NFC West PFF Depth Chart comparison

49erphan · 2015-07-05T09:23:20-07:00

A little bored this morning so I took a look at the PFF Depth Charts for the NFC West teams: https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2015/06/01/2015-depth-chart-updates/ The charts may be a little out of date even though they were done only a month ago; e.g., they still show A. Davis as RT. Of course, these "grades" are based on PFF's evaluation of the players which is probably pretty good in general but I take their grade for any one individual player with a grain of salt. But since the grades are probably generally pretty good, I think they can give an overall sense of the talent on a given team. What I did was count up the number of "starters" that they put in each of their categories - Elite, High Quality, Good, Average, Below Average, Poor, Not Enough Information - for each of the teams in the NFC West. There was some fairly arbitrary things that I did in the counting, though, because of things like should I count the run defense starters rather than pass defense starters or should I count two tight ends as starters rather than a second outside wide receiver. Also in a couple of cases PFF had people below the starters that were significantly more highly graded than the starters, perhaps because of injuries to the better players (in those cases I counted the players with the higher ratings even if they weren't listed as the starters). Anyway, these numbers are pretty crude but maybe they can give a blurry snapshot of the basic talent on each of the NFC West teams relative to the other teams. (Sorry about the format; I wish I knew how to put this in a spreadsheet and paste the spreadsheet into the posting.) Offense Elite 49ers: 1 Hawks: 2 Cards: 0 Rams:0 Defense Elite 49ers: 1 Hawks: 2 Cards:1 Rams: 1 - - - - - - Offensive High Quality 49ers: 0 Hawks: 1 Cards: 1 Rams: 0 Defensive High Quality 49ers: 1 Hawks: 5 Cards: 3 Rams: 1 - - - - - - Offensive Good 49ers: 5 Hawks: 1 Cards: 4 Rams: 0 Defensive Good 49ers: 5 Hawks: 2 Cards: 0 Rams: 2 - - - - - - Offense Average 49ers: 4 Hawks: 3 Cards: 4 Rams: 6 Defensive Average 49ers: 1 Hawks: 3 Cards: 4 Rams: 6 - - - - - - Offensive Below Average 49ers: 0 Hawks: 3 Cards: 0 Rams: 1 Defensive Below Average 49ers: 2 Hawks: 1 Cards: 2 Rams: 1 - - - - - - Offense Poor 49ers: 0 Hawks: 0 Cards: 0 Rams: 1 Defense Poor 49ers: 1 Hawks: 0 Cards: 0 Rams: 0 - - - - - - Offense Not Enough Information 49ers: 1 Hawks: 1 Cards: 2 Rams: 3 Defense Not Enough Information 49ers: 0 Hawks: 0 Cards: 0 Rams: 0 - - - - - - - - - - One thing that surprised me is how low in general the grades were for the Rams. I had thought with the large number of first round picks (several of them relatively high picks) that they would have a stronger starting roster than PFF seems to think they have. Maybe that is just because of youth, though, and in a couple of years those young draft choices will be rated noticeably higher than they are now. What stands out is that the Seahawks have two defensive starters that are Elite and five that are considered High Quality and two more that are rated Good. Wow. What also stands out to me is that the 49ers have five offensive and five defensive players rated as Good. To me that indicates the 9ers have a generally very solid line up of starters. Based on these PFF scores, it's a little hard to understand why there is such widespread inclination to think that the 9ers will likely end up at the bottom of the NFC West.

Jul 5, 2015 at 3:10 PM

SofaKing
Veteran
Posts: 27,442

Always enjoy reading PFFs analysis, but as you mentioned, always take them with a grain of salt.

The team rankings are more representative of the team's performance last year, rather than the actual talent level of the team.

For instance, last year they graded the Ravens and Vikings rosters as 16th and 29th in the league, respectively. This year, they rank 3rd and 8th. Did they get that much more talented, or did the team perform better due to key adjustments, and thus raise expectations?

This year they rank the 49ers roster 17th in the NFL. My hunch is we're way more talented than that, and we're making the necessary adjustments to play up to that talent level. Don't be surprised to see us more highly regarded by the end of the year.

[ Edited by SofaKing on Jul 5, 2015 at 3:12 PM ]

Jul 5, 2015 at 6:15 PM

sdaddy101269
Veteran
Posts: 4,737

Did they list the players attached to these grades?

Jul 5, 2015 at 6:25 PM

49erphan
Veteran
Posts: 1,710

Originally posted by sdaddy101269:
Did they list the players attached to these grades?

Yes, they do. I linked to the main page in the OP that itself links to pages for each team. On each team page there is a graphic with each player and their grade. Here's the one for the 49ers offense:

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2015/06/04/2015-depth-charts-update-san-francisco-49ers/

Jul 5, 2015 at 6:41 PM

49erphan
Veteran
Posts: 1,710

Originally posted by SofaKing:
Always enjoy reading PFFs analysis, but as you mentioned, always take them with a grain of salt.

The team rankings are more representative of the team's performance last year, rather than the actual talent level of the team.

For instance, last year they graded the Ravens and Vikings rosters as 16th and 29th in the league, respectively. This year, they rank 3rd and 8th. Did they get that much more talented, or did the team perform better due to key adjustments, and thus raise expectations?

This year they rank the 49ers roster 17th in the NFL. My hunch is we're way more talented than that, and we're making the necessary adjustments to play up to that talent level. Don't be surprised to see us more highly regarded by the end of the year.

Yeah, that's part of the reason I said in the OP that the picture you get is fuzzy. As an example of what you are talking about - last year V. Davis did play pretty much at an average level, but his career has been kind of up and down like that. I suspect that next year he is going to play much better.

In general, though, I think it does give some idea of the relative strength of the roster compared to the other teams in the NFC West. But it's really only a snapshot of the talent level in general. How well the team gels and how well it is coached is not really factored into these particular ratings (at least not directly).

Jul 6, 2015 at 2:07 AM

Buchy
Veteran
Posts: 2,831

I'm surprised at the Rams gradings as well - also not sure how they will perform with Foles as QB, I'd have stuck with Bradford.

Jul 6, 2015 at 4:08 AM

elguapo
Veteran
Posts: 26,383

Funny VD and Eric Reid as average. SURE???
Kap average?

Don't care about last year as overall players at worst they are good if not very good. Wow.

Jul 6, 2015 at 9:35 AM

PhillyNiner
Veteran
Posts: 8,995

Originally posted by elguapo:
Funny VD and Eric Reid as average. SURE???
Kap average?

Don't care about last year as overall players at worst they are good if not very good. Wow.

Yeah...this is based purely off of last year...this isn't a career stat.

Jul 6, 2015 at 10:22 AM

49erphan
Veteran
Posts: 1,710

Originally posted by PhillyNiner:

Originally posted by elguapo:
Funny VD and Eric Reid as average. SURE???
Kap average?

Don't care about last year as overall players at worst they are good if not very good. Wow.

Yeah...this is based purely off of last year...this isn't a career stat.

On the Indianapolis Colts page they have Gore as "Average" (yellow). That certainly can't be based on career stats and it's hard to accept even if you restrict it to last year given his production last year. I don't see how with his excellent blocking and being ninth in rushing yards that he shouldn't have been rated as at least "Good".

Jul 6, 2015 at 10:53 AM

49erphan
Veteran
Posts: 1,710

It's kind of interesting to poke around at the charts for other teams, too. I was just looking at the page with the charts for Green Bay and it's really impressive. PFF has only 50 players total in the whole NFL as "Elite" and the Packers have four of them on their offense. The Niners have only one player on the whole team they rate as "High Quality" (just below Elite), the Packers have two on offense (to go along with the four Elites) and four on defense. Dang.

Jul 6, 2015 at 10:58 AM

#10

crake49
Veteran
Posts: 13,201

Let's see, Kaepernick is 'average' and the same chart has Boone as 'good.' Hoooooookay. You know, if Boone had just done his job and blocked a pass rusher once in a while last year, maybe Kaepernick would be 'good' too.

Jul 6, 2015 at 11:40 AM

#11

thl408
Moderator
Posts: 33,299

Originally posted by crake49:
Let's see, Kaepernick is 'average' and the same chart has Boone as 'good.' Hoooooookay. You know, if Boone had just done his job and blocked a pass rusher once in a while last year, maybe Kaepernick would be 'good' too.

PFF listed some stat where Boone did not give up a pressure or sack in the last 8 games of 2014. Through film evidence I provided, that was a lie. Like stated above, take PFF with a grain of salt.

Jul 6, 2015 at 12:20 PM

#12

PhillyNiner
Veteran
Posts: 8,995

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by crake49:
Let's see, Kaepernick is 'average' and the same chart has Boone as 'good.' Hoooooookay. You know, if Boone had just done his job and blocked a pass rusher once in a while last year, maybe Kaepernick would be 'good' too.

PFF listed some stat where Boone did not give up a pressure or sack in the last 8 games of 2014. Through film evidence I provided, that was a lie. Like stated above, take PFF with a grain of salt.

yeah...not to go down this rabbit hole again...but I am pretty much on record as thinking they are crap. Everyone's mileage varies on this kind of stuff but I think they are the individual equivalent of "power rankings".

Jul 6, 2015 at 12:32 PM

#13

NCommand
Hall of Fame
Posts: 123,365

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by crake49:
Let's see, Kaepernick is 'average' and the same chart has Boone as 'good.' Hoooooookay. You know, if Boone had just done his job and blocked a pass rusher once in a while last year, maybe Kaepernick would be 'good' too.

PFF listed some stat where Boone did not give up a pressure or sack in the last 8 games of 2014. Through film evidence I provided, that was a lie. Like stated above, take PFF with a grain of salt.

Yup!

Jul 6, 2015 at 1:46 PM

#14

philosoraptor
Veteran
Posts: 4,318

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by crake49:
Let's see, Kaepernick is 'average' and the same chart has Boone as 'good.' Hoooooookay. You know, if Boone had just done his job and blocked a pass rusher once in a while last year, maybe Kaepernick would be 'good' too.

PFF listed some stat where Boone did not give up a pressure or sack in the last 8 games of 2014. Through film evidence I provided, that was a lie. Like stated above, take PFF with a grain of salt.

I would absolutely agree.

While PFF doesn't provide the whole picture (Which in football is quite rare unless you watch every snap), I think it does provide a quality glimpse. Boone may not have done as well as PFF stated but I still think he is a good player, I do disagree with other pieces on the roster and their placement as well. It also doesnt factor in players taking a step up.

But It does kind of let you know where they stand as a whole, I think from a personnel stand point the niners are in a pretty good spot, a couple of you guys improve and a couple of vets get back on track and from a purely personnel stand point this team is right up there with any roster in the league. WHat they really need is elite players, I think they need a guy like Aldon or vernon to take that leap back to elite-hood(they have a ton of good players but nobody who is in the upper echelon of their position other then bow and staley).

Then it will be up to the coaching staff and the lady luck that is health to determine whether this team can be elite. Real big what ifs, Im cautiously optimistic but I have to see these coaches get it done before.