No, that is not what I am saying. I think we have different understandings of what pff is designed to measure. One of Eberflus’s favorite phrases is “consistent execution”. That is what pff is intended to measure on a 5-point Likert scale. BTW, Trent Dilfer grades Fields every week on this scale and reports on YouTube. For pff scoring: Did he execute the block? Did he make the tackle? Etc. The guy who executes more consistently on his snaps gets the higher grade, even if he did not make a big play in the game.
Butkus might know, but I think there is a completely different analytic that tracks a player’s “explosive plays” (20+ yards on the play or something like that). On that measure, Kmet had a better game but not a better pff score.
your making an assumption that isn't stated. I'm taking it for what it says, and what it's saying is bad.
They say that they are measuring “a player’s contribution to production on a given play.”
As I said, they are only evaluating how well the player executed on every play.
I think one of the key sentences is under the section entitled “Player Rankings.” You seem to believe that if pff gives a player a higher grade than another player that mean they are saying that guy is a better player. They explicitly deny that: “We are not necessarily telling you who the best players are. Our rankings are more of a performance evaluation and a reflection of how efficiently a player made plays in the time he was on the field.”
Regardless the outcome of the play, the player gets a high grade by executing his assignment on the play — what Eberflus calls “consistent execution.” That is what pff intends to measure, and that is all they claim to measure.
I think the problem with PFF is that they grade them in a specific role that may not fit a some roles in said teams scheme.
It also goes by how well they played per snap which is why you see players with low snaps so high up.
I have read that, too. Does pff have any use in evaluating players, or is it all just worthless trash, as some folks here believe?
Sure they do. There is a reason they're still around ain't they? Its just that many here don't/didn't like what they gave one of their favorite players. Again, every grading site is different.
I have read that, too. Does pff have any use in evaluating players, or is it all just worthless trash, as some folks here believe?
Sure they do. There is a reason they're still around ain't they? Its just that many here don't/didn't like what they gave one of their favorite players. Again, every grading site is different.
That may be true, but I think there’s also confusion about what pff attempts to measure.
I have read that, too. Does pff have any use in evaluating players, or is it all just worthless trash, as some folks here believe?
Sure they do. There is a reason they're still around ain't they? Its just that many here don't/didn't like what they gave one of their favorite players. Again, every grading site is different.
I see these PFF grades and I wonder what game they watched when they posted 'em. Seriously. Dude like Shea McClellin, J'Marcus Webb and so many others - would look like utter crap in a game and then PFF would grade them crazy high in those same games. LOL. They are a joke. A bad joke too.
I have read that, too. Does pff have any use in evaluating players, or is it all just worthless trash, as some folks here believe?
Sure they do. There is a reason they're still around ain't they? Its just that many here don't/didn't like what they gave one of their favorite players. Again, every grading site is different.
when was Shea ever one of my favorite players; or any of the ones the graded terribly? This isn't about Kmet either, although there is no reason for him to be anyones fav player. It's strictly PFF is bad at the job they've given themselves.
i've stated mutliple times the only use for this is for teams that can remove pff's built in mistakes from their players. it's useless for fans.
They say that they are measuring “a player’s contribution to production on a given play.”
As I said, they are only evaluating how well the player executed on every play.
I think one of the key sentences is under the section entitled “Player Rankings.” You seem to believe that if pff gives a player a higher grade than another player that mean they are saying that guy is a better player. They explicitly deny that: “We are not necessarily telling you who the best players are. Our rankings are more of a performance evaluation and a reflection of how efficiently a player made plays in the time he was on the field.”
Regardless the outcome of the play, the player gets a high grade by executing his assignment on the play — what Eberflus calls “consistent execution.” That is what pff intends to measure, and that is all they claim to measure.
but they also state they don't take into consideration the scheme, and as we all know, no one knows the play outside of the players and the coaches. They cannot grade a players per play, if they don't know or care about the scheme, nor know the play. It's bollocks.