PFF - where do you fall?

[Hunter2_1]

 

1. It is a network of fully justifiable data, analysis and research, complemented by a grading system that aligns largely with your beliefs about certain players/teams

 

2. It is mostly correct, and you can use a lot of their material as a tool or support for your arguments

 

3. Some of what they do can be used as a tool, but it's mostly ignorable and doesn't align with your opinions on players/teams

 

4. You are completely anti-PFF and see it as something like a gimmick, a scam, pseudo-sports-science etc 

 

5. No strong opinions / Other (specify) 

Edited May 22, 2019 by Hunter2_1

[ET80]

I went with 2 - I think it's a nice tool for grading CBs and OLs, positions that either don't have official stats, or stats that might be counterproductive to how good a player is (if a CB has 10 tackles, that means there were a lot of completions against them...)

It's not the Bible, they have some really odd conclusions - but it's not the worst thing in the world.

[Hunter2_1]

Just now, ET80 said:

I went with 2 - I think it's a nice tool for grading CBs and OLs, positions that either don't have official stats, or stats that might be counterproductive to how good a player is (if a CB has 10 tackles, that means there were a lot of completions against them...)

It's not the Bible, they have some really odd conclusions - but it's not the worst thing in the world.

I definitely think it fills a void. Those two positions certainly are the two I think of most.

I don't pay anything for it, so I haven't seen their workings out -  but I do agree with their mission. A made up, but typical scenerio;

non PFF;

QB A throws a 30 yard pass into tight coverage, it is an inch perfect pass and puts the receiver in the best possible position to catch it and protect himself afterwards.

QB B throws a 30 yard pass to a wide open receiver who's done brilliant route running to shake a defender. QB B gets same stat as QB A. PFF would look to penalise QB B relative to QB A, and I agree that should be the case. 

However, I haven't seen exactly how they do this, so I'm not completely sold.

 

[Danger]

It's more appropriate for positions like OLine and Corner where it's less simple to statistically grade a players performance.

[RaidersAreOne]

2.5. 

[jetjuice]

I interned for them for a brief period of time... it's extremely complex what they do, definitely holds some merit because as far as film watching goes, they are paying attention to every detail of every player on every play. However I don't fully agree with their they use verbiage for positional assignment, it's overly complicated. Also it's pretty hard to evaluate without all-22 film which I was not given. 

My biggest question about their process would be how they lack insight about teams' playbooks. It's not always easy to determine a player's responsibility on a given play. Still, it's a great model, not a flawless one but it's the best out currently. I think they are just scratching the surface too, I feel that they need to partner with the NFL/NCAA to improve the quality of the model with more insight to the teams playbook and scheme and it will get better as the years go on.

Went with option 2 and that seems to be the consensus.

Edited May 22, 2019 by jetjuice

[NVRamsFan]

3.5 but seems to be getting better. At least it's not QBR. 

[KellChippy]

Their positional ratings are finicky but they have a ton of advanced stats and keep track of a lot of things I like to know.

They seem to get better every year but game tape > anything else.  If you aren’t watching the games and are only going off their rankings, you probably have a warped perception of the situation.

[AlNFL19]

I said 3. I wouldn't use many of their rankings or anything to justify anything, as some of them can look pretty bad. However, I think their best products are just the more context-driven statistics that the general public doesn't have, that aren't really subjective but you can't really get elsewhere (like adjusted completion % for depth of target or whatever).

[Jakuvious]

PFF is often correct, but only when it aligns with my preexisting personal opinions.

[Ragnarok]

I think they are good for certain stats like pressures an OL has given up, passes defensed by a DB, pressures by a DL...certain actual stats that have some degree of certainty.  Basically where you can tell that one guy beat another guy.  I disregard their general grades though because they don't know the play call, blocking scheme, breakdowns, or anything of that nature.  

[-Hope-]

the stats are great. the grades they derive from those stats....less great.

[Bearerofnews]

 2, was close to 1. If someone posted their end of year top 5 and bottom 5 rankings in here, there isnt much that your own unbiased assessment would disagree with. Id say they are the best out there right now. They arent perfect by any stretch. But alot better than some give them credit for.

 

Seems like if they rank your players high... people use that ranking in debates. If they rank them low, everyone poopoos their credibility. 

Edited May 23, 2019 by Bearerofnews

[MrOaktown_56]

They had Karl Joseph as bad at free safety and great at strong when I saw the exact opposite. I've never been so confused in my life. Finally he was in position to make plays...

[Hunter2_1]

13 hours ago, jetjuice said:

I interned for them for a brief period of time... it's extremely complex what they do, definitely holds some merit because as far as film watching goes, they are paying attention to every detail of every player on every play. However I don't fully agree with their they use verbiage for positional assignment, it's overly complicated. Also it's pretty hard to evaluate without all-22 film which I was not given. 

My biggest question about their process would be how they lack insight about teams' playbooks. It's not always easy to determine a player's responsibility on a given play. Still, it's a great model, not a flawless one but it's the best out currently. I think they are just scratching the surface too, I feel that they need to partner with the NFL/NCAA to improve the quality of the model with more insight to the teams playbook and scheme and it will get better as the years go on.

Went with option 2 and that seems to be the consensus.

I listen to their podcast sometimes, and they certainly use the All-22. I wouldn't trust any analysis that didn't use that view. What did they get you doing?