[washingtonismoney]

Well, sure, except:
1) Buncom switched positions to safety
2) Buncom didn't play a lot of snaps -- so there's a low sample size.

Each of those facts suggests there's a rather large grain of salt to be taken with PFF's ratings.

Their ratings are, in general, a big black box. I'm not sure what they predict and how well they correlate with results. Take this tweet: https://twitter.com/PFF_College/status/8...9837321216

Five of the six best returning Pac-12 players are Cougars, apparently. Now I don't think you should dismiss results of statistical analytics simply because it's counterintuitive; why would you conduct the analysis if you're expecting it to confirm your previously held beliefs? But there's a rather odd tension in PFF's assertion with, well, reality. That is:

1) Washington State wasn't all that great in 2016.
2) No one expects them to be all that great in 2017.

So why do they apparently have so many great players? Dunno man.

[washingtonismoney]

Well, sure, except:
1) Buncom switched positions to safety
2) Buncom didn't play a lot of snaps -- so there's a low sample size.

Each of those facts suggests there's a rather large grain of salt to be taken with PFF's ratings.

Their ratings are, in general, a big black box. I'm not sure what they predict and how well they correlate with results. Take this tweet: https://twitter.com/PFF_College/status/8...9837321216

Five of the six best returning Pac-12 players are Cougars, apparently. Now I don't think you should dismiss results of statistical analytics simply because it's counterintuitive; why would you conduct the analysis if you're expecting it to confirm your previously held beliefs? But there's a rather odd tension in PFF's assertion with, well, reality. That is:

1) Washington State wasn't all that great in 2016.
2) No one expects them to be all that great in 2017.

So why do they apparently have so many great players? Dunno man.