BillsVet Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 Really? No mention of LBs? No mention of WRs? No mention of Gilmore? The defense was nasty - one of the best in the NFL. There's no way that should have landed them at 24. Not sure why commenting on such idiocy, but I guess I did anyway! Defense no longer wins championships. The top defense in the NFL still gave up 28 to the Patriots, so valuing defense equal to offense is not appropriate. And right now the offense is not very good, despite having Sammy Watkins and Robert Woods.
NoSaint Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 (edited) Just because a team makes the playoffs does not make them top 12 in overall talent. Maybe I'm being a little hard on them, but I think Luck covers up quite a few holes for them.if he is good enough to cover up that many holes, he surely must sway the talent rating highly. they were in the AFCCG and you are arguing its an average to below average roster?Defense no longer wins championships. The top defense in the NFL still gave up 28 to the Patriots, so valuing defense equal to offense is not appropriate. And right now the offense is not very good, despite having Sammy Watkins and Robert Woods. one thing that kirby may have unintentionally done in his earlier rating system he proposed was put offense equal to defense plus special teams. so it skewed it a little towards offense. as i said with the qb weighting debate, what to do from there is all opinion. i think we all agree qb should be weighted more heavily i think few would argue that defense is more important Edited February 13, 2015 by NoSaint
dave mcbride Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 I hear you and I don't mean to talk to out of both sides of my mouth (and I am a little bit). I think that the AFC is REALLY weak after New England. I think that the Bengals have more talent than the Colts but I guess that I shouldn't use the record to make my argument. I stand by the fact that I think that the Bills are in the teens in terms of talent (record aside) and the Colts are not the 7th most talented roster in football. The Cowboys should be in the top 5-8 IMO, the Giants lower and so on. The whole list I disagree with. The Bengals are more talented, but not at a position that weighs (and should weigh) far more heavily than all of the others.
Big C Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 if he is good enough to cover up that many holes, he surely must sway the talent rating highly. they were in the AFCCG and you are arguing its an average to below average roster? I guess you're right, as this does say "roster quality" which is not a top-to-bottom talent measure. A quality roster starts and ends with a great QB. But they did win the worst division in the AFC and then got to play the Bengals, who always fold in the playoffs and the Broncos who were playing soft with an injured Peyton. They got clobbered in the AFCCG.
NoSaint Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 I guess you're right, as this does say "roster quality" which is not a top-to-bottom talent measure. A quality roster starts and ends with a great QB. But they did win the worst division in the AFC and then got to play the Bengals, who always fold in the playoffs and the Broncos who were playing soft with an injured Peyton. They got clobbered in the AFCCG. rest assured, im not arguing the colts to be among the leagues ELITE 53s, simply that if you are going to argue that the QB is so great that he covers holes, its got to reflect that way in the ranking of the roster. almost as if those holes arent there in a few spots. id also argue that if its hinging SO strongly on one player, thats a con that may lose out in some tie breakers in the ranking.
Recommended Posts