Skip to content
The Browns Board
  1. Home
  2. The Browns Board
  3. How many players away are we?

How many players away are we?

The Browns Board
53 20 1.7k

  • This article is fantastic.

    http://espn.go.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/12179331/how-many-players-away-super-bowl-team?ex_cid=sportscenterFB

    I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride

  • Alex Mack and Haden are "average" players?

    You're fucking with me, right?

    👍

  • Haden is above average, but he is NOT elite

    Mack was elite but after the injury he's a ??????

    to answer the question, we are 3 players away

    QB, being the BIGGEST

    "And they don't really know even what they're talkin' about And I can't imagine what empty heads can achieve."
    👍

  • Seems like they were tough on grading some of the Browns but if they used the same measuring stick on all the teams the bottom line is the Browns are ranked 7th and believed to be one of the better teams talent wise.

  • you can't make a true assessment as to how many players away we are until we have multiyear coaching consistency. Offensively we're going to be changing yet again so just as an example, we had a pretty good running game going this past year but if the new offensive scheme doesn't fit our current RB's...than that's a position that we may have to look at again next offseason. You just don't know..stupid to even talk about it.

    👍

  • Ha!! they rated both our RB's as "bad". What in the hell. Ok..well ill take those two "bad" RB's over a whole lot of backfields in the NFL right now. JFC Espn is annoying as sin.

  • All these rankings are based on certain metrics. Its not just the eye test. I think its a solid article but not one I'd put a ton of stock in personally.

    AKA SNATCH98 or Rorbotron. The boards glorious admins decided to get cute and change my name to "homotron" Classy group of people. (Lost a bet with Columbus king and got banned for a month)
  • VagitronV Vagitron

    All these rankings are based on certain metrics. Its not just the eye test. I think its a solid article but not one I'd put a ton of stock in personally.

    @vagitron said:

    All these rankings are based on certain metrics. Its not just the eye test. I think its a solid article but not one I'd put a ton of stock in personally.

    Is that because the Steelers are ranked 11th?

    I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride
    nickersN VagitronV 2 Replies

  • did anyone even read it???

    its based on PFF ratings and then explains why some had low ratings.

    and pff ratings are about the most objective ratings out there.

    gftChrisG VagitronV 2 Replies
  • Tim Couch Pulls OutT Tim Couch Pulls Out

    @vagitron said:

    All these rankings are based on certain metrics. Its not just the eye test. I think its a solid article but not one I'd put a ton of stock in personally.

    Is that because the Steelers are ranked 11th?

    @tim-couch-pulls-out said:

    Is that because the Steelers are ranked 11th?

    of course it is...

    Nickers...."There are no old running QB's in the NFL "~Sam Rutigliano~
  • ManzierM Manzier

    did anyone even read it???

    its based on PFF ratings and then explains why some had low ratings.

    and pff ratings are about the most objective ratings out there.

    @manzier said:

    did anyone even read it???

    its based on PFF ratings and then explains why some had low ratings.

    and pff ratings are about the most objective ratings out there.

    @manzier said:

    did anyone even read it???

    its based on PFF ratings and then explains why some had low ratings.

    and pff ratings are about the most objective ratings out there.

    I can't believe PFF would have Mack rated as average. Maybe his 5 game score ranks average over the span of 16 games, but on a per-game average he's got to be at least good if not elite.

  • How many guys on a roster? That's how far away we are

    Early man walked away as modern man took control. Their minds weren't all the same and to conquer was their goal. So He built his great empires and he slaughtered his own kind, and he died a confused man and killed himself in his own mind...

  • A lot more now...

  • Entertaining read...

    Although my Browns' estimate of 6 is close to the article's 5, I do not see how the article arrives at the final number of players a team is away from contending. Ditto for a handful of other teams I read. But the obvious flaw in trying to boil down to one number is that positions are not created equal. Either that or imposing a difference PFF's data does not support is my problem.

    Also not clear is the weighting for depth vs. starters. Since 30+ players are listed per team I assume some depth is being considered as the only alternative would be STs, but no Kickers or Punters are evaluated.

    I did love this: "(Mack) allowed just one QB pressure in 149 pass-rush snaps; his replacements allowed an average of one pressure every 17.7 snaps." Most succinct explanation of Mack's loss I've seen. But does not square with his inclusion in the "average" column. PFF simply must not allow games missed due to injury to be discounted.

    "When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196

  • I don't know exactly how many players we are away from being a SB contender......but let's be fair, regardless, we all know what this team needs:

    A. An elite QB

    B. An elite RB

    C. An elite WR

    D. An elite LB

    Look at it this way: The Steelers were 11-5 where the Browns were 7-9 based on the contributions of just 3 players: BR/Brown/Bell

    Now, I think the Browns can do OK at RB with the guys we have.

    But with Gordon clearly out of the picture we now have no prospect for an elite WR.

    And we have Manziel and Connor Shaw....and maybe the return of Brian Hoyer.

    Sometimes it is not the how many.....but the "how quality" of player that you have.

    MudflyM 1 Reply

  • I like the idea of this article but some of the conclusions are idiotic and self-contradictory. They rate Alex Mack as average yet state:

    Cleveland averaged 146.4 rushing yards per game in Weeks 1-6 with Mack in the lineup (third-best over that span). That plummeted to 90.6 (23rd overall) when Mack missed the final 11 games with a broken leg.

    And then, Joe Haden:

    placing Haden outside of the good or elite categories defies common sense.

    The biggest conclusion I make from all this is Pro Football Focus has problems with the way it evaluates players.

    "I said, 'I need someone who's going to want to get on the roller coaster with me knowing that it's not always going to be fun,'" -Paul DePodesta
    Tour2maT MudflyM 2 Replies

  • Other than the positions you listed and that they need to be "elite", I agree, Gip.

    "When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196
    The GipperT 1 Reply
  • OsirisO Osiris

    I like the idea of this article but some of the conclusions are idiotic and self-contradictory. They rate Alex Mack as average yet state:

    Cleveland averaged 146.4 rushing yards per game in Weeks 1-6 with Mack in the lineup (third-best over that span). That plummeted to 90.6 (23rd overall) when Mack missed the final 11 games with a broken leg.

    And then, Joe Haden:

    placing Haden outside of the good or elite categories defies common sense.

    The biggest conclusion I make from all this is Pro Football Focus has problems with the way it evaluates players.

    @osiris said:

    The biggest conclusion I make from all this is Pro Football Focus has problems with the way it evaluates players.

    They were ESPN staff comments on PFF's findings.

    "When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196
  • OsirisO Osiris

    I like the idea of this article but some of the conclusions are idiotic and self-contradictory. They rate Alex Mack as average yet state:

    Cleveland averaged 146.4 rushing yards per game in Weeks 1-6 with Mack in the lineup (third-best over that span). That plummeted to 90.6 (23rd overall) when Mack missed the final 11 games with a broken leg.

    And then, Joe Haden:

    placing Haden outside of the good or elite categories defies common sense.

    The biggest conclusion I make from all this is Pro Football Focus has problems with the way it evaluates players.

    @osiris said:

    The biggest conclusion I make from all this is Pro Football Focus has problems with the way it evaluates players.

    they dont really "rate players" on a scale of best to worst....... they rate the players "performance for a year" then compare the score to other players at the same position.....

    Mack only played 5 games....stands to reason that "his season" rated below most other centers, simply because he didn't play..

    And Haden started very slowly, scoring low his first 5 games or so....so, even though he finished strong, his season as a whole was not as good as some others.....

    gftChrisG VagitronV 2 Replies
  • MudflyM Mudfly

    @osiris said:

    The biggest conclusion I make from all this is Pro Football Focus has problems with the way it evaluates players.

    they dont really "rate players" on a scale of best to worst....... they rate the players "performance for a year" then compare the score to other players at the same position.....

    Mack only played 5 games....stands to reason that "his season" rated below most other centers, simply because he didn't play..

    And Haden started very slowly, scoring low his first 5 games or so....so, even though he finished strong, his season as a whole was not as good as some others.....

    @mudfly said:

    they dont really "rate players" on a scale of best to worst....... they rate the players "performance for a year" then compare the score to other players at the same position.....

    Mack only played 5 games....stands to reason that "his season" rated below most other centers, simply because he didn't play..

    And Haden started very slowly, scoring low his first 5 games or so....so, even though he finished strong, his season as a whole was not as good as some others.....

    I assumed the same about mack - over a season, not so great, but 'per game' elite.

    Haden got a pretty big positive score in the last 10 games of the season to wipe out his negatives in the first 6 I would have thought - anybody got the numbers?

    MudflyM 2 Replies
Log in to reply