- Joined
- May 1, 2008
- Messages
- 16,682
- Reaction score
- 3,686
With FA and the start of the new league year a few days away, I've been think a lot about the general process of team building, and thought it might be worth discussing some general approaches:
1. In no other major sport that I can think of is there 30% yearly roster turnover. Free agency and the salary cap drive this, and keep things fresh. Each year is drastically different than the previous one, even for the stable teams. Football is highly dependent on cooperative play, so changing that 30% of your roster can dramatically change the chemistry of your entire team, so that you essentially have to build a new team each year.
2. As a general approach, the successful teams generally seem to be the ones that develop their core players through the draft. The Patriots, Ravens, Steelers, Packers and Seahawks all fall into that category. For the Patriots, almost all of the key players - the ones that you want to build around long term and really don't want to let get away - were developed through the draft: Tom Brady, Rob Gronkowski, Jerod Mayo, Devin McCourty, Chandler Jones, Dont'a Hightower, Jamie Collins, Nate Solder and Sebastian Vollmer currently, and guys like Vince Wilfork, Richard Seymour, Logan Mankins and (shudder) Aaron Hernandez in the past. This has the advantage that you don't throw big money at players until they are known quantities with proven ability to perform in your system. In the case of Hernandez, the calculus went disastrously wrong because of off-field issues.
3. Attempting to fill acute needs through the draft is generally in opposition with building a strong talent base through the draft. It leads to reaching to fill specific positions, and passing up more talented options. The more freedom you have to move around in the draft and to not have to fill specific needs, the more you can focus on building a talent base for the long term. The draft also has a sizable inherent failure rate, so diversification and stockpiling of talent makes sense as a general approach. Some successful teams explicitly attempt to factor this uncertainty in their draft approach: BB by trading down, the Ravens by accumulating extra comp picks.
4. In order to not use the draft to address acute needs, free agency comes into play. Upgrading talent through free agency is much riskier than plugging holes, because you generally pay a premium to upgrade talent. There are 2 problems with this: (1) you are to a large extent paying for past performance with another team, under different circumstances; and (2) it is difficult to extrapolate this to future performance in a new situation, where failure can be very costly. So unless you are very certain that you are getting something special or are getting it at a significant discount (e.g., Revis in 2014, the Moss trade in 2007, even though that wasn't strictly a FA situation) it's risky to spend on big name FAs.
5. As a theory, I would argue that the vast majority of players in the NFL are eminently replaceable, and are separated in ability by only a small amount. Only a small percent are the rare difference makers who would likely succeed wherever they play. The majority of those that have been productive in a past situation often were in a good environment to succeed, and may struggle to duplicate that success elsewhere. Many of them get ridiculously overpaid in free agency. The cardinal sin in free agency is to pay excessively for a player that's only marginally better than someone you could get for a fraction of the cost. Brian Hartline was over-valued in 2013, now he seems to be under-valued; he's roughly comparable to Cecil Shorts, who is likely to get a much bigger pay day this year.
Looking at this year's FA class, it is pretty predictable that Pernell McPhee, Brandon Graham, Jerry Hughes, Terrance Knighton and CJ Spiller are all going to be over-valued and over-priced. It's probably sound to let guys like Shane Vereen test the market, just as the Pats let Julian Edelman do last year. Both players have significant value, but both are replaceable if the market over-values them. The Pats ended up getting Edelman back for very reasonable money, and got Brandon LaFell for excellent value as well, whereas Eric Decker - a very solid #2 receiver, but a replaceable talent - signed for far more than both combined (5 years/$36.25M with $15M guaranteed, compared to 4 years/$17M for Edelman and 3 years/$9M for LaFell, with a combined $11M guaranteed). The Broncos got more productivity out of Emmanuel Sanders, who replaced Decker at less than half the cost (3 years/$15M with $6M guaranteed).
If I were the Pats, my strategy for 2015 would be:
1. Re-sign Revis and McCourty if at all possible, unless the market grossly over-values them
2. Re-sign as many of the solid but replaceable guys as the available cap space will allow at reasonable cost, and let them go if the market over-values them. This includes Shane Vereen, Stevan Ridley, Akeem Ayers, Dan Connolly, Alan Branch and Jonathan Casillas. Of those, Vereen and Ayers are the most likely to be over-valued.
3. Either drastically reduce Danny Amendola's contract or replace him at low cost.
4. For players who need to be replaced, target low-cost replacements with upside. These include guys like DT Kenrick Ellis, RB Pierre Thomas and WRs Brian Hartline or Eddie Royal. If the market ends up over-valuing those guys, find other targets. Avoid the early feeding frenzy, don't fixate on individual players, don't overspend on anyone, and don't go after big names unless they are available at significant discount and don't break your budget (e.g., Percy Harvin, Andre Johnson). But fill as many holes as possible so that you don't need to reach to plug holes in the draft.
5. Draft to add long-term talent, not to plug holes for 2015. If players can contribute significantly this year so much the better, but it's not essential. Many of the guys who are high on my current draft priorities - Todd Gurley, Marcus Hardison, Ali Marpet, Max Valles and DeAndre Smelter, for example - aren't likely to be big producers in 2015, but have significant long-term potential.
I think this is very consistent with how the Pats have operated in the past, and consistent with their general approach to risk management. I think it's proven to be a much more prudent and sustainable approach than the kind of "all in" splurge on big names that we saw last year with the Broncos, for example. I think that with prudent decision-making and a little bit of luck, it may well be possible to put together a roster that is as strong or stronger than what the Pats had in 2014.
Thoughts?
1. In no other major sport that I can think of is there 30% yearly roster turnover. Free agency and the salary cap drive this, and keep things fresh. Each year is drastically different than the previous one, even for the stable teams. Football is highly dependent on cooperative play, so changing that 30% of your roster can dramatically change the chemistry of your entire team, so that you essentially have to build a new team each year.
2. As a general approach, the successful teams generally seem to be the ones that develop their core players through the draft. The Patriots, Ravens, Steelers, Packers and Seahawks all fall into that category. For the Patriots, almost all of the key players - the ones that you want to build around long term and really don't want to let get away - were developed through the draft: Tom Brady, Rob Gronkowski, Jerod Mayo, Devin McCourty, Chandler Jones, Dont'a Hightower, Jamie Collins, Nate Solder and Sebastian Vollmer currently, and guys like Vince Wilfork, Richard Seymour, Logan Mankins and (shudder) Aaron Hernandez in the past. This has the advantage that you don't throw big money at players until they are known quantities with proven ability to perform in your system. In the case of Hernandez, the calculus went disastrously wrong because of off-field issues.
3. Attempting to fill acute needs through the draft is generally in opposition with building a strong talent base through the draft. It leads to reaching to fill specific positions, and passing up more talented options. The more freedom you have to move around in the draft and to not have to fill specific needs, the more you can focus on building a talent base for the long term. The draft also has a sizable inherent failure rate, so diversification and stockpiling of talent makes sense as a general approach. Some successful teams explicitly attempt to factor this uncertainty in their draft approach: BB by trading down, the Ravens by accumulating extra comp picks.
4. In order to not use the draft to address acute needs, free agency comes into play. Upgrading talent through free agency is much riskier than plugging holes, because you generally pay a premium to upgrade talent. There are 2 problems with this: (1) you are to a large extent paying for past performance with another team, under different circumstances; and (2) it is difficult to extrapolate this to future performance in a new situation, where failure can be very costly. So unless you are very certain that you are getting something special or are getting it at a significant discount (e.g., Revis in 2014, the Moss trade in 2007, even though that wasn't strictly a FA situation) it's risky to spend on big name FAs.
5. As a theory, I would argue that the vast majority of players in the NFL are eminently replaceable, and are separated in ability by only a small amount. Only a small percent are the rare difference makers who would likely succeed wherever they play. The majority of those that have been productive in a past situation often were in a good environment to succeed, and may struggle to duplicate that success elsewhere. Many of them get ridiculously overpaid in free agency. The cardinal sin in free agency is to pay excessively for a player that's only marginally better than someone you could get for a fraction of the cost. Brian Hartline was over-valued in 2013, now he seems to be under-valued; he's roughly comparable to Cecil Shorts, who is likely to get a much bigger pay day this year.
Looking at this year's FA class, it is pretty predictable that Pernell McPhee, Brandon Graham, Jerry Hughes, Terrance Knighton and CJ Spiller are all going to be over-valued and over-priced. It's probably sound to let guys like Shane Vereen test the market, just as the Pats let Julian Edelman do last year. Both players have significant value, but both are replaceable if the market over-values them. The Pats ended up getting Edelman back for very reasonable money, and got Brandon LaFell for excellent value as well, whereas Eric Decker - a very solid #2 receiver, but a replaceable talent - signed for far more than both combined (5 years/$36.25M with $15M guaranteed, compared to 4 years/$17M for Edelman and 3 years/$9M for LaFell, with a combined $11M guaranteed). The Broncos got more productivity out of Emmanuel Sanders, who replaced Decker at less than half the cost (3 years/$15M with $6M guaranteed).
If I were the Pats, my strategy for 2015 would be:
1. Re-sign Revis and McCourty if at all possible, unless the market grossly over-values them
2. Re-sign as many of the solid but replaceable guys as the available cap space will allow at reasonable cost, and let them go if the market over-values them. This includes Shane Vereen, Stevan Ridley, Akeem Ayers, Dan Connolly, Alan Branch and Jonathan Casillas. Of those, Vereen and Ayers are the most likely to be over-valued.
3. Either drastically reduce Danny Amendola's contract or replace him at low cost.
4. For players who need to be replaced, target low-cost replacements with upside. These include guys like DT Kenrick Ellis, RB Pierre Thomas and WRs Brian Hartline or Eddie Royal. If the market ends up over-valuing those guys, find other targets. Avoid the early feeding frenzy, don't fixate on individual players, don't overspend on anyone, and don't go after big names unless they are available at significant discount and don't break your budget (e.g., Percy Harvin, Andre Johnson). But fill as many holes as possible so that you don't need to reach to plug holes in the draft.
5. Draft to add long-term talent, not to plug holes for 2015. If players can contribute significantly this year so much the better, but it's not essential. Many of the guys who are high on my current draft priorities - Todd Gurley, Marcus Hardison, Ali Marpet, Max Valles and DeAndre Smelter, for example - aren't likely to be big producers in 2015, but have significant long-term potential.
I think this is very consistent with how the Pats have operated in the past, and consistent with their general approach to risk management. I think it's proven to be a much more prudent and sustainable approach than the kind of "all in" splurge on big names that we saw last year with the Broncos, for example. I think that with prudent decision-making and a little bit of luck, it may well be possible to put together a roster that is as strong or stronger than what the Pats had in 2014.
Thoughts?
Last edited: