- Joined:
- Aug 21, 2012
- Posts:
- 14,991
- Liked Posts:
- 14,795
bench him!
bench him!
- Joined:
- Aug 23, 2012
- Posts:
- 13,259
- Liked Posts:
- 3,999
ClydeLee
New member
- Joined:
- Jun 29, 2010
- Posts:
- 14,829
- Liked Posts:
- 4,113
- Location:
- The OP
It's a closed off going to be flawed system.
I really don't think passer rating is very developly good too. Depends on what you are looking for because metrics like it add/remove things on arbitrary decided measures. The ESPN one added things that should matter but also added things in various degrees that aren't certainly sound but the idea it's significantly worse isn't that significant.
Knowing how PFF works and how Rodgers plays, those data probably come from taking sacks getting him a -2. While a screen won't be annointed.
The ESPN & PFF of that Manning 2013 game were lower because some of his TDs were like a 50 yard TD from Thomas that was actually a screen pass. They rate a screen pass as probably a 0-1 regardless of what happens after the play Manning isn't going to get a 2 because they judge it, Manning just threw a screen=nothing special. Espn's rating also judges based on distance thrown of the ball to boost it's rating and it gets low cred for being a screen so the traditional Passer rating not judging anything but totaled results will boost it as a great high total for getting those yards+TD per that 1 play.
I really don't think passer rating is very developly good too. Depends on what you are looking for because metrics like it add/remove things on arbitrary decided measures. The ESPN one added things that should matter but also added things in various degrees that aren't certainly sound but the idea it's significantly worse isn't that significant.
Knowing how PFF works and how Rodgers plays, those data probably come from taking sacks getting him a -2. While a screen won't be annointed.
The ESPN & PFF of that Manning 2013 game were lower because some of his TDs were like a 50 yard TD from Thomas that was actually a screen pass. They rate a screen pass as probably a 0-1 regardless of what happens after the play Manning isn't going to get a 2 because they judge it, Manning just threw a screen=nothing special. Espn's rating also judges based on distance thrown of the ball to boost it's rating and it gets low cred for being a screen so the traditional Passer rating not judging anything but totaled results will boost it as a great high total for getting those yards+TD per that 1 play.
- Joined:
- May 18, 2014
- Posts:
- 10,207
- Liked Posts:
- 12,340
- Location:
- murica
Jordan Mills was the highest rated Bear on offense a week or two before he was cut.
fatkid73
Active member
- Joined:
- Aug 20, 2012
- Posts:
- 337
- Liked Posts:
- 267
- Location:
- Lawrence, KS
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.
- Joined:
- Jun 19, 2011
- Posts:
- 9,943
- Liked Posts:
- 3,898
No doubt the way they grade QB's leaves a whole lot to be desired.
Bearly
Guest
It's a system that tries to take everything into account and fucks it up worse in the process. Rodgers downfield prowess has a lot to do with a screen being that open. If Clausen throws that same pass and happens to do it as well, it would go for a small gain.
Best to have normal stats and equations that are known to be equitable over time.
- Joined:
- Aug 21, 2012
- Posts:
- 21,646
- Liked Posts:
- 26,701
- Location:
- Mountains to Sea
My favorite teams
How has PFF been shit on for 27 posts with out R_MY showing up?
Bearly
Guest
La la la la la. Sticks fingers in ears. I'm getting dizzy just thinking about it.
FatBabiesHaveNoPride
Doors that go like this.
- Joined:
- Sep 11, 2013
- Posts:
- 6,504
- Liked Posts:
- 2,582
if you real,y want a laugh, do some research on PFF. Long time former GM analysts like Bill Polian? Nope. Former NFL SB winning coaches like Jimmy Johnson? nope. Hall of Fame former players like Marshall Faulk? Nope
Pasty British dudes in a flat in central London.
Pasty British dudes in a flat in central London.
Unannounced Fart
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Aug 24, 2012
- Posts:
- 3,725
- Liked Posts:
- 2,728
- Location:
- Southern California
My favorite teams
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.
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.
The Hawk
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Jan 21, 2014
- Posts:
- 18,007
- Liked Posts:
- 3,238
- Location:
- Southern California
My favorite teams
Yeah. I envision some fat old cricket players in bath robes, picking the lint out of their navel, sipping their tea, and wondering what the hell an illegal procedure is.
The Hawk
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Jan 21, 2014
- Posts:
- 18,007
- Liked Posts:
- 3,238
- Location:
- Southern California
My favorite teams
PFF's defense of that rating is worse than the rating itself. I thought that baseballs stats were awful in terms of rating players but football is much worse. They are a fucking joke.
Trump32
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Dec 13, 2013
- Posts:
- 1,578
- Liked Posts:
- 822
In other news: Paris Hilton loses her virginity... and sobriety.
Trump32
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Dec 13, 2013
- Posts:
- 1,578
- Liked Posts:
- 822
All examples listed have had the game pass them by.
That being said, PFF blows monkey assholes.
- Joined:
- Jun 19, 2011
- Posts:
- 32,905
- Liked Posts:
- 26,050
I haven't seen a stat system for QBs yet that is better than the good ol QB rating
- Joined:
- Jun 19, 2011
- Posts:
- 32,905
- Liked Posts:
- 26,050
I really appreciate what they are trying to do. They are trying to recognize play by play impact rather than just building a rating off the box score. Which in theory is good. But in the end, they reduce it all to a single number.
It just can't work to reduce the granularity of their stats and still wind up with just one number.
Bearly
Guest
I was thinking not in that order.....but it's Paris.
- Joined:
- Jun 19, 2011
- Posts:
- 9,943
- Liked Posts:
- 3,898
Yet the fat unemployed american is too lazy to give it a shot??
You guys should get this upset about ESPN and all the crap they put out.
- Joined:
- Aug 20, 2012
- Posts:
- 6,604
- Liked Posts:
- 2,912
- Location:
- New York State(sucks)
Just one of the many things from Phil that frequently made me think, Oh(awkward uneasy pause full of skepticism)...Ughh, er, ughhhh-ok.
Staff online NOW
-
bamainatlantaYou wake him up, you keep him up