Vikings PFF Grades

[J. Kapp 11]

I'll go ahead and assume you didn't read the article, since it wasn't me "quoting" anything to try and win internet points. It was just an interesting in depth article on Rhodes that breaks down the numbers even more.

You know, it just dawned on me. I'll bet Bleacher Report could use some great sell copy to advertise for more pro-bono writers. Let's give it a try.

Is bad spelling, faulty logic, and false information keeping you from enjoying the career you deserve as a national journalist? Good news! With Bleacher Report, none of that matters! Now YOU can be a sportswriter, from the comfort of your living room -- no experience necessary!

Listen to what a real Bleacher Report writer has to say.

(Darren P.) "Just yesterday, I wrote that Teddy Bridgewater is really a female ... and it got 4 million hits! I didn't make a dime, but who cares? People noticed me. I'm SOMEBODY!

The secret is our patented, super algorithm that catapults your articles to the front page of Google. Doesn't matter how idiotic your stories are ... they rise to the top! And because they LOOK like real articles, people believe them!

Just visit our Bleacher Report website, sign up, and you too can be a SPORTSWRITING STAR ... absolutely FREE!

But wait ... there's more! Act now, and we'll make sure your very first article shows up on Page 1 of Google within the first 10 minutes of publication. Your article -- complete with your byline -- will be fodder for water cooler conversations all over America ... GUARANTEED!

So hurry. This limited-time offer won't last. Get the zero-paying career as a star journalist you've always dreamed of ... visit Bleacher Report dot com and sign up RIGHT NOW!

Don't you understand? It takes absolutely no qualifications to write for Bleacher Report, which is why I pay no attention to anything they publish. Darren Page is nothing more than a dude with an opinion, just like everybody on this board. So I really don't care if his argument supports mine.

Win. Lose. Whatever, man. When you grasp at ridiculous straws like Bleacher Report, you're arguing with yourself. Enjoy.

[frosted]

Matt Bowen, Bleacher Report

Matt Bowen played defensive back for seven seasons in the NFL (2000-2006) with the Rams, Packers, Redskins and Bills. A sixth-round pick of the Rams in 2000, Bowen won the Carroll Rosenbloom Award given each season to the team's Rookie of the Year. He holds a journalism degree from the University of Iowa and a masters degree in writing and publishing from DePaul University in Chicago. Bowen's writing background includes the Washington Times, Pro Football Weekly, Washington Examiner, Chicago Sun-Times, National Football Post, Chicago Tribune and ESPN Insider. He lives in the Chicago area with his wife and four sons.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2288 ... film-study

1st-and-10

Here are 10 thoughts from a scheme and matchup perspective as we look ahead to the Week 13 schedule in the NFL.



1. Antonio Gates in the Red Zone

When the Chargers move the ball to the edge of the red zone, I'd like to see Gates removed from the core of the formation in the backside "X Iso" (or "Dakota") alignment to draw that one-on-one matchup versus the Patriots.



We know the Patriots are a heavy Cover 1 (man-free) team given their personnel in the secondary, and this alignment will create room for Gates to run outside-breaking routes while working his matchup (I'm thinking Brandon Browner draws the tight end) with the free safety shaded over the top to the trips side of the field.

What do you see from Gates in this field position? Seam and 7 (corner). The veteran tight end needs to be an impact player in the red zone for Philip Rivers and the Chargers to produce versus the Patriots secondary Sunday night.

Bleacher Report..what a rag.

[Demi]

Let me try and be clear. I wasn't trying to argue. There were no phantom straws I was grasping it. I just linked an article...my goodness.

But I guess I'll stay away from Bleach Report and PFF from now on. They aren't qualified enough to link from a fan message board.

[maembe]

How in heaven's name is Xavier Rhodes the 29th-best corner in the NFL, barely ahead of Josh Robinson?

Just when I think it isn't possible for PFF to sink lower on the credibility scale, they again prove me wrong.

The problem with their cornerback ratings is that they equally value run stopping (which Rhodes is not at all good at) and pass defense, which is significantly more important. Winfield kind of broke the rating scale by being so absurdly good in tackling/run defense that he ended up as the number one overall corner with something like a +2.0 rating in coverage. Also, keep in mind that when people talk about Rhodes being amazing, they're talking about a 5 game stretch. He was solid all season, but did have a couple subpar games mixed in. That said, I would be much more interested to see the coverage grades. I would guess Rhodes would be top ten.

PFF is the absolute best thing out there, without question. As with any statistic however, it doesn't necessarily tell the whole story and there are too just many variables in football to come up with stats as good as baseball.

[mansquatch]

PFF is the absolute best thing out there, without question.

The current head coach of the Vikings strongly disagrees with this opinion.

I do as well. So what if Rhodes is not a great run stopper. Do you want a guy who can control the likes of Calvin Johnson on your team? I know I do.

PFF is fun info, but you have to take it with a grain of salt. The Rhodes rating does not pass the eye test AT ALL.

[J. Kapp 11]

Let me try and be clear. I wasn't trying to argue. There were no phantom straws I was grasping it. I just linked an article...my goodness.

But I guess I'll stay away from Bleach Report and PFF from now on. They aren't qualified enough to link from a fan message board.

My bad. I was in a mood.

All I'm really saying is that BR is fine to read for entertainment, but not for real information. For 98% of their articles, it's the exact same thing we do here, which is uninformed speculation ... with "uninformed" meaning no access to players, coaches, or front office personnel. Example, if a BR writer says the Vikings could be in the running to get Larry Fitzgerald, it's not written with any inside knowledge of people in the know. Even if it's really well-written, it's still pure conjecture.

So IF a person WERE to use them as some sort of credible source to support an argument, my position is that it wouldn't carry any more weight than if any random poster on this board were to say it.

As for PFF, obviously the argument rages on. I would point out, however, that the vast majority of their analysis is done by unpaid guys with no NFL experience of any kind. See their "Get Involved" page ... it's all spelled out. Now, they DO evaluate every player for every play. The questions for me are "how" and "who."

[Cliff]

I know the argument rages on about PFF but it's still generally a better gauge than simply looking at a WR's receiving yards/TDs alone, for example ... which is pretty much all the NFL supplies us with.

At least a few teams use the stats in addition to their internal stuff.

For example;
http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_26 ... -grade-nfl

The Broncos use PFF as a resource along with other databases. Defensive coordinator Jack Del Rio prides himself on being on the "cutting edge" of player analysis. He leans on PFF more in the offseason when evaluating free-agent fits.

My question about PFF is this; why does the NFL allow them to go on? Here is a website/company using their copyrighted material to generate everything on their site.

[mansquatch]

Cliff, I'll take a stab at that one:

IMO, why wouldn't the NFL let them continue. In the NFL's mind PFF is a providing additional reason to enjoy their product at no cost to the NFL. In essence, PFF is free marketing. Given that the NFL has full embraced fantasy football, this doesn't seem that far fetched.

Also, a question I think is worth pondering: Does the NFL care at all if analysis sites are accurate? My opinion is that they do not care. In their opinion, right or wrong, these sites are just more exposure for their product.

[Mothman]

I know the argument rages on about PFF but it's still generally a better gauge than simply looking at a WR's receiving yards/TDs alone, for example ... which is pretty much all the NFL supplies us with.

I'd argue that it's worse, Cliff, because the NFL is providing raw data and PFF is providing subjective evaluations by amateurs using criteria that isn't even clear. To me, that's not very useful. All you have to do is try breaking down what happened on a play using film and still photos here to see just how dramatically interpretations of the same play can vary when being examined with untrained eyes. If PFF was employing experts it would give them more credibility but they're just amateurs.

At least a few teams use the stats in addition to their internal stuff.

True but I wonder what stats they're using. PFF is probably quite reliable when it comes to counting touches, number of plays for specific players, or even things like how often a team uses a specific formation. Some of their information is undoubtedly useful. However, once they get into subjective analysis and evaluation of individual assignments and performances, I would hope NFL teams wouldn't pay much attention to them. They should probably trust their own scouts and film study for that stuff. If Del Rio is leaning very heavily on PFF's analysis of players when evaluating free agents, the Broncos might want to consider leaning less on Del Rio's evaluation of free agents.

My question about PFF is this; why does the NFL allow them to go on? Here is a website/company using their copyrighted material to generate everything on their site.

That's a great question.

[dead_poet]

I didn't see this posted yet and found it interesting. PFF response to Zimmer's criticism:

I reached out to Sam Monson of PFF for a response.

"I understand Mike Zimmer’s reservations, but while coaches like to maintain the mystique of football, the bottom line is most plays are simple enough to decipher," Monson told me. "We won’t get everything 100 percent right, the same way the Vikings won’t get everything 100 percent right when watching tape of any other team in the league – it doesn’t mean they’re not right most of the time and it’s still not a worthwhile exercise.

"We would never want anybody taking our grades and stats as the definitive answer to any question. Football is way too complex for that. But they provide a fantastic starting point and can give you a big shortcut to answers you might be looking for. PFF currently sells to 13 teams and once we get to sit down with people within organizations they immediately recognize the value of the grading and what we do -- from coaches to the scouting department to the analytics guys. If Coach Zimmer wants to learn a little more about PFF and our processes, we’re always here."

The entire article is worth a read: http://www.si.com/nfl/2014/08/25/mike-z ... ball-focus

[Mothman]

I didn't see this posted yet and found it interesting. PFF response to Zimmer's criticism:
The entire article is worth a read: http://www.si.com/nfl/2014/08/25/mike-z ... ball-focus

Monson trots out the same song and dance every time he's asked about PFF's credibility but the question isn't whether what they do is a worthwhile exercise, or even if they get things 100% right (since they're human beings, it's safe to assume they don't), it's whether the leap they make from simple data collecting (who was on the field, what did they do in a basic sense, etc.) to subjective analysis and player grading is reliable enough to be valuable and, particularly, if it's reliable enough to be used as widely by the media as it is now. It's often treated as borderline definitive.

I know I made a wisecrack about Jack Del Rio above but I was just trying to be lighthearted. The truth is, I respect the guy and I agree with his view (expressed in the article Cliff linked to above), that having more information is a good thing. However, as that article points out, when Del Rio grades players, he grades them on technique as well as other factors. PFF doesn't include technique in their grades and there's plenty of guesswork in what they do.

[Cliff]

Monson trots out the same song and dance every time he's asked about PFF's credibility but the question isn't whether what they do is a worthwhile exercise, or even if they get things 100% right (since they're human beings, it's safe to assume they don't), it's whether the leap they make from simple data collecting (who was on the field, what did they do in a basic sense, etc.) to subjective analysis and player grading is reliable enough to be valuable and, particularly, if it's reliable enough to be used as widely by the media as it is now. It's often treated as borderline definitive.

I know I made a wisecrack about Jack Del Rio above but I was just trying to be lighthearted. The truth is, I respect the guy and I agree with his view (expressed in the article Cliff linked to above), that having more information is a good thing. However, as that article points out, when Del Rio grades players, he grades them on technique as well as other factors. PFF doesn't include technique in their grades and there's plenty of guesswork in what they do.

Certainly nobody should take it as 100% gospel or definitive but I've got to say I feel like it gives fans a better understanding of a player than base stats do (which again, is really all we had access to before now). For example, if a running back has 150 yards on 30 carries and 1TD, just looking at that line a fan is likely to say they had a good game. However, what if that RB only had 1 decent run the whole game and it just so happened to be for 100 yards ... but they missed blocks that allowed sacks, fumbled, dropped several passes, maybe only averaged 1.7 YPC the rest of the game.

Before PFF, most NFL fans that didn't watch the game would look at the 150 yards/1TD and 5YPC (and the highlight that would be all over ESPN) and declare the running back had a really good game. On the other hand, with PFF, that player would likely have a low or negative grade even though traditional stats (not to mention fantasy football points) would have many fans singing their praises.

The reason I see PFF as a positive is because I see their stats as an improvement over a fan trying to come to conclusions based on the normal stat lines and lets face it, lots of them were doing that anyway. It's even more useful for trying to figure out how good offensive linemen from teams that you don't follow are. Sure, their grade isn't the end all be all ... but it's better than NFL.com's 'games played' metric which is about the only data for those linemen that we have. Defensive linemen stats were nearly as bad with basically only sacks and tackles mattering.

No, PFF isn't definitive ... but I think you can get a better understanding of a players performance looking at a PFF grade for the game than probably any other stat line you can look at (especially for non-QB positions).

As far as the people who will claim 'this player is the best/worst' because PFF said so! They're the same people who would say the RB from the above example played a great game. If PFF didn't exist people would still misuse stats on behalf (or against) an NFL player ... that's not a PFF problem, that's a people problem.

[The Breeze]

Some interesting comments at the end of that article...especially the one from the Steeler fan.

From what I can tell there just isn't a definitive system for grading players....it's not possible.

Way too many variables. Is a tackle who gives up a sack to JJ Watt worse than a tackle who doesn't give up one against (insert average DE here)?

I'm sure there are many PFf breakdowns and compilations of stats that smart NFL guys can take advantage of and may save them time and work. And perhaps some of these teams who are using PFF services have paid them to keep track of specific things....who knows?

Their grading system to me is more like a tenedency rating which can help coaches crunch down the number of players to analyze when looking at free agents.

But grading a 3-4 nose tackle negatively for not making tackles or getting QB pressures is showing a real lack of nuance that I would assume most coaches can recognize. So, even if the stats/ratings are flawed in such fashion, as long as they are consistent, coaches can learn to make solid use of the info.

I think the real issue with Zimmer is that he was looking to take the heat off the franchise LT, as all the knucklehead 'journalists' were using PFF ratings to pound Kalil, as if it wasn't already obvious that he was struggling. The key is knowing why he is/was struggling which PFF #'s don't reveal....and most journalists seem to mail it in routinely.

They love PFF and all of ofthis conflict around it caue it's easy filler for them.


I know this is a big isue for Kapp and I agree, most all jounalism now days, in every genre is light weight parroted crap.
People with limited access on message boards often have the best insight and more understanding of the game and it's nuances.

It is what it is....

[J. Kapp 11]

Certainly nobody should take it as 100% gospel or definitive but I've got to say I feel like it gives fans a better understanding of a player than base stats do (which again, is really all we had access to before now). For example, if a running back has 150 yards on 30 carries and 1TD, just looking at that line a fan is likely to say they had a good game. However, what if that RB only had 1 decent run the whole game and it just so happened to be for 100 yards ... but they missed blocks that allowed sacks, fumbled, dropped several passes, maybe only averaged 1.7 YPC the rest of the game.

Before PFF, most NFL fans that didn't watch the game would look at the 150 yards/1TD and 5YPC (and the highlight that would be all over ESPN) and declare the running back had a really good game. On the other hand, with PFF, that player would likely have a low or negative grade even though traditional stats (not to mention fantasy football points) would have many fans singing their praises.

The reason I see PFF as a positive is because I see their stats as an improvement over a fan trying to come to conclusions based on the normal stat lines and lets face it, lots of them were doing that anyway. It's even more useful for trying to figure out how good offensive linemen from teams that you don't follow are. Sure, their grade isn't the end all be all ... but it's better than NFL.com's 'games played' metric which is about the only data for those linemen that we have. Defensive linemen stats were nearly as bad with basically only sacks and tackles mattering.

No, PFF isn't definitive ... but I think you can get a better understanding of a players performance looking at a PFF grade for the game than probably any other stat line you can look at (especially for non-QB positions).

As far as the people who will claim 'this player is the best/worst' because PFF said so! They're the same people who would say the RB from the above example played a great game. If PFF didn't exist people would still misuse stats on behalf (or against) an NFL player ... that's not a PFF problem, that's a people problem.

Cliff, I would agree with you wholeheartedly if PFF would reveal its methodology. But that's not the case, so we have no idea why that back who gained 150 yards actually had a bad game ... except that PFF said so. Not good enough for me.

Why? Because I know that I could become an analyst for them today if I wanted. And while I'm an avid watcher of the game and a passionate fan, I'm not qualified to be an analyst. Heck, I've never played a down in my life. It makes me seriously question who's doing the analyzing ... and what methods they're using.

I agree that it's OK as a fan-interest tool. But when actual NFL teams and so-called big-name journalists start using the information as gospel, I cringe.

[Mothman]

Certainly nobody should take it as 100% gospel or definitive but I've got to say I feel like it gives fans a better understanding of a player than base stats do (which again, is really all we had access to before now). For example, if a running back has 150 yards on 30 carries and 1TD, just looking at that line a fan is likely to say they had a good game. However, what if that RB only had 1 decent run the whole game and it just so happened to be for 100 yards ... but they missed blocks that allowed sacks, fumbled, dropped several passes, maybe only averaged 1.7 YPC the rest of the game.

Before PFF, most NFL fans that didn't watch the game would look at the 150 yards/1TD and 5YPC (and the highlight that would be all over ESPN) and declare the running back had a really good game. On the other hand, with PFF, that player would likely have a low or negative grade even though traditional stats (not to mention fantasy football points) would have many fans singing their praises.

The reason I see PFF as a positive is because I see their stats as an improvement over a fan trying to come to conclusions based on the normal stat lines and lets face it, lots of them were doing that anyway. It's even more useful for trying to figure out how good offensive linemen from teams that you don't follow are. Sure, their grade isn't the end all be all ... but it's better than NFL.com's 'games played' metric which is about the only data for those linemen that we have. Defensive linemen stats were nearly as bad with basically only sacks and tackles mattering.

No, PFF isn't definitive ... but I think you can get a better understanding of a players performance looking at a PFF grade for the game than probably any other stat line you can look at (especially for non-QB positions).

As far as the people who will claim 'this player is the best/worst' because PFF said so! They're the same people who would say the RB from the above example played a great game. If PFF didn't exist people would still misuse stats on behalf (or against) an NFL player ... that's not a PFF problem, that's a people problem.

LOL! Well said. I suppose it's really the "people problem" I find so frustrating.

I understand why some people like what PFF provides but in the end, I find a lot of what they do more like statistical editorializing, the stat/grading equivalent of a columnist's take on a game or performance. Like ESPN's QBR, the further removed from the raw data and the more subjective the analysis becomes, the less reliable the grades/numbers become. Consequently, the rankings and +/- numbers at the top of this thread strike me as borderline useless. I question whether they're really painting a more accurate picture of individual performances or just creating the illusion of greater accuracy. Are they really providing us with more substantive information when their numbers are derived from hundreds of little subjective choices made by analysts with no clear qualifications at all beyond a willingness to do the work?

PFF refers to a "rigorous training process and extensive review process" but never provides much insight into those processes. They assure anyone concerned about the accuracy of their statistics and grading that: "Our player participation data has been confirmed as 99.96% accurate". Okay... by whom? Who made that confirmation?

They claim interaction with NFL teams leads them to feel strongly about the accuracy of their grades but it would be far more interesting to know how one of those NFL teams actually felt about that accuracy. It would be nice if PFF provided even one quote from an NFL Personnel Dept. that reinforced their claims.

The whole thing seems like a brilliant moneymaking idea but dubious in terms of it's reliability.