Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="roadkill" data-source="post: 1103411" data-attributes="member: 1555">I think the litmus test for PFF is whether or not coaching staffs use it.&nbsp; Since we don&#039;t have their sales data, we have to base our conclusions on assumptions.&nbsp; PFF seems to be successful in marketing its info to the industry.&nbsp; If most coaches thought it was absolute garbage, I doubt PFF would be as successful. Like many such metrics, its absolute accuracy can be questioned.&nbsp; I think it&#039;s useful to compare players within a position group where enough snaps are available to average out errors.&nbsp; It&#039;s particularly interesting to see which rookies and non-starters might be good candidates for more playing time.&nbsp; The prevailing view is that a score of 60 is &quot;doing your job as expected&quot;.&nbsp; I suspect there is a subconscious bias toward viewing a 60 score as &quot;bad&quot;, so keep that in mind.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="roadkill, post: 1103411, member: 1555"] I think the litmus test for PFF is whether or not coaching staffs use it. Since we don't have their sales data, we have to base our conclusions on assumptions. PFF seems to be successful in marketing its info to the industry. If most coaches thought it was absolute garbage, I doubt PFF would be as successful. Like many such metrics, its absolute accuracy can be questioned. I think it's useful to compare players within a position group where enough snaps are available to average out errors. It's particularly interesting to see which rookies and non-starters might be good candidates for more playing time. The prevailing view is that a score of 60 is "doing your job as expected". I suspect there is a subconscious bias toward viewing a 60 score as "bad", so keep that in mind. [/QUOTE]

Verification

How many overtimes were there in COFH 2024?