Bernie ISN"T relying on them, he's commenting on them and coming to the conclusion that whether you agree with them or not, we aren't where we should be after three years armed with a plethora of high picks.
Again I have to ask, did you even read the whole thing? Is so, how did you miss stuff like this:
"
As much as I respect the crew at Pro Football Focus for their excellent and diligent work, I don't agree with all of their opinions. Two quickie examples: I think defensive end
RobertQuinn is an elite player — not a "very good" player. I don't see how QB
SamBradford can receive an "average" grade when he's missed the last 25 regular-season games. Bradford hasn't played in a real game since Oct. 20 of the 2013 season. So how do we know? " So those are just two quick examples of stuff he disagrees with PFF about which means there are even more he didn't mention. The guy basically agrees with your take on some of the PFF grades and you dis him?
Sometimes, certain writing styles lend themselves to misreadings. Many of you don't seem to be reading the same article I am.
Yes, I read it. I used Quinn as an example against PFF, not against Bernie's opinion. But I don't agree with his opinion on this either.
And whereas he puts a significant amount of stock in PFF's rankings, even if he disagrees with some, I don't. There are a number of factors that affected this team's performance and pulled down the ratings for a lot of players that shouldn't otherwise have been pulled down.
1) The obvious one, losing Bradford in the preseason ends up affecting the ratings of the entire offense. As far as rating Sam as average, I would rate him as "incomplete" ... how can you rate a player accurately when he's missed so much time, his sample size is low, and consists mostly of time when a lot of the key pieces brought in to help him were rookies/2nd year players still developing?
2) With Bradford down, followed by Jake Long, we had monstrously
glaring weaknesses at three positions, so bad that they were enough to pull down the entire team - at QB, at C, and at RG. Teams exploited the hell out of that, especially the latter two, in the second half of the season. There are other factors to be sure, but these weakness do more to explain our offensive ineptitude than any other factor.
3) On defense, we spent the first half of the season learning a new defense, and there were clearly growing pains. But in the second half, our defense was near elite at times. We put the clamps down on Manning and the Broncos, holding them to the fewest points they've scored since Manning came to them, and the fewest points any Manning-led offense has scored in a decade. Pitched two shutouts in a row at one point. Held the 49ers to 10 points in their own house despite our own offensive ineptitude on the same day. Held the Seahawks to 13 points in their house, also with an offense that was struggling mightily. Save for the Giants game, the Rams defense played great during the second half of the season, much of it without a key player (Chris Long). Yet PFF wants me to believe they did that with a bunch of starters who were mostly average to below average.
4) With Ogletree, they cite missed tackles, but how many of those occurred during the first half of the season when they were still learning the new defense vs. the second half? 'Tree's play improved noticeably during the second half of the season.
5) Quick - given his injury, an incomplete would have been a better rating. But average? This is a guy who was on pace for over 80 catches and over 1000 yards receiving ... with
Austin Davis as his QB. I have a sneaking suspicion that the same Quick we had last year, pre-injury, would have had a much higher rating with Bradford under center. And good lord, what would his rating have been for a full, healthy season with a known elite QB like Rodgers, Brady, or Peyton throwing him passes? I'll bet dollars to donuts it would be a lot higher than average.
6) Britt - he wasn't listed, but I'm sure they would have had him as just average. Yet this is a guy who almost everybody agrees is a "must" sign for the Rams after the numbers he put up last year - with Austin Davis and Shaun Hill throwing to him.
7) Ridiculous to rate Robinson as poor. I could see below average, but with caveat that he was a rookie learning the ropes. It's not like he was a disaster, and he certainly was not the weak link on the OL, even at OT. And there really wasn't much dropoff, if any, after he took over for Jake Long.
8) I can agree with them on Givens and Austin, neither of them is where they should be right now.
9) Barron's another guy who should get an incomplete. How can they even know what we've got with him? He was playing out of his normal position last year and has a small sample size to boot. Furthermore, in Tampa Bay, he was playing in a defense that did not suit his strengths, which one reason we got him in the first place. So considering those factors, how can you put any stock in PFF's ranking of him?
10) And finally, the fact that they don't have a "Gawd Awful" category to put Scott Wells into should also make one question their ratings.
In short, PFF's ratings appear to have been done in isolation based on a few easily obtainable metrics while not looking at the bigger picture. Bradford under a competent center with a competent RG last year would have probably boosted the ratings of most of the offense last year. Had they not spent a good chunk of the season learning a new D, but instead had been in this system for a year, the ratings of almost every defensive player would have been higher. Heck if you just isolate the second half of the season from the first, they should all be higher.
I stick by what I said. Bernie's article is flawed because he lazily relied on PFF rankings, which are at best, highly flawed. I have no problem giving Bernie credit when he writes a good column, and there are many times he does just that. But this column was a piece of sh!t.
