PFF's anti-Bucs bias continues: interior linemen

[JDouble]

Numbers can be manipulated to appear to support anyone's point of view.  They can be useful but I just don't put too much into them. It's simply impossible to know if all important factors were included or if they are misleading.

[Feel Real Good]

I think the interview addressed all your questions.

now can we put that extremely accurate data into context? or do we have to take it at its most simplistic form and not expand upon it?

The order of the players isn't necessarily a ranking system, it's simply a cumulative ordering of their various grades. If you look at Robinson's gradings most (-8 of his total -11.7 grade) of his negative comes from the 8 penalties he accumulated over the season.

If you look at Robinson's coverage grade in isolation he shoots up from extremely poor to below average. Our ideal plan is for people to put their own weighting into what aspects of a position's play they think is most important. A good example at cornerback is Woodson vs Revis. Overall we have Woodson topping Revis in a close competition, but for coverage alone Revis was on another level entirely. Some people don't care much if their corner makes Deion-esque 'business decisions' if he can cover like Revis was this past season, others like their corners to be able to come up and set the tone against the run - we don't want to try and tell people which is right - it's all subjective.

We don't intend for our numbers to necessarily be a ranking system - what we present is an efficiency grading of how a player performed on the snaps he saw over the season. We then love it when smart football fans use that information together with their own knowledge to make their own conclusions.

in other words can we say that Zuttah graded out well, but was due to many things, not just his individual performance? or is simply he got beat or he didnt?

We simply record what we see and the outcome of what each player attempted to do. In truth, a player may have done a good job of blocking the wrong person but as we have no knowledge of that we assume they know what they are doing and as such grade the block as a success. Clearly we accept this introduces a small error but we believe that this is still a step change in accuracy above what anyone else can achieve. When we spoke to Bengals OG Evan Mathis earlier in the season he was quick to confirm that despite this potential error margin, our grading stacks up well with the detailed feedback he was receiving internally.

At the end of the day this is the NFL and players that consistently make mental errors don't stay around very long. In the vast majority of cases the reason a play fails is because one player physically beats another and this is normally easy to see if you have the time. The reason most people don't do this is not because they can't but because they don't watch each play 5-10 times like we do and have a system for tracking it over the course of a game (never mind season). Obviously watching 60-70 hours of football a week also helps the process.

[tatmanfish]

I think the interview addressed all your questions.

now can we put that extremely accurate data into context? or do we have to take it at its most simplistic form and not expand upon it?

The order of the players isn't necessarily a ranking system, it's simply a cumulative ordering of their various grades. If you look at Robinson's gradings most (-8 of his total -11.7 grade) of his negative comes from the 8 penalties he accumulated over the season.

If you look at Robinson's coverage grade in isolation he shoots up from extremely poor to below average. Our ideal plan is for people to put their own weighting into what aspects of a position's play they think is most important. A good example at cornerback is Woodson vs Revis. Overall we have Woodson topping Revis in a close competition, but for coverage alone Revis was on another level entirely. Some people don't care much if their corner makes Deion-esque 'business decisions' if he can cover like Revis was this past season, others like their corners to be able to come up and set the tone against the run - we don't want to try and tell people which is right - it's all subjective.

We don't intend for our numbers to necessarily be a ranking system - what we present is an efficiency grading of how a player performed on the snaps he saw over the season. We then love it when smart football fans use that information together with their own knowledge to make their own conclusions.

in other words can we say that Zuttah graded out well, but was due to many things, not just his individual performance? or is simply he got beat or he didnt?

We simply record what we see and the outcome of what each player attempted to do. In truth, a player may have done a good job of blocking the wrong person but as we have no knowledge of that we assume they know what they are doing and as such grade the block as a success. Clearly we accept this introduces a small error but we believe that this is still a step change in accuracy above what anyone else can achieve. When we spoke to Bengals OG Evan Mathis earlier in the season he was quick to confirm that despite this potential error margin, our grading stacks up well with the detailed feedback he was receiving internally.

At the end of the day this is the NFL and players that consistently make mental errors don't stay around very long. In the vast majority of cases the reason a play fails is because one player physically beats another and this is normally easy to see if you have the time. The reason most people don't do this is not because they can't but because they don't watch each play 5-10 times like we do and have a system for tracking it over the course of a game (never mind season). Obviously watching 60-70 hours of football a week also helps the process.

i understand completely and it makes sense. Its up to the people looking at the numbers to develope their own opinion. The grades arent as simplistic as their final numbers. PFFs explanation coincides with my thought process of putting the numbers into context based on their observations and gradings.

Biggs would rather us take it at full weight though and not look at anything other than PFFs final numbers. His last response was quite clear, no need to think about any of that.

[Biggs3535]

PFFs explanation coincides with my thought process of putting the numbers into context based on their observations and gradings.

You need to re-read the explanations, because they aren't even close to doing what you say they are doing.

It's pretty clear that they are saying a player is based on his performance, and only his performance, on each play.  More stuff for you to re-read.


A cornerback is beaten badly on a post route and the wide receiver drops the ball in the end zone. Tracking the result gives this as an incompletion against the cornerback (a positive) whilst we will mark this down as a significant negative.

See, the team's pass offense doesn't matter.  Whether the opposing receiver is Calvin Johnson or Michael Clayton is inconsequential.  The WR beat the CB, even though the WR dropped the ball.  The play is graded as a negative play for the both the WR (who dropped the ball) and the CB (who was beaten by the WR).




A QB throws a perfect strike over a linebacker to hit his open slot receiver on an out. Once more, the wide receiver drops the pass and it cannons off his chest to a Safety who catches the ball even though he'd initially made a bad job of the coverage. The QB gets a INT listed against his name and the free safety gets an undeserved INT against his. How is tracking this result more accurate?

There are no other factors involved here.  The QB throws a perfect pass and is given a positive grade, even though the result is an incompletion.  This isn't that difficult to understand.  Players don't need excuses made for them.  They either perform well and good positive grades or perform poorly and get negative grades.

Biggs would rather us take it at full weight though and not look at anything other than PFFs final numbers.

Hey look, it's another "take it as gospel" post.  Just out of curiosity, were you ever able to find the link to where anyone said that the first time you were asked for it?  If so, go ahead and post it - because you weren't able to do so the first time you were asked to prove it.

[tatmanfish]

"We then love it when smart football fans use that information together with their own knowledge to make their own conclusions."

yeah, PFF didnt say anything along those lines.....oh wait....they love it and encourage fans to take their numbers and expand upon them to form their own opinions. oh, ok. maybe you should have read more closely. (once you figure out Im talking about US using PFFs numbers and putting them into context of what happened through out the season, ill be blown away)




It's simply he got beat or he didn't. ......thats taking it at full weight. A narrow minded thought process like this leaves no room for debate or any chance to expand upon an y ideas.

[Feel Real Good]

It's simply he got beat or he didn't. ......thats taking it at full weight. A narrow minded thought process like this leaves no room for debate or any chance to expand upon an y ideas.

In the vast majority of cases the reason a play fails is because one player physically beats another and this is normally easy to see if you have the time.

They're pretty clear getting beat is getting beat. What they talk about is up for debate is their composite rankings. Their composite rankings are an average of their individual skill rankings, and some fans may see one skill as being much more important than another. For example some people may not care if a CB can tackle or an edge rusher can play the run, as long as they can do their primary job at a high level. So if player X doesn't rate highly overall, you can sort for his most valuable skill set and see how he ranks for that.

[Biggs3535]

"We then love it when smart football fans use that information together with their own knowledge to make their own conclusions."

yeah, PFF didnt say anything along those lines.....oh wait....they love it and encourage fans to take their numbers and expand upon them to form their own opinions. oh, ok. maybe you should have read more closely. (once you figure out Im talking about US using PFFs numbers and putting them into context of what happened through out the season, ill be blown away)




It's simply he got beat or he didn't. ......thats taking it at full weight. A narrow minded thought process like this leaves no room for debate or any chance to expand upon an y ideas.

I'm not sure if you realize this or not, and I'm this point I'm pretty sure you don't, but you are smashing together 2 different arguments.

If FRG's post didn't clarify anything for you, nothing will at this point.  Maybe try reading the article again, as the answers to your misconceptions are there.  I think your posts on this subject illuminate nubcake's post very well.

Many of the replies in this thread remind me of traditionalist baseball fans who dismiss sabermetrics as "nerd stats" because they don't understand them and can't bear to accept the idea that their archaic stats that were created in the 1900s aren't nearly as valid as they think they are.


Similar to baseball sabermetrics, PFF's analysis is not perfect nor should anyone believe it is, but it's certainly more accurate and telling than your "eye test". To suggest that you can "just tell by watching" and dismiss an in-depth analysis is quite the display of hubris.

[Feel Real Good]

Steve Wyremski (SW): Sticking with ’08 for a minute, I want to test our rating system, as well as your memory. I know it’s going to be tough. It’s going back three years now, but if I learned anything … it’s that you guys vividly remember a lot of games. If I were to ask you what game you’d rank your best game of the ’08 season, what would you say?

Kevin Carter (KC): Oh, man. Oh, wow. [Laughs]. You know what, I had a pretty good game against Carolina. We played them on a Monday night up in Carolina. It was a pretty good game; I had a sack or two. I think I had one sack on Jake Delhomme. I had a good game against the Seattle Seahawks.

SW: I’ll tell you what we ranked your top two games… your game against the Lions in Week 12. The other game that we thought was your best was Week 3 against the Chicago Bears. We ranked your pass rushing that game through the roof.

KC: That’s it … yes. That’s it. I remember. I was going against John Tait. Yes, good game. Very apropos.

SW: [Discusses PFF in further detail]. What are your thoughts on that and what we’re trying to do?

KC: I think it’s great. Some times the objectivity isn’t as objective as it can be. When you talk about coaches and players when they rate people, it’s often different from when a media outlet does it. Some times, there’s prejudice both ways. If you’re just watching a game from an arbitrary/objective standpoint and you’re not considering that one player is a 10-year veteran, this one’s a hot new rookie, has potential, or any of those kind of dangerous terms that get thrown around, [it’s great]. Sometimes people with give guys more credit than they’re due just because of one’s salary or draft status. I think it’s a great thing you guys are trying to do. Let’s face it, in this sensationalistic media world that we live in, some times the wrong players get held up on a pedestal. That’s why there’s always these unsung heroes.

http://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2011/06/18/interview-with-kevin-carter-former-nfl-de/