Is no one goin to point out that using top 10 as the determinant doesnt make any fuging sense
There are different amounts of contenders per position. Lets look at corners. There are AT LEAST 64 starting NFL corners. Thats a conservative number considering how many teams run nickel as the base formation. The 10th best corner is, by definition, better than at least 84% of starting corners.
Now look at running backs. There are AT MOST 32 starting running backs. That is a high estimate because teams who run a true committee are better described as having no tarters as opposed to two, because the limited workload would prevent either from being in top 10 discussions anyway. Lets say DeAngelo is the 10th best RB (which may be too high if you take off the homer glasses and see that he hasnt hit 900 yards in 4 seasons and has average a mediocre 4.2 in the past 2 season), that means hat his is better than, at most, 69% of his starting competition. Wer're talking about a guy who is closer to the median player than he is the best player. That means blue chip to you?
You guys are guilty of this when discussing Thomas Davis as well. The league is split almost 50/50 with 4-3 and 3-4 teams, so you're putting Davis against at most 32 4-3 OLBs. Again, it's 32 at most because of how many teams run a base nickel. The way to fix this would be to group people in by their responsibilities, which would place the 4-3 OLBs with the ILBs while the 3-4 OLBs get grouped with the 4-3 DEs. But if you do that, then I'm sorry theres no way Davis still ends up top 10
In conclusion, stop using this fraud system to fluff the panthers