PFW annual player rankings and predictions.

[mmillman]

looks reasonable to me

 

[PBJTime]

A Pro Bowl selection is not necessarily a direct reflection of talent. Lack of being selected for one does not not exclude a player from being one of the best in the game. It's a popularity contest, plain and simple. TO's lack of being in one is not a good argument for this discussion.

I understand the point that the system certainly results in seemingly undeserved players going to the Pro Bowl -- Alstot for one. That poor reputation is somewhat deserved -- much like PFW's terrific rep is deserved.

However, it is not "plain and simple" a popularity contest. In the context you speak of, it is an unknown player in a small market that would be hurt in the one-third fan voting. This is not the case with TO. If anything he was helped in the one-third fan voting. One can only assume the the majority of players and coaches take their Pro Bowl votes seriously with their respective one-third votes. They did not feel TO was a Pro Bowler.

I apologize for oversimplifying things, however, the point remains that a Pro Bowl selection (or lack thereof) is not an all-encompassing definition of what type a player one is. Often times, players quite worthy of going to a Pro Bowl don't get selected while players who aren't worthy do go because they have a few plays for the highlight reels.

All I'm saying is that bringing up anything about a player making a Pro Bowl or not is a weak argument. Surely, that much is obvious?

And I highly doubt TO got any help from fan voting.

 

[BouncingCheese]

I hope we pee on all of these people who are giving us low ratings.... I also hope that somebody emails these guys and tell them what idiots they were when they act like they were forecasting our upcoming amazing season.

Preseason stuff means muck...

 

[BouncingCheese]

I apologize for oversimplifying things, however, the point remains that a Pro Bowl selection (or lack thereof) is not an all-encompassing definition of what type a player one is. Often times, players quite worthy of going to a Pro Bowl don't get selected while players who aren't worthy do go because they have a few plays for the highlight reels.

All I'm saying is that bringing up anything about a player making a Pro Bowl or not is a weak argument. Surely, that much is obvious?

And I highly doubt TO got any help from fan voting.

Great post.

Adrian Wilson, anybody?

 

[yazzmode621]

I have a question for some of the Cowboys fans on here. Why is it that TO's drops are irrevelant because 'every receiver drops balls' and his failure to produce in the clutch downplayed yet Sean Taylor's missed tackles and TDs given up make him so overrated?

You guys make the case for TO because his stats are better than some of the receivers ranked in front of him. Well Sean Taylor had 111 tackles, 3 forced fumbles and 1 INT compared to Roy Williams(who is only 3 spots behind) who had 62 tackles, 0 forced fumbles and 5 INT?

Taylor had 49 more tackles, 3 more forced fumbles and 4 less picks than Williams. If the argument can be made for TO based on his stats then the argument can be made for Taylor based on his stats.

According to STATS, Taylor had 19 missed tackles. So for every 5.84 tackles, he missed one. Someone earlier mentioned TO dropped 16 balls last year. That is 1 drop for every 5.31 balls thrown to him. Taylor percentage-wise had a better year tackling than Owens did receiving.

Do you not see the double standard here?

 

[PBJTime]

I have a question for some of the Cowboys fans on here. Why is it that TO's drops are irrevelant because 'every receiver drops balls' and his failure to produce in the clutch downplayed yet Sean Taylor's missed tackles and TDs given up make him so overrated?

You guys make the case for TO because his stats are better than some of the receivers ranked in front of him. Well Sean Taylor had 111 tackles, 3 forced fumbles and 1 INT compared to Roy Williams(who is only 3 spots behind) who had 62 tackles, 0 forced fumbles and 5 INT?

Taylor had 49 more tackles, 3 more forced fumbles and 4 less picks than Williams. If the argument can be made for TO based on his stats then the argument can be made for Taylor based on his stats.

According to STATS, Taylor had 19 missed tackles. So for every 5.84 tackles, he missed one. Someone earlier mentioned TO dropped 16 balls last year. That is 1 drop for every 5.31 balls thrown to him. Taylor percentage-wise had a better year tackling than Owens did receiving.

Do you not see the double standard here?

First, TO had an injury that directly affected his "dropped ball stat." Again, it is amusing that it was seemingly decided only last year that this was THE defining stat for a wide receiver. Forget completions, TD's, YAC, etc.

But more importantly, you are comparing apples to oranges. At best, it is a very simplistic argument.

 

[Stash]

I have a question for some of the Cowboys fans on here. Why is it that TO's drops are irrevelant because 'every receiver drops balls' and his failure to produce in the clutch downplayed yet Sean Taylor's missed tackles and TDs given up make him so overrated?

You guys make the case for TO because his stats are better than some of the receivers ranked in front of him. Well Sean Taylor had 111 tackles, 3 forced fumbles and 1 INT compared to Roy Williams(who is only 3 spots behind) who had 62 tackles, 0 forced fumbles and 5 INT?

Taylor had 49 more tackles, 3 more forced fumbles and 4 less picks than Williams. If the argument can be made for TO based on his stats then the argument can be made for Taylor based on his stats.

According to STATS, Taylor had 19 missed tackles. So for every 5.84 tackles, he missed one. Someone earlier mentioned TO dropped 16 balls last year. That is 1 drop for every 5.31 balls thrown to him. Taylor percentage-wise had a better year tackling than Owens did receiving.

Do you not see the double standard here?

If you could present the number of times Sean Taylor was chasing behind a receiver crossing the endzone, that would help to clear things up.

Roy Williams gave up some touchdowns last year, but Taylor was beaten like a rented mule.

In my opinion, neither player deserved Pro Bowl honors but Taylor's inclusion was the bigger joke.

 

[HanfordDixon]

yazzmode is clearly a Commanders' fan.

dude, how dare you criticize a Dallas player?

 

[HanfordDixon]

First, TO had an injury that directly affected his "dropped ball stat."

Absolutely. No question about it. Once again, injury considerations are a big part of the PFW criteria. TO's playing time, practice time and performance have been adversely affected by injury for the past three years. He is 33. That isn't likely to change moving forward.

Injury or no injury, he's never had the best hands anyway.

Again, it is amusing that it was seemingly decided only last year that this was THE defining stat for a wide receiver. Forget completions, TD's, YAC, etc.

Once again, it is NOT the defining stat. Just like number of TDs caught is the defining stat. However, for his biggest asset -- TDs -- TO had a strong weakness that canceled it out. The dropped balls were significant last year. When you add up all of his negatives with dropped balls, susceptibility to injury, age and distraction to the team -- he's still a pretty awesome WR. His 13th ranking indicates as much.

But more importantly, you are comparing apples to oranges. At best, it is a very simplistic argument.

His argument is one of the best, most logical put forth here. He exposes you for the homers that you are. Taylor had significantly better tackle numbers, yet you homers claimed he "missed tackles."

Face it -- you're a bunch of hypocrites only interested in whatever argument makes the best case for a Dallas player at that particular moment.

 

[DallasEast]

I apologize for oversimplifying things, however, the point remains that a Pro Bowl selection (or lack thereof) is not an all-encompassing definition of what type a player one is. Often times, players quite worthy of going to a Pro Bowl don't get selected while players who aren't worthy do go because they have a few plays for the highlight reels.

All I'm saying is that bringing up anything about a player making a Pro Bowl or not is a weak argument. Surely, that much is obvious?

And I highly doubt TO got any help from fan voting.

Let's cut the fans some slack here:

"The AFC and NFC All-Star squads are made up of the consensus votes of fans, players and coaches. Each group's vote counts one-third towards determining the 43-man rosters that represent the American Football Conference and National Football Conference in the Pro Bowl. The NFL is the only sports league that combines voting by fans, coaches and players to determine its all-star teams." - nfl.com, LINK

Any player's failure to reach the Pro Bowl is a result of not receiving enough votes from at least two or more of the consensus voters involved: fans, their peers (e.g. the players) and/or the coaches. Fans are not the sole reason why players (even Owens) are voted into the Pro Bowl or left out of it.

 

[HanfordDixon]

It really is annoying to hear this stuff over and over every time one of these rankings come out. People need to ask (and answer) some serious questions.

Do you really think the people at PFW are sitting around concocting ways to downgrade Dallas players?

Do you think there are areas where Dallas players are ranked higher than you expected?

I am in love with PFW right now because of the Newman ranking. I have fought this battle over Newman for two years now. Because QBs don't throw to his side, he doesn't get many INTs. Because he doesn't get many highlights, not many people know about him.

It's damn impressive that the folks at PFW recognize that -- INTs or not -- Newman is one of the very best CBs in the league.

 

[superpunk]

I have a question for some of the Cowboys fans on here. Why is it that TO's drops are irrevelant because 'every receiver drops balls' and his failure to produce in the clutch downplayed yet Sean Taylor's missed tackles and TDs given up make him so overrated?

You guys make the case for TO because his stats are better than some of the receivers ranked in front of him. Well Sean Taylor had 111 tackles, 3 forced fumbles and 1 INT compared to Roy Williams(who is only 3 spots behind) who had 62 tackles, 0 forced fumbles and 5 INT?

Taylor had 49 more tackles, 3 more forced fumbles and 4 less picks than Williams. If the argument can be made for TO based on his stats then the argument can be made for Taylor based on his stats.

According to STATS, Taylor had 19 missed tackles. So for every 5.84 tackles, he missed one. Someone earlier mentioned TO dropped 16 balls last year. That is 1 drop for every 5.31 balls thrown to him. Taylor percentage-wise had a better year tackling than Owens did receiving.

Do you not see the double standard here?

You forgot to add that Taylor led the league in TDs given up. I think I understand why he did, but there's two bad things Taylor led the league in, regardless of the reasons. Taylor didn't lead the league in anything, except apparently tackles for a safety, which isn't exactly a badge of honor.

Conversely, TO led the league in drops, and TD receptions. Maybe they cancel out enough for a case to be made for a pro-bowl berth, maybe not.

Ultimately, I don't think either player truly deserved to go. It's just easier to replace a WR because of the depth of talent at that position in the NFC. But who are you going to replace Taylor with? Atogwe? Doubtful. So he gets to go on name recognition, even though he had a bad year by nearly any meaningful criteria. TO had a bad year with his hands, even by his mediocre standards re: drops. There were just easier replacements available.

So ultimately, there is really no hypocrisy or double-standard, whether you perceive it or not. Taylor had a terrible year. Owens had a nice year, and one terrible stat. For their respective positions, Owens was the better player.

His argument is one of the best, most logical put forth here. He exposes you for the homers that you are. Taylor had significantly better tackle numbers, yet you homers claimed he "missed tackles."

Face it -- you're a bunch of hypocrites only interested in whatever argument makes the best case for a Dallas player at that particular moment.

You believe you've found homers on a team-based internet forum?

You sir, are quite the sleuth.

 

[Stash]

I can poke holes in many areas of PFW's rankings. Unlike some, I don't 'love' them. And most of the criticisms don't involve the Cowboys (imagine that).

Vince Young is way overrated on the list. There's no rational explanation for him to be ranked as highly as he is.

Marcus McNeil should not be ranked ahead of the Eagles' William Thomas either. While McNeil had an outstanding rookie year, I think Thomas' proven track record speaks for itself.

And Clinton Portis ranked at #12 is a joke as well. Plenty of more deserving candidates out there.

 

[HanfordDixon]

I can poke holes in many areas of PFW's rankings. Unlike some, I don't 'love' them. And most of the criticisms don't involve the Cowboys (imagine that).

Vince Young is way overrated on the list. There's no rational explanation for him to be ranked as highly as he is.

Well, that's just silly. Of course there is or he wouldn't be there. Or maybe PFW is just secretly a Vince Young/Sean Taylor vehicle and they are conspiring to keep TO down. yeah, that's it.

[SIZE=+0]
One thing about PFW, they give strong consideration to "upside" and "downside." Young made some amazing plays -- against the Giants and Colts in particular -- and won a lot of ballgames as a rookie. PFW also gives strong consideration to winning (imagine that) and Young showed that he's a great talent and a winner. Seems like a good combination. He's ranked 12th or 13th I think. That seems completely reasonable.

Marcus McNeil should not be ranked ahead of the Eagles' William Thomas either. While McNeil had an outstanding rookie year, I think Thomas' proven track record speaks for itself.

This is ridiculous. Eagles' fans will tell you that Thomas is in serious decline and has a bad back.

And Clinton Portis ranked at #12 is a joke as well. Plenty of more deserving candidates out there.[/SIZE]


I still don't know whether you think Portis is too high or too low. I really would like to know. If healthy, he's about No. 6-8 in the NFL coming off several outstanding seasons, including his last healthy one. I guess he's downgraded coming off a serious injury. But much like Walker, it's his first injury and he's in his prime. But there are questions there. No. 12 seems pretty appropriate.

 

[Stash]

I can poke holes in many areas of PFW's rankings. Unlike some, I don't 'love' them. And most of the criticisms don't involve the Cowboys (imagine that).

Vince Young is way overrated on the list. There's no rational explanation for him to be ranked as highly as he is.

Well, that's just silly. Of course there is or he wouldn't be there. Or maybe PFW is just secretly a Vince Young/Sean Taylor vehicle and they are conspiring to keep TO down. yeah, that's it.


[SIZE=+0]One thing about PFW, they give strong consideration to "upside" and "downside." Young made some amazing plays -- against the Giants and Colts in particular -- and won a lot of ballgames as a rookie. PFW also gives strong consideration to winning (imagine that) and Young showed that he's a great talent and a winner. Seems like a good combination. He's ranked 12th or 13th I think. That seems completely reasonable.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+0]

Maybe to a fool like you it does. Romo had better numbers across the board in less games played and his team 'won' more games and actually made the playoffs. Young was a nice story - that's it.

'Silly'? As 'silly' as you're ridiculous, baseless, factless excuse-making? Is is that 'silly'?

Amazing how your excuses require not a shred of fact to them? Speculation and opinion is all you need for your case. Convenient - and lame.

What did Ben Roethlesberger show to earn his ranking? He sucked last season. The first where the Steelers actually asked him to win a game rather than manage one.

Marcus McNeil should not be ranked ahead of the Eagles' William Thomas either. While McNeil had an outstanding rookie year, I think Thomas' proven track record speaks for itself.

This is ridiculous. Eagles' fans will tell you that Thomas is in serious decline and has a bad back.

Find one know-it-all. The guy had one of the best seasons of his career coming off of his 'bad back' and has put together plenty of Pro Bowl years. McNeil did it once. Once again, Mr Doubletalk tries to use age or injury against one player, but not another.....

And Clinton Portis ranked at #12 is a joke as well. Plenty of more deserving candidates out there.[/SIZE]

I still don't know whether you think Portis is too high or too low. I really would like to know. If healthy, he's about No. 6-8 in the NFL coming off several outstanding seasons, including his last healthy one. I guess he's downgraded coming off a serious injury. But much like Walker, it's his first injury and he's in his prime. But there are questions there. No. 12 seems pretty appropriate.

Portis it too high, based on a lousy, injury-riddled '06 campaign. Much like other players are downgraded due to injury (selectively by you), Portis should be as well. The Commanders themselves re-signed Betts because they aren't sure about Portis' future. Maybe you think he's still 'in his prime', but his own team is obviously taking out an expensive insurance policy.

 

[YosemiteSam]

I don't follow... because he has a history of dropped passes, it shouldn't affect his ranking? Because he had an excuse, it should affect his ranking?

He also has a history of dominating the league. He is without question a top 5 receiver over the last ten years. On top of that he led the league in TDs last season, produced 1,100+ yards and 85 catches.

Throw the numbers out the window. Owens season was good, not great. He just wasn't a dominant, game-changing player on a week-to-week basis like he was in previous stops.

Throw the stats out the window? You mean these stats

• 1 in TDs scored
• 9th in receiving yards
• 13th in total receptions

You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting.

He is what he is -- one of the better WRs in the league, but not a top 10 player at his position. At least in 2006. Let's hope he gets it back in 2007.

Just for the hell of it we shall consider the possibility of his finger injury and subtract half of his drops last season. (17/2=8.5) He would then rank #4 (93.5) in receptions instead of #13. He is without question a top 10 receiver. You on the other hand I do question whether you are actually a Cowboys fan. You present opinion and tell us to ignore the facts. Your logic seems very bias.

 

[Stash]

He also has a history of dominating the league. He is without question a top 5 receiver over the last ten years. On top of that he led the league in TDs last season, produced 1,100+ yards and 85 catches.
Throw the stats out the window? You mean these stats

• 1 in TDs scored
• 9th in receiving yards
• 13th in total receptions

You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting.

Just for the hell of it we shall consider the possibility of his finger injury and subtract half of his drops last season. (17/2=8.5) He would then rank #4 (93.5) in receptions instead of #13. He is without question a top 10 receiver. You on the other hand I do question whether you are actually a Cowboys fan. You present opinion and tell us to ignore the facts. Your logic seems very bias.

Good to know someone else lives here in reality.

 

[HanfordDixon]

Look Dude, I'll explain it one last time, but I don't get any sense that you really want to accept or understand the PFW system.

They rank players based on several criteria -- 2006 performance, injury history, expected performance, age and performance as it relates to winning.

It is all weighed as part of a final ranking.

Why is Vince Young higher than Romo? Let's look at it. Both get good marks on age, 2006 performance and health.

Like it or not, Romo is still a question mark going forward. 10 games is not a sure thing coming from a small-school, undrafted QB -- especially when he tailed off so sharply at the end of the season.

VY was a college superstar and a top pick. PFW correctly grades him higher on expected performance. He is also graded higher on performance as it relates to winning. Young authored some phenominal performances during a six-game winning streak. He took over a moribound team and went 8-5 as a starter. The plays he made with his arm and feet were incredible.

Romo did well also in some big games, but fell well short in others. Namely to close out the season.

Look at the other players and you'll see similar reasons for the combined ranking. Just stick to the criteria.

 

[Stash]

Look Dude, I'll explain it one last time, but I don't get any sense that you really want to accept or understand the PFW system.

They rank players based on several criteria -- 2006 performance, injury history, expected performance, age and performance as it relates to winning.

It is all weighed as part of a final ranking.

Why is Vince Young higher than Romo? Let's look at it. Both get good marks on age, 2006 performance and health.

Like it or not, Romo is still a question mark going forward. 10 games is not a sure thing coming from a small-school, undrafted QB -- especially when he tailed off so sharply at the end of the season.

VY was a college superstar and a top pick. PFW correctly grades him higher on expected performance. He is also graded higher on performance as it relates to winning. Young authored some phenominal performances during a six-game winning streak. He took over a moribound team and went 8-5 as a starter. The plays he made with his arm and feet were incredible.

Romo did well also in some big games, but fell well short in others. Namely to close out the season.

Look at the other players and you'll see similar reasons for the combined ranking. Just stick to the criteria.

Guess what simpleton?

Vince Young is every bit the question mark that Romo is - even more so as a passer.

Romo's 2006 numbers dwarfed Young's - in fewer games played.

Romo's team won more games.

How many holes have to be shot in your stupid 'criteria' before it's rendered inaccurate to you as much as it is to everyone else.

Maybe it's time to beat it, troll.

You're getting seriously exposed here.

:spanking:

 

[Vintage]

They rank players based on several criteria -- 2006 performance, injury history, expected performance, age and performance as it relates to winning.

It is all weighed as part of a final ranking.

Why is Vince Young higher than Romo? Let's look at it. Both get good marks on age, 2006 performance and health.

Like it or not, Romo is still a question mark going forward. 10 games is not a sure thing coming from a small-school, undrafted QB -- especially when he tailed off so sharply at the end of the season.

Romo played in 10.5 games. VY played in 12. that 1.5 games is the difference in showing enough and not showing enough?

Ok.

VY was a college superstar and a top pick. PFW correctly grades him higher on expected performance. He is also graded higher on performance as it relates to winning. Young authored some phenominal performances during a six-game winning streak. He took over a moribound team and went 8-5 as a starter. The plays he made with his arm and feet were incredible.

Romo did well also in some big games, but fell well short in others. Namely to close out the season.

True. Vince Young got hot the last month of the season. His Qb rating rose all the way to 72.0. His completion rate rose to 56%. And his TD to INT ration was 4:5.


Add in the fact that Young's help around him got WORSE this offseason...and sure. Its easy to see how he'll be better than Romo next year with Lendale White as his starting RB once he dips below 260 pounds.....and the great Givens/Bennett (oops, not there anymore) WR tandem...

Look at the other players and you'll see similar reasons for the combined ranking. Just stick to the criteria.

Indeed.