If Rams cut Michael Sam, his NFL options would be few (one?)

[CoachO]

The way I usually use the PFF stats is to provide reality testing and quantification for players where there are not a lot of stats to help quantify. It helps me have rational discussions with people about we think. E.g. the following are topics I've discussed (refuted) using PFF stats to support my comments:

• Kendall Langford was a bust, another terrible FA acquisition from TN.
• Jake Long has been terrible at pass blocking and ok at blocking in 2013. Nothing left!
• Rodger Saffold should be moved back to T to replace Long.
• Robert Quinn is a one trick pony and sucks against the run.
• Joe Barksdale must be the worst RT in the game. After all, the Raiders with all their OL problems simply cut him.
• Courtland Finnegan still has something in the tank. We need his veteran presence!

It sometimes makes me think twice about what I think:

• How good is Joe Barksdale?
• How good of a blocker is Harkey?

It tells me about players I don't know well

• Is Davin Joseph recovered?
• Was Kuechly really deserving of the DPOY award?

To each his own,, and more power to you. But for me, I would rather watch the game, and break down the tape myself and form my own opinions. Maybe I am just old school enough, and have watched enough game tape in my lifetime, to trust my own eyes over someone sitting in front of a computer screen thousands of miles away from the game, without any more knowledge than the average fan, publishing things as if they are somehow the official keeper of all that is the NFL.

 

[DR RAM]

Nonsense. If he doesn't make the 53 he'll make the PS. So that's two teams already. But really, that's just pee pee poor analysis of the situation IMO.

Totally agree.

 

[junkman]

I am an Engineer (not a statistician) by trade and I use mathematical models for analysis and design. Statistical/mathematical models should be evaluated/calibrated to see how they fit with empirical data (real world conditions) and a good one should yield results that are realistic.

For the Rams there are some very basic empirical results we can use for comparison:
The 2013 Rams finished 7-9 in the toughest division in football with the one of the toughest strength of schedules. PFF ranks the Rams roster # 31 based most likely on last year’s grades. Great calibration (NOT)

The Rams 2013 defense was ranked 15 overall (8th in rushing and 19th in passing based on yards allowed) and it obviously played better down the stretch. PFF ranks the Rams defense 22nd. How does an 8th ranked run defense have an interior D-line and linebacker group ranked so low? This just does not calibrate.

Note: Even most non-ram fans and those in the drive by media at least are starting to show some respect for the Rams and especially their defense but not PFF.
So what are we to believe, a flawed evaluation/scoring system that yields ratings, which do not coincide with actual rankings/records or do we let the Rams record speak for itself.

IMO, PFF is utterly useless and a load of crap. Every time I see it quoted/used, I just roll my eyes because they have no credibility with me.

PFF - Pro Football Fallacies – Pontificating Fiction as Facts – Pooping Fictitious Facts……. Hey Join in the fun…

Great examples for how NOT to use PFF.

In the hands of hacks like "Rams are the #31 team" guy, PFF is dangerous, where they guy just took who he thought would be the 22 starters and added up their PFF grades from 2013. Terrible idea. Doesn't consider improvement. Didn't consider injuries. Didn't consider personnel changes.

The Rams are #20 defense thing (actually a standard PFF report) is a result of the strength if schedule fallacy in PFF, same argument for why the Rams in 2013 were better than most 7-9 teams (even without Bradford). Still,. #15 is not far from #20. And still yet, PFF would help you quantify that "better down the stretch thing" which is what we really want to know, how good is the Rams D now.

I think if you spent some time looking at PFF stats after Rams games, thought about who had a good or bad game, PFF would agree with you like 95%. Same thing for seasons, or top players at a position.

 

[Noregar]

Great examples for how NOT to use PFF.

In the hands of hacks like "Rams are the #31 team" guy, PFF is dangerous, where they guy just took who he thought would be the 22 starters and added up their PFF grades from 2013. Terrible idea. Doesn't consider improvement. Didn't consider injuries. Didn't consider personnel changes.

The Rams are #20 defense thing (actually a standard PFF report) is a result of the strength if schedule fallacy in PFF, same argument for why the Rams in 2013 were better than most 7-9 teams (even without Bradford). Still,. #15 is not far from #20. And still yet, PFF would help you quantify that "better down the stretch thing" which is what we really want to know, how good is the Rams D now.

I think if you spent some time looking at PFF stats after Rams games, thought about who had a good or bad game, PFF would agree with you like 95%. Same thing for seasons, or top players at a position.

I do not USE PFF and I do not have a subscription to PFF so I am not privy to the individual ratings. All I have for reference to judge PFF's quality of product are the articles I see that are posted of team rankings actually produced by PFF in addition to having read about their ranking of individual players posted on various forums. From what I have seen of the handful of individual rankings it appears to me a little bit of hit and a lot more misses. From my understanding, the team rankings are rankings actually postulated by PFF itself not outsiders using their data, therefore it is a direct reflection of PFF. For me their team and position group rankings are idiotic. The idiots (PFF) that compiled the very flawed team rankings are same people that are producing the individual player rankings. S%&t flows downhill. If we actually go back to the OP then I agree that Westbrooks probably did outplay Sam but related to PFF they have offered up enough questionable rankings for me to disregard them. If they want credibility then they need to produce consistently credible results, which to me they have not.

 

[junkman]

I do not USE PFF and I do not have a subscription to PFF so I am not privy to the individual ratings. All I have for reference to judge PFF's quality of product are the articles I see that are posted of team rankings actually produced by PFF in addition to having read about their ranking of individual players posted on various forums. From what I have seen of the handful of individual rankings it appears to me a little bit of hit and a lot more misses. From my understanding, the team rankings are rankings actually postulated by PFF itself not outsiders using their data, therefore it is a direct reflection of PFF. For me their team and position group rankings are idiotic. The idiots (PFF) that compiled the very flawed team rankings are same people that are producing the individual player rankings. S%&t flows downhill. If we actually go back to the OP then I agree that Westbrooks probably did outplay Sam but related to PFF they have offered up enough questionable rankings for me to disregard them. If they want credibility then they need to produce consistently credible results, which to me they have not.

I'm curious, with which of the PFF team rankings do you disagree and why? The ones which are baked into PFF are pretty good afaic other than the "strength of opposition" flaw and the "ignoring the trend" flaw. Please note, the team rankings come from players up (a sum of every player on every play) rather than team down. Normally I would not think of as being the best method... other than the fact that I generally agree with their team rankings (other than the aforementioned opposition flaw and trend flaw).

Regarding the individual PFF grades, let's do a test. Does anyone think they can put together a listing of every NFL LT, give them a ranking in pass blocking, run blocking and overall performance? Are they ascending or declining year over year? Are they ascending or declining within the year?

 

[CoachO]

I'm curious, with which of the PFF team rankings do you disagree and why? The ones which are baked into PFF are pretty good afaic other than the "strength of opposition" flaw and the "ignoring the trend" flaw. Please note, the team rankings come from players up (a sum of every player on every play) rather than team down. Normally I would not think of as being the best method... other than the fact that I generally agree with their team rankings (other than the aforementioned opposition flaw and trend flaw).

Regarding the individual PFF grades, let's do a test. Does anyone think they can put together a listing of every NFL LT, give them a ranking in pass blocking, run blocking and overall performance? Are they ascending or declining year over year? Are they ascending or declining within the year?

Just because someone takes the time to do the work, doesn't mean its accurate. It's a clearing house of information, that's it. You say you agree with most of what they put out, but then you qualify it by saying that this part is flawed, and that part could be better. Let me ask you this..... Why is is so important to know who the 11th "ranked" LT is? Or the 56th "ranked" LG? especially when included in those rankings are guys who have 5 total snaps for the season? Or who is the best run blocker on 2nd down and 7 on runs to the right side?

Volumes of useless information, is still useless information.

 

[junkman]

Just because someone takes the time to do the work, doesn't mean its accurate. It's a clearing house of information, that's it. You say you agree with most of what they put out, but then you qualify it by saying that this part is flawed, and that part could be better. Let me ask you this..... Why is is so important to know who the 11th "ranked" LT is? Or the 56th "ranked" LG? especially when included in those rankings are guys who have 5 total snaps for the season? Or who is the best run blocker on 2nd down and 7 on runs to the right side?

Volumes of useless information, is still useless information.

Stats are no more useful than the person quoting them. But they have value.

Somebody could say that RB #1 is better than RB #2 because RB #1 has a better ypc, 6.0 ypc vs 4.0 ypc. But we know that's not necessarily true. RB #1 could have only one carry for 6 yards. RB #1 could have 90% of their yards on a single unrelated run e.g. a 90 yard fake punt but otherwise they get 2.0 ypc. They could be getting all their yards in "garbage time". They could be playing in a division against teams with bad run defenses. RB #2 could have had their average dragged down by injury (ie a trend). RB #2 could be Barry Sanders, running behind a crappy OL.

All the issues where you need to apply common sense logic apply to commonly accepted stats like ypc as well as PFF. That doesn't make ypc useless information.

 

[junkman]

Just because someone takes the time to do the work, doesn't mean its accurate. It's a clearing house of information, that's it. You say you agree with most of what they put out, but then you qualify it by saying that this part is flawed, and that part could be better. Let me ask you this..... Why is is so important to know who the 11th "ranked" LT is? Or the 56th "ranked" LG? especially when included in those rankings are guys who have 5 total snaps for the season? Or who is the best run blocker on 2nd down and 7 on runs to the right side?

Volumes of useless information, is still useless information.

Re: "why is it so important...." - the rankings are not necessarily important in and of themselves. But the question "how are they playing" is universally important. That's why people read your columns. For instance, wouldn't it be good to know if Davin Joseph was playing well last year, and over his injury? The seems apparent looking at PFF stats, where his PFF grades were terrible until the last 5 games of the year when it leveled off for him.

But even after seeing this, I still watched the games on NFL rewind to be sure... and I liked what I saw.

 

[CoachO]

Stats are no more useful than the person quoting them. But they have value.

Somebody could say that RB #1 is better than RB #2 because RB #1 has a better ypc, 6.0 ypc vs 4.0 ypc. But we know that's not necessarily true. RB #1 could have only one carry for 6 yards. RB #1 could have 90% of their yards on a single unrelated run e.g. a 90 yard fake punt but otherwise they get 2.0 ypc. They could be getting all their yards in "garbage time". They could be playing in a division against teams with bad run defenses. RB #2 could have had their average dragged down by injury (ie a trend). RB #2 could be Barry Sanders, running behind a crappy OL.

All the issues where you need to apply common sense logic apply to commonly accepted stats like ypc as well as PFF. That doesn't make ypc useless information.

I have no issue with STATS for the sake of STATS,,, its the subjective grades based on what THEY THINK is happening that I take issue with. And if I want to look up somebody's YPC, I can go to a 100 different places to find the same information. And in your example above, I should be able to decipher between the guy with 3 carries, vs. the guy with 300. But in the PFF world, the guy with 3 carries would rank higher if his YPC is higher. Which IMO, is what skews the rankings.

I feel the need to clarify something here. I don't want you to think because I have issues with PFF, and me attacking its validity, is somehow directed at you, or your usage of the site.

We just have different opinions of what the information is for. I have had this same conversations with Hammer all the time. He is constantly trying to get me to "take a look" at the site. And to be honest with you, he is one of the biggest offenders using it to form opinions, and constantly quoting their rankings as proof of his arguments.

 

[junkman]

And in your example above, I should be able to decipher between the guy with 3 carries, vs. the guy with 300. But in the PFF world, the guy with 3 carries would rank higher if his YPC is higher. Which IMO, is what skews the rankings.

I explained above why this is not true, look at the stuff about golf scoring. PFF scoring is like golf scoring, except that higher numbers are better in PFF.

#1 - a golfer with 10 "birdies" will have a better golf score than a player with a single birdie.
#2 - two golfers who are both at par will have the same score, but you'll see how many holes this is through.

I really think you need to spend some time looking at PFF stats to understand how they work and appreciate the positive things they offer. You're spending a lot of time arguing why it's useless without first hand knowledge. It's only like $30 / year.

~~~

Regarding the PFF grades being subjective, there is no such thing as an "objective" stat in football because it is never true that all other things are equal. Even something as simple as YPC is not an objective comparison of running backs because it doesn't consider the teammates, the opposition, the trend, the schemes, the passing game to keep defenses honest and off balance... and so forth.

 

[CoachO]

I explained above why this is not true, look at the stuff about golf scoring. PFF scoring is like golf scoring, except that higher numbers are better in PFF.

#1 - a golfer with 10 "birdies" will have a better golf score than a player with a single birdie.
#2 - two golfers who are both at par will have the same score, but you'll see how many holes this is through.

I really think you need to spend some time looking at PFF stats to understand how they work and appreciate the positive things they offer. You're spending a lot of time arguing why it's useless without first hand knowledge. It's only like $30 / year.

~~~

Regarding the PFF grades being subjective, there is no such thing as an "objective" stat in football because it is never true that all other things are equal. Even something as simple as YPC is not an objective comparison of running backs because it doesn't consider the teammates, the opposition, the trend, the schemes, the passing game to keep defenses honest and off balance... and so forth.

I think we have both taken up way too much time and space on this. I am never gonna care for that site. and you are never gonna change my mind, and its not my intention to try to change yours. I just think in way too many instances, be it writers or fans, use it as the end all, and they just don't know what they are looking at.

 

[Dieter the Brock]

i think this was great, i can't get enough
really appreciate both points of view and have been learning a lot by reading both of your POV's
it's been good stuff - thanks!

honestly it reminds me of this scene

 

[CoachO]

Agreed, its irrelevant as long as they understand what they are grading, and that's where I believe its in question. They make assumptions based on what THEY think each and every player's assignments are on every play. And there is no way they, (or you and me for that matter) can know that.

As much as I dislike him as a coach, and what not.... when someone like Bill Belichick makes the same commentary about how the media makes judgement about plays that even opposing coaches cannot make accurate judgement on, without knowing the play call, and scheme in which they are playing, then how can someone sitting there looking at a computer screen? It seems so easy to know who screwed up on this play or another, when in reality, without knowing exactly what the play call was, and who's assignment was who's, its impossible to be accurate in grading.

For example, take what happened in Friday night game vs, New Orleans. There was miscommunication between Barnes and Robinson, and a sack resulted. How are WE, or the analysts from PFF supposed to know which one of them missed his assignment? you or I can watch that play 100 times, and without knowing the protection, or what the line call was, we will never know the answer. But somehow I am supposed to believe that someone sitting in England knows enough to grade that play with total certainty? But they assign a negative grade to one and give a pass to the other. Stats for the sake of stats, are great, But PFF are manufacturing stats based on a very subjective set of criteria.

If you want to talk to me about stats, tell me who has the most rushing yards. Something concrete, that can be measured. Not some arbitrary set of criteria created to inundate us with manufactured minutia.

I am not done with my soapbox rant,,, LOL

 

[JackDRams]

Can we change the title of this thread to "Statistical Debate"? I keep coming here thinking it's about Michael Sam getting cut. Silly me. Lol

 

[CoachO]

Can we change the title of this thread to "Statistical Debate"? I keep coming here thinking it's about Michael Sam getting cut. Silly me. Lol

good point, but in all honesty, this topic is about as far fetched as Sam getting cut,,, and has about as much merit as the article that prompted this thread in the first place.

 

[junkman]

For example, take what happened in Friday night game vs, New Orleans. There was miscommunication between Barnes and Robinson, and a sack resulted. How are WE, or the analysts from PFF supposed to know which one of them missed his assignment? you or I can watch that play 100 times, and without knowing the protection, or what the line call was, we will never know the answer. But somehow I am supposed to believe that someone sitting in England knows enough to grade that play with total certainty? But they assign a negative grade to one and give a pass to the other. Stats for the sake of stats, are great, But PFF are manufacturing stats based on a very subjective set of criteria.

They address that specifically here:

https://www.profootballfocus.com/about/grading/

Grading
...
4) The “Rules” of Grading
...

• DON’T GUESS — If you’re not 95 percent sure what’s gone on then don’t grade the player for that play. The grades must stand up to scrutiny and criticism, and it’s far better to say you’re not sure than be wrong.

It is, however, crucial that this is not seen as an excuse to shy away from making a judgement. What we definitely do not do is raise or lower the grading because we’re not sure. Giving a grade of -0.5 rather than -1.5 for a player on an individual play because you’re unsure is the wrong grade to give. If the grader is 95 percent sure of the severe fault on the play, the grade is -1.5. If, however, the grader is unsure of his judgment, the correct grade is 0.

 

[junkman]

...I just think in way too many instances, be it writers or fans, use it as the end all, and they just don't know what they are looking at.

This is something I totally agree with!

 

[CoachO]

They address that specifically here:

https://www.profootballfocus.com/about/grading/

Grading
...
4) The “Rules” of Grading
...

• DON’T GUESS — If you’re not 95 percent sure what’s gone on then don’t grade the player for that play. The grades must stand up to scrutiny and criticism, and it’s far better to say you’re not sure than be wrong.

It is, however, crucial that this is not seen as an excuse to shy away from making a judgement. What we definitely do not do is raise or lower the grading because we’re not sure. Giving a grade of -0.5 rather than -1.5 for a player on an individual play because you’re unsure is the wrong grade to give. If the grader is 95 percent sure of the severe fault on the play, the grade is -1.5. If, however, the grader is unsure of his judgment, the correct grade is 0.

Got it,, doesn't change my thoughts, time to move on