Link: PFF breaks down the Jets depth chart

Here is PFF’s take on the Jets current depth chart, from which they ranked the Jets roster as 23rd best (or 10th worst) in the NFL.

Read Bent’s thoughts after the jump…

Bent, TheJetsBlog.com

While we can nitpick some of the rankings here (Coples and Wilkerson in particular), I’d actually say that where they have placed the Jets in their rankings is pretty reasonable.

As you can see from the color coded chart, the Jets have a high number of players on their roster that are either rookies or players that have yet to prove themselves. This mostly impacts upon their depth, with Kenrick Ellis being the only non-starter who they would regard as an “above average starter”. However, the majority of the second and third string would have to be classified as unproven rather than just not good enough.

In terms of their projected starters, thing look a little better (and certainly an improvement on last year) with nine players considered a “good starter” or better and many of the players regarded as below average either being young players who have the potential to get better this season, or established veterans who are capable of being better and whose struggles last year can be at least partially attributable to the players around them.

On the assumption that Stephen Hill will be relegated to a backup role unless he develops this year and that Tommy Bohanon is not likely to have a key role, even if he makes the team, this underlines how important it is to get better play from the left guard position with Brian Winters the only remaining “poor starter” on the first unit. Average or better performance from him could elevate the play of those around him, which is what we saw from Nick Mangold in particular over the last month.

Beyond that, the Jets are obviously relying on Geno Smith more than anyone, but there are several other players on the team who are capable of performing better than this projection (which is, of course, based of 2013 performance).


Bonus link: ESPN New York’s Rich Cimini reacts to PFF’s take here.




353 comments
Paul Samuels
Paul Samuels

Patterson listed as Good? I'll take it, if he can stay healthy... Is Coples really as bad as they say, Bent? 

borisjets
borisjets

According to PFF the Jets DBs are much better than their Linebackers. 

Everyone was screaming that we had to sign a CB, no one said we need a LB.

chicagofan
chicagofan

Interesting.  But the issue I have is looking in the rearview mirror.  The real question, and I am not sure how to do this in a meaningful way - is what is the upside for the coming year (or 2)?  Do you factor in age?  experience in the league?  Improvement over the prior year?  The problem I have with this type of analytics is that it does not really tell you anything going forward.  So if Dee Milliner, on average, performs the same way he did over the course of last year, he is an average CB.  Richardson, on average based on last year, is a very good starter.  No accounting for the fact that these were rookies on a learning curve in their first year.  


Note to Bent - It would be interesting to see Seattle's rating prior to last year.  Did they have Richard Sherman as all world???   What about Russell Wilson?  How about 2 years ago?  (which BTW, is where I think the Jets are).

Bent
Bent moderator

Interesting discussion down below by you guys with reference to double teams.  


I can state that, no, PFF do not track these.  They are, to some extent, accounted for in their grades because (a) if you make a play against a double team, you're likely to get a higher grade and (b) if you're blocked out of a play by a double team you're unlikely to be graded down.  However, they don't chart them and they don't use them to normalize grades.


However, I've started charting them for 2013 (done four games in about six hours last night) and will be writing a BGA on the subject in due course.

idothis2
idothis2

Seems like PFF is pouring water on Pace and Coples. they couldve at least spelled Coples name right. gotta start a "Stop Disrespecting Coples" movement

williamg1
williamg1

Cimini's up with a post using Namath to stir up QB controversy. 

Expect Joey's presence soon. 

harold
harold

Off Topic Observation:

Stephen Hill seems to close his eyes at the point he goes to secure the catch. 

Surprised he is still doing this 3 years later.  Have the coaches pointed this out?  It seems so obvious. 

I am sure it has to be a factor in him effectively making contested and in traffic catches.

Thoughts?

tsjc68
tsjc68

FUN FACT:


The PFF depth charts, by definition, do not include UDFAs or futures guys at the end of the roster, only holdovers projected to compete for a roster spot + drafted rookies.


They list 68 players on our chart (and while they shouldn't have included Reuland, they failed to include Brandon Dixon, which washes out.)


Our 68 is the biggest chart they did so far.  Next closest is the Vikings, who have 65 players listed.  Several teams, like the Cardinals/Texans/Chiefs/Dolphins, are in the mid-50s range (55 to 57 players listed.)


-------------------------


We have a lot of variance in this depth chart, in that we have a larger recognized depth of notable upside-play guys who could push for a roster spot (and thus, presumably, outplay their "not enough information/rookie" non-grades to push our total talent level up.

Monty
Monty

the data ie who wins their battles and who fulfills assignments is a judgement call based on what they see from game footage. They can not have all of the information on a play. they are not in the planning room or the huddle ..only the coaches and players.know for sure. Therefore their data is just as suspect as their conclusions.. waste of .. time

Bent
Bent moderator

@Paul Samuels I don't necessarily agree, but you could put forward an argument that his overall production over the course of the season wasn't very good.  However, he was rehabbing a broken foot for the first half of the season and adjusting to a role change.  That's not the guy we're getting going forward.


Or, as Marcus so eloquently put it...no.

Bent
Bent moderator

@chicagofan  Your first paragraph is correct and they've acknowledged this when sharing their methodology.


As for the second part, Sherman made the leap in 2012 and started getting elite grades then.  However, their grade for him in 2011 did pick up on the fact that he had played really well and therefore were arguably onto the fact he was ready to make that leap before the masses.


Had they been doing the same thing back then (I don't think they did), they wouldn't have predicted that kind of jump, because that's not what they're setting out to do.


As for Wilson, he was inconsistent to start with, then became one of the better QBs in the league but isn't elite yet.  I think their grades accurately reflect this growth over the couple of years he's played in the league.  They're aiming to analyze the past accurately moreso than project.

Brendan
Brendan

@Bent That will be a great read. Below you said there's some surprising results so far,  does it have to do with someone who was doubled more than expected, less than expected, or just an overall trend you noticed that wouldn't be obvious? 

idothis2
idothis2

@Bent the charting of double teams would help to form a complete picture of player effectiveness i think.

Bent
Bent moderator

@jake100 Hahaha


williamg125 minutes ago

Cimini's up with a post using Namath to stir up QB controversy. 

Expect Joey's presence soon. 

williamg1
williamg1

@idothis2 Coples is going to lead the movement by being a force at OLB. 

Brendan
Brendan

@williamg1 It's too bad Vegas won't post lines on this sort of thing, you'd clean house. 

t__k
t__k

@tsjc68 Any correlation between size of depth chart and playoff teams from last year?

Brendan
Brendan

@Monty Please stop. 


You bring up valid points, but present it in such a douchey and absolute way that it's not even worth it to discuss with you. 

t__k
t__k

@tsjc68 That's actually got a few too many similarities to the Jets depth chart for my liking...

Bent
Bent moderator

@Brendan @Bent Yes to all three.  And I think once I've got a whole season of results we'll have some pretty clear-cut trends to chew on.  It will be interesting to see how the trends develop over the course of the year and there are already some differences between opposing teams approach which I can also get into.

idothis2
idothis2

@williamg1 cosign. as well he should

harold
harold

If you look at any catches he makes just watch his eyes?  They close or squint basically shut.

Go look at the WR's photos in Ny Jets. com for OTA's.

Watch any up close photos of in game catches and he always seem to close his eyes.

Just weird.

tsjc68
tsjc68

@Marcus Armstrong @tsjc68 That helps a lot, but besides the 11 (12) draft picks, we have 15 (14) "not enough information" guys, a list that includes still-young upside plays who were recent draft picks (often of other teams) who actually have some promise like Walls, Dowling, Ijalana, Bush, Aboushi, Campbell, and Jarrett.


Scanning through the other published depth charts, the mean number of grey "NEI" guys looks to be about 11 or so.  Combine that with our slew of picks (mean of about 7) and we have 26 "unknowns" vs about 18 "unknowns" for an average team.


Most of our "unknowns" won't instantly be yellows/greens/blues, of course; that's true both for us and for everyone else.


Having more lottery tickets is better than having fewer of them, though.  Nobody else in the league has more notable lottery tickets than we do, according to PFF's cutoff definitions for such things, thus we have more chances to unearth an "unexpected" contributor.

tsjc68
tsjc68

@t__k @tsjc68 No idea, nor would I have reason to believe that to be causal.

Monty
Monty

@Brendan @Monty there is no discussion it just the facts. Im sick of people taking down a team Ive watched for thirty years..just because they have created the forum to do so. 

tsjc68
tsjc68

@t__k @tsjc68 We have 24 "average" or better players.  They have 16.


The Jaguars make the Jets look like the Steelers of the 70s.

Brendan
Brendan

@Bent Oh man, consider me excited to read this once you're done. 

Bent
Bent moderator

@tsjc68 @idothis2 The results so far are fascinating.  And having half-heartedly charted it in a few early season games in the past, the real results are not entirely what I expected (!)


Such a long process but it has made me interested in maybe also looking at previous seasons, other teams and even which offensive linemen are used to double team and how often.  Would be interesting to contrast Vlad and Winters with Slauson in that last category.

a57se
a57se

@harold 

I've never seen a video where I could see the WR's eyes when he was making the catch........then again, with my eyesight, who knows!

Monty
Monty

@brendan @Monty you make a list .. bent make a list.. we can discuss...these people make a list.. no thank you

t__k
t__k

@tsjc68 @t__k They have 38 below average or worse to our 33, including not enough info.  70's Steelers might be a bit overboard.  Our roster is better, no question, but I wouldn't say it's blowing the Jags out of the water by any stretch.

harold
harold

@a57se

I will post some pics tomorrow that show this. At work don't have time.

Bent
Bent moderator

@Monty "bent make a list.. we can discuss...these people make a list.. no thank you "


But if I made a list, my methodology would be almost exactly the same as theirs, the only difference being that I've ONLY watched the Jets whereas they've watched every team so have a much better sense of perspective when comparing how well a guy is doing.

Monty
Monty

most of us have watched every game for the last decade at least more than once.. we know our players....its insulting this PFF team would think they know the jets better than we do.. :)

a57se
a57se

@t__k @tsjc68 

Hey we're better than the Jaguars!!!

I am fully boned now!!

BDarc23
BDarc23

@Monty I love the Jets but I'm not sure I have time to watch the games twice or more. 

Brendan
Brendan

@Monty Relax, Joey Jr. 


"There is no discussion" 


Yes, there is. 


"Just the facts" 


Oh, the facts that you compiled yourself watching countless hours of film rating every player on every play while you did it? 


" Im sick of people taking down a team Ive watched for thirty years..just because they have created the forum to do so. "


Didn't you say earlier that this isn't personal? 


"most of us have watched every game for the last decade at least more than once."


Lol, this is so blatantly untrue. Most Jets fans do not watch a game more than once. 


"we know our players"


Rooting for a team does not mean you know it better than anyone. You have to put the time in. 


"its insulting this PFF team would think they know the jets better than we do"


Did they say this directly? I missed it. When it comes to the everyday nonsense that we latch onto and talk about all day, you're right, they know exponentially less than we do, it's to be expected. But when it comes to who plays where, how many times, how well they do, etc.? No chance does your typical Joe Schmoe Jets fan know more than PFF (who you keep referring to as a single entity when it's an entire team of analysts). 

tsjc68
tsjc68

@Monty

we know our players....its insulting this PFF team would think they know the jets better than we do...


No, it's not.


We know our players.  They know them, too, though.  They're paid to know them.

tsjc68
tsjc68

@Brendan @Monty

The average fan of the average team does not watch each play of each of his team's games multiple times to divide out the play of all 22 guys on the field for every snap, one at a time, and see who was responsible for what and who won his assignment and who lost his assignment, then take those findings and share them with other people, including NFL coaches/executives/personnel to cross-check for accuracy.


PFF does.

jaygo
jaygo

@tsjc68 @Brendan @Monty 


Sounds good but at the end of the day PFF results are subjective group think.  Poll the guys at ESPN using agreed metrics, all "experts," and you likely will come up with different results.  Poll the guys in section 334 using agreed metrics and you will likely come up with a third set of results from the same data set.  I think PFF tries harder and is in fact the best analytical analysis out there, but it remains closer to art than science.  We've had this debate before and I'm not changing my view having read all the PFF stuff on how they work.  It's good stuff but I wouldn't bet the house on it.


The more interesting issue never discussed is that PFF and their people are based in the UK, not the good ole USA.  Huh? Maybe Bent can explain that one and I've often wondered if Bent has some relationship with them.  As Bent has better info than almost everyone else posting here, it wouldn't surprise me.

Bent
Bent moderator

@jaygo @tsjc68 @Brendan @Monty


That's not strictly true.  Their founder is from the UK and that's where they were set up but most of their staff and about half of their management board is based in the US.  Even the founder spends a ton of time in the US visiting teams these days.


I've met a few of them and interacted with several of them and yes they are extremely knowledgeable about the game and to suggest otherwise like Monty was doing is pretty laughable.