03-18-2023, 11:53 PM
(03-18-2023, 09:36 PM)Au165 Wrote: Someone who is a very high level football mind with a lot of exposure to various schemes and the branches of those schemes can usually give you about an 80-90% accurate breakdown to what is happening and PROBABLY should have happened. A lot of it is because there can be sight adjustments on a lot of plays and no one outside the building may know what their calls are on when to make them and then who was wrong potentially when it doesn’t work.
The people who PFF has grading these games aren’t those people. They may know a little about football but they aren’t equipped to make anything close to a definitive call as to what was supposed to occur. Again, it’s a pseudo science that fans get a kick out of but should not be the basis of any really discussion around who is good or not. I think where it has made discussion bad is that people refuse to accept that something so big may in fact be quackery and they essentially decide it’s infallible making some discussions here, and other places, pointless.
That's where we're at. The issue isn't just debating faith in PFF's credentials, but it's amazing how the board is treating their numbers in debating just what you describe...if someone is good (or how good) or not. If we were discussing Nick Scott and someone said his Madden rating is 72, that comment would get dismissed or ridiculed. Even if PFF is a better source than Madden, I myself can't interpret PFF's 54.1 any more than I can describe how Madden got to 72.
At the least, I'd like to see NFL.com take a player's draft scouting report and update it annually with an update on what they are in their eyes (giving data) so we see progress or decline. Once a year isn't too much to ask. I think it would be helpful for when we talk about acquiring a new player.
