I was looking up some numbers, basically to see how rare a situation Myles Garrett is in with his level of individual dominance combined with team failures and right off the bat, he is definitely up in the top 10 all-time. With a career AV of 123, he has only played in 3 playoff games. There are only 7 players with higher AV and 3 or fewer playoff games. 6 played pre-1970, leaving Willie Roaf as the only modern day player to have more AV with 3 or fewer playoff games. He has a 145 AV with only 3 playoff games. So if CLE misses the playoffs again in 2026, Garrett will pass Roaf during the 2027 season with the highest AV with fewest playoff games in NFL history (SB era).

Of the other modern day players on the list, Roaf, Andre Johnson, Demario Davis, Patrick Peterson, and Adrian Peterson, all of them played for at least two different teams other than Garrett.

A funny side note, 3 of the top 4 played for Detroit in the 50s-70s.

One other interesting note was Bears-related. 3 Bears made the top 50. Urlacher(24), Briggs(28), and Walter(38). Khalil Mack (22) also made an appearance.

Forgive me, I only had 7 years of college. What is AV?

It's Average Value and is a blended stat to measure someone's value. It's like the WAR stat in baseball. IMO - the good ol eye test is king.

Is that related to % of cap consumed by the player?

Money is not part of the equation.

*Approximate Value - it's just supposed to be an objective view of their overall value, and of course that's a really hard stat to defend since everything is different for each player.

It should be normalized that way. Garret contract will represent 13.3% of their cap space at 40mil/yr. He has to provide value equivalent to about 7 or 8 players assuming an average player contract value of 5mil. You need a few players on rookie contracts playing above their value to balance it out. Of course he is good enough to offset some lower performing players but in a game where you are one of 11 on the field how many? If you take his cap hit just for the defense he represents 26% off defensive money(assuming an even split between offense defense).

Like AZ said, value should be related to contracts.

Example: Edwards originally signed for a moderate contract and Edmunds got paid a fat contract. Looking at the time they were with the bears, Edwards was clearly more of a value because of the money when you could arguely agree that played similar.

Whoever came up with the AV component, is there an explanation of the criteria they used?

I think the word "value" is throwing people off. The AV is just supposed to be a measure of how good a player is compared to his team. Trying to get that into one stat is foolish in my view, but people love easy numbers they can point to.

But given where the discussion has gone, it is a really interesting idea to take the AV (if you have faith in it) and divide it by the cap percentage the player takes up. Then you'd be able to see underpaid and overpaid players.

Here's a description of how they get the number:

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/about/approximate_value.htm

I agree with everything you said.

Yeah, it is just a way to approximate value in terms of production in a single number.

You could also use it to assess draft successes after a few years. Guys like Loveland, Burden, and Monangai are all near the top for 2025, obviously Caleb is #1 in 2024, Wright tied for 12th in 2023. It's not perfect as it seems to award skill position players more value (or opportunity to get a higher rating).

I will say AV feels much more accurate than something like PFF and it also gets better over time.

Using AV, comparing last year's value, Dalman to Bradbury is only a slight downgrade 10-9, but both are above league average. Bryant is an upgrade over Brisker, but downgrade from Byard. Bush is an upgrade over Edmunds.

1 hour ago, adam said:

Using AV, comparing last year's value, Dalman to Bradbury is only a slight downgrade 10-9, but both are above league average. Bryant is an upgrade over Brisker, but downgrade from Byard. Bush is an upgrade over Edmunds.

Zero chance Bryant is a downgrade from Byard. There's too much weight on stats. Let's go way back in history to Deion Sanders when nobody wanted to throw to his side of field. Lack of INT and PDs does not mean he was lesser of a player. Anyone can watch film and see Bryant is far better in coverage than Byard.

In Byard's case they are also not weighing heavily enough the gaps in coverage when he let plays get past him.

15 minutes ago, AZ54 said:

Zero chance Bryant is a downgrade from Byard. There's too much weight on stats. Let's go way back in history to Deion Sanders when nobody wanted to throw to his side of field. Lack of INT and PDs does not mean he was lesser of a player. Anyone can watch film and see Bryant is far better in coverage than Byard.

In Byard's case they are also not weighing heavily enough the gaps in coverage when he let plays get past him.

totally agree. Stats are misleading.