All football needs at this point in its evolution are for someone to assign a quantitative valuation to plays, players, and decisions. PFF has tried doing that and they have been fairly successful at this over the grand scale creating metrics like WAR and even a player grading system for that matter.
But it’s clear when trying to observe the intricacies of the sport, incredibly obvious numbers get left behind or get incorrectly assessed and this lowers the credibility with which we can apply information from PFF to our day-to-day operations.
How can someone at a stat accumulation company make this claim when the stats they find actively contradict this assessment? Based on the measures that were outlined in Monson’s article, it seems like PFF is assigning value to the wrong volume stats and it’s definitely producing something the consensus is actively disagreeing with in regards to Diggs. Local media always asks opposing quarterbacks how they should attack Trevon Diggs and never have they ever said anything along the lines of “he’s just another cornerback in this league.” It’s because he isn’t!
Enough of me ranting. In all, I thought Monson’s article had some interesting data, but a lot of the numbers he pulled and conveniently neglected were simply for the purpose of preserving a narrative. He didn’t really provide too many examples of Diggs’ play and when specifically referencing the completion to Dyami Brown, there was a pretty clear over-exaggeration of what happened on that play.
Diggs had incorrect leverage on Brown, but being “torched” would likely require Diggs not being anywhere on that portrait snap.
However, on the topic of subjective analysis…