Deepest Team Rankings

[lancerman]

On 5/16/2018 at 10:33 AM, MWil23 said:

Probably that he was hurt last year and some career special teamer couldn't figure out how to recover an onside kick a few years ago. Throw in a decimated WR corps and an average at best defense, all while having a sub par running game, and that should explain a lot.

I don’t know but I think if you are going to be consistently called one of the top QB’s in the league and probably the most physically talented of all time, you should be able to put a game away when your defense hands you six turnovers in arguably the worst player game of the year by the defending champions while their best corner can’t even move his arm. 

[Krauser]

On 2018-05-16 at 8:46 AM, goldfishwars said:

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

This is interesting work, thanks for posting it. 

Trying to understand your scoring system. There’s 10 positional categories, and in theory a team could get 10 points (5+5) in any of them, but am I right in guessing that it’s hard to score better than 8 or 9 at any single position?

I can imagine a 5+3 or 5+4 (Pro Bowl starter with a slight or manageable dropoff to his backup), a 4+3 or 4+4 (future Pro Bowler with slight or manageable dropoff to his backup), or a 3+5 (average starter with no dropoff). 4+5 (future Pro Bowler with no dropoff) seems unlikely, and 5+5 (Pro Bowler with no dropoff) impossible unless you’ve got Steve Young backing up Joe Montana. 

Flip side is that it seems it would be harder to score much lower than 4 (3+1 for average starter with severe dropoff, or 2+2 for below average with significant dropoff, or 1+3 for low level starter with manageable dropoff) at any given position.

If I’ve understood correctly, it’s nearly impossible to score much higher than 85, or lower than 40, so the Eagles 78 is truly superb and the Cards 49 is pretty terrible. 

Can you share some of the highest and lowest graded categories for at least some of your teams? Or highest graded teams at each position? Were there any 9s or 3s?

[EaglesPeteC]

Well, you got the first one right 

[JAF-N72EX]

4 hours ago, EaglesPeteC said:

Well, you got the first one right 

Yeah, he was right in the first sentence. He did look at the projected starters for all 32 teams.

[Ghostnote]

18 hours ago, HTTRG3Dynasty said:

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.

Its not skewed when you have a perspective on how bad the depth is. I mean, LG - no starter. WR - marginal across the board. TE - 33 year old back up to a 91% chance of being injured Jordan Reed. 34 year old Alex Smith is the starting QB with 31 Colt McCoy as the back up. No starter across from Norman at CB, and its not Scandrick, he was brought in to play Slot. Dunbar is very raw. Moreau has no starting minutes. 

Just very skeptical at this team considering that when the injuries hit us, the depth didnt come through and while Cousins did all he could, this team just has no identity and no clear path on what they want to be. 

[HTTRDynasty]

10 minutes ago, mike23md said:

Its not skewed when you have a perspective on how bad the depth is. I mean, LG - no starter. WR - marginal across the board. TE - 33 year old back up to a 91% chance of being injured Jordan Reed. 34 year old Alex Smith is the starting QB with 31 Colt McCoy as the back up. No starter across from Norman at CB, and its not Scandrick, he was brought in to play Slot. Dunbar is very raw. Moreau has no starting minutes. 

Just very skeptical at this team considering that when the injuries hit us, the depth didnt come through and while Cousins did all he could, this team just has no identity and no clear path on what they want to be. 

Every team has holes.  I think the only glaring hole we currently have is at LG, though Nsekhe is an intriguing option. 

I don't really care how old our TE and QBs are for this season.  Delanie Walker is 33 years old as well.  Do you think the Titans should be freaking out that he'll get injured just because of his age?  Vernon Davis has been one of the most durable players since he entered the league.  Smith hasn't missed more than one game in a season since 2012, and most of the games he missed were when he was resting in Week 17 for the playoffs.  Age in and of itself isn't a good reason to significantly downgrade the roster like you seem to want to do.

We'll have a battle between Dunbar and Moreau for CB2.  One of those players - Dunbar - was ranked higher by PFF last year than the CB2 who left, Breeland.  The other player - Moreau - was thought of as a first round talent before he slipped to the 3rd round due to injury, which is a situation we should be familiar with, as the same thing happened with Kendall Fuller.  We had a chance to bring Breeland back via the tender for $2M, and we decided against it.  Clearly, the coaches are confident one of Dunbar or Moreau will be able to step into the CB2 role without much of a drop-off from last year, if any.

We were literally the most injured team in the league last year.  That can't be overstated.  Any team's depth would be exposed in that situation.

[BAConrad]

12 hours ago, HTTRG3Dynasty said:

 

We were literally the most injured team in the league last year.  That can't be overstated.  Any team's depth would be exposed in that situation.

We lost our starting QB (who happened to be playing probably the best football in the league except maybe Brady for the 13 games he was in), All Pro LT , Pro Bowl MLB, Darren Sproles (who is almost by himself our entire ST return game/a featured weapon on O), our other LB for multiple games with Kendricks, our best corner didnt play for the first 10 weeks, not to mention our 2nd round pick Sidney Jones who we essentially redshirted....What else...ummm Ertz missed some games, as did Cox....

We didnt have players dropping like flies or anything. But not having its All Pro LT, or the leader of its defense at MLB, or its #1 corner for most of the year, and then its QB going down late season.....that would typically ruin most teams. Thats where depth comes in. Guys like Rasul Douglas, Corey Clement, Vatai, Beau Allen,  etc all stepping up and playing solid to sometimes very good football in place of their injured teammates. 

The fact that Washington basically looked like a dumpster fire when their key players went down is not a good sign of quality depth. Same with Dallas. If Sean Lee and Tyron Smith go out then their defense and offense both basically crumble. 

[HTTRDynasty]

1 hour ago, BAConrad said:

We lost our starting QB (who happened to be playing probably the best football in the league except maybe Brady for the 13 games he was in), All Pro LT , Pro Bowl MLB, Darren Sproles (who is almost by himself our entire ST return game/a featured weapon on O), our other LB for multiple games with Kendricks, our best corner didnt play for the first 10 weeks, not to mention our 2nd round pick Sidney Jones who we essentially redshirted....What else...ummm Ertz missed some games, as did Cox....

We didnt have players dropping like flies or anything. But not having its All Pro LT, or the leader of its defense at MLB, or its #1 corner for most of the year, and then its QB going down late season.....that would typically ruin most teams. Thats where depth comes in. Guys like Rasul Douglas, Corey Clement, Vatai, Beau Allen,  etc all stepping up and playing solid to sometimes very good football in place of their injured teammates. 

The fact that Washington basically looked like a dumpster fire when their key players went down is not a good sign of quality depth. Same with Dallas. If Sean Lee and Tyron Smith go out then their defense and offense both basically crumble. 

Ok?  We all know the Eagles have the best depth in the league, with good depth at nearly every position. That’s unique to your team alone really.  Even with all those injuries, you were still only ranked 13th in Adjusted Games Lost, while the Redskins ranked dead last at 32nd. Obviously, an injury to your franchise QB has the biggest overall impact, but the sheer breadth of injuries across our team was devastating. The guys that were depth players to our injured starters were getting injured, to the point where we were picking players up off the street and they were being introduced to teammates on a Wednesday before they started that Sunday’s game.  Eventually, you just start running out of players. 

 

By by the way, you kind of left your boy Jroc out on an island in that News and Info thread over in your forum. Was my essay response from a few days ago so great that you lost the heart to offer a rebuttal? 

[CriminalMind]

I agree with Philly being #1 (far and away) as I do think they have strong starters & strong depth

I think there is to much of an "equal\hinderence" weighting on "strong strong + weak depth" compared to "weak starter + strong depth"

I think rules of the max score a non-starter could achieve is the same value as the starter, could more closely align values

[goldfishwars]

On 5/18/2018 at 2:30 AM, Krauser said:

This is interesting work, thanks for posting it. 

Trying to understand your scoring system. There’s 10 positional categories, and in theory a team could get 10 points (5+5) in any of them, but am I right in guessing that it’s hard to score better than 8 or 9 at any single position?

I can imagine a 5+3 or 5+4 (Pro Bowl starter with a slight or manageable dropoff to his backup), a 4+3 or 4+4 (future Pro Bowler with slight or manageable dropoff to his backup), or a 3+5 (average starter with no dropoff). 4+5 (future Pro Bowler with no dropoff) seems unlikely, and 5+5 (Pro Bowler with no dropoff) impossible unless you’ve got Steve Young backing up Joe Montana. 

Flip side is that it seems it would be harder to score much lower than 4 (3+1 for average starter with severe dropoff, or 2+2 for below average with significant dropoff, or 1+3 for low level starter with manageable dropoff) at any given position.

If I’ve understood correctly, it’s nearly impossible to score much higher than 85, or lower than 40, so the Eagles 78 is truly superb and the Cards 49 is pretty terrible. 

Can you share some of the highest and lowest graded categories for at least some of your teams? Or highest graded teams at each position? Were there any 9s or 3s?

Yeah, you've got it. 

Best graded categories (8 or above) combining starters and depth:

Eagles - QB, RB, WR, TE, OL, DL, Edge, 

Packers - QB, OL, DL, CB

Jaguars - DL, Edge, LB, S

Atlanta - RB, WR, Edge, LB, CB

Baltimore (mostly through high depth scores) - TE, OL, DL, Edge, CB

Cincinnati (mostly through high depth scores) - RB, Edge, CB, S

Minnesota (scored lots of 7's) - CB

Pittsburgh - QB, WR, DL

LA Rams - RB, WR, DL, CB

LA Chargers - QB, CB

Tampa Bay - WR, DL CB

New England - RB, WR

Denver - Edge, CB

Washington - DL, Edge

Tennessee - RB, TE, DL

New Orleans - RB, CB

Carolina - DL

Cleveland - None

Miami - S

Kansas City - RB

NYJ - QB

Seattle - LB, S

NYG - RB, WR, 

Indianapolis - QB (assuming Luck back!)

Oakland - RB

Dallas - OL

Chicago - None

Detroit - RB

Houston - None

Buffao - None

San Francisco - DL

Arizona - None

 

Worst graded categories combine (five or less):

Philadelphia - LB

Green Bay - LB, Edge

Jacksonville - QB

Atlanta - None

Baltimore - None

Cincinnati - None

Minnesota - None

Pittsburgh - TE, LB

LA Rams - OL, LB

LA Chargers - RB, OL

Tampa Bay - OL, S

New England - LB, CB

Denver - QB, RB

Washington - QB

Tennessee - WR, CB

New Orleans - TE, LB

Carolina - S

Cleveland - DL, CB

Miami - QB, OL, DL

Kansas City - QB, OL, DL, CB

NYJ - OL, Edge, LB

Seattle - TE, OL, CB

NYG - QB, OL, Edge, LB, S

Indianapolis - RB, WR, CB, S

Oakland - TE, DL, LB

Dallas - TE, DL, WR, S

Chicago - QB, Edge, LB, S

Detroit - QB, TE, DL, Edge, LB

Houston - QB, RB, TE, OL, LB

Buffalo - QB, WR, OL, LB

San Francisco - RB, WR, TE, OL, LB

Arizona - WR, TE, OL, DL, LB, CB, S

[pwny]

On 5/16/2018 at 9:46 AM, goldfishwars said:

3. Jacksonville Jaguars     -     72

This is shocking to me, because I view our depth very poorly. 

[Jakuvious]

22 hours ago, goldfishwars said:

Yeah, you've got it. 

Best graded categories (8 or above) combining starters and depth:

Cincinnati (mostly through high depth scores) - RB

Oakland - RB

Detroit - RB

I feel like some of these rankings just confirm the concerns that I voiced earlier in the thread, that it's going to praise teams with mediocre starters but equally mediocre backups. I'm singling out RB because I think it's a fairly straightforward position group to analyze, there's less players involved, and I think it's a mostly agreed upon position in terms of rankings. And I went with ones I think are clear cut, too, because I almost included Philly/New England, too. But, IMO, if we're ranking these three teams 8+ at RB, there's a flaw with the system. And I believe it's around the way depth is graded here.

But just looking at these three, each of these teams had bad running games last year. Plain and simple. Oakland was the best, at 25th in the NFL, and they're the one of the three that made a major (and I use that term generously) addition at the position group with Doug Martin. The Lions did acquire Kerryon Johnson, but we're being reserved with rookies, per you. But basic point, these were bad running games last year, and each team currently has more or less the same guy atop the depth chart. Cincy still has Bernard/Mixon, Detroit still has Riddick/Abdullah, Oakland still has Lynch. Now I'm a big Theo Riddick fan, and I know some love Joe Mixon next year, but as it stands, I think it is safe to say that all of those players are average or below average starting RBs. Good contributors, but average at best starters. None of them are better than Bell, Gurley, Johnson, Hunt, McCoy, Howard, Ingram, Kamara, Elliott, Lewis, Fournette, Gordon, Freeman, Collins, Henry, Ajayi, and maybe a few others (if we want to quibble over a few there, I'm fine with it, but point stands, average at best.) So I'm assuming each of these guys got 3's for their starters? Because they could not have been worse than a 3, to hit 8 or above. I'd disagree with that, first of all, because some of these are definite 2s for starters, IMO, but that's beside the point that these are units that absolutely are getting higher scores because their backups are equally mediocre as their starters. Because Doug Martin is as bad as Marshawn Lynch, they get a 3+5. Or maybe it's for Jalen Richard? I don't know. Because Mixon is as unproven as Bernard is mediocre, they probably get a 3+5. It just seems like a method that rewards stacked mediocrity. If money is off the table, I would never in a million years take Lynch/Martin/Richard/Washington over Le'Veon Bell, Conner, Toussaint, and Ridley. Bell's greatness outweighs the fact that Martin is slightly closer to proven mediocrity than Conner. I'd take LeSean McCoy, who is great, with some mediocre backups in Ivory and Jones, over Detroit's 4 mediocre RBs.

I get that depth is the point of the thread, but it just feels like a quantity over quality approach, at a glance. You'll get graded higher with a bunch of mediocrity than with a bit of greatness. It leads to things like the set above, and the Jets being one of the 6 teams rated 8+ at QB, the Ravens being a top TE team, etc. I honestly think you'd get a better ranking if you just graded the unit as a whole out of 10, and weighed depth personally, rather than separating the two and setting a standard for grading depth that is partially weighted by the quality of the starters.

I also just straight disagree with some, to be honest. The Jets and Packers both being 8+ in QB seems confusing for opposite reasons. I assume the Packers get 5 at starter, but man they're screwed if Rodgers goes down, so your depth scoring chart should have that as a 1. On the flip side I assume the Jets got a 5 in depth since not much changes if their starter gets hurt, but how one of their QBs is currently an average or better starting QB to get it to 8+ confounds me. I'd really like to know what you see at TE for Baltimore to put them at 8+, given you're being conservative on rookies. Not sure if I missed some addition at CB for the Bucs that puts them up there. Did Hargreaves take a leap? Not seeing the hate for our OL either. Or the Rams OL, for that matter. Though maybe that's just a side effect of there being 11 low graded OLs. Everyone gets crapped on for depth there?