Rank the Roster 2023: #3

[Waldo]

Rank The Roster: 2023 Edition

1. Jaire Alexander (43%)[+2]
2. Aaron Jones (26%)[+6]
3. Current (xx%)[--]

Percent of vote the winner got will be in parenthesis, position change vs. 2019 will be in brackets.

Here's how this works:

Each day there is a new thread/poll, starting at #1, on down to whereever we get. The whole point of this exercise is to have something to talk about in the lean news months to carry us to camp. Each poll will be open for voting for 24 hours. New threads will only be created on weekdays. Ties will cause a runoff poll. You may vote up to TWO players (a change that was made mid-poll last year, seemed to work well).

Simply voting is not enough!

Post why you voted for who you did and provide a player to add to the next poll (every poll will be a list of 15-20 guys, new players added in bunches every few days).

Here's the thing. There is no criteria. This is an exercise to foster discussion therefore there are no clear criteria for ranking. Who is better right now? Who will have the best season? Who was better last year? Sort of a combo of them all? Do you take positional value into account? It really doesn't matter.

Previous Years:
Rank the Roster: 2022
Rank the Roster: 2021
Rank the Roster: 2020
Rank the Roster: 2014-2019

[Waldo]

Next poll I'll add a fresh batch. Nixon, Doubs, LVN and ??? (2 more)

Gary and Clark here for me. I think Gary is a bigger difference maker, but Clark is overall better at his position. Clark goes through stretches where he turns invisible, and also stretches where he totally dominates and takes over a game. Gary's a bit more consistent of a difference maker on the field. Can't go wrong with either tbh.

[Labrev]

69!

[Yoop]

Bahktiari and Clark, Gary and the loser tomorrow

[paco]

Gary and a slight edge to Bak over Clark. I think Bak showed he's still an elite LT once he was able to play more often. The knee is always going to be an issue. But I think they'll manage it right (much like they did Bulaga in his last couple of years) and it'll keep him going.

I hope we see Clark make a bit of a push back towards the elite this year. Flashed it at times, but was inconsistent. I think he'll have better help around him this year.

[BF004]

Gary and Bak for me with Kenny just a smidge below.

[TheSkeptic]

One more day of choosing Love and Watson.

I don't understand choosing Gary yet. IMO it is kind of hard to be the best when you likely won't even dress on game day until the season is half over. Unlike Tonyan and Jenkins who were playing at midseason (although not at 100%) and who were hurt early in the season the previous year, Gary got hurt in the 2nd half of the season.

Bakh is a very good player, maybe he deserves a vote here. But there are 2 proven backups. Maybe the distance between Bakh and his backups is the Grand Canyon, but if so, the distance between Love and his backups is the Atlantic Ocean.

I have no argument for choosing Clark now. I just think that your #1 WR is the 2nd most important position on the O and Watson is a very good one and Watson wins by a nose. Watson will be the best WR in the league, but maybe not until his 3rd year when he and Love are totally in sync.

[Pckfn23]

I don't understand choosing Gary yet. IMO it is kind of hard to be the best when you likely won't even dress on game day until the season is half over. Unlike Tonyan and Jenkins who were playing at midseason (although not at 100%) and who were hurt early in the season the previous year, Gary got hurt in the 2nd half of the season.

While not all ACL recoverys are the same and Bakhtiari is very fresh in our minds, a 12 month timeline would be abnormally long these days. Normal is 10-11 months. Gary's injury was in very early November. A mid-September return would be 10 months which would mean missing 1-2 games.

[NCF]

Clark goes through stretches where he turns invisible

Way too much of this last year. Always seems like he is battling some kind of nagging injury. Plenty of highs, still, but he needs to find a way to avoid the lows and just play steady football. I think there was a stretch last year where the only word for his play was bad... and that was over the course of a few weeks of games where we really needed him. Can't have that if you are an elite NFL DL.

[Labrev]

Per the rules, people can vote on this however they like; I simply question the logic behind voting for people based on how much better they are than the others at their position. That strikes me as, not voting for how good the players are, but as voting against bad depth.

It's one thing to say "losing Davante would hurt because his elite release package is a cheat code that few teams have" versus "losing Runyan would suck because we have neglected to find a competent swing IOL." One speaks to the player's actual talent, whereas the other speaks to default value.

That becomes more like an exercise of "rank-depth-chart-value" than "rank-the-roster."

[Labrev]

Taking that logic to its furthest endpoint:

Say a team has Pat Mahomes as QB1, Joe Burrow as QB2, Josh Allen as QB3, Allen Lazard as WR1, then Sammy Watkins and worse behind him, so the drop-off between the starter and the backups at QB is not as severe as at WR...

.... then are you going to vote for Allen Lazard over Pat Mahomes?? That does not seem very rational.

[BF004]

Taking that logic to its furthest endpoint:

Say a team has Pat Mahomes as QB1, Joe Burrow as QB2, Josh Allen as QB3, Allen Lazard as WR1, then Sammy Watkins and worse behind him, so the drop-off between the starter and the backups at QB is not as severe as at WR...

.... then are you going to vote for Allen Lazard over Pat Mahomes?? That does not seem very rational.

Agree, all things can and should be taken into account. No one should really be saying, 'I can't imagine why not everyone is voting exactly like me' when pretty much all votes are have a reason and are discussed.

But to the above, Jon Runyan Jr would be my #1 vote then if we are talking about Royce Newman stepping in as replacement.

[Yoop]

Per the rules, people can vote on this however they like; I simply question the logic behind voting for people based on how much better they are than the others at their position. That strikes me as, not voting for how good the players are, but as voting against bad depth.

It's one thing to say "losing Davante would hurt because his elite release package is a cheat code that few teams have" versus "losing Runyan would suck because we have neglected to find a competent swing IOL." One speaks to the player's actual talent, whereas the other speaks to default value.

That becomes more like an exercise of "rank-depth-chart-value" than "rank-the-roster."

I've only seen one person do that, and he will continue to do that no matter what you say, I think through out this exercise most people pick the next most productive player on the list, hence next best player on the roster

[Madcity_matt]

Clark and Gary still for me, in that order. But it looks like Bakh is leading and I'm fine with that as well.

[Cdragon]

Taking that logic to its furthest endpoint:

Say a team has Pat Mahomes as QB1, Joe Burrow as QB2, Josh Allen as QB3, Allen Lazard as WR1, then Sammy Watkins and worse behind him, so the drop-off between the starter and the backups at QB is not as severe as at WR...

.... then are you going to vote for Allen Lazard over Pat Mahomes?? That does not seem very rational.

There was a stats company years ago before they were bought by one of the networks that had an article. It was Bricklayers and ????? something I can't remember. The upshot was if you have a bricklaying company and you have a star bricklayer who is twice as productive as the next guy but wants a raise more than twice what the average guy gets... Well you can just hire two bricklayers for average money and get the same job done. In football however you can only play one QB at a time so you pay the money for the best you can get. If you have a star QB you have to pay the guy. If you have an average QB you really don't have to pay him that star money because there are always average QBs available.

In the above scenario why put Josh Allen in a top tier on the list when he'll most likely he will never see the field and never contribute? Your backup OL is going to hit the field at some point during the season and if he is covering multiple spots he might potentially be more valuable than your worst starter on the OL or your 2nd TE or 3rd WR. Your backup OL is going to be tested as soon as he hits the field if you know he can withstand that he deserves a good rank. Three or more edge guys can hit the field at the same time. With a good rotation they are all getting vital snaps. While the OLBs won't have the same value even if they are all great, you can see them all going higher than lower 22 starters because they get on the field and contribute.

To me it is a mix of who can get on the field and what he can he do when he gets there. How is he used is also a factor. I think Jaire is our best at the moment. But he is undermined if the DC won't use him as a shut down corner or plays him 10 yds off the ball on 3 and 3. Aaron Jones is great but if you hold him out too much that affects his value. With AR you could discount every young WR. I think Love is going to be a lot more open to using anyone who shows some skill. Picking players for this is subjective, I'm not going with guys, I don't think are going to contribute so Burrow and Allen would be further down the list regardless of their skill. Trade them for picks!

[Labrev]

I've only seen one person do that, and he will continue to do that no matter what you say, I think through out this exercise most people pick the next most productive player on the list, hence next best player on the roster

Actually I remember someone else saying it in the other thread, so it's not just Skeptic ( ) who is saying that.

[TheSkeptic]

I've only seen one person do that, and he will continue to do that no matter what you say, I think through out this exercise most people pick the next most productive player on the list, hence next best player on the roster

Actually I remember someone else saying it in the other thread, so it's not just Skeptic ( ) who is saying that.

I resemble this topic! Sometimes I like to play Devil's Advocate too. But I honestly think that both Love and Watson are vastly underestimated as to their value to this team. Love may be mostly unproven but Watson is proven. Plus, when almost everyone else on the team crapped the bed vs the Lions, Watson had 5 receptions on 6 targets for 104 yards and added another 12 yards rushing on 2 carries. With the season on the line, he showed up big time.