Pro Football Focus Top 101 Graded Players for 2013

Originally posted by AUniner:

Originally posted by QBguru:

Originally posted by MadDog49er:

Originally posted by QBguru:

Who do you think ends up in the HOF from that class MadDog?

So many variables in the class, and so early in the game that it is hard to call. Let's pretend both Miller and Aldon get their act together. I will rank:
1. Watt- on pace to be one of the all-time greats. Could you imagine if he played in NYC, Chicago, Philly? Round the clock media attention.
2. Sherman- best CB in the game. period.
3. Green- superstar. Got a feeling he will get help down the road to maximize skills
4. Peterson- might be second best CB for a decade. Getting better each year. Three years, three Pro Bowls. .
5. T. Smith- on the verge of being perennial All Pro. Lost in shadows now, but not for long. Insiders love this kid.
6. Aldon/Miller/Quinn- statistically, Aldon and Miller stand above Quinn at this point. But, Quinn could be the best of the group in the end. And, he is clean. Suspensions hurt stats and voter enthusiasm to elect players with issues. Flip a coin on these guys. I'll say two of the three makes it, and one flames out in the end.
7. One of the two from Julio Jones and Julius Thomas.
8. 50/50 on Pouncey. Kind of an idiot....let me change that...idiot. But, really good lineman. Would be hard to keep out if he had 8-10 Pro Bowls to resume.
9. 25/75 on Dareus. Absolute monster inside. But, also kind of a knucklehead. Tough to get in being back logged in this group.

Wow. I forgot he was in that class due to him being a later round pick.

1.Watt- Barring a serious injury he is a no brainer. Probably first ballot HOF.
2.Sherman-If he stays the best CB in the game for a while, he has a good shot.
3.Julio Jones/Green-I think both these guys make it. They are both game changers. I like Julio getting in first.
4. Aldon- IF he can keep his head straight, he will be the a HOFer.
5.Quinn-Breakout season last year. Good potential if he keeps putting up sacks.
6.Peterson-I think he is a tad overrated except he is a beast at returns, I could see him eventually getting in.
7.Wilkerson-I could see this dude getting in. He is a game changer for the jets.
8.Miller-I don't see him making it, but you never know. I think Quinn/Aldon are better and less injury prone.
9.Newton-IF he wins a few super bowls I can see him getting in possibly.
10.Pouncey/Smith/Dareus- Good players, but I do not see them in the HOF

I really like Aldon, but in the end I think Quinn will be statistically the best pass rusher of the group. That Rams D/Line is outright nasty - probably a waste of picks but nasty.

You guys are on crack. Sherman has been great for just a couple of seasons, mainly because of earl Thomas and the rest of the secondary. He would be just another average cb if he were on a different team. You know who else was great for just a couple of seasons? Nammdi asumugah. Don't think we will see him in the hof anytime soon.

Interesting.

Based upon PFF's rankings, it would seem that the 49ers DO NOT HAVE the most stacked roster in the NFL.

Originally posted by buck:
Interesting.

Based upon PFF's rankings, it would seem that the 49ers DO NOT HAVE the most stacked roster in the NFL.

Who ever said the 49ers have the most stacked roster in the NFL?

don't remember Watt doing a whole lot against our O-line

Originally posted by QBguru:

Originally posted by frenchmov:

Originally posted by QBguru:
Till he wins a super bowl I say they are equal. Cam has the better stats with less talent. Kaep has taken us to the big dance. You wonder how far we would have gotten if we had Cam with all the talent on this team. Cam is a crybaby though so I take Kaep.

uhhh cam has better stats? that's news to me. he has never had a QB rating of 90 or above. he has also never won a playoff game. kap is by far the best QB of that draft class at this point in time

2013


Panthers

61.7

3,379

24

13

88.8


2012


Panthers

57.7

3,869

19

12

86.2


2011


Panthers

60.0

4,051

21

17

84.5


Career


59.8

11,299

64

42

86.4


Kaeps

Career stats

Year

Team

CMP%

YDS

TD

INT

Rating


2013


49ers

58.4

3,197

21

8

91.6


2012


49ers

62.4

1,814

10

3

98.3


2011


49ers

60.0

35

0

0

81.3


Career


59.8

5,046

31

11

93.8



Yes Newton has better stats at the moment. However, He also had a year and a half so you can double Kaeps stats and yes you are correct his total stats are better. I stand corrected.

I don't know how you can say those are better stats. Cam has twice as many starts as Kaepernick, roughly twice the passing TD's and passing yards. Yet he has 4x the interceptions...

Originally posted by aTx49er:

Originally posted by buck:

Interesting.

Based upon PFF's rankings, it would seem that the 49ers DO NOT HAVE the most stacked roster in the NFL.

Who ever said the 49ers have the most stacked roster in the NFL?

I think that it has been said various times in the forum, but my memory might be wrong again.

Originally posted by buck:

I think that it has been said various times in the forum, but my memory might be wrong again.

The Niners are stacked at LB, but the DL is definitely on the back side of their best years. The secondary is in transition, so we will have to see how good they fare over the next few years.

Originally posted by MadDog49er:

Originally posted by buck:

I think that it has been said various times in the forum, but my memory might be wrong again.

The Niners are stacked at LB, but the DL is definitely on the back side of their best years. The secondary is in transition, so we will have to see how good they fare over the next few years.

Look around the NFL and put forth the teams with more 90 man talent in their camp. Now some of our talent might not have seen the field were injured or weren't used correctly but you don't get to 3 straight NFCCG without MAJOR talent! Aside from the fact we play very conservative football and when we get leads we play not to lose

This list must have been put together by the same hawk fans who did the greatest QB of all time list on ESPN
The one where Russell Wilson beats out Peyton Manning...


How is Navarro Bowman 31 and behind 3 Seahawks?

Some other gripes,

Wilson was number 23 last year... wins a SB... and now he is 48? Lol (honestly I don't even think he should have ever gotten that high)
Whitner was not responsible for our sudden increase in deep ball pass protection. Did these guys even watch our games?
There is also something wrong when the DPOY is #80.
Not that I don't think Aldon is a better player, but when you have the DPOY of the year 15 spots behind Aldon, who missed 5 games... Your ranking system is crap.


Adding pro-football focus to the list of Do Not Read

never heard of that site.

Originally posted by Quest4six:
This list must have been put together by the same hawk fans who did the greatest QB of all time list on ESPN
The one where Russell Wilson beats out Peyton Manning...


How is Navarro Bowman 31 and behind 3 Seahawks?

Some other gripes,

Wilson was number 23 last year... wins a SB... and now he is 48? Lol (honestly I don't even think he should have ever gotten that high)
Whitner was not responsible for our sudden increase in deep ball pass protection. Did these guys even watch our games?
There is also something wrong when the DPOY is #80.
Not that I don't think Aldon is a better player, but when you have the DPOY of the year 15 spots behind Aldon, who missed 5 games... Your ranking system is crap.


Adding pro-football focus to the list of Do Not Read

i've found you're either for it or against it. the basically assign a grade to every player after evaluating each play each week. but my question is, do they know what they're evaluating? i'm sure they know football and what not, but if they're not in the meeting rooms or fully understanding a teams scheme, how can they say what a given players responsibilities are from play to play? they might think they know, they might make an educated guess that gets close, but do they really know?

Originally posted by crabman82:
i've found you're either for it or against it. the basically assign a grade to every player after evaluating each play each week. but my question is, do they know what they're evaluating? i'm sure they know football and what not, but if they're not in the meeting rooms or fully understanding a teams scheme, how can they say what a given players responsibilities are from play to play? they might think they know, they might make an educated guess that gets close, but do they really know?

I don't think they look at schemes at all.
If they did Sherman would not be in front of Earl Thomas.
I can't tell you how many articles I have seen where opposing QB's talk about how they make their game plans around Thomas, not Sherman.

Lets be honest for a bit, does anybody on this thread think Sherman would be a pro-bowler if he wasn't on the Hawks?
Seriously.

Lets throw D*ck Sherman on the Texans,
he's got guys he has to guard like Hilton, Shorts, and Wright.
With an average safety, I am willing to bet he loses the starting spot.

Originally posted by Quest4six:
Wilson was number 23 last year... wins a SB... and now he is 48? Lol (honestly I don't even think he should have ever gotten that high)

I don't think you understand how their rating system works.

Every play, they assign a score to each player based on how well they did (-1.0, -0.5, 0, 0.5, 1.0 points, etc...). A player's score for a given game is their cumulative score on all plays throughout the game.

For example, let's say Wilson played (hypothetically, for simplicity's sake) 5 snaps in a game.
On one play, he threw a perfect pass for a touchdown. Maybe they give him +2.0 for that play.
On the next play, he throws a perfect pass, but his receiver drops it. Wilson still did his job perfectly (not his fault his receiver didn't catch it), so they give him +1.0.
Later, Wilson improvs and scrambles for a 5-yard gain. They give up +0.5 points.
On another play, he throws an interception. It was a terrible pass. -1.0 points.
On his fifth and final play of the game, he throws an incomplete pass. -0.5 points.

His cumulative score for the game would be (2.0 + 1.0 + 0.5 + -1.0 + -.05). Overall, his grade would be +2.0 for the game. Do the same for all 16 games. Add up the final totals. Maybe he finishes with, say, a +25.0 for the season.

They do this for every team (and every player) for every game of the season. The rankings you see are simply the top 100 players according to their cumulative season grades (i.e. all players sorted by their grades, best-to-worst). It's not supposed to be subjective. It's just the final totals based on their grading. Russel Wilson winning the Super Bowl has absolutely no bearing on the rankings at all. This is not about achievements, intangibles, etc -- it is all about how well they graded. It's not even a matter of saying "player X is better than player Y", but rather, "player X had a better season than player Y".

Basically, Pro Football Focus tries to assign individual grades to every player on every play. I think that's almost impossible to do. While I find their methodology novel and intriguing, I do think it's flawed. Their grading often produces head-scratching results. It's a great concept, but it's definitely far from perfect. Anyway, I'm starting to digress... the point is that you need to understand what these rankings are based off of.

Originally posted by theduke85:
I don't think you understand how their rating system works.

Every play, they assign a score to each player based on how well they did (-1.0, -0.5, 0, 0.5, 1.0 points, etc...). A player's score for a given game is their cumulative score on all plays throughout the game.

For example, let's say Wilson played (hypothetically, for simplicity's sake) 5 snaps in a game.
On one play, he threw a perfect pass for a touchdown. Maybe they give him +2.0 for that play.
On the next play, he throws a perfect pass, but his receiver drops it. Wilson still did his job perfectly (not his fault his receiver didn't catch it), so they give him +1.0.
Later, Wilson improvs and scrambles for a 5-yard gain. They give up +0.5 points.
On another play, he throws an interception. It was a terrible pass. -1.0 points.
On his fifth and final play of the game, he throws an incomplete pass. -0.5 points.

His cumulative score for the game would be (2.0 + 1.0 + 0.5 + -1.0 + -.05). Overall, his grade would be +2.0 for the game. Do the same for all 16 games. Add up the final totals. Maybe he finishes with, say, a +25.0 for the season.

They do this for every team (and every player) for every game of the season. The rankings you see are simply the top 100 players according to their cumulative season grades (i.e. all players sorted by their grades, best-to-worst). It's not supposed to be subjective. It's just the final totals based on their grading. Russel Wilson winning the Super Bowl has absolutely no bearing on the rankings at all. This is not about achievements, intangibles, etc -- it is all about how well they graded. It's not even a matter of saying "player X is better than player Y", but rather, "player X had a better season than player Y".

Basically, Pro Football Focus tries to assign individual grades to every player on every play. I think that's almost impossible to do. While I find their methodology novel and intriguing, I do think it's flawed. Their grading often produces head-scratching results. It's a great concept, but it's definitely far from perfect. Anyway, I'm starting to digress... the point is that you need to understand what these rankings are based off of.

So just some question's then.


According to those ranking projections, a DE with 5 sacks had a worse season than a DE with 8 sacks.
What if that lesser DE is double teamed twice as much as the other? Do they take that into consideration?

Also, they talked about how Vontae Davis was in the top 5 last year even though 72% of his positive grades came from one good game.

Last season Vontae Davis' season grade landed him inside the Top 5 at the end of the year, but 72% of his positive grade came in one ludicrously good game against Peyton Manning's Broncos in Week 7.


This ranking system automatically favors players with better players around them, and weaker schedules.

Originally posted by Quest4six:
According to those ranking projections, a DE with 5 sacks had a worse season than a DE with 8 sacks.
What if that lesser DE is double teamed twice as much as the other? Do they take that into consideration?

I'm not sure exactly how it works, but... here's an educated guess.

On a particular play, let's say that Justin Smith blatantly holds two offensive lineman and Aldon Smith blows through a gaping hole and registers a sack. On that play, Justin Smith would probably get a +2.0 grade, while Aldon Smith maybe only gets a +0.5 (again, this is just hypothetical). Justin was the reason that play ended like it did. Aldon picked up the sack, but a lot of people would've got a sack on that play, since Justin did most of the work. That is to say, if you replaced Justin Smith with, say, Tony Jerrod-Eddie, there's probably no sack on the play. However, if you keep Justin Smith in there and replace Aldon with, say, Corey Lemonier, he is probably still able to pick up the sack, because of how big of a hole Justin created.

That's sort of the point of their ratings. If you just look at sacks, you'd think that Justin Smith was really mediocre. However, if you see how much of an impact he has on games, you'd realize that looking at sacks don't do him justice. This is why players could have high sack totals but lower overall grades.

They try to account for things like double-teams, etc as best they can. However, it's definitely an inexact science.