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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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....:laugh1:

 

[cowboy_ron]

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

You must be from Vegas:laugh1:

 

[Afigueroa22]

You must be from Vegas:laugh1:

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.

 

[Doomsdayblitz]

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.

 

[sonnyboy]

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]

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]

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