ProFootballFocus Top 5/Bottom 5 at every position, as of Week 4

[Jakuvious]

11 hours ago, TheVillain112 said:

I think he reached peak Ginger last Sunday.  Probably downhill from here...

He'll be regressing from ginger to more of a light auburn by season's end.

[jrry32]

PFF is such trash.

[Wyld Stallyns]

Only Colt player to make either list is the UDFA C who injured his quad on his second snap of the game. Did they attribute all of Adam Redmond’s snaps to Bond? 

[daineraider]

1 hour ago, jrry32 said:

PFF is such trash.

I get that they aren't perfect, but I don't disagree with a lot of the guys on their lists.  Just like any rating site, there are going to be issues or disagreements.  QBR vs QB rating etc.  There are flaws in all of them, but based on the eye test I would say for the most part PFF is at least close.

[jrry32]

58 minutes ago, daineraider said:

I get that they aren't perfect, but I don't disagree with a lot of the guys on their lists.  Just like any rating site, there are going to be issues or disagreements.  QBR vs QB rating etc.  There are flaws in all of them, but based on the eye test I would say for the most part PFF is at least close.

It's not remotely difficult to hit on who the best and worst players are. That doesn't take talent. You can watch a game and figure out Khalil Mack is great. Where a service like PFF is valuable is in parsing out the guys who fall in the middle. Frankly, they're not very good at that. Further, anyone who knows football well understands the glaring flaw in their ranking system. They treat football as a game of individual match-ups with no regard for scheme and player responsibility. That's like trying to analyze an entree based on each individual component rather than the sum of the parts.

Moreover, even in evaluating the best and worst, PFF's rankings show some major flaws. The biggest problem with PFF, though, is their biases. When you look at their rankings week in and week out, you recognize that there are discrepancies that don't make sense without bias as an explanation. I really wish PFF was better at what they do because there isn't enough of it in football. Although, I am very disappointed that they became "too good" for the fans. Regardless, I've had major issues with PFF's methodology for years and have stated as much. In fact, I expressed my reservations to their founder when I was considering applying to be a volunteer for them to watch games (way back in the day when they were a free service). Ultimately, my reservations drove me not to do it.

Those guys had a great idea, but I have a major issue with the execution. To provide some substance to my argument, here's an example:

https://www.profootballfocus.com/news/pro-refocused-washington-redskins-27-los-angeles-rams-20

PFF gave Mark Barron a favorable grade in this game. Nevertheless, Barron actually performed quite terribly if you understood his responsibilities. If you looked at the game on the basis of individual match-ups, it's not surprising that you would rate Barron as having a decent day. However, if you looked at Barron's role within the Rams defense, you'd see him as one of the major culprits for the Rams getting gashed repeatedly by the Redskins' rushing attack. Barron spent the entire afternoon not reading his keys properly causing him to play the wrong gap. By vacating his gap, he allowed the Redskins to create chunk plays with their rushing attack. That's not something you can ignore when grading players. Yet, PFF does exactly that.

So yes, I am not a fan of PFF's grading. Frankly, I think if you had posters here watch games and agree on a list of the top 5 best and worst players at each position without regard to play in previous years, you could have a list that's just as accurate (if not more so).

[MrOaktown_56]

2 hours ago, jrry32 said:

It's not remotely difficult to hit on who the best and worst players are. That doesn't take talent. You can watch a game and figure out Khalil Mack is great. Where a service like PFF is valuable is in parsing out the guys who fall in the middle. Frankly, they're not very good at that. Further, anyone who knows football well understands the glaring flaw in their ranking system. They treat football as a game of individual match-ups with no regard for scheme and player responsibility. That's like trying to analyze an entree based on each individual component rather than the sum of the parts.

Moreover, even in evaluating the best and worst, PFF's rankings show some major flaws. The biggest problem with PFF, though, is their biases. When you look at their rankings week in and week out, you recognize that there are discrepancies that don't make sense without bias as an explanation. I really wish PFF was better at what they do because there isn't enough of it in football. Although, I am very disappointed that they became "too good" for the fans. Regardless, I've had major issues with PFF's methodology for years and have stated as much. In fact, I expressed my reservations to their founder when I was considering applying to be a volunteer for them to watch games (way back in the day when they were a free service). Ultimately, my reservations drove me not to do it.

Those guys had a great idea, but I have a major issue with the execution. To provide some substance to my argument, here's an example:

https://www.profootballfocus.com/news/pro-refocused-washington-redskins-27-los-angeles-rams-20

PFF gave Mark Barron a favorable grade in this game. Nevertheless, Barron actually performed quite terribly if you understood his responsibilities. If you looked at the game on the basis of individual match-ups, it's not surprising that you would rate Barron as having a decent day. However, if you looked at Barron's role within the Rams defense, you'd see him as one of the major culprits for the Rams getting gashed repeatedly by the Redskins' rushing attack. Barron spent the entire afternoon not reading his keys properly causing him to play the wrong gap. By vacating his gap, he allowed the Redskins to create chunk plays with their rushing attack. That's not something you can ignore when grading players. Yet, PFF does exactly that.

So yes, I am not a fan of PFF's grading. Frankly, I think if you had posters here watch games and agree on a list of the top 5 best and worst players at each position without regard to play in previous years, you could have a list that's just as accurate (if not more so).

Dude, but Cooper is the worst WR in football. Lets throw out everything else, he's trash. Who cares about when he's open and the qb isn't looking, or when he's in bracket/double coverage? 

[Hunter2_1]

PFF have a fully costed and measurable way of analysing players or teams. You can actually see how they arrive at their decision. It's not flawless but it certainly beats "the eye test". You're watching the game, not specific players in specific situations. They are. It's their job.

[jontat83]

7 hours ago, jrry32 said:

PFF is such trash.

Yep, I finally realized that when a QB threw 5 TD's and 0 Int's in a game and they gave him a poor grade.

[Hunter2_1]

29 minutes ago, jontat83 said:

Yep, I finally realized that when a QB threw 5 TD's and 0 Int's in a game and they gave him a poor grade.

Who what when?

[Buc Ball]

46 minutes ago, Hunter2_1 said:

Who what when?

There was something similar with Rodgers too where he put up huge numbers and didn't get a good grade. Their reasoning was that all his receivers were wide open, so it didn't actually take much for him to put those numbers up. I can understand that argument, even if I don't necessarily agree with it. It's a different way of thinking about it which some people are too quick to dismiss.

Theres going to be flaws in methodology no matter how you approach it, the main one that's been pointed out is that it tends to consider players in isolation, rather than in the context of what's going on around them.

The main problem PFF has is that there are times when what they're saying doesn't tie up to what's clear from film, so it impacts credibility. PFF suffers from that to an extent, but I think they get an unfairly bad rep on FF.

[Hunter2_1]

43 minutes ago, Buc Ball said:

There was something similar with Rodgers too where he put up huge numbers and didn't get a good grade. Their reasoning was that all his receivers were wide open, so it didn't actually take much for him to put those numbers up. I can understand that argument, even if I don't necessarily agree with it. It's a different way of thinking about it which some people are too quick to dismiss.

Theres going to be flaws in methodology no matter how you approach it, the main one that's been pointed out is that it tends to consider players in isolation, rather than in the context of what's going on around them.

The main problem PFF has is that there are times when what they're saying doesn't tie up to what's clear from film, so it impacts credibility. PFF suffers from that to an extent, but I think they get an unfairly bad rep on FF.

Ah, see I like that depth. It's more than just looking at the box score. We could all throw to open receivers (if hands big enough....) so maybe he deserved a lesser grade? I don't know. I agree they can be flawed. Definitely get an unfair rep. 

[jontat83]

Yeah the 5TD's and 0 Int's thing I mentioned was Rodgers. Rodgers often doesn't grade well with PFF in a lot of metrics, with how they judge what are good throws or not, how much involved the WR etc. Rodgers plays out of structure a lot and I think their grading system misses a lot with him.

[ET80]

On 10/3/2017 at 6:31 AM, TheKillerNacho said:

Top 5:
1. DeForest Buckner 93.2
2. Gerald McCoy 92.4
3. Aaron Donald 91.4
4. J.J. Watt 91.0
5. Ndamukong Suh 89.3

This is purely on reputation at this point. Watt is still a good player, but top 5? O don't think so. He lacks power at the point of attack, and he's not beating blocks he used to crush.

I'm hoping this turns soon.

[cddolphin]

56 minutes ago, Hunter2_1 said:

Ah, see I like that depth. It's more than just looking at the box score. We could all throw to open receivers (if hands big enough....) so maybe he deserved a lesser grade? I don't know. I agree they can be flawed. Definitely get an unfair rep. 

And then there are things that simply cannot reasonably make their way into PFF's grade on a player: was Rodgers audibling into a play / hot route which resulted in the WR coming wide open? They can only grade on what happens snap to whistle; additionally, there simply must be times when they are flat out wrong about defensive responsibilities (for example). PFF is a tool like any other, useful reasonably often but not perfect. 

[Hunter2_1]

1 minute ago, cddolphin said:

And then there are things that simply cannot reasonably make their way into PFF's grade on a player: was Rodgers audibling into a play / hot route which resulted in the WR coming wide open? They can only grade on what happens snap to whistle; additionally, there simply must be times when they are flat out wrong about defensive responsibilities (for example). PFF is a tool like any other, useful reasonably often but not perfect. 

Yeah, it's flawed. But I think they're far better than the so called "analysts" paid by the NFL.