Sanu

[Le Tigre]

16 hours ago, BengalFanInTO said:

And he continues to be one of the most overrated QBs to ever walk on to the field because of it...

Pull out your stats and show me why, of course. But unless you can say you saw what he did on the field with your own eyes like I and so many others did in the day, whatever "ratings" involved are simply conjecture. 

[omgdrdoom]

1 hour ago, Le Tigre said:

Pull out your stats and show me why, of course. But unless you can say you saw what he did on the field with your own eyes like I and so many others did in the day, whatever "ratings" involved are simply conjecture. 

Ugghhhh.

This reminds me of a friend on Facebook that posted telling everyone that you have to be 35+ years old to have an opinion on Joe Montana and his career.

It's such a lazy argument to make instead of posting a defense for your own opinions instead. "Joe Namath is great and unless you watched him play my opinion stands victorious" is essentially the argument here, and that's pretty lame.

[T-Dub]

54 minutes ago, omgdrdoom said:

Ugghhhh.

This reminds me of a friend on Facebook with that posted telling everyone that you have to be 35+ years old to have an opinion on Joe Montana and his career.

It's such a lazy argument to make instead of posting a defense for your own opinions instead. "Joe Namath is great and unless you watched him play my opinion stands victorious" is essentially the argument here, and that's pretty lame.

 

Oh I don't know, PFF built their entire brand on this sort of "because we said so" foundation & they're successful with it.  Just replace the age argument with "we have a website".

[omgdrdoom]

11 minutes ago, T-Dub said:

 

Oh I don't know, PFF built their entire brand on this sort of "because we said so" foundation & they're successful with it.  Just replace the age argument with "we have a website".

I mean, the fact that they have people sitting around watching every single game and compiling all kinds of obscure stats is great for message boards and football discussion.

You have to know to take their "player grades" with a grain of salt though. If a player had a good year, he's going to be toward the top, and if a player had a rough year, he's going to be toward the bottom. Past that, you can't really say "well this guy graded slightly higher than this other guy so he's clearly better". There's a lot that PFF does/did that is/was good, but you can't take their grades as gospel.

[T-Dub]

10 minutes ago, omgdrdoom said:

I mean, the fact that they have people sitting around watching every single game and compiling all kinds of obscure stats is great for message boards and football discussion.

You have to know to take their "player grades" with a grain of salt though. If a player had a good year, he's going to be toward the top, and if a player had a rough year, he's going to be toward the bottom. Past that, you can't really say "well this guy graded slightly higher than this other guy so he's clearly better". There's a lot that PFF does/did that is/was good, but you can't take their grades as gospel.

 

Yeah IDK how you can grade players, particularly the OL, without knowing the play call or their assignment. I mean obviously when someone is on their back turtled that is bad, and when they're driving the DT 8 yard upfield that is good.  Their stats are like "+1.3 grade on this play" though, like WTF is the difference between +1.3 and +1.5? How many nachos they've eaten while watching the game? It's so obviously pulled out of their asses but still gets quoted like they are experts & AFAIK they refuse to explain it like it's some big trade secret.

It's like they read Football Outsiders (who I consider mostly legit) and thought "Hey we can count to 10, too!"

 

[omgdrdoom]

26 minutes ago, T-Dub said:

 

Yeah IDK how you can grade players, particularly the OL, without knowing the play call or their assignment. I mean obviously when someone is on their back turtled that is bad, and when they're driving the DT 8 yard upfield that is good.  Their stats are like "+1.3 grade on this play" though, like WTF is the difference between +1.3 and +1.5? How many nachos they've eaten while watching the game? It's so obviously pulled out of their asses but still gets quoted like they are experts & AFAIK they refuse to explain it like it's some big trade secret.

It's like they read Football Outsiders (who I consider mostly legit) and thought "Hey we can count to 10, too!"

 

Yeah you just have to look at it as a group of guys giving their opinions of each specific play but they put the time and effort into watching every single snap from many different camera angles so more power to them for taking the time.

I love the stats they give, I wish they'd still be available for a reasonable price. There's no way I'm shelling out $300 just to have their advanced stats lol nope not happening.

The player grades are okay but nothing to use as your only argument. If you have a guy that's on the very bottom of the list, there's no chance he had a good year, so I mean it can at least tell part of the story. It doesn't necessarily mean that player is the exact # that PFF put them on the list, but it surely means they didn't have a great season. If you watch the All 22 tape and see a CB get burnt by a receiver, you can assume PFF is going to give the CB a negative for that play and the WR a positive, but you're right with the whole WTF is the difference between +1.3 and +1.5? It's subjective to the person watching the tape, but it can definitely give you an idea of how well a player performed.

As with most things in life, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. The people who claim PFF rankings are totally rubbish and don't do anything to show if a player had a decent year or not are just as crazy as the people who recite PFF grades as gospel with no other substantial arguments. They're a tool to use to help strengthen an argument and can point you in the right direction, but that's about it. If a guy is ranked #100 out of #100 at their position, they may not be the absolute worst player in the league, but they surely had a pretty rough season. Some disagree with that though and will claim PFF is a joke just because it goes against their personal opinions on certain players around the league.

[Le Tigre]

3 hours ago, omgdrdoom said:

Ugghhhh.

This reminds me of a friend on Facebook that posted telling everyone that you have to be 35+ years old to have an opinion on Joe Montana and his career.

It's such a lazy argument to make instead of posting a defense for your own opinions instead. "Joe Namath is great and unless you watched him play my opinion stands victorious" is essentially the argument here, and that's pretty lame.

Not that I was addressing the post to you, but if you insist on nosing in...

Where are you coming up with any conclusions of opinions or "victory"? Your strawman as to FB, age, and Joe Montana have no basis.

I did see Joe Namath play--and in person. I had a good vantage point as to what he could do. I didn't say he was GOAT or whatever the fuck that acronym means--I simply was saying when considering the totality of really great QB's in the history of this league, you have guys like he, Otto Graham, John Unitas, Y.A. Tittle, Sammy Baugh, et al. to appreciate. The NFL history is not only Brady or Montana. 

The response was towards questioning a dismissive "overrated" conclusion. Is this clear enough?

[omgdrdoom]

2 minutes ago, Le Tigre said:

Not that I was addressing the post to you, but if you insist on nosing in...

Where are you coming up with any conclusions of opinions or "victory"? Your strawman as to FB, age, and Joe Montana have no basis.

I did see Joe Namath play--and in person. I had a good vantage point as to what he could do. I didn't say he was GOAT or whatever the fuck that acronym means--I simply was saying when considering the totality of really great QB's in the history of this league, you have guys like he, Otto Graham, John Unitas, Y.A. Tittle, Sammy Baugh, et al. to appreciate. The NFL history is not only Brady or Montana. 

The response was towards questioning a dismissive "overrated" conclusion. Is this clear enough?

Welp, it's a huge pet peeve of mine when people make comments like this about "nosing in" on a PUBLIC message board when you're making a PUBLIC post. If you wish to speak privately to the guy, there is a function on here for you to do so. If you post a PUBLIC message, be prepared for others to "jump in" to your PUBLIC conversation.

I said that it seemed like a similar argument that I saw on my Facebook news feed. It wasn't a strawman argument, I'd suggest you learn what that actually means. It's not my fault you wrote the words that you wrote in the order in which you wrote them in. I didn't write them, you did. You made the comment that clearly insinuated that people who didn't personally watch Namath play shouldn't make the claim of him being overrated. It's no strawman because it's exactly what the fuck you typed. I don't know what to tell you other than don't type words in a specific order if you don't want people to take them to mean what you wrote in that order.

I'm sorry Mr. Sensitive, but I'm going to continue to "nose in" on public posts when I'm on a public board, and I'm going to argue against what you type on these public posts. If you want to mean something other than what you say, then try typing different words next time.

 

[Le Tigre]

EDIT...Never mind. Whatever.