Playing the Percentages in the NFL

[Skinsinparadise]

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.

I know you are mixed at best about this regime, but feeling a little better about them now. For me the biggest wild card is how good are they at procuring talent, that remains to be seen. I got no clue, wouldn't shock me if they are good or bad at it. The one thing I am fairly confident about is Allen's fiscal prudence. He seems to be fairly rigid about it. The contracts that are being signed for the most part don't have a lot of guaranteed money and aren't cap killers.

As for the coach starting the old vet over the rookie, unless the old vet demonstrates that he's vastly better, I don't think the idea that its better everything being equal to be younger than older at a position escapes this regime or just about any other regime for that matter, its common sense. If the vet is vastly better I don't think it hurts the young player to get up to speed. In this sport, there are plenty of injuries, if you are on the roster you have a decent shot of playing at some point.

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.

Sure, but am guessing each team signs on average 12 of them or so for camp. So when you take 350 of the best of them off the market, I contend you don't have too many jewels left. Of those players that don't make the cut, you can put some of them on the practice squad, and see what happens. I don't doubt that teams might miss out on a player once in awhile that they cut or don't sign but I think playing the percentages they are rare happenstances.

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.

I think looking at each position like you are doing here is a good way to go about it. they have T. Austin, Niles Paul, L. Hankerson, M. Kelly, A. Robinson -- 5 draft picks with promise, I am not clamoring for more, I'd hope 3 to 4 of the young guys make the roster. to your point, if lets say Niles Paul shows promise but he doesn't make the team because D. Stallworth has a good camp, I'd be upset. And that would be an example where a veteran can get in the way. To me its a situation by situation thing. Would I like each position filled by a good young player as opposed to a veteran, heck yeah. But I can live with a sprinkle of veterans if it makes sense again depending on context.

[Oldfan]

Stonewall ~ Unfortunately, when you decided to use crossing the street as your analogy, YOU created those absolute positions.

No. I certainly did not. You made an unwarranted assumption.

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.

That’s all BS. You can’t infer absolutes from what I didn’t say.

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.

There was no point in discussing the percentages in Poker. I used the game only to communicate one idea to my readers.

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.

Your premise is correct, I did say words to that effect, but your conclusion doesn’t follow logically from the premise.

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?

You wouldn’t think me so ignorant if you could try to keep up here. I told a poster who asked about exceptions to the 30 rule that "yes" there could be but I didn’t see any on the current roster.

[COWBOY-KILLA-]

Yawn...I don't know why people take you seriously anymore. Didn't you give up being a fan? So we pick up some role players over 30 and we have it all wrong? Please, I'll whoop your but in Poker!

[Oldfan]

SIP ~ As for the coach starting the old vet over the rookie, unless the old vet demonstrates that he's vastly better, I don't think the idea that its better everything being equal to be younger than older at a position escapes this regime or just about any other regime for that matter, its common sense. If the vet is vastly better I don't think it hurts the young player to get up to speed. In this sport, there are plenty of injuries, if you are on the roster you have a decent shot of playing at some point.

Last season, once the team was mathematically eliminated, Mike started some guys who produced better than the vets they replaced -- which wasn’t that hard to do since they had not been producing.

Sure, but am guessing each team signs on average 12 of them or so for camp. So when you take 350 of the best of them off the market, I contend you don't have too many jewels left. Of those players that don't make the cut, you can put some of them on the practice squad, and see what happens. I don't doubt that teams might miss out on a player once in awhile that they cut or don't sign but I think playing the percentages they are rare happenstances.

Still, it seems to me that the Steelers and Pats are more aggressive in the UDFA market than we are.

I think looking at each position like you are doing here is a good way to go about it. they have T. Austin, Niles Paul, L. Hankerson, M. Kelly, A. Robinson -- 5 draft picks with promise, I am not clamoring for more, I'd hope 3 to 4 of the young guys make the roster. to your point, if lets say Niles Paul shows promise but he doesn't make the team because D. Stallworth has a good camp, I'd be upset. And that would be an example where a veteran can get in the way. To me its a situation by situation thing. Would I like each position filled by a good young player as opposed to a veteran, heck yeah. But I can live with a sprinkle of veterans if it makes sense again depending on context.

I admit to being a hardliner. On the other hand, I know I’m tough to please. But, I gave Mike an eight on a ten scale for this offseason. I just think he needs to do better if we are to get enough thrust to escape the mediocrity bubble.

[pjfootballer]

I'm one for getting the best players at each position regardless of age.

[Oldfan]

I'm one for getting the best players at each position regardless of age.

That's a good plan if the upcoming season is the only one that matters to you.

[COWBOY-KILLA-]

Yawn...I don't know why people take you seriously anymore. Didn't you give up being a fan? So we pick up some role players over 30 and we have it all wrong? Please, I'll whoop your but in Poker!

[MassSkinsFan]

Sorry OF - I got a bit confused following your interchange, and I also didn't fully absorb your DPC from the original post. That made me go back and re-read it.

.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.

I found this particularly interesting.

Why is 1 a certainty? If the vets are worse than the newbies, we might win fewer games with the older guys. And if we don't put those young guys on the field for evaluation, how can the DPC compute that?

Also, given that the talent pool is finite, does 2 make sense? Do you need to put all the potential young prospects on the field in order to evaluate them, or can you limit the pool further through evaluations such as scouting, film review, etc. before you bring guys in? If yes, then aren't you starting with a target group of young players? Isn't it possible you have a pick list of youngsters, and older guys are Plan B acquisitions?

Sorry if I'm being thick here.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Read the OP.

I got to the part about your made up calculator that knew what the best decision was 75 percent of the time (which is a made up number).

I stopped there.

Seriously, your ideas are interesting but you need to stop this bizarre habit of randomly assigning values to things based on your gut and then arguing that these values are real.

Here. I will fix your thread in two sentences.

"In professional sports, having a young team is superior to having an old team unless your team is in a strong position to win a title in the upcoming season. If your team is not in a strong position to win a title in the upcoming season, you should likely make moves that will lower the overall age of your team."

There. That was good. No one will disagree with that.

Can we go home now?

[Oldfan]

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.

It would be my guess that Belichik signs vet FAs to play football, not to help him coach.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

It would be my guess that Belichik signs vet FAs to play football, not to help him coach.

That I agree with.

The people that say that you need vets to teach the young guys are *******s who hung around with seniors when they were freshman.

You bring in veterans to play if they are good at football.

In a nutshell, that is LKB's way to win football games: Have good football players and have a lot of 'em.

[Oldfan]

LKB: I got to the part about your made up calculator that knew what the best decision was 75 percent of the time (which is a made up number).

I stopped there.

Seriously, your ideas are interesting but you need to stop this bizarre habit of randomly assigning values to things based on your gut and then arguing that these values are real.

You didn’t read the thread at all,.The 75% was only an example. You know, one of those things people use sometimes to help them explain something?

"In professional sports, having a young team is superior to having an old team unless your team is in a strong position to win a title in the upcoming season. If your team is not in a strong position to win a title in the upcoming season, you should likely make moves that will lower the overall age of your team."

You made an unsupported claim. I wouldn’t offer that even as a driveby post. I’d be embarrassed to start a thread with it.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

You made an unsupported claim. I wouldn't offer that even as a driveby post. I'd be embarrassed to start a thread with it.

How is your argument supported?

And don't cite your made up data.

[Oldfan]

How is your argument supported?

And don't cite your made up data.

It's supported with logic.

An argument has to have at least one premise and one conclusion. Your claim is essentially a conclusion without a single premise.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

It's supported with logic.

An argument has to have at least one premise and one conclusion. Your claim is essentially a conclusion without a single premise.

Old athletes suck. Young athletes are good.

Hence, you should have young athletes.

I spent three months doing nothing but syllogisms in law school.

---------- Post added August-4th-2011 at 04:07 PM ----------

Two Rednecks, Larry and Doug, are sitting at their favorite bar, drinking beer. Larry turns to Doug and says, 'You know, I'm tired of going through life without an education. Tomorrow I think I'll go to the Community College and sign up for some classes.' Doug thinks it's a good idea and the two leave. The next day, Larry goes down to the college and meets Dean of Admissions, who signs him up for the four basic classes: Math, English, history, and Logic. ' Logic?' Larry says. 'What's that?' The dean says, 'I'll give you an example. Do you own a weed eater?' 'Yeah.' 'Then logically speaking, because you own a weed eater, I think that you would have a yard.' 'That's true, I do have a yard.' 'I'm not done,' the dean says. 'Because you have a yard, I think logically that you would have a house.' 'Yes, I do have a house.' 'And because you have a house, I think that you might logically have a family.' 'Yes, I have a family. 'I'm not done yet. Because you have a family, then logically you must have a wife. And because you have a wife, then logic tells me you must be a heterosexual.' 'I am a heterosexual. That's amazing, you were able to find out all of that because I have a weed eater..' Excited to take the class now, Larry Shakes the Dean's hand and leaves to go meet Doug at the bar. He tells Doug about his classes, how he is signed up for Math, English, History, and Logic. 'Logic?' Doug says, 'What's that?' Larry says, i'll give you an example. 'Do you have a weed eater?' 'No.' 'Then you're a queer'.

[Skinsinparadise]

Last season, once the team was mathematically eliminated, Mike started some guys who produced better than the vets they replaced -- which wasn’t that hard to do since they had not been producing.

Last season they had little young talent . For example, T. Austin looked all right later on in the season but nothing spectacular, I doubt he makes the team this year. That's why for me the be all and end all is having a full draft or go the NE/Philly round ADD picks and infuse your team with young prospects. We did it this draft and so far are headed in that direction by adding picks for the next two drafts.

Still, it seems to me that the Steelers and Pats are more aggressive in the UDFA market than we are.

Agree, especially the Pats of late but I still think the thrust of your roster/young talent are going to be players from the top 5 rounds. Don't get me wrong though, i agree with the spirit of your point lets get younger and fast.

I admit to being a hardliner. On the other hand, I know I’m tough to please. But, I gave Mike an eight on a ten scale for this offseason. I just think he needs to do better if we are to get enough thrust to escape the mediocrity bubble.

I think what you are fighting against here is the concept that a team can became very good within lets say 2 years, its not a totally far fetched concept. if you load up on picks and have 2 great drafts back to back it can happen. Then getting back to the idea of percentages it brings questions:

1. what are the odds that you are going to find good undrafted free agents BEYOND your top choices. Every team cherry picks their fav undrafted free agents and those guys have a shot of making the team but we are talking here about going beyond that pool

2. everything being close to equal do you go with the younger player who does well in camp or the veteran

3. can you ferret out talent well in camp and preseason

4. do you think there is a decent chance to be good in 2-3 years and if so can a few of the team veterans can be a productive part of that run or are their contracts structured in a way that they can be replaced if a viable younger alternative is found.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I think the only UDFA currently starting for the Steelers is James Harrison. James Harrison did not become a starter until his late 20s and was previously cut four times - three times by the Steelers.

He is the equivalent of winning a million dollars on a scratch off lottery ticket.

There are not James Harrisons available in the UDFA market. There is A James Harrison available in the UDFA market once a decade or so. And even then, you need to be patient and lucky. The Steelers did not find James Harrison because they are smarter than us. If they were smarter than us, they would not have cut him three times. (In fariness, they were smart enough to sign him three times. Actually, what does it say that two of the smartest front offices in the league - the Steelers and Ravens - each cut a future defensive player of the year who seems born to play in both of their defenses).

What the Steelers do have is a plan for their team. They draft well. They make smart free agency signings. And they squeeze every single minute out of a players first two NFL contracts. And then they make the player make a choice: Stay for another year or two at less money or walk to a worse situation for worse money. If the player wants to walk, they don't chase.

Because they almost always have the backup on the roster. And the backup almost always has two years on the bench, unless they were a #1 pick. In that case they have one years on the bench.

It seems like most of their #1 picks do nothing their first year (Roethlisberger and Pouncey being exceptions) and then turn into stars in year two (Polamalu was actually called a bust during his rookie year. Same with Timmons. In year two, both redefined their position on the Steelers' D).

[GeneralStonewallTaylor]

No. I certainly did not. You made an unwarranted assumption.

That’s all BS. You can’t infer absolutes from what I didn’t say.

From your OP:

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.

That is an absolute. You think without those 10 players, our rebuilding process would benefit more long-term based on theoretical percentages. From it, I can use what you selectively choose to include/omit in your posts and reasonably infer that any related statements can also be taken as absolutes.

There was no point in discussing the percentages in Poker. I used the game only to communicate one idea to my readers.

Exactly. The idea that the smartest decision is the one that the percentages favor at face value. That's the idea that you based your entire premise for this thread off of. You said:

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

...which means there was at least SOME point in discussing poker percentages, or YOU wouldn't have brought it up first in your OP. YOU also chose to validate yourself later by using the metaphor of crossing the street. To recap: playing poker, crossing the street, NFL decision making. YOU think it is smart for all three to be handled the same way; letting the decisions be made for you using theoretical percentages for success rates. I think that is absurd.

Your premise is correct, I did say words to that effect, but your conclusion doesn’t follow logically from the premise.

My conclusion is firmly wrapped around logic. I've shown how what YOU said logically brings me to that conclusion. It was YOUR absolutism that was your fundamental flaw from the beginning. All other things being equal, your "age vs. long-term benefit to our rebuilding process" might have some validity. MIGHT. But this is the real world...and there are too many other influential factors for that idea to be taken seriously. All other things aren't equal. You can deny the evidence that is right in front of your face all you want...that doesn't mean it's gonna disappear.

You wouldn’t think me so ignorant if you could try to keep up here. I told a poster who asked about exceptions to the 30 rule that "yes" there could be but I didn’t see any on the current roster.

Keep up? You're making my point for me. Your statement means you see no justification for having Moss, Fletcher, and Atogwe on our team right now. You think they are hurting our long-term rebuilding process more than they are helping it. I've shown why I think you're wrong and why I think the way you reach your decisions is wrong. I still think you're ignorant.

[Oldfan]

MSF ~ Why is 1 a certainty? If the vets are worse than the newbies, we might win fewer games with the older guys. And if we don't put those young guys on the field for evaluation, how can the DPC compute that?

The DPC would calculate the chances of the young guys being better than the old. That possibility is reflected in the odds against.

It is not likely/probable that the vets would perform worse than the young guys therefore it would show a lower percentage for our chances of winning games this season, and a higher percentage for our chances of drafting earlier and getting a few more good young players;

Also, given that the talent pool is finite, does 2 make sense? Do you need to put all the potential young prospects on the field in order to evaluate them, or can you limit the pool further through evaluations such as scouting, film review, etc. before you bring guys in? If yes, then aren't you starting with a target group of young players? Isn't it possible you have a pick list of youngsters, and older guys are Plan B acquisitions?

I doubt there's a way to improve the process.

It’s a filtering process. Scouting eliminates most prospects, but coaches need to see the survivors of the scouting filter live, in practice and in games to make better decisions.

The ten old vets take up ten roster slots, their share of practice snaps, and their share of game snaps. Without them, coaches can take a longer look at more young prospects.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

The ten old vets take up ten roster slots, their share of practice snaps, and their share of game snaps. Without them, coaches can take a longer look at more young prospects.

Who could be awful.

Here is a question. Let's say you are a young team with the #1 overall pick in the draft at QB. You have a serviceable left tackle who is 34. He is clearly better at the moment than the 24 year old you think might be the left tackle of the future. The young guy is bigger and far more athletic. The problem is, the young guy makes mistakes. The old guy is - at they say - fundamentally sound. He might get beat, but he's not going to let Terrell Suggs come in untouched.

Are you better off risking your young QB's blind side to the kid with potential or the vet who you know will keep him upright?

[MassSkinsFan]

The DPC would calculate the chances of the young guys being better than the old. That possibility is reflected in the odds against.

It is not likely/probable that the vets would perform worse than the young guys therefore it would show a lower percentage for our chances of winning games this season, and a higher percentage for our chances of drafting earlier and getting a few more good young players;

Why not? Because the DPC says so? How does it determine that youth is most likely better? Really this doesn't make sense. It amounts to a "trust me" argument. Am I missing something crucial here?

How does it analyze risks like the one LKB mentioned in post 120?

I doubt there's a way to improve the process.

It’s a filtering process. Scouting eliminates most prospects, but coaches need to see the survivors of the scouting filter live, in practice and in games to make better decisions.

The ten old vets take up ten roster slots, their share of practice snaps, and their share of game snaps. Without them, coaches can take a longer look at more young prospects.

Do the coaches really need that much longer of a look? Not being facetious, just asking. And if, as I mentioned, coaches do what they can to balance reps for both, isn't that enough face time to make a proper assessment?

[Oldfan]

Stonewall ~ That is an absolute. You think without those 10 players, our rebuilding process would benefit more long-term based on theoretical percentages. From it, I can use what you selectively choose to include/omit in your posts and reasonably infer that any related statements can also be taken as absolutes.

Nonsense. All you can infer from my OP is that I think that without those 10 players, our building process would benefit based on the logical argument that I made for that conclusion. There’s no justification for taking any statement made as an absolute unless the author specifically states it as such.

You’re entire counter is one elaborate strawman.

I still think you're ignorant.

Gosh. That makes me cry.

---------- Post added August-4th-2011 at 06:22 PM ----------

LKB ~ Who could be awful.

Over time, a certain percentage would be good.

Here is a question. Let's say you are a young team with the #1 overall pick in the draft at QB. You have a serviceable left tackle who is 34. He is clearly better at the moment than the 24 year old you think might be the left tackle of the future. The young guy is bigger and far more athletic.

The problem is, the young guy makes mistakes. The old guy is - at they say - fundamentally sound. He might get beat, but he's not going to let Terrell Suggs come in untouched.

Are you better off risking your young QB's blind side to the kid with potential or the vet who you know will keep him upright?

Why strain so hard to find an exception? Just ask. A poster earlier asked me if there might be exceptions. I said yes but I didn’t see one in the ten players I listed.

---------- Post added August-4th-2011 at 06:36 PM ----------

MSF ~ Why not? Because the DPC says so? How does it determine that youth is most likely better? Really this doesn't make sense. It amounts to a "trust me" argument. Am I missing something crucial here?

I think you misread what I said. Check the line you underlined earlier.

It is not likely/probable that the vets would perform worse than the young guys

Do the coaches really need that much longer of a look? Not being facetious, just asking. And if, as I mentioned, coaches do what they can to balance reps for both, isn't that enough face time to make a proper assessment?

I see it as simply as... the more evidence they can weigh, the better judgments they will make.

[GeneralStonewallTaylor]

Nonsense. All you can infer from my OP is that I think that without those 10 players, our building process would benefit based on the logical argument that I made for that conclusion. There’s no justification for taking any statement made as an absolute unless the author specifically states it as such.

No, I told you what I can reasonably infer from your OP, and I showed how what YOU specifically stated lead me to that conclusion. But since you've apparently abandoned logic and reason, I'll leave you to it.

[TheRookie]

Interesting arguments here...

My brain is dead right now, so I'm not going to try and wrap my head around a lot of theory right now, but...in the OP, was Sav Rocca really labeled a win-now move? Or, did I read that wrong and it's simply because he's passed the age of 30 that he's a strategic auto-fail?

[Oldfan]

Interesting arguments here...

My brain is dead right now, so I'm not going to try and wrap my head around a lot of theory right now, but...in the OP, was Sav Rocca really labeled a win-now move? Or, did I read that wrong and it's simply because he's passed the age of 30 that he's a strategic auto-fail?

Bringing in a batch of young punters for a competition would be a rebuild move. Rocca at 37 is strictly a win-now move. The kind we should not be making in our current state.