Pro Football Focus is a great resource. In fact, as soon as I can afford it I might become an insider.
They are objective, unbiased, and scientific. But they have limitations.
To their credit, they adhere strictly to hard facts, and rely exclusively on NFL performance for each player.
Not being an insider, I can't study the nuts and bolts of their data. They do analyze draftable college players, and some writers use this data to project NFL performance.
But in evaluating the NFL rosters, I can't see how they could have used any of this in these rankings. I COULD BE WRONG about this, but if I am, then something else is wrong here.
They may well also have thresholds, such as minimum number of carries, targets, or snaps. Below certain numbers, data is unreliable. We've all seen our share of flashes in the pan, no? One shot wonders?
All of this is a good thing, since it removes human judgement from the process.
I speak as an analyst here: It's harder than most people think to separate their emotions and prejudices from the subject. Most analyses are unavoidably corrupted by subjectivity to some degree.
This is why the intelligence community filters estimates through fresh eyes, and cross-checks it against other assigned estimates and sources (when it's possible and not time-sensitive).
So yeah, I'm singing PFF's praises here, absolutely. I do think that some of their writers don't understand this as well as they should, but even they are pretty good overall.
What they filter out is what makes all their pre-season roster rankings suspect. It excludes (I think) all players who have not played a certain number of downs in the NFL.
It does consider system (ie zone vs man blocking, down position vs standing up, man, off-man, zone coverage, etc.) which is really excellent and thorough. But it can't consider how new coaches are likely to use the player. Nor how a young player can reasonably be expected to have improved over an off season.
This is why human minds are still necessary.
With all that said, I will now disassemble the Browns 31st roster ranking, and give Black Cloud a more realistic picture of where the homies stand:
Wide receiver first: The holdovers are Taylor Gabriel, Darius Jennings, Hawkins, Moore, and Pryor. I'm not sure ANY of these guys met a minimum threshold for PFF (which I assume was at least weighting 2016 heavily--recency being a key factor).
It's just possible that PFF had NO usable data for this position. The default there should be maybe the 40th percentile, or a little below average (at least that's how I'd set it up).
That's because the dearth of data implies inexperience, and inexperience implies mistakes and confusion (remember, they've got 32 teams to consider, so they need the most sensible uniform standards).
Well, of course that's ridiculous (though like I just said I don't blame them. Maybe I should HINT write for HINT them HINT HINT).
If they used Pryor at all, he'd rank around zero based on 2015. It's possible Jennings or Gabriel snuck in, but Gabriel was horrible. Jennings played well, however.
The reality, however, is that Pryor was very raw, and I believe in his four non-catches screwed up every way he could have (leaving the ground unnecessarily, not reaching forward for the ball, etc). He can be reasonably expected to have corrected these faults. Whether or not he actually starts, he will be a LOT better.
Some of the PFF writers will grin knowingly and shake their much wiser and more objective heads when they read that, but they're usually not real analysts. This is all pretty predictable.
Hawkins (if not traded or released) is a very reliable slot guy who has succeeded outside as well. His concussions scare the hell out of me, though, and he relies heavily on quickness and speed, which age will take from him first.
Marlon Moore has been around a long time, and is unlikely to do much.
Aside from Pryor (who towers over cornerbacks and will be BETTER when the pads go on), the four new guys (excluding two UFDAs) probably were not considered by PFF.
Coleman was one of the top two in the draft. He is the fastest and quickest, and a big-play guy in spades. That's not debatable.
Higgins and Payton were both rated higher than when they were taken and are tall, reliable, accomplished possession guys.
The PFF software did it's job, but no actually analytical human brain could rank the talent here in 2016 as below average. That's 16th.
Gary Barnidge is a top five receiving tight end, but I suspect that PFF penalized him for his sub-par in-line blocking, and didn't consider Seth DeValve at all.
There's no way, however, that PFF itself didn't rank TE in the top ten.
PFF seemed to recognize the existence of Greco and Bitonio as well as Thomas. They probably took Cameron Erving's season-long statistics and ranked him as one of the worst centers in the NFL.
I don't know what they did at right tackle. If they used the current frontrunner, ex-Seahawk Alvin Bailey, he'd show poorly based on his stats as well...as would Bowie. But for both these guys, a zone scheme without DeFellipo tinkering would help, along with the fact that both are entering their primes for developmental offensive linemen.
If PFF ignored depth, and allowed center and right tackle to drag this offensive line into the bottom ten, they need to fix something, since the left tackle and both guards should establish a beachhead in the top ten.
If the offensive line ranked below 16th or 18th, they need to tweak their software.
Can't say the same about quarterback. Their program had no choice but to rank the Browns group at or near the bottom.
I am personally optimistic about RG3 under Hue Jackson, a couple years older and wiser, and with these weapons, but can't predict this like I predicted Pryor as one of the top three receivers.
I like McCown a lot, but he is old and injured, and PFF isn't kind to him either (they can't quite fit crappy defense, limited targets, and no running game into their broader stats).
To review, for the offense, my adjusted rankings are wr 16, te 10, oline 17, qb...28. Running back? Well, PFF probably took season long statistics, which hurt Crowell a lot.
Actually (broken record here) he was his old terrific self in the last five games when he was allowed to run to both sides of the field and experienced actual daylight for once. The season long stuff might have hurt Duke too, but I don't know how he did from scrimmage in that stretch.
I imagine PFF ranked running back below 18th despite Duke's outstanding performance catching passes. Really, 15th is pessimistic.
So should a super bad QB ranking pull an overall average offensive ranking into the toilet? Well, PFF might weight QB and offensive line heaviest and heavier respectively (I would), but no: there's simply no way to rank the offense overall below 20.
Those who will disagree with me will do so on the bases of Pryor, Erving, right tackle, and Crowell. I respect that. We'll just have to see who is wrong. I'll bet you all a beer. I expect to drink for free the rest of my life.
Defensively, I just have to generalize more here:
I like Mike Pettine (and won't scapegoat his DC like Grossi does), but here's what I've determined went wrong last season:
In 2014, Pettine installed Ryan 1.0; the simplest version of the Rubics Cube Ryan defense. That's when/why they brought in old hands Dansby, Whitten, Tramon Williams, and that defensive lineman. Haden and Gipson remained fairly healthy. The defense in general was fairly experienced.
In 2015, the dastardly Ray Farmer landed Danny Shelton, Nate Orchard, X Cooper, and other ROOKIE defensive players who earned playing time.
But Mike still installed Rubic 2.0. Gipson and Haden went down. But when Gipson was healthy, he was playing strong safety. And Paul Kruger was in coverage on most snaps look I'm sorry this was just plain dumb ok?
The front line roster started out younger, and got younger yet due to injuries. A lot of guys were standing there not sure what to do.
PFF may have ranked the defense in the basement, but that too is ridiculous since it was hurt by inexperience, scheme, coaching, and an offense that couldn't keep them off the field and wore them down.
Did they consider Ogbah, Hassan, Wright, Schoebert, and Kindred? Clearly not Wright or Schoebert, as they ranked inside linebacker at the bottom.
Joe Haden sucked last season even when healthy, but should be fine now (still young). The young players will predictably improve with experience in a simpler, player-friendly system. The rookies with great instincts will be allowed to PLAY fast without pondering chess moves.
My own prediction has Gilbert starting opposite Haden and a top ten secondary.
In fact, I can't find any unit on the defense which isn't in the top ten.
Tramon Williams could be released, but because he's big and tall could be retained for outside depth and guidance.
Wright and Schoebert will immediately challenge the veterans inside, and whoever wins will have to be good.
This is about talent/ability more than statistics. I project. I'm accused of optimism, and have pled guilty of it in the past. But I do have REASONS for projecting Pryor, RG3, and Gilbert as I do...and Wright, Schoebert, Hassan, etc.
Down the road, this almost certainly won't pan out as I project it will. That's because if an offense has to come from behind a lot, the quarterback will get sacked and throw more interceptions, and not run much. The defense will wear down and surrender more yards on the ground.
PFF can't factor all this in, and it skewed some of the stats they used from last season.
In conclusion, the 2015 Browns have ABOVE AVERAGE overall talent. How this will bear out is wildly unpredictable, given 26-30 rookies on the current roster, general inexperience, RG3, the Steelers and Bengals, new systems, injuries etc etc etc.
Some of you are laughing at me now, but will believe me by the time PFF ranks the rosters after game 12.
Now on Las Vegas predicting 0-16: Oddsmakers predict public sentiment. They make their money off the vig. They expect the Browns to be underdogs in every game, period.
Me? I expect to exploit this.
No comments:
Post a Comment