While those articles are interesting, the argument being made here is about how "correct" PFF is at judging individual players... not how the grades assigned correlate to a teams success.
Of course. I just added it here because I found it interesting. Nothing is going to settle that other debate because all anyone keeps saying is that it's unpaid interns. But the people saying it are just CCS posters. So it seems CCS posters think their opinions on players hold greater weight that unpaid interns. Well the difference is at least those unpaid interns have a former coach reviewing their grades while all these CCS posters have are each other.
I feel a lot more comfortable with a PFF grade that has been reviewed by a coach than I do some random CCS poster who is no different than these unpaid interns except they spout their opinions without any checks and balances.
The benefit of PFF is that they follow a more systematic process than I do. So if I see a player that has a higher or lower grade than I would expect, I may do some more research or review more tape to see if maybe I missed something or maybe I am judging someone based on reputation rather than play.
Case in point, not a single person here really has any means to say Luke was better than Freeman last year because most of us don't give a flying fuck about the Panthers to be watching them all the time to have any sense of how Luke played last year. So we merely rely on his reputation to say it is not possible for Freeman to have played better which is simply just group think or bias.
So how does that make us better than these alleged unpaid interns. We have no basis for our opinion except reputations or maybe watching one or two of Luke's games this past year.