Dline and pressure - kicking a dead horse.

[smittywerb]

On 7/13/2024 at 2:49 PM, NewColtsFan said:

For whatever it’s worth…,

 

Paye’s sacks have gone up every year.  5, 6 and 8 last year.  Paye came out in the last week saying the minimum he expects this year is 10 and he really wants 12-15.   
 

I don’t know if any of that is reasonable because Liatu is going to cut into everyone’s snaps.   But it’s nice for Kwity to be shooting for new career highs.  

 

flipside of that is his pressure rate has gone down every year.  Not sure how much that has to do with scheme or his perosnal

play…but good news is that people around the team are saying Paye looks different this year.  So as you say, maybe the Latu competition is what’s driving the change.

[NewColtsFan]

33 minutes ago, smittywerb said:

 

flipside of that is his pressure rate has gone down every year.  Not sure how much that has to do with scheme or his perosnal

play…but good news is that people around the team are saying Paye looks different this year.  So as you say, maybe the Latu competition is what’s driving the change.

I apologize in advance for beating this dead horse….

 

But I think the answer to the declining pressure rate is Charlie Partridge.   It’s his job to get the most out of every player.  My point is it would appear that Ballard knows what you know (about pressure) and that’s how he addressed it.

 

Honestly, I think the answer to almost all questions regarding the D-line is Partridge.   I know for some here that will be an eye roll moment whenever I mention him.   

[Solid84]

17 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

I apologize in advance for beating this dead horse….

 

But I think the answer to the declining pressure rate is Charlie Partridge.   It’s his job to get the most out of every player.  My point is it would appear that Ballard knows what you know (about pressure) and that’s how he addressed it.

 

Honestly, I think the answer to almost all questions regarding the D-line is Partridge.   I know for some here that will be an eye roll moment whenever I mention him.   

Personally I don’t have as much faith as you do that Partridge will bring a significant increase in the Dline’s production. 
 

Not trying to “gotcha” you or anything, just genuinely curious - how much better do you think this Dline’s production will be next the season?

 

For reference, this is the Colts pressure numbers over the last 3 seasons:

• 2021: 288 total pressures (40 sacks, 56 hits and 192 hurries). 
• 2022: 246 total pressures (47 sacks, 47 hits and 152 hurries). 
• 2023: 281 total pressures (60 sacks, 53 hits and 168 hurries). 

I think we might see a max of a 5% increase we theoretically could put squarely on Partridge. The rest would likely be Latu and just natural fluctuation season to season. 
 

My hope is we break 300-310 total pressures and match last seasons sack total. 

[NewColtsFan]

2 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

Personally I don’t have as much faith as you do that Partridge will bring a significant increase in the Dline’s production. 
 

Not trying to “gotcha” you or anything, just genuinely curious - how much better do you think this Dline’s production will be next the season?

 

For reference, this is the Colts pressure numbers over the last 3 seasons:

• 2021: 288 total pressures (40 sacks, 56 hits and 192 hurries). 
• 2022: 246 total pressures (47 sacks, 47 hits and 152 hurries). 
• 2023: 281 total pressures (60 sacks, 53 hits and 168 hurries). 

I think we might see a max of a 5% increase we theoretically could put squarely on Partridge. The rest would likely be Latu and just natural fluctuation season to season. 
 

My hope is we break 300-310 total pressures and match last seasons sack total. 

 

I thought the Colts had 51 sacks last year?   One thing I’ve noticed over the years is that the PFF stats on players and teams are always somewhat different than the stats that the Colts keep.  
 

I don’t have target numbers in mind.   And I don’t think you’re playing gotcha with me.  But I was happy with the improvement of the OL last year with the new coach and I have no reason to think Partridge won’t be equally good this year. 
 

I know I’ve said it before, but CP had multiple offers from the NFL and college.  He could’ve gone most anywhere, and he picked the Colts.   I think both as a unit and as individuals, Partridge will get them to play better.  
 

Also repeating another point….  That Latu is going to eat up snaps.  And if he’s as good as we hope, he may eat up a lot of snaps.  So it may be hard for some players to achieve personal best goals if they’re getting fewer snaps.   
 

Sorry, I don’t know that I offered much new to read.   But these are my talking points for CP, and the D-line.   

[Solid84]

36 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I thought the Colts had 51 sacks last year?   One thing I’ve noticed over the years is that the PFF stats on players and teams are always somewhat different than the stats that the Colts keep.  
 

I don’t have target numbers in mind.   And I don’t think you’re playing gotcha with me.  But I was happy with the improvement of the OL last year with the new coach and I have no reason to think Partridge won’t be equally good this year. 
 

I know I’ve said it before, but CP had multiple offers from the NFL and college.  He could’ve gone most anywhere, and he picked the Colts.   I think both as a unit and as individuals, Partridge will get them to play better.  
 

Also repeating another point….  That Latu is going to eat up snaps.  And if he’s as good as we hope, he may eat up a lot of snaps.  So it may be hard for some players to achieve personal best goals if they’re getting fewer snaps.   
 

Sorry, I don’t know that I offered much new to read.   But these are my talking points for CP, and the D-line.   

I used PFF numbers and they don’t count half sacks. If multiple players were in on a sack all get credited with one. I guess it’s because their perspective in that situation is on individual players rather than the team. Looking at one player would he have made the sack regardless of if the others got in there as well? Then he gets credited with a sack. So would all players in on it. It skews the team numbers, but as long as they are consistent about it with all teams it’s not really a problem UNLESS you want to compare numbers with other sites. 
 

It’s alright, I know it’s weird to put numbers on it like that, just figured I’d ask as you’ve been talking up CP a lot. 
 

Honestly I’m more interested in the Colts getting more consistent pressure than actual sacks. I hope we get a lot better here with CP and Latu. 

[BeanDiasucci]

Paye had 11.5 career sacks in four seasons at Michigan (two as a starting DE) with a season high of 6.5. I don't believe pass rushing will ever be a strength. He had a great combine performance for a guy his size, but his college production wasn't as good.

[GoColts8818]

2 hours ago, BeanDiasucci said:

Paye had 11.5 career sacks in four seasons at Michigan (two as a starting DE) with a season high of 6.5. I don't believe pass rushing will ever be a strength. He had a great combine performance for a guy his size, but his college production wasn't as good.

He’s a Raheem Brock type end.  His strengths are he doesn’t have many weaknesses and is an edge setter.  He was never going to be Freeney or Mathis.  Dayo was drafted to filled that role more than Paye.  There’s definitely a role for Paye in the Colts defense if he can’t stay healthy.  With him and the twin towers at DT it should be very hard to run to on the Colts.

 

Hopefully Latu gives the Dline its missing peace and he can get after the QB.  If that happens the Colts starting dline might be one of the best in the league.  If they set the team record for sacks last year (and yes I know playing a lot of running QBs helped them do that) think about what adding a true pass rusher to the defense could do for them.

[Dark Superman]

Tyquan has the advantage of being able to play multiple positions which gives him more opportunities to be on the field during passing downs. Dayo also is able to play both DT & DE, unlike Paye. The Colts are pretty stacked with talent this year across the line and with the addition of Charlie Partridge, I think the defensive line is going to be the most disruptive we've seen since the Dwight Freeney/Robert Mathis era. The talent and depth across the 2024 Colts Defensive Line is probably the most talented I've come across since becoming a fan in the early 90s.

[shasta519]

3 hours ago, Dark Superman said:

Tyquan has the advantage of being able to play multiple positions which gives him more opportunities to be on the field during passing downs. Dayo also is able to play both DT & DE, unlike Paye. The Colts are pretty stacked with talent this year across the line and with the addition of Charlie Partridge, I think the defensive line is going to be the most disruptive we've seen since the Dwight Freeney/Robert Mathis era. The talent and depth across the 2024 Colts Defensive Line is probably the most talented I've come across since becoming a fan in the early 90s.

 

Not that draft capital really matters after a guy is drafted, but the Colts do have a crazy amount of draft capital for a single DL. And next season, the Colts are projected to be #2 in cap spend on the DL. That's with Dayo leaving in FA, so who knows, they bring him back and they could be #1.

 

Ballard wasn't kidding about investing in the trenches, especially the DL.

 

The only downside I can see is that it's not really a young group, with 4 key players being age 29+. So I think Partridge will have two years with this group, which coincidentally, is how most of the contracts line up. After that, it could look very different.

[smittywerb]

16 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Also repeating another point….  That Latu is going to eat up snaps.  And if he’s as good as we hope, he may eat up a lot of snaps.  So it may be hard for some players to achieve personal best goals if they’re getting fewer snaps.   
 

 

Agreed, and that's what I was trying to get at with my original reply.  I have no problem with Paye, but in this scheme I think he needs to be rotated out more and I hope that would be with Lewis and Latu.  Samson seems to have his side on lock and I wouldn't mind him coming out for a breather if needed.  Lewis and Latu on passing situations could be very productive.  Especially if Latu develops into an every down type DE.

 

If it just so happens we get cut on a running play because Paye wasn't in (just speaking hypothetically), then so be it.  But with this non-blitzing scheme, we can't let every QB carve us up.  Let's at least play to the strength of the scheme and gamble sometimes.

[Dark Superman]

2 hours ago, shasta519 said:

 

Not that draft capital really matters after a guy is drafted, but the Colts do have a crazy amount of draft capital for a single DL. And next season, the Colts are projected to be #2 in cap spend on the DL. That's with Dayo leaving in FA, so who knows, they bring him back and they could be #1.

 

Ballard wasn't kidding about investing in the trenches, especially the DL.

 

The only downside I can see is that it's not really a young group, with 4 key players being age 29+. So I think Partridge will have two years with this group, which coincidentally, is how most of the contracts line up. After that, it could look very different.

I have a feeling the Colts like Paye but they aren't sure if they should hand him a long-term deal (which is why they signed him to his 5th year option) possibly to see how he pans out under Charlie Partridge. I do believe that Dayo will be the next one to get an extension to stay in Indianapolis for a couple more years. I'm a lot higher on Dayo over Paye right now because he's the better player.

[AwesomeAustin]

On 7/14/2024 at 11:05 AM, throwing BBZ said:

 

  We should have serious concern that we don't have the speed to cover a high end passing attack, to beat the top ten teams. And our LB's did blitz some last season and were totally ineffective. 

 Our back seven is lacking and will be problematic.

 Ballard who provides the talent, Gus, and our ancient LB and DB coaches are deserving serious scrutinization this season.

 Optimism through Blue lenses glasses, it's that time of year.

You are absolutely right the secondary and LBs deserve concern. I’m standing by my position more bc I think the DL has a chance to be top 5 in the league and there should be improvement from the younger DBs.
 

I wouldn’t say my fandom is skewing my view bc I’m very critical of this team. I don’t think AR is the answer at QB but he has the ability, drive and coaching to be a star. I do think the CBs and Cross have loads of potential but of course it’s a wait and see.  The talent is there to win a playoff game in the next 3 years. Whether or not the players and coaches will get there is something we will have to wait and see. 

[BeanDiasucci]

46 minutes ago, AwesomeAustin said:

You are absolutely right the secondary and LBs deserve concern. I’m standing by my position more bc I think the DL has a chance to be top 5 in the league and there should be improvement from the younger DBs.
 

I wouldn’t say my fandom is skewing my view bc I’m very critical of this team. I don’t think AR is the answer at QB but he has the ability, drive and coaching to be a star. I do think the CBs and Cross have loads of potential but of course it’s a wait and see.  The talent is there to win a playoff game in the next 3 years. Whether or not the players and coaches will get there is something we will have to wait and see. 

Here's an analysis of the most valuable NFL positions based on an average of the top 10 salaries for players at each position. https://lastwordonsports.com/nfl/2023/07/07/most-valuable-positions-in-football/  It ranks the most valuable positions, in order, as QB, WR, Edge Rusher, LT, CB, RT, and S. (Yes, I know there is plenty to debate about this, including the offensive and defensive scheme for a particular team and how that impacts what positions are most valuable to them. Nonetheless, I think the emphasis teams are putting on investing in the offensive and defensive passing games is clear).

 

I've been very glad to see the Colts do more the past couple of drafts to improve their QB, WR, and Edge Rusher talent. I'd like to see them put more emphasis on CB and S. 

[Superman]

17 hours ago, Solid84 said:

I used PFF numbers and they don’t count half sacks. If multiple players were in on a sack all get credited with one. I guess it’s because their perspective in that situation is on individual players rather than the team. Looking at one player would he have made the sack regardless of if the others got in there as well? Then he gets credited with a sack. So would all players in on it. It skews the team numbers, but as long as they are consistent about it with all teams it’s not really a problem UNLESS you want to compare numbers with other sites. 

 

I think PFF is useful for analyzing individual players. But if I want to analyze the team's pass rush performance, I don't want to know how many times the individual players pressured the QB; I want to know the number of plays we managed to pressure the opposing QB. 

 

For example, the QB drops back 50 times in a game, and he's pressured 15 times, and sacked three times. Let's say each of those 15 plays where he's pressured, there are two defenders getting pressure. PFF would count that as 30 pressures for the defense, because they're acknowledging that two players got a pressure on one play. Same process if each sack was shared among two players; they'd count six sacks, even though the QB was only sacked on three plays.

 

And that's fine, because that's their focus. But I think that context needs to be acknowledged when we're talking about team performance. Because, as we know with our pass rush last year, we feasted against bad offenses, but there were too many situations where we failed to get pressure at all. 

 

So I like to use PFR when talking about team performance, because their sack/pressure stats are on a per-play basis, rather than per-player. Both metrics can be used together, I just think PFR tells us 'the opposing QBs dropped back this many times, faced pressure on this many plays, and were sacked this many times.' And now we can clearly see how frequently the pass rush is affecting the QB. Or in the case of the 2023 Colts, how infrequently... 

[NewColtsFan]

4 hours ago, Dark Superman said:

I have a feeling the Colts like Paye but they aren't sure if they should hand him a long-term deal (which is why they signed him to his 5th year option) possibly to see how he pans out under Charlie Partridge. I do believe that Dayo will be the next one to get an extension to stay in Indianapolis for a couple more years. I'm a lot higher on Dayo over Paye right now because he's the better player.

If you believe in PFF stats, the opposite is true.   For whatever reason, Dayo has not graded well with PFF.  But Paye has and by a decent margin.  It’s been a head scratcher for me.  

[John Hammonds]

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

If you believe in PFF stats, the opposite is true.   For whatever reason, Dayo has not graded well with PFF.  But Paye has and by a decent margin.  It’s been a head scratcher for me.  

Pro Football Reference has the ability to compare player with player.  They give Paye a wAV rating of 20 and Odeyingbo a rating of 7.

 

https://stathead.com/football/versus-finder.cgi?player_id2=OdeyDa00&player_id1=PayeKw00&request=1&utm_campaign=2023_01_wdgt_player_comparison&utm_source=pfr&utm_medium=sr_xsite&utm_id=PayeKw00

 

[NewColtsFan]

2 hours ago, John Hammonds said:

Pro Football Reference has the ability to compare player with player.  They give Paye a wAV rating of 20 and Odeyingbo a rating of 7.

 

https://stathead.com/football/versus-finder.cgi?player_id2=OdeyDa00&player_id1=PayeKw00&request=1&utm_campaign=2023_01_wdgt_player_comparison&utm_source=pfr&utm_medium=sr_xsite&utm_id=PayeKw00

 

Thanks….  But I don’t know what any of that means?   You might as well be speaking another language.   Just being honest.  Plenty of next-gen stats go right over my head.  

[AwesomeAustin]

8 hours ago, BeanDiasucci said:

Here's an analysis of the most valuable NFL positions based on an average of the top 10 salaries for players at each position. https://lastwordonsports.com/nfl/2023/07/07/most-valuable-positions-in-football/  It ranks the most valuable positions, in order, as QB, WR, Edge Rusher, LT, CB, RT, and S. (Yes, I know there is plenty to debate about this, including the offensive and defensive scheme for a particular team and how that impacts what positions are most valuable to them. Nonetheless, I think the emphasis teams are putting on investing in the offensive and defensive passing games is clear).

 

I've been very glad to see the Colts do more the past couple of drafts to improve their QB, WR, and Edge Rusher talent. I'd like to see them put more emphasis on CB and S. 

The colts have invested two 2nds and 3rd on starting CBs and S. I believe they will drop some money and/or more draft capital on these positions. Just will be when the right player is available. I felt the Colts were going to draft a CB in round one when they couldn’t trade up for an offensive piece but Liatu fell in their laps. 

[Solid84]

8 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I think PFF is useful for analyzing individual players. But if I want to analyze the team's pass rush performance, I don't want to know how many times the individual players pressured the QB; I want to know the number of plays we managed to pressure the opposing QB. 

 

For example, the QB drops back 50 times in a game, and he's pressured 15 times, and sacked three times. Let's say each of those 15 plays where he's pressured, there are two defenders getting pressure. PFF would count that as 30 pressures for the defense, because they're acknowledging that two players got a pressure on one play. Same process if each sack was shared among two players; they'd count six sacks, even though the QB was only sacked on three plays.

 

And that's fine, because that's their focus. But I think that context needs to be acknowledged when we're talking about team performance. Because, as we know with our pass rush last year, we feasted against bad offenses, but there were too many situations where we failed to get pressure at all. 

 

So I like to use PFR when talking about team performance, because their sack/pressure stats are on a per-play basis, rather than per-player. Both metrics can be used together, I just think PFR tells us 'the opposing QBs dropped back this many times, faced pressure on this many plays, and were sacked this many times.' And now we can clearly see how frequently the pass rush is affecting the QB. Or in the case of the 2023 Colts, how infrequently... 

Actual team numbers like pressure% and stuff like that is definitely the weakness of PFF no doubt about it.

 

I think you can get team pressure numbers for individual games. If you find the premium stats and then the season schedule you can select the game report for each game. Select passing and then choose our opponent(s) stats.

 

Week1 it seems we had 8 pressures (of which 2 were sacks) on 35 dropbacks for Lawrence.

Week2 19 pressures (6 sacks) on 55 dropbacks.

Week3 11 pressures (4 sacks) on 38 dropbacks.

 

If you add up our players' pressure numbers we had 10 pressures in week1 (28 week2 and 16 week3) for instance, so I'm guessing these above pressure numbers do take into account when multiple players get pressure on a play. 

 

BUT, again these numbers will be skewed when compared to other sites' stats because some of those sacks could be half sacks.

[Dark Superman]

6 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

If you believe in PFF stats, the opposite is true.   For whatever reason, Dayo has not graded well with PFF.  But Paye has and by a decent margin.  It’s been a head scratcher for me.  

I never go by PFF.

[NewColtsFan]

2 hours ago, Dark Superman said:

I never go by PFF.

 

 

FWIW: 

 

PFF grades every player, in every game, on every snap.   And they do it three different times with three different evaluators and each evaluator is higher ranked than the previous.  

Also….   PFF is used by all 32 NFL teams.  
 

As an interesting aside…. Both Chris Collinsworth and Chip Kelly were both over the years very skeptical of PFF.   They were invited separately and by the end of each visit both had bought a share of the company.   Seriously, that’s how impressed they were with what they do and how they do it.  They went from non believers to buying a share of the company. 

Im not saying only use PFF, a number of posters here use other website that have different Next Gen info.  I think that’s a good thing.   I don’t claim they’re perfect, but I think what they do is both interesting and credible. 
 

Just food for thought.  

[lester]

6 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

As an interesting aside…. Both Chris Collinsworth and Chip Kelly were both over the years very skeptical of PFF.   They were invited separately and by the end of each visit both had bought a share of the company.   Seriously, that’s how impressed they were with what they do and how they do it.  They went from non believers to buying a share of the company. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

9 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

 

FWIW: 

 

PFF grades every player, in every game, on every snap.   And they do it three different times with three different evaluators and each evaluator is higher ranked than the previous.  

Also….   PFF is used by all 32 NFL teams.  
 

As an interesting aside…. Both Chris Collinsworth and Chip Kelly were both over the years very skeptical of PFF.   They were invited separately and by the end of each visit both had bought a share of the company.   Seriously, that’s how impressed they were with what they do and how they do it.  They went from non believers to buying a share of the company. 

Im not saying only use PFF, a number of posters here use other website that have different Next Gen info.  I think that’s a good thing.   I don’t claim they’re perfect, but I think what they do is both interesting and credible. 
 

Just food for thought.  

Not be funny but I use my Eye sight to see who's bad, average, above average, good, very good, or great as the #1 option. I have seen PFF rate players on a level of great that weren't. Also rate players that are average that are good at worse. I trust my 46 years of watching the game (been watching since 1977 since I was 6) over a bunch of PFF nerds. 

 

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

12 hours ago, Dark Superman said:

I never go by PFF.

I gave you a LIKE but PFF does have some strengths but what is funny is, some people just think it's the best thing ever and the ultimate judge, it's not. Anyone with extreme knowledge of the game knows who is good or bad by watching themselves. PFF, like anything is flawed.

[Superman]

44 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Not be funny but I use my Eye sight to see who's bad, average, above average, good, very good, or great as the #1 option. I have seen PFF rate players on a level of great that weren't. Also rate players that are average that are good at worse. I trust my 46 years of watching the game (been watching since 1977 since I was 6) over a bunch of PFF nerds. 

 

This is a common response on the PFF subject, so I'm addressing the argument in general, because I find it to be completely unreasonable and out of touch.

 

You don't watch every play of every game, every week, every year, nor do you watch the All 22 for these games. You don't have a rigorous grading standard. Your grading isn't subject to any review. And you don't have a history of publishing your grades for the public. One of those "PFF nerds" probably watches more All 22 in a single week than one of us message board fans watches in a year.

 

And even if you did grade games like PFF does, it's still likely that your grades would be different than theirs. Because grading is subjective. That means two people can look at the same exact thing and have a different opinion on what it means, and neither of them is necessarily right or wrong, because it's their opinion. Third party graders also aren't privy to all the inside/background information about why a player handles an assignment in a particular way. Watch JT O'Sullivan do a breakdown -- even when he's critical of a play, he acknowledges that he does not know the play call, how it's coached, etc. He's giving his opinion based on his understanding, which is extensive, and he still has enough self-awareness to say that it's only his opinion from afar.

 

Because of that subjectivity and limited information, it's my opinion that grades are the least valuable element of what PFF produces (even though the grading seems to be all anyone wants to talk about). And yet, because of their rigorous methods and history of publishing their results, PFF's grading is far and away more important than any fan's casual eye test judgment. And there's no other outlet producing and publishing comprehensive grades like PFF does, so they are the standard bearer.

 

It's fine to disagree with some of their grading (even then, it makes sense to acknowledge that your opinion of a player's performance is just as subjective as theirs, if not moreso). But this dismissiveness of their process and results is seriously lacking in self-awareness.

[AwesomeAustin]

17 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

This is a common response on the PFF subject, so I'm addressing the argument in general, because I find it to be completely unreasonable and out of touch.

 

You don't watch every play of every game, every week, every year, nor do you watch the All 22 for these games. You don't have a rigorous grading standard. Your grading isn't subject to any review. And you don't have a history of publishing your grades for the public. One of those "PFF nerds" probably watches more All 22 in a single week than one of us message board fans watches in a year.

 

And even if you did grade games like PFF does, it's still likely that your grades would be different than theirs. Because grading is subjective. That means two people can look at the same exact thing and have a different opinion on what it means, and neither of them is necessarily right or wrong, because it's their opinion. Third party graders also aren't privy to all the inside/background information about why a player handles an assignment in a particular way. Watch JT O'Sullivan do a breakdown -- even when he's critical of a play, he acknowledges that he does not know the play call, how it's coached, etc. He's giving his opinion based on his understanding, which is extensive, and he still has enough self-awareness to say that it's only his opinion from afar.

 

Because of that subjectivity and limited information, it's my opinion that grades are the least valuable element of what PFF produces (even though the grading seems to be all anyone wants to talk about). And yet, because of their rigorous methods and history of publishing their results, PFF's grading is far and away more important than any fan's casual eye test judgment. And there's no other outlet producing and publishing comprehensive grades like PFF does, so they are the standard bearer.

 

It's fine to disagree with some of their grading (even then, it makes sense to acknowledge that your opinion of a player's performance is just as subjective as theirs, if not moreso). But this dismissiveness of their process and results is seriously lacking in self-awareness.

I think baseball went through something similar when analytics were introduced. So many people want to talk about their experience and why that matters. Yes, it does but so do the other methods. I never fully trust a process or judgement that is mostly based on feelings. It’s too open to variation. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

44 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

This is a common response on the PFF subject, so I'm addressing the argument in general, because I find it to be completely unreasonable and out of touch.

 

You don't watch every play of every game, every week, every year, nor do you watch the All 22 for these games. You don't have a rigorous grading standard. Your grading isn't subject to any review. And you don't have a history of publishing your grades for the public. One of those "PFF nerds" probably watches more All 22 in a single week than one of us message board fans watches in a year.

 

And even if you did grade games like PFF does, it's still likely that your grades would be different than theirs. Because grading is subjective. That means two people can look at the same exact thing and have a different opinion on what it means, and neither of them is necessarily right or wrong, because it's their opinion. Third party graders also aren't privy to all the inside/background information about why a player handles an assignment in a particular way. Watch JT O'Sullivan do a breakdown -- even when he's critical of a play, he acknowledges that he does not know the play call, how it's coached, etc. He's giving his opinion based on his understanding, which is extensive, and he still has enough self-awareness to say that it's only his opinion from afar.

 

Because of that subjectivity and limited information, it's my opinion that grades are the least valuable element of what PFF produces (even though the grading seems to be all anyone wants to talk about). And yet, because of their rigorous methods and history of publishing their results, PFF's grading is far and away more important than any fan's casual eye test judgment. And there's no other outlet producing and publishing comprehensive grades like PFF does, so they are the standard bearer.

 

It's fine to disagree with some of their grading (even then, it makes sense to acknowledge that your opinion of a player's performance is just as subjective as theirs, if not moreso). But this dismissiveness of their process and results is seriously lacking in self-awareness.

That is fair but to rely on just PFF to determine who is bad, average, or good, etc. is a stretch. There are some in here that just rely on that as the final word. Not me. I did post that PFF has its strengths, but it is also flawed like any system. I go by eye test a lot, things like PFF, analytics, and stats would lead you to believe Drew Brees is a top 3 QB of all-time and better than Joe Montana which we all know is bologna lol. 

[NewColtsFan]

2 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Not be funny but I use my Eye sight to see who's bad, average, above average, good, very good, or great as the #1 option. I have seen PFF rate players on a level of great that weren't. Also rate players that are average that are good at worse. I trust my 46 years of watching the game (been watching since 1977 since I was 6) over a bunch of PFF nerds. 

 

 

I’m confused.  Why you or anyone think the people working at PFF are a bunch of nerds, and not football fanatics?  
 

The company employs 100 people.  All they do is watch NOT JUST NFL games, but college games as well.   Don’t you have to be a football junkie if all you’re doing is watching every NFL game AND every college game as well.  50 weeks a year of grading football?   You think they hire people who don’t know the game and aren’t fanatical about it?   That just seems so strange to me. 
 

The fact that all 32 NFL team uses it doesn’t have value to you?

 

By the way, it’s my observation that the people who love/use PFF the most don’t think it’s perfect or the greatest.  But they do think it’s important to give you an informed viewpoint on player performance.   A good tool if you will. 
 

Hopefully this is food for thought. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

[Superman]

16 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

That is fair but to rely on just PFF to determine who is bad, average, or good, etc. is a stretch. There are some in here that just rely on that as the final word. Not me. I did post that PFF has its strengths, but it is also flawed like any system. I go by eye test a lot, things like PFF, analytics, and stats would lead you to believe Drew Brees is a top 3 QB of all-time and better than Joe Montana which we all know is bologna lol. 

 

What you said is that your eye test is more valuable than the opinion of a bunch of PFF nerds. And that just seems incredibly out of touch.

[2006Coltsbestever]

7 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

I’m confused.  Why you or anyone think the people working at PFF are a bunch of nerds, and not football fanatics?  
 

The company employs 100 people.  All they do is watch NOT JUST NFL games, but college games as well.   Don’t you have to be a football junkie if all you’re doing is watching every NFL game AND every college game as well.  50 weeks a year of grading football?   You think they hire people who don’t know the game and aren’t fanatical about it?   That just seems so strange to me. 
 

The fact that all 32 NFL team uses it doesn’t have value to you?

 

By the way, it’s my observation that the people who love/use PFF the most don’t think it’s perfect or the greatest.  But they do think it’s important to give you an informed viewpoint on player performance.   A good tool if you will. 
 

Hopefully this is food for thought. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

I never said it didn't have value to me, once again I did post it has strengths, but eye test is a hell of a thing lol. PFF and analytics doesn't factor in things like clutch factor like Joe had or a RB having the best field vision like Emmitt had.

[2006Coltsbestever]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

What you said is that your eye test is more valuable than the opinion of a bunch of PFF nerds. And that just seems incredibly out of touch.

Not out of touch at all. I seriously doubt everyone that works for PFF knows more than me, maybe some do. Not bragging but sorry, I have watched this game a lot longer than a lot of them. 

 

Read the bold. My opinion isn't chopped liver, believe what you want too 

[2006Coltsbestever]

As far as calling them nerds, it was more of a sarcastic thing, I was trying to be funny. People need to quit being offended over every little thing in here, it is ruining the site. I have been called much worse. 

[Superman]

11 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Not out of touch at all. I seriously doubt everyone that works for PFF knows more than me, maybe some do. Not bragging but sorry, I have watched this game a lot longer than a lot of them. 

 

Read the bold. My opinion isn't chopped liver, believe what you want too 

 

I'm definitely not suggesting your opinion is chopped liver. I think you're suggesting that their opinions are worth less than yours because they're just "PFF nerds" and you've been watching football since 1977. This despite the fact that your opinion is based primarily on casual viewing, while their grading is formed through rigorous methods. And, yikes.

[2006Coltsbestever]

14 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I'm definitely not suggesting your opinion is chopped liver. I think you're suggesting that their opinions are worth less than yours because they're just "PFF nerds" and you've been watching football since 1977. This despite the fact that your opinion is based primarily on casual viewing, while their grading is formed through rigorous methods. And, yikes.

I just don't casual view. I go back and watch games on Youtube and freeze/pause a lot of plays where things went wrong in games on plays. I watched the Peyton INT in SB 44 at least 200 times and it is clear it wasn't all Peyton's fault. Reggie ran a lousy route, didn't cut in a yard earlier like he normally did 99 out of 100 times. Peyton gets all the blame because he threw it lol. 

[Superman]

18 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

As far as calling them nerds, it was more of a sarcastic thing, I was trying to be funny. People need to quit being offended over every little thing in here, it is ruining the site. I have been called much worse. 

 

Yeah, how about acknowledging how dismissive it is to say "PFF nerds" in the first place, instead of acting like the problem is with people calling you out about it.

 

The only reason it's offensive is because it's flagrantly wrong, like NCF pointed out above. You've been watching football since '77, so you're a football junkie. They watch more film than you do, but they're nerds? Why? Because they write down results and try to validate those results before publishing them? What do you think happens in NFL facilities? They watch film, note their observations, and compare notes with each other. It's the same thing, except PFF collectively watches more film and produces more grades than any single NFL team, which is why NFL teams pay PFF for access to their information.

 

It's just dead wrong, which is why I took exception with it. It shows an arrogance on your part to label an operation like PFF as "nerds" while claiming that your eye test has more merit. 

[Solid84]

I go by PFF a lot, but I recognize there's a lot personal opinion in their grading from different "PFF nerds" tallying up metrics in slightly different ways to weight of various numbers in calculated grades (run blocking vs pass blocking in an overall blocking grade for instance)...

 

But, these guys watch so much film and have a methological and standardized approach to how they do these gradings. It's just beyond any single persons eye test in my opinion.

 

That said, I do value their statistical numbers more than their grades.

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I just don't casual view. I go back and watch games on Youtube and freeze/pause a lot of plays where things went wrong in games on plays. I watched the Peyton INT in SB 44 at least 200 times and it is clear it wasn't all Peyton's fault. Reggie ran a lousy route, didn't cut in a yard earlier like he normally did 99 out of 100 times. Peyton gets all the blame because he threw it lol. 

 

Yeah, I do the same, and IMO, that's casual viewing. Neither of us does it for every player, on every play of every game. But so as not to make a big deal out of that term, what I mean is that the way we view games is casual compared to PFF's much more rigorous and triple-validated process.

[Solid84]

I SO wish we could get access to PFF's GAS scores though. Would really interesting to compare them to combine RAS, but alas, those are for NFL teams only as I understand it.

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

I SO wish we could get access to PFF's GAS scores though. Would really interesting to compare them to combine RAS, but alas, those are for NFL teams only as I understand it.

 

Do they provide the GAS scores to NFL teams? I thought it was internal only. That would be interesting.

[Solid84]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Do they provide the GAS scores to NFL teams? I thought it was internal only. That would be interesting.

I've been watching a lot of NFLStockExchange on YouTube this offseason. One of the hosts is Trevor Sikkema who works at PFF. I'm pretty sure he posted a few of the GAS numbers (on DEs specifically) on X and I feel like he's mentioned them once or twice on NFLStockExchange (without going into specifics).

 

It's a fairly new grade and still a work in progress IIRC, but I'm pretty sure he mentioned NFL teams having access to them.