UVa's PFF grades for Week 3 after the win over the Seminoles
Even before the season began, people had Saturday’s matchup against Florida State circled on the calendar. And just as with the 1995 and 2005 games against the Noles, the win over FSU was dramatic and emotional.
But that kind of victory doesn’t mean that it was always well played, as the grades from PFF College show.
Below is a grade card showing how the top 10 offensive and defensive players fared in UVa’s win over Florida State and also a cumulative grade through the third week of the season for the offense and defense with comparisons to national rankings and those In the ACC. (For more on how PFF grades, there’s an explanation at the bottom of this story).
UVa Offense
Player | Position | Snaps | Grade |
---|---|---|---|
Joe Reed |
WR |
58 |
76.7 |
Terrell Jana |
WR |
52 |
74.4 |
Olu Oluwatimi |
OL |
79 |
67.2 |
Bryce Perkins |
QB |
79 |
66.4 |
Hasise Dubois |
WR |
60 |
66.2 |
Jamari Peacock |
FB |
9 |
65.5 |
Billy Kemp |
WR |
10 |
62.9 |
Lamont Atkins |
RB |
28 |
62.7 |
Wayne Taulapapa |
RB |
46 |
62.4 |
Ryan Swoboda |
OL |
49 |
61.0 |
Takeaways: This was a weird week in some ways for the offense, because while FSU’s defense has struggled its players are still talented. And the Noles caused all sorts of problems for UVa’s offensive line, as UVa's overall pass blocking grade (33.5) was less than half of what its been in the first two games (average of 68.25). In fact, as a unit the team struggled across all of the offensive categories. Individually, Reed was solid (76.0 in the passing game and 69 in the run game), as were both Jana and Oluwamitmi. Jana was first in run blocking (79.4) ahead of Swoboda (75.6) and Dillon Reinkensmeyer (73.7) but theirs were the only scores north of 70. As you might imagine, not many people fared well in pass pro, though Taulapapa did his fair share, putting up a team-high 81 grade on eight pass blocking snaps. Oluwatimi, meanwhile, had a 76.9 to top the linemen in pass blocking. Perkins had the top running grade at 69.8 but despite going 17-for-19 in the second half finished with a 60.4 passing grade.
UVa Defense
Player | Position | Snaps | Grade |
---|---|---|---|
Noah Taylor |
OLB |
52 |
71.7 |
Nick Grant |
CB |
71 |
71.6 |
Richard Burney |
DE |
9 |
68.2 |
Aaron Faumui |
DT |
58 |
66.9 |
Brenton Nelson |
NB |
71 |
66.2 |
Zane Zandier |
ILB |
61 |
65.4 |
De'Vante Cross |
FS |
71 |
65.3 |
Rob Snyder |
ILB |
10 |
63.8 |
Mandy Alonso |
DT |
57 |
62.7 |
Matt Gahm |
OLB |
27 |
62.5 |
Takeaways: After putting up a 70.7 in coverage in the opener at Pitt, this is the second rough week for UVa in that category, as the Hoos posted a season-low 59.0 grade against FSU after putting up a 59.4 last week. But they were as good as they’ve been all season in pressure (70.5), which helped negate a dip in tackling from grades in the 80s in the first two weeks to a 60.2 against Florida State. Taylor led the way thanks to solid pressure (73.0, third on the team) and coverage (70.2, second) grades this week. Grant had a team-high 71.6 in coverage as well as a 78.8 in tackling, second only to Nelson’s 78.9. In all, seven Cavaliers (including Charles Snowden, Jordan Mack, Elliott Brown, Alonso, and Jowon Briggs) all graded in the 70s. Against the run, Joey Blount had a team-best 75.0 grade followed by Snyder (71.1) and Bryce Hall (70.8). Lastly, Zandier led the way in pressure at 79.1 followed by Snowden at 75.6 and then Taylor.
Overall
The Virginia offense finished Week 3 with a cumulative grade of 73.2 (down from 73.8), which ranks 51st nationally (down from 40th). The Wahoos are currently seventh in the ACC on offense (fifth last week). Each facet of the unit is currently graded as such:
Running—83.5 (down from 85.6) No. 17 nationally (sixth)
Receiving— 72.6 (up from 70.8)
Run blocking—63.5 (up from 59.5)
Passing—59.9 (up from 59.6)
Pass blocking—55.3 (down from 68.7)
The Cavalier defense, meanwhile, finished the FSU game with a cumulative grade of 77.0 (down from 77.5), which ranks 52nd nationally (down from 42nd). UVa currently ranks sixth in the conference (fourth last week). Each facet of that unit is currently graded as such:
Run defense— 84.4 (down from 84.9)
Tackling—79.9 (down from 87.3) No. 25 nationally (eighth)
Pressure—71.2 (down from 83.2)
Coverage— 66.6 (down from 68.9)
JOIN CAVSCORNER TODAY!
If you are not already a member of CavsCorner, come join us and see what all of the buzz is about.
Click HERE to subscribe and get all of the latest news and join hundreds of other UVa fans in talking about Cavalier football, basketball, and recruiting. You won't be disappointed!
An explanation from PFF on how the grading scale works:
On every play, a PFF analyst will grade each player on a scale of -2 to +2 according to what he did on the play.
At one end of the scale you have a catastrophic game-ending interception or pick-six from a quarterback, and at the other a perfect deep bomb into a tight window in a critical game situation, with the middle of that scale being 0-graded, or ‘expected’ plays that are neither positive nor negative.
Each game is also graded by a second PFF analyst independent of the first, and those grades are compared by a third, Senior Analyst, who rules on any differences between the two. These grades are verified by the Pro Coach Network, a group of former and current NFL coaches with over 700 combined years of NFL coaching experience, to get them as accurate as they can be.
From there, the grades are normalized to better account for game situation; this ranges from where a player lined up to the dropback depth of the quarterback or the length of time he had the ball in his hand and everything in between. They are finally converted to a 0-100 scale and appear in our Player Grades Tool.
Season-level grades aren’t simply an average of every game-grade a player compiles over a season, but rather factor in the duration at which a player performed at that level. Achieving a grade of 90.0 in a game once is impressive, doing it (12) times in a row is more impressive.
It is entirely possible that a player will have a season grade higher than any individual single-game grade he achieved, because playing well for an extended period of time is harder to do than for a short period, Similarly, playing badly for a long time is a greater problem than playing badly once, so the grade can also be compounded negatively.
Each week, grades are subject to change while we run through our extensive review process including All-22 tape runs and coaching audit, so you may notice discrepancies among grades published in earlier articles compared with those in the Player Grades tool until grade lock each week.