Playing the Percentages in the NFL

[Oldfan]

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

This point has been made and countered several times.

---------- Post added August-4th-2011 at 11:33 AM ----------

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.

Climbing your way to the top, over 31 other teams, and over Belichik's prone body, is a tough task. You can't make a lot of compromises along the way or expect to do it without sacrifices.

[addicted]

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

Just wanted to speak on this

The list OF produced of 30 year olds was 9 players

1/3rd of those players were Wide Receivers

To me that shows the team understand completely how important it is for younger receivers to have mentors so they learn to play in this league

In this shortened offseason it would be very difficult for our rookies to show they can be counted on in the regular season

So they brought in those 3 guys (Moss, Gaffney, Stallworth) for multiple reasons

First they give the rookie wideouts a break, they don't have to be counted on immediately and can grow into this game

Second they got on Vet for every rookie, that's mentor ship to me

The better the rookies become the better we are long term

To me that shows clear understanding at the position and direction going forward

Would anyone disagree?

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Climbing your way to the top, over 31 other teams, and over Belichik's prone body, is a tough task. You can't make a lot of compromises along the way or expect to do it without sacrifices.

Your preaching to the choir here man, even if I'm a little more lenient than you when it comes to guys like Moss and the punter.

Hail.

[ouvan59]

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.

If you mean he isn't committed to fully blowing up the roster then I agree with you. I think he thinks we are a lot closer to winning than you seem to think and I tend to agree. Besides if you go with all young players right now by the time you get good they are all going to be going into their second contract and all of a sudden you can't keep them all anyway. The best way to do is to build a solid core and replace pieces here and there every year. Your youth is your depth and as they grow into the role then they earn playing time. Just throwing a team of all youth out there is foolhardy and destined to fail the majority of the time.

[KDawg]

OF,

I agree with you that we aren't in a full rebuild mode, but I think we're absolutely on the right side of the coin. We're doing things much smarter. I think a lot of us would like more young pieces on this team, but, it's hard to argue against the idea that we're headed in the right direction.

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.

While this is true, you fail to address the fact that perhaps some of those 30 year old + players on those rosters had been signed years prior and grew with the team as they grew.

[skinfan2k]

Positions like Punter, Kicker in reality shouldn't count. The fact is that all of the veterans WR won't make this team.

[Brotherz]

How did you determine the age of 30 for any and all positions is instantly "wrong" based on "percentages"?

Premise leads to conclusion. But you have to establish the premise. Is there some statistic that says a team has not been succesful when it is in "rebuild" mode if it has ANY players over 30 on it at the beginning of that rebuild? Is this clear demarcation of yours (ie the age of 30) based on anything at all other than your presumptions about the number itself?

I think I could agree with the logic as I have said in other threads of yours. I think it is an interesting concept to say it makes no sense to have ANY player who will not ultimately be on the roster when we are competitive (or when we have the best roster we can have?). What I don't know is whether that means you automatically cut everyone who is 30 or older this year in favor of someone under 30 regardless of skill set or any other factor besides age.

At the end of the day the player pool is finite. You presume there are under 30 linebackers currently available to replace Fletcher that will be on the team in 3 years prsumably when we have rebuilt. That's not necessarily the case. So you are choosing a young guy who can't get the job done versus a veteran who has been here and performed well for years that has proven he can get the job done just because of his age? Taken to its logical endpoint, you'd grab a player off the street at age 28 over london fletcher IF there were no NFL quality players available under the age of 30 even though the guy off the street has no chance of being here in years and only hurts you in the short run.

The age of 30 is too arbitrary. It doesn't consider positions. (Ie under your theory if the Colts cut Peyton Manning today you'd say stay away form him solely because of his age).

[KDawg]

Positions like Punter, Kicker in reality shouldn't count.

Agreed. Special teams are a different breed. And by special teams I mean long snapper, punter and kicker. Those three positions don't mean much in the age argument and should be thrown out.

The fact is that all of the veterans WR won't make this team.

That's not fact. I'd say it's a well educated guess, but certainly not fact.

---------- Post added August-4th-2011 at 11:51 AM ----------

The age of 30 is too arbitrary. It doesn't consider positions. (Ie under your theory if the Colts cut Peyton Manning today you'd say stay away form him solely because of his age).

I would absolutely stay away from Manning if he were cut. He's too old. Three years ago I would have given a testicle to get him here, though.

[JPCreativelab]

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

can this apply to message boards to?

[Oldfan]

ouvan ~ If you mean he isn't committed to fully blowing up the roster then I agree with you.

Can we stay away from strawman arguments, please?

I think he thinks we are a lot closer to winning than you seem to think and I tend to agree.

That’s possible. He thought so last year and was wrong. Last season, I predicted six wins and missed out winning the ES prediction contest on the second tie break.

Besides if you go with all young players right now by the time you get good they are all going to be going into their second contract and all of a sudden you can't keep them all anyway.

It isn’t possible to go with all UDFAs and drafted rookies. Much of our roster is comprised of vets under 30. But, we don’t have enough good ones to form a solid core to build upon. I like the Cofield and Bowen moves. They look like promising additions to our core..

[HBnotBlades]

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

I understand that you're saying it's probabilistically more likely to achieve success and not guaranteeing it, but that's where I disagree. Your entire argument is based on this premise that a young team nearly devoid of veterans is more likely to achieve long term success than a team composed of a mixture of veterans and young players.

That is something I have not seen evidence for and think it's a pretty big leap of faith to make that assumption with no evidence.

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.

This is a good example of what I'm referring to. There are countless examples of young players being successful when they come into the league surround by veterans and countless examples of teams with very young rosters "building the wrong way". Maybe they're building the wrong way because they lack the veteran leadership to properly develop their young players?

[Oldfan]

can this apply to message boards to?

Definitely not.

[addicted]

I would absolutely stay away from Manning if he were cut. He's too old. Three years ago I would have given a testicle to get him here, though.

Hahaha

Really? And I thought I was dedicated

[sportjunkie07]

there are so many holes in this type of thinking that its ridiculous:

-your whole premise is based on playing poker. this is not poker. poker bases its %'s off of a set number of variables. running an nfl franchise has much more complex variables and is ever changing.

-many teams in the past have exceeded preseason expectations and made the playoffs. if they had gotten rid of their vets, they wouldnt have had the chance to make the playoffs or go towards a superbowl run.

-vets are most definitely needed for continuity, to teach youngsters (especially valuable this year), and to push them. to think that it is all on the coaches is asinine.

in addition, i will cross reference this thread.

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?349291-If-we-lucked-into-a-grade-A-quarterback-how-much-difference-would-it-make&p=8389335#post8389335

we have greatly improved on defense and offense. special teams should be about the same, and coaching if anything, probably got better due to lack of distractions. qb remains the same.

we have improved nearly everywhere, and, if we are using your percentages, we have gained probably 3 to 4 wins already. thats a 9-7 or 10-6 record, which means we have a shot at the playoffs lol, and, as such, we should keep some over 30 vets anyways.

---------- Post added August-4th-2011 at 11:05 AM ----------

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

what zoony meant was that you have already listed your theory in the OP. thats step 1.

step 2 is to quantify. you never quantify your op.

so, this leads to the obvious step 3, just give up.

[ouvan59]

OF,

While this is true, you fail to address the fact that perhaps some of those 30 year old + players on those rosters had been signed years prior and grew with the team as they grew.

No I didn't. While obviously all teams have a number of guys that age with their teams I pointed out that New England actually built their dynasty by filling out their roster with 30+ free agents. And even if that wasn't the case Oldfan would have cut these guys for younger players just on principal. The fact is if Oldfan's plan is the way to go then why haven't any teams done it that way in the last 20 years?

[KDawg]

No I didn't. While obviously all teams have a number of guys that age with their teams I pointed out that New England actually built their dynasty by filling out their roster with 30+ free agents. And even if that wasn't the case Oldfan would have cut these guys for younger players just on principal. The fact is if Oldfan's plan is the way to go then why haven't any teams done it that way in the last 20 years?

We were an unique situation.

New England had the ability to retool. Their structure that has been in place for years was stable.

We have been in a horrendous state for years.

Coach after coach, Vinny, no Vinny, Vinny, no Vinny, Snyder, assistants. We had no continuity. We had players coming here not to win, but for money. We were (and for now, still are) very different.

This team required a full blow up. Get rid of the money players and sign guys who want money, but they want it because they work hard and want to win. Not guys who just want the money and don't care. We're doing just that. We're in the right direction.

But of that list, you named one team that built their team with 30+ year old veterans. And that team happens to have one of the best structures and organizations in the NFL. We're far from that. Anything that New England does doesn't apply to us quite yet. It may soon, though. Hopefully.

[Oldfan]

HBnot Blades ~ I understand that you're saying it's probabilistically more likely to achieve success and not guaranteeing it, but that's where I disagree. Your entire argument is based on this premise that a young team nearly devoid of veterans is more likely to achieve long term success than a team composed of a mixture of veterans and young players.

Correction: We are talking about a team devoid of veterans 30 and over. We are not talking about a team devoid of veterans.

That is something I have not seen evidence for and think it's a pretty big leap of faith to make that assumption with no evidence.

That’s not a problem. We could both cherry-pick evidence to support our positions. Bill Walsh pretty much cleaned house and rebuilt the 49ers, for example.

My position is based on logical deductions like, “A 30 year-old WR and a 24 year-old rookie can’t play the same position at the same time.” Those are not “assumptions without evidence.”

This is a good example of what I'm referring to. There are countless examples of young players being successful when they come into the league surround by veterans and countless examples of teams with very young rosters "building the wrong way". Maybe they're building the wrong way because they lack the veteran leadership to properly develop their young players?

It seems far more like that those teams did a lot of things wrong. Like trading away picks for vets, poor draft selection, poor coaching, being too cheap to pay their best players, etc.

---------- Post added August-4th-2011 at 12:24 PM ----------

No I didn't. While obviously all teams have a number of guys that age with their teams I pointed out that New England actually built their dynasty by filling out their roster with 30+ free agents. And even if that wasn't the case Oldfan would have cut these guys for younger players just on principal. The fact is if Oldfan's plan is the way to go then why haven't any teams done it that way in the last 20 years?

The roster Vinny left Shanahan and the roster Belichik inherited are two different rosters. You want to assume what I would have done with NE's 2000 roster just to create a strawman argument.

[GibbsFactor]

We have some kickers, a stud Mike, a stud WR, and a few vets that are 30 along with some new additions to WR, which only one will even be on the team.

You have to have vets in when you have such inexperience at a position like we have at receiver. These vets will show the whippersnappers how it's done, push them, motivate them, teach them.

We do the same thing with young QBs and it's brilliant, same for the Receivers because in case you haven't noticed, playing receiver in the NFL is ****ing complicated.

No. What you all need to look at is the final roster, not the camp bodies. You need to look at veteran leadership in positions that need, well, veteran leadership.

Take a look at our FA acquisitions and study the Bowens vs Jenkins situation. We went with the younger, hungrier, perhaps lesser player over the older, experienced, more hyped player and paid the younger one more money. Jenkins ultimately signed for less then Bowens got. That is the single move that details ShannAllen's plan. Any hope of contention should have been brought back to reality after analyzing this move.

They gutted the team and filled it with younger, hungrier players. A diamond in the rough will be found. Draft choices such as Helu and Jenkins will have greater opportunity to play and show faster realization of their worth.

The receivers are being coached by the vets. When they decide on the 6 best, they will get a year of service. Once the two QBs fall on their face, the team will be young, have some experience and ready for the new field general.

[Rudechain]

[/color]False analogy. Not even close to the same thing.

Not really. perhaps the CEO is not the analogy you would like, but the premise still remains. Would you put someone into a position that is not prepared for that position.

I agree with getting younger, but I just don't think the situation is so clearly defined as your stating.

agree to disagree, but I think your making mountains out of molehills concerning some players in a short off-season where they may not even make the final roster.

[Skinsinparadise]

You don't really see it done in this completely purist way as far as I can tell. I agree with the spirit of the argument go young and go young like crazy but the reason why its not done as far as I can tell perhaps is:

1. Coaches might believe that rebuilding isn't a long process, there have been teams that rose from the ashes the next year, and 2 years isn't far fetched. so if you sign a 30 year old free agent depending on the position they play, that player can still be instrumental to a big run when they are 31 or 32.

2. Coaches believe that they can decipher diamonds in the rough (late round and undrafted picks) based on how they perform in camp and in the preseason. And if a young guy is on the periphery, they can always cut the veteran depending on the contract/cap.

3. If the veteran salaries are cap friendly and not hefty -- heck what the heck how about have those guys compete and bring the best out of young guys in camp or if they fail to perform during the season cut them, no biggie. For this point to make sense again it refers back to point #1 which is coaches see value to having some veterans on the team.

Considering all of those points, it doesn't seem crazy to me if rebuilding teams still sign some veterans, that's why I think coaches like Spags does so with the Rams, Schwartz with the Lions, etc. Personally, it wouldn't bother me if they cut all 30 plus year old players like Oldfan suggests but I can see why really no team that I can think of does so.

[Hitman21ST]

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

Dodge a couple more of my points first

[Oldfan]

Sportsjunkie ~ there are so many holes in this type of thinking that its ridiculous:

This should be fun.

-your whole premise is based on playing poker. this is not poker. poker bases its %'s off of a set number of variables. running an nfl franchise has much more complex variables and is ever changing.

So what? All that means is that the percentages cannot easily be calculated. That does not mean that playing the percentages does not apply to the NFL.

-many teams in the past have exceeded preseason expectations and made the playoffs. if they had gotten rid of their vets, they wouldnt have had the chance to make the playoffs or go towards a superbowl run.

You can sometimes beat the odds in any game. But, someone who plays to beat the odds often is a loser.

-vets are most definitely needed for continuity, to teach youngsters (especially valuable this year), and to push them. to think that it is all on the coaches is asinine.

The point made and countered five or six times previously.

we have improved nearly everywhere, and, if we are using your percentages, we have gained probably 3 to 4 wins already. thats a 9-7 or 10-6 record, which means we have a shot at the playoffs lol, and, as such, we should keep some over 30 vets anyways.

A 3-4 win improvement? Wow! That’s a lot of Kool-Aid.

what zoony meant was that you have already listed your theory in the OP. thats step 1.

step 2 is to quantify. you never quantify your op.

Give me an example of how I would do that.

[Hitman21ST]

OF, take a stab at post 40.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Of, if I may offer my view on our current status and the direction we're headed:

We're in year two of a five year plan. I know many don't agree given the owners previous, but I fully believe after years and repeated years of doing it his way, he's happily signed off on giving Allen and Shanahan the full 5 years of their initial contract to execute said plan. Year one had us off to a slow start as Shanahan to my mind thought that if he added a QB and one or two vets. we could challenge there and then. When it fast became apparent he'd totally over valued that 'talent', the current plan slowly evolved and they set about cutting and pruning contracts and adding younger guys to set us up for the second year. To date in that second year, we've had both the best 7 round draft in terms of players picked that this organizations ever had; and we've added some very important pieces through FA with all that cap room created through year one that will still be of a prime age by the end of year five when hopefully we are competitive and seriously challenging again. There's one or two moves I don't like, at all, like swapping a promising 23 year old DE for an average 30 year old wide out; and re-signing a 30 year old tackle when plan B was a guy of equal stature and 4 years his junior; but in the main it's been a good FA to date.

The object in year two, should be at least, establishing that core of youth, playing them all, and hopefully by season's end seeing progress in them as the adjust and mature to pro life. Results are totally irrelevant at this stage. (Even more so when I believe a big part of year three will be drafting our franchise QB.). To that end, I count 37 players (if I include the UDFA QB project) aged 27 or younger going into this season I'd be real happy on the roster this year seeing if they do have what it takes to form that core. 29 of which Allen and Shanahan have brought in themselves. That's over two thirds of the roster under 27 years of age before we've even kicked off in year two. That's one HELL of a turnover in anyone's language.

We've still got a lot of work to do on the roster in years three, four and five, with starting needs at QB, on the OL, FS (Otogwe's another I didn't wholly agree with being picked up) and ILB. Not to mention quality depth at QB, FB, OL, DL, I and OLB, S and FS. But for now, if we establish the core we've put in place, we can muddle by through a 'dead' year with a marginal number, in comparison, of older FA's.

If we see this thing through on the current path, I have no doubt that by year 4, they'll be very few 30 plus guys on our roster.

In essence I'm 100% with you man. I just think you need to temper it for a year or two, roll with the older guys making up the numbers, and enjoy the massive overhaul we've managed to undertake to date. An overhaul that's FAR from finished as we go forward building this the right way to get us back to where we so crave to be.

Hail.

[Jericho]

I generally agree with the original post, but do acknowledge that it probably overstates the concerns on age. Of the 10 over 30 players, probably at least two (Graham, Sellers) get cut. An over 30 punter is largely irrelevant. And a few of the remaining guys might just be depth (Buchanan, Hicks). So now we're really talk about 5 or 6 guys.

And while there's little evidence to suggest wins carry over from season to season (i.e. teams that win a lot of gams at the end of one season tend not to continue the streak the next season), there is both a tangible benefit of: (1) having young players learn from veterans; and (2) having the veterans provide decent play to aid the younger players. With the latter, I mean that if Brown provides excellent blocking, it can help Beck and/or Helu perform and learn their jobs better.