06-02-2021, 12:08 PM
(06-02-2021, 11:00 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: I get it, but it is still the only thing remotely close to a measuring stick out there. The list had its question marks for sure. How does Ward finish 9th when they say he is 98th percentile in man coverage? That dude is downright lethal. Having Richard Sherman even on the list is laughable, let alone at #11.
That is the one big thing about PFF that I criticize. They don't take in to account the quality of the competition. You think a CB doesn't have an easier job in last year's NFC LEAST going against Wentz/Hurts, Haskins/Smith, Dalton, or Daniel Jones in comparison to playing in the AFC North and facing Piggy, Jackson, Baker, and Burrow?
Right, my complaint is more their lists should be based on statistics rather than a random dude's opinion if that is the business (stats) they are in. If they want to project 2021 production then use a metric that takes into account their team, or new teams', projected efficiency against their schedule and other metrics off their scores last year and take subjectivity out of it. Where this stuff bothers me is people point to this list as a "PFF" list but in reality, they aren't using PFF data to justify it in a coherent way but rather use a guy's opinion and throw a couple of random stats in there to attempt to justify it.
