PFF Gives Dak Bad Grade

[Cowboy4ever]

Romo is done. Get over it.

Yet to be seen but why would you bring that up in a post regarding Dak? I didn't mention Romo or any other player, just how Dak played.

 

[Gator88]

Listen, I love Romo as much as anyone else, but define "great." Over his career, do you think he's been consistently a top 3 QB in the league?

Please tell me which of Brady, Peyton, Brees, and Rodgers isn't great. Obviously one or more of those QBS can't be a great QB by that definition since they all played at the same time.

 

[jobberone]

I enjoy Galian's daily attempts to make Prescott out to be a bum.

He's not trying to make him anything IMO. I might not agree with everything he says but he makes his case thoughtfully.

I do agree Dak has to protect the ball and that is the number one goal of any QB.

 

[Vtwin]

I'm sure he had options, but you can't tell me that Dak wouldn't have tried to hit Beasley coming across the middle for the first.

The Dez catch?
Watch it again. GB sold out to take away the middle. Romo went to his jump ball specializing superstar receiver who was single covered, who made the play.
If Dez has considered the situation and focused solely on maintaining possession and the first down it's first and goal.

Sometimes I think this fanbase has gotten exactly what it deserved the last twenty years.

 

[TheRomoSexual]

Please tell me which of Brady, Peyton, Brees, and Rodgers isn't great. Obviously one or more of those QBS can't be a great QB by that definition since they all played at the same time.

Those are who I classify as the truly "great" QBs of the last decade or so (along with Favre). Romo is in the next tier IMO.

 

[SuspectCorner]

Well, at least we know why Dak threw his first interception

Favre: Hey, kid - you're showing up Aaron Rodgers... and I like it!

 

[ConceptCoop]

No, they aren't on to something -- their analysis is ridiculous, as is yours.

One of Dak's turnovers was obviously not his fault considering he was hit while throwing. He missed a couple of throws during a very short shaky period, and then brushed it off to end in stellar fashion, including the game clinching TD. Oh, he also had a 117 rating against a very good defense. If you are "stunned" at the praise, then you are unfamiliar with how rookies tend to play under such circumstances.

You might want to read up on what PFF's performace grade actually is. Based on your comments, you're taking it to be something that it's not. It's far from ridiculous. It's not perfect, but it's valuable. NFL teams use their data, BTW.

 

[Gator88]

Those are who I classify as the truly "great" QBs of the last decade or so. Romo is in the next tier IMO.

By your own definition, at least one of those cannot be a great QB (consistently a top 3 QB in the league). I don't see those guys as just great, and I personally don't see much of a difference between Romo, Rodgers, Rivers, and Roeth, now that Rodgers has been average for what looks like 2 seasons. I'd add Brees there too, but that's more due to thinking his stats are inflated due to the offense him and Payton run.

 

[TheRomoSexual]

You might want to read up on what PFF's performace grade actually is. Based on your comments, you're taking it to be something that it's not. It's far from ridiculous. It's not perfect, but it's valuable. NFL teams use their data, BTW.

It is most certainly prone to ridiculous, isolated conclusions.

 

[Clove]

The Dez catch?
Watch it again. GB sold out to take away the middle. Romo went to his jump ball specializing superstar receiver who was single covered, who made the play.
If Dez has considered the situation and focused solely on maintaining possession and the first down it's first and goal.

Sometimes I think this fanbase has gotten exactly what it deserved the last twenty years.

Romo predetermined the play. He was going Dez no matter what.

 

[ConceptCoop]

It is most certainly prone to ridiculous, isolated conclusions.

How so? Do you have examples?

If you want boxscores, use those. That's not what PFF's player grade is. If 3 TDs and a win in GB is a great performance for you, that's great. But that's not what PFF is. Most people who bash it haven't taken the time to read up on what it actually is.

 

[TheRomoSexual]

By your own definition, at least one of those cannot be a great QB (consistently a top 3 QB in the league). I don't see those guys as just great, and I personally don't see much of a difference between Romo, Rodgers, Rivers, and Roeth, now that Rodgers has been average for what looks like 2 seasons. I'd add Brees there too, but that's more due to thinking his stats are inflated due to the offense him and Payton run.

No, each of those QBs (Favre, Brady, Rodgers, Brees, and Peyton) were top 3 quarterbacks for at least 5+ years. That's consistently being top 3. Romo has never really touched that.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Maybe QBs lose 10 points per fumble/int, now that makes sense! Seriously though how does pff grade QBs? Do they review tape to determine the optimal throw for yards that the QB hit or missed?

I don't know the answer, but fumbles and INTs are really really bad, and I see a lot of people glossing over them in these comments. Dak fumbled twice and threw an INT yesterday. He also made a bunch of good plays, sure. But it wasn't this spectacular performance that a lot of people seem to think it was.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Wentz also didn't throw a TD, had under 175 yards passing, and only completed 50% of his passes. And why should Lane be factored in but not Dez?

You go watch the Philly game and see what Wentz had to go through with his offensive line.

 

[ConceptCoop]

I don't know the answer, but fumbles and INTs are really really bad, and I see a lot of people glossing over them in these comments. Dak fumbled twice and threw an INT yesterday. He also made a bunch of good plays, sure. But it wasn't this spectacular performance that a lot of people seem to think it was.

Exactly. For a rookie making his 6th start, it was great. But as an objective performance, in a vacuum, it wasn't.

 

[TheRomoSexual]

How so? Do you have examples?

If you want boxscores, use those. That's not what PFF's player grade is. If 3 TDs and a win in GB is a great performance for you, that's great. But that's not what PFF is. Most people who bash it haven't taken the time to read up on what it actually is.

I never said Dak played "great." But they rated Wentz higher, which is absurd. Last year, they had Palmer rated way above Brady even though Brady had more yards, TDs, and fewer Ints. The point is PFF is a very "forest for the trees" analysis and, therefore, it can result in strange individual results.

 

[ConceptCoop]

I never said Dak played "great." But they rated Wentz higher, which is absurd. Last year, they had Palmer rated way above Brady even though Brady had more yards, TDs, and fewer Ints.

Why is it absurd? Did you chart and grade every snap for the two? Again, you're using boxscores and that's not what PFF is. If a QB throws a bad pass, but the WR catches it, breaks tackles, and scores a TD, that is not going to be graded highly on PFF (for the QB). It will if you're just using boxscore stats. If that's what you're looking for, that's fine, but that's not what PFF does. Likewise, if a QB makes a perfect read and perfect throw, but the WR drops it, the play will score highly for the QB, even though it doesn't show up on the boxscore.

Palmer had higher YP/A, YP/C, AYP/A, NY/A, ANY/A, TD%, QBR, etc. Again, if TD/INT is all that matters to you, use that. But some feel there's a lot more to consider.

 

[TheRomoSexual]

Why is it absurd? Did you chart and grade every snap for the two? Again, you're using boxscores and that's not what PFF is. If a QB throws a bad pass, but the WR catches it, breaks tackles, and scores a TD, that is not going to be graded highly on PFF (for the QB). It will if you're just using boxscore stats. If that's what you're looking for, that's fine, but that's not what PFF does. Likewise, if a QB makes a perfect read and perfect throw, but the WR drops it, the play will score highly for the QB, even though it doesn't show up on the boxscore.

Palmer had higher YP/A, YP/C, AYP/A, NY/A, ANY/A, TD%, QBR, etc. Again, if TD/INT is all that matters to you, use that. But some feel there's a lot more to consider.

Yes, broader stats (TDs, Ints, yards, etc) tend to mean more to me. I think football is the type of game that, if you get too deep into the stats, you miss the larger picture. And while I didn't "chart and grade" every snap, I watched both players and feel confident in saying that Dak way outperformed Wentz. And I think it's cute that you think PFF spends so much time charting and analyzing -- their rating for Dak came out like 20 minutes after the game.

 

[JD_KaPow]

I never said Dak played "great." But they rated Wentz higher, which is absurd. Last year, they had Palmer rated way above Brady even though Brady had more yards, TDs, and fewer Ints.

Palmer was better than Brady last year, on a rate basis. Brady threw for 99 more yards and 1 more TD, but it took him 83 more passes to get there. Palmer had a better passer rating, QBR and yards per attempt than Brady. There's probably an argument the other way, but it's not at all a ridiculous claim that Palmer was better.

Again, fumbles and INTs are really really bad. Turning the ball over is about as costly as gaining 50 yards is valuable. Fumbling twice and throwing an INT puts a QB in a massive deficit when comparing to another guy who didn't have any of those. So it's not surprising that that's enough to offset the difference in quality of the rest of their play.

 

[TheRomoSexual]

Palmer was better than Brady last year, on a rate basis. Brady threw for 99 more yards and 1 more TD, but it took him 83 more passes to get there. Palmer had a better passer rating, QBR and yards per attempt than Brady. There's probably an argument the other way, but it's not at all a ridiculous claim that Palmer was better.

Again, fumbles and INTs are really really bad. Turning the ball over is about as costly as gaining 50 yards is valuable. Fumbling twice and throwing an INT puts a QB in a massive deficit when comparing to another guy who didn't have any of those. So it's not surprising that that's enough to offset the difference in quality of the rest of their play.

I never said it was ridiculous to rate Palmer higher than Brady -- it is, however, ridiculous to rate Palmer a 98 and Brady a 92. And you're right, INTs are bad, hence why I put a lot of stock in Brady only throwing 7 last year vs. Palmer's 11.