PFF (Pro Football Focus) All-Rookie team (1 Viewer)

[Bracie Smathers]

Their might be some debate but on the whole, decent All-Rookie team.

My link

2012 PFF All-Rookie Team

Steve Palazzolo | 2013/01/15

When it’s all said and done, the rookie class of 2012 may be viewed as one of the best ever, particularly due to the strength at the quarterback position. The trio of Russell Wilson, Robert Griffin III, and Andrew Luck all had immediate success that may have unfairly altered future expectations at the position, and all three appear poised for excellence in the coming years.

In addition to the quarterbacks, this rookie class features a deep group of running backs, a plethora of linebackers, playmakers in the secondary and, of course, a group of strong-legged kickers.

Let’s take a look at the top rookies at each position for 2012.

Offense

QB: Russell Wilson, SEA (+39.4)

This battle came down to the very end, but Wilson’s late surge gave him both our Rookie of the Year award as well as the top spot as quarterback on the All-Rookie Team. While Griffin and Luck were receiving the majority of the hype through much of the season, Wilson quietly went about his business before going on a tear that saw him grade at +32.9 over his last nine regular season games.

While the future appears bright for the top three quarterbacks in the class, Wilson boasts the best rookie season of the bunch.

Honorable Mention: RG3 (WAS), Andrew Luck (IND)

RB: Alfred Morris, WAS (+17.1)

While Doug Martin edged Morris out in Elusive Rating (58.2 to 51.0), it was Morris’ overall body of work that gave him the top spot. His +17.1 grade ranked third among running backs, while his 1,613 rushing yards and 13 touchdowns were second in the league.

Honorable Mention: Doug Martin (TB)

FB: Will Johnson, PIT (+2.1)

With limited options at the position, the undrafted Johnson gets the nod over Evan Rodriguez on the strength of his 15 receptions for 137 yards out of the backfield.

Honorable Mention: Evan Rodriguez (CHI)

WR: Josh Gordon, CLE (+3.4) and T.Y. Hilton, IND (-2.8)

It was a slow start for rookie wide receivers around the league, but the trio of Gordon, Chris Givens and Hilton became large parts of their respective offenses as the season progressed, and they all averaged over 16.0 yards/catch. Gordon locked up one spot with his 805 yards on 50 catches and Hilton narrowly edged Givens for the second spot as his seven touchdowns led all rookies and his 861 receiving yards ranked second.

Honorable Mention: Chris Givens (SL)

TE: Dwayne Allen, IND (+19.4)

The second of the Colts’ draft picks at the tight end position, not only did Allen outplay his teammate Coby Fleener, but he also showed better than most tight ends around the league. He brought in the second-highest grade at the position, including superb run blocking at +10.1 on the year.

Tackles: Matt Kalil, MIN (LT) (+15.9) and Mitchell Schwartz, CLV (RT) (+16.1)

It’s uncanny how similar the numbers look for Kalil and Schwartz. Both made the team on the strength of top-notch pass blocking, as Kalil graded at +15.6 and Schwartz at +15.1, while both have room to improve as run blockers (Kalil -2.4, Schwartz -2.9). They finished among the Top 22 tackles in the league, making for an easy selection as the bookend tackles on the All-Rookie Team.

Guards: Amini Silatolu, CAR (LG) (-16.7) and Kevin Zeitler, CIN (RG) (+13.0)

The right guard position was easily filled by Zeitler, who ranked as our 12th-best guard on his way to surrendering only 15 pressures all season. Finding a left guard was a much more arduous process, and Silatolu makes the team by default over Jeff Allen (KC) and Mike Brewster (JAX). Silatolu ranked 77th of the 81 qualifying guards, but ranking a couple of notches above Allen and Brewster gets him the spot on the team.

Center: Trevor Robinson, CIN (-1.8)

On our Mid-Season Rookie Team we were unable to include a center as no first-year players had taken any significant snaps at the time. Luckily Trevor Robinson entered the mix as part of the revolving door at center for the Bengals. He held his own during their stretch run on one of the league’s best offensive lines.

Next - All Rookie Defensive team >>

 

[Bracie Smathers]

All Rookie DEFENSE

My link

Defense

Defensive Ends (4-3 or 3-4): Chandler Jones, NE (+10.4) and Bruce Irvin, SEA (-0.4)

Jones and Irvin maintain their spots after making the mid-season team, though they’ve both struggled in recent weeks. Jones has played through injury which has seen his production suffer, while Irvin’s play as a pass rusher had tapered off even before he was forced into every-down action that exposed his inability to stop the run. Still, Jones has been an every-down player from Day 1 for the Patriots, while Irvin has taken well to his role as a situational pass rusher, ranking seventh in the league in Pass Rush Productivity at 10.5.

Honorable Mention: Quinton Coples (NYJ)

Defensive Tackles: Mike Martin, TEN (+12.2) and Fletcher Cox, PHI (+7.3)

Another pair that maintained their mid-year status, Martin and Cox have been key cogs in their respective teams’ defensive line rotations all year. Martin came out on fire as a pass rusher and finished the season at +12.1, good for 10th among all defensive tackles. Cox has been the more well-rounded player, ranking 12th in both Run Stop Percentage (7.6) and PRP (6.7).

Outside Linebackers (4-3 or 3-4): Lavonte David, TB (+10.0) and Dont’a Hightower, NE (+7.5)

Nearly a finalist in our Defensive Rookie of the Year Race, David was all over the field as he led all linebackers in Run Stop Percentage at 14.6. He finished as our fifth-best 4-3 outside linebacker while playing 98% of his team’s snaps. Hightower has proven to be a versatile player for New England and he’s excelled as a pass rusher. He’s picked up 14 pressures on his 65 rushes, good for a PRP of 17.3 that puts him fourth at the position.

Inside Linebacker: Bobby Wagner, SEA (+16.0)

Not only is Wagner the top rookie inside linebacker, but he ranks second at the position in the entire league. His Run Stop Percentage of 14.4 is tops among inside linebackers as he’s shored up the middle of Seattle’s defense. We have to wonder if this race would have been closer had Luke Kuechly started the season in the middle rather than the outside. After struggling early, he really took to the middle linebacker spot where his 13.3 Run Stop Percentage ranked fourth. Wagner gets the nod this year, but Kuechly has already started to close the gap.

Honorable Mention: Luke Kuechly (CAR)

CB: Casey Hayward, GB (+23.1) and Alfonzo Dennard, NE (+5.5)

Our No. 2 rated coverage cornerback and Defensive Rookie of the Year, Hayward has made the most of his 703 snaps in the Packers’ secondary. Quarterbacks have a QB Rating of 31.1 when throwing his way due to his six interceptions and 16 passes defensed. He’s done most of his work in the slot where he’s surrendering only 0.79 Yards/Cover Snap, good for second in the league. Dennard’s emergence, along with the trade for CB Aqib Talib, has allowed New England’s secondary to play more aggressive man coverages that have helped turn the defense around in the second half of the season. He’s graded at +5.0 in coverage with three interceptions and six passes defensed.

S: Harrison Smith, MIN (+6.5) and Mark Barron, TB (-4.9)

The only two safeties chosen in the first round, Smith and Barron have been entrenched as starters since opening day. Smith was a major key to the Vikings improvement in the secondary, as his +10.4 coverage grade ranked sixth among safeties. He was our second runner-up for Defensive Rookie of the Year.

The second safety spot was much more difficult to decide, but Barron makes the team despite some bumps along the way. He found himself out of position at times in coverage, and he certainly could have done a better job of tackling as he missed 13. Barron did show his playmaking ability, however, as he deflected seven passes and came in at ninth in Run Stop Percentage at 8.4.

Honorable Mention: Tavon Wilson (NE), Jerron McMillian (GB)

--------------------------

Doh!

They even listed an All-Rookie Special team too!

Here it is>>

--------------------------

Special Teams

K: Blair Walsh, MIN (+38.6)

The “Year of the Rookie Kicker” saw Walsh edge out Justin Tucker and Greg Zuerlein on the strength of his remarkable 10 for 10 on field goals of 50 or more yards. Walsh is our top ranked kicker in the league.

Honorable Mention: Justin Tucker, Greg Zuerlein

P: Bryan Anger, JAX (+20.7)

Anger will always battle the stigma of being a third-round draft pick as a punter, but he showed well in his first year, finishing as our 11th ranked punter.

ST: Olivier Vernon, MIA (+4.5)

Vernon has blocked two kicks while picking up seven special teams tackles on the season.

Returner: David Wilson, NYG (+9.5)

Our No. 3 rated return man, Wilson has done all of his work on kickoffs where he’s averaged 26.9 yards/return including one return for a touchdown.

 

[EBF]

Martin > MorrisGuess they didn't put any stock in versatility or pass catching.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

Martin > Morris

Guess they didn't put any stock in versatility or pass catching.

I thought for sure the QB and RB chosen would prompt a respone or two.However in the case of Alfred Morris over RB Doug Martin, they make a pretty good case for Morris just on rock-solid production:

"... 1,613 rushing yards and 13 touchdowns ..."

Hard to argue with those sort of numbers IMHO.

 

[EBF]

Martin > Morris

Guess they didn't put any stock in versatility or pass catching.

I thought for sure the QB and RB chosen would prompt a respone or two.However in the case of Alfred Morris over RB Doug Martin, they make a pretty good case for Morris just on rock-solid production:

"... 1,613 rushing yards and 13 touchdowns ..."

Hard to argue with those sort of numbers IMHO.

Until you consider that Martin had 1454 rushing yards, 11 rushing TDs, 49 catches, and 472 receiving yards.Morris only had 11 catches for 77 yards.

So it's 1926 total yards for Martin compared to 1690 for Morris. I don't see how Alf wins this one.

I think he only won because the Dallas game is fresh in our memory. Same reason why Russell Wilson got the nod and not RG3 or Luck.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Martin > MorrisGuess they didn't put any stock in versatility or pass catching.

martin might be better. but alfred morris pure rushing numbers are nasty

 

[Bracie Smathers]

Martin > Morris

Guess they didn't put any stock in versatility or pass catching.

I thought for sure the QB and RB chosen would prompt a respone or two.However in the case of Alfred Morris over RB Doug Martin, they make a pretty good case for Morris just on rock-solid production:

"... 1,613 rushing yards and 13 touchdowns ..."

Hard to argue with those sort of numbers IMHO.

Until you consider that Martin had 1454 rushing yards, 11 rushing TDs, 49 catches, and 472 receiving yards.Morris only had 11 catches for 77 yards.

So it's 1926 total yards for Martin compared to 1690 for Morris. I don't see how Alf wins this one.

I think he only won because the Dallas game is fresh in our memory. Same reason why Russell Wilson got the nod and not RG3 or Luck.

The very first line explains how they made the selection:"While Doug Martin edged Morris out in Elusive Rating (58.2 to 51.0), it was Morris’ overall body of work that gave him the top spot. His +17.1 grade ranked third among running backs ..."

He ranked 3rd amongst all NFL RBs not only the rookies.

So based on their rankings, he was the obvious choice but you disagree and I expected some would disagree with the RB and QB. I don't have strong feelings one way or another but you make a good case.

I'm wondering what people think of the All-DEFENSIVE-Rookie team and the All-Rookie Special Teams.

 

[Area51Inhabitant]

Morris's consistency might have been a factor as well. Martin had those 2 otherworldly games in the middle of the season but he also had his share of mediocre games as well.

 

[dgreen]

I think he only won because the Dallas game is fresh in our memory. Same reason why Russell Wilson got the nod and not RG3 or Luck.

PFF uses more objective measures than most places that pass out awards. Things being "fresh in our memory" doesn't really play a role for them.They grade each player on every play and give them points or take away points based on the result. They don't really care if someone has proper technique or not; they only care about the result of each play. I don't know too much about Martin, but I'd guess Alfred Morris had very few negative plays. He almost always made the most of his opportunities on each play. Over a full season, those things add up.

 

[EBF]

I think he only won because the Dallas game is fresh in our memory. Same reason why Russell Wilson got the nod and not RG3 or Luck.

PFF uses more objective measures than most places that pass out awards. Things being "fresh in our memory" doesn't really play a role for them.They grade each player on every play and give them points or take away points based on the result. They don't really care if someone has proper technique or not; they only care about the result of each play. I don't know too much about Martin, but I'd guess Alfred Morris had very few negative plays. He almost always made the most of his opportunities on each play. Over a full season, those things add up.

Didn't know that. The argument still holds. Morris was a non-entity in the passing game. I'd rather have a back who's an 8 as a rusher and a 9 as a receiver than a back who's a 9 as a rusher and a 2 as a receiver.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

Their might be some debate but on the whole, decent All-Rookie team.

My link

2012 PFF All-Rookie Team

Steve Palazzolo | 2013/01/15

When it’s all said and done, the rookie class of 2012 may be viewed as one of the best ever, particularly due to the strength at the quarterback position. The trio of Russell Wilson, Robert Griffin III, and Andrew Luck all had immediate success that may have unfairly altered future expectations at the position, and all three appear poised for excellence in the coming years.

In addition to the quarterbacks, this rookie class features a deep group of running backs, a plethora of linebackers, playmakers in the secondary and, of course, a group of strong-legged kickers.

Let’s take a look at the top rookies at each position for 2012.

Offense

QB: Russell Wilson, SEA (+39.4)

This battle came down to the very end, but Wilson’s late surge gave him both our Rookie of the Year award as well as the top spot as quarterback on the All-Rookie Team. While Griffin and Luck were receiving the majority of the hype through much of the season, Wilson quietly went about his business before going on a tear that saw him grade at +32.9 over his last nine regular season games.

While the future appears bright for the top three quarterbacks in the class, Wilson boasts the best rookie season of the bunch.

Honorable Mention: RG3 (WAS), Andrew Luck (IND)

RB: Alfred Morris, WAS (+17.1)

While Doug Martin edged Morris out in Elusive Rating (58.2 to 51.0), it was Morris’ overall body of work that gave him the top spot. His +17.1 grade ranked third among running backs, while his 1,613 rushing yards and 13 touchdowns were second in the league.

Honorable Mention: Doug Martin (TB)

FB: Will Johnson, PIT (+2.1)

With limited options at the position, the undrafted Johnson gets the nod over Evan Rodriguez on the strength of his 15 receptions for 137 yards out of the backfield.

Honorable Mention: Evan Rodriguez (CHI)

WR: Josh Gordon, CLE (+3.4) and T.Y. Hilton, IND (-2.8)

It was a slow start for rookie wide receivers around the league, but the trio of Gordon, Chris Givens and Hilton became large parts of their respective offenses as the season progressed, and they all averaged over 16.0 yards/catch. Gordon locked up one spot with his 805 yards on 50 catches and Hilton narrowly edged Givens for the second spot as his seven touchdowns led all rookies and his 861 receiving yards ranked second.

Honorable Mention: Chris Givens (SL)

TE: Dwayne Allen, IND (+19.4)

The second of the Colts’ draft picks at the tight end position, not only did Allen outplay his teammate Coby Fleener, but he also showed better than most tight ends around the league. He brought in the second-highest grade at the position, including superb run blocking at +10.1 on the year.

Tackles: Matt Kalil, MIN (LT) (+15.9) and Mitchell Schwartz, CLV (RT) (+16.1)

It’s uncanny how similar the numbers look for Kalil and Schwartz. Both made the team on the strength of top-notch pass blocking, as Kalil graded at +15.6 and Schwartz at +15.1, while both have room to improve as run blockers (Kalil -2.4, Schwartz -2.9). They finished among the Top 22 tackles in the league, making for an easy selection as the bookend tackles on the All-Rookie Team.

Guards: Amini Silatolu, CAR (LG) (-16.7) and Kevin Zeitler, CIN (RG) (+13.0)

The right guard position was easily filled by Zeitler, who ranked as our 12th-best guard on his way to surrendering only 15 pressures all season. Finding a left guard was a much more arduous process, and Silatolu makes the team by default over Jeff Allen (KC) and Mike Brewster (JAX). Silatolu ranked 77th of the 81 qualifying guards, but ranking a couple of notches above Allen and Brewster gets him the spot on the team.

Center: Trevor Robinson, CIN (-1.8)

On our Mid-Season Rookie Team we were unable to include a center as no first-year players had taken any significant snaps at the time. Luckily Trevor Robinson entered the mix as part of the revolving door at center for the Bengals. He held his own during their stretch run on one of the league’s best offensive lines.

Next - All Rookie Defensive team >>

My take.QBs

In terms of fantasy value. Obviously Russell Wilson looks very solid. He is in the read-option but as many talking heads have mentioned he is excellent in avoiding pressure and when he takes off and runs he gets solid yarage but protects his body. RG III's health is a bit of question mark for next year but he 'should' be fine going forward. Luck is ok right now but should imrpove and get even better.

RBs

Al Morris earned my respect last year. He was better than I ever imagined but if RG III misses time next year he won't be as good as he was this past year because defenses will be able to load up the box. Doug Martin had monster games then cooled off. He is good but I feel the Trent Richardson has a shot to move up past both Martin AND Alfred Morris next year if he is healthy and if Weeden takes a big step forward.

WRs

Josh Gordon didn't even play college football for a year and then missed mini-camps and was behing all training camp and was forgotten for the first couple of games until injuries forced him into the starting lineup. He was improving and had Greg Little step-up and emerge opposite of him so having a full off-season and gaining valuable experience and having G-Little emerge position him to take a huge step forward next year but Weeden could also improve so he's a very interesting guy to target if you can land him. Anyone connected with Andrew Luck is interesting and T.Y. Hilton looks like he could be thee-guy for a long time. Chris Givens is a very interesting guy but has some maturity issues. I'm sure others will develop as well from this past draft at the WR position.

TE

Dwayne Allen was a bit of a surprise as Coby Fleener seemed like he would be the obvious choice after the draft but I don't know what happened there and why Allen bypassed him or the other rookie TEs from last year.

OT

Matt Kalil and Mitchell Schwartz. Both obvious choices and I'm not sure who the distant third would be from last year. Maybe the Pittsburgh rook but I'm almost thinking that he's not really a viable starting OLT and should be moved to RT, just my opnion.

OG

Kevin Zeitler was noticeable but I didn't see enough of Amini Silotulo. I would imagine DeCastro and some others are out there who I don't know about.

C

Honestly didn't notice Trevor Robinson so I would go with PFF on that one.

Looks like last year was an excellent year for fantasy rookies. Three rookie QBs alone (Russell Wilson, RG III, Andrew Luck) would be huge but add in three top RBs (Al Morris, Doug Martin, Trent Richardson) and it was a great fantasy rookie class.

Then factor in the WRs and the QBs who weren't even listed like, Tannenhill, Weeden, Foles, and Cousins. Quite amazing since one or more 'could' emerge from this group too.

 

[jurb26]

I think he only won because the Dallas game is fresh in our memory. Same reason why Russell Wilson got the nod and not RG3 or Luck.

PFF uses more objective measures than most places that pass out awards. Things being "fresh in our memory" doesn't really play a role for them.They grade each player on every play and give them points or take away points based on the result. They don't really care if someone has proper technique or not; they only care about the result of each play. I don't know too much about Martin, but I'd guess Alfred Morris had very few negative plays. He almost always made the most of his opportunities on each play. Over a full season, those things add up.

Didn't know that. The argument still holds. Morris was a non-entity in the passing game. I'd rather have a back who's an 8 as a rusher and a 9 as a receiver than a back who's a 9 as a rusher and a 2 as a receiver.

Well, I'm sure the 130 more passing attempts in TB vs. Wash had something to do with Martin's higher levels of production as well.

 

[Tau837]

I think he only won because the Dallas game is fresh in our memory. Same reason why Russell Wilson got the nod and not RG3 or Luck.

PFF uses more objective measures than most places that pass out awards. Things being "fresh in our memory" doesn't really play a role for them.They grade each player on every play and give them points or take away points based on the result. They don't really care if someone has proper technique or not; they only care about the result of each play. I don't know too much about Martin, but I'd guess Alfred Morris had very few negative plays. He almost always made the most of his opportunities on each play. Over a full season, those things add up.

Didn't know that. The argument still holds. Morris was a non-entity in the passing game. I'd rather have a back who's an 8 as a rusher and a 9 as a receiver than a back who's a 9 as a rusher and a 2 as a receiver.

You are ignoring blocking and penalties. Here are PFF's complete ratings for both of them:Morris:Rushing +16.7Receiving -2.1Blocking +3.8Penalties -1.3Total +17.1Martin:Rushing +9.7Receiving +5.1Blocking +0.1Penalties -2.1Total +12.8Ignoring blocking and penalties and focusing on just rushing and receiving, PFF's objective ratings would have them ranked nearly even: Martin (14.8) just above Morris (14.6).

 

[Shane Falco]

Martin > Morris

Guess they didn't put any stock in versatility or pass catching.

I thought for sure the QB and RB chosen would prompt a respone or two.However in the case of Alfred Morris over RB Doug Martin, they make a pretty good case for Morris just on rock-solid production:

"... 1,613 rushing yards and 13 touchdowns ..."

Hard to argue with those sort of numbers IMHO.

Until you consider that Martin had 1454 rushing yards, 11 rushing TDs, 49 catches, and 472 receiving yards.Morris only had 11 catches for 77 yards.

So it's 1926 total yards for Martin compared to 1690 for Morris. I don't see how Alf wins this one.

I think he only won because the Dallas game is fresh in our memory. Same reason why Russell Wilson got the nod and not RG3 or Luck.

The very first line explains how they made the selection:"While Doug Martin edged Morris out in Elusive Rating (58.2 to 51.0), it was Morris’ overall body of work that gave him the top spot. His +17.1 grade ranked third among running backs ..."

He ranked 3rd amongst all NFL RBs not only the rookies.

So based on their rankings, he was the obvious choice but you disagree and I expected some would disagree with the RB and QB. I don't have strong feelings one way or another but you make a good case.

I'm wondering what people think of the All-DEFENSIVE-Rookie team and the All-Rookie Special Teams.

My only real issue is that their Elusive Rating is flawed but that would be a different thread. Martin's numbers probably do get inflated from 2 games and Morris was the most consistent back. Whatever, its just a rookie year. IMO Richardson will be the best of this class, Martin 2nd and Morris some where in the top 5 seeing how B. Brown and maybe some other guys develop.

 

[cheese]

I would like to hear the argument for Hightower over Burfict.

 

[Donnybrook]

Luke Kueckly got elimated due to a technicality - part of the year as outside backer before switching to the middle. He lead the league with 165 tackles so he deserves to be a starting LB on this rookie defense.

 

[wsig]

I think he only won because the Dallas game is fresh in our memory. Same reason why Russell Wilson got the nod and not RG3 or Luck.

PFF uses more objective measures than most places that pass out awards. Things being "fresh in our memory" doesn't really play a role for them.They grade each player on every play and give them points or take away points based on the result. They don't really care if someone has proper technique or not; they only care about the result of each play. I don't know too much about Martin, but I'd guess Alfred Morris had very few negative plays. He almost always made the most of his opportunities on each play. Over a full season, those things add up.

The more it's explained, the sillier it sounds. I'm sure coaches and coordinators don't care about proper technique, only the result of the play.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

I think he only won because the Dallas game is fresh in our memory. Same reason why Russell Wilson got the nod and not RG3 or Luck.

PFF uses more objective measures than most places that pass out awards. Things being "fresh in our memory" doesn't really play a role for them.They grade each player on every play and give them points or take away points based on the result. They don't really care if someone has proper technique or not; they only care about the result of each play. I don't know too much about Martin, but I'd guess Alfred Morris had very few negative plays. He almost always made the most of his opportunities on each play. Over a full season, those things add up.

The more it's explained, the sillier it sounds. I'm sure coaches and coordinators don't care about proper technique, only the result of the play.

Look at post #13. It doesn't sound silly at all - unless you think blocking and penalties are irrelevant.

 

[dgreen]

I think he only won because the Dallas game is fresh in our memory. Same reason why Russell Wilson got the nod and not RG3 or Luck.

PFF uses more objective measures than most places that pass out awards. Things being "fresh in our memory" doesn't really play a role for them.They grade each player on every play and give them points or take away points based on the result. They don't really care if someone has proper technique or not; they only care about the result of each play. I don't know too much about Martin, but I'd guess Alfred Morris had very few negative plays. He almost always made the most of his opportunities on each play. Over a full season, those things add up.

The more it's explained, the sillier it sounds. I'm sure coaches and coordinators don't care about proper technique, only the result of the play.

Look at post #13. It doesn't sound silly at all - unless you think blocking and penalties are irrelevant.

Of course blocking and penalties are important. That's not the point, though, in his comment. I assume he's using sarcasm and believes, like me, that coaches care about technique in addition to results.Take a hypothetical play where a right-handed QB, under absolutely no pressure, decides to throw a pass left-handed behind his back and completes it for a 10-yard TD pass. PFF would score that a positive play because of the result. A real life coach would rip that QB a new one for attempting to perform a moronic pass. The coach realizes that the QB can't repeat that result at a high rate using that technique.A more realistic example could be a WR runs a sloppy route but gets the catch, 20 yards, and a first down. Despite the sloppy route, he was open because of a missed assignment by the D. Coaches wouldn't consider that a good play by the WR. He was open because of luck.

 

[wsig]

I think he only won because the Dallas game is fresh in our memory. Same reason why Russell Wilson got the nod and not RG3 or Luck.

PFF uses more objective measures than most places that pass out awards. Things being "fresh in our memory" doesn't really play a role for them.They grade each player on every play and give them points or take away points based on the result. They don't really care if someone has proper technique or not; they only care about the result of each play. I don't know too much about Martin, but I'd guess Alfred Morris had very few negative plays. He almost always made the most of his opportunities on each play. Over a full season, those things add up.

The more it's explained, the sillier it sounds. I'm sure coaches and coordinators don't care about proper technique, only the result of the play.

Look at post #13. It doesn't sound silly at all - unless you think blocking and penalties are irrelevant.

Of course blocking and penalties are important. That's not the point, though, in his comment. I assume he's using sarcasm and believes, like me, that coaches care about technique in addition to results.Take a hypothetical play where a right-handed QB, under absolutely no pressure, decides to throw a pass left-handed behind his back and completes it for a 10-yard TD pass. PFF would score that a positive play because of the result. A real life coach would rip that QB a new one for attempting to perform a moronic pass. The coach realizes that the QB can't repeat that result at a high rate using that technique.A more realistic example could be a WR runs a sloppy route but gets the catch, 20 yards, and a first down. Despite the sloppy route, he was open because of a missed assignment by the D. Coaches wouldn't consider that a good play by the WR. He was open because of luck.

There are a lot of different variables that they don't account for. As much as they want to call themselves objective for only looking at the results of the plays, they're flawed for only looking at the results of the play.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

I think he only won because the Dallas game is fresh in our memory. Same reason why Russell Wilson got the nod and not RG3 or Luck.

PFF uses more objective measures than most places that pass out awards. Things being "fresh in our memory" doesn't really play a role for them.They grade each player on every play and give them points or take away points based on the result. They don't really care if someone has proper technique or not; they only care about the result of each play. I don't know too much about Martin, but I'd guess Alfred Morris had very few negative plays. He almost always made the most of his opportunities on each play. Over a full season, those things add up.

The more it's explained, the sillier it sounds. I'm sure coaches and coordinators don't care about proper technique, only the result of the play.

Look at post #13. It doesn't sound silly at all - unless you think blocking and penalties are irrelevant.

Of course blocking and penalties are important. That's not the point, though, in his comment. I assume he's using sarcasm and believes, like me, that coaches care about technique in addition to results.Take a hypothetical play where a right-handed QB, under absolutely no pressure, decides to throw a pass left-handed behind his back and completes it for a 10-yard TD pass. PFF would score that a positive play because of the result. A real life coach would rip that QB a new one for attempting to perform a moronic pass. The coach realizes that the QB can't repeat that result at a high rate using that technique.A more realistic example could be a WR runs a sloppy route but gets the catch, 20 yards, and a first down. Despite the sloppy route, he was open because of a missed assignment by the D. Coaches wouldn't consider that a good play by the WR. He was open because of luck.

There are a lot of different variables that they don't account for. As much as they want to call themselves objective for only looking at the results of the plays, they're flawed for only looking at the results of the play.

Come up with a better system then. I could just as easily say "go read Moneyball." Billy Beane made a name for himself by worrying about outcomes rather than appearances.Don't get me wrong - I get the nuance of your comment.....but at the end of the day, you can't create a perfect approach for this. Rather, create a pretty good one and use it as one of many tools in the toolkit. Which is, I'm guessing, what PFF would say they have done.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

I think he only won because the Dallas game is fresh in our memory. Same reason why Russell Wilson got the nod and not RG3 or Luck.

PFF uses more objective measures than most places that pass out awards. Things being "fresh in our memory" doesn't really play a role for them.They grade each player on every play and give them points or take away points based on the result. They don't really care if someone has proper technique or not; they only care about the result of each play. I don't know too much about Martin, but I'd guess Alfred Morris had very few negative plays. He almost always made the most of his opportunities on each play. Over a full season, those things add up.

The more it's explained, the sillier it sounds. I'm sure coaches and coordinators don't care about proper technique, only the result of the play.

Look at post #13. It doesn't sound silly at all - unless you think blocking and penalties are irrelevant.

Of course blocking and penalties are important. That's not the point, though, in his comment. I assume he's using sarcasm and believes, like me, that coaches care about technique in addition to results.Take a hypothetical play where a right-handed QB, under absolutely no pressure, decides to throw a pass left-handed behind his back and completes it for a 10-yard TD pass. PFF would score that a positive play because of the result. A real life coach would rip that QB a new one for attempting to perform a moronic pass. The coach realizes that the QB can't repeat that result at a high rate using that technique.A more realistic example could be a WR runs a sloppy route but gets the catch, 20 yards, and a first down. Despite the sloppy route, he was open because of a missed assignment by the D. Coaches wouldn't consider that a good play by the WR. He was open because of luck.

Over a big enough sample size, luck dissipates.

 

[wsig]

I think he only won because the Dallas game is fresh in our memory. Same reason why Russell Wilson got the nod and not RG3 or Luck.

PFF uses more objective measures than most places that pass out awards. Things being "fresh in our memory" doesn't really play a role for them.They grade each player on every play and give them points or take away points based on the result. They don't really care if someone has proper technique or not; they only care about the result of each play. I don't know too much about Martin, but I'd guess Alfred Morris had very few negative plays. He almost always made the most of his opportunities on each play. Over a full season, those things add up.

The more it's explained, the sillier it sounds. I'm sure coaches and coordinators don't care about proper technique, only the result of the play.

Look at post #13. It doesn't sound silly at all - unless you think blocking and penalties are irrelevant.

Of course blocking and penalties are important. That's not the point, though, in his comment. I assume he's using sarcasm and believes, like me, that coaches care about technique in addition to results.Take a hypothetical play where a right-handed QB, under absolutely no pressure, decides to throw a pass left-handed behind his back and completes it for a 10-yard TD pass. PFF would score that a positive play because of the result. A real life coach would rip that QB a new one for attempting to perform a moronic pass. The coach realizes that the QB can't repeat that result at a high rate using that technique.A more realistic example could be a WR runs a sloppy route but gets the catch, 20 yards, and a first down. Despite the sloppy route, he was open because of a missed assignment by the D. Coaches wouldn't consider that a good play by the WR. He was open because of luck.

There are a lot of different variables that they don't account for. As much as they want to call themselves objective for only looking at the results of the plays, they're flawed for only looking at the results of the play.

Come up with a better system then. I could just as easily say "go read Moneyball." Billy Beane made a name for himself by worrying about outcomes rather than appearances.Don't get me wrong - I get the nuance of your comment.....but at the end of the day, you can't create a perfect approach for this. Rather, create a pretty good one and use it as one of many tools in the toolkit. Which is, I'm guessing, what PFF would say they have done.

A better system? I don't think there is any algorithm that is going to accurately tell the story in football. That's basically like asking an atheist which religion is right.Baseball is a game of very few moving parts. Football is a game of a thousand living parts. Just because Moneyball works for baseball, doesn't mean that it can for football, or hockey. Basketball, maybe. But especially not football. In baseball, you can break everything down in numbers. It's always been a numbers game. X pitch at Y miles an hour resulting in a Z yard pop-up in a V dimension right field in W park. It's a tidy game. Football is the exact opposite. The best "metrics" can do is come up with "fun", little indicator stats. I don't mind the OL ratings that FO comes up with. But I also understand that it gives you an idea of how effective the run is at different points in the line. Again, very few (if any) numbers tell the whole story of the chaos that happens in football in a play, much less an entire season. Trying to assign an all-encompassing number is an exercise in futility IMO.

 

[LarryAllen'sJockstrap]

I think he only won because the Dallas game is fresh in our memory. Same reason why Russell Wilson got the nod and not RG3 or Luck.

PFF uses more objective measures than most places that pass out awards. Things being "fresh in our memory" doesn't really play a role for them.They grade each player on every play and give them points or take away points based on the result. They don't really care if someone has proper technique or not; they only care about the result of each play. I don't know too much about Martin, but I'd guess Alfred Morris had very few negative plays. He almost always made the most of his opportunities on each play. Over a full season, those things add up.

Didn't know that. The argument still holds. Morris was a non-entity in the passing game. I'd rather have a back who's an 8 as a rusher and a 9 as a receiver than a back who's a 9 as a rusher and a 2 as a receiver.

You are ignoring blocking and penalties. Here are PFF's complete ratings for both of them:Morris:

Rushing +16.7

Receiving -2.1

Blocking +3.8

Penalties -1.3

Total +17.1

Martin:

Rushing +9.7

Receiving +5.1

Blocking +0.1

Penalties -2.1

Total +12.8

Ignoring blocking and penalties and focusing on just rushing and receiving, PFF's objective ratings would have them ranked nearly even: Martin (14.8) just above Morris (14.6).

don't understand the PFF rushing numbers on Martin vs. Morris.Morris had 159 more yards and 2 more rushing TDs than Martin, but his Rushing rating is 1.72 times (close to double) Martin?

Looking at other rushing factors

Morris:

AVG: 4.8

1st Downs: 83

20+: 9

40+: 0

Fumbles: 4

Morris:

AVG: 4.6

1st Downs: 58

20+: 11

40+: 5

Fumbles: 1

Those numbers do not from a pure rushing perspective appear that Morris' value is 172% of Martin's.

On the flipside, Martin's receiving rating is 443% of Morris. Considering Martin had 4.5 times as many receptions (49 to 11) and 6 times as many receiving yards (472 to 77), a percentage gap like that seems more realistic.

 

[dgreen]

I think he only won because the Dallas game is fresh in our memory. Same reason why Russell Wilson got the nod and not RG3 or Luck.

PFF uses more objective measures than most places that pass out awards. Things being "fresh in our memory" doesn't really play a role for them.They grade each player on every play and give them points or take away points based on the result. They don't really care if someone has proper technique or not; they only care about the result of each play. I don't know too much about Martin, but I'd guess Alfred Morris had very few negative plays. He almost always made the most of his opportunities on each play. Over a full season, those things add up.

Didn't know that. The argument still holds. Morris was a non-entity in the passing game. I'd rather have a back who's an 8 as a rusher and a 9 as a receiver than a back who's a 9 as a rusher and a 2 as a receiver.

You are ignoring blocking and penalties. Here are PFF's complete ratings for both of them:Morris:

Rushing +16.7

Receiving -2.1

Blocking +3.8

Penalties -1.3

Total +17.1

Martin:

Rushing +9.7

Receiving +5.1

Blocking +0.1

Penalties -2.1

Total +12.8

Ignoring blocking and penalties and focusing on just rushing and receiving, PFF's objective ratings would have them ranked nearly even: Martin (14.8) just above Morris (14.6).

don't understand the PFF rushing numbers on Martin vs. Morris.Morris had 159 more yards and 2 more rushing TDs than Martin, but his Rushing rating is 1.72 times (close to double) Martin?

Looking at other rushing factors

Morris:

AVG: 4.8

1st Downs: 83

20+: 9

40+: 0

Fumbles: 4

Morris:

AVG: 4.6

1st Downs: 58

20+: 11

40+: 5

Fumbles: 1

Those numbers do not from a pure rushing perspective appear that Morris' value is 172% of Martin's.

On the flipside, Martin's receiving rating is 443% of Morris. Considering Martin had 4.5 times as many receptions (49 to 11) and 6 times as many receiving yards (472 to 77), a percentage gap like that seems more realistic.

I believe it's derived from play-by-play scores. Each play is scored for a player and then added up. Morris likely had a lot less variance in his plays. Look at AVG and LONG. Morris averaged 4.8 yards per rush despite only having a long of 39 yards. His AVG wasn't skewed by a handful of long runs. Martin's rushes have much more variation. His AVG are skewed by the long runs. Of course long runs are a good thing and score well. But, what that tells me is that he also had more short (possibly even negative) runs which will score poorly. Morris didn't lose yards often.

 

[LarryAllen'sJockstrap]

I think he only won because the Dallas game is fresh in our memory. Same reason why Russell Wilson got the nod and not RG3 or Luck.

PFF uses more objective measures than most places that pass out awards. Things being "fresh in our memory" doesn't really play a role for them.They grade each player on every play and give them points or take away points based on the result. They don't really care if someone has proper technique or not; they only care about the result of each play. I don't know too much about Martin, but I'd guess Alfred Morris had very few negative plays. He almost always made the most of his opportunities on each play. Over a full season, those things add up.

Didn't know that. The argument still holds. Morris was a non-entity in the passing game. I'd rather have a back who's an 8 as a rusher and a 9 as a receiver than a back who's a 9 as a rusher and a 2 as a receiver.

You are ignoring blocking and penalties. Here are PFF's complete ratings for both of them:Morris:

Rushing +16.7

Receiving -2.1

Blocking +3.8

Penalties -1.3

Total +17.1

Martin:

Rushing +9.7

Receiving +5.1

Blocking +0.1

Penalties -2.1

Total +12.8

Ignoring blocking and penalties and focusing on just rushing and receiving, PFF's objective ratings would have them ranked nearly even: Martin (14.8) just above Morris (14.6).

don't understand the PFF rushing numbers on Martin vs. Morris.Morris had 159 more yards and 2 more rushing TDs than Martin, but his Rushing rating is 1.72 times (close to double) Martin?

Looking at other rushing factors

Morris:

AVG: 4.8

1st Downs: 83

20+: 9

40+: 0

Fumbles: 4

Morris:

AVG: 4.6

1st Downs: 58

20+: 11

40+: 5

Fumbles: 1

Those numbers do not from a pure rushing perspective appear that Morris' value is 172% of Martin's.

On the flipside, Martin's receiving rating is 443% of Morris. Considering Martin had 4.5 times as many receptions (49 to 11) and 6 times as many receiving yards (472 to 77), a percentage gap like that seems more realistic.

I believe it's derived from play-by-play scores. Each play is scored for a player and then added up. Morris likely had a lot less variance in his plays. Look at AVG and LONG. Morris averaged 4.8 yards per rush despite only having a long of 39 yards. His AVG wasn't skewed by a handful of long runs. Martin's rushes have much more variation. His AVG are skewed by the long runs. Of course long runs are a good thing and score well. But, what that tells me is that he also had more short (possibly even negative) runs which will score poorly. Morris didn't lose yards often.

Makes sense. I was just surprised to see Morris graded out 1.72 times as good of a pure runner than Martin. I would think that would be for say a Morris vs. Gore, Rice or Forte category (~1150 yards and similiar/fewer TDs). Martin was a top-5 runner (like Morris) in most statistical categories (yards, TDs...).Morris was far more consistent from game to game. Martin rushed for 70 or fewer yards 8 out of 16 games. Morris did so only 1 time in 16. In Martin's 5 best games, he rushed for 55% of his total yards; Morris only rushed for 43% in his top 5 games.

 

[doowain]

No Vontaze Burfict? Not even as an honorable mention? WTF.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

As I understand it PFF grades each player on every play -- with two people grading and then comparing scores for consistency. So it would take into account what the runner actually did on each play. Did they run through a gaping hole untouched for ten yards? Did they break a tackle in the backfield and make the second guy miss to gain four yards? And IIRC the second play would yield a higher grade than the first.

 

[Warrior]

I think he only won because the Dallas game is fresh in our memory. Same reason why Russell Wilson got the nod and not RG3 or Luck.

PFF uses more objective measures than most places that pass out awards. Things being "fresh in our memory" doesn't really play a role for them.They grade each player on every play and give them points or take away points based on the result. They don't really care if someone has proper technique or not; they only care about the result of each play. I don't know too much about Martin, but I'd guess Alfred Morris had very few negative plays. He almost always made the most of his opportunities on each play. Over a full season, those things add up.

Didn't know that. The argument still holds. Morris was a non-entity in the passing game. I'd rather have a back who's an 8 as a rusher and a 9 as a receiver than a back who's a 9 as a rusher and a 2 as a receiver.

Maybe you should start your own website if you want to rate backs but completely ignore their pass protection, broken tackles, YAC, etc. PFF's system is much better than yours, I'm sure, since yours only considers fantasy football stats.

 

[dgreen]

I think he only won because the Dallas game is fresh in our memory. Same reason why Russell Wilson got the nod and not RG3 or Luck.

PFF uses more objective measures than most places that pass out awards. Things being "fresh in our memory" doesn't really play a role for them.They grade each player on every play and give them points or take away points based on the result. They don't really care if someone has proper technique or not; they only care about the result of each play. I don't know too much about Martin, but I'd guess Alfred Morris had very few negative plays. He almost always made the most of his opportunities on each play. Over a full season, those things add up.

Didn't know that. The argument still holds. Morris was a non-entity in the passing game. I'd rather have a back who's an 8 as a rusher and a 9 as a receiver than a back who's a 9 as a rusher and a 2 as a receiver.

You are ignoring blocking and penalties. Here are PFF's complete ratings for both of them:Morris:

Rushing +16.7

Receiving -2.1

Blocking +3.8

Penalties -1.3

Total +17.1

Martin:

Rushing +9.7

Receiving +5.1

Blocking +0.1

Penalties -2.1

Total +12.8

Ignoring blocking and penalties and focusing on just rushing and receiving, PFF's objective ratings would have them ranked nearly even: Martin (14.8) just above Morris (14.6).

don't understand the PFF rushing numbers on Martin vs. Morris.Morris had 159 more yards and 2 more rushing TDs than Martin, but his Rushing rating is 1.72 times (close to double) Martin?

Looking at other rushing factors

Morris:

AVG: 4.8

1st Downs: 83

20+: 9

40+: 0

Fumbles: 4

Morris:

AVG: 4.6

1st Downs: 58

20+: 11

40+: 5

Fumbles: 1

Those numbers do not from a pure rushing perspective appear that Morris' value is 172% of Martin's.

On the flipside, Martin's receiving rating is 443% of Morris. Considering Martin had 4.5 times as many receptions (49 to 11) and 6 times as many receiving yards (472 to 77), a percentage gap like that seems more realistic.

I believe it's derived from play-by-play scores. Each play is scored for a player and then added up. Morris likely had a lot less variance in his plays. Look at AVG and LONG. Morris averaged 4.8 yards per rush despite only having a long of 39 yards. His AVG wasn't skewed by a handful of long runs. Martin's rushes have much more variation. His AVG are skewed by the long runs. Of course long runs are a good thing and score well. But, what that tells me is that he also had more short (possibly even negative) runs which will score poorly. Morris didn't lose yards often.

Makes sense. I was just surprised to see Morris graded out 1.72 times as good of a pure runner than Martin. I would think that would be for say a Morris vs. Gore, Rice or Forte category (~1150 yards and similiar/fewer TDs). Martin was a top-5 runner (like Morris) in most statistical categories (yards, TDs...).Morris was far more consistent from game to game. Martin rushed for 70 or fewer yards 8 out of 16 games. Morris did so only 1 time in 16. In Martin's 5 best games, he rushed for 55% of his total yards; Morris only rushed for 43% in his top 5 games.

It's also a mistake to look at Morris' score as 1.72x Martin's since the scores don't bottom out at 0. There are negative scores.

 

[EBF]

Maybe you should start your own website if you want to rate backs but completely ignore their pass protection, broken tackles, YAC, etc. PFF's system is much better than yours, I'm sure, since yours only considers fantasy football stats.

It's pretty clear that their system doesn't lend enough important to receiving ability. Morris was awesome running the ball, but basically a complete non-factor as a receiver. Versatility is valuable and if you're an NFL OC you know that you can attack a defense in more ways with Martin than you can with Morris. I'd say that's a pretty important consideration. I like looking at things like this and DVOA, but the results don't always make a lot of sense. For example, I think Football Outsiders had Pierre Thomas rated as one of the best RBs in the NFL a couple years back. I always like to hear a contrarian argument, but when the argument is so detached from reality as to become absurd, it's hard to take it seriously.To me, there's no way that a guy who was marginally better as a rusher, but vastly inferior as a receiver should be rated higher. And if you want to talk about pass protection then you also have to factor in thins like supporting cast and coaching. Who do you think is easier to pass block for? The hyper mobile Robert Griffin or the statuesque Josh Freeman? Did these guys factor that into their numbers? I doubt it.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Maybe you should start your own website if you want to rate backs but completely ignore their pass protection, broken tackles, YAC, etc. PFF's system is much better than yours, I'm sure, since yours only considers fantasy football stats.

It's pretty clear that their system doesn't lend enough important to receiving ability. Morris was awesome running the ball, but basically a complete non-factor as a receiver. Versatility is valuable and if you're an NFL OC you know that you can attack a defense in more ways with Martin than you can with Morris. I'd say that's a pretty important consideration. I like looking at things like this and DVOA, but the results don't always make a lot of sense. For example, I think Football Outsiders had Pierre Thomas rated as one of the best RBs in the NFL a couple years back. I always like to hear a contrarian argument, but when the argument is so detached from reality as to become absurd, it's hard to take it seriously.To me, there's no way that a guy who was marginally better as a rusher, but vastly inferior as a receiver should be rated higher. And if you want to talk about pass protection then you also have to factor in thins like supporting cast and coaching. Who do you think is easier to pass block for? The hyper mobile Robert Griffin or the statuesque Josh Freeman? Did these guys factor that into their numbers? I doubt it.

And it's pretty clear you don't lend enough importance to blocking and consistent yardage. Both are valuable. There are flaws to any system but they make a very good case for Morris. Iirc, you were a big Morris critic at the beginning of the season. Your analysis and predictions are always well thought out and often correct, but you do have a tendency to reach for criticisms to belittle guys that have proven you wrong.

 

[EBF]

Maybe you should start your own website if you want to rate backs but completely ignore their pass protection, broken tackles, YAC, etc. PFF's system is much better than yours, I'm sure, since yours only considers fantasy football stats.

It's pretty clear that their system doesn't lend enough important to receiving ability. Morris was awesome running the ball, but basically a complete non-factor as a receiver. Versatility is valuable and if you're an NFL OC you know that you can attack a defense in more ways with Martin than you can with Morris. I'd say that's a pretty important consideration. I like looking at things like this and DVOA, but the results don't always make a lot of sense. For example, I think Football Outsiders had Pierre Thomas rated as one of the best RBs in the NFL a couple years back. I always like to hear a contrarian argument, but when the argument is so detached from reality as to become absurd, it's hard to take it seriously.To me, there's no way that a guy who was marginally better as a rusher, but vastly inferior as a receiver should be rated higher. And if you want to talk about pass protection then you also have to factor in thins like supporting cast and coaching. Who do you think is easier to pass block for? The hyper mobile Robert Griffin or the statuesque Josh Freeman? Did these guys factor that into their numbers? I doubt it.

And it's pretty clear you don't lend enough importance to blocking and consistent yardage. Both are valuable. There are flaws to any system but they make a very good case for Morris. Iirc, you were a big Morris critic at the beginning of the season. Your analysis and predictions are always well thought out and often correct, but you do have a tendency to reach for criticisms to belittle guys that have proven you wrong.

I'm not criticizing him. He had a phenomenal year.But it is what it is. Martin had far more total yards and was a much bigger factor in the passing game. I don't spend ANY time thinking about how well a RB pass blocks, but it doesn't seem ridiculous to suggest that a highly mobile QB like Griffin is going to be easier to block for than a more stationary target like Freeman. Not only is he a flat out better QB, but he's also a lot more capable of escaping pressure.

 

[Slider]

Mobile QB's regularly have more sacks than in the pocket types.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Maybe you should start your own website if you want to rate backs but completely ignore their pass protection, broken tackles, YAC, etc. PFF's system is much better than yours, I'm sure, since yours only considers fantasy football stats.

It's pretty clear that their system doesn't lend enough important to receiving ability. Morris was awesome running the ball, but basically a complete non-factor as a receiver. Versatility is valuable and if you're an NFL OC you know that you can attack a defense in more ways with Martin than you can with Morris. I'd say that's a pretty important consideration. I like looking at things like this and DVOA, but the results don't always make a lot of sense. For example, I think Football Outsiders had Pierre Thomas rated as one of the best RBs in the NFL a couple years back. I always like to hear a contrarian argument, but when the argument is so detached from reality as to become absurd, it's hard to take it seriously.To me, there's no way that a guy who was marginally better as a rusher, but vastly inferior as a receiver should be rated higher. And if you want to talk about pass protection then you also have to factor in thins like supporting cast and coaching. Who do you think is easier to pass block for? The hyper mobile Robert Griffin or the statuesque Josh Freeman? Did these guys factor that into their numbers? I doubt it.

And it's pretty clear you don't lend enough importance to blocking and consistent yardage. Both are valuable. There are flaws to any system but they make a very good case for Morris. Iirc, you were a big Morris critic at the beginning of the season. Your analysis and predictions are always well thought out and often correct, but you do have a tendency to reach for criticisms to belittle guys that have proven you wrong.

I'm not criticizing him. He had a phenomenal year.But it is what it is. Martin had far more total yards and was a much bigger factor in the passing game. I don't spend ANY time thinking about how well a RB pass blocks, but it doesn't seem ridiculous to suggest that a highly mobile QB like Griffin is going to be easier to block for than a more stationary target like Freeman. Not only is he a flat out better QB, but he's also a lot more capable of escaping pressure.

How well a running back blocks serves little purpose in fantasy circles (aside from them needing to be good enough to be a 3 down guy). But it makes a big difference in real life. I don't doubt the standards are somewhat subjective. So many variables makes it hard to accurately measure a guy. But PFF measured it by standards which seem with as little bias possible. And going from their criteria (which includes more than just fantasy points), they concluded Morris had a better overall season. Maybe it was his consistency and ability to constantly move the pile. Maybe it was his blocking. Whatever it was, both guys had great seasons.

 

[spider321]

Luke Kuechly led the ENTIRE league in tackles, despite playing outside linebacker AND coming out on passing downs early in the season.Imo, he is the best middle linebacker in the NFL, not just the best rookie one. If you disagree, I invite you to watch him play more often next season than you did this season.This list is invalid.

 

[Rushmore]

No Vontaze Burfict? Not even as an honorable mention? WTF.

Agreed

 

[doowain]

Luke Kuechly led the ENTIRE league in tackles, despite playing outside linebacker AND coming out on passing downs early in the season.Imo, he is the best middle linebacker in the NFL, not just the best rookie one. If you disagree, I invite you to watch him play more often next season than you did this season.This list is invalid.

It's not a perfect list. Not at all. But, tackles is the most overrated statistic for a defensive player.ROFL @ "best middle linebacker in the NFL". Say that to Patrick Willis' face please.

 

[Abspara]

Luke Kuechly led the ENTIRE league in tackles, despite playing outside linebacker AND coming out on passing downs early in the season.Imo, he is the best middle linebacker in the NFL, not just the best rookie one. If you disagree, I invite you to watch him play more often next season than you did this season.This list is invalid.

Tackles are not the end all in terms of Linebacker quality. Sure, us IDP nuts love them because they are what help lead us to victory, but in the real world they are not the only indicator of actual ability at the position. I'm not going to argue that Kuechly isn't talented, because he is a special player, but he's far from the best at the position currently. That may change in the upcoming years but right now I'll take a Bowman, Willis, or Washington over him anyday of the week. Maybe Even Wagner. He's a great up and coming player as well.

 

[trader jake]

To me, there's no way that a guy who was marginally better as a rusher, but vastly inferior as a receiver should be rated higher. And if you want to talk about pass protection then you also have to factor in thins like supporting cast and coaching. Who do you think is easier to pass block for? The hyper mobile Robert Griffin or the statuesque Josh Freeman? Did these guys factor that into their numbers? I doubt it.

On the other hand, which QB is more likely to stay in the pocket and eventually find that dump off pass to the running back in the flat?

 

[Bracie Smathers]

Luke Kuechly led the ENTIRE league in tackles, despite playing outside linebacker AND coming out on passing downs early in the season.Imo, he is the best middle linebacker in the NFL, not just the best rookie one. If you disagree, I invite you to watch him play more often next season than you did this season.This list is invalid.

Tackles are not the end all in terms of Linebacker quality. Sure, us IDP nuts love them because they are what help lead us to victory, but in the real world they are not the only indicator of actual ability at the position. I'm not going to argue that Kuechly isn't talented, because he is a special player, but he's far from the best at the position currently. That may change in the upcoming years but right now I'll take a Bowman, Willis, or Washington over him anyday of the week. Maybe Even Wagner. He's a great up and coming player as well.

Their isn't any hard specifications for how tackles are awarded. Some teams official scorers award more tackles and some others are much more stingy in awarding tackles.I don't have an issue with either Bobby Wagner or Luke Kuechley listed as the starting All-Rookie starting middle linebacker but in this particular case I agree with PFF based on what I saw. Close call but I would have chosen Bobby Wagner.

 

[solorca]

The only reason Keuchly wasn't the MLB option was because he started the year on the outside. I think it's a little silly to discount him because of that, but the based it on metrics of the entire season, and he was much more effective when he moved to the middle.I'm a Panthers homer and I love the guy, but I don't think he is in the discussion for best linebacker in the league at this point. He still has a few lapses at times, but I think he has the potential to be the best in a year or two. Certainly he's on track for many Pro Bowl and All-Pro appearances if he keeps playing at a high level and continues to improve.

 

[spider321]

Luke Kuechly led the ENTIRE league in tackles, despite playing outside linebacker AND coming out on passing downs early in the season.Imo, he is the best middle linebacker in the NFL, not just the best rookie one. If you disagree, I invite you to watch him play more often next season than you did this season.This list is invalid.

It's not a perfect list. Not at all. But, tackles is the most overrated statistic for a defensive player.ROFL @ "best middle linebacker in the NFL". Say that to Patrick Willis' face please.

People laughed when I referred to Calvin Johnson as the best WR in the league three years ago, too. I respect the majority's right to be wrong. He's better than Patrick Willis. You guys just don't know it, yet.Do yourself a favor, and watch the guy play on a weekly basis next year.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Luke Kuechly led the ENTIRE league in tackles, despite playing outside linebacker AND coming out on passing downs early in the season.Imo, he is the best middle linebacker in the NFL, not just the best rookie one. If you disagree, I invite you to watch him play more often next season than you did this season.This list is invalid.

It's not a perfect list. Not at all. But, tackles is the most overrated statistic for a defensive player.ROFL @ "best middle linebacker in the NFL". Say that to Patrick Willis' face please.

People laughed when I referred to Calvin Johnson as the best WR in the league three years ago, too. I respect the majority's right to be wrong. He's better than Patrick Willis. You guys just don't know it, yet.Do yourself a favor, and watch the guy play on a weekly basis next year.

Calvin Johnson wasn't the best wr in the league three years ago. Saying he was soon going to become the best wr probably wouldn't have caused much controversy. Saying Kuechly will become the best lb in football? I can see that. Saying - right now - he is the best? I'm having a hard time going along with that one.

 

[John Maddens Lunchbox]

I know he didn't have the greatest rookie season of all time, but why is Justin Blackmon not listed?Blackmon had 64 catches for 865 yards and 5 TDs. Roughly the same as Hilton (except he had 14 more catches)He had more catches and yards than Gordon and more of all 3 stats than Chris Givens who was given an honorable mention.Who had the worse QB out of all these rookies? I know Bradford and Weeden aren't threatening Canton, but Gabbert & Henne?

 

[spider321]

Calvin Johnson wasn't the best wr in the league three years ago.

I disagree.

 

[doowain]

Calvin Johnson wasn't the best wr in the league three years ago.

I disagree.

And you'd be wrong.Andre Johnson was easily the best WR in the NFL in 2009.

 

[Carl Eller's Dead Liver]

I know he didn't have the greatest rookie season of all time, but why is Justin Blackmon not listed?Blackmon had 64 catches for 865 yards and 5 TDs. Roughly the same as Hilton (except he had 14 more catches)He had more catches and yards than Gordon and more of all 3 stats than Chris Givens who was given an honorable mention.Who had the worse QB out of all these rookies? I know Bradford and Weeden aren't threatening Canton, but Gabbert & Henne?

Agreed, I was just about to post the same thing. In addition, Blackmon ended the year on a far stronger note than any other rookie WR! I think it might have something to do with overall dislike for the guy as a person. As a person, Blackmon seems to be a bad guy and I hammered him harder than anyone did in the Shark Pool after his 0.24 DUI episode. I called him an alcoholic and basically said he'd never amount to anything.....how can a person be functional at 0.24 unless he drinks often??....but I just found myself trading for him in my dynasty league. As a person, I'm giving Blackmon a third chance. As a player, he showed enough to intrigue me. The guy has top 10 upside, maybe starting in the 2013 season! I think PFT missed the boat with leaving him off the list, but I can't blame them if they add personality and trouble making into their decisions. If they are looking are pure production, they did a belly flop.