Turbosrrgood Posted September 29, 2015 Posted September 29, 2015 (edited) Don't be fooled by his 5 TD, no int, 300 + yard night against a good defense... It was apparently a miserable performance. PFF has graded him a -.8 for that game. The facts have spoken. Yes, I spelled his name wrong. Edited September 29, 2015 by Turbosrrgood
H2o Posted September 29, 2015 Posted September 29, 2015 PFF is becoming a laughing stock the more of these things I see from them.
26CornerBlitz Posted September 29, 2015 Posted September 29, 2015 (edited) Don't be fooled by his 5 TD, no int, 300 + yard night against a good defense... It was apparently a miserable performance. PFF has graded him a -.8 for that game. The facts have spoken. Gotta love the amateurish effort to grade a great QB performance by an Anal-ytics head. Edited September 29, 2015 by 26CornerBlitz
Wayne Cubed Posted September 29, 2015 Posted September 29, 2015 Ian Rapoport @RapSheet In a result obvious for everyone who watched #Packers QB Aaron Rodgers last night, he scored a -2.3 rating from @PFF
thebandit27 Posted September 29, 2015 Posted September 29, 2015 https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2015/09/29/why-aaron-rodgers-earned-a-slightly-negative-grade/
Canadian Bills Fan Posted September 29, 2015 Posted September 29, 2015 I heard they also had Suh rated as one of the top 3 DT in the league for every game so far this season CBF
thebandit27 Posted September 29, 2015 Posted September 29, 2015 "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."
26CornerBlitz Posted September 29, 2015 Posted September 29, 2015 "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." To cut to the chase, they should just say "Our grading system sucks!"
Wayne Cubed Posted September 29, 2015 Posted September 29, 2015 https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2015/09/29/why-aaron-rodgers-earned-a-slightly-negative-grade/ Haha they point to the fumble, which was overturned by a penalty, as a negative play. They have no idea what they are doing, that play doesn't even show up on the official stats because it never happened.
thebandit27 Posted September 29, 2015 Posted September 29, 2015 To cut to the chase, they should just say "Our grading system sucks!" Right? If your grading system produces a negative result for a 5 TD, 0 INT, 300-yard performance in a convincing win, and requires that you issue a boatload of disclaimers to both (a) justify the grade, and (b) point out that the negative grade doesn't mean he played poorly, then your grading system is faulty at its core. Haha they point to the fumble, which was overturned by a penalty, as a negative play. They have no idea what they are doing, that play doesn't even show up on the official stats because it never happened. They brought Collinsworth in as part owner to lend some credibility to their brand...this type of stuff is going to make that task that much harder. They should stick to collecting raw data; they're actually good at that.
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted September 29, 2015 Posted September 29, 2015 PFF is becoming a laughing stock the more of these things I see from them. PFF = pffff
QB Bills Posted September 29, 2015 Posted September 29, 2015 I agree with the pff grading method in theory. I didn't watch most of the game yesterday so I can't speak to the grade on rodgers but it is technically feasible to play average or even bad and have a big day stats-wise.
26CornerBlitz Posted September 29, 2015 Posted September 29, 2015 I agree with the pff grading method in theory. I didn't watch most of the game yesterday so I can't speak to the grade on rodgers but it is technically feasible to play average or even bad and have a big day stats-wise. Rodgers was masterful with execution and improvisation in carving up KC. The grade is pure nonsense!
The Wiz Posted September 29, 2015 Posted September 29, 2015 PFF = pfffft Fixed that for ya. Needed the 't' to complete the fart sound.
thebandit27 Posted September 29, 2015 Posted September 29, 2015 I agree with the pff grading method in theory. I didn't watch most of the game yesterday so I can't speak to the grade on rodgers but it is technically feasible to play average or even bad and have a big day stats-wise. It's possible to play poorly and put up good numbers, yes. It's not, however, possible to have a dominant statistical day, on which a player accounts for all 5 of his team's TDs, does not turn the ball over, and eclipses 300 yards, all in a comfortable win against a top-5 pass defense (over the last 3 years) and play even average football. Rodgers played to his usual fantastic standard yesterday. This grade is nonsense.
QB Bills Posted September 29, 2015 Posted September 29, 2015 It's possible to play poorly and put up good numbers, yes. It's not, however, possible to have a dominant statistical day, on which a player accounts for all 5 of his team's TDs, does not turn the ball over, and eclipses 300 yards, all in a comfortable win against a top-5 pass defense (over the last 3 years) and play even average football. Rodgers played to his usual fantastic standard yesterday. This grade is nonsense. technically, you're wrong...it is possible, but i'm assuming that wasn't the case yesterday obviously a crazy hypothetical scenario, but say a guy goes 5/9, and all 5 completions are screen passes that go 70 yards each for touchdowns, and he throws another 4 horrible balls that are dropped by the defenders...would you say he had a great game? again, an absurd example of course, but the reasoning PFF gives for their grading system makes sense from seeing some highlights, it was his timing and accuracy that was incredible last night, not necessarily the degree of difficulty of the throws and him dropping them into tight windows, which i believe is what PFF measures
Wayne Cubed Posted September 29, 2015 Posted September 29, 2015 technically, you're wrong...it is possible, but i'm assuming that wasn't the case yesterday obviously a crazy hypothetical scenario, but say a guy goes 5/9, and all 5 completions are screen passes that go 70 yards each for touchdowns, and he throws another 4 horrible balls that are dropped by the defenders...would you say he had a great game? again, an absurd example of course, but the reasoning PFF gives for their grading system makes sense from seeing some highlights, it was his timing and accuracy that was incredible last night, not necessarily the degree of difficulty of the throws and him dropping them into tight windows, which i believe is what PFF measures Uh, they also gave him a negative mark for a play that technically didn't happen. The play was negated by a penalty but they graded him on it anyways. That's ridiculous.
D. L. Hot-Flamethrower Posted September 29, 2015 Posted September 29, 2015 (edited) I'm giving Clayton Kershaw's three hit, complete game shutout with 11 Ks, a negative 2.3 because his catcher framed well, his defense made some great plays and he had a wild pitch. Time to throw out the model with the bathwater Edited September 29, 2015 by The Thurmanator
BillsFan130 Posted September 29, 2015 Posted September 29, 2015 Didn't PFF give suh a very high score against the bills? The guy seemed invisible to me
D. L. Hot-Flamethrower Posted September 29, 2015 Posted September 29, 2015 Didn't PFF give suh a very high score against the bills? The guy seemed invisible to me I think it was Bill James who said, " any result that is always surprising, is probably wrong!"
Recommended Posts