Offensive line ratings from the Bengals game..

[Hoofbite]

That merely measures what happened to them when a pass was thrown their way. Doesn't take into account on the other pass plays. Maybe McCourty had better coverage on the remaining plays. Who knows? I don't really care.

Is there anything else that even matters? Hell, Alan Ball was as stout as they come when the passes weren't coming in his direction. If he had an absurdly low number of targets it might make sense but he was target 97 times. That's 6 per week and he allowed 4 of them to be completed.

Look, I don't care either way how he played but the answer to the question is this.

McCourty graded out as the 6th BEST CB in the NFL last year with an overall rating of 15.0 and a coverage rating of 3.3. If you look at the top 30 graded CBs or so, McCourty has the 2nd worst Completion %, Most Yards, Most TDs, and the highest QBR. Extend it to top 50 graded CBs.

McCourtey's Stat Rank Out Of Top 50 CBs
Completions: 48th
Completion %: 43th
Yards: 49th
Average: 27th
YAC: 39th
TDs: 50th
QBR: 44th

#6 OVERALL GRADED CB!

Jenkins graded out as the 12th WORST CB in the NFL last year. That's #101 OVERALL. His coverage rating was -11.0

How is that even possible by any measuring stick? Jenkins had a better Completion %, fewer yards, fewer TDs and a lower QBR. How is it even possible?

The only explanation is that it's a mistake. There's no way in hell they can justify that. If they say that's correct, their grading criteria is practically worthless. Someone please look at the grades for CBs in 2012 and tell me if I am seeing things incorrectly here. They have to be using Devin McCourtey's numbers and somehow combining some positive stats from this guy into the mix.

 

[Vintage]

Is there anything else that even matters? Hell, Alan Ball was as stout as they come when the passes weren't coming in his direction. If he had an absurdly low number of targets it might make sense but he was target 97 times. That's 6 per week and he allowed 4 of them to be completed.

Look, I don't care either way how he played but the answer to the question is this.

McCourty graded out as the 6th BEST CB in the NFL last year with an overall rating of 15.0 and a coverage rating of 3.3. If you look at the top 30 graded CBs or so, McCourty has the 2nd worst Completion %, Most Yards, Most TDs, and the highest QBR. Extend it to top 50 graded CBs.

McCourtey's Stat Rank Out Of Top 50 CBs
Completions: 48th
Completion %: 43th
Yards: 49th
Average: 27th
YAC: 39th
TDs: 50th
QBR: 44th

#6 OVERALL GRADED CB!

Jenkins graded out as the 12th WORST CB in the NFL last year. That's #101 OVERALL. His coverage rating was -11.0

How is that even possible by any measuring stick? Jenkins had a better Completion %, fewer yards, fewer TDs and a lower QBR. How is it even possible?

The only explanation is that it's a mistake. There's no way in hell they can justify that. If they say that's correct, their grading criteria is practically worthless. Someone please look at the grades for CBs in 2012 and tell me if I am seeing things incorrectly here. They have to be using Devin McCourtey's numbers and somehow combining some positive stats from this guy into the mix.

Seriously?

You do realize QBs are allowed, encouraged even, to go through their progressions. right?

If a CB has great coverage, the QB could decide to throw the ball somewhere else. In fact, this is often times encouraged. And thus, such a play wouldn't show up on this metric.

I am not saying that is what happened here. Merely pointing out such a thing is not accounted for.



600 pt size font for moar emphasis.

loud noises

rawr

elite11!!!1!1!!11!

 

[Nova]

They need to have video with commentary explaining how they grade plays. I've always known they should be taken with a grain of salt but some of their rankings literally do not make any sense at all. I even tweeted them about the one I'll post here in a second and they never responded.

I give you 2 DBs.

Jason McCourty, TEN

• 1144 Snaps
• 2 Penalties / 1 Accepted
• 0 Sacks
• 0 Hits
• 0 Hurries
• 77 Tackles / 10 Assists / 10 Missed Tackles / 26 Stops
• 97 Targets / 63 Completions / 64.9% Completion
• 800 Yards / 12.7 Average / 222 YAC
• Longest Completion Surrendered: 82 Yards
• TDs Surrendered: 7
• INTs: 4
• Pass Deflections: 11
• QB Rating: 97.4

Janoris Jenkins, STL

• 982 Snaps
• 2 Penalties / 0 Accetped
• 0 Sacks
• 1 Hit
• 2 Hurries
• 71 Tackles / 6 Assists / 18 Missed Tackles / 17 Stops
• 107 Targets / 66 Completions / 61.7% Completion
• 715 Yards / 10.8 Average / 243 YAC
• Longest Completion Surrendered: 68 Yards
• TDs Surrendered: 5
• INTs: 4
• Pass Deflections: 10
• QB Rating: 81.3

I probably don't even have to say that McCourty graded out higher both in coverage and overall than Jenkins. That's not the appalling part. The part that is literally unfathomable is how far these two are separated.

Please just play along with me for a second and take a guess at where each of these guys ranks among DBs for the 2012 season.

Please, I want anyone to actually take a stab at their rankings without looking at their site. The list is 113 players long who played 25% of their teams snaps or more.

Where do these two guys rank?

60 spots?

I actually don't know much about McCourty, but with my experience with PFF I'd be willing to venture that he graded out much higher in something else-- likely penalties or against the run, because Jenkins is an Asante Samuel type player who doesn't play the run that great and he was a rookie so he likely committed more penalties than he drew.

And that's what's kind of stupid about PFF. When grading players, some aspects should just count for more than others. I don't care how well a corner is playing the run if I'm ranking cornerbacks to the same extent as how well he's covering or getting turnovers.

 

[theogt]

So PFF has Frederick as the worst run blocker of all the OL in that game and 2nd worst pass blocker?

If that's what they're saying, then it might be time to give up on PFF.

It's long past time to give up on their OL rankings.

 

[Nova]

Seriously?

You do realize QBs are allowed, encouraged even, to go through their progressions. right?

If a CB has great coverage, the QB could decide to throw the ball somewhere else. In fact, this is often times encouraged. And thus, such a play wouldn't show up on this metric.

I am not saying that is what happened here. Merely pointing out such a thing is not accounted for.



600 pt size font for moar emphasis.

loud noises

rawr

elite11!!!1!1!!11!

This is true. This is probably the most important aspect of what makes a CB a good CB, IMO. But, I think the point is that PFF doesn't seem to account for that in their grading. Or at least it doesn't seem to be the case. They seem to be very by the numbers of what they record and display.

They don't record successful coverages-- or at least display them. They just show results of targets.

 

[Nova]

I wouldn't take PFF too seriously for the OL rankings. They consistently have Evan Mathis as the best OL in the league, which he clearly isn't. But he DID do an interview with them really early on. Seems like they're just returning the Karma.

Frederick and Smith are clearly the best OL we have.

 

[JBS]

lolol...i dont care about the grading...Jenkins got abused last year...why are there so many clowns around here calling him a shutdown corner and better than Mo?

hey hoof, can you share Mos #s pls...thx

 

[Hoofbite]

Seriously?

You do realize QBs are allowed, encouraged even, to go through their progressions. right?

If a CB has great coverage, the QB could decide to throw the ball somewhere else. In fact, this is often times encouraged. And thus, such a play wouldn't show up on this metric.

I am not saying that is what happened here. Merely pointing out such a thing is not accounted for.

Of course that can happen, and it probably happens to everyone so it's likely just a huge wash in the end and doesn't matter that they don't count, much less that they probably weren't able to until just a couple years ago.

It's possible but doesn't matter. Just as it's possible that a guy could have horrible coverage but another DB is in an even worse position and the QB throws in his direction.

What may or may not have happened with one CB on any given play doesn't matter because there's likely an equal number of plays that countered whatever effect. Plays where he sucked but got off the hook and plays where he was a stud and forced the QB elsewhere. Overthrows, dropped passes, a holding penalty that wipes out a huge gain for the offense. These are all things that can happen. Ultimately they don't matter because they likely do happen and happen to everyone so every CB is subject to those those variables.

In the end, what actually did happen is what shows up in the stat book and that's what matters. Could he have been great on every other play? Sure. But he also could have been awful so it really isn't worth anyone's time to consider it because it's such a large unknown. Could this influence the grade? Absolutely but I don't care because I already think that their grading is poorly constructed. Kudos for pointing out another reason as to why their grades should be taken with a grain of salt.

Ultimately, what they can or can't account for doesn't matter to me. What they do account for within reason is all I care about. All players are subject to the shortcomings of their method so the end result is likely not that skewed in general.

How they collect their data doesn't matter to me as much as they derive their formula and how consistent that algorithm is. Clearly, it's not consistent (although I'm leaning towards user error and not inherent flaw of the formula) and this is the biggest glaring weakness I have seen on their site.

600 pt size font for moar emphasis.

loud noises

rawr

elite11!!!1!1!!11!

I'm glad you noticed. I was genuinely concerned that you were sincere when you said you didn't care either way so I felt compelled to go that extra couple of mouse clicks to make sure you'd see it.

 

[Hoofbite]

60 spots?

I actually don't know much about McCourty, but with my experience with PFF I'd be willing to venture that he graded out much higher in something else-- likely penalties or against the run, because Jenkins is an Asante Samuel type player who doesn't play the run that great and he was a rookie so he likely committed more penalties than he drew.

And that's what's kind of stupid about PFF. When grading players, some aspects should just count for more than others. I don't care how well a corner is playing the run if I'm ranking cornerbacks to the same extent as how well he's covering or getting turnovers.

95 spots, is it not?

But yeah, they seem to value things a little skewed.

I also question if they count the tackle that is made on a completed pass. McCourty had 63 completions against him, he shouldn't have some of that erased just because he made a solo tackle on the play after being beaten. If you're going to count tackles for DBs I think you should count the ones where he has to tackle someone other than who he's guarding because he wouldn't get credit for that tackle had he been better in coverage from the get-go and not allowed the completion.

 

[onlyonenow]

Reading this thread is making me think PFF is not worth much.

 

[Nova]

95 spots, is it not?

But yeah, they seem to value things a little skewed.

I also question if they count the tackle that is made on a completed pass. McCourty had 63 completions against him, he shouldn't have some of that erased just because he made a solo tackle on the play after being beaten. If you're going to count tackles for DBs I think you should count the ones where he has to tackle someone other than who he's guarding because he wouldn't get credit for that tackle had he been better in coverage from the get-go and not allowed the completion.

No, I didn't check or anything. That was my guess before you responded with the solid numbers.

I'm not sure how the record tackles. He may have been the guy in coverage in a zone at times and wasn't the person to bring the receiver down or something. I wish they would open up how exactly it is that they grade.

 

[iceman117]

I'm not familiar with this website, can someone link it, or tell me the name of it so I can check it out... Based on those ratings it doesn't seem too reliable but I'd like to look further into it.

Thanks