Skip to main content

Hey Royal Wulff,

I merely included guys like Elliott, Ryan, etc for reference in terms of how all the Packers players ranked in relation to the ones you had mentioned. I like that you did this and took a stab at it. After all, it is your idea for how they rank prior to cut downs, and no one really knows. Great to discuss it though, and maybe we see some early surprises added to the waiver wire. I agree PFF rankings aren't the die-all, but they do provide some kind of reference point. There are just so many variables in preseason, making them less relevant. They do point to who is making what kinds of plays. Unfortunately, competition levels are absent (against 1s, 2s, 3s...) in those statistics.

Your Perry cut is bold! You never know. If he is not in their plans, an early release so the player can catch on with another team has been done before. I'm thinking it happens on the next batch. Thornton is a vey solid pick. Dantzler, I think they keep him around for a bit.

 

Man, the cut downs after this will be very difficult to predict.

Last edited by Trophies

So, what you are saying is they are lying, and I paid for their lies. Well, that's just great Hungry5... 

 

It ain't the first time baby
Baby it wont be the last
I'd better get the boys round
And do some drinkin fast

Cause she's gone, gone, gone
I dont know if I'm happy
I don't know if I'm sad
She's gone gone gone
I dont know if I'll cry
I dont know if I'll die laughin

 

Bad Co.

First wave in. Eight more to go to hit 75.

Last edited by ilcuqui

The PFF ratings -- especially in practice season -- don't take into account the quality of the opposition. A hight PFF rating against pre-75 cuts cannot be compared to a low PFF rating against the projected starting 11. Add to that the vanilla playbook and those stats have to be taken with a pound of salt.  Of course, sometimes a player is worth their weight in salt.

You also have to take into account that they don't see every player and the ones they do see their grades do not have a common point of reference.

 

 A +13.4 is not always better than a +11.2 but perhaps a +10.3 is 98% certain to be better than a -3.4 etc. It’s just a system like any other but what we aim to do is put context on all plays. If a CB is badly beaten but the WR drops the pass the base stats would say that’s simply an incompletion against the CB but in our system it’s a negative grade.

 

Neil Hornsby. Founder - Pro Football Focus

 

Perhaps a +10.3 is better than a -3.4?

Originally Posted by antooo:

       
Originally Posted by Goalline:
Originally Posted by Brak:
Would love to see Goalline cut.  Understand JSonline commenter mick730 is available.  Major upgrade.
Yeah, that's like cutting Arod. Never going to happen.
Now that the picture of Tranny Ted has made the interwebs, you may not have as much leverage as you think.

       


Ted will just counter with an Ashley Madison account. Don't **** with the master.
Last edited by Goalline
Originally Posted by Hungry5:
 

 I agree PFF rankings aren't the die-all, but they do provide some kind of reference point. 

 

Sure, some kind of reference point, just a very incomplete one. PFF claims to grade EVERY player on EVERY play. How do they do that when they can't see every player on every play?

 

 

Don't they just use the all-22 view from NFL.com or is that not available anymore?

Also, there is so much going on every play that it should take hours to evaluate one player, let alone all 40 that see game action.   

 

Simple guesstimate at the math.  10 seconds per play times x 100 snaps = 1000 seconds.  Times 11 players is about 3 hours, then add another hour for admin work.  So you would need a staff of 32 evaluators who magically get all 22 right away, of a live feed with DVR to all 22, to accomplish what they claim to do.

 

I don't claim to be a scout or expert, but when I've watched the all 22 and focused on the linemen, I'm usually left scratching my head as at least a couple grades are so far off.

 

 

Carl Bradford is our top ranked ILB, at #28 overall in the NFL Preseason by PFF.

I'm not picking on anybody but PFF

But that comment above made me laugh.

It was posted on August 30th, end of the preseason

 

 Bradford didn't make our 53, and none of the other teams wanted the "28th ranked ILB according to PFF"  ...And he's cheap and available

 

Assume (3) ILBs per team x 32 says he's not even in the top 100 

(According to people who do this for a living)  PFF sucks

Last edited by Satori

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×