Packer grades from Bob McGinn

[Deleted member 6794]

Rodgers and the veteran offense shouldn't be rattled by expectations to perform well. They sure weren't rattled at all the week before.

An easy FG, fumble, and whiffed blocks were more uncharacteristic errors than pressure getting to them.

While the offense struggled in the first half Rodgers shouldn´t be blamed for the unit not scoring before halftime.

 

[Sky King]

I highlighted Gunter because he was a hot mess..

He was, but I'll give him credit for trying hard. At least he made the most out of his unfortunate physical limitations. He's just not a player that you would want to be a #1 CB under any circumstance.

I'm not certain that the same could be said of Randall. He's far more gifted athletically, but you'd never know it the way he played. Perhaps, in his circumstance the shockingly awful play can be attributed to injury. Rollins, too, although his play was slightly better than awful. I'll remain highly skeptical until they have another training camp and season under their belts.

If those two don't rise from the ashes like the phoenix next season it may be yet another pair of high picks wasted on underachieving defensive players. Let's hope not.

 

[Carl]

While the offense struggled in the first half Rodgers shouldn´t be blamed for the unit not scoring before halftime.

You're right. I should have just said the offense.

 

[Sky King]

The thing with his grades is he watches every player on tape.. Not sure if he watches ever single play that played.. But I am guessing he watches more tape than 99% of people.

So he should be qualified to make an assessment. Notice I said should be qualified.

He has made many friends of scouts and front office executives over the years. Much of what he relates to the reader is feedback that he received from them. He looks thoroughly at the game tape.

SI featured him in an article very recently:

http://www.si.com/nfl/2017/01/20/green-bay-packers-bob-mcginn

 

[swhitset]

He doesn't have to, his responsibility is in creating clicks and readers. Beyond that he answers to nobody, and since it's been clear that his writings are more to appeal to emotions and get emotional responses rather than convey real genuine information to create a better understanding of the league and situations that arise, I don't indulge in that garbage.

I tend to agree... however, and perhaps this would be better if I asked it in the thread where he graded the players, but how do his grades and assessments compare with the Pro Football Focus evaluations that have been done on each player? I think the comparison might be interesting.

 

[gopkrs]

http://www.jsonline.com/story/sport...016-packers-defensive-player-grades/97137954/

Just wanted to say that I like Gunter and if the coaches aren't smart enough to find a place for him on the field where he can work effectively; then they just are not looking at the whole field. imho

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I tend to agree... however, and perhaps this would be better if I asked it in the thread where he graded the players, but how do his grades and assessments compare with the Pro Football Focus evaluations that have been done on each player? I think the comparison might be interesting.

Here are PFF's final grades for the 2016 season (scale of 1-100):

A. Rodgers 93.3
Hundley 50.5

Nelson 83.9
Cobb 81.0
Adams 74.7
Allison 70.3
Davis 53.3
Janis 51.8

Lacy 77.3
Montgomery 74.3
Michael 65.8
Jackson 63.4
Starks 55.8

Ripkowski 82.8
Kerridge 76.2

Cook 79.0
R. Rodgers 49.0

Bakhtiari 89.3
Lang 87.0
Bulaga 86.2
Tretter 84.1
Linsley 83.7
Taylor 73.0
Murphy 64.4
Barclay 46.5
Spriggs 45.7

Hyde 74.7
Dorleant 74.6
Rollins 58.1
Hawkins 48.9
Gunter 47.6
Goodson 43.2
Randall 39.6
Shields 38.3

Burnett 84.0
Clinton-Dix 83.2
Brice 61.4
Evans 49.7

Ryan 76.4
Martinez 50.2
Thomas 48.5
Tripp 46.3

Daniels 85.3
Clark 76.4
Lowry 74.9
Ringo 71.1
Guion 50.1
Price 45.5

Perry 82.2
Peppers 79.8
Fackrell 70.1
Jones 69.2
Elliott 48.8
Matthews 43.6

Just wanted to say that I like Gunter and if the coaches aren't smart enough to find a place for him on the field where he can work effectively; then they just are not looking at the whole field. imho

Gunter is only capable of playing on the perimeter as he's not agile enough to line up in the slot.

 

[PikeBadger]

I'm not sure that the final grades mean all that much, but reading the entire article does help to get a picture of every player on the defense. I'm not sure that I agree with a lot of the conclusions, but I do think the overall picture is petty true.

That sums it up well for me too.

 

[swhitset]

Here are PFF's final grades for the 2016 season (scale of 1-100):

A. Rodgers 93.3
Hundley 50.5

Nelson 83.9
Cobb 81.0
Adams 74.7
Allison 70.3
Davis 53.3
Janis 51.8

Lacy 77.3
Montgomery 74.3
Michael 65.8
Jackson 63.4
Starks 55.8

Ripkowski 82.8
Kerridge 76.2

Cook 79.0
R. Rodgers 49.0

Bakhtiari 89.3
Lang 87.0
Bulaga 86.2
Tretter 84.1
Linsley 83.7
Taylor 73.0
Murphy 64.4
Barclay 46.5
Spriggs 45.7

Hyde 74.7
Dorleant 74.6
Rollins 58.1
Hawkins 48.9
Gunter 47.6
Goodson 43.2
Randall 39.6
Shields 38.3

Burnett 84.0
Clinton-Dix 83.2
Brice 61.4
Evans 49.7

Ryan 76.4
Martinez 50.2
Thomas 48.5
Tripp 46.3

Daniels 85.3
Clark 76.4
Lowry 74.9
Ringo 71.1
Guion 50.1
Price 45.5

Perry 82.2
Peppers 79.8
Fackrell 70.1
Jones 69.2
Elliott 48.8
Matthews 43.6



Gunter is only capable of playing on the perimeter as he's not agile enough to line up in the slot.

Thanks for posting it... of course now I have more questions..... ie Shields ranking at the bottom of the secondary.... despite pretty much not playing.... what are the criteria that make up these grades?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Thanks for posting it... of course now I have more questions..... ie Shields ranking at the bottom of the secondary.... despite pretty much not playing.... what are the criteria that make up these grades?

https://www.profootballfocus.com/about/how-we-grade/

 

[Zartan]

I take Longtimefan's point to be- and he can correct me if I'm wrong- that A) Gunter isn't that good, and really shouldn't be better than your #4 CB, if even on the roster.
B)Maybe TT should do a better job so that when injuries hit we shouldn't have to rely on a guy who should be in Arena league to be covering guys like Dez and Julio one on one.
C)maybe we shouldn't be relying so heavily on JAGS, UDFA"s and fringe players who probably shouldn't be in the league.

Agreed. Had we had CBs that could actually make an NFL roster we probably would of beaten The Falcons both times.

 

[PackerFanLV]

I highlighted Gunter because he was a hot mess..

randall was worse but people still want to give randall a chance why not gunter? I think they both are bad I think MM and TT should go into FA get a corner and draft a corner let them all compete and let the best men win. If gunter and randall cant measure up I think they both should out.

 

[PackerFanLV]

Gunter is only capable of playing on the perimeter as he's not agile enough to line up in the slot.

Its easier playing the slot receiver then it is playing on the perimeter your allowed a lot more error inside then on the perimeter. You have a lot more help inside then you do on the perimeter.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

Im thinking Gunter would be a fine replacement for Hyde , if Hyde manages to price himself out of town.

We need true CBs. Not more tweeners. Hyde might be our best tweener, but its hard to justify paying him big bucks when we NEED a expensive FA CB.

What is Hyde going to get you guys think?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

randall was worse but people still want to give randall a chance why not gunter? I think they both are bad I think MM and TT should go into FA get a corner and draft a corner let them all compete and let the best men win. If gunter and randall cant measure up I think they both should out.

I guess fans are more optimistic about Randall because he has the athleticism necessary to perform on a decent level outside. That doesn't mean he will get it done though.

Its easier playing the slot receiver then it is playing on the perimeter your allowed a lot more error inside then on the perimeter. You have a lot more help inside then you do on the perimeter.

Most slot receivers in the league are way too fast and agile for Gunter to cover them. In addition he excels ppaying press coverage which is tougher to do inside.

 

[Carl]

Agreed. Had we had CBs that could actually make an NFL roster we probably would of beaten The Falcons both times.

Still wouldn't have won the second meeting with the same first half performance of the offense.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Still wouldn't have won the second meeting with the same first half performance of the offense.

I know it´s extremely tough to understand as Packers fans but there´s actually a way to win football games by scoring only 21 points. The team did it twice during their Super Bowl run in 2010.

 

[Dantés]

I guess fans are more optimistic about Randall because he has the athleticism necessary to perform on a decent level outside. That doesn't mean he will get it done though.



Most slot receivers in the league are way too fast and agile for Gunter to cover them. In addition he excels ppaying press coverage which is tougher to do inside.

Yeah, a lot of people tend to think that the slot is easier than the perimeter because there's more help, but the receivers are also always working with a two way go and that presents its own challenges. I don't really think the outside or inside is necessarily more difficult. They're just different and require different skill sets.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I don't really think the outside or inside is necessarily more difficult. They're just different and require different skill sets.

True, but I don´t think Gunter´s skill set is suited to play in the slot.

 

[Carl]

I know it´s extremely tough to understand as Packers fans but there´s actually a way to win football games by scoring only 21 points. The team did it twice during their Super Bowl run in 2010.

Were either of those offenses at the level of the Falcons right now? Did the Packers get shut out in the first half of those games?

Give the Packers decent corners and the Falcons likely still score 10-14 in the first half and the odds of coming back from that wouldnt be good.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Were either of those offenses at the level of the Falcons right now? Did the Packers get shut out in the first half of those games?

Give the Packers decent corners and the Falcons likely still score 10-14 in the first half and the odds of coming back from that wouldnt be good.

There's no doubt the 2010 Packers didn't face an offense as talented as this year's Falcons although the Eagles were the third highest scoring unit that season.

I agree the Falcons would have most likely scored a decent number of points even with the Packers having had decent cornerbacks but I don't agree with criticizing the entire offense. If not for two individual mistakes by Crosby and Ripkowski they would have scored 27 or possibly 31 points which should be enough to win a playoff game.