Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

CRA

Kalil says Scott graded out perfect

34 posts in this topic

Per Bill Voth, he is reporting Kalil says Scott graded out perfect in pass protection.

So I figured if we had the scoop on a coaches grade we could compare that to most people's favorite grade site PFF.

PFF actually only had one linemen graded horrible in run and pass protection. Scott. So either PFF is completely full of poo.....or we grade with a curve. Or we just lie to guys to give them fake confidence.

I'd have to rewatch, I don't recall any linemen doing that bad on pass protection. PFF clearly singled Scott out though.

Just found it interesting. Carry on.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Oline played pretty well overall, but that is good stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Per Bill Voth, he is reporting Kalil says Scott graded out perfect in pass protection.

So I figured if we actual had the scoop on a coaches grade we could compare that to most people's favorite grade site PFF.

PFF actually only had one linemen graded horrible in run and pass protection. Scott. So either PFF is completely full of poo.....or we grade with a curve. Or we just lie to guys to give them fake confidence.

I'd have to rewatch, I don't recall any linemen doing that bad on pass protection. PFF clearly singled Scott out though.

Just found it interesting. Carry on.

The difference is we know what protections were called and what every guy should do on every play.  PFF for all the good they do, watch film and infer who did what.  There is a huge difference.

 

Remember they didn't say his run blocking was great just passing.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya PFF seemed really harsh on him, watching the game live I thought he played well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference is we know what protections were called and what every guy should do on every play.  PFF for all the good they do, watch film and infer who did what.  There is a huge difference.

 

Remember they didn't say his run blocking was great just passing.

I agree...I often use PFF too much I think which is why I posted this. They potentially can be way off on things. This is an example of them stating what would essentially be the polar opposite of a coach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea PFFs grading system can be hit or miss.. Have always said that...they are useful to me as a subscriber for their detailed stats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think any fan who watched the game thought Scott did a bad job pass blocking. Now things will get interesting as we play teams that can actually stop our rushing attack and force us to pass. That's when we'll find out what Scott is made of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to believe the guy playing next to him over other sources. Of course I doubt he'd publicly throw him under the bus, but Kalil would certainly know better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the most likely explanation is that Kalil is boosting his head up to the media in the hopes that his play improves because they think he has the tools. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also Bill Bellicheck said something in preseason to effect of unless you know a teams playbook and individual players responsibilities nobody including himself can say with 100% certainty who is at a fault on several plays

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



  • Posts

    • Mitchell would be a mistake IMO. He's too short to play with Walker. It would be the NBA's smallest backcourt. 
    • Look at this from Greg's viewpoint: 1. We did not draft or bring in a TE (many of us, including me, thought the team might bring in a young TE) Greg knows we have few options at this point. 2. Greg is about to retire (2-3 years) and his stock will never be higher.  He has led the team in receiving for a few years. 3. He knows there is cap room.  Gettlemen wants to carry  that over to re-sign 3 hog mollies for 2018; Olsen wants it now.) I think the Panthers lack of movement at TE has Olsen in a great negotiating position. Now let's take a look at the Panther's position: His quote about business and productivity could backfire on him. Businesses sign contracts for future services.  People sign them every day and honor them.  I may sign a long-term contract for less than I am worth, but in turn, I get security.  If you think you are worth more, don't sign.  I think the problem is the transparency over salaries.  If you know what Jacob Tamme made last year because his agent worked out a great deal, you can use that to negotiate a new deal for Olsen if you compare the numbers.  However, Tamme may have underperformed his deal, and it is erroneous to assume the performance of others based on their contracts is fair market value.  What they offer and what you take is fair market value. If Olsen wants a deal based on his productivity, remove his guaranteed money and make it incentive based. Take away the guarantees and make it possible for him to earn $10m--or $2m, depending on his productivity.  I am sure that he wants the security of the current deal and the Panthers to assume all risk.   Do you think the Raiders did not think that Jamarcus Russell's deal should equal productivity?  It is a gamble for both sides--a 4-5 year contract is security.  Guaranteed money you take for a promise to perform at your highest level for the length of the contract.  Olsen is not giving money back if he has a bad year, I assure you.  Contracts are not rewards, they only concern themselves with the now and the future. So where you ranked last year and the year before that---that simply means the Panthers made a wise investment in Greg Olsen.  I mean, if I invest in Cisco stock, buying it at $40 per share because it is expected to rise to $50 per share and it ends the year at $60, Cisco does not come to me and say, "We should have charged you more when you bought our shares--can we have an additional $8 per share?" THAT is business . Olsen should blame himself if he signed a lower deal than he is worth.  If he did not believe he was worth more then, why should the Panthers pay more now?  The Panthers paid him fair market value and he accepted the offer. I think it is bad practice to start paying people who outperform their contracts