Where Bears

[cubzzzfanincali]

Hey. Anyone an espn insider? Pro football focus ranked all 32 teams in terms of talent alone, and I'd like to see where they put the Bears. I see they put the lions at 11 which I think is crazy.

 

[GreenNickle]

 

[TDs3nOut]

Bears are ranked 15th.

Chicago Bears roster ranked 15th by Pro Football Focus - Windy City Gridiron

 

[cubzzzfanincali]

thanks for posting. I don't have major issues with their scoring although there are a couple that I might quibble with. For one thing, before Briggs went out last year I think he was playing at a very high level. At least dark green. Anyway, I probably would have scored them a little bit higher, but not a lot.

 

[richig07]

Wow, 15th really? Not going to lie. I thought we were better than that. lol

 

[63bears40]

Cali: I just think you are to wrapped up #s. That is all PFF is about.
It makes interesting reading . But that's about it.
Did they ever pick a SB champ before the season started, based on #s. I doubt it ( but Kudos if they did ).
My belief is that #s count only in Hall of Fame voting.
The game is so diversified that #s can change on a single play.
Something I hold against Phil , is his belief in PFF.
I'm old school, and believe in the eye test.
Not knocking what you believe in, just think there are better ways to evaluate talent.
Just wondering where did PFF have Long & Jeffery ranked?

 

[richig07]

Cali: I just think you are to wrapped up #s. That is all PFF is about.
It makes interesting reading . But that's about it.
Did they ever pick a SB champ before the season started, based on #s. I doubt it ( but Kudos if they did ).
My belief is that #s count only in Hall of Fame voting.
The game is so diversified that #s can change on a single play.
Something I hold against Phil , is his belief in PFF.
I'm old school, and believe in the eye test.
Not knocking what you believe in, just think there are better ways to evaluate talent.
Just wondering where did PFF have Long & Jeffery ranked?

PFF takes a lot more into account than just your usual statistics. Any impact you see made with the "eye test" is accounted for in their formulas and evaluations. Whether it's running, blocking, receiving, etc...

 

[Peter Gozintite]

I hope he ignores you

 

[63bears40]

PFF takes a lot more into account than just your usual statistics. Any impact you see made with the "eye test" is accounted for in their formulas and evaluations. Whether it's running, blocking, receiving, etc...

Just saying for instance, a QB will have higher rating while facing a Bears blitz ( from a year ago ), than say 49er blitz or Seattle.
The #s would hold water, if every team had the same schedule, and played vs the same opponents.
That's not the case in the NFL.
The variety of scheduling , IMO just throws most of those #s out the window.

 

[cubzzzfanincali]

Cali: I just think you are to wrapped up #s. That is all PFF is about.
It makes interesting reading . But that's about it.
Did they ever pick a SB champ before the season started, based on #s. I doubt it ( but Kudos if they did ).
My belief is that #s count only in Hall of Fame voting.
The game is so diversified that #s can change on a single play.
Something I hold against Phil , is his belief in PFF.
I'm old school, and believe in the eye test.
Not knocking what you believe in, just think there are better ways to evaluate talent.
Just wondering where did PFF have Long & Jeffery ranked?

I like numbers to compare against "my eyes." I do the same thing you do, I make most of my opinions from what I see. But it's good to check numbers, because while numbers are only numbers, and certainly don't tell the whole story, they can give you some kind of objective thing to compare to. Which as a fan, is ALWAYS the hardest thing to do.

Like I said, I probably would have rated the Bears a little - but not a lot - higher. That's based on my eyes, not numbers. It's interesting to compare it against someone else's numbers, and PFF by and large has some pretty good numbers. Are they the football Bible? No. But I'm always going to see what they put out there.

Like Tom Brady says, the only stat that matters are wins. But stats can help give you some clues on why some wins happen and others don't.

They had Jeffery rated very high, just below elite, and Long at just around below average for an NFL starter. I think Long got dinged based on all the hurries he gave up.

 

[cubzzzfanincali]

let's put it this way 6340. Strictly based on roster talent (which is what the PFF analysis attempts to measure), where would you rank the Bears in the league, and who would you place above and below them? In other words, where do you think the numbers are wrong?

 

[63bears40]

let's put it this way 6340. Strictly based on roster talent (which is what the PFF analysis attempts to measure), where would you rank the Bears in the league, and who would you place above and below them? In other words, where do you think the numbers are wrong?

Sorry Cali I don't follow #s.
So I have no idea where every one is ranked.
But since you asked.
I think the Bears will be a top 5 team (If the injury bug doesn't hit again). And if Mel can manage his new D (big IF).
I think both AJ, & Long are elite , since both made the pro bowl. And they're just going to get better.
Explained earlier why I think the #s are wrong . Every body plays a different schedule. Hence nobody faces the same competition week in & week out.
Not tryin to dis ya.
Just saying the #s PFF puts out, don't tell the whole story. They're just #s.

 

[63bears40]

Tried to edit to answer you completely. But time ran out.
Just think SEA.,49ers, I hate to say it GB (until poven other wise) ,& Denver. Have more proven talent.
Just think if Mel ( big IF ) gets our D settled . We can play w/anybody .

 

[cubzzzfanincali]

In terms of talent, I would actually say Denver has more than any other team in the league. I think the main thing holding that team back is John Fox.

I would actually rank the entire NFC West above the entire NFC North in terms of talent. I think Seattle's talent is overrated, but quite good obviously. Packers fans may howl, but I think it's unambiguously clear that aside from QB, St Louis has a much more talented roster than Green Bay. Of course, GB has a much better QB.

I would probably rank the Bears at 2nd in the NFC North, but that's whisker close to GB, and all 4 teams are pretty tightly clumped in terms of overall raw talent.

I definitely don't think either Jeffery or Long (especially Long) have done enough to deserve calling them "elite." I think that's positively insane. They have had very good starts to their careers, but if you start tossing around the word "elite" that freely, then you are just totally demeaning the word "elite" itself. I can rattle off at least a dozen offensive guards who are CLEARLY better than Long is right now. Five years from now, maybe he will have proven otherwise, but he hasn't done anything of the sort yet. That's pure unadulterated homerism.

 

[noonthirtyjoe]

We should be in the top 1/3 of the league. I'm not big into stats myself. I see more talent across the board then I have in a long time. Our def was injuried last year. Shit happens. But talent wise we are better then reported. And I dont think GB is more talented then us, just better QB play. Give me a healthy Bears team next year. I aint a feared of nobody.