Pro Football Focus Top 101 Players

[Coy]

It's because the range of "scoring" any player on any play is from -2 to +2. TD's don't get a player a player a +4. Think of all the bad things a WR could do wrong in order to get a negative grade on a play... drop a pass, not hold a block on a running play, run the wrong route, commit a penalty. +2 plays can be offset pretty quickly by negative plays.

Thanks for that, now trying to tell a GM or HC that there are 20 something WR better than Dez and he'll have a good laugh, that's why this list is nonsense.

 

[dstovall5]

Lol.

 

[theSHOW]

And so it begins - Romo fans nitpicking the list to prove it's illegitimate for not including their hero.

and don't forget the Dez groupies

 

[theSHOW]

This list is no surprise. Thought Frederick should be near the 100. It takes more than a big mouth and a few touchdowns to get into the 100. Proud of Murrays efforts in 13' being rewarded with a spot. Here is to Dez doing some blocking and holding on to the ball better in 14'. We need him in the 100...he is our #1 WR so far.

 

[RW31]

PFF is a good source for some statistics like targets for a WR, tackles and stuff like that. That's it. Nothing more.

It's run by a bunch of fantasy football idiots, couch potatoes, that never played the game, that don't know the first thing about football. It's hard enough for a former player or coach to judge and grade players without really knowing what they were supposed to do on that play, without knowing the call (playbook-wise) and their responsibilities. Actually it's pretty much impossible but a former coach who knows the game can get close enough in terms of judging players and grading them. But for some fantasy football clowns to do that it's just absurd. Anybody that uses their rankings or grades to prove to others that player so and so was great/bad should be slapped across the face and banned from ever watching another football game.

 

[Califan007]

PFF is a good source for some statistics like targets for a WR, tackles and stuff like that. That's it. Nothing more.

It's run by a bunch of fantasy football idiots, couch potatoes, that never played the game, that don't know the first thing about football. It's hard enough for a former player or coach to judge and grade players without really knowing what they were supposed to do on that play, without knowing the call (playbook-wise) and their responsibilities.

Welp, you just described damn near every member of every message board of every NFL team in existence lol...but it doesn't stop us from acting like we know more than GMs, head coaches, scouts and each other every day of the week.

 

[Califan007]

Thanks for that, now trying to tell a GM or HC that there are 20 something WR better than Dez and he'll have a good laugh, that's why this list is nonsense.

A GM or head coach won't base their viewpoint solely on 2013. They also won't eliminate talent from the equation like this list does.

I think PFF made a mistake by labeling the list the top 101 players of 2013. They should have titled it something like the top 101 Metric Performances of 2013.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Thanks for that, now trying to tell a GM or HC that there are 20 something WR better than Dez and he'll have a good laugh, that's why this list is nonsense.

Coy, didn't you read any of the other posts in this thread on how their grading system works and what this list is suppose to represent?

Well I'm not going to explain it to you.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Welp, you just described damn near every member of every message board of every NFL team in existence lol...but it doesn't stop us from acting like we know more than GMs, head coaches, scouts and each other every day of the week.

Well said.

I still chuckle when someone on here says "Well I think their stats are garbage, I prefer to use the old eye-ball method"... Well how do you think PFF comes up with their ratings?

 

[RW31]

Welp, you just described damn near every member of every message board of every NFL team in existence lol...but it doesn't stop us from acting like we know more than GMs, head coaches, scouts and each other every day of the week.

What does that have to do with anything? Nobody in here is giving you any fictional statistics that they base their rankings/grades on. Nobody in here is asking you to pay for those fictional rankings/grades. Those idiots make up their own numbers and then they basically tell you here are the best players, here are the worst players. But they have no clue what the hell they're talking about, so all this is garbage. I have my opinion, I don't claim to know exactly what is going on on the field, I don't claim to know Free Safety so and so messed up because the call on defense was XYZ and he was supposed to cover so and so instead of playing the run. But that's exactly what they're doing. They take a play, they do their own judging/grading based on nothing except for them guessing of course, and then they come up with their fictional rankings/grades. It's all ********.

 

[Califan007]

What does that have to do with anything? Nobody in here is giving you any fictional statistics that they base their rankings/grades on. Nobody in here is asking you to pay for those fictional rankings/grades. Those idiots make up their own numbers and then they basically tell you here are the best players, here are the worst players. But they have no clue what the hell they're talking about, so all this is garbage. I have my opinion, I don't claim to know exactly what is going on on the field, I don't claim to know Free Safety so and so messed up because the call on defense was XYZ and he was supposed to cover so and so instead of playing the run. But that's exactly what they're doing. They take a play, they do their own judging/grading based on nothing except for them guessing of course, and then they come up with their fictional rankings/grades. It's all bull****.

1) It's...um, ironic...for anyone on this message board (or any other) to criticize PFF's rankings as offbase due to them being nothing but "couch potatoes who never played the game" and don't know as much about the plays as the coaches do.

2) What exactly makes their stats "fictional"?

 

[RW31]

1) It's...um, ironic...for anyone on this message board (or any other) to criticize PFF's rankings as offbase due to them being nothing but "couch potatoes who never played the game" and don't know as much about the plays as the coaches do.

2) What exactly makes their stats "fictional"?

1. It's not ironic, it's using common sense. Why is that so hard to understand? How in gods name do you grade somebody if you don't know what he was supposed to do? It's the difference between getting positive or negative grades. I don't know why you're even arguing this. I don't claim to know what's going on on the field!

2. If you're gonna guess and assume without really knowing anything and then try to paint a certain picture by grading players, then yes that makes their stats/rankings/grades fictional. It's all based on nothing. If they weren't fantasy football geeks, if they had played/coached at the NFL level I would have said they have experience, they sort of know what they're talking about. What they do is good enough to post on a message board and share your opinion but that's about it.

 

[DFWJC]

PFF
LOL

 

[Coy]

Coy, didn't you read any of the other posts in this thread on how their grading system works and what this list is suppose to represent?

Well I'm not going to explain it to you.

No I didn't and I don't need an explanation but thanks anyway, the point is it shouldn't be called the 101 best players, maybe "the best 101 players by our very strage method list"

 

[Sportsbabe]

No Romo?

30 TD's and 7 INTs ... no freakin kidding.

 

[DFWJC]

Having Peppers at #34 seems to be based on reputation alone, don't think he is top 34 based on last year.

I don't think reputation is one of the stats used.

On a more serious (sad?) note, I see that rookie Guard, Larry Warford, was pretty high on that list. Oh well.

 

[XxTDxX]

PFT sucks for all things other than O-Lineman in my opinion.