Personal Play-by-Play grades for Jarvis Jones @CAR Week 3

[Zack_of_Steel]

The folks talking **** should be providing their analysis for comparison or shutting the **** up.

I knew this would be made fun of or meet resistance from some and I appreciate this comment.

I have a problem with a grading scale which gives you a 0 when you do your job the way it is supposed to be done, then uses the zero in the averaging/analysis. Doesn't seem right to throw out the plays either, if the player did his job. Let's look at these two:



Keep in mind that I haven't rewatched the plays, yet. I may not, but that doesn't have much to do with the questions.

In the first one, does he have decent coverage on the slot receiver? And, by decent, I mean what you would expect a LB to have on a WR (or was it a RB?) If yes, it should not be a zero, it should be positive. If the coverage was terrible, it should not be a zero, it should be negative.

In the second one, you say he jams the TE, which sounds like it must have been a successful jam since you didn't say "attempts to jam". Correct me if that is not the case. If it was a successful jam and/or he had decent coverage on the TE after the jam, it should not be a zero. If he failed at the jam, but was able to get back into coverage, maybe a zero, but it may be hard to determine if that coverage had anything to do with the incompletion. If his guy isn't open because he has coverage on him and Cam has to throw it somewhere else, why would Jones get a zero? If his guy isn't open because someone else has coverage and that coverage was, partially, due to the jam, why would Jones get a zero? If the jam failed and the guy was open, for whatever reason, why would Jones get a zero? More subjective, though.

On the other side of the coin:



0 seems a generous grade, but I guess it depends on what you mean by "makes contact". If the pass was thrown so quickly, zero may be OK or you might throw the play out. With a some of the quick throws in today's game it may be hard to determine any kind of grade for a particular player. For instance, if we throw a bubble screen to Brown who is tackled immediately, the whole play may only take a couple of seconds. How would you grade the LB or DB on the other side of the field? I certainly wouldn't give the player a grade of 0 and use it in a average.

For the second play "being ridden out" sounds like he was losing the 1v1 and should be a -0.5. If his presence in the area had anything to do with Stewart having to make a cut into the Timmons/Keisel tackle maybe that -0.5 might be upped to a 0, but that seems unlikely.

First, thanks for all of the comments.

-To be honest, the grading was kind of tacked on after I was finished watching the first drive and I decided to do it more for a rough overview. PFF grades their plays in a similar manner, but on a -2 to +2 scale and they don't list averages, only aggregate scores. I thought an average score per play might be useful, but you're right that the 0 plays will skew things depending on how often the ball goes away from him or it's a quick throw, as you mentioned. I think I will attempt to either refine the grading scale or throw it out completely if I do more of this in the future. For now, though, I will just add a second average excluding the neutral plays.

2nd and 7 Jarvis lines up over Brown, the slot receiver, and drops back. Qucik throw to Olsen (TE) over the middle. 0

-Here, Jones dropped into Curl/Flat zone and his zone was vacated immediately as Brown was running a deeper route and the play went away from him to Olsen quickly. He didn't really cover anyone or do much here outside of drop back, so I gave him a 0.

3rd and 1 Jarvis jams the #2 TE at the line, Cam playfakes and rolls to the right. Incomplete. 0

-The Panthers were in the Big I and motioned their WR into the backfield. Jones jammed the #2 TE at the line and continued flowing to the left with the playfake while the #2 TE ran a post and Cam rolled the opposite direction. This play was a bit strange as I couldn't tell if Jones was playing contain, whether he was in coverage on the FB who stayed in on the fake and then rolled left toward Jones, or whether he simply fell for the fake (though I don't think he did). He continued moving down the line and never ran up or down field. The play ended quickly and away from him and I wasn't sure of his assignment. Looking back, the jam on the TE may have taken him out of the play, but Polamalu was in coverage there as well and likely would've taken the throw away also.

1st and 10 Jones is chipped by the TE and then makes contact with the LT as ball is thrown. 0

-Panthers were passing from the Shotgun. Jones's first move was right, toward the TE, who then chipped him and released into his route. Bell, the LT, continued dropping back toward Cam and by the time Jarvis covered the ground to meet him, Cam was throwing it. Here, I did not fault Jarvis because he did not fire off and instead his first move was right, as if he were attempting a wide blitz. I chalked this up to being a victim of play design.

1st and 10 Jarvis attacks the LT with his inside shoulder, setting the edge, but being ridden out. Stewart runs inside and is met my Timmons/Keisel. 0

-On this play, the D was in a 2-5-5 Nickel, with Gay in the box behind Jones. Jarvis immediately lowered his inside shoulder and hit the tackle, while keeping his outside arm free. This made me believe he was playing his assignment of setting the edge with Gay and Timmons filling the B gap between Jones and Keisel. The Panthers ran a counter out of the shotgun and pulled their RG and TE into the B gap where Gay and Timmons were there filling. The 0 grade was because I felt that he was playing his assignment and that if he had tried an inside move, he'd have given up a large outside run as we've seen with him many times previously (tons of space outside of JJ there, as Gay and Polamalu were both in the box and inside of JJ).

Ark is right; the neutral plays should be marked neutral and thrown out if they're indeed neutral, e.g. he did his job but the play was nowhere near him.

Otherwise, great effort.

Appreciate the comment. After throwing out the neutral plays, here is how it compares. I've also added this to the first post, as well as timestamps for where the drives start and end, so that it'll be easier on those wishing to check out the plays themselves.

Total:

Coverage -2.5, 9 Plays, -.277 / Play
Pass Rush 3.5, 15 Plays, .233 / Play
Run defense -2.5, 4 Plays, -.625 / Play
Contain 0, 4 Plays

Ovrall -1.5, 32 Plays, -.0469 / Play


Adjusted (minus * plays):

Coverage -2.5, 5 Plays, -.5 / Play
Pass Rush 3.5, 12 Plays, .292 / Play
Run defense -2.5, 4 Plays, -.625 / Play
Contain 0, 4 Plays

Ovrall -1.5, 21 Plays, -.0714 / Play

Well, I can't say they should be thrown out wholesale. Some (maybe most), because I doubt every play could be determined whether he 'did his job' or not. When you are grading subjectively, you have to draw the line somewhere. Different people would draw it different places on some plays.

The defender being in coverage and the pass being thrown elsewhere is a good example. If the coverage was bad, it shouldn't be thrown out as neutral. If the coverage was good, the subjective call is whether that coverage had any effect on the play. The pass could go for 80 yards on the other side of the field, but it was because the defender had coverage on the main target and another target was able to get open. Not this defender's fault and he did his job correctly.

Hard to throw that out, but maybe just has hard to determine that the coverage is what made the QB hold the ball a bit longer allowing the other player to get open.

Yeah, the subjectiveness is what originally deterred me from adding grades. When I went back to adjust for neutral plays, I left in any play that he'd have reasonably had a shot at rushing the QB, throwing out the time they ran a screen to his side, the time he was tripped by the RB, and the time he was chipped by the TE and seemed to be looping for a wide rush. Of the coverage plays, I removed the plays where he was in coverage and his zone remained vacant with the play going elsewhere. All of the contain/spy plays were removed.

I appreciate your effort and it looks like you put a lot of work into it. Thanks for that. On this play however, I'd like clarification.

If he's crossing inside a TE and LT and is stonewalled, is he being double teamed? Did the TE release into a pattern? If not I believe occupying 2 blockers and stopping an eligible receiver from releasing, is a positive play.

Thanks for the post.

On this play, the Steelers rushed 3 with Worlids Spying and Shazier in coverage on the TE, who initially dropped back in pass protection before releasing. Jarvis ran himself into trash by trying to cross in front of them both and getting easily pushed out by the LG. He never made contact with the TE prior to his release. Because Jarvis was bottled up and pushed to the right, Cam had a free lane to the left to escape the pressure being put on by Keisel from the strong side.


It seems some of my blurbs were a bit too ambiguous, so next time (if there is one) I will try and do better on that front. The first post had been updated with the aforementioned changes.

 

[ark steel]

It seems some of my blurbs were a bit too ambiguous, so next time (if there is one) I will try and do better on that front.

You could waste hours trying to be unambiguous!

 

[Wingman]

Thanks for sharing the review of the player. Regardless of what you use Jarvis did not put up an impressive performance. He is getting better but neither he nor Worilds seem to be the next great linebackers on the team. They are players nothing more. We will see what Harrison and Moats play looks like in comparison.

 

[insaniti]

Well, I can't say they should be thrown out wholesale. Some (maybe most), because I doubt every play could be determined whether he 'did his job' or not. When you are grading subjectively, you have to draw the line somewhere. Different people would draw it different places on some plays.

The defender being in coverage and the pass being thrown elsewhere is a good example. If the coverage was bad, it shouldn't be thrown out as neutral. If the coverage was good, the subjective call is whether that coverage had any effect on the play. The pass could go for 80 yards on the other side of the field, but it was because the defender had coverage on the main target and another target was able to get open. Not this defender's fault and he did his job correctly.

Hard to throw that out, but maybe just has hard to determine that the coverage is what made the QB hold the ball a bit longer allowing the other player to get open.

I think if you are grading an individual player, you could actually throw that play out. If the play goes away from the player, and he did his job, then that's at worst a neutral score for that player.

 

[bermudasteel]

Nice analysis. Thank you for your efforts.

Personally, I think Coach LeBeau and his staff saw something on the left side that he choose to attack the majority of the night. Thus putting Jarvis in the limelight a bit more - I think he played fairly well, until he was injured, MUCH BETTER than he was last year at this time...

 

[ark steel]

I think if you are grading an individual player, you could actually throw that play out. If the play goes away from the player, and he did his job, then that's at worst a neutral score for that player.

The problem with throwing out "neutral plays" where the player did his job exactly as he was supposed to do is that it , essentially, creates a bias. For the extreme, assume all plays except for one are run/thrown the other way, but the player always does his job and does it right. On the one play, the player ***** up. Now you have 1 play and it is a negative for a player that played properly all game long. You have diminished your sample size (diminishing credibility) and biased your results.