Grading the team on a scale...

+19 out of a possible 63

Originally posted by modninerfan:
+19 out of a possible 63

lol. I think a plus is like a bonus..

Originally posted by modninerfan:
+19 out of a possible 63

Well let's be serious...where do other teams rank? I'll admit that I have no idea, but does your response mean that you base what i said off of top tier teams being given a "63"? There are no "63 teams" and "63" isn't the bench mark. The point of the post is that we seem to have more positives than negatives.

Odd and flawed system

Why is Spikes a +1? He should be a +3. He was arguably the best TED linebacker in the nfl. In fact i challenge anyone to find one who produced better. IMO, Spikes outplayed Willis this year.

Originally posted by VANiner:

Originally posted by modninerfan:
+19 out of a possible 63

Well let's be serious...where do other teams rank? I'll admit that I have no idea, but does your response mean that you base what i said off of top tier teams being given a "63"? There are no "63 teams" and "63" isn't the bench mark. The point of the post is that we seem to have more positives than negatives.

A perfect team would be +63, a down right awful team would be a -63 based on the positions you graded and your -3+3 scale. we can call it the VAscale. You should grade some other teams for us, like the browns and the packers so we can gauge our score a little better.

Originally posted by SWAGG-ER:
Odd and flawed system

Why is Spikes a +1? He should be a +3. He was arguably the best TED linebacker in the nfl. In fact i challenge anyone to find one who produced better. IMO, Spikes outplayed Willis this year.

So wrong.

This is about grading the team. Going forward into 2011 there is zero way you can argue Spikes is more valuable to the Niners than Willis. None.

If I am reading this correct zero is average. How can you have the safeties as above average?

You have the TE's as a +3, I think you need stud depth for +3, DW and NB are not studs.

+2 is way too high for Gore and Dixon. Gore never finish's a season, and I personally think the game improved when he was injured and the load was shared between westbrook and Dixon. I would favor trading Gore since he is in the last year of his contract, if they could get a 2nd round pick, go with youth. Be a Bill Walsh trade a GREAT player before his skills dimish.

Fun idea, thanks!

Changes given the new coaches and schemes to be implemented.

QB - -3….+1 (coaching)
RB-) +2…+2 (if Gore makes it back to 100%)
WR - +1…+2 (new system should really help & coaching)
TE - +3…+2 (grade is too high)
LT -) +2…+2 (Staley is better than he's played, scheme)
RT - +1…+2 (experience & coaching)
LG - +3…+2 (grade was too high)
RG - -1…+1 (scheme & coaching)
C - +1…+1 (unless Heitmann returns)
FB - -1…+1 (not a difficult find in draft of FA)

Defense:

RDE - +3…+3
NT +1…+1 (can't see this changing, unless by scheme)
LDE - +1…+1 (same as above)
OLB - -3…+2 (draft-Quinn/Miller, scheme)
OLB - +1…+1 (initial grade too high, scheme)
ILB - +3…+3 (Can't beat Willis)
ILB -) +1…+2 (grade was too low for spikes)
CB - -1…+2 (scheme & draft/FA/Trade--please!)
SS - +1…+1 (grade was too high, scheme)
FS - +1…+1? (Scheme should help, lot of potential/maybe nothing)
CB - +1…+2 (scheme)

+35, mostly based on coaching changes, draft and FAs.

Originally posted by dtg_9er:
Fun idea, thanks!

Changes given the new coaches and schemes to be implemented.

QB - -3….+1 (coaching)
RB-) +2…+2 (if Gore makes it back to 100%)
WR - +1…+2 (new system should really help & coaching)
TE - +3…+2 (grade is too high)
LT -) +2…+2 (Staley is better than he's played, scheme)
RT - +1…+2 (experience & coaching)
LG - +3…+2 (grade was too high)
RG - -1…+1 (scheme & coaching)
C - +1…+1 (unless Heitmann returns)
FB - -1…+1 (not a difficult find in draft of FA)

Defense:

RDE - +3…+3
NT +1…+1 (can't see this changing, unless by scheme)
LDE - +1…+1 (same as above)
OLB - -3…+2 (draft-Quinn/Miller, scheme)
OLB - +1…+1 (initial grade too high, scheme)
ILB - +3…+3 (Can't beat Willis)
ILB -) +1…+2 (grade was too low for spikes)
CB - -1…+2 (scheme & draft/FA/Trade--please!)
SS - +1…+1 (grade was too high, scheme)
FS - +1…+1? (Scheme should help, lot of potential/maybe nothing)
CB - +1…+2 (scheme)

+35, mostly based on coaching changes, draft and FAs.

to me Mays is the lynch pin for the DBs. If we get #7 corner would be outstanding

RG should be -3 at this point imo

Alex Smith -10000000000000000000000

Originally posted by bigmike55:
Alex Smith -10000000000000000000000

Lol. Addition by subtraction.

It doesn't make sense without zeros. LOL at a 6-10 team being +19

This is how we are right now, no drafts, no imaginary re-signings or fanciful FA signings. No, "but now that Harbaugh blah blah etc."

Also, before you ask, Justin Smith is plus 2 and not plus 3 because of his age, the same reason Anthony Davis is 0 and not minus one or two.

Offense:

QB: -3
RB-: +2
WR : 0
TE : +3
LT: 0
RT: 0
LG: +1
RG: -2
C: -1
FB: -3

Defense:

RDE: +2
NT: -3
LDE: 0
LOLB :-3
ROLB: -1
ILB: +3
ILB: +1
CB 1: -1
CB 2: 0
SS: -1
FS: -1


Offense: -3
Defense: - 4
TOTAL: -7

-7 is REALLY optimistic for a 6-10 team.

If you're curious as to why there is a higher score for the offensive than the defensive side, it's because four of our last five #1 draft picks that are still with the team have been on the offensive side of the ball, and many of our better defensive players are older and more likely to be in decline than improving (Clements, Spikes, sadly Justin Smith).




EDIT: Also, another problem with this is that it assigns equal weights to all positions.

For example, would you rather be +3 at QB and -3 at FB or vice versa?

[ Edited by PopeyeJonesing on Feb 12, 2011 at 17:09:25 ]

Originally posted by PopeyeJonesing:
It doesn't make sense without zeros. LOL at a 6-10 team being +19

This is how we are right now, no drafts, no imaginary re-signings or fanciful FA signings. No, "but now that Harbaugh blah blah etc."

Also, before you ask, Justin Smith is plus 2 and not plus 3 because of his age, the same reason Anthony Davis is 0 and not minus one or two.

Offense:

QB: -3
RB-: +2
WR : 0
TE : +3
LT: 0
RT: 0
LG: +1
RG: -2
C: -1
FB: -3

Defense:

RDE: +2
NT: -3
LDE: 0
LOLB :-3
ROLB: -1
ILB: +3
ILB: +1
CB 1: -1
CB 2: 0
SS: -1
FS: -1


Offense: -3
Defense: - 4
TOTAL: -7

-7 is REALLY optimistic for a 6-10 team.

If you're curious as to why there is a higher score for the offensive than the defensive side, it's because four of our last five #1 draft picks that are still with the team have been on the offensive side of the ball, and many of our better defensive players are older and more likely to be in decline than improving (Clements, Spikes, sadly Justin Smith).




EDIT: Also, another problem with this is that it assigns equal weights to all positions.

For example, would you rather be +3 at QB and -3 at FB or vice versa?

The quarterback score should be added/subtracted to all the other positions on offense.

QB: -3
RB-: 3 - 3 = 0
WR : 1 - 3 = -2
TE : 3 - 3 = 0
LT: 2 - 3 = -1
RT: 1 - 3 = -2
LG: 3 - 3 = 0
RG: -2 - 3 = -5
C: 0 - 3 = -3
FB is just lumped in with the RB's

Hmm... You know what? I think it all works out perfect, if we make the quarterback a -2 instead. Our TE's put up better numbers than average, for example.

QB: -2
RB-: 3 - 2 = 1
WR : 1 - 2 = -1
TE : 3 - 2 = 1
LT: 2 - 2 = 0
RT: 1 - 2 = -1
LG: 3 - 2 = 1
RG: -2 - 2 = -4
C: 0 - 2 = -2

That seems to work out a lot better, even though I think Baas is a lot better than a -2.