Your top-10 teams headed into this season?

[Dr A W Niloc]

8 hours ago, MSURacerDT55 said:

I just don't understand the idea of using last season's numbers as an iron clad way of projecting the future

Agreed, which is why we use a previous year's numbers only as a starting point, adjusting based on what has changed since:  primarily personnel, strength of schedule, and coaching (if different).

[Hunter2_1]

1. Mahomes's Marauders 

2. The Brady Bunch

3. A-rod's Hostages

4. The Finally Liberated from Goffs

5. Can you Diggs it?

6. Mayfield of Dreams

7. Lamar the Merrier

8. Kittle Big Town

9. The Golden Metcalves

10. Titan Your B-hole..

 

Bored at work. 

[Emerica]

On 8/23/2021 at 9:47 PM, buno67 said:

hard for me to call Baltimore a tier 1 team when they are going to have a pretty below avg OL, potential at WR, and and some ?s with their front 7 like can Oweh get sacks. 

See a lot of love for Mia, hard for me to get on that bandwagon until Tua proves it

They were 10-6 with a rookie Tua who was average with literally no weapons on offense for most of his GP. If he takes even a marginal step up I don't see why its hard to think they'll improve. Maybe not top-2 in the league but the defense is legit. The entire season is going to revolve around an improved offense.

[BigTrav]

Meh OLine and meh QB keep them out my top 10. Top 15 though, sure.

[Ozzy]

On 8/22/2021 at 10:48 AM, Dr A W Niloc said:

       By being better at almost every other position, including all five O-Linemen, and by having ridiculously soft positional schedules, starting with the NFL's most compliant opponents at QB, WR, and TE [compared to K.C.'s 22nd, 30th, and 20th, respectively].  And by being handed Mac Jones at the 15th pick, of course.

      You might be right.  Kansas City could easily drop because of Buffalo and Baltimore, to say nothing of the Chief's across-the-board tougher positional schedules.

      Cleveland did, in fact, have the best offensive roster in 2020, with which they finished 7th (DVOA) in running against the 7th softest defenders and 10th in passing against the 12th (QB) and 9th (WR) most generous coverages.  How will they fare in 2021 against the league's toughest?  The less said about their defense (25th) the better.  They did draft well, though.

      The Rams have a great defensive backfield (CBs:9th, Safeties:3rd).  Edubam (PFF:86th) and Fox (84th) were warm bodies;  the Rams are third in pass rush with or without them.  The "loss" of Everett (35th) means they'll have to play their real TE, Tyler Higbee (PFF:24th, FPPG:20th), more.  Ditto for Darrell Henderson (PFF:12th, FPPG:35th) instead of Cam Akers (33rd, 44th).

      The consensus of the three rating services I monitor has 12-4 Seattle's O-Line at 14th.  Two had them at 22nd and 23rd in 2020--not terrible and, by far, the best we've seen in a while.  The most predictive [albeit the most optimistic] of those snapshots puts them at 7th right now.  The Seahawks offense was 9th (DVOA) in the air and 6th on the ground in 2020 so where will they be with an improved O-Line and slightly easier RB and WR schedules?  As for their draft (which is rarely impressive, even when entering sooner than 56th), keep an eye on WR D'Wayne Eskridge once he is 100%.

     Given the nasty turn in their positional schedules, six wins would be surprising.  Justin Fields has looked very good so far, though.  I can't remember the last time I said that about a Bears QB!

I guess you and I differ in the fact I am looking at specific players and how talented they are and what weaknesses the roster has in terms of starters and in terms of depth positionally.  You apparently are looking a lot at group rankings during the season where that has almost zero factor in what teams I think will be good next year because I am basing it off the individual rosters and who is the most talented.  Not who they play in terms of competition or how they were statistically ranked as a unit last year.

 

On 8/22/2021 at 6:35 PM, BayRaider said:

My list will certainly look different than most, I have a Packers vs Dolphins Super Bowl this year. 
 

1. Packers

2. Dolphins

3. Chiefs (they will have the best record in football though, as always)

4. 49ers

5. Buccaneers

6. Rams

7. Ravens

8. Browns

9. Bills

10. Falcons

I would have the Colts around #6 or 7 if Wentz didn’t get injured, but not sure they will recover from that. Titans will probably win the South at 10-7, maybe even 9-8. 
 

I think the Falcons will be solid this year, offense is gonna be great even without Julio. 

The Falcons?  Aren't they arguably the worst roster in the NFL right now on paper?  Outside of Ridley they do not have much depth at WR, and at RB who the hell knows.  Sure Patterson and Pitts will give them something no doubt but that defense is potentially terrible.  Who is going to get after the QB?  And outside of Deion Jones that LB core is pretty weak and has been for awhile.  What Fowler is the big threat in a new 3/4 defense, not sure I see it and not sure they have the players to play such a defense.

At DB is the worst part, Terrell has some potential but overall that CB group is pretty suspect.  Then at safety they what rely on Erik Harris to be some super star, that or rely on Richie Grant to be an awesome safety as a rookie and same with JR Pace?  

They got talent on offense with Pitts sure and Matt Ryan still has something left in the tank.  But honestly not sure in terms of young and depth there is any roster that is worse off than the Falcons but I could be wrong.  Sure Houston could be really bad since Watson might be out but they still have some decent players, but sure they could be right there with the Falcons in terms of bad rosters.  

 

Sure maybe some could say the Lions but they are pretty damn talented, on D with Collins, Okwara and Brockers then have Trey Flowers who could be good in that new 3/4 D.  Secondary needs to improve but that OL is damn solid with Sewell, Decker, Ragnow, Vaitai and Jackson.  Then got Hockenson and Fells at TE, Swift at RB and Goff is not terrible at QB.  Sure Falcons with Pitts and Ridley might have better weapons if only looking at two players but still.

I would be shocked if the Falcons are a top 10 team in the NFL this year and in the playoffs then obviously.

[buno67]

21 hours ago, Emerica said:

They were 10-6 with a rookie Tua

Ah so we giving Fitz zero credit? Tua didn’t win all those games. Tua got pulled from the raiders game and Fitz was the reason Miami won that game but Tua got that credit for the win. 
 

Miami now plays a tougher scheduler. Tua still has a lot to prove before Miami is considered a true contender IMO. Great defense or not, this is a QB driven league and you know thst 

[SBLIII]

I would put Miami and NE in the same league, just outside the top 10 but very capable to be a top 10 team this year.

[BigTrav]

4 minutes ago, SBLIII said:

I would put Miami and NE in the same league, just outside the top 10 but very capable to be a top 10 team this year.

I agree with this.

If I'm doing a top 20 I probably go

KC

TB

GB

LAR

BUF

LAC

SEA

BAL

CLE

SF

TEN, NO, NE, MIA, PIT, IND, DAL, WAS, ARZ, ATL

 

[Dr A W Niloc]

20 hours ago, Ozzy said:

I guess you and I differ in the fact I am looking at specific players

 

     Football being a team game one needs to look at all of the players (e.g. aggregates of PFF or DVOA individual ratings) and how the team plays as a unit (e.g. team DVOAs, Win/Loss records), weighing players at critical positions (e.g. QB) appropriately.  That gives you an image of the team's intrinsic value (i.e. as if it were always playing an average opponent).  

1. Buffalo 14
2. Tampa Bay 13 wins
3. Kansas City 13 wins
4. New Orleans 12 wins
5. Seattle 12 wins
6. Green Bay 12 wins
7. New England 11 wins
8. San Francisco 11 wins
9. L.A. Rams 11 wins
10. Miami 10 wins

     That forms a baseline.  Now you look at the positional and Win/Loss schedules to see how well this team [has played and/or] is likely to play against adversaries on par with this year's opponents.  You need to  account for teams whose relative success relied on key players who have left (e.g. drop Miami in the wake of FitzMagic unless Tua is equal or better).  You might also factor in extraneous quantifiables such as [in]ability to avoid injuries (which could drop S.F. out of the top 10), management, cohesion, experience, coaching, etc.  Find an objective metric you like.

     If we only look at star players we'll be at a loss to explain how some teams win multiple Super Bowls without having many players in Pro Bowls.

[Ozzy]

3 minutes ago, Dr A W Niloc said:

     Football being a team game one needs to look at all of the players (e.g. aggregates of PFF or DVOA individual ratings) and how the team plays as a unit (e.g. team DVOAs, Win/Loss records), weighing players at critical positions (e.g. QB) appropriately.  That gives you an image of the team's intrinsic value (i.e. as if it were always playing an average opponent).  

1. Buffalo 14
2. Tampa Bay 13 wins
3. Kansas City 13 wins
4. New Orleans 12 wins
5. Seattle 12 wins
6. Green Bay 12 wins
7. New England 11 wins
8. San Francisco 11 wins
9. L.A. Rams 11 wins
10. Miami 10 wins

     That forms a baseline.  Now you look at the positional and Win/Loss schedules to see how well this team [has played and/or] is likely to play against adversaries on par with this year's opponents.  You need to  account for teams whose relative success relied on key players who have left (e.g. drop Miami in the wake of FitzMagic unless Tua is equal or better).  You might also factor in extraneous quantifiables such as [in]ability to avoid injuries (which could drop S.F. out of the top 10), management, cohesion, experience, coaching, etc.  Find an objective metric you like.

     If we only look at star players we'll be at a loss to explain how some teams win multiple Super Bowls without having many players in Pro Bowls.

Who is this team that won the Super Bowl without many Pro Bowl level players?  Every team that has won the Super bowl in the last 10+ years has been littered with talent, sure maybe not the most Pro bowlers on any one team in the NFL that season but they all have multiple Pro bowl players and most likely a few on defense and a few on offense.  Name me this team in the last 10 years that won with crap players?  

Take 2005 Pittsburgh Steelers, were what a 6th seed and won the Super bowl, they only had a HOF QB, a HOF safety and a HOF RB along with Ike Taylor, James Harrison, Joey Porter, Casey Hampton, James Farrior, Aaron Smith, Heath Miller, Antwaan Randle El, and Hines Ward.  PS Ward might be in the HOF potentially...  

 

I do not look at PFF or DVOA individual ratings because I think that is a kind of lazy way to evaluate players, just look at what someone else says and bring it off as your own opinion.  See what some computer algorithm decides?  No thanks.  I also do not take into account previous wins the season before, sure it matters a bit as the trajectory of the team potentially but each season is a new one obviously.

 

I still say you are nuts to not have the Browns in the top 10 teams in the NFL, much less have the Chiefs and Bills so low.

 

[Kiwibrown]

1. TB

2. KC

3. GB

4. Browns

5. Rams

6. Ravens

7. Bills

8. 9ers

10. Titans

[rocky_rams]

How does anyone think a Joe Barry led GB defense will have them as a top 5 team in the league lol 

[SBLIII]

3 hours ago, rocky_rams said:

How does anyone think a Joe Barry led GB defense will have them as a top 5 team in the league lol 

The same way a Bob Sutton led KC defense had them as a top 5 team.

[CP3MVP]

8 hours ago, SBLIII said:

The same way a Bob Sutton led KC defense had them as a top 5 team.

The Bob Sutton who has actually good defenses?

[Ozzy]

In terms of pure depth at every position, could have the best roster vs the worst roster tonight with Cleveland vs Atlanta.  Sure Atlanta could be good but top to bottom that roster has a lot of holes in it I feel.