Finally getting some legitimate analysis of Kirkpatrick's play in '15

[fredtoast]

(08-08-2016, 01:42 PM)Wyche Wrote: So.......since PFF now sucks, does this mean that our O line and Piano Man are vastly overrated?  I'm confused.....

I understand how easy it is for you to get confused so et me explain this as simply as possible.

PFF's ranking system is flawed, but that does not mean it is wrong for every player or group of players.  When I claim it is wrong regarding Dre i post specific stats to prove that they are wrong.  But some of the players and groups of players at the top of the PFF lists actually are among the best and some at the bottom actually are among the worst..  So the only way you can claim that PFF is wrong about our O-line is if you post some other stats to prove they are wrong.  And you don't have anything like that. In fact FootballOutsiders has the Bengals O-line ranked number one in their metric of adjusted line yards.  So that is just more proof of how wrong you are about Paul Alexander.

Understand now?

[jeremydc]

(08-08-2016, 06:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I understand how easy it is for you to get confused so et me explain this as simply as possible.

PFF's ranking system is flawed, but that does not mean it is wrong for every player or group of players.  When I claim it is wrong regarding Dre i post specific stats to prove that they are wrong.  But some of the players and groups of players at the top of the PFF lists actually are among the best and some at the bottom actually are among the worst..  So the only way you can claim that PFF is wrong about our O-line is if you post some other stats to prove they are wrong.  And you don't have anything like that. In fact FootballOutsiders has the Bengals O-line ranked number one in their metric of adjusted line yards.  So that is just more proof of how wrong you are about Paul Alexander.

Understand now?

[fredtoast]

(08-08-2016, 07:48 PM)jeremydc Wrote:

Sorry you do not understand.  I can't make it any more simple than that.

Or maybe you do understand and are just admitting that you have no real logical response to what I said.

I don't really know.  It is kind of hard to have any kind of debate with people who do nothing but claim they are confused and post emojis.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(08-08-2016, 08:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Sorry you do not understand.  I can't make it any more simple than that.

Or maybe you do understand and are just admitting that you have no real logical response to what I said.

I don't really know.  It is kind of hard to have any kind of debate with people who do nothing but claim they are confused and post emojis.

jeremy never claimed he was confused......so, PFF is only flawed when it doesn't back your stance, got it......

.....as for PA, I noticed our line got a lot better with a mobile QB that has the second fastest release in the NFL, AND we got him some assistant position group coaches.  Just casual observation, they got the statuesque Palmer killed.

[*bfine32*]

(08-08-2016, 06:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I understand how easy it is for you to get confused so et me explain this as simply as possible.

PFF's ranking system is flawed, but that does not mean it is wrong for every player or group of players.  When I claim it is wrong regarding Dre i post specific stats to prove that they are wrong.  But some of the players and groups of players at the top of the PFF lists actually are among the best and some at the bottom actually are among the worst..  So the only way you can claim that PFF is wrong about our O-line is if you post some other stats to prove they are wrong.  And you don't have anything like that. In fact FootballOutsiders has the Bengals O-line ranked number one in their metric of adjusted line yards.  So that is just more proof of how wrong you are about Paul Alexander.

Understand now?

..and I posted specific facts to show PFF was right:

Last in the NFL in INTs
Most Penalties by a CB in the NFL
Poor in run support
ect...

But you dismiss these "facts" and cling to a ranking system that awards extra points because a CB cannot cover a slot receiver.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(08-09-2016, 10:19 AM)bfine32 Wrote: ..and I posted specific facts to show PFF was right:

Last in the NFL in INTs
Most Penalties by a CB in the NFL
Poor in run support
ect...

But you dismiss these "facts" and cling to a ranking system that awards extra points because a CB cannot cover a slot receiver.

Yeah, that too.....

[fredtoast]

(08-09-2016, 10:19 AM)bfine32 Wrote: ..and I posted specific facts to show PFF was right:

Last in the NFL in INTs
Most Penalties by a CB in the NFL
Poor in run support
ect...

But you dismiss these "facts" and cling to a ranking system that awards extra points because a CB cannot cover a slot receiver.

And I have posted proof that those stats are not really indicative of who is the best CB.  It is like criticizing a QB for being last in rushing tds.  Manning and Brady have won multiple MVPs in seasons where they hsd zero rushing tds.  Some stats are not accurate measure of who is the best.

When 5 of the top 8 CBs in penalties are either Pro Bowl or All Pro it shows that is a pretty meaningless way to judge a CB.

When the consensus best CB in the league is 22nd in interceptions it also shows that is not the best way to judge a CB.

I agree that Dre is weak in run support.  But I generally rate CBs bu coverage ability.  Run support is important, but most coaches would take good coverage skills over good run support any day of the week.

[fredtoast]

(08-09-2016, 10:15 AM)Wyche Wrote: jeremy never claimed he was confused......so, PFF is only flawed when it doesn't back your stance, got it......

You are obviously STILL confused.

PFF's formula is always flawed, but just reversing their order does not make them correct either.  I am not saying that the top player in their ratings is the worst CB in the league.  The fact that a player or coach is ranked highly by PFF does not mean they are bad.  Instead their rankings are all over the place.  So we have to look at other more accurate metrics.

Get it now?

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(08-09-2016, 10:46 AM)fredtoast Wrote: You are obviously STILL confused.

PFF's formula is always flawed, but just reversing their order does not make them correct either.  I am not saying that the top player in their ratings is the worst CB in the league.  The fact that a player or coach is ranked highly by PFF does not mean they are bad.  Instead their rankings are all over the place.  So we have to look at other more accurate metrics.

Get it now?

Yeah, I "get it".  As has been said countless times down through the ages.....statistics can be manipulated to support just about anything you want them to.  The old eye test comes into play, as do other stats....Dre is average, or maybe a little above.  Our o line is good, full of high round draft picks, but our C is weak, Alexander can't coach him up, and Dalton helps them out a bit too.  They're just slightly overrated.....

[*bfine32*]

(08-09-2016, 10:41 AM)fredtoast Wrote: And I have posted proof that those stats are not really indicative of who is the best CB.  It is like criticizing a QB for being last in rushing tds.  Some stats are not accurate measure of who is the best.

When 5 of the top 8 CBs in penalties are either Pro Bowl or All Pro it shows that is a pretty meaningless way to judge a CB.

When the consensus best CB in the league is 22nd in interceptions it also shows that is not the best way to judge a CB.

I agree that Dre is weak in run support.  But I generally rate CBs bu coverage ability.  Run support is important, but most coaches would take good coverage skills over good run support any day of the week.

You've show no such thing, You've tried to show a faulty correlation that goes something like this:

Dre is the worst in the NFL in INTs, some of the best CBs in the NFL have low INT #s (let's not take into account have often they are targeted compared to Dre); therefore, Dre is one of the best CBs in the NFL.

Here's a quick excerpt from PFF (faulty) grading system:

Quote:PRO COACH NETWORK

Pro Football Focus has partnered with the Pro Coach Network to ensure that we are delivering the most accurate and reliable statistics to our users. Pro Coach Network consists of 28 former and current pro and college coaches with more than 750 years of combined coaching experience.

Here's who PFF have evaluating DBs alone:

Bill Bradley:
8 years in the NFL 3xPro Bowl 2x 1st team All Pro as DB
Eagles franchise record INTs season/career (This means he's not very good)
DB coach and/or Defensive Coordinator at every level of football
Since entering College at Texas as a HS All-American and State champ he has over 41 years of experience

Peter Giunta:
Coach with 26 years experience at every level including DC of a Super Bowl Champ

Johnny Lynn:
7 years as DB in the NFL
27 years experience as a DB coach at DC at the NFL level.

I have this on one hand says Dre is among the worst starting CBs in the NFL on the other hand I have Fre Toast saying he is among the better starting CBs in the NFL.

Which should I put more stock in?

[*bfine32*]

(08-09-2016, 10:46 AM)fredtoast Wrote: You are obviously STILL confused.

PFF's formula is always flawed, but just reversing their order does not make them correct either.  I am not saying that the top player in their ratings is the worst CB in the league.  The fact that a player or coach is ranked highly by PFF does not mean they are bad.  Instead their rankings are all over the place.  So we have to look at other more accurate metrics.

Get it now?

Such as awarding points for not covering slot receivers?

[fredtoast]

(08-09-2016, 11:16 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Such as awarding points for not covering slot receivers?

They do not "award points".

What they do is adjust their stats when comparing CBs covering slot receivers compared to outside receivers.  If they did not then the CBs who cover slot receivers would look much better because they do not allow as many yards per reception.  Slot receivers do not run near as many deep routes as outside receivers. 

Any more questions?

[fredtoast]

(08-09-2016, 11:15 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Here's who PFF have evaluating DBs alone:

Bill Bradley:
8 years in the NFL 3xPro Bowl 2x 1st team All Pro as DB
Eagles franchise record INTs season/career (This means he's not very good)
DB coach and/or Defensive Coordinator at every level of football
Since entering College at Texas as a HS All-American and State champ he has over 41 years of experience

Peter Giunta:
Coach with 26 years experience at every level including DC of a Super Bowl Champ

Johnny Lynn:
7 years as DB in the NFL
27 years experience as a DB coach at DC at the NFL level.

I have this on one hand says Dre is among the worst starting CBs in the NFL on the other hand I have Fre Toast saying he is among the better starting CBs in the NFL.

Which should I put more stock in?

**sigh**

The problem is not with the guys making the judgements on the plays.  The problem is with the formula PFF plugs their numbers into.

How many of those guys would say that if CB "A" plays fewer snaps and messes up more often than CB "B" then CB "A" is the better player?

[*bfine32*]

(08-09-2016, 11:27 AM)fredtoast Wrote: How many of those guys would say that if CB "A" plays fewer snaps and messes up more often than CB "B" then CB "A" is the better player?

I would say zero, but unlike you; that's most likely not the only dynamic they consider.

How many would pentalize a CB for covering a slot receiver?

[*bfine32*]

(08-09-2016, 11:23 AM)fredtoast Wrote: They do not "award points".

What they do is adjust their stats when comparing CBs covering slot receivers compared to outside receivers.  If they did not then the CBs who cover slot receivers would look much better because they do not allow as many yards per reception.  Slot receivers do not run near as many deep routes as outside receivers. 

Any more questions?

Of course they award points. The one stat that you can cling to that shows Dre as anything above mediocre is influenced by the fact that he does not cover the slot.

[fredtoast]

(08-09-2016, 11:44 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course they award points. The one stat that you can cling to that shows Dre as anything above mediocre is influenced by the fact that he does not cover the slot.

You don't understand.  CBs that cover slot receivers are usually ranked HIGHER than outside CBs.  If Dre covered slot receivers he would probably be ranked HIGHER not lower because slot receivers generally run shorter routes which result in lower yards per target.

[fredtoast]

(08-09-2016, 11:42 AM)bfine32 Wrote: How many would pentalize a CB for covering a slot receiver?

They would understand that slot receivers generally run shorter routes that result in lower yards per target for the CB that covers them.

[fredtoast]

(08-09-2016, 11:42 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I would say zero, but unlike you; that's most likely not the only dynamic they consider.

Maybe not.  But it is impossible to tell from just looking at the rankings.  That is why PFF rankings are flawed.

BTW PFF ranked Dre Kirkpatric number 110 among CBs.  Are you standing by your claim that he is really that bad?  Care to give me the 109 CBs in the league that are better than him?

PFF used to post reliable numbers like the passer rating allowed and yards per cover allowed, but they don't do that anymore.  If they still posted those type of stats then I would not claim they were garbage.  But hen they just post there ranking based on cumulative play grades they are nothing but junk.  

[*bfine32*]

(08-09-2016, 12:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You don't understand.  CBs that cover slot receivers are usually ranked HIGHER than outside CBs.  If Dre covered slot receivers he would probably be ranked HIGHER not lower because slot receivers generally run shorter routes which result in lower yards per target.

So you agree that the only stat Dre finished above average in your "non-faulty" formula. Dre is compensaterd because he doesn't cover slot receivers?

Your formula is biased no matter how much clarification you ask of the folks at F.O. and does 0 to prove how "good" anyone is.

But like I said a few pages back. Go with whatever source you like and if you consider PFF rankings faulty; that's on you.

[fredtoast]

(08-09-2016, 12:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So you agree that the only stat Dre finished above average in your "non-faulty" formula. Dre is compensaterd because he doesn't cover slot receivers?

WTF?

Dre finished well above average in "passes defended", "success rate", "yards per target", and "completion percentage allowed".

And in order to make the rankings more accurate there are adjustments for CBs that play the slot in "yards per target".  What is wrong with that?  Dre still ranks ahead of the majority of other CBs who play on the outside and are ranked under the same formula.