Mike Clay's roster talent evaluation all 32 teams ranked

[Reed83HOF]

 

 

 

 

[MJS]

How did he determine the numbers for each position?

[JohnNord]

2 minutes ago, Reed83HOF said:

 

 

 

 

This is a noble attempt to try to quantify the strength of NFL rosters but it is so hard to do.  First off, certain positions are equal and some should be greatly weighted - ie QB.  So you can’t take much away from the overall team scores.  

[MJS]

1 minute ago, JohnNord said:

This is a noble attempt to try to quantify the strength of NFL rosters but it is so hard to do. First off, certain positions are equal and some should be greatly weighted - ie QB.  So you can’t take much away from the overall team scores.  

The score is weighted by position (ie: QB accounts for 28% of the score while RB accounts for just 3%). I just don't know where the positional scores are coming from.

Edited March 24, 2023 by MJS

[Mikie2times]

3 minutes ago, MJS said:

The score is weighted by position (ie: QB accounts for 28% of the score while RB accounts for just 3%). I just don't know where the positional scores are coming from.

I think the way his ranking system is built doesn't properly account for QB's. If you look at the top QB's the value would never be linear. So even with him accounting for additional weight to the position, by using a a linear method it does not account for the discrepancy in talent within the position. As an example, The top 5 QB's are basically the same. Very minor adjustment. When in reality it's more like Mahomes, gap, Allen/Burrow, gap, so on it goes. You could quantify it in this fashion if you wished to do so. Not your fight, just pointing what I consider a flaw in his logic. Impressive effort though. Interesting for sure.  

[dorquemada]

17 minutes ago, MJS said:

How did he determine the numbers for each position?

 

source:  Trust me, bro!

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

Probably disagree on the WRs.  

 

Take the bills and broncos.

 

Bills are 1.6 and broncos are 2.6.  When does "where you were drafted" go out?  Jeudy is a 1st rounder, but i don't put him much ahead of Davis at all.  Diggs is head and shoulders above sutton.  Patrick is coming off an ACL, and Hamler is going to miss camp.  How are they better than sherfield, harty, and shakir?  

 

Bills and Browns 1.6 to 1.5.  Diggs is better than cooper.  Davis is better than peoples jones.  They just added elijah moore i guess?  I dunno, just feels like they don't weight diggs enough in these rankings. 

Edited March 24, 2023 by Bleeding Bills Blue

[MJS]

2 minutes ago, dorquemada said:

 

source:  Trust me, bro!

Yeah, that's my suspicion. Just assigning a number based on his own opinions. So this is just worthless, if that's the case. Might as well be ranked by gold stars.

 

People try to turn their opinions into "data" by just assigning numbers.

[JohnNord]

11 minutes ago, KzooMike said:

I think the way his ranking system is built doesn't properly account for QB's. If you look at the top QB's the value would never be linear. So even with him accounting for additional weight to the position, by using a a linear method it does not account for the discrepancy in talent within the position. As an example, The top 5 QB's are basically the same. Very minor adjustment. When in reality it's more like Mahomes, gap, Allen/Burrow, gap, so on it goes. You could quantify it in this fashion if you wished to do so. Not your fight, just pointing what I consider a flaw in his logic. Impressive effort though. Interesting for sure.  

This was kind of my point… 

[MJS]

11 minutes ago, KzooMike said:

I think the way his ranking system is built doesn't properly account for QB's. If you look at the top QB's the value would never be linear. So even with him accounting for additional weight to the position, by using a a linear method it does not account for the discrepancy in talent within the position. As an example, The top 5 QB's are basically the same. Very minor adjustment. When in reality it's more like Mahomes, gap, Allen/Burrow, gap, so on it goes. You could quantify it in this fashion if you wished to do so. Not your fight, just pointing what I consider a flaw in his logic. Impressive effort though. Interesting for sure.  

If he is literally just going down the line of QB's and saying "Mahomes is a 4.0, and I'll give Allen a 3.9, and this other QB a 2.5..." then this entire ranking is useless. Hopefully he has data behind his positional scores, like has their scores tied to their production somehow.

[BuffaloRebound]

The weightings are pretty interesting.  58% for offense and 42% for offense.  Sounds right but like others have said, how is he coming up with the weightings?  

[DCOrange]

1 minute ago, BuffaloRebound said:

The weightings are pretty interesting.  58% for offense and 42% for offense.  Sounds right but like others have said, how is he coming up with the weightings?  

He answered a question about this basically saying it's based on a combination of salary distribution, % of snaps where that position is on the field, and common sense.

 

4 minutes ago, MJS said:

If he is literally just going down the line of QB's and saying "Mahomes is a 4.0, and I'll give Allen a 3.9, and this other QB a 2.5..." then this entire ranking is useless. Hopefully he has data behind his positional scores, like has their scores tied to their production somehow.

Purely a guess on my part, but I would think for such broad ratings that he's probably at least in part using stuff like PFF grades to formulate the ratings. I'd be shocked if he's grading every player/unit purely on his own.

[GoBills808]

Niners are way too low

[JohnBonhamRocks]

14 minutes ago, Bleeding Bills Blue said:

Probably disagree on the WRs.  

 

Take the bills and broncos.

 

Bills are 1.6 and broncos are 2.6.  When does "where you were drafted" go out?  Jeudy is a 1st rounder, but i don't put him much ahead of Davis at all.  Diggs is head and shoulders above sutton.  Patrick is coming off an ACL, and Hamler is going to miss camp.  How are they better than sherfield, harty, and shakir?  

 

Bills and Browns 1.6 to 1.5.  Diggs is better than cooper.  Davis is better than peoples jones.  They just added elijah moore i guess?  I dunno, just feels like they don't weight diggs enough in these rankings. 

Not for nothing, DPJ was one of the most consistent WRs last season if my memory serves. 

[LittleSammy]

Whew, too complicated for my simple brain. My consensus on all these evaluators is if they were really good at what they do they would be working in an NFL team's front office vs. generating clicks out on the internet.

[Mikie2times]

8 minutes ago, MJS said:

If he is literally just going down the line of QB's and saying "Mahomes is a 4.0, and I'll give Allen a 3.9, and this other QB a 2.5..." then this entire ranking is useless. Hopefully he has data behind his positional scores, like has their scores tied to their production somehow.

Right, I don't believe he is doing that. I'm sure he is using a decent system to rate them. But the issue is you can't make them 4.0, 3.9, 3.8, 3.7 as he is doing. They have to have a larger separation amongst each other, then factor that value with a higher weight (as he is already doing). It would look more like Mahomes 4.0,  Allen/Burrow 3.5, then eventually it could be linear once you hit replacement level guys. But the gap between the best, the next tier, and then replacement level is rather large. 

 

11 minutes ago, JohnNord said:

This was kind of my point… 

It seems like your point was positional weighting as a whole, I'm talking about how large the deviation within the position. QB is a unique position in that the very best are substantially better. Not just a little better. Then that substantial amount is weighted even more (as he is doing). 

[PrimeTime101]

12 minutes ago, MJS said:

How did he determine the numbers for each position?

 

13 minutes ago, Reed83HOF said:

 

 

 

 

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. 

[Hebert19]

23 minutes ago, Bleeding Bills Blue said:

Probably disagree on the WRs.  

 

Take the bills and broncos.

 

Bills are 1.6 and broncos are 2.6.  When does "where you were drafted" go out?  Jeudy is a 1st rounder, but i don't put him much ahead of Davis at all.  Diggs is head and shoulders above sutton.  Patrick is coming off an ACL, and Hamler is going to miss camp.  How are they better than sherfield, harty, and shakir?  

 

Bills and Browns 1.6 to 1.5.  Diggs is better than cooper.  Davis is better than peoples jones.  They just added elijah moore i guess?  I dunno, just feels like they don't weight diggs enough in these rankings. 

Either way it backs up what simms always says.  Allen doesn't have much to work with. Worst weapons.  Worst line of the top guys. 

 

Line is getting better.  Harris helps.  Now get him Hopkins 

[PrimeTime101]

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

[Straight Hucklebuck]

49 minutes ago, MJS said:

How did he determine the numbers for each position?

He’s paid for his expertise on football.

 

Using his judgement he set 4 as the best score and rated accordingly.

 

There is nothing new to see here. The Bills lean on Josh Allen to prop up relatively weak skill position talent. 

[MJS]

20 minutes ago, DCOrange said:

Purely a guess on my part, but I would think for such broad ratings that he's probably at least in part using stuff like PFF grades to formulate the ratings. I'd be shocked if he's grading every player/unit purely on his own.

That's the issue with PFF. They do the exact same thing. It still comes down to a person watching a player play and assigning them a subjective number.

[Buffalo_Stampede]

I don’t think he does projections either right? Like I believe Tony Pollard is going to be RB1 next year but he’s yet to put up that kind of production yet. Cowboys RBs are very low.

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

Our offensive rating checks out. Allen basically carries the entire offense to a #5 ranking. WR seems a tad low given Diggs alone, feel like the Bills could be a 2.0

 

Safeties at 4.0, man it will be nice if our safety duo can stay healthy and play at that level again. 

 

I'd rank both the Eagles and Miami over Dallas at the WR group.

[MJS]

3 minutes ago, Straight Hucklebuck said:

He’s paid for his expertise on football.

 

Using his judgement he set 4 as the best score and rated accordingly.

 

There is nothing new to see here. The Bills lean on Josh Allen to prop up relatively weak skill position talent. 

I didn't ask about his merit as an individual, I asked how he determined the numbers for each position.

 

Being an "expert" does not replace sound methodology.

[whorlnut]

So basically, we are in the red at every position on offense except qb. Meanwhile, every position on defense is green. Shocker…

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

42 minutes ago, KzooMike said:

I think the way his ranking system is built doesn't properly account for QB's. If you look at the top QB's the value would never be linear. So even with him accounting for additional weight to the position, by using a a linear method it does not account for the discrepancy in talent within the position. As an example, The top 5 QB's are basically the same. Very minor adjustment. When in reality it's more like Mahomes, gap, Allen/Burrow, gap, so on it goes. You could quantify it in this fashion if you wished to do so. Not your fight, just pointing what I consider a flaw in his logic. Impressive effort though. Interesting for sure.  

 

He does have tiers in his rankings, QB's, for example, there are none ranked at 3.7 and 3.2 so those are basically tiers. He has Mahomes, Allen and Burrow in the same tier which makes sense IMO. He also has them ranked in that order within the tier which also seems to make sense. The next tier is from 3.6 to 3.3 and is made up of Hurts, Herbert, Rodgers and Lamar in that descending order. The next tier starts at 3.1 with Dak followed by Lawernce, Murray and Watson with a break at 2.7

[Reed83HOF]

 

 

 

 

 

[scuba guy]

Since he is saying that Phillys def is ranked 18 out of 32 he needs a better system.

 

And the Dolphins 1

 

Maybe?

[whorlnut]

14 minutes ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

Our offensive rating checks out. Allen basically carries the entire offense to a #5 ranking. WR seems a tad low given Diggs alone, feel like the Bills could be a 2.0

 

Safeties at 4.0, man it will be nice if our safety duo can stay healthy and play at that level again. 

 

I'd rank both the Eagles and Miami over Dallas at the WR group.

WR is low, but that just shows how crappy our corp is without Diggs. You gotta think Diggs is the only reason we aren’t a lot lower. 

[RoyBatty is alive]

The numbers look fairly reasonable.

 

 

[Reed83HOF]

5 minutes ago, scuba guy said:

Since he is saying that Phillys def is ranked 18 out of 32 he needs a better system.

 

And the Dolphins 1

 

Maybe?

I believe this has current moves as the teams are now and not based off last season units. It's based on the plays currently on those teams rosters, he tweeted something like that in a comment that I don't feel like looking for

[Saint Doug]

So, does this mean we’ll go from 1.6 to 4.0 at WR once we get Hopkins and we win the offseason?

[bigduke6]

i dont know if its that easy to quantify positions like this guy does.   ill say one thing though,  that OLine number doesnt shock me one bit.   its the reason,  always been the reason,  why we cant get over the hump,  and fall short each year.

Edited March 24, 2023 by bigduke6

[DCOrange]

40 minutes ago, PrimeTime101 said:

 

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. 

He uses a weighted average of the position rankings. If you apply the weights at the top of the chart to each position, the Eagles weighted average is 2.9 and the offense and defense grades (factoring in their proportion of the total grade) is a 2.0 and 0.9 respectively. I was able to easily recreate all of his offense/defense/total grades in a couple minutes in Excel.

Edited March 24, 2023 by DCOrange

[PrimeTime101]

24 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

I don’t think he does projections either right? Like I believe Tony Pollard is going to be RB1 next year but he’s yet to put up that kind of production yet. Cowboys RBs are very low.

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. 

Just now, DCOrange said:

He uses a weighted average of the position rankings. If you apply the weights at the top of the chart to each position, the Eagles weighted average is 2.9 and the offense and defense grades (factoring in their proportion of the total grade) is a 2.0 and 0.9 respectively. I was able to easily recreate all of his offense/defense/total grades in a couple minutes in Excel.

Bolded. If true then this graph is as broken as it gets. 

[DCOrange]

30 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

I don’t think he does projections either right? Like I believe Tony Pollard is going to be RB1 next year but he’s yet to put up that kind of production yet. Cowboys RBs are very low.

He does statistical projections as well but I don't believe those have been released yet.

[SoCal Deek]

In what universe do the Jets deserve that high of a QB ranking? Is this with Rodgers? 

[PrimeTime101]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

In what universe do the Jets deserve that high of a QB ranking? Is this with Rodgers? 

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

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, PrimeTime101 said:

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

Yep…I just that in the fine print. 

[BuffaloRebound]

20 minutes ago, RoyBatty is alive said:

The numbers look fairly reasonable.

 

 

Agreed.  Can definitely nitpick the weightings and grades because there’s a lot of numbers there, but overall it looks pretty on point.