Skip to content

How many players away are we?

The Browns Board
53 20 1.7k
  • 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.

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

  • 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.

  • 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.....

  • @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?

  • @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?

    @gftchris said:

    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.

    @tour2ma said:

    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. 😠

  • @tour2ma said:

    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. 😠

    @the-gipper 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.

    @the-gipper said:

    A. An elite QB

    B. An elite RB

    C. An elite WR

    D. An elite LB

    @tour2ma said:

    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"......

  • @gftchris said:

    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.....

    @mudfly said:

    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?

  • @mudfly said:

    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?

    @gftchris said:

    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.

  • @mudfly said:

    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?

    @gftchris said:

    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?

    3 good players at the right spots?......YES!......I would agree completely......shore up the defense and get the O back on track and we are contending

    But unfair?....I dont think so at all.....it's just an objective performance ranking for one year(2014)(not a skill, talent or potential ranking)....each player gets a grade each game....the grades accumulate over a season to create a score.....it's simple and very fair, really....

  • @the-gipper said:

    In other words, you disagree with everything I said. 😠

    I think that was the gist of it, yes 😉

    @gftchris said:

    I think that was the gist of it, yes 😉

    maxresdefault.jpg

  • @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?

    I like PFF but its ranked using specific metrics and the steelers are ranked 11th because they don't factor potential, they rate on field performance. Shazier barely played. Jarvis Jones and stephon tuitt the same. Its what have you done for me lately and in this instance how it should be.

  • 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.

    This. People aren't very smart. Nickers the revolting blob least of lot.

  • @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.....

    Bingo.

  • @tim-couch-pulls-out said:

    Is that because the Steelers are ranked 11th?

    I like PFF but its ranked using specific metrics and the steelers are ranked 11th because they don't factor potential, they rate on field performance. Shazier barely played. Jarvis Jones and stephon tuitt the same. Its what have you done for me lately and in this instance how it should be.

    @vagitron said:

    I like PFF but its ranked using specific metrics and the steelers are ranked 11th because they don't factor potential, they rate on field performance. Shazier barely played. Jarvis Jones and stephon tuitt the same. Its what have you done for me lately and in this instance how it should be.

    That's because potential is an immeasurable metric. It's completely subjective. Shazier's potential in Pittsburgh is different than his potential in Cleveland. Brady's potential in New England is different then his potential in Oakland.

    Browns fans should know. We've been drafting for "potential" for years.