PFF Ranks top 101 players of 2012 and No Jamaal Charles
 

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blo...the-full-list/


Just wow.

Then the list is meaningless.

PFF guy was on with Danny Parkins yesterday and basically said he didn't feel Jamaal "did enough to get his yards." He said Jamaal benefited from + Oline blocking and was ranked low for tackles broken compared to other RB's. He said Jamaal is obviously one of the best backs/players in the league, but for this particular statistical formula, he didn't make it.

Complete bs and an obvious hole in PFF evaluations.

At least Tampa Bay's RB, Doug Martin, made the list. They didn't completely forget about running backs. :rolleyes:

Can we stop pretending that PFF is some kind of football bible?

Cant wait to hear from the people that worship PFF.

LMAO

gochiefs im looking your way...

We need to trade Charles or release him outright!

Clay agrees with these rankings.

Where is Alice?

Didn't break enough tackles and didn't work enough? Funny, last time I accept a PFF evaluation from anyone. Anyone else who uses this shit should be lynched.

Wait, I thought our offensive line sucked dick, which is why we need Eric Fisher....

PFF sent out some tweets defending their ranking. You be the judge:

Lol, like always PFF rankings have been a joke.


"But but but Alex Smith was 8th in 2011!!!"

Pearson ask him if they factor in how many guys Jamaal ran away from in their broken tackles stat, the guy said no.

So they will penalize him for "good" O-line play, but won't mention the fact that he had to face 8 man boxes the entire season because of the worst passing offense in the league? Got it.

i saw a kicker on their with no JC......seems legit

President Grant frowns on this post...

http://www.americaslibrary.gov/asset..._grant_1_m.jpg

This is why sometimes, statistical analysis doesn't work, at least for football. You'd actually have to watch him run to see that sometimes, Charles does it on his own, and not because no one got near him.

Just think how far he'll fall after running behind 2 LT's and 3 fullbacks.

A reasonable argument can be made for their logic. It's why we always roll our eyes about Emmitt Smith being listed in the top ranks of running backs, or why Richmond Webb made the pro bowl every year because Marino never got sacked. It's reasonable to say, "what did this guy make on his own versus what was handed to him".

However, part of the reason that Jamaal got so many yards is because the guy is really, really fast and runs to the right place. Some of those long runs may have looked easy, but they looked easy because Jamaal Charles was the ball carrier. Put Doug Martin in there and it's not going to be as long a run. I've read that their grading includes things like broken tackles and yards after contact, but does it include something like "so freaking fast that contact and tackles could not be initiated"?

Nonetheless, their general concept is reasonable.

When you have the vision Jamaal Charles has, you aren't going to NEED to break a lot of tackles.

Jamals not in PFF's top 101 of 2012?!?!??!!NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

http://www.documentingreality.com/fo...indow_fall.gif

PFF is a ****ing joke. Not because their analysis is a joke, but because of the way people treat is as quantified, absolute, infallible truth instead of what it is: analysis and opinion.

Case in point.

But again, its looking at stats and drawing a conclusion of what happened. There were many times defenders were in position to make a play, but took bad angles, or misjudged Charles speed to a spot. The Chiefs Oline did a fine job run blocking, but they didn't block out the sun. It's right that Charles made long runs that for other backs would've been losses. That isn't a stat on a piece of paper that they can draw a conclusion from. It just comes from watching him play.

Yeeeaaahhhh that's it. The blocking is phenomenal for JC. LMAO

Dumbasses

Andy Reid's dramatic overhaul of the O-line suggests he doesn't see things the same way as PFF.

That'll be the last time pff is heard from here.

PFF is a stat site. Doesn't mean that anyone there actually knows anything...though some would lead you to believe that they are the be-all, end-all when it comes to football knowledge. Not having Charles on that list shows one of two things. Either they're incompetent, or they completely forgot about our team...which is possible.

Lets put this guy behind last years line and let him run the ball. If he can average more than one yard per carry then I'll buy his argument.

I wonder what his YPC would be if we took out his 19 worst carries. I feel like there were a number of times he got no blocking. He'd get blown up for a five yard loss without enough space to make someone miss.

I'm interested in how many times/% Charles saw an 8 or 9 man box last year.

Win more than 2 games.

In the meantime stop bitching.

That last tweet has to be the stupidest shit I've ever seen. Take away any players longest 19 carries and their ypc take a huge hit.

This isn't like Chris Johnson where you take away one big run and hit ypc drops dramatically. Even in the games where Charles had a big run, you can take away the big run and his ypc would still be great.

For example, even without the 91 yard run against the Saints, he still averaged 4.4 yards. Even without the 86 yard run against the Colts, he still averaged 6.7 yards per carry.

:spock: You're a ****ing dumbass.

We'll try to win more than 2 games next year. With Clay at QB and Dane at LT, we should do remarkably better next year. Then maybe our bitching will have more credibility.

heh,

I just don't get why people get upset about people talking shit on Chiefs players. The Chiefs had like 6 pro bowlers and the team is awful.

Jamal Charles doesn't even carry the ball 20 times a game. It's completely normal to not rank him in the top 100 players.

And to start a thread over it? Kinda strange.

Ned Yost makes the call to the bullpen.

What the **** does team record have to do with individual players? Are you that big of a reerun? 2 of the top 10 players came from the Eagles and the Dolphins. Calvin Johnson was number 12 and the Lions have been even more irrelevant than the Chiefs.

Actually I agree with you. Flacco is #100 on this list. That is reeruned.

Well clay...

LMAO

pffffffffffffff

Clay uses PFF stats to benefit his arguments, but I haven't seen him worship PFF saying that they are completely right in all that they do.

It's still a better measure than Joe Slapdick CPer who's seen maybe 1 or 2 full games of opposing teams and youtube highlight "game tape"

Can I forget about last season as well? Please!

Don't forget CJ Spiller #18, cause he was a 30 touch/game BEAST all year right? Not like he would do nothing for 10 touches and then explode for a couple big ones to make up for it.

**** PFF with a rusty AIDS fork.

Never been a big PFF fan and never will be...**** them...

Not a huge fan of PFF because the majority of their stats aren't accurate in regards to team-specific qualities (i.e. option routes, D/O responsibilities, sight adjusts, checks, hots, etc).

Some of the stuff they put out is okay if you know what the actual call is and the players responsibilities.

Even kids that paint with their face can see JC is a top 5 NFL HB...

Still the best gif ever. :)

I guess if Charles had just turned around and come halfway back and fallen down on those 19 long runs, he'd have been a better back. OK.

PFF sucks. For the record, though, FO had Charles at #12 in DYAR and #17 in DVOA for RBs, after having him at 1/1 in 2010.

ROFL **** PFF. How many times did teams stack 9 in the box and how many yards did he have this season?

101. Blair Walsh, K, Minnesota Vikings

Yay!

I think there's a hole in their system where Charles/speed backs are concerned. Mostly because he's so fast, he rarely gets a chance to break a tackle. He just runs by everyone that other backs would be juking/trucking.

****em. He's easily Top 3.

ROFL

Charles should be rated on the Barry Saunders metric: he'll have 2 very unimpressive runs to each impressive one.

Then one OUTSTANDING run per game...

ROFL

Using this in the future.

Where was he ranked in DVDA?

Meaningless list is meaningless.

Seven Pro Bowlers, one player in the Top 101.
Something doesn't add up here...

Only binge-drinking half reeruned frat boys say shit like "DVDA"

You ever talk $#it on laserdisc again and I'll kill you.

I'll...****ing...kill...you...

That actually makes some sense

No it doesnt. I've already explained why.

Yahoo Fantasy Football update: ALL teams have cut Jamaal Charles

Don't confuse greatness with that brokedick Jones-Drew

Adrian Peterson had 735 yards in 17 of his carries.

He sucks.

Knowshon Moreno had 17 yards in 17 of his carries.

He definately sucks.

So, Charles gets no credit for his vision, explosiveness, and speed - just if he breaks a tackle? Hmmm.

I have to agree that the boom or bust nature of Charles running game, particularly last season, is a little concerning. We need more positive yardage plays on first down and more first down conversion ability on the ground than we've had over the past few years. That's not all on Charles, but he hasn't been an answer in those areas consistently either.

I expect more boom than bust with the revamped offensive line though.

I've already disproved that stupid stat.

Heh, this proves just how meaningless stats are sometimes.

No, that stat is true. You added another level of information, but that doesn't disprove the stat nor does it undermine the truth of what I said.

There is no easy way to measure that stuff....therefore they just ignore it. Stats like this are meaningless sometimes.

Did they rank Cassel up there in the top 10. prolly !