ColtFreaks.com - Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum - Nelson wins NFL offensive rookie of month

ColtFreaks.com - Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum (http://www.coltfreaks.com/forum/index.php)

- Indianapolis Colts Discussion (http://www.coltfreaks.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=7)

- - Nelson wins NFL offensive rookie of month (http://www.coltfreaks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=57596)

Quote:

Originally Posted by YDFL Commish (Post 89732)

Glowinski has without a doubt begin the biggest surprise to me.

I've gotta admit, I was concerned about RG when Slauson went down, but, Thus far the Glowinski has played as well or better than Slauson was playing.

And he and the rookie have found a way to work together in a short time

Quote:

Originally Posted by YDFL Commish (Post 89732)

I think Glowinski looks better than Slauson did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by omahacolt (Post 89443)

Anyone that puts stock in pff grades is an absolute moron.

Best comment you have ever made.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FatDT (Post 89785)

I think Glowinski looks better than Slauson did.

He's certainly more athletic. I like the way he gets to the 2nd level and just riding defenders away from the play.

o

In relation to the Colts' offensive line at-large, I found this article that was just put out by Zak Keefer.

The Colts allowing 10 sacks vs. the Jaguars in 2017 led to the offensive revival.

The Colts' Darkest Day of 2017 Led to Their O-Line Revitalization

(By Zak Keefer)

https://www.indystar.com/story/sport...ll/1893991002/

o

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMichael557 (Post 89814)

Best comment you have ever made.

No the fuck it isn’t

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaka (Post 89578)

Agreed - any grading system that isn't completely transparent needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Here's the description that PFF gives of how it's grades are reached, in case anyone was curious:

https://www.profootballfocus.com/pff-player-grades

Basically, their team of "300 plus staff" give a grade to each player of between -2 and +2 on each play, and then they tweak and "normalize" those numbers in some way that makes sense to them, and finally they convert it all onto a 0-100 scale. As Dam points out, subjective input factors HEAVILY in these analyses and, by the way, what makes the -2 to +2 initial scale appropriate to begin with?

People just like this stuff because it attaches a number to a player's performance that give the impression of significance and objectivity, but looking under the hood reveals that it really doesn't and often the PFF numbers simply do not make sense - such as Leonard being ranked behind Vander Esch. These kind of things then generate lots of discussion, which has the unintended effect of boosting PFF's profile even more - so PFF isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

It's real life Madden. Hey look so and so has a grade of 85 but our guy is a 92, he is sooooo much better. If it was really effective they would be transparent about it. I am trying to track their ratings of draft picks a few years back to see how accurate their predictions were, having trouble finding a lot of them though. Shocking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAFF (Post 89720)

Did anyone have Leonard ranked ahead for Vander Esch? Just looking back at a couple of draft sites, I didn't find him in the top ten. One site had Skai Moore ahead of him.

Most of these sites use a dart board to get a number.

Leonard was around the 5th best LB in the draft generally. Vander Esch was about third I think, depending on who was rating. His size and speed was second to Edmunds. I think the majority had:
Smith - Georgia
Edmunds - Vir
Vander Esch - Boise
Evans - Bama
Leonard
Jefferson - Texas

Quite a few pundits thought Leonard was a reach. But those guys just churn out fodder for fans, have to take it with a grain of salt.

o

Andrew Luck Plays His 4th Consecutive Game without getting Sacked

(By Michael David Smith)

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...etting-sacked/

o