And Nick Wagoner's response to the PFF thread is ...

[jrry32]

PFF's ranking system is not good. I talked to the founder and asked him about whether they try to consider scheme and responsibilities. He told that it just wasn't possible. They do the best they can. Understandable but these guys aren't experts. They assign grades based on their own limited view of a play despite having no knowledge of player responsibility or of the team's overall scheme. It's hard enough to grade individual players in a sport that's unit based like football...but when you pay no mind to what's supposed to be happening...you're not going to get accurate rankings.

 

[jrry32]

Laurinaitis has trouble shedding he's not effective as a blitzer, and he's not good in coverage.

He's an athletically challenged but intelligent football player, but he's nowhere close to being the difference maker that some seem to think he is at least in terms of play. That said you can't put a number on his leadership.

Luckily his contract will be paying him much closer to what he's worth going forward.

Laurinaitis is average to above average. He doesn't shed blocks, he's not a hard hitter and he's not athletic enough to lock down athletic TEs or HBs in man coverage. However, he's an exceptional zone defender especially when covering the seam when we run Tampa 2.

Laurinaitis is also excellent at working through traffic and reading his keys. He's almost always in the right position and often is around the football. He's a steady, reliable, durable player with a high football IQ that provides quality leadership and character as well as a non-stop motor. He's a "glue" player. The blue collar guy that is a bit limited athletically but is still a quality starter for you because of the work he puts in.

No, Laurinaitis isn't Patrick Willis or Ray Lewis. He's not an elite MLB. But he's a quality starter. Some Rams fans do overrate him. But he's an important player on our defense...a very important player.

I disagree with you on his blitzing. He's effective at it. He times it well and does an excellent job of knowing where the weak spots in the protection will be.

 

[MTRamsFan]

Who gives a rip what PFF says. Opinions are like a$$holes... If I were the coaches, I'd be posting this kind of sh*t on the bulletin boards as motivation for the team. I say... keep laughing at this team and they just might put a boot up your a$$! I can't wait for them to start proving all the "experts" wrong. But then again, these so-called experts have a way of jumping on the bandwagon of a team's success all-the-while saying I told you so.

 

[jrry32]

He's had more opportunities than you think, it's just that he usually just runs into somebody so you can't tell he's blitzing.

This would go to my point as to why it's important to know defensive responsibilities. Your job as a blitzer isn't to avoid blockers by any means possible. Your job as a blitzer is to pressure the QB...whether that's yourself or by freeing up another player on the field to do it. When Laurinaitis blitzes, he has a specific gap he is responsible for.

If there's an OG or OT waiting to pick him up...the best he's going to be able to do is try to shed the block. But frankly, he'll likely not stand much of a chance. The good part of that is it frees up a guy like Quinn or Long who won't get double teamed and Laurinaitis can maintain his gap integrity to make sure the QB doesn't scramble.

You have to be responsible for the gap you have when rushing the QB...especially when playing mobile QBs. So as much as it lacks flash, sometimes running into somebody is the right thing to do.

 

[MTRamsFan]

This would go to my point as to why it's important to know defensive responsibilities. Your job as a blitzer isn't to avoid blockers by any means possible. Your job as a blitzer is to pressure the QB...whether that's yourself or by freeing up another player on the field to do it. When Laurinaitis blitzes, he has a specific gap he is responsible for.

If there's an OG or OT waiting to pick him up...the best he's going to be able to do is try to shed the block. But frankly, he'll likely not stand much of a chance. The good part of that is it frees up a guy like Quinn or Long who won't get double teamed and Laurinaitis can maintain his gap integrity to make sure the QB doesn't scramble.

You have to be responsible for the gap you have when rushing the QB...especially when playing mobile QBs. So as much as it lacks flash, sometimes running into somebody is the right thing to do.

Jerry you state what some writers can't/won't ever understand. They may only look at stats, and if JL is not on the top of the defensive stats charts they say he is mediocre. There is so much more to it than stats, but that is how all players are measured, unfortunately.

 

[ZigZagRam]

Laurinaitis is average to above average. He doesn't shed blocks, he's not a hard hitter and he's not athletic enough to lock down athletic TEs or HBs in man coverage. However, he's an exceptional zone defender especially when covering the seam when we run Tampa 2.

Laurinaitis is also excellent at working through traffic and reading his keys. He's almost always in the right position and often is around the football. He's a steady, reliable, durable player with a high football IQ that provides quality leadership and character as well as a non-stop motor. He's a "glue" player. The blue collar guy that is a bit limited athletically but is still a quality starter for you because of the work he puts in.

No, Laurinaitis isn't Patrick Willis or Ray Lewis. He's not an elite MLB. But he's a quality starter. Some Rams fans do overrate him. But he's an important player on our defense...a very important player.

I disagree with you on his blitzing. He's effective at it. He times it well and does an excellent job of knowing where the weak spots in the protection will be.

I definitely agree that he's a glue guy, which is why I wouldn't want to replace him right now especially with his contract becoming much more affordable (go Demoff!). As I said before, leadership doesn't show up on the stat sheet.

But in a few seasons once he starts to lose a step it's going to be a good idea to consider other options.

 

[ZigZagRam]

This would go to my point as to why it's important to know defensive responsibilities. Your job as a blitzer isn't to avoid blockers by any means possible. Your job as a blitzer is to pressure the QB...whether that's yourself or by freeing up another player on the field to do it. When Laurinaitis blitzes, he has a specific gap he is responsible for.

If there's an OG or OT waiting to pick him up...the best he's going to be able to do is try to shed the block. But frankly, he'll likely not stand much of a chance. The good part of that is it frees up a guy like Quinn or Long who won't get double teamed and Laurinaitis can maintain his gap integrity to make sure the QB doesn't scramble.

You have to be responsible for the gap you have when rushing the QB...especially when playing mobile QBs. So as much as it lacks flash, sometimes running into somebody is the right thing to do.

Yes, I completely understand the gap responsibilities, but even if you're not able to shoot your gap, you can still be more disruptive than Laurinaitis is a lot of the time.

It kind of goes hand in hand with his lack of thump. Of the flaws I listed, the first two you seem to mostly agree with, this is the one that concerns me the least.

 

[RamFan503]

Laurinaitis has trouble shedding he's not effective as a blitzer, and he's not good in coverage.

He's an athletically challenged but intelligent football player, but he's nowhere close to being the difference maker that some seem to think he is at least in terms of play. That said you can't put a number on his leadership.

Luckily his contract will be paying him much closer to what he's worth going forward.

I suppose it depends on what you call a difference maker. JL is smart - as you said - but he also is always around the ball and isn't as bad in coverage as you are indicating IMO. JL is solid in a day when good MLBs are very sought after and in short supply. Yeah there are more physical MLBs out there that could be considered elite. But below average? Wouldn't that put about 20 above him? Not seeing it.

As to the full ranking, I suppose by their criteria, that is where they rank the roster. It doesn't really hold water as far as I can see it because that would indicate that last year's result was all coaching. And no offense to Schotty or Walton but that just isn't realistic. It also assumes that any additions this season are not helping the roster one bit and instead, hurting the team.

So yeah - PFF can have their matrix with which they score a roster. But it really couldn't be more useless as far as I can see.

 

[PhxRam]

Yes, I completely understand the gap responsibilities, but even if you're not able to shoot your gap, you can still be more disruptive than Laurinaitis is a lot of the time.

It kind of goes hand in hand with his lack of thump. Of the flaws I listed, the first two you seem to agree with, this is the one that concerns me the least.

I actually agree with alot of what you are saying about JL. I think the need to replace him right now (which I know you agree with) is quite low, but when the time comes when he IS the weakest link on the team, he will be replaced.

 

[DR RAM]

I suppose it depends on what you call a difference maker. JL is smart - as you said - but he also is always around the ball and isn't as bad in coverage as you are indicating IMO. JL is solid in a day when good MLBs are very sought after and in short supply. Yeah there are more physical MLBs out there that could be considered elite. But below average? Wouldn't that put about 20 above him? Not seeing it.

As to the full ranking, I suppose by their criteria, that is where they rank the roster. It doesn't really hold water as far as I can see it because that would indicate that last year's result was all coaching. And no offense to Schotty or Walton but that just isn't realistic. It also assumes that any additions this season are not helping the roster one bit and instead, hurting the team.

So yeah - PFF can have their matrix with which they score a roster. But it really couldn't be more useless as far as I can see.

If they rank us, talent wise, where they do....you're fucking kidding me. Three - four years ago, I'm OK with that.

 

[ZigZagRam]

I actually agree with alot of what you are saying about JL. I think the need to replace him right now (which I know you agree with) is quite low, but when the time comes when he IS the weakest link on the team, he will be replaced.

Yeah, that may not even come at the end of the current deal. I get the feeling that he'd be the type to be offered and accept a team-friendly extension as long as he continues to play near his current level. Same goes for Chris Long.

Maybe that's just an unrealistic hope of mine that we can keep the band together for that long.

 

[PhxRam]

The whole ranking thing is predicated on nothing but wins and losses. If we go deep into the playoffs suddenly all the average/below average players will be ranked as above average.

 

[DR RAM]

The whole ranking thing is predicated on nothing but wins and losses. If we go deep into the playoffs suddenly all the average/below average players will be ranked as above average.

But...I thought the whole point was to rank these kids....independently.

No need to respond.

 

[PhxRam]

But...I thought the whole point was to rank these kids....independently.

No need to respond.

??

 

[Boffo97]

The whole ranking thing is predicated on nothing but wins and losses. If we go deep into the playoffs suddenly all the average/below average players will be ranked as above average.

Kind of like football game ratings.

I had a couple of NFL games based on the 1999-2000 season back in the day (this was prior to the NFL giving EA an exclusive license) and in both Kurt Warner had a rating in the 60s. (And in one, he had 15 as a number.)

 

[DR RAM]

??

Not going after you, or anybody, but their system is flawed. Just didn't want to add the blue, lol.

 

[PhxRam]

Not going after you, or anybody, but their system is flawed. Just didn't want to add the blue, lol.

I agree it is flawed..

 

[SierraRam]

Reading the analysis of Brockers has me wondering if the author watched any of our games. Still, who cares?

Where were we ranked in 1999?

 

[DR RAM]

Reading the analysis of Brockers has me wondering if the author watched any of our games. Still, who cares?

Where were we ranked in 1999?

For instance (I know that you know this)...how well would Quinn have done without Brockers, etc. Team game, duh.

 

[junkman]

ESPN ranks the Rams roster.....and it's not pretty
By 3k  @3k_

Bob Levey

Sam Monson, usually of PFF but recently of ESPN, destroyed the Rams' roster. You want to see how low he ranked them.

Well, this is interesting.

Sam Monson, who has largely moved from Pro Football Focus to ESPN, ranked all 32 of the NFL's rosters, looking at the starting 12 a side to account for the reality that teams use different personnel. And after grading out the Rams double dozen, where does put them? (insider subscription required...boo)

31st.

Next to last.

Oh.

It's fair to note that Monson spoon-fed the Skip Bayless-chaired world of drive-by hot takes with a piece earlier this week that argued that Tom Brady was no longer a top 5 QB (also insider...also boo), of course using the empty "elite" modifier which led some random NFL fan in my Twitter timeline using the new version, "elite pure QB." Makes it easier to ratchet the takes up from hot to blistering.

So to that end, it's fair to at least approach Monson's rankings with a dose of skepticism as to whether this is fodder for the ESPN content ouroboros or if this was a fair attempt at personnel analysis. Perhaps I'm being naive, but I'll lean toward the latter for the sake of discussion.

That being the case, I was, unsurprisingly, surprised by how low he ranked the Rams. Take a look:



I won't copy and paste his entire write-up, but his intro on the Rams should suffice to sum up his thoughts:

If there is a team to challenge the Jaguars for the worst roster in football, it's the Rams. Robert Quinn is a blue-chip player who had 91 total sacks, hits and hurries a year ago, and the starters look capable in the trenches, but the roster is in trouble everywhere else.

A couple things...

- Those are some pretty brutal rankings for the TEs and WRs. While Jared Cook disappointed most in his first season with the Rams, his production certainly wasn't below average. And it's difficult to see how Austin Pettis is (a) given a higher assessment than Chris Givens and (b) equal assessment as Tavon Austin. If we're going off basic traditional statistics, sure. Pettis and Austin had similar totals...but Pettis had 170 less yards on four less receptions than Givens. Sure, PFF grades drove the majority of these, but that's just a weird outcome for that trio.

- From the minute the Rams' week 17 game ended to the moment after Jadeveon Clowney was announced as the first overall pick, hundreds of NFL pundits cited the often "Sam Bradford's on his back" and how undertalented the Rams' O-line is/was. And yet here, you've got the Rams' best unit according to these rankings: one high quality, two good starters, one average starter and a premium rookie. Looks similar to how a Rams fan would rank our O-line, no? And glad to see Joe Barksdale get some love.

- Langford and Brockers as average starters? Does that strike you as fair?

- Oof. The linebackers and secondary. Any Rams fans nodding in agreement on this?

- This does say something about the coaching though. If you're telling me the Rams have the second-worst roster, then it's a near damn miracle they've managed seven wins in consecutive seasons in the league's best division. And for a defense that only has two players above average that is supported (or more accurate is not) by such a lackluster offense to rank in the top half for points allowed and 9th in rushing yards allowed despite such poor linebackers and safeties....if the coaches were ranked too, Fisher and everyone on the defensive side would have to be considered "elite" as well...which I doubt would be a popular opinion among most NFL observers.

That all being said, it's an interesting case to be made two months out from the first preseason game. The idea of the Rams riding into the 2014 season with the league's second-worst roster with higher expectations than at any time since the Martz-Linehan bridge era...well that might be the most Rams thing possible.

Thanks @Prime Time and @RustyRay for posting the pertinent parts of Sam Monson's article.

I'm a huge fan of PFF grades, and I believe them to be extraordinarily useful. But you can't look at them in a vacuum. And you need to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the grading system. The author of the article was simply a slave to the PFF grades and wound up with an obviously absurd result because of it.

1. As I mentioned earlier, they did not consider improvement over the year. The Rams with a bunch of rookie performers (e.g. Ogletree, Tavon, McLeod, McDonald) improved significantly. Other players (e.g. Langford) improved significantly. This actually does show up in a meaningful way in the PFF grades, but the author did not consider this.
2. It doesn't consider team improvement as a whole. Those games 1-4 got averaged in just like everything else, even though they have little bearing on who the Rams team is now.
3. PFF does not consider quality of competition, as always.

As with all statistical analysis, you need to give your results the "sniff" test before you publish your results. Are these results reasonable? Is it reasonable that the Rams team fielded the 31st worst roster in the NFL, and despite this terrible roster

• went 7-9 overall
• went 6-6 once they changed their offensive philosophy
• despite playing most of the year without their starting QB
• while playing in a division where the other teams had a combined 35-13 record and including the Super Bowl champions and the NFC runner-up?

Of course not. With a result like that as a statistician, that tells you it's time to re-evaluate your model.

~~i

If you want to do a better PFF team analysis, start with the PFF cumulative team grades. Same statistical source, but a less connived aggregation.

• the Rams team overall grade on 2013 was +50.1 which puts them at #16. That's a good starting point.
• Even if you remove special teams (as the author did but this is an area where the Rams excelled), the Rams would still be at #20 in the rankings. Nowhere close to #31.
• But you also need to consider the trends and who the Rams are now (which is not just the average of last year's grades). If you remove the grades for games 1-4 which were justifiably horrible, that pushes the Rams up to #11 or #12 (depending on whether you use per game PFF grade or cumulative PFF grade). If you take PFF grades as a bible and do the best statistical analysis you can, that's about where things should turn out.

Let me repeat that statement for emphasis - if you look at PFF grades the RIGHT way, the Rams should be about #12.

Lastly, before making any final rankings, you need to consider:

• What's the impact of getting Bradford back
• What's the impact of the Rams draft class and free agents
• Was there any skew in the PFF grades created by strength of schedule.

My final conclusion, if I was grading Sam Monson's article, I'd give it an F. Sorry Sammy, statistical analysis is not for you.


.