Let's grade the team

[sonnyboy]

Preseason mags love to do this. But they seldom break up the roster into units they way I would and never weight their grades.

You give a team's QB unit a B and it's Backfield unit a B+. Great, well what does that mean? Sure everyone here would agree that the QB unit contributes more to winning than the Backfield unit. Well how much more?

So that's what I'm looking for from anyone willing to contribute. Give the Unit the weighting you think fits and or just a grade from 50-100 you think that unit on the Cowboys will be in 2012.

QB 14%
Backfield 7%
Receivers 11%
OL 18%
Defensive Front 32%
Secondary 18%

No this aint Madden responses allowed.

[sonnyboy]

OK guys, not all at once! Let me go first.

QB 14%.....................92
Backfield 7%...............90
Receivers 11%............93
OL 18%.....................74
Defensive Front 32%....83
Secondary 18%...........90

So when you weight it, you get an 85.51. See how easy that was.

Now all we need to know is how accurate those numbers are, what everyone else numbers are and who'll get injured. Then we can head to Vegas.

[Afigueroa22]

I'm too lazy for this. It's a good grading system though.

[sonnyboy]

Originally Posted by Afigueroa22

I'm too lazy for this. It's a good grading system though.

Thanks. As I was doing it, the wheels started turning and some of my "outcomes" on the weightings kind of surprised me.


I started with the simple premise of Offense = Defense. It's something just I've always believed.

Well if you start there and give the defense 50%, Then 32%-18% is just a simple common sense conclusion. Guess you could split hairs and insist on weighting the defensive front a little stronger. But how much? 35?

What really surprised me were the offensive weightings. QB is so critical, it commands a significant weight. But you end up really shorting the other offensive units. OL gets an 18%? It seems light. Especially when compared to the defensive front getting a 32%.

But maybe that's the reality of the situation. Look what Romo does for our OL? How much better has he made it look over the years?

[RS12]

Originally Posted by sonnyboy

OK guys, not all at once! Let me go first.

QB 14%.....................92
Backfield 7%...............90
Receivers 11%............93
OL 18%.....................74
Defensive Front 32%....83
Secondary 18%...........90

So when you weight it, you get an 85.51. See how easy that was.

Now all we need to know is how accurate those numbers are, what everyone else numbers are and who'll get injured. Then we can head to Vegas.

QB - 90
backfield- 85
receivers 80
OL 65
DF 70
Secondary 75

[Kingsmith88]

I'd weigh oline and dline relatively equal. The game is won in the trenches. If you kept all your other pct. the same I'd go 25% for both lines. Neat way to look at the roster.

[sonnyboy]

Originally Posted by RS12

QB - 90
backfield- 85
receivers 80
OL 65
DF 70
Secondary 75

Thanks. But after starting the thread, I think opinions on how these units should be weighted will be more interesting than the grades for those units.

[RS12]

Originally Posted by sonnyboy

Thanks. But starting the thread, I think opinions on how these units should be weighted will be more interesting than the grades for those units.

QB needs to be alot higher than 14%.

[sonnyboy]

Originally Posted by Kingsmith88

I'd weigh oline and dline relatively equal. The game is won in the trenches. If you kept all your other pct. the same I'd go 25% for both lines. Neat way to look at the roster.

Remember the DF has seven players and the OL only five.

Something else that kind of jumped out at me like it hadn't before going through this exercise.
And that's that the dominance/importance of QB reduces the relative value of the other 10 non-QB offensive starters. There's really no other logical way to look at it.

Now the question is, how much? I have QB at 14 and OL at 18. Maybe it should be more like 12-20? But now you're saying the QB is only slightly more valuable than your 2 WRs and TE which make up the Receivers Unit and I weighted an 11............aint this fun?

[jazzcat22]

What about K, P, ST's, Coaching, Cheerleaders......

No, not the GM....

[cowboy_ron]

Originally Posted by Afigueroa22

I'm too lazy for this. It's a good grading system though.

You must be from Vegas

[Afigueroa22]

Originally Posted by cowboy_ron

You must be from Vegas

18 years in CA, one in LV,NV.

So i'm just lazy, no demographics involved.

[GimmeTheBall!]

Seems like witchcraft to me all them numbers.

[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.

[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.