PFF Gives Dak Bad Grade

[mattjames2010]

Wentz in no way outperformed Dak yesterday. Wentz, for one, hardly saw the field. When he did see the field, he played average throughout. 50% completion rating, 0 TDs, less than 200 yards passing.

You do not need PFF to tell you this, and I will say this yet again, PFF grades early in the week are beyond useless. Every fan can do what PFF did, especially for QBs.

Wentz was average to below average yesterday. Dak, while he had some flubs, also had a lot of good/great moments. I'm someone who dislikes Wentz, but can also say he has played better than Dak for the most part the entire season. But not yesterday. PFF will most likely change their grading later in the week.

 

[ConceptCoop]

Someone needs to explain how they have charted and graded the entire game within hours and without endzone views? It is complete and utter nonsense.

It wouldn't take long if they split it up. All plays are graded by two analysts, with a third to act on the differences. They then go back and re-grade flagged plays when the All-22 footage is available.

 

[JDSmith]

It wouldn't take long if they split it up. All plays are graded by two analysts, with a third to act on the differences. They then go back and re-grade flagged plays when the All-22 footage is available.

So if two guys saw it the same way on the TV they don't go back and look at it once the all-22 comes out? I find that ridiculous when trying to grade a QB because you can't see what the receivers are doing on any given play.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

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.

Exactly right.

Most are trying to equate PFF grades to the NFL passer rating system and it's two totally different animals.

 

[ConceptCoop]

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.

It sounds like you're a boxscore guy and that PFF just isn't for you. They don't dig into stats, they grade each play.

Wentz was sacked 5 times and was constantly under pressure. Unless you charted the plays, I don't put much value in your valuation. Anybody can look at the stats and say one guy played better.

When did I make a comment on the amount of time PFF spends? It wouldn't take long to grade one player. They split the load up and it makes sense that they'd be able to get the grades done pretty quickly. There's more dead time than actual play time in football.

 

[ConceptCoop]

So if two guys saw it the same way on the TV they don't go back and look at it once the all-22 comes out? I find that ridiculous when trying to grade a QB because you can't see what the receivers are doing on any given play.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding.

They go back and re-grade evey play that they flag, using the All-22 when it's out.

So if an analyst says, "I need to see the All-22 on this play," they go back and re-grade the play once the All-22 is available. You'll notice that their grades vary some through the season because of this.

 

[AdamJT13]

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.

NFL teams user their data, but I guarantee you they don't care about PFF's player ratings. It's a completely flawed system.

 

[Lutonio]

Well damn. Somebody tell Dak he has to hand that W back over because his PFF grade was low.

Better luck next time, rookie.

 

[ConceptCoop]

NFL teams user their data, but I guarantee you they don't care about PFF's player ratings. It's a completely flawed system.

How is it completely flawed? I've heard many say it, but they either don't know what it is, or are unable to explain the flaws.

 

[TheRomoSexual]

It sounds like you're a boxscore guy and that PFF just isn't for you. They don't dig into stats, they grade each play.

Wentz was sacked 5 times and was constantly under pressure. Unless you charted the plays, I don't put much value in your valuation. Anybody can look at the stats and say one guy played better.

When did I make a comment on the amount of time PFF spends? It wouldn't take long to grade one player. They split the load up and it makes sense that they'd be able to get the grades done pretty quickly. There's more dead time than actual play time in football.

Again, I didn't look at the stats -- I watched each player play. I didn't "chart" the plays, but the fact that you think a couple of nerds subjectively "charting" each play is somehow a flawless system is hilarious.

 

[TheRomoSexual]

How is it completely flawed? I've heard many say it, but they either don't know what it is, or are unable to explain the flaws.

A overly detail oriented system based on subjective analysis is inherently flawed.

 

[ConceptCoop]

Again, I didn't look at the stats -- I watched each player play. I didn't "chart" the plays, but the fact that you think a couple of nerds subjectively "charting" each play is somehow a flawless system is hilarious.

Who said it was flawless? It's very flawed, as is any system that tries to put a numeric value on something as complex as a football play. But it has value.

 

[ConceptCoop]

A overly detail oriented system based on subjective analysis is inherently flawed.

Overly detailed? It's pretty clear that you have little to no idea what PFF's player grade is.

 

[TheRomoSexual]

Overly detailed? It's pretty clear that you have little to no idea what PFF's player grade is.

You're killing me smalls. Each play is analyzed based on a -2 to 2 scale and later normalized. In other words, it's a purely subjective analysis that relies on many small subjective decisions that they then compute into a normalized number to provide the guise of statistical analysis. Yes, it's a terribly flawed approach.

 

[AdamJT13]

How is it completely flawed? I've heard many say it, but they either don't know what it is, or are unable to explain the flaws.

The method of rating is flawed. The weighting of the factors is seriously flawed. And the people doing the rating have no expertise and don't know what each player's responsibility is on each play. GIGO. (Never mind that it's a cumulative rating, which is inherently flawed.)

The raw data, on the other hand, is helpful because it provides information that teams would otherwise have to compile themselves. (Even that information is not perfect, but it is helpful.)

 

[JDSmith]

How is it completely flawed? I've heard many say it, but they either don't know what it is, or are unable to explain the flaws.

I'll address one area that I think it's completely flawed, and maybe you can explain why it's not.

PFF had the Giants offensive line ranked as third best in the NFL. They had the Cowboys line sixth best in the NFL. The Giants as a team have been completely unable to run all season. Their pass blocking has been anywhere from average to poor. It appears that the PFF grade is artificially inflated because the Giants offensive scheme has Eli throwing the ball quicker than any other QB in the NFL - in part because they don't trust the pass protection. So his average from snap to throw is quicker than anyone else (at least per Giants fans who care about such things). I'd say it stands to reason that if an offensive lineman who only has to block for an average of 2.5 seconds will look better than another who has to block for 3.5 seconds.

The same thing can be applied to CBs, how hard is it to cover for 2.5 seconds as opposed to 3.5? If a team has a great pass rush their CBs will have higher grades on PFF, whether they are actually better or not.

Now it's possible I don't understand the system and that stuff is accounted for. But it seems that between those examples and not knowing the assignments of the players they are grading, PFF has some serious flaws.

 

[ConceptCoop]

The method of rating is flawed. The weighting of the factors is seriously flawed. And the people doing the rating have no expertise and don't know what each player's responsibility is on each play. GIGO. (Never mind that it's a cumulative rating, which is inherently flawed.)

The raw data, on the other hand, is helpful because it provides information that teams would otherwise have to compile themselves. (Even that information is not perfect, but it is helpful.)

You make a coule valid points. We don't know who the analysts are, and they don't know the responsibility of each player on each specific play. Based on the output, however, I trust that they know enough to be of value to me, and are capable of making reasonable assignment assumptions.

GIGO? Nah.

What would be better than a cumulative rating?

Lastly, do you have a better system for their aim? The aim is very ambitious and no system could ever be perfect. There's still value there, however. For what it does, it's clearly the standard. There's simply nowhere else to go for this kind of data. When the alternative is message board posters using raw stats and eye tests (from a couple games a week) - it's clearly more valuable than our collective opinion.

 

[percyhoward]

A bad grade from PFF means he's officially arrived.

 

[Vtwin]

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

Romo himself said he made the decision based on what he saw pre-snap. He read it correctly and made the play. The correct play which you can see for yourself by watching it again.

We haven't seen Dak in a situation like that yet.

 

[ConceptCoop]

I'll address one area that I think it's completely flawed, and maybe you can explain why it's not.

PFF had the Giants offensive line ranked as third best in the NFL. They had the Cowboys line sixth best in the NFL. The Giants as a team have been completely unable to run all season. Their pass blocking has been anywhere from average to poor. It appears that the PFF grade is artificially inflated because the Giants offensive scheme has Eli throwing the ball quicker than any other QB in the NFL - in part because they don't trust the pass protection. So his average from snap to throw is quicker than anyone else (at least per Giants fans who care about such things). I'd say it stands to reason that if an offensive lineman who only has to block for an average of 2.5 seconds will look better than another who has to block for 3.5 seconds.

The same thing can be applied to CBs, how hard is it to cover for 2.5 seconds as opposed to 3.5? If a team has a great pass rush their CBs will have higher grades on PFF, whether they are actually better or not.

Now it's possible I don't understand the system and that stuff is accounted for. But it seems that between those examples and not knowing the assignments of the players they are grading, PFF has some serious flaws.

Based on my understanding, you're 100% right. You've identified major flaws with their system. But we have to understand (and appreciate) that any system trying to do what they're doing is going to be majorly flawed. It's still a context that we wouldn't have had otherwise. It's the only system I'm aware of that adds any non-boxscore context. I don't take it as gospel, and I don't think they intend it to be taken as such.