AU-panther

Their system isn't flawed, I just understand it so I can put context to it. Its only flawed to those who don't understand it or are expecting it to be something they don't even claim for it to be. If you asked them to rank the best all around receives their list would probably look somewhat different. You are faulting them for being something they aren't claiming to be.

but your tape is limited, you aren't watching all the snaps emphasize? what exactly do you think they they are emphasizing All they can do is grade a player based on what he does on a snap, you can't grade a player based on what he could do with someone else. Do you really think anyone at PFF is going to say Beasly is better than Hill, or would prefer Beasly? If you are expecting their grading system to tell you something different that is on you and the fact you don't understand what they are doing. Who are your top-15 receivers, chances are its pretty similar.

Their grades mean plenty, you just have to be smart enough to understand how they come up with them and then apply them properly. PFF isn't' saying Adams is more dangerous than hill. All they are saying is Adams has had more positively graded plays (which is entirely possible) and therefore a higher grade. You are continuing to argue about something you clearly don't understand. They also have an analytical side that tracks numerous metrics, those might paint a different picture. Maybe Moore is 4th in the league in yards per route, or most broke tackles or yards of separation. As I said earlier, a WR might be the most dependent position on the filed, can they totally remove that dependency, of course not, but they can do a better job than just looking at straight stats such as total yards. Back to the plays in questions there is a very good chance that PFF actually did grade Moore higher, which is exactly what you are hoping for. A DE is probably easier to isolate. On most plays they are going up again one player with no help. Their PFF grades might be a better indicator how how good they compared to other DEs than maybe WRs are. The problem isn't with PFFs system, its the best we have for comparing all of the players, its with people who are too stupid to understand it.

game grade still probably wouldn't give you the full answer, that is only one snap out of how many? each play is graded -2 to +2 in .5 increments. Here again you should take the time to learn this. Their player grade are nothing but a combination of positive grades vs negative grades, doesn't mean one player can do more than the others. Its very possible that Adams had more highly graded plays than Moore this year, that doesn't necessarily mean he is better, a lot of times it does, but as you said WRs are somewhat dependent on usage. In reference to the two plays you showed, I'm sure both were positive scores. Adams might not had had a lot of separation but he did have some, the defender was in a trail position, and he did make the catch, so maybe that is a +1, purely a guess on my part. To me Moore's catch was more difficult, maybe a +1.5. Maybe a 2 would have been landing and breaking some tackles and scoring a td. They actually have a rubric for what each grade should represent on each play for each position and they try their best to apply that uniformly among all players regardless of what you think. Also I'm pretty confident in saying that Rodgers probably received a higher grade for his throw than Teddy did for his, which in itself makes PFF better than any other stat based scoring system we have.

PFF has that grade, they grade every play, you should take time to understand how they work, whether or not they give out that information that is a different question. I never said Adams was better, all I'm saying is he graded higher than Moore did on all of his plays last year based on the PFF grading system which does the best job of anything we have for grading all of the players in the league. I haven't took the time to watch each play of both and neither have you. I also understand how their system works and because of that I do realize that QB play will have some bearing on the grade and I can factor that in when looking at the list, but their system does try to account for QB play better than any other grading system we have. So yes, Moore could have actually received a higher grade for that catch of his opposed to the one Adams has. So in reality they are actually trying to accomplish the one thing you keep harping on with their grading system. Here again it would benefit you greatly to take time to understand how they work.

That's the only way to look at it. You give them both the same number of carries and receptions over the course of a year, and based on history Dalvin would have higher totals in both. Don't get me wrong, both players are very good, two of the best at their positions, but to think one is a lot better than the other is absurd.

I'm looking at rushing and receiving separately. touch includes both and CMC has more receptions which inflates the overall number.

Cook averages more per carry and reception. People confuse usage with ability.

Dalvin is pretty good, and in our system with the same usage his numbers would probably be just as good if not better. Also we would had him a lot later in the draft and used our 1st pick on something else. I get what you are saying, I really do. I actually agree that Moore is a lot closer to Adams than what a lot around here think. I'm a huge of PFF, but like I said earlier QB play will have influence on what a WR can achieve, but PFF is the one grading system that fans have that does try to factor that in. All these other systems are stat based, so yes, PFF is the one that actually can give Moore a higher grade for that play where he has to come back and make a great catch because of the poor throw from his QB. Going play by play is exactly what they do, you just don't like the results they come up with even though you haven't took the time to go play by play. You have yet to name a better grading system, you admitted yourself you haven't watched all of Adams plays, and I doubt you have watched the other 90 wrs.

I have no doubts you can grade your own team, its the time of watching every team. You might think your player is good or bad but in reality good and bad are relative terms and without watching everyone else you don't have that context. You might think your LT is garbage but if you watch them all you realize he is better than 70%, under that scenario he really isn't as bad as you thought. I never said their system was perfect, i said its the best we have when trying to grade everyone relative to each other. So lets say Moore gets a grade of +1 for being open. Maybe Teddy tries the throw and Moore makes an unbelievable catch and run after catch and it would have been a +2. So yes the QB will have some affect on the grade, and that is what i was referencing earlier, but here again what do we have that is a better overall grading system. How about this: You watch film of every receiver, on every play, of every game. On each play you assign a grade of +2 to -2 based on how well the receiver does independent of everyone else. Then rank all of the receivers based on those grades. Now do that for every position. Put those rankings on a website and then i won't have to pay for PFF. Honestly I think you are probably a pretty good judge of what you see. The irony is that your rankings would probably end up being really similar to PFFs. What you are trying to do with your evaluation is actually what PFF is trying to accomplish in ways no other ranking system has.

and my team is the only one that ever gets called for holding. Every fan thinks their team is the one getting biased against. They have no reason to have biases and in reality it would be totally contrary to their goals as a money making business. Will be there be subjectivity involved with human beings, of course, but here again overall it is minimized. Using Josh Allen as an example makes you look bad, look up their grade on him, also they thought higher of Cam this year than most outlets. Also their Herbert grade is pretty high.

I don't have access to play by play grades but yes PFF tries to isolate the player. I would guess both plays would be a positive score, and I don't know about this particular instance but they do give a higher grade based on difficultly and context. So they are in fact factoring in the things you are referencing. Are they perfect with it, no, but its still better than traditional ranking metrics. But earlier I did say that WR is probably the hardest position to totally separate from their teammates from an evaluation standpoint and QB is the reason for this, but what is the better option? Does total yards give us a better ranking? No, PFF actually accounts for the very thing you are saying better than most ranking tools we have. You are quick to talk about how the "eye test" is better but in reality PFF is the closest thing to a uniformly, thoroughly applied eye test as we have. The irony is a lot of the complaints you have with traditional stats are addressed with PFF Here again what ranking system out there doesn't the best job of ranking all of the WRs or any player for that matter?

They actually go over how they grade in pretty big detail on their website, and they actually address some of the issues you have. A lot of people would benefit from taking the time to read it. Are there times they might not know the play call? of course. I'm guessing they are better at it than 99.9% of the fans. Also over the course of the season that margin of error will probably end up being applied pretty evenly to all of the players. Its not that their system is perfect, until you get all 32 teams to give out the play call to a central agency that will never happen, but their system is better than any fans because they apply their system to the entire league. Fans don't have time to watch every snap of every player on every game.

The same as they would to any other receiver doing the same thing. That is what makes their grading system superior to the so called eye test that fans only apply to their own player of which they really only apply when the ball is involved.

pretty obvious you dont' understand how their grading system works. Their actually grading system is the opposite of analytical based, its and eye test. People should go to their website and actually read how it works. Speaking of AB, their grades are based off of how they play for the snaps they do play. Its not a culmination of stats.

won't every happen There are a lot of people on this board who try to act cool by bashing PFF, but none of them have a better option.

Its pretty obvious that the people around here that criticize PFF the most understand it the least. what is a better source? Don't say the eye test, unless you have took the time to watch every snap, focused on that player, of every game, of all 23 players ahead of Moore on that list, while uniformly applying the same grading then any other source is less legitimate. 24 sounds bad but you have to remember there are 90+ starting receivers in the league (if you assume a 3wr set), so in some ways that would be like a top 10 ranking for a QB Also his actually grade is really good, its not like rank 24 means you are bad and then 15 means you are good, you are basically looking at slight differences of good here. I do agree somewhat that the QB can have some influence on the grade but not to the extent you are thinking, whether the QB throws him the ball or not he is receiving a grade. If he runs a prefect route and creates separation he is going to get a positive grade regardless of what the QB does. This is another reason that PFF is superior to a typical fan eye test, the typical fan just watches the ball and only forms an opinion of a player based on those handful of plays that they notice during the broadcast.

Ok, Atlanta and whoever trades up Either way I don’t think it is out of the realm of possibility that all 4 QBs go in the top 7. I would hope that Lance makes it to us but I wouldn’t be opposed to trading up just to make sure

Evaluators aren't just looking at measurables or stats. They are looking at abilities and traits. Maybe in Lance's 24 throws a game he is showing a better ability to get to his 2nd and 3rd reads than Fields is in his 36 throws a game. Maybe Lance is adjusting to pressure better than Fields in his limited throws. I'm not saying he is or isn't the better prospect, but fans have a bad habit of being box score scouts and combine scouts. There is more to evaluation than that. QB A: 67% completion, 174 yards a game, 28 TDs, Zero interceptions. QB B: 66% completion, 204 yards a game, 30 TDs, eight interceptions. A is Lance, B is Cam Lance's YPG don't concern me as much as some of the accuracy numbers I've seen. I would like to see some of those numbers adjusted for depth of target or based on different depths. Normally I'm not of the opinion that accuracy can really be improved much, most guys are who they are by the time they make it to the pros, but Josh Allen is proving otherwise. Speaking of Josh Allen, I think he is definitely going to help how some teams view Lance.

From what I've read a lot of the concern over Fields is his ability if his first read is covered. If you are asking him to drop back and make a throw to his first receiver he is as good as anyone in the draft, including Trevor, his problems show up after that. Also I've read that he tends to hold on to the ball longer when pressured, whereas other QBs speed up their decision making. Sometimes that can be the case when the QB is a great athlete they trust themselves to be able to extend the play. Do you find these two concerns valid? Either way I think his positives (athletic ability and arm talent)are so great that some team is going to draft him early and think they can fixf any perceived negatives, and they might be right.

I used the word "play" to refer to activities outside of work, and I actually said "especially with wearing a mask". I actually agree with you on the importance of wearing mask so relax. My point was I think we could do a better job of really protecting the high risk. Maybe everyone wear a mask and then subsidize the high risk to stay at home. During the lockdown the government paid low risk people to stay at home, meanwhile you had high risk people still working in "essential" businesses. 22 year old healthy bartender gets unemployment to stay at home but 65 year old person with diabetes is still working at the grocery store? Are we trying to stop the spread or trying to stop the deaths?

What I haven't understood through all of this is why we haven't done a better job of protecting the high risk. Even with the total shutdown you still had a tremendous amount of high risk people working in "essential" business. Seems like if you did a better job of removing those from the equation you could let everyone else go back to work/play normally and your net deaths would possible go down, especially with mask and social distancing.

I think when it is all said and done we are going to find out a lot more people have already had it then they thought, and that the mortality rates are't near as high from a percentage view as they thought. Here is a study where they tried to do some testing based on demographics and not symptoms, some community testing if you will. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v1?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=be77753b5f9c509cb865d14fbdaf97eeb78e11d5-1587139595-0-AWIUFx6wN0uXOvkl2GvKJJc-Ig8sPLjxRzO454lTi9KpWYjKbxnVGQzEHGD9bYZUKYUUOdrfRQ_wQREzNDVmpdEWVIZYt6UTI9m_LD7byikYQA-loXE677ZRO1gHfKAz7mccB9JD5q3Y8YVehLtYCxNulZzxgq75-rzgoHZ2Heyj5PDAftyTcJ9j-gS_9XvqhP1w_lcrCrvVy9EM4vDfOYSqAiDYODT4O2PXN776dtAuibDok5gMCdzZYcCoRi69cdjoFoqV7X4-dhUOTFhjUA5EzGIOpkN7fsqrkufnBv0pOXqb3nOUoVRFDs5ZdBzO9w_yicdwyhIdvht3lBZyMgA They found the infection rate to be between 2.49 and 4.16 percent. If that is correct that probably means 2 weeks earlier a different 3% were positive. Also there is a lot of talk that this has been going on since late last year or early this year. All these reports of people having odd respiratory conditions. Maybe 20% or more of the population has already had it. If so the mortality rates are grossly over estimated.

Those numbers seem high, 18 months to 2 years is what I hear referenced a lot. Even then that is under normal circumstances, we have a lot more resources going to this then any other type of vaccine in the past. You have mega corporations loaning out their supercomputers for this. That doesn't normally happen. Not to mention the government wil probably relax some of the red tape in this situation. If normal circumstance is 2 years there is no reason to not think it can go quicker.

I didn't see the clip, but could he mean 2-3% more people overall die? Lets say 40,000 people in the country die with schools being closed, opening schools increases that by 2%, which is 800. So now 40800 people die, doesn't necessarily mean 800 more kids.