Playing the Percentages in the NFL

[Oldfan]

.

In recent threads, I’ve read several posters say that they want a team that goes all out to win every game, every season. They describe themselves as “competitors.” That might be true, but they are not very smart competitors.

In Poker, skillful players understand and “play the percentages.” It’s the same with the decision makers on NFL teams.

Let’s pretend we have a Decision Percentage Calculator (DPC). It shows that our decision has a 75% chance of success. That means that, if we made this same decision a thousand times, it would help us achieve our objective three out of every four times.

If we make that decision and it fails, that doesn’t mean that it was the wrong decision. We still made the right decision if we had the percentages on our side.

Good decisions are goal-oriented. If an NFL team’s goal is to build the most talented roster in the NFL, our DPC should show that their roster moves increase the percentage of success in reaching that goal.

If the team’s goal is to win in the upcoming season, then our DPC should show that their win-now roster moves increase the percentage of success in reaching that goal.

When a team is very close to reaching its goal of owning the most talented roster in the NFL, the two goals merge. Some win-now moves to fill roster gaps or to add depth can be good decisions when you have a very strong roster. But, before reaching that point, moves in both directions will be in conflict.

In 2010, we debated in this forum about Mike Shanahan’s goal with the roster. Was he rebuilding or trying to win now? The mere fact that it was debatable is evidence that it wasn’t clearly going in either direction. This offseason, we are clearly headed toward a rebuild, but it’s still not a full commitment.

By my count, we have ten players on our roster 30 years-old or older. Three were holdovers and seven we recently signed. This group of players will hurt our rebuild chances in two ways:

1) Without them, our DPC would show a lower percentage for our chances of winning games this season, but a higher percentage for our chances of drafting earlier and getting a few more good young players;

2) Without them, our DPC would show a higher percentage for our chances of finding more young talent this season.

As I write this, in the 30+ group, I have:

Fletcher

Sellers

Hicks

And recently signed:

Moss

Buchanon

J. Brown

Gaffney

Atogwe

Graham

Rocca

Bottom Line: If you love winning, then you should be hoping that Mike Shanahan plays the percentages to build the best roster in the NFL. In order to do that, he should sacrifice these win-now moves to increase his chances of success in reaching the goal.

Deinition:

“Loser:” Someone who doesn’t know how to play the percentages.

[zoony]

Step 2: Quantify

Step 3: Give up

[DC9]

I see your point, but I disagree with how you are trying to relate it to how a team should rebuild...or the actual rebuild process.

I would also argue that three of the seven "newly signed" guys were on the team last year, and that when you are rebuilding, continuity is just as important as youth.

I would further argue that Sellers will likely not be on the team, and Hicks will have a fighting chance, but could also be cut....leaving the total at 8 or 9 players (2 of them on teams and five of them barely 30). There is also a chance that Shayne Graham doesn't come back.

All in all, you need that leadership on the field when you are rebuilding.

HAIL!

[Burgold]

Thank God you were not Winston Churchill in Great Britain or George Washington during the Revolution. The odds are not in our favor boys. Let's surrender!

I agree we shouldn't go on a major shopping spree, but giving up the war before the first battle? Folding the hand before it's even been dealt and you can't see the cards? That's just crazy.

[Oldfan]

Step 2: Quantify

Step 3: Give up

I can't even guess what you are tying to say.

[gbear]

I understand the point, but there are many times where playing next to somebody who knows their position helps a player develop. I take this from my soccer experience. When my team was first getting competative, I lucky enough to play next to a 36 year old right FB. As a sweaper, I could count on him to properly funnel the balls/players into my range. it let me play the sweaper position as it should be played without having to shade to his side because he gets beaten on the dribble cleanly a lot. The other side we had a younger FB for whom it was not a given at first he wouldn't lunge or go up for headers without any chance of winning. I shaded that way. fast forward 2 years and we have a new right back, but at least I knew what I should expect him to do so I could properly play my spot.

In football, I think of how hard it must be to learn to play MLB if the DL is shoved in your grill every play. Wouldn't you atleast want to develop behind a line allowing you to see and react to the play? Yes, you always want this, but wouldn't it be more important early on when the diagnosing of plays isn't instinctual yet? I think this is probably true at a lot of positions. For the other LBs, wouldn't you want an experienced middle line backer who could move you over or make sure you are in right spot pre-snap? All in all, some experience can allow for faster development of players if it is the right experience in a willing teacher.

[Oldfan]

I see your point, but I disagree with how you are trying to relate it to how a team should rebuild...or the actual rebuild process.

I would also argue that three of the seven "newly signed" guys were on the team last year, and that when you are rebuilding, continuity is just as important as youth.

I would further argue that Sellers will likely not be on the team, and Hicks will have a fighting chance, but could also be cut....leaving the total at 8 or 9 players (2 of them on teams and five of them barely 30). There is also a chance that Shayne Graham doesn't come back.

All in all, you need that leadership on the field when you are rebuilding.

How many actually make the final roster is not relevant at this point.

How long do you expect continuity with an older vet whose career is in decline?

As for leadership, veteran presence, mentoring, and all the other excuses for keeping vets... we pay position coaches to provide those. Keenan McCardell is paid to help those young players. He played 16 year in the NFL. His salary doesn't count against the cap. And even more importantly, he isn't taking reps away from the young WRs who need them.

[MassSkinsFan]

I'm going to go back and read this in some detail, but I've been thinking about an element I didn't see on my first read-through: a high level of talent and competition within the team itself and its impact on young up-and-comers.

In most team activities I've been involved with (sports, music, business) a key element of improving the talent you have is to raise the talent level as much as possible since you're better able to hone your skills by working with and competing with those who are better than you are. Not only does this approach help foster improvement in talent, it secondarily satisfies at least part of the goal of building the best roster you can.

What I take away from your argument here and in other threads is that you'd prefer to deal anyone over an arbitrary age cap (was it 30?) away for younger guys. My point is that if those younger guys are less talented than the older ones, and cost the same, then why would you hurt your team by decreasing competition and talent level?

You need to identify the ones with the greatest potential to improve, and surround them with more talented players regardless of age. Some will improve and others probably won't (and you'll have identified them already for what they are - guys with less potential). As your roster improves, you continually look for the most talented players you can while also trying to find guys with great potential (and make sound business deals).

I don't think it's a simple all or nothing rebuild v. win-now issue. But you know that already.

[Swift]

The difference is that football isn't poker. In poker, there is no team, only the individual. In football, you're trying to build a team and you're trying to instill certain values into that team from the start. Those values will go on to become the defining character of that team, say in a playoff run. By coaching a team to give up or quit in order to "play the odds", you're destroying the team's character, and likely its respect for itself and its coaches/management. You play the percentages, sure, but never at the expense of the team's self-respect or character.

[Oldfan]

Thank God you were not Winston Churchill in Great Britain or George Washington during the Revolution. The odds are not in our favor boys. Let's surrender!

I agree we shouldn't go on a major shopping spree, but giving up the war before the first battle? Folding the hand before it's even been dealt and you can't see the cards? That's just crazy.

Your comments indicate that you didn't understand my argument since you use three false analogies.

[TheCoach22]

You do realize... 1) There is not much "development" in a punter, either they have it or they don't and that guys like Sean Landeta and Jeff Feagles literally punt for two decades? 2) That Jammal Brown is 30, Atogwe is 30, Gaffney will finish the season 31, Moss is still productive at the ancient age of 32 and that he just signed a bargain deal at 5 mil a season? 3) Buchanon will likely back-up Hall, Wilson and Barnes who are all younger. 4) Fletcher is still productive and a great mentor for a YOUNG D, 5) Sellers is on the bubble, and Hicks simplymere depth?

I appreciate the thought that goes into your post most of the time, Oldfan, but honestly this is complaining for the sake of complaining. Right now you sound like the old lady across the street shaking her fist at kids to "get off my lawn" the second they step on the sidewalk. You have to admit the plan so many called for is being executed. This team is going from one of the oldest in the NFL to one of the youngest. The impact FAs they signed were 27 year-olds, not 32 year-olds. The team is better at every position than it was a season ago... I honestly could argue even QB because the 1 and 2 both have time in the system. The Skins will be more competitive this season and beyond thanks to a competent FO, a draft strategy and the benefit of an uncapped season followed by a FA sale following the lockout. We were fortunate to have things fall back into place this quickly.

The roster as it stands looks like an 7-9 to 8-8 team. But it also looks like a team that will add two wins a year to that total next season and into the final year of Shanny's contract. A break or two and we could see a young team get playoff experience this season. Sounds like a reach, but at least one team from each conference will have a team go from 6 wins to 10 this season. Cultural changes are more powerful than one can imagine.

Lastly, I love that my team has to compete in the brutal NFC East... makes for good TV watching. It does make things tougher, obviously, as I would venture to say that if this team was in the NFC West it would win its division this year. Instead we play the West, I am hoping we can sweep those teams and have a better year than most think possible. I play a lot of Poker, I play the percentages far more than I go with my gut. I disagree that the Skins aren't playing the percentages this off season. We weren't exactly starting this hand with a pair of rockets in our pockets (aces to the non-card players).... Hell, we didn't even have suited connectors or a draw after the flop. We had 2-7 off-suit. Last season we took a stab at seeing the flop anyway by getting McNabb. This season, we are starting with a mid-pair only we aren't in the best position at the table due to the strength of our division.

[Oldfan]

I understand the point, but there are many times where playing next to somebody who knows their position helps a player develop. I take this from my soccer experience. When my team was first getting competative, I lucky enough to play next to a 36 year old right FB. As a sweaper, I could count on him to properly funnel the balls/players into my range. it let me play the sweaper position as it should be played without having to shade to his side because he gets beaten on the dribble cleanly a lot. The other side we had a younger FB for whom it was not a given at first he wouldn't lunge or go up for headers without any chance of winning. I shaded that way. fast forward 2 years and we have a new right back, but at least I knew what I should expect him to do so I could properly play my spot.

In football, I think of how hard it must be to learn to play MLB if the DL is shoved in your grill every play. Wouldn't you atleast want to develop behind a line allowing you to see and react to the play? Yes, you always want this, but wouldn't it be more important early on when the diagnosing of plays isn't instinctual yet? I think this is probably true at a lot of positions. For the other LBs, wouldn't you want an experienced middle line backer who could move you over or make sure you are in right spot pre-snap? All in all, some experience can allow for faster development of players if it is the right experience in a willing teacher.

Decisions are usually about weighing advantages and disadvantages. While it’s an advantage to play beside a cunning old vet, it’s a much bigger disadvantage if you are a young promising player and he’s not letting you get onto the field.

For the rebuilding team, the position coaches, and young vets should be relied upon, not old vets.

[MassSkinsFan]

Decisions are usually about weighing advantages and disadvantages. While it’s an advantage to play beside a cunning old vet, it’s a much bigger disadvantage if you are a young promising player and he’s not letting you get onto the field.

For the rebuilding team, the position coaches, and young vets should be relied upon, not old vets.

I would ask why he's not letting you get on the field.

If it's because he's much better than you, you aren't ready. If you're close in execution, then it's on the coach to ensure you're getting reps and to manage any ego issues.

Where this doesn't work is OL and QB. But for most other positions, you need subs anyway.

[Oldfan]

I'm going to go back and read this in some detail, but I've been thinking about an element I didn't see on my first read-through: a high level of talent and competition within the team itself and its impact on young up-and-comers.

In most team activities I've been involved with (sports, music, business) a key element of improving the talent you have is to raise the talent level as much as possible since you're better able to hone your skills by working with and competing with those who are better than you are. Not only does this approach help foster improvement in talent, it secondarily satisfies at least part of the goal of building the best roster you can.

What I take away from your argument here and in other threads is that you'd prefer to deal anyone over an arbitrary age cap (was it 30?) away for younger guys. My point is that if those younger guys are less talented than the older ones, and cost the same, then why would you hurt your team by decreasing competition and talent level?

You need to identify the ones with the greatest potential to improve, and surround them with more talented players regardless of age. Some will improve and others probably won't (and you'll have identified them already for what they are - guys with less potential). As your roster improves, you continually look for the most talented players you can while also trying to find guys with great potential (and make sound business deals).

I don't think it's a simple all or nothing rebuild v. win-now issue. But you know that already.

I can’t say that you are wrong. What I can say with confidence is that it would be foolish to make a plan based on your working theory.

My position: The more young players you bring in to look at, the better your chances of finding good young talent. The more practice time and playing time you give these young players, the better your judgment will be in selecting the players to keep and the quicker they will develop.

Those are reasonable deductions that found my working theory while your theory might be true or it might not be.

Occam’s Razor applies.

[DC9]

How many actually make the final roster is not relevant at this point.

How long do you expect continuity with an older vet whose career is in decline?

You have to have a stop gap. You can't plug an undrafted FA into every position. Guys like Brown and Atogwe peform on the field while they show the younger kids what the scheme is supposed to look like and do.

If you threw kids who've never played out there, then you are learning far too much in one season. You'd be asking a kid who wasn't even drafted to learn the playbook, scheme, verbiage, audibles and checks, and get timing down, in a 6 week offseason. That's a recipe for disaster and in the process you are likely going to ruin the player.

And by the way, I know it's been a while....but 31 isn't as old as you think, especially at defensive back and wide reciever. Now, at Running back, yes, it's ancient, and it's getting there on the line. London Fletcher has shown that he is durable, but that isn't the norm.

I would encourage you to remember that this is the second year of a new regime, and they've really only had one offseason (as FA sucked last year) to bring guys in and do turnover. Patience.

As for leadership, veteran presence, mentoring, and all the other excuses for keeping vets... we pay position coaches to provide those. Keenan McCardell is paid to help those young players. He played 16 year in the NFL. His salary doesn't count against the cap. And even more importantly, he isn't taking reps away from the young WRs who need them.

Have you ever played on team sport or been in the military? There is nothing like learning by going through the motions on the field or in combat with a leader. It's not the same as hearing something in an ear piece. Once these young players are ready to become leaders themselves, then your veterans become a little more expendable or can serve as depth if they are quality.

[HBnotBlades]

I'll just say that I don't agree. There's no proof that completely filling your team with young players will result in building a successful team. In fact, I'd argue that there's a lot of evidence to the contrary when you look at teams that went through years and years of perpetual rebuilding like the Cardinals, 49ers and Lions. Remember, these young players are essentially still kids, and it's much tougher to have a truly professional environment when it's dominated by 22-25 years olds.

On the other hand teams with strong veteran leadership easily bring in rookies, allow them to adapt and learn the system, and learn what it takes to be a successful pro football player. The Pats, Colts, Steelers, and Ravens defense always seem find a young player to replace what they've lost from a veteran. These young players came into the league and we're allowed to learn without being thrown into the fire.

[Oldfan]

The difference is that football isn't poker. In poker, there is no team, only the individual. In football, you're trying to build a team and you're trying to instill certain values into that team from the start. Those values will go on to become the defining character of that team, say in a playoff run. By coaching a team to give up or quit in order to "play the odds", you're destroying the team's character, and likely its respect for itself and its coaches/management. You play the percentages, sure, but never at the expense of the team's self-respect or character.

How did you jump to the conclusion that fielding an entirely young team is the same thing as teaching them to quit? A young team can fight to the wire just as easily as an older team.

[Peregrine]

In my opinion this is a very narrow minded view that makes a lot of poor assumptions.

There is a reasons spreadsheets have never coached a team in the NFL, and its not because of lack of personality. Football players are people, not statistics. They cannot be relegated to statistics. If the Patriots were ruled by a spreadsheet, they don't ever start Tom Brady, and they never win those superbowls.

Second, you make a poor assumption that older players are not useful for building a team. The fact is, they are PIVOTAL. They are the age, experience, and teaching that the younger players need. Young players need role models, someone to look up to, someone to push them to excel. If you join a team and are the best player on it, what drive do you have to be better? If you join a team and a 32 year old 3 time pro-bowler is the man on the team, you have someone you want to surpass one day.

Players are not statistics, and teams are not collections of them. Playing the percentages is only useful if you are a brick wall, because you don't have any wisdom of your own to add to the situation. Good coaches know when to go against the trend because they know what their team has been doing in the 4th quarter to this team.

[Oldfan]

The Coach22 ~ You do realize... 1) There is not much "development" in a punter, either they have it or they don't and that guys like Sean Landeta and Jeff Feagles literally punt for two decades? 2) That Jammal Brown is 30, Atogwe is 30, Gaffney will finish the season 31, Moss is still productive at the ancient age of 32 and that he just signed a bargain deal at 5 mil a season? 3) Buchanon will likely back-up Hall, Wilson and Barnes who are all younger. 4) Fletcher is still productive and a great mentor for a YOUNG D, 5) Sellers is on the bubble, and Hicks simplymere depth?

I realize all those points, yes. So why did you mention them?

I appreciate the thought that goes into your post most of the time, Oldfan, but honestly this is complaining for the sake of complaining. Right now you sound like the old lady across the street shaking her fist at kids to "get off my lawn" the second they step on the sidewalk.

I’m interested in debate, not your opinion of my opinion.

You have to admit the plan so many called for is being executed.

I argue that it still falls short of a full commitment to a rebuild. Would you debate that?

The roster as it stands looks like an 7-9 to 8-8 team. But it also looks like a team that will add two wins a year to that total next season and into the final year of Shanny's contract. A break or two and we could see a young team get playoff experience this season. Sounds like a reach, but at least one team from each conference will have a team go from 6 wins to 10 this season. Cultural changes are more powerful than one can imagine.

Anything’s possible, but here I wanted to talk about what is likely to happen (percentages in our favor).

Lastly, I love that my team has to compete in the brutal NFC East... makes for good TV watching. It does make things tougher, obviously, as I would venture to say that if this team was in the NFC West it would win its division this year.

I want us to build the #1 roster in the NFL, not one that might be competitive in the NFL’s worst division.

[Duckus]

You might be right, but this is based off who we currently have in training camp.

Some of those players might not make the roster. Let us wait and see what happens before jumping to conclusions.

Also, including a P and K is a bit silly. Their ages are not comparable to other NFL positions.

[Oldfan]

I would ask why he's not letting you get on the field.

If it's because he's much better than you, you aren't ready. If you're close in execution, then it's on the coach to ensure you're getting reps and to manage any ego issues.

Where this doesn't work is OL and QB. But for most other positions, you need subs anyway.

If coaches keep old vets on their rosters, it's because they want to win now. They are less interested in finding and developing young talent. This explains why the coach will play the old vet over the younger player.

[ouvan59]

How did you jump to the conclusion that fielding an entirely young team is the same thing as teaching them to quit? A young team can fight to the wire just as easily as an older team.

Here are the teams that were in the last 5 Super Bowls.

2010 Green Bay Packers 8 players 30 and older

2010 Pittsburgh Steelers 17 players 30 and older

2009 New Orleans Saints 18 players 30 and older

2009 Indianapolis Colts 9 players 30 and older

2008 Pittsburgh Steelers 15 players 30 and older

2008 Arizona Cardinals 15 players 30 and older

2007 New York Giants 12 players 30 and older

2007 New England Patriots 17 players 30 and older

2006 Indianapolis Colts 12 players 30 and older

2006 Chicago Bears 9 players 30 and older

All good teams have a good mixture of youth and veterans. Ask Joe Gibbs who his best coaches were? It was his veteran players.

[MassSkinsFan]

I can’t say that you are wrong. What I can say with confidence is that it would be foolish to make a plan based on your working theory.

My position: The more young players you bring in to look at, the better your chances of finding good young talent. The more practice time and playing time you give these young players, the better your judgment will be in selecting the players to keep and the quicker they will develop.

Those are reasonable deductions that found my working theory while your theory might be true or it might not be.

Occam’s Razor applies.

Not sure yours makes the fewest assumptions professor.

Your first statement is not necessarily true - quantity doesn't always increase your chances of finding quality, as you have a lot of noise there. Evaluation prior to bringing in talent is essential - it's part of a risk assessment/risk management strategy that cuts out a lot of the heavy lifting.

Your second statement is partially correct as it applies to practice time. If you've already decided to evaluate someone then they indeed need practice reps. With a vet in the same position, it doesn't preclude you from splitting reps in practice (with exception of OL and QB as stated before). Game reps are a change you make based on your second risk assessment, which comes from practice observations.

I'm not seeing how this is foolish. Is that hyperbole or are you calling me a joker?

[rick7423]

Oldfan, whenever I see one of your posts, I take notice and read. You have a keen insight and always seem to provide well thought out and intelligent posts.

I really like the percentages analogy, which is absolutely correct. BUT... I am on the fence about this strange 30 year old player age limit. There are many players who excelled post 30 and had many years left to play and contribute, on a above average level. Keep in mind that no player will get 100% of all snaps or playing time in their position. It is EXTREMELY important to have experience ON THE FIELD not only on the sidelines. Fletcher is a prime example. Having him on the field is better than on the sidelines. Until someone comes along who can replace him, I want that man guiding this defense.

It can be argued that this team is not going to have another winning season this year, and I unfortunately am in that group. But i am NOT in the group who thinks that this is a tank year just to move up in the draft, which is what your post appears to lean towards. I hope I am wrong in assuming that. If the team fails to win, all I want is for them to be competitive, show heart, and improve as the season progresses.

HTTR!!!

[Oldfan]

HBnot Blades ~ I'll just say that I don't agree. There's no proof that completely filling your team with young players will result in building a successful team.

Of course not, but it’s more likely to achieve succes.

In fact, I'd argue that there's a lot of evidence to the contrary when you look at teams that went through years and years of perpetual rebuilding like the Cardinals, 49ers and Lions.

Show some evidence that these franchises had the right plan for rebuilding and you could score a point here. We both know you can’t do that.

Remember, these young players are essentially still kids, and it's much tougher to have a truly professional environment when it's dominated by 22-25 years olds.

Why is that?

On the other hand teams with strong veteran leadership easily bring in rookies, allow them to adapt and learn the system, and learn what it takes to be a successful pro football player. The Pats, Colts, Steelers, and Ravens defense always seem find a young player to replace what they've lost from a veteran. These young players came into the league and we're allowed to learn without being thrown into the fire.

You are comparing us to teams that have already built a solid base. When we get a solid base, we can make moves like they do.