Can Pro Football Focus Be Blindly Trusted?

[wrstdude]

http://www.bostonsportsmedia.com/2014/06/can-pro-football-focus-stats-be-blindly-trusted#comments

Really good article.

 

[rhinobean]

Too many factors in a game to label a player like Brady! Hate the cheatriots but Brady's one of the best. Hope they continue to decline as a team! Stats only tell part of the story to a team's quality.

 

[Memphis Ram]

http://www.bostonsportsmedia.com/2014/06/can-pro-football-focus-stats-be-blindly-trusted#comments

Really good article.

 

[ZigZagRam]

PFF provides a better metric to grade players than stats alone, but it's not the gospel, the main reason being their arbitrary 'play scoring system' that is used across their staff.

There's no way that you can tell me that's uniform.

 

[NJRamsFan]

PFF certainly has its value but it used as gospel by much of the media which is ridiculous.

 

[-X-]

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.

 

[ZigZagRam]

The biggest flaw they have (which will always exist) is that they don't know what a player's assignment is on a play. This especially comes into play for offensive linemen.

Say a LB blows an assignment, plugs the wrong gap, but the opposing RB runs into him, he'll get graded as a good play, when in reality it was a terrible play and would've gone for 20 yards had the RB taken the better gap.

 

[Thordaddy]

Brady's play in the AFC championship last year was so bad I MADE EXCUSES for it,I told people then he was still sick from the stomach virus he'd been reported to have had earlier in the week, entirely possible I was wrong and Jimmy Garrapolo was a choice Bill B thought he really needed to make.

 

[CoachO]

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.

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.

 

[DR RAM]

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.

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.

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.

 

[-X-]

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.

Or a guy's shoe will fall off.

 

[CoachO]

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 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.

 

[DR RAM]

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.

 

[CoachO]

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.

Take for example on offensive lineman who has a combination block. Unless someone truly knows his assignment, its next to impossible to know if he was chipping to help out the center, before going on to the second level and get to HIS block, or did he block the wrong guy first? Just one example off the top of my head, that even knowing the play call, some coaches have a hard time grading.

 

[FRO]

To me I go by what u see. PFF is a good resource, but not the total end all be all.

 

[Mojo Ram]

To me I go by what u see. PFF is a good resource, but not the total end all be all.

The eye test. Underrated in football circles these days it seems.
Like i've always said, this isn't baseball where player and team stats truly define what goes on from the first pitch to the last and what actually happened during the course of a game.

 

[wrstdude]

Seems like I agree w/ you all. For certain things, PFF is great (certain down and distance plays etc.), but their grades are virtually worthless.