PFF Eleven

[McC]

Originally Posted by Johnny Cupcakes

If he played in Pittsburgh, New England, San Francisco, or any other big NFL city, he would be getting consideration. He may be the single most under-rated player in the entire league. Due to him playing for the Bengals, not a lot of people know of him.

When you watch him play every week, it's hard to imagine any defensive player in the conference having a better year.

[basballguy]

for the sake of comparing JJ and Geno (via PFF), here it is. JJ is still more dominating than Geno. Please note this is a modified screenshot

[Truck_1_0_1_]

Originally Posted by basballguy

for the sake of comparing JJ and Geno (via PFF), here it is. JJ is still more dominating than Geno. Please note this is a modified screenshot

As all can see, if your stop total is equal to your tackle total, legitmately EVERY tackle you make is a negative play for the offense/offensive failure.

As well, Watt and Geno have the exact same amount of total pressures, but Watt's only missed 1 tackle.

[berserkerone88]

Originally Posted by McC

While the Geno and his D were stomping KC's 1-9 offense, Watt's D was giving up a boatload of points to the other 1-9 team's offense. Maybe Geno closed the gap some.

Maybe. But that wasn't on Watt. That was on the horrendous secondary play. I dont think the secondary made one tackle on the first try.

Watt has taken over games this year. Just absolutely taken over and eliminated half the line of scrimmage.

Geno is close. But Watt right now is the best defensive player in the NFL.

[goalpost]

Originally Posted by basballguy

for the sake of comparing JJ and Geno (via PFF), here it is. JJ is still more dominating than Geno. Please note this is a modified screenshot

Am i missing forced fumbles on here..

[Truck_1_0_1_]

Originally Posted by goalpost

Am i missing forced fumbles on here..

It says those once you click on the player's page; they can't have EVERY stat in 1 table lol.

[berserkerone88]

Originally Posted by Truck_1_0_1_

It says those once you click on the player's page; they can't have EVERY stat in 1 table lol.

****ing slackers.

[mulligan]

Originally Posted by Truck_1_0_1_

Haha, no I don't, nice try.

Rey is neutral on 2 of the three aspects, but was bad in coverage, Sims was bad in both of his aspects.

What I stated is the truth, period.

Truck, perhaps you are still drunk from yesterday's victory celebration.

If Maualuga was neutral on 2 of the 3 aspects of the game, then either your accessment of Maualuga is wrong or Cincy Jungle's accessment is wrong.

http://www.cincyjungle.com/2012/11/1...gals-vs-chiefs
-Hopes from last game that Rey Maualuga had finally learned pass coverage (+1.4) were dashed in this game (-2.5 pass coverage).

If Maualuga's total PFF grade was -2.9 and Maualuga's Pass Coverage grade was -2.5, then it seems to me that at least one other component of the three were negative.

-2.5 + 0 + 0 = -2.5 =/= -2.9
Right?

It is also tough to put lump Maualuga's -2.9 performance in the same bucket as Pat Sims -0.9.

In terms of "point differenital", it is like equating AJ Green's performance (+2.0) with Armon Binns (-0.1).

[EyeOfTheTiger]

Originally Posted by mulligan

Truck, perhaps you are still drunk from yesterday's victory celebration.

If Maualuga was neutral on 2 of the 3 aspects of the game, then either your accessment of Maualuga is wrong or Cincy Jungle's accessment is wrong.

http://www.cincyjungle.com/2012/11/1...gals-vs-chiefs
-Hopes from last game that Rey Maualuga had finally learned pass coverage (+1.4) were dashed in this game (-2.5 pass coverage).

If Maualuga's total PFF grade was -2.9 and Maualuga's Pass Coverage grade was -2.5, then it seems to me that at least one other component of the three were negative.

-2.5 + 0 + 0 = -2.5 =/= -2.9
Right?

It is also tough to put lump Maualuga's -2.9 performance in the same bucket as Pat Sims -0.9.

In terms of "point differenital", it is like equating AJ Green's performance (+2.0) with Armon Binns (-0.1).

They want to live in their world of buddy-buddy lies. I might be new but I can do math and truck is being very disingenuous. I have seen how often he defends Maualuga and how he will not credit Burfict nor Sims. Maualuga halfway through the season was rated as the WORST ILB in the league. Faine was rated wort center. BJGE was rated bottom 3 at RB. Tate and Binns were also very poorly rated.

Guess what? We changed up the under performing players and are better off. Robinson, Peerman, Sanu - all are thriving. Sims comes in and our defense takes off. You won't see Truck crediting Sims. And you def won't see Truck admitting that Burfict might be a better MLB than Maualuga.

[Truck_1_0_1_]

Originally Posted by mulligan

Truck, perhaps you are still drunk from yesterday's victory celebration.

If Maualuga was neutral on 2 of the 3 aspects of the game, then either your accessment of Maualuga is wrong or Cincy Jungle's accessment is wrong.

http://www.cincyjungle.com/2012/11/1...gals-vs-chiefs
-Hopes from last game that Rey Maualuga had finally learned pass coverage (+1.4) were dashed in this game (-2.5 pass coverage).

If Maualuga's total PFF grade was -2.9 and Maualuga's Pass Coverage grade was -2.5, then it seems to me that at least one other component of the three were negative.

-2.5 + 0 + 0 = -2.5 =/= -2.9
Right?

It is also tough to put lump Maualuga's -2.9 performance in the same bucket as Pat Sims -0.9.

In terms of "point differenital", it is like equating AJ Green's performance (+2.0) with Armon Binns (-0.1).

But I didn't lump it in; he did.

And like I wrote about Binns, even though he was -0.1, I said he was neutral, 'cause really, inside of -0.5 or +0.5, the impact of the grade is basically neutral.

That being said, he was -0.2 in the run game, and each of his three rushes yielded nothing, so -0.3. Its minorly negative, but its basically neutral.

Furthermore, I cannot drink alcohol due to having skin cancer on my tongue; please refrain from those types of comments, thanks.

[mulligan]

Originally Posted by Truck_1_0_1_

But I didn't lump it in; he did.

And like I wrote about Binns, even though he was -0.1, I said he was neutral, 'cause really, inside of -0.5 or +0.5, the impact of the grade is basically neutral.

That being said, he was -0.2 in the run game, and each of his three rushes yielded nothing, so -0.3. Its minorly negative, but its basically neutral.

Furthermore, I cannot drink alcohol due to having skin cancer on my tongue; please refrain from those types of comments, thanks.

I qualify listing the bottom 5 players together without including their PFF score as "lumping them together."

In addition, I think that the remainder of the above quote may be perhaps the foundation of some of other's peoples allegations of data manipulation.

If you are saying that a score of -0.5 in one category is "basically neutral", then a player that score -0.5 in all three defensive categories netting a -1.5 is a "basically neutral" defensive player.

It seems to me that a -1.5 is not a neutral score. Perhaps, others feel the same way.

Originally Posted by Truck_1_0_1_

Rey is neutral on 2 of the three aspects, but was bad in coverage, Sims was bad in both of his aspects.

In the above quote, you rate Sims as "bad" in both of his aspects, yet Sims overall score was -0.9. Which by your above "basically neutral" defination as you applied to Maualuga would qualify Sims performance as not "bad" but "neutral."

It just seems that you put score Maualuga more lenient than the other Bengals (including Sims, as demonstrated in the above post).



So, Maualuga's -2.9 overall score was a combination of:

• -0.2 in run defense,
• -0.3 in pass rush,
• -2.5 in pass coverage?

I still don't understand.

Simplistically speaking, this would add up to -3.0.

Is there something else that is considered besides run defense, pass rush, & pass coverage?

[Truck_1_0_1_]

Originally Posted by mulligan

I qualify listing the bottom 5 players together without including their PFF score as "lumping them together."

In addition, I think that the remainder of the above quote may be perhaps the foundation of some of other's peoples allegations of data manipulation.

If you are saying that a score of -0.5 in one category is "basically neutral", then a player that score -0.5 in all three defensive categories netting a -1.5 is a "basically neutral" defensive player.

It seems to me that a -1.5 is not a neutral score. Perhaps, others feel the same way.



In the above quote, you rate Sims as "bad" in both of his aspects, yet Sims overall score was -0.9. Which by your above "basically neutral" defination as you applied to Maualuga would qualify Sims performance as not "bad" but "neutral."

It just seems that you put score Maualuga more lenient than the other Bengals (including Sims, as demonstrated in the above post).



So, Maualuga's -2.9 overall score was a combination of:

• -0.2 in run defense,
• -0.3 in pass rush,
• -2.5 in pass coverage?

I still don't understand.

Simplistically speaking, this would add up to -3.0.

Is there something else that is considered besides run defense, pass rush, & pass coverage?

Penalty he got +0.1.

I'm not more lenient, and I post the bottom 5 and top 5; I put the top 5's grades because I like displaying positive stuff; I don't like posting negative grades, never have.

You are correct; I should;ve worded my choices more correctly, but -0.2 and -0.3 IS better than -0.4 and -0.5, regardless of how minor it is. Sims is at the top of the 5, so obviously HE PLAYED BETTER than Rey; that's simple comprehension as well.

People are looking at things to nitpick instead of using the grades for info. They're attacking the poster, not the grades.

Furthermore, -1.5 as a total grade of all aspects, is NOT basically neutral; its a bad game. Period.

Its just means he was on the worst end of neutrality in every aspects, thus on the whole he played a bad game.

Mulligan, what pleasure do you get in making me have to explain myself for virtually everything I write?

[mulligan]

Originally Posted by Truck_1_0_1_

Penalty he got +0.1.

I'm not more lenient, and I post the bottom 5 and top 5; I put the top 5's grades because I like displaying positive stuff; I don't like posting negative grades, never have.

You are correct; I should;ve worded my choices more correctly, but -0.2 and -0.3 IS better than -0.4 and -0.5, regardless of how minor it is. Sims is at the top of the 5, so obviously HE PLAYED BETTER than Rey; that's simple comprehension as well.

People are looking at things to nitpick instead of using the grades for info. They're attacking the poster, not the grades.

Furthermore, -1.5 as a total grade of all aspects, is NOT basically neutral; its a bad game. Period.

Its just means he was on the worst end of neutrality in every aspects, thus on the whole he played a bad game.

Mulligan, what pleasure do you get in making me have to explain myself for virtually everything I write?

No pleasure. I am just trying to help you to understand how some people feel that you manipulate data.

Again, using the same logic/criterion, you wrote that Sims had a "bad" game and Maualuga (outside of pass coverage) had a "neutral" game.

These seems to others that you have two different scales. For Maualuga, getting a -0.3 & a -0.2 is "neutral" while Sims -0.4 & -0.5 are "bad". With you stating that anything between -0.5 & +0.5 is neutral.

I see this as confusing. If you don't, then perhaps, this is the source of the misunderstanding.

Strictly speaking, in a list of the 5 bottom players, all 5 players could have the same score and still be the bottom 5 players. Or, there could be very, very little difference in score (e.g. 0.1) from the worst to the 5th worst.

Again, a list of the bottom 5 players seems to "lump" all of these players together without stating their differentiating scores.

[Truck_1_0_1_]

Originally Posted by mulligan

No pleasure. I am just trying to help you to understand how some people feel that you manipulate data.

Again, using the same logic/criterion, you wrote that Sims had a "bad" game and Maualuga (outside of pass coverage) had a "neutral" game.

These seems to others that you have two different scales. For Maualuga, getting a -0.3 & a -0.2 is "neutral" while Sims -0.4 & -0.5 are "bad". With you stating that anything between -0.5 & +0.5 is neutral.

I see this as confusing. If you don't, then perhaps, this is the source of the misunderstanding.

Strictly speaking, in a list of the 5 bottom players, all 5 players could have the same score and still be the bottom 5 players. Or, there could be very, very little difference in score (e.g. 0.1) from the worst to the 5th worst.

Again, a list of the bottom 5 players seems to "lump" all of these players together without stating their differentiating scores.

'cause I don't want to post them lol.

Again, like I said, I should've chosen my words properly; yes using "bad" was incorrect, I should've said "worse."

That's all.

[mulligan]

Originally Posted by Truck_1_0_1_

'cause I don't want to post them lol.

Again, like I said, I should've chosen my words properly; yes using "bad" was incorrect, I should've said "worse."

That's all.

Why did CJ post that Pat Sims scored a -0.6 in run defense? You posted that Pat Sims scored -0.4 & -0.5 in Sims' two categories.

I don't get it. Again. Pat Sims (-0.9; -0.6 run defense)
http://www.cincyjungle.com/2012/11/1...gals-vs-chiefs

Even with that said, it still seems laughable to me that you are stating that Sims performance was "worse" when Maualuga's overall score was 2 points lower and Maualuga had an eggregious -2.9 performance in pass coverage.

Again, it is my perception (and others) that you are "protective" of Maualuga.

[Truck_1_0_1_]

Originally Posted by mulligan

Why did CJ post that Pat Sims scored a -0.6 in run defense? You posted that Pat Sims scored -0.4 & -0.5 in Sims' two categories.

I don't get it. Again. Pat Sims (-0.9; -0.6 run defense)
http://www.cincyjungle.com/2012/11/1...gals-vs-chiefs

Even with that said, it still seems laughable to me that you are stating that Sims performance was "worse" when Maualuga's overall score was 2 points lower and Maualuga had an eggregious -2.9 performance in pass coverage.

Again, it is my perception (and others) that you are "protective" of Maualuga.

Could've sworn I read -4 and 5 ... ok then.

Worse in those two aspects, not worse in total, come on man...

[bfine32]

Originally Posted by mulligan

Why did CJ post that Pat Sims scored a -0.6 in run defense? You posted that Pat Sims scored -0.4 & -0.5 in Sims' two categories.

I don't get it. Again. Pat Sims (-0.9; -0.6 run defense)
http://www.cincyjungle.com/2012/11/1...gals-vs-chiefs

Even with that said, it still seems laughable to me that you are stating that Sims performance was "worse" when Maualuga's overall score was 2 points lower and Maualuga had an eggregious -2.9 performance in pass coverage.

Again, it is my perception (and others) that you are "protective" of Maualuga.

Truck's one of the good guy; but he loves Rey and hates Sims (and he's not alone).

[mulligan]

Originally Posted by bfine32

Truck's one of the good guy; but he loves Rey and hates Sims (and he's not alone).

I agree that Truck is a good guy.

I just think it deteriorates his argument when he gets "confused" on these things.

[Truck_1_0_1_]

Originally Posted by bfine32

Truck's one of the good guy; but he loves Rey and hates Sims (and he's not alone).

Thanks bfine

To be fair, I like Sims, and I still think he's the best DT out of that draft (numbers agree, as well as PFF ratings), but he's just not the saviour that everyone has made him out to be.

If we had Thompson last year to step in when Sims went down, I PROMISE YOU we wouldn't have done worse. We'll never know, but its a hunch.

Originally Posted by mulligan

I agree that Truck is a good guy.

I just think it deteriorates his argument when he gets "confused" on these things.

I'm not getting confused though . I erred in my choice of words. Nothing else to it.

And thanks as well

[bfine32]

Originally Posted by Truck_1_0_1_

To be fair, I like Sims, and I still think he's the best DT out of that draft

As much of a Sims fan as I am; I'd probably still take Rubin over him.

[Truck_1_0_1_]

Originally Posted by bfine32

As much of a Sims fan as I am; I'd probably still take Rubin over him.

didn't even know he was in that class lol.

Then Sims would be #2. The big thing in my mind always, is that he's outplayed Sedrick Ellis, in TONS less snaps than the Trojan.

[bfine32]

Originally Posted by Truck_1_0_1_

didn't even know he was in that class lol.

Then Sims would be #2. The big thing in my mind always, is that he's outplayed Sedrick Ellis, in TONS less snaps than the Trojan.

No doubt and I remember a lot of folks wanting Ellis. I think Rubin went in the 6th. We probably coulda had him instead of Shirley.

[Truck_1_0_1_]

Originally Posted by bfine32

No doubt and I remember a lot of folks wanting Ellis. I think Rubin went in the 6th. We probably coulda had him instead of Shirley.

Mhm, he was in the sixth.

In terms of Shirley though, I STILL think he can contribute to a team.

Every game he saw the field, he contributed SOMETHING... Carolina used him last year, and he got at least a half sack a game.

This from a guy who was never a pass rusher.

[EyeOfTheTiger]

I can't agree with you Truck. Sims is helping us win. Maualuga causes us to lose. You phrasing of "good when needed" was egregiously disingenuous when you said nothing positive of a player that was actually better.

Either way - to those interested for an objective breakdown of the numbers - I invite you to check out the fan posts on cincyjungle.

[coachmcneil71]

Originally Posted by J24

Charles averaged 5.1 yards a carry yesterday!

Originally Posted by berserkerone88

How is that possible! Pat Sims was out there dammit!

He is arguably the fastest rb in the NFL. Charles & CJ both run somewhere near 4.2 - 4.3 in the forty yard dash so holding him under 100 is just fine with me.
It means that he didn't break off a really long run which is something that both Charles and Johnson are known for.
Peerman and BJGE really complimented each other well in KC.