Why PFF sucks .. Volume 4232789

Largent80

New member
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
36,653
Reaction score
5
Location
The Tex-ASS
Is this click bait?....because PFF has always sucked, and nobody cares what they say.
 

Chapow

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2010
Messages
5,295
Reaction score
1,176
Cool. I'm going to enjoy watching the team with the 13th best roster kick everyone else's ass.

:0190l:
 

kearly

New member
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Messages
15,975
Reaction score
0
This was pretty interesting as well:

Seattle is the most notable top team rated lower than consensus. The comparison of the Eagles and Colts, two teams that missed the playoffs last year, is more curious. The Eagles are listed as a top 5 team AND Sam Bradford is listed as one of their top 5 players. The Colts are listed as a bottom 5 team AND Andrew Luck is not even listed among their top 5 players. While acknowledging that the Colts’ roster has issues, that seems … odd. I don’t think the Eagles think they have a top 5 player on a top 5 team, as they just spent all offseason trying to spend resources to replace him.

I used to hate PFF. Now I actually enjoy their existence because of all the PFF bashing their articles create.

Though to be fair, these same rankings had Seattle #1 last year, and had them #1 the year before that as well.
 

IBleedBlueAndGreen

New member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
2,136
Reaction score
0
Location
Poulsbo, WA
kearly":ahjmkkng said:
This was pretty interesting as well:

Seattle is the most notable top team rated lower than consensus. The comparison of the Eagles and Colts, two teams that missed the playoffs last year, is more curious. The Eagles are listed as a top 5 team AND Sam Bradford is listed as one of their top 5 players. The Colts are listed as a bottom 5 team AND Andrew Luck is not even listed among their top 5 players. While acknowledging that the Colts’ roster has issues, that seems … odd. I don’t think the Eagles think they have a top 5 player on a top 5 team, as they just spent all offseason trying to spend resources to replace him.

I used to hate PFF. Now I actually enjoy their existence because of all the PFF bashing their articles create.

Though to be fair, these same rankings had Seattle #1 last year, and had them #1 the year before that as well.

Apparently Okung, Sweezy and Irvin were our three best players the last two years then.
 

AVL

Member
Joined
May 15, 2012
Messages
679
Reaction score
3
If it helps keep the target off our back I approve. I want to be number one at the finish.
 

theENGLISHseahawk

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
9,977
Reaction score
0
It's just getting to the point of self parody now.

PFF is basically the Pete Prisco of analytics.
 

kearly

New member
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Messages
15,975
Reaction score
0
I agree with their supporting arguements with regards to seattle's ranking. But I don't see how seattle isn't #1. They have been tops in DVOA for an unprecedented four straight years, and are a great bet to lead that stat again in 2016. unfortunately for pff, a flawed model will sometimes spit out nonsensical conclusions from time to time. This is one of them.
 

HawkGA

New member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
107,412
Reaction score
1
IBleedBlueAndGreen":2ld41vos said:
kearly":2ld41vos said:
This was pretty interesting as well:

Seattle is the most notable top team rated lower than consensus. The comparison of the Eagles and Colts, two teams that missed the playoffs last year, is more curious. The Eagles are listed as a top 5 team AND Sam Bradford is listed as one of their top 5 players. The Colts are listed as a bottom 5 team AND Andrew Luck is not even listed among their top 5 players. While acknowledging that the Colts’ roster has issues, that seems … odd. I don’t think the Eagles think they have a top 5 player on a top 5 team, as they just spent all offseason trying to spend resources to replace him.

I used to hate PFF. Now I actually enjoy their existence because of all the PFF bashing their articles create.

Though to be fair, these same rankings had Seattle #1 last year, and had them #1 the year before that as well.

Apparently Okung, Sweezy and Irvin were our three best players the last two years then.

Cary Williams and Nowak rounded out the top 5, for last year anyway.
 

AgentDib

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
5,468
Reaction score
1,240
Location
Bothell
This isn't too surprising if you understand that PFF's sole product is their black box player grades. If that's the only input then it would be silly to be optimistic about our O-Line. Of course reality is a lot more complicated as we are moving players to new positions and continuing to develop them, but PFF is marketing their product here and looking at the big picture doesn't help them do that.

FO's stat based alternative is much better at gauging overall offenses, defenses, and team production. For something like this FO is useful while PFF provides no value. FO fails too, however, as you start to look at individual components. Sadly, the people who do get the balance between film and stats right work for NFL teams and don't publish all their information for free on the internet.
 

Smellyman

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
7,119
Reaction score
1,038
Location
Taipei
Brock Huard loves to use PFF grades......as a good thing.

Use your eyeballs Brock, they are better than PFF, even if they are wide set.
 

kearly

New member
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Messages
15,975
Reaction score
0
AgentDib":10qifi2y said:
This isn't too surprising if you understand that PFF's sole product is their black box player grades. If that's the only input then it would be silly to be optimistic about our O-Line. Of course reality is a lot more complicated as we are moving players to new positions and continuing to develop them, but PFF is marketing their product here and looking at the big picture doesn't help them do that.

FO's stat based alternative is much better at gauging overall offenses, defenses, and team production. For something like this FO is useful while PFF provides no value. FO fails too, however, as you start to look at individual components. Sadly, the people who do get the balance between film and stats right work for NFL teams and don't publish all their information for free on the internet.

I've had a lot of the same thoughts.

I do think FO is actually pretty solid at individual stats, but their formulas only allow them to evaluate a fraction of the positions (namely, skill positions on offense), and unlike PFF, they grade ONLY by results and not by the eye test, which has obvious limitations.

You are right that PFF's micro analysis of each player doesn't work on a team level, because doing so ignores how teams are often less than or greater than the sum of it's parts. Additionally, it seems like of the 30 or so PFF reviewers, some are good at what they do and others aren't. Their grades are subjective and their accuracy will depend on the skill of the reviewer. That's one reason why some of their individual grades seem right on the money, while other grades are completely baffling.

In regards to how teams grade players, these days evaluating a player is more about "fit" than ever. How good a free agent or draft pick plays or produces is secondary to how well he fits scheme. Or at least, it seems to be this way among the very best teams- Seattle, Green Bay, New England, etc. So I'm guessing that many if not most NFL teams have evaluation stats on players that are unique to their own organizations.
 

ivotuk

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
23,060
Reaction score
1,763
Location
North Pole, Alaska
kearly":1nukpw2u said:
AgentDib":1nukpw2u said:
This isn't too surprising if you understand that PFF's sole product is their black box player grades. If that's the only input then it would be silly to be optimistic about our O-Line. Of course reality is a lot more complicated as we are moving players to new positions and continuing to develop them, but PFF is marketing their product here and looking at the big picture doesn't help them do that.

FO's stat based alternative is much better at gauging overall offenses, defenses, and team production. For something like this FO is useful while PFF provides no value. FO fails too, however, as you start to look at individual components. Sadly, the people who do get the balance between film and stats right work for NFL teams and don't publish all their information for free on the internet.

I've had a lot of the same thoughts.

I do think FO is actually pretty solid at individual stats, but their formulas only allow them to evaluate a fraction of the positions (namely, skill positions on offense), and unlike PFF, they grade ONLY by results and not by the eye test, which has obvious limitations.

You are right that PFF's micro analysis of each player doesn't work on a team level, because doing so ignores how teams are often less than or greater than the sum of it's parts. Additionally, it seems like of the 30 or so PFF reviewers, some are good at what they do and others aren't. Their grades are subjective and their accuracy will depend on the skill of the reviewer. That's one reason why some of their individual grades seem right on the money, while other grades are completely baffling.

In regards to how teams grade players, these days evaluating a player is more about "fit" than ever. How good a free agent or draft pick plays or produces is secondary to how well he fits scheme. Or at least, it seems to be this way among the very best teams- Seattle, Green Bay, New England, etc. So I'm guessing that many if not most NFL teams have evaluation stats on players that are unique to their own organizations.

I think that this is absolutely accurate. It's less about "BPA" in the draft than it used to be, and more "which of these 5 BPA fit our scheme best?"

Then there are FA hangovers that effect a team's free agents. Byron Maxwell got that huge contract and played like crap, which (that plus injury) allowed us to keep Jeremy Lane. Everyone was so "fired up" to sign Seahawks players, now they realize that those players are subject to "team fit."

It will be interesting to see how Okung (injuries) and Sweezy (penalties) signings effect next year's Seahawks. Although Denver was in need and actually got Okung at a reasonable (if healthy) price.

Edit: Bruce Irvin's performance this year will be interesting to watch.
 
Top