A couple things here worth noting as you read the grades....

First things first, notice that I grade offenses by the quality of the quarterback as well as the number of solid skill players. I know it might be a little unfair not to consider offensive line quality too, but my thinking here is whether an offensive line is good enough to keep the quarterback protected should ultimately manifest itself in the offense becoming more productive. If the offense is more productive, that would become obvious in the grades I assign to the quarterback as well as the number of trustworthy weapons that I notate.

Then again, a case can be made that an offense can be summarily judged solely by the the proficiency of its weaponry. Its something I've been mulling over since last year, when I watched Tampa Bay exit in the wild card in depressing fashion despite Tom Brady playing phenomenally. The reality was that the Buccaneers lacked weapons. A great quarterback is still feckless without the right set of skill players around him. On top of that, it logically follows that an elite quarterback ultimately leaves his fingerprints on the offense through the productivity of his skill players and the dimensional complexity of the team's playbook.

Therefore, it's very possible that starting next year, I will not be factoring the quarterback into my analysis unless the team knowingly has a liability starting for them at that position.

Another thing that gives me pause here is the pass rushing situation. No doubt certain players deserve to be listed as elite pass rushers. But what about the other box players that accompany them that don't quite have those same awesome stats, but still flash on tape occasionally? In order to fairly assess them, I'll need to see if they can demonstrate consistency week in and week out. Not only that, but it would help if I can see any one of these secondary players can take over from time to time, particularly in important games.

I've watched plenty of tape through the season, so my gut instinct does mean something here...but it's still not good enough to come to a solid conclusion on many of these fringe cases. I really need to watch 8 or 10 games worth of tape on any one team, and it's hard for me to do that given all the other things in my life occupying my attention.

So I actually use Pro Football Focus here to help me out, albeit cautiously. Don't get me wrong, I understand better than most that PFF grades can be a special kind of stupid at times. But given all the tape they watch, I do believe their grades ultimately do serve as a decent benchmark. After all, players who generate chaos in the offensive backfield enough times WILL jump off tape so long as you watch just enough of it. So if I'm uncertain whether a pass rusher merits elite status and I see that particular player has posted a season grade below that of most of his peers on the team, I think that's enough of a nudge to conclude the player isn't worthy of elite designation.

One more thing worth noting is the definition of a charismatic player. It's pretty obvious that a charismatic player should (first and foremost) be able to marshall his team back from adversity. In order to do that, a high level of competence is almost always expected. But what else goes into making a player a true leader of men out there? I do think so much of whether somebody's actually charismatic is determined in part by their history with the franchise and in part by a long resume documenting historic levels of excellence. What gives me pause is whether experience matters. Can a rookie be decisively considered a charismatic leader of men if he only has less than a year of valuable experience under his belt? I'm not sure. Watching Houston and Green Bay compete in the postseason this year will go a long way towards helping me figuring out a definitive answer to that question.