..or the have ability to look at a tape over and over to accurately grade individual players - especially at non-skill position.
So they "outsource" that effort and parrot PFF grades which - when you consider across the entire span of football media - may not be an entirely bad thing as their qualitative analysis may actually be better than the league average writer.
A wr at NE with Brady or NO with Brees vs a wr let say in Denver.....is not equal.
A QB or RB behind a bad OL is not the same as ones behind a good one.
Unfortunately some folks miss this aspect of their system, the fact that their grades on individuals do not reflect the play of others around them in a team sport - except incidentally. PFF themselves on their "101 best players list for 2018 DO NOT simply rank them according to their PFF grade...
Saquon Barkley ranked in the top 20 or thereabouts on their 101 best players list with a grade of about 84, whereas Odell Beckham Jr ranked considerably lower, but with a higher grade of ~90.
The explained Saquon's high rating (not grade) by citing yards gained after contact, # of missed tackles he forced on opponents, etc.
Given the wonderful write up on Saquon, it's hard to figure out why his grade wasn't higher... But I gather they have a rigorous systematic approach to grading that is not recalibrated to "wow" stuff or something like that.
because the author doesn't have to stick his/her neck out and make a judgement... instead they lazily rely on PFF, which in some strange fashion has become gospel even though you can routinely poke holes in their entire grading system.
It's lazy and safe "journalism."
Contrast that to what Sy does. Do you think he would EVER use PFF?
Is that It has helped innovate others statistics sources. It’s also very hard to look at objective stats based on positions like offensive line play. While it’s totally imperfect and impossible to grade accurately when you don’t know what anyone on any given place being asked to do, it’s certainly and informative source of information I think
and the first thing the CEO of the company I worked for told us when we were doing market studies was ALWAYS visit the site and ALWAYS do your own research. We were forbidden from using second hand sources as those data providers were often wrong, incomplete or out of date.
PFF is an awful source, their methodology isn't the most sound and it leads to lazy journalism
...is that they have soooo many metrics and often they are contradictory.
Basically they have a bunch of analysts that come up with some metric, crunch numbers, make a list and then write an article about what they've found. And the results can be completely different from some other PFF analyst's results.
And they a sports writer will find the results that support whatever slant their article is taking.
For example, I've seen PFF metrics cited that support Daniel Jones as horribly inaccurate on long passes and incredibly efficient with long passes.
because the author doesn't have to stick his/her neck out and make a judgement... instead they lazily rely on PFF, which in some strange fashion has become gospel even though you can routinely poke holes in their entire grading system.
It's lazy and safe "journalism."
Contrast that to what Sy does. Do you think he would EVER use PFF?
He might not quote their grades but he may (and probably has) relied upon some of the aggregate statistics they track that nobody else does - pressures, holding penalties, tds allowed, etc.
A QB or RB behind a bad OL is not the same as ones behind a good one.
So they "outsource" that effort and parrot PFF grades which - when you consider across the entire span of football media - may not be an entirely bad thing as their qualitative analysis may actually be better than the league average writer.
A QB or RB behind a bad OL is not the same as ones behind a good one.
Unfortunately some folks miss this aspect of their system, the fact that their grades on individuals do not reflect the play of others around them in a team sport - except incidentally. PFF themselves on their "101 best players list for 2018 DO NOT simply rank them according to their PFF grade...
Saquon Barkley ranked in the top 20 or thereabouts on their 101 best players list with a grade of about 84, whereas Odell Beckham Jr ranked considerably lower, but with a higher grade of ~90.
The explained Saquon's high rating (not grade) by citing yards gained after contact, # of missed tackles he forced on opponents, etc.
Given the wonderful write up on Saquon, it's hard to figure out why his grade wasn't higher... But I gather they have a rigorous systematic approach to grading that is not recalibrated to "wow" stuff or something like that.
It's lazy and safe "journalism."
Contrast that to what Sy does. Do you think he would EVER use PFF?
PFF is an awful source, their methodology isn't the most sound and it leads to lazy journalism
Basically they have a bunch of analysts that come up with some metric, crunch numbers, make a list and then write an article about what they've found. And the results can be completely different from some other PFF analyst's results.
And they a sports writer will find the results that support whatever slant their article is taking.
For example, I've seen PFF metrics cited that support Daniel Jones as horribly inaccurate on long passes and incredibly efficient with long passes.
It's lazy and safe "journalism."
Contrast that to what Sy does. Do you think he would EVER use PFF?
He might not quote their grades but he may (and probably has) relied upon some of the aggregate statistics they track that nobody else does - pressures, holding penalties, tds allowed, etc.