So for those saying we were better off going OL in the first as opposed to Barkley...
I don’t think anyone here wanted an OL at #2, none were even close to that high in value. It was Barkley or a QB for 99% of the people here.
Earlier today or yesterday I read on here that perhaps Nelson was the better pick because of our holes on the OL. So, just because you don't think so doesn't mean some people haven't said as much.
The fact that you guys lend credence to their Bullshit grades is disturbing. Hernandez has been terrible and given up what. Two or three sacks in two games? He's routinely fooled by twists, stunts and delays. Yes, he's a rookie. But 8th highest rated guard? Gtfoh.
The fact that you guys lend credence to their Bullshit grades is disturbing. Hernandez has been terrible and given up what. Two or three sacks in two games? He's routinely fooled by twists, stunts and delays. Yes, he's a rookie. But 8th highest rated guard? Gtfoh.
I prefer the eye test your eyes won’t deceive you like garbage time padding of your stats that people point to by looking at stats put up when the defense is in prevent mode.
I prefer the eye test your eyes won’t deceive you like garbage time padding of your stats that people point to by looking at stats put up when the defense is in prevent mode.
They were in prevent mode for 2 whole drives. You can look at stats AND understand context too. It's not either/or.
8th rated is good enough to think that while maybe he's not as good as they say, he hasn't been as terrible as everyone says. I can't imagine him being called 8th best in the league while he's actually 60th. I can't imagine the discrepancy being THAT big. To put it in stat terms, 8th best seems statistically significant. (Before anyone tells me that's not how stats work, I understand just making an analogy to explain what I mean).
I would say that you need to go back to sleep. Think what you wrote. If it was only NFC East ranking of guards, then 8th best would actually be the worst in the East. Will isn't even the worst on the Giants. Omameh has to start earning some of his salary. While Will has had some mistakes, he also is 2 games in his career. Omameh is the veteran and has 47 game starts.
Early and often "" was my mantra since you nubes were 5 years old. Only BC it generally had not been addressed properly. Not as a bias.
That said, last draft, that was in conjunction with a gigantic trade down (#2 gets a pile, a giant,beautiful pile, your gonna -love- this pile, just love it) and included non OL run blockers (much bigger tight ends, etc).
an nfl guard will end up being somewhere between his greatest advocates and his greatest critics. I'm hoping it will be closer to his advocates, but we'll see.
to line play, PFF really can't even be considered a good barometer.
Just to refresh, here's how they evaluate players:
- Some guy, possibly with no football experience whatsoever watches every play and assigns a grade
- The grade is either a 1,0 or -1
- If the player did what he was supposed to, he gets a 1. If he was neutral or the reviewer can't see enough to make a determination, he gets a 0. If the player supposedly did a poor job he gets a -1
At least the reviewer is using the All-22 footage I believe, but the system is completely dependent on the reviewer knowing what each player's responsibilities were. They can't possibly know on most plays.
So, they are using a faulty system, skewed with faulty analysis, hampered by reviewers who might know jack-shit about the game. It is such a large margin of error, that I'm not sure it is even directionally right.
There's a reason there's no demand for this service from pro teams. They know it is pure crap and they have their own, much better ways of evaluating tape.
to line play, PFF really can't even be considered a good barometer.
Just to refresh, here's how they evaluate players:
- Some guy, possibly with no football experience whatsoever watches every play and assigns a grade
- The grade is either a 1,0 or -1
- If the player did what he was supposed to, he gets a 1. If he was neutral or the reviewer can't see enough to make a determination, he gets a 0. If the player supposedly did a poor job he gets a -1
At least the reviewer is using the All-22 footage I believe, but the system is completely dependent on the reviewer knowing what each player's responsibilities were. They can't possibly know on most plays.
So, they are using a faulty system, skewed with faulty analysis, hampered by reviewers who might know jack-shit about the game. It is such a large margin of error, that I'm not sure it is even directionally right.
There's a reason there's no demand for this service from pro teams. They know it is pure crap and they have their own, much better ways of evaluating tape.
No offense, but if you're going to bash PFF, you should at least get their scoring correct. The grades are from -2 to +2 in 0.5 increments.
And there's an article on one of the other Hernandez threads, but over the full season sample size, they probably know the players assignments correctly 95% of the time and the 5% of the time they aren't sure (e.g. if they can't tell who was supposed to pick up a blitzer), they give them a neutral grade. If only the player's current coaches can possibly know the assignments, then no GM should ever pay big $$$ to a FA.
I do agree that their 'grades' are far more subjective then a numerical value would lead you to believe. But they are no worse than reviews from beat writers or other TV analysts and probably significantly better since they actually provide you with their methodology and watch the full games.
As for PFF having no value to teams, you're likely correct about the grades they provide, but they do do valuable analysis of teams' tendencies and formations.
but over the full season sample size, they probably know the players assignments correctly 95% of the time and the 5% of the time they aren't sure (e.g. if they can't tell who was supposed to pick up a blitzer), they give them a neutral grade. If only the player's current coaches can possibly know the assignments, then no GM should ever pay big $$$ to a FA.
95% of the time they know the assignments? Bullshit. Especially along the line. The comment about GM's paying for line help is advice they get from scouts and coaches who are breaking down tape - not possibly just some schmo who wants to brag that he's a PFF reviewer.
There have been instances where the PFF grade is diametrically opposed to the coaches grades. At this point, it isn't even useful to use for general discussion.
but how does a coach or scout know the assignments? Â
The premise of the 95% number (their estimate, not mine) is that it's painfully obvious most of the time.
And yes, they have times when their grades are head scratchers or significantly different than other reviewers (e.g. Sy on Hernandez vs Dallas). I don't know for sure, but as I mentioned on the other thread, I think part of that is the weight they assign to hugely negative plays. Sy's alluded to this a bit, but if an OL gives up 2 pressures + a sack, its an awful day for them no matter what they did on the other 57 plays. PFF on the other hand might say those 3 plays are only a -4 combined and the OL was above average/good on the other 57 plays and thus rate them 'good' for the game.
There's merit to both approaches (IMO) and you just need to understand the methodology being used to glean value from it.
The premise of the 95% number (their estimate, not mine) is that it's painfully obvious most of the time.
One early miss they had was the perception that their reviewers don't know what they're looking at, so what did they do? Hire some former coaches to serve as "final reviewers" to audit reviews or be the final grader on disputed reviews. Less than 10% of the reviews actually go through that process.
Line play is not painfully obvious what the assignment is, and unless they know the playbook, they won't get it right and may be wildly off.
A coach or scout might not know exactly what the play or assignment is, but it is a hell of a lot more informed than if you or I is looking at it. PFF is you and I.
We know PFF employes NFL coaches and former players Â
There's a tendency to insist on picking at their credibility, but some of these statements aren't accurate. It's not some guy in his bedroom watching game replays assigning grades.
those former players and coaches act as the final authority for disputes. The majority of their reviewers are laymen.
Just to point out something that slips past the review - they just wrote up the Bears as not allowing a single sack or hit through two games, leading to them giving Chicago a 5th best OL ranking.
Yet the Bears did give up at least two sacks Monday. I'll have to go back to see if GB got any.
they are assuming/guessing what the player’s assignment is.
So unless the PFF reviewer is sitting in the film room with either Shurmur, Shula or Hunter, the grading is flawed.
Now, I’m sure every team runs standard, shelf plays that are easily recognized. So if the reviewer has coached and/or played, they should be able to reasonably grade those. I just don’t know what % of a team’s playbook is league-wide standard.
they are assuming/guessing what the player’s assignment is.
So unless the PFF reviewer is sitting in the film room with either Shurmur, Shula or Hunter, the grading is flawed.
Now, I’m sure every team runs standard, shelf plays that are easily recognized. So if the reviewer has coached and/or played, they should be able to reasonably grade those. I just don’t know what % of a team’s playbook is league-wide standard.
But everyone that says he's been shit is also guessing what the assignment is.
I haven't reviewed the plays in question, but are they saying Chicago hasn't given up a sack or that their OL hasn't given up a sack? From a team perspective, it's a distinction without a difference, but from a unit perspective it matters.
It could be like someone blaming the OL for Shane Smith's whiffs.
And I don't even mean this about BBI... it's prevalent even in the mainstream media...
But Eli really does look cooked and the fact that the O-Line is poor is blinding people to that, IMO. I look at 2011 and remember how he performed under continuous pressure throughout that whole season and he was stellar.
He wasn't checking down over and over again like he does these days. I really question how good he'd be in front of a good OL at this point. So yeah I'm not shocked that one of our lineman is doing well and Eli is still sucking.
I prefer the eye test your eyes won’t deceive you like garbage time padding of your stats that people point to by looking at stats put up when the defense is in prevent mode.
can't use 2011 to gauge the plays Eli stood in there and delivered the ball downfield. It was a vertical offense and Gilbride's system. It was light on checkdown options.
Mac and Shurmur's system have been not only heavy on providing checkdowns, but one of Mac's tenets was he wanted more short passes and more checkdowns to avoid sacks. Shumur's philosophy seems to be similar.
That's not an excuse for Eli - but you simply can't say because he isn't doing things he did in a completely different offense, that he can't do them anymore.
I don’t think anyone here wanted an OL at #2, none were even close to that high in value. It was Barkley or a QB for 99% of the people here.
Quote:
So for those saying we were better off going OL in the first as opposed to Barkley...
I don’t think anyone here wanted an OL at #2, none were even close to that high in value. It was Barkley or a QB for 99% of the people here.
Folks wanted Nelson/Chubb in a trade down.
Quote:
So for those saying we were better off going OL in the first as opposed to Barkley...
I don’t think anyone here wanted an OL at #2, none were even close to that high in value. It was Barkley or a QB for 99% of the people here.
Earlier today or yesterday I read on here that perhaps Nelson was the better pick because of our holes on the OL. So, just because you don't think so doesn't mean some people haven't said as much.
Is that an indictment of his future?
Have to agree.
They were in prevent mode for 2 whole drives. You can look at stats AND understand context too. It's not either/or.
Which means he’s basically near pro bowl caliber.
Right...
Which means he’s basically near pro bowl caliber.
Right...
I think it's an NFC East ranking.
Quote:
If it’s ALL guards then he’s 8th out of 64.
Which means he’s basically near pro bowl caliber.
Right...
I think it's an NFC East ranking.
I would say that you need to go back to sleep. Think what you wrote. If it was only NFC East ranking of guards, then 8th best would actually be the worst in the East. Will isn't even the worst on the Giants. Omameh has to start earning some of his salary. While Will has had some mistakes, he also is 2 games in his career. Omameh is the veteran and has 47 game starts.
That said, last draft, that was in conjunction with a gigantic trade down (#2 gets a pile, a giant,beautiful pile, your gonna -love- this pile, just love it) and included non OL run blockers (much bigger tight ends, etc).
I wonder if Wheeler can play some tight end.
I would hope so. I saw the time the comment was posted and just assumed they were too tired to think clearly.
Just to refresh, here's how they evaluate players:
- Some guy, possibly with no football experience whatsoever watches every play and assigns a grade
- The grade is either a 1,0 or -1
- If the player did what he was supposed to, he gets a 1. If he was neutral or the reviewer can't see enough to make a determination, he gets a 0. If the player supposedly did a poor job he gets a -1
At least the reviewer is using the All-22 footage I believe, but the system is completely dependent on the reviewer knowing what each player's responsibilities were. They can't possibly know on most plays.
So, they are using a faulty system, skewed with faulty analysis, hampered by reviewers who might know jack-shit about the game. It is such a large margin of error, that I'm not sure it is even directionally right.
There's a reason there's no demand for this service from pro teams. They know it is pure crap and they have their own, much better ways of evaluating tape.
Just to refresh, here's how they evaluate players:
- Some guy, possibly with no football experience whatsoever watches every play and assigns a grade
- The grade is either a 1,0 or -1
- If the player did what he was supposed to, he gets a 1. If he was neutral or the reviewer can't see enough to make a determination, he gets a 0. If the player supposedly did a poor job he gets a -1
At least the reviewer is using the All-22 footage I believe, but the system is completely dependent on the reviewer knowing what each player's responsibilities were. They can't possibly know on most plays.
So, they are using a faulty system, skewed with faulty analysis, hampered by reviewers who might know jack-shit about the game. It is such a large margin of error, that I'm not sure it is even directionally right.
There's a reason there's no demand for this service from pro teams. They know it is pure crap and they have their own, much better ways of evaluating tape.
No offense, but if you're going to bash PFF, you should at least get their scoring correct. The grades are from -2 to +2 in 0.5 increments.
And there's an article on one of the other Hernandez threads, but over the full season sample size, they probably know the players assignments correctly 95% of the time and the 5% of the time they aren't sure (e.g. if they can't tell who was supposed to pick up a blitzer), they give them a neutral grade. If only the player's current coaches can possibly know the assignments, then no GM should ever pay big $$$ to a FA.
I do agree that their 'grades' are far more subjective then a numerical value would lead you to believe. But they are no worse than reviews from beat writers or other TV analysts and probably significantly better since they actually provide you with their methodology and watch the full games.
As for PFF having no value to teams, you're likely correct about the grades they provide, but they do do valuable analysis of teams' tendencies and formations.
But this is at the root of the problem:
95% of the time they know the assignments? Bullshit. Especially along the line. The comment about GM's paying for line help is advice they get from scouts and coaches who are breaking down tape - not possibly just some schmo who wants to brag that he's a PFF reviewer.
There have been instances where the PFF grade is diametrically opposed to the coaches grades. At this point, it isn't even useful to use for general discussion.
And yes, they have times when their grades are head scratchers or significantly different than other reviewers (e.g. Sy on Hernandez vs Dallas). I don't know for sure, but as I mentioned on the other thread, I think part of that is the weight they assign to hugely negative plays. Sy's alluded to this a bit, but if an OL gives up 2 pressures + a sack, its an awful day for them no matter what they did on the other 57 plays. PFF on the other hand might say those 3 plays are only a -4 combined and the OL was above average/good on the other 57 plays and thus rate them 'good' for the game.
There's merit to both approaches (IMO) and you just need to understand the methodology being used to glean value from it.
One early miss they had was the perception that their reviewers don't know what they're looking at, so what did they do? Hire some former coaches to serve as "final reviewers" to audit reviews or be the final grader on disputed reviews. Less than 10% of the reviews actually go through that process.
Line play is not painfully obvious what the assignment is, and unless they know the playbook, they won't get it right and may be wildly off.
A coach or scout might not know exactly what the play or assignment is, but it is a hell of a lot more informed than if you or I is looking at it. PFF is you and I.
Just to point out something that slips past the review - they just wrote up the Bears as not allowing a single sack or hit through two games, leading to them giving Chicago a 5th best OL ranking.
Yet the Bears did give up at least two sacks Monday. I'll have to go back to see if GB got any.
So unless the PFF reviewer is sitting in the film room with either Shurmur, Shula or Hunter, the grading is flawed.
Now, I’m sure every team runs standard, shelf plays that are easily recognized. So if the reviewer has coached and/or played, they should be able to reasonably grade those. I just don’t know what % of a team’s playbook is league-wide standard.
So unless the PFF reviewer is sitting in the film room with either Shurmur, Shula or Hunter, the grading is flawed.
Now, I’m sure every team runs standard, shelf plays that are easily recognized. So if the reviewer has coached and/or played, they should be able to reasonably grade those. I just don’t know what % of a team’s playbook is league-wide standard.
But everyone that says he's been shit is also guessing what the assignment is.
It could be like someone blaming the OL for Shane Smith's whiffs.
But Eli really does look cooked and the fact that the O-Line is poor is blinding people to that, IMO. I look at 2011 and remember how he performed under continuous pressure throughout that whole season and he was stellar.
He wasn't checking down over and over again like he does these days. I really question how good he'd be in front of a good OL at this point. So yeah I'm not shocked that one of our lineman is doing well and Eli is still sucking.
But what if your eyes are bad?
Mac and Shurmur's system have been not only heavy on providing checkdowns, but one of Mac's tenets was he wanted more short passes and more checkdowns to avoid sacks. Shumur's philosophy seems to be similar.
That's not an excuse for Eli - but you simply can't say because he isn't doing things he did in a completely different offense, that he can't do them anymore.
Good thing I didn't go with, "I think they were ranking all guards from that particular game."