PFT’s Depth Analysis

[albefree69]

<a class="postlink" href="http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/08/25/pfts-depth-analysis/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... -analysis/</a>

PFT’s Depth Analysis
With roster cuts approaching, here is our take on the teams with the strongest and thinnest depth at various positions. One major goal was to find teams that could have more roster-caliber players than roster spots at certain position groups.

In short, a primary focus was looking for useful players who could be waived or released.

Rotoworld and Ourlads’ depth charts were helpful in our analysis, as were Pro Football Focus’ snap counts.

Here is the list, which is subject to change:

OFFENSE

QUARTERBACK

Deep: 49ers, Bengals, Browns, Colts, Dolphins, Eagles, Redskins, Seahawks, Texans, Titans.

Thin: Bills, Falcons, Packers.

RUNNING BACK

Deep: 49ers, Bengals, Broncos, Buccaneers, Eagles, Lions, Packers, Patriots, Ravens, Saints, Seahawks, Titans.

Thin: Browns, Cowboys, Jaguars, Raiders, Vikings.

WIDE RECEIVER

Deep: 49ers, Bills, Browns, Giants, Saints, Seahawks, Titans.

Thin: Jaguars, Jets, Lions, Ravens.

TIGHT END

Deep: Bengals, Broncos, Cowboys, Eagles, Packers.

Thin: Bills, Buccaneers, Dolphins, Jaguars, Ravens, Saints, Seahawks, Steelers.

CENTER

Deep: Cowboys, Titans.

Thin: Dolphins, Giants, Packers, Panthers, Patriots.

GUARD

Deep: Eagles, Ravens, Seahawks, Titans.

Thin: Browns, Buccaneers, Cardinals, Panthers, Raiders.

OFFENSIVE TACKLE

Deep: Bears, Titans.

Thin: Bills, Buccaneers, Dolphins, Falcons, Giants, Lions, Panthers, Raiders, Vikings.

FULLBACK

Deep: 49ers, Bengals, Browns, Chiefs, Dolphins, Ravens, Seahawks.

Thin: N/A: numerous teams do not carry a fullback.

DEFENSE

DEFENSIVE END

Deep: Bengals, Browns, Lions, Packers, Patriots, Seahawks.

Thin: Broncos, Cowboys, Raiders, Titans.

DEFENSIVE TACKLE

Deep: Giants, Lions. Seahawks, Texans.

Thin: Chargers, Patriots, Raiders.

INSIDE LINEBACKER

Deep: Eagles, Redskins, Saints, Seahawks, Titans.

Thin: Dolphins, Giants.

OUTSIDE LINEBACKER

Deep: Bills, Cardinals, Packers, Ravens. Seahawks, Texans.

Thin: Bengals, Broncos, Dolphins, Falcons, Giants, Patriots, Rams.

CORNERBACK

Deep: 49ers, Bengals, Broncos, Cardinals, Packers, Patriots, Seahawks, Titans.

Thin: Browns, Buccaneers, Eagles, Jets.

SAFETY

Deep: Bills, Broncos, Eagles, Patriots, Titans.

Thin: Bengals, Colts, Giants, Panthers, Ravens.

SPECIAL TEAMS

PUNTER

Deep: Buccaneers, Patriots, Raiders, Steelers.

Thin: None.

KICKER

Deep: Buccaneers, Jets, Lions.

Thin: Packers.

RETURN SPECIALISTS

Deep: Bears, Bills.

Thin: Colts, Redskins.

They don't think we're thin at safety? :lol:

 

[bluecoconuts]

I'm more shocked that they consider the 49ers and Seahawks deep at receiver.

 

[albefree69]

Awesome job they did eh? :lol:

 

[EastRam]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/08/25/pfts-depth-analysis/

PFT’s Depth Analysis
With roster cuts approaching, here is our take on the teams with the strongest and thinnest depth at various positions. One major goal was to find teams that could have more roster-caliber players than roster spots at certain position groups.

In short, a primary focus was looking for useful players who could be waived or released.

Rotoworld and Ourlads’ depth charts were helpful in our analysis, as were Pro Football Focus’ snap counts.

Here is the list, which is subject to change:

OFFENSE

QUARTERBACK

Deep: 49ers, Bengals, Browns, Colts, Dolphins, Eagles, Redskins, Seahawks, Texans, Titans.

Thin: Bills, Falcons, Packers.

RUNNING BACK

Deep: 49ers, Bengals, Broncos, Buccaneers, Eagles, Lions, Packers, Patriots, Ravens, Saints, Seahawks, Titans.

Thin: Browns, Cowboys, Jaguars, Raiders, Vikings.

WIDE RECEIVER

Deep: 49ers, Bills, Browns, Giants, Saints, Seahawks, Titans.

Thin: Jaguars, Jets, Lions, Ravens.

TIGHT END

Deep: Bengals, Broncos, Cowboys, Eagles, Packers.

Thin: Bills, Buccaneers, Dolphins, Jaguars, Ravens, Saints, Seahawks, Steelers.

CENTER

Deep: Cowboys, Titans.

Thin: Dolphins, Giants, Packers, Panthers, Patriots.

GUARD

Deep: Eagles, Ravens, Seahawks, Titans.

Thin: Browns, Buccaneers, Cardinals, Panthers, Raiders.

OFFENSIVE TACKLE

Deep: Bears, Titans.

Thin: Bills, Buccaneers, Dolphins, Falcons, Giants, Lions, Panthers, Raiders, Vikings.

FULLBACK

Deep: 49ers, Bengals, Browns, Chiefs, Dolphins, Ravens, Seahawks.

Thin: N/A: numerous teams do not carry a fullback.

DEFENSE

DEFENSIVE END

Deep: Bengals, Browns, Lions, Packers, Patriots, Seahawks.

Thin: Broncos, Cowboys, Raiders, Titans.

DEFENSIVE TACKLE

Deep: Giants, Lions. Seahawks, Texans.

Thin: Chargers, Patriots, Raiders.

INSIDE LINEBACKER

Deep: Eagles, Redskins, Saints, Seahawks, Titans.

Thin: Dolphins, Giants.

OUTSIDE LINEBACKER

Deep: Bills, Cardinals, Packers, Ravens. Seahawks, Texans.

Thin: Bengals, Broncos, Dolphins, Falcons, Giants, Patriots, Rams.

CORNERBACK

Deep: 49ers, Bengals, Broncos, Cardinals, Packers, Patriots, Seahawks, Titans.

Thin: Browns, Buccaneers, Eagles, Jets.

SAFETY

Deep: Bills, Broncos, Eagles, Patriots, Titans.

Thin: Bengals, Colts, Giants, Panthers, Ravens.

SPECIAL TEAMS

PUNTER

Deep: Buccaneers, Patriots, Raiders, Steelers.

Thin: None.

KICKER

Deep: Buccaneers, Jets, Lions.

Thin: Packers.

RETURN SPECIALISTS

Deep: Bears, Bills.

Thin: Colts, Redskins.

They don't think we're thin at safety? :lol:

That was pretty worthless

 

[jjab360]

I dont see how we're thin at OLB with Ogletree, JLD, Witherspoon, and Armstrong. Maybe I'm just being a homer, but I doubt it.

 

[Ram Quixote]

 

[MTRamsFan]

Another worthless article. My IQ just dropped by 10 points after reading this... and I don't have many more I can lose! :tooth:

 

[albefree69]

MontanaRamsFan lying through his teeth:
Another worthless article. My IQ just dropped by 10 points after reading this... and I don't have many more I can lose! :tooth:

Article smarticle. You lost those 10 points watching those things jiggle. I know that because I lost 5 points myself and I'm a professional.

 

[brokeu91]

Awesome job they did eh? :lol:

Exactly. I also have no idea why we are not listed as deep at DE. I don't think there's team outside of maybe the Seahawks that has as much depth at that position as the Rams do.

 

[kurtfaulk]

.

Well that was 20 seconds of my life I will never get back.

.

 

[albefree69]

You know, we pretty much lose 24 hours of our lives that we'll never get back every day. :lol:

The thing about poorly written articles for me is that I frequently find I do more thinking trying to mentally rebut all the stupid stuff than I do when I agree with an article and just say "I agree with that" and immediately move on to the next article.

It's pretty much the same mental exercise I get when someone disagrees with one of my viewpoints. Posters sometimes accuse me of being defensive or trying to "win" (what a laugh that is) an argument. In reality, having to defend your viewpoint and counter the opposing viewpoint is, for me, tremendously enjoyable and it's one of the main reasons I post.

 

[-X-]

It's pretty much the same mental exercise I get when someone disagrees with one of my viewpoints. Posters sometimes accuse me of being defensive or trying to "win" (what a laugh that is) an argument. In reality, having to defend your viewpoint and counter the opposing viewpoint is, for me, tremendously enjoyable and it's one of the main reasons I post.

Well that's sort of illuminating. I was wondering what your motivation might be.

So, do you typically take an unpopular view solely for those reasons? I'm not trying to be a wise guy (nice 30's reference there, eh?), I'm just wondering. I think maybe if people got to know more about other posters, there would be fewer misunderstandings. Which, by default, would lead to less ambivalence. :lol:

 

[albefree69]

X queried:
So, do you typically take an unpopular view solely for those reasons? I'm not trying to be a wise guy (nice 30's reference there, eh?), I'm just wondering. I think maybe if people got to know more about other posters, there would be fewer misunderstandings. Which, by default, would lead to less ambivalence. :lol:

Yes and no. I'll sometimes take an unpopular viewpoint that I don't actually agree with just so I can discuss it but I have to see the logic of the unpopular viewpoint or I can't argue for it. After all, if I can't see the other side my arguments will be pretty weak and the whole point of playing the devil's advocate would be pointless and devoid of mental stimulation.

Fortunately, I almost always see some logic in everyone's viewpoint. There are no TRWs (stupid people) posting here and so when someone says something I can usually see their side even if I don't agree with it.

On the other hand, sometimes posters equate contrarian viewpoints with trolling and start making it personal so you can't do it often or you'll start having contentious conversations and that's something nobody wants. Plus, you can get a bad rep with posters who don't know you very well.

But I have to admit that I really like it when someone disagrees with me. :twisted:

 

[-X-]

X queried:
So, do you typically take an unpopular view solely for those reasons? I'm not trying to be a wise guy (nice 30's reference there, eh?), I'm just wondering. I think maybe if people got to know more about other posters, there would be fewer misunderstandings. Which, by default, would lead to less ambivalence. :lol:

Yes and no. I'll sometimes take an unpopular viewpoint that I don't actually agree with just so I can discuss it but I have to see the logic of the unpopular viewpoint or I can't argue for it. After all, if I can't see the other side my arguments will be pretty weak and the whole point of playing the devil's advocate would be pointless and devoid of mental stimulation.

Fortunately, I almost always see some logic in everyone's viewpoint. There are no TRWs (stupid people) posting here and so when someone says something I can usually see their side even if I don't agree with it.

On the other hand, sometimes posters equate contrarian viewpoints with trolling and start making it personal so you can't do it often or you'll start having contentious conversations and that's something nobody wants. Plus, you can get a bad rep with posters who don't know you very well.

But I have to admit that I really like it when someone disagrees with me. :twisted:

Mkay. I'll keep that in mind. Sometimes I can get a little defensive if I feel like players (or coaches) are being unfairly criticized, but that's my hang-up and I apologize if I backed you into a corner over it in the recent past. I'm one of those fans who used to go to the corner newsstand as a kid (riding a bike no less) to get the weekly football pub with my allowance, just to see how the Rams' players were individually ranked in the league. So I kind of developed a habit of putting these guys on a pedestal, even though I now know that they're just paid athletes. It's all about protecting the horns for me and maybe that's just a deep seeded issue of wanting to stay a kid with regards to watching football.

I do enjoy a good debate too though, but I tend to go to other sites to do that because the irrationality level at [certain] other sites is usually pretty high and I can get my argument on without worrying about offending anyone. I'm one of those all-in kinda debaters, and I'm sure you know that already given our previous membership at another site. To that end, I made THIS site with the intention of getting a bunch of like-minded people together to discuss the Rams without having to worry about trolling. As a result, I think people here (particularly the founders) want to keep it as a safe haven for that very reason, and maybe they (we) can get a little defensive if they (we) feel like the walls are being breached - so to speak. But now that I know you're just trying to stimulate some conversation, it's all good. I'll just pwn you and your weak ass arguments without making it personal. lol.

 

[albefree69]

X making promises he can't keep:
I'll just pwn you and your weak ass arguments without making it personal. lol.

Is this your MLK memorial "I Had A Dream" post? lzstop:

 

[Speeps]

All I saw was "PFT" and knew it was going to be a crap list. It's what they do. They scratch the surface on teams, and use it as the full picture.

 

[CGI_Ram]

It seems popular opinion to rip this list.

I agree.

What the hell was that?

 

[Thordaddy]

.

Well that was 20 seconds of my life I will never get back.

.

Have you ever gotten any back ? just askin' cuz it seems you are inferring that you have before or know how in the future , but more than anything I'm expending seconds here I'll never get back ,but at least I spent them being a smartass which I enjoy and in the end I agree reading that article was a waste as well.

Each day I try to put a few minutes aside at the end of the year I always wonder why I don't have an extra week :omg:

 

[Thordaddy]

It seems popular opinion to rip this list.

I agree.

What the hell was that?

I'm thinkin' it was a thingy comprised of restating opinions of others and if that guy still has a job next year and does another list like that'n we're gonna be listed as deep in several catgories DE,WR,TE,maybe RB and CB.
I do agree we are thin at OLB with the Dunbar suspension but Seattle at DE with the people they are gonna be missing are ya kidden me DEEP?

 

[Thordaddy]

AMBIVALENCE WHOA THERE'S A WURD FER YA :tooth: