kearly
New member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 15,975
- Reaction score
- 0
Introducing PFF's newest scorekeeper, Pete Prisco!
A quick caveat- I don't like PFF very much. I love to rip on them. So what I am about to say isn't meant as a defense of PFF... but some stuff should be cleared up in fairness to them:
As absurd as it sounds, the stupid grade for this game posted by HB actually "makes sense" if you understand the built in quirks of PFF's grading system. They grade a player by how he does on EVERY PLAY, which means that offensive lineman are going to have the 'biggest' grades of any position since they are involved and can be graded on every single play. Ditto Defensive linemen.
This is why Michael Bennett had a +5.3 grade in a fairly average game for him while Tyler Lockett only posted only a +3.6 despite Lockett clearly having the biggest non-QB impact on the game. Russell Wilson's grade was not posted, but you could assume it's less than +1.8 since he wasn't on the leaderboard. That may seem very low but it appears that PFF's grading system tends to have low scores for QBs for some reason, maybe because they feel there is a lot they can't see from broadcast tape.
Seattle's OL did play poorly IMO so I am fine with the cumulative -9.0 grade they got.
I noticed in PFF's writeup that they never mention a cumulative grade for the offense as a whole or the defense as a whole. That is a creation by Hawkblogger to make it look like PFF is brutally incompetent at scoring, when in fact their scoring system is by its nature heavily biased towards OL and DL play. At least in this article, PFF was smart enough to avoid cumulative scoring for an entire offense or defense because they know it would expose the weaknesses of their grading system.
PFF was never designed to be a team-wide measuring stick like DVOA. It was always meant to be a 'stat' to isolate individual performances. And for the most part, I agree with their positive and negative scores that they show. Seattle's OL did play poorly, with our RBs getting hit in the backfield far too often and Wilson getting pressured quickly too often. The non-OL players for Seattle received good grades. So on an individual level, I am mostly okay with how they graded the game, its just that if you combine the grades for all the players it exposes how much 'scoring inflation' certain positions receive and leads to strange looking results.
A quick caveat- I don't like PFF very much. I love to rip on them. So what I am about to say isn't meant as a defense of PFF... but some stuff should be cleared up in fairness to them:
As absurd as it sounds, the stupid grade for this game posted by HB actually "makes sense" if you understand the built in quirks of PFF's grading system. They grade a player by how he does on EVERY PLAY, which means that offensive lineman are going to have the 'biggest' grades of any position since they are involved and can be graded on every single play. Ditto Defensive linemen.
This is why Michael Bennett had a +5.3 grade in a fairly average game for him while Tyler Lockett only posted only a +3.6 despite Lockett clearly having the biggest non-QB impact on the game. Russell Wilson's grade was not posted, but you could assume it's less than +1.8 since he wasn't on the leaderboard. That may seem very low but it appears that PFF's grading system tends to have low scores for QBs for some reason, maybe because they feel there is a lot they can't see from broadcast tape.
Seattle's OL did play poorly IMO so I am fine with the cumulative -9.0 grade they got.
I noticed in PFF's writeup that they never mention a cumulative grade for the offense as a whole or the defense as a whole. That is a creation by Hawkblogger to make it look like PFF is brutally incompetent at scoring, when in fact their scoring system is by its nature heavily biased towards OL and DL play. At least in this article, PFF was smart enough to avoid cumulative scoring for an entire offense or defense because they know it would expose the weaknesses of their grading system.
PFF was never designed to be a team-wide measuring stick like DVOA. It was always meant to be a 'stat' to isolate individual performances. And for the most part, I agree with their positive and negative scores that they show. Seattle's OL did play poorly, with our RBs getting hit in the backfield far too often and Wilson getting pressured quickly too often. The non-OL players for Seattle received good grades. So on an individual level, I am mostly okay with how they graded the game, its just that if you combine the grades for all the players it exposes how much 'scoring inflation' certain positions receive and leads to strange looking results.
