RealFantasy Pigskin - Progress Report

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

 
And you're doing a shitty job. But I'm repeating myself. 
 
 
I look forward to YOU putting in the effort to "discredit" the PFF numbers. I'll be glad to read and consider your reasoning when you do so. You might even be right. But up to this point, all you've done is whine that your system QB is undervalued by PFF and that he was better than Jay Cutler. Bang up job, smokey. ;-)

 
I completely trashed your first argument after I based mine on more than just being better than Cutler and that's all you've got? More conjecture? You know, you can't debate for shit.

 

[Phragle]

 
Please elaborate

 
The system give Foles a shit ton of easy thows. PFF recognizes that, thus his shitty score.

 

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

 
The system give Foles a shit ton of easy thows. PFF recognizes that, thus his shitty score.

 
That's stupid. I was unaware that the "system" was good enough to negate opposing defenses. Please, go on.
 
And while you're at it tell me why your guy RGIII isn't a product of a system.
 
Edit: For what it's worth I think they did a shit job rating RGIII. They rated him a worse passer than Vick? And a worse runner than Jay Cutler? C'mon. 

 

[Phragle]

That's stupid. I was unaware that the "system" was good enough to negate opposing defenses.

First step is admitting it.
 

And while you're at it tell me why your guy RGIII isn't a product of a system.

How could he be?
 

Edit: For what it's worth I think they did a shit job rating RGIII. They rated him a worse passer than Vick? And a worse runner than Jay Cutler? C'mon.

I thought you watched him this year?

 

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

How could he be?

 
Oh you know. Read option. Baylor has had a top offense without him. 
 
 

I thought you watched him this year?

 
 
I did. He sucked. But Cutler and Vick are on another level of suck.

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

 
Better than the same weight as the QB!
 
 
What do think we're doing with these numbers? They aren't deciding games.

 
 
I agree that weighting QB the highest makes sense.
 
Only weighting the QB and no other position is bizarre and makes this entire exercise fruitless.

 

[Phragle]

 
Oh you know. Read option. Baylor has had a top offense without him. 
 
 
I did. He sucked. But Cutler and Vick are on another level of suck.

The RO is a play, not a system. And it's a play that needs an effective running QB to work correctly. You can't just plug in any QB.

Baylor would be a good argument if not for one of the greatest rookie seasons ever.

Cutler and Vick weren't that bad. We aren't talking about Brandon Weeden here.

 

[Phragle]

 
 
I agree that weighting QB the highest makes sense.
 
Only weighting the QB and no other position is bizarre and makes this entire exercise fruitless.

What it lacks in thoroughness it makes up for in quickness and simplicity. Feel free to propose something better.

 

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

The RO is a play, not a system. And it's a play that needs an effective running QB to work correctly. You can't just plug in any QB.

 
I'll give you it's a wide category but the option offense is pretty much a system. Art Briles approach has been pretty formidable regardless of the QB.
 

The Art of offense: Has Baylor birthed college football's most ...
 
 

Cutler and Vick weren't that bad. We aren't talking about Brandon Weeden here.

 
Seriously. They are both dreadful QB's. All talent no skill.

 

[Scoops Bolling]

 
 
I agree that weighting QB the highest makes sense.
 
Only weighting the QB and no other position is bizarre and makes this entire exercise fruitless.

If you want to figure out appropriate weights for all positions, by all means go ahead and do so. I'm sure we'll all be able to agree on it...

 

[Old Fart Tree]

Can someone with the time and PFF account throw up the AFC West?  Not sure anyone in the division has an account.

 
Sure. Raiders went 8-0 in the division. Fuck you, I've just thrown up the AFC West.
 
And by "thrown up," I mean that the rosters of the Broncos, Chargers, and Chiefs are so offensively odious that merely regarding them made me regurgitate whatever resided in my stomach at the moment. They're fucking horrible and their owners, general managers, head coaches, O/D coordinators, and possible starting QBs should rightfully murder themselves as acts of contrition, after the Mendocino County Raiders have mopped the floor with them en route to a perfect 19-0 season.

 

[Old Fart Tree]

 
 
I agree that weighting QB the highest makes sense.
 
Only weighting the QB and no other position is bizarre and makes this entire exercise fruitless.

 
Accurate.

 

[Phragle]

I'll give you it's a wide category but the option offense is pretty much a system. Art Briles approach has been pretty formidable regardless of the QB.
 
The Art of offense: Has Baylor birthed college football's most ...

 
I don't know what Baylor or Briles has to do with it. Under Shanahan The Redskins run a West Coast Offense. Same offense he ran in Denver with Elway.
 
Great job avoiding the Foles topic though.

 

[Super Nomario]

Why worry about weighting the positions at all? We're voting, not going by a formula based solely on PFF, right? So Phragle might look at the numbers and weight QB 10X, I might do it 3X, KFP might do it 2X, and we can all draw our own conclusions based on that data.
 
The tougher thing is going to be replacement level. Myt1 somehow drafted 3 QBs and none of them took a snap this season.

 

[soxfan121]

I'm finding it very difficult to take these PFF numbers seriously...

It's like they're pulling numbers straight out of their ass. I've got Zuttah with a shit grade even though he didn't give up a sack. Torrey Smith a 1,000 yard receiver with a 1.5. Mychal Kendricks a frickin Pro-Bowler with a -10.0... I think they're full of shit.

I'm going to run through my buddy Nick Foles for starters:
 
Edit: To add, the worst part about the PFF scheme, from what I can tell, is that it's purely subjective. It's not based off of actual quantifiable things like in baseball sabermetrics. It seems like it's based off of opinions of people watching games and trying to attach numbers to actions. That amounts to an absolute shit ton of noise. 

I'm not saying raw stats are perfect, I'm just trying to point out how crazy the PFF numbers seem to be. I'm also not saying not use them, I'm just trying to discredit them.

I completely trashed your first argument after I based mine on more than just being better than Cutler and that's all you've got? More conjecture? You know, you can't debate for shit.

 
Oh ESC...if only there were some way to see the actual methodology of the PFF grading system. Something more than some raw stats, four feelings that escalate in intensity and a premature touchdown dance. 
 

[SIZE=medium]7) How subjective is the Grading?[/SIZE]
Many people say that as soon as you start grading, you bring subjectivity into your work. Obviously, to some degree, that’s true.
.
However, there’s also subjectivity around whether a play was a QB run for negative yardage or a sack, if an assist on a tackle should be awarded and if a catch was dropped or not. Sure, you can come up with a set of rules to determine which is which, but in the end, at the borderline between one and the other, it’s always subjective. It comes down to a judgment call.
.
The real trick of grading is to define a clear set of rules, encompassing each type of play. If your rules are thorough and precise enough, the answers just fall out. It becomes as easy as determining the dropped pass that hit the TE right between the numbers.
.
Just like with the more mainstream statistics, there are occasions when the choice is difficult. But the difference on our site is this: If a guy is going to be upgraded or downgraded on a judgment call, we let it ride. We simply make the comment and then put in a 0.
.
Statistics in their raw form are considered objective. But in our opinion, with the small number of NFL games played each season, raw stats are very often unintelligent. If a QB throws three interceptions in a game but one came from a dropped pass, another from a WR running a poor route and a third on a Hail Mary at the end of the half, it skews his stats by far too great an amount to be useful.  Our “subjective” grading allows us to bring some intelligence to the raw numbers.
 

 
There's just a ton of actual stuff to dissect, question and dispute in that link. Doing that would be far more productive than incorrect guesses about their methods or trying to compare Nick Foles raw stats to Jay Cutler's raw stats. 
 
Further, their forums are a battleground of people who have done far more than glance at their methodology page and look up some raw stats and pro bowl rosters to "discredit" their system. Having read many of those threads and battlees, I'm more inclined to believe they do a credible job even if they are "people who watch games and attach numbers". Perhaps there is where you can get the debate on why Nick Foles is so under-appreciated by their system you so desperately want. I'd love to see any response you get from PFF regarding why Kendricks is -10 even though he made the Pro Bowl. I mean, really. If the Pro Bowl voting isn't something we can use to reliably determine who played the best, then I don't know what this world is coming to. 

 

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

 
I don't know what Baylor or Briles has to do with it. Under Shanahan The Redskins run a West Coast Offense. Same offense he ran in Denver with Elway.
 
Great job avoiding the Foles topic though.

 

Mike Shanahan implements Baylor plays to help RG3 - NFL.com Yup. Same as Elway.
 
I haven't avoided the Foles topic at all. The kid threw 2 INT's. Explain to me how the system made him impervious to opposing DB's.

 

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

 
Oh ESC...if only there were some way to see the actual methodology of the PFF grading system. Something more than some raw stats, four feelings that escalate in intensity and a premature touchdown dance. 

 
So your argument is that the guys who put this crap together say that their opinions aren't subjective because blah blah blah, and rather than guess they just give someone a zero... 
 
Fascinating.

 

[SMU_Sox]

Everyone take a deep breath. No need to get all bent out of shape here. We can discuss methodology problems with off and grading systems for our league with a little less... assholeitude. #friendlyneighborhoodquaker

 

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

Im sorry for yelling.

 

[Phragle]

 
Mike Shanahan implements Baylor plays to help RG3 - NFL.com Yup. Same as Elway.
 
I haven't avoided the Foles topic at all. The kid threw 2 INT's. Explain to me how the system made him impervious to opposing DB's.

 
Using Baylor's pre-snap process doesn't mean much. If anything that makes it more impressive. Some veteran QBs don't have that kind of responsibility, never mind rookies. It certainly doesn't mean they are running Baylor's spread offense. It's West Coast system with Zone Blocking. Same as Elway and his Broncos.
 
All of Foles' throws were easy, conservative, or run off play action with the best running game in the league no less. It makes sense that he had a rating of 79 before Kelly.

 

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

 
Using Baylor's pre-snap process doesn't mean much. If anything that makes it more impressive. Some veteran QBs don't have that kind of responsibility, never mind rookies. It certainly doesn't mean they are running Baylor's spread offense. It's West Coast system with Zone Blocking. Same as Elway and his Broncos.

 
No. It's not. Shanahan blended his WCO with the option offense. There's a link to the Grantland article in Rosenthals report. You are correct that the blocking scheme is the same though.
 

All of Foles' throws were easy, conservative, or run off play action with the best running game in the league no less. It makes sense that he had a rating of 79 before Kelly.

 
Every single one of his throws, eh? That's not even remotely feasible. 
 
Last year the Eagles had no offensive line and Shady was injured and playing like a shell of himself. Foles was thrown into a shitstorm last year as a rookie and I thought he played pretty well given the circumstances. I even said that when I picked him.

 

[Phragle]

Why worry about weighting the positions at all? We're voting, not going by a formula based solely on PFF, right? So Phragle might look at the numbers and weight QB 10X, I might do it 3X, KFP might do it 2X, and we can all draw our own conclusions based on that data.

3X? WTF?
 

The tougher thing is going to be replacement level. Myt1 somehow drafted 3 QBs and none of them took a snap this season.

It's almost like if you draft Sanchez you're locked into having shitty QB play. He doesn't even have to play. He affects everyone around him. He's a black hole of shit.
 

Im sorry for yelling.

You're yelling?

Spoiler

 

No. It's not. Shanahan blended his WCO with the option offense. There's a link to the Grantland article in Rosenthals report. You are correct that the blocking scheme is the same though.

 
Even if we assume you're right, it doesn't make Griffin a system QB. Not even close.
 
And I don't think you're right. Adding RO plays to Shanahan's WCO doesn't make it Baylor's offense.
 
From that article "Griffin’s advantage is that he adds an element to Shanahan’s pro-style offense that can’t be understated. It cannot be emphasized enough that all those supposedly “easy” passes Griffin threw early on were decisions he had to make based on how the defense played. That may be the most exciting thing about his debut. Unlike many NFL coaches whose egos and lack of creativity won’t allow them to utilize their players’ strengths and weaknesses, Shanahan is evolving his offense into a reflection of his young quarterback. Robert Griffin III is not a “running quarterback,” but rather a quarterback who can also run; Shanahan’s Redskins offense is not a college-style spread offense, but a blend of a pro-style system that also incorporates some of college football’s newest and best ideas. Griffin certainly has a long way to go, but his development — and the development of this offense — will be fun to watch, unless, that is, you’re the one trying to stop it."
 
So I may have exaggerated. It's not exactly the same as Elway's offense, but it's further from Baylor's than it is from Elway's. It's Shanahan's WCO offense (that he's always used) with RO plays.
 

Every single one of his throws, eh? That's not even remotely feasible.

 
Relative to other QBs it's very feasible.
 

Last year the Eagles had no offensive line and Shady was injured and playing like a shell of himself. Foles was thrown into a shitstorm last year as a rookie and I thought he played pretty well given the circumstances. I even said that when I picked him.

 
I'll give you that. Lane Johnson completely solidified their offense. What a stud that guy is.

 

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

Even if we assume you're right, it doesn't make Griffin a system QB. Not even close.
 
And I don't think you're right. Adding RO plays to Shanahan's WCO doesn't make it Baylor's offense.
 
From that article "Griffin’s advantage is that he adds an element to Shanahan’s pro-style offense that can’t be understated. It cannot be emphasized enough that all those supposedly “easy” passes Griffin threw early on were decisions he had to make based on how the defense played. That may be the most exciting thing about his debut. Unlike many NFL coaches whose egos and lack of creativity won’t allow them to utilize their players’ strengths and weaknesses, Shanahan is evolving his offense into a reflection of his young quarterback. Robert Griffin III is not a “running quarterback,” but rather a quarterback who can also run; Shanahan’s Redskins offense is not a college-style spread offense, but a blend of a pro-style system that also incorporates some of college football’s newest and best ideas. Griffin certainly has a long way to go, but his development — and the development of this offense — will be fun to watch, unless, that is, you’re the one trying to stop it."

 
Baylor runs a spread option. Shanahan incorporated aspects of that into his offense to help Griffin. Griffin lost his mobility which in turn took away the option and he had to play in a more traditional offense. And he sucked. He's never been in another system and he's still young and obviously very talented, but he hasn't shown the capability to run a pro-style offense. Yet. So, that pretty much makes him a system QB at this point. 
 
 
 

So I may have exaggerated. It's not exactly the same as Elway's offense, but it's further from Baylor's than it is from Elway's. It's Shanahan's WCO offense (that he's always used) with RO plays.

 
Nope. It's really just not, and I've pointed that out multiple times already.
 
 
 

Relative to other QBs it's very feasible.

 
 
I would ask you to elaborate but there's no way you can make that statement make any sense whatsoever.
 
 
 

I'll give you that. Lane Johnson completely solidified their offense. What a stud that guy is.

 
 
You're such a funny guy. You know that Peters, Kelce and Herremans were out and their line when Foles took over was a laughing stock. (in 2012)

 

[JerBear]

Not sure whose side it favors, but didn't Foles day he'd rather take a sack than throw up a jump ball that might get picked?

 

[Phragle]

Baylor runs a spread option. Shanahan incorporated aspects of that into his offense to help Griffin. Griffin lost his mobility which in turn took away the option and he had to play in a more traditional offense. And he sucked. He's never been in another system and he's still young and obviously very talented, but he hasn't shown the capability to run a pro-style offense. Yet. So, that pretty much makes him a system QB at this point. 
 
Nope. It's really just not, and I've pointed that out multiple times already.

You're too busy typing to read huh? He is in a pro-style offense right now. He had the best rookie QB season ever in a pro-style offense last season. Putting read option plays into Shananhan's WCO does not make it Baylor. They run the RO only 10% of the time. That is too insignificant to call it anything but a pro-style offense. That and Shanahan never runs the spread. Baylor does it all the time. The spread is what makes Baylor's passing game so prolific. It can't be Baylor without it. They are two totally different systems.
 

I would ask you to elaborate but there's no way you can make that statement make any sense whatsoever.

Actually I can.

 

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

You're too busy typing to read huh? He is in a pro-style offense right now. He had the best rookie QB season ever in a pro-style offense last season. Putting read option plays into Shananhan's WCO does not make it Baylor. They run the RO only 10% of the time. That is too insignificant to call it anything but a pro-style offense. That and Shanahan never runs the spread. Baylor does it all the time. The spread is what makes Baylor's passing game so prolific. It can't be Baylor without it. They are two totally different systems.
 

Actually I can.

 
I'm just going to keep posting links that show you you're wrong.
 

Robert Griffin III wants to play in pro-style offense, not read option ...

 

[Phragle]

I'm just going to keep posting links that show you you're wrong.
 
Robert Griffin III wants to play in pro-style offense, not read option ...

 
That article is a joke. Rapoport doesn't understand the numbers. A offense can't be a base when it's used only 10% (fact) of the time.
 
Anyone can post links, watch me.
 

At the NFL level, the read option is, and always will be, just a changeup. A knuckleball, screwball, slider, or a cut fastball, if you will. Just pick a lesser-used pitch for this metaphor. That's the read option. It is not one of your top two pitches.
 
Every team that uses the read option has a base identity to its offense that is not related to the read option

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2013/11/26/5143258/read-option-plays-scheme-2013-eagles-49ers-seahawks-panthers

 
And right from the horses mouth.

Eagles coach Chip Kelly doesn’t see that as a slap at his approach, because Kelly doesn’t think he runs the read-option offense.
 
“I don’t think it’s an offense,” Kelly told reporters on Thursday.  “I think it’s a play.  And we don’t run read option if you want to get really technical.  We run a zone read play every once in awhile.  It’s like saying our offense is a power offense because we run the power play.  Or the old Green Bay Packers, their offense was the Green Bay sweep offense and it isn’t.  Everybody’s got a bunch of plays they run offensively, whether everybody’s got a quick game, everybody’s got screen, everybody’s got drop back, everybody’s got out‑of‑pocket, power, counter, inside zone.  I never looked at it as an offense.”

 
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/11/28/chip-kelly-dubs-his-attack-the-see-coast-offense/

 

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

 
That article is a joke. Rapoport doesn't understand the numbers. A offense can't be a base when it's used only 10% (fact) of the time.
 
http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2013/11/26/5143258/read-option-plays-scheme-2013-eagles-49ers-seahawks-panthers
 

 
I actually really enjoyed reading the article you posted. It is a little confusing though how he says it's a cool wrinkle then proceeds to give a breakdown of multiple schemes he even calls a system. Would it be better if I use the term option offense to give it a broader spectrum? You seem to be arguing semantics. Some people call the read option a system, some call it a play.
 
That number you keep throwing out there (10%) is actually how many zone read runs. It doesn't account for passing or play action.
 

And right from the horses mouth.

He was fucking with the media... It's pretty obvious when you read the whole thing.

 

[Phragle]

I actually really enjoyed reading the article you posted. It is a little confusing though how he says it's a cool wrinkle then proceeds to give a breakdown of multiple schemes he even calls a system. Would it be better if I use the term option offense to give it a broader spectrum? You seem to be arguing semantics. Some people call the read option a system, some call it a play.

 
Maybe it is semantics normally, but in this conversation that started with systems, it's relevant.
 

That number you keep throwing out there (10%) is actually how many zone read runs. It doesn't account for passing or play action.

 
No, it's all RO plays.
 

He was fucking with the media... It's pretty obvious when you read the whole thing.

The 'See Coast' thing was a snarky FU to the media, but the rest was serious. Maybe the video will help you.

Kelly, the read-option is not an offense. It's a play. It's part of an offense.
 
He educated the media for three minutes until he got fed up and dropped the See Coast offense on them.

 

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

The snark was evident from the get go. As soon as the guy asked him about the Arians comment he was done.
 
He was trolling them because they're terminology wasn't exact.
 
A lot like what you're doing.

 

[bakahump]

 
Sure. Raiders went 8-0 in the division. Fuck you, I've just thrown up the AFC West.
 
And by "thrown up," I mean that the rosters of the Broncos, Chargers, and Chiefs are so offensively odious that merely regarding them made me regurgitate whatever resided in my stomach at the moment. They're fucking horrible and their owners, general managers, head coaches, O/D coordinators, and possible starting QBs should rightfully murder themselves as acts of contrition, after the Mendocino County Raiders have mopped the floor with them en route to a perfect 19-0 season.

Fairly Accurate...

 

[Super Nomario]

Here's another resource we can use for evaluating our players' 2013s - Bleacher Report's NFL 1000: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1949452-br-nfl-1000-top-65-quarterbacks

 

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

Here's another resource we can use for evaluating our players' 2013s - Bleacher Report's NFL 1000: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1949452-br-nfl-1000-top-65-quarterbacks

 
 That's for the 2012 season.

 

[mascho]

 
 That's for the 2012 season.

 
Yeah, that completely sucks.  Discount it.
 
#TeamFlacco

 

[Dollar]

 
 That's for the 2012 season.

 
I don't think so.  There's no way Philip Rivers would be ranked #2 for the 2012 season.  

 

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

 
I don't think so.  There's no way Philip Rivers would be ranked #2 for the 2012 season.  

 
It was written Feb. 2013...
 
Nevermind, he edited it.

 

[Super Nomario]

 
It was written Feb. 2013...
 
Nevermind, he edited it.

Yeah, sorry, I fixed the link almost immediately but you snuck in there first.

 

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iFo3FtCVKuE

 

[Phragle]

Here's another resource we can use for evaluating our players' 2013s - Bleacher Report's NFL 1000: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1949452-br-nfl-1000-top-65-quarterbacks

You think we should use something from Bleacher Report? Maybe we can find something better on Buzzfeed or Barstool Sports.

 

[Super Nomario]

You think we should use something from Bleacher Report? Maybe we can find something better on Buzzfeed or Barstool Sports.

There's a lot of crap on BR but the people doing this are pretty good.

 

[Myt1]

Oh ESC...if only there were some way to see the actual methodology of the PFF grading system. Something more than some raw stats, four feelings that escalate in intensity and a premature touchdown dance. 
 
There's just a ton of actual stuff to dissect, question and dispute in that link. Doing that would be far more productive than incorrect guesses about their methods or trying to compare Nick Foles raw stats to Jay Cutler's raw stats. 
 
Further, their forums are a battleground of people who have done far more than glance at their methodology page and look up some raw stats and pro bowl rosters to "discredit" their system. Having read many of those threads and battlees, I'm more inclined to believe they do a credible job even if they are "people who watch games and attach numbers". Perhaps there is where you can get the debate on why Nick Foles is so under-appreciated by their system you so desperately want. I'd love to see any response you get from PFF regarding why Kendricks is -10 even though he made the Pro Bowl. I mean, really. If the Pro Bowl voting isn't something we can use to reliably determine who played the best, then I don't know what this world is coming to. 

All of this incredibly reasonable stuff notwithstanding when this:

The real trick of grading is to define a clear set of rules, encompassing each type of play. If your rules are thorough and precise enough, the answers just fall out. It becomes as easy as determining the dropped pass that hit the TE right between the numbers.

Leads to Matt Forte being about as valuable as Jacquizz Rodgers, and half as valuable as Eddie Lacey, it's GIGO. And we don't really need to get down into the specifics anymore than we would need to when determining whether throwing someone into a wood chipper was an effective way to treat their sprained ankle.

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

Goddamniit SMU! Renew your PFF membership so I can continue to mooch! 

 

[SMU_Sox]

Goddamniit SMU! Renew your PFF membership so I can continue to mooch! 

 
 
Shit - that expired? Let me take care of that when I get home tonight. Completely forgot Sorry man.

 

[bakahump]

Anyone else see a potential Problem with "Players who didnt play"?
 
 
Take Qb for instance.  Lets say I had David Garrrard (or Rookie Uknown) as my Qb.
 
PFF Numbers would be "0" as they didnt do anything bad....nor good.
 
Lets Compare that to Chris Ponder...who racked up an impressive -10.8
 
We do whatever weighting we decide to do....
 
But what we would come up with is that Having Chris Ponder as your starter (who by definition was a starting NFL QB....granted a bad one) is worse then having a Guy who cant even get a starting job (Who should be by default of expert consensus in the NFL as bad or worse then the very worst NFL starter.)  Ponder may be bad....but is he really -10 worse then an unknown who cant even get on the field?   Hell he may actually be 10 or 20 pts better then someone like that.
 
Take my case.  I could either use Josh Freeman or BJ Coleman as my starters.  Assume I choose BJ Coleman.  Would it be realistic to assume that he would be better then Freeman? Our current judging criteria may assume so if Freeman is -12.6 and Coleman would be "0".
 
As we seem to delve into negative numbers in our rating criteria a 0 has significant value over a -5 or a -15.
 
What to do?
Maybe if there are no PFF numbers for Someone like Coleman....then he would get the same PFF rating as the worst starter in football??? 

 

[RhaegarTharen]

Thats one of the reasons I included the snap count with the PFF scores for the NFC North.  The PFF scores were never intended to be the end-all be-all of our analysis.  They were supposed to help supplement any arguments because they (theoretically) provide a universal rating system which can be used to compare across teams. 
 
On the other hand - I don't share your concern.  I don't think anyone here would even think of making an argument that a guy who didn't play a snap and thus received a score of 0 was better than a guy who played 900 snaps and scored a -10, based only on their respective PFF scores.  That's beyond stupid.  Sure - you're more than welcome to argue that Coleman couldn't have been as bad as Freeman - but you're going to have to provide your own evidence and argument for it, because Coleman's PFF scores are irrelevant. 
 
The angst here over PFF seems overblown IMO.   Adding independent analysis and evaluation is a good thing, is it not?  If you disagree with their numbers - you are more than welcome to make your case as to why.  But at least it gives us a starting point other than pure counting stats. 

 

[Super Nomario]

Anyone else see a potential Problem with "Players who didnt play"?
 
 
Take Qb for instance.  Lets say I had David Garrrard (or Rookie Uknown) as my Qb.
 
PFF Numbers would be "0" as they didnt do anything bad....nor good.
 
Lets Compare that to Chris Ponder...who racked up an impressive -10.8
 
We do whatever weighting we decide to do....
 
But what we would come up with is that Having Chris Ponder as your starter (who by definition was a starting NFL QB....granted a bad one) is worse then having a Guy who cant even get a starting job (Who should be by default of expert consensus in the NFL as bad or worse then the very worst NFL starter.)  Ponder may be bad....but is he really -10 worse then an unknown who cant even get on the field?   Hell he may actually be 10 or 20 pts better then someone like that.
 
Take my case.  I could either use Josh Freeman or BJ Coleman as my starters.  Assume I choose BJ Coleman.  Would it be realistic to assume that he would be better then Freeman? Our current judging criteria may assume so if Freeman is -12.6 and Coleman would be "0".
 
As we seem to delve into negative numbers in our rating criteria a 0 has significant value over a -5 or a -15.
 
What to do?
Maybe if there are no PFF numbers for Someone like Coleman....then he would get the same PFF rating as the worst starter in football??? 

PFF scores are supposed to be relative to average, so Ponder is -10 compared to them average QB. You can't assume a replacement is going to be average, though it's hard to figure exactly where "replacement level" ought to be. In the case of Coleman, who was cut by Green Bay and not picked up by anybody, it's tough to argue he's going to be an upgrade on Freeman.
 
Also, I put "supposed to" above because if you do the math, you'll find that they don't average to 0. TE run blocking, for instance, sums to something like -400.