A 2nd support player close by would’ve Likely recovered 1-2 of those imo. There’s a breakdown when the returner is the only guy in the vicinity and it caused change of possession and points lost. Obviously I can’t be the only person on earth that’s picked up on this, yet punt after punt the returner of a live ball is like Tom Hanks hollering for Wilson

 

[tynimiller]

In that case it was interference. If you read that rule it clearly stated “before it touched the ground”.

That’s not my opinion. Just stating the rule

Read the whole rule however. Especially the part " The player who signaled for a fair catch must have a reasonable opportunity to catch the muffed ball before it hits the ground without interference by members of the kicking team, and regardless of whether the ball strikes another player or an official."

He had bobbled once already, attempted a recover and now the ball was nearly on the ground and moving away. I hate to disagree with some I tend to hardly ever disagree with but I think it was called right.

 

[thequick12]

Read the whole rule however. Especially the part " The player who signaled for a fair catch must have a reasonable opportunity to catch the muffed ball before it hits the ground without interference by members of the kicking team, and regardless of whether the ball strikes another player or an official."

He had bobbled once already, attempted a recover and now the ball was nearly on the ground and moving away. I hate to disagree with some I tend to hardly ever disagree with but I think it was called right.

It could be interepted either way because of the way its written. The first half of the rule implies what your saying...yes cobb had already had a reasonable chanceto make the fair catch without interference like you say

But when you add "before the ball hits the ground" that implies its cobbs ball to catch til it hits the ground without interference from the other team. Cobb certainly was not afforded that opportunity

 

[Mondio]

I was fine with the call, hoping we'd win on a technicality LOL, but it was the right call. It didn't just bounce off his chest and he was going to secure it again, he was running after it. Yeah he could have gotten it, but having the rule read that it's the fair catchers ball until it hits the ground wouldn't be right either.

 

[El Guapo]

Kenny Clark was ranked the 5th worst defender, but I just saw this clip and couldn't resist sharing. Wow is he a man amongst boys out there:

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

 

[Schultz]

It could be interepted either way because of the way its written. The first half of the rule implies what your saying...yes cobb had already had a reasonable chanceto make the fair catch without interference like you say

But when you add "before the ball hits the ground" that implies its cobbs ball to catch til it hits the ground without interference from the other team. Cobb certainly was not afforded that opportunity

The rule is for a muffed punt. After muffing the punt once he muffed it again. If the Ram would have caught the ball in between the muffs then he would have been penalized. After the 2nd muff IMO Cobb had zero chance to catch the ball before it hit the ground.

 

[swhitset]

The rule is for a muffed punt. After muffing the punt once he muffed it again. If the Ram would have caught the ball in between the muffs then he would have been penalized. After the 2nd muff IMO Cobb had zero chance to catch the ball before it hit the ground.

I don’t think your reasoning is at all valid. There is some question as to what a reasonable chance to to catch the muffed ball actually entails, but nothing in the rule describes a second catch or anything else you describe here. I understand your point I think…. But it doesn’t conform with the rule.

 

[gopkrs]

The rule is for a muffed punt. After muffing the punt once he muffed it again. If the Ram would have caught the ball in between the muffs then he would have been penalized. After the 2nd muff IMO Cobb had zero chance to catch the ball before it hit the ground.

I would think that the defender has to give him an opportunity to catch the ball. That means there has to be a certain distance from the defender and the ball/man. You can't just guess at whether or not he had a chance to catch it. Just like on a punt reception/fair catch. There should be a certain distance. And the refs don't do a good job of enforcing that.

 

[tynimiller]

I would think that the defender has to give him an opportunity to catch the ball. That means there has to be a certain distance from the defender and the ball/man. You can't just guess at whether or not he had a chance to catch it. Just like on a punt reception/fair catch. There should be a certain distance. And the refs don't do a good job of enforcing that.

There isn't such a part of the rule though, a reasonable chance at recovery must be given. He bobbled it twice and the ball was clearly going to impact the ground prior to cobb being able to complete a catch, a recovery or touching of the ball on the ground yes, but a true recovery in the air I in zero way saw happening on the play. I 100% get why folks are struggling with it, and perhaps the rule could be written better...but I cannot watch that play from any angle, any speed and believe Cobb wasn't given a reasonable chance to catch/recover the ball and in no way was going to be able to do so before it impacted the ground - therefore Rams ball.

 

[Schultz]

What he said.

 

[AmishMafia]

There isn't such a part of the rule though, a reasonable chance at recovery must be given. He bobbled it twice and the ball was clearly going to impact the ground prior to cobb being able to complete a catch, a recovery or touching of the ball on the ground yes, but a true recovery in the air I in zero way saw happening on the play. I 100% get why folks are struggling with it, and perhaps the rule could be written better...but I cannot watch that play from any angle, any speed and believe Cobb wasn't given a reasonable chance to catch/recover the ball and in no way was going to be able to do so before it impacted the ground - therefore Rams ball.

Wish I could find a better video of it - or at least not watch on my phone. Seems to me the Ram impacted Cobb at nearly the same time he recovered it. Seems to me that Cobb Could have gotten to it prior to it hitting the ground.

A clip of the replay from a lower angle would probably clarify one way or the other.

 

[El Guapo]

I still haven't gotten to watch the game since NFL Network hasn't replayed it yet. However, I did just watch the Cobb muffed punt. I don't know what the argument is about. He clearly had enough time to get the ball. That was a fumble and the Rams player had every right to go for it.

 

[Schultz]

I think we get to start all over here. It was not a fumble, it was a muff, the rules are different.

 

[gopkrs]

I think we get to start all over here. It was not a fumble, it was a muff, the rules are different.

Yes, you would have to have possession before it could be a fumble.

 

[thequick12]

There isn't such a part of the rule though, a reasonable chance at recovery must be given. He bobbled it twice and the ball was clearly going to impact the ground prior to cobb being able to complete a catch, a recovery or touching of the ball on the ground yes, but a true recovery in the air I in zero way saw happening on the play. I 100% get why folks are struggling with it, and perhaps the rule could be written better...but I cannot watch that play from any angle, any speed and believe Cobb wasn't given a reasonable chance to catch/recover the ball and in no way was going to be able to do so before it impacted the ground - therefore Rams ball.

The ball was not "clearly" going to impact the ground...id be ok with likely

However on a pass interference call how many times do they call it when the wr had almost no chance of catching the ball?

I think the way the rule is written Cobb would of had to have had absolutely no chance to complete the catch beyond a reasonable doubt...and that was certainly not the case. Would it have been a great play for him to dive and catch it just before it hit the ground absolutely but you cant say it was impossible had the rams player not interfered by catching the ball before it hit the ground