Globe: Mankins graded top guard

[crowell33]

Caution: SMY uses PFF as her source:

Mankins graded top guard of last three years - Extra Points - Boston.com

 

[Rob0729]

I will never get why the media loves PFF so much when their stats are so blatantly flawed it isn't funny. Funny, I never saw any of the local guys run the PFF story stating that Brady was the 33rd best player in the NFL last year and question whether the Pats made a mistake giving him such a big deal.

Mankins is A top guard in the league. Possibly even THE top guard. But not because PFF says so.

 

[patchick]

I will never get why the media loves PFF so much when their stats are so blatantly flawed it isn't funny.

People -- reporters and otherwise -- love any stats and rankings you offer, and believe them because they're numbers. It's absolutely mindblowing how easily you can dupe people by putting numbers into your argument. (Joseph McCarthy's bogus "I have in my hand 57 cases..." speech wouldn't have struck the same persuasive chord if he'd just said "I have in my hand a list...")

In my own field I see people make headlines with wildly inaccurate and misleading stats all the time. Nobody ever questions them, because they're stats! They're concrete! Real live numerical facts!

 

[Rob0729]

People -- reporters and otherwise -- love any stats and rankings you offer, and believe them because they're numbers. It's absolutely mindblowing how easily you can dupe people by putting numbers into your argument. (Joseph McCarthy's bogus "I have in my hand 57 cases..." speech wouldn't have struck the same persuasive chord if he'd just said "I have in my hand a list...")

In my own field I see people make headlines with wildly inaccurate and misleading stats all the time. Nobody ever questions them, because they're stats! They're concrete! Real live numerical facts!

I agree with that and I also think the media love what PFF tries to be eventhough it fails at it. PFF overall effort is noble in trying to create more value oriented metrics to judge teams and players. But these efforts are thwarted by inaccurate stats, close minded thinking by their staff (Brady is not an elite QB because he throws short passes), and not using proper tools (it is a joke that they do not use the "All 22" when compiling their stats which means stats on DBs, WRs, TEs, and LBs are most certainly inaccurate since much of what they do is not captured by the TV broadcasts).

Personally, I am not one who loves these sources that try to create their own value metrics. I am not a big fan of Football Outsider eventhough I think their metrics are far, far more accurate than PFF's metrics are. I guess in a way I respect sites for trying these value metrics, but I still think that football is not a sport you can measure purely on stats no matter how you weight the numbers.

 

[BradyManny]

Blind leading the blind.

That's fine, there's no doubt Mankins is a good guard, and one of the best in the league, for sure. But their system at PFF is so screwed that you can't trust it.

OL is probably the only thing they have any shot of grading based on TV tape, but even then, we have to remember these are a bunch of guys' with day jobs - and 3 years ago when the grading started, they were still trading memberships for user-submitted "gradings".

 

[malenurse2010]

Just piss poor reporting on this. Does she like PFF because its free? I haven't seen any evidence of SMY stepping up from mediocrity any time soon.

 

[vyrago]

People -- reporters and otherwise -- love any stats and rankings you offer, and believe them because they're numbers. It's absolutely mindblowing how easily you can dupe people by putting numbers into your argument. (Joseph McCarthy's bogus "I have in my hand 57 cases..." speech wouldn't have struck the same persuasive chord if he'd just said "I have in my hand a list...")

In my own field I see people make headlines with wildly inaccurate and misleading stats all the time. Nobody ever questions them, because they're stats! They're concrete! Real live numerical facts!

This is so true. A committee I was on was charged with assessing our department. Rather than use anecdotes we whomped up a written test that we graded in four different ways then used the result to prove our contention that we were marvelous. We had numbers, percentages, means and regression analysis--very impressive if one didn't peek behind the curtain where the sss was hidden.

 

[patfanken]

Just piss poor reporting on this. Does she like PFF because its free? I haven't seen any evidence of SMY stepping up from mediocrity any time soon.

I agree wholeheartedly. PFF's inadequacies are well documented and SHOULD be common knowledge even to the local media The very fact she referenced PFF shows a kind of laziness and lack of the attention to detail have come to be SOP for most of the mediots around here. It shows the kind of agenda driven stories we are forced to deal with.

I'm not sure guys like Mike Reiss is THAT good, or does he just stand out because the competition is just SOOOOOO bad.

 

[Sciz]

Personally, I am not one who loves these sources that try to create their own value metrics. I am not a big fan of Football Outsider eventhough I think their metrics are far, far more accurate than PFF's metrics are. I guess in a way I respect sites for trying these value metrics, but I still think that football is not a sport you can measure purely on stats no matter how you weight the numbers.

I like how FO at least tells us what their metrics are. PFF doesn't reveal how they rate players, other than a few spoilers on their QB rating, which gives bonus points to throwing into double coverage

This is my new favorite line, so I'll use it again. I am as qualified to break news reports and the guys at PFF are to grade football players, so why is the Boston Globe not citing me when I say the lockout is over?

 

[Rob0729]

I like how FO at least tells us what their metrics are. PFF doesn't reveal how they rate players, other than a few spoilers on their QB rating, which gives bonus points to throwing into double coverage

This is my new favorite line, so I'll use it again. I am as qualified to break news reports and the guys at PFF are to grade football players, so why is the Boston Globe not citing me when I say the lockout is over?

Wait? The QB gets points for throwing into double coverage?!? Really?!? Many times even when a big play is made throwing into double coverage, it was a poor decision by the QB and he just gets lucky his receiver catches the ball. Personally, depending on the situation, I would deduct points for throwing into double coverage even if turns into a big play.

 

[Rob0729]

I agree wholeheartedly. PFF's inadequacies are well documented and SHOULD be common knowledge even to the local media The very fact she referenced PFF shows a kind of laziness and lack of the attention to detail have come to be SOP for most of the mediots around here. It shows the kind of agenda driven stories we are forced to deal with.

I'm not sure guys like Mike Reiss is THAT good, or does he just stand out because the competition is just SOOOOOO bad.

In fairness to SMY, I have seen Mike Reiss use PFF stats himself.

 

[Sciz]

Wait? The QB gets points for throwing into double coverage?!? Really?!? Many times even when a big play is made throwing into double coverage, it was a poor decision by the QB and he just gets lucky his receiver catches the ball. Personally, depending on the situation, I would deduct points for throwing into double coverage even if turns into a big play.

Pretty much. I feel like they grade quarterbacks like competitive divers, with a degree of difficulty factor, rather than rewarding a guy for finding the open receiver.

0.0 Base Play – Any throw you expect any player to make. Hitting a guy open on a 1 step slant with off coverage is 0 no matter how many yards it makes. It’s a smart decision but a throw that anyone could and should make.

+0.5 Base Play – Making a throw to beat single coverage to pick up a first down. Leading a receiver to allow him to gain YAC for a first down. Making a play with their feet (scrambling or moving in the pocket) to create an easy throw (the throw in itself may not be difficult, but he made it easy with his movement).

+1.0 Base Play – Beating tight coverage or splitting loose double coverage to pick up significant yardage/first down. Good deep throws will mostly (unless it’s wide open) get this grade, leading the receiver past deep coverage etc. Making space with their feet (see above) and making a “good” throw on the run.

+1.5 Base Play – Beating tight double cover, using your legs to beat tight single cover or loose double cover etc. Splitting double cover to lead a receiver deep etc.

(+0.5 bonus for plays made either at a crunch time or that have a pivotal effect on the game, e.g. touchdown to win the game, crucial 3rd down conversion to run out the clock, etc.)

 

[BlueThunder]

Figures don't lie....


But Liars figure .....


PFF secret motto ?

 

[BradyManny]

Pretty much. I feel like they grade quarterbacks like competitive divers, with a degree of difficulty factor, rather than rewarding a guy for finding the open receiver.

Their grading system rewards a QB not reading the defense well, basically.

Not that they'd be any judge of that. Their amateur "scouts" can't read defenses either.

 

[captain stone]

Just piss poor reporting on this. Does she like PFF because its free? I haven't seen any evidence of SMY stepping up from mediocrity any time soon.

Hey, give her a break. She's still in mourning over the loss of Afailus Thomas.

 

[Rob0729]

Pretty much. I feel like they grade quarterbacks like competitive divers, with a degree of difficulty factor, rather than rewarding a guy for finding the open receiver.

First, beating tight double coverage in most cases is as much or more the responsibility of the WR.

Second, some of these bonus points are definitely skewed for QBs with certain weapons. Beating tight double coverage, even for Brady, Manning, Brees, Rivers, etc., is far easier to do with a big WR (Moss in his prime, Megatron, Andre Johnson, etc.) than trying to do that with Smurf WRs (Branch, Welker) is far tougher because with big WRs you can throw it up there and let the receiver fight for the ball, but with smaller WRs the pass has to be near pinpoint accuracy.

I seriously wonder if the people at PFF really understand football. Some of their metric really tell me they have a very basic understanding of the game. I can see why Brady was ranked 33rd in their top 101 players of 2010 since he was penalized for things that were clearly outside his control. He just didn't have a deep threat who could take on tight double coverage and fight for the ball and his PFF numbers suffered for it.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

First, beating tight double coverage in most cases is as much or more the responsibility of the WR.

Second, some of these bonus points are definitely skewed for QBs with certain weapons. Beating tight double coverage, even for Brady, Manning, Brees, Rivers, etc., is far easier to do with a big WR (Moss in his prime, Megatron, Andre Johnson, etc.) than trying to do that with Smurf WRs (Branch, Welker) is far tougher because with big WRs you can throw it up there and let the receiver fight for the ball, but with smaller WRs the pass has to be near pinpoint accuracy.

I seriously wonder if the people at PFF really understand football. Some of their metric really tell me they have a very basic understanding of the game. I can see why Brady was ranked 33rd in their top 101 players of 2010 since he was penalized for things that were clearly outside his control. He just didn't have a deep threat who could take on tight double coverage and fight for the ball and his PFF numbers suffered for it.

And the fact that he can't shut off the part of his brain that makes good decisions.

 

[Rob0729]

Their grading system rewards a QB not reading the defense well, basically.

Not that they'd be any judge of that. Their amateur "scouts" can't read defenses either.

Yeah, I think it best describes their lack of understanding with the QB position when they gave their reasoning on why Brady was so low on their top 101 players. They use the analogy that if Brady was in school he would always get "A"s, but that was because he was taking an easier test than everyone else. Basically saying that what he does is easy with just short quick passes that does not take a lot of skill and anyone could be successful at (granted if it was that easy, why isn't every team with a less than elite QB doing this?). If anything, that couldn't be farther from the truth.

I see guys like Brady and Manning taking much harder tests because they beat defenses with their minds, not as much their physical skills. While many QBs just use their God given talent to make players without much presnap reads or diagnosing the play going on (Ben Roethlisberger), Brady and Manning are disecting the play before the ball is even snapped, making adjustments, going through their reads, recognizing the rush and coverages, etc. Most QBs do that to some extent, but those two do it far more than maybe any QBs in NFL history. Unfortunately for PFF, they do not recognize that these skills are what make QBs special, not the ability to huck the ball 60 yards down the field into double coverage.

 

[Deus Irae]

It's PFF, so it's meaningless. That said, I'm still all for getting Mankins into the fold and signing Nicks.

 

[patfanken]

In fairness to SMY, I have seen Mike Reiss use PFF stats himself.

I That's true then he should be ashamed