PFF Grades 1st round picks - Engram 2nd worst

target%. I dont know how you factor whose fault a low target percent is, but Engram was at 55.7%

In comment 13780644 djstat said:

Quote:

In comment 13780145 SirYesSir said: 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.

Mike Williams is another guy with a bafflingly higher "grade" than Engram.

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.

Shows how flawed their methodology is still. And they're ripping people off to pay for this shit.

& an insult to people with eyes. PFF sucks. We all know that.

Ok.

There has to be something I'm missing with this chart.

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.

how that places his grade below a player who didn't have a catch or make any contributions??

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.

.

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.