HugeSnack's 2011 Grades -- Every Play -- OFFENSE

[gdoc:15sn7xza]0AqGtXHM0DYkudFlQUFVsU2ZXR0ZkYWdVQlpnV2hEbGc[/gdoc:15sn7xza]

And the link, if you prefer:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqGtXHM0DYkudFlQUFVsU2ZXR0ZkYWdVQlpnV2hEbGc#gid=0

Special Notes:

Scores for Brown, Wallace, and Miller

Antonio Brown has a higher receiving score than Mike Wallace, despite having fewer receptions and yards and touchdowns. This is because many times the quality of his receptions was higher than the yardage it produced. For example, Antonio might make an amazing one handed catch on the sidelines for 12 yards and receive a +3. Mike Wallace could get a standard issue burn-the-DBs 42 yard touchdown the next play, and also get a +3. AB made lots of great catches, many times on 3rd down and in traffic, to earn extra points throughout the year. Wallace earned slightly fewer points, but outproduced AB in yards and TDs. You could take that information any way you want, whether you choose to call AB the superior receiver because of his skills and production at critical moments -- a valid argument -- or Wallace the superior receiver because of his overall effect on the game and big plays and points -- another valid argument. One obtuse way to look at it is to say Brown plays better than Wallace, but Wallace gets us more. And although Brown is clearly not in Wallace's league in getting deep, and Wallace hasn't shown Brown's incredible toughness over the middle, neither receiver was exactly lacking in the other's department. Brown made some big yardage plays and Wallace made some nice catches and did great running with the ball. But again, I'm just here to provide the info. You can take it any way you want.

The situation with Brown is similar to the one with Heath Miller. A lot of his receiving points came from difficult catches, big pickups, a good run after the catch, or a combination of things. There is also an imbalance for tight ends, that will either work in their favor if they are good, or work against them if they are bad: it's more impressive when a TE blocks a DE by himself than when an OT makes the same block against the same DE. Depending on the play, it's also more impressive when a TE beats a SS for a 20 yard catch than when a WR does it. Since Heath excels at both skills, he reaps in extra points, and I think that's fair since doing both things well is so hard to do and a great thing to have. If a TE isn't good at one of the two between receiving and blocking, then he won't get many extra points, because he won't be putting in the plays for both skills. If he isn't good at either, then he simply won't get any points because he wasn't able to accomplish anything. See David Johnson, who saw more than enough playing time to earn himself some points. I didn't automatically hand out extra points to Heath because he's a tight end, but it was sometimes a contributing factor when I was on the border of deciding how many points to award, if any. Mike Wallace could run a 15 yard stop route, catch the ball on the sideline and step out of bounds as the CB arrived. He'd get 1 point for that. Heath might catch a ball 7 yards downfield, run for 3 more, then plow into and drag a defender 5 more yards for the first down, and get 2 points from me for the same yardage. That's the kind of play he makes all the time that seems to go completely unnoticed, but I value a lot, and that's why his score is so high. As we've learned by comparing Brown's score to Wallace's, my scores aren't here to measure production -- we have stats for that. My scores measure quality of the play provided. That's why Heath's scores are out of this world. Because his play is.

Is Rashard Mendenhall soft? Or is that an enormous load of horse pucky?

The Unicorn. The Loch Ness Monster. The Yeti, or his North American cousin, the Sasquatch. Rashard Mendenhall running soft and dancing. It is mythical. I suppose people have their reasons for not liking the guy, and that's okay. After all, I'm on record as calling Roethlisberger a phony, grade A piece of sh**. But I sure wish they'd limit those reasons to facts, especially when talking about football. I definitely give Roethlisberger all the credit he deserves for what he does on the field, despite my feelings about him personally. There are plays in which Mendenhall runs to the line of scrimmage at less than full speed. It happens every game. Of course, that's because -- just like every other running back that's ever played in the NFL, including whoever your favorite is, and including Isaac Redman -- he is waiting for the play to develop the way it's supposed to. Any running back will tell you patience is actually an extremely important part of what they do, and even many of the fastest backs in the league run slowly or hesitate for awhile before hitting the hole. Not all plays are designed for the player to sprint as fast as he can from the get-go. Some are, and on most plays Mendenhall hits the LOS as hard as he can. But it's no secret that we not only had an offensive coordinator who had no respect for the running game and did not make an honest attempt to make it work. We also had an offensive line so full of holes it was almost impossible to make any running plays work at all. As a result, there are a bunch of plays every game with no hole at all and/or defenders in the backfield. Sometimes Mendenhall crashes into them like the masses seem to prefer and gets a yard, other times he looks for a new place to run, AKA ?dancing.? When he does that, sometimes it gets him somewhere and he's able to gain a lot more than what he would have gotten by simply crashing into the line. Sometimes it doesn't get him anywhere and he gets tackled. That's when the cries and ?Dancing with the Stars? jokes come out. You know who else does this same thing though? Isaac Redman. I saw him do it plenty, and I didn't penalize him for it either. It's their job. The notion from many fans seems to be that if Redman tries to avoid a defender instead of running right into him, it's regular smart football, and when Mendenhall does it he's dancing scared or playing soft. And I can't believe so many people don't even want our running backs to make an effort to find a new hole if the one that was planned doesn't really exist. His average is lower than it should be because of a LOT of runs for 0 yards, mostly due to worse than poor blocking, and partially due to using him to run out the clock. Most of the time he had absolutely nothing to work with. He was basically being stabbed in the front by his FB and OL, who couldn't block, and his OC, who pretty much only used one running play, and at all the wrong times, and telegraphed it. As for the occasions when his "dancing" (I like to call it running) yielded a positive gain? That's when his detractors put their hands in their pockets, begin whistling, and back out of the room. Aaaaand the message boards fall silent, poised to explode once more on his next run for no gain. Mendenhall did the best he could with what he had, and I'm quite sure that if you switched him with the running backs in Houston or Baltimore that he would be as good or better than the backs they have there, and Mr. Foster and Mr. Rice would be getting crucified here in Pittsburgh. Rice, by the way, is way softer than Mendenhall. Ever see that guy try to pick up a blitz? It's like, ?Whoa, the QB's over there, man! Hey coach, did you see that? That guy almost hit me!? I've ranted about this countless times before, so I'll stop now. The bottom line is, people are making it up. Rashard Mendenhall plays hard and aggressive ball just like we want him to, and if you are one of the people that insists he's soft or dances, then do us all a favor and pick any random other running back and watch him with those same eyes. Pretend he's Mendenhall if it helps. You'll see all the same stuff, because they all do it. I watched all of his runs for 12 games multiple times and looked very hard for soft play, and it just wasn't there to be found.

Mendenhall vs. Redman

1 = Terrible ... 2 = Not good ... 3 = Decent ... 4 = Very good ... 5 = Amazing

............................Mendenhall.......Redman
Straight Speed.................4................2
Quickness.......................4................3
Power...........................4.................5
Pass Pro.........................4................4
Receiving.......................4................3*

*Redman's receiving skills (catching, running simple routes) could possibly be considered as good as Mendenhall's (hard to say with so little tape on both of them running routes and catching the ball), but Mendenhall's superior open field skills make him a better option as a receiver.

When comparing the two backs, Mendenhall comes out on top with better speed, quickness, and receiving skills/open field ability. They're both quite good options in the shotgun, and the powerful Redman has the edge when it comes to plowing through defenders. As mentioned above, both backs give great effort. Mendenhall is clearly a superior talent overall. Although he doesn't have one specific area that labels him ?amazing? and makes him arguably the league's best like Redman does, his high marks across the board make him amazing and among the league's most versitile. He doesn't have any one elite attribute, but his combination of very good attributes makes him an elite talent; he doesn't have elite speed or elite power, but he has an elite combination of speed and power. However, in the type of offense we've been running (zero utilization of RBs out of the backfield, terribile blocking, no creativity, no commitment, mostly just repetitive dives up the middle), power is the best and most noticeable asset. All those other areas that Mendenhall excels at (and make him special) weren't being used. If these two men were on another team, the difference would likely be much more visible. But here under BA, Redman was able to close the gap and at times look better. That, combined with many Steelers fans' often illogical thirst for power over production, is the cause of the Redman over Mendenhall phenomenon. Hopefully -- and probably -- with our new OC and upgraded OL we will be like another team. We can get use out of all those 4's that Mendy has and still take advantage of that awesome 5 that Redman brings.

Just to be ultra-clear, I love Isaac Redman. I think he's a great running back and has given us some extremely impressive runs. I think he's an elite short yardage and goal line back, and exactly what you want to finish off defenses at the end of a game. A closer. I also think he's a suitable substitute for every-down play. But I caution people not to get too enamoured with impressive looking broken tackles. Many of the great runs people talk about with him are in fact great runs, sometimes with 3 or 4 broken tackles, but they are only 10 yard gains. He bounces off tackles amazingly well, but it slows him down a ton and he eventually gets dragged down. So while it looks incredible and gets the crowd to its feet and gets announcers riled up, it's no better for the team than a 10 yarder that Mendy bounced around the edge and was forced out of bounds, or a dumpoff to Heath over the middle for 10 yards. What Redman does is great, and extremely useful, but what people seem to forget is that broken tackles are only as good as what you get after them, and he doesn't get much. It might take 10 seconds to get him down, but he probably only got 2 seconds' worth of yardage in that time since he was going 1 mph, dragging 6 guys behind him. Mendenhall on the other hand may be more likely to slip out of a tackle, run for a bit and get brought down by the next guy or two, but in the meantime he gained the same yards Redman did -- the difference being that it just looked ordinary and not amazing. But while his runs don't look as amazing, he can convert those broken tackles into bigger gains, and he can do a lot more with open field when he gets it. He's also more likely to "break" tackles in other ways that Redman can't -- with speed around the edge or quicker acceleration. It might not count as a broken tackle because we didn't see it, but if he gets by an unblocked defender without being brought down, it's just as good. Even better, actually, because it won't have slowed him down as much.

All season long I thought people were wrong about Mendenhall. After scrutinizing every move he made for 12 games, I found that I was underestimating him, if anything. There just wasn't much to be done with what he had to work with. I thought he and Redman both did a remarkable job.

Special thanks to TerribleTowelFlying (so special I spelled out his name!) for not only helping me with this project, but also giving me a place to put it, and all of us a place to get our giddies out during the season and offseason. I'm open to talking about the "special notes" topics, but I tried to say everything I have to say, so I'm not sure what else there is. Comments and questions about any part of the evaluation are welcome.

 

Reading the Scores – Things to Know

The Basics – For every play, each player is assigned a positive, negative, or neutral score. He can get +1, +2, +3, -1, -2, -3, or 0. Most plays result in 0. I graded 13 games (the ones on my DVR). I did miss the first 2 minutes or so of the Arizona game. Boo-hoo.

The Overall Scores are a combination of positives and negatives for that game. For example, if Ike Taylor registered 6 positive points in pass defense against a team, and also 4 negative points, his Overall Score would be +2. In the grid, it will just look like 2, without the plus sign. This does not necessarily mean that he had 6 good plays and 4 bad plays, because each play can register up to 3 positive or negative points. He may have had 2 great plays of +3, 1 bad play of -2, and 2 bad plays of -1. This measures what kind of game the player had in each category, after considering the weight of each good play and bad play. Remember that this is a number on a timeline, not how many good or bad plays they had. That can be easily forgotten for the players who are very good or very bad and only have positive or negative scores.

The Frequency is the total number of positive and negative plays a player had in a game. For this number, it doesn’t matter how much each play was worth, only how many times it happened. This is a good way to measure how often a player is successful and how often he’s not, without considering how great his good plays or how severe his bad plays.

Splash Factor and Stink Factor separate all the big plays – the +2, +3, -2, -3 – in order to highlight the way a player helps or hurts the team. Does he tend to mess up a lot, but only a little at a time, like William Gay? Or does he mess up less frequently, but in bigger chunks, like Ike Taylor? Does he get more points from a steady stream of good plays or does he get them more by flashing greatness? These have already been included in the Overall Score, so they are not additional. It’s just a way to see how much of it came from where.

Scoring Caveats – Not all positions are created equal!

Not all of the positions’ scores can be viewed exactly equally. For example, it is easier for defensive linemen to get Splash points than it is for offensive linemen. So just because Steve McLendon has a higher Splash Factor than Maurkice Pouncey doesn’t mean that he played better, or had a bigger impact on games.

Quarterback – Passing means throwing, and nothing else. Running means running up the field, which he really didn’t do this year thanks to his injuries. Pocket presence is for movement behind the line of scrimmage, and those points can be +1, +2, +3, -1, -2, -3, depending on how brilliant/retarded Ben was on that particular play.

Getting a point: No points are awarded for passes that every quarterback should make every time. That means quick screens (I’d also say regular screens if we ran them), dumpoffs, short passes where the defense didn’t really have a chance. +1 point for good passes with some degree of difficulty. Maybe it’s a pass that we’d be disappointed if he didn’t make it, but if it wasn’t 100% routine and it was an accurate ball, it’s +1 point.

Losing a point: Missed throws that he should have made that aren’t in danger of being intercepted.

Splash Factor: +2 points for the harder ones, usually in the 15-25 yard range, or shorter if there was something else about it that was special. +3 points for the truly excellent throws, or good throws on very deep balls.

Stink Factor: Bad throws that are or risk interception, or bad decisions that risk interception, or sack, or something else bad.

Running – For RBs and WRs and QBs, but mostly RBs.

Getting a point and Splash Factor: Gaining more yards than what’s to be expected. This could be from a fake-out, a broken tackle, or just dragging a player a few extra yards. What the runner did, not the outcome of the play, is what counts. For example, Jonathan Dwyer ran 78 yards, but only scored a +2 because the blocking was so pristine that he only had to take care of one defender himself. Mendenhall and Redman each had runs for 15 yards or less that scored the same +2. If the runner makes 10 yards happen by himself and breaks two tackles along the way, he could get a +2. If he gets blocking so beautiful that it’s 10 yards before he even sees an opponent (not likely with us), then he might not register any points at all. The exception to this rule is for touchdowns. When it’s a rushing TD, +1 point is added to whatever it would have been. If it would have been a 0 point run, he gets +1. If it would have been +2, he gets +3.

More or less, each time the runner extends the play significantly or impressively, he gets a point. If he runs 4 yards, gets hit and goes down for a 5 yard gain, that’s 0 points, because any RB can do that. If he gets hit hard after 4 yards, but pushes and drags and goes down for a 7 or 8 yard gain, that’s +1 point. If he breaks that tackle and runs for 15 more yards, that’s +2 points. If there’s no hole up the middle and he takes his own route outside for a 12 yard gain, that could be +2 points. It’s less sexy than following the hole and breaking one tackle for 12 yards, but it’s more of a single man effort to find your own hole after the blocking let you down. Runs with more than 2 points of extension are +3.

Losing a point: Almost never happens. I think it happened to each of our RBs like once, all year. Mendenhall because he tried to bounce a short yardage run outside but lost a yard, Redman because he ran into Starks’ ass and then fell down, and Dwyer because he did like 9 stutter steps in a row and then fell down. Looked like a baby learning to walk for the first time.

Stink Factor: Fumbles. That’s about it.

Receiving – For WRs and TEs, and also RBs.

Getting a point: Almost any reception of any significance. Just like with the QBs, nothing that is an absolute gimmie, like quick screens, or really short crossing routes that result in few yards. Most receptions short of 15 yards are 1 point. Similar to how I give CBs +1 point for tight coverage when the ball isn’t thrown their way, I also give +1 point for a receiver burning a DB even if he doesn’t get the ball. Unfortunately, that is rarely seen on TV, except on replays, which I only had for the primetime games.

Losing a point: Usually when there’s a miscommunication between QB and WR, I can tell who is to blame, but not always. When I’m pretty sure it was the WR, it’s -1. It might be a mistake worth -3, but since I can never be positive, I only subtract 1. Most drops are -2, but if he drops one that was very difficult, it could be -1.

Splash Factor: Bigger plays, or nicer plays. Could be a 20 yard dig route, a 50 yard TD, or a 8 yard catch (+1) with a 10 yard run (+1). Could also be a tip-toe sideline catch for 5 yards.

Stink Factor: Dropped passes are typically -2.

Offensive Line – It’s long been a shame that any given offensive lineman can have 49 great plays in a game, but if he has one bad one he will be ridiculed as worthless. It is their job to protect, and if they fail it is obvious to all and they are plastered on the screen as failures. Luckily, we are able to see every play they do, and so we can get a very accurate picture of how many times they are successful and how many times they aren’t.

Gaining a point: To be awarded a point, they had to meet two criteria: Did he do his job? and Was his job difficult? If the answer was yes to both, then the player is awarded 1 point for the play. Many times the player does a fine job, but has no challenge, such as when a left tackle just shields the RDE on a toss play to the right side. He would not get a point. In the passing game, many times the ball is thrown before the defense had a chance to rush the passer. Even if the OL was in good position and may have made a good block, if he did not hold it for a substantial amount of time, he did not get a point. Examples of when points are not awarded through no fault of the player: double teams in the running game, or getting help in pass protection – only eligible for a point when blocking one on one for a substantial amount of time. Maurkice Pouncey is one player who suffered a bit from this rule, because he rarely blocked by himself in pass protection, instead usually finding someone else to help.

Losing a point: No one can hold a block forever, but if the player loses it before he should have, he will lose a point. It’s important to note that I didn’t take away points every time a defender broke free. They all break free eventually. It has to be unacceptably soon. Example of what I typically say when spotting a -1 play, for context: “Oh, man, Legursky. You gotta do better than that!” 5 yard penalties also lose 1 point.

Splash Factor: It is very hard for an OL to get splash points. He basically has to either have a real pancake block against a guy who didn’t slip or trip, or sustain a pass block by himself for a very, very long time.

Stink Factor: Unfortunately, it’s a lot easier to get stink points. These are when the blocks are missed right away, or almost right away. The whiffs. The kind that won’t just mess up a play, but get a guy killed. These happened a lot, sadly. Example of what I typically say when spotting a -2 play: “Jesus Christ, Scott. You trying to get him killed?” Example of what I typically say when spotting a -3 play: “What the f***, Kemo!! Did you just have a stroke?” Also 10 and 15 yard penalties are given stink points, the amount depending on how bad they were.

Pass Defense: DBs and LBs – These guys suffer from the camera frame more than anyone. It is much easier for players in pass coverage to lose points than it is to gain points. Especially true for CBs. Most of the times they are successful in pass coverage, it is not seen on camera. Most of the times they are unsuccessful, it IS seen on camera. Therefore, unlike other positions and categories, a score of 0 or even -1 may actually mean a good or great performance, depending on playing time and competition. Since they are mainly just trying to prevent damage instead of creating good, the most important categories here are frequency of negative plays and Stink Factor, in addition to pass defense score. It should be noted that tackling on a pass play right at the LOS, like on a quick screen, counts as run defense (because those plays are just long handoffs with no trickery or misdirection, and it reads just like a running play for a CB) but tackling after a completion of any real amount of yards counts as pass defense. So if Ike Taylor allows a completion and Ryan Clark misses a point blank tackle, Clark loses a point in pass defense, not run defense.

Getting a point: Regardless of where or if the ball was thrown, if tight coverage is visible on camera, and there was some degree of difficulty involved (not just a FB wandering out of the backfield at half speed), 1 point was awarded. No points are awarded to anyone for making tackles after completion, because that is fully expected.

Losing a point: The most common way to lose 1 point is to allow a completion of substantial yardage. What’s “substantial” can vary greatly by down and distance, time of game, and opinion. Basically, if it was a completion that we didn’t want them to get, 1 point is lost. For example, suppose a team completes an 8 yard out route and the tackle is made on the spot. If it was 1st and 10 in the 3rd quarter, 1 point would be subtracted from the DB covering. If it was 3rd and 15, no points would be subtracted, because the DB is happy with the result and I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he played accordingly. If it was 2nd and 5, but there were only 20 seconds left in the half and they were on their own 30 yard line, no points are subtracted because it’s still a good defensive play, despite giving up the 1st down… Also, if poor coverage is seen on camera and the ball is not thrown to that receiver, 1 point is still subtracted.

Splash Factor: A batted down pass is automatically +2 points, and an INT is +3. Splash points can also be given for run support, but they follow the same rules as the DL. +1 point if they were unblocked, +2/+3 if they beat a blocker and make the tackle.

Stink Factor: Getting torched badly, or giving up a huge amount of yards, or making two -1 mistakes on the same play (allowing an 8 yard out route completion and then missing the tackle).

Defensive Line – This was honestly one of the hardest positions for me to judge, even though they are visible every play. There are some caveats to their numbers.

-DL Run Defense: These guys win and lose battles all day long, and most of them don’t really affect the play. It’s such a weird position, because they aren’t really expected to be making tackles most of the time, but rather control the offensive linemen and not allow lanes to open up. Also, lots of times the ball is run so far away from them that they have no chance of helping in any way at all, unless it’s a reverse. They might get blocked, they might beat the guy, but I just didn’t include any of it, especially since in those situations usually one or both of the guys isn’t trying his hardest. So the criteria was much harder to judge than for an OL, which is a very simple “did he block the guy?” Heck, most of the time when they make a good play, they are still getting blocked some amount while they’re doing it. Basically, if a DL made a substantial impact in stopping a running play by beating his blocker – either by getting past him, pushing him back, or just positioning himself well enough to disrupt the RB’s path – he got a point. If he got blocked worse than what’s acceptable and he was somewhere near the play (common), or if he had a good chance to make a tackle and missed (very uncommon), he lost a point.

-DL Splash Factor: If a DL beats a block and makes the tackle, he gets 2 points. If it’s especially impressive, such as he beat a double team to make a tackle, or made an amazing tackle, he could get 3 points. Also, batting down passes is an automatic 2 points. Sacks are 2 or 3 points, depending.

-DL Stink Factor: It wasn’t until I was almost done that I realized I hadn’t given out any stink points to any defensive linemen all year. I guess I was saving that for when a guy really got driven back, just plowed right over. That never happened. It was rare enough that I felt they got blocked out of the play badly enough to lose one point.

-DL Pass defense: This includes batting down balls at the LOS, reading/disrupting screens, and actually dropping into coverage. It does not include pass rush, which brings me to…

Pass Rush (all positions): This is a low percentage win statistic. For all pass rushers, you lose like 90% of the time. So I didn’t take away points from pass rushers, ever, just because they didn’t beat their guy or get a QB hurry. The pass rush points are not a combination of +’s and -‘s like the others, they are simply a tally of points. Typically, a hurry will get you 1 point, and a sack 2 or 3, with some room for movement. I only took away points in the Denver game, from a couple of guys, because it was SO bad I had no choice (they were standing and watching Tebow instead of trying to get him). But the important thing to remember here is that if a guy has 14 pass rush points, that doesn’t mean he might have had 21 positives and 7 negatives like it might mean for his run defense score, it just means he had 14 positive points and that’s it, because I didn’t count the negatives (it would probably be like 300, and why depress ourselves?).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For players of all positions in all situations, degree of difficulty is considered. For example, I don’t blame a player for missing a block when he clearly had absolutely no chance of ever making that block, given where the two lined up pre-snap. The TEs trying to go block a CB that’s in bump & run coverage on a quick screen; he has to run 10 yards to beat the CB, who only has to go 3 yards, and is faster? Stupid. Or if a WR is blasted hard as soon as he gets his hands on the ball – and he drops it, I’ll only take away 1 point instead of 2. If he catches it, I’ll add a point to whatever it would have been. The same goes if something is too easy instead of too hard. If a defensive end rushes an OT but stops as soon as he gets there and then just bounces around watching the QB without really rushing at all, no point can be awarded, because there is no difficulty. I don't, however, consider an opponent's talent level when looking at degree of difficulty. Ike Taylor's scores are judged the same whether he's facing Larry FitzGerald or some Cleveland scrub. Notes about competition are sometimes made in the comment section, but the scores won't be affected.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FAQ

What about what you can’t see on camera? – It may seem a little odd or half-assed to go through so much work knowing that I can’t know everything for every play – the play called, an individual responsibility, and what happens out of the camera’s frame. But I did it anyway to prove what we see on TV is enough to accurately evaluate players, if you take the time to do it properly, and are open to yourself to see things honestly. And with proper adjustments as explained above, you can compensate for what we don’t see in the huddle and out of frame. And for most of it, there isn’t even any mystery. Probably 95% of the time, the assignment is clear. It was very rare that I wasn’t positive about what a player was supposed to do, and very rare that a player heavily involved in a play wasn’t on camera.

Did you really score them fairly or did you cheat a little bit to make “your guys” turn out on top? I won’t deny that I had opinions about certain players going into this. I thought that Rashard Mendenhall was catching way too much heat that he did nothing to deserve. Of course, that was on my mind as I was evaluating him. He graded well in my evaluation, perhaps to no one’s surprise. But keep in mind that I wasn’t exactly misinformed when I began. I had already seen every game – more than once – and paid close attention each time. So it makes sense that most of the scores align with the opinions I had about players three months ago. I did my absolute best to stay away from bias while grading. Players that I’d fought for in the past, like Mendenhall, are the ones I was hardest on. I scrutinized everything they did in order to make sure they earned every point and didn’t get anything for free. I did that for three big reasons. One, it’s ethical. Two, I wanted to make sure it would hold up to audit; just in case anyone here wants to look up a game and watch every single play and challenge me, I want to be able to hold my ground and explain where each point came from. And I can. And three, I didn’t just spend several months on this thing just for the sake of learning absolutely nothing. I wanted to know the truth about everyone, not just what other people thought from their vague memories, and not just what I thought from mine. And while I feel like I was mostly right about mostly everyone, I did learn things that surprised me. Some guys I liked did not score as high as I hoped, some guys I didn’t like scored better than I thought, some guys exceeded expectations and others came in below disappointment. Now I know. Next year maybe I’ll do all 19 games.

 

As ever, big big thanks for this Snack. Can't think about how long this must have taken you.

I've only had a glance over it so far, but some interesting points to jump out to me were:

- Your comment on Brown's blocking. I hadn't really thought of this - Wallace has caught some heat recently on here for not being a good enough blocker, but it doesn't look like Brown is much of one either. Is this where we'll miss Ward the most next season? (At the same time, when people criticise receivers not blocking as well as Ward, you have to remember that Ward was very, very special in that regard)

- I was surprised by Pouncey's high score. I think he was so exceptional in his first year, it was disappointing to see him not blow everybody away in quite the same way. But he was evidently still a bit sore, and still producing the goods.

- On Mendenhall: we're very much in agreement on this point, but I'm tempted to put that entire paragraph as a sig whenever *those* debates start up for the 100th time.

- Marcus Gilbert was somewhat as I expected (I thought he was quietly doing a little better, but I rarely have a proper eye on him when watching the game in real time), but I wonder if this should serve as a slight sprinkle of realism (to borrow TomlinEra's phrase) for the new O-Line. OK, Decastro is a different quality of player than Gilbert, but Pouncey also had moments of looking a little lost in his first year. What was also concerning was how Gilbert doesn't seem to "progress" through the season here. Hopefully Kugler learns from this with his new guys this season.

 

thanks HS.

 

Hmm, I don't necessarily disagree with your two points, but I might not be understanding 100%. Who doesn't prefer the contact to be on his terms? Seems like you're saying that if he feels that plowing through is the way to go, he will deliver contact and do his best to push forward, and do a good job, but if he feels like he's better off trying to go around a guy, he'll do that instead. You break it down into game situations (goal line vs. 2nd and 7 in the middle of the field). But the choices you describe him making are the ones I would want him to take from a football standpoint. When you only need one yard, you don't need to be standing around looking for a hole to try and get more than a yard. If the hole isn't there, forcing your way in is your best option, because you might be able to scrum for a yard. On 2nd and 7, a 1 or 2 yard gain isn't what I'd call a success. It makes 3rd down slightly more manageable, but it's really not what we were going for and I'd call it a win for the defense. I would prefer he try and find a way to get more yards. If he crashed into the line and scrummed for what would have been a TD on the goal line, but in reality is only a 2 yard gain on the 50 when we needed 7 yards, I'd say, "Who cares?" Part of his job is to use his judgement to decide when to look for more perhaps by bouncing outside with some minimal risk (at worst he gets 1 or 2 fewer yards than if he'd scrummed in the middle), and when to just say F it and power ahead for a yard. I don't really have a problem with the way he's using the judgement as you described.

So I'm not sure I'd call that a "business decision," since it could also be called a game decision. When I think of business decisions, I think of sacrificing the game for personal health. There are two kinds -- the smart kind and the selfish kind. A RB (Jerome Bettis did this all the time) stepping out of bounds to avoid a tackle by the safety after a 25 yard gain: smart. He could have gotten an extra 3 yards, but he just had a huge run and got us a first down, and that's the kind of unnecessary hit that could affect the length of his game, season, or career. Gotta save yourself from hits when you can. Now, if he did the same thing on 3rd and 9 after an 8 yard gain, that would be selfish. You need that yard. What drives me nuts the people on the two ends of the spectrum. Some say any personal care decision doesn't belong in football, that it's soft. The opposite side is Deion Sanders' definition. According to him all business decisions are smart and not selfish. He did that himself, often not even trying to tackle ball carriers. He's said that's not his job, that's someone else's. He's not about to make contact with someone just for the sake of making a tackle.

For Mendy's future, I don't want to break the bank on him, and I know we don't have the money to do so. But if he can come back healthy this year I want to re-sign him. In an ideal world, we'll get a big fat honking discount because his injury will drive down his price. But I think Mendenhall-Redman + our new offensive line is a far superior skill set compared to what Haley had in KC with Thomas Jones and Jamaal Charles. On top of that we'll have Ben and our receivers over Cassel and theirs. Losing Mendenhall takes out a major hunk of that puzzle that I don't think can be replaced so easily with a Rainey/McCluster type.

 

i don't know but after reading all this, the fact remains the same. snack thinks jon scott will be our starting LT when the season starts. a 1 in a million chance. so, he thinks there's a chance.

 

First off ,TY and is a great piece of work.....

Of course I see Redman a little different than you,and I actually grade him out higher than Mendenhall overall....I give him a better grade as a pass catcher plus I grade him higher than Mendenhall by a huger margin in pass protection and Power running....I also have a Desire category and Redman clips Mendy there as well on my score card...

The one thing that gets me the most was the statement about Redman and his 10 yard runs and how that is equal to a run and step out of bounce run....I disagree in 2 ways with that statement...
#1 Redman can break 20 to 30 yard runs at any moment if the D is not playing all out run...Which is exactly when Redman got most of his work....
#2 A add on to #1 in a way...Redmans style does a lot of damage to the DB'S and the LB'S wby pounding them....
I look at it like a prize fight..While Redman can't knock a guy out with one punch like Mendenhall can do with speed,,,he does throw a lot of punches to the body....These body punches do take the steam out of the oposition,these are the same guys who have to cover ,so his style is better in the long run we just have never worked the Body long enough....

Redman is the real deal and if he stays Healthy he will have a lot better year than Mendenhall has ever had as a Pro....I know peeeps will say it's the new OL...I disagree with that in advance ....His style fits a Power blocking OL which is what we have had for years,the big difference is now we have a OC with Brains and Redman will excell because of that....Mendenhall is a zone Read runner that's his bread and butter,he is a great RB ,but for our Team as a whole Redman is the better option...

 

I see your point about wearing guys down physically by making them tackle you, but to me the importance of that is way down the list, after actual yards gained. Getting first downs, big plays, touchdowns... all way, way more important than possibly setting up a good running play sometime in the 4th quarter when the game is already nearly won. First of all, there's no promising that the "body blows" will ever make a dent. What if we don't get to run the perfect gameplan of 28 rushes for Redman, because the game dictates otherwise? Body blows don't mean that much if you don't get that many. And it's more than a stretch to say that he can do that more than a few times per game. He does usually have a couple runs per game where he drags a couple defenders a few yards, but most of his runs are still just like everybody else's. He gets tackled by the first guy all the time. You're saying that if a defense has been tackling Redman all day instead of Mendenhall, then they'll be more worn down late in the game and that will have a significant impact on the 4th quarter. That's possible, but as long as we're speaking this abstract, won't they also be tired from chasing around Mendenhall all day? Regardless of that, I think the impact will be lower than if other things about the game change, such as different outcomes of plays during the first three quarters. That will play a way bigger role in what happens at the end than who the defense has been tackling. And if one thinks Mendenhall offers more yards and more big plays, then you gotta get him in there. But of course, I advocate using both backs.

What are you basing this on? College tape? Skills competition you held in your backyard? Both of them have rarely ever, if ever even been asked to run a difficult route or make a difficult catch since being on the Steelers. I've seen Mendy make a couple of sort of tricky catches, but nothing too major. He had a one hander in a preseason game that got some people riled up. I remember a drop a few years ago, but I don't think he had a single drop this year. Certainly not in the games I graded. Redman seems to have good hands too. I've seen him drop a couple. I don't have enough tape on them catching the ball to be so certain (68 and 27 career catches, almost all of them simple dumpoffs), but they both look good and Mendenhall looks more fluid to me. And like I said, Mendenhall is the better back in the open field (I think we agree on this), and of course most of the time a RB catches a ball, he'll have some space to work with. In most circumstances, he's the guy I'd want to be swinging the ball out to and hope he makes a play. I would totally understand if someone had them graded equal or couldn't make a determination, but I just don't see any evidence on tape to support the claim that Redman is the better receiver.

Okay, I won't argue the power running. I know they are only separated by one point on my scale, but I think that's accurate from 1-5. Redman got the top score available, and Mendenhall has above average power. If it was 1-10, I'd give Mendy an 8 and Redman a 10.

You talk about the difference in pass protection between these two a lot, and I just didn't see it. Redman was the one they put back there, and he did well, but when Mendenhall was back there, he did just as well. Redman had far more chances, and so he had more successful blocks and more mistakes. He does make mistakes. He makes mental errors and simply misses blocks just like anyone else. In fact, I had you and your praise of his pass protection in mind when I graded him, and so I was a little disappointed. He's very good, don't get me wrong. I gave him a 4 out of 5 for a reason. But he's plenty human back there, and I didn't find him to be more consistent than Mendenhall whatsoever.

Looking back at the particular numbers, I believe Redman had 10 plays where he lost a point from pass protection (15 negative plays. 4 from running, 1 drop). Mendenhall had 1. Was Red back there blocking 10 times more frequently than Mendy? I doubt it. I did only do 13 out of 17 games though. I'm not making the claim Mendenhall is 10 times better, or even 1.2 times better. Just that the "statistics" show that Redman is far from perfect in this area, and there is not really much room to infer his having superiority. This feels funny for me. Normally I'm the last one to throw around some stats to make my point, because stats can so easily be manipulated. No stat is really safe from that. But that's exactly why I did this. These stats really are a holy grail for me personally, because they represent the eyeball test that I so deeply prefer. Obviously since they were my eyes it really only works 100% for me, but of course I'm open to a challenge all the way up until I delete the games from my DVR.

I guess you and I are dreading opposite reactions from fans. I'm predicting a better scheme, better blocking, and peeps saying it's Redman that makes the difference. It's possible that he'll look better than Mendy ever has, but I'd like to wait until I see them both in a good running offense before making the claim that he's better for the team. The knockout punch you mentioned that Mendy can deliver will be way more common with a good system and blocking.

 

Huh? Did I say that somewhere?

 

just kidding. i figured it would get a bigger response from ya. LOL. good work though.

 

Great work!
I was surprised by your high grades of Pouncey though. Pro Football Focus which does this type of play by play analysis for every player consistently rags on Pouncey for being overrated, and I was expecting that once you used their methods of analysis, you'd come to the same conclusion. A nice surprise!

 

I see what you're saying, Elvis, but I just think we're on dodgy ground trying to guess a player's intentions, selfishness, level of effort or any psychological approach, to the game. We can judge mental awareness in terms of performance (i.e. simply not taking advantage of obvious situations), but beyond that you have to go with what you see. I'm not saying they don't happen - you could be absolutely right about Mendenhall - but that we're don't really have evidence without reading into the game a little beyond what we should.

 

I'm not entirely sure what Pouncey's critics want from him. He didn't really have any true pancake blocks, but he doesn't really look like he's trying. He just turns his defender. Maybe I'm just more easily impressed because I was grading the whole Steelers line simultaneously, and so he looks like a demi-god by comparison.

His one bad game, against Cleveland, I just realized he was coming off an injury. I wouldn't be surprised if that played a role.

 

Nice work!

Lol @ Kemo.

 

Speaking of business decisions I think Red needs to go down more often after 3-4 man contact. He isent going anywhere when being mauled anyways and more times then not he ends up turning over the ball.

Bman