PFF says we have the 8th WORST pass rush?

[PBF81]

4 hours ago, sunshynman said:

YES! We can hate PFF again!

 

LOL 

 

I'm tellin' ya. 

 

 

[QCity]

2 hours ago, FrenchConnection said:

It's a flawed stat, but PFF grades pass rushers on their "win" on the initial rush at the snap.  It's like an extension of training camp discussions where we talk about DL X "winning their rep" against OL Y or vice versa. All those sacks against Washington would not count as pass rush wins because they were due to Sam Howell holding the ball too long. Why did he do that? Because the BIlls DBs took away his first read. In the end, it doesn't really matter. All that matters is that the defense made a play. But just like with PFF OL ratings, they are trying to quantify something that is not really quantifiable but because as humans we love numbers and rankings we eat it up. 

This ^

[Einstein]

1 hour ago, Buffalo716 said:

That's not true... It's a symbiotic relationship between coverage and pass rush

 

Your pass rush could get home fast allowing your corners to not cover for a long time.. masking bad corners

 

A great pass rush could get neutralized by Max protection.. and if you don't have the defensive backs to cover you will lose downfield

 

And a great secondary can also make quarterbacks hold the ball longer.. allowing less of pass rushers to get home ..

 

There are a lot of ways it can happen

 

None of this changes the fact that a d-line can either get pressure without db help or they can’t.

 

 

Synergy is not the conversation. Individual component effectiveness is.

 

It’s akin to saying “XYZ quarterback can either make plays with a bad o-line or they cant” and someone responding “QB play and line play is synergetic”.

 

Well, yeah… it is… but that doesn’t change the. fact that either the QB can make plays with a bad o line or they can not.

[JoPoy88]

Since this is a PFF thread, I thought I'd ask - has anyone read the new book about PFF from Matthew Coller (ex-WGR producer) yet? I'm thinking about it since I've always wondered how exactly they attempt to normalize these grades across the many different things they grade and across all the different graders they employ. I know PFF provides apparently useful analytic data to tons of teams; and I don't really have a doubt they have a bunch of talented numbers guys there. The grading system on the other hand seems to produce head scratching results frequently. 

 

Link to book I'm talking about.

[Buffalo716]

1 hour ago, Einstein said:

 

None of this changes the fact that a d-line can either get pressure without db help or they can’t.

 

 

Synergy is not the conversation. Individual component effectiveness is.

 

It’s akin to saying “XYZ quarterback can either make plays with a bad o-line or they cant” and someone responding “QB play and line play is synergetic”.

 

Well, yeah… it is… but that doesn’t change the. fact that either the QB can make plays with a bad o line or they can not.

You can have the best d line in the world... And if the other team block 7 you're not getting pressure..

 

Then you need defenders in the back that can cover

 

It's not as simple as you make it sound.. there are lots of moving components on every play... And even the greatest d line can get neutralized with a game plan so you need to have more

 

And that wouldn't make it the d lines fault... Because 7 beats 4 and 5 usually... You're not generating pressure... So you need defensive backs that can cover 

 

It's a chess match out there

 

It's certainly not as simple as your front can create pressure or not... Because you can neutralize the best front with Max protection..  then it's not creating havoc

 

And you need to have people in the back that make plays 

Edited October 6, 2023 by Buffalo716

[oldmanfan]

I’ve never looked at their ratings good or bad.

[ShakAttack]

Not gonna lie, PFF made me feel a little better last week when it claimed Tre White's rating thus far this season was something like 63, but in the back of my mind I was also thinking "yeah but they're also full of *****".  And not even a week later, we have a reminder of why that is.  Smh

[Gambit]

Ehh, we have all seen how much our Line has improved this year. Their grade doesn't change how dominant our DLine has been.

[somnus00]

5 hours ago, sunshynman said:

YES! We can hate PFF again!

Thank God. Things have been going too well around here lately. We needed someone to give the pitchfork treatment to.

[Gugny]

Whether it’s good or bad re: the Bills, I pay zero attention to anything PFF says. 
 

It’s all clickbait crap, IMO. 

[Chaos]

PFF has a stat PRP: A formula that combines sacks, hits and hurries relative to how many times they rush the passer. This ignores win percentage. 

Ed Oliver ranks 16th in this stat.  (ahead of Nick Bosa).  Maybe this can make fans feel better.  I find it helpful if people actually understand the things they are bitching about. 

  

 

[Gugny]

1 hour ago, Chaos said:

PFF has a stat PRP: A formula that combines sacks, hits and hurries relative to how many times they rush the passer. This ignores win percentage. 

Ed Oliver ranks 16th in this stat.  (ahead of Nick Bosa).  Maybe this can make fans feel better.  I find it helpful if people actually understand the things they are bitching about. 

  

 

In no universe is Ed Oliver remotely close to Bosa. 
 

Just because they throw a bunch of numbers at you that somehow make sense to them (they don’t), doesn’t mean they’re accurate in any way. 
 

Bunk. 

[Chaos]

25 minutes ago, Gugny said:

In no universe is Ed Oliver remotely close to Bosa. 
 

Just because they throw a bunch of numbers at you that somehow make sense to them (they don’t), doesn’t mean they’re accurate in any way. 
 

Bunk. 

You don't really understand it.  Its barely worth the time to explain it.  But the PRP measurement is a totally objective measurement, and there is no dispute about the components going into it.   As an an analogy, pretend its early in a baseball season, and some random hitter like Ty France is 20 for 40 and batting .500.  And Aaron Judge is  8 for 40 and batting .200.    Your concept would be "its bunk" to say Ty France has a higher batting average than Aaron Judge.   
 

It would be very simple minded to assume that someone publishing the batting average stat is claiming Ty France is a better hitter than Aaron Judge. They are just publishing a statistic. 

Edited October 6, 2023 by Chaos

[Augie]

6 hours ago, Pine Barrens Mafia said:

As if anyone needed any more evidence that PFF is a joke.

 

 

Is there any forum where they get challenged on crap like this? It sounds pretty indefensible. 

 

On a side note, why do all these people on TV sound funny?    😋  

[without a drought]

This should be, someone said PFF said something.

[Gugny]

40 minutes ago, Chaos said:

You don't really understand it.  Its barely worth the time to explain it.  But the PRP measurement is a totally objective measurement, and there is no dispute about the components going into it.   As an an analogy, pretend its early in a baseball season, and some random hitter like Ty France is 20 for 40 and batting .500.  And Aaron Judge is  8 for 40 and batting .200.    Your concept would be "its bunk" to say Ty France has a higher batting average than Aaron Judge.   
 

It would be very simple minded to assume that someone publishing the batting average stat is claiming Ty France is a better hitter than Aaron Judge. They are just publishing a statistic. 

I understand it just fine. It’s garbage. And your analogy doesn’t work. 

[Augie]

3 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

I’ve never looked at their ratings good or bad.

 

Yep! I prefer watching the football games. I don’t know what we get this week with Groot out and Von unlikely to play much, if at all. But if you watch the games it’s obvious….they are GETTING AFTER THE QB! 

[Augie]

46 minutes ago, Chaos said:

You don't really understand it.  Its barely worth the time to explain it.  But the PRP measurement is a totally objective measurement, and there is no dispute about the components going into it.   As an an analogy, pretend its early in a baseball season, and some random hitter like Ty France is 20 for 40 and batting .500.  And Aaron Judge is  8 for 40 and batting .200.    Your concept would be "its bunk" to say Ty France has a higher batting average than Aaron Judge.   
 

It would be very simple minded to assume that someone publishing the batting average stat is claiming Ty France is a better hitter than Aaron Judge. They are just publishing a statistic. 

 

Well, that is just a terrible analogy. I mean TERRIBLE! We are watching football, and judging what we are watching. I don’t feel a need to ignore the facts to date.

 

I don’t care if you are watching a new guy, or a guy in pin stripes. You seem to be suggesting that we are (according to some subjective opinion) that one is better than the other, therefore we should grade on some kind of a curve. That works for biased people who are not objective about the football we have seen this year, but I’m not buying that crap. 

[MJS]

3 hours ago, Einstein said:

 

None of this changes the fact that a d-line can either get pressure without db help or they can’t.

 

 

Synergy is not the conversation. Individual component effectiveness is.

 

It’s akin to saying “XYZ quarterback can either make plays with a bad o-line or they cant” and someone responding “QB play and line play is synergetic”.

 

Well, yeah… it is… but that doesn’t change the. fact that either the QB can make plays with a bad o line or they can not.

Individual pressure rates, QB hits, sack percentages, etc. are all really strong for many of the individual players on the line and collectively.

 

PFF is spouting BS on this.

[ColoradoBills]

Anything can be analyzed, and a scoring system established to determine results.  The more complicated the input variables the

less the results can be judged successfully.

 

Football is an extremely complicated game.  There are 22 players on every play all with assignments that can change in a split second.

Any system that tries to analyze a football play without knowing exactly what that play is and the counter opposing defensive call is

problematic at best.  Everything in football is to create confusion for the opposing side.

 

The reason there are so few good QBs in the NFL is because it's a tough game to control.  That chaos is hard to minimize and the speed

between a successful play and an unsuccessful play is frighteningly fast.

 

Data and analytics are useful but attempting to rank everything from 1 to whatever is extremely difficult.  While I can applaud the attempt

to do this I take it with a pretty big grain of salt.  No one knows this more than NFL coaching staffs IMO.