Dorkington Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 (edited) ...and a Reddit user doing some leg work. http://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/35iyq0/i_used_pff_grades_to_grade_every_ol_in_every/ Edited May 11, 2015 by Dorkington
filthymcnasty08 Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 Cue the EJ deserves more time crew in 3....2......
thebandit27 Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 ....according to PFF and a Reddit user doing some leg work. http://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/35iyq0/i_used_pff_grades_to_grade_every_ol_in_every/ This is why I love PFF: somehow the Bills' OL, which allowed 85 QB hits and gained 3.7 YPC, is somehow worse than the Colts' OL(which somehow didn't even rank in the bottom 5), which allowed 107 QB hits and gained 3.9 YPC. Then you've got the Eagles, with 65 QB hits and 4.2 YPC, ranked (apparently) well ahead of Denver and their 42 QB hits with 4.0 YPC. Now the kicker: figure out how Houston's OL, which is 0.3 YPC and 5 QB hits better than Buffalo, ranks 5th in the NFL, while Buffalo ranks 31st.
BuffaloHokie13 Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 This is why I love PFF: somehow the Bills' OL, which allowed 85 QB hits and gained 3.7 YPC, is somehow worse than the Colts' OL(which somehow didn't even rank in the bottom 5), which allowed 107 QB hits and gained 3.9 YPC. Then you've got the Eagles, with 65 QB hits and 4.2 YPC, ranked (apparently) well ahead of Denver and their 42 QB hits with 4.0 YPC. Now the kicker: figure out how Houston's OL, which is 0.3 YPC and 5 QB hits better than Buffalo, ranks 5th in the NFL, while Buffalo ranks 31st. PFF is the Huffington Post of Football Analysis imo
ko12010 Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 I think the jury is out on this crop of OLineman we have. I'll be more interested in our ranking after this season.
metzelaars_lives Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 (edited) This is why I love PFF: somehow the Bills' OL, which allowed 85 QB hits and gained 3.7 YPC, is somehow worse than the Colts' OL(which somehow didn't even rank in the bottom 5), which allowed 107 QB hits and gained 3.9 YPC. Then you've got the Eagles, with 65 QB hits and 4.2 YPC, ranked (apparently) well ahead of Denver and their 42 QB hits with 4.0 YPC. Now the kicker: figure out how Houston's OL, which is 0.3 YPC and 5 QB hits better than Buffalo, ranks 5th in the NFL, while Buffalo ranks 31st. Apparently QB hits and YPC are not the only two things they factor into their grading. For instance, I would imagine a QB's mobility and release time would factor greatly into their QB hits. I would also imagine how good a running back is would factor into his YPC. Like I don't care who is on your OL, Adrian Peterson is gonna have a decent YPC every year. And to that point, Fred Jackson and CJ Spiller should be able to average more YPC than Trent Richardson and Daniel Herron. The fact that they didn't does say something I would think. Edited May 11, 2015 by metzelaars_lives
bizell Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 the PFF rating is just one metric that should be considered into account with other forms of data when ranking a team's strengths/weaknesses (in this case, OL)
metzelaars_lives Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 PFF is the Huffington Post of Football Analysis imo You'd need to elaborate on that one I think.
Lurker Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 Now the kicker: figure out how Houston's OL, which is 0.3 YPC and 5 QB hits better than Buffalo, ranks 5th in the NFL, while Buffalo ranks 31st.
BuffaloHokie13 Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 You'd need to elaborate on that one I think. Semi-reputable, quoted/cited only when their article serves the purpose of an argument, and ultimately contains mostly garbage content. Again, all imo
eball Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 PFF is the Huffington Post of Football Analysis imo You'd need to elaborate on that one I think. I'll give it a shot. PFF are not necessarily football experts -- they are data trackers. They're adding up "points" and drawing conclusions, often without any real context. The data may certainly be useful (particularly info about personnel on the field, for example) but when you start "ranking" units based upon their grades you see results that are difficult to rationalize, as has been pointed out in this thread.
John from Riverside Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 Run the Spiller dive up the middle again for a yard.......
Dorkington Posted May 11, 2015 Author Posted May 11, 2015 Updated title to reflect it being PFF's ratings.
clearwater cadet Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 The line was weak last year, with some time back there maybe QB play will improve.
KD in CA Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 Semi-reputable, quoted/cited only when their article serves the purpose of an argument, and ultimately contains mostly garbage content. Again, all imo I thought it was an excellent analogy. Required no explanation here!
thebandit27 Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 PFF is the Huffington Post of Football Analysis imo Indeed. Apparently QB hits and YPC are not the only two things they factor into their grading. For instance, I would imagine a QB's mobility and release time would factor greatly into their QB hits. I would also imagine how good a running back is would factor into his YPC. Like I don't care who is on your OL, Adrian Peterson is gonna have a decent YPC every year. And to that point, Fred Jackson and CJ Spiller should be able to average more YPC than Trent Richardson and Daniel Herron. The fact that they didn't does say something I would think. Obviously there are other factors involved...I'm only saying that PFF and the eye-test don't always yield similar results when it comes to line play. As to Jackson/Spiller, well, I'll give you Freddie making chicken salad, but C.J. has some real issues hitting holes. The All-22s were a real eye-opener with regard to how often he simply misses a crease in the line that would gain 4 or 5 yards if he just used his speed to run straight ahead.
earthtobrint Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 This is why I love PFF: somehow the Bills' OL, which allowed 85 QB hits and gained 3.7 YPC, is somehow worse than the Colts' OL(which somehow didn't even rank in the bottom 5), which allowed 107 QB hits and gained 3.9 YPC. Then you've got the Eagles, with 65 QB hits and 4.2 YPC, ranked (apparently) well ahead of Denver and their 42 QB hits with 4.0 YPC. Now the kicker: figure out how Houston's OL, which is 0.3 YPC and 5 QB hits better than Buffalo, ranks 5th in the NFL, while Buffalo ranks 31st. With regard to the QB hits, it's most likely relative to plays run (specifically passing plays run). 107 QB hits out of how many passing plays the Colts run. 85 QB hits out of how many the Bills run. When you look at stats you don't judge by volume alone.
thebandit27 Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 With regard to the QB hits, it's most likely relative to plays run (specifically passing plays run). 107 QB hits out of how many passing plays the Colts run. 85 QB hits out of how many the Bills run. When you look at stats you don't judge by volume alone. I'm not sure why you think I did/do. Further, if you think that supplies the context, why not provide the numbers? Regardless, if you're interested, here's the breakdown: Indy - 661 passing attempts + 29 sacks allowed = 690 drop-backs with 107 QB hits, or a QB hit every 6.44 drop-backs. Buffalo - 579 passing attempts + 39 sacks allowed = 618 drop-backs with 85 QB hits, or a QB hit every 7.27 drop-backs.
Recommended Posts