Login

Vino · 10-02-2016, 07:45 PM

I'm not sure how PFF could even rank Jack considering he was barely on the field and when he was the plays rarely really allowed for him to do much. He basically got a high grade because he was on the field for a limited amount of snaps and didn't have any negative plays against him.

"A man with no sauce is lost.

<p style="text-align:center;">But that same man can get lost in the sauce."

~~JaguarsWoman~~ · 10-02-2016, 07:48 PM

Quote:I'm not sure how PFF could even rank Jack considering he was barely on the field and when he was the plays rarely really allowed for him to do much. He basically got a high grade because he was on the field for a limited amount of snaps and didn't have any negative plays against him.

PFF probably ranks every player who has done anything during the regular season.

flgatorsandjags · 10-02-2016, 07:50 PM

Quote:I'm not sure how PFF could even rank Jack considering he was barely on the field and when he was the plays rarely really allowed for him to do much. He basically got a high grade because he was on the field for a limited amount of snaps and didn't have any negative plays against him.

They thought Jackson was the one that got in Luck's face to help Yannick get the INT when it was actually Fowler. I dont see how anyone can take their grades seriously

~~JaguarsWoman~~ · 10-02-2016, 07:52 PM

Quote:They thought Jackson was the one that got in Luck's face to help Yannick get the INT when it was actually Fowler. I dont see how anyone can take their grades seriously

Ugh. How can they get 56 and 90 mixed up? It was obvious who batted down the ball.

flgatorsandjags · 10-02-2016, 07:56 PM

Quote:Ugh. How can they get 56 and 90 mixed up? It was obvious who batted down the ball.

Because I dont think they actually watch all of the games like they say they do. Or not the whole games anyway. It is clear by a lot of their grades they give out