Tim Couch Pulls Out Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 This article is fantastic. http://espn.go.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/12179331/how-many-players-away-super-bowl-team?ex_cid=sportscenterFB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiamat63 Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 Alex Mack and Haden are "average" players? You're fucking with me, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browns149 Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 Haden is above average, but he is NOT elite Mack was elite but after the injury he's a ?????? to answer the question, we are 3 players away QB, being the BIGGEST Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 Seems like they were tough on grading some of the Browns but if they used the same measuring stick on all the teams the bottom line is the Browns are ranked 7th and believed to be one of the better teams talent wise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 you can't make a true assessment as to how many players away we are until we have multiyear coaching consistency. Offensively we're going to be changing yet again so just as an example, we had a pretty good running game going this past year but if the new offensive scheme doesn't fit our current RB's...than that's a position that we may have to look at again next offseason. You just don't know..stupid to even talk about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 Ha!! they rated both our RB's as "bad". What in the hell. Ok..well ill take those two "bad" RB's over a whole lot of backfields in the NFL right now. JFC Espn is annoying as sin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagitron Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 All these rankings are based on certain metrics. Its not just the eye test. I think its a solid article but not one I'd put a ton of stock in personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Couch Pulls Out Posted January 26, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 All these rankings are based on certain metrics. Its not just the eye test. I think its a solid article but not one I'd put a ton of stock in personally. Is that because the Steelers are ranked 11th? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manzier Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 did anyone even read it??? its based on PFF ratings and then explains why some had low ratings. and pff ratings are about the most objective ratings out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickers Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 Is that because the Steelers are ranked 11th? of course it is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 did anyone even read it??? its based on PFF ratings and then explains why some had low ratings. and pff ratings are about the most objective ratings out there. did anyone even read it??? its based on PFF ratings and then explains why some had low ratings. and pff ratings are about the most objective ratings out there. I can't believe PFF would have Mack rated as average. Maybe his 5 game score ranks average over the span of 16 games, but on a per-game average he's got to be at least good if not elite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 How many guys on a roster? That's how far away we are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itoldyou Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 A lot more now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 Entertaining read... Although my Browns' estimate of 6 is close to the article's 5, I do not see how the article arrives at the final number of players a team is away from contending. Ditto for a handful of other teams I read. But the obvious flaw in trying to boil down to one number is that positions are not created equal. Either that or imposing a difference PFF's data does not support is my problem. Also not clear is the weighting for depth vs. starters. Since 30+ players are listed per team I assume some depth is being considered as the only alternative would be STs, but no Kickers or Punters are evaluated. I did love this: "(Mack) allowed just one QB pressure in 149 pass-rush snaps; his replacements allowed an average of one pressure every 17.7 snaps." Most succinct explanation of Mack's loss I've seen. But does not square with his inclusion in the "average" column. PFF simply must not allow games missed due to injury to be discounted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 I don't know exactly how many players we are away from being a SB contender......but let's be fair, regardless, we all know what this team needs: A. An elite QB B. An elite RB C. An elite WR D. An elite LB Look at it this way: The Steelers were 11-5 where the Browns were 7-9 based on the contributions of just 3 players: BR/Brown/Bell Now, I think the Browns can do OK at RB with the guys we have. But with Gordon clearly out of the picture we now have no prospect for an elite WR. And we have Manziel and Connor Shaw....and maybe the return of Brian Hoyer. Sometimes it is not the how many.....but the "how quality" of player that you have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 I like the idea of this article but some of the conclusions are idiotic and self-contradictory. They rate Alex Mack as average yet state: Cleveland averaged 146.4 rushing yards per game in Weeks 1-6 with Mack in the lineup (third-best over that span). That plummeted to 90.6 (23rd overall) when Mack missed the final 11 games with a broken leg. And then, Joe Haden: placing Haden outside of the good or elite categories defies common sense. The biggest conclusion I make from all this is Pro Football Focus has problems with the way it evaluates players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 Other than the positions you listed and that they need to be "elite", I agree, Gip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 The biggest conclusion I make from all this is Pro Football Focus has problems with the way it evaluates players. They were ESPN staff comments on PFF's findings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudfly Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 The biggest conclusion I make from all this is Pro Football Focus has problems with the way it evaluates players. they dont really "rate players" on a scale of best to worst....... they rate the players "performance for a year" then compare the score to other players at the same position..... Mack only played 5 games....stands to reason that "his season" rated below most other centers, simply because he didn't play.. And Haden started very slowly, scoring low his first 5 games or so....so, even though he finished strong, his season as a whole was not as good as some others..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 they dont really "rate players" on a scale of best to worst....... they rate the players "performance for a year" then compare the score to other players at the same position..... Mack only played 5 games....stands to reason that "his season" rated below most other centers, simply because he didn't play.. And Haden started very slowly, scoring low his first 5 games or so....so, even though he finished strong, his season as a whole was not as good as some others..... I assumed the same about mack - over a season, not so great, but 'per game' elite. Haden got a pretty big positive score in the last 10 games of the season to wipe out his negatives in the first 6 I would have thought - anybody got the numbers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudfly Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 I assumed the same about mack - over a season, not so great, but 'per game' elite. Haden got a pretty big positive score in the last 10 games of the season to wipe out his negatives in the first 6 I would have thought - anybody got the numbers? Yep....right in the first paragraph it says any player with less than 250 snaps cannot be ranked as good or elite....so there's mack right there(not enough snaps to even rank)........ And, I think we forget how off his game Haden was early on.....yes, he really got it together later, but Id guess that playing poorly for a full 1/3 of the season would be enough to knock him from good to average..... In the end, this all bodes well for us.....as we know we have players who have skills & potential beyond these rankings...Mack, Haden, Crow and West quickly come to mind..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 Other than the positions you listed and that they need to be "elite", I agree, Gip. In other words, you disagree with everything I said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 In other words, you disagree with everything I said. I think that was the gist of it, yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudfly Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 A. An elite QB B. An elite RB C. An elite WR D. An elite LB Other than the positions you listed and that they need to be "elite", I agree, Gip. If we're using the OP's article and their ratings for "elite", then Im with Tour.....considering there are only 64 elite players listed(2 per team), which means the top 2 or 3 players at each position..... Nope....based upon this article, we only need "good"...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 Yep....right in the first paragraph it says any player with less than 250 snaps cannot be ranked as good or elite....so there's mack right there(not enough snaps to even rank)........ And, I think we forget how off his game Haden was early on.....yes, he really got it together later, but Id guess that playing poorly for a full 1/3 of the season would be enough to knock him from good to average..... In the end, this all bodes well for us.....as we know we have players who have skills & potential beyond these rankings...Mack, Haden, Crow and West quickly come to mind..... I think if that's the criteria, it's probably a bit unfair. But yeah, Crowell/West makes a pretty good RB duo, Mack is a top center, and Haden is as good as anyone not named Sherman/Peterson. So...we're only 3 players away? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Couch Pulls Out Posted January 26, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 I think if that's the criteria, it's probably a bit unfair. But yeah, Crowell/West makes a pretty good RB duo, Mack is a top center, and Haden is as good as anyone not named Sherman/Peterson. So...we're only 3 players away? That's how I've seen it all year. An ILB, a pass rushing OLB, and a QB away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudfly Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 I think if that's the criteria, it's probably a bit unfair. But yeah, Crowell/West makes a pretty good RB duo, Mack is a top center, and Haden is as good as anyone not named Sherman/Peterson. So...we're only 3 players away? 3 good players at the right spots?......YES!......I would agree completely......shore up the defense and get the O back on track and we are contending But unfair?....I dont think so at all.....it's just an objective performance ranking for one year(2014)(not a skill, talent or potential ranking)....each player gets a grade each game....the grades accumulate over a season to create a score.....it's simple and very fair, really.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 I think that was the gist of it, yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagitron Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 Is that because the Steelers are ranked 11th? I like PFF but its ranked using specific metrics and the steelers are ranked 11th because they don't factor potential, they rate on field performance. Shazier barely played. Jarvis Jones and stephon tuitt the same. Its what have you done for me lately and in this instance how it should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagitron Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 did anyone even read it??? its based on PFF ratings and then explains why some had low ratings. and pff ratings are about the most objective ratings out there. This. People aren't very smart. Nickers the revolting blob least of lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.