DawgTalkers.net Forums The Archives 2015 NFL Season Looking Back: Browns 20 Oakland 27 PFF Grades

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/20...-the-staragain/

My question is, how does 3/5 of the O line grade out positive?

Because 2/5ths of the OLine is 90% of the problem?

LOL.. I just envisioned you dropping the mic and walking off stage.

Two weeks in a row that Meder was in the top five.

noticed that too ... speaking of new DL, does anyone remember seeing Xavier Cooper?

PFF gave Cooper, Poyer, and M. Johnson spots on their worst week 3 performers by position.

Defensive interior – ends: Xavier Cooper, Browns (-3.6) and Cameron Heyward, Steelers (-3.5)

Cooper did not generate a single QB pressure on any of his 17 pass-rush snaps. Against the run he was blocked away from the play and was essentially invisible. He also jumped offside on a third down. Heyward was even more invisible rushing the passer, with zero pressures on 30 pass rushes. He, too, could not get involved in the run defense, as he was too busy being blocked.

Safeties: Jordan Poyer, Browns (-3.7) and Michael Griffin, Titans (-3.5)

Both safeties made this list thanks to poor run defense. Poyer missed more tackles (three) than he made (two). That alone sums up his game. Griffin missed a tackle, too, but it was the fact that he made zero solo stops and looked hesitant to even get involved in plays that put him on this team.

Fullback: Malcolm Johnson, Browns (-2.6)

Our first repeat player for Worst Team of the Week! Johnson was blown up multiple times in the point of attack, and allowed a sack. It hasn’t been a good few weeks for Johnson.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2015/09/28/worst-players-at-every-position-for-week-3/

BEST PLAYERS AT EVERY POSITION FOR WEEK 3

Center: Alec Mack, Browns (+3.5)

After looking a shadow of himself the first two weeks of the year, Mack alleviated some fears regarding his comeback from injury with an excellent effort.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2015/09/28/best-players-at-every-position-for-week-3/

PFFfffffft

glad mack had a good game.

I am out after they gave Rodgers a negative grade last night.

Saw Cooper a few times. Very ineffective and about no push. But it was his first regular season game, so I won't start to declare him worthless... yet.

Seems worthless though, on the surface, having drafted someone who really has rushing ability, but can't rush...

Exactly

LINK

"Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers ended last night’s game with a -0.8 grade overall. This isn’t a bad game, just because the number begins with a minus, but it is an average grade very close to zero for a player who threw five touchdown passes, which seems crazy on the face of it. It’s not."

No, it's crazy.

Utterly ridiculous and indefensible.

24/35 for 333yds and 5TD, 0 INT - 138.45 rating... and they somehow feel they can justify downgrading the performance to a negative value? That's just plain stupidity.


THIS is why subjective scoring systems are complete and utter B.S.

Boxing says you've lost your mind.

However, those touchdown passes aren’t the story of what takes Rodgers’ grade from a grade with a plus in front of it to a grade with a minus in front of it. The story of what takes Rodgers’ grade below zero are two plays that you aren’t likely to see mentioned anywhere else today, but are taken into account of in a play-by-play grading system.

1. Rodgers had a fumble, which displayed poor pocket management, with 8:39 remaining in the second quarter. That play earned a negative grade.

2. With 12:58 remaining in the third quarter, Rodgers forced a pass that Josh Mauga could and possibly should have been returned for six points for Kansas City. If Mauga makes this interception, it would have tacked an ugly interception onto Rodgers’ stat line. Instead, Rodgers maintained his interception-less streak at Lambeau field, but it is a negatively graded play regardless. These are poor plays on Rodgers’ part that bring his game grade down that won’t show up on any widely quoted statistical analysis of his performance.

Context is crucial with everything in football, and if you believe we are saying that Rodgers had a poor game last night because his grade has a minus in front of it, then let me set your mind at ease; I do not think Rodgers played a poor, subpar game last night and neither does anybody else at Pro Football Focus. Rodgers did his job last night, but his job was executing simple throws, putting the ball quickly in the hands of receivers like Randall Cobb in favorable matchups on short throws, and allowing others to do the heavy lifting.

But for a couple of poor plays, his overall grade would have matched the sort of grade that you would be expecting to see from him, but those poor plays, coupled with the relative ease of some of his scores mean his performance last night was far closer to average than it was to the fantastic performance the box score suggests. The context surrounding his grade is crucial.

The greatness of Rodgers’ performance last night was in the intangibles. Recognizing the blitz, drawing the defense offsides, catching the Chiefs in bad situations and exploiting those scenarios with simple passes to open receivers. But you cannot — and we do not try to — quantify intangibles, or what comes pre-snap. Our system grades what can be graded — the execution of the play post-snap — and in that regard Rodgers did not stand out in the same way that his statistics did.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2015/09/29/why-aaron-rodgers-earned-a-slightly-negative-grade/

lol!

They say that they can't score him on things because they are "intangibles", then they score him on things that are ....yup, "intangibles".


Simple fact - if you can recognize whether or not something was done well, you can score it. In fact, by recognizing it one way or the other, you have just done that very thing. They are lame.

man i wish we could complain about our QB only throwing 5 Td's.

so let me get this straight ... PFT gave Rodgers a NEGATIVE number last night?!

LMAO ... screw that site. 5 TDs, no INTS ... near flawless .. and a negative score

Figure skating agrees.

Aaron Rodgers says "Scoreboard".

They also graded Barnidge, who had a career game, -2. Some of these stat geeks have lost sight of what actually matters - playing well.

Isn't blocking included in "playing well?"

I would agree he did not block well, but on this day he was one of our best players. That is why I do not like these types of stats, just as they made Rodgers have a minus value. Without Barnidge we lose by a lot more.

With Barnidge blocking Mack successfully (something that he cannot/should not be asked to do) we have a better run game.

I agree with you on the grades though. Many of them are whacked out.

So, this year these sites suck. Two years ago, they were golden.

I don't agree w/some of their evaluations, just as I always haven't.

However, I do agree that Schwartz and Bitonio were substandard while the other three were not.

I agree that Poyer was worse than Whitner even if that doesn't sit well w/the mob.

on the other hand, the announcers said that the browns were dumb to try to block mack 1:1 with a TE. So what do they expect Barnidge to do?

PFF's grading system is worse than arbitrary, since they assign numbers people assume they are meaningful facts, when they are really the opinion of some guy play by play.

It seems like they bit off more than they can chew.

I was thinking about subscribing, but not for the grades. More for the percentages of play actions thrown, runs right/left/middle, deep throws, etc. But they discontinued their monthly subscription service. Oh well.

Long before the game started I ( and several other , not high paid Coach's ) said they would be nuts to take Mack on mono a mono .. The would need a blocker and at the very least another chip block to keep him in check ..

It's the exact same reason I make fun of ESPN's QBR... it's a subjective rating based upon some random guy's opinion.

These sorts of things are basically bait for the obsessed. It is made-up content to fluff out their offerings.

j/c:

I really like this site (although I haven't forked over a subscription) and in the long-term they are normally right in their yearly assessment of players. There will always be an indifference between people on the performance of a player and PFF will get something wrong. It's still far more credible than many other things out there.

Not sure about the grade on Rogers, didn't watch the game but having a "negative mark" depending on how low it is doesn't mean a bad performance, it can sometimes mean a average game based on how they rate, which I'd encourage people to read a little more about. Either way, at least from stats put up, AR rating looks off. Barnidge....not so much.

If people are going to assume PFF is supposed to be infallible, then of course you're not going to like how they do things.

That's the thing about numbers.. they are supposed to have strict definitions. When you start assigning numbers to something, people think they have a concrete meaning. At least with power rankings, the subjectivity is clearly implied.

H

Yea. That's about right.

If your scorings/ratings aren't reliable, then you can't expect them to be taken seriously.

The whole point of looking at stats and numbers is to have concrete representations of something to help give the viewer a clearer picture of something. If your process that produces those numbers isn't reliable and is instead subject to, well... lots of subjectivity, then your numbers can no longer be viewed as concrete and the viewer can no longer trust the picture being represented.... and thus you are no different than the Russian judge in figure skating.

And I think that is the whole point. People think it is supposed to be concrete. It's not. It's a group of human beings that grade based on their determined process and what they deem right or wrong per play. It isn't a statistical output (at least in terms of grading a player in one game, snap-by snap). To my recollection, they do more complicated stuff as well. But again, I don't have a subscription. Its a grading scale. You can either choose to accept it or not. Will they be 100% accurate? No. My argument is, that in the long run (like a course of a season) they pretty much have a solid representation of player performance across the league. People can be upset or disagree with the grading of one game, it's the long term approach that I try to look at, and I think the NFL teams that retain their services (almost of them) take that approach as well.

After giving Aaron Rodgers a negative number for last week, I think the most complicated stuff they do is choose which color crayon to use.

It's the same as team Power Rankings, and at least maybe now folks will see it as such. There's generally no true rhyme or reason to it, no repeatable formula, it's just a person's opinion that can be influenced by their mood, whether they like the player/team, or if they've had enough coffee yet that morning.

Guys... and maybe I can kill some arguments here, but do we really need stats, articles, various opinions and so forth to determine our team has some issues going on?

This team has had issues since 1999. It never changes. The only thing that stays the same is our loyalty.

Week 2:

Teddy Bridgewater 14/18 153 yards (including 49 on an underhanded flip to the best RB since Barry Sanders), 1 TD, 0 INT

+4.0


Week 3:

Aaron Rodgers 24/35 333 yards, 5 TD, 0 INT

-0.7


/PFFfft

yea there is some subjectivity to it. like if a RB gets a screen pass and breaks tackles for a 50 yard gain the QB would not grade as well as if he threw a 50 yard strike in the air.

not perfect but.....