PFF gives Rodgers a negative grade against Chiefs last night

[PFanCan]

I always liked PF...

Thanks! I like you, too, AM.

 

[doublecheckdeez]

While opinions on how Rodgers played may vary (some think he was spectacular, some think he was just go0d), you cannot trust any model that says he was on the bottom range of average/top range of below average. Thats just awful.

 

[easyk83]

So, let's remove Rodgers and Cobb from the discussion. Let's say quarterback A throws a 10-yard pass directly sideways to a wide open receiver. That receiver then uses his speed and agility to outrun the defense to the edge and runs the ball in for a TD. In your opinion, the QB deserves the credit for hitting the wide open receiver with one of the easiest passes in the NFL?

PFF ain't perfect. I'm struggling to get some to think about what the rating might tell you to look at. That's all the rating is saying. The rating isn't saying Rodgers was bad, it's just saying that maybe Randall Cobb was phenomenal in this game. When a receiver is REALLY good, naturally the QB is going to look good as well. I would also add that the offensive coordinator deserves some credit as well because many of those TDs were built around a second receiver (Montgomery a couple of times if I recall) picking off the primary defender for Cobb, thus allowing Cobb to just have to beat the help.

I get that it's a Packers fan board but I don't recall people having this kind of issue when Calvin Johnson was making Matthew Stafford look great in some games. Cobb isn't as good as Johnson and Rodgers is way better than Stafford (like, they play a different sport better) so it's very rare to see a game in which Cobb (or anyone else) can make Rodgers look better.

The trouble is that the comparison and metric is reductive. For instance it doesn't take into account the speed of the release from the QB or even from snap to throw. We talk about quarterbacks as gunslingers, Rodgers looked like he belonged in a spaghetti western he was so fast on the draw. Yes PFF sucks, and they suck even when theyre rating non Packers. It's not just a few fans on this board, the best football minds in the game dismiss PFF as well.

It's a useful tool for fantasy owners... but that's it. It's better than not watching the players but its a poor substitute for the eyeball analysis of coaches and actual football people.

 

[PackerDNA]

I watch a guy who at times appears more machine than human. Rodgers simply does things that not many people in the game- past or present- can do. He's the complete package, from arm to legs to brain. And he does it all consistently.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Maybe we can just agree to not use PFF (alone) numbers as "proof" of anything.

I never have. This is one illustration of why that's the case. It is a cautionary tale that goes to the point of making judgements about players one has not seen play based on these ratings.

 

[Sky King]

I'm asking myself: "If PFF does not take all factors into consideration (apparently because it's not possible) then what real value and purpose does it serve anybody and why worry (or care) what they publish?"

BTW, I have never visited PFF, and I personally see not a single compelling reason ever to do so. What are they trying to prove if their process cannot prove anything, anyway?

 

[Croak]

I'm asking myself: "If PFF does not take all all factors into consideration (apparently because it's not possible) then what real value and purpose does it serve anybody and why worry (or care) what they publish?"

BTW, I have never visited PFF, and I personally see not a single compelling reason ever to do so. What are they trying to prove if their process cannot prove anything, anyway?

It apparently makes for great conversation starters.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

BTW, I have never visited PFF, and I personally see not a single compelling reason ever to do so. What are they trying to prove if their process cannot prove anything, anyway?

Once again, PFF offers some interesting stats about every single player in the league you can't find anywhere else. As there's no way I can watch every snap of all 32 teams it offers a useful tool to compare players with each other.

It seems they will stop to offer their premium stats in mid-October though and instead introduce a rating system to rank players allegedly used by 19 NFL teams.

As of right now they have ranked Rodgers as the best QB in the league with a 94.4 (out of 100) rating, leading second-ranked Roethlisberger by five points.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

The trouble is that the comparison and metric is reductive. For instance it doesn't take into account the speed of the release from the QB or even from snap to throw. We talk about quarterbacks as gunslingers, Rodgers looked like he belonged in a spaghetti western he was so fast on the draw. Yes PFF sucks, and they suck even when theyre rating non Packers. It's not just a few fans on this board, the best football minds in the game dismiss PFF as well.

It's a useful tool for fantasy owners... but that's it. It's better than not watching the players but its a poor substitute for the eyeball analysis of coaches and actual football people.

The best minds in football? Is that why PFF is actually employed by NFL teams? Perhaps you could direct me to some great NFL minds that dislike PFF?

Everyone is focusing on one data point (in the sea of PFF ratings, all of which point to Rodgers as the best QB in football). Basically, everyone that didn't like PFF prior to the rating is latching on to this instance as "proof" that PFF is worthless. Never mind that PFF is actually VERY good at identifying good/bad players over the course of a season and has a terrific track record of doing so. The grades are not the end of the analysis. You don't look at Rodger's grade and say he was "m'eh", instead you look at the grade and wonder what it is that could have lead to that and now you have a direction to start analyzing the game to see what you (not specifically you, a generalized you) might have missed during the live game.

 

[TJV]

You don't look at Rodger's grade and say he was "m'eh", instead you look at the grade and wonder what it is that could have lead to that and now you have a direction to start analyzing the game to see what you (not specifically you, a generalized you) might have missed during the live game.

I've made no general comments about the value, or lack thereof, of PFF but you seem to be missing an important point regarding their rating of Rodgers against the Chiefs. Again, “The greatness of Rodgers’ performance last night was in the intangibles… we do not try to - quantify intangibles…” It's not what we missed during the live game, it's what they say they intentionally ignore when reviewing the game.

 

[Mondio]

I still haven't read the article, only the talking points people are talking about on here, and I didn't miss anything from the game. Having said that, I'll take that performance from my QB every single week of the year and I bet i'm in the playoffs and a favorite for the super bowl every year. I don't care if he had a short pass go for a TD. it could go for 2 yards or 50, get a first down, or a 2nd and 5. I don't care.

What I do care about it, he was in complete control of that game. He moved that offense against a very good defense at will. Short pass or long, he's smart enough to see it and athletic enough to get it done pretty much with whatever defense you're going to throw at him. yes he depends on others to do their jobs as well, and when they do, we're not going to be stopped.

 

[easyk83]

The best minds in football? Is that why PFF is actually employed by NFL teams? Perhaps you could direct me to some great NFL minds that dislike PFF?

Everyone is focusing on one data point (in the sea of PFF ratings, all of which point to Rodgers as the best QB in football). Basically, everyone that didn't like PFF prior to the rating is latching on to this instance as "proof" that PFF is worthless. Never mind that PFF is actually VERY good at identifying good/bad players over the course of a season and has a terrific track record of doing so. The grades are not the end of the analysis. You don't look at Rodger's grade and say he was "m'eh", instead you look at the grade and wonder what it is that could have lead to that and now you have a direction to start analyzing the game to see what you (not specifically you, a generalized you) might have missed during the live game.

Uhh did you not read my earlier post with quotes by Bill Belichick? Also which NFL teams have acknowledged using PFF, I am curious.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Uhh did you not read my earlier post with quotes by Bill Belichick? Also which NFL teams have acknowledged using PFF, I am curious.

This article by the Wall Street Journal mentions that five teams used PFF in 2011, I expect it to be more by now.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203889904577199781897959096

There are a ton of quotes from broadcasters, agents and other people involved in football saying they use PFF for various reasons.

Don't get me wrong, PFF is nowhere near perfect but offers a ton of information you can't find anywhere else. Discrediting it as completely useless is as foolish as taking their grades as a perfect measurement of a player's performance.

 

[ivo610]

They have changed Rodgers grade again. 3 different grades for Rodgers for that game. Each one improving from the previous.

 

[mradtke66]

I'm not annoyed with Rodgers' "approximately average" (which would be a zero) grade.

He had two great plays: both long touchdowns.

He had two bad plays: the fumble (called back due to Illegal Contact) and the near-interception.

I would happily give the bad plays a -1.5 to -2 each. Does anyone disagree with that?

I would happily give the two long touchdowns +1 to +2 each. Does anyone disagree with that?

If you can agree with those to points, you can hopefully see why those 4 plays would average out approximately to a zero.

We're then left with a fair number of short or otherwise "easy" throws.

 

[TJV]

He had two bad plays: the fumble (called back due to Illegal Contact) and the near-interception.I would happily give the bad plays a -1.5 to -2 each. Does anyone disagree with that?

Yes, I disagreed with it in a previous post. And I disagreed with PFF alleging it can't quantify Rodgers hard counts causing free plays and catching them with 12 men on the field. And disagreed with a couple of the throws they - and you - characterize as "easy".

 

[Croak]

I would have to line up with anyone who can say; If that is how Rodgers plays on a night when he gets a negative grade, I can't wait to see him when he learns the game and gets a positive grade!

 

[PFanCan]

They have changed Rodgers grade again. 3 different grades for Rodgers for that game. Each one improving from the previous.

Well, clearly, they are monitoring and learning from this thread...

 

[mradtke66]

Yes, I disagreed with it in a previous post.

Very well then--how would you grade the the near-interception? Good play, Average play, Bad play? How about the fumble?

And I disagreed with PFF alleging it can't quantify Rodgers hard counts causing free plays and catching them with 12 men on the field.

This is at least something I see as debatable. I find it easy to make an argument for and against that.

And disagreed with a couple of the throws they - and you - characterize as "easy".

Perhaps, but as I understand it, their criteria is consistent. The majority of Rodgers' throws were to pretty wide-open and/or short throws. The kind of throws, and this is key, the average NFL quarterback should be able to make. As such, he receives no positive or negative points.

I think too many people are hung up on on Zero being "bad." It's not. It's just neutral. It helps me to think of their grades like a golf score relative to par. Zeros = Pars. Negative Plays = Bogies. Positive Plays = Birdies.

Rodgers did the right thing and had a great game, but, to continue the golf analogy, his approach was to hit fairways and greens in regulation. He wasn't attacking the pin, he wasn't trying to hit 350 yard drives. So he get got a lot pars.

 

[TJV]

Very well then--how would you grade the the near-interception? Good play, Average play, Bad play? How about the fumble?

OTOH the dropped INT? Yes, obviously a negative play.

And I dealt with the fumble in the post you quoted.

Here is what IMO you and some others are missing and it’s the heart of the matter: PFF writes, “The greatness of Rodgers’ performance last night was in the intangibles… we do not try to - quantify intangibles…” As I’ve posted a couple of times before, since they admit the greatness of his performance is in something they don’t attempt to measure, their grade is worth very little (otherwise the word "greatness" lacks meaning). And as I stated in another post, I don’t think they - or you - do a good job differentiating what is, and isn’t “intangible”. But if you are saying they're consistent in not doing a good job evaluating the play of QBs, I agree.

 

[mradtke66]

And I dealt with the fumble in the post you quoted.

I think I found the post you mention. Let me pick on that.

Yes, there was illegal contact, which did "mess up" Rodgers. However, illegal contact downfield did not cause Rodgers to fumble. Did it cause him to hold the ball too long? Probably. But it had nothing to do with Rodgers' lack of ball security. (This is obviously being harsh, but is consistent with PFF's grading methodology.)

Here is what IMO you and some others are missing and it’s the heart of the matter: PFF writes, “The greatness of Rodgers’ performance last night was in the intangibles… we do not try to - quantify intangibles…” As I’ve posted a couple of times before, since they admit the greatness of his performance is in something they don’t attempt to measure, their grade is worth very little (otherwise the word "greatness" lacks meaning). And as I stated in another post, I don’t think they - or you - do a good job differentiating what is, and isn’t “intangible”.

(emphasis added)

I disagree. PFF states that they grade what happens from Snap-to-Whistle. Rushing the team back to the line, calling an audible, sliding the protection, and the hard count doesn't happen in the time window they use.

But

if you are saying they're consistent in not doing a good job evaluating the play of QBs, I agree.

Again, I disagree. They apply the same methodology to all quarterbacks and use the criteria, so they are consistent. If you use just their grade to compare quarterbacks over a season, it generally jives with who the best quarterbacks are.

I would also say they do a fine job in their evaluations, but they choose to evaluate a clearly defined set criteria. That swath tells more or less of a complete story based on the position. I'd say it's near 100% for running backs. For quarterbacks, about 50%. That doesn't bother me, because they admit it is a blind spot.

 

[Mondio]

Can't we just enjoy what we were able to watch on Monday night? I will never care what PFF says about Rodgers, I'm perfectly capable of forming my own opinion on him Nobody is ever going to pay me for my opinion, so i'll be relegated to spouting off on free message boards now and again, but really, is anybody arguing that what they saw wasn't some of the best qb play in the league right now? almost INT or not, nobody else is looking that good that consistently and I don't think it's close. Except for Brady, I think that guy is great too, but that's another thread i guess.

Man, maybe Rodger's was loose with ball security on one play, maybe he saw the flag and figured I can stand here till something opens up because nothing negative will matter and only positive can happen? who knows, who cares, overall it was as good as I could ever wish for my qb to play in any given game. They aren't perfect.

 

[easyk83]

This article by the Wall Street Journal mentions that five teams used PFF in 2011, I expect it to be more by now.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203889904577199781897959096

There are a ton of quotes from broadcasters, agents and other people involved in football saying they use PFF for various reasons.

Don't get me wrong, PFF is nowhere near perfect but offers a ton of information you can't find anywhere else. Discrediting it as completely useless is as foolish as taking their grades as a perfect measurement of a player's performance.

I'll confess I have been posting in a bit of a hyperbolic manner. I don't usually completely dismiss PFF, but it does tend to rankle me when a forum member writes something along the lines of "PFF finds x therefore you lose."

 

[TJV]

I would also say they do a fine job in their evaluations...

• IMO illegal contact caused Rodgers to hold the ball too long. Without the illegal conduct of the D, no fumble. There’s a reason that contact is illegal and it rendered that play null and void and it only shows up in the stats as a penalty for a reason.

• With regard to the “easy” passes, what I was referring to was Rodgers’ quick release – that happens after the snap and before the whistle. And it can be measured.

• Rodgers caused the snap to happen on plays in which the Chiefs were drawn off sides and when one of their players was late getting to the sideline. There’s no question who caused those penalties on the Chiefs. And the effect of that cause happened within a second of the ball being snapped. That’s post-snap and easily quantifiable.

Your justification for their grading system seems to be ‘that’s the way they do it, they’re consistent and they admit it’s a blind spot’. The first two certainly don’t inoculate them from criticism. IMO the criteria they’re using as noted above is bad so being consistently bad obviously isn’t a plus for them. However, I do completely agree with the third point. What they call intangibles is a HUGE part of playing QB. Purposely failing to incorporate them renders their QB grades of very little value IMO.

 

[mradtke66]

IMO illegal contact caused Rodgers to hold the ball too long. Without the illegal conduct of the D, no fumble. There’s a reason that contact is illegal and it rendered that play null and void and it only shows up in the stats as a penalty for a reason.

I'll grant you that he was probably sacked because of the illegal contact, but that doesn't excuse the fumble.

With regard to the “easy” passes, what I was referring to was Rodgers’ quick release – that happens after the snap and before the whistle. And it can be measured.

Perhaps, but how would it adjust his grade?

Rodgers caused the snap to happen on plays in which the Chiefs were drawn off sides and when one of their players was late getting to the sideline. There’s no question who caused those penalties on the Chiefs. And the effect of that cause happened within a second of the ball being snapped. That’s post-snap and easily quantifiable.

I never said I agree with PFF here

I would like them to include such things, but I understand why they don't.

Your justification for their grading system seems to be ‘that’s the way they do it, they’re consistent and they admit it’s a blind spot’. The first two certainly don’t inoculate them from criticism. IMO the criteria they’re using as noted above is bad so being consistently bad obviously isn’t a plus for them. However, I do completely agree with the third point. What they call intangibles is a HUGE part of playing QB. Purposely failing to incorporate them renders their QB grades of very little value IMO.

I wouldn't "little value." Just a certain value. Understanding the limits of any tool is important. Perhaps it's better to say that they don't grade quarterbacks, they grade passers?

To be fair, grades of any quarterback in ANY system really have the same amount of value: zero. It doesn't matter.