Pro Football Focus (1 Viewer)

I have been called a PFF-hater for years on this message board, but I actually find some of their content very entertaining(specifically their youtube content). I typically get bashed over the head with "They watch every play, brah!". My position has always been that they may watch every play but they are still making judgement calls on every play. Just like someone scoring a baseball game might call a play a "hit" while another scorer will call it an "error". It's not that their opinion carries no weight, but it just seems like a single data point and without knowing the other data points in some sort of context(if you were a subscriber) then it kind of seems like a shrug to me.

So recently I was shocked to read this blurb from Rotoworld regarding Quinton Dunbar of the Washington Redskins, "he was PFF's No. 2 overall corner in 2019". Today at Rotoworld I read, "Seahawks acquired CB Quinton Dunbar from the Redskins in exchange for a fifth-round pick". Keep in mind Dunbar is 27yo, and while in the last year of his contract makes $3.3Mil in 2020. I don't know if you have noticed but FA corners have been making BANK this off-season. So what gives?

I have been accused of yelling from the mountain tops that the emperor has no clothes when it comes to PFF rankings as they come tumbling down Mt. Sinai. Wouldn't it seem that if the NFL really thought the second best CB in the league was a 27yo Quinton Dunbar that someone would have offered more than a 5th round pick? Who here believes that Quinton Dunbar was the second best CB in the NFL last year and have you ever quoted PFF rankings in the past? If you blindly believe in PFF rankings but you don't think Quinton Dunbar was the second best CB in the NFL how and why do you think this is the one instance when they were just wrong? Did they only watch 99.99% of HIS plays last season?

For those that agree with me are also skeptical of PFF rankings feel free to post some of the obvious anomalies that you have seen over the years. Now that PFF rankings are actually part of the broadcast of some NFL games I absolutely believe this discussion belongs here in the Shark Pool and I don't think they are really a competing product for Footballguys. They seem like complimentary products if anything but I could be wrong. 

These options are kind of loaded. 

Snorkelson said:

These options are kind of loaded. 

Click to expand...

What do you think would be better options?

 They were just meant to be "PFF believer", "Meh, interesting in the same way QB rating is interesting", "PFF is often way off base". 

I tried doing some charting of players a couple years back that maybe was similar to what pff does. I did come to a similar conclusion that if I am going to give a positive or negative score for a player trait they show on a play, that not all of these instances of that are the same.

For example a RB lowering their shoulder to gain extra yards at the point of contact, if that is one point each time, I think some instances of this are better or worse than others, so maybe the best of them get 2 points, while others are just one or even separated into smaller incriments, like 1.5 for example.

All of that is still subjective.

The problem I ran into, and why I stopped doing it, is that some players I was getting to see 50 plays a game for compared to other players where I only could chart 20 plays. 

That alone made scores imbalanced. So the only way to try to control for that would be a score per play, and even so I dont think that makes up for the trait charting where I had 15 different skills I was looking for on each play. Some players might demonstrate 5 or more of them on one play, so having 50 or more plays charted is going to still make a difference in the score.

Biabreakable said:

The problem I ran into, and why I stopped doing it, is that some players I was getting to see 50 plays a game for compared to other players where I only could chart 20 plays. 

Click to expand...

I guess you could just give them a score(or letter grade) on each play and the average would be the average whether they were in for 20 plays or 200. And I would even understand that if the anomalies in PFF grades could be attributed to just a small sample size but I don't really feel like that explains their big misses. Quinton Dunbar was on the field a great deal last season. I just don't understand the universe where you watch him every play and try to make the argument he was the 2nd best CB in the NFL.

PFF is just another piece of the puzzle, same as any other ranking system. The fact that they try to look at things in a vacuum and look at so many finer points means that maybe they have more pieces of the puzzle that others. But those pieces aren’t always corner or edge pieces that shape the picture, sometimes (often times in my opinion), they are simply part of the larger whole.

Personally, I find their fine detail data points to be more thought provoking and worthy of my notice than overall rankings. As an example with made up stats, don’t tell me Joe Mixon was a top 5 grades back on the season, that does nothing for me because I don’t know/care for how they weight different stats. Now tell me he was 3rd in missed tackles and 1st in broken tackles, you have my attention.

PFF is generally data without context. That can be useful in its own way but as with box scores, data without context can only tell us so much.

As for the self love PFF and those who peddle it have, every single person thinks their way is the best way. Every ranking site thinks they have the best system and the best data points to measure by. You can’t sell your product if you don’t believe in it.

gabes1919 said:

As an example with made up stats, don’t tell me Joe Mixon was a top 5 grades back on the season, that does nothing for me because I don’t know/care for how they weight different stats. Now tell me he was 3rd in missed tackles and 1st in broken tackles, you have my attention.

Click to expand...

This makes sense to me.

For instance if you take how Brady performed under duress last season with the Patriots, and you examine how often Arians offense in TB allowed his QB to be in duress it might shed light on how Brady would do in the offense Arians ran last season. Of course we are all expecting the TB offense to change somewhat. It's likely the Arians offense won't repeat in 2020 what it was in 2019, but it will probably rhyme. I'm in the camp that believes Brady will make TB a playoff team(maybe more) but it does worry me how many hits Arians QB's have been forced to endure.

When PFF is giving information like that I do think I enjoy their content the most. When it comes to flat out player ratings I think I'm much more skeptical unless it's two RB's in the exact same backfield for instance. Even then, situational use within that same offense can have a big impact. Running a draw on 3rd/15 makes you a much better between the tackles runner than the guy running on 4th/1.

They give a player 1, 0, or ,-1 for every play. Do I understand that correctly?

As Han Solo said, "A bunch of simple tricks and nonsense."

Andy Dufresne said:

As Han Solo said, "A bunch of simple tricks and nonsense."

Click to expand...

Yeah, but he ends up believing in the force. 

cloppbeast said:

Yeah, but he ends up believing in the force. 

Click to expand...

But he can't use it.

I believe PFF has statistics. They're not usable.

BoltBacker said:

What do you think would be better options?

 They were just meant to be "PFF believer", "Meh, interesting in the same way QB rating is interesting", "PFF is often way off base". 

Click to expand...

Something between “ender of all arguments” and “way overrated with several wtf rankings.” 
I get it. I don’t like, for instance, when someone recently pointed to pff to claim Flaccos rushing grade was better than drew locks. Ok, it’s a number, I’m not sure how they’re grading that, but Flacco is not a better runner or more mobile than lock. Maybe Flacco is better than lock, but it’s not because of his running/mobility. Yes, “the number says different.” Don’t care unless you want to explain how they grade a run vs a scramble etc. 
Just like any information, there is something useful in there if you can interpret the data and understand how it’s derived. It’s not the end of any argument, but it has useful information and deserve the respect they get even if someone disagrees with them. I don’t think they’re overrated, I think they’ve earned the respect of the football community. There are flaws in all data though. 

BoltBacker said:

What do you think would be better options?

 They were just meant to be "PFF believer", "Meh, interesting in the same way QB rating is interesting", "PFF is often way off base". 

Click to expand...

1 to 10. 1 bad, 10 great.

Solid offerings. Not perfect. But they put more into their study time than most anyone else.

i can see 1 to 10 (7 for me), but this might as well be, "best out there" or"Most accurate measure of a player that season and the ranking should be used to end an argument."

I’m just going to say it’s nice to see a fun original post here. Good stuff.

BoltBacker said:

Who here believes that Quinton Dunbar was the second best CB in the NFL last year and have you ever quoted PFF rankings in the past? If you blindly believe in PFF rankings but you don't think Quinton Dunbar was the second best CB in the NFL how and why do you think this is the one instance when they were just wrong? Did they only watch 99.99% of HIS plays last season?

Click to expand...

I really can’t speak to this, I just think it’s interesting. Any opinions here?

I was listening to a Vikings podcast yesterday where Matthew Collier interviews Mike Renner of PFF.

Renner is asked what was a big difference in charting this year compared to last years and Renner gives an example of Clyde Edwards Helare evaluation being night and day compared to their evaluation of him last year. The primary difference was that CEH only had 15 targets in 2018 and 66 targets in 2019.

This becomes a chicken and egg type of question then. Does the talent drive the opportunity or is it the scheme?

I believe 30 of the 32 nfl front offices use their service, so I’m gonna go ahead and say they know what they’re doing. 

Capella said:

I believe 30 of the 32 nfl front offices use their service, so I’m gonna go ahead and say they know what they’re doing. 

Click to expand...

Who are the two teams that don't?

Biabreakable said:

Who are the two teams that don't?

Click to expand...

Their website now says all 32 teams and 60 college teams. I believe Oakland was one of the holdouts, probably before they brought on Mayock. 

Capella said:

Their website now says all 32 teams and 60 college teams. I believe Oakland was one of the holdouts, probably before they brought on Mayock. 

Click to expand...

I was guessing the Bengals as one.

Biabreakable said:

I was guessing the Bengals as one.

Click to expand...

I was guessing Bengals for both. 

Dr. Dan said:

I believe they use their services for stats and so forth, not for rankings or predictions, which is what this thread is addressing.

If a company is great at showing big corporations what historically has been happening in the stock market, it doesnt mean they are great at investing your money in the market. 

Click to expand...

Stats? Lol...No. 
 

“The typical client reports that our service gives them up to a full day head start on their weekly breakdown and scouting processes.....Snaps, production grades, key plays, & more fields allowing more efficient opponent scouting.”

Capella said:

I believe 30 of the 32 nfl front offices use their service, so I’m gonna go ahead and say they know what they’re doing. 

Click to expand...

PFF ranked Dunbar as the 2nd best CB in the NFL in 2019.

Dunbar is 27yo and is scheduled to make $4.5mil. That's less than the contracts Anthony Brown, Josh Norman, Kendall Fuller, Desmond Trufant, Bradley Robley, Brian Poole, and Trae Waynes recently signed.

The BEST offer WAS got was a 5th round draft choice. 

So when you say "30 of 32 nfl front offices USE their service" do you mean they subscribe to their service or are you saying they believe what PFF is telling them. I don't know how the second best CB in the NFL on that contract is traded for a 5th round draft choice if the NFL if 93+% of the league really believes Dunbar was the 2nd best CB in the NFL.

Do YOU think Dunbar is the 2nd was the best CB in the NFL in 2019? I ask because there are several people on this board that spend a lot of time throwing around PFF numbers but not one has come into this thread and say they believe that ranking. They seem to believe in all the other PFF rankings they are always throwing around but they have no interest in arguing that Dunbar really is the 2nd best CB in the NFL for some reason.

Capella said:

Stats? Lol...No. 
 

“The typical client reports that our service gives them up to a full day head start on their weekly breakdown and scouting processes.....Snaps, production grades, key plays, & more fields allowing more efficient opponent scouting.”

Click to expand...

These are all stats, no?

And from what I’ve read from other sources, that’s exactly what teams are using them for. They don’t really use their grades for a few reasons: grades are really only going to be used when drafting/free agency/waivers/etc and teams only really trust their in-house guys to do that, and they’re definitely only using their own grades on their own guys because they know exactly what everyone.’a responsibility is in every play and truly know who did what they were supposed to and who didn’t. That’s info that PFF will never have, so all of their grades are based on educated guesses for every play.

BoltBacker said:

PFF ranked Dunbar as the 2nd best CB in the NFL in 2019.

Dunbar is 27yo and is scheduled to make $4.5mil. That's less than the contracts Anthony Brown, Josh Norman, Kendall Fuller, Desmond Trufant, Bradley Robley, Brian Poole, and Trae Waynes recently signed.

The BEST offer WAS got was a 5th round draft choice. 

So when you say "30 of 32 nfl front offices USE their service" do you mean they subscribe to their service or are you saying they believe what PFF is telling them. I don't know how the second best CB in the NFL on that contract is traded for a 5th round draft choice if the NFL if 93+% of the league really believes Dunbar was the 2nd best CB in the NFL.

Do YOU think Dunbar is the 2nd was the best CB in the NFL in 2019? I ask because there are several people on this board that spend a lot of time throwing around PFF numbers but not one has come into this thread and say they believe that ranking. They seem to believe in all the other PFF rankings they are always throwing around but they have no interest in arguing that Dunbar really is the 2nd best CB in the NFL for some reason.

Click to expand...

I think PFF is the best single tool there is for player evaluation, short of breaking down games with your own eyes. Not just highlights but full games. 

I've done my share of game charting, and I've found my findings match up with theirs more often than not. I have also found that their ratings are a much better system than raw stats, which can be incredibly misleading. I remember charting one game where Vic Beasley had 2 sacks and a fumble recovery. Beasley was maybe the worst player on the field that day, as he frequently got bulldozed in the run game, and on one sack he was unblocked, and the other a RB whiffed on him. Other than that, he didn't make a peep. If I recall correctly PFF graded him in the 40's for that game, and people were like, "are they stupid? He had 2 sacks!" but in reality anybody could have gotten those sacks, and he was a liability for the other 90% of the game. So they were right in my opinion.

As for Dunbar, I think its entirely possible he was the 2nd best CB in the NFL on a per play basis, as he did miss some games last year. However that doesn't make him the NFL's 2nd best CB. 1 year is a very small sample size, and there are always outlier years. I will say, that Dunbar is clearly worth more than a 5th round pick, and that Seattle won that trade by a county mile. Other than maybe Kendall Fuller, I think he's a much better CB than any of those other guys you listed. 

I think PFF grades are a much better indicator of performance than raw stats. Raw stats don't factor in what other players are doing, and some of them are almost entirely random, and a result of play calling more than anything else. For example, there are people legitimately wondering why Jameis Winston didn't get a starting job, because he lead the NFL in passing yards and was top-5 in TD's, both more than Tom Brady. When the reason is, he isn't a good QB, and cost the Bucs a playoff spot almost by himself, and if Brady was their QB, they'd have probably won 3-5 more games just from not having multiple backbreaking TO's each week.

The same thing is especially true on defense, where people cling to stats like sacks and INT's as indicators of player performance, when both those stats are very flawed. They are like rushing TD's, in that way, where play calling is usually the key, not individual performance. 

PFF does a very good job of separating individual performance from team performance, sometimes that leads to unpopular opinions, and ones that go against the narrative that a lot of people seem to believe. I think the issue is the raw stats argument is so ingrained in people's heads that anything that is different than that, seems fishy to them. For example, Ezekiel Elliott is widely considered an elite RB, and both I, and PFF, would argue he's merely a solid RB, who has benefited from being in the best situation of any RB in the NFL his entire career. I can only imagine what a guy like Nick Chubb would do on Dallas, but I'm confident it'd be quite a bit better than Zeke, because he's been just as good the last 2 years, with a far inferior supporting cast.

Beyond grades, I think they've done a good job with positional value, and showing studies of how successful teams build and how teams should build. I think pretty much everyone is on board with RB's being almost unimportant at this point, but they were way ahead of the curve on that. Same with coverage being more important than pass rush, and we've seen that play out a ton recently, as both New England, and Baltimore have been building their defenses that way for years. Seattle did it almost a decade ago too. 

I'm not saying their player ratings are the end all be all, but I don't see anything better right now. I didn't vote in the poll, because I felt the answers were far too broad. I'd say PFF is somewhere between option 1 and option 2.

I question anyone who voted for option 3, I can only assume they saw a couple rankings they disagreed with, and wrote it all off then, without looking at a bigger picture. Or that those voters are fantasy only guys, who don't totally understand, or care, how good and bad performance can't be measured in raw statistics. 

I love PFF as a whole, but I don't value ALL of their analysis the same. When it comes to grading DBs, I think they have incomplete info. What I mean is, a DB can look bad on a play, but he fulfilled his assignment, and get a negative grade. I don't mean a CB in press getting beat. I mean a CB or S in zone looking 'bad', even though HE was doing the right thing.  I don't trust their graders to not mistakenly give someone a negative there.  And one -1 for a player affects their scoring quite a bit.  Their DB rankings in previous years bear that out. 

There is a concerning amount of hubris permeating through their broadcasts, I mean they are really condescending. Dunno if they focus enough on seeing where they can improve, and seeing another side of a decision.  

A team will make a pick, but if it is considered a reach or a player at a less valuable position, they will call it a msitake, even if it worked out, and the guy they would have taken busts. Their attitude is: Well, the player worked out, but the process is wrong. That is dangerous thinking.  

massraider said:

 There is a concerning amount of hubris permeating through their broadcasts, I mean they are really condescending. Dunno if they focus enough on seeing where they can improve, and seeing another side of a decision.  

Click to expand...

An example of this from my perspective is the claim that PFF college grades of players being the most predictive way of pro players performing by those same grades.

I think it makes sense that this would happen as long as there is consistency in how they are grading each player.

Since nothing else is trying to predict PFF grades not sure how they would be more predictive at doing that.

The grades don't match other things that we might want to predict, like draft position or stats for FF.

It just seems like an arrogant and misleading statement that of course perked my ears as they intended it to.

BoltBacker said:

Snorkelson said:

These options are kind of loaded. 

Click to expand...

What do you think would be better options?

 They were just meant to be "PFF believer", "Meh, interesting in the same way QB rating is interesting", "PFF is often way off base". 

Click to expand...

Well, that's not how your labels read. I am a "PFF believer," but I don't think that means their rankings "should be used to end and [sic] argument."

Endowed said:

Solid offerings. Not perfect. But they put more into their study time than most anyone else.

Click to expand...

Exactly. I'd love it if there were good alternatives to thorough grading of all players on every play in every game... but I'm not aware of any available to me at a price I can afford.

travdogg said:

I think PFF is the best single tool there is for player evaluation, short of breaking down games with your own eyes. Not just highlights but full games...

Click to expand...

 

Capella said:

I believe 30 of the 32 nfl front offices use their service, so I’m gonna go ahead and say they know what they’re doing. 

Click to expand...

They also have ex-football players and coaches/scouts working for them who watch the games to help with the statistics.

Once you weed through the noise and focus on the numbers/data/stats that actually matter they are top notch. If anyone understand that a site like PFF or other sites are constantly putting out articles of all different types, not every single articles are for everyone. I haven't come across a site yet that was perfect on everything they do, however; find that one or two sites who can provide you with what you need to HELP you makes sound decisions to be successful in this hobby then you are gold. IMHO most fantasy players don't know what they are looking for outside of rankings.

two cents,

Tex

Also, ESPN and other NFL stations use PFF for their data, I hear them quoting PFF numbers nearly every game.

Tex

For those who don't know, here is some info on how they grade:

...Each player is given a grade of -2 to +2 in 0.5 increments on a given play with 0 generally being the average or “expected” grade. There are a few exceptions as each position group has different rules, but those are the basics. The zero grade is important as most plays feature many players doing their job at a reasonable, or expected, level, so not every player on every play needs to earn a positive or a negative...

Each position has its own grading rubric so our analysts know how to put a grade on the various expectations for a quarterback on a 10-yard pass beyond the sticks or what the range of grades might look like for a frontside offensive tackle down blocking on a “power” play. 

There is then an adjustment made to the “raw” grades to adjust for what the player is “expected” to earn given his situation on the field. For instance, a player’s grade may be adjusted down slightly if he plays in a situation that is historically more favorable while a player in more unfavorable circumstances may get an adjustment the other way. We collect over 200 fields of data on each play, and that data helps to determine what the baseline, or expectation, is for each player on every play.

Each grade goes into a specific “facet” of play in order to properly assess each player’s skillset. The facets include passing, rushing, receiving, pass blocking, run blocking, pass-rushing, run defense and coverage. Special teamers also have their own facets of kicking, punting, returning and general special teams play. Facets are important in order to have a clear view of where a player’s strengths and weaknesses lie...

Each grade is reviewed at least once, and usually multiple times, using every camera angle available, including All-22 coaches’ tape...

We are certainly not in the huddle, but we are grading what a player attempts to do on a given play. While football is extremely nuanced regarding the preparation and adjustments that go into each play call, once the ball is snapped, most players are clear in what they’re trying to accomplish on each play, and we evaluate accordingly. Of course, there are always some gray areas in football. Plays in which there is a clear question mark regarding assignment, we can defer to a “0” grade and not guess as to which player is right or wrong. These plays are few and far between and since we are grading every snap, missing out on a handful throughout the year should not affect player evaluations. Examples of potential gray areas include coverage busts, quarterback/wide receiver miscommunications and missed blocking assignments...

The plus-minus grades are then converted to a 0-100 scale at the game and season level. This makes it easier to compare players across positions relative to their peers, though it doesn’t account for positional value, i.e. which positions are most valuable when trying to predict wins...

Click to expand...

Obviously, this system is not perfect, but it seems very comprehensive. What system is better that is available to casual fans?

From ‘We’re like a machine’: Cris Collinsworth defends PFF grades against players’ gripes:

Whenever Cris Collinsworth entered an NBC pregame production meeting with Chip Kelly, he knew what to expect: criticism, and lots of it…
Late last season, when a reporter covering the 49ers suggested that one of San Francisco’s offensive linemen was statistically superior to another, citing PFF data, Kelly let loose.

"I mean, I’ve said it all along: How can they grade an offensive lineman when they don’t know what the play is?" Kelly asked. He went through the standard complaint: An outside analyst can’t know what play was called, or who had what assignment, and thus the grading process is unreliable…

After the season, though, Kelly did what the company has invited its critics to do: He studied its process. He met some of its analysts — who watch every player on every snap — and watched them make evaluations. And then, according to Collinsworth, he bought a share of the company…

Longtime Bengals offensive line coach Paul Alexander last season reviewed about 600 plays where PFF had downgraded one of his blockers; he told company founder Neil Hornsby that he disagreed with perhaps 12 [2%], "which is pretty remarkable," Alexander said.

Click to expand...

Now, maybe Kelly just saw a compelling business opportunity. But 98% (in the Alexander example) is pretty compelling grading performance, and IMO shows that the grades are meaningful.

I posted that quote above in a the comments for an article at Colts Stampede, and the writer of that article responded with this:

I went through their hiring process years ago, I wasn’t really in a place to be able to dedicate the time that was needed to continue so I completed the first game of charting they sent me and dropped out after and I came away knowing the way they chart games is incredible. That data is invaluable. Who is on the field, what they’re generally doing, the position they’re most likely playing (again TV copy makes it tough to always know if a DE is in a 5 or 4 technique. Is he in a 4 or a 4i? those are small details but they’re important) and if they were successful in what they were trying to do, it’s not that hard to determine if a DT defeated a block or a DB whiffed on a tackle.

That data, when you track it for all 11 guys on one side of the ball is great. At the end of the day you come away knowing things like: 63% of the time player X lines up 5 yards off the ball outside of the tackle box the opposite outside linebacker is blitzing and they’re in man coverage 90% of the time they blitz.

Click to expand...

In that thread, the author was pretty critical of PFF, but he thought the charting data such as described here was super valuable, and that is the stuff the NFL teams are paying for.

BoltBacker said:

So recently I was shocked to read this blurb from Rotoworld regarding Quinton Dunbar of the Washington Redskins, "he was PFF's No. 2 overall corner in 2019". Today at Rotoworld I read, "Seahawks acquired CB Quinton Dunbar from the Redskins in exchange for a fifth-round pick". Keep in mind Dunbar is 27yo, and while in the last year of his contract makes $3.3Mil in 2020. I don't know if you have noticed but FA corners have been making BANK this off-season. So what gives?

I have been accused of yelling from the mountain tops that the emperor has no clothes when it comes to PFF rankings as they come tumbling down Mt. Sinai. Wouldn't it seem that if the NFL really thought the second best CB in the league was a 27yo Quinton Dunbar that someone would have offered more than a 5th round pick? Who here believes that Quinton Dunbar was the second best CB in the NFL last year and have you ever quoted PFF rankings in the past? If you blindly believe in PFF rankings but you don't think Quinton Dunbar was the second best CB in the NFL how and why do you think this is the one instance when they were just wrong? Did they only watch 99.99% of HIS plays last season?

Click to expand...

I wasn't that familiar with Dunbar, but here is my take after taking at look at PFF.

First, here are his grades for 2019 (using regular season grades only for 135 CBs who had 200+ snaps on defense):

• Overall - 87.6, #2, 613 snaps
  
• Coverage - 89.5, #2, 367 snaps
  
• Run defense - 72.5, tied for #31, 245 snaps
  
• Pass rush - 58.6, tied for #67, 1 snap
  
• Tackling - 83.7, #10
  

Other supporting data:

• Opposing QBs had a 56.9 NFL passer rating throwing into his coverage, which was 7th best (lowest) among CBs with 200+ snaps on defense. He allowed 29 catches and 2 TDs on 52 targets, with 4 interceptions and 4 pass break ups.
  
• He was a very strong tackler, with 36 tackles, 1 assist, 16 stops, and just 1 missed tackle. 13 of those stops were in the passing game, showing he was good at limiting damage when catches were made in his coverage.
  
• He had 1 penalty on the season. Only 5 CBs played 600+ snaps and had 0 or 1 penalties. (1 guy had 0 - Kenny Moore).
  

Does having the second highest grade make him the #2 CB in the NFL? No, context beyond the grade matters. For example, Hayward, Peters, and Gilmore were #3, #4, #5 in overall grade among CBs with 200+ snaps, but each of them played more than 50% more snaps than Dunbar. So I would say they were better last season. Each of them also has a longer track record of success  so entering 2020, they are all rightfully viewed as being better than Dunbar  

But, all things considered, that looks like a very strong performance. He had a great season, and the Seahawks got a steal in their trade. And it is this kind of insight that I like about PFF. If not for this post causing me to take a close look at Dunbar in 2019, I would have had no idea how well he performed, because I don't follow the Redskins.

Biabreakable said:

An example of this from my perspective is the claim that PFF college grades of players being the most predictive way of pro players performing by those same grades.

I think it makes sense that this would happen as long as there is consistency in how they are grading each player.

Since nothing else is trying to predict PFF grades not sure how they would be more predictive at doing that.

The grades don't match other things that we might want to predict, like draft position or stats for FF.

It just seems like an arrogant and misleading statement that of course perked my ears as they intended it to.

Click to expand...

I think the PFF College grades are a little less valuable than the NFL ones, because of the difference in levels of competition. The Kansas City Chiefs to the Cincinnati Bengals is nowhere near as large a drop off as there is from the LSU Tigers to the Akron Zips.NFL teams play, more or less, the same schedule. NCAA teams schedules wildly differ depending on conference. So sometimes you'll end up with a guy who had a 90 grade, but played in the Sun Belt conference, and he's nowhere near the prospect as a guy with a 75 grade who played in the SEC.

I think the grades are much more useful when comparing players in Power 5 conferences, especially the same one. 

They had Zack Moss as their number 1 back.......bc he was able to break a lot of tackles

2020 NFL Draft position rankings

Faust said:

2020 NFL Draft position rankings

Click to expand...

Will be interesting to see how PFF's ranking of Zack Moss plays out.

2020 NFL Draft: Final PFF Top 250 Big Board

PFF College & 2020 Draft Rankings

Just Win Baby said:

But, all things considered, that looks like a very strong performance. He had a great season, and the Seahawks got a steal in their trade. And it is this kind of insight that I like about PFF. If not for this post causing me to take a close look at Dunbar in 2019, I would have had no idea how well he performed, because I don't follow the Redskins.

Click to expand...

I'm just curious, if 31 of 32 NFL teams couldn't muster anything better than a pick in the last half of the 5th round in exchange for Dunbar after a very strong performance do you think the NFL as a whole takes those PFF grades seriously?

I have railed for years against the "Matt Millen Myth" that it's absurd for people to say, "Well, Matt Millen is paid a LOT of money and knows a lot more about football than you do so you look silly criticizing his GM decisions." That said, to say 32 out of 32 NFL GM's don't understand how good Dunbar has played...... but PFF knows better than ALL of them seems like the definition of hubris.

BoltBacker said:

I'm just curious, if 31 of 32 NFL teams couldn't muster anything better than a pick in the last half of the 5th round in exchange for Dunbar after a very strong performance do you think the NFL as a whole takes those PFF grades seriously?

I have railed for years against the "Matt Millen Myth" that it's absurd for people to say, "Well, Matt Millen is paid a LOT of money and knows a lot more about football than you do so you look silly criticizing his GM decisions." That said, to say 32 out of 32 NFL GM's don't understand how good Dunbar has played...... but PFF knows better than ALL of them seems like the definition of hubris.

Click to expand...

Its likely Dunbar's short track record, and upcoming extension scared some teams off. He very much wanted a new deal, and may also have just wanted out of Washington(he wouldn't be the only one) so he went for well below what he should of. 

Just because a guy gets traded for a 5th round pick, doesn't mean he's not a great player. Calais Campbell went for about the same, and he's arguably the best DL in the AFC, Jurell Casey went for a 7, and he'd be the top DL on at least a dozen teams. 

travdogg said:

Just because a guy gets traded for a 5th round pick, doesn't mean he's not a great player. Calais Campbell went for about the same, and he's arguably the best DL in the AFC, Jurell Casey went for a 7, and he'd be the top DL on at least a dozen teams. 

Click to expand...

Both of those examples are players in their 30's and were being paid more than $10mil/season. Dunbar is 27yo and scheduled to make under $5mil. Apples and oranges comparison if ANYONE thought Dunbar was the #2 CB in the NFL last season. 

I've already posted this up thread but.....

"Dunbar is 27yo and is scheduled to make $4.5mil. That's less than the contracts Anthony Brown, Josh Norman, Kendall Fuller, Desmond Trufant, Bradley Robley, Brian Poole, and Trae Waynes recently signed."

Someone was willing to give more money to Josh Norman based on his age and the way he played last season rather than give a high 5th rounder for Dunbar. Just let that sink in for a moment. Josh Norman.

BoltBacker said:

Both of those examples are players in their 30's and were being paid more than $10mil/season. Dunbar is 27yo and scheduled to make under $5mil. Apples and oranges comparison if ANYONE thought Dunbar was the #2 CB in the NFL last season. 

I've already posted this up thread but.....

"Dunbar is 27yo and is scheduled to make $4.5mil. That's less than the contracts Anthony Brown, Josh Norman, Kendall Fuller, Desmond Trufant, Bradley Robley, Brian Poole, and Trae Waynes recently signed."

Someone was willing to give more money to Josh Norman based on his age and the way he played last season rather than give a high 5th rounder for Dunbar. Just let that sink in for a moment. Josh Norman.

Click to expand...

For now. He's in the last year of his deal, and wasn't going to play in Washington under that deal. His next deal will likely be 2 to 3 times larger per year. 

As to your players in their 30's qualifier, what about Clowney getting dealt for a 3rd rounder, despite being very proven and in his prime? It was because Houston didn't want to pay him what he wanted, and he didn't wanna play for Houston. That situation is just like Dunbar's only Clowney is more proven. 

travdogg said:

As to your players in their 30's qualifier, what about Clowney getting dealt for a 3rd rounder, despite being very proven and in his prime? It was because Houston didn't want to pay him what he wanted, and he didn't wanna play for Houston. That situation is just like Dunbar's only Clowney is more proven. 

Click to expand...

I agree that Clowney is a closer comp if anyone really does believe Dunbar was the 2nd best CB in the NFL last season. I don't know the rankings so I'm not sure if Clowney was PFF's 2nd best DE in the NFL at the time of that trade. He was drafted much higher and there is some weight to that.

Maybe if Dunbar had been traded for a 3rd rounder instead of a late 5th that comparison would hold more water. There's a fairly big difference between the two at least to me. I would expect a 3rd rounder to make the team in most cases while a 5th rounder often times has to play exemplary on special teams just to make the roster at all. Essentially I'm saying a pick on day 2 of the draft is just worth a LOT more than a pick in the middle of day 3 of the draft. 

BoltBacker said:

I agree that Clowney is a closer comp if anyone really does believe Dunbar was the 2nd best CB in the NFL last season.

Click to expand...

Comments:

1. I have already pointed out that earning PFF's second best CB grade last year doesn't mean he was the second best CB in football last year. I also pointed out several things that show he performed very well last season. It's almost like you aren't reading the posts in this thread you created.

2. I will just observe here that you don't seem to have entered this conversation with an open mind. It's clear that you think PFF's grades are useless, so what is the point of the discussion?

dmac37 said:

Will be interesting to see how PFF's ranking of Zack Moss plays out.

Click to expand...

I like Moss, but I can see why his PFF rating might be too high. He jukes or maneuvers defenders so often. This stands out a lot more than one who's too fast or quick for the bad guys to get there, which might look like he ran thru a gaping hole.  

Just Win Baby said:

Comments:

1. I have already pointed out that earning PFF's second best CB grade last year doesn't mean he was the second best CB in football last year. I also pointed out several things that show he performed very well last season. It's almost like you aren't reading the posts in this thread you created.

2. I will just observe here that you don't seem to have entered this conversation with an open mind. It's clear that you think PFF's grades are useless, so what is the point of the discussion?

Click to expand...

Well, if you feel the point of PFF's grades aren't to differentiate how certain player are playing with relation to other players at the same position in a given time frame then it probably doesn't require any more conversation just as you say. When the 2nd highest grade means that you could be the best player, or the 7th best player, or the 23rd best player at your position that season..... we just can't tell given their PFF grade, then discussing this any further doesn't really make any sense. If anything, that explanation probably costs PFF subscribers because I think PFF grades may be presented as something different than that to its subscribers.

I just hope OTHER people keep this explanation in mind when they throw PFF grades around the forum. YOU should use PFF grades in your posts as often as you would like because you seem to be able to decipher something out of them that some of us can't. For the record, my position has always been that they are a single data point and OPINION which can be valuable. The more data points the better. I've never said that PFF grades were useless. But you're latest argument is persuasive.

I'm just not really emotionally tied to the content from any single website. Not even this one, sorry Joe.

BoltBacker said:

Well, if you feel the point of PFF's grades aren't to differentiate how certain player are playing with relation to other players at the same position in a given time frame then it probably doesn't require any more conversation just as you say. When the 2nd highest grade means that you could be the best player, or the 7th best player, or the 23rd best player at your position that season..... we just can't tell given their PFF grade, then discussing this any further doesn't really make any sense. If anything, that explanation probably costs PFF subscribers because I think PFF grades may be presented as something different than that to its subscribers.

I just hope OTHER people keep this explanation in mind when they throw PFF grades around the forum. YOU should use PFF grades in your posts as often as you would like because you seem to be able to decipher something out of them that some of us can't. For the record, my position has always been that they are a single data point and OPINION which can be valuable. The more data points the better. I've never said that PFF grades were useless. But you're latest argument is persuasive.

Click to expand...

Consider:

• Dunbar: 87.6 overall grade (#2 among CBs with at least 200 defensive snaps), 613 snaps
  
• Hayward: 84.2 overall grade (#3), 944 snaps
  

Are you really unable to look at that and use your common sense to understand that Hayward had a better season than Dunbar and was more valuable, given that he played more than 50% more snaps?

Also, since you seem to believe PFF misrepresents what the grades mean, let's quote them about it:

...While we believe the grade is an excellent baseline for how well a player performed his given role, we also believe the using the entire context is crucial when evaluating players. Perhaps a slot receiver had to play more than expected on the outside or a nose tackle was forced to play more three-technique than his coaching staff initially desired. Both players are being evaluated based on what they did, and that context is important when using the grades...

It’s important to understand that PFF is not grading talent in these numbers, rather strictly performance on the field. Talented players can have bad games, runs, or even seasons, and often players without nearly as much talent can put together impressive play on the field. We are not necessarily telling you who the best players are. Our rankings are more of a performance evaluation and a reflection of how efficiently a player made plays in the time he was on the field.

Click to expand...

And on this:

BoltBacker said:

I'm just not really emotionally tied to the content from any single website.

Click to expand...

Do you think posters in this thread or at this site are "emotionally tied" to PFF content? I haven't noticed that.