Does Pro Football Focus have a website or something?
They do and many hate on it around here. PFF grades players objectively and it bothers a lot of posters here. For example, on Quincy Black. People hated that he was usually graded fairly well because he usually was in the correct position and took care of his job. Now when people watched him play they saw a guy who didn't make many splash plays and hence the grade didn't usually meet what fans see. QB would get graded as one of the best 4-3 OLB yet never made a pro bowl, never ranked highly in any stat. This was because he always did his job but never dominated or really even stuck out in a game.I do follow our team on PFF although I'm not a subscriber so i'll give you what I know.1. McCoy was the best DT by a large margin and the 2nd best interior pass rusher behind JJ Watt.2. David was the best 4-3 OLB and graded better than all but two or three OLB in pass rush even though he rarely rushed the passer and 3-4 OLB did on almost every down.3. Revis graded as the best CB and this is again where people get confused as Revis was graded ahead of Sherman who led the leauge in INT. But production is only a part of the grade and position, apparently, means more.4. Lorig had weeks he graded as the best FB in the league.5. No other defensive lineman on the team had a positive grade for the year (McCoy was like 50.0)6. Goldson ranked somewhere in the 70 out 75 safeties (forget the exact number now but he was really really bad)7. Another big area of confusion is that Glennon had his best game of the year against the saints and graded a +4.2 compared to Brees in the same game with a +4.7. People again looked at the stats and see that the two aren't even close to compareable so the similar grades confuse them. I believe Glennon was slightly in the negative for the year.Don't discount the site because it gets slammed on here. I'd thought about subscribing as I do really enjoy it. Either way, make your own opinion
There were simpletons that didn't think PFF had a clue and whined incessantly when PFF said Davin Joseph and Jeremy Trueblood were two of the worst players at their postion. Now that PFF says McCoy, David, and Revis are the best at their respective positions, those same simpletons offer no controversy. Funny how that works.
Thanks Biggs, they also listed Joseph as the worst guard in the league
I wish the NFL would release official in-depth statistics.
Scarecrow mad . ... and me too Lyron. Then they would finally be accurate.
Scarecrow mad.
He's always angry about something.
Scarecrow mad.
He's always angry about something.
Yeah ....I almost feel sorry for lil' Brett Blackburn. He spent all of New Year's Eve night on the computer looking up how many times the Bucs ran on 2nd and long , all in the hopes of proving me wrong that the Bucs did it too much , and he ended up proving me right instead. LOLHis butthurt may never subside at this point.Happy New Year Brett .....you lifeless sack of shlt . LMAO
I wish the NFL would release official in-depth statistics.
I'm not sure what that would accomplish. Their stats are no more accurate than any of the other sites that track their own info. See this DTN "sack" as evidence: http://www.nfl.com/videos/tampa-bay-buccaneers/0ap2000000241149/Buccaneers-defense-sack-6-yd-loss
So let me get this straight. PFF grades players using a system that includes looking at where they were on the play and if they did their job? And not just how many splash plays they made? Sounds a lot like what real coaches do after games. I can see now why the armchair GM's dont like it.
The problem with PFF is not PFF it is the subscribers. Lol. Well, to be fair, it's a few of the subscribers, the ones who are so hyper-defensive that they don't acknowledge the inherent limitation of stats, particularly stats with such a heavy human component. Interestingly, some of these same PFF devotees use stats selectively. For example, if a "sacks" stat supports their point of view they cite "sacks." When it does not serve their purpose, they cite some PFF stat like "QBOR" (quarterback breathed on ratio). Another example, citing Raheem Morris's record from part of 2010 and part of 2012. Lol. Stats are interesting but they are not the "truth" without context. PFF has some interesting stats, some of which help illuminate the truth, some do not.
The problem with PFF is not PFF it is the subscribers. Lol. Well, to be fair, it's a few of the subscribers, the ones who are so hyper-defensive that they don't acknowledge the inherent limitation of stats, particularly stats with such a heavy human component. Interestingly, some of these same PFF devotees use stats selectively. For example, if a "sacks" stat supports their point of view they cite "sacks." When it does not serve their purpose, they cite some PFF stat like "QBOR" (quarterback breathed on ratio). Another example, citing Raheem Morris's record from part of 2010 and part of 2012. Lol. Stats are interesting but they are not the "truth" without context. PFF has some interesting stats, some of which help illuminate the truth, some do not.
Not to mention that a guy sitting at his computer rarely knows who's job was what. As Belichick, and coach after coach, point out - you often can't know what a guys job was by watching the film. PFF does some cool stuff, and is a very useful service, but is also limited in a lot of ways.
