citation? About 99.999% positive that that's not true.
Its based on a formula that is 15 pages long and to complex to post. Trust them its right.
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.citation? About 99.999% positive that that's not true.
Just for a laugh, the writer who ranked 5 QBs ahead of Brady explains his reasoning. One excerpt:
I'm speechless. Throwing into double coverage = good.
Pro Football Focus Explains Why Tom Brady Ranked as 33rd-Best Player in NFL in 2010 Season - New England Patriots - NESN.com
They both worked; one worked better. Chance doesn't exist: Rodgers completed a pass cleanly which got more yardage.
How can you fault them for grading it better? There should be no objectification in these analysis, which you are doing by calling Brady's pass to the open receiver for a shorter gain "smarter" than Rodgers' pass to a more heavily covered receiver down the field.
You might want to re-think this post. PFF is weighing in favor of passing into a double team, while CT is weighing in favor of what is generally the smarter pass, which is throwing into single coverage, but both are arguing a weighting system. I'd toss your "objectification" word in here, but I don't think that's the word you wanted to use there.
However, I disagree that passing into single coverage is inherently "smarter" than passing into double coverage.
One can weigh other factors in an effort to justify throwing into a double coverage but, in general, it's much smarter to throw against 1 than it is against 2.
I don't see how you can possibly claim otherwise.
Does PFF's take those implied factors into consideration? Perhaps as a counter, more points are deducted for a pass into double coverage that are intercepted or defensed. I don't really know. I was just questioning the line of thinking that a shorter pass into single coverage is "smarter" than a longer pass into double coverage when the latter got more yardage.
It's not a random system, there is no chance. So if you throw the right pass, coverage becomes negligble.
Now you're posting gibberish.
When degree of difficulty of a pass is so heavily factored into the grading of a QB at the expense of any analysis of the QB's thought process, what you have is a worthless grade.
Does PFF actually disregard the thought processes and presnap adjustments?
Does PFF actually disregard the thought processes and presnap adjustments?
Does PFF actually disregard the thought processes and presnap adjustments?
It would only be smarter to throw into single coverage, inherently, if the odds of defensing the ball scaled with the number of defenders covering the receiver.
Are you saying that that's not the case? All other things being equal, that's pretty much self-evident.
Granted, all other things are rarely equal, which is why, as one factor among many, it would make a lot of sense. In any case, if QB A consistently throws into double coverage, and is intercepted occasionally as a result, whereas QB B consistently hits the open man in the same situation, then any measure that declares QB A superior on that basis is simply wrong.
That isn't the case. Or isn't what I'm arguing, rather. I'm not declaring one QB better than the other, but rather the relatively small instance of one pass option being superior to another if the QB is capable of completing both, with respect to pass coverage or "degree of difficulty".
Its a free world. We are allowed to dismiss PFF readily should we choose.
If the Boston Globe, Boston Herald, WEEI, Christopher Price, Ian Rapoport, Shalise Manza Young, Mike Reiss of ESPN Boston or ESPN National, NESN, and Sport Illustrated want to quote Pro Football Focus every week, again its a free world. Who cares ?
Who ever wants to follow them great, whoever doesn't great. I don't get the passionate venom.