Jump to content
goldfishwars

Deepest Team Rankings

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, SteelKing728 said:

Is the 49ers roster honestly that bad?

I think it is. In terms of depth, that is. They have a good coach and an apparently good QB. That's allowing them to perform well above their roster's overall talent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

Wouldn't it make more sense just to grade the quality of backups as opposed to grading it as a function of the difference between starter and backup? Otherwise, a team with a top tier starter and mediocre backup might be 5 at starter and 1 at depth, while a team with a mediocre starter and a mediocre backup might be 3 at starter and 5 at depth. Putting them higher. And I'm all for praising depth, but at several positions I'd rather one star than two mediocre guys. 

Agreed with this - as far as I can see, you get the same number of points for having Brady (5) and Hoyer (1) as you do with McCown (1) and Bridgewater/Darnold (5).

As such, this doesn't seem to have much validity for judging how good a team is (and I say this with my team 4th)

In my opinion, depth matters far more at some positions (defensive line, corner) than it does at others, and between that and positional value I think this idea needs a bit more refinement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, DrawABlank said:

Agreed with this - as far as I can see, you get the same number of points for having Brady (5) and Hoyer (1) as you do with McCown (1) and Bridgewater/Darnold (5).

As such, this doesn't seem to have much validity for judging how good a team is (and I say this with my team 4th)

In my opinion, depth matters far more at some positions (defensive line, corner) than it does at others, and between that and positional value I think this idea needs a bit more refinement.

I’m not trying to judge how good a team is though, I’ve been clear about that. The thread is literally called ‘deepest team rankings’.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

Quick clarifying question, here. The bold, and the bullet points there, make it seem as though you're grading depth as a measurement of the gap between the starter and the depth. Would that not favor a team that has two mediocre players at one position, as opposed to a team that has a great player and a mediocre one? Because the former would have it's starter graded lower, but there'd be no drop off in event of injury. The latter would have a more highly graded starter, but they'd be punished for the fact that their backup, while good depth, is nowhere near as good as the guy ahead of him on the depth chart. Wouldn't it make more sense just to grade the quality of backups as opposed to grading it as a function of the difference between starter and backup? Otherwise, a team with a top tier starter and mediocre backup might be 5 at starter and 1 at depth, while a team with a mediocre starter and a mediocre backup might be 3 at starter and 5 at depth. Putting them higher. And I'm all for praising depth, but at several positions I'd rather one star than two mediocre guys. And this may not be how you've done it, it's just kind of the impression I get from the sections I quoted.

No, you score each individually – not the drop-off from starter to back-up. The majority of teams would see a significant drop-off in QB play if their starter went down, of course. But it’s easy to argue that the Eagles, as they have proved, could absorb the loss the Carson Wentz pretty well with Nick Foles stepping up so they would score high in starter and back-up. Whereas, let’s say, the Lions would score high for Stafford as their starting QB, but would score pretty low for Jake Rudock who they might feel good about internally (let’s see if he can beat out a Matt Cassel long past his best), but wasn’t a highly thought-of draft prospect and hasn’t played meaningful minutes in the NFL to date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, goldfishwars said:

So I looked at the projected starters and backups for all 32 teams for a thing and it was really interesting to see which teams came out on top. This isn't a ranking of which teams I think will fare best next season, because it strips out positional value and the impact of coaching and scheme. But it's an attempt to work out which rosters are better equipped at each starting position, plus the value of their back-up (i.e would there be a significant drop-off if the starter was injured?) in order to work-out which teams have the most talent and the most number of spots. 

I did this by scoring each position (QB, RB, WR, TE, OL, DL, Edge, Off LB, CB, S - rookies were marked conservatively) like this:-

Starters: 

1 - A low-level starter

2 - A below average starter

3 - An average or ascending NFL player

4 - A potential future Pro Bowl calibre player

5 - A Pro Bowl calibre player

Depth:

1 - Fortunes of team would be severely hit if starter was unavailable

2 - A significant drop-off in talent from starter to back-up

3 - Drop-off in talent from starter to back-up could be managed

4 - Slight drop-off, but capable contributor backing up

5 - No noticeable drop-off

 

Obviously, it's not an exact science (and others would score very differently, probably) - but just a bit of fun to get familiar with every team's roster. The Eagles look insanely stacked in their depth and the strength of their current starters, scoring far beyond the next team. A couple of surprises were the Ravens and Bengals, both in the top ten. But when you look at those rosters, they might be lacking in headliners - but man have they done a good job of filling the depth at almost every spot. Both look particularly resilient to injury, the Ravens just need some better luck there. Some creative coaching might be able to realise the talent that is there on those teams, given there are so many maybes. 

At the bottom of the list, there are some teams who have performed well of late and have some excellent starters in place - but don't look particularly far away from a few struggles if they hit an injury wave. The Cowboys fall into that category, although there are some units on that roster they need to work through. Some other teams I thought were deep, have a few questionable spots on their team when you run down the roster - the Saints would be in that category. Elsewhere, the Buccaneers I would say have done the most to turn around a roster by instilling depth at a number of spots during the the off-season. 

Overall Scoring:    

  1. Philadelphia Eagles     -     78 
  2. Green Bay Packers     -     72
  3. Jacksonville Jaguars     -     72
  4. Atlanta Falcons     -     71
  5. Baltimore Ravens     -     70
  6. Cincinnati Bengals     -     69
  7. Minnesota Vikings     -     68
  8. Pittsburgh Steelers     -     67
  9. Los Angeles Rams     -     67
  10. Los Angeles Chargers     -     66
  11. Tampa Bay Buccaneers     -     66
  12. New England Patriots     -     66
  13. Denver Broncos     -     65
  14. Washington Redskins     -     64
  15. Tennessee Titans     -     64
  16. New Orleans Saints     -     63
  17. Carolina Panthers     -     62
  18. Cleveland Browns     -     61
  19. Miami Dolphins     -     60
  20. Kansas City Chiefs     -     59
  21. New York Jets     -     59
  22. Seattle Seahawks     -     58
  23. New York Giants     -     58
  24. Indianapolis Colts     -     57
  25. Oakland Raiders     -     57
  26. Dallas Cowboys     -     56
  27. Chicago Bears     -     55
  28. Detroit Lions     -     55
  29. Houston Texans     -     55
  30. Buffalo Bills     -     54
  31. San Francisco 49ers     -     54
  32. Arizona Cardinals     -     49

Unfortunately, without any quantifiable data, this is, a biased opinion. There's nothing wrong with that per se, but it is biased in how @goldfishwars views each roster and how he considers the player. 

For example: I may believe that there is only 2 elite QB's in the NFL (Brady, Rodgers), while he may think there is 4 (Brady, Rodgers, Wentz, Big Ben) the point values could be different because there is no quantifiable data that suggests what makes the QB to fit into that scoring level other than, what he perceives. 

I mean, my Redskins are 14th, but I think about the depth on the roster and there is sooooo much uncertainty at LG, C, RB, WR, TE, ILB, CB, S that I cannot believe that the roster has shaken up to be just above average. It feels like it should be around the 20's. 

Its a cool idea, and I would have posted the results for each team in their forums, then asked for any corrections, opinions, and gathered that. I know the Redskins forum would have been very truthful about whether you are on par or not. 

Edited by mike23md

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks for sharing this. We'll have to see what happens as it relates to your ratings and the end of the season standings. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, johndeere1707 said:

True. But until Cleveland proves themselves, and Baltimore separates, I believe we will be a wild card team.  Definitely don’t see the Bengals finishing with a top 5 pick like I’ve seen in a lot of predictions. 

At a glance, they strike me as a 7-9 team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, SBLIII said:

what does this say about Rodgers if he cannot get it done with the 2nd best roster in the NFL?

It says the ranking they are giving the Pack is too high.  Our depth isn't as great as some suggest.  When we lose a starter the drop-off is significant.

Edited by Pugger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pugger said:

It says the ranking they are giving the Pack is too high.  Our depth isn't as great as some suggest.  When we lose a starter the drop-off is significant.

I think it says a lot more about the head coach than it does Aaron Rodgers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice work. This is essentially measuring how resilient a team is to injury. 

The big takeaway is that Philly is dangerous. Not only are they one of the best teams when you look at starters but they are also resilient to injury including at the QB position. Factor in that they have a top 5/8 QB and can bring the heat off the edge, and it’s obvious the rest of the league is in trouble. 

Edited by SDotNova

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mike23md said:

Unfortunately, without any quantifiable data, this is, a biased opinion. There's nothing wrong with that per se, but it is biased in how @goldfishwars views each roster and how he considers the player. 

For example: I may believe that there is only 2 elite QB's in the NFL (Brady, Rodgers), while he may think there is 4 (Brady, Rodgers, Wentz, Big Ben) the point values could be different because there is no quantifiable data that suggests what makes the QB to fit into that scoring level other than, what he perceives. 

I mean, my Redskins are 14th, but I think about the depth on the roster and there is sooooo much uncertainty at LG, C, RB, WR, TE, ILB, CB, S that I cannot believe that the roster has shaken up to be just above average. It feels like it should be around the 20's. 

Its a cool idea, and I would have posted the results for each team in their forums, then asked for any corrections, opinions, and gathered that. I know the Redskins forum would have been very truthful about whether you are on par or not. 

I did put some loose definitions around the scoring system, it needs development and the criteria can be defined - it's always going to be biased though. I don't know how you would eliminate that, not sure asking fans of teams to rate their own squad is the best approach. Some fans are very pessimistic, others eternally optimistic. 

in terms of the Redskins, I'll tell you how I view the roster and you can tell me where you would disagree. Whilst you might say there is uncertainty at RB, I see four players who can be significant contributors in Derrius Guice, Rob Kelly, Chris Thompson and Samaje Perine. Guice was thought of highly enough to have been a first round draft pick, Thompson has been an excellent 3rd down back and Kelly and Perine have started in the league even if you think the ceiling is low. That's a good depth situation, better than most teams. At Tight End, Jordan Reed is one of the best when healthy, Vernon Davis is still serviceable and people liked Jeremy Sprinkle coming out last year. That's good depth. At edge, the Redskins go four deep in Ryan Kerrigan, Preston Smith, Pernell McPhee and Ryan Anderson. Most teams aren't that deep there. Inside linebacker, Mason Foster and Zach Brown seem a real solid pairing. Plus you have Zach Vigil and Martell Spaight backing them up who have both played meaningful minutes, alongside new draft pick Shaun Dion Hamilton who a lot of people liked coming out and Josh Harvey Clemons who played in ten games last season. 

Corner has Orlando Scandrick who has been a starter throughout this career opposite Josh Norman who was a huge investment last year. Fabian Moreau was a high draft pick a lot of people liked coming out last year (there was some 1st round buzz before his pec injury) , Quinton Dunbar has played significant minutes in the NFL and late round pick Greg Stroman who, was a late round pick, but was a real analyst's darling of a slot corner. D-line looks solid, Allen - Payne - Ioannidis/McGee looks a handful on paper. Receiver can go four deep in Doctson, Crowder, Richardson and Quick. It's not got a headline act, but it could be serviceable and there's a nice blend of skills. Starting five on the offensive line looks fine, I know they've had issues with injuries. There's some name recognition with players looking for spots. 

I don't know, it seems a fairly resilient roster to me. Not a lot of highlights, but not many lowlights either and they have potential to be really dangerous on the defensive front and off the edge. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you use the same preset for each roster in regards to who is considered a "starter"? Using base 3-4/4-3 on defense and 2 WR lineups on offense or did you go nickel and 3 wide given they're the more frequently run sets in the NFL these days?

On teams like the Titans where they have two potential starters at RB, and 3 potential starters at CB(Henry/Lewis at RB, Butler/Ryan/Jackson at CB), who got the starter designations(assuming you're not using nickel to designate starters, if you are the 3 cb comment is already answered)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, goldfishwars said:

in terms of the Redskins, I'll tell you how I view the roster and you can tell me where you would disagree. Whilst you might say there is uncertainty at RB, I see four players who can be significant contributors in Derrius Guice, Rob Kelly, Chris Thompson and Samaje Perine. Guice was thought of highly enough to have been a first round draft pick, Thompson has been an excellent 3rd down back and Kelly and Perine have started in the league even if you think the ceiling is low. That's a good depth situation, better than most teams. At Tight End, Jordan Reed is one of the best when healthy, Vernon Davis is still serviceable and people liked Jeremy Sprinkle coming out last year. That's good depth. At edge, the Redskins go four deep in Ryan Kerrigan, Preston Smith, Pernell McPhee and Ryan Anderson. Most teams aren't that deep there. Inside linebacker, Mason Foster and Zach Brown seem a real solid pairing. Plus you have Zach Vigil and Martell Spaight backing them up who have both played meaningful minutes, alongside new draft pick Shaun Dion Hamilton who a lot of people liked coming out and Josh Harvey Clemons who played in ten games last season. 

Corner has Orlando Scandrick who has been a starter throughout this career opposite Josh Norman who was a huge investment last year. Fabian Moreau was a high draft pick a lot of people liked coming out last year (there was some 1st round buzz before his pec injury) , Quinton Dunbar has played significant minutes in the NFL and late round pick Greg Stroman who, was a late round pick, but was a real analyst's darling of a slot corner. D-line looks solid, Allen - Payne - Ioannidis/McGee looks a handful on paper. Receiver can go four deep in Doctson, Crowder, Richardson and Quick. It's not got a headline act, but it could be serviceable and there's a nice blend of skills. Starting five on the offensive line looks fine, I know they've had issues with injuries. There's some name recognition with players looking for spots. 

I don't know, it seems a fairly resilient roster to me. Not a lot of highlights, but not many lowlights either and they have potential to be really dangerous on the defensive front and off the edge. 

You nailed it, IMO.  We were the most injured team in the league last year, so I think even Redskins fans have a skewed perspective on how good we are when we are at our best and how deep we are when our starters are healthy.  The biggest question with this team in 2018, and, I believe, the deciding factor on whether we make the playoffs or not, will be if our key contributors (Trent, Reed, Norman, Allen) can remain healthy for at least a majority of the season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×