Bobbie Williams to Ravens

[Truck_1_0_1_]

Originally Posted by savagehenry54

But it's not simple, it's just not. Like that play we talked about where Livings clearly screwed up and they gave him a passing grade....

That was hogwash, they were wrong, no way around it. If the guy they had grading that play ever played offensive line at any level he'd have known that.

Let alone the route a receiver should have run but didnt' and an Int was the result.
The receiver gets a negative grade if he's the target, and it is clear that he A. ****ed up, or B. he did nothing to prevent the pick if he had a chance.

Or the pass a QB should have made but didn't but the pass he did make gained yardage...but not nearly as much yardage as the pass he should have made.
Should've is irrelevant here 100%; if he has an open guy, but throws to another guy and still gets the first down, he still gets a positive grade; even if you execute differently than you should, if it leads to good things and you didn't do anything WRONG there, why should someone be graded for what he "should have," done? Who cares HOW you win the championship if you just win?


Or a DB that gets beat trying to cover a guy he shouldn't have had to cover.
You can see this out of the gate; guys always cover the right people initially, thus whether he stays with his man or not, you can keep track of what's supposed to happen.


Or a linebacker who smacks the FB at the LOS but the tackle on the ball carrier the OLB was supposed to make doesn't happen cuz that OLB was filling the wrong gap.
Again, "should have" is irrelevant; is the tackle made or not? If it is, positive. If it isn't, and the gain is minimal, its neutral. if it isn't and its a big gain, negative. Simple.

Or a TE who runs the route he was supposed to but the guy across from him that he didn't block gets a sack cuz the FB was off running a route too instead of blocking that guy like he should have.
That's a busted blocking scheme. And anyways, if the FB is supposed to block, he gets the negative grade; its easy to spot, trust me.

Or a DT who was supposed to angle to the weakside of the formation so the DE could loop around him and fill that gap but the DE didn't do that and it looks like the DT is to blame for that 50 yard rush up the middle.
Does the DE make any attempt to plug the middle? If the DT moves, and the DE doesn't, then either the DC is an idiot, or IT IS CLEAR that the DE ****ed up. Again, simple.

And on and on it goes cuz they don't know what player's assignments are.

But I do find PFF to be a fairly credible source cuz I usually agree with their player ratings (or raw numbers or whatever), as I said, they're just not doing what they say they do, either literally, cuz they're bs'in us on the whole "Every play" etc., or becuz it's not possible. One way or the other, they're full of it, to a certain extent.

He never got a positive grade

He wasn't credited with the sack, as it wasn't his man who sacked Andy; it was BScott's man.

Livings MOST-LIKELY got a NEGATIVE grade for the play, as he ****ed up, but his man didn't get the sack, therefore he wasn't credited with the sack.

Simple.

And you're not understanding how they grade/how the grades work; I adressed each thing in bold.

These things are easy to see, believe me. They don't look at assignments or what people SHOULD do, as it is irrelevant to what happens on the play itself.

Like the whole "Whitworth only gave up 1 sack that was his fault," in 2009. That's true. BIT HIS MAN got the sack 5 times that year, hence why he has a 5 next to his name on sacks given up on their site.

The whole Livings play though he most certainly did not get a positive grade. And no one has ever said that it was so; Livings man on that play was Keisel, BScott's was Harrison.

Livings blown block is what caused the sack, however it was not his man that got the sack, hence why he wasn't charged with it.

Yet again, simple.

[Truck_1_0_1_]

Originally Posted by Jango Fett

Livings was absolutely terrible is pass protection, his Run Blocking was his stronger suit, hence why some wondered why he wasn't moved to RG. Just my opinion though, I have been wrong before

He was very good in pass pro this year, and its not debatable.

Guys ran for 3.3 a carry behind him.

[XenoMorph]

Originally Posted by Truck_1_0_1_

He was very good in pass pro this year, and its not debatable.

Guys ran for 3.3 a carry behind him.

Livings had some great games but was horrible inconsistant. to the point he couldnt be trusted... But did have his best games vs the best teams.

[Mr.Stripes]

And to think, I got slammed over and over for saying this thread belongs in Around The NFL forum.... Hhhhmmmm. Look where it is now.

[mars304]

Originally Posted by Mr.Stripes

And to think, I got slammed over and over for saying this thread belongs in Around The NFL forum.... Hhhhmmmm. Look where it is now.

yeah, go ahead and gloat about the fact the thread has been moved and will now die off. It belongs in jungle noise so Bengals fans can talk about one of the most beloved Bengals of recent history, whether the mods agree or not. But yeah, kudos to you for saying it should be put somewhere nobody will read it anymore.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Mr.Stripes]

Originally Posted by mars304

yeah, go ahead and gloat about the fact the thread has been moved and will now die off. It belongs in jungle noise so Bengals fans can talk about one of the most beloved Bengals of recent history, whether the mods agree or not. But yeah, kudos to you for saying it should be put somewhere nobody will read it anymore.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

You read it. So I guess that makes you a nobody.

I'm just saying I got slammed about it and got a ton of negative rep for suggesting it belongs here. So obviously I am not the only one that felt that way. He isn't a Bengal so it belongs here.

If you miss it that much you can always come back here and read it. You would be surprised how many people actually read threads here. This is a sports board by the way.

I'm not trying to troll. I just happen to agree the thread belongs here. Hate on me all you want, but it was simply my opinion that happens to disagree with your opinion. I will give you a rep for at least putting up a fight.

[mars304]

Originally Posted by Mr.Stripes

You read it. So I guess that makes you a nobody.

I'm just saying I got slammed about it and got a ton of negative rep for suggesting it belongs here. So obviously I am not the only one that felt that way. He isn't a Bengal so it belongs here.

If you miss it that much you can always come back here and read it. You would be surprised how many people actually read threads here. This is a sports board by the way.

I'm not trying to troll. I just happen to agree the thread belongs here. Hate on me all you want, but it was simply my opinion that happens to disagree with your opinion. I will give you a rep for at least putting up a fight.

The only reason i saw it was because on my phone it shows me the threads i participated in, otherwise i probably would have never seen it again.
But seriously, people gave you negative rep about it? That is ridiculous. I may disagree with you, but I'm not gonna get mad at you about it lol. Just like I disagree with the mods of the placement of a lot of threads, but in the end its just a difference of opinion. What really drives me nuts is the 50 post rule nazis. I mean honestly, the newer members are more likely to have a different take on something or a different opinion that could make for an interesting thread, but we want to stifle that to try to reduce the duplicate threads that pretty much everyone does from time to time. I know my first post was my own thread, it was really long and insightful, mostly because it was the thought that actually made me become a member of the board in the first place because i had something to say. Had there been that rule back then I might have not even joined, you never know. And if you take someone like me who doesnt have a lot of posts, it can take quite a while to get up to 50 because i dont just write random stuff in other peoples threads just for the sake of doing it. If I have an opinion that hasn't been said yet, then I will say it, otherwise I just read the thread.

[Mr.Stripes]

Originally Posted by mars304

The only reason i saw it was because on my phone it shows me the threads i participated in, otherwise i probably would have never seen it again.
But seriously, people gave you negative rep about it? That is ridiculous. I may disagree with you, but I'm not gonna get mad at you about it lol. Just like I disagree with the mods of the placement of a lot of threads, but in the end its just a difference of opinion. What really drives me nuts is the 50 post rule nazis. I mean honestly, the newer members are more likely to have a different take on something or a different opinion that could make for an interesting thread, but we want to stifle that to try to reduce the duplicate threads that pretty much everyone does from time to time. I know my first post was my own thread, it was really long and insightful, mostly because it was the thought that actually made me become a member of the board in the first place because i had something to say. Had there been that rule back then I might have not even joined, you never know. And if you take someone like me who doesnt have a lot of posts, it can take quite a while to get up to 50 because i dont just write random stuff in other peoples threads just for the sake of doing it. If I have an opinion that hasn't been said yet, then I will say it, otherwise I just read the thread.

It's all good plus we are both WV people.

[savagehenry54]

Originally Posted by Truck_1_0_1_

He never got a positive grade

He wasn't credited with the sack, as it wasn't his man who sacked Andy; it was BScott's man.

Livings MOST-LIKELY got a NEGATIVE grade for the play, as he ****ed up, but his man didn't get the sack, therefore he wasn't credited with the sack.

Simple.

And you're not understanding how they grade/how the grades work; I adressed each thing in bold.

These things are easy to see, believe me. They don't look at assignments or what people SHOULD do, as it is irrelevant to what happens on the play itself.

Like the whole "Whitworth only gave up 1 sack that was his fault," in 2009. That's true. BIT HIS MAN got the sack 5 times that year, hence why he has a 5 next to his name on sacks given up on their site.

The whole Livings play though he most certainly did not get a positive grade. And no one has ever said that it was so; Livings man on that play was Keisel, BScott's was Harrison.

Livings blown block is what caused the sack, however it was not his man that got the sack, hence why he wasn't charged with it.

Yet again, simple.

Agree to disagree.

Like when you talk about the QB completing a pass so "should've" is irrelevant. If the OC says that based on the defense and play call the QB should have done something else and grades that play a fail for the QB, then who's word are you taking? PFF over the coaches? Now, obviously, the coaches aren't forthcoming like that and that's why something like PFF is nice and all. But there are huge holes in their concept.

Or with the hypothetical DE/DT stunt......How could one possibly know which guy did the wrong thing? In my hypothetical I submitted it was the DE and you said "well it would be clear that the DE messed up"....Really? In that same situation on the field lacking my third person accusation that fingered the DE how would you know it wasn't the DT who messed up?

With the MLB example, I'm saying the tackle doesn't get made, guy gains yards. Who's to blame? The MLBs job there is to do what he did, take out the FB, depending on the exact defense, somebody else (another LB or maybe the SS) should also be flowing to the ball to make the actual tackle.....Unless of course it's a situation where the MLB is expected to not only take on the FB but shed and make the tackle as well, although that seems to be asking a bit much and in my experience wouldn't be the case, but hey, who knows? That's the point, we don't. And the dudes at PFF don't either.

With the Livings thing, you said they grade guys on "what they do", kind of like you submit in the QB hypothetical, so I just assumed since the guy he did engage didn't get by him, that he would have gotten a passing grade. So hopefully their grade on that play recognized that he screwed up. I still disagree with charging Scott though becuz he protected the inside, which is what he should have done. I would grade that as a "null" for Scott cuz he got stuck in no man's land through no fault of his own.

I think they're a nice reference and I like what they do, but they're not doing ALL that they say they are imo.

I know the game fairly well. When I watch tape, it is often very difficult to be certain who screwed up and who didn't.

You've got all these different moving parts going full speed out on the field on any given play that takes 4 to 6 seconds to happen.

You can say it's always so clear, but it's not.

It's much easier to take the off the top of my head examples and say "well, it would be so clear and simple to see" but try doing it while actually watching tape. It would take forever, you would need a lot of ppl watching every snap of every game to even begin to arrive at a consensus grade for every single player on every single play.

As I've said, the sheer volume of what they're claiming casts a large shadow of doubt on if they can do it or not.

Then add to that the fact they are not coaches and do not know the assignments, and they are simply not able to do it. It's not possible.

You can say "it's clear" but how can it be? How can they know which guy screwed up? How could they possibly be sure which player did the wrong thing when they don't know what they were supposed to be doing? They can't, that much is simple.

Can you USUALLY tell if a guy did his job or not? Yes. Can one ALWAYS tell? Hell no. There's going to be a good deal of plays where they have no clue, that is an inevitable fact.

[mars304]

Originally Posted by Mr.Stripes

It's all good plus we are both WV people.

Where at in WV?
Both former military too. Im a navy boy myself.

[Mr.Stripes]

Originally Posted by mars304

Where at in WV?
Both former military too. Im a navy boy myself.

Just sent you a PM. My dad was a coal guy so we moved around a lot. He has retired twice and just took a new job.

[laxibro]

Of all places to go he picked baltimore, that traitor

[chrisc]

"of all places" ? Dude I don't think he had any other offers.

[Hammerstripes]

Of all the places to go, he chose a place that needs a veteran OG. What an idiot.

Willie did the same thing.

[orangeandblackblood]

Originally Posted by laxibro

Of all places to go he picked baltimore, that traitor

Shades of Willie Anderson

[orangeandblackblood]

Originally Posted by Hammerstripes

Of all the places to go, he chose a place that needs a veteran OG. What an idiot.

Willie did the same thing.

sorry, didnt mean to echo...

[Juniversal]

Big Willie went to the Ravens and so did TJ after being on the Seahawks. Don't like it but not losing sleep. The guy was a vet and one of the guys that truly loved the team. No doubt he likely would've signed with us again if given an offer.

[OSUfan]

Originally Posted by laxibro

Of all places to go he picked baltimore, that traitor

Is Willie Anderson a traitor? Not too mention the proper forum for this would Around the League.

[Sher Khan]

Let him go with the purple varments. He'll soon be wishing he'd stayed pat with the rising star in the AFC North.

[BigPapaKain]

Originally Posted by Sher Khan

Let him go with the purple varments. He'll soon be wishing he'd stayed pat with the rising star in the AFC North.

Can't stay in a place that didn't offer to let him back in.