PFF grades and snap count for all Michigan players Saturday

Submitted by SanDiegoWolverine on September 6th, 2022 at 1:11 PM

So I just saw this posted on Twitter by a well known Michigan account. I'm posting the tweet with the complete info below.

https://twitter.com/umichbball/status/1567194667644588032?s=20&t=g7pE6eu15qtc7R2bJH6haQ

A few things stand out. PFF loved Harrell and Anoma. They gave JJ their second highest marks on the team and really didn't like our OL save save Olu.

What do stands out to you guys? Where do we think Brian and Seth will disagree?

Full picture wouldn't upload but you can see it by clicking on the link.

Double-D

September 6th, 2022 at 1:16 PM ^

Harrell has good athleticism and plays instinctively in space.  He sets the edge well and takes good angles in pursuit. Watching him track down ball carriers seems like it will translate in the pass rush this year with more playing time. He plays smart. 

AZBlue

September 6th, 2022 at 3:18 PM ^

Based on those numbers we need to yank the scholarship from that Selzer kid immediately.  (Aide whispers in my ear...)  ........ Nevermind.

On an actual note - I am not sure there is much to judge from these numbers until there is a lot more snaps to grade - and please remember that PFF grades differently than UFR.  They actually had the M Oline as low as 3rd in the B1G last year iirc.

 

PS - PFF offers a premium / subscription level - are we sure this isn't taking from there?  (Apologies if the original tweeter painstakingly gathered all of this from the free portion of the site.)

TeslaRedVictorBlue

September 6th, 2022 at 1:20 PM ^

OL didnt open up holes. Yes, i I know there were backups. But the run game was a slog. No 2nd level, no breakouts. I thought Edwards would show more, but.. nobody showed much.

I thought - or at least, I was told - that they weapons in the passing game would make up for it. But we didn't go downfield one time. Not 50 yards.. I mean a few 20+ yard passes. Seemed more like a scrimmage than an actual game.

Anoma was noticeable on the field a few times. DBs looked good in person mostly. 

Who got beat on the TD? Was it the freshman, johnson? He was in position, but.. good throw and catch and he didnt disrupt at the end. Hopefully a good lesson for him. 

Our WRs didn't look fully ramped up to go. Lots of ankle tackles taking them down. Probably will be better when theyre hit in stride, not standing still on 5-10 yard patterns.

I can't decide if the defense really was impressive or if Colorado state is completely awful. When EVERYONE looks good, you have to wonder. But i LOVVVED all the QB sacks.. some were coverage sacks and some were collapsed pockets. Curious to see how that goes against a better OL and offense.

TeslaRedVictorBlue

September 6th, 2022 at 4:25 PM ^

I dont get why circumstance doesn't matter. Because 27 for 27 was awful and we were horrible for the better part of 2 decades, that means we must now be happy with anything but that? I thought last year raised the bar a little.

The team's run game was not explosive, dominant, or overly physical. I saw it live in person, then saw it on tv when I got home (2 days later) with fresh eyes. 

I think a lot had to do with the OL changes, but... against that team, I expected the run game to be stronger.

We were not terrible. But, against Iowa, that looks more like the 27 for 27 you mentioned, unless we clean it up.

Of course, in that case, Iowa would rush 27 times for 0 yards.. and probably be happy about it.

If we want to rise above the slugfests of the big10 once in a while, and avoid the 16-13 games.. then the offense, which should be the strength of the team, needs to click early and often. Hopefully we have that by Murrland.

nerv

September 6th, 2022 at 2:28 PM ^

Those numbers would look good if we werent playing Colorado State. Especially with them leaving deep safeties and not stacking the box. I don't think the run game was bad, per say, but definitely wasn't as effective as I thought it would be against such an outmatched opponent.

mGrowOld

September 6th, 2022 at 2:03 PM ^

No worries, we've all done it.  And FWIW I'd hit "reply" to the first post in the thread and get the updated/correct link near the top of the comments.  If not prepare for literally everyone to post "hey, wrong link" in every new comment to make sure you know the error of your ways.

And BTW, based on those all-important PFF grades are we sure we actually won that game?   I mean sheesh - according to them we really sucked.

BibBlue

September 6th, 2022 at 2:05 PM ^

Sorry to hijack the thread, but as you can see, I am too little to start my own thread.  Last I heard we were at 88 scholarships.  3 over.  Did we get to 85?  Who left?  Rumor is that Domani Dent was hurt.  Anyone in the know please help.  Asking for a friend.

bronxblue

September 6th, 2022 at 2:27 PM ^

I find PFF's grading system of college games to be...inconsistent and somewhat illogical because they strip out a ton of context.  For example, giving Rolder the highest grade of any LB really doesn't tell us much, nor does reading anything into the 5 snaps Kenneth Grant got in which he scored significantly better than any of the starters at DT.

Directionally I guess there's some value here but I really don't know if there's much to take from these scores.

DetroitDan

September 6th, 2022 at 2:42 PM ^

I swear I saw #15 - Deuce Sperlock - on the field early in the game and I also saw that number on the field in one of the photos that was posted Monday.  Not sure why he doesn't show up in the linebacker snap counts.

Speed_in_Space

September 6th, 2022 at 6:16 PM ^

Our offensive line was without our starting LT and breaking in a new RT, I think the line just needs a few games to improve. Think we'll be better when the starting LT returns and Jones gets some time at RT.

turtleboy

September 6th, 2022 at 7:22 PM ^

I've often wondered what it would take for PFF to be bullish on our OL. Those grades seem to consistently depart from Brian's game breakdowns, while the remainder are generally more consistent.

waittilnextyear

September 6th, 2022 at 10:23 PM ^

I don't put much stock into this for the simple reason I don't think it's physically possible to grade the 80-some players who played in any sort of detail in the 24-48 hours since the game. It takes Brian/Seth, who already know the players/scheme/etc, into the middle of the week and an intense video watching sesh to do the UFR. This just doesn't strike me as super plausible although I don't really know their methods. Maybe they put a couple of guys on the video immediately after the game and have a really consistent scoring system, but ??