Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Left Tackle(Leno,Fisher,Okung?)/Sam Tevi at LT (MERGE)


Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, JediXMan said:

I’m not really a fan of PFF as others. It has it’s flaws and shouldn’t be all people compare players to.

 

 You mean like when a DE has a run grade in the 60's, a rush grade about 70, and a overall grade for the day near 90? How? He picked up a fumble and ran it back for a touchdown.
 That is a huge flaw. How do you make a hiring decision when you know your grading dept. delivers you misguided ____ like this?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 806
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I use PFF if helps to makes my point, but largely ignore it if it doesnt help make my point

Lol. Colt fans are making national media tweets.      

Posted Images

 

15 hours ago, Zoltan said:

 

Interesting read, while they didn't find too much statistical significance in their experiment and some of their wording seemed weird. Here's some parts that either surprised me or thought was worth sharing

 

 

The fact they found that players with higher BMI/unskilled positions (OL, DL) had a better chance to return to play over skilled positions, surprised me a bit because I figured it would be harder for players that are heavier to return.

 

I've always heard linebackers and running backs are the lowest RTS positions, and show the lowest regained performance demonstrated for those that do return.

 

Quote

 

This was at the end of the article and now I'll have to find this other study to see why players that underwent mini-open repairs with the senior author had such a shorter return to play time haha

 

"The purpose of this study is to report on the use of PARS mini-open repair in a consecutive series of professional football athletes."  PARS (Percutaneous Achilles Repair System -  PARS, Arthrex, Naples, Florida)"

 

So all data here was one surgical system performed by one physician. Good start.

 

"The average age at the time of injury in this patient population was 25.6 years.
The average return to competitive play was 273 days (8.9 months).
Regarding NFL-specific return to play, seven of nine (78%) returned to NFL play."

 

Note on the other two players, one later played in the CFL, the other an Indoor Arena league team.  Which tells me they could participate, but not at their UDFA pre-injury NFL capable level.

 

My other note comes on their 8.9 average RTS. Two things I feel may affect that. First, one (just 1) player returned in only 5.4 months, thus sharply skewing the RTS mean down. Second, average age of players in this study was 25.6 years where the Parekh study averaged 29+ years of age. This difference may also contribute to a higher RTS rate as well.

RTS = RTP

(Table recreated here)

 

9azCwSs.jpg

 

I think as we move forward, the PARS, limited-open technique, and mini-open procedures may be used more and with a higher success rate and reduced RTS, but that still remains to be shown. In addition, there are still concerns such was shown in the discussion paragragh as follow-

 

"However, additional studies have documented that mini-open devices, such as the Achillon device (Integra Life Sciences Corporation, Plainsboro, New Jersey), have not been without their associated risks, as sural nerve injury has been reported not too infrequently. Additionally, biomechanical concerns with these devices and their suture fixation constructs have left doubts regarding the ability to utilize an accelerated rehabilitation protocol while maintaining the integrity of the muscle-tendon unit, leaving most clinicians hesitant to use mini-open techniques in the competitive athlete patient population. To date, there is limited evidence regarding utilization of mini-open Achilles fixation in the elite athlete, and there are no known reports in the American professional football athlete."

 

This PARS study seems to be a step forward addressing these concerns. Still, more work and study needs to be carried out.

 

Thanks for your input as well.

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EastStreet said:

 

Fisher had better surrounding OL as well, and a much better QB of evading pressure.

I use PFF if helps to makes my point, but largely ignore it if it doesnt help make my point

  • Haha 9
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, PRnum1 said:

Most likely false information spread by Fishers agent who has the most to gain by having a gullible team sign Fisher to a big contract and expecting him to come back in 7 months.

 

So Fishers agent spreads the false information through his channels. Next thing you know Dan durkin tweets it as "official information".

 

After a  KC GM, Brett Veach, takes it and puts it out there to the local fans consumption.

 

Quote

So yes now its on the internet so it must be true.

 

This type of stuff happens more than people know...

 

if-its-on-the-internet-it-must-be-true

 

Who knows for certain. Maybe, a few days later, the KC team physician meets with Veach, gives him the straight skinny, and then a few days after that Fisher is thanked for his services and the exit door was held open for him.  :dunno:

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MikeCurtis said:

I use PFF if helps to makes my point, but largely ignore it if it doesnt help make my point

It's just one of many indicators. It's a good one though. It's better on some positions than others. 

 

Between PFF and Sharp (and Nextgen at times), you can get a pretty good idea of things. I like Sharp efficiency stats on run blocking. There's always context to consider. 

 

I chuckle at posters though who ignore all basic stats and grades, and use their eye test as the end all be all. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

It's just one of many indicators. It's a good one though. It's better on some positions than others. 

 

Between PFF and Sharp (and Nextgen at times), you can get a pretty good idea of things. I like Sharp efficiency stats on run blocking. There's always context to consider. 

 

I chuckle at posters though who ignore all basic stats and grades, and use their eye test as the end all be all. 

I really dont getinto stats or anything else. I am just one that doesn’t have the patience to read all of that or get into the minute details of every player. All I care about is having a good team and one that is fun to watch.

 

There see a lot of flaws with PFF. Because they don’t have a clue of the play call or players assignments. Unless they are in the  huddle with the coaches and can hear the play call.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Wentzszn said:

I really dont getinto stats or anything else. I am just one that doesn’t have the patience to read all of that or get into the minute details of every player. All I care about is having a good team and one that is fun to watch.

 

There see a lot of flaws with PFF. Because they don’t have a clue of the play call or players assignments. Unless they are in the  huddle with the coaches and can hear the play call.

It's a bit easier grading OL IMO. You can measure success rate, or simply yards over each gap. You can measure pressures coming from each gap. Not saying play calling is irrelevant, but it's not a huge bearing on what they are measuring. Over the course of 16 games, things even out for most players.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EastStreet said:

It's a bit easier grading OL IMO. You can measure success rate, or simply yards over each gap. You can measure pressures coming from each gap. Not saying play calling is irrelevant, but it's not a huge bearing on what they are measuring. Over the course of 16 games, things even out for most players.

I just do not have patience to read a lot of that stuff. I have been like that since I have been a kid. I hate reading and lose interest. If people like to read about all of that is fine. I just skip over.  The stuff I read needs to be short and sweet. If the team is winning and fun to watch that is all that matters to me. I will leave it up to coaches and GM to determine if someone is playing well. Only they really know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Wentzszn said:

I just do not have patience to read a lot of that stuff. I have been like that since I have been a kid. I hate reading and lose interest. If people like to read about all of that is fine. I just skip over.  The stuff I read needs to be short and sweet. If the team is winning and fun to watch that is all that matters to me. I will leave it up to coaches and GM to determine if someone is playing well. Only they really know.

Keep in mind "they" use most of the stat services themselves.

 

Sure they have the best feel for performance since they see them everyday, but a good portion of today's reporters and commentators publish stats all the time, It's just part of sports now.

 

I prefer to stay informed and stats and grades are easy to find. It's not for everyone though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

 

I've always heard linebackers and running backs are the lowest RTS positions, and show the lowest regained performance demonstrated for those that do return.

 

 

"The purpose of this study is to report on the use of PARS mini-open repair in a consecutive series of professional football athletes."  PARS (Percutaneous Achilles Repair System -  PARS, Arthrex, Naples, Florida)"

 

So all data here was one surgical system performed by one physician. Good start.

 

"The average age at the time of injury in this patient population was 25.6 years.
The average return to competitive play was 273 days (8.9 months).
Regarding NFL-specific return to play, seven of nine (78%) returned to NFL play."

 

Note on the other two players, one later played in the CFL, the other an Indoor Arena league team.  Which tells me they could participate, but not at their UDFA pre-injury NFL capable level.

 

My other note comes on their 8.9 average RTS. Two things I feel may affect that. First, one (just 1) player returned in only 5.4 months, thus sharply skewing the RTS mean down. Second, average age of players in this study was 25.6 years where the Parekh study averaged 29+ years of age. This difference may also contribute to a higher RTS rate as well.

RTS = RTP

(Table recreated here)

 

9azCwSs.jpg

 

I think as we move forward, the PARS, limited-open technique, and mini-open procedures may be used more and with a higher success rate and reduced RTS, but that still remains to be shown. In addition, there are still concerns such was shown in the discussion paragragh as follow-

 

"However, additional studies have documented that mini-open devices, such as the Achillon device (Integra Life Sciences Corporation, Plainsboro, New Jersey), have not been without their associated risks, as sural nerve injury has been reported not too infrequently. Additionally, biomechanical concerns with these devices and their suture fixation constructs have left doubts regarding the ability to utilize an accelerated rehabilitation protocol while maintaining the integrity of the muscle-tendon unit, leaving most clinicians hesitant to use mini-open techniques in the competitive athlete patient population. To date, there is limited evidence regarding utilization of mini-open Achilles fixation in the elite athlete, and there are no known reports in the American professional football athlete."

 

This PARS study seems to be a step forward addressing these concerns. Still, more work and study needs to be carried out.

 

Thanks for your input as well.

 

 

 

It would have been appropriate to remove the outlier. Which you did make mention of. Good post. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Keep in mind "they" use most of the stat services themselves.

 

Sure they have the best feel for performance since they see them everyday, but a good portion of today's reporters and commentators publish stats all the time, It's just part of sports now.

 

I prefer to stay informed and stats and grades are easy to find. It's not for everyone though.

If that interests you then great. If it interests others that’s great. All that statistical stuff just isn’t for me. 
 

I used to not even pay attention to anything in the offseason. Didn’t care about who stayed or left. That was during the Manning years. I missed out on quite a few of the Luck years because I had personal health issues.  I do like following all of the off season stuff now. I am just not someone who cares to sig deep down into the weeds. Just win and make it entertaining. The team is doing something right if those two things happen. Now there are players that you can just watch and tell if they are good or bad. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, AustinnKaine said:

It would have been appropriate to remove the outlier. Which you did make mention of.

 

I'm tempted to, but only as a secondary end point ( by throwing out both the high and low, then determining the mean. ) 

 

Nevertheless, even not throwing it out resulted in almost 9 months recover time.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

I'm tempted to, but only as a secondary end point ( by throwing out both the high and low, then determining the mean. ) 

 

Nevertheless, even not throwing it out resulted in almost 9 months recover time.

 

CBFL, question... What would you personally do if you were the GM about the LT position given all the options available right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, EastStreet said:

 

CBFL, question... What would you personally do if you were the GM about the LT position given all the options available right now.

 

I do not know. I'm not a GM, and don't try to play one on teh interwebs. ;)

 

This is what I do know-

 

Chris Ballard, Frank Reich and the assistant coaches knows a lot more about the abilities and skills and their fit of players on the roster than I do. The Pro Player scouting department knows a lot more about the same information concerning Free Agents and potential cut or for trade players than I do.  The Team physician, athletic trainers and medical staff know a lot more about roster health and the health and prognosis of our draft class and potential Free Agents on the radar than I do.

 

I would want to know everything that our teams Director of Player Personnel and the Director of the Pro Scouting department has on Free Agent tackles and how (much) and what areas are they better than any current player(s) on the team, and how their skill set better fits in with the team playbook that will be installed.

 

For injured free agents, I'd want full medical details. I'd want my team physician to examine and evaluate the player thoroughly, and have access to discuss in detail with their doctors and view their reports on procedures,treatments, and progress notes.  And I would be in frequent conversations with the owner and head coach about their input on the data that is collected. 

 

Then hopefully make the best, rational decisions (or non-decisions) possible, maybe (hopefully) even one involving the salary capologist's assistance at some point, if necessary. Like Ballard, work diligently and smart, and avoiding the “living in a desperate world” scenario. And it's not about 'who' gets it right, it's just plain about getting it right.

 

What would you do?

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/7/2021 at 6:09 PM, Zoltan said:

 

It is outside the standard deviation for the median and for their OL numbers which were 341 with +/- of 98.1 but I wish they used newer data because as I pointed out above they used surgeries from 1958-2016, so it makes the data harder to use for players today. Not saying its bad data.

 

For those that didn't see it, here's the exclusionary flow chart of the surgeries from 1958 - 2016

 

GHbOITA.jpg

 

On 5/7/2021 at 7:28 PM, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Did you compare that to this more recent study, conducted with 80 NFL players identified as having Achilles tendon tears between the 2009 and 2014 seasons?

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6415485/

 

 

I count two studies (one with 95 cases, the other with 80, one of which Dr.Parekh was involved in) having a nearly identical average of a 72.5% return to sport rate-

 

"One previous study investigated RTS and postoperative performance for players who underwent Achilles tendon repair in the NFL. The prior study demonstrated an RTS of 72.5% in 80 NFL athletes. The RTS from this prior study is nearly identical to the results of the present study with an RTS of 72.4% in 95 NFL athletes."

"Following Achilles tendon repair, less than 75% of players returned to the NFL. Postoperative career length was 1 season shorter than matched controls. No difference was observed in the number of games per season played com-pared to matched controls. Postoperative performance scores were significantly worse for RBs and LBs compared to preoperative, and LBs had significantly worse postoperative performance when compared to matched controls."

 

and the very small PARS mini open study at 78%.   I see a trend of some surgeons trying to move from open technique to a limited or mini-open technique (as opposed to a pure percutaneous repair).

 

Dr. Purekh:

 

“but the problem with a pure percutaneous solution is that you can’t see anything, so you can actually pierce the nerve.” The miniature-open technique requires only a 3 cm incision while the traditional approach of surgically treating Achilles tendon ruptures required an 8 cm to 12 cm incision.

“One of the biggest issues with the traditional model was long-term immobilization, and there was about an 8% to 10% chance of an infection or wound healing problem,” he notes. “The benefit of doing the mini-open technique is that your incisions are much smaller, so your wound complication rate postoperatively is under 1% or 0.5%."

 

This minimally invasive miniature-open technique is heavily dependent on special tools (PARS Achilles Jig System by Anthrex, Inc.: Naples, FL; Achillon Achilles Tendon Suture System by Integra LifeSciences Corp.: Plainsboro, NJ), and can add in costs up to $800 to 1,000 per use.

 

Dr. Selene G. Parekh, of Duke University, has pioneered a minimally invasive mini-open technique that does not use specialized equipment, and has adapted the miniature-open technique to require only standard operating room tools, such as surgical clamps and forceps, etc. to be able to grab the Achilles tendon and pass suture.

 

“You don't have to worry about a special instrument lining up properly in order to grab the tendon, so the whole procedure now takes about 20 to 30 minutes whereas traditionally it took 45 minutes to an hour,” he says.

 

While mini-open repair is available at Duke (and elsewhere), only Dr. Parekh is performing Achilles repair via this new technique without the need of special instruments.  I'm interested to see what types of improved outcomes become apparent besides the time and cost savings up front.

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

I do not know. I'm not a GM, and don't try to play one on teh interwebs. ;)

 

This is what I do know-

 

Chris Ballard, Frank Reich and the assistant coaches knows a lot more about the abilities and skills and their fit of players on the roster than I do. The Pro Player scouting department knows a lot more about the same information concerning Free Agents and potential cut or for trade players than I do.  The Team physician, athletic trainers and medical staff know a lot more about roster health and the health and prognosis of our draft class and potential Free Agents on the radar than I do.

 

I would want to know everything that our teams Director of Player Personnel and the Director of the Pro Scouting department has on Free Agent tackles and how (much) and what areas are they better than any current player(s) on the team, and how their skill set better fits in with the team playbook that will be installed.

 

For injured free agents, I'd want full medical details. I'd want my team physician to examine and evaluate the player thoroughly, and have access to discuss in detail with their doctors and view their reports on procedures,treatments, and progress notes.  And I would be in frequent conversations with the owner and head coach about their input on the data that is collected. 

 

Then hopefully make the best, rational decisions (or non-decisions) possible, maybe (hopefully) even one involving the salary capologist's assistance at some point, if necessary. Like Ballard, work diligently and smart, and avoiding the “living in a desperate world” scenario. And it's not about 'who' gets it right, it's just plain about getting it right.

 

What would you do?

Given the info available to us dumb fans, the more I read on run blocking success rate (gap), the more I prefer Leno. Add in age, and injury, I just don't see Fisher being worth the risk. Fisher is likely better in pass pro, but that's just not enough for me to forget all the other stuff.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/8/2021 at 1:33 PM, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

 

I've always heard linebackers and running backs are the lowest RTS positions, and show the lowest regained performance demonstrated for those that do return.

 

 

"The purpose of this study is to report on the use of PARS mini-open repair in a consecutive series of professional football athletes."  PARS (Percutaneous Achilles Repair System -  PARS, Arthrex, Naples, Florida)"

 

So all data here was one surgical system performed by one physician. Good start.

 

"The average age at the time of injury in this patient population was 25.6 years.
The average return to competitive play was 273 days (8.9 months).
Regarding NFL-specific return to play, seven of nine (78%) returned to NFL play."

 

Note on the other two players, one later played in the CFL, the other an Indoor Arena league team.  Which tells me they could participate, but not at their UDFA pre-injury NFL capable level.

 

My other note comes on their 8.9 average RTS. Two things I feel may affect that. First, one (just 1) player returned in only 5.4 months, thus sharply skewing the RTS mean down. Second, average age of players in this study was 25.6 years where the Parekh study averaged 29+ years of age. This difference may also contribute to a higher RTS rate as well.

RTS = RTP

(Table recreated here)

 

9azCwSs.jpg

 

I think as we move forward, the PARS, limited-open technique, and mini-open procedures may be used more and with a higher success rate and reduced RTS, but that still remains to be shown. In addition, there are still concerns such was shown in the discussion paragragh as follow-

 

"However, additional studies have documented that mini-open devices, such as the Achillon device (Integra Life Sciences Corporation, Plainsboro, New Jersey), have not been without their associated risks, as sural nerve injury has been reported not too infrequently. Additionally, biomechanical concerns with these devices and their suture fixation constructs have left doubts regarding the ability to utilize an accelerated rehabilitation protocol while maintaining the integrity of the muscle-tendon unit, leaving most clinicians hesitant to use mini-open techniques in the competitive athlete patient population. To date, there is limited evidence regarding utilization of mini-open Achilles fixation in the elite athlete, and there are no known reports in the American professional football athlete."

 

This PARS study seems to be a step forward addressing these concerns. Still, more work and study needs to be carried out.

 

Thanks for your input as well.

 

 

 

 I have done renovation on that Arthrex facility, state of the art, imvho.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Villanueva signed with Baltimore for 14 Mill over 2 years. Pretty cheap.

Yup, great deal. He's almost 33 though, and was in that low to mid 70s grade wise. 

I would have signed him for that without hesitation though. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Villanueva signed with Baltimore for 14 Mill over 2 years. Pretty cheap.

I saw part of the reason he was so cheap is he expected to move to right tackle once some injuries heal up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, EastStreet said:

Given the info available to us dumb fans, the more I read on run blocking success rate (gap), the more I prefer Leno. Add in age, and injury, I just don't see Fisher being worth the risk. Fisher is likely better in pass pro, but that's just not enough for me to forget all the other stuff.

 That's one of the reasons for these discussion boards. People get some info, watch some game/tapes, pick their person. Others gather stats, watch different tape/games, get unknown before (to the public) medical data and maybe go a different route. Nobody is getting paid by the organization, and nobody is on the hot seat of losing their job if they are way off in their 'predictions.'.  It's fun conjecture and possibly sharing new information or at least different perspectives.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 That's one of the reasons for these discussion boards. People get some info, watch some game/tapes, pick their person. Others gather stats, watch different tape/games, get unknown before (to the public) medical data and maybe go a different route. Nobody is getting paid by the organization, and nobody is on the hot seat of losing their job if they are way off in their 'predictions.'.  It's fun conjecture and possibly sharing new information or at least different perspectives.

 

 

So why are you hesitant to share what you would do given the info we have lol. You're not getting fired either if you're wrong. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Wentzszn said:

This sounds like they are waiting for him to get further along in rehab.

 

 

“Both sides will revisit soon” sounds like a week or two.
 

When you’re waiting to see about rehab, that typically might mean a month or two.    Big difference. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wentzszn said:

This sounds like they are waiting for him to get further along in rehab.

 

 

By the sounds of this It looks like Fisher is the target and both sides are content to wait a little longer. I would bet they have the parameters of a contract already in place.  This explains why there are no new reports of a Leno visit.  Of course there is always Monday coming up so we shall see. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Shive locked this topic
On 5/8/2021 at 1:18 PM, EastStreet said:

Keep in mind "they" use most of the stat services themselves.

 

Sure they have the best feel for performance since they see them everyday, but a good portion of today's reporters and commentators publish stats all the time, It's just part of sports now.

 

I prefer to stay informed and stats and grades are easy to find. It's not for everyone though.

 

I love PFF, and the other advanced stats sites, and there are more and more of them now. I think they are a great resource, which is why I carry a PFF subscription off and on.  The charting, stats, and other detailed info are very valuable. They help provide information and context, and with that info it can add to your understanding of what teams are doing and how they're performing. 

 

I even appreciate their grading. They watch every team, every game, and grade in a respectable way. I think there is a percentage of their grading that can be questioned. I'd say 90% of the plays they grade, it's pretty obvious what you're seeing. If you watch a team every week, and grade every player, pretty soon you get a good understanding of what the team does. You know what they run, you know what it looks like when it works, when it doesn't work, and you can tell what went wrong. But there are a few plays where, if you don't know the play call/assignments, and you're kind of flying blind. And if that's 10%, or whatever the percentage is, it can result in a difference between their grade, and how the team grades a player.

 

I also think PFF's blind spot is any kind of projection, whether it's based on traits, circumstance, health, coaching, whatever. They see what's happening immediately in front of them, but do a terrible job (IMO) of using that info to understanding what might happen in the future. They tend to freeze a player in the light of their most recent grade, not giving enough weight to the context or enough acknowledgment of the fact that player performance can/does get better/worse. All JMO.

 

But no one else watches every game, grades every player, and publishes that data. And now with over a decade of data, it's not hard to get a good feel for how their year to year grades are impacted by the factors I mentioned earlier. So I think there's a ton of value in what they do. But I stop far short of using PFF grades (or anyone else's) as fact, and in general, I think their grading is less valuable than anything else they publish.

 

We agree though, it's definitely part of sports now. Some TV broadcasts even use PFF grades, especially NBC, since Collinsworth is a big investor.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Shive unlocked this topic
4 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I love PFF, and the other advanced stats sites, and there are more and more of them now. I think they are a great resource, which is why I carry a PFF subscription off and on.  The charting, stats, and other detailed info are very valuable. They help provide information and context, and with that info it can add to your understanding of what teams are doing and how they're performing. 

 

I even appreciate their grading. They watch every team, every game, and grade in a respectable way. I think there is a percentage of their grading that can be questioned. I'd say 90% of the plays they grade, it's pretty obvious what you're seeing. If you watch a team every week, and grade every player, pretty soon you get a good understanding of what the team does. You know what they run, you know what it looks like when it works, when it doesn't work, and you can tell what went wrong. But there are a few plays where, if you don't know the play call/assignments, and you're kind of flying blind. And if that's 10%, or whatever the percentage is, it can result in a difference between their grade, and how the team grades a player.

 

I also think PFF's blind spot is any kind of projection, whether it's based on traits, circumstance, health, coaching, whatever. They see what's happening immediately in front of them, but do a terrible job (IMO) of using that info to understanding what might happen in the future. They tend to freeze a player in the light of their most recent grade, not giving enough weight to the context or enough acknowledgment of the fact that player performance can/does get better/worse. All JMO.

 

But no one else watches every game, grades every player, and publishes that data. And now with over a decade of data, it's not hard to get a good feel for how their year to year grades are impacted by the factors I mentioned earlier. So I think there's a ton of value in what they do. But I stop far short of using PFF grades (or anyone else's) as fact, and in general, I think their grading is less valuable than anything else they publish.

 

We agree though, it's definitely part of sports now. Some TV broadcasts even use PFF grades, especially NBC, since Collinsworth is a big investor.

Very good post.   Really appreciate the thought you’d put into it.   
 

If I may, I’d like to add this.   I would guess Ballard respects them.   Because Colts.com uses them periodically.   I don’t think we would if CB didn’t sign off in that.  
 

I’d also add that obviously the Colts have their own internal grading system both for their own players and for opposing players as well.  I’m sure our numbers differ from pff to a degree.  But I’d say they’re close enough that the Colts respect what pff does.  And so I accept pff on that level. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I love PFF, and the other advanced stats sites, and there are more and more of them now. I think they are a great resource, which is why I carry a PFF subscription off and on.  The charting, stats, and other detailed info are very valuable. They help provide information and context, and with that info it can add to your understanding of what teams are doing and how they're performing. 

 

I even appreciate their grading. They watch every team, every game, and grade in a respectable way. I think there is a percentage of their grading that can be questioned. I'd say 90% of the plays they grade, it's pretty obvious what you're seeing. If you watch a team every week, and grade every player, pretty soon you get a good understanding of what the team does. You know what they run, you know what it looks like when it works, when it doesn't work, and you can tell what went wrong. But there are a few plays where, if you don't know the play call/assignments, and you're kind of flying blind. And if that's 10%, or whatever the percentage is, it can result in a difference between their grade, and how the team grades a player.

 

I also think PFF's blind spot is any kind of projection, whether it's based on traits, circumstance, health, coaching, whatever. They see what's happening immediately in front of them, but do a terrible job (IMO) of using that info to understanding what might happen in the future. They tend to freeze a player in the light of their most recent grade, not giving enough weight to the context or enough acknowledgment of the fact that player performance can/does get better/worse. All JMO.

 

But no one else watches every game, grades every player, and publishes that data. And now with over a decade of data, it's not hard to get a good feel for how their year to year grades are impacted by the factors I mentioned earlier. So I think there's a ton of value in what they do. But I stop far short of using PFF grades (or anyone else's) as fact, and in general, I think their grading is less valuable than anything else they publish.

 

We agree though, it's definitely part of sports now. Some TV broadcasts even use PFF grades, especially NBC, since Collinsworth is a big investor.

Yup. It's just one tool, but it's a good one IMO. I know the grading is not infallible, but like you said nobody does more. I do think it's directionally correct, but is better at some positions than others. And, the greater body is equally subject to the limitations, so it evens out a bit over the course of XX plays and a season of games.  Nextgen from what I hear is trying to use more and more pure vid analytics along with sensors which I think is great. Things are advancing so fast in the area. Both PFF and the others will always lack context though, but overall they do a great job IMO.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, EastStreet said:

Yup. It's just one tool, but it's a good one IMO. I know the grading is not infallible, but like you said nobody does more. I do think it's directionally correct, but is better at some positions than others. And, the greater body is equally subject to the limitations, so it evens out a bit over the course of XX plays and a season of games.  Nextgen from what I hear is trying to use more and more pure vid analytics along with sensors which I think is great. Things are advancing so fast in the area. Both PFF and the others will always lack context though, but overall they do a great job IMO.

 

A difference of close to 20 between 2 players of the same position vs a difference of 10, however, in PFF rating has to give you pause and pay more attention because lack of context cannot explain it all, IMO. Just my two cents FWIW. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, JediXMan said:


Excuse Me Reaction GIF by Mashable

 

Only 5 mil wow

 

I wonder how Fisher's contract breaks down when it comes to playing time and incentives.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JediXMan said:


Excuse Me Reaction GIF by Mashable

 

Only 5 mil wow

 I guess this explains why we ended up signing Fisher ? Evidently Chicago was correct feeling he wasn't worth the 9 million he was scheduled to make. I do realize most teams and already addressed their OT issues but the fact Leno snapped up 5 mill is a little telling ? Let's face it , we really are limited in these type issues. We all would have been very happy if we signed Leno at around 8 mill.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 I guess this explains why we ended up signing Fisher ? Evidently Chicago was correct feeling he wasn't worth the 9 million he was scheduled to make. I do realize most teams and already addressed their OT issues but the fact Leno snapped up 5 mill is a little telling ? Let's face it , we really are limited in these type issues. We all would have been very happy if we signed Leno at around 8 mill.

 

I assumed he'd get $7m/year, based on the Villanueva contract. That he got $5m makes me wonder about the Fisher deal even more. Fisher is a better player, when healthy, but we could have penciled in Leno in Week 1, and apparently at about half the cost of Fisher who best case doesn't play until late September (and I'm not counting on that). 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 I guess this explains why we ended up signing Fisher ? Evidently Chicago was correct feeling he wasn't worth the 9 million he was scheduled to make. I do realize most teams and already addressed their OT issues but the fact Leno snapped up 5 mill is a little telling ? Let's face it , we really are limited in these type issues. We all would have been very happy if we signed Leno at around 8 mill.

FA’s are up against it now.  Not much money to go around.  Leno was very happy to get 5m I would imagine.  His one and only visit that I know of.  Teams aren’t stupid.  They know which players are worth the money and they have the leverage.  Fisher is the better player for sure and Ballard wanted to sign him and did.  He know’s what he’s doing.  He’s shown us that already.  Numerous times.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I assumed he'd get $7m/year, based on the Villanueva contract. That he got $5m makes me wonder about the Fisher deal even more. Fisher is a better player, when healthy, but we could have penciled in Leno in Week 1, and apparently at about half the cost of Fisher who best case doesn't play until late September (and I'm not counting on that). 

For someone who supposedly doesn't like taking chances, Ballard surely is taking some huge risks with some of his most valuable assets and resources.... 1st and 3d on QB coming off his worst season in the league(and coming with 4 year 100M contract), 10M for LT coming off a late January achilles rupture, 2nd round pick for another player coming off late January Achilles rupture. Last year he spent a 3d on another injured player. His first 1st rounder(Hooker) was another player who was healing an injury at the time. Kemoko was another one with serious injuries before the draft. 

 

He doesn't seem willing to go for character concern guys, but is perfectly happy to go for injured players and trusting his training and medical staff. I hope he's right. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

FA’s are up against it now.  Not much money to go around.  Leno was very happy to get 5m I would imagine.  His one and only visit that I know of.  Teams aren’t stupid.  They know which players are worth the money and they have the leverage.  Fisher is the better player for sure and Ballard wanted to sign him and did.  He know’s what he’s doing.  He’s shown us that already.  Numerous times.

 

 

Yes I agree with you and that what I was trying to convey in my post. Many of us had the 2 close and evidently the Colts did not view it that way.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, stitches said:

For someone who supposedly doesn't like taking chances, Ballard surely is taking some huge risks with some of his most valuable assets and resources.... 1st and 3d on QB coming off his worst season in the league(and coming with 4 year 100M contract), 10M for LT coming off a late January achilles rupture, 2nd round pick for another player coming off late January Achilles rupture. Last year he spent a 3d on another injured player. 

 

He doesn't seem willing to go for character concern guys, but is perfectly happy to go for injured players and trusting his training and medical staff. I hope he's right. 

 

They seem to think that if a guy fits the locker room, he has the best chance to hit his ceiling, even if he has injury concerns. And I get it. A guy with injuries isn't likely to wreck team chemistry, as long as he works hard and has the right attitude, even if he doesn't get healthy. A guy who might not respond well to coaching, or whatever other character issues you might have with him, that might cause issues. 

 

But I did think that they were going to make injury history a super priority, especially after last offseason where basically everyone they added had a good history of not missing games due to injury. And I guess the thing is that football players get hurt, and if you have an obvious injury (rather than a series of weird injury issues), then it's easier to count on a recovery and return to play.

 

And maybe the Blackmon return, combined with Pittman and Rivers getting hurt (when they had a history of not being hurt), sort of emboldened the team. 

 

Either way, I hope Fisher works out and plays well in 2021. Just more risk than I expected them to be willing to take.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I assumed he'd get $7m/year, based on the Villanueva contract. That he got $5m makes me wonder about the Fisher deal even more. Fisher is a better player, when healthy, but we could have penciled in Leno in Week 1, and apparently at about half the cost of Fisher who best case doesn't play until late September (and I'm not counting on that). 

 

I had guessed in an earlier post before the Vilanueva signing  that it would be 13-14 mill for 2 years. I think if he had done 2 years , it would have been in that ballpark we mention. I think Ballard rolled the dice and figured say... 13-14 games (Plus possible playoffs ) of Fisher was worth gambling he could be back by the first -second week of October.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

They seem to think that if a guy fits the locker room, he has the best chance to hit his ceiling, even if he has injury concerns. And I get it. A guy with injuries isn't likely to wreck team chemistry, as long as he works hard and has the right attitude, even if he doesn't get healthy. A guy who might not respond well to coaching, or whatever other character issues you might have with him, that might cause issues. 

 

But I did think that they were going to make injury history a super priority, especially after last offseason where basically everyone they added had a good history of not missing games due to injury. And I guess the thing is that football players get hurt, and if you have an obvious injury (rather than a series of weird injury issues), then it's easier to count on a recovery and return to play.

 

And maybe the Blackmon return, combined with Pittman and Rivers getting hurt (when they had a history of not being hurt), sort of emboldened the team. 

 

Either way, I hope Fisher works out and plays well in 2021. Just more risk than I expected them to be willing to take.

So... what's your answer to the ultimate question now that the roster is to a huge degree complete? Did we get better? 

 

My answer right now is - it's a wash... and the deciding factor will be Wentz. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, stitches said:

So... what's your answer to the ultimate question now that the roster is to a huge degree complete? Did we get better? 

 

My answer right now is - it's a wash... and the deciding factor will be Wentz. 

 

It's all about Wentz.

 

Edge is probably gonna be a step back in 2021, but it wasn't a strength last season IMO. And I think now we have the potential to be better in the future. Wild card is probably Turay, if he's healthy and can show something, and Paye, if he's ready to contribute in Year 1.

 

Corner, LB, safety, kind of a push all told. We get some help at corner, losing Walker hurts but not that much IMO, safety is basically the same with room for growth from the young guys. 

 

Receiver is about Pittman and Campbell, with a chance for TY to be more productive with a more dynamic QB. TE/RB all basically the same. I think OL should be fine, AC didn't have his finest year in 2020 anyway, and I think even average LT play can be mitigated with the other factors on the offense.

 

So the question is whether Wentz can play at a high level. Just his 2019 level of play, which was not his former dynamic, franchise QB level of play, but was still top ten. If we get that from Wentz, I think the offense is better, good enough to convert well on third down, and hold a lead in the 4th quarter. And there's some potential for great QB play, based on what we've seen in the past. I think that's the only question in my mind, is how well can Wentz play for us. If he's bad, nothing else really matters.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...