Worst 2013 draft classes??

[Deus Irae]

Can I suggest that as there's no context and zero analysis linked to by the OP, that leaping to any judgement is a fools errand. We have no idea what was said or how any judgement was arrived at.

Well, it's PFF, so there's context right there. And, given that it's PFF, we know it's not reliable, whether it's praising a team/player or bashing it/him.

 

[manxman2601]

Well, it's PFF, so there's context right there. And, given that it's PFF, we know it's not reliable, whether it's praising a team/player or bashing it/him.

The Patsfans approach to PFF

 

[PlainOldEd]

Is it possible that we are reading the list wrong and are actually in the top 3? I didn't see the original article............

 

[manxman2601]

Is it possible that we are reading the list wrong and are actually in the top 3? I didn't see the original article............

No-one here has. That's my point.

 

[Deus Irae]

The Patsfans approach to PFF

Nonsense. When PFF first came out, I was one of the more active followers of it. I loved that we were getting some things that were new and potentially useful.

Then I did some in depth research on it, noticed their own admitted error percentages, and watched them expand from a basic counting site to a ridiculously overmatched analysis site.

They took a potentially useful concept and pissed all over it. That's on them, not on some See no/hear no/speak no issue on the part of Patsfans posters.

 

[manxman2601]

Nonsense. When PFF first came out, I was one of the more active followers of it. I loved that we were getting some things that were new and potentially useful.

Then I did some in depth research on it, noticed their own admitted error percentages, and watched them expand from a basic counting site to a ridiculously overmatched analysis site.

They took a potentially useful concept and pissed all over it. That's on them, not on some See no/hear no/speak no issue on the part of Patsfans posters.

It is because if a poster even uses a simple beancounter fact from PFF (like how many snaps someones played) people starting putting their fingers in their ear and saying "PFF, not listening, blah blah blah". See your post upthread.

Some of us are intelligent enough to identify useful and useless facts from a whole manner of places, including PFF, filter them out and incorporate only the facts they found useful. Unfortunately they are then treated with some pretty silly scepticism. ("but, but, but, they were once nasty about Tom Brady and I hate them")*

*That last bit wasn't directed at you.

 

[Deus Irae]

It is because if a poster even uses a simple beancounter fact from PFF (like how many snaps someones played) people starting putting their fingers in their ear and saying "PFF, not listening, blah blah blah". See your post upthread.

Some of us are intelligent enough to identify useful and useless facts from a whole manner of places, including PFF, filter them out and incorporate only the facts they found useful. Unfortunately they are then treated with some pretty silly scepticism. ("but, but, but, they were once nasty about Tom Brady and I hate them")*

*That last bit wasn't directed at you.

No, it's because using something that has repeatedly demonstrated itself as garbage is a foolish base to build from. PFF used to have a page where they admitted to a 2% tabulation error rate (disappointing, but understandable) and a 20% error rate on more complex formulae rates and the like. They were signficantly understating their error rate with the formulae, and they eventually pulled the page.

Here's an example of me using them back in 2007, and already acknowledging the problem with their advanced formulae even while using their basic numbers and percentages:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/313406-ben-watson-page2.html#post1691530

Here's a later post laying out problems with the site, along with some very easy examples, and a link to the (no longer extant) page where PFF made it's accuracy "belief" known:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/347785-patriots-without-pioli.html#post1848599

PFF did this to itself, by taking a simple concept (hell, let's get some basic numbers about what's going on in this crazy game of football and make the game a bit more like baseball in terms of statistic availability) and pissing all over it. Can you rely on that site for snap totals? Well, it's always been pretty good with that sort of thing, and that's what originally drew me to the site, so I'd say yes. Can you rely on it to tell you which O-lineman was responsible for a sack or which DB was responsible on a completed pass? Often, no. Can you rely on it to be giving you valid formulaic rankings of players, or anything more advanced than basic formula work (i.e. calculating percentages or QB rating sort of stuff)?


Absolutely not.

As for how I worded my initial post, it was a response to the thread title combined with the @PFF. It we're ranking draft classes (more advanced formula work required), @PFF is all I need to see to know that it's going to be crap.

 

[manxman2601]

I think we'll agree to disagree. Dismissing something without actually seeing what is actually being said is wrong in my book. Oh well, moving on.

 

[IcyPatriot]

To be fair both Collins and Ryan are playing well but neither is yet a star ... Collins is breaking through for sure but that is more recent than season long. The rest of the draft may well turn out to be good with Dobson and Boyce and Harmon but none of them have done much this year.

I mean it's an early evaluation ... even ESPN gave us a -38 and rated us horrible behind the Bears and Tampa. 3 of our first 5 appear to be future starting players and Boyce still could be a #3 WR and none of them was a 1st round pick. Harmon has players in his way so it may take him a few years to break through which is fine using the 3 year evaluation meme ... so a good draft IMO.

I would love to see team rankings for 2013 less than 2-3 years played FA signings.

 

[Deus Irae]

I think we'll agree to disagree. Dismissing something without actually seeing what is actually being said is wrong in my book. Oh well, moving on.

You say this as if you're making some kind of a real point about me not looking at what's being posted. You're not. I've already seen the formulae work, and they are lousy, so there's no need to continually look at specific applications of those flawed formulae.

"Pro Football Focus combines its 2013 grades with rookie snap counts to see which teams got the most (and least) production"

 

[manxman2601]

You say this as if you're making some kind of a real point about me not looking at what's being posted. You're not. I've already seen the formulae work, and they are lousy, so there's no need to continually look at specific applications of those flawed formulae.

"Pro Football Focus combines its 2013 grades with rookie snap counts to see which teams got the most (and least) production"

OK Deus. Now how about we move on.

 

[goheels22002]

@PFF ranks the least production from the rookie classes of 2013.
1 Bears
2 Bucs
3 Patriots
5:02pm - 17 Jan 14


Do they even watch football?

This could not be more wrong. The AFC East Champion, 12-4, AFC Championship game Patriots are the 2nd youngest team in the NFL. The quality of their recent draft picks, especially 2012 and 2013 is superb.