Some USA Today Salary Analysis--Defense

[fillylabinga]

Had some fun with Excel this morning. Took the player salary numbers from USA Today and drew up a comparison of the Pats defense player salaries against the rest of the league. I used the Cap Value numbers for each player as that felt like the best option.

(Note that the numbers are from 2006 except for SS and FS which were 2005. USA Today didn't have 2006 salaries for those positions for some reason--given that the Pats didn't have much turnover at those positions I'm hoping it doesn't make much of a difference).


League-wide Defense Salaries (Cap Number):

Pos Plrs Pos Avg Plr Avg
DE 4.94 $9,537,290 $1,931,603.08
DT 4.47 $6,538,172 $1,463,087.41
LB 8.13 $11,466,991 $1,411,322.00
CB 5.75 $8,781,212 $1,527,167.28
SS 2.63 $2,390,131 $910,526.14
FS 2.41 $1,963,280 $815,908.49
28.31 $40,677,076 $1,436,717.92


Patriots Defense Salaries (Cap Number):

Pos Plrs Pos Tot Plr Avg
DE 4 $15,658,013 $3,914,503.25
DT 3 $2,643,430 $881,143.33
LB 12 $15,970,829 $1,330,902.42
CB 8 $3,967,030 $495,878.75
SS 3 $2,365,864 $788,621.33
FS 2 $1,214,071 $607,035.50
32 $41,819,237 $1,306,851.16


Not sure exactly what conclusions to draw, but what jumped out at me was that the Pats were carrying almost 4 more D players than the rest of the league while only spending slightly more cap.

I was also surprised that they carried so many more LBs (even with the 3-4) and so many more CBs than everybody else.

Anyway, something to chew on...

 

[mgteich]

I think the total amounts spent by positions (or better yet units) is the best for comparison. One number that jumps out is how little we spend on the secondary.

 

[rookBoston]

I think the total amounts spent by positions (or better yet units) is the best for comparison. One number that jumps out is how little we spend on the secondary.

We aren't spending much on the secondary relative to the league, true. I wonder if that's by design (e.g. BB and SP believe that talent is at a premium on the DL so that's where they're willing to pay the biggest contracts) or happenstance (e.g. their best defensive players are accumulating on the DL, based on how the draft and FA has fallen out in past years).

It's certainly a function of where we have our star veterans. Seymour's contract is clearly skewing the DE numbers very high. But that's not surprising. And we dont have a Seymour calibre talent in the secondary. If Law had re-signed last year, the balance would be different. So, I think this isn't by design, so much as how the talent is distributed based on circumstance-- veterans choosing to sign, or to leave, late round draft picks who play significant roles, etc.

To put it in very belichick terms: it is what it is.

The good thing is that the $ spent by position is in proportion with the level of talent at those positions. What would have been really bad is if we had huge cap numbers at a position where we had serious concerns.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

"Back in the day" when Law was around, he cost 14M one year in cap money. AFTER he left, the niche opened to get Brady's deal done. I think doing the math during the Milloy/Law days led the Pats to the conclusion that you can spend 15% of your cap money on a single bloody d-back, who doesn't act as a "force multiplier" like a QB, i.e., "make everybody around him better...." or you can admit that DB is not where you get the most bang for the buck.

I think they came to the same conclusion at receiver. Don't laugh. Think about how little they are actually laying out this year to get a potentially world-beating receiving corps. That's also what makes me think we get Stallworth OR Moss next year, not both... depending on everything going as planned, and one or both of them putting in excellent performances.

Work time!

PFnV