Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise
We Signed Nick Scott! - Printable Version

+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (https://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Cincinnati Bengals / NFL (https://thebengalsboard.com/forum-3.html)
+--- Forum: JUNGLE NOISE (https://thebengalsboard.com/forum-2.html)
+--- Thread: We Signed Nick Scott! (/thread-35200.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

RE: We Signed Nick Scott! - THE PISTONS - 03-17-2023



RE: We Signed Nick Scott! - ochocincos - 03-17-2023

(03-17-2023, 10:09 AM)KillerGoose Wrote: PFF doesn't know more than the average fan and I will assert that every time. Their grades are borderline worthless. Anyone trying to make black and white assessments using PFF grades is going to miss the mark. 

I mean, isn't the only thing they don't know is the assignment?
So if a play results in a poor result, they're assessing it's bad. Even if the player executed the assignment, it's still a poor result at the end of the day.
What I give PFF credit for is they are watching every snap, which is more than I can say for a great majority of fans (myself included).

RE: We Signed Nick Scott! - KillerGoose - 03-17-2023

(03-17-2023, 10:11 AM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Except when Orlando Brown gets signed...people are whipping out the PFF grades. They use them when it supports their case.

When a guy like Carman or insert other fan favorites name struggles...the PFF grades are wrong.

Well of course they do, but that doesn't make them any less worthless. People want to confirm their biases and PFF grades are a way to do that. In reality, they aren't very good and are created by part-time college students making low pay. PFF's real analysis is very good, they have a ton of incredible data. The grades aren't part of that, though. 

RE: We Signed Nick Scott! - ochocincos - 03-17-2023

(03-17-2023, 10:13 AM)THE PISTONS Wrote:

I'm torn on this.

The rest of the AFC North is more better running than passing the ball, so I want to say Scott.
But if we want the safeties to be interchangeable and are more worried about the likes of the Chiefs and Bills for the postseason, you want the better coverage guy and tackler.

RE: We Signed Nick Scott! - KillerGoose - 03-17-2023

(03-17-2023, 10:14 AM)ochocincos Wrote: I mean, isn't the only thing they don't know is the assignment?
So if a play results in a poor result, they're assessing it's bad. Even if the player executed the assignment, it's still a poor result at the end of the day.
What I give PFF credit for is they are watching every snap, which is more than I can say for a great majority of fans (myself included).

Kind of a big deal, isn't it? They are trying to grade an individuals play. How do you do this if you don't know the assignment? In all reality, you can normally figure this stuff out. If you know your variations of coverages, you can figure out roles but there is still a lot of nuance that makes it very difficult. The people doing these grades aren't experts, though. They are part time analysts making low wages. If they watch a play and don't know what happened, they just give it a zero and move on. 

You could arrive at a similar conclusion for players just by posting a thread on Reddit (or here, if it is a Bengals player). 

RE: We Signed Nick Scott! - ochocincos - 03-17-2023

(03-17-2023, 10:17 AM)KillerGoose Wrote: Kind of a big deal, isn't it? They are trying to grade an individuals play. How do you do this if you don't know the assignment? In all reality, you can normally figure this stuff out. If you know your variations of coverages, you can figure out roles but there is still a lot of nuance that makes it very difficult. The people doing these grades aren't experts, though. They are part time analysts making low wages. If they watch a play and don't know what happened, they just give it a zero and move on. 

You could arrive at a similar conclusion for players just by posting a thread on Reddit (or here, if it is a Bengals player). 

I dunno.

If I see my QB get sacked because the OL failed blocking the guy, I don't really care what the assignment was. It still resulted in my QB getting sacked, and thus is a negative play.

I realize you can't ding the caller, but still.

RE: We Signed Nick Scott! - DYT_Bengal - 03-17-2023

He comes off as a less athletic Vonn Bell - makes plays/has intangibles but doesn’t look refined in a very superficial manner. I would still be willing to go safety in the second or third round but I get the feeling that he outperformed his talent with the Rams because of the quality of the secondary.

RE: We Signed Nick Scott! - THE PISTONS - 03-17-2023

(03-17-2023, 10:14 AM)KillerGoose Wrote: Well of course they do, but that doesn't make them any less worthless. People want to confirm their biases and PFF grades are a way to do that. In reality, they aren't very good and are created by part-time college students making low pay. PFF's real analysis is very good, they have a ton of incredible data. The grades aren't part of that, though. 

The converse of that is people don't want assessment, they want to just use their opinions.

Generally, PFF's grades match the eye test for most positions.

I think DT and RB are positions that I feel they don't do a great job on.

But, like offensive lineman...a bad lineman may give up 1 or 2 sacks a game. So there might be 40 pass plays they don't give up a sack on. But, fans generally only see sacks and pressures. There's so much more nuance.

RE: We Signed Nick Scott! - KillerGoose - 03-17-2023

(03-17-2023, 10:23 AM)ochocincos Wrote: I dunno.

If I see my QB get sacked because the OL failed blocking the guy, I don't really care what the assignment was. It still resulted in my QB getting sacked, and thus is a negative play.

I realize you can't ding the caller, but still.

The problem with this view is it isn't how PFF looks at it. They aren't just grading good play/bad play. They are grading good play/bad play for an individual player. You have to care what the assignment was. If the Bengals call a naked bootleg and Jonah lets the EMLOS run free and he sacks Burrow, is that a bad play by Jonah? 

No. That was what he was supposed to do. That's how the play is drawn up. He did his job and the other player made a great play. He shouldn't get dinged for that. 

RE: We Signed Nick Scott! - KillerGoose - 03-17-2023

(03-17-2023, 10:26 AM)THE PISTONS Wrote: The converse of that is people don't want assessment, they want to just use their opinions.

 Fans do care and want assessment, they just don't want to actually do it. Which is fine, football is a hobby for some and something fun/relaxing for most. They will use their opinions as the assessment by using PFF grades to back them up. "See? PFF agrees with me. They aren't very good." A lot of people do want that assessment, which is why PFF grades are so popular. They are marketed as such. Other people just want to scream at the TV and call it a day. 

Quote:Generally, PFF's grades match the eye test for most positions.

The eye test of who? Fans who have no idea what they are talking about? That is my main point. Lol.


Quote:But, like offensive lineman...a bad lineman may give up 1 or 2 sacks a game. So there might be 40 pass plays they don't give up a sack on. But, fans generally only see sacks and pressures. There's so much more nuance.

I agree. There is that nuance at every level. It's a very tough thing to do. Football is complicated.

RE: We Signed Nick Scott! - leonardfan40 - 03-17-2023

(03-17-2023, 10:16 AM)ochocincos Wrote: I'm torn on this.

The rest of the AFC North is more better running than passing the ball, so I want to say Scott.
But if we want the safeties to be interchangeable and are more worried about the likes of the Chiefs and Bills for the postseason, you want the better coverage guy and tackler.

I’d want the coverage guy with the way the league is now. And we just paid Pratt and have Wilson so those guys need to shut the run down for the most part. And it’s not like Rapp/Hill can’t tackle at all. Also if we find ourselves needing a tackling first safety, it’s easier to find or trade for one later on in the season. Cover safety’s are the gold everyone needs to hold onto.

RE: We Signed Nick Scott! - Synric - 03-17-2023

(03-17-2023, 10:09 AM)KillerGoose Wrote: PFF doesn't know more than the average fan and I will assert that every time. Their grades are borderline worthless. Anyone trying to make black and white assessments using PFF grades is going to miss the mark. 



Just looking at the numbers the .1, .3, .9 stuff instantly tells you that the grading scale is not uniform which means 2 graders can watch the same player and have different grades.

RE: We Signed Nick Scott! - KillerGoose - 03-17-2023

(03-17-2023, 10:45 AM)Synric Wrote: Just looking at the numbers the .1, .3, .9 stuff instantly tells you that the grading scale is not uniform which means 2 graders can watch the same player and have different grades.

Yes, absolutely. It often doesn't get reviewed, either. The grades will only get reviewed if the two graders are off by a certain threshold from each other. Otherwise, they let them go through. 

RE: We Signed Nick Scott! - Sled21 - 03-17-2023

(03-17-2023, 09:33 AM)Tomkat Wrote: Well, if nothing else... since he went to Penn State it means he's no dummy.  PSU has one of, if not the highest graduation rate among football players.

That means nothing. What kind of courses are they required to take, how many tutors take their tests and write their papers for them. Not saying it happens, but not saying it doesn't. Any program that would overlook an Assistant Coach raping little boys in the shower would certainly overlook a little course grade deception. Penn State... football above all else, right?

RE: We Signed Nick Scott! - Stewy - 03-17-2023

(03-17-2023, 10:23 AM)ochocincos Wrote: I dunno.

If I see my QB get sacked because the OL failed blocking the guy, I don't really care what the assignment was. It still resulted in my QB getting sacked, and thus is a negative play.

I realize you can't ding the caller, but still.

Assignment and what the defense is doing absolutely matter and that is where PFF fall apart.  As a fan, maybe all you care about is the sack, but flashing PFF grades that know as little about the assignment as the fan does, makes them worthless.

Example:
Defense is known for stunting, which means a switch between who the guard and tackle end up taking.  The tackle recognizes the stunt, and picks up the DT stunting to the outside.  However, the guard misses the stunt, goes with the DT to the tackle leaving the DE who was over the tackle a free inside lane to the QB and a sack.  The DE was over the tackle so he gets dinged with the sack, when it was the guard that F'd up.

This happens all the time.  Knowing the assignment is the most critical portion of analysis and PFF doesn't do it, thus their results are *flush*.

RE: We Signed Nick Scott! - Sled21 - 03-17-2023

(03-17-2023, 10:23 AM)ochocincos Wrote: I dunno.

If I see my QB get sacked because the OL failed blocking the guy, I don't really care what the assignment was. It still resulted in my QB getting sacked, and thus is a negative play.

I realize you can't ding the caller, but still.

I would think you would have to know who was assigned what in order to ding a guy for a sack, unless you are dinging the entire side of the line he is playing on. 

RE: We Signed Nick Scott! - Isaac Curtis: The Real #85 - 03-17-2023

(03-17-2023, 10:41 AM)KillerGoose Wrote:  Fans do care and want assessment, they just don't want to actually do it. Which is fine, football is a hobby for some and something fun/relaxing for most. They will use their opinions as the assessment by using PFF grades to back them up. "See? PFF agrees with me. They aren't very good." A lot of people do want that assessment, which is why PFF grades are so popular. They are marketed as such. Other people just want to scream at the TV and call it a day. 


The eye test of who? Fans who have no idea what they are talking about? That is my main point. Lol.



I agree. There is that nuance at every level. It's a very tough thing to do. Football is complicated.

Regarding the eye test. 

PFFs highest rated Bengals (amongst the starters): Burrow (90.8), Reader (87.3), Hendrickson (85.0), Chase (83.3), Pratt (80.6). 

PFFs five lowest rated starters: Volson (51.6), Apple (52.9), Taylor-Britt (56.1), Collins (57.9), J. Williams (61.2).  

That tracks exactly with me. If they are garbage, it sure is an amazing coincidence they picked out our best & worst players, and weakest areas (OL & CB) so accurately. 

RE: We Signed Nick Scott! - Tomkat - 03-17-2023

(03-17-2023, 10:52 AM)Sled21 Wrote: ...Any program that would overlook an Assistant Coach raping little boys in the shower would certainly overlook a little course grade deception...

Jeezus, are you still harping on that?  It wasn't "overlooked," it was unknown, and once it was brought to light, it was dealt with. There is literally NOBODY LEFT on any administration from those days.  That slate was wiped clean.  I mean, holy shit, it was OVER A DECADE AGO.

Also, you can't FAKE curriculum grades and standards, the other schools you're competing against would eat you alive for it.
The FACT remains that PSU student-athletes are among the smartest in the country.  You can dismiss it all you like, it doesn't change anything.

(For the record, NO, I didn't attend Penn State.)

RE: We Signed Nick Scott! - Stewy - 03-17-2023

(03-17-2023, 11:14 AM)Isaac Curtis: The Real #85 Wrote: Regarding the eye test. 

PFFs highest rated Bengals (amongst the starters): Burrow (90.8), Reader (87.3), Hendrickson (85.0), Chase (83.3), Pratt (80.6). 

PFFs five lowest rated starters: Volson (51.6), Apple (52.9), Taylor-Britt (56.1), Collins (57.9), J. Williams (61.2).  

That tracks exactly with me. If they are garbage, it sure is an amazing coincidence they picked out our best & worst players, and weakest areas (OL & CB) so accurately. 

Of course if a fan agrees with it, then it has to be right...........

RE: We Signed Nick Scott! - ochocincos - 03-17-2023

(03-17-2023, 10:56 AM)Sled21 Wrote: I would think you would have to know who was assigned what in order to ding a guy for a sack, unless you are dinging the entire side of the line he is playing on. 

Somewhat yea, but I would think it'd be most often the person who gets engaged with the defender, right?
For example, Adeniji was tagged by PFF with 4 sacks and 15 total pressures in this past postseason.
While it's possible that might not be 100% correct, it's probably mostly accurate based on what we saw with our own eyes watching the games, wouldn't you say?