Weekly PFF Hate

[John from Riverside]

PFF is a ***** clownshow

 

You know that they are secretly hoping Josh has a bad game to make their "system:" more believable

[thurst44]

38 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Their system on Quarterbacks isn't what I would call "Josh friendly" it is "safe" friendly. I don't love that but their system is consistent. 

What explains ranking a cornerback 18th who allowed zero touchdowns and led the league in interceptions and was second in QBR-against while playing on the third best pass defense in football?

And it's weird, because they loved Tre his rookie year, and I've watched the tape -- it's not like he's declined. The only thing I can see is that he sometimes plays a sort of prevent d where he'll let a receiver get a quick catch on the sideline when nowhere near the end zone. But even that doesn't happen all that often. Are they suggesting that quarterbacks and OCs are just not noticing that he's blowing coverages and a mass hysteria has them avoiding throwing in Tre's direction?

 

You mentioned it's subjective and it's hard not to argue that when it comes to the Bills, for whatever reason, they seem to let their subjectivity all fall in one direction. And there's a very good reason they would do that -- we have a very volatile fanbase who will get angry and respond when we feel hurt. This makes for drama and that's good for their business.

 

I get that I may be wrong, but it's become hard to dismiss that they are always off in one direction when it comes to the Bills over the last few years. It annoys me more b/c I actually love PFF in theory, and for some positions where there are no stats, like offensive linemen, it's a chance to get a feel for how the player is progressing. However, when it's presenting Tre's season last year as mediocre-to-good and Allen's outstanding game yesterday as so-so and well below Darnold's losing effort, they lose credibility and it renders all their possibly useful info tainted -- at least to me.  

 

 

[CircleTheWagons99]

Poor Football Focus. 

[Mc1320]

You would think that Mike Florio owns PFF instead of Chris Collinsworth.

[Albany,n.y.]

2 hours ago, section122 said:

Not PFF but I love this article.  Seriously take 5 minutes and give it a read with the benefit of hindsight!

 

If Josh Allen succeeds, the Bills will have outsmarted basically all regular humans and the entirety of math itself

 

 

 

"If this works, then stats really are for losers, I guess."  

Stats are for losers.  Point proven in 2020.  

Their stats make a strong case that Mason Rudolph is better than Allen 

Edited September 21, 2020 by Albany,n.y.

[GunnerBill]

4 minutes ago, thurst44 said:

What explains ranking a cornerback 18th who allowed zero touchdowns and led the league in interceptions and was second in QBR-against while playing on the third best pass defense in football?

And it's weird, because they loved Tre his rookie year, and I've watched the tape -- it's not like he's declined. The only thing I can see is that he sometimes plays a sort of prevent d where he'll let a receiver get a quick catch on the sideline when nowhere near the end zone. But even that doesn't happen all that often. Are they suggesting that quarterbacks and OCs are just not noticing that he's blowing coverages and a mass hysteria has them avoiding throwing in Tre's direction?

 

You mentioned it's subjective and it's hard not to argue that when it comes to the Bills, for whatever reason, they seem to let their subjectivity all fall in one direction. And there's a very good reason they would do that -- we have a very volatile fanbase who will get angry and respond when we feel hurt. This makes for drama and that's good for their business.

 

I get that I may be wrong, but it's become hard to dismiss that they are always off in one direction when it comes to the Bills over the last few years. It annoys me more b/c I actually love PFF in theory, and for some positions where there are no stats, like offensive linemen, it's a chance to get a feel for how the player is progressing. However, when it's presenting Tre's season last year as mediocre-to-good and Allen's outstanding game yesterday as so-so and well below Darnold's losing effort, they lose credibility and it renders all their possibly useful info tainted -- at least to me.  

 

 

 

With Tre it is that to earn their really high grades you need to be making plays on the ball. Tre could play every coverage perfectly but if the ball is never thrown his way (and it rarely was) then he isn't gonna get the top marks. 

 

That is why I say their grading system is far from perfect, but it isn't useless either.

[John from Riverside]

19 minutes ago, VW82 said:

Yeah this one seems fishy. There were definitely plays where you could knock him like the misses on 3rd down, an almost INT, and an almost fumble. But ultimately he made too many big time throws and scored too much to have him that far back. 

"almost plays" dont actually count......you realize that right?

[Buffalo_Stampede]

I'de love to actually watch them grade someone for a full game.

 

I like PFF because it is useful data. It's just not facts, it's an opinion. There are multiple people grading multiple players, so you'll get different grades from different people on the same player if you know what I mean. 1 guy might grade Allen higher than another guy. 

[MTBill]

It's like a classical physics vs. quantum mechanics thing.

 

PFF is stuck in classical physics - using all these 'known' variables to try to distill a player down to a single "score".

 

Quantum mechanics would say you have to lean towards other things.  I mean - that list (if Sal typed it in order) has Darnold ahead of Mahomes.  Really?  Besides, who the heck should care about a 1 week grade early in the season.

 

Pfffffft indeed.

[WideNine]

5 minutes ago, MTBill said:

It's like a classical physics vs. quantum mechanics thing.

 

PFF is stuck in classical physics - using all these 'known' variables to try to distill a player down to a single "score".

 

Quantum mechanics would say you have to lean towards other things.  I mean - that list (if Sal typed it in order) has Darnold ahead of Mahomes.  Really?  Besides, who the heck should care about a 1 week grade early in the season.

 

Pfffffft indeed.

 

The Josh Allen is PFF's  Schrödinger's cat analogy?

 

He may be good QB or he may suck, but you have to actually open the box and watch the game to know.... something like that?

 

 

 

[JMF2006]

Cris Collingsworth owns them..... it..... whatever.

 

That says it all

3 minutes ago, WideNine said:

 

The Josh Allen is PFF's  Schrödinger's cat analogy?

 

He may be good QB or he may suck, but you have to actually open the box and watch the game to know.... something like that?

 

 

 

 

In my best Jackie Gleason/Sherriff Bufford T Justice voice.... whats your catsscrotum got to do with anything?

[billsfan89]

PFF is clearly working backwards from their conclusions to hate on Josh. Was Josh the best QB last Sunday? Maybe you could argue it, but he certainly was a top 5 performer at worst.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

32 minutes ago, CircleTheWagons99 said:

Poor Football Focus. 

lost it’s focus

 

15 minutes ago, JMF2006 said:

Cris Collingsworth owns them..... it..... whatever.

that explains a lot

[Putin]

10 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

PFF is clearly working backwards from their conclusions to hate on Josh. Was Josh the best QB last Sunday? Maybe you could argue it, but he certainly was a top 5 performer at worst.

But , but Josh sucked in the 3rd Q 

[Kirby Jackson]

Here’s my take as someone that is not a big PFF fan. Confirmation bias is real:

 

 

[WideNine]

3 minutes ago, Putin said:

But , but Josh sucked in the 3rd Q 

 

Defense could not get off the field and he got the ball once, maybe twice deep in our own zone, one of the possessions he was in the shotgun under his own goal posts, but why should that factor into the narrative right?

 

Yeah... I know you were being sarcastic.

 

 

 

[CNY315]

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, CNY315 said:

 

 

And here we clearly see the problem with subjective vs. objective reality.

 

[Doc]

2 minutes ago, CNY315 said:

 

Huh?  Who got those stats then?  

[Hapless Bills Fan]

3 hours ago, AirAllenPower said:

🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡

 

I can not disagree

 

3 minutes ago, Doc said:

Huh?  Who got those stats then?  

 

"Alternative Stats" LOL!

[1ManRaid]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

With Tre it is that to earn their really high grades you need to be making plays on the ball. Tre could play every coverage perfectly but if the ball is never thrown his way (and it rarely was) then he isn't gonna get the top marks. 

 

That is why I say their grading system is far from perfect, but it isn't useless either.

You're right, it's worse than useless.  It's downright deceptive and the incarnation of "there's lies, damn lies, and statistics".  It blows my mind that people still defend them as being hardcore data when they are actually the opposite.  Their whole system is literally based on arbitrary and cherrypicked SUBJECTIVITY applied to ACTUAL data.

 

In their system, Allen having faith in his receivers to make contested catches, sideline snags, and dives to catch balls placed around tight coverage for a TD is actually a bad thing!  He could go down as the worst rated MVP in history because their contextual rating system either doesn't account for everything, or incorrectly categorizes some things as negative.

Edited September 21, 2020 by 1ManRaid

[1ManRaid]

23 minutes ago, CNY315 said:

 

I saw them respond to demands that they justify having Darnold ranked ahead of Allen.  His response?  I crap you not, was (after some nervous stuttering clearly trying to come up with plausible BS) "cuz reasons".  No actual data, literally just vague assertions that there WERE reasons.

[K-9]

27 minutes ago, CNY315 said:

 

He’s right! Josh was 3 yards short of playing that good of a game.

[Lieutenant Aldo Raine]

47 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

And here we clearly see the problem with subjective vs. objective reality.

 

 

Exactly; amazes me how these sites have any credibility when they insert their own bias.  

[1ManRaid]

4 minutes ago, Lieutenant Aldo Raine said:

 

Exactly; amazes me how these sites have any credibility when they insert their own bias.  

They were somehow able to rebrand their subjective bias as objective data and gain credibility as the "hardcore data" guys.  They pander "data based" narratives to big markets and trending popular teams.

 

Well until they lost what credibility they had left when they exposed themselves with this Darnold>Allen fiasco.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

4 hours ago, HappyDays said:

 

 

LOL I put PFF  on my "do not respond, Ever" list when they admitted they trolled Bills Mafia by saying Devlin "Duck" Hodges was a better QB (Momson said, "well yeah we said it but I don't think anyone here really believed it".  Oh, so why should we think you believe anything you say and aren't just going for clicks?).

 

PFF has all kinds of phony baloney in their system like "interceptable balls" (balls that could have been intercepted, but weren't).  They give them a lot of weight.  That's how a QB like Tyrod Taylor was their 13th highest- ranked QB in 2015 and their 11th highest ranked QB in 2016.  He never took chances and threw "interceptable balls" much less interceptions.  Of course, that meant he left all kinds of passing yardage on the field, but hey.

That's a silly list, right there.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

32 minutes ago, Lieutenant Aldo Raine said:

 

Exactly; amazes me how these sites have any credibility when they insert their own bias.  

 

Just go back to their rankings of 2015 and 2016 and look at the QB they had ranked above and below TT and ask if that ranking makes sense.

 

It's an interesting question because at heart, I am very, very much a "data geek".  I believe in data. I believe in statistics.  But, not all data and statistics are equal.  Fundamentally, for a team game like football, the key question is really "how closely does that statistic correlate with what counts - winning the game"?  I like to look at statistics that are closest to objectively measurable data and that correlate with winning.  Completion percentage matters.  TD/INT matter.  YPA matter.

 

PFF and some of these other analytics sites get into a very very grey area where they assert that they have objective statistics - the best, most objective statistics - without apparently being aware of how they can be striving so hard to be objective, that they become subjective.  When it comes to grading ball placement and creating a statistic like "interceptable balls", there are a lot of nuances.

 

Anyway, here's an article from PFF describing how they grade QB.  Sounds real good, doesn't it?

https://www.pff.com/news/pro-pff-qb-grading-most-effective-tool-there-is

[Real McClappy]

I thought the Tre crap last year was bad, but this is just idiocracy on every level imaginable. 

 

100% confirmed Clowns and there is really nothing else to say. 

 

 

Edited September 21, 2020 by Real McNasty

[machine gun kelly]

2 hours ago, WideNine said:

 

The Josh Allen is PFF's  Schrödinger's cat analogy?

 

He may be good QB or he may suck, but you have to actually open the box and watch the game to know.... something like that?

 

 

 

Schrodingers Cat?  Makes me think of the Big Bang Theory.  That was funny and yes I knew the reference out of that example.  Why worry not you but in general to my TSW friends what these ding dongs say?  They have an agenda and just can’t let it go.  As I used to say to my kids I coached or when I played, “just kick their ass (sorry mods) and that will speak for itself”.  When I played, I loved bulletin board material.   As a coach, it was great.  My concern as a coach is they would get on out of their minds trying to take a guys head off and make a mistake.  As much as I hate Belicheck, just do you’re job.

 

If we get the Boys are back in town (Edmunds and Milano), and beat handedly the Rams, you know we are going to beat Chucky.  The Titans look good, but they can be beat.  Just let’s move onto the Rams.

[MJS]

1 hour ago, Joe in Winslow said:

And here we clearly see the problem with subjective vs. objective reality.

 

1 hour ago, Doc said:

Huh?  Who got those stats then?  

 

Oh my gosh. Allen LITERALLY DID have that kind of game. What are these "analysts" talking about?

 

That's the most dominant performance from a Bills QB we have seen in decades.

[MJS]

12 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Just go back to their rankings of 2015 and 2016 and look at the QB they had ranked above and below TT and ask if that ranking makes sense.

 

It's an interesting question because at heart, I am very, very much a "data geek".  I believe in data. I believe in statistics.  But, not all data and statistics are equal.  Fundamentally, for a team game like football, the key question is really "how closely does that statistic correlate with what counts - winning the game"?  I like to look at statistics that are closest to objectively measurable data and that correlate with winning.  Completion percentage matters.  TD/INT matter.  YPA matter.

 

PFF and some of these other analytics sites get into a very very grey area where they assert that they have objective statistics - the best, most objective statistics - without apparently being aware of how they can be striving so hard to be objective, that they become subjective.  When it comes to grading ball placement and creating a statistic like "interceptable balls", there are a lot of nuances.

 

Anyway, here's an article from PFF describing how they grade QB.  Sounds real good, doesn't it?

https://www.pff.com/news/pro-pff-qb-grading-most-effective-tool-there-is

 

Well therin lies the problem. PFF grades have NOTHING to do with data. They make the data up. They look at a play and assign a number to it. It's not actually data.

 

I am a data guy too, and my job is in data analysis. What PFF does is something completely different. They have some interesting insight sometimes, but they really screw up the QB position and have some deep flaws. Russel Wilson didn't receive high grades from his performance? Their version of reality does not mesh with what we see on Sundays.

[Don Otreply]

There is nothing PFF offers that cannot be had elsewhere, why do you fellas take the “click” bait? 
 

Just stop going on their site, they are a half arsed outfit on their best day, 

 

Go Bills!!!

 

[Augie]

5 hours ago, HappyDays said:

 

 

I can only guess that he’s getting dinged for that mustache.......

[GunnerBill]

2 minutes ago, Don Otreply said:

There is nothing PFF offers that cannot be had elsewhere, why do you fellas take the “click” bait? 
 

Just stop going on their site, they are a half arsed outfit on their best day, 

 

Go Bills!!!

 

 

There is actually. But that is the stuff you really have to pay for. The player grades are the cheap stuff that to be honest is a good marketing tool. They are not useless but they are far from perfect. However, they are the reason you guys are all talking about PFF again.

[Don Otreply]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

There is actually. But that is the stuff you really have to pay for. The player grades are the cheap stuff that to be honest is a good marketing tool. They are not useless but they are far from perfect. However, they are the reason you guys are all talking about PFF again.

I have not clicked on their site in years they imo offer nothing that a multitude of of venues already make available. 
 

I just try to get folk to realize they are being had, here on this site, but people are gluttons for psychological punishment... I guess that’s why we have been fans of this team for so long...

 

Go Bills!!!

[Hapless Bills Fan]

5 hours ago, HappyDays said:

 

 

Fave response:

 

 

😂😂🤣

[transplantbillsfan]

5 hours ago, HappyDays said:

 

 

So ridiculous.  

 

Here's the real measurement for Josh Allen yesterday:

[Houston's #1 Bills Fan]

It truly is, US AGAINST THE WORLD!!

 

I'm very happy with our 12th ranked QB!!

 

GO BILLS!!!

[1ManRaid]

17 minutes ago, MJS said:

 

Well therin lies the problem. PFF grades have NOTHING to do with data. They make the data up. They look at a play and assign a number to it. It's not actually data.

 

I am a data guy too, and my job is in data analysis. What PFF does is something completely different. They have some interesting insight sometimes, but they really screw up the QB position and have some deep flaws. Russel Wilson didn't receive high grades from his performance? Their version of reality does not mesh with what we see on Sundays.

Obligatory "I am not a data analyst but did take a semester of statistics in university", and the literal first thing they taught us is how data can be skewed to push narratives and deceive people.  

 

Oh and Wilson did get high grades from them, just not as high as Mediocre Brady and One Half Jimmy.

[AirAllenPower]

Analytics has its place. The problem like with most ideologies is trying to use it in every single facet of sports and being a fundamentalist about it.... 

 

The movie money ball was a great movie but the irony was within analytics itself.  The lesson here is to never dismiss new world views, new ideas and to have a broad view with success. Nothing is always one way...much like Bobby Fisher who would break the cardinal rule in chess giving up his queen, there are multiple ways to win a game. Dogma hurt bill polian in Lamar Jackson's evaluation etc

 

So when you hear a college qb with under 60% comp % has never done x y or z 

 

You should pause before casting complete JUDGMENT and use it as a tool , not the end all be all

Edited September 21, 2020 by AirAllenPower