Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Packers exercise fifth-year option on Clark
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="HardRightEdge" data-source="post: 877711"><p>As I said, I was referencing specifically the way GleefulGary was using PFF stats while discouting PFF grades. Note he presented Clark's PFF stats from 2018, not 2019. Very good headline numbers. His overall PFF grade was 87.8, with an 88.8 pass rush grade, a grade in line with the impact plays presented, a few points shy of what PFF regards as "elite".</p><p></p><p>All I know of PFF's 2019 Clark analysis is that they gave him a 79.9 overall grade which I only know because of a google search just now into the back door PFF allows to see the teaser grade. I'm going to take a wild stab and say those same headline stats in 2019 as compiled by PFF, subjectivity and all, were not as good as those in 2018. I'll take a second wild stab and say the reason one year's data and not the other was posted was to support a "pay the man" argument. As day follows night, PFF grades flow from PFF stats, be they headline impact play counts or those granular -2 to +2 play grade compilations in however they are weighted for importance, which of course remains a mystery.</p><p></p><p>As for the matter of PFF originally contemplating not providing summation grades, I'm sure the result was a marketing decision. They would have been left with two general business models: 1) selling the raw data, down to the play by play grades, positioning, role, objective outcomes, etc. for people to apply their own algothims or 2) distilling the data with propriety algorithms down to digestible grades. There's other opportunities for analysis in either model without doing grades, but grades are essential to building a subscriber base. Telling somebody Joe Cornerback took 35% of his snaps in man coverage doesn't require grading analysis, but that number has little relevance unless you analyze what he did with those snaps vs. his zone snaps. Once you start distilling your data down to completion percentages, yards of separation, passes defended or whatever you deem relevant and say how that compares with other players, that's marketable but you are now grading the player. You might as well take the next step and put a number on it. Data dumps for algo jockies wouldn't have gotten this thing off the ground. And if you are going to assume the kind of football inteligence that allows you to grade every player on every play you're bound to take the next step to comparing players and grading. I'd say the guys who were against grading lacked imagination and ambition. </p><p></p><p>If one thinks the PFF grade is way off, then you'd best look at the PFF stats to see where you disagree with them in the counting or the way they weight the importance of one thing vs. another, providing you can find that in this proprietary system, which you probably won't.</p><p> </p><p>To beat a dead horse, you said you found relevance in matters such as PFF stats telling you that, "a particular corner was in man coverage for 35% of snaps, or that a particular edge rusher accrued half their pressures from the interior, or that a particular offense used inside zone for 28% of their rushing attempts, I generally take them at their word."</p><p></p><p>First of all, pressures are themselves subjective and PFF is pretty liberal in dispensing them. As for the rest, at the risk of repetition, you don't know what relevance those snap types have in evaluating a player if you don't somehow put a grade on each type.</p><p></p><p>Let's say your lineman plays inside zone on 25% of his snaps, 25% drive blocking, and 50% on the move, pulling or outside zone or second level. You need a grade on those different kinds of snaps, however that is determined, to know how good he is in the various roles. You can take the PFF grades by role at face value, if they even grade by role, something you don't seem to want to do if they even provide them, or you can rely on the eye test that might tell you, for example, that Jenkins is a better second level blocker than he is a drive blocker in which case you don't need PFF. If you have your own sense of how good the player is the various roles you would have a sense of how often he performs them. Precision in exact %'s really isn't necessary given every evalution, however it is done, relies on a heavy dose of subjectivity.</p><p></p><p>I don't need PFF for guys I watch week in and week out. I'm inclined to give their grades more credence for Packer seconday players in coverage along with other stats since you usually don't get a good look at what they are doing unless the ball is thrown at them. How often they are thrown at is one stat this is telling. For players I rarely or never see, a PFF grade is better than highlight video sans lowlights or some random commentator who as likely as not hasn't watched the guy play much and has PFF grades in his back pocket anyway.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HardRightEdge, post: 877711"] As I said, I was referencing specifically the way GleefulGary was using PFF stats while discouting PFF grades. Note he presented Clark's PFF stats from 2018, not 2019. Very good headline numbers. His overall PFF grade was 87.8, with an 88.8 pass rush grade, a grade in line with the impact plays presented, a few points shy of what PFF regards as "elite". All I know of PFF's 2019 Clark analysis is that they gave him a 79.9 overall grade which I only know because of a google search just now into the back door PFF allows to see the teaser grade. I'm going to take a wild stab and say those same headline stats in 2019 as compiled by PFF, subjectivity and all, were not as good as those in 2018. I'll take a second wild stab and say the reason one year's data and not the other was posted was to support a "pay the man" argument. As day follows night, PFF grades flow from PFF stats, be they headline impact play counts or those granular -2 to +2 play grade compilations in however they are weighted for importance, which of course remains a mystery. As for the matter of PFF originally contemplating not providing summation grades, I'm sure the result was a marketing decision. They would have been left with two general business models: 1) selling the raw data, down to the play by play grades, positioning, role, objective outcomes, etc. for people to apply their own algothims or 2) distilling the data with propriety algorithms down to digestible grades. There's other opportunities for analysis in either model without doing grades, but grades are essential to building a subscriber base. Telling somebody Joe Cornerback took 35% of his snaps in man coverage doesn't require grading analysis, but that number has little relevance unless you analyze what he did with those snaps vs. his zone snaps. Once you start distilling your data down to completion percentages, yards of separation, passes defended or whatever you deem relevant and say how that compares with other players, that's marketable but you are now grading the player. You might as well take the next step and put a number on it. Data dumps for algo jockies wouldn't have gotten this thing off the ground. And if you are going to assume the kind of football inteligence that allows you to grade every player on every play you're bound to take the next step to comparing players and grading. I'd say the guys who were against grading lacked imagination and ambition. If one thinks the PFF grade is way off, then you'd best look at the PFF stats to see where you disagree with them in the counting or the way they weight the importance of one thing vs. another, providing you can find that in this proprietary system, which you probably won't. To beat a dead horse, you said you found relevance in matters such as PFF stats telling you that, "a particular corner was in man coverage for 35% of snaps, or that a particular edge rusher accrued half their pressures from the interior, or that a particular offense used inside zone for 28% of their rushing attempts, I generally take them at their word." First of all, pressures are themselves subjective and PFF is pretty liberal in dispensing them. As for the rest, at the risk of repetition, you don't know what relevance those snap types have in evaluating a player if you don't somehow put a grade on each type. Let's say your lineman plays inside zone on 25% of his snaps, 25% drive blocking, and 50% on the move, pulling or outside zone or second level. You need a grade on those different kinds of snaps, however that is determined, to know how good he is in the various roles. You can take the PFF grades by role at face value, if they even grade by role, something you don't seem to want to do if they even provide them, or you can rely on the eye test that might tell you, for example, that Jenkins is a better second level blocker than he is a drive blocker in which case you don't need PFF. If you have your own sense of how good the player is the various roles you would have a sense of how often he performs them. Precision in exact %'s really isn't necessary given every evalution, however it is done, relies on a heavy dose of subjectivity. I don't need PFF for guys I watch week in and week out. I'm inclined to give their grades more credence for Packer seconday players in coverage along with other stats since you usually don't get a good look at what they are doing unless the ball is thrown at them. How often they are thrown at is one stat this is telling. For players I rarely or never see, a PFF grade is better than highlight video sans lowlights or some random commentator who as likely as not hasn't watched the guy play much and has PFF grades in his back pocket anyway. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
No members online now.
Latest posts
Josh Jacobs facing charges…
Latest: milani
45 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Prior to Training Camp - Predicting the 53 Man Roster
Latest: GreenBaySlacker
Yesterday at 11:32 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
Latest: OldSchool101
Yesterday at 8:45 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2026 WR room
Latest: OldSchool101
Yesterday at 6:56 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
The Crew - 2026
Latest: weeds
Yesterday at 6:47 PM
Milwaukee Brewers Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Packers exercise fifth-year option on Clark
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
Prior to Training Camp - Predicting the 53 Man Roster
