Think thats more due to the lack of opportunity then actual play level. He has 3 sacks, which would lead this team, and he looked VERY good against the Packers the other night.
Find it interesting that Hargreaves is only doing a little better than Apple right now with all the debate among Giants fans on which one was better.
We won't really know who these players are until 3 or 4 years into
the guy isn't playing because he's not worthy of playing. Even if that's a misguided move by Fisher, he's not playing and not helping the franchise. He cost the rams a fucking ton. N/A??? Uh...no...he's get an F. Period. There's nothing less a team can get from something that cost so much. F grade. That's not career that's right now. Goff can end up being a great one but as of now how do give this pick a pass? Bullshit.
RE: how does the first pick in the draft get N/A???
the guy isn't playing because he's not worthy of playing. Even if that's a misguided move by Fisher, he's not playing and not helping the franchise. He cost the rams a fucking ton. N/A??? Uh...no...he's get an F. Period. There's nothing less a team can get from something that cost so much. F grade. That's not career that's right now. Goff can end up being a great one but as of now how do give this pick a pass? Bullshit.
Because they can't grade non-existent performances.
Think thats more due to the lack of opportunity then actual play level. He has 3 sacks, which would lead this team, and he looked VERY good against the Packers the other night.
I wouldn't call it lack of opportunity. It's the 2016 Bears not the 1985 version.
Week 2 was MNF vs Eagles. He started the game, played all 3 downs on the first few series, then was pulled, then got back in the game when Lamarr Houston tore his ACL.
There's no doubt he has some athletic ability and some pass rush moves. That was apparent from his first preseason game against NFL opposition.
But he is still light in the pants and a liability on plays run at him. And the Bears have shown no appreciation of his ability to cover anyone. He is used strictly as an end rusher out of the 3-4 OLB position.
So it's hard to see that he would have been a top ten pick asset in the Giants' 4-3. He would not be an asset on running downs and whose place would he take on passing downs? At all, let alone to be worth the pick.
RE: We won't really know who these players are until 3 or 4 years into
What if it's 3rd & 10 and the offense completes a pass for 9 yards or less? The Defensive Coordinator would be lauding the DB for getting the defense off the field.
It's a stat to look at, but not the only thing.
RE: The completion % against DBs is a little misleading as a stat.
What if it's 3rd & 10 and the offense completes a pass for 9 yards or less? The Defensive Coordinator would be lauding the DB for getting the defense off the field.
It's a stat to look at, but not the only thing.
PFF's 'grades' would take that situation into account and likely grade the player + for the play.
If they still use the +2.0 to -2.0 scale, grades for that play might look like this:
+2.0 - INT
+1.5 - Pass Defensed
+1.0 - Allow catch, but prevent the first
+0.5 - Good coverage, ball goes elsewhere
-0.5 - Poor coverage, ball goes elsewhere
-1.0 - Give up catch past first down, but make tackle immediately
-1.5 - Give up catch short of sticks, but miss tackle
-2.0 - Give up a TD
RE: RE: We won't really know who these players are until 3 or 4 years into
Generally speaking you can tell right away if a player is really good, good, average, or stinks. Once in a blue guys get way worse or much better.
Not in terms of who the Giants should have drafted or who they didn't draft compared to who they did. Those are questions that can't be answered on. A lot can happen with a player between their first season and their 3rd or 4th. There are plenty of first year flukes and plenty of late bloomers.
While it is true that draft picks tend to contribute earlier, it isn't "antiquated" to suggest that larger sample size than 7 weeks is needed to determine a good pick.
RE: RE: We won't really know who these players are until 3 or 4 years into
Floyd
Floyd
Think thats more due to the lack of opportunity then actual play level. He has 3 sacks, which would lead this team, and he looked VERY good against the Packers the other night.
Find it interesting that Hargreaves is only doing a little better than Apple right now with all the debate among Giants fans on which one was better.
Because they can't grade non-existent performances.
Quote:
and by far the worst in the top 15 picks??
Floyd
Think thats more due to the lack of opportunity then actual play level. He has 3 sacks, which would lead this team, and he looked VERY good against the Packers the other night.
I wouldn't call it lack of opportunity. It's the 2016 Bears not the 1985 version.
Floyd's snap count % by week:
Week 1: 80%
Week 2: 70%
Week 3: 60%
Week 4: 30% (calf injury)
Week 5: 0%
Week 6: 0%
Week 7: 40%
Week 2 was MNF vs Eagles. He started the game, played all 3 downs on the first few series, then was pulled, then got back in the game when Lamarr Houston tore his ACL.
There's no doubt he has some athletic ability and some pass rush moves. That was apparent from his first preseason game against NFL opposition.
But he is still light in the pants and a liability on plays run at him. And the Bears have shown no appreciation of his ability to cover anyone. He is used strictly as an end rusher out of the 3-4 OLB position.
So it's hard to see that he would have been a top ten pick asset in the Giants' 4-3. He would not be an asset on running downs and whose place would he take on passing downs? At all, let alone to be worth the pick.
This is an antiquated thought.
Generally speaking you can tell right away if a player is really good, good, average, or stinks. Once in a blue guys get way worse or much better.
It's a stat to look at, but not the only thing.
It's a stat to look at, but not the only thing.
PFF's 'grades' would take that situation into account and likely grade the player + for the play.
If they still use the +2.0 to -2.0 scale, grades for that play might look like this:
+2.0 - INT
+1.5 - Pass Defensed
+1.0 - Allow catch, but prevent the first
+0.5 - Good coverage, ball goes elsewhere
-0.5 - Poor coverage, ball goes elsewhere
-1.0 - Give up catch past first down, but make tackle immediately
-1.5 - Give up catch short of sticks, but miss tackle
-2.0 - Give up a TD
Quote:
their careers.
This is an antiquated thought.
Generally speaking you can tell right away if a player is really good, good, average, or stinks. Once in a blue guys get way worse or much better.
Not in terms of who the Giants should have drafted or who they didn't draft compared to who they did. Those are questions that can't be answered on. A lot can happen with a player between their first season and their 3rd or 4th. There are plenty of first year flukes and plenty of late bloomers.
Quote:
their careers.
This is an antiquated thought.
Generally speaking you can tell right away if a player is really good, good, average, or stinks. Once in a blue guys get way worse or much better.
Good point.
- Landon Collins