For all you fans of Profootball Focus

[Ring 6]

Brady's purely a system quarterback. Put anybody back there with these weapons and Belichick out-thinking the other team and the Patriots lead the league in every scoring category and never turn the ball over. Maybe PFF is onto something. Did you ever think that maybe Brady is holding the Patriots back? What would happen if the Pats had Rivers, Vick, Manning, Rodgers or Matty Ice - look out below!

Stupidest post of the year.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Stupidest post of the year.

I took it as satire

 

[Ring 6]

Recovering and making a good throw is the sign of a great QB...But you can't dismiss the fact that Brady should have been picked off 3 times in the Bears Game. He was lucky that the Bears defenders couldnt hang onto the ball. Brady was NOT as sharp as we're used to seeing, but he got away with some mistakes, thank goodness. He was able to make up for it by taking advantage of the mistakes made by the Bears defense.

That is a tremendous exaggeration. I remember 3 times that the Bears got a hand on the ball. That is far from should have had 3 picks. When a LB exrtends and gets a finger on the ball and tips it up and no one is there to Int it, you apparently call that should have been an Int. By that yardstick every NFL QB should have been picked about 40 times this year.

 

[TruthSeeker]

That is a tremendous exaggeration. I remember 3 times that the Bears got a hand on the ball. That is far from should have had 3 picks. When a LB exrtends and gets a finger on the ball and tips it up and no one is there to Int it, you apparently call that should have been an Int. By that yardstick every NFL QB should have been picked about 40 times this year.

Exactly. On the first one, a LB gets a hand on it (absolutely no chance to intercept it), it pops up in the air and another defender is close but evidently just out of range of being able to intercept it. Good play to tip the ball but should it have been an interception? No in this game it shouldn't have been.

The second one has a LB reaching well behind himself to tip the ball and it lands near no one. Should that have been an interception? No way.

The third one was Urlacher jumping out and catching the ball at the top of the jump but not being able to hold onto it as he came down. That was a likely interception but one that just as often doesn't get made - particularly in tough conditions like that game.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I read the article and the author specifically states that he doesn't take into account weather unless there is a clear impact due to the weather (such as the ball obviously flying off path).

Right there you know that any analysis is going to be way off because the weather factor was huge. I'm not talking about the snow; I'm talking about the 30+ MPH winds as well as the cold. There's already been some discussion here about how a QB has to throw the ball differently in below-freezing temperatures. The wind impacted a lot of throws - some obviously and some not so obviously. I believe the game situation also impacted throws as Tom Brady clearly threw a number of balls low in the second half when the important thing was not to create a turnover; getting the yardage gain or even the first down was secondary.

So, yes, Tom Brady did have a really good game. There were certainly mistakes. But I'll tell you this - you give Tom Brady that same protection in a 68 degree dome and no wind and the stats would be much better. Ignoring the awful conditions is just ridiculous.

 

[Fixit]

Pro Football Focus is pretty funny.

If you haven't seen it, they have Aaron Rodgers as their MVP, and say, "...and Brady certainly seems like the easy choice with everyone more or less using the same formula: Best passer rating + best team record = MVP quarterback.

It’s not invalid, and it’s tough to argue against. But Brady is in second place after our 10 internal ballots were tabulated, behind a guy with a worse passer rating and a worse record – but one we agree is having a better and more valuable season."

Their woefully inadequate grasp of what kind of season Brady's having and why damn near everyone has him as their MVP aside, in the comments they deny any bias against Brady.

But then:

Offensive Player of the Year.

Like I said...funny.

 

[upstater1]

Re: Pro Football Focus is pretty funny.

Sometimes it's better for people to look into other ways to spend their time, like gardening.

Why do people even go to that site?

I mean, it's OK for people to put up their own blogs, and it's ok to come up with zany analysis, but if you're not as funny as the Onion, why bother?

 

[BradyManny]

Re: Pro Football Focus is pretty funny.

My distaste for this site is well-established.

Ultimately, it's a bunch of football fans with ZERO football experience pretending to be "analysts".

Their Brady obsession is simple - they need to prove their own value by coming to a conclusion different from the mainstream media.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Re: Pro Football Focus is pretty funny.

LOL. What a crock. They have 3 QB candidates contending for OPOY and none of them is named Tom Brady. Maybe you could justify some weird made up metric based argument against Brady for MVP, but not even being an OPOY candidate is ludicrous. This website has no credibility for me. I really haven't even heard of them much before now. Maybe they're just doing it for the publicity? Who knows. Thankfully, the real MVP award will be issued from the AP to Brady, and that's the one we care about. Although of course not as much as we care about the Lombardi which I'm sure is the only trophy that Tom covets.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Re: Pro Football Focus is pretty funny.

If you haven't seen it, they have Aaron Rodgers as their MVP, and say, "...and Brady certainly seems like the easy choice with everyone more or less using the same formula: Best passer rating + best team record = MVP quarterback.

It’s not invalid, and it’s tough to argue against. But Brady is in second place after our 10 internal ballots were tabulated, behind a guy with a worse passer rating and a worse record – but one we agree is having a better and more valuable season."

Their woefully inadequate grasp of what kind of season Brady's having and why damn near everyone has him as their MVP aside, in the comments they deny any bias against Brady.

But then:

Offensive Player of the Year.

Like I said...funny.

It's funny how they act like they are so important, with their 10-member panel vote. A bunch of fat computer nerds sitting around, eating ice cream, fighting the system. To my knowledge they have no official AP vote for MVP. This is probably the biggest joke site on the internet.

 

[BradyManny]

Re: Pro Football Focus is pretty funny.

It's funny how they act like they are so important, with their 10-member panel vote. A bunch of fat computer nerds sitting around, eating ice cream, fighting the system. To my knowledge they have no official AP vote for MVP. This is probably the biggest joke site on the internet.

Pretty much accurate. Based on their profile pictures on their blogs, a couple of them look like they currently still live in their parents basements, so I'm leaning towards the stereotypical baseball-metric nerd instead. The site's founder and lead contributor is a UK businessman, with a day job, and with no prior experience in football.

I'm actually envious of how a few amateurs were able to become so self-important.

If they had actually knowledgeable fans with experience in the game as patsfans/patriotsplanet does, then the site would have great value.

 

[Rob0729]

Re: Pro Football Focus is pretty funny.

Well, they only have 18 offensive players ranked higher than Brady. Seems about right to me. I have Brady 27th on my list of Offensive Players of the Year.

I think it has been well established that Pro Football Focus is a joke. Anyone who puts any stock in their site either doesn't understand football or just refuse to look at the cold hard facts in front of their face (some people want to love any site that takes raw stats and tries to put a value stat no matter how bad their formula is).

 

[BradyManny]

Re: Pro Football Focus is pretty funny.

Well, they only have 18 offensive players ranked higher than Brady. Seems about right to me. I have Brady 27th on my list of Offensive Players of the Year.

I think it has been well established that Pro Football Focus is a joke. Anyone who puts any stock in their site either doesn't understand football or just refuse to look at the cold hard facts in front of their face (some people want to love any site that takes raw stats and tries to put a value stat no matter how bad their formula is).

Well, the thing is, they don't even use stats. They use a horribly misguided film evaluation.

They have one of their staff - who has no experience in football by their own admission - watch a game and grade every player for every play off of the TV copy.

What part of that sounds like a scientific process to them is beyond me.

 

[Timbo717]

Re: Pro Football Focus is pretty funny.

They do have McCourty in there as ranked #1 for rookie of the year and Gronk as #5, but yeah that is just boggling to omit Brady from Offensive player of the year. I love it how they admit that Brady has less picks and more TDs(36-4 vs. 28-11), but Rogers has more yards per attempt (8.3 compared to Brady's 7.9) and contributes more to the running game(356 Yds, 4 TDs for AR vs. 30 Yds, 1 TD for TB). The running of Rogers is a great point, yards per attempt are not as important as putting the ball in the end zone and not turning it over. They base their decision to give MVP to him because of their analysis of his "per play" stats. Silly.

Then another of their points is that Rogers has done more with less, and then in the same paragraph saying that if Rogers had not gotten hurt than the Pats could have lost to Green Bay due to how close it was with Flynn QB'ing. In other words, they say that Rogers doesn't have a good supporting cast but then recognize that the Packers supporting class were good enough to be close to beating the top team in the league WITHOUT Rogers and with a unproven guy behind center.

 

[BritPat]

Re: Pro Football Focus is pretty funny.

You can get a free subscription if you grade a game for them.

I know most of them, their sense of self worth in relation to that site is mind boggling. And don't dare argue with their acolytes.

 

[Lampshade]

Re: Pro Football Focus is pretty funny.

It is the worst place on the Internet.

 

[PAPatsjunkie]

Re: Pro Football Focus is pretty funny.

Offensive Player of the Year.


I'm dumbfounded. Peyton Manning is even mentioned as 'in the mix' and Brady is not. I have to think it was some kind of clerical error. Right? Right??


I also like how you have to pay to be a member and comment on posts there.

 

[BradyManny]

Re: Pro Football Focus is pretty funny.

You can get a free subscription if you grade a game for them.

I know most of them, their sense of self worth in relation to that site is mind boggling. And don't dare argue with their acolytes.

Really? Is that still true even now that they like to consider themselves a legitimate site? Because that makes the site even more bush-league than I thought.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Pro Football Focus is pretty funny.

Since they pulled the page I got the quotes from:

My firm belief is that we are between 98-100% accurate in terms of statistics and Player Participation 80-90% accurate in terms of grading.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/95/348886-afce-contract-news-dbust-signs-dextension-page10.html#post1852682

That site's a joke when it comes to evaluations instead of raw data, by it's own measuring standards.

 

[Rob0729]

Re: Pro Football Focus is pretty funny.

Well, the thing is, they don't even use stats. They use a horribly misguided film evaluation.

They have one of their staff - who has no experience in football by their own admission - watch a game and grade every player for every play off of the TV copy.

What part of that sounds like a scientific process to them is beyond me.

Well, if they just let random people watch broadcast footage, then I am wrong. It is a great site!

You cannot analyze film properly unless you watch the All 22 tape. Half the action is done off camera on the TV broadcasts. Even with replays, you miss all the action away from the play.