Build Through the Draft, Dummies!

[3CardMonte]

From The Huddle Report

There are several ways that NFL teams try and build a successful team. One way believed to be the most sound is to build through the draft. Additionally, if you follow the draft, you have heard that one should wait 3-5 years to grade a team's draft to allow the players from that class to mature, develop and gain playing experience.

With that in mind, The Huddle Report wanted to take a look at each team's draft history -- 3, 4 and 5 years prior to this season. This analysis provides you a perspective on how each team's management performed in those drafts by giving you the numbers on how many players from each of those draft classes are on the teams' rosters this season. The purpose of these statistics is not to reflect the grade of the talent, but to let the numbers speak for themselves as to how many players each team is still carrying from each draft class. The analysis includes both the number of a team's draft picks from these years who are still on their roster and the number of undrafted rookie free agents (UDFA) from each draft class who are still on the roster. The grades are simply calculated by taking the number of players -- both draft picks and undrafted free agents -- and dividing by the number of draft picks the team had over the three year period.

18 52.94% 2002 2003 2004

Total Draft Picks 10 3 4

Draft Picks still on roster 2 2 3

Rookie Free Agents still on roster 0 1 1

[TheLongshot]

Course, with there being a coaching change in there, that skews the numbers down a bit.

Jason

[Oldfan]

...18 .....52.94% 2002 2003 2004

Total Draft Picks 10 3 4

Draft Picks still on roster 2 2 3

Rookie Free Agents still on roster 0 1 1

Monte, does that 18 mean that we were ranked 18th in the NFL?

[3CardMonte]

Yes 18 is rank whats funny is Denver is last.

[MidwayMonster31]

One thing I said in an earlier post was the Bears success with non-first round picks. You have to have a balance between the draft and free agency even though both are equally high-risk because of injury and other factors. But the fact is, you can't just throw away those picks like this year. They already used their 2007 2nd round pick to get Rocky and he barely played. The 3rd rounder on Duckett, who barely played and the 4th round pick on Lloyd, who played awful this year.

[Henry]

Monte, does that mean we're 18th in overall amount of drafted players on the team, or are we 18th in percentage of drafted players still on the team?

If we are 18th in overall draft success, that is, if we have more home-grown talent than 14 other teams ... then that's not nearly as bad as I thought.

However, if we are 18th in our ability to hit on our picks ... well, then we desperately need more than 3 or 4 picks a year.

I'm guessing it's the latter.

[Om]

3CM, does Huddle try to deal with variables like coaching turnover, or how successful teams have been on the field (i.e., will a "good" team with a presumptively deeper roster retain less of its picks than a "bad" team with more needs to fill?), etc.?

Not picking nits ... just very much aware these days that stats used to bolster football arguments around here are subject to scrutiny.

[Oldfan]

Michael D. Smith, Football Outsiders writing about a study done on the NFL draft....

Because of the salary cap, a better way to judge players than “who is the best?” is “who is the best per dollar?” And by that measurement, every selection in the second round is better than the first pick in the first round. It turns out that the most valuable pick in the draft in terms of getting a good player without breaking the bank is the 43rd overall, which is the 11th pick in the second round.

In my posts, I have frequently talked about bargain hunting as the best strategy in free agency, but "who is the best player per dollar" applies to first round picks as well if this study has merit.

The trade down move advocated by some on this board with our #6 is supported by this study if an anxious trade partner can be found.

[e16bball]

Of course the Skins could make the playoffs next season. But, if winning the Super Bowl is the objective, then in order to have a realistic shot, they need to be among the top four teams in the NFL when coaching and personnel are combined in a ranking.

Our team is one of a very large mediocre group. You could make the argument that a couple of key stars out of free agency would give any mediocre team enough firepower to make the playoffs. You can make that argument every year.

Building for the long-term doesn't give up on next year necessarily. The Jets gutted a 4-12 team, collected 12 draft picks, signed a couple of very cheap FAs, and went 10-6 this year. Coaching was the big difference.

I can't argue with the thought that we are currently in that mediocre tier, but when I think about it, I really wonder what's missing. Talent-wise, we were far better than a 5-11 team, even when we had to stick in the "depth" after injuries struck, and our coaching staff, while perhaps excessively large and convoluted, is also talent-wise one of the best. I wonder if it can truly be just chemistry and "winning attitude," for lack of a better words. The Ravens are a perfect example, I think, of a team who had an attitude adjustment and not much else, but experienced a major upswing in success. With minimal changes they went from 6-10 to 13-3. Sure, they added McNair, and he is a big upgrade on Boller, but not seven games singlehandedly better. Other than that, it seems like winning bred good team chemistry, and that in turn bred more winning. In terms of talent and coaching, that team is virtually the same, so I'm wondering if there is really something to this idea of attitude?

As for the Jets, they really benefited from a schedule in which they played FOUR teams with a winning schedule, and two of those were a division rival (New England). They were 1-3 against the winning teams. Put them up against our schedule and I'm guessing they don't do any better than 7-9, Man-Genius or not. Their mediocrity was exposed pretty clearly in the clunker they threw up against the Pats in the playoffs; they may have made it to the postseason, but they still aren't a good team. And, frankly, they aren't on their way to becoming a very good team at this point.

I'll pass on any free agent who is unlikely to be a bargain at the price. If Marv Levy doesn't franchise Clements, it's because, after watching film on him for every down of his career in their system, he thinks the price is too high.

Marcus Washington, an unheralded player from a second-rate Colts defense, was a FA bargain for us.

A. Randle EL, coming off an eye-catching performance in winning the Super Bowl, was unlikely to be a bargain at the price.

I'm assuming you mean relative bargains, because I doubt you are going to find any truly cheap contributors in a market where the salary cap has gone up over $15M in the past two seasons.

Personally, I think the salary cap increase will tend to increase the prices of mediocre players (like Archuleta) more than those of elite players. I think there is an amount of money that is viewed as simply too much for a team to commit to one player, which acts as a sort of cap on the salary of an elite player. In other words, the salary of a player like Nate Clements can be inflated only so much by the cap increase because of the sheer amount of money he would command. I just can't imagine a team providing Clements a 20M signing bonus, for example, because it's simply too much money for one player.

On the other hand, players who originally would have been "bargain players" have plenty of room for contract inflation since their contracts aren't approaching the constraints of sheer enormity. When a team has plenty of cap room, they can obviously afford to give a player more than he deserves, and teams (well, at least some teams) are willing to give a guy like Archuleta a 7/30 contract. It's not too much money to commit to one guy legitimately, but it still happens to be an unwise contract in that it's far more than he deserves.

I don't think I'm explaining that well. Let me try to sum it up. Elite players' contracts can only inflate so much because they are constrained by a level of money that is just too much. Mediocre players' contracts are not so constrained, and so they are further out of line with the player's real value.

As for Clements, if he's not franchised, it's because their FO promised that he wouldn't be franchised again. It was part of the franchising agreement last season, and that's why he didn't try to hold out. It's similar to the Shaun Alexander situation, though not identical I think because Alexander's bargain was included in the contract and I believe Clements's was just a gentlemen's agreement.

[Om]

it seems like winning bred good team chemistry, and that in turn bred more winning. In terms of talent and coaching, that team is virtually the same, so I'm wondering if there is really something to this idea of attitude?

In an interview with Doc Walker back in the day, I once asked him which came first, winning or chemistry? I'm trying to dig up the actual interview, but meanwhile, as I recall his unequivocal answer was winning. That winning, by any means, breeds confidence, which breeds more winning, which breeds more confidence ... which equals "chemistry" or "attitude" or whatever label we choose to put on something that intangible.

It follows, then, that losing can work the same way, only in reverse. The 2006 Redskins seem a perfect counter-illustration to the Ravens.

Didn't mean to cherry-pick your post, just wanted to throw that in.

Loving your posts, man. If I'd had your writing skillz at 21, I'd own an island by now.

[TheLongshot]

I don't think I'm explaining that well. Let me try to sum it up. Elite players' contracts can only inflate so much because they are constrained by a level of money that is just too much. Mediocre players' contracts are not so constrained, and so they are further out of line with the player's real value.

I would change it to average starters versus elite starters. I think mediocre players are making about as much as they've always been, because they tend to be backups.

But, the prices for starters are increasing with the cap, and you can afford to give a lesser player more money now.

I'll disagree with the 'too much' theory, because there are always teams willing to give out way over the top contracts. Look at Peyton Manning's contract. He is set to make from 11m to 14m in salary between 2008 and 2012. Same with Michael Vick between 2010 and 2013. There are teams that really throw around a lot of money and make life difficult for other teams.

Jason

[Om]

Gotta love the Way Back Machine.

From this March 2004 Q&A:

ES: Is that something that’s been lost, or is it as unusual today as it seems? Joe Gibbs teams seemed to have a truly special chemistry--I don’t know what other word to use for it--that you just don’t seem to see very often.

DW: Most winning teams have a good chemistry. That’s why they have a good chemistry ... because they’re winning.

ES: Which comes first?

DW: I think the wins come first ... because the wins unite people. You can’t have great chemistry losing, you just can’t. When you win, each win brings you closer. Each big win unites you in a way that makes your team inseparable, especially if you come from behind to win. Road victories ... the team never gets closer than it does on the road, when you don’t have the comforts of 57,000 of the best football fans in the world at your back, and you go into a hostile environment, and it’s you and the team and the coaches and the administration staff and the trainers and everybody on that aircraft, going in ... and when you come from behind and beat somebody at their place--that is really the thing that I think galvanizes an organization.

ES: At what point do you start talking as players and realizing that you have something special?

DW: Everybody’s minicamp will be spirited, and everybody’s training camp will be good. You have to overcome adversity. There are going to be challenges ... whether you lose your best player, like we lost Art Monk for the playoffs, or you have one of your best players who doesn’t play his best game ... those are things you have to do. You have to overcome every scenario, because the other team is daggone good as well. Sometimes the other team is better, or has better players, but you come up and just make plays, and it just gives you more and more hope. A guy breaks a tackle, or you miss a block and the RB makes a guy miss, or you fumble and one of your guys recovers it ... you have to overcome mistakes in this game. Nobody’s perfect, everybody’s beaten. It’s just that over the long haul, you survive it.

You depend on your defense to get you the ball. You depend on special teams to get you field position. Mark Moseley makes a big kick--you work your guts out all day, and then Mo comes in and kicks the ball and saves the game. Takes defeat away with a kick; which means you have to have a perfect hold by Theismann, or whoever holder is, and a great snap, whether it’s Bostic or World Grant ... so many elements come into it. You get a good double bump on the edge by a guy like Monte Coleman, blocking two guys ... Donnie Warren on the PAT block team. There are just so many things, when you look at a game and break it down, where one guy had a big catch on third down, or a big block--picked up a blitz--but no one talks about that. It never makes the press, the average person never sees it ... but everybody in that room understands it, and that’s how a team really grows.

Looking back ... that freakin’ interview went on forever. :paranoid:

[Dana87]

The argument is fallacious ... the free agents acquired by the Skins were all drafted by others. By using FA to acquire drafted players ... the Skins merely are using money/cap to reduce the risk of failure in the draft. There is no simplistic easy formula to build a successful team. What you need is a franchise QB, a sound program of building around the QB by using BOTH the draft and free agency, and a coaching/management structure that understands how to win. The Skins did this in the 80's with Theismann, Williams, and Rypien. They can do again with Campbell. It just might take a little while longer.

Exactly

[Oldfan]

e16bball -- Talent-wise, we were far better than a 5-11 team.

I'd say we are a mediocre 8-8 team in overall talent. I think we dipped to 5-11 because of these factors:

--- The talent is distributed more to the offense where it was run by one QB who was a misfit for the scheme and another who wasn't ready for prime time.

--- Coryell-Gibbs and Coryell-Saunders combined for negative synergy.

--- The weak talent level on the defensive side was exposed by injuries.

As for the Jets, they really benefited from a schedule in which they played FOUR teams with a winning schedule, and two of those were a division rival (New England).

Their division was stronger than the NFC East. Their strength of schedule stronger than ours. They indeed could regress next year, but my point was that long-term roster building doesn't necessarily preclude the potential of a playoff appearance.

I'm assuming you mean relative bargains, because I doubt you are going to find any truly cheap contributors in a market where the salary cap has gone up over $15M in the past two seasons.

I don't equate cheap with bargain. A player who performs like the best in the NFL at his position is a bargain if he's paid like the second best.

I don't think I'm explaining that well. Let me try to sum it up. Elite players' contracts can only inflate so much because they are constrained by a level of money that is just too much. Mediocre players' contracts are not so constrained, and so they are further out of line with the player's real value.

I don't know about that. Yes, there's a limit on the top salary at any given position, but all salaries paid to lesser players should be relative to the top-ranked player...just as we see it operate in the draft.

As for Clements, if he's not franchised, it's because their FO promised that he wouldn't be franchised again. It was part of the franchising agreement last season, and that's why he didn't try to hold out.

I've heard that rumor before and it baffles me. The Jets got a #1 pick for a franchised player who threatened a holdout. The Patriots did the same with a holdout. Why would Marv Levy dump a #1 pick? Let the player hold out! Anyway...I pass on Clements.

[3CardMonte]

The Huddle Report Analysis deals with what they call a critical 3 yr period the 3rd 4th and 5th years after a draft. I would think this is a critical time as well because it is when guys start to become free agents and if you dont retain your drafted players then you have to get free-agents.

Their analysis also takes into account rookie free agents from each year. I was looking at some of the other teams and in 2003 the Eagles had 6 picks in the draft and today have 8 players from that draft class on their roster 2 drafted players and 6 rookie free agents they signed after the draft.

I e-mailed the huddle report about the rookie free agents only count for the team that origanilly signs them.

Since I have posted some of their subscription content on here I feel it only fair to say that I enjoy the site and if you like to follow the draft I think you should check out The Huddle Report

[e16bball]

Personally, I think you go for the players you think will help your team the most. If the guy is a bargain, so be it, but it shouldn't be the driving force. The important thing is that everyone fits in your budget.

The good thing is that this team under Gibbs has mostly avoided those players. I mean, we could have gone after Jevon Kearse or Reggie Wayne, but we managed to avoid most of those guys and go with lesser names that were considered better fits.

ARE may be considered an exception, but he plays a lot of roles, so he might just be worth it.

Jason

This is generally the accepted approach to handling the budget. However, I'm not so sure I agree with it. I would much rather invest heavily in elite players and fill in around them with the draft, which is an approach I see in teams like the Ravens, than try to fill every position with a "lesser-name, better fit" veteran. For example, were I to build a 5 man WR corps, I would prefer to have two very highly paid guys like R. Wayne and S. Moss, and then fill in the rest of the group with some lesser guys than to have a group of lesser names likes Lloyd, Randle El, Patten, Thrash, etc. Certainly, it seems that this approach would leave us prone to massive holes in the case of injury (as we saw in the case of our secondary, particularly the CBs, this season) but I'm not so sure that's the case. If you retain your draft picks, you should have sufficient opportunity to find depth of a similar quality.

I think it's highly possible to find depth in the form of later round picks or UDFAs, as long as you have sufficient pulls on the slot machine. I hate to keep hearkening back to the Eagles, but you look at a guy like Hank Baskett who was a 7th round pick (by the Vikings, actually; they traded Billy McMullen, another 2nd day pick, for him) and he has the ability to perform at the same level or better than Patten and Thrash already. We actually have a guy like that in Mike Espy, a UDFA who would be a nice fit as a 5th WR for much cheaper than Patten.

Give me a WR corps of Moss - Wayne - Reggie Brown - Baskett - Espy any day over Moss - Lloyd - Randle El - Thrash - Patten, and I'd wager it's actually a much cheaper proposition. Sure, you have to invest more in Wayne, but you're investing in virtually guaranteed production, instead of the potential in which we invested with Lloyd and, to a lesser extent, Randle El. My lineup is cheaper, and costs only a 2005 2nd and a 2006 7th in terms of draft picks. It's high reward, because any of those could pay off big time, but it's also low risk, because the money and the contract commitment are minimal. You can cut a Hank Baskett whenever you want, but a Randle El? You're stuck with him unless you want to pay a huge penalty (not that I'm advising cutting Randle El).

Now, certainly, you could say that we won't get lucky every time with a Brown or a Baskett, but if you use a pick and bring in a couple UDFAs at a position each year, you should have no problem hitting on a couple to stay on the bottom end of the corps. And that holds for each position, I think. The Ravens do this, fairly often. They bring in a Steve McNair, or a Samari Rolle, or a Derrick Mason. Big name guys (and, evidently, Tennessee Titans) who are virtually assured to produce. They then fill in around Mason with a Clayton and a Demetrius Williams and a Clarence Moore. Plug in a 4th round pick like Dawan Landry in a stellar secondary. So on and so on. But I think it all starts with the stars first.

I would change it to average starters versus elite starters. I think mediocre players are making about as much as they've always been, because they tend to be backups.

But, the prices for starters are increasing with the cap, and you can afford to give a lesser player more money now.

I'll disagree with the 'too much' theory, because there are always teams willing to give out way over the top contracts. Look at Peyton Manning's contract. He is set to make from 11m to 14m in salary between 2008 and 2012. Same with Michael Vick between 2010 and 2013. There are teams that really throw around a lot of money and make life difficult for other teams.

These are two very fair points.

As for the issue of mediocre players vs. average starters, I can buy that. I just look at a team that signed Christian Fauria to a 1M contract and Todd Collins to a 1.25M contract last offseason and I think those guys aren't even what you would call average starters. But, I'll take your point to the bank because from what I've seen we are really the only team that does this (again, because we don't have any draft picks).

As for the Peyton Manning/Michael Vick factor, I thought of that as I was writing the "too much" theory. I think my point still holds, just not for franchise QBs. As we have seen, a franchise QB defies the BPA approach in the draft because of the sheer rarity of the opportunity to obtain one, and I think we can safely assume that the "too much" theory doesn't apply there either. Especially when you are trying to retain a guy who is the face of the team and makes your team richer than God (like a Manning or a Vick). For DEs, for example, I think it's still applicable.

[MRMADD]

In an interview with Doc Walker back in the day, I once asked him which came first, winning or chemistry? I'm trying to dig up the actual interview, but meanwhile, as I recall his unequivocal answer was winning. That winning, by any means, breeds confidence, which breeds more winning, which breeds more confidence ... which equals "chemistry" or "attitude" or whatever label we choose to put on something that intangible.

It follows, then, that losing can work the same way, only in reverse. The 2006 Redskins seem a perfect counter-illustration to the Ravens.

This is true -- and an over-reliance on statistical analysis can make you forget that these are young men playing a game. Chemistry matters. Leadership matters. Winning is contagious. And losing -- losing can get down deep into your bones. It's a hard habit to shake.

But the Skins ended 2005 on a high note. They were winning. They just need a few tweaks. They were projected to be Superbowl contenders. So why did they suddenly and precipitously lose confidence or chemistry or whatever? We've heard all the excuses: the unnecessary changes in offensive philosophy, the tragic insistence on expensive free agents to replace key players, the injuries, the rapid aging of Brunell. Or was it that they never really believed that the magical run at the end of 2005 was for real? Did they never really have confidence in themselves? We'll never really know... I doubt the players know. It's tough to put your finger on an intangible like that.

[Oldfan]

Doc --I think the wins come first ... because the wins unite people. You can’t have great chemistry losing, you just can’t.

Doc is right.

Confidence is the effect. Winning is the cause.

Likewise, lack of confidence is the effect. Losing is the cause.

[e16bball]

Their division was stronger than the NFC East. Their strength of schedule stronger than ours. They indeed could regress next year, but my point was that long-term roster building doesn't necessarily preclude the potential of a playoff appearance.

I agree with a lot of the points you make, but on this one, you are just wrong. Their opponent winning percentage was .469, among the lowest in the league. Our opponent winning percentage was .512, among the highest in the league. As for their division, perhaps the AFC East's overall winning percentage was higher than the NFC East's, but not the teams the Jets played. Their opposition in the AFC East had a combined record of 25-23 and our opposition had a record of 27-21. Which is not to mention the fact that New England's 12-4 skews their division's numbers a little.

I don't equate cheap with bargain. A player who performs like the best in the NFL at his position is a bargain if he's paid like the second best.

I think everyone can agree with that. The tough question is, to get the best, are you willing to pay him like the very best?

Because it seems to me that logically the only way you get a "bargain," the way you describe it, is to pick up guys who will become noticeably better during the duration of the contract; otherwise they'd be paid in line with what they deserve. I hate to throw around the dreaded "P" word, but wouldn't you say that the idea of getting an elite player for an average contract relies pretty heavily on Potential? I'm afraid that might lead to another Brandon Lloyd/Adam Archuleta type of situation where we think we can make a player into an elite guy, but it backfires. I'd personally much rather go with only expensive certainties and then take a lot of cheap gambles.

Why would Marv Levy dump a #1 pick? Let the player hold out! Anyway...I pass on Clements.

That is absolutely beyond me. I suppose it's out of the hope that they can bring him back with a long-term deal in the upcoming season, but I just don't see that happening. It's a little tough for Buffalo to compete in the FA market, I'm afraid.

In an interview with Doc Walker back in the day, I once asked him which came first, winning or chemistry? I'm trying to dig up the actual interview, but meanwhile, as I recall his unequivocal answer was winning. That winning, by any means, breeds confidence, which breeds more winning, which breeds more confidence ... which equals "chemistry" or "attitude" or whatever label we choose to put on something that intangible.

It follows, then, that losing can work the same way, only in reverse. The 2006 Redskins seem a perfect counter-illustration to the Ravens.

This is the point I've sort of been skating around for a while. I'm thinking the 2006 Redskins were so much worse than their talent level because of this sort of "negative synergy" that OldFan mentioned earlier. That, to me, indicates that they could easily be a much improved team next year with some additions. Which, in turn, leads me to believe that maybe we should be aggressive in pursuing the few missing pieces instead of engaging in a full-scale rebuilding like many here would recommend. If it's the attitude and the chemistry instead of the talent, some team-building exercises would seem more important than any re-building exercise.

And thank you for the kind words, I appreciate it.

[TheLongshot]

Give me a WR corps of Moss - Wayne - Reggie Brown - Baskett - Espy any day over Moss - Lloyd - Randle El - Thrash - Patten, and I'd wager it's actually a much cheaper proposition. Sure, you have to invest more in Wayne, but you're investing in virtually guaranteed production, instead of the potential in which we invested with Lloyd and, to a lesser extent, Randle El. My lineup is cheaper, and costs only a 2005 2nd and a 2006 7th in terms of draft picks. It's high reward, because any of those could pay off big time, but it's also low risk, because the money and the contract commitment are minimal. You can cut a Hank Baskett whenever you want, but a Randle El? You're stuck with him unless you want to pay a huge penalty (not that I'm advising cutting Randle El).

It is debateable whether or not Wayne would be "virtually guaranteed production", particularly since he's got the best QB in the league throwing to him. There have been too many cases where WRs have changed teams only to wash out at their new location because they didn't live up to their billing. It is why you need to do your homework on free agents and make sure they fit in with what you are doing.

I also think you underrate Thrash because he does much more than just being a veteran backup but is also a very good special teams player. Special teams tends to get underrated by a lot of us. I do agree that you probably can do better than Patten for the price, and I think Patten will be gone in the offseason.

Now, certainly, you could say that we won't get lucky every time with a Brown or a Baskett, but if you use a pick and bring in a couple UDFAs at a position each year, you should have no problem hitting on a couple to stay on the bottom end of the corps. And that holds for each position, I think. The Ravens do this, fairly often. They bring in a Steve McNair, or a Samari Rolle, or a Derrick Mason. Big name guys (and, evidently, Tennessee Titans) who are virtually assured to produce. They then fill in around Mason with a Clayton and a Demetrius Williams and a Clarence Moore. Plug in a 4th round pick like Dawan Landry in a stellar secondary. So on and so on. But I think it all starts with the stars first.

Which is the way Gibbs has tried to build this team, picking up Brunell, Portis, and when Coles didn't work out, Moss.

Gibbs seems to have a problem finding those guys to fill in, tho. Course, part of the problem is that bringing in those "stars" have cost picks, which is usually where you find those "in-between" guys.

Fact is, things were pretty bare, and got even more so when years of dissatisfaction and poor spending practices have caught up with the Skins. Gibbs had had to deal with all of that, and has caused Gibbs to have to fill more holes than he really wanted to fill over this time. My hope is that a lot of that is over and done with and that we can make forward progress from here on out.

As for the issue of mediocre players vs. average starters, I can buy that. I just look at a team that signed Christian Fauria to a 1M contract and Todd Collins to a 1.25M contract last offseason and I think those guys aren't even what you would call average starters. But, I'll take your point to the bank because from what I've seen we are really the only team that does this (again, because we don't have any draft picks).

Well, that's more a function of the minimum salary and how long those guys have been in the league. Both are over 10 years in the league, so command a minimum of about $800K, so there isn't much wiggle room there as far as salary.

As for the Peyton Manning/Michael Vick factor, I thought of that as I was writing the "too much" theory. I think my point still holds, just not for franchise QBs. As we have seen, a franchise QB defies the BPA approach in the draft because of the sheer rarity of the opportunity to obtain one, and I think we can safely assume that the "too much" theory doesn't apply there either. Especially when you are trying to retain a guy who is the face of the team and makes your team richer than God (like a Manning or a Vick). For DEs, for example, I think it's still applicable.

I'd have to look at some players, but I do think some positions do get eye-poping deals. (CB, WR, OL) Some less so (RB, LB, TE).

Jason

[TheLongshot]

Because it seems to me that logically the only way you get a "bargain," the way you describe it, is to pick up guys who will become noticeably better during the duration of the contract; otherwise they'd be paid in line with what they deserve. I hate to throw around the dreaded "P" word, but wouldn't you say that the idea of getting an elite player for an average contract relies pretty heavily on Potential? I'm afraid that might lead to another Brandon Lloyd/Adam Archuleta type of situation where we think we can make a player into an elite guy, but it backfires. I'd personally much rather go with only expensive certainties and then take a lot of cheap gambles.

Problem is, you can't buy a lot of expensive certainties, because the cap won't allow it. Also, the expensive certainties won't nessicarily work well together.

A lot of what the Skins are doing is trying to get players with potential who either haven't quite gotten there yet (Griffin, Washington, Carter) or trade for them because they don't hit the FA market (Portis, Moss, Lloyd). Until this year, they seemed to be doing a pretty good job of that.

In the end, even if the Lloyd and Arch deals backfire, I don't think it will have much of an effect on the team, because these guys probably will be kept here for at least 3 years. At that point, the cap hit isn't going to be that high and they can be let go. If they need to be let go before that, the hit can be spread out. But, I don't think that's going to happen.

The only potential downside to those deals, as far as I can tell, is that some players could get resentful for the amount of money they are getting and want similar deals. We'll have to see how that plays out with the Dockery negotiations and future ones with other players.

Jason

[Oldfan]

e16bball --- I agree with a lot of the points you make, but on this one, you are just wrong. Their opponent winning percentage was .469, among the lowest in the league. Our opponent winning percentage was .512, among the highest in the league.

Did your source back the Jets 10-6 and the Redskins 5-11 records out of the computation? What we want to know is how good the opposition was against OTHER opponents. Otherwise all winning teams will appear to have easy schedules and the reverse true for losing teams.

I think everyone can agree with that. The tough question is, to get the best, are you willing to pay him like the very best?

As a general rule, no. Bargain hunting every transaction is the strategy.

Because it seems to me that logically the only way you get a "bargain," the way you describe it, is to pick up guys who will become noticeably better during the duration of the contract; otherwise they'd be paid in line with what they deserve.

Good talent evaluators will spot players who are likely bargains on units that are poorly coached and/or where he's surrounded by a poor supporting cast.

Jeff Garcia, coming off a serious injury looked terrible with the Detroit Lions supporting cast. Eagles: right fit, right coach, good players around him...a bargain acquisition.

[e16bball]

It is debateable whether or not Wayne would be "virtually guaranteed production", particularly since he's got the best QB in the league throwing to him. There have been too many cases where WRs have changed teams only to wash out at their new location because they didn't live up to their billing. It is why you need to do your homework on free agents and make sure they fit in with what you are doing.

All too true. My point was simply that a Reggie Wayne who has all the measurables, runs sublime routes, and has solid hands is a much more likely bet than a Brandon Lloyd who comes in at a crisp 1 for 3 in those crucial WR categories. It wasn't really a Reggie Wayne thing, I guess, just the idea that I'd rather pay the premium for the closest thing there is to a sure deal, rather than try to cut corners and count on someone who has a much higher probability of letting me down. After all, no one regrets giving Portis that HUGE contract because he produces. Everyone regrets giving Archuleta a much smaller contract because he doesn't. As long as someone is doing their job satisfactorily, you rarely regret the money you give them. At least I don't.

I also think you underrate Thrash because he does much more than just being a veteran backup but is also a very good special teams player. Special teams tends to get underrated by a lot of us. I do agree that you probably can do better than Patten for the price, and I think Patten will be gone in the offseason.

Again, this is true. I actually love Thrash. He was just an example of a fairly highly-paid, veteran WR. Patten is a better example; I could have picked Ike Hilliard or someone of that nature as well. I'm not necessarily railing against the Redskins and their players, just arguing against the idea of having your depth be made up of mostly veterans who you have to pay more. The point you made later in your post about Fauria and Collins sort of applies here, in that you have to pay them more. Same deal with Renaldo Wynn and Troy Vincent and Todd Wade and Todd Yoder and Jeff Posey and any number of other "veteran" players we have who get paid more than a younger player who would provide the same level of play. Obviously, there are guys like Thrash you want to keep around because they contribute in many other ways (like leadership) but I doubt you need THAT many.

Which is the way Gibbs has tried to build this team, picking up Brunell, Portis, and when Coles didn't work out, Moss.

Gibbs seems to have a problem finding those guys to fill in, tho. Course, part of the problem is that bringing in those "stars" have cost picks, which is usually where you find those "in-between" guys.

Fact is, things were pretty bare, and got even more so when years of dissatisfaction and poor spending practices have caught up with the Skins. Gibbs had had to deal with all of that, and has caused Gibbs to have to fill more holes than he really wanted to fill over this time. My hope is that a lot of that is over and done with and that we can make forward progress from here on out.

Again, I'm really not trying to call out Gibbs and the 'Skins. I think they've actually done a nice job, except for giving away draft picks. The problem is, giving away the draft picks is a cardinal sin. You simply don't get enough shots at the crap shoot to establish your solid depth.

I'd have to look at some players, but I do think some positions do get eye-poping deals. (CB, WR, OL) Some less so (RB, LB, TE).

Probably. I just checked into a few for fun. Walter Jones is making 50M for 7 years, I think he's the top OL. Marvin Harrison is making 67M on a 7 year deal. Champ's deal is worth 63M over 7 years. And Leonard Little, a Pro Bowl DE, is making 19M on a 3 year extension he signed about a month ago.

It seems to me the limit, even for a truly elite player at a (non-QB) cornerstone position is around 10M per year. Which is certainly a lot, but not really in the Manning/Vick ballpark.

It will be interesting to see what happens this offseason with Clements and Freeney. They are at two cornerstone positions and are both elite players. It's rare those kinda guys get to FA, so we'll see if any team is willing to absolutely break the bank for them. I'd be willing to bet no one goes over 10M a year (as long as the include legitimate bonus money; no Charles Woodson style contracts), but I could be way off.

[e16bball]

Did your source back the Jets 10-6 and the Redskins 5-11 records out of the computation? What we want to know is how good the opposition was against OTHER opponents. Otherwise all winning teams will appear to have easy schedules and the reverse true for losing teams.

Well, I can explain how it works. They simply sum up the records of every team the Jets played and the records of every team the Redskins played.

I guess that means that the Jets' opponents were 120-136 and the Redskins' opponents were 131-125. Were we to back out the records of those opponents against every but the Redskins and Jets, I think we'd get 114-126 for the Jets and 120-120 for the Redskins. We didn't have any common opponents, so that should work hopefully.

For the record, that's .475 and .500. Their schedule wasn't as easy as I originally suggested I suppose, but also not as difficult as ours.

Good talent evaluators will spot players who are likely bargains on units that are poorly coached and/or where he's surrounded by a poor supporting cast.

Jeff Garcia, coming off a serious injury looked terrible with the Detroit Lions supporting cast. Eagles: right fit, right coach, good players around him...a bargain acquisition.

That's a great example of a bargain being found. I just don't think you win any Super Bowls with a team of Jeff Garcias, so eventually you need to pick up some stars. That's when you start running into trouble finding bargains, in my own opinion.

Problem is, you can't buy a lot of expensive certainties, because the cap won't allow it. Also, the expensive certainties won't nessicarily work well together.

A lot of what the Skins are doing is trying to get players with potential who either haven't quite gotten there yet (Griffin, Washington, Carter) or trade for them because they don't hit the FA market (Portis, Moss, Lloyd). Until this year, they seemed to be doing a pretty good job of that.

No doubt. As I mentioned in a few posts above, the Redskins do a fine job of getting the big-time players, they just don't get the depth. Which is when the injuries start to kill you. Which happens when you don't keep your picks. That's all I'm saying there.

The only potential downside to those deals, as far as I can tell, is that some players could get resentful for the amount of money they are getting and want similar deals. We'll have to see how that plays out with the Dockery negotiations and future ones with other players.

Well, another downside is that, for example, we are now counting on Lloyd to be one of our top WRs. We really don't have the payroll flexibility to commit ANOTHER sizeable contract to WR when we have so much money tied up there already. We're counting on Lloyd to be a big contributor, but it may never happen. That's all I'm getting at with my distaste for big contracts for big question marks.

[Oldfan]

e16bball ---For the record, that's .475 and .500. Their schedule wasn't as easy as I originally suggested I suppose, but also not as difficult as ours.

Well, either way, I was mistaken. We had four common opponents. Their division was stronger. But I'd forgotten that they played Oakland and we didn't. That's a 12 win swing right there.

That's a great example of a bargain being found. I just don't think you win any Super Bowls with a team of Jeff Garcias, so eventually you need to pick up some stars. That's when you start running into trouble finding bargains, in my own opinion.

I think you are being optimistic to think you'll pick up "stars" in free agency. This thread began with a stat that indicates that teams draft and keep their stars at a surprisingly high rate.