PFF Rankings Week 2

[River Dog]

Edit: The thread title should say after Week 3, not Week 2.

I haven't done this for a while, but since I subscribed to Pro Football Focus, I need to get my money's worth. This took quite a bit of effort sorting all of this out, so some feedback would be appreciated. Also, if you have a question about a specific player, please don't hesitate to ask.

One thing to keep in mind is to put the ranking in relation to the number of players ranked. In other words, Cooper Kupp's #45 ranking sounds bad, but it is in the top 40% of all wide receivers. On the other hand, a #26 ranking for Jalen Sundell puts him in the bottom 30% of ranked centers.

Here are the PFF rankings after Week 2 for our team at each position plus the top ranked player in the league, along with a player of special interest here and there. The number of players qualifying for a ranking is listed in parathesis:

QB (36): Sam Darnold, #1. Russell Wilson, Giants, #24. Aaron Rodgers, Steelers, #35.

WR (114): JSN, #3. Cooper Kupp, #45. Tory Horton, #52. DK Metcalf, Steelers, #32. #1 Puka Nacua, Rams.

RB (57): K9, #2. Zach Charbonnet, #32. #1 Cam Skattebo, Giants

FB (8): Robbie Ouzts, #4. #1 Jakob Johnson, Texans.

TE (68): AJ Barner, #11. Eric Saubert, #26. Eliah Arroyo, #52. #1 Jackson Hawes, Bills.

Center (36): Jalen Sundell, #26. #1 Tyler Linderbaum, Ravens.

OG (76): Grey Zabel, #35. Anthony Bradford, #60. #1 Chris Paul, Commanders.

OT (70): Charles Cross, #5. Abraham Lucas, #37. #1 Penei Sewell, Lions.

CB (102): Derion Kendrick, #2. Josh Jobe, T-#32. Devon Witherspoon, #37. #1 Isiah Rodgers, Vikings.

Safety (76): Ty Okada, #23. Coby Bryant, #44. Julian Love, #47. #1 Xavier Woods, Titans.

LB (73): Ernest Jones, #27. Tyrice Knight, #35. Drake Thomas, #52. #1 Fred Warner, Niners.

DT (120): Leonard Williams, #16. Byron Murphy, #33. Jarron Reed, #49. #1 Maliek Collins, Browns.

DE (115): Boye Mafe, #41. Derrick Hall, #51. #1 Lailau Latu, Colts.

[NorthHawk]

I wonder how they get their rankings. Jobe is only 32? I think he's done a lot better than middle of the road performance this year.
They must do some type of strength of opponent adjustments at some point to make things equitable. For instance if an OT plays against Watt, Garrett, and Bosa it would be difficult to judge against another player who just happens to play against rookies and backups for those 3 games.

[River Dog]

I wonder how they get their rankings. Jobe is only 32? I think he's done a lot better than middle of the road performance this year.
They must do some type of strength of opponent adjustments at some point to make things equitable. For instance if an OT plays against Watt, Garrett, and Bosa it would be difficult to judge against another player who just happens to play against rookies and backups for those 3 games.

They have a team of trained analysts that grade every play the player is involved in. I don't have the exact criteria for each position, but it's pretty objective.

Here's a breakdown of how the grades are determined:

https://www.pff.com/grades#:~:text=Each ... e%20basics.

[Oly]

I wonder how they get their rankings. Jobe is only 32? I think he's done a lot better than middle of the road performance this year.
They must do some type of strength of opponent adjustments at some point to make things equitable. For instance if an OT plays against Watt, Garrett, and Bosa it would be difficult to judge against another player who just happens to play against rookies and backups for those 3 games.

I know Rob Staton rubs some the wrong way, but the questions you raise fit with his recent column questioning the value of PFF grades.

RD, you clearly pay for PFF, so I'd be curious about your take.

[River Dog]

I wonder how they get their rankings. Jobe is only 32? I think he's done a lot better than middle of the road performance this year.
They must do some type of strength of opponent adjustments at some point to make things equitable. For instance if an OT plays against Watt, Garrett, and Bosa it would be difficult to judge against another player who just happens to play against rookies and backups for those 3 games.

I know Rob Staton rubs some the wrong way, but the questions you raise fit with his recent column questioning the value of PFF grades.

RD, you clearly pay for PFF, so I'd be curious about your take.

Stanton makes some good points about the PFF rating system, but I don't think it's anything unique or surprising. No one, and certainly not me, has ever claimed that these ratings are perfect. As I've said about them before, they should be confirmed by the good ole eye test, if they match up with what we see on the field.

But I will point to one thing in the article that everyone needs to read that gives these rankings unparalleled credibility:

The teams also use the data and work with PFF for their scouting services.

If the GM's in the NFL, the best minds in the game when it comes to talent evaluation, are using PFF and their services, then that's good enough for this armchair quarterback.

No one watches every game, let alone every play of every game. PFF does. And not with just one set of eyes. They have a team assigned to each player on the field and grade them according to established criteria. Obviously, they make mistakes and oversights as the criteria, and indeed the game itself, isn't always well defined and at times ambiguous, subject to interpretation, as are the performances themselves.

But they are the gold standard when it comes to the business they're in. I like to view the ratings and see which players I should be keeping an eye on and get familiar with the names, some of which I've never heard of before. So for me, it's worth it.

Sam Darnold is a great example. I knew that he's been playing well at the start of the season. His stat line is very good: 70% completions, 5/2 TD/INT, 106.5 passer rating, and his team is 3-1, their only loss being a 4 point loss to the still undefeated 49'ers. But I didn't realize that he has done well enough to receive a #1 ranking because I haven't watched every quarterback.

So, while not completely accurate, they are relevant and worth considering. I wouldn't consider myself a student of the game, but I do like watching football, and not just my favorite team. These ratings and rankings make the game more interesting for me as it gives me something to watch for.

[NorthHawk]

Do they use the information or do they rely on PFF for information. That's a big difference.
I can see the teams doing their scouting and having a look at PFF to see if there are contradictory opinions - or maybe confirmation of their data but who knows how much stock they put in PFF's findings.

[River Dog]

Do they use the information or do they rely on PFF for information. That's a big difference.
I can see the teams doing their scouting and having a look at PFF to see if there are contradictory opinions - or maybe confirmation of their data but who knows how much stock they put in PFF's findings.

I can't answer that. I'm sure it varies from team to team. All I can say is that they take the information PFF provides very seriously.

I use it as a heads up. If I see a player that I'm unfamiliar with, I'll take a look at what PFF has to say about them, see if where they grade him at meets with my impressions, and although there are exceptions as there are in any system that tries to evaluate subjective criteria, more times than not it meets the eye test.

A good example is one I just commented about in the thread about Tariq Woolen. In my opinion, he's played horribly for us, the weakest player in our secondary. I took a look at PFF's grading for cornerbacks and sure enough, Woolen was ranked 100th out of 102 cornerbacks who played enough snaps to qualify for a ranking.