OT: PFF loses ALL credibility

Warrior Spirit

The Truth
Donator
Joined:
Sep 12, 2010
Posts:
41,927
Liked Posts:
15,379
If you don't know how to interpret the grades, they won't make sense. Not only doesn't the OP seem to know how to interpret the grades but he can't even read. None of the grades he provides are the actual grades given. Be not proud, simpletons.
 

DaaBears

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
11,919
Liked Posts:
11,667
If you don't know how to interpret the grades, they won't make sense. Not only doesn't the OP seem to know how to interpret the grades but he can't even read. None of the grades he provides are the actual grades given. Be not proud, simpletons.

Spartan, can you be so kind as to give the actual grades given to those 3 quarterbacks so that we can straighten this mess out. Thanks.
 

FirstTimer

v. 2.0: Fully Modded
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
May 4, 2010
Posts:
27,077
Liked Posts:
15,145
The article said Rodgers posted negative points for a pass that went through the defenders hands and should have been picked off, but it wasn't, and a fumble that he had but it was negated because of a defensive penalty, so they did not lose the ball. No negative outcome from the plays ACTUALLY happened, but it counted against him. And 3 of his TD's were easy throws so they did not count as positives somehow...What a joke.

Which is hilarious because the reason they are easy throws is because of the way Rodgers manipulates a defense and checks in and out of plays.

PFF doesn't understand football.
 

FirstTimer

v. 2.0: Fully Modded
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
May 4, 2010
Posts:
27,077
Liked Posts:
15,145
I've attached a link with PFF's explanation as to why Rodgers received a negative grade. I'm not buying it. They did not give Rodgers any credit for 3 of his TD passes b/c they were short passes where the WR did all the work to score the TD. They basically say that anyone could have made those throws, and they credit Cobb for turning them into TDs. I can sorta understand the rationale for that, but not completely because I doubt Clausen could have done the same thing. They further explain that they gave Rodgers a negative mark for fumbling once, and another negative mark for "almost" throwing an interception, which they believe could have been a pick 6. So he received only 2 negative marks... and those more than offset everything else he did in the game? Something does not compute...

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2015/09/29/why-aaron-rodgers-earned-a-slightly-negative-grade/

Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers ended last night’s game with a -0.8 grade overall. This isn’t a bad game, just because the number begins with a minus, but it is an average grade very close to zero for a player who threw five touchdown passes, which seems crazy on the face of it. It’s not.

On the surface, Rodgers’ raw statistics paint the picture of one of the best games of the season. 333 passing yards, five touchdown passes, no interceptions, a 138.5 passer rating; Rodgers’ should be supplanting Carson Palmer in our team of the week as the top quarterback, not earning a grade with a minus in front of it, right?

Well, not if you dig a little deeper into Rodgers’ performance on a play-by-play basis. Looking first at his touchdown passes offers a view on how raw stats inflate the perception of a solid performance. Two of his touchdown passes were good or very good throws. His first touchdown pass on a whip to Ty Montgomery was a good throw leading his receiver away from the coverage for the score, so it earned a positive grade. His third touchdown pass to James Jones was a good throw on a back-shoulder pass yet again taking advantage of a free play, so it earned a positive grade.

The other three touchdowns, however, were passes thrown short of the end zone on speed outs to Randall Cobb. Were they bad throws? No, they were expected throws with the credit going to Cobb for fighting through contact or defeating the coverage with speed to the edge. That makes these zero-graded throws: Three passes that have a massive effect on Rodgers’ statistical performance but do not increase his grade.

However, those touchdown passes aren’t the story of what takes Rodgers’ grade from a grade with a plus in front of it to a grade with a minus in front of it. The story of what takes Rodgers’ grade below zero are two plays that you aren’t likely to see mentioned anywhere else today, but are taken into account of in a play-by-play grading system.

1. Rodgers had a fumble, which displayed poor pocket management, with 8:39 remaining in the second quarter. That play earned a negative grade.

2. With 12:58 remaining in the third quarter, Rodgers forced a pass that Josh Mauga could and possibly should have been returned for six points for Kansas City. If Mauga makes this interception, it would have tacked an ugly interception onto Rodgers’ stat line. Instead, Rodgers maintained his interception-less streak at Lambeau field, but it is a negatively graded play regardless. These are poor plays on Rodgers’ part that bring his game grade down that won’t show up on any widely quoted statistical analysis of his performance.

Context is crucial with everything in football, and if you believe we are saying that Rodgers had a poor game last night because his grade has a minus in front of it, then let me set your mind at ease; I do not think Rodgers played a poor, subpar game last night and neither does anybody else at Pro Football Focus. Rodgers did his job last night, but his job was executing simple throws, putting the ball quickly in the hands of receivers like Randall Cobb in favorable matchups on short throws, and allowing others to do the heavy lifting.

But for a couple of poor plays, his overall grade would have matched the sort of grade that you would be expecting to see from him, but those poor plays, coupled with the relative ease of some of his scores mean his performance last night was far closer to average than it was to the fantastic performance the box score suggests. The context surrounding his grade is crucial.

The greatness of Rodgers’ performance last night was in the intangibles. Recognizing the blitz, drawing the defense offsides, catching the Chiefs in bad situations and exploiting those scenarios with simple passes to open receivers. But you cannot — and we do not try to — quantify intangibles, or what comes pre-snap. Our system grades what can be graded — the execution of the play post-snap — and in that regard Rodgers did not stand out in the same way that his statistics did.

So they admit Rodgers "greatness" is creating easy throws but he gets no credit for creating and completing those easy throws that THEY ADMIT HE CREATED.

**** PFF.

Seriously. Don't you think they'd realize that their systems suck if they can't or won't grade things that LEAD DIRECTLY TO THE PLAYS ON THE FIELD THEY ARE GRADING?!

**** them.
 

ijustposthere

Message Board Hero
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '20
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
34,397
Liked Posts:
26,578
Location:
Any-Town, USA
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Michigan Wolverines
  2. Purdue Boilermakers
On one hand, I can understand and see what they are trying to do. On the other hand, it's insanely stupid.
 

FatBabiesHaveNoPride

Doors that go like this.
Joined:
Sep 11, 2013
Posts:
6,504
Liked Posts:
2,582
I haven't seen a stat system for QBs yet that is better than the good ol QB rating

I haven't seen one that is better than the eye test.

Any person watching the game on Monday night, or any Sunday, and doesn't comprehend that Aaron Rodgers is the best player in the NFL is a fucking moron.

When the cleats are hung up, he very well may go down as the best QB to EVER play the game. EVER. He is THAT fucking good.

He was 24 for 35. For 333 yards. 5 TDs. No Picks. His hard count caused what, 4 or 5 offsides penalties? Against one of the best Defenses in the league?

Let's look at his numbers through the first 3 games and project out. He is on pace for:

53 TDS
0 INT
4,100 yards
74% completion percentage
132 Rating

Are you fucking kidding me?

What's the other stat? He hasn't thrown a pick at home since 2013, which consists of almost 600 passes. 600.

I don't need some dopey 'grading' system to tell me that Aaron Rodgers is the best player in the NFL and is going to go down (pun intended) as one of the best, if not THE best, to every play this game.
 

Pegger

President Stoopid
Joined:
Sep 18, 2012
Posts:
7,621
Liked Posts:
5,493
Location:
Communist Canada
The question is, why do so many major media outlets cite them as though they are the definitive tool in player evaluation? It's such a bogus, self perpetuating way of looking at football with so many obvious flaws I don't understand why they are held in such high regard.

Check out who PFF's partners/promoters are:

Draft Kings
SIRIUS XM FANTASY SPORTS RADIO
National Fantasy Football Convention
RotoPass
Yahoo!
Reality Sports
SCOUT
ESPN
DRAFT POT
FAN DUEL
LEAGUE SAFE
ADVANCED SPORTS LOGIC
REALTIME FANTASY SPORTS

I'd love to see which entities actually own parts of PFF. I could imagine when ESPN, Yahoo or any fantasy site is referencing PFF they are essentially just referring a captive audience to look at another division it partially ownes.
 

ShiftyDevil

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Apr 28, 2011
Posts:
7,276
Liked Posts:
4,663
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Washington Huskies
Another example of statisticians trying to use a metric as analysis instead of using metrics to help analysis.
 

fatkid73

Active member
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
337
Liked Posts:
267
Location:
Lawrence, KS
If you don't know how to interpret the grades, they won't make sense. Not only doesn't the OP seem to know how to interpret the grades but he can't even read. None of the grades he provides are the actual grades given. Be not proud, simpletons.

Got the info from a Bleacher Report video with Chris Simms. Cannot find the link but as soon as I do I will post it.
 

Packer Fan

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
6,865
Liked Posts:
2,232
Location:
J'Marcus Webb's Face. His Fac
So they admit Rodgers "greatness" is creating easy throws but he gets no credit for creating and completing those easy throws that THEY ADMIT HE CREATED.

**** PFF.

Seriously. Don't you think they'd realize that their systems suck if they can't or won't grade things that LEAD DIRECTLY TO THE PLAYS ON THE FIELD THEY ARE GRADING?!

**** them.

The way that grading was explained for Rodgers, well, I think that's some sort a grading method that I would have came up with and thought was brilliant when I was 5 years old.
 

r1terrell23

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 23, 2012
Posts:
3,063
Liked Posts:
1,595
Aaron Rodgers 5 TD, 0 INT, 333, -0.8 PFF grade

Nick Foles: 0 TD, 1 INT, 197 YDS, +0.8 PFF grade

Ryan Mallett: 1 TD, 1 INT, 228 YDS, +1.1 PFF grade

What a joke.



Maybe this explains why Emery failed so badly.
 

Wild_x_Card

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
14,048
Liked Posts:
13,357
If you don't know how to interpret the grades, they won't make sense. Not only doesn't the OP seem to know how to interpret the grades but he can't even read. None of the grades he provides are the actual grades given. Be not proud, simpletons.
There is zero defense for this particular grade. Period. "Almost" interception? The **** outta here son.
 

Packer Fan

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
6,865
Liked Posts:
2,232
Location:
J'Marcus Webb's Face. His Fac
There is zero defense for this particular grade. Period. "Almost" interception? The **** outta here son.

It's quite silly. Did he get a lot of credit for the 34 other passes? Doubtful. His receivers caught well thrown balls, but they should, so credit is not given.
 

Warrior Spirit

The Truth
Donator
Joined:
Sep 12, 2010
Posts:
41,927
Liked Posts:
15,379
Spartan, can you be so kind as to give the actual grades given to those 3 quarterbacks so that we can straighten this mess out. Thanks.

Got the info from a Bleacher Report video with Chris Simms. Cannot find the link but as soon as I do I will post it.

The numbers don't even matter if you don't know what they represent. I can tell you Rodgers didn't get a negative number. He got a positive number. More importantly, however, you have to understand how their grading system works. They give grades based on how each play was analyzed. You might think if a player got a zero, that's bad but it's not. Take Rodgers for instance. They gave him a grade of +.7 last game. To you and others that seems ridiculous cause he threw for 5 TDs and what not. If I was to look at that grade, it wouldn't make me think he had a bad game, just an easy time of it. In other words, he wasn't seeing much or any pressure and his receivers were getting open consistently and at will. Each play is graded individually and then all are averaged out. If Rodgers completes a pass to a receiver who is wide open, that play would be graded a 0 for Rodgers. It means he hit hit receiver as was intended but required no extra or special effort to do so. If he had to fit it in to a tighter window on a deeper route he'd get more credit for that. They go by increments of .5 for each play. Every play is graded on the same scale no matter if a TD or Int. A TD would just be another good pass while an Int would be 1 bad pass if the QB is to blame.

Pff also does rating based off the numbers which lay fans would better understand. For that game, Rodgers' pff QB rating was 101.
 

FirstTimer

v. 2.0: Fully Modded
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
May 4, 2010
Posts:
27,077
Liked Posts:
15,145
The numbers don't even matter if you don't know what they represent. I can tell you Rodgers didn't get a negative number. He got a positive number. More importantly, however, you have to understand how their grading system works. They give grades based on how each play was analyzed. You might think if a player got a zero, that's bad but it's not. Take Rodgers for instance. They gave him a grade of +.7 last game. To you and others that seems ridiculous cause he threw for 5 TDs and what not. If I was to look at that grade, it wouldn't make me think he had a bad game, just an easy time of it. In other words, he wasn't seeing much or any pressure and his receivers were getting open consistently and at will. Each play is graded individually and then all are averaged out. If Rodgers completes a pass to a receiver who is wide open, that play would be graded a 0 for Rodgers. It means he hit hit receiver as was intended but required no extra or special effort to do so. If he had to fit it in to a tighter window on a deeper route he'd get more credit for that. They go by increments of .5 for each play. Every play is graded on the same scale no matter if a TD or Int. A TD would just be another good pass while an Int would be 1 bad pass if the QB is to blame.

Pff also does rating based off the numbers which lay fans would better understand. For that game, Rodgers' pff QB rating was 101.

All the bolded is still Special person and PFF submarines their own reasoning and grading system with their expanded comments on Rodgers.
 

Warrior Spirit

The Truth
Donator
Joined:
Sep 12, 2010
Posts:
41,927
Liked Posts:
15,379
All the bolded is still Special person and PFF submarines their own reasoning and grading system with their expanded comments on Rodgers.

I haven't heard or seen any expanded comments they, specifically, said of Rodgers so I can't speak on that. The point is to grade the player on his performance alone. If Cobb is piling up the YAC, he'll get credit for that and not Rodgers. QBs pretty much just mostly get credited w/YIA. So a long pass play in which YAC was a big chunk of wouldn't inflate the QBs numbers as much as standard stats would.
 

FirstTimer

v. 2.0: Fully Modded
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
May 4, 2010
Posts:
27,077
Liked Posts:
15,145
I haven't heard or seen any expanded comments they, specifically, said of Rodgers so I can't speak on that.
Was posted earlier in the thread. Commented on. laughed at.

PFF is fucking trash.
 

FirstTimer

v. 2.0: Fully Modded
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
May 4, 2010
Posts:
27,077
Liked Posts:
15,145
Good to know that despite Rodgers negative performance on Monday night the Packers were able to win in spite of his 5 TD's and 333 yards.

The game reminded me of a 2006 Bears game when they would win in spite of a negative performance by Grossman.
 

Unannounced Fart

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 24, 2012
Posts:
3,725
Liked Posts:
2,728
Location:
Southern California
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Southern California Trojans
The numbers don't even matter if you don't know what they represent. I can tell you Rodgers didn't get a negative number. He got a positive number. More importantly, however, you have to understand how their grading system works. They give grades based on how each play was analyzed. You might think if a player got a zero, that's bad but it's not. Take Rodgers for instance. They gave him a grade of +.7 last game. To you and others that seems ridiculous cause he threw for 5 TDs and what not. If I was to look at that grade, it wouldn't make me think he had a bad game, just an easy time of it. In other words, he wasn't seeing much or any pressure and his receivers were getting open consistently and at will. Each play is graded individually and then all are averaged out. If Rodgers completes a pass to a receiver who is wide open, that play would be graded a 0 for Rodgers. It means he hit hit receiver as was intended but required no extra or special effort to do so. If he had to fit it in to a tighter window on a deeper route he'd get more credit for that. They go by increments of .5 for each play. Every play is graded on the same scale no matter if a TD or Int. A TD would just be another good pass while an Int would be 1 bad pass if the QB is to blame.

Pff also does rating based off the numbers which lay fans would better understand. For that game, Rodgers' pff QB rating was 101.


They actually gave him a -0.8. https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2015/09/29/why-aaron-rodgers-earned-a-slightly-negative-grade/
 

Top