PFF Game Grades

BritCard

ASFN Lifer
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Posts
6,537
Reaction score
7,034
Location
UK
Yeah a 63 grade isn't bad. I do agree that their neutrality on every play being as meaningful is problematic.

I really like ESPN's QBR. Look at Jared Goff as an example. QBR exposes him as a below average to league average QB, but for a bit he was putting up big numbers. QBR takes into account whether a league average QB could step in and make the same play. Goff consistently got a 50 QBR, which means he is an average player, no better.

FYI Murray has a 79.6 QBR to start the year, which ranks 6th.

QBR has its issues too. I feel it unfairly weights running QBs.
 

Krangthebrain

Captain of Team Murray
Joined
Jul 21, 2002
Posts
23,476
Reaction score
10,529
Location
Orange County, CA
I'm not saying it isn't. I just think it's over weighted. The top of the rankings often seem dominated by runners.
Dominated by runners who pass well lol.

Bridgewater isn't exactly a runner and he is top.

Second is Winston. First "runner" to pop up is either Mahomes if you consider him one (I don't) or Wilson at #5.
 

kerouac9

Klowned by Keim
Joined
Feb 14, 2003
Posts
29,021
Reaction score
7,012
Location
Gilbert, AZ
Yeah a 63 grade isn't bad. I do agree that their neutrality on every play being as meaningful is problematic.

I really like ESPN's QBR. Look at Jared Goff as an example. QBR exposes him as a below average to league average QB, but for a bit he was putting up big numbers. QBR takes into account whether a league average QB could step in and make the same play. Goff consistently got a 50 QBR, which means he is an average player, no better.

FYI Murray has a 79.6 QBR to start the year, which ranks 6th.

Britcard is right that all these systems should be evaluated on their merits and there's no magic bullet that reveals the "true" value of a player.

Britcard is wrong in seemingly always pointing exclusively to PFF's grades, which are often comically bad, and then pointing to their marketing copy for support whenever something is odd about their grading. NFL teams subscribe to PFF because their team does the grunt work of play charting that 32 teams used to all hire a $25k/year coaching intern or quality control assistant to do.

I like QBR some. I like that it does a better job of capturing rushing performance and weighting situation better than passer rating. It doesn't account for strength of opponent, so players that face a bunch of good defenses look naturally worse and players who face bad defenses get a boost. Also, last season 23 of 33 qualifying QBs had QBRs over 50. All the children are above average.

People love DVOA when it agrees with them and hate it when it doesn't. DVOA weights for situation and for strength of opponent. It works on a per-play basis, so a 12-yard completion on 3rd-and-22 doesn't mean as much (they call it a failed completion; Kyler lead the league in these last year).

What's a bummer about DVOA is that all of the models assume some real-world data at the front end, so for the first half of the season they're relying on their own preseason predictions to weight opponents. They're also super-upfront about what they can't measure -- like individual offensive lineman performance as contributions to the overall performance of the team. I like their "blown blocks" metric, though.
 

BritCard

ASFN Lifer
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Posts
6,537
Reaction score
7,034
Location
UK
Britcard is right that all these systems should be evaluated on their merits and there's no magic bullet that reveals the "true" value of a player.

Britcard is wrong in seemingly always pointing exclusively to PFF's grades, which are often comically bad, and then pointing to their marketing copy for support whenever something is odd about their grading. NFL teams subscribe to PFF because their team does the grunt work of play charting that 32 teams used to all hire a $25k/year coaching intern or quality control assistant to do.

I like QBR some. I like that it does a better job of capturing rushing performance and weighting situation better than passer rating. It doesn't account for strength of opponent, so players that face a bunch of good defenses look naturally worse and players who face bad defenses get a boost. Also, last season 23 of 33 qualifying QBs had QBRs over 50. All the children are above average.

People love DVOA when it agrees with them and hate it when it doesn't. DVOA weights for situation and for strength of opponent. It works on a per-play basis, so a 12-yard completion on 3rd-and-22 doesn't mean as much (they call it a failed completion; Kyler lead the league in these last year).

What's a bummer about DVOA is that all of the models assume some real-world data at the front end, so for the first half of the season they're relying on their own preseason predictions to weight opponents. They're also super-upfront about what they can't measure -- like individual offensive lineman performance as contributions to the overall performance of the team. I like their "blown blocks" metric, though.

I don't continually point to them. They are simply the only publicly available grading system for all round performance on every play.

While they aren't perfect they are at least consistent. If I want to know if X WR is better than Y WR it should be fair.
 

kerouac9

Klowned by Keim
Joined
Feb 14, 2003
Posts
29,021
Reaction score
7,012
Location
Gilbert, AZ
I don't continually point to them. They are simply the only publicly available grading system for all round performance on every play.

While they aren't perfect they are at least consistent. If I want to know if X WR is better than Y WR it should be fair.
It's your first reference to player quality almost every time. You point to PFF grades multiple times a day on here. Just be honest about it.

What does "fair" mean in this context? Because by no means is PFF "objective", which is it's biggest complication compared to actual analytics.
 

Proximo

ASFN Lifer
Joined
Mar 8, 2015
Posts
5,433
Reaction score
3,182
What's the relevancy of any of Simmons plays that don't have a material impact on a given outcome?

I can see whether he made a tackle, broke up a pass, or failed at either. What else is there?
Blowing coverage leaving a guy open - you would only notice if the ball was thrown to that guy

The significance is even if he gets away with the mistake in this game, it is liable to be a problem in a future game, and it shows his overall mental command of the game.
 

DVontel

ASFN Lifer
Joined
Jan 28, 2015
Posts
7,563
Reaction score
8,694
I don't continually point to them. They are simply the only publicly available grading system for all round performance on every play.

While they aren't perfect they are at least consistent. If I want to know if X WR is better than Y WR it should be fair.
You know you don’t even believe this.
 

Proximo

ASFN Lifer
Joined
Mar 8, 2015
Posts
5,433
Reaction score
3,182
I'll try remember to do everyone

Defense

Marco Wilson - 62
Byron Murphy - 76.3
Robert Alford - 76.1
Budda Baker - 85.4
Jalen Thompson - 62.8

Isaiah Simmons - 63 (PFF on crack)
Jordan Hicks - 52
Zaven Collins - 72.5 (Run defense 90, coverage 41. This might explain why he vanished during passing downs)

Chandler Jones - 93.8
JJ Watt - 67.5
Markus Golden - 68
Zach Allen - 34.8 - Yikes
Leki Fotu - 42.2
Rashard Lawrence - 56.9
Michael Dogbe - 62.7
Corey Peters - 62.9

Those young D line guys really have a long way to go.

Offense coming up
No matter what the haters say about PFF, please keep posting these scores every week. I very much appreciate it.
 

BritCard

ASFN Lifer
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Posts
6,537
Reaction score
7,034
Location
UK
It's your first reference to player quality almost every time. You point to PFF grades multiple times a day on here. Just be honest about it.

What does "fair" mean in this context? Because by no means is PFF "objective", which is it's biggest complication compared to actual analytics.

Ok, what other metric would you like me to reference when comparing the all round performance of a player against another player?

What makes me laugh with PFF haters is they always point to that one outlier grade as proof that PFF is garbage while ignoring the remaining 95% they agree with.

Look at our WR grades. Nobody has issue with those. Nuk, Kirk, Moore all over 80. Our CB and safety grades all seem on the money. O line grades all seem on the money.

Poor as some of them are even D line grades look right because the players with poor grades were invisible on Sunday.

The one grade everyone is complaining about is Simmons because between grabbing chips and posting in the gameday thread we saw Simmons make 5 or 6 nice plays out of 60+.

Do you not think as all the other grades look right they might be right on Simmons too? (Which by the way was a decent grade considering the number of snaps he played and on all 3 downs and a step in the right direction).

It's the same over a season. The Mahomes's, Kelce's, Nuk's, Hill's and Kamara's of the league always have grades you would expect for their talent levels. If the system was flawed that wouldn't be the case.
 
Last edited:

kerouac9

Klowned by Keim
Joined
Feb 14, 2003
Posts
29,021
Reaction score
7,012
Location
Gilbert, AZ
Ok, what other metric would you like me to reference when comparing the all round performance of a player against another player?

What makes me laugh with PFF haters is they always point to that one outlier grade as proof that PFF is garbage while ignoring the remaining 95% they agree with.

Look at our WR grades. Nobody has issue with those. Nuk, Kirk, Moore all over 80. Our CB and safety grades all seem on the money. O line grades all seem on the money.

Poor as some of them are even D line grades look right because the players with poor grades were invisible on Sunday.

The one grade everyone is complaining about is Simmons because between grabbing chips and posting in the gameday thread we saw Simmons make 5 or 6 nice plays out of 60+.

Do you not think as all the other grades look right they might be right on Simmons too? (Which by the way was a decent grade considering the number of snaps he played and on all 3 downs and a step in the right direction).

It's the same over a season. The Mahomes's, Kelce's, Nuk's, Hill's and Kamara's of the league always have grades you would expect for their talent levels. If the system was flawed that wouldn't be the case.
Dude, you’ve just defined confirmation bias. It it tells you want you expect to see, then what’s the point?

I disagree with the premise of PFF grades and their process. They’re not “metrics” — they’re the averages opinion of a bunch of people. No different than this board.
 

Krangthebrain

Captain of Team Murray
Joined
Jul 21, 2002
Posts
23,476
Reaction score
10,529
Location
Orange County, CA
By the KTBGS (Krangthebrain grading system), Simmons got like an 80.

My grading system is similar to PFF except I give big weight to splash plays and Simmons made a few of those.

The problem with PFF is that a yeoman guy who is always in the right position could score a 80, while a guy who wasn't in the right position all of the time but made 2 big plays could score a 65. Thats why you'll routinely see guys that are only ok score high. I remember one game where Zach Allen scored really high and he didn't really do squat in a loss.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
429,697
Posts
4,498,254
Members
6,030
Latest member
Neilsmann
Top