How many players away are we?
-
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.
-
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.
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 -
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.
-
Is that because the Steelers are ranked 11th?
of course it is...
-
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.
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.
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 -
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 -
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 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.
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.....
-
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.....
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?
-
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?
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?
Yep....right in the first paragraph it says any player with less than 250 snaps cannot be ranked as good or elite....so there's mack right there(not enough snaps to even rank)........
And, I think we forget how off his game Haden was early on.....yes, he really got it together later, but Id guess that playing poorly for a full 1/3 of the season would be enough to knock him from good to average.....
In the end, this all bodes well for us.....as we know we have players who have skills & potential beyond these rankings...Mack, Haden, Crow and West quickly come to mind.....
-
Other than the positions you listed and that they need to be "elite", I agree, Gip.
In other words, you disagree with everything I said.
-
In other words, you disagree with everything I said.
I think that was the gist of it, yes
-
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.
A. An elite QB
B. An elite RB
C. An elite WR
D. An elite LB
Other than the positions you listed and that they need to be "elite", I agree, Gip.
If we're using the OP's article and their ratings for "elite", then Im with Tour.....considering there are only 64 elite players listed(2 per team), which means the top 2 or 3 players at each position.....
Nope....based upon this article, we only need "good"......
-
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?
Yep....right in the first paragraph it says any player with less than 250 snaps cannot be ranked as good or elite....so there's mack right there(not enough snaps to even rank)........
And, I think we forget how off his game Haden was early on.....yes, he really got it together later, but Id guess that playing poorly for a full 1/3 of the season would be enough to knock him from good to average.....
In the end, this all bodes well for us.....as we know we have players who have skills & potential beyond these rankings...Mack, Haden, Crow and West quickly come to mind.....
Yep....right in the first paragraph it says any player with less than 250 snaps cannot be ranked as good or elite....so there's mack right there(not enough snaps to even rank)........
And, I think we forget how off his game Haden was early on.....yes, he really got it together later, but Id guess that playing poorly for a full 1/3 of the season would be enough to knock him from good to average.....
In the end, this all bodes well for us.....as we know we have players who have skills & potential beyond these rankings...Mack, Haden, Crow and West quickly come to mind.....
I think if that's the criteria, it's probably a bit unfair. But yeah, Crowell/West makes a pretty good RB duo, Mack is a top center, and Haden is as good as anyone not named Sherman/Peterson. So...we're only 3 players away?
-
Yep....right in the first paragraph it says any player with less than 250 snaps cannot be ranked as good or elite....so there's mack right there(not enough snaps to even rank)........
And, I think we forget how off his game Haden was early on.....yes, he really got it together later, but Id guess that playing poorly for a full 1/3 of the season would be enough to knock him from good to average.....
In the end, this all bodes well for us.....as we know we have players who have skills & potential beyond these rankings...Mack, Haden, Crow and West quickly come to mind.....
I think if that's the criteria, it's probably a bit unfair. But yeah, Crowell/West makes a pretty good RB duo, Mack is a top center, and Haden is as good as anyone not named Sherman/Peterson. So...we're only 3 players away?
I think if that's the criteria, it's probably a bit unfair. But yeah, Crowell/West makes a pretty good RB duo, Mack is a top center, and Haden is as good as anyone not named Sherman/Peterson. So...we're only 3 players away?
That's how I've seen it all year.
An ILB, a pass rushing OLB, and a QB away.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login