For those that love to reference PFF... (1 Viewer)

Yeah but like what? I'm not arguing I'm genuinely interested.

BFUOCVsCAAIbNDU.jpg


This is an example; they chart the route run by WRs or at least the targeted WRs.

Besides that, I think a lot of it is personnel type stuff, e.g., how often teams line up in 2 TE sets compared to league average, how often do they pass/run out of each set, success rates etc.
 
This is an example; they chart the route run by WRs or at least the targeted WRs.

Besides that, I think a lot of it is personnel type stuff, e.g., how often teams line up in 2 TE sets compared to league average, how often do they pass/run out of each set, success rates etc.

NFL teams generate that data on their own, surely. They produce their own cut ups for film study, there's no reason for them to contract that.
 
NFL teams generate that data on their own, surely. They produce their own cut ups for film study, there's no reason for them to contract that.

Maybe or maybe they don't.

It's a huge undertaking to chart every game, every week, for every team. Why maintain an entire department of dozens of people to do it when you can pay someone else less for the same information?

But of course trust would be key if they did.

PFF and FO say NFL teams contract them. Maybe they are lying?
 
NFL teams generate that data on their own, surely. They produce their own cut ups for film study, there's no reason for them to contract that.

I'm sure they do to an extent, but I doubt every team collects the data to the extent that PFF does for the entire league. In other words, I'm not sure the film cut ups that teams do include specifically charting and recording every play of every game for every team. Undoubtedly some teams do it (at least for their opponents) but for others, why spend the resources when they can get that info from PFF or Stats inc?
 
Maybe or maybe they don't.

It's a huge undertaking to chart every game, every week, for every team. Why maintain an entire department of dozens of people to do it when you can pay someone else less for the same information?

But of course trust would be key if they did.

PFF and FO say NFL teams contract them. Maybe they are lying?

I'm pretty sure they maintain that department anyways. I believe they're already charting that data when they put together the film packages for players and coaches. Players get an app on their ipad or whatever where they can literally search "every deep post route run by Julio Jones" and get video clips of every single post route Julio Jones ran. I imagine this is already done, in house, better and more extensively.

And if its not than the entire NFL is being ran by amateurs. Because the net cost of having an in house department capable of doing that is probably 2 low salaried positions and 4 working for free interns.
 
I'm sure they do to an extent, but I doubt every team collects the data to the extent that PFF does for the entire league. In other words, I'm not sure the film cut ups that teams do include specifically charting and recording every play of every game for every team. Undoubtedly some teams do it (at least for their opponents) but for others, why spend the resources when they can get that info from PFF or Stats inc?

Because it doesn't cost hardly anything to do so and you have complete control over the process. Why would you outsource it? PFF is, obviously, doing that same work for minimal cost given their job advert.
 
No, its not - and that's the point.

You have a random guy watching NFL Replay "breaking down film" with no expressed qualifications much less any quality control. The company is ran by an English man ( Neil Hornsby ) and as of Dec 2012, they had 26 people 'breaking down film'. These random guys are watching regular game footage and attempting to determine things like who got beat in coverage, if a lineman was beat off their block, etc.

You don't have random guys. You have people they pay as analysts watching game film. You denigrate their credentials with no proof one way or the other how qualified they are. They are qualified enough that major media outlets source them and at least on some level NFL teams and agents use them.

And they aren't breaking down "regular game footage." Coaches angles with an "all 22 view" and high endzone view are available to anyone (you can go to NFL.com and subscribe today) so it's not like they are watching telecasts and not seeing the whole picture of what's taking place.

Both corners in press coverage, one WR runs a short hook and the CB stays with him. On the other side of the field, the CB stays in the flat as the WR breaks out, but the WR ran an out & up and is wide open down the sideline before the safety can get there.... was that a cover 2 and the safety just couldn't get over in time? Or was it a quarters coverage and the corner blew his assignment?

If corners are 7 yards off at the snap and the WR runs a quick hitch for a catch, is that an "allowed catch" marked against the CB?

They attempt to dissect what coverage was being ran and assign responsibility from that. It's not as simple as player A caught a pass closest to player B. Looking at their stats after watching a game makes that clear.

No system is perfect and I'm sure they make mistakes but the grander compilation of the sample will lead to an at least fairly accurate picture of how a player performs.

We see it with players here. Most felt Jenkins was bad this past season. Their stats show it. Same for Will Smith. Most thought our DB's missed too many tackles. Their stats show it. We thought we didn't get much pressure on the QB, their stats quantify it.

It's much preferable to idle speculation and generalized comments.

Did that offensive linemen get beat or did he slip his block on purpose because he was on a fold and someone else was suppose to pick that guy up?

Most of the time it's obvious if someone lets a man go on purpose. Not always, but most of the time.

You saw 4+ drops by WRs but PFF only lists 1 in the game and its credited to a guy who was jumping backwards to try to get a hand on the ball?!

You'd have to provide an actual example of this vs. an unproven anecdote.

In all cases, judging by PFF's numbers, the answer is.... flip a coin. The 'data' outside of mundane things like 'snaps taken' is not much better than a random number generator. If any team's fan base should know this, it should be ours - Franklin, Rogers, and even Bunkley certainly did not perform even non-scheme specific tasks ( ex. Shaun played on rollerskates ) as well as PFF had rated them in the previous year, but suddenly they went from top of the line players ( according to PFF... ) to so-so or players no team seems too happy to sign.

Friends don't let friends use PFF to judge a player's performance.

It's an absolutely silly comment to say their stats are no more useful then random number generation. Just stupid silly.

Your example doesn't prove your assertion. Players go all the time from one team to another and see massive drop off, either from scheme, motivation, physical changes, or a combination of all. I find their stats match up with the eye test much more often then not and I'm struggling to think of any player on our team that they just totally missed the ball on by a mile (we watch every game, we'd know if they got someone's performance wrong).
 
The only thing I'd add to Bonchie's post ^: they've (PFF) said on multiple occasions that the teams they work with also provide feedback and checks on grades and their analyses and processes, so more often than not what they produce and provide the teams is accurate.
 
You don't have random guys. You have people they pay as analysts watching game film. You denigrate their credentials with no proof one way or the other how qualified they are. They are qualified enough that major media outlets source them and at least on some level NFL teams and agents use them.
That is exactly what they are; random guys. Since you brought up 'stupid silly'... really? Using 'major media outlets sourcing' as if this gives them some kind of creditability? Do you live in a hole?! Our media - particularly sports media such as ESPN - has been a shining example of how little credit their words carry these days.

And they aren't breaking down "regular game footage." Coaches angles with an "all 22 view" and high endzone view are available to anyone (you can go to NFL.com and subscribe today) so it's not like they are watching telecasts and not seeing the whole picture of what's taking place.
As you said - its the same stuff anyone can get access to.

They attempt to dissect what coverage was being ran and assign responsibility from that. It's not as simple as player A caught a pass closest to player B. Looking at their stats after watching a game makes that clear.
Looking at their stats and watching a game makes it obviously clear they may attempt to dissect what is going on but often have no idea what they are looking at.

No system is perfect and I'm sure they make mistakes but the grander compilation of the sample will lead to an at least fairly accurate picture of how a player performs.
That's ridiculous - just having more of it doesn't make bad data better.

We see it with players here. Most felt Jenkins was bad this past season. Their stats show it. Same for Will Smith. Most thought our DB's missed too many tackles. Their stats show it. We thought we didn't get much pressure on the QB, their stats quantify it.
Exactly - they tailor the outcome to what they want it to be. As the saying goes, figures don't lie, but liars can figure.

You'd have to provide an actual example of this vs. an unproven anecdote.
Watched every Denver game after Tebow took over. There were at least 4+ drops a game, most between Demarius "Skillet Hangs" Thomas and Willis "Frying Pan" MaGahee, but ever Decker had his share. Some QBs definitely through a much more 'catchable' ball than others, but in the NFL, if it hits your hands without you leaving your feet, its a drop. Yet more than half of those drops were never recorded.

Your example doesn't prove your assertion. Players go all the time from one team to another and see massive drop off, either from scheme, motivation, physical changes, or a combination of all.
Fact is, it doesn't matter how many examples are provided - you are going to just dismiss any & all examples of proof because you don't want them to be wrong, which is just plain 'stupid silly'.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom