Mike Clay's roster talent evaluation all 32 teams ranked

[PrimeTime101]

4 hours ago, DCOrange said:

I already explained that though. It's because of the significant gap in QBs and how heavily the QB position is weighted. With the way the positions are weighted for the weighted average, the QBs make up roughly half of the offense grade and the other offensive positions make up the other half. If you changed the QB grades to both be 3.0s, Dallas would have a higher offense grade by roughly 0.2, but because Burrow is graded so much higher than Dak, it's enough to give both teams roughly the same offensive grade.

Math. This is supposed to be done with a mathematical equation and until now you can't explain it. you have one offense with 3 of the 5 positions in the green and a little red and another team with 2 green and 3 red. It does not add up. period. There is no where in this formula that says a QB weighs more than another position group...   If that were true then somewhere it would say that in the formula the QB position or say the WR position outweighs other positional groups. but it does not say that. 

[DCOrange]

51 minutes ago, PrimeTime101 said:

Math. This is supposed to be done with a mathematical equation and until now you can't explain it. you have one offense with 3 of the 5 positions in the green and a little red and another team with 2 green and 3 red. It does not add up. period. There is no where in this formula that says a QB weighs more than another position group...   If that were true then somewhere it would say that in the formula the QB position or say the WR position outweighs other positional groups. but it does not say that. 

It does say that. The QB position is weighted as 28% of the total team grade whereas the other offensive positions add up to a total of 30% of the team grade.

 

If you have Excel, punch in the ratings and weights like I have below. The mathematical formula for the total grade is SUMPRODUCT(ratings,weights)/SUM(weights) to get your weighted average. To get the offensive team rating, you'd do the same thing except limit the SUMPRODUCT part of the equation to just the offensive positions. To get the defensive team rating, you'd do the same thing except limit the SUMPRODUCT part of the equation to just the defensive positions.

 

[PrimeTime101]

26 minutes ago, DCOrange said:

It does say that. The QB position is weighted as 28% of the total team grade whereas the other offensive positions add up to a total of 30% of the team grade.

 

If you have Excel, punch in the ratings and weights like I have below. The mathematical formula for the total grade is SUMPRODUCT(ratings,weights)/SUM(weights) to get your weighted average. To get the offensive team rating, you'd do the same thing except limit the SUMPRODUCT part of the equation to just the offensive positions. To get the defensive team rating, you'd do the same thing except limit the SUMPRODUCT part of the equation to just the defensive positions.

 

GOT YA! TY for explaining it. Way to much wait for QB compared to the other positional values. IS it a QB driven league? oh yea lol! BUT!  to say the QB position is over 100% more important than the WR position? Last year with buffalo is proof how wrong that value is. 

 

TY SIR for explaining it. I guess bottom line, his values are bad. especially where he puts them with some teams. RB .. dime a dozen... but .03? christ.. lets drop cook and sign a crap HB if thats the true value of a HB on a team?  .03? come on man. 

 

FYI i did not see these numerical numbers on top of the SS till I blew it up.

 

Thanks again mate. 

[prissythecat]

1 hour ago, PrimeTime101 said:

Math. This is supposed to be done with a mathematical equation and until now you can't explain it. you have one offense with 3 of the 5 positions in the green and a little red and another team with 2 green and 3 red. It does not add up. period. There is no where in this formula that says a QB weighs more than another position group...   If that were true then somewhere it would say that in the formula the QB position or say the WR position outweighs other positional groups. but it does not say that. 

 

 

Ummm.  You are seriously adding things up by using color counts?  The weights are right there in the chart and it is clear that the QB position contributes the most to the offensive group at 28%.  Everything else is much lower . 

[PrimeTime101]

1 hour ago, prissythecat said:

 

 

Ummm.  You are seriously adding things up by using color counts?  The weights are right there in the chart and it is clear that the QB position contributes the most to the offensive group at 28%.  Everything else is much lower . 

no.. read back a couple posts. I did not see the math equations in small print. now go back and read my last reply to orange. 

[prissythecat]

2 minutes ago, PrimeTime101 said:

no.. read back a couple posts. I did not see the math equations in small print. now go back and read my last reply to orange. 

Didn’t see the subsequent replies as I had my response just sitting there before I got to click submit

 

Good that you finally understand The methodology .  It may not sit well with some folks but at least it tries to do a ranking. in systematic fashion rather than pure gut feel

[PrimeTime101]

Just now, prissythecat said:

Didn’t see the subsequent replies as I had my response just sitting there before I got to click submit

 

Good that you finally understand The methodology .  It may not sit well with some folks but at least it tries to do a ranking. in systematic fashion rather than pure gut feel

the values themselves are messed up... not just in general for each position but for the positions on teams themself. Doubling down + some on QB, when WR is a need in this league is crazy. and .03 for HB? mine as well say you do not need a HB at all.... thats my biggest issue with all of this.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Red across the offense. Sounds about right