Average Offensive Starter PFF Scores for NFL

[squire12]

2 hours ago, Golfman said:

You think a lot more of yourself than I do. Anger towards you? No, I actually feel sorry for you. 

 Probably time to check your ego and give the Rodgers rant a rest!  It's run it course and is not nothing more than the sound of a broken record. 

Irony?

[AlexGreen#20]

54 minutes ago, squire12 said:

Irony?

I just know I never want to be accused of derailing a thread again when we've got people posting that. 

[MacReady]

For defense I'm doing 15 players per team.  Typical is:

3 IDL, 4 CB, 3 S, 2 ILB, 3 EDGE. 

Some teams (Bears) I will swap the third EDGE with an ILB or a CB with a S etc. 

So far it's exactly what I'm afraid of.  Our individual performances on defense seem to be well above our actual production. 

Out of 7 teams (Baltimore, Carolina, Chicago, Green Bay, Atlanta, Arizona, Buffalo), our cornerbacks are behind only Baltimore's.  There are some BAD corners out there, and we should consider ourselves fortunate to have had Tramon and Sullivan as our dime and slot guys.  We are 4/7 on IDL so far.  The one noticeable aspect of that is that so far, only the Bills have worse depth along the DL. 

That really reflects Tremaine Edmunds' score, too.  Bad IDL leads to bad ILB.

I'm doing this not because I think PFF is gospel, but I truly believe it can get you the right frame of mind when comparing players and teams and their talent.  There will be some weird things, like Leonard Floyd being rated higher than Preston Smith, but I think those oddities even themselves out.  Z. Smith was rated higher than Mack and that can't be possible because trading two first round picks for Mack cannot possibly have been a mistake. 

I'll get more teams done tonight. 

[Fl0nkerton]

19 hours ago, Golfman said:

You think a lot more of yourself than I do. Anger towards you? No, I actually feel sorry for you. 

 Probably time to check your ego and give the Rodgers rant a rest!  It's run it course and is now nothing more than the sound of a broken record. 

 

AG20:

[MrBobGray]

Feels like a big issue is a lot of people don't have a good sense of what a good receiving corps should look like.  I see it mentioned a lot how far our WR corps has fallen since early in Rodgers career, which is where I feel I should point something out: that receiving corps wasn't merely good, it was one of the better receiving corps in the NFL since the 2004 rule change.  It was also arguably the best receiving corps the Packers have ever had as a franchise.  It had three players who were high end WR1s (Jennings/Driver/Nelson), an elite WR3/very good WR2 (Jones) and an elite slot (Cobb).  Oh, and an elite receiving TE.   

So, is that what people are expecting?  Because if so, bad news hombres: you're going to be very disappointed in likely nearly every receiving corps the Packers ever have again.

If not that, then here's a different question: what does a league average WR2 look like?  I don't mean, who's the most average WR1.  I mean among all the WR2's in the NFL, who most represents what you think is a reasonably attainable goal for your WR2?  And after that, what's a good WR3 look like?  Are you looking for a traditional slot, a big slot, or just a guy who can swap in for either of your other receivers?  

I've found in general a lot of people have strong opinions about what the Packers should have, but they often don't base them off any kind of reasonable metric.  They tend to downplay the talent on the Packers while talking up the rest of the league, despite often not actually knowing anything about literally any other team.  

For me personally, I'd take Watkins, Godwin, Diggs, Landry, Ridley, Woods, Gallup, Boyd,  Marvin Jones, Metcalf, and D. Samuel over Lazard next year for sure.  There's an argument to be made for probably four or five others being probably better but at a smaller scale (Kirk, Curtis Samuel, forgot who else).  So let's say there's 4 of those, that would bring the total to....15.  Which would put Lazard dead in the middle of the pack at 16 as a WR2.  You can probably go as many as 20, but that would still put Lazard outside of the bottom 3rd in the NFL for WR2.  Is a league average to slightly below league average WR2 really why the Packers weren't as productive as people had hoped?  The story's pretty much the same down the rest of the line.  This group wasn't great by any metric, but they also weren't bad.  The receiving talent in the NFL isn't as deep as a lot of people imagine it to be; there's a handful of teams with elite corps, and the rest have to kind of pick and choose.  Sure, the team would be better if it had an elite receiving corps too, but I'm not sure where people are expecting to find the money and draft picks for that while also keeping a good OL and fixing the holes in the defense.

Edited March 9, 2020 by MrBobGray

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

17 minutes ago, MrBobGray said:

Feels like a big issue is a lot of people don't have a good sense of what a good receiving corps should look like.  I see it mentioned a lot how far our WR corps has fallen since early in Rodgers career, which is where I feel I should point something out: that receiving corps wasn't merely good, it was one of the better receiving corps in the NFL since the 2004 rule change.  It was also arguably the best receiving corps the Packers have ever had as a franchise.  It had three players who were high end WR1s (Jennings/Driver/Nelson), an elite WR3/very good WR2 (Jones) and an elite slot (Cobb).  Oh, and an elite receiving TE.   

So, is that what people are expecting?  Because if so, bad news hombres: you're going to be very disappointed in likely nearly every receiving corps the Packers ever have again.

If not that, then here's a different question: what does a league average WR2 look like?  I don't mean, who's the most average WR1.  I mean among all the WR2's in the NFL, who most represents what you think is a reasonably attainable goal for your WR2?  And after that, what's a good WR3 look like?  Are you looking for a traditional slot, a big slot, or just a guy who can swap in for either of your other receivers?  

I've found in general a lot of people have strong opinions about what the Packers should have, but they often don't base them off any kind of reasonable metric.  They tend to downplay the talent on the Packers while talking up the rest of the league, despite often not actually knowing anything about literally any other team.  

For me personally, I'd take Watkins, Godwin, Diggs, Landry, Ridley, Woods, Gallup, Boyd,  Marvin Jones, Metcalf, and D. Samuel over Lazard next year for sure.  There's an argument to be made for probably four or five others being probably better but at a smaller scale (Kirk, Curtis Samuel, forgot who else).  So let's say there's 4 of those, that would bring the total to....15.  Which would put Lazard dead in the middle of the pack at 16 as a WR2.  You can probably go as many as 20, but that would still put Lazard outside of the bottom 3rd in the NFL for WR2.  Is a league average to slightly below league average WR2 really why the Packers weren't as productive as people had hoped?  The story's pretty much the same down the rest of the line.  This group wasn't great by any metric, but they also weren't bad.  The receiving talent in the NFL isn't as deep as a lot of people imagine it to be; there's a handful of teams with elite corps, and the rest have to kind of pick and choose.  Sure, the team would be better if it had an elite receiving corps too, but I'm not sure where people are expecting to find the money and draft picks for that while also keeping a good OL and fixing the holes in the defense.

Does this beg the question of whether the team can get to the promised land with the current group?

It is fine to defend Lazard as a league average #2, but can the team be a superbowl winning team with a league average #2?  Easy to be a league average team with league average players, not so easy to win the superbowl with them.

I agree that the team doesn't likely have the money and picks to definitively fill every hole.  Ted Thompson alway said, and I think he is right, that to win in the NFL teams need young players that step up and out perform their rookie contract and draft position because of the realities of salary cap and draft numbers.

Both situations can be right.  Lazard may have performed as a league average number 2, but either he or someone else will need to significantly improve in unexpected ways if the team is to get over the top, in my opinion. 

[MrBobGray]

1 hour ago, Ragnar Danneskjold said:

Does this beg the question of whether the team can get to the promised land with the current group?

It is fine to defend Lazard as a league average #2, but can the team be a superbowl winning team with a league average #2?  Easy to be a league average team with league average players, not so easy to win the superbowl with them.

I agree that the team doesn't likely have the money and picks to definitively fill every hole.  Ted Thompson alway said, and I think he is right, that to win in the NFL teams need young players that step up and out perform their rookie contract and draft position because of the realities of salary cap and draft numbers.

Both situations can be right.  Lazard may have performed as a league average number 2, but either he or someone else will need to significantly improve in unexpected ways if the team is to get over the top, in my opinion. 

If you need elite talent at all position groups to get the Superbowl, you need to fire your coaching staff immediately, and also you're never getting to the Superbowl.  There's simply no way to build a team that doesn't have weaknesses given the salary cap and number of players on a roster.  The Packers had an elite OL, an elite RB group, an elite WR1, and an elite pass rush.  If you also have an elite QB, in what world does that not sound like a Superbowl caliber team?  An elite QB raises the value of the talent around them, that's what makes them elite.  This receiving group being slightly below average is about as good as a team can be expected to do given the salary cap and the need to fill the premiums first.  Could improvements be made there?  Absolutely, and they would help.  But Rodgers is being paid $30 million; if he needs ever increasing help with that price tag, A) that's impossible mathematically to make happen without absolutely posterizing the league in the draft and B) what on Earth are you actually paying all that money for?

Edited March 9, 2020 by MrBobGray

[coachbuns]

2 minutes ago, MrBobGray said:

If you need elite talent at all position groups to get the Superbowl, you need to fire your coaching staff immediately, and also you're never getting to the Superbowl period.  There's simply no way to build a team that doesn't have weaknesses given the salary cap and number of players on a roster.  The Packers had an elite OL, an elite RB group, an elite WR1, and an elite pass rush.  If you also have an elite QB, in what world does that not sound like a Superbowl caliber team?  An elite QB raises the value of the talent around them, that's what makes them elite.  This receiving group being slightly below average is about as good as a team can be expected to do given the salary cap and the need to fill the premiums first.  Could improvements be made there?  Absolutely, and they would help.  But Rodgers is being paid $30 million; if he needs ever increasing help with that price tag, A) that's impossible mathematically to make happen without absolutely posterizing the league in the draft and B) what on Earth are you actually paying all that money for?

This is all true except Rodgers is NOT elite any more.  Yup, I said it ... he isn't elite any more ... he's top 10 but can't carry a team like when he was in his prime.  Age, injuries and a  new offense have all contributed to his decline.   Another year in the new offense will hopefully help Rodgers with his skills/confidence.  However, he's not top 3 elite anymore, Packers still have him as their QB ... now what?  Draft a premium position in the 1st,  a wr in the 2nd and more premiums after.  Sign a couple middle quality free agents on defense and let the chips fall as they may.    

[Shanedorf]

3 hours ago, MrBobGray said:

An elite QB raises the value of the talent around them, that's what makes them elite.

Indeed
One component of being an elite QB is having an elite understanding of the offense and concepts and where everybody is at any given moment
In year 1 of a new offense with a new playcaller and a new OC and a new QB coach, its at least possible that some of your elite-ness would take some time to come to fruition. Brian Billick talked about the challenges of learning a new language and he said its really hard in a classroom environment and the degree of difficulty goes up exponentially when you're on the field and trying to adjust to the defenses' adjustments.

As with everything in football, its always multi-factorial and all I am suggesting is that there may be some dropoff in eliteness experienced during the transition from an offense you ran for 13 years and one you and your team-mates just learned. We'll see how that plays out in 2020 and beyond

 

[Shanedorf]

Here's a quote from May 2019:

"Rodgers wants to know as much of the offense as possible, as well, before the six-week break before training camp. 

“It took three years for the West Coast Offense,” Rodgers said. “I think it’s probably a lot quicker learning curve having played 11 seasons as the starter, but kind of personally I’d like to feel really good about it by the end of minicamp leaving here in June and feel good coming back in training camp and being able to spit plays out formationally with motions and concepts quickly and understand all the checks and intricacies of the offense. That’s kind of the expectation.”

 

I don't think he fully achieved his goal, AR and MLF went to the wrist band at some point during the regular season to speed up the play calling
MLF also said he's re-doing some of the language to make the play calls shorter than last year. Cliff notes are coming

[MacReady]

I'm dropping out on doing the defense.  It's too tedious. 

I'd recommend people look at the scores though if they have time.  I was pleased to find that Savage wasn't far off from other starting safeties.

ILB is almost exclusively at the 50-60 range except for some of the really talented ones. 

Our situation at IDL is dire comparatively. 

[coachbuns]

51 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

I'm dropping out on doing the defense.  It's too tedious. 

I'd recommend people look at the scores though if they have time.  I was pleased to find that Savage wasn't far off from other starting safeties.

ILB is almost exclusively at the 50-60 range except for some of the really talented ones. 

Our situation at IDL is dire comparatively. 

Sign a minimum of 2 IDL in free agency. Mid level starters who can anchor are needed.

[HighCalebR]

I think you get 1 good starter to take over the 3 and we could be in business. Pushes Lancaster to reserve, Keke gets into the rotation with Dean. Things will look better. Need one guy who is capable of holding doubles and at LEAST pushes a pocket. Getting 2 middling FA players doesn't do much in there for me. 

[Mox]

Cowboys, Buccaneers, Lions, Chiefs, Texans, Rams, Falcons, Browns

Vikings, 49ers, Steelers, Chargers, Bengals

Maybe: Jaguars, Bears, Colts

[MacReady]

59 minutes ago, Bullet Club said:

Cowboys, Buccaneers, Lions, Chiefs, Texans, Rams, Falcons, Browns

Vikings, 49ers, Steelers, Chargers, Bengals

Maybe: Jaguars, Bears, Colts

Wassat?