Studs/Duds Week 3

[Pugger]

This tells me everything I need to know about PFF's, "Rating" system and why it has no value to me.



Teddy Bridgewater, graded the EXACT SAME as Rodgers.



Eli Manning +3.4 (23/32, 279 YDS, 2 TD, 0 INT)

Dalton +5.8 (20/32, 383, 3, 1)

Carr +2.9 (20/32, 314, 2, 0)

Newton +3.8 (20/31, 315 2, 0)

Cousins -0.9 (30/49, 316, 1 , 2)

Winston +0.2 (17/36, 261, 1, 1)

Mallet +1.1 (24/39, 228, 1, 1)

Mariota +2.4 (27/44, 367, 2, 2)

Bortles -0.7 (17/33, 242, 2, 1)

Bridgewater -0.8 (13/24, 121, 0, 1)

Foles +0.8 (19/28, 197, 0, 1)

Roethlisberger +3.0 (20/24, 192, 0, 1)

Payton +2.4 (31/42, 324, 2, 1)

Rodgers -0.8 (24/35, 333, 5, 0)

There is a clip on the ESPN website of Scot Van Pelt wondering how in the hell Rodgers got this inane score from those clowns at PFF.

[pbmax]

They should stand by it, defend it and then walk through the criticism point by point. Fix it in the offseason unless you see a glaring error on the part of the individual grader. Then you need to know where they didn't toe the line.

Randomly changing the grade after publishing just makes it look less trustworthy.

If they get this grade through legitimate study of tape and knock him for short of end zone throws that go for TDs (and do that for all other QBs) then stand by it. Why is this the case? How does this help separate out wheat from chaff? Do great QBs always throw into the end zone? Does he get points for recognizing the efficacy of this playcall and throw versus that defense? If the first one was just a random call, should they get credit for continuing to go to it until the Chiefs stopped it?

Is this an illogical extension of docking a QB for throwing short of the sticks on third down?

He should get dinged for his fumble-non-fumble and the near INT. Defend the rest.

[Pugger]

They should stand by it, defend it and then walk through the criticism point by point. Fix it in the offseason unless you see a glaring error on the part of the individual grader. Then you need to know where they didn't toe the line.

Randomly changing the grade after publishing just makes it look less trustworthy.

If they get this grade through legitimate study of tape and knock him for short of end zone throws that go for TDs (and do that for all other QBs) then stand by it. Why is this the case? How does this help separate out wheat from chaff? Do great QBs always throw into the end zone? Does he get points for recognizing the efficacy of this playcall and throw versus that defense? If the first one was just a random call, should they get credit for continuing to go to it until the Chiefs stopped it?

Is this an illogical extension of docking a QB for throwing short of the sticks on third down?

He should get dinged for his fumble-non-fumble and the near INT. Defend the rest.

I don't believe he should be docked for a near INT. The only time an INT should count is when one actually occurs.

[pbmax]

I don't believe he should be docked for a near INT. The only time an INT should count is when one actually occurs.

I understand, but its a conversation worth having. A QB could have a streak of near misses. Might mean he is great and is playing at the edge, might mean he is actually a currently lucky TO machine. that kinda data is probably good to have. And the score would be interesting if its applied evenly to each eval.

[sharpe1027]

I understand, but its a conversation worth having. A QB could have a streak of near misses. Might mean he is great and is playing at the edge, might mean he is actually a currently lucky TO machine. that kinda data is probably good to have. And the score would be interesting if its applied evenly to each eval.

I think it would be tricky to implement properly. A near miss sounds like a pretty subjective statistic.

[pbmax]

I think it would be tricky to implement properly. A near miss sounds like a pretty subjective statistic.

Targets have the same problem, but its still more info than anyone had previously.

At some point like hockey, baseball and soccer, the NF will put in systems to measure this stuff more closely.