...according to the great PFF.
Yet another reminder that stats are just stats unless you have the smarts to do more with them.
If you can't make good analysis from those stats (i.e. create flawed formulas with outcomes that obviously need adjustment,) then you don't fully understand what you're doing with those numbers.
There are lots of ways that PFF's "rating methods" can skew results too far one way or the other for a number of positions.
This is clearly one of those situations.
Absolutely laughable. Probably would have said the same thing about Robert Mathis early in his career.
What are they saying he does badly? Run defense?
Cut and paste their comments.
(06-27-2017, 10:27 AM)TealHammer Wrote: [ -> ]What are they saying he does badly? Run defense?
Cut and paste their comments.
It was run defense. (which of course is the secondary function of his position)
He was 60th of 102 "edge rushers" in the pass rush. Last in run defense with a 32.7 rating.
Quote:- The Jaguars have been looking for a dynamic edge rusher for years, possibly landing the answer in last year’s third-round pick, Yannick Ngakoue.
- Ngakoue earned a pass-rushing grade of 68.0 in his rookie season, 60th out of 102 qualifying edge rushers.
- More impressively, Ngakoue recorded 47 total quarterback pressures on 474 pass-rushing snaps, averaging a pressure a little over once every 10 snaps. The 47 total pressures ranked second-most amongst rookie edge rushers.
- The main weakness in Ngakoue’s game in 2016 was defending the run, as his grade of 32.7 in that regard was last among all qualifying edge rushers.
- If Ngakoue can improve in the run game — which teammates Dante Fowler, Calais Campbell, and Malik Jackson already have shown they can make an impact in — the potential is there to make the Jaguars’ defense even stingier in 2017 than it appears on paper.
https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-jag...g-promise/
Ngakoue addressed this in an interview early in the offseason. He explained that he needs to get better against the run, and that improving there is his entire focus this offseason. I'm sure his hard work will pay off.
(06-27-2017, 09:10 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]There are lots of ways that PFF's "rating methods" can skew results too far one way or the other for a number of positions.
This is clearly one of those situations.
My issue with them is that they seem to lack the awareness to acknowledge those shortcomings, and fail work to improve their system/methodology accordingly.
If you're getting garbage out, then you're either putting garbage in (I don't necessarily think this is the case for all their measurements, but the subjective measurements certainly are open to wild inaccuracies) or you need to re-think and re-tool the way you are formulating the "grade."
They clearly are either penalizing the run too heavily, not weighing his pass rush effectiveness high enough, or their subjective observations are not accurate. It simply makes no sense that he would grade as the lowest rated starter. That's a sign to go back and reassess the methodology, and take a second look at the subjective data as well. Either their formula, judgement in observation, or both need review.
(06-27-2017, 12:45 PM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2017, 09:10 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]There are lots of ways that PFF's "rating methods" can skew results too far one way or the other for a number of positions.
This is clearly one of those situations.
My issue with them is that they seem to lack the awareness to acknowledge those shortcomings, and fail work to improve their system/methodology accordingly.
If you're getting garbage out, then you're either putting garbage in (I don't necessarily think this is the case for all their measurements, but the subjective measurements certainly are open to wild inaccuracies) or you need to re-think and re-tool the way you are formulating the "grade."
They clearly are either penalizing the run too heavily, not weighing his pass rush effectiveness high enough, or their subjective observations are not accurate. It simply makes no sense that he would grade as the lowest rated starter. That's a sign to go back and reassess the methodology, and take a second look at the subjective data as well. Either their formula, judgement in observation, or both need review.
The thing is, they won't ever be able to fix it and it seems as if that is becoming more and more apparent. They can't fix their methodology simply because they can't fix the fundamental gap in how they obtain their data; they don't know what the play is and they don't know what the player is thinking.
They can put in uncertainty factors and all of that, but the dynamics of a given football play are so astronomically huge that they are really just grasping at straws in the dark while wearing catchers mitts and a blindfold. They don't have access to the scouting report that the coaches used to develop the practice and game plans and without that, they can only really tell you if a guy gets pancaked or not. Not to mention that they don't know what the individual called play is, if it was even a play. It may have just been a concept.
In my mind, they are wrong and they're gonna stay wrong.
They weigh run stopping pretty heavily so i get why theyre low. Is it just defense? I find it hard to velieve he got a lower grade than Blake/Oline/RBs
(06-27-2017, 12:45 PM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2017, 09:10 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]There are lots of ways that PFF's "rating methods" can skew results too far one way or the other for a number of positions.
This is clearly one of those situations.
My issue with them is that they seem to lack the awareness to acknowledge those shortcomings, and fail work to improve their system/methodology accordingly.
If you're getting garbage out, then you're either putting garbage in (I don't necessarily think this is the case for all their measurements, but the subjective measurements certainly are open to wild inaccuracies) or you need to re-think and re-tool the way you are formulating the "grade."
They clearly are either penalizing the run too heavily, not weighing his pass rush effectiveness high enough, or their subjective observations are not accurate. It simply makes no sense that he would grade as the lowest rated starter. That's a sign to go back and reassess the methodology, and take a second look at the subjective data as well. Either their formula, judgement in observation, or both need review.
Garbage in, garbage out, but you're still reading their stuff and taking their feedback to another forum to discuss, so their mission is accomplished.
I think people take much of this stuff way too seriously. It's really not worth getting even remotely worked up over this stuff.
The jaguars are a bad team until they are not. Win a bunch of games and all of this goes away
He was a 3rd round draft pick rookie that needs development, but showed certain skills and upside. I would not expect him to be high stat-wise against the rush. It will take some time for him to grow and handle an NFL-caliber tackle effectively.
Lol if he's the worst starter on the roster, we should be in good shape.
If Yannick is the worst starter on defense then things are looking pretty good for 2017.
(06-28-2017, 07:00 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]He's a starter?
He did start over Fowler for most of the season.
That was a fair and honest breakdown of Ngakoue. I have nothing against those quotes about him. Of course the fan base by and large would agree that Fowler Jr. was probably the worst or least productive player on a consistent basis from the defense.
Honestly it felt more like PFF was praising him for what he was brought in to do. And just stating the obvious that as a rookie he struggled against the run game. But that's not his primary reason for being here.....
And as a few have already cited. If he's the WORST graded starter on our defense. That's pretty damn good and just goes to show that we're trending in the right direction defensively.
(06-28-2017, 07:00 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]He's a starter?
Only one lineman played more defensive snaps than Ngakoue in 2016.
(Jackson 768 / Ngakoue 711)