Hunter2_1 Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 PFF's grading is not why I listen to and read PFF. It's their stats (which are factual and measurable) they collect which is fascinating. For example, did you know Mariota is the most efficient WR screen-playing QB so far this season with a perfect 158.3 rating on WR screens? The NFL passer rating is 95.4 on bubble screens. 195 bubble screens attempted, gone for 5.4 YPA. 5TDs on WR screens in total. 2 from Mariota, Big Ben 2, Matt Ryan 1. Pretty useless stats, but I love it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKillerNacho Posted October 5, 2017 Author Share Posted October 5, 2017 59 minutes ago, Hunter2_1 said: PFF's grading is not why I listen to and read PFF. It's their stats (which are factual and measurable) they collect which is fascinating. For example, did you know Mariota is the most efficient WR screen-playing QB so far this season with a perfect 158.3 rating on WR screens? The NFL passer rating is 95.4 on bubble screens. 195 bubble screens attempted, gone for 5.4 YPA. 5TDs on WR screens in total. 2 from Mariota, Big Ben 2, Matt Ryan 1. Pretty useless stats, but I love it I used to subscribe to those stats, they are indeed good. Too bad they cost 2000+ bucks annually now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKTexans Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 7 minutes ago, TheKillerNacho said: Too bad they cost 2000+ bucks annually now. WHA?!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 Just now, texans_uk said: WHA?!!! Yeah, I think it's like 170 a month or something ridiculous like that. I can't believe people actually pay it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKillerNacho Posted October 5, 2017 Author Share Posted October 5, 2017 4 minutes ago, Forge said: Yeah, I think it's like 170 a month or something ridiculous like that. I can't believe people actually pay it. There is a $200 package but that's not even their Signature Stats... you need to get a quote for those. From what I heard from those who have inquired, even for a non-Broadcasting quote, its like $2000 minimum. For what they used to offer for $30. I guess they decided that they could make more money selling to media outlets and promise them exclusivity than selling to the average fan, who they feel only cares about their dumb subjective 1-100 rankings. Because you know, people can't just buy a copy of Madden for that, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter2_1 Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 39 minutes ago, TheKillerNacho said: I used to subscribe to those stats, they are indeed good. Too bad they cost 2000+ bucks annually now. Elite? Yeah I'm not purchasing that. Ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Ramster Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 5 minutes ago, Hunter2_1 said: Elite? Yeah I'm not purchasing that. Ridiculous. We should all pitch in like 5$ and have one account. I like looking at them.. have some clients who have the premium but I hate asking them for it everytime I need it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter2_1 Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 1 minute ago, El ramster said: We should all pitch in like 5$ and have one account. I like looking at them.. have some clients who have the premium but I hate asking them for it everytime I need it. Great idea! Who's in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Ramster Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 6 minutes ago, Hunter2_1 said: Great idea! Who's in? So far we have 10$ 1990 to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKTexans Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 1 hour ago, El ramster said: So far we have 10$ 1990 to go. Once you get to 400 I'll send my details Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlaqOptic Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 PFF is and always will be garbage... They value quantity over quality and have for quite some time. What started off as 6 non-American guys trying to to something decent has turned into a full blown business model ruining what little - yet inaccurate - fidelity they had. You see, at least when they had 6 guys the fidelity was close so their grading scales were similar to one another despite being inaccurate. That said, they were just putting forth guess work based on TV angles which is and always will be flawed. I say guess work because I'll never forget the infamous "Revis 9" debate which they've managed to strategically bury from the annals of Internet History on Twitter, Forums, and their Website. For those who don't know, the "Revis 9" debate was when they made an argument that Revis had only given up 9 receptions up until one point in the season as they very clearly omitted a 75 yard reception he had given up to Wes Welker that made the 9 receptions for 100-some-odd yards statline look much less impressive. They routinely claimed it was due to a Cover 4 coverage and attributed it to the Safety. However, hundreds of people who actually know how to break down coverage argued it was a Cover 2 Man Shell and Revis should've as least been attributed with half of that reception and yardage. They argued others were wrong until Rex Ryan himself came out publicly and said it was a Cover 2 Man Shell, at which point PFF worked diligently to scrub the Internet of the argument. ANd this was back when they had 6 to 10 guys working with fidelity. Nowadays, the don't even have that! Now they have a staff of 30+ and they assign a guy or two to a game to watch on Sunday. The team assigned to that game could have completely different subjectivity in their grading than another team which completely throws off the argument of a single unified system. Not only that, but now those teams assigned to a game rush to get grades out by Tuesday meaning that they're looking at the live game, solely with TV angles, and not doing any due diligence to rewatch plays over and over again or use All-22 to rush to a conclusion. So, at this point, they're just using guess work and are no different than fans other than some stupid people in the media pay for their "stats." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlowe22 Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 5 hours ago, El ramster said: So far we have 10$ 1990 to go. I'll double it to $20. 1980 to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrry32 Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 19 hours ago, Hunter2_1 said: 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. You don't even have to take my word for it. Read the Cowboys forum. Dak was getting criticized because the Rams sat back in the second half and challenged him to beat their coverage. He was missing open throws. Goff wasn't perfect either. He missed a few open throws. Both were pretty average. They had similar numbers. But you see what the grades are. And I have strong doubts that Goff ends up ahead of Dak even if his statistical lead stays in tact. Here's an example from earlier in the year where I was calling out their bias (posted on a Rams forum): Yea, you gotta question the source when they're tearing Goff apart for that game. Y'all want a laugh?https://www.profootballfocus.com/news/pro-refocused-denver-broncos-42-dallas-cowboys-17 QB DAK PRESCOTT, 71.0 OVERALL GRADE Prescott wasn’t terrible in this game, but he was far worse than you typically expect, and could easily have had another two interceptions on the day had Dez Bryant not turned defensive back to prevent Aqib Talib picking them off. Balance that with the two he did throw being a throw off his receiver’s hands, and a pass that was tipped at the line, and you have a strange outing for Prescott this week. Dak Prescott30/5060%238 passing yards4.8 YPA2 TDs2 Ints (1 pick-six)68.6 QB RatingJared Goff15/2560%224 passing yards9.0 YPA1 TD1 Int86.1 QB Rating QB JARED GOFF, 43.1 OVERALL GRADEAfter a big turn around last week, Goff looked as he did as a rookie. When Goff was pressured he struggled, while he did complete a touchdown pass under pressure, there were many bad decisions, as he struggles to break everything down under pressure And I get that the Broncos have a great defense, but it still makes no sense at all to hammer Goff for an average performance while cutting Dak slack for a bad performance. I mean look at the slack they cut him for this pick six: Yes, it was tipped by the blitzer. But Talib was all over that throw no matter what. It's clear they cut certain players more slack than others. Personally, I don't think they get right the majority of the time. I think they get it right often enough to retain credibility with the media. For example, I remember when they'd grade guys as top 15 or top 10 players at their position, and that guy would not be able to find a job after the season. A great example of that is safety Chris Clemons. PFF rated him highly, Clemons hit FA, nobody wanted him, and the guy bounced around from team-to-team the next couple of years before ending up out of the NFL. Yea, PFF gets the obvious ones right. But it's not difficult to tell that Aaron Donald is a great football player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrry32 Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 11 hours ago, Hunter2_1 said: PFF's grading is not why I listen to and read PFF. It's their stats (which are factual and measurable) they collect which is fascinating. For example, did you know Mariota is the most efficient WR screen-playing QB so far this season with a perfect 158.3 rating on WR screens? The NFL passer rating is 95.4 on bubble screens. 195 bubble screens attempted, gone for 5.4 YPA. 5TDs on WR screens in total. 2 from Mariota, Big Ben 2, Matt Ryan 1. Pretty useless stats, but I love it And this is actually one more reason why I dislike them. I loved their stats. They were innovative and useful. They weren't perfect, but they were good enough. The grades have never been worthwhile to me. What does PFF do? They go to a paywall. Okay, fine, I'll subscribe for $30 a year. Of course, they get too big in their britches for us fans and completely cut off access to all of the useful information. It's silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter2_1 Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 4 hours ago, jrry32 said: And this is actually one more reason why I dislike them. I loved their stats. They were innovative and useful. They weren't perfect, but they were good enough. The grades have never been worthwhile to me. What does PFF do? They go to a paywall. Okay, fine, I'll subscribe for $30 a year. Of course, they get too big in their britches for us fans and completely cut off access to all of the useful information. It's silly. Yeah, I won't pay for stats. Would rather let someone else pay and then hear about them on forums....lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.