What in the Sam hill is going on here? Annexstad and no Stanley? Normally these guys are better than this I thought.
PFF Thoroughly effs up B1G QB Grades. Leaves Stan off Top 5!?
- Thread starter Harbinger273
- Start date
How do they compute the grade? Stanley had a better completion %, more yards, one more TD and two less int. I'm as perplexed as you are.
Yeah, while I appreciate PFF trying to grade players it doesn't mean they do a great job all the time. For one they don't tell you what kind of criteria they use to rate the players. And this list right here tells you that there are flaws in their system.
Stanley didn't have a great game imo.
But yeah, no way the minny qb should be on any list.....except the tommy armstrong weekly award!
But yeah, no way the minny qb should be on any list.....except the tommy armstrong weekly award!
PFF’s formula is broken if a QB that goes 17/33 218yds 3td 3int grades out higher than 23/39 314yds 4td 1int.
Actually he did have a very good game, with the exception of that boneheaded pass on the sideline. Very solid numbers and four TD's, using receivers at each level. One of the best games he's played.
I think what some aren't taking into consideration is that PFF isn't outcomes based like raw statistics. They attempt to assess the play.
For example, Stanley wouldn't get a lot of credit for the circus catch Brandon Smith made around a defender. Smith would have a really high grade on that play but Stanley had a relatively poor throw.
If a QB is missing a lot of easy throws and getting bailed out by receivers on bad ones, it will result in a lower score irregardless of outcome.
Not arguing that it's better or worse than outcome weighted stats like QBR but just adding perspective to how PFF evaluates plays.
For example, Stanley wouldn't get a lot of credit for the circus catch Brandon Smith made around a defender. Smith would have a really high grade on that play but Stanley had a relatively poor throw.
If a QB is missing a lot of easy throws and getting bailed out by receivers on bad ones, it will result in a lower score irregardless of outcome.
Not arguing that it's better or worse than outcome weighted stats like QBR but just adding perspective to how PFF evaluates plays.
Have you guys seen Stanley's haircut? Guy doesn't deserve to be rated.
Everyone has an opinion. I generally like their process and appreciate their play by play analysis. Generally they have been favorable to Iowa players. I believe they currently have Iowas o-line as the best in the conference.
Did they automatically disqualify for that pick at the end of the first half?
A few completions were also bad passes that could have been much bigger plays. I assume they ding guys for those as well....even though in the stats they look like "good plays".
My problem is their criteria of how they evaluate. For O-line they struggle to identify the difference between PA and RPOs. They have gone out and said they don’t count finishing as part of their criteria in grading and they often don’t understand blocking assignments and when someone gets help. Even last year they gave Josey bad grades because he was missing tackles that no other person in college would make.
Yes, they supposedly look at missed opportunities. He would have been dinged for the missed throw to Fant that would have been a TD.
I'm sure it's not a perfect system by any stretch but I like the idea of evaluating the play rather than outcome.
I know in the past for example they've stated that they give a higher grade to a good throw for 20 yards than a dump off pass that leads to a 20 yard gain after the receiver breaks tackles. The credit for most of that play goes to the receiver not the QB.
Perhaps that what hurt Stanley here. Annexsted threw 3 picks but also threw some frozen ropes into tough coverage like the Bateman TD.
Without rewatching, I wonder if a lot of Stanley's yards came after completion by receivers making plays?
There's also the defensive grading issue. Perhaps Minnesota's defense gave more easy plays up while Minnesota's QB didn't get the easy plays because our defense graded higher.
Last edited:
Agree, very overrated and they don’t have time, info or resources to accurately grade each player.
Idk if it counts but that ism play doesn't happen if Stanley doesn't keep it alive by evading the pressure
Great point about the B Smith catch. It was a poorly thrown ball and the circus grab that he made over the top to take it away, that was all him.
Their offense basically only scored 17 points on our defense. Our offense gifted them 14 points with drives starting inside our 10 yard line.
The primary criticism of PFF is that it appears subjective but much of the criticism itself is anecdotal. How would you or I know what info or resources they have?
Yes it's subjective but raw data actually is as well. At least this program attempts to take the next step in weighting the outcome. With raw data a 20 yard pass doesn't tell you if the QB was responsible for a great throw or a receiver took a 2 yard pass for 18 yards after catch and missed tackle.
It amazes me that Hornibrook manages to have any success at all. He probably has the weakest arm in the conference. And he’s not the best decision maker either. I just hope he’s having fun because he’s absolutely done playing football after Wisconsin.
Of course PFF is subjective. The other alternative is to just look at the raw stats, which is what everyone has already been doing for 100 years.
Coaches looking at film is subjective. Coaches breaking down the other team is subjective.
PFF may be wrong, but the angst some people show towards them is unwarranted.
Coaches looking at film is subjective. Coaches breaking down the other team is subjective.
PFF may be wrong, but the angst some people show towards them is unwarranted.
I recall 1 fumble that the OT was partially to blame. The INT was horrible. Had the defense come up big and held the Gophers to FGs instead of TDs giving up 6 instead of 14 would that affect the rating?
Problems with the UK based PFF
1) Don't know what play/coverage was called.
2) They use opinion as a big part of their grading system but see #1.
3) What is the expertise of the people doing this grading?
4) What film are they using to do the grading?
5) They also admit that when in doubt just give a zero grade. Well how many of those a game do they give out? Because that can really skew the data.
6) their entire system is proprietary so you don't know really know how it works
The reason they are so widely used is because they have great marketing. For example, teaming with Rivals to use their grades. The more their name is out there, the more their ratings are accepted despite their obvious flaws.
Here is Belichik on how hard it is to determine what other teams are doing wrong on film:
"Belichick then went on to talk about watching opposing team’s game films and the impossibilities of knowing what happened:
But believe me, I’ve watched plenty of preseason games this time of year and you’re looking at all the other teams in the league and you try to evaluate players and you’re watching the teams that we’re going to play early in the season and there are plenty of plays where I have no idea what went wrong. Something’s wrong but I don’t…these two guys made a mistake but I don’t know which guy it was or if it was both of them. You just don’t know that. I don’t know how you can know that unless you’re really part of the team and know exactly what was supposed to happen on that play. I know there are a lot of experts out there that have it all figured out but I definitely don’t."
There are companies that use analytics to grade teams and players but this is not that.
Love how PFF is the best thing ever when they recognize and rate "our" guys at the top, but sucks and is totally inaccurate when they don't.
Yes that is the case for sure. Throwing for XXX amount of yards and TD's, etc., doesn't factor into their ratings. They are looking at each play and how well the player did on that play. I still don't get how Annexstad ranks 5th among B1G QB's. He threw several dreadful passes for the interceptions. But I can see how Stanley didn't get a great grade. His INT was awful and taking the sack/fumble inside the 10 wasn't good. He also missed on a few throws that were there to open guys. His numbers were very good, but could have been even better.
Similar threads
