Playing the Percentages in the NFL

[skinfan2k]

its funny everyone wants to go the patriots way yet when they won all those superbowls it was the veterans approach to win with guys like Ted Washington, Vrable, Bruschi, Harrison, Ty law, Smith (rb), patten, troy brown. they haven't won anything since then

[pjfootballer]

We'll probably have 10 or less players over the age of 30 on the final 53 man roster. That's really not alot. I don't know why some of our fans want every player to be 27 years old or younger. You still need some experience on a roster. Green Bay, Pittsburgh and New England are the supposed "model franchises" for builing a winner, yet they are able to mix a blend of youth and veterans. Why can't we?

[KDawg]

its funny everyone wants to go the patriots way yet when they won all those superbowls it was the veterans approach to win with guys like Ted Washington, Vrable, Bruschi, Harrison, Ty law, Smith (rb), patten, troy brown. they haven't won anything since then

We are not the Patriots organization. We are not the Lions. We can't do things the same as they can.

[Oldfan]

SIP ~ 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.

In some cases, those coaches could be right. Maybe one or two years is all it will take. But if they signed the 30 year-old free agent in 2011, how would they know that 2012 or 2013 would not produce a young player at his position? It would be foolish to fill gaps to compete before knowing where the gaps will be when they are ready to compete.

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.

Those coaches are over-confident. They’re going to often be making judgments based on insufficent evidence. Also, if you have ten aged vets on the roster, that’s ten less young players that can be evaluated.

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.

I have countered this point six or seven times.

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.

If a coach thinks a “veteran presence” is a good idea, let him sign one or keep one. He does not need ten. He certainly doesn't need three at the same position.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Are you just making **** up and claiming it is math again?

[Hitman21ST]

OF, maybe none of young guys that might have been "diamonds in the rough" have shown anything that would suggest they have what it takes to succeed at the NFL level, so the coaches bring in vets to fill those holes?

---------- Post added August-4th-2011 at 01:24 PM ----------

Are you just making **** up and claiming it is math again?

Nope, he's making **** up and claiming that anyone over the age of 30 should be banned from the Redskins locker room.

[sportjunkie07]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/sports/nfl/2011/08/safety-training-course

tell me again how vets arent needed with a mostly young roster?

[Oldfan]

Hitman ~ 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.

No one can predict where our gaps will be when this team is ready. Atogwe fills a gap on a team that is not ready for primetime. If a young FS drops into our lap, he will have to sit.

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.

His production is worthless to a team not ready to compete for the playoffs. His help to younger players is more than offset by the fact that he uses up a roster slot and takes snaps away from a younger player.

Moss is still very productive.

Who gives a damn? He'll be worthless by the time we need him.

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

The prime for most athletes is 25-28.

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.

Brown sucked last season and no one was killed. A 30 year-old with a serious injury history is strictly a win now move.

[Hitman21ST]

No one can predict where our gaps will be when this team is ready. Atogwe fills a gap on a team that is not ready for primetime. If a young FS drops into our lap, he will have to sit.

Or we can trade Atogwe for a pick or two...

His production is worthless to a team not ready to compete for the playoffs. His help to younger players is more than offset by the fact that he uses up a roster slot and takes snaps away from a younger player.

There aren't any younger players on our roster (that aren't already playing) that are going to be anything more than backups when we're "ready to compete"

Who gives a damn? He'll be worthless by the time we need him.

Next year?

The prime for most athletes is 25-28.

Who gives a damn? We're not talking about most players, we're talking about specific players.

Brown sucked last season and no one was killed. A 30 year-old with a serious injury history is strictly a win now move.

As opposed to a 28 year old with an even worse injury history? Or Stephon Heyer?

---------- Post added August-4th-2011 at 01:42 PM ----------

http://washingtonexaminer.com/sports/nfl/2011/08/safety-training-course

tell me again how vets arent needed with a mostly young roster?

Don't worry about that. That's the coach's job, not Atogwe's. :beatdeadhorse:

[skinfan2k]

We are not the Patriots organization. We are not the Lions. We can't do things the same as they can.

OF wants us to be the patriots

[ouvan59]

[/color]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.

LOL, So everyone that disagrees with your premise is either A) creating a strawman argument or using argumentative tricks. Gotcha.

Yes, all things equal it is better to go with younger players. But all things aren't equal. That 30 year old WR you use in your example may be a better player than that 24 year old ever will be and he may still be better three years from now. The NFL landscape is littered every year with players that just can't cut it. And you are also apparently under the assumption that the only experience these guys get is in games which is far from the truth. Plus, If you have a young QB it isn't optimal to have him throwing to young inexperienced WRs behind an inexperienced line.

[KDawg]

OF wants us to be the patriots

No he doesn't. The Patriots didn't blow up their roster. He wants the Redskins to blow up the roster. Completely different ways of doing things.

[GeneralStonewallTaylor]

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

Actually, skillful poker players understand and are aware of the percentages. However, instead of acting impulsively and making their decision based solely on said percentages, they analyze these percentages (weighing the possible risk vs. reward of both choices), take into account any and all relevant information available to them, and then proceed with their decision making. This is the reason not all poker players are successful when playing strictly "by the books".

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.

This is the best post in this thread.

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.

This is a terrible response. You don't see how you helped make his point for him? Only an idiot would rely solely on the "WALK" signal to decide whether or not to cross the street. A "totality of the circumstances" test looks to all the circumstances surrounding a situation, rather than to any particular factors. Sure, you can argue that any decision in life is made by playing the percentages, but making decisions based only on percentages leaves a greater margin for error than analyzing those percentages and deciding for yourself whether to accept or reject an initial hypothesis.

As was stated by Peregrine, it takes someone without any wisdom of their own to revert back to playing the percentages every time. In other words, I look both ways before crossing the street.

[Oldfan]

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

Absolutely.

We're in year two of a five year plan.

I don’t know how long it will take since it depends on how well the front office rebuilds.

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.

Sounds right.

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.

I hope so. Jury’s still out.

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.

Agreed.

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.

I have been pleasantly surprised.

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.

It’s going to take longer if Mike keeps ten older vets on the roster each year. But, at least he is clearly rebuilding now.

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.

I can be patient when I see that we are working the right plan. The plan is 80% there.

---------- Post added August-4th-2011 at 01:52 PM ----------

OF wants us to be the patriots

Wrong. My goal for the team would be to leave the Patriots in our dust.

---------- Post added August-4th-2011 at 02:01 PM ----------

LOL, So everyone that disagrees with your premise is either A) creating a strawman argument or using argumentative tricks. Gotcha.

:ols:This is a first! Using a strawman to defend a strawman.

Yes, all things equal it is better to go with younger players. But all things aren't equal. That 30 year old WR you use in your example may be a better player than that 24 year old ever will be and he may still be better three years from now.

So, your point is what? Would that possibility prove my conclusion wrong in your opinion?

The NFL landscape is littered every year with players that just can't cut it. And you are also apparently under the assumption that the only experience these guys get is in games which is far from the truth.

Another strawman. I made no such assumption.

Plus, If you have a young QB it isn't optimal to have him throwing to young inexperienced WRs behind an inexperienced line.

Coaches grade players individually. They cn tell who screws up a play.

---------- Post added August-4th-2011 at 02:15 PM ----------

Stonewall ~ This is a terrible response. You don't see how you helped make his point for him? Only an idiot would rely solely on the "WALK" signal to decide whether or not to cross the street. A "totality of the circumstances" test looks to all the circumstances surrounding a situation, rather than to any particular factors. Sure, you can argue that any decision in life is made by playing the percentages, but making decisions based only on percentages leaves a greater margin for error than analyzing those percentages and deciding for yourself whether to accept or reject an initial hypothesis.

As was stated by Peregrine, it takes someone without any wisdom of their own to revert back to playing the percentages every time. In other words, I look both ways before crossing the street.

You created two strawman arguments, one in each paragraph. In the first you did it by adding the word “solely.” In the second, you added “every time” to create absolute positions for me that were easy to attack.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

It's possible that 8 or 9 starters on the Steelers' defense will be over 30 this year. I believe they had 7 starters over 30 in the Super Bowl with Ike Taylor soon to be 30.

Should they cut all of them?

[Oldfan]

It's possible that 8 or 9 starters on the Steelers' defense will be over 30 this year. I believe they had 7 starters over 30 in the Super Bowl with Ike Taylor soon to be 30.

Should they cut all of them?

Read the OP.

[Skinsinparadise]

In some cases, those coaches could be right. Maybe one or two years is all it will take. But if they signed the 30 year-old free agent in 2011, how would they know that 2012 or 2013 would not produce a young player at his position? It would be foolish to fill gaps to compete before knowing where the gaps will be when they are ready to compete.

If so it hits my 3rd point -- as long as its not a hefty cap killer AH type of contract, release the dude. If lets say the best player in the next draft at their position is a RT, draft him and release Jamal Brown, considering Brown doesn't have much guaranteed money in his contract its a painless exercise.

Those coaches are over-confident. They’re going to often be making judgments based on insufficent evidence. Also, if you have ten aged vets on the roster, that’s ten less young players that can be evaluated.

You have 90 players to evaluate. I doubt the FO is thinking there are a ton of exciting undrafted free agents left untouched. I presume they pursue the ones they like. If they really dig an undrafted free agent at OT, I doubt they are passing on him at the expense of Artis Hicks for example. I just don't think the undrafted pool is an infinite supply of talent, I think there are some talented players who fall through the cracks but I presume the skins and other teams do a good job scooping them up, and few diamonds in the rough are left by the wayside undiscovered.

If a coach thinks a “veteran presence” is a good idea, let him sign one or keep one. He does not need ten. He certainly doesn't need three at the same position.

I don't mean a veteran presense from a "good" tutorial influence stand point but competition one. You can just hand a young player a job or give him a vastly inferior undrafted free agent to compete with in camp or let him bust his butt showing he's better than Donte Stallworth.

[Hitman21ST]

Coaches grade players individually. They can tell who screws up a play.

Yet, no matter who screws the play up, all suffer for it, experience-wise. Say, for example, you have youth at all three positions. The young offensive lineman gets beat by the defender and hits the QB in the act of throwing, injuring him. The injury heals, but due to him sustaining the injury, the young quarterback is now trigger happy. He throws the ball at the moment he perceives pressure, leaving the young receiver open to take a crushing hit, which now leaves him gunshy to go all out for the pass. Had there been an experienced lineman in there, he wouldn't have gotten beat, the QB wouldn't have been injured, and they all would have developed into better players.

There are times and places for experienced players. This just happens to be one of those times and places. There were no other options that would have come close to Brown, all things considered. Either the money, talent, or experience weren't there. You can't just take age as the sole determination of who stays and who goes. We're setting ourselves up nicely for the future. Brown may only be here one or two more years. In that time we could find a better fit in free agency or the draft, in which case we will more than likely trade him. No one on our roster is going to be our RT for the foreseeable future, so there's no harm in signing Brown. Moss and Gaffney are the only two older WRs who will make the 53. Then we have Armstrong, Kelly, Hankerson, Paul, and Robinson competing for 3 or 4 spots. The person who doesn't make it goes to the practice squad. We have two, maybe three starter-quality ILBs on the roster, including Fletcher. Our safeties needed help; the best option was Atogwe. He'll play for another 4 or 5 years at a high level, at least (barring injury). If one of our depth guys steps up and deserves to be the starter, or we find one in the draft, then we trade Atogwe.

[MassSkinsFan]

Actually, skillful poker players understand and are aware of the percentages. However, instead of acting impulsively and making their decision based solely on said percentages, they analyze these percentages (weighing the possible risk vs. reward of both choices), take into account any and all relevant information available to them, and then proceed with their decision making. This is the reason not all poker players are successful when playing strictly "by the books".

(In response to GeneralStonewallTaylor)

You created two strawman arguments, one in each paragraph. In the first you did it by adding the word “solely.” In the second, you added “every time” to create absolute positions for me that were easy to attack.

Why did you not address his first paragraph?

IMO it's valid. You don't make decisions based solely on math because there is risk involved. Risk assessment followed by risk management is critical. Taking into account the potential likelihood of a risk happening as well as the impact of it happening, and planning accordingly is relevant to this debate.

I understand your OP proposition that having all younger players (<30 yo) increases your chances of identifying talent, and I agree with it IN A VACUUM. But in reality, there are other factors potentially impacting your search for the best talent:

• Risk of injury to current talent
  
• Risk of unproven players failing to develop due to gap in coaching/mentoring
  
• Risk of having too many to evaluate and thus missing an opportunity to get a potential star due to noise
  
• Risk of mis-timing your acquisitions (you alluded to timing's importance in post 83 but also said no one can know how it will play out in post 89)
  
• Risk of young players wasting our time by not panning out after they've been given a roster spot
  
• Etc.
  

Your absolutism has been great for getting us debating, but it's not realistic outside of a purely theoretical framework. Risk exists and each personnel decision that arises carries positive and negative risks. I'd like to think that our FO is smart enough to do their risk analysis appropriately. If they truly think it's better to have a 30 year old than a 24 year old at a given position, there must be a reason and I don't think it's because they're being foolish.

This thread makes me think of this movie:

[skinfan2k]

You do know that WR is the positon that gets worked the most in training camp right? its better to have a ton of bodies around for that issue. You don't want Hamstring issues

[MassSkinsFan]

You do know that WR is the positon that gets worked the most in training camp right? its better to have a ton of bodies around for that issue. You don't want Hamstring issues

That only happens to players over 30.

[Oldfan]

SIP ~ If so it hits my 3rd point -- as long as its not a hefty cap killer AH type of contract, release the dude. If lets say the best player in the next draft at their position is a RT, draft him and release Jamal Brown, considering Brown doesn't have much guaranteed money in his contract its a painless exercise.

Okay, I see your point that cutting the old vet would not be a burden if the contract was structured to allow it. I don’t know how many FAs are willing to sign deals like that.

That still leaves the problems that most coaches will start the old vet, so he’s taking up a roster slot and playing time.

You have 90 players to evaluate. I doubt the FO is thinking there are a ton of exciting undrafted free agents left untouched. I presume they pursue the ones they like. If they really dig an undrafted free agent at OT, I doubt they are passing on him at the expense of Artis Hicks for example. I just don't think the undrafted pool is an infinite supply of talent, I think there are some talented players who fall through the cracks but I presume the skins and other teams do a good job scooping them up, and few diamonds in the rough are left by the wayside undiscovered.

One in eight NFL starters enter the league as UDFAs. I don’t know how many depth players come from that category. One premise of my argument is that the more UDFAs auditioned, the better the chance of finding a player who can contribute.

I don't mean a veteran presense from a "good" tutorial influence stand point but competition one. You can just hand a young player a job or give him a vastly inferior undrafted free agent to compete with in camp or let him bust his butt showing he's better than Donte Stallworth.

At the WR position 11 young players are competing. If the 3 older vets were replaced by young veteran FAs, or UDFAs, there would be 14 young players competing.

[GeneralStonewallTaylor]

You created two strawman arguments, one in each paragraph. In the first you did it by adding the word “solely.” In the second, you added “every time” to create absolute positions for me that were easy to attack.

Unfortunately, when you decided to use crossing the street as your analogy, YOU created those absolute positions. But please, continue to defend the argument that playing the percentages as they appear initially, or that crossing the street because you saw the "WALK" signal, is a good idea. YOU didn't offer any other contributing factors that could have weighed into the decision to cross the street other than using the "WALK" signal, or playing the percentages absolutely. YOU inferred that that decision was made based on that factor, and that factor alone. The same way you stated that skillful poker players are successful by playing the percentages, yet offering no piece of evidence to concede that you know/understand the many other factors involved when making said decisions. YOU also stated that your decision-making process (based on your interpretation of conventional wisdom) applies to most of life's decisions regarding personal matters, business, the Government, and football. Therefore, it is your contention that it is a good idea to rely solely on percentages rather than analyze/interpret them. I think you're wrong.

However, if you're willing to admit that there are no absolutes to constrain us, then how can you continue to be ignorant enough to defend a position that is based on the idea that anyone who doesn't meet your criteria (specifically: age requirements) is a detriment to our rebuilding process?

[Oldfan]

MSF, unless you specifically use words like “always or never,” I have no right to assume that you have taken an absolute position -- even if you did not specifically begin your explanation with a qualifier like “as a general rule...” The reason for that is that 99% of all statements are meant generally. For example, let’s use your statement:

You don't make decisions based solely on math because there is risk involved.

Since you didn’t state that it is true as a general rule, I could create a strawman argument by interpreting your statement as an absolute: What? Are you unaware that there are many decisions that don’t involve risk?

Stonewall created two strawman arguments using the words “solely” an “every time” to create absolute positions for me that are easily attacked.

Now, let me deal with you statement as a general rule:

You don't make decisions based solely on math because there is risk involved.

When I say that good decisions play the percentage, I mean that all the factors are taken into account including the risk factors. If we had a Decision Percentage Calculator that gave us a 66.3% chance of success, the risk factors would be accounted for in the 33.7% chance of failure.

[Skinsfan4life83]

Yes I agree. Signing nothing but a bunch of UDFA's will up your chances of finding true talent, however it also will leave you with a bunch of scrub players who didn't pan out. No team has done a complete rebuild without using some veteran free agents as competition and mentors for the younger players on the roster.