Looking at the landscape of the NFL and the various trends that are out there I find some of the fan and media reactions concerning free agency predictable, but also baffling. Fan is short for fanatic and the media reflects the fan base for the most part so it's understandable that free agency is popular and that teams have lots of excitement during this period. What's baffling to me is that despite the excitement of signing a highly prized free agent fans of teams and even general managers of teams often overlook the principles of putting together a championship level squad and fall into predictable traps. Free agency is exciting, don't get me wrong, but much like many successfully run organizations the truly impactful moves rarely make the front page and is mostly boring. So before I comment on what's been happening thus far in free agency I want to list a few characteristics of successfully run franchises to provide some perspective on what's been going on thus far. The following is a list of things well run NFL franchises do/don't do:
Well run franchises:
1) Draft their franchise QB: with the exception of New Orleans and Denver, playoff caliber teams rarely win games with a QB some other staff drafted. The most recent example of this rule in practice would be the 49ers who subplanted Alex Smith with the guy they saw as the best fit for their team, Colin Kaepernick. If a team is looking for a QB and ends up signing anyone other than a transcendent talent (Brees, Manning, Farve) then you can bet their success will be limited until they get "their guy". Sorry chiefs fans.
2) Draft the majority of their talent: There are two reasons for this trend: 1) Successful draft picks are cheaper than free agents & 2) Successful draft picks are usually better fits to a scheme than free agents. Teams that execute their vision and build lasting success do so from the ground up rather than from the 3rd or 4th floor up. Most super talented coaches/GMs want the most control they can have on building their team. Other people's talent, methods, and judgement won't suffice. Young players are more malleable/coachable and are more willing to buy into a philosophy due to the fact that they probably don't have as concrete a philosophy one of their own.
3) Don't give up talent they need: And the more successful a team is the less willing they are to give up players they'd be hard pressed to replace. This principle is probably the most ignored when it comes to free agency. Fans get all excited about a super talented free agent that couldn't work out a contract with a team an now they're jumping ship. If that player were of the utmost value to the team then the team would have kept the player. What about Peyton Manning and Joe Montana? The answer to that question is Andrew Luck and Steve Young. Chris Rock once said that men are only as faithful as their options. Good teams almost always keep players they can't replace. Don't get too excited when your teams signs a big free agent talent. He might be good, but if he were so amazing why did his former team let him go? If the player is coming from the a well run franchise then it's not because that team is stupid.
4) Get free agents on the cheap: Acquiring talent is all about getting the most value for what you pay for. The New England Patriots traded for future hall of famer Randy Moss for a fourth round pick. The next year he had the single greatest regular season of a wide-receiver ever. This year the 49ers acquired Anquan Boldin, one of the smartest and toughest receivers in the game, for a 6th round pick. This is the same receiver that had 22 receptions, 380 yards, and 4 tds in four playoff games, including a super bowl win. These type of transactions should be illegal because it's damn near stealing! Now not every team that gives up talent for cheap returns is a bad team, but certainly any team that pulls off one of these type of deals is doing a good job. Low risk, high reward and taking advantage of stupidity or desperation.
5) Don't sign a bunch of big name free agents: The reason for this is obvious even if you've never heard of Dan Snyder. Well run organizations, for the most part, have the core talent they need in house so their needs are relatively minimal when it comes to signing supposed top talent. Now good teams may make a bunch of moves in free agency, but they tend to be signings of role players, guys who make little differences here and there; a special teams stud, or offensive/defensive line depth, or a savvy veteran who may help the younger talent. Teams that sign a bunch of big name free agents are more often than not paying for players that are either in the twilight of their career, are delusional about their market value, and/or are too knuckle-headed to stay with a good team. Acquiring a young, self-aware, mature player that's also super talented is hard enough let alone acquiring one that another team had and is stupid or desperate enough to let go.
Okay, I could go on a bit more, but let's get to my opinions of some of the "big name" players that have moved on to other teams.
Mike Wallace: First things first, the Dolphins overpaid for him. The biggest mistake GMs/fans make is assuming production on team A translates to production on any other team. In my opinion you only pay this kind of money to someone who is a transcendent/dominant talent. If the Steelers had a transcendent/dominant talent in Mike Wallace they would not have let him go. Brandon Marshall, Calvin Johnson, Andre Johnson, Larry Fitzgerald, and Steve Smith are the only receivers (too early to tell if A.J. Green belongs here) that can dominate with almost any QB. And the reason for this is because they consistently see and beat double or triple coverage. Mike Wallace has shown he's very good, but he has not shown that he can be productive when he is the focal point of the defensive game-plan. He doesn't catch a lot of balls and his stats show that he's primarily a downfield threat. But let's assume Mike Wallace belongs in the aforementioned class even though we have no evidence to suppose so, who was the last big time free agent receiver that changed teams and was instrumental in their team making a deep playoff run? Randy Moss and Jerry Rice. What do they have in common? They're transcendent talents, they didn't stick around long with their new team, and their teams both lost the super bowl. Is Wallace better than the talent coming out in the draft? Right now he is, but we don't know how good these young men will be and we know the success rate for free agent receivers is extremely low. Who else on Miami's team scares a defense? A 2nd year QB, an o-line that's going to lose it's best player, a backfield that lost its leading rusher and best talent, and a receiving supporting cast that are (good) possession receivers. The game-plan folder for defenses facing Miami will now ready "Stop Mike Wallace, Blitz the hell out of Tannehill". In order to be worth the price Wallace has to be Steve Smith in terms of production. Yeah, good luck with that.
Percy Harvin: I go back and forth on this one, but my instincts tell me the Seahawks also overpaid for Harvin. Going back to the argument that no receiver in this draft is as talented as Harvin; yes, that's likely, but we could be wrong about that. Very few people thought Russell Wilson was on RG3's level, but he may end up being a better pro. No one saw Tom Brady coming and yet he turned out to be arguably the greatest QB of all time. But let's be a little more realistic. The closest prospect in terms of talent and style of play to Percy Harvin is WVU's Tavon Austin. If Austin were to catch 50 balls, rack up 750 yards receiving, 800+ yards returning and score 5 tds then he'd be almost as good as Harvin was his rookie year. These are not impossible stats to repeat. Would those numbers be as good as Harvin's numbers are likely to be in 2013? No, but Harvin's numbers will cost the Seahawks more and the Vikings were still able to make the playoffs without Harvin. It's a question of value. If Austin or any other player puts up Harvin type production then the Seahawks will have overpaid because they could have gotten younger, similar production for less money. Throw on top of that the fact that Harvin doesn't have the best reputation when it comes to managing differences with the coaching staff. Now I'll cut young millionaires a bit of slack in this department because I can't imagine I'd be the best kind of person if I had the kind of money/freedom/pressure these young men have, but it's certainly not nothing when a guy is "difficult", especially because the majority of the truly great players rarely develop this reputation. This trade could go either way and I wouldn't bet either way unless I was threatened with bodily harm, but if I had to throw in some cash I'd say there'll be another player in this draft within the Seahawks' reach that could have given them more value for what they gave up to get Harvin.
Paul Kruger: Browns massively overpaid. Part of this has to do with the fact that the Browns (the expansion Browns) have been a terrible organization in terms of personnel decision making, but also because they are making the same mistake the Dolphins made with Wallace. Paul Kruger played with Terrell Suggs, Haloti Ngata, Ray Lewis, Darnel Ellerbe, and Ed Reed. As an offensive coordinator, all of these players would be higher on my list of concern than Kruger. If a d-lineman has not demonstrated that he can consistently beat a double team, or has not consistently faced a double team, then I'm not interested in signing him for big money. If the Browns' d-line already had play makers on it then maybe I'd sign Kruger, albeit to a much smaller contract, but as it stands now the Browns have just paid $40 mil for a guy that's going to get double teamed in every game. That's fine if you're signing someone who's unblockable like Julius Peppers, but you haven't even seen consistent $40 million dollar level production out of this guy mostly because he's never double teamed. Let's compare Kruger to upcoming DE star Aldon Smith. Is Paul Kruger on Aldon Smith's level talent-wise? Very doubtful. What happened to Aldon Smith when his teammate, Justin Smith, got injured? A. Smith's sack totals plummeted because teams only had to worry about the one guy. Aldon Smith will cost the 9ers ~$1.7 mil in 2013 while Krugger will cost the Browns ~$13 mil. If Kruger has seven times the impact of Smith next season then this deal will be worth it. Smith will likely rack up at least 10 sacks next year (he's averaging 15/year) so Paul Kruger would have to more than triple the all time single season sack record for the Browns to equalize the value the 9ers get from Smith. Now of course the law of deminishing returns is applicable and eventually the 9ers will have to pay Smith more money to keep him, but in the meantime they are paying peanuts for a player who's had more sacks in his first two years than Reggie White. That's the power of drafting well versus paying for someone else's seconds.
That's all for now. More to come in this fast and furious time of NFL free agency.
Well run franchises:
1) Draft their franchise QB: with the exception of New Orleans and Denver, playoff caliber teams rarely win games with a QB some other staff drafted. The most recent example of this rule in practice would be the 49ers who subplanted Alex Smith with the guy they saw as the best fit for their team, Colin Kaepernick. If a team is looking for a QB and ends up signing anyone other than a transcendent talent (Brees, Manning, Farve) then you can bet their success will be limited until they get "their guy". Sorry chiefs fans.
2) Draft the majority of their talent: There are two reasons for this trend: 1) Successful draft picks are cheaper than free agents & 2) Successful draft picks are usually better fits to a scheme than free agents. Teams that execute their vision and build lasting success do so from the ground up rather than from the 3rd or 4th floor up. Most super talented coaches/GMs want the most control they can have on building their team. Other people's talent, methods, and judgement won't suffice. Young players are more malleable/coachable and are more willing to buy into a philosophy due to the fact that they probably don't have as concrete a philosophy one of their own.
3) Don't give up talent they need: And the more successful a team is the less willing they are to give up players they'd be hard pressed to replace. This principle is probably the most ignored when it comes to free agency. Fans get all excited about a super talented free agent that couldn't work out a contract with a team an now they're jumping ship. If that player were of the utmost value to the team then the team would have kept the player. What about Peyton Manning and Joe Montana? The answer to that question is Andrew Luck and Steve Young. Chris Rock once said that men are only as faithful as their options. Good teams almost always keep players they can't replace. Don't get too excited when your teams signs a big free agent talent. He might be good, but if he were so amazing why did his former team let him go? If the player is coming from the a well run franchise then it's not because that team is stupid.
4) Get free agents on the cheap: Acquiring talent is all about getting the most value for what you pay for. The New England Patriots traded for future hall of famer Randy Moss for a fourth round pick. The next year he had the single greatest regular season of a wide-receiver ever. This year the 49ers acquired Anquan Boldin, one of the smartest and toughest receivers in the game, for a 6th round pick. This is the same receiver that had 22 receptions, 380 yards, and 4 tds in four playoff games, including a super bowl win. These type of transactions should be illegal because it's damn near stealing! Now not every team that gives up talent for cheap returns is a bad team, but certainly any team that pulls off one of these type of deals is doing a good job. Low risk, high reward and taking advantage of stupidity or desperation.
5) Don't sign a bunch of big name free agents: The reason for this is obvious even if you've never heard of Dan Snyder. Well run organizations, for the most part, have the core talent they need in house so their needs are relatively minimal when it comes to signing supposed top talent. Now good teams may make a bunch of moves in free agency, but they tend to be signings of role players, guys who make little differences here and there; a special teams stud, or offensive/defensive line depth, or a savvy veteran who may help the younger talent. Teams that sign a bunch of big name free agents are more often than not paying for players that are either in the twilight of their career, are delusional about their market value, and/or are too knuckle-headed to stay with a good team. Acquiring a young, self-aware, mature player that's also super talented is hard enough let alone acquiring one that another team had and is stupid or desperate enough to let go.
Okay, I could go on a bit more, but let's get to my opinions of some of the "big name" players that have moved on to other teams.
Mike Wallace: First things first, the Dolphins overpaid for him. The biggest mistake GMs/fans make is assuming production on team A translates to production on any other team. In my opinion you only pay this kind of money to someone who is a transcendent/dominant talent. If the Steelers had a transcendent/dominant talent in Mike Wallace they would not have let him go. Brandon Marshall, Calvin Johnson, Andre Johnson, Larry Fitzgerald, and Steve Smith are the only receivers (too early to tell if A.J. Green belongs here) that can dominate with almost any QB. And the reason for this is because they consistently see and beat double or triple coverage. Mike Wallace has shown he's very good, but he has not shown that he can be productive when he is the focal point of the defensive game-plan. He doesn't catch a lot of balls and his stats show that he's primarily a downfield threat. But let's assume Mike Wallace belongs in the aforementioned class even though we have no evidence to suppose so, who was the last big time free agent receiver that changed teams and was instrumental in their team making a deep playoff run? Randy Moss and Jerry Rice. What do they have in common? They're transcendent talents, they didn't stick around long with their new team, and their teams both lost the super bowl. Is Wallace better than the talent coming out in the draft? Right now he is, but we don't know how good these young men will be and we know the success rate for free agent receivers is extremely low. Who else on Miami's team scares a defense? A 2nd year QB, an o-line that's going to lose it's best player, a backfield that lost its leading rusher and best talent, and a receiving supporting cast that are (good) possession receivers. The game-plan folder for defenses facing Miami will now ready "Stop Mike Wallace, Blitz the hell out of Tannehill". In order to be worth the price Wallace has to be Steve Smith in terms of production. Yeah, good luck with that.
Percy Harvin: I go back and forth on this one, but my instincts tell me the Seahawks also overpaid for Harvin. Going back to the argument that no receiver in this draft is as talented as Harvin; yes, that's likely, but we could be wrong about that. Very few people thought Russell Wilson was on RG3's level, but he may end up being a better pro. No one saw Tom Brady coming and yet he turned out to be arguably the greatest QB of all time. But let's be a little more realistic. The closest prospect in terms of talent and style of play to Percy Harvin is WVU's Tavon Austin. If Austin were to catch 50 balls, rack up 750 yards receiving, 800+ yards returning and score 5 tds then he'd be almost as good as Harvin was his rookie year. These are not impossible stats to repeat. Would those numbers be as good as Harvin's numbers are likely to be in 2013? No, but Harvin's numbers will cost the Seahawks more and the Vikings were still able to make the playoffs without Harvin. It's a question of value. If Austin or any other player puts up Harvin type production then the Seahawks will have overpaid because they could have gotten younger, similar production for less money. Throw on top of that the fact that Harvin doesn't have the best reputation when it comes to managing differences with the coaching staff. Now I'll cut young millionaires a bit of slack in this department because I can't imagine I'd be the best kind of person if I had the kind of money/freedom/pressure these young men have, but it's certainly not nothing when a guy is "difficult", especially because the majority of the truly great players rarely develop this reputation. This trade could go either way and I wouldn't bet either way unless I was threatened with bodily harm, but if I had to throw in some cash I'd say there'll be another player in this draft within the Seahawks' reach that could have given them more value for what they gave up to get Harvin.
Paul Kruger: Browns massively overpaid. Part of this has to do with the fact that the Browns (the expansion Browns) have been a terrible organization in terms of personnel decision making, but also because they are making the same mistake the Dolphins made with Wallace. Paul Kruger played with Terrell Suggs, Haloti Ngata, Ray Lewis, Darnel Ellerbe, and Ed Reed. As an offensive coordinator, all of these players would be higher on my list of concern than Kruger. If a d-lineman has not demonstrated that he can consistently beat a double team, or has not consistently faced a double team, then I'm not interested in signing him for big money. If the Browns' d-line already had play makers on it then maybe I'd sign Kruger, albeit to a much smaller contract, but as it stands now the Browns have just paid $40 mil for a guy that's going to get double teamed in every game. That's fine if you're signing someone who's unblockable like Julius Peppers, but you haven't even seen consistent $40 million dollar level production out of this guy mostly because he's never double teamed. Let's compare Kruger to upcoming DE star Aldon Smith. Is Paul Kruger on Aldon Smith's level talent-wise? Very doubtful. What happened to Aldon Smith when his teammate, Justin Smith, got injured? A. Smith's sack totals plummeted because teams only had to worry about the one guy. Aldon Smith will cost the 9ers ~$1.7 mil in 2013 while Krugger will cost the Browns ~$13 mil. If Kruger has seven times the impact of Smith next season then this deal will be worth it. Smith will likely rack up at least 10 sacks next year (he's averaging 15/year) so Paul Kruger would have to more than triple the all time single season sack record for the Browns to equalize the value the 9ers get from Smith. Now of course the law of deminishing returns is applicable and eventually the 9ers will have to pay Smith more money to keep him, but in the meantime they are paying peanuts for a player who's had more sacks in his first two years than Reggie White. That's the power of drafting well versus paying for someone else's seconds.
That's all for now. More to come in this fast and furious time of NFL free agency.
No comments:
Post a Comment