Jump to content

Conner McGovern to Bills


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:


"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

 

You're acting like this evaluation and system is flawless lol.  Yeah it's theirs but that means the players should agree with it?

They clearly think it's *****.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

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.

 

.

 

Richard Noggin sent you this.  You only replied to have his quote...for a specific reason.

 

So I guess football disagrees with Greg Cossell as well.  He basically said the same thing as Lang but used the word "difficult" instead of "impossible".

I've already put Kelce's quote which is the same thing.

 

So basically any NFL Player who says unflattering things about PFF potentially doesn't have the knowledge of scope of the full game.

You cherry pick your stats as well.  Only using PFF when it says what you want it to say.  

 

Greg Cosell (a broadly respected pro), on the other hand, continually reminds Schopp and the Bulldog that there are NUANCES WE CANNOT KNOW when watching film. And this has been his credentialed day job for a long time. He will offer his best educated guesses and opinions, and be repeatedly (maybe evasively) insistent that the scheme-specific and even play-specific nuances in overall design, individual techniques, pre- and post-snap checks, calls, and reads, etc., are difficult to know for sure, especially in the cases of breakdowns and missed assignments. It's actually fascinating to explore and acknowledge these possibilities. But it won't get the same online engagement, most likely... 

 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

Richard Noggin sent you this.  You only replied to have his quote...for a specific reason.

 

So I guess football disagrees with Greg Cossell as well.  He basically said the same thing as Lang but used the word "difficult" instead of "impossible".

I've already put Kelce's quote which is the same thing.

 

So basically any NFL Player who says unflattering things about PFF potentially doesn't have the knowledge of scope of the full game.

You cherry pick your stats as well.  Only using PFF when it says what you want it to say.  

 

Greg Cosell (a broadly respected pro), on the other hand, continually reminds Schopp and the Bulldog that there are NUANCES WE CANNOT KNOW when watching film. And this has been his credentialed day job for a long time. He will offer his best educated guesses and opinions, and be repeatedly (maybe evasively) insistent that the scheme-specific and even play-specific nuances in overall design, individual techniques, pre- and post-snap checks, calls, and reads, etc., are difficult to know for sure, especially in the cases of breakdowns and missed assignments. It's actually fascinating to explore and acknowledge these possibilities. But it won't get the same online engagement, most likely... 

 

 

To the extent that there are small nuances within the game, I don't think they are large enough to have a substantial impact on an overall grade. To account for them you could assign a variance of +/- 5 to each player and still have reasonable rankings. Maybe a player rank #1 in his position group drops to #3 and player #2 goes to #1, etc, but it's not like player #40 is going to jump up to #5 because of some small nuance that PFF doesn't know. 

 

Generally speaking, I think their grading is close to how NFL teams see players. Are there exceptions at times? Sure. But teams do dumb things all the time. We went 17 years of no playoffs in part by drafting poorly. If we had used the general consensus draft ranking for those 17 years, we likely would have been much better.

 

.

Edited by Einstein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

You're acting like this evaluation and system is flawless lol. 

Yeah it's theirs but that means the players should agree with it?


They clearly think it's *****.


Nope. I'm pointing out that all of your complaints are addressed in their methodology. It's far from flawless but it's absolutely scientifically valid based on their process. You're the one saying it isn't valid because 2 NFL players complained about it.

 

1 hour ago, Royale with Cheese said:

Yeah it's theirs but that means the players should agree with it?

 


I dont care if NFL players agree with it. I care if it's valid. Playing in the NFL doesn't make you an expert of analysis or scheme.
 

1 hour ago, Royale with Cheese said:

They clearly think it's *****.

 

I couldn't possibly care less what Travis Kelce thinks about anything. He doesn't come off as a very bright dude.

Edited by BullBuchanan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:


Nope. I'm pointing out that all of your complaints are addressed in their methodology. It's far from flawless but it's absolutely scientifically valid based on their process. You're the one saying it isn't valid because 2 NFL players complained about it.

 


I dont care if NFL players agree with it. I care if it's valid. Playing in the NFL doesn't make you an expert of analysis or scheme.
 

 

I couldn't possibly care less what Travis Kelce thinks about anything. He doesn't come off as a very bright dude.

 
PFF is scientifically valid😂

Geezus lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

Nope. I'm pointing out that all of your complaints are addressed in their methodology. It's far from flawless but it's absolutely scientifically valid based on their process. You're the one saying it isn't valid because 2 NFL players complained about it.

 

 

 

1 minute ago, BritBill said:

It's as scientific as religion. 

 

Eh, I'll give it props for having a methodology, albeit not a transparent one.  But it's not science, and it's not "scientifically valid".

 

  • Haha (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BullBuchanan said:

literally, yes. They follow a scientific process.

Did you go to college? If so, what was your major?


🤣PFF follows a scientific process.  Dude come on.  

 

I did go to college and received a secondary education degree and was certified in Middle Grades and Secondary Science.  

3 minutes ago, BritBill said:

It's as scientific as religion. 


He’s doubling down on his statement too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

 

 

 

Eh, I'll give it props for having a methodology, albeit not a transparent one.  But it's not science, and it's not "scientifically valid".

 

Maybe you just don't know the definition then if you don't think data modeling is a scientific pursuit.

Edited by BullBuchanan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

literally, yes. They follow a scientific process.

 

No, Bright Eyes, they don't.

 

One of the hallmarks of the scientific method is transparency and reproducibility.  I do an experiment, I need to be able to share my methods in sufficient detail that any reasonably skilled and knowledgeable practitioner can reproduce them. 

 

Does PFF share details of their grading system and etc. publicly such that anyone following those details could reproduce their grades?

 

C'mon Man.  Don't go throwing around terms like "scientifically valid" and "follow a scientific process" unless you understand them.

5 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

Maybe you just don't know the definition then if you don't think data modeling is a scientific pursuit.

 

Or maybe I understand that data modeling is only as scientific as the data it uses and the methodology it employs.  Predictive models can be scientifically sound - if the methodology used to develop them is transparent, and if they can be demonstrated to be predictive. 

 

You really wanna go here?  Have PFF's results - say, their OL grades - been demonstrated to be predictive of performance?  I'll hang up and listen.

 

 

Edited by Beck Water
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Beck Water said:

 

No, Bright Eyes, they don't.

 

One of the hallmarks of the scientific method is transparency and reproducibility.  I do an experiment, I need to be able to share my methods in sufficient detail that any reasonably skilled and knowledgeable practitioner can reproduce them. 

 

Does PFF share details of their grading system and etc. publicly such that anyone following those details could reproduce their grades?

 

C'mon Man.  Don't go throwing around terms like "scientifically valid" and "follow a scientific process" unless you understand them.

They do share the details of their grading system. I have a bachelor of science degree and work in an engineering field. I know exactly what the scientific method is and use its application every day. How many times do I have to link it in one thread for you guys to be able to follow along?


https://www.pff.com/grades

Neil Hornsby, the founder of PFF, has a bachelor of science in Physics. I'm going to assume he's also familiar with the scientific method

image.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BullBuchanan said:

They do share the details of their grading system. I have a bachelor of science degree and work in an engineering field. I know exactly what the scientific method is and use its application every day. How many times do I have to link it in one thread for you guys to be able to follow along?


https://www.pff.com/grades

Neil Hornsby, the founder of PFF, has a bachelor of science in Physics. I'm going to assume he's also familiar with the scientific method

image.png

 

So, Connor McGovern eh? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

You really wanna go here?  Have PFF's results - say, their OL grades - been demonstrated to be predictive of performance?  I'll hang up and listen.

In order for that to be true, you would need to have a hypothesis that past performance is indicative of future results.  I'm not about to make that claim - are you?

Btw, I posted their model methodology. Eagerly awaiting your rebuttal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

They do share the details of their grading system. I have a bachelor of science degree and work in an engineering field. I know exactly what the scientific method is and use its application every day. How many times do I have to link it in one thread for you guys to be able to follow along?


https://www.pff.com/grades

Neil Hornsby, the founder of PFF, has a bachelor of science in Physics. I'm going to assume he's also familiar with the scientific method

image.png


Great.  Just because he has a degree is Science doesn’t mean it can be applied to a game of football lol.  
 

 

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:


You can apply science and scientific methodology to anything.


Not in a player evaluation grade lol.

A player evaluation is a subjective analysis/observation.  Its why not every teams Draft Big Board is the same lol.

 

Remember when you said “just because you play football doesn’t mean you know football?”

 

I starting to think just because you have an Engineering degree….

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:


Not in a player evaluation grade lol.

A player evaluation is a subjective analysis/observation.  Its why not every teams Draft Big Board is the same lol.

 

Remember when you said “just because you play football doesn’t mean you know football?”

 

I starting to think just because you have an Engineering degree….

Omg, so this whole time you were hung up because you didn't think it was possible to apply a scientific analysis to subjective interpretations?

There are whole industries that do just that - Net Promoter Scores and Customer Satisfaction Scores are just that, except they don't come with grading rubrics or extensive training for the input data.

In the case of PFF, the grader is grading to the rubric. The that all of the grades go through a second set of hands on a play by play is following a peer review model. If you have a system set up like that, you should be getting similar results across personnel.

Edited by BullBuchanan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Royale with Cheese said:


Not in a player evaluation grade lol.

A player evaluation is a subjective analysis/observation.  Its why not every teams Draft Big Board is the same lol.

 

Remember when you said “just because you play football doesn’t mean you know football?”

 

I starting to think just because you have an Engineering degree….

There is literally no science to drafting a player… science could never measure a kids internal motivations …. Wants , needs …. What makes him tick

 

its a crapshoot …. Because talent only takes you so far

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a very specific reason to revive this one.

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.   Restore formatting

  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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...