Seahawks Player Rankings

I published a roster ranking last season that sparked some good conversation among Seahawks fans. I devised a formula that gave each player on the Seahawks roster a numeric value based on the factors I believe are most important to managing a roster. The result was a 1-N stack ranking of every player that played for Seattle in 2012. This stack-ranking will now be available on a regular basis for reference, and will be updated as time allows. It is most valuable when paired with the 5-Year Roster Outlook. 

As a reminder, the factors are as follows:


AGE – The younger, the better. Some positions, like RB, are more harshly rated as age is a larger factor.


HEALTH – This could also be called dependability as it encompasses injury and absences for other reasons like suspension. A player with a current injury is rated more harshly as their recovery is unknown.


IMPACT TO DATE – This is about how the player has performed on the field thus far through their career. What level of performance have they already demonstrated?


POTENTIAL GROWTH – How much better can they be than they are right now? A great player may not have much more room to grow.


HARD TO REPLACE – This combines a variety of considerations including: salary for that position type, scheme demands on that position, uniqueness of skill set for the player, and typical ability to find fill that position played in to that level in the NFL.


Not all of these factors are equal. It is far more important, for example, to have demonstrated your impact on the field than it is to be young or have potential. I weighted the factors to address this:


IMPACT TO DATE = 45% 
HARD TO REPLACE = 25% 
POTENTIAL GROWTH = 15% 
AGE = 10% 
HEALTH 5% 

The formula looks like this:

(AGE*0.10) + (HEALTH*0.05) + (IMPACT TO DATE*0.45) + (POTENTIAL GROWTH*0.15) + (HARD TO REPLACE*0.25) = PLAYER SCORE



7 Comments

  1. Marshawn Lynch needs to be higher.

    His "Hard to replace" category is flawed as well as ranked too low. I get the logic- That RB's are generally easy to pick up, and that's true. But Lynch is a special back. He does so much more than any replacement that replacing him, even with a talented and productive runner would not yield the same results.

    I have no problem with him being in the group that he's in. I'm fully aware and believe that he's only going to be productive for the next 2 or so years, but that said, he's earned more respect on that ranking.

  2. Great list. Have you thought about adding maybe an "Importance in System" field into your stack rankings? I agree with the previous poster that Marshawn is too low. I think a big part of this is that his only great field is "impact to date." The reason we all see him as needing to be higher I believe is because he's such an important role in our offensive system.

    If you believe that he can leave and we can be just as successful that is one thing (I definitely disagree with that), but I definitely think that without such a strong runner our offensive would not look nearly as dangerous (even with Turbin and Christine who I believe are very solid).

  3. When I look at the depth of this roster, I'm just blown away.

    This has got to be the most loaded team in Hawk history. If I were a GM on another team, I'd be feasting on their players cut from the roster because there will be good players released.

  4. Interesting to see this list now, particularly with Health (see Giacomini and Unger) and Potential Growth (see Tate). Knowing what we know now, and seeing Marshawn's impact on defenses in the second half of the season when they are worn down (see Potential for Growth and Hard to Replace…) I think this is an interesting metrics system, but one that easily gets thrown to the wind when the cleats hit the field. Thanks for sharing, Brian!

  5. i like your system but for some positions its not really fair i mean when you become arguably the best kicker in foot ball how are you going ot grow the man hits 50 yard field goals like the 90s bulls won championships

  6. I like your chart, makes perfect sense… I just have some problems with the numbers given.

    I think you have to many people that are at the peak of their game, or very close, that have high "potential growth" numbers. If you are fully grown into your position, your not going to grow much more. It also looks like you went really soft of Harvin. His impact to date is way to high for the amount of work he's put in on our team. It also seems like you have to be dead to get less than 5 on the "health" rating. 4-5-6 are averagish numbers, you seemed to have moved average way up on the scale.

    Besides all of that, I dig it =)

Comments are closed.