Pro Football Focus gives its highest rating to Brady...

[BSR]

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.

 

[Rob0729]

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

I hear they give a gold star to QBs who complete passes in triple coverage.

In fairness, some double coverage passes are good because it is a QB who can throw the ball to the right area to a WR who he has confidence will fight for the ball, but more often than not the QB just makes the wrong read.

 

[Ivan]

Even worse is the fact that the NESN writer, Micheal Hurley, is clearly trying to defend the indefensible and maintains that PFF is credible when it has no credibility whatsoever.

 

[Deus Irae]

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.

 

[Trey]

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.

You are right, I meant subjectification. My apologies.

However, I disagree that passing into single coverage is inherently "smarter" than passing into double coverage.

 

[Deus Irae]

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.

 

[Trey]

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.

 

[Deus Irae]

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.

 

[Trey]

Now you're posting gibberish.

The belief that double coverage is "not as smart" to throw into than single coverage stems from the erroneous belief that two times the defender equals twice the chance to defense the ball. It doesn't work like that. There is either a right pass or there isn't, and most QBs tend to just ignore the situation all together. But that's mathematically ignorant.

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. Which would attach a value to every pass, that simply doesn't exist. A receiver is as open as the pass to him is good. Which means, in the discussion of "smarter," the right pass to the double covered receiver further downfield is a smarter play than the right pass to the single covered receiver closer to the quarterback.

If the math wasn't indisciminate, and each quarterback's ability relative to his receiver's and the defenders' ability had to be taken into account, then the shorter pass would be "smarter," in a sense. But the math is pretty indiscrimate in this case, considering that it's a value that is trying to gauge quarterbacking as a measurable.

 

[BradyManny]

LOL at PFF. Brady does exactly what he does all season long last year, maybe throwing a couple longer passes in there, and suddenly they recognize his genius.

Let's face it. They don't have any idea how to grade at that place. Their grading numbers are 100% arbitrary.

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.

If Brady didn't connect on that pass to Slater or a couple of those seam routes to the TE, they'd have given him a +2 and called it a pedestrian dink and dunk game. And he still would've thrown for 4TDs and put up 30+ points.

 

[BritPat]

PFF does have some worth, but as far as it's grades go......

Ha!

 

[Trey]

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?

 

[BritPat]

Does PFF actually disregard the thought processes and presnap adjustments?

Unless it's Manning, yup.

 

[Rob0729]

Does PFF actually disregard the thought processes and presnap adjustments?

They ranked Brady as the 33rd best player in the NFL last year, you make the call.

 

[BradyManny]

Does PFF actually disregard the thought processes and presnap adjustments?

By their own admission (a caveat in their long winded disclaimer about the site), they aren't professional scouts by any means.

And they don't attempt to make judgements re: what a player was thinking, reads, thought process, etc. beyond what is blatantly visible to a pedestrian football fan on the TV tape.

If you pay for that analysis, I'm sorry to be the bearer of this news.

 

[BradyFTW!]

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.

 

[Trey]

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".

 

[crowell33]

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.

 

[Deus Irae]

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".

You are making an obviously false assertion with regards to single coverage v. double coverage. I don't know how else to put it without being accused of being mean to you.

 

[Deus Irae]

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.

It's a matter of your site sucking. It's nothing more than that.