+- 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)
RE: We Signed Nick Scott! - KillerGoose - 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.
You're not including postseason in your grades. Mixon graded higher than Pratt, including postseason. Do you agree with that? Mixon graded higher than Tee Higgins. Pratt graded better than Wilson, do you also agree with that? Do you think Pratt was a better starter than Tee? Mixon would have been one of our top five highest graded players for the entire season. Also, are we counting CTB as a starter now? He was a back-up thrust into a starting role due to injury. We probably need to change our criteria there. I'm going to be surprised if you continue to assert that the rankings track "exactly". I also think that you failed to understand my overall point. PFF grades are worthless because they don't really provide any extra value to what the average fan can tell you - a fan who doesn't know the first thing about what he is talking about.
You also have the issue of looking at the dataset as a whole. Let's look at QB grades. Here are the top 10 QBs by PFF grades...
1. Burrow
2. Mahomes
3. Allen
4. Hurts
5. Lamar Jackson
6. Jacoby Brissett
7. Andy Dalton
8. Tua
9. Geno Smith
10. Kirk Cousins
Is that also an amazing coincidence for you? Here, I'll even give you this - maybe I should slightly alter my stance on PFF. It isn't their fault that people use their grades the way that they do. PFF grades can provide useful insight into "maybe this player isn't quite who I thought they were". However, that isn't how they are used. People use them as a way of saying "XYZ is objectively good/not good because they have a bad grade, it must be true." I'm trying to be reasonable here.
RE: We Signed Nick Scott! - THE PISTONS - 03-17-2023
(03-17-2023, 11:45 AM)KillerGoose Wrote: You're not including postseason in your grades. Mixon graded higher than Pratt, including postseason. Do you agree with that? Mixon graded higher than Tee Higgins. Pratt graded better than Wilson, do you also agree with that? Do you think Pratt was a better starter than Tee? Mixon would have been one of our top five highest graded players for the entire season. Also, are we counting CTB as a starter now? He was a back-up thrust into a starting role due to injury. We probably need to change our criteria there. I'm going to be surprised if you continue to assert that the rankings track "exactly". I also think that you failed to understand my overall point. PFF grades are worthless because they don't really provide any extra value to what the average fan can tell you - a fan who doesn't know the first thing about what he is talking about.
You also have the issue of looking at the dataset as a whole. Let's look at QB grades. Here are the top 10 QBs by PFF grades...
1. Burrow
2. Mahomes
3. Allen
4. Hurts
5. Lamar Jackson
6. Jacoby Brissett
7. Andy Dalton
8. Tua
9. Geno Smith
10. Kirk Cousins
Is that also an amazing coincidence for you? Here, I'll even give you this - maybe I should slightly alter my stance on PFF. It isn't their fault that people use their grades the way that they do. PFF grades can provide useful insight into "maybe this player isn't quite who I thought they were". However, that isn't how they are used. People use them as a way of saying "XYZ is objectively good/not good because they have a bad grade, it must be true." I'm trying to be reasonable here.
You have to compare players at the same position. Not compare a RB to a WR.
I do think that the RB and DT grades are skewed higher than they should be.
Seems a lot of DT's have scores in the 70's.
RE: We Signed Nick Scott! - KillerGoose - 03-17-2023
(03-17-2023, 11:58 AM)THE PISTONS Wrote: You have to compare players at the same position. Not compare a RB to a WR.
I do think that the RB and DT grades are skewed higher than they should be.
Seems a lot of DT's have scores in the 70's.
I am using the same comparison guidelines that Isaac used to make it apples-to-apples. Yes, in any assessment, you compare position groups. However, Isaac didn't do that. He listed the top starters and lowest starters and said that it tracks exactly. So, I am asking if he agrees with other rankings using the same criterion. Also, I do compare players who play the same position. There's a top 10 list of QBs courtesy of PFF in the middle of my post.
RE: We Signed Nick Scott! - THE PISTONS - 03-17-2023
(03-17-2023, 12:02 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: I am using the same comparison guidelines that Isaac used to make it apples-to-apples. Yes, in any assessment, you compare position groups. However, Isaac didn't do that. He listed the top starters and lowest starters and said that it tracks exactly. So, I am asking if he agrees with other rankings using the same criterion. Also, I do compare players who play the same position. There's a top 10 list of QBs courtesy of PFF in the middle of my post.
It would be interesting to compare the position rankings.
---
I do like that Scott has speed and is good against the run. That was kind of Bells game, and Scott may be faster. Bell wasn't great against the pass.
I think having speed on defense is big.
RE: We Signed Nick Scott! - Isaac Curtis: The Real #85 - 03-17-2023
(03-17-2023, 11:45 AM)KillerGoose Wrote: You're not including postseason in your grades. Mixon graded higher than Pratt, including postseason. Do you agree with that? Mixon graded higher than Tee Higgins. Pratt graded better than Wilson, do you also agree with that? Do you think Pratt was a better starter than Tee? Mixon would have been one of our top five highest graded players for the entire season. Also, are we counting CTB as a starter now? He was a back-up thrust into a starting role due to injury. We probably need to change our criteria there. I'm going to be surprised if you continue to assert that the rankings track "exactly". I also think that you failed to understand my overall point. PFF grades are worthless because they don't really provide any extra value to what the average fan can tell you - a fan who doesn't know the first thing about what he is talking about.
You also have the issue of looking at the dataset as a whole. Let's look at QB grades. Here are the top 10 QBs by PFF grades...
1. Burrow
2. Mahomes
3. Allen
4. Hurts
5. Lamar Jackson
6. Jacoby Brissett
7. Andy Dalton
8. Tua
9. Geno Smith
10. Kirk Cousins
Is that also an amazing coincidence for you? Here, I'll even give you this - maybe I should slightly alter my stance on PFF. It isn't their fault that people use their grades the way that they do. PFF grades can provide useful insight into "maybe this player isn't quite who I thought they were". However, that isn't how they are used. People use them as a way of saying "XYZ is objectively good/not good because they have a bad grade, it must be true." I'm trying to be reasonable here.
1) You cannot include post-season, the sample size is too small. That is just silly.
2) Comparing guys on the same team is always gonna be more useful than comparing guys from different teams. Some divisions have crap QBs (NFC South). If you play them 6 times a year, your DBs should grade higher. OTs playing vs Watt, Garrett, Hendrickson, & Baltimore in our division have tougher sledding.
3) PFF is not biblical or anything. It is not without criticism or context. But there is a lot if ground between saying it is useless and mindlessly following it. It provides a nice starting point forcdiscussion and dies a pretty good job identifying players at both ends of the spectrum. The middle is cloudier.
RE: We Signed Nick Scott! - KillerGoose - 03-17-2023
(03-17-2023, 12:22 PM)Isaac Curtis: The Real #85 Wrote: 1) You cannot include post-season, the sample size is too small. That is just silly.
2) Comparing guys on the same team is always gonna be more useful than comparing guys from different teams. Some divisions have crap QBs (NFC South). If you play them 6 times a year, your DBs should grade higher. OTs playing vs Watt, Garrett, Hendrickson, & Baltimore in our division have tougher sledding.
3) PFF is not biblical or anything. It is not without criticism or context. But there is a lot if ground between saying it is useless and mindlessly following it. It provides a nice starting point forcdiscussion and dies a pretty good job identifying players at both ends of the spectrum. The middle is cloudier.
Lol what? It's more data that is relevant to the topic at hand - the 2022 season. I'm not sure what your thought process is here but all we are doing is adding the post-season games into our dataset of regular season games. They were played, why wouldn't you count them? We aren't looking solely at post-season games. Altogether, it is a dataset of 20-ish games. Saying this, of course, gets you out of having to backtrack on your "tracks perfectly" statement.
The final thing I will say is that to point three. People don't use them that way. Many fans will largely use them as biblical. "Eli Apple posted a 52 grade, I told you he was terrible." Well, he didn't play as bad as everyone is thinking. The deep TD he gave up was because of a crosser that took the attention of the middle field safety which allowed the WR to find space down the seam which he wasn't responsible for. Eli didn't so much get "burned" as the offense drew up a great play/the safety was washed out of the play.
That's just an example of a conversation that PFF grades are involved in. We can agree to disagree. I don't care to derail this thread with a PFF argument more than we already have. If you like them, feel free to look at them. I think they are worthless.
RE: We Signed Nick Scott! - Destro - 03-17-2023
Just getting in on the end here. So, this Nick Scott works a PFF or something?
RE: We Signed Nick Scott! - DYT_Bengal - 03-17-2023
I always found it interesting to see that players scored similar to their teammates based on position (i.e. secondary as a whole might might have three guys in the top five) - this bias should be taken account when looking at PFF scores. Also, schedule plays a huge part. In stats this is called de-trending and as always - stats are meant to describe, not prescribe.
RE: We Signed Nick Scott! - Isaac Curtis: The Real #85 - 03-17-2023
(03-17-2023, 12:36 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: Lol what? It's more data that is relevant to the topic at hand - the 2022 season. I'm not sure what your thought process is here but all we are doing is adding the post-season games into our dataset of regular season games. They were played, why wouldn't you count them? We aren't looking solely at post-season games. Altogether, it is a dataset of 20-ish games. Saying this, of course, gets you out of having to backtrack on your "tracks perfectly" statement.
The final thing I will say is that to point three. People don't use them that way. Many fans will largely use them as biblical. "Eli Apple posted a 52 grade, I told you he was terrible." Well, he didn't play as bad as everyone is thinking. The deep TD he gave up was because of a crosser that took the attention of the middle field safety which allowed the WR to find space down the seam which he wasn't responsible for. Eli didn't so much get "burned" as the offense drew up a great play/the safety was washed out of the play.
That's just an example of a conversation that PFF grades are involved in. We can agree to disagree. I don't care to derail this thread with a PFF argument more than we already have. If you like them, feel free to look at them. I think they are worthless.
God, we don't just get along.
1) Who you got as our top 5 and bottom 5? Like I said, PFF does a pretty good job of IDing the best players, and worst players, within a team structure. The middle is murkier. Comparing across teams (or positions) is murkier. If you disagre, who you gotcas top 5/bottom amongst our starters? Put up or kindly stop yer yapping.
2) Regarding not using post-season. If you want to add it on to the regular season data, that's fine. Sort of. What you cannot do, and what I thought was pretty obvious to (almost) everyone, was substitute the PO grade for the regular season grade & use it to argue the better player. That's silly. 1 game vs 17. Or two.
In terms of the sort of. PO games are games vs higher levels of competition. A player with PO games vs a player without is not quite the same thing. You don't get games vs Carolina to boost things in the POs.
RE: We Signed Nick Scott! - wanga - 03-17-2023
So I’m assuming he hasn’t actually been signed and someones jumped the gun on this. Again. I haven’t seen it anywhere.
RE: We Signed Nick Scott! - Au165 - 03-17-2023
Deal is inked. 3 year $12 million deal.
RE: We Signed Nick Scott! - Nepa - 03-17-2023
(03-17-2023, 09:02 PM)Au165 Wrote: Deal is inked. 3 year $12 million deal.
Wonderful! I'm excited. Can you tell us the source? I assume more reliable than the one a few days ago who jumped the gun.
RE: We Signed Nick Scott! - Au165 - 03-17-2023
(03-17-2023, 09:09 PM)Nepa Wrote: Wonderful! I'm excited. Can you tell us the source? I assume more reliable than the one a few days ago who jumped the gun.
Schefter
RE: We Signed Nick Scott! - Synric - 03-17-2023
(03-17-2023, 09:09 PM)Nepa Wrote: Wonderful! I'm excited. Can you tell us the source? I assume more reliable than the one a few days ago who jumped the gun.
Former Rams safety Nick Scott reached agreement on a three-year, $12 million deal with the Bengals, per source. Scott helped beat them in the Super Bowl and now will try to help the Bengals win their own.
— Adam Schefter (@AdamSchefter) March 18, 2023
RE: We Signed Nick Scott! - Nepa - 03-17-2023
(03-17-2023, 09:10 PM)Au165 Wrote: Schefter
Great. Him I trust as a source.
RE: We Signed Nick Scott! - pulses - 03-17-2023
(03-17-2023, 09:09 PM)Nepa Wrote: Wonderful! I'm excited. Can you tell us the source? I assume more reliable than the one a few days ago who jumped the gun.
I just reported on the link I saw
RE: We Signed Nick Scott! - QueenCity - 03-17-2023
Scott - tweeted "Who Dey"
It's a done deal 3 years 12 million
RE: We Signed Nick Scott! - Nepa - 03-17-2023
(03-17-2023, 09:11 PM)Synric Wrote:Former Rams safety Nick Scott reached agreement on a three-year, $12 million deal with the Bengals, per source. Scott helped beat them in the Super Bowl and now will try to help the Bengals win their own.
— Adam Schefter (@AdamSchefter) March 18, 2023
Personally I like Scott. And he must pass Lou's scrutiny.
And at one-quarter of the cost of Jessie Bates, Bengals could actually sign more players, including another safety if they want.
RE: We Signed Nick Scott! - QueenCity - 03-17-2023
Took a visit to the Rams forum... sounds like they will miss Scott more so than Rapp.
Sounds like a solid signing I hope he pans out like Bell did.
RE: We Signed Nick Scott! - Nepa - 03-17-2023
Maybe someone needs to start a Welcome Nick Scott thread, since this one has five pages of comments based on a false, early report.