PFFs negative rating of Aaron Rodger's performance against the Chiefs is just another of many reasons why I pay very little attention to PFF. Their ratings are like preseason football games, totally meaningless. PFF can do what they want, I will take Rodger's MNF performance every game and post-season game right to the SB, thank you very much. Thanks, Since '61

Don't forget MM's input on the Niners passing on ARod. Maybe he knew where he'd end up?

PFF's negative rating for Aaron Rodgers' performance against the Chiefs is a joke. Being a successful NFL quarterback is maybe the most difficult position in any sport to master. Taking into account all the physical skills it requires like arm strength, accuracy, movement in the pocket, it more than anything else requires an ability to process an incredible amount of information in fractions of a second to perform well.

It's this mental component to the position that Rodgers is now taking to a new level. Apparently, the analytics PFF uses to measure a quarterback's play doesn't take this into account. They call it the "intangibles." Well, it's these intangibles that Aaron Rodgers is now mastering in a way that we have not seen in any quarterback in history.

If PFF wants to remain relevant, they had better find a way to take these intangibles into account. If they don't, Aaron Rodgers and all the quarterbacks who will most certainly copy him will pass them by and PFF will end up on the scrap heap of analytic history.

PFF lost all credibility with me, that explanation about the non-interception is ludicrous. I am no scout but when your eyes tell you a different story than the book throw the book away.

Does PFF have any valid statistical reference to what they publish, I mean come on how about they pull out their last 96 ratings and lets view each almost interception and review the grade! Christ they sound like Colin Cowherd and Teblow better than AAron Rodgers! BTW Alshon Jeffries said Rodgers is an alien; now that I believe!

While I don't agree with the "negative grade" (which really means Rodgers just had a mostly 'average' performance), I don't think there is anything wrong with the idea of putting a negative grade on the 'almost' interception. You certainly can't call that throw a 'good' or 'average' throw, a defender got two hands on it.

THat said, yeah, clearly Rodgers put on a clinic last night. I think the backlash PFF is getting is a little extreme however. They are the first to tell you their grades are a metric and don't tell the entire story.

Rising .....the defense as a whole. And this sports fans ...is great news.

Rising? How the heck can't you include Raji?! Dude is ballin.

Surprising Statistics: Pennel with 10 snaps, Gaston (11), Datone (22), Raji (25), Daniels (38 - 54% of available snaps). Those add up to 106 snaps for about 70 defensive plays. That means that GB averaged having 1.5 defensive linemen playing each snap.

I assume we played some base, but we must have played a lot of 2-4-5 (no surprise) but also quite a bit of the time we must have had just one real defensive lineman on the field. [Source Football Outsiders]

For comparison: In game 1, GB average 1.98 defensive linemen per play. In game 2, GB averaged 1.92 defensive linemen per play. This of course be due to the big lead or match-ups, but it also a function of the prevent defense.

Surprising Statistics continued:

1) Banjo played 33 snaps;
2) Thomas played 38 snaps;
3) Palmer played only 35 snaps despite playing well;

Janis played 16 snaps, Rollins 17, Gunter 3, Kuhn 13, up from 7 against Chicago, and 9 against Seattle (not surprising that more pass pro has been needed), Ripkowski played 3, Walker played 6, and Harris played 4 with 2 carries.

Peppers played 50 snaps (that is too many). Mulumba lost contain a second time against Seattle and was promptly yanked from the game. He appears to be in the doghouse, as he got zero snaps against KC while playing 11 snaps on STs.

Daniels, Matthews and Raji are all playing very good. But I'm not ready to pronounce that this defense is in top tier. GBP played 3 weak Offensive lines; Chigo, Seattle, KC.
We'll see after some quality opponent Olines.

PFF used a fumble that was negated by a penalty and an almost INT to down grade Arod... Cutler would give his left arm for almost an INT... PFF is meaningless to me.. After saying last week that Barclay had 16 hurries in the Seattle game. Barclay didn't stuff Seattle defense but he battled his butt off to keep Arod alive...

I heard on my am radio that rodgers got some player of the week award. I just caught the tail end of it but i dont think the award came from PFF.

PFF's negative grading of Aaron Rodgers really opened my eyes.
Ryan Mallet was 24-39 for 228 yards, 1 TD and 1 int.
Rodgers was 24-35 for 333 and 5 TD and 0 int.
Mallet got +1.1, Rodgers got -0.8.
Ben Stockwell of PFF must be crazy or stupid or both. He has lost all credibility. And I will never waste my time reading his articles from now on.

As a CPA, I deal with numbers every day. Over time you learn that you can either find the best metrics without resorting to analysis paralysis, or you'd better have a highly efficient way to numerically define the whole reality. In short, you can spend time analyzing 20% or 30% more data in an effort to understand your environment better, but you're probably just wasting time, and if you're trusting your incomplete model as better because it's "more", you can draw some very damaging conclusions. Some times eyes and ears and the sniff test is enough.

PFF apparently prides itself that it looks beyond the surface. Great. But then you had better be thorough. They go by what they can "quantify" and set aside intangibles. But in this day and age, with complete game breakdown available and endless computing resources, what's intangible? You can note and categorize everything - if you take enough time. You can define and populate every happenstance within a game. But does PFF do that? Not a chance. The peek under the hood, make some broad stroke additions to their data collection, and then declare there's some different reality, and all the thousands of additional data points they didn't bother with as "intangibles".

And they drew some terrible conclusions.

I think the biggest problem with the PFF metric is not that they scored Rodgers poorly, its that they tried to defend their poor scoring of Rodgers. If PFF had said "obviously Rodgers was not below average against the Chiefs, our metric missed what made Rodgers good and we'll look into it/or we can't measure it" I would have been fine with it. Metrics are never 100% accurate and I don't expect them to be. I think the dumb thing was trying to defend the poor score. When I run statistics I check back to see if my analysis makes common sense. If it doesn't I go back and rework the stats, I don't blame common sense.

There's those that don't have a problem with the metric, those that take issue with the metric, and then there's the majority of people who are angry because they think the thermometer is measuring IQ instead of temperature, and are really pissed off because they know it's smarter than 48 IQ outside.