09-05-2024, 03:34 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-07-2024, 09:03 AM by Seven Arrows. Edited 5 times in total.)
First, I want to start by saying all of these rankings were done before call ups and with the draft upcoming, so I expect quite a few things to change before the DSFL season actually starts, this is just for fun.
(The number next to the name of the team is the TPE amount of the player in that position, so if it says "Norfolk Seawolves: 258, 74" it means there are two players in that position and as I said the numbers themselves represent the TPE amounts of said player/s)
First... The positional power rankings!
QUARTERBACKS
1. London Royals: 438
The best out of all DSFL quarterbacks, making them the obvious top choice with elite capabilities.
2. Dallas Birddogs: 396, 200
A very skilled quarterback who is a close second, though not quite at the level of London’s Quarterback.
3. Bondi Beach Buccaneers: 354
A strong quarterback who can be highly effective, though slightly below Dallas’s and London’s top players.
4. Norfolk Seawolves: 339
A solid quarterback with high skill, but not quite as strong as those ranked above.
5. Minnesota Grey Ducks: 274
A good quarterback with solid skills, though not at the elite level of the top 4.
6. Portland Pythons: 257
A decent quarterback who can perform well but lacks the high-end skill of the top groups.
7. Kansas City Coyotes: 229
A lower-skill quarterback compared to others, but still capable of being effective.
8. Tijuana Luchadores: 50
The lowest skill level among the quarterbacks, making them the easily the weakest in this category.
RUNNING BACKS
1. Minnesota Grey Ducks: 511, 269, 185
An elite top running back paired with solid depth. Minnesota’s backfield is versatile, deep, and the best when it comes to Running Backs.
2. Kansas City Coyotes: 330, 202
A strong duo, with a powerful lead back and a capable backup. This backfield can compete at a high level, even if they lack Minnesota’s top-tier talent.
3. Portland Pythons: 264, 240
A balanced pair of running backs. Both players are solid and reliable, giving Portland good depth and consistency.
4. Bondi Beach Buccaneers: 259
A strong single running back, but no depth to support him. While the top player is good, their lack of backup lowers their ranking.
5. London Royals: 231, 50
A decent primary back, but their second option is very weak. London’s lack of quality depth puts them behind teams with better backup options.
6. Tijuana Luchadores: 168
A single decent running back, but without any depth, Tijuana’s ground game is limited compared to stronger backfields. With both the worst Quarterback and 3rd worst Running Back room, I'd be worried if I was a Tijuana fan.
7. Norfolk Seawolves: 50
A very weak running back with no depth, leaving Norfolk’s backfield as one of the least impactful.
8. Dallas Birddogs: 50
Identical to Norfolk, with a very weak single running back and no depth to support the position.
WIDE RECEIVERS
1. Norfolk Seawolves: 561, 526
With two extremely high-skill receivers, Norfolk stands out as the top wide receiver group, offering both elite talent and depth.
2. Bondi Beach Buccaneers: 355, 291
A very strong duo of receivers, capable of making big plays. While not quite at Norfolk's level, this pair is still among the best.
3. Kansas City Coyotes: 358, 262, 112, 81, 50
Kansas City has a well-rounded group with depth and versatility. Their top two are strong, and the additional depth makes them a formidable receiving corps.
4. Tijuana Luchadores: 285, 194, 92
A balanced trio of receivers with solid talent, but they lack the top-end elite player that the higher-ranked teams possess.
5. Minnesota Grey Ducks: 362
While they only have one receiver, he's among the best in the league. Lack of depth holds them back from ranking higher.
6. London Royals: 209, 197
A strong duo of receivers, though they lack the depth and top-tier talent to compete with the best. Still a reliable pair.
7. Dallas Birddogs: 194, 143, 118
A decent trio of receivers, but their overall skill level is lower compared to other teams. They bring some consistency but lack explosiveness.
8. Portland Pythons: 200, 118, 50, 50
A solid top receiver, but the rest of the group falls off quickly in skill. Portland lacks the depth and high-end talent to be a serious threat in this department.
TIGHT ENDS
1. Tijuana Luchadores: 201, 179
The only team with two high-skill tight ends, and the two best Tight Ends in the DSFL. This combination provides both strength and versatility in their offense.
2. Minnesota Grey Ducks: 178
A solid, high-skill tight end who can be a reliable target and a large contribution to the offense.
3. London Royals: 173
Another strong tight end, just slightly below Minnesota’s, but still capable of making a big impact.
4. Bondi Beach Buccaneers: 50, 50
While not particularly strong individually, having two tight ends gives the Buccaneers some flexibility, though they aren't game-changers.
5. Portland Pythons: 50
A single low-skill tight end doesn’t offer much, but at least they have someone to fill the role.
6. Norfolk Seawolves: 50
Same as Portland, a low-skill tight end that is unlikely to be a major factor.
7. Dallas Birddogs: 50
Identical to Portland and Norfolk, providing minimal offensive value.
8. Kansas City Coyotes: None Available With no tight ends at all, it is a clear disadvantage compared to teams with even relatively low skilled players.
OFFENSIVE LINE
1. Minnesota Grey Ducks: 329, 326, 144, 86
A dominant offensive line with high skill across multiple players. This group offers excellent protection and run-blocking capabilities, making them the best by quite a bit.
2. Dallas Birddogs: 226, 197, 106
A great line, at least comparatively, with three skilled players. While not as elite as Minnesota, they provide reliable protection and can open up lanes for the run game.
3. Bondi Beach Buccaneers: 74, 50
A weaker line, but at least they have two players who can contribute, even if their impact is limited.
4. Portland Pythons: 50
A single low-skill lineman isn't going to offer much protection or run-blocking, but it’s better than having none.
5. London Royals: None Available
No offensive linemen available, leaving their offense at a significant disadvantage in both protection and the run game.
6. Kansas City Coyotes: None Available
Same as London, having no linemen makes their offense highly vulnerable.
7. Tijuana Luchadores: None Available
Also lacking any linemen, which severely hampers their offensive potential.
8. Norfolk Seawolves: None Available
Like the others with no linemen, they’re at a major disadvantage compared to teams with even minimal line support.
(I apologize, but I CAN NOT come up with unique things for four teams without any lineman but I tried my best )
DEFENSIVE ENDS
1. Minnesota Grey Ducks: 377, 50
A standout top-end player with a high skill level, complemented by a lower-skill player. The combination makes them the most balanced and formidable group.
2. Norfolk Seawolves: 274, 144, 50
A solid group with good depth. While their top player isn't as strong as Minnesota's, the overall depth makes them a great defensive force in this group.
3. Kansas City Coyotes: 279
A single strong player who can make a big impact on the defensive line. Lack of depth hurts them a bit, but this player alone is a major asset.
4. London Royals: 274
Similar to Kansas City, with one strong player who can be disruptive, but the lack of a second defensive end lowers their overall ranking.
5. Portland Pythons: 230
A decent player who can hold his own, but without any second defensive ends, they lack the full potential of a few other teams.
6. Tijuana Luchadores: 197
A solid player, but like Portland, London and Kansas City, they suffer from having only one defensive end, limiting their overall effectiveness.
7. Dallas Birddogs: 50
A single low-skill player who won't make a significant impact. This is an obvious 7th placement and there isn't much to say about it.
8. Bondi Beach Buccaneers: None Available
With no defensive ends available, they are at a major disadvantage on the defensive line, making them the weakest in this category by a long shot.
D TACKLES
1. Tijuana Luchadores: 311
A highly skilled defensive tackle who can dominate the interior, making them the top-ranked in this category by a fair bit.
2. Minnesota Grey Ducks: 245
A strong defensive tackle capable of being a significant disruptive force, though slightly less dominant than Tijuana’s player.
3. London Royals: 190
A solid defensive tackle who can consistently contribute, making them a reliable presence on the defensive line. They won't be Chris Jones, but their a solid top half defensive tackle.
4. Kansas City Coyotes: 127
A decent player who can make some impact, but lacks the top-tier skill of the higher-ranked players.
5. Dallas Birddogs: 67
A lower-skill player who won't heavily influence the game but provides some presence on the line, which is obviously better than having none.
6. Portland Pythons: None Available
The absence of any defensive tackles leaves a noticeable gap in their defensive capabilities, making them vulnerable against the run and with a limited pass rush.
7. Norfolk Seawolves: None Available
Like Portland, the lack of any defensive tackles is a significant disadvantage, weakening their overall defense.
8. Bondi Beach Buccaneers: None Available
Same reasoning as Portland and Norfolk, having no defensive tackles puts them at the bottom of the rankings for this position. With No Defensive Tackles and no Defensive Ends, it leaves them with by far the worst run defense and pass rush in the DSFL.
LINEBACKERS
1. Minnesota Grey Ducks: 445, 193, 50
With an elite top linebacker and solid support, this group is the most dominant, providing a strong defensive backbone and versatility.
2. Dallas Birddogs: 317, 345, 215
A balanced and powerful group with high skill across all three linebackers, making them a close second. They have both excellent depth and strong playmakers.
3. Portland Pythons: 307, 212, 149
A strong group with a standout top linebacker and good supporting players. They can and should be highly effective defensively.
4. Tijuana Luchadores: 273, 273
Two evenly matched, highly skilled linebackers who can hold their own against most opponents. Lacks a bit of depth but strong is still good enough to be top half.
5. Norfolk Seawolves: 289, 104
One solid linebacker, with a weaker second option. The top player can be effective, but like many other teams, overall depth is lacking.
6. London Royals: 244, 113
One decent linebacker, but the second player is weaker. This group provides some defensive strength but isn't a top-tier unit.
7. Bondi Beach Buccaneers: 240
A single decent linebacker who can make some plays, but the lack of any more options should limit the effectiveness of the defense. Having the worst defensive tackle room, defensive end room AND the second worst linebacker room, I'm not sure how this team plans on stopping the run.
8. Kansas City Coyotes: 157, 67, 62
Lacking a standout player, this group is the weakest overall, with lower skill levels and minimal defensive impact.
CORNERS
1. Kansas City Coyotes: 277, 250, 239
A talented trio with high skill levels across the board, providing both depth and quality in the defensive backfield.
2. Norfolk Seawolves: 257, 141
A strong top cornerback combined with a decent supporting player. They offer good coverage and defensive capability.
3.Dallas Birddogs: 354
A highly skilled cornerback who can be a game-changer, but with only one player, they lack the depth of Norfolk and Kansas City, causing them to be ranked lower.
4. Tijuana Luchadores: 213
A solid cornerback who can effectively cover receivers, though lacking depth compared to higher-ranked groups.
5. Minnesota Grey Ducks: 165
A single decent cornerback. Effective but not as strong as teams with multiple high-skill players, same as Tijuana.
6. Portland Pythons: 50
A low-skill cornerback who provides minimal defensive impact but is of course better than having none.
7. London Royals: None Available
No cornerbacks available, which severely limits their defensive capabilities and leaves them vulnerable.
8. Bondi Beach Buccaneers: None Available
Same as London, the lack of any cornerbacks places them at a significant disadvantage defensively. I don't want to keep tearing down Bondi Beach, but having been last or second last in every defensive group so far, it isn't looking great for them.
SAFETIES
1. Norfolk Seawolves: 347, 326
Two very high-skill safeties provide elite coverage and defensive capability, making them the top-ranked group.
2. Bondi Beach Buccaneers: 320, 319, 243
Strong trio with high skill levels, offering both depth and quality in the defensive backfield.
3. Dallas Birddogs: 330
A highly skilled safety who can make a significant impact, though lacking the depth of the top two groups.
4. Tijuana Luchadores: 316, 50
A strong top safety with a lower-skill supporting player. The top player provides significant defensive strength.
5. Portland Pythons: 238, 92
A solid top safety with a decent supporting player. This group is effective but not as strong as those with higher skill levels.
6. London Royals: 250
A single strong safety, though lacking the depth of other groups. Effective but not as impactful as multi-player groups.
7. Kansas City Coyotes: 160, 50
A decent top safety with a lower-skill second player. Provides some coverage but lacks the depth of stronger groups.
8. Minnesota Grey Ducks: 165
A single decent safety who can contribute but is way less effective compared to teams with higher skill levels or more depth.
KICKERS / PUNTERS
I'm not going to write something for every team in this category since it would be even more repetive than it already has been, I'm just going to give the rankings for these.
1. Tijuana Luchadores: 205
2. Norfolk Seawolves: 149
3. Portland Pythons: 132
4. Dallas Birddogs: 106
5. Bondi Beach Buccaneers: 95
6. London Royals: 82
7. Minnesota Grey Ducks: 57
8. Kansas City Coyotes: None Available
THE POSITIONAL RANKINGS OF EVERY TEAM IN ONE PLACE
(The lower the total number the better, 11 is the minimum and 88 is the maximum. Give or take a few ranks for each total since I could've made a few mistakes.)
Portland Pythons
Quarterback: #6
Running Backs: #3
Wide Receivers: #8
Tight Ends: #5
Offensive Line: #4
Defensive Ends: #5
Defensive Tackles: #6
Linebackers: #3
Cornerbacks: #6
Safeties: #5
Kickers / Punters: #3
(Total of 54. Rank #6, tied with Bondi Beach)
London Royals
Quarterback: #1
Running Backs: #5
Wide Receivers: #6
Tight Ends: #3
Offensive Line: #5
Defensive Ends: #4
Defensive Tackles: #3
Linebackers: #6
Cornerbacks: #7
Safeties: #6
Kickers / Punters: #6
(Total of 52. Rank #5)
Kansas City Coyotes
Quarterback: #7
Running Backs: #2
Wide Receivers: #3
Tight Ends: #8
Offensive Line: #6
Defensive Ends: #3
Defensive Tackles: #4
Linebackers: #8
Cornerbacks: #1
Safeties: #7
Kickers / Punters: #8
(Total of 57. Rank #8)
Minnesota Grey Ducks
Quarterback: #5
Running Backs: #1
Wide Receivers: #5
Tight Ends: #2
Offensive Line: #1
Defensive Ends: #1
Defensive Tackles: #2
Linebackers: #1
Cornerbacks: #5
Safeties: #8
Kickers / Punters: #7
(Total of 38. Rank #1)
Tijuana Luchadores
Quarterback: #8
Running Backs: #6
Wide Receivers: #4
Tight Ends: #1
Offensive Line: #7
Defensive Ends: #6
Defensive Tackles: #1
Linebackers: #4
Cornerbacks: #4
Safeties: #4
Kickers / Punters: #1
(Total of 46. Rank #3)
Dallas Birddogs
Quarterback: #2
Running Backs: #8
Wide Receivers: #7
Tight Ends: #7
Offensive Line: #2
Defensive Ends: #7
Defensive Tackles: #5
Linebackers: #2
Cornerbacks: #3
Safeties: #3
Kickers / Punters: #4
(Total of 50. Rank #4)
Bondi Beach Buccaneers
Quarterback: #3
Running Backs: #4
Wide Receivers: #2
Tight Ends: #4
Offensive Line: #3
Defensive Ends: #8
Defensive Tackles: #8
Linebackers: #7
Cornerbacks: #8
Safeties: #2
Kickers / Punters: #5
(Total of 54. Rank #6, tied with Portland)
Norfolk Seawolves
Quarterback: #4
Running Backs: #7
Wide Receivers: #1
Tight Ends: #6
Offensive Line: #8
Defensive Ends: #2
Defensive Tackles: #7
Linebackers: #5
Cornerbacks: #2
Safeties: #1
Kickers / Punters: #2
(Total of 45. Rank #2)
This is every player on every team. Some things may have changed since it took a while to make, but this is what I used to rank everything. (When it says "#4" in front of an amount, it means that's what the player is ranked on their team by their TPE amount.)
Portland Pythons players:
Total Players: 16
Quarterback: #4 257
Running Back: #3 264, #5 240
Wide Reciever: #8 200, #11 118, #15 #16 both 50
Tight End: #13 50
Offensive Line: #14 50
Defensive End: #2 288
Defensive Tackle: None Available
Linebacker: #1 307, #7 212, #9 149
Cornerback: #16 50
Safety: #6 238, #12 92
Kicker / Punter: #10 132
London Royals:
Total Players: 14
Quarterback: #1 438
Running Back: #5 231, #15 50
Wide Reciever: #6 209, #7 197
Offensive Line: None Available
Tight End: #9 173
Defensive End: #2 265
Defensive Tackle: #8 190
Linebacker: #4 244, #11 113
Cornerback: None Available
Safety: #3 250
Kicker / Punter: #12 82
Kansas City Coyotes:
Total Players: 16
Quarterback: #7 229
Running Back: #2 320, #8 202
Wide Receiver: #1 358, #4 262, #12 112, #13 81, #18 50
Tight End: None Available
Offensive Line: None Available
Defensive End: #15 64
Defensive Tackle: #11 127
Linebacker: #10 157, #14 67, #16 62
Cornerback: #3 277, #5 250, #6 239
Safety: #9 160, #17 50
Kicker / Punter: None Available
Minnesota Grey Ducks:
Total Players: 16
Quarterback: #6 274
Running Back: #1 511, #7 269, #10 185
Wide Receiver: #3 362
Tight End: #11 178
Offensive Line: #4 329, #5 326, #13 144, #14 86
Defensive End: None Available
Defensive Tackle: #8 245
Linebacker: #2 445, #9 193, #17 50
Cornerback: #12 165
Safety: #16 50
Kicker / Punter: #15 57
Tijuana Luchadores
Total Players: 14
Quarterback: #14 50
Running Back: #11 168
Wide Receiver: #3 285, #9 194, #12 92
Tight End: #8 201, #10 179
Offensive Line: None Available
Defensive End: #13 82
Defensive Tackle; #2 311,
Linebacker: #4 273, #4 273
Cornerback: #6 213
Safety: #1 316, #15 50
Kicker / Punter: #7 205
Dallas Birddogs
Total Players: 17
Quarterback: #1 396, #9 200
Running Back: #18 50
Wide Receiver: #11 194, #12 143, #13 118
Tight End: #17 50
Offensive Line: #7 226, #10 197, #14 106
Defensive End: #6 229
Defensive Tackle: #16 67
Linebacker: #4 317, #5 345, #8 215
Cornerback: #2 354
Safety: #3 330,
Kicker / Punter: #14 106
Bondi Beach Buccaneers
Total Players: 14
Quarterback: #2 354
Running Back: #6 259
Wide Receiver: #1 355, #5 291,
Tight End: #12 50, #12 50
Offensive Line: #10 74, #11 50
Defensive End: #14 50, #14 50
Defensive Tackle: None Available
Linebacker: #8 240
Cornerback: None Available
Safety: #3 320, #4 319, #7 243
Kicker / Punter: #9 95
Norfolk Seawolves
Total Players: 13
Quarterback: #4 339
Running Back: #12 50
Wide Receiver: #1 561, #2 526
Tight End: #13 50
Offensive Line: None Available
Defensive End: #8 185
Defensive Tackle: None Available
Linebacker: #6 289, #11 104
Cornerback: #7 257, #10 141
Safety: #3 347, #5 326
Kicker / Punter: #9 149
Thank you for taking the time to read this (or at least some of it!) Because it took me quite a while to make. That being said, I do feel like I should reiterate that the teams will probably change quite a bit before the season actually starts, and that this was just for fun. Thank you again! <3
(The number next to the name of the team is the TPE amount of the player in that position, so if it says "Norfolk Seawolves: 258, 74" it means there are two players in that position and as I said the numbers themselves represent the TPE amounts of said player/s)
First... The positional power rankings!
QUARTERBACKS
1. London Royals: 438
The best out of all DSFL quarterbacks, making them the obvious top choice with elite capabilities.
2. Dallas Birddogs: 396, 200
A very skilled quarterback who is a close second, though not quite at the level of London’s Quarterback.
3. Bondi Beach Buccaneers: 354
A strong quarterback who can be highly effective, though slightly below Dallas’s and London’s top players.
4. Norfolk Seawolves: 339
A solid quarterback with high skill, but not quite as strong as those ranked above.
5. Minnesota Grey Ducks: 274
A good quarterback with solid skills, though not at the elite level of the top 4.
6. Portland Pythons: 257
A decent quarterback who can perform well but lacks the high-end skill of the top groups.
7. Kansas City Coyotes: 229
A lower-skill quarterback compared to others, but still capable of being effective.
8. Tijuana Luchadores: 50
The lowest skill level among the quarterbacks, making them the easily the weakest in this category.
RUNNING BACKS
1. Minnesota Grey Ducks: 511, 269, 185
An elite top running back paired with solid depth. Minnesota’s backfield is versatile, deep, and the best when it comes to Running Backs.
2. Kansas City Coyotes: 330, 202
A strong duo, with a powerful lead back and a capable backup. This backfield can compete at a high level, even if they lack Minnesota’s top-tier talent.
3. Portland Pythons: 264, 240
A balanced pair of running backs. Both players are solid and reliable, giving Portland good depth and consistency.
4. Bondi Beach Buccaneers: 259
A strong single running back, but no depth to support him. While the top player is good, their lack of backup lowers their ranking.
5. London Royals: 231, 50
A decent primary back, but their second option is very weak. London’s lack of quality depth puts them behind teams with better backup options.
6. Tijuana Luchadores: 168
A single decent running back, but without any depth, Tijuana’s ground game is limited compared to stronger backfields. With both the worst Quarterback and 3rd worst Running Back room, I'd be worried if I was a Tijuana fan.
7. Norfolk Seawolves: 50
A very weak running back with no depth, leaving Norfolk’s backfield as one of the least impactful.
8. Dallas Birddogs: 50
Identical to Norfolk, with a very weak single running back and no depth to support the position.
WIDE RECEIVERS
1. Norfolk Seawolves: 561, 526
With two extremely high-skill receivers, Norfolk stands out as the top wide receiver group, offering both elite talent and depth.
2. Bondi Beach Buccaneers: 355, 291
A very strong duo of receivers, capable of making big plays. While not quite at Norfolk's level, this pair is still among the best.
3. Kansas City Coyotes: 358, 262, 112, 81, 50
Kansas City has a well-rounded group with depth and versatility. Their top two are strong, and the additional depth makes them a formidable receiving corps.
4. Tijuana Luchadores: 285, 194, 92
A balanced trio of receivers with solid talent, but they lack the top-end elite player that the higher-ranked teams possess.
5. Minnesota Grey Ducks: 362
While they only have one receiver, he's among the best in the league. Lack of depth holds them back from ranking higher.
6. London Royals: 209, 197
A strong duo of receivers, though they lack the depth and top-tier talent to compete with the best. Still a reliable pair.
7. Dallas Birddogs: 194, 143, 118
A decent trio of receivers, but their overall skill level is lower compared to other teams. They bring some consistency but lack explosiveness.
8. Portland Pythons: 200, 118, 50, 50
A solid top receiver, but the rest of the group falls off quickly in skill. Portland lacks the depth and high-end talent to be a serious threat in this department.
TIGHT ENDS
1. Tijuana Luchadores: 201, 179
The only team with two high-skill tight ends, and the two best Tight Ends in the DSFL. This combination provides both strength and versatility in their offense.
2. Minnesota Grey Ducks: 178
A solid, high-skill tight end who can be a reliable target and a large contribution to the offense.
3. London Royals: 173
Another strong tight end, just slightly below Minnesota’s, but still capable of making a big impact.
4. Bondi Beach Buccaneers: 50, 50
While not particularly strong individually, having two tight ends gives the Buccaneers some flexibility, though they aren't game-changers.
5. Portland Pythons: 50
A single low-skill tight end doesn’t offer much, but at least they have someone to fill the role.
6. Norfolk Seawolves: 50
Same as Portland, a low-skill tight end that is unlikely to be a major factor.
7. Dallas Birddogs: 50
Identical to Portland and Norfolk, providing minimal offensive value.
8. Kansas City Coyotes: None Available With no tight ends at all, it is a clear disadvantage compared to teams with even relatively low skilled players.
OFFENSIVE LINE
1. Minnesota Grey Ducks: 329, 326, 144, 86
A dominant offensive line with high skill across multiple players. This group offers excellent protection and run-blocking capabilities, making them the best by quite a bit.
2. Dallas Birddogs: 226, 197, 106
A great line, at least comparatively, with three skilled players. While not as elite as Minnesota, they provide reliable protection and can open up lanes for the run game.
3. Bondi Beach Buccaneers: 74, 50
A weaker line, but at least they have two players who can contribute, even if their impact is limited.
4. Portland Pythons: 50
A single low-skill lineman isn't going to offer much protection or run-blocking, but it’s better than having none.
5. London Royals: None Available
No offensive linemen available, leaving their offense at a significant disadvantage in both protection and the run game.
6. Kansas City Coyotes: None Available
Same as London, having no linemen makes their offense highly vulnerable.
7. Tijuana Luchadores: None Available
Also lacking any linemen, which severely hampers their offensive potential.
8. Norfolk Seawolves: None Available
Like the others with no linemen, they’re at a major disadvantage compared to teams with even minimal line support.
(I apologize, but I CAN NOT come up with unique things for four teams without any lineman but I tried my best )
DEFENSIVE ENDS
1. Minnesota Grey Ducks: 377, 50
A standout top-end player with a high skill level, complemented by a lower-skill player. The combination makes them the most balanced and formidable group.
2. Norfolk Seawolves: 274, 144, 50
A solid group with good depth. While their top player isn't as strong as Minnesota's, the overall depth makes them a great defensive force in this group.
3. Kansas City Coyotes: 279
A single strong player who can make a big impact on the defensive line. Lack of depth hurts them a bit, but this player alone is a major asset.
4. London Royals: 274
Similar to Kansas City, with one strong player who can be disruptive, but the lack of a second defensive end lowers their overall ranking.
5. Portland Pythons: 230
A decent player who can hold his own, but without any second defensive ends, they lack the full potential of a few other teams.
6. Tijuana Luchadores: 197
A solid player, but like Portland, London and Kansas City, they suffer from having only one defensive end, limiting their overall effectiveness.
7. Dallas Birddogs: 50
A single low-skill player who won't make a significant impact. This is an obvious 7th placement and there isn't much to say about it.
8. Bondi Beach Buccaneers: None Available
With no defensive ends available, they are at a major disadvantage on the defensive line, making them the weakest in this category by a long shot.
D TACKLES
1. Tijuana Luchadores: 311
A highly skilled defensive tackle who can dominate the interior, making them the top-ranked in this category by a fair bit.
2. Minnesota Grey Ducks: 245
A strong defensive tackle capable of being a significant disruptive force, though slightly less dominant than Tijuana’s player.
3. London Royals: 190
A solid defensive tackle who can consistently contribute, making them a reliable presence on the defensive line. They won't be Chris Jones, but their a solid top half defensive tackle.
4. Kansas City Coyotes: 127
A decent player who can make some impact, but lacks the top-tier skill of the higher-ranked players.
5. Dallas Birddogs: 67
A lower-skill player who won't heavily influence the game but provides some presence on the line, which is obviously better than having none.
6. Portland Pythons: None Available
The absence of any defensive tackles leaves a noticeable gap in their defensive capabilities, making them vulnerable against the run and with a limited pass rush.
7. Norfolk Seawolves: None Available
Like Portland, the lack of any defensive tackles is a significant disadvantage, weakening their overall defense.
8. Bondi Beach Buccaneers: None Available
Same reasoning as Portland and Norfolk, having no defensive tackles puts them at the bottom of the rankings for this position. With No Defensive Tackles and no Defensive Ends, it leaves them with by far the worst run defense and pass rush in the DSFL.
LINEBACKERS
1. Minnesota Grey Ducks: 445, 193, 50
With an elite top linebacker and solid support, this group is the most dominant, providing a strong defensive backbone and versatility.
2. Dallas Birddogs: 317, 345, 215
A balanced and powerful group with high skill across all three linebackers, making them a close second. They have both excellent depth and strong playmakers.
3. Portland Pythons: 307, 212, 149
A strong group with a standout top linebacker and good supporting players. They can and should be highly effective defensively.
4. Tijuana Luchadores: 273, 273
Two evenly matched, highly skilled linebackers who can hold their own against most opponents. Lacks a bit of depth but strong is still good enough to be top half.
5. Norfolk Seawolves: 289, 104
One solid linebacker, with a weaker second option. The top player can be effective, but like many other teams, overall depth is lacking.
6. London Royals: 244, 113
One decent linebacker, but the second player is weaker. This group provides some defensive strength but isn't a top-tier unit.
7. Bondi Beach Buccaneers: 240
A single decent linebacker who can make some plays, but the lack of any more options should limit the effectiveness of the defense. Having the worst defensive tackle room, defensive end room AND the second worst linebacker room, I'm not sure how this team plans on stopping the run.
8. Kansas City Coyotes: 157, 67, 62
Lacking a standout player, this group is the weakest overall, with lower skill levels and minimal defensive impact.
CORNERS
1. Kansas City Coyotes: 277, 250, 239
A talented trio with high skill levels across the board, providing both depth and quality in the defensive backfield.
2. Norfolk Seawolves: 257, 141
A strong top cornerback combined with a decent supporting player. They offer good coverage and defensive capability.
3.Dallas Birddogs: 354
A highly skilled cornerback who can be a game-changer, but with only one player, they lack the depth of Norfolk and Kansas City, causing them to be ranked lower.
4. Tijuana Luchadores: 213
A solid cornerback who can effectively cover receivers, though lacking depth compared to higher-ranked groups.
5. Minnesota Grey Ducks: 165
A single decent cornerback. Effective but not as strong as teams with multiple high-skill players, same as Tijuana.
6. Portland Pythons: 50
A low-skill cornerback who provides minimal defensive impact but is of course better than having none.
7. London Royals: None Available
No cornerbacks available, which severely limits their defensive capabilities and leaves them vulnerable.
8. Bondi Beach Buccaneers: None Available
Same as London, the lack of any cornerbacks places them at a significant disadvantage defensively. I don't want to keep tearing down Bondi Beach, but having been last or second last in every defensive group so far, it isn't looking great for them.
SAFETIES
1. Norfolk Seawolves: 347, 326
Two very high-skill safeties provide elite coverage and defensive capability, making them the top-ranked group.
2. Bondi Beach Buccaneers: 320, 319, 243
Strong trio with high skill levels, offering both depth and quality in the defensive backfield.
3. Dallas Birddogs: 330
A highly skilled safety who can make a significant impact, though lacking the depth of the top two groups.
4. Tijuana Luchadores: 316, 50
A strong top safety with a lower-skill supporting player. The top player provides significant defensive strength.
5. Portland Pythons: 238, 92
A solid top safety with a decent supporting player. This group is effective but not as strong as those with higher skill levels.
6. London Royals: 250
A single strong safety, though lacking the depth of other groups. Effective but not as impactful as multi-player groups.
7. Kansas City Coyotes: 160, 50
A decent top safety with a lower-skill second player. Provides some coverage but lacks the depth of stronger groups.
8. Minnesota Grey Ducks: 165
A single decent safety who can contribute but is way less effective compared to teams with higher skill levels or more depth.
KICKERS / PUNTERS
I'm not going to write something for every team in this category since it would be even more repetive than it already has been, I'm just going to give the rankings for these.
1. Tijuana Luchadores: 205
2. Norfolk Seawolves: 149
3. Portland Pythons: 132
4. Dallas Birddogs: 106
5. Bondi Beach Buccaneers: 95
6. London Royals: 82
7. Minnesota Grey Ducks: 57
8. Kansas City Coyotes: None Available
THE POSITIONAL RANKINGS OF EVERY TEAM IN ONE PLACE
(The lower the total number the better, 11 is the minimum and 88 is the maximum. Give or take a few ranks for each total since I could've made a few mistakes.)
Portland Pythons
Quarterback: #6
Running Backs: #3
Wide Receivers: #8
Tight Ends: #5
Offensive Line: #4
Defensive Ends: #5
Defensive Tackles: #6
Linebackers: #3
Cornerbacks: #6
Safeties: #5
Kickers / Punters: #3
(Total of 54. Rank #6, tied with Bondi Beach)
London Royals
Quarterback: #1
Running Backs: #5
Wide Receivers: #6
Tight Ends: #3
Offensive Line: #5
Defensive Ends: #4
Defensive Tackles: #3
Linebackers: #6
Cornerbacks: #7
Safeties: #6
Kickers / Punters: #6
(Total of 52. Rank #5)
Kansas City Coyotes
Quarterback: #7
Running Backs: #2
Wide Receivers: #3
Tight Ends: #8
Offensive Line: #6
Defensive Ends: #3
Defensive Tackles: #4
Linebackers: #8
Cornerbacks: #1
Safeties: #7
Kickers / Punters: #8
(Total of 57. Rank #8)
Minnesota Grey Ducks
Quarterback: #5
Running Backs: #1
Wide Receivers: #5
Tight Ends: #2
Offensive Line: #1
Defensive Ends: #1
Defensive Tackles: #2
Linebackers: #1
Cornerbacks: #5
Safeties: #8
Kickers / Punters: #7
(Total of 38. Rank #1)
Tijuana Luchadores
Quarterback: #8
Running Backs: #6
Wide Receivers: #4
Tight Ends: #1
Offensive Line: #7
Defensive Ends: #6
Defensive Tackles: #1
Linebackers: #4
Cornerbacks: #4
Safeties: #4
Kickers / Punters: #1
(Total of 46. Rank #3)
Dallas Birddogs
Quarterback: #2
Running Backs: #8
Wide Receivers: #7
Tight Ends: #7
Offensive Line: #2
Defensive Ends: #7
Defensive Tackles: #5
Linebackers: #2
Cornerbacks: #3
Safeties: #3
Kickers / Punters: #4
(Total of 50. Rank #4)
Bondi Beach Buccaneers
Quarterback: #3
Running Backs: #4
Wide Receivers: #2
Tight Ends: #4
Offensive Line: #3
Defensive Ends: #8
Defensive Tackles: #8
Linebackers: #7
Cornerbacks: #8
Safeties: #2
Kickers / Punters: #5
(Total of 54. Rank #6, tied with Portland)
Norfolk Seawolves
Quarterback: #4
Running Backs: #7
Wide Receivers: #1
Tight Ends: #6
Offensive Line: #8
Defensive Ends: #2
Defensive Tackles: #7
Linebackers: #5
Cornerbacks: #2
Safeties: #1
Kickers / Punters: #2
(Total of 45. Rank #2)
This is every player on every team. Some things may have changed since it took a while to make, but this is what I used to rank everything. (When it says "#4" in front of an amount, it means that's what the player is ranked on their team by their TPE amount.)
Portland Pythons players:
Total Players: 16
Quarterback: #4 257
Running Back: #3 264, #5 240
Wide Reciever: #8 200, #11 118, #15 #16 both 50
Tight End: #13 50
Offensive Line: #14 50
Defensive End: #2 288
Defensive Tackle: None Available
Linebacker: #1 307, #7 212, #9 149
Cornerback: #16 50
Safety: #6 238, #12 92
Kicker / Punter: #10 132
London Royals:
Total Players: 14
Quarterback: #1 438
Running Back: #5 231, #15 50
Wide Reciever: #6 209, #7 197
Offensive Line: None Available
Tight End: #9 173
Defensive End: #2 265
Defensive Tackle: #8 190
Linebacker: #4 244, #11 113
Cornerback: None Available
Safety: #3 250
Kicker / Punter: #12 82
Kansas City Coyotes:
Total Players: 16
Quarterback: #7 229
Running Back: #2 320, #8 202
Wide Receiver: #1 358, #4 262, #12 112, #13 81, #18 50
Tight End: None Available
Offensive Line: None Available
Defensive End: #15 64
Defensive Tackle: #11 127
Linebacker: #10 157, #14 67, #16 62
Cornerback: #3 277, #5 250, #6 239
Safety: #9 160, #17 50
Kicker / Punter: None Available
Minnesota Grey Ducks:
Total Players: 16
Quarterback: #6 274
Running Back: #1 511, #7 269, #10 185
Wide Receiver: #3 362
Tight End: #11 178
Offensive Line: #4 329, #5 326, #13 144, #14 86
Defensive End: None Available
Defensive Tackle: #8 245
Linebacker: #2 445, #9 193, #17 50
Cornerback: #12 165
Safety: #16 50
Kicker / Punter: #15 57
Tijuana Luchadores
Total Players: 14
Quarterback: #14 50
Running Back: #11 168
Wide Receiver: #3 285, #9 194, #12 92
Tight End: #8 201, #10 179
Offensive Line: None Available
Defensive End: #13 82
Defensive Tackle; #2 311,
Linebacker: #4 273, #4 273
Cornerback: #6 213
Safety: #1 316, #15 50
Kicker / Punter: #7 205
Dallas Birddogs
Total Players: 17
Quarterback: #1 396, #9 200
Running Back: #18 50
Wide Receiver: #11 194, #12 143, #13 118
Tight End: #17 50
Offensive Line: #7 226, #10 197, #14 106
Defensive End: #6 229
Defensive Tackle: #16 67
Linebacker: #4 317, #5 345, #8 215
Cornerback: #2 354
Safety: #3 330,
Kicker / Punter: #14 106
Bondi Beach Buccaneers
Total Players: 14
Quarterback: #2 354
Running Back: #6 259
Wide Receiver: #1 355, #5 291,
Tight End: #12 50, #12 50
Offensive Line: #10 74, #11 50
Defensive End: #14 50, #14 50
Defensive Tackle: None Available
Linebacker: #8 240
Cornerback: None Available
Safety: #3 320, #4 319, #7 243
Kicker / Punter: #9 95
Norfolk Seawolves
Total Players: 13
Quarterback: #4 339
Running Back: #12 50
Wide Receiver: #1 561, #2 526
Tight End: #13 50
Offensive Line: None Available
Defensive End: #8 185
Defensive Tackle: None Available
Linebacker: #6 289, #11 104
Cornerback: #7 257, #10 141
Safety: #3 347, #5 326
Kicker / Punter: #9 149
Thank you for taking the time to read this (or at least some of it!) Because it took me quite a while to make. That being said, I do feel like I should reiterate that the teams will probably change quite a bit before the season actually starts, and that this was just for fun. Thank you again! <3
![[Image: 003p.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/Nfb05vB7/003p.png)
![[Image: 0tvb7NZ.png]](https://i.imgur.com/0tvb7NZ.png)
![[Image: CROney3.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/CROney3.gif)
