(Source) — The method that I came up with uses Pro Football Reference’s Approximate Value statistic, the site’s best measure of trying to tease out individual talent. Then, using ESPN’s NFL depth charts, I aggregated each team’s per game approximate value of what I considered to be the ‘core’ makeup of an NFL team: QB, RB, 2 WR, TE, Top 2 OL, the Top-4 ‘Front Seven’ defensive players, and the Top-2 players from the secondary.
Does this kid get kicked out of Harvard for this study? That’s a serious question. Never in my life have I seen something not named the Wells Report so flawed. QB, RB, 2 WR, TE, 2 OL, top 4 front seven and top 2 secondary? That’s all that you think makes a football team good? How about depth? How about the fact that approximately zero teams will have all of their “core” players stay healthy all season? How about the motherfucking COACH who draws up the game plans? All of that is just hogwash, huh? Unbelievable. I want to talk to the dean over at Harvard, ask him what kind of sham institution he’s running over there. The fact that they even allowed this erroneous study to be published with any affiliation to Harvard should make every single Crimson alum want to burn their diploma immediately. Harvard students have the same knowledge of football that I did playing Madden 99, “Oh this QB throws far, the WR jumps high, and that one LB hits hard! I can’t believe they even allow me to pick this team! I’m gonna win 100 to nothing!”