ESPN article ranking the top NFL rosters

[Beck Water]

Just now, GoBills808 said:

How so?

 

Kelce>Diggs

JuJu>Davis

 

I agree with your basic premise that KC was not "questionable" in having good receiving targets, overall better than the Bills.

 

I'm a bit curious how you come up with Kelce > Diggs though.  By most metrics I don't think that tracks.

TikTokBoy > Davis and MVS > McK is a pretty straightforward case, and the Chiefs got more receiving from their RB as well.

[GoBills808]

2 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

I agree with your basic premise that KC was not "questionable" in having good receiving targets, overall better than the Bills.

 

I'm a bit curious how you come up with Kelce > Diggs though.  By most metrics I don't think that tracks.

TikTokBoy > Davis and MVS > McK is a pretty straightforward case, and the Chiefs got more receiving from their RB as well.

Probably by statistical comparison Diggs is going to outproduce Kelce just by virtue of their positions

 

I meant Kelce is one of the best TEs of all time, he's got target value in that offense that goes beyond the numbers imo

[MJS]

How is linebacker not the weakest unit? It is by far.

 

The weakness of the receiving group is overstated.

[hondo in seattle]

I've seen roster rankings between #3 to #8.

 

If the best rosters in each conference meet in the SB, it'll sadly be Philly and KC again.  At least according to ESPN.  

 

I do, personally, like our roster although our ability to dominate this season is riddled with if's...

 

...  if all of last year's walking wounded regain their health & form.

 

...  if Dorsey figures out how to use all his disparate weapons.

 

...  if a replacement to Edmunds steps up.

 

...  if our new stable of RBs works out.

 

...  if this year's OL is better than last year's.

 

On the whole, though, I'm actually probably a bit more optimistic this offseason than I was last offseason.  

 

 

[hondo in seattle]

1 hour ago, LABILLBACKER said:

The lack of a bona-fide #2 wr absolutely kills this team. I think it's also effects the recent Diggs behavior.  Teams know after Stefon we're vulnerable.  That's why Diggs is getting doubled more than ever.  This year's team will have to depend more on Knox, Kincaid, Harty & Sherfield for support.  I personally have closed the book on Gabe. Whatever he contributes will be supplemental.  If Hyde,  Von and Tre can return healthy this defense will compete.  But once we enter the playoffs,  we must absolutely have a strong secondary target besides Diggs.

 

I wish we had a better #2.  But I don't think "the absence of a bona-fide #2 absolutely kills this team."  I like the diversity and overall depth of the receiving corps.  I like Harty and Sherfield in the roles they'll likely play.  I like the different skill sets of Knox and Kincaid.  I like Cook and Hines out of the backfield.  

 

I think we'll pass for a lot of yards and score a lot of points.  This isn't a dead/killed offense.  It's a very potent and dangerous one.   But, yeah, it would be more dangerous if Diggs had a nearly equally skilled partner on the other side.  

[Beck Water]

 

1 hour ago, GoBills808 said:

throw in White who I don't expect to every really regain his form and there's an argument that the defense is in big trouble

 

Why?

 

Most players who have had an ACL injury seem to find the 1st year back a struggle, and the 2nd year back much closer to form.

[GoBills808]

4 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

 

Why?

 

Most players who have had an ACL injury seem to find the 1st year back a struggle, and the 2nd year back much closer to form.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/23259671221079637

[maddenboy]

1 hour ago, FireChans said:

I think I'd rather have 1 star and 1 solid starter than 4 solid starters in today's NFL.

I disagreed with your statement.   But i wanna make sure you are limiting it to CBs.

 

In this day and age, your Nickel CB is a starter.  And he'd better be starter quality, at least.   And with the TE position being like a 4th WR, and also the defensive position (real or planned by McD) of "big-nickel" and yeah.  I prefer 3-4 starters.  We dont really need a star.  No team does at CB.

 

Of course if you have one (sauce gardner) you can plan your defense around him.   But that was already your defene probably.  That's why you drafted him.

 

---

 

otoh, if your statement applies to other positions, That sounds like a juicy thread topic. 

[FireChans]

9 minutes ago, maddenboy said:

I disagreed with your statement.   But i wanna make sure you are limiting it to CBs.

 

In this day and age, your Nickel CB is a starter.  And he'd better be starter quality, at least.   And with the TE position being like a 4th WR, and also the defensive position (real or planned by McD) of "big-nickel" and yeah.  I prefer 3-4 starters.  We dont really need a star.  No team does at CB.

 

Of course if you have one (sauce gardner) you can plan your defense around him.   But that was already your defene probably.  That's why you drafted him.

 

---

 

otoh, if your statement applies to other positions, That sounds like a juicy thread topic. 

Stars make the plays that win in the NFL.

 

It's why having Diggs is so much more important than a John Brown and Cole Beasley.

 

It's why the Rams, with a top heavy, star-studded roster won a Superbowl. And the Bills with such great depth but not enough stars hasn't.

Edited June 29, 2023 by FireChans

[Florida Bills Fanatic]

I generally disregard everything coming from ESPN anymore.  I do pay attention to various sports book sources and almost all don't have the Bill's in crisis mode as most New York based media do.  Many Bills fans read some of these opinion pieces and their hair immediately catches fire.  There are really very few inside media sources that have a clue about talent levels of teams.  We seem to go through this every summer and at least for the last four years, the sky hasn't fallen.  We just need to chill until we actually see the team in some full speed action.

[MJS]

2 hours ago, LABILLBACKER said:

The lack of a bona-fide #2 wr absolutely kills this team. I think it's also effects the recent Diggs behavior.  Teams know after Stefon we're vulnerable.  That's why Diggs is getting doubled more than ever.  This year's team will have to depend more on Knox, Kincaid, Harty & Sherfield for support.  I personally have closed the book on Gabe. Whatever he contributes will be supplemental.  If Hyde,  Von and Tre can return healthy this defense will compete.  But once we enter the playoffs,  we must absolutely have a strong secondary target besides Diggs.

Wow. Quite the strong take, here. There's no reason to believe that.

[Beck Water]

1 hour ago, GoBills808 said:

Probably by statistical comparison Diggs is going to outproduce Kelce just by virtue of their positions

I meant Kelce is one of the best TEs of all time, he's got target value in that offense that goes beyond the numbers imo

 

Don't buy the "by virtue of their positions".  Kelce is split out wide much of the time; given his number of targets, he absolutely functions as a receiver in the Chief's offense, usually a slot but sometimes on deeper routes.   Diggs and Kelce were both the #1 receivers on their teams last season, by every metric

 

And, you could say that Diggs has target value in the Bills offense that gores beyond the numbers as well - in fact, given the (correct IMO) argument that the rest of the WR corps was better on the Chiefs than on the Bills, wouldn't you have to argue that Diggs has value that goes beyond the numbers as well?  Kelce is "Pat's guy", but Diggs has been "Allen's guy" the last couple years - in fact one of Diggs dissatisfactions may very well be that he was less "The Man" in Dorsey's offense.

 

Anyway, potato potahto - on the fundamental point about the relative quality of the receiving corps last year, we seem to agree KC > Bills.

 

So we can both take the flak for that argument

[Augie]

54 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/23259671221079637

 

This seems flawed from the beginning. It measures how many players play for 3 years post ACL surgery, while ignoring that the average career is only about 3.5 years. WHY are they out of the league? It may be knee related, or guys just don’t last that long. You would expect a low percentage. 

[GoBills808]

7 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

Don't buy the "by virtue of their positions".  Kelce is split out wide much of the time; given his number of targets, he absolutely functions as a receiver in the Chief's offense, usually a slot but sometimes on deeper routes.   Diggs and Kelce were both the #1 receivers on their teams last season, by every metric

 

And, you could say that Diggs has target value in the Bills offense that gores beyond the numbers as well - in fact, given the (correct IMO) argument that the rest of the WR corps was better on the Chiefs than on the Bills, wouldn't you have to argue that Diggs has value that goes beyond the numbers as well?  Kelce is "Pat's guy", but Diggs has been "Allen's guy" the last couple years - in fact one of Diggs dissatisfactions may very well be that he was less "The Man" in Dorsey's offense.

 

Anyway, potato potahto - on the fundamental point about the relative quality of the receiving corps last year, we seem to agree KC > Bills.

 

So we can both take the flak for that argument

I could phrase it differently👍

 

I don't think the concept that Kelce is a better TE than Diggs is a WR should be controversial 

5 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

This seems flawed from the beginning. It measures how many players play for 3 years post ACL surgery, while ignoring that the average career is only about 3.5 years. WHY are they out of the league? It may be knee related, or guys just don’t last that long. You would expect a low percentage. 

It also measured how often and how well they played within that period and the trends are not favorable

[Augie]

27 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

I could phrase it differently👍

 

I don't think the concept that Kelce is a better TE than Diggs is a WR should be controversial 

It also measured how often and how well they played within that period and the trends are not favorable

 

I don’t have time to look now, so I’ll take your word for it, though it sounds like it’s getting into subjective territory.

 

Our son tore his ACL and it took a while for him to be himself in sports, but he fully recovered. More than a decade later it’s giving him some issues, but he played at 100% eventually. I think that is the case with most people. It’s certainly not like the old days where a torn ACL was a career killer, like Robert James. 

 

Still, saying only 28.5% are still in the league 3 years later still sounds like a leading statement, and maybe even misleading. What percentage of players without ACL surgery are still in the league 3 years later. How different is that number? 

 

 

.

Edited June 29, 2023 by Augie

[Beck Water]

1 hour ago, GoBills808 said:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/23259671221079637

 

 I believe that's the same study I brought up when folks were all "Tre White should be back on the field already or it means he had some setback!" and I'm like no, the average RTP is 12 months so he's on schedule.

 

There's some points - for example, how do the stats on being in the league 3 years post injury compare to a control group that didn't have an ACL reconstruction?  And obviously marginal players who were barely hanging on, are going to be less likely to get further chances vs. starters and stars.

 

But there's a little bit of strangeness here.  Lemme see if I can bring in the graph (it should get bigger if you click). 

Quote

Figure 3. Box plots demonstrating (A) the approximate value and (B) the snap count pre- and post-ACLR. The X on the box plot represents the mean, the center line represents the median, error bars represent SDs, and circles represent outliers. ACLR, anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; Pre-ACLR, before ACL injury and reconstruction; Post-ACLR, after ACL injury and reconstruction.

Text: The average AV was 4.3 (5.3 SD) preinjury and 1.5 (5.3 SD) postinjury, averaged across 3 seasons pre- and postinjury (Figure 3A). Thus, players were not able to return to their preinjury level of play in terms of AV (P < .0001).

 

TL;DR - the text says that there's a significant difference in AV pre and post injury.  But the figure caption says that X is the mean, the center line represents the median - not the average.  And it's the center line that is 4.3 and 1.5 (called out in the figure legend as the median). 

If "X" is the mean, then given the size of the error bars, the difference is much less significant.  That's not a nit - it's something the authors and the reviewer should have clarified prior to publication.

 

Whether or not that's an error, we see a similar phenomenon when we look at the more relevant position specific change in AV here.  We see that for DBs, the change in AV is small (-4.5) and the error bars straddle 0.

 

It's entirely possible that Tre' won't return to his previous "Takeaway Tre'" , first-team all-Pro level of play.  But I don't think that article provides very strong support for an argument that he won't.

 

🤷‍♂️

 

[GoBills808]

15 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

I don’t have time to look now, so I’ll take your word for it, though it sounds like it’s getting into subjective territory.

 

Our son tore his ACL and it took a while for him to be himself in sports, but he fully recovered. More than a decade later it’s giving him some issues, but he played at 100% eventually. I think that is the case with most people. It’s certainly not like the old days where a torn ACL was a career killer, like Robert James. 

 

Still, saying only 28.5% are still in the league 3 years later still sounds like a leading statement, and maybe even misleading. What percentage of players without ACL surgery are still in the league 3 years later. How different is that number? 

 

 

.

Ive done both my ACLs during collegiate athletics

 

I didn't come back to 100%. Granted reconstructive surgery and rehab is better in the NFL and they have better techniques now but it's not the same as before imo

[FireChans]

57 minutes ago, MJS said:

Wow. Quite the strong take, here. There's no reason to believe that.

Most teams who have won the Super Bowl most recently have had pretty good WRs.

[Freddie's Dead]

I'd say we were weaker at LB than WR, but if they're counting edge rushers, LB isn't as weak.  But true LB's defending the run and covering the middle of the field?  Milano is a star, everybody else at LB is JAG.  If Williams pops, then we might really have something.

[Nextmanup]

Third in the league seems really, really optimistic to me right now.

 

The Bengals are a better team than us, to name 1 team that should be ahead of us on that list.

 

I hope it's accurate!

 

 

Edited June 29, 2023 by Nextmanup