Playmaker Theory Affirmed Today

[RashanGary]

Cleft Crusty
my hero

Cliff Christl spent a lifetime covering sports; mostly football. He spoke with Al Davis, Ron Wolf, Mike Holmgren, scouts, position coaches and others in the industry. In his last couple years writing at JS, I think he did a great job passing the knowledge he collected onto his readers. Cleft claimed the resounding theme from his sources was that playmakers were the most meaningful aspect of winning in the NFL. Anything else is almost not worth mentioning according to Cleft.




http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e331/e_mailbob/QUALITYVSQUANTITY4.jpg





PLAYMAKER THEORY
APPLIED TODAY


Bubba Franks
Bubba is probably somewhere between a 4/10 and a 5/10 (if you want to go back a couple years and assume he still has some of that left.) Looking at this chart, he falls somewhere in the stumblebum category. In other words, he’s easily replaceable. Taking into age and salary, there is little reason to keep a guy like Bubba Franks.

Corey Williams
C-dub (based on a poll conducted a while back) is considered a 7/10, maybe 8/10 player here. Looking at this chart, he starts to fall under the rare category. With that in mind, he has real value. His pass rushing impact that would be hard to duplicate. In the 4th quarter of the playoffs, when other teams are warn down, our defense should still be rested and impactfull at one of the most important positions on the field. Anylized through the prism of winning, that is hard to replace. Also, when a DT or two inevitably goes down with injury, counting on Muir and Bolston would likely net losses.

KGB
Kabeer is making a high salary, but he still brings heat on the QB. He’s a little older than Williams and makes a little more money (which makes the KGB decision a little tougher). Still, players who pressure the QB are rare so finding a player to replace KGB this year will be either VERY expensive and painful long term or nearly impossible through the draft or fringe markets. The way I read the playmaker concept, KGB's a tough to replace impact player so he justifies a large paycheck, although it would be nice if it were a little smaller.




Summary

Christl’s playmaker theory is as relevant now as it ever was before. Now it’s relevant in a different sense because you not only have to find many of them, but find ways to afford many of them.

I’ve been a big Ted Thompson supporter over the last couple years largely because I think his decisions reflect an awareness that playmakers are rare (evident by taking best player available in the draft). He also seems to have an awareness that he has to afford more of them (evident by not overpsending in UFA while taking advantage of discounts by signing guys early and restricted status and tags to lower competition). He has a tendancy to assume that serviceable stumblebums are a dime a dozen. That might seem like a detriment from time to time because we don't always have someone better, but when it comes time to afford impact, I believe people will see the method to his madness.

[RashanGary]

Shortened so people will read

Bump

[Farley Face]

Shortened so people will read

Bump

Preface: I've read many of your posts on this board and in general value your perspective.

That said, I do not understand what the point of this thread is. You seem to be valuing players on a spectrum of relative worth based on specific criteria (which I can buy into), while the Cliff perspective you reference was one of the NFL consisting of only a handful of impact players that swung the scales.

Again, respecting your opinion, could you explain what I am missing?

[RashanGary]

The point I was trying to make was that as you move up the spectrum of poor and average to good, the players become much more rare.


From there I made a couple deductions.

1. It's easy to replace average players. William Henderson and Bubba Franks are examples of guys fans value but are probably useless in the sense that you can replace them very easily. If you save money by cutting average higher priced players you can afford more of the rarer players on the quality end of the spectrum.


2. The better the player, the more rare the player and I think the drop from average to impact is very sharp.


Moving up the spectrum, I think Cliff over exaggerated number of impact players. He claims there are 20 or so great players and the other 1,600 don't matter. I don't believe that, but his playmaker theory is a big part of my opinions on football. I believe the difference between stud and dud is more gradual than cliff, but still steep in the sense that once you get in the realm of average (or slightly above) you become very replacable.

[RashanGary]

A big disagreement I have with Cliff is the value of Brett Favre. He continues to claim he's the only reason the Packers are relevant and as soon as he retires the Packers will drop off the face of the earth because he's their only real playmaker.

I disagree with that. I think the Packers have many 2nd tier playmakers and very few weak links. I think with Ted Thompson drafting players the way he has that we'll have our share of playmakers developed and up and coming by the time Favre hangs them up. I think the Packers might take a slight dip, but I dont' think it will be the dramatic drop from playoffs to cellar like Cliff claims. I have confidence that Thompson will find a good, servicable QB and we will rely on the other strengths of the team, not just the QB.

[cpk1994]

A big disagreement I have with Cliff is the value of Brett Favre. He continues to claim he's the only reason the Packers are relevant and as soon as he retires the Packers will drop off the face of the earth because he's their only real playmaker.

I disagree with that. I think the Packers have many 2nd tier playmakers and very few weak links. I think with Ted Thompson drafting players the way he has that we'll have our share of playmakers developed and up and coming by the time Favre hangs them up. I think the Packers might take a slight dip, but I dont' think it will be the dramatic drop from playoffs to cellar like Cliff claims. I have confidence that Thompson will find a good, servicable QB and we will rely on the other strengths of the team, not just the QB.To be fair to Cliff, this past year while seeing what TT has done, he has backed off a bit on that stance.

[The Leaper]

Considering a 7/10 player, and even an 8/10 player, to be "rare" is a stretch IMO.

A 10/10 player is rare...a 9/10 player is a blue chip, also relatively rare...and that is where your bold line should come in. I think the league is full of 6s, 7s, and 8s who sometimes are inconsistent in their play due to injury or team status...so they might look like a 5 or 6 one year and a 7 or 8 the next. I think the 5s and below are the weak links...provided they are STARTERS.

Where Franks falls short in your analysis is that he was NOT a starter. He was second string. In that role, a 4 or a 5 isn't a hindrance to your team. Of course, Bubba had no upside either...where a younger 4 or 5 might have potential to become a 6 or 7 someday.

Is Franks replaceable? Sure. However, by cutting him now, I think TT is putting pressure on himself to shore up some of the weaker spots on the team...TE included.

[RashanGary]

To be fair to Cliff, this past year while seeing what TT has done, he has backed off a bit on that stance.

He recently said it again. After the Packers lost in the SB, Cliff went on a little Ron Wolf inspired ramble about how great Favre is and how much Wolf means to this team.

No, that's not what he meant, but that's what Wolf means when he talks to Cliff about this topic. Wolf wants to believe that he found the savior. That he did something special and not replicable. Cliff went on about how he talked to Wolf and how this whole thing was going to come crashing down when Favre retires. Wolf's been saying it for years and the media has been repeating it and believing it.

I don't buy it just yet, but I am excited to see how the team fares without Favre. If they drop off, I'll move on from thinking Wolf is skewed by his ego and just honest as he sees it.

[StPaulPackFan]

Considering a 7/10 player, and even an 8/10 player, to be "rare" is a stretch IMO.

I agree. Especially in the case of CW. Personally, I don't think he is anywhere near a "rare" player. Considering how he played down the stretch he's an average every down player. He's slightly above average as a rotational player. But certainly not "rare".

[RashanGary]

I think specialty players bring impact if used right. They might not be worthy of a 9 or 10 because they don't play every down, but if they can pressure the QB or stuff the run, I move them up into an important realm. I don't think it's very easy to find pass rushers or fat guys who can move so havign one is valuable even if you have to use him in more of a specialty situaiton.

[RashanGary]

EDIT:

edited original post because I'm convinced my first list was too inclusive of rare players.

[fan4life]

A big disagreement I have with Cliff is the value of Brett Favre. He continues to claim he's the only reason the Packers are relevant and as soon as he retires the Packers will drop off the face of the earth because he's their only real playmaker.

I disagree with that. I think the Packers have many 2nd tier playmakers and very few weak links. I think with Ted Thompson drafting players the way he has that we'll have our share of playmakers developed and up and coming by the time Favre hangs them up. I think the Packers might take a slight dip, but I dont' think it will be the dramatic drop from playoffs to cellar like Cliff claims. I have confidence that Thompson will find a good, servicable QB and we will rely on the other strengths of the team, not just the QB.
I think Christl is dead on wrt the impact Favre has had, and continues to have on the organization.

Favre has now worked in 3 different offenses (Holmgren, Sherman, MM) and after an initial learning year, has vaulted each offense to the top of the league wrt to total yds/ypg, scoring and other metrics, including 3rd down %, red zone effectiveness and production vs pressure pkgs. More importantly, many, many big plays over the years have come from Favre's ability to "make something out of nothing" ie, using his big arm to make great plays; his pocket awareness helping him keep plays alive; and now, under MM, his ability to change plays to take advantage of mismatches he identifies from pre-snap reads. That, I believe, is the definition of a playmaker.

We do not know, yet, whether Aaron Rodgers can reach that level. So far, he hasn't; what he has shown is the ability to operate the offense efficiently. But I don't think Cliffy's remarks should be taken as a condemnation that Rodgers can't be a playmaker. Rather, they are his attempt to warn fans that Favre is far different from the hundreds of "efficient" QBs who have come and gone in the league, and that history tells us that not many teams have been successful at replacing playmakers, especially QBs.

One way or the other, we'll know if Rodgers can be the playmaker Favre has been over the years sooner rather than later, won't we?

Corey Williams isn't a playmaker in the mold of Reggie White, Michael Strahan, Usi Umenyiora or Shawne Merriman. He has proven that he can be an important piece of a good defense. But until he starts dominating games, I don't consider him the kind of playmaker Cliff was saying a team can build around, IMHO.

[The Leaper]

I think Christl is dead on wrt the impact Favre has had, and continues to have on the organization.

Yeah, but what does that tell us? Favre is genuinely one of the top ten QBs of all-time...and arguably one of the top five. Of course having a guy like that at the most important position on the field is going to do wonders for your organization. A five year old could tell me that.

Favre is not just a playmaker...he's a legend. He goes well beyond what Cliffy is driving at, and I'm not sure Cliffy did a good job separating Favre in that regard. He tends to lift up Favre as the example of what a team needs...well, DUH!

The reality is that you don't need a guy quite as good as Favre to be successful in the short term...but you need a legend like Favre for the sustained success long term that Green Bay has enjoyed.

[cpk1994]

To be fair to Cliff, this past year while seeing what TT has done, he has backed off a bit on that stance.

He recently said it again. After the Packers lost in the SB, Cliff went on a little Ron Wolf inspired ramble about how great Favre is and how much Wolf means to this team.

No, that's not what he meant, but that's what Wolf means when he talks to Cliff about this topic. Wolf wants to believe that he found the savior. That he did something special and not replicable. Cliff went on about how he talked to Wolf and how this whole thing was going to come crashing down when Favre retires. Wolf's been saying it for years and the media has been repeating it and believing it.

I don't buy it just yet, but I am excited to see how the team fares without Favre. If they drop off, I'll move on from thinking Wolf is skewed by his ego and just honest as he sees it.I was just going by his chats that he did this year, and while he hasn't totally gone away from what he said, based on TT's work, he did soften.

[woodbuck27]

:D