Playing the Percentages in the NFL

[Oldfan]

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.

Monk and Green were young veterans when the Skins were winning big. You have just made an argument against your position: The right young vets are often better role models than the older guys.

---------- Post added August-5th-2011 at 10:01 AM ----------

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.

In 2007, I posted a study I did on the 2006 All Pro team. 53 of the 56 players represented the team that drafted them. Two were free agents. One was acquired by trade (Champ Bailey). As a rule, NFL teams draft and keep their best players.

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.

Gibbs, Snyder and Vinny proved they did not understand the percentages when they traded away our 2, 3 and 4 picks and spent large on free agents.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

The 53 of 56 All Pro is more of a result of the NFL's salary system than anything else.

It's better to draft talent in the draft because it is infinitely more easy to sign your own free agents than it is to sing another teams. There are two reasons for this.

1. Teams can extend their stars before their contracts expire. So, if you are Sam Bradford, do you take a gazillion dollars in guaranteed money now to remain with St. Louis or do you wait and see how many gazillion dollars you can get on the free market? Money now is better than money later. And also there is:

2. The franchise tag. Sam Bradford is not going to hit the free market because St. Louis will just franchise him. So, he signs and stays.

The problem with the Skins has NEVER been free agency. The problem with the Skins has been trades. Signing Albert Haynesworth costs you money. And who gives a **** about money? I don't. Trading for Brandon Lloyd costs you the opportunity to get better later.

[Skinsinparadise]

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.

Having for example Portis, Betts, and Cartright on their roster but still trading for Duckett for a 3rd and 4th rounder -- instead of waiting for Brunnel to be released, giving up a third rounder for him, Vinny saying to this day that the Jason Taylor trade was a good one because it boosted team morale -- I'd say Vinny, Snyder, and Gibbs (hate to lump in Gibbs here but he was far from a perfect FO guy) made too many decisions that were emotional/seat of the pants driven -- that IMO far from played the percentages. It's arguably a large part of why this team is in this mess.

---------- Post added August-5th-2011 at 10:36 AM ----------

The problem with the Skins has NEVER been free agency. The problem with the Skins has been trades. Signing Albert Haynesworth costs you money. And who gives a **** about money? I don't. Trading for Brandon Lloyd costs you the opportunity to get better later.

If this was baseball, I'd agree. We got lucky with the AH signing in that Allen leveraged the uncapped year to wipe his guaranteed money off the books, if we didn't have the uncapped year, we'd likely be screwed this year in terms of signing new players. IMO free agency in a way is like the draft -- your odds/percentages increase for success if you spread your money around on several players (the Giants do this a lot) preferably younger players versus going for broke on a big player or two especially if they are older. With the draft, Kiper likes to say your best chance to do well is to have lots of picks. Kiper doesn't seem impressed with Belichick per se as a guy who is better at finding talent in the draft but is impressed that he sets up the odds in his favor by having more selections -- that plays into your point about trades, which I agree with, trades have killed this team.

[Oldfan]

The 53 of 56 All Pro is more of a result of the NFL's salary system than anything else.

It's better to draft talent in the draft because it is infinitely more easy to sign your own free agents than it is to sing another teams. .

That's right, but the other reason is that, taken as a group, NFL teams can recognize talent. As a rule, the higher the draft pick, the better the player. And, as a rule, they don't let their better players get to free agency.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I've stopped caring about the cap about four years ago. Can anyone name a real, devastating cap casualty in the last five years on any team? Do the Eagles seem all the flummoxed by the cap right now?

The Steelers are notoriously willing to let vets go AND they were supposedly right against the cap this year. And they pretty much signed all their vets except one who was approaching 400 pounds and was coming off a season-ending neck injury.

The cap is a restraint but it doesn't seem to be any kind of major limitation since it goes up by 10 to 12 percent every year. I honestly think the cap stopped being a real concern for teams in the 90s.

---------- Post added August-5th-2011 at 09:44 AM ----------

And, as a rule, they don't let their better players get to free agency.

That's what I said.

[Skinsinparadise]

I've stopped caring about the cap about four years ago. Can anyone name a real' date=' devastating cap casualty in the last five years on any team? Do the Eagles seem all the flummoxed by the cap right now? [/quote']

Seems like the Cowboys are, practically a cliche these days on football sites. Pretty much every off season there is some talk of some teams being strapped by the cap. The Skins are famous for working around the cap by how the defer more guaranteed money into the future, ala Clinton Portis, but ultimately you have to pay up and force to keep guys like Portis on the roster even when they are shot.

[ouvan59]

.

In recent threads, I’ve read several posters say that they want a team that goes all out to win every game, every season. They describe themselves as “competitors.” That might be true, but they are not very smart competitors.

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

Let’s pretend we have a Decision Percentage Calculator (DPC). It shows that our decision has a 75% chance of success. That means that, if we made this same decision a thousand times, it would help us achieve our objective three out of every four times.

If we make that decision and it fails, that doesn’t mean that it was the wrong decision. We still made the right decision if we had the percentages on our side.

Good decisions are goal-oriented. If an NFL team’s goal is to build the most talented roster in the NFL, our DPC should show that their roster moves increase the percentage of success in reaching that goal.

If the team’s goal is to win in the upcoming season, then our DPC should show that their win-now roster moves increase the percentage of success in reaching that goal.

When a team is very close to reaching its goal of owning the most talented roster in the NFL, the two goals merge. Some win-now moves to fill roster gaps or to add depth can be good decisions when you have a very strong roster. But, before reaching that point, moves in both directions will be in conflict.

In 2010, we debated in this forum about Mike Shanahan’s goal with the roster. Was he rebuilding or trying to win now? The mere fact that it was debatable is evidence that it wasn’t clearly going in either direction. This offseason, we are clearly headed toward a rebuild, but it’s still not a full commitment.

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.

I've spent a lot of time arguing the basics of younger versus older and whether it's that simple or not. But after rereading the original post I have to laugh. This whole point is based on a made up percentage and a made up concept that this is quantifiable. So when playing the percentages it's apparently best to make up a percentage that is favorable to your argument.

[MassSkinsFan]

McD5 Bonus Post: "Strawman" is now officially the most annoying word on ES.

I propose we immortalize OF and his threads by having the profanity filter extended to include "strawman" with one difference: instead of substituting asterisks for each letter, strawman is changed to Oldfan.:evilg:

[Oldfan]

I've spent a lot of time arguing the basics of younger versus older and whether it's that simple or not. But after rereading the original post I have to laugh. This whole point is based on a made up percentage and a made up concept that this is quantifiable. So when playing the percentages it's apparently best to make up a percentage that is favorable to your argument.

I think it would be more truthful to admit that you didn’t understand the argument and challenge me to come up with a better explanation. It could very well be my fault.

To any reader who does understand the argument, your remarks are obviously bogus.

---------- Post added August-5th-2011 at 03:01 PM ----------

I propose we immortalize OF and his threads by having the profanity filter extended to include "strawman" with one difference: instead of substituting asterisks for each letter, strawman is changed to Oldfan.:evilg:

I know your post is humor, but you are unwittingly aiding the enemy.

By pointing out the frequency of strawman arguments, I’ve made more members aware of the sleazy tactic; many have probably looked up the term because I use it so often;

By making more members aware of the tactic, I see the argumentative asshats getting effectively countered more often; so their tactic is less effective. That’s why the most frequent creators of strawman arguments are ridiculing my use of the term.

Since you aren’t one of the argumentative posters, you shouldn’t be helping them.

[s0crates]

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?

It was not an attack. I was just pointing out that the team is much younger, which I think is relevant to your topic.

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.

I would agree that the team's interest is greater than the interests of individual players. My point was that keeping guys like Moss and Fletch is in the best interest of the team. This seems to be where we disagree. Would you really not have re-signed Santana Moss? Would you really cut London Fletcher? If so, I think you are taking your advocacy for getting younger too far.

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.

Maybe calling you an "alarmist" was out of line. I just find it ironic that you are griping about the few older players we have on board, even though we have seen a major youth movement this year.

[Oldfan]

sOcrates ~ Maybe calling you an "alarmist" was out of line. I just find it ironic that you are griping about the few older players we have on board, even though we have seen a major youth movement this year.

Two points on my timing:

= Most of our members whine whenever I criticize Bruce and Mike. So, there is never a right time to please them;

= My topic made for an interesting thread topic now because it concerns a situation which is happening now. So, it was either write it now or forget about it.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Two points on my timing:

= Most of our members whine whenever I criticize Bruce and Mike. So, there is never a right time to please them;

= My topic made for an interesting thread topic now because it concerns a situation which is happening now. So, it was either write it now or forget about it.

Not every thought needs to be a thread.

[s0crates]

Two points on my timing:

= Most of our members whine whenever I criticize Bruce and Mike. So, there is never a right time to please them;

You are right, inasmuch as there are a lot of homers on these boards. You will encounter resistance from the homers whenever you post something critical like this. I would add that there are also a lot of cynics, probably the product of rooting for mismanaged and mediocre teams for so long.

Perhaps I am overconfident in Shanny, I certainly have a tendency to be a homer, but I also think I am a fairly knowledgeable fan, and I think Shanny and Bruce are doing a good job with the roster.

= My topic made for an interesting thread topic now because it concerns a situation which is happening now. So, it was either write it now or forget about it.

It is an interesting and relevant topic for sure. I just find your critique of the new regime a bit severe considering this off-season in its entirety.

As an aside, I am starting to appreciate the thought you put in to your posts, and the fact that you take the time to respond to everybody. Even the fact that you are so argumentative makes for good fun. I know when you start or participate in a thread, there will be some lively debate. Keep 'em coming you old hard-head. :pfft:

[Oldfan]

sOcrates ~ Perhaps I am overconfident in Shanny, I certainly have a tendency to be a homer, but I also think I am a fairly knowledgeable fan, and I think Shanny and Bruce are doing a good job with the roster.

Since neither had a rebuild on the extensive resumes, I did not think that Bruce and Mike were willing to undertake one. So, I’m surprised and delighted to admit I was wrong about that.

In the subject of Roster Building, I gave them a D for 2010 and I have them at a B so far this season. So, read this thread as me saying what I think they need to do to get an A and not as a failure to recognize their progress.

[Burgold]

Monk and Green were young veterans when the Skins were winning big. You have just made an argument against your position: The right young vets are often better role models than the older guys.

.

In 91 Monk was a young vet? Green was? Really???

[Oldfan]

In 91 Monk was a young vet? Green was? Really???

So, do you think that Monk and Green only began to be role models in 1991?

Or did you miss the point that young vets can be role models?

Or did you miss the point that I have not argued that older vets should be cut from championship caliber rosters?

[Burgold]

Were they young players in 89, 90, or 91? By your logic, you'd have cut them or traded them before thirty. What I'm saying is that these guys helped create that winning culture and it is certainly easier for a guy who's been there to capture a player's attention in a way that a coach never can.

You're so desperate to win your point that you miss the obvious. I actually agree with parts of what you are saying, but your theory is way overgeneralized. Every group needs to have a healthy mix and that includes the guys who can model on the field, the guys who can model off the field, and the guys who have been through the pain and exhaustion of many long seasons. Now, you don't want a team with only graybeards, but you don't want a team with only pups either. Otherwise, you have the blind leading the blind. There's a ton of value that comes from doing versus theory. A coach can express the theory, show the theory, but the player needs more than a proffessor to truly learn his craft.

Edit" And you need older vets on every roster, not just championship ones. The younger rosters are actually even in greater need of the calming influence of someone whose been through the fire.

[Oldfan]

Burgold ~ Were they young players in 89, 90, or 91? By your logic, you'd have cut them or traded them before thirty.

You missed the point that my tactic to cut the older vets applies to a roster that is rebuilding.

Edit" And you need older vets on every roster, not just championship ones. The younger rosters are actually even in greater need of the calming influence of someone whose been through the fire.

Point made and countered several times.

[Burgold]

Point made and countered several times.

Incorrectly.

[Hitman21ST]

OF, you like to say that it's not the player's job to coach up the young guys, but the coach's. Coaches generally give the meat and potatoes: plays, assignments, pursuit angles, etc. However, they can't give everything. The older vets on the team can provide that final touch that turns good young players into great.

Things like positioning before a play, or small things that can only be learned on the field. The older vets know what to look for, moreso than the coaches - on the field anyway. This stuff is learned two ways: through experience or through someone with experience telling them.

Think of it this way: you're learning how to cook, so you take cooking lessons and get a cookbook. You can follow the recipe to a T and the food will more often than not turn out ok. However, if you ask someone who has prepared what you're making before, they can give you little tricks or hints that would turn that ok meal into a meal that is perfect. Eventually you would probably learn those little tricks on your own, but you can learn them a lot faster if you have someone helping you out that's done it before.

The coaches are the lessons and cookbooks. The vets are the people who have made that meal before you.

[Oldfan]

Hitman ~ Things like positioning before a play, or small things that can only be learned on the field.

When coaches install a scheme, they teach positioning; they go over it in the classroom; they go over it in practice; and any player with a year or more experience in the scheme can help the rookie next to him. It doesn't have to come from an older vet.

You and the 26 other posters who made this mentoring point are overplaying it because it's all you have.

The same point is overplayed on every debate about bringing in an old vet or letting one go. Every old vet is presumed to be a mentor to somebody. To those who argued in favor of the move, McNabb wasn't just a win-now move for us, he was going to be a leader in the clubhouse to help change the culture and be a mentor for our future young QB.

[Annonymous Source]

Oldfan I know earlier in this thread I had a pretty sarcastic post that might have thrown you off, but I just dont understand how you come up with the age 30 as being such a big deal. In this thread you have said that most players prime years are 25-28. Most players hit free agency at 27, which would stand to reason that if they aren't a star then there would be no reason to resign them. It seems to me that 27 is a much more logical age to select than 30 for when a decision must be reached about a player, and I was wondering if you could explain your logic on that score.

[skinfan2k]

Oldfan I know earlier in this thread I had a pretty sarcastic post that might have thrown you off, but I just dont understand how you come up with the age 30 as being such a big deal. In this thread you have said that most players prime years are 25-28. Most players hit free agency at 27, which would stand to reason that if they aren't a star then there would be no reason to resign them. It seems to me that 27 is a much more logical age to select than 30 for when a decision must be reached about a player, and I was wondering if you could explain your logic on that score.

25 is just too earlier. there is an occasional star but most guys hit it big once their first contract ends

[Oldfan]

Oldfan I know earlier in this thread I had a pretty sarcastic post that might have thrown you off, but I just dont understand how you come up with the age 30 as being such a big deal. In this thread you have said that most players prime years are 25-28. Most players hit free agency at 27, which would stand to reason that if they aren't a star then there would be no reason to resign them. It seems to me that 27 is a much more logical age to select than 30 for when a decision must be reached about a player, and I was wondering if you could explain your logic on that score.

I think you might be confusing two objectives. Our objective here is to define the age when a player will likely no longer be of much value to a team that currently needs to be rebuilt in order to be compete regularly for the playoffs. We are not trying to define the age when the average NFL team might have to make a decision on whether to keep a player under contract.

Let’s focus on the WR position and set our realistic goal for being competitive in our division at the year 2013. We have 11 WRs currently 27 and younger competing. Those who win roster slots will likely still be productive in 2013.

The three older WRs, Moss, Gaffney, Stallworth, are not likely to be of much help to us in 2013. Meanwhile, their presence on the roster hinders the process of finding and developing young talent at that position

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I think you might be confusing two objectives. Our objective here is to define the age when a player will likely no longer be of much value to a team that currently needs to be rebuilt in order to be compete regularly for the playoffs. We are not trying to define the age when the average NFL team might have to make a decision on whether to keep a player under contract.

Let’s focus on the WR position and set our realistic goal for being competitive in our division at the year 2013. We have 11 WRs currently 27 and younger competing. Those who win roster slots will likely still be productive in 2013.

The three older WRs, Moss, Gaffney, Stallworth, are not likely to be of much help to us in 2013. Meanwhile, their presence on the roster hinders the process of finding and developing young talent at that position

Why do you think Moss won't be productive in two years?

TO was still productive last year. Hines Ward was still productive. Randy Moss - well - he should have still been productive. I do think that when Santana stops being productive, it will occur overnight. But he could be the leading receiver on this team in three years.