PFF RB Rankings

ivotuk · Nov 14, 2018

PFF Running Back Efficiency Ratings.

People are ignoring the formulas used to calculate "Efficiency Ratings" and crying about "Why isn't this running back or that running back on there? He has more yards/touchdowns." LOL! "PFF has no credibility because Gurley isn't in the Top 5"

The poster has no credibility because they didn't read the background information on the rating. They just want the flashiest running back to be #1 The offensive lines ability, and yards before contact are a HUGE factor in a running back's success.

Melvin Gordon is the NFL's highest graded running back so far this season.

https://twitter.com/PFF/status/1062748767861006337

Thepeelsessions · Nov 14, 2018

I like this. I am a firm believer in the PFF grading system. I remember last year (maybe the year before) where Rodgers had a game where he threw for like 400+ yards and 5 or 6 TDs, and PFF had the gall to give him a bad grade. At first I was stunned, but then I heard an interview on the radio with someone from PFF, and due to the massive outcry Nationwide about the grade given to Rodgers, he was asked to explain it. He basically said, on paper it looks like Rodgers had an amazing game, but that wasn't the case. It was something like all but one of his TD passes were a paltry 3 yard or less completions, and over 75% of his yards were due to passes of under 10 air yards that gained huge YAC thanks to his receivers. It actually made perfect sense.

PFFs grading is a breath of fresh air. It takes all facets of the game into account. Not just the flashy stats everyone wants to see and hear about.

Nice to see a Seattle RB make that list.

toffee · Nov 14, 2018

Thepeelsessions":3tjqqene said:
I like this. I am a firm believer in the PFF grading system. I remember last year (maybe the year before) where Rodgers had a game where he threw for like 400+ yards and 5 or 6 TDs, and PFF had the gall to give him a bad grade. At first I was stunned, but then I heard an interview on the radio with someone from PFF, and due to the massive outcry Nationwide about the grade given to Rodgers, he was asked to explain it. He basically said, on paper it looks like Rodgers had an amazing game, but that wasn't the case. It was something like all but one of his TD passes were a paltry 3 yard or less completions, and over 75% of his yards were due to passes of under 10 air yards that gained huge YAC thanks to his receivers. It actually made perfect sense.

PFFs grading is a breath of fresh air. It takes all facets of the game into account. Not just the flashy stats everyone wants to see and hear about.

Nice to see a Seattle RB make that list.

this

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

knownone · Nov 14, 2018

ivotuk":h05r3jfk said:
PFF Running Back Efficiency Ratings.

People are ignoring the formulas used to calculate "Efficiency Ratings" and crying about "Why isn't this running back or that running back on there? He has more yards/touchdowns." LOL! "PFF has no credibility because Gurley isn't in the Top 5"

The poster has no credibility because they didn't read the background information on the rating. They just want the flashiest running back to be #1 The offensive lines ability, and yards before contact are a HUGE factor in a running back's success.

Melvin Gordon is the NFL's highest graded running back so far this season.

https://twitter.com/PFF/status/1062748767861006337

I would love to see their formula because right now I would contend their formula is horrible at calculating efficiency. Todd Gurley is #1 in just about every analytic measure of efficiency. He's #1 in success rate, effective yards, dvoa, dyar. Even his aggregate of the more meaningless stats in efficiency categories such as True Yards Per Carry, Yards Per Touch, and broken/evaded tackles is higher than any other running back in the league... and it's not even close.

I'd appreciate any link to a website that explains their formula because I'm curious how they came up with their rankings and unfortunately I couldn't find anything explaining the process they used.

Scorpion05 · Nov 14, 2018

Thepeelsessions":2c43wsdh said:
I like this. I am a firm believer in the PFF grading system. I remember last year (maybe the year before) where Rodgers had a game where he threw for like 400+ yards and 5 or 6 TDs, and PFF had the gall to give him a bad grade. At first I was stunned, but then I heard an interview on the radio with someone from PFF, and due to the massive outcry Nationwide about the grade given to Rodgers, he was asked to explain it. He basically said, on paper it looks like Rodgers had an amazing game, but that wasn't the case. It was something like all but one of his TD passes were a paltry 3 yard or less completions, and over 75% of his yards were due to passes of under 10 air yards that gained huge YAC thanks to his receivers. It actually made perfect sense.

PFFs grading is a breath of fresh air. It takes all facets of the game into account. Not just the flashy stats everyone wants to see and hear about.

Nice to see a Seattle RB make that list.

PFF has its flaws, but this is a great point as it relates to the anti-PFF crowd. And quite frankly, I trust their research and analysis compared to those obsessed with fantasy points and only spend their time watching highlights

DomeHawk · Nov 14, 2018

There is NEVER going to be a stat that fully represents what is actually happening. The point is that you want one that is comprehensive and consistent enough to form a reasonable evaluation for discussion.

Isn't that what we do here? Sans the "reasonable" part? Lol.

knownone · Nov 14, 2018

DomeHawk":2w5dtkpt said:
There is NEVER going to be a stat that fully represents what is actually happening. The point is that you want one that is comprehensive and consistent enough to form a reasonable evaluation for discussion.

Isn't that what we do here? Sans the "reasonable" part? Lol.

I think you are confusing stats with an analytical model or function. Stats are black and white and only tell you what actually happened, they don't pretend to provide nuance or color. PFF is using an analytical model designed to provide nuance and color. This is an important distinction IMO.

Jville · Nov 14, 2018

These various published positional rankings are unique unto themselves ....... strictly for public consumption. Entertaining but lacking in definitive value. It's not like any of the players listed go head to head in an actual competitive contest. Entertainment rankings differ considerably from actual team grading that goes on among the diversity of 32 teams as a weekly routine. Publisher rankings are most useful for jousting back and forth on the job site or at the water cooler. Have fun with it ....... but don't take it too seriously.

themunn · Nov 15, 2018

Thepeelsessions":2aqy2a43 said:
I like this. I am a firm believer in the PFF grading system. I remember last year (maybe the year before) where Rodgers had a game where he threw for like 400+ yards and 5 or 6 TDs, and PFF had the gall to give him a bad grade. At first I was stunned, but then I heard an interview on the radio with someone from PFF, and due to the massive outcry Nationwide about the grade given to Rodgers, he was asked to explain it. He basically said, on paper it looks like Rodgers had an amazing game, but that wasn't the case. It was something like all but one of his TD passes were a paltry 3 yard or less completions, and over 75% of his yards were due to passes of under 10 air yards that gained huge YAC thanks to his receivers. It actually made perfect sense.

Receivers can't make YAC if the ball doesn't make it into their hands and in space for them to do something with it.
Now getting receivers open in those spaces might be more scheme than QB, but if it was so easy you'd see QBs doing it every week and you don't.

MontanaHawk05 · Nov 15, 2018

Grading OL is still their weakness.

DJrmb · Nov 15, 2018

It's nice to see the narrative on PFF grading changing a bit. I remember not long ago many would completely throw it out as meaningless and completely worthless (like Dave Wyman). Of course it's not perfect and of course they're going to have strengths and weaknesses within their process. However, PFF actually puts a lot more into their grading than what a lot of fans realize when they're just make their knee jerk reaction and shaping an uninformed opinion. There process isn't all that different from how teams scout and grade players for the NFL draft. Obviously teams think there is some value to that process when trying to grade college players and decide who to draft. So, why couldn't a similar process work to give some idea on how good or bad NFL players are performing? In a way they're just scouting the NFL rather than scouting college, which is a process every NFL team trusts to evaluate players/performance...

PFF RB Rankings

ivotuk

Well-known member

Thepeelsessions

New member

toffee

Well-known member

knownone

Well-known member

Scorpion05

Active member

DomeHawk

Guest

knownone

Well-known member

Jville

Well-known member

themunn

Well-known member

MontanaHawk05

Well-known member

DJrmb

Well-known member

Similar threads

Latest posts