The self-perpetuating cycle of really bad teams

[primetime]

I've established that the draft is entirely luck, evidenced by 'studies', therefore seattle has been incredibly lucky in building their team with this laundry list of lucky picks, therefore everything comes down to luck.
personally, I think seattle started on this road when they brought in some good management, who built a good team through good stewardship --- not just luck.
like they say --- better to be lucky than good, but best to be both.

I think there's the other side to this, which isn't necessarily luck and which is brought up in the OP. Teams that are unlucky in their drafting will look to free agency as a salve, and it's not a very good one because the best teams have a strong core of guys on their rookie contracts just as a practical matter since you can only afford to pay 3 or 4 stars at most - and one should be a quarterback, though there's only a handful of quarterbacks even worth paying. So if you draft poorly, and I think that's mostly bad luck (and again noting the weight that a quarterback has), then you're likely to try to look to free agency to fix that and that can land you in cap hell.

I actually don't think this is as big a deal in the NFL as other sports. Teams go up and down quite a bit in the NFL, though Patriots fans are sitting in a fairly privileged position (thanks mostly to the continuity of Brady). It's sports like basketball where mediocrity is just a self-perpetuating phenomenon, and being an 8th seed is like the worst sort of hell.

 

[Ken Canin]

I wonder whether these teams really do care about winning. There are few rules in the history of football as clear as paying a lot of money for free agents cripples your team in the salary cap era. Didn't someone post a nice chart here a few weeks back on this?

Maybe these owners are after other things than winning. Maybe they want the prestige of having good players, or rather, players who the TV says are good? Or is it a form of conspicuous consumption, like buying jewelry? Maybe that's why they care about combine results so much, it's the prestige of having the "fastest corner" or "the QB with the highest standing jump". The Ravens could have won another few AFC championships with Dilfer, but they went with what the prestige of a big athletic QB who couldn't play the game, for instance.

If owners cared about winning, they should just go after the best coaches - these guys are ridiculously underpaid in comparison to their value to the team.

I don't understand it.

 

[primetime]

I wonder whether these teams really do care about winning. There are few rules in the history of football as clear as paying a lot of money for free agents cripples your team in the salary cap era. Didn't someone post a nice chart here a few weeks back on this?

Maybe these owners are after other things than winning. Maybe they want the prestige of having good players, or rather, players who the TV says are good? Or is it a form of conspicuous consumption, like buying jewelry? Maybe that's why they care about combine results so much, it's the prestige of having the "fastest corner" or "the QB with the highest standing jump". The Ravens could have won another few AFC championships with Dilfer, but they went with what the prestige of a big athletic QB who couldn't play the game, for instance.

If owners cared about winning, they should just go after the best coaches - these guys are ridiculously underpaid in comparison to their value to the team.

I don't understand it.

Some revisionist history about the 2000 Ravens. The Ravens went with Elvis Grbac (not big and athletic, though definitely the sexiest man in sports) and Randall Cunningham the year after Dilfer; not sure who "the big athletic QB who couldn't play the game" was. They would then draft Kyle Boller a couple years later.

Dilfer himself was a backup who only started because Tony Banks got hurt. With Dilfer, they only managed a wild card berth despite having one of the best defenses of all time. The 2001 team also lost Priest Holmes, and Jamal Lewis missed the entire year due to injury; they featured a geriatric Terry Allen at running back. Moreover, while their defense was still very good, they lost Rob Burnett and guys like Rod Woodson, Tony Siragusa, and Michael McCrary began to break down, while Duane Starks and Chris McAlister proved to be flashes in the pan (as Patriots fans found out in the case of Starks to our chagrin).

But overall, I think NFL teams are a business, and as a business their primary goal is the accumulation of capital. An NFL owner who didn't care about that first and foremost would cease to be an owner fairly quickly.

 

[Ken Canin]

Dilfer himself was a backup who only started because Tony Banks got hurt.

Brady himself was a backup who only started because Drew Bledsoe got hurt. What's your point?

With Dilfer, they only managed a wild card berth despite having one of the best defenses of all time.

Dilfer was 11-1 for the Ravens. He lost his first game as starter mid season, then won 11 straight, including of course 4 playoff games. He couldn't have mathematically done much better. And he had 0 turnovers in the playoffs, including against what were considered then to be top defenses, and with a fairly awful OL and mediocre receivers.

The whole "Dilfer is not elite" is just a lie spread by endless repetition and people who don't get the importance of low turnover, short passes, and possession time to strategy, like spygate or deflategate are just lies repeated so often people believe them. True, Dilfer was not at Brady's level, but nobody is or was at Brady's level in the history of the game. Dilfer was way better than say Luck is with his 2 interceptions a game, although the media is in love with Luck.

 

[hwc]

Couple of days before this thread, I was thinking about most of noise in FA is from bad teams rolling the dice because they did not draft well.

No question. Sure, you'll find the rare exception, but generally the players in the first wave of free agency are perennial loser franchises. The first wave of free agency is, by definition, over-paying for players and over-paying players is bad business in a salary cap league.

When you pay top dollar, you need to be getting one of the best players in the league AND intangibles (like McCourty's leadership, etc.)

 

[Oswlek]

The whole "Dilfer is not elite" is just a lie spread by endless repetition and people who don't get the importance of low turnover, short passes, and possession time to strategy, like spygate or deflategate are just lies repeated so often people believe them. True, Dilfer was not at Brady's level, but nobody is or was at Brady's level in the history of the game. Dilfer was way better than say Luck is with his 2 interceptions a game, although the media is in love with Luck.

I can't agree with you here. Dilfer was an average QB who managed to stay efficient for a short period because his defense allowed him to take no excessive risks.

EDIT: I just checked and Trent averaged a pick per start in his career, and he threw 11 picks in 11 starts for the Ravens prior to the playoffs. Sure, that's better than 2 a game, but he also had a 55% comp percentage and threw more picks that TDs in his career. It's not like one year threw everything off, either, since only 5 times in a 13 year career did his TDs outnumber his picks.

 

[eom]

The whole "Dilfer is not elite" is just a lie spread by endless repetition and people who don't get the importance of low turnover, short passes, and possession time to strategy, like spygate or deflategate are just lies repeated so often people believe them. Dilfer was way better than say Luck is .

this thread's gonna get ratings now!

 

[primetime]

True, Dilfer was not at Brady's level, but nobody is or was at Brady's level in the history of the game. Dilfer was way better than say Luck is with his 2 interceptions a game, although the media is in love with Luck.

Are you Trent Dilfer?

 

[mgteich]

The Seahawks were never really in this cycle. Only 2 really bad years in the last 15 or so.

2008 was a strange year. Panthers and Titans come from out of nowhere to have great seasons, flop in the playoffs, and disappear again.

Didn't the panthers win a playoff game last year?

 

[Oswlek]

Are you Trent Dilfer?

LOL!

The funny thing is even Trent Dilfer realizes he was the furthest thing from elite.

 

[PP2]

Watching the Jaguars bid big money on good but not great free agents, I found myself contemplating this cycle:

- Draft badly, so you lose a lot of games
- Having drafted badly, your young players aren't worth big money to retain so you have a ton of FA money you're required to spend
- Have trouble attracting top FAs because of losing record
- Overspend for FAs who aren't good enough to make much of a difference
- Pricy, low-talent roster underperforms and locker room turns toxic...making it less likely that future draft picks will flourish

IMO it all starts with missing on high draft picks. As we sit here wondering how the Pats can afford to keep all of McCourty, Solder, Hightower, Jones and Collins, take a look at who Jax picked much higher in those same drafts:

2010: Trade for (Devin McCourty + Aaron Hernandez + Taylor Price) at #22 vs. Tyson Alualu #10
2011: Solder at #17 and trade for (Shane Vereen + most of Chandler Jones) at #28 vs. Blaine Gabbert #10
2012: Jones at #21, Hightower at #25 vs. Justin Blackmon #5
2013: Trade for (Jaime Collins + Logan Ryan + Josh Boyce + most of LaGarrette Blount) at #29 vs. Luke Joeckel at #2

To sum up: the Patriots spent 3,878 draft value points and reaped McCourty, Hernandez, Price, Solder, Vereen, Jones, Hightower, Collins, Ryan, Boyce and Blount.

The Jaguars spent 6,900 draft value points and reaped Alualu, Gabbert, Blackmon and Joeckel.

Wonder how much of this is dictated by ownership pressure on the GM, et al. to produce overnight success over building up a player (or a team core) the right way.

You could say the situation in Jacksonville is day and night compared with the one in Foxboro. BB has probably the best job security, and the greatest hands-off latitude, so he can afford to take his time building up a player, or the team core (O, D, ST) the right way.

 

[eom]

yeah, people cite this job security and what a great advantage bb has in long term planning, but he basically earned that by winning pretty quickly.
his second year with the team he beat the greatest show on turf in the superbowl.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

Cassel took a team that was essentially unchanged from a 16-0 season and won 11 games with a really weak schedule. Cassel was also not a bad quarterback.

If Blaine Gabbert turned out to be a Pro Bowler, I just don't think the OP happens.

I just tend to think there's a lot of confirmation bias at play here, especially in that Ice Ice Brady post above - the Seahawks must be superior drafters and personnel managers because they've won. In reality, the Seahawks have only been good the last couple years, and that's because they found Russell Wilson, Richard Sherman, and Earl Thomas. They were bad before that.

But maybe Gabbert was a good QB who got destroyed by a terrible environment. Does Jacksonville only draft busts, or do they fail to nurture and develop talent?

Apart from Alualu, there haven't been a lot of reaches here. They're drafting top-tier talent. Then it just...fails. Does Blackmon mature in a different environment? Was he always doomed to waste his talent? Would he have been better with a savvy vet to show him the ropes?

I don't know, but the Jaguars should be thinking about it. It's easy to blame the player, because then the FO doesn't have to accept any of the blame. Maybe they rushed a guy. Maybe they didn't have a plan for him. Maybe he wasn't a good fit. But if the draft pick fails, it's easier for them to point the finger at the player and call him a bust than accept any responsibility themselves.

As for the Seahawks, that core group was pretty much done and Holmgren kept them together too long. They had a nice run of success, including making the play-offs 5 years in a row and 1 Super Bowl before falling at the end to 4-12. Mora took over for one crappy year at 5-11. Then came Pete and John Schneider and they led the comeback to 7-9 back-to-back before improving. They improved not only because of the players they drafted, but the players they found, and coached, and taught.

The FO deserves some of the credit just as it deserves some of the blame. It's no surprise a head coach with a ton of experience with DBs has some of the best DBs in the league, even if they weren't drafted that high.

 

[hwc]

This, my friends, is what a self-perpetuating loser franchise is all about:

 

[hwc]

And speaking of losers. This is what you say when your first round draft pick drunk QB is approaching the six week mark in a rehab facility:

The Browns are encouraged by Manziel's offseason and believe he can improve as a passer behind the coaching of offensive coordinator John DeFilippo and quarterbacks coach Kevin O'Connell. But football is an "afterthought" with Manziel right now, Pettine said.

Yeah, boy. Terrific off-season... What's not to be encouraged about?

 

[eom]

quarterbacks coach Kevin O'Connell.

wait...wat?

 

[primetime]

But maybe Gabbert was a good QB who got destroyed by a terrible environment. Does Jacksonville only draft busts, or do they fail to nurture and develop talent?

Apart from Alualu, there haven't been a lot of reaches here. They're drafting top-tier talent. Then it just...fails. Does Blackmon mature in a different environment? Was he always doomed to waste his talent? Would he have been better with a savvy vet to show him the ropes?

I don't know, but the Jaguars should be thinking about it. It's easy to blame the player, because then the FO doesn't have to accept any of the blame. Maybe they rushed a guy. Maybe they didn't have a plan for him. Maybe he wasn't a good fit. But if the draft pick fails, it's easier for them to point the finger at the player and call him a bust than accept any responsibility themselves.

As for the Seahawks, that core group was pretty much done and Holmgren kept them together too long. They had a nice run of success, including making the play-offs 5 years in a row and 1 Super Bowl before falling at the end to 4-12. Mora took over for one crappy year at 5-11. Then came Pete and John Schneider and they led the comeback to 7-9 back-to-back before improving. They improved not only because of the players they drafted, but the players they found, and coached, and taught.

The FO deserves some of the credit just as it deserves some of the blame. It's no surprise a head coach with a ton of experience with DBs has some of the best DBs in the league, even if they weren't drafted that high.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you to an extent, but using a non-falsifiable counterfactual as your evidence doesn't really lend itself to much of a debate. What am I going to argue, "no, that's not what would have happened if X and Y"...?

 

[Demosthenes]

The whole "Dilfer is not elite" is just a lie spread by endless repetition and people who don't get the importance of low turnover, short passes, and possession time to strategy, like spygate or deflategate are just lies repeated so often people believe them. True, Dilfer was not at Brady's level, but nobody is or was at Brady's level in the history of the game. Dilfer was way better than say Luck is with his 2 interceptions a game, although the media is in love with Luck.

This has to be the silliest thing I have read on the entire internet in quite some time. In 2000, he started 8 games and threw passes in 9 games. He threw 12 TDs and 11 INTs. He averaged 136.5 yards passing per game, with a QB rating of 76.6. This was on a team where he wasn't asked to do much more than to not screw things up.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you to an extent, but using a non-falsifiable counterfactual as your evidence doesn't really lend itself to much of a debate. What am I going to argue, "no, that's not what would have happened if X and Y"...?

Don't forget Z!

I'm a big stats guy and geek, so I know what you mean. But there's a real blind spot that can develop amongst those that love the science and math behind the game. We tend to think if there's no way to measure it, it doesn't count. It's how some of the ridiculously wonky stuff from sites like Pro Football Focus is done.

I don't believe you can measure the FO's impact on the success of draft picks vs. the players themselves. But I think it goes without saying that the FO in New England is better than the FO in Jacksonville. We can't put a number on how much that matters, but it definitely matters. All I'm saying is it might not be the players that are the problem in Jacksonville.

 

[luuked]

If owners cared about winning, they should just go after the best coaches - these guys are ridiculously underpaid in comparison to their value to the team.

I honestly think that great coaching is the most underappreciated aspect in professional sports. Many people don't understand the difference between a successful coach and a great coach.

I honestly think that a lot of the people that are employed by NFL teams at various coaching positions don't have a full grasp of the game. They have their scheme - which in most cases is just an adjusted/tweaked version of somebody else's system - and under ideal circumstances it works. But as soon as there is an issue - be it an injury or a superior opponent - that prevents them from doing the only thing that they are good at suddenly the entire machinery stops working (e.g. the Browns after they lost Alex Mack last year, Colts running defense against us for 2 years straight) with no way to adjust. This is because they understand their scheme but not the game of football in the same way that great coaches (e.g. Belichick) do. Everyone talks about how important it is to be "multiple" and "versatile" with your defensive schemes and yet only few teams actually pull that off. Coming up with those schemes and - maybe more importantly - being able to convey those concepts to all individual players is actually pretty hard.

So to break the cycle of suck, I would propose to NFL owners to try to find a coach that really, really understands the game and can teach it to young players instead of going for the list of usual suspects. And then give that person time to build that team according to his philosophy.

This, my friends, is what a self-perpetuating loser franchise is all about:

BLA BLA BLA BLAAINE BLAINE BLA BLA BLAAAINE

First I was surprised somebody was able to put up a 3min+ highlight reel of Gabbert... but then after a few seconds it became clear how the video managed to be that long..