- Joined
- May 27, 2013
- Messages
- 433
Lotta people use them as the basis of their arguments, and sometimes as their exclamation point, and oftentimes they don't even know what their metrics mean. They put in a ton of work, and I respect what they do. You'll be hard pressed to find another source that provides some of the situational stats they offer.
Lotta people use them as the basis of their arguments, and sometimes as their exclamation point, and oftentimes they don't even know what their metrics mean. They put in a ton of work, and I respect what they do. You'll be hard pressed to find another source that provides some of the situational stats they offer.
And X knows this, because I've been in on some of these arguments. You can't see the whole field, you don't know what the assignment was, you don't know what sight line or first option is, you don't know if a guy blew a route, etc. But...they still get props for what they do. I've done this myself more times than I can count, and it is tedious, long, and hard work.I agree "X" that is can be a good tool to determine general information. But when they use their rankings as an all inclusive tool, especially when they include any and every player who may have taken a snap at that position, it gets to be a little over the top.
We both know of a certain individual from the "other" forum who loved to site these rankings in almost every player eval he posted, especially if it was someone he didn't like when they were drafted. And would get VERY defensive if you questioned the PFF validity as gospel. When someone uses them for this sort of bible, it can be misleading, but as you said, there are things that they point out that are very useful.
Or a guy's shoe will fall off.And X knows this, because I've been in on some of these arguments. You can't see the whole field, you don't know what the assignment was, you don't know what sight line or first option is, you don't know if a guy blew a route, etc. But...they still get props for what they do. I've done this myself more times than I can count, and it is tedious, long, and hard work.
And X knows this, because I've been in on some of these arguments. You can't see the whole field, you don't know what the assignment was, you don't know what sight line or first option is, you don't know if a guy blew a route, etc. But...they still get props for what they do. I've done this myself more times than I can count, and it is tedious, long, and hard work.
Yes, I'd give them more credit if I knew their knowledge of the game from many perspectives, like having coached, having played, having scouted, etc.I echo everything you said. The assignment "guessing" is the biggest thing for me. How someone can grade a player without knowing the assignment puts this entire system in question for me.
And now throw into the mix that we just don't know the qualifications of the "analysts" screening these games, its even more in question for me. Again, I admire the dedication, but I wont ever put too much stock into the stuff they put out there. Unfortunately, as is pointed out in the article, the media has become just lazy enough to regurgitate this sort of thing, and use it as fact in most cases.
Yes, I'd give them more credit if I knew their knowledge of the game from many perspectives, like having coached, having played, having scouted, etc.
The eye test. Underrated in football circles these days it seems.To me I go by what u see. PFF is a good resource, but not the total end all be all.