Yes. There are times that the film shows teams rolling both safeties towards ABs side of the field. While you may not respect him, opposing DCs obviously do.
I don't mean to interrupt the good time that everyone appears to be having, but I thought I would give my personal opinion on PFF and see if anyone would like to discuss it... If I have something going into the draft that stands in stark contrast to what PFF is putting out (talking player rankings or value) than I will read the opinions they have on that player and go back and review my own work to see if my bias has gotten in the way of forming a subjective opinion or if their bias is creating the difference between us. What they attempt to do in relation to creating a more exact statistic can be influenced by too many factors away from the point they are focused on to create an environment that would add weight to their process. In the end, it is still their opinion of what that stat should be, what created it, what influenced it or the opposite of all three that justifies their measurement. It is more similar to ESPN's QBR than it is to the standard quarterback rating. The latter is a mathematical process for creating a number to relate a passer's value on game day derived from standard statistics. The former admits in their own system outline that they will change the number if they disagree with their own outcome. Basically, ESPN reserves the right to disagree with their own method and create whatever number they feel is correct. PFF is closer to that as a metric because it utilizes visual opinions of plays to create stats that they translate through their own method to equate a players value. Now, I'm not knocking them for it or invalidating their opinion because it's the exact same thing that I do to create my player values. I study the film, put numbers to different traits, weight those traits with a multiplier, add the total and use the divisor to create the final number that I use for my rankings. But because I know how easy it is to have my own bias or look for confirmation of an opinion that may have inconsistencies (which is why I have so many redundancies in what I do), I know that it is a near impossibility to remove all bias all the time. PFF is a nice tool for comparison, conversation and a more focused view on certain aspects that some fans don't have the time to research or have never considered. I'm not surprised teams use them as a research assistant to help make decisions either because at the end of the day, every single piece of material that can be used to make a more educated decision should be put to use. But it still should be consumed in the context of what it is. It's a numerical opinion.
So now a coverage shift is simply called a triple coverage to AB? And he is the ONLY receiver to that side when it happens? Why not call it quad coverage since there is bound to be a LB over there also.
I think that's what most people that scout football do. And it's certainly what PFF does. And that's not a problem. The problem is how some fans treat PFF's rankings. And also how those same fans respond when PFF is questioned. I agree and it's why I hate seeing it used as the strict basis of any argument. Anytime any fan says "x player is better than y player and here's why.....PFF agrees with me" I literally cringe. It is a nice tool. But at best it's a supplemental tool with some major flaws.
No, you hate using anything that can be used in an argument that you feel like debating that day. Not many arguments are solely based on PFFs ratings. SAS "posts a PFF stat chart" and some posters come in to argue he is wrong....even when he doesn't post an opinion, just the chart. They assume he is forming an opinion and they decide to debate it. PFF stats are interesting and, like you said, can be used as a tool. Not many though base an entire argument off of a single chart.
Not true at all. The argument I got involved in here....was. He posted it to validate an earlier opinion he had shared in an effort say "Hey look at me, I was right". The problem with that is PFF's ranking don't make him correct. Because it's opinion. And seeing as how this is an opinion forum...I'm allowed to challenge those opinions. Right? Right. I've literally seen it happen on the internet more times than I can count. And I'm pretty good at counting.
No denying that...IMO, Brown is still among the best, but there are a handful of WR's I'd take before him. Curious as to how many a handful is and who? By PFF's count... 29. This is a literal exchange that took place on this thread starting two pages back. That's a different poster in each comment. That's what I take issue with. And you can't read that and say PFF isn't being used as the sole basis of the argument....because the person responding last didn't offer anything other than a PFF based opinion. Now the person that made the first comment chimed back in and said... Well it's just my opinion, but off the top of my head, I'd probably take Deandre Hopkins, Michael Thomas, Julio Jones, Odell Beckham and Tyreek Hill over Brown right now. Probably Juju as well...I just prefer bigger WR's for the most part, and Tyreek is just incomparable to any receiver.... I'm not taking anything away from Antonio Brown though. He's an elite WR in my book. I have zero issue with that there. I don't totally agree with it but that's an opinion based argument that's an admitted opinion based argument and I can certainly respect it.
No, what happened was there was a conversation going on and you decided to keep your opinion to yourself until SAS used "some" statistical data to post information of his own into the conversation he started. He had SEVERAL posts before PFF was even introduced into the conversation. You have a hard on for trying to piss off posters here, that's all you have added to the conversation. You haven't given any basis for disproving anything said, except that you take exception to anyone using PFF as their only basis...even though it was stated he was only using it to strengthen his opinion. The argument wasn't over PFF rankings, it was over individual poster's opinions of rankings...PFF was introduced to show that he wasn't alone in his opinion.
Yes, he was the only receiver on that side of the field. When the Steelers stack their receivers to one side and leave AB alone on the other, some teams have shifted coverage to his side and left the other receivers in man. I can understand how this might seem like a foreign concept to you, but when you watch every Steelers game and they show replays and the announcers point it out on those replays, I pay attention. I'm not saying it happens on every play, but it happens. If you really believe that AB's presence doesn't make the other receivers' jobs easier, then this is a pointless discussion.
I never said that...I absolutely agree that AB helps in coverage to all the other receivers on the Steelers team... But, unless it is a 2 man pass play...there simply aren't enough bodies to play triple coverage to one man... Triple coverage implies, there is a CB in man to man coverage, a safety over the top engages in helping in that coverage...AND the safety on the other side of the field leaves that side of the field to engage in covering him as well, pre-pass. I have never seen a safety on the opposite side of the field abandon his protection, simply because of a receiver being lined up on the other side of the field running a route. The only time I have ever witnessed triple coverage is in the red zone or hail mary plays, which would have a receiver have a distinct advantage in a jump ball situation. The term "triple coverage" is so widely misused by announcers, I'm not sure the average listener even understands it. Once the ball is thrown, both safeties react to the ball, so ANY ball thrown inside the tackle box would be deemed triple coverage by some announcers standards, simply because when the ball reaches the receiver there are 3 defenders in the vicinity. It doesn't mean the defense was designed that there were 3 defenders dedicated to one receiver.
He posts every day on several different subjects from what I can tell. Am I obligated to respond to all of them? Because I don't believe I am. PFF isn't scientific data. I'm not attempting to piss anyone off. If you get pissed off...that's on you. That is you choosing to get angry off of words on your computer monitor, tablet, or phone. Don't blame me for your inability to control your own emotions. I'm not responsible for you. I don't need to disprove anything. Or prove anything. I have stated my opinion of his opinions....I'm sorry you don't like it but that's life. My argument WAS over the PFF rankings and it's the only reason I chimed in. And making an argument and then saying "See...PFF agrees" is exactly the mentality I take issue with. If you were actually reading my posts with clarity instead of anger....you'd probably already understand that. You simply don't like me and you're going to argue against me no matter what. Life is too short....release the hatred. Stop taking it so serious.
I've witnessed it two different ways. If a team is in single high safety, with one safety brought down in the box. I have seen the box safety back out to AB's side to take away the underneath while the deep safety rolls to AB to help the CB who plays outside leverage to force AB inside. I have also seen them use a LB in a similar roll to that box Safety, taking him out of the play with a CB, LB and Safety covering him in short zone (LB), deep zone(Safety) and with a CB in Man. Never is someone covered by 3 people in Man coverage, that isn't what I am implying, and I know it isn't what you are implying either. Triple coverage is a bit of a misnomer, I'll admit, but when you see 3 football players all dedicated to ABs side of the field with the obvious reaction to his route when he's the only one over there, its not an inaccurate description of what the defense is doing. And its not impossible to have that many in coverage. There are 11 defensive players on the field and typically only 4 rushers. That leaves 7 guys in pass defense. With 4 route runners, 3 to one side and AB alone on the other, there are plenty of defenders to dedicated 3 to his side and dedicate 4 to the other 3 plus the RB out of the backfield. This is exactly why guys like JuJu and Conner make so many plays. They just have to beat their man.
Alternately worded as... "Dude... all I did was come into your house and take a dump on your floor. If you smell poop in here, that's on you."
I edited that before you even answered, it was meant to read statistical, not scientific... And No, you aren't obligated to respond to all of his posts...he posted several times on the subject matter, which was personal opinion of receiver standings...The only thing you posted about was that PFF wasn't something to base an argument on...Which he didn't do, he used it in context of the conversation as to validate a question posed, but never stated his "rankings" of wide receivers was based solely on the PFF rankings as YOU ELUDE to. So you admit you aren't even attempting to add anything to the conversation, good to know. That would make you a troll... I didn't say you had pissed me off...I said, IN MY OPINION, you come on here TRYING TO PISS POSTERS OFF. I know Lyman said you were well educated, but an education doesn't always make up for lack of ability to comprehend unfortunately... This is an untrue statement completely. 1) His basis wasn't on PFF rankings, it was being used as a tool to show that he wasn't the only one with that opinion 2) I am not angry, never even eluded to being angry. 3) I have on many occasions in the past "like" your posts. I am not in any way biased on any subject based on the author of a post. Every subject and post is taken into consideration and carefully considered whether it is something I simply agree with, no further qualifying needed, or something I disagree with, but not to an extent to add to the debate at hand, or something I disagree with and feel the need to add my thoughts on the subject. NEVER do I simply post something for the sole reason that a certain poster has posted...I don't have the time to single out a poster and just attempt to get a response from that person.
What you are describing is a zone coverage by the SS, not an assignment to Brown...They are trying to hide the coverage by moving him up in the box, but his main assignment is taking away underneath routes. I highly doubt that assignment changes if AB does a go route, while the opposite side TE does a crossing route coming into the SS zone. Or if the RB goes off of play action and sneaks into the soft under zone... That's my point, "triple coverage" implies there are 3 people assigned to the receiver. In reality, you have one defender in man to man and AB enters a space between two zones and you are calling it triple coverage, just as many announcers do. I'll guarantee EVERY SINGLE GAME that a defense plays man coverage, this same "phenomenon" happens. You don't have to be named Antonio Brown to fall into that coverage. No one said it was impossible, I simply believe you are mistaken on terminology and don't realize this isn't nearly as uncommon as you are eluding to. The MAIN reason AB helps the other receivers so much is that every team dedicates it's best player to AB. Unless they are going strict zone, AB will receiver the best man coverage defender on nearly every down.
