Now the way they may have analyzed Foster is if QBs targeted the man Foster was covering or not. May be there was no need to target for short yardage when our CBs were letting their receivers run wild, but it also may be because Foster was doing a decent enough job to prevent QBs from throwing the ball towards his side. Either way, its an interesting analysis.

Just because PFF says they were verified as 99 percent accurate doesn’t mean anything at all until the other side (NFL GMs) really explain on the record what PFF brings to the table.

Think about it. The Bucs have an entire department devoted to scouting the NFL. Why would they rely on some no-name guys of PFF for anything other than interesting bathroom reading and/or to see if they can pick out any trends from the compilation.

As for this statistical crap: Foster was decent in coverage. Not great. Stats are bogus. People need to watch the games.

So you use PFF if they bolster your argument, or your opinion on a particular player, team or scenario and you criticize them when their information doesn’t back up your agenda.

In a word, “NO.”

The only agenda Joe has is for the Bucs to win. Oh, and for Rachel Watson to visit his lair, preferably wearing something kinky.

On Barron being one of the worst pass defenders…I strongly believe the Bucs coaches are doing a disservice to Barron and the defense by having Barron playing more FS and Barber more like a SS. IMO, coaches are trying to cover-up Barber’s declining coverage skills by using him more in the box. Barron is a true SS, and should be in the box when those plays are called. We’ve all seen the hit Barron put on Steve Smith after Barber “oles” him. We need a real FS so Barron can be the “enforcer” type of SS he was drafted to be. IMO, Barber still has a role to play on this team, but not as a startin FS, but as a “slot CB” or nickel CB. He has neither the range of a FS nor the ferocity of a SS. I believe the coaches know this, as well, and wont make a hard push to bring him back as a “FS”, but will offer him a position as a “nickel CB”.

“We aren’t perfect, and there is a small element of human error in the process, but we have had our data verified by two NFL teams at over 99 percent accurate. Over the past few seasons we can count on one hand the plays where it has been physically impossible to identify a player from the TV footage. ”

That right there, tells me they utilize TV footage to form their statistical opinions.

I think claiming they are 99% accurate is misleading as well, since their is no measured way to accurately challenge their opinions.

Even with an All-22, for a three-man staff to put together all of those weekly stats is per player is, frankly, mind-boggling.

When Joe launched this site, the first year “this Joe” documented each and every snap Gaines Adams played each week. Just analyzing one player for each play, it would take Joe virtually two hours to document each snap. Rewind, play, rewind, play, rewind, play. Again, this is for one player.

For three guys to document each and every NFL player for 16 games a week (usually), as Joe stated above, “do the math.” Unless they have interns (possible), there simply isn’t enough time in a week.

Do they offer insight? Sure do. And there’s enough NFL scribes that Joe respects that swear by this outfit that Joe doesn’t dismiss them totally.

I know I can tell what defenses are being played from a simple replay on TV. I imagine it is far easier when that is your job.

Your argument for increased mistakes due to over work is noted, and I believe may have some credence, but in no way to the point of a total offset.

Even if they make a grading mistake one out of every 100 plays per player(which I highly doubt is that high or no teams would work with them in any capacity), that itself, in theory, will balance itself out since it is on a plus/minus scale. some mistakes will be positive, some will be negative. I generally look at the grades of each position and depending on the disparity from high to low, and the average grade, will give a flexibility of 2-5 points plus or minus. This removes any doubt. If you can take away 5 points from a player and he still grades relatively high, I’m positive that guy played well.

Plus they have a whole “signature stats” section that allows the players to weight the raw stats to the grades to give them an even better idea of how a player is performing.