quote:

ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott
PFF is a waste of time. Their grades are in essence meaningless.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

Didn't see the game, but how is Cousins not grading out at at least 66.2? Were the receivers throwing to themselves?

You sort of answered your own question there.

I saw the game and I have the same question. He completed 70% of his passes for over 400 yards with 3 TD and no picks.

PFF doesn't care if the defender drops the easy INT. He had two plays with those. One where he inexplicably threw it directly to a D-lineman standing all by himself. One of his passes to Jefferson was off the mark by such a degree that it caused Jefferson to lose his balance and fall down where he caught it. There was no defender in sight - easy TD. Kirk also took an early sack where he had plenty of time and just stood there as the lone rusher came at him. He made no attempt to elude the rusher. His rating for the day was accurate. It was the Lions. 3 TDs and 400 yards is the standard against them.

So, we have one near int, a completion that wasn't perfectly thrown and a sack. Yeah, that wipes 400 yds and 3 TD right off the board.

TWO easy INTs that were dropped and a pass that was so bad it cost the team a TD. The rating is correct. They rewatch every play over and over. Sorry but the performance from yesterday wasn’t excellent it was just good.

PFF is a waste of time. Their grades are in essence meaningless.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen
The Lions allowed an average of 2.4 passing TDs per game this season so big props to Kurt for his additional 0.6 TDs!

He threw 112 yards over what their 30th ranked D allows. Whoo Hoo!

25% more TD and 40% more yards. The quality of the defense is irrelevant. QB's get rated whether they play good or bad defenses. You still have to execute and actually pile up those numbers. If we're going to play the mitigating factor game, Cousins put up big numbers without Cook and operating behind the shittiest line in football with one of its few good players out of the lineup.

Look, nobody is asking for Cousins to named offensive player of the week. bohum simply raised a good question. You would think those numbers would rate something 60 in PFF's grading regardless of who he played against.

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott

PFF is a waste of time. Their grades are in essence meaningless.

Nonsense. They are the best rating and analysis available. Not perfect of course.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott

PFF is a waste of time. Their grades are in essence meaningless.

Nonsense. They are the best rating and analysis available. Not perfect of course.

No, they really aren't. They try to quantify performance the way advanced stats do in baseball and basketball, but the criteria is much harder to contextualize then the other sports.

They are somewhere between where you and Scott rate them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott

PFF is a waste of time. Their grades are in essence meaningless.

Nonsense. They are the best rating and analysis available. Not perfect of course.

No, they really aren't. They try to quantify performance the way advanced stats do in baseball and basketball, but the criteria is much harder to contextualize then the other sports.

They are somewhere between where you and Scott rate them.

What service is better? Name it or my point stands as correct.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brad H

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott

PFF is a waste of time. Their grades are in essence meaningless.

Nonsense. They are the best rating and analysis available. Not perfect of course.

No, they really aren't. They try to quantify performance the way advanced stats do in baseball and basketball, but the criteria is much harder to contextualize then the other sports.

They are somewhere between where you and Scott rate them.

What service is better? Name it or my point stands as correct.

The best service I can find is my own eyes. Cousins sucks!

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen
The Lions allowed an average of 2.4 passing TDs per game this season so big props to Kurt for his additional 0.6 TDs!

He threw 112 yards over what their 30th ranked D allows. Whoo Hoo!

25% more TD and 40% more yards. The quality of the defense is irrelevant. QB's get rated whether they play good or bad defenses. You still have to execute and actually pile up those numbers. If we're going to play the mitigating factor game, Cousins put up big numbers without Cook and operating behind the shittiest line in football with one of its few good players out of the lineup.

Look, nobody is asking for Cousins to named offensive player of the week. bohum simply raised a good question. You would think those numbers would rate something 60 in PFF's grading regardless of who he played against.

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

Speaking of cook being out am I the only one that noticed mattison was out team MVP yesterday? That was an incredible performance. Best back-up RB in the NFL except for Kareem hunt?

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott

PFF is a waste of time. Their grades are in essence meaningless.

Nonsense. They are the best rating and analysis available. Not perfect of course.

No, they really aren't. They try to quantify performance the way advanced stats do in baseball and basketball, but the criteria is much harder to contextualize then the other sports.

They are somewhere between where you and Scott rate them.

What service is better? Name it or my point stands as correct.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott

PFF is a waste of time. Their grades are in essence meaningless.

Nonsense. They are the best rating and analysis available. Not perfect of course.

No, they really aren't. They try to quantify performance the way advanced stats do in baseball and basketball, but the criteria is much harder to contextualize then the other sports.

They are somewhere between where you and Scott rate them.

What service is better? Name it or my point stands as correct.

They try to grade a players performance not having a clue what that players responsibility is on any given particular play and the judgement is 100% subjective.

It's a waste of time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

Didn't see the game, but how is Cousins not grading out at at least 66.2? Were the receivers throwing to themselves?

You sort of answered your own question there.

Wow. Didn't really expect this from you, but the bolded is exactly why I was asking the question. You gave some valid reasons, though that might not be enough to knock him down that far. PFF is not the Bible, Koran, or even the Big Book. Oh wait, none of those are the infallible Word of God, either.

I didn’t mean for my comment to be harsh but rather a good natured haha/gotcha type of thing

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott

PFF is a waste of time. Their grades are in essence meaningless.

Nonsense. They are the best rating and analysis available. Not perfect of course.

No, they really aren't. They try to quantify performance the way advanced stats do in baseball and basketball, but the criteria is much harder to contextualize then the other sports.

They are somewhere between where you and Scott rate them.

What service is better? Name it or my point stands as correct.

They try to grade a players performance not having a clue what that players responsibility is on any given particular play and the judgement is 100% subjective.

It's a waste of time.

They have a pretty good idea what the players’ responsibilities were on each play. It’s figure-out-able. This is NFL football not quantum physics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott

PFF is a waste of time. Their grades are in essence meaningless.

Nonsense. They are the best rating and analysis available. Not perfect of course.

No, they really aren't. They try to quantify performance the way advanced stats do in baseball and basketball, but the criteria is much harder to contextualize then the other sports.

They are somewhere between where you and Scott rate them.

What service is better? Name it or my point stands as correct.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott

PFF is a waste of time. Their grades are in essence meaningless.

Nonsense. They are the best rating and analysis available. Not perfect of course.

No, they really aren't. They try to quantify performance the way advanced stats do in baseball and basketball, but the criteria is much harder to contextualize then the other sports.

They are somewhere between where you and Scott rate them.

What service is better? Name it or my point stands as correct.

They try to grade a players performance not having a clue what that players responsibility is on any given particular play and the judgement is 100% subjective.

It's a waste of time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

PFF is one tool. I don't buy the Zimmer line that it's worthless because they don't know what everyone is supposed to be doing, but there are limits on what they can know. Analytics are great----up to the point where they're not. We overapply analytics throughout society, so it's no surprise that sports have become what they are. Chris "Conflict of Interest" Collinsworth (who I generally like and also respect that his DNA is so alpha that his kid is a near carbon copy) throws out stuff all the time without context or caveat. Case in point, when to go on fourth down: the analytics used are for the league as a whole, not a given team on a given night in a given place against another given team on a given night in a given place. So the Vikings going for it on 4th-and-1 from their own 45 against Bears in a sloppy field is not the same as the Browns in the same situation on indoor turf against the Texans. The number Collinsworth spits out is one parameter to consider, but first and foremost is knowing your own team, and then knowing your opponent and the situation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

PFF is one tool. I don't buy the Zimmer line that it's worthless because they don't know what everyone is supposed to be doing, but there are limits on what they can know. Analytics are great----up to the point where they're not. We overapply analytics throughout society, so it's no surprise that sports have become what they are. Chris "Conflict of Interest" Collinsworth (who I generally like and also respect that his DNA is so alpha that his kid is a near carbon copy) throws out stuff all the time without context or caveat. Case in point, when to go on fourth down: the analytics used are for the league as a whole, not a given team on a given night in a given place against another given team on a given night in a given place. So the Vikings going for it on 4th-and-1 from their own 45 against Bears in a sloppy field is not the same as the Browns in the same situation on indoor turf against the Texans. The number Collinsworth spits out is one parameter to consider, but first and foremost is knowing your own team, and then knowing your opponent and the situation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott

PFF is a waste of time. Their grades are in essence meaningless.

Nonsense. They are the best rating and analysis available. Not perfect of course.

No, they really aren't. They try to quantify performance the way advanced stats do in baseball and basketball, but the criteria is much harder to contextualize then the other sports.

They are somewhere between where you and Scott rate them.

What service is better? Name it or my point stands as correct.

No, that's not how it works. You made the assertion. The burden of proof is on you to support it. It's like asserting that there was wide spread voter without providing to support the assertion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: David Levine

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

PFF is one tool. I don't buy the Zimmer line that it's worthless because they don't know what everyone is supposed to be doing, but there are limits on what they can know. Analytics are great----up to the point where they're not. We overapply analytics throughout society, so it's no surprise that sports have become what they are. Chris "Conflict of Interest" Collinsworth (who I generally like and also respect that his DNA is so alpha that his kid is a near carbon copy) throws out stuff all the time without context or caveat. Case in point, when to go on fourth down: the analytics used are for the league as a whole, not a given team on a given night in a given place against another given team on a given night in a given place. So the Vikings going for it on 4th-and-1 from their own 45 against Bears in a sloppy field is not the same as the Browns in the same situation on indoor turf against the Texans. The number Collinsworth spits out is one parameter to consider, but first and foremost is knowing your own team, and then knowing your opponent and the situation.

Of course Zimmer thinks its worthless.

Analytics are like fire or the wheel. He doesn't trust them because they weren't around until later in his life.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

PFF is one tool. I don't buy the Zimmer line that it's worthless because they don't know what everyone is supposed to be doing, but there are limits on what they can know. Analytics are great----up to the point where they're not. We overapply analytics throughout society, so it's no surprise that sports have become what they are. Chris "Conflict of Interest" Collinsworth (who I generally like and also respect that his DNA is so alpha that his kid is a near carbon copy) throws out stuff all the time without context or caveat. Case in point, when to go on fourth down: the analytics used are for the league as a whole, not a given team on a given night in a given place against another given team on a given night in a given place. So the Vikings going for it on 4th-and-1 from their own 45 against Bears in a sloppy field is not the same as the Browns in the same situation on indoor turf against the Texans. The number Collinsworth spits out is one parameter to consider, but first and foremost is knowing your own team, and then knowing your opponent and the situation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott

PFF is a waste of time. Their grades are in essence meaningless.

Nonsense. They are the best rating and analysis available. Not perfect of course.

No, they really aren't. They try to quantify performance the way advanced stats do in baseball and basketball, but the criteria is much harder to contextualize then the other sports.

They are somewhere between where you and Scott rate them.

What service is better? Name it or my point stands as correct.

No, that's not how it works. You made the assertion. The burden of proof is on you to support it. It's like asserting that there was wide spread voter without providing to support the assertion.