bloomberg.com: Redskins need remedial economics classes

[johnbent]

An article at bloomberg.com analyzes the draft using economic guidelines established in an earlier academic study and rates the Packers highly and the Redskins low. The analysis is simple, merely using historical data and expected salaries to assign a positive or negative numeric value to each draft slot. For example, highly drafted players are expected (according to this study) to underperform their very high salaries and these early draft slots are accordingly assigned a negative value. Apparently, the second and third rounds give the most value.

Using these metrics, the authors determine that the Redskins forsake value and shop like spoiled children in a candy store. The authors claim that the equality imposed by the salary cap will penalize this approach and will reward value shoppers like the Packers. However, this argument seems flawed since the recent history of the Redskins personnel acquisitions suggests that cash beats cap.

Anyway, the full article can be read here: http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000039&sid=atr6n6yzj1yI.

[Renegade7]

Everybody's gonna be on their hands and knees once we win they super bowl, so they can take that "remedial economics class" and shove it for all I care. Remedial economics class? WTF?

Cost us, the team in the second round of the playoffs, and benifit the packers, that bottom dwelling 4-12 in the middle of nowhere? :doh:

[@DCGoldPants]

dumb.

The Packers could win the next 4 superbowls and still not rake in the loot that Washington does.

Bloomberg needs remedial geography and socioeconmic classes.

Let the writer know how you feel.

khassett@aei.org

[ouvan59]

LOL, our cap guy would eat this guy's lunch.

[Johnny Punani2]

Bloomberg needs to stick with the markets because they need remedial classes in Football & Cap management.

Retards...

[Johnny Punani2]

To contact the writer of this column:

Kevin Hassett at khassett@aei.org

Here is the idiots email address...

[TK]

.:yawnee:.

[TallyHo]

Professor Economics over there can wrap his calculator in his lab coat and cram the whole package. What does this matter? The Packers suck and the Skins do not.

[ouvan59]

"They foolishly gave up draft picks for established veteran players, leaving them (after an especially silly trade that gave the Jets a second-round pick this year, a second-round pick next year, and a sixth-round pick this year, for the Jets second-round pick this year) with only one pick in the first three rounds."

So does that mean that all NFL teams are foolish since the value chart used by nearly all NFL teams puts the value of the pick we received at 550 while the picks we surrended were valued at 550.8?

[Kyle]

The analysis fails to account for the risk that the drafted player is a bust, you know, expected value and all. A veteran player who has proven to be valuable is better than a second or third round pick who could be as good, and has all of that surplus value, but could also stink and get cut.

[MRMADD]

It seems like Bloomberg should recognize that, as a business, the Packers can NEVER be as successful as the Redskins. If you're looking purely at financial returns, not results on the field, Danny's the king of the NFL.

Of course, we're more concerned with win/loss records. Frankly, until the Skins do more than sneak into the playoffs once every 6 years, you can't proclaim that their talent acquisition strategy is any good. If they're good this year, you've got some evidence. If they aren't -- well, I think that proves the critics are right.

Unfortunately, the Skins have one big hole in their gold-plated roster: quarterback. Yes, Brunell played very well down the stretch, but at his age he's a question mark. The only other QB on the roster has never taken an NFL snap. (Don't mention Collins...)

The media simply doesn't matter this year. The Skins can prove it all on the field. They have the talent, they have a reasonable schedule, they have stability for the first time in decades, they have a HOF coach, and they should be able to make the playoffs. Screw Bloomberg. Why do you care? It's put up or shut up time.

[carter23]

"They foolishly gave up draft picks for established veteran players

i don't see how this is foolish

[e16bball]

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

A team could fill their team (with salary cap of ~105M) with 51 players of equal salary (~2M each) and this writer would apparently find them to be geniuses. After all, if everyone's salary is a low as possible, there is a much higher chance that someone will overplay his salary.

Of course, that fails miserably to take into account that only 22 players can start, and only about 30 players, or so, will see any sort of significant time in any given game. Having a 49th man who is has a decent chance to outperform his salary is IMMEASURABLY less important than having a superstar who lives up to his $10M salary.

Even more laughable is his claim that the Packers mastered the draft by taking 2 players each in the 2nd and 3rd rounds. The list of players they took on the first day is: AJ Hawk (OLB), Daryn Colledge (OT), Greg Jennings (WR), Abdul Hodge (MLB), Jason Spitz (OC). How many of those players will start next year? Likely only one, Hawk, at WLB.

The others will provide depth and MAY step in eventually, but who knows? The success rate of 2nd and 3rd round picks is about 33%, give or take a few percentage points each way. That would indicate that only 1 or 2 of their vaunted mid-day one picks will ever fill any significant role on their team. Looking at their team, this seems likely. They are set with Clifton and Tauscher at OT, and look pretty solid with Nick Barnett locking down the MLB spot as well. One of those players would have to leave (due to injury, FA, or trade) in order for Colledge or Hodge to have a real shot.

As for "The Biggest Losers," we took one player on the first day of the draft, and ended up with Rocky McIntosh, who will likely start at WLB. So, for all our failings, we came up with one starting LB, same as the "genius" Packers.

And that's not to mention the other players (Campbell and Lloyd) we brought in using picks from this draft. They are certainly more likely to be successful than Greg Jennings and Jason Spitz. It's simply foolish to look at all picks and acquisitions as equals; you HAVE TO consider the practical impact of those moves on the field.

The only valid point he makes is that their players, if they pan out, will be better "values" than our players. But getting the best bang for your buck doesn't win championships...getting the best bang PERIOD wins championships.

[Guest santana4prez]

When we are in cap hell Ill read the article which is sometime around

Never:laugh:

[themurf]

The Redskins will make way more money, and much more importantly, they will win more games than the Packers. Brett Favre wishes he could play for Washington this year.

[bedlamVR]

Did you see what the Eagles did give established talent in Hollis Thomas and Artis Hicks and draft picks to move around the fourth round. Apparently that is cleaver planning and it is foolish for us to use a pick to make sure we get the player we want now and have him get a year of expereince under his belt by trading next years pick rather than taking whoever falls to us, who we might not want nor need and hope there is a player like Mcintosh in next years draft .

What amazes me is this guy is supposed to be some kind of finiancial analyst but you can imagine his apartment filled with boxes upon boxes of Granola flakes that he hates but were a bargin at the store because they were buy one get one free.

[SAXON]

bloomberg.com nerds need to stick to money in the real world, not money in sports.

[Maggio]

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

But getting the best bang for your buck doesn't win championships...getting the best bang PERIOD wins championships.

This statement is now my new mantra, "Best Bang Period". Who cares how much we spend as long as we get the "Best Bang Period". BBP baby, its all about BBP.

[luckydevil]

cash beats cap

needs to be repeated

[bubba9497]

The analysis fails to account for the risk that the drafted player is a bust, you know, expected value and all. A veteran player who has proven to be valuable is better than a second or third round pick who could be as good, and has all of that surplus value, but could also stink and get cut.

and the point is to WIN, not just make money :laugh:

[Birdlives]

Absolutely, BBP!

Anyways, this article takes the misconceived notion that all the pundits seem to take as well. As long as the Skins have the money, the cap is merely an annual tool. One can always mortgage the future for the present and reap the benefits. Same with draft picks. We can always give up next years picks and get the players we like now; then merely get other players in the next draft with other future picks, because there will always be another draft, just like there will always be another salary cap year; at least as long as the NFL is flush with money. Last I checked, they're doing okay. These articles and pundits that speak of cap hell forget that there is no final due date or balloon payment at the end of the mortgage. As long as players will redo contracts, the money can always be pushed forward. Its not a thirty year 80/20, it never comes to term. I think this is a lesson The Danny has learned well. People seem to forget he made a ton o cash on his own, without a college degree. Clearly a smart individual, whatever you think of him as a person.

[TheLongshot]

It takes a simplistic notion, of what picks are the best value, based on chance of success vs cap hit, and is taking it too far.

What it doesn't take into account is how research mitigates that risk somewhat. Also, scouting NFL players is more reliable, because there, you know how the player plays against other NFL players.

Sure, giving an extra 2nd and 6th is a risky proposition when trading up in the draft. In the end, tho, it doesn't matter if in the end, you got the right guy. It isn't just blind luck, otherwise NFL teams wouldn't spend so much on scouting.

Jason

Jason

[dent19]

To look at it from just the finacial side of things, the guy might right.

But football isnt played by those rules. We have to work within the bounderies set by the Cap but the game is never played that way.

Skin Cap situation is crazy but i think these guys do a great job of moving the bottom line around to work.

We will never be able to keep beloved players around (Champ, Lavar)

But we will be able to feild better and better teamas as we go.

ANd our biggest investment has been in coaching. This is where most of our return will be. Reguardless how much we pay players and which round they're drafted, the coaching staff will but them in the proper places for success.

At least we did 1 thing right.

And there is no calculation for that.

[e16bball]

This statement is now my new mantra, "Best Bang Period". Who cares how much we spend as long as we get the "Best Bang Period". BBP baby, its all about BBP.

Haha, I figured those were words to live by

[jwsleep]

I didn't bother reading the bloomberg thing--sorry, just too lazy to care about "remedial economics"--but does their analysis take into account that when rookie contracts expire, you've got to pay the piper or lose your player? You don't get extra value once a good young player wants his payday. You only get that value while they're on the rookie contract. And it usually takes a year or two at least for most players to get established.

Instead, the kisn take established guys who are still young, with big upside, and lock them in with backloaded cotnracts that prorate the bonuses, etc. They work the cap and freeagency (which is relatively new, and many teams are still on the old model, IMO) better than anyone--they aren't in caphell, and they've improved their team substantially every year Gibbs has been in charge.

But, like I said, I didn't read the thing...

Like Gibbs said the other day: if you win, you're a genius and all your moves make sense. All the rest is the pundits writing revisionist history.