Playing the Percentages in the NFL

[daveakl]

Let's say that 640 UDFA's are invited to camp in a year (20 per team avg) and we know that 41 on average each year over the last five years are on the opening day roster of an NFL team. That means that an UDFA has a 6.4% change of making it onto a NFL opening day roster.

Would bringing in 8 players that have a 6.4% chance each of even making the roster be worth cutting all the players over 30? The % of an UDFA even being on the roster, yet alone playing at a high enough level to overtake the players we have over 30 on the depth chart in three years shows that we should identify those players that are in their 30's (or going to be in their 30's when we are successful) and hold onto them while cutting those that would not be around when we are ready to compete.

I have eliminated the punter and kicker players over 30 since there are a finite amount of roster spots you can have in camp and dedicating more then 2 to a punter and more then 2 to a kicker to find one that would be serviceable during the season would inhibit the ability to find a UDFA player to replace those that are over 30 that you have not brought into camp.

[Oldfan]

moss and atogwe, even fletcher are young enough to be valuable to this team by the time it is good. If we draft a good QB that could be as soon as 2 years from now. Theres nothing wrong with keeping older players as long as they will be capable of playing well when the time comes. Also, given salary cap space and the fact that we at least want a semi-competitive team this year, the downside of signing those players is pretty small. There isnt exactly a wealth of young talent to choose from after the draft. Don't tell me that we should have let Moss walk in order to make roster space for an UDFA.

One in every eight NFL starters came into the league as a UDFA, so the more you audition, the more likely it is that you’ll find a good one. However, letting Moss go would not only make room on the current roster for a UDFA. It would also give more practice snaps and more game snaps to the 11 young players trying to make the 53-man roster. The goal this year should be to rebuild the WR position. Moss, Gaffney and Stallworth hinder our chances of doing that.

You want to project that we could have a good team in two years, but you don’t want to sacrifice the chance of winning another meaningless game or two now to give us a better chance to reach that goal.

[Skinsinparadise]

One in every eight NFL starters came into the league as a UDFA, so the more you audition, the more likely it is that you’ll find a good one. However, letting Moss go would not only make room on the current roster for a UDFA. It would also give more practice snaps and more game snaps to the 11 young players trying to make the 53-man roster. The goal this year should be to rebuild the WR position. Moss, Gaffney and Stallworth hinder our chances of doing that.

You want to project that we could have a good team in two years, but you don’t want to sacrifice the chance of winning another meaningless game or two now to give us a better chance to reach that goal.

Business wise, though, I wonder if many or for that matter any NFL owner has the patience for a team to completely bottom out insofar as being noncompetitive and at the bottom of the NFL for a season or two? You also have a reactive fan base/media. I can live with the team going 1-15 if its building for the future but I bet half the board would be crying Armageddon. I think its really more on the owner than the coach to go full bore in this direction, he's technically the boss, he IMO would have to be OK with it because the downside of having a disaster season or two potentially falls on the business aspect of the team. A guy for example like George Steinbrenner by most indications couldn't stomach a rebuild. Danny seems impatient too, he IMO would need to back off for the team to go absolutely full bore rebuild.

I don't give Shanny a hard time because I can't really hold him to a different standard than the rest of the NFL. It would seem an unfair way to judge because by those rules EVERY coach is screwing up. But thinking about what you want i can't see how a coach could do it without the owner being on board.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

There is a business side to this too.

It's good to fill out the bottom of your roster with UDFAs because they are cheaper than vets. Even vet special team guys cost a decent amount simply because they are vets. Someone doing the job nearly as well at the rookie minimum salary is more valuable.

The other problem is that you don't want your roster to be overloaded wth under 25s. Why? Because they are all going to come due for their second contract at the same time. In any given year, I don't think any team wants to need to sign more than one or two of their own "stars."

[Oldfan]

daveakl ~ Would bringing in 8 players that have a 6.4% chance each of even making the roster be worth cutting all the players over 30?

The answer to your question is “Obviously, not.” But, you aren’t asking a relevant question.

1) We have 11 30+ players currently on the roster, so, without them, we would have room for 11 more UDFAs

2) We have a below average NFL roster which would mean that a UDFA has an above average chance of making our roster and improving our team

3) The 30+ players aren’t just hindering our chances of finding a good UDFA player, they are taking game snaps and practice snaps away from our drafted rookies and any young player at their position who was on the roster last season

4) If those 11 30+ players help us win another game or two this season, the final effect would be lower draft pick.

---------- Post added August-7th-2011 at 04:41 PM ----------

Business wise, though, I wonder if many or for that matter any NFL owner has the patience for a team to completely bottom out insofar as being noncompetitive and at the bottom of the NFL for a season or two? You also have a reactive fan base/media. I can live with the team going 1-15 if its building for the future but I bet half the board would be crying Armageddon. I think its really more on the owner than the coach to go full bore in this direction, he's technically the boss, he IMO would have to be OK with it because the downside of having a disaster season or two potentially falls on the business aspect of the team. A guy for example like George Steinbrenner by most indications couldn't stomach a rebuild. Danny seems impatient too, he IMO would need to back off for the team to go absolutely full bore rebuild.

I don't give Shanny a hard time because I can't really hold him to a different standard than the rest of the NFL. It would seem an unfair way to judge because by those rules EVERY coach is screwing up. But thinking about what you want i can't see how a coach could do it without the owner being on board.

Mike’s running the show, but ultimately the buck goes to the top.

If there’s an unwillingness to pay the price for a 100% rebuild, I don’t care who’s to blame for it. It’s the planning, and the execution of it, that interests me.

I’ll say it again. I’m surprised that that we got this far into a rebuild. I didn’t see this coming.

[Skinsinparadise]

I don't care who is to blame for it. It's the planning, and the execution of it, that interests me.

Sure, but thinking about it some, to do this its radical by any team's standards, and unless a coach doesn't care if he gets ridiculed, vilified and or fired (am sure most if not all coaches fall in that category) the owner would have to be on board with it.

I'm surprised that that we got this far into a rebuild. I didn't see this coming.

I am personally not surprised, I recall having exchanges with you about this in other threads earlier this year. These actions match Shanny's actions and rhetoric from the end of the year. For me there were definitely signs that they tried to give it a shot last season and towards the end of the season realized the talent wasn't there and they needed a rebuild, the draft I found was the kicker, if I recall in one of John Keim's articles he referred to a FO guy from another team who said looking at the skins draft that it was clear to him that they decided that they won't contend this year and are setting themselves up for the future.

IMO to look at this roster, who some say is the worst in the league, and not see that you need a rebuild and instead go the veteran route would demand a coach who is either ego driven/delusional, doesn't have high standards i.e., looking for a 9-7 season or something of that ilk as opposed to Superbowl, or is just plain dense -- and i don't think Shanny fits any of these categories.

Based on your other posts, the one critique of shanny that I think is fair is -- is whether he is good at selecting talent. IMO he's a mixed bag in that department. But the one place where I think I may depart with you on Shanny and that's just an impression I get from watching and reading what I can about him, I think he can care less about getting this team to the playoffs. I don't think he's driven by modest goals. Been there done that with the Broncos seven times. He's said before and i believe him that his ultimate goal is to win another Superbowl. Getting this team to the playoffs, a couple of times IMO will do little if anything for his legacy, its a different drill if he wins a Superbowl. I don't think its lost on him the critique that he won a Superbowls a long time ago with Elway but never again.

Reading his book among other things I get the impression he is an ambitious dude. He's not looking for the B but the A. Unlike Gibbs round 2, he doesn't have multiple focuses as far as I can tell -- and it wouldn't surprise me if he wants to do this for more than 5 years. I personally think he has the competence to pull this off. But I think people questioning that about him is totally fair. But I don't get the sense that his standards are in the Vinny Cerrato category where to this day he talks about their 9-7, 10-6 wild card seasons as glory years. He by his own admission said the 8-8 years at the end of his tenure were bad without giving any excuses. 8-8 is a borderline glory year under Danny. My point is if its obvious the team needs to rebuild to ultimately make the Superbowl, that's what i believe Shanny will do. Doesn't guarantee squat but my best guess is if Shanny fails it won't be because his goals were modest.

[Rpredskins]

One in every eight NFL starters came into the league as a UDFA, so the more you audition, the more likely it is that you’ll find a good one. However, letting Moss go would not only make room on the current roster for a UDFA. It would also give more practice snaps and more game snaps to the 11 young players trying to make the 53-man roster. The goal this year should be to rebuild the WR position. Moss, Gaffney and Stallworth hinder our chances of doing that.

You want to project that we could have a good team in two years, but you don’t want to sacrifice the chance of winning another meaningless game or two now to give us a better chance to reach that goal.

No. What im saying is, if you want to talk about odds, lets talk about a proven 1000 yard receiver who will still be productive in a couple years vs. a random UDFA. What are the odds that the new player is going to be better? Very slim. And I'm not against auditioning them, but I am very much against letting Moss walk for this mysterious notion that having him on the team somehow undermines the development of young receivers, especially when said receivers are hypothetical UDFAs.

[daveakl]

The answer to your question is “Obviously, not.” But, you aren’t asking a relevant question.

1) We have 11 30+ players currently on the roster, so, without them, we would have room for 11 more UDFAs

2) We have a below average NFL roster which would mean that a UDFA has an above average chance of making our roster and improving our team

3) The 30+ players aren’t just hindering our chances of finding a good UDFA player, they are taking game snaps and practice snaps away from our drafted rookies and any young player at their position who was on the roster last season

4) If those 11 30+ players help us win another game or two this season, the final effect would be lower draft pick.

I do not understand how you can dismiss the question.

In your original post you said "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." Yet you ignored the part after the question where I said:

"The % of an UDFA even being on the roster, yet alone playing at a high enough level to overtake the players we have over 30 on the depth chart in three years shows that we should identify those players that are in their 30's (or going to be in their 30's when we are successful) and hold onto them while cutting those that would not be around when we are ready to compete."

Your hypothesis that it is always better to make a decision that sides with the % shows that cutting a player simply because he is 30 and replacing him with an UDFA has a lower % of being successful.

You also ignored my point about punters and kickers. If you were to simply bring in punters under 30 you would need at the very min. 3 and that takes a training camp spot away from other positions that you need to scout even harder for since you have cut all players over 30.

Your statement #2 does not make sense to me. On its own you can say we have a below average roster and on its own you can say that a UDFA has a better chance of making ours over another teams, but the simple act of an UDFA making the roster does not mean that they have improved the team. In fact, the % say that they will never be as good as the players you have gotten rid of to audition them.

As to statement #3, I honestly can not debate you on that one. Our positions are opposite, people have addressed the argument that you need coaches on the field and in the huddle aside from those on the sidelines and players over 30 can provide that. There is a reason why coaching staffs across the league feel it is important to bring in veteran leaders to young teams. A lot of it is on the field, but a lot of it is off the field guidance and being a mentor. I understand you do not feel this is important and the coaching staff/front office should handle all of this so there really no point in going forward with this point.

#4) And if those same players are able to help create a culture of winning, accountability, respect, while lowering our draft pick from pick number 13 (6-10 last year) to pick number 16 (8-8 last year) I would argue that the amount of good done would out weigh the loss of two positions.

---------- Post added August-7th-2011 at 11:17 PM ----------

No. What im saying is, if you want to talk about odds, lets talk about a proven 1000 yard receiver who will still be productive in a couple years vs. a random UDFA. What are the odds that the new player is going to be better? Very slim. And I'm not against auditioning them, but I am very much against letting Moss walk for this mysterious notion that having him on the team somehow undermines the development of young receivers, especially when said receivers are hypothetical UDFAs.

This is exactly why I posted the success rate of UDFA's. A UDFA has a 6.4% chance of even making a teams opening day roster, yet alone starting. By cutting Moss in favor of creating 1 spot on training camp and on the season roster you are saying that the production of the players already on the team as well as the UDFA replacing the final spot (assuming that each person that was below Moss on the depth chart moves up 1 spot) will be greater then what Moss could bring to the table in 2 years. The %'s say that is not a wise move.

[Oldfan]

SIP ~ ...if I recall in one of John Keim's articles he referred to a FO guy from another team who said looking at the skins draft that it was clear to him that they decided that they won't contend this year and are setting themselves up for the future.

I didn’t see the draft as a clear signal of anything because 2010 was 50/50 mixed signals from my point of view. So, I expected the draft to be offset by the usual Redskins splash in free agency.

Based on your other posts, the one critique of shanny that I think is fair is -- is whether he is good at selecting talent. IMO he's a mixed bag in that department.

I don’t think Mike’s past tells too us much about what will happen here. He has different people handling the scouting. I think Mike’s a good judge of talent, but he needs to get the right people into the building.

My point is if its obvious the team needs to rebuild to ultimately make the Superbowl, that's what i believe Shanny will do. Doesn't guarantee squat but my best guess is if Shanny fails it won't be because his goals were modest.

I still have lots of doubts about the man. But, I like giving Beck a shot a whole lot more than I liked the trade for McNabb. I like trading back in the draft a whole lot more than trading up. And, I like signing Bowen and Cofield a whole lot more than signing Cullen Jenkins and his type.

[Oldfan]

No. What im saying is, if you want to talk about odds, lets talk about a proven 1000 yard receiver who will still be productive in a couple years vs. a random UDFA. What are the odds that the new player is going to be better? Very slim. And I'm not against auditioning them, but I am very much against letting Moss walk for this mysterious notion that having him on the team somehow undermines the development of young receivers, especially when said receivers are hypothetical UDFAs.

You have just repeated the argument you made in #200. My reply to #200, which you quoted in #207, remains the same. You would like to frame this issue as just a choice between a UDFA and Santana. That’s not going to work.

---------- Post added August-7th-2011 at 11:41 PM ----------

daveakl ~ I do not understand how you can dismiss the question. In your original post you said "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." Yet you ignored the part after the question where I said:

"The % of an UDFA even being on the roster, yet alone playing at a high enough level to overtake the players we have over 30 on the depth chart in three years shows that we should identify those players that are in their 30's (or going to be in their 30's when we are successful) and hold onto them while cutting those that would not be around when we are ready to compete."

I didn’t dismiss or ignore anything. You made a counter-argument. I countered your counter. In fact, you quoted it. Now, if you think you can do it, it’s your turn to counter mine. That’s how we debate.

Your hypothesis that it is always better to make a decision that sides with the % shows that cutting a player simply because he is 30 and replacing him with an UDFA has a lower % of being successful.

What? You haven’t even tried to prove that the UDFA has a lower chance of being successful. That would be impossible to do. You offered only an estimate of the chances of a UDFA making the team. Even if you deny the flaws in your stats, the UDFA factor is only the tip of the iceberg when weighing this decision.

You also ignored my point about punters and kickers. If you were to simply bring in punters under 30 you would need at the very min. 3 and that takes a training camp spot away from other positions that you need to scout even harder for since you have cut all players over 30

You don’t need to bring in 3 punters at the same time unless you have the roster slots open. You can bring them in one at a time.

Your statement #2 does not make sense to me. On its own you can say we have a below average roster and on its own you can say that a UDFA has a better chance of making ours over another teams, but the simple act of an UDFA making the roster does not mean that they have improved the team. In fact, the % say that they will never be as good as the players you have gotten rid of to audition them.

First, you want to cite a UDFAs chances of making the team. Then, when I counter that, you want to shift to a claim that you know the percentage of their chances of being better than the vets they replace. Now, come on -- how could you possibly know that?

As to statement #3, I honestly can not debate you on that one. Our positions are opposite, people have addressed the argument that you need coaches on the field and in the huddle aside from those on the sidelines and players over 30 can provide that. There is a reason why coaching staffs across the league feel it is important to bring in veteran leaders to young teams. A lot of it is on the field, but a lot of it is off the field guidance and being a mentor. I understand you do not feel this is important and the coaching staff/front office should handle all of this so there really no point in going forward with this point.

#4) And if those same players are able to help create a culture of winning, accountability, respect, while lowering our draft pick from pick number 13 (6-10 last year) to pick number 16 (8-8 last year) I would argue that the amount of good done would out weigh the loss of two positions.

You are overplaying this leader-mentor-culture card like the 28 other posters who came before you in this thread. I’m not going to repeat my counter argument again.

[Gibbstastic]

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post/_/id/29273/camp-confidential-redskins

"The plan, at least the plan in free agency, was to get people who are solid football players but solid people as well, and who are young," Shanahan said. "The second year, you always have a good feel for what type of people fit into your scheme and what type of people you want to have on your football team. If the nucleus of your football team is guys with character who can play, you've got a good chance."

Most of the new additions are in their mid- to late-20s -- players who are already established in the league yet young enough that they can continue to grow as the team does over the next several years. They're men and players, Shanahan says, that he specifically targeted for that reason and for those he listed above. And the feeling around training camp is that this is a group of people looking to build something together.

"Of course, right now we're looking to win, but you want to build something with longevity," said safety O.J. Atogwe, a graybeard among the new additions at the ripe old age of 30. "We want to have something that's sustainable, and I believe that's what Coach Shanahan is doing, getting good character guys in here, younger guys. You're building the nucleus of a team that can be a contender for years and years to come."

Just a quick little thing I ran acoss yesterday that i felt could be included here.

It appears that everyone included feels that they are building the base of a future contender. "Nucleus" was used by Coach and Atogwe, and both stated youth was being brought in as well.

[Oldfan]

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post/_/id/29273/camp-confidential-redskins

Just a quick little thing I ran acoss yesterday that i felt could be included here.

It appears that everyone included feels that they are building the base of a future contender. "Nucleus" was used by Coach and Atogwe, and both stated youth was being brought in as well.

In posting this, did you think the article contradicted my position in some way?

[Hitman21ST]

You believe that? Huh. I never figured you for being gullible.

Let's see, there's no proof that he used HGH. You want to assume that he did, that's all well and good. But this is another example of you attacking people who disagree with you. Your generalization was that since Moss was associated with that doctor, clearly he used HGH. That's a mighty big assumption, especially when there's no evidence other than "he was treated by that doctor." But by making that assumption, you are also assuming that the doctor gave everyone he treated HGH.

If you disagree with that last sentence, then it's just your unsubstantiated opinion that you're trying to pass off as fact that Moss used HGH.

There’s the evidence that the athletic skills of all players his age decline. You have to be downright obstinate to deny that fact.

Ed Reed, Darren Sharper, Ray Lewis, T.O., Randy Moss, Jerry Rice, Champ Bailey, Darrell Green, Keenan McCardell, and Peyton Manning - for beginners - are evidence that players older than Moss still have the same skills at an older age. Who are you to say that Moss' will decline, too, when the evidence suggests that he won't?

A reader might interpret “Moss was never as good as TO” to mean that he was never as good when both were in their prime. That interpretation would give me credit for making an intelligent statement. The other interpretation would be that Moss never had a single year when he was better than TO. That interpretation would have me making a stupid, absolute statement , one easy to attack.

When there are two possible interpretations of a poster’s remarks, one intelligent, the other stupid, most readers will assume the poster meant the former as a common courtesy. Only you argumentative types will assume the latter in order to create the strawman arguments you love so much.

I made no strawman. I took the words you said. If you meant "in their prime" then you should have said it. When you made the universal statement "never" you opened the comparison up to any year.

Of course, if you want to compare their best years in their prime (Moss' first few years with the Skins and T.O.'s with the 49ers) -

Moss: 84 receptions, 1,483 yards, 9 TDs.

Owens: 97 receptions,1,451 yards, 13 TDs.

Those are strikingly similar numbers, and I would argue that Moss was just as good as T.O. in their primes. T.O. never matched the single season yardage total of Moss, but has better TD numbers. Of course, Welker never put up gigantic TD numbers either, and both Welker and T.O. have played with all-time greats opposite them for a significant portion of their careers (T.O. with Rice, and Welker with Randy Moss). Tell me again how Moss was "never as good."

Then there's the durability question: T.O. has played in all 16 games 6 times in his 15 years. Moss has played in all 16 games 5 times in his 10 years. Moss is more durable.

[Rufus T Firefly]

It's not just a roster spot, playing time and pracitce reps. A guy like Moss does two other things- he eats salary cap room that could have been spent on younger players. And "best case" he helps the team win a couple of more games, which on a rebuilding team means nothing but a worse draft position, hurting the rebuild.

People wanting to argue that Moss might still be productive in a couple of years. Yeah, he might. Basic physiology tells us that a 34 year old will almost certainly deteriorate at least a little from age 32. A small guy who relies on quickness and has a history of leg issues would logically be likely to do so even more. But, let's assume that Moss is still cranking along. So, Moss will still be close to his same self in 2013. So what? He costs 5 mil a year. If we let him go, we can't find a WR for 5 mil who is at least as good as a 34 year old Santana Moss? That's almost impossible for me to believe. The reason to re-sign him is for what he will do the next couple of years, not because he might hold on to most of value to help us when we're able to contend, as if no one else possibly could. Further, is this whole investment for him to help us in just one year of contending? Or are we holding on to him so we can pay him big bucks again, and assume that he couldn't possibly decline at 35? Or 36, 37, 38?

As for the whole "mentor" thing, which I find really overblown by fans, break down the WR roster spots. Armstrong ain't a kid and got here thru perserverence and work. He doesn't need a mentor. Now, let's generously assume 6 WRs are kept and only 2 of the 3 vets (Moss, Gafney, Stallworth) are kept. Still, this leaves 2 mentors for 3 mentees. Are people really arguing for that ratio? We need to let youngsters go so the reainder have that level of mentorship? If so, I think we should save money on caoches and just fire the WR coach.

[MartinC]

It's not just a roster spot, playing time and pracitce reps. A guy like Moss does two other things- he eats salary cap room that could have been spent on younger players .

We are right now about $11M under the salary cap. Signing Moss to a very reasonable contract has not stopped us signing any young players now nor has it mortgaged future years cap space with a big pro rated bonus.

[Rufus T Firefly]

We are right now about $11M under the salary cap. Signing Moss to a very reasonable contract has not stopped us signing any young players now nor has it mortgaged future years cap space with a big pro rated bonus.

Cap room is cap room. If you don't spend it on one player, you can spend it on another.

[Gibbstastic]

In posting this, did you think the article contradicted my position in some way?

negative.

technically it could support you position. They mentioned that the moves were to become younger and they still brought in multiple players that could be considered no longer young. Therefore, more along the lines of your 80% statement.

I just felt like it could be included here to show that Coach seems commited and that he has a plan for this team. He's rebuilding the roster (regardless of by what %) to get the guys he feels can help us win. Perhaps he even thinks a complete rebuild was unnecessary and that potential for sucsess is closer than others believe.

[s0crates]

We'll just have to disagree on this.

I think there is a good argument to be made for keeping Moss, but I can certainly see worrying about his age. So I am fine with agreeing to disagree.

K. McCardell had a long career because his game was fundamentally sound: precise routes and sound techniques. Santana's game has been built upon extraordinary athleticism. I would not bet on a long career.

I think you are selling Moss short. For one thing, he did very well last season, in an offense that relies on a lot of precision passing. There is a lot more to Moss's game than just speed at this point.

I would add that he has been pretty durable during his time here. He might tweak his hammy now and then, but only very rarely does he miss games. Durability is a big consideration when predicting a player's future.

Anything is possible; but decisions should be based on Probability.

This business of distinguishing what is possible and what is probable is exceedingly treacherous.

The list of things that are impossible, strictly speaking, is very small. A square circle is impossible, for example. In this sense, "possible" simply means conceivable. Is it possible the Redskins can be good in this sense? Certainly. In this sense of what is possible, it is possible that the Redskins win every game this year.

But perhaps by "possible" you mean something stronger than conceivable, perhaps what you mean is something like "not unlikely," or the vernacular "it could happen." This kind of possible makes the assumption that the past will resemble the future. We might say it is impossible for a pig to fly, since nobody has ever seen a pig fly. We might say it is possible to be a flightless bird, because even though most birds can fly, we have seen birds that cannot fly. Is it possible for the Redskins to succeed before 2013 in this sense? Again, of course it is, we have seen many instances of NFL teams going from 6-10 to 10-6 in a single season, our own Redskins did it in 2004-2005.

Still, we have not approached "probable." What are we to consider probable? With 32 teams in the NFL, I do not think we can safely say any team will probably win the Super Bowl, and only slightly less so can we say a team will probably be in a position to win the Super Bowl. There are just to many variables in the NFL to make good predictions. I trust I need not enumerate all the factors that can effect the outcome of games and seasons.

Is it probable that the Redskins will be good before 2013? It is tough to say with any kind of certainty, but again, I do not think it is safe to simply assume that they will not.

Your analysis is more optimistic than realistic, IMO.

Perhaps so, I will be the first to admit I am a homer.

In any case, I'm not making an assumption.

I think you are. As near as I can tell, this is the argument you have presented:

1) A team should not sign old players if it will be years before it is competitive. (Assumption)

2) The Redskins probably will not be in a position to win big until 2013. (Assumption).

3) Therefore, the Redskins should not sign old players, probably. (Conclusion)

I'm offering 2013 as the earliest I can foresee this team being competitive for the division title, and that only if we were in a full rebuild this season and next.

That's the assumption you make, which I will not concede.

The thing is that nobody can foresee anything in the NFL, not that far into the future. We can make educated predictions of course, but there are just too many variables. Predicting the outcome of a single game is not easy, let alone predicting what things will be like in 2-3 seasons.

What if the Redskins jump out to a 5-0 start this year? This is unlikely, but it is possible. What if we start slowly, but finish the season 8-8 or 9-7? This seems a reasonable enough possibility to me, given the progress Shanny and Allen are making. Anyhow, I would not necessarily say the Redskins being good before 2013 is improbable.

[MartinC]

Cap room is cap room. If you don't spend it on one player, you can spend it on another.

Yes but its only the lack of cap room which stops you spending it - we don't have a lack of cap room which makes your point redundant.

[Oldfan]

.

sOcrates,

You are correct about me making an assumption.

You are also correct that we make judgments of Probability based on similar past events. That’s what I’m doing. But, if I understand you, you think such a judgment can’t be made in this case. That's where we disagree.

We have NFL seasons going back to the 1930s and as many as 32 teams per season as evidence to say whether or not it’s likely, unlikely, or too close to call whether a team in its first year of a rebuild will win in that year or the next.

You made a similar judgment here based on your knowledge of the NFL past:

What if the Redskins jump out to a 5-0 start this year? This is unlikely, but it is possible.

It is unlikely that the Redskins talent evaluators will be great or terrible. They will probably be somewhere in between. Given that, we have seen from the past that it is likely to take two years or more to rebuild a roster because the sources of new players are limited. Only our first round pick is likely to start this season. We hope a couple more starters will develop from our draft, but that is likely to take time. We were able to pick up two players in free agency, Cofield and Bowen, who are likely to make major contributions right away. Meanwhile, we lost a couple of starters from past seasons in Rabach and Rogers.

Rebuilds take time. My 2013 projection assumes that everything goes very well.

[s0crates]

You are also correct that we make judgments of Probability based on similar past events. That’s what I’m doing. But, if I understand you, you think such a judgment can’t be made in this case. That's where we disagree.

It is not that such a judgment cannot be made in this case, it is that such a judgment cannot be assumed accurate. It is a prediction about something known to be unpredictable.

Rebuilds take time.

I agree with this as a general rule, as long as you allow for the possibility of the occasional exception to it. Sometimes a team's fortune turns on a dime.

Here are a few examples:

1999 Rams, Super Bowl champs, 4-12 in 1998

2001 Patriots, Super Bowl champs, 5-11 in 2000

1988 Bengals, AFC champs, 4-11 in 1987

My 2013 projection assumes that everything goes very well.

I still think there is reason to hope we will turn things around before that.

One thing I notice is that you are treating this as year one of a rebuild, which I think a bit unfair to Shanny and company. A lot was accomplished last season:

-We installed a new system on both sides of the ball.

-We improved by two games over the previous season.

-Shanny let it be known he was the boss, and no player was above the team. Culture change.

So I say we call this year two of the rebuild.

Entering the second year, the roster looks much different. A few things stand out:

1) We are much younger.

2) We have players better suited to the systems we are implementing.

3) We have players with the right kind of character, and the malcontents are gone.

I honestly think this team is starting to take shape, and we will see continued improvement. I think we will be good sooner than you do, and perhaps it is my optimism as a fan talking, but there are some reasons for my optimism.

[Oldfan]

Hitman ~ I made no strawman. I took the words you said. If you meant "in their prime" then you should have said it. When you made the universal statement "never" you opened the comparison up to any year.

I’m always very careful when I use the term “strawman argument” because it is a deliberate act as opposed to a simple misunderstanding. However, it’s not hard to tell when it’s a deliberate act. When courteous posters unintentionally misunderstand someone, they accept the writer’s clarification and they apologize. You argumentative types never apologize and never admit you were wrong. That’s how others can tell that you deliberately took the meaning you could easily attack.

We’re done.

---------- Post added August-8th-2011 at 08:00 AM ----------

sOcrates ~ It is not that such a judgment cannot be made in this case, it is that such a judgment cannot be assumed accurate. It is a prediction about something known to be unpredictable.

I’m having trouble figuring out what you mean.

When the weatherman says there’s a 70% chance of rain, that’s a prediction based on his experience with weather patterns.

When I say that it’s unlikely we can go from year one of a rebuild to being competitive sooner than 2013, that’s a prediction that the chances are significantly less than 50% based on my experience as a fan of the NFL game since childhood.

What do you mean by “such a judgment cannot be assumed to be accurate?” As long as you agree that the chances are significantly less than 50% you agree with the accuracy of my prediction.

Why is this about something unpredictable?

If you mean that the outcome is uncertain. Well, yes. almost nothing is certain. If certainty is required, then almost everything is unpredictable.

I still think there is reason to hope we will turn things around before that.

Yes, we can hope; but, our debate here is about reasonable expectations. We have to take off the burgundy glasses to do that.

[s0crates]

I'm having trouble figuring out what you mean.

When the weatherman says there's a 70% chance of rain, that's a prediction based on his experience with weather patterns.

When I say that it's unlikely we can go from year one of a rebuild to being competitive sooner than 2013, that’s a prediction that the chances are significantly less than 50% based on my experience as a fan of the NFL game since childhood.

Why is this about something unpredictable?

What do you mean by "such a judgment cannot be assumed to be accurate?" As long as you agree that the chances are significantly less than 50% you agree with the accuracy of my prediction.

If you mean that the outcome is uncertain. Well, yes. almost nothing is certain. If certainty is required, then almost everything is unpredictable.

What I mean is that the NFL is almost unpredictable. Teams go from "worst to first" almost every season. Preseason projections and predictions by the best analysts are wrong as often as they are right.

Oh, and the weatherman is wrong a lot too. :pfft:

I have in mind something like the old adages about what can happen on any given Sunday, playing to win, etc. Every team is 0-0 at this point, our team has made progress, and we should approach this season with the expectation that we can compete.

I do not mean to say I think we will probably be good this season or next. I mean to say that I would not be so sure we will be bad.

I hope the front office, the coaches, and the players approach every season and every game with the goal of winning. At no time should we be thinking, "Well, we are probably going to suck anyway, so let's just call this season a wash and look to the future."

Yes, we can hope; but, our debate here is about reasonable expectations. We have to take off the burgundy glasses to do that.

Fair enough, but I'm pretty attached to my burgundy and gold glasses. :cool:

[Oldfan]

...Fair enough, but I'm pretty attached to my burgundy and gold glasses. :cool:

Alright, Homer, let me hit you with another idea. What you should be hoping for is that the team is struck with very bad luck this season.

In 2005, the team got lots of breaks and finished 10-6. That convinced Gibbs that he was only a couple of players short of a championship level team. So, he charged into free agency to add the pieces he needed. When bad luck bit him in 2006, the six wins caused him to rethink his policy of trading picks for vets and trading up in the draft. My point is that, like fans, coaches are easily misled by the results of a 16-game season. They think they're a ten-win team if they win ten. They think they are a six-win team if they win six when actually they could be an eight-win team with good luck one year and bad the next.

Ideally, we should hope that the roster improves considerably, but we have bad luck and only win five games this season. Not only will we be selecting higher in the draft, but Shanny won't be tempted to abandon the rebuild too soon.

[Skinsinparadise]

When bad luck bit him in 2006, the six wins caused him to rethink his policy of trading picks for vets and trading up in the draft. My point is that, like fans, coaches are easily misled by the results of a 16-game season.

Gibbs was lacking ammunition to trade at that point. He already squandered a 2nd rounder, 3rd rounder, and 4th rounder in the 2007 draft. I love Gibbs 1 but as for Gibbs 2 -- he may have learned his lesson at the end but I think that's an unknown. If he came back he might have resumed the trading because I recall him saying that after retiring that in his last year he thought the team was going all the way to the superbowl once they got on a roll. Vinny obviously did carry the tradition of trading picks when Gibbs left.