How many players away are we?

gftChris

@the-gipper said:
In other words, you disagree with everything I said.

I think that was the gist of it, yes

Mudfly

@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

@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?

Tim Couch Pulls Out

@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

@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

@gftchris said:
I think that was the gist of it, yes

Vagitron

@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

@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.

Vagitron

@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

@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.

miktoxic

DL (2)

ILB

OLB

OL - RT

OL - C backup general depth guy

WR

QB

that's 8 players.

or yeah and TE.......9

Vagitron

@tim-couch-pulls-out said:

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.

I agree and that's exactly why the article needs to be viewed objectively, some people here just can't seem to grasp the concept.

gftChris

@miktoxic said:

DL (2)

ILB

OLB

OL - RT

OL - C backup general depth guy

WR

QB

that's 8 players.

or yeah and TE.......9

You wouldn't count a backup as being one of your 'above-average' players playing most of the time. So 7. Add a TE, take away Jordan Cameron, so that's about right.

OldBrownsFan

Bottom line the Browns have talent. Enough talent getting the right few people in place can make all the difference.

Here is the kicker though. And you guys correct me if I am wrong (I know you will anyway lol) ...to get the pieces together it seems to be one or the other. They would have to give up the farm to get the quarterback. Or go after the other pieces on offense and defense and not go after the qb. I like the idea of going after the quantity and quality and not focus on the qb. I think if we can keep Hoyer he can be the qb we have seen he is capable of with the improvements on offense.

gftChris

@oldbrownsfan said:

Bottom line the Browns have talent. Enough talent getting the right few people in place can make all the difference.

Here is the kicker though. And you guys correct me if I am wrong (I know you will anyway lol) ...to get the pieces together it seems to be one or the other. They would have to give up the farm to get the quarterback. Or go after the other pieces on offense and defense and not go after the qb. I like the idea of going after the quantity and quality and not focus on the qb. I think if we can keep Hoyer he can be the qb we have seen he is capable of with the improvements on offense.

Not necessarily. I think Gip did a breakdown on where 'franchise' QBs are taken, and it breaks down about 50/50 top 5 picks and 'other' - from Rodgers at 25, down to Brady in the 6th via Wilson in the third. Proper research, proper development time where necessary, and you can get your QB without giving everything up.

Mudfly

@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?

Ok...got the numbers they used to rate these guys...Haden graded out at #28 overall in the league for the season....

he earned negative grades the first 5 weeks and the last 2 weeks.....so thats 7 negs with 3 being in the red(extra bad)

he earned positive grades the other 9 weeks, with 4 being in the green(extra good)

so, in summary, 3 terrible weeks.....4 great weeks.....and 9 average weeks.....for a total score of 3.4 pts

Whats interesting is Kwaun Williams actually graded out better.....he is ranked #13, with a score of 8.7....

Sherman? (18.2).....Peterson? (-3.5).....Revis? (17.7).....

Now....to help people to see.....if we removed those first 3 really bad games from Haden and gave him 3 'just average' games, his score would adjust by "about" +11....giving him a 19.7, which would rank him near the top ....

Mack....based upon his play and scores through the first 5 games....would have finished #1 have he played the full 16 games

gftChris

@mudfly said:

Ok...got the numbers they used to rate these guys...Haden graded out at #28 overall in the league for the season....

he earned negative grades the first 5 weeks and the last 2 weeks.....so thats 7 negs with 3 being in the red(extra bad)

he earned positive grades the other 9 weeks, with 4 being in the green(extra good)

so, in summary, 3 terrible weeks.....4 great weeks.....and 9 average weeks.....for a total score of 3.4 pts

Whats interesting is Kwaun Williams actually graded out better.....he is ranked #13, with a score of 8.7....

Sherman? (18.2).....Peterson? (-3.5).....Revis? (17.7).....

Now....to help people to see.....if we removed those first 3 really bad games from Haden and gave him 3 'just average' games, his score would adjust by "about" +11....giving him a 19.7, which would rank him near the top ....

Mack....based upon his play and scores through the first 5 games....would have finished #1 have he played the full 16 games

Interesting. I'd be willing to give Haden (and the rest of the D) a pass on the first three games given that they're learning a new scheme. Last two less so.

So that puts us at only 5 players away, with Mack as well? And as for the 'but he's coming back from a long injury' nonsense, it's a broken leg, no ligament or muscle damage, there's nothing to suggest he will have lost anything from his game.

Mudfly

@gftchris said:

Interesting. I'd be willing to give Haden (and the rest of the D) a pass on the first three games given that they're learning a new scheme. Last two less so.

So that puts us at only 5 players away, with Mack as well? And as for the 'but he's coming back from a long injury' nonsense, it's a broken leg, no ligament or muscle damage, there's nothing to suggest he will have lost anything from his game.

Im with you on both......we know how good Haden is and dont need a "score" to prove it...he earned the pass by stepping up his game.....

And I think Mack will heal up too....agree that broken bones usually heal up just fine....and the word is he's healing well....

gftChris

Concerning starters, according to the PFF list, and our discussions with Mack/Haden, as well as the overriding feeling of "being happy to go with" Crowell and West, we're looking something like this in terms of 'good' players:

QB

RB - West

RB - Crowell

LT - Thomas

LG - Bitonio

C - Mack

RG - Greco

RT - Schwartz

WR - Hawkins

WR - Gabriel

WR - Austin

WR - Benjamin

TE - Barnidge

TE - Dray

DE - Winn

NT - Kitchen

DE - D. Bryant

OLB - Kruger

ILB - Dansby

ILB - Robertson/Kirksey

OLB - Mingo/Sheard

CB - Gilbert

CB - Skrine

CB - Haden

SS - Whitner

FS - Gipson

Elite

Good

Average

Aside from West/Crowell, the only place we don't have at least an 'average' player is QB. Which says it all.

Buck The Frowns

Interesting in that Hoyer may not be as bad as we think. His ineffectiveness coincided with defensive linemen being in his face ten times more often after Mack's leg was broken. I knew there was a drop off in protection but did not realize how large it was.

PFF is very informative.