YoloinOhio Posted May 23, 2016 Posted May 23, 2016 http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000664439/article/seahawks-steelers-panthers-headline-10-most-talented-teams Hard to disagree with this list. Wonder where the Bills would fall if they expanded it to 20.
Big C Posted May 23, 2016 Posted May 23, 2016 (edited) Vikings and Giants look way overrated to me. I like some of the Vikings core talent, but is Kyle Rudolph really a blue chip TE? I'm also only counting 7 blue chips for them, while the lower-ranked Cardinals have 9. So, I don't really know quite how they are ranking these teams or how they determine blue chip status. Edited May 23, 2016 by Big C
Big C Posted May 23, 2016 Posted May 23, 2016 I would imagine by these standards our blue chip players would include Sammy, Shady, Clay, Cordy, Richie, Darby, Gilly, Dareus, Kyle and Jerry. Really, I've no idea where the conclusions to this "analysis" are drawn from.
26CornerBlitz Posted May 23, 2016 Posted May 23, 2016 I would imagine by these standards our blue chip players would include Sammy, Shady, Clay, Cordy, Richie, Darby, Gilly, Dareus, Kyle and Jerry. Really, I've no idea where the conclusions to this "analysis" are drawn from. Just one man's opinion. It would be much more valid if there was a list based upon a wide ranging poll done among personnel people in the know.
YoloinOhio Posted May 23, 2016 Author Posted May 23, 2016 Vikings and Giants look way overrated to me. I like some of the Vikings core talent, but is Kyle Rudolph really a blue chip TE? I'm also only counting 7 blue chips for them, while the lower-ranked Cardinals have 9. So, I don't really know quite how they are ranking these teams or how they determine blue chip status. I think they chose not to "weight" the QB position more highly than the others which I have seen in other team rankings like this. Vikings OL is bad enough to make me question whether they repeat their playoff berth.
Big C Posted May 23, 2016 Posted May 23, 2016 (edited) I think they chose not to "weight" the QB position more highly than the others which I have seen in other team rankings like this. Vikings OL is bad enough to make me question whether they repeat their playoff berth. Could be, although he doesn't specify any of the criteria. But if that is the case, I can't imagine how Green Bay or New England don't make the cut. It looks to me like it goes strictly by "blue chip" status. Just one man's opinion. It would be much more valid if there was a list based upon a wide ranging poll done among personnel people in the know. Of course. It's just an oddly questionable one. I usually like Bucky's pieces from what I can recall. Edited May 23, 2016 by Big C
Mark Vader Posted May 23, 2016 Posted May 23, 2016 Could be, although he doesn't specify any of the criteria. But if that is the case, I can't imagine how Green Bay or New England don't make the cut. It looks to me like it goes strictly by "blue chip" status. Of course. It's just an oddly questionable one. I usually like Bucky's pieces from what I can recall. I agree. How is Green Bay not even in this Top 10? The Giants? This has got to be due to the love affair the media has with Odell Beckham, Jr. Otherwise they have no business being mentioned. I think the Vikings are a team on the rise, but they are being given more credit than they deserve at this point. The Steelers are a strong team, but # 2? Let's wait and see. Cardinals are being given little respect. They should be in the Top 5. I understand the Cowboys have some ?'s, but I would have them ranked a bit higher than 10. Andy Dalton & Alex Smith are blue-chips?
YoloinOhio Posted May 23, 2016 Author Posted May 23, 2016 Speaking of "blue chips" I wonder when PFF will come out with its color coded rosters for each team. Maybe they already have. The "elite" players by their standards are in blue and we always only had Kyle Williams. Our QB was always the dreaded "below average" yellow or "poor" in red. Curious to see this year's.
machine gun kelly Posted May 23, 2016 Posted May 23, 2016 Each, I don't get the Pats and Packers not on here, but the Giants? Um, didn't they have a losing record and not been to the playoffs in four years.
YoloinOhio Posted May 23, 2016 Author Posted May 23, 2016 Each, I don't get the Pats and Packers not on here, but the Giants? Um, didn't they have a losing record and not been to the playoffs in four years.they added all those FAs, I guess
QuoteTheRaven83 Posted May 23, 2016 Posted May 23, 2016 Most talented teams don't always equal best team. Patriots are always the least "talented" team in the NFL. Seahawks aren't all that talented either IMO. 2009 Saints weren't talented. Players just need to buy into the coaches system and fit within that system. Talent is slightly overrated outside the QB position.
boater Posted May 23, 2016 Posted May 23, 2016 A rational article, until the gem: Despite the Cowboys' 4-12 record in 2015, they should rebound nicely with the top players back on the field. What a fricken laugher. Fixing some injuries will vault you from 4-12 to top ten? You'd never ever find anyone saying the Bills would go from 4-12 to top 10. Heck, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone saying the Bills will have a better W-L record than the year before.
D. L. Hot-Flamethrower Posted May 24, 2016 Posted May 24, 2016 JMO but the Giants are Cowboys are way overrated and the Pats and Packers are way underrated.
iinii Posted May 24, 2016 Posted May 24, 2016 Apparently talent is overrated if the Giants and Cowgirls are listed and New England isn't.
YoloinOhio Posted May 24, 2016 Author Posted May 24, 2016 Apparently talent is overrated if the Giants and Cowgirls are listed and New England isn't.if you peel away Brady and Gronk, there are some good players but not sure if there are any other "blue chips." But as another poster said, the QB position should be weighted much heavier when predicting a team's success. Looking at the overall talent of a roster is slightly different IMO.
D. L. Hot-Flamethrower Posted May 24, 2016 Posted May 24, 2016 if you peel away Brady and Gronk, there are some good players but not sure if there are any other "blue chips." But as another poster said, the QB position should be weighted much heavier when predicting a team's success. Looking at the overall talent of a roster is slightly different IMO. Hard to argue that a team that year after year does what the Pats do, doesn't have top 10 talent IMO.
YoloinOhio Posted May 24, 2016 Author Posted May 24, 2016 Hard to argue that a team that year after year does what the Pats do, doesn't have top 10 talent IMO.true - i think it is just the method Brooks used (number of "blue chip" players).
Recommended Posts