PrimeTime101

says it in the title. he is trying to build an entire draft board based on our vote. the problem with that is, many do not know one name from the next. and yes... lol... I agree... CB is the least of our concerns.

no.. read back a couple posts. I did not see the math equations in small print. now go back and read my last reply to orange.

GOT YA! TY for explaining it. Way to much wait for QB compared to the other positional values. IS it a QB driven league? oh yea lol! BUT! to say the QB position is over 100% more important than the WR position? Last year with buffalo is proof how wrong that value is. TY SIR for explaining it. I guess bottom line, his values are bad. especially where he puts them with some teams. RB .. dime a dozen... but .03? christ.. lets drop cook and sign a crap HB if thats the true value of a HB on a team? .03? come on man. FYI i did not see these numerical numbers on top of the SS till I blew it up. Thanks again mate.

My personal opinion that i NEVER agreed with? Funny I just touched on this in another thread. "Because of JA elbow injury, It is easier for him to chuck it 60 yards down field, then a 7 yard pass"' I mean Bloody Hell.. Just the torque alone to throw a ball time after time deep on an injured elbow?

HA HA! glad we cleared that up! lol. someone with a head on their shoulders... I LIKE IT! lol! Cheers

Ok... after us "talking" I get it. you want to build a draft board... but their are tons of draft boards out there and many people on these forums do not know who half these names are, thus not giving a really good vote. I guess that was my point. And to the point of @GunnerBill , I am not sure any of us would be happy period with any CB in the first 3.

I agree. but wait.. someone will chime in and take 1 dr's words that JA could chuck the ball 60 yards down the field easier than a 3 yard pass...

thanks for getting this back on topic. Great post bro. 1000% agree with you

Do we need a CB? I am confused... why is this such a big topic for this team in early rounds?

Math. This is supposed to be done with a mathematical equation and until now you can't explain it. you have one offense with 3 of the 5 positions in the green and a little red and another team with 2 green and 3 red. It does not add up. period. There is no where in this formula that says a QB weighs more than another position group... If that were true then somewhere it would say that in the formula the QB position or say the WR position outweighs other positional groups. but it does not say that.

No. I am asking how the math works where Cinci and all their positional values ends in a total offensive grade of 1.8 and then the same with Dallas. Fact is they don't match.

there is all kinds of broken numbers on here

No I am going to stop you RIGHT THERE!!! LOL! I asked you to qualify the Bengals offense positional Value to the Cowboys position of value both being 1.8 offense. The fact is you cant qualify it.. period..

or maybe both?

I am an open minded person that is beginning to get it. . My biggest issue is the Offensive positional ranking between Dallas and Cincinati where Cinci has much poorer numbers on offense compared to Dallas, yet they both have 1.8 ranks. can you explain that to me and maybe I will grasp it better. That being said I still believe some of these ranks on these teams are still broken. Help the old man out will ya? LOL

even if you use Weighted Averages, the numbers still do not add up. they dont

if you read the original OP... yes its with Rodgers

Here is my problem. One side has a max of 4 points and the other side has the max of 2 points. There is not enough separation to properly grade the positional value and not even close enough numbers to separate Overall, Off and Def. Nothing adds up and some of these positional values are severely broken. Bolded. If true then this graph is as broken as it gets.

Clay is getting roasted in twitter over this colored toilet paper... uh... i meant graph

So he heavily relied on PFF group rankings to create this nifty chart based on last years numbers. I seriously do not think he is factoring in the mid tier adds teams have made because that would 1. take to long and 2. even if he did factor in mid tier changes... by the time he did it, there would be new changes. Thus my personal opinion and belief is that this is a mix of last years pff scores with some of the bigger changes made so far this year. Also might I add... The Off, Def, and Tot grades make little sense. IF you subtract the red rankings and add the green rankings the Eagles offensive ranks add up to 14.1. Do the same for the Cowboys and their offensive ranks add up to 8.2 and yet you go to the offensive rankings with 2.0 being the best, Cowboys Offense is 1.8 (.2 Difference) Now lets use the same math concept he has going here with the Bengals. If you add their greens and subtracted their reds they have a 4.1 on offense. yet their overall offensive grade is the exact same as the cowboys. So what does this tell you? The positional rankings are not equal to set offensive or defensive rankings. Should tell you one thing. On one side of the board he is using overall stats Offensive/Defensive = overall while the positional rankings do not add up at all. Personal conclusion? While i agree with many of these ranks at positional value, I feel some of them are completely broken. That makes this graph a very unique well made, colored toilet paper.

I think round 2, they going to roll the dice on a MLB.. Maybe even double dip for competition but what we do know is... Most years this GM has the holes covered pre-draft. Outside maybe the Allan Draft

"Thats the power of Love~" "Back to the future" Movie for all you young ones.

yea, I had not realized it till after I posted and ran off grocery shopping, listening to WGR. good call sir. get over it

yep. That is all we need to make this a top 15 line.

Love the sarcasm... keep it coming... more like House Great Insight! THANK YOU!