Titans OT Taylor Lewan says players pay PFF for higher grades

[BigAl2526]

If it turns out there is something to it, Chris Collinsworth could find himself in some doodoo with the network.  I suspect the league would be unhappy with him too.  The league hates controversy with anyone connected with NFL football, and not just players. 

[Shaw66]

55 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

I believe that was Eric Wood.

 

 

Wood may have said something about it, too, but I'm sure the occasion I recall it was Williams.  Frankly, probably every offensive and defensive lineman has had the same reaction. 

[1ManRaid]

46 minutes ago, Don Otreply said:

Given their past admissions of purposefully putting out bait, on top of make believe stats that they use, ie; “ should have been / counted as an interception “ crap this wouldn’t/ shouldn’t surprise anyone, par for the course for “ now there’s a guy” and his crew.

 

Yeah you don't even have to take claims of bribery seriously to have at least some grounds to "despise" PFF.  Including what you alluded to, the list includes...

 

- Literally admitting to trolling Bills fans for clicks.

- Fabricating an "objective" statistic (turnover worthy plays) just to crap on Josh Allen.

- Coining the term "arm arrogance" as a catch-all defense for crapping on Josh Allen while giving Patrick Mahomes a pass for the same behavior.

- Rating Josh Allen outside the top 10 QBs while he was on a record setting/MVP tear, then needling Bills fans/backpeddling with "it's ok Bills fans, he's close to being top 10".

- Going out of their way to leave Bills out of the discussion on polls about top safeties, WR pairs, QB/WR duos, defenses, overall rosters, etc.

- Only flipping their script and giving the Bills more positive coverage after it was obvious the Bills were the new media darlings and Super Bowl favorites.

 

Just off the top of my head.  As far as the claims of bribes, I'll take it with a huge grain of salt, as much as I'd love to see evidence of it being true.

[LeGOATski]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

I've never liked PFF, but I'd be amazed if this were true.  Maybe someone at PFF took a bribe on one or more occasions, but I doubt that PFF makes a practice of inflating scores in exchange for payments.   Collinsworth is too smart risk his franchise, which seems to be pretty well established, to collect a few hundred thousand extra dollars.  And even if there have been bribes, it doesn't make sense that the bribes are too widespread, because other people at PFF would start to notice that the data doesn't add up or is giving inconsistent results.  

 

But, as your local news always says, tune in at 11 for further details.  

You're not wrong, but there have been blatant inconsistencies pointed out to PFF before and they tend to close ranks when that happens.

 

They've always been great for raw stats and terrible for grades. No respectable football organization would put any value in their grades. If a player is paying PFF to bump their grade, it's so that they look better to the media. Maybe it's worth it for their career beyond football. But they're not gonna fool a football expert with it.

[Shaw66]

One thing that is fundamentally wrong is that PFF gives every player is on a real grade on every play - an A or a B or a number, however they do it.  In fact, on a lot of plays a lineman has only two grades - pass or fail.  Even though you may get a better grade than I because you pancake a guy and I just block him, from the team's point of view, it makes no difference, either way, our man was taken out of the play. 

 

You may get a better grade because you block a guy completely to the end of the play while another defensive player gets to the quarterback, while I slipped off my guy and let him pressure the QB as I moved over to double the guy who made the tackle on your play.  

 

PFF just can't know what coaches have asked the players to do.

[Shaw66]

7 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

You're not wrong, but there have been blatant inconsistencies pointed out to PFF before and they tend to close ranks when that happens.

 

They've always been great for raw stats and terrible for grades. No respectable football organization would put any value in their grades. If a player is paying PFF to bump their grade, it's so that they look better to the media. Maybe it's worth it for their career beyond football. But they're not gonna fool a football expert with it.

Thanks.  I don't pay any attention to them, so I don't know. 

 

What do you mean, they've been great for "raw stats"?   I mean, raw stats like tackles we can get anywhere.   Do they have a blocks made stat?   But even if they do, there's a measure of judgment that goes into deciding whether the block was made, and part of that judgment is understanding the play and the assignment and the defense.   Who does PFF have making those judgments?    I just don't think there's much of anything that an outfit like that can do that doesn't involve judgments that they are poorly equipped to make.  

 

Football Outsiders is at least a little better, in that they take the objective outcome of plays - yards gained or lost, in particular circumstances, like third and less than four to go, against common opponents, and rank the teams or players by their relative success.  Those are derivative stats, but they're based on objective data.   PFF's rankings are based, so far as I understand it, on subjective judgments by people watching film, people who aren't football coaches.  

[The Red King]

No idea if this is true, but I could see it.  I'm not talking some kind of huge, obvious shift.  Some plays are close, as far as what grade you would give it.  At that point, there is a subjective element.  A bribe could greatly improve the chances that those borderline plays end up positive (or more positive).  When you look at the sheer number of plays in a season, that adds up.  Again, not saying it's true, just that I could see it happening.

[GoBills808]

3 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Thanks.  I don't pay any attention to them, so I don't know. 

 

What do you mean, they've been great for "raw stats"?   I mean, raw stats like tackles we can get anywhere.   Do they have a blocks made stat?   But even if they do, there's a measure of judgment that goes into deciding whether the block was made, and part of that judgment is understanding the play and the assignment and the defense.   Who does PFF have making those judgments?    I just don't think there's much of anything that an outfit like that can do that doesn't involve judgments that they are poorly equipped to make.  

 

Football Outsiders is at least a little better, in that they take the objective outcome of plays - yards gained or lost, in particular circumstances, like third and less than four to go, against common opponents, and rank the teams or players by their relative success.  Those are derivative stats, but they're based on objective data.   PFF's rankings are based, so far as I understand it, on subjective judgments by people watching film, people who aren't football coaches.  

They measure more obscure stats like average depth of target in passing, frequency at which an offense will run a particular personnel package, amount of time a QB has in the pocket…stuff like that. 

[LeGOATski]

1 minute ago, Shaw66 said:

Thanks.  I don't pay any attention to them, so I don't know. 

 

What do you mean, they've been great for "raw stats"?   I mean, raw stats like tackles we can get anywhere.   Do they have a blocks made stat?   But even if they do, there's a measure of judgment that goes into deciding whether the block was made, and part of that judgment is understanding the play and the assignment and the defense.   Who does PFF have making those judgments?    I just don't think there's much of anything that an outfit like that can do that doesn't involve judgments that they are poorly equipped to make.  

 

Football Outsiders is at least a little better, in that they take the objective outcome of plays - yards gained or lost, in particular circumstances, like third and less than four to go, against common opponents, and rank the teams or players by their relative success.  Those are derivative stats, but they're based on objective data.   PFF's rankings are based, so far as I understand it, on subjective judgments by people watching film, people who aren't football coaches.  

Raw, objective stats. I see football analysts use their stats all the time and that's fine. They have every stat under the sun, just like other stat companies. But I don't ever see a legit football analyst using their grades as any sort of valid measuring stick.

[Chicken Boo]

Still trying to figure out why people put stock in things like player grades?  Who really gives a *****.

[Shaw66]

5 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

Raw, objective stats. I see football analysts use their stats all the time and that's fine. They have every stat under the sun, just like other stat companies. But I don't ever see a legit football analyst using their grades as any sort of valid measuring stick.

Got it.  You're saying they're just one of many sources for true raw stats, including advanced stats, stats you can find elsewhere, and it's just that PFF has become the go-to place for that data.   Thanks. 

 

I use Pro Football Reference.  That gives me more that I want. 

[LabattBlue]

50 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

Actually watching the clip now

 

Ignoring the PFF thing I think some people on here were saying similar things about J.J. Watt.

Is that shithole, barstool sports office? 😂

Edited May 15, 2022 by BTB

[LeGOATski]

11 minutes ago, The Red King said:

No idea if this is true, but I could see it.  I'm not talking some kind of huge, obvious shift.  Some plays are close, as far as what grade you would give it.  At that point, there is a subjective element.  A bribe could greatly improve the chances that those borderline plays end up positive (or more positive).  When you look at the sheer number of plays in a season, that adds up.  Again, not saying it's true, just that I could see it happening.

PFF tries to prop itself up with these extra products to put itself above all the other stat companies out there, and therefore make more money.

 

I think it's a business plan that's rooted in dishonesty, since they're not trying to take the subjectivity out of the analysis, like an honest analyst/stat guru would. It's not like it's against the law, they're just capitalizing on the huge football market that's out there.

 

But that makes me think they would also capitalize on any players/agents that want to pay to be a "priority PFF client." It's not a ridiculous notion, given their reputation.

[blacklabel]

Haha, this could get spicy. That’d be funny. I’ve always taken PFF not that seriously. They come up with all the metrics, they created their own grading system and they can sit there and fiddle with the numbers until they spit out whatever they want. They just create these metrics with such small areas where it’s like, oh when Player A has Cheerios at 8 AM on gameday he picks up .09264 extra yards per carry. But on game days where he ate Frosty Flakes his extra YPC was a paltry .71263 therefore we must conclude that the science says this kid is a bust. 
 

The whole thing has always just seemed like a buncha arbitrary BS they could skew however they want. There might be some usefulness to it in some areas as teams have picked up on it but yeah overall I’d be wary of it if I was a GM or something. Wouldn’t surprise me at all if what  has some truth to it. How long before PFF starts saying their analytics are for entertainment only or some crap lol. 

[LeGOATski]

4 minutes ago, BTB said:

Is that shithole, barstool sports office? 😂

I mean...is it not on brand? They're called "Barstool." 

[LeGOATski]

9 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Got it.  You're saying they're just one of many sources for true raw stats, including advanced stats, stats you can find elsewhere, and it's just that PFF has become the go-to place for that data.   Thanks. 

 

I use Pro Football Reference.  That gives me more that I want. 

Yeah, there are a bunch out there to use. It's a crowded market. PFF has to market itself as different/better somehow...

[strive_for_five_guy]

3 hours ago, hemma said:

Oooo.  This could be juicy.

[eball]

3 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

Yeah I think for good reason Lewan simply dislikes having stats associated with his name..........prefers the lesser standard of "perception" to having to execute well every down like positions with more statistical analysis.   He's a very inconsistent player.

 

But of course he used stats to start a twitter beef with Shaq Lawson back in 2019 after the Bills beat the Titans.

 

Pointed to stats to show that Shaq was a bust. 

 

Then Jordan Phillips pointed out that Lewan was suspended for PED's etc..

 

  

Lewan is a me-first douche. 

[GoBills808]

30 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

Yeah, there are a bunch out there to use. It's a crowded market. PFF has to market itself as different/better somehow...

Ultimately it’s up to the consumer to determine which stats are useful. PFF and others bake a certain amount of subjectivity in which imo renders them largely useless, but even some of the league’s Next Gen stats which are derived purely iirc from sensors aren’t really capturing useful data…or at least the way it’s being applied doesn’t  necessarily correspond with the numbers they’ve collected.

[Spiderweb]

3 hours ago, Rc2catch said:

I really don’t like Lewan, but I would 100% love to see some truth in this. I despise PFF 

Personally I dislike Lewan far more than PFF.