Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
rcon14

Positional Value Study

Recommended Posts

From PackersNews:

"The Packers tied for eighth in the NFL with 44 sacks, and a big reason was their defensive line. Led by Clark’s six, the Packers' defensive line accounted for 12.5 sacks in 2018. Inside linebacker Blake Martinez had five sacks, and he said a contributing factor was the attention opponents paid to the defensive line. That might not seem like much on its own (it ranks about middle of the pack in the league), but given the injuries that hit the position, there’s good reason to think that production will increase in 2019. For a team lacking in edge rush, it helps to start from a basis of quality interior pressure "

 

Of course its all intertwined and as we try to tease out the relative positional values, its worth remembering that these positions don't operate in isolation.
Having a top DL helps the LBs immensely - both in terms of keeping them clean and in terms of creating the pincer effect required for a killer pass rush. If you only have speed demons bending the edge, the OTs will just push them wide. Need that consistent push up the middle too

So it would appear that GB needs (1) speed demon + (1) stouter edge-setter, plus another interior DL to make this pass rush impactful game in and game out
Most here have the Packers cutting Perry - and for good reasons. But the Packers are also blessed in having one of the best ankle specialists on the planet working across the street from Lambeau Field. IF the 2018 ankle injury is the key decider, then the Packers have the capability to find out.
IF his entire body is just too broken down, then its time to move on and that helps focus the offseason needs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only issue I'll take with this is that it fails to take into account that there are multiple WRs on the field for each team.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Only issue I'll take with this is that it fails to take into account that there are multiple WRs on the field for each team.  

I used 40 WRs in my study versus 20 for positions with only one starter. Now, could you say I should use 60 because 11 personnel is pretty much standard now? Yeah, I think so, but it becomes hard to find meaningful veteran salaries at that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, rcon14 said:

I used 40 WRs in my study versus 20 for positions with only one starter. Now, could you say I should use 60 because 11 personnel is pretty much standard now? Yeah, I think so, but it becomes hard to find meaningful veteran salaries at that point.

Which I think has its own conclusive merits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AlexGreen#20 said:

Which I think has its own conclusive merits.

I think it certainly can, but it also becomes hard to tell how much of it is based on rookie deals being a higher percentage share of particular roster spots, which is an additional thing I think would be advantageous to look at long-term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2018 Franchise Tag numbers

Defensive End - 17.143 million
Defensive Tackle – $13.939 million
Linebacker – $14.961 million

2018 Transition Tag numbers

Defensive End – $14.2 million
Defensive Tackle – $11.407 million
Linebacker – $12.81 million

The numbers will look different in 2019, after including the impact of Khalil Mack's and Aaron Donald's monster deals into the league formula

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shanedorf said:

2018 Franchise Tag numbers

Defensive End - 17.143 million
Defensive Tackle – $13.939 million
Linebacker – $14.961 million

2018 Transition Tag numbers

Defensive End – $14.2 million
Defensive Tackle – $11.407 million
Linebacker – $12.81 million

The numbers will look different in 2019, after including the impact of Khalil Mack's and Aaron Donald's monster deals into the league formula

Problem with the linebacker number is it likely includes many guys we would consider EDGE players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, rcon14 said:

Problem with the linebacker number is it likely includes many guys we would consider EDGE players.

The franchise tag numbers simply haven't kept up with positional values and the increased specialization in the NFL
They still consider all Ofensive Lineman the same and all LB's the same. That's why some players have fought their designation, including Jimmy Graham
Maybe the next CBA will update the categories to reflect the current state of affairs.
That would will help some players, hurt others so not sure how hard the NFLPA will fight for it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Only issue I'll take with this is that it fails to take into account that there are multiple WRs on the field for each team.  

That was one of my biggest knocks.  On average, there's 2-3 WRs on a field for any given play.  There's only 1 LT on the field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

That was one of my biggest knocks.  On average, there's 2-3 WRs on a field for any given play.  There's only 1 LT on the field.

One thing I think we can struggle to properly value is that WR1 reduces WR2 value and then WR3 value. Whereas you can have two great EDGE and they don't take away from each other. I'm not completely sure how to quantify that, but it's something to consider with WRs in particular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, rcon14 said:

One thing I think we can struggle to properly value is that WR1 reduces WR2 value and then WR3 value. Whereas you can have two great EDGE and they don't take away from each other. I'm not completely sure how to quantify that, but it's something to consider with WRs in particular.

A more enterprising endeavor could be to determine cost/snap at those positions. Just a thought

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a link to some work by Warren Sharp via twitter

"The Steelers are the best WR-drafting team out of the 28 that drafted more than 5 WRs the last 10 years in rd 1-6. Of the 28, they've received the most production/WR-year & they've received the most value vs draft capital risked.
Summary & detail table: ( Packers ranked 3rd in this metric)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DzOoxbyXgAUlokr.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DzOozXHWkAETcWH.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2019 at 12:13 PM, rcon14 said:

One thing I think we can struggle to properly value is that WR1 reduces WR2 value and then WR3 value. Whereas you can have two great EDGE and they don't take away from each other. I'm not completely sure how to quantify that, but it's something to consider with WRs in particular.

I mean, that kinda goes without saying.  But you're talking about trying to compare an elite WR to a non-elite WR.  It'd be like comparing an elite LT to a non-elite LT.  There should be a drop off in terms of the $$$.

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
Sign in to follow this  



×