PFF on headcoaches

[football karma]

this should be interesting...........

2022 NFL Head Coach Rankings: Bill Belichick, John Harbaugh and Andy Reid lead the way | NFL News, Rankings and Statistics | PFF

Based on win total estimations with an average roster, the New England Patriots' Bill Belichick comes in at No. 1 in these head coach rankings ahead of the 2022 NFL season.

www.pff.com

 

[bankybruce]

For those that don't want to click.

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[bankybruce]

They have McVay at 11. I'm a true homer and still laugh at these rankings.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

They have McVay at 11. I'm a true homer and still laugh at these rankings.

I'm not too sure they are that far off honestly. Looking at it from the beginning, hasn't Kliff overachieved (in regards to win totals) nearly every year since he came year?

 

[BritCard]

This might be one of the dumbest things PFF has ever done.

Kliff above LaFleur, McVay, Vrabel, Shanny (I don't rate Shanny like most pundits but still) and Tomlin.

Anyone else would have looked at that and said "Yeah this ain't right. We can't publish this".

 

[bankybruce]

I'm not too sure they are that far off honestly. Looking at it from the beginning, hasn't Kliff overachieved (in regards to win totals) nearly every year since he came year?

I honestly don't have a problem with Kliff high, he might be a tad too high, but top 10 is reasonanble. I just don't see McVay that low though. He took Jared Goff to a Super Bowl.

 

[bankybruce]

This might be one of the dumbest things PFF has ever done.

Kliff above LaFleur, McVay, Vrabel, Shanny (I don't rate Shanny like most pundits but still) and Tomlin.

ANyone else would have looked at that and said "Yeah this ain't right. We can't publish this".

Tomlin has has a very average roster the last 3-4 years and their worst season was 8-8. He definitely should be much higher.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

This might be one of the dumbest things PFF has ever done.

Kliff above LaFleur, McVay, Vrabel, Shanny (I don't rate Shanny like most pundits but still) and Tomlin.

Anyone else would have looked at that and said "Yeah this ain't right. We can't publish this".

Did you just look at the list, vs trying to extrapolate what the article is trying to say?

 

[DVontel]

I’m not one of these pundits who just like to crap on Kliff no matter what he does cause it’s the fun thing to do, but he’s definitely not top 10 let alone at #4.

 

[DVontel]

Tomlin is a weird case cause he’s clearly not a bad HC, hence by the lack of losing seasons, but Pittsburgh hasn’t really done anything in over 10 years & they have had some really bad playoff losses(Tebow, Bortles) since then.

 

[football karma]

the TL/DR summary of the article is that PFF basically factors the roster talent (as adjusted for injuries) to determine how many wins that roster should produce and then compares to actual results -- with the theory being "coaching" is what falls out.

so on McVay -- it kinda says that he has had a far better roster to work with than Kliff

also of interest, it says Vance holds Kliff back

 

[BritCard]

Did you just look at the list, vs trying to extrapolate what the article is trying to say?

I both looked at the list and how they worked it out.

When you try to design a methodology for ranking coaches based on wins over expected using salaries as a replacement for talent and it spits out this as the result anyone in their right mind would say "This isn't working right".

If I was trying a formula to calculate how many footballs would fit inside State Farm Stadium and it spat out 12 as the result I'd think "Something is wrong here".

Not even saying Kliff is bad.

 

[BritCard]

the TL/DR summary of the article is that PFF basically factors the roster talent (as adjusted for injuries) to determine who many wins that roster should produce --- and then compares to actual results -- with the theory being "coaching" is what falls out.

also of interest, it says Vance holds Kliff back

Yeah also weird considering DVOA has the defense better than the offense for the last 2 years.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

I both looked at the list and how they worked it out.

When you try to design a methodology for ranking coaches based on point over expected using salaries as a replacement for talent and it spits out this as the result anyone in their right mind would say "This isn't working right".

If I was trying a formula to calculate how many footballs would fit inside State Farm Stadium and it spat out 12 as the result I'd think "Something is wrong here".

Ridiculous.

You looked at that list and dismissed it because Kliff was listed #4. Your own post indicates as much.

Do I agree with the premise? Not sure. It is an interesting data point? Absolutely.

 

[BritCard]

Ridiculous.

You looked at that list and dismissed it because Kliff was listed #4. Your own post indicates as much.

Do I agree with the premise? Not sure. It is an interesting data point? Absolutely.

Thanks for telling me what I did.

I saw this yesterday and didn't even think it was worth posting here. As I said, it's not about Kliff. It's about Kliff being above McVay, Tomlin etc.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Thanks for telling me what I did.

I saw this yesterday and didn't even think it was worth posting here. As I said, it's not about Kliff. It's about Kliff being above McVay, Tomlin etc.

No problem. Thanks for not owning up to what you did.

 

[Krangodnzr]

I honestly don't have a problem with Kliff high, he might be a tad too high, but top 10 is reasonanble. I just don't see McVay that low though. He took Jared Goff to a Super Bowl.

McVay does have Aaron Donald wrecking opposing offenses on the weekly though.

And as much flak as Kliff has gotten for not improving Kyler around here, Goff got worse every season under McVay pretty much.

 

[Krangodnzr]

The funny thing about this board, is you consistently see posters bemoan the lack of talent, "oh Keim totally sucks, the team lacks talent all through out," and then many posters talk about how terrible Kingsbury is....and then the cherry on top is they will also say that Kyler isn't the guy either.

So if you read some of these posters (not naming names) the team is essentially a 4 win team and everyone should be fired and Kyler should be traded

And yet, at one point the Cardinals were 10-2 and the best team in the NFL for essentially 6-7 weeks of the season, if not longer.

I personally think the team has some decent talent, Kingsbury is a pretty good coach when his offense is humming, and Kyler is a great QB when players around him can win some battles and get open.

 

[Stout]

 

[kerouac9]

From a statistical perspective, it seems very odd that they'd use salary as a proxy for a player's talent level instead of — you know — their expensive, proprietary grades? It would seems like a coach who manages to get by with lower-graded players is implementing a system that allows the sum to be greater than its less-talented parts.

 

[BritCard]

No problem. Thanks for not owning up to what you did.

lol ok dude.

I swear there are people on this board that need to argue about the most minor of things.

 

[BritCard]

From a statistical perspective, it seems very odd that they'd use salary as a proxy for a player's talent level instead of — you know — their expensive, proprietary grades? It would seems like a coach who manages to get by with lower-graded players is implementing a system that allows the sum to be greater than its less-talented parts.

This is a great point. I'm guessing PFF would argue that their grades measure performance, not talent. And that the quality of the HC effects that performance.

 

[kerouac9]

This is a great point. I'm guessing PFF would argue that their grades measure performance, not talent. And that the quality of the HC effects that performance.

Salary is also a pretty miserable proxy for talent, though. The bad teams spend tons of money because they have to pay more to get even average players to go there, or because that's how they get and stay bad (look at Christian Kirk's windfall).

You'd be better off using draft status as your proxy. Yeah, you'll miss out on a handful of late-round and undrafted gems on each roster, but doesn't that speak to overperformance as much as anything else?

Obviously there's no perfect way to measure the talent level of one roster in comparison to another's. That said, I think it really highlights that PFF isn't very rigorous in their analysis -- they're a media company closer to Sports Illustrated than Stats Inc.

Compare that to FO's recent introduction of a Cost-benefit analysis for Free Agent Signings, which is absolutely rife with admissions where the model falls apart or doesn't capture certain macro trends.

 

[BritCard]

Salary is also a pretty miserable proxy for talent, though. The bad teams spend tons of money because they have to pay more to get even average players to go there, or because that's how they get and stay bad (look at Christian Kirk's windfall).

You'd be better off using draft status as your proxy. Yeah, you'll miss out on a handful of late-round and undrafted gems on each roster, but doesn't that speak to overperformance as much as anything else?

Obviously there's no perfect way to measure the talent level of one roster in comparison to another's. That said, I think it really highlights that PFF isn't very rigorous in their analysis -- they're a media company closer to Sports Illustrated than Stats Inc.

Compare that to FO's recent introduction of a Cost-benefit analysis for Free Agent Signings, which is absolutely rife with admissions where the model falls apart or doesn't capture certain macro trends.

Agree on all. I'm surprised they couldn't find some way to work in their grades as part of the "formula". They are about as accurate as anything else there.

So many variables missing from it. Dan Campbell's grade alone is probably dragged down by Goff's salary which is far above his talent.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

lol ok dude.

I swear there are people on this board that need to argue about the most minor of things.

...and some would rather deflect than to have their opinion challenged.