After the season, I’m going to try to rank the players from each position, starting with the worst, which is the position I’m sure most people are not familiar with.
The top 50 is based on how bad I feel about the players’ performance on the field.
(I did some quick research on the players, so if you’re not familiar, you should do so.)
First, I looked at the performance on film.
That is, the way the players did on the play.
Second, I took a look at their efficiency, which refers to the amount of points scored per play.
If you’ve never seen film, here’s how it works: I watched a game of football and took the snap from the QB and made the read.
The QB had three options: throw the ball to a receiver in the open field, take a quick pass to the receiver, or run a quick screen pass.
In a lot of cases, the receiver was on the outside, which meant he had to be in front of the quarterback in order to be effective.
As I said, that was about the extent of the evaluation.
After the film was over, I averaged the efficiency of the players across all of their plays.
I then adjusted the score based on the quarterback’s rating (QB Rating) and adjusted it for the position of the player on the line of scrimmage.
The result was this ranking.
This is what it looked like: Player 1: 1.2 rating (8th percentile) Player 2: 1 rating (5th percentile, second-worst) Player 3: 1 Rating (6th percentile), second-best Player 4: 2 Rating (5, seventh percentile) Next up, I checked in on their efficiency.
I found that some players were much more efficient than others.
For example, a couple of the guys on the top 10 had the lowest rating (Player 1) of any of the other guys.
Players who had the highest efficiency rating (the lowest value in the first 10) also had the worst rating (Team 1).
Some of the best players were on the opposite side of the field from their peers.
For instance, this is the top-rated player (Player 3) from Team 1 (Team 2).
He was a very efficient quarterback, but Team 1 had a better receiver.
Team 1, however, had better receivers than Team 2.
Overall, this ranking is not a reflection of what they did in the game, but how well they did.
So what’s the issue here?
The issue is that these players did not execute well.
The first time I looked into this issue, I was able to identify the problem early and was able, in the process, to fix it.
I could do that because I had a detailed, hard-hitting scouting report on each of the positions I evaluated.
The players in this group have some problems in execution, but I found the problems in some areas to be minor and mostly cosmetic.
I’ve had a long-standing relationship with this scout and I was always very impressed with his work.
I thought he was very reliable, and he was right when he told me that I had been a little too harsh in my assessment.
After I was finished, I contacted him.
He said that he thought the problem was minor, and I could work on it.
So we worked on it for about a week.
The problem was not major, but it was noticeable and it wasn’t just one area.
I was constantly seeing signs of improvement.
After that, I changed the way I evaluated the players.
Now, I don’t take their performance on a game-to-game basis.
I evaluate each player individually and I’m looking at their performance across multiple plays.
For every single play, I look at how they performed over multiple plays, not just one play.
Here’s how I looked: Player 2 (Team 3): 8th percentile (17th percentile).
Player 3 (Team 4): 8.3 rating (19th percentile); 1.4 rating (24th percentile.
Player 4 (Team 5): 8 rating (21st percentile); 2.9 rating (26th percentile; 4.7 rating (28th percentile.)
Player 5 (Team 6): 8 (18th percentile – 17th percentile rating; 6.2 (25th percentile-24th percentile) Player 6 (Team 7): 7.9 (22nd percentile – 25th percentile rate; 6 (24rd percentile-26th percentiles) Player 7 (Team 8): 6.8 (26nd percentile-29th percentile ratings; 5.6 (27th percentile-) Player 8 (Team 9): 6 rating (23rd percentile – 26th percentile rates; 5 (24 percentile-28th percentiler) Player 9 (Team 10): 5.3 (29th percentility – 30th percentile)- Player 10 (Team 11): 4.9 (-26th-27th percent) Player 11 (Team 12): 3.3