bowiac said:I don't agree they're deciding "arbitrarily", but I agree its not a statistic. I also disagree that it doesn't pass the smell test.
I agree the main value of PFF ratings is for players where we don't have statistics. That's half or more players on the field however - (five linemen, plus any receivers/backs who stay in to block). I'm not a very good scout, so for me, if PFF is shedding any light on which linemen are doing their jobs and which aren't, that's a real value added.
With respect to players where we do have statistics (sort of - since PBP metrics don't track blocking to my knowledge), I agree there's no reason to think PFF is more valid than conventional stats. However, it's not crazy to me that it can also shed some light on something, although I don't yet know what that light is. We see this happen in other fields - why not here?
That would be awesome if PFF had the slightest fucking clue about what exactly an O-lineman's job is in any given play, because they sure aren't scouts either. If you don't know assignments, you can't accurately tell who screwed up, who looked bad because they were compensating for someone else's failure, who did their job correctly but ended up in a terrible situation because the QB made the wrong adjustment at the line and etc. Aside from the very obvious screw ups/good plays that any reasonably knowledgeable fan can pick up, I can't see their judgment of offensive line play as anything other than gut feeling and general observation. I may very well be wrong about this, but I'd really like someone to tell me why I should trust PFF in their analysis of the OL over your average reporter's observation, provided he was present at the game/has access to NFL Game Rewind.