Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Reed83HOF

PFF Baker is still better than Allen & Tre isn't in their top 101 players

Recommended Posts

On 2/12/2020 at 3:34 AM, CorkScrewHill said:

https://thebuffalofanatics.com/2020/02/11/why-sports-media-hates-josh-allen/
 

well done article that lays out the reasons the media can be so harsh on Josh. He will be following up with why people give Josh too much praise in his next article 

 

That is a good read!  Thank you.

 

I like his quotes from Mike Tanier of Bleacher Report (August 2019 )  article “Buffalo Bills Josh Allen Starting to prove haters and doubters wrong:”

"Allen’s tools didn’t yield many results last season......But we also discovered he possessed a tool no one really knew about. Allen rushed for 631 yards and eight touchdowns in 2018. His NFL.com predraft scouting report had listed 20 “positive” bullet points, and “mobility” is only briefly mentioned in the 15th one. Scrambling and option running weren’t supposed to be part of his portfolio. ...... There’s a huge difference between a tall rookie with a cannon and a tall, fast rookie with a cannon. Allen may have looked like a clueless rookie running for his life last year, but that’s a step up from a clueless sitting duck. More importantly, if a skill as important as Allen’s mobility was largely overlooked by so many draft analysts on a prospect as scrutinized and criticized as he was, what else may we have missed? Perhaps the capacity to improve? Allen may still be a work in progress, but he’s no punchline. In fact, he’s what the Mayock types told us he would be: the high-upside guy with a lot to learn. The upside is still there, the learning continues, and Allen looks ready to help the Bills win a few games during his on-the-job training."

 

10 wins during OTJT 2019 season.  Better OL, better WR, less running for his life.  (I think Beane knew about the fast.  He kept saying we'd be surprised by his athleticism.)

 

And I like his conclusion:

Josh Allen haters and doubters come from all corners of the football world. Some of them have a seemingly personal hatred, the kind you have for a person who steals your boyfriend or girlfriend. Others seem too married to their analytics and data to see what’s happening on their TV screens. For others, it seems to be a matter of pride. Perhaps they hated too hard during the draft process and feel stupid recanting some of their analysis. Lastly, some people just like trolling Buffalo Bills fans. One thing is certain to this Bills fan: if someone can’t admit that Josh Allen has progressed since joining the NFL, I can’t take that person seriously regardless of their status or respect within the media or NFL community.
 

 

 

  • Like (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason Wolf Article from TBN about analytics criticism of Josh Allen

I'm pretty sure this hasn't been put up yet.  Might deserve its own thread.  Doesn't seem to be paywalled - lmk if I'm wrong and I'll put more text.

 

https://buffalonews.com/2020/02/13/buffalo-bills-josh-allen-baker-mayfield-pff-pro-football-focus-football-outsiders-billsmafia-analytics-nfl-draft-2020/

 

"Let’s all try to remain civil, even though these number-crunching blowhards keep begging for the abuse.  Even though their analytics-based criticisms of Josh Allen border on disrespecting your family.  Even though these clowns wouldn’t know a real leader if George Washington himself stepped into the huddle. They’d be too busy whining about the way he cut down some cherry tree.   OK, OK, no more insults. Besides, they say it’s not personal."

(....)

Aaron Schatz, the head of Football Outsiders and an NFL analyst for ESPN, when asked to defend his criticisms of Allen:“He certainly seems like a hard worker. There’s never been any stories that he’s not. I just don’t think he’s ever going to have the accuracy to be a quality starting NFL quarterback.”

(....)

“When someone says something disparaging about the team or a player on the team, that to a lot of fans is like insulting their mother,” said Del Reid, one of the founding fathers of #BillsMafia. “So they’re going to come at you. And I don’t condone anyone who crosses a line and is just completely out of line to another human being, if they get into personal attacks or anything like that. But a lot of fans feel like by insulting Josh Allen, ‘Hey, that’s my team’s quarterback. You don’t insult my team’s quarterback. You don’t insult my mother. You don’t talk that way about my sister. It’s one thing if I say something about my brother, but you better not say a word or I’m there to defend him.’ ”
(....)

"Pro Football Focus might be the worst offender. [written tongue-in-cheek]That guy from Ireland, Sam Monson, is clearly biased."

“I think they’re definitely one of the more aggressive fan bases out there,” Monson said, “but I think there’s a lot of them. … It’s all directly connected to whether you say anything bad about a player that they have all this hope tied up in.

“I actually started keeping a little chart this year of all the 32 NFL teams and putting a little check mark up next to them if I manage to [upset] one of their fan bases on social media and see if I can work my way through the entire league, just over the course of analyzing the NFL season.”

 

So there you have it, Bills Mafia.  IMHO Monson pretty much just admitted he's out there trolling, saying stuff he hopes will trigger us.

I think fans should just stop reacting.  Be like "Yeah, it's PFF.  Buffalo vs Everybody, Whatever"

The article goes into a bit of detail I didn't know about how PFF makes their grades then finishes with this quote from Bills Mavia founder Del Reid:

“Analytics, it’s information, right? And it’s usable information for decision-making when it comes to sports,” he said, “but I think that you’re in a dangerous place if you’re too far on either end of the spectrum. If you don’t acknowledge the usefulness of them as a decision-maker in professional sports, I think that you’re going to be in trouble. …

“But I think when you swing too far to that end of the spectrum, I think you end up looking foolish, because all the stats in the world, all the data in the world, I don’t think can quantify adrenaline and the grittiness that a player might have in the midst of a professional football game. That’s something you can’t really put a number on. Football and sports in general aren’t played in a test tube.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

Jason Wolf Article from TBN about analytics criticism of Josh Allen

I'm pretty sure this hasn't been put up yet.  Might deserve its own thread.  Doesn't seem to be paywalled - lmk if I'm wrong and I'll put more text.

 

https://buffalonews.com/2020/02/13/buffalo-bills-josh-allen-baker-mayfield-pff-pro-football-focus-football-outsiders-billsmafia-analytics-nfl-draft-2020/

 

"Let’s all try to remain civil, even though these number-crunching blowhards keep begging for the abuse.  Even though their analytics-based criticisms of Josh Allen border on disrespecting your family.  Even though these clowns wouldn’t know a real leader if George Washington himself stepped into the huddle. They’d be too busy whining about the way he cut down some cherry tree.   OK, OK, no more insults. Besides, they say it’s not personal."

(....)

Aaron Schatz, the head of Football Outsiders and an NFL analyst for ESPN, when asked to defend his criticisms of Allen:“He certainly seems like a hard worker. There’s never been any stories that he’s not. I just don’t think he’s ever going to have the accuracy to be a quality starting NFL quarterback.”

(....)

“When someone says something disparaging about the team or a player on the team, that to a lot of fans is like insulting their mother,” said Del Reid, one of the founding fathers of #BillsMafia. “So they’re going to come at you. And I don’t condone anyone who crosses a line and is just completely out of line to another human being, if they get into personal attacks or anything like that. But a lot of fans feel like by insulting Josh Allen, ‘Hey, that’s my team’s quarterback. You don’t insult my team’s quarterback. You don’t insult my mother. You don’t talk that way about my sister. It’s one thing if I say something about my brother, but you better not say a word or I’m there to defend him.’ ”
(....)

"Pro Football Focus might be the worst offender. [written tongue-in-cheek]That guy from Ireland, Sam Monson, is clearly biased."

“I think they’re definitely one of the more aggressive fan bases out there,” Monson said, “but I think there’s a lot of them. … It’s all directly connected to whether you say anything bad about a player that they have all this hope tied up in.

“I actually started keeping a little chart this year of all the 32 NFL teams and putting a little check mark up next to them if I manage to [upset] one of their fan bases on social media and see if I can work my way through the entire league, just over the course of analyzing the NFL season.”

 

So there you have it, Bills Mafia.  IMHO Monson pretty much just admitted he's out there trolling, saying stuff he hopes will trigger us.

I think fans should just stop reacting.  Be like "Yeah, it's PFF.  Buffalo vs Everybody, Whatever"

The article goes into a bit of detail I didn't know about how PFF makes their grades then finishes with this quote from Bills Mavia founder Del Reid:

“Analytics, it’s information, right? And it’s usable information for decision-making when it comes to sports,” he said, “but I think that you’re in a dangerous place if you’re too far on either end of the spectrum. If you don’t acknowledge the usefulness of them as a decision-maker in professional sports, I think that you’re going to be in trouble. …

“But I think when you swing too far to that end of the spectrum, I think you end up looking foolish, because all the stats in the world, all the data in the world, I don’t think can quantify adrenaline and the grittiness that a player might have in the midst of a professional football game. That’s something you can’t really put a number on. Football and sports in general aren’t played in a test tube.”

Heck, football isn't played in Ireland or wherever Monson's from at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of their guys was on WGR today or yesterday. And they just seem to absolutely refuse any argument over data.

 

I understand using analytics and the whole Sabrmetrics thing when it comes to baseball. There’s so many less variables. Even hockey has less variables.

 

But football just has so many different variables. I mean for a QB, his stats are based on 10other guys on the field with him at the same time. His coaches competency. And the schemes fit with regard to his skill set.  And that’s just the beginning. 
 

I understand the desire to look for clues using the data you can get. It’s smart. But don’t let it take away from the eye test.

  • Awesome! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dkollidas said:

One of their guys was on WGR today or yesterday. And they just seem to absolutely refuse any argument over data.

 

I understand using analytics and the whole Sabrmetrics thing when it comes to baseball. There’s so many less variables. Even hockey has less variables.

 

But football just has so many different variables. I mean for a QB, his stats are based on 10other guys on the field with him at the same time. His coaches competency. And the schemes fit with regard to his skill set.  And that’s just the beginning. 
 

I understand the desire to look for clues using the data you can get. It’s smart. But don’t let it take away from the eye test.

 

The problem is, a good bit of what PFF is doing is not based on actual data.
 

For example, the article I quoted explains: "Monson .... said he puts less stock in turnovers than “turnover-worthy” plays, explaining that a pass bouncing off a receiver’s hands and into the waiting arms of a defensive back doesn’t reflect as poorly on a quarterback as an off-target pass that a linebacker dropped.  Allen ranked among the worst players in the NFL in this category last season. “You get people who object to that as a concept, because it didn’t actually happen,” Monson said. “Well, it didn’t, but if you factor in all those kind of things, you can actually predict what’s going to happen better, and therefore you get a better picture of how these guys are actually playing. If you just ignore it and you live with the chance results that skew the picture, you just end up in a different spot, in a wrong spot, in terms of understanding how good these players are or not.”

 

Yeah, my head started spinning.  They factor in what they define as "turnover worthy plays" (however that is defined) that didn't necessarily create a turnover, and that gives you a better picture of how guys are actually playing.  I mean, in an abstract way, I understand that concept - Allen has had some plays that could have been picks if the QB hung on.  So I can see it if a throw actually hits the DB or the LB in the hands and they don't hang on.  It's like a drop.  But is  "turnover worthy" limited to that, or if you see a throw into a tight window such that the defender might have had a play, is that turnover worthy? 

 

And if you're dinging a guy for negative plays that didn't happen, do you give him credit for good plays that didn't actually happen such as actual receiver drops, or  catchable balls that weren't caught?  Now when you're deciding he's inaccurate - how do you decide if the QB threw to the right spot and the WR didn't get there or there was a miscue?


I understand the concept, but the bottom line is, when you start folding in stuff that didn't actually happen, or adding in grades based upon your best guess of what was supposed to happen on a play, a giant "Danger Ahead" sign pops up; it seems to me like depending on what you fold in or leave out, you may be at worse risk of skewing the picture and ending up in a wrong spot in terms of understanding how good a player is or not.

 

I actually haven't looked for a PFF 2019 QB list, but in the past I haven't agreed with them. 

 

In 2015, for example, Tyrod Taylor was ranked #10.  Now I liked Tyrod Taylor, especially in 2015 when I had hopes he would be able to develop as a passer in his 2nd year starting.    But I remember they had him ranked far better than Kirk Cousins and Alex Smith that year (along with a number of other excellent QB like Rodgers, Rivers, and Stafford).  That year  Cousins had nearly 70% completions, more than 4000 yds, and threw 29 TD and 11 INT.  It was just silly.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

The problem is, a good bit of what PFF is doing is not based on actual data.
 

For example, the article I quoted explains: "Monson .... said he puts less stock in turnovers than “turnover-worthy” plays, explaining that a pass bouncing off a receiver’s hands and into the waiting arms of a defensive back doesn’t reflect as poorly on a quarterback as an off-target pass that a linebacker dropped.  Allen ranked among the worst players in the NFL in this category last season. “You get people who object to that as a concept, because it didn’t actually happen,” Monson said. “Well, it didn’t, but if you factor in all those kind of things, you can actually predict what’s going to happen better, and therefore you get a better picture of how these guys are actually playing. If you just ignore it and you live with the chance results that skew the picture, you just end up in a different spot, in a wrong spot, in terms of understanding how good these players are or not.”

 

Yeah, my head started spinning.  They factor in what they define as "turnover worthy plays" (however that is defined) that didn't necessarily create a turnover, and that gives you a better picture of how guys are actually playing.  I mean, in an abstract way, I understand that concept - Allen has had some plays that could have been picks if the DB hung on.  So I can see it if a throw actually hits the DB or the LB in the hands and they don't hang on.  It's like a drop.  But is  "turnover worthy" limited to that, or if you see a throw into a tight window such that the defender might have had a play, is that turnover worthy? 

 

And if you're dinging a guy for negative plays that didn't happen, do you give him credit for good plays that didn't actually happen such as actual receiver drops, or  catchable balls that weren't caught?  Now when you're deciding he's inaccurate - how do you decide if the QB threw to the right spot and the WR didn't get there or there was a miscue?


I understand the concept, but the bottom line is, when you start folding in stuff that didn't actually happen, or adding in grades based upon your best guess of what was supposed to happen on a play, a giant "Danger Ahead" sign pops up; it seems to me like depending on what you fold in or leave out, you may be at worse risk of skewing the picture and ending up in a wrong spot in terms of understanding how good a player is or not.

 

 

I call BS on his “turnover worthy plays” helping predict future events. If this is the case Allen’s turnovers would have finally escalated as the season went on. They didn’t. They became fewer and further between. Therefore his “turnover worthy plays” predicted absolutely jack squat. 
 

this is a man CLINGING to his initial claims that Allen wasn’t any good. The more I read from these jokers the worse light it puts them in. 
 

One of the stats they use quite often is “adjusted comp %”. Earlier in the season Allen was very highly ranked in that stat and they completed downplayed saying his accuracy was still awful. They quite literally threw one of their very own stats under the bus to confirm and emphasize Allen’s accuracy “issues”. That’s sort of pathetic 

  • Awesome! (+1) 1
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Stank_Nasty said:

I call BS on his “turnover worthy plays” helping predict future events. If this is the case Allen’s turnovers would have finally escalated as the season went on. They didn’t. They became fewer and further between. Therefore his “turnover worthy plays” predicted absolutely jack squat. 
 

this is a man CLINGING to his initial claims that Allen wasn’t any good. The more I read from these jokers the worse light it puts them in. 
 

One of the stats they use quite often is “adjusted comp %”. Earlier in the season Allen was very highly ranked in that stat and they completed downplayed saying his accuracy was still awful. They quite literally threw one of their very own stats under the bus to confirm and emphasize Allen’s accuracy “issues”. That’s sort of pathetic 

I just want consistancy in this.....is this PFF guy using "turnover worthy plays" to evaluate any other QB?   If not....he should not use that as a crutch for his bias

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

I just want consistancy in this.....is this PFF guy using "turnover worthy plays" to evaluate any other QB?   If not....he should not use that as a crutch for his bias

Right.... but honestly at this point I don’t think there’s much they could do for me personally to take them seriously. Team the Allen crap up with Tre white being the 19th best corner in football and it’s just comic relief, honestly. 

Edited by Stank_Nasty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

I just want consistancy in this.....is this PFF guy using "turnover worthy plays" to evaluate any other QB?   If not....he should not use that as a crutch for his bias

 

Yes, he absolutely is, it's apparently a big part of the QB evaluation system.  It totally explains why (for example) when he was starting, they had Tyrod Taylor ranked so high and higher than Aaron Rodgers or Matt Stafford.  Tyrod NEVER threw a "turnover worthy play".   He never threw into tight windows at all.  Rodgers and Stafford do.

Where I want consistency is: if you're gonna ding a guy for INTs that didn't happen (because they could have), are you gonna credit him for Completions that also didn't happen, because they could have?

 

It seems like a big risk of skewing the picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Low hanging fruit for lazy schlubs that should probably be writing about fantasy football. It's beyond boring at this point. Baker??! Try harder Monson you dork.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the only thing PFF is good at is generating clicks, web traffic and message board chatter...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Lurker said:

I think the only thing PFF is good at is generating clicks, web traffic and message board chatter...

Finally. If all there ratings reflected what we all see and know then they would never get talked about. They put out controversial ones that get them attention. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Monson actually admits they are purposely trolling with the “data” ... *face palm*

 

 

Edited by YoloinOhio
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So just so I understand PFF

 

Mayfield (with a better offensive  team around him) misses the playoffs but is better then Josh Allen (with a worse team around him)

 

I just want to make sure I am understanding this correctly.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

So just so I understand PFF

 

Mayfield (with a better offensive  team around him) misses the playoffs but is better then Josh Allen (with a worse team around him)

 

I just want to make sure I am understanding this correctly.

that's being nice to Mayfield there. LOL..... your summary doesn't include the 11 more TO's or a myriad of other numbers going against Mayfield that make the whole thing absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Stank_Nasty said:

that's being nice to Mayfield there. LOL..... your summary doesn't include the 11 more TO's or a myriad of other numbers going against Mayfield that make the whole thing absurd.

 

 

yOu aRen'T taKinG IntO coNSidEraTioN tUrnOvEr woRtHy pLaYs!!!

  • Haha (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, YoloinOhio said:

Monson actually admits they are purposely trolling with the “data” ... *face palm*

 

 


Remember the classic “who wants to apologize” threads?

 

We need one of those for the group of us that have been calling PFF grades totally subjective for years now 🤣

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Hapless Bills Fan - you might like this recent book, which is on the long-term divide between scouts and number crunchers (albeit with a focus on baseball): https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691180212/scouting-and-scoring. That's at root what all of this about. More broadly, the rise of FO and PFF is really the knock-on effect of the amazingly successful career of Nate Silver, who has gone from projecting the 2008 TB Rays as a world series team because of his statistical projections to the famous data-based projection guru in the country today. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, thebandit27 said:


Remember the classic “who wants to apologize” threads?

 

We need one of those for the group of us that have been calling PFF grades totally subjective for years now 🤣

I’ve always said that PFF is a piece of the story but not the whole story. It can be useful, but it doesn’t conclude anything. Actually, that can be said about Box score stats in general sometimes.

Edited by YoloinOhio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

I’ve always said that PFF is a piece of the story but not the whole story. It can be useful, but it doesn’t conclude anything. Actually, that can be said about Box score stats in general sometimes.


This.

Take their data sets, consider them side-by-side with other data sets, and form your own conclusions. What they say is not gospel. 

Most fans I know that dislike PFF dislike them not for their analytics, their secret proprietary formulas, or their data, but for their OPINION pieces, which they post right alongside the data. Some feel that a data collection and analysis website shouldn't be posting opinion pieces, especially when the opinions that they posit are often not backed up by the data. Furthermore, the recent admission by Sam Monson that they sometimes deliberately post inflammatory opinions that they don't even necessarily BELIEVE just to stir the hornet's nest does nothing to help their credibility.

 

Edited by Logic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...