While the sentiment appears to denote a general incapability of the staff to grade any NFL players, the center of the point can't be discounted. Unless you're involved in the meetings, the huddles and the plays, there is bound to be a missing piece of the puzzle that constantly eludes the observer. There's no two ways about it. However, not only does this hold true with most position groups, it also innately classifies non-participants as incapable assessors of the intricate details of the respective group that they're observing. On its own accord, it's a seismic leap to presume that their 350 employees are without football experience to any degree with no knowledge of their backgrounds. And even if we limit Lang's beliefs to the initial statement of, "there’s no way you can possibly accurately grade offensive linemen if you haven’t done that job before in your life," it creates an almost never-ending list of analysts whose opinions are devalued or even disregarded by the sheer virtue of not being former or current offensive linemen. That includes the likes of Matt Miller, who while served as a secondary and ST coordinator in the CFL, to my knowledge wasn't a former offensive line. I could be mistaken about his playing history, but there are other notable examples that would be applicable. It can't be had both ways. In my opinion, it's an ad hominem that allows no other paths outside of appeal-to-authority. It's not as blunt as LeSean McCoy's evaluation of, "a bunch of nerds who never played a lick of football in your whole life," but it's a similar sentiment. It should be noted that the underlying critique of the usage of the grades is at least partly understandable. When an innately subjective product is being used in contract negotiations, it's bound to draw immediate heat from the ones being evaluated, which is sensible. That said, its merits are far from being universally panned from within. The Bengals OL coach, Paul Alexander, the longest tenured at 23 years of experience, reviewed 600 plays where his linemen were downgraded and he disagreed with only 12. It's not overly surprising given that they're taught to not downgrade when there's any ambiguity. But none of that is relevant if the above logic holds true. Because if it is accurate, then my opinions about the OL are automatically questionable and/or are invalidated based entirely on my playing history. Frankly, I'd have no business posting in this thread or anywhere outside of the DB thread, and that would apply to most of the members on this forum. I did practice at RB and WR so I can at least chaperone those haven't. It sounds silly and contrived, and that's because it mostly is, especially since all of our opinions are also subjective. I fully understand the hesitation about the grades on the merits of inescapable subjectivity and the underlined lack of insider information. While I do feel that the grades have mostly been accurate, they haven't always been perfect, nor will they be. I also understand why one would lean on other sources that have more personal knowledge in comparison. But I outright reject any notion predicated upon deciding merits exclusively based on playing history. Me playing DB by no means means that I'm more aware of the exact calls being made, or where the players are asked to line up by their respective coaching staffs. In that respect, I'm at just as big of a disadvantage as somebody who's never played the sport, and if that's the missing piece, then we're all missing it.
Conversely, their statistics are certainly useful and the metrics behind the premium stats such as pass rushing productivity and defensive stops are conceptually sound. That being said, not only are they equally as subjective on their own, they are significantly more error prone. Of the countless examples to name, Brandon Carr's allowed QB rating of 20 was the lowest number allowed through the first 4 weeks. He didn't allow a single touchdown, had two interceptions, and was in the Top 10 in almost every other metric. Was he the best CB in the league? No. In fact, tape wise he was arguably our third best corner. Why the disparity? Andy Dalton botches the pass to a wide open Cody Core for what would've been a 59 yard TD. Martavis Bryant has several yards of separation on a sailed throw for what would've been a 41 yard TD. Those two plays alone would've literally accounted for more than Carr's entire yardage allowed in those 4 games. It would've also almost quadrupled his allowed passer rating. On paper, they're two incompletions that aid his performance on those plays. That's not even mentioning the fact that assessing coverage numbers requires a detailed understanding of coverage concepts, audibles, and natures of miscommunications; so if we're questioning their ability to break down plays but then utilizing their numbers that are derived from those breakdowns, it's the epitome of counterintuitive. Another recent example is of Austin Howard, who didn't allow a pressure on 26 pass attempts against a Khalil Mack-led pass rush, who had 17 attempts from the same side. On paper, it presents itself as a brilliant performance. It doesn't show that we kept in a TE to chip on at least a handful of snaps or account for the doubles, nor the times Mack stunted inside. He still obviously held his own, but statistically, it has the same weight as an OT who went one on one with an elite pass rusher and shut them down on the same number of snaps since the pass blocking efficiency numbers would spike up at an identical rate in both scenarios. My write up on Zach Orr portrayed a putrid performance against Pittsburgh. Technically, he was among the top LBs in the league in run stops that week. Every statistical number pointed to a rock solid performance. The tape, however, portrayed an entirely different story. This also wasn't a single occurrence. He finished with the 4th most stops of any ILB for the entire season. Orr was a poster child for performances defying numbers, even ones with high-end formulas that are generally solid reflections. It definitely seems that you and I are in full agreement that the innate subjectivity of the grades will always raise questions, as it should. That aside, if I were forced to trust one over the one, with as familiar as I've been with the product, I would have a significantly difficult time siding with the statistics. The part best, however, is that nobody has to. In fact, choosing a single rubric is perhaps the least ideal method.
Ironically, the best aspect of the grades is that they provide no context for the variables. That's because doing so would double down on the subjectivity. It'd be essentially basing grades on grades. This is where I as a user am meant to do my own bidding and judge using deductive reasoning. For example, there are multiple CBs graded in the Top 15 whom have mostly played in the slot. One of the Top 4 graded CBs has played a mere 73 snaps in coverage. The grades don't account for the quality of safeties, the consistency of the pressure, the defensive schemes or the strength of schedule. Fortunately, all of those facets are available for us to decipher. Take the comparison between Nickell Robey-Coleman and Jimmy Smith. The former is graded higher by .3. The best player he's faced in the slot this season was Doug Baldwin. Smith, on the other hand, has been on the outside facing the likes of Antonio Brown and A.J. Green. Overall, Smith's grade is arguably more impressive in comparison. Truthfully, the argument could be made in favor of Smith over several other CBs above him. And such arguments are able to hold water because that's the benefit of the fact that grades are given out solely based on a player's performance within their role. All of the information on hand, including the premium statistics, is free to be used in conjunction together for clarity, so using the grades as a hardline ranking at purely their face value isn't a necessity. It's no different than how players are evaluated in other methods, i.e. explaining DeAndre Hopkins' low receiving numbers from last season by mentioning the ineptitude of the QB situation. Obviously tape rules over everything. But I would wager that almost none of us have the time to hold down our part/full-time jobs, classes, and personal lives and have the means to evaluate most of the plays in league while giving each of them a fair shake attention wise. In that respect, it's helpful to have a source that be at least be used as a reference point. If somebody chooses to go a different route, I'd personally understand. But I'll always take issue with any notion that screams at me or anyone else here not to trust their own judgement.
