First Downs Allowed

[Mothman]

I think whatever the methodology used, as long as its applied consistently it should be as valid as any other analysis.

Consistency and accuracy are not the same thing. An analysis that proceeds from suppositions and utilizes limited resources isn't likely to be as valid as an analysis based on facts using superior resources.

From what I read, their reasoning was that Greenway missed 15 tackles on the season to Henderson's 3.

I read the same thing but to me, that just underlines how flimsy and inconsistent their reasoning can be...

When analyzing first downs allowed, they acknowledged the impact being an "every down" LB has on the numbers. Since Greenway was on the field quite a bit more than Henderson over the course of the season, it stands to reason he would have more missed tackles. He also had far more tackles (148 to Henderson's 80). Greenway's higher number of missed tackles may also be a result of Greenway putting himself in position to make the tackle more often than Henderson. Giving henderson the edge as the better LB doesn't pass the eye test. He's clearly not the better LB.

The three PFF selected as their top in the north were: Briggs, Brad Jones (GB) and Henderson. Clay Matthews and Israel Idonije were tops in the "Edge Defenders" category.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2 ... orth-team/

I remember and to me, that's just further evidence that they can't be trusted. I don't know if they're trying to be clever with some of their choices by going against the grain or if they just want to acknowledge players they consider underrated but ranking Idonije (a fine player) ahead of Peppers is just as questionable as ranking Henderson ahead of Greenway. Peppers is clearly the better player, not just over the course of his career but in 2012 as well. Heck, the same goes for Allen. I like Idonije's game quite a bit but he is not one of the two best edge defenders in the NFC North. I'm not so sure I'd rank him ahead of Cliff Avril either...

I don't want to continue beating a dead horse here. All I'm saying is that what PFF does is fan analysis and it should be treated as such. It's fun, it's useful to a degree, and it can be pretty interesting but it is highly questionable.

[PurpleMustReign]

He doesn't play on defense?

I was being an arse

[J. Kapp 11]

All it confirms for me is that PFF's brand of statistical analysis is subjective, very questionable and not to be accepted at face value. I apologize for beating a dead horse but I just don't trust these guys. They're fans working from TV broadcasts. It's fun to look at what they have to say, just like it's fun for us to analyze and discuss football here, but trusting their stats and conclusions is another story.

This has been my ongoing question with not only PFF, but certain advanced stats in baseball: Who is making all these subjective calls?

To my knowledge, nobody on PFF's staff is affiliated with the NFL in a coaching or scouting capacity. As you said, Jim, they're dudes who have a lot of time on their hands. I suppose if you watch enough plays, you get an idea of who's supposed to do what. But if a cornerback gets "beat," how do we know, really, what that corner's assignment was? How do we know whether the nickel corner or the outside corner is supposed to take the guy who comes clean on a pick play? If the nose tackle gets to the ball carrier behind the line of scrimmage, who missed the block? How do we know it wasn't just a bad-luck play call, such as blitzing against a screen pass that breaks for 40 yards?

The same thing happens in baseball. A stat like "line-drive percentage" -- I envision some 140-pound dude who has never made contact with a pitched ball in his life, sitting there with a laptop going, "Pujols hit a home run ... that's a fly ball." Well, no, not always. In fact, good hitters will tell you that most home runs are line drives with backspin, not fly balls.

PFF is a lot of fun to read. And it's very good for what it is. But I think we have to keep in mind what it is. What's scary is that many opinion commentators and columnists are now using PFF evaluations as justification for their arguments, as if PFF is the ultimate source of football knowledge. All I can say is that PFF calls itself "better than anything outside of a team meeting." While that may be true, I have to believe that its analyses fall far, far short of the critiques given inside closed doors in the NFL.

[ViciousBritishVike]

I was being an arse [/quote]

An arse? Don't be so harsh on yourself, you're no cheesehead

[Mothman]

This has been my ongoing question with not only PFF, but certain advanced stats in baseball: Who is making all these subjective calls?

To my knowledge, nobody on PFF's staff is affiliated with the NFL in a coaching or scouting capacity. As you said, Jim, they're dudes who have a lot of time on their hands. I suppose if you watch enough plays, you get an idea of who's supposed to do what. But if a cornerback gets "beat," how do we know, really, what that corner's assignment was? How do we know whether the nickel corner or the outside corner is supposed to take the guy who comes clean on a pick play? If the nose tackle gets to the ball carrier behind the line of scrimmage, who missed the block? How do we know it wasn't just a bad-luck play call, such as blitzing against a screen pass that breaks for 40 yards?

The same thing happens in baseball. A stat like "line-drive percentage" -- I envision some 140-pound dude who has never made contact with a pitched ball in his life, sitting there with a laptop going, "Pujols hit a home run ... that's a fly ball." Well, no, not always. In fact, good hitters will tell you that most home runs are line drives with backspin, not fly balls.

PFF is a lot of fun to read. And it's very good for what it is. But I think we have to keep in mind what it is. What's scary is that many opinion commentators and columnists are now using PFF evaluations as justification for their arguments, as if PFF is the ultimate source of football knowledge. All I can say is that PFF calls itself "better than anything outside of a team meeting." While that may be true, I have to believe that its analyses fall far, far short of the critiques given inside closed doors in the NFL.

Well said. I've noticed the increased references to PFF stats in columns and on blogs by professional sportswriters too and like you, i find the trend a little scary. PFF is getting more credence than a group of dedicated, enthusiastic fans analyzing television broadcasts should probably receive.

[mansquatch]

This is all conjecture on my part:

It gets credence because it uses quantitative analysis so reporters can cite it in order to “sound smart”. However, as you guys are aptly pointing out, it is still just a bunch of guys with no real coaching pedigree crunching numbers. I crunch numbers for a living and I can make some fancy model about any business I want, it’ll look really smart too, and as long as no one compares it to actual results, it’ll stay that way.

That of course is the kicker. You need someone with intimate knowledge of the subject matter to proof the modeling. That is where the hired commentators and former coaches come into play.

What has always interested me about the NFL is that it is such a competitive meat grinder. We see new things all the time because it pays to innovate in the league. Coaches that are one trick ponies do not last long. It also begs the question of if a coach is now a broadcaster is that because he likes the easy life better (possible) or because he just isn’t as competitive as he once was. (I bet this is more true than we realize).

I’m sure ratings and a desire to not agitate the NFL also comes into play.

With regards to LB: I stand by my earlier statement that a lack of playmaking at this position hurts our team, especially at Mike. I think it is the difference between our defense being good and being great. I’m also wondering if adding Urlacher would be a wise move? He probably won’t leave the Bears, but I bet for at least one season he could make enough of a difference to help our team. He isn’t what he used to be, but even in his geriatric state he is leap over Brinkley.

[PurpleMustReign]

Its just stats. For the most part by "best" they mean in each statistical category they're quoting, not really football analyzing who's the best if that makes any sense

I hate when they post stuff like that on TV during the game, like "First time both teams scored a TD while running the ball in their left hand when the temperature is above 35 with a wind out of the northwest and exactly one cloud in the sky." It's like who cares?

[Just Me]

I hate when they post stuff like that on TV during the game, like "First time both teams scored a TD while running the ball in their left hand when the temperature is above 35 with a wind out of the northwest and exactly one cloud in the sky." It's like who cares?

I agree. And usually when we hear 'stats' like the ones you mentioned above, it's because it fits a "predetermined point" the announcers are trying to make. - e.g. "No NFC North team with a winning record has ever beaten the Packers at Lambeau during the playoffs in the last 10 years" Sounds significant and (IIRC) it's true since Tice's squad had an 8-8 record for the season when we beat the Pack that year. It means nothing other than trying to make the Packers sound better. Kind of like the (finally) retired statement about no domed team has ever won the SB. (At least the Rams were good for something - others have won it since)

[J. Kapp 11]

Its just stats. For the most part by "best" they mean in each statistical category they're quoting, not really football analyzing who's the best if that makes any sense

PFF is not "just stats." It's a bunch of guys sitting around "grading" every player on the field, based on what they think those players are supposed to be doing. I actually do think they're playing amateur analyst, although I'm sure they've monetized this pretty handsomely, so maybe amateur isn't the right word.