PDA

View Full Version : Profootballfocus rates every 2011 first round rookie midway through the season


JBCX
10-27-2011, 10:32 AM
Interesting article by Profootballfocus.com in which they assign their patented "play-by-play" rating to every 2011 first round rookie. You might be surprised by how some players are either playing better than you thought they would, or worse than you thought they would.

http://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2011/10/27/checking-in-the-2011-first-rounders/

They have Tyron Smith as an overwhelming success, ranked as their #3 RT not just among rookies, but in all of the NFL:


9. Tyron Smith, OT, Dallas Cowboys

Grade: +7.6 Snaps: 424

Possibly Interesting Stat: His Pass Blocking Efficiency rating of 96.7 (giving up just two sacks and eight pressures) is the third highest of all right tackles.

Observations: PFF Founder Neil Hornsby named Tyron Smith his early selection for the NFC RT Pro Bowl Bowl spot. How could you disagree with him when Smith has been nearly flawless in pass protection and is growing into a more imposing run blocker. To think, he’s regarded as raw now. Scary.


They also note that Patrick Peterson has been a disappointment and is not in the same class as last year's rookie CBs Joe Haden and Devin McCourty, who excelled in their rookie seasons:


5. Patrick Peterson, CB, Arizona Cardinals

Grade: -7.3 Snaps: 434

Possibly Interesting Stat: Has allowed 69.4% of the balls thrown his way to be complete.

Observations: Peterson may go on to be the next shutdown cornerback in the NFL, and if he does it will mean looking back at his first six NFL starts and wonder how he could ever struggle so much. Simply getting beat a little too often, struggling to replicate the success of 2010 rookie’s like Devin McCourty and Joe Haden.


Robert Quinn, who was a favorite among draft analysts, has been somewhat of a bust so far as a 4-3 DE:


14. Robert Quinn, DE, St Louis Rams

Grade: -1.0 Snaps: 189

Possibly Interesting Stat: Has one sack (unblocked), four hits and six pressures. Three of those hits and four of those pressures came in one game against Baltimore.

Observations: After that performance against the Ravens, you figured he would flourish as a situational end in Steve Spagnulo’s four aces nickel package. Only, he hasn’t, and he’s seen his playing time cut in the past two games with the result being you rarely noticing him on the field.


Corey Liuget looks like a huge bust so far. I was unimpressed by him pre-draft and my suspicions thus far are confirmed:


18. Corey Liuget, DE, San Diego Chargers

Grade: -9.0 Snaps: 163

Possibly Interesting Stat: Has managed just one hit and one pressure on his 79 pass rushes.

Observations: The fact Liuget is our lowest-ranked 3-4 DE tells you all you need to know about how we rate his performance this year. Has been barely visible during his time on the field. A real disappointment for a Chargers team that needed him to make an instant impact in filling in the void left by Luis Castillo.


Adrian Clayborn is the *highest* rated first round rookie after Cam Newton and Von Miller. I love this, because Clayborn was my favorite DE of this class, pre-draft:


20. Adrian Clayborn, DE, Tampa Bay Buccaneers

Grade: +9.4 Snaps: 325

Possibly Interesting Stat: Has 23 combined sacks, hits and pressures, yet just eight tackles.

Observations: Earned his negative grade in run defense almost as much as the positive he has with his pass rushing. From his first seven games in the NFL, he has demonstrated the kind of ability you get from Pro Bowlers; the ability to feast on bad tackles. That should lead to big numbers from the improving defensive end.

Go_Eagles77
10-27-2011, 10:36 AM
I was hard on Watkins, but he has been a solid starter since winning his job back. Nothing special, but solid.

JBCX
10-27-2011, 10:43 AM
I was hard on Watkins, but he has been a solid starter since winning his job back. Nothing special, but solid.

And judging by the grades they gave out to players drafted below him, they didn't really miss out on much.

The smart money says they should have drafted Muhammed Wilkerson or Cameron Jordan, but according to Profootballfocus both Wilkerson and Jordan are solid run-stuffing defensive ends and not much more - solid picks, but not game-changing.

Gabe Carimi and Derrok Sherrod might end up being the better offensive linemen, but they haven't shown it thus far.

And Jimmy Smith can't get on the field despite the fact that one of the Ravens starting CBs (Cary Williams) sucks.

no bare feet
10-27-2011, 10:55 AM
I have yet to see a moronic thread starter rely only on PFF stats like this in a while....

http://www.ahundredmonkeys.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/morton-salt-umbrella-girl.jpg

what's up Morton?

bucfan12
10-27-2011, 10:56 AM
TO be fare, Jimmy Smith has been knicked up a bit. The Ravens are easing him back through the practice field and should see some time very soon.

Also, not surprised about Robert Quinn. I had bust labled on him before the draft. He's a pure athlete but never really produced well against better competition in ACC games. He basically played well against the lowly D 1 schools earlier in the season and then struggled to do anything later on.

Sloopy
10-27-2011, 11:00 AM
you used these stats in your "what happened to pp" thread last week... didnt buy it then, not buying it now

JBCX
10-27-2011, 11:00 AM
I have yet to see a moronic thread starter rely only on PFF stats like this in a while....

http://www.ahundredmonkeys.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/morton-salt-umbrella-girl.jpg

what's up Morton?

What exactly is wrong with PFF? It's a highly respected site that is visited by industry insiders, fans, coaches and players alike. Peter King, for example, references PFF constantly.

They do a really good job of grading players based on their on-field play. There is no other source in the world for that kind of evaluation unless you're watching All-22 film with coaches themselves.

no bare feet
10-27-2011, 11:01 AM
It cannot be used as the end all be all that is all I am saying. It provides their own unique point of view using their methods.

bucfan12
10-27-2011, 11:02 AM
you used these stats in your "what happened to pp" thread last week... didnt buy it then, not buying it now

Patrick Peterson is a safety in this league. I'm telling you after his 2nd year in the league, the Cardinals will figure out where he fits best. Great straighline speed, but he doesn't have the fluid hips that CBs are supposed to have. Plus, he's 220 Lbs. That's a safety, not a CB.

JBCX
10-27-2011, 11:04 AM
It cannot be used as the end all be all that is all I am saying. It provides their own unique point of view using their methods.

You do realize that PFF grades players by actually watching tape? It's no different from a football coach sitting down, watching film of a player, and giving him a positive or negative grade based on what he saw. The PFF analysts are maybe not quite as football-smart as coaches, but are probably very close based on how long they've been doing this.

I'd be shocked if the grades that PFF gives out for players don't ultimately match the performances closely.

Sloopy
10-27-2011, 11:07 AM
that may very well be. from what ive seen he hasnt been a dissapointment though, just a rookie at a tough position.

ElectricEye
10-27-2011, 11:10 AM
Interesting stuff.

I think they're a little tougher on Solder than I would have been. He's fallen off since that great performance on Monday Night against Cameron Wake, but he's still been a positive player for us, by a fairly comfortable margin even.

On a sadder note; this years edition of everybody gets a pass rusher but you stings. The grades on Von Miller, JJ Watt, Kerrigan, Smith, and Clayborn has been well earned from what I've seen out of them.

no bare feet
10-27-2011, 11:12 AM
You do realize that PFF grades players by actually watching tape? It's no different from a football coach sitting down, watching film of a player, and giving him a positive or negative grade based on what he saw. The PFF analysts are maybe not quite as football-smart as coaches, but are probably very close based on how long they've been doing this.

I'd be shocked if the grades that PFF gives out for players don't ultimately match the performances closely.

Do their grades take into consideration that a X receive rlined up against a 4th string CB for 3 plays, scored 2 TDs on that rookie, when their were also 4 rookies in the front 7 generating no pass rush vs. a line of 3 of the top 10 graded linemen which gave the WR's All Pro-Qb 5 seconds per pass that targeted X receiver on those two touchdowns?

Rosebud
10-27-2011, 11:19 AM
Do their grades take into consideration that a X receive rlined up against a 4th string CB for 3 plays, scored 2 TDs on that rookie, when their were also 4 rookies in the front 7 generating no pass rush vs. a line of 3 of the top 10 graded linemen which gave the WR's All Pro-Qb 5 seconds per pass that targeted X receiver on those two touchdowns?

lol context. Stats don't need no stinking context!

no bare feet
10-27-2011, 11:20 AM
What if that X receiver is shut down on every other play other than those plays when lined up v. the number 1 graded CB?

keylime_5
10-27-2011, 11:23 AM
apparently PFF didn't watch Phil Taylor in the Indy and Miami games. I think he had a sack against rhe Raiders too.

and why the hell does AJ Green have a negative grade? waaaay too much emphasisi on a couple penalties. how many penalties are the negative equal to one touchdown? Probably quite a few, and the guy has several touchdowns.

A Perfect Score
10-27-2011, 11:26 AM
PFF is absolutely worthless. Get out of here with this ****.

Splat
10-27-2011, 11:27 AM
Jonathan Baldwin didn't look like an all pro in the one and only game he has played this season so he must suck...

gsorace
10-27-2011, 11:32 AM
Peter King, for example, references PFF constantly.

Hahahahaha.........ahahahahahaha

A Perfect Score
10-27-2011, 11:33 AM
That is sig quote worthy

no bare feet
10-27-2011, 11:40 AM
What exactly is wrong with PFF? Peter King, for example, references PFF constantly.



epicness personified

Crazy_Chris
10-27-2011, 11:41 AM
You do realize that PFF grades players by actually watching tape? It's no different from a football coach sitting down, watching film of a player, and giving him a positive or negative grade based on what he saw. The PFF analysts are maybe not quite as football-smart as coaches, but are probably very close based on how long they've been doing this.

I'd be shocked if the grades that PFF gives out for players don't ultimately match the performances closely.

No, PFF is not the same as a coach or a scout breaking down game tape. PFF is a collection of people breaking down recorded television broadcasts. They also are only looking at the result of any specific play, rather than how the player actually played.

For example say Leon Hall is in man coverage Sidney Rice... say Leon does everything he is supposed to do and has very good coverage on Sidney. But Sidney makes an amazing catch for a 35 yard TD catch. PFF would still grade that as an loss for Leon Hall despite him playing well on that play.

WE ARE NOT SCOUTS — We aren’t looking for (or grading) style or technique, merely the result of the play. We aren’t looking for promise and potential that can be coached up. We aren’t looking for things like “heavy-legged waist benders” on the O-line. We aren’t looking for DBs with “stiff hips.”

We are looking for the result of that poor technique, not the poor technique itself. If poor technique results in a positive play, that is graded at the same level as good technique yielding a positive play. Did the lineman make the block he attempted, by whatever means?

http://www.profootballfocus.com/about/grading/

Shane P. Hallam
10-27-2011, 11:46 AM
PFF is absolutely worthless. Get out of here with this ****.

I disagree with that. It lays out very clearly the guidelines and how they grade. They say it isn't the be all end all, and it isn't, but a different way of looking at things.

Pat Sims 90
10-27-2011, 11:51 AM
Giving AJ Green a negative grade makes this a laughable article.

coordinator0
10-27-2011, 11:54 AM
TO be fare, Jimmy Smith has been knicked up a bit. The Ravens are easing him back through the practice field and should see some time very soon.

Also, not surprised about Robert Quinn. I had bust labled on him before the draft. He's a pure athlete but never really produced well against better competition in ACC games. He basically played well against the lowly D 1 schools earlier in the season and then struggled to do anything later on.

His suffered a high ankle sprain on the first kickoff in the Pittsburgh game and didn't come back until the Monday night game, where he didn't really play either. I'd say any kind of rating for him at this point is meaningless.

DraftSavant
10-27-2011, 12:00 PM
No, PFF is not the same as a coach or a scout breaking down game tape. PFF is a collection of people breaking down recorded television broadcasts. They also are only looking at the result of any specific play, rather than how the player actually played.

For example say Leon Hall is in man coverage Sidney Rice... say Leon does everything he is supposed to do and has very good coverage on Sidney. But Sidney makes an amazing catch for a 35 yard TD catch. PFF would still grade that as an loss for Leon Hall despite him playing well on that play.



http://www.profootballfocus.com/about/grading/

As such, anything besides their offensive line and front seven grades are pretty much trash.

Sloopy
10-27-2011, 12:32 PM
I disagree with that. It lays out very clearly the guidelines and how they grade. They say it isn't the be all end all, and it isn't, but a different way of looking at things.

This is absolutely true, however the problem comes when naive posters use it as the ONLY way of looking at things. Such as proclaiming certain players bust by merely looking at random statistical information put out by PFF rather than observing contextual situations and breaking them down on a play by play basis.

In other words, instead of watching these players themselves and making an informed decision, they are reading statistical data to come to a wild conclusion about them with no argument to back up said claims other than 69.4% of passes allowed.

PFF CAN be an interesting way of looking at players however it will never be a more useful basis for grading them than sitting down and watching these players on tape.

JBCX
10-27-2011, 01:28 PM
In other words, instead of watching these players themselves and making an informed decision, they are reading statistical data to come to a wild conclusion about them with no argument to back up said claims other than 69.4% of passes allowed.

PFF CAN be an interesting way of looking at players however it will never be a more useful basis for grading them than sitting down and watching these players on tape.

Do you even understand how PFF works? They actually do have experts who actually sit down and watch these players on tape and give them grades based on what they see.

You clearly don't understand what PFF does if you make statements such as these. Please visit the website and read their FAQs.

K Train
10-27-2011, 01:34 PM
the steelers just havent unleashed heyward yet....its coming

Raiderz4Life
10-27-2011, 01:34 PM
Do you even understand how PFF works? They actually do have experts who actually sit down and watch these players on tape and give them grades based on what they see.

You clearly don't understand what PFF does if you make statements such as these. Please visit the website and read their FAQs.

You should take your own advice because it is excruciatingly painfully obvious that you don't know how PFF works either.

CC.SD
10-27-2011, 01:57 PM
Um Corey Liuget has only played in like 3 games of the 6, he has been fighting off a leg tweak. Nice 'huge bust.'

DraftSavant
10-27-2011, 01:57 PM
Um Corey Liuget has only played in like 3 games of the 6, he has been fighting off a leg tweak. Nice 'huge bust.'

And when he's on the field, he's been incredibly disruptive and powerful at the point of attack.

CC.SD
10-27-2011, 01:59 PM
Yeah, this is a joke. That quote up there about Peter King is currently seriously underrated, it might be one of the dumbest things said in this board's history. Give it time, I guess.

Sloopy
10-27-2011, 02:00 PM
your right they do watch the tape... however they do so to collect statistical data, which used by itself is a very myopic means of grading players

JBCX
10-27-2011, 02:01 PM
You should take your own advice because it is excruciatingly painfully obvious that you don't know how PFF works either.

They grade players based on watching them perform on tape. Explain to me what I don't understand about their system.

JBCX
10-27-2011, 02:03 PM
your right they do watch the tape... however they do so to collect statistical data, which used by itself is a very miopic means of grading players

They are not even remotely the same thing. Player grades involve watching actual player performances; statistics involve abstract numbers of accumulated data.

You clearly are confused about the difference.

ElectricEye
10-27-2011, 02:04 PM
I disagree with that. It lays out very clearly the guidelines and how they grade. They say it isn't the be all end all, and it isn't, but a different way of looking at things.

...and I really don't know why people have a problem accepting that. Very hostile reactions to this stuff.

GaMeTiMe
10-27-2011, 02:07 PM
This is a formula, and formulas don't always churn out 100% definitive, accurate results. The entire sport of baseball is based on silly percentages and averages, and 95/100 times the stats barely shed light on how that player has performed. No one is saying every single player PFF rates has to be labeled anything, or that a player must carry PFF's seal of approval according to their unique grade system. Football, and any sport, sometimes involves just as much luck or chance as it does skill, and no number is going to tell you how good or bad a player is on the field.

You can't accept all these numbers as telling towards these players futures, but you can't disregard them as useless either. We won't look back on this in 3 years and be able to say they were "wrong" about anything, because they are simply grading each player under the same system based on what they've observed to this point, not attaching a "likeliness of bust" to each player. I'm sure we'll find a lot of "disappointing" players according to these grades turn out just fine, and vise versa, but players turn that switch on or off within their first few seasons all the time. In the end, it's a loose grade on how they've all performed on the field to this point and is pretty much meant to make you keep an eye out for certain guys that have looked either much better or much worse than expected, so we can all distinguish trend from mirage.

brat316
10-27-2011, 02:08 PM
like any other stat its good for supporting facts.

I liked them before when they kept things simple.

bigbluedefense
10-27-2011, 02:08 PM
Pff isn't the problem. Its the people who think their analysis is the be all end all of player evaluation thats the problem. Pff has been painfully inaccurate on a lot of stuff.

Raiderz4Life
10-27-2011, 02:09 PM
...and I really don't know why people have a problem accepting that. Very hostile reactions to this stuff.

Think the hostility stems more from the poster than the actual reference source.

Take JBCX for example. He's taking PFF and trying to shove it down people's throat as a be all end all. Its his primary weapon when it should merely be the scope on the rifle. An enhancement.

Breed
10-27-2011, 02:10 PM
Where's Casey Matthews?

Hurricanes25
10-27-2011, 02:12 PM
Peter King, for example, references PFF constantly.


Hahahahaha.........ahahahahahaha

I actually laughed out loud. Thanks JBCX. That was the funniest thing I have heard today.

CC.SD
10-27-2011, 02:28 PM
PFF is the peter king of statistics so it is fitting that they are fans of each other

JBCX
10-27-2011, 02:35 PM
Pff isn't the problem. Its the people who think their analysis is the be all end all of player evaluation thats the problem. Pff has been painfully inaccurate on a lot of stuff.

Can you actually name some things that they've been grossly inaccurate about?

I'm not taking PFF as the "be all end all" but it is a credible source of information about player performance. What's wrong with grading rookies using PFF analysis? Are you going to tell me that despite PFF graders seeing Corey LIuget struggle, that he's actually played well? Or that Adrian Clayborn has been a scrub despite PFF graders giving him a high pass-rushing grade? I don't think so.

JBCX
10-27-2011, 02:39 PM
This is a formula, and formulas don't always churn out 100% definitive, accurate results. The entire sport of baseball is based on silly percentages and averages, and 95/100 times the stats barely shed light on how that player has performed. No one is saying every single player PFF rates has to be labeled anything, or that a player must carry PFF's seal of approval according to their unique grade system. Football, and any sport, sometimes involves just as much luck or chance as it does skill, and no number is going to tell you how good or bad a player is on the field.


Another person confused about what PFF does. They are not using mathematical formulas for their player grades - they are simply watching game tape and judging the player's performance and assigning him a grade based on that.

Regarding the bolded sentence: why exactly can't you assign grades or numbers to a player's performance? Schools do it all the time - throughout high school, you are assigned letter grades (A-F) to identify how well you performed in a class, and then you take an SAT test to identify how well you performed on a standardized test. All of these numbers are used to judge your ability to enroll in college. Why don't you give school administrators this same spiel? How about instead of giving grades out in school, we just wing it and let people into college based on "heart" or luck or some other nebulous quality?

Saying that football involves just as much luck or chance as skill is an erroneous statement. There is an element of chance, yes, but you'd be crazy to think that skill isn't the overriding factor in a team's victory. If skill wasn't so important, we could simulate the NFL with a random number generator and we'd have wildly different outcomes every week. But instead, good teams typically win more games than bad teams. Why? Because of player skill. Player skill that is evident after watching the game, and player skill that can be assigned a grade.

DraftSavant
10-27-2011, 02:44 PM
Another person confused about what PFF does. They are not using mathematical formulas for their player grades - they are simply watching game tape and judging the player's performance and assigning him a grade based on that.

Regarding the bolded sentence: why exactly can't you assign grades or numbers to a player's performance? Schools do it all the time - throughout high school, you are assigned letter grades (A-F) to identify how well you performed in a class, and then you take an SAT test to identify how well you performed on a standardized test. All of these numbers are used to judge your ability to enroll in college. Why don't you give school administrators this same spiel? How about instead of giving grades out in school, we just wing it and let people into college based on "heart" or luck or some other nebulous quality?

Saying that football involves just as much luck or chance as skill is an erroneous statement. There is an element of chance, yes, but you'd be crazy to think that skill isn't the overriding factor in a team's victory. If skill wasn't so important, we could simulate the NFL with a random number generator and we'd have wildly different outcomes every week. But instead, good teams typically win more games than bad teams. Why? Because of player skill. Player skill that is evident after watching the game, and player skill that can be assigned a grade.

The problem is that grading a football game is much closer to grading an essay than grading a standardized multiple choice test.

It's easy to tell an A paper or an F paper. It's incredibly difficult to determine if a paper is B-C-D level (and WHY) unless you're trained to do it very well.

It's even harder when you don't have the proper tools to grade (such as using a worthless TV broadcast to base your grades on).

bigbluedefense
10-27-2011, 02:47 PM
Can you actually name some things that they've been grossly inaccurate about?

I'm not taking PFF as the "be all end all" but it is a credible source of information about player performance. What's wrong with grading rookies using PFF analysis? Are you going to tell me that despite PFF graders seeing Corey LIuget struggle, that he's actually played well? Or that Adrian Clayborn has been a scrub despite PFF graders giving him a high pass-rushing grade? I don't think so.

Pff doesn't know what theyre looking at. Thats the problem.

Example: The Giants run a 2 gap scheme with their DTs. They are not allowed to rush, they have to occupy blockers and create a wall. Pff killed Linval Joseph his rookie year for not getting in the backfield vs the Skins and said he had a horrible game. He actually had a great game, he did exactly what he was supposed to do and dominated doing it. Thats why we let go of Coffield, Joseph was better then him.

But pff just assumed that bc he never penetrated that he sucked, which shows their ignorance to player responsibilities.

Which is why their grading system is flawed. Do they have detailed accounts of each teams blocking assignments? No. So how the hell can they accurately say who gave up a pressure on the oline or who missed their assignment.

Do they have skybox tape to accurately judge coverage? No. Do they understand situational football and the context, of each play? No.

Pff tries to provide an eyeball evaluation of players to the mass public who is incapable of drawing their own conclusions, but their methods are incredibly flawed.

I don't need pff to tell me that Von Miller is good. I have eyes.

JBCX
10-27-2011, 02:47 PM
The problem is that grading a football game is much closer to grading an essay than grading a standardized multiple choice test.

Your point being? Essays are graded by college professors and high school teachers routinely.

DraftSavant
10-27-2011, 02:48 PM
Your point being? Essays are graded by college professors and high school teachers routinely.

Ninja edited you on that last post.

For further reading: http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/08/grade_inflation.html

PS: most high school and college teachers don't know how the **** to grade subjective material, either.

DraftSavant
10-27-2011, 02:50 PM
Ninja edited you on that last post.

For further reading: http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/08/grade_inflation.html

PS: most high school and college teachers don't know how the **** to grade subjective material, either.

Hate getting page trapped.

JBCX
10-27-2011, 02:54 PM
Pff doesn't know what theyre looking at. Thats the problem.

Example: The Giants run a 2 gap scheme with their DTs. They are not allowed to rush, they have to occupy blockers and create a wall. Pff killed Linval Joseph his rookie year for not getting in the backfield vs the Skins and said he had a horrible game. He actually had a great game, he did exactly what he was supposed to do and dominated doing it. Thats why we let go of Coffield, Joseph was better then him.

But pff just assumed that bc he never penetrated that he sucked, which shows their ignorance to player responsibilities.


I think that it is highly presumptuous of you to make the claim that PFF is unaware of the Giants' 2-gap scheme.

The fact of the matter is that a 2-gap DT typically does not have the opportunity to rush upfield and generate pass pressure, and will be docked for that by PFF in their pass rush grading. Maybe that DT could generate more pressure in a different system; maybe not.

But PFF also grades DTs based on their run defense performance and I'm sure that PFF is not naive enough to discount the responsibilites of a 2-gap DT in their assessment of run defense. In fact, if you think they are so wrong about their assessment of the Giant's 2-gap scheme, why don't you tweet them or email them and ask them this? I guarantee you that they are not remiss regarding the scheme.


Which is why their grading system is flawed. Do they have detailed accounts of each teams blocking assignments? No. So how the hell can they accurately say who have up a pressure on the oline or who missed their assignment.


They grade the players based on what their intentions were on a play and whether they executed a particular intention. Do they know every blocking assignment? Probably not, but if a DE gets pushed to the ground by a OT, it's pretty easy to figure out that the DE should be graded negatively and the OT should be graded positively, regardless of the play called.


Do they have skybox tape to accurately judge coverage? No. Do they understand situational football and the context, of each play? No.


They probably know more about coverage and situational football than you or me. How can you assume that they are ignorant about coverage and other football concepts?



I don't need pff to tell me that Von Miller is good. I have eyes.

Maybe anyone can tell you that Miller is good, but do you have the eyes to watch every single player on every single play? Did you study Patrick Peterson this year and deduce that he was struggling? Did you watch Corey Liuget's every snap? Or Adrian Clayborn's? Or maybe you want to know which underrated 4-3 end is making an impact that particular week in his run defense?

descendency
10-27-2011, 02:57 PM
But PFF also grades DTs based on their run defense performance and I'm sure that PFF is not naive enough to discount the responsibilites of a 2-gap DT in their assessment of run defense.


Oh, but they are.

They probably know more about coverage and situational football than you or me. How can you assume that they are ignorant about coverage and other football concepts?

I know enough to know that TV film is inadequate to make real decisions about the quality of football players.

Hurricanes25
10-27-2011, 03:02 PM
They probably know more about coverage and situational football than you or me. How can you assume that they are ignorant about coverage and other football concepts?


Who are the "analysts"? Are they former scouts or just fans of football?

CC.SD
10-27-2011, 03:18 PM
Can you actually name some things that they've been grossly inaccurate about?

I'm not taking PFF as the "be all end all" but it is a credible source of information about player performance. What's wrong with grading rookies using PFF analysis? Are you going to tell me that despite PFF graders seeing Corey LIuget struggle, that he's actually played well? Or that Adrian Clayborn has been a scrub despite PFF graders giving him a high pass-rushing grade? I don't think so.

Ugh. Look I sympathize. I would be embarrassed too if I just admitted considering Peter King an authority on something. But you know what? I just read the Hunger Games, found it pretty compelling, and I bought it from the young adult section. So I can relate.

But you dropped 'Your point being?' aka internetspeak for 'I am a huge douche' so now I have to wonder why you are so caught up in defending these horrible rankings. Pride? Shame?

Are you going to tell me that despite PFF graders seeing Corey LIuget struggle, that he's actually played well? I don't think so.

Well your prediction is wrong because I'm happy to tell you that. They are grading Corey on his pass rushing but as a 3-4 end all he's done is beat up on double teams while Donald Butler and Takeo Spikes behind him have been cleaning up. Meanwhile he's missed a couple games, not to mention the absurdity of ranking a class after 6 games.

PFF stats have their uses (I guess, never rule anything out) but I always trust the people with an understanding of positional priorities, and the ones watching the games week in and out, over the number crunchers.

JBCX
10-27-2011, 03:32 PM
Ugh. Look I sympathize. I would be embarrassed too if I just admitted considering Peter King an authority on something. But you know what? I just read the Hunger Games, found it pretty compelling, and I bought it from the young adult section. So I can relate.

But you dropped 'Your point being?' aka internetspeak for 'I am a huge douche' so now I have to wonder why you are so caught up in defending these horrible rankings. Pride? Shame?


I don't understand why everyone is so quick to assail an interesting football website that provides quality content. That's why I'm forced to 'defend' them on this forum. The way posters are responding to PFF on here, you'd think PFF was responsible for spreading the bubonic plague.



Well your prediction is wrong because I'm happy to tell you that. They are grading Corey on his pass rushing but as a 3-4 end all he's done is beat up on double teams while Donald Butler and Takeo Spikes behind him have been cleaning up. Meanwhile he's missed a couple games, not to mention the absurdity of ranking a class after 6 games.


What's absurd about rating performance in a 6-game stretch? They are providing content, information.


PFF stats have their uses (I guess, never rule anything out) but I always trust the people with an understanding of positional priorities, and the ones watching the games week in and out, over the number crunchers.

Guess what? The entire purpose of PFF is to watch the games week in and out and grade players based on that. They are not "number crunchers".

Should I trust impartial observers of football who are making a living charging people to gain access to their grading database OR should I trust a San Diego Chargers homer who wants to believe that his team's first round draft pick has been an impact player? Hmmm. Tough call there.

JBCX
10-27-2011, 03:35 PM
I know enough to know that TV film is inadequate to make real decisions about the quality of football players.

So if that's true, then that means that everyone's opinion on this forum about any player is immediately invalid, right?

Because we can't make any kind of decisions about player quality by watching a TV broadcast, why don't we just completely cease making threads about NFL players or teams because clearly we have no right whatsoever to talk about them in an evaluative manner, seeing as we only have access to TV broadcasts, which according to you provide nothing to judge.

Basileus777
10-27-2011, 03:36 PM
You cannot properly evaluate/grade every position off of broadcast footage. Impossible, especially in the secondary. PFF isn't entirely useless, but one shouldn't put too much stock into their grades.

JBCX
10-27-2011, 03:38 PM
You cannot properly evaluate/grade every position off of broadcast footage. Impossible, especially in the secondary. PFF isn';

There are limitations to grading secondary play using only TV footage, obviously, but that doesn't mean that their grades are completely invalid across the board. Especially the grades for the players who play near the line of scrimmage - these are probably very accurate.

Raiderz4Life
10-27-2011, 03:42 PM
PFF gives you positive ratings for good plays regardless of how it happened. If you're a DE and you overrun a play but the DBs have everyone covered and the QB forgets about you and you come and sack him...they give you positive rating even though you totally **** the bed and lucked into the sack.

CC.SD
10-27-2011, 03:42 PM
I don't understand why everyone is so quick to assail an interesting football website that provides quality content. That's why I'm forced to 'defend' them on this forum. The way posters are responding to PFF on here, you'd think PFF was responsible for spreading the bubonic plague.

You're not being 'forced' to do anything. Posting any football article is fine, borderline hostility when people laugh at it is bizarre.




What's absurd about rating performance in a 6-game stretch? They are providing content, information.

It's too small a sample size to make legitimate projections from, that's why.



Guess what? The entire purpose of PFF is to watch the games week in and out and grade players based on that. They are not "number crunchers".

okay, great. Except they assign negative ratings to players like AJ Green. Again, too small a sample size but you have to wonder what they are watching.


Should I trust impartial observers of football who are making a living charging people to gain access to their grading database OR should I trust a San Diego Chargers homer who wants to believe that his team's first round draft pick has been an impact player? Hmmm. Tough call there.

Lord knows I've disparaged plenty of underproducing Chargers, so how does that fit into your completely unfounded assumption? Herpaderpderp, three derps in a derp.

Corey has done well on the field but as is the case with so many 3-4 DEs it doesn't show up in the stat sheet, unless you want to look at the #s of the linebackers playing behind him.

niel89
10-27-2011, 04:32 PM
His suffered a high ankle sprain on the first kickoff in the Pittsburgh game and didn't come back until the Monday night game, where he didn't really play either. I'd say any kind of rating for him at this point is meaningless.

Seriously, Jimmy Smith got hurt in that first game and has been healing up since then. iirc he was starting in that first game also, so to say that he hasn't beat out Cary Williams is a joke. They him down as 0 snaps when that is a complete lie, I've seen him out there.

Rosebud
10-27-2011, 04:43 PM
Pff isn't the problem. Its the people who think their analysis is the be all end all of player evaluation thats the problem. Pff has been painfully inaccurate on a lot of stuff.

Yep, I don't mind PFF at all, but JBCX is just painfully ********.

Rosebud
10-27-2011, 04:48 PM
-Vw2CrY9Igs

Sloopy
10-27-2011, 08:12 PM
They are not even remotely the same thing. Player grades involve watching actual player performances; statistics involve abstract numbers of accumulated data.

You clearly are confused about the difference.

What exactly do you call their claim that PP is doing poorly solely based on the STAT that he has allowed 69.4% (drawn from abstract numbers of accumulated data) of passes without taking into account circumstance or any other outlying factors?

The mere fact that they are using a percentage to support said claim is enough to tell you that its stat driven.

I'm not trying to knock PFF, I'm knocking you for not watching these players and drawing your own informed conclusion but instead looking up stuff on PFF and using it to make wild claims about players.

They themselves admit that they are not pro scouts and in no way does there data outweigh any sort of eye test, it is simply an aid to go along with actual study.

Yes, they themselves watch all the tape, but they do not make any observations outside of the numbers that they derive from watching said tape. They do not observe a CB who lacks fluid hips, or has too high a stance in his back peddle; they sit there and count how many completions are made to the man he is covering then do some simple math to come to a conclusion.

bored of education
10-27-2011, 08:14 PM
PFF grades tell one side of the story that has many sides. Their grades should not be used to determine who is awesome and who is not, but it gives you something to think about. Plus if you dont want a game it gives you an idea who played well on the one given day, I guess.

Brent
10-27-2011, 08:18 PM
I ignored the grades, but the observations about Aldon Smith seem pretty fair.

JBCX
10-27-2011, 09:40 PM
You're not being 'forced' to do anything. Posting any football article is fine, borderline hostility when people laugh at it is bizarre.


Who's actually being hostile in this thread? I'm merely providing a link to interesting content and immediately everyone and his brother comes into this thread calling PFF "crap" and "worthless" and other such terms, and then uses twisted logic and ad hominem attacks when I try to explain what it is that PFF does to many of the uninformed posters on here.


It's too small a sample size to make legitimate projections from, that's why.


Nobody is using this PFF data to make definitive projections. I'm not under the illusion that Patrick Peterson and Corey Liuget will be scrubs for eternity because they have played poorly in their first 6 games of the season. Obviously, they have many years to prove themselves. But what PFF's study of the first 8 weeks of the season provides is a glimpse into the career of every first round rookie of the 2011 draft. No more, no less. It is enlightening and interesting, as long as you are not under the illusion that it is a definitive indictment or anything like that.



okay, great. Except they assign negative ratings to players like AJ Green. Again, too small a sample size but you have to wonder what they are watching.


Penalties are a huge part of the game. Jason Babin, for example, has a bunch of sacks but is one of the most penalized DEs in the league and PFF downgrades him for that. Think about it: if a player such as a DE causes a penalty on 3rd down that gives the opposition a free 1st down, it's as bad of a play as a sack is a good play. You have to factor in penalties when assessing players and not just become enamored of the splashy plays.


Lord knows I've disparaged plenty of underproducing Chargers, so how does that fit into your completely unfounded assumption? Herpaderpderp, three derps in a derp.

Corey has done well on the field but as is the case with so many 3-4 DEs it doesn't show up in the stat sheet, unless you want to look at the #s of the linebackers playing behind him.

You have a vested interest in Liuget doing well because he is a first round rookie on your favorite team. Your assessment of Corey on the field will be colored by your bias. PFF has no such bias. Ergo, one would be better served to listen to PFF about Corey's performance rather than you.

Also, PFF takes the responsibilities of 3-4 DEs into account. Do you really think they are stupid enough to confuse 3-4 DEs' responsibilities with the responsibilities of a penetrating 4-3 DT? Obviously, they will be grading 3-4 DEs on their ability to hold the point of attack in the running game. The fact that they give Liuget a negative rating means that he is not playing well enough in that respect to earn a positive grade. If Corey was adept in the running game, even with little pass rush pressure, they would give him a positive grade as a 3-4 DE.

JBCX
10-27-2011, 09:46 PM
What exactly do you call their claim that PP is doing poorly solely based on the STAT that he has allowed 69.4% (drawn from abstract numbers of accumulated data) of passes without taking into account circumstance or any other outlying factors?

The mere fact that they are using a percentage to support said claim is enough to tell you that its stat driven.


So they quote a single stat in a descriptive paragraph and you assume that the entire PFF system is stat-based?

If I find a single chocolate chip in an oatmeal raisin cookie, does that make the cookie a chocolate chip cookie or is it an oatmeal raisin cookie with a single chocolate chip lodged in it?

It's a grading system based entirely on player performance as graded on game tape. The fact that they used a percentage stat in a single paragraph does not change that; please at least take the time to learn what the site does.


I'm not trying to knock PFF, I'm knocking you for not watching these players and drawing your own informed conclusion but instead looking up stuff on PFF and using it to make wild claims about players.


PFF watches every player on every play. I don't have the time nor the patience to do that myself. Therefore, using PFF to grade the performance of players is the next best thing to watching every player myself.


They themselves admit that they are not pro scouts and in no way does there data outweigh any sort of eye test, it is simply an aid to go along with actual study.


Except that what they are doing *is* an eye test - they watch the players themselves.


Yes, they themselves watch all the tape, but they do not make any observations outside of the numbers that they derive from watching said tape. They do not observe a CB who lacks fluid hips, or has too high a stance in his back peddle; they sit there and count how many completions are made to the man he is covering then do some simple math to come to a conclusion.

They watch the plays to determine whether a player succeeds or fails. "lacking fluid hips" or having a "high stance" are all contributing factors to whether a play succeeds or fails. They note the end result and grade the player on his ability. They don't merely "count the completions" - they grade the player's effort and ability on every play.

Sloopy
10-27-2011, 10:18 PM
So they quote a single stat in a descriptive paragraph and you assume that the entire PFF system is stat-based?

If I find a single chocolate chip in an oatmeal raisin cookie, does that make the cookie a chocolate chip cookie or is it an oatmeal raisin cookie with a single chocolate chip lodged in it?

It's a grading system based entirely on player performance as graded on game tape. The fact that they used a percentage stat in a single paragraph does not change that

5. Patrick Peterson, CB, Arizona Cardinals

Grade: -7.3 Snaps: 434

Possibly Interesting Stat: Has allowed 69.4% of the balls thrown his way to be complete.

Observations: Peterson may go on to be the next shutdown cornerback in the NFL, and if he does it will mean looking back at his first six NFL starts and wonder how he could ever struggle so much. Simply getting beat a little too often, struggling to replicate the success of 2010 rookie’s like Devin McCourty and Joe Haden.

Your right, they use a single stat... unfortunately that is all they use. So its more like you finding a chocolate chip, which makes it a chocolate chip...

There is no other empirical data in this quote other than the one stat, the rest is just a bunch of conclusions based on the stat that they found.

please at least take the time to learn what the site does.

I might be driven into a fit of rage and harm a small animal if you tell me that I, or anyone else, should learn how the site works when you yourself, clearly DO NOT understand it.

Except that what they are doing *is* an eye test - they watch the players themselves.

I actually laughed at this. Just because they watch them with their eyes does not mean that they are performing an eye test.

They watch the plays to determine whether a player succeeds or fails. "lacking fluid hips" or having a "high stance" are all contributing factors to whether a play succeeds or fails. They note the end result and grade the player on his ability. They don't merely "count the completions" - they grade the player's effort and ability on every play.

Yes all of them ARE factors which relate to a players success; PFF does not look for these factors. They really do just count the completions on him. Please point out something else in that paragraph which points to any other information which they gathered.


Assignments in coverage can be a more difficult matter, specifically in the middle of the field when applied to LBs and safeties. Because when a TE, HB or WR finds a seam, the determination of whose responsibility that is becomes trickier. Some other analysts have decided to apportion the yardage out amongst the players involved, but frankly we don’t believe this is worth the effort. In addition, if it’s a touchdown, do you award half a TD? Because of the inherent issues with the statistics mentioned above we just go for the simple approach and take the closest player when the ball is thrown, understanding inaccuracy is built in.

(I want to point out how often this site talks about the STATS that they use but they are all over the site and you already linked it so why bother)

this means that PP may not have even been covering the receiver but in the area at the time the ball was thrown, further showing why these STATS are a bad indicator of his success.

Rosebud
10-28-2011, 09:20 AM
Seriously guys why are you guys trying to argue with JBCX? Don't you know he's got electrolytes?

brat316
10-28-2011, 09:56 AM
10. Blaine Gabbert, QB, Jacksonville Jaguars

Grade: -7.0 Snaps: 336

Possibly Interesting Stat: If you factor in drops, throwaways and spikes, no quarterback is as inaccurate as Gabbert and his 58.7% mark.

Observations: Quite clearly not ready to be on the field yet. Struggles when pressured, with the extra athleticism at the NFL level resulting in him having the highest amount of his pressure (33.3%) turn into sacks. Will he better for taking his lumps, or would a year on the sidelines have been better for our lowest-ranked QB on the year? We’ll never really know.

See this is what makes you wonder if they really watch the tape. Why would the include throwaways, spikes, drops, NFL is already keeping track of his overall accuracy. Shouldn't they be keeping track of his accuracy with only catch-able throws? Even then it would be 58%.

PoopSandwich
10-28-2011, 10:26 AM
Phil Taylor Jabaal Sheard and Greg Little have all played very well, our draft looks like it is going to be successful. If only we could have the Robiskie, Veikune, and Massaquoi picks back from the Mangini era...

vidae
10-28-2011, 10:41 AM
I really don't care about this argument one way or another, but I will say that I've been posting here for a long time and CC.SD is far from a homer. He is usually pretty level headed and fair about Chargers players in general, and especially level headed about their rookies and their production. Knowing this, I'd listen to CC.SD about the Chargers and their draft picks/production over any website out there.

And the same cannot be said for most fans of their teams, especially this one, because Baldwin is going to be a Hall of Famer when he hangs em up. Come at me.

Saints-Tigers
10-28-2011, 10:58 AM
I refuse to acknowledge CC.SD until he admits that Drew Brees and Darren Sproles are the two greatest Chargers to ever lace'em up.

CC.SD
10-28-2011, 11:08 AM
I really don't care about this argument one way or another, but I will say that I've been posting here for a long time and CC.SD is far from a homer. He is usually pretty level headed and fair about Chargers players in general, and especially level headed about their rookies and their production. Knowing this, I'd listen to CC.SD about the Chargers and their draft picks/production over any website out there.

And the same cannot be said for most fans of their teams, especially this one, because Baldwin is going to be a Hall of Famer when he hangs em up. Come at me.

Thanks vidazzle I like to think that's mostly true but I've got my share of homer comments. I am a pretty superior judge of talent though, outside of the safety position. :)

I refuse to acknowledge CC.SD until he admits that Drew Brees and Darren Sproles are the two greatest Chargers to ever lace'em up.

I rank them just behind Rodney Harrison, Junior Seau, Wes Welker, Michael Turner and Ladainian Tomlinson. on my scale of bitterness.

Brodeur
10-28-2011, 11:08 AM
I refuse to acknowledge CC.SD until he admits that Drew Brees and Darren Sproles are the two greatest Chargers to ever lace'em up.

http://i45.tinypic.com/259d7qr.jpg

CC.SD
10-28-2011, 11:40 AM
Nick Novak 10/10 this year, **** off kaeding

JBCX
10-28-2011, 02:07 PM
They updated their site to include a new feature about rookies from the 2011 draft class who were drafted after the first round:

http://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2011/10/27/a-look-at-some-non-first-rounders/

Alot of cool insights in this one:


- It should tell you just how well Jabaal Sheard (+11.2) has played, seeing as how he’s number three in my race for rookie of the year.

- He may have been the 77th pick of the draft, but Jurrell Casey (+5.3) is like a first rounder. The three hundred pounder has been a big part of a Titans defensive line that has had to deal with a number of changes.

- Rahim Moore (-4.5) may have been the top safety selected in the draft, but he’s failed to light it up in Denver. He’s had particular problems tackling, where he’s missed six of 20 attempted tackles.

- What can you expect out of a sixth rounder starting at center? Jason Kelce (-7.7) had a nice debut, and looked good against San Francisco, but other than that? He’s had some real issues in pass protection for a center, resulting in the fourth worst Pass Blocking Efficiency number for a center in the league.

- It hasn’t taken long for Mason Foster (+1.6) to make himself home in Tampa. The middle linebacker has played in 124 snaps and outplayed both men on his outside. That owes some to their general poor play, but he can be happy with his contribution in his 288 snaps so far.



Among lots of others.

BigBanger
10-28-2011, 07:55 PM
Some aren’t sold on Miller, and took his benching after a blown coverage and over pursuit on a running play as evidence that he was far from elite. I saw it as more of a message that he hasn’t made it yet. Leads our 4-3 OLB rankings because he gets pressure, sheds blocks, and can make plays in coverage. This guy is already a player.
Laughable.


How the **** is Von Miller at +20.5? The best "grade" of all rookies? Newton should the highest grade of anyone. Green should have a higher grade. Aldon Smith is ten times the player that Miller is. Tyron Smith is a beast and shits on Miller. Solder is better. Pouncey is better. Most 1st rounders have been better. Miller should have a negative grade. He's been a major disappointment. He's about as bad as a run defender as there is in the NFL right now. He sucks. And if they think he's the best 43 OLB in the NFL right now, then I'd say its pretty obvious that they have no clue what they're looking for.

Miller rushes the QB and runs the arc on every single play, creating huge voids in the defense that offenses are game planning against. He's been exposed on a weekly basis against the run. He's been that terrible. He's got 11 take downs? Big deal. So out of the 351 snaps where he's tried to sack the QB, he has 6 sacks and 5 QB knock downs? Those are good numbers? There was a legitimate reason why he was benched yet they blow it off as if it was one missed assignment?!?!?!?! LOL!!!! No, its because that "missed assignment" happens every single game of every single week, over and over again. He's so one dimensional that he's such an extreme liability against the run they've had no choice but to take him out. He plays undisciplined football. He looks more like a bust in my eyes and he's far from the best rookie from in this class. He's been really bad. He's nothing more than a situational pass rusher at this point in his career. He gets stoned by OTs 90% of the time and gets completely shut out. Half the time he takes himself out of the play. This article is a joke. I stopped reading after I saw that.

bantx
10-28-2011, 08:09 PM
Corey Luiget bust part was laughable lololol

Caddy
10-28-2011, 08:31 PM
Clayborn >>> your teams first round pick (excluding Carolina and Denver)

MetSox17
10-28-2011, 09:32 PM
Clayborn >>> your teams first round pick (excluding Carolina and Denver)

Tyron Smith >>>>>>>>>> Adrian Clayborn

Hines
10-28-2011, 09:53 PM
Cam Heyward has been looking pretty dang good the past few weeks. I can even see him getting more snaps than Ziggy Hood in the next few weeks.

Caddy
10-28-2011, 10:02 PM
Tyron Smith >>>>>>>>>> Adrian Clayborn

Clayborn has 1.8 more points, therefore he is better!

murdamal86
10-31-2011, 07:49 AM
Marcell Dareus was credited w/2.5 sacks yesterday