Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 26 reply threads

  • Author

    Posts

    • michael89156

      Participant
      Post count: 3229

      PPF stats don't lie? Aaron Rodgers rated below Foles, Bortles by Jamie Wright 2h agolie_zpsartcbad2.jpgSep 28, 2015; Green Bay, WIGreen Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers (12) throws a pass during the fourth quarter against the Kansas City Chiefs at Lambeau Field. Green Bay won 38-28. Jeff Hanisch-USA TODAY SportsAaron Rodgers: Cover your eyes …The NFL analytic website called ProFootballFocus (PFF) has been widely renowned as … brilliant. It’s how each player for each position group is graded, week-in and week-out, on their total gameplay.When a statistic is floating around about a positional players’ negative or positive rating for a specific week, it’s stemming from that system.However, it seems that the PFF analytics just … can’t be trusted anymore.The statistics that lieOn Monday Night, Aaron Rodgers and the Green Bay Packers offense put on an absolute clinic in a rout of the Kansas City Chiefs at Lambeau Field. Rodgers had a performance for the ages, tossing five touchdowns and (again) zero interceptions, a feat that puts him in the NFL history books.Rodgers and Peyton Manning are the only two QBs to throw for 10-plus touchdowns and zero interceptions through the first three weeks of football. Manning did it in 2013 and Rodgers joined the elite company last night.It wasn’t just that, however.Rodgers became one of the only quarterbacks in the history of the league to throw for 5-plu TD’s on four separate occasions. His streak for touchdowns without an interception at Lambeau Field is now extended to 19 games, well over 400 passing attempts and 48 touchdowns without a pick. His last interception at home?His birthday, December 2, 2012.It’s been a while.When the grades came out today, you wouldn’t have expected to find Rodgers’ name at the bottom of the QB list – with an overall negative grade of -0.8, sitting in the same company as Teddy Bridgewater, Nick Foles, Blake Bortles and Jameis Winston. In fact, of the quarterbacks rated above Rodgers on the list are Andy Dalton, Marcus Mariota, Tyrod Taylor, Derek Carr and a hapless Ryan Mallett.When asked why the two-time league MVP and 5-touchdown (to zero interception) guy was given such an awful grade, the analysts responded by saying that the formula takes into account all plays demonstrated on the football field, even the two that won’t show up on the stat line.Yes, they are referring to a fumble in the 2nd quarter which was negated because of a penalty down the field. They said that Rodgers’ fumble showed “poor pocket management” and counted negatively on his overall performance.The other slight?A near interception thrown in the third quarter, which was dropped and called an incompletion. Rodgers said that he “just didn’t see him (Josh Muaga)” and it was a close call that went the Packers’ way.So – PFF, I pose this followup question to you: TWO plays, neither of which negatively impacted the offense or the game in any way, are what you’re going by here?Rodgers tossed 24 completions against just 9 incompletions, 5 of those went for touchdowns, none wound up in the hands of the opponent. His cadence drew multiple offsides penalties, one resulting in a huge TD catch by James Jones, another a huge completion down the field to set up another TD. He collected a whopping 139-passer rating, far and away the best in the league, week three.But a fumble and an interception that wasn’t – made that great an impact?Well … I guess the Packers should just trade him away now. What’s the use in wasting all that money on a guy that grades out like Blake Bortles against the defending SB champion, Patriots?Go home, ProFootballFocus.You are clearly, drunk.link

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 4755

      For the most part, outside of a small cult like band of fans that live and breathe everything PFF, most people I know take their rankings with a grain of salt. The system is obviously flawed when a TD pass is graded neutral and a ball that was almost intercepted but wasn't is graded negative. The fact that Rodgers graded negatively highlights the insanity of it all after a 5 TD 0 INT game.It is basically a great idea and the raw data is great but the way it is applied is not great.

      Please wait…

    • tbfan4047

      Participant
      Post count: 534

      Moments like this could kill PFF

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      outside of a small cult like band of fans that live and breathe everything PFF

      I have posted many times that the problem is not PFF as much as it is the "small cult like band of fans" who fail to grasp the inherent limitations to PFF's work. Worse than that, there is a small subset of the "small cult like band of fans" who SELECTIVELY trumpet PFF "stats" while claiming those who disagree are "simpletons" or idiots and the like. LmaoIt's no coincidence that some of the worst PFF offenders are absent from this thread and the others that are appropriately roasting PFF.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2412

      Rodgers 24 of 35 for 333 yards and 5 TD’s, ZERO ints, QBR -78  PFF score = -0.8Mallett  24 of 39 for 228 yards and 1 TD, 1 int, QBR of 73.9    PFF score =  1.1Lower completion percentage, fewer yards, way fewer TD's, lower QBR yet still a higher PFF score, and using PFF's scoring grade, a significant amount too.  Pff tries to justify Rodgers low grade because he had a fumble called back by a penalty and a dropped pick 6.  But they do not apply the same negative to Mallet who had a sack fumble called back by a penalty and at least two ints dropped.  This is just like I have been saying all along.  The problem with PFF is not in their scoring method.  It is the inconsistency of the score across the league.  And as long as a score is based on an individuals opinion, it will always be the same way.  To balance out that very evident flaw, the numbers need to be averaged out across multiple opinions.  And a sufficient number to ensure one or two outliers do not skew the scores.  But I'm sure one of the loyal PFF subscribers will be along here shortly to let us know that we just don't know how to use PFF correctly.  ::) ::) ::) ::)

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      And as long as a score is based on an individuals opinion, it will always be the same way. 

      There was a hilarious discussion on here once about subjective versus objective

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3169

      Rodgers 24 of 35 for 333 yards and 5 TD's, ZERO ints, QBR -78  PFF score = -0.8Mallett  24 of 39 for 228 yards and 1 TD, 1 int, QBR of 73.9    PFF score =  1.1

      Rodgers' passer rating was over 135... Mallets was in the mid 70's... 78 compared to 73.9 seems a bit too close for me with respect to QBR, as well.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3392

      I understand what they are getting at with Rodgers – for example on one of the TDs, the idea is that Cobb did much of the work on his own. I think their view is that play is essentially akin to a pitch out, and when you pitch it, only the running back (and OL) should get the credit). And the sack fumble was hideous, because Rodgers' internal clock went haywire (I think he was back there 6 seconds). That said, there were times in that game where I just shook my head in amazement about how great he is.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2412

      I understand what they are getting at with Rodgers - for example on one of the TDs, the idea is that Cobb did much of the work on his own. I think their view is that play is essentially akin to a pitch out, and when you pitch it, only the running back (and OL) should get the credit). And the sack fumble was hideous, because Rodgers' internal clock went haywire (I think he was back there 6 seconds). That said, there were times in that game where I just shook my head in amazement about how great he is.

      Not saying those negative plays should not be negative plays.  But why didn't the same type of negative plays (sack fumble lost, overturned by a penalty and dropped Ints) hurt Mallett the same?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      I understand what they are getting at with Rodgers - for example on one of the TDs, the idea is that Cobb did much of the work on his own. I think their view is that play is essentially akin to a pitch out, and when you pitch it, only the running back (and OL) should get the credit). And the sack fumble was hideous, because Rodgers' internal clock went haywire (I think he was back there 6 seconds). That said, there were times in that game where I just shook my head in amazement about how great he is.

      Not saying those negative plays should not be negative plays.  But why didn't the same type of negative plays (sack fumble lost, overturned by a penalty and dropped Ints) hurt Mallett the same?

      that's an interesting question because I assume PFF at least maintains that it applies the same standards across games?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 131

      I know no one cares on here but I live in Houston and went back and documented every Watt play.  I would say I know quite a bit about football and I did not see the double/triple team EVERY play.  In fact I am confused why a guy who got pancaked as many  times as solo tackles got a 3.0 rating.  People in Houston hate me but it is a clear fact JJ played a poor game and it was not due to triple teams.I would love for someone to break him down to compare and see if it was my rose colored glasses.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2412

      I understand what they are getting at with Rodgers - for example on one of the TDs, the idea is that Cobb did much of the work on his own. I think their view is that play is essentially akin to a pitch out, and when you pitch it, only the running back (and OL) should get the credit). And the sack fumble was hideous, because Rodgers' internal clock went haywire (I think he was back there 6 seconds). That said, there were times in that game where I just shook my head in amazement about how great he is.

      Not saying those negative plays should not be negative plays.  But why didn't the same type of negative plays (sack fumble lost, overturned by a penalty and dropped Ints) hurt Mallett the same?

      that's an interesting question because I assume PFF at least maintains that it applies the same standards across games?

      And that is where is comes down to a person opinion, or "being able to tell".  It is very possible for Mallett, they did not grade those as negative plays because he wasn't "sure" that is was Mallett fault. But the guy grading GB's game apparently believed it was Rodgers fault. And there we have the problem.  If you had 100 people watching both sack/strip fumbles overturned by a penalty plays, you get a wide range of answers as to who did what and why.  Also remember, only the TV broadcast is used to make this judgment, not the All 22 film.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 407

      PFF is not to be taken seriously.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 814

      I understand what they are getting at with Rodgers - for example on one of the TDs, the idea is that Cobb did much of the work on his own. I think their view is that play is essentially akin to a pitch out, and when you pitch it, only the running back (and OL) should get the credit). And the sack fumble was hideous, because Rodgers' internal clock went haywire (I think he was back there 6 seconds). That said, there were times in that game where I just shook my head in amazement about how great he is.

      I am asking this as a cautiously pessimistic reader of PFF ratings that are provided by my fellow Red Board posters, does PFF give credit to ARod and other QBs who escape/slide in pocket to avoid negative plays I.e. Sack fumbles, sacks, INTs , fumbles?  Sorry Freddy, if this is what you were asking earlier in thread...

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2412

      I understand what they are getting at with Rodgers - for example on one of the TDs, the idea is that Cobb did much of the work on his own. I think their view is that play is essentially akin to a pitch out, and when you pitch it, only the running back (and OL) should get the credit). And the sack fumble was hideous, because Rodgers' internal clock went haywire (I think he was back there 6 seconds). That said, there were times in that game where I just shook my head in amazement about how great he is.

      I am asking this as a cautiously pessimistic reader of PFF ratings that are provided by my fellow Red Board posters, does PFF give credit to ARod and other QBs who escape/slide in pocket to avoid negative plays I.e. Sack fumbles, sacks, INTs , fumbles?  Sorry Freddy, if this is what you were asking earlier in thread...

      Well, not sure if this is a direct answer, but at least in this case, it looks like PFF judged their play based on their playing history.  Rodgers doesn't throw interceptions so a near miss is an important play.  Mallett is not know for his ball security, so yet another near interception is not a big deal.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3392

      I understand what they are getting at with Rodgers - for example on one of the TDs, the idea is that Cobb did much of the work on his own. I think their view is that play is essentially akin to a pitch out, and when you pitch it, only the running back (and OL) should get the credit). And the sack fumble was hideous, because Rodgers' internal clock went haywire (I think he was back there 6 seconds). That said, there were times in that game where I just shook my head in amazement about how great he is.

      I am asking this as a cautiously pessimistic reader of PFF ratings that are provided by my fellow Red Board posters, does PFF give credit to ARod and other QBs who escape/slide in pocket to avoid negative plays I.e. Sack fumbles, sacks, INTs , fumbles?  Sorry Freddy, if this is what you were asking earlier in thread...

      Well, not sure if this is a direct answer, but at least in this case, it looks like PFF judged their play based on their playing history.  Rodgers doesn't throw interceptions so a near miss is an important play.  Mallett is not know for his ball security, so yet another near interception is not a big deal.

      Freddy, I can't tell you exactly how they graded everything, but I'm sure that is not it. Also, they now have 3 people checking each grade. So it's not just one person's idiosyncratic decision.Biggs or someone who sees the premium stuff would know better, but I believe they would grade that near miss int (the one that hit the guy in the numbers) as a -1.5. The sack fumble might have gone all the way to -2 as it's was a pretty bone-headed play. I don't have a lot of questions about negatives for those. Those were bad plays by Rodgers that were unpunished by the Chiefs. The whole point of these numbers is to provide more nuance to traditional stats. That said, I'm really struggling to see how even with those two big negatives, his overall game was negative. As for Mallett, it's not that they don't count the negative plays, it's that they may not give the same number score for them. For example, take Mallet's pick. He's going to get docked because it was tipped at the line. But he's unlikely to get a -2 or -1.5 since the pick itself was kind of fluky. Compare that to the Rodgers one that hit the guy right in the gut. I should add that they have sort of black box that they run things through that accounts for down, distance, situation, etc. One of my issues with them is that you can have basically a vanilla game, make 2 or 3 very good plays and yet grade pretty highly. It's not some sort of conspiracy, but it's just the nature of cumulative grading.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 253

      In all seriousness I though PFF was a parody site.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2412

      I understand what they are getting at with Rodgers - for example on one of the TDs, the idea is that Cobb did much of the work on his own. I think their view is that play is essentially akin to a pitch out, and when you pitch it, only the running back (and OL) should get the credit). And the sack fumble was hideous, because Rodgers' internal clock went haywire (I think he was back there 6 seconds). That said, there were times in that game where I just shook my head in amazement about how great he is.

      I am asking this as a cautiously pessimistic reader of PFF ratings that are provided by my fellow Red Board posters, does PFF give credit to ARod and other QBs who escape/slide in pocket to avoid negative plays I.e. Sack fumbles, sacks, INTs , fumbles?  Sorry Freddy, if this is what you were asking earlier in thread...

      Well, not sure if this is a direct answer, but at least in this case, it looks like PFF judged their play based on their playing history.  Rodgers doesn't throw interceptions so a near miss is an important play.  Mallett is not know for his ball security, so yet another near interception is not a big deal.

      Freddy, I can't tell you exactly how they graded everything, but I'm sure that is not it. Also, they now have 3 people checking each grade. So it's not just one person's idiosyncratic decision.Biggs or someone who sees the premium stuff would know better, but I believe they would grade that near miss int (the one that hit the guy in the numbers) as a -1.5. The sack fumble might have gone all the way to -2 as it's was a pretty bone-headed play. I don't have a lot of questions about negatives for those. Those were bad plays by Rodgers that were unpunished by the Chiefs. The whole point of these numbers is to provide more nuance to traditional stats. That said, I'm really struggling to see how even with those two big negatives, his overall game was negative. As for Mallett, it's not that they don't count the negative plays, it's that they may not give the same number score for them. For example, take Mallet's pick. He's going to get docked because it was tipped at the line. But he's unlikely to get a -2 or -1.5 since the pick itself was kind of fluky. Compare that to the Rodgers one that hit the guy right in the gut. I should add that they have sort of black box that they run things through that accounts for down, distance, situation, etc. One of my issues with them is that you can have basically a vanilla game, make 2 or 3 very good plays and yet grade pretty highly. It's not some sort of conspiracy, but it's just the nature of cumulative grading.

      I understand what you are saying Booker but it is still a generally flawed concept to think that equal "opinion" can be applied across the board.  You mentioned Mallett's "fluky" int, what about the near int that bounced off of Kwon's hands? What about his fumble. He had those plus the fluky int and less good plays yes still scored 2 points higher. Just makes zero sense.  As such, that is why PFF is a good source of reference and can help identify outliers, but anyone who makes a decision based on PFF alone ( like a few of our posters) is an absolute idiot.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      As for Mallett, it's not that they don't count the negative plays, it's that they may not give the same number score for them. For example, take Mallet's pick. He's going to get docked because it was tipped at the line. But he's unlikely to get a -2 or -1.5 since the pick itself was kind of fluky.

      Maybe Buggsy could tell us if that is subjective scoring or objective scoring

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2601

      PFF is about as good a resource as any other stat. It’s a tool. Know how to use it.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 929

      People can keep hating on PFF all they want but there’s a reason it’s backed behind so many NFL teams and ESPN. No one is saying there grades are written in stone so quit acting like that. Obviously Rodgers had a way better game than his rating but all they are saying is he may have had a little more help from his teammates than his regular stats apply but that’s why Rodgers is so good. He puts his teammates and team in a position to win. Say what you want about PFF but usually the best players at the end of each year are towards the top and obvious worse are towards the bottom in their ratings. Most people with any common sense know there ratings aren’t 100% accurate but there’s nothing wrong with using their ratings and giving players an eye test at the same time. PFF is just a tool that can help gauge players. Doesn’t mean it’s the bible.

      Please wait…

    • vlagatta

      Member
      Post count: 2638

      People can keep hating on PFF all they want but there's a reason it's backed behind so many NFL teams and ESPN. No one is saying there grades are written in stone so quit acting like that. Obviously Rodgers had a way better game than his rating but all they are saying is he may have had a little more help from his teammates than his regular stats apply but that's why Rodgers is so good. He puts his teammates and team in a position to win. Say what you want about PFF but usually the best players at the end of each year are towards the top and obvious worse are towards the bottom in their ratings. Most people with any common sense know there ratings aren't 100% accurate but there's nothing wrong with using their ratings and giving players an eye test at the same time. PFF is just a tool that can help gauge players. Doesn't mean it's the bible.

      spoken like another typical clueless millennial. it's sad most of you can no longer see/read/experience great sports journalism....and more sad is what you now consider great sports journalism.  glam, bloat, drivel and flash have taken over that industry.  now it's all designed around fans with short attention spans.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 5954

      lol ur old

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 253

      Are we sure it’s not a parody site of Football outsiders?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1098

      Not to be taken seriously? A source that dissects every single NFL play in every single NFL game and grades EVERY SINGLE player based on their performance should not be taken seriously?Yeah sure it may not be fully accurate. But like another poster said, it's a decent guideline for stat keeping and general player performance. Combine it with self-assessment and it's a nice tool for learning the sport.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 8044

      People can keep hating on PFF all they want but there's a reason it's backed behind so many NFL teams and ESPN. No one is saying there grades are written in stone so quit acting like that. Obviously Rodgers had a way better game than his rating but all they are saying is he may have had a little more help from his teammates than his regular stats apply but that's why Rodgers is so good. He puts his teammates and team in a position to win. Say what you want about PFF but usually the best players at the end of each year are towards the top and obvious worse are towards the bottom in their ratings. Most people with any common sense know there ratings aren't 100% accurate but there's nothing wrong with using their ratings and giving players an eye test at the same time. PFF is just a tool that can help gauge players. Doesn't mean it's the bible.

      spoken like another typical clueless millennial. it's sad most of you can no longer see/read/experience great sports journalism....and more sad is what you now consider great sports journalism.  glam, bloat, drivel and flash have taken over that industry.  now it's all designed around fans with short attention spans.

      did you quote the wrong post?i think the post by notabucs fan was spot on.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 929

      People can keep hating on PFF all they want but there's a reason it's backed behind so many NFL teams and ESPN. No one is saying there grades are written in stone so quit acting like that. Obviously Rodgers had a way better game than his rating but all they are saying is he may have had a little more help from his teammates than his regular stats apply but that's why Rodgers is so good. He puts his teammates and team in a position to win. Say what you want about PFF but usually the best players at the end of each year are towards the top and obvious worse are towards the bottom in their ratings. Most people with any common sense know there ratings aren't 100% accurate but there's nothing wrong with using their ratings and giving players an eye test at the same time. PFF is just a tool that can help gauge players. Doesn't mean it's the bible.

      spoken like another typical clueless millennial. it's sad most of you can no longer see/read/experience great sports journalism....and more sad is what you now consider great sports journalism.  glam, bloat, drivel and flash have taken over that industry.  now it's all designed around fans with short attention spans.

      did you quote the wrong post?i think the post by notabucs fan was spot on.

      I think he may have had a little too many or his reading comprehension isn't his strong suit. I'm more than capable of making my own assessments and I take pride in watching football and paying attention and assessing to what's going on in other areas of the field besides who has the football.

      Please wait…

Viewing 26 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.