Hey Tyler/Bob. I was one of the ‘young guys’ around PFF at the point of its inception. Never worked for them as an employee, but gave Neil and co a lot of feedback when the idea (grading system) was being developed. Back in the day there was a group of us in the UK that used to mail each other DVDs of NFL games. It grew out of that community.
One thing I used to do was to QA whatever they’d done on Packers games, and cross reference with Bob’s articles in the JS. So I feel I have some perspective on this issue as an avid reader of Bob’s stuff from the point the JS went online in the early 2000s.
I think you need to separate out what the grades are from how they are being applied. The guys who developed the system are honest, smart, passionate and want to make it as good as it can be. They were always very conscious of its limitations, and they likely wouldn’t disagree with anything you or Bob said on that front. My criticism of them would be that they were slightly naive about how it would go on to be used. I used to say, you guys are in the business of selling stats, and they’d disagree. They saw criticism of the system as allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good.
The issue is not that they put a number on performance, or the limitations, but that people assign more significance than they should to those numbers and regard them as somehow ‘factual’. The guys at PFF have to sell the product the audiences demand - and once they put it out there, it’s not entirely their fault that everyone else is lazy with it. At the time it was a clear gap in the market, maybe scouts are rubbishing it today but the NFL teams themselves bought the stats. Thanks for the great work as ever, wonderful discussion and always good to hear from Bob.
My pleasure. If I might offer one other reflection… it’s sometimes easy to fall into the trap of thinking of the past as a golden age. Certainly I agree with all you say about the NFL becoming hyper corporate, more sanitised - and the modern newspaper has less resources and access to cover it in an unvarnished way. I liked the old NFL better for all those reasons. But I also remember there was just as much poor or ‘lazy’ journalism then. Those of us in the UK only had access to the national coverage for a long time. Some of that stuff was good, but lots wasn’t - many puff pieces with stats sourced directly from players or agents themselves. That’s the environment PFF came from - we all recognised these national guys trying to cover the whole league and unable to know enough about 32 teams to do it. We saw the benefit of systematically codifying knowledge about player performance. We didn’t have access to locker rooms, so those guys did the best with what they had. Do I think Bob’s method is better? Absolutely. But there are 32 teams and only 1 Bob McGinn. I was lucky to be a Packers fan for that reason. Happy Easter to you and best wishes.
Great podcast. I really appreciate going into details on the 40 times in the annual draft series.
Is there any chance we could get the details/breakdown of the 4.38 Judkins 40 time that Bob reported? That would be a MONUMENTAL time for a back of his talent and size. It sounds like he's back to the days of his Ole Miss freshman year gamebreaking speed...
Hey Tyler/Bob. I was one of the ‘young guys’ around PFF at the point of its inception. Never worked for them as an employee, but gave Neil and co a lot of feedback when the idea (grading system) was being developed. Back in the day there was a group of us in the UK that used to mail each other DVDs of NFL games. It grew out of that community.
One thing I used to do was to QA whatever they’d done on Packers games, and cross reference with Bob’s articles in the JS. So I feel I have some perspective on this issue as an avid reader of Bob’s stuff from the point the JS went online in the early 2000s.
I think you need to separate out what the grades are from how they are being applied. The guys who developed the system are honest, smart, passionate and want to make it as good as it can be. They were always very conscious of its limitations, and they likely wouldn’t disagree with anything you or Bob said on that front. My criticism of them would be that they were slightly naive about how it would go on to be used. I used to say, you guys are in the business of selling stats, and they’d disagree. They saw criticism of the system as allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good.
The issue is not that they put a number on performance, or the limitations, but that people assign more significance than they should to those numbers and regard them as somehow ‘factual’. The guys at PFF have to sell the product the audiences demand - and once they put it out there, it’s not entirely their fault that everyone else is lazy with it. At the time it was a clear gap in the market, maybe scouts are rubbishing it today but the NFL teams themselves bought the stats. Thanks for the great work as ever, wonderful discussion and always good to hear from Bob.
This is fantastic insight from the belly of the beast — THANK YOU for sharing, Matt!
My pleasure. If I might offer one other reflection… it’s sometimes easy to fall into the trap of thinking of the past as a golden age. Certainly I agree with all you say about the NFL becoming hyper corporate, more sanitised - and the modern newspaper has less resources and access to cover it in an unvarnished way. I liked the old NFL better for all those reasons. But I also remember there was just as much poor or ‘lazy’ journalism then. Those of us in the UK only had access to the national coverage for a long time. Some of that stuff was good, but lots wasn’t - many puff pieces with stats sourced directly from players or agents themselves. That’s the environment PFF came from - we all recognised these national guys trying to cover the whole league and unable to know enough about 32 teams to do it. We saw the benefit of systematically codifying knowledge about player performance. We didn’t have access to locker rooms, so those guys did the best with what they had. Do I think Bob’s method is better? Absolutely. But there are 32 teams and only 1 Bob McGinn. I was lucky to be a Packers fan for that reason. Happy Easter to you and best wishes.
I’ve seen Schindler’s List once. Fellowship of the Ring once. Werkmeister Harmonies once. I’ve listened to this podcast twice.
Whoa! We are HONORED. And exceptional entries my friend.
P.s. I spat out my coffee at ‘give me those 4 seconds baby’ :D
As soon as the words dribbled out… there was no return.
Ok, Happy Hour unnecessary but a post-draft podcast with our questions asked and you and Bob’s insights would be very satisfying.
Great podcast. I really appreciate going into details on the 40 times in the annual draft series.
Is there any chance we could get the details/breakdown of the 4.38 Judkins 40 time that Bob reported? That would be a MONUMENTAL time for a back of his talent and size. It sounds like he's back to the days of his Ole Miss freshman year gamebreaking speed...
Electronic timing is more accurate provided the timing systems are standardized. Track has been using it since the 1960s.