PFF 49ers Ranking (thanks Phoenix49ers)

I'm starting to really question Iupati's ability to consistently pass block. It's been an area of weakness for nearly two years now. He seems average, at best, in this area of his game and that's just not good enough to warrant top 5 OG money imo. I've seen him get beat cleanly on stutter step type of moves by quicker DTs. He needs to step up his pass blocking game to earn that fat paycheck we think is coming.

I'm surprised at that low YPC average when running behind Staley and Iupati. Perhaps a big reason is the run blocking scheme that the 49ers have been using to start the season (running out of the pistol, read-option dive plays).

I wish I could interview one of the PFF scorers to get some questions answered. There are times a defense run blitzes a certain gap and the run play is doomed from the start, regardless of how well that guard blocks (see GB game). How penalized is the individual offensive linemen? Just lots of questions on how in depth their scoring is, whether they look at a player's performance in a vacuum, or do they consider the offensive play being called versus the defense being played.

Another scenario is, if the defense drops 8 into coverage, are the WRs being penalized for not getting open? I mean, it would be a bit harsh to penalize the WR for not getting open versus that coverage scheme.

Originally posted by thl408:
I'm starting to really question Iupati's ability to consistently pass block. It's been an area of weakness for nearly two years now. He seems average, at best, in this area of his game and that's just not good enough to warrant top 5 OG money imo. I've seen him get beat cleanly on stutter step type of moves by quicker DTs. He needs to step up his pass blocking game to earn that fat paycheck we think is coming.

I'm surprised at that low YPC average when running behind Staley and Iupati. Perhaps a big reason is the run blocking scheme that the 49ers have been using to start the season (running out of the pistol, read-option dive plays).

I wish I could interview one of the PFF scorers to get some questions answered. There are times a defense run blitzes a certain gap and the run play is doomed from the start, regardless of how well that guard blocks (see GB game). How penalized is the individual offensive linemen? Just lots of questions on how in depth their scoring is, whether they look at a player's performance in a vacuum, or do they consider the offensive play being called versus the defense being played.

Another scenario is, if the defense drops 8 into coverage, are the WRs being penalized for not getting open? I mean, it would be a bit harsh to penalize the WR for not getting open versus that coverage scheme.

They actually mention that in their scoring, that in some cases, they won't give any score to a play, especially if the defense won on the basis of scheme and had an extra guy free. They don't actually have to give points to anyone for any one particular play.

For the most part, Iupati has been solid as a pass blocker but when he has a bad game, he REALLY has a bad game. Examples include the second Rams game last season and the Falcons game in the playoffs. Going back to 2011 its the same thing, mostly solid, had pretty bad games against the Giants in the playoffs, Arizona in the game they won against the 49ers and also against the Lions.

For the season in 2012, Iupati was ranked as the best run-blocker on the 49ers but the worst pass-blocker on the OL.

Looking at the rest of the NFL in 2012, Andy Levitre, Evan Mathis, Jahri Evans and Marshal Yanda were ranked as the best pass-blocking OG's.

Overall among guards, Boone was ranked 3rd and Iupati was ranked 6th.


Over the past 3 seasons, Evan Mathis of the Iggles by far has been the best guard in football, dominant as both a run and pass blocker.

Logan Mankins?

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
Logan Mankins?

He's 6th so far this season among all guards, last season he finished 18th due to struggles with pass-blocking.

Wow Kaps doo doo

How did you get this info? Do you have to pay for a subscription or anything?

Originally posted by OregonDuckNiner:
How did you get this info? Do you have to pay for a subscription or anything?

Advanced telepathy. Have you ever seen the movie 'Scanners?'




It's by subscription, costs like $30 for the whole year.

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Originally posted by OregonDuckNiner:
How did you get this info? Do you have to pay for a subscription or anything?

Advanced telepathy. Have you ever seen the movie 'Scanners?'




It's by subscription, costs like $30 for the whole year.

No, but I just looked it up on IMDB! and that's lame... keep posting these stats here though, good stuff

And I'm really pleased with how Dorsey has been playing, and the stats reflect that. Just wish we had some depth there

PFF is garbage.

Am I the only one who thinks so?

How many of these clowns work for a NFL team?

Yup, that's right.

None.

NEXT!

Originally posted by rammer:
PFF is garbage.

Am I the only one who thinks so?

How many of these clowns work for a NFL team?

Yup, that's right.

None.

NEXT!

I don't think it's garbage, as long as people don't treat it like a ratings bible.

Rating individual football players using metrics or grades is a very tricky task. It's not like Baseball or Basketball where percentages or rates can tell you most of the story. I think PFF can give you a general idea of performance level, but I won't ever base my opinion solely on their ratings

Originally posted by rammer:
PFF is garbage.

Am I the only one who thinks so?

How many of these clowns work for a NFL team?

Yup, that's right.

None.

NEXT!

LOL....explain how its "garbage?" Just because you don't like their system doesn't make them wrong. They've been fairly accurate, when a guy starts to decline, PFF is the first detailed portrayal you get to see of it, short of watching coaches film. Soap had a 5.0 rating in 2011, he declined horribly to -12 last season, now he's with Philly and struggling just as bad this season as he did last.


PFF had Meachem ranked extremely low from the very first game after he signed with the Chargers, people said he'd pick it up, PFF's numbers didn't bear it out, he got dumped by the Chargers as a result and is now back with New Orleans.


If you're going to criticize PFF, find me examples where they've been wrong and we can discuss, otherwise you're just trolling this thread.

Originally posted by SofaKing:
I don't think it's garbage, as long as people don't treat it like a ratings bible.

Rating individual football players using metrics or grades is a very tricky task. It's not like Baseball or Basketball where percentages or rates can tell you most of the story. I think PFF can give you a general idea of performance level, but I won't ever base my opinion solely on their ratings

I think it gives you a great idea of a player's general performance, especially the offensive and defensive lines. Like I said, short of having coaches film and re-watching every snap of every game, PFF tends to give you the best idea of how someone is performing. On a microscale, taken a game at a time, its not very useful, but taken over 5 or 6 games, or even better a whole season, it paints a pretty detailed picture of someone's overall performance.

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:
I think it gives you a great idea of a player's general performance, especially the offensive and defensive lines. Like I said, short of having coaches film and re-watching every snap of every game, PFF tends to give you the best idea of how someone is performing. On a microscale, taken a game at a time, its not very useful, but taken over 5 or 6 games, or even better a whole season, it paints a pretty detailed picture of someone's overall performance.

I could agree with that. Over a stretch of games their ratings should be reasonably accurate. But grading football players is tough. Even the paid professionals have a tough time identifying who is good, and who is not. More so than Baseball and Basketball IMO. In those two sports you can more easily isolate individual performance. I like PFF though, and I use it a long with other resources to find out what the hell is going on out there.

Originally posted by SofaKing:
I could agree with that. Over a stretch of games their ratings should be reasonably accurate. But grading football players is tough. Even the paid professionals have a tough time identifying who is good, and who is not. More so than Baseball and Basketball IMO. In those two sports you can more easily isolate individual performance. I like PFF though, and I use it a long with other resources to find out what the hell is going on out there.

Obviously, actually seeing what goes on in the game is important but over 4 years, I've begun to trust PFF. You don't find a situation where at the end of a season a guy is ranked poorly by them and still somehow had a good season, it doesn't happen. Its not the only resource out there, nor should their word be taken as gospel truth but I find them to be highly reliable and I made this thread to share information that others might find interesting. I simply don't like it when people criticize it blindly like the guy above you but don't give any sound logical reasoning or evidence to back up their view. Like the numbers or hate them, they've proven to be fairly on point.

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Originally posted by OregonDuckNiner:
How did you get this info? Do you have to pay for a subscription or anything?

Advanced telepathy. Have you ever seen the movie 'Scanners?'




It's by subscription, costs like $30 for the whole year.

I think it is well worth the cost.

I recommend the site. They have different "plans." Premium Statistics is plan that provides the stats cited in this thread.

Here is a link to their website.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/