Jaycee Horn

[OldhamA]

3 minutes ago, AU-panther said:

go look it up

on a side note you just gave a perfect example of what is wrong with most fan evaluation.  Fans form their opinion off of a handful of splash plays, could be bad plays or great plays.  Also chances are that will probably be the only time you will see Mosely all year, so how exactly can you decide how good Thompson is if you don't know how all of the other LBs in the league played for the rest of the year.

 

I'd rather not give them the clicks.

I didn't form any opinion about Mosley based on that game, besides the fact that he couldn't cover McCaffrey at all on those 'wide open dump offs', but then there's only a handful of LBs in the league that can. 

PFF is a tool, albeit it's a very poor tool. 

[LinvilleGorge]

2 hours ago, AU-panther said:

 

His production might look good on the stat sheet but not his PFF grade.  Those are plays that any RB can make, that is more of a product of usage than ability. 

 

 

I get it, you like PFF's grading system and wanna stump hard for it, but c'mon man...

There's a reason why CMC is considered one if not the very best all around RB in the NFL and there's a reason why our coaches have a hard time not feeding him like a goose headed for the table as foie gras. 

 

[CRA]

17 hours ago, Varking said:

PFF had Horn as our fifth worst defender yesterday:

 

PFF grades way different than the viewer.   We just look at passing completed and tune out the rest. 

So he can rack up negative plays against the run or plays where the QB didn't make the throw.  But regardless, for a rookie DB in his first game with barely any preseason..that was more than good enough for Horn. 

 

[AU-panther]

16 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

 

 

I get it, you like PFF's grading system and wanna stump hard for it, but c'mon man...

There's a reason why CMC is considered one if not the very best all around RB in the NFL and there's a reason why our coaches have a hard time not feeding him like a goose headed for the table as foie gras. 

 

I never said CMC was bad, and PFF agrees, they love him.  He has been one of their  highest rated RBs since he has been in the league.  A single game grade doesn't say otherwise.

Just because he got a 69 (which isn't horrible) for one game and Ian got a higher grade doesn't mean that their system is flawed, it means people around here are too stupid or lazy to understand how their system works.

They explain in pretty good detail how their grading works but I seriously doubt anyone on this website who likes to bash them has actually took the time to read it.  Case in point the "they don't the plays" aregumetn that is overplayed and which they adress.

Not to mention nobody has yet to come with a better system.

 

 

 

[Darknight]

1 hour ago, OldhamA said:

Did Mosley get a negative grade then, cos McCaffrey broke his ankles on a few of those dump offs. 

His grade was a 29.3 lol. Gahhhhh damn

[*FreeFua*]

 

1 hour ago, OldhamA said:

PFF is a tool, albeit it's a very poor tool. 

Yeah now that it’s been around long enough it’s painfully apparent just how flawed and awful their entire system is. 

[Varking]

2 hours ago, CRA said:

PFF grades way different than the viewer.   We just look at passing completed and tune out the rest. 

So he can rack up negative plays against the run or plays where the QB didn't make the throw.  But regardless, for a rookie DB in his first game with barely any preseason..that was more than good enough for Horn. 

 

I agree. There was a lot to like. I think people were just giving him a pass on a few bad plays because they were excited we have a rookie corner, overall, playing well. 

[mav1234]

2 hours ago, AU-panther said:

Just because he got a 69 (which isn't horrible) for one game and Ian got a higher grade doesn't mean that their system is flawed, it means people around here are too stupid or lazy to understand how their system works.

Just because some of us think an attempt to create a quantitative index from qualitative external play assessments is flawed does not mean we are stupid or lazy. You can like it, I can not, and it doesn't make me stupid or lazy.  I personally think any system that rates a player generating half a teams offense as approximately average, especially throwing the blocks and breaking tackles as he did, seems flawed.  But I'm also not privy to their individual play breakdowns and I haven't seen a summary for CMCs score, so perhaps he had some critical miscues we missed.

In aggregate their numbers are almost always consistent with what I'd expect from any system, and in aggregate they generally do much other quantitative accumulations like yards etc.  

I just don't put any stock in any score specifically, especially from one game. That does not make me stupid, lol.

[TrevorLaurenceTime22]

2 hours ago, OldhamA said:

Did Mosley get a negative grade then, cos McCaffrey broke his ankles on a few of those dump offs. 

I bet he got a decent grade just because CMAC breaks everyone's ankles.

[Varking]

5 minutes ago, TrevorLaurenceTime22 said:

I bet he got a decent grade just because CMAC breaks everyone's ankles.

He got graded at a 29

[TrevorLaurenceTime22]

Just now, Varking said:

He got graded at a 29

Yeah I hadn't bothered too look was it a Jets fan here or just a Nancy talking about how awesome he would play last week lol.

[L-TownCat]

On 9/13/2021 at 3:09 PM, NAS said:

Jaycee is a more physical version of Gamble. 

Gamble wanted to blend in to the field.  May have grunted a couple times by accident, otherwise silent. 

Jaycee aint that guy.

[mwright350]

There is too much about PFF that requires someone to evangelize for them so other people will either take them seriously or not badly misunderstand the data that it becomes the NFL stats equivalent of "if you have to explain the joke it probably isn't all that funny to begin with".  Except in PFF's case it's not even the comedian telling the joke, it's usually a bunch of dudes who heard the joke while drunk from another room trying to recite it in a foreign language...so in the end they just scream the punch line over and over.

Largely those of us who don't feel PFF adds enough to the conversation to be worth it ignore it unless there's something that on the surface simply doesn't make sense.  You know what doesn't make sense?  Any metric that indicates that Ian Thomas did a better job playing Tight End yesterday than CMC did playing RB / WR / (and apparently fullback for that one block...b/c god damn) by any amount.  The process can be explained ad nauseam and that is still going to make anyone *not* campaigning for PFF acceptance go "huh? That's stupid".  Or where player stats are so wrong we have to research how they...count(?) to make the data make any sense at all.

Is what PFF is trying to accomplish a good goal?  Yes.  Is it better than nothing?  Sure (though thankfully if ignoring PFF entirely we are left with a non zero set of alternative ways to consume NFL breakdowns / statistics / performance metrics!).  Is it so good that people need to be converted?  Nope.  

[Varking]

29 minutes ago, mwright350 said:

There is too much about PFF that requires someone to evangelize for them so other people will either take them seriously or not badly misunderstand the data that it becomes the NFL stats equivalent of "if you have to explain the joke it probably isn't all that funny to begin with".  Except in PFF's case it's not even the comedian telling the joke, it's usually a bunch of dudes who heard the joke while drunk from another room trying to recite it in a foreign language...so in the end they just scream the punch line over and over.

Largely those of us who don't feel PFF adds enough to the conversation to be worth it ignore it unless there's something that on the surface simply doesn't make sense.  You know what doesn't make sense?  Any metric that indicates that Ian Thomas did a better job playing Tight End yesterday than CMC did playing RB / WR / (and apparently fullback for that one block...b/c god damn) by any amount.  The process can be explained ad nauseam and that is still going to make anyone *not* campaigning for PFF acceptance go "huh? That's stupid".  Or where player stats are so wrong we have to research how they...count(?) to make the data make any sense at all.

Is what PFF is trying to accomplish a good goal?  Yes.  Is it better than nothing?  Sure (though thankfully if ignoring PFF entirely we are left with a non zero set of alternative ways to consume NFL breakdowns / statistics / performance metrics!).  Is it so good that people need to be converted?  Nope.  

Was anybody trying to convert somebody here to the religion of PFF?