Playing the Percentages in the NFL

[DC9]

ASHBURN -- O.J. Atogwe's value didn't come during the play; it came after. And that's a big reason he's in Washington. After watching a receiver break free against fellow safety Chris Horton the other day, Atogwe pulled him aside and dissected what just happened.

He talked about the formation used by the offense. He told Horton how to play it the next time it was used. And Horton walked away smarter than he was before the play.

"Those are the things that helps this defense get better," Horton said.

Those are the things that Atogwe brings to the Redskins. He might not be a Pro Bowl safety; in fact, he's never made one. But the Redskins want him to be a leader in the defensive backfield in addition to continuing his knack for creating turnovers.

To borrow from another thread. Not all of your coaches are former players.

[ouvan59]

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.

Yeah, because it's that simple. There's nothing to be gained by making a player earn his playing time, is there? Never mind that you might be screwing the rest of the players by playing a guy who isn't ready. Hand the guy a spot just because he's young. Let everybody know that working hard in practice means nothing. And let all the players know that you aren't that interested in winning.

[MassSkinsFan]

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.

This is an assumption not a fact. If a coach says he is keeping a vet on the roster to provide competition and mentorship, is he lying?

---------- Post added August-4th-2011 at 10:18 AM ----------

To borrow from another thread. Not all of your coaches are former players.

Not only that, but learning from someone in your position means there is likely more one-on-one mentoring time than there is with a position coach who has from 3 to 12 players (potentially) to mentor.

[TheShredder]

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!

The opening thread doesn't take into consideration this point about continuity, nor does it discount it in the points that were made. Nobody has ever said that 'rebuilding' constituted a pure youth movement. There's a big difference between selecting veterans that hold a position that trends to injuries and one's that are the same age with previous injury histories. You can take a London Fletcher at his age and put his 35 yr. old age and position in comparison to a rebuilding year and what do you get? You get a veteran presence on a developing LB core. Would you take LF out? Absolutely not. Would you sign him to a 3 yr. contract?

There are questions and answers in 'rebuilding' years that should and will be debated. I enjoy the fact of rebuilding the Redskins as it's refreshing for us all after a decade of the 2011 Eagles. Now whether the Eagles do it better than the Redskins remains to be seen. That's a very talented group of newly paid pro athletes. Not much time to develop continuity this year, so when the Eagles hit stride in 2011, they could definitely be unstoppable and realize that elusive Super Bowl win. We'll all find out later.

Point being made, rebuilding doesn't constitute a lack of veteran leadership. To what degree is the 5-7 30somethings going to provide veteran leadership and depth? Maybe that's the real balance that's being struck this year. You can't expect Allen and The Shanahans to fix a plagued roster in 2 years. You also can't expect the 2010-2011 Redskins to tank the season and not play to their fan base. To strike a business model of rebuilding and competitiveness is a complicated formula that is necessary. See it from both sides. Though most would rather choose to purge, tank, and grow as aggressively as the past has bought and sold over-valued veteran prima-donnas and Divas...there's got to be a true balance in 'rebuilding'.

We can all easily see the 'rebuilding' that is not being declared outright. We can all see the holes that remain to be filled as the second year training camp roster is filled. Let's wait and see what more cuts and trades might happen as the CBA kicks in for some teams over the cap. Let's take a good look at the overall roster as the cut deadlines come and go. We all know that injuries and breakouts are a possibility. The What Ifs and question marks will remain for the 2011 Eagles just as it will for every other team through to the start of the season. However, the core group that the 2011 Redskins start with will be drastically changed from over a decade in the past and future...near future, looks a lot better.

HTTR!!!

[Oldfan]

DC9 ~ You have to have a stop gap.

You only need a stop gap if your goal is to win now.

You can't plug an undrafted FA into every position.

How about drafted players, young vets already on the team or those obtained through free agency?

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.

It would make more sense to give them the basics and then build on it as the season progresses.

...and in the process you are likely going to ruin the player.

You are really reaching.

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.

I’ve been hearing that since 1993.

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.

I've played lots of team sports and I've served in the military as well.

Veteran leadership... you have to hype this argument because it’s the only one you have. I’m not saying there’s no value. I’m saying that it’s not worth the price we have to pay for it during a rebuild.

[DC9]

This is an assumption not a fact. If a coach says he is keeping a vet on the roster to provide competition and mentorship, is he lying?

---------- Post added August-4th-2011 at 10:18 AM ----------

Not only that, but learning from someone in your position means there is likely more one-on-one mentoring time than there is with a position coach who has from 3 to 12 players (potentially) to mentor.

We should merge this with the "points per drive" thread and file it under pointless....lol.

No offense old fan, you've just been getting on these kicks lately, man.

[ouvan59]

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.

The Patriots had 14 players 30 and older in 2001 when they first became good. In fact, they became good on the backs of a bunch of 30+ free agents. They only had 7 players in 2000 who were 30 and older. What they did was get a bunch of good vets and they taught the young players how to win. This translated into a solid core and they have been letting their young guys grow into their roles ever since.

[Oldfan]

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.

Quoting from my OP:

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.

[DC9]

You only need a stop gap if your goal is to win now.

No....the definition of a stop gap, is someone to hold a place until you can draft who you want to be there. IE, Rex Grossman is a stop gap...

How about drafted players, young vets already on the team or those obtained through free agency?

Yeah, but clearly OJ Atogwe is better than anyone we have at Free Safety by miles. Atogwe will be better than anyone we have at FS now, for the next three years....by then we'll have drafted the next starting free safety and he'll be ready to play. Stop gap.

It would make more sense to give them the basics and then build on it as the season progresses.

Are you serious? Look at what the media did to Perry Riley for that block in the back vs the Vikings....

Put it like this, if you had never seen a car before, and I told you to drive it from here to the end of the road, you wouldn't even know how to get inside of it. You need leadership on the field to properly groom a player.

You are really reaching.

We have years of proof throughout the league, I am not reaching.

I’ve been hearing that since 1993.

Well, we would've been set in 1999, but that team was dismantled. We all know the story for the last decade, but lets see what happens man. I'm sure they'll get one or two more before you go.

I've played lots of team sports and I've served in the military as well.

Veteran leadership... you have to hype this argument because it’s the only one you have. I’m not saying there’s no value. I’m saying that it’s not worth the price we have to pay for it during a rebuild.

I am just having a hard time with this. I am questioning what you played and what you did the military if you don't see the benefits. You don't send a bunch of 18 year old kids to clear a building that have never done it before. That's asking for things to be done the wrong way and for bad habits to develope. Yes, you can always watch what they are doing and train the crap out of them, but we all know that experience with live rounds coming at and from you is how you get better. A calming, savvy vet to relay things to you and to SHOW you how to be a leader, and to get the most out of you in the huddle and on the field is invaluable.

I don't know how you can seriously say that is overstated...

[Rudechain]

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.

You know there are some points you make but this one really does not make sense.

You need 90 guys in camp. You need competition. You want the young guys to step up and perform at a high level. It makes more sense to bring in competition in camp to encourage the best possible play. If the young guys are not well versed enough in the playbook or the intricacies of their respective positions, they could end up hurting themselves in the long run.

And besides, it's still training camp. I would imagine some of the "geriatric vets" will end up being cut.

[Oldfan]

This is an assumption not a fact. If a coach says he is keeping a vet on the roster to provide competition and mentorship, is he lying?

I've never heard a coach say that or even imply it. If Shanahan valued leadership highly, Rock Cartwright would still be here. He was one of Mike's first cuts.

Not only that, but learning from someone in your position means there is likely more one-on-one mentoring time than there is with a position coach who has from 3 to 12 players (potentially) to mentor.

And, does that offset the disadvantage that the vet is taking practice and playing time away from the young player?

---------- Post added August-4th-2011 at 10:37 AM ----------

You know there are some points you make but this one really does not make sense.

You need 90 guys in camp. You need competition. You want the young guys to step up and perform at a high level. It makes more sense to bring in competition in camp to encourage the best possible play. If the young guys are not well versed enough in the playbook or the intricacies of their respective positions, they could end up hurting themselves in the long run.

And besides, it's still training camp. I would imagine some of the "geriatric vets" will end up being cut.

I making a criticism of the plan now. If some of these older vets are cut, it will minimize the disadvantage of having them in the first place.

There are 11 young players competing at the WR position. Three more young WRs could be added if we didn't have three older vets competing.

[Rudechain]

---------- Post added August-4th-2011 at 10:37 AM ----------

[/color]I making a criticism of the plan now. If some of these older vets are cut, it will minimize the disadvantage of having them in the first place.

There are 11 young players competing at the WR position. Three more young WRs could be added if we didn't have three older vets competing.

Ok, so your complaining just for the sake of complaining.

Got ya.

[Oldfan]

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.

Even if you don’t realize it, when you decide to cross the street when the signal says “WALK,” you have played the percentages since it’s less likely that a car will come barreling through the light and hit you. Most of Life’s decisions...personal, Business, Government, Football... are based on those percentages.

[rick7423]

Ok, so your complaining just for the sake of complaining.

Got ya.

He is not complaining, just opening up a line of discussion, and actually a very good one. Oldfan always throws out controversial issues for discussion, and the responses of these posts are always enlightening. Just because he has a opinion that does not meet with yours is not a reason to get offended.

Sometimes being a 'devils advocate' is a good thing.

[Hitman21ST]

Atogwe came in and replaced Moore, who had more than his fair share to start and earn the spot before we even brought OJ in. Moore was the best option at safety we had before OJ came in. Atogwe, although being 30, can still play at a high level for at least the next 5 years, barring injury.

Fletcher is an irreplaceable linebacker, despite being over 30. He knows exactly where he needs to be and where the other LBs need to be. He can show them on the field.

Moss is still very productive.

None of those three I mentioned are on the "downturn" of their careers.

We had no other option at RT besides Brown. To put anyone else there would kill our QB and RB., because they wouldn't be able to do the job required of them.

Bottom line is, yes, you need a majority of younger players. However, experience is necessary on a rebuilding team. It gives the young players trying to earn their stripes a quality example to follow and to model themselves after. If we had gone out and signed a majority of 30+ players, then I would agree with you. Signing a couple isn't going to set this team back at all. The young players who earn playing time would earn it no matter who we bring in. The players who the vets "steal time from" I wouldn't want anyway, because they wouldn't amount to much anyway. Not every young player is "promising."

[MassSkinsFan]

I've never heard a coach say that or even imply it. If Shanahan valued leadership highly, Rock Cartwright would still be here. He was one of Mike's first cuts.

Cartwright is irrelevant. As you pointed out early in the thread, Skins moves aren't germain to the topic. I'll find a coach quote for you at some point, but I already found a GM quote here:

"Jaguars owner Wayne Weaver and general manager Gene Smith vowed not to make the same mistakes this time around, especially during an economic downturn.

"Tra has been a part of a lot of winning in Philadelphia, he's been durable, he's a three-time Pro Bowl player, and he is a solid, experienced veteran and a good presence in the locker room," Smith said. "We have talked about character being important, and this is in line with that philosophy."

And, does that offset the disadvantage that the vet is taking practice and playing time away from the young player?

I already stated my position - yes with a caveat. You balance their practice time until the newbie is ready to take over in games. And for anyone not on OL or a QB, you balance their game time through substitutions.

[Hitman21ST]

Even if you don’t realize it, when you decide to cross the street when the signal says “WALK,” you have played the percentages since it’s less likely that a car will come barreling through the light and hit you. Most of Life’s decisions...personal, Business, Government, Football... are based on those percentages.

Ok, what about his first two points?

[Oldfan]

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.

You can wait and see if you like, but the fact that we have 10 old vets on the roster right now is a sign that Mike isn't fully committed to a rebuild.

He's about 80% there which is great compared to last year, but he could do better.

[Rudechain]

He is not complaining, just opening up a line of discussion, and actually a very good one. Oldfan always throws out controversial issues for discussion, and the responses of these posts are always enlightening. Just because he has a opinion that does not meet with yours is not a reason to get offended.

Sometimes being a 'devils advocate' is a good thing.

Ok maybe not complaining, but it sure sounds like a chicken little the sky if falling argument.

It's still training camp, and they will be cutting players.

It's a very short off-season, and it takes time for young players to learn the intricacies of the position.

position coaches have many guys to coach, and a veteran presence can be helpful in mentoring.

Playing devil's advocate can be a good thing, but being objective about roster building can be a good thing too. This team has clearly gotten younger and has also signed these "geriatric vets" to cap friendly contracts. If the young player can demonstrate he can perform then he will take the vet's place.

Would you hire a guy straight out of college as a CEO? Or would you expect he learn about your business practices before taking on such a position?

[Hitman21ST]

You can wait and see if you like, but the fact that we have 10 old vets on the roster right now is a sign that Mike isn't fully committed to a rebuild.

30 isn't old in the NFL for a non RB. That's a fact. Plenty of non RBs play well deep into their 30s.

I guess you're just choosing to ignore all the youth we did sign in favor of older players.

[Oldfan]

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.

Thank you, Sir.

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.

Depending on the player and the position, there can be exceptions but I don't see one in the players I listed.

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

.

I’d cut Fletcher because I’m not interested in winning more games this season. His production is of no value to me. I don’t consider his on the field leadership as valuable as the roster spot and the playing time he consumes.

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.

If you define “tanking” as not putting forth the roster that has the best chance of winning games this season, then I’m in favor of tanking.

On the other hand, Shanny could have traded up in the draft for a couple of players more likely to start and help win this year. He didn't. Was he tanking this season by your definition?

---------- Post added August-4th-2011 at 11:20 AM ----------

...Would you hire a guy straight out of college as a CEO? Or would you expect he learn about your business practices before taking on such a position?

False analogy. Not even close to the same thing.

[addicted]

Jeez

Hows about giving some credit for the roster turnover that will take this team from the oldest in the league to one of the youngest

It's as if having a single 30 year old left on the team means we aren't rebuilding which I believe is bullspit

Sometimes you just can't find a 27 year old or younger to play and sometimes those younger guys can be replaced with a better 30 year player for cheaper and is the right thing to do

Please show us a single team with no 30 year olds on the roster. I'd be shocked if you could

I find is sad and depressing that your harping way too much about the age of the players

As if that means anything

Last season the youngest team in the league was the Carolina Panthers and that meant what? They got the 1st overall pick

And this year they won't be that much better

Are they rebuilding? Yes

Will it work out for them? Who knows?

Not to mention you failed to give a single bit of credit to the outstanding job of contract signings that Allen did with Moss (Such a steal for a high productive player), Rex Grossman (What other teams going to start a QB for just 1.1 million this year?), OJ (The longer FA goes the better that contract looks. While it's expensive it was a lot cheaper then other players at his position who aren't as talented), or Gaffney (Who is exactly 30 years old who we traded a player we didn't have a spot for on the team who has been improving every season for years?)

Graham is a kicker, the age of a kicker likely indicates that the player will be inconsistent not that the younger guys any good

Young kickers = Inconsistent with strong legs, Old kickers = Consistent with weaker legs

Why should we want an inconstant kicker?

Just for the age? Really?

Do you not believe that money spent is an indication of the path a teams on?

How many times can we say we spent our money well like this?

I think your point is valid but I think your looking at the glass as empty when there are positives you can look at if you choose too

[Oldfan]

Ok, what about his first two points?

Find a point to make that doesn't involve one of your argumentative tricks and I'll respond.

[skinfan2k]

Every rebuild a winning franchise goes through keeps several veterans around to show the rookies the ropes. You are clueless to think that Shanny would have a bunch of 24-25 years old on the team

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

And y'all thought I had a problem with older vets. through a rebuild and favored a total youth movement .....

I'm just a novice in comparison .....

Hail.