Is PFF the gold standard?

[phil413]

I think I asked this in passing a few years ago, but I notice that we have moved beyond debating players to now banking on PFF's FA predictions regarding estimated contracts.

1. Are we putting too much stock into them, specifically at positions like OL where there is more than just sacks allowed and pressures.

2. I'm shocked that they don't have serious competition. I feel like a former GM (and draft guru) Mike Mayock could start a site as a figurehead with a bunch of retired scouts that want to make money scouting tape and reporting what they find. I don't know enough about PFF's crew, are they closer to the kids that eyeball the Madden ratings or are they actually credible? If I had a site that showed me PFF ratings with multiple reputable guys telling me why Quinton Spain is a "65" and what that means, or what their average is for a player....I may actually pay for that info. This could make a lot of money for someone.

[Stewy]

(03-05-2022, 03:04 AM)phil413 Wrote: I think I asked this in passing a few years ago, but I notice that we have moved beyond debating players to now banking on PFF's FA predictions regarding estimated contracts.

1. Are we putting too much stock into them, specifically at positions like OL where there is more than just sacks allowed and pressures.  

2. I'm shocked that they don't have serious competition.  I feel like a former GM (and draft guru) Mike Mayock could start a site as a figurehead with a bunch of retired scouts that want to make money scouting tape and reporting what they find.  I don't know enough about PFF's crew, are they closer to the kids that eyeball the Madden ratings or are they actually credible?  If I had a site that showed me PFF ratings with multiple reputable guys telling me why Quinton Spain is a "65" and what that means, or what their average is for a player....I may actually pay for that info.  This could make a lot of money for someone.

I don't check it myself, but have seen others posting it.  

With that said, I see it as a NEUTRAL information provider.  A starting point for fans to understand a players potential value and relative value to another player at the same position.

I wouldn't call it a gold standard as that implies there are multitudes of resources and this is the best.  But there aren't multitudes of resources for this particular topic, so to me it's just an interesting resource.  No more no less.

[puddycat]

Too much? Maybe. But IMO they are a fairly neutral site that tries to quantify performance. That's valuable to me. 2 examples:
1. Did Eli Apple have a better Super Bowl than Jalen Ramsey? PFF grade says yes, but no analyst at PFF thinks for a second that Eli Apple is a better corner than Ramsey.. and they say so. But it's still a valuable check against what I thought I saw.
2. I don't have time to watch a lot of college football. I look at small-school prospect grading the same way I'd look at scholastic grading from a small school. Generally, valedictorians would do well at any school they attend. Sure competition matters, but excellent grading has a way of carrying over. OTOH, scouts tend to drool over a Malik Willis (or Josh Allen) and give excuses for performance. Bengals fans should know that Burrow takes more sacks than he should, and probably always will. Sometimes it's baked into the player. PFF has been out front (IMO) in evaluating drool-worthy players like Faalele where performance is a question.

[*ochocincos*]

(03-05-2022, 03:04 AM)phil413 Wrote: I think I asked this in passing a few years ago, but I notice that we have moved beyond debating players to now banking on PFF's FA predictions regarding estimated contracts.

1. Are we putting too much stock into them, specifically at positions like OL where there is more than just sacks allowed and pressures.  

2. I'm shocked that they don't have serious competition.  I feel like a former GM (and draft guru) Mike Mayock could start a site as a figurehead with a bunch of retired scouts that want to make money scouting tape and reporting what they find.  I don't know enough about PFF's crew, are they closer to the kids that eyeball the Madden ratings or are they actually credible?  If I had a site that showed me PFF ratings with multiple reputable guys telling me why Quinton Spain is a "65" and what that means, or what their average is for a player....I may actually pay for that info.  This could make a lot of money for someone.

PFF does far more than just grade based off sacks and pressures.
If they only graded off sacks and pressures, you'd see way higher pass blocking grades.

But to answer your overall question, no PFF is not the gold standard.
You should always cross-check good/bad ratings to what you see on field and also what you see some other sites/analysts saying.

Here is their page about grading. https://www.pff.com/grades#:~:text=WHO%20IS%20DOING%20THE%20GRADING,finalizing%20each%20grade%20after%20review.

Quote:WHO IS DOING THE GRADING?

PFF employs over 600 full or part-time analysts, but less than 10% of analysts are trained to the level that they can grade plays. Only the top two to three percent of analysts are on the team of “senior analysts” in charge of finalizing each grade after review. Our graders have been training for months, and sometimes years, in order to learn, understand and show mastery of our process that includes our 300-page training manual and video playbook. We have analysts from all walks of life, including former players, coaches and scouts. We don’t care if you played.
Each grade is reviewed at least once, and usually multiple times, using every camera angle available, including All-22 coaches’ tape.

[Goalpost]

There was a lot of NextGen referenced this past weekend.

[*ochocincos*]

(03-07-2022, 11:28 AM)Goalpost Wrote: There was a lot of NetGen referenced this past weekend.

I've seen some people reference Next Gen Stats, but I can't seem to find much on https://nextgenstats.nfl.com/ aside from the skill positions.

[Essex Johnson]

It is the gold standard more for fans than organizations... other components will go into deciding on signing a player than what PFF has rated them

[phil413]

(03-07-2022, 06:44 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: It is the gold standard more for fans than organizations... other components will go into deciding on signing a player than what PFF has rated them

This is true and bumping this because I'm seeing so much PFF being referenced in debating player worth.  It's a good tool to have, but we are treating it as the gold standard regardless of not wanting to admit it.  

[KillerGoose]

(03-20-2022, 04:34 PM)phil413 Wrote: This is true and bumping this because I'm seeing so much PFF being referenced in debating player worth.  It's a good tool to have, but we are treating it as the gold standard regardless of not wanting to admit it.  

Most fans don't want to watch tape to figure out how good a player is, so PFF is the best resource for fans. It doesn't align with what orgs believe but it probably does okay for generalized ideas for fans. I agree, though. Most fans will treat it as gospel and that can become problematic. 

[CoachGeorge]

I think PFF is reasonable, but I much prefer to follow individual experts (Brandon Thorn). Scouting is incredibly subjective and I can’t really get on board with that and accept it as gospel.



“”Among the mourners were Scott Pioli, who was then the New England Patriots' vice president of player personnel, and Patriots head coach Bill Belichick, who tried to hire the draft savant more than once. "He knew the players better than any scout for any team," Belichick said. "Studying film is crucial, and that's why he was so good. He did it 24 hours a day."”

Who is this article referring to? The legendary Joel Bushsbaum from pro football weekly. His draft guide was required reading for FO’s throughout the league. He never played football and never worked for an NFL team, but he was the best.

https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/joel-buchsbaum-legend-who-inspired-nfl-draft-we-know-it-today/

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-05-2022, 03:04 AM)phil413 Wrote: I think I asked this in passing a few years ago, but I notice that we have moved beyond debating players to now banking on PFF's FA predictions regarding estimated contracts.

1. Are we putting too much stock into them, specifically at positions like OL where there is more than just sacks allowed and pressures.  

2. I'm shocked that they don't have serious competition.  I feel like a former GM (and draft guru) Mike Mayock could start a site as a figurehead with a bunch of retired scouts that want to make money scouting tape and reporting what they find.  I don't know enough about PFF's crew, are they closer to the kids that eyeball the Madden ratings or are they actually credible?  If I had a site that showed me PFF ratings with multiple reputable guys telling me why Quinton Spain is a "65" and what that means, or what their average is for a player....I may actually pay for that info.  This could make a lot of money for someone.

I think it is probably easier to predict a contract than grade a player's on field performance.

For Karras they estimated 3yr/$13M with $6.25M guaranteed, $4.33M/yr average.  Sportrac reports his contract as 3yr/$18M with $5M guaranteed, $6M/yr average.

For Cappa they estimated 4yr/$37M with $20M guaranteed, $9.25M/yr average.  Spotrac reports his contract as 4yr/$35M with $11M guaranteed, $8.75M/yr average.

As far as estimates, I would say they were in the ballpark on these two. I would say their predictions are more accurate than mine would be if I attempted to make the same predictions.  

These estimates give fans an idea who their team may be able to afford. I don't think they have much use beyond that.

[phil413]

Guys, look around the board, PFF is the gold standard to a lot of people, and we can't be the only fanbase. Someone is cut or visits and people either reference or ask their PFF number like people used to do with Madden. A lot of us went from ball cards to magazines or Mel Kipet's book, then to Madden...of course while all saying the same thing about our eye test.

But when it comes down to it, a lot of people are citing this company that Taylor Lewan claims players pay to boost their rating.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/atozsports.com/.amp/nashville/taylor-lewan-makes-statement-that-completely-discredits-pro-football-focus

That may not be a big deal to some, but we have made PFF a bigger thing than it may be. So, to me there is an opportunity for another company to come in and do it better. There needs to be a company that also hires retired scouts and makes the ratings open to the public and makes money off the traffic. 2 or 3 people scout the same game and go through each player weekly, you take the averages. You could have a pay option with the scout's exact notes, but in general whatever the scale is we need to know how they got there. Some of us know somewhat what we are looking at but are still flawed/biased/ignorant to details or don't have the time. There is a really good opportunity for someone to fill this obvious need that I'm convinced is becoming the new standard even if it isn't there yet.

[007BengalsFan]

Are you guys aware Cris Collinsworth owns PFF? I think he would not be biased and would want an accurate way of grading players. Although not perfect, I think its a good way to judge players.

[Stewy]

(03-18-2023, 04:39 PM)007BengalsFan Wrote: Are you guys aware Cris Collinsworth owns PFF?  I think he would not be biased and would want an accurate way of grading players.  Although not perfect, I think its a good way to judge players.

I think everyone knows he owns PFF and, and I don't think he'd give a gold plated crap about it's accuracy as long as it makes money.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

Just another tool in the tool belt. Useful to have but you normally need multiple tools for a job

[Au165]

No. They have unqualified people who are barely trained making subjective calls with little context. It’s a pseudo science that is very marketable to fans because they don’t know better but has no value to the people actually in the league (grades that is).

Both PFF and Next Gen however very advanced stats that the general public doesn’t have access to that are not as subjective that teams do use for their own scouting reports. Those are the things that actually have value not the grades. It’s actually funny you hear stories of agents trying to use PFF during negotiations and teams literally laughing at them and showing them where PFF graded them well and showing them what they were supposed to be doing on the play being something completely different.

By the way, among many issues with their grading is that there are certain biases that occur in the grading that can’t be removed. You will often see two players make the same play and if they player is a big name they will get the benefit of the doubt on the play versus a non name guy won’t. The bias is not intentional but there are certain things you can’t turn off and when the scoring is subjective it’s going to occur. That tends to result in people with established names being graded better even when they have bad years.

[SunsetBengal]

(03-18-2023, 06:23 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Just another tool in the tool belt. Useful to have but you normally need multiple tools for a job

Without knowing the play called originally by the offense, if and what it was audibled to; as well as the original defense called and what the Mike called to adjust to the offenses adjustments at the line, how can they credibly attribute credit or blunder to any specific player with any authority?

[Au165]

(03-18-2023, 08:34 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Without knowing the play called originally by the offense, if and what it was audibled to; as well as the original defense called and what the Mike called to adjust to the offenses adjustments at the line, how can they credibly attribute credit or blunder to any specific player with any authority?

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.

[phil413]

(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.