End of Season Awards

[jebrick]

21 hours ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

If you win a pass rush and the QB gets rid of the ball, that's not on you. You did your job. Furthermore, he's winning at the highest rate in the league while also being doubled the most. It's Aaron Donald-esque.

I think TJ Watt is underrated from the voters' perspective, though.

Still empty.  It is like a participation trophy.  PPF is a joke with this.   Watch PPF try to explain what doubled means for the stat.  Quite funny.

1st game vs the Steelers

Garrett 1 tackle 1 QB pressure ranked higher in PPF than 5 solo tackles, 7 total, 1 sack 1 int, 1 TD 3 QB pressures.  Let me know who had more of an impact in the game which in the end, is what it is about.

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

3 hours ago, jebrick said:

Still empty.  It is like a participation trophy.  PPF is a joke with this.   Watch PPF try to explain what doubled means for the stat.  Quite funny.

1st game vs the Steelers

Garrett 1 tackle 1 QB pressure ranked higher in PPF than 5 solo tackles, 7 total, 1 sack 1 int, 1 TD 3 QB pressures.  Let me know who had more of an impact in the game which in the end, is what it is about.

I don't care for PFF or their grades, but as a pass rusher you can have an impact on how offenses operate and how QB's get rid of the ball without getting sacks.

[Soko]

3 minutes ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

I don't care for PFF or their grades, but as a pass rusher you can have an impact on how offenses operate and how QB's get rid of the ball without getting sacks.

I mean, yeah, but less sacks, less pressures, less tackles, and less turnovers?

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

Just now, Soko said:

I mean, yeah, but less sacks, less pressures, less tackles, and less turnovers?

I'm not advocating for either player, just saying I can see how voters weighed things differently. Teams clearly don't value Watt over Garrett based on double team rate, but he clearly punishes them for that. Garrett gets all the attention and doesn't put up nearly the accolades but teams clearly value him as a threat more.

[Soko]

1 minute ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

I'm not advocating for either player, just saying I can see how voters weighed things differently. Teams clearly don't value Watt over Garrett based on double team rate, but he clearly punishes them for that. Garrett gets all the attention and doesn't put up nearly the accolades but teams clearly value him as a threat more.

Was more responding to what the dude said about Garrett having a higher grade than Watt with those given stat lines. Unless he was getting quadrupled for the entire game, I don’t know how they came up with that.

[Jakuvious]

4 hours ago, Soko said:

I mean, yeah, but less sacks, less pressures, less tackles, and less turnovers?

Obviously this kind of thing is very circumstantial, and I'm just throwing out possible explanations, not necessarily the answer here.

But even if you don't wind up getting a pressure or anything, you can still be impacting the offense heavily if you're winning your assignment. If your play is forcing the other team to keep a TE or RB in to block, if they're having to run away from your side, if they're limited to quickly developing plays because they don't trust their ability to hold up in longer developing ones. If you alter the opponent's gameplan, your impact can still be pretty dramatic without any counting stats at all.

A little apples versus oranges, but we've had multiple plays this year where Travis Kelce has basically started celebrating mid-route, because he knows from the guys who followed him in coverage that someone else is going to be open in the end zone. He did nothing on any of those plays, statistically, but his play and his reputation and the gravity that that brings were the reason they were successful more than the guy who actually caught the ball.

If Myles Garrett causes everyone else on the DL to get one on one matchups, or if he makes the other team just like abandon play action or deep routes because they don't have the time, those are substantial ways to impact a game by consistently winning your matchup that would net you nothing for counting stats. Like, wasn't Garrett the one who had that play where they kept moving TEs to his side, then he'd just move pre-snap, and the TEs would follow him, and they wound up taking a timeout or a delay of game because of it? That's his quality of play dictating the opponent's formation and play calls to the extent that they refused to run a play when he flipped to the side they don't want him on. Won't be anywhere on the stat sheet on ESPN, though.

[Soko]

8 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

Obviously this kind of thing is very circumstantial, and I'm just throwing out possible explanations, not necessarily the answer here.

But even if you don't wind up getting a pressure or anything, you can still be impacting the offense heavily if you're winning your assignment. If your play is forcing the other team to keep a TE or RB in to block, if they're having to run away from your side, if they're limited to quickly developing plays because they don't trust their ability to hold up in longer developing ones. If you alter the opponent's gameplan, your impact can still be pretty dramatic without any counting stats at all.

A little apples versus oranges, but we've had multiple plays this year where Travis Kelce has basically started celebrating mid-route, because he knows from the guys who followed him in coverage that someone else is going to be open in the end zone. He did nothing on any of those plays, statistically, but his play and his reputation and the gravity that that brings were the reason they were successful more than the guy who actually caught the ball.

If Myles Garrett causes everyone else on the DL to get one on one matchups, or if he makes the other team just like abandon play action or deep routes because they don't have the time, those are substantial ways to impact a game by consistently winning your matchup that would net you nothing for counting stats. Like, wasn't Garrett the one who had that play where they kept moving TEs to his side, then he'd just move pre-snap, and the TEs would follow him, and they wound up taking a timeout or a delay of game because of it? That's his quality of play dictating the opponent's formation and play calls to the extent that they refused to run a play when he flipped to the side they don't want him on. Won't be anywhere on the stat sheet on ESPN, though.

None of that’s wrong or anything, just didn’t realize PFF grades went that way. Like, yeah we can objectively say that Kelce or Garrett drawing attention makes it vastly easier for the players around them, but on the other hand, as far as player grades go, it seems like a bit of a cop out to say “Kenny Pickett dropped back, wasn’t pressured, and threw a quick slant incomplete - the Steelers’ game plan was to throw it short to avoid the pass rush, thus Garrett gets points for that” or something. Who gets more points on a coverage sack when Ward/Newsome/Emerson are blanking people? Just seems easier to grade them based on what they’re doing, but I also don’t know the first thing about how to formulate actual numbers using anecdotal things I watch on the field.

Edited February 13 by Soko

[Jakuvious]

4 minutes ago, Soko said:

None of that’s wrong or anything, just didn’t realize PFF grades went that way. Like, yeah we can objectively say that Kelce or Garrett drawing attention makes it vastly easier for the players around them, but on the other hand, as far as player grades go, it seems like a bit of a cop out to say “Kenny Pickett dropped back, wasn’t pressured, and threw a quick slant incomplete - the Steelers’ game plan was to throw it short to avoid the pass rush, thus Garrett gets points for that” or something. Who gets more points on a coverage sack when Ward/Newsome/Emerson are blanking people? Just seems easier to grade them based on what they’re doing, but I also don’t know the first thing about how to formulate actual numbers using anecdotal things I watch on the field.

The grades don't really speculate quite that far, I didn't mean to suggest that. They're more just a straight, did player win their matchup? If yes then add to grade, if no then either lower grade or give them a 0 for that play. So they don't speculate about the long term impact of that, necessarily. Was more saying that's how winning your assignment can make a greater impact on the game even if the stats don't show it. And that's where win rate and a player grade can be more reflective of impact than pure counting stats. PFF's grades theoretically will reflect that same thing by giving higher grades for guys who win more often. The theory being the guy who wins 10 reps but gets a sack on none of them is likely the better and more impactful player overall, and will get better results long term than the guy who won 5 reps but got sacks on 2. Otherwise you over-value guys like Vic Beasley who had outlier years of finishing plays at a rate that was never going to be sustainable.

I'm not overly fond of PFF grades, to be clear. There's some weirdness in the lines they've drawn in the sand on how they'll grade things. But I do think it makes more sense to grade the process than the result. The same thing applies to play calls and 4th down conversions and plenty of other things. Results based analysis is never the proper way to go, especially if you're trying to project or predict long term. Like, Myles Garrett's job is ultimately to beat the blocker in front of him. If he does that, he did his job. The result can be a dozen different things after that, depending on how good the QB is, how good the coverage was, what play was called, etc. Like, if he throws the RT to the ground, but they ran to the left, should that get a lower grade than if he did the same but they ran to his side? One gets him a TFL, one doesn't, but he did the same thing, right? So if you have 3 DEs that all dominantly won on 2 reps each like that, and one saw two runs to the right, one saw two to the left, and one saw one of each, do we praise/punish them for luck? They happened to win when the other team ran their way. They all won the same number of times, in the same way. And theoretically those things will even out for the three over a season and a career. So why grade based on the result instead of the process?

Now, we don't want to start talking about their coverage grades. Immense flaws in those.

[jebrick]

20 hours ago, Soko said:

Was more responding to what the dude said about Garrett having a higher grade than Watt with those given stat lines. Unless he was getting quadrupled for the entire game, I don’t know how they came up with that.

It was actually Highsmith who had the 2nd stat line but the point is there.

Garrett is a beast and a very good football player but this feels like a PPF/narrative pick because the sports writers have been saying that he is the best and they finally had a winning season.

The way PPF describes doubling for PRWR ignores players getting blocked by Rbs and TEs as well as an Olineman.  So if you line up in a gap and have an OT and OG get a hand on you in a play that is a positive. If you line up as a 9 tech and have to deal with a TE chip, the OT and perhaps a RB, that is not doubled.  You can find JJ Watt talking about this several times on the Pat MacAfee show.  According to him, the players hate PPF grades. 

[MSURacerDT55]

On 2/9/2024 at 10:40 PM, seminoles1 said:

Peyton Manning in 2008 was less deserving and worse.

I'd take Peyton with a limp arm, supreme accuracy and timing over anything Lamar could do in the clutch.

[MSURacerDT55]

Man, I remember those old school Myles vs Watt debates, good times....🤣

[seminoles1]

5 minutes ago, MSURacerDT55 said:

I'd take Peyton with a limp arm, supreme accuracy and timing over anything Lamar could do in the clutch.

You're talking about clutch and Peyton Manning? Dude was less successful in the postseason than Lamar at this same time in his career.

[MSURacerDT55]

7 minutes ago, seminoles1 said:

You're talking about clutch and Peyton Manning? Dude was less successful in the postseason than Lamar at this same time in his career.

Aside from the fact that he has Super Bowl rings, If I had a crucial 3rd and long and had to pick between the two to get a conversion throwing the ball, I'm taking Peyton, that's all. 

Edited February 14 by MSURacerDT55

[seminoles1]

35 minutes ago, MSURacerDT55 said:

Aside from the fact that he has Super Bowl rings, If I had a crucial 3rd and long and had to pick between the two to get a conversion throwing the ball, I'm taking Peyton, that's all. 

Okay, but you're disagreeing with something I never said.

[Soko]

1 hour ago, jebrick said:

It was actually Highsmith who had the 2nd stat line but the point is there.

Garrett is a beast and a very good football player but this feels like a PPF/narrative pick because the sports writers have been saying that he is the best and they finally had a winning season.

The way PPF describes doubling for PRWR ignores players getting blocked by Rbs and TEs as well as an Olineman.  So if you line up in a gap and have an OT and OG get a hand on you in a play that is a positive. If you line up as a 9 tech and have to deal with a TE chip, the OT and perhaps a RB, that is not doubled.  You can find JJ Watt talking about this several times on the Pat MacAfee show.  According to him, the players hate PPF grades. 

Thats a nice tidbit of info, didn’t realize that at all. Sounds like the wide 9 guys or pure edge guys get shafted in that respect compared to any interior DL/guys that run stunts.