Free Agency: Buyer Beware

[HarveyWallbangers]

Article from Andrew Brandt.

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/2008/11/free-agency-buyer-beware/

[RashanGary]

Another smart, knowledgable person speaking on the subject that had so many (including Brett Favre) up in arms. Anyone with half a brain, there is still time to change sides.

[prsnfoto]

Another smart, knowledgable person speaking on the subject that had so many (including Brett Favre) up in arms. Anyone with half a brain, there is still time to change sides.


Yes Randy Moss turned out to be a horrible pickup last year, Faneca sucks balls , as does Jared Allen and the worst FA signing in recent memory has to be Charles Woodsen that guy is comepletely washed up, Micheal Turner has only what 65 yards rushing this year, even Chad Pennington was a bum with the Dolphins having won 1 game this year. Have I reached your stupidity level yet?

[mission]

Have I reached your stupidity level yet?

You've been there for at least 2 months now...

[HarveyWallbangers]

Another smart, knowledgable person speaking on the subject that had so many (including Brett Favre) up in arms. Anyone with half a brain, there is still time to change sides.

Yes Randy Moss turned out to be a horrible pickup last year, Faneca sucks balls , as does Jared Allen and the worst FA signing in recent memory has to be Charles Woodsen that guy is comepletely washed up, Micheal Turner has only what 65 yards rushing this year, even Chad Pennington was a bum with the Dolphins having won 1 game this year. Have I reached your stupidity level yet?

Jared Allen wasn't a FA pickup. The Vikings traded a lot of picks for him. Some work. Most don't. I think that was the point of the article. Look, I'd love for more Charles Woodson signings, but I'm cool with being cautious when it comes to big name UFAs. It allows us to resign our own guys (Aaron Rodgers, Ryan Grant, Aaron Kampman, Al Harris, Donald Driver, etc.; hopefully, Greg Jennings and Nick Collins soon).

[bobblehead]

Another smart, knowledgable person speaking on the subject that had so many (including Brett Favre) up in arms. Anyone with half a brain, there is still time to change sides.

Yes Randy Moss turned out to be a horrible pickup last year, Faneca sucks balls , as does Jared Allen and the worst FA signing in recent memory has to be Charles Woodsen that guy is comepletely washed up, Micheal Turner has only what 65 yards rushing this year, even Chad Pennington was a bum with the Dolphins having won 1 game this year. Have I reached your stupidity level yet?

Don't forget that moss was a trade as well, and he had to give up his MONSTER contract just to get the pats to take him....have you finished proving your stupidity yet?? So really you have cited faneca and turner...read the orignal article and look at all the huge failure brandt cites. Also, lets see how long faneca stays dominant compared to how long the jets cap gets hit by him before we declare that a raging success.

Lets talk about Ahman Green and Mike Flanigan. Both prizes of FA....one is retired, the other is injured, Edgerin James...beat out. The list can go on and on.

[run pMc]

Good article.
Another side effect of signing upper tier FA's is that everyone else on the team starts thinking they deserve the same money. Good way to ruin team chemistry if not careful.
I liked where the article points out that spending lots of $ in FA is usually a sign that a team isn't drafting very well and is trying to spend its way out of the problem.

I admit to getting a little caught up in the concept of FA -- and then I look at the (mostly underwhelming) list of who's available and I realize that I root for a TT team. It's OK though -- I'd rather TT extend Jennings than sign some guy like Ernest Wilford. (Or Marc Boerigter.) Besides, the draft is more intruiging to me than FA.

Chillar's working out OK. Woodson & Pickett are as well. Joe Johnson, Adrian Klemm and Marquand Manuel did not. It's a gamble.

[Lurker64]

I think the important point the article makes is that free agency is a gamble you take to fill holes in the roster when other means of filling the roster (i.e. the draft) have failed you).

If we look at a couple of very successful free agent signings (by this team) in recent memory we notice:

The Ryan Picket signing was necessary because by 2006 Michael Montgomery, Donnell Washington, Corey Williams, and James Lee had not yet become reliable run-stopping DTs for the Packers and the Packers did not draft another DT in 2001 and 2002.

The Charles Woodson signing was necessitated because by 2006 Mike Hawkings, Kurt Campbell, Ahmad Carrol, Joey Thomas, and Chris Johnson (and to a lesser extent Antuan Edwards, Fred Vinson, and Mike McKenzie) had not developed into dependable, reliable cornerbacks for the Green Bay Packers.

In both of these cases, these signings were motivated largely by failures in the draft. Thankfully, they worked out, but it does illustrate the point that free agent signings are made necessary by poor drafting. This is also why trades and free agency are self-compounding problems, since a signing that doesn't help you will make it harder for you to help the team down the line.

I don't believe Brandt is saying "FA is stupid, stay away from it" but I think he's saying "It's a gamble, spending 'mad money' in FA is frequently stupid, it doesn't always help you, and it's mostly needed to fill holes that have arisen due to failures in other spots."

[Partial]

Another smart, knowledgable person speaking on the subject that had so many (including Brett Favre) up in arms. Anyone with half a brain, there is still time to change sides.

Tell that to the Patriots who rode smart free agency decisions to becoming a dynasty... Even last year they retooled through free agency and trading (essentially same thing) to build one of the greatest teams ever.

Surely, NE will do the same this off-season once again and be poised to make another run with a healthy Brady.

[RashanGary]

Further proof you do no know what you are talking about.

[RashanGary]

I don't believe Brandt is saying "FA is stupid, stay away from it" but I think he's saying "It's a gamble, spending 'mad money' in FA is frequently stupid, it doesn't always help you, and it's mostly needed to fill holes that have arisen due to failures in other spots."

Further proof that you have above 5th grade reading skills and are probably not a complete idiot. This is not to say you're a genius, although it doesn't disclude you from that either. Clearly though, you are not as dumb as many here.

[retailguy]

I don't believe Brandt is saying "FA is stupid, stay away from it" but I think he's saying "It's a gamble, spending 'mad money' in FA is frequently stupid, it doesn't always help you, and it's mostly needed to fill holes that have arisen due to failures in other spots."

Further proof that you have above 5th grade reading skills and are probably not a complete idiot. This is not to say you're a genius, although it doesn't disclude you from that either. Clearly though, you are not as dumb as many here.

Did somebody piss in your wheaties again? :shock:

I guess I missed the part where they had to agree with you?

[Noodle]

You could probably write a similar article about how stupid it is to have picks 1 through 3 in the draft -- the kids will cost you tons of doe re me and my lord look at all the washouts.

Do you think these FAs caused or are causing a lot of heartbreak for their teams: Rich Gannon with the Raiders, Priest Holmes with the Chiefs, Curtis Martin with the Jets, James Farrior with the Steelers, Jake Delhomme with the Panthers, John Lynch with the Broncos, Plaxico Burress with the Giants, Drew Brees with the Saints, Leonard Davis with the Cowboys, Mike Vrabel to the pats, Antonio Pierce to the Giants, TO to the Boys, Jamal Lewis to the Browns, and (gulp) Longwell to the Vikes?

And of course, the Minister of Defense to the Pack (as well as Woodson and Pickett).

Brandt has a point, of course, but to say that it's never a good idea to go to FA is like fighting with one hand. You do it to fill a need. You take a risk. But no risk, no reward.

I also wouldn't say that poor drafting creates the need -- circumstances do. I think TT is a good draft guy, obviously, but some things don't work out (like most of his OL picks to date). So if something doesn't work out, why not use FA to fix it?

[RashanGary]

Clearly thier is a time and place for free agency. Woodson is one of the best of the last 5 years and that is just on our team. However, the artical talked about how UFA hurts more than it helps so if you want to win, draft well because you won't be forced to slit your throat in UFA.

Bottom line, I believe TT is going to have this team contending for many, many years, probably win one or two big ones and have all of you doubters eating your idiotic words.

[Freak Out]

Clearly thier is a time and place for free agency. Woodson is one of the best of the last 5 years and that is just on our team. However, the artical talked about how UFA hurts more than it helps so if you want to win, draft well because you won't be forced to slit your throat in UFA.

Bottom line, I believe TT is going to have this team contending for many, many years, probably win one or two big ones and have all of you doubters eating your idiotic words.

Justin Harrell...fighting for truth, justice and the Packer way.

[RashanGary]

I fought through 4-12, keeping an eye on the big picture and vision when doubters wanted to write the Thompson lead Packers off. I argued that things were still swinging up after the 8-8 season. Just last week I fought the sarcastic one liners claiming the Packers were all done and now I fight those who say Thompson will always be 8-8 or 9-7.


The one piece of the puzzle that I think the doubters are missing is just how low of a starting point Thompson had. Sherman had driven this team into the ground. He made one false patch after another and eventually it all crumbled. From there, Thompson has instilled a focus on taking advantage of the draft, bringing in many lower tier guys to let teh cream rise to the top and sparsely but effectively using UFA (like discussed in this article). His motto has been to avoid desperation adn continue to put one foot in front of the other. I believe depseration is what makes smart people make bad decisions so by simply avoiding that, I think he can be really good. He's not just even keeled and methodical in his approach to winning though. He's also a football guy who's been around some of the leagues best. He's a guy who's played and scouted his way to the top. He's not a "kiss the big guys" ass, raw raw, wanna be leader type that can talk his way to the top. He's the "self made" type that had to produce his way to the top. I think Ted Thompson is doing a great job and I think it will be proven out over time.

[Lurker64]

You could probably write a similar article about how stupid it is to have picks 1 through 3 in the draft -- the kids will cost you tons of doe re me and my lord look at all the washouts.

I've actually read a number of articles about that already. Mostly about how top five picks are horrible to have and teams would almost always love to trade out of that position, and how the maximum value (in terms of production vs. investment) in the NFL draft falls in rounds 2 and 3.

This is partly why people seem so keen to create a rookie salary structure, to combat the ridiculousness and actually not hamstring bad teams with huge contracts. I mean, Jamarcus Russell is the fourth highest paid player in the NFL right now. Are there four teams in the league who would rather have Jamarcus Russell than their current QB?

[pbmax]

Tell that to the Patriots who rode smart free agency decisions to becoming a dynasty... Even last year they retooled through free agency and trading (essentially same thing) to build one of the greatest teams ever.

Surely, NE will do the same this off-season once again and be poised to make another run with a healthy Brady.
Until Welker and Stallworth, the Patriots had steered clear of the wild money weeks in Free Agency. The bulk of their FA's that were supposedly the new model of a smart franchise (that led to the first Super Bowl win) were mid level guys or older vets who took less money. Just like trading down, its gives you more chances to hit on a few good pick ups. Not every single one of their signings worked that year, though it seemed most did.

But even on Welker and Stallworth, they risked very little money long term. Welker was a mid level guy that everyone thought got overpaid. Stallworth was supposed to be the top WR in his class and got bupkus in the way of big offers. And a trade is not like top shelf FA, especially since it was a 4th rounder and Moss took a below market contract to get a chance to sign a totally new deal after one year. Moss' trade was less like FA and more like renting Sabathia for the balance of the year.

[BobDobbs]

[quote=Noodle]

This is partly why people seem so keen to create a rookie salary structure, to combat the ridiculousness and actually not hamstring bad teams with huge contracts. I mean, Jamarcus Russell is the fourth highest paid player in the NFL right now. Are there four teams in the league who would rather have Jamarcus Russell than their current QB?

I hear you on the rookie salary cap. But there's a reason that teams don't trade out of those upper spots very often unless they receive major compensation. The same draft that Russell was drafted at the top pick the vikes took AP with the seventh pick and how many teams are there that would rather have him than their current running back. Probably around 31?

As far as Brandt's article he was pretty middle of the road. He pointed out that fans get way too excited about Free Agency. TT has been building for the long term and by not signing a ton of free agents we can now shell out a lot of cash next year to keep some of these guys on our team that will become free agents. I'd like to see Jennings, Collins, and T Will around for a lot more years.

[Partial]

Tell that to the Patriots who rode smart free agency decisions to becoming a dynasty... Even last year they retooled through free agency and trading (essentially same thing) to build one of the greatest teams ever.

Surely, NE will do the same this off-season once again and be poised to make another run with a healthy Brady.
Until Welker and Stallworth, the Patriots had steered clear of the wild money weeks in Free Agency. The bulk of their FA's that were supposedly the new model of a smart franchise (that led to the first Super Bowl win) were mid level guys or older vets who took less money. Just like trading down, its gives you more chances to hit on a few good pick ups. Not every single one of their signings worked that year, though it seemed most did.

But even on Welker and Stallworth, they risked very little money long term. Welker was a mid level guy that everyone thought got overpaid. Stallworth was supposed to be the top WR in his class and got bupkus in the way of big offers. And a trade is not like top shelf FA, especially since it was a 4th rounder and Moss took a below market contract to get a chance to sign a totally new deal after one year. Moss' trade was less like FA and more like renting Sabathia for the balance of the year.

No doubt about it. It just goes to show that FA is a valuable tool.

[Fred's Slacks]

Tell that to the Patriots who rode smart free agency decisions to becoming a dynasty...

Smart is the key word. The reason the Patriots have been good for so long is because they were smart in FA. Save last year, they were never the team out there signing the big names. Instead they were grabbing lesser known players at value prices who could come in and compliment the talent they added through the draft.

Nobody is saying to avoid FA entirely, or even not to offer them big contracts. All that Brandt is saying is that you need to be selective in who you offer it too. You have to make sure the player isn't over rated due to the system they play in and at the same time, make sure they fit the system you run. How will they adjust to your City/Team/Locker Room/Coaches? When you pull someone from another team there are a lot more things that can go wrong then when you extend someone already familiar with all these things.

[Partial]

Smart free agency is a hindsite statement. If trading for Welker or Moss resulted in an over-priced slot receiver and a washed up Moss, that would have looked like a horrible deal.

Adlius Thomas signed for pretty big bucks. Had he stopped working hard once he got his pay day that move would have looked bad as well.

They're pretty big players in the game of bringing in players from the outside and have had a good amount of succeed with it.

Ultimately, I think scouting (not just college, but other teams as well) and the ability to pick out players ( you could sign someone to a massive contract but if they played well, it'd look great in hindsite!) is what results in a good team.

[HarveyWallbangers]

New England won their first Super Bowl title with very few UFAs (same with Indianapolis and Pittsburgh). They won their second and third Super Bowl titles with middling UFAs. They haven't won a Super Bowl since they started hitting the high-priced UFA market. Bad example.

[Fred's Slacks]

You can say its hindsite. Or maybe the teams that do more research and are more selective wind up hitting on a higher percentage. Why is it that a higher percentage of FAs have worked out for teams like the Patriots, Giants, Steelers, and Packers then for the Cardinals, Raiders, Texans and Lions. Are they just luckier? Or are they smarter about the FA's they acquire?

[Partial]

New England won their first Super Bowl title with very few UFAs (same with Indianapolis and Pittsburgh). They won their second and third Super Bowl titles with middling UFAs. They haven't won a Super Bowl since they started hitting the high-priced UFA market. Bad example.

Wasn't it you who posted they crafted much of their original super bowl roster with FA additions? I'm pretty sure it was you or Patler, and the number was 29 of the 53 players were obtained through means other than the draft.

[Partial]

You can say its hindsite. Or maybe the teams that do more research and are more selective wind up hitting on a higher percentage. Why is it that a higher percentage of FAs have worked out for teams like the Patriots, Giants, Steelers, and Packers then for the Cardinals, Raiders, Texans and Lions. Are they just luckier? Or are they smarter about the FA's they acquire?

Which all comes back to scouting, like I said. The problem isn't free agency, it is paying the wrong people.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Wasn't it you who posted they crafted much of their original super bowl roster with FA additions? I'm pretty sure it was you or Patler, and the number was 29 of the 53 players were obtained through means other than the draft.

Nope. Guess again.

[HarveyWallbangers]

http://packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?t=5189&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=40

[Partial]

http://packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?t=5189&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=40

See Red's response. Much of that team was acquired through free agency, much like some of their biggest contributors last year were free agency signings or trades.

[HarveyWallbangers]

http://packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?t=5189&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=40

See Red's response. Much of that team was acquired through free agency, much like some of their biggest contributors last year were free agency signings or trades.

See my response to Red's response.

The 2004 Pats was made up similarly to the Packers. The 2006 Colts and 2005 Steelers Super Bowl champions were made up similarly. The 2002 Pats had more FAs, but they were all middling or street FAs. Mike Compton was probably their biggest name FA. Ever heard of him? Many of those guys were on the level of Atari Bigby, Adrian Klemm, Brandon Chillar, and Marquand Manuel.

[RashanGary]

low flash (non draft) moves like Cullen Jenkins, Colin Cole, Bigby, Tramon, Peprah, Jarrett Bush, Ryan Grant, Donald Lee, Ruvell Martin, Tory Humphrey, kregg Lumpkin and others do tend to make up a decent sized portion of many teams. NE was the masters at finding treasure in other teams trash. That seems to be a strength of TT's as well.

[Fred's Slacks]

You can say its hindsite. Or maybe the teams that do more research and are more selective wind up hitting on a higher percentage. Why is it that a higher percentage of FAs have worked out for teams like the Patriots, Giants, Steelers, and Packers then for the Cardinals, Raiders, Texans and Lions. Are they just luckier? Or are they smarter about the FA's they acquire?

Which all comes back to scouting, like I said. The problem isn't free agency, it is paying the wrong people.

Then I guess we agree. Nobody is saying free agency is a problem. They're just saying you have to be smart about how you use it. Am I repeating myself?

[RashanGary]

You can say its hindsite. Or maybe the teams that do more research and are more selective wind up hitting on a higher percentage. Why is it that a higher percentage of FAs have worked out for teams like the Patriots, Giants, Steelers, and Packers then for the Cardinals, Raiders, Texans and Lions. Are they just luckier? Or are they smarter about the FA's they acquire?

Which all comes back to scouting, like I said. The problem isn't free agency, it is paying the wrong people.

Then I guess we agree. Nobody is saying free agency is a problem. They're just saying you have to be smart about how you use it. Am I repeating myself?

No, you're pretty clear, make a lot of sense, but are speaking to a tard so what you acctually type is not being understood and the arguement goes on endlessly.

[RashanGary]

The Packers currently have 20 of 53 players aquired from means other than free agency or 38% of their team. I would guess they are in normal territory as far as draft/alternative roster content.

They have cap space because they had a talent dearth after several bad drafts leading to Thompsons inheritance of the team. As such, they are pushing forward rather than simply "spending to spend" as Brandt illuded to being smart in his article. The impression of our roster, how it got there and where it's going tends to be skewed by a small but vocal minority here at Packerrats. Often times this small, radical, emotion driven group is inspired by a hero they cannot let go of and as such they fail to see reality. Instead they focus on the fairytale they want to believe in their little heads.

As evident by some recent polls, I'd say Partials opinion is pretty much a stand alone extremist opinion, not shared by many nor convincing to any. Don't, any of you, take his words to heart. They're pretty much meaningless and starting to appraoch tank-like lunicy.

[3irty1]

The Patriots have the luxury of having the same coach since 2000. The only rebuilding he's done was his very first year and that was largely through the draft.

Thompson rebuilt this team through the draft and I imagine that in the next few years he'll be slightly more involved in free agency. That being said the article wasn't about the Brandon Chiller signings of the world. Guys who make lots of money over lots of years before even putting on your team's helmet are of course a risk.

[prsnfoto]

Have I reached your stupidity level yet?

You've been there for at least 2 months now...

Fuckoff. Punkass.

[Fritz]

Harvey wins.

[Partial]

The Packers currently have 20 of 53 players aquired from means other than free agency or 38% of their team. I would guess they are in normal territory as far as draft/alternative roster content.

They have cap space because they had a talent dearth after several bad drafts leading to Thompsons inheritance of the team. As such, they are pushing forward rather than simply "spending to spend" as Brandt illuded to being smart in his article. The impression of our roster, how it got there and where it's going tends to be skewed by a small but vocal minority here at Packerrats. Often times this small, radical, emotion driven group is inspired by a hero they cannot let go of and as such they fail to see reality. Instead they focus on the fairytale they want to believe in their little heads.

As evident by some recent polls, I'd say Partials opinion is pretty much a stand alone extremist opinion, not shared by many nor convincing to any. Don't, any of you, take his words to heart. They're pretty much meaningless and starting to appraoch tank-like lunicy.

What the fuck are you talking about? My point is extremely valid. You can't say this free agency is good, but this free agency is bad. FA is FA is FA is FA.

It's all about making smart decisions. If Tom Brady were a FA, I'd throw the biggest contract in football history at him. Would that be a dumb decision? Maybe to you, but I like winning, so hell yeah I'd take him on my team. FA is the open market, and players tend to earn what they're worth in FA.

TO was a high priced FA and I'd say he has worked out very well for the Cowboys. Jared Allen was essentially a free agent and he signed a HUGE contract that many have criticized. Yet the dude has produced and has shown to be a great deal to this point.

The Jets made some big deals this off-season and in contention in the AFC.

Willie Roaf was one of the best free agency signing ever by KC.

Chuck was signed to what everyone thought was a ridiculously high deal and he has been a stud.

It's all about evaluating talent.. period. It doesn't matter how you acquire the talent, its about how much talent you can acquire and make work in the framework of a team. Saying anything less is completely ignorant. There is not a doubt in my mind that TT missed out of some of the higher priced FA who turned out to be a bargin and could have put our team over the top last year.

[prsnfoto]

Another smart, knowledgable person speaking on the subject that had so many (including Brett Favre) up in arms. Anyone with half a brain, there is still time to change sides.

Yes Randy Moss turned out to be a horrible pickup last year, Faneca sucks balls , as does Jared Allen and the worst FA signing in recent memory has to be Charles Woodsen that guy is comepletely washed up, Micheal Turner has only what 65 yards rushing this year, even Chad Pennington was a bum with the Dolphins having won 1 game this year. Have I reached your stupidity level yet?

Jared Allen wasn't a FA pickup. The Vikings traded a lot of picks for him. Some work. Most don't. I think that was the point of the article. Look, I'd love for more Charles Woodson signings, but I'm cool with being cautious when it comes to big name UFAs. It allows us to resign our own guys (Aaron Rodgers, Ryan Grant, Aaron Kampman, Al Harris, Donald Driver, etc.; hopefully, Greg Jennings and Nick Collins soon).


I don't dispute that and my anger isn't directed at you it is at THE #1 TT cocksucker JH who had to take a potshot at Brett, the vast majority don't work out but that doesn't mean ya don't at least try some now and then. The money issue is kinda mute too, since signing your own is just as big a gamble Rodgers,Barnett and Jennnings(if extended) could also be 100 million in mistakes. Based on their performance this year the Packers overpaid Barnett and the Bears overpaid Briggs THEIR own. At this point I agree with the path they are taking but there is a time and place for FA like when you got an aging QB and 5o trillion dollars, Ron Wolf would have taken that shot and yes it probably would have set them back a couple years, but I kinda think they are sill a couple years if not more away anyways. Because as of now the Oline is a long way away and he has missed on the Dline except Pickett(FA) and Kampman those problems are not gonna get fixed overnight.

[Fritz]

The Packers currently have 20 of 53 players aquired from means other than free agency or 38% of their team. I would guess they are in normal territory as far as draft/alternative roster content.

They have cap space because they had a talent dearth after several bad drafts leading to Thompsons inheritance of the team. As such, they are pushing forward rather than simply "spending to spend" as Brandt illuded to being smart in his article. The impression of our roster, how it got there and where it's going tends to be skewed by a small but vocal minority here at Packerrats. Often times this small, radical, emotion driven group is inspired by a hero they cannot let go of and as such they fail to see reality. Instead they focus on the fairytale they want to believe in their little heads.

As evident by some recent polls, I'd say Partials opinion is pretty much a stand alone extremist opinion, not shared by many nor convincing to any. Don't, any of you, take his words to heart. They're pretty much meaningless and starting to appraoch tank-like lunicy.

What the fuck are you talking about? My point is extremely valid. You can't say this free agency is good, but this free agency is bad. FA is FA is FA is FA.

It's all about making smart decisions. If Tom Brady were a FA, I'd throw the biggest contract in football history at him. Would that be a dumb decision? Maybe to you, but I like winning, so hell yeah I'd take him on my team. FA is the open market, and players tend to earn what they're worth in FA.

TO was a high priced FA and I'd say he has worked out very well for the Cowboys. Jared Allen was essentially a free agent and he signed a HUGE contract that many have criticized. Yet the dude has produced and has shown to be a great deal to this point.

The Jets made some big deals this off-season and in contention in the AFC.

Willie Roaf was one of the best free agency signing ever by KC.

Chuck was signed to what everyone thought was a ridiculously high deal and he has been a stud.

It's all about evaluating talent.. period. It doesn't matter how you acquire the talent, its about how much talent you can acquire and make work in the framework of a team. Saying anything less is completely ignorant. There is not a doubt in my mind that TT missed out of some of the higher priced FA who turned out to be a bargin and could have put our team over the top last year.

Partial, I'm not here to get into the middle of your squabble with JH, but please at least use facts if you're going to throw examples around.

Jared Allen was NOT "essentially a free agent," unless you're trying to say that giving up a first round and two third round picks is "essentially a free agent." If you're making that claim, can you please explain how giving up a first and two thirds is "free"?

[Lurker64]

Tell that to the Patriots who rode smart free agency decisions to becoming a dynasty...

I don't think there is such a thing as "smart free agency". It's like gambling at a casino, there are some obviously stupid bets you can make, and then there are a bunch of other bets you could make. Some of those other bets you'll win and some of them you'll lose. It doesn't mean that the ones that work out were smart and the ones that don't were dumb. It's the same way with free agency, there are some obviously dumb free agency moves (e.g. Giving Adam Archuleta the biggest deal ever for a safety to bring him into a system where he'll be asked to be a coverage safety), but most of them are in somewhat muddy territory where nobody's quite sure how they'll work out but the teams in question are hopeful. I don't know if it's fair to call the ones that work out "smart" and the ones that don't "dumb". Free Agency moves are good or bad depending on whether they work out or not, but there's a fair degree of guesswork and hope involved in all of them.

[3irty1]

The Packers currently have 20 of 53 players aquired from means other than free agency or 38% of their team. I would guess they are in normal territory as far as draft/alternative roster content.

They have cap space because they had a talent dearth after several bad drafts leading to Thompsons inheritance of the team. As such, they are pushing forward rather than simply "spending to spend" as Brandt illuded to being smart in his article. The impression of our roster, how it got there and where it's going tends to be skewed by a small but vocal minority here at Packerrats. Often times this small, radical, emotion driven group is inspired by a hero they cannot let go of and as such they fail to see reality. Instead they focus on the fairytale they want to believe in their little heads.

As evident by some recent polls, I'd say Partials opinion is pretty much a stand alone extremist opinion, not shared by many nor convincing to any. Don't, any of you, take his words to heart. They're pretty much meaningless and starting to appraoch tank-like lunicy.

What the fuck are you talking about? My point is extremely valid. You can't say this free agency is good, but this free agency is bad. FA is FA is FA is FA.

It's all about making smart decisions. If Tom Brady were a FA, I'd throw the biggest contract in football history at him. Would that be a dumb decision? Maybe to you, but I like winning, so hell yeah I'd take him on my team. FA is the open market, and players tend to earn what they're worth in FA.

TO was a high priced FA and I'd say he has worked out very well for the Cowboys. Jared Allen was essentially a free agent and he signed a HUGE contract that many have criticized. Yet the dude has produced and has shown to be a great deal to this point.

The Jets made some big deals this off-season and in contention in the AFC.

Willie Roaf was one of the best free agency signing ever by KC.

Chuck was signed to what everyone thought was a ridiculously high deal and he has been a stud.

It's all about evaluating talent.. period. It doesn't matter how you acquire the talent, its about how much talent you can acquire and make work in the framework of a team. Saying anything less is completely ignorant. There is not a doubt in my mind that TT missed out of some of the higher priced FA who turned out to be a bargin and could have put our team over the top last year.

I agree. In the end it doesn't matter how you get the players. I would argue that a top 5 draft pick is more of a risk than a proven big name FA. To get a real deal in FA often means that an NFL team misevaluated its own talent. Its much more likely to get a real "deal" in the draft.

[CaliforniaCheez]

Tell that to the Patriots who rode smart free agency decisions to becoming a dynasty...

I don't think there is such a thing as "smart free agency". It's like gambling at a casino, there are some obviously stupid bets you can make.....

Like all bets you gamble on those that have better odds.

Teams with more holes tend to make more free agent signings hoping to improve. Some teams are always bad and for good players it is a bad move to sign there (Oakland, Cincinatti, Detroit) but okay for marginal players.

Pickett was signed for the price of Flanagan lost. Woodson had injury problems in Oakland but we all know Ahmad Carroll had to be replaced. That gamble paid well.

Ted Thompson has done little in free agency and the downside like stupid signings of Marqund Manuel and Oakland signing Javon Walker show how ba a gamble some of those players are.

It is like a casino and occaisionally you get lucky but in the long run it is a losing bet (like the vikings).

Brandt's article just restates much of what we already know. The casino has odds in their favor and the more you play the more likely you will lose.

Yet every March there are posting screaming about Ted Thompson sitting on his hands and a pile of money.

[Partial]

The Packers currently have 20 of 53 players aquired from means other than free agency or 38% of their team. I would guess they are in normal territory as far as draft/alternative roster content.

They have cap space because they had a talent dearth after several bad drafts leading to Thompsons inheritance of the team. As such, they are pushing forward rather than simply "spending to spend" as Brandt illuded to being smart in his article. The impression of our roster, how it got there and where it's going tends to be skewed by a small but vocal minority here at Packerrats. Often times this small, radical, emotion driven group is inspired by a hero they cannot let go of and as such they fail to see reality. Instead they focus on the fairytale they want to believe in their little heads.

As evident by some recent polls, I'd say Partials opinion is pretty much a stand alone extremist opinion, not shared by many nor convincing to any. Don't, any of you, take his words to heart. They're pretty much meaningless and starting to appraoch tank-like lunicy.

What the fuck are you talking about? My point is extremely valid. You can't say this free agency is good, but this free agency is bad. FA is FA is FA is FA.

It's all about making smart decisions. If Tom Brady were a FA, I'd throw the biggest contract in football history at him. Would that be a dumb decision? Maybe to you, but I like winning, so hell yeah I'd take him on my team. FA is the open market, and players tend to earn what they're worth in FA.

TO was a high priced FA and I'd say he has worked out very well for the Cowboys. Jared Allen was essentially a free agent and he signed a HUGE contract that many have criticized. Yet the dude has produced and has shown to be a great deal to this point.

The Jets made some big deals this off-season and in contention in the AFC.

Willie Roaf was one of the best free agency signing ever by KC.

Chuck was signed to what everyone thought was a ridiculously high deal and he has been a stud.

It's all about evaluating talent.. period. It doesn't matter how you acquire the talent, its about how much talent you can acquire and make work in the framework of a team. Saying anything less is completely ignorant. There is not a doubt in my mind that TT missed out of some of the higher priced FA who turned out to be a bargin and could have put our team over the top last year.

Partial, I'm not here to get into the middle of your squabble with JH, but please at least use facts if you're going to throw examples around.

Jared Allen was NOT "essentially a free agent," unless you're trying to say that giving up a first round and two third round picks is "essentially a free agent." If you're making that claim, can you please explain how giving up a first and two thirds is "free"?

I lump in any sort of player addition from the outside in the same boat. Say they traded for jared allen for only a 1st round pick and a small salary... still a risk. Not a lot different imo.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I lump in any sort of player addition from the outside in the same boat. Say they traded for jared allen for only a 1st round pick and a small salary... still a risk. Not a lot different imo.

So, Ryan Grant counts as a FA acquisition in your mind?

[CaliforniaCheez]

Partial,

Jared Allen was a first round pick and two third round picks.

Then they gave him the highest salary in the history of professional football for a defensive player.

Not much of a bargain.


Now the thread is off target talking about different topics.

[Fritz]

The Packers currently have 20 of 53 players aquired from means other than free agency or 38% of their team. I would guess they are in normal territory as far as draft/alternative roster content.

They have cap space because they had a talent dearth after several bad drafts leading to Thompsons inheritance of the team. As such, they are pushing forward rather than simply "spending to spend" as Brandt illuded to being smart in his article. The impression of our roster, how it got there and where it's going tends to be skewed by a small but vocal minority here at Packerrats. Often times this small, radical, emotion driven group is inspired by a hero they cannot let go of and as such they fail to see reality. Instead they focus on the fairytale they want to believe in their little heads.

As evident by some recent polls, I'd say Partials opinion is pretty much a stand alone extremist opinion, not shared by many nor convincing to any. Don't, any of you, take his words to heart. They're pretty much meaningless and starting to appraoch tank-like lunicy.

What the fuck are you talking about? My point is extremely valid. You can't say this free agency is good, but this free agency is bad. FA is FA is FA is FA.

It's all about making smart decisions. If Tom Brady were a FA, I'd throw the biggest contract in football history at him. Would that be a dumb decision? Maybe to you, but I like winning, so hell yeah I'd take him on my team. FA is the open market, and players tend to earn what they're worth in FA.

TO was a high priced FA and I'd say he has worked out very well for the Cowboys. Jared Allen was essentially a free agent and he signed a HUGE contract that many have criticized. Yet the dude has produced and has shown to be a great deal to this point.

The Jets made some big deals this off-season and in contention in the AFC.

Willie Roaf was one of the best free agency signing ever by KC.

Chuck was signed to what everyone thought was a ridiculously high deal and he has been a stud.

It's all about evaluating talent.. period. It doesn't matter how you acquire the talent, its about how much talent you can acquire and make work in the framework of a team. Saying anything less is completely ignorant. There is not a doubt in my mind that TT missed out of some of the higher priced FA who turned out to be a bargin and could have put our team over the top last year.

Partial, I'm not here to get into the middle of your squabble with JH, but please at least use facts if you're going to throw examples around.

Jared Allen was NOT "essentially a free agent," unless you're trying to say that giving up a first round and two third round picks is "essentially a free agent." If you're making that claim, can you please explain how giving up a first and two thirds is "free"?

I lump in any sort of player addition from the outside in the same boat. Say they traded for jared allen for only a 1st round pick and a small salary... still a risk. Not a lot different imo.

Then why did you say "FA is FA is FA"? If you're going to argue about free agency, then do so. But don't try to shift the grounds of the argument because you got caught trying to throw in an example that doesn't fit. At all.

I'm sorry Partial, but you tried to throw Jared Allen in as an example of a free agent to support your argument, but Jared Allen WAS NOT A FREE AGENT. He cost the Vikes a first and two thirds.

[Fred's Slacks]

It's all about making smart decisions. If Tom Brady were a FA, I'd throw the biggest contract in football history at him. Would that be a dumb decision? Maybe to you, but I like winning, so hell yeah I'd take him on my team. FA is the open market, and players tend to earn what they're worth in FA.


Correct. It is about making smart decisions. The Brady example is perfect. Now this is all just a hypothetical but say the Patriots doctors say: "We don't think he'll be the same player after this injury." So the Patriots decide (again this is hypothetical) to cut him and now he is a free agent. Would you then decide to give him the biggest contract in history? Probably not, unless you had a very reliable doctor tell you he's going to be fine. Even then you'd want a second opinion.

Two points can be made about this example:
1. There is a reason that hes a free agent and his current team doesn't want him and its not usually because they can't afford the guy. This is the case with (almost) all free agents. Teams don't usually let great players walk away for nothing. If they get to free agency, there's a reason. These reasons make acquiring free agents more risky.
2. You have to do your research and be smart before serving up the huge contract. If Tom Brady is a Free Agent you better find out why and if you can correct or compensate for it. Otherwise your just going to tie up your cap.



It's all about evaluating talent.. period. It doesn't matter how you acquire the talent, its about how much talent you can acquire and make work in the framework of a team. Saying anything less is completely ignorant. There is not a doubt in my mind that TT missed out of some of the higher priced FA who turned out to be a bargain and could have put our team over the top last year.

You're correct again that the name of the game is acquiring talent. But to imply that FA and the Draft are equal means for doing this is what's completely ignorant. The draft is your opportunity to grab the absolute best young talent available. Every player that has ever played in the modern era of the NFL had to declare for the draft (or the supplemental draft) in order to enter the league. You can fully evaluate every player and you can do whatever you feel is worth it to get whoever you want. You also start with 7 picks every year and they are at bargain prices (save the first few picks). In FA on the other hand you only get players whose own team decided they weren't worth keeping around. The fact that any team can bid on their service brings the price up and in a big year you might get 4 FAs that sign for more then the minimum. Which sounds like the better medium for acquiring talent?

I know there are positives to FA. Like getting proven, experienced talent. That's why you don't totally ignore it, but since the risk is greater it makes sense to be careful about your FA spending and focus more on the draft.

[bobblehead]

I lump in any sort of player addition from the outside in the same boat. Say they traded for jared allen for only a 1st round pick and a small salary... still a risk. Not a lot different imo.

So, Ryan Grant counts as a FA acquisition in your mind?

Grant, Ruvell Martin, Atari Bigby, Charles Woodson, Chillar, Picket, Bush, Tramon Williams are all FA. Man, TT has been pretty fucking active in Free agency hasn't he.

edit: and john kuhn.

[SMACKTALKIE]

Partial,

Jared Allen was a first round pick and two third round picks.

Then they gave him the highest salary in the history of professional football for a defensive player.

Not much of a bargain.


Now the thread is off target talking about different topics.

If you think he is being overpaid remember that tends to be a temporary label in the NFL. I remember when the Vikings signed Hutchinson it was considered an extreme contract. Now it seems to be the norm for a descent Guard.

Big contracts, wheather for FA's or traded players, are a part of modern-day pro football.

[Partial]

I lump in any sort of player addition from the outside in the same boat. Say they traded for jared allen for only a 1st round pick and a small salary... still a risk. Not a lot different imo.

So, Ryan Grant counts as a FA acquisition in your mind?

Yes. He was a free agency pick-up was he not?

[Noodle]

But to imply that FA and the Draft are equal means for doing this is what's completely ignorant. The draft is your opportunity to grab the absolute best young talent available. Every player that has ever played in the modern era of the NFL had to declare for the draft (or the supplemental draft) in order to enter the league. You can fully evaluate every player and you can do whatever you feel is worth it to get whoever you want. You also start with 7 picks every year and they are at bargain prices (save the first few picks). In FA on the other hand you only get players whose own team decided they weren't worth keeping around. The fact that any team can bid on their service brings the price up and in a big year you might get 4 FAs that sign for more then the minimum. Which sounds like the better medium for acquiring talent?

I know there are positives to FA. Like getting proven, experienced talent. That's why you don't totally ignore it, but since the risk is greater it makes sense to be careful about your FA spending and focus more on the draft.

I have to disagree. If there is more of a high-risk proposition than the draft, I don't know what it is. At least in FA you've been able to see guys at the NFL level playing NFL schemes against NFL talent. College, not so much.

I included your whole quote, because I don't want to take you out of context. I just disagree about your risk analysis.

What I get crabby about is the notion that a guy in FA costs "too much." The only relevant measure is percentage of salary cap, and that cap will go up. Yeah, these guys cost more than I make times 1000, but so what? They should make a ton of cash -- they're the reason we watch the game, and they're the ones out there bleeding and playing through hits that would kill most of us.

And the notion that FA is risky because an FA's current team has given up on the guy does not work for me. Teams make decisions for all sorts of reasons, particularly their own cap situation. But that doesn't mean an FA is overpriced, because other teams are not similarly constrained.

[retailguy]

I lump in any sort of player addition from the outside in the same boat. Say they traded for jared allen for only a 1st round pick and a small salary... still a risk. Not a lot different imo.

So, Ryan Grant counts as a FA acquisition in your mind?

Yes. He was a free agency pick-up was he not?


Um. No. We gave up a 6th round pick for him.

[retailguy]

Well, I've watched for a few days and am amused by some of the responses on both sides.

Harvey bumped the Ahman Green thread, and I must say I was FURIOUS about the way Green was treated. Still am, even though I now must say he wasn't worth retaining (as much as that hurts).

Someone stated that signings in FA are like gambling. Yep, I agree. I would also say that draft picks (even the high ones) are also like gambling. So, it really isn't any different. With FA, you sometimes get a proven track record, but you don't know how long it'll continue. With the draft, you get potential but you don't know how it'll perform either.

I firmly believe that Ted has been too quiet in FA. That being said, I don't want him to sign players like the Vikings and Raider do either. Can't we have a balance?

Couldn't we have brought in a couple of guards over the last two years to push these young guys a bit? Wasn't there a little room for a fullback, or a TE?

I'm not talking about big "marquee" signings. But, how about a couple of "proven lunch pail guys"? Do we really have to have the "youngest" team every year, three years running? Would that really have retarded our development of young guys? I don't think so. Brandon Chillar has been a great pickup for us. So has Pickett. Wouldn't two or three more of those guys over the last couple of years have helped this team?

I think so.

[RashanGary]

I'm not talking about big "marquee" signings. But, how about a couple of "proven lunch pail guys"? Do we really have to have the "youngest" team every year, three years running? Would that really have retarded our development of young guys? I don't think so. Brandon Chillar has been a great pickup for us. So has Pickett. Wouldn't two or three more of those guys over the last couple of years have helped this team?

I think so.

RG, I'm honestly shocked that you feel this way. IMO you're a smart, practical person. From what I've gathered over the last couple years, you have a background in finance. You've seen many people build wealth and piss it away and have very valuable personal experiences, just in your own life, to draw off of and use as examples of how to do things, etc. I admire that, esspecially the ability to avoid temptations that would lead to less, not more.

With all that said, I'm shocked that you say the things you're saying. The Packers had 4 pretty bad drafts in a row, esspecially with the way Javon Walker blew up. How many people do you think could walk in, after years of bad decisions and "boom" make it happen quickly like you expect out of this GM. Don't most good things in your experience tend to come from many years of good decisions and avoiding the really costly traps?

This is really not all that different. The Packers are trying to build something real. They don't want to run out of cash before it gets there. They want to lay the base the right way and avoid the false feeling of "everythings OK" by going out and spending money when you know it might not be the best value to your overall goal of building the best. Of all poeple on here, I'm just shocked that you don't relate that way. I'm somewhat shocked that you don't relate more to Ted. Honestly, after meeting you, I think you, you're whole life, is more like Ted than anyone on here and I respect that. I'm just shocked that you don't see it or appreciate where it's obviously going - UP.

[Partial]

I lump in any sort of player addition from the outside in the same boat. Say they traded for jared allen for only a 1st round pick and a small salary... still a risk. Not a lot different imo.

So, Ryan Grant counts as a FA acquisition in your mind?

Grant, Ruvell Martin, Atari Bigby, Charles Woodson, Chillar, Picket, Bush, Tramon Williams are all FA. Man, TT has been pretty fucking active in Free agency hasn't he.

edit: and john kuhn.

Damn striaght, those are solid signings. Except for Kuhn. He's a guy.

[Rastak]

Ok, I'll throw in my 2 cents....

rastak point #1:
FA is definately a gamble. A bit less in some respects than the draft but WAY more expensive outside of the top 5 draft picks.

rastak point #2:
You have to look at the relative risk of a big FA signing. How will it affect your cap down the road? Fred Smoot for the Vikings was a deal that entailed a bunch of money in year one and not much after that. He failed, they did not suffer future issues. Darren Sharper from looking at his contract when it was signed seemed to me if he was really falling off like he seemed to be in Green Bay was a really bad deal. It was fortunate for the Vikings he played well, long enough where the deal wasn't a bad one.


rastak point #3: FA is still hit and miss but at least you have plenty of NFL film to watch.

rastak point #4: If a guy is available there is either something wrong with him which means there is some risk or he ain't wanted by anyone. I guess that goes slightly back to #1 about a gamble. Rarely is a guy who is perfect in every way available.

[Fred's Slacks]

I have to disagree. If there is more of a high-risk proposition than the draft, I don't know what it is. At least in FA you've been able to see guys at the NFL level playing NFL schemes against NFL talent. College, not so much.


Okay, you're right, the draft is also risky but we're talking about two different risks. Your referring to the risk that the player won't pan out. Definately draft picks are more risky. I'm talking about the risk of hurting the long term health of your team. In that respect, unless your talking a top 10 pick, there is little to no risk in the draft. As long as you hit on the majority or at least close to the majority of your picks, you aren't going to even notice the guys you miss on. But when you miss on a big FA signing, you're going to feel the cap affects for some time. If you can do it in a way that allows you to end the deal with little long term affects by front loading or using roster bonuses instead of signing bonuses, then you're pretty safe. But you can't sign alot of guys doing that every year. Sooner or later you run out of room.



I included your whole quote, because I don't want to take you out of context. I just disagree about your risk analysis.

What I get crabby about is the notion that a guy in FA costs "too much." The only relevant measure is percentage of salary cap, and that cap will go up. Yeah, these guys cost more than I make times 1000, but so what? They should make a ton of cash -- they're the reason we watch the game, and they're the ones out there bleeding and playing through hits that would kill most of us.


I guess I should clarify. I don't mean to say they make "too much" (I don't think I said that anyway), but the nature of free agency drives up the price of a player. I think it's obvious that, in general, a player will take a little less to stay with his current team than what he can command on the open market and for good reason. The player, just like any of us, probably doesn't want to move and relocate his family. He doesn't want to learn a new system a new city, new coaches, new team mates. If he's doing well were he's at he wants to stay there to build off of what he started. It's worth taking a little less money and he has a better chance of playing out his contract by staying put. So my point is not that anyone makes "too much", only that FA is more expensive than drafting well and keeping your own.



And the notion that FA is risky because an FA's current team has given up on the guy does not work for me. Teams make decisions for all sorts of reasons, particularly their own cap situation. But that doesn't mean an FA is overpriced, because other teams are not similarly constrained.

Yeah sure, but how often do teams let great players walk away for no reason? Cap casualties is one thing but how many of those have there been lately? Teams have gotten smarter about that. Instead of letting young promising players walk they cut old guys with huge contracts or they restructure someone else. I can't think of one big cap casualty from the last few years who wasn't well past his prime.

[RashanGary]

EXCELLENT post, Fslacks. Great points.

[Lurker64]

Someone stated that signings in FA are like gambling. Yep, I agree. I would also say that draft picks (even the high ones) are also like gambling. So, it really isn't any different. With FA, you sometimes get a proven track record, but you don't know how long it'll continue. With the draft, you get potential but you don't know how it'll perform either.

I firmly believe that Ted has been too quiet in FA. That being said, I don't want him to sign players like the Vikings and Raider do either. Can't we have a balance?

Couldn't we have brought in a couple of guards over the last two years to push these young guys a bit? Wasn't there a little room for a fullback, or a TE?

I think the problem, in recent years, is that teams have become better and better about not letting their best players ever see free agency, through increases in the cap, smarter contracts, and more liberal use of tags to control player movement. There's also been an uptick in player trades which used to be virtually unheard of, largely to move players who were unlikely to be resigned (e.g. Corey Williams).

So as a result there's no guarantee that there's any reasonably high quality free agents in any given position in any given year. Generally if a player is being allowed to hit free agency these days it's because the player's former team is either incompetent or thinks that the player isn't that good and is ultimately expendable.

So the issue you get into in modern free agency is largely "Team A has a need at position x. There are players available at position x, but none of them will be dramatically better than players already on the roster at that position. They will be slight upgrades but at significant cost, at what exchange rate is the increase in quality at the position worth the additional cost, particularly when money saved can be used to keep valued members of Team A from leaving free agency."

While Ted has been largely quiet in free agency, I can't say that he's really mismanaged most positions. The really dire needs have been filled for the most part, and few of the FAs he passed on turned out to set the world on fire elsewhere. If "not signing a FB a couple years back" makes it easier to sign Jennings to a long term contract, I'm all for the neglect to this point.

[The Gunshooter]

No need to sign free agents, TT should just draft extra wideouts every year and once they show great potential like James Jones did last year and Jennings this year, trade them for lineman.

[cheesner]

I firmly believe that Ted has been too quiet in FA. That being said, I don't want him to sign players like the Vikings and Raider do either. Can't we have a balance?

Couldn't we have brought in a couple of guards over the last two years to push these young guys a bit? Wasn't there a little room for a fullback, or a TE?

It is not as simple as a decision by the GM. He can't say, I am going to go out and sign a PB caliber G this year. There has to be one available and at a reasonable price. Maybe there have been no good deals out there. I have seen TT be rather ambitious in some of the FAs that he has gone after. I believe that if he sees a player that is worth the money he will outbid other teams for the player.

But he doesn't just chase players for their name or to make headlines.

[cheesner]

It's all about making smart decisions. If Tom Brady were a FA, I'd throw the biggest contract in football history at him. Would that be a dumb decision? Maybe to you, but I like winning, so hell yeah I'd take him on my team. FA is the open market, and players tend to earn what they're worth in FA.


So if a couple of GMs had the same idea, you would still outbid them and sign Brady to $50M per year. Do you think you would win?

I realize $50M per year is a ridiculous amount, but I exaggerate to try and illustrate a point. There are economic decisions that you must make as an NFL GM. If you put a lot of money in one position, other positions will suffer. And if you are paying 40% of your cap on your QB, you can then only spend an average of $1.1 million on the rest of your players. What kind of LT are you going to find for your team that makes $1.1 mil per year?

So you splurge and get a LT for $8 mil per year, what positions are going to suffer even more now because of that signing?

Winning in the NFL is not as easy as a decision to spend money. Dan Snyder has tried this method and has failed miserably.

And how good would your team be if, like this year, Brady got hurt?

[RashanGary]

I think the problem, in recent years, is that teams have become better and better about not letting their best players ever see free agency, through increases in the cap, smarter contracts, and more liberal use of tags to control player movement. There's also been an uptick in player trades which used to be virtually unheard of, largely to move players who were unlikely to be resigned (e.g. Corey Williams).

So as a result there's no guarantee that there's any reasonably high quality free agents in any given position in any given year. Generally if a player is being allowed to hit free agency these days it's because the player's former team is either incompetent or thinks that the player isn't that good and is ultimately expendable.

So the issue you get into in modern free agency is largely "Team A has a need at position x. There are players available at position x, but none of them will be dramatically better than players already on the roster at that position. They will be slight upgrades but at significant cost, at what exchange rate is the increase in quality at the position worth the additional cost, particularly when money saved can be used to keep valued members of Team A from leaving free agency."

While Ted has been largely quiet in free agency, I can't say that he's really mismanaged most positions. The really dire needs have been filled for the most part, and few of the FAs he passed on turned out to set the world on fire elsewhere. If "not signing a FB a couple years back" makes it easier to sign Jennings to a long term contract, I'm all for the neglect to this point.

Another really good point.

[RashanGary]

It's all about making smart decisions. If Tom Brady were a FA, I'd throw the biggest contract in football history at him. Would that be a dumb decision? Maybe to you, but I like winning, so hell yeah I'd take him on my team. FA is the open market, and players tend to earn what they're worth in FA.


So if a couple of GMs had the same idea, you would still outbid them and sign Brady to $50M per year. Do you think you would win?

I realize $50M per year is a ridiculous amount, but I exaggerate to try and illustrate a point. There are economic decisions that you must make as an NFL GM. If you put a lot of money in one position, other positions will suffer. And if you are paying 40% of your cap on your QB, you can then only spend an average of $1.1 million on the rest of your players. What kind of LT are you going to find for your team that makes $1.1 mil per year?

So you splurge and get a LT for $8 mil per year, what positions are going to suffer even more now because of that signing?

Winning in the NFL is not as easy as a decision to spend money. Dan Snyder has tried this method and has failed miserably.

And how good would your team be if, like this year, Brady got hurt?

Another really good point. It's opportunity cost. You spend this here, you have less there. The goal is to make sure when you spend it you're getting value. You want to get more here than you take away from there so as to make you team better overall, not better in one spot at the expense of another. It's the BIG PICTURE. YOu have to take into account the chain of effects a decsion will make, not get rosey eyed and look at the one benefit, ignoring the cost. I think some people are mentally incapable of seeing that as this point is pretty straight forward, obvious and hard to argue.

Normally you can do well by locking guys up early rather than waiting for UFA. Hence drafting well and finding a bunch of under the radar guys like Grant, Bigby, Cole, Jenkins, Tramon Williams, Donald Lee, etc. . . ) should have a more profound impact on your winning than spending money on a UFA that even if he does perform he's taking more away from the rest of the team through the opportunity cost that is implied through the salary cap.

[RashanGary]

And after all of these good points, I think they can be tied together and used as some evidence for where this particular team is going.


They had a dearth of talent by drafting poorly for several years. They had few of their own to lock up and Ted resisted the urge to spend more than a player is worth and not cutting short the ceiling of the team through the afore mentioned opportunity cost. INstead he moved money ahead to a day when there is more talent on the team and locking guys up to contracts that help more than they hurt will be much easier. That time is starting next offseason.

Those who say "this team will always be the youngest" are wrong. They do not see where the team started, the context behind why things are what they are and assume current conditions to never change. Instead we should look at why, listen to what Ted says and put together a more accurate projection of where things are going. When we do that, we'll see guys like Nick Collins, Greg Jennings, Aaron Rodgers, Darryn Colledge, Jason Spitz, Ryan Grant, Atari Bigby, and many others being resigned and growing as a team. We'll see more cap space used the right way, increasing the overall quality of the team without taking so much away from other areas. Because of that, when we peak, we'll be less likely to run out of money and fall short before the ultimate glory.

The bottom line is that we have a great base layed right now and it's just ready to take off. Watch. I'm not saying this because I look at right now and assume eveyrthing to stay the same. I'm saying it because I use situational context along with sound economic reasoning that is important because of the set budget and project the future with a "where is it going" mentality not a "where it is now will never change" mentality.