Let's grade the team

[sonnyboy]

Originally Posted by Cogan

It's kind of scary to see that both of you rated both fronts as the weakest part of the team. That's where games are won & lost. I would give the DF a higher grade, say 88. The competition will be greater, with Crawford & Wilbur in the mix. Plus, ILB will be greatly upgraded, with Lee improving & Carter finally being healthy and having a full camp under his belt.

Sadly, I agree that the OL is suspect on the interior. That the Cowboys drafted NO interior linemen, depending instead on two yeomen free agents, really surprised me. I would give it a 75, hoping either Leary or Adcock to come to the forefront. I don't expect Arkin to start-too small & weak. Whatever happened to Bill Nagy? I never hear his named mentioned as someone in the mix.

Anyway, they better get that worked out, or Romo and the running game is in for a long season.

This is mostly why I did this. To attempt to dispel this myth or at the very least attempt to quantify it.

[sonnyboy]

Originally Posted by DFWJC

Without giving it a ton of thought, I got this:

QBs_________ .17 ___ 94
RB/FBs_______ .07 ___90
WR/TEs______ .11 ___92
OLs_________ .15 ___79

DLs (3-4)____ .12 ___82
OLBs________ .14 ___93
ILBs_________ .10 __ 88
DBs_________ .14 ___ 87

88.08

I'm sure it would be different if I spent more time. Plus Special Teams is huge, so we need that in therte somewhere.

This is an attempt to rate the whole roster broken down by units. Not just Romo, but Romo and Orton. So you get into the depth that will make up most of the special teams. Of course I'm not accounting for P and K or the staff.

I like what you did here breaking down the dfensive front. But I can't see OLBs carrying a weight equal to the DBs. I go more like this.......


QBs_________ .14 ___ 94
RB/FBs_______ .07 ___90
WR/TEs______ .11 ___92
OLs_________ .18 ___79

DLs (3-4)____ .13 ___82
OLBs________ .11 ___93
ILBs_________ .08 __ 88
DBs_________ .18 ___ 87

[DFWJC]

Originally Posted by sonnyboy

This is an attempt to rate the whole roster broken down by units. Not just Romo, but Romo and Orton. So you get into the depth that will make up most of the special teams. Of course I'm not accounting for P and K or the staff.

I like what you did here breaking down the dfensive front. But I can't see OLBs carrying a weight equal to the DBs. I go more like this.......


QBs_________ .14 ___ 94
RB/FBs_______ .07 ___90
WR/TEs______ .11 ___92
OLs_________ .18 ___79

DLs (3-4)____ .13 ___82
OLBs________ .11 ___93
ILBs_________ .08 __ 88
DBs_________ .18 ___ 87

I agree. I did do it by units and depth.
I do thing the OLBs are huge in a 3-4. But with 2 starters vs 4 DBs I agree the weight should lean toward the later slightly.

[JoeyBoy718]

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding this, but the percentage next to the position is supposed to indicate how much that position has to do with the team's overall chance of winning the game? And yet people are giving QB something like 14%. I would say arguably the three best teams in the league the past few seasons, the Patriots, Packers and Saints, all had clearly the best QBs in the league and some of the other positions, which people argue are so valuable, were quite awful. I just think the way the NFL is, that the QB position is much more valuable than 14%. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the ratings.

[Cowboy Junkie]

I am a little lazy so I will grade them differently..
one magazine I get every year grades postions 1-5 so I will grade 1-10


QB- 9.5
RB- 9.0
TE-7.0
WR-8.0
OL- 5.0

DL- 6.5
LB - 7.5
CBs -10.
S - 4.0

k- 8.
p - I

Coaching -8.0


A few notes ...

I considered depth at positions.
I do not think any time has a better starter and back up QB in the league.

Punter got an incomplete from me because of Mcbriar's injury

Wrs and TE's couldve rated higher but they lack depth.
by years end I believe this could be best coaching staff in NFL but that depends on the growth of Garrett

[sonnyboy]

Originally Posted by JoeyBoy718

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding this, but the percentage next to the position is supposed to indicate how much that position has to do with the team's overall chance of winning the game? And yet people are giving QB something like 14%. I would say arguably the three best teams in the league the past few seasons, the Patriots, Packers and Saints, all had clearly the best QBs in the league and some of the other positions, which people argue are so valuable, were quite awful. I just think the way the NFL is, that the QB position is much more valuable than 14%. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the ratings.

Great questions. The numbers next to the unit add up to 100%. I went through a few drafts on this and started with QB at 25% or .25

That fit in my mind until I started to quantify the other 10 offensive positions into groups.

Is the QB = to the remaining 10 starters on offense?

I think the best way to look at it is in three groups that have a roughly equal weighting.

QB (1)____________________ .17
Offensive skill players (5)_____.16
Offensive Lineman (5)________.17

Defensive Front (7)__________.34
Secondary (4)______________.16


What I found most interesting about the exercise is that if you stick to two key ground rules:
1) Offense = Defense
2) QB is king
You come up with a one farily significant conclusion. And that's that your average non-QB offensive player is less valuable than your average defensive player.