Profootballfocus top 101 of 2010

[BlueThunder]

Freedom of speech is great.....differing opinions are better than everyone agreeing on everything...there wouod be nothing interesting to discuss ...

Don't ya just love diversity...

 

[ay-yo]

I find this site provides better analysis than any paid members of the media. They get paid for how many people read there stuff and most people don't want to think but would prefer to hear bold claims.

Mike Reiss is good with reporting news but his analysis leaves something to be desired.

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

Actually your very close. I am a big supporter of just about every site/news source. I want to hear what every organization/writer has to say and then decide for myself what to believe and what to dismiss. I may believe most of what one source says and then dismiss most of what another source says. But I want to hear all of the information.

I just like to decide for myself.

I think each of us decides for ourselves...well I certainly hope that's the case. Everytime I read a post, I'm thinking that it's the individual's opinion and not an actual fact (though I'm sure some facts get posted, but the analysis is usually opinion based).

Taken in that light, some people are just more boisterous than others, but that's just the way it is.

 

[ausbacker]

I've read more than enough opinion pieces on players, media scouting reports and listened to many many football analysts to know that site is a extremely poor and can be disregarded the moment it is mentioned.

 

[Ring 6]

Really? I want to hear the opinion of every single media outlet and every single commentator. We are all smart enough to decide for ourselves what we choose to believe and what we choose to dismiss. Why do certain posters try and pre-filter all information for the message board, by always telling us what information we should listen to and what information we should not listen to?

How about adding some media links or sources of your own? Contribute. The Mel Kiper sucks, Dan Shaughnessy sucks, Mike Felger sucks, Ron Borges sucks, Troy Brown should keep his mouth shut, Pro Football Weekly sucks, ESPN sucks, Todd Mcshay sucks, Pro Football Focus sucks, etc, etc, posts get sooooooooooo tired.

Everyone gets things wrong. BB drafted Chad Jackson, Terrance Wheatley, and Bethel Johnson all in the second round. Does pointing out all the times BB was wrong somehow discredit the overall body of work? Of course not, it only makes the guys doing the discrediting seem small minded and controlling.

If your approach is that you like to read everything and judge each article, why are you giving the poster a hard time for doing the same thing, and posting his judgment?

 

[RayClay]

Where is it based?

Mars, apparently.

Incredible joke of a site. when you're statistically based, and you need to make up statistics to discredit the guy with the best statistics...

Still, that doesn't explain why NFL MVP Tom Brady is so low (this list represented just the top five percent of NFL players, so the gap isn't that big) and why there are five quarterbacks above him. Those five were guys who between them averaged 12 interceptions more this year than the three time Super Bowl winner, each of whom also threw fewer touchdowns. Plus Brady was the victim of more dropped passes than all of them, bar Peyton Manning. I'll admit when you look simply at the numbers, it's hard to look past Brady. It would be safe to say he had (not for the first time) one of the greatest statistical seasons you'll ever see. But, watching all those other players and recognizing how good they were at their jobs, I genuinely believe 32 others did more at their respective positions than Brady

I guess having such a veteran team, his leadership didn't come into play...oh wait.

 

[RayClay]

Really? I want to hear the opinion of every single media outlet and every single commentator.

Nothing stopping you, you've got a computer.

...and I've actually got a website, so I've decide to rank cricket players. It's kind of like baseball, right?

 

[RayClay]

If you could provide us with a list of "those qualified to talk about something as an expert....and those who are not", it would be greatly appreciated by us fools who are not smart enough to decide for ourselves.

Further, your messageboard will be an even better place when the rest of us learn to cite only the opinions of those outlets that you view as appropriate.

The guy who wrote that article = NOT.

I'll get back to the rest of the list soon.

 

[supafly]

I think when you are the first and only player ever to win a unanimous MVP in the history of the NFL, and you come in '33rd' something is very wrong. We all know the long list of records that Brady broke this past season, most of which were quite impressive. That, and the NFL's best record at 14-2 against many high quality defenses apparently gets you nothing these days

But--to each his own I guess. It's just one more poor example of why that site gets discredited all the time though. It often lacks any type of common sense.

I haven't even scanned through the article, as I hardly care about their idiotic reasoning. I guess we should want a QB who wins less games, throws more picks, and also less TD passes. Then we could all cheer when he moves up on this idiot's rankings.

 

[Defsoul]

I don't think they take pre-snap reads and audibles into consideration and therefor their system of grading quarterbacks is flawed. How can the author blame Brady for making the easy ready & throw and having perfect protection when one time out of three (just guessing here) it was Brady who red the defense and made the right adjustments pre-snap? He should be awarded for that, but the grading scale doesn't account for it. I wonder if it's just not possible or if they don't have enough football knowledge to recognize it.

I mean, why should PFF been taking seriously? Every geek with an affection for numbers could come up with a similar system even if he knew nothing about schemes, coverages, routes, etc, couldn't he? That doesn't make him a football expert...

 

[BlueThunder]

Figures don't lie...but liars figure

 

[Shelterdog]

I don't think they take pre-snap reads and audibles into consideration and therefor their system of grading quarterbacks is flawed. How can the author blame Brady for making the easy ready & throw and having perfect protection when one time out of three (just guessing here) it was Brady who red the defense and made the right adjustments pre-snap? He should be awarded for that, but the grading scale doesn't account for it. I wonder if it's just not possible or if they don't have enough football knowledge to recognize it.

I mean, why should PFF been taking seriously? Every geek with an affection for numbers could come up with a similar system even if he knew nothing about schemes, coverages, routes, etc, couldn't he? That doesn't make him a football expert...

I think this is right. Their system (a) is hard to understand (Tom Brady had a 41.2 rating last year but does that translate to anything meaningful like points his play generated or is it just a self referntial number), (b) has a deliberately obscure methodology, and (c) is, at least in the course of QBs their results are insane--Brady is not the 10th best quarterback and he's not less valuable than Kyle Williams.

That said I do think there ratings are useful to get a rough idea about players; there are very few source out there if you're trying to figure out how good the Lions' interior offensie line is and they're one of them

 

[PatsFanSince74]

It was started by the guy I linked above, Neil Hornsby, who works for some IT company TCQR in the UK.

For those that doubt that that is in fact the Neil Hornsby who now grades NFL games for money - thinking, logically - that someone whose past experience includes IT & the restaurant world ought not be forcing poor shmucks to pay to have him watch NFL football - note that his company owns the domain for profootballfocus. So, that's definitely him. Believe it or not. I didn't believe it myself till I googled.

UK?

Well, that explains it. The author clearly confused Tom Brady with Garry Brady, the former midfielder for Tottenham Hotspur and Newcastle United. By the time Mr. Elsayed realized his mistake it was too late, so he just slapped a picture of Tommy into the lead and hoped nobody would notice.

I understand that Elsayed is now covering Cricket, so he'll have ample opportunity to get himself all confused with MLB. He'll soon be measuring how many Wickets Big Papi took from A-Rod this year.

 

[crowell33]

If your approach is that you like to read everything and judge each article, why are you giving the poster a hard time for doing the same thing, and posting his judgment?

I want as many links to as many sources to as many articles as possible. What is frustrating is after posters take the time to do just that and contribute to the board, they are attacked with the usual " are you a moron? that source sucks, reply ".

Just wish everyone would focus on bringing more and more sources and more and more information to this community. In a perfect world, every poster would have a link to additional information and all personal attacks on the efforts of fellow posters would be reconsidered.

If you read my post history you would find I have brought links dozens and dozens of times from many different sources to this board. I am certain you will find zero posts in my history disparaging the efforts of fellow poster's links or ridiculing the sources of fellow posters.

 

[Ring 6]

I want as many links to as many sources to as many articles as possible. What is frustrating is after posters take the time to do just that and contribute to the board, they are attacked with the usual " are you a moron? that source sucks, reply ".

Just wish everyone would focus on bringing more and more sources and more and more information to this community. In a perfect world, every poster would have a link to additional information and all personal attacks on the efforts of fellow posters would be reconsidered.

If you read my post history you would find I have brought links dozens and dozens of times from many different sources to this board. I am certain you will find zero posts in my history disparaging the efforts of fellow poster's links or ridiculing the sources of fellow posters.

You missed my point.
You are saying that uou want to judge everything you can get your hands on and disparaging him for judging that source, evidently because it is negative.
Are you saying that you find posting an opinion unacceptable? If so, why come to a message board, just read the front page, there are links to anything you could ever want to find.
It seems that you want to announce to the world that your view on what people should post is the only one that is acceptable.

 

[Ring 6]

I think this is right. Their system (a) is hard to understand (Tom Brady had a 41.2 rating last year but does that translate to anything meaningful like points his play generated or is it just a self referntial number), (b) has a deliberately obscure methodology, and (c) is, at least in the course of QBs their results are insane--Brady is not the 10th best quarterback and he's not less valuable than Kyle Williams.

That said I do think there ratings are useful to get a rough idea about players; there are very few source out there if you're trying to figure out how good the Lions' interior offensie line is and they're one of them

The problem is that when yuo look at their ratings, it is clear that the people making them simply do not understand the game. So their rating on the Lions interior OL is actually worse than having none at all, since it is incredibly flawed.

 

[Rob0729]

I want as many links to as many sources to as many articles as possible. What is frustrating is after posters take the time to do just that and contribute to the board, they are attacked with the usual " are you a moron? that source sucks, reply ".

Just wish everyone would focus on bringing more and more sources and more and more information to this community. In a perfect world, every poster would have a link to additional information and all personal attacks on the efforts of fellow posters would be reconsidered.

If you read my post history you would find I have brought links dozens and dozens of times from many different sources to this board. I am certain you will find zero posts in my history disparaging the efforts of fellow poster's links or ridiculing the sources of fellow posters.

I have no problem bringing as many sources possible in for discussion, but they should be valid sources using real data and logic. I mean things like TMZ, the National Enquirer, etc. are sources of information, but do you take them seriously.

I'm sorry I think PFF is a BS site which is trying to be unique and controversial to gain clicks and subscribers. That is all well and good if their information makes sense. I think their unique stats are BS and I wonder if they know anything about football.

I am not trying to get you to subscribe to my opinion. I am just stating my opinion. I hate the site. I think the site is BS. I hate when people reference the site as something argument.

 

[randomk1]

I want as many links to as many sources to as many articles as possible. What is frustrating is after posters take the time to do just that and contribute to the board, they are attacked with the usual " are you a moron? that source sucks, reply ".

Just wish everyone would focus on bringing more and more sources and more and more information to this community. In a perfect world, every poster would have a link to additional information and all personal attacks on the efforts of fellow posters would be reconsidered.

If you read my post history you would find I have brought links dozens and dozens of times from many different sources to this board. I am certain you will find zero posts in my history disparaging the efforts of fellow poster's links or ridiculing the sources of fellow posters.

Even if the source is questionable?

I like some of the points they bring up and some of their articles might even be interesting but most of their conclusions are ludicrous. Kyle Williams is not the defensive player of the year,Justin Smith isn't the 2nd best player player in the league,Matt Ryan was not MVP+their system of judging QBs is completely flawed.

For example...just a quick look at that site i found their 2011 QB projections. They have Tom Brady throwing 32 TD and 8 INT 4200 yards. He is ranked 5th by those numbers for some reason. All of the QBs ahead of him are projected to have 2 TDs more than Brady at best and will have almost twice as many interceptions as Brady. That just doesn't make sense to me. Where does he lose points by their system? Not throwing enough interceptions?

 

[crowell33]

You missed my point.
You are saying that uou want to judge everything you can get your hands on and disparaging him for judging that source, evidently because it is negative.
Are you saying that you find posting an opinion unacceptable? If so, why come to a message board, just read the front page, there are links to anything you could ever want to find.
It seems that you want to announce to the world that your view on what people should post is the only one that is acceptable.

What do you mean by "front page"?

 

[Deus Irae]

I want as many links to as many sources to as many articles as possible. What is frustrating is after posters take the time to do just that and contribute to the board, they are attacked with the usual " are you a moron? that source sucks, reply ".

Just wish everyone would focus on bringing more and more sources and more and more information to this community. In a perfect world, every poster would have a link to additional information and all personal attacks on the efforts of fellow posters would be reconsidered.

If you read my post history you would find I have brought links dozens and dozens of times from many different sources to this board. I am certain you will find zero posts in my history disparaging the efforts of fellow poster's links or ridiculing the sources of fellow posters.

PFF used to have a page admitting to a 20% error rate in their analysis. That's what the site was willing to admit to, which is before anyone even countered there claim (the error rate was certainly much higher than that, just as the stat error rate was higher than the 2% the site was claiming). If a stats/formula site is a frequent purveyor of false information, why would you be passing along info from that site without at least having a major disclaimer?