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

[Jlowe22]

6 hours ago, jontat83 said:

From the official NFL YouTube Page:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxtd56sOIPU

Ok so, his TD passes were short of the goal line and the receivers worked their way into the end zone.  I'd like to see the actual drives to get his team down the field that close to the goal line in the first place.

[KhanYouDigIt]

PFF grading system is garbage but it is cool to see Jalen Ramsey and Myles Jack playing very well. Still don’t know how we got both of them.

so glad we played Dan Skuta over Myles last year. Thanks Gus.

[jrry32]

13 hours ago, Hunter2_1 said:

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.

And they do a bad job of it. You can make excuses for it, but anyone who understands football understands why their grades simply aren't worthwhile. That's not even getting into their biases. It's hard to believe that there isn't bias involved when you look at the grades they're giving Dak Prescott and Jared Goff this year. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

I'll demonstrate:

http://www.espn.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=400951716

https://www.profootballfocus.com/news/pro-refocused-los-angeles-rams-35-dallas-cowboys-30

Goff gets a 45.2 grade while Dak gets an 80.6. Does that make any sense to you? Now, you may not have watched the game. I did. Both had their ups and downs. Goff made a terrible decision that led to a dropped INT. Dak had three dropped INTs (two were his fault). Yet, it seems like Goff was the only one punished for it. If you watched the game, you'd have seen that their play was pretty equal. So it gets a bit tough to explain away Goff getting a terrible grade and Dak getting a very good grade. And this isn't the first time this year that PFF hammered Goff while giving Dak a very good grade despite Goff arguably performing better (and clearly performing better in terms of numbers). This also isn't the first time PFF's grade for Goff made no sense when compared to the opposing QB (PFF gave Hoyer a better grade than Goff in the 49ers-Rams game a couple weeks ago).

It becomes clear that PFF isn't grading players on the same scale. That's actually been pretty obvious for years. You'll probably try to make this about me griping about Goff, but I've registered the same complaints for years on the site. PFF has its guys that it likes, and it has its guys that it doesn't like. It's not hard to tell who they are.

[AlexGreen#20]

Packers are barely on the list.

[.Buzz]

Myles Jack has been awesome this year. Great to see a competent coaching staff actually put him on the field.

[childofpudding]

Yeah, there has always been issues with PFF's subjective grading, in my opinion. Their measured stats that used to be available to normal chumps like us was very useful (things like time to snap, time to sack for QBs, etc.) but then they took that away. I think they have it available again but it's a lot more expensive.

Just to give an example of the kind of grade PFF administers. Let's say the team is in the RZ and the QB has two options - throw a pass to an open RB on a wheel route who can walk into the endzone, or throw a jump ball in the back corner to a WR who is double-covered. PFF would likely give the former a 0 and the latter a +2 because of the difficulty of the latter throw. Which is silly. Sometimes a QB throws to an open man because he identified coverage pre- or post-snap that allows him to make that easy completion. That's a positive, not a neutral or negative.

It's stupid to give play-by-play subjective grades unless you know the initial playcall, the initial defensive coverage and responsibilities, as well as any changes on the offensive or defensive side that happened pre-snap, and who made those changes, and whether the changes were right in relation to the other team's playcall and changes, and then how each player performed considering all those variables. In other words, it's practically impossible.

[biletnikoff]

AP to Cards. ...?

[Small Town Values]

On 04/10/2017 at 11:35 AM, Forge said:

They do the same with Buckner. He's pretty much destroyed every one on one matchup he's been in, but before last week, hadn't been able to finish. But he's been good against the run, and generated a ton of pressure and hits, even if he hasn't filled out the stat sheet with sexy stats

Exactly. Using traditional stats, I would've assumed injures had got the better of Watt, PFF clearly states otherwise.    

Nobody's saying they have the perfect formula, nothing is perfect after all. But it can't be denied they provide an invaluable service to football. (Also, there's no reason why they can't improve their formula over time)

Players on the Oline should be particularly happy, traditional stats do them no justice. 

I get what people are saying about the eye-test, but the vast majority of people don't have the time, or the inclination to watch every game. Then, on top of that, rewatch the same game, breaking down individual performances at each position.    

 

 

 

[Small Town Values]

14 hours ago, THE DUKE said:

I could understand not rating him highly, but I don't know how you can give him a negative grade.  Was he supposed to have been 31 of 35 for 450 and 8 TD with the plays he had the opportunity to make?

Agreed, things like this need to be amended in their rating system. 

[Kip Smithers]

53 minutes ago, Marc MacGyver said:

Exactly. Using traditional stats, I would've assumed injures had got the better of Watt, PFF clearly states otherwise.    

Nobody's saying they have the perfect formula, nothing is perfect after all. But it can't be denied they provide an invaluable service to football. (Also, there's no reason why they can't improve their formula over time)

Players on the Oline should be particularly happy, traditional stats do them no justice. 

I get what people are saying about the eye-test, but the vast majority of people don't have the time, or the inclination to watch every game. Then, on top of that, rewatch the same game, breaking down individual performances at each position.    

 

 

 

That doesn't mean we should take their opinion as factual or even objective. 

I trust my eyes and I trust what guys who actually break down film rather than that nonsense PFF.

[DingoLadd]

PFF scores are basically like throwing like away 40$ or whatever they ask for nowadays not to mention their "Special stats" . Sure they're a useful tool and all but stats will never tell the full story of a game, especially subjectively biased stats. 

 

[Hunter2_1]

9 hours ago, jrry32 said:

And they do a bad job of it. You can make excuses for it, but anyone who understands football understands why their grades simply aren't worthwhile. That's not even getting into their biases. It's hard to believe that there isn't bias involved when you look at the grades they're giving Dak Prescott and Jared Goff this year. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

I'll demonstrate:

http://www.espn.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=400951716

https://www.profootballfocus.com/news/pro-refocused-los-angeles-rams-35-dallas-cowboys-30

Goff gets a 45.2 grade while Dak gets an 80.6. Does that make any sense to you? Now, you may not have watched the game. I did. Both had their ups and downs. Goff made a terrible decision that led to a dropped INT. Dak had three dropped INTs (two were his fault). Yet, it seems like Goff was the only one punished for it. If you watched the game, you'd have seen that their play was pretty equal. So it gets a bit tough to explain away Goff getting a terrible grade and Dak getting a very good grade. And this isn't the first time this year that PFF hammered Goff while giving Dak a very good grade despite Goff arguably performing better (and clearly performing better in terms of numbers). This also isn't the first time PFF's grade for Goff made no sense when compared to the opposing QB (PFF gave Hoyer a better grade than Goff in the 49ers-Rams game a couple weeks ago).

It becomes clear that PFF isn't grading players on the same scale. That's actually been pretty obvious for years. You'll probably try to make this about me griping about Goff, but I've registered the same complaints for years on the site. PFF has its guys that it likes, and it has its guys that it doesn't like. It's not hard to tell who they are.

No I didn't watch, so I'll take your word for it. Would say this though, when the season is done, you'll probably find Goff ahead of Dak (if their current form lasts until then). I think they do get it right majority of the time. 

[jontat83]

A QB should be making the simply throws if they are available and they have a better chance at getting a TD. There is also this perception that once they are near the end zone that it suddenly becomes easier well it's not, in fact it's harder. Sometimes they short distance throws to try and punch it in are not easy, often they require quick releases, fitting the balls into tighter windows against the defense all in that cramped area of the field. That's where the great QB's make their money.

I will assume this is covered in the metrics when grading difficulty of throws.

[Pugger]

11 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Packers are barely on the list.

We only have one player worth a darn, hadn't you heard?  

[El Ramster]

4 hours ago, Pugger said:

We only have one player worth a darn, hadn't you heard?  

It's true though.