PSA: PFF Is Not The Be-All, End-All Of Player Evaluation

[PCP63]

People treat them like they're perfect and can never be wrong. I like my numbers, I do, but I don't always trust a bunch of dudes in lab coats (with cheeto stains on the front) to tell me who's a good football player. 

Not saying they aren't a valuable resource. They are. But stop being lazy and just posting PFF grades to say why we should or shouldn't sign somebody. 

 

[Sammybighead]

Well said

[Skeptable]

7 minutes ago, PCP63 said:

People treat them like they're perfect and can never be wrong. I like my numbers, I do, but I don't always trust a bunch of dudes in lab coats (with cheeto stains on the front) to tell me who's a good football player. 

Not saying they aren't a valuable resource. They are. But stop being lazy and just posting PFF grades to say why we should or shouldn't sign somebody. 

 

You are absolutely correct but just like WAR and other metrics, like DVOA, nothing is perfect but can give a good perspective at how to rate individual performance in a team sport.... They aren't perfect but they are some of the best metrics available currently.

So you can't dismiss them entirely

[dbatesman]

(with cheeto stains on the front)

[RoadFan]

I hammered this point when PFF said Calvin Pryor was playing well in 2015.  The guy made a few tackles and forced a couple of fumbles.  Many didn't believe me when I kept saying he was terrible based on the eyeball test.  Sure enough he was basically out of football 2 years later.

PFF, in my opinion, has a very difficult time grading players in the secondary because of the inconsistencies with regards to the accuracy of the balls thrown against them and the variances of coverages players are asked to perform.   Trumaine Johnson another perfect example last season.  PFF says he was average.  Eyeball says he was atrocious.

[PCP63]

It's also hard for third parties to grade players. 

Negative for blown coverage? Silly PFF, he did his assignment correctly, it was someone else that blew their coverage. 

[flgreen]

It's like the draft guide that some people hold up as gospel, it's a guide to start a talking point.  That's it

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

3 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

(with cheeto stains on the front)

Just wait until they say somebody on the Jets is top 50 in something two weeks into the season and all is forgiven.

[Larz]

They look at every play and aren't biased by draft position or contract so that's positive 

They don't know the play call or how the coach wanted it to go so that's negative 

It sure beats the confirmation bias we usually get around here tho that's for sure 

[Beerfish]

Some objective analysis is better than none.

[Scott Dierking]

1 minute ago, Miss Lonelyhearts said:

Just wait until they say somebody on the Jets is top 50 in something two weeks into the season and all is forgiven.

Or the converse, if they fall, the pitchforks are sharpened.

[Bleedin Green]

Let me see how PFF rates this idea, and I'll get back to you.

[NYs Stepchild]

Hardest thing to grade is responsibility.

If they put you man up on the #1 receiver you should get a worse grade than playing deep center field. 

The same could be said for a TE blocking one on one with a pass rusher or chipping then leaking into the flat. 

[greenwave81]

2 minutes ago, RoadFan said:

I hammered this point when PFF said Calvin Pryor was playing well in 2015.  The guy made a few tackles and forced a couple of fumbles.  Many didn't believe me when I kept saying he was terrible based on the eyeball test.  Sure enough he was basically out of football 2 years later.

PFF, in my opinion, has a very difficult time grading players in the secondary because of the inconsistencies with regards to the accuracy of the balls thrown against them and the variances of coverages players are asked to perform.   Trumaine Johnson another perfect example last season.  PFF says he was average.  Eyeball says he was atrocious.

I think Tru looked atrocious also, but honestly, most NFL CBs look a lot worse when there is no pressure on the QB. 

Not sure Tru’s apparent ‘fall off’ in performance was all his fault....at least I hope not. It’s very possible we’ll see a nice rebound if we can generate pressure/sacks. 

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

1 minute ago, PCP63 said:

It's also hard for third parties to grade players.

No it isn’t. It’s actually pretty easy to watch a cut of a play and see who screwed up. It’s just that some people are really dumb (that time Sanchez blew a read and we had three separate threads about how it was everybody else’s fault) and that the way PFF turns its charting data into grades produces numbers that don’t really mean anything.

[CrazyCarl40]

PFF is good if it helps my point. 

PFF is ignored if it hinders my opinion. 

[Untouchable]

Years back they had Ben Hartsock graded as a Top 3 TE despite not catching a single pass that year.

I don’t care how good of an in-line blocker you are, that’s just ridiculous.

Not saying what they do is useless, but they sure as hell aren’t the end-all, be-all of player evaluation.

[PCP63]

2 minutes ago, Miss Lonelyhearts said:

No it isn’t. It’s actually pretty easy to watch a cut of a play and see who screwed up. It’s just that some people are really dumb (that time Sanchez blew a read and we had three separate threads about how it was everybody else’s fault) and that the way PFF turns its charting data into grades produces numbers that don’t really mean anything.

If you know the play. But you don't always know the play call. 

"Oh, this is Hoss Y-Juke, this player screwed up." 

"No, this is a new variation we introduced this week, called Hoss Y-Over." 

[RoadFan]

7 minutes ago, greenwave81 said:

I think Tru looked atrocious also, but honestly, most NFL CBs look a lot worse when there is no pressure on the QB. 

Not sure Tru’s apparent ‘fall off’ in performance was all his fault....at least I hope not. It’s very possible we’ll see a nice rebound if we can generate pressure/sacks. 

My problem with Tru wasn't only coverage.   It was a total lack of effort.  The guy was a spectator in run support also.  He would literally watch his teammates tackle the ball carrier from just 5 feet away instead of getting in there to help and/or make an attempt to punch the ball out like the 2nd and 3rd tacklers are supposed to do.

[chirorob]

28 minutes ago, PCP63 said:

It's also hard for third parties to grade players. 

Negative for blown coverage? Silly PFF, he did his assignment correctly, it was someone else that blew their coverage. 

That's a huge factor.  If you don't know exactly what the player was supposed to be doing, how do you grade him?

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

25 minutes ago, PCP63 said:

If you know the play. But you don't always know the play call. 

"Oh, this is Hoss Y-Juke, this player screwed up." 

"No, this is a new variation we introduced this week, called Hoss Y-Over." 

 

6 minutes ago, chirorob said:

That's a huge factor.  If you don't know exactly what the player was supposed to be doing, how do you grade him?

This is complete nonsense. Just because you can’t wax intellectual about something after watching five minutes of sportscenter doesn’t make it magic.

[JoJoTownsell1]

44 minutes ago, PCP63 said:

People treat them like they're perfect and can never be wrong. I like my numbers, I do, but I don't always trust a bunch of dudes in lab coats (with cheeto stains on the front) to tell me who's a good football player. 

Not saying they aren't a valuable resource. They are. But stop being lazy and just posting PFF grades to say why we should or shouldn't sign somebody. 

  

I don't think  you understand what PFF does and does not claim to provide.

PFF gives grades after watching every single play. They take into account just about every factor you can take into account. 

PFF does NOT claim to know the future. They can't take into account the hundreds of variables that come into play for a given player the following year. Injuries/coaching/schemes etc.. 

It's just a really good tool to give you an objective view of a given player versus other players. 

One year they may give Player X a grade of 80 and the next year that same player gets a grade of 50. Does that mean the grade of 80 was wrong? No. Just that the player played better 1 year versus the next. 

PFF grades are FAR more reliable than any person's opinion on this forum that have spent zero minutes, let alone hours evaluating a given player. But like I said, it only gives you info on how a player has done in the past and gives you only an idea as how he MIGHT play in the future. 

[RutgersJetFan]

54 minutes ago, PCP63 said:

 I don't always trust a bunch of dudes in lab coats (with cheeto stains on the front) to tell me who's a good football player. 

oh hell yah preach on brother

[Jetsfan80]

No one said its the be-all, end-all.  Its a tool.  I'm glad there are people out there watching each and every play across the NFL.  I sure as hell don't have the time to do that.

Don't like it?  Come up with your own metrics to determine how well the right guard in Detroit is doing at his job.

Teams are using metrics that are FAR more complicated and complex than PFF.  It doesn't mean scouts or the "eye test" are uselss, or that standard statistics are meaningless.  But analytics are part of the furniture of the game now.  Deal with it. 

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

1 minute ago, Jetsfan80 said:

No one said its the be-all, end-all.  Its a tool.  I'm glad there are people out there watching each and every play across the NFL.  I sure as hell don't have the time to do that.

Don't like it?  Come up with your own metrics to determine how good the right guard in Detroit is doing. 

^cheeto stains on BACK of lab coat

[T0mShane]

50 minutes ago, RoadFan said:

The guy made a few tackles and forced a couple of fumbles.  Many didn't believe me when I kept saying he was terrible based on the eyeball test.  Sure enough he was basically out of football 2 years later.

 

[Bruce Harper]

I find it to be a useful shorthand when I am unfamiliar with a player.  That is basically it.

[RutgersJetFan]

4 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

 

look at me

...look at me

I’m the scientist now 

[peekskill68]

Also if they are truly objective they are using the same analysis on everyone. Meaning that on an absolute basis your eyeball test may show Tru Johnson to be a slacker, but RELATIVE to every other CB he's slightly above average.  In other words do you have the ability to watch every other CB in the league objectively to see how they do in run support?  He may be "less slackier" than many other CB's out there.

I made the same point with Darron Lee.  We all see him failing the eyeball test each Sunday.  Yet RELATIVE to other LBs in the league PFF rates him a bit above average.  We all want to see Mike Singletary out there but on average that's not what the league puts out there each week...

 

[T0mShane]

9 minutes ago, RutgersJetFan said:

look at me

...look at me

I’m the scientist now 

I am shocked to find out that the science-faced nerds might have a blind spot when it comes to evaluating strong safety play 

[Fantasy Island]

It's $39.99 a year or $9.99 per month for PFF.

[ScarletKnight89]

Agreed. They are very good and great to use in order to get a much better understanding of the player. They go deeper than just pure stats. I love using that site. But they aren't perfect. They aren't the be-all and end-all. I think they even admit that. 

[tdoublee]

Like it or not, I know for a fact that every NFL team uses PFF. Not the publicly available version that we see, but a licensed, souped up version that offers more features/analytics and costs a lot more. It's just a tool for the front office toolkit, but it would be foolish to discredit it entirely when NFL scouting departments use it.

That said, I recently heard a rumour that some players pay a decent amount of money under the table to "boost" their grades. Who knows if this is true or not, but it is an unregulated company and they obviously have a lot of influence around the league (and this forum).

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

43 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

I am shocked to find out that the science-faced nerds might have a blind spot when it comes to evaluating strong safety play 

I dunno. We’re pretty good at evaluating sh*tty safety play.

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

31 minutes ago, tdoublee said:

Like it or not, I know for a fact that every NFL team uses PFF. Not the publicly available version that we see, but a licensed, souped up version that offers more features/analytics and costs a lot more. It's just a tool for the front office toolkit, but it would be foolish to discredit it entirely when NFL scouting departments use it.

That said, I recently heard a rumour that some players pay a decent amount of money under the table to "boost" their grades. Who knows if this is true or not, but it is an unregulated company and they obviously have a lot of influence around the league (and this forum).

Teams pay for the raw data. Only weird fans pay to know what PFF thinks about anything. Conning people into doing game charting, which sucks, and selling the work product at a profit is the only thing these people actually do. The fake numbers and word vomit are just distractions.