Inspired by the FA thread: Rank the AFC by team talent, minus the QB

[Deus Irae]

I think this has the potential to be either an interesting topic, or a complete bomb, and I'm curious to see how it goes. So, quick ground rules that I'd like to go by, just so we can keep things orderly:

1. Please first rate the teams based upon talent only. If you want to add in notions of coaching, front office, schedule, the expected local temperature on November 4th, or anything else, please feel free to add it, but only after you first lay things out by talent.
2. It's understood that the QB position is of tremendous importance. Feel free to note your take on its impact on any, or all teams, but please do so only after ranking the teams without the QB.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I’d like to do this when I have some time, but I’ll point out I think a lot people rate “talent” by skill positions, highlight reels, and pro bowl selections. Does talent include depth, starters only, superstars? Or are you just asking to rank the entire roster as a whole, player-for-player?

 

[Deus Irae]

I’d like to do this when I have some time, but I’ll point out I think a lot people rate “talent” by skill positions, highlight reels, and pro bowl selections. Does talent include depth, starters only, superstars? Or are you just asking to rank the entire roster as a whole, player-for-player?

Well, the idea was inspired by the question of which teams will be competitors, and the hostility of some towards adding the Browns. So, I think it makes sense to have an overall team grade, which you can then break down/defend by splitting things up into groups. I figured that would happen organically anyway, though perhaps in follow up posts, as someone would inevitably respond to another person's rankings by saying things along the lines of "No way! They suck at _____!", and get the ball rolling.

 

[TheRainMaker]

This is a good thread but will take some time to think about.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

This is going to be tough from all the parity, but I’ll at least start this out with the most unassailable choice, as I work backwards from bottom to top.

16. NY Jets

 

[Triumph]

Browns.

They have drafted so well even before Dorsey.

 

[farn]

Even w/o Brady, NE has some very very strong units. Specifically, the DB, RB, OL are all top notch. Add a few playmakers at LB and DL and you can make the case they’d still be #1. Potentially, Cleveland could make a case, but they’ve been such a dumpster fire that it’s hard to take them seriously until they produce.

I’ll go
#1 NE
#2 LAC
#3 Texans

*maybe Cleveland becomes something, but they could also be an OBJ weekly blowup squad.

 

[JayNM]

It really just depends on the day

on Sundays, we're the worst team ever put in the field, according to GDT

 

[Hyped]

I think it would be better to grade positional groupings like OL, WR, TE, RB, DL, LB, and Secondary....like assign points from 1 for the worst and 16 for the best then add them all up...

Like others said, I'd need a slow day at work to do this...could be useful for my FFL research though.

 

[Flash]

1. LAC
2. New England
3. Houston
4. Tennessee
5. Baltimore
6. Cleveland
7. Kansas City
8. Jacksonville
9. Pittsburgh
10. Indianapolis
11. Buffalo
12. Denver
13. NYJ
14. Cincinnati
15. Oakland
16. Miami

Feel free to disagree, this is based off of my head.

 

[captain stone]

RB : NE - Buf - NJ - Mia

WR : too close to call, and not because they're all good either

TE : Buf/Mia - NJ - NE

OL : NE - Buf - NJ - Mia

DL : NE - Buf - Mia/NJ (NJ has better starters; Mia is deeper)
- DL seems to be the best, deepest position group among all 4 teams

LB : NE - NJ - Buf - Mia

CB : NE - Mia - NJ - Buf

S : NE - Buf - Mia/NJ

STs : NE - Buf - Mia - NJ

Overall : NE - Buf - NJ/Mia

EDIT: You mean the Entire AFC? I thought it was the AFCE...never mind.

 

[mosslost]

I think this has the potential to be either an interesting topic, or a complete bomb, and I'm curious to see how it goes. So, quick ground rules that I'd like to go by, just so we can keep things orderly:

1. Please first rate the teams based upon talent only. If you want to add in notions of coaching, front office, schedule, the expected local temperature on November 4th, or anything else, please feel free to add it, but only after you first lay things out by talent.
2. It's understood that the QB position is of tremendous importance. Feel free to note your take on its impact on any, or all teams, but please do so only after ranking the teams without the QB.

"Deuce" lol

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

@Deus Irae

I have a few thoughts on how to tackle this this.

1. I don't have access because I'm not a gamer, but I'd be curious to see the team Madden ratings. You could probably deduce the quarterback's value (example, looking at previous years and how big certain QBs have changed the overall grade.) Assign an approximate value that the QB position provides for each different team and then subtract it from the overall grade.

2. Defenses are totally independent of the QB position. No reason that couldn't be a starting point as well. If you began by ranking the defenses objectively using data, you are a lot closer to the order. Then you're just adding (offense - QB), which is 10 players, rather than 21, or basically just offensive line and skill players.

(Defense Strength)+ (o-line + skill positions)

3. In general, non-rookie deals tend to be washes. The player value is typically cancelled out by the compensation level. That makes blue chip players in rookie contracts the most valuable assets. Assessing these players team-by-team wold be a good thing to look at.

Hope to have some time this weekend to dive into these.

 

[mgteich]

I'm much higher on OAK than you are. For me, the question they have is at QB. I have them in the top half of the AFC before considering the QB.

1. LAC
2. New England
3. Houston
4. Tennessee
5. Baltimore
6. Cleveland
7. Kansas City
8. Jacksonville
9. Pittsburgh
10. Indianapolis
11. Buffalo
12. Denver
13. NYJ
14. Cincinnati
15. Oakland
16. Miami

Feel free to disagree, this is based off of my head.

 

[everlong]

The new catchphrase I've been hearing a lot of is a collection of talent vs a collaboration of talent. It's kind of like "length" was in hoops a decade back. You couldn't just say they have tall players any longer. It was they have good length. So instead of team building get ready for a collaboration of talent vs a collection.

The Patriots are probably middle of the pack as a collection and to start the year might only be middle of the pack as a collaboration. The collection for most teams will dip dramatically as the lose key players thus affecting the collaboration exponentially. The Pats depth will soften this curve and the fact that they're built to be a collaboration not a collection will make them improve over the course of the years.

It's the same team building and coaching them up we've talked about for year.

To the OPs question if I'm ranking on purely individual talent as an aggregate I put them into groupings.

T1: LAC, Houston, KC
T2: NE, Pitt, Baltimore, Cleveland, Indy
T3: Buffalo, Denver, Oakland, Tennessee, Jax
T4: NYJ, Miami, Cincinnati

 

[Ring 6]

I'm much higher on OAK than you are. For me, the question they have is at QB. I have them in the top half of the AFC before considering the QB.

How?
Where do you see talent on that roster?

 

[Ring 6]

The new catchphrase I've been hearing a lot of is a collection of talent vs a collaboration of talent. It's kind of like "length" was in hoops a decade back. You couldn't just say they have tall players any longer. It was they have good length. So instead of team building get ready for a collaboration of talent vs a collection.

The Patriots are probably middle of the pack as a collection and to start the year might only be middle of the pack as a collaboration. The collection for most teams will dip dramatically as the lose key players thus affecting the collaboration exponentially. The Pats depth will soften this curve and the fact that they're built to be a collaboration not a collection will make them improve over the course of the years.

It's the same team building and coaching them up we've talked about for year.

To the OPs question if I'm ranking on purely individual talent as an aggregate I put them into groupings.

T1: LAC, Houston, KC
T2: NE, Pitt, Baltimore, Cleveland, Indy
T3: Buffalo, Denver, Oakland, Tennessee, Jax
T4: NYJ, Miami, Cincinnati

How can KC be in a high tier of you exclude the Qb?
Their defense is pathetic. With an average Qb the offense would be average.

 

[TheRainMaker]

T1: LAC, Houston, KC

How can KC be in a high tier of you exclude the Qb?
Their defense is pathetic. With an average Qb the offense would be average.

Agree with the Chargers. Not too sure about Houston but don’t agree with KC. They have Jags almost everywhere aside from Tyrek Hill and the overpaid Frank Clark. I see them struggling big time this season. Even more so when Hill is released (And I do think he’ll get released).

Buffalo belongs in tier 4. They are dog s**t! Oakland can join them as well.

 

[Joey007]

How?
Where do you see talent on that roster?

Do acknowledge Antonio Brown. I wouldn’t want him on my team, but AB remains right up at the top amongst the most talented WR’s in football. They also still have a few high- talent interior O-linemen in Hudson, Jackson.

But yes, after that it steeply falls off at most other positions.

 

[TheRainMaker]

Do acknowledge Antonio Brown. I wouldn’t want him on my team, but AB remains right up at the top amongst the most talented WR’s in football. They also still have a few high- talent interior O-linemen in Hudson, Jackson.

But yes, after that it steeply falls off at most other positions.

That team is toast! I’d be shocked if Carr’s teammates still have any respect for him after he cried after taking a hit.

He got irritated with the media denying this.