From the article:
To account for these differences, the table below doesn't show the total value of a position group, instead it shows the average positional rank for a player in that teams' position group:
As is to be expected, almost half of the position groups here are marked in yellow, which means they are about average, with a positional value between 60 and 41 points.
Interestingly though, every team looks structurally different. The Redskins are the most balanced team, and although they look like a thoroughly average team in the table above, keep in mind that the table does not contain the ground game, and the Redskins did lead the league in rushing yards. At the same time, what looks like average everywhere also means they have no glaring weakness among their units for opposing teams to exploit.
Given this years results, the Redskins lend credence to the theory it may not be terrible to sacrifice some top level talent and commensurate cap cost in order to have a more similar talent level across the board and perhaps more depth. This doesn't account for their running game but I find it interesting nonetheless.
Scary how low the secondary ranked considering how many cap $$ were allocated there