Conner McGovern to Bills

[Thurman#1]

3 hours ago, Einstein said:

 

Nailed it.

 

This is what cracks me up the most. The same posters who will crap on PFF, will also post or read articles by Joe Buscaglia where breaks down the film.

 

Buscaglia’s resume involves working at a radio station and then as a sports writer. That’s it. Somehow they will take his word, over analysts at PFF who have been in the NFL or college football, and watch every snap of every game of every team.

 

 

Yeah, where did you read that the analysts at PFF have been in the NFL or college football? 

 

They do interview people and find people who know football. But you're assuming they've played football with zero evidence. Everything I've seen says they don't require ex-players. Just people who know football and can pass their interview. They then get some training on the grading system, and then  And that's not a knock on them. PFF does an excellent job. Again, if they didn't the teams wouldn't pay them.

 

But they're 

 

And it's not like every PFF grader watches every game. There isn't time for that. Nowhere even slightly close.

 

You're right that watching every snap and every guy's performance on it is important to understand thoroughly player performance in any given game.. Joe does that, every guy on every snap in every Bills game. And he's been doing it for years.

 

He's very good. So are PFF. You can get plenty from both. Neither are perfect. If they disagree, you need to look at the film yourself and figure out which one is right, and further, compare what other film watchers are saying. Saying that PFF is right on an issue because they're PFF and Buscaglia is wrong because he's Buscaglia is simply a dumb ad hominem argument.

 

 

[BullBuchanan]

34 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

Are TJ Lang, Eric Wood, Greg Cossell and the Kelce's "Johnny NFL Takes?"

Because they are saying the exact opposite.  I tend to believe them more than you.  It's just funny how you won't take their opinion into consideration at all but a PFF guy is "scientifically sound" in his evaluation.  WTF.

 

You completely misinterpreted that statement. I didn't slight any of the NFL players or personnel you mentioned but Eric Wood and Travis Kelce aren't professional football evaluators either. Both of them only played for one pro team and Kelce has been under the same coach in the same system his entire career. I don't expect him to understand the complete scope of the game when it's not his responsibility to know it. He's also one guy. One person's take doesn't prove or disprove anything. The specific quote of his that youc alled out is addressed diretcly by PFF, which I already sent you:

"The thing is that these PFF graders are grading off of what they think the play should be"

"Plays in which there is a clear question mark regarding assignment, we can defer to a “0” grade and not guess as to which player is right or wrong."

To expand, here's more context:

"These plays are few and far between and since we are grading every snap, missing out on a handful throughout the year should not affect player evaluations. Examples of potential gray areas include coverage busts, quarterback/wide receiver miscommunications and missed blocking assignments."

To summarize, the situation Kelce calls out exists, but is rare. when it exists, the play is not given a positive or negative grade.

You're trying to look like the smartest guy in the room on this without doing even the bare minimum of information gathering. Again, try reading up on a subject you want to debate: https://www.pff.com/grades

The fact that NFL players don't understand statistical analysis should not be surprising. There aren't a lot of NFL players qualified to be professionals in fields of Science, Technology, Engineering or Math, which are the types of people that build statistical models like this.

These guys apparently think it's impossible to know what their jobs are unless you're int he room with them, but once you start studying the game, you start to realize that football is a lot less of a mystery than it appears.

[Einstein]

7 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

Yeah, where did you read that the analysts at PFF have been in the NFL or college football? 

 

There are lots of former players or coaches work at PFF. Including Andrew Berry (former NFL player), Bruce Gradkowski (former NFL player), Mike Johnson (former NFL linemen), Steve Palazzolo (former UNH coach), Jeff Dooley (former RI coach), Mike Renner (former college linemen), Eric Eager (former coach at MU), George Chahrouri (former coach at Harvard), Ben Linsey (former college linemen), Anthony Treash (former AZ db), Andrew Erickson (former college WR), etc.

 

These people are typically Level 2 and 3 (verification of what level 1 thinks).

[Royale with Cheese]

6 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

You completely misinterpreted that statement. I didn't slight any of the NFL players or personnel you mentioned but Eric Wood and Travis Kelce aren't professional football evaluators either. Both of them only played for one pro team and Kelce has been under the same coach in the same system his entire career. I don't expect him to understand the complete scope of the game when it's not his responsibility to know it. He's also one guy. One person's take doesn't prove or disprove anything. The specific quote of his that youc alled out is addressed diretcly by PFF, which I already sent you:

"The thing is that these PFF graders are grading off of what they think the play should be"

"Plays in which there is a clear question mark regarding assignment, we can defer to a “0” grade and not guess as to which player is right or wrong."
To expand, here's more context:

"These plays are few and far between and since we are grading every snap, missing out on a handful throughout the year should not affect player evaluations. Examples of potential gray areas include coverage busts, quarterback/wide receiver miscommunications and missed blocking assignments."

To summarize, the situation Kelce calls out exists, but is rare. when it exists, the play is not given a positive or negative grade.

You're trying to look like the smartest guy in the room on this without doing even the bare minimum of information gathering. Again, try reading up on a subject you want to debate: https://www.pff.com/grades

The fact that NFL players don't understand statistical analysis should not be surprising. There aren't a lot of NFL players qualified to be professionals in fields of Science, Technology, Engineering or Math, which are the types of people that build statistical models like this.

These guys apparently think it's impossible to know what their jobs are unless you're int he room with them, but once you start studying the game, you start to realize that football is a lot less of a mystery than it appears.

 

[BullBuchanan]

1 minute ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

You're impossible to have a discussion with. You just want to be ignorant and repeat the same things over and over no matter how completely they're discredited. I countered every single point you made, and it's not good enough because Travis Kelce doesn't understand it. Let me know when he wins his Nobel.

[Thurman#1]

11 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

I didn't use the word "better" performance.  I said they rated Rodgers lower than Fitz which they clearly did.  I also said that's where my problem lies and you clearly agreed.  

 

If there system is based on evaluating every play and grading it positive, negative and neutral.....Rodgers was graded to have more negatives in that game.

 

 

 

I'm sorry. Guess that I slightly misquoted you.

 

If you only "said that they rated Rodgers lower than Fitz," then you are clearly wrong, which is fair enough. But unwilling to admit it, which is really pretty sad.

 

You can't say someone "rated someone higher" when two different scales are very clearly being used. The idea is pathetic. It's like saying this scientist rated the temperature as higher than the other one because he's using Fahrenheit and the number is higher than the other scientist's number who is using Celsius. Yeah, one number is higher. No, that doesn't mean the temperature is being rated as higher or lower by either scientist.

 

Whatever scale they're using to measure the Fitz game, they make it wildly clear that it's the worst grade they've ever graded. "That earned him a PFF grade of 21.4, a catastrophic score that isn’t just the worst single-game grade of the season, but is the worst single-game grade we have ever seen from a QB over the past decade of grading."

And equally, in the article you linked to, they said, "Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers ended last night’s game with a -0.8 grade overall. This isn’t a bad game, just because the number begins with a minus, but it is an average grade, very close to zero ..." 

 

Anyone who can't tell that two different scales are being used when on one scale a grade very close to zero is average, and on the other the lowest grade they've given in the decade of their existence is 21.4, isn't using numbers with any care or concern for relevance.

 

You are the one who picked that particular comparison, I have no idea why or where you got it. But you didn't do your research, clearly. You looked only at the two numbers, without checking what scales they were using, which was extremely easy to determine. Even in this latest post, you're still saying "I said they rated Rodgers lower than Fitz which they clearly did."

 

No. They didn't. They gave him a higher number. On what is clearly a different scale, a Fahrenheit/Celsius comparison where the numbers can't be used to assume a rating. It's like saying, well, 100 ounces vs. 86 pounds, obviously since 100 is higher than 86, the thing that measures 100 must be the heavier object. Makes absolutely zero sense.

 

Two different scales. 

[Royale with Cheese]

5 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

You're impossible to have a discussion with. You just want to be ignorant and repeat the same things over and over no matter how completely they're discredited. I countered every single point you made, and it's not good enough because Travis Kelce doesn't understand it. Let me know when he wins his Nobel.

Lol OMG

 

PFF guys can evaluate offensive line play better on film than Eric Wood and Travis Kelce because they only played for one professional team.  

 

And you’re calling me ignorant?

[Einstein]

6 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

PFF guys can evaluate offensive line play better on film than Eric Wood and Travis Kelce

 

Yes.

 

There is a large difference between analyzing, teaching, and doing. If there were not, every head coach and GM in the NFL would be a former player.

[BullBuchanan]

1 minute ago, Royale with Cheese said:

Lol OMG

 

PFF guys can evaluate offensive line play better on film than Eric Wood and Travis Kelce because they only played for one professional team.  

 

And you’re calling me ignorant?

No - literally no. I made no claim that PFF experts were better at evaluating film than them. I discredited your claim that they thought it was impossible for a person not on the team to know what their responsibilities were. The fact that players like Travis Kelce can't understand how a non-teammate could understand the playcall is supported by his general lack of exposure to multiple schemes throughout his career. If he played ina  half dozen schemes, he might better understand how they all tie together. a lot of teams do the same things with different terminology.

[Thurman#1]

21 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

There are lots of former players or coaches work at PFF. Including Andrew Berry (former NFL player), Bruce Gradkowski (former NFL player), Mike Johnson (former NFL linemen), Steve Palazzolo (former UNH coach), Jeff Dooley (former RI coach), Mike Renner (former college linemen), Eric Eager (former coach at MU), George Chahrouri (former coach at Harvard), Ben Linsey (former college linemen), Anthony Treash (former AZ db), Andrew Erickson (former college WR), etc.

 

These people are typically Level 2 and 3 (verification of what level 1 thinks).

 

 

"Lots of former players or coaches work at PFF," you say. Thing is, that is what is called a straw man.

 

You said, 

 

4 hours ago, Einstein said:

 

Buscaglia’s resume involves working at a radio station and then as a sports writer. That’s it. Somehow they will take his word, over analysts at PFF who have been in the NFL or college football, and watch every snap of every game of every team.

 

As I'm sure you know, I didn't ask whether former players work there. I only said this, "where did you read that the analysts at PFF have been in the NFL or college football?"

 

Here's the answer from PFF:  "We have analysts from all walks of life, including former players, coaches and scouts. We don’t care if you played."

 

So, you were wrong. And thus went right to the straw man. 

 

Do you have any evidence that the people you listed above there are verifying player grades? 

 

No, didn't think so.

 

 

 

Not that I'm saying PFF is bad. They're not. 

 

Neither is Buscaglia.

 

 

 

 

 

[Thurman#1]

6 hours ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

Cossell is on OBL a lot and I've heard him talk about this as well.  He mentioned that it's almost impossible to grade the players instinct because of the nuances.  We don't know the player saw, anticipated or other intangibles.  

 

We don't know if a blown assignment was execution or scheme based many times.  There was a game where the Bills struggled and Allen stated that the team they were playing threw looks at them the never seen before.  If a particular play gets blown up because the defense had the perfect call against us...we were outschemed in that instance but the players will get the negative grade.

 

If Allen gets pressured immediately on a blitz....do we know for sure if Allen didn't audible correctly, he called the wrong protection, or Morse called wrong protection, or Bates picked up the wrong bltzer, or Cook didn't leak out for the check down or they were just simply outschemed etc....

There are things we will never know as fans and "youtube experts".

 

 

You're right. This is all too complicated. No wonder teams don't study each other's film. It's just too compliated to know what happened.

 

Oh, wait.

 

In fact, it's mostly pretty clear, which is why teams study other teams despite not knowing their calls with exact certainty.

 

PFF puts it best:

 

"YOU DON’T KNOW THE PLAY CALL?

 

"We are certainly not in the huddle, but we are grading what a player attempts to do on a given play. While football is extremely nuanced regarding the preparation and adjustments that go into each play call, once the ball is snapped, most players are clear in what they’re trying to accomplish on each play, and we evaluate accordingly. Of course, there are always some gray areas in football. Plays in which there is a clear question mark regarding assignment, we can defer to a “0” grade and not guess as to which player is right or wrong. These plays are few and far between and since we are grading every snap, missing out on a handful throughout the year should not affect player evaluations. Examples of potential gray areas include coverage busts, quarterback/wide receiver miscommunications and missed blocking assignments."

 

Yeah, you can't fully understand every play. No, that doesn't prevent you from doing a very good job of player evaluation if you look at it carefully, thoughtfully, and are willing to admit the plays where you can't be sure."

 

 

[Thurman#1]

1 hour ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

I guess I was confused thinking -0.8 was smaller than 21.4?  If you can decipher this....let me know.  

 

https://www.pff.com/news/why-aaron-rodgers-earned-a-slightly-negative-grade

 

Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers ended last night’s game with a -0.8 grade overall. This isn’t a bad game, just because the number begins with a minus, but it is an average grade very close to zero for a player who threw five touchdown passes, which seems crazy on the face of it. It’s not.

 

 

 

Ah, found it.

 

 

 

"CONVERTING THE GRADES

 

"The plus-minus grades are then converted to a 0-100 scale at the game and season level. This makes it easier to compare players across positions relative to their peers, though it doesn’t account for positional value, i.e. which positions are most valuable when trying to predict wins. "

 

 

It was extremely obvious it was two different scales. Now we know what the scales are.

 

The raw scale has zero as average performance, negatives as bad and positives as good. The converted scale goes from 0 - 100.

 

So when they say that Rodgers has a -0.5 on the raw scale and Fitz had a 21.4, all-time low on the 0 - 100 scale, arguing that the 21.4 Fitz got was ranking him higher than the -0.5 Rodgers got on the other scale is simply not understanding the numbers. 

[Royale with Cheese]

6 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

I'm sorry. Guess that I slightly misquoted you.

 

If you only "said that they rated Rodgers lower than Fitz," then you are clearly wrong, which is fair enough. But unwilling to admit it, which is really pretty sad.

 

You can't say someone "rated someone higher" when two different scales are very clearly being used. The idea is pathetic. It's like saying this scientist rated the temperature as higher than the other one because he's using Fahrenheit and the number is higher than the other scientist's number who is using Celsius. Yeah, one number is higher. No, that doesn't mean the temperature is being rated as higher or lower by either scientist.

 

Whatever scale they're using to measure the Fitz game, they make it wildly clear that it's the worst grade they've ever graded. "That earned him a PFF grade of 21.4, a catastrophic score that isn’t just the worst single-game grade of the season, but is the worst single-game grade we have ever seen from a QB over the past decade of grading."

And equally, in the article you linked to, they said, "Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers ended last night’s game with a -0.8 grade overall. This isn’t a bad game, just because the number begins with a minus, but it is an average grade, very close to zero ..." 

 

Anyone who can't tell that two different scales are being used when on one scale a grade very close to zero is average, and on the other the lowest grade they've given in the decade of their existence is 21.4, isn't using numbers with any care or concern for relevance.

 

You are the one who picked that particular comparison, I have no idea why or where you got it. But you didn't do your research, clearly. You looked only at the two numbers, without checking what scales they were using, which was extremely easy to determine. Even in this latest post, you're still saying "I said they rated Rodgers lower than Fitz which they clearly did."

 

No. They didn't. They gave him a higher number. On what is clearly a different scale, a Fahrenheit/Celsius comparison where the numbers can't be used to assume a rating. It's like saying, well, 100 ounces vs. 86 pounds, obviously since 100 is higher than 86, the thing that measures 100 must be the heavier object. Makes absolutely zero sense.

 

Two different scales. 

I don’t hate everything PFF is.  I just don’t think highly of their grading system for players.  My reasons I have provided and its the same reasons as other professional players.  Its a discussion topic.

 

This entire PFF discussion came up because Connor McGovern didn’t grade well at PFF.  One poster in particular is saying that it’s basically proof he’s not that good.  
 

I also find it funny how there are posters who are treating their evaluations like gospel.  To the point where Einstein says “in no universe is Andy Reid a good offensive line evaluator”.   Well, PFF he’s actually rated him well in that particular area.  So there are times we can use PFF grades and apparently not…cherry pick which time to use it.

 

Yeah, obviously its two different scales.  But why have two different scales for one overall player evaluation and not specify it to the reader?  But not to mention, regardless of two different scales, one had Rodgers graded negatively.

[Einstein]

57 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

"Lots of former players or coaches work at PFF," you say. Thing is, that is what is called a straw man.

 

You're playing a game of semantics and its not interesting or compelling. Yes, I said "lots of former players or coaches work at PFF." And then I provided an extensive (but not inclusive) list of former players or coaches working at PFF. Thus proving what I said.

 

I never said "PFF only employs former players and coaches".

 

Your lack of reading comprehension is not the sign of a straw man.  Sorry.

 

Since I never said anything about PFF only employing former players and coaches, I assumed your question was in reference to what I said. I did not realize that you were changing the argument from "some" to "all" and thats my fault for not seeing YOUR straw man. 

 

There are 3 levels of analysts at PFF. And ALL player grades have to go through all 3 levels. There may not be a former player or coach at level 1, but they are filled with them in level 2 and 3. The likelihood of a player grade being released without being graded by a former coach or player in level 2 or 3 is unlikely. But you can hang your hat on that small chance if you'd like.

 

Buscaglia is just a radio guy turned reporter who has no additional knowledge than anyone else. At least the grunt level 1 PFF workers are trained.

 

Summary: I'm not interested in playing your game of semantics. Feel free to have the last word.

 

 

.

Edited March 15 by Einstein

[Royale with Cheese]

35 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

Yes.

 

There is a large difference between analyzing, teaching, and doing. If there were not, every head coach and GM in the NFL would be a former player.

 

I understand there is a difference but how does that mean that PFF know more about the player responsibilities more than the player himself?  

 

So if a PFF guy and Travis Kelce are watching film breakdown of the Chiefs OL play.  The PFF guy is going to be able to evaluate Kelce better than Kelce?

This is their gripe and it's not legitimate?  This is what Kelce, Wood and Lang said...they aren't going to know all of my objective.  

[Einstein]

1 minute ago, Royale with Cheese said:

I understand there is a difference but how does that mean that PFF know more about the player responsibilities more than the player himself?  

 

In layman's terms, football is football. 

 

The Eagles aren't inventing a new blocking scheme or breaking the foundation of play design. On a zone run, we know the various assignments each position can have. And much of the time, the problem isn't the linemen going to the wrong place (thus demonstrating the wrong responsibility), but rather the linemen simply being beat in technique. And that is clear as day to see. For example, under no circumstance or play design ever does the linemen have a responsibility of getting blown by and having the QB eat turf.

[Royale with Cheese]

42 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

No - literally no. I made no claim that PFF experts were better at evaluating film than them. I discredited your claim that they thought it was impossible for a person not on the team to know what their responsibilities were. The fact that players like Travis Kelce can't understand how a non-teammate could understand the playcall is supported by his general lack of exposure to multiple schemes throughout his career. If he played ina  half dozen schemes, he might better understand how they all tie together. a lot of teams do the same things with different terminology.

 

This is just stupid...geezus.

 

TJ Lang played for multiple schemes...I guess he's full of ***** too.

 

I think some positions are easier to grade. If you see a quarterback make a bad decision, that's obviously easy to grade. But when it comes to offensive and defensive line play," he said, "there's just so much scheme that goes into what we do up front that nobody else outside of the building can possibly know what we're supposed to do.

"But you're trying to grade guys negatively and give guys bad reputations. You're throwing out, 'This guy missed an assignment here.' You don't know what the assignment is, so you have no qualification to say that in the first place. All it does it make guys look bad because now a lot of media outlets are quoting PFF and using their grades."

The appeal of PFF is that it doesn't grade a player's performance in a vacuum. (All interceptions aren't created the same.) It considers context as much as outcome -- Lang just believes that context is beyond the evaluators' reach.

"If a guy clearly gets beat, that's one thing. But if you're going to say, 'This guy didn't pick up the linebacker, this guy missed a blitz,' there's no possible way that you can know that unless you know what the offensive linemen's responsibilities are. And nobody else knows that," Lang said. "I don't know what Arizona's offensive line does. They might do something completely different than what we do.

"Especially a guy sitting on the outside behind his computer looking at the game, there's no way he knows what the hell's going on either. It's a total joke, in my opinion, as far as it goes grading offensive linemen."

Lang will appear on the Valenti Show on 97.1 The Ticket this season every Tuesday from 5 to 6.

[BullBuchanan]

1 minute ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

This is just stupid...geezus.

 

TJ Lang played for multiple schemes...I guess he's full of ***** too.

 

I think some positions are easier to grade. If you see a quarterback make a bad decision, that's obviously easy to grade. But when it comes to offensive and defensive line play," he said, "there's just so much scheme that goes into what we do up front that nobody else outside of the building can possibly know what we're supposed to do.

"But you're trying to grade guys negatively and give guys bad reputations. You're throwing out, 'This guy missed an assignment here.' You don't know what the assignment is, so you have no qualification to say that in the first place. All it does it make guys look bad because now a lot of media outlets are quoting PFF and using their grades."

The appeal of PFF is that it doesn't grade a player's performance in a vacuum. (All interceptions aren't created the same.) It considers context as much as outcome -- Lang just believes that context is beyond the evaluators' reach.

"If a guy clearly gets beat, that's one thing. But if you're going to say, 'This guy didn't pick up the linebacker, this guy missed a blitz,' there's no possible way that you can know that unless you know what the offensive linemen's responsibilities are. And nobody else knows that," Lang said. "I don't know what Arizona's offensive line does. They might do something completely different than what we do.

"Especially a guy sitting on the outside behind his computer looking at the game, there's no way he knows what the hell's going on either. It's a total joke, in my opinion, as far as it goes grading offensive linemen."

Lang will appear on the Valenti Show on 97.1 The Ticket this season every Tuesday from 5 to 6.

"YOU DON’T KNOW THE PLAY CALL?

We are certainly not in the huddle, but we are grading what a player attempts to do on a given play. While football is extremely nuanced regarding the preparation and adjustments that go into each play call, once the ball is snapped, most players are clear in what they’re trying to accomplish on each play, and we evaluate accordingly. Of course, there are always some gray areas in football. Plays in which there is a clear question mark regarding assignment, we can defer to a “0” grade and not guess as to which player is right or wrong. These plays are few and far between and since we are grading every snap, missing out on a handful throughout the year should not affect player evaluations. Examples of potential gray areas include coverage busts, quarterback/wide receiver miscommunications and missed blocking assignments. "

https://www.pff.com/grades

[Royale with Cheese]

9 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

In layman's terms, football is football. 

 

The Eagles aren't inventing a new blocking scheme or breaking the foundation of play design. On a zone run, we know the various assignments each position can have. And much of the time, the problem isn't the linemen going to the wrong place (thus demonstrating the wrong responsibility), but rather the linemen simply being beat in technique. And that is clear as day to see. For example, under no circumstance or play design ever does the linemen have a responsibility of getting blown by and having the QB eat turf.

 

Lang covers that.

 

"If a guy clearly gets beat, that's one thing. But if you're going to say, 'This guy didn't pick up the linebacker, this guy missed a blitz,' there's no possible way that you can know that unless you know what the offensive linemen's responsibilities are. And nobody else knows that," Lang said. "I don't know what Arizona's offensive line does. They might do something completely different than what we do."

[Einstein]

5 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

Lang covers that.

 

"If a guy clearly gets beat, that's one thing. But if you're going to say, 'This guy didn't pick up the linebacker, this guy missed a blitz,' there's no possible way that you can know that unless you know what the offensive linemen's responsibilities are. And nobody else knows that," Lang said. "I don't know what Arizona's offensive line does. They might do something completely different than what we do."

 

And that's where football disagrees with Lang. You have to remember that just because someone plays football, doesn't mean they understand football or have the knowledge or scope of the full game. How many stories have we heard of players barely passing college courses (or getting help) to play for the team?

 

As I said before, the Eagles aren't inventing a new blocking scheme or breaking the foundation of play design. On a zone run, we know the various assignments each position can have. We know the various responsibilities he may have. 

 

Not to mention, how many times are players really messing up the play call? Not nearly as often as simply getting beat. So the majority of grading is the guy getting beat, I would think.

 

.

Edited March 15 by Einstein