Erik Walden

[Dustin]

If they don't, what criteria do they use? What are the differences in the way they grade Dwight Freeney and the way they grade Kyle Vanden Bosch? Freeney has a -0.5 grade, and Vanden Bosch has a -31. According to them, Freeney is "better," but if you wanted a run defender, who would you choose? They have Connor Barwin rated lower than Cliff Avril, but Barwin got a much better contract than Avril did.

 

I appreciate PFF's analysis, but their ratings aren't conclusive, and some prop them up as if they are. Including PFF. For instance, this piece on why Walden's contract is so bad:

 

 

Take the bolded portions. The writer would have you believe that "doing your homework" means referencing PFF's ratings. They assume that because Walden's best game -- according to PFF -- was against the Colts, that the Colts fell in love with him on the basis of one game.

They also make the mistake of comparing Walden's contract to other 3-4 OLBs who are considered pass rushers, partially because people incorrectly assume that every 3-4 OLB is or should be a pass rusher.

 

I'll also point out, as I did in another thread, that Walden's game against the Colts was rather insignificant from statistical standpoint, and yet, it was one of his best games (at least that I've seen, and I've watched a handful of other Packers games, including some of Walden's statistical gems). Just goes to show that a player's impact doesn't always show up on the stat sheet, especially a hybrid defender like Walden.

 

Like I said, PFF's ratings have merit, but one player being at either the top or the bottom of any individual rating doesn't really mean anything about that player's ability or worth or value. And it isn't a legitimate projection for how that player will perform in a different system (and despite the Packers being a 3-4 base and the Colts being a so-called 3-4 base, they run two different defenses). Their ratings especially lose merit when they are taken out of context.

 

I understand what you're saying. I've said that the ratings don't really mean anything to me multiple times. I'm not arguing the releavence of the scores or how they compare to on the field production, but the point is still that Walden was the worst OLB in the league according to PFF; as Nobody said. We can sit here all day to try and decipher what that actual rating means and if it's correct or not, but according to their rankings he was definetely the worst in the league. I'm not even arguing if he is a bad player or not, but to say that he wasn't the worst ranked by their metric is simply denying the evidence that I've presented. I mean the site literally says that he is the worst OLB they've graded.

 

Don't like the formula? Fine. I agree with you. A rating system is always going to be flawed. Think he's better than they give him credit for? Fine, maybe he is. But he indisputably was the worst by their metric (no matter how flawed it is), as Nobody stated. 

[ColtsBlueFL]

Does a 43 DE and a 34 OLB get graded by the same criteria? I'm assuming that each position gets a specific grading system based off of their play and then they're just lumped into the edge defenders list. I don't think that they would grade a 43 DE and a 34 OLBer on the same exact criteria.

 Exactly!  3-4 guys are flexible and play 2 positions 

(or more) like 3 and 5 techniques where 4-3 are fixed.  3-4 guys can also play 4-3 Under.  Hard to group them all together, I would think, and then grade them.

 

No real good way to rank, just look at numbers and see if there is anything meaningful that can be deduced from them.

[Superman]

I understand what you're saying. I've said that the ratings don't really mean anything to me multiple times. I'm not arguing the releavence of the scores or how they compare to on the field production, but the point is still that Walden was the worst OLB in the league according to PFF; as Nobody said. We can sit here all day to try and decipher what that actual rating means and if it's correct or not, but according to their rankings he was definetely the worst in the league. I'm not even arguing if he is a bad player or not, but to say that he wasn't the worst ranked by their metric is simply denying the evidence that I've presented. I mean the site literally says that he is the worst OLB they've graded.

 

Don't like the formula? Fine. I agree with you. A rating system is always going to be flawed. Think he's better than they give him credit for? Fine, maybe he is. But he indisputably was the worst by their metric (no matter how flawed it is), as Nobody stated. 

 

Where is that rating? I haven't seen any rating that show Walden as the worst OLB in the league. Like I said, the rating everyone keeps linking to is exclusive to impending free agents, not every OLB.

 

And, bigger than that, like you said, is the fact that PFF's ratings aren't conclusive.

[Dustin]

Where is that rating? I haven't seen any rating that show Walden as the worst OLB in the league. Like I said, the rating everyone keeps linking to is exclusive to impending free agents, not every OLB.

 

And, bigger than that, like you said, is the fact that PFF's ratings aren't conclusive.

 

The site said it in an article I linked. The rating was -25.4 via your link.

[Gavin]

If they don't, what criteria do they use? What are the differences in the way they grade Dwight Freeney and the way they grade Kyle Vanden Bosch? Freeney has a -0.5 grade, and Vanden Bosch has a -31. According to them, Freeney is "better," but if you wanted a run defender, who would you choose? They have Connor Barwin rated lower than Cliff Avril, but Barwin got a much better contract than Avril did.

 

I appreciate PFF's analysis, but their ratings aren't conclusive, and some prop them up as if they are. Including PFF. For instance, this piece on why Walden's contract is so bad:

 

 

Take the bolded portions. The writer would have you believe that "doing your homework" means referencing PFF's ratings. They assume that because Walden's best game -- according to PFF -- was against the Colts, that the Colts fell in love with him on the basis of one game.

They also make the mistake of comparing Walden's contract to other 3-4 OLBs who are considered pass rushers, partially because people incorrectly assume that every 3-4 OLB is or should be a pass rusher.

 

I'll also point out, as I did in another thread, that Walden's game against the Colts was rather insignificant from statistical standpoint, and yet, it was one of his best games (at least that I've seen, and I've watched a handful of other Packers games, including some of Walden's statistical gems). Just goes to show that a player's impact doesn't always show up on the stat sheet, especially a hybrid defender like Walden.

 

Like I said, PFF's ratings have merit, but one player being at either the top or the bottom of any individual rating doesn't really mean anything about that player's ability or worth or value. And it isn't a legitimate projection for how that player will perform in a different system (and despite the Packers being a 3-4 base and the Colts being a so-called 3-4 base, they run two different defenses). Their ratings especially lose merit when they are taken out of context.

While I understand what your saying and agree whole heartily with the idea that a players impact on the game goes beyond any statistical value at the end of the day as we all know a player is paid to make plays and if he dont then he is expendable eventually, He just did not make many plays with either team, I hope he comes in and establishes himself but my expectations are low

[Superman]

While I understand what your saying and agree whole heartily with the idea that a players impact on the game goes beyond any statistical value at the end of the day as we all know a player is paid to make plays and if he dont then he is expendable eventually, He just did not make many plays with either team, I hope he comes in and establishes himself but my expectations are low

 

That's all well and good. But just like you said, a player's impact goes beyond the stat sheet. The way PFF rated Walden last season is a good example of that. He had some standout statistical games, but they felt his best game was against the Colts, where all he had was a couple of tackles.

 

I think you have to take a comprehensive look at all these factors before you get an idea of how effective a player is in a particular role. There are flaws in every rating system, and while some are better than others, none of them are exclusive.

 

Back to Walden, I think a solid season for him as the Sam backer -- assuming he's sharing time with a better pass rusher -- will be something like 40 tackles, 4 sacks. I think he'll make some plays in coverage, and I think he'll get some pressures and a couple tackles for loss as well. But $4m/year for a Sam backer doesn't constitute an Anthony Spencer kind of season, or even a Paul Kruger kind of season. I like that we grabbed a guy who should be solid against the run, and who can stay on the field in coverage on passing downs. We can supplement him with a good pass rusher, and with Mathis on the opposite side and a better interior line, our front is much improved.

[Jay Kirk]

The thing is, if we would have signed Cliff Avril people would have been wetting themselves, and yet he's only 7 spots ahead of Walden on that list. Sidbury is ranked higher than Dumerville too, so it just goes to show how insignificant this list is and means absolutely nothing.

LIKE!!!!!

[ColtsSociety]

Over 200 posts on Walden? smh