Bills’ player grades for 2023 from the Athletic and PFF.

[GASabresIUFan]

The Athletic did a ten-part series discussing a broad off-season game plan by position (except QB). https://theathletic.com/tag/bills-in-review-2024/

 

I thought the most instructive part was the grades for the season per player with 200+ snaps.  Their point scale is on a 4.0 grade scale.  I also looked up the grade on PFF (scale 0-100) for each player as a comparison.  The Athletic's grade is based on film study and I'm not sure of the criteria for PFF.  Most of the grades were relatively similar, except for a couple. The difference between Dodson's Athletic grade and PFF grade really stands out.  

 

 

 

 

 

What stands out to me was just how good Kincaid was as a rookie and how solid the entire O Line was.  On Defense, Jones, Floyd, and maybe Epenesa look like the only FAs who should be brought back. Epenesa would have to be on a very reasonable contract.  Of the depth FAs on Offense, PFF gave very good grades to Ty Johnson (82), Edwards (82.7), and Bates (78.7).  Gabe Davis received a higher relative grade from the Athletic (2.96) than PFF (67.9).  

 

 

Edited February 27 by GASabresIUFan

[78thealltimegreat]

20 minutes ago, GASabresIUFan said:

The Athletic did a ten-part series discussing a broad off-season game plan by position (except QB). https://theathletic.com/tag/bills-in-review-2024/

 

I thought the most instructive part was the grades for the season per player with 200+ snaps.  Their point scale is on a 4.0 grade scale.  I also looked up the grade on PFF (scale -100) for each player as a comparison.  The Athletic's grade is based on film study and I'm not of the criteria for PFF.  Most of the grades were relatively similar, except for a couple. The difference between Dodson's Athletic grade and PFF grade really stands out.  

 

 

 

 

 

What stands out to me was just how good Kincaid was as a rookie and how solid the entire O Line was.  On Defense, Jones, Floyd, and maybe Epenesa look like the only FAs who should be brought back. Epenesa would have to be on a very reasonable contract.  Of the depth FAs on Offense, PFF gave very good grades to Ty Johnson (82), Edwards (82.7), and Bates (78.7).  Gabe Davis received a higher relative grade from the Athletic (2.96) than PFF (67.9).  

 

 

Man seeing Dotson at an 89.5 grade and he’s arguably the teams 4th best linebacker man this team definitely knows how to draft and develop the position as well as anyone in the league. 

[FireChans]

10 minutes ago, 78thealltimegreat said:

Man seeing Dotson at an 89.5 grade and he’s arguably the teams 4th best linebacker man this team definitely knows how to draft and develop the position as well as anyone in the league. 

McD knew what he had in Dodson, which is why he spelled him heavily with a S in Poyer/Rapp playing a hybrid role to keep him out of coverage.

 

Like Dodson a lot and as an UDFA you can’t help but root for his success, but the dude cannot cover. 

[Richard Noggin]

42 minutes ago, GASabresIUFan said:

The Athletic did a ten-part series discussing a broad off-season game plan by position (except QB). https://theathletic.com/tag/bills-in-review-2024/

 

I thought the most instructive part was the grades for the season per player with 200+ snaps.  Their point scale is on a 4.0 grade scale.  I also looked up the grade on PFF (scale -100) for each player as a comparison.  The Athletic's grade is based on film study and I'm not of the criteria for PFF.  Most of the grades were relatively similar, except for a couple. The difference between Dodson's Athletic grade and PFF grade really stands out.  

 

 

 

 

 

What stands out to me was just how good Kincaid was as a rookie and how solid the entire O Line was.  On Defense, Jones, Floyd, and maybe Epenesa look like the only FAs who should be brought back. Epenesa would have to be on a very reasonable contract.  Of the depth FAs on Offense, PFF gave very good grades to Ty Johnson (82), Edwards (82.7), and Bates (78.7).  Gabe Davis received a higher relative grade from the Athletic (2.96) than PFF (67.9).  

 

 

 

YOOOOO...but what about this obvious and bizarre and IRRELEVANT insertion of posthumous narrative spin about Tremaine effing Edmunds?! (Used to unnecessarily mitigate Bernard's NOT TERRIBLE ranking (22) -- just a sad remnant of local contrarianism)

 

 

Edited February 27 by Richard Noggin

[pennstate10]

52 minutes ago, GASabresIUFan said:

The Athletic did a ten-part series discussing a broad off-season game plan by position (except QB). https://theathletic.com/tag/bills-in-review-2024/

 

I thought the most instructive part was the grades for the season per player with 200+ snaps.  Their point scale is on a 4.0 grade scale.  I also looked up the grade on PFF (scale -100) for each player as a comparison.  The Athletic's grade is based on film study and I'm not of the criteria for PFF.  Most of the grades were relatively similar, except for a couple. The difference between Dodson's Athletic grade and PFF grade really stands out.  

 

 

 

 

 

What stands out to me was just how good Kincaid was as a rookie and how solid the entire O Line was.  On Defense, Jones, Floyd, and maybe Epenesa look like the only FAs who should be brought back. Epenesa would have to be on a very reasonable contract.  Of the depth FAs on Offense, PFF gave very good grades to Ty Johnson (82), Edwards (82.7), and Bates (78.7).  Gabe Davis received a higher relative grade from the Athletic (2.96) than PFF (67.9).  

 

 

 

Just to give some perspective on these "grades". 

 

Which I put in quotes because there is a fair degree of subjectivity here.  Its not like a multiple choice test where there are clear right and wrong answers.  I think we all need to take these grades with a huge grain of salt.

 

The Athletic grades are entirely from Joe Buscaglia, a very good writer for The Athletic.

 

The PFF grades, as I understand things, are based upon numerous different evaluators, with some evaluators being better than others.

 

I'm not saying one set is better than the other.  But from my observations, I think that Buscaglia's grades match what I see better than do PFF. 

 

Dodson being an example.  Per PFF, he was markedly better than Bernard, and one of the best LB in the entire NFL.  Per Buscaglia, Bernard was clearly the better player.

[DJB]

56 for Torrence is a joke. 
 

PFF continues to show why the numbers are based on majic beans and whether the writers like the player or not 

[julian]

46 minutes ago, DJB said:

56 for Torrence is a joke. 
 

PFF continues to show why the numbers are based on majic beans and whether the writers like the player or not 

Yeah I prefer to watch them play the game and let my eyes tell me how good they are, like we all did prior to the late 90s.

 

Torrence had an outstanding rookie season, playing every game and being a big part of easily the best unit Allen has had to date.

[LeGOATski]

PFF is trash 

[GASabresIUFan]

1 hour ago, Richard Noggin said:

 

YOOOOO...but what about this obvious and bizarre and IRRELEVANT insertion of posthumous narrative spin about Tremaine effing Edmunds?! (Used to unnecessarily mitigate Bernard's NOT TERRIBLE ranking (22) -- just a sad remnant of local contrarianism)

 

 

Actually, I didn’t really disagree with Joe’s assessment. Benard had huge peeks and was clearly learning on the job.  However, he was a good tackler and will continue to improve.  I expect him to make a huge leap in year 2 as a starter.  I also am looking forward to Dorian Williams improvement in year 2.  
 

Benford is on his way to being the best 6th rd pick by the Bills in the last 30 years.

[Richard Noggin]

3 minutes ago, GASabresIUFan said:

Actually, I didn’t really disagree with Joe’s assessment. Benard had huge peeks and was clearly learning on the job.  However, he was a good tackler and will continue to improve.  I expect him to make a huge leap in year 2 as a starter.  I also am looking forward to Dorian Williams improvement in year 2.  
 

Benford is on his way to being the best 6th rd pick by the Bills in the last 30 years.

 

No one could reasonably disagree with your vanilla characterization of Joe B's incomplete assessment of Bernard's play...but that in no way acknowledges the gratuitous Edmunds analogy I am highlighting so we don't ignore the WTF inclusion of such an arbitrary axe to grind...

[Buffalo_Stampede]

8 hours ago, 78thealltimegreat said:

Man seeing Dotson at an 89.5 grade and he’s arguably the teams 4th best linebacker man this team definitely knows how to draft and develop the position as well as anyone in the league. 

Dodson was terrible in my opinion. It’s one of the only times I’ve disagreed completely with PFF. I have no idea what they were watching.

6 hours ago, julian said:

Yeah I prefer to watch them play the game and let my eyes tell me how good they are, like we all did prior to the late 90s.

 

Torrence had an outstanding rookie season, playing every game and being a big part of easily the best unit Allen has had to date.

Torrence was outstanding in run blocking. He was bad in pass protection. 

Edited February 27 by Buffalo_Stampede

[GASabresIUFan]

31 minutes ago, Richard Noggin said:

 

No one could reasonably disagree with your vanilla characterization of Joe B's incomplete assessment of Bernard's play...but that in no way acknowledges the gratuitous Edmunds analogy I am highlighting so we don't ignore the WTF inclusion of such an arbitrary axe to grind...

I guess I read that as a "whatever."   When they let Edmunds walk, I wasn't that worried about replacing him.  One of the big highlights of last season was watching all the kids thrive; Kincaid, Torrence, Cook, Shakir, Benford, and Benard.  They are a huge reason that I'm perfectly ok with letting Davis walk and replacing him and the depth receivers with kids.  This team desperately needs a youth movement and we have enough veteran leaders in the clubhouse to help more kids succeed.  Truthfully, the vast majority of the FA signings throughout the lineup under-performed.  Just look at the grades for Sherfield, Phillips, Rapp, Lawson, Murray, Miller and Settle.  PFF also gave sub-par grades to Harty and Ford.  Outside of Jones, Dodson, Floyd, and Edwards in limited usage, the FAs haven't excelled.  

[Brand J]

3 hours ago, Richard Noggin said:

 

YOOOOO...but what about this obvious and bizarre and IRRELEVANT insertion of posthumous narrative spin about Tremaine effing Edmunds?! (Used to unnecessarily mitigate Bernard's NOT TERRIBLE ranking (22) -- just a sad remnant of local contrarianism)

 

 

If Bernard and Edmunds were making the same exact amount of money, I’d rather have Bernard on this team, all day everyday, 10/10. Buscaglia and Joe Marino’s guy has never had a nose for the ball.

[Richard Noggin]

8 minutes ago, Brand J said:

If Bernard and Edmunds were making the same exact amount of money, I’d rather have Bernard on this team, all day everyday, 10/10. Buscaglia and Joe Marino’s guy has never had a nose for the ball.

 

Just a ridiculous thing to shoehorn into an otherwise useful writeup. Such a smalltown tangent. 

[BananaB]

8 hours ago, DJB said:

56 for Torrence is a joke. 
 

PFF continues to show why the numbers are based on majic beans and whether the writers like the player or not 

Always question these rankings, at this point I take them with a grain of salt.

[julian]

6 hours ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Dodson was terrible in my opinion. It’s one of the only times I’ve disagreed completely with PFF. I have no idea what they were watching.

Torrence was outstanding in run blocking. He was bad in pass protection. 

I really didn’t see it so black and white as I watched the offense operate. O’Cyrus just looked like a very good player who was rarely, if ever the story of the game.

 

Im sure he had plenty of poor pass blocking sets, I remember a couple myself but I guess I wouldn’t categorize his play as bad because I don’t recall watching games and his play being a large contributing factor in a loss. I also can see someone looking at how a player grades out with stats and simply saying he was bad, that’s fair but I prefer to use stats and grades if I’m forced to see them, as secondary information that can be useful but definitely not something that overrides what I watched.

 

 

I guess it’s wise to add that 17 makes up for PLENTY of mistakes up front, thankfully.

Edited February 27 by julian

[Buffalo_Stampede]

56 minutes ago, julian said:

I really didn’t see it so black and white as I watched the offense operate. O’Cyrus just looked like a very good player who was rarely, if ever the story of the game.

 

Im sure he had plenty of poor pass blocking sets, I remember a couple myself but I guess I wouldn’t categorize his play as bad because I don’t recall watching games and his play being a large contributing factor in a loss. I also can see someone looking at how a player grades out with stats and simply saying he was bad, that’s fair but I prefer to use stats and grades if I’m forced to see them, as secondary information that can be useful but definitely not something that overrides what I watched.

 

 

I guess it’s wise to add that 17 makes up for PLENTY of mistakes up front, thankfully.

Yeah you didn’t see it, literally. There were a lot of these reps. But there were also a lot of reps where he dominated in pass pro. He was just very inconsistent which is fine as a rookie. I focus more on the dominant reps, hoping he can clean up the other stuff. I think he definitely deserved to be starting, this is coming from someone that grades Bates higher overall. Torrence clearly has All pro potential.

 

 

 

Edited February 27 by Buffalo_Stampede

[julian]

29 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Yeah you didn’t see it, literally. There were a lot of these reps. But there were also a lot of reps where he dominated in pass pro. He was just very inconsistent which is fine as a rookie. I focus more on the dominant reps, hoping he can clean up the other stuff. I think he definitely deserved to be starting, this is coming from someone that grades Bates higher overall. Torrence clearly has All pro potential.

 

 

 

How can a player you deemed “bad” at his primary role of pass protection clearly have All Pro potential ? I’m not sure I’d be able to get there if believed that, other than he can obviously improve but there’s no guarantees.

 

As for getting beat by Carter, Barmore and Wilkins, that in of itself doesn’t tell me much about a rookie as that’s to be expected, those dudes are beating veterans on the regular.

[Buffalo_Stampede]

Just now, julian said:

How can a player you deemed “bad” at his primary role of pass protection clearly have All Pro potential ? I’m not sure I’d be able to get there if believed that, other than he can obviously improve but there’s no guarantees.

 

As for getting beat by Carter, Barmore and Wilkins, that in of itself doesn’t tell me much about a rookie as that’s to be expected, those dudes are beating veterans on the regular.

I told you why, because he has dominant reps in pass pro also. His run blocking also can be dominant.

 

You can easily see the talent, but He was beat like that a lot over the year. Allen would dodge most of it. 

[julian]

1 minute ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

I told you why, because he has dominant reps in pass pro also. His run blocking also can be dominant.

 

You can easily see the talent, but He was beat like that a lot over the year. Allen would dodge most of it. 

Ok fair enough