I don't get this, but I don't subscribe to PFF anymore.
I thought Engram had a really good year. Too many drops, and needs to block better, even as a receiving TE, but I liked what I saw.
Anyway, shared without further commentary, only OJ Howard was worse - per PFF.
FWIW, I think they also had a poor grade on Landon Collins as a rookie.
Davis: 34 rec, 375 yds, 0 TDs
Engram: 64 rec, 722 yds, 6 TDs
the other numbers in the box are their PFF grades.
It's listed in drafted order.
Trubinsky was better? David Njoku? C'mon.
Granted the offense was brutal, and being the best player in a brutal offense is a tallest midget award, but as a rookie TE with all the WR injuries, OL and RB issues, not sure many people could have hoped for more.
PFF twitter, not sure how to link a tweet.
Link - ( New Window )
Trubinsky was better? David Njoku? C'mon.
you the reader, needs to understand the context, do you expect them just to leave it blank?
when you do things like drop passes, whiff blocks and other key, commit penalties its going to bring down your grade
If you don't factor in inactivity, then give the guy a INC.
Quote:
says a QB who hardly played (Mahomes) has a better ranking than the #1 rookie TE, stats-wise, it is time to ignore that trash.
Trubinsky was better? David Njoku? C'mon.
you the reader, needs to understand the context, do you expect them just to leave it blank?
when you do things like drop passes, whiff blocks and other key, commit penalties its going to bring down your grade
Engram and Howards receiving stats were considerably better than Njoku's, yet Njoku is rated not a little higher, but much higher than both of them. Unless he blocked like Howard Cross and didn't drop a pass it's absurd.
when you do things like drop passes, whiff blocks and other key, commit penalties its going to bring down your grade
Mahomes had a better rating than DeShaun Watson too. What brought down his grade??
I'd ask a better question - what elevates one's grade? If Engram's grades don't get elevated for having a body of work that makes him the best stat-wise of the rookie TE's, what real purpose is it serving? DeShaun Watson was on track to be rookie of the year and a guy who played one game has a higher rating?
John Ross better grade than Engram, reminder on John Ross, he was so terrible at WR this year they were going to switch him to Corner Back before they put him on IR. The whole list of grades isnt bad, but theres enough stuff here to pick on that it undermines their credibility on the rest.
Taco Charlton had a higher grade than Engram and he barely played.
PFF's grades tend to fail that test.
Be careful - they might stop reading your posts, too.
In comment 13780157 Pete in MD said:
Engram will continue to improve as a blocker once he adds strength and improves his technique. At least he showed he is a willing blocker at this point in his career.
He also needs to cut down on the drops which really plagued him towards the end of the season.
PFF is not giving him enough credit for the match-up nightmare he proved to be though.
Very good rookie campaign. The Saints nailed that pick.
now that snap count data is available elsewhere (and free) I have no use for PFF and even when I paid them I only ever viewed their ratings as a one-opinion-data-point.
however....the annoying this is the majority of the time their ratings do in fact align with the eye test. the best QB's are usually Brady, Rodgers, Brees, etc. the best RB's are Gurley, Bell, Elliott, (for example), etc. the best WR's are Brown, Beckham, Jones, etc...they do pass the eye test most of the time.
it's the head scratching anomalies that generate the discussion and disdain.
How the F can they grade Engram so low with all the context around the Giants?
Does not make sense and if I had to pay to view these grades I'd never know about them since PFF hasn't and will never get a dime from me now that I have snap counts available elsewhere. I see no way at least half a dozen players could possibly be higher rated than Engram based on snaps, stats, and importance to their team alone.
I wouldn't read too much into the Engram grade because he's kind of an outlier. He gets some snaps in the backfield, some split out, some in the slot, some in-line. His sample sizes are probably weird and he's most likely being judged against full time WRs in the slot/split out and full time TEs when in-line or in the backfield.
He had a promising year. PFF even mentioned this a few times. They even wrote an article that pointed out that he played more of a slot position in college and they gave him kudos for adjusting to more of an 'inline' position.
Trubinsky was better? David Njoku? C'mon.
Trubisky and Mahomes being better than Deshaun Watson should have this chart laughed off the internet.
I think if they had rated Engram as a WR instead of a TE, perhaps the rating would be much different. And perhaps they did rate him as a WR when he was in the slot or out wide. Not sure, but obviously with a player like Engram, his worth exceeds his positional rating as a blocker. He's an offensive weapon, first and foremost.
He fit what they do there..hold the pocket long enough for the quick pass...and open a whole quickly so speedy back like Kamara zips through.
I remember some BBIers thinking he might be a second rounder...some a 3rd...and commenting on UW OL NFLers negatively.
Point being: find a guy that fits what you( plan to) do...coach em up..then. whatever. See: Seattle and late round starters.
Not sure after "42" Reese did that for TC.
That doesnt take into account that he is simply not a blocking TE. He is a great pass catcher and route runner. He makes a ton of plays and flashed a TON as a rookie TE.
Everyone knows he passes the eye test, so you should not really pay too much attention to these grades. What I hate about PFF is that they grade on such a black and white scale. A pass-catching TE is not going to be counted on to be a great blocker, a situational pass rusher is not going to be great at defending the run, etc.
PFF ought to apply that practice here.
Quote:
you know, because he's fast
Did he even play this year?
Barely.
Started his season a few weeks in - took a pretty big shot on his first touch and lost a a fumble in the process, and didn't touch the ball again all year.
Complete non-factor.
He didn't see the field until a few weeks in, caught like 10 passes total all year and only started one game.
I must be mis-understanding how these grades are calculated otherwise they make no sense.
John Ross, like I just mentioned before, was a WR who didn't even catch a single pass this year. They used him on an end-around where he got blown up, lost a fumble, and never touched the ball again on offense all season. He barely even played. He was active for 3 games total.
Yet, he has a higher grade than Engram.
There's zero logic there.
Jonathan Allen has one of the highest grades on it and he played 5 games before he suffered a season-ending injury.
Some of these guys literally played a quarter of a season or less and have higher grades than guys who actually played well and played the entire year.
Ryan Smith
@PFF_Smith
14h14 hours ago
Ryan Smith Retweeted Pro Football Focus
To clarify Evan Engram's grade:
Led all TEs in drops (11)
40th/43 TEs in drop rate (11/75 catchable passes)
72nd/74 TEs in run blocking (35.4)
Basically, Engram's grade means that guys who didn't play at all performed better, as if Engram was a net negative (and a hefty negative to boot) to the team.
It really is indefensible.
Only thing is I don't know they're grading method any more. It used to be each play a player could get anywhere from -2 to +2 in single digit increments.
0 was a neutral play where the player had no positive or negative impact and the players grade was an accumulation of those plays.
I don't think that's the case any longer, guys like Mike Williams, John Ross, Mahomes, etc. can't possibly be rated higher than Engram if it was the case.
Anyway, I don't get too worked up over things like this, really shared because I wanted to make sure it wasn't just me who thought this was ludicrous.