Pro Football Focus Grades The Defense

[Blackspider214]

What is useless? PFF or the even more comical "grading" of a preseason contest?

Yes it's a preseason game and means nothing but these coaches do the same thing as this sheet. They break down every aspect of every play and grade and judge these players. And it was not pretty besides a couple players.

 

[Alexander]

Yes it's a preseason game and means nothing but these coaches do the same thing as this sheet. They break down every aspect of every play and grade and judge these players. And it was not pretty besides a couple players.

Nobody is saying they do not do this. Coaching staffs grade players. It is their job.

PFF grading players would be more acceptable to me if it were football coaches that did it. I doubt that is the case.

 

[TwoCentPlain]

The only positive I saw was nobody got seriously hurt.

Perhaps you were sleeping when Hawk-Tone Hitchens shot the gap and stopped the RB dead in his tracks and drove him back several yards on 2nd and goal. Personally, I thought that was a very positive play and Hitchens showed something there.

Then again, yeah, no Cowboy can do any good, maybe the RB just ran the wrong way or San Diego's OL just had a brain-fart. Or it was just plain luck and even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while.

The following play Rayford got lucky and the stupid QB just ran right into his arms.

 

[BlindFaith]

Cant say I disagree too much with this. I would like to see a grade without penalties included. One with, one without.

 

[TheDude]

I dont know much about PFF rating, but 2 things:

1) Dixon was noticeable in terms of tackling, hustle and not bad in tracking receivers. He did whiff on the horsecollar run and may have bit on the long TD throw, but he may have been following a receiver.Took great angles.
2) HItchens over ran plays, couldn't disengage blocks, and was sadly slow on a couple of crossing routes. He made the great goalline play, so you have to give that to him, but it looked like 1 plash play against many awful plays.


Ironically, for me, I'll side with Garrett in saying Dixon deserved to be called out positively for his play and the rest of the defense mirrored my Hitchens assessment. I would love to see proof in either regard

 

[lostar2009]

http://all22breakdown.com/pro-football-focus-grades-the-dallas-cowboys-pre-season-game/

Finally I figure out who is #41!!!!!!

 

[waving monkey]

I am laying a bet that each preseason game the "D" plays better

 

[Hoofbite]

Nobody is saying they do not do this. Coaching staffs grade players. It is their job.

PFF grading players would be more acceptable to me if it were football coaches that did it. I doubt that is the case.

No way it is. It's a bunch of volunteers.

How else would they have grades for every player posted within a few days?

When you consider who even might be interested in grading a game in the first place, it's pretty much a given that fans grade players of their favorite team.

I'd also like them to comment on their interrater reliability because I'm betting it's awful.

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

I am laying a bet that each preseason game the "D" plays better

They would just about have to. They can't get much worse.

 

[waving monkey]

They would just about have to. They can't get much worse.

I know, I'm picking low hanging fruit but when the starters return and everybody get's a little more comfortable in the system
they'll look better. I am just looking for growth and as Parcell's says "acquisition of talent".

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I am with the people that say arbitrary grades in a certain numerical range by amateurs is not a very good statistic to evaluate player performance.

 

[TheCount]

Nobody is saying they do not do this. Coaching staffs grade players. It is their job.

PFF grading players would be more acceptable to me if it were football coaches that did it. I doubt that is the case.

What difference does that make? Coaches aren't making decisions off PFF grades. PFF stuff is for the fans, so unless you have access to the coaching grades, I don't see what the problem is.

People get so worked up over this stuff, it's just one of many forms of information. Good grief.

 

[Alexander]

What difference does that make? Coaches aren't making decisions off PFF grades. PFF stuff is for the fans, so unless you have access to the coaching grades, I don't see what the problem is.

People get so worked up over this stuff, it's just one of many forms of information. Good grief.

The worked up part goes when that one of many forms of information gets misused. I cannot count the number of times that happens with things like this.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

What difference does that make? Coaches aren't making decisions off PFF grades. PFF stuff is for the fans, so unless you have access to the coaching grades, I don't see what the problem is.

People get so worked up over this stuff, it's just one of many forms of information. Good grief.

It's because it shakes their belief system to the core. They resent anyone daring to put a # on a player's performance.

When in actuality what PFF is doing is the same thing everyone else here does– they watch a play and judge if the player did good, bad or it was a standoff. EXCEPT that PFF scores each play and gives a game total for each player.

Pretty heinous huh?

 

[Alexander]

It's because it shakes their belief system to the core. They resent anyone daring to put a # on a player's performance.

When in actuality what PFF is doing is the same thing everyone else here does– they watch a play and judge if the player did good, bad or it was a standoff. EXCEPT that PFF scores each play and gives a game total for each player.

Pretty heinous huh?

I don't care if a bunch of stat geeks get together and whip out slide rules trying to apply grades.

What is heinous is what is done with what is subjective information being peddled as scientific. It is nothing of the sort. For example, Hayden was one of the worst of the worst. I did not need PFF to validate that for me. It was pretty obvious without a grade.

All statistics are tools to use, and best used for information, not the basis of belief. When people start drawing conclusions off of bad data, it just is a waste of time.

 

[TheCount]

The worked up part goes when that one of many forms of information gets misused. I cannot count the number of times that happens with things like this.

Any piece of information can be misrepresented. Barry Church had 135 tackles last year, was that because he was flying all over the place and enforcing his will or because the defense was so bad he had so many opportunities to make those stops? The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, because context is king - not the stat.

 

[TheCount]

What is heinous is what is done with what is subjective information being peddled as scientific.

Is there such a thing as a scientific sport stat?

PFF has explained what their system is, and people use it to bolster their own personal arguments. That's no different than anything else.

 

[erod]

This is what happens to IT people that can't keep a job or mix with humans socially. They go to PFF.

 

[CCBoy]

Arch can make a case, but in better analysis and explanation...

 

[CCBoy]

http://all22breakdown.com/pro-football-focus-grades-the-dallas-cowboys-pre-season-game/

And thanks for your posting here...you are an asset and enjoyable fan to have contribute.