NFL offensive lineman vehemently loathe them. They often speak out against it, from what I've seen.
-
Welcome to PurpleFlock! Be sure to sign up here so that you can chat with your fellow Ravens fans.
The Offensive Line Thread
- Thread starter Sledge Hammer
- Start date
BloodRaven
MVP
I suppose it depends on how highly theyre rated, I remember Evan Mathis was a big fan, and he was their highest rated guard, he even wrote a few pieces for them if I remember correctly.
Another thing too is GMs and agents use PFF as a bargaining tool for new contracts and have been for years.
I just think especially with OL, it's difficult to grade because of the amount of unspoken chemistry and the adjustments that happen on the fly, but that's just my thoughts on it.
I think PFF is used because it's one of the only, if not the only, sites that gives a grade and rating to how a player plays.
If I remember, it's a few guys from the UK who have never played before. It's an arbitrary grading system that relies on people to watch plays and make a guaranteed call without 100% knowing the assignment or the intended outcome. Plus, they put out grades in like two hours. You're telling me you watched like 30 players and graded each one individually accurately that quickly?
One example is that in their game recap for week 5, Jensen gets a grade of like 82, but in PFF's week 5 team of the week, Jensen has a grade of almost 95. It's a big discrepancy.
BloodRaven
MVP
From memory there was a lineman (it might have been Mathis again) who wrote a piece for them and touched on graders not knowing player assignments and their response was that they dont grade successful execution of a play but individual battles or something to that effect, and supposedly they have teams who watch games and thats how they track each player and snaps.
Overall its still very subjective and wishy washy and I only cited the grades for the benefit of our PFF fans. One thing I do like however are stats such as pass rush productivity etc
allblackraven
Hall of Famer
For last week or overall?
Line played great in Oakland but if it's overall, the low figure of hits/sacks on flacco must be weighing heavily in that score.
It’s about more than the final record
I like PFF for their stats and the fact that they quantify numbers like pass rushing productivity, but some of the grades make you wonder.
Experience can certainly be of help. That said, the general implication makes it sounds as if personal experience is almost a necessity to understand the inner workings of the OL. It's undoubtedly intricate and complex. That being said, we are currently flooded with information. There's game footage available on display, in-depth breakdowns from current NFL analysts and knowledgeable blog writers, as well as training videos from coaches and former players. Among the sources, I can hop online, put on the Eagles Anatomy of A Play series, and find out exactly how the inside zone cutback or the wham plays are intended to be executed. Learning everything from scratch is a significantly lengthy process as it requires understanding the principles of each position, the methods of execution, and then being able to digest the schematic differences. Nevertheless, it's more than plausible to do so without actual in-game experience. I'll use a personal example of the preseason game against the Dolphins. I wrote up a lengthy breakdown of each play involving Austin Howard that I shared via PM to a few members. It was a shaky overall performance, but I noted specific plays that I felt were encouraging enough from an athletic standpoint for Howard to remain at tackle. The most notable play was wherein he begun on the strong-side facing a wide-nine LE in Terrence Fede. Despite having Nick Boyle between him and Fede, Howard was able to successfully enter his vertical set, take three evenly-spaced slides with his hips squared while keeping his outside leg at the Fede's midsection, which forced the outside and inside lanes away, drop the anchor and shoot his arms at Fede's chest. For a man his size with somewhat heavy feet, it was about as textbook as it could've been expected. There was also a play earlier in the game wherein Cameron Wake attempted to set up the spin move with the initial rip, and instead of leaning into Wake and allowing Wake to sink his weight, swing his arm and clear through, Howard defeated it with a punch-and-reset. After dissecting both the running and passing plays, my opinion of Howard was that he possessed the athletic capacity to remain at OT. Mind you, I was going against the grain of the general consensus with an opinion about a position I've never played. Yet I was able to draw up a detailed assessment, an arguably accurate one, in large part because I had multiple tools at my disposal to further my knowledge and that I took the time to do so. And those in my eyes are the common denominators, time and ability. I'm not special. I've seen spot on in-depth assessments members on this forum who played little-to-none organized football, and I'm nowhere near where I hope to be knowledge wise regarding any position group. But if we're knocking PFF for its supposed inability to decipher plays due to lack of personal experience, which is significantly flawed in its own right considering that they've been hiring their number crunchers from regions including the United States for at least the last half-decade, including those who've played the sport, then I take umbrage with what it implies about us. If we're devaluing and/or discrediting the assessments of those who haven't played the sport, by that logic, it'd be acceptable to second guess the opinions of those of us who are in the same category by the mere virtue of that category. I for one can tell you from experience that I didn't possess a fraction of the knowledge I have now during my years as a DB, including knowledge of that same position group. And on a side note, with respect to the speed of their grading, from what I understand, they publish the first draft and then run through it a handful of times afterwards during the week. It's why each breakdown page states that their grades are subject to change upon review. Their initial drafts are done via the live footage while it's being recorded and the grades are then combed through via the All-22 whenever it becomes available. They're definitely not the Bible and their grades are subjective. That said, their effort level and expectations are hefty. For example, their information of the exact position each player played and what their general role was on each snap is essentially concrete. It's enforced with somewhat complex rules, and that aspect was measured as 99.98% accurate by NFL teams in 2013. Their entrance exams consist of multiple aforementioned player participation charts intended to be done off of live footage angles, and they're brutal given that accuracy wise, participants are allowed roughly 4 personnel errors and 15 action errors from what's likely to be over 1,000 data entries. Just throwing out some details for clarification.
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2017/09/nflpro-football-focus-grades-lions-tj-lang-grabage
I know @The Raven has disputes over their grades at times and how they operate and I trust what he says above all else with regards to the offensive line because he's played it before and understands what's happening and actual play calls.
I found the article where TJ Lang, a player who routinely grades out as elite, criticized their work.
The Raven
Veteran
Pro Football Focus is like using Pro Bowls to gauge a player's ability. Trust but verify with eye test.
Generally PFF isn't that far off, but it doesn't always account for blocking assignments. It's also subjective as hell. Who's to say if a good block gets you +1 or +2? What defines "winning" a block? What's the difference between a +0 and a +1? That's where it gets fuzzy. It also doesn't account for when a QB takes a three step drop and a tackle takes a shorter set allows a sack because the ball didn't get out. It's not the tackles fault -- he took his set like he was supposed to.
Still, in my experience, it's generally accurate.
Generally PFF isn't that far off, but it doesn't always account for blocking assignments. It's also subjective as hell. Who's to say if a good block gets you +1 or +2? What defines "winning" a block? What's the difference between a +0 and a +1? That's where it gets fuzzy. It also doesn't account for when a QB takes a three step drop and a tackle takes a shorter set allows a sack because the ball didn't get out. It's not the tackles fault -- he took his set like he was supposed to.
Still, in my experience, it's generally accurate.
Don’t gloss over @Truth s response because of how long it is. Read it as it’s very informative.
allblackraven
Hall of Famer
Agree, it’s subjective, and generally accurate. That being said, there is no end all be all in grading a play. This is just one tool that is out there for our use, agree with them or not.
Last edited:
You're making the assumption I didn't read it based on...?
TheCity5
MVP
Overall.
My issue comes down to the grading. I generally like the stats that they give, but the grades are too subjective for me. I'd rather judge the play on my own and then look at PFF and then confirm or give myself a reason to go back and watch again.
But my issue primarily comes down to how much it's treated like the end all be all. PFF is great because it's totally unique and one of a kind. They provide stats that you can't get anywhere else, to my knowledge (pressures, hits, pressures allowed, receptions and yardage allowed, etc), and that's really nice.
Does anyone remember when Bleacher Report did the NFL1000 series? I really enjoyed that because they'd do a weekly breakdown of their top 1000 players and there were always several instances of massive discrepancy between PFF and BR and it goes to show the subjective nature of trying to grade players.
The Raven
Veteran
I generally defer to BR1000 if there's a difference because I trust their scouts, especially Matt Miller.
I loved the BR1000 and I'm really upset that they aren't doing the series again this year. That was my favorite weekly article.
In a lot of cases, it did match up, but there were enough large differences (Jimmy was ranked 9th in BR's rankings and I think in the 40's or 50's on PFF, if I'm remembering correctly) that it really shows that grades are subjective.
But yeah, Matt Miller is excellent. I read every single one of his scouting notebooks and all his mock drafts. He's usually how I figure out who to watch.