vs Miami
![[Image: ia3e6sox6fu71.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&a...3e5ebfd5da]](https://preview.redd.it/ia3e6sox6fu71.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=4f9b669af3ead4afb95ab24d34f2353e5ebfd5da)
Weeks 1-9 ranked
![[Image: uqo7oyd1sly71.jpg]](https://i.redd.it/uqo7oyd1sly71.jpg)
(11-10-2021, 12:36 AM)jaguarmvp Wrote: [ -> ]Weeks 1-9 ranked
There is a helluva lot more green shades there than I would've guessed lol.
Rough seeing our franchise qb ranked dead last among qualifiers.
PFF is complete BS. There's no way they can judge every player for every play for every week. 22 players times 150 plays per game times 15 games a week. That's 49,500 individual player plays per week. And they don't even know what play was called or what defense was called and who had what responsibility. It's impossible for them to do this.
Add to that the fact that they rated Josh Allen our 4th best defender against the Bills after he had 8 solo tackles, a sack, a forced fumble, a fumble recovery, and an interception.
It's total BS. Garbage in, garbage out.
I wish former coaches and players would start their own grading system. I just can’t take anything PFF says serious.
(11-10-2021, 08:28 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]PFF is complete BS. There's no way they can judge every player for every play for every week. 22 players times 150 plays per game times 15 games a week. That's 49,500 individual player plays per week. And they don't even know what play was called or what defense was called and who had what responsibility. It's impossible for them to do this.
Add to that the fact that they rated Josh Allen our 4th best defender against the Bills after he had 8 solo tackles, a sack, a forced fumble, a fumble recovery, and an interception.
It's total BS. Garbage in, garbage out.
They actually explain their method in some detail here and address your objections.
https://www.pff.com/grades
(11-10-2021, 09:09 AM)JagFanatic24 Wrote: [ -> ]I wish former coaches and players would start their own grading system. I just can’t take anything PFF says serious.
On that pff page it says they use former players as analysts, although not exclusively.
(11-10-2021, 02:09 PM)OzJohnnie Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2021, 08:28 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]PFF is complete BS. There's no way they can judge every player for every play for every week. 22 players times 150 plays per game times 15 games a week. That's 49,500 individual player plays per week. And they don't even know what play was called or what defense was called and who had what responsibility. It's impossible for them to do this.
Add to that the fact that they rated Josh Allen our 4th best defender against the Bills after he had 8 solo tackles, a sack, a forced fumble, a fumble recovery, and an interception.
It's total BS. Garbage in, garbage out.
They actually explain their method in some detail here and address your objections.
https://www.pff.com/grades
That doesn't refute a thing I said, in fact it reinforces what I said.
"Each grade is reviewed at least once, and usually multiple times, using every camera angle available, including All-22 coaches’ tape."
So of the ~50,000 individual player-plays per week, they are "reviewing them multiple times using every camera available. " That means they're not doing 50,000 reviews per week; they're doing 150,000 or more reviews per week!
"PFF employs over 600 full or part-time analysts, but less than 10% of analysts are trained to the level they can grade plays."
So they have 60 people who are actually qualified to review 50,000 to 150,000 player-plays PER WEEK.
"Only the top two to three percent of analysts are on the team of "senior analysts" in charge of finalizing each grade after review."
2 or 3% of 600 is 15. They have 15 guys who finalize the grades on 50,000 to 150,000 plays PER WEEK. If they only take 20 seconds per play, that adds up to 277 to 831 hours per week. There are only 960 hours in a week. When do they sleep?
My primary gripe with their system is that it assumes intent and assignment for OL, DB and LB play.
Makes the grading of those positions flawed IMO.
They can't get those assumptions right consistently enough for those grades to be accurate on their own or in comparison to one another.
(11-10-2021, 03:03 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]My primary gripe with their system is that it assumes intent and assignment for OL, DB and LB play.
Makes the grading of those positions flawed IMO.
They can't get those assumptions right consistently enough for those grades to be accurate on their own or in comparison to one another.
I've got no idea of they are right or wrong. I never even look at the stats except when someone else posts them somewhere. They do claim, however, that intent is usually very easy to determine on review and that in the few instances when they cannot reasonably determine what a player should have done then they mark the play neutral. They grade on a scale from done really well to done really poorly and that the number of times they must mark something neutral because they are unable to judge it accurately is so rare as to be statistically irrelevant.
Again, I have no idea if they are good or bad. I'm merely pointing out that they have reasoned answers to your objection.
(11-10-2021, 02:39 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2021, 02:09 PM)OzJohnnie Wrote: [ -> ]They actually explain their method in some detail here and address your objections.
https://www.pff.com/grades
That doesn't refute a thing I said, in fact it reinforces what I said.
"Each grade is reviewed at least once, and usually multiple times, using every camera angle available, including All-22 coaches’ tape."
So of the ~50,000 individual player-plays per week, they are "reviewing them multiple times using every camera available. " That means they're not doing 50,000 reviews per week; they're doing 150,000 or more reviews per week!
"PFF employs over 600 full or part-time analysts, but less than 10% of analysts are trained to the level they can grade plays."
So they have 60 people who are actually qualified to review 50,000 to 150,000 player-plays PER WEEK.
"Only the top two to three percent of analysts are on the team of "senior analysts" in charge of finalizing each grade after review."
2 or 3% of 600 is 15. They have 15 guys who finalize the grades on 50,000 to 150,000 plays PER WEEK. If they only take 20 seconds per play, that adds up to 277 to 831 hours per week. There are only 960 hours in a week. When do they sleep?
A) I never said that they refuted your argument, I said they addressed it.
B) You present the task as impossible and yet they publish the numbers. So either they are lying or you're figuring wrong. Given they are contractually obligated to provide their product as described and I imagine are also independently audited, I would lead toward their claims being defensible and you're back-of-the-envelope calculation being flawed in some way.
(11-10-2021, 02:09 PM)OzJohnnie Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2021, 08:28 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]PFF is complete BS. There's no way they can judge every player for every play for every week. 22 players times 150 plays per game times 15 games a week. That's 49,500 individual player plays per week. And they don't even know what play was called or what defense was called and who had what responsibility. It's impossible for them to do this.
Add to that the fact that they rated Josh Allen our 4th best defender against the Bills after he had 8 solo tackles, a sack, a forced fumble, a fumble recovery, and an interception.
It's total BS. Garbage in, garbage out.
They actually explain their method in some detail here and address your objections.
https://www.pff.com/grades
(11-10-2021, 09:09 AM)JagFanatic24 Wrote: [ -> ]I wish former coaches and players would start their own grading system. I just can’t take anything PFF says serious.
On that pff page it says they use former players as analysts, although not exclusively.
Yeah I'm calling BS on what they say vs what they do though. And they may use analysts but who and how often. And how do they know what is called exactly cuz we know coaches keep a lot to the chest.
It might be the best guesstimating on the internet but it's still guesstimating.
(11-10-2021, 02:39 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2021, 02:09 PM)OzJohnnie Wrote: [ -> ]They actually explain their method in some detail here and address your objections.
https://www.pff.com/grades
That doesn't refute a thing I said, in fact it reinforces what I said.
"Each grade is reviewed at least once, and usually multiple times, using every camera angle available, including All-22 coaches’ tape."
So of the ~50,000 individual player-plays per week, they are "reviewing them multiple times using every camera available. " That means they're not doing 50,000 reviews per week; they're doing 150,000 or more reviews per week!
"PFF employs over 600 full or part-time analysts, but less than 10% of analysts are trained to the level they can grade plays."
So they have 60 people who are actually qualified to review 50,000 to 150,000 player-plays PER WEEK.
"Only the top two to three percent of analysts are on the team of "senior analysts" in charge of finalizing each grade after review."
2 or 3% of 600 is 15. They have 15 guys who finalize the grades on 50,000 to 150,000 plays PER WEEK. If they only take 20 seconds per play, that adds up to 277 to 831 hours per week. There are only 960 hours in a week. When do they sleep?
Complete supposition, but I imagine a guy watches a game, and if a player blows a coverage, or misses a block, they get a minus. If they break a tackle, or break up a deep pass, they get a plus. everyone else gets a blank, and move on to the next play.
It's the only plausible way to say every play/player is reviewed.
Otherwise, that's 66 reviews of each PLAY in game. I imagine by the 2nd q you'd be so brain-numb that evaluations would be worthless.
(11-10-2021, 03:03 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]My primary gripe with their system is that it assumes intent and assignment for OL, DB and LB play.
Makes the grading of those positions flawed IMO.
They can't get those assumptions right consistently enough for those grades to be accurate on their own or in comparison to one another.
....like the pirouette block that was by design!
(apologies to all who had successfully repressed that memory)
Half way down this page the Jaguars are analyzed: Some notes
-Ben Barch had another great day. I think he is a long term guard
-Taylor had his best game of the season
-Josh Allen continued his elite play
-Gotis and Robert-Harris had a good game
-Myles Jack with another lackluster day. He has been mediocre this whole season
-Secondary had a good day overall. Campbell may turn out to be a good pick.
https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-week-10-gam...jaguars-17
(11-15-2021, 05:08 PM)jaguarmvp Wrote: [ -> ]-Taylor had his best game of the season
Yikes that still allowing multiple pressures and at least one holding penalty is your best game of the season.
Analysis in the article.
"Here were the highest-graded Jaguars in Week 10, per Pro Football Focus"
Quote:Jacksonville couldn’t string together a second-straight win on Sunday against the Indianapolis Colts, and the team is still searching for its first winning streak since the midway point of the 2019 season. The Jaguars overcame a 17-0 first-quarter deficit to get within six points on the final drive, but a fumble from Trevor Lawrence that the Colts recovered ended any chance at completing the comeback.
The Jags fall to 2-7 on what has been a frustrating Year 1 for coach Urban Meyer and Lawrence. Still, it isn’t all negative. The team continues to play better on defense after a dominant performance against the Bills last week, and while the offense has struggled in recent weeks, there were still a few bright spots in that regard.
https://jaguarswire.usatoday.com/lists/h...all-focus/
Left tackle Cam Robinson (83.0)
Defensive tackle Taven Bryan (82.5)
Receiver Laquon Treadwell (79.6)
Guard Ben Bartch (78.6)
Tight end Dan Arnold (69.3)
Hmm, so when Taven started to play like a first rounder the defense suddenly became good...
(11-16-2021, 08:32 AM)CanDoBetter Wrote: [ -> ]Hmm, so when Taven started to play like a first rounder the defense suddenly became good...
I think it's more like it took a while to convert to zone defense.
(11-16-2021, 09:09 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (11-16-2021, 08:32 AM)CanDoBetter Wrote: [ -> ]Hmm, so when Taven started to play like a first rounder the defense suddenly became good...
I think it's more like it took a while to convert to zone defense.
You're probably right but I still wonder about this a bit. Similar with Allen who seems a much better player now when we play zone.