PPF Grades vs Cleveland

atlantacowboy said:
Only posting players who played at least 30% of the snaps. Just a reminder, anything over 80 is a great game. 60-80 is a good game. Anything under 60 is not good.

Offense:
-
1. Tyler Smith 77.3
2. CD 68.5
3. Steele 67.9
4. Beebe - 67.8
5 Dowdle - 64.3

Other notables on offense:

Dak 58.0
Guyton. 42.0. ( got abused by Myles Garrett all day......but understandable)


Defense:

1. Overshown (!!). 88.6
2. Lewis 81.1
3. Diggs 76.3
4. Micah 75.8. ( they crushed him on the tackling score with a grade 30.4 in that area)
5. Kendricks 71.9



Notables:

Mazi 30.4 ( our lowest graded defender)
Kneeland 68
Damone - 77 ( but only 26 snaps)
Click to expand...
But but Brady said
 
atlantacowboy said:
We had 265 yards of offense. We punted 6 times. They actually beat us in time of possession somehow. The offense wasn't good. Zeke lead the running game with 40 yards and Dak passed for 179. Our defense won this game.
Click to expand...
No no no. Don't you understand the reasoning around here. A defense can't win the game because it is a team game
 
CWR said:
It's be more accurate to judge the offense based on the first half. They got conservative in the second and were more concerned with killing clock and protecting the ball.

At halftime, the Browns trailed by 17, had just one first down and were being outgained 216-54.

It's like yall ignore context completely.
Click to expand...
Sure whatever you say. Yet people are complaining about MM clock management because they were passing too much. If Dark was not terrible they would have ran up the score
 
McCarthyMustGo said:
Overshown looked like he shot out of a cannon when he made the 4th down stop.
Click to expand...
I was stunned at the level of his play. He was a 3rd round pick who missed his rookie season. So, it not like he was a great college player coming into the league. My expectations were pretty low. I understand that DWatson is terrible and not even close to the player he was in Houston, but Overshown was still a revelation with his speed to the ball.
 
TNCowboy said:
Guyton's grade is pretty accurate. He lost rep after rep, and it hindered the offense all day. People can whistle past the graveyard all week, but the offense was bad except for 2 drives and only had a handful of 1st downs in the last 2 and half quarters. The Cowboys won't get away with an offensive showing like yesterday very often.

Mazi was bad yet again, 98 & 93 walk in the door and are instantly better.

13 was all over the field. Even when he didn't make the play, his speed chasing the play down jumps off the screen.

Martin's grade was not good, and it shouldn't have been. He got his tail kicked a # of times by 94.
Click to expand...
good post
 
stilltheguru said:
Like I said, people pick and choose when to say pff is trash.
Click to expand...
Not me.. I pretty much always say it's trash. And my reasoning is consistent. They hire a bunch of computer nerds, many of whom can barely identify a football, to watch the games into the wee hours of the night off the television feed without the benefit of the the play calls, assignments etc and have them GUESS who was supposed to do what on a given play. Without the all-22, which the NFL does not release until the day after the games, you can't even SEE every player much less evaluate them. PFF has carved out a nice revenue stream for themselves by providing something people and teams like and are willing to pay for. Congratulations to them. But their grades are absolutely meaningless to me.
 
atlantacowboy said:
Only posting players who played at least 30% of the snaps. Just a reminder, anything over 80 is a great game. 60-80 is a good game. Anything under 60 is not good.

Offense:
-
1. Tyler Smith 77.3
2. CD 68.5
3. Steele 67.9
4. Beebe - 67.8
5 Dowdle - 64.3

Other notables on offense:

Dak 58.0
Guyton. 42.0. ( got abused by Myles Garrett all day......but understandable)


Defense:

1. Overshown (!!). 88.6
2. Lewis 81.1
3. Diggs 76.3
4. Micah 75.8. ( they crushed him on the tackling score with a grade 30.4 in that area)
5. Kendricks 71.9



Notables:

Mazi 30.4 ( our lowest graded defender)
Kneeland 68
Damone - 77 ( but only 26 snaps)
Click to expand...
Guyton's grade confirms my review of his game. He struggled and not just with Garrett who did not play over Guyton the whole game. Guyton needs to get stronger and learn the speed of the game. The potential is there but he may need time to develop.

Dak, had a very good first half, but an awful second half. Maybe it was a change in the game plan, or Dak tried to avoid turnovers with a big lead. I don't know but after going 21-14 for 156 in the first half, including a couple of really nice throws to CeeDee, he was only 5-11 for 23 yards in the 2nd half and half of those yards came on 1 pass to Hunter Luepke.

I thought Mazi did a decent job doing what he was being asked to do. He might not have made any tackles but he occupied his blockers, didn't give any ground, and helped stuff the runs. I thought he showed good range to both sides where runs started outside. I am not sure how PFF grades DTs, but I thought Mazi looked much better against Cleveland than he did at any time last season. And Mazi was not facing backups like DLaw and Kneeland. He was facing Joel Bitonio and the starting C and RG. Look at the grades of the LBs. All 3 over 70. They don't play that well if the DTs aren't doing their jobs.
 
People wonder why I don't put a ton of faith in PFF?

If Twitter is accurate, Watson got a higher grade than Dak. LOL. I mean Dak wasn't great by any stretch but to say he was worse than Watson is pretty funny.
 
TNCowboy said:
Guyton's grade is pretty accurate. He lost rep after rep, and it hindered the offense all day. People can whistle past the graveyard all week, but the offense was bad except for 2 drives and only had a handful of 1st downs in the last 2 and half quarters. The Cowboys won't get away with an offensive showing like yesterday very often.

Mazi was bad yet again, 98 & 93 walk in the door and are instantly better.

13 was all over the field. Even when he didn't make the play, his speed chasing the play down jumps off the screen.

Martin's grade was not good, and it shouldn't have been. He got his tail kicked a # of times by 94.
Click to expand...
Yes Guyton lost alot to Myles on straight plays...to be expected most LT's do...what was ipressive was that he didnt whiff and stayed on the block enough to give the play a chance..thats not something you see a rook do to Myles often..once Myles is even with you its generally a total loss, Guyton stayed in the play alot ..so yes the grade is deserved but so is some praise of a rookie LT getting Myles G. his first game..
 
Sydla said:
People wonder why I don't put a ton of faith in PFF?

If Twitter is accurate, Watson got a higher grade than Dak. LOL. I mean Dak wasn't great by any stretch but to say he was worse than Watson is pretty funny.
Click to expand...
PFF is really position to position. There system works great for OL, DL, and linebackers. They suck at evaluating wrs b/c they use blocking as a criteria. QB is usually better but they don't weight good or bad plays. So, thats a caveat. Aside from Watson's INT's , his stats look a lot like Daks.
 
RonnieT24 said:
Not me.. I pretty much always say it's trash. And my reasoning is consistent. They hire a bunch of computer nerds, many of whom can barely identify a football, to watch the games into the wee hours of the night off the television feed without the benefit of the the play calls, assignments etc and have them GUESS who was supposed to do what on a given play. Without the all-22, which the NFL does not release until the day after the games, you can't even SEE every player much less evaluate them. PFF has carved out a nice revenue stream for themselves by providing something people and teams like and are willing to pay for. Congratulations to them. But their grades are absolutely meaningless to me.
Click to expand...
I don't argue too much with people about the legitimacy of PFF grades because I think some of the concerns are valid, but what you're saying I dont think is completely true. I'm sure PFF has access to the all 22 early, and likely gets more tools than that from the NFL for their grades. PFF has a partnership with all 32 NFL teams, D1 college teams, the CFL, and most major sports media companies. I agree completely that they are grading somewhat blind as they are missing a lot of context in terms of specific play calls and assignments, but they have a lot more tools to work with than the average fan watching at home.
 
thunderpimp91 said:
I don't argue too much with people about the legitimacy of PFF grades because I think some of the concerns are valid, but what you're saying I dont think is completely true. I'm sure PFF has access to the all 22 early, and likely gets more tools than that from the NFL for their grades. PFF has a partnership with all 32 NFL teams, D1 college teams, the CFL, and most major sports media companies. I agree completely that they are grading somewhat blind as they are missing a lot of context in terms of specific play calls and assignments, but they have a lot more tools to work with than the average fan watching at home.
Click to expand...
Even if I concede that they might get access to the all-22 before it's made available to the rest of paying customers they still have ZERO idea about what plays are called, what an individual player's assignment is etc. Which IMHO invalidates any rating they might dish out. How can you grade the test without even knowing the questions? Simple.. you can't. You can GUESS what you THINK the question was but it's still a guess. Throw in that on a typical Sunday they might be asked to evaluate 22 players for 80 snaps each game. But let's give them a break and say they divvy it up and say you only have to evaluate defense in this game. Or do they assign position groups? Is there a linebacker guy and a safety guy and a CB guy and a DE and DT guy and an Oline guy and an RD guy and a receiver guy for every game? So 10-12 people assigned to each game? And good lord if you go to college where it might hit 100+ snaps? 2200 man-snaps per game. If I can evaluate a player in 30 seconds that's 1100 minutes a game. Somebody wanna do the math on how many hours that is? They employ less than 100 full time employees. Since 20 of those are management I will generously allow that there are 80 people full time dedicated to the task of reviewing game film and assigning grades. Anybody know how many games they would be reviewing between college and pro? 16 pro and 50-60 college games? At 1100 minutes each to evaluate. Over 50,000 minutes (833 hours) grading college tape. For the pros if we allow 80 snaps (both ways) that 1760 (80*22) man snaps. Again if I evaluate one player every 30 seconds that's 880 minutes per game.. times 15 so 13,200 minutes (220 hours) of pro game tape review. So if we assume that the 90 people are reviewing the pro tape they would each need to put in 2.75 hours after they put in over 10 hours on the college games. And that's just to compile the data. Additional time would then be needed to tabulate and submit to the site. But maybe these guys are professionals and only need 10 seconds to grade a player. I aint buyin it. But folks who swear by it clearly do.. C'est le vive.
 
RonnieT24 said:
Even if I concede that they might get access to the all-22 before it's made available to the rest of paying customers they still have ZERO idea about what plays are called, what an individual player's assignment is etc. Which IMHO invalidates any rating they might dish out. How can you grade the test without even knowing the questions? Simple.. you can't. You can GUESS what you THINK the question was but it's still a guess. Throw in that on a typical Sunday they might be asked to evaluate 22 players for 80 snaps each game. But let's give them a break and say they divvy it up and say you only have to evaluate defense in this game. Or do they assign position groups? Is there a linebacker guy and a safety guy and a CB guy and a DE and DT guy and an Oline guy and an RD guy and a receiver guy for every game? So 10-12 people assigned to each game? And good lord if you go to college where it might hit 100+ snaps? 2200 man-snaps per game. If I can evaluate a player in 30 seconds that's 1100 minutes a game. Somebody wanna do the math on how many hours that is? They employ less than 100 full time employees. Since 20 of those are management I will generously allow that there are 80 people full time dedicated to the task of reviewing game film and assigning grades. Anybody know how many games they would be reviewing between college and pro? 16 pro and 50-60 college games? At 1100 minutes each to evaluate. Over 50,000 minutes (833 hours) grading college tape. For the pros if we allow 80 snaps (both ways) that 1760 (80*22) man snaps. Again if I evaluate one player every 30 seconds that's 880 minutes per game.. times 15 so 13,200 minutes (220 hours) of pro game tape review. So if we assume that the 90 people are reviewing the pro tape they would each need to put in 2.75 hours after they put in over 10 hours on the college games. And that's just to compile the data. Additional time would then be needed to tabulate and submit to the site. But maybe these guys are professionals and only need 10 seconds to grade a player. I aint buyin it. But folks who swear by it clearly do.. C'est le vive.
Click to expand...
If they truly employ 100 employees then there is no way they are evaluating everyones film....in 2 days non the less no way...
 
CowboyFrog said:
If they truly employ 100 employees then there is no way they are evaluating everyones film....in 2 days non the less no way...
Click to expand...
In reality the majority of the film watching is done by contractors. That full time 100 is actually mainly responsible for the business side of things like payroll, keeping the computers running etc. That's why my original rant about their hiring a bunch of computer nerds to do this stuff. It is absolutely true. The last time I looked into it just cause I was curious they had like 500 of them contracted out. They pay $50-$60 per game for their "game evaluators." You can go apply for the job right on their website. I have thought about applying just to get the free PFF subscription. Then I thought the last thing I want to do after a whole day of watching football is spend the wee hours evaluating some team I don't care about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

... and 68 more.
Total: 4,891 (members: 168, guests: 4,723)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
464,089
Messages
13,788,206
Members
23,772
Latest member
BAC2662
Back
Top