Top PFF players in the FCS

[5280Griz]

Lhttps://herosports.com/fcs-football-2025-pff-highest-graded-players-10-bzbz/

 

[66volvo]

What an east coast bias. Ah Yat not even listed? Gilman either? C'mon man. Who are these guys?

 

[alabamagrizzly]

What an east coast bias. Ah Yat not even listed? Gilman either? C'mon man. Who are these guys?

Not sure how you can call a ranking that uses set metrics biased. Almost half of the listed players are west of the Mississippi too so not sure on your thought process there either.

 

[ElrodGrizzly]

Not sure how you can call a ranking that uses set metrics biased. Almost half of the listed players are west of the Mississippi too so not sure on your thought process there either.

I mean, they fully admit that they have very junior level analysts judging this level. They don't really use metrics as much as make their own metric up based on how whether they believe the player successfully executed their assignment. I don't hate PFF, but it's still kind of subjective, right?

 

[#15 Fan]

Gillman not on the list is the only surprising one to me. I'm sure if Loud had played all year he'd be on (or close to) the list.

 

[nicktaber58]

Not sure how you can call a ranking that uses set metrics biased. Almost half of the listed players are west of the Mississippi too so not sure on your thought process there either.

Its terrible analysis. Youre telling me the two big sky teams with most representation (2 guys each) is sac st and northern Colorado??

 

[GrizRealist]

PFF is not a great way of rating players and teams anyway. They can be REALLY misleading.

 

[nicktaber58]

PFF is not a great way of rating players and teams anyway. They can be REALLY misleading.

Some of our local podsters like to use it to bash particular position groups, yet you are spot in, its a waste of time.

 

[GrizRealist]

Some of our local podsters like to use it to bash particular position groups, yet you are spot in, its a wate of time.

I would not say its a waste of time, but you need to sort of be versed in how to interpret them. They throw out a lot of context that in many cases can explain certain ratings or lack thereof. People love them because they seem unbiased, and to some extent they are, but there are a lot of non-numeric variables that they don't give consideration to.

 

[nicktaber58]

I would not say its a waste of time, but you need to sort of be versed in how to interpret them. They throw out a lot of context that in many cases can explain certain ratings or lack thereof. People love them because they seem unbiased, and to some extent they are, but there are a lot of non-numeric variables that they don't give consideration to.

Agreed. Well said.

 

[alabamagrizzly]

Its terrible analysis. Youre telling me the two big sky teams with most representation (2 guys each) is sac st and northern Colorado??

Ok, my bad on assuming there was a metric involved. Ya, this list is BS.

 

[mthoopsfan]

Not sure how you can call a ranking that uses set metrics biased. Almost half of the listed players are west of the Mississippi too so not sure on your thought process there either.

Set metrics don’t always fit the play or situation. The analysts doing this often don’t know what they are doing. PFF is notoriously inaccurate for college football. I didn’t bother to open the link. But includes defense, no kid analyst is going to know how the Griz D works. Nor can someone looking at videos know what last minute call or communication was made by the defense.