J Freeman is better than Luke Kuechley

[Mongo_76]

Why do you and FT hate them so?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If they were simply tallying stats (which is some of their stats), I would have no issue.

However, they are using kids - with no real credible football experience - subjective control over compiling stats for plays they can't even see.

I'll use the offensive tackle "pressure" stat I mentioned before. I actually emailed them and questioned why one of our tackles received bad grades in a game that Cutler went almost complete untouched (no hits) and zero sacks. They said it was pressures that were counted when he stepped up to throw as the edge rusher passed behind him.

There are many other examples of games when Urlacher dominated and got a negative grade.

Then there were the countless times that they actually got player snap-counts wrong. I have several examples.

Then you have their derivative stats like "accuracy under pressure" which has a foundation of a "made-up/subjective" stat: Pressure.

Their stats are crap.

You want good stats? Check out Pro-football-reference

 

[Warrior Spirit]

I have read in the past about coaches and GMs were asked to sit in and watch the process at PFF and they always seemed more than satisfied with that process.

What Mongo, this guy Bort and FT really know, who can say? I'm pretty quick to call BS when peeps on a MB claim inside sources.

I like what they do with offering the type of statistics you don't see any other source really do. Wouldn't really pay $3,000 or even 200 per year for it but for anywhere from $20-$40, why the hell not?

There is no other source mentioned more than PFF during football games now so they have to be doing something right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[remydat]

And who in this thread has claimed PFF to be gospel? Someone posted that they take the PFF analysis seriously because they do analysis of every play. And the rebuttal to that has been the claim that PFF analysis is simply utter garbage. Now which side would you say is the more rational one?

Well the entire thread is an example of irrationality. The OP has no objective reason to conclude who is better between Freeman and Luke in 2016 as the OP made no claim that he watched the All 22 and formed a conclusion of who is better.

Instead, the OP just relies on Luke's reputation in the hopes that people will naturally say Luke is better and in doing so then conclude that PFF must be trash. Despite the fact the difference in grades is around 1 point which is pretty much nothing.

So in the end, we have a bunch of people that probably haven't watch more than 2 of Luke's games getting bent out of shape over the evaluation of people who at least watched all the games and plays that Freeman and Luke were involved in and then had their grades reviewed by former coaches. It truly is bizarre.

 

[Warrior Spirit]

If they were simply tallying stats (which is some of their stats), I would have no issue.

However, they are using kids - with no real credible football experience - subjective control over compiling stats for plays they can't even see.

I'll use the offensive tackle "pressure" stat I mentioned before. I actually emailed them and questioned why one of our tackles received bad grades in a game that Cutler went almost complete untouched (no hits) and zero sacks. They said it was pressures that were counted when he stepped up to throw as the edge rusher passed behind him.

There are many other examples of games when Urlacher dominated and got a negative grade.

Then there were the countless times that actually got player play-counts wrong. I have several examples.

Then you have their derivitive stats like "accuracy under pressure" which has a foundation of a "made-up/subjective" stat: Pressure.

Their stats are crap.

You want good stats? Check out Pro-football-reference

Yeah, I mentioned before, the hurries and pressure are the parts most iffy and, as you say, subjective. Other than that I like the stats they keep for missed/broken tackles, air yards, adjusted QB rating, dropped passes and stuff just not readily available from any of the other sources that make general stats available.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[remydat]

Yeah, I mentioned before, the hurries and pressure are the parts most iffy and, as you say, subjective. Other than that I like the stats they keep for missed/broken tackles, air yards, adjusted QB rating, dropped passes and stuff just not readily available from any of the other sources that make general stats available.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here is the complete list of coaches who will be working directly with the PFF grades:
Kevin Gilbride (28 years of NFL coaching experience)
Jack Bicknell Jr. (6 years)
Jim Anderson (29 years)
Terry Shea (8 years)
Ron Lynn (25 years)
Bill Bradley (8 years)
Ray Hamilton (30 years)
John Bunting (8 years)
Greg Robinson (13 years)
Peter Vaas (8 years experience NFL Europe, 28 years NCAA)

Like I am sure none of these coaches ever thought when reviewing the OL grades about pressures. Nope, only CCS posters possess the requisite knowledge to think about this.

Of course the reality is that a ton of teams teach this technique so if Leno is still getting called for a pressure while some other LT doing the same technique is not then more than likely it simply means that the other LT has cleaner technique. PFF isn't grading the outcome (ie no sack or a completed pass), they are grading how well Leno did his job. And it's entirely possible he was only adequate at his job whereas another LT using the exact same technique pushed his guy so far past the QB and out of the play that he deserved a better grade or didn't get assigned a pressure.

Or is the argument that the Bears OL is literally the only team that does this and thus their pressure stats are inflated relative to everyone else?

 

[Mongo_76]

Here is the complete list of coaches who will be working directly with the PFF grades:
Kevin Gilbride (28 years of NFL coaching experience)
Jack Bicknell Jr. (6 years)
Jim Anderson (29 years)
Terry Shea (8 years)
Ron Lynn (25 years)
Bill Bradley (8 years)
Ray Hamilton (30 years)
John Bunting (8 years)
Greg Robinson (13 years)
Peter Vaas (8 years experience NFL Europe, 28 years NCAA)

Like I am sure none of these coaches ever thought when reviewing the OL grades about pressures. Nope, only CCS posters possess the requisite knowledge to think about this.

Of course the reality is that a ton of teams teach this technique so if Leno is still getting called for a pressure while some other LT doing the same technique is not then more than likely it simply means that the other LT has cleaner technique. PFF isn't grading the outcome (ie no sack or a completed pass), they are grading how well Leno did his job. And it's entirely possible he was only adequate at his job whereas another LT using the exact same technique pushed his guy so far past the QB and out of the play that he deserved a better grade or didn't get assigned a pressure.

Or is the argument that the Bears OL is literally the only team that does this and thus their pressure stats are inflated relative to everyone else?

You still on my dick?

Guess so.

 

[FirstTimer]

You still on my dick?

Guess so.

Mongo..Mentioned this in other threads:

Somewhat related but I was watching the ESPN News broadcast last night of the CFB National Championship. ESPN News part of the Megacast was a roundtable of coaches watching the game and analyzing it in real time, going back and going over plays numerous times etc. You had some really REALLY sharp football minds on the panel. Rhule, Addazio, MacIntyre, Doeren etc. These were coaches that played both against Bama or Clemson(or had coached with guys on staff at each school). It's their JOB to know what these other teams and players are going to do and they couldn't even agree on what a lot of assignments or play calls were designed to do. There was a lot of talk surrounding "I think this was the read they wanted".."I belive this is what the OL was supposed to do here"..."I'm pretty sure that's an assignment issue on that DB" etc etc.

If these guys, many of whom played Clemson this year, couldn't for sure say what they were doing on each play how in the merciful hell do PFF grades hold any weight?

 

[Warrior Spirit]

Here is the complete list of coaches who will be working directly with the PFF grades:
Kevin Gilbride (28 years of NFL coaching experience)
Jack Bicknell Jr. (6 years)
Jim Anderson (29 years)
Terry Shea (8 years)
Ron Lynn (25 years)
Bill Bradley (8 years)
Ray Hamilton (30 years)
John Bunting (8 years)
Greg Robinson (13 years)
Peter Vaas (8 years experience NFL Europe, 28 years NCAA)

Like I am sure none of these coaches ever thought when reviewing the OL grades about pressures. Nope, only CCS posters possess the requisite knowledge to think about this.

Of course the reality is that a ton of teams teach this technique so if Leno is still getting called for a pressure while some other LT doing the same technique is not then more than likely it simply means that the other LT has cleaner technique. PFF isn't grading the outcome (ie no sack or a completed pass), they are grading how well Leno did his job. And it's entirely possible he was only adequate at his job whereas another LT using the exact same technique pushed his guy so far past the QB and out of the play that he deserved a better grade or didn't get assigned a pressure.

Or is the argument that the Bears OL is literally the only team that does this and thus their pressure stats are inflated relative to everyone else?

They just seem to give a lot of weight to hurries and pressures, more than they should in my opinion. They can make a guy look like an all time great in pass rushing when he seldom has more than a handful of sacks at the end of the season. If I'm a QB I'm not really feeling hurried by this sloth who struggles to actually get to the quarterback. And if I'm a lineman, how long do I really have to hold him off?

I like the things they do that are more concrete but are also stats not available at ESPN or the NFL site like sacks given up, broken tackles, missed tackles, dropped passes, elusive rating, running back stats when running left, right or up the middle, QB rating where they get more credit for air yards and catchable ball that are are dropped or rating from the pocket vs outside the pocket. To me that's what makes them more interesting. It's simply cause they provide more interesting stats that you would really struggle to find anywhere else if you could find them at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mongo_76]

Mongo..Mentioned this in other threads:

There was a play a few years back where Cutler rolled out of the pocket towards the side line, held the ball, never threw as he ran out of bounds.

The LB on the play was moving along with Cutler and got a hand on him as he went down and was the primary reason Cutler couldn't turn up field and run. The SS on the play was coming up as well, but never got there. Never touched him. Was kinda in the vicinity as Cutler ran out of bounds. But as the LB went down, the SS was the closest as Cutler went out. He got credit for the sack.

And PFF gave him a +2... The LB graded a 0.

There is no way in the fucking world a coach would grade that play like that or agree to it unless he didn't actually see the play.

 

[Mongo_76]

They just seem to give a lot of weight to hurries and pressures, more than they should in my opinion. They can make a guy look like an all time great in pass rushing when he seldom has more than a handful of sacks at the end of the season. If I'm a QB I'm not really feeling hurried by this sloth who struggles to actually get to the quarterback. And if I'm a lineman, how long do I really have to hold him off?

I like the things they do that are more concrete but are also stats not available at ESPN or the NFL site like sacks given up, broken tackles, missed tackles, dropped passes, elusive rating, running back stats when running left, right or up the middle, QB rating where they get more credit for air yards and catchable ball that are are dropped or rating from the pocket vs outside the pocket. To me that's what makes them more interesting. It's simply cause they provide more interesting stats that you would really struggle to find anywhere else if you could find them at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Shea McClellin stat...

 

[remydat]

Mongo..Mentioned this in other threads:

What's the point? None of us would know either but that doesn't stop posters on CCS commenting on how good they think players are. Did we not have a ton of people commenting on which college QB was the best, etc. Or citing Watson's interceptions with no understanding of the play call?

If PFF is crap simply because there is some subjectivity to their grades then every single opinion every expressed by a CCS poster is also crap because none of us watch enough plays or know enough about what the play call, coverage, or game plan is to opine.

 

[remydat]

They just seem to give a lot of weight to hurries and pressures, more than they should in my opinion. They can make a guy look like an all time great in pass rushing when he seldom has more than a handful of sacks at the end of the season. If I'm a QB I'm not really feeling hurried by this sloth who struggles to actually get to the quarterback. And if I'm a lineman, how long do I really have to hold him off?

I like the things they do that are more concrete but are also stats not available at ESPN or the NFL site like sacks given up, broken tackles, missed tackles, dropped passes, elusive rating, running back stats when running left, right or up the middle, QB rating where they get more credit for air yards and catchable ball that are are dropped or rating from the pocket vs outside the pocket. To me that's what makes them more interesting. It's simply cause they provide more interesting stats that you would really struggle to find anywhere else if you could find them at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But of course but as long as they are doing that consistently for all players then that's something that can be adjusted. And no one is looking at PFF in isolation. If I see a guy like Willie Young with a lot of pressures but very few sacks then I will take that into account in forming a judgment. By the same token when Young then came to us and had career years with 10, 6.5 and 7.5 sacks, I wasn't shocked at all because his PFF stats from the years where he only had good sacks seemed to suggest that he was getting pressure but was failing to seal the deal.

So when he came to Chicago and started sealing the deal, it sort of lent credence to the idea that PFF was seeming something that the traditional stats were not telling us. The point being is that people just seem to want to be lazy. They either want to the stat to be perfect and explain everything without having to think or they conclude it's crap. I distinctly remember people making fun of Young's PFF pressure stats when it was brought up years ago when he signed. Yet none of those people will ever admit PFF appeared to be r9ght about young because it doesn't for the narrative. They only ever look at the instances that support their view.

The PFF grades are subjective. If I see a player whose traditional stats or expert or scout opinions never end up aligning with the PFF stats then it gives me pause. If I see grades like Young that then seem to be validated by his future play then I think it becomes a valuable tool as maybe you can look at guys who may be undervalued because their traditional stats aren't telling the whole story.

 

[iueyedoc]

If PFF is crap simply because there is some subjectivity to their grades then every single opinion every expressed by a CCS poster is also crap because none of us watch enough plays or know enough about what the play call, coverage, or game plan is to opine.

Is this news to you?

Of course every CCS posters opinion is crap...other than mine and those that 100% agree with me. Just like you think and everyone else on here thinks. Then next opinion to sway someone to change theirs on this site will be the first. That will be followed shortly after by The Rapture

 

[remydat]

Is this news to you?

Of course every CCS posters opinion is crap...other than mine and those that 100% agree with me. Just like you think and everyone else on here thinks. Then next opinion to sway someone to change theirs on this site will be the first. That will be followed shortly after by The Rapture

Not really. There are plenty of opinions i disagree with but understand their thought process or logic. People can have good faith differences which are not crap IMO.

 

[iueyedoc]

Not really. There are plenty of opinions i disagree with but understand their thought process or logic. People can have good faith differences which are not crap IMO.

Whether you agree or disagree with someone's opinion has no bearing on its validity, every opinion on here is based on zero working knowledge of the players actual play assignments, little to no actual non-press opinionated truthful knowledge of their attitude ,work ethic, or practice habits.

Once you understand that you, me and everyone else on here, while knowing more than many, know very little, you will enjoy it more. You also will Remyzone less...naaah, probably not.

 

[remydat]

Whether you agree or disagree with someone's opinion has no bearing on its validity, every opinion on here is based on zero working knowledge of the players actual play assignments, little to no actual non-press opinionated truthful knowledge of their attitude ,work ethic, or practice habits.

Once you understand that you, me and everyone else on here, while knowing more than many, know very little, you will enjoy it more. You also will Remyzone less...naaah, probably not.

Now you are contradicting yourself as you said "Of course every CCS posters opinion is crap...other than mine and those that 100% agree with me."

If every opinion here is based on zero working knowledge then you have no basis to then also claim that yours is not crap. If you want to say everyone's is crap including yours then I won't argue that. Otherwise, I think we as rational human beings should be able to understand that while we may vehemently disagree with each other, that sometimes that disagreement is due to good faith differences and sometimes it's due to irrationality. We likely just disagree on the degree to which those things occur.

I just don't really see the logic of harping on PFF's subjective grade when your subjective opinion is even less informed due to it likely being formed without watching every single play and when it is not tempered by a professional reviewing your thought process. That doesn't mean PFF is right because it obviously isn't all the time. It just makes the vitriol spewed against it seem irrational or trolling if fundamentally you truly understand and believe what you have actually written.

 

[iueyedoc]

Now you are contradicting yourself as you said "Of course every CCS posters opinion is crap...other than mine and those that 100% agree with me."

If every opinion here is based on zero working knowledge then you have no basis to then also claim that yours is not crap.

 

[remydat]

Well my bad if you were not being serious. I was just following your advice in assuming that since I disagreed with you that you were just expressing a crap opinion.

 

[ijustposthere]

Some people hate PFF. But if they sit through games a break down the play of every single offensive lineman, then I have no choice but to take them seriously.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

But if they don't know what they're breaking down, it's useless.

 

[modo]

To rate for PFF you do have to pass some initial testing of being able to identify players on the field and the very exact position they play...It is more than just LB, CB, DE etc.....you have to identify what they did on the play in relation to the line of scrimmage.....there is also a learning phase of football after that....

It isn't exactly schmucks off the street......it is at least schmucks that can pass some football knowledge.