Playing the Percentages in the NFL

[Skinsinparadise]

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.

Interesting that from what I've heard, Shanny has been playing Fred Davis a lot with the first team offense with Cooley watching on the sidelines. I'd presume trading Cooley and riding with Fred Davis if it happens would play into your point.

Edit: just read on twitter that Cooley is a little banged up so that's likely why.

[TheRookie]

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.

If the world was black and white and every position equal, I would agree. However, I would argue that, in terms of damaging a rebuild, different positions have the ability to help or hurt the process in varying degrees. As such, they are worthy of criticism/concern in varying amounts. For example, a 37 year old quarterback, running back, ILB, center, DB, etc would be more concerning than a punter at the same age. Why?

Punter is a position at which a player can be productive well into their thirties, is not very scheme dependent (player doesnt really need to "learn the system"), and, as a result, is more easily replaced IMO.

Perhaps your not putting them on the same footing, but I think Sav Rocca could have been left off the list and your point would have been equally effective. Once I saw the punter, it just felt like your argument was based solely on age and didn't take into account other variables.

[Oldfan]

Interesting that from what I've heard, Shanny has been playing Fred Davis a lot with the first team offense with Cooley watching on the sidelines. I'd presume trading Cooley and riding with Fred Davis if it happens would play into your point.

Edit: just read on twitter that Cooley is a little banged up so that's likely why.

We have been waiting for Mike to use both Cooley and Davis in a base offense. Maybe Year Two, he will do it.

---------- Post added August-4th-2011 at 07:56 PM ----------

If the world was black and white and every position equal, I would agree. However, I would argue that, in terms of damaging a rebuild, different positions have the ability to help or hurt the process in varying degrees. As such, they are worthy of criticism/concern in varying amounts. For example, a 37 year old quarterback, running back, ILB, center, DB, etc would be more concerning than a punter at the same age. Why?

Punter is a position at which a player can be productive well into their thirties, is not very scheme dependent (player doesnt really need to "learn the system"), and, as a result, is more easily replaced IMO.

Perhaps your not putting them on the same footing, but I think Sav Rocca could have been left off the list and your point would have been equally effective. Once I saw the punter, it just felt like your argument was based solely on age and didn't take into account other variables.

If you had that reaction to seeing Rocca on this list, I'd say there's no doubt I should have left him off to make my argument more persuasive.

However, I don't see him as an exception. I think a #1 draft pick can straddle the line on classification, but he's the only exception. Everyone else, regardless of position, goes into the short-term or long-term categories. at 37 Rocca, who has never been above average, isn't long term even as a punter.

[Annonymous Source]

Oldfan, I think you are right. The only disagreement that I have with your post is that the age cutoff shouldn't be 30, but 27. After all 27 is when most players become eligible for free agency, and if they haven't proved to be all stars by then, then why keep them around? The odds of them developing after that age are very slim anyways. So I feel that the Redskins should strive to eliminate all 27 year or older players from their roster in order to enable a true rebuild. Just to put out a list of names,

Lorenzo Alexander

John Beck

HB Blades

Stephen Bowen

Jamaal Brown

Anthony Bryant

Philip Buchannon

Adam Carriker

Chris Chester

Kellen Clemens

Barry Cofield

Chris Cooley

Reed Doughty

London Fletcher

Jabar Gaffeny

Kedric Gholston

Shayne Graham

Rex Grossman

Deangelo Hall

Artis Hicks

Rocky McIntosh

Will Montgomery

Santana Moss

Mike Sellers

We need to get rid of all of them, so that we can actually start building some depth around here for a change. I don't know why everyone else finds this so tough to see, I guess it is just me and you Oldfan.

[Hitman21ST]

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.

Welcome to a "debate" with Oldfan, where unless you agree with him completely, you're entirely wrong. Why? Because he says so. Any good points you bring up he either calls a strawman or chooses to ignore, so he can continue with his premise, no matter how convoluted it is.

[skinfan2k]

Most NFL professional peak around 27-31 years old lol.

[Hitman21ST]

Most NFL professional peak around 27-31 years old lol.

Wait a sec...I thought that

The prime for most athletes is 25-28.

Clearly you're making a strawman.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

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.

We are talking about ****ing punters.

Didn't the Giants win a Super Bowl a few years ago with a 53-year-old punter?

By the way, did you know that 36 year old James Farrior has played every single meaningful snap for the Pittsburgh defense over the past 5 years and every meaningful snap - save two games in 2005 - over the past 8 years.

[McD5]

Two Rednecks' date=' 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. [/quote']

Fresh air outside is a good thing. Look into it.

Bonus Post: "Strawman" is now officially the most annoying word on ES.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

So now we have Oldfan whose stats are a lie and McD5 whose life is a lie.

[Poman]

If a player turns 30 at the exact midpoint of the season during a rebuild, do you cut him before the season or after it? Does he start hurting the team at midnight on his birthday? I'm just not sold on using age as the end all factor, without taking into account the player or his contributions(Cut Fletcher? Really?).

[Oldfan]

...Bonus Post: "Strawman" is now officially the most annoying word on ES.

Yeah, but there's a good reason for that.

After ridicule, the strawman argument is the favorite trick of the dumb, argumentative dicks who wouldn't recognize a logical argument if it jumped up and bit them in the ass. Internet forums are infested with them. This one is not an exception.

They can be amusing, though, especially when they are trying hard to think.

[bigtymeskin2126]

There's really no way to have a team without the 30+ year old players to bring the "percentage" down, because you have to have veteran leadership. And some of the veterans (i.e. London Fletcher) might actually be better than a higher % player. Seems like a flawed system to me.

[Oldfan]

Brotherz, sorry for the slow reply. I was replying to several posters at the same time and missed yours.

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

What I gave you in the OP was just a quick, general overview. 30 is the age when most athletes are past their prime and into decline. Exceptions are possible, but I don’t see one on the players listed..

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?

No, of course there are no studies on it. I’m supporting my argument with logic not evidence.

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.

Since almost all rules are general rules, allowing for exceptions, I’d ask that my rules be taken that way unless I specifically state that it’s an absolute rule.

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

.

We should not be concerned with Flecher’s production in a rebuild because wins now are not the primary goal. His value as a leader is more than offset by the fact that he takes up a roster slot , practice snaps, and game snaps away from a potential younger replacement -- who doesn’t have to come “off the street” as you say.

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).

Peyton is too old for a rebuilding team, misfit for this offense, and the most overrated player in the league. (For those who love their strawman arguments, bear in mind, I said he was the most overrated. I didn’t say he wasn’t good.)

[MR2Drift]

I have to disagree on some levels with you Oldfan. When it comes to Rb's your strategy is good but doesn't make sense in other scenario's. A team gets an elite rookie QB prospect like Luck next year. You do not put young lineman there to protect him just because they are young, no you get best players possible to protect your possible franchise QB regardless of age. Then you would try to find replacements for the older guys as you draft.

[Oldfan]

I have to disagree on some levels with you Oldfan. When it comes to Rb's your strategy is good but doesn't make sense in other scenario's. A team gets an elite rookie QB prospect like Luck next year. You do not put young lineman there to protect him just because they are young, no you get best players possible to protect your possible franchise QB regardless of age. Then you would try to find replacements for the older guys as you draft.

My 30 rule is a general rule allowing for exceptions, but I would make fewer exceptions than most fans because I want to beat Belichik at this game. That just isn't possible if you aren't disciplined in sticking to a plan.

[s0crates]

Regarding this win-now versus rebuild debate, I do not think it is truly an either-or proposition. Reality is much more complicated. Football is not poker. Building a roster is not analogous to choosing whether to hold 'em or fold 'em. But that is not my main point, my concern is to say something about the age of our players.

We are a young team this year, much younger than last year, and I think that is a good thing. Only a small percentage of our roster is 30+ years old, about 10% I think. We have gone from being one of the older teams in the league to being one of the younger teams in the league. So if you are worried about the age of the team, you really shouldn't be.

That is not to say we have no older veterans on the team of course, and I would add that having a few players over 30 is not necessarily a bad thing here, and in some cases it is actually a good thing.

A strict rule of refusing to retain aging players is absurd, whatever the circumstances. Should Steve Spurrier have cut Darrell Green? Should Mike Shanahan cut London Fletcher? Of course not. Only a fool would maintain such a strict policy of youth only. Some vets have earned their spots, and they deserve to keep them. Such is the case with guys like Moss and Fletch. These guys have been productive and reliable for years. These guys stay healthy and make plays week after week, season after season. You do not just get rid of guys like that, whether it is a rebuilding year or not.

A strict rule of refusing to sign aging players is almost as foolish. Sometimes a vet is just a good fit, for one reason or another. Grossman knows Kyle's offense, and he is the only QB on our roster with much NFL experience. Atogwe knows Haslett's defense, and he is one of our most talented players. Sometimes you need a RT, and there are no better options than the 30 year old guy you had last year, like Brown. Sometimes you are thin at a position, and you need a vet as insurance, like Buchanon or Hicks. You cannot always get the ideal player to fill a hole in the roster, sometimes the market dictates you settle for a serviceable player. Whether you are rebuilding or not, you will need a starting RT.

Lastly, some positions it really does not matter if you are 30 or even 35 years old. I'm thinking of Graham and Rocca here.

Oldfan is being a bit of an alarmist. Kyle and Shanny are doing a fine job with this rebuild. They have obviously made an effort to get younger this season, and although they have made a few exceptions, I do not think those were so bad.

[Burgold]

I think you really undervalue the benefit of having mentors. Back in the days when Redskins were winning big, there were always stories about how pups would come in and be in awe of the workouts that Art Monk or Darrell Green went through. The rooks pushed themselves to match that example. They improved more quickly. Off the field, it's good to have a vet who can teach the pup about the NFL lifestyle and get them acclimated. Remember, your freshman year of college and how so many became lost that first semester because of the sudden freedom? Well, add a couple of million or at least 100 thou to that equation and the liklihood of being lost is greater. Youngsters need vets not party buddies sometimes who can steer them away from the traps.

The problem with the Redskins isn't that they had too many old players. It's that all too often they had the wrong players. In a rebuild, you need a different mix, but you still need leaders and mentors on and off the field. It's not always easy to come to your boss with a problem, but a teammate who's going through what your going through can be invaluable.

The problem with your theory is that players are not chess pieces nor are they video game simulations with a bunch of stats. You are forgetting the human aspect of learning and growth.

[Skinsfan4life83]

My main problem with you argument is the idea that having a vet like Fletcher takes playing time away from a young guy. I personally think any player on the roster should earn their spot not just be given it. If said player cannot earn a spot by outperforming said veteran starting them would actually be detrimental to the teams development. Veteran players provide competition, which I'm sure you will call a "Strawman" argument. Just because it doesn't follow your flawed logic. Team sport is about competition regardless of rebuilding or not. As long as you are developing young depth starting a vet who is farther along than a rookie makes sense. It also gives said depth players a chance to develop instead of throwing them into the fire and watching them possibly fail. Miserably. Your opinion is flawed and not supported by any evidence.

[ouvan59]

Regarding this win-now versus rebuild debate, I do not think it is truly an either-or proposition. .

Bingo

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I hate the "mentors" argument. There may be some value to having one or two oldsters around as an example, but I don't think you want do overdo that.

The reason to play some old guys is because they are really good at football.

I also think - and I'm not going to bother to do the research to quantify this - that different positions age differently. RBs seem to age fastest, but I think with them it comes down to carries, not years. If a 28 year old back has never been a starter, he may have four or five years ahead of him whereas someone like Portis who started his career at 21 and got 300 carries a year may be done at 28.

Offensive linemen and defensive linemen may not actually peak until their early 30s, provided they don't get injured. I'm farily certain that Chris Samuels would be an All Pro right now if he had not been forced to retire. Minus injury, a 34-year-old guard is not the least bit alarming. Linebackers vary wildly and I have no idea why. DBs and WRs don't wear down so much as they lose their speed.

I also believe that when it comes to football, winning is more important than "being good." It seems that a lot of teams over the years started winning before they got good. I don't think the 2004 Steelers were a particularly good team even though they won 15 games. I think the 2005 Steelers were a better team even though they barely made the playoffs. I feel generally the same about the 2001 Pats. That team won a Super Bowl but I don't think it was particularly great. The 2002 Pats was probably a better overall team that simply couldn't figure out how to stop the run for four weeks.

This is the issue I have with the Lions being everyone's trendy pick. They are young and talented but haven't won a meaningfuly game is - what - 13 years? I wish they had a random, inexplicable 5 game winning streak on their resume.

[Burgold]

I agree that different positions mature at a different rate. Just to be contrarian, they say it takes 3 years for most wrs to figure the NFL out. So, do you want a team full of wrs who are pups? Again though, it's not just on the field, but in practice and learning how to avoid the social traps. Now, you don't need a team full of mentors, but you do need a good handful at least someone that the team can look to and model themselves after. Fletcher is a good mentor. Portis and Haynesworth were not.

Again, the problem wasn't age, but the players. Our best players wanted to do their own thing in Florida which generally involved partying, came to camp out of shape, hated and resisted practicing in camp, and guess what we saw on the field. Guess who are younger guys emulated. Our stars and the guys getting paid the big bucks and the women.

Age is one factor. The other thing is, players aren't interchangable and athleticism isn't the end all. Jerry Rice was not the fastest, most agile, strongest WR in the history of the NFL. Other qualities matter equally or more.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Again, the problem wasn't age, but the players. Our best players wanted to do their own thing in Florida which generally involved partying, came to camp out of shape, hated and resisted practicing in camp, and guess what we saw on the field. Guess who are younger guys emulated. Our stars and the guys getting paid the big bucks and the women.

I do think there is probably a greater danger in negative role models than there is some advantage in positive role models. It's more important that a vet NOT be Deion Sanders than it is that they be London Fletcher.

One of the points made in Boys Will Be Boys (that book I adore about the Johnson/Switzer Cowboys) was that Michael Irvin was a dangerous influence in the sense that players tended to get arrested with him and the sense that he attempted to kill teammates with scissor but that was outweighed by the example of his incredible work ethic. The message was, you can party like me only if you show up at 7 AM ready to lift.

Deion wasn't even close to the party animal that Irvin was but he was more dangerous because he did not work. Half the team worshipped him and decided "Well, he doesn't watch film, he doesn't work out, and he doesn't practice hard....I'm going to do that too." You can get away with that when you are Deion Sanders and are the greatest pure athlete in league history. It doesn't work if you are Sherman Williams.

[Oldfan]

sOcrates ~ Football is not poker. Building a roster is not analogous to choosing whether to hold 'em or fold 'em.

They are alike in that it‘s smart to “play the percentages.”

We are a young team this year, much younger than last year, and I think that is a good thing.

Of course it is. But, my argument is that we could get younger and better if we dumped the players on the list I gave you. Why attack arguments I never made?

Some vets have earned their spots, and they deserve to keep them. Such is the case with guys like Moss and Fletch.

When there is a conflict between the best interests of the team and the best interests of the player, I resolve it in favor of the team. It's hard, but that’s how you get to be the best.

A strict rule of refusing to sign aging players is almost as foolish. Sometimes a vet is just a good fit, for one reason or another.

I have said countless times, there isn’t a strict rule. There can be exceptions; but I will be more reluctant to make exceptions than most fans.

Lastly, some positions it really does not matter if you are 30 or even 35 years old. I'm thinking of Graham and Rocca here.

If Gano needs competition, bring in a couple of young kickers. Bring in a string of young punters to compete. Let’s try to find a P and a K who have a long career ahead.

Oldfan is being a bit of an alarmist. Kyle and Shanny are doing a fine job with this rebuild.

An alarmist? Mike’s plan this offseason can actually be called a “rebuild.” He’s doing more of what I said he should do in 2010. Was I an alarmist a year ago? I heard the same gripes from posters like you about negativity back then. I was right a year ago, and I'm right now.

[Burgold]

Wouldn't "playing the percentages" be going the veteran route? I mean, there are a lot less unknowns when you get someone you have NFL tape on and who's competed against NFL competition than the draft. The draft is littered with busts from the first overall pick all the way down to Mr. Irrelevant.

What Vinny and Snyder did for years was "play the percentages" they figured if they got known quantities and top producers, if they stacked the deck, they couldn't help but win.