Sataoa Laumea

[SeaWolv]

Maybe you don't know what opaque means.

You questioned how I could possibly know what their process is and whether they review their content as I said, that it's "opaque", but the text I shared from their own website shows the process it's actually quite transparent.

 

[DTiempo81]

You questioned how I could possibly know what their process is and whether they review their content as I said, that it's "opaque", but the text I shared from their own website shows the process it's actually quite transparent.

You are missing the point. Unless how each player is graded is open and transparent, it doesn't really matter. The "process" you linked to doesn't give any specifics, and doesn't give any insight into way a specific player is graded for a specific game. You can guess based on what the "process" is, but it is effectively a black box.

 

[Jville]

You are missing the point. Unless how each player is graded is open and transparent, it doesn't really matter. The "process" you linked to doesn't give any specifics, and doesn't give any insight into way a specific player is graded for a specific game. You can guess based on what the "process" is, but it is effectively a black box.

In My Opinion:

Much of the public has become accustom to word salads. And in the case of the referenced site, there is little to no need for details. Details require far too much of patrons to wade thru. Patrons, in large numbers, won't stand for it. They will go elsewhere. So, detail disclosure is both an unnecessary and undesirable requirement for corralling a targeted subscription population.

 

[toffee]

For guys like Toffee, who have no football experience and limited knowledge, or simply put, who are untrained, analytics like PFF are very convenient. I like them and they love me, rewarded with a free membership, which I enjoy.

I am quite sure that most NFL coaches and front offices do not make decisions purely on PFF data, but it's well known that they do use those data. SO, for ole toffee, if it's good enough for coaches and GMs, it's good enough for me, as a data point.

 

[SeaWolv]

You are missing the point. Unless how each player is graded is open and transparent, it doesn't really matter. The "process" you linked to doesn't give any specifics, and doesn't give any insight into way a specific player is graded for a specific game. You can guess based on what the "process" is, but it is effectively a black box.

They do provide more detail than just the grading page:








If what you're asking for is specific breakdowns for each play for every player in every game, they don't do that. That would entail extensive charting. If that's what you want then go do your own All-22 charting.

 

[keasley45]

They do provide more detail than just the grading page:

View attachment 68461

View attachment 68462


View attachment 68463

If what you're asking for is specific breakdowns for each play for every player in every game, they don't do that. That would entail extensive charting. If that's what you want then go do your own All-22 charting.

Exactly this.

Folks rag on PFF because it doesnt always meet the eye test. Its not supposed to mirror what you see. Its supposed to grade each play on a set of criteria.

Its also not a standalone tool to spit out the perfect assessment of a player. It cant. No tool can, especially in a game like football where 'individual performance' in itself is a misnomer due simply to the fact that so many other 'individuals' impact a player's success.

You use PFF as a tool alongside film study and review. It great for providing a framework from which to actually evaluate a player on film. Sometimes the grading is accurate as it stands. Other times you have to dig a bit deeper to gain a more accurate picture. Thats just the way of it. No tool is perfect and judging by how universally adopted it is by the pros, i think its pretty good.

Much better than overlycomplicated (at times for the sake of being overly complicated and 'mysterious') sites that cater more to the gambling and fantasy football worlds than they do the actual game of football. NFelo is an example.

 

[toffee]

Exactly this.

Folks rag on PFF because it doesnt always meet the eye test. Its not supposed to mirror what you see. Its supposed to grade each play on a set of criteria.

Its also not a standalone tool to spit out the perfect assessment of a player. It cant. No tool can, especially in a game like football where 'individual performance' in itself is a misnomer due simply to the fact that so many other 'individuals' impact a player's success.

You use PFF as a tool alongside film study and review. It great for providing a framework from which to actually evaluate a player on film. Sometimes the grading is accurate as it stands. Other times you have to dig a bit deeper to gain a more accurate picture. Thats just the way of it. No tool is perfect and judging by how universally adopted it is by the pros, i think its pretty good.

Much better than overlycomplicated (at times for the sake of being overly complicated and 'mysterious') sites that cater more to the gambling and fantasy football worlds than they do the actual game of football. NFelo is an example.

Can't beat the eye tests, you know why? Those eyes watched with love, with affections, with emotions. Double or quadruple after a few beers or cocktails

Name an analytics that has those attributes? I bet you can't

 

[Fresno Hawk]

PFF meh? I go off what I see. Most Guys that use PFF in there assessment of how one individual played is usually someone trying to prove a point. I've never been a fan of PFF.

 

[Jville]

Exactly this.

Folks rag on PFF because it doesnt always meet the eye test. Its not supposed to mirror what you see. Its supposed to grade each play on a set of criteria.

Its also not a standalone tool to spit out the perfect assessment of a player. It cant. No tool can, especially in a game like football where 'individual performance' in itself is a misnomer due simply to the fact that so many other 'individuals' impact a player's success.

You use PFF as a tool alongside film study and review. It great for providing a framework from which to actually evaluate a player on film. Sometimes the grading is accurate as it stands. Other times you have to dig a bit deeper to gain a more accurate picture. Thats just the way of it. No tool is perfect and judging by how universally adopted it is by the pros, i think its pretty good.

Much better than overlycomplicated (at times for the sake of being overly complicated and 'mysterious') sites that cater more to the gambling and fantasy football worlds than they do the actual game of football. NFelo is an example.

As I see it,

PFF is not a tool. Rather, PFF is a profit generating entertainment website. And like the referenced gambling and fantasy sites, it's a coat tail - tag along enterprise following in the wake of NFL productions.

 

[sutz]

PFF meh? I go off what I see. Most Guys that use PFF in there assessment of how one individual played is usually someone trying to prove a point. I've never been a fan of PFF.

Nothing really wrong with that, except that one should not use PFF as one's only tool when assessing players IMO.

 

[nanomoz]

PFF=horseshit (sometimes)

 

[Ad Hawk]

Today, this man pulled his weight and then some.

 

[Mistashoesta]

His pancake block on Charbs long TD run was a thing of beauty.

 

[projectorfreak]

Can't beat the eye tests, you know why? Those eyes watched with love, with affections, with emotions. Double or quadruple after a few beers or cocktails

Name an analytics that has those attributes? I bet you can't

Pornhub

 

[Ozzy]

Exactly this.

Folks rag on PFF because it doesnt always meet the eye test. Its not supposed to mirror what you see. Its supposed to grade each play on a set of criteria.

Its also not a standalone tool to spit out the perfect assessment of a player. It cant. No tool can, especially in a game like football where 'individual performance' in itself is a misnomer due simply to the fact that so many other 'individuals' impact a player's success.

You use PFF as a tool alongside film study and review. It great for providing a framework from which to actually evaluate a player on film. Sometimes the grading is accurate as it stands. Other times you have to dig a bit deeper to gain a more accurate picture. Thats just the way of it. No tool is perfect and judging by how universally adopted it is by the pros, i think its pretty good.

Much better than overlycomplicated (at times for the sake of being overly complicated and 'mysterious') sites that cater more to the gambling and fantasy football worlds than they do the actual game of football. NFelo is an example.

I’ve seen people around the league trash the grades as terrible because you can’t know what players are supposed to be doing. Some positions are easier to grade than others. QB and offensive line are impossible in this regard though. It’s cool though and fun to see if it matches what we see but I don’t think it’s gospel or anything close to it.

 

[DTiempo81]

I’ve seen people around the league trash the grades as terrible because you can’t know what players are supposed to be doing. Some positions are easier to grade than others. QB and offensive line are impossible in this regard though. It’s cool though and fun to see if it matches what we see but I don’t think it’s gospel or anything close to it.

Exactly.

 

[DTiempo81]

They do provide more detail than just the grading page:

You are missing the point, but it's ok, we can move on.

If what you're asking for is specific breakdowns for each play for every player in every game, they don't do that. That would entail extensive charting. If that's what you want then go do your own All-22 charting.

For real, it would. But that's not the point either. If two PFF staffers watch the same play, will they grade it the same? If you understand why I ask that question, then we might be able to get on the same page of this discussion.

 

[SeaWolv]

You are missing the point, but it's ok, we can move on.



For real, it would. But that's not the point either. If two PFF staffers watch the same play, will they grade it the same? If you understand why I ask that question, then we might be able to get on the same page of this discussion.

I've already answered this point:

PFF employs over 600 full or part-time analysts, but less than 10% of analysts are trained to the level that they can grade plays. Only the top two to three percent of analysts are on the team of “senior analysts” in charge of finalizing each grade after review. Our graders have been training for months, and sometimes years, in order to learn, understand and show mastery of our process that includes our 300-page training manual and video playbook. We have analysts from all walks of life, including former players, coaches and scouts. We don’t care if you played.

This clearly suggests that their system is set to only allow the top 10% to even give out grades and then only the top 2-3% are in charge of reviewing their work before it's published. Not sure how I can make it any clearer than that.

 

[sutz]

I believe Sata had one whiff that was nearly a sack, but overall played pretty well.

 

[Lagartixa]

His PFF score was 29.3. Under the "very poor" designation. Worse than any game Bradford or Tomlinson have had. 20 points worse than Haynes's score.

That doesn't compute. I watched him pretty closely. There were some misses, for sure. And one legit penalty. But he wasn't worse than Bradford. Not by a long shot.

View attachment 68413

What you're going to have to keep in mind as you debate the value of PFF grades is that the people on the other side of the debate have shelled out money for the PFF grades, so they're going to be pretty resistant to arguments that PFF grades are utter nonsense, no matter how much evidence you have to support such an argument.

When you consider how PFF grades are collected, it would be surprising if they contained anything other than utter nonsense. People spend the time to type out listings of PFF grade rankings, and it would be quicker and just as informative to write a program to choose players from NFL rosters in random order and call that a ranking. That is, I would expect the history of the output of a random number generator to contain as much useful information (and almost as good a signal-to-noise ratio) as PFF grades.