PFF gives Rodgers a negative grade against Chiefs last night

PFanCan

That's MISTER Cheesehead, to you.
Joined
Dec 18, 2009
Messages
2,067
Reaction score
491
Location
Houston, TX
IMO, the entire article was trying to somehow justify how a performance that everyone knows was masterful was measured by their model as a negative.

It would have been far easier for them to post a one liner that states, "Our model sucks, so disregard the negative rating."
 

Ogsponge

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 29, 2013
Messages
1,501
Reaction score
291
Location
Wisconsin
What is truly hilarious is that they are grading 2 plays that ruin his score And one play was not even a play! There are not stats given to a player or a team on an accepted penalty. So they are docking him points for something that statistically never even happened. Same with the the interception that was not an interception. Teddy Bridgewater and Rodgers had the same grade....
 

AmishMafia

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
7,394
Reaction score
2,492
Location
PENDING
The biggest flaw in their system is not the dings for plays that never happpened, but that they ding him for throwing short passes. As if it is smart to force things deep rather than take what the defense gives you and keep moving the sticks.

I always liked PF, didnt entirely trust it, but thought it an interesting analytical analysis from outside the normal football thinking elite. I am quickly rethinking that. Clearly their lack of football understanding and reliance on metrics has clouded their thinking.
 

Ogsponge

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 29, 2013
Messages
1,501
Reaction score
291
Location
Wisconsin
The biggest flaw in their system is not the dings for plays that never happpened, but that they ding him for throwing short passes. As if it is smart to force things deep rather than take what the defense gives you and keep moving the sticks.

I always liked PF, didnt entirely trust it, but thought it an interesting analytical analysis from outside the normal football thinking elite. I am quickly rethinking that. Clearly their lack of football understanding and reliance on metrics has clouded their thinking.

I am with you. I like them for finding all kinds of stats a person just does not normally have at their fingertips but something like this where you add a subjective grade to stats just seems flawed. The ESPN created QBR works the same, subjective thoughts on every given play which is just ridiculous. For instance qb's don't get good grades on 8 yard slant passes that go for a 65 yard TD however, how many of those passes don't go for a TD because the pass from the QB wasn't perfectly thrown allowing the receiver to catch the ball in stride and make one cut upfield to daylight?
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,778
Reaction score
903
If you read the article it makes sense, especially when they admit that part of Rodger's biggest plus, his pre-snap reads and intangibles, aren't taken into account. All PFF tries to do is rate the play on the field. It's how come they were much lower on Andrew Luck than pretty much everyone else for so long (something that looks prescient now). Rodgers got lucky on two potential turnovers. One of the things PFF tries to do is remove the element of luck. Why shouldn't a QB get a negative mark if they throw a pass that should have been a pick? They also mention that the TD passes to Cobb weren't exactly difficult throws by NFL standards. How exactly is that inaccurate? Explain to me the difficulty in throwing those passes for the average NFL QB. Cobb got a huge amount of credit because he did all of the work on those plays.

People should also notice that Rodgers is one of the highest rated QBs by PFF over the years, so taking one game out of context (not actually reading the article) doesn't do much to discredit the system. It only proves that PFF should be one factor in analyzing players, not the only factor.
 

Shawnsta3

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 19, 2011
Messages
1,273
Reaction score
137
Location
Manawa & Shawano, WI
The thing is anyone with two working eyes could see Rodgers was the best and most impactful player on the field last night. If PFF's formula doesn't take factors into account that support that idea; but rather find it the opposite, their formula is simply flawed and the eye test backs that up.
 

bigbubbatd

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 11, 2015
Messages
1,679
Reaction score
166
If you read the article it makes sense, especially when they admit that part of Rodger's biggest plus, his pre-snap reads and intangibles, aren't taken into account. All PFF tries to do is rate the play on the field. It's how come they were much lower on Andrew Luck than pretty much everyone else for so long (something that looks prescient now). Rodgers got lucky on two potential turnovers. One of the things PFF tries to do is remove the element of luck. Why shouldn't a QB get a negative mark if they throw a pass that should have been a pick? They also mention that the TD passes to Cobb weren't exactly difficult throws by NFL standards. How exactly is that inaccurate? Explain to me the difficulty in throwing those passes for the average NFL QB. Cobb got a huge amount of credit because he did all of the work on those plays.

People should also notice that Rodgers is one of the highest rated QBs by PFF over the years, so taking one game out of context (not actually reading the article) doesn't do much to discredit the system. It only proves that PFF should be one factor in analyzing players, not the only factor.

How about the fact that Rodgers puts the ball in a perfect place to let his wide receivers get yac? Or that he finds the open guy? Even add an interception to his numbers and that is still a phenomenal game. Your post seems like you are struggling to defend pff. Rodgers had a masterful performance. To put his anywhere near the ugly game bridgewater had is ridiculous
 

PFanCan

That's MISTER Cheesehead, to you.
Joined
Dec 18, 2009
Messages
2,067
Reaction score
491
Location
Houston, TX
?..They also mention that the TD passes to Cobb weren't exactly difficult throws by NFL standards. How exactly is that inaccurate? Explain to me the difficulty in throwing those passes for the average NFL QB. Cobb got a huge amount of credit because he did all of the work on those plays...

I believe it is inaccurate as the QB made the play happened in the first place. That is, which is better:

A. A QB that projects where he is going to throw the ball ahead of time, then threads the needle perfectly right as the WR gets body slammed by three defenders. Ok, great pass but ball was dropped and no YAC. Or,

B. A QB that adjusts the play to what the D is giving, makes the pass on target to an open "safe" receiver after ensuring the D is not positioned to make a play, then watching the YAC.

Look, disagree all you want. PFF is a joke with this rating and they know it. Hence their CYA article and the subsequent network negative reaction. They state that they don't measure the "intangibles", but I argue that the QB position is all about the intangibles.
 

PFanCan

That's MISTER Cheesehead, to you.
Joined
Dec 18, 2009
Messages
2,067
Reaction score
491
Location
Houston, TX
How about the fact that Rodgers puts the ball in a perfect place to let his wide receivers get yac? Or that he finds the open guy? Even add an interception to his numbers and that is still a phenomenal game. Your post seems like you are struggling to defend pff. Rodgers had a masterful performance. To put his anywhere near the ugly game bridgewater had is ridiculous

Add to this the fact that PFF scored Carson Palmer at a +8 or something, yet he only had a couple TDs, similar yardage, and he actually had an INT (not an almost...) and a fumble (not one that didn't occur...).

The formula is a joke.
 

easyk83

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
2,783
Reaction score
280
The biggest flaw in their system is not the dings for plays that never happpened, but that they ding him for throwing short passes. As if it is smart to force things deep rather than take what the defense gives you and keep moving the sticks.

I always liked PF, didnt entirely trust it, but thought it an interesting analytical analysis from outside the normal football thinking elite. I am quickly rethinking that. Clearly their lack of football understanding and reliance on metrics has clouded their thinking.

This Packer fan never liked PFF, which seems to be an opinion shared by many of the Pros. Now Football Outsiders, there's a metric I tend to put more stock in.

PFF's big shtick is that every player is watched on every play but as Belichick has said there's a danger when it comes to film review:

"It might even look to us like somebody made a mistake but then we look at it more closely maybe somebody besides him made a mistake and he was trying to compensate. I think we need a little closer analysis a lot of times. Sometimes the play calls or what was called on the line of scrimmage might be something that we’re not aware of. That could happen in any game. You think a player did something that he shouldn’t have done but maybe he got a call, a line call or a call from a linebacker or he thought the quarterback said something so he did what he thought was the right thing or maybe it was the right thing but that call shouldn’t have been made or should have been on the other side. But yeah, I think we need to be careful about what we’re evaluating."

http://www.bostonsportsmedia.com/2014/06/can-pro-football-focus-stats-be-blindly-trusted

As the author of this article notes even the teams, who make a much more in depth analysis of their players, do not always know whether a player should be negatively graded for a particular play. How can PFF make an accurate grade? Do their analysts also interview each player to figure out what calls were made at each particular snap? What adjustments, do they confirm the schemes and assignments from the Coaching staff? There's a reason I tend to ignore posts even mentioning PFF.
 
Last edited:

gonzozab

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 31, 2011
Messages
1,134
Reaction score
288
Location
Parts unknown
Like the old adage goes, you can make statistics say what you want them to say. That article was nothing more than birdcage liner. I would've thought Skip Bayless wrote that dreck.
 

Carl

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 6, 2013
Messages
3,073
Reaction score
272
Location
Madison, Wisconsin
Anything that says Rodgers was any less than fantastic last night is total crap. Even if it does rate just the play on the field and not the intangibles.
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,778
Reaction score
903
I believe it is inaccurate as the QB made the play happened in the first place. That is, which is better:

A. A QB that projects where he is going to throw the ball ahead of time, then threads the needle perfectly right as the WR gets body slammed by three defenders. Ok, great pass but ball was dropped and no YAC. Or,

B. A QB that adjusts the play to what the D is giving, makes the pass on target to an open "safe" receiver after ensuring the D is not positioned to make a play, then watching the YAC.

Look, disagree all you want. PFF is a joke with this rating and they know it. Hence their CYA article and the subsequent network negative reaction. They state that they don't measure the "intangibles", but I argue that the QB position is all about the intangibles.

None of what you've said disagrees with the article at all. PFF stated that they don't rate intangibles. PFF isn't perfect, but it's better than just saying "WOW, Rodgers threw many touchdowns, he must be amazing!!!!!". Breaking it down a little further than that is helpful. E.g., PFF saying for years that Luck is too turnover prone, something that's coming to light now. PFF isn't the end of the analysis. It's just part of the analysis.
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,778
Reaction score
903
Anything that says Rodgers was any less than fantastic last night is total crap.

Solid analysis. Why look at what other players did on the team? Packers won, Rodgers threw many TDs, case closed.

Oooorrrrr....we could look at Cobb's performance and recognize that he helped Rodger's stats quite a bit with his play. PFF has historically rated Rodgers as the best QB in the NFL. One time they say he was average and suddenly they're junk.

In 2011 PFF rated Matthews very highly as a pass rusher, even though he only had 6 sacks. PFF actually looked beyond some box score stats and determined that Matthews was very good, even if the stats didn't show it. Why can't it go the other way for one game? Why can't the boxscore overstate performance (recognizing of course that QB rating for PFF is missing a lot as far as pre-snap reads, intangibles, etc.)
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,797
I rarely read their stuff, i didn't read this. Rodgers had one pass that should have been an INT that wasn't. Other than that, I can't think of anything that was exactly as you would hope it would be. from pass placement, to pre snap reads, to adjustments, to audibles, to hard counts and on and on and on.

yes we can recognize that Cobb did some work on some touchdowns, and just because he did work doesn't mean another qb would have read that defense, called that play and got the ball out that quickly to that spot to allow Cobb to do that work. and there was that "one" pass that could have been an INT. one negative in a sea of just ****ing awesome. I don't need an article to tell me that, i watched it and enjoyed it. it was anything but average or slightly below even with that one throw done twice
 

Carl

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 6, 2013
Messages
3,073
Reaction score
272
Location
Madison, Wisconsin
Solid analysis. Why look at what other players did on the team? Packers won, Rodgers threw many TDs, case closed.

Oooorrrrr....we could look at Cobb's performance and recognize that he helped Rodger's stats quite a bit with his play. PFF has historically rated Rodgers as the best QB in the NFL. One time they say he was average and suddenly they're junk.

In 2011 PFF rated Matthews very highly as a pass rusher, even though he only had 6 sacks. PFF actually looked beyond some box score stats and determined that Matthews was very good, even if the stats didn't show it. Why can't it go the other way for one game? Why can't the boxscore overstate performance (recognizing of course that QB rating for PFF is missing a lot as far as pre-snap reads, intangibles, etc.)

Because it's not the boxscore alone that says Rodgers was great. It was easy to see simply from watching.

For example, it mentions the fumble as negative pocket presence (maybe Cobb would have been open had he not been blocked in the end zone). Why does one play of poor pocket presence overall his mastery of it on most play?
 

Poppa San

* Team Owner *
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
12,974
Reaction score
2,843
Location
20 miles from Lambeau
The biggest flaw in their system is not the dings for plays that never happpened, but that they ding him for throwing short passes. As if it is smart to force things deep rather than take what the defense gives you and keep moving the sticks.

I always liked PF, didnt entirely trust it, but thought it an interesting analytical analysis from outside the normal football thinking elite. I am quickly rethinking that. Clearly their lack of football understanding and reliance on metrics has clouded their thinking.
So their metrics are skewed against the WCO or a ball control passing attack right from the start.
 

easyk83

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
2,783
Reaction score
280
And next week when he has +8.0 they will know football and be wonderful again. :)

For me they sucked before this article, they suck after that article and they'll suck next week too.
 
Last edited:

PFanCan

That's MISTER Cheesehead, to you.
Joined
Dec 18, 2009
Messages
2,067
Reaction score
491
Location
Houston, TX
And next week when he has +8.0 they will know football and be wonderful again. :)
I know that you are just messing with us, but that is incorrect. At this point, I think that PFF has completely discredited its formula and next week it will be worthless again, +8 or -8. The fact that they are defending it, rather than saying, "hold on, maybe this needs more development" tells a lot.

All I am saying is that last night, I know what I saw. And a below average grade is just not justified. No homer ism here.
 

Poppa San

* Team Owner *
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
12,974
Reaction score
2,843
Location
20 miles from Lambeau
I know that you are just messing with us, but that is incorrect. At this point, I think that PFF has completely discredited its formula and next week it will be worthless again, +8 or -8. The fact that they are defending it, rather than saying, "hold on, maybe this needs more development" tells a lot.

All I am saying is that last night, I know what I saw. And a below average grade is just not justified. No homer ism here.
But I am $ure the controver$y i$ generating a lot of traffic to their web$ite. Call it the $kip Bayle$$ effect.
 

bigbubbatd

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 11, 2015
Messages
1,679
Reaction score
166
And next week when he has +8.0 they will know football and be wonderful again. :)
Not everyone buys completely into pff aND this is a great example of why. To say rodgers performance was similar to bridewater is a joke. Teddy threw 0 tds and 1 pick. Rodgers threw 5 tds and 0 int. Rodgers the for 200 more yards and had less incomplete passes while throwing for more ypa. Please explain how any reasonable ranking puts them close
 

Members online

Top