J Freeman is better than Luke Kuechley

[remydat]

A lot of people DO HAVE evidence that PFF has inconsistent at best grades of players.

I might have the wrong game in mind, but didn't Peyton Manning have a below average score for his 7 TD performance against the Ravens?

What does that have to do with Amos specifically? It's a subjective grade which means they will be wrong sometimes just like you or I are wrong sometimes. Not sure that proves anything other than they are human.

I can look at Manning throwing for 7 TDs and be like yeah in a situation like that PFF doesn't truly reflect the performance because they grade on a play by play basis with no special bonus for throwing a TD. So those 7 TDs still can't be graded any higher than a 2. However, we obviously can take a step back and say, "Holy ****, 7 TDs in one game" is ridiculous.

So I don't see the problem here. There will always be things that are wrong or anomalies when you are dealing with subjective grades. At the end of the year, Manning was still their top rated or top 3 rated QB that year so don't see the problem.

 

[remydat]

Kuechly in 10 games

71 solo tackles, 31 assists, 2 sacks, 1 Int, 1 FF...also take into account teams game plan for Kuechly and how to avoid him.

Freeman in 12 games

86 solo tackles, 24 assists, 0 sacks, 0 Int, 0 FF

Freeman had a good season, not taking that away...but a healthy Kuechly was having a bigger impact on the field than a healthy Freeman.

I wouldn't really call that a bigger impact. It's a quite marginal difference IMO just as their PFF grade is a quite marginal difference. If you adjust for games played Freeman and Luke had roughly the same solo tackles and Freeman also had 7 stuffs that accounted for -21 yards while Luke had 7 stuffs that accounted for -8 yards. So Freeman blew up plays in the backfield to a larger degree than Luke in terms of yards lost. Luke obviously had more turnovers and sacks but again not by a massive amount.

I'm not seeing a whole lot in the above that separates the two particularly when Freeman was on an injury riddled and lesser team while Luke had Star and Kawann protecting him. So it's pretty much a wash for me.

 

[gpphat]

I wouldn't really call that a bigger impact. It's a quite marginal difference IMO just as their PFF grade is a quite marginal difference. Freeman had more solo tackles even if you adjust for games played and Freeman also had 7 stuffs that accounted for -21 yards while Luke had 7 stuffs that accounted for -8 yards. So Freeman blew up plays in the backfield to a larger degree than Luke in terms of yards lost. Luke obviously had more turnovers and sacks but again not by a massive amount.

I'm not seeing a whole lot in the above that separates the two particularly when Freeman was on an injury riddled and lesser team while Luke had Star and Kawann protecting him. So it's pretty much a wash for me

Luke also had opposing offenses game planing him and running plays to avoid him.

Jerrell Freeman also played on a team where the offense gave him more opportunities to be on the field

Carolina had 193 drives on offense (5th in NFL) and ran 1089 plays (9th in the NFL) and the offense had 30:50 ToP/game (11th in NFL)

Chicago had 172 drives on offense (31st in NFL) and ran 991 plays (30th in the NFL) andthe offense had 28:07 ToP/game(31st in NFL)

Who do you think had more opportunities to make more tackles and impact plays?

 

[iueyedoc]

Kuechly in 10 games

71 solo tackles, 31 assists, 2 sacks, 1 Int, 1 FF...also take into account teams game plan for Kuechly and how to avoid him.

Freeman in 12 games

86 solo tackles, 24 assists, 0 sacks, 0 Int, 0 FF

Freeman had a good season, not taking that away...but a healthy Kuechly was having a bigger impact on the field than a healthy Freeman.

Plus just watch the games, Freeman is a great complimentary LB, but Kuechely makes plays all over the place due to teams trying to avoid him.

As subjective as PFF is, I imagine they have no metric for Kuechley making plays he has no humanly right even being involved in. Hell, I would bet good money he would get a negative score for sniffing out a play, leaving his assignment and missing a tackle but slowing the player to be tackled by others.

But you know ...PFF "stats"

 

[remydat]

Luke also had opposing offenses game planing him and running plays to avoid him.

Jerrell Freeman also played on a team where the offense gave him more opportunities to be on the field

Carolina had 193 drives on offense (5th in NFL) and ran 1089 plays (9th in the NFL) and the offense had 30:50 ToP/game (11th in NFL)

Chicago had 172 drives on offense (31st in NFL) and ran 991 plays (30th in the NFL) andthe offense had 28:07 ToP/game(31st in NFL)

Who do you think had more opportunities to make more tackles and impact plays?

But there is always a flip side to that. Who do you think was fresher over the course of the game? The guy that was on the field less and protected by two good DTs or the guy on a shitty team that was forced to play a lot of snaps with Will Sutton as his out of place nose tackle or whatever other scrub they had.

I also wouldn't say you can do a whole lot to run plays away from Luke. First, he really good moving laterally and most LBs prefer as opposed to being confronted head on. Second hard to even get to the second level when Star and Kawann stand between you and a blocker. So let's be real. He probably ran free a lot more than a Freeman who was getting protected by a single undersized NT in Sutton or whatever scrub the Bears had playing there due to Goldman being hurt. You are talking like 650 pounds between Luke and a blocker.

I think if you asked Luke and Freeman, they both would say Luke was in a better situation to make plays overall but in the end there is no real proof as to which of these competing facts override the other. It's just our subjective opinions on the subject and I think the hard numbers are close enough that neither of us can really claim the other is 100% wrong.

 

[didshereallysaythat]

What does that have to do with Amos specifically? It's a subjective grade which means they will be wrong sometimes just like you or I are wrong sometimes. Not sure that proves anything other than they are human.

When have you ever been wrong?

 

[remydat]

When have you ever been wrong?

I was wrong about Trubiksy was I not? Although not sure your point. Who goes around advertising when they are wrong?

 

[FirstTimer]

I might have the wrong game in mind, but didn't Peyton Manning have a below average score for his 7 TD performance against the Ravens?

IIRC it wasn't "below average" but I do know for a fact it was rated worse than Jay Cutlers 2TD 1 INT game that same week.

:aj:

 

[The Hawk]

Frankly I give a shit. I think Freeman was the best defender that the Bears had on the field last season and didn't quit like several of the Bears did. I really like the guy

 

[remydat]

Why isn't it feasible? Instead of having one person do grades for the entire Minnesota Vikings team and another person doing grades for the Chicago Bears team, it would make more sense if the workload was divided up by positional group instead of NFL team...have one person grade all the CBs in the NFL, another grade all the OLBs, etc. That way we can compare the player grades and have at least some semblance of consistency.

You admit that there is no correlation between cumulative player grades on a team and winning, so what value is there in having the workload divided up by teams? The team grades are worthless. Again, what is the point of having individual subjective player grades that cannot be compared to other players?

That is not what you said.

I would rather the PFF grades be done entirely by one person, because then you would at least have some semblance of consistency throughout the league.

You didn't say have one person do one position group. The above makes it sound like you want one person do all the position groups. I don't have a problem with one person doing a position group rather than a team but I don't know the specifics of what it would take. And I never said anything about PFF grades not correlating to winning. There is a correlation as that is what the analysis suggests. The question is how strong that correlation is and whether it's causation.

 

[Xuder O'Clam]

That is not what you said.



You didn't say have one person do one position group. The above makes it sound like you want one person do all the position groups. I don't have a problem with one person doing a position group rather than a team but I don't know the specifics of what it would take. And I never said anything about PFF grades not correlating to winning. There is a correlation as that is what the analysis suggests. The question is how strong that correlation is and whether it's causation.

You guys should talk to Hawk about Madden "stats" and ratings.

 

[remydat]

Your continued insistence that a PFF grade is a "stat" is unbelievable. A PFF grade is a 'number', not a stat. If PFF used letter grades instead of number grades, would you still try to call them "stats"? When guys like Mel Kiper give out draft grades, do you refer to those as "stats"? Of course not.

Anyway, specific to Amos, in the previous thread which you never answered, I put forth a boatload of empirical data as to why Harrison Smith was 'better' than Adrian Amos...you just chose to ignore it. There is enough information to convincingly dispute what PFF thinks about Amos...years of information.

PFF has stats and grades. I interchange the terms but the point here is that the grade is subjective which I have always said. And no you didn't put forth empirical evidence as to why Smith was better in the year under question. His baseline stats that year were not all that impressive. I think Smith is better but you wouldn't be able to say that unequivocally just looking at his baseline stats.

 

[FirstTimer]

PFF has stats and grades. I interchange the terms but the point here is that the grade is subjective which I have always said. And no you didn't put forth empirical evidence as to why Smith was better in the year under question. His baseline stats that year were not all that impressive. I think Smith is better but you wouldn't be able to say that unequivocally just looking at his baseline stats.

Umm, yes you would.

 

[gpphat]

Frankly I give a shit. I think Freeman was the best defender that the Bears had on the field last season and didn't quit like several of the Bears did. I really like the guy

He just took PED's and was suspended for a few games

 

[remydat]

Its like you have no brain. One person doing all the grades would be a consistent grading system. DUH. Are you actually arguing against what I said? If so, please state reasons why you disagree with my statement. Its basic logic.

You said that wasn't feasible. My reply was if that isn't feasible to you, then why doesn't PFF have their 'graders' deal with positional groups instead of entire teams?

Not really sure why this issue confuses you so much, other than its this very issue that proves how worthless PFF 'grades' are.

No, the language of your response doesn't suggest that you were changing your initial proposal. It gave the impression that your revised proposal was what we were debating all along.

Why isn't it feasible? Instead of having one person do grades for the entire Minnesota Vikings team and another person doing grades for the Chicago Bears team, it would make more sense if the workload was divided up by positional group instead of NFL team...have one person grade all the CBs in the NFL, another grade all the OLBs, etc. That way we can compare the player grades and have at least some semblance of consistency.

No one reading the above would ever guess that there was a different initial proposal because you don't say here "if this (ie the original proposal) is not feasible then have one person grade a position group." If you had said that then I wouldn't have responded the way I did. I responded because the above appears to asking why the current proposal isn't feasible because nothing in the above references a previous proposal. Whether that was just unclear language or you trying to be disingenuous is anyone's guess.

 

[remydat]

Yes, that's the entire problem. You interchange the terms. PFF player grades are not "stats", much like Mel Kiper's draft grades are not "stats".

I didn't just look at baseline stats. I looked at tackle opportunities, team defensive passing stats, team defensive rushing stats. A guy like Amos who makes no impactful plays but compiles some tackle numbers because his defense can't stop the offense on third down doesn't really do it for me.

This seems odd because when I pointed out that the Bears gave up less big passing plays (ie greater than 20 yards) than the Vikings at the time we were debating, your squire FT disagreed with the idea of using team stats to justify Amos' play. Now you are saying it's fine to use team stats to judge Amos. Like maybe you and FT should get on the same page.

So at this point, we can just agree to disagree about something 5 months ago. If you want to pretend evidence in this thread feel free but right now our recollection of events differ substantially.

 

[iueyedoc]

PFF has stats and grades. I interchange the terms

I do the same with tomato and ukulele.

"I would like a nice juicy plump ukulele on my bacon, lettuce, and ukulele sandwich. waitress."

"I have a hard time tuning my tomato when I have swimmers ear."

 

[remydat]

You said that wasn't feasible. My reply was if that isn't feasible to you, then why doesn't PFF have their 'graders' deal with positional groups instead of entire teams?

Not really sure why this issue confuses you so much, other than its this very issue that proves how worthless PFF 'grades' are.

There is nothing in your post that says, "IF that isn't feasible." You said, "WHY isn't that feasible?" IF and WHY are not interchangeable just as you are saying stats and grades aren't interchangeable. Saying WHY isn't that feasible and then going on to explain a proposal gives the impression you are reiterating what you've been saying all along. If you had actually said "If this isn't feasible" and then went on to describe a proposal then it would be interpreted to mean you were offering an alternative.

So you can't take someone to task for using words interchangeable that really aren't and then do the exact same fucking thing with IF and WHY.

 

[remydat]

Not sure what you are talking about here. You said I didn't put forth empirical evidence as to why Harrison Smith is better than Adrian Amos...I did put forth empirical evidence. Your recent comment of "Now you are saying it's fine to use team stats to judge Amos" is confusing. With whom are you speaking? What are you talking about?

The empirical evidence regarding Harrison Smith hasn't changed. It hasn't magically evaporated. Its still in existence. There is no empirical evidence that indicates Adrian Amos is better than Harrison Smith. One PFF grader giving Amos an "85" while another PFF grader gives Smith an "83" isn't empirical evidence.

No you seem confused. I am arguing two separate points.

1. I don't recall any empirical evidence you provided that proved this definitively about the season in question. If you wish to re-debate something from 5 months ago then present your evidence. I am not just accepting you claiming to have provided it just because you said so.

2. One of the reason I doubt this claim is because in the same thread, FT was taking me to task for using team passing stats to support Amos, I don't recall you admonishing him by saying using team stats are fine.

So there seems to be an inconsistency here where you apparently hold me to standards you don't hold FT or yourself to. You use words interchangeable and that's cool. And the Right hand of Rory uses team stats while the left hand of FT says I shouldn't use team stats. It's a nice little tag team there where you guys pretend like people don't view you guys as one in the same despite the fact all you and FT do is thank bang each others posts.

 

[FirstTimer]

This seems odd because when I pointed out that the Bears gave up less big passing plays (ie greater than 20 yards) than the Vikings at the time we were debating, your squire FT disagreed with the idea of using team stats to justify Amos' play. Now you are saying it's fine to use team stats to judge Amos. Like maybe you and FT should get on the same page.

So at this point, we can just agree to disagree about something 5 months ago. If you want to pretend evidence in this thread feel free but right now our recollection of events differ substantially.

I absolutely did not. Link said posts.

On top of that if you're discussing this with Rory what do my opinions have to do with his views on things?

You're just trying to deflect again and are flat out lying about one thing and bringing up irrelevant points on the other hand.