PFF - Why I dislike it

[Luck 4 president]

I used to love PFF, but I feel like their product has become trash. I do not know if they are paid to create a certain narrative or what, but tons of their ratings make zero sense. 

Look at this for example: 

Everybody who knows football knows that Todd Gurley has been the best RB this year. The guy is a monster and makes plays at an absurd rate, yet they have Frank Gore as the 2nd best RB with Gurley outside the top 5. He is a large part of the Rams' success this season. In terms of value to his team I'd rank him 2nd behind Goff and above Donald.

 

Then there's this one:

Everybody who follows college football knows that Tua is the clear frontrunner in the heisman race, except PFF apparently. And they make it sound like they decide who wins and that their grade is a factor in the heisman race and draft. 

Also last week after the Titans game they gave Leonard an average grade in the 70s. 1 interception, 1 sack, and 1 forced fumble in a little over 3 quarters. Like what else could he have done? He was everywhere and apparently game changing plays dont count for anything. I can go on and on about their grades making no sense. They have a monopoly on football analytics so they can grade however they want. 

 

I still like their non subjective stats that they share like completion against the blitz, passer rating when targeted, double team %, etc. But when they give their own grades it often seems like they just slap a random grade on a player. Anyone else feel this way?

[Cynjin]

2 hours ago, Luck 4 president said:

I used to love PFF, but I feel like their product has become trash. I do not know if they are paid to create a certain narrative or what, but tons of their ratings make zero sense. 

Look at this for example: 

Everybody who knows football knows that Todd Gurley has been the best RB this year. The guy is a monster and makes plays at an absurd rate, yet they have Frank Gore as the 2nd best RB with Gurley outside the top 5. He is a large part of the Rams' success this season. In terms of value to his team I'd rank him 2nd behind Goff and above Donald.

 

Then there's this one:

Everybody who follows college football knows that Tua is the clear frontrunner in the heisman race, except PFF apparently. And they make it sound like they decide who wins and that their grade is a factor in the heisman race and draft. 

Also last week after the Titans game they gave Leonard an average grade in the 70s. 1 interception, 1 sack, and 1 forced fumble in a little over 3 quarters. Like what else could he have done? He was everywhere and apparently game changing plays dont count for anything. I can go on and on about their grades making no sense. They have a monopoly on football analytics so they can grade however they want. 

 

I still like their non subjective stats that they share like completion against the blitz, passer rating when targeted, double team %, etc. But when they give their own grades it often seems like they just slap a random grade on a player. Anyone else feel this way?

 

Many of their grades make no sense whatsoever.  Gurley is clearly a better RB than Gore.  I like Gore, but he is not better than Gurley.  Tua needing a "statement game" is dumb, he has barely played in the 4th quarter this year because Alabama has been so dominant.  Tua is the biggest reason why they have been so dominant. 

[Luck 4 president]

4 hours ago, Cynjin said:

 

Many of their grades make no sense whatsoever.  Gurley is clearly a better RB than Gore.  I like Gore, but he is not better than Gurley.  Tua needing a "statement game" is dumb, he has barely played in the 4th quarter this year because Alabama has been so dominant.  Tua is the biggest reason why they have been so dominant. 

Ya every game Tua plays is a statement game haha. He just destroys every defense he faces, and he only needs a half to do it.

[throwing BBZ]

On 11/26/2018 at 3:40 AM, Luck 4 president said:

I used to love PFF, but I feel like their product has become trash. I do not know if they are paid to create a certain narrative or what, but tons of their ratings make zero sense. 

Look at this for example: 

Everybody who knows football knows that Todd Gurley has been the best RB this year. The guy is a monster and makes plays at an absurd rate, yet they have Frank Gore as the 2nd best RB with Gurley outside the top 5. He is a large part of the Rams' success this season. In terms of value to his team I'd rank him 2nd behind Goff and above Donald.

 

Then there's this one:

Everybody who follows college football knows that Tua is the clear frontrunner in the heisman race, except PFF apparently. And they make it sound like they decide who wins and that their grade is a factor in the heisman race and draft. 

Also last week after the Titans game they gave Leonard an average grade in the 70s. 1 interception, 1 sack, and 1 forced fumble in a little over 3 quarters. Like what else could he have done? He was everywhere and apparently game changing plays dont count for anything. I can go on and on about their grades making no sense. They have a monopoly on football analytics so they can grade however they want. 

 

I still like their non subjective stats that they share like completion against the blitz, passer rating when targeted, double team %, etc. But when they give their own grades it often seems like they just slap a random grade on a player. Anyone else feel this way?

 

 

 Hilarious that you believe that Frank Gore's higher grade is a PFF statement meaning he is a better player.
 You need to reread their explanation of what the grades represent. If it still makes no sense maybe you have a wise friend you can have read about it and discuss it and help you understand it.

I saw Leonard have a lot of bad plays that game that dropped his core. Any individual play gets no more than 2 points + or - or something in between. Something tells me you couldn't read/see his bad plays. If you are not seeing what is really happening, how are we to respect your opinion?

[Luck 4 president]

2 hours ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 

 Hilarious that you believe that Frank Gore's higher grade is a PFF statement meaning he is a better player.
 You need to reread their explanation of what the grades represent. If it still makes no sense maybe you have a wise friend you can have read about it and discuss it and help you understand it.

I saw Leonard have a lot of bad plays that game that dropped his core. Any individual play gets no more than 2 points + or - or something in between. Something tells me you couldn't read/see his bad plays. If you are not seeing what is really happening, how are we to respect your opinion?

You don't have to respect my opinion and I don't have to respect PFF's opinion. All their grades are very opinionated and subjective. I personally don't agree that getting tackled for a loss should carry about the same weight as breaking multiple tackles and running for a TD. My biggest issue is that game changing plays like scoring a TD, picking up big first downs, getting a sack or TFL, or getting a turnover don't carry enough weight in their grades. 

 

With Leonard week 11 I thought he played excellent. He allowed less than 20 yards passing in his zone to Mariota, and didn't miss any tackles that I saw. Then he added a sack, forced fumble, interception, and a TFL, but again those plays carried very little weight. I believe that was one of Leonard's better games, but his grade was an average to above average grade. 

 

On their post on instagram about running backs the caption is "Top 5 RBs through 2018" not "Top 5 graded" so if you have a reading comprehension above a 6th grade level you would understand that they are saying those RBs have overall been the best on a per snap basis. They aren't saying Gore is better, they're saying he is playing better. I've also seen them multiple times say Gurley was a system RB or a product of his OL. 

 

Again, I do really like the stats they share, just not their grades.

[DaveA1102]

I listen to their podcasts and a lot of the time they do a solid explanation of why grades are different to perception within the week review and I think they are now even looking at an "explain the grade" podcast which I think would be very interesting.

[NewColtsFan]

I have found that people who don’t like PFF work backward.

 

They see the result and then complain.

 

They don’t understand PFF grades and, WORSE, they don’t care to know.   They don’t want to learn how professional evaluations are done.

 

And then they come up with lines like the Alabama quarterback is the Heisman front runner therefore he’s the best QB.    

 

Oh, Dear God!    How many Heisman winners gave been NFL busts?    Too many to count is the correct answer.

In the NFL, nobody cares about Heisman Trophy winners.

 

PFF does something nobody here does.

They have three different people grade every player on every play of their grade.   So you’re not getting the opinion of ONE PERSON...   you’re getting the opinion of THREE PEOPLE.   And they all have experience grading performance.

 

PFF is not some mom and pop shop.  It’s a big company with over 300 people working there.   When Chip Kelly coached Philly he was NOT a fan of PFF.   After he got fired, he visited their facility and by the time he left he had decided to buy a piece of the company.

 

When professional people are spending their own real money to be a part if something — I pay attention to things like that.  Cris Collinsworth is another part owner.  These are smart, thoughtful people.

 

I don’t worship at their alter as one poster stated...   I like some of what they do...   but I don’t care for their work on the draft.   I think their game day grades are a better measure of their work. 

 

There’s more to say...   but this is enough for one post for now...  

[Luck 4 president]

 

after shutting out the hottest team in the NFL, the highest graded player on defense received a 77.8. Leonard received a 49.8 after 11 tackles, 2 passes defended, and a fumble recovery. Just more evidence for why their grades don’t accurately reflect how well someone actually played. 

[rock8591]

On 11/30/2018 at 4:05 PM, NewColtsFan said:

I have found that people who don’t like PFF work backward.

 

They see the result and then complain.

 

They don’t understand PFF grades and, WORSE, they don’t care to know.   They don’t want to learn how professional evaluations are done.

 

And then they come up with lines like the Alabama quarterback is the Heisman front runner therefore he’s the best QB.    

 

Oh, Dear God!    How many Heisman winners gave been NFL busts?    Too many to count is the correct answer.

In the NFL, nobody cares about Heisman Trophy winners.

 

PFF does something nobody here does.

They have three different people grade every player on every play of their grade.   So you’re not getting the opinion of ONE PERSON...   you’re getting the opinion of THREE PEOPLE.   And they all have experience grading performance.

 

PFF is not some mom and pop shop.  It’s a big company with over 300 people working there.   When Chip Kelly coached Philly he was NOT a fan of PFF.   After he got fired, he visited their facility and by the time he left he had decided to buy a piece of the company.

 

When professional people are spending their own real money to be a part if something — I pay attention to things like that.  Cris Collinsworth is another part owner.  These are smart, thoughtful people.

 

I don’t worship at their alter as one poster stated...   I like some of what they do...   but I don’t care for their work on the draft.   I think their game day grades are a better measure of their work. 

 

There’s more to say...   but this is enough for one post for now...  

 

Analysis paralysis, that's all it is.

 

They pretend to create science, math, and analysis by typing words on a keyboard, something a monkey can do.

[That Guy]

I take their rating no more seriously than ratings in Madden. 

 

Some of their stats are interesting, but I've noticed they use them to justify some of their more ridiculous claims.

[Coffeedrinker]

On 11/30/2018 at 3:05 PM, NewColtsFan said:

I have found that people who don’t like PFF work backward.

 

They see the result and then complain.

 

They don’t understand PFF grades and, WORSE, they don’t care to know.   They don’t want to learn how professional evaluations are done.

 

And then they come up with lines like the Alabama quarterback is the Heisman front runner therefore he’s the best QB.    

 

Oh, Dear God!    How many Heisman winners gave been NFL busts?    Too many to count is the correct answer.

In the NFL, nobody cares about Heisman Trophy winners.

 

PFF does something nobody here does.

They have three different people grade every player on every play of their grade.   So you’re not getting the opinion of ONE PERSON...   you’re getting the opinion of THREE PEOPLE.   And they all have experience grading performance.

 

PFF is not some mom and pop shop.  It’s a big company with over 300 people working there.   When Chip Kelly coached Philly he was NOT a fan of PFF.   After he got fired, he visited their facility and by the time he left he had decided to buy a piece of the company.

 

When professional people are spending their own real money to be a part if something — I pay attention to things like that.  Cris Collinsworth is another part owner.  These are smart, thoughtful people.

 

I don’t worship at their alter as one poster stated...   I like some of what they do...   but I don’t care for their work on the draft.   I think their game day grades are a better measure of their work. 

 

There’s more to say...   but this is enough for one post for now...  

I don't like PFF grades and I understand what they do and how.  The reason I don't like it is:

 

because no matter how many people look at it, they do not know the play call.

because no matter how many people look at it, they do not know the game plan

because no matter how many people look at it, they do not know the the keys and reads the players are supposed to make.

because no matter how many people look at it, they do not know the the primary, secondary and tertiary responsibilities for that down and distance, opposing formation, time in game, etc., they (PFF graders) don't take the game plan test on Friday.

 

Here are some examples:  I've seen numerous times where, for example a LT takes outside position on a DE, the DE moves inside and beats the LT and PFF grades that as a negative 2.  but when you watch the guard and center, you see the center establish left position on the DT and the guard doubling, poorly, the DT and then you watch the running back and he's trying to hit somewhere between the 1 and 3 hole.  PFF sees the LT getting beat and a negative 2 grade.   the center and LG get a 0 to 1.0 grade and the running back gets a 0 grade.

 

 In the team film room, they see a LT that did exactly what he was supposed to, a center who did exactly what he was supposed to, a RB who tried to hit the correct hole, and a guard that messed it all up.

 

There are numerous similar examples I could give.

[Superman]

13 hours ago, Coffeedrinker said:

because no matter how many people look at it, they do not know the play call.

because no matter how many people look at it, they do not know the game plan

because no matter how many people look at it, they do not know the the keys and reads the players are supposed to make.

because no matter how many people look at it, they do not know the the primary, secondary and tertiary responsibilities for that down and distance, opposing formation, time in game, etc., they (PFF graders) don't take the game plan test on Friday.

 

Those are harsh criteria. Using them, no one outside of the team's operation can grade the performance. 

 

PFF is entertainment, their grades aren't gospel. Their grades are probably the least valuable thing they do, IMO. But there is inherent value in watching and grading a team's performance, and then publishing those grades. At the very least, it's a reference point.

[Luck 4 president]

17 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Those are harsh criteria. Using them, no one outside of the team's operation can grade the performance. 

 

PFF is entertainment, their grades aren't gospel. Their grades are probably the least valuable thing they do, IMO. But there is inherent value in watching and grading a team's performance, and then publishing those grades. At the very least, it's a reference point.

I like a lot of the things they do outside their grades. But the problem is that so many people do think PFF grades are the gospel. Nfl “experts” and casual fans alike are always citing PFF grades to strengthen their arguments for why player A is better than player B. They own the market for player analytics and they have a huge voice in what people think. I really believe that if Darius Leonard had a 90+ PFF grade he would have made the pro bowl. That’s how much pull they have in the NFL community. 

[Superman]

39 minutes ago, Luck 4 president said:

I like a lot of the things they do outside their grades. But the problem is that so many people do think PFF grades are the gospel. Nfl “experts” and casual fans alike are always citing PFF grades to strengthen their arguments for why player A is better than player B. They own the market for player analytics and they have a huge voice in what people think. I really believe that if Darius Leonard had a 90+ PFF grade he would have made the pro bowl. That’s how much pull they have in the NFL community. 

 

They own the market for player analytics because they're the only one doing it. My main push back is against people who don't do it acting like PFF is entirely incapable of doing it because they disagree with a handful of their grades.

 

How much pull they have is up for debate. I think Leonard got snubbed because of name recognition and position designations, not because of his PFF grade. And I think it's worth mentioning that PFF had Leonard on their Pro Bowl list, so I don't know if we should blame them for him not making it.

 

It's also relevant that, before PFF, voters based their selections on raw stats. PFF is just more info. If voters don't know how to distill that info, that's not PFF's fault.

[Coffeedrinker]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Those are harsh criteria. Using them, no one outside of the team's operation can grade the performance. 

 

PFF is entertainment, their grades aren't gospel. Their grades are probably the least valuable thing they do, IMO. But there is inherent value in watching and grading a team's performance, and then publishing those grades. At the very least, it's a reference point.

It's not harsh, it's just why I don't trust their grades.  And yes, for that reason I don't trust anyone else's grades either.

 

And yes, we have had this conversation before, when it comes to PFF their grades is the primary thing I don't like.  Some of their analytics (for example the 2.5 second threshold for QBs) have changed the way the game is played.  I find things like that not only entertaining but very helpful in understanding the game on a different level.

[Superman]

12 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

It's not harsh, it's just why I don't trust their grades.  And yes, for that reason I don't trust anyone else's grades either.

 

 

Harsh might not be the best word. My point is it's a high bar to clear.

 

Also, I think for an educated football fan with more than a few years of experience, it's not hard to identify the concepts and assignments of 90% of the plays that happen. The vast majority of the time, you're watching a lineman block the man right in front of him, and he either makes the block or he doesn't. You're watching a corner cover the man right in front of him, you're watching a linebacker take on a blocker, a QB throw to receivers, etc. On 90% of plays, a handful of educated observers would probably grade them exactly the same way, and there would be little to no variance from the grade the coaching staff gives.

 

And the more you watch a particular team, the more familiar you get with their concepts, you've seen plays work successfully so you can identify what went wrong if the play breaks down, etc. The more you grade a team, the more effective and accurate you become at grading a team.

 

To that point, coaches associated with the NFL have explained that their thinking on PFF's grades changed as they looked more closely at what PFF does. 

 

Contrast that with "PFF Sucks" guy on the Internet who thinks that PFF's grades are worthless because 'there's no way Nick Chubb is better than Saquon Barkley.' People who haven't even tried to understand how PFF grades, or what their grades are meant to convey. Worse yet, people who haven't watched or graded Nick Chubb and Saquon Barkley to even have a point of reference against which to compare PFF's grades. Worse still, homers who can't acknowledge that maybe Leighton VanderEsch is playing really well and could possibly have a slightly higher grade than Darius Leonard...

 

End of the day, PFF grades are "infotainment." They aren't meant to be the be-all / end-all in any way. I'm annoyed that I keep allowing myself to get sucked into this debate, because like I always say, I'm not even that interested in PFF's grades. But I'm not completely dismissive of their grades just because I don't agree with all of them.

 

And I at least respect their grading. They've been doing it for several years, they have a staff of (presumably) trained reviewers, a check-the-checker system, and they've earned respect from people closely associated with the league who know and watch more football than I do. 

[Coffeedrinker]

31 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Harsh might not be the best word. My point is it's a high bar to clear.

 

Also, I think for an educated football fan with more than a few years of experience, it's not hard to identify the concepts and assignments of 90% of the plays that happen. The vast majority of the time, you're watching a lineman block the man right in front of him, and he either makes the block or he doesn't. You're watching a corner cover the man right in front of him, you're watching a linebacker take on a blocker, a QB throw to receivers, etc. On 90% of plays, a handful of educated observers would probably grade them exactly the same way, and there would be little to no variance from the grade the coaching staff gives.

 

And the more you watch a particular team, the more familiar you get with their concepts, you've seen plays work successfully so you can identify what went wrong if the play breaks down, etc. The more you grade a team, the more effective and accurate you become at grading a team.

 

To that point, coaches associated with the NFL have explained that their thinking on PFF's grades changed as they looked more closely at what PFF does. 

 

Contrast that with "PFF Sucks" guy on the Internet who thinks that PFF's grades are worthless because 'there's no way Nick Chubb is better than Saquon Barkley.' People who haven't even tried to understand how PFF grades, or what their grades are meant to convey. Worse yet, people who haven't watched or graded Nick Chubb and Saquon Barkley to even have a point of reference against which to compare PFF's grades. Worse still, homers who can't acknowledge that maybe Leighton VanderEsch is playing really well and could possibly have a slightly higher grade than Darius Leonard...

 

End of the day, PFF grades are "infotainment." They aren't meant to be the be-all / end-all in any way. I'm annoyed that I keep allowing myself to get sucked into this debate, because like I always say, I'm not even that interested in PFF's grades. But I'm not completely dismissive of their grades just because I don't agree with all of them.

 

And I at least respect their grading. They've been doing it for several years, they have a staff of (presumably) trained reviewers, a check-the-checker system, and they've earned respect from people closely associated with the league who know and watch more football than I do. 

That is a cohesive, well reasoned argument.  I reject it in it's entirety. :).  Just kidding.

 

What a fun job that would be... get paid to watch and analyze football all day long.

[Superman]

On 12/17/2018 at 11:03 AM, Luck 4 president said:

 

after shutting out the hottest team in the NFL, the highest graded player on defense received a 77.8. Leonard received a 49.8 after 11 tackles, 2 passes defended, and a fumble recovery. Just more evidence for why their grades don’t accurately reflect how well someone actually played. 

 

I'm rewatching the Cowboys game right now. First quarter, Leonard has been out of position on three run plays, got beat on a pass play, missed a tackle, is getting swallowed up at the point of attack, and has at least two loafs.

 

He's also all over the place, making plays on both sides of the line of scrimmage.

 

This is a very mixed game for Leonard so far. But just because the defense played well overall doesn't mean he was at his best individually. So far, he hasn't been.

[Luck 4 president]

3 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I'm rewatching the Cowboys game right now. First quarter, Leonard has been out of position on three run plays, got beat on a pass play, missed a tackle, is getting swallowed up at the point of attack, and has at least two loafs.

 

He's also all over the place, making plays on both sides of the line of scrimmage.

 

This is a very mixed game for Leonard so far. But just because the defense played well overall doesn't mean he was at his best individually. So far, he hasn't been.

But would you say his performance was poor? Because that’s what his grade is for the week. It wasn’t his best game but it was far from a poor performance. Much better than LVE’s who was graded far better 

[JMichael557]

PPF is simply guessing about assignments. You cannot issue a grade by guessing. Linemen do not just block the man in front of them. They have zero idea of what Luck is doing with the football most of the  time. Ryan got a bad grade for the Dallas game but in fact he played great. PPF has little value. 

[Superman]

7 hours ago, Luck 4 president said:

But would you say his performance was poor? Because that’s what his grade is for the week. It wasn’t his best game but it was far from a poor performance. Much better than LVE’s who was graded far better 

 

I didn't grade his whole performance. I didn't really grade his first quarter, but I didn't feel like he played well in the first quarter, either. Still, he was in on like 6 tackles and had a pass breakup. Productive for sure, but lots of coachable moments for him.

 

I wasn't watching LVE as closely, but I don't get how the comparison matters. Is the complaint that Leonard wasn't graded correctly, or is the complaint that LVE was given a better grade than Leonard? 

[Superman]

14 minutes ago, JMichael557 said:

PPF is simply guessing about assignments.

 

It's not difficult to determine what a player's assignment is on a given play, for the vast majority of plays. The more you watch a team play closely, the more obvious the assignments become. It's not rocket surgery.

[Mitch Connors]

21 hours ago, Superman said:

 

They own the market for player analytics because they're the only one doing it. My main push back is against people who don't do it acting like PFF is entirely incapable of doing it because they disagree with a handful of their grades.

 

Nothing drives improvement and innovation in business like competition. Nobody has a frame of reference to truly gauge their conclusions and results because there's nothing to compare it to - yet. If there's value in their product others will invade the market with improved/different approaches. If there's no value in the product they wont last (don't see this happening personally).

 

Currently PFF is clearly the best there is at what they do. Honestly, if you dont like their methods and see a better way, strike now the iron is hot (not directed at you Superman).

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, Mitch Connors said:

 

Nothing drives improvement and innovation in business like competition. Nobody has a frame of reference to truly gauge their conclusions and results because there's nothing to compare it to - yet. If there's value in their product others will invade the market with improved/different approaches. If there's no value in the product they wont last (don't see this happening personally).

 

Currently PFF is clearly the best there is at what they do. Honestly, if you dont like their methods and see a better way, strike now the iron is hot (not directed at you Superman).

 

I agree. It does mean something to me, though, that every team is in business with PFF, and other NFL partners are voluntarily involved with them as well. They don't necessarily have "peers," but they've been somewhat peer reviewed, and it has impacted the way they operate.

 

To your last line, I wish I could. Like Coffee said earlier, I'd love to watch and analyze football for a living. But it's not in the cards.

[JMichael557]

11 hours ago, Superman said:

 

It's not difficult to determine what a player's assignment is on a given play, for the vast majority of plays. The more you watch a team play closely, the more obvious the assignments become. It's not rocket surgery.

 

We will just have to agree to disagree. I will give you an example just among football coaches. We had a blocking scheme that we called a POWER. In that scheme our Right Tackle was to block down on the first lineman to his left regardless of where that DT lined up even if two gaps away. We played a team that played there interior lineman in the A Gap and put an Inside backer over the RT but 5 yards off the line. Our Tackle and Guard blocked down. Our FB took on the LBer and we ran off tackle all day. Our OT played great. After the game our WR coach (who never learned our blocking schemes) told me that I needed to watch film on how badly our RT played because we was not blocking the LBer in front of him. The Coach was simply wrong. Off good line play has rules for the Offensive linemen. Those rules change based upon defensive alignment. If you do not know the rules that are being run you cannot tell if a lineman is meeting his goals. You would simply have to guess at the assignment to give a grade. 

 

[Patagonia Chris]

I think PFF provides value. I also understand people who are critical of it. The only problem I've ever had with it is when writers, and Nate Dunlevy was one in particular, who used it as crutch or a smoke screen to hide their lack of knowledge. It's a tool to help analyze the grey area that isn't measured in the stat sheet, not the end all be all.

[Tsarquise]

3 hours ago, Grigson's Gaffes said:

I think PFF provides value. I also understand people who are critical of it. The only problem I've ever had with it is when writers, and Nate Dunlevy was one in particular, who used it as crutch or a smoke screen to hide their lack of knowledge. It's a tool to help analyze the grey area that isn't measured in the stat sheet, not the end all be all.

I thought Nate referenced Football Outsiders DVOA frequently, not PFF; pretty sure he doesn't care for PFF. 

[Steamboat_Shaun]

On 12/17/2018 at 12:03 PM, Luck 4 president said:

 

after shutting out the hottest team in the NFL, the highest graded player on defense received a 77.8. Leonard received a 49.8 after 11 tackles, 2 passes defended, and a fumble recovery. Just more evidence for why their grades don’t accurately reflect how well someone actually played. 

 

Their power rankings are good for a laugh. For instance, after shutting out the Cowboys, they have the Colts at 14. The 3 teams ahead of them? Dallas, Houston, & Tennessee, all 3 of which have lost to the Colts. I don’t get it.

 

https://www.profootballfocus.com/news/pro-2018-pff-nfl-power-rankings-week-16

 

[Superman]

10 hours ago, JMichael557 said:

 

We will just have to agree to disagree. I will give you an example just among football coaches. We had a blocking scheme that we called a POWER. In that scheme our Right Tackle was to block down on the first lineman to his left regardless of where that DT lined up even if two gaps away. We played a team that played there interior lineman in the A Gap and put an Inside backer over the RT but 5 yards off the line. Our Tackle and Guard blocked down. Our FB took on the LBer and we ran off tackle all day. Our OT played great. After the game our WR coach (who never learned our blocking schemes) told me that I needed to watch film on how badly our RT played because we was not blocking the LBer in front of him. The Coach was simply wrong. Off good line play has rules for the Offensive linemen. Those rules change based upon defensive alignment. If you do not know the rules that are being run you cannot tell if a lineman is meeting his goals. You would simply have to guess at the assignment to give a grade. 

 

 

Sounds like you had a coach that couldn't see three feet in front of his own face, couldn't be bothered to watch film and understand a scheme, and didn't have the intellectual honesty to ask a question rather than jumping to a conclusion. That doesn't mean your blocking scheme was too difficult to understand. I bet if your opponent watched the tape of that game, they quickly realized that your RT was handling his assignment as coached.

 

Again, this generally isn't difficult to grasp. A person who understands the game can watch film and understand the vast majority of individual assignments. And the more film that person watches of the same team, the better they understand that team's approach. 

 

And the assignment is only one part of the evaluation. Your RT could have been doing what the assignment asked him, but he still had to execute his blocks. 

 

Of course, the coaching staff is the most qualified to grade players, but NFL coaching staffs don't publish grades. 

[Luck 4 president]

5 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Sounds like you had a coach that couldn't see three feet in front of his own face, couldn't be bothered to watch film and understand a scheme, and didn't have the intellectual honesty to ask a question rather than jumping to a conclusion. That doesn't mean your blocking scheme was too difficult to understand. I bet if your opponent watched the tape of that game, they quickly realized that your RT was handling his assignment as coached.

 

Again, this generally isn't difficult to grasp. A person who understands the game can watch film and understand the vast majority of individual assignments. And the more film that person watches of the same team, the better they understand that team's approach. 

 

And the assignment is only one part of the evaluation. Your RT could have been doing what the assignment asked him, but he still had to execute his blocks. 

 

Of course, the coaching staff is the most qualified to grade players, but NFL coaching staffs don't publish grades. 

I agree with you on this. It’s not hard to determine a player’s role especially on defense with how simple our defense is. My biggest issue is that impact plays don’t carry nearly enough weight in their grading system. I understand what they do and how they grade each play, I just don’t agree with their grading system. If you look at impact plays which are sacks, turnovers, 3rd down stops, TFLs, PDs, stops less than 3 yards... Leonard leads the league and has 20 more impact plays than Aaron Donald. You’d think his grade would reflect his impact, but his grade instead implies that he is a borderline “above average” to “good” player.

[Superman]

6 hours ago, Luck 4 president said:

I agree with you on this. It’s not hard to determine a player’s role especially on defense with how simple our defense is. My biggest issue is that impact plays don’t carry nearly enough weight in their grading system. I understand what they do and how they grade each play, I just don’t agree with their grading system. If you look at impact plays which are sacks, turnovers, 3rd down stops, TFLs, PDs, stops less than 3 yards... Leonard leads the league and has 20 more impact plays than Aaron Donald. You’d think his grade would reflect his impact, but his grade instead implies that he is a borderline “above average” to “good” player.

 

But grading is different than statistical analysis. PFF offers both, and IMO their charting and stats are far more valuable than their grades (which is why they now charge a very premium price for their advanced stats). 

 

But as we all know, every "impact play" isn't equal. A rusher can have a clear path to the QB, or he can beat a blocker; one will earn a higher grade than the other. 

 

Real life example, specific to Leonard: In the Dallas game, 1st quarter, 1:20 remaining, 2nd and 9, he's lined up over Cole Beasley. Everyone is falling into three deep zone coverage, which is typical, but trying to redirect Beasley off the line, Leonard falls for an outside fake and gets beat back inside, with about five yards separation between him and Beasley. It's zone, so Dak needs to make decisive and accurate throw to hit his wide open receiver before Leonard recovers. Dak is late, and makes an inaccurate throw behind Beasley. Leonard, trailing the play, sticks his seemingly nine foot arm out and tips the pass, which is nearly intercepted by Anthony Walker.

 

Big time PD, almost a turnover, but in reality, Leonard got beat and was only able to get a hand on the ball because Dak's throw was late and off target. I think his technique was poor, and even his recovery was reckless; he turned his back and abandoned his area before the ball was even thrown. So we look at the stat line and say 'that's an impact play,' but grading that play might result in a negative for Leonard. I don't think his grade should be adjusted because he got a PD.

 

I think it should all be balanced and reconciled together. A player can have a dozen positive plays and a dozen negative plays, and wind up with a mostly neutral grade. But his impact is still recognizable with regular and advanced stats. We can identify when a player gets a run stop, but we can also identify when he gets beat for a TD. He might have a high grade against the run, but play twice as many plays in pass coverage, and his low grade there brings his total grade down. 

 

Or a QB can be gunshy and tentative most of the game, then make a handful of big plays late and wind up looking like a hero, but that doesn't wash out his poor start.

 

Overall, my point is that I think grading a player is different from recognizing his impact on the game. One is a play by play analysis of how he performs, and the other is a more macro evaluation.