Off Season News

[mradtke66]

The reason I know this is not accurate is I follow them closely. Now I believe someone might’ve said that in error that’s possible. Also “aims for” is not definitive so right there shows it’s variable.
We’ve had players rank #56/110 and have a 54.6% grade. If the above was true they’re over 60%. I’ve tried to figure their “average” out for years but it’s a moving target.

Generally speaking 54-59% is a normal range.

Here’s an example

Sean Rhyan Ryan is currently PFf ranked #31 of 40 eligible Overall
That is bottom 1/4 of the league. Actually bottom 22.5% percentile to

How is his overall PFF grade 59.0%??

The math isn’t there.

Average is getting construed here and I’m not helping.

A grade of roughly 60 is not average as in a bell curve, but rather something like “a baseline NFL player” not the literal arithmetic mean.

In an absurd example, let’s assume that every center is near perfect in 2026. The top 31 play every snap and get graded 100. The 32nd center is a touch too slow on a 1st and goal play, the running back is stopped for no gain. His run block grade is 99.

He still had an amazing year, but some still had to be ranked last. Doesn’t change his grade.

 

[Heyjoe4]

I still think

I still think we could go oline. We could use a couple more imho.

I think this is a year where Gluten will actually take the BPA from the CB, DT, and OL groups at #52. He's already added a solid if old DT (Hargrave) and added depth at CB (Juste), so an OL pick is entirely possible at #52.

The starting OL looks good. From L to R it will be Morgan, Banks, Rhyan, Belton, and Tom. Hopefully Tom recovers from patellar tendon surgery.

They could certainly use depth on the OL. It's not a given that the starting 5 will be a dominant unit. Banks was injured last year and Tom is coming off a serious injury. If the OL plays to its potential, and of course avoids major injury, it will be a top 5, more like top 10 unit.

Anyway, yeah, it would not be a surprise to see a versatile OL taken at #52.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Average is getting construed here and I’m not helping.

A grade of roughly 60 is not average as in a bell curve, but rather something like “a baseline NFL player” not the literal arithmetic mean.

In an absurd example, let’s assume that every center is near perfect in 2026. The top 31 play every snap and get graded 100. The 32nd center is a touch too slow on a 1st and goal play, the running back is stopped for no gain. His run block grade is 99.

He still had an amazing year, but some still had to be ranked last. Doesn’t change his grade.

That's useful info mradtke, thanks. By not using a mathematical mean or curve, the ranking alone isn't enough info to fairly evaluate a player.

 

[Heyjoe4]

That's only his impact to the Cardinals. His base salary and bonuses a trading team would be on the hook for is about 10M for 2026 and 19M per year 2027 and 2028 (base + option and workout bonuses.)

So if I'm doing the math right, Sweat would cost $48 mil (19x2 + 10). Not exactly a bargain. Then again, I don't know a lot about how Sweat has performed in the NFL. I think he was taken in round 1 a few years ago, and seem to recall a mock draft or two with him going to GB.

What's the consensus? Is he worth this kind of money? Thanks all.

 

[gopkrs]

I think this is a year where Gluten will actually take the BPA from the CB, DT, and OL groups at #52. He's already added a solid if old DT (Hargrave) and added depth at CB (Juste), so an OL pick is entirely possible at #52.

The starting OL looks good. From L to R it will be Morgan, Banks, Rhyan, Belton, and Tom. Hopefully Tom recovers from patellar tendon surgery.

They could certainly use depth on the OL. It's not a given that the starting 5 will be a dominant unit. Banks was injured last year and Tom is coming off a serious injury. If the OL plays to its potential, and of course avoids major injury, it will be a top 5, more like top 10 unit.

Anyway, yeah, it would not be a surprise to see a versatile OL taken at #52.

If we took the best center it would add depth and help the run game. I would like to pick best player at position rather than versatile. Most likely that guy is versatile anyway. And unfortunately in past big games, the coaches didn't choose the best players for positions when they were forced to choose.

 

[Heyjoe4]

If we took the best center it would add depth and help the run game. I would like to pick best player at position rather than versatile. Most likely that guy is versatile anyway. And unfortunately in past big games, the coaches didn't choose the best players for positions when they were forced to choose.

I get it. The Packers have valued the ability to play multiple OL positions v taking the BPA at one of the OL positions. Or si it has seemed.

With Rhyan getting a new contract, I don't think the pick would be a C, probably a G. Banks was injured last year and Belton, while he played well, is only in his second year.

 

[gopkrs]

I get it. The Packers have valued the ability to play multiple OL positions v taking the BPA at one of the OL positions. Or si it has seemed.

With Rhyan getting a new contract, I don't think the pick would be a C, probably a G. Banks was injured last year and Belton, while he played well, is only in his second year.

My best guess is Belton is our best backup L tackle. And maybe our best L tackle. I hope Morgan makes L tackle a strength. I just don't know. He's shown that he's not very versatile imho.

 

[OldSchool101]

And why do you think different GMs have different grades on players? It's not because they use pff as a bible.

Hey @gopkrs I’m not directing it at you personally so please don’t be offended. I highly doubt you started these themes. They have a hint of accuracy that we should use our own ability to study the film and learn about various aspects of said film to form a personal opinion. I totally agree with that principal on an island. I’m all about being original and educate ourselves in the matters. I respect that.

The general theme that gets started is this. Not wired for word but thematic.

“Stats don’t matter they are bad”

and

“PFF isn’t Gospel”

The point I’d make is this. When I ask fans to display to me a better grading system than PFF? The 2 same answers I routinely get are
a. I use the “Eye test”
b. I trust those that have played the game etc etc.

If you’re relying on my eye test to form a reliable opinion you’re at best doomed! My advice to anyone is always Use a proper sample size and apply my opinion against others and see if they see what I see. But never rely on a singular eye test and certainly don’t imply the eye test shouldn’t be weighted against recorded results.
Use both.

PFF uses HUNDREDS of eye tests from NFL aficionados like us (being funny here). There’s inaccuracy and sometimes it doesn’t match production. So bend it the way you see fit. Yet PFF is still proven to be a nice baseline imo.

PFF is not the end all. It is a good tool to get a baseline. My advice in general (not direct at you personally) Do the research and apply it against statistical evidence of production. Then against what others like us are seeing as a group. Chile isn’t made with 4 cans of tomato sauce and served without additive.

 

[OldSchool101]

By the way. I get great opinions in here and if I see others making agreeing on a point about an area of failure? It probably holds some weight at minimum. We collectively watch enough football to pile knowledge on a freighter and sink it.

Heck I even had a couple posters in here enlighten me on Gary and how his finishing fell off a relative cliff. I would’ve never applied that had I not debated in here. It 100% revised my later season opinion of him. I love the guy but he wasn’t getting it done. He went from a $24mil valued player to $17.5Mil valued player in my eyes. He’s not taking that pay cut and I probably don’t blame him. He’s advertising a product. “6’4” 275lb!”
I appreciate Rashan but we did the right thing UNLESS he was taking a heavy restructure. I still think he’s a good player. Just not $24-26-28mil good.

 

[Heyjoe4]

My best guess is Belton is our best backup L tackle. And maybe our best L tackle. I hope Morgan makes L tackle a strength. I just don't know. He's shown that he's not very versatile imho.

Very interesting comment gopkrs. I never thought of playing Belton at LT. If I recall, he has the physical attributes - tall and moves well. I may be wrong here. For now, he looks like a lock at RG. But now I'm wondering if G is his best position. Do you or anyone else know what position he played in college?

There is a lot riding on Morgan playing well at LT. I'm not disappointed that Rasheed Walker is gone. He had some good years but nothing close to All Pro. He is what he is, a $10 mil, one-year prove-it deal, wherever he went.

LT is the position Morgan played in college. It should be his best position. I don't know who his backup would be. Not surprising, and OL depth is one area Gluten has to address - probably in the draft. I don't think they want an older veteran for a year or two (this is what they did at DT with Hargrave). It's about time Love and the RBs had a consistent OL in front of them. My guess is Gluten will use the draft here.

 

[Heyjoe4]

By the way. I get great opinions in here and if I see others making agreeing on a point about an area of failure? It probably holds some weight at minimum. We collectively watch enough football to pile knowledge on a freighter and sink it.

Heck I even had a couple posters in here enlighten me on Gary and how his finishing fell off a relative cliff. I would’ve never applied that had I not debated in here. It 100% revised my later season opinion of him. I love the guy but he wasn’t getting it done. He went from a $24mil valued player to $17.5Mil valued player in my eyes. He’s not taking that pay cut and I probably don’t blame him. He’s advertising a product. “6’4” 275lb!”
I appreciate Rashan but we did the right thing UNLESS he was taking a heavy restructure. I still think he’s a good player. Just not $24-26-28mil good.

Yeah spot on here OS. Gary was nowhere near as valuable as his contract suggested. I don't know if his new team reworked the deal. I would think so. In any case, I think Gluten and MLF made the decision to move on from Gary, reworked contract or not.

This gives LVN an outstanding opportunity to step in as the #2 Edge guy behind Parsons. Playing on the same D with Parsons should help LVN with single overage. I hope he has a kick-*** year.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Hey @gopkrs I’m not directing it at you personally so please don’t be offended. I highly doubt you started these themes. They have a hint of accuracy that we should use our own ability to study the film and learn about various aspects of said film to form a personal opinion. I totally agree with that principal on an island. I’m all about being original and educate ourselves in the matters. I respect that.

The general theme that gets started is this. Not wired for word but thematic.

“Stats don’t matter they are bad”

and

“PFF isn’t Gospel”

The point I’d make is this. When I ask fans to display to me a better grading system than PFF? The 2 same answers I routinely get are
a. I use the “Eye test”
b. I trust those that have played the game etc etc.

If you’re relying on my eye test to form a reliable opinion you’re at best doomed! My advice to anyone is always Use a proper sample size and apply my opinion against others and see if they see what I see. But never rely on a singular eye test and certainly don’t imply the eye test shouldn’t be weighted against recorded results.
Use both.

PFF uses HUNDREDS of eye tests from NFL aficionados like us (being funny here). There’s inaccuracy and sometimes it doesn’t match production. So bend it the way you see fit. Yet PFF is still proven to be a nice baseline imo.

PFF is not the end all. It is a good tool to get a baseline. My advice in general (not direct at you personally) Do the research and apply it against statistical evidence of production. Then against what others like us are seeing as a group. Chile isn’t made with 4 cans of tomato sauce and served without additive.

PFF and combine results can't address what a team needs and who best fits those needs, and it can't address intangibles like teamwork and leadership.

Both PFF and the combine results are still useful relative measures - comparing two players at the same position for ex.

 

[Heyjoe4]

If we took the best center it would add depth and help the run game. I would like to pick best player at position rather than versatile. Most likely that guy is versatile anyway. And unfortunately in past big games, the coaches didn't choose the best players for positions when they were forced to choose.

Yeah I agree gopkrs - BPA is rarely the measure used to select a player in the draft. There's a bias to immediate needs. And that can be costly. The Packers needed a CB and so drafted Kevin King ahead of TJ Watt, I forget the year, probably 2018 or 2019.

In fairness, it was hard to predict the high level of success from Watt, or if he was even on the Packers radar, or any team other than the Steelers. But he was taken shortly after King, so he was high on the draft radar. It doesn't help that he was in GB's backyard while playing in Madison.

But selecting for need or BPA (or both) is up to the GM with input from the HC. I think Gluten has done a very good job in the draft. Some ups, some downs - even from year to year. But mostly, his moves have been solid.

Finally, with Rhyan signing a 3-year deal at C, I don't think the Packers will be drafting any Cs. They need backups for the OL though, so who knows?

 

[gopkrs]

Yeah I agree gopkrs - BPA is rarely the measure used to select a player in the draft. There's a bias to immediate needs. And that can be costly. The Packers needed a CB and so drafted Kevin King ahead of TJ Watt, I forget the year, probably 2018 or 2019.

In fairness, it was hard to predict the high level of success from Watt, or if he was even on the Packers radar, or any team other than the Steelers. But he was taken shortly after King, so he was high on the draft radar. It doesn't help that he was in GB's backyard while playing in Madison.

But selecting for need or BPA (or both) is up to the GM with input from the HC. I think Gluten has done a very good job in the draft. Some ups, some downs - even from year to year. But mostly, his moves have been solid.

Finally, with Rhyan signing a 3-year deal at C, I don't think the Packers will be drafting any Cs. They need backups for the OL though, so who knows?

I don't really see Rhyan's signing as automatically making him the center. He's an offensive lineman to play where they see fit. Or be a good backup.

 

[Magooch]

If you’re relying on my eye test to form a reliable opinion you’re at best doomed! My advice to anyone is always Use a proper sample size and apply my opinion against others and see if they see what I see. But never rely on a singular eye test and certainly don’t imply the eye test shouldn’t be weighted against recorded results.
Use both.

PFF is not the end all. It is a good tool to get a baseline. Do the research and apply it against statistical evidence of production. Then against what others like us are seeing as a group. Chile isn’t made with 4 cans of tomato sauce and served without additive.

There's a famous quote from Einstein where he said "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" and I tend to view the stats/"eye test" debate similarly. They are both of limited use without the other present in balance.

One might say something like "stats without the eye test" lacks context, while "eye test without stats" lacks objectivity, or something like that.

I think we probably all can think of some example of a player who seems to generally grade well and/or pads out the stat sheet but watch them play with your own two eyes and you might struggle to find much of an impact from them. Maybe it is someone who tends to log "empty" stats or who is more adept at cleaning up for others than producing for themselves. Born on third base and thinking they hit a triple, if you will.

But at the same time our own eye test often fails as well. Frankly in many situations people just don't watch the game(s) that closely, or at least not on a player-by-player, per-play basis. We have an easy time remembering the "pop" plays but much of what happens in a given game is just noise to our brains. The stats or algorithms or performance metrics or whatever you want to call it aren't perfect or an end-all, be-all, but at the same time...a player who consistently LOOKS good and passes the "eye test" will almost always see that reflected in measurable data. It's almost impossible to be a player who consistently passes the eye test but doesn't have that appear on paper.

anyways, my 2c, haha

 

[milani]

Yeah spot on here OS. Gary was nowhere near as valuable as his contract suggested. I don't know if his new team reworked the deal. I would think so. In any case, I think Gluten and MLF made the decision to move on from Gary, reworked contract or not.

This gives LVN an outstanding opportunity to step in as the #2 Edge guy behind Parsons. Playing on the same D with Parsons should help LVN with single overage. I hope he has a kick-*** year.

I just do not see Van Ness becoming an elite player. Good, but not great. If he had that capability I would have expected more results in his first 2 seasons like Clay Matthews and AJ Hawk. He may be smarter but I just do not see him being a disruptor that offenses must take notice.

 

[milani]

There's a famous quote from Einstein where he said "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" and I tend to view the stats/"eye test" debate similarly. They are both of limited use without the other present in balance.

One might say something like "stats without the eye test" lacks context, while "eye test without stats" lacks objectivity, or something like that.

I think we probably all can think of some example of a player who seems to generally grade well and/or pads out the stat sheet but watch them play with your own two eyes and you might struggle to find much of an impact from them. Maybe it is someone who tends to log "empty" stats or who is more adept at cleaning up for others than producing for themselves. Born on third base and thinking they hit a triple, if you will.

But at the same time our own eye test often fails as well. Frankly in many situations people just don't watch the game(s) that closely, or at least not on a player-by-player, per-play basis. We have an easy time remembering the "pop" plays but much of what happens in a given game is just noise to our brains. The stats or algorithms or performance metrics or whatever you want to call it aren't perfect or an end-all, be-all, but at the same time...a player who consistently LOOKS good and passes the "eye test" will almost always see that reflected in measurable data. It's almost impossible to be a player who consistently passes the eye test but doesn't have that appear on paper.

anyways, my 2c, haha

Very good.

 

[Heyjoe4]

I don't really see Rhyan's signing as automatically making him the center. He's an offensive lineman to play where they see fit. Or be a good backup.

Good point, and I completely missed it. Nothing limits Rhyan to just C, or even to being a starter. That gives Gluten flexibility with the #52 pick (all picks, really) to improve the OL.

And Rhyan can't be disappointed with his deal. 3 years at $11 mil AAV with, I think, an $11 mil signing bonus. That's pretty good for a guy that very easily may not have been resigned.

 

[CarryTheG14]

There's a famous quote from Einstein where he said "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" and I tend to view the stats/"eye test" debate similarly. They are both of limited use without the other present in balance.

One might say something like "stats without the eye test" lacks context, while "eye test without stats" lacks objectivity, or something like that.

I think we probably all can think of some example of a player who seems to generally grade well and/or pads out the stat sheet but watch them play with your own two eyes and you might struggle to find much of an impact from them. Maybe it is someone who tends to log "empty" stats or who is more adept at cleaning up for others than producing for themselves. Born on third base and thinking they hit a triple, if you will.

But at the same time our own eye test often fails as well. Frankly in many situations people just don't watch the game(s) that closely, or at least not on a player-by-player, per-play basis. We have an easy time remembering the "pop" plays but much of what happens in a given game is just noise to our brains. The stats or algorithms or performance metrics or whatever you want to call it aren't perfect or an end-all, be-all, but at the same time...a player who consistently LOOKS good and passes the "eye test" will almost always see that reflected in measurable data. It's almost impossible to be a player who consistently passes the eye test but doesn't have that appear on paper.

anyways, my 2c, haha

What a great post!

 

[OldSchool101]

There's a famous quote from Einstein where he said "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" and I tend to view the stats/"eye test" debate similarly. They are both of limited use without the other present in balance.

One might say something like "stats without the eye test" lacks context, while "eye test without stats" lacks objectivity, or something like that.

I think we probably all can think of some example of a player who seems to generally grade well and/or pads out the stat sheet but watch them play with your own two eyes and you might struggle to find much of an impact from them. Maybe it is someone who tends to log "empty" stats or who is more adept at cleaning up for others than producing for themselves. Born on third base and thinking they hit a triple, if you will.

But at the same time our own eye test often fails as well. Frankly in many situations people just don't watch the game(s) that closely, or at least not on a player-by-player, per-play basis. We have an easy time remembering the "pop" plays but much of what happens in a given game is just noise to our brains. The stats or algorithms or performance metrics or whatever you want to call it aren't perfect or an end-all, be-all, but at the same time...a player who consistently LOOKS good and passes the "eye test" will almost always see that reflected in measurable data. It's almost impossible to be a player who consistently passes the eye test but doesn't have that appear on paper.

anyways, my 2c, haha

Well said. I know we can’t do this with every player. Yet what I like to do is use a condensed version of a game and replay it but pay close attention to just 1 or 2 players on Offense (maybe replay it 2X per play). Then do the same on Defense. I often choose just 1 player in each phase that’s been controversial in here. Because I want to know for myself if the criticism is fair. You’d be surprised what you’ll learn about a player focusing on just them across like 50+ snaps. Often it’ll be another player or 2 that show up on film almost by accident or as a best supporting actor.

We normally watch so many moving parts it’s hard to do that real time. I’ve often found this a helpful way to seeing if the praise or criticism on a player at a skill (such as are they a bad blocker?) is accurate.

PS. If you don’t have condensed just use film from a recent game where it’s the entire contest and forward through by popping 10 sec at a time. Often 2 clicks of 10 seconds prepares you for the next play

 

[Heyjoe4]

Well said. I know we can’t do this with every player. Yet what I like to do is use a condensed version of a game and replay it but pay close attention to just 1 or 2 players on Offense (maybe replay it 2X per play). Then do the same on Defense. I often choose just 1 player in each phase that’s been controversial in here. Because I want to know for myself if the criticism is fair. You’d be surprised what you’ll learn about a player focusing on just them across like 50+ snaps. Often it’ll be another player or 2 that show up on film almost by accident or as a best supporting actor.

We normally watch so many moving parts it’s hard to do that real time. I’ve often found this a helpful way to seeing if the praise or criticism on a player at a skill (such as are they a bad blocker?) is accurate.

PS. If you don’t have condensed just use film from a recent game where it’s the entire contest and forward through by popping 10 sec at a time. Often 2 clicks of 10 seconds prepares you for the next play

Very true. When I watch a game, I take the announcers' views about WR X or RB X being good blockers, RB Y a good receiver, and on. as true. I don't look for that stuff specifically during a game.

I was surprised after Wilson got cut, and someone commented that he wasn't a good receiver. I had no idea.

 

[OldSchool101]

I was surprised after Wilson got cut, and someone commented that he wasn't a good receiver. I had no idea.

Just curious. Did you mean “not a good blocker”? I recall someone saying that but never saw they thought he’s a bad Receiver. Maybe I missed that one

In limited supply he did go 13 of 15 for 5-1st Downs and 99 yards 6.6 per catch. So his arrow was pointing up off what I could see was a poor start. Emanuel (5 for 33.3% 6.6 per) had more 1st downs % than Jacobs (8 for 18.1% 7.8 per) or Aaron Jones (9-21.95% 7.1 per)

 

[Heyjoe4]

Just curious. Did you mean “not a good blocker”? I recall someone saying that but never saw they thought he’s a bad Receiver. Maybe I missed that one

In limited supply he did go 13 of 15 for 5-1st Downs and 99 yards 6.6 per catch. So his arrow was pointing up off what I could see was a poor start. Emanuel (5 for 33.3% 6.6 per) had more 1st downs % than Jacobs (8 for 18.1% 7.8 per) or Aaron Jones (9-21.95% 7.1 per)

Thanks for the catch OS. Yeah I think the knock on Wilson was his blocking, not receiving.

 

[OldSchool101]

Thanks for the catch OS. Yeah I think the knock on Wilson was his blocking, not receiving.

Oh ok I can see that. Well hopefully we can find an adequate replacement. While this RB isn’t some elite Pass Blocker. He does use his smaller 205lb. frame effectively and willingly. He’s not projected to be a lead actor. There’s some Knock on him for being smaller. His comparative would be Aaron Jones size. Yet some guys can handle punishment better than others and you never really count a guy like Aaron Jones over size. It’s not like they are 184lb here.

What I really like is he’s versatile. He has good football smarts and when he flipped into a bigger program in the ACC he wasn’t intimidated. He’s more quick than fast with pads. Yet mark my words, his long speed will not be a hindrance. He looks like a Track Star in the open. Consensus is splitting RD5 to RD6. Very realistic chance he crosses our plate as a key prospect in RD5

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Heyjoe4]

Oh ok I can see that. Well hopefully we can find an adequate replacement. While this RB isn’t some elite Pass Blocker. He does use his smaller 205lb. frame effectively and willingly. He’s not projected to be a lead actor. There’s some Knock on him for being smaller. His comparative would be Aaron Jones size. Yet some guys can handle punishment better than others and you never really count a guy like Aaron Jones over size. It’s not like they are 184lb here.

What I really like is he’s versatile. He has good football smarts and when he flipped into a bigger program in the ACC he wasn’t intimidated. He’s more quick than fast with pads. Yet mark my words, his long speed will not be a hindrance. He looks like a Track Star in the open. Consensus is splitting RD5 to RD6. Very realistic chance he crosses our plate as a key prospect in RD5

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Interesting OS, thanks. I'll look for his name to get called. I do think that 205 lbs is 20 lbs too light to play for very long in the NFL. Jones Jr is a good example. Elusive and fast, he gets injured too much. But hey, he just resigned with the queens.

One of the cemmentators on the video you sent said he's 5'9" (he looks taller to me) - and most rookies can add 15-20 lbs of muscle in the first two years. Hell some of them are only 19 when they get drafted.

I wonder if Gluten would use a RD5 pick on a RB. I think there are too many other needs, but if a guy they love drops...... It happens.